New guidelines for US museums acquiring antiquities                     
The Association of Art Museum Directors says no works which left their 
country of origin before 1970 should enter collections                 
Helen Stoilas | 17.7.08 | Issue 193 - The Art Newspaper                 
   

NEW YORK. The US Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) has         
established a stricter set of guidelines for its member museums to     
follow when acquiring antiquities. These new guidelines suggest no     
works exported from their country of origin before 1970—the date set by
the Unesco convention on the illicit trade of the same year—should     
enter North American collections.                                       
                                                                         
But while AAMD advises member institutions that they “normally should   
not acquire a work unless research substantiates that [it] was outside 
its country of probable modern discovery before 1970 or was legally     
exported…after 1970”, it leaves the decision of whether to acquire     
works of unknown provenance up to individual museums.                   
                                                                         
Speaking to The Art Newspaper, the newly appointed president of the     
AAMD, Michael Conforti, says that by adopting the new rules, US museums
will “align themselves with much of the rest of the world”, as most     
major institutions in Europe already abide by the 1970 cut-off. The     
Getty Museum in Los Angeles, which has returned a number of antiquities
to Italy and Greece following claims that the objects had been         
illegally excavated, has followed a similar policy since late 2006.     
                                                                         
The final decision on whether to acquire a work, however, remains with 
individual museums. If an object lacks a complete provenance, the AAMD 
guidelines say the museum “must carefully balance the possible         
financial and reputational harm of taking such a step against the       
benefit of collecting, presenting, and preserving the work in trust for
the educational benefit of present and future generations”.             
                                                                         
The AAMD has set up a website where museums will be required to post   
“an image and the information about the work…and all facts relevant to 
the decision to acquire it, including its known provenance”. If further
research uncovers questions over ownership, the museum is expected to   
“take whatever steps are necessary to address this claim, including, if
warranted, returning the work, as has been done in the past”.           
                                                                         
Although the guidelines establish a clear set of rules for the         
acquisition of antiquities, they are not legally binding. Mr Conforti   
says: “We’re not here to be a policeman. These guidelines have been     
voted on by the membership, including major museums. Philippe de       
Montebello [director of the Metropolitan] was on the committee as was   
Michael Brand [of the Getty], people who have been famously connected   
to these issues.”                                                       
                                                                         
The new guidelines have largely been met with approval by               
archaeologists. The Archae­ological Institute of America (AIA), one of 
the harshest critics of the AAMD’s previous recommendation of a rolling
ten-year cut-off, which allowed museums to acquire works if they had   
been taken out of their countries of origin ten years or more before   
the time of acquisition, has re­leased a statement applauding the new   
decision, although it raises concerns over museums being allowed to     
acquire works with unknown provenance (a practice which is strongly     
discouraged in several European countries). The AIA says that it hopes 
“the rights of the country of origin and the potential harm to the     
world’s cultural heritage” will be incorporated in the decision to     
acquire such work.                                                     
                                                                         
Mr Conforti says: “Some archaeologists would prefer that institutions   
not purchase such works at all, to ‘pretend they didn’t exist’ and thus
not encourage the market for them.” But he says that there is still a   
market for such work outside of institutional buying. As a means of     
curbing the looting of archaeological sites, the AAMD promotes the     
creation of “licit markets” through which countries could legally       
export archaeological objects and “strongly urges all nations to       
provide a legal method for the sale and export of art”.                 
                                                                         
He also argued that if there were a greater sense of trust, some       
nations “will realise there’s only so many things you can keep for     
display”, says Mr Conforti. He suggests countries could send objects   
that they can’t care for on loan—“a long-term loan that one could       
consider in decades rather than in years”—to international museums as a
way of sharing their cultural patrimony with the rest of the world. “I 
think we’re only beginning to explore this,” he adds.