Abstract
This paper is based in part on a longer article, “Beyond the nationalist–internationalist polarisation in the protection of archaeological heritage: A response to Professor Merryman”, that was published in Art Antiquity and Law, vol. XIV, no. 3 (October 2009), pp. 237–274. We thank the editor of Art Antiquity and Law for permission to republish some of this material here.
Highlights
“Sublime” and “smuggled in for sure” were some of the thoughts that went through the mind of Thomas Hoving, Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, when he first set his eyes on this Krater by Euphronios (Figure 1) — as he himself recounts the story in his autobiography and other writings (Hoving,1993: 312; 2010)
Medici himself was put on trial and convicted, but the investigation ended up implic ating a number of major American museums and collectors as likely buyers of illegally excavated Italian antiquities, including the Met, the Getty Museum in Los Angeles, the Cleveland Museum, the Princeton University Art Museum and the prominent New York collectors Leon Levy and Shelby White
In the end, a shame that the supporters of the antiquities trade such as Professor Merryman have chosen to raise the banner of “cultural property internat ionalism” in order to legitimate the private collecting of antiquities: first of all, because there is no logical connection between the one and the other; and secondly, because internationalism has much to be said for it, once it has been disconnected from the false link to private commerce
Summary
“Sublime” and “smuggled in for sure” were some of the thoughts that went through the mind of Thomas Hoving, Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, when he first set his eyes on this Krater by Euphronios (Figure 1) — as he himself recounts the story in his autobiography and other writings (Hoving,1993: 312; 2010).
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have