The Freer Gallery of Art and the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery have announced the digitization of ancient near eastern inscriptions. The inscriptions currently preserved as Squeezes of text from archaeological sites such as Bastam, Persepolis, and Samarra.
The original inscriptions were preserved by Ernst Herzfeld, a German archeologist in the early 20th century. He developed a technique of layering a series of moistened sheets of paper to create a wet pulp which was then pressed upon the inscriptions to create a 3-dimensional mold. The Freer and Sackler archives currently hold 393 squeezes.
In 2010 the Smithsonian received a grant to electronically preserve the squeezes. Using a new imaging technique, Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) allows digital copies to be made which allow the viewer to zoom in and enhance the image without damaging the original squeeze.
The Freer and Sackler Archives is dedicated to furthering the study of Asian and Middle Eastern art and culture. RTI has aided it in providing world wide access to a section of its collection to scholars and history enthusiasts.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Missing Museum Items
Over 240,000 items missing in Russian museums
English.news.cn 2010-09-08 20:34:46 FeedbackPrintRSS
MOSCOW, Sept. 8 (Xinhua) -- Russian museums were missing more than 242,000 items, only 24,500 of which were reported as stolen, an expert from the Cultural Ministry said Wednesday.
According to Lyubov Molchanova, another 219,000 items were absent for unknown reasons, with mismanagement as likely a culprit as thieves.
Russia's Interior and Cultural Ministries were currently conducting a joint audit of the national museums' treasures after three major robberies happened in the largest museum, the Hermitage, in St. Petersburg.
They checked 1,881 museums, responsible for 73 million items.
The expert told a museums conference that some missing items might be actually still stocked in the museums but "just had been forgotten".
She referred to disorderly work and mismanagement in the museums as a reason for the mess.
Molchanova complained that some items had been transferred to governors and state institutions, who had refused to return them.
"Museum workers often are too humble to resist the officials' demands," said the expert as quoted by the RIA Novosti news agency.
Editor: Deng Shasha
This article was posted on English.News.cn on 2010-09-08
This article was sadly not surprising. The sheer number of missing artifacts is shocking, because that many items should never go missing, but it is not surprising. There are 73,000,000 objects under the care of Russian Museums and only 242,000 objects are missing. That is less than 1%.
Yes the number is large and somewhat overwhelming, but we have to keep it in perspective. I am willing to guess that most museums, after going through an inventory like the Russian museums just did would find that they were missing at least 1% of their objects.
I do not condone this, but I do want us to put this article in perspective. We, as readers, should not take away from this article the idea that the Russians have not been caring for their objects. This is not true. There are many factors involved when an object is missing. The most horrifying is theft, but more often than not the object was simply missplaced, and is actually still inside the museum. What we should take away from this article is that we as an overall community should place more importance on the preservation of our cultural heritage.
The article said "that some items had been transferred to governors and state institutions, who had refused to return them." out of the 219,000 objects missing, but not reported stolen, a good chunk of them would not be missing if we as a culture placed more pressure on these political figures to return their objects once the period of the loan was completed.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Introduction to Herodotus
I read excerpts of Herodotus' The Histories back in college. It was mixed together with several other ancient literary works and received minimal attention from me and my professor. At this moment I can barely recall which sections I read. Because f my poor recollection I have decided to "re-read" (a slight exaggeration since I never really read it the first time) The Histories.
I have barely scratched the surface of this great work and I am already amazed. Herodotus was from Helicarnassus, though he spent his later years in Athens. Helicarnassus was located on the border of the Persian empire. His location provided Herodotus with a unique view of the Persian and Greek cultures. I have yet to see how this effected his writing, but it must have provided him with some of respect for the Persian community because he introduces them as the "best informed in history." A mighty fine compliment from a man who would become known as the Father of History. His acknowledgement of the Persians superior historical view is surprising because I was led to believe that the Greeks, especially those of Herodotus' time, shared a general dislike of everything Persian.
Herodotus starts his history with brief recap of kidnappings of famous Greek and "Barbarian" women, which he considers the start of poor Greek and Persian relations. These women played important roles in Greek mythology, but are portrayed by the Persians, and Herodotus in a very different manner. Herodotus lists who was kidnapped by who in a very matter of fact manner, and leaves their entire story within the realm of mankind, leaving the gods in their seats on Mount Olympus. Below I have listed the mythologies surrounding these women as given by Wikepedia.
Io
Europe
Medea
Helen
I have barely scratched the surface of this great work and I am already amazed. Herodotus was from Helicarnassus, though he spent his later years in Athens. Helicarnassus was located on the border of the Persian empire. His location provided Herodotus with a unique view of the Persian and Greek cultures. I have yet to see how this effected his writing, but it must have provided him with some of respect for the Persian community because he introduces them as the "best informed in history." A mighty fine compliment from a man who would become known as the Father of History. His acknowledgement of the Persians superior historical view is surprising because I was led to believe that the Greeks, especially those of Herodotus' time, shared a general dislike of everything Persian.
Herodotus starts his history with brief recap of kidnappings of famous Greek and "Barbarian" women, which he considers the start of poor Greek and Persian relations. These women played important roles in Greek mythology, but are portrayed by the Persians, and Herodotus in a very different manner. Herodotus lists who was kidnapped by who in a very matter of fact manner, and leaves their entire story within the realm of mankind, leaving the gods in their seats on Mount Olympus. Below I have listed the mythologies surrounding these women as given by Wikepedia.
Io
A priestess of Hera in Argos, Io was a nymph who was seduced by Zeus, who changed her into a heifer to escape detection. Her mistress Hera set ever-watchful Argus Panoptes to guard her, but Hermes was sent to distract the guardian and slay him. Heifer Io was loosed to roam the world, stung by a maddening gadfly sent by Hera, and wandered to Egypt, thus placing her descendant Belus in Egypt; his sons Cadmus and Danaus would thus "return" to mainland Greece.
Europe
A Phoenician woman of high lineage, from whom the name of the continent Europe has ultimately been taken. She was abducted by Zeus in the form of a white bull.
Medea
Medea's role began after Jason arrived from Iolcus to Colchis (The old kingdom of Georgia) to claim his inheritance and throne by retrieving the Golden Fleece. Medea fell in love with him and promised to help him, but only on the condition that if he succeeded, he would take her with him and marry her. Jason agreed.
Helen
Helen of Troy was the daughter of Zeus and Leda. She was abducted by Paris and brought about the Trojan War.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Ethics of Remembrance: Sachenhausen
Sachenhausen, as an institution, is a reflection of modern Germany’s attempt to balance recognizing the past actions of the Third Reich with the current need to minimize the connection between Germany’s current government and past governments. There are many contributing factors which German institutions have to weigh when finding an adequate balance. Institutions, such as the Sachenhausen concentration camp, need to consider the feelings of the site’s victims and their families, the feelings of those who acted as practitioners, the response of the international community and the local community, and historical accuracy for future generations. Officials at Sachenhausen are constantly working to create a balanced presentation of the site’s history despite the politically and emotionally charged atmosphere. Sachenhausen has come to articulate the past and the sense of victimization that plays a role in what it is like to be German.
Germany: A History
After Hitler became Chancellor of the Reich in 1933 he began to fill his government with like minded individuals. One of these was SS Heinrich Himmler, who Hitler appointed as head of the SS in 1936. Concentration camps in the first few years held prisoners who were considered enemies of the Reich. It was not until 1937 that prisoner populations began to include groups, such as Jews and Homosexuals, who were considered inferior to the Aryan race. In 1939 foreign nationals began to appear in concentration camps as the German War Machine conquered surrounding countries. Towards the end of the war Germans led prisoners on death marches to avoid the approaching Allied armies.
After the fall of the Third Reich governance of Germany was split between the Allies. Communist Russia was responsible for East Germany, which included the areas surrounding Berlin. Under the leadership of GDR concentration camps where used as prisons for members of the Nazi party and the SS. Some camps were also used as memorials to commemorate German resistance fighters who had been persecuted at those camps.
With the unification in 1989 came the end of the GDR in East Germany. The new government wanted to show its investment in democracy. One way it did this was by restructuring the way it showed awareness of the past. This involved a decentralization of the memorial system. Concentration camps where now to encompass three roles: documentation, preservation, and commemoration. The focus was shifted away from commemoration and towards the former two roles, while memorials were constructed in Berlin and elsewhere to commemorate victims. Individual concentration camps did this in different ways.
Sachenhausen: A History
Reichsführer – SS Heinrich Himmler had prisoners from small local detainment camps build the Sachenhausen Concentration camp in Oranienburg Germany during his first year as Chief of Police. Sachenhausen was the first concentration camp to be run by the SS and became a model for concentration camps built by the Nazis. In 1938 Himmler moved his offices from Berlin to Sachenhausen, making it the center of all concentration camp operations. Sachenhausen’s close proximity to Berlin, approximately 34 kilometers (21 miles), made it influential in the removal of political opponents to the Third Reich. These political prisoners made up the majority of the camp’s population in the first few years, until the Third Reich began to declare certain groups to be biologically inferior to the Aryan race. Between 1936 and 1945 between 140,000 and 200,000 prisoners entered Sachenhausen. Approximately 30,000 prisoners died at Sachenhausen during its eleven years of operation under the Nazis.
Sachenhausen was not a death camp; instead it was used primarily as a labor source. Prisoners were forced to work in the local brickworks, supplying the German war machine. Others were used to test various German products, such as the boots made for soldiers. Some were killed with prototypes of mass murder techniques, including the gas chamber. The primary victims of these machines were Soviet Prisoners of War. In 1945 the Nazis led 3,000 prisoners on a death march in an attempt to hide what they had been doing from the Soviet army who liberated the camp.
After the Soviets liberated the camp they began to use the facilities for their own purposes. In 1945 the camp was used to hold Nazi functionaries and political prisoners. It became the largest Soviet camp in Germany by 1948. By the time of the camp’s closing in 1950 it had held approximately 60,000 prisoners. On August 22, 1961 the camp was inaugurated as the Sachenhausen National Memorial. This memorial focused on political prisoners and resistance fighters held in at the camp during the Nazi era. The memorial was designed in a way that ignored the fact that Sachenhausen held other types of prisoners. After unification in 1989, Sachenhausen transformed into what it is today: a museum and a memorial.
The Issue
Under current administration Sachenhausen is dedicated to the “preservation of remnants; extensive documentation and differentiated presentation of the historical events…; promotion of a critical confrontation with history; and a critical evaluation and accurate reworking of the GDR Memorial design.” Sachenhausen is attempting to present visitors with its whole story, not just a single perspective. This is in line with the German political agenda to present their history in a way that recognizes the horrors that occurred, but separates modern Germans from those horrors. This is done by showing the past of the Germans who fought against Nazi propaganda and those who suffered because of that propaganda. Historically there has been a tendency to forget that the victims, especially those in Sachenhausen, were more than Jews, Homosexuals, and Gypsies; they were Germans. With the exception of foreign prisoners who came to the camp after the start of the war, the camp held people who considered themselves to be Germans. These people had lived their entire lives in Germany; they owned businesses, went to school, and paid taxes until one day the government decided that they were not German.
The idea that Germans were victimized during the Holocaust is only part of the story. Memorial sites, such as Sachenhausen, hold the responsibility to recognize that some Germans were not victims, but practitioners. For German politicians and the public it is easier to identify with the victims.
The fact that Germans played multiple roles during the Holocaust leaves today’s leaders at Sachenhausen and other memorial sites in the precarious position of deciding which stories to tell and which stories to not tell. This balance is important for the political and cultural stability of modern Germany as well as the acknowledgment and commemoration of victims and their families.
Sachenhausen achieves this balance through preservation, documentation and commemoration. The site is preserved by to a limited extent. The buildings have not been reconstructed, instead they are left to the elements. The staff use preventative measures, such as weather sealant on some buildings to help lessen deterioration, but nothing more is done. One site tour guide explained this process “consideration for the victims. We do not want to be seen as ‘rebuilding’ the concentration camps.” This would be a horrible slight against victims and a political nightmare, especially when the proximity of Sachenhausen to Berlin is considered.
The site has maintained the few records available about the site. While the Nazi’s were meticulous record keepers, they were also desperate to remove any trace of what they had done at Sachenhausen. Most documents exist from outside sources, and are maintained by site staff. This information is shared with the community through the on-site museum. It is a solitary building, standing in place of what was one the camp kitchen. The museum is focused on telling the story of the site from multiple angles, although the Jewish victim dominates the scene. The exhibit design tries to balance perspectives by presenting individual stories to visitors. A visitor can hear the thoughts of a Nazi soldier stationed at Sachenhausen in his letters home. The letters sit next to photographs of guardsmen, and an old uniform. Across the room are peak holes into the lives of the prisoners in the form of wooden toys and hidden notes. In a separate room you can hear prisoners and ex-guards tell their stories over a computer monitor.
Sachenhausen commemorates its history and those who died there with a memorial garden. Interestingly, the garden is not officially part of Sachenhausen. It lies outside of the camp gates, and has been built and added to by private groups. By keeping the commemorative side of the camp separate, both physically and symbolically, the site can maintain a ‘historic’ or ‘factorial’ appearance, but still recognize people’s emotional attachment to the site.
The staff at Sachenhausen believe balance is being maintained. My tour guide still noted that work needed to be done is certain areas, but the overall affect was a success. I agree with this assessment, and so do most visitors. The museum section of the site still needs to clarify who was kept prisoner here, and provide a little more depth to the side of the guard. Why did one become a guard? What happened to the guards after the war? These are questions that were never answered. Did the site purely house Jews? Russian soldiers? Political prisoners? The materials presented to the visitor answer these questions, but the visitor has to dig to find a complete answer, one is not readily available. Overall, Sachenhausen is a reflection of Germany’s attempt to find balance. There is the initial appearance of balance, but work still needs to be done around the edges before the scales of history can be perfectly even.
Germany: A History
After Hitler became Chancellor of the Reich in 1933 he began to fill his government with like minded individuals. One of these was SS Heinrich Himmler, who Hitler appointed as head of the SS in 1936. Concentration camps in the first few years held prisoners who were considered enemies of the Reich. It was not until 1937 that prisoner populations began to include groups, such as Jews and Homosexuals, who were considered inferior to the Aryan race. In 1939 foreign nationals began to appear in concentration camps as the German War Machine conquered surrounding countries. Towards the end of the war Germans led prisoners on death marches to avoid the approaching Allied armies.
After the fall of the Third Reich governance of Germany was split between the Allies. Communist Russia was responsible for East Germany, which included the areas surrounding Berlin. Under the leadership of GDR concentration camps where used as prisons for members of the Nazi party and the SS. Some camps were also used as memorials to commemorate German resistance fighters who had been persecuted at those camps.
With the unification in 1989 came the end of the GDR in East Germany. The new government wanted to show its investment in democracy. One way it did this was by restructuring the way it showed awareness of the past. This involved a decentralization of the memorial system. Concentration camps where now to encompass three roles: documentation, preservation, and commemoration. The focus was shifted away from commemoration and towards the former two roles, while memorials were constructed in Berlin and elsewhere to commemorate victims. Individual concentration camps did this in different ways.
Sachenhausen: A History
Reichsführer – SS Heinrich Himmler had prisoners from small local detainment camps build the Sachenhausen Concentration camp in Oranienburg Germany during his first year as Chief of Police. Sachenhausen was the first concentration camp to be run by the SS and became a model for concentration camps built by the Nazis. In 1938 Himmler moved his offices from Berlin to Sachenhausen, making it the center of all concentration camp operations. Sachenhausen’s close proximity to Berlin, approximately 34 kilometers (21 miles), made it influential in the removal of political opponents to the Third Reich. These political prisoners made up the majority of the camp’s population in the first few years, until the Third Reich began to declare certain groups to be biologically inferior to the Aryan race. Between 1936 and 1945 between 140,000 and 200,000 prisoners entered Sachenhausen. Approximately 30,000 prisoners died at Sachenhausen during its eleven years of operation under the Nazis.
Sachenhausen was not a death camp; instead it was used primarily as a labor source. Prisoners were forced to work in the local brickworks, supplying the German war machine. Others were used to test various German products, such as the boots made for soldiers. Some were killed with prototypes of mass murder techniques, including the gas chamber. The primary victims of these machines were Soviet Prisoners of War. In 1945 the Nazis led 3,000 prisoners on a death march in an attempt to hide what they had been doing from the Soviet army who liberated the camp.
After the Soviets liberated the camp they began to use the facilities for their own purposes. In 1945 the camp was used to hold Nazi functionaries and political prisoners. It became the largest Soviet camp in Germany by 1948. By the time of the camp’s closing in 1950 it had held approximately 60,000 prisoners. On August 22, 1961 the camp was inaugurated as the Sachenhausen National Memorial. This memorial focused on political prisoners and resistance fighters held in at the camp during the Nazi era. The memorial was designed in a way that ignored the fact that Sachenhausen held other types of prisoners. After unification in 1989, Sachenhausen transformed into what it is today: a museum and a memorial.
The Issue
Under current administration Sachenhausen is dedicated to the “preservation of remnants; extensive documentation and differentiated presentation of the historical events…; promotion of a critical confrontation with history; and a critical evaluation and accurate reworking of the GDR Memorial design.” Sachenhausen is attempting to present visitors with its whole story, not just a single perspective. This is in line with the German political agenda to present their history in a way that recognizes the horrors that occurred, but separates modern Germans from those horrors. This is done by showing the past of the Germans who fought against Nazi propaganda and those who suffered because of that propaganda. Historically there has been a tendency to forget that the victims, especially those in Sachenhausen, were more than Jews, Homosexuals, and Gypsies; they were Germans. With the exception of foreign prisoners who came to the camp after the start of the war, the camp held people who considered themselves to be Germans. These people had lived their entire lives in Germany; they owned businesses, went to school, and paid taxes until one day the government decided that they were not German.
The idea that Germans were victimized during the Holocaust is only part of the story. Memorial sites, such as Sachenhausen, hold the responsibility to recognize that some Germans were not victims, but practitioners. For German politicians and the public it is easier to identify with the victims.
The fact that Germans played multiple roles during the Holocaust leaves today’s leaders at Sachenhausen and other memorial sites in the precarious position of deciding which stories to tell and which stories to not tell. This balance is important for the political and cultural stability of modern Germany as well as the acknowledgment and commemoration of victims and their families.
Sachenhausen achieves this balance through preservation, documentation and commemoration. The site is preserved by to a limited extent. The buildings have not been reconstructed, instead they are left to the elements. The staff use preventative measures, such as weather sealant on some buildings to help lessen deterioration, but nothing more is done. One site tour guide explained this process “consideration for the victims. We do not want to be seen as ‘rebuilding’ the concentration camps.” This would be a horrible slight against victims and a political nightmare, especially when the proximity of Sachenhausen to Berlin is considered.
The site has maintained the few records available about the site. While the Nazi’s were meticulous record keepers, they were also desperate to remove any trace of what they had done at Sachenhausen. Most documents exist from outside sources, and are maintained by site staff. This information is shared with the community through the on-site museum. It is a solitary building, standing in place of what was one the camp kitchen. The museum is focused on telling the story of the site from multiple angles, although the Jewish victim dominates the scene. The exhibit design tries to balance perspectives by presenting individual stories to visitors. A visitor can hear the thoughts of a Nazi soldier stationed at Sachenhausen in his letters home. The letters sit next to photographs of guardsmen, and an old uniform. Across the room are peak holes into the lives of the prisoners in the form of wooden toys and hidden notes. In a separate room you can hear prisoners and ex-guards tell their stories over a computer monitor.
Sachenhausen commemorates its history and those who died there with a memorial garden. Interestingly, the garden is not officially part of Sachenhausen. It lies outside of the camp gates, and has been built and added to by private groups. By keeping the commemorative side of the camp separate, both physically and symbolically, the site can maintain a ‘historic’ or ‘factorial’ appearance, but still recognize people’s emotional attachment to the site.
The staff at Sachenhausen believe balance is being maintained. My tour guide still noted that work needed to be done is certain areas, but the overall affect was a success. I agree with this assessment, and so do most visitors. The museum section of the site still needs to clarify who was kept prisoner here, and provide a little more depth to the side of the guard. Why did one become a guard? What happened to the guards after the war? These are questions that were never answered. Did the site purely house Jews? Russian soldiers? Political prisoners? The materials presented to the visitor answer these questions, but the visitor has to dig to find a complete answer, one is not readily available. Overall, Sachenhausen is a reflection of Germany’s attempt to find balance. There is the initial appearance of balance, but work still needs to be done around the edges before the scales of history can be perfectly even.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Theives of Baghdad by Matthew Bogdanos
"One marine's passion for ancient civilizations and the journey to recover the world's greatest stolen treasures."
That is the one sentence cover description for Matthew Bogdanos' book Thieves of Bagdad. It is an interest grabbing sentence and an very accurate statement. If I had zero previous knowledge about museums and the history of the fertile crescent I could have read this book and still feel the immensity of the lose and understand the need to protect these antiquities. This is primarily due to Bogdanos' ability to present his own obsession and love for these objects on page in an approachable manor.
Bogdanos explains that the media made many false reports about looting and thefts that occur ed at the Iraq Museum in Baghdad during the initial seizure of Baghdad. I remember being frustrated reading articles about the looting. At first my frustration was over the looting, but then the changing and conflicting reports brought greater confusion, until I didn't know what to believe. That is one reason why this book was so rewarding. Not only was it easy and fun to read, but it laid to rest the questions I had about the entire situation.
Bogdanos was the lead investigating officer at the museum. His background as a New York City District Attorney and Classicist gave him a unique perspective of the events in Baghdad.
I loved reading this book. I recommend this book to everyone, and hope all of you enjoy it as much as I did.
That is the one sentence cover description for Matthew Bogdanos' book Thieves of Bagdad. It is an interest grabbing sentence and an very accurate statement. If I had zero previous knowledge about museums and the history of the fertile crescent I could have read this book and still feel the immensity of the lose and understand the need to protect these antiquities. This is primarily due to Bogdanos' ability to present his own obsession and love for these objects on page in an approachable manor.
Bogdanos explains that the media made many false reports about looting and thefts that occur ed at the Iraq Museum in Baghdad during the initial seizure of Baghdad. I remember being frustrated reading articles about the looting. At first my frustration was over the looting, but then the changing and conflicting reports brought greater confusion, until I didn't know what to believe. That is one reason why this book was so rewarding. Not only was it easy and fun to read, but it laid to rest the questions I had about the entire situation.
Bogdanos was the lead investigating officer at the museum. His background as a New York City District Attorney and Classicist gave him a unique perspective of the events in Baghdad.
I loved reading this book. I recommend this book to everyone, and hope all of you enjoy it as much as I did.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Global Antiquities Conference
Cairo is hosting a two day International conference on the protection and repatriation of looted artifacts. The Global Antiquities conference had representatives from countries all over the globe, from countries who are typically the destination of these artifacts to origin countries.
The representatives where there discussing the issues and how they could improve security. While discussing the issue they sat in the presence of several artifacts that had recently been repatriated including a 3,000 year old wooden sarcophagus recently intercepted by U.S. customs.
The U.S. is one of the many western countries that have typically been recipients of the antiquities trade. This is clear when we compare the comments made by U.S. representative, James McAndrews, who said international communication is improving, and Syrian representative Ayman Slaiman, who is pushing for better International communication. This is not to say that McAndrews doesn't understand the situation and is undeservedly optimistic.
I'm sure he understands the situation, but his perspective is from that of law enforcement. They are seeing results, aka pieces are being confiscated and returned, while in Syrian thousands of objects are stolen when only a handful are being returned. It's a very different and disheartening perspective.
Second to improving communication between countries and law enforcement agencies, the conference is dedicated to trying to amend the 1970 UNESCO conference to include objects stolen prior to 1970. Up until now that conference had not been retroactive.
It is very unlikely that it will become retroactive now as many countries, including the U.S. and Great Britain, who has been in a long standing battle with Egypt over the Elgin Marbles, would have to return many objects in their museums. Nearly all of the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian collections held by foreign countries would have to be returned to their host countries.
Below is coverage of the conference by New Tang Dynasty Television.
Global Antiquities Conference: Illegal Trade Should Stop
Uploaded by NTDTV. - News videos hot off the press.
Here is an additional article about the conference with comments by Zahi Hawass.
The representatives where there discussing the issues and how they could improve security. While discussing the issue they sat in the presence of several artifacts that had recently been repatriated including a 3,000 year old wooden sarcophagus recently intercepted by U.S. customs.
The U.S. is one of the many western countries that have typically been recipients of the antiquities trade. This is clear when we compare the comments made by U.S. representative, James McAndrews, who said international communication is improving, and Syrian representative Ayman Slaiman, who is pushing for better International communication. This is not to say that McAndrews doesn't understand the situation and is undeservedly optimistic.
I'm sure he understands the situation, but his perspective is from that of law enforcement. They are seeing results, aka pieces are being confiscated and returned, while in Syrian thousands of objects are stolen when only a handful are being returned. It's a very different and disheartening perspective.
Second to improving communication between countries and law enforcement agencies, the conference is dedicated to trying to amend the 1970 UNESCO conference to include objects stolen prior to 1970. Up until now that conference had not been retroactive.
It is very unlikely that it will become retroactive now as many countries, including the U.S. and Great Britain, who has been in a long standing battle with Egypt over the Elgin Marbles, would have to return many objects in their museums. Nearly all of the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian collections held by foreign countries would have to be returned to their host countries.
Below is coverage of the conference by New Tang Dynasty Television.
Global Antiquities Conference: Illegal Trade Should Stop
Uploaded by NTDTV. - News videos hot off the press.
Here is an additional article about the conference with comments by Zahi Hawass.
Museum Transparency
In the March 2010 edition of MUSEUM Maxwell L. Anderson presented his thoughts on Museum Transparency. His take seems to reflect his current position as the Melvin & Bren Simon Director and CEO at the Indianapolis Museum of Art. His article was very interesting. Anderson's Thesis was that museums could be transparent and successful if they are true to themselves. He presented five truths in the article that I agree with:
I would like to elaborate on two of these points. First, is that the museum is not part of the entertainment industry. Over the years this has gotten lost. First the public changed its viewpoint of museums, then the museum leaders changed with them. When museums began they were primarily intended as places of learning. Curiosity Cabinets where collected as, admittedly, a show of wealth, but also as a way to view the amazing wonders of the world in your own back yard. Scholarly insights were made at museum, where research and study flourished. Over time much of this has transferred from the museum to universities, but museums are still places to learn. Parents bring their kids to see an exhibit about dinosaurs on a rainy day. The kids are having fun seeing real dinosaurs and that fun and play may not look like education, but that is exactly what it is. (For more information about this just look at Mary Ellen Flannery's article in the same issue of MUSEUM.)Every notice that after a little boy leaves a dinosaur exhibit he can tell you the most amazing things about dinosaurs. Things you may not have known. That is because he is having fun in the museum, and when you interested in what your seeing AND doing you remember and notice more than if your read it out of a book. Museums are educational institutions and should not be judged by attendance records like the entertainment world. You would never judge a school or library by how many people enter the door, instead you judge it by how much they take out of it. Judge the museum the same way you would judge a library.
The second point I would like to elaborate on is that the government should support culture. Anderson notes that in Western democracy "cultural offerings are indispensable to their citizenry". He says this is how it is in every Western Democracy except for the U.S. Everywhere else "they define a nation's identity and shape a national conversation about what matters most." Why is the U.S. different. Why do we put less importance on preserving and spreading the culture that got us to where we are today? In Germany it is impossible to avoid knowing and facing the country's past. They have monuments, museums and cultural institutions everywhere that discuss their past and present. What is even more impressive is that when walking down the street you can ask any local about these monuments and they will be able to give you some information. It is not like that here in the U.S. Here late night TV hosts can walk down the street and ask people questions focused on U.S. culture and history and will find many blank stares or completely wrong answers. Why is the U.S. so drastically different? How can we fix this? How can museums make the public see them for what they are, educational cultural institutions. Anderson and many others think that the first step is museum transparency.
Anderson is leading by example. At the Indianapolis Museum of Art he and his colleges are practicing what they preach. It is not perfect, but it is closer than most, and a step in the right direction. One thing that they are doing there that I think is worth noting is providing the public with a complete list of all past and current deaccessioned objects. You can find the list on their website It shows any interested party the object, date of deaccession, the recipient, and how it was removed (aka sold, auctioned, transfer to another institution, etc.). This publicity is not required by museums, but I would include it in my best practices. What is especially nice about this is you can use it to follow, and prove an item's provenance. Many objects have a clouded provenance, and museum clarity in the accessioning and deaccesioning processes would help to remove some of the clouds. A quote of Anderson'a that I particularly like is "if we acquire and sell objects for and from our collections with only secondary regard for potential claims on ownership, ethical dilemmas or sources and destinations of funds, we are exposing our institutions to great risk." This is an important idea for museums to take to heart. The movement of elicit art and artifacts is an ancient, yet still blooming segment of the black market. Museums can not support this trade if we have any chance of minimizing its effects on the entire world's cultural heritage.
The size of a museum's audience should not reflect the amount of public financial support it receives,
Museums are not a part of the entertainment industry,
A museum's exhibits and activities should reflect its mission not its need to pay the bills,
A non-profit museum is a red-ink business,
It is appropriate for the government to financially support culture.
I would like to elaborate on two of these points. First, is that the museum is not part of the entertainment industry. Over the years this has gotten lost. First the public changed its viewpoint of museums, then the museum leaders changed with them. When museums began they were primarily intended as places of learning. Curiosity Cabinets where collected as, admittedly, a show of wealth, but also as a way to view the amazing wonders of the world in your own back yard. Scholarly insights were made at museum, where research and study flourished. Over time much of this has transferred from the museum to universities, but museums are still places to learn. Parents bring their kids to see an exhibit about dinosaurs on a rainy day. The kids are having fun seeing real dinosaurs and that fun and play may not look like education, but that is exactly what it is. (For more information about this just look at Mary Ellen Flannery's article in the same issue of MUSEUM.)Every notice that after a little boy leaves a dinosaur exhibit he can tell you the most amazing things about dinosaurs. Things you may not have known. That is because he is having fun in the museum, and when you interested in what your seeing AND doing you remember and notice more than if your read it out of a book. Museums are educational institutions and should not be judged by attendance records like the entertainment world. You would never judge a school or library by how many people enter the door, instead you judge it by how much they take out of it. Judge the museum the same way you would judge a library.
The second point I would like to elaborate on is that the government should support culture. Anderson notes that in Western democracy "cultural offerings are indispensable to their citizenry". He says this is how it is in every Western Democracy except for the U.S. Everywhere else "they define a nation's identity and shape a national conversation about what matters most." Why is the U.S. different. Why do we put less importance on preserving and spreading the culture that got us to where we are today? In Germany it is impossible to avoid knowing and facing the country's past. They have monuments, museums and cultural institutions everywhere that discuss their past and present. What is even more impressive is that when walking down the street you can ask any local about these monuments and they will be able to give you some information. It is not like that here in the U.S. Here late night TV hosts can walk down the street and ask people questions focused on U.S. culture and history and will find many blank stares or completely wrong answers. Why is the U.S. so drastically different? How can we fix this? How can museums make the public see them for what they are, educational cultural institutions. Anderson and many others think that the first step is museum transparency.
Anderson is leading by example. At the Indianapolis Museum of Art he and his colleges are practicing what they preach. It is not perfect, but it is closer than most, and a step in the right direction. One thing that they are doing there that I think is worth noting is providing the public with a complete list of all past and current deaccessioned objects. You can find the list on their website It shows any interested party the object, date of deaccession, the recipient, and how it was removed (aka sold, auctioned, transfer to another institution, etc.). This publicity is not required by museums, but I would include it in my best practices. What is especially nice about this is you can use it to follow, and prove an item's provenance. Many objects have a clouded provenance, and museum clarity in the accessioning and deaccesioning processes would help to remove some of the clouds. A quote of Anderson'a that I particularly like is "if we acquire and sell objects for and from our collections with only secondary regard for potential claims on ownership, ethical dilemmas or sources and destinations of funds, we are exposing our institutions to great risk." This is an important idea for museums to take to heart. The movement of elicit art and artifacts is an ancient, yet still blooming segment of the black market. Museums can not support this trade if we have any chance of minimizing its effects on the entire world's cultural heritage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)