Harvard Art Museums Involved in Documentation Controversy

The idea of art smuggling and looting conjures up images of shady back-room deals and night-time raids on archaeological sites. But what many don't know is that these questionable pieces can often end up in reputable museums.

Dealing with art acquired by unethical methods is a problem all museums and galleries must deal with, says University of Missouri Anthropology Professor Deborah M. Pearsall.

Harvard's own art museums are no exception.

The Sackler Museum, which displays works from Asia, Africa and North America, has come under fire for its acquisition of ambiguously documented artifacts.

Several pieces in a 1996 exhibit, "Large Classical Bronzes from North American Collections," and Greek vase fragments in a 1995 exhibit are undocumented, and came from dealers who have previously traded in objects illegally excavated or imported.

Although Harvard University Art Museums (HUAM), the umbrella organization of all of Harvard's museums, has a long-standing policy regulating the acquisition of undocumented art, curators disagree on the proper interpretation of that policy.

Set in 1971, HUAM's policy stipulates that the person in charge of a given exhibit, its curator, "should have reasonable assurance under the circumstances that the object has not...been exported from its country of origin (and/or the country where it was last legally owned) in violation of that country's laws."

It is the "reasonable assurance" clause that has triggered controversy.

"The complaints about the [Sackler] are that although the policy itself is a vigorous one, it has been interpreted quite liberally," says Boardman Professor of Fine Arts Irene J. Winter, who lodged a formal complaint against the 1996 exhibit on bronzes.

The British Museum has also questioned HUAM's acquisition of an Anglo-Roman head displayed in the same exhibit because of the piece's questionable origins. However, the British Museum has not taken formal action in the matter.

"Every object should be subject to scrutiny before the fact, and it should be able to be demonstrated that it is not problematic," Winter says. "I'm asking for a more rigorous active policy."

"I strongly believe the costs far exceed the benefits of exhibiting such pieces," she said in the complaint.

However, Cabot Director of HUAM James B. Cuno sees the matter in a different light.

"We do not require what's called full documentation," he says, noting that under the policy, HUAM curators are only required to seek "reasonable assurance" that a piece being considered for exhibition is not looted.

Distinguishing between the looted pieces and the legitimate pieces of art is not an easy matter, Cuno notes.

"One does research prior to acquisition. If confident, even without documentation or without all questions answered [that the piece has not been illegally acquired]," Cuno says, "then one can acquire [a piece] provided that one continues to do research and make public one's acquisition of that object."

Cuno says this process of "due diligence" for an item which is not documented can include consulting publications that list looted artifacts or discussing the item with colleagues.

The final decision on whether a piece--documented or not--will appear in an exhibit is Cuno's, as director of HUAM.

"The curators should be party to the policy, but ultimately it's the director's [decision]," Winter says.

Recently Cuno joined a newly-formed task force of the Association of Art Museum Directors that will investigate claims on art allegedly plundered by the Nazis during World War II.

Congress has also begun to put pressure on the art community to tighten its acquisition practices. Last week, the House Banking Committee held hearings on the laws regulating the import of artworks.

Several members of the task force testified before the committee, and promised to increase their efforts to locate art plundered during the war.

However, some legislators want to go further. Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) is considering introducing legislation that would require museums to fully research a piece's background prior to acquisition, according to the Boston Globe.

Looting

Looting, or the illegal acquisition of antiquities, is "an ongoing problem throughout the world," according to Pearsall.

The major problem with looting, from the archaeologist's point of view, is that it destroys the information that comes along with an artifact.

"When archaeologists dig a site, they don't just dig to record artifacts," says Vincas P. Steponaitis '76, the president of the Society for American Archaeology and a professor of anthropology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Steponaitis explains that the context and setting of an artifact are necessary in order to interpret it.

"Looters dig only for the artifacts; they completely destroy the context," Steponaitis says.

A 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) convention set standards concerning the plundering of cultural property.

Consenting with the UNESCO guidelines, nearly all countries with looting problems have enacted laws that prohibit looting. However, the laws vary in severity and enforcement, according to Steponaitis.

In addition to the actual looting of items, another illegality question arises with the smuggling of looted objects.

The Senate ratified the United States' accord with the 1970 UNESCO convention in 1972, but did not pass implementing legislation until 1983.

Since that date, the import of illegally acquired archaeological artifacts--whether taken into the U.S. by looters themselves or by dealers--has been illegal.

However, there is no law against the exhibition of undocumented pieces.

The Documentation Process

Responding to the UNESCO convention, museums and galleries worldwide established policies prohibiting the acceptance of undocumented pieces.

Harvard's 1971 policy was one of the first, HUAM sources say.

According to Winter, the drafters of the policy--both HUAM representatives and University officials--wanted to "adequately reflect the concerns of the UNESCO convention for the preservation of archaeological sites."

To that end, the committee required "reasonable assurance" that the object had valid documentation.

"Normally, documentation means that it has been scientifically excavated so that there is a precise and detailed record of exactly where [it has been excavated]," says Hester A. Davis, state archaeologist for Arkansas and chair of the Society of American Archaeology's Committee on Ethics.

"It is necessary for interpreting the nature, the age, the use of that particular object," she said.

In HUAM, Winter wants to see the establishment of a form, to be filled out by the curator, that would give the excavational and exhibitional history of a piece.

"We should leave a paper trail on every object acquired or shown to be sure that it does conform with our policies, in advance," she says.

From the archaeological point of view, documentation helps to provide a bulwark against the practice of looting.

"It gives you some control over not acquiring objects that were taken illegally--all archaeologists abhor the practice of looting, and we do not want to encourage that kind of behavior," says Pearsall.

Winter, too, finds that documentation helps to curb the market for looted objects.

"Every time we exhibit [a suspect piece], we buy into the desire for such objects that encourage the destruction of archaeological sites and their contexts, and thereby human history," she says.

Art or Artifact?

Cuno argues that to prohibit the display of pieces that do not have full documentation would be a disservice to the public.

"One can't always get full documentation, and to acquire a work of art is, in almost every case, to bring that work of art from the private realm into the public realm," he says.

In response, Bickford Professor of Indian and South Asian Art Pramod Chandra argues that to display such an object is "one small good against the greater wrong. I'd rather go against the greater wrong--there's no end to that."

Agrees Davis, "In one sense, it's probably truethat [undocumented pieces displayed in museums]will be available for scholars, but the other sideto the argument is that by accepting undocumentedpieces, it keeps the market going, is keeping thelooting going."

In a 1996 response to Winter's formalcomplaint, Cuno wrote that he was "very interestedin the differences between the interests ofarchaeologists and art historians in works ofart."

"The former holds the site and circumstances ofthe find as all-important, while the latter can beinterested in many other issues wholly unrelatedto a work's find spot," he wrote. "That oneinterest should be privileged over another is notclear to me."

Effects on Harvard

Some professors believe that the recentpublicity surrounding HUAM's acquisition policieshave negatively affected the University.

"It is a problem with the Harvard UniversityArt Museums' reputation, but it also is a problemfor all scholars associated with Harvard," Wintersays.

Chandra says that he has encountered problemswith his reputation as a scholar because ofassociation with HUAM actions.

"When I go back to my country [India], there isno understanding that the HUAM and the Departmentof Fine Arts are...completely separate entities,"he says.

"People think that we are members of the [HUAM]and the [HUAM] is engaging in processes that arenot approved by them, so the fallout comes onprofessors too," Chandra says.

Meanwhile, other Harvard museums are dealingwith the same policy questions.

"The Peabody is very concerned to follow boththe letter and the spirit of Harvard'spolicy...and the UNESCO accord," says Rubie S.Watson, Howells Director of the Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology.

However, she said that "acquisition policiesare always evolving, as does legal and culturalunderstandings of artifact documentation andtransfer."

The Policy in the Future

Harvard's acquisition policy is also changing.

"I know that we will reinvigorate the means bywhich we seek reasonable assurance that we canacquire works of art within the terms of theHarvard guidelines," says Cuno.

"I believe that we are adhering to Harvard'spolicy, although I believe it is also the casethat we have not always done diligence to theextent that we should have," he says.

However, he says that he and Winter "stilldisagree on certain issues"--specifically, "aboutwhether or not an art museum should acquire a workof art without full documentation."

In her complaint, Winter wrote that "ourexhibition policy must be congruent with theMuseums' acquisition policy if we are to maintainthe high ethical standards for which we arebecoming known."

For the most part, archaeologists have strongviews on what HUAM's stance should be.

"The ethical thing to do is not to accept[pieces] if they don't have obviousdocumentation," says Davis.

Steponaitis takes a more moderate view.

"I realize that a lot of times things aren'tblack and white; you have to weigh a lot ofdifferent issues in making an acquisition," hesays

Agrees Davis, "In one sense, it's probably truethat [undocumented pieces displayed in museums]will be available for scholars, but the other sideto the argument is that by accepting undocumentedpieces, it keeps the market going, is keeping thelooting going."

In a 1996 response to Winter's formalcomplaint, Cuno wrote that he was "very interestedin the differences between the interests ofarchaeologists and art historians in works ofart."

"The former holds the site and circumstances ofthe find as all-important, while the latter can beinterested in many other issues wholly unrelatedto a work's find spot," he wrote. "That oneinterest should be privileged over another is notclear to me."

Effects on Harvard

Some professors believe that the recentpublicity surrounding HUAM's acquisition policieshave negatively affected the University.

"It is a problem with the Harvard UniversityArt Museums' reputation, but it also is a problemfor all scholars associated with Harvard," Wintersays.

Chandra says that he has encountered problemswith his reputation as a scholar because ofassociation with HUAM actions.

"When I go back to my country [India], there isno understanding that the HUAM and the Departmentof Fine Arts are...completely separate entities,"he says.

"People think that we are members of the [HUAM]and the [HUAM] is engaging in processes that arenot approved by them, so the fallout comes onprofessors too," Chandra says.

Meanwhile, other Harvard museums are dealingwith the same policy questions.

"The Peabody is very concerned to follow boththe letter and the spirit of Harvard'spolicy...and the UNESCO accord," says Rubie S.Watson, Howells Director of the Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology.

However, she said that "acquisition policiesare always evolving, as does legal and culturalunderstandings of artifact documentation andtransfer."

The Policy in the Future

Harvard's acquisition policy is also changing.

"I know that we will reinvigorate the means bywhich we seek reasonable assurance that we canacquire works of art within the terms of theHarvard guidelines," says Cuno.

"I believe that we are adhering to Harvard'spolicy, although I believe it is also the casethat we have not always done diligence to theextent that we should have," he says.

However, he says that he and Winter "stilldisagree on certain issues"--specifically, "aboutwhether or not an art museum should acquire a workof art without full documentation."

In her complaint, Winter wrote that "ourexhibition policy must be congruent with theMuseums' acquisition policy if we are to maintainthe high ethical standards for which we arebecoming known."

For the most part, archaeologists have strongviews on what HUAM's stance should be.

"The ethical thing to do is not to accept[pieces] if they don't have obviousdocumentation," says Davis.

Steponaitis takes a more moderate view.

"I realize that a lot of times things aren'tblack and white; you have to weigh a lot ofdifferent issues in making an acquisition," hesays