A Framework for Resolution of Claims for Cultural Property

This study employs qualitative research methods to analyze how museums determine ownership of cultural property when there is no universally accepted standard to settle differences. I find a need exists for a consistent effort to bring together knowledge and expertise in international restitution processes. This research examines the cultural property dispute that arose in 2006 between the Saint Louis Art Museum and the Egyptian government involving ownership of the Ka-Nefer-Nefer Egyptian mummy mask. The legality of that acquisition and the ongoing dispute between the Egyptian government and the museum all serve in this paper as an illustrative example of the number of disputes that have arisen in the last twenty-five years between States and museums over looted cultural heritage. Resolution of Claims for Cultural Property v CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Laura E. Young PLACE OF BIRTH: St. Louis, Missouri DATE OF BIRTH: April 9, 1980 GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon, Eugene Webster University, St. Louis Webster University, The Netherlands University of Missouri, St. Louis DEGREES AWARDED: Master of Science, Arts Management, 2007, University of Oregon Bachelor of Art, Studio Art, 2002, Webster University Certificate in Art Therapy, 2002, Webster University AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: Museum Studies PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Program Manager, Sitka Center for Art and Ecology, January 2007-present Otis, Oregon Intern, Nazi-Era Provenance Disclosure Project, 2006 Saint Louis Art Museum, Missouri Graduate Research Fellow, University of Oregon, 2005-2007 Center for Community Arts and Cultural Policy Resolution of Claims for Cultural Property vi GRANTS, AWARDS AND HONORS: Graduate Student Research Award, Conference Presentation, 2006 Social Theory, Politics and the Arts Conference, Vienna, University of Oregon, 2006 Invited Presenter, “A Framework for Resolution of Claims for Cultural Property,” National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, D.C., 2006 Student Representative Board Member, Museum of Natural and Cultural History, University of Oregon, 2006-2007 Laurel Award, Education Department, Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art, University or Oregon, 2005 Best in Show: Drawing, “Art & Air” Fair City of Webster Groves, St. Louis, 2004 Academic Scholarship, Webster University, 1999-2003 Off Campus Study Award, Webster University, 2000 PUBLICATIONS: Dewey, Patricia & Young, Laura. (2006). Introduction. Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society, 36(3), 163-167. Resolution of Claims for Cultural Property vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express sincere appreciation to the following individuals for their assistance in the preparation of this manuscript: Professor Dom Vetri, B.A. Klicks Professor of Law, University of Oregon; Dr. Janice Rutherford and Dr. Patricia Dewey, Arts and Administration Program, University of Oregon; Professor Bill Long, Visiting Professor of Law at Willamette University; Kathryn Zedde, Chair, UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation; Andy Finch; Senior Director of Government Affairs, Americans for the Arts; The Saint Louis Art Museum; Cleon Burt, Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP; Tara Sweeney, Arts and Administration Program, University of Oregon; My husband, Adam Kriz, and my dear friends and family. Support was received in part by the School of Architecture and Allied Arts, University of Oregon, and the National Endowment for the Arts. Resolution of Claims for Cultural Property viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. RESEARCH DESIGN . 1 Statement of the Problem . 2 Research Questions . 3 Significance of the Study . 4 Conceptual Framework . 4 Methodological Paradigm . 7 Strategy of Inquiry . 8 Anticipated Ethical Issues . 11 Data Collection . 12 Preliminary Coding and Analysis Procedures . 12 Role of the Researcher . 13 Delimitations . 13 Limitations . 14 Definitions . 14 Conclusion . 19 II. REVIEW OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS . 22 The 1970 UNESCO Convention . 24 Federal Legislation . 28 U.S. Cultural Property Implementation Act of 1983 . 29 National Stolen Property Act of 1934 . 34 Law Enforcement Agencies . 37 Advisory Associations & Organizations . 38 Literature Review Conclusion . 41 Resolution of Claims for Cultural Property ix III. SAINT LOUIS ART MUSEUM CASE STUDY . 44 Provenance of the Ka-Nefer-Nefer Mummy Mask . 48 The Museum’s Due Diligence Inquiry . 50 Provenance Supplied by the Seller . 51 Stolen Art Registries . 53 Egyptian Museum in Cairo . 54 Was the Mask Awarded to the Excavator? 55 Egypt’s Position of When the Mask Left Egypt . 58 The Museum’s Response to Egypt’s Allegation . 61 Conclusion . 63 IV. STRUCTURES CONCERNED WITH RESOLUTION . 67 National & International Courts: 1995 UNIDROIT Convention . 70 UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee . 73 Arbitration . 78 Mediation & Negotiation . 80 V. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 84 Growing Consensus to Not Acquire Any Object Found After 1970 . 87 No Agreed Upon Standard For How Much Due Diligence is Enough . 91 The Need for a More Collaborative Framework for Resolution . 97 Standard Practice in the Art Trade for Due Diligence Inquiry . 101 Resolution of Claims for Cultural Property x APPENDICES . 105 A. Interview Recruitment Letter . 106 B. Consent Form . 107 C. Interview Protocol . 109 D. Memorandum Regarding Provenance Of Mummy Mask . 110 E. Correspondence Between Egypt and the Saint Louis Art Museum . 111 F. Saint Louis Art Museum May 12, 2006 News Release . 121 G. 2006 Metropolitan Museum Of Art and Italy Accord . 122 REFERENCES . 132 Resolution of Claims for Cultural Property xi LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figures Page 1. The International Institutional System of Restitution . 5 2. Protection of Cultural Resources . 23 3. Illicit Antiquities Trade . 33 4. Ka-Nefer-Nefer Mummy Mask . 46 5. Ex-collection Provenance Report of the Mummy Mask. 49 6. Institutional Experiences with Claims for Restitution . 65 7. Structures Concerned with Resolution of Claims for Cultural Property . 69 Table 1. Saint Louis Art Museum Expectations of Due Diligence . 95 Resolution of Claims for Cultural Property 1 CHAPTER ONE: RESEARCH DESIGN Resolution of Claims for Cultural Property 2 Statement of the Problem For centuries, objects excavated from historical sites have been smuggled abroad and sold to museums and other collectors. During the early 1900s, when major museums in the United States and Europe were developing their worldwide collections, a number of countries were placing their antiquities under controls, which in most cases severely limited or completely banned export. The flow onto the market of legitimate material sl