Book Review of “The Medici Conspiracy” by Peter Watson & Cecilia Todeschini

           I found this book to be really interesting and applicable to this class. The book focuses on a real-life case of the art dealer Giacomo Medici and his involvement with the illicit trade and trafficking of antiquities at an international level. This book really opened my eyes towards the complexity of trading and selling illicit antiquities and how many people are actually involved. I was also shocked to see how many “good” people were involved in some part of the trade, such as reputable art dealers, museum curators, and archaeologists. It was also interesting to get a sense of the official activities that go on in a situation like this, such as all of the investigations, interrogations/interviews, phone-line tapping, etc. 

            The book focuses on the activities of the Carabinieri Art Squad, founded in Italy in 1969. At this time, Italy was the first country to have implemented a police department specifically assigned to combat art and archaeological crimes. In the first few chapters of the book, the authors give some background information surrounding the issues. They discuss how investigation in other countries can help other countries, how and why Greek art, especially vases, is important to us, and how much intellectual past has been stolen by looters and is now in unknown collections across the world.

Applying it to Archaeological Ethics

            The authors discuss many things in this book that I found could be directly applied to a variety of the topics which we discussed in class.

            One of these topics is who is qualified to determine the value of archaeological objects. The book discusses, in particular, the objects that were found in Corridor 17. First, Daniele Rizzo, the archaeologist at the Villa Giulia Museum, and the director of the museum who was also the head of the Superintendency of Southern Etruria, Anna Maria Moretti examined the object from Corridor 17. Both of these women are obviously fairly qualified to determine the value of archaeological objects, but three more people were chosen to study the objects more closely. These people were all extremely distinguished scholars: Professors Gilda Bartoloni, Giovanni Colonna, and Professor Fausto Zevi, all of La Sapienza. These three scholars were all well-known and highly respected in their fields and were therefore obvious choices for this responsibility. I think that all of these people seem to be well-qualified to determine the value of these archaeological objects, but they are only looking at the objects from a purely archaeological perspective. This can be compared to NAGPRA and Native Americans wanting their cultural history to be looked at as more than just archaeological objects, but also as important cultural and familial objects.

            Another topic that this book discusses that is relative to archaeological ethics is that on provenance. The authors state that Medici claimed that all of his objects in the Freeport had been bought legitimately and that that was his idea of provenance. This presents the problem which we discussed in class; people do not understand the important of knowing the original context of an archaeological object. The authors discussed how forensic archaeology can help deal with objects without provenance. An interesting point that the authors made that I would like to point out, is the difference between objects excavated professionally in situ, and object photographed during a looting. “Objects excavated professionally (and legally) have a very different appearance; they are photographed in situ, showing their context, with a measuring tool to indicate size, and are properly dated” (57). This point stresses the importance of provenance and how a properly recorded and dated object can tell us way more than a looted object. 

            A part of the book which I found specifically bothersome was Chapter 7 which discussed the Getty Museum’s involvement with stolen and looted objects. I could not believe that such a distinguished museum played such a large role in acquiring stolen and looted archaeological objects. The acquisition of these objects takes a while and must go through various outlets. The sequence is described as going “from the ground of Italy, to Switzerland, sometimes to an auction house or art dealer’s catalogue, then finally to the museum itself” (88). This chapter brought forth various breaks in archaeological ethics with those who are perceived as being there to protect the objects from such activities. This makes me question the legitimacy of some museums. Museums do not always indicate a provenance for the objects that they display which means that the objects were probably looted or stolen. This makes me think, can we really trust museums? The authors make a good point in stating, “one would have thought that if the museum had indeed done its own research into the provenance of the objects it was thinking of acquiring, then there would have been a record somewhere of the results of those inquiries” (220). It appears that museums are not doing all of the work and research that they can in order to determine the legitimacy of some of the objects that they are acquiring. Whether it simply be that museums do not wish to discover the provenance of some objects, or whether museums are knowingly acquiring looted or stolen objects, it is still archaeologically unethical. 

            Repatriation is also discussed in this book. The case of looted objects from the Turkish Uşak tomb and the Metropolitan in New York is discussed. This also brings to mind the legitimacy of so-called ‘reputable’ museums. A collection acquired by the Met was proven to be looted from the Uşak tomb in Turkey and was requested to be given back. At first the Met resisted but eventually caved. If we give the Met the benefit of the doubt in this case and think that it was not aware that these objects had been stolen, it should have still given back the objects to Turkey after they were proven to be from the Uşak tomb. I think that this would have been the more ethical decision instead of trying to keep the artifacts for itself. 

            The authors mention a Swiss archaeologist Fiorella Cottier-Angeli. She worked ostensibly for Swiss customs. She also helped Medici with the ease of transporting looted or stolen artifacts by authenticating them. Don’t archaeologists have an ethical responsibility to report items that they think are being stolen? It seems to me that this archaeologist was acting in strict opposition to what she should have been doing.

            The book also discusses problems with private collections. It quotes John Walsh, director of the Getty, and Robert P. Bergman, director of the Cleveland Museum of Art, saying: “The private collection known no such restrictions. The only considerations for the collectors are, Do I like it? Can I afford it? Can I live with it?...The guiding factor in the selection of these pieces has been their exceptional artistic quality, not their archaeological interest” (116). An example of this that is mentioned in the book is the frescoes that were torn from their original context on villa walls in order to be sold on the antiquities market. Private collectors are twisting archaeological objects away from their real important in cultural and social history into purely artistic interest. This is not the proper or most beneficial environment for archaeological artifacts to be presented in. 

            These are just a few of the issues that were discussed in The Medici Conspiracy but they gave me a true sense of the different problems, and the complexity of these problems, that are being faced in the archaeological world. It seems ridiculous to me that these illegal transactions are still being performed today by professional and reputable people. I agree with Watson and Todeschini that cases such as the one concerning Giacomo Medici must be used as an educational tool for all of those in the archaeological field. It must also be used to inform and warn those in the illegal trades that archaeological objects are much more important than their monetary or artistic interest.

A Proposal: Future Solutions

 In this blog I wish to propose future solutions for archaeologists to work with salvors.

1. I think that above all, all wrecks (whether they are found by salvage companies, the Navy, archaeological surveys, etc.) should be evaluated by an academic archaeologist in order to determine if the site is arcaheologically significant or not. I think that with time this stipulation should become an enforced law. Then, if the site is archaeologically significant, the proper steps for the proper excavation, conservation, and publication can be taken.This law will also allow for the protection of sites because they have been evaluated, that way if an academic archaeologist cannot get to the site right away, it will not be looted or salvaged. 
2.  Secondly, I think that there should be a law that forces salvage companies to properly excavate and record a site to academic standards. The salvage company should also provide the adequate financing required in order to carry out projects beyond the retrieval of the artifacts to conservation, publication, and curation of the finds.

a.       This law may be enacted for an archaeological site that poses some sort of threat, such as environmental, and can therefore not be postponed until an academic archaeologist is able to perform the excavation.

3.       With the second point being said, I also believe that in order for a salvage company’s excavation and    research to be deemed legal or legitimate, it must have an academic archaeologist present during the excavation who will ensure that the proper excavation and recording of artifacts is carried out. 
4.    I also think that in order for academic archaeologists to participate well and willingly with salvage companies, an agreement must be made concerning who benefits financially from the excavation. I think that all archaeologists, including non-academic archaeologists, should be forbidden by law to participate in any projects that profit from the sale of artifacts. I think that this stipulation will require the utmost effort on behalf of all parties involved in an excavation.

a.       I can only suggest that salvage companies will be compensated for their findings by governments or by those who support academic archaeology. I also think that some sort of agreement may be reached between salvage companies and museums, for example, which can rent objects from the salvage companies, that way the salvage company still benefits financially from its finds, but it is equally participating in the public outreach and education aspect of archaeology.

      5.     Conversely, I think that if academic archaeologists are not able to form a working relationship with salvage companies, they must look for assistance elsewhere. I think that one of the best bets for academic archaeologists would be to partner with government organizations, such as the Navy, which has far superior techonology. This advanced technology can give academic institutions the edge on salvage companies, as very few can afford similar technology.

a.       An example of this idea being put into use today is the NR-1 nuclear submarine. This submarine can remain submerged for weeks, even months, and uses high-resolution side-scan sonar which allows it to “see” more than 600 feet on either side of the vessel. This technology is being used to pinpoint debris fields which are all potential targets for archaeological research (James Delgado 2006, 215 in Archaeological Ethics).

Issue: Urban Sprawl VS Archaeology

"The architectural and artistic value of the temple is immense. The temple can be saved and honoured as part of Greece's rich history if its importance is realized and respected by the government. Cultural pride and history must be preserved and valued. Only one third of the possible artifacts have been excavated from this site."

This article first intrigued my interest because it sparked my interest towards archaeological sites being destroyed by construction efforts. The site that this article and blog talks about is completely covered by vegetation and litter. This is completely against the archaeological ethic of preserving the past and it is actually quite shocking that a known archaeological site is still not being given the respect that it should have.

                The archaeological site to which I am referring is the 6^th century BC Temple of Aphrodite located in a part of the ancient area of Thessaloniki and now resting within the municipality of modern Thermaikos in the city Square of Antigoninon. The article from Popular Archaeology explains that the temple is a “Late Archaic period temple, 200 years older than the Parthenon, [which] was originally built to honour the Greek goddess of Aphrodite (Venus), the goddess of love, in the 6th century B.C.  It was later moved during Roman times to another location, which was considered a sacred area where there was a concentration of temples and shrines.” It is clear that this temple had extreme significance in ancient times as it was not destroyed, but moved to a place of extreme religious importance.

                The remains of the temple are in no way preserved or presented properly to the public. The temple is currently sandwiched between modern buildings, hardly recognizable to anyone who walks by, and is tucked away behind metal construction fences. The temple is in danger in its position due to growing urban sprawl. It is fair to note that some of the temple’s objects and architecture features have been can be seen by visitors today preserved in the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki. Although some parts of the temple are being properly preserved, the majority of it still lies unprotected in a damaging area. The article states that “the temple is a symbol of national pride, thought of as not only a treasure of Greece but a priceless representation of global heritage.” Therefore, we have the ethical right to push to have it properly protected and preserved. 

The Central Archaeological Council has not been able to expropriate the land which the temple sits on, as the owners are not interested in expropriation. This problem will ensure that new construction will hide the remains of the temple indefinitely. The issue of the Temple of Aphrodite represents an issue of urban development versus archaeological protection and preservation and therefore much be addressed effectively and in a timely manner.

Below I have posted some pictures of the site of the Temple of Aphrodite, and how it stands currently in its position within the city. It is shocking to see that the temple has become completely overgrown with vegetation and is covered with litter and refuse. This is NOT the way an important part of our history should be treated, especially since we are aware of its location and importance.

 For more information about the Temple of Aphrodite and the issues surrounding it, please visit: http://templeofvenus.gr/en.

Issue: Construction Damaging Archaeology

An article from ArchaeoNews is as follows:

“Ancient Bulgarian settlement destroyed by bulldozers”

An archaeological site in Bulgaria, including remnants of a village said to date back 8000 years, has been destroyed by bulldozers, allegedly the work of a construction company building part of a new road from Bulgaria to Greece. A special commission from the Ministry of Culture is inspecting the damage to the site, near Momchilgrad, and police are investigating.
     Zharin Velichkov, chief inspector of the Bulgarian Ministry of Culture said that the site had individual layers dating back thousands of years, believed to reach back as far as 6000 BCE. He said that he could not say who had committed the destruction but it was most likely the company that had been carrying out work in the area.
     The construction company had been given accurate maps of the area, with archaeological sites marked. The mound of the site, which also included a medieval church, were a few hundred metres from the planned road to Greece. Archaeologists are now trying to rescue anything remaining after the bulldozing.

This article brings to light the issues surrounding construction around archaeological sites. The article states that the construction company was given maps of the area in order to avoid doing damage to the surrounding sites. One would think that this sort of information would have been enough to keep the company from damaging the archaeological sites. I feel that this information should have been enough for the construction company, but it brings up the idea that maybe more efforts and supervision have to be put towards all construction sites close to archaeological sites. The archaeological sites should be protected and respected by any and all, and an instance such as this may be a sign that construction sites and companies need to be more informed about the damaging effects that they can have on precious archaeology, and that maybe there needs to be something set up in order to supervise these sites more efficiently.

Issue: Local People Protecting Local Archaeological Sites

       

        

         An aerial view of one of Nasca's giant animal tracings.

         In Lima, a Peruvian farmer is facing fines after digging a well in the middle of the Nasca archaeological site. Nasca is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and thus should be protected and respected by locals. The farmer, who owns land nearby, drove his tractor past warning signs and ended up destroying three geometric lines in the ‘campos barridos, or ‘swept fields,’ section of the site. Nasca’s giant tracings of lines and animal figures in Peru’s southern Ica desert can only be seen fully from the air, though the ancient drawings date back to the fifth or sixth century BC. Since they date more than two millennia before human flight, they are one of the world’s greatest archaeological mysteries.

       

        According to the newspaper report of the incident, the farmer will have to pay fines and restoration costs. Although I am not well versed in legal proceedings for an offense of this nature, I would think that the farmer should be subject to more punishment. Not  only is Nasca already protected under UNESCO as a World Heritage Site, but the site itself was also marked off and the farmer, being a local, was most likely aware of its existence and location. If the case is that the farmer was not aware of the site, then I think that strong efforts should be made towards educating local peoples of archaeological sites and the importance of protecting and preserving them. Local peoples are one of the first defences that an archaeological site can rely on for protection. But if the local peoples aren’t able to protect these sites because of lack of knowledge, then we are not doing all that we can to protect our heritage.