JOURNAL OF EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND HERITAGE STUDIES T H E P E N N S Y LVA N I A S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S JEMAHS VOL. 5 NO. 1 2017 JEMAHS EDITORS BOOK REVIEW EDITOR Ann E. Killebrew, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park (USA) Sandra A. Scham, The Catholic University of America (USA) Mitch Allen, Mills College (USA) E D I T O R I A L A S S I S TA N T Gabriele Faßbeck, University of Alabama (USA) A S S I S TA N T E D I T O R S Hanan Charaf, Lebanese University (Lebanon) Louise A. Hitchcock, University of Melbourne (Australia) Justin Lev-Tov, Cogstone Resource Management, Inc. (USA) EDITORIAL AND ADVISORY BOARD Salam Al-Kuntar, University of Pennsylvania (USA) Lorenzo d’Alfonso, New York University (USA) Jere L. Bacharach, University of Washington (USA) Reinhard Bernbeck, Freie Universität Berlin (Germany) Eric H. Cline, The George Washington University (USA) Anastasia Dakouri-Hild, University of Virginia (USA) Elif Denel, American Research Institute in Turkey, Ankara (Turkey) Ioannis Georganas, Independent Researcher (Greece) Joseph A. Greene, Harvard University (USA) Matthew Harpster, Institute of Nautical Archaeology, Bodrum (Turkey) Kenneth G. Holum, University of Maryland, College Park (USA) Saleh Lamei, D. G. Centre for Conservation of Islamic Architectural Heritage (Egypt) Mark Leone, University of Maryland, College Park (USA) Thomas E. Levy, University of California, San Diego (USA) Alexander Nagel, Smithsonian Institution (USA) Shelley-Anne Peleg, Israel Antiquities Authority (Israel) Susan Pollock, Freie Universität Berlin (Germany) Issa Jubrael Sarie, Al-Quds University (Jerusalem) Neil A. Silberman, University of Massachusetts Amherst (USA) Stuart Tyson Smith, University of California, Santa Barbara (USA) Sharon R. Steadman, SUNY Cortland (USA) Margreet Steiner, Independent Scholar (The Netherlands) Christopher A. Tuttle, Council of American Overseas Research Centers (USA) James M. Weinstein, Cornell University (USA) Donald Whitcomb, The University of Chicago (USA) Naama Yahalom-Mack, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel) Front cover photo: Detail of the Pergamon Altar (second century BCE), now in the Pergamon Museum, Berlin. On the eastern side of the gigantomachy frieze Athena seizes the giant Alcyoneus, as Gaia, the mother of the giants, emerges. (Photo by M. Ranta. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Athena_and_Nike_fight_Alkyoneus,_Gaia_rises_up_ from_the_ground_(5336871341).jpg].) JOURNAL OF EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND HERITAGE STUDIES VOL. 5 NO. 1 2017 FORUM Artifacts Out of Context: Their Curation, Ownership, and Repatriation 1 6 19 27 35 57 69 75 87 Introduction Ann E. Killebrew and Sandra A. Scham general treatments Museums as Intermediaries in Repatriation Jack Green Repatriation and the Legacy of Colonialism in the Middle East Salam Al Quntar Trafficked Lebanese Antiquities: Can They Be Repatriated from European Museums? Lina G. Tahan case studies Reconciling National and International Interests: The Rockefeller Museum and Its Collections Beatrice St. Laurent A Complicated Legacy: The Original Collections of the Semitic Museum Joseph A. Greene Should We Repatriate an On-Campus Archaeological Collection from the Middle East? Aaron Brody The Palestine Exploration Fund: The Collections of an Historic Learned Society in London Felicity Cobbing Beyond the UNESCO Convention: The Case of the Troy Gold in the Penn Museum C. Brian Rose 92 101 106 109 Syrian Heritage in Jeopardy: The Case of the Arslan Tash Ivories Annie Caubet future directions The Protection of Cultural Heritage Must Be a Collaborative Effort Deborah Lehr In Turkey, Museums Need Reciprocity, Not Only Repatriation Charles Gates Magical Materialism: On the Hidden Danger of Repatriation Disputes Neil Asher Silberman BOOK REVIEWS 116 Individuals and Society in Mycenaean Pylos, by Dimitri Nakassis Reviewed by Natalie Abell 118 Subjects and Narratives in Archaeology, edited by Ruth M. Van Dyke and Reinhard Bernbeck Reviewed by Mitchell Allen 123 Remembering the Dead in the Ancient Near East: Recent Contributions from Bioarchaeology and Mortuary Archaeology, edited by Benjamin W. Porter and Alexis T. Boutin Reviewed by Jill Baker 127 Animal Secondary Products: Domestic Animal Exploitation in Prehistoric Europe, the Near East and the Far East, edited by Haskel Greenfield Reviewed by Justin Lev-Tov 128 In Search of Agamemnon: Early Travellers to Mycenae, by Dudley Moore, Edward Rowlands, and Nektarios Karadimas Reviewed by Scott Gallimore 130 In Pursuit of Ancient Cyrenaica: Two Hundred Years of Exploration Set against the History of Archaeology in Europe (–), by Monika Rekowska. Translated by Anna Kijak Reviewed by Susan Kane t h e                                       (     ) is a peer-reviewed journal published by the Pennsylvania State University Press. JEMAHS is devoted to traditional, anthropological, social, and applied archaeologies of the eastern Mediterranean, encompassing both prehistoric and historic periods. The journal’s geographic range spans three continents and brings together, as no academic periodical has done before, the archaeologies of Greece and the Aegean, Anatolia, the Levant, Cyprus, Egypt, and North Africa. As the journal will not be identified with any particular archaeological discipline, the editors invite articles from all varieties of professionals who work on the past cultures of the modern countries bordering the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Similarly, a broad range of topics will be covered including, but by no means limited to: Excavation and survey field results; Landscape archaeology and GIS; Underwater archaeology; Archaeological sciences and archaeometry; Material culture studies; Ethnoarchaeology; Social archaeology; Conservation and heritage studies; Cultural heritage management; Sustainable tourism development; and New technologies/virtual reality. Appearing four times a year in February, May, August, and November, the journal will engage professionals and scholars of archaeology and heritage studies as well as non-practitioners and students, both graduate and undergraduate. In addition to combining traditional and theoretical archaeological data and interpretation, the journal’s articles may range from early prehistory to recent historical time periods. It also aims to publish accessible, jargon-free, readable, color-illustrated articles that will be informative for professional and non-professional readers. The journal does not publish unprovenanced artifacts purchased on the antiquities market or objects from private collections. s ub mission in f orm at ion Digital submissions should be sent to: www.editorialmanager.com/ JEMAHS. All correspondence should be sent to: Dr. Ann E. Killebrew (aek11@psu.edu). By submitting their work to JEMAHS, authors agree to editorial modifications of their manuscripts that are designed to help JEMAHS fulfill its mission. Articles should be submitted as a MS Word file together with all illustrations (1200 dpi for black and white; 600 dpi for grayscale; and at least 300 dpi for color) referenced in the manuscript. Permissions to use photographs and copyrights for all illustrations are the responsibility of the authors and need to be included when the manuscript is submitted. (For more information regarding copyright issues for authors, go to: http://psupress.org/author/ author_copyright.html). Papers should be limited to not more than 20–25 manuscript pages or ca. 6,000–7,000 words. Shorter papers are welcome, but authors wishing to submit a paper longer than 25 manuscript pages (including endnotes, references, and appendices) should consult with the editors in advance. For complete author submission guidelines, please visit: http://www.psupress.org/journals/jnls_JEMAHS.html s ub s cri p t ion i n f orm at ion The Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies is published quarterly by the Pennsylvania State University Press, 820 N. University Dr., USB 1, Suite C, University Park, PA 16802. Subscriptions, claims, and changes of address should be directed to our subscription agent, the Johns Hopkins University Press, P.O. Box 19966, Baltimore, MD 21211, phone 1-800-548-1784 (outside USA and Canada: 410-5166987), jrnlcirc@press.jhu.edu. Subscribers are requested to notify the Johns Hopkins University Press and their local postmaster immediately of change of address. All correspondence of a business nature, including permissions and advertising, should be addressed to the Pennsylvania State University Press, journals@psu.edu. The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of American University Presses. rig ht s a n d pe rm i s s ion JEMAHS is registered under its ISSN (2166-3548 [E-ISSN 2166-3556]) with the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 (www.copyright.com). For information about reprints or multiple copying for classroom use, contact the CCC’s Academic Permissions Service, or write to the Pennsylvania State University Press, 820 N. University Dr., USB 1, Suite C, University Park, PA 16802. Copyright © 2017 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. No copies may be made without the written permission of the publisher. FORUM ARTIFACTS OUT OF CONTEXT Their Curation, Ownership, and Repatriation Introduction ANN E. KILLEBREW The Pennsylvania State University aek11@psu.edu SANDRA A. SCHAM The Catholic University of America sandrascham@gmail.com The heartrending conflicts and economic privation we see in Eastern Mediterranean countries today has made archaeologists keenly aware that sites and material culture that have miraculously survived millennia are all too vulnerable to twenty-first century looters, inept governments, and self-appointed obliterators of idolatry. It has also caused museums in more fortunate (and peaceful) nations to feel increasingly less comfortable with the idea of returning artifacts to their countries of origin even as requests by those nations for repatriation are intensifying. The question of who owns the material evidence of the past has always been a complicated one for archaeologists and museums. Now it has become a contentious argument between nations of origin and nations of residence involving a deep dive into archives by museum professionals and        , . , . ,  Copyright © 2017 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA a complex legal examination of the trail of artifacts from their original homes by lawyers. In reality, during the more than two centuries of archaeology in the region, artifacts have variously been considered the property of, respectively, archaeologists, their sponsors, the country where they were found, the communities that live near them, the world, the living cultures whose past is represented by them, museums which house the artifacts, and even the collectors who purchase them—legally or illegally. In the course of the final decades of the twentieth century and first years of the twenty-first century, the acceptance of international treaties and conventions by governments and professional organizations have been key in facilitating the return of objects to their regions of origin (see e.g., La Follette 2016; Gerstenblith 2013; Roehrenbeck 2010). Italy (Green, this issue) and Turkey in particular have successfully campaigned for the return of some of its most prized treasures, including the Trojan Gold (Rose, this issue), the infamous Lydian Treasure (Fig. 1; Letsch 2012) and the top half of the “Weary Herakles” statue to the Antalya Museum (Fig. 2; Gates, this issue; Chechi, Contel, and Renold 2011). In light of the current flooding of the international antiquities market with archaeological heritage looted from Syria, Iraq, Egypt and elsewhere, new cultural agreements between governments are resulting in the repatriation of thousands of objects in record numbers to their countries of origin (see Lehr, this issue). These include the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “Operation Mummy’s Curse” that over 2 | FORUM FIG. 1 Silver oenochoe and gold earrings from the Lydian/Karun Treasure, on display in the Uşak Museum, Turkey. (Photo by F. Tronchin [https:// www.flickr.com/photos/frenchieb/5857001262/in/photostream/].) FIG. 2 the last six years has resulted in the repatriation of thousands of archaeological artifacts (Figs. 3 and 4; https:// www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-returns-ancient-artifacts-egypt-national-geographic-society). While more artifacts are being repatriated, new questions are being raised regarding the ability of war-ravaged regions to conserve, protect, and exhibit archaeological treasures. The aforementioned political turmoil has led to re-evaluations of repatriation requests, especially the disposition of artifacts obtained prior to the creation of international conventions. Several recent publications advocate for the retention of legacy collections and against repatriation of objects from the Eastern Mediterranean region on display in some of the world’s most famous Western museums. Among the most controversial of these publications are Keeping Their Marbles: Complete statue of the “Weary Herakles” from Perge on display in the Antalya Museum, Turkey. (Photo by I. Mehling. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Antalya_Museum_-_ Weary_Hercules.jpg].) How the Treasures of the Past Ended Up in Museums . . . and Why They Should Stay There (Jenkins 2016). Two additional volumes, Whose Culture? The Promise of Museums and the Debate Over Antiquities (Cuno 2009) and Museums Matter: In Praise of the Encyclopedic Museum (Cuno 2011) also raise questions regarding curatorship of the world’s heritage and repatriation efforts. These publications have revived the debate over the role of museums, ownership of archaeological heritage and repatriation concerns, but have also provoked strong criticism (see e.g., Hanink 2016). Ironically, several countries who aggressively pursue repatriation are being challenged for refusing to JOURNAL OF EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND HERITAGE STUDIES | 3 FIG. 3 Greco-Roman-style sarcophagus returned to Egypt in April 2015 by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement within the framework of “Operation Mummy’s Curse.” (Photo U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [https:// www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/images/ news/2015/150422dc1.jpg].) return objects in their national collections to the country of origin (see e.g., Tahan, this issue). This Forum discussion aims to explore the topic of repatriation from a variety of viewpoints considering twenty-first century realities in the region. The contributions fall into three main categories addressing general background matters, presenting case studies and offering future directions. We hope that the differing perspectives assembled in this issue of JEMAHS will contribute to the ongoing debate regarding repatriation, curation and ownership of artifacts, some now housed far from their places of origin. The first three essays provide an introduction to several key themes of this Forum. Jack Green presents an overview of the topic by cogently laying out all of the arguments made for and against repatriation and the solutions that have been proposed. Salam Al Quntar argues movingly against Western ownership of the Middle Eastern past from the standpoint of a Syrian visitor to museums in the United States and Europe who finds some of the most impressive vestiges of her history on display in an alien environment. Similarly, Lina Tahan decries the loss of masterpieces of Lebanese heritage to foreign museums and argues for a repatriation that helps to restore the cultural connection that Lebanese once had with their past. The six case studies presented below illustrate several key themes of this Forum: legacy collections and their service to the public and scholarly worlds; integrity of historic museum collections; criteria for artifact repatriation; and concern for artifact conservation in war-torn countries of origin. Beatrice St. Laurent explores the history and development of the Rockefeller Museum collection, a testament to Ottoman and British imperialism. The recent approval by the Israeli government for the transfer of some objects from the Rockefeller Museum in East Jerusalem to within the undisputed borders of Israel provides an interesting case study of ownership of heritage in a disputed Middle East. St. Laurent asserts that the Rockefeller Museum collection, whose display intentionally has not been changed since 1967, is a bastion of cosmopolitanism and diversity in East Jerusalem and advocates for the artifacts to remain where they have been since the British Mandate period. 4 | FORUM FIG. 4 Middle Kingdom boat model returned to Egypt by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Photo U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [https:// www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/images/ news/2015/150422dc2.png].) Joseph Greene explores another famous historical collection from Palestine—that of the Harvard Semitic Museum. Though in this case a repatriation request has not been received by this venerable institution, Greene argues that the museum’s legacy collections, even though showcasing acquisitions that were legal at the time, are nonetheless somewhat suspect by today’s standards. Aaron Brody and Felicity Cobbing suggest that their institutes’ collections, from sites in the geographical region of Palestine, were legally excavated and provenienced by archaeologists and are maintained in a scholarly context. The artifacts in the Badè Museum at the Pacific School of Religion, where Brody is the Director, have inspired generations of researchers, some of them from the region where they originated. Brody argues that the objects are a valuable knowledge source for scholars, students and the public in the western United States where such collections are rare. Cobbing similarly takes the view that the Palestine Exploration Fund’s collections, archaeological artifacts as well as materials, provide an important study collection to a broad audience and attest to the history of British archaeology in the region. She reasons that the PEF scholars who excavated the artifacts in this collection were directly involved in contributing to new and more rigorous archaeological standards in the Middle East. Brian Rose takes on the fraught case of the Penn Museum’s “Trojan Gold.” Its story encompasses all of the necessary dramatic elements—imperialism, war, pillage, nationalism, neutron activation analysis, international law and, lest we forget, gold. In his engrossing essay, Rose looks upon the resolution of the Museum’s discussions with the Turkish government over these valuable objects with equanimity. In the end, he was surprised that in the arguments forwarded by Turkish authorities, the UNESCO convention was never mentioned which, in his view, has the implication that museums and private collectors would do well not to completely rely upon it as the deciding factor in repatriation cases. Annie Caubet explores the case of the Arslan Tash ivories, now dispersed in several museums throughout the world, including the Louvre and the Aleppo National Museum. Attempts to study, analyze and conserve these extraordinary works of art by an international JOURNAL OF EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND HERITAGE STUDIES | 5 team of scholars and the Syrian Directorate-General of Antiquities and Museums forms the central theme of this essay. While it appears that the collection is safe, after so many years of work, she expresses some ambivalence regarding the future custodianship and reunification of this collection. Our final three essays, grouped under the heading “Future Directions,” suggest possible approaches and solutions to the stewardship of the region’s archaeological heritage. Deborah Lehr explores the subtext to this story further in light of the accomplishments of the Antiquities Coalition and their efforts to repatriate illegally obtained Egyptian artifacts. Additionally, the meticulous work performed by archaeologists and conservators on sites and artifacts may well be endangered or destroyed in today’s embattled Middle East. Despite these concerns, the Antiquities Coalition, as Lehr writes, takes the hopeful view that the best long-term solution is to support repatriation and work on building in-country capacities for maintaining and protecting valuable artifacts. Charles Gates suggests Turkey’s vigorous repatriation efforts might encompass a new initiative that would greatly enhance the education of Turkish citizens as well as demonstrate the country’s rich history to people all over the world. Proposing that the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (home of the directorate of state museums) develop cooperative agreements with museums and institutions outside Turkey, Gates avers that this would result in a vitalization of these museums, many of which have important artifacts that could educate a much larger audience than their current small numbers of visitors. Neil Silberman’s essay provides a powerfully argued coda to the thoughtful discussions that precede it. He suggests that, in some cases, the idea of repatriation is dependent upon a kind of fetishistic obsession with objects, in part because they are used for the construction of national and cultural identities. The fact that human works can survive their makers by thousands of years is a source of fascination for both archaeologists and the public. Artifacts invested by countries with a symbolism that transmutes even the most common of objects into significant “heritage,” Silberman contends, have come to resemble the religious relics of the Middle Ages—and are the source of current struggles for their ownership. As these essays illustrate, the question of repatriation is a fraught one. To use a social science term now favored by the Military, it is a “wicked problem” that cannot be easily resolved. It encompasses cultural, moral and legal issues and transcends national rights to become a matter of global significance. Nevertheless, archaeologists and museum professionals by and large engage in amicable negotiations over ownership of important artifacts. In a world where so many wars are waged over entitlements to material possession, the fact that artifacts can and do form the basis for some semblance of international comity does, if nothing else, remind us that it is possible to resolve complex issues of ownership peacefully. As co-editors of the Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies, we take this opportunity to welcome Dr. Gabriele Faßbeck of the University of Alabama to our team as the editorial assistant. We are looking forward to working closely with her on the editing and production of the journal. References Chechi, A., R. Contel, and M.-A. Renold. 2011. Case Weary Herakles – Turkey and Museum of Fine Arts Boston. Platform ArThemis (http://unige.ch/art-adr), Art-Law Centre, University of Geneva. https://plone.unige.ch/art-adr/ cases-affaires/weary-herakles-2013-turkey-and-museum-offine-arts-boston (accessed January 17, 2017). Cuno, J., ed. 2009. Whose Culture? The Promise of Museums and the Debate Over Antiquities. Princeton: Princeton University Press. . 2011. Museums Matter: In Praise of the Encyclopedic Museum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gerstenblith, P. 2013. The Meaning of 1970 for the Acquisition of Archaeological Objects. Journal of Field Archaeology 38:364–73. Hanink, J. 2016. Review of Keeping Their Marbles: How the Treasures of the Past Ended Up in Museums . . . and Why They Should Stay There, by T. Jenkins. Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2016.12.06. http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2016/2016-12-06. html (accessed January 17, 2017). Jenkins, T. 2016. Keeping Their Marbles: How the Treasures of the Past Ended Up in Museums . . . And Why They Should Stay There. Oxford: Oxford University Press. La Follette, L. 2016. Looted Antiquities, Art Museums and Restitution in the United States since 1970. Journal of Contemporary History. First published July 8, 2016. doi: 10.1177/0022009416641198. 6 | FORUM Letsch, C. 2012. King Croesus’s golden brooch to be returned to Turkey. The Guardian, November 25, 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/25/kingcroesus-treasure-returning-turkey (accessed January 17, 2017). Roehrenbeck, C. A. 2010. Repatriation of Cultural Property– Who Owns the Past? An Introduction to Approaches and to Selected Statutory Instruments. International Journal of Legal Information 38:185–200. http://scholarship. law.cornell.edu/ijli/vol38/iss2/11 (accessed January 17, 2017). GENERAL TREATMENT Museums as Intermediaries in Repatriation JACK GREEN Deputy Director of Collections, Research, and Exhibitions, Corning Museum of Glass One Museum Way, Corning, NY, 14830; greenjd@cmog.org Introduction Museums that focus on the art, archaeology, history and cultures of the Central and East Mediterranean, including the Middle East and North Africa, have long been immersed in debate and controversy regarding the repatriation or restitution of objects in their collections to their countries and communities of origin. The role of museums in repatriation is a complex cultural, legal, and moral topic that cannot be tackled easily or comprehensively. This is especially the case given the closely intertwined challenges of nationalism, political diplomacy, and community discourse that run parallel to such claims and events (Merryman 2006; Tythacott and Avantis 2014). Repatriation has become a significant concern for museums that may have acquired art objects and artifacts through donation, purchase, and occasionally by force or as spoils of war. Museums containing significant collections from archaeological fieldwork have typically received fewer repatriation claims largely because of a key difference in how these collections were formed and subsequently managed – usually through formalized and legal divisions or partage agreements with antiquities authorities or governments (Kersel 2015). Egypt, Turkey, Greece, and Italy are the most prominent “source countries” in the Mediterranean calling for repatriation of archaeological objects and artworks, typically from Northern European and North American museums within the so-called traditional “market countries.”1 Other countries involved in repatriation, although at a less intensive scale, include Israel, Jordan, the Palestinian Territories, and Cyprus. Most repatriation claims relate to objects acquired from private collections or purchased on the antiquities market that are suspected to have been looted, stolen, or illegally exported from their country of origin. Repatriation claims involving museums have tended to focus on the larger and more prestigious institutions, in part because their acquisitions have been made possible due to the availability of considerable funds, or relationships with high-profile collectors and donors. These museums are important because, as institutions that often share a public service mandate, they are also subject to a high level of interest and scrutiny by the media, their visitors, the scholarly community, and the wider world. Repatriation events are typically negative media stories for museums, as they can indicate and suggest complicity in unethical or improper acquisition practices that may have supported a wider illicit trade. Yet the tide has turned as many museums have turned repatriation into a positive opportunity for public relations and international cooperation. This essay reviews repatriation events from Northern European and North American museums to Mediterranean countries through a number of case studies. It provides examples of recent success stories, and indicates how museums can play a more active role in building good relations with countries and communities, and greater public awareness of repatriation and acquisition practices. To Retain or Return? The debate concerning the repatriation of objects from museums is closely tied to the ways in which such objects have been acquired in the first place. The ability for museums to avoid future repatriation events is connected