Rome
At present Italian law only permits loans of cultural goods (which includes archaeological and post-archaeological material) out of the country for a maximum of six months (Law 1089 (1939) and Law 328 (1950)). Now Senator Luigi Covatta, Sottosegretario di Stato per i Beni Culturali (Undersecretary of State for the Ministry of Culture), has proposed a bill to allow long term loans of archaeological goods, which should be presented to Parliament next month.
Covatta’s bill would empower the Minister to allow “the temporary export of archaeological items for research, restoration and exhibition purposes” on the advice of the relevant ministerial panel (Comitato di settore). If such objects were not “permanently exhibited” they could be loaned on a “long term basis” to “museums, universities and research and study bodies”. The bill does not define “long term”, but goes on to say that archaeological objects excavated by authorised foreign teams might be exported by them for a maximum period of ten years.
The purpose of the bill is to relieve the pressure on overcrowded museum stores and restoration workshops; to allow foreign museums lacking such exhibits to reinforce their displays, and, in particular, to discourage illegal excavation and trade on the assumption that, if long term loans are available, there is less incentive for museums to invest considerable funds in antiquities usually of dubious provenance.
The proposal was formulated by a working group of the ministerial commission on the reform of the museum system. This includes heavy-weight academics and museum people, in particular Professor Adriano La Regina, Soprintendente per i Beni Archeologici (Inspector of Archaeology) of Rome, who explains: “I support the measure on the basis of my experience of foreign museums. In many cases if they can rely on the collection of Italian museums to update their exhibitions the incentive to buy will disappear”. He quotes as examples two recent loan exhibitions of antiquities to Atlanta, as well as the New York Metropolitan Museum’s rolling loan of twenty Renaissance fresco panels originally from the Loggia Mattei, which will be restored in Italy and installed in their original context until the Met asks for them back.
The first draft of the bill also included post-archaeological art in its provisions, but this provoked a storm of protest from Italy’s arts and museums administrators, in contrast with the archaeological world, which looks on it more favourably.
The most vocal opposition came from Giulio Carlo Argan, former Left Wing mayor of Rome and art historian. He asked: “Which works of art should be sent abroad? The greatest works—Titian, Caravaggio, Veronese—have all to remain in Italian museums. Should we then send third rate works to represent our country abroad? Obviously not!”. He also argued that the law does not require any serious guarantee or reciprocity to secure the loan: “If the borrower does not return the object, what should one do: wage war against him?” Ludicrous as this fear may seem to anyone aware of standard practise in European and U.S. museums, it reflects widespread Italian lack of trust in the rule of law.
Dr Alba Costamagna, member of the Ministerial Advisory Council, not only shared Argan’s fears, but also objected to the fact that the law applied to objects “not permanently exhibited” rather than objects in store. She feared that this could allow “ the emptying of galleries in state museums, which are closed or partially closed for lack of warders, or for refurbishment”. She objected to allowing loans for restoration purposes because she believed that no museum would allow another museum to work on its objects. She also felt that if the panel’s advice was not made binding, there was room for “the whims or abuses of the Minister”. She also thought that the law might allow works of art belonging to “completed, historical collections and donations bound up with a particular building, such as the Torlonia and Corsini collections in Rome, to be wrenched out of context”.
In face of these criticisms, Covatta has amended his draft by restricting its scope to archaeology and clarifying it further. In announcing his revised bill he declares: “It is quite obvious that an element of reciprocity should be introduced, although this should not be limited to exchange of works, but should take other forms; that the technical and scholarly responsibility for restoration and cataloguing of objects remains with the owners of the object, a condition which has never hindered, and will not hinder in the future, useful international scholarly collaboration; that the duration of the loans should be defined on a case by case basis; that the consultation procedure will remain unchanged”. He has also said that he is not against making the ministerial advisory panel’s opinion binding, that he is prepared to accept that foreign archaeological teams should only be allowed to export what they find for five years, and that loans should be withdrawn from institutions which continue to supply themselves from dubious sources. The statutory instrument accompanying the bill clearly reflects these points, as well as referring to general loan conditions.
Covatta’s redraft has not put the controversy to rest. In a move surprising to all those accustomed to the loyalty, impartiality and political detachment of the British Civil Service, his Permanent Secretary Francesco Sisinni is publicly voicing his misgivings. Sisinni wants the six month limit retained and stronger guarantees.
He also argues that archaeological objects cannot be removed from their context and that it is not true that museum stores “are dusty warehouses with piles of all sorts of objects”. He also claims that illegal exports have nothing to do with museums and their stores, but illegal excavation and private collecting.
Dr Angelo Ardovino, Inspector of Archaeology in Milan, echoes these objections. In particular, he believes that the argument that long term loans would discourage illegal trade is “basically highly foolish because most of it is generated by private commissions, not by the museums, nor will the law be able to influence the behaviour of a few crooked curators”. This ignores the symbiosis between private collectors and museums in the United States, where the museums encourage the private collectors, who are their natural constituency and supply the museums with donations in money and kind, until recently encouraged by tax concessions. Dr Ardovino also stresses the importance and organic nature of museum stores.
La Regina rebuts: “There is a daily flow of archaeological material into museums, not simply as a result of the excavations we undertake, but as a result of casual finds. According to the Italian law, anything which is found underground belongs to the State, so that usually most of what emerges in the course of, say, normal building work, is handed over to museums. And Museums do not have the personnel, the equipment and the money to study these objects, which are often important but end up stacked on top of each other. They may well be in the museum’s inventory, but that does not mean they have been studied”.
Dr Ardovino is impatient with these discussions: “We should stop discussing a law doomed to failure”. Professor La Regina remains unruffled, seeing most objections as motivated by “jealousy and narrowmindedness”, and says that all that is necessary is that the law be applied “appropriately and intelligently”.