Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T11:23:06.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of Judicial Decisions and Patrimony Laws on the Price of Italian Antiquities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2012

Cameron Semmes Stoll
Cameron Semmes Stoll
Affiliation:
Warren & Sinkler LLP, Charleston, South Carolina, USA. Email: Cameron.Stoll@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While practitioners of the legal and art and culture industries have traditionally believed their businesses to be independent of the other, the escalating battle over the repatriation of cultural property teaches otherwise. The antiquities market has flourished despite the increase in litigation surrounding some works and the number of works repatriated in recent years, making interdisciplinary study of the market more relevant and necessary than ever. This study establishes that the number of antiquities sold with legally- significant provenance information is steadily increasing as a result of the legal environment. Also, these objects are less risky and therefore sell for higher prices than works with no recorded history of ownership. Finally, evidence indicates that the occurrence of a legal event causes a slight, short drop in the market, followed by a significant rise in prices for the objects with reliable provenance information. In the end, the auction market for Italian antiquities is inexorably linked to activities that have ramifications for the legality of collecting these works.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , February 2012 , pp. 65 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Association of Art Museum Directors. Report of the AAMD Task Force on the Acquisition of Archaeological Materials and Ancient Art (Revised 2008). Association of Art Museum Directors web site. ⟨http://aamd.org/newsroom/documents/2008ReportAndRelease.pdf⟩ (4 June 2008) accessed 27 January 2012.Google Scholar
Bischoff, Dan. “Deal Life: This Old Art.” Daily Deal (25 September 2006).Google Scholar
Coolidge, Carrie. “Ancient History For Sale.” Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/29/antiquities-collectors-steinhardt-biz-cz_cc_1229antiquity.html (29 December 2006) accessed 21 January 2012.Google Scholar
Gerstenblith, Patty. “United States Implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention.” Art & Cultural Heritage Law Newsletter (American Bar Association Section of International Law) 2, no. 1 (Summer 2010): 11. http://www.hahnloeser.com/references/1306.pdf accessed 27 January 2012.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adam. “Reaffirming McClain: The National Stolen Property Act and the Abiding Trade in Looted Cultural Objects.” UCLA Law Review 53, no. 4 (April 2006): 1031–1071.Google Scholar
Holub, H. W., Hutter, M., and Tappeiner, G.. “Light and Shadow in Art Price Computation.” Journal of Cultural Economics 17, no. 1 (1993): 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Institute for the Unification of Private Law. UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, Rome 1995. ⟨http://www.unidroit.org/english/conventions/1995culturalproperty/1995culturalproperty-e.pdf⟩ accessed 12 January 2012.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, S. R. M.Going, Going, Gone: Regulating the Market in Illicit Antiquities. Leicester: Institute of Art and Law, 2005.Google Scholar
Markoulakis, Nikolaos. “Nόστοι-Nostoi Exhibition.” Sparta: Journal of Ancient Spartan and Greek History. ⟨http://www.sparta.markoulakispublications.org.uk/index.php?id=197⟩ (16 September 2008) accessed 18 January 2012.Google Scholar
Meyer, Karl E. “Who (Really) Owns the Past?” World Policy Journal 23, no. 1 (Spring 2006). ⟨http://www.worldpolicy.newschool.edu/journal/articles/wpj06–2/Coda.pdf⟩ accessed 22 November 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, Sue J. “The Cultural Property Regime in Italy: An Industrialized Source Nation's Difficulties in Retaining and Recovering Its Antiquities.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law 23 (Winter 2002): 931–954.Google Scholar
Russell, Heather. “Western Antiques: The Past Year Has Seen a Concerted Effort by Auction Houses and Dealers to Put Past Troubles in the Market Behind Them, and Concentrate on Well-Provenanced Objects of High Quality.” Apollo Magazine, December 2004. ⟨http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Western+antiques%3A+the+past+year+has+seen+a+concerted+effort+by…-a0126194880⟩ accessed 23 January 2012.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. Wealth of Nations. Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1991.Google Scholar
Sproule, Robert, and Valsan, Calin. “Hedonic Models and Pre-Auction Estimates: Abstract Art Revisited.” Economics Bulletin 26, no. 5 (2006). ⟨http://www.accessecon.com/pubs/EB/2006/Volume26/EB-06Z10132A.pdf⟩ accessed 3 December 2011.Google Scholar
Sydell, Laura. “Getty Museum Strikes Deal to Surrender Antiquities.” NPR-All Things Considered. ⟨http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12428709⟩ (2 August 2007) accessed 7 November 2011.Google Scholar
UNESCO. “Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict Done at the Hague, on 14 May 1954.” App. I In The International and National Protection of Movable Cultural Property: A Comparative Study, by Sharon A. Williams, 203. Dobbs Ferry: Oceana, 1978.Google Scholar
UNESCO. Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Paris: UNESCO, 1970. ⟨http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html⟩ accessed 3 December 2012.Google Scholar
United States Department of State Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. “Italy.” ⟨http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/itfact.html⟩ accessed 10 January 2012.Google Scholar
United States Department of the Treasury. “Extension and Amendment to the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Italy Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Categories of Archaeological Material Representing the Pre-Classical, Classical and Imperial Roman Periods of Italy.” ⟨http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/itfact/pdfs/it2006mouext.pdf⟩ (26 January 2006) accessed 12 January 2012.Google Scholar
United States Department of the Treasury. “Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological Material Originating in Italy and Representing the Pre-Classical, Classical, and Imperial Roman Periods,” Federal Register 71, no. 12 (19 January 2006). ⟨https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2006/01/19/06-528/extension-of-import-restrictions-imposed-on-archaeological-material-originating-in-italy-and⟩ accessed 12 January 2012.Google Scholar
United States Department of the Treasury. “Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological Material Originating in Italy and Representing the Pre-Classical, Classical, and Imperial Roman Periods.” Federal Register Notice 23 January 2001; 66(15): 7399–7402. ⟨http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/itfact/pdfs/it2001dlfrn.pdf⟩ accessed 20 January 2012.Google Scholar
Vincent, Steven. “Stealth Fighter: The Secret War of Maria Kouroupas.” Art & Auction 63 (March 2002): 63.Google Scholar
Vincent, Steven. “Ancient Treasures for Sale: Do Antique Dealers Preserve the Past or Steal It?” Reason Magazine (April 2005): 1–7. ⟨http://www.reason.com/news/show/36567.html⟩ accessed 19 January 2012.Google Scholar
Vincent, Steven. “Do Antique Dealers Preserve the Past or Steal It?” Reason Magazine, April 2005. ⟨http://reason.com/archives/2005/04/01/ancient-treasures-for-sale⟩ accessed 19 January 2012.Google Scholar