Just here to note that "kut.org" is a pretty funny domain name if you speak Dutch
$35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII
201–210 of 281 posts
Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Germans don't really have any more right to it than she does. Article 56 of the Hague Convention of 1907 disagrees. Stealing art is a war crime. So do the Allies themselves, in their memorandum on January 5th, 1943. > The most likely story of this bust is from the 5th century until the 18th or 19th centuries, it was buried in the ground somewhere in Italy or former Roman empire. Given that the person depicted w…
I guess article 56 of the Hague convention does not apply to the British Museum?
No retrospective application. Hague convention 1907 predates ww2 postdated most acrimonious BM acquisition, noting they repatriate some things (human remains, religious and culturally sensitive objects) and not others (Elgin marbles, bought off the Turks, disputed by the greeks) and the Benin bronzes.
Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII
#203Odd, why is this Roman sculpture being returned to Germany? It’s obviously not a German artifact and while I might be wrong, I assume it was “looted” from Italy.
Are you being serious? The Roman Empire covered Germany and it covered that specific part of Germany (Aschaffenburg) as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
Wrong link, I think: "Not to be confused with Roman Empire, Western Roman Empire, or Byzantine Empire."
The actual Roman Empire seems to have only just reached Aschaffenburg.
Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII
#204Back at home, Young had a problem: She was in possession of a looted piece of ancient art. She couldn't keep it. She couldn't sell it. And giving it back to its rightful owners was a lot harder than it sounds. “At that point, I realized I was probably going to need some help,” Young says. “I was probably going to need an attorney.” So she hired a lawyer in New York who specializes in international art law, Leila Amin…
No good deed goes unpunished
Just like trying to report a security vulnerability to a company in good faith, you are often better off just publishing it anonymously even if it is worse for the company.
Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possession and sale of stolen goods is not legal, just not a crime unless you are aware it's stolen/likely stolen.
Genuinely curious, what if something is sold three times? Imagine a collector's edition book - Say it's stolen, then a month later it's listed on FB Marketplace, then the buyer re-lists it on ebay, then that ebay buyer sells it to a pawn shop. Does the person who was robbed still have a right to the book? Or are there special laws for the consideration of historical artifacts?
In German law, buying it in good faith gives you unassailable ownership rights.
Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII
#206Odd, why is this Roman sculpture being returned to Germany? It’s obviously not a German artifact and while I might be wrong, I assume it was “looted” from Italy.
> Odd, why is this Roman sculpture being returned to Germany?
Because the museum was the rightful owner of the piece.
> It’s obviously not a German artifact and while I might be wrong, I assume it was “looted” from Italy.
To start with, Italy has been actively looted by Italians since at least the later part of the Middle Ages, but more actively from the Renaissance onwards. A lot of the pieces you see in other countries, and I'm quite certain this one fits the bill, were just traded privately between aristocrats for centuries. And that's assuming it's from Italy at all, it could just as well have been found in German soil. Germany happens to host a few major Roman cities.
Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII
#207Odd, why is this Roman sculpture being returned to Germany? It’s obviously not a German artifact and while I might be wrong, I assume it was “looted” from Italy.
You generaly loot from occupied territories, not from peer nations. If Britain invades and occupies Egypt, and starts digging up artifacts that end up on a British museum, that's looting. If some Frenchman digs up some artifacts in France, and then sells/trades/gives them to a British museum, that's not looting. Because the sale/trade/gift is not done at gunpoint. In this case, if the artifact was not plundered from…
> If some Frenchman digs up some artifacts in France, and then sells/trades/gives them to a British museum, that's not looting
According to French law, it is both looting and traficking ;) We have a different approach to it than the British.
Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII
#208> She was in possession of a looted piece of ancient art. She couldn't keep it. I don't understand. Museums in the West are full of looted ancient art [1]. Why are they allowed to keep it, but this woman cannot keep this one item? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/learning/should-museums-r...
The Louvre is basically all looted art from Napolean's wars.
[deleted]
Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Germans don't really have any more right to it than she does. Article 56 of the Hague Convention of 1907 disagrees. Stealing art is a war crime. So do the Allies themselves, in their memorandum on January 5th, 1943. > The most likely story of this bust is from the 5th century until the 18th or 19th centuries, it was buried in the ground somewhere in Italy or former Roman empire. Given that the person depicted w…
I guess article 56 of the Hague convention does not apply to the British Museum?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_(cultural_propert...
It does, but international law doesn't work like national law. Who are you goig to sue? The British Museum? The United Kingdom? The Crown? Under whose jurisdiction? Sure, you can prove that the British Museum outright admits a given artefact's origin but how do you establish rightful ownership? It's not enough to prove that something was stolen, you also need to prove who the rightful owner would be, possibly generations after the initial theft.
And if the British Museum (or the Crown, or the UK) flat out says no, what are you going to do? The US infamously established that it will invade The Hague if any US citizen is ever put in front of the Human Rights tribunal, but even without such blatant threats it's difficult to coerce anyone under international law if their own nation refuses to comply. You can try to propose sanctions but there's no "international community", you just have a whole bunch of politicians representing different nations voting on things and they likely don't care about those artefacts enough to do anything especially things that would damage their already subdued economies.
Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
She deserves a payout because she spent money a on lawyer to get a payout? That seems circular.
She specifically stated this in her article, > She was in possession of a looted piece of ancient art. She couldn't keep it. She couldn't sell it. And giving it back to its rightful owners was a lot harder than it sounds. Why are you building up a false narrative?
The art was looted far before it ever came into that museum's possession.