Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:14:15.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Illicit antiquities and international litigation–the Turkish experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Janet Blake
Janet Blake*
Affiliation:
School of Law, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In March, we discussed the founding of the Illicit Antiquities Research Centre (IARC) at the McDonald Institute in Cambridge (ANTIQUITY 72: 4–5). Here we publish a contribution towards the debate on the theft of antiquities from Turkey and their acquisition by museums in the USA. Turkey has long had an active policy in fighting cases for restitution of its heritage, and Janet Blake describes their success.

Keywords

Turkeyillicit antiquitiesart theftlawauction-housesMetropolitian MuseumGoldbergBoston Museum of Fine ArtsUNIDROITUNESCO
Type
Notes
Information
Antiquity , Volume 72 , Issue 278 , December 1998 , pp. 824 - 830
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1998

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

Acar, Ö. & Kaylan, M. 1998. The hoard of the century, Connoisseur (July): 74–83.Google Scholar
Acar, Ö. & Kaylan, M. 1990. The Turkish connexion — an investigative report on the smuggling of classical antiquities, Connoisseur (October): 130–37.Google Scholar
Acar, Ö. & Rose, M. 1995. Turkey’s war on the illicit antiquities trade, Archaeology (March/April): 45–56.Google Scholar
Antonova, I., Treister, M. & Tolstikov, V. (ed.). 1996. The gold of Troy. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Bator, P.M. 1982. An essay on the international trade in art, Stanford Law Review 34.2: 275–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bibas, S. 1996. The case against statutes of limitations for stolen art, International Journal of Cultural Property 5: 73–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, J. 1997. Export embargoes and the international antiquities market — the Turkish experience, Art, Antiquity and Law 2(3): 233–50.Google Scholar
Boylan, P. 1993. Treasure trove with strings attached, The Independent 9 November.Google Scholar
Byrne-Sutton, Q. 1992. A confirmation of the difficulty in acquiring good title to valuable stolen cultural objects, International Journal of Cultural Property: 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carradice, I. (ed.). 1987. Coinage and Administration in the Athenian and Persian Empires, Ninth Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International series S343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, J. 1993. Evolving US Case law on cultural property, International Journal of Cultural Property 2: 47–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clement, E. 1994. The 1970 UNESCO Convention, International Criminal Police Review 448/449: 71–5.Google Scholar
Coggins, C.C. 1969. Illicit traffic of pre-Columbian antiquities, Art Journal 29: 94–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coggins, C.C. 1995. A licit international traffic in ancient art : let there be light!, International Journal of Cultural Property: 4: 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. 1992. Explanatory Report to the Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (revised) . (Malta, January 1992): Doc.MPC (919) 8 ; treaty text — ETS 143.Google Scholar
Çilingiroglu, A. & Umar, B. 1990. Eski Eserler Hukuku (Ancient Monuments Law). Ankara: Ankara Universitesi Basimevi.Google Scholar
Des Portes, E. 1994. Traffic in cultural property — a priority target for museum professionals, International Criminal Police Review 448/449: 79–83.Google Scholar
Easton, D.P. 1994. Priam’s gold: the full story, Anatolian Studies 44: 221–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Economist. 1991. The Lydian Hoard — and so to court, Economist (30 March) 318: 116.Google Scholar
Eyster, J. 1996. United States v Pre-Columbian artifacts and the Republic of Guatemala: expansion of the National Stolen Property Act in its application to illegally exported cultural property, 5:1 International Criminal Police Review 5(1): 185–92.Google Scholar
Gerstenblith, P. 1995. The Kanakaria mosaics and United States law — on the restitution of stolen and illegally exported cultural property, in Tubbs, (ed.): 105–20.Google Scholar
Greeenfield, J. 1989. The return of cultural treasures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gutchen, M.A. 1983. The destruction of archaeological resources in Belize, Central America, Journal of Field Archaeology 10: 217–27.Google Scholar
Kaye, L. 1995. The view from the Bosphorous, paper delivered at Art Theft and its Control Conference, London, 14–15 November 1995.Google Scholar
Kaye, L. & Main, C.T. 1995. The saga of the Lydian hoard : from Ushak to New York and back again, in Tubbs, (ed.): 150–62.Google Scholar
Madran, E. 1989. The restoration and preservation of historical monuments in Turkey (from the Ottoman Empire to the Republic of Turkey). Unpublished, Ankara, c. 1989.Google Scholar
Merryman, J.H. 1994. The nation and the object, International Journal of Cultural Property 3: 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merryman, J.H. 1995. A licit international trade in cultural objects, International Journal of Cultural Property 4: 13–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J.S. 1988. Enforcing foreign ownership claims in the antiquities market, Yale Law Journal 97: 466–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyes, J. 1997. Art dealers fight to save tarnished image, The Independent 7 February.Google Scholar
Norman, G. 1990. The sale of the century, The Independent 24 November.Google Scholar
Norman, G. 1993. Talking Turkey, The Independent 13 June.Google Scholar
O’Keefe, P.J. Feasibility study of an international code of ethics for dealers in cultural property for the purpose of more effective control of illicit traffic in cultural property. Report for UNESCO (Paris, May 1994) Doc. CLT-94/WS/11.Google Scholar
O’Keefe, P.J. & Prott, L.V. 1989. Law and the cultural heritage 3. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
Pope, H. 1994. Turkish jubilation over return of ancient sarcophagus, The Independent 24 April.Google Scholar
Prott, L.V. Problems in private international law for the protection of the cultural heritage, Receuìls de Cours 5: 224–317.Google Scholar
Prott, L.V. 1997. Commentary on the UNIDROIT Convention. Leicester: Institute of Art Law.Google Scholar
Sandrock, O. 1985. Foreign laws regulating export of cultural property: the respect due to the Lex Fori, in Lalive, P. (ed.), International sales of works of art. Geneva: Geneva Workshop, Institute of Business Law and Practice.Google Scholar
Shaw, E.K. & Shaw, S.J. 1977. A history of the Ottoman empire and modern Turkey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traill, D.A. Schliemann’s mendacity; a question of methodology, Anatolian Studies 36: 91–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tubbs, K.W. (ed.). 1995. Antiquities trade and betrayed — legal, ethical and conservation issues . London: Archetype Publications.Google Scholar