The Euphronios Krater as a Figure of Heritage Value

James Cuno, an American art historian and the President and CEO of the J. Paul Getty Trust, in his book Who Owns Antiquity? argues that antiquities should not be returned to their countries of origin. He states that there is a distinction between encyclopedic and national museums, with national museums being “…important instruments in the formation of nationalist narratives they are used to tell the story of a nation’s culture and past and confirm its present importance”, and encyclopedic museums displaying their collections as representations of the artistic heritage of the world. “Encyclopedic museums promote the understanding of culture as always fluid, ever changing, ever influenced by new and strange things—evidence of the overlapping diversity of humankind.” The nationalism/internationalism dichotomy has an impact on the discussion about which museums should curate and display cultural property and have the power to define the restitution narratives addressed in the curation.

In stark contrast to the positive way James Cuno thinks about encyclopedic museums, they have often proven to be rooms of plunder and pillage, whereas they once stood for cultural appreciation. Despite that, the notion of an object found on national territory automatically belonging to the state underlies Italy’s point of view, the krater does not seem to have a prominent place in the Italian national identity. In Italian newspapers, the repatriation of the krater received minimal attention. Michael Kimmelman, a journalist from the New York Times, argued that “Italians didn’t seem to care much.” More specifically, Kimmelman stated that the krater’s overexposure may explain why its return did not strike Italians as particularly big news “the media mostly gave the event a pass and the gallery was empty the other afternoon.” However, the Nostoi Capolavori Ritrovati (The Recovered Masterpieces) exhibition, organized for the homecoming of the objects, embodies the idea of belonging. This idea was emphasized in 2015, when it was decided that the krater would be permanently housed in Cerveteri, as it was better to move a work of art to its original place.

Heritage Value

Heritage value highlights the significance, importance, and place an objects holds in society. More specifically, it refers to its cultural significance. Cultural significance can be determined by the values attributed to an object. The historical value of the krater was especially accentuated by the Met as they promoted the vase in the media. Although the historical value of the Euphronios Krater is generally acknowledged and it was mentioned by nearly all sources as being “unique”, little attention has been paid to other aspects of the historical value of the vase, such as the fact that it is signed, an element that marks the beginning of a period where artists appear as self-conscious individuals. Moreover, the Euphronios Krater is not discussed for its style, or as an influential or important work of art. However, it is renowned for its aesthetic value, its uniqueness, and craftsmanship, and in the majority of articles in American and Italian newspapers, it is stressed that the vase is a masterpiece or capolavoro in Italian. The aesthetic quality of the krater is especially stressed by representatives of the Met and also in the Met–Italy agreement, since the restitution of the krater was to involve a trade for a piece of equivalent beauty and significance. The Euphronios Krater was purchased for more than $1 million dollars, one of the highest prices ever paid for an antiquity. The high price points not only to the importance of the artefact defined by the values attributed to it, but also to its contribution to the museum’s cultural capital.

Through the acquisition of the krater, the Met placed itself in a unique position, reinforcing its image as a leading institute in terms of research and collecting. The fact that the krater has been used as cultural capital is demonstrated by the media attention that the Met has sought for itself. The acquisition of the krater gave the Met even more social standing. With the restitution, we might say that the Met lost some of that social standing and inflicted damage on its reputation by owning the krater. With the restitution of the Euphronios Krater, the Met lost one of its highlights. Aaron K. Briggs has emphasized that “the antiquity at stake was not an inconspicuous, unknown piece of comparatively little monetary value. Rather, it was a centerpiece of the Met’s Greek and Roman Galleries.” The scientific value of the artefact has also been debated, as the worth of the antiquity outside of its context has been questioned. The context is considered to be important for understanding the value and the significance of antiquities. The values attributed to the Euphronios Krater by the different stakeholders, the Met and Italy, are all crucial in the debate concerning the ownership. However, the importance given to the significance and values depends on the stakeholders, as each part has different interpretation. The Met highlighted the krater’s historical and aesthetic value, since these values are the ones that will potentially draw visitors to the museum. The historical and aesthetic values of the krater were not given the proper attention by the Italian government and the journalists in the media. In the debate on cultural restitution and ownership, historical and aesthetic values do not cause discordance among the stakeholders. However, we can assume that the historical, aesthetic and scientific value of the krater have been important to Italy as well, otherwise they would not had invested thirty years of pursuing the restitution of the artwork. It is, therefore, more likely that these values have affected the priorities of the culture ministry.

Conclusion

The Euphronios Krater is a figurehead in the battle against illicit trading and has provoked an active debate about ownership and the acquisition policies of museums. The examination of the history of the Euphronios Krater repatriated by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, highlights the complexities surrounding the return of contested cultural property. Its acquisition and the ensuing ownership dispute exemplify the ethical issues surrounding the collecting of ancient artifacts. It illustrates the complexities surrounding the return of contested cultural property. The controversy raised has resulted in drastic changes in the acquisition policies of museums.

It also led to the returns between America and Italy, jeopardizing the idea of the encyclopedic museum and of cultural heritage belonging to all of mankind. Italy’s fight for its ancient heritage highlights the dedication and persistence among source nations to recover lost artefacts, and thus their history and culture. Defenders of encyclopedic museums believe that the universal collections representing the world’s artistic heritage are under attack by governments with nationalist agendas. We may say that the implications and issues raised in connection with the krater controversy can potentially change how museums, nations and the public interpret concepts of ownership and may reduce the role of permanent collections in favor of sharing, rather than possessing, world heritage. Museums and private collectors now have to change their attitudes about how and what is appropriate to collect. Hugh Eakin, editor has stated that, for American museums, collecting antiquities of questionable provenance has come to an end and along with it the system of private collectors and dealers that has been the status quo since the late nineteenth century.