|
Illicit Antiquities |
How the Goddess lost her head: the myth and reality of the looting of Butrint|Oliver J. GilkesInstitute of World Archaeology
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
A recurrent theme of popular folklore concerning foreign archaeological missions working in the Mediterranean is the illegal removal of finds. Stories of this kind range from the true exploits of larger-than-life characters such as Lord Elgin and his assistants in Greece (St Clair 1998) and Giovanni Belzoni in Egypt (Trigger 1989), through to the activities of well-constituted scientific missions of the 1920s and 30s. In many cases the archaeologists concerned have not helped themselves in this matter. Sir Leonard Woolley, for example, filled his books with a series of stories of how he managed to hoodwink the Italian and Turkish authorities and make off with choice pieces (Woolley 1954; 1962). The end of colonialism and the politicization of the past have reinforced this idea in the modern era. Many of the archaeologists of the past are seen as opposing in some fashion the establishment of local national identities; thus, for example, Elgin is demonized in Greece. In the mind of the general public of those countries actually involved in acquisition this concept has also taken root. Witness the activities of Indiana Jones in securing antiquities for his clients. Obviously each case must be taken on its own merits. Here I intend to examine the Butrint sculptures from Albania. This is an instance where the myth has obscured the unpleasant reality, and as a consequence has deflected attention from the present sad situation of theft from museums and archaeological sites. Butrint 1928: the fifth shoreThe Italian Archaeological Mission to Albania was established in 1924 under the aegis of the Italian Foreign Ministry. It was one element of a programme intended to extend Italian hegemony to the eastern Adriatic — the ‘fifth shore’ of Italy — the others being in Italy itself and Libya (Gilkes & Miraj 2000). Political in its conception, the mission also adapted its strategy to embrace the nationalist concepts that had been adopted by the fascist regime, Romanità and Italianità (Gilkes & Miraj 2000; Petricoli 1990; Zevi 1986). Albania had been a brief cause celèbre in the earlier career of Benito Mussolini (Mussolini 1920). Nevertheless the mission’s first director, the young and able Luigi Ugolini (Fig. 1), while a supporter of the regime, clearly had his own agenda which he managed to dovetail with political necessity to pursue a solid programme of high-quality research.
The initial efforts by the Italians, however, were far from promising. To exploit Albanian nationalist sentiment, Ugolini worked at Phoenicê, in the southern prefecture of Gjirokastra, between 1925 and 1927, where it was hoped that prehistoric graves would be discovered that could then be attributed to the Iron Age Illyrians, seen in Albania as the country’s historic ancestors (ASME AP 1919–30; 1924, 723/1). While interesting, the finds themselves were hardly stunning, though Ugolini made major efforts to talk them up by emphasizing the sheer scale of this vast classical site (e.g. ‘One of the largest acropoli of the classical world’, in Il Popolo d’Italia 9/11/1933). In December 1927 it was decided to shift the focus of the mission some 30 km south to the coastal site of Butrint. This beautifully positioned city featured in Vergil’s account of the journey of Aeneas from Troy to Italy, and thus was a more suitable focus for the growing preoccupation with the Roman past. Ugolini was to dig here until his early death in 1936, but his successors, Pirro Marconi, Domenico Mustilli and Igino Epicoco continued the work until 1943. Excavations in 1928 focused on a number of points around the site where ancient masonry could be seen amongst the tangled vegetation. Whilst work continued in a number of areas, one particular site quickly produced the sort of treasure that would make major headlines. A fine group of marble statues was recovered from the liquefied mud at the bottom of a trench in the theatre (Fig. 2). The discovery was quickly announced to the Foreign Ministry, and a flood of newspaper articles, newsreel films and lectures over the following two years capitalized on the discovery. The full excavation of the theatre would take until 1932 (Miraj forthcoming).
The sculptures that were finally brought to light consisted of eighteen statues, or fragments of statues, most of which must have formed part of the decoration of the theatre complex. Principal amongst these were five large torsos, three female and two of cuirassed males, one signed by the Athenian sculptor Sosikles. A statue of the ‘Grande Ercolanese’ type accompanied these. There were also fine portrait busts of Augustus, Agrippa, ‘Livia’ and a very fine bust of Apollo, the so-called Goddess of Butrint, of the Anzio type (Bergemann 1998; Papadopoulos 1996) (Fig. 3). The fine workmanship and intact nose of this latter piece marked it out as something special. The Italians reconstructed the ruinous castle of the Venetian Captain of Butrint on the rocky acropolis of the city to accommodate these and other finds and a museum was fully open by 1940 (ASME AP 1931–45; 1938 Busta 90/7) (Fig. 4).
The Anglo-Albanian archaeological project at Butrint that was initiated in 1993 is supported by the Butrint Foundation with the aims of researching and preserving Butrint. Its work is closely allied to the question of the fate of the finds made during the interwar period, and has drawn heavily on the research foundation laid by the Italians. However, initially much was doubtful. Only two volumes of the final reports on the Italian work were published before World War II and the remaining manuscripts, notes and drawings were placed in storage and believed lost, until they were rediscovered by an archive research programme supported by the Butrint Foundation. Thus much that was supposedly known about the work of the Italians was in fact myth. For example, it was persistently reported that the whole archive had perished with Pirro Marconi in a plane crash in 1938 or that Ugolini had died of malaria contracted at Butrint (in fact Ugolini died of kidney failure). The most persistent myth, however, was that the Italians had made off with the finds from the excavation, and that the supposed donation of the Goddess of Butrint by King Zog to Mussolini was in fact a compromise to cover up an attempted theft. This alleged theft was elaborated in the xenophobic atmosphere of Enver Hoxha’s post-war communist government. The ‘theft’ was well publicized: ‘The fascists destroyed the antique sculpture, and stole the marble heads found in various temples before they left the country.’ (Commentary from the film New Albania 1948, AKF, Tirana.) Given its prominence as a piece of sculpture and a symbol, the Goddess has taken centre-stage. It is, for example, the logo of the town of Saranda, whose football team is named Butrint United, and has been used on the labels of wine produced at nearby Delvina as well as featuring on bar and hotel signs. This symbol, it is alleged, was coveted by Ugolini and hidden by him in a crate in order to ship it secretly to Italy. Fortunately, the story goes, a zealous customs officer insisted on opening the crate and caught Ugolini in the act. Naturally a major diplomatic incident might be expected to have followed. However, at this time relations between Italy and Albania were improving. King Zog had ascended the throne with Italian assistance in 1927, and as a consequence, in order to cover up a scandal, Zog ‘donated’ the Goddess to Mussolini and it was shipped to Italy where it remained until its return in 1982 (Ceka 2001). This tale has been related to the present writer on a number of occasions, and has been recently used by Albanian journalists (Peza 1999). The episode has even been the subject of a novel by Teodor Laço, Korba Mbi Mermere (Blackbirds over the Marbles), published in 1987 under the communist regime. The Albanians have a certain justification for their suspicions. Roberto Paribeni, the Director of the National Roman Museum, whilst actually negotiating the archaeological accord with Albania, attempted to convince the foreign ministry to permit him to smuggle a small archaic statuette from the consulate at Vlora to Italy using the diplomatic bag (ASME 1924, Pacco 723/4, 11,14). Ugolini quickly came under suspicion following the start of excavations at Butrint. In March 1928 the Gendarmerie station at Delvina reported that some finds had been consigned to the government, but they were unsure exactly what as there was no official to check the inventory. Following the 1928 excavation season Ugolini expressed concern for the safety of the finds and arranged for them to be shipped to Tirana (ASME AP 1919–30; 1928, Pacco 768/16). This, however, was effected without the presence of an Albanian official as required by the accord. Criticism appeared in the newspapers (ASME AP 1919–30; 1928, Pacco 768/21; AQS F295 D75 V1928) and the story of the attempted theft was born. Ugolini was exonerated by an official Albanian report on this matter in July 1928 that also recommended him for a medal, while urging that the government send a representative to Butrint for future seasons. Ugolini had clearly tried to be as correct as possible. He had invited the prefect of Gjirokastra and his friends over to Butrint for lunch and a guided tour on 6 July. The report on this visit (AQS F295 D75 V1928/100) noted that the prefect had taken into custody some of the smaller finds, but that they had deliberately left the statues for Ugolini to deal with. The Gendarmerie post at Konispoli, on the Albanian–Greek frontier, subsequently telegraphed to Tirana in November 1928 that they had heard that ‘something’ had been stolen from the finds at Butrint by the Italians over the summer and again urged that an official representative be appointed (AQS F295 D75 V1928). From the Italian side there is merely a file of documents in the State Archives in Rome amongst the papers of Mussolini’s private secretary concerning the donation of the Goddess of Butrint, and its consignment to the care of the same Roberto Paribeni. This time there is no suggestion that the acquisition was other than a diplomatic gift, perhaps as the result of a suggestion to Zog by Ugolini (ACDS Papers of the Segretaria Particolare del Duce 5.2.6623). In 1929 and 1930 Albanian officials did visit the excavations. They reported on the difficulties of living at Butrint, and the official visiting in 1930 was forced to sleep in a grimy shepherd’s hut as the Italian quarters were out of bounds to Albanians. His report, however, is generally favourable. He observed crates of skulls being prepared for transport to Italy, indeed Ugolini specifically told him their destination, but he gave no sign that anything was amiss (AQS F250, V1932, D82, F7–12). In 1931 a regular official was appointed to work with Ugolini. This was Hasan Ceka, a Vienna-trained archaeologist who in the post-war period was to become more or less the founder of modern Albanian archaeology. Ceka visited for extended periods in the 1930s and wrote extensive reports on the Italian activities that have survived (AQS F295 D107 V1932; AQS F295 D170 V1933). Both his surviving accounts incorporate extensive criticisms of the Italians and their methods. Ceka noted that the Italians maintained an exclusive enclave in the castle for themselves; that he was not allowed to inventory finds properly; that the workers were forced to work on feast days, something prohibited by the accord; that the Italians flew Italian flags and generally treated Butrint as part of Italy. The Italians probably did act in what would now be considered a very high-handed and colonial fashion, in common with other foreign missions of this time elsewhere (Wheeler 1954). The main charge came with the allegations that ‘something’ had been stolen. Ceka reported how, in 1933, the director of customs at the port of Saranda had prevented Ugolini from loading crates onto an Italian ship, which he believed would then sail straight to Italy with the finds, and instead insisted that they be sent to Durrës (AQS F295 D170 V1933/3–4). This is clearly the origin of part of the Goddess story. He also reported that the workmen had told him that certain things had been found which could not now be accounted for. He listed numerous items including objects from the cemetery, a bust carved from ‘crystal’ and a marble stele carved with the figure of a victory, the Nike of Butrint. Much of this is merely hearsay. As Ceka reported to Tirana, ‘It is difficult to prove the thefts of the archaeological mission if we rely solely on public opinion . . . everyone has heard that the Italian mission steals the finds, but none has seen it directly . . .’ (AQS F295 V1931 D107 F80). Ceka recounted how the workmen, fearing for their jobs, refused to speak out, or had only heard news of missing items from others (AQS F250, V1932, D82, F7–12). The Prefect of Gjirokastra also reported further suggestions of wrongdoing to Tirana in July 1932. Presumably in the absence of Ceka, he wrote to the Secret Office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to say that a specialist was required to assess the value of the objects being recovered, and that in the meantime the local Gendarmes had been requested to ‘keep an eye’ on matters (AQS F295 V1931 C1932 D107 F80). While it is impossible to control rumour at this distance of time, there are certain elements here which can be checked. The Nike of Butrint had been found in 1930 by the Butrint Channel, and, as Ceka reported, had been purchased by Ugolini from the finder. Ugolini, however, had once again informed the local officials, writing to a Mr Menegou in the prefect’s office on 16 May 1930 to announce the discovery and his intention of moving the stele to Butrint (MCR Ug60 AQS F295 V1928 D75 P5). Regarding the problems with the customs in 1933, an obviously exasperated Ugolini wrote a long letter of complaint to Egrem Bey Dibhova, the Minister of the Royal Household. He listed a number of abuses, including gendarmes at the excavations who were obstructive, and stole bread intended for the workmen, and then excessive checking of the departing missions personnel belongings: ‘they checked our baggage minutely, looked inside our shoes, even unwound our socks’ . . . ‘And all this because the chief of the customs thinks that the mission is carrying away . . . The Treasures’ . . . ‘I make no comment, except to add that . . . to my enquiries the customs officials responded "these are the orders we have received from our superiors"’ (AQS F205 V1933 D209 F61–6). In this latter statement we may find the true reason for the accusations levelled at the Italian archaeologists. Following 1931, Italo-Albanian relations deteriorated as Zog attempted to free his country from the tightening noose of economic and political control from Rome (Fischer 1984; Vickers 1995). Italian advisers were withdrawn from the country and Albania was left to fend for itself with periodic episodes of ‘sabre rattling’ by the Italians. In this climate it is surprising that the archaeological mission was permitted to function at all, though the cunning Albanian King may have viewed Ugolini and his colleagues as a harmless presence that could be used as a link to rebuild relations if required. In this context, gendarmes, customs and even archaeological representatives may have been encouraged to find difficulties. These certainly continued for the archaeologists. In 1935 Ceka removed finds from one of the storerooms into his keeping, presumably intending to prevent them from being taken to Italy. The Italians were convinced that this action occurred at the behest of higher authority (ASME AP 1931–45; 1935 Busta 60). A further and more intangible element may have been a certain conflict of personality between Ceka and Ugolini. Both were strong-willed, ambitious and patriotic men and Ceka was clearly unhappy, as were many other Albanians, with the Italian presence. Some rather caustic comments arising from the 1935 incident, where Ceka was referred to as ‘a type of Albanian archaeologist’ suggest a degree of personal animosity (ASME AP 1931–35; 1935 Busta 60). The period of frosty relations lasted until 1936, when Galeazzo Ciano became Italian Foreign Minister. He quickly moved to improve contacts between the countries, but this was merely a ruse as he was actively manoeuvring to annex the country, an event that finally occurred in April 1939. The four years of Italian occupation do not appear to have resulted in any more deliberate looting than had occurred hitherto. Three statues from Butrint — the presumed torso of the Goddess, the ‘Grande Ercolanese’ minus her face which remained in Tirana, and the cuirassed warrior of Sosikles — were loaned to the Albanian pavilion of the Mostra del’Oltremare in Naples during 1940. The war prevented their return and in 1943, along with other exhibits, they were ‘completely pulverised’ (Arch. M. R. Zuccaro pers. comm.) as a result of the allied bombardment of Naples (Fig. 5).
The communist government of Albania lasted for 47 years. During this time Enver Hoxha forged Albania into a united country for the first time. Part of his programme relied firmly on archaeological work to provide a philosophical underpinning of his government, as elsewhere in the Balkans (Bejko 1998; Kaiser 1995). Museums were an integral element of this national programme and they mushroomed in all major towns (Fig. 6).
Underlying Hoxha’s programme was the need to create a solid national identity, and a programme was developed in which archaeology was to play a crucial role. To forward this aim he was prepared to build on the tiny cadre of existing Albanian archaeologists and historians, Hasan Ceka, Skender Anamali and Aleks Buda, even overlooking past involvement with Zog’s otherwise anathematized regime. The chosen theme was that of Albanian continuity from the prehistoric Illyrians, a hypothesis that had been under discussion as a political and scientific idea since the later nineteenth century (Wilkes 1992). The development of this line of research can be seen in Hoxha’s own words, ranging from the tolerant ‘Our country ought to have something to offer its scholars, who must put all their energies into making archaeological research that permits us to illustrate the history of our ancient people’ (Hoxha, extract from the visitors book of the National Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography 1948) to the extreme ‘You scientists, archaeologists, must make accurate studies. What is Illyrian is Illyrian, what is Roman or Greek is Roman or Greek . . .’ (Baçe & Çondi 1987, 9) which was the official view propounded during a visit to Butrint in 1978. The turning point in this philosophical development happened following the 1961 split with the Soviet Union. Hoxha’s own paranoia led to Albanian archaeologists turning increasingly to nationalist paradigms to feed the party line. Butrint remained relatively neglected until after 1978. The museum still existed, though some of the finds were in Tirana. Virtually all of the smaller objects found by the Italians that had been displayed in the castle at Butrint had been stolen after 1943 (Dhimosten Budina pers. comm.), leaving the larger sculpture and statues. In 1978, following a visit by Hoxha, the decision was taken to expand the facilities at the site as a tourist destination and to use Butrint as the training ground for new archaeology students who undertook a field school there in 1982. A reconstructed museum was projected, but was not completed before 1989. New illuminated display cases, with specially made information panels, held a profusion of smaller finds from post-war excavations, whilst the old Italian courtyard was once again filled with statues and sculpture. The new museum was open for barely three years. In 1990–91 the last communist government fell amidst riots and chaos. Symbols of the state, including offices, factories and collective farms, were smashed or broken up by a nationwide implosion of discontent. Hundreds of thousands of Albanians began to leave the country. Amidst the increasing chaos the country’s cultural heritage suffered. The national ethnographic museum in Tirana was sacked, and lost most of its finely crafted antique furniture and firearms. The Museum of Arms at Gjirokastra was robbed, again for its antique firearms, and the museum at Butrint was selectively looted of a number of pieces of sculpture, notably a number of marble busts. The perpetrators of this theft have never been identified, and while some of the sculpture has been relocated, it remains impounded in Greece for bureaucratic reasons. Some of the other material was subsequently removed to Tirana for safekeeping. For one stolen item there was a happier fate. The head of ‘Livia’ was one of the original sculptures found by Ugolini in the theatre in 1928 (Fig. 7). It is a fine piece, carved in Luna marble, of a female head, that clearly formed an element of the imperial portrait group that had been displayed in the theatre as part of the Augustan colony founded at Butrint. It had apparently been stored in Butrint since its discovery. While the exact method of its removal from the museum and route out of Albania are unknown, its subsequent history is now comparatively well-documented, for Livia found her way to Switzerland where she was to stay for the next nine years.
Around 1995 Livia was purchased by Mr Robert Hecht, a New York art dealer, who offered the piece for sale. A short catalogue of antiquities From a North American Collection of Ancient Art included a ‘Roman marble portrait of Livia (58 bc–ad 29), wife of Augustus’. All the objects in the sale were unprovenanced though they were noted as belonging ‘to a collection formed over the last forty years’. At this point two separate individuals identified the head. Dr Elizabeth Bartmann in New York has made a study of portraits of Livia and recognized it at once from the catalogue. She wrote straight away to the Albanian Embassy in Washington. At about the same time Mr Hecht offered the head to the Glyptothek Museum in Munich where the Director also recognized it as being the Butrint piece and contacted the German police. On being informed that this was in fact a stolen piece Mr Hecht withdrew it from the market. With the authorities thus alerted, some action to facilitate its recovery might have been expected: in fact, nothing whatsoever occurred. Livia remained in Switzerland and was listed as stolen by Interpol, while the Albanian Embassy and the German police apparently took no action at all. Matters may have remained thus but for the chance meeting of academics in the United States in 2000, when Professor Richard Hodges was told of Bartman’s identification. Thereafter the matter was taken up by Dr Iris Pojani, Director of the International Centre for Albanian Archaeology and other Albanian authorities who contacted Mr Hecht directly. A generous offer to return the head followed and on 3 November 2000 Livia returned to Tirana. Butrint 1997: the end of a museumIn 1997 there was a further period of civil disturbance, this time prompted by the collapse of pyramid investment schemes. Southern Albania revolted against the government in Tirana, which was perceived as responsible for the loss of people’s savings. Once again state enterprises were looted. The museum at Butrint was definitively broken into, its display units smashed, and more finds, including another haul of sculpture that had survived the 1992 efforts, stolen. This material remains missing and four years on the situation of dilapidation and loss remains the same. Looting has also begun of a number of other archaeological sites. At Phoenicê, the ancient capital of the Epirot League, for example, the steep hillside is pitted with dozens of recently dug holes. A new Italo-Albanian accord to excavate at the site, and the establishment of a small ranger group funded by the George H. and Jane A. Mifflin Memorial Fund, may stabilize the situation. At Butrint there has only been one isolated example of illegal excavation within the city. Nevertheless it is clear that finds are being made in the vicinity, partly no doubt through the massive increase in building activity in the area, but some perhaps as the results of deliberate prospection. Museum collections too continue to suffer losses. British newspapers reported in 1996 and 1997 how visiting VIPs had been given items taken from national collections (e.g. The Times 8/3/1997). Interest in this story soon died when its party political relevance was exhausted. During the civil unrest of 1997 the Museum of Arms at Gjirokastra was again targeted, though this time looters were interested in the Second World War small arms that might conceivably be made operational. The curator saved part of the collections by placing them in a room that she concealed behind a large socialist realist painting. Since the restoration of civil order the depressing condition of Albania’s cultural and archaeological sites has been alleviated to some degree. At Butrint a grant from the World Bank International Development Fund has permitted the creation of an effective and functioning national park administration for Butrint and its environs. Butrint is now well publicized within Albania, and is the venue of various cultural events and the destination of ever-increasing numbers of domestic and foreign tourists. An element of this programme has involved the creation of a park ranger service that replaces the civil police who previously maintained watch. This will be sustained for the future by support from the Howard Marks Foundation. ConclusionIn the case of the Butrint sculptures a myth can be dispelled. There is little or no surviving evidence that Ugolini and the Italian Mission actually stole anything from the excavations at Butrint. Some objects may have been moved across the Adriatic, but what they were and where they are now is unknown. Certainly ‘The Treasures’ never seem to have left the country other than by legal means. The Italian invasion of Albania and the suffering and resistance of the country during World War II have, as elsewhere in Europe, left a deep mark on the national psyche. Nevertheless, it is important that the myths of the past do not prevent the proper protection of national cultural heritage and understanding of the problems of the present. Butrint and Albania have suffered a greater loss of archaeological and cultural material in the past nine years than the Italians managed to extract in nineteen. Some matters for considerable concern arise from the events of 1992 and 1997, especially as regards the international policing of the sale of looted but known material. In first place must be the apparent failure of responsible authorities, contacted separately on two continents, to take the necessary and obvious action in this case. Overriding this though, is the necessity to look to the future and to place the events of the past into their full perspective. Archives consultedArchivi Kombetar i Filmit, Tirana (AKF) Archivio Centrale dello Stato, Rome (ACDS) Archivio Storico Ministero degli Esteri, Rome (ASME) Archivi Quendror i Shetit, Tirana (AQS) Instituti i Arkelologjisë, Tirana Istituto Luce, Archivio Film, Rome Mostra Del’Oltremare Archivio Storico, Naples Museo della Civiltá Romana, Archivio Storico, Rome (MCR) AcknowledgementsThanks are due to the many who have assisted with this article. Foremost are Lord Rothschild and Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover, trustees of the Butrint Foundation, who have supported the necessary research, and also the Drue Heinz Trust, which contributed generously to this programme. I would like to express gratitude to colleagues who have provided or checked elements of this story; Dr Elizabeth Bartmann, Dr Kurt Verneisel, Prof. Brian Rose, Etleva Nallbani, Prof. Richard Hodges, Dr Lida Miraj, Dr Ilir Gjipali, Dr Iris Pojani, Dott.ssa. Anna Maria Liberatti, Dr Dhimosten Budina, Pellumb Naipi, Dott.ssa. Maria Rosario Zuccaro. References
First posted December 2002; Page design updated September 2006 |
