Nobody is Being "Targetted" in Italian Antiquities Probe

.

A little chauvinistic (not to say "nationalistic") bias here one feels, first Huge Eakin slants the story to be about "another US curator" now Andrew Goldstein writing in ArtInfo follows suit:

According to the Times, the new investigation, led by Italian prosecutor Francesco Ciardi, has targeted Princeton's J. Michael Padgett, a 56-year-old specialist in Attic Greek vase painting.

No, the leaked documents of the (preliminary) investigation concern the activities of an antiquities dealer - Edoardo Almagià. Padgett and two others are threatened with investigation because they have been dealing with him. This is precisely the problem with the no-questions-asked market, if the buyer does not ascertain that the dealer is not dealing in dodgy material, if they are not being offered dodgy material, then that neglect in all cases aids and abets the looters who rely on such negligence, at worst it can get the buyer into a lot of trouble, should the dealer "fall". Mere reputation or "connections" are no safeguard.

[One wonders about the political context of the leaking of these documents to US public opinion in this manner. Is this part of the ongoing efforts of US no-questions-asked antiquity dealers to persuade the US not to extend the MOU with Italy on illegal exports? Who leaked this document to Eakin and why?]
.

UPDATE: No surprise then to find our anti-Italian blogger pointing out to his readers that "Repatriation Agreements Fail to Buy Peace. Perhaps we should recognise that what was "repatriated" by the Getty, Cleveland and others was clearly looted (stolen) artefacts. They were, surely, not returned merely to "buy peace", but because hanging on to them would have been the wrong thing to do (should have been more careful when buying them). Likewise if any more US museums and collectors have stolen material, is it no longer the right thing to do to examine the issue and if it is shown that the material has been illicitly obtained, then it too should go back? I do not understand what the US antiquity dealers lobby understand by this notion of "buying peace", "peace" to do what precisely? Ms True was "sacrificed" so the rest of the US museum profession and collectors would have "peace" to get involved in more dodgy deals? I wonder how she feels about that notion? The way to "buy peace" is to reduce the possibilities for looters and smugglers to sell the products of their criminal activities through the international no-questions-asked trade.

.