At the entrance to the Israel Museum, a large glass plaque denotes the names of donors who helped fund the extensive renovations before the building reopened in 2010. Prominent among these are the names Judy and Michael Steinhardt – names that appear in other locations as well.
Here’s the thing: the “Steinhardt” name has been making headlines recently under less auspicious circumstances. Following an international investigation that lasted some four years, Michael Steinhardt surrendered 180 stolen antiquities worth an estimated $70 million as part of a deal with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office to avoid prosecution. These items were plundered from 11 countries, including Italy, Turkey, Egypt, Greece, Syria and Israel.
As part of the deal reached with prosecutors, the 81-year-old American billionaire was forbidden from acquiring any more antiquities in his lifetime. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. said that for decades, Steinhardt “displayed a rapacious appetite for plundered artifacts without concern for the legality of his actions, the legitimacy of the pieces he bought and sold, or the grievous cultural damage he wrought across the globe.”
Michael Steinhardt. Returned an estimated $70 million of looted artifacts in order to avoid prosecution. Natan Dvir
This is not the first time Steinhardt has been embroiled in a scandal. In 2019, the New York Times reported that several women claimed he had sexually harassed them. He denied those allegations. And earlier, in the 1990s, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department launched an investigation into the hedge fund he owned. At its completion, Steinhardt paid a fine of tens of millions of dollars, though he again maintained his innocence.
Last weekend, the Associated Press reported that three of the 180 items Steinhardt had looted were still on display at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. The labels beside them have not been changed, citing Steinhardt as the person who loaned them to the museum. No mention is made of their provenance.
The first is the Heliodorus Stele, from the second century B.C.E., which is composed of several parts – one of which was loaned to the museum.
The report by the New York prosecutor relates how this artifact reached the museum. It was looted from a cave at Tel Maresha, in the Judean Hills, in 2005. It was sold to a dealer in the West Bank town of Halhul, who sold it a year later to an Israeli antiquities dealer called Gil Chaya for $2,000. Steinhardt later bought the item for $375,000, without checking its provenance as is the custom. He then loaned it to the Israel Museum in 2007.
Billionaire’s looted art still on display at Israel Museum
Billionaire Jewish philanthropist Michael Steinhardt forfeits $70 million in stolen antiques
Qatari-owned group to pay Sotheby’s to return Islamic artifacts to Jerusalem museum
The other items are two 9,000-year-old Neolithic limestone masks. The caption beside the display says they are part of a group of the most ancient masks in the world. The display doesn’t indicate how they reached the museum.
The masks loaned by Michael Steinhardt on display at the Israel Museum this week. Emil Salman
Debby Hershman, who curated an exhibition displaying these masks at the Israel Museum in 2014, said in an interview at the time that the museum’s director emeritus, James Snyder, had told her that his friend Steinhardt would be loaning them to their institution. Snyder told Hershman that he first saw the masks hanging in the billionaire’s house, alongside a series of drawings by Pablo Picasso.
According to the Manhattan DA’s final report, the Neolithic masks were smuggled from the Judean Desert by “noted trafficker” Abu Ali Tawil, making their way into the hands of another dealer called Rafi Brown, who sold them to Steinhardt in 1991. The report noted that Israel’s law enforcement agencies were informed of these findings, and the three items were seized in their country of origin.
Alexander Herman, the author of “Restitution: The Return of Cultural Artefacts,” and an assistant director at Britain’s Institute of Art and Law, says that from a legal perspective, Israel does not have to keep these artifacts in the Israel Museum.
“I’m not sure whether Israel would necessarily agree for items currently at the Israel Museum to be retained by the museum (as I recall, this is not a state-run museum), but it would be up to the Israeli authorities (i.e., the Israel Antiquities Authority) to decide. Presumably if they did, the Steinhardt reference in the labeling would be removed, as the items would no longer be his property (though he may still be referenced in the provenance information kept in museum records).”
The Antiquities Authority says it is discussing the matter with the Israel Museum.
The Manhattan district attorney’s decision with regard to Steinhardt is another step in the ongoing effort to have artifacts returned to their countries of ownership. According to Herman, the Cleveland Museum has returned a stolen ancient bust to Italy; New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art has returned two Benin bronze plaques to Nigeria; and the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian has returned several gold ornaments to Peru.
He says that, legally, it doesn’t matter if the country these items are returned to have a museum tradition or not. “In ethical terms, many codes of ethics will use a threshold of 1970 – the year of the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property – meaning that acquiring items that left their state of origin after that date without proper documentation is broadly considered unethical.”
One of the Neolithic masks on display at the Israel Museum. Emil Salman
Honest labeling
For now, there are two key questions: What will the labels beside the displays of items loaned by Steinhardt say (assuming the Antiquities Authority agrees to loan them to the museum again); and will Steinhardt’s name remain on plaques denoting donors around the museum? In the U.S., there are already demands to remove his name from galleries at the Met and elsewhere.
Dr. Shani Horowitz-Rozen, an expert on communications and philanthropy, says that if these items remain in the museum’s possession, she expects it to add an appropriate explanation that describes their provenance.
“The accepted norm around the world is to explain the history of an artifact, even if it is a stolen one,” she explains. “The museum’s role is not to sweep the story under the carpet but to consider what its social role is in such a situation, and what its relationship with this artifact is.”
Horowitz-Rozen adds, “We are in a period in which relations between institutions and donors are being reformulated. It’s clear to us that donations are an integral part of such institutions, which is why an institution such as the Israel Museum should convene and ask itself about the nature of its relations with donors. A wise decision would not be limited only to the current situation but would also think about the future. It needs to craft an orderly vision. We are witnessing a growing number of discussions looking at the good faith of donors,” she says.
The Heliodorus Stele on display at the Israel Museum this week. Emil Salman
Edna Harel Fisher, a researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute and former legal adviser to the Culture Ministry, agrees. “If I was part of the museum’s management team – and assuming that we’re dealing with items included in the list defined by the American court – I would embrace a policy by which the unfolding of events finds its expression in the labeling.
“This would aim at enhancing awareness of the importance of protecting cultural assets and of the authority responsible for its implementation. One could write, for example, that the item was owned by Steinhardt, but that it was later discovered he had purchased a stolen object, which is why the court ordered it to be confiscated and transferred to state ownership. This makes it a loan from the Antiquities Authority to the museum, assuming this is what ultimately transpires.”
As for the Steinhardt name being prominently displayed around the museum, Horowitz-Rozen believes this will have to be reviewed. “A museum has to remove itself from any association with malfeasance, setting the ethical standard we aspire to. If the legal system finds the donor guilty, there is a problem in displaying his name in public. The museum has to explain to itself and the public why it works with one specific donor and not another. This won’t hurt it – on the contrary, it could empower it and regulate its relations with other donors. I understand the museum will be worried about coming out against a donor, but continuing to display the name of someone who broke the law could be a problem,” she says.
The Israel Museum label explaining which collections the masks are from. Emil Salman
The Israel Museum, meanwhile, told Haaretz it had “only recently learned of the agreement made by Steinhardt and the New York district attorney, and is in touch with the Antiquities Authority – which we understand is sorting out this issue with the U.S. authorities. When the museum is informed of the position of the Antiquities Authority, it will act according to its decision with regard to labeling the artifacts.”
As for removing Steinhardt’s name from donor plaques, the museum said it “honors its donors on museum walls according to agreements and understandings reached with them. Steinhardt’s name is one of these. The agreement he signed with the Manhattan DA is not relevant to this issue.”
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish