Looting matters

Intellectual Consequences for the Study of Ancient Trade

2008-05-15T18:21:00.004+01:00

It is easy to be distracted by the scale of looting. Yet there are also intellectual consequences as find-spots and contexts are lost or fabricated. What are the implications for the study of ancient trade? I was considering the commercial mark on an Attic black-figured neck-amphora of Panathenaic shape that passed through Sotheby's in London (July 17, 1985, lot 313).

The mark falls into Alan Johnston's (Trademarks on Greek Vases: Addenda) Type 25A. There are thirteen examples. Eight of them (all but this one Type B amphorae) are attributed to 'Group E'. Three of the amphorae are said to have been found at Vulci in Etruria (as well as possibly a column-krater now in the Vatican). In addition to the amphora of Panathenaic shape, a Type B amphora, also attributed to Group E, passed through Sotheby's in London the year before (July 9-10, 1984, lot 314); it is now in Canberra (84.02). What was the history of the two pieces before they were auctioned at Sotheby's? Where were they found?

The commercial mark also appears to be listed as Johnston Type 15A (a not dissimilar mark). Here Sotheby's, July 17, 1985, lot 313 is attributed to the painter of Louvre F6; four of the twelve pots bearing this mark are attributed to this "painter" of which two were said to have been found at Vulci. Could this trademark be an abbreviation of an Etruscan personal name (as Johnston suggests)?

Are these two marks evidence for Greek trade? An Etruscan trader? Are they linked to a particular Athenian pottery workshop, perhaps suggesting that the marks were applied to a batch (or batches) of imported pottery? Were they applied at Vulci (or at least in Etruria)?

We are unlikely to know as the majority of the find-spots have been lost. The amphora of Panathenaic shape is likely to have been found in Italy. Why do I say that? Photographs of it were found in Geneva, "In the Polaroids, the amphora is broken and dirty with earth."

Indeed the amphora was among the antiquities returned to Italy by Shelby White earlier this year. So collecting recently surfaced antiquities does have intellectual consequences.

The "Morgantina" Silver Hoard

2008-05-14T22:38:00.000+01:00

The antiquities returned to Italy from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York have been dominated by the pottery:

The Sarpedon krater
Four pieces of Laconian, Attic and Apulian pottery

However the return also included a major hoard of Hellenistic silver dating to the 3rd century BCE and acquired in 1981, 1982, and 1984 (inv. 1981.11.15-22; 1982.11.7-13; 1984.11.3). The pieces were said to have originated in Turkey and had been purchased via Switzerland.

Indeed the official line is that this was a "hoard" and that it was "presumably found together a generation ago" (D. von Bothmer, A Greek and Roman treasury. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1984, nos. 92-106).

In reality the sequence has been reported as follows (see P. Watson and C. Todeschini, The Medici Conspiracy, p. 106):

Vincenzo Bozzi and Filippo Baviera, tombaroli
Sold to Orazio Di Simone of Lugano, Switzerland for the equivalent of $27,000
Sold to Robert Hecht for $875,000
Sold to the MMA for $3 million

The silver is staying in New York until January 2010 and will then be transferred to the Aidone Archaeological Museum (Elisabetta Povolodeo, "A Statue As Symbol In Patrimony Tug of War", New York Times, July 4, 2007). The silver plate is likely to be displayed with the acrolithic Aphrodite formerly in the J. Paul Getty Museum, and the acroliths on loan from Maurice Tempelsman.

Recent excavations by Malcolm Bell III may have even located the possible site of the looting (Celestine Bohlen, "Archaeologist vindicated in hunch on antique silver hoard", IHT, February 3, 2006):

In 1996, Raffiotta in Sicily got court permission and Italian government money for Bell to start digging at the spot where the silver was thought to have been discovered. That was when Bell first found two holes, which corresponded to the rumored stories that silver had been found in two separate lots. The excavation also turned up a 1978 Italian coin, proof that the site had been excavated since that date.

The terminus post quem provided by the modern coin is not incompatible with the 1981 appearance of the silver on the market.

The "Morgantina" silver was purchased with help from,

Rogers Fund
Classical Purchase Fund
Harris Brisbane Dick Fund and Anonymous
Mrs Vincent Astor
Mr & Mrs Walter Bareiss
Mr & Mrs Howard J. Barnet
Christos G. Bastis
Mr & Mrs Martin Fried
Jerome Levy Foundation
Norbert Schimmel
Mr & Mrs Thomas A. Spears

Looting in Italy: "a continuing, daily experience"

2008-05-10T22:28:00.001+01:00

It is perhaps easy for some collectors and museum curators to convince themselves that their pursuit of the perfect acquisition has no impact on the archaeological record. Stefano Vassallo's comments on the situation in Sicily give a glimpse on the impact of looting (and see also "Operation Ghelas"). He talked about work at the Greek colony of Himera:

clandestine nighttime digs systematically devastate the archaeological layers uncovered the day before.

Against the background of the discussion of "ownership" Vassallo asks a key question and then answers it:

When an object is authentic but its original context is lost, what is left of it? Only an aesthetic object remains, beautiful to look at, but which has little to do with the way we look today at ancient art. It is not just beauty that catches out attention today, but the way works of art functioned within their society, the response to them by their public, and their reception by later generations and cultures.

Think of some of the recent returns to Italy:

The Euphronios krater
The "Morgantina" silver
The acrolithic Aphrodite

Then ask yourself how those pieces or groups were viewed in their contemporary society. We do not know because the contexts have been lost.

Reference
Vassallo, S. 2007. "Antiquities without provenance: the original sin in the field." In The acquisition and exhibition of classical antiquities: professional, legal, and ethical perspectives, edited by R. F. Rhodes, pp. 81-91. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.

Bonhams Withdraws Egyptian Inscription from the Tomb of Mutirdis (TT410)

2008-05-08T08:20:00.003+01:00

More details are beginning to emerge on the Egyptian inscription withdrawn from the sale of antiquities at Bonhams on May 1, 2008 ("Egypt secures auction pullout for artefacts in London and Holland", Egypt Daily News, May 1, 2008).

The text has removed from "a wall in the 26th Dynasty tomb of Mutirdis in Asasif in Luxor". This tomb (TT410) was excavated by Jan Assmann in 1969 so it looks as if the story about the Australian seafarer collecting the piece perhaps as far back as the 1940s lacks substance. A photograph of the text appears in “Das Grab der Mutirdis” (1977).

Bonhams need to make a statement about this. Who translated the text for them? Did the person recognise the text but keep quiet? Were the staff members of the Department of Antiquities at Bonhams unable to conduct a thorough due diligence search? Why were they unable to link the personal names that appear here with the tomb of Mutirdis?

And what other antiquities consigned to Bonhams came from the "Australian seafaring collection"?

James Cuno on Antiquities: What I Hope Will Be Addressed

2008-05-07T09:51:00.000+01:00

James Cuno's Who Owns Antiquity is certainly getting publicity. Andrew Herrmann ("You can't have your stuff back", Chicago Sun-Times, May 4, 2008) notes:

Critics are seething over the book, which won't be out until May 28 but already is in circulation for review and causing a buzz.

I have yet to see the book but it seems that it contains an implicit attack on the Archaeological Institute of America's stance on not publishing recently surfaced antiquities. The AIA's policy is:

In keeping with the revised (2004) policy of the Archaeological Institute of America, the AJA will not accept any article that serves as the primary publication of any object or archaeological material in a private or public collection after 30 December 1973 unless its existence is documented before that date or it was legally exported from the country of origin.

It will be interesting to see if Cuno touches on the issue of the the inscribed ivory pomegranate ‘thought to be the only relic of King Solomon's Temple’. This example highlights some of the flaws in the Biblical Archaeology Society's 'Statement of Concern' on 'The Publication of Unprovenanced Artifacts'.

I am hoping to read Cuno's commentary on two specific issues:

Harvard's 1995 purchase of 182 Greek figure-decorated pottery fragments ("Cultural property is a modern political construct").
The display of a Roman-British bronze, apparently looted from Icklingham, Suffolk, England, at a loan exhibition at Harvard. The Icklingham bronze is interesting as it was owned by Shelby White and Leon Levy.

I have addressed other issues raised by Cuno elsewhere.

Acropolis Museum Preview

2008-05-06T16:42:00.002+01:00

The BBC has been given a preview of the new Acropolis Museum by Professor Dimitrios Pandermalis. The video provides views of the Parthenon from the museum. The juxtaposition of fragments remaining in Athens and casts of originals now in London is explained in detail.

The programme suggests that the return of the Parthenon sculptures would be a "natural" progression.

Bonhams Withdraws Egyptian Antiquity From Auction

2008-05-06T08:42:00.008+01:00

Last October Bonhams withdrew a piece of Lydian silver from auction after questions were raised here about its possible links with Turkey.

I noticed that the auction house has had to take similar eleventh hour action last week when Egypt challenged the sale of lot 99:

An Egyptian carved limestone relief fragment
Late Period, 26th Dynasty, circa 665-525 B.C.
With six vertical columns of blue-filled hieroglyphs, column 1: about journeying by water, column 2: 'horizon. Oh Osiris supervisor of the female followers [of?]', column 3: 'Nitikret (Nitocris) may she live Mutirdais', column 4: 'true of voice, ie. justified...', column five: '...gods fear...', column 6: unintelligible, 11¾in (32.5cm) diam, mounted

Estimate: £3,000 - 4,000

AFP ("Egypt secures auction pullout for ancient artefact", April 30, 2008) has reported that lot 99 from the sale of antiquities on May 1, 2008 had to be withdrawn:

Egyptian Culture Minister Faruq Hosni said in a statement that he had asked for the 2,500-year-old carved limestone relief to be withdrawn from Bonhams' London sale, set to take place on Thursday, because it was stolen.

Hosni said the ministry had no idea the piece, from Egypt's ancient city of Luxor, was missing until they saw it in the catalogue.

Julian Rup, speaking for Bonhams, said:

Apparently the buyer bought it in good faith. We work hand in hand with the police and they are satisfied that the buyer bought it in good faith.

Negotiations will begin and it will either stay with the current owner or be repatriated but we are not selling it.

How could the "buyer" (I presume the vendor) have bought it in good faith if the catalogue entry says that the present owner had inherited it from his father? Is the vendor in reality "an Australian private collector who began collecting in the 1940s whilst working in the merchant navy"? Will the relief fragment be returned to Egypt or the vendor?

This story seems to have been unreported in the British media. However it does raise questions about the due diligence process conducted by Bonhams.

Has the time come for auction houses to improve their levels of transparency? Who is this anonymous seafaring Australian private collector? Should the present proprietor of the object be named?

Towards a Bibliography for Archaeological Ethics

2008-05-05T08:27:00.002+01:00

I have been preparing an introductory bibliography on Archaeological Ethics for my postgraduate students. This is at present located as a list on WorldCat. You can easily see the location of the nearest copy of the book to you (just type in your postcode or zipcode), or download (including to Endnote).

What would readers of Looting Matters recommend?

Leave a comment!

Francesco Rutelli and Antiquities

2008-05-02T09:52:00.001+01:00

This is an appropriate moment to pay tribute to Francesco Rutelli, the out-going Italian Minister for Culture.

He came into post in May 2006 and his name was quickly associated with the fight to combat the looting of Etruscan cemeteries.

"The Tomb of the Roaring Lions" at Veio (June 2006). Rutelli: "Sometimes the smugglers arrive before the archaeologists, but luckily they could not remove the frescoes" ("Suspected tomb raider leads archaeologists to frescoed Etruscan tomb near Rome", AP, June 16, 2006).

Within a month he was negotiating with the J. Paul Getty Museum:

Rutelli: "When I talk about cooperation, it is also to give the new Getty management the opportunity to show they want to close an era" (Elisabetta Povoledo, "Italy Calls Its Talks With Getty Productive", New York Times, June 20, 2006).

In September 2006 thirteen antiquities were returned from Boston, and the Getty returned forty pieces to Italy in November 2006 and August 2007. The results of these negotiations went on display in the the first of two exhibitions, "Nostoi", of returned antiquities in Rome, December 2007. These were supplemented in January 2008 by ten items from New York collector Shelby White.

But the highlight was the triumphal return in January 2008 of the Sarpedon krater from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

One of the exit routes for antiquities looted from Italy has been Switzerland. A new deal was signed between Italy and Switzerland in October 2006 and Rutelli made the point, "Traffickers will have to go somewhere else" (Ariel David, "Italy and Switzerland sign deal to combat antiquities trafficking", AP, October 20, 2006).

But Rutelli was interested in the international market and he ensured that Italy returned looted antiquities to Pakistan (June 2007) and Iran (November 2007).

Rutelli's forceful, yet gracious, discussions with museum directors have highlighted the problems associated with acquiring recently surfaced antiquities. Curators have started to take the due diligence process a little more seriously in the light of his campaign.

Iraq: "We want to strip the commercial value of Iraqi antiquities"

2008-05-01T08:54:00.005+01:00

Yesterday I commented on Dr Bahaa Mayar's hope (expressed on the BBC) that the British Museum would one day return its Mesopotamian antiquities to Iraq.

Today The Independent (Arifa Akbar, "Iraqi expert accuses West over antiquities trade", May 1, 2008) provides further details of Dr Mayar's comments made at the British Museum (though the report misses his subsequent call for the return of antiquities). Some of the report repeats what was said in the BBC interview, and Dr Mayah "called for an immediate global ban on the sale of at least 100,000 artefacts that have been stolen since the invasion." He added:

This is a problem of illegal trade that should be of concern to the international community. We want to strip the commercial value of Iraqi antiquities.

There is also a comment from Professor Elizabeth Stone of Stony Brook University in New York who

said Iraq had been depleted of 15 per cent of its ancient artefacts. Ever since Baghdad's National Museum was ransacked in 2003, "entrepreneurs" had set up organised teams to plunder ancient grounds. She said neolithic sites had been heavily looted as had those which contained items from the first Mesopotamian Empire, about 2300BC. "It looks as if the looters know exactly what they are looking for," she said.

Iraq: Returning Antiquities

2008-04-30T19:30:00.008+01:00

Dr Bahaa Mayar, advisor to the Iraq Minister of Tourism & Antiquities, has been discussing antiquities from Iraq with Mark Lawson on BBC Radio 4's Front Row. The programme abstract said that he would talk about:

the situation in the country regarding cultural heritage and explains why he thinks more should be done by the international community to safeguard treasures which have worldwide importance.

Mayar, talking in the wake of the recent return of some 700 objects from Syria, called for a ban on the trade in Iraq antiquities arguing that this would "strip" the commercial value of any items on the market. He then explained about the problems (and expense) of taking action in the courts to prove that antiquities had been stolen from Iraq. He noted that some unsuccessful legal challenges had been used by some to legalise their tentative hold on pieces. He explained that a unified legal procedure across Europe would help to control the trade.

He then talked about the problems of trying to post guards at all archaeological sites and suggested that Remote Sensing could play its part in reducing looting.

Lawson asked the provocative question about the possible return of Mesopotamian antiquities from the British Museum. Mayar was clearly thrown by the question but then talked about the March 2008 UNESCO conference in Athens and the general international support for the return of cultural property. But, yes, in the long term, Iraq would like to see the return of archaeological material from countries such as Britain.

Is the situation this simple? I feel that Philippe de Montebello has something important to say about the spread of significant antiquities between different collections and countries. It sounds as if the concept of the "Universal Museum" is under attack once again.

The programme is available for seven days from the BBC website.

Image
© David Gill

Stewardship vs. Ownership?

2008-04-30T17:40:00.004+01:00

Looking at my bookshelves I see Who Owns Objects? and Who Owns the Past?; soon they will be joined by Who Owns Antiquity?

I have had cause to comment on essays from or comments in the first two:

I have also remarked on James Cuno's forthcoming book (and also here).

SAFECORNER has now noted the proliferation of books and articles asking the "Who Owns ...?" question ("To own or not to own: Is that the question?").

And it struck me that while archaeologists and politicians have been talking about the stewardship of archaeological sites and cultural property, dealers and museum directors have been addressing a totally different question.

The Acquisition and Exhibition of Classical Antiquities

2008-04-29T18:47:00.006+01:00

The proceedings of a symposium held at the Snite Museum of Art, University of Notre Dame, February 24, 2007 have appeared.

Robin F. Rhodes, Associate Professor of Art History at Notre Dame, has a concluding chapter in which he contrasts the range of positions:

at one end of the spectrum the American director of one of the world's great encyclopedic museums, at the other an Italian field archaeologist charged, among other things, with the responsibility of protecting provincial archaeological sites in Sicily from looting.

Rhodes argues for "the increasingly important voice of university museum directors, whose constituency and mission inevitably place them in a position of compromise between the encyclopedic museum and the field archaeologist". But did he write too soon given the returns from the Princeton University Art Museum?

Rhodes, R. F. Editor. 2007. The acquisition and exhibition of classical antiquities: professional, legal, and ethical perspectives. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press. [WorldCat] [Press Website]

Contributors
Malcolm Bell III, Nancy Bookidis, Douglas E. Bradley, James Cuno, Dennis P. Doordan, Patty Gerstenblith, Charles R. Loving, Michael Lykoudis, Joanne M. Mack, Mary Ellen O’Connell, Robin F. Rhodes, Marcia Rickard, Kimerly Rorschach, C. Brian Rose, Charles Rosenberg, Stefano Vassallo, Charles K. Williams II.

Michael Conforti and the Licit Market in Antiquities

2008-04-29T08:21:00.002+01:00

Michael Conforti, the president elect of the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) and Director of the Clark in Williamstown. Ma, has been talking about his views on the "licit trade" in antiquities ("More Talk With: Michael Conforti", Time, March 28, 2008). In the wake of some many returns of antiquities from museums that are members of the AAMD it is interesting to read these comments:

There also needs to be established a "licit" market in works of art, including antiquities, in those countries that currently ban it. That's clearly what's encouraging so much illicit excavation. The source countries have a responsibility to establish some way that they can endorse a licit market. And that's a process that we would like to be part of at the Association of Art Museum Directors. We see traditional acquisitions as part of the future of museums as well.

These comments of course are recycled from John Merryman, James Cuno and Michael Brand (among others).

What I find rather frustrating is that Richard Lacayo never asks the difficult questions in these interviews.

Why have members of the AAMD been acquiring recently surfaced antiquities? Is the Merryman model for a licit trade flawed? Are member museums of the AAMD being transparent over their long-term loans?

Coins in Context

2008-04-28T08:29:00.003+01:00

Ancient coins form an integral part of the archaeological record. Nathan Elkins has started a new weblog, 'Numismatics and Archaeology'. He has made several postings on SAFECORNER (e.g. "Archaeologists don’t care about ancient coins?") and is sure to make some key observations and comments on the way that ancient coins surface on the market.

"Due diligence and good faith inquiries are no longer sufficient"

2008-04-26T09:49:00.008+01:00

An extract of James Cuno's new book, Who Owns Antiquity? [Princeton UP, 2008] [WorldCat]) has appeared in the Wall Street Journal (April 26, 2008).

I am waiting to read the whole volume but I would like to comment on a few of points.

Language is important. Christopher Chippindale and I have long argued that the word "provenance" (and with it "unprovenanced") is confusing. We have tended to use the terms "history" and "archaeology". The first maps the collecting history and documentation (e.g. "from the Thomas Brand collection" or "given by Giacomo Medici"). The second provides information on where it left the ground (e.g. "excavated from tomb 42 at Abydos" or "said to be from Cerveteri"). Cuno comments:

Archaeologists argue that unprovenanced antiquities are almost always looted from archaeological sites or from what would become archaeological sites. But strictly speaking, since provenance is a matter of ownership and not archaeological status, and as some countries allow for the ownership of antiquities but not their export, it is possible to illegally export a legally owned, unprovenanced antiquity.

He generalises. But what we have shown is that antiquities with histories only after 1970—and 1983 is a distraction—have been included in the returns to Italy: this is particularly true for our comments on the Fleischman collection, and the Shelby White / Leon Levy collection.

Cuno again generalises when he talks about the debate looking at "the legal aspect of their ownership". This would ignore the material and intellectual consequences of looting (and subsequent collecting). But no doubt he will address this in the full volume.

He poses the question:

Is there convincing evidence that the unprovenanced antiquity was removed from its country of origin in violation of that country's laws?

He cites the example of a Roman object that could have been found anywhere across the empire. Need it have been found in Italy? But a more interesting example for him to have discussed would have been the quantities of Apulian pots that are being given back to Italy. (Or for Greece, how about Cycladic figures?)

Cuno is clearly critical of the way that the media has been used to reclaim antiquities for Italy. He does not comment in this extract on the use of Polaroids and documentation in the Italian public courts of law. If an image used in a trial is identified in a public collection, have the media a right to comment? And should a museum (or private collector) elaborate on the "history" of the piece in question? The reporting has been "sensational" because the revelations have been jaw-droppingly shocking.

Cuno now accepts "due diligence and good faith inquiries are no longer sufficient". He is right to recommend that "U.S. art museums have to be much more careful"—and Francesco Rutelli's successful reclamation programme has brought this painfully home.

Cuno grumbles that the recently surfaced antiquities—he uses the term "undocumented"—are going to public collections in other parts of the world.

Keeping them from U.S. art museums is not a solution, only a diversion.

The Italian authorities have said that they intend to pursue further antiquities in Denmark and Japan.

The issue to address is this: how can we work together to reduce the damage to our shared cultural heritage?

Cosmopolitanism: "the past does in some sense belong to all of us"

2008-04-25T21:20:00.006+01:00

World culture is part of our cosmopolitan heritage. I would agree with James Ede:

the past does in some sense belong to all of us.

There is common ground between dealers, museum curators, archaeologists and policy makers.

And the displays in great national and university museums have helped to develop a strong admiration for, say, the material culture (and art) of Greece.

Yet there has been a continuing problem with looting. The recent return of some 100 antiquities to Italy from public and private collections (as well as one dealer) remind us of the scale of the problem. And these objects represent perhaps as little as 1% of the objects captured on film by one dealer. Some of the objects were found together: the fragments of wall-painting, the 'Morgantina' silver. But all of the returning objects represent now lost archaeological contexts.

And this destruction is massive. If Elia is correct, some 94.5% of Apulian figure-decorated pots have been deprived of their archaeological contexts ("unearthed without the benefit of systematic archaeological investigation"). And Apulian pottery appears among the returns.

So is it fair of Ede to ridicule what he perceives as Italy's "siege mentality"? Is he justified in saying that legislation to restrict the export of antiquities "has nothing to do with protecting contextual information"?

Ede gave his paper at an Oxford seminar in the Michaelmas term of 2004 just as Italy stepped up its campaign to return antiquities: the returns from New York, Boston, Princeton, Shelby White, and (to a large extent) Malibu have taken place since then.

Returns do not restore "contextual information". But museums and private collectors will hopefully think long and hard before buying an undocumented antiquity however stunning it is.

And if those markets are not buying, does it lessen—I do not use the word eliminate—the incentive for people to go and dig up ancient cemeteries?

And that is something we can all applaud as "the past does in some sense belong to all of us".

Reference
Ede, J. 2006. "Who owns objects? A view from the antiquities trade." In Who owns objects? The ethics and politics of collecting cultural artefacts, edited by E. Robson, L. Treadwell, and L. Gosden, pp. 77-81. Oxford: Oxbow. [WorldCat] [Review]
Elia, R. J. 2001. "Analysis of the looting, selling, and collecting of Apulian red-figure vases: a quantitative approach." In Trade in illicit antiquities: the destruction of the world's archaeological heritage, edited by N. Brodie, J. Doole, and C. Renfrew, pp. 145-53. Cambridge: McDonald Institute. [WorldCat]

Vergina: Was Philip II's Tomb Looted in Antiquity?

2008-04-24T18:17:00.009+01:00

The stunning finds from Tomb II at Vergina in Macedonia have frequently been taken to be associated with Philip II of Macedon. Eugene N. Borza and Olga Palagia have now talked about why they think the accepted interpretation is incorrect (Sara Goudarzi, "Alexander the Great's "Crown," Shield Discovered?", National Geographic News, April 23, 2008).

Borza comments:

Tomb II is a generation later than Philip II's death.

I agree with this interpretation as the weight inscriptions on the silver from Tomb II cannot, in my view, be earlier than the reign of Alexander the Great (if they were applied in Macedonia). My research (which is due to be published this summer) seems to be cited (without acknowledgement):

a number of silver vessels discovered in Tomb II and Tomb III are inscribed with their ancient weights, which use a measurement system introduced by Alexander the Great a generation after Philip II's death.

So where was Philip II buried? My hunch is that Tomb I is a likely candidate—and that it was looted in 274 BCE.

Who do I think was buried in Tomb II? You will have to wait and see ...

Image
The plain at Vergina from the Royal Palace © David Gill

Greece: More Returns Expected?

2008-04-24T11:34:00.005+01:00

Details about the return of a marble lekythos to Greece are beginning to emerge (see Press Release from the Hellenic Ministry of Culture [in Greek]). The piece, almost certainly looted from a late classical cemetery in Attica, now appears to have been identified from photographs seized in some police operation against looters (though it is unclear if these were Polaroids seized in operations in Switzerland and handed over to the Greek authorities in 2005).

Michalis Liapis, the Minister for Culture, has stepped up the campaign against looted antiquities in Greece. He has also indicated that other objects have been identified from photographs and that more returns can be expected in the near future.

Are these pieces on the market or have they already passed into public and private collections? Are we about to see returns on the scale of those from North America to Italy? (See the material exhibited in Nostoi.)

Greece's strategy seems to be threefold:

material known to have been stolen from museum collections and archaeological sites (e.g. the Gortyn Apollo; Corinth museum; a stela from the Thebes museum)
newly looted (or surfaced) material (e.g. the Attic marble lekythos; a gold wreath, a marble tombstone, and a marble kore; the "Preveza" athlete [or the Saarbrücken youth]; the Aidonia treasure)
historic material that left Greece before the 1970 UNESCO Convention or even the formation of the modern state of Greece (e.g. the Parthenon marbles)

It will be interesting to see which further pieces will be returning to Greece.

Image
From the Hellenic Ministry of Culture press release

Iraq: Antiquities Returned from Syria

2008-04-23T17:15:00.004+01:00

News is breaking that Syria has handed over some 700 antiquities to Iraq ("Syria returns stolen antiquities to Iraq", AFP, April 23, 2008). The report continues:

Syria on Wednesday returned to Iraq around 700 pieces of antiquities, including gold coins and jewellery, which were stolen in the aftermath of the US-led invasion of its neighbour.

Culture Minister Riad Naassan-Agha handed over the artefacts to the minister of state for tourism and archaeology, Mohammed Abbas al-Oraibi, at a ceremony at Damascus national museum.

"These objects stolen in Iraq were seized by Syrian customs officials," Naassan-Agha said, according to the official SANA news agency, adding that other "very precious" artefacts will be returned soon.

Image
Syrian Culture Minister, Riyadh Na’ssan Agha, right, at the National Syrian Museum in Damascus, hands back to Iraq's state minister for tourism and antiquities affairs, Mohammad Abbas al-Oraibi, one of some 700 Iraqi antiquities which have been in the care of Syrian authorities. [Source]

Advertising Ancient Art

2008-04-23T11:38:00.005+01:00

I was browsing through the Spring/Summer number of the British Museum Magazine and spotted a half-page advertisement for Rupert Wace Ancient Art (RWAA) complete with a headless Hellenistic marble Aphrodite.

There is a short statement about the appearance of such advertisements in the Magazine:

It is the policy of the British Museum Friends to accept antiquities advertisements only where we receive assurance from the advertiser that the illustrated object is documented to have formed part of a legitimate collection prior to 1970.

The Aphrodite is to feature in the RWAA Gallery's exhibition, "In Our Own Image: Gods and Mortals in Ancient Art" (4 June - 11 July 2008); an alternative title, "In Our Own Image: Gods and Mortals in Antiquity" is also used for the Press Release issued by Sue Bond, Press Relations Consultant. Further details about the statue (as well as an image) can be found in the press release:

Perhaps the centrepiece of the exhibition is the marble figure of Aphrodite. The goddess of love is shown turning towards us, shielding her nakedness as if surprised by our presence. The type, known as the Aphrodite of Knidos, is, with the Laocoon, one of the most famous sculptures of the ancient world. Copied throughout antiquity, it is also a corner-stone in the history of classical art. The original was so famous that Pliny describes it as a tourist attraction. Although there were numerous representations of nude men, soldiers, athletes and gods from the Archaic period onwards, this was the first Greek female nude. She pretends to be demure and tries, very ineffectively, to cover her modesty but this is an act in order to captivate the male observer. This example comes from a private UK collection, acquired between 1968 and 1978.

Who is behind this anonymous—and "legitimate"—"private UK collection"?

I ask because Wace has in the past used "private collection" as a euphemism for a Paris-based syndicate of auctioneers. (For the background on that case: Brian Handwerk, "Egypt's Antiquities Chief Combines Passion, Clout to Protect Artifacts", National Geographic News, October 24, 2006; and see key statement from Zahi Hawass.) Indeed, in an unrelated (but relevant) case, the holdings of Robin Symes have been presented by one scholar as part of a UK "private collection".

And if the Aphrodite could have been acquired by the "private UK collection" between 1970 and 1978—as the press release indeed implies—what sort of assurances about its documented history were given to the officers of the British Museum Friends? Or is it certain that the Aphrodite was acquired in either 1968 or 1969, and somebody forgot to update the press release (in the way that they forgot to change the exhibition title)?

Can we assume that somebody from the Magazine sought an assurance? Or did the staff of the Magazine hope that nobody would notice?

From Gortyn to Switzerland ... and Back Again

2008-04-22T17:43:00.006+01:00

Yesterday's news about the return of a marble lekythos to Greece from a Swiss-based dealer of antiquities made me go back through my notes. I see that in June 2007 a statue of Apollo was returned to Greece from Switzerland ("Greece reclaims stolen Apollo statue", AFP, June 14, 2007; see also "Greece hails return of stolen ancient statue", Reuters, June 14, 2007). The Apollo had been excavated by Federico Halbherr at Gortyn on Crete, and stolen from the site in 1991.

AFP commented:

Greece on Thursday presented a Hellenistic-era torso of the ancient Greek god Apollo discovered in Switzerland more than 15 years after it was stolen from an excavation site on Crete.

The headless torso was in the possession of art dealer David Cahn in Basel, and the Greek authorities intervened just before it was delivered to a private buyer, Culture Minister George Voulgarakis told a news conference.

...

The 1st-century BCE statue of Apollo ... was stolen from the archaeological site of Gortyn in 1991 along with nine Roman-era items including vessel fragments and coins.

In March, it was sold by a British art dealer to a German collector and imported into Switzerland for delivery by Cahn, who agreed to unconditionally hand it over to Greece, the ministry said.

Who was the British "art dealer"? What about the "German collector"?

And where are the other pieces that were stolen in 1991?

"The Acquisition of Undocumented Antiquities": A Diversion From Real Arguments?

2008-04-21T22:09:00.007+01:00

I am looking forward to reading James Cuno's new book, Who Owns Antiquity? [Princeton UP, 2008] [WorldCat]). He has issued a short essay: "Who Owns the Past? Antiquities from great cultures belong to humanity, not nation states that emerged centuries later", YaleGlobal, 21 April 2008.

Cuno seems to suggest that nationalism is a major threat and tries to explain the present debate in these terms:

Most nation states have cultural property laws that restrict the international movement in archaeological artifacts found within their borders. But some antiquities are undocumented, lacking evidence of archaeological circumstances or removal. In the current debate over the acquisition of undocumented antiquities, the world’s archaeological community has allied with nationalistic programs of nation states.

While it may be true that some archaeologists—but surely not "the archaeological community"—promote "nationalist retentionist cultural property laws", others may raise their concerns about looted antiquities because there is a genuine concern for the material and intellectual consequences for their subject.

There is surely some common ground. We could all agree that looting:

destroys archaeological sites
destroys information
corrupts knowledge

Cuno states: "the world is losing our common ancient heritage through theft and destruction, poverty, development, warfare and sectarian violence."

Where we probably disagree is over the following:

does collecting encourage looting?
does the UNESCO 1970 Convention discourage the acquisition of recently surfaced objects?

Cuno also questions the integrity of (some) archaeologists.

"Archaeologists go along because they depend on nation states to do their work."
"Archaeologists, especially those who benefit from working in host university museums, should examine their support of nationalist retentionist cultural property law. Many collections could not have been formed since the implementation of these laws."

Is he suggesting that (some) archaeologists only speak out over the issue of looting to gain access to choice sites or a pick of objects to publish from national collections?

Cuno talks about "our common ancient heritage". But do museum curators (and directors) who happily acquire recently surfaced antiquities care about our shared cosmopolitan heritage? And it is misleading to suggest that, as the archaeological record of, say, fourth century BCE Apulia predates the modern Italian state, we should be unconcerned about the wholescale looting of ancient cemeteries in southern Italy to supply the antiquities market.

We need to remember that Apulian pottery has been returned to Italy from four North American collections:

The failure has not been in the "laws to protect our common ancient heritage", but rather in the ethical frameworks and standards employed by (some) acquiring museums (and [some] private collectors). (See Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway's sensible comments quoted in "The time of illicit acquisitions is long gone".)

Cuno concludes his essay with this challenge:

Arguments between museums and archaeologists over the acquisition of undocumented antiquities are a diversion from real arguments, which ought to be between those who value antiquity and the nationalist governments who manipulate it for political gain.

We agree that undocumented antiquities will not regain their archaeological contexts by being returned to the country from which they had been looted.

But losing millions of dollars worth of acquisitions will surely make a museum think twice about acquiring what Cuno calls "undocumented antiquities". (And if there is one thing that the returns to Italy has taught us it is that [some] antiquities that were unknown prior to 1970 do have a habit of appearing in the Polaroids seized in Geneva.)

So let me take a current example.

Do we care about the destruction of sixth century BCE tombs in the Republic of Macedonia to supply antiquities for, say, private collectors?

Yes.

Not because of "nationalist retentionist cultural property laws" (though I could understand a call by archaeologists working in the Republic of Macedonia for the return of specific pieces) but because looting is destroying some unique and highly significant archaeological contexts—and that destruction is removing part of human knowledge for ever.

Looting has intellectual consequences.

Marble Lekythos Returns to Greece

2008-04-21T16:44:00.006+01:00

Mihalis Liapis revealed today that a marble funerary lekythos has been returned to Greece from an antiquities dealer in Switzerland ("Ancient Lekythos Returned", Athens News Agency, April 21, 2008). It is reported:

It is a funerary lekythos depicting a farewell banquet for the deceased, in a classic farewell scene. It was presented at an international antiquities dealers exhibition in 2007 in Maastricht, where it was put up for auction by a Swiss antiquities dealer.

After a series of negotiations, the Swiss dealer decided to hand over the lekythos to the Greek government in an out-of-court settlement, without reservations or conditions. It was delivered to a representative of the Greek embassy in Berne and then crated in the customs free zone in Basel before being transported to Greece.

The lekythos appears to have surfaced at TEFAF Maastrict in March 2007. The press release does not name the dealer. (The TEFAF website only lists those who are due to exhibit in 2009). It would be interesting to know if the lekythos had been recognised by the Art Loss Register (ALR) whose services are used for TEFAF.

Will more details be released? The return was "without reservations or conditions"—so why the secrecy?

UPDATE
Rompres has provided further images and the following statement:

A funerary lekythos made of Pentelic marble (400-350 B.C) is displayed in the Archaeological Museum of Athens, Greece, 21 April 2008. The lekythos was officialy [sic.] presented to the Press on 21st April by Greek Culture Minister Michalis Liapis after it was repatriated on 17 th April from Basel, Switzerland where it had been part of the collection of the antique dealer J.D.Cahn.

Presumably this is Jean-David Cahn AG of Basel.

Image
Culture Minister Mihalis Liapis on Monday inspects a 4th-century B.C. marble funerary lekythos returned to Greece from the collection of a private antiquities dealer in Switzerland that he presented to the press at the National Archaeological Museum the same day.
From Athens News Agency.

Context Matters: The Derveni Krater

2008-04-18T18:57:00.006+01:00

I noticed this initiative from the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (ASCSA). They have launched a new series, "Ancient Art and Architecture in Context", with the publication of The Derveni Krater: Masterpiece of Classical Greek Metalwork (2008) by Beryl Barr-Sharrar.

The report of the lecture on April 3, 2008, noted:

The aim of the Ancient Art and Architecture in Context series, published with the support of the Getty Foundation, a groundbreaking concept, is to emphasize that ancient art found in Greece can only be properly understood by scholars if the provenance of the antiquities is known.

It then adds this comment from Charles Watkinson, Director of ASCSA Publications at Princeton:

In other words, we are making a very strong statement against the trade in illicit antiquities.

Context matters because looting has intellectual as well as material consequences.