Intellectual Consequences: can we trust the find-spot?

I was keen to follow the "find-spot" of a piece of Attic black-figured pottery which surfaced before the 1970 UNESCO Convention.

• a. The original dealer's catalogue gave no indication of find-spot.
• b. The initial publication in a British archaeological journal gave the find-spot as "reputedly" from a named site in Tuscany.
• c. The pot's publication in a study of related pieces stated, "Provenance: probably Italy (... alleged [Tuscan] provenance ...)".
• d. The Beazley Archive database does not give any indication of find-spot in its "provenance" field - though it does note, "said to be from [Tuscany]" in the record section.
• e. The museum in which it resides gives the Tuscan site as the database entry under "Field Collection".

Did I mention that the dealer was Robert Hecht?

This amphora highlights the problem with language. Many pieces of this type of pottery have been found at Cerveteri in Etruria. The alleged Tuscan site would be a significant find-spot. But is the report trustworthy? Should the location be presented as "Field Collection"? Or is "Field Collection" really a euphemism in these post-Medici Conspiracy days?

Should we be more careful in recording and presenting information? What are the intellectual consequences of using find-spots provided by dealers in studies of the distribution of Athenian pottery?

I suggest some possible designations (based on the codes developed by Gill and Chippindale):

• i. Excavated by 'x' at 'a'
• ii. Said by dealer 'y' to have been 'found' at 'b'
• iii. Allegedly from 'c' (source of information unknown)
• iv. Perhaps from 'd' (the type of object that could be expected to have been found at 'd')

Sphere: Related Content

Intellectual Consequences for the Study of Ancient Trade

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.

Sphere: Related Content

The "Morgantina" Silver Hoard

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
  

Sphere: Related Content

Looting in Italy: "a continuing, daily experience"

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.

Sphere: Related Content

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

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"?

Sphere: Related Content

James Cuno on Antiquities: What I Hope Will Be Addressed

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.

Sphere: Related Content

Acropolis Museum Preview

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.

Sphere: Related Content

Bonhams Withdraws Egyptian Antiquity From Auction

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?

Sphere: Related Content

Towards a Bibliography for Archaeological Ethics

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!

Sphere: Related Content

Francesco Rutelli and Antiquities

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.

Sphere: Related Content