Fragments attributed to the Berlin painter

What questions should we be considering when we study the fragments of Athenian red-figured pottery that are dispersed between different collections and museums? This short study takes the example of some five pieces attributed to the Berlin painter (BN3, BN9, BN12, BN29, BN38); two have been returned to Italy. When were these fragments moved to different collections? Who was involved? In the case of two of the pieces, the initial fragments were presented to the museum only to be followed by purchases from a different source. Such a pattern of acquisition is not confined to the Berlin painter.

This paper questions the position taken by James Cuno that scholars should not seek the clarify the "provenance" (I prefer "history") of such fragments. 

The fragments are a reminder of the information that has been lost by the unscientific removal of Athenian pottery from funerary and other archaeological contexts.

Reference

Gill, D. W. J. 2020. "Fragmented Athenian Pots and the Berlin Painter: Recent Breaks?" Academia Letters, Letter 40: 1–5. [DOI]

Portable Finds and Roman Britain

My review of 50 Roman Finds from the Portable Antiquities Scheme (2020) has appeared in the latest number of the Journal of Art Crime. Several issues are explored including the accuracy of the find-spots.

Some of the finds have been derived from agricultural work, but most are obtained as a result of metal-detecting, some from more than 0.6 m below the plough soil. How much contextual information has been lost when hoards are removed from the ground? What scientific information has been derived about the so-called 'Gloucestershire Licking Dog Hoard'?

The so-called Crosby Garrett helmet is discussed along with the reported post-find investigation. Sadly this significant find is not on permanent public display. Why not?

I wonder if some of the finds are derived from Grand Tour collections rather than providing evidence of the Roman occupation of Britain. The garnet head of a philosopher may have been derived from Oxnead Hall, home of the Paston family in Norfolk. (Two other databases place it in Huntingdonshire or Oxfordshire.) A copper-alloy balsamarium could have derived from the collection of the antiquary Bryan Faussett. 

This study suggests that there are potential intellectual consequences of using this type of material for interpreting the study of Roman Britain.

Reference

Gill, D. W. J. 2020. Review of John Pearce and Sally Worrell, 50 Roman Finds from the Portable Antiquities Scheme (Stroud: Amberley, 2020). Journal of Art Crime 24: 69–74.

Donations and purchases at the J. Paul Getty Museum

My latest essay for the Journal of Art Crime looks at the pattern of donations of figure-decorated pot fragments to the J. Paul Getty Museum by Werner Nussberger. Some 6000 pieces were donated to the Getty in 1981. The study identifies how additional pieces from the same pots were purchased from Galerie Nefer in 1985 and 1986. Other handlers of pot fragments are identified. 

This pattern raises issues about how and when the pot fragments were dispersed before they made their way to the Getty. 

Gill, D. W. J. 2020. "Context matters: the fragmentary gifts of Werner Nussberger." Journal of Art Crime 24: 57-60.

Stockholm and a statue from the Medici Dossier

Source: Christos Tsirogiannis

Associate Professor Christos Tsirogiannis of Aarhus University has identified a Roman marble statue that surfaced on the Stockholm market. The statue had been spotted by Steffan Lundén who had then contacted Tsirogiannis. The identification was made from one of the images seized from the Medici Dossier. 

The statue was reported to have formed part of the Max Willborg (1933–2001) collection. Willborg ran galleries in London and Stockholm, and part of his pre-Colombian was sold at Christie's in 2001. 

When did Willborg acquire the statue? What other material was derived from the same source?

I am grateful to Christos Tsirogiannis for sharing this material with me.

Funerary reliefs from Ostia

Funerary reliefs of the Caltilii.
Source: Tampa Museum of Art (L), The J. Paul Getty Museum (R).

The Italian Senator, Margherita Corrado, has raised the issue of funerary reliefs from the tomb of the Caltilii in Ostia ("Italian Senator Margherita Corrado commenting on two suspect Roman altars at the J. Paul Getty Museum and the Tampa Museum of Art", ARCA blog, December 8, 2020).  She has identified two Roman funerary reliefs that appear to come from a family burial area on the Via dei Sepolchri. One is in the J. Paul Getty Museum (inv. 83.AA.209), donated by Achille Moretti, and the other in the Tampa Museum of Art (inv. 1991.001), purchased by The Collectors. 

The Tampa relief is the monument of L. Caltilius Diadumenus (with a mention of L. Caltilius Euhodus) (AE 2001 [2004], no. 621, 'fouilles clandestines'), and the Getty shows the funerary altar of L. Caltilius Stephanus and Caltilia Moschis. Caltilia Moschis also appears in a second relief now in the Palazzo Mattei in Rome (and discussed in Roman Funerary Sculptures no. 27). The Getty relief surfaced in an exhibition, partly arranged with J. Frel, at Geneva's Musée d'histoire et d'art in 1982. Corrado's press release claims that documentation in the seized Becchina archive shows that Palladion Antike Kunst tried to sell the altar to a US museum on behalf of a Swiss-based collector. 

Did the curatorial team at Tampa investigate the history of the relief when concerns were raised about it in 2004? Who handled the relief before it was sold to Tampa?

The Becchina Archive and Armour from Italy

Marianne Mödlinger and Christos Tsirogiannis have published a study of armour. It includes a group of 'armor for horses' (inv. 83.AC.7.1–2, 3–4) and two helmets (inv. 83.AC.8.1–2), all placed in 'Southern Italy'. The pieces were purchased from Antike Kunst Palladion in 1983. All six objects appear in the same image from the seized Becchina archive. 

It is suggested, "the repatriation of these human and horse armour objects to Italy is the least that the Getty Museum should do".

Reference

Mödlinger, M., and C. Tsirogiannis. 2020. "Recent cases of unprovenanced armour in the antiquities market and its clients." Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 50: 323–37.

Fittings from a Roman Chariot

This presentation will explore how the description of objects by museums and in exhibition catalogues can alert researchers to the workings of the antiquities market. It will use a specific case study of four Roman bronzes that are said to have ‘traveled through the art market’ together: two were acquired by the J. Paul Getty Museum, one by the Cleveland Museum of Art, and the fourth by a North American private collection (and subsequently sold to the Getty). Was the movement of these figures fortuitous or does it indicate something more? The scientific study of the corrosion products suggests that they had shared a similar ‘burial environment’. Moreover, the bronzes are linked by the presence of ‘relatively homogenous’ fragments of red brick or tile embedded in their surfaces. What can we infer from the evidence?