Skip to main content

Many Getty Returns?

Midnight on 31 July is approaching - and we are waiting to see if the dispute is resolved between the J. Paul Getty Museum and the Italian Government. [See report in the LA Times]

In November 2006 the Getty agreed to return 26 items. Many had been identified from Polaroids seized in the Geneva Freeport on premises associated with Giacomo Medici. The 26 items had been acquired between 1971 and 1996; they included 6 items from the Fleischman collection. Many had appeared as Masterpieces of the Getty Collection. (See my 1998 review.) There are clear links with Atlantis Antiquities (jointly owned by Robert Hecht and Jonathan Rosen), Robin Symes, and Galerie Nefer in Zurich (Frida Tchacos). The evidence is telling and a full discussion of the 26 items by Gill and Chippindale is in press.

At least nine other pieces from the former Fleischman collection appear in the Polaroids. Five had passed through the hands of Fritz Burki, 2 through Symes. Non-Fleischman material include objects acquired from Antike Kunst Palladion of Basel. There appears to be a strong case for the Getty to return these items to Italy - and for them to be added to the 26.

Then there is the acrolithic statue (whether or not it came from Morgantina). It surfaced in a Swiss collection and passed through the hands of Robin Symes. Its history looks suspicious. (And it also seems that the surfacing date of 1939 was fabricated.)

The Getty Youth or Fano Athlete is a different matter. It seems to have surfaced in the 1960s prior to the 1970 UNESCO Convention. That is not to say that there is moral pressure for the Getty to return the sculpture - but the issues are different and the negotiations can follow a different track.

If the bronze athlete is removed from the equation for the moment, can this dispute be resolved to the satsifaction of both sides? Failure to return antiquities which feature in the infamous Polaroids will only further tarnish the Getty's reputation. The clock is ticking.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Codename: Ainsbrook

I have been watching (UK) Channel 4's Time Team this evening. The programme looked at an undisclosed field (under a potato crop) where a Viking burial had been found. The location in Yorkshire was so sensitive that it was given a codename: Ainsbrook. Here is the summary:
In late 2003 two metal detectorists were working in a field in Yorkshire. They found 'treasure' buried just beneath the surface – a collection of Viking material next to a body. Although they had been detecting on the site for a number of years, during which time they had made large numbers of finds, nothing they had uncovered previously compared with this. They decided to share their discovery with archaeologists.The programme explored the tension between metal-detectorists and the English Heritage sponsored archaeologists putting six trenches into the field based on a geo-physical survey. Finds made by the metal-detectorists did not easily map onto the archaeological features.

Part of the programme had an …

George Ortiz collection to be displayed in London

Christie's is due to display part of the former collection of the late George Ortiz in London in a non-selling show to mark the 25th anniversary of the exhibition at the Royal Academy. There is a statement on the Christie's website ("The Ortiz Collection — ‘proof that the past is in all of us’"). Max Bernheimer is quoted: ‘Ortiz was one of the pre-eminent collectors of his day’.

We recall the associations with Ortiz such as the Horiuchi sarcophagus, the Hestiaios stele fragment, the marble funerary lekythos, and the Castor and Pollux.

Bernheimer will, no doubt, wish to reflect on the Royal Academy exhibition by reading Christopher Chippindale and David W. J. Gill. 2000. "Material consequences of contemporary classical collecting." American Journal of Archaeology 104: 463-511 [JSTOR].

Bernheimer will probably want to re-read the two pieces by Peter Watson that appeared in The Times: , "Ancient art without a history" and "Fakes - the artifice b…

Tutankhamun, Christie's and rigorous due dligence

It was announced today that the Egyptian authorities would be taking legal action against Christie's over the sale of the head of Tutankhamun ("Egypt to sue Christie's to retrieve £4.7m Tutankhamun bust", BBC News 9 July 2019).

The BBC reports:
Egypt's former antiquities chief, Zahi Hawass, said the bust appeared to have been "stolen" in the 1970s from the Temple of Karnak. "The owners have given false information," he told AFP news agency. "They have not shown any legal papers to prove its ownership." Christie's maintain the history of the piece as follows:
It stated that Germany's Prince Wilhelm von Thurn und Taxis reputedly had it in his collection by the 1960s, and that it was acquired by an Austrian dealer in 1973-4. However the family of von Thurn und Taxis claim that the head was never in that collection [see here].

Christie's reject any hint of criticism:
"Christie's would not and do not sell any work whe…