Skip to main content

Will Princeton Follow Yale?

This week's Times Higher Education Supplement (September 28, 2007) carried a major story on "Yale and Peru Agree on Artefact's Return". I have already commented on this specific issue.

What is interesting about the article is that the THES notes:
"Several other US university museums remain enmeshed in controversies relating to the ownership of items in their collections".
Four examples are given, but the first held a great deal of interest for me:
"Italy asserts ownership of an Athenian red-figure wine cooler and an Apulian loutrophoros (pottery vessel) in the Princeton University Art Museum, which it says were taken illegally. The museum, which has returned a Roman monument, disputes this claim."

This is an old story (Julia Osellame, "Italian Government says university owns stolen art", Dailyprincetonian.com posted March 27, 2006; and see Princeton Alumni Weekly), but it touches on the article I have just published with Christopher Chippindale. (For the Princeton University Art Museum.)

In November 2005 Princeton issued a press statement:
"According to Susan M. Taylor, who has been director of the Princeton University Art Museum since 2000, “The museum purchased these vases in good faith and has no knowledge of any wrongdoing associated with their acquisition. If proof of illegality is presented to the museum, the vases will be returned, as we have returned other items in the past.”
A contemporary news report in NJ.com noted:
"Princeton University Art Museum spokeswoman Ruta Smithson would not say from whom the museum purchased the two vases in question or how much they paid for them."
The accession numbers have not been included in the reports. But Princeton acquired an Athenian psykter, attributed to the Kleophrades painter, in 1989 (acc. y 1989-69) [JSTOR - access restricted]. The list of donors who assisted with the acquisition is provided. An Apulian loutrophoros was also purchased in 1989 (acc. y 1989-29) ("Museum purchase, anonymous gift"). [JSTOR - access restricted]. This loutrophoros is listed elsewhere (in Vase-painting in Italy: Red-figure and Related Works in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston [1993]) as one of the works attributed to the Darius painter that have surfaced in "recent years" - along with kraters in Berlin and a pelike which is being returned to Italy by the Getty.

Has the Princeton trail gone quiet? In the 2005 press statement it was stressed:
"In January 2005, the art museum provided Italian authorities with the information requested. Since that time, the museum has received no further communication from authorities in Italy, although they are quoted in recent press accounts as stating that they possess evidence that the two vases left Italy illegally and should be returned."
Yet it was reported in 2005 that the Princeton psykter is "listed in Hecht's indictment" (Vernon Silver, "Tomb-Robbing Trials Name Getty, Metropolitan, Princeton Museums", Bloomberg.com, October 30, 2005).

Things have moved on since November 2005. We have seen returns agreed with New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, Boston's Museum of Fine Arts, and the J. Paul Getty Museum.

So here is a quick list of questions for the Princeton University Art Museum as The Record of the Art Museum did not provide the information.
a. Did the psykter and loutrophoros surface after 1970?

b. What are the recorded histories for the psykter and loutrophoros? Who owned them prior to Princeton?
Would anybody like to provide the information? Was the THES right to cite Princeton as an example?

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 …

The scale of the returns to Italy

I have been busy working on an overview, "Returning Archaeological Objects to Italy". The scale of the returns to Italy from North American collections and galleries is staggering: in excess of 350 objects. This is clearly the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the material that has surfaced on the market without a history that can be traced back to the period before 1970. 

I will provide more information in due course, but the researcher is a reminder that we need to take due diligence seriously when it comes to making acquisitions.

Stele returns to Greece

The Hellenic Ministry of Culture has announced (Saturday 8 September 2018) that a stele that had been due to be auctioned at Sotheby's in London in June 2017 has been returned to Greece (Friday 7 September 2018). The identification had been made by Cambridge-based forensic archaeologist Dr Christos Tsirogiannis.

It appeared that the stele had been supplied with a falsified history as its presence with Becchina until 1990 contradicted the published sale catalogue entry. It then moved into the hands of George Ortiz.

A year ago it was suggested that Sotheby's should contact the Greek authorities. Those negotiations appear to have concluded successfully.

The 4th century BC stele fragment, with the personal name, Hestiaios, will be displayed in the Epigraphic Museum in Athens. It appears to have come from a cemetery in Attica.