Skip to main content

Loan Exhibitions and Transparency

In 2006 the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) issued guidelines on the accepting the loan of archaeological material. Hugh Eakin ("Museums Assert Right On Showing Antiquities", New York Times, February 25, 2006) was quick to comment on them, noting the context for two contemporary collections of classical antiquities:
The issue is particularly delicate as foreign governments press claims on works from two of the most prominent private American collections, the Lawrence A. and Barbara Fleischman collection and the Leon Levy and Shelby White Collection. The J. Paul Getty Museum displayed the Fleischman collection before acquiring it in 1996, and some works from the Levy-White collection are on loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
The issue was demonstrably delicate as parts of the Fleischman collection are now on display in Rome, and part of the Shelby White collection has been handed over to Italian authorities (though the precise list has yet to be disclosed more than one month on).

Eakin continued:
Some museum directors argue that the current wave of antiquities claims against museums and collectors actually resulted from active efforts by museums to display the works and publish articles about them.
He quoted Peter C. Marzio, the director of the Houston Museum of Fine Arts and a member of the AAMD working party that drew up the guidelines on loans:
That's the ultimate irony ... Most of these claims would never have been made if the institutions and the collectors have not been this open and transparent.
It is clear that the publication of antiquities from the Barbara and Lawrence Fleischman, and the Shelby White and Levy White collections have allowed Italian authorities to identify objects shown in the Polaroids seized in the Geneva Freeport, and thus establish a link with Giacomo Medici. Hopefully Marzio and other responsible museum directors would condemn the deliberate looting of archaeological sites to supply objects for the antiquities market. We are not talking about chance finds, or pots that have been collecting dust in a Grand Tourist's stately home.

I also observe that Marzio was soon embroiled in an issue over archaeological loans soon after the publication of the AAMD report (Patricia C. Johnson, "Borrowing trouble; Long-term loans don't let museums off the hook", Houston Chronicle, July 16, 2006). The issue then was over the loan of ten Roman portraits from "the controversial Shelby White Levy" (as Johnson phrased it). Shelby White was said to have asserted that "all the antiquities in her collection were bought in good faith". Indeed, Jasper Gaunt, of the Carlos Museum at Emory University, reported that some of the sculptures could be traced back to the eighteenth century and had substantial documentation.

Be that as it may, Shelby White has still had to hand over some of her antiquities to the Italian authorities, and she is said to have indicated that some Roman-British bronzes, apparently looted from Suffolk, England, will be left to the British Museum on her death.

Johnson quoted Frances Marzio, a curator in Houston:
Policies on loans are very clear ... For a traveling exhibition, the organizing institution is responsible for documenting provenance. For long-term loans, the responsibility is ours as borrower.
So, if long-term loans are the responsibility of the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, can I ask some simple questions about a bronze krater that curatorial staff at Houston tell me has been in their collection for some four years, a length of time most would consider to be "long-term"? The krater in question is on loan from Shelby White.

Please could a member of the curatorial staff at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, release the "documenting provenance" for this krater? And by that I mean information about when it was acquired by Shelby White (and Leon Levy), the name of the dealer, the names for former owners, documented dates of surfacing and display, and the reported find-spot.

The AAMD Guidelines on the loan of archaeological material called for transparency. Indeed, Peter C. Marzio, helped to phrase this report:
AAMD supports the open exchange of information among researchers and institutions as they collaborate on loans, exhibitions and other scholarly projects. Through this process, the most complete, accurate and useful information about works of art becomes available to a broad public.
So, in the spirit of "the open exchange of information", please could I have some "accurate and useful information" about this krater?


David Gill said…
Patricia Johnson's article can be found here.
Anonymous said…
He quoted Peter C. Marzio, the director of the Houston Museum of Fine Arts and a member of the AAMD working party that drew up the guidelines on loans.

That's the ultimate irony ... Most of these claims would never have been made if the institutions and the collectors have not been this open and transparent.

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.