Skip to main content

The Cleveland Apollo: Further Comments

Michael Bennett of the Cleveland Museum of Art has talked about the acquisition of the Cleveland Apollo (Rebecca Meiser, "An ancient Apollo statue landed in Cleveland and touched off an international outcry", Cleveland Scene, March 5, 2008).

Meiser repeats the "reported history" of the Apollo:
Hicham and Ali Aboutaam readily admitted to gaps in the Apollo's ownership record. From what they were able to determine, the statue was owned by a German family in the early 1900s. World War II forced them to flee, leaving their belongings behind.

In the 1990s, a surviving member returned to the family estate after the fall of East Germany. In the backyard lay a pile of debris. He could only make out the bronzed head of a young man, a sculpted hand, the outline of a lizard.

The man vaguely recalled seeing the statue in the garden as a child, but he knew nothing of its history. Believing the cost of repair would be greater than its value, he sold the statue to a Dutch dealer in 1994, who in turn sold it to another collector, who then sold it to the Aboutaams in 2001 with the understanding that he'd remain anonymous.
It could be true. But where is the certified documentation?

And are all the investigations about the Apollo compelling? Meiser reports:
The International Art Loss Register in New York, which tracks stolen art, found no claims on the piece.
But, as I have pointed out before, absence from the Art Loss Register does not signify anything when it comes to recently surfaced antiquities.

One thing is clear. There appears to be no evidence that the statue had spent time underwater and it thus looks like the Greek Government's claim that it came from a shipwreck is without foundation.

Meiser then reviews some of the cases of antiquities handled by the Aboutaams, though she does not note an Etruscan architectural terracotta that has been returned from Princeton, or the Italian claim that some of Shelby White's antiquities came from "the Aboutaam family, the owners of the Phoenix Ancient Art gallery". Meiser quotes Neil Brodie who said that he "would be acutely "suspicious" of anything that passed through the brothers' hands". In contrast:
Bennett dismissed the allegations. He'd been dealing with the brothers for years. In his experience, they'd been nothing but forthcoming and ethical.
If that is the case, what else has the Cleveland Museum of Art purchased from the brothers? Will the Cleveland Museum of Art make that list public? And, if transparency is important, there is every reason to place this information in the public domain.

Meiser also touches on the Italian Government's request for the return of other items.
During the trial of dealer Robert Hecht, the Italians cited eight pieces Hecht had sold to Cleveland.
A much longer list of requested returns includes some material that has been around for quite a long-time (see, for example,
Suzan Mazur, "Italy Will Contest Medea Vase At Cleveland Museum", Scoop.co.nz, October 9, 2006). Among the antiquities is the head of the emperor Balbinus from a marble sarcophagus (1925.945; gift of J.H. Wade) and a Roman silver cup from Vicarello acquired in 1966 (1966.371) but first known in 1866. But many of the other pieces have surfaced more recently and certainly after 1970.

Cleveland has apparently refused to comment on the Italian list, and seems to be taking a firm stand.
But talking to Bennett, one gets the sense that the museum won't be quick to wave a white flag. "Our policy is really straightforward," he says. "Anyone at anytime" can protest an item's status. And "If someone has information that proves [the piece was illegally purchased], the museum has an obligation to look at that evidence . . . The Cleveland Museum of Art wants to know as much as possible about the items in our exhibits."

At the same time, Bennett claims that all pieces are vigorously researched. Just because a dealer is charged doesn't mean all his deals were tainted. Hecht's case is ongoing.
But Bennett misses the point. Can the Cleveland Museum of Art be certain that the pieces in question had not been looted? What was the Museum's due diligence process? Are the pieces documented prior to 1970? Who sold them?

The Museum needs to make this information available.

Comments

livius said…
This is not specifically related to Clevand Museum of Art, but I couldn't help but notice the article also seems to underplay the results of the Medici warehouse raid.

They mention only that the police found photographs of looted objects, when in fact the warehouse was packed with actual looted antiquities. Hence the term "warehouse".

Overall, the article takes something of a gauze-wrapped approach to the issues.

Popular posts from this blog

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.



"Beating sites to death"

Policy decisions for protecting archaeological sites need to be informed by carefully argued positions based on data. Dr Sam Hardy has produced an important study, “Metal detecting for cultural objects until ‘there is nothing left’: The potential and limits of digital data, netnographic data and market data for analysis”. Arts 7, 3 (2018) [online]. This builds on Hardy's earlier research.

Readers should note Hardy's conclusion about his findings: "they corroborate the detecting community’s own perception that they are ‘beat[ing these sites] to death’".

Pieterjan Deckers, Andres Dobat, Natasha Ferguson, Stijn Heeren, Michael Lewis, and Suzie Thomas may wish to reflect on whether or not their own position is endangering the finite archaeological record. 

Abstract
This methodological study assesses the potential for automatically generated data, netnographic data and market data on metal-detecting to advance cultural property criminology. The method comprises the analysi…