Skip to main content

Giacomo Medici: scapegoat or first in a series?

Giacomo Medici's appeal against his conviction for his part in what has become known as the "Medici Conspiracy" has failed. This suggests that Italian courts are taking a firm position over the issue of cultural property. The commercial looting of archaeological sites across Italy has yielded hundreds of thousands of objects; and that has been at a cost, the destruction of unexcavated archaeological sites. And we are all losers if we have cosmopolitan values.

Medici's warehouse in the Geneva Freeport contained not only antiquities but also photographic evidence of previous transactions. And it was those photographs that have helped the Italian government to identify recently looted pieces that had been acquired by various international museums and private collections.

But was Medici alone?

We know of at least one Sicilian dealer whose warehouses in Basel have been raided and the objects returned to Italy.

What about those in Switzerland who are known to have handled the recently surfaced objects? What about the specialised conservator? (His name appears as a vendor with at least one North American museum.)

What about those who identified objects apparently while they were still in Switzerland? It appears that some of the figure-decorated pottery was being attributed to (anonymous) "painters" by scholars before the objects were offered for auction.

What about the staff of auction houses who appear to have known about the trail of the objects through Switzerland? The fact that a major auction-house shut down its antiquities department in London suggests that there was an acceptance that something less than acceptable had been taking place.

What about the independent dealers who were handling high value objects? The names of two appear time and again in the objects returned to both Italy and Greece.

Then what about the curatorial staff of museums that were buying these new objects? What did they think was going on? And let us not forget the senior staff members and trustees of those museums who should have been protecting the good name of their institutions.

What about private collectors who were happily buying recently surfaced antiquities?

This web of dealers, collectors and museum staff all had their part to play in the "Medici Conspiracy" (see also D.W.J. Gill and C. Chippindale, "The illicit antiquities scandal: what it has done to classical archaeology collections," American Journal of Archaeology 111 [2007] 571-74 [AJA]). And this is why museums that have returned material to Italy need to make a full disclosure of the collecting histories of the objects. At least three major museums in North America have chosen to keep this information private. Why? Is it not a matter of public interest for them to disclose the sources for those objects? Did they buy them directly from dealers? Did they buy them at auction? Were they donated by private collectors? Lack of transparency will merely prolong the agony as the information is likely to come out at some stage.

Should Medici be singled out as the only example of wrong-doing?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Marble bull's head from the temple of Eshmun

Excavations at the temple of Eshmun in Lebanon recovered a marble bull's head. It is now suggested that it was this head, apparently first published in 1967, that was placed on loan to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art (Tom Mashberg, "Met Museum Turns Over Another Relic With Disputed Past to Prosecutors", New York Times August 1, 2017 ). The head is reported to have been handed over to the Manhattan district attorney after a request was received from the Lebanese authorities.

It is suggested that the head may have been looted from an archaeological storage area at Byblos in the 1980s during the Lebanese civil war. Mashberg has rehearsed the recent collecting history:
The owners of the bull’s head, Lynda and William Beierwaltes of Colorado, say they have clear title to the item and have sued Manhattan prosecutors for its return.  The Beierwaltes bought the head from a dealer in London in 1996 for more than $1 million and then sold it to another collector, Michael …

The Toledo skyphos and a Swiss private collection

The Attic red-figured skyphos attributed to the Kleophon painter in the Toledo Museum of Art (inv. 1982.88) is now coming under further scrutiny following the research of Dr Christos Tsirogiannis. The skyphos shows Hephaistos returning to Olympos.

Tsirogiannis has identified what appears to be this skyphos in five photographs in the Medici Dossier. The museum acknowledged that the skyphos had resided in a 'private Swiss collection'. Tsirogiannis suggests that this is probably a reference to Medici.

Enquiries to the museum by Tsirogiannis elicited the information that the skyphos had been acquired from Nicholas Koutoulakis (although that information does not appear on the museum's online catalogue).

The curatorial team at the Toledo Museum of Art will, no doubt, be contacting the Italian authorities to discuss the future residence of the skyphos.

For further discussion of the Toledo Museum of Art on LM see here.

Reference
Tsirogiannis, C. 2017. "Nekyia: Museum ethics an…

Metropolitan Museum of Art hands over Paestan krater

In May 2014 I commented on a Paestan krater acquired by New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art after it had been identified by Dr Christos Tsirogiannis in photographic images seized from Giacomo Medici. Tsirogiannis published his full concerns in the Journal of Art Crime in 2014, but it has taken a further three years for the museum to respond.

The krater showing Dionysos in a hand-drawn cart was purchased in 1989 from the Bothmer Purchase Fund (details from the Museum's website, inv. 1989.11.4). The krater surfaced through Sotheby's New York in June 1989.

It is unclear who consigned the krater to Sotheby's New York.

It has now been revealed that the krater has been handed over to the US authorities after a warrant had been issued (Tom Mashberg, "Ancient Vase Seized From Met Museum on Suspicion It Was Looted", New York Times July 31, 2018).

It appears that the museum did make an attempt to resolve the case in December 2016. Mashberg notes:
The Met, for its par…