Skip to main content

Collecting histories and intellectual consequences for the study of the past

I have recently published a research paper on the issue of collecting histories. The work reminded me about the possibility of falsifying find-spots and "provenance".

At the end of last week I received an email from a major North American museum in response to a request for the collecting history of a specific piece. I found it very interesting that I was pointed to a dealer's catalogue entry complete with a statement about the possible finding of the piece in a 19th century "excavation" at a particular site.

If that information was correct it could be significant. And I suspect that there are some who work in this area will be wanting to link the object in question with this site. But what if the piece of sculpture was not found where it was said? What are the intellectual consequences?

This reminds me that statements about old collections or reported find-spots need to be qualified with the source. What is the basis for this knowledge? Who provided the information? Is the statement reliable? Is it potentially misleading?

I have written back to the museum asking for clarification, partly because I have some contradictory information on the same piece. I have also written to one of the dealers who handled the piece to see if the gallery concerned can shed a little light on the issue.

Image
From a dealer's archive.

Bookmark and Share so Your Real Friends Know that You Know

Comments

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…