Skip to main content

Madrid: Indifference is not an option

Archaeologist Paul Barford has drawn my attention to a story in the Art Newspaper (Fabio Isman, "Looted from Italy and now in a major Spanish museum? Madrid’s National Archaeological Museum may have bought trafficked items", The Art Newspaper July 13, 2010). It is reported that 22 objects in Madrid's Museo Arqueologico Nacional can be traced back to Giacomo Medici or Gianfranco Becchina. The objects have been identified by images seized in Geneva and Basel.

It seems that the 22 pieces were acquired as part of a collection of 181 ancient objects purchased for $12 m in 1999 from collector José Luis Várez Fisa. The story about their identification is one that repeats itself from other museums, private collections, and dealers:
A few of them show objects still covered in mud—suggesting they had been recently (and illegally) unearthed—while others show the pieces in fragments, before the dealers sent them to be professionally restored. One object, an Apulian Bell Krater from 330BC that was later sold by Sotheby’s, appeared in a picture belonging to Medici that appears to have been taken in the Zurich workshop of the art restorers Fritz and Harry Bürki, a father-and-son team to whom leading antiquities dealer Robert Hecht (whose separate trial in Rome relating to the illicit trade is likely to end without a verdict because it has run out of time) sent works for restoration.
It appears that some pieces had passed through the Royal-Athena Galleries and other dealers:
Some of the objects in the Madrid catalogue have been published before, including in the German review Munzen und Medaillen, whose late owner was a close friend of Becchina, or by the leading New York antiquarian, Jerome Eisenberg, of the Royal-Athena Galleries. ... Nine of the Madrid artefacts were first published by Eisenberg between 1993 and 1997, in volumes of the gallery’s Art of the Ancient World. (Eisenberg counters that all the objects in his catalogues between 1988 and 2005 were checked by the Italian police, and that all—apart from eight objects that he voluntarily returned to Italy in 2007—were cleared by them.)
It should be noted that some of these items surfaced prior to the raids on Medici's premises in the Geneva Freeport in which the polaroids were seized. (For the 8 returned items see here.)

The article is keen to stress:
... there is no evidence of any dealing between José Luis Várez Fisa and Becchina or Medici, despite the large amount of paperwork seized from the pair, or that Fisa was aware of any problems in the provenance of the objects he acquired.
However the implications are clear:
Nevertheless the case demonstrates how easily all too many recent private collections were formed, and how some of the world’s most important museums (and not only those who knowingly connived to buy objects directly from the “traffickers”), bought antiquities that had been completely decontextualised from their past, with origins were at best extremely obscure. Will the Italian state try to reclaim at least some of the more important artefacts taken from under its soil? And, now that the National Archaeological Museum of Madrid knows all about the illicit provenance of many of its artefacts, will it pretend that nothing has happened? Indifference, surely, is not an option.
I have looked in the Beazley Archive database. One of the pieces illustrated in the article (with Medici Polaroid) appears there:

  • a. Madrid 1999.99.53. Collecting history: New York private collection; Sotheby-Parke-Bernet, New York 17 December 1997, lot 96. Publ. Bonet, P.C. (ed.), La coleccion Varez Fisa en el Museo Arqueologico Nacional, Septembre-Novembre 2003 (Madrid, 2003): 173-175, no. 57.


22 objects appear in the Beazley database (though not all appear to be linked to the 22 identified by the Italian authorities). I note that several of the pieces from the general collection surfaced in Sotheby's London in December 1982, May 1988, July 1994, and New York in June 1996; it should be stressed that these need not have been ex-Medici or ex-Becchina. At least one of the pieces had passed through the Graham Geddes collection, and another through Galerie Nefer in Zurich (see Galerie Nefer's link to returned objects). Others were purchased in 1997, just two years before the collection was sold.

It seems that the curatorial staff of the Museo Arqueologico Nacional have declined to comment. However it would be sensible for them to negotiate the return of the controversial pieces and follow in the line of other distinguished North American museums. The story is a good reminder of the toxic nature of the antiquities that passed through the hands of certain dealers.


Bookmark and Share so Your Real Friends Know that You Know

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Getty Kouros: "The moral is, never ever buy a piece without a provenance"

In the wake of the 1992 Athens conference to discuss the Getty kouros (85.AA.40), one of the delegates, a "distinguished" American museum curator, was quoted ("Greek sculpture; the age-old question", The Economist June 20, 1992):
The moral is, never ever buy a piece without a provenance.
The recent discussions about the return of antiquities from North American museums to Italy and Greece may seem far removed from the acquisition of what appears to be a forged archaic Greek sculpture in the 1980s. However, there are some surprising overlaps.

The statue arrived at the Getty on September 18, 1983 in seven pieces. True (1993: 11) subsequently asked two questions:
Where was it found? As it was said to have been in a Swiss private collection for fifty years, why had it never been reassembled, though it was virtually complete?
A similar statue surfacing in the 1930s
A decision was taken to acquire the kouros in 1985. The official Getty line at the time (and reported in Russell…

Symes and a Roman medical set

Pierre Bergé & Associés of Paris are offering a rare Roman bronze medical set (16 May 2018, lot 236). Its recorded history is: "Ancienne collection Hishiguro, Tokyo, 1992". The catalogue entry helpfully informs us that the set probably came from a burial ("Cette trousse de chirurgien a probablement été découverte dans une sépulture ...").

The set appears to be the one that has been identified by Dr Christos Tsirogannis from an image in the Schinousa archive thus linking it to Robin Symes.

Given that the catalogue entry suggests that this piece came from a funerary context and that the history of the piece can only be traced back to 1992 (and not to 1970), questions are being raised about the set's origins.

What due diligence was conducted on the medical set prior to offering it for sale? Did Symes sell the set to Hishiguro? How did Symes obtain the set? Who sold it to him?

I understand that the appropriate authorities in France are being informed about the …

The Minoan Larnax and the Michael C. Carlos Museum

I was recently asked to comment on the acquisition of recently surfaced antiquities in Greece as part of an interview. One of the examples I gave was the Minoan larnax that was acquired by the Michael C. Carlos Museum. Although this piece has been discussed in the Greek press, the museum has not yet responded to the apparent identification in the Becchina archive.

Is the time now right for the Michael C. Carlos Museum or the wider authorities at Emory University to negotiate the return of this impressive piece so that it can be placed on display in a museum in Greece?