Skip to main content

Madrid: Response from Spain

I see that there there is a response to Fabio Isman's report on the 22 antiquities in Madrid that appear to be connected with the Medici and Becchina Dossiers (José Pérez-Guerra, "Expolio de patrimonios: La Colección Várez Fisa, adquirida en 1999 para el MAN, en el punto de mira", infoenpunto.es July 7, 2010 ). Pérez-Guerra claims that the collector, José Luis Várez Fisa, purchased on the open market ("mercado abierto"). There is a call for a joint Italian-Spanish investigation to decide what should be done. It is suggested that experts in international law be included. However, it should be noted that the 120 or so antiquities returned from North American public and private collections to Italy were not the result of legal action (though I suspect lawyers were consulted).

It would be better for common sense to prevail and for the Spanish to negotiate a suitable exchange. This would avoid the curatorial staff in Madrid having to answer searching questions about their lack of due diligence over the acquisition especially as it was made after the revaltions relating to the Geneva raids.

Image
Attic black-figured amphora from the Medici Dossier.

Bookmark and Share so Your Real Friends Know that You Know

Comments

DR.KWAME OPOKU said…
Spain has been shown to have bought objects that informed persons, including those working in the National Archaeological Museum, should have known were looted objects. They should do the right thing by seeking a quick deal with Italy to return the bulk of the objects. One can see the interest in turning the whole matter into a legal dispute which may linger on for years. Buying artefacts from “open market” (whatever that may mean in this context) is not sufficient ground for believing the objects were legitimately acquired. Recent cases should have caused Spanish officials to exercise more diligence in finding out the history of the objects.
Kwame Opoku

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?