Skip to main content

The world's most disputed antiquities

© David Gill
I noticed a list of the top 5 most disputed antiquities in the world. At number 1 are the Parthenon Marbles.

Would the Morgantina "Aphrodite" have been in your top 5?

There is no mention of the Rosetta Stone, the Getty Athlete, or the Benin Bronzes. What about the Egyptian mummy mask in the St Louis Art Museum?

What would LM readers suggest as their top 5? Would you differentiate between historic removals and items that have surfaced in more recent years?

Bookmark and Share so Your Real Friends Know that You Know


Anonymous said…
Great idea, David!

There are way too many (!) to list, but aside from those listed perhaps:

1. Nefertiti head
2. Bassae Frieze, London
3. Susa materials, Paris
4. Aegina Marbles, Munich

You should present the results of the survey at AIA ceremony next January!
Marc Fehlmann said…
The question is: Disputed by whom?

If there are no claims for certain objects, then there ar no disputes...
Tom Flynn said…
Why a top five? Why not a top ten, which is how most of these senseless polls proceed? That would include most of the usual suspects. In any event, there's no dispute that these are all disputed. The question is, what's to be done about them and will that list look any different ten years from now?
Anonymous said…
Absolutely Agree with Marc and Tom.

@ Marc: the message is still obviously not reaching the right people, i.e. the buyers at the end of the chain. As long as there are people out there who do not see the link between looting, having no registered documents, and cultural heritage destruction, it is all wishful thinking.

@ Tom: first, I found it also odd to have a poll, but this is how you may reach audience who are into competing. Is there already a facebook page where Parthenon-marbles, Rosetta stone, Benin bronzes do some networking? Might be a good exercise for students to develop one. What is the experience of the Morgantina Aphrodite, and what would she tell to her fellow-looted companions around the world? But then again, it is easy to become frustrated because we know that there are hundreds of thousands antiquities out of their context. But the media is big in education here. How about a prime time show "Dancing with the Antiquities?" Winner goes back. But then again, this might again just foster the illicit market.
Paul Barford said…
@Avatar Originally tongue-in-cheek, but...
Anonymous said…
Paul, This is fun! Thanks for sharing! Not so funny, of course the whole situation. Paul, Thumbs up also for your important work and the website, which I will follow from now on, too. Thank you!
Bill Thayer said…
It's a pity more of the Parthenon wasn't saved by the English before the Turks used it as an ammo dump in 1683; it's also a pity the Bamiyan Buddhas were too big for the West to rescue.

That said, the Etruscan chariot of Monteleone (now in the Met: probably belongs in the list, since it was spirited out of Umbria and Italy in the familiar sub rosa operation.
The really important question now is, as Tom Flynn has stated, what is to be done about these disputed objects. Do we approve of those who have looted artefacts of others, keeping them in their museums and are unwilling even to discuss the eventual return of some of the objects?

Readers might be interested in the list of top ten plundered artefacts published last year in Elginism.


Popular posts from this blog

Codename: Ainsbrook

I have been watching (UK) Channel 4's Time Team this evening. The programme looked at an undisclosed field (under a potato crop) where a Viking burial had been found. The location in Yorkshire was so sensitive that it was given a codename: Ainsbrook. Here is the summary:
In late 2003 two metal detectorists were working in a field in Yorkshire. They found 'treasure' buried just beneath the surface – a collection of Viking material next to a body. Although they had been detecting on the site for a number of years, during which time they had made large numbers of finds, nothing they had uncovered previously compared with this. They decided to share their discovery with archaeologists.The programme explored the tension between metal-detectorists and the English Heritage sponsored archaeologists putting six trenches into the field based on a geo-physical survey. Finds made by the metal-detectorists did not easily map onto the archaeological features.

Part of the programme had an …

George Ortiz collection to be displayed in London

Christie's is due to display part of the former collection of the late George Ortiz in London in a non-selling show to mark the 25th anniversary of the exhibition at the Royal Academy. There is a statement on the Christie's website ("The Ortiz Collection — ‘proof that the past is in all of us’"). Max Bernheimer is quoted: ‘Ortiz was one of the pre-eminent collectors of his day’.

We recall the associations with Ortiz such as the Horiuchi sarcophagus, the Hestiaios stele fragment, the marble funerary lekythos, and the Castor and Pollux.

Bernheimer will, no doubt, wish to reflect on the Royal Academy exhibition by reading Christopher Chippindale and David W. J. Gill. 2000. "Material consequences of contemporary classical collecting." American Journal of Archaeology 104: 463-511 [JSTOR].

Bernheimer will probably want to re-read the two pieces by Peter Watson that appeared in The Times: , "Ancient art without a history" and "Fakes - the artifice b…

Tutankhamun, Christie's and rigorous due dligence

It was announced today that the Egyptian authorities would be taking legal action against Christie's over the sale of the head of Tutankhamun ("Egypt to sue Christie's to retrieve £4.7m Tutankhamun bust", BBC News 9 July 2019).

The BBC reports:
Egypt's former antiquities chief, Zahi Hawass, said the bust appeared to have been "stolen" in the 1970s from the Temple of Karnak. "The owners have given false information," he told AFP news agency. "They have not shown any legal papers to prove its ownership." Christie's maintain the history of the piece as follows:
It stated that Germany's Prince Wilhelm von Thurn und Taxis reputedly had it in his collection by the 1960s, and that it was acquired by an Austrian dealer in 1973-4. However the family of von Thurn und Taxis claim that the head was never in that collection [see here].

Christie's reject any hint of criticism:
"Christie's would not and do not sell any work whe…