Collecting histories are important. They indicate the routes through the antiquities market. And the collecting histories for objects that have been returned to Italy as a result of the Medici Conspiracy are fascinating. So if, say, a major auction house was asked to offer an object that shared the same collecting history (some continue to use the flawed term "provenance") as a returned object, I would presume that the staff of the antiquities department would conduct a rigorous due diligence process. Not only would they contact the Art Loss Register, but potential buyers would expect these purveyors of ancient art to contact (say) the Italian authorities to ensure that there is no overlap with the three major seized photographic archives. Can we be sure that such a rigorous process has taken place? What can buyers expect?
Discussion of the archaeological ethics surrounding the collecting of antiquities and archaeological material.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Further Returns to Türkiye
Septimius Severus. Source: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek It has been announced that the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen will be returning the ...
-
Source: Sotheby's A marble head of Alexander the Great has been seized in New York (reported in " Judge Orders Return of Ancien...
-
The Fire of Hephaistos exhibition included "seven bronzes ... that have been linked to the Bubon cache of imperial statues" (p. 1...
-
Courtesy of Christos Tsirogiannis There appears to be excitement about the display of 161 Cycladicising objects at New York's Metropolit...
2 comments:
Two thumbs up - I couldn't agree more. But I am curious as to your objection to the term "provenance." Care to elaborate?
Thank you!
Nikki Georgopulos
Gill, D. W. J. 2010. "Collecting histories and the market for classical antiquities." Journal of Art Crime 3: 3-10.
"The study argues that the widely used term “provenance” is essentially obsolete when applied to antiquities."
Post a Comment