A Paestan krater in New York and curatorial responsibilities

Detail of Paestan krater from the Medici Dossier.

The Paestan krater in New York appears to feature in five Polaroid images from the Medici Dossier (and deposits are clearly visible). Dietrich von Bothmer reported that the krater noted the purchase of the krater from a New York auction (in 1989). He took the inscription to be 'Hybron'. The krater was acquired through the "Classical Purchase Fund".

Yet the most recent catalogue suggests that the krater was acquired from "The Bothmer Purchase Fund". The inscription is read (incorrectly) as 'Hybris' (as Tsirogiannis has observed).

This new evidence about the collecting history ("provenance") of the krater needs to be investigated.

I am sure that I do not need to remind the Director of the MMA about the AAMD Guidelines:

If a member museum, as a result of its continuing research, gains information that establishes another party’s right to ownership of a Work, the museum should bring this information to the attention of the party, and if the case warrants, initiate the return of the Work to that party, as has been done in the past. In the event that a third party brings to the attention of a member museum information supporting the party’s claim to a Work, the museum should respond promptly and responsibly and take whatever steps are necessary to address this claim, including, if warranted, returning the Work, as has been done in the past.

A third party, Dr Christos Tsirogannis, has brought "information" to the notice of the MMA supporting "another party's right to ownership of a Work". The MMA now needs to "respond promptly and responsibly" by contacting the Italian authorities. (A Paestan krater is likely to have been found in one of the cemeteries around Paestum.) Will this krater be returned?

I am grateful to Dr Christos Tsirogiannis for his assistance with this post.

Reference
Bothmer, D. von 1988-89. "Greek and Roman art." Annual Report of the Trustees of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 119: 28-29.

Comments

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…