Skip to main content

Market demands for archaeological objects

One of the issues that needs to be addressed is the demand for archaeological material. Which groups are acquiring or handling such material?

  • Museums. Yet it is clear that since the Medici Conspiracy that most museums are cautious about acquiring freshly surfaced material. There is still some work to do on long-term loans.
  • Private collectors. The Medici Conspiracy has highlighted a number of 'high profile' collectors, and some of them continue to hold material that needs to be returned. (I have not forgotten about the Icklingham bronzes.) 
  • Investors. There are some who still see archaeological material as a way as investing in 'ancient art'. 
  • Auction houses. 'Toxic' antiquities continued to surface on the market during 2014 and it is clear that the present due diligence process needs to be made more rigorous. 
  • Galleries and dealers. Some dealers are raising their standards but not all. Can we expect to see improved documentation for archaeological material passing through the market?
  • Online vendors. Does the online market place need to be monitored more rigorously? I was exploring this with students just before Christmas.
While there is a perceived demand for archaeological material, and especially high value material, the unscientific destruction of archaeological sites will continue.


Bookmark and Share so Your Real Friends Know that You Know

Comments

Paul Barford said…
With your typical discretion you omit a mention of hasty scholars who want to get their hands on a new - unpublished piece of antiquity to publish, 'P. Sapp. Obbink' comes to mind.

Although not all will purchase pieces themselves, they possibly may encourage others to do so, and then they set to work studying them.

David Gill said…
A piece on a scholar-collector is in the next number of the International Journal of Cultural Property (published by Cambridge University Press). The article is with Dr Christos Tsirogiannis.

Popular posts from this blog

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…