- 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.
Thursday, 1 January 2015
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?
While there is a perceived demand for archaeological material, and especially high value material, the unscientific destruction of archaeological sites will continue.
© David Gill, 2021 I have been doing some work on the results of the RSA Heritage Index (2020) with a focus, in part, on eastern England. Th...
Source: Sotheby's A marble head of Alexander the Great has been seized in New York (reported in " Judge Orders Return of Ancien...
Source: Christos Tsirogiannis Associate Professor Christos Tsirogiannis of Aarhus University has identified a Roman marble statue that surfa...
James Cuno (in Who Owns Antiquity? ) takes six objects from the holdings of the Art Institute of Chicago to demonstrate its character...