Skip to main content

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 behind the artefact", 14–15 August 1997. One of the issues raised related to lack of information about prior histories: "... in the George Ortiz Collection, shown at the Royal Academy in 1994, 23 per cent had no provenance at all, while 62 per cent were in the "said to be", "possibly" and "allegedly" categories. The point here is not that there were one or two objects in each of these collections that were open to question, but that the vast majority were."

There were also issues about how objects were presented. Watson reminded his readership of an alleged Cycladic "egg":
"There are many examples in auction catalogues of objects said to be found together. But who can prove it? We have only the salerooms' word to go on and, behind them, dealers and looters with a commercial interest in these things being found together. The sheer futility of all this is underlined by yet another phenomenon identified by Dr Gill and Dr Chippindale, which they term "wish fulfilment". They give two examples of this. The first is a marble "egg" in the Ortiz Collection that, allegedly, comes from the Cyclades. A date for this is given as 3200-2100 BC. But without any published knowledge of its provenance, or the context in which it was found, this object could actually be no more than an egg-shaped pebble picked up on any of the Greek islands. To call it an "egg", thereby implying intention on the part of the artist and a role for the object, perhaps in religious practices, is entirely unwarranted, archaeologically speaking."
I can remember having a memorable face to face exchange with Ortiz over this very "egg".

Christie's desire to remind us of the issues relating to George Ortiz only serve to refocus attention on the need for the antiquities market to develop a more rigorous due diligence process for all antiquities entering the market.

Bookmark and Share so Your Real Friends Know that You Know

Comments

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 …

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…