Another Bürki object returns to Italy

Source: MMA

A psykter column-krater attributed to the Troilos painter was deaccessioned by New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art in June 2026 (1986.11.12; BAPD 15922). The history of the piece was recorded by the MMA:

[By 1982, (perhaps late 1970s), with Sandro Cimicchi, Basel, Switzerland]; [until 1985, with Christoph Leon, Basel, Switzerland]; [1985-86, with Christie’s, London]; acquired in 1986, purchased from Christie’s, London (lot 141).

However, the Manhattan DA added that the krater was 'smuggled out of Italy by Fritz Bürki'. The Christie's sale was on July 16, 1986.

The references on the MMA website omit the publication in the volume of Essays in Honor of Dietrich von Bothmer (2002).

| |

Two more Bothmer donations returned to Italy

Cup attributed to near Psiax. Source: MMA.

In February 2026 two fragmentary Attic cups that had been given to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art by Dietrich von Bothmer were deaccessioned pending their return to Italy. Both were donated in 1984, and both had been acquired from Fritz Bürki. One was a bilingual cup attributed to near Psiax (1984.500.1; BAPD 44520) and the other cup was attributed to Epiktetos with a kalos inscription of Hip(p)archos (1984.500.2; BAPD 9055412).

We should note that the MMA has earlier returned a black-figured mastos attributed to Psiax (1975.11.6; BAPD 4525). Bürki was the source of other returns from the MMA including fragments from a Makron cup (1978.11.7a, d), and fragments of the Apulian dinos attributed to the Dinos painter (1984.11.7). He was also the source of some 11 per cent of the fragments in the sample selection of Bothmer fragment collection acquired by the MMA.

Further returns to Italy from the MMA

Formerly New York MMA 1991.11.6.1–2.
Source: MMA

New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art has returned another batch of Greek and Roman antiquities as a result of investigations by the Manhattan DA into objects handled by Frieda Tchacos, Gianfranco Becchina, and Fritz Bürki [see Manhattan DA press release].

Only one piece is highlighted in the press release, a fragmentary Sicilian terracotta relief:

Two additional adjoining fragments of the votive relief were found in the archaeological excavations of the temple of Demeter Malophoros at Selinunte, Sicily, less than ten miles from Becchina’s hometown. Those fragments remain in the Palermo Museum.

This is linked to the Becchina investigation. The relief had formed part of the Norbert Schimmel collection. One other Schimmel piece is among the repatriated objects, a bronze handle attachment in the form of a mask. Other Schimmel items appeared in earlier returns.

The two Bürki linked pieces were objects presented by Dietrich von Bothmer, an Attic bilingual cup attributed to near Psiax, and a fragmentary cup attributed to Epiktetos.

The Tchacos pieces include a pair of spherical Greek gold earrings, a pair of Roman silver cups —one carries a weight inscription for the pair — and an inscribed lid of a Roman cinerarium (Sextus Flavius Pencarpus). There is also a forged Roman funerary inscription.

These latest returns have implications for other material. A batch of material from Selinunte is discussed in my Artwashing the Past (2025) [chapter 11]. The Tchacos investigation will lead to the numerous fragments acquired by other museums (as well as the nearly 300 fragments in the Bothmer collection: and these are just the ones identified in the sample).

I am grateful to Jason Felch for drawing my attention to one of the Schimmel pieces.

Further returns to Italy from the San Antonio Museum of Art

Source: San Antonio Museum of Art

In addition to the objects deaccessioned by the San Antonio Museum of Art in September 2025, the museum  had done the same for another group in January 2022. These were mentioned (without significant detail) in a press release from the Manhattan DA in 2023. These items included material that surfaced through various sources:

Christie's (Geneva)

Attic red-figured lekythos. Inv. 86.134.75. Surfaced through Christie’s (Geneva) May 1979; Sotheby’s (London) May 1982. 

Christie's (London)

Attic white ground lekythos. Inv. 86.134.170. Surfaced through Christie’s (London) July 1983; July 1985. 

Frederick Schultz

Attic red-figured head kantharos. Inv. 91.24. Surfaced through Frederick Schultz, 1989. 

Galerie Günter Puhze

Attic black-figured lekythos. Inv. 91.80.1. Galerie Günter Puhze, 1989. 

Palladion Antike Kunst

Attic black-figured amphora. Inv. 86.134.31. Surfaced through Palladion Antike Kunst; Sotheby’s (London) December 1981. 

Attic red-figured oinochoe. Inv. 86.134.58. Surfaced through Palladion Antike Kunst; Robert Hecht. 

Robin Symes

Portrait of Hadrian. Inv. 2005.1.81. Robin Symes; Royal-Athena Galleries; Sotheby’s (New York) June 1992. [Image identified in the Medici Dossier.]

"Dating to 200 C.E., the marble head of the Emperor Hadrian was first documented uncleaned and covered in marine encrustations in a polaroid photograph. The polaroid was recovered by Italian law-enforcement authorities during a raid of the office and warehouse of well-known antiquities trafficker Giacomo Medici in 1995. After being smuggled out of Italy by Medici and his co-conspirators, the piece was then laundered with false provenance by dealer-trafficker Robin Symes before being sold in New York County in 1992." (Manhattan DA)

Sotheby's (London)

Corinthian olpe. Inv. 93.17. Surfaced in Sotheby’s (London) July 1990; Charles Ede. 

Attic black-figured amphora. Inv. 86.134.173. Surfaced in Sotheby’s (London) July 1985. 

Attic red-figured lekythos. Inv. 86.134.79. Surfaced through Sotheby’s (London) May 1982. 

Alfredo Turchi

Head of Hermes. Inv. 86.134.145. Sold by Alfredo Turchi.

The head of Hermes was excavated in Rome in the 19th century. 

| |

Two lots withdrawn from Bonham's sale

Becchina Archive

Source: Christos Tsirogiannis.

Dr Christos Tsirogiannis has identified two lots that were due to be auctioned at next week's sale of antiquities at Bonham's (4 December 2025). Both feature in the Becchina archive. They have now been withdrawn (along with lot 126).

Lot 15 is a South Italian terracotta figure. It was said to have been in a private collection in France in 1979 before entering the Nina Borowski collection in the 1990s. It is reported to be part of unnamed private collection in Switzerland. The entry in the Palladion Antike Kunst records suggest that it was part of an unnamed Swiss private collection.

Lot 123 is an Attic red-figured pelike showing an Eros on horseback currently in the Lloyd and Jeanne Raport collection. Tsirogiannis informs me that the pelike was consigned by Becchina to Sotheby's in London on 17 May 1983 (lot 264).

Did the staff at Bonham's attempt to authenticate the information relating to the collecting histories (so-called "provenance") prior to the sale? 

| |

Hecht fragment returns to Italy

Source: MMA

In January 2024 New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art deaccessioned the foot of an Attic black-figured band cup related to the Lysippides painter (inv. 2017.18; BAPD 340463). The fragment surfaced with Hesperia Arts in Philadelphia in 1957 and was discussed by Sir John Beazley in 1961. It then passed into the hands of Münzen und Medaillen in Basel (1963) and was then sold to the Toledo Museum of Art (inv. 63.25). It featured in the first fascicule of the CVA (1976). The fragment was deacessioned and sold through Christie's, New York (October 25, 2016, lot 15).

A press release (February 18, 2025) from the Manhattan DA informs us:

The Kylix was found and illegally excavated from the Etruscan archaeological site of Vulci in the 1960s before it was smuggled out of Italy by the New York and Paris-based dealer Robert Hecht.

In fact, the cup must have been removed in the 1950s (or earlier). But what is the basis of this new evidence?

More importantly, what does it means for museums that acquired items that passed through Hesperia Arts in the 1950s and 1960s? Eight items appear in the Beazley Archive Pottery Database, including a clutch formerly in the collection of J.V. Noble. There are even more pieces listed under "Philadelphia market": a quick check on some of the pieces quickly established a named link with Robert Hecht or Hesperia Arts. And I noted another black-figured amphora that certainly passed through Hesperia Arts but that information was not recorded on BAPD. 

Is Italy now pursuing items that surfaced well before the 1970 UNESCO Convention? Will this result in a further set of returns?

| |

Worcester Art Museum Returns Hecht-linked Pots to Italy

Photo: Worcester Art Museum

The Worcester Art Museum has returned two Attic pots to Italy; they are now back on loan to the museum ("Worcester Art Museum Secures Landmark Cultural Cooperation Agreement with Italian Ministry of Culture Following Voluntary Return of Antiquities", January 30, 2025). What is striking about the two pieces is that they were both acquired in the mid-1950s, well before the 1970 UNESCO Convention.

The two pieces are:

a. An Attic black-figured amphora attributed to the Rycroft painter, showing Hermes, Leto, Apollo and Artemis; Dionysos and Maenads. Inv. 1956.83 (BAPD 301829). [Website]

b. An Attic black-figured cup decorated with a gigantomachy. Inv. 1956.91 [Website]

Both the amphora and the cup were acquired from Elie Borowski, though both could be traced back to Robert Hecht.

This will raise concerns for museums that had acquired pieces from both Borowski and Hecht well before the 1970 benchmark date. 

| |

 

Archaeological Context Makes Sense

Amphora illustrated in
 the Schinoussa archive
Source: Christos Tsirogiannis

Archaeological contexts matter. 

This may sound like stating the obvious. But walk into a museum that displays, say, Greek or Roman archaeological material and you may start to ask questions that the object in itself cannot answer. Take an Athenian black-figured amphora. The label will probably tell us that it was made in Athens but we probably want to know where it was found. It is fairly large, and not the sort of object that is found in the cemeteries of ancient Athens. It is fairly complete and so has probably been protected in some sort of tomb cut out of the rock: an Etruscan tomb in central Italy is certainly a possibility. Was it found on its own? Was it part of a set of Athenian ceramic sympotic equipment, that is to say part of the wine-drinking apparatus. We may want to ask why the Etruscans buried their dead with imported Athenian pottery: was it about the iconography? But was the amphora necessarily found in (modern) Tuscany? Could it come from one of the Greek colonial settings in southern Italy or Sicily? 

The museum label may tell us that modern scholarship has attributed it to a named (anonymous) pot-painter. But does that assume that such ‘artists’ were recognised in antiquity? Did symposiasts choose to drink wine out of cups decorated by ‘named’ individuals? Or would you want to be buried with a pot decorated by ‘Elbows Out’ or some other similarly named painter? 

Even the date assigned to be pot may be problematic. If the archaeological context is unknown, how do we know the date? Is it similar to another piece? Does that other piece have a secure archaeological context? No? So how do we obtain a date? Do we have to depend on a chronology based on supposed stylistic developments? How does this chronological framework link to known historical events, such as the Persian destruction levels at Athens? 

The Crosby Garrett helmet
displayed next to
the helmet from Ribchester
© David Gill

But the lack of secure archaeological contexts may hamper our knowledge of Roman objects. Take the Roman bronze cavalry helmet said to have been found at Crosby Garrett in Cumbria (north-west England) and then sold at auction in London. While we might assume that this was part of the equipment of a Roman cavalryman on the northern frontier of Britannia, it could be that the helmet was found, say, on the Danube frontier, but that at some point (in recent years) it was decided to say that it was found elsewhere. Archaeological investigations at the alleged findspot in Cumbria have yet to find conclusive evidence that the helmet was indeed found there. 

Lack of context can sometimes mean that scholars misinterpret objects. Take, for example, a fragmentary Greek marble funerary stele that was displayed in an exhibition in a high profile North American museum. It was suggested that the iconography pointed to a findspot in western Türkiye (Ionia). Yet the error of this assumption was confirmed when the lower part of the same stele was found in a rural cemetery in eastern Attica, Greece. 

Top part: stele fragment formerly in
New York private collection (and now repatriated)
Bottom part: excavated in a rural cemetery in eastern Attica

Archaeological context matters. Without it, archaeologists can struggle to make sense of the objects.

| |

Hecht and a calyx-krater attributed to the Achilles painter

Michael C. Carlos Museum inv. 2002.43.56

Among the donations made by Dietrich von Bothmer to the Michael C. Carlos Museum is a series of fragments from a calyx-krater attributed to the Achilles painter (BAPD 9036441). The museum's audio recording appears to suggest that the fragments came from a single pot. 

What is more interesting is to see how Bothmer acquired the fragments:

• Robert Hecht: 1984 / 9; 1988 / 2 
• Jonathan Rosen: 1984 / 1 
• Bruce McAlpine: 1989 / 4; 19**/1 
• Mario Bruno: 1984 / 1

In other words the first pieces of this fragmented krater surfaced through three different routes in 1984: Robert Hecht, Jonathan Rosen, and Mario Bruno. Hecht supplied further fragments in 1988, and Bruce McAlpine in 1989. The sources for the remaining fragments appear to be undeclared.

Where and when was the krater found? When was it fragmented and the pieces dispersed? 

How did the Carlos justify the acquisition of these fragments given what was known (in 2002) about the sources? Why does the Carlos present the fragmented krater as a series of fragments rather than acknowledging in the text of the website that they come from a single piece? 

What do these fragments tell us about Bothmer as a collector given that some of his material has been returned to Italy? 

| |

Australian National University and Repatriated Antiquities

Attic black-figured amphora
Source: ANU

The Classics Department Museum at the Australian National Museum in Canberra appears to have agreed to pass the ownership of an Attic black-figured amphora (inv. 1984.02; BAPD 8244) and an Apulian fishplate (inv. 1984.04) to Italy. The pieces will be placed on loan to the museum for four years.

The amphora surfaced through Sotheby's in London in July 1984 (lot 314). I had raised concerned about the amphora some years ago due to the nature of the trademark cut onto the base.

The fishplate is reported to have been purchased from Holland Coins and Antiquities in the US, and removed from Italy by David Holland Swingler. Swingler has been linked to other antiquities.

There are continuing concerns about other figure-decorated pots acquired by or on loan to various museums in Australia. 

Fragments of the Sophilos Dinos

Detail of the Sophilos dinos © David Gill

The Sophilos dinos in the British Museum has been reconstructed from approximately 50 fragments. It was acquired in 1971 from the Honourable Robert Erskine. Brian Shefton knew of the dinos in 1962, and Paul Zanker noted in 1965 that the dinos resided in an English private collection.

Fragments of the dinos were placed on loan from the J. Paul Getty Museum in 1977/78 (and were deaccessioned in 1983): they had been acquired from from Max and Lynda Palevsky in 1976. The couple were the source of numerous figure-decorated fragments acquired by the Getty, including dinos fragments attributed to Kleophrades (and connected with fragments derived from Malcolm Wiener and Jonathan Rosen).

Two further fragments of the London Sophilos dinos were acquired in 1978 from Bruce McNall's Summa Galleries in Beverly Hills (1, 2). 

Where did the Palevskys acquired their Sophilos fragments? And what about the Summa Galleries? Were they from the same source? When did Erskine acquire his fragments? Did he acquire them from, say, a Paris based antiquities dealer? And did that same dealer supply fragments to the gallery in Beverly Hills?

| |

Italy Seeks Return of Antiquities from the Louvre

Amphora attributed to the Berlin painter.
Source: The Louvre

The Italian authorities are seeking the return of seven antiquities from the Louvre (Roxana Azimi, "Italy calls on the Louvre to return seven of its archaeological objects", Le Monde July 13, 2023). The report draws attention to the Attic red-figured amphora that once formed part of the Hunt Collection (Wealth of the Ancient World no. 10). A further fragment from the amphora was supplied by Dietrich von Bothmer, and Robert Guy identified another piece that was presented to the Louvre in 1995 in honour of François Villard (Berlin Painter cat. no. 13; no. BN5; BAPD 8798). It should be noted that pots (and fragments) attributed to the Berlin painter have featured frequently in the returns to Italy. The identification of the Berlin painter amphora was made by Christos Tsirogiannis in 2006.

What are the other pieces likely to be? We know that the items were acquired between 1982 and 1998.

Possible candidates include:

a. Sicilian bell-krater attributed to the Lentini-Manfria group (CA 7249). Acq. Fritz Bürki (1986).

b. Capuan bell-krater attributed to the Ixion painter (CA 7124). Purchase (1985).

c. Attic black-figured psykter-krater attributed to the manner of the Antimenes painter (MNE 938) (BAPD 26150). Purchase (1988).

The Attic and the Capuan kraters (b–c) have been identified from the Becchina archive. The identifications were  made by Daniela Rizzo and Maurizio Pellegrini.

• Rizzo, D., and M. Pellegrini. 2021. "The Italian Archaeological Heritage Abroad: Between Agreements, Debates and Indifference." In Stolen Heritage: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Heritage in the EU and the MENA Region, edited by A. Traviglia, L. Milano, C. Tonghini, and R. Giovanelli, Antichistica, vol. 29: 99–114. Venezia: Edizioni Ca’ Foscari.

| |

Sourcing Makron

New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art (MMA) appears to be reluctant to release the full details of the source for three cups attributed to Makron that were acquired in 1979 alongside the two cups that were discussed in The New York Times. 

The three cups are:

a. 1979.136, gift of Dietrich von Bothmer. BAPD 275244. Joins other fragments in the Vatican; reported to have been transferred to the Vatican.

b. 1979.11.11, purchase (Mr & Mrs Martin Fried Gift). BAPD 6919.

c. 1979.11.4, purchase (Norbert Schimmel Gift Fund); 1979.11.16 [4 frr.]; 1980.11.5, purchase (The Dover Fund Inc. Gift). BAPD 6918. [The third acquisition is not noted on BAPD.] The MMA website attributes one of these acquisitions to the Euaion painter even though the other pieces are attributed to Makron.

No images are provided on the website for any of these three pieces.

Each object page invites users to provide feedback or to ask questions. The MMA clearly did not appreciate my requests using the online form as there has been no response to a polite request for information.

I hope that this post will prompt the MMA to update the five records to provide the relevant information as well as some images. Or were the fragments sourced from the same galleries and dealers as the other two Makron cups?

| |

Fragments from a cup attributed to Makron

Cup seized from
New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art

The New York Times has run a discussion of one of the Attic red-figured cups seized from New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art in 2022 (Graham Bowley and Tom Mashberg, "The Kylix Marvel: Why Experts Distrust the Story of an Ancient Cup’s Rebirth", April 19, 2023). The article looks at the way that this cup (and a companion piece also in the same museum) was put together from a series of fragments starting with pieces acquired from Fritz Bürki and the Summa Galleries, followed by pieces derived from Frieda Tchacos and Dietrich von Bothmer. 

The article includes identifications made by Christos Tsirogiannis from the Medici Dossier.

| |

Princeton Fragments from an Attic Cup

Princeton y1988.16 and y1989-19a–r
Source: Daily Princetonian

In 1988 Princeton University Art Museum purchased through the Classical Purchase Fund a fragment of an Attic red-figured cup attributed to the Villa Giulia painter (inv. y1988.16). The following year Dietrich von Bothmer presented a series of fragments from the same cup (inv. y1989-19a–r). The note in the Record acknowledged the join.

What was the source for the fragment purchased in 1988? And what was the sources (or sources) for Bothmer's fragments?

The cup is one of the pieces under investigation by the Manhattan DA.

| |

Developments at Princeton

Etruscan amphora inv. y1984-19.
Source: Daily Princetonian

It seems that five objects relating to Edoardo Almagià are to remain in Princeton University Art Museum (Sandeep Mangat and Miriam Waldvogel, "Five artifacts linked to alum under investigation for art smuggling will remain at University Art Museum", Daily Princetonian April 11, 2023). I am a little confused as the earlier report included pictures and some of the pieces mentioned in the most recent article, for example the Roman doll (inv. y1993-13), the Campanian stamnoid pyxis (inv. 87-3a–b) and fragments of a Roman Arretine bowl (inv. y1992-67), do not feature among the images. 

However, among the pieces staying in Princeton is the Etruscan amphora attributed to the Paris painter (inv. y1984-19). This is stated as: "Gift of Peter Glidewell through Edoardo Almagia, Class of 1973".

It should be remembered that Princeton has already returned a series of Etruscan architectural terracottas that were given by Almagià. These are discussed in: D.W.J. Gill, "Context matters: Princeton and recently surfaced antiquities," Journal of Art Crime 7 (2012): 59-66; id., Context matters: Collating the past, Amelia: ARCA, 2020, pp. 106–14; id., "Returning archaeological objects to Italy," International Journal of Cultural Property 25 (2018): 283–321 [DOI].

The latest article in the Daily Princetonian seems to confuse items that had been loaned by Almagià and those that had been given by him.

The article does include an interesting statement attributed to Almagià: 

"He added that he gave these fragments to Dietrich von Bothmer, a prominent German-American art historian."

We are aware that Almagià appears to have been the source for fragments in Bothmer's collection that had been acquired in 1984, 1986 and 1987. Does this imply that the fragments appearing in the original article were derived from Almagià? And was the Psiax fragment from the Centre Island private collection also from this source?

The Daily Princetonian mentions the seizure of fragments from Bothmer's collection although as far as I am aware no connection with Almagià had been made. These are discussed in: D.W.J. Gill, "Context matters: Fragmented pots, attributions and the role of the academic," Journal of Art Crime 8 (2012): 79-84. However other Bothmer fragments were included in the recent seizure from New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Other figure-decorated fragments derived from Almagià have been returned from the San Antonio Museum of Art that had acquired them in 1985. Material derived from Almagià has featured in the Steinhardt return. 

I am aware of other Almagià material in a north American university collection that appears to have been derived from Crustumerium in Lazio. (A discussion of the piece along with other items from the same place features in a forthcoming article.)

Is it time for Princeton to provide additional so-called "provenance" information on its website?

| |

Amphora fragment seized from Princeton

Amphora fragment attributed to Psiax
Source: Daily Princetonian

An Attic belly amphora fragment attributed to Psiax (by Dietrich von Bothmer) was among the 11 objects seized from Princeton University Art Museum by the Manhattan DA (inv. 1997-469: BAPD 902285). The fragment was acquired by 1997 as an anonymous gift by exchange, though we also know that it was derived from a "Centre Island private collection". 

Among the other objects seized were six pieces on loan from Edoardo Almagià. Further details have yet to be released.

We know of another calyx-krater attributed to Psiax that had also formed part of a "Centre Island private collection". 

| |

The Intellectual Consequences of Collecting an Attic Black-Figured Amphora

Source: Manhattan DA

Among the returns to Italy from the Michael Steinhardt collection was an Attic black-figured amphora showing a Maenad. The amphora is known from the Almagià archive (Exhibits 33A and 33B).

The Manhattan DA Statement of Facts notes:

Almagià’s Green Book lists one “Attic BF [Black-Figure] Amphora” purchased from a tombarolo for $6,500, and then sold for $13,000. Almagià’s day planner lists “Steinhardt” on March 18, 1997, preceding a note on April 2, 1997, “prendere vase da [sic] Steinhardt” (take vase of Steinhardt). Although Steinhardt’s records note that there is “no record of purchase,” the records also indicate that Steinhardt accessioned the Attic Black-Figure Amphora in 1997 from Almagià.

Essentially all we know is that Steinhardt acquired this amphora in 1997, and that Almagià had purchased it from a tombarolo.

The mention of the tombarolo suggests that the find-spot was somewhere in Italy: the Statement of Facts suggests both Etruria and Sicily as possibilities. Note that we cannot be sure of the part of Italy where the amphora was found, let alone the specific place or cemetery. That information has been lost for good.

The relatively complete nature of the amphora suggests that it was discovered in a substantial tomb. But what other objects were found alongside it? Was there a single burial or multiple burials? What was the gender of the main person buried in the tomb? If the tomb was in Etruria, were there decorations on the wall? Would other associated finds have helped with the dating? Could it have been older that other pieces in the tomb?

Vasologists may be even now seeking to provide an attribution for the amphora. Perhaps they will note that it has certain characteristics in the potting. Will it be placed in a particular class of pot? But what about the parallels? Where were they found? Or were they, too, without context? 

The looting of this unusual amphora has stripped it of its useful archaeological information. That is one of the intellectual consequences of collecting newly surfaced material.

| |

Becchina and the Shelby White collection

Source: Manhattan DA

LM noted that two of the objects displayed by the Manhattan DA for return to Italy were in the Shelby White collection. The Attic black-figured skyphos showing Odysseus escaping from the Cave of Polyphemos  clearly appears in one of the photographs seized from the Becchina archive. 

Does this explain why the Italian authorities are revisiting the Shelby White collection? Is it because the previous returns had not taken proper account of the Becchina archive?

It would be interesting to learn how and when Shelby White and Leon Levy acquired the skyphos. Was it directly from Galerie Antike Kunst Palladion? Or was it through another party?

Incidentally, the other piece in the photograph was acquired by a separate New York collection.

It should be noted that the identification of the Shelby White skyphos was made by Associate Professor Christos Tsirogiannis. 

| |

The Steinhardt hydria attributed to the Antimenes painter

Source of images: Manhattan DA.

Among the items seized from the Michael Steinhardt collection and returned to Italy was an Attic black-figured hydria attributed to the Antimenes painter. The hydria had been identified from an image in the Medici Dossier.

The Manhattan DA reports that the hydria had first surfaced with Robin Symes in 1983 (when it was advertised in Apollo). The statement then adds:

By 1987, Symes had transferred the object to the New York-based Atlantis Gallery, part-owned by Robert Hecht, who then loaned it to the Getty Museum. From 1987-1996, the object was on view at the Getty Museum prior to its sale to Steinhardt through Sotheby’s New York on December 17, 1996. 

Steinhardt is report to have purchased the hydria from Sotheby's for $169,411.

The Beazley Archive (BAPD 31596) provides the loan number for the Getty (L87.AE.4) as well as the details for the Sotheby's New York sale (17 December 1996, lot 49). It also suggests that the hydria passed through the Royal-Athena Galleries though this information may not be correct.

Christopher Chippindale and I had rehearsed the history of this specific hydria in our review article of The Medici Conspiracy (2007) [see here]. We clarify that the hydria was placed on loan at the Getty in January 1987, and returned in February 1996. This raises a question about the nature and purpose of loans that were placed at the Getty.

It should be recalled that one of the Attic black-figured neck-amphorae seized from Fordham University was attributed to the circle of the Antimenes painter (BAPD 24304).

It should be noted that the identification of the Steinhardt hydria was made by Associate Professor Christos Tsirogiannis. 

| |