Vibia Sabina and the Kyknos krater

Dr Christos Tsiriogiannis has published a significant study of the routes by which the marble statue of Vibia Sabina and the Kyknos krater passed through the market.

Christos Tsirogiannis, "False Closure? Known Unknowns in Repatriated Antiquities Cases", International Journal of Cultural Property 23 (2016) 407-31. [Cambridge University Press online]

Abstract
Based on research into the confiscated photographic and document archives in the hands of the top antiquities dealers (Robin Symes-Christos Michaelides, Robert Hecht, Giacomo Medici, and Gianfranco Becchina), so far more than 250 looted and smuggled masterpieces have been repatriated from the most reputable North American museums, private collections, and galleries, mainly to the Italian and the Greek states. Most of these repatriations were advertised in the press as voluntary action by the institutions and the individuals who possessed them. However, this is far from true; the repatriations were the results of lengthy negotiations, where the presentation of evidence alternated with diplomatic tactics and legal threats in order for the two parties (in some cases, three) to reach an agreement. Among the much-celebrated repatriated antiquities are at least two cases that require further research regarding their legal owner. This article aims to analyze these two cases and to set out new questions. In the end, there is doubt that the state who finally received these antiquities is necessarily the one from which they have been looted and smuggled. Based on this analysis, the article aims to highlight alternative paths to the discovery of the truth, paths that might have been more effective, if they had been followed.

So-called provenance and collecting histories

The latest number of the International Journal of Cultural Property (IJCP) 23.3 (August 2016) has a cluster of papers that will be of interest. The starting point is Elizabeth Marlowe's, "What We Talk About When We Talk About Provenance: A Response to Chippindale and Gill" [DOI], pp. 217-236.

In an influential article published in 2000, David Gill and Christopher Chippindale devised a scale to assess the quality of the provenance information provided for the antiquities displayed in seven recent high-profile exhibitions or collections. This article critically reviews Chippindale and Gill’s provenance scale, arguing that the values it encodes legitimize some of the more intellectually harmful practices of dealers and curators. The scale also fails to differentiate between more intellectually responsible methods of hypothesizing provenance and those that merely generate houses of cards. An alternative model for assessing how antiquities are discussed in museum scholarship, focusing on epistemological precision and reflexivity, is offered.

This is followed by:

• Gill, David W.J. (2016) ‘Thinking About Collecting Histories: A Response to Marlowe’, International Journal of Cultural Property, 23(3), pp. 237–244. doi: 10.1017/S0940739116000187. 
• Lyons, Claire L. (2016) ‘On Provenance and the Long Lives of Antiquities’, International Journal of Cultural Property, 23(3), pp. 245–253. doi: 10.1017/S0940739116000199. 
• Bell, Malcolm. (2016) ‘Notes on Marlowe’s “What We Talk about When We Talk about Provenance”’, International Journal of Cultural Property, 23(3), pp. 254–256. doi: 10.1017/S0940739116000205.

Marlowe concludes with:

• Marlowe, E. (2016) ‘Response to Responses on “What We Talk About When We Talk About Provenance”’, International Journal of Cultural Property, 23(3), pp. 257–266. doi: 10.1017/S0940739116000217.

Essentially Marlowe concludes that the situation is even more bleak that the one that we had described.

My hope is that those discussing cultural property will stop using the obsolete word "provenance".