A pair of Nereids from an old Swiss collection

Two Nereids in the Louvre.
Source: Louvre

Two Apulian terracotta reliefs showing the Nereids were acquired by the Louvre in 1982 (CA 6823, CA 6824). They are alleged to have been derived from "une ancienne collection suisse" prior to 1939. However, the official museum website fails to mention this prior history.

What is key about these two Nereids is that they feature in the Becchina archive. Will the Louvre disclose the identity of the "old Swiss collection"? And what is the nature of the authenticated documentation that can demonstrate that the Nereids were known prior to 1939? 

Presumably this pair of terracottas form part of the Italian claims. Will the Louvre seek to be co-operative with the request?

What other items were acquired from Becchina or Palladion Antike Kunst?

I am grateful to Christos Tsirogiannis for advising me on the Becchina archive. The identifications were first made by Daniela Rizzo and Maurizio Pellegrini.

Besques, S. 1988. "Deux reliefs apuliens en terre cuite." Monuments et mémoires de la Fondation Eugène Piot 69: 1–28.

| |

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.

| |

Becchina and the Louvre

Lynda Albertson reminded us that an Attic black-figured calyx-krater / psykter in the Louvre was purchased from Gianfranco Becchina in 1988 (MNE 938; BAPD 26150).

Pasquier, A. 2000. "Un cratère-rafraîchissoir au musée du Louvre : du vin frais pour un banquet de luxe." Monuments et mémoires de la Fondation Eugène Piot 78: 5–51.

Other pieces in the Louvre acquired from Becchina include a Capuan bell-krater attributed to the Ixion painter in 1985 (CA7124). It was apparently published by Alain Pasquier in 1978, long before is was acquired. There are also two South Italian terracottas that were both purchased in 1982 (CA 6823, CA 6824). 

Besques, S. 1988. "Deux reliefs apuliens en terre cuite." Monuments et mémoires de la Fondation Eugène Piot 69: 1–28.

A further fragment for the pelike attributed to Euthymides that had formed part of the Campana collection was purchased in 1980 (inv. G 31 ; Cp FR 269 ; Cp FR 295 ; Cp FR 72). 

| |

Bothmer Fragments Linked to Rome

Detail of Attic red-figured cup.
Fragments in the Villa Giulia and
the Bothmer collection, New York

In January 2012 it was announced that 40 fragments from the 10,000 or so bequeathed to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art would be returning to Italy. So far only a very limited number of images have appeared, but last week Cambridge University researcher Christos Tsirogiannis told me that he had made an identification for some cup fragments.

Tsirogiannis spotted that the missing pentagonal shape from an Attic red-figured cup now resided in the Villa Giulia in Rome. The tondo scene shows a central volute-krater, with a satyr holding a kantharos, and a maenad to the right.

The fragment had been attributed to the 'Euaion painter', a decorator of pots well known to Bothmer. Several fragments are listed (by the Beazley Archive) in his collection (though not apparently this cup), and he donated other fragments to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the J. Paul Getty Museum. For example, one cup in the Met was reconstituted after Bothmer donated a series of fragments from 1973 to 1989. The source of these fragments is undeclared. The fragments in the Getty were donated from 1981 to 1986.

Bothmer had also made connections with fragments in Paris and Dresden. So why did he overlook the Rome connection? Or had he made the connection, but had not wished to declare it?

And given his interest in the 'Euaion painter' is he likely to have overlooked the connection?

There are wider issues. When did the Villa Giulia fragment become separated from the rest of the cup? Clearly the Rome fragment was known in the early 20th century. But have the other fragments been residing unrecorded in some other collection? Or were they left in an Etruscan tomb in Tuscany? When did they enter the Bothmer collection? What was their source?

There are also 'Euaion painter' fragments from the former Robert Guy collection in Harvard. Do any fit with the fragments in the Bothmer collection?

And what are all the collecting histories of all these 'Euaion painter' fragments?

What associations will be provided as the Met starts to publish more of the Bothmer collection? And what is their plan to release images and details of this bequest?

It was the original intention of the 'artist' that the fragments be seen as part of a single cup. Will the Met be contacting the staff of the Villa Giulia to arrange the restoration of the cup?

I am grateful to Tsirogiannis for giving me permission to share this identification on Looting Matters.

The Universal Museum: time for a rethink?

I have been re-reading the essay, "The Universal Museum: a special case?" (ICOM News 1, 2004), by Geoffrey Lewis, the chair of the ICOM Ethics Committee.

The real purpose of the Declaration was, however, to establish a higher degree of immunity from claims for the repatriation of objects from the collections of these museums.

His comment was on the "Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums" (December 2002). The declaration included this statement:

Calls to repatriate objects that have belonged to museum collections for many years have become an important issue for museums. Although each case has to be judged individually, we should acknowledge that museums serve not just the citizens of one nation but the people of every nation. Museums are agents in the development of culture, whose mission is to foster knowledge by a continuous process of reinterpretation. Each object contributes to that process. To narrow the focus of museums whose collections are diverse and multifaceted would therefore be a disservice to all visitors.

It was signed by:

• The Art Institute of Chicago; 
• Bavarian State Museum, Munich (Alte Pinakothek, Neue Pinakothek); 
• State Museums, Berlin; 
• Cleveland Museum of Art; 
• J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles; 
• Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York; 
• Los Angeles County Museum of Art
• Louvre Museum, Paris; 
• The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
• The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; 
• The Museum of Modern Art, New York; 
• Opificio delle Pietre Dure, Florence; 
• Philadelphia Museum of Art; 
• Prado Museum, Madrid; 
• Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam;
• State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg; 
• Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum, Madrid; 
• Whitney Museum of American Art, New York; 
• The British Museum, London

It is perhaps telling that since the declaration five of these universal museums have handed antiquities over to other coutnries. These include:

• The Cleveland Museum of Art to Italy
• The J. Paul Getty Museum to Greece and Italy
• The Louvre to Egypt
• The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York to Italy
• The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston to Italy

These were all objects acquired since 1970. Such repatriations perhaps demonstrate the flawed thinking behind the "Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums". 

Has the time come for these major museums to review their policies? Is the declaration now worthless? 

Toxic Antiquities: Lessons from the Louvre

The announcement today that the Louvre would be returning tomb fragments to Egypt raises more disturbing questions. It is being reported that one of the pieces first surfaced at a London auction in the early 1980s. Are museums taking the 1970 benchmark seriously? Does the due diligence process demonstrate a recorded collecting history that can be traced back prior to 1970? Are museums too eager to acquire?

How many other toxic antiquities are still in museum collections?