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". 

| |

Broken pot fragments matter

Source: San Antonio Museum of Art

Among the material linked to Edoardo Almagià  and returning to Italy are 192 Attic cup fragments from the San Antonio Museum of Art. These are in addition to the calyx-krater fragments attributed to Euphronios that were returned from Princeton University Art Museum. 

These returns challenge the belittling of the issue by James Cuno who used the example of the 200 or so fragments acquired by Harvard as part of his attack on those who would wish to see a more rigorous approach to museum acquisitions. Harvard will no doubt be looking again at the histories of the fragments. Were any acquired from a New York based dealer? Have connections been made with fragments in other collections?

|

Etruscan White on Red Ware Returning to Italy

Pithos returned from Princeton University Art Museum
Source: Ministero della Cultura

One of the characteristics of recent returns to Italy has been the prominence of 7th century Etruscan White on Red Ware, some from the vicinity of Caere and others from Latium. One of the items returned from Princeton University Art Museum was a pithos that had been a gift from Edoardo Almagià in honor of Allen Rosenbaum (inv. 1999-8).

Among the Fordham University seizures was a series of White on Red objects: a biconical pithos with lid (inv. 7.039); a house-shaped cinerary urn (inv. 6.002); a cinerary urn with four attached bowls (inv. 5.010); a lidded pyxis (inv. 7.038); and a lidded pyxis (inv. 7.040). All these would seem to have passed through the hands of Almagià.

Pithos from the Getty Museum
Source: Chasing Aphrodite

The Fordham catalogue draws parallels with a pithos in the Getty, and it seems that at least one lidded pithos decorated with Odysseus and Polyphemos, and once in the Flesichman collection, has now been returned (inv. 96.AE.135). (I am grateful to Chasing Aphrodite for drawing my attention to the photograph of the reverse side of the pithos in a crate.) The Manhattan DA's office states that it, too, was handled by Almagià. It is unconfirmed, as yet, if another Almagià pithos was included in the return.

These objects were clearly derived from Etruscan funerary contexts. But what about the histories for the parallels cited for the Getty pithos that currently reside in the collection once formed by the late George Ortiz and another that surfaced through Athena Fund II and is now in a private collection in California? Where were they found?

An EPC Kotyle from the Medici Dossier

EPC Kotyle from the Medici Dossier.
Courtesy of Christos Tsirogiannis.

Christos Tsirogiannis, Associate Professor at the University of Aarhus, has linked a photograph from the Medici Dossier with the reverse of an Early Protocorinthian kotyle that is due to be offered for auction at Christies  (New York) on October 13, 2020 (lot 27). Although only one side is shown on the Christie's online catalogue, Tsirogiannis requested an image of the reverse from the auction-house and this has confirmed that they are one and the same. I understand that the District Attorney's office in New York was informed on Friday last week. 

The kotyle is provided with a history:

• Private Collection, U.K. 
• Art Market, U.K. 
• with Peter Sharrer Ancient Art, New York. 
• Acquired by the current owner from the above, 1997.

It is currently owned by an anonymous 'distinguished private collector'.

Peter Sharrer has been linked with at least one objects that has been returned to Italy: a Roman relief that was returned from Princeton in 2002. Sharrer was also the source for objects acquired by the Fleischmans as well as the Getty, the Michael C. Carlos Museum and Princeton. He is known to have acquired items from Robin Symes.

Why are the UK dealer and private collector anonymous? Are they are unknown? And where is the mention of the anonymous European collector in Christie's history?

Will other museums and collectors who purchased directly or indirectly from Sharrer conduct due diligence on their acquisitions?

Questions about the source of a dealer's fragments

I am working on the sources of Attic figure-decorated pottery fragments at the moment. I was interested to see that two fragments of a cup attributed to Euphronios by J.R. Guy (Euphronios no. 50) that had been on loan to Princeton University Art Museum (L.1990.134a–b) are now in the Michael C. Carlos Museum (2005.026.004A [and B?]). (I presume that the other fragment was acquired as the kalos inscription naming Lea]gr[os is on the second fragment. (Does the date for Leagros kalos need to be adjusted?)

The history of the fragment is provided as follows:

Ex coll. Peter Sharrer, New Jersey, acquired European art market, 1982-1983. Purchased by MCCM from Sotheby's New York, June 7, 2005, lot 26.

Sotheby's note the following:

acquired together on the European art market in 1982/1983 as part of a group of fragments by various painters

What were the other fragments acquired by Sharrer in 1982/83? Where are they now? Who acquired them?

But the more interesting question relates to the identity of the "European art market". Who was involved?

Why the interest in Sharrer? He supplied a fragmentary Roman relief to Princeton University Art Museum in 1985 that was returned to Italy in 2002 after it was realised that it had been found near Tivoli. Moreover, Sharrer was the source of a fragmentary Attic figure-decorated lekythos attributed to the Pan painter that was donated to Princeton in 1998 and again returned to Italy.

Were any of the pot fragments sold by Sharrer to another major North American university museum also derived from the same "European art market"?

Silence from Princeton

I am beginning to wonder if the Director of the Princeton University Art Museum is trying to send me a message. I have completed a research article on a specific Athenian pot-painter and would like to mention the full (and documented) collecting history of a pot-sherd in Princeton --- but there is silence.

Only last year (2012) I wrote:

University museums should set an example for the highest ethical standards. Unethical acquisition policies should have no place in such places of learning. ... there are serious concerns that the museum was tardy in making a public statement about the most recent return, and that when it did so it failed to make key information available. This apparent lack of transparency only serves to damage the very trust that Princeton's museum director claims is important in his institution.

But perhaps Princeton has yet to learn any lessons from the Medici Conspiracy.

Euphronios fragments at the Met

The announcement that pot fragments formerly owned by Dietrich von Bothmer have been returned to Italy raises an issue. What are the collecting histories for other Bothmer donations?

I am particularly interested in Euphronios at the moment and note that Bothmer donated the following fragments to the New York MMA.

1. 1977.192.3a-c. 3 fragments of a red-figured cup. Attributed to Onesimos and signed by Euphronios as potter.
2. 1983.524.2. Fragment of a neck-amphora. [Euphronios no. 24]
3. 1983.524.3a-b. 2 fragments of a cup potterd by Kachrylion and attributed to Euphronios. [Euphronios no. 39]
4. 1983.524.4. Fragment of a cup attributed to Euphronios. [Euphronios no. 40]
5. 1983.524.5. Fragment of a cup attributed to Euphronios.
6. 1985.228.8.a-o. 15 fragments of a red-figured neck-amphora. Join Louvre Cp 11187. [Euphronios no. 16]
7. 1988.233.1. Fragment of red-figured cup attributed to Euphronios.
8. 1989.382.1. 11 fragments of a red-figured cup. Helen abducted by Theseus. [Euphronios no. 38]
9. 1989.382.2. Fragment of a red-figured cup. Nessos and Deianeira. [Euphronios no. 52]

Where were these neck-amphorae and cups discovered? Who has handled them? Who were the proprietors before Bothmer? What do they join?

I also note that the fragment formerly owned by Ariel Herrmann and loaned to Princeton (L.1984.56 = Euphronios no. 25) now is New York MMA 2001.563 (Gift of Ariel Herrmann in memory of Lydia Mannara). This was attributed by J.R. Guy, along with a second fragment, Princeton L.1984.57 [Euphronios no. 26].

Pot Fragments Matter

Group of part of the approximately 
10,000 terracotta vase fragments
from the Bothmer collection.
Source: www.metmuseum.org

One of the themes that has emerged from the return of antiquities to Italy has been the role of fragmented pots. Sometimes pots have been reconstructed from sherds apparently brought together from numerous collections or dealers. Such pots would include the krater attributed to the Berlin painter that was returned from the J. Paul Getty Museum. And the acquisition of sherds has not been without controversy. And we could reflect on the fragments added to the Berlin painter's amphora once in New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art. Harvard's purchase (via a New York dealer) of the Robert Guy collection was not without  comment and has been used by James Cuno to support his views on antiquities. And we could consider the major collection formed by Dietrich von Bothmer: a small selection has been returned to Italy (apparently as they are associated with material already owned) and more recently fragments will be handed over to Italian authorities after an identification made by Dr Christos Tsirogiannis. Or there are fragments like the one attributed to the Euaion painter in Princeton.

These small fragments of time deserve more attention.

Princeton and the Euaion painter

There is an interesting pot sherd in the Princeton University Art Museum. It was acquired in 2002 in memory of Emily Townsend Vermeule. It is attributed to the Euaion painter. Who made the attribution?

The sherd does not appear to be in the Beazley Archive. When did it surface? What is its collecting history? Who was the donor?

An email to the relevant curator has gone unacknowledged.

An email to James Steward, the Director of PUAM has gone unacknowledged.

Can we assume that the PUAM does not wish to release the collecting history?

Eakin: "Museums themselves are partly to blame"

Hugh Eakin has written an important, but I believe flawed, piece on the return of antiquities for the New York Times [NYT]. He has shown a nuanced approach in his comments on the writings of James Cuno, but shown sympathy towards the J. Paul Getty Museum over the coverage in Chasing Aphrodite.

There is one point where I agree with Eakin: "museums themselves are partly to blame". Since the 1970 UNESCO Convention (and the 1973 AIA Resolution), museums curators, museums directors, museum trustees, and museum boards have known the issues about acquiring recently surfaced antiquities. But the desire to acquire was too much. And this is why closer to 200 antiquities [not 100] have been returned to Italy from North American public and private collections. This is why major institutions such as Boston's Museum of Fine Arts, the Cleveland Museum of Art, the Dallas Museum of Art, the J. Paul Getty Museum, the Minneapolis Institute of Art, New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Princeton University Art Museum, and the Toledo Museum of Art have returned antiquities to Italy. These museums thought that they could acquire without restraint and the photographic evidence that emerged from the Geneva Freeport, from the Basel warehouses, and from Schinoussa has shown that their policies were flawed.

But let us return to Eakin's piece. He suggests that foreign governments have been threatening legal action over the return of antiquities. But I suspect that major museums have been secretly relieved to avoid that course of action. I do not know if Eakin has seen the photographic and documentary archives, but the thought of this material being unpacked in a courtroom where every image would be analysed in the media is one that would probably make the blood of most museum directors run cold. It is sufficient to say that Italy has probably claimed less than 1% of the objects in the photographic archives. This suggests great restraint, understanding and flexibility from the Italian authorities. But it also calls for flexibility from the North American museum community.

Eakin draws attention to the Dallas Museum of Art. The initiative to return this material to Italy (as well as a mosaic to Turkey) comes from the museum's director, Maxwell Anderson. As far as we can tell, it was Anderson who identified the material in the wake of the Almagià-linked returns from Princeton University Art Museum. Anderson does not appear to have waited for the Italians to start knocking on his door. He has a long record of acting in an ethical way over antiquities, notably over the EUMILOP scheme at Emory. Yet Eakin brackets Dallas with Toledo (one of the first museums to be identified in the Medici conspiracy) and the J. Paul Getty Museum. These cases are very different and Eakin should have made that clear.

Eakin makes the point that for most of the returned objects we do not know where they were found. The intellectual consequences of such lost knowledge are one of the reasons why this is such a tragic situation. Yes, we know that some pieces were looted from Morgantina on Sicily, or Etruscan cemeteries and sanctuaries at Cerveteri. But all have lost their scientific contexts. Eakin later mentions that the Italians did have access to photographic images that showed unrestored archaeological objects still covered in mud. Eakin could have noted that this is mud from tombs and other contexts not investigated by scientific archaeological means.

Eakin talks about the international trade in looted antiquities. It would have been worth pausing for a moment on how objects identified from the Medici and Schinoussa archives have been continuing to appear in New York auction-houses, and how these sales have continued to proceed even when the Italian authorities have contacted the relevant authorities. Have such stories been covered in the New York Times?

Eakin dramatises the situation:

Countries like Italy and Greece have used the news media to embarrass museums with alarming stories of rogue curators and nefarious dealers; they have withheld exhibition loans from museums that rebuff them; and they have resorted to aggressive legal action, opening criminal investigations of museum staff and enlisting the help of American federal prosecutors to obtain museum records and seize disputed works.

One wonders why it has been necessary for such actions to be taken against North American museums if everything is so transparent in the museum world. But let me take one item here: the "alarming stories of rogue curators". We could be distracted by the case of curators at the Getty or at Princeton. But what about the January 2012 news, never (as far as I can see) covered by the North American press, about the return of antiquities from the collection formed by a New York museum curator? What was so suspicious about this material that it was handed over? Why has the New York museum failed to make a statement? [Perhaps somebody at the AAMD meeting this week can ask the MMA's director that very question.]

There is no need to discuss "nefarious dealers". Eakin has read The Medici Conspiracy and Chasing Aphrodite. He could have listed the North American dealers who have supplied the museums but he chooses not to do so.

Have attitudes changed in the North American museum community? Eakin draws attention to the disputed St Louis Art Museum mummy case. He does not mention the flawed collecting history which was used as the basis for retaining the object and challenging the legal case. Yet the Cleveland Museum of Art has a acquired a Roman portrait of Drusus from the same dealer. What does this say about the due diligence process?

So will we see the return of the Bubon Roman bronzes to Turkey? Will the Michael C. Carlos Museum  start to negotiate with Greece over the Minoan larnax and other items? What is the collecting history of the bronze krater (once? still?) on loan to Houston?

I hope that the AAMD will strengthen its current policy on the acquisitions of antiquities to close various loopholes. And I suspect that there will be museums directors in Kansas this week who will be feeling more than uncomfortable about acquisitions under their care. Perhaps we will see a more enlightened position emerging from AAMD members this week.

And museum directors who wish to ignore the issue should re-read Eakin: "Museums themselves are partly to blame".

UPDATE: two links have been removed from this post.

Villanovan bronze hut from an undisclosed source?

In 1999 the Princeton University Art Museum purchased a Villanovan bronze hut [catalogue entry]. The collecting history was not stated. It is nearly a year since we noted that the hut was forming part of the Italian investigation. So Princeton has had a year to make a statement about its full collecting history.

Earlier this month the museum's curator made a statement about his role in the Italian investigation that led to the return of a material to Italy.

Michael Padgett was curator in 1999 when the hut was purchased. Will he be disclosing the hut's previous collecting history? What was the nature of his due diligence search?

Princeton needs to demonstrate the nature of its commitment to transparency over its acquisition policy.

Princeton update

Source: MiBAC

In June 2010 the New York Times suggested that there was an Italian investigation into a number of acquisitions at the Princeton University Art Museum and that this included the role of one of the museum's curator. The curator in question responded in the July 2010 number of the Princeton Alumni Weekly.

In January 2012 it was announced by the Italians (but not by Princeton) that Princeton would be returning a number of antiquities to Italy.

A discussion of the return (including a statement by the curator in question emphasising his innocence) was published in an academic journal during the summer of 2012.

The Princeton return had implications for other North American collections including Dallas.

It now appears that the Italian investigation into the Princeton curator is at an end (Mark F. Bernstein, "Curator no longer part of probe", Princeton Alumni Weekly January 16, 2013). Michael Padgett emailed PAW:

I’m pleased to tell you that last month I was notified that the investigation by the Rome prosecutor’s office relating to me has been fully and formally dismissed, and is now closed ... [T]his was the outcome we expected and is consistent with the University’s own findings.

There is no comment on the recommendations to acquire the now returned objects. And will the university authorities be investigating the process that allowed these toxic antiquities to enter its distinguished collection?

Where does this leave the other objects that remain in Princeton? Will the museum publish their full collecting histories?

Princeton appears to have left many questions unanswered.

Dallas and Almagià

Two Etruscan bronze shields
Source: DMA

The Dallas Museum of Art has divulged information into the enquiry into the activities of Edoardo Almagià. Among the objects that are to be returned to Italy are two Etruscan bronze shields acquired from Almagià in 1998.

The museum has made a statement about Almagià:

Edoardo Almagià, a former New York antiquities dealer, is currently named in a criminal case for conspiracy to commit the illegal export and smuggling of cultural property pending before the Public Prosecutor of Rome. Almagià has been under investigation since at least 2006, when U.S. Customs officials raided his New York apartment, confiscating photographs, documents, and archaeological material. He was also the subject of a New York Times story in 2010 that revealed he and Michael Padgett, former antiquities curator at the Princeton University Art Museum, were the focus of an investigation of the illegal export and laundering of Italian archaeological objects. The Italian government named Almagià in the criminal case for having “sold, donated, or lent” nearly two dozen works looted from Italian sites to the Princeton Museum. Roughly twenty other objects are listed in the case as having been obtained illegally by Almagià and sold to other American institutions in the 1980s and 1990s, including this pair of shields.

It appears that the raid on Almagia`s New York apartment provided "compelling evidence, including photographs, that object was looted and/or illegally exported".

Does this mean that there is equally compelling evidence for objects acquired by other museums? What are other museums in North America and beyond even now searching their records to identify potentially toxic acquisitions? And was Almagià selling to private collectors? Who were they?

And why is Princeton being mentioned in such an explicit way in the Dallas statement?

Princeton Returns: a discussion

Source: MiBAC

I received the latest volume of the Journal of Art Crime today. It includes my regular column, "Context Matters". For this number I decided to break with my previous custom and write a longer piece on the recent return of antiquities from Princeton to Italy. I include a list of the returned pieces as well as a discussion of the need for transparency.

The discussion piece also notes some of the other North American museums that have acquired material once owned by Edoardo Almagià, including the Dallas Museum of Art, the Tampa Museum of Art, and Boston's Museum of Fine Art.

I conclude with the question: "How can Princeton proceed and seek to restore its patinated reputation?"

Reference

Gill, D. W. J. 2012. "Context matters: Princeton and recently surfaced antiquities." Journal of Art Crime 7: 59-66.

Princeton and transparency

Source: MiBAC

W. Barksdale Maynard has presented an important report on the recent return of antiquities to Italy ("Art museum returns more ancient artworks to Italy", Princeton Alumni Weekly March 7, 2012). It is claimed that the museum initiated the return ("The University said the art museum undertook an internal analysis of items in its collections and then approached Italian authorities") and an agreement was signed in June 2011. This does not explain the report in the New York Times published in June 2010.

One matter of concern is that no definitive list of the publications has been issued by Princeton. Maynard's report notes:

Princeton declined to release any information relating to their acquisition or to provide identifying information that would allow the provenance to be tracked, citing a confidentiality clause in the agreement.

However it is possible to reconstruct the list using Princeton's own publication of its acquisitions.

My own concern about Princeton's lack of transparency is quoted:

Princeton values its integrity, but the silence of its museum, with its unwillingness to release details of the objects with their collecting histories, would seem to suggest that there is a deliberate lack of transparency ... This is in marked contrast to the Dallas Museum of Art and the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, which have published online pieces associated with Almagià so that there can be proper public scrutiny.

There is a response from James Steward, the director at Princeton:

very few museums, if any, have in fact a policy of ‘complete transparency’ relative to acquisitions. Indeed, past agreements with donors, gallerists, and others may preclude such transparency. We continue to value these relationships, just as we do the public trust that is placed in our museum, and we seek to acquit ourselves of that trust while honoring the privacy of the individuals with whom we work.

However we note that Steward maintains that Princeton “is profoundly committed to honoring the integrity of cultural property and to stamping out illicit trade of all kinds in works of art, and now has among the most rigorous acquisitions and loan policies in the museum industry.”

I am glad to read this.

I presume that Steward will now release details of any outstanding acquisitions where the collecting histories have been questioned. These include a Tyrrhenian amphora and a Villanovan hut. And what about the silver plaque acquired by Princeton?

And will he explain who recommended the acquisition of the pieces returned to Italy? And what was the nature of the rigorous acquisition policy that allowed them to pass into the possession of Princeton?

Princeton and Almagia

While I have listed what appears to be the list of objects that have been returned to Italy from Princeton, there are still some items linked to Edoardo Almagià that are listed in the Record of the Princeton University Art Museum.

• Campanian stamnoid pyxis. Inv. 87-3 a-b. Gift of Edoardo C. Almagià.
• Two fragments of Roman Arretine bowls. Inv. y1992.66-67. Gift of Edoardo C. Almagià.
• Bone female doll. Roman. Inv. y1993-13. Gift of Edoardo C. Almagià.
• Fragment from a satyr antefix, terracotta / 1 antefissa a volto di Satiro. Etruscan. Inv. 1996-339. Gift of Edoardo C. Almagià.
• Fragment from an acroterion, terracotta. Etruscan / 1 acroterio. Inv. 1996-340. Gift of Edoardo C. Almagià.
• Fragment from a nereid antexfix, terracotta; with remains of cover tile. Etruscan / 1 antefissa con nereide. Inv. 1996-341. Gift of Edoardo C. Almagià.
• Pair of fragmentary architectural revetments with reliefs of chariot horses, terracotta. Etruscan / 2 rilievi con cavalli. Inv. 1996-342.1-2. Gift of Edoardo C. Almagià.

What are the full collecting histories of these pieces?

What other objects in Princeton have been purchased directly or indirectly from Almagià?

Princeton: collecting histories needed for further antiquities

In June 2010 details were provided of a longer list of material that was under investigation at Princeton. This included an Attic pot sold to the museum in 2001. It can now be confirmed that this is indeed the black-figured Tyrrhenian amphora attributed to the Guglielmi painter purchased in 2001 (inv. 2001-218) [JSTOR] [Museum catalogue] [Beazley Archive 9003149]. Will the museum reveal the collecting history of this amphora prior to 2001?

A second piece that appears to be under investigation is a bronze Villanovan cinerary urn in the form of a hut that was purchased from an unstated source in 1999 (inv. 1999-70) [JSTOR] [Museum catalogue]. Again, what is the collecting history of the cinerary urn?

There is, so I understand, a much longer list. Will Princeton be making a full statement about the background to the recent returns? Did all the pieces come from the same source? What are the complete collecting histories? Is there a reason to maintain a silence?

Part of the mission of the Princeton University Art Museum is "to advance knowledge of art and archaeology". Does this apparent lack of transparency advance knowledge?

Planet Princeton Comments

Source: MiBAC

Planet Princeton comments on the return ("Princeton University Returns Art to Italy", January 26, 2012).

But what is more interesting is the response from Robert Steven Bianchi and I give a flavour here:

The repatriation of these objects is absurd in the extreme ... the Italians cannot take care of their own so they launch witch hunts against those who cherish, protect, preserve, and educate the world about that heritage in order to conceal their own disregard for and indifference toward their own cultural property.

Why did Princeton hand over this material? Had the objects been known before 1970? Where had the architectural fragments been found?