Apulian pots and the missing memorandum

One of the most important studies of the scale of looting in Southern Italy has been conducted by Professor Ricardo Elia of Boston University ("Analysis of the looting, selling, and collecting of Apulian red-figure vases: a quantitative approach." In Trade in illicit antiquities: the destruction of the world's archaeological heritage, edited by N. Brodie, J. Doole, and C. Renfrew, pp. 145-53. Cambridge: McDonald Institute, 2001). Elia quantified the recent surfacing of Apulian pottery and suggested that perhaps as little as 5.5% of the corpus had come from scientific excavations. (Compare this with the figure for Cycladic marble figures where some 85% of the funerary record of the Early Bronze Age has been lost, i.e. only 15% either came from scientific excavations or had been provided with some sort of reported find-spot.)

Elia's study was cited as the first of three case studies --- the other two were on Cycladic figures and hoards of Greek coins --- in the final report of The Illicit Trade Advisory Panel. This panel, chaired by Professor Norman Palmer, reported to the UK Government's Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Its role was 'to advise on how the UK can prevent and prohibit the illicit trade in cultural objects'.

In the report the conclusions of Prof Elia were 'contested' by a named British archaeologist 'in written comments circulated to the Panel'. Such comments may have influenced the Panel to think Elia's comments were too high (though they are in keeping with the figures emerging from our own research) - and they certainly gave encouragement to the collector George Ortiz. In the published version of his 2004 Oxford lecture, Ortiz ("Overview and assessment after fifty years of collecting in a changing world." In Who owns objects? The ethics and politics of collecting cultural artefacts, edited by E. Robson, L. Treadwell, and L. Gosden, pp. 15-32. Oxford: Oxbow, 2006) notes with approval the dissenting voice and comments,

'A difference of opinion is one thing but, with respect to archaeology, there is total cleavage, with the successful attempt of the few to mobilise public opinion resulting in the present legislation'.

It would be interesting to read this refutation of Elia's sensible and careful research. A request to see this document met with a blank: the committee had apparently failed to keep a copy and one was not available from the secretariat of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. The museum curator had unfortunately replaced his computer. So there is, reportedly, no copy.

Neil Brodie, who had separately tried to secure a copy of the document, has recently (in Who owns objects? The ethics and politics of collecting cultural artefacts, edited by E. Robson, L. Treadwell, and L. Gosden) made the forceful comment:

'if there is information that potentially refutes Elia’s work, normal academic protocol would suggest that it should either be released into the public domain for critical review or else excluded from consideration'.

Was the Panel keen to play down looting in Apulia?

I hope that there were no conflicts of interest. I note that on the gallery website of one of the Panel members is an Apulian red-figured dish, attributed to 'the Lampas painter', which had resided in a 'Private Collection, Switzerland'; it came to public attention as a loan to Le Musee d'Art et Histoire in Geneva (April-August 1986). It has now been sold.

And if anybody has a copy of the missing memorandum ...

For further comments on these issues:
D.W.J. Gill, review of Robson, E., L. Treadwell, and L. Gosden. Editors. 2006. Who owns objects? The ethics and politics of collecting cultural artefacts. Oxford: Oxbow; and Brodie, N., M. M. Kersel, C. Luke, and K. W. Tubb. Editors. 2006. Archaeology, cultural heritage, and the antiquities trade. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. In Journal of Field Archaeology 32.1 (2007) 103-06.

Wartime 'loot'

How many archaeological objects residing in collections were uncovered during wartime activities? I recently noticed this (modest) one now in the Kestner-Museum in Hannover, Germany.

An Early Corinthian oinochoe formerly in the Putzer collection (Hannover) was found at the southern end of the Corinth canal ‘auf der athenischen Seite’ (inv. 1988, 108; pl. 14, 1): the significant date for the find is given as 1943.

What else has been removed under similar circumstances?

REFERENCE
MLASOWSKY (A.) Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, Deutschland 72: Hannover, Kestner-Museum, 2. Munich: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 2000. Pp. 88, figs. 13, pll. 63. 3406468225.

The scale of the market for Egyptian antiquities

The return of antiquities to Italy and Greece has perhaps diverted our gaze from one of the other major sources of what appear to be recently surfaced antiquities. Between 1998 and 2007 Sotheby's in New York held over 20 sales over antiquities with some 1300 lots of Egyptian objects. This aspect of the sales was worth some US$41 million.

Many of the antiquities returning to Italy from North American museums have consisted of Athenian and South Italian pots. Yet these categories are a small element in value to Sotheby's in New York. Athenian figure-decorated pots have only raised some US$6.4 million, and South Italian pottery (Apulian, Lucanian, Campanian) just under US$1 million. In other words the sale of Egyptian antiquities is 6 times more valuable to Sotheby's than Athenian pottery, and 40 times more valuable than South Italian pottery. Or to put it another way, should we be more concerned about the damage to the archaeological record in Egypt than to what has been happening in Greece and Italy? (And that is not to belittle the very real destruction that has been taking place in those countries.)

But are the Egyptian antiquities at Sotheby's coming from old collections? Where the history is known (and presumably 'safe' to disclose) this is stated in the catalogue entry. (Confusingly the art world uses the term 'provenance' which usually points to the collecting history.) Nearly 70% of the Egyptian antiquities auctioned at Sotheby's New York appear to be unknown before 1973. Over 95% have no declared find-spot.

What are the material and intellectual consequences of collecting Egyptian antiquities?

Counting gigantes in New York

A friend in North America asked me if we were preparing a statistical study of the newly opened classical galleries at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. I would hate to be accused of 'bean counting' by the curator of the Greek and Roman antiquities, but Art of the Classical World in the Metropolitan Museum of Art: Greece, Cyprus, Etruria, Rome (2007) was sitting on my desk for use in another project.

A flick through the donors for the 476 entries presented some interesting names. Here are two that caught my eye.

Nicolas Koutoulakis gave a fragment of a glass bowl with erotic scene (no. 388; inv. 1995.86). His name appears in the infamous 'organigram' published in The Medici Conspiracy with a direct link to 'Robert Hechte' (sic). Koutoulakis' generosity goes back a long way and included an Etruscan Pontic amphora given in 1955 (no. 330; inv. 55.7).

The purchase of a Campanian (or South Italian) statuette of a bronze standing male figure was made possible through the gift of Jeanette and Jonathan Rosen (no. 66; inv. 2000.40). Is this the same Jonathan Rosen linked with Atlantis Antiquities and Robert Hecht? How did the bronze first surface?

Does this catalogue contain other equally prominent names in the world of North American collecting? Sadly the histories of the pieces have not been provided. How many objects passed through the hands of names now familiar from The Medici Conspiracy?

Antiquities from Cyprus

The new agreement restricting the import of Cypriot antiquities to the US is welcome news. It is encouraging to read that it is now recognised by the US authorities that 'coins constitute an integral part of the archaeological record of the island [of Cyprus]'.

Common sense has prevailed.

But I also note that Sotheby's in New York sold at least US $219,000 worth of Cypriot antiquities (in 39 lots) between June 1998 and June 2006. And what about the other auctioneers, dealers and galleries?

Cypriot is a minor component of the sale of antiquities at Sotheby's New York - less than 1% in value for this period. But Cypriot antiquities on offer without any recorded history or find-spot are almost certainly the 'fruits' of recent looting. How will the new legislation alter the future pattern of sales?

Who are the radical archaeologists?

A new term, ‘radical archaeologists’, appears to be emerging for those opposed to the destruction of archaeological sites by looters.

It apparently originated with the journalist Steven Vincent (since killed in Iraq) in his 2002 article 'Exposing the radical archaeologists':

'In numerous interviews with radical archaeologists, I've detected a kind of aesthetic tone-deafness'.

(The piece appeared in Orientations, 'the magazine for collectors and connoisseurs of Asian art'.)

Who is using the term now? Alan Walker (a former member of the Numismatic Department of Bank Leu AG in Zurich) in his review of Roger Atwood’s ‘Stealing History’ (2004) asserts,

‘it ought to be obvious that every time one of the radical archaeologists attacks collectors and the antiquity trade in America and in Western Europe for being the primary cause of looting, he may be sincere, but he is neither unbiased nor honest.’

Wayne Sayles of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild in his ‘Ancient Coin Collecting’ blog (‘Open Letter to CNN’, December 2006) makes a series of comments: ‘Any individual who collects such objects (what else is there?), is considered anathema by the radical archaeological element that drives media coverage today.’ He suggests that there is some sort of a lobby group: ‘Sensationalized news coverage is used as a platform from which radical archaeologists lobby legislators and government agencies for restrictions and controls that would effectively make collecting of even minor objects like coins and stamps from other countries impossible.’ Yet Sayles himself supplied the term (quoting Walker’s review) in his submission to the US Committee of Ways and Means (September 2005)

But Walker and Sayles are not the only ones. In March and April 2006 Philippe de Montebello, Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, responded to ‘a small group of "radical" archaeologists who say museums' acquisitions of antiquities contribute to the looting of ancient sites’ (New York Sun, April 2006; but similar quote in USA Today, March 2006).

The phrase resurfaces in the published proceedings, ‘Who Owns Objects?’ (2006), based on the Oxford seminar series of 2004. Ursula Kampmann, formerly of Münzen und Medaillen AG Basel, commented, 'The case of Switzerland shows how difficult it is to find a compromise between the unrealistic demands of radical archaeologists and the requirements of competitive profit enterprises.' The editors present Sir John Boardman's position as 'the radical archaeologists have closed down museums' opportunities to collect according to their needs'.

‘Radical Archaeologists’ is a misleading phrase. It was applied to a specific group – whose members were not engaged specifically in discussing archaeological ethics - that emerged in 1996. So an alternative needs to be found. How about ‘archaeologists with integrity’?

'Meaningless numbers'?

Shelby White, the North American collector of antiquities, recently commented in an interview for The New Yorker (April 9, 2007) that research by Chippindale and Gill is 'reducing the great collections of the world to meaningless numbers'.

We estimate that 'some 85% of the funerary record of the Early Bronze Age Cyclades may have been lost through the pursuit of [Cycladic] figures'. Our study (published in 2000) of seven private and museum collections suggested that 75% of the objects had no indication of find-spot. However there were two interesting exceptions. The exhibition of the Fleischman collection showed that 92% of the items had no indication of find-spot, and the one for the Levy-White collection came out at 93%.

Do these figures matter? Do they indicate how the objects surfaced? It is perhaps telling that among the antiquities which in late 2006 the J. Paul Getty Museum agreed to return to Italy were six items acquired from the Fleischman collection in 1996. The return is hardly surprising: Polaroids showing some of the Fleischman items were seized in Geneva.

Are our figures meaningless? Polaroids seized in the raid in Geneva also appear to show items from the Levy-White collection (and are helpfully listed in The Medici Conspiracy). 7% of the Levy-White collection provided some indication of find-spot. What about the other 93%?

Does looting matter?

Why all the fuss? People have been looting for centuries. Look at the Middle Kingdom Egyptian mortuary statuette of User that turned up in a Late Minoan context at Knossos on Crete. It seems likely that User's tomb had been looted at some later date (Hyksos?) and the contents dispersed. Is it so different today, some would argue? A tomb is opened, the objects removed. The small items released on the open market; the larger ones turn up in the galleries and auction houses.

But it is the scale of the looting that has changed. This is now big business. Thousands of archaeological contexts are being destroyed each year to supply the market. That means loss of knowledge which can never be recovered. That is why looting matters.