The Shefton Collection

A series of essays on objects from the Shefton Collection now in the Great North Museum, Newcastle upon Tyne, has appeared. This provides information on how Brian Shefton developed 'the Greek Museum' during his time as a member of staff at Newcastle University.

My own contribution to the volume included a discussion of an Attic black-glossed bolsal that had once formed part of the Nostell Priory collection in Yorkshire.

My memoir on Shefton was published in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography this week.

• ‘The Nostell Priory bolsal’, in J. Boardman, A. Parkin, and S. Waite (eds.), On the Fascination of Objects: Greek and Etruscan Art in the Shefton Collection (Oxford: Oxbow, 2016), 95-106. [Casemate]
• ‘Shefton, Brian Benjamin (1919–2012)’, in The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/104851

Checking Collecting Histories

Collecting histories lie at the heart of research behind objects that surface on the market. Can the 'history' be traced back to a point before the 1970 UNESCO Convention (or the relevant law relating to cultural property from a particular country)?

We should not mistake oral accounts for history. Phrases such as "said to be from an old collection" or "thought to have been in a specific collection" need to be checked out by those selling objects at auction or in a gallery, and certainly by those acquiring the items. What is the authenticated documentation? (Note, not just the documentation.)

The Ka-Nefer-Nefer mummy mask excavated at Saqqara and now in the St Louis Art Museum has a reported collecting history that does not sit comfortably with other verifiable evidence.

In 2016 the issue of the due diligence process needs to be brought higher up the agenda so that buyers need not be concerned that they are acquiring objects that could be contested in the courts or reclaimed by national governments.

Provenance: terminology, museums and cultural property

My students, as well as readers of LM, will know that I have a strong dislike of the misleading term "provenance". I have written on this where I have suggested that we adopt two separate terms:

a. Collecting history: the way that an object passes from market to public or private collection.
b. Archaeology: the circumstances of discovery and removal from the ground.

Yet this is a term that museum professionals as well as academics working on cultural property issues use the term loosely. My twitter feed noted two recent examples:

Lehman: provenance is always something we are looking at. It can occupy years of work and it's not going away #ArtViews
— Art Museum Directors (@MuseumDirectors) April 28, 2014

The Power of Plausible Provenance. Watch my prezi for the Society for American Archaeology @CultureTraffic symposium http://t.co/5L285Tg96U
— Donna Yates (@DrDonnaYates) April 28, 2014

My other emphasis is for the need for the identification of authenticated documentation. I have seen collecting histories based on documentation that appears to have been prepared for other objects.

So please can we tighten up the terminology?


Gill, D. W. J. 2010. "Collecting histories and the market for classical antiquities." Journal of Art Crime 3: 3-10.

The use of the term “provenance” when applied to archaeological material has been related to previous ownership. The collecting histories of over 120 items returned to Italy from North American collections have demonstrated the need for the careful and rigorous documentation of individual pieces. Such a history would chart the “life” of the object from the moment that it is discovered to the point when it is sold at auction or acquired by a museum or private individual. The impact of the scandal surrounding the “Medici Conspiracy” has led to the withdrawal of lots from a London sale in 2008, and a series of seizures from a New York auction house in 2009. The lack of collecting histories for individual objects suggests that the pieces were removed from their archaeological contexts, such as graves, by unscientific methods. The study argues that the widely used term “provenance” is essentially obsolete when applied to antiquities.

Forming collections

One of the issues that LM will be exploring is the way that museum curators have encouraged private collectors to acquire objects that are then "donated" to the museum. This raises the issue of how we define a "private collection". We should recall that the stock of one London dealer was even described as from an English private collection.

Private collections

One of the questions raised at the Heritage Seminar on Monday was related to private collectors. We were talking about the Crosby Garrett helmet and someone raised the issue about what motivates private collectors.

I glanced across at the section of books on private (and public) collections. There were names of private collectors who purchased ex-Becchina, ex-Medici  and ex-Symes pieces. Yet some of these private individuals claim to love the past yet do not question the acquisition of newly surfaced items.

Archaeologists and Collectors

Are archaeologists "anti-collecting" per se? No.
Do I maintain an "anti-collecting" position? No.
Do I appreciate the cultural benefit of historic collections of antiquities? Yes.
Are archaeologists in favour of protecting the integrity of the archaeological record? Yes.
Should concerns be raised when collectors acquire recently surfaced antiquities?
... What do you think?