Intellectual consequences of the Attic red-figured lekythos

Attic red-figured lekythos
Source: New York County District Attorney

The Attic red-figured lekythos that has been seized from a Manhattan gallery is attributed to the group of Palermo 16. Find-spots (and the Beazley Archive now defines this information as "provenance") for such lekythoi include (and this may include "said to be" information):

• Nola: 2
• Tarquinia: 1
• Camarina, Sicily: 1
• Gela, Sicily: 5
• Selinus, Sicily: 3

11 further lekythoi do not have a stated findspot. It seems quite possible that the New York lekythos was found at a site on Sicily but we just do not know.

And note the loss of information: 11 out of 23 lekythoi do not have a secure archaeological find-spot. And how many of the 12 with some sort of reported find-spot come from a scientific excavation that has provided contextual information?

The Drusus and Tiberius portraits from Sessa Aurunca

Drusus Minor. Source: Cleveland Museum of Art

The return of the head of Drusus Minor to Italy from the Cleveland Museum of Art has been in part thanks to the diligent research of Giuseppe Scarpati. He has discovered the photographic records of sculptures discovered during the mid-1920s during the excavations of Sessa Aurunca.

The head of Drusus Minor is clearly recognisable from the archive photographs (Scarpati 2008-11: 357, fig. 7, 358 fig. 10). The head passed through PIASA in Paris in 2004, a source that is not without some interest. It was acquired from Phoenix Ancient Art in 2012. (See Gill 2013: 72 for oral histories and objects linked to this dealer, and with a specific mention to the portrait of Drusus.)

David Franklin, the then director of the Cleveland Museum of Art, defended the acquisition of the head at the time. (He resigned from the museum in 2013.) The museum is probably wishing that it had not claimed that the collecting history had been traced back to the 19th century.

The trail of the Drusus portrait had been identified by a companion piece. The head of Tiberius appears to be the one in a North American private collection ("The Magdalene Tiberius")  and published by John Pollini (Pollini 2005; Scarpati 2008-11: 361 figs. 11-14). It was reported to have formed an old French collection in Marseilles dating to the 1960s. It was said to have been found in North Africa (a good reminded of the intellectual consequences of collecting recently surfaced archaeological material). It was acquired by its present proprietors in 2004. The source appears to have been the Royal-Athena Galleries (Art of the Ancient World 15 [2004] no. 24; Scarpati 2014: 33 fig. 9). Will those owners be contacting the Italian authorities in the light of the return of the Drusus portrait?

It is interesting that the (recent) collecting histories of both portraits now do not seem to go back beyond 2004 (i.e. 34 years after the UNESCO Convention). What were their collecting histories immediately prior to 2004?

The Drusus Minor return is merely serving to open up the discussion. Was the Cleveland Museum of Art aware of Scarpati's research prior to the portrait's acquisition?

Now is probably also a good time for the museum staff to revisit the documented collecting history of the Leutwitz Apollo.

Bibliography

Gill, D. W. J. 2013. "Context matters: The Cleveland Apollo goes public." Journal of Art Crime 10: 69-75. [academia.edu]
Pollini, J. 2005. "A new marble head of Tiberius. Portrait typology and ideology." Antike Kunst 48: 55-72. [JSTOR]
Scarpati, G. 2008-11. "Un ritratto di Tiberio da Sessa Aurunca ritrovato note su un probabile ciclo Suessano di statue onorarie Giulio-Claudie." Rendiconti della Accademia di Archeologia Lettere e Belle Arti 75: 345-68. [Academia.edu]
Scarpati, G. 2014. "Il ritratto di Druso minore dal ciclo statuario Giulio-Claudio di Sessa Aurunca." Bollettino d’Arte 24: 29-38. [Academia.edu]

Press Release
"Cleveland Museum of Art to Transfer Roman Sculpture of Drusus Minor to the Republic of Italy", Cleveland Museum of Art April 18, 2017. [press release]
"Il Cleveland Museum of Art restituisce all’Italia una scultura romana di Druso Minore", MiBACT April 18, 2017. [press release]

Revisiting Cycladic figures

Looking forward to seminar on Cycladic figures in Cambridge tomorrow: value, forgeries, Keros, returns https://t.co/2ZPoS12ybf pic.twitter.com/eqMAJ5JTzW

— David Gill (@davidwjgill) February 8, 2017

I will be presenting a seminar on Cycladic figures to the Aegean Archaeology Seminar in Cambridge on Thursday 9 February. I am taking as my themes:

• Responses to Gill and Chippindale on Cycladic figures (published in the American Journal of Archaeology)
• The value of Cycladic figures sold on the antiquities market in London and New York since 2000
• The Keros Haul (and why it is not a hoard)
• The return of the Karlsruhe figure and the 'inadequate sculptors'
• Forgeries of Cycladic figures
• The wider implications for and the application to classical archaeology

A coin hoard from the Levant?

I notice that Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. is selling a coin hoard ('Eastern Hacksilber') [CNG 97, lot 1 ]. It consists of 'Hoard of 32 Cut Silver Coins, Hacksilber, and Jewelry', and dates to the late 5th century BC. The hoard contains three fragmentary coins of Sidon.

The information about the lot informs us:

'Uncertain find spot, but the composition of the hoard is consistent with others found in the Levant'.

What is the previous documented collecting history of this hoard? Who was the previous proprietor?

Where in the 'Levant' was this hoard found? When was it found?

Can we be certain that all the pieces of the 'hoard' were found together? Are there other parts of the hoard that are not being offered here? Have parts been retained?

This hoard illustrates some of the intellectual consequences of dealing with numismatic material that has no documented find-spot.

Rendlesham exhibition

Rendlesham opening at Sutton Hoo © David Gill

I attended the opening of the exhibition of finds from the Anglo-Saxon site at Rendlehsam last night. This took place at the National Trust's Sutton Hoo visitor centre. It was a glorious evening with talks on the discovery of the site and its interpretation.

It was stressed that Rendlesham was the elite site — perhaps the location of King Raewald —whereas Sutton Hoo related to "death and memory". It looks as if we now have two major Anglo-Saxon sites in close proximity.

What became clear during the evening was the damage that had been sustained to the site by "nighthawkers". (Before anybody comments, three local metal-detectorists were present at the event as they helped to map small finds in the vicinity of the site.)

There is more on the Rendlesham site from BBC News. The Ipswich Star has been commenting on the damage sustained to the site [press].

We need to recognise that this internationally significant site has been damaged by illicit activity. Information has been lost. It is another reminder of the intellectual consequences of unscientific "exploration" of archaeological sites.

Ptolemaic Sphinx Recovered in Lazio

The Italian Guardia di Finanza di Roma have recovered an Egyptian sphinx from an agricultural polytunnel in North Lazio [press release, Italian]. The raid followed the search of a commercial vehicle that hinted at recent exploration of archaeological sites. The suggestion is that the alleged illicit acitvity was taking place at Monterosi near Lake Bracciano.

Source: Guardia di Finanza

It is not clear how or where the Ptolemaic sphinx was displayed. When did it arrive in Italy? In the wake of the annexation of Egypt by Rome in the 1st century BC? Or was it the result of a recent movement? Did it come from an ancient domestic or funerary context? Clearly there are intellectual consequences for the loss of context for this find.

Homecomings: a reflection

I will be speaking to the European Forum at UEA next week on the topic of "Homecomings: returning cultural property to Greece and Italy" [details here]. I will be reflecting on how museums and private collectors acquired recently-surfaced material. It is important to consider how parts of our European heritage have been pillaged with the resulting loss of knowledge.

The Sarpedon krater: intellectual consequences

My essay on the material and intellectual consequences of the Metropolitan Museum of Art's acquisition of the Sarpedon krater has appeared in a new volume. The research develops the themes explored in earlier published work on Cycladic figures and mapped onto Athenian figure-decorated pottery.

I cover the following themes:

• History of acquisition
• The lost archaeological context
• Find-spots for Euphronios
• Leagros kalos
• Interpreting the iconography in an Etruscan context
• High art?
• Philippe de Montebello on the Sarpedon krater
• A motif for recently surfaced antiquities
• A motif for repatriation: "Successo storico"

There are nine essays in the volume.

Gill, D. W. J. 2012. "The material and intellectual consequences of acquiring the Sarpedon krater." In All the King's Horses: essays on the impact of looting and the illicit antiquities trade on our knowledge of the past, edited by P. K. Lazrus and A. W. Barker: 25-42. Washington DC: Society for American Archaeology.  [SAA website]

Shock, cajole, and embarrass

Hugh Eakin has written a response to Chasing Aphrodite ("What Went Wrong at the Getty", New York Review of Books June 23, 2011). Eakin's sympathy appears to rest with the North American museums and collectors who seem to have been happy to build their collections with recently surfaced material in spite of the 1970 UNESCO Convention and (a little closer to home) the 1973 Archaeological Institute of America declaration (the benchmark that I have used in my research with Christopher Chippindale).

Italian authorities have adopted an approach that avoided the courts to reclaim objects and for Eakin this was a tactic designed to "shock, cajole, and embarrass". However the decision to bring the curator of a leading North American museum before Italian court is likely to have sent a chill through many curatorial hearts. Eakin notes, with a little sense of disapproval, the way that newspapers were enlisted to support Italian claims; perhaps he should have also commented on the use of new media.

Yet if there are any lingering doubts about the Getty's attitude to recently surfaced antiquities readers should note the 1987 internal memorandum:

HW: We are saying we won’t look into the provenance. We know it’s stolen. Symes a fence.

Eakin is forceful when he raises the larger issue that has always been lurking in the back of the mind of anyone who has been following events at the Getty:

But there was something still more egregious about the readiness of Getty officials to sacrifice their curator and run for cover. In failing to recognize that the Italian case was really about the museum itself, Munitz, Gribbon, and the Getty’s board of trustees bungled numerous opportunities to resolve the case long before it ever went to trial.

It is not without interest that Eakin notes that the Getty appears to have spent some $16 million on external legal services for the period of the dispute.

Eakin closes with an extraordinary statement:

Italy can enjoy the same exquisite artworks of unknown origin that had previously graced American display cases: a victory less for archaeology, perhaps, than for the approach endorsed by collecting museums of showing beautiful objects that, even without knowledge of their discovery, may bring alive the ancient world to the modern public.

I have long argued with Christopher Chippindale that such unquestioning acquisitions have had not only material consequences but also intellectual ones as contextual information is irreversably lost. It is that loss of knowledge through the rapacious desire to acquire "Aphrodites" that is the real tragedy in this story.

The find-spot of the Crosby Garrett helmet

The find-spot (or "provenance" to use the terminology of Christie's) for the Crosby Garrett helmet is given as: "Discovered by a metal detectorist, Crosby Garrett, Cumbria, May 2010". But what is the accurate and reliable collecting history?

The Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) suggests that the helmet "was found in 33 fragments, with 34 smaller fragments found in association." The finder was "a young guy" (according to Georgiana Aitken of Christie's) who has chosen to remain anonymous; he is clarified by the Independent as "from the North East of England and in his 20s". Yet there is a suggestion that there was more than one finder. Indeed the print edition of today's Independent ("Museum's £1.7m whip-round fails to save it Roman mask", Friday 8 October 201, 3) states:

"The helmet was unearthed in May by an unnamed father and son, from Peterlee, Co. Durham. They had spent years running their metal detectors over a site near Crosby Garrett. Their earlier searches turned up nothing of any value but they carried on because they liked the view."

Paul Barford has done a little more searching. The Peterlee link was noted in mid-September by the Westmorland Gazette. The Peterlee Mail also confirms the individual came from County Durham.

I note (following a link provided by Paul Barford) that a Peterlee metal-detectorist was involved with a case where an object had two separate find-spots: fields near Thirsk or near Catterick. If this Peterlee metal-detectorist is related to the finder of the "Crosby Garrett" helmet, there must be some concern that the Crosby Garrett findspot has been reported accurately. And if it is the same metal-dectorist (or his father) then it would be an interesting coincidence.

Roger Bland has written about the subsequent story:

The finder contacted Sally Worrell, National Finds Adviser in PAS (not the local FLO), in late May to tell her about the find and she saw the helmet and met the finder at Christie's on the day that he took it to Christie's (4th June). He had already been in touch with Christie's and other dealers quite soon after its discovery in May and the object was left with Christie's and their restorer from then on. At no point was the object in the care of PAS (or the British Museum).

Bland also notes that the findspot was not revealed until late August (i.e. more than 3 months later):

On 30 Aug., after lengthy telephone conversations with Sally, the finder showed Dot Boughton and Stuart Noon, joint Finds Liaison Officers for Cumbria and Lancashire, the findspot in Crosby Garrett. There is still evidence for the hole dug in the ground and the FLOs observe that the field contains traces of earthworks (which of course cannot be dated). The findspot is within 300m of a Roman road. 50 other objects have been recorded by PAS from the parish, including three other Roman finds.

Christie's asked for the PAS reference number but we declined to record it until we were satisfied that we had a precise findspot. We stressed to Christie's that no museum could consider buying it without that information and without assurance that the object was being sold with the agreement of the landowner.

What is not clear to me is how a firm connection can be made between a hole in the ground in Cumbria and the alleged findspot of the helmet. Is there any independent evidence that the soil traces on the helmet came from this site? Were any other bronze fragments found in the field?

What if the helmet came from an unrecorded site that the searchers wish to keep secret?

Between early June and August the helmet was restored (not conserved) for Christie's (apparently against a request from PAS and the British Museum). By early September it was ready to be photographed and placed in the catalogue for the October auction.

As a Dan from PAS, writing on behalf of Roger Bland, stated: "we regret that the finder and landowner were not willing to offer this find directly to Tullie House museum and that Christie’s have restored it before it could be scientifically examined."

What if the parade helmet was not found at Crosby Garrett? What are the intellectual consequences as the helmet is added to the narrative of the Roman occupation of northern England?

And does this case suggest that there is a need to amend The Treasure Act to strengthen the protection of the archaeological heritage of England and Wales?

Reference:

Worrell, S (2010) LANCUM-E48D73 A ROMAN HELMET Webpage available at: http://www.finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/404767 [Accessed: Oct 8, 2010 2:19:43 PM]

Almagià: "It’s ridiculous Princeton didn’t do anything to fight that"

The Princeton University Art Museum's reputation has been somewhat patinated by its acquisition policy for antiquities. In October 2007 the museum decided to return or transfer title of several antiquities to Italy. But unlike Boston's Museum of Fine Art and the J. Paul Getty Museum, Princeton has not disclosed the collecting histories ("provenance") of the objects. Even so, it has been possible to identify some of the donors.

In June 2010 there was news of an additional investigation. Some "two dozen" pieces have been linked to Edoardo Almagià, a dealer who has been associated with the return of some Etruscan material from the Cleveland Museum of Art.

Almagià has now given a frank interview to Princeton Alumni Weekly (W. Barksdale Maynard, "Italy’s antiquities and U.S. museums: A Q&A with Edoardo Almagià ’73", PAW July 7, 2010). He was asked about Italy's successful request for the return of some 120 antiquities from several public museums in North America.

The Italians have set up an operation to scour every American dealer and museum coast to coast. It’s a publicity stunt. The investigators, they’ve built a career on this. It gives the Carabinieri a good life – they don’t get shot in the face.

There is no acknowledgement that such an investigation has helped to discourage looting in Italy.

And why has there been a need for such a policy? By an estimate originating in Princeton, it seems that some 1.5 million antiquities have been looted from archaeological contexts in Italy since 1970. As I have noted before, "that is a whacking estimated 37,500 antiquities looted every year for 40 years". (So 120 returned antiquities is less than 1% of the estimated annual amount of looted antiquities from Italy.)

Almagià was then asked about Princeton's 2007 agreement with Italy.

I have urged the Italian government to give back the objects it took. What they took from Princeton, it’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous Princeton didn’t do anything to fight that. Museums should really be tough. Every American museum should fight for its right to acquire objects in the market. The museum has a right to collect; the dealers have a right to deal.

There is no recognition that a (legal) fight was likely to have seen some potentially damaging evidence presented in court. And Princeton wisely decided to come to an agreement (as did other major North American museums).

And there is a good reason for this. An educational institution with the international standing of Princeton needs to maintain the highest ethical standards and values when it comes to acquisitions in its university museum. Its has a responsibility to educate and shape young minds: not to reinforce the misplaced view, so eloquently expressed by a curator at the British Museum (in response to a volume coincidentally published by Princeton University Press), of US "cultural imperialism at its worst". Princeton needs to stand for transparency and ethical straightforwardness in its acquisitions; it should not be tempted to indulge in obfuscation.

When asked about the "ultimate answer to the antiquities problem", Almagià replied:

The Americans need to say: We believe in freedom, free markets, free enterprise. It’s a very serious ideological battle.

Where does Princeton stand on the intellectual consequences of collecting recently-surfaced classical antiquities?

Image
Red figure loutrophoros (ceramic), attributed to the Darius Painter. South Italian, Apulian, ca. 335-325 B.C. One of four objects to be transferred in title to the Italian government but to remain on loan to the Princeton University Art Museum.

Image courtesy of the Princeton University Art Museum.

Corrupting knowledge: inaccurate information

One issue surrounding recently-surfaced antiquities is that the objects may be supplied with misleading collecting-histories. Sellers may be keen for a potential buyer to think that a Greek pot has resided in a collection formed in the 1920s when in fact it was removed from an Etruscan grave in the 1980s. Another seller could suggest that a Roman silver cup was found in, say, Afghanistan as this would be more exotic than Turkey.

I have been considering this concept as part of the wider intellectual consequences of collecting. I explored the theme in my 2010 article for the Journal of Art Crime. I noted how two pieces that passed through Palladion Antike Kunst in Basel, Switzerland (and acquired by Boston's Museum of Fine Art and the J. Paul Getty Museum) were placed in "old collections": those of Karl Haug in Basel since 1936, and the late nineteenth century Rycroft collection. Such misleading information does not relate just to genuine objects: the Getty kouros, considered by some to be a modern forgery, was said to have formed part of the Jean Lauffenberger collection and could be traced back to a Greek dealer in 1930. The kouros was said to have been sold by Gianfranco Becchina, whose wife Rosie was the proprietor of Palladion Antike Kunst.

The Late Roman hoard known as the Sevso Treasure is linked in the broadest sense with several possible countries (including Hungary, Croatia and Lebanon). The Icklingham Bronzes were once said to have been removed from Britain in the 1940s and then formed part of a collection in Switzerland. The Morgantina Hoard was said to have passed through the hands of a Lebanese dealer and then through a Swiss collection in 1961. (The more recent removal of the hoard from its archaeological context seems to have been dated by a coin apparently dropped by one of the looters.) The marble statue of Sabina returned to Italy from Boston was reportedly from an old Bavarian aristocratic collection.

I have also noted that collecting histories can sometimes be placed back in the period before the 1970 UNESCO Convention. For example a series of Late Antique ('Byzantine') mosaics are reported (in recent years) to have passed through Lebanese dealers in Beirut in 1969. Is this a documented (and authenticated) part of the collecting histories? Or an Attic krater can be said to have resided in an undocumented (and unspecified) Swiss private collection for a number of years that would place it (conveniently) in the late 1960s. Another example could be a piece of sculpture that is said to have been in a Lebanese private collection in the 1950s when other evidence shows it was in another country decades later. Or did Apulian pots from an apparent single grave-group form part of a nineteenth-century collection in Switzerland?

Then there are cases where the collecting history supplied by a dealer can be disputed by other informed authorities thus creating two parallel histories? Was a bronze Apollo found in Greece or had it resided in an obscure East German collection?

These case studies show why museums need to be transparent over the collecting histories of objects in their care whether they are acquisitions or loans.

This issue matters. If misleading information accompanies the object, then not only has the original archaeological context been lost, but the piece may be used by modern scholars to construct a false view about the past.

Collecting histories and intellectual consequences for the study of the past

I have recently published a research paper on the issue of collecting histories. The work reminded me about the possibility of falsifying find-spots and "provenance".

At the end of last week I received an email from a major North American museum in response to a request for the collecting history of a specific piece. I found it very interesting that I was pointed to a dealer's catalogue entry complete with a statement about the possible finding of the piece in a 19th century "excavation" at a particular site.

If that information was correct it could be significant. And I suspect that there are some who work in this area will be wanting to link the object in question with this site. But what if the piece of sculpture was not found where it was said? What are the intellectual consequences?

This reminds me that statements about old collections or reported find-spots need to be qualified with the source. What is the basis for this knowledge? Who provided the information? Is the statement reliable? Is it potentially misleading?

I have written back to the museum asking for clarification, partly because I have some contradictory information on the same piece. I have also written to one of the dealers who handled the piece to see if the gallery concerned can shed a little light on the issue.

Image
From a dealer's archive.

Intellectual Consequences of Collecting Antiquity

It is easy to be disturbed by the destruction of archaeological sites to supply antiquities. But what are the intellectual consequences as the pieces enter the corpus of knowledge?

Here are some of the topics covered so far:

• Cypriot antiquities
• Biblical archaeology
  
• Cycladic figures
  
• The Getty kouros
• Archaic Greek bronze
• Classical funerary stele
• Corinthian pottery
• The Sarpedon krater (Euphronios)
  
• The distribution of Attic pottery in Italy
• Commercial graffiti on Greek pottery
• Classical coins
• Greek cavalry armour
  
• The Risley Park lanx
• Coptic sculpture

Image
One of the pieces returned to Italy: an Attic red-figured column-krater showing Dionysos, attributed to the Geras painter.