Animal rights and archaeologists: a strange comparison?

There is clearly a link being made between animal rights and the discussion over the looting of archaeological sites.

In July 1990 the 'Cycladic and Classical Antiquities from the Erlenmeyer Collection: the Property of The Erlenmeyer Stiftung (A Foundation for Animal Welfare)' were auctioned at Sotheby's in London. The sale catalogue gave details of the projects assisted by the Foundation. They included helping to 'finance the "Save the Elephant" campaign of WWF'. It is perhaps ironic that money raised from antiquities looted from archaeological sites in the Greek islands, including the infamous Keros haul, should help to preserve African elephants from being blasted away by poachers seeking to provide the market with ivory tusks.

Talking of shotguns, take a thought for the wildlife of Texas. Carlos Pícon (now of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York) recently described his relationship with the collector Gilbert Denman during his time at the San Antonio Museum of Art. The New Yorker reported, 'Pícon learned to shoot, in order to participate in weekend house parties dedicated to boar-hunting, a pastime that is to Texas billionaries what golf is to those in the Northeast'.

Pícon was asked to comment on the 'suggestion that the collecting of antiquities will eventually earn the same degree of opprobrium that the wearing of fur has acquired in some quarters'. He 'lifted a derisive brow. "I don't have a fur coat, but I would like to have one".'

Protecting endangered animals and supporting animal rights can, perhaps, be similar to protecting an endangered archaeological resource or supporting the rights of national governments to reclaim and protect their cultural property. The suggestion that the naming of a museum gallery in honour of collectors could be compared with the renaming of an African game reserve to celebrate with poacher with the largest 'bag' is not lightly made. (See K. Taylor, "Shelby White in Center Court at the Met." The New York Sun May 1, 2007.)

But the language is getting stronger. The Oxford-based academic Sir John Boardman spoke out on the issue in a 2006 interview for Apollo. (The text of the interview, 'A Classical Warrior', can be located conveniently on the website of Phoenix Ancient Art.)

'Now I find I need to speak out against a highly politicised lobby of archaeologists who are, I think, responsible for what amounts to a witch-hunt of those who disagree with them, especially collectors, but with severe implications also for museums. They put one in mind sometimes of the more fanatical animal-rights activists'.

Do we accuse those who wish to put an end to the slaughter of elephants as fanatics? Do we dismiss then as activists?

Of course not.

Glories of Ancient Greece: hype and links?

In June 2001 an exhibition was held at the Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem: Glories of Ancient Greece: Vases and Ancient Jewelry from the Borowski Collection. This fell exactly one year after the June 2000 sale at Christie's New York of Ancient Greek Vases Formerly in the Private Collection of Dr. Elie Borowski.

The objects in the 2000 sale 'were sold about 10 years ago in order to pave the way for the building of the Bible Lands Museum' (G. Max Bernheimer, Vice President, Antiquities Department, Christie's).

Nineteen of the lots at Christie's (over 10% of the total number of lots) reappear in Glories of Ancient Greece whose catalogue was authored by G. Max Bernheimer. In other words, the Bible Lands Museum spent over US$340,000 buying ex-Borowski pots which had been sold to raise money for the building in which they are now displayed.

Two had apparently failed to sell at auction.

• An Italo-Corinthian black-figured olpe (Gl. 43) had only reached US$2800 (with an estimate of US$5000-8000; lot 19, as 'Corinthian').
  
• A Boeotian bird bowl (Gl 52) reached US$3200 (with an estimate of US$6000-8000: lot 24).

The remaining 17 lots were purchased for US$344,627.50. Nine of these failed to reach their lower estimate. One of the biggest losers was the Attic red-figured palmette-eye cup (Gl. 65) which sold for US$35,250; US$14,750 under the estimate of US$50,000-80,000 (lot 72).

Only six of the 17 lots pieces exceeded their upper estimates. The most expensive was the Attic red-figured loutrophoros attributed to the Naples painter (Gl. 72) which sold for US$58,750 (estimate US$20,000-30,000: lot 102).

There was much hype around the sale. Bernheimer was quoted in the Christie's Press Release:

This was a sale for true connoisseurs ... A variety of international buyers, including a number of prestigious museums, bid enthusiastically for pieces that once formed one of the most outstanding private collections in existence. This encyclopedic assemblage of world-class masterpieces was unparalleled in terms of quality and provenance.

The nineteen lots acquired by the Bible Lands had no recorded find-spots: sadly such 'provenances' are not unparalleled.

'Illicit antiquities': what are the issues?

Sir John Boardman makes a useful point when he notes, 'objects cannot be "tainted" or "illicit", and could only be so described by scholars who do not understand them, or legislators' (in Who Owns Objects? [2006], 44 [for details of review]). I would insert 'genuine' before 'objects' as forgeries can corrupt the corpus of knowledge.

Objects are removed from their archaeological contexts by scientific means (excavation), chance, erosion or illicit means. Some involved in the debate tend to place all antiquities emerging on the market in the same group. Our research has stressed the date of surfacing. Has the object been known since excavation? When is the first recorded mention or (even better) publication? These are not irrelevant issues. The Getty return has shown that 'histories' were being assigned to objects which appear to be fresh out of the ground.

So what are the contentious groups of archaeological objects?

1. High profile objects that were removed from their countries some time ago
Should high profile objects which were removed from their findspots before (say) 1850 remain in their (usually western) museums? Should the Parthenon marbles be displayed in London or in a purpose-built museum within sight of the Athenian akropolis? Should the Rosetta stone, a key text for Egyptology, be in London or Cairo?

These are complex issues as the three volume UK House of Commons select committee report demonstrated. [For commentary.]

I suspect these issues will not be resolved by legal arguments but by common sense and goodwill.

These historic cases are different to modern instances of looting from archaeological sites. Take the Parthenon marbles. We know where the sculptures were displayed. We know the order in which they were displayed. And thanks to the surviving accounts we can almost date their work to the year.

Contrast recently surfaced objects. Do even known the country in which they were found?

2. Notorious acts of looting prior to the 1970 UNESCO convention
This has been a major issue in recent weeks. Should the Fano athlete at present in the J. Paul Getty Museum return to Italy? It appears to have been known well before the 1970 Convention. Is there a case for it to return? The debate looks set to continue over the next few months and years.

What about the Keros haul - rather than 'hoard' - from the Greek Cycladic islands? [For recent discussion.] Hundreds of fragments of Early Cycladic marble figures appear to have been removed from the site. What was their purpose? Were the fragments broken on site in the Early Bronze Age? What was going on? Several pieces from the 'haul' were exhibited in the Katonah Museum of Art exhibition Ancient Art of the Cyclades (October 1 - December 31, 2006). Should these fragments now residing in North American collections be returned to Greece?

3. Surfacings after 1970
Thousands of antiquities surface each year on the market. Few are provided with histories. Are we really expected to accept that they have been lurking in the attic? (Though we can all probably think of one or two cases where this has happened.)

But we have read The Medici Conspiracy, we have seen recently opened tombs ... and we can draw our own conclusions.

Perhaps it is important to note that objects looted from archaeological sites will not be on The Art Loss Register.

4. Objects stolen from museums and archaeological stores
From time to time archaeological material is stolen from museums and stores. Hopefully these have been photographed and recorded and their loss can be registered with bodies like The Art Loss Register.

The theft from the Corinth Museum was perhaps revealing in the way that some of the objects from that heist reappeared in 'respectable' auction houses and galleries even though photographs of the items had been widely circulated.

5. Objects illustrated in the Geneva Polaroids
Thousands of objects are illustrated in the Geneva Polaroids (linked to Giacomo Medici). It will take years to research this photographic archive and locate the objects. There is, of course, movement and we are seeing the results in the return of antiquities from North American museums to the Italian Government. Other objects have already been identified and I understand negotiations are on-going.

Lessons from the Getty return

There are several lessons that can be drawn from yesterday's announcement that the J. Paul Getty Museum will be returning 40 antiquities to Italy.

1. The myth of the 'safe' private collection
The Getty's 1996 acquisition of the Barbara and Lawrence Fleischman collection was undoubtedly a major mistake or at best a serious error of judgment. Research by Gill and Chippindale (and published in The American Journal of Archaeology for 2000 demonstrated that 92% of the objects in the exhibition catalogue of the Fleischman collection has no indication of find-spot. In addition 91% of the objects (and perhaps another 3% for objects where information was lacking) surfaced after 1973 when the issue of looting became public knowledge thanks to the resolution passed by the Archaeological Institute of America.

Six of the items announced in November 2006 for return to Italy came from the Fleischman collection; seven more pieces were added yesterday (August 1, 2007). That is 7% of the Fleischman collection. [List of Fleischman material.]

But there are further pieces which are apparently featured among the Geneva polaroids. Will a request be made for those? And what about claims by countries other than Italy?

There is the apparent link of one of the Roman wall-paintings with a fragment in the Shelby White collection. Maxwell Anderson made this comment in the exhibition catalogue: 'The upper portion of the fresco matches precisely the upper portion of a fresco section in the Shelby White and Leon Levy collection ... and is from the same room, as is catalogue number 125". Fleischman no. 125 is Getty inv. no. 96.AG.170 but it is not (surprisingly) on the list of returning objects. And what about the fragment owned by Shelby White? Will she be returning it to Italy? She can hardly donate it to a museum which would be faced with an immediate request for return from the Italian government.

2. The myth of the 'safe' antiquities dealer
This is not the time to comment on Giacomo Medici, Robert Hecht, Robin Symes or Atlantis Antiquities. They are covered in The Medici Conspiaracy (recently reviewed by Gill and Chippindale).

But how did dealers who were members of the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA) come to handle some of the returning objects? After all the IADAA has clear 'ethical' guidelines:

'The members of the IADAA undertake not to purchase or sell objects until they have established to the best of their ability that such objects were not stolen from excavations. architectural monuments, public institutions or private property.'

Indeed the IADAA stresses:

'Our members adhere to the highest professional standards as set out in our stringent code of ethics.
They have therefore been well placed to understand and tackle issues of provenance which have become prevalent in recent years.'

It is true that Galerie Nefer (owned by Frida Tchacos) has resigned from the IADAA, but the gallery was presumably a member when it handled the objects which will soon be returning to Italy. Another member (the gallery is listed on the website today, August 2, 2007) apparently sold one of the objects to the Getty (and had handled material that Boston has now returned to Italy).

How was this was possible?

Conclusion
Our research has highlighted material and intellectual consequences of collecting antiquities. It has been dismissed by senior figures in the museum world ('Making a graph of what may or may not be published is not scholarship; it is a pastime' [Carlos Picon on Gill and Chippindale]). There is a serious financial consequence of this return. The value of the 40 returning antiquities is in excess of US$20 million (based on what the Getty paid for them). Will the sums be returned? Ignoring the issue of looted antiquities can be a costly mistake.

The Getty will be returning

So the Getty will be returning 40 antiquities to Italy. (See report by Ralph Frammolino and Jason Felch in the LA Times, August 1, 2007.)

The decision was made at the eleventh hour (so to speak) but it is welcomed. The list of the 40 objects has been released by the Getty.

Essentially the items are the same as the ones in the November 2006 list of 26 objects. However there are 14 new additions. As expected there were several items from the Barbara and Lawrence Fleischman collection.

1. Attic Black-Figured Amphora (Painter of Berlin 1686) (96.AE.92). Reassembled by Fritz Bürki (1988); Atlantis Antiquities (1988). Fleischman, Passion, no. 34.

2. Attic Black-Figured Amphora (96.AE.93). Purchased from Fritz Bürki (1989). Said to have been found with two other pots (in the possession of Robert Hecht and Robin Symes). Fleischman, Passion, no. 35.

3. Attic Red-Figured Cup (96.AE.97). Purchased from Symes (1988). Fleischman, Passion, no. 39.

4. Apulian Red-Figured Bell Krater (96.AE.29). Acquired from Fritz Bürki. Fleischman, Passion, no. 56.

5. Bronze Mirror with Relief-Decorated Cover (96.AC.132). Apparently found at Tarquinia. Fleischman, Passion, no. 83.

6. Statuette of Tyche (96.AA.49). Purchased from Robin Symes; purchased from the Fleischmans for US$2 million. Fleischman, Passion, no. 120.

7. Fragment of a fresco: lunette with mask of Hercules – (96.AG.171). Purchased from Fritz Bürki. Associated with a fragment in the Shelby White collection. Fleischman, Passion, no. 126.


The remaining pieces include the acrolithic statue, perhaps from Morgantina, as well as several pieces of Attic pottery.

8. Cult Statue of a Goddess, perhaps Aphrodite (88.AA.76). (=Masterpieces, p. 83)

9. Marble Bust of a Man (85.AA.265)

10. Attic Red-Figured Calyx Krater (“Birds”) (82.AE.83).

11. Attic Red-Figured Neck Amphora (84.AE.63). Attributed to Euthymides. [Details]

12. Attic Red-Figured Amphora with Lid (79.AE.139). Attributed to the Geras painter. [Detail]

13. Attic Red-Figured Kylix (83.AE.287). Attributed to Epiktetos.

14. Attic Janiform Kantharos (83.AE.218). [Detail]

Other items appear in the Polaroids from the Geneva Freeport - so there may be additions to this list.

The appearance of former Fleischman material in both Getty lists supports our earlier comments in The American Journal of Archaeolgy about the way that collection was formed. (Links to related material, though Athens password required for parts.)

A full discussion of the November 2006 items (and with a prediction about some of the additional items) is now in press.

Dr Elie Borowski: sources for his collection

The 2000 Christie's sale in New York presented 'Ancient Greek Vases Formerly in the Private Collection of Dr. Elie Borowski'. He is described by G. Max Bernheimer in the catalogue as 'renowned scholar, collector and connoisseur of ancient art'.

Borowski is not without interest. His name appears in the famous 'organigram' found in the appartment of Danilo Zicchi (and presented in The Medici Conspiracy). And the sale itself receives a paragraph there.

But what are the sources for these pots? What did Christie's feel able to disclose? (My research has shown that sometimes 'known' information can be left out of the catalogue entry perhaps for commercial reasons.) Only 21 pieces can be provided with a history. Several were purchased from German (2 pieces), North American (3 pieces), Swiss (4 pieces), or UK (9 pieces) galleries or auction-houses. Three other pieces came from either German or Swiss private collections. Interestingly the Attic black-figured amphora (no. 43) is stated as coming from the Samuel Schweizer [sic.] collection. Is this the same 'collection' that has been used as a mask for looted antiquities and which features in the material due to be returned by the Getty to Italy? The remaining 86% of the pots 'just' surfaced in the Borowski collection.

What about find-spots? Not a single piece from the 157 lots has a stated find-spot, i.e. 100% of the lots have appeared to have lost their archaeological context. In fact this is not quite true. The Nolan amphora attributed to the Phiale painter (no. 104) appears on the Beazley Archive database with the findspot of Gela (and with the previous owner given as Salvatore Nocera). (This piece was known in the early 1960s.)

What other information is missing from the sale catalogue? Two Attic black-figured pots, a column-krater (no. 50) and a neck-amphora (no. 52), were purchased from the Edward H. Merrin Gallery in 1977. (The Attic red-figured column-krater [no. 86] was purchased from the same source and at the same time.) An Attic red-figured column-krater (no. 89) had previously been in an anonymous private collection in Lugano. But it is the absence of information in the entries that is more interesting - and disturbing.

When did the pieces surface? If we use the Gill and Chippindale cut off point of 1973 (assuming that the resolution of the Archaeological Institute of America brought the issue of looted antiquities to academic and public attention) then 92% of the collection could not be purchased by responsible museums (or for that matter published for the first time in responsible places like the American Journal of Archaeology). But if we use the UNESCO Convention cut off point of 1970, then only three pieces (i.e. less than 2%) could be purchased with a clear conscience.

Selling antiquities is big business. The Borowski sale raised over US$7 million. (Compare that with the US6.4 million for Attic pots from Sotheby's over the period 1998-2007).

The damage to the archaeological evidence is likely to have been equally immense.

The generosity of Giacomo Medici

The hand of Giacomo Medici is sometimes hard to discern. The Medici Conspiracy (see the review article by Gill & Chippindale) has demonstrated the way that the route from the Etruscan grave to a display case in some North American museum has been obscured.

But a browse through the 'vase' catalogue of the San Antonio Museum of Art presents two fragmentary Greek pots as gifts of Giacomo Medici.

The first is a Rhodian oinochoe fragment in the Middle 'Wild Goat Style' (inv. 88.18.2; cat. no. 177) and the second is the fragment from an Athenian black-figured cup showing a charioteer (inv. 88.18.1; cat. no. 179).

It is important to stress that there is nothing suspect about their histories. Both came from the distinguished collection of the Comtesse de Behague. And both were auctioned at Sotheby's in Monaco on 5 December 1987 (lot 142, a and b).

I understand (from the present curator in San Antonio) that both pieces were handed over to Carlos Pícon, the then curator, in Monaco on 6 December 1987, i.e. the day after the sale.

In a recent interview for The New Yorker (April 9, 2007) it was noted that Pícon only knew Medici 'glancingly'.

Pícon speaks about the meeting:

'I saw Medici at the end of the auction. A friend of mine was with me and said, "You bought that fragment that Carlos wanted for San Antonio," and he said, "I will give it to him." I thought it was rather touching. He put it in my hands and said, "Give it to your museum." He had never been to Texas. He had never seen my museum.'

Medici's generosity is indeed touching.