Rushed restoration for the Crosby Garrett helmet?

Professor David Ekserdjian in his introduction to the newly published study of the Crosby Garrett helmet draws attention to the newly surfaced Resurrection of Christ by Titian [see BBC]. Imagine if the Titian was sent for a quick clean and touch-up in a workshop under the railway arches in London. I would hope that Ekserdjian would be in the vanguard of those raising their voices in protest.

Yet when "a hauntingly unforgettable work of art", to use Ekserdjian's description of the Crosby Garrett helmet, was sent for a hurried restoration before its sale at auction, the silence appears to have been almost overwhelming. Indeed in the autumn of 2010 I was told that the restoration was conducted against the request from officers of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) and a curator at the British Museum.

The new booklet on the helmet has a short note on its 'Restoration' by Darren Bradbury. This major archaeological find was not conserved but rather restored 'to prepare the mask ... and helmet for display'.

I read Bradbury's brief report soon after the sale. The half page statement that appears here in the booklet does little to allay concerns about possible the loss of information.

Will Bradbury publish a detailed report of his work?

The Crosby Garrett Helmet

I am grateful to Paul Barford for drawing my attention to the publication of D.J. Breeze and M.C. Bishop (eds.) The Crosby Garrett Helmet (The Armatura Press, 2013).

The contents include:

• Roger Cooke, 'Foreword'
• David J. Breeze and M.C. Bishop, 'Preface'
• David Ekserdjian, 'Introduction'
• M.C. Bishop, 'Description'
• Dot Boughton, 'Discovery'
• Darren Bradbury, 'Restoration'
• Mark Graham and Patricia Shaw, 'Geophysical and Landscape Survey'
• Chris Healey, 'Archaeological Evaluation'
• M.C. Bishop and J.C.N. Coulston, 'International Context'

I note that the bibliography does not include a reference to Sally Worrell, 'The Crosby Garrett Helmet', Papers of the Institute of Archaeology 20 (2010) 30-32 (a paper published the same year as the helmet's reported discovery) or my comments in 'The Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act: Protecting the Archaeology of England and Wales?', Papers of the Institute of Archaeology 20 (2010) 1-11.

Readers of the booklet will no doubt be looking at the discrepancies between Worrell's first report (and indeed, my comments) and the version of events that appear here in this booklet.

Vasek Polak and the Kleomelos painter

I notice that Vasek Polak (a name associated with material now returned from the J. Paul Getty Museum to Italy) donated an Attic red-figured cup fragment attributed to the Kleomelos painter (inv. 81.AE.114.17). What is the previous collecting history of this fragment?

Jonathan P. Rosen and Boston

The Cornell return of cuneiform tablets means that there is a general reassessment of material acquired through or from Jonathan Rosen (see here). Take, for example, the steatite bust of Helios now in Boston. It was first put on loan in 1983, and then presented to the MFA in 2004.

What is its full collecting history?

From Geneva to Antalya: Roman sarcophagus

The Turkish press is reporting that a Roman marble sarcophagus decorated with scenes showing Hercules is likely to be returned to Turkey ("Stolen sarcophagus might return to Turkey", Hurriyet November 9, 2013). It appears that it was found at Perge. The sarcophagus had then passed into the hands of Phoenix Ancient Art in Geneva.

After the examination in Perge, the Swiss prosecutor met with A.Ç., who is imprisoned in Elmalı prison on a separate smuggling charge and is suspected of smuggling the artifact out of Perge. In discussions with the Swiss prosecutor, A.Ç allegedly confirmed that the artifact had been smuggled. 

International legal proceedings began with the aim of repatriating the sarcophagus to Antalya. The case is being closely followed by the Antalya Public Prosecution Office as well as the Turkish Culture and Tourism Ministry and Foreign Ministry. 

According to Turkish officials, legal action against the Phoenix Ancient Art Gallery will be completed by the end of the year, facilitating the return of the sarcophagus to Antalya.

I presume that this is the same sarcophagus noted here in March 2012.

If the sarcophagus is returned to Turkey it will increase the pressure on the Cleveland Museum of Art and the St Louis Art Museum to clarify the collecting histories for the Leutwitz Apollo (CMA) and the Egyptian mummy mask (SLAM).

Cleveland and Phoenix Ancient Art

Last month I raised a question about Michael Bennett's claim (in 2008) that he had a long-standing link with the Aboutaams.

The Cleveland Museum of Art does not appear to publish full collecting histories for its objects either on the web or via its print catalogues. Will CMA now issue a list of all the objects that have been acquired from Phoenix Ancient Art along with their complete collecting histories?

This will demonstrate two things: rigorous due diligence and transparency.

Creating Stories?

One of the points that was made at the ARCA symposium at the V&A yesterday related to the fabrication of collecting histories, sometimes by forging supporting documentation. Richard Ellis suggested that the due diligence process should leave no stone unturned.

As I sat in the audience I kept thinking about the reported collecting history for the Leutwitz Apollo acquired by the Cleveland Museum of Art. How much of it can be authenticated? How far has the museum explored discrepancies?

It is a good story as it is presented. Garden sculpture. Communist attack. Burial in the rubble of the house. Sale to a Dutch dealer.

Does the curatorial team at Cleveland believe it?