Newly Surfaced Archaic Greek Objects

My attention has been drawn to two separate lots from the sale of "The Stanford Place Collection of Antiquities" auctioned at Christie's (London) on Wednesday April 26, 2006. (It is a collection I have discussed before.)

They illustrate some of the intellectual consequences of recently-surfaced antiquities.

• Lot 3: 'a Greek silver-gilt repoussé plaque'. 'circa 540-525 BC'. 'With winged Nike in a frontal chariot with facing quadriga, each pair of horses with heads turned to opposing sides, with finely incised details, bound lotus filling motifs, pierced around the edge for attachment, from an arm-guard'. 6.8 cm high. Unsold.
• Lot 18: 'Three Laconian bronze helmeted warriors'. '6th century BC'. 'Each animated nude standing figure standing with right arm outstretched to the side and left arm raised, with fists clenched, wearing tall crested helmet'. 6.4 cm high (max). £30,000.
  

Both were acquired from "Ward & Company Works of Art, New York", lot 3 in the "mid 1990s" and lot 18 in 1998.

Both pieces were accompanied by a certificate from The Art Loss Register.

The silver-gilt plaque is almost identical ("similar") to a more fragmentary example acquired by the Princeton University Art Museum in 2002 (and illustrated in the Record of the Princeton University Art Museum 62 [2003] 151-52 [JSTOR]):

• "Greek (North), mid-6th century B.C.: pierced appliqué plaque: frontal quadriga with Nike charioteer, gilt silver, h. 5.9 cm, w. 6.5 cm. Museum purchase, gift in memory of Emily Townsend Vermeule ... (2002-155)."

And does the "arm-guard" interpretation suggest that it was a part of a set of armour, perhaps from the burial of a warrior? Do the two plaques derive from the same deposit? Or were they just the products of the same workshop?

And the fact that there are three near identical bronze warriors also intrigues me. Were they found together? Or did they come from three separate private collections and converge, fortuitously, in the New York gallery? Do they need to be Laconian?

I am left asking some questions.

• Who owned the "Stanford Place" plaque and the warriors before they were purchased from Ward & Company Works of Art, New York?
• Who sold the plaque to Princeton? Does the plaque have a documented history?
• Do these pieces come from several locations or a single deposit?
• When were these pieces first known?
  
• Is the certificate issued by the Art Loss Register worthless?
  

All these pieces may, of course, have been in old documented collections (though I am surprised that the sale catalogue had not mentioned the fact).

What is needed is more transparency.

James Cuno on the Icklingham Bronzes

One of the issues that I hoped would be addressed by James Cuno was the decision to display one of the Icklingham bronzes in a loan exhibition, The Fire of Hephaistos (1996) no. 31, at Harvard University Art Museums. The piece, on loan from Shelby White and Leon Levy, was "Found in Suffolk, in southeastern England; purchased in 1988".

And here is the issue, on the very first page of Chapter 1, "Political Issues", of Who Owns Antiquity? (I received my review copy today.) Cuno notes the Fire of Hephaistos exhibition included bronzes from some private collections. One of Cuno's Harvard colleagues "objected to our borrowing a work from a particular private collection and claimed that it had been purchased in contravention of international law". Cuno explains in a rather vague way (without giving too much detail for the casual reader):

The work in question had been part of a controversy involving the British Museum and when I sought that museum director's advice, he assured me that so far as the British government and British Museum were concerned, the controversy was resolved and he had no objection to our exhibiting—and publishing—the Roman bronze, which we did.

What he does not mention is that the "controversy" was far from resolved for the Suffolk farmer, John Browning, from whose land the bronzes were reported to have been taken.

And why does Cuno fail to mention that the bronze in question had been removed from Icklingham or that it was acquired by Leon Levy and Shelby White?

Is it because Cuno wishes to portray the couple as "philanthropists and collectors of antiquities"? [p. 200 n. 7] Or is there some other reason? His book went to press before he could take account of the fact that Shelby White had returned some of her "Glories" to Italy, a public admission that the couple were acquiring recently surfaced antiquities.

Nor is there any mention by Cuno that Fire of Hephaistos was one of the exhibitions discussed by David Gill and Christopher Chippindale ("Material consequences of contemporary classical collecting." American Journal of Archaeology 104 [2000] 463-511 [JSTOR]). Is he really unaware of the literature?

So many questions raised from the opening paragraphs of chapter 1. What other issues will be raised?

The Acquisition and Exhibition of Classical Antiquities: Review

Derek Fincham has reviewed Robin F. Rhodes' edited volume The acquisition and exhibition of classical antiquities: professional, legal, and ethical perspectives (2007) for Bryn Mawr Classical Review. He notes:

This collection should serve primarily as an introduction to the more substantive work of the participants. Any reader familiar with cultural heritage scholarship will find many of these arguments familiar; though the paper-response approach clarifies the points of agreement thereby moving beyond a mere entrenched debate to foster productive dialogue.

I have also commented on aspects of this volume:

• Robin Rhodes on the role of university museum directors
• Stefano Vassallo on the continuing problem of looting in Sicily
  
• Nancy Bookidis on the loss of contexts for Corinthian pots
  

Reference
Rhodes, R. F. Editor. 2007. The acquisition and exhibition of classical antiquities: professional, legal, and ethical perspectives. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press. [press site]

The Intellectual Consequences of Collecting Corinthian Pottery

I was very struck by a recent comment by Nancy Bookidis who has excavated at Corinth since the late 1960s. In an extended discussion of the 1990 theft of antiquities from the museum at Corinth she noted:

This year I suggest a dissertation topic to a graduate student at the American School in Athens, who is interested in trade between Greece and the West. I proposed that she examine the foreign find-places of Corinthian vases that have been attributed to specific painters or workshops in order to determine whether or not certain cities only bought from a limited group of artists. Ultimately, she gave it up—too many vases with unknown proveniences.

In other words, the student was proposing to study the export of Corinthian pottery to Italy and Sicily (and beyond). What percentage of Corinthian pots in, say, Tuscany come from scientifically excavated tombs?

In another (but related) context I have noted that only some 13% of the Attic red-figured pots attributed to the "Berlin painter" come from "a relatively secure archaeological context"—indeed, some 50% of the pots have no context at all.

How far is extensive looting making a study of the distribution of Corinthian pottery in the west impossible? We are unlikely to know if "groupings" of pots from the same workshops relate to consignments or batches of Corinthian material. (I feel that this is more likely than workshops or potters "targeting" particular cities.)

I also note Corinthian pots appearing in recent postings concerning negotiations with Italy:

• A Corinthian column-krater (Cleveland 1990.81). [List]
• A Corinthian plate with the Ransom of Hector (to remain in Princeton y1989-25; Museum purchase, anonymous gift in memory of Isabelle K. Raubitschek and to honor Antony E. Raubitschek).

Reference
Bookidis, N. 2007. "The Corinth theft." In The acquisition and exhibition of classical antiquities: professional, legal, and ethical perspectives, edited by R. F. Rhodes, pp. 119-31. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.

Indiana Jones and the AAMD

Kimerly Rorschach, Adjunct Professor and Mary D.B.T. and James H. Semans Director of the Nasher Museum, Duke University has issued a press statement ("New Indiana Jones Movie Raises Issues of Looted Art", Thursday May 22, 2008) to coincide with the launch of the latest Indiana Jones movie.

Generally speaking, all exporting is illegal, in an effort to stem the tide of looting. University art museums face the dilemma of wanting to collect antiquities for legitimate educational purposes but not wanting to contribute to illegal looting and smuggling.

So far, so good.

But then the release adds:

Rorschach has written about these issues, and is a member of the Association of Art Museum Directors, which articulates best-practice standards for collecting that museums must follow.

What are these "best-practice standards for collecting" that are reflected by the AAMD? (See "Museums and Professional Responsibilities".)

• Collecting "recently surfaced" antiquities that have been return to Italy
• A lack of transparency for the long-term loan of antiquities that do not appear to have a recorded history (and see "Loan Exhibitions and Transparency")
  

Perhaps Rorschach would like to address the less-than-best-practice due diligence processes that seem to be in operation by some AAMD members.

The Cleveland Museum of Art: Moving Towards "a Happy Conclusion"?

Two weeks ago ANSA issued a statement quoting Francesco Rutelli ("Beni Culturali: Bondi, su di me enorme responsabilità", and "Beni Culturali: Rutelli, accordo fatto con Museo Cleveland", May 9, 2008). Rutelli appeared to suggest that an agreement with the Cleveland Museum of Art had been concluded, and that 16—not 8 as had originally been thought—antiquities would be returning to Italy.

Steven Litt ("Italians, museum aren't on same page", Plain Dealer (Cleveland), May 10, 2008) has clarified the situation by quoting a museum spokesperson:

No agreement has been reached, nor has the museum agreed to transfer any objects to Italy.

There have been persistent rumours about the list of antiquities under discussion ("Cleveland: the Italian List?"): some 23 items have been placed under the spotlight.

Some have been quick to condemn Rutelli for using the media to put pressure on Cleveland (and other institutions) ("Cleveland Kerfuffle: Italy Again Engages in Repatriation-by-Press", CultureGrrl, May 10, 2008). But there are some key questions to ask.

Which are the eight antiquities sold to the Cleveland Museum of Art by Robert Hecht? What are the previous histories of these pieces? Did they follow the same or similar pathways through the market as other antiquities returned to Italy from other institutions in North America?

What are the collecting histories for the bronze Lar and Herakles (1987.2-3) “purchased together and conceivably found [together]"? Or what about the Roman bronze Victoria with Cornucopia (1984.25)?

Why has the museum been so silent about these controversial antiquities? All it needs to do is to release details of their acquisitions that would demonstrate the due diligence process.

Intellectual Consequences: can we trust the find-spot?

I was keen to follow the "find-spot" of a piece of Attic black-figured pottery which surfaced before the 1970 UNESCO Convention.

• a. The original dealer's catalogue gave no indication of find-spot.
• b. The initial publication in a British archaeological journal gave the find-spot as "reputedly" from a named site in Tuscany.
• c. The pot's publication in a study of related pieces stated, "Provenance: probably Italy (... alleged [Tuscan] provenance ...)".
• d. The Beazley Archive database does not give any indication of find-spot in its "provenance" field - though it does note, "said to be from [Tuscany]" in the record section.
• e. The museum in which it resides gives the Tuscan site as the database entry under "Field Collection".

Did I mention that the dealer was Robert Hecht?

This amphora highlights the problem with language. Many pieces of this type of pottery have been found at Cerveteri in Etruria. The alleged Tuscan site would be a significant find-spot. But is the report trustworthy? Should the location be presented as "Field Collection"? Or is "Field Collection" really a euphemism in these post-Medici Conspiracy days?

Should we be more careful in recording and presenting information? What are the intellectual consequences of using find-spots provided by dealers in studies of the distribution of Athenian pottery?

I suggest some possible designations (based on the codes developed by Gill and Chippindale):

• i. Excavated by 'x' at 'a'
• ii. Said by dealer 'y' to have been 'found' at 'b'
• iii. Allegedly from 'c' (source of information unknown)
• iv. Perhaps from 'd' (the type of object that could be expected to have been found at 'd')