Maxwell L. Anderson, Director of the Dallas Museum of Art, appears to be concerned about some of the acquisitions made by the museum before his appointment. He has placed a number of recent acquisitions on the AAMD's object register. Among them is a volute-krater, attributed to the Underworld painter, purchased from Edoardo Almagià in 1998 (inv. 1998.74). The krater first surfaced 1989, and it is claimed ("reputedly") that it had previously formed part of an (anonymous) English private collection.
Dallas also has a pair of Etruscan bronze shields with head of Acheloos (Inv. 1998.115.1-2.M), "Reputedly in a European collection prior to sale by Edoardo Almagia. Purchased by the Munger Fund from Mr. Almagia." [AAMD] What is the name of the anonymous European collection?
Almagià is directly associated with objects returned to Italy from the Cleveland Museum of Art and Princeton University Art Museum. Almagià should be able to supply Dallas with the name of the specific English and European private collections. This is important as it is known that North American museums were acquiring objects with this type of "history" that had been derived from specific dealers.
Credit must be given to Anderson for the level of transparency that he is providing.
Discussion of the archaeological ethics surrounding the collecting of antiquities and archaeological material.
Tuesday, 31 January 2012
Monday, 30 January 2012
Princeton: collecting histories needed for further antiquities
In June 2010 details were provided of a longer list of material that was under investigation at Princeton. This included an Attic pot sold to the museum in 2001. It can now be confirmed that this is indeed the black-figured Tyrrhenian amphora attributed to the Guglielmi painter purchased in 2001 (inv. 2001-218) [JSTOR] [Museum catalogue] [Beazley Archive 9003149]. Will the museum reveal the collecting history of this amphora prior to 2001?
A second piece that appears to be under investigation is a bronze Villanovan cinerary urn in the form of a hut that was purchased from an unstated source in 1999 (inv. 1999-70) [JSTOR] [Museum catalogue]. Again, what is the collecting history of the cinerary urn?
There is, so I understand, a much longer list. Will Princeton be making a full statement about the background to the recent returns? Did all the pieces come from the same source? What are the complete collecting histories? Is there a reason to maintain a silence?
Part of the mission of the Princeton University Art Museum is "to advance knowledge of art and archaeology". Does this apparent lack of transparency advance knowledge?
A second piece that appears to be under investigation is a bronze Villanovan cinerary urn in the form of a hut that was purchased from an unstated source in 1999 (inv. 1999-70) [JSTOR] [Museum catalogue]. Again, what is the collecting history of the cinerary urn?
There is, so I understand, a much longer list. Will Princeton be making a full statement about the background to the recent returns? Did all the pieces come from the same source? What are the complete collecting histories? Is there a reason to maintain a silence?
Part of the mission of the Princeton University Art Museum is "to advance knowledge of art and archaeology". Does this apparent lack of transparency advance knowledge?
Attack on Becchina
There is a report in the Italian press that the house of Gianfranco Becchina in Castelvetrano sustained a shotgun attack ("Escalation di attentati intimidatori a Castelvetrano e Campobello", Marsala.it, January 24, 2012). Becchina has been linked to a number of antiquities that passed through Switzerland on the way to North American public and private collections.
Friday, 27 January 2012
Broughton Coin Theft
I know that a number of numismatists read LM ... so perhaps they could do their bit to help solve the theft of some coins from a house in the Scottish Borders.
An orphan in the larger picture
I have been reflecting on the announcement of fragmentary Greek pots to Italy. And it strikes me that a fragment acquired by the J. Paul Getty Museum in 1984 and its relationship to other fragments of the same Athenian red-figured cup probably give us a clue.
The significance lies in the list of donors and former owners who held the fragments.
And have any pieces from the same cup been returned to Italy in the latest batch of material?
The significance lies in the list of donors and former owners who held the fragments.
And have any pieces from the same cup been returned to Italy in the latest batch of material?
Planet Princeton Comments
![]() |
| Source: MiBAC |
But what is more interesting is the response from Robert Steven Bianchi and I give a flavour here:
The repatriation of these objects is absurd in the extreme ... the Italians cannot take care of their own so they launch witch hunts against those who cherish, protect, preserve, and educate the world about that heritage in order to conceal their own disregard for and indifference toward their own cultural property.Why did Princeton hand over this material? Had the objects been known before 1970? Where had the architectural fragments been found?
Sabratha portrait head returned to Libya
![]() |
| Source: MiBAC |
The head was handed over by Professor Mario Monti, the Italian Prime Minister.
The return raises serious issues about the rigour of the due diligence process conducted by auction-house. Will Christie's be revisiting their procedures?
The handover ceremony [press release from MiBAC]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Another Bürki object returns to Italy
Source: MMA A psykter column-krater attributed to the Troilos painter was deaccessioned by New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art in June...
-
Source: Sotheby's A marble head of Alexander the Great has been seized in New York (reported in " Judge Orders Return of Ancien...
-
Source: ICE. There are times when you wonder if there is a lack of imagination when it comes to naming operations but 'Mummy's C...
-
Detail of the Sophilos dinos © David Gill The Sophilos dinos in the British Museum has been reconstructed from approximately 50 fragments. I...


