Operation Totem: English heritage related crime

I have discussed the shortcomings of the Portable Antiquities Scheme in the Papers of the Institute of Archaeology. One of the concerns was under-reporting of finds by metal-detectorists.

I note that Operation Totem has yielded a "catch" in Lincolnshire ("Lenient sentence given to metal detecting thief", Horncastle News August 29, 2012).

A metal dectector enthusiast has been convicted of theft in so-called ‘nighthawking’ trips in the Horncastle area. [The individual from Yorkshire] faced nine allegations of theft between January 1 and July 8 2011, one allegation of going equipped for theft on June 5 and two allegations of possession of criminal property at his home on July 8. 

He denied all the offences but was convicted of eight offences of theft and of going equipped for theft by District Judge John Stobart at Skegness Magistrates Court last week.

More detail is given:

After a police raid at his home in July 2011, police found a large quantity of objects  - brooches, coins, pins and seals - two of which were found to have precious metal content in excess of 10 per cent which should have been declared as treasure to the Coroner. 

It also transpired that between July 2010 and May 2011, [the main] advertised 56 items on E-Bay and had sold approximately 30 of them. He had also entered the items referred to in the charges on to the UK Detectors database for recording finds. He stated they had all been found in May 2011 by him in Lincolnshire.

I notice that the other report from Horncastle ("Police send clear message sent to illegal nighthawkers", August 29, 2012) claims that the police worked in partnership with English Heritage "who were able to provide the support and advice on aspects of heritage-related crime". Sergeant Booth who led the investigation is quoted at length:

“Operation Totem was introduced to deal with concerns raised by members of the farming community who were suffering from persons illegally using metal detectors on their property. 

“This was resulting in significant damage to crops and the loss of unique historic artefacts.  

“A great deal of work was carried out by the officers involved in the operation to bring offenders to justice and to send out a clear message that illegal metal detecting and heritage crime will be taken seriously. 

“Many people seem to hold the opinion that metal detecting is a harmless hobby and feel that they have a right to roam and use their equipment at will, where they like, without permission or any likelihood of facing the consequences of their illegal actions. 

“While there are many responsible people who legitimately enjoy metal detecting with the permission of land owners, while using the proper channels to register and dispose of items that they may find, there are a small minority who persist in operating outside the law.”

I note that it is English Heritage taking a lead against English "heritage-related crime".

Fortuna and the unnamed gallery

Source: MiBAC

In December 2011 Humana announced that it would be returning two statues to Italy. These had apparently been purchased from an unspecified New York dealer of antiquities. Who was that dealer?

This matters. This month we have seen a major North American museum (that has already had to return antiquities to Italy) renewing its policy of acquiring recently surfaced archaeological material.

Is the same New York dealer associated with this new material? If the dealer is associated, this is likely to damage the museum's claim that it has conducted a rigorous due diligence search.

Excavations matter in Norfolk

Caistor-St-Edmund © David Gill, 2012

It was good to visit the excavation outside the walls of the Roman town of Caistor-St-Edmund just outside Norwich. The stratified (and undisturbed) finds will help to reveal the history of the site.

I am reminded that the site was receiving weekly "nighthawking" raids as reported in the 2009 survey (see earlier comments).

Advocates of a so-called "licit market" in antiquities have yet to grasp the importance of objects excavated in a scientific manner.

Drusus and PIASA

Source: Cleveland Museum of Art

It appears that the Drusus from an old Algerian collection was sold by PIASA (a point noted by Rick St Hilaire in an important commentary on the portrait).

The first documented surfacing was in September 2004 at a sale in Paris. the press release for the sale notes the head (identified at the time as Tiberius rather than Drusus):

Le 29 septembre à Drouot Richelieu, avait lieu la seconde partie d’une vacation consacrée à l’archéologie, organisée par la maison de ventes PIASA (Picard, Audap, Solanet, Velliet, Teissèdre). Elle comprenait de l’archéologie classique, du Proche-Orient, de l’Egypte, mais aussi de l’art paléochrétien, byzantin et islamique. 

La plus haute enchère a été portée sur une tête monumentale représentant le portrait de l’Empereur Tibère, lot n°340, en marbre blanc à grains fins, Art Romain du Ier siècle, qui a été emportée à 324 013 €. Cette tête provenait d’une collection particulière.

Now PIASA is not without interest. This same syndicate handled a Middle Kingdom alabaster duck, apparently removed from the Saqqara archaeological store, that popped up in the holdings of Rupert Wace in January 2006 (as from a French private collection). How the duck moved from the store to PIASA has not been explained (at least to my knowledge).

Now the Drusus / Tiberius seems to have bobbed onto the market through PIASA about the same time as the duck.

Did the Cleveland Museum of Art investigate PIASA as part of their rigorous due diligence search?

Rick St Hilaire also comments on the way that the collecting history for the portrait is presented in the catalogue of Phoenix Ancient Art.

The Merrin Mayan War Vase

The Merrin Gallery has conveniently issued a video of the Mayan "War Vase" recently acquired by the Cleveland Museum of Art.

Is Cleveland seeking to undermine AAMD Guidelines?

Source: Cleveland Museum of Art

Is the Director of the Cleveland Museum of Art attempting to undermine the AAMD Guidelines on the acquisition of archaeological material? Drusus does not appear to have authenticated documentation for its collecting history. What is the nature of "all the documentation [the museum] needs to describe the work’s provenance" (Franklin).

Cleveland Comment on Lack of "documentary confirmation"

Source: Cleveland Museum of Art

It is worth noting the way that the Cleveland Museum of Art has drawn comment from various sources (described by Director David Franklin as "that world") over its acquisition of the Drusus from an old Algerian collection, and the Merrin Mayan vase.

Here is a flavour:

• "Cleveland Museum Strikes Defiant Tone on Antiquities Collecting", Nord on Art, August 13, 2012: "Transparency about provenance is essential in antiquities collecting"
• "Cleveland Bust: "That World" Already asking Questions, Museum on the Defensive", Paul Barford, August 13, 2012.

The Drusus is now on the AAMD object register. Its collecting history is provided:

Fernand Sintes before 1960; sold at auction at Hôtel Drouot-Richelieu Paris on September 29, 2004, lot. no. 340, unknown purchaser; Phoenix Ancient Art, S.A.(2004); sold to the Cleveland Museum of Art by Phoenix Ancient Art in 2012.

It is perhaps noteworthy that the register entry makes the following comment (emphasis mine): "The Cleveland Museum of Art has provenance information for this work back to the 1960’s, but has been unable to obtain documentary confirmation of portions of the provenance as described below..."

Is the earliest documented surfacing of this portrait no earlier than 2004?

The Merrin Mayan vase has yet to be posted on the AAMD Register.

The Cleveland Museum of Art has also issued a press release ("Cleveland Museum of Art Acquires Two Stellar Antiquities Objects", August 13, 2012), no doubt to counter comment. It includes the alleged (and unsupported) collecting history:

The ownership history of the Drusus Minor portrait has been traced to the late 19th century, when it was the property of the Bacri family of Algiers, Algeria. Sometime before 1960, Fernand Sintes inherited the work, and in 1960 transferred it from Algiers to France. In 2004, it was sold at auction in France.

The Director, David Franklin, emphasises what he terms "responsible collecting" by the Museum:

“I am pleased we can add these important works of art to the museum’s Classical and Pre-Columbian holdings and continue our collecting of the finest examples of art from across cultures and time periods,” stated David Franklin, the Sarah S. and Alexander M. Cutler Director of the Cleveland Museum of Art. “I believe museums play an invaluable role in society as repositories and presenters of the world’s art history, and through responsible collecting, museums make accessible the world’s art objects for the public’s enjoyment and education.”

Perhaps Franklin will produce what appears to be the unauthenticated documentation to defend his acquisition.