The Getty kouros: a modern creation?

The refurbished galleries of the J. Paul Getty Museum no longer include the Getty kouros, a sculpture purchased in 1985 (Christopher Knight, "Something's missing from the newly reinstalled antiquities collection at the Getty Villa", LA Times April 19, 2018). Knight explains:

Unexpectedly, the Getty kouros, a controversial sculpture even before the museum acquired it more than 30 years ago, has been removed from public view. The work is now in museum storage.  

For decades, the life-size carving of a standing nude youth carried one of the most distinctive labels of any work of art in an American museum: “Greece (?) about 530 B.C. or modern forgery.” The label encapsulated puzzling issues about the work, whose questionable status as dating from the archaic dawn of Western civilization had been the focus of scholarly and scientific research, debate and international symposiums for years.

It is ten years since I provided an overview of the kouros here on LM. And over 20 years since Christopher Chippindale wrote a key review of the sculpture for the American Journal of Archaeology [JSTOR]. Perhaps the key lesson from this acquisition is that the lack of a rigorous due diligence policy by the Getty allowed this sculpture to enter or hover around the corpus of archaic sculpture.

Knight continues:

According to the museum’s director, Timothy Potts, the kouros has not been downgraded to the status of a forgery or definitively determined to be a fake. The distinctive labeling, also appended to the sculpture on the museum’s collection website, still stands. 

Potts said only that the consensus of art historical study, once divided, now leans against its authenticity.

Potts has had direct experience of dealing with possible modern sculptures that have entered museum collections. It would be interesting for him to explain how he apparently came to acquire a "Sumerian" statue for the Kimbell Art Museum for a reported $2.7 million. (For details see my comments here.)

Heritage and Cultural Property Crime

The Heritage and Cultural Property Crime: National Strategic Assessment 2017 is now available online. 

The key threats to heritage in England and Wales are perceived as:

• Architectural theft – in particular metal and stone 
• Criminal damage – in particular damage caused by fire (‘arson’) 
• Unlawful metal detecting (‘nighthawking’) 
• Unlawful disturbance and salvage of maritime sites 
• Anti-social behaviour – in particular fly-tipping and off-road driving
• Unauthorised works to heritage assets
• Illicit trade in cultural objects

Some of these issues (e.g. lead theft from churches, so-called nighthawking, metal-detecting and the code of practice, off-road driving, and the illicit trade in cultural objects) have been covered by LM (and its sister blog, Heritage Futures) over a long period of time.

Pontic amphora withdrawn from sale in New York

Pontic amphora from the Becchina archive.
Source: Dr Christos Tsirogiannis

Christie's (New York, 18 April 2018, lot 26) has withdrawn a Pontic amphora, attributed to the Paris painter, after the pot was identified from the Becchina archive by Dr Christos Tsirogiannis. 

Christie's state that the history of the piece is as follows:

• with Galerie Günter Puhze, Freiburg;
• Acquired by the current owner from the above, 1993;
• Manhattan private collection.

Tsirogiannis has drawn attention to the notes from the Becchina archive that shows that the amphora was dated 22 June 1993 (along with the price paid and sold, in Swiss Francs, viz. 30,000 / 47,000 SF). 

If the amphora was purchased from the Freiburg gallery in 1993, and that the piece was still with Becchina in late June of the same year, was Puhze buying directly from Becchina? What other Puhze material came from this same source?

Who restored the amphora? When did this happen?

An Attic black-figured amphora that had passed through Puhze (after surfacing through Sotheby's) was returned to Italy. 

Symposium: The Horse in Ancient Greek Art

The Virginia Museum of Fine Arts will be hosting a symposium in April 2018. It will explore some of the themes emerging from the exhibition, 'The Horse in Ancient Greek Art'.

It would have been interesting for one of the papers to have explored the histories of some of the objects appearing in the show. Items include pots reported to have been handled by individuals such as Edoardo Almagià and Fritz Bürki.

Reported archaeological finds in Essex

Source: RSA Heritage Index derived from PAS.

I have been working through the data included in the RSA Heritage Index for Essex. The section on 'Museums, Archives, and Artefacts' includes an element 'Archaeological finds reported' derived from the Portable Antiquities Scheme. This presents just over 16,000 finds for the different parts of the county. (This is dwarfed by more than 60,000 finds reported for Suffolk.)

These finds contribute to the overall heritage score for each of these administrative districts in Essex (and other parts of the UK).

Conflict antiquities, myth, realities and evidence

The next Heritage Futures seminar will be given by Paul Barford. His title is: Collection-driven exploitation of the Middle Eastern archaeological record: Conflict antiquities, myth, realities and evidence.

This will take place at the University of Suffolk, Waterfront Building in Ipswich, on Wednesday 11 April 2018 at 4.30 pm.

Please reserve a place by following the Eventbrite link from here.

Abstract
Over the past five years or so, the press has been full of stories about the destruction of the heritage as a result of the ongoing conflict and rise of militant Islamism groups in places like Syria, Iraq and Libya. What we see is an echo of what happened two decades earlier in the aftermath of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, the Gulf War and invasion of Iraq, when museums and sites were looted and many antiquities were stolen to feed a voracious and expanding international antiquities market. During the social instability caused by external events, we can observe that whole sites have been utterly destroyed through artefact hunters digging deep and close-set looters’ pits across huge areas and pulling out what is saleable to collectors and leaving behind in a jumble what is not. Some of these decontextualised items are appearing on the no-questions-asked international market. Along with them are large numbers of the fakes (of varying degrees of deceptiveness) that the same market mechanisms allow to pass into the public domain masquerading as dug-up artefacts.

The shocking rate of destruction of the accessible parts of the fragile and finite archaeological record across a substantial portion of the broader Middle East region and its turning into a muddle of loose artefacts treated as a commodity for the private profit and entertainment of individuals in the market countries should be a matter of concern, as should the question of who is profiting from this trade.

In more recent years, the smuggling of the products of looted sites has been labelled a source of ‘terrorist’ funding that facilitates social conflict and violence. In particular, several factors have led to a focus on certain groups (such as ISIL) being blamed for these problems. There are obvious political gains to be had by promoting various aspects of this ‘fight for culture’. In addition, heritage activists see such claims as bolstering their call to take a closer look at the market for illicit antiquities and somehow curbing its activities. Several interest groups, especially those benefiting from the commerce in antiquities, and museum professionals, are therefore intent on representing the issue concerning the fate of illicit and ‘conflict’ antiquities from these areas in different ways. This means that the area is one where there is lively debate, but in which research on the topic is rendered extremely difficult, especially as those involved in the market itself has always been less-than-forthcoming about almost every aspect of the scale and mechanisms of the processes involved.

This presentation will focus on the issues surrounding the recent (1990 onwards) collection-driven exploitation (“looting”) of the archaeological record in Iraq and Syria. What can we say today about which sites are being exploited, what kind of material is sought, who is involved? Where is the material obtained being taken to? Where and when will it ‘surface’ on the market, and what mechanisms will be used to obscure its true identity? To what extent can this material be considered ‘conflict antiquities’?

Another aspect of concern is the manner in which this issue has been ‘weaponised’, particularly by the United States administration. Damage caused to the cultural heritage becomes an element of dehumanising propaganda directed against groups that are presented as ‘enemies of civilization’. An ethical question is raised by the manner in which archaeologists have been caught up in promoting these messages. To what extent is the information presented to and by journalists in such a context a balanced, or even true picture? What can we learn from recent seizures of antiquities from ISIL contexts in Deir Ez-Zor, Palmyra and Mosul? Is some of this ‘evidence’ planted?

Surfacing Apulian tomb-group in 1981

I have been reflecting on a group of Apulian pots that are said, by A.D. Trendall, to have been derived from the same tomb. All surfaced on the New York market in 1981 and then passed to the same private collection.

Some initial questions. Who provided the information to Trendall? Was it the New York dealer? If so, who provided the information to the dealer? Or was Trendall aware of the source in, say, Switzerland? If this group does not appear to have been known prior to 1970, will the present proprietors seek to contact the Italian authorities?