Looting Matters

The Paestan krater in New York appears to feature in five Polaroid images from the Medici Dossier (and deposits are clearly visible). Dietrich von Bothmer reported that the krater noted the purchase of the krater from a New York auction (in 1989). He took the inscription to be 'Hybron'. The krater was acquired through the "Classical Purchase Fund".

Yet the most recent catalogue suggests that the krater was acquired from "The Bothmer Purchase Fund". The inscription is read (incorrectly) as 'Hybris' (as Tsirogiannis has observed).

This new evidence about the collecting history ("provenance") of the krater needs to be investigated.

I am sure that I do not need to remind the Director of the MMA about the AAMD Guidelines:
If a member museum, as a result of its continuing research, gains information that establishes another party’s right to ownership of a Work, the museum should bring this information to the attention of the party, and if the ca…

The link between material derived from Giacomo Medici and Sotheby's in London is well documented through Peter Watson's Sotheby's: Inside Story. But what was happening at Sotheby's in New York?

Let us take three recent identifications made from Swiss photographic archives:
a. Paestan krater: Sotheby's NY June, 23 1989, lot 196.
b. Peucetian clay stamnos: Sotheby's NY 1995.
c. Apulian rhyton: Sotheby's NY June 8, 1994, lot 189.
Who consigned these pieces to Sotheby's? Did the same person or persons consign other material?

Dr Christos Tsirogiannis has published an essay (Journal of Art Crime, 2014) on the Paestan bell-krater attributed to Python presently in New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art (inv. 1989.11.4). The krater, illustrated in the MMA's Art of the Classical World (no. 184), was purchased from the Bothmer Purchase Fund.

Tsirogiannis notes that the krater appears in 5 Polaroid images from the Medici Dossier. The choice of background is more than significant. He observes that the krater surfaced through Sotheby's in New York in June 1989. This raises a question about the quantity of material that was consigned to New York from Medici. (Were the issues raised by Peter Watson's Sotheby's: Inside Story applicable beyond London?)

Will the Met be contacting the Italian authorities now that this new evidence has come to light?

Sofia Cecchi has interviewed Professor Ricardo Elia for the latest Journal of Art Crime (11, 2014, 85-86). Elia reveals that he first came across the issue of looting when he was excavating as a student in what is now FYROM. He reflects on his famous quote, "Collectors are the real looters". He comments on the weakness ("loophole big enough to drive a truck full of loot through") of the AAMD Guidelines over the acquisition of antiquities and ancient art.

He was asked about his quantitative study of Apulian pottery, and he finds claims made by Carlos Picon that acquisitions by New York's MMA are documented as "ridiculous". (It would have been interesting for Elia to have commented on Dyfri Williams' dismissal of his research.)

Elia is firm over the need to criminalize the looting of antiquities and calls for gaol terms and hefty fines.

The latest volume of the Journal of Art Crime is now available. It includes my essay on the so-called Crosby Garrett helmet timed to coincide with the public display in the British Museum.

The article considers the new evidence presented by the study of the reported find-spot. It returns to the issue of The Treasure Act and the need to make amendments.

Reference
‘Context matters: The So-called Crosby Garrett Helmet’, Journal of Art Crime 11 (2014) 53-59.

Ansate brooches were rare finds, but metal-detecting has showed they were common part of A-S dress.so I made a gif http://t.co/dNGClEIrVX
— Rosie Weetch (@rosieweetch) May 17, 2014
I was very struck by the distribution maps for finds of Anglo-Saxon ansate brooches produced by Dr Rosie Weetch of the British Museum. It is very striking that the number of recorded "finds" increases from 2010 for both Norfolk and Suffolk. Weetch puts this rise down to the number of brooches recovered by metal-detecting.

It would be interesting to know how many Anglo-Saxon ansate brooches come from secure, excavated contexts.

What are the intellectual consequences if the majority of the brooches do not have secure contexts?

For the record the PAS database has 49 brooches for Suffolk, and 92 brooches for Norfolk.

See also comments by Paul Barford.

Professor Nathan Elkins has written an important post "Import Restrictions and Coins: Lobbying, Duplicity, and Ancient Egypt's Closed Currency System" (May 14, 2014). He notes that while archaeologists stress the importance of including coins in MOUs, coin collectors do not.

I should declare an interest in the topic as I published a short study of the Ptolemaic coins linked to Arsinoe in the Peloponnese (further information here).