A review essay of Seán Hemingway, Cycladic Art: The Leonard N. Stern Collection on Loan from the Hellenic Republic. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2024. Pp. 112. ISBN 9781588397874.
This article is part of an occasional series on ethics and cultural heritage.
Contents
An Introduction to the Stern Collection
The Formation of the Stern Collection
The Sources for the Stern Collection
Reported Findspots and the Collection
Considerations Over Cycladic Figures
A Potentially Corrupted Corpus
A New Approach to Dealing with Cultural Property
An Introduction to the Stern Collection
The long-term loan of the private collection of Cycladica built by Leonard N. Stern, and subsequently acquired by Greece, to New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art (Met) in 2024 raises key issues over the public and academic benefits and consequences for the display of this type of material. The focus of this essay will be on the items illustrated in the short illustrated catalogue that accompanies the exhibition, as well as the associated and more detailed catalogue provided on the Met website. A more substantial publication of the collection is promised for 2026.[1] The entries in the illustrated catalogue provide very limited information: for example, the Met loan number, chronological range, material and dimensions. There is no information about former owners, previous publications or attributions. The provision of such information at this stage of the publishing process should have been considered to be an essential element. The online catalogue entries follow the standard Met format with loan number, chronological range, material and dimensions, provenance (i.e. former owners), and previous publications: there is usually an introductory entry discussing some of the stylistic issues, including attributions (though not hyperlinked for attributed works in the same way as pieces in the permanent collection, e.g. 68.148 and compare L.2022.38.58), relating to the object. The inclusion of a concordance to the entries in the catalogue would have been helpful (see Concordances). The high-quality images by Bruce J. Schwarz allow the objects from Stern collection to be appreciated. The present catalogue includes a representative range of Cycladic figures from the Late Neolithic to a range of Early Cycladic figures including violin, Plastiras, Louros, Kapsala, Early and Late Spedos, Dokathismata, Chalandriani, and Koumasa types.
While the cultural emphasis of this exhibition and the catalogues is on the Cyclades, the museum’s handling of the collection has wider implications for how the presentation of other groups of classical material in private hands will be conducted by curatorial staff, whether it be Greek figure-decorated pottery, Etruscan architectural terracottas, or Roman portraits. A recently formed collection of material that has the potential of being derived as a result of illicit activity on archaeological sites in say Greece or Italy might not be acquired by a museum as a gift or bequest as it would be contrary to the stated policy, but the pieces could be placed on long-term loan. There are weighty ethical implications for a loan policy that appears to overlook the intellectual consequences of looting.
The loan itself was approved by the Greek parliament in September 2022, though not without some opposition.[2] One of the aims of the exhibition was to make the Met “a center for the study and appreciation” of the Early Bronze Age Cyclades (p. 7). As part of the agreement between the Met and the Greek Government, a small selection of figures and other Cycladic items were placed on loan to the Museum of Cycladic Art in Athens and featured in a select exhibition catalogue, Homecoming (2022).[3] The expectation for the display of the Stern collection is high. The catalogue presents the collection as “one of the most preeminent private collections of Cycladic art in the world” (p. 14), and writes of “outstanding artifacts” (p. 7), an “outstanding collection” (p. 13), “exceptional” (p. 9), and “superlative works of Cycladic art” (p. 15). The collection itself is presented by Seán Hemingway, the John A. and Carole O. Moran Curator in Charge of the Department of Greek and Roman Art at the Met, as part of “world heritage” (p. 13). If the figures and other objects are indeed genuine, then these descriptions could, perhaps, be justified; but if parts of the collections are of modern creation, such claims could be generously interpreted as an overstatement. The Met should include discussion and evidence in the catalogue under consideration in order to allay these genuine concerns and provide some level of confidence that the viewed figures and other objects are indeed ancient. An acknowledgement about authenticity in one of the introductory essays would have been constructive. The potential corruption of the collection by modern pieces—whether fakes, forgeries, or pastiches—does little to enhance the value of the display in an encyclopedic museum like the Met. Such contemporary pieces should be removed from public display or placed in a different part of the exhibition as an homage to the works produced in the Cyclades during the Early Bronze Age.
Collecting Matters
The Stern collection of Cycladica holds lessons for the way that we approach ancient material culture. Viewers of this display will have their perceptions of the Early Bronze Age Cyclades shaped by the objects presented to them. Viewers—and that includes visitors to the exhibition—trust that the curators who create displays of ancient material culture are presenting authentic ancient material. One guarantee that the viewed items are indeed genuine is provided by the knowledge that their findspot is known and recorded: but this is not the case for objects in this collection (see “Reported Findspots and the Collection”). A further consideration relates to the length of time that the objects have been known to scholarship: should items that are known from the period before the First World War be considered as genuine, whereas pieces that surfaced in the 1930s, 1960s and 1970s have the potential to be modern creations (see “A Potentially Corrupted Corpus”)?
How was a collection such as this formed? (See “The Formation of the Stern Collection”). Do the sources for the collection come from well-documented “old” collections or are they from galleries and dealers who are associated with supplying objects fresh from the ground? (See “History versus Provenance”). Such questions about past ownership should in turn raise the question about when the individual objects left Greece. Did they move from their last resting place in the ground to their present location by legitimate—some might use the term “licit”—means?[4] This, of course, has implications for the way that we appreciate the objects placed in the display cases before our eyes. Have “illicit” actions permitted the objects to move to the place where they are now viewed?
Owners of such collections—whether it be individuals or the state such as the Greek Government in this case— and the curators who present them to us may not want us to ask such questions. Thus, the viewer is presented with the notion that they are viewing “high art” with objects attributed to named sculptors (see “Attributions”). We are being tempted to enter an artificial world that is the construct of 20th and 21st century scholars but which probably has little basis for the way that “workshops” operated in the third millennium BCE.
The Formation of the Stern Collection
The first acquisition of the Stern collection of Cycladica,[5] was made in 1983 when Leonard Stern purchased an Early Spedos figure from the Ariadne Galleries in 1983 (Pl. 43; L.2022.38.1). Stern writes briefly in Cycladic Art about “My Love Affair with Cycladic Art,” reflecting on early visits to the Met as well as to the National Archaeological Museum in Athens (p. 11). Between 1983 and 2020, Stern acquired the 161 pieces of Cycladic art that form this collection. There is a stunning illustration of part of the installation of the collection in Stern’s home (p. 15).
Eight of Stern’s figures—four acquired from Robin Symes, one from the Merrin Gallery, and one from Robert Haber—appeared in the 1989 exhibition, “Masterpieces of Cycladic Art from Private Collections, Museums and the Merrin Gallery”.[6] Stern subsequently purchased two more figures from the Merrin Gallery that had been displayed in the same exhibition. The collection was expanded on a regular basis, sometimes in spurts, such as in 1991 with 21 acquisitions made from Robin Symes, Galerie Nefer, the Merrin Gallery, and Frederick Elghanayan (a terracotta spouted vessel [L.2022.38.30] and a pair of silver bracelets [Pl. 79; L.2022.38.31]). Stern acquired another 32 pieces in 2005 from Ariadne Galleries, Christie’s New York (private sale), Phoenix Ancient Art, the Safani Gallery, Rupert Wace Ancient Art, and Ward & Company. Stern’s final two acquisitions were figures acquired from Christie’s New York (Pl. 54; L.2022.38.108) and Jean-David Cahn (L.2022.38.109) in 2020.
Exhibiting Cycladica
Exhibitions—and the accompanying catalogues that should establish their legacy—can provide a significant contribution to scholarship. Such exhibitions can be perceived to add prestige to the objects displayed in them. The 1976 exhibition, “Kunst und Kultur der Kykladeninseln im 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr.”, at the Badisches Landesmuseum in Karlsruhe, was ambitious in its scope and has continued to be highly influential in its presentation of the Cyclades in the Early Bronze Age.[7] This exhibition included material from major university collections such as the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford and the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, civic museums such as the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston and the Met, and national collections such as the British Museum. The exhibition was not able to include material from archaeological collections in Greece. Jürgen Thimme, the curator responsible for the exhibition, noted, “most regrettably, it was impossible to obtain objects from the museums of Greece and according to a recent decision of the Greek Archaeological Council it was also impossible to obtain pieces in Greek private collections”.[8] Some of the Cycladic material now in the Stern collection featured in this exhibition.
A change in attitude by the Greek Government was prompted by the exhibition of the Goulandris Collection at the Benaki Museum in Athens that resulted in a series of requests for loans.[9] The first exhibition outside Greece was in Washington’s National Gallery of Art in 1979, followed by a select exhibition in Tokyo and Kyoto in 1980. In 1983 the British Museum hosted a major loan exhibition of a private collection of Cycladica, the N. P. Goulandris collection, later the core collection of the Museum of Cycladic Art in Athens.[10] This was followed by “Early Cycladic Art in North American Collections” (1987) at the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts in Richmond.[11] Other smaller exhibitions have followed such as “Silent Witnesses: Early Cycladic Art of the Third Millennium BC” at the Onassis Cultural Center in New York (2002) and “Ancient Art of the Cyclades” at the Katonah Museum of Art (2006).[12] More recently Karlsruhe hosted “Kykladen: Lebenswelten einer frühgriechischen Kultur” (2011), the Sakıp Sabancı Müzesi, Istanbul, “Across. The Cyclades and Western Anatolia during the 3rd Millenium BC” (2011), and the Musée Fenaille in Rodez, “Idoles, L’art de l’Anatolie et des Cyclades à l’Âge du bronze” (2021).[13] These exhibitions in their different ways have helped to shape the academic and public appreciation of the material culture of the Early Bronze Age in the Cyclades.
The Cycladic material held in public and private collections contrasts with Cycladic collections largely derived from archaeological excavations that are found in Greece, such as in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, and in the Archaeological Museum of Naxos.[14] These objects form the secure part of the Cycladic corpus as their authenticity is not in doubt.[15]
History versus Provenance
Do the Cycladic objects in the Stern collection have “good provenance”?
In recent years there has been an understandable growth in the role of provenance researchers at major museums such as the Met.[16] Yet, gallery owners, auction houses, museum curators and academic researchers need to be more sensitive to the different meanings of “provenance” when it relates to archaeological material. During a visit to a London gallery I was informed that the objects on display had excellent “provenance”—“just like this piece, sir”, as the sales person pointed to a classical bronze that had a prominent and controversial Swiss-based dealer, Nikolas Koutoulakis, listed on the label as the primary owner. I do not consider that to be a “good provenance” or indeed a very reassuring piece of information for the potential purchaser. (The dealer’s name is one that features in the Stern collection.)
Archaeological material differs from fine art in that it is usually derived from the ground: for example, cemeteries, sanctuaries, and urban sites. In some cases, especially in the case of architectural marbles, these items can have been visible above ground for a couple of millennia (or more). A catalogue entry for archaeological material thus needs to present certain information, such as the archaeological context or findspot, and the associated finds. Such information may be derived from a scientific excavation, but in some cases the information may not be reliable, as indicated by a range of possibilities: “said to be”, “perhaps from”, “possibly from”.[17] There can even be implied information derived from the object itself.
Archaeological material can then pass through the hands of dealers, galleries, auction houses, private collectors, and museums. Each point in the history of the piece should be confirmed by some sort of authenticated documentary evidence, whether it be a sale catalogue, a book, or an illustration in a journal or magazine.[18] Such information I define as the history for the object, a term I prefer to the potentially misleading “provenance”.[19] The confirmation of the history is important because there have been so many cases of falsified histories among the objects that have been repatriated to Greece and Italy.[20]
This approach of differentiating between the archaeology and the history of an object was proposed and applied to a study of series of major European and North American public and private collections.[21] The research demonstrated how much of the material had “surfaced” after the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.[22] This Convention provides a conventional benchmark date for investigating potentially looted material.[23] Moreover, items from several of the private collections that were under consideration in the study (and which had no stated history prior to the UNESCO Convention of 1970) have subsequently been repatriated, something that endorses this methodological approach to their study and analysis.[24]
The lack of information about find-spots is an issue that impacts all studies of material culture. Classical archaeologists who use material from museum and private collections need to consider how far their own research is restricted and constrained by contextless objects.[25] Take the major exhibition celebrating the anonymous Athenian red-figured pot-decorator known as the “Berlin Painter”.[26] Less than 20 per cent of the corpus is derived from secure archaeological contexts and this has intellectual consequences for the establishment of a secure framework for the painter’s dating and stylistic development. Even an understanding of the distribution of the pots has to be limited in scope because information about the findspots is either lost or based on hearsay (“said to be”, “possibly from”, “reported to be from”).
The Sources for the Stern Collection
The (online) catalogue for the Stern collection presents information about the actual and reported sources for individual pieces. While Kassandra Marinopoulou, the President and CEO of the Museum of Cycladic Art in Athens, has suggested that the Stern collection is “largely unknown” (p. 9), the statement is not entirely true. This claim fails to take account of the Stern material that had featured in the Badisches Landesmuseum in Karlsruhe exhibition (1976) or the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts exhibition of material from North American collections (1987).[27] Five pieces now in the Stern collection appeared in Pat Getz-Preziosi’s Early Cycladic Sculpture: An Introduction (1985) (see Pls. 2, 44, 48, 50, 64; L.2022.38.9, 22, 34, 67, 75). A chlorite pyxis, then in the collection of Michael and Judy Steinhardt, featured in the “Ancient Art of the Cyclades” exhibition at the Katonah Museum of Art (2006) (Pl. 75; L.2022.38.101).[28]
The Stern collection is derived in part from other (well-known and well-documented) North American and Swiss collectors including Christos Bastis, Charles Gillet, Marion Schuster, and Ian Woodner. The presence of certain dealers and galleries among the sources for the Stern Cycladic collection raises certain “red flags” given their known association with illicit antiquities that have been repatriated to Greece, Italy, and Türkiye.[29] One of the most important sources, both directly and indirectly, was London-based Robin Symes, who held antiquities in Geneva, London, and New York.[30] In order to give a sense of scale to his operations, a raid on a series of warehouses across 33 global locations yielded some 17,000 objects worth approximately £125 million.[31] Symes handled at least 17 of the Stern Cycladic figures (e.g. Pls. 48, 57: L.2022.38.9, L.2022.38.10) as well as 11 of the other vessels (e.g. Pls. 71, 72; L.2022.38.76, L.2022.38.129) and a copper alloy chisel (Pl. 80: L.2022.38.100).[32] Among the marble vessels was a beaker with lugged handles with a female figure carved on the outside (Pl. 19; L.2022.38.26). Symes was the source of Cycladic material in other collections including two figures said to be from Marathon that were acquired by the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston,[33] a Cycladic assemblage acquired by the British Museum,[34] and a harpist in the J. Paul Getty Museum that had previously formed part of the Maurice Tempelsman collection.[35]
Four Stern figures (Pl. 12; L.2022.38.51, 52, 54, 63) and two marble vessels—a kandila (L.2022.38.130) and a marble palette (L.2022.38.53)—were derived from Galerie Nefer, owned by Frieda Tchacos. The same gallery supplied two Late Spedos figures, one to the Getty, and the other to the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts.[36] Tchacos has been identified as the source for some of the fragments of Athenian pots that have been repatriated to Italy, and appears to be linked to a “seeding” scheme by which her husband gave fragments to the Getty, which were then followed by the sale of further pieces from her gallery.[37]
Michael Ward handled several pieces including a Late Neolithic figure (Pl. 3; L.2022.38.49), and an ECII female figure (L.2022.38.120); marble vessels including a lugged bowl (Pl. 14; L.2022.38.127), two kandiles (Pl. 24; L.2022.38.94, 130), a marble beaker with lugged handles (L.2022.38.128), a footed bowl (Pl. 74; L.2022.38.65) and a bowl (Pl. 69; L.2022.38.98); and a copper chisel (Pl. 80; L.2022.38.100). The gallery is well-known for having handled the so-called Aidonia Treasure, apparently looted from the Corinthia in the Peloponnese, that was repatriated to Greece.[38] Moreover, the gallery was the source for a figure derived from a 4th century BCE funerary naiskos, acquired by the Michael C. Carlos Museum, and recently repatriated to Greece;[39] and a Campanian calyx-krater returned to Italy by the Dallas Museum of Art.[40] Both the statue from the naiskos and the calyx-krater had been identified from images located in the Becchina archive.
The Ariadne Galleries handled at least nine figures acquired by Stern, including Early Spedos (Pl. 43; L.2022.38.1; Pl. 41; L.2022.38.156) and Chalandriani (Pl. 60; L.2022.38.16; Pl. 62; L.2022.38.155) types, as well as a marble spouted bowl (L.2022.38.161), a terracotta “frying pan” (Pl. 78; L.2022.38.160) and a tuff palette (L.2022.38.152). The gallery is known for its handling of the Icklingham Roman bronzes that are reported to have been removed illicitly from an archaeological site in eastern England.[41]
One intriguing piece is the double-figure that had once formed part of the Leo Mildenburg collection in Zurich but had gone missing prior to the Karlsruhe exhibition (Pl. 39; L.2022.38.32).[42] All we are told (in the online catalogue entry) is that it passed into the Woodner family collection by 1983. Where was the piece residing between the mid-1970s and the early 1980s? Was it ever returned to Mildenberg? One hopes that the full catalogue entry will explain this apparent gap in the sequence.
The catalogue states that some of Stern’s figures and vessels were “reportedly” from specific collections, “Reportedly, with N. Koutoulakis”; “Reportedly, collection of Charles Gillet, Lausanne”; “Reportedly, since 1960s, collection of George Zakos, Basel”; “Reportedly, from 1960s, private collections, Italy and Mexico” (e.g. L.2022.38.2, 6, 7, 8). The phrase is reminiscent of “said to be,” and fails to provide any sense of certainty. The authority for stating the report is not given: is it the vendor? Is such information reliable?
Reported Findspots and the Collection
This is not a collection grounded in secure archaeological contexts.[43] Of the vessels, four marble kandiles (Pls. 27, 28, 33; L.2022.38.36, 38, 72, 77) and three marble beakers with lug handles (Pls. 18, 19, 20; L.2022.38.25, 26, 33) are said to be from Naxos, and a spouted bowl, a footed bowl, and a marble pyxis are said to be from Herakleia (Pls. 65, 76; L.2022.38.137, 138, 148). Some of this tentative information is provided by Pat Getz-Gentle in her study, Stone Vessels of the Cyclades (1996) but not for all examples in the Met online catalogue.[44] Does the omission of such information by the Met indicate that it is in fact considered by the curatorial team to be unreliable? Or are the Met records incomplete and in need of updating?
There are only a limited number of findspots associated with the Stern figures. A Late Spedos figure formerly in the Bastis collection was “said to be from Paros, but more likely from Naxos” (Pl. 53; L.2022.38.58).[45] At least five of them (Pls. 44, 46, 47, 51, 57; L.2022.38.10, 22, 40, 56, 60) have been linked to the Keros Haul—though some insist on using the inappropriate term “hoard”—derived from the notorious looting at Kavos on Keros and the adjacent islet Daskalio. But no mention of this significant association is mentioned within the provenance sections of the online catalogue entries for three of the five figures.[46] There was a time when the Greek Government actively followed legal channels to pursue Cycladic figures, often fragmentary, that were associated with the Haul.[47] But the move to place the Stern collection on long-term loan, without acknowledging that some material was associated with specific looting, appears to have weakened the government’s resolve in this area of cultural policy.
A single figure was identified by Christos Tsirogiannis from an image in the seized Becchina photographic and documentary archive (Pl. 43; L.2022.38.1).[48] This would have made a particularly strong case for immediate repatriation (rather than an anticipated quarter century long residency in a museum outside Greece). It is surprising that such an association has been downplayed given the well-documented links between Gianfranco Becchina (and his Basel gallery, Palladion Antike Kunst) and the numerous returns to Greece and Italy.[49] The connection with Becchina, cited in the online catalogue (“In September, 2022, this sculpture has been linked in a newspaper article to two photographs from the photographic archive seized by the Italian police authorities at the premises of the convicted art dealer Gianfranco Becchina”), suggests that the Hellenic Ministry of Culture appears to have failed to conduct appropriate due diligence searches prior to the implementation of the agreement with Stern in accordance with Greek legal protocols.[50]
Painted Figures
One of the noted characteristics of Cycladic figures is that there can be traces of paint highlighting the hair, eyes, and torso.[51] The printed catalogue notes, “Elizabeth Hendrix … acted as a consultant and helped document the numerous remains of painted decoration on sculptures in the Leonard N Stern Collection” (p. 19). Hendrix has noted “clear evidence of paint on thirty of the ninety-five figures and figure fragments, with another twenty-four figures exhibiting possible evidence of pigment”. Enhanced images of the painting are presented in Hendrix’s online essay on the painted details of the Stern collection, including the head of an Early Spedos figure (Pl. 42; L.2022.38.44), and a Dokathismata figure (Pl. 57; L.2022.38.10).[52] Hendrix makes a telling observation about the trace of colour on a Late Spedos figure attributed to the Goulandris Sculptor (Pl. 53; L.2022.38.58) that “looks remarkably similar to a figure in the Naxos Archaeological Museum, both in sculptural form as well as in some of the painted motifs.” The Naxos figure, also attributed to the Goulandris Sculptor, was acquired through confiscation in 1964.[53] Yet the online catalogue entry for the Stern figure makes little of the decoration: “Traces of once painted details may suggest a hat (polos) or scarf on the crown and strands of curly hair along the right side and back of the head.” Does the “remarkable” similarity between these two figures suggest that both were decorated by the same individual or that they were both prepared for burial in a cemetery on Naxos?
Perhaps there should have been an expansion on possible contamination of the figures. Hendrix notes an issue with some of the traces of pigments on the large Early Spedos figure (Pl. 44; L.2022.38.22):
The smooth area across the crown indicates the presence of a headdress or hair. A small area of red pigment at the bottom of this area has been identified as a modern pigment. This can be ignored except for its function as a reminder that the figures have been affected by the accidental marks of modern humans.
The online catalogue entry adds: “There are traces of red pigment between the second and third toe of the right foot and a few particles of bright red pigment above the right eye near the edge of the ‘headdress’ which are likely modern contaminations.”
Considerations Over Cycladic Figures
The study of Cycladic figures has been hindered by the scale of looting. While an analysis of the entire corpus suggests that perhaps as much as 45% has a reliable find-spot, this figure is masked by the fragmentary finds from the Special Deposit South on Kavos that account for 549 finds, around one third of the present corpus.[54] If the finds from the Special Deposits South and North at Kavos are excluded from the analysis, only some 9 per cent of the remaining corpus is derived from reliable find-spots. This means that our understanding of Cycladic figures is severely restricted. Questions about types of context, funerary associations, and island styles are hampered by the irretrievable loss of information: looting has intellectual consequences.
The organisers of the exhibition of the Stern collection could have gained much from reflecting on Ricardo Elia’s comments (written over 30 years ago, and exactly when Stern was developing his collection) on Colin Renfrew’s Cycladic Spirit that celebrated the figures in the Goulandris collection that now resides in the Museum of Cycladic Art.[55] Both the Goulandris and Stern collections contain objects that are not grounded in secure archaeological contexts. While the Goulandris collection was largely formed and then retained in Greece,[56] the Stern collection drew on material that surfaced, probably illicitly, through various outlets in the international market. We can perhaps say with some degree of certainty that the genuine figures, stone vessels, and other objects in both collections were not removed from their archaeological contexts by scientific (and recorded) approaches. We cannot say for certain which of the figures in either collection are modern creations: but we would be wise to treat the majority of them with caution and perhaps some scepticism.
Elia commented thoughtfully on looting and forgeries, especially in relation to a collection, like the Goulandris collection, formed from ungrounded material:[57]
Collectors cause looting by creating a market demand for antiquities. Looting, in turn, causes forgeries, since forgeries can only remain undetected where there is a substantial corpus of antiquities without proper archaeological provenience. These two problems—looting and forgery—fundamentally corrupt the integrity of the field of ancient art history. (p. 66)
Elia’s assessment of the collector who acquired objects without considering their source or previous history was blunt: “Scholars who work with looted material regularly condemn looting, while in the same breath they laud the enthusiasm of the collector who, directly or indirectly, financed the looting.” (p. 66).
In other words, a collector who allows looted antiquities to enter their collection should be considered to take a part in the looting process. Thus, private collectors such as Shelby White and Leon Levy, Barbara and Lawrence Fleischman, and Gilbert M. Denman should perhaps be connected with looting by the clear association through the parts of their collections that have had to be repatriated.[58] Indeed, some of the Cycladic material displayed in the Met exhibition of the Leon Levy and Shelby White collection, exhibited as “Glories of the Past”, has now been returned to Greece.[59]
Academic research has refocussed on the importance of archaeological context for our understanding and interpretation of Cycladic figures.[60] This means that the corpus has to be divided into (unequal) sections: figures that are archaeologically secure;[61] figures that have been known since the 19th century and are therefore likely to be ancient; and figures that have surfaced on the market that have the potential to be modern creations.
A Potentially Corrupted Corpus
The issue of forgeries is signally important for a collection that is not derived from secure archaeological contexts. Academic researchers have been aware of the issue for decades. For example, in 1991 Christos Doumas drew attention to the problem of Cycladic forgeries and made the bold assertion: “Entire collections were assembled, made up almost exclusively of counterfeit marble figurines, probably from artists’ ateliers in Paris or other centers in the international art market”.[62]
It is not clear which (presumably private) collections he had in mind, or if he was familiar with the identities of those creating the new figures. Certainly, there is now evidence from a confession of one of these forgers that such forgeries were entering the market and then into public and private collections.[63] Indeed we suspect that Cycladic forgeries were being created during the inter-war period, if not prior to the First World War. A label in the exhibition of the Stern collection at the Met explores “Authenticity of Cycladic art” and states:
The demand for Cycladic art … spurred the illegal traffic of artifacts and the production of forgeries. Modern restorations to create complete figures for the art market have further complicated the study of these works. There is no scientific test than can authenticate a work of art made of stone. Curators, conservators, and scientists work together to consider a combination of factors, including style, technique, material, surface treatment, and how the marble has aged and weathered.
Such a bleak view of the likely inability to demonstrate that any of the figures or stone vessels from the Stern collection are in fact ancient does not bode well for their contribution to knowledge. Should we expect to see object labels that claim, “Possibly ancient but could equally well be modern”?
Ricardo Elia, in his essay on the publication of the Goulandris collection, made the observation about forgeries:
Another assumption made by those who study private collections is that forgeries are only purchased by other collectors. Each collector, of course, is unwilling to believe that he or she has been duped by a forger, and few scholars have the courage to suggest that the collection they are studying contains forgeries. (p. 66)
Did the curatorial team at the Met consider this possibility before agreeing to display the Stern collection as authentic? Was the Met obligated to display all the objects whether or not there was concern that they were forgeries?
When a small selection of Cycladic figures and vessels from the Stern collection was placed on exhibition in the Museum of Cycladic Art in Athens in 2022, Christos Doumas is reported to have raised questions over the authenticity of about four or five of the 15 figures that formed the exhibition.[64] Only one was specifically identified in the article reporting his doubts: a Late Neolithic figure (Pl. 3; L.2022.38.49) of a type unrecognized among secure Late Neolithic marble figures.[65]
What of the other figures in the exhibition in Athens? Which of them did Doumas suspect? One was a Transitional EC I-II female figure (L.2022.38.14). This figure was reported to have been with the Athens-based dealer J. Orfanides prior to the Second World War. Getz-Gentle noted that the figure had first been acquired in 1947 and was “said to come from the same source as the harp player” now in the Met (47.100.1).[66] This harpist, considered by some to be a modern creation, was also linked to Orfanides. Are these just coincidences or should they encourage us to dig a little deeper into their origins? A possible shared dealer and an unconfirmed account of a shared findspot does not permit us to assume that both the Stern figure and the Met harpist are in fact genuine.
A double figure, also exhibited in Athens, is suspicious (Pl. 39; L.2022.38.32). The entry for the online catalogue draws attention to “the lack of any indication of a spine and the placement of the feet of the smaller figure on the forehead of the larger suggest a need for further examination and analysis.” Yet Getz-Preziosi had much earlier commented that this double figure was one of three that were known and “unquestionably genuine”.[67] The absence of archaeological context and the lack of a definitive scientific analysis places a question mark over this potentially important piece.
The online catalogue entry for a semi-completed marble figure (L.2022.38.109) suggests that the head and body appear to have been made from different marble and conclude, “it seems more likely to us that the body was made in modern times to join the head, and both patinated to appear similar.” It is suggested that a Plastiras type figure (L.2022.38.95) may have been created by a modern forger based on the name piece of the Metropolitan Museum Sculptor (45.11.18).[68]
Other figures that raise concerns include the grey marble piece, with six toes on the feet, acquired from Galerie Nefer in Zurich in 1991 (Pl. 8; L.2022.38.42). Is such an error significant? Another is “an extremely rare example of a hybrid type of figurine” (Pl. 11; L.2022.38.83), and the online catalogue entry suggests caution and notes “the object may require further analysis”. The “three pierced holes” in the ear are noted as “an element unique to all Early Cycladic figurines.”[69] The parallel provided for the piece is “a unique hybrid type of seated figure” (Pl. 9; L.2022.38.59) also in the Stern collection, a parallel that does not give much confidence over the authenticity of the other figure.
It is not clear why issues about authenticity were not addressed adequately prior to the agreement of the long-term loan in order to dispel any concerns that might have been raised once the collection went on display in Athens or New York. The online catalogue should have been the place to raise concerns about authenticity.
Attributions
Cycladic figures have been attributed to a series of anonymous “sculptors” based on the research of Pat Getz-Gentle, who served as an advisor for the formation of the Stern collection.[70] Some 18 of the figures in this collection are attributed to 13 Cycladic sculptors defined and named by Getz-Gentle.
One of the most prominent of these anonymous marble workers was an individual Getz-Gentle named the Goulandris Sculptor, with well over 80 figures attributed. One Late Spedos figure in the Stern collection is attributed to this sculptor (Pl. 53; L.2022.38.58). The Met also holds another figure attributed to the Goulandris Sculptor on loan from the Cindy and David Sofer collection and apparently (according the Met catalogue entry) associated with the Keros Haul (L.2013.1). Getz-Preziosi / Getz-Gentle has attributed 8 Dokathismata figures to the Ashmolean Sculptor, including one in the Stern collection (Pl. 57; L.2022.38.10). Three Stern figures are attributed to the Karo Sculptor (L.2022.38.7, 12, 96).
Seven figures in the Stern collection are attributed to the Kontoleon Sculptor (Pls. 35–38; L.2022.38.3, 19, 46, 61, 78, 85, 158). One of them (L.2022.38.19), once “most likely … Charles Gillet”, came from the same dealer as two other figures also attributed to the Kontoleon Sculptor: one in the Gillet collection, and the other in the Shelby White collection (also formerly in the Gillet collection).[71] Does this suggest that they were derived from a common source, whether that be archaeological context or modern workshop? Two Kapsala type figures in the Stern collection that are associated with the Kontoleon Sculptor (L.2022.38.85, 158) do not appear to be listed by Getz-Preziosi. The Met has another figure attributed to the Kontoleon Sculptor, one bequeathed by Alice K. Bache (1977.187.10a–b).[72]
Cycladic sculptors whose attributed works do not include any figures found in secure archaeological contexts have been defined by Gill and Chippindale as “inadequate sculptors”.[73] This characteristic is important as some of the “inadequate sculptors” and one “insecure sculptor” initially identified from Getz-Preziosi’s attributions have indeed turned out to be clusters of modern creations (e.g. Stafford Master). Two further sculptors in this category were created and defined by Getz-Gentle in Personal Styles: the Rodgers Sculptor (represented by three known figures) and the Karlsruhe / Woodner Sculptor (also represented by three figures). The name piece of the Rodgers Sculptor—named after Dorothy and Richard Rodgers, who owned it from 1972 to 1992—is now in the Stern collection (Pl. 52; L.2022.38.47). There are two other figures attributed to this sculptor. One in an anonymous private collection was “acquired from the same dealer [as the Stern figure], which is encrusted with similar hard deposits”.[74] The third figure, with a “possible provenance” of Koufonisia, is in the Museum of Cycladic Art.[75]
The second “inadequate sculptor” is the Karlsruhe/Woodner Sculptor, none of which has a recorded findspot. The Stern figure (Pl. 44; L.2022.38.22) and the one formerly in Karlsruhe (now repatriated to Greece) are almost identical in height (86.3 cm and 88.8 cm respectively). The third figure attributed to this sculptor is in the Museum of Cycladic Art.[76] It stands (if these figures were intended to be displayed vertically) at 1.4 m. Another figure in the Stern collection is 1.32 m in length (Pl. 48; L.2022.38.9). Hemingway notes that this is “one of only three known figures of its kind over a meter in length” (p. 17). The third tall figure is one from Amorgos now in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens (1.485 m in length).[77] Hemingway adds about the Stern figure, “This statue is one of the earliest expressions of monumental sculpture in Greece”. This could well be true if the figure is indeed of ancient creation. The online catalogue entry (co-authored by Hemingway) notes: The figure was broken at the neck and knees. It consists of three pieces that have been joined together with modern pins used to reinforce the adhesive and a fill material that makes the exact nature of the joins difficult to discern.
The gallery label for the figures adds even more startling information: “Recent examination indicates that the head and lower legs are carved from different marble and are likely modern additions.”[78] Rather than being an expression of monumental sculpture, the figure is, perhaps, entirely a modern pastiche. Why is there a lack of consistency between the label and the catalogues?
A New Approach to Dealing with Cultural Property
The last twenty years have seen a major change in the way that cultural property issues have been resolved especially with regard to US collections. Acquisitions that had been made in “good faith” have become embarrassments, attracting negative publicity and causing institutional—and sometimes personal—reputational damage. This has been driven by the seizure of major photographic and documentary archives relating to Edoardo Almagià, Gianfranco Becchina, Giacomo Medici, and Robin Symes.[79] Italy has made full use of the available evidence and its approach to dealing with suspect material has achieved the return of at least 1,200 items from North American auction houses, galleries, museums, and private collections.[80] The return of some of these repatriated objects has been celebrated in the “Nostoi” exhibitions in Rome and Athens, a title that again suggests the concept of returning to a true home.[81] Yet Athenian pottery has returned not to Greece, where it was made, but to Italy where it was placed in tombs (and presumably found).[82]
Greece, in marked contrast, has had relatively limited success in achieving the return of antiquities when compared to Italy. Repatriated objects have included Minoan larnakes, Attic funerary stelai, classical bronzes (a hydria and a krater) probably from northern Greece, and a gold funerary wreath.[83] Among the Cycladic returns have been a figure from the Badisches Landesmuseum in Karlsruhe, and various pieces from the Shelby White collection including a Late Neolithic marble group, an Early Cycladic double figure, and a marble bowl.[84] Several items were returned from the Michael Steinhardt collection, including a Cycladic spouted bowl (identified by Christos Tsirogiannis from the Medici archive), and a group from Naxos including a Spedos type figure (obtained from Eugene Alexander).[85] Yet, even some of these repatriated Cycladic objects may not be genuine. Thimme observed about the Late Neolithic group from the Shelby White collection: “Scepticism regarding singular pieces is legitimate. However, it is just such unique pieces which are continually extending the narrow limits of our knowledge which has been dependent on the accidents of preservation.”[86]
This raises questions if potential forgeries are being repatriated to Greece as if they were genuine and had indeed been looted from an unrecorded archaeological context. It is also a reminder that “unique” figures that do not have secure contexts should be subject to further examination and investigation.
The Met has not come out of these repatriation claims with its reputation intact. The recent case of the pair of Attic red-figured cups attributed to Makron have attracted considerable publicity.[87] This comes on the back of the well-reported return of the silver plate from Lydia, the Morgantina silver treasure, and the Sarpedon (Euphronios) krater, as well as the extensive list of objects seized in 2022.[88] In addition, some of the Athenian pot fragments once owned by Met curator of Greek and Roman Art Dietrich von Bothmer were shown to come from pieces that had already been returned to Italy.[89]
Thus, the long-term display of the Stern collection, supported by the Greek Government, offered the Met an opportunity to (re)present itself as a guardian of cultural property. Instead of acquiring objects, it has offered an exhibition space for a major loan. Max Hollein, the Marina Kellen French Director and CEO of the Met, presents the loan as an “historic partnership with Greece” (p. 7).[90] He notes that the collection represents “what is to date the largest single repatriation of antiquities to Greece”. Lina Mendoni, the Minister of Culture of the Hellenic Republic, emphasises that the repatriation of antiquities “is a matter of national importance and high political priority” for the Greek Government (p. 8). Of course, this aspiration relating to cultural property conceived more broadly includes the desire to display the Parthenon sculptures in line of sight with the building from which they were removed. The Met’s approach to cultural property over the Stern collection might be described as “artwashing” whereby the difficult questions relating to how the objects left Greece or even the authenticity of the items are overshadowed by the fanfare of a major exhibition in an internationally important museum, illustrated by a glossy catalogue alongside an online offering, and the whole deal endorsed by the Greek government.
Lest the Stern collection distract us, is it the time for the Met to make clear how it is conducting a rigorous due diligence process on its existing permanent collections to identify objects that may have been acquired through illicit means? The histories of objects (“provenance”) need to be posted more consistently on its website, something that may, perhaps, happen with the expanded team of provenance researchers.
A more constructive approach than this type of longterm loan that can address the international trade in illicit antiquities was articulated more than 30 years ago by what is now the Michael C. Carlos Museum at Emory University. The Emory University Museum International Loan Project scheme, devised by Maxwell Anderson (who had served as an Assistant Curator at the Met in the 1980s), encouraged the loan of archaeological material, for example from Italy, instead of purchasing such items.[91] Yet, sadly, it is an approach to displaying antiquities that few museums, including the Carlos, have wished to embrace.[92]
This catalogue claims that the exhibition of the Stern collection “marks the beginning of an exciting new era in the study of Early Cycladic sculpture” (p. 20). The proposed substantial catalogue needs to address the substantive issues raised in this review article. One hopes that the promised “scholarly symposium on Cycladic art” (p. 16) will be permitted to explore the material and intellectual consequences of displaying a collection such as this (as well as the Goulandris collection in Athens), and point to the centrality of contextualised objects for the study of the Aegean Bronze Age.[93]
Acknowledgements
I am particularly grateful to Christos Tsirogiannis who has encouraged me to explore the material culture of the Cyclades in new ways, and to Erin Thompson and Cindy Patterson for making constructive observations. Camilla MacKay and Clifford Ando offered some helpful suggestions.
Concordances
Objects from the Stern Collection Included in Cycladic Art and Homecoming, with Appearances in Art and Culture of the Cyclades (ACC) and Early Cycladic Art in North American Collections (NAC)
Figures
| Loan number | Stern no. | Cycladic Art | Homecoming | ACC | NAC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L.2022.38.1 | 29 | Pl. 43 | |||
| L.2022.38.3 | 82 | Pl. 37 | |||
| L.2022.38.9 | 105 | Pl. 48 | |||
| L.2022.38.10 | 111 | Pl. 57 | |||
| L.2022.38.14 | 121 | No. 7 | |||
| L.2022.38.16 | 125 | Pl. 60 | |||
| L.2022.38.21 | 136 | Pl. 4 | |||
| L.2022.38.22 | 138 | Pl. 44 | No. 11 | No. 39 | |
| L.2022.38.23 | 139 | Pl. 45 | No. 40 | ||
| L.2022.38.24 | 140 | Pl. 58 | |||
| L.2022.38.29 | 146 | Pl. 55 | No. 60 | ||
| L.2022.38.32 | 149 | Pl. 39 | No. 10 | p. 43, fig. 24 | |
| L.2022.38.34 | 151 | Pl. 50 | No. 50 | ||
| L.2022.38.39 | 156 | Pl. 5 | |||
| L.2022.38.40 | 157 | Pl. 47 | No. 41 | ||
| L.2022.38.42 | 159 | Pl. 8 | No. 3 | ||
| L.2022.38.44 | 163 | Pl. 42 | No. 12 | ||
| L.2022.38.46 | 165 | Pl. 35 | |||
| L.2022.38.47 | 166 | Pl. 52 | No. 13 | ||
| L.2022.38.48 | 167 | Pl. 7 | |||
| L.2022.38.49 | 168 | Pl. 3 | No. 1 |
Stone vessels
| Loan number | Stern no. | Cycladic Art | Homecoming | ACC | NAC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L.2022.38.25 | 142 | Pl. 18 | |||
| L.2022.38.26 | 143 | Pl. 19 | No. 4 | No. 281 | |
| L.2022.38.33 | 150 | Pl. 20 | No. 112 | ||
| L.2022.38.36 | 153 | Pl. 27 | |||
| L.2022.38.65 | 189 | Pl. 74 | No. 143 | ||
| L.2022.38.66 | 190 | Pl. 17 | No. 107 | ||
| L.2022.38.72 | 196 | Pl. 28 | |||
| L.2022.38.73 | 197 | Pl. 23 | |||
| L.2022.38.76 | 201 | Pl. 71 | |||
| L.2022.38.77 | 203 | Pl. 33 | |||
| L.2022.38.79 | 205 | Pl. 21 | |||
| L.2022.38.80 | 206 | Pl. 15 | |||
| L.2022.38.81 | 208 | Pl. 22 | |||
| L.2022.38.86 | 213 | Pl. 70 | |||
| L.2022.38.89 | 216 | Pl. 31 | |||
| L.2022.38.90 | 217 | Pl. 32 | |||
| L.2022.38.91 | 220 | Pl. 29 | |||
| L.2022.38.92 | 221 | Pl. 16 | |||
| L.2022.38.94 | 223 | Pl. 24 | |||
| L.2022.38.98 | 228 | Pl. 69 | |||
| L.2022.38.101a, b | 281 | Pl. 75 | No. 8 | ||
| L.2022.38.102 | 286 | Pl. 30 | No. 105 | ||
| L.2022.38.110 | 227 | Pl. 26 | |||
| L.2022.38.112 | 230 | Pl. 68 | |||
| L.2022.38.117 | 236 | Pl. 77 | |||
| L.2022.38.118 | 237 | Pl. 66 | |||
| L.2022.38.127 | 247 | Pl. 14 | |||
| L.2022.38.129 | 249 | Pl. 72 | |||
| L.2022.38.132 | 253 | Pl. 25 | No. 5 | No. 264 | Fig. 39 |
| L.2022.38.137 | 258 | Pl. 65 | No. 15 | No. 323 | |
| L.2022.38.138 | 259 | Pl. 76 | |||
| L.2022.38.140 | 261 | Pl. 73 | No. 315 | ||
| L.2022.38.149a, b | 270 | Pl. 67 |
Terracotta and metal
| Loan number | Stern no. | Cycladic Art | Homecoming | ACC | NAC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L.2022.38.31a, b | 148 | Pl. 79 | |||
| L.2022.38.100 | 251 | Pl. 80 | |||
| L.2022.38.160 | 274 | Pl. 78 | No. 9 |
Abbreviations
Doumas, Silent Witnesses = Christos G. Doumas, Silent Witnesses: Early Cycladic Art of the Third Millennium BC (2002)
Fappas, Homecoming = Ioannis D. Fappas, Homecoming: Cycladic Treasures on Their Return Journey (2022)
Getz-Gentle, AAC = Pat Getz-Gentle, Ancient Art of the Cyclades (2006)
Getz-Gentle, Personal Styles = Pat Getz-Gentle, Personal Styles in Early Cycladic Sculpture (2001)
Getz-Gentle, SVC = Pat Getz-Gentle, Stone Vessels of the Cyclades in the Early Bronze Age (1996)
Getz-Preziosi, ECS = Pat Getz-Preziosi, Early Cycladic Sculpture: An Introduction (1985)
Getz-Preziosi, ECS rev. = Pat Getz-Preziosi, Early Cycladic Sculpture: An Introduction, Revised Edition (1994).
Getz-Preziosi, NAC = Pat Getz-Preziosi, Early Cycladic Art in North American Collections (1987)
Getz-Preziosi, Sculptors = Pat Getz-Preziosi, Sculptors of the Cyclades: Individual and Tradition in the Third Millennium BC (1987)
Karlsruhe 2011 = Kykladen: Lebenswelten einer frühgriechischen Kultur (2011)
Thimme, ACC = Jürgen Thimme, (ed.) Art and Culture of the Cyclades: Handbook of an Ancient Civilisation (1977)
Notes
[1] The Met contacted BMCR prior to the publication of this review stating that the volume under consideration here should not considered to be final.
[2] Sakis Ioannidis, “Debate: Cycladic Idol Deal Signals New Chapter in Heritage Management,” ekathimerini.com 13 September 2022; Colin Moynihan, “Leonard Stern’s Cycladic Art Will Be Shown at the Met but Owned by Greece,” New York Times October 11, 2022.
[3] Ioannis D. Fappas, Homecoming: Cycladic Treasures on Their Return Journey (2022) [hereafter Fappas, Homecoming]. The catalogue entries include a discussion as well as bibliographical information.
[4] See John H. Merryman, “A Licit International Trade in Cultural Objects,” in K. Fitz Gibbon (ed.), Who Owns the Past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law (2005): 269–89.
[5] The collection is sometimes known (for example in publications by Pat Getz-Preziosi / Getz-Gentle and Peggy Sotirakopoulou) as the Harmon collection or Harmon Fine Arts.
[6] Edward H. Merrin, Masterpieces of Cycladic Art from Private Collections, Museums and the Merrin Gallery (1989).
[7] Jürgen Thimme, (ed.) Art and Culture of the Cyclades: Handbook of an Ancient Civilisation (1977) [hereafter Thimme, ACC]. See also Pat Getz-Preziosi, “Addenda to the Cycladic Exhibition in Karlsruhe,” Archäologischer Anzeiger (1978): 1–11.
[8] In Thimme, ACC, 11.
[9] Lila I. Marangou, The Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation: From the Private Collection to the Museum of Cycladic Art (1991): 12–16.
[10] Christos G. Doumas, Cycladic Art: Ancient Sculpture and Pottery from the N.P. Goulandris Collection (1983).
[11] Pat Getz-Preziosi, Early Cycladic Art in North American Collections (1987) [hereafter Getz-Preziosi, NAC]. See also Pat Getz-Preziosi, “Early Cycladic Marble Art,” Archaeology 40 (1987): 64–67. The exhibition travelled to the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth and the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco.
[12] Christos G. Doumas, Silent Witnesses: Early Cycladic Art of the Third Millennium BC (2002) [hereafter Doumas, Silent Witnesses]; Pat Getz-Gentle, Ancient Art of the Cyclades (2006) [hereafter Getz-Gentle, AAC].
[13] Kykladen: Lebenswelten einer frühgriechischen Kultur (2011) [hereafter Karlsruhe 2011]; Aysen Anadol (ed.), Across. The Cyclades and Western Anatolia during the 3rd Millenium BC (2011); Vincent Blanchard, Ludovic Laugier, and Aurélien Pierre, Idoles, L’art de l’Anatolie et des Cyclades à l’Âge du bronze (2021).
[14] Lila I. Marangou (ed.), Cycladic Culture: Naxos in the 3rd Millennium BC (1990).
[15] The archaeological parts of the corpus are discussed in Marisa Marthari, Colin Renfrew, and Michael J. Boyd (eds.), Early Cycladic Sculpture in Context (2017); Marisa Marthari, Colin Renfrew, and Michael J. Boyd (eds.), Beyond the Cyclades: Early Cycladic Sculpture in Context from Mainland Greece, the North, and East Aegean (2019).
[16] See for example, “The Met Appoints Head of Provenance Research”, March 22, 2024.
[17] See Fappas, Homecoming, 50: “it has long been a well-known practice for looters to declare false provenance for their ‘booty’ in order to obtain higher prices in the antiquities market, taking advantage of the reputation of certain archaeological sites.”
[18] For an example of how to present such museological information: David W. J. Gill, “Recent Acquisitions by the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, 1971-1989,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 110 (1990): 290-94. But even this format fails to note all previous histories. For example, the Etruscan gold earring (GR.2.1973: no. 3, pl. VIIe) was derived from Robin Symes: David W. J. Gill, Donors and Former Owners of Greek and Roman Antiquities in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (1992), 140.
[19] David W. J. Gill, “Thinking About Collecting Histories: A Response to Marlowe,” International Journal of Cultural Property 23 (2016): 237-44. This forms a response to Elizabeth Marlowe, “What We Talk About When We Talk About Provenance: A Response to Chippindale and Gill,” International Journal of Cultural Property 23 (2016): 217-36.
[20] Examples include the sale of a Roman herm on the London market, and the acquisition of the portrait of Drusus Minor by the Cleveland Museum of Art: David W. J. Gill, Artwashing the Past: Context Matters (2024): 81–85, 148–55.
[21] Christopher Chippindale and David W. J. Gill, “Material Consequences of Contemporary Classical Collecting,” American Journal of Archaeology 104 (2000): 463-511.
[22] For a case study on Etruscan antiquities using this benchmark date: Laetitia La Follette, “The Impact of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on Unprovenanced Etruscan Antiquities in the United States,” in A. Carpino, T. D’Angelo, M. Muratov, and D. Saunders (eds.), Collecting and Collectors from Antiquity to Modernity, Selected Papers on Art and Architecture, vol. 4 (2018): 75–92.
[23] Patty Gerstenblith, “The Meaning of 1970 for the Acquisition of Archaeological Objects,” Journal of Field Archaeology 38 (2013): 364–73.
[24] See David W. J. Gill and Christopher Chippindale, “From Malibu to Rome: Further Developments on the Return of Antiquities,” International Journal of Cultural Property 14 (2007): 205-40; David W. J. Gill, “Returning Archaeological Objects to Italy,” International Journal of Cultural Property 25 (2018): 283–321; Gill, Artwashing the Past, 188–95.
[25] For a thoughtful response: Elizabeth Marlowe, Shaky Ground: Context, Connoisseurship and the History of Roman Art (2013). See also Maxwell L. Anderson, Antiquities: What Everyone Needs to Know (2017).
[26] J. Michael Padgett (ed.), The Berlin Painter and his World: Athenian Vase-painting in the Early Fifth Century B.C. (2017); reviewed in BMCR 2018.03.08. For issues over repatriation of works attributed to this painter: David W. J. Gill, “Fragmented Athenian Pots and the Berlin Painter: Recent Breaks?” Academia Letters (2020): 1–5. The parallel between the Berlin painter and the attribution of Early Cycladic figures was made by David W. J. Gill and Christopher Chippindale, “Material and Intellectual Consequences of Esteem for Cycladic Figures,” American Journal of Archaeology 97 (1993): 640.
[27] Thimme, ACC; Getz-Preziosi, NAC.
[28] Getz-Gentle, AAC 59, no. 83. This is reported to have been in the Norman R. Colville collection, said to have been acquired in the 1950s or 1960s. For the Steinhardt collection: Tom Mashberg, “Michael Steinhardt, Billionaire, Surrenders $70 Million in Stolen Relics,” New York Times December 7, 2021. For the items seized from Steinhardt, including Cycladic material: Matthew Bogdanos, A Grand Jury Investigation into a Private New York Collector: Exhibits 1–92 (2021); Matthew Bogdanos and A. Iyer, “Statement of Facts in the Matter of a Grand Jury Investigation into a Private New York Antiquities Collector” (2021)
[29] See e.g. David W. J. Gill, “Returning Archaeological Objects to Italy,” International Journal of Cultural Property 25 (2018): 283–321.
[30] Christos Tsirogiannis, Unravelling the hidden market of illicit antiquities: The Robin Symes – Christos Michaelides network and its international implications. PhD Dissertation, Cambridge University (2013). See also Christos Tsirogiannis, “Attitudes in Transit: Symes Material from Market to Source,” Journal of Art Crime 15 (2016): 79-86.
[31] Peter Watson and Cecilia Todeschini, The Medici Conspiracy: The Illicit Journey of Looted Antiquities from Italy’s Tomb Raiders to the World’s Great Museums (2006), 254.
[32] Some of these pieces are said to come from (anonymous) private collections. For concerns about the use of such designations to mask the true origins: David W. J. Gill, Artwashing the Past: Context Matters (2024), 17–20.
[33] Boston Museum of Fine Arts inv. 1972.868–869: Getz-Preziosi, NAC, nos. 9–10.
[34] London British Museum inv. 1969.10-1.1–5: J. Lesley Fitton, Cycladic Art (1989), 56, fig, 72. For another Symes Early Spedos figure in the British Museum: inv. 1971.05-21.1: Fitton, Cycladic Art, 45, figs. 49–50.
[35] Getty Villa inv. 85.AA.103: Getz-Preziosi, NAC, no. 92; Getz-Preziosi, ECS Rev., 11, pl. IV, b; Doumas, Silent Witnesses, 76, no. 22.
[36] Richmond VMFA inv. 83.73: Getz-Preziosi, NAC, 206–07, no. 57; Doumas, Silent Witnesses, 86, no. 32. Getty Villa inv. 88.AE.48: Doumas, Silent Witnesses, 84, no. 30.
[37] Gill, Artwashing the Past, 47–50; id, “Context Matters: Pottery Fragments and Frieda Tchacos,” Journal of Art Crime 33 (2025): 65–70.
[38] Katie Demakopoulou (ed.), The Aidonia Treasure: Seals and Jewellery of the Aegean Late Bronze Age (1996); Katie Demakopoulou and Nicoletta Divari-Valakou, The Aidonia Treasure (1997).
[39] Michael C. Carlos Museum inv. 2003.005.001: David W. J. Gill, “The Michael C. Carlos Museum Returns Antiquities,” Journal of Art Crime 31 (2024): 5. For the identification: Ioannes Andritsopoulos, “Οι σκοτεινές διαδρομές αρχαίων θησαυρών,” Τα Νέα, November 11, 2023.
[40] Gill, Artwashing the Past, 35.
[41] Nigel Reynolds, “The Icklingham Bronzes,” Minerva 1 (1990): 10-11; John Browning, “A Layman’s Attempts to Precipitate Change in Domestic and International ‘Heritage’ Laws,” in Kathryn W. Tubb (ed.), Antiquities Trade or Betrayed: Legal, Ethical and Conservation Issues (1995), 145-49.
[42] Thimme, ACC, 43, fig. 24.
[43] While it is unusual for Cycladic objects in collections outside Greece to have recorded findspots it is not unknown: e.g. the marble head from a figure excavated by Robert Carr Bosanquet at Phylakopi on Melos and now in the Cambridge University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (inv. D 1984.30: Thimme, ACC no. 119), or the marble bowl and footed cup excavated at Chalandriani on Syros now in the Fitzwilliam Museum (inv. GR.7a–b.1923: Pat Getz-Gentle, Stone Vessels of the Cyclades in the Early Bronze Age (1996), nos. G14 and L9). These items were all presented by the Greek Government.
[44] Getz-Gentle, SVC.
[45] Pat Getz-Preziosi, “Cycladic Antiquities,” in Emma Swan Hall (ed.), Antiquities from the Collection of Christos G. Bastis (1987), 121, under no. 50. Pat Getz-Gentle (Personal Styles in Early Cycladic Sculpture [2001], 163, no. 26) notes the findspot as “Paros” and adds “but very likely incorrect”.
[46] Peggy Sotirakopoulou, The “Keros Hoard”: Myth or Reality? Searching for the Lost Pieces of a Puzzle (2005). Review: David W. J. Gill, American Journal of Archaeology 111 (2007): 163-65. See also Peggy Sotirakopoulou, “The Keros Hoard: Some Further Discussion,” American Journal of Archaeology 112 (2008): 279-94; Colin Renfrew, “The Keros Hoard: Remaining Questions,” American Journal of Archaeology 112 (2008): 295-98; Pat Getz-Gentle, “The Keros Hoard Revisited,” American Journal of Archaeology 112 (2008): 299-305.
[47] Norman Hammond, “Antiquities at Sotheby’s are Looted, Says Professor,” The Times (London) June 30, 1990: 2; Suzanne Cassidy, “Cycladic Art May Be Sold, British High Court Rules,” New York Times July 7, 1990: 14. It is surprising that Keros fragments derived from this same disputed sale at Sotheby’s were not included among the repatriations to Greece from the Michael C. Carlos Museum at Emory University: David W. J. Gill, “The Michael C. Carlos Museum Returns Antiquities,” Journal of Art Crime 31 (2024): 6. This suggests that either the Greek Government no longer has an interest in pursuing material associated with Keros or that it was unaware of the association with the Carlos Museum.
[48] Eugenia Migdou, “Συλλογή Στερν και Αρχαιοκαπηλία,” Athens Voice September 30, 2022; Nikolas Zirganos, “Προέλευση: αρχαιοκαπηλία.” Solomon December 17, 2022. The article also reveals a second Cycladic figure, attributed to the Copenhagen sculptor and currently in the Shelby White collection, that can be identified from the Becchina archive and the Horiuchi documentation: Pat Getz-Preziosi, “Risk and Repair in Early Cycladic Sculpture,” Metropolitan Museum Journal 16 (1981): 22, figs. 54–55 (“London, N. Horiuchi Collection”); Safani Gallery, The Art of the Cyclades: An Exhibition of Sculpture and Artifacts of the Early Cycladic Period (1983), no. 5; Pat Getz-Preziosi, Sculptors of the Cyclades: Individual and Tradition in the Third Millennium BC (1987), 157, no. 1, pls. 25–26 (“Private collection”) [hereafter Getz-Preziosi, Sculptors]; Pat Getz-Preziosi, Early Cycladic Sculpture: An Introduction (1985), 68, fig. 55 (“New York, private collection”) [hereafter Getz-Preziosi, ECS]; Getz-Preziosi, NAC, 175, no. 37; Dietrich von Bothmer (ed.), Glories of the Past: Ancient Art from the Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection (1990), no. 12; Pat Getz-Gentle, Early Cycladic Sculpture: An Introduction, Revised Edition (1994), 62, fig. 55; Getz-Gentle, Personal Styles, 157, no. 1, pl. 63c, fig. 17d.
[49] These are discussed in David W. J. Gill, “Context Matters: Roman Fresco Fragments at the J. Paul Getty Museum,” Journal of Art Crime 32 (2024): 71–77. For the rejection of Tsirogiannis’ identification by Lina Mendoni, the Minister of Culture: Eleni Stamatoukou, Delaware, the Met, and a ‘Homecoming’ of Sorts for 161 Greek Antiquities, Balkan Insight (April 11, 2023). On Tsirogiannis: Eleni Stamatoukou, ‘My Reward is Recognition’: Greek Archaeologist on the Hunt for Stolen Antiquities, Balkan Insight (November 5, 2024).
[50] E.g. Law No. 3028/2002, On the Protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage in General, Part 3, Collectors and Antique Dealers, Article 31, Collectors of Monuments, 6: “Collectors shall be prohibited from acquiring cultural objects suspected of deriving from theft, illegal excavation or other illegal act, or which have been acquired or exported in violation of the legislation of the country of origin …” [Authorised English translation].
[51] Pat Getz-Preziosi and S. S. Weinberg, “Evidence for Painted Details in Early Cycladic Sculpture,” Antike Kunst 13 (1970): 4-16; Elizabeth A. Hendrix, “Painted Ladies of the Early Bronze Age,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 55 (1997–1998): 4–15; Gail L. Hoffman, “Painted Ladies: Early Cycladic II Mourning Figures?” American Journal of Archaeology 106 (2002): 525-50; Elizabeth A. Hendrix, “Painted Early Cycladic Figures: An Exploration of Context and Meaning,” Hesperia 72 (2003): 405-46; Elizabeth A. Hendrix, “The Painted Details on Early Cycladic Marble Figures in the Leonard N. Stern Collection” (May 28, 2024). See also Kiki Birtacha, “Examining the Paint on Cycladic Figurines,” in Marisa Marthari, Colin Renfrew, and Michael J. Boyd (eds.), Early Cycladic Sculpture in Context (2017), 491–502.
[52] See Fappas, Homecoming, 128, under no. 12.
[53] Naxos, Archaeological Museum inv. 4675: Getz-Preziosi, Sculptors, 159, no. 10; Getz-Gentle, Personal Styles, 162, no. 10; Lila I. Marangou (ed.), Cycladic Culture: Naxos in the 3rd Millennium BC (1990), 150–51, no. 154; Hendrix, “Painted Early Cycladic figures”: 422, fig. 8.
[54] This statistic will be discussed in an article in preparation by Christos Tsirogiannis, David W. J. Gill and Christopher Chippindale, “A Corrupt Cycladic Corpus of Marble Figures,” Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies. We do not include items from the Keros Haul in our corpus of archaeologically secure findspots. Peggy Sotirakopoulou (The “Keros Hoard”: Myth or Reality? Searching for the Lost Pieces of a Puzzle (2005), 63) has claimed that 41.5 per cent of the corpus has “an attested provenance and certified discovery conditions”. The figure of 41.5 per cent is repeated in Fappas, Homecoming, 50 n. 1. For the Special Deposit South: Colin Renfrew, “The Sculptures from the Special Deposit South: The Finds,” in The Marble Finds from Kavos and the Archaeology of Ritual (The Sanctuary on Keros and the Origins of Aegean Ritual Practice: The Excavations of 2006–2008, vol. III), edited by Colin Renfrew, Olga Philaniotou, Neil Brodie, Giorgos Gavalas, and Michael J. Boyd (2018), 19, Table 2.1. For Special Deposit North: Colin Renfrew, “The Figurine Fragments Recovered from the Special Deposit North at Kavos in 1987,” in Early Cycladic Sculpture in Context, edited by Marisa Marthari, Colin Renfrew, and Michael Boyd (2017), 369–72.
[55] Ricardo J. Elia, “A Seductive and Troubling Work,” Archaeology 46 (1993): 66–69; reprinted in Karen D. Vitelli (ed.), Archaeological Ethics (1996), 54-62.
[56] Dolly Goulandris (“Preface”, in Doumas, Cycladic Art [1983]: 7) states, “The majority were bought here” (sc. Greece). Doumas suggested that the formation of the Goulandris collection helped to prevent the “dispersal” of figures outside Greece (“The Discovery of Early Cycladic Civilization,” in Colin Renfrew, The Cycladic Spirit: Masterpieces from the Nicholas P. Goulandris Collection [1991], 28 [hereafter Renfrew, Cycladic Spirit]).
[57] For the terminology relating to “ungrounded” material: Elizabeth Marlowe, Shaky Ground: Context, Connoisseurship and the History of Roman Art (2013).
[58] I use these specific collections because they formed part of a study of private collections: Christopher Chippindale and David W. J. Gill, “Material Consequences of Contemporary Classical Collecting,” American Journal of Archaeology 104 (2000), 463-511. Items from these collections have been repatriated to Greece, Italy and Türkiye since 2000.
[59] Dietrich von Bothmer (ed.), Glories of the Past: Ancient Art from the Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection (1990). The returns are discussed in Gill, Artwashing the Past, 188–95. For earlier discussion of this collection: Christopher Chippindale, and David W. J. Gill, “Material Consequences of Contemporary Classical Collecting,” American Journal of Archaeology 104 (2000): 463-511.
[60] Marisa Marthari, Colin Renfrew, and Michael J. Boyd (eds.), Early Cycladic Sculpture in Context (2017); Marisa Marthari, Colin Renfrew, and Michael J. Boyd (eds.), Beyond the Cyclades: Early Cycladic Sculpture in Context from Mainland Greece, the North, and East Aegean (2019).
[61] For an archaeological approach to the study of the figures: Colin Renfrew, “The Development and Chronology of the Early Cycladic Figurines,” American Journal of Archaeology 73 (1969): 1-32.
[62] Christos Doumas, “The Discovery of Early Cycladic Civilization”, in Renfrew, Cycladic Spirit, 28.
[63] Christos Tsirogiannis, David W. J. Gill, and Christopher Chippindale, “The Forger’s Tale: An Insider’s Account of Corrupting the Corpus of Cycladic Figures,” International Journal of Cultural Property 29 (2022): 369–85.
[64] Ioanna Kleftogianni, “«Βόμβα» Χρίστου Ντούμα στην Popaganda: «Τουλάχιστον 4-5 ειδώλια από τη Συλλογή Στερν που εκτίθεται στην Αθήνα είναι πιθανότατα κίβδηλα»” popaganda.gr December 18, 2022.
[65] Getz-Gentle, Personal Styles, 6; Fappas, Homecoming, 58, no. 1.
[66] Source of the Stern figure: Getz-Gentle, Personal Styles, 174, under pl. 20. Getz-Gentle’s account is mentioned in the online catalogue (“Pat Getz-Gentle in her publication mentions this was said to be found with the MET Museum Harp player”) but appears to differ from that provided by the online catalogue entry for its “provenance”: “[Reportedly, prior to the World War II, with Mr. Orfanides, Athens]; [reportedly, Swiss private collection]; [until 1989, with Robin Symes, London]”. Metropolitan Museum of Art, Greek Art of the Aegean Islands: An Exhibition Sponsored by the Government of the Republic of Greece Complemented by a Loan from the Musée du Louvre at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, November 1, 1979–February 10, 1980 (1979), 48, no. 4. Other material derived from or associated with Orfanides includes six Cycladic figures, both marble and shell, and said to be from Paros, that were acquired by the Fitzwilliam Museum in 1933 (inv. GR.8a–f.1933: Thimme, ACC, nos. 88–930), and two Cycladic marble palettes in the British Museum (inv. 1933,1016.1–2).
[67] Getz-Preziosi, ECS, 15, pl. iii; Getz-Preziosi, ECS Rev. 9, pl. iii.
[68] Getz-Gentle, Personal Styles, 17, fig. 9, 152, no. 2.
[69] Fappas, Homecoming, 88, no. 6.
[70] Getz-Preziosi, Sculptors; Getz-Gentle, Personal Styles.
[71] Getz-Preziosi, NAC, nos. 23 and 24.
[72] See Pat Getz-Preziosi, “Risk and Repair in Early Cycladic Sculpture,” Metropolitan Museum Journal 16 (1981): 7, fig. 2, 17, figs. 39–42, 29, no. 16; Getz-Preziosi, Sculptors, pls. 21–22; Getz-Gentle, Personal Styles, 153, no. 5.
[73] David W. J. Gill and Christopher Chippindale, “Material and Intellectual Consequences of Esteem for Cycladic Figures,” American Journal of Archaeology 97 (1993): 601-59. The topic is explored in David W. J. Gill, review of Getz-Gentle, Personal Styles, in BMCR (2002).
[74] Getz-Gentle, Personal Styles, 159, nos. 1 and 2. It should be noted that the Met online catalogue for the Stern figure suggests that it was published in Getz-Preziosi, NAC, no. 52, whereas that figure is the one in the private collection.
[75] Athens Museum of Cycladic Art inv. 282: Christos G. Doumas, Early Cycladic Culture: The N.P. Goulandris Collection (2000), no. 223; Renfrew, Cycladic Spirit, pl. 57; Nicholas Stampolidis and Peggy Sotirakopoulou, Aegean Waves: Artworks of the Early Cycladic Culture in the Museum of Cycladic Art at Athens (2007), 118–19, no. 24.
[76] Athens Museum of Cycladic Art inv. 724: Doumas, Early Cycladic Culture: The N.P. Goulandris Collection, 154–55, no. 222; Stampolidis and Sotirakopoulou, Aegean Waves, 120–21, no. 25.
[77] Athens NAM inv. 3978: Metropolitan Museum of Art, Greek Art of the Aegean Islands, 54–55, no. 11; Renfrew, Cycladic Spirit, 157, pl. 104. This figure is noted in the caption to the one in the Stern collection: Getz-Preziosi, ECS Rev., 19, fig. 4.
[78] I am grateful to Erin Thompson for drawing my attention to the label. The online catalogue entry states: “It seems probable that the head and legs are modern additions that were made to complete the body.”
[79] For Medici: Peter Watson and Cecilia Todeschini, The Medici Conspiracy: The Illicit Journey of Looted Antiquities from Italy’s Tomb Raiders to the World’s Great Museums (2006). For Becchina: David W. J. Gill, “Context Matters: Roman Fresco Fragments at the J. Paul Getty Museum”, Journal of Art Crime 32 (2024): 71–77. For Symes: Christos Tsirogiannis, “Attitudes in Transit: Symes Material from Market to Source”, Journal of Art Crime 15 (2016): 79-86. For Almagià: David W. J. Gill, “Learning and Knowledge Loss: Returning Antiquities from Fordham University to Italy,” International Journal of Cultural Property 31 (2024): 28–61.
[80] David W. J. Gill, “Returning Archaeological Objects to Italy,” International Journal of Cultural Property 25 (2018): 283–321. For the value of these returns: Dolly Setton, “Meet the Man Causing Cracks in the Antiquities Trade,” The Economist May 23, 2024.
[81] Louis Godart, and Stefano De Caro (eds.) Nostoi: Capolavori ritrovati. Roma, Palazzo del Quirinale, Galleria di Alessandro VII, 21 dicembre 2007 – 2 marzo 2008 (2007); Louis Godart, Stefano De Caro, and Maria Gavrili. (eds.), Nostoi: Repatriated Masterpieces (2008); Lisa Della Volpe, L’Arma per l’Arte: Antologia di meraviglie (2009). See also Stefano De Caro, “Restitutions 17 Years after Nostoi: A Personal Reflection,” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 69 (2024): 595–617.
[82] It is perhaps ironic that an Athenian black-figured amphora in the Museum of Cycladic Art, and attributed by J. Robert Guy to the Swing painter, has been identified by Christos Tsirogiannis from the Medici and Symes archives. See Peter Watson and Cecilia Todeschini, The Medici Conspiracy: The Illicit Journey of Looted Antiquities from Italy’s Tomb Raiders to the World’s Greatest Museums (rev. ed. 2007), 323; David W. J. Gill, review of Kleopatra Kathariou, Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, Greece 11, Athens 1: Museum of Cycladic Art (2009), in American Journal of Archaeology 115 (2011).
[83] David W. J. Gill, “The Return of Looted Objects to their Countries of Origin: The Case for Change,” in Saskia Hufnagel and Duncan Chappell (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook on Art Crime (2019), 797–813. See also David W. J. Gill, “The Market for Ancient Art,” in Gabriel Moshenska (ed.), Key Concepts in Public Archaeology (2017), 187–200. In February 2025 the Met return a bronze griffin, found at Olympia, to Greece; it had been acquired in 1972: Carlos A. Picón, Joan R. Mertens, Elizabeth J. Milleker, Christopher S. Lightfoot, and Seán Hemingway, Art of the Classical World in the Metropolitan Museum of Art: Greece, Cyprus, Etruria, Rome (2007), 53, 415-16, no. 36.
[84] For the Karlsruhe figure: inv. BL 1975/49: Thimme, ACC, no. 151; Getz-Preziosi, ECS, 71, figs. 58–59; Getz-Preziosi, ECS Rev., 65, figs. 58–59; Karlsruhe 2011, 263, no. 45. For the Shelby White collection: Gill, Artwashing the Past, 188–95. For the Cycladic returns: Bothmer (ed.), Glories of the Past, nos. 8, 9, 15; see also Joan R. Mertens, “Some Long Thoughts on Early Cycladic Sculpture,” Metropolitan Museum Journal 33 (1998): 8, fig. 3, 12, fig. 10.
[85] Matthew Bogdanos, A Grand Jury Investigation into a Private New York Collector: Exhibits 1–92 (2021): 28, 78–81. The Naxos group consisted of a Spedos type figure, a kandila, two plates, and a cup.
[86] Thimme, ACC: 579.
[87] Graham Bowley and Tom Mashberg, “The Kylix Marvel: Why Experts Distrust the Story of an Ancient Cup’s Rebirth,” New York Times April 19, 2023; Graham Bowley and Tom Mashberg, “These Twin Marvels of Art Conservation Are Now Seen as Looted Works,” New York Times October 15, 2024. For the details of the two cups: David W. J. Gill and Christos Tsirogiannis, “Piecing Together the Story of a Pair of Makron’s Fragmented Cups,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 42 (2023): 345–68. See also Christos Tsirogiannis, “Illicit Antiquities in American Museums: Diversity in Ethical Standards,” in Saskia Hufnagel and Duncan Chappell (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Art Crime (2019), 815–38.
[88] The Lydian Treasure and the Morgantina Treasure both feature in: Dietrich von Bothmer, A Greek and Roman Treasury (1984). See also Ilknur Özgen and Jean Öztürk, The Lydian Treasure: Heritage Recovered. (1996); David W. J. Gill, “The Material and Intellectual Consequences of Acquiring the Sarpedon Krater,” in P. K. Lazrus and A. W. Barker (eds.), All the King’s Horses: Essays on the Impact of Looting and the Illicit Antiquities Trade on our Knowledge of the Past, (2012): 25-42. For some of the seizure in 2022: Elisabetta Povoledo, “$20 Million Worth of Looted Art Returns to Italy From the U.S.”, New York Times January 23, 2023; Gill, Artwashing the Past, 2–3.
[89] David W. J. Gill and Christos Tsirogiannis, “Fragmented Pots and Dietrich von Bothmer,” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 69 (2024): 535–94. See also Christos Tsirogiannis and David W. J. Gill, “’A Fracture in Time’: A Cup Attributed to the Euaion Painter from the Bothmer Collection,” International Journal of Cultural Property 21 (2014): 465-80.
[90] Also in Fappas, Homecoming, 18.
[91] Maxwell L. Anderson and Leila Nista Roman Portraits in Context: Imperial and Private Likenesses from the Museo Nazionale Romano (1988); Maxwell L. Anderson and Leila Nista (eds.), Radiance in Stone: Sculptures in Colored Marble from the Museo Nazionale Romano (1989); Bonna D. Wescoat and Maxwell L. Anderson, Syracuse, the Fairest Greek City: Ancient Art from the Museo archeologico regionale ‘Paolo Orsi’ (1989). For an earlier discussion of EUMILOP: Kevin Butcher and David W. J. Gill, “Mischievous Pastime or Historical Science?” Antiquity 64 (1990): 946-50. For the change of direction for the museum: David W. J. Gill, “The Michael C. Carlos Museum Returns Antiquities,” Journal of Art Crime 31 (2024): 3–9.
[92] The forthcoming Pylos exhibition at the J. Paul Getty Museum will prove to be an example of an exhibition derived from material derived from archaeological excavations: Sharon R. Stocker, Claire L. Lyons, Jack L. Davis, and Evangelia Militsi-Kechagia (eds.), The Kingdom of Pylos: Warrior-Princes of Mycenaean Greece (2025).
[93] Seán Hemingway, “Art of the Aegean Bronze Age,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 69 (2012). For balance in such symposia: Gill, Artwashing the Past, 238–41.