[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]
This is the third in the series of catalogues illustrating the Leonard N. Stern collection of Cycladica that is on long-term loan from the Hellenic Republic to New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art (Met).[1] This volume, that shares the same title as the more concise illustrated book that was published in 2024 (and reviewed in BMCR 2025.07.02), presents the catalogue of 161 Cycladicising objects supported by a series of essays. Some of the introductory essays appear to be identical to those in the 2024 volume: the forewords by Max Hollein (p. 7), Lina Mendoni (p. 8) and Kassandra Marinopoulou (p. 9); and Leonard N. Stern (p. 11).
The catalogue opens (opposite the Foreword by Max Hollein, the Marina Kellen French Director of CEO of the Met; pp. 7–8) with an image of a 1.31 m long female figure (85) flanked by two Attic Geometric kraters and standing vertically at the gateway to the Greek and Roman galleries.[2] (The same figure also faces the short statement by Leonard N. Stern; pp. 10–11). This figure thus urges the visitor and the user of the catalogue to engage with “ancient art” displayed in the galleries of the museum. Seán Hemingway, the John A. and Carole O. Moran Curator in charge of the Department of Greek and Roman Art, explains the significance of this figure: “the earliest expression of monumental sculpture in Greece” (pp. 27–28). Yet the figure, “reportedly from Amorgos”, raises three fundamental questions that need to be asked more broadly of the Stern collection. First, who reported that the figure came from Amorgos, an association first asserted when it formed part of an anonymous Belgian private collection?[3] Can the information be deemed as reliable or should it be considered no more than “hearsay” (p. 40 [Giorgos Gavalas])? Second, should the figure be considered as authentic? It has been observed that “the head and legs were not made from the same piece of marble as the body” (p. 160, under no. 85). Indeed, “it seems probable that the head and legs are modern additions that were made to complete the original body”. The gallery label states: “Recent examination indicates that the head and lower legs are carved from different marble and are likely modern additions”.[4] In other words, the catalogue entry suggests that this figure is little better than a pastiche. The third question relates to the history of the piece—some prefer the term “provenance”—following its removal from the ground (if it is indeed genuine).[5] The specific association with the dealer Robin Symes is itself significant.[6] The positioning of a figure that was handled by Symes in such a prominent location in the Met’s galleries and in this catalogue is a clear reminder of the other objects from this same source that have been deaccessioned by the Met.[7]
Hemingway introduces the collection in an essay “Cycladic Art as World Heritage” (with the same title as his contribution to the 2024 catalogue).[8] He notes that Pat Getz-Gentle acted as Stern’s adviser over acquisitions (p. 18) with the implication that we should accept the pieces as authentic. He acknowledges that “most” Cycladic figures that form the corpus are derived from “unauthorized excavations” (or should that be “illicit diggings”?) with the result that archaeological information has been lost.[9] Indeed in his discussion of “monumental Cycladic figures” he notes that not one has a known (or should that be “recorded’?) archaeological context (p. 28). Hemingway should have acknowledged that some of the pieces in this exhibition appear to have been removed from their archaeological contexts by illicit means and then transported from Greece in contravention of national law. Specifically, five pieces are catalogued as part of the Keros haul (84, 93, 94, 114, 121).[10] A fuller discussion of the meaning of “world heritage” would have been welcome. If the genuine Cycladic figures and other items in this collection had been the result of looting to provide objects for the market, how can this formation be considered as a contribution to world heritage?
An image of the first figure acquired by Stern (82) was identified by Christos Tsirogiannis in the archive of Gianfranco Becchina.[11] Becchina (and his gallery, Palladion Antike Kunst) features, like Symes, in the repatriations from the Met.[12] Yet, the “provenance” section of the catalogue entry starts with, “By 1981, collection of Noriyoshi Horiuchi, Tokyo”. Tucked away in a discrete footnote (p. 278, under no. 82) is the observation, “In September 2022, this sculpture was linked in a newspaper article in two photographs from the archive seized by the Italian police authorities at the premises of the convicted art dealer Gianfranco Becchina”.[13] A “Becchina-trafficked” (to quote a document issued by the Manhattan DA) Minoan larnax was acquired (and now repatriated) by the Michael C. Carlos Museum at Emory University: this was part of the holdings by Horiuchi.[14] Horiuchi also supplied classical pieces derived from Becchina to the Miho Museum in Japan.[15] The Met can hardly be unaware of these links between Becchina and Horiuchi. An expanded section on authenticity would have been valuable though Hemingway recognises the issue by mentioning the delisting of Getz-Preziosi’s “Stafford Master” due to the issue of forgeries (p. 29).[16] This example is also a key reminder that endorsement by Getz-Gentle is not a guarantee of authenticity.
Most of the Stern collection appears to have been acquired on the market, and Hemingway comments, “Most of The Met’s Greek and Roman collection of antiquities was acquired on the art market, so museum staff have a long history of studying work without archaeological provenance, learning from object-based research, and identifying forgeries” (p. 29). The Met’s less than rigorous acquisition policy has resulted in well over 1,000 deaccessions and returns from the Greek and Roman Art department alone: disturbingly, some of the gifts were derived from Dietrich von Bothmer, a former senior member of the curatorial department.[17] Given the emphasis on object biographies in contemporary scholarship, it is surprising that this latest catalogue does not include a concordance for the Stern numbers and the Met’s loan accession numbers, or indeed appearances in previous catalogues of Cycladica.[18] In addition, there is no index of former owners, dealers, auction houses and galleries which would have been so helpful for “provenance” studies.[19]
Joseph Alexander MacGillivray in his essay reflects on the naked female figures and reviews different interpretations. The (male) flautists and harpists are suggested as being “connected in part to early rhapsodists with songs and tales of origins and exploits, perhaps including those of distant lands and earlier times” (p. 34). Monumental figures “could have been commissioned by successful entrepreneurs or communities and destined for display in sanctuaries such as the one on Keros” (p. 35). This resonates with the display of a collection formed by a contemporary entrepreneur and placed in a “temple” of culture. For MacGillivray “the smaller, more portable female figures could have been charms that successive generations of hereditary maias infused with powers from the sun’s rays and the cinnabar they used in their ritual practices” (p. 37). If more figures that now form the corpus of knowledge had been removed from their archaeological contexts through scientific approaches it might have been possible to have had a more informed speculation about their use. This is why the intellectual consequences of looting need to be considered more carefully.
Gavalas charts the reception of Cycladic art starting with the art historical approach of Christian Zervos.[20] He is sensitive to the material and intellectual consequences of publishing (genuine) figures that have lost their archaeological contexts as a result of looting. How do we understand those “rare or unique pieces” that are not grounded in the archaeological record?[21] The creation of a single corpus of figures is problematic given that it would include “unreliable” members or “unauthentic pieces” (p. 39), a euphemism for fakes.[22] One of the case studies presented by Gavalas reminds us of the unevenness of alleged findspots. Gavalas discusses the 20 pieces that once resided in the Bernoulli collection.[23] He states, “By searching references for each of these pieces, I was able to trace their histories and confirm that the information always stated, “said to be from Herakleia.” (p. 42; see Hemingway’s endorsement, p. 25). In summary, he states, “A general find place, Herakleia, has been recognized for some twenty pieces” (p. 44), yet only three of the 20 pieces in the Stern catalogue have a reported findspot of Herakleia (130, 134, 154).[24] Did the cataloguers fail to add this information to the relevant entries? The entry for 134 in Art and Culture of the Cyclades states “provenance unknown” rather than Herakleia.[25] Has new and authenticated information come to light? Yet one of the 20 pieces, a kandila (43), is recorded as coming not from Herakleia but from Naxos, information supported by Getz-Gentle.[26] Naxos is not mentioned in the catalogue entry for Art and Culture of the Cyclades.[27] Perhaps what is more concerning is that the alleged association with Herakleia is used to suggest that all these 20 pieces are in fact “genuine artifacts” (p. 44).
Elizabeth Hendrix expands on the use of color for Cycladic figures.[28] She discusses the use of blue and red pigments to enhance the figures, especially the heads, as well as the observation of “ghost” decoration. The essay includes colour “reconstructions” of four figures (84, 91, 105, 121).
The final essay by Federico Carò and Dorothy Abramitis, a research scientist and a conservator, respectively, at the Met, is central to the validity of the catalogue as well as the public display and celebration of the Stern collection. They make a key statement about those objects that have no recorded findspots, “Such undocumented sculptures are extremely problematic to study, and it is necessary to recognize and accept the limitations of scientific methodology to avoid overinterpretation and misrepresentation of the resulting evidence” (p. 52). They recognise the possibility that modern creations have been allowed to enter the corpus of Cycladic figures. They choose to highlight the “Getty kouros” where a consensus on its authenticity has not been reached.[29] They draw attention to the way that the presence of pigments on Cycladic figures “has sometimes been interpreted as proof of authenticity” but conclude that “the presence of pigments known in antiquity … are not necessarily a reliable measure of the sculptures’ authenticity” (p. 54). Some of the repairs to the figures have used “marble quarried from the Cycladic islands” (p. 56) reminding us that the choice of material for modern repairs or restorations has been taken with care: it is for the viewer to decide if this was for reasons of deceit or faithfulness.
Authenticity is an important issue when considering the Stern collection. The restrained discussion may have been intended to restrict consideration about the way that forgeries have been admitted to public and private collections, and it could be perceived as embarrassing if this major loan from the Hellenic Republic contained fakes that should not have been given a public airing in this context. The catalogue entry (by MacGillivray, Abramitis and Carò) for a Late Spedos figure once in the Henri Smeets collection (101) makes the observation, “it seems more likely to us that the body was made in modern times to join the head, and both patinated to appear similar”. This is just one of many concerning pieces in the collection. Is the viewer being presented with genuine ancient Cycladic objects or are they modern creations? Are we dealing with Cycladic or Cycladicising objects? Christos Doumas raised specific concerns about a number of the Stern figures in 2022 and the Met’s curatorial team have had sufficient time to address his doubts.[30] The questioned items include the Late Neolithic figure (3) that surfaced with Ward and Company in 1993.
One of the other possible forgeries noted by Doumas was an Early Cycladic I precanonical type figure (19). This is reported to have been handled by the Athens-based dealer J. Orfanides.[31] Getz-Gentle also noted, “said to come from the same source as the harp player in plate 21”.[32] The Stern catalogue entry (prepared by Gavalas, Abramitis and Carò) interprets this as the two figures were found together, thereby implying they were both genuine if they came from the same archaeological context, whereas Getz-Gentle clearly meant that they came from the same market source: the Met’s harpist and 19 are both derived from Orfanides. Hemingway uses his essay in the volume to reassert the authenticity of the Met’s harpist through its appearance in the Joseph Brummer archive (pp. 29–30).[33] Yet the indication that it may have resided in a collection during the 1930s does not confirm its authenticity especially as we aware of the forging of Cycladic figures from at least the 1920s (if not before).[34]
Before leaving modern creations, we note that the name piece of The Metropolitan Museum Sculptor may have served as the model for a Plastiras type figure in the Stern collection (9). Yet those writing the catalogue entry (Hemingway, Abramitis and Carò) cannot bring themselves to say that the Stern figure may be a modern forgery. The closest they get to it is in a footnote (p. 276 under no. 9): “Museum-quality replicas of the Plastiras figure in The Met’s collection (acc. 45.11.18) were available as early as the 1970s and could have served as models for this piece”. The implication is that by the early 1970s forgers were using replica Cycladic figures as models to create forgeries that could then be sold to undiscerning collectors.
This catalogue does little to address serious academic concerns about the nature of the Stern collection. A curatorial team that takes authenticity and ethical acquisitions seriously would have invested time to respond to the detailed critiques of the collection.[35] This may indicate an institutional reluctance to develop a dialogue with archaeological critics, an approach that has been adopted for other North American discussions of cultural property.[36] Equally disturbing is the way that the Hellenic authorities do not appear to have engaged with members of the archaeological community who had voiced significant unease about the nature of the loan especially when it came before the Hellenic parliament.[37] We do not know Stern’s position and views on potential forgeries, but it is probably fair to assume that he considers all the pieces in his collection to be genuine. The display and publication of the Stern collection at the Met raises serious intellectual concerns about the value and contribution of the Cycladic figures and related material to the corpus of knowledge.
Authors and Titles
Director’s Foreword, Max Hollein
Statement on Behalf of Greece, Lina Mendoni
Statement on Behalf of Museum of Cycladic Art, Kassandra Marinopoulou
My Love Affair with Cycladic Art, Leonard N. Stern
Cycladic Art as World Heritage, Seán Hemingway
Rereading Early Cycladic Figures, Joseph Alexander MacGillivray
Cycladic Art from the Private to the Public Sphere, Giorgos Gavalas
Color and Magic on Early Cycladic Marble Figures, Elizabeth Hendrix
Unveiling the Past of Cycladic Artifacts Through Scientific Analysis, Federico Carò and Dorothy Abramitis
Catalogue Entries
Seán Hemingway
Alexis Belis
Joseph Alexander MacGillivray
Giorgos Gavalas
Elizabeth Hendrix
Dorothy Abramitis
Federico Carò
Linda Borsch
Jean-François de Lapérouse
Adriana Rizzo
Wendy Walker
Photographs by Bruce Schwarz
Drawings by Lenka Maskova
Notes
[1] Ioannis D. Fappas, Homecoming: Cycladic Treasures on their Return Journey (2022); Seán Hemingway, Cycladic Art: The Leonard N. Stern Collection on Loan from the Hellenic Republic (2024).
[2] To the left: MGII krater (inv. 34.11.2), said to have been found at Anavyssos, Attica, purchased from Charles T. Seltman. To the right: LGII krater (inv. 14.130.15).
[3] Pat Getz-Preziosi, Early Cycladic Sculpture: An Introduction (1985), 24–25, fig. 4.
[4] Label noted in BMCR 2025.07.02.
[5] For a discussion of the inappropriate use of “provenance” for archaeological material: David W. J. Gill, “Thinking About Collecting Histories: A Response to Marlowe,” International Journal of Cultural Property 23 (2016): 237–44.
[6] Christos Tsirogiannis, Unravelling the Hidden Market of Illicit Antiquities: The Robin Symes – Christos Michaelides Network and its International Implications (PhD diss., Cambridge University, 2013); id., “Attitudes in Transit: Symes Material from Market to Source,” Journal of Art Crime 15 (2016): 79–86.
[7] David W. J. Gill, “Context Matters: Classical Repatriations and New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art,” Journal of Art Crime 35 (2026): 55–93, esp. nos. A1, A4a–c, A5, A6, A14, F3, F7, F22, G1, G2, G4, G5a–b.
[8] Hemingway notes “A shortened version of this essay, based on an early draft” (p. 274 n. 1) appeared in the 2024 catalogue.
[9] Hemingway’s essay surprisingly does not reference David W. J. Gill and Christopher Chippindale, “Material and Intellectual Consequences of Esteem for Cycladic Figures,” American Journal of Archaeology 97 (1993): 601–59.
[10] Peggy Sotirakopoulou, The “Keros Hoard”: Myth or Reality? Searching for the Lost Pieces of a Puzzle (2005), nos. 170 [84], 180 [94], 181 [93], 223 [114], 242 [121]. The mention of “said to be from Keros” does not appear in the heading for 94 but the catalogue entry notes Getz-Gentle’s suggestion that it “may have been found on Keros”. It should be noted that 94 was reported to have resided in the Georges Halphen collection “since before the Second World War” (Sotirakopoulou, no. 180); see David W. J. Gill, review of Sotirakopoulou, in American Journal of Archaeology 111 (2007) 163–65, esp. 164. The repatriation from the Met in September 2026 of armour looted from a sanctuary at Afrati on Crete in the 1960s is a reminder that the Hellenic authorities are keen to seek material removed from Greece prior to the UNESCO Convention of 1970. The bronzes from Afrati (including material in two North American university collections, Emory and Harvard) will be discussed in David W. J. Gill, “Context Matters: Further Classical Returns from the Metropolitan Museum of Art,” Journal of Art Crime (in press).
[11] David W. J. Gill and Christos Tsirogiannis, “The Stern Collection of Cycladic Figures and the Metropolitan Museum of Art,” Mediterranean Archaeology 38 (2025): 1–24.13, fig. 1.
[12] Gill, “Classical Repatriations”, nos. C1, F5, F6, F8, F9, F10, F14. A Locrian terracotta relief should be added to the Met list of repatriations: Gill, “Further Classical Returns”, no. G10.
[13] In the recording of the Met symposium (February 2026), “Journey to the Cyclades: Exploring the Early Cycladic Culture of Greece”, the Becchina figure is cited as an example of how “provenance” is stated on the Met website (even though the association with Becchina is left unmentioned!) [YouTube; 30 minutes into video].
[14] David W. J. Gill, “The Michael C. Carlos Museum Returns Antiquities,” Journal of Art Crime 31 (2024): 3–9, esp. p. 6. For more on items handled by Becchina and Palladion Antike Kunst: 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 phrase “Becchina-trafficked” see District Attorney New York County, “In the Matter of a Grand Jury Investigation into a Private New York Antiquities Collector,” December 6, 2021, p. 71; see also pp. 113–14 for Horiuchi.
[15] Noted in David W. J. Gill, Artwashing the Past: Context Matters (2024), 59.
[16] For the original attribution: Pat Getz-Preziosi, Sculptors of the Cyclades: Individual and Tradition in the Third Millennium BC (1987), 164. The issue is rehearsed in the BMCR 2002.09.24 review of Pat Getz-Gentle, Personal Styles in Early Cycladic Sculpture (2001). We should note that the modern “name piece” had a reported findspot of Paros underlining the insecure value of such market-provided information.
[17] Gill, “Classical Repatriations”, 55–93, esp. F7, F10, F13, F15, F16, F20, F21 [40 fragments]; 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; 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 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).
[18] For a partial concordance using the Stern collection numbers and the Met’s loan numbers: David W. J. Gill and Christos Tsirogiannis, “The Stern Collection”, 20–21. For object biographies: John N. Hopkins, Sarah K. Costello, and Paul R. Davis (eds.), Object Biographies: Collaborative Approaches to Ancient Mediterranean Art (2021). For some of the significant exhibition catalogues: e.g. Jürgen Thimme (ed.), Art and Culture of the Cyclades: Handbook of an Ancient Civilisation (1977) [subsequently Thimme, ACC]; Pat Getz-Preziosi, Early Cycladic Art in North American Collections (1987); Pat Getz-Gentle, Ancient Art of the Cyclades (2006).
[19] For such a concordance to a Greek and Roman collection see David W. J. Gill, Donors and Former Owners of Greek and Roman Antiquities in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (1992 [reissued 2026]).
[20] Christian Zervos, L’Art des Cyclades, du début à la fin de L’Age de Bronze, 2500–1100 avant notre ère (1957).
[21] For “grounding”: Elizabeth Marlowe, Shaky Ground: Context, Connoisseurship and the History of Roman Art (2013). For a reflection on using parallels to authenticate objects see the thoughtful essay: Kevin Butcher, “The Land of Parallél,” Archaeological Review from Cambridge 11 (1992).
[22] The problems of creating a corpus are rehearsed by Christos Tsirogiannis, David W. J. Gill, and Christopher Chippindale, “A Corrupt Cycladic Corpus of Marble Figures,” Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology & Heritage Studies 13 (2025): 203–33.
[23] The Bernoulli collection features in Thimme, ACC (nos. 97, 214, 264, 315, 316, 321, 323, 333) as the anonymous “Basel, Private Collection I”. These objects were derived from Elie Borowski (29, 37, 41), Herbert Cahn (12, 43, 56, 99, 134, 135 [two items], 136, 151, 153, 154), and Nicolas Koutoulakis (40, 100, 145); three have unstated sources (130, 131, 142).
[24] See also 40, “likely to have been found in a tomb from an Early Cycladic cemetery on Herakleia”. See also Emily Vermeule, Greece in the Bronze Age (1964), 400, pl. vi, c (“Marble vases from Herakleia in the Cyclades. Private collection”). This includes 130.
[25] Thimme, ACC no. 321.
[26] Pat Getz-Gentle, Stone Vessels of the Cyclades in the Early Bronze Age (1996), 244, no. A63.
[27] Thimme, ACC no. 264.
[28] See also Elizabeth A. Hendrix, “Painted Ladies of the Early Bronze Age,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 55 (1997/98): 4–15; ead., “Painted Early Cycladic Figures: An Exploration of Context and Meaning,” Hesperia 72 (2003): 405–46. See also the online essay, Elizabeth A. Hendrix, “The Painted Details on Early Cycladic Marble Figures in the Leonard N. Stern Collection,” Metropolitan Museum of Art (posted May 28, 2024).
[29] The J. Paul Getty Museum, The Getty Kouros Colloquium, Athens, 25-27 May 1992 (1993); see also the review by Christopher Chippindale, American Journal of Archaeology 100 (1996): 185 [DOI].
[30] The issues were rehearsed in BMCR 2025.07.02; Gill & Tsirogiannis, “The Stern Collection,” 13–16.
[31] Noted in BMCR 2025.07.02. See also the six marble and shell ECI figures said to be from Paros and acquired from Orfanides by the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge (GR.8a–f.1933: Thimme, ACC nos. 88–93).
[32] Getz-Gentle, Personal Styles 174, under pl. 20; the Met harp-player is inv. 1947.100.1.
[33] The Brummer Gallery record can be found here. Contra 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.
[34] Tsirogiannis, Gill & Chippindale, “The Forger’s Tale”, 381.
[35] E.g. BMCR 2025.07.02; Gill & Tsirogiannis, “The Stern Collection”; see also Tsirogiannis, Gill & Chippindale, “A Corrupt Cycladic Corpus”.
[36] See, for example, the lack of balance in the contributors to James Cuno (ed.), Whose Culture? The Promise of Museums and the Debate over Antiquities (2009). For a discussion: Gill, Artwashing the Past, 238–41.
[37] For responses in the Greek and US press: Gill & Tsirogiannis, “The Stern Collection”, 16 n. 98.