| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
Katie Razzell has made a TV programme, a Youtube and a ten-part radio series about the British Museum having its collection of Classical coin miniatures being rifled and sold by a curator... sorry, Head of Roman & Greek Antiquities as he became after they found out. The Razza and her talking heads constantly expressed amazement at how incompetent and defensive the BM was but assured us this is all in the past and new procedures are now in place, supervised by new people at the top.
I have to say that when I learned that the bloke who first informed the museum their miniatures were turning up on Ebay couldn't gain the attention of the kommandatura I was slightly mollified at my own experiences of careful ignoral from our museum masters. I emailed various BBC people involved in making the programmes offering them a couple of my own exclusives but did not qualify for a response of any kind from any of them.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Katie Razzell has made a TV programme, a Youtube and a ten-part radio series about the British Museum having its collection of Classical coin miniatures being rifled and sold by a curator... sorry, Head of Roman & Greek Antiquities as he became after they found out. The Razza and her talking heads constantly expressed amazement at how incompetent and defensive the BM was but assured us this is all in the past and new procedures are now in place, supervised by new people at the top. |
I don't know how many items have been catalogued and put on-line since this happened, but the Commons committee (Oct 23) was told that the museum has one million uncatalogued items, 300,000 that are registered, but not digitised; and 1.1m that are digitised, but not photographed. The museum supposedly holds eight million objects. (They probabaly don't even know how many artefacts they have got as they put it at 8 million rather than an exact figure?). Cataloguing was anticpated to take an estimated five years and cost £10m, but the BM at that time (Oct 23) did not have the money.
It is quite possible that selling such uncatalogued artefacts has been much more widespread than thought, so possibly not just one member of staff.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I have been typically intemperate. Ms Razzle herself has just replied and requested a pdf of the chapters of RevHist concerned with the British Museum, which I have sent. Maybe we are on the march.
| It is quite possible that selling such uncatalogued artefacts has been much more widespread than thought, so possibly not just one member of staff. |
If only the BM were allowed to sell stuff itself, and to its heart's content, we would never be in this state. It is totally preposterous that an eight million-strong cache lies hidden underground, unseen and virtually forgotten, while the museum lurches around both broke and costing the nation a fortune. And all in the name of Victorian values... huh, we know all about those.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I had to laugh at this passage from episode nine (of ten) of Shadow World "Thief at the British Museum" on Radio 4.
Katie Razzell: As to why there were conditions that allowed gems to be stolen in the first place, for Tom Harrison one answer lies further back in history. It's all to do with how popular they once were.
Tom Harrison [new head of Greek and Roman Antiquities at the BM]: This was the type of material that had been enormously fashionable in the eighteenth century so people collected gems to what may seem now a crazy extent but then there began to be suspicions, particularly as you moved into the nineteenth century, that some of these were not in fact authentic but modern fakes so at that point they may have been put to one side as not worthy of the collection. |
We can acquit Katie of not seeing the obvious but not Tom. Since we can't find these gemstones with any great frequency now, it is a reasonable supposition that they weren't available in any great amounts in the eighteenth. So how could they be collected to a 'crazy extent'? They couldn't. They were being manufactured to order of course.
I would go further and say they were being manufactured under the auspices of the British Museum -- and signed off as authentic by them. Who else could do so? When the fad passed, unsold stock was put in storage. I might go even further and propose that the whole idea of Classical gemstones was dreamt up by the BM except this would be to give far too much credit for ingenuity to the museum. They have always been the dimmest of crooks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| A total of around 2,000 items were either stolen or damaged. They comprised classical Greek and Roman gems (including cameos and intaglios), along with gold rings, earrings and other jewellery. The earliest pieces dated from the late Bronze Age, but most were from the Classical period (with a few modern fakes). |
We should reflect that because of the radio and TV programmes about these thefts from the British Museum--and resulting in the departures of top brass, forsooth, though George Osborne made sure he survived--we have been given an opportunity to reach a wider audience. But first we have to get our ducks in a row. So what, precisely, are the artefacts we are dealing with. Here's one
You're right. Nobody knows. They go under the collective name of Classical gemstones but nobody knows what they are. Or even whether there is a 'they' at all. Let's just say the two thousand objects are 'ancient, small, quite valuable keepsakes' and leave it at that.
So how many of them will have survived two-to-three thousand years with any kind of provenance? None. That's absolutely certain. It could not happen. Things that have are rare enough but the idea that objects of such minor interest and with a relatively small intrinsic value could survive other than as 'archaeology' can be dismissed without further thought.
So let's move swiftly on to the eighteenth century...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
These two thousand 'Classical gemstones' in (or ex-) the British Museum are of course only part of what survived of the total amount of extant Classical gemstones. There are all those collected in the eighteenth century and which are not in the British Museum but have ended up in other institutions. Or even, there must be some, just kept in the hands of the original finder -- or more likely his employer. Let's just say 'many thousands'.
So... how many archaeological digs were there in the eighteenth century? None. There were a few antiquarians scratching around but basically we're dealing with things 'found'. By the usual crew of serendipitous finders, mainly ploughmen walking behind ploughs saying "Ooh-ahh, what 'ave we 'ere.' (Sorry, I can't do the accent.)
So what are the chances that these people found 'many thousands' in the eighteenth century (or earlier and kept)? I think the number we are looking for is zero. So...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
How to account then for
| 'material that had been enormously fashionable in the eighteenth century so people collected gems to what may seem now a crazy extent' |
in the words of the person who is now, I suppose, the ruling authority on the subject, the head of Greek & Roman Antiquities at the British Museum?
What was also enormously fashionable in the eighteenth century was of course the Grand Tour. When wealthy Brits, brought up on a Classical education, set off to see for themselves where it all began. It was a damn sight easier than their forebears having to set off for the Holy Land. But like them they also needed to return with mementoes of their visit for showing off to all and sundry. (Including, to be fair, themselves--they were no slouches when it came to be being amateur antiquarians on their own account.)
Just as relics came in all sizes and to fit all pockets -- from a piece of Jesus's foreskin to St Catherine's sarcophagus -- so Classical survivals came in at the hefty end -- a full statue of Aphrodite -- down to... well, gemstones. And of course they were just as difficult to obtain on account of, frankly, there not being any available for love or money.
So they were lovingly crafted for money in workshops.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I have posted up a couple of pieces about this on Medium with some interesting results. The first one was this
---------------
Wanna Buy A Museum?
The British Museum is available. Only one careless owner.
My last book described, inter alia, the chronic shortcomings of the British Museum. It totally bombed. The BBC have just put out a telly programme and a ten-part radio series on the chronic shortcomings of the British Museum and it echoed round the world. The difference?
Theirs was about a curator half-inching Greek and Roman ‘gemstones’ (that’s one of them above) from the vaults and selling them on eBay. Mine was about forgeries made by people long dead. Missed a trick there. Except there have been developments. I could be echoing round the world any time soon. [“Godspeed, Mick, we’re right behind you, we like nothing better than reflected glory here at medium.com, but we’re not going to boost you because we’re a bunch of craven muppets.”]
The story so far
Some years back a collector of Classical gemstones noticed that one was being offered for sale that he swore blind he remembered being in the British Museum’s collection. Since he knew the BM is not permitted to sell spare stock he was understandably perplexed. So he did a bit of checking around and discovered this wasn’t the only one, a fair few had turned up for sale in various places. He gathered all his findings together and presented them to the British Museum. The British Museum said, “Thank you very much, now fook off.” I paraphrase but that was their general attitude. I got the exact same treatment when I presented my own dossier.
The collector was first puzzled, then annoyed, and finally so enraged that he started a one-man crusade. Not just at the British Museum’s incompetence for apparently allowing their precious objects to tippy-toe out the door and onto the open market but their sheer and total refusal to recognise anything was amiss. Every time he presented them with some new enormity, they upped “Thank you very much, now fook off” to new heights of patrician indifference. And eventually downright hostility. Welcome to the club, pal.
Anyway this carried on for a bit until the MSM took notice which led to the police being involved which led to a swathe of the British Museum’s top brass being forced to walk the plank. All the way up to but carefully not including the toppermost brass of all, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, George Osborne, our late Chancellor of the Exchequer and eminence grise of David “Dave” Cameron’s Tory government.
Finally the BBC got round to making their programmes about it, alerting the world to it, and the new brass, including a chastened but fiercely determined George Osborne, assured the British public via the good offices of the national broadcaster, that lessons had been learned and it could never happen again.
The BBC on our behalf said, “Thank you very much, your lordships, we’re so glad it turned out to be a case of one bad apple not being spotted in time, and for which those responsible for such negligence have been called to account. Everything is once more sweetness and light at the British Museum and indeed Britain herself. God save the king.”
Which is where I came in with some new revelations about these ‘gemstones’. Oh dear, poor British Museum. Poor Britain. It was good knowing you.
I’ll tell you the full story in due course but first I want to see if my body ends up floating in the Thames because that will be final proof I was right all along. Or I get ten views whichever is the sooner. Let’s make that five.
Psst… I did get five so you can read the denouement here https://medium.com/p/ad59a20cf239
-----------------
This got five views, four reads and two people clapping. One being a trusty and one not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The next day this
-----------------
2nd Great British Museum Heist
The first one is here https://medium.com/p/53008f59ffbd
A total of around 2,000 items were either stolen or damaged. They comprised classical Greek and Roman gems (including cameos and intaglios), along with gold rings, earrings and other jewellery. The earliest pieces dated from the late Bronze Age, but most were from the Classical period (with a few modern fakes). Agencies
This is not entirely accurate. What should have been on the card at the British Museum was ‘Small, oldish-looking bits and bobs. Pricey but not priceless.” Here are a few of the lost and found
[a pic of a dozen or so arrayed]
They are generically called ‘Classical gemstones’ but no-one really knows what they are. They are the sort of things that aren’t (quite) worth sending off for specialist appraisal and not (quite) worth putting on display. None of them can be objectively dated, they have never been catalogued and they have no provenance. These ‘keepsakes’ have been gathering dust in the British Museum’s vaults along with millions of other neglected artefacts acquired since 1753.
To be perfectly honest, none of them would have been of the slightest interest to man or beast if the bloke in charge of them, the Keeper of the Greek and Roman Department at the British Museum, hadn’t decided in c. 2012 to start quietly removing the choicer items and selling them on his own account. Kerching!
What they actually are can be gleaned from this exchange between the BBC and the chap who’s temporarily been put in charge now his predecessor has reluctantly had to be let go. Perhaps you’ll be able to spot it.
BBC News Culture & Media Editor: As to why there were conditions that allowed gems to be stolen in the first place, for Tom Harrison one answer lies further back in history. It’s all to do with how popular they once were.
Tom Harrison, Keeper, Greece and Rome Dept, British Museum: This was the type of material that had been enormously fashionable in the eighteenth century so people collected gems to what may seem now a crazy extent but then there began to be suspicions, particularly as you moved into the nineteenth century, that some of these were not in fact authentic but modern fakes so at that point they may have been put to one side as not worthy of the collection. |
No? None the wiser? Maybe a crash course in ancient artefacts and how we come by them might help. These are the salient points to bear in mind:
* Small stuff just gets lost. Wherever they were made, whatever status they had two or three thousand years ago, they weren’t kept by anybody (or any body) that would ensure they were on hand for two or three thousand years ready to be given over to a museum or similar institution for safekeeping.
* They mostly turn up singly and serendipitously, if they turn up at all. Literally, by ploughmen walking behind ploughs saying “Ooh-ahh, what ’ave we ’ere.” (Sorry, I can’t do the accent.) Such finds will, in all probability, end up either in a private collection or a public institution that will preserve them.
* Or they are found during archaeological digs. Then they definitely will. Though none of the British Museum ones were, as far as is known.
So let’s now gallop forward to the eighteenth century. Tom Harrison, the British Museum’s resident expert on Classical bric-à-brac, assures us these things were being collected at that time ‘to what may seem now a crazy extent’. Tom’s not on hand just at the moment but we can ask him to amplify his remarks by a new technique that I am not at liberty to tell you about but you’ll have no difficulty in recognising its essential validity:
Mick Harper: Were there a lot of ploughmen in the 18th century, Tom?
Tom Harrison: There certainly were, Mick.
Mick Harper: Did they turn up a lot of Classical gemstones?
Tom Harrison: No, I suppose not. Some.
Mick Harper: Were there a lot of archaeological digs in the 18th century?
Tom Harrison: Decidedly not. A few antiquarians went in for a bit of scattergun excavation.
Mick Harper: Did they turn up a lot of Classical gemstones?
Tom Harrison: No, I suppose not. Some.
Mick Harper: So you agree there will be precious few Classical gemstones around in the eighteenth century?
Tom Harrison: Well, yes, that would seem to follow.
Mick Harper: So where do you suppose these eighteenth century collectors were able to acquire their Classical gemstones ‘to a crazy extent’?
Tom Harrison: Ooh-ahh, I ’adn’t thought of tha-a-t. ’Tis a mystery and no mistake. Maybe you can enloiten an old duffer loik I.
Mick Harper: If there is no feasible manner these bijoux objets d’art could have got from ancient times to the eighteenth century in such unfeasible quantities, they must have been made in the eighteenth century, no?
Tom Harrison: It does seem the only plausible explanation.
Mick Harper: Would that have been reasonably straightforward for workshops of the time?
Tom Harrison: It certainly would. The V & A have shelves full of such material. Labelled as ‘contemporary’, mind, not Classical.
Mick Harper: So if collectors thought they were collecting Classical gemstones but were being presented with modern fakes, what would they have required?
Tom Harrison: Some form of authentication, obviously.
Mick Harper: Who, in the eighteenth century, could provide such authentication?
Tom Harrison: Various institutions, the British Museum would have been my choice naturally.
Mick Harper: But the British Museum wouldn’t have authenticated bucket loads of tat they would know immediately were modern fakes, would they?
Tom Harrison: We certainly wouldn’t, no.
Mick Harper: Unless the British Museum was instructing workshops to make them and then flogging them off to collectors as the real deal because they were chronically short of money but long on ambition. At the time.
Tom Harrison: It’s out of the question we would have done any such thing, but I wouldn’t put it past the Ashmolean.
Mick Harper: And when the craze came to an end or — in your words — doubts were being expressed about their authenticity, what would the British Museum have done with any unsold stock?
Tom Harrison: The Ashmolean, you mean. They’d stick them in the vaults, I would imagine. You never throw anything away in this game.
Mick Harper: But they wouldn’t have been catalogued or anything like that?
Tom Harrison: There’d be no point.
Mick Harper: So overall, what do you reckon?
Tom Harrison: Is that the time? Must rush. Nice talking to you.
--------------
This has got three views, three reads but ominously no claps. Which for me is virtually unprecedented.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
I would presume that these are all from the Castellani workshops, unless they had a provenance of being recorded finds from Roman stratigraphy. The Castellani had shops in Rome, Paris, London, they employed numeous gem cutters. They sourced the gems, including buying older gems from earlier centuries and turned them into "archaelogical revival" pieces. The reworked pieces were popular as the 16th century gemstones were of quality. I doubt anyone can actually tell the difference between an unmarked Castellani and, say, an uncovered find from Pompeii..(Mind you, Wiley doubts about when Pompeii actually was).....
https://www.hancocks-london.com/maker/castellani/
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
This is most useful, I was taking a punt when I referenced the V & A. Certainly the ones I illustrated in the piece look completely modern in an old-fashioned sort of way. However, wouldn't a big outfit like Castellani be chary of getting into bed with grand-scale fakers?
After my expulsion from Medium and with the BBC seemingly uninterested in taking the story further, it would seem this very promising line of enquiry is at an end. Despite nobody clapping for my solution I can't see the BM has leg to stand on. If the insider/thief does eventually end up in court (civil or criminal) it will be interesting if he uses the van Meegeren defence: "I was only trading in fakes." Though of course it suits everyone if he is quietly left to live out his days under the radar.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
|
There might be some evidence that the price and provenance signified caveat emptor (ie could be fake), as what he was doing (if he did it) was shifting multiple pieces, poor provenance, offered at low reserve prices, but I guess you could equally argue this could just be a cunning ruse so as not to draw attention to the criminality (staying under the radar.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
None of this applies. He was selling the stuff for such small amounts, and so brazenly, it suggests one of the following:
1) He was so chronically dissatisfied with his work any form of excitement was a welcome distraction.
2) He wanted to make a point either about lax security at the BM or the authenticity of their gear. (This is frequently the justification put forward by forgers.)
3) There was so much of the stuff, and security was so lax (even after the BM knew!) he just wanted to make some extra dosh without bothering to maximise the take.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
In the fullness of time the BM might take advantage of all the publicity by mounting an exhibition about it all. After all they believe they're authentic, so why not?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
