COLLECTING AND COLLECTORS

F R O M A N T I Q U I T Y TO M O D E R N I T Y
 SELECTED PAPERS
ON ANCIENT ART AND ARCHITECTURE

SERIES EDITOR
MIREILLE M. LEE

NUMBER 4
Collecting and Collectors from Antiquity to Modernity
COLLECTING AND COLLECTORS
F R O M A N T I Q U I T Y TO M O D E R N I T Y
edited by
Alexandra Carpino, Tiziana D’Angelo,
Maya Muratov, and David Saunders

Archaeological Institute of America

Boston, MA
2018
 COLLECTING AND COLLECTORS
F R O M A N T I Q U I T Y TO M O D E R N I T Y

Copyright 2018 by the Archaeological Institute of America

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by
means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permit-
ted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission
should be addressed in writing to The Archaeological Institute of America, 656 Beacon
Street, 6th Floor, Boston, MA 02215-2006 USA.

ISBN 978-1-931909-36-5

Cover design by Susanne Wilhelm. Image: Cleopatra (?). Jacinth cameo, ruby and
gold, enamelled, set on a gold clasp; height 38 mm. By Matteo del Nassaro (1515–
47/8).

Figure 3 on p. 64 and figure 4 on p. 66 are authorized by the Istituto Centrale per il

Catalogo e la Documentazione – MiBACT.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Archaeological Institute of America. Annual Meeting (118th : 2017 : Toronto, Ont.), author. |
Carpino, Alexandra Ann, editor.
Title: Collecting and collectors from antiquity to modernity / edited by Alexandra Carpino [and 3 others].
Description: Boston, MA : Archaeological Institute of America, 2018. |
Series: Selected papers on ancient art and architecture ; number 4 |
Sixteen papers originally presented in two colloquia and a workshop at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the
Archaeological Institute of America in Toronto | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018009624 | ISBN 9781931909365 (print : acid-free paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Art, Etruscan—Collectors and collecting—United States—Congresses. | Gems,
Ancient—Collectors and collecting—United States—Congresses. | Art objects—Collectors and
collecting—United States—Congresses. | Art patrons—United States—Congresses.
Classification: LCC N5750 .A67 2017 | DDC 708.13—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018009624

Printed in the United States on acid-free paper.

 The Pitfalls and Possibilities
of Provenance Research:
Historic Collections and the
Art Market in the 20th Century

Judith Barr

My essay focuses on researching historic collections

and their dispersal on the art market in the 20th century.
Since 2013, the Antiquities Department at the Getty Muse-
um has undertaken a project to make available online prov-
enance information for over 44,000 records in the Antiqui-
ties collection. As our understanding of this material has
grown, and with new sources of information now available,
the scope of this research and how we present it has neces-
sarily broadened.
Provenance information has typically been a minor part of
sales records, reserved primarily for special classes of objects
or for notable owners. The challenges for the transmission of
provenance information, even when working with relatively
recent histories, are frequent. To list a sampling: an object’s
earlier history may never have been transferred with the ob-
ject; its earlier history may have been transferred through
several transactions but later separated from the object; prov-
enance information may be incomplete, corrupted, augment-
ed, mistaken, or erroneous; a misunderstanding about an
object’s history may be perpetuated in the absence of compel-
ling evidence otherwise. Provenance information may also be
directly associated with an object when an owner physically
alters it through writing, engraving, or the addition of labels.
But even these physical provenance markers can be divested
of meaning outside of their original ownership context, which
this essay will explore further. Two brief case studies from the
Getty’s collection illustrate some of the issues inherent in
how these provenances can be lost and found.
© 2018 J. Paul Getty Trust
Judith Barr
Fig. 1. Lid of cinerary urn.
2nd century B.C.E. terracotta
with traces of white slip and
polychromy. H: 35.3 cm (13 7/8
in.) 71.AD.293.2. The J. Paul
Getty Museum, Villa Collection,
Malibu, California.
190
Both objects considered here were acquired by the Getty
Museum from the Royal Athena Galleries (from here, re-
ferred to as Royal Athena) in New York in 1971 as part of
a large purchase of hundreds of items that was designed to
enlarge and broaden the antiquities collection in light of the
opening of the Getty Villa. This group included large mar-
bles, Attic pottery vessels, small bronzes, glass flasks, and
other ancient artifacts. Some pieces had been part of historic
collections, including a head of Tiberius (71.AA.275) owned
by the Marquess of Lansdowne; others had been bought at
auction. Likewise, some have been well-studied and pub-
lished, while others are not as well known. Some of these
objects came with no provenance information or prior sale
documentation, even if auction records or other sources ex-
isted, a situation not uncommon for this time period, espe-
cially for minor or small works of art. In certain cases, our
files contained undated and unverified information about the
objects’ provenance and history.
The first case study is 71.AD.293, an Etruscan terracotta
cinerary urn and lid (figs. 1 and 2).1 The urn has a battle scene
of a genre popular in Etruria and often identified as Echetlos
or “the hero and the plow.” The lid has a male figure reclin-
ing on a pillow while holding a patera, now broken, in his
left hand. The urn and lid do not appear to belong to each
other, and they may have been paired while on the market
 Historic Collections and the Art Market in the 20th Century

given their relatively similar sizes and probable shared ori- Fig. 2. Cinerary Urn. 2nd
gin in Chiusine workshops of the Hellenistic period. When century B.C. Terracotta. H: 33.8
cm (13 5/16 in.) 71.AD.293.1.
purchased, as mentioned above, this pair came with no prov-
The J. Paul Getty Museum, Villa
enance information or prior sale documentation.2 They have Collection, Malibu, California.
not been on display for decades, and our files had no records
of previous publications.
However, while researching this large acquisition group
from 1971, I discovered that the urn and the lid had been
sold together at Parke-Bernet in 1969 at a sale that included
over two dozen lots eventually acquired by the Getty Muse-
um.3 This identification was only possible because the lot was
fully photographed, and the damage to both the lid and the
urn visible. This kind of illustration is a rarity in mid-century
auction catalogs, a challenge for researching mass-produced
objects like this, which are often described in generic terms
and not always pictured. Unfortunately, the lot information
contained no provenance information, not even the seller’s
name, which is not unusual, but challenging. However, even
more surprising was the later discovery through research into
other Etruscan objects that both the urn and the lid had been
on display in Los Angeles in 1963 as part of an exhibition of
Etruscan artifacts by the local Stendahl Galleries.4
A reference within the introduction of this exhibition’s
catalog led me to believe that the urn and lid could have been
procured from an Italian museum, the Museo Luigi Pigorini, 191
Judith Barr

before 1963 as part of the dispersal and exchange of the his-

toric Evangelista Gorga collection, which had been trans-
ferred to the Italian State in the mid-20th century.5 Evan-
gelista Gorga owned ten apartments filled with antiquities,
artworks, and musical instruments, all part of a collection
formed haphazardly over decades in the late 19th and early
20th centuries. He kept few records and worked with many
dealers in Rome and elsewhere, so tracing the provenance of
these objects before their purchase by Gorga is rarely pos-
sible.6 When the Italian State gained control of the collec-
tion in the mid-20th century, it was dispersed to museums
throughout Italy.7 Some of these museums created exchange
programs with museums and galleries around the world to
broaden their holdings of, for example, pre-Columbian arti-
facts, which the Stendahl Galleries was able to provide.
Further research into the iconography of the scene on the
Getty’s urn, long misidentified as the battle between Aeneas
and Turnus, led to an article published in 1962 documenting
the urn and lid as part of the Gorga collection while in stor-
age on the Palatine Hill in Rome.8 Before research began in
2015, the known provenance of 71.AD.293 was limited to its
purchase in 1971. Today, though gaps still remain, our record
includes over three decades of history (and probably more)
that have been recovered:
probably by
1948–1950 Gennaro Evangelista Gorga, Italian, acquired
by the Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione
through law n. 711, 1950.
1950 Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, trans-
ferred to the Museo Nazionale Preistorico
Etnografico-Luigi Pigorini.
before 1963 Museo delle Civiltà - Museo Nazionale Preis-
torico Etnografico “L. Pigorini.” by exchange to
the Stendahl Art Galleries, before 1963.
before 1963 Stendahl Art Galleries
1969 Private Collection [sold, Parke-Bernet Galler-
ies, New York, December 4, 1969, lot 225.]
1971 Royal Athena Galleries (New York, New
York), sold to the J. Paul Getty Museum, 1971.
The second case study, 71.AB.362, was part of the same
1971 purchase from Royal Athena. It is a gilded bronze hand
192 with a ring from an over life-sized Roman statue (fig. 3). Un-
 Historic Collections and the Art Market in the 20th Century

Fig. 3. Statue fragment: Left

hand with a gilt ring on the
fourth finger. 2nd century C.E.
Bronze with gilding. L: 19.4
cm (7 5/8 in.) 71.AB.362. The J.
Paul Getty Museum, Villa Col-
lection, Malibu, California.

Fig. 4. Detail of statue frag-

ment: Left hand with a gilt ring
on the fourth finger.

like the Etruscan urn and lid, which can be identified with
a particular regional style, the hand is not stylistically dis-
tinctive and could have been created in many regions of the
Roman Empire. It had been exhibited and published several
times, but with no reference to its provenance or history.9 In
this case, museum documentation indicated that Royal Athe-
na had purchased the hand from someone named “Musecci”
in Istanbul around 1959 or 1960. While plausible and even
convincing, there was no evidence substantiating this claim.
On studying the hand directly, I noticed a previously unre-
marked number in ink visible on the back below the thumb
(fig. 4). The condition of the number and the style of writ-
ing suggested an older collection, as did a fracture running
along the surface. However, the cracking and corrosion could
have been due to the hand’s burial environment and more re-
cent environmental condition changes.10 Understanding the
purpose of the number was not possible until research into
the provenance of other objects from the 1971 purchase led
me to contact the Smithsonian about a possible deaccession 193
Judith Barr
Fig. 5. Entry 170347: Consul’s
hand. Smithsonian Ledger
book, vol. 36, page 37, No-
vember 28, 1894 to December
13, 1894. (Photo couresy of
Anthropology Collections
Management, Smithsonian
National Museum of Natural
History.)
194
of antiquities in the 1960s.11 The Smithsonian informed me
about two long-term loans from a Washington, DC resident,
Eleanor A. H. Magruder, in 1894 and 1896 of over a hundred
objects. These objects had remained on loan to the Smith-
sonian until 1965, when they were returned to the family.
Comparisons between the numbers on other ex-Magruder
objects in the Getty’s collection and the bronze hand showed
that the numbering was very similar and indeed, that it fit
into the numbering sequence, as seen in this digitized ledger
entry from 1894 (fig. 5). A bronze hand with a ring is even
mentioned in a newspaper article about the display of the
Magruder collection, which had been on view for many years
in the Smithsonian Institution on the Mall.12 We found this
ledger evidence compelling enough to update the hand’s prov-
enance accordingly. Objects from the Magruder collection—
including the bronze hand—went on the market by 1969,13
identified in auction catalogs merely by the provenance “Bar-
on d’Usses/Spiridon.”14 The roles and identities of these indi-
viduals require further clarification. This research is ongoing,
and may indicate an even earlier history for the object.
 Historic Collections and the Art Market in the 20th Century

Close to a century of history, ownership, and display had

been separated from the hand. Although sold with a partial
provenance (“Baron d’Usses/Spiridon”), this information
was lost or separated from it at an unknown date. Without
that connection to the Magruder collection and to the Smith-
sonian, the physical evidence of its provenance, the old collec-
tion number, could not be understood.
This new reconstruction of its provenance, with decades of
display and storage at the Smithsonian and a sale in New York
two years before its purchase by the Getty, diverges greatly
from the “said to be” attached to the hand before, which could
have been easily and misleadingly attributed as fact. While
the origin of the hand may never be traced, its rediscovered
ownership history suggests other avenues for research and
scientific analyses.
What I hope to have shown through these two examples is
that provenance research requires a careful consideration of
all of the evidence, patience, and not a little serendipity. These
case studies are unusual, but the loss of provenance infor-
mation is not. This issue has become clearer over the course
of researching this large purchase, further complicating our
understanding of our own paperwork and how it should be
presented. “Said to be” and other provenance just-so stories
are easily perpetuated and difficult to disprove. Worse, they
can obfuscate actual facts or avenues of research. Equally, the
absence of information cannot be taken as an absolute. Prov-
enances can be lost in a single transaction, stripping an object
of part or all of its associated history.
Antiquities provenance research, especially that involving
the art market in the 20th century, is still an inchoate field. As
noted before, our own methods and guidelines for research
within the Getty’s Antiquities collection have evolved over
the last four years, and we can expect these to evolve further
as the project continues. As more archives and materials are
digitized, and as more and more museums and collections
are able to embark on their own programs of provenance
research, we hope that additional connections will become
clearer and other enigmas solved.15

Notes
1
 For object details: http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/ob-
jects/6747/unknown-maker-cinerary-urn-and-lid-etruscan-2nd-
century-bc/ 195
Judith Barr

2
  There are certain marks and stickers on the object, but their
significance has yet to be deciphered.
3
  Parke-Bernet 1969, lot 225.
4
  Stendahl 1963, 20.
5
  Stendahl 1963, 3; Saccardo 1982, 11. On Gorga’s collection
and its dispersal, see Claire Lyons, this volume.
6
  Larson 2009, 130, 138–39.
7
  Stendahl 1963, 3.
8
  Falconi Amorelli 1962, [urn] 323–25, no. 4, fig. 6.; [lid] 325–
26, no. 1, fig. 8.
9
  Mattusch 1996, no. 13; for object details and full bibliography:
http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/6815/unknown-
maker-statue-fragment-left-hand-with-a-gilt-ring-on-the-fourth-
finger-roman-2nd-century/
10
  Personal communication with Erik Risser, 12/9/2015.
11
  I am obliged to James Krakker of the Smithsonian National
Museum of Natural History for his assistance with this research.
12
  The Washington Post 1906, 7.
13
  Parke-Bernet 1969, lot 157.
14
  See, e.g., Parke-Bernet 1969, lots 135, 152–57, 227–29, 232–
37; Parke-Bernet 1970, lots 304–7.
15
  I am indebted to my Getty colleagues, especially David Saun-
ders and Nicole Budrovich, and to our colleagues at other institu-
tions who have been able to share paperwork, provenance informa-
tion, and archival sources in order to shed light on many of these
issues. My thanks also to the anonymous peer reviewers for their
valuable suggestions.

References
Falconi Amorelli, M.T. 1962. “Urnette etrusche dalla Collezione
Gorga.” StEtr 30:321–33.
Larson, F. 2009. An Infinity of Things: How Sir Henry Wellcome Col­
lected the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mattusch, C. 1996. The Fire of Hephaistos: Large Classical Bronzes
from North American Collections. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Art Museums.
Parke-Bernet Galleries. 1969. Antiquities. Auction catalogue 2946.4
December 1969, New York.
———. 1970. Antiquities. Auction catalogue 3031. 24–25 April
1970, New York.
Saccardo, L. 1982. “Vasi della Collezione Gorga al Civico museo ar-
cheologico di Bergamo.” Notizie dal Chiostro del Monastero
Maggiore 1982:11–26, pls. XIV–XXII.
“Smithsonian Institution May Lose Old Collection.” The Washing­
ton Post,September 17, 1906:7.
Stendahl, A. E., ed. 1963. Etruscan Art: March 21 through April 14,
1963. Los Angeles: Otis Art Institute.
196