The Goddess Goes Home
Following years of haggling over its provenance, a celebrated statue once identified as Aphrodite, has returned to Italy
- By Ralph Frammolino
- Photographs by Francesco Lastrucci
- Smithsonian magazine, November 2011, Subscribe
(Page 2 of 7)
Throughout a modern odyssey covering more than 30 years, the Getty’s goddess had cast a spell over those who possessed her, those who desired her and those who simply tried to understand her. During six years of reporting and writing about the Getty with Times reporter Jason Felch, first for the newspaper and then a book, we buttonholed investigators, lawyers, cultural officials, museum administrators, curators, tomb raiders and one purported smuggler with suspected Mafia ties. And still I couldn’t let go. So this past May, Jason and I found ourselves on an airplane, heading to Italy once again, to see the goddess in her new home.
The plundering of artifacts goes back millennia. An Egyptian papyrus from 1100 B.C. describes the prosecution of several men caught raiding a pharaoh’s tomb. The Romans looted the Greeks; the Visigoths pillaged Rome; the Spanish sacked the Americas. Napoleon’s army stripped Egypt of mummies and artifacts, followed by professional treasure hunters like the Great Belzoni, who took to the pyramids with battering rams. England’s aristocracy stocked its salons with artifacts lifted from archaeological sites during the “grand tours” that were once de rigueur for scions of wealth. Thomas Bruce, the seventh Earl of Elgin, loaded up on so many marble sculptures from the Parthenon that he scandalized members of Parliament and drew poison from Lord Byron’s pen.
The so-called Elgin marbles and other harvests gravitated into the collections of state-run institutions—“universal museums,” as they were conceived during the Enlightenment, whose goal was to exhibit the range of human culture under one roof. Filled with artworks appropriated in the heyday of colonialism, the Louvre and the British Museum—home of Elgin’s Parthenon sculptures since 1816—said they were obeying an imperative to save ancient artifacts from the vagaries of human affairs and preserve their beauty for posterity. (Their intellectual descendants, such as New York’s Met, would echo that rationale.) To a large degree, they succeeded.
Attitudes began changing after World War I, when plundered patrimony began to be seen less as a right of victors than as a scourge of vandals. Efforts to crack down on such trafficking culminated in a 1970 accord under the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco). The agreement recognized a country’s right to protect and control artifacts within its borders and called on nations to block the illicit trade in antiquities through import and export restrictions.
Museum and cultural officials worldwide hailed the agreement, but some of the nations with the hottest markets were among the slowest to ratify it. The United States did so in 1983; Switzerland, a notorious hub of the trade, followed suit in 2003. Meanwhile, dealers kept offering unprovenanced artifacts, and many curators and collectors kept buying. None shopped harder than the Getty.
Opened in 1954 by the oil baron J. Paul Getty, the museum was initially a boutique collection of 18th-century French furniture, tapestries, old master paintings and classical artifacts. Then in 1976, Getty died and left the institution the bulk of his $700 million fortune. Soon it became a giant, with ambitions to compete with older museums. It focused first on building its antiquities collection.
The museum immediately paid nearly $4 million for a sublime Greek bronze statue believed to be the last surviving work of Lysippos, master sculptor for Alexander the Great. (The work is no longer attributed to him.) It acquired $16 million worth of antiquities from the New York diamond merchant Maurice Tempelsman. It spent $9.5 million for a rare kouros, or ancient statue of a Greek youth, that many experts now believe is fake. This buying spree climaxed in 1988, when Getty officials announced they had acquired a towering statue of a Greek goddess from the fifth century B.C.
An unknown sculptor had caught the female figure in midstride, with her right arm extended and her gown rippling in the wind, as if she were walking through a storm. The statue’s size and detail suggested the goddess had been the object of cult worship in an ancient temple. Its rare combination of materials—head and extremities of fine marble, body of limestone—distinguished it as an acrolithic statue, a kind of amalgam, or artistic scarecrow, created where marble was scarce. The wet-drapery style of its dress placed its creation during the height of Greek classicism, shortly after Phidias chiseled the Parthenon statuary that would so enthrall the Earl of Elgin.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (10)
I agree with Alan in his statement of other countries returning their "acquired" artifacts to their places of origin. Seems most museums worldwide have abscounded "booty" in their cellars!
Seems Paris has an Egyptian obelisk in it's city midst, also.
Where did Iraq's treasures end up? etc.
Posted by C Carpenter on November 26,2011 | 10:45 PM
7 Nov 11
Re: A Goddess Goes Home
Now that the Italians have learned the virtues of having stolen antiquities returned to their original homelands ["A Goddess Goes Home"], I eagerly await their plan to return the thirteen obelisks that reside in Rome to Egypt.
Alan Campbell
San Diego, CA 92109
Posted by Alan Campbell on November 16,2011 | 02:07 PM
I have read Chasing Aphrodite, the book by Ralph Frammolino and Jason Felch, on the history of looted art sold abroad, and it raises fascinating and complex questions about what fuels black markets. Large museums preserve items of art, but how can we ever know the meaning if we don't know where they came from, or if they were sacred objects, or what else might be part of their story of origin.
Posted by Horanel on November 14,2011 | 01:26 PM
Is the provenance of valuables so many thousands of years ago really enough to "own" something? It never really belonged to Italy nor the people who inhabit that territory today. The Italy today is not the society and regime that existed 4000 years ago. The artifacts of ancient Greece and Italy rightfully belongs to everyone and to no one.
Posted by david on November 9,2011 | 07:02 PM
I think the world of Smithsonian and I'm sure you checked your facts, but I wanted to take a shower after reading the article. Ralph Frammolino's utter loathing of the Getty jumps off the page like a poisonous fume. Yes, he points out that the Getty wasn't the only museum that played fast and loose with antiquities and that they have changed their policies, but he makes the place sound like a dreary collection of questionable junk and "scholarly interest only" curios run by borderline thugs. The other institutions mentioned don't come across as quite so seedy and he doesn't hint that both of the Getty's locations are spectacular buildings with significant collections.
It was poor taste to print the article as it appeared. There's a good story and lots of moral instruction in there, but if Ares had written "The Many Loves of Aphrodite" it would contained less venom.
Posted by Peter Grant on November 1,2011 | 04:46 PM
I find it a little odd that such an ugly, scarecrow of a "sculpture of antiquity" could garner such a huge amount of ardor simply because someone claimed the thing had an elaborate and sketchy history while Getty and a small town in Italy battled egos for years. Just to say where this morbidly obese, very poorly clad "Aphrodite" belongs is kind of silly. Aidone's one museum probably needed something that looked more local and this was said to be stolen. You have to notice that the sculptor's talents really do not fit any known Greek period as far as its style (Hellenistic, for instance)and just is no where near The Venus de Milo in artistic quality as well as being in very poor shape. The sculptor's lack of finishing on her dress just accentuates the obvious difference between the unfinished, awkwardly rendered limestone body and the screwed on marble appendages! I'm no expert but I've studied enough art history to find articles like this one and that equally dubious "Velazquez" article last year a little beneath Smithsonian's standards. Sorry.
Posted by Deborah Taylor on November 1,2011 | 04:04 PM
I thought most all art and ancient artifacts were just on lone for a period of time like the Piata, Davinci's anatomical scetches, Egyptian, India's art or otherwise?
Posted by on October 29,2011 | 11:39 AM
It is good thing to return the cultural wealth to its country of origin .
But are you going to return all things from Egypt ?
Will British Museum follow that suite and return artifacts from India , Egypt ??
This will make all museums in USA and UK empty .
How much this will help ? I don't know !
Posted by NILESH SALPE on October 24,2011 | 10:45 AM
This is a wonderfully written story that pulls together all the pieces of the scattered reporting I have read in recent years. Frammolino's work is to be mightily commended.
Posted by John Keahey on October 23,2011 | 02:46 PM
This controversy over the Getty and how it obtained many of its antiquities has been going on for years now.
I consider myself fortunate to have gotten the opportunity to see the statue featured in this story at the Getty Villa before it was repatriated. As much as I will miss the statue, there is no doubt in my mind that returning the statue was the right thing to do.
There are many other institutions in this country and around the world who have obtained antiquities by way of questionable practices. It is my sincere hope that these institutions will find it in their hearts to do the right thing and return these treasures to their rightful countries of origin.
Posted by Odyssey8 on October 21,2011 | 07:32 PM