The museum has also stated that 300 further items are “due to be returned imminently”, and that it has enlisted an international taskforce
The museum is searching for objects that fall under two categories: gold rings, ear-rings and other pieces of jewellery; and classical Greek and Roman gems
Photo: Tdal/Wirestock Creators
The British Museum is finally going public on its strategy to recover the 2,000 antiquities that have been stolen from its collection in the past few years, with a webpage dedicated to the recovery operation launching today (available from 1pm). This comes as the museum reveals in a statement that 60 items have now been retrieved and a further 300 have been identified and are “due to be returned imminently”.
George Osborne, the museum’s chairman, disclosed on 26 August that “around 2,000” objects had been taken from the storerooms, as a result of a theft by a museum curator. These include gold jewellery and gems of semi-precious stones and glass dating from the 15th century BC and later. All are believed to have come from the Greek and Roman department.
No details are given about the 60 items that have been recovered so far and the further 300 that are expected, but it is possible that some of these may be returned via the perpetrator of the suspected theft or by outsiders who blew the whistle on it. This leaves around 1,600 objects to be recovered.
The new British Museum webpage does not record details of lost items but merely “the types of objects that are missing”, including photographs, so that the public “will be better able to identify whether they might have come in contact of any stolen items”.
On the face of it, it seems surprising that details and photographs of the individual stolen objects are not being publicised, since this is normally done after art thefts, in order to maximise the chances of a recovery. When we asked about this, a museum spokesperson referred us to the London-based Art Loss Register, which is assisting the operation.
A spokesperson for the Art Loss Register, which runs the world’s largest database of stolen art, explained that publication might “enable those who are holding such pieces and are acting in bad faith to avoid detection”. This can happen in two ways: “either by selling through channels where fewer questions are asked” or “by destroying the piece”. In the case of the British Museum’s jewellery, identification of specific items might increase the chances that holders would “melt down the gold mount” to realise the scrap value without detection.
The Art Loss Register is itself recording known items which have gone missing from the British Museum, but this information is only accessible to the antiquities and jewellery trade—not members of the public.
The museum has not publicly disclosed how many of the remaining 1,600 missing items have been identified. Records of some of the objects which have been lost are believed to be incomplete—not photographed or fully described. Indeed this may explain why these particular items were targeted by the thief. The lack of detailed records may also partially account for the museum’s reluctance to publish details of any individual losses.
In a further effort to aid recovery, the British Museum has established a panel of leading specialists to aid the identification and recovery of the lost antiquities. Members include James Ratcliffe, a director of the Art Loss Register, and Lynda Albertson, head of the Rome-based Association for Research into Crimes against Art.
The other 12 members are mainly specialists in ancient gems and jewellery. Interestingly, of the 14 members, only two are UK-based, one is in the US and the rest are located in Europe. Meetings will be held in London, but some members are expected to participate remotely.
The museum is working with London’s Metropolitan Police on the recovery operation. It is also actively monitoring the art market, including online. The operation is being run from the museum’s department of Greece and Rome, which can be contacted at recovery@britishmuseum.org
Today the British Museum is revealing a little more about the type of objects that were stolen. These are in two categories: gold rings, ear-rings and other pieces of jewellery; and classical Greek and Roman gems.
What types of objects have been lost?
From the new webpage: Late Bronze Age finger-ring, from Enkomi (Cyprus), 1450-1200BC
The gold rings, earrings and other pieces of jewellery are described by the museum as follows: “These date from across antiquity, especially the Late Bronze Age (about 15th to 11th century BC) and the Hellenistic and Roman periods”.
The classical Greek and Roman gems are described in the following terms: “Gems, cameos or intaglios are small objects, often set in rings or other settings, or left unmounted or unfinished. They may be made of semi-precious stone (for example sardonyx, amethyst) or glass; they may be cast from a mould or engraved by hand. The majority of the gems are from the Hellenistic and Roman world, but some may also have been made in modern times in imitation of ancient gems. They may feature images of famous individuals from the classical past, of mythological scenes, animals or objects. These gems are of varied quality. Some will be fragmentary and damaged.”
LONDON (AP) — With a few daubs of a paintbrush, the Brontë sisters have got their dots back.
More than eight decades after it was installed, a memorial to the three 19th-century sibling novelists in London’s Westminster Abbey was amended Thursday to restore the diaereses – the two dots over the e in their surname.
The dots — which indicate that the name is pronounced “brontay” rather than “bront” — were omitted when the stone tablet commemorating Charlotte, Emily and Anne was erected in the abbey’s Poets’ Corner in October 1939, just after the outbreak of World War II.
They were restored after Brontë historian Sharon Wright, editor of the Brontë Society Gazette, raised the issue with Dean of Westminster David Hoyle. The abbey asked its stonemason to tap in the dots and its conservator to paint them.
“There’s no paper record for anyone complaining about this or mentioning this, so I just wanted to put it right, really,” Wright said. “These three Yorkshire women deserve their place here, but they also deserve to have their name spelled correctly.”
It’s believed the writers’ Irish father Patrick changed the spelling of his surname from Brunty or Prunty when he went to university in England.
Raised on the wild Yorkshire moors, all three sisters died before they were 40, leaving enduring novels including Charlotte’s “Jane Eyre,” Emily’s “Wuthering Heights” and Anne’s “The Tenant of Wildfell Hall.”
Rebecca Yorke, director of the Brontë Society, welcomed the restoration.
“As the Brontës and their work are loved and respected all over the world, it’s entirely appropriate that their name is spelled correctly on their memorial,” she said.
