My previously stated conviction that the Metropolitan Museum didn’t get what it bargained for in its silver swap with Sicily was reaffirmed yesterday, when I again saw in the Met’s Hellenistic galleries the pieces it had relinquished five years ago as part of a broader 2006 agreement with Italy:
All photos by Lee Rosenbaum
In accordance with the Met’s agreement to return these and other objects to Italy, the silver was to rotate every four years between Sicily and New York. That means they should have made the return trip a year ago. But Sicily’s recent second thoughts about the original terms of its repatriation agreements with U.S. museums may have something to do with the unexplained delay in the silver’s reappearance at the Met.
The Met called these 16 pieces “the Hellenistic Silver Hoard”; Italy called them “Morgantina Silver” and alleged that they were taken from that well known archaeological site and were smuggled from Sicily, to be eventually acquired by the Met from dealer Robert Hecht, also the source of the celebrated (and also repatriated) Euphronios krater.
The repatriation agreement called for a loan to the Met from Italy of pieces of “equivalent beauty and importance.” But nothing in the comparatively unremarkable group on loan for the past five years…
…came anywhere close to this ravishing relief, which I was very pleased to gaze on again, after its stint abroad:
Other highlights from the 3rd century B.C. silver, now returned to view, include this lidded box, depicting a goddess on a rock, with a child and cornucopia on her lap…
…and this gilt-silver bowl:
Two objects—a pyxis (lidded box) and an oinochoe (wine pitcher)—are missing from the display case. Their labels saying they were “temporarily removed” by the Met for an “exam.”
Despite the public interest in being informed about new (or returning) Met displays, I have seen no public announcement of the fact that these pieces are now back on view. I had repeatedly requested updates from the museum’s press office (most recently on Jan. 8) as to when the belated return would occur. This must have happened very recently, as evidenced by the 2015 loan labels.
Perhaps the Met has no desire to attract attention to an installation evoking an unpleasant chapter in its history—the very reluctant decision by previous director Philippe de Montebello to part with objects long considered part of the permanent collection, but encumbered by a dicey past. Under Tom Campbell, the museum has become more proactive about instigating returns.