 |
| Pseudo-Bonham's photo of the fragment ripped off a building |
LoveAntiques.com @loveantiques auction aggregator ("We sell genuine antiques for trusted antique dealers") has just posted on Twitter an advert for this thing: 4:30 PM · 19 mar 2021
How interesting. This is a 2nd - 3rd Century AD 'Gandharan Frieze Section with Buddha' is offered for sale from Greystones Fine Interiors: https://buff.ly/3tCVzgI #antiquities #frieze #stonefrieze #aincentstone #buddha #loveantiquesThe asking price is £3000. The text of their sales spiel says: "Greystones Fine Interiors has clarified that the Gandharan Frieze Section with Buddha (LA334273) is genuinely of the period declared" there however is not a word there that they equally clarify that there is export/collection history documentation. Unfortunately, as is usually the case with dealers who flog bits ripped off buildings and archaeological sites as "ancient art" as feelgood trophies for people whose life is lacking, the photography leaves a lot to be desired We cannot see the back? One wonders on what an interior decorator would base their "clarification" and dating on. Schist has a bit of a grain to it, so that's probably why the eyes of this piece are so squiffy and (to my eye) un-Gandharan. Also the smeary layers of what looks like thick lumpy limewash and brown gunk rubbed off the highlihghts don't look very convincing. I'd like to know more about the tooling of the backgrounds of other reliefs is generally like, the horizontal lines of chiselling don't look very familiar. Here is what Greystones (a firm in Peterborough, United Kingdom) say:
DescriptionIt then [tellingly] gets a bit dubious
2nd-3rd century AD. A carved schist frieze section with arcade of rectangular pillars framing two scenes.
The historical region of Gandhara.... [bla bla narrativisation, rolling out the usual dealer claptrap] [...]. In this fragment of the frieze we can observe a curious scene in which the Buddha is surrounded by a retinue of offerors [sic] or followers, very similar to scenes from the Christian imagination in which Jesus Christ is surrounded by his apostles [oh, pleeese!].
22 kg total, 81.5cm width with stand 27cm in height (on stand). Cf. Jongeward, D. Buddhist Art of Gandhara in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 2018, item 32 for type.
MEASUREMENTS Height: 27 cm Width: 81.5 cm Depth: 8 mm [eh???]
DECLARATION
Greystones Fine Interiors has clarified that the Gandharan Frieze Section with Buddha (LA334273) is genuinely of the period declared with the date/period of manufacture being 2-3 Century AD
CONDITION
Good condition, commensurate with age and its journey through time [sic]. Some old restoration to bring together the two primary fragments of the frieze.
ADDITIONAL INFO Period: Pre 16th Century Material: Stone Origin: Persian Date of Manufacture: 2-3 Century ADAlthough the dealer might need it, I hope I don't have to provide readers of this blog a map here showing the relative positions on the map of Gandhara and "Persia" (called Iran these days). These are two completely different regions. The Kushans for example did not rule Persia. With gaffes like this, one wonders how reliable the dealers' other claims are.
Updated 19th March 2021
What kind of business is it that is quite happy to post up a link to an "interesting" antiquity with no mentioned documentation... until somebody draws attention to what they've done? Why not check legitimacy first? What a "novel" idea, eh? The original advert however is still unrepentantly up.
.jpg)
3 comments:
Dear Paul,
Thanks for your comments and interest in the Frieze, even if based on uninformed and incorrect opinions. The Frieze concerned was purchased from a specialist antiquities sale in 2020 managed by Timeline Auctions Limited, a well established and well respected house who put all lots offered through a rigorous vetting process which includes scientific and a independent expert panel assessment. Dating and key aspects of the description was provided by Timeline and based on their expertise can be viewed as reliable. Yes a narrative was added but this too was sourced from a reputable researcher and is of interest to our clients, a starting point for those who may be unfamiliar with Gandharan history.
I've noticed that a general theme in your blog posts is to be critical and 'bash' others, making insinuations and comments well beyond what appears to be just a generalist level of expertise. Troll like almost. If you had made any effort to contact us before releasing your post we would have shared our experiences with the lot, its vetting and our research. We would have listened.
"Unknown" I assume is the seller. Hmm.
“even if based on uninformed and incorrect opinions”
which, precisely, opinions would the latter be, pray? My opinion is that this item is not 8mm thick, nor that there is such a word as "offerors". Do all the figures have squiffy eyes quite unlike the manner in which Gandhara art generally depicted eyes, even on small scale reliefs? Am I incorrect there?
Unknown says (now):
"The Frieze concerned was purchased from a specialist antiquities sale in 2020 managed by Timeline Auctions Limited, a well established and well respected house".
My response is: Hahahahha!!
I suggest that before coming on here with such a story, the seller should first check what this blog says about some of Timeline’s auctions including in 2020 (check out the “Doris Mosaic” and some of the weapons!)
Also they could do themselves a favour and do a Google background check on Brett Hammond himself – he used to be a specialist bird dealer, but that did not end well….
The seller believes that there is no need to check out any collecting history and paperwork, because Timelines is kosher and
“put all lots offered through a rigorous vetting process which includes scientific and a independent expert panel assessment”.
Yeah?
These “experts”, does the seller know who they are? (they could check them out on this blog too). They are not “independent” are they?
Furthermore although "Greystones Fine Interiors has clarified" this themselves, in fact their "dating and key aspects of the description was [sic] provided by Timeline and based on their expertise can be viewed as reliable".
All I can say is more fool them. I'd not take another antiquities dealers' word for anything. That's a pretty good rule of thumb for the current form of the antiquities trade. Like this seller Timelines is interested in shifting their goods for as much as they can get for them. So "Greystones" are unable to answer the remarks about the squiffy eyes and the brown gunk. A potential buyer should also have a much more detailed description and be able to see the back of this in detail to see what they are getting.
This is another of Timelines' Gandhara pieces: https://www.artfoxlive.com/product/3657998.html
I am also rather shocked that in the description that information about its recent history is not given. Who, though, consigned it and where did they get it from? ? According to the description actually published by Greystones Fine Interiors, this just bobbed up from “underground” in “Peterborough”.
The fact that they said it was from "Persia" is not explained. Was the consigning middleman an Iranian?
> Yes a narrative was added but this too was sourced from a reputable researcher and is of interest to our clients, a starting point for those who may be unfamiliar with Gandharan history. <
Looks like Wikipedia to me (and why is its source not given?). It is notable that the seller admits that they are not trying to sell this item to somebody who knows what they are actually buying.
I use the word "narrativisation" for the spiel dealers use to bulk out the text of sales offers at the expense of saying in more detail what the buyer is purchasing and the collecting history. A second function is to allow the dealer to present themselves as somebody who "knows" what they are talking about (when often they are not at all the connoisseurs that they pretend to be).
"Unknown". has a few reflections about the nature of this blog and my qualifications for holding the opinions I do.
I believe in protecting archaeological sites (and in this case whole buildings) from the people with spades and crowbars that want to turn evidence of the past into a commodity so firms like "Greystones Fine Interiors" can make a profit by flipping them. That is why this blog is critical of those that hold the attitude that its OK to collect bits crowbarred off buildings in Afghanistan /Pakistan and then transported to Harwich and then Peterborough goodness-knows-how. I see nothing at all in any of this to praise.
> If you had made any effort to contact us before releasing your post we would have shared our experiences with the lot, its vetting and our research. We would have listened.<
Their "experiences", eh? They'd have "listened" to what, from somebody they dismiss as a "troll" with "just a generalised level of expertise"?
So, ask Mr Hammond.
Post a Comment