Wednesday 10 November 2021

Colonialism is never "Cool", Buying Unpapered, Ungrounded Artefacts Even Less So


        Bad taste (screenshot from 'LadBible)
          She's actually holding it upside down       

In the unthinking-clickbait part of the Internet, someone that posts a lot of mostly-empty comment is dubbed an "influencer". As Kate Fowler of Newsweek points out ('Influencer Slammed Online for Showing Off Ancient Egyptian Artifact: 'Return It', 11/10/21) they can sometimes read their audience wrong:

A makeup artist and influencer with over 600,000 followers has been met with criticism online after sharing an ancient Egyptian artifact she purchased. Many have claimed the artifact could have been stolen, given the West's history of looted goods trade. Erin Parsons, who identifies herself as a "vintage collector" and often shows vintage makeup tools, posted a video introducing her purchase to TikTok. Parsons had bought an ancient Egyptian cosmetics spoon from an online auction. Although the video has since been deleted by the creator, snippets are still available to see in stitches by other TikTok users. "This is an ancient Egyptian cosmetic spoon from around the 18th dynasty," she said as she showed the tool to the camera. Viewers of the video were left disapproving of the purchase, with concerns that it could be a stolen artifact as so many are.
Absolutely, and an even greater number are fake. Disregarding (as I think one can very safely do) the assurances of the online seller, the object Ms Parsons has in her hand is probably not an eighteenth century cosmetic spoon [recte: palette] (they saw her coming: "makeup artist? I have just the very items for you ma'am"). Also, since she (and the dealer) has no proof that it's a dugup antiquity, if she knew how Egyptian fakers can get that grungy 'patina', she'd probably not be too happy holding it in her nicely-manicured hand so close to her over-painted face with that triumphant 'look-what-I've-got' smirk on it.* Best keep something like that in a well-sealed polybag and away from food (goes for most artefacts and collectors' "artifacts" too).
Parsons responded to the comment with context on how she purchased the spoon, writing: "What I know is that it was in a private collection since the 1980s. I found it at an auction online and added it to my makeup collection." The history of the spoon is unconfirmed, and it's not known by Newsweek whether or not it was stolen.
I can hazard a guess that it was not stolen from an archaeological site... 

Here's one from Catawiki, suggesting just what kind of an "online seller" she had dealings with and how much his or her undocumented assurances are actually worth (this one went unsold). 

And in fact, following that back, it seems that here is (or rather are) the very spoon she bought. It probably came from Artemission.  Mr Antoine Karawani seems to have found a supplier that has a cache of them. 


The narrativisation to the second wooden one states:
A very close parallel is in the Louvre Museum: N1747 = AF. 698
also represented in "Les objets de toilette égyptiens Au Musée du Louvre" by J. Vandier d'Abbadie, éditions des musées Nationaux, Paris 1972 page 24 fig41, p 23+25 > "Cuilleron composé d'une fleur de lotus encadrée de deux boutons et surmontée par un fruit de perséa. Les tiges des pleurs sont enroulées en glène, formant ainsi le manche de la cuiller." dated also to the XVIII dynasty.A very close parallel is in the Louvre Museum: N1747 = AF. 698 also represented in "Les objets de toilette égyptiens Au Musée du Louvre" by J. Vandier d'Abbadie, éditions des musées Nationaux, Paris 1972 page 24 fig41, p 23+25 "Cuilleron composé d'une fleur de lotus encadrée de deux boutons et surmontée par un fruit de perséa. Les tiges des pleurs sont enroulées en glène, formant ainsi le manche de la cuiller." dated also to the XVIII dynasty.
See also: I. Wallert Der Verzierte Löffel, p 143 (p24) pl 29 (under number AF 698)
And also: Capart: L'art de la parure féminine dans l'Ancienne Egypte, pl VI
The Louvre one is here, not so heavily patinated. Seems to have come from the nineteenth century antiquities market (?)

Of course, none of the "collection histories" cited by Mr Karawani makes them legal in terms of the various forms of legislation controlling excavation and export of items from Egypt, going back many decades before the "1980s". Neither does any of them "ground" the object in any way or form. So smug overpainted ladies who know nothing much about what they are buying (she's holding it upside down in the photo, it's a lotus) have no guarantee except Mr Karawani's say-so. The "influencer" could look him up in the internet to see what that is worth, I suppose, to get both sides of the story.

What is more interesting is that in this article and several others this morning, the actual story is that the poster was 'slammed' by TikTok viewers for showing an item of suche proveninience (I mean from this kind of online dealer) which suggests that the general public is gradually being affected by the kind of outreach on antiquities collecting being done by my colleagues (everyone except the fifty or so that work for the UK's Portable Antiquities Scheme or the ones that are entangled in the Helsinki Network). Anyway:
Parsons reportedly posted an apology video but has since deleted it, along with her original video of the purchased artifact. Newsweek has contacted Erin Parsons for comment.

*PS looking at this again, the texture of the Artemission ones looks very much like some craftwork carvings from Southern Asia (India, SE Asia), perhaps its not even from Northern Africa at all, a wood identification would be good to have (I've no idea what the answer is, can wood DNA be tested to get a species from a small sample?)


No comments:

 
Creative Commons License
Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported.