Discovery of Ancient Mayan city / What’s deaccession? / Future of the Rosetta Stone / A fake Vermeer

Hello, everyone. Welcome back to By Amara. This is a weekly news show where I discuss contemporary events in the art and history fields.

I'm your host and personal curator, Amara Andrew. The format for the show, we typically follow the one used by Western brides. I don't know why, just thought it was fun.

So, something old, something new, something borrowed, and something blue. This week on the podcast, we're discussing the discovery of an underwater settlement, what happens when a painting is sold from a museum, the future of the Rosetta Stone, and a fake Vermeer. All that coming up on this episode of By Amara.

Let's get to it.

So, last week on the podcast I introduced the segment, "What's up with Amara?" I don't know, I just thought it was funny. I genuinely have nothing to report this week. I also do not have any old news to cover, so I think we're just going to jump right into the episode this week.

I did start reading a new book, woo-hoo. Actually, I'm reading two right now. Not at the same time, that would be amazing, but at the same time frame, but not literally at the same time.

That'd be kind of cool. I would actually really much like that superpower. So, I started reading Homodeus by Yuval Noah Harari.

I think that's how you say his name. And then also a book on like the history of jazz in America, so I'm very excited to keep going. I'm barely through the beginning of both of the books, so I don't really have much to report other than they're both very interesting so far, so that is basically it.

So, very boring week for me, but just doing a lot of work behind the scenes and getting ready for a bunch of different things. So, mostly just doing work, but there isn't a lot to report from that. So, yeah.

So, that's basically it for what's new with me. So, let's get to the show.

So, I'm very excited for this week's something old. So, this is very exciting. Something amazing was found in the Paynes Creek National Park in Southern Belize, and this discovery actually shows us multiple things about ancient Maya civilization.

So, archaeologist Ta'ab's Nook'na', apologies for my mispronunciation as always, at the site found a grouping of underwater late classic Maya structures, and these dated from 6th century CE. And archaeologists found not only large residential buildings, but three salt kitchens. So, in the residential buildings, what's really, really fascinating is archaeologists were able to see real-life classical Maya pole-and-thatch wooden buildings.

In this area of the world, so Central America, Southern Belize, wood decays very, very easily in the tropical landscape, so the fact that this was even still like intact and survived, 'cause it was submerged underwater, is super awesome. Archaeologists are able to infer a lot more now from this specimen of architecture, so that is very cool.

I'm very excited to see what they do with this new knowledge. That isn't the only thing that's super exciting. Like I mentioned, salt kitchens were also found.

So, salt was a very rare commodity inland, so essentially now seeing that these salt kitchens were found along coastal Belize, that shows that people actually lived and worked in these salt communities, I guess you could call them, I'm just terming them that, but salt communities. So, people lived and worked there, so they would harvest salt, or how- however you make salt, I actually have no idea, that's really fascinating.

But anyway, so they would live and work there and then provide salt to inland communities. And this was further solidified that there was like this trade going on between this coastal community, or coastal communities, plural, with inland communities. So, at this site, a wide variety of different pottery was found.

Pottery and like a bunch of other things. So, what piqued archaeologist interest most was a rare ocarina or like a figurine whistle that was found at this site. A community that was much further inland, there were a large amount of ocarinas that were found there, in particular in like molds, so then you could tell like, "Oh, these people actually like made these here." So, the fact that an ocarina was found at Ta'ab's Nook'na' at this community shows that there was some trade going on.

Also, to even further solidify this theory, there were also a bunch of other items that were found, including spindle, candeleros, and tools for cooking and processing food. This discovery is really amazing. So, like I said, not only because you got to see actually physical evidence of the architectural styles that were used by ancient Maya civilizations at this time period, but you also get to see how trade and commodities and things like that worked in ancient Maya civilization.

This is very fascinating. I just thought it was really cool. I don't have much to elaborate on it, also 'cause this is not my area of expertise at all, but I just thought it was really cool.

Our something new this week deals with deaccessioning. If you are in a field where you are a museum nerd or you work in a museum or you're an archivist or whatever, there are a lot of other professions that deal with it, but I'm mostly just thinking art and history related, you will have heard of deaccessioning. So, when you deaccession something, that is essentially just the institution removing something from its repository, so it'll not own it anymore, it can go somewhere else, it can go in the garbage even, not typically for art museums, but like I worked as an archivist for a very long time, so I'm specifically thinking in like an archival capacity.

Also worked in museums. So when you deaccession something, that means that you do not want to have it in your collection anymore, that is just for somebody else, or like I said, for the garbage. Getting back to the museum field first and foremost, because that's what we're discussing today in our something new, deaccessioning means that you are putting an artwork or an art object or just an object of some sort, we're talking about art museums specifically in this instance, so I will just be referring to artwork and things like that, you are putting that artwork up for sale for another institution to purchase it.

As stated by the AAMD, which is the Association for American Museum Directors, a mouthful, they, in their guidelines, so it's like essentially what museum professionals can follow for best practices, they stated in their guidelines that the funds from selling the artwork can only be put toward acquisition or buying a new piece of art for the collection, so that's it.

Once you sell something, you can only use that money from that sale to buy a new piece of artwork. That's it. That is historically how it has gone.

Before COVID, though, a new guideline was put in place to change this policy so that the funds from the selling of the artwork could be used for direct care of the museum. Now, direct care is very vague. It was intentionally vague so that museums could have some level of autonomy and decide what that even meant for them, so they could choose how to define direct care, but COVID happened.

During COVID times, the guidelines were further edited, or it was like a temporary kind of edit, to allow museums to use the money that they gained from deaccessioning things to pay for staff wages, so people who were directly involved in taking care of the museum collections. That is a very nice thing to do, not typical, like not typically something in the museum field.

Museum field has a lot of problems with employment and proper compensation and things like that, I will just put it very mildly. That is a topic for a very different time or a very different group of people to have. Now, however, the AAMD has again chosen to refine these guidelines and they actually now very clearly define what direct care means.

So, the new policy reads, quote, "Direct care for purposes of this section means the direct costs associated with the storage or preservation of works of art." And then these direct costs can include now I am paraphrasing, these direct costs can include conservation and restoration treatments or materials to store or take care of different things, so like a lot of different archival supplies, but the funds now cannot be used for salaries of staff or costs incurred for the sole purpose of temporary exhibition display.

So, you can't use these funds now for saving your workers' jobs or for temporary display, which the temporary display thing makes a lot of sense to me. So, like I said, I was very stoked to see that they actually wanted to put money toward saving their workers' jobs and people who worked directly with the collections. Now, I get it, you can't save every single job in a museum, just with how funding works and it's a whole pain in the ass kind of thing, but I think it's interesting now that you can't use that money to take care of the people who are taking care of the stuff for you, because if you can't afford to take care of those people, I don't know, it's a whole complex question and things like that, I'm not a curator, I'm not a head of a museum, quite obviously, so I don't really know what it is like to budget a huge institution like that and have to make those certain choices and cuts and things, but I do think that is a very big problem in the museum field.

I'm definitely a huge advocate for being able to pay for people who do a lot of great work, and it is a very stressful job working in a museum. People don't think it is, but it's extremely stressful, especially when you have deadlines for exhibitions and things like that, so. Anyway, I could go on and on and on and on about it, same with archivists.

Anyway, I think they should kind of maybe rethink the salaries kind of thing. So, anyway, just my two cents. I'm very curious to see how this goes and if the AAMD will further elaborate upon this or change it or define it.

I mean, that's the beauty though, is everything's kind of made up, so this group of people, this very small group of people gets to choose what does happen and what doesn't happen, so we'll see what happens. [laughter] Happen, happen, happen.

If you're watching this, you just saw me scratch my nose and it just made me think of, I think it's Seinfeld, I don't know. My boyfriend's very into Seinfeld, so he's been having me re-watch the episodes. But I just had to itch my nose 'cause it got itchy, and it made me think of like, "I'm just itching the outside and it's like it's not an itch, it's a pick," and whatever.

Anyway. So, our something borrowed this week is again, it's going to be something stolen, just because this is very interesting. So, like we discussed a few episodes back about the Koh-i-Noor Diamond and being returned to India, it's in a lot of people's opinions, including mine, the rightful place and location of where the diamond should be.

This week we're going to be discussing the Rosetta Stone. So, the Koh-i-Noor Diamond is owned by the royal family, it's in the center of Queen Elizabeth's crown, or was in her crown, whatever. Now, we are discussing the British Museum.

The Rosetta Stone is located at the British Museum. It has been for at least 200 years. There's a huge problem with the fact that they have the Rosetta Stone, so I'm going to tell you a little bit more about the history and then there's also a current petition that's being circulated about this.

So, if you do not know what the Rosetta Stone is, it is a giant, I think it's granite, I'm not too sure, slab that is called a stele. It's just a an ancient giant thing. [laughter] I haven't seen it in person, so I don't know. So, the Rosetta Stone is really significant because it actually helped us be able to decipher ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.

So, this was used 'cause it has ancient Greek, ancient Egyptian Demotic script, I believe, and then hieroglyphs on it. So, the ancient Greek was used to translate what was in Demotic and then also in hieroglyphs. So, it was kind of this very handy Google Translate before that existed.

So, what happened, though, is in 1799, on one of Napoleon's campaigns throughout Egypt, and we'll just call it a campaign, I guess, so his soldiers were digging a fort near Rashid, or Rosetta, and they stumbled upon this stele, allegedly, allegedly stumbled upon it. Again, history is full of wild inaccuracies, but that's I guess what makes it fun.

I don't know. So, this piece was then like packaged up by Napoleon, stolen from Egypt, taken to France. In 1802, during the Napoleonic Wars, under a treaty, it was then gifted to the British Museum, where it's been since then.

And like I mentioned in the Koh-i-Noor Diamond episode, go check it out if you want. I go on another whole tangent just like the one from last week about the Frida Kahlo artwork. So, like with the Koh-i-Noor Diamond, which is being asked for by the people of India, the Rosetta Stone is being asked for by the like the Egyptian people.

There is a current petition that's being signed, 2,500 archaeologists, I believe, signed this petition to have the Rosetta Stone brought back to Egypt, and then it can just be there. Ancient Egyptian stuff is just all over the world, and there are tons of different cases of repatriation to try to get these things back. It's a whole nightmare shitshow.

Also, the Parthenon Marbles are another object that is has been asked for back, that was not great English, I apologize, but the Parthenon Marbles, also known as the Elgin Marbles, because of Lord Elgin, who stole them essentially, those are also being asked for back by Greece. So, yeah, it's just a very big, sticky issue with like repatriation and things like that.

I personally am very pro-repatriation and giving these things back to communities, especially when they're asking you for them. So, the petition that's circulating, like I said, 2,500 signatures on it. The British Museum, though, has stated and stands by their statement that the Egyptian government has never asked for the stele's return.

You sure about that? You sure about that, Britain? I don't know, that feels a little suspicious.

It also feels like a middle finger to these people that are signing this petition and the people of Egypt who are actually asking for this back. That feels like a very rude response. I was blown away to read that.

So the petition not only asks for the return of the Rosetta Stone, but also 16 other artifacts that were either illegally or unethically removed from Egypt. I really hope that these institutions actually like take this seriously and abide by their moral obligation to give these things back. I get you weren't the one that did it, but the fact that this happened, you can just be like, "Okay, let's give it back.

We can make things right for now." Like things happened that were completely unethical and immoral, but we can at least try to do the right thing now. So, I think I'm always giving my two cents. [laughter] So, that is our something borrowed or stolen for this week. So, now let's get on to our final segment, something blue.

All righty. I love a good reattribution story. That is It fills me with so much delight.

When I say reattribution, I should probably elaborate a little bit more. It's when an artwork is thought to have been created by one specific artist, but then research is done, somebody devotes like their whole life to studying every single piece of this painting, and then it's found out that this actually was created by a totally different person, a totally different group of people, even, and that is what happened at the National Art Gallery or National Gallery of Art, apologies.

So a well-known piece by Vermeer called Girl with a Flute has been identified as not actually having been created by Vermeer. Reattribution happens, and I'm just I think I'm just making that word up, honestly. But this happens every once in a while in the art community and I love it.

It is like one of my favorite things. That was actually one of the central tenets of sorts of my graduate school thesis, my master's thesis, was trying to figure out who actually painted this mystery painting that I'm obsessed with at the Art Institute of Chicago. I will probably talk about that at another time.

Right now, we're focusing on Vermeer. So, how does museum reattribution, again, my own word, I think, [laughter] how does this work? So, typically museum professionals will look at a piece, so let's start somewhere else.

If there's even like a remote question that this piece does not belong to Vermeer or whoever, whoever the artist is, it'll typically say the workshop of or something like that. A lot of artists historically have had like very famous artists have had big workshops of people so then they could turn out all these different paintings.

So, maybe the artist started with the original composition and did some stuff, and then they would pass it along in their workshop to other people to finish it for them. Sometimes even the artist would never actually touch that physical piece if it was like a smaller commission or something like that, and then they would just give it to the people in their workshop and just be like, "Hey, can you just do this?" and then they would do it, and it would look similar enough to the artist's how they would do it, but then it clearly was not done by the original artist.

So, that is what appears to have happened with this Vermeer painting. So, back to what I was saying before, the way a museum professional will be able to figure this out by looking at a painting is just judging a wide variety of different things. So, a lot of times, especially now in the modern age, we can actually date the different pigments that are used in a painting.

So, if there was like acrylic paint that was found on this painting, for instance, you would know that this is clearly not a Vermeer because acrylic paint did not exist yet. So, that is a way that you can very quickly, not quickly, but sort of easily be able to identify that this is not a Vermeer painting if there is a question.

And then you get down to art history 101, which is essentially just looking at the brushwork of a painting or an artwork. I'm just talking about paintings specifically for this example, just because we are talking about a painting, but you can look at the brushstrokes, you can look at the handling, like the modeling of the figures.

If it's, you know, Rubens-esque, Rubensesque, then it's going to be a lot more of a full kind of figure, and different brushstrokes and painting and handling. Vermeer is definitely known for his handling of like highlights and things like that, and just his very accurate, beautiful, kind of flawless painting. So you can see in Girl with a Flute not as high quality, like the technical quality of it is very different when compared to another piece that's at the National Gallery, so this is what the museum professionals were comparing this piece to, Girl with the Red Hat.

I keep going on all these different tangents. I'm so sorry. I'm just very this really gets me excited.

So, if you look at Girl with the Red Hat, which you can see right here, I'm looking at it here on my computer, you can see that the colors are extremely vivid, the tapestry that's behind the woman is a lot more it's just a different quality and a different feeling to it, and it has like a more precise, clear, clean kind of look to it if you look at the brushstrokes.

You can also see all the different highlights and things like that. If you look at Girl with the Flute, though, it's a little muddier behind her. Her face, like her facial features don't look as vibrant, it looks much more static, whereas in Girl with the Red Hat there's like life in there, if that makes any sense.

I might just be talking out my ass, which, probably. [laughter] You can just see that there's a difference in her face. It doesn't have the same kind of quality, it doesn't look as realistic or like lifelike. Also 'cause the highlight is missing from the eyes, so that definitely has something to do with it, but also then the handling of the colors like I mentioned, very different in Girl with the Red Hat versus Girl with the Flute.

Same with all the light and shadows, and blah, blah, blah. I could go on for hours and hours, so I'm just going to cut it right there. So, you can just see all those subtle differences that really, really, really make a difference, and especially if you're studying this day in and day out, you will be able to notice those differences hands down, like very quickly.

So, this piece now, instead of being attributed to Vermeer, Johannes Vermeer, it is now attributed to his studio, so it looks like somebody who was in his studio may have created this, maybe Vermeer was like, "Hey, blah, blah, blah," and then the person in the studio did it, or they wanted a copy of Vermeer to try to see if they can kind of as like practice, possibly.

I have no idea. I hope they figure it out, but again, very hard to do when there's scant recording. Also, if you're practicing making a painting, you're not really going to write about it or have like a contract or anything like that, so there really wouldn't be any reason to have like to have that information about the piece.

So, and it's not a bad thing that this isn't made by Vermeer, it just changes the story a little bit and it will also change the monetary value of it as well [laughter] in the future if they want to sell it.

All righty. So, that does it for this episode of By Amara. Thanks so much for listening.

I hope you enjoyed the episode and like and subscribe if you really liked it. If not, then I hope you have a good day as always. Yeah, send me any stories if you find any that seem particularly interesting to you, and I will give you a little shoutout and talk about it.

Woo. Yeah, just I have nothing else to say, I think. [laughter] So, thanks again for listening. As always, I'm Amara Andrew, and never stop creating.