In 1941 Poulsen suggested that these statues were evidence of looting at the site of Nemi between the last excavation of Orsini (1895) and the first government lead excavations of Morpurgo (1924-1928). The statue group were published as genuine by Reinarch in 1909.
Interestingly Poulsen seems unambiguous about connecting the bronzes to the temple of Diana, NOT the ships sunk in the lake, but Reinarch clearly thinks the ships are the true provenance as Spink reports. I wonder what Poulsen knew or if t was just a guess.
Reinarch ends his article with a plea for legal excavations as a means of stopping the illegal looting.
I have reason to believe that the statue and statuettes in the Spink collection are not the only antiquities salvaged from these waters to have found their way to England. However, given the laws governing archaeological excavations in Italy, it is inevitable that beautiful objects—discovered and transported in secret—reveal their true origins only belatedly, if indeed they do not lose or alter their provenance entirely along the way. Such are the results—deplorable for the advancement of science—of a seemingly draconian body of legislation (albeit one tempered, in practice, by negligence and other factors). It bars foreign learned societies from conducting systematic research—even when they pledge to forgo any claim to their discoveries—thereby leaving the field open to less altruistic researchers who, in unearthing and carrying off the treasures of the Roman past, are, after all, merely doing their job.
Reinarch defended his view of provenance and authenticity in 1910.
The Bronze from Nemi. Following a report in the *Evening Express* stating that the King of England had seen and admired the bronze statue from Nemi—which was featured in a previous issue of the *Revue* (Plates XI–XII)—an anonymous writer in the *Corriere della Sera* (January 7, 1910) saw fit to cast doubt not only upon the provenance but also upon the authenticity of this figure. As for the provenance, Messrs. Spink possess documents that they have not shown to me, and which they will disclose only to a prospective buyer; this is a consequence of Italian laws regarding the export of antiquities. As for the authenticity, it cannot appear doubtful to anyone who has seen the original; such, however, is not the case with the *Corriere* writer, who—knowing nothing else, moreover, about the history of this object—missed a golden opportunity to remain silent.
What I love here is the bald faced admission that Spink had proof they were flaunting Italian law and the scholar blames the law, not the auction house!
The circular display in the photography is non-sense, but the objects could be genuine. My first thought is the meter-high statues from San Casciano. It would be very interesting be able to compare this statue to those. If only, it was in an Italian collection.
I wonder where the large statue is now. I am resisting the urge to go hunt for it.
Liv Mariah Yarrow 