The statue that shouldn't be there

The “Thermae” exhibition (「テルマエ展 お風呂でつながる古代ローマと日本」) currently on show at the Kobe Municipal Museum brings together some beautiful and interesting objects from Greco-Roman antiquity, and I recommend a visit, even if the museography is somewhat lacking and, contrary to what its poster or Mari Yamasaki's patronage would suggest, it doesn't really offer any comparison or parallel approach between Roman and Japanese baths.

One exhibit, however, really bothered me, which is why I'm writing about it here. While the museum allows photography of most of the artifacts in the exhibition, the atmosphere becomes tense as you approach a large bronze statue standing in an individual glass display case. There's no photography here, and it's even specified that it's forbidden to photograph the small poster announcing this prohibition, which I find comical. One or two guards are on duty in the room to ensure that this prohibition is respected.

Source for the picture: https://www.miho.jp/booth/html/artcon/00002706e.htm

The statue is superb, the above photo doesn't do it justice; it has a powerful presence. Standing 1.85 m tall, it depicts a slightly larger-than-life veiled woman. The details of her clothing and parts of her hair are exquisite. But what is it doing in the exhibition? It doesn't seem related to the bathing theme. Above all, who is she? It's impossible to say, as its provenance is unknown, and that's where the problem lies. It is part of the collection of the Miho Museum, which lent several objects to the Kobe exhibition, some of which can be photographed.

Where does it come from? A total mystery! What is its date? The question remains. On its website, the Miho Museum claims “1st century A.D.”, but the list of works exhibited in Kobe (no. 73) declares “前 2 ～前 1 世紀”, “2nd-1st c. BC.”

The statue is therefore one of a number of works, some of exceptional quality, that have earned the Miho Museum a bad reputation in professional archaeological and heritage circles. It is quite possible that it was the result of illegal excavations and that it was smuggled, which means both the destruction of any scientific data that might have accompanied it and the impossibility of really understanding its nature, as well as loss of income and heritage disaster for its rightful owners and the country from which it originated.

It seems that Japanese legislation is notable for the “short time period in its statute of limitations” concerning crimes related to the theft of works of art (Renfrew 2012), and it is therefore quite possible that the Miho Museum is now the irrevocably legal owner of this statue, but, to my mind, it is shocking that the authorities of the Kobe Museum, a public museum, have not been more careful about the works it houses within its walls: they give a seal of respectability to a statue and its owner, who sadly don't deserve it.

Renfrew 2012 = C. Renfrew, Combating the Illicit Antiquities Trade: Progress and Problems (Ufficio Studi, 2012)

UNESCO 1970 = UNESCO, Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (Japan has not ratified the convention, but it "accepted" it on September 8, 2002)