Due Diligence at Bonhams

Bonhams is a member of the Antiquities Dealers Association (ADA). The ADA's code of conduct states:

I undertake not to purchase or sell objects until I have established, to the best of my ability, that such objects were not stolen from excavations, architectural monuments, public institutions or private property.

Could staff at Bonhams have detected that they were about to offer material handled by Giacomo Medici?

I suspect that a check was made with the Art Loss Register (ALR). But as I pointed out - in connection with a piece of Lydian silver on offer from Bonhams in October 2007 - "the ALR will indicate if the object has been stolen from, say, a private collection in Knightsbridge, but not if the item comes from a previously unknown and unrecorded archaeological site". If the Medici Roman Youth had come from a pillaged archaeological site, it would not appear in the ALR register.

So any responsible dealer would then want to make sure that they were not likely to handle recently surfaced antiquities. Bonhams had experience of this in October 2008 when they tried to sell the Graham Geddes collection. Two of the Apulian pieces, an oinochoe and a bell-krater, surfaced at Sotheby's in London for the December 1986 sale. This in itself should alert anybody if they were asked to sell a statue that had passed through the same sale. Moreover, a quick check with Peter Watson's Sotheby's: Inside Story (1997) would have shown that Medici was linked to this very sale. It is therefore surprising that the staff at Bonhams did not enquire further to ensure that the Roman youth did not appear in the Medici archive of photographs. (Remember, it took me about about one hour to have my suspicion confirmed.)

Was this a 'one off'? It would appear that Bonhams did not learn from the Geddes sale. In that instance, researchers were alerted to the likely presence of Medici material because the name 'Geddes' was inscribed next to a lot at Sotheby's - and illustrated in Watson's Sotheby's: Inside Story.

Readers will have to accept that the staff at Bonhams have conducted "due diligence" (in the words of the ADA Code of Conduct) "to the best of their ability".

It will be interesting to see if the management of Bonhams take a decision to tighten up their procedures. Perhaps they should insist on documented collecting histories that can be traced back prior to 1970. And that would have meant that they could have avoided handling the three Roman funerary busts that once passed through the hands of Robin Symes.

Mosaic glass: from Antinoupolis to London

Bonhams online catalogue showing lot 65

Dr Roberta Mazza has published an important discussion of a piece of Roman mosaic glass apparently from Antinoupolis in Egypt ("From Egypt to London: looting in Antinoupolis (el Sheikh ‘Abadah)", Faces and Voices, March 27, 2015). She draws attention to published research by Rosario Pintaudi who  has worked at the site. Mazza notes:

This little and beautiful piece traveled from Egypt to the showrooms of Bonhams in London, where the sale was stopped by the police, after the object sold for about £ 5,000.

The fragment was offered at Bonhams in London in their sale of antiquities on 23 October 2013, lot 65. The collecting history ("provenance") was given as "English private collection, acquired in the late 1960s".

The article is “Latrones: furti e recuperi da Antinoupolis”, Analecta Papyrologica XXVI 2014 pp. 359-402 and is available from academia.edu. This fragment is discussed on pp. 367-70.

Mazza also raises questions about lot 64 that came from "English private collection, acquired in the mid-1970s".

This raises various questions for Bonhams. Who was the vendor? What other objects were consigned by this individual (or individuals) in this and other sales? Which member of the Bonhams team conducted the due diligence search? What is the basis of the stated so-called "provenance"? What documents were shown to Bonhams?

It is significant that concerns were raised by the Egyptian authorities at the time of the sale ("Egypt’s government cracks down on illicit sales", Art Newspaper 31 October 2013):

This month, Bonhams planned to auction a set of 165 Egyptian artefacts. According to the website Egypt Independent, Mohamed Ibrahim, Egypt’s head of antiquities, requested documentation from the auction house to prove that the artefacts had left Egypt legally. Bonhams spokesman Julian Roup, however, says that that the firm received no official request from the police, the Egyptian embassy or Egypt’s Ministry of Antiquities, and that the provenance in all cases was sound. The sale went ahead ...

Will Bonhams be conducting an internal investigation into how this piece was allowed to come to auction?

Roman Herm Withdrawn from Bonhams: Becchina association established

Bonhams in London were due to sell a Roman marble herm today (lot 41) but it was withdrawn (Euthimis Tsiliopoulos, "Hermes head withdrawn from auction", Times of Change 1 October 2014). It was estimated to sell for £10000-£15000. 

The collecting history had been given as "Nicolas Koutoulakis Collection, Geneva, acquired circa 1965, thence by descent".

However Glasgow-based researcher Dr Christos Tsirogiannis has separately spotted the herm in the Becchina photographic archive. He writes:

I also identified the object in the Becchina archive. The origin of the head is Greece, because it is a Greek looter named Costas Gaitanis (from Herakleion, Krete) who sent to Becchina on May 29th, 1987 the Polaroids depicting the head. The envelope containing the Polaroids arrived in Switzerland (Basel, at Becchina's gallery) on June 1st, 1987. The envelope is included in a larger file that Becchina kept regarding dealings he had with a Greek middleman named Zenebisis. The same file includes the image of the gold wreath that the Greek state repatriated from the Getty Museum.

If the Polaroids were sent from Gaitanis to Becchina in May 1987 it seems that the collecting history provided by Bonhams is likely to be flawed.

This raises questions about how auction-houses and museums authenticate collecting histories. What questions do they ask? How do they check the paperwork? How are facts verified?

More interesting is why this "history" was not identified by the Art Loss Register or whichever agency had been asked to conduct a search on the objects.

Bonhams has not had a good track-record for handling antiquities:

• "Bonhams and Becchina" (2014)
• "Behbeit el-Hagar  fragment" (2011)
• "Bonhams and the accuracy of collecting histories" (2010)
• "Bonhams and resurfacing antiquities" (2010)
• "Bonhams and the Medici statue" (2010)
• "Bonhams withdraws further lots" (2008)
• "Tomb of Mutirdis" (2008)

Bonhams: Don't Be Miffed With The Italians

The staff at Bonhams are clearly feeling sore ("furious" according to some sources) over the Italian request that several lots in this week's auctions should be withdrawn. Robert Brooks, the chairman of Bonhams, clearly felt cross (according to the press release):

we would welcome a greater openness on the part of the Italian Government, which would allow us far more advance warning and information about concerns they have. Responsible institutions need to work together and not to keep information hidden, for whatever reason, until the very last minute.

Yet the management team would do well to reflect for a moment.

At least seven of the pieces withdrawn from the Geddes collection had "surfaced" through Sotheby's in London. Thanks to Peter Watson's Sotheby's: Inside Story (London: 1997) we have been provided with a glimpse of how material passed from (looted) archaeological sites in Italy, to Switzerland, and thence to the market in London. (The chapter on Apulian pottery is more than informative and certainly relevant in this case.) I would have thought that anybody involved in the business of selling antiquities would have read this book, even if they find the revelations uncomfortable.

Again, anybody involved in selling antiquities should have been following the returns of antiquities from North American collections (public and private) to Italy. Somebody in the world of antiquities would have realised that at least seven items returned to Italy had surfaced through Sotheby's in London. Indeed one of the pieces, a Lucanian (South Italian) nestoris, has a more than significant history:

The second piece had surfaced at Sotheby's in London in December 1982 (lot 298). The nestoris was subsequently placed on loan at the Borchardt Library, La Trobe University, Melbourne from 1988 to 1994; Ian McPhee of La Trobe University informed me in October 2006 that Mr G. Geddes made the loan though he may not have been "the actual owner at the time".

This pot, along with other items from Boston, has been discussed in the International Journal of Cultural Property (2006) [abstract]. I would have thought that this Cambridge University Press publication was required reading for anybody selling cultural property.

All this means that if a collection, derived in part from purchases made at Sotheby's in London in the 1980s (and including significant pieces from Apulia), was offered for sale via an auction house, it does not seem unreasonable for the staff of that auction house to be on the alert.

Did the staff of Bonhams contact the Italian authorities? What form did the due diligence process of Bonhams take?

And then there is the question of selling an Apulian krater from the Robin Symes collection in the general antiquities sale. Again the staff of the antiquities department at Bonhams should have been on the alert because of a piece of Apulian pottery that did not appear to have a recorded history prior to 1970 especially given what we know of looting in southern Italy. I find it unbelievable that "professional" dealers in antiquities were unaware of the controversial nature of pieces associated with Robin Symes given the way that his name has been linked to many of the returns from North American collections.

In summary, the staff at the antiquities department of Bonhams appear to have been less than rigorous in their "due diligence" process. Indeed it begins to look like a common pattern. Just think back over the last year to the cases of the Lydian silver kyathos or the Egyptian tomb relief.

In October last year I wrote:

Bonham's values its integrity. It has done the correct thing in this instance (although at what seems the eleventh hour). Will its senior management team now put in place a more robust process of checking antiquities prior to a sale?

Clearly one year on there does not appear to be a robust process in place. And the chairman of Bonhams could, perhaps, ask why the present system allowed these events to take place?

Perhaps the blame lies not with the Italian authorities but a little closer to home.

Bonhams and the Accuracy of Collecting Histories

The press release for the sale of antiquities at Bonhams in April 2010 reminded us of some "interesting" provenances. One that caught my eye was linked to lot 139, "A Roman marble figure of a barbarian water carrier". The provenance is given as "Ex European private collection. Subsequently part of an Australian collection acquired in the 1960s." It was then "On loan to La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia 1981-86."

La Trobe University has featured as a venue for previous antiquities offered by Bonhams. For example, an Attic bell-krater offered in April 2009. It had, in fact, been part of the Graham Geddes collection and had been left unsold in the October 2008 sale at Bonhams. Indeed several pieces from the Geddes collection are known to have been on loan to La Trobe (including a Lucanian nestoris subsequently acquired by Boston's Museum of Fine Art and returned to Italy).

At the end of March I contacted a senior academic at La Trobe University to discover more about the piece. This is the reply: "I don't recall any such sculpture on loan to La Trobe".

Can we be certain that the water carrier was indeed on loan to La Trobe? And if this information is questionable, what do we make of it being in an Australian private collection in the 1960s? Did the staff at Bonhams check the information or did they take it "on trust"? What was their due diligence process? (And remember their track record.)

There are echoes of the Australian sea-farer who consigned part of the tomb of Mutiridis to Bonhams for the sale of antiquities in May 2008.

The staff at Bonhams should be starting to double-check the collecting history for the water carrier as a matter of urgency. And what is the name of the anonymous Australian private collector who has consigned it?

Image
Detail from Bonhams, lot 139.

Bonhams and the Medici Statue: Additional Information

Chris Martin, Chairman of the Antiquities Dealers Association (ADA), has been commenting to the press on the Roman Marble Statue that was withdrawn from tomorrow's sale at Bonhams (lot 137). It appears that the Italian authorities had tried to retrieve the statue through the Spanish courts ("some five or so years ago").

If this is the case, it raises a number of issues.

Had the vendor disclosed to Bonhams that the statue had been the subject of a court case in Spain? Were the staff at Bonhams aware as a result of this case that the statue had once been handled by Giacomo Medici?

If so, had the staff at Bonhams informed their management that the statue was ex-Medici?

If the staff at Bonhams were comfortable that the present vendor had title, why did they withdraw the piece from the auction once its collecting history was made public?

Bonhams now need to disclose the name of the vendor of the Roman statue.

The Medici Polaroid is one significant part of the collecting history (or "provenance") of the statue. It seems hard to deny it.

Why were Bonhams prepared to take the risk given the bad publicity that was generated the last time the handled ex-Medici material? Have any others lots been consigned by the same vendor? What are their collecting histories?

Bonhams: "The market for Classical and Egyptian antiquities is thriving"

I was interested to read the press release announcing the sales of antiquities at Bonhams for 2009. It started: "Following a series of strong sales, 2008 saw Bonhams’ Antiquities department established as the market leaders for UK sales of ancient art."

Yet 2008 could also be seen as a singularly unfortunate year for the antiquities department at Bonhams. The sale of the Graham Geddes collection was a PR disaster: intervention by the Italian Government, lots withdrawn, objects left unsold. And to cap it all the sale had been showcased in the Bonhams magazine (even to the point of featuring on the cover).

The sale raised some key issues about the way that the antiquities department had been operating. This new press release talks about "interesting and long-established provenance" for objects. Certainly the "provenance" of objects that had passed through a certain London auction house was not only "interesting" but also highly significant: but the staff at Bonhams seem to have missed the signs.

Have Bonhams adopted a more rigorous "due diligence" process? What action has been taken by Bonhams management team? Have they put in place new procedures to avoid a repeat of 2008?

We wait to see the latest catalogue.

Bonhams and Antiquities from Italy: Press Release

Bonhams issued a press release today.

BONHAMS WITHDRAWS OBJECTS FROM ANTIQUITIES SALE FOLLOWING REQUEST FROM THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT

Bonhams has withdrawn ten objects from its 15 October Antiquities Sale which features nearly 600 items, following a formal request from the Italian Government just 24 hours before the sale.

Despite the last minute nature of the Italian request, Bonhams said it would remove the items in line with normal procedure when an object's provenance is called into question.

Chairman of Bonhams, Robert Brooks, announcing the decision said: "We are always happy to cooperate with any action that limits the chance of items being sold that should not be sold. Having said that we would welcome a greater openness on the part of the Italian Government, which would allow us far more advance warning and information about concerns they have. Responsible institutions need to work together and not to keep information hidden, for whatever reason, until the very last minute."

The ten objects - vases and sculpture - have an estimated value of £200,000. The Italian Government has claimed that the items concerned may have been illegally exported from Italy some 30 years ago.

ANSA has also carried the story: 'Sale of "stolen" antiquities halted', October 14, 2008. This quotes from the Bonhams press release.

Bonhams and Becchina

Bonhams has withdrawn one of its lots from a sale. It was a Canosan pyxis that had passed through the Ariadne Galleries in New York during the 1980s. So it surfaced well after 1970, has an obvious link with Italy, and was handled by a gallery that has been linked with recently surfaced antiquities (such as the Icklingham bronzes). These would be three good reasons to conduct a thorough due diligence search.

Yet an unnamed spokesperson for Bonhams is quoted by the BBC ("'Looted' artefacts removed from auction", April 2, 2014):

"We take immense trouble to check and verify the history of any object we sell and work closely with the Art Loss Register, the British police and Interpol on establishing accurate provenance. 

"At this point there is no evidence to show that it was illegally excavated. But we take any such intimation very seriously and hence we have withdrawn it for further investigation."

Bonhams is well aware of the issues relating to these Italian photographic archives after the case of the Geddes sale. Or what about the "Medici" statue? And note the similarity of this statement to ones in previous cases.

Perhaps the spokesperson for Bonhams would care to expand on Becchina's role in the handling of antiquities. Or will the "further investigation" include contacting Becchina and asking him for the full collecting history?

And we note that in the list of sources Bonhams did not think of contacting the Italian authorities. The omission is perhaps significant.

Is it time for the senior management at Bonhams to tighten up the due diligence procedures for selling antiquities? (I suggested this precisely four years ago.)

Bonhams and the Medici Statue

When the catalogue for the April 2010 sale of antiquities at Bonhams appeared my eye was drawn to a Roman marble statue (lot 137). I was particularly struck by the fact the piece had surfaced on the market via Sotheby's in London in December 1986. The sale was one that contained a number of pieces directly linked to Giacomo Medici. Within an hour a colleague had responded to my hunch and sent me an image of the statue that had featured in the Medici dossier seized in the Geneva Freeport.

Bonhams can hardly have been unaware of the significance of the toxicity of antiquities that had surfaced at this particular sale. It should be remembered that two of the lots that were withdrawn from what can only be described as a disastrous sale of the Geddes collection had also come to light in exactly the same way.

It remains a puzzle why the antiquities staff at Bonhams were not suspicious of this particular collecting history (or "provenance"). What measures did they take to check that the piece had not passed through the hands of Medici? Or had they hoped that nobody would notice?

This raises a major issue for the management of Bonhams. Did they fail to learn any lessons from October 2008? Were they deaf to Lord Renfrew's comments in the House of Lords?

Or is there a perfectly innocent reason why an annotated image of the Roman statue should be in the Medici dossier?

Image
Composite of Polaroid seized from the Geneva Freeport and a statue due to be auctioned at Bonhams in April 2010, "Acquired at Sotheby's London, 8th-9th December 1986, lot 287".

Symes sale at Bonhams

Colin Gleadell has discussed the forthcoming sale of Symes material by Bonhams ("Art Sales: the last remains of a scandal", Daily Telegraph, 28 September 2009). The sale, "The Robin Symes Collection", is due to be held in Oxford on October 7, 2009 [sale]. The sale catalogue states:

Robin Symes Ltd. is in liquidation, and the items are being sold by the liquidators who make no warranty as to title, but have been given no reason to believe that good title cannot be passed. Lots are sold strictly on this basis and, if in doubt, buyers should seek their own legal advice.

Gleadell makes an ineresting comment about this sale:

The property in the Bonhams sale is, however, undisputed, and is to be sold without a reserve price. Estimates are therefore rock bottom. The focus is on an eclectic array of art works which Symes had either in his gallery in Ormond Yard in St James’s, or in one of his homes; Bonhams is not sure. Nor does Bonhams know when or where the works were acquired. “The paperwork had all been destroyed,” says Michael Wynell-Mayow of Bonhams.

This sale does not contain antiquities (which is probably sensible given what happened in October 2008).

Antiquities collectors will be disappointed. “There are antiquities from the gallery, but we can’t touch them,” says Wynell-Mayow. Clearly ownership issues are still at play.

It is not clear what is going to happen to the antiquities from the Symes collection.

Bonhams: Gold Wreath Unsold

I have already commented on the  Hellenistic Gold Wreath that was the motif for yesterday's sale of antiquities at Bonhams.

The wreath was the 'motif' for the sale and featured in the press release: "Glory that was Greece Seen in Golden Wreath and Greek Vases at Bonhams".

A delicate wreath made of fine gold oak leaves with acorns, of the type worn by Alexander the Great's father, Philip II of Macedon, is one of the highlights of Bonhams sale of Antiquities on April 28 in New Bond Street.

This stunning artefact, estimate £100,000-120,000, may once have graced the head of a ruler or dignitary over 2,000 years ago. "The fact that this delicate collection of fine gold leaves and acorns formed into a wreath has survived the centuries is almost miraculous," says Madeleine Perridge, Antiquities Specialist at Bonhams. Previously in a private collection since the 1930s, "it is a beautiful example of a type that is rare to the market."

The collecting history was provided in the catalogue entry for lot 240:

Private Swiss collection acquired between the 1930s-60s.

Acquired by the present owner at Sotheby's London, July 11th, 1988, lot 83.

It should be pointed out that it is unlikely that Philip II was buried in Tomb II at Vergina (see here).

Why was this stunning artefact left unsold? And in which anonymous private Swiss collection did this wreath reside between the 1930s and 1960s?

Image
Clip from Bonhams press release.

Bonhams Withdraws Further Lots: Press Comment

Nick Squires has written for The Daily Telegraph ("Suspicions that Roman artefacts were illegally traded", October 16, 2008). He recycles the Bonhams press release but adds a little more informal comment. The anger felt at Bonhams is clear:

The auction house was furious that the Italian authorities gave just 24 hours' notice about the objects' suspect provenance.

"We were a bit miffed to say the least," a spokesman said. "You can imagine the amount of work that goes into marketing a sale like this around the world.

"Obviously we are not in the business of selling something that shouldn't be sold, but to have a demand made like this at such short notice is not something we take lightly."

Many of the pieces had due to be sold as part of the (Australian) Graham Geddes collection. The Telegraph added:

Bonhams said it expected Italy to make a formal claim on the antiquities, which were owned by British, Australian and American collectors.

Meanwhile Theo Toebosch writing for the NRC Handelsblad has picked up on the reason why Bonhams should have been suspicious and should have conducted a more rigorous "due diligence" process: the revelations made about antiquities from Italy surfacing through Sotheby's in London during the 1980s and early 1990s (see Peter Watson, Sotheby's: Inside Story [London 1997] [WorldCat] [American edition]). At least seven of the withdrawn pieces were derived from this route. Toebosch also comments on the unrepentant tone of the Bonhams press release.

Rick Witschonke on the stigma of association

Rick Witschonke of Califon, New Jersey has responded in a letter to the editor of the Art Newspaper.  He comments on the report of the appearance of two items that feature in the Medici Dossier in the October sale at Bonhams.

There are several points worth noting:

• "The stigma of association with one of these convicted antiquities traffickers is often enough to result in its withdrawal". This was not the case with either Bonhams in October 2010 or Christie's in June 2010; both auction-houses proceeded with the sales. However this was true for Bonhams in October 2008, and April 2010. (For seizures at Christie's in 2009 see here.)
• "The larger issue, however, is that US collectors, dealers, auction houses, and museums are compelled to research the provenance of any prospective purchase to ensure it is not recently looted". The issue is that it is appropriate for vendors and buyers to conduct a rigorous due diligence process. In some recent cases the objects had passed through London sales that had included material already returned to Italy. On a minor note this is not just an issue for US collectors etc.
• "The objective is to make the antiquities trade more transparent". This is why it is important for auction houses and galleries to provide documented collecting histories to demonstrate that the objects on offer can be traced back to the period before 1970 (and the UNESCO Convention). And note the word documented: the collecting history needs to be verifiable.
• "If a collector could go to a public archive (the Art Loss Register, for example), and determine whether a prospective purchase was questionable, the object would likely remain unsold". If the aim is to return material removed illicitly from archaeological contexts in Italy then objects recognised from (say) the Becchina Archive may not resurface in case they are seized. Is Witschonke right to suggest that the ALR does not have access to part of the Medici Dossier?
• There is a more important issue to note. Bonhams appears to have presented a misleading collecting history for both piece: "European private collection, formed between the 1960s and early 1990s" and "Swiss private collection formed in 1960s-1970s". Yet if the Polaroids are to be believed the two items were passing through the Swiss market in the 1970s or later. This is not the only time that the Bonhams collecting histories have not been entirely straightforward. And it appears that Christie's "forgot" to divulge a key part of the collecting history of a recently discussed object that appeared at auction earlier this year.

Witschonke is a curatorial associate of the American Numismatic Society (ANS) and Co-Director of the ANS Graduate Seminar in Numismatics.

For a further comment on the Art Newspaper letter with a response from Witschonke see here.

Image
Witschonke at the ANS Graduate Seminar.

Save the Anglo-Saxon Stone! "So what is it doing in a saleroom?"

I have been following the forthcoming sale of antiquities at Bonhams with more than a passing interest. I drew attention to the way that Bonhams had reminded us that some of the archaeological objects would have "interesting" collecting histories.

I see that Mike Pitts of the Guardian has an important report ("Antiquities: an ancient cross to bear" / "Save our Anglo-Saxon Stone!", April 26, 2010) on lot 286, "late Anglo-Saxon stone section of a cross-shaft". It comes from "St Pega's Hermitage in Peakirk, Northamptonshire".

Pitts writes:

Professor Rosemary Cramp, from Durham University, is leading a project to catalogue all surviving Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture. As it happens, she and Joanna Story, a lecturer at the University of Leicester, are in the process of recording Northamptonshire - hence a visit the Evereds recently received from a geologist in Cramp's team. St Pega's cross, says Story, is a typical piece from the important Peterborough school of Anglo-Saxon art, and one of very few sculptures that can be linked to a place whose significance in Anglo-Saxon times is known.

Graham Jones, an Oxford University researcher and student of early Christian saints, says the stone is "part of the core historical heritage of the country".

So what is it doing in a saleroom - from where it could in theory end up anywhere in the world, and, as academics most fear, disappear from public view?

The events of last week have demonstrated that Bonhams is happy to handle controversial pieces.

Bonhams established it [sc. the cross] was not part of the listed building, which would have prevented the sale: the church had simply sold it with the house without restrictions, and it's not physically attached. ...

But there is a more important issue here.

Has the cross been "removed from a building or structure of historical, architectural or archaeological interest where the object has at any time formed part of the building or structure"? Would the cross be protected under the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003? (Just to remind readers, anybody convicted of handling such material can be imprisoned for a maximum of seven years.)

The present owner now realises the issues and wants to withdraw the cross from the sale - but is reported to be faced with a £9000 plus "consignment fee" if the sale does not proceed. Bonhams needs to seek some goodwill from the archaeological community.

So how about waiving the consignment fee so that the present owner can present this historically important cross to the Peterborough Museum?

Image
From The Guardian.

Bonhams Withdraws Egyptian Inscription from the Tomb of Mutirdis (TT410)

More details are beginning to emerge on the Egyptian inscription withdrawn from the sale of antiquities at Bonhams on May 1, 2008 ("Egypt secures auction pullout for artefacts in London and Holland", Egypt Daily News, May 1, 2008).

The text has removed from "a wall in the 26th Dynasty tomb of Mutirdis in Asasif in Luxor". This tomb (TT410) was excavated by Jan Assmann in 1969 so it looks as if the story about the Australian seafarer collecting the piece perhaps as far back as the 1940s lacks substance. A photograph of the text appears in “Das Grab der Mutirdis” (1977).

Bonhams need to make a statement about this. Who translated the text for them? Did the person recognise the text but keep quiet? Were the staff members of the Department of Antiquities at Bonhams unable to conduct a thorough due diligence search? Why were they unable to link the personal names that appear here with the tomb of Mutirdis?

And what other antiquities consigned to Bonhams came from the "Australian seafaring collection"?

A Sardinian boat-shaped lamp from an "old Austrian collection"

Sardinian boat-shaped lamp. 
Left: Bonhams.
Right: Becchina archive (courtesy of Christos Tsirogiannis)

The sale of antiquities at Bonhams (7 December 2021) includes a copper alloy Sardinian boat-shaped lamp (lot 83). It has an estimate of £2,000-£3,000.

The history of the piece (or as some would continue to say, the "provenance") is stated as:

Private collection, Austria, acquired in the 1960s in Vienna.

But how can this be? The same lamp appears to have passed through the hands of Palladion Antike Kunst in 1993 and appears in the Becchina archive (with date 12-2-93). Incidentally the lamp sold for SFr 60,000. 

Who supplied the history of the piece to Bonhams? What sort of due diligence did Bonhams conduct as part of the cataloguing process? How reliable is the information that the lamp formed part of an old Austrian collection? 

Will Bonhams be contacting the Italian authorities about the lamp and its appearance in the Becchina archive?

I am grateful to Associate Professor Christos Tsirogiannis for making the identification from the Becchina archive, and for providing information on this lamp.

Bonhams Withdraws Egyptian Antiquity From Auction

Last October Bonhams withdrew a piece of Lydian silver from auction after questions were raised here about its possible links with Turkey.

I noticed that the auction house has had to take similar eleventh hour action last week when Egypt challenged the sale of lot 99:

An Egyptian carved limestone relief fragment
Late Period, 26th Dynasty, circa 665-525 B.C.
With six vertical columns of blue-filled hieroglyphs, column 1: about journeying by water, column 2: 'horizon. Oh Osiris supervisor of the female followers [of?]', column 3: 'Nitikret (Nitocris) may she live Mutirdais', column 4: 'true of voice, ie. justified...', column five: '...gods fear...', column 6: unintelligible, 11¾in (32.5cm) diam, mounted

Estimate: £3,000 - 4,000

AFP ("Egypt secures auction pullout for ancient artefact", April 30, 2008) has reported that lot 99 from the sale of antiquities on May 1, 2008 had to be withdrawn:

Egyptian Culture Minister Faruq Hosni said in a statement that he had asked for the 2,500-year-old carved limestone relief to be withdrawn from Bonhams' London sale, set to take place on Thursday, because it was stolen.

Hosni said the ministry had no idea the piece, from Egypt's ancient city of Luxor, was missing until they saw it in the catalogue.

Julian Rup, speaking for Bonhams, said:

Apparently the buyer bought it in good faith. We work hand in hand with the police and they are satisfied that the buyer bought it in good faith.

Negotiations will begin and it will either stay with the current owner or be repatriated but we are not selling it.

How could the "buyer" (I presume the vendor) have bought it in good faith if the catalogue entry says that the present owner had inherited it from his father? Is the vendor in reality "an Australian private collector who began collecting in the 1940s whilst working in the merchant navy"? Will the relief fragment be returned to Egypt or the vendor?

This story seems to have been unreported in the British media. However it does raise questions about the due diligence process conducted by Bonhams.

Has the time come for auction houses to improve their levels of transparency? Who is this anonymous seafaring Australian private collector? Should the present proprietor of the object be named?

Bonhams: Resurfacing Antiquities

Mark Hughes has written a significant piece on the October sale of antiquities at Bonhams ("Bonhams: Lots of trouble on New Bond Street", The Independent October 27, 2010). The story was broken by Italian journalist Fabio Isman in the Art Newspaper on the eve of the sale. The two lots had reported collecting histories: they are said to have resided in Swiss and European private collections. What is new in the story is that Hughes reveals that Bonhams had been aware of the possible identification of the two pieces well before the sale took place:

"Days before the auction the house received an email from an eminent academic alerting them to the questionable provenance of the lots, but it pressed ahead with the sale."

Bonhams has claimed that it had conducted a search with the Art Loss Register. But Chris Marinello, an executive director of the ALR, has clarified the ALR's position:

The controversy is that the Italian government does not want to release the photographs. I can understand their reticence. The Italians know that there were other looters working with Medici and may want to convict some of them. Those pictures are evidence and they could argue that releasing them could prejudice future proceedings.

Hughes raises an interesting issue:

But while figures in the art world say it is up to the Italian police to release the dossier, some argue that when even the slightest doubt is cast on the provenance of an antiquity, the auction house should remove it.

This report comes in the wake of recent surfacings on the market. The case is a reminder that auction houses need to improve their due diligence procedures.

Roman Limestone Funerary Busts at Bonhams: Withdrawn

The three Roman funerary busts that were due to be auctioned at Bonhams next week have been withdrawn: lots 399-401 ("This lot has been withdrawn"). All three had the same collecting history:

"Acquired on the London art market in 1998. Accompanied by a French export licence."

The three had been identified by Cambridge researcher, Christos Tsirogiannis, who drew them to my attention in May 2009; they had failed to sell last year and were back on the market.

It can now be revealed that the three pieces featured in the Robin Symes archive seized on Schinoussa. The images clearly show traces of dirt indicating that they were fresh out of the ground.

This latest news brings into question the value (if any) of "a French export licence". The indication of such a licence was perhaps meant to reassure potential buyers. What is more interesting is who purchased the other three pieces last summer?

Had the staff at Bonhams conducted a due diligence search on the three busts? Were they aware of the Symes connection?

And if so, the staff at Bonhams were hardly unaware of the implications of handling Symes material given the events of October 2008.

The presence of Medici and Symes material at a London auction in 2010 is a matter of serious concern.

Image
Composite images of three Roman limestone funerary busts from the Robin Symes "archive".