"Provenance ... has become paramount"

G. Max Bernheimer, International Head of Antiquities at Christie's has given a timely interview (May 24, 2010). Among the questions asked was this:

In recent years, the issue of repatriation has garnered attention as institutions like the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Getty Museum have returned artifacts to their source countries. Where does the issue stand today, and what impact does this have on your collectors?

Provenance has always been important, and in light of recent repatriation issues, it has become paramount. In a way these issues have helped the auction business because of the transparency of our operations; buyers can have complete confidence when buying at auction. Everything we do is published, and source countries have the opportunity to review our catalogues long before the date of sale.

Remember that this interview was issued subsequent to the report by Theo Toebosch on May 15.

I have long-argued that provenance is a misused term. Christopher Chippindale and I would argue for the term "collecting history". However, provenance is a term much used by those engaged in the antiquities market. Last June Bernheimer was quoted in a Christie's press release: “Today’s [sc. June 3, 2009] strong results show that wonderful objects with clear provenance continue to perform exceedingly well at auction.” In the accompanying list of the "Top Ten" pieces in the June 2009 auction was lot 120, "An Attic red-figured Pelike, attributed to the Aegisthus painter, circa 480-460 B.C.", that sold for $80,500. Yet subsequent to the sale lot 120 was apparently seized by ICE agents. A second lot, an Apulian situla was seized at the same time; a Corinthian krater had been seized immediately before the sale. How are we to understand Bernheimer's definition of "clear provenance"?

It would be interesting to know the reaction of the buyers of the two pieces (the Apulian situla and the Attic pelike) when they were seized. The events of 2009 rather undermine Bernheimer's statement: "buyers can have complete confidence when buying at auction".

Bernheimer emphasises "the transparency of our [sc. Christie's] operations". He adds "source countries have the opportunity to review our catalogues long before the date of sale". The characteristic of transparency was stated by a spokesperson from Christie's in the wake of the seizure of the two pieces. Indeed the Corinthian krater was seized from Christie's just before the June 2009 sale. It appears that the krater matched an image found in the Medici Dossier.

And in December 2008 a piece of gold jewellery was withdrawn by Christie's after claims had been made by Iraq. John Morton of ICE made the specific point when the jewellery was returned: "These are precisely the types of treasures that ICE's Cultural Property Art and Antiquities unit was established to identify, investigate and return to their rightful owners. We will continue to be vigilant about finding and prosecuting those who would rob a nation for personal gain.".

The December 2008 sale was also reported to have contained Egyptian antiquities that appear to have been removed from the Long Island University's Art Museum.

And a portrait of Marcus Aurelius that was offered by Christie's in June 2004 appeared to have been stolen from Algeria. Looking further back there was the head of Asklepios from Butrint that had apparently passed through Christie's London in 1996.

Antiquities from the Bijbels Museum in Amsterdam were seized from an unspecified New York auction-house in 2009; Sotheby's made it clear that they were not involved while Christie's "were unable to confirm this".

Let me return to transparency. The Christie's catalogue for June 2010 has prompted the possible identification of three pieces with objects illustrated in the Medici Dossier. If provenance is "paramount", as Bernheimer has claimed only this week, please could Christie's state the collecting histories for the three lots? Bernheimer wants "buyers" at Christie's to "have complete confidence when buying at auction". Doubts will remains if he fails to provide "clear provenance" for these three pieces.

Image
From the Medici Dossier

Bernheimer on a Cycladic 'Masterpiece'

I have noted earlier the forthcoming sale of a Cycladic marble figure attributed to the 'Schuster Sculptor'.

Max Bernheimer of Christie's has spoken in a short video about the forthcoming auction of the reclining figurine:

G. Max Bernheimer, International Head of Antiquities showcases a Cycladic marble figure, one of the few sculptures attributed to the Schuster Master. The idol is one of the most iconic sculptural types to have survived from antiquity and is the highlight of Christie's Antiquities sale in New York on 9 December.

Bernheimer seems so out of touch with Cycladic scholarship that he still uses the now obsolete nomenclature. I have noted elsewhere:

One change in G-G's approach has been the abandonment of the term 'Master' in favor of 'Sculptor' (though still in upper case). In G-G's earlier work, she explained: 'The term master is used throughout ... to denote a craftsman who was thoroughly competent in his profession although not necessarily highly skilled or capable of producing masterpieces' (SC, p. 62). The use of this term for Cycladic had been challenged: it may be appropriate for the language of 'high art' but not for what is likely to have been a humble craft (GC, pp. 651-52). G-G reports that her methodology and terminology were not borrowed from Morelli or Berenson, or from Beazley -- the obvious close precedent for identifying 'Masters' amongst the makers of ancient Greek artefacts; she reverts to what she now considers to be more art-historically neutral language (pp. xv-xvi).

The auction catalogue entry continues to overlook Pat Getz-Gentle's attribution of 16 figures to the Sculptor.

Those interested in the issues surrounding Cycladic figures can explore some of the issues in:

• David W.J. Gill and Christopher Chippindale, "Material and intellectual consequences of esteem for Cycladic figures", American Journal of Archaeology 97, 4 (1993) 601-59 [JSTOR]

See also our response to Pat Getz-Gentle [BMCR 2002] as well as the study of the Keros Haul [AJA 2007] that contained some of the figures attributed to the Schuster Sculptor.

Bernheimer and the "critical break-off date"

Max Bernheimer of Christie's has been interviewed for Apollo (Lucian Harris, "Collectors' focus", Apollo April 24, 2010).

Harris introduces the interviews with this statement:

More recent attitudes have focused attention on the negative aspects of the antiquities trade – the looting of sites, the funding of the international trade in drugs and weapons, the proliferation of restitution claims and the continuing appearance of sophisticated fakes. Within the archaeological community in particular there exists a vocal minority in opposition to any trade in antiquities. Dealers are at pains to point out the entirely legitimate trade in objects that have been neither looted nor smuggled and which are in as much demand as ever.

It should be noted that Harris did not bother to get an alternative view and presents a misleading view of those concerned about looting. Archaeologists are calling for restrictions on the trade in recently surfaced antiquities to address the genuine problem of destroyed archaeological contexts.

Harris quotes Ruper Wace:

‘Good Egyptian antiquities with good provenance are selling really well’, says London dealer Rupert Wace.

It would have been interesting for Harris to have asked Wace about the Middle Kingdom alabaster duck.

Harris then turns to Christie's:

According to Max Bernheimer, head of Christie’s Ancient Art and Antiquities department, the critical break-off date for the sale of antiquities is 1983, the year that Egypt declared its country’s antiquities to be property of the state and their sale abroad unlawful. At the top end of the market, most objects demand a level of scholarship and experience that can only come through long involvement in the fileld. For this reason, private collectors and museum curators alike will often cultivate relationships with established and trustworthy dealers who not only have the best access to rare works but are often better suited to negotiating the auction room pitfalls associated with this market.

What are the pitfalls associated with the market? Are trustworthy dealers those who do not deal with recently-surfaced antiquities?

And if 1983 is such a crucial date for Bernheimer (though it could be that he was only talking about Egyptian antiquities), he should have no difficulty in deciding what do do with antiquities that first surfaced in 1984, 1992 and 1994.

I have suggested that 1970 would be a much better "benchmark" date for those dealing with antiquities. Perhaps Harris would like to write about that possibility.

George Ortiz collection to be displayed in London

Christie's is due to display part of the former collection of the late George Ortiz in London in a non-selling show to mark the 25th anniversary of the exhibition at the Royal Academy. There is a statement on the Christie's website ("The Ortiz Collection — ‘proof that the past is in all of us’"). Max Bernheimer is quoted: ‘Ortiz was one of the pre-eminent collectors of his day’.

We recall the associations with Ortiz such as the Horiuchi sarcophagus, the Hestiaios stele fragment, the marble funerary lekythos, and the Castor and Pollux.

Bernheimer will, no doubt, wish to reflect on the Royal Academy exhibition by reading Christopher Chippindale and David W. J. Gill. 2000. "Material consequences of contemporary classical collecting." American Journal of Archaeology 104: 463-511 [JSTOR].

Bernheimer will probably want to re-read the two pieces by Peter Watson that appeared in The Times: , "Ancient art without a history" and "Fakes - the artifice behind the artefact", 14–15 August 1997. One of the issues raised related to lack of information about prior histories: "... in the George Ortiz Collection, shown at the Royal Academy in 1994, 23 per cent had no provenance at all, while 62 per cent were in the "said to be", "possibly" and "allegedly" categories. The point here is not that there were one or two objects in each of these collections that were open to question, but that the vast majority were."

There were also issues about how objects were presented. Watson reminded his readership of an alleged Cycladic "egg":

"There are many examples in auction catalogues of objects said to be found together. But who can prove it? We have only the salerooms' word to go on and, behind them, dealers and looters with a commercial interest in these things being found together. The sheer futility of all this is underlined by yet another phenomenon identified by Dr Gill and Dr Chippindale, which they term "wish fulfilment". They give two examples of this. The first is a marble "egg" in the Ortiz Collection that, allegedly, comes from the Cyclades. A date for this is given as 3200-2100 BC. But without any published knowledge of its provenance, or the context in which it was found, this object could actually be no more than an egg-shaped pebble picked up on any of the Greek islands. To call it an "egg", thereby implying intention on the part of the artist and a role for the object, perhaps in religious practices, is entirely unwarranted, archaeologically speaking."

I can remember having a memorable face to face exchange with Ortiz over this very "egg".

Christie's desire to remind us of the issues relating to George Ortiz only serve to refocus attention on the need for the antiquities market to develop a more rigorous due diligence process for all antiquities entering the market.

Glories of Ancient Greece: hype and links?

In June 2001 an exhibition was held at the Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem: Glories of Ancient Greece: Vases and Ancient Jewelry from the Borowski Collection. This fell exactly one year after the June 2000 sale at Christie's New York of Ancient Greek Vases Formerly in the Private Collection of Dr. Elie Borowski.

The objects in the 2000 sale 'were sold about 10 years ago in order to pave the way for the building of the Bible Lands Museum' (G. Max Bernheimer, Vice President, Antiquities Department, Christie's).

Nineteen of the lots at Christie's (over 10% of the total number of lots) reappear in Glories of Ancient Greece whose catalogue was authored by G. Max Bernheimer. In other words, the Bible Lands Museum spent over US$340,000 buying ex-Borowski pots which had been sold to raise money for the building in which they are now displayed.

Two had apparently failed to sell at auction.

• An Italo-Corinthian black-figured olpe (Gl. 43) had only reached US$2800 (with an estimate of US$5000-8000; lot 19, as 'Corinthian').
  
• A Boeotian bird bowl (Gl 52) reached US$3200 (with an estimate of US$6000-8000: lot 24).

The remaining 17 lots were purchased for US$344,627.50. Nine of these failed to reach their lower estimate. One of the biggest losers was the Attic red-figured palmette-eye cup (Gl. 65) which sold for US$35,250; US$14,750 under the estimate of US$50,000-80,000 (lot 72).

Only six of the 17 lots pieces exceeded their upper estimates. The most expensive was the Attic red-figured loutrophoros attributed to the Naples painter (Gl. 72) which sold for US$58,750 (estimate US$20,000-30,000: lot 102).

There was much hype around the sale. Bernheimer was quoted in the Christie's Press Release:

This was a sale for true connoisseurs ... A variety of international buyers, including a number of prestigious museums, bid enthusiastically for pieces that once formed one of the most outstanding private collections in existence. This encyclopedic assemblage of world-class masterpieces was unparalleled in terms of quality and provenance.

The nineteen lots acquired by the Bible Lands had no recorded find-spots: sadly such 'provenances' are not unparalleled.

A Corinthian olpe from a (recent) Swiss "collection"

In March I commented on a story from the Wall Street Journal. The interview included quotes from Max Bernheimer of Christie's.

"Buying through an auction house, where due diligence is incredibly thorough and everything is openly published in the catalogue, limits the possibilities over ownership and repatriation issues later on."

Yesterday Christie's held a sale of antiquities in London.

What was the collecting history for the Corinthian olpe (lot 197), that sold for £32,450 (est. £20,000-£30,000)? It is said to have been "Acquired on the Swiss art market in 1996". Were senior figures at Christie's aware of any indication of its previous "owner"? Had they checked with the Italian authorities as part of their due diligence process? If the answer is "no", does this undermine Bernheimer's claim that Christie's "due diligence is incredibly thorough"?

Reputable auction houses and the situation in Egypt

The implications of the situation in Egypt receive treatment by Brian Vasatg ("Reputable auction houses try to get all (arti)facts before selling antiquities", Washington Post February 2, 2011). Clearly those involved in the antiquities market need to carry out due diligence searches. Over $133 million worth of antiquities were sold by two New York auction houses in 2010. Some $64 million worth of Egyptian antiquities have been sold at Sotheby's New York since 1998.

I read the comments from Max Bernheimer of Christie's with much interest. Bernheimer claims that that Christie's now uses 1983 as the benchmark for collecting histories: "Christie's ... sells only items that are documented to have been removed from the country before 1983". He commented: "Christie's sells only objects that it can confirm as legitimately acquired". This is different to last year's statement from Christie's: "we do not sell works that we have reason to believe are stolen".

This raises a question. Is "legitimately acquired" sufficient to satisfy the due diligence test?

"Buyers have had their fingers burned": antiquities as investments

Tara Loader Wilkinson was written a piece on antiquities as investments for the Wall Street Journal ("Pricing the Priceless", March 14, 2011). The article asserts that the value of antiquities has soared after talking to G. Max Bernheimer.

Since 2006, sales at the privately-owned auction house have quadrupled from $10.2 million (€7.5 million) to $42.7 million. What is more, unlike other parts of the art market, sales have steadily increased throughout the recession.

My own research suggests that Christie's New York auctioned $9.6 million worth of antiquities in 2006, and £4.1 million in London. By 2010 this had grown to $42.7 million in New York, and £7.8 million in London. This is indeed a quadrupling (at least in New York, but not in London), but the rate has not been steady and it is unclear if 2010 was an unusual year. An overview of the market suggests that 2008 and 2009 were lean years (together worth $22 million in New York). And it needs to be remembered that $16.8 million from 2010 was from a single Cycladic figure; the Crosby Garrett helmet sold for £2.2 million in London.

There is no detailed discussion of Sotheby's that auctioned $91 million worth of antiquities in 2010 (and $10.2 million in 2006). By this standard Christie's has rather lagged behind its rival.

The area of investment is a topic that I have addressed before, specifically in a discussion of a youth with cockerel that was offered at Christie's in June 2010. Indeed over a six year period the sculpture lost $2705 in value. A similar pattern emerged from the sale of an Australian private collection in London.

The issue of recently surfaced antiquities is raised by Philip Hoffman, a former finance director at Christie's.

Buyers have had their fingers burned acquiring pieces which later turned out to be illegally excavated. Many were forced to return them and lost millions.

The article then alludes to the Dekadrachm Hoard that had been purchased for some $3.5 million.

The article closes with a quote from Bernheimer:

"Buying through an auction house, where due diligence is incredibly thorough and everything is openly published in the catalogue, limits the possibilities over ownership and repatriation issues later on."

This does explain why Loader Wilkinson did not refer to another article in the Wall Street Journal from June 2010 or indeed review some other related stories.

Has the Wall Street Journal failed to give a rigorous assessment of the situation?

The Steinhardt Sardinian figure and "the transparency of our operations"

Sardinian figure from the Medici Dossier
Source: Dr Christos Tsirogiannis / ARCA

Readers of LM will know that Max Bernheimer of Christie's made a public statement in 2010 about the 'transparency of [Chriet's] operations". He specifically said:

Provenance has always been important, and in light of recent repatriation issues, it has become paramount.

By provenance he means "collecting history".

So is the verification of the "collecting history" for the Steinhardt Sardinian figure now "paramount" for Christie's? It appears that Dr Christos Tsirogiannis has identified the figure in a polaroid from the Medici Dossier.

We can assume that Bernheimer has been in touch with the Italian authorities and sought clarification.

But while he is about it, could he confirm when and how 'Harmon Fine Arts' obtained the figure? And why not use the name of the collector behind HFA?

And what does "with the Merrin Gallery" mean anything other than HFA made a loan of the figure for an exhibition?

Potential purchasers of the figure will want to know that they will not have the Italian authorities pressing for the figure's return. After all, you would not want to spend over $1 million on a figure that could be reclaimed shortly after the auction.

Is it time for Christie's to make a public statement about the sale of the figure?

A Porphyry Tyche from the Borowski Collection

Christie's has announced one of the highlights for its June 2008 auction ("Rare Roman Statue is Extraordinary Highlight of Christie's Antiquities Spring Sale"). The "Ancient Art" department will be offering "an exquisite Roman statue of the goddess Tyche".

The piece first surfaced in 1967 and has been on loan to the Liebieghaus, Frankfurt, (1980-1986), and later at the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto (1986-1991).

G. Max Bernheimer, International Department Head for Antiquities, raves about it:

This is the most spectacular and beautiful sculpture that I have ever had the pleasure to work with ... The fact that it’s still in impeccable condition, makes it all the more exceptional.

So why comment? After all, the piece surfaced before 1970.

The reason is that the "statue was formerly in the private collection of Dr. Elie Borowski, collector and connoisseur of ancient art".

What the text fails to mention is that Borowski was also a dealer. His name is associated with the Fano Athlete (now in the J. Paul Getty Museum), and it also appears in the famous organigram that features in The Medici Conspiracy.

Bernheimer can hardly be unaware of this. The description on his website notes:

He is the author of several volumes documenting the collection of Dr. Elie Borowski including, "Ancient Gems from the Borowski Collection (2007)"; "Glories of Ancient Greece (2001)" an exhibition catalogue for ancient Greek vases and jewelry from the collection; "Reflections on Ancient Glass from the Borowski Collection (2002);" and a contributor to the exhibition catalogue "Dragons, Monsters and Fabulous Beasts (2004)" at the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem.

He has also been known to praise the Borowski collection:

This was a sale for true connoisseurs ... A variety of international buyers, including a number of prestigious museums, bid enthusiastically for pieces that once formed one of the most outstanding private collections in existence. This encyclopedic assemblage of world-class masterpieces was unparalleled in terms of quality and provenance.

No doubt there is a little bit of hype and rivalry going on. Sotheby's stole the limelight with the sale of the Guennol Lioness last December for just over US$57 million; earlier in the year they sold the bronze Artemis and a Stag for US$28.6 million. It rather places the £7.9 million raised by Christie's (London) for the Jenkins Venus in the shade.

How much will the Borowski Tyche fetch? Will another record be broken? Who knows ... "Estimate on Request".

Christie's on cultural property

We have been reassured that Christie's "do[es] not sell works that we have reason to believe are stolen" (May 2010). G. Max Bernheimer, International Head of Antiquities at Christie's , has stated, "Provenance has always been important, and in light of recent repatriation issues, it has become paramount" (May 2010). More recently Bernheimer has commented (March 2011):

"Buying through an auction house, where due diligence is incredibly thorough and everything is openly published in the catalogue, limits the possibilities over ownership and repatriation issues later on."

Indeed he is quoted as saying, "Christie's sells only objects that it can confirm as legitimately acquired" (February 2011). Moreover, in 2009 a spokesperson for Christie's described objects identified from seized photographic archives as "stolen".

Yet in May 2010 Christie's (New York) pressed ahead with the sale of a number of items that had been identified in spite of calls by Paolo Ferri for the objects to be returned. Questions have also been raised about the recorded collecting histories of lots (April 2011).

So what will Christie's (London) do if they are requested to withdraw material by the Italian authorities this week? And have the full collecting histories been disclosed to potential buyers?

Christie's: Overview

Here is an overview of some recent stories relating to Christie's:

• Paolo Ferri and comments in the Wall Street Journal [June 3, 2010]
• Max Bernheimer and the critical break-off date [May 31, 2010]
• Max Bernheimer and "provenance ... has become paramount" [May 28, 2010]
• A dilemma for Christie's [May 27, 2010]
• Christie's and cooperation with ICE in 2009 [May 26, 2010]
• Michael H. Miller on Christie's, "messy, murky issues" [May 26, 2010]
• Christie's Public Relations Officer on "stolen artifacts" [May 20, 2010]
• The transparency of the public auction system [May 20, 2010]
• Apulian rhyton [May 19, 2010]
• Canosan terracotta [May 18, 2010]
• "We do not sell works that we have reason to believe are stolen" [May 17, 2010]
• Roman marble youth [May 12, 2010]
• Apulian rhyton from an American private collection [May 8, 2010]
• Lessons from the Geneva Freeport [May 7, 2010]
• A Roman youth with cockerel [May 7, 2010]
• Gold jewellery and Iraq [March 1, 2010]
• Antiquities at auction in New York [January 5, 2010]
• Toxic antiquities: the sales of 1985 [December 3, 2009]
• Christie's Public Relations Officer on pots seized at auction-houses [November 4, 2009]
• Pots seized in New York: update [October 20, 2009]
• Corinthian krater recovered [June 3, 2009]
• Christie's withdraws jewellery lot [December 5, 2008]

Cycladic on the New York market

I have commented before on the appearance of a marble Cycladic figure, attributed to the 'Schuster Sculptor', on the New York market. Max Bernheimer is no doubt relieved to find that the figure fetched a record $16,882,500 yesterday [press release]. Bernheimer is quoted:

Christie's Antiquities Department made history once again, achieving $34 million, the highest total for an Antiquities sale at Christie’s and selling the exceptional Cycladic marble reclining female figure for an amazing $16.8 million, a world auction record for a Cycladic marble figure and the highest price achieved for an ancient work of art ever sold at Christie’s.

The Christie's sale fetched $34,092,875, a little behind Sotheby's at $45 million. But this means some $79 million worth of antiquities were sold at two New York auction-houses this week.

Robin Symes material on the market

Antiquities handled by Robin Symes are always of interest. Three pieces are listed for the 9 December 2010 sale at Christie's, Rockefeller Plaza.

• Lot 88: "A Cycladic Marble Reclining Female Figure". Attributed to the Schuster sculptor (or 'master' as Christie's choose to use the now obsolete terminology). Collecting history: Marion Schuster, Lausanne, acquired before 1965; in North American private collection in 1987 (Early Cycladic Art in North American Collections, no. 58); with Robin Symes, London, 1990s; U.S. Private Collection; with Phoenix Ancient Art, Geneva (c. 2006); 'Now owned by a private collector' (Phoenix Ancient Art). A report in the New York Times (Carol Vogel, "Potential Titian Buyers Get an Advance Look", October 28, 2010) states: 'And while Mr. Bernheimer will not identify the seller, people familiar with antiquities say the work is being sold by Michael Steinhardt, the Manhattan financier and collector, who is on Christie’s advisory board'. Estimate: $3-5 million. Pat Getz-Gentle, Personal Styles in Early Cycladic Sculpture (2001) 167-68 [reviewed here] lists 16 figures attributed to 'The Schuster sculptor'. Six of the items formed part of the 'Keros haul', while one was excavated on Keros. 
• Lot 148: "A Roman Marble Draped Female Herm". Collecting history: "Sambon Collection, early 20th century"; "with Robin Symes, London, 1974"; "Property from the Collection of Max Palevsky". Estimate: $250,000-$350,000.
• Lot 150: "A Roman Marble Head of Aphrodite". Collecting history: "with Robin Symes, London, 1974"; "Property from the Collection of Max Palevsky". Estimate: $150,000-$250,000.

These lots remind us that some material handled by Symes came from collections formed prior to 1970 (the date of the UNESCO Convention). This is why it is so important to establish full (and documented) collecting histories.

Pasta, Swingler, Christie's and the Krater

Image reported to have been seized from Swingler
Source: Tsirogiannis

Back in 2000, Christina Ruiz reported on "Artefacts Smuggled in Spaghetti" for the Art Newspaper. In June of that year:

The other major group of works presented to the [Italian] Ministry of Culture was confiscated from the California home of David Holland Swingler, a food importer, by US Customs officials collaborating with the Italian police. The Swingler cache was returned to Italy in June. 

... When US Customs officials searched Swingler's home in Laguna Hills they discovered a similar hoard of artefacts. 

The investigation into Swingler has revealed just how easy the business of smuggling artefacts can be. It seems that during trips to Italy, Mr Swingler made direct contact with tombaroli by visiting archaeological sites and simply asking around. 

Artefacts looted from Etruscan and Apulian sites by tombaroli collaborating with Swingler were passed onto his Italian partner and shipped to the US hidden among bundles of pasta in food containers. 

... 

In 1996 Swingler was sentenced in absentia by an Italian court to four years and eight months in prison and he was ordered to pay around $6,000 for damages to the archaeological heritage, the first time Italy has imposed such a fine.

During the raid in Laguna Hills a number of images were seized, among them an Attic red-figured krater attributed to Myson. The krater was reported to have been sold to 'a major East Coast collector'.

Source: Tsirogiannis

This krater is clearly the same one that is due to be auctioned at Christie's Rockefellar Plaza next week on December 11 (lot 95; $60000-$90000 estimate).

And Glasgow University researcher, Dr Christos Tsirogiannis, spotted the link.

Christie's note that the krater is the property of 'a New Jersey Private Collection', and provide the following collecting history:

• with Royal-Athena Galleries, New York, 1980. 
• John Kluge, Charlottesville. 
• The Morven Collection of Ancient Art; Christie's, New York, 8 June 2004, lot 320. 
• with Royal-Athena Galleries, New York, 2005 (Art of the Ancient World, vol. XVI, no. 86). 

The krater sold for $38,240 in 2004. At that time, it was sold as part of the Morven Collection of Ancient Art, and its collecting history was provided as follows:

• with Royal-Athena Galleries, New York, 1980

What is the documented and authenticated collecting history of the krater prior to 1980? Who was the 'major East Coast collector' who is reported to have acquired it?

And is The City Review right to note that 'Morven' was the Virginia home of Kluge? And if so, why does Christie's add John Kluge as a separate entry in the collecting history?

This is not the first Royal-Athena Galleries --- Kluge krater that has attracted the attention of LM. And we know that there are issues relating to the Kluge collection, and that two bronzes formerly in that collection have been returned to Italy.

In the 2004 sale, Max Bernheimer of Christie's wrote in the catalogue that "Many [of the lots] have renowned provenance". Does the "renowned provenance" include the "Swingler collection"?

We presume that Christie's will now be contacting the Italian authorities.

Aegisthus painter pelike returned to Italy

Attic pelike attributed to the Aegisthus painter
Source: Alain Truong

The return of an Athenian red-figured pelike, attributed to the Aegisthus painter, to Italy yesterday will not have been a comfortable event for Christie's. ICE's statement notes:

The first investigation tied to Becchina is the case involving the two 2,000-year-old ceramic vessels. In 2009, investigators learned about the sale of an Attic red-figured pelike, circa 480-460 B.C. for $80,500, and a red-figured situla, circa 365-350 B.C. for $40,000, at Christie's New York auction house. The investigation determined that these two objects were looted from archeological sites in Italy and smuggled into Switzerland. The ownership of the objects was transferred before they arrived in a Beverly Hills, Calif., gallery and subsequent consignment to Christie's in New York. HSI special agents in New York seized the objects, and upon authentication, both were forfeited for return.

The pelike was listed in Christie's pre-sale press release: "SUPERB EXAMPLES OF ROMAN AND GREEK ART HIGHLIGHT CHRISTIE’S SPRING SALE OF ANTIQUITIES", May 4, 2009. The statement noted, "The sale is particularly strong in Greek vases including a large Attic red-figured pelike attributed to the Aegisthus Painter, circa 480-460 B.C. (estimate: $80,000-120,000)...".

The pelike was listed in the post-sale top 10 list as lot 120, "An attic red-figured Pelike, attributed to the Aegisthus painter, circa 480-460 B.C.", as it sold for $80,500. This same post-sale press release stated:

G. Max Bernheimer, International Department Head of Antiquities said: “Today’s strong results show that wonderful objects with clear provenance continue to perform exceedingly well at auction.” 

We now know that this "clear provenance" was in fact not what it seemed. Indeed the press office for Christie's described the two seized objects as "stolen".

This pelike does not appear to be listed in the Beazley Archive database, though I note that of the four pelikai that are listed, three were found in Italy: Vulci, Adria and Locri.

Does this return herald the start of a new series of investigations into the Becchina archive? If so, we are likely to see a new series of returns to Italy (and other countries).

The Medici Dossier: Unresolved Issues

Later today at 10 am Christie's will be holding a sale of antiquities in the Rockefeller Plaza, New York. Readers will be aware that concerns have been raised about three lots (104, 112, 139) that appear to be close to objects that feature in the Medici Dossier seized in the Geneva Freeport. Are they the same? What due diligence searches have been undertaken by the staff at Christie's to ensure that they are not selling ex-Medici material? What reassurances can be given to potential buyers? Why did Christie's fail to mention the Sotheby's London collecting history for one of the pieces when the catalogue first appeared?

Christie's has made it clear that the sale of the objects would "proceed" in spite of a call for the three lots to be "repatriated" by an Italian prosecutor closely linked to the return of some 130 objects from North American collections. It was added, "Christie's has undertaken its own research into this matter and has found no evidence to support the need to withdraw these lots". What is the nature of this research? Who has been contacted?

What is the full "provenance" (or more accurately collecting history) for these three pieces? At the end of May 2010 Max Bernheimer of Christie's reminded us that provenance was "paramount". If that is the case, what is the full "provenance" for these three pieces? Has it been established how the three pieces entered the market?

The last word must rest with the spokesperson for Christie's commenting on the issue in May 2010: "we do not sell works that we have reason to believe are stolen".

Image
Three objects from the Medici Dossier (courtesy of Christos Tsirogiannis).

Christie's: Statement

Christie's have now issued a press statement following today's sale of antiquities. 64% of the lots were sold.

The top selling piece, a Roman bronze lamp stand with a youth (lot 131), went for $1,142,500. It appears to have surfaced in an anonymous Swiss private collection "prior to 1980".

G. Max Bernheimer, International Department Head of Antiquities ...: “These results reflect continuing strength and depth throughout the Antiquities market. The top end of the market continues to perform exceedingly well.”

Dr Elie Borowski: sources for his collection

The 2000 Christie's sale in New York presented 'Ancient Greek Vases Formerly in the Private Collection of Dr. Elie Borowski'. He is described by G. Max Bernheimer in the catalogue as 'renowned scholar, collector and connoisseur of ancient art'.

Borowski is not without interest. His name appears in the famous 'organigram' found in the appartment of Danilo Zicchi (and presented in The Medici Conspiracy). And the sale itself receives a paragraph there.

But what are the sources for these pots? What did Christie's feel able to disclose? (My research has shown that sometimes 'known' information can be left out of the catalogue entry perhaps for commercial reasons.) Only 21 pieces can be provided with a history. Several were purchased from German (2 pieces), North American (3 pieces), Swiss (4 pieces), or UK (9 pieces) galleries or auction-houses. Three other pieces came from either German or Swiss private collections. Interestingly the Attic black-figured amphora (no. 43) is stated as coming from the Samuel Schweizer [sic.] collection. Is this the same 'collection' that has been used as a mask for looted antiquities and which features in the material due to be returned by the Getty to Italy? The remaining 86% of the pots 'just' surfaced in the Borowski collection.

What about find-spots? Not a single piece from the 157 lots has a stated find-spot, i.e. 100% of the lots have appeared to have lost their archaeological context. In fact this is not quite true. The Nolan amphora attributed to the Phiale painter (no. 104) appears on the Beazley Archive database with the findspot of Gela (and with the previous owner given as Salvatore Nocera). (This piece was known in the early 1960s.)

What other information is missing from the sale catalogue? Two Attic black-figured pots, a column-krater (no. 50) and a neck-amphora (no. 52), were purchased from the Edward H. Merrin Gallery in 1977. (The Attic red-figured column-krater [no. 86] was purchased from the same source and at the same time.) An Attic red-figured column-krater (no. 89) had previously been in an anonymous private collection in Lugano. But it is the absence of information in the entries that is more interesting - and disturbing.

When did the pieces surface? If we use the Gill and Chippindale cut off point of 1973 (assuming that the resolution of the Archaeological Institute of America brought the issue of looted antiquities to academic and public attention) then 92% of the collection could not be purchased by responsible museums (or for that matter published for the first time in responsible places like the American Journal of Archaeology). But if we use the UNESCO Convention cut off point of 1970, then only three pieces (i.e. less than 2%) could be purchased with a clear conscience.

Selling antiquities is big business. The Borowski sale raised over US$7 million. (Compare that with the US6.4 million for Attic pots from Sotheby's over the period 1998-2007).

The damage to the archaeological evidence is likely to have been equally immense.

The Guennol Stargazer

Suzan Mazur has written on the Guennol Stargazer, an Anatolian style figure ("Klejman or Hecht?—Who Sold the Guennol Stargazer to Tennis’s Alastair Martin?", Huffington Post September 18, 2017).

G. Max Bernheimer described the piece: "The Guennol Stargazer is an iconic work of art and one universally recognised as the finest Kiliya idol in existence".

The collecting history is:

• Collection of Alastair Bradley Martin and his wife, Edith
• Loan to New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1966-93 (L.66.11)
• Merrin Gallery, 1993
• New York private collector, reported to be Michael Steinhardt

The figure was sold at Christie's New York on 28 April 2017 (lot 12) for $14,471,500. The sale was subject to a claim from the Republic of Turkey.