Good Faith: A Common Phrase?

I find myself in agreement with James Cuno: "due diligence and good faith inquiries are no longer sufficient" (the quote is now published in Who Owns Antiquity? [2008] 4). He continues:

It means only that unprovenanced antiquities are not being acquired by U.S. art museums to the extent that they were in the past. Instead, undocumented antiquities are going elsewhere in greater numbers, either remaining in the private domain of private collectors and dealers or being sold or donated to museums in countries that do not enforce foreign patrimony laws as the United States does. (p. 5)

And how often have we heard the phrase "good faith" in the last year as antiquities have been returned from museums, auction-houses and private collectors in Europe and North America?

For example, Bonhams offered an Egyptian fragment removed from the Tomb of Mutirdis (TT410) that has now been returned to Egypt. A spokesperson for the auctioneers said that they "would not identify the seller who tried to put the artifact up for auction, but said it appeared to have been bought 'in good faith'." (He actually fogot that the vendor was supposed to have inherited the piece from his seafaring father ...)

As Princeton University Art Museum returned antiquities to Italy, the university spokesperson claimed that all had been acquired in "good faith".

And back in 2006 Shelby White was asked to comment on her collection (Jason Horowitz, "How Hot Vase It?", The New York Observer, February 19, 2006):

We bought in good faith, we published everything, we supported archeology, and we supported conservation ... We acted in good faith, and if we did anything wrong, I am prepared to address that.

Then earlier this month as Shelby White announced the return of the fragmentary marble funerary stele and the bronze calyx-krater to Greece, the press statement claimed that the pieces had been acquired in "good faith".

What does "good faith" mean?

That the pieces were purchased from a "reputable dealer" in Europe or North America?

Both Princeton and Shelby White have been reluctant to share the information about their sources in marked contrast to the exemplary curatorial generosity of the MFA in Boston and the J. Paul Getty Museum.

How can Princeton and Shelby White help other museums and private collectors avoid buying recently-surfaced antiquities?

The Fano Athlete: Legal Case in Final Stages

Elisabetta Povoledo has covered the final stages of the legal wranglings over the Fano Athlete presently in the J. Paul Getty Museum ("Italy Presses Its Fight for a Statue at the Getty", New York Times January 16, 2010). The Italian legal team have been concentrating one one key questions: "Was the museum acting in good faith when it purchased the statue for a little less than $4 million in 1977?" Povoledo reports the Italian assertation that "the museum was willfully negligent in carrying out due diligence before buying the work".

Alfredo Gaito, one of the legal team representing the J. Paul Getty Museum is reported: "Consistent documentation suggests that the sale was done in good faith because the seller offered sufficient guarantees to overcome every doubt." Such claims of acquisitions made in "good faith" were also recorded by the Princeton University Art Museum and the private collector Shelby White (see my earlier comments on this phrase); in both those examples the objects have been handed over to Italy. Even James Cuno accepts "due diligence and good faith inquiries are no longer sufficient".

Revelations made by Jason Felch in the LA Times have reminded us of some of the issues surrounding the acquisition. Now Alberto Berardi who speaks for the return of the Fano Athlete is quoted: "No museum in the world should exhibit works whose provenance is clearly illegal".

The next stage in the legal tussle is for the Pesaro judge, Lorena Mussoni, to decide if the statue should be seized. A decision is expected in the next month.

Povoledo also notes the Italian praise for the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in New York. There is an implicit acknowledgment that the MOU between the USA and Italy is helping to reduce the movement of recently looted archaeological material.

Image
From the J. Paul Getty Museum

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?

Puzzled over Princeton

Kelly Lack ("Art pieces relinquished to Italy", DailyPrincetonian.com, November 5, 2007) has reported on the recent agreement between Princeton and Italy.

I remain puzzled why the agreement is so keen to list seven objects (acquired between 1989 and 2000) that will remain in Princeton. These include a Corinthian plate ("anonymous gift in memory of Isabelle K. Raubitschek and to honor Antony E. Raubitschek"), and an Attic red-figured cup, attributed to the Brygos painter ("anonymous gift in honor of J. Robert Guy").

A university spokeswoman, Cass Cliatt, is quoted as saying:

Regarding these specific items [that the University is keeping], we can now say with a clear conscience that the works we have are rightfully ours.

While we can accept this statement at its face value, it does not really address the issue.

Why were these seven pieces investigated in the first place?

I find it hard to believe that the Italians listed seven items on a whim. Did these seven pieces appear in the Polaroids seized in Geneva? Five were museum purchases, one was an anonymous gift, and the seventh a gift of an individual who is linked with an object that had to be returned to Italy in 2002 (a piece alluded to by Lack).

As Princeton now has a "clear conscience" over these seven pieces, please will it now release, without any restriction, the histories (i.e. "provenances") of each of them?

Cliatt also notes of the other pieces that will be transferred to Italy:

[The agreement] recognizes that legal title rested with Princeton before the transfer, and that the works were purchased by Princeton in good faith.

"Legal title" and "good faith" clearly did not convince either the Italian authorities or the Princeton officials that the antiquities had been removed from Italy in a legal manner. Again it would be more than helpful for Princeton to release the information about the previous histories of the eight pieces - in just the same way that the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and the J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu released details of the objects that they have returned.

Lack misses the point by inserting the issue of the Parthenon marbles into her report. I have commented on this elsewhere. We know where and when the Parthenon marbles were displayed. We do not know and will never know the precise (or even general) archaeological contexts from which each of the Princeton objects was removed. There has been a loss of knowledge.

Inlaid dagger and sheath (bronze, iron, silver, gold, niello). Roman, ca. first-second centuries A.D. One of seven objects to remain permanently at the Princeton University Art Museum.

Image courtesy of the Princeton University Art Museum

Stolen sculptural fragments returned to Italy

Relief removed from the gardens of the Villa Borghese. Source: MiBAC

Among the objects returned by Christie's to Italy last month were two fragmentary sculptures [press release]. One was a relief showing a satyr and maenad that had been removed from the gardens of the Villa Borghese in Rome in 1985. The second was a sarcophagus fragment that had been removed from the catacomb of San Callisto in Rome by 1982.

Sarcophagus fragment from the catacombs of San Callisto. Source: MiBAC.

The press release from Christie's stated:

The works, that had been acquired in the past in good faith, were more recently identified as not having the required, verifiable title, export or provenance details needed to proceed with a sale and as such were returned voluntarily.

How did these two pieces end up being consigned to Christie's? Where have they been residing over the intervening three decades? Who has been handling them? Who has been passing the sculptures on 'in good faith'?

Shelby White: "it’s not as though she is hiding anything"

Back in 2006 Frances Marzio, a curator at the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston, was interviewed for The New York Observer (Jason Horowitz, "How Hot Vase It?", February 19, 2006). The context was the investigation by Italian authorities into objects in the Shelby White collection including an Attic red-figured calyx-krater attributed to the Eucharides painter.

The krater is one of several objects named some time ago in documents obtained by The New York Observer, in which Italian prosecutors charge that several key treasures in Ms. Shelby’s collection were mined illegally from Italian soil.

Horowitz continued:

On Monday, Paolo Ferri, a leading prosecutor in the Italian investigation, told The Observer that his team had unearthed fresh evidence on Jan. 31 linking new items in Ms. White’s collection to the Aboutaam family, the owners of the Phoenix Ancient Art gallery and the target of several investigations and convictions in Egypt and New York. ...

“Now we have new documents through Aboutaam,” said Mr. Ferri. “We have photographs and paper trails that link even more of the Levy-White collection to the Aboutaams and [Giacomo] Medici ... The connection is very strong.”

He would not specify which new pieces in Ms. White’s collection were coming under scrutiny as a result of the Aboutaam evidence.

How did Shelby White respond back in 2006?

Let me put it this way: We bought in good faith, we published everything, we supported archeology, and we supported conservation ... We acted in good faith, and if we did anything wrong, I am prepared to address that.

And that probably explains why on mid-January she handed over nine antiquities to Italian authorities (and a tenth will follow). (We are still waiting for the publication of the list, though nine of the pieces are going on display in Rome.)

So it was back in 2006 that Frances Marzio was asked about her views on Shelby White:

“In the case of people like Shelby White, it’s not as though she is hiding anything,” said Frances Marzio, a curator at the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston. “She is lending things internationally, publishing things. I don’t see any deviousness; she funds excavations. If you don’t put things out there, how will we learn about their history? You take a risk by putting things out there. People could claim it.”

What we now know is that at the time a bronze krater was on loan from Shelby White to Houston.

Frances Marzio reassures us about Shelby White:

it’s not as though she is hiding anything.

Shelby White has been quoted as saying:

I want to be helpful.

So there is nothing to hide and Shelby White wants to be helpful.

Please could the collecting history for the bronze krater in Houston be disclosed?

Image
Attic red-figured calyx-krater attributed to the Eucharides painter. Once in the Shelby White collection; once on loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; perhaps handed over to Italian authorities. Source: The New York Observer.

"Due diligence and good faith inquiries are no longer sufficient"

An extract of James Cuno's new book, Who Owns Antiquity? [Princeton UP, 2008] [WorldCat]) has appeared in the Wall Street Journal (April 26, 2008).

I am waiting to read the whole volume but I would like to comment on a few of points.

Language is important. Christopher Chippindale and I have long argued that the word "provenance" (and with it "unprovenanced") is confusing. We have tended to use the terms "history" and "archaeology". The first maps the collecting history and documentation (e.g. "from the Thomas Brand collection" or "given by Giacomo Medici"). The second provides information on where it left the ground (e.g. "excavated from tomb 42 at Abydos" or "said to be from Cerveteri"). Cuno comments:

Archaeologists argue that unprovenanced antiquities are almost always looted from archaeological sites or from what would become archaeological sites. But strictly speaking, since provenance is a matter of ownership and not archaeological status, and as some countries allow for the ownership of antiquities but not their export, it is possible to illegally export a legally owned, unprovenanced antiquity.

He generalises. But what we have shown is that antiquities with histories only after 1970—and 1983 is a distraction—have been included in the returns to Italy: this is particularly true for our comments on the Fleischman collection, and the Shelby White / Leon Levy collection.

Cuno again generalises when he talks about the debate looking at "the legal aspect of their ownership". This would ignore the material and intellectual consequences of looting (and subsequent collecting). But no doubt he will address this in the full volume.

He poses the question:

Is there convincing evidence that the unprovenanced antiquity was removed from its country of origin in violation of that country's laws?

He cites the example of a Roman object that could have been found anywhere across the empire. Need it have been found in Italy? But a more interesting example for him to have discussed would have been the quantities of Apulian pots that are being given back to Italy. (Or for Greece, how about Cycladic figures?)

Cuno is clearly critical of the way that the media has been used to reclaim antiquities for Italy. He does not comment in this extract on the use of Polaroids and documentation in the Italian public courts of law. If an image used in a trial is identified in a public collection, have the media a right to comment? And should a museum (or private collector) elaborate on the "history" of the piece in question? The reporting has been "sensational" because the revelations have been jaw-droppingly shocking.

Cuno now accepts "due diligence and good faith inquiries are no longer sufficient". He is right to recommend that "U.S. art museums have to be much more careful"—and Francesco Rutelli's successful reclamation programme has brought this painfully home.

Cuno grumbles that the recently surfaced antiquities—he uses the term "undocumented"—are going to public collections in other parts of the world.

Keeping them from U.S. art museums is not a solution, only a diversion.

The Italian authorities have said that they intend to pursue further antiquities in Denmark and Japan.

The issue to address is this: how can we work together to reduce the damage to our shared cultural heritage?

Cleveland Museum of Art: More Decisions Ahead?

Yesterday's announcement about the return of antiquities from Cleveland to Italy presented a rather mixed bag. But Elisabetta Povoledo ("Pact Will Relocate Artifacts to Italy From Cleveland", New York Times November 19, 2008) has indicated that two further pieces are under consideration.

Yet not all has been resolved. A committee will be set up to discuss two other objects in Cleveland: a first-century chariot attachment depicting a Winged Victory with a cornucopia, and a renowned fourth-century B.C. bronze statue of Apollo slaying a lizard, which the museum attributes to the classical Greek sculptor Praxiteles.

The Roman bronze Victory with Cornucopia, Roman (1984.25) is known to have “traveled through the art market and conceivably found with [63-65]” (Gods Delight, no. 66). The three other pieces, nos. 63-65 in the exhibition catalogue are now in the J. Paul Getty Museum. So discussions with Italy have implications beyond Cleveland.

The Apollo has been the subject of previous comment.

Povoledo also quotes Timothy Rub, director of the Cleveland Museum of Art:

Mr. Rub said the museum acted in good faith when it acquired the pieces, but when presented with evidence of problems, it resolved to “honor our obligation to acquire in a manner that is ethical and transparent” and returned the works “to their rightful owner.”

As the museum acted in good faith, why is the museum refusing to provide the sources for the pieces?

Steven Litt ("Cleveland Museum of Art strikes deal with Italy to return 14 ancient artworks", cleveland.com November 19, 2008) reported:

Rub said the agreement with Italy is based on the understanding that neither the museum nor its directors or curators are in any way tainted by the return of objects.

Instead, Rub said, the understanding is that the museum innocently acquired objects that "clearly were associated with bad actors" at some point in their past.

Rub also said the museum purchased all the artworks in question after the 1970 UNESCO convention governing international trade in antiquities, aimed at halting illegal trade in antiquities.

The majority of the objects were purchased between the 1970s and the 1990s. Rub declined to give names of dealers involved in the histories of the objects.

I am left puzzled by this. Did the curatorial staff at Cleveland not have any suspicions if the objects had no recorded histories prior to 1970? And would the disclosure of the names of dealers help to close this disturbing period for American museums? Are other museums in North America, Europe and the Far East holding material from the same sources? Disclosure would help other museums to re-examine their due diligence processes.

Image
Corinthian krater (formerly Cleveland Museum of Art 1990.81). Source: MiBAC.

Toxic Antiquities and the Medici Dossier

Followers of Looting Matters will know that the images from the Medici Dossier have helped to secure the return of objects from several public and private collections, as well as from at least two dealers. The Polaroids have also caused the withdrawal of several lots from one London auction-house on at least two separate occasions in 2008 and 2010.

The "toxicity" of these desirable antiquities does not come from questions about their authenticity but rather from the route by which they were removed from their archaeological contexts, passed through the market, and into their present collections. Doubters need to read Peter Watson's Sotheby's Inside Story (1997) or (with Cecilia Todeschini) The Medici Conspiracy (2006). Christopher Chippindale and I wrote a review article on the second of the two works for the American Journal of Archaeology (2007) [pdf].

As long as these lovely objects are valued, there rightly will be a market for them. Working in that market will be some crooks and shady characters, just as there have always been and always will be crooked greengrocers who deal in rotten apples. True. But it does not follow that honest and good citizens have to join the wickedness; they can distance themselves and buy good apples elsewhere. What Watson and Todeschini have proved now to exist is not a barrel with a few rotten apples mixed up with good fruit but a criminal business that is corrupt through and through. And the great U.S. museums that have allowed themselves to be sucked into this world are not—let us remember—the private ventures of spivs and con men but public institutions founded to fulfill ethical ideals and given special and generous financial privileges by our society in recognition of their cultural and public merit.

Do people learn from history? Some museums and collectors who have purchased ex-Medici material (sometimes "in good faith") have parted with their acquisitions. Some auction-houses that have been willing to handle ex-Medici material have gained bad publicity. 

Douglas L. Yearwood in his Journal of Art Crime review of Vernon Silver's The Lost Chalice (2009) reflected on the impact of the Medici Dossier. He commented on some of the recently surfaced material:

questionable provenance or the lack of legitimacy for one small Greek wine cup produced one of the landmark cases in the history of art crime and put the world on notice that the theft and smuggling of arts would no longer be tolerated by law enforcement and would not be condoned either directly or even subtly by the major galleries, museums and auction houses.

Will dealers act honourably if they realise they are handling ex-Medici material? Will those in the market distance themselves from any such objects?

Image
Polaroid of a torso of youth holding a cockerel from the Medici Dossier.

The corruption is long-lasting

Cambridge colleagues and I have been discussing the likely impact of the Robin Symes - Christos Michaelides archive of photographs found on the Greek island of Schinousa in 2006. In the last two to three years we have seen the fallout from the Medici "archive" seized in the Geneva Freeport. But which pieces will be identified from this Symes-Michaelides record?

My co-researcher Christopher Chippindale observed:

the corruption through looted objects is so deep and wide and long-lasting that even people of good character who bought things decades ago may inadvertently have acquired illicit stuff.

How can such material be avoided?

Museums and private individuals need to have a rigorous due diligence process. Was the object known, i.e. documented, prior to 1970? How reliable is the information?

The acquisition of antiquities requires more than "good faith" or a reliance on "good title".

"There is good self-regulation in most countries"

Sir John Boardman (in Who Owns Objects?) has posed the question,

"Should we not simply admit the impossibility of controlling the antiques trade, and indeed the undesirability of so doing except where proven stolen goods are involved, as in any other trade?"

I have discussed elsewhere the issue of what is "demonstrably stolen". My view is in keeping with the position of the UK Museums Association:

"In general many parts of the trade seems to prefer to assume items are all licit, "innocent until proven guilty". It would be safer—and more realistic—to regard certain categories of material as likely to be illicit unless proven otherwise. Objects without a known recent history should not normally be traded or collected."

But I digress.

Boardman continues, "By now there is good self-regulation in most countries" and cites two bodies:
a. The Antiquities Dealers Association
b. An (sic.?) Art Loss Register

Ashton Hawkins and Judith Church have written about "A tale of two innocents: the rights of former owners and good-faith purchasers of stolen art" (in Kate Fitz Gibbon (ed.),Who Owns the Past? (2005), 62-63). They draw attention to the replacement of the International Foundation for Art Research, Inc. (IFAR) by "a British not-for-profit corporation formed by IFAR, Sotheby's, Christie's, London-based insurance brokers, and other British and American companies called the International Art and Antique Loss Register, Ltd. (ALR)".

They expand, "This registry [sc. ALR] has emerged as the leading international clearinghouse for information on stolen art".

One could be led to believe that the looting of antiquities is minor. Kate Fitz Gibbon, editor of Who Owns the Past?, drew on "information published by the Art Loss Register" to comment, "thefts of antiquities represent only 3 percent of total art thefts" ("Editor's note: The Illicit Trade - Fact or Fiction?", 179).

Perhaps this deserves a few words.

There is a difference between the theft of a Roman portrait head from a stately home or London apartment, and the deliberate digging up of an archaeological context to remove an Etruscan bronze mirror. Note that the Art Loss Register observes, "the majority of the items registered are objects stolen from private homes".

Take my first example. The Roman portrait head will have been inherited or purchased at a gallery, there will be documentation, and the circumstances of the theft will have been recorded by the police.

But take the second. The Etruscan tomb was opened secretly at night away from public gaze. The last person to see the bronze mirror was a member of the grieving family some 2400 years earlier. The tomb was unknown to archaeology. Its contents were unrecorded. There was nothing to go on the register.

So imagine a sale. The dealer checks with a register.

The Roman head pops up in the database: stolen from Slappleby Hall, Northamptonshire on November 12, 2002. (This is an imaginary theft before you scrabble for your computers. Even Google does not list such a residence ...)

The Etruscan mirror is clear: there is nothing in the database. Indeed a potential buyer can be told that a register has been checked.

Does the lack of presence on a register mean that the mirror has not been ripped from its archaeological context? No.

So should you be reassured, as Boardman would have us believe, when you buy from a member of the Association of Antiquities Dealers?

Their "Code of Conduct" states:

"It is a condition of membership that all goods acquired at the purchase price of £2,000 or more be checked with the Art Loss Register, or any other comparable stolen art database, unless they have already been so checked."

Indeed to help sellers, "Full members receive a number of free searches at the Art Loss Register."

The Code for the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art says much the same:

"All members undertake to check objects with a purchase value of Euro 3000 or over (or local currency equivalent) with the Art Loss Register unless the item has already been checked."

Do I feel reassured by all this? Not really.

But perhaps I should take comfort from a memorandum (dated October 2003) submitted by the Art Loss Register to the House of Commons (Committee for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport):

"Many stolen antiquities have been identified by the ALR and recently the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA) maintains a protocol whereby all potential purchases by their members above a value of £10,000 must be checked against the database. An audit trial of all checks of the database is maintained. The ALR has been involved in advising parties in relation to major archaeological losses. In one case involving a dispute in excess of £20 million the company developed the concept of an international trust financed by a major museum, which would have the items on display. The terms of the trust would require the items to be exhibited in those countries which had a reasonable claim and eventually repatriated to the country should complete proof be obtained of their original excavation. The ALR has assisted in the recovery of items from Iraq and Iran which have resulted in arrests."

Are the "many stolen antiquities" from private residences, museums or previously unrecorded archaeological sites? The memorandum did not make it clear.

And am I saying anything new? Let me finish with some words from the Illicit Antiquities Research Centre in Cambridge published in 2000:

"In any event, at the risk of boring our more informed readers, the Art Loss Register cannot (and does not claim to) contain details of antiquities which have been excavated without record and smuggled without trace. Data bases are invaluable in the fight against art theft, but as a defence against the circulation of illicit antiquities they are of only limited use — a necessary but not sufficient check."

How can the Art Loss Register be strengthened to reduce the number of newly surfaced antiquities appearing on the market?

Christie's, the Medici Dossier and William G. Pearlstein

Kimberly Alderman ("Is Italy “Asking For It” By Refusing to Release the Medici Photographs? Three items at Christie’s raise questions", The Cultural Property and Archaeology Law Blog June 6, 2010) wanted to have a different view on the story carried in the Wall Street Journal last week [see here with quotes from original article]. She contacted New York attorney William G. Pearlstein who "represents collectors, dealers and auction houses in transactions, disputes and regulatory matters involving fine art and antiquities, including purchases and sales of fine art and antiquities, regulatory issues relating to the antiquities market; attribution, authenticity and provenance". He is also the Director of the Cultural Property Research Institute (CPRI) and spoke at the review of the MOU with Italy. Pearlstein appears to have views on "quasi-socialists" and, if a Washington lobbyist is to be believed, an acquired taste in music.

Pearlstein has called for the publication of the Medici Dossier. Yet he does not mention the view of a Christie's spokesperson (commenting on what Christie's described as "stolen artifacts") that the publication of images from a public auction allow for transparency and give opportunity for concerns to be raised. It is still not clear why Christie's left out a key piece of collecting history for lot 139 - a key piece of collecting history known to Christie's. (And is "diligence" really a verb? "so that US market participants could ... diligence their purchases" [emphasis mine].)

Pearlstein confuses two separate issues in his emailed comments to Alderman. He cites the case of "an Egyptian duck that was stolen from a government warehouse, never reported (perhaps never inventoried) and then seized when it came up on at auction 25 years later–after being consigned by a foreign purchase who took good title under local law". In this case the duck appears to have been removed from the store at Saqqara in Egypt; its excavation location is known. In the case of material featured in Polaroids from the Medici Dossier the detail relating to the archaeological contexts is not known. There is a difference between material removed from an archaeological store and objects ripped from archaeological contexts.

Does an incident in Egypt have a bearing on material from Italy? And what does it mean for "American purchasers" of archaeological material to act "in good faith"? Collectors, museums and cultural property lawyers have been aware of the ethical issues relating to archaeological material since the 1970 UNESCO Convention. And North American collectors, museums and cultural property lawyers are unlikely to have missed the 1973 AIA declaration. [For some of the issues see here.]

Pearlstein has strong views:

What the Italians are doing is outrageous. They are deliberately withholding the Medici files from the public, allowing hot pieces to remain in circulation and then playing up every seizure for maximum publicity value. They continue to play the role of victim when actually they have became cynical predators on American institutions that want nothing more than to do the right thing.

What is "the right thing"? Why have North American museums recently adopted 1970 as a benchmark for acquiring archaeological material? Why have some 130 objects been returned to Italy from North American public and private collections in recent years? Is it "outrageous" for officials of a country to be outraged by the deliberate destruction of thousands of archaeological contexts to supply objects for the antiquities market?

Pearlstein calls for "market participants to police the integrity of their collections and [be] held accountable for their failure to do so". One of the key indicators for concern is a collecting history (or "provenance") that points to a certain auction-house in London in the 1980s and early 1990s (see a selection of pieces here). "Market participants" need to conduct rigorous due diligence searches if the collecting history includes those sales. And when that collecting history is "overlooked", questions need to be asked about the reason why.

Virginia: "we're willing to help in any way"

I have commented before on the loan of items from the Lewis Collection to Virginia MFA. I now note that the museum has made a fuller response (Mark Bowes, "VMFA studies artifacts of smuggling defendant", Richmond Times Dispatch July 23, 2011).

Alex Nyerges, the museum's director and CEO, commented: "to the best of our knowledge [the collection] was purchased by the owner and lent to the VMFA in good faith". Some of the pieces were purchased on the London market. Others are said to have passed through anonymous French and Swiss private collections. The report highlights the problems of falsified collecting histories ("provenance").

It is reported:

the VMFA has notified the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York through the Virginia attorney general's office of the museum's willingness to cooperate in the investigation.
"We just said if there is anything you need from us, we're willing to help in any way," Nyerges said. So far, federal authorities have not contacted the museum, he said.

The report notes that the Michael C. Carlos Museum at Emory University has failed to respond to enquiries. I know that Lee Rosenbaum has also contacted the museum and received the same silence. My email has gone unacknowledged.

Dealing in recently-surfaced antiquities?

Fabio Isman's report in Il Giornale dell'Arte has important implications for the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA). It appears that 16 objects on offer by a North American member of the IADAA in late 2010 (and some are still available) could be identified from three major dossiers of photographs derived from raids in Switzerland and Greece.

The IADAA makes its position unambiguous: "As our code of ethics makes clear, we refuse to deal in pieces, which are looted or stolen."

The IADAA's Code of Ethics states: "The members of IADAA undertake not to purchase or sell objects until they have established to the best of their ability that such objects were not stolen from excavations, architectural monuments, public institutions or private property."

Members of the IADAA "adhere to a stringent code of conduct designed to serve not only the interests of their clients but also the integrity of the objects themselves."

So, if there is such a stringent code of conduct, how has this happened? What are the full collecting histories of the objects? Was the dealer aware of the origins of the objects? Were the pieces purchased in "good faith"?

It needs to be remembered that 9 of the 16 identified items appear to have passed through the hands of the same dealer on previous occasions (since 1985 and up to 1991). Who were the sources for the pieces?

Some are designated as "ex Swiss collection" or "ex English collection". Were these private collectors?

Will the IADAA be checking that the circumstances of the 16 pieces?

Spotlight on Amsterdam

After the series of returns to Italy the spotlight is now turned on European collections. Theo Toebosch has considered the series of acquisitions made since 1970 by the Allard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam ('Twijfel over collectie van Allard Pierson', NRC Handelsblad April 3, 2009, p. 8). His opening statement is provocative:

In de collectie van het Allard Pierson Museum zitten zeker vijftien objecten die zeer waarschijnlijk afkomstig zijn uit de illegale handel in oudheden.

What are these 15 objects? A list of the disputed pieces is provided in a box at the end of the article. They include Greek pottery (including two Siana cups), Sicilian terracottas, as well as a terracotta antefix and associated mould. There are some familiar names, dealers and auction-houses: Elie Borowski, Palladion, Robin Symes, and Sotheby's (London) [July 1985]. It would be helpful if the museum could provide complete histories for all the items.

One of the most interesting pieces identified by Toebosch is what appears to be a dismembered Roman mosaic with fragments in at least two other European museums (two are mentioned). The Amsterdam piece was apparently purchased a gallery in Freiburg in 1978. Its style points towards a Syrian origin. Do all the pieces share a common (recent) source?

The usual statements are made. Outgoing director Robert Lunsingh Scheurleer is quoted as saying that the pieces had been purchased in good faith ("de voorwerpen in goed vertrouwen heeft gekocht").

The article coincides with a 75th anniversary exhibition. It is perhaps time to review the acquisition policy of the museum.

Looted Tiles Returned to Iran

At the end of last week it was reported in the Iranian press that "dozens of historic decorative tiles" that had been looted from Iran had been handed to officials at the Iranian Embassy in London ("Smuggled tiles to be returned to Iran", May 30, 2009). The tiles had been removed ("ripped") from the tomb of Sultan Shihab al-Din Sultan Ahmad at Dyla in northern Iran.

Seyyed Ali Mousavi, the legal adviser at the Iranian embassy in London, is quoted:

The tiles are about 600 years old. They were stolen from the tomb of Sultan Shihab al-Din Sultan Ahmad and were smuggled out of the country ... They were taken to London from Dubai to be sold in an auction ... Interpol in London confiscated the tiles after Iran presented the related documents that indicated that they belonged to Iran.

There is also a statement from the UK's Metropolitan Police("Tiles from Sultan's tomb returned to Iran", May 29, 2009):

They [sc. the tiles] were sent for auction at Bonham's Auction House, New Bond Street however experts became suspicious of their origins and alerted the Art & Antiques Unit.

The unit conducted a thorough investigation in co-operation with the Cultural Property Unit in Iran. Photographs of the tiles in situ together with photographs taken following the theft helped to positively identify them.

A collector who bought the tiles in "good faith" from a dealer in Dubai has assisted the police and has released his title claim on the objects.

There is also a comment from DS Vernon Rapley the investigating officer:

It is very satisfying to know that these valuable cultural objects will once again be displayed within the tomb from which they were so callously taken.

We are very grateful for the close co-operation of the Iranian Embassy in London and the Cultural officials who assisted our investigation in Tehran.

The diary in The Independent (June 5, 2009) also notes the tiles:

police gave back to the Iranian government hundreds of tiles, which had been removed from the ancient tomb of of Sultan Shihab al-Din Sultan Ahmad in Northern Iran, and had appeared at Bonham's auction house in London. Auctioneers had become suspicious of their provenance and handed them back.

Image
Presstv.ir

Sotheby's (London) and the Returns to Italy

Common threads are beginning to emerge from a study of the recent returns to Italy. It is possible to start building up a picture, even though some of the institutions (and the single private collector) have yet to issue detailed information (see earlier comments).

At least seven of the pieces appear to have "surfaced" at a Sotheby's auction in London. These were clearly purchased in "good faith".

1. New York, MMA 1985.11.5. Attic red-figured amphora, attributed to the Berlin painter. S (L) 1982 December 13-14, lot 220.
2. Boston, MFA 1998.588. Lucanian nestoris. S (L) 1982 December 13-14, lot 298.
3. Boston, MFA 1988.431. Apulian loutrophoros, attributed to the White Sakkos painter. S (L) 1984 December 10, lot 366.
4. New York, Jerome Eisenberg. 1992. Attic black-figured neck-amphora, attributed to the Leagros gorup. S (L) 1985 July 17-18, lot 257 (it then passed through Galerie Günter Puhze in Freiburg; reported to have been acquired by Royal-Athena Galleries in 1992).
5. New York, Shelby White. Attic black-figured neck-amphora of Panathenaic shape, attributed to the painter of Louvre F 6. Glories no. 104; S (L) 1985 July 17, lot 313.
6. New York, Jerome Eisenberg. 1991. Attic red-figured column-krater, attributed to the Geras painter. S (L) 1987 December 14, lot 295.
7. Boston, MFA 1999.735. Attic red-figured bell-krater, attributed to the painter of the Louvre Centauromachy. S (L) 1995 December 14, lot 95.

Who consigned the pieces?

Peter Watson's study, Sotheby's, the inside story (London: Bloomsbury, 1997), pp. 117, 120, commented on two of these specific sales:

• July 1985: '104 unprovenanced antiquities' consigned by Christian Boursaud of Geneva (PO Box 41, 57 Avenue Bois de la Chapelle, 1213 Onex, Geneva)
• December 1987: '360 lots, 101 were sent in by Editions Service' (of Geneva)

Image
Apulian loutrophoros, attributed to the White Sakkos painter. © MiBAC.

Collecting Histories Matter

I am not sure that the due diligence process is working when it comes to the acquisition of antiquities. Museums, private collectors and dealers can buy objects "in good faith" only to find the newly purchased piece is disputed. It is even possible that the piece has been checked against a list of items known to have been stolen from recorded collections. But something straight out of the ground will not be featured.

So how do we move forward? A study of the recent returns to Italy (and to a lesser extent Greece) has begun to show a pattern of names. And the willingness of institutions such as the MFA in Boston and the J. Paul Getty Museum to provide such information demonstrates the new spirit of curatorial co-operation that is needed to address the problem of recently looted antiquities that enter the marketplace.

Do we need to see a more rigorous form of the due diligence process taking place? Do histories need to be presented in such a way that dates of surfacing or gaps in the record can be seen and explained?

The answer has to be yes.

Antiquities and Jihadists

Earlier this month I drew attention to the speech of Giuseppe Proietti linking Mohamed Atta to the attempt to sell antiquities in Germany. My prompt had been the Fall number of the Journal of Art Crime.

I now see that the February number of the Art Newspaper has also taken up the story (Cristina Ruiz, "9/11 hijacker attempted to sell Afghan loot: Mohammed Atta offered artefacts to German archaeologist", January 27, 2010). Ruiz gives credit to the Journal of Art Crime.

If this story is accurate, based apparently on a security report from the German intelligence services, then there are more serious issues at stake. Archaeologists have been raising the issue of the looting on archaeological sites to provide material for the market. And there have been concerns about the way that archaeological material has been used to fund organised crime (or, in this case, terrorism).

What if those buying looted antiquities derived from Afghanistan inadvertently (or "in good faith") helped to fund the attacks on the Twin Towers? It makes the provocative comments of a senior North American academic, quoted in an interview in the New York Times (Robin Pogrebin, "$200 Million Gift Prompts a Debate Over Antiquities ", April 1, 2006), seem more than inappropriate. In talking about archaeologists who hold an ethical position, the archaeology professor is reported to have said:

''The jihadists, as I would call them now -- who think that to even publish anywhere an item that doesn't have a provenance is forbidden -- this is an utterly ridiculous position,'' he continued. ''If you took that position, we wouldn't know anything about the Dead Sea Scrolls. Those were found by Bedouin in caves beside the Dead Sea. None of them were found by archaeologists. If you followed the purists, you would totally ignore it.''

I have commented before on one of the responses to this debate.

Imagine a collector of antiquities justifying an acquisition in these (fictitious) terms: "This sculpture may have been sold by jihadists who needed money to fight NATO forces in Afghanistan".

Homecomings: Lucanian Pottery

Two pieces of Lucanian pottery have appeared in the "Nostoi" exhibitions. Both pieces are of the same shape, a nestoris (or trozzella). They have been attributed to the Amykos painter and were probably made in the vicinity of Metaponto in southern Italy. Both had been acquired by the Museum of Fine Arts (MFA) in Boston: 1971.49 and 1998.588.

The first was purchased from Dr Leo Mildenberg of Bank Leu AG, Zurich. (It appears to have been supplied with a fabricated history suggesting that the nestoris had passed through a Madrid private collection.) The MFA catalogue (no. 4) notes, "This nestoris may be the earliest known red-figure example".

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". The nestoris was then sold at Sotheby's in London (December 1996), purchased by Widgie and Peter Aldrich, and acquired by the MFA in 1998.

Graham Geddes appears to have acquired at least three other items that passed through the December 1982 Sotheby's (London) auction:

• lot 201: Etruscan black-figured amphora, attributed to the Micali painter. On loan to the Museum of Mediterranean Antiquities, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, March 1995 - April 2008. Due to be auctioned at Bonham's (London) October 15, 2008, lot 11.
• lot 255: Attic back-figured neck-amphora, attributed to the painter of Vatican 365. Subsequently Sotheby's December 8, 1986, lot 327. [Beazley Archive 7462]
• lot 291: Apulian red-figured calyx-krater, attributed to the Darius painter. This apparently passed into a private collection (1982-1994) before forming part of the Geddes collection in 1994; it was sold at Christie's New York in 2001.

This December 1982 sale at Sotheby's also included an Attic red-figured amphora attributed to the Berlin painter that has been returned to Italy from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (and also featured in "Nostoi") (lot 220).

Geddes is reported to have formed one of the largest private collections of South Italian pottery in the world. He bought in good faith at auction, and was guided by Professor A.D. Trendall (see earlier comments). In 1996 Geddes himself said "I prefer to buy items with provenance".

What are the histories ("provenance") of these pieces prior to their surfacing at Sotheby's? Who consigned them?