Skip to main content

The Art Loss Register: the view of Hicham Aboutaam

It had been suggested to me that I was not being entirely positive about The Art Loss Register after I had made some comments in connection with the Brussels Oriental Art Fair III. Over the last few weeks I have tried to collect different voices and experiences: dealers, collectors, and academics. And I do not feel that their response has been supportive.

I would like to add another contribution to the discussion: Hicham Aboutaam, the co-founder of Phoenix Ancient Art (of Geneva and New York). The media section of the gallery's website provides links (and transcripts) to interviews with CNBC ("Investing in Antiquities") and Bloomberg. Both interviews are posted on YouTube.

The Bloomberg interview dates back to 2005. In it Lane Bajardi asks Aboutaam:
"How do you protect yourself from not getting ripped off here, from buying something that maybe is not worth what the person who's selling it is asking for it?"
And the answer is telling:
"One of the main elements is to have a dealer that's been around for a good number of years, that has a good reputation in the museums' world, and a dealer that respects its guarantees. And these guarantees are authenticity--the authenticity of the piece—guaranteeing that it's been imported according to the law, guaranteeing the condition of the object that's being sold and guaranteeing that the object has been checked in the Art Loss Registry, which is a registry for stolen and looted artifacts."
A more formal statement is made on the website in a section on "Selling" to Phoenix Ancient Art:
"Phoenix Ancient Art has developed one of the most stringent due diligence procedures for establishing provenance-the chain of ownership-in the antiquities trade. This is done to ensure that pieces come from reputable channels and are in accordance with the law. Such scrupulousness requires Phoenix Ancient Art to employ researchers who match artefacts against lost art registries, such as Art Loss Register Ltd http://www.artloss.com, and who seek out documentation of prior ownership ..."
But wait a moment.

Is the Art Loss Register (ALR) - which is what I presume Aboutaam means - recording looted objects (as Aboutaam suggests in the Bloomberg interview)? A check against the ALR database will perhaps tell you if the object has been stolen from a private collection, public museum, or perhaps hacked off a known monument --- so long as the Art Loss Register has been informed of the theft. (See the example cited by James Ede where this had not happened.)

But the Art Loss Register does not record, as far as I know, previously unknown objects removed from unexcavated and unrecorded archaeological sites in the dead of night and transported from the country of origin without knowledge of the authorities. (If I am wrong I would be grateful if the staff of the ALR could let me know so that I can correct this statement.)

Does a check against the ALR provide a false sense of security for the buyer? What sort of guarantee is being offered? The "due diligence" process is so much more.

And, as the Phoenix Ancient Art website points out, this is where employed researchers step in.

Comments

Leah Bevington said…
I find the role of the Art Loss Registry in regards to antiquities rather puzzling, especially given the poor track record of some of its founding members (for example Sotheby's and Christie's). Next month I will have the opportunity to speak with Katherine Dugdale of ALR and I hope to question her specifically about antiquities.

Popular posts from this blog

Codename: Ainsbrook

I have been watching (UK) Channel 4's Time Team this evening. The programme looked at an undisclosed field (under a potato crop) where a Viking burial had been found. The location in Yorkshire was so sensitive that it was given a codename: Ainsbrook. Here is the summary:
In late 2003 two metal detectorists were working in a field in Yorkshire. They found 'treasure' buried just beneath the surface – a collection of Viking material next to a body. Although they had been detecting on the site for a number of years, during which time they had made large numbers of finds, nothing they had uncovered previously compared with this. They decided to share their discovery with archaeologists.The programme explored the tension between metal-detectorists and the English Heritage sponsored archaeologists putting six trenches into the field based on a geo-physical survey. Finds made by the metal-detectorists did not easily map onto the archaeological features.

Part of the programme had an …

The scale of the returns to Italy

I have been busy working on an overview, "Returning Archaeological Objects to Italy". The scale of the returns to Italy from North American collections and galleries is staggering: in excess of 350 objects. This is clearly the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the material that has surfaced on the market without a history that can be traced back to the period before 1970. 

I will provide more information in due course, but the researcher is a reminder that we need to take due diligence seriously when it comes to making acquisitions.

Stele returns to Greece

The Hellenic Ministry of Culture has announced (Saturday 8 September 2018) that a stele that had been due to be auctioned at Sotheby's in London in June 2017 has been returned to Greece (Friday 7 September 2018). The identification had been made by Cambridge-based forensic archaeologist Dr Christos Tsirogiannis.

It appeared that the stele had been supplied with a falsified history as its presence with Becchina until 1990 contradicted the published sale catalogue entry. It then moved into the hands of George Ortiz.

A year ago it was suggested that Sotheby's should contact the Greek authorities. Those negotiations appear to have concluded successfully.

The 4th century BC stele fragment, with the personal name, Hestiaios, will be displayed in the Epigraphic Museum in Athens. It appears to have come from a cemetery in Attica.