Skip to main content

The Art Loss Register at the Basel Ancient Art Fair

The Art Loss Register (ALR) is listed as one of the participants at next month's (November) Basel Ancient Art Fair (BAAF). The Fair is described as:
"BAAF attracts leading specialists from all over the world, making it not only the largest, but also the most important fair of its kind under one roof. All participants are members of the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA) and follow a strict code of ethics concerning the authenticity and provenance of the objects they sell."
It is good to see the IADAA stressing their "strict code of ethics".

But I am interested in the presence of the Art Loss Register. Why are they present?

Let me speculate (though I would invite additions to this list):
a. To gain customers from among the private collectors who will be buying antiquities at the Fair. After all, one of the main strengths of the ALR is the registering of objects in case of theft.

b. To gain customers from among the dealers who will be able to check that the objects they sell are not stolen property. Again, this is a sensible move.
I have expressed concerns elsewhere about the limitations of the ALR and I present a brief list here.
1. The ALR does not appear to be able to identify recently surfaced --- and potentially recently looted --- antiquities.

2. The ALR is not in a position to identify objects which have been stolen (or looted) but which have not been placed on the database. James Ede (who is exhibiting in Basel) has made exactly this point when giving evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee.

3. Some dealers --- though the one I have discussed is not a member of the IADAA --- seem to suggest that searching the ALR database provides proof of due diligence. Does this give a sense of false security to potential buyers?
The staff of the ALR need to make the most of their participation in the Basel Ancient Art Fair.

So here is a little homework for them. They will have the opportunity to meet the dealers, talk to buyers, and reflect on the market in general.

First, they need to show that they are serious about trying to identify recently surfaced objects. Do they need to "flag up" objects which have no documented history prior to 1970, the date of the UNESCO Convention?

Second, do they advise potential clients about the limitations of their database?

Third, have they in their own minds made a differentiation between "stolen" and "illicit" antiquities.

If the individuals responsbile for cultural property at ALR can start to engage with the key issues surrounding the trade in antiquities then these comments will have been a positive nudge in the right direction.

Comments

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 …

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 b…

Tutankhamun, Christie's and rigorous due dligence

It was announced today that the Egyptian authorities would be taking legal action against Christie's over the sale of the head of Tutankhamun ("Egypt to sue Christie's to retrieve £4.7m Tutankhamun bust", BBC News 9 July 2019).

The BBC reports:
Egypt's former antiquities chief, Zahi Hawass, said the bust appeared to have been "stolen" in the 1970s from the Temple of Karnak. "The owners have given false information," he told AFP news agency. "They have not shown any legal papers to prove its ownership." Christie's maintain the history of the piece as follows:
It stated that Germany's Prince Wilhelm von Thurn und Taxis reputedly had it in his collection by the 1960s, and that it was acquired by an Austrian dealer in 1973-4. However the family of von Thurn und Taxis claim that the head was never in that collection [see here].

Christie's reject any hint of criticism:
"Christie's would not and do not sell any work whe…