Skip to main content

Operation Phoenix: Ali Aboutaam "urges" others to repatriate antiquities

On May 19 it was reported that an unnamed Geneva dealer had returned 251 antiquities worth some €2 million (see earlier comments). My press release, "Looting Matters: Why Is Switzerland Featured so Frequently in the Return of Antiquities?", PR Newswire May 29, 2009 Friday 12:01 PM GMT subsequently noted:
"In May 2009 251 antiquities worth around 2 million Euros (US $2.8 million) were returned to Italy from a Geneva-based gallery."
One hour later another release appeared, "Phoenix Ancient Art Voluntarily Repatriates 251 Antiquities to Italy Worth $2.7 Million", PR Newswire May 29, 2009 Friday 1:00 PM GMT.
Phoenix Ancient Art, the world's leading dealer in rare treasures from ancient Western civilizations, announced today that it has voluntarily repatriated 251 antiquities valued at $2.7 Million (EU 2Million) to the State of Italy.
Why did it take ten days for Phoenix Ancient Art to make this statement? What prompted this latest move?

Ali Aboutaam was quoted in the release:
"We returned these ancient artifacts in the spirit of cooperation and collaboration with the international art world, and to demonstrate Phoenix's commitment to the preservation and repatriation of national treasures to their host countries ... We have, amicably settled the matter with the Italian authorities, and urge others in the art world to follow suit and also the lead of some of the world's great museums such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston in repatriating antiquities whose provenance may be in doubt."
The press release suggests that the pieces were removed from archaeological contexts in Etruria and Southern Italy during the 1980s. It stress such looting was "unbeknownst to Phoenix"; in other words the pieces had been acquired in "good faith".

C. Michael Hedqvist, who is director of the Geneva gallery of Phoenix Ancient Art, is also quoted:
"To ensure the provenance of our items, we spend much of our time verifying an art work's pedigree. In our due diligence process we ask each seller of artwork for proof of identity, as well as for documents pertaining to how long the piece has been in circulation... The returned items were acquired by Phoenix a long time ago, without knowing of their doubtful provenance. Even though a court in Geneva in 2007 rejected the Italian claim and awarded title of the antiquities to Phoenix, proving that we were not at fault, we chose to return the disputed items to the Italian State."
Ali and Hicham Aboutaam have yet to explain their link with an antiquity returned from Princeton to Italy.

Aboutaam's urge that other institutions should "follow suit" and repatriate "antiquities whose provenance may be in doubt" will cause discomfort for two particular institutions:
Will these two museums be returning these two acquisitions in the near future?

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…