Two pieces that passed through the June sale at Christie's were seized later in the year. They appear to have been an Attic pelike attributed to the Aegisthus painter that had surfaced through the Summa Galleries in the mid-1980s (lot 120), and an Apulian situla that had followed the same route but slightly earlier in 1977 (lot 132). Together they had realised over $120,000.
I later posted the comment from Christie's:
Sung-Hee Park confirmed that "the transparency of the public auction system combined with the efforts from the U.S. ICE and foreign governments, in this matter, led to the identification of two stolen artifacts".In December 2009 I wrote:
It is a matter of concern that two auction-houses --- Christie's and Bonham's --- have been willing to offer material from sales that are known to have contained material supplied by Medici and his associates. Why did their due diligence processes fail to identify the potential problem with this particular "provenance"? Auction-houses need to be very wary of antiquities that first appeared at Sotheby's in London during the 1980s and 1990s.Since then, Bonham's decided to withdraw one ex-Medici piece from its April 2010 sale (as well as three limestone busts featured in the Symes archive). Now three more pieces from the Medici Dossier (an Apulian rhyton, a Canosan terracotta, and a marble statue of a youth holding a cockerel) seem to be similar to three lots in the upcoming June sale at Christie's. (Two surfaced at Sotheby's in London, and one in New York.)
Christie's have responded to Theo Toebosch after he made an enquiry over the apparent association: "we do not sell works that we have reason to believe are stolen".
Toebosch also asked (and I repeat the questions here with his permission):
- Do you consider 'Japanese private collection 1980s' or 'London art market 1990s' as sole provenance well provenanced? If so, why? If not, why do you accept antiquities with this kind of provenance?
- What are your criteria to accept or refuse antiquities for auction?
- What do you consider due diligence?
Staff at Christie's need to ask themselves some questions.
- Why did ICE agents seize three pieces in 2009?
- How did Giacomo Medici form his stock of antiquities?
Composite of three pots apparently seized in New York by ICE agents during 2009.
3 comments:
I notice there is an increasing business in Greek vases on ebay. None of it is museum quality IIRC, but you have to wonder at the provenance of them. Perhaps pedlars of loot are turning to that to avoid the oversight of Christie's specialists?
Marc
Thank you for your comment. The subsequent histories of the pieces are not always disclosed - though in the case of the pieces seized in New York we know that some were handed over to Italy (see here). Private collectors, auction-houses or dealers with a modicum of integrity would return the pieces to the country where they appear to have been found.
Some present proprietors are hidden behind a veil of anonymity ("another property", "a Belgian gentleman", "a Kansas private collector"). And we also know that dealers can sometimes be presented as collectors (see here).
Christopher Chippindale and I have tended to use 1973 as a benchmark. This was the year that the AIA passed a resolution on recently-surfaced antiquities. It is usual for bodies such as the AAMD to use the 1970 UNESCO Convention as a key marker. Private collectors who purchased "in good faith" during the 1980s were ignoring the warning signs (see here).
Switzerland has had a less than honourable role in the handling of recently surfaced antiquities.
So let me return to the real issues. How can we reduce the destruction of archaeological sites? How can we encourage dealers and auction-houses to refrain from selling recently-surfaced antiquities?
I am sure that responsible galleries will want to play their part.
Best wishes
David
if a piece gets withdrawn [...] and if it is returned to the consignor, is it not likely to enter a "black" market?
What is the difference between a piece of dubious provenance sold in one antiquity shop and one sold in another one? How do you define a "black market" when the market as a whole is remarkably undiscriminating - as the recent withdrawals of pieces from auction shows.
I too would like to ask how we go from these illustrations of how the indiscriminate market at all levels conceals looting to how we go about protecting the sites by making looted items from their commercial exploitation much more difficult to sell than they obviously are today.
Post a Comment