Skip to main content

Toxic Antiquities: Concern for Dealers

One of the issues that is likely to become significant during the next few weeks relates to toxic antiquities. There are thousands of antiquities that can be identified from images seized during police raids in Geneva, Basel, and on the island of Schinousa. How can dealers avoid handling them? The easy solution would be to insist on an authenticated collecting history that can be traced back to the period before 1970.

But what if you had sold the material to a private collector a decade or so ago? And now the collector (or their heir) had asked you to sell the collection for them? And what if you knew the original source for the collection?

Do you refuse to handle the objects? But would that indicate that you knew that the items had an "interesting" collecting history?

Or do you agree to sell them and hope that nobody will notice that the items feature in one of the photographic archives? And as Marion True has so recently reminded us, some of these images were made available on the Carabinieri website.

Bookmark and Share so Your Real Friends Know that You Know


kyri said…
pre 1970s paper trail is very rare.20-30 years ago provenance was not a major issue in collecting antiquities so to say that every antiquitie without a pre 1970s paper trail is "toxic"is a rather simplistic view considering the collecting habbits of the 1950s-60s is only in the last 5-10 years that provenance has become paramount.calling any piece "toxic"makes a good headline but doesnt do anything to solve the problem that demand is driving the collectors we can all bury our head in the sand ,like some do,but i realise there is as a link between illicitly excavated pieces and the antiquities market [the medici affair proved as much]
i am a collector and try to buy as ethicaly as posible,as long as a piece has at least 15-20 years solid provenace and i know it was not dug up yesterday,thats about as good as it gets im afraid.
Paul Barford said…

What does it mean "not a major issue?"

Who made it not a major issue, and why?

Obviously in the wider art market, provenence is everything - to avoid for example Nazi-stolen art and link works with authors and patrons, so why was the antiquities-art market any different?

Why did dealers and buyers NOT want a check that the objects on the market were not - in one way or another - stolen?

Why did nobody involved in this trade seek the answer to these questions 15-20 years ago?

We are constantly assured that the market is full of licit items, the problems begin when we ask to have them demonstrated to us and it turns out that for a market allegedly "full of" them, demonstrable examples are REALLY thin on the ground... cal".

Popular posts from this blog

Marble bull's head from the temple of Eshmun

Excavations at the temple of Eshmun in Lebanon recovered a marble bull's head. It is now suggested that it was this head, apparently first published in 1967, that was placed on loan to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art (Tom Mashberg, "Met Museum Turns Over Another Relic With Disputed Past to Prosecutors", New York Times August 1, 2017 ). The head is reported to have been handed over to the Manhattan district attorney after a request was received from the Lebanese authorities.

It is suggested that the head may have been looted from an archaeological storage area at Byblos in the 1980s during the Lebanese civil war. Mashberg has rehearsed the recent collecting history:
The owners of the bull’s head, Lynda and William Beierwaltes of Colorado, say they have clear title to the item and have sued Manhattan prosecutors for its return.  The Beierwaltes bought the head from a dealer in London in 1996 for more than $1 million and then sold it to another collector, Michael …

Sardinian warrior from "old Swiss collection"

One of the Sardinian bronzes of a warrior was seized from an as yet unnamed Manahattan gallery. It appears to be the one that passed through the Royal-Athena Gallery: Art of the Ancient World 23 (2012) no. 71. The collecting history for that warrior suggests that it was acquired in 1990 from a private collection in Geneva.

Other clues suggested that the warrior has resided in a New York private collection.

The identity of the private collection in Geneva will no doubt be telling.

The warrior also features in this news story: Jennifer Peltz, "Looted statues, pottery returned to Italy after probe in NYC", ABC News May 25 2017.

Attic amphora handed back to Italians

The research of Dr Christos Tsirogiannis has led to the return of an Attic red-figured amphora, attributed to the Harrow painter, to Italy (Tom Mashberg, "Stolen Etruscan Vessel to Be Returned to Italy", New York Times March 16, 2017).

The amphora is known to have passed through the hands of Swiss-based dealer Gianfranco Becchina in 1993, and then through a New York gallery around 2000 (although its movements between those dates are as yet undisclosed).

During the ceremony, Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., the District Attorney stated:
“When looters overrun historic sites, mine sacred spaces for prized relics, and peddle stolen property for top dollar, they do so with the implicit endorsement of all those who knowingly trade in stolen antiquities” More research clearly needs to be conducted on how material handled by Becchina passed into the North American market and into the hands of private and public collectors.