Skip to main content

Rigorous Due Diligence Matters

One of the lessons from the so-called Medici Conspiracy --- but also the Schinousa and the Becchina archives --- is that recently surfaced archaeological material has passed through well-known dealers and auction houses in Europe (including London) and North America. It is also clear that these same objects were acquired by major public museums as well as by a number of private collectors.

Yet at the time of acquisition there does not seem to have been documented and authenticated evidence that the objects had been circulating in the period before the 1970 UNESCO Convention. Oral histories and incomplete paperwork seem to have been acceptable (and can now be shown in some cases to have been falsified).

The fact that this same material continues to surface on the market at very regular intervals suggests that some auction houses and dealers do not appear to be taking the matter seriously. They should as the resulting negative publicity can unsettle potential buyers. After all, who would want to spend serious money on an object that may have to be returned (without compensation) to (say) Italy.

There are continuing concerns about the potential for material derived from some of Rome's eastern provinces to be surfacing on the market at the present time. To what extent have the due diligence processes been tightened? What safeguards have been put in place to ensure that the paperwork was been checked?

The due diligence process for antiquities needs to be sufficiently rigorous to prevent so-called illicit material from entering the market.

| |
Bookmark and Share so Your Real Friends Know that You Know

Comments

Larry Rothfield said…
The answer to the question "who would want to spend serious money on an object that may have to be returned (without compensation) to (say) Italy?" is, unfortunately, "enough collectors to make it worth not taking seriously the need for airtight provenance." Your question is not a rhetorical one. The answer depends on whether or not the potential buyers assess the risks are high. There are two dimensions of risk: a) what are the chances that Italy (or whoever) will demand an object be seized (and that the US will do so if asked to); and b) what are the chances that the collector will suffer anything more than financial loss. The calculus is pretty obvious: unless the artifact is in the Medici dossier or comes from Kapoor or the equivalent, countries of origin will have a hard time and it will be costly for them to pursue a claim, so the risk for a) is low. The risk for b) is almost nil.

Concerns about the potential for Syrian and Iraqi material need to include real concern that the seller and buyer might go to jail. Shaming is not likely to be very effective, especially when the parties involved think of themselves as providing safe haven or saving orphans.

Popular posts from this blog

The Getty Kouros: "The moral is, never ever buy a piece without a provenance"

In the wake of the 1992 Athens conference to discuss the Getty kouros (85.AA.40), one of the delegates, a "distinguished" American museum curator, was quoted ("Greek sculpture; the age-old question", The Economist June 20, 1992):
The moral is, never ever buy a piece without a provenance.
The recent discussions about the return of antiquities from North American museums to Italy and Greece may seem far removed from the acquisition of what appears to be a forged archaic Greek sculpture in the 1980s. However, there are some surprising overlaps.

The statue arrived at the Getty on September 18, 1983 in seven pieces. True (1993: 11) subsequently asked two questions:
Where was it found? As it was said to have been in a Swiss private collection for fifty years, why had it never been reassembled, though it was virtually complete?
A similar statue surfacing in the 1930s
A decision was taken to acquire the kouros in 1985. The official Getty line at the time (and reported in Russell…

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 …

The Getty kouros: a modern creation?

The refurbished galleries of the J. Paul Getty Museum no longer include the Getty kouros, a sculpture purchased in 1985 (Christopher Knight, "Something's missing from the newly reinstalled antiquities collection at the Getty Villa", LA Times April 19, 2018). Knight explains:
Unexpectedly, the Getty kouros, a controversial sculpture even before the museum acquired it more than 30 years ago, has been removed from public view. The work is now in museum storage.   For decades, the life-size carving of a standing nude youth carried one of the most distinctive labels of any work of art in an American museum: “Greece (?) about 530 B.C. or modern forgery.” The label encapsulated puzzling issues about the work, whose questionable status as dating from the archaic dawn of Western civilization had been the focus of scholarly and scientific research, debate and international symposiums for years. It is ten years since I provided an overview of the kouros here on LM. And over 20 year…