Bonham's, Lydian Silver and a Code of Ethics

Tomorrow is due to see the auction at Bonham's of a piece of silver which, to use their words, is "virtually identical" to a piece from the "Lydian Hoard".

It is well known that the "Lydian Hoard" returned from New York "was acquired by the Metropolitan Museum over the period 1966-70 from John Klejman of Madison Avenue and the Swiss dealer George Zacos" (Stealing History: The Illicit Trade in Cultural Material, p. 10). The issues surrounding this particular "Hoard" case have been rehearsed elsewhere but Brodie et al. commented about the Metropolitan Museum of Art,

The Metropolitan failed to do the decent thing. Although caught red-handed and with deeply incriminating documentation in the museum's files, it went to court in an attempt to change the State of New York's rules about the period of time in which a claim for stolen property is allowed to proceed, hoping to keep possession. But in 1990 its case was dismissed. ... In 1993 the museum finally agreed to return the Treasure and the lawsuit was dropped.

We do not know - or more accurately, we are not told - how the piece now at Bonham's first surfaced at Sotheby's back in the mid-1970s. Had it too passed through Switzerland? Are there any trading associations with the former New York material? These are issues that must be addressed.

Why?

It is clear that the "Lydian Hoard" in general emerged on the market in suspicious circumstances - and it was rightly returned to Turkey. So if a piece of silver - "virtually identical" to one in the hoard - appears on the market and is known to have first surfaced around the time of the "Lydian Hoard", then there are grounds for suspicion.

Do suspicions matter?

Yes. If you read the UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property which was endorsed in November 1999 (now helpfully reproduced in Legal and Practical Measures Against Illicit Trafficking in Cultural Property: UNESCO Handbook (2006) [pdf]; the code is mentioned in the UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport document, Ministerial Advisory Panel on Illicit Trade (2003) section 104) you will find that Article 1 states

Professional traders in cultural property will not import, export or transfer the ownership of this property when they have reasonable cause to believe it has been stolen, illegally alienated, clandestinely excavated or illegally exported

I presume that Bonham's would consider themselves to be "Professional traders in cultural property". I presume an auction of a piece of Lydian silver could be considered as "transfer the ownership of this property". And given what we know about the "Lydian Hoard" and the clear stylistic association with this silver kyathos there could be "reasonable cause to believe it has been stolen, illegally alienated, clandestinely excavated or illegally exported".

So, some simple questions. "Yes" or "no" would be sufficient for the moment.

Have the staff at Bonham's checked with the authorities in Turkey to ensure that this piece was not "stolen, illegally alienated, clandestinely excavated or illegally exported"?

Have the staff at Bonham's checked the documentation for the history of the piece prior to its sale at Sotheby's in the mid-1970s?

And the answers matter because Article 3 of the UNESCO Code of Ethics states:

A trader who has reasonable cause to believe that an object has been the product of a clandestine excavation, or has been acquired illegally or dishonestly from an official excavation site or monument will not assist in any further transaction with that object, except with the agreement of the country where the site or monument exists. A trader who is in possession of the object, where that country seeks its return within a reasonable period of time, will take all legally permissible steps to co-operate in the return of that object to the country of origin.

Bonham's also need to remember Article 8 which states:

Violations of this Code of Ethics will be rigorously investigated by (a body to be nominated by participating dealers). A person aggrieved by the failure of a trader to adhere to the principles of this Code of Ethics may lay a complaint before that body, which shall investigate that complaint before that body, which shall investigate that complaint. Results of the complaint and the principles applied will be made public.

I presume that in the case of Bonham's it would be the Antiquities Dealers Association (ADA) whose Code of Ethics states:

I agree to conduct my business in such a way as to bring no discredit on the Association or its members or the trade in general.

But I am assuming that Bonham's supports the notion of the UNESCO Code of Ethics. They should, because UNESCO makes a case for why dealers need to take it seriously:

Adopting the Code gives dealers a way of distancing themselves from disreputable people who claim to be dealers and in fact make no inquiry into provenance or even themselves knowingly instigate illegal acquisitions.

It therefore attracts to them the business of ethical collectors and raises the reputation of the ethical dealer community in the minds of the public and the media.

In cases where dealers themselves are selling as owners and not only as agents, it also gives them the right arguments to insist on proper evidence of legal acquisition from their suppliers.

References
Brodie, Neil, Jennifer Doole, and Peter Watson. 2000. Stealing history: the illicit trade in cultural material. Cambridge: ICOM UK, the Museums Association and the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. [pdf]

UK Government documents on the illicit trade in cultural objects

Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003

Bonham's, Lydian silver and due diligence

A silver kyathos, "virtually identical" to one from the Lydian haul returned to Turkey, is due to be sold at Bonham's this Friday (October 26, 2007).

We know from a recent survey of Lydia that some 90% of these tumuli showed signs of looting. We know that this kyathos surfaced in the mid-1970s when parts of the Lydian haul were appearing on the market.

These points issues raise several issues.

Bonham's is a member of the Antiquities Dealers Association (ADA). Item 2 of the Code of Conduct states:

I undertake not to purchase or sell objects until I have established, to the best of my ability, that such objects were not stolen from excavations, architectural monuments, public institutions or private property.

So has the due diligence process taken place so that is can be demonstrated that this piece of silver was not removed illegally from an archaeological site - and specifically a burial tumulus in Lydia, Turkey?

Making a direct parallel in the sale description to a piece from the "Lydian hoard" would suggest that the thought had gone through the mind of the cataloguer at Bonham's. And if this did not raise concerns, should it have done?

But there is more. The estimate for the kyathos is "£12,000 - 15,000". And this is when point 3 of the ADA's Code of Conduct comes in:

It is a condition of membership that all goods acquired at the purchase price of £2,000 or more be checked with the Art Loss Register, or any other comparable stolen art database, unless they have already been so checked.

So presumably Bonham's has checked with the ALR. Is that correct? But, as I have discussed elsewhere, the ALR will indicate if the object has been stolen from, say, a private collection in Knightsbridge, but not if the item comes from a previously unknown and unrecorded archaeological site.

Both the ADA and ALR are seen by Sir John Boardman as examples of "good self-regulation". Is the sale of this piece of Lydian silver a test? Will the ADA and ALR be raising questions?

"There is good self-regulation in most countries"

Sir John Boardman (in Who Owns Objects?) has posed the question,

"Should we not simply admit the impossibility of controlling the antiques trade, and indeed the undesirability of so doing except where proven stolen goods are involved, as in any other trade?"

I have discussed elsewhere the issue of what is "demonstrably stolen". My view is in keeping with the position of the UK Museums Association:

"In general many parts of the trade seems to prefer to assume items are all licit, "innocent until proven guilty". It would be safer—and more realistic—to regard certain categories of material as likely to be illicit unless proven otherwise. Objects without a known recent history should not normally be traded or collected."

But I digress.

Boardman continues, "By now there is good self-regulation in most countries" and cites two bodies:
a. The Antiquities Dealers Association
b. An (sic.?) Art Loss Register

Ashton Hawkins and Judith Church have written about "A tale of two innocents: the rights of former owners and good-faith purchasers of stolen art" (in Kate Fitz Gibbon (ed.),Who Owns the Past? (2005), 62-63). They draw attention to the replacement of the International Foundation for Art Research, Inc. (IFAR) by "a British not-for-profit corporation formed by IFAR, Sotheby's, Christie's, London-based insurance brokers, and other British and American companies called the International Art and Antique Loss Register, Ltd. (ALR)".

They expand, "This registry [sc. ALR] has emerged as the leading international clearinghouse for information on stolen art".

One could be led to believe that the looting of antiquities is minor. Kate Fitz Gibbon, editor of Who Owns the Past?, drew on "information published by the Art Loss Register" to comment, "thefts of antiquities represent only 3 percent of total art thefts" ("Editor's note: The Illicit Trade - Fact or Fiction?", 179).

Perhaps this deserves a few words.

There is a difference between the theft of a Roman portrait head from a stately home or London apartment, and the deliberate digging up of an archaeological context to remove an Etruscan bronze mirror. Note that the Art Loss Register observes, "the majority of the items registered are objects stolen from private homes".

Take my first example. The Roman portrait head will have been inherited or purchased at a gallery, there will be documentation, and the circumstances of the theft will have been recorded by the police.

But take the second. The Etruscan tomb was opened secretly at night away from public gaze. The last person to see the bronze mirror was a member of the grieving family some 2400 years earlier. The tomb was unknown to archaeology. Its contents were unrecorded. There was nothing to go on the register.

So imagine a sale. The dealer checks with a register.

The Roman head pops up in the database: stolen from Slappleby Hall, Northamptonshire on November 12, 2002. (This is an imaginary theft before you scrabble for your computers. Even Google does not list such a residence ...)

The Etruscan mirror is clear: there is nothing in the database. Indeed a potential buyer can be told that a register has been checked.

Does the lack of presence on a register mean that the mirror has not been ripped from its archaeological context? No.

So should you be reassured, as Boardman would have us believe, when you buy from a member of the Association of Antiquities Dealers?

Their "Code of Conduct" states:

"It is a condition of membership that all goods acquired at the purchase price of £2,000 or more be checked with the Art Loss Register, or any other comparable stolen art database, unless they have already been so checked."

Indeed to help sellers, "Full members receive a number of free searches at the Art Loss Register."

The Code for the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art says much the same:

"All members undertake to check objects with a purchase value of Euro 3000 or over (or local currency equivalent) with the Art Loss Register unless the item has already been checked."

Do I feel reassured by all this? Not really.

But perhaps I should take comfort from a memorandum (dated October 2003) submitted by the Art Loss Register to the House of Commons (Committee for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport):

"Many stolen antiquities have been identified by the ALR and recently the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA) maintains a protocol whereby all potential purchases by their members above a value of £10,000 must be checked against the database. An audit trial of all checks of the database is maintained. The ALR has been involved in advising parties in relation to major archaeological losses. In one case involving a dispute in excess of £20 million the company developed the concept of an international trust financed by a major museum, which would have the items on display. The terms of the trust would require the items to be exhibited in those countries which had a reasonable claim and eventually repatriated to the country should complete proof be obtained of their original excavation. The ALR has assisted in the recovery of items from Iraq and Iran which have resulted in arrests."

Are the "many stolen antiquities" from private residences, museums or previously unrecorded archaeological sites? The memorandum did not make it clear.

And am I saying anything new? Let me finish with some words from the Illicit Antiquities Research Centre in Cambridge published in 2000:

"In any event, at the risk of boring our more informed readers, the Art Loss Register cannot (and does not claim to) contain details of antiquities which have been excavated without record and smuggled without trace. Data bases are invaluable in the fight against art theft, but as a defence against the circulation of illicit antiquities they are of only limited use — a necessary but not sufficient check."

How can the Art Loss Register be strengthened to reduce the number of newly surfaced antiquities appearing on the market?