ALR: the need to differentiate between looted and stolen

I have been reading the comments made by James Ratcliffe over the return of archaeological material recovered in Europe after being removed from archaeological storage facilities in the Lebanon (Laura Chesters, "Art Loss Register, New York’s district attorney and antiquities dealers team up to safeguard Lebanese sculptures", Antiques Trade Gazette 6 February 2018). The comments relate to material that was derived from the archaeological excavation at Eshmun (see also here). 

The two Roman sculptures are given a little history:

• "One sculpture was recovered when an antiquities dealer in Freiburg, Germany, was acquiring it from an Austrian dealer."
• "The second sculpture was identified when a dealer in London contacted the ALR before its potential acquisition. The sculpture was owned by a private collector and ALR contacted US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in New York. The New York County District Attorney’s Office then seized the piece to ensure its return to Lebanon."

So some questions. Who was the Austrian dealer? Had the Austrian dealer conducted a rigorous due diligence search? If not, why not? Where had the Austrian dealer acquired the sculpture? Will that source be disclosed? For the second piece, who was the New York collector? Is there any connection with the Eshmun pieces recently seized in North America? Why had the New York collector decided to ask a London-based dealer to dispose of the sculpture? Were any other Eshmun pieces being off-loaded by other routes?

Ratcliffe comments:

In principle there is nothing wrong with a trade in antiquities where items have lawfully entered the market, but trading in pieces that are looted is entirely wrong and must stop.

The Eshmun pieces were not "looted" from an unknown archaeological site, they were apparently removed from an archaeological store. In spite of the photographic evidence that was available an Austrian dealer and a New York collector were able to acquire these pieces. Were they acquired in "good faith"? Was there anything "unlawful"? How do newly surfaced antiquities "enter" the market?

Ratcliffe continues to misunderstand how the ALR is unlikely to detect recently looted material.

Through due diligence checks it is possible for those in the trade to identify when they are being offered looted material and for it then to be returned

How will a due diligence check identify looted material? Imagine an Etruscan tomb of the early fifth century BC. No photographs were taken of the objects as they were placed around the body. Now picture the scene of a tombarolo removing the objects from the tomb in, say, 2015. The objects are sold to an intermediary, passed to a dealer in, say, Germany, and then images are sent to the Art Loss Register as part of the due diligence process. The ALR will report back that there is no image in their records, and the dealer can state that the ALR has been consulted. Can looted objects be identified in the process?

I suspect that there needs to be some clarification. Ratcliffe needs to reflect on the ALR's role in the case of the St Louis Mummy Mask, an object recorded from an archaeological site and then apparently removed from an archaeological store.

Becchina and the Funerary Markers from Greece

Marble loutrophoros from the Becchina archive.
Source: Dr Christos Tsirogiannis

Cambridge-based academic, Dr Christos Tsirogiannis, has identified two Attic funerary markers that have surfaced on the Swiss market (Howard Swains, "Looted antiquities allegedly on sale at London Frieze Masters art fair", The Guardian October 22, 2017). The items feature in the Becchina archive.

The marble lekythos and loutrophoros were displayed by Swiss-based dealer Jean-David Cahn at the Frieze Masters art fair in Regent's Park in London.

It appears that the items are being offered on behalf of the Swiss canton of Basel-Stadt. They had apparently formed part of the stock seized from Becchina's warehouse in Switzerland. (For more on this see here.)

Strangely the Swiss authorities are claiming that the Italian authorities have given permission for the material to be sold. But these two items are objects that were created in Attica for display in Attic cemeteries. They are from Greek, not Italian, soil.

The key question is this: did the Swiss authorities as well as Cahn contact the Greek authorities to check that the sale was acceptable? If the answer to this is no, then there has been a major breakdown in the due diligence process. Any responsible dealer would have known that they need to contact the Greek authorities for objects that would have been found in Greek funerary contexts.

This makes the statement from James Ratcliffe, counsel for the Art Loss Register sound ridiculous: “If [the Italians] are not reclaiming it, it’s then in this grey area where legally it’s seemingly OK ... As far as [the Swiss] were concerned, they were selling with good title. Now if that’s not the case, and information has emerged that’s contrary to that, then quite clearly that’s something we would say changes our view.” But if the two funerary objects came from Greece rather than Italy, then Ratcliffe's statement reflects his apparent lack of understanding of the reality of the situation.

Cahn is not unfamiliar with handling material from Greece. Items include the statue of Apollo that had been looted from Gortyn on Crete, and another Attic marble lekythos.

Incidentally, the Becchina archive also includes images of a Minoan larnax from Crete now in the Michael C. Carlos Museum. This case is currently unresolved.

These two ex-Becchina items are now toxic. The Basel authorities and Cahn would be best advised to arrange for them to be returned to Greece before the Greek authorities make a formal request and with it all the associated publicity.

Tsirogiannis on Looted Antiquities and the Market

The latest number (May / June 2016) of British Archaeology has an extended interview with Dr Christos Tsirogiannis ('Pots and robbers: how to defeat the tainted antiquities market'). The report includes fresh images from the seized Symes assets in Switzerland.

Tsirogiannis reflects on the use of the Medici dossier and the Becchina archive for identifying recently surfaced antiquities.

James Ede and Julian Ratcliffe (Art Lost Register) are interviewed and speak about their perception of the archives. Ratcliffe suggests that the use of the archives to identify pieces only serves to "embarrass" members of the antiquities trade.

Tsirogiannis responds by pointing out the less than helpful way that certain named auction houses have responded when information has been passed to them.

There is a section in the report stating 'Christie's pledges to defeat trafficking'. The auction house is very defensive over criticisms of its due diligence process (highlighted again this week by failing to spot a very obvious ex-Medici piece with its Sotheby's London former collecting history).

Due dilgence: time for a rethink?

I have been writing my regular column for the Journal of Art Crime. My focus is on the what auction-houses consider to be an appropriate level of "due diligence". Is there an over-reliance on searching the databases of bodies such as the Art Loss Register? Is this the time for a more rigorous due diligence process to be adopted? (I have made a suggestion in my column.)

I have also finished a separate major study of the acquisition of the Ka-Nefer-Nefer mask by the St Louis Art Museum. The underlying theme is on the quality of the due diligence process but also the professional responsibilities of museum professionals when concerns are raised about the origins of a piece. Readers of LM over the last few weeks will have realised that this has been a fairly regular topic.

Tsirogiannis on recent identifications

Dr Christos Tsirogiannis has written a short piece on the identification of Medici and Becchina pieces for Apollo ("Auction houses should do more to root out looted antiquities", April 2, 2014).

Since 2007 I have been identifying antiquities, depicted while not yet conserved, in these photograph archives, before the auctions take place. Since this happens several times every year, it is not usually considered ‘newsworthy’ by sources that non-experts notice, even though the estimated value of the objects I’ve identified ranges from a few thousand to several million pounds.

The surprising thing is that the auction houses do not pick up on the indicators.

And what is the role of the Art Loss Register?

Bonhams and Becchina

Bonhams has withdrawn one of its lots from a sale. It was a Canosan pyxis that had passed through the Ariadne Galleries in New York during the 1980s. So it surfaced well after 1970, has an obvious link with Italy, and was handled by a gallery that has been linked with recently surfaced antiquities (such as the Icklingham bronzes). These would be three good reasons to conduct a thorough due diligence search.

Yet an unnamed spokesperson for Bonhams is quoted by the BBC ("'Looted' artefacts removed from auction", April 2, 2014):

"We take immense trouble to check and verify the history of any object we sell and work closely with the Art Loss Register, the British police and Interpol on establishing accurate provenance. 

"At this point there is no evidence to show that it was illegally excavated. But we take any such intimation very seriously and hence we have withdrawn it for further investigation."

Bonhams is well aware of the issues relating to these Italian photographic archives after the case of the Geddes sale. Or what about the "Medici" statue? And note the similarity of this statement to ones in previous cases.

Perhaps the spokesperson for Bonhams would care to expand on Becchina's role in the handling of antiquities. Or will the "further investigation" include contacting Becchina and asking him for the full collecting history?

And we note that in the list of sources Bonhams did not think of contacting the Italian authorities. The omission is perhaps significant.

Is it time for the senior management at Bonhams to tighten up the due diligence procedures for selling antiquities? (I suggested this precisely four years ago.)

The Art Loss Register and Antiquities

One year ago LM posted a piece on the Art Loss Register and Christie's. I wonder if the ALR read it.

The question is why the ALR did not appear to have spotted that Christie's was offering material identified from the Medici Dossier and the Becchina and Schinousa Archives. But perhaps they had.

The use of an unacknowledged antiquity linked to Robin Symes (via the Schinousa Archive) as the cover image for the Christie's sale catalogue suggests that the problem of toxic antiquities continues to fester.

What positive actions will the ALR take to reassure potential buyers?

Due diligence and collecting histories

Collecting histories are important. They indicate the routes through the antiquities market. And the collecting histories for objects that have been returned to Italy as a result of the Medici Conspiracy are fascinating. So if, say, a major auction house was asked to offer an object that shared the same collecting history (some continue to use the flawed term "provenance") as a returned object, I would presume that the staff of the antiquities department would conduct a rigorous due diligence process. Not only would they contact the Art Loss Register, but potential buyers would expect these purveyors of ancient art to contact (say) the Italian authorities to ensure that there is no overlap with the three major seized photographic archives. Can we be sure that such a rigorous process has taken place? What can buyers expect?

Art Loss Register on BBC Radio 4

Chris Marinello from the Art Loss Register is talking about the return of the Matisse to Sweden on this morning's BBC Radio 4 "Saturday Live". [BBC News]

The programme is normally available on the BBC iPlayer.

Buyers Beware: Surfacing Medici Material

Last week I was discussing the continued surfacing of material identified from the Medici Dossier with Cambridge University researcher Christos Tsirogiannis. It is clear that material is shortly due to be auctioned. And this raises a bigger question.

a. Is the auction house aware that it is offering ex-Medici material? Has its rigorous due diligence checks picked up the relevant collecting history/histories?
b. Has the Art Loss Register spotted the material in its checks? I am sure that if it has, the auction house will have been informed.
c. Have the Italian authorities identified the material? We know that the Italian authorities scan the sales and have made requests for material to be withdrawn, although such requests are often declined.
d. Will potential buyers be aware of the ex-Medici material in the sale? The only advice on offer is to avoid any material that cannot be traced back to the period prior to 1970.

Buyers should be cautious.

Christie's and the Art Loss Register

The Art Loss Register (ALR) states on its website that it "searches all auction catalogues and private sales for Christies to identify before sale any items which are registered as stolen, fake, missing, looted". The ALR continues: "This is the foundation of due diligence to ensure that the buyers obtain good title free of disputes."

This is a bold claim. Are all looted antiquities documented and photographed? Do looters submit their photographs to the ALR? So the statement assumes that looted antiquities have to be registered.

And what if objects in one of the auctions are identified from one of the photographic dossiers seized in Switzerland and Greece? Will Christie's only respond if the ALR makes the identification?

And does the work of the ALR guarantee that "buyers obtain good title free of disputes"? What if the Italian authorities make the identification themselves and approach the auction-house directly?

The wording is clearly intended to reassure potential buyers. But does it?

Bonhams: Resurfacing Antiquities

Mark Hughes has written a significant piece on the October sale of antiquities at Bonhams ("Bonhams: Lots of trouble on New Bond Street", The Independent October 27, 2010). The story was broken by Italian journalist Fabio Isman in the Art Newspaper on the eve of the sale. The two lots had reported collecting histories: they are said to have resided in Swiss and European private collections. What is new in the story is that Hughes reveals that Bonhams had been aware of the possible identification of the two pieces well before the sale took place:

"Days before the auction the house received an email from an eminent academic alerting them to the questionable provenance of the lots, but it pressed ahead with the sale."

Bonhams has claimed that it had conducted a search with the Art Loss Register. But Chris Marinello, an executive director of the ALR, has clarified the ALR's position:

The controversy is that the Italian government does not want to release the photographs. I can understand their reticence. The Italians know that there were other looters working with Medici and may want to convict some of them. Those pictures are evidence and they could argue that releasing them could prejudice future proceedings.

Hughes raises an interesting issue:

But while figures in the art world say it is up to the Italian police to release the dossier, some argue that when even the slightest doubt is cast on the provenance of an antiquity, the auction house should remove it.

This report comes in the wake of recent surfacings on the market. The case is a reminder that auction houses need to improve their due diligence procedures.

Medici Dossier and the London Market

The online version of The Art Newspaper has released details of two further pieces items identified from the Medici Dossier (Fabio Isman and Melanie Gerlis, "Medici “loot” for sale?", The Art Newspaper 217 (October 2010)). The pieces are due to be auctioned at Bonhams on 6 October 2010. The two lots mentioned in the report are lots 94 (an Attic pelike; "European private collection, formed between the 1960s and early 1990s. Acquired by the present owner in 1993. Accompanied by an Art Loss Register certificate") and 95 (an Attic head oinochoe; "Swiss private collection formed in 1960s-1970s").

The two objects are an Attic jar (lot 94, pictured), around 440-415BC (est £3,000-£5,000), and a Greek pottery pitcher (lot 95), around 400-350BC (est £2,000-£3,000).

Isman and Gerlis state:

Pictures in the Bonhams catalogue of the two works coming to auction on 6 October appear similar to Polaroids found in Medici’s Geneva store, which were seized in 1995 and presented as evidence during his trials, although these particular objects were never examined in court. This means that the objects have not been studied to establish their origins and whether or not they were illegally excavated or exported and may be legitimate.

Isman and Gerlis report a statement from Julian Roup of Bonhams:

Spokesman Julian Roup said that the firm has yet to have any proof that the pieces’ provenance is questionable.

Relevant images appear on the website of The Art Newspaper.

Isman has also discussed material in Madrid.

Bonhams: October Catalogue Available

Readers of Looting Matters will be interested to know that the online catalogue for the sale of antiquities on 6 October 2010 is now available.

There are several interesting lots including one ex-Borowski Corinthian pyxis (lot 70) [estimate $3100-4700] that sold at Christie's 12 June 2000 (lot 20) for $1410.

There is also an Attic black-figured Nikosthenic amphora (lot 93), with the inscription Pamphaios mepoies(e)n that appeared in the Phoenix Ancient Art catalogue, "The Painter's Eye, The Art of Greek Ceramics. Greek Vases from a Swiss Private Collection and other European Collections" (Geneva-New York, 2006, 8-11, no.2) [details].

Several pieces are accompanied by an "Art Loss Register certificate" (e.g. lots 85, 87, 89, 90, 92,  94).

Art Loss Register and Antiquities

Derek Fincham has commented on the 2010 Association for Research into Art Crimes (ARCA) conference at Amelia, in Italy. Chris Marinello of the Art Loss Register was there and Fincham provides a brief summary of his presentation.

Chris Marinello discussed the work of the art loss register, pointing out that the ALR has ceased to offer certificates for certain antiquities searches, as the database is unable to effectively determine if these objects have been recently looted from their archaeology.

I have some reservations about the use of the ALR database for identifying recently-surfaced antiquities. (In part, photography was not available in, say, the 6th century BCE when the Athenian pots were placed in an Etruscan tomb.)

I look forward to discussing this with Marinello later this summer. But the report is a good reminder that dealers and auction-houses should not rely on the ALR alone if they want to offer antiquities that do not have a documented collecting history that can be traced back to the period before 1970.

The Cleveland Apollo: "I don't know who they're protecting by secrecy"

In 2009 the Cleveland Museum of Art returned 14 antiquities to Italy. Among them was a piece donated by Edoardo Almagià who has been linked to a recent report with the Princeton University Art Museum. At the time of the announcement about these returns it was reported that a special committee had been set up to look into the collecting history of the controversial acquisition of a bronze Apollo. (Another committee was also looking into the collecting history of a Winged Victoria.)

The statue, attributed to the sculptor Praxiteles, is said to have been purchased for around $5 million from Phoenix Ancient Art. Its collecting history is far from clear. One of the reasons for confidence on Cleveland's part lies in the fact that the Art Loss Register (ALR) "found no claims on the piece". But recently surfaced antiquities will not appear in the ALR (unless those removing the objects took photographs and those photographs passed to the ALR).

Cleveland is now being upbeat about its aquisition (Steven Litt, "Cleveland Museum of Art's Apollo sculpture is a star with intriguing past", cleveland.com June 20, 2010).

Michael Bennett is a confident man these days. The Cleveland Museum of Art's curator of ancient Near Eastern, Greek and Roman art believes that he made the purchase of a lifetime in 2004, when he persuaded the museum to buy a beautiful and controversial ancient bronze statue of Apollo Sauroktonos, or Apollo the Lizard Slayer.

Although the museum has yet to reveal all the details it holds, Cleveland's interim director, Deborah Gribbon, commented: "The issue is not that there are things to hide, it's that some of this is ongoing research and other elements are proprietary information".

If there is nothing to hide, why not make all the information public? And when will this committee report?

Patty Gerstenblith was also interviewed:

It's a public institution supported by the taxpayers and the government ... I think they should come forward with the evidence they have. I don't know who they're protecting by secrecy.

Why is the Cleveland Museum of Art acting as if there is something to hide? What else was purchased from this source? After all, Michael Bennett claimed he had been dealing with the individuals concerned "for years". When will Cleveland make the findings of its internal report public?

And let us not forget that we do not know where this Apollo was originally displayed.

Italian Prosecutor: "We want to repatriate those objects"

Paolo Ferri, the Italian prosecutor, has been linked to many of the returned antiquities. He is now quoted over the possible identification of three lots in a forthcoming New York auction to images from the Medici Dossier (Dalya Alberge, "Critics Say Christie's Should Pull 3 Items From Auction", Wall Street Journal June 3, 2010).

Paolo Ferri, a Rome prosecutor who specializes in art theft cases, is seeking to recover the objects. He described the Christie's sale as "very unethical," adding: "We want to repatriate those objects." He said he had been aware of the sale since the catalogue was published some weeks ago and was pursuing his efforts to repatriate the objects through diplomatic and international police channels.

Ferri added, "Christie's knows they are selling objects that appeared in the Medici archive".

Alberge, who also covered the April sale of antiquities at Bonhams in London, interviewed a range of European and North American scholars. Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn added: "The auction houses are doing themselves no favors in continuing to offer tainted antiquities for sale".

Cambridge University researcher Christos Tsirogiannis, who used to work with the Hellenic Ministry of Culture, has been studying the seized photographic archives. He is quoted:

Photos from the Medici archive suggest that all three objects are probably illicit, unless Christie's proves with evidence and beyond any doubt the legal provenance of the objects, by simply providing their full history after 1970.

Alberge also interviewed ICE Special Agent James McAndrew who headed the investigations that led to the seizures from Christie's in 2008 and 2009:

he is looking into the June 10 sale, as he would any sale, and with Christie's co-operation. He emphasized Christie's efforts at due diligence and compliance when offering objects for sale, and that the auctioneer doesn't always have access to all the information available to law-enforcement agencies. Still, he added: "I think they could do better."

A spokesperson for Christie's issued a statement:

"With respect to these particular lots, Christie's has not been notified of a title claim by any government authority, nor are these lots identified as problematic by the Art Loss Register or Interpol. As an added measure, Christie's has undertaken its own research into this matter and has found no evidence to support the need to withdraw these lots. Unless and until Christie's receives a title claim, we plan to proceed with the sale of these lots."

Christie's can now be expected to reveal the full collecting histories for the three pieces for the period from 1970. They also need to explain why they "forgot" to mention in the original catalogue entry for lot 139 that it first surfaced at Sotheby's London in 1992.

"London's reputation as a clearing house for looted antiquities"

Lord Renfrew has now commented on the appearance of recently-surfaced antiquities at Bonhams. In an interview for The Guardian (Dalya Alberge, "Roman sculptures withdrawn from auction amid fears they are stolen", April 27, 2010) Renfrew commented "such sales are maintaining London's reputation as a clearing house for looted antiquities". (See his earlier speech in the House of Lords: "It is scandalous that this practice continues".)

Cambridge researcher Christos Tsirogiannis is interviewed:

"The destruction leaves objects out of context. Even if [an object] is a masterpiece, our duty is to give people history."

Renfrew calls for dealers to reveal the identity of vendors: "That would be a step towards clarifying the problem".

The article also reflects on the role of the Art Loss Register and its place in the identification of "stolen" antiquities.

Due Diligence at Bonhams

Bonhams is a member of the Antiquities Dealers Association (ADA). The ADA's 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.

Could staff at Bonhams have detected that they were about to offer material handled by Giacomo Medici?

I suspect that a check was made with the Art Loss Register (ALR). But as I pointed out - in connection with a piece of Lydian silver on offer from Bonhams in October 2007 - "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". If the Medici Roman Youth had come from a pillaged archaeological site, it would not appear in the ALR register.

So any responsible dealer would then want to make sure that they were not likely to handle recently surfaced antiquities. Bonhams had experience of this in October 2008 when they tried to sell the Graham Geddes collection. Two of the Apulian pieces, an oinochoe and a bell-krater, surfaced at Sotheby's in London for the December 1986 sale. This in itself should alert anybody if they were asked to sell a statue that had passed through the same sale. Moreover, a quick check with Peter Watson's Sotheby's: Inside Story (1997) would have shown that Medici was linked to this very sale. It is therefore surprising that the staff at Bonhams did not enquire further to ensure that the Roman youth did not appear in the Medici archive of photographs. (Remember, it took me about about one hour to have my suspicion confirmed.)

Was this a 'one off'? It would appear that Bonhams did not learn from the Geddes sale. In that instance, researchers were alerted to the likely presence of Medici material because the name 'Geddes' was inscribed next to a lot at Sotheby's - and illustrated in Watson's Sotheby's: Inside Story.

Readers will have to accept that the staff at Bonhams have conducted "due diligence" (in the words of the ADA Code of Conduct) "to the best of their ability".

It will be interesting to see if the management of Bonhams take a decision to tighten up their procedures. Perhaps they should insist on documented collecting histories that can be traced back prior to 1970. And that would have meant that they could have avoided handling the three Roman funerary busts that once passed through the hands of Robin Symes.

Roman wall-painting seized from Manhattan gallery

A second antiquity was seized by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Manhattan on Monday("ICE seizes a cultural artifact reported stolen in Italy almost 12 years ago", press release). The Roman fresco had been been identified by the Art Loss Register. The wall-painting had been found at Boscoreale and had then been kept in a store at Pompeii. It had been noted as stolen in June 1997.

Five other fragments stolen with it have now been recovered.

• London, unspecified gallery, press release February 2009

Image Courtesy of ICE