Sarcophagus fragment reported to have been seized

Image from Becchina archive. Source via Dr Christos Tsirogiannis

I was in London for a conference today and was informed that US authorities seized a fragmentary sarcophagus in New York over the weekend. Full details have yet to be confirmed and I also understand that the fragment remains on display in the gallery.

It seems likely that the piece of sculpture has associations with northern Greece.

The fragment featured in the Becchina archive.

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).

James Ede responds to Christos Tsirogiannis

London-based antiquities dealer James Ede has responded to Dr Christos Tsirogiannis in Apollo ("In Defence of the Antiquities Trade", April 11, 2014). Ede is right to suggest that the scandal  --- is there another word that could be used? --- relating to recently surfaced antiquities has been "embarrassing" for those involved in the market. And it is surely appropriate for Tsirogiannis (and others) to draw attention to the need for the application of a rigorous due diligence process to be applied to objects offered for sale.

There is a suggestion by Ede that the photographic dossiers from Medici, Becchina and Symes are not available to authorities and to the Art Loss Register. I am aware of a case (in London) where the ALR was aware of the appearance of an object in the Medici Dossier and had informed the auction house who had still proceeded with the sale.

Ede cannot be unaware of the huge damage that was sustained to the reputation of Sotheby's in London following the detailed investigative book by Peter Watson that revealed the way that antiquities moved from Italy, India and elsewhere to the London market. The research undertaken by Tsirogiannis (and others) has been able to reveal the networks that allow the material to cross international frontiers.

Ede asks for the evidence that the objects were "stolen". Why do so many of the objects in the Polaroid photographs still show the objects in a broken and uncleaned state? These do not appear to be items that had been residing in some private collection. Rather there is the suggestion that they were fresh out of the ground when the photographs were taken. "Stolen" is an interesting word to use, and one used by the press officer of Christie's to describe objects identified from the polaroid photographs.

Ede concedes that some ("many") of the objects handled by Medici and Becchina entered the market "illicitly". It is therefore important for dealers and auction-houses to identify objects handled by Medici, Becchina, Symes (and others) in the collecting histories.

Have the changes in the market in the last twenty years --- 25 years takes us to the period before the Medici scandal broke --- been the result of enlightened dealers, or the concern that photographic evidence would emerge? Ede draws attention to the IADAA's Code of Ethics and to the removal of membership from some dealers. (He does not give their names, but see here.)

Ede suggests that documentation is hard to find. Yet the Medici Conspiracy places the emphasis on the need to demonstrate the authenticated collecting history for an object before it is offered on the market. The Conspiracy has shown us the way that "oral histories" have been supplied to mislead buyers.

Ede reminds us of Syria. The full collecting histories of a pair of statues now on loan to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art are not without interest. And material from Egypt is not without significance.

Ede wants the "legitimate trade" in antiquities to flourish. To do so, those handling recently surfaced antiquities need to work co-operatively with authorities seeking to return items to archaeological collections in the countries where they were discovered. I am aware of a number of cases where auction-houses and dealers (including a member of IADAA) have ignored photographic evidence linking items to the networks that handled recently surfaced antiquities.

The article in The Times is a reminder that we cannot be complacent about how objects have moved from archaeological contexts to the market.

"A history of provenance was not required back in 1991"

A New York dealer whose gallery is a member of the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art has recently made the claim: "a history of provenance was not required back in 1991" (see also here).

What does he mean? First, the word "provenance" is (at best) ambiguous and, I would suggest, is obsolete. I have written on this topic in an academic article elsewhere. Essentially what is implied by this dealer is that the declaration of the collecting history was not required.

And that brings me to a second point. Who required the collecting history? Is the dealer suggesting that the information was required by law? Or was such information provided as part of the "professional" service offered by dealers? (And what does the omission of such information by such dealers tells us about their attitudes toward collecting histories?) And were potential buyers wanting this information so that they could avoid buying recently surfaced antiquities?

So to point three: what was special about 1991? Were people concerned about documenting the collecting histories of antiquities in that year? On a formal basis the US Government had passed the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) in January 1983 [text]. This makes provision for the requirement of appropriate documentation for the items. And if the dealer was not the importer, the documentation, if accurate, would have revealed the information about previous handlers (or handler). The point about CPIA is that it emerged from the implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

The point is this: by 1991, dealers in North America were well aware that there was an issue about cultural property that included archaeological material. This raises issues about enforcement by US authorities as well as attitudes relating the acquisition of cultural property by museums and private collectors, as well as the handling of such material by North American dealers and auction-houses. The Medici Conspiracy has made it very clear that ignoring the implications of UNESCO and CPIA had major ramifications for a number of major North American museums, for some North American private collectors, for some auction-houses based in North America, and for some North American based dealers of antiquities. The ignoring of collecting histories, or rather the lack of them, had toxic implications for those handling or acquiring such recently surfaced antiquities.

There is a further issue. Was the ethical aspect of handling recently surfaced antiquities ignored or sidelined in 1991? And what have been the implications of such an attitude for museums, private collectors and dealers?

And dates matter. I note that twenty years before 1991 (but still post the 1970 UNESCO Convention) a New York Gallery sold some Roman fresco fragments to the J. Paul Getty Museum. In November 2006 it was announced that those fragments would be returned to Italy. The reason? I will let the readers come to their own conclusion.

A dealer in 1991 may, perhaps, have felt that collecting histories were unimportant to determine or to declare. But twenty years later, in 2011, due diligence and transparency are fundamental elements of those who trade in cultural property. So if details of the collecting history become known, or appear to be suppressed, they should, I would argue, be made public.

IADAA members and attitudes towards recently surfaced antiquities

Earlier this year I drew attention to key elements in the IADAA's Code of Ethics in the light of an article by Fabio Isman. Point 2 states:

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

Imagine a member of the IADAA stating that because an object was known in 1991, the Code of Ethics was not binding (irrespective of how the item or items moved from a putative grave assemblage in Southern Italy to a dealer's warehouse in Geneva or London). Contrast this with the batch of material returned to Italy by an IADAA member in 2007. Those objects first passed through the hands of the IADAA member in the 1980s and early 1990s.

IADAA members will also be aware of Point 7:

Members of IADAA undertake to the best of their ability to inform the Administrative Board about stolen goods and thefts. They also undertake to co-operate with international and national agencies involved with the recovery of stolen goods.

So if evidence comes to light that the object was possibly removed from (say) Italy, one would hope that the IADAA member would be getting in touch with the Italian Ministry of Justice as a matter of urgency.

Egyptian antiquities: "a smoke screen"?

Vernon Silver has published a reflective piece on the recent looting of antiquities and the debate about cultural property ("Looting in Egypt Arms Critics of Sending Antiquities Back Home", Bloomberg.com March 9, 2011). Has the looting of the Cairo Museum during the recent political upheavals changed the nature of the debate?

Silver has interviewed William Pearlstein who is seen as opposing claims by Egypt: "My clients will have an easier time against retention laws”. Silver also quotes Ursula Kampmann, the press officer for the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA): “The incidents during the Egyptian revolution could be taken as basis for a change of discussion ... It comes to the question, what is the best way to protect our world’s cultural heritage?”

Hawass also makes the point:

“Arguments against repatriation because of the current situation in Egypt are completely wrong ... If the police left the streets of New York City, London, or Tokyo, the criminals of those cities would smash the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the British Museum, or any other museums in those cities.”

Thomas Campbell, director of New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, has wisely stated that the museum will return the objects relating to Tutankhamun once the political situation has stablised.

I was interviewed for the piece. Instead of rejecting claims on cultural property, museums and those involved in the antiquities market need to be conducting more thorough due diligence checks. Will members of the IADAA ensure that they have full collecting histories of all Egyptian material that they handle? Will the Barcelona Galerista return the material from Saqqara? Will the St Louis Art Museum (SLAM) produce the full authenticated documention relating to the mummy mask that it acquired?

Why does this matter? If we believe in Cosmopolitanism, like Kwame Anthony Appiah and James Cuno, these objects belong to world culture. They are our shared heritage.

IADAA condemns looting in Egypt

Last week the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA) issued a statement about the alleged looting of museums, archaeological stores and archaeological sites in Egypt.

The members of the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA) are deeply concerned at seeing pictures of the looted rooms in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. We are dismayed at the damage looting will cause at remote excavations and museums. Such criminal activity is not only a catastrophe for scholarship but an attack on an important part of the world’s cultural heritage. Raids on poorly protected museums, magazines and excavations constitute theft from the Egyptian state and people.

The IADAA condemns such looting in the strongest possible terms and deplores the reports that the necessary security is lacking.

The statement adds:

With immediate effect IADAA offers utmost diligence cooperation and support in order to track objects, which might have been smuggled out of the country, and all possible cooperation to restore them to their legal owner.

One solution would be for IADAA members to insist on documented collecting histories for Egyptian material.

It should be noted that a former (temporary?) IADAA Spanish member currently appears to hold material listed on the SCA's website.

The IADAA has yet to comment on the Italian news story about recently-surfaced antiquities and one of its North American members. Will the IADAA also be offering the Italian authorities "utmost diligence cooperation and support in order to track objects, which might have been smuggled out of the country, and all possible cooperation to restore them to their legal owner"?

Dealing in recently-surfaced antiquities?

Fabio Isman's report in Il Giornale dell'Arte has important implications for the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA). It appears that 16 objects on offer by a North American member of the IADAA in late 2010 (and some are still available) could be identified from three major dossiers of photographs derived from raids in Switzerland and Greece.

The IADAA makes its position unambiguous: "As our code of ethics makes clear, we refuse to deal in pieces, which are looted or stolen."

The IADAA's Code of Ethics states: "The members of IADAA undertake not to purchase or sell objects until they have established to the best of their ability that such objects were not stolen from excavations, architectural monuments, public institutions or private property."

Members of the IADAA "adhere to a stringent code of conduct designed to serve not only the interests of their clients but also the integrity of the objects themselves."

So, if there is such a stringent code of conduct, how has this happened? What are the full collecting histories of the objects? Was the dealer aware of the origins of the objects? Were the pieces purchased in "good faith"?

It needs to be remembered that 9 of the 16 identified items appear to have passed through the hands of the same dealer on previous occasions (since 1985 and up to 1991). Who were the sources for the pieces?

Some are designated as "ex Swiss collection" or "ex English collection". Were these private collectors?

Will the IADAA be checking that the circumstances of the 16 pieces?

The IADAA position on "looted" antiquities

I have been rereading the IADAA (International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art) position on "looted" and "stolen" antiquities. Their statement is uncompromising:

IADAA also stands against the destruction of the past, whoever is responsible. ... IADAA will use every effort to raise awareness of such destruction. As our code of ethics makes clear, we refuse to deal in pieces, which are looted or stolen.

The code of ethics for the IADAA clearly states:

2. The members of IADAA undertake not to purchase or sell objects until they have established to the best of their ability that such objects were not stolen from excavations, architectural monuments, public institutions or private property.

Do members of the IADAA provide complete and transparent collecting histories for the objects on offer? Do members of the IADAA try to trace objects back to the period before the benchmark 1970 data of the UNESCO Convention?

How do members of the IADAA define "looted" or "stolen" antiquities? How do they conduct due diligence searches?

Miami Law: Missing the Ethical Point?

Derek Fincham has drawn attention to a draft paper by Stephen K. Urice (University of Miami, School of Law) with Andrew Adler (University of Miami), "Unveiling the Executive Branch's Extralegal Cultural Property Policy", University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010-20 [SSRN].

There is a section on the Third Intermediate Period Egyptian coffin of Imesy seized in October 2008 as it arrived in Miami from Ireland (pp. 10-13). This has been discussed elsewhere: "Looting Matters: Why Has a Coffin Been Returned to Egypt?", PR Newswire March 19, 2010. According to the Spanish press, the coffin was acquired in the 1970s. It had been shipped by a Barcelona galerista, Félix Cervera, of "Arqueología Clásica"; the gallery at the time of seizure was a probationary member of the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA). This same gallery (and its galerista) has been linked to "Operation Ghelas" [story archived here]. One wonders why the Egyptian coffin was imported with agricultural products if all the "paperwork" was in order. The coffin was handed over to Egypt in March 2010 and then returned to Egypt.

Urice and Adler do add one interesting detail. Previously the final part of the coffin's history was recorded as follows:

The item had been sent to an unnamed US dealer; it was claimed that it had already been sold to an anonymous Canadian collector.

However we are now told (on the basis of the verified complaint):

In September 2008, Joseph A. Lewis III imported an Egyptian sarcophagus constructed between 1070 and 946 B.C. into the United States from Barcelona, Spain. Lewis purchased the sarcophagus from Felix Cervera Correa, the owner of a Spanish gallery.

I presume that this Joseph A. Lewis III is the same as the Joseph A. Lewis III (and Sofi Lewis) who loaned "an Egyptian falcon mummy dating from 664-332 B.C." to the Clay Center exhibition "Lost Kingdoms of the Nile" ("Falcon mummy joins Clay Center exhibit", Charleston Daily Mail (West Virginia) November 12, 2009 [see also here]). The Lewis collection appears to have other items and it would be interesting for their full collecting histories to be disclosed.

The comments of a Sofi left on the blog post of a Washington lobbyist are cited (p. 12, n. 88):

“I have not seen a single article on this coffin with the correct facts so far. . . . Hawass’ only claim to this item . . . was the lack of an export permit from Egypt[;] in fact he stated that the Egyptian government had no idea whatsoever when this coffin left Egypt as they had no record of this item—period.”

Who is this Sofi? How does Sofi expect the Egyptian authorities to know about looting in Third Intermediate Period tombs? How does Sofi expect the Egyptian authorities to have documentary and photographic records of objects last seen when they were placed in a tomb during the Third Intermediate Period? Why was the Barcelona galerista unable to supply the correct papers when the coffin was seized?

Urice and Adler note that a certificate for the coffin had been obtained from the Art Loss Register. Such certificates are relatively meaningless when it comes to antiquities and this aspect need not detain us.

The authors of the paper at least concede:

none of this means that Dr. Hawass was incorrect to assert that the sarcophagus was “likely the product of an illegal excavation.” Indeed, there is admittedly a “great difficulty . . . in establishing the date of export where the parties evading export controls have every incentive to conceal such evidence.”

Perhaps what this paper reminds us is that private collectors in North America continue to be willing to acquire recently-surfaced antiquities without considering the ethical dimension of their purchases.


Image
© ICE

Frankfurt dealer and the Phrygian phialai: will the "campaign" cease?

German antiquities dealers are hoping that they have silenced what they perceive as a campaign against those who deal in cultural property ("Die deutschen Kunst-, Münz- und Antikenhändler sowie die Sammler hoffen außerdem, dass die irrationalen, von Ressentiments geleiteten Kampagnen des Mainzer Archäologen gegen den Kunsthandel und gegen den Besitz von antiken Kunstwerken nunmehr ein Ende nehmen"). The quote comes from a press release issued by the Arbeitskreis Deutscher Kunsthandelsverbände (ADK) and also placed on the website of the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA) (German: "Zusammenfassung und Vorgeschichte eines Urteils zum Thema Kulturgutschutz des Verwaltungsgerichtes Frankfurt am Main vom 2. Juni 2010, Geschäftsnummer 5 K 1082/10.F"; English: "Case History and Summary of a verdict concerning protection of cultural property made by the administrative court Frankfurt am Main from June 2nd, 2010, reference number 5 K 1082/10.F").

The IADAA English-language press release (and see further comments here) gives a taster of the background:

In 2008, the police confiscated a number of ancient bronze bowls from a conservator. Some of the objects – five small vessels and bowls – belonged to an antiquities dealer from Frankfurt who had purchased them from a private collector. The latter had legally acquired the bronzes in the 1980s. To get the pieces back, the dealer had to endure several lawsuits. Even when the Frankfurt district court ascertained that there was no violation of the Act on the Return of Cultural Property and the insinuation of receiving of stolen goods was without justification he did not get the objects back. Pending the decision, they had been handed to the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz (RGMZ), to the archaeologist Michael Müller-Karpe. At the instigation of an official of the Hessian Ministry of Higher Education, Research and the Arts a so-called confiscation order was issued to the effect that the museum was not obliged to hand over the objects.

The story has been covered in the German press: Matthias Thieme, "Rechtsbruch mit Räucherkesselchen", Frankfurter Rundschau August 7, 2010; Daniel Gerlach, "Eine gordische Affäre", zenithonline). The legal summary can be found here.

So how did the Phrygian bronze bowls come onto the market? One of the report suggests:

Die Geschichte, die Gackstätter den hessischen Ermittlern zu Protokoll gab, beschreibt eine beinahe rührende Antiken-Odyssee: Ein deutsches Lehrer-Ehepaar, das nach einem längeren Aufenthalt in Istanbul in den 1980er Jahren nach Deutschland zurückgekehrt sei, habe bei einem – inzwischen längst verstorbenen – armenischen Händler einige Teppiche gekauft. 

Beim Auspacken der Ware in der deutschen Heimat seien die Bronzeschalen »in einen Teppich eingewickelt« gewesen. Auf mehrmalige Bitten der pensionierten Lehrer habe er, so berichtet Gackstätter, für einen symbolischen Betrag von 200 Euro die Schalen übernommen.

In other words, it appears that the Phrygian bowls were removed from Turkey without a permit, wrapped in a carpet. (The carpet account has been confirmed by official sources in Ankara.) I presume that the Turkish export permit will be produced if this is incorrect.

And where were these Phrygian phialai found? What was their original context?

The reports name the German dealer:

Die Polizei leitete Ermittlungen gegen den Frankfurter Antikenhändler Bernd Gackstätter ein, der dem Restaurator die Gefäße übergeben hatte.

The Frankfurt based Bernd Gackstätter is a member of the IADAA. IADAA members are bound by an ethical code (German):

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

Die Mitglieder der IADAA verpflichten sich, Objekte erst zu erwerben oder zu verkaufen, wenn sie nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen sichergestellt haben, dass die Objekte nicht aus Ausgrabungsstätten, von Denkmälern der Architektur, aus öffentlichen Institutionen oder dem privaten Eigentümer gestohlen wurden.

So has Bernd Gackstätter established ("to the best of their ability") that the phialai "were not stolen from excavations" (or indeed any unrecorded archaeological site)? Note that the IADAA expects its members to aspire to an ethical standard.

IADAA is trying to present a story in their favour (but see earlier comments). I note that the website lacks details of the Barcelona galerista associated with the Miami coffin. And certainly nothing about IADAA's former member, Galerie Nefer.

I hope IADAA members who value their ethical code will be urging Bernd Gackstätter to return the Phrygian phialai to Turkey without any further adverse publicity for their organisation.

Image
From Frankfurter Rudschau.

Madrid: The Galerie Nefer link

Those who have been following the return of antiquities to Italy will know that a pattern is emerging. Galerie Nefer in Zurich was one of the galleries that handled material that has been returned from the J. Paul Getty Museum (see D.W.J. Gill and C. Chippindale. 2007. "From Malibu to Rome: further developments on the return of antiquities." International Journal of Cultural Property 14: 205-40 [abstract and link]).

The objects include:

• a. An Attic red-figured cup, signed by Euphronios and attributed to Onesimos. Cup restored from various sources including Galerie Nefer during the 1980s; cup returned in 1999; further fragments supplied by Giacomo Medici. [discussion].
• b. An Attic red-figured phiale, Douris. Cup restored from fragments acquired over several years; first fragment given by Werner Nussberger (1981); further fragments sold by Galerie Nefer; additional fragments on loan [discussion].
• c. Fragmentary Corinthian olpe, gift of Werner Nussberger (1981).

The cup now in Madrid, attributed to the Euergides painter (no. 85; inv. 1999/99/84; Beazley Archive no. 41408), shows a youth climbing into a pithos. It appeared in Galerie Nefer's catalogue in 1992 (Ancient Art, 10, no. 16) and was subsequently sold by Christie's New York 30 May 1997, lot 108. The cup's collecting history prior to 1992 is undeclared.

Várez Fisa would not be the only private collector to acquire objects that passed through Galerie Nefer; see also the Stanford Place collection.

Galerie Nefer was at one time a member of the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA). It has also been linked to the 'Gospel of Judas' (Codex Tchacos).

Miami and the coffin

The coffin seized in Miami was originally thought to belong to a 21st Dynasty (Third Intermediate Period) pharaoh. Indeed, initial reports, attributed to Zahi Hawass, suggested that it had left Egypt in the 1884.

The coffin had been sent to North America from a Spanish galerista based in Barcelona. It was detained in October 2008 after arriving in Miami via Ireland. A member of the US Customs service spotted that the coffin was not accompanied by appropriate documentation that would demonstrate its collecting history (or provenance). The item had been sent to an unnamed US dealer; it was claimed that it had already been sold to an anonymous Canadian collector.

Subsequent research showed that the Third Intermediate Coffin belonged to an individual named as Imesy. Reports in the Spanish press suggested that it had been acquired by a Spanish collector in the 1970s; these suggestions bring into question the earlier report that the coffin had left Egypt in the 19th century.

Although the Barcelona gallery initially challenged the detention, the legal case was withdrawn. It appears that the galerista was unable to produce paperwork that could demonstrate conclusively how the coffin had come into his (temporary) possession.

The Barcelona gallery, "Arqueología Clásica" (proprietor Félix Cervera), was, at the time, a probationary member of the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA). (The gallery's membership is reported to have lapsed at the end of 2009.) The code of ethics for the IADAA includes the statement, "The members of IADAA undertake not to purchase or sell objects until they have established to the best of their ability that such objects were not stolen from excavations, architectural monuments, public institutions or private property.".

The Barcelona gallery was named in the Italian investigation codenamed "Operation Ghelas". This operation apprehended a number of individuals handling recently surfaced antiquities from Sicily and southern Italy. The objects were apparently being passed onto the European and North American markets via dealers in Switzerland, Germany and Spain.

In March 2010 the seized Egyptian coffin was handed over to Dr Zahi Hawass in order for it to be returned to Egypt. Hawass acknowledged the partnership between Egypt and the US in keeping a check on the trade in recently surfaced antiquities. The plan is to place the coffin on display in Egypt.

The case is a reminder that there appear to be dealers and others associated with the movement of cultural property who still persist in bringing antiquities into the USA without the appropriate documentation. The case should also encourage the resolve of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as they seek to protect the world's cultural heritage.

Image
© ICE

IADAA: the (missing) Spanish element

I recently noted that an Egyptian coffin seized at Miami had been handed over to the Egyptian authorities. On February 24, 2010 the Barcelona gallery was listed as a member of the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA). So, in a space of a couple of weeks, all trace of the membership had been removed. 

I was intrigued and sent three separate emails to the officers of the IADAA: Gordian Weber (chairman), Serena Cooper (organisation and membership issues), and Dr Ursula Kampmann (Cultural Property Issues and Public Relations).

I have not received any clarification.

What does this silence imply about the resignation? Or should we read this as a removal? Does this absence reflect the rigorous ethical standards of the IADAA?

If - and it is a big IF - there has been some unusual trading activity by the Barcelona galerista, what has made the IADAA act in this way?

Image
Google trace, March 15, 2010

Membership of the IADAA

In 2007 Christopher Chippindale and I published a study of the antiquities returned from the J. Paul Getty Museum to Italy. We observed that among the dealers and galleries that supplied the material were two members of the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA). One of the two was the Galerie Nefer that we noted had "recently resigned from the organization" (sc. IADAA). Galerie Nefer, Zurich, was owned by Frida Tchacos; her husband, Werner Nussberger, had donated fragments of pots that were returned to Italy (see comments).

Now another gallery appears to have "resigned" from the IADAA. Why? What is the stated reason?

Further details
Gill, D. W. J., and C. Chippindale. 2007. "From Malibu to Rome: further developments on the return of antiquities." International Journal of Cultural Property 14: 205-40. [Abstract and link]

IADAA makes its position clear

The International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA) has updated its website. It now includes a section on "A critical eye towards the cultural property discussion" with a selection of "scolars' [sic.] opinions".

The majority of the quotations (Kwame Anthony Appiah; Sir John Boardman; James Cuno; Neil MacGregor; Philippe de Montebello; David I. Owen; James C. Y. Watt) come from James Cuno (ed.), Whose Culture? The promise of museums and the debate over antiquities (Princeton University Press, 2009). This volume is well known for its omission of several key contributions from the event. The web officer for the IADAA could, perhaps, add something from my review of the volume that appeared in the Fall number of the Journal of Art Crime (2009).

If the issue under debate is difficult and divisive, then one way to create order is to make it partial and partisan, inviting a range of contributors whose varied views all lie together on one side of the division. With the other side thereby silent, the debate can happily come to a reasonably strong consensus. This is that book. The other view of the central issue is absent, that the recent past of collecting antiquities in too many museums has been a story of looting, smuggling and unfair dealing.

The IADAA has helpfully indicated that it is deaf to those who do not hold the now untenable and flawed Cuno position.

Egyptian sarcophagus returned

Last month I commented on the Egyptian sarcophagus detained at Miami. Earlier this week the sarcophagus was handed over to the Egyptian  authorities at the National Geographic Society [press release]. Zahi Hawass was present at the event: "A piece of our history that left Egypt under mysterious circumstances has found its way home with the help of our partners in the U.S. government".

It appears that the sarcophagus was imported with incomplete paperwork.

The coffin was intercepted by CBP at Miami International Airport in 2008 and initially scrutinized for agricultural concerns. An agriculture specialist, concerned that the coffin would require a permit, referred it to the Trade Enforcement Team and ICE. CBP and ICE contacted the importer to establish whether the coffin had been exported legally from Egypt. ICE tracked the sale of the sarcophagus to a U.S. citizen, who was neither an art dealer nor broker. He claimed to have sold it already to a Canadian. Neither the importer nor the Spanish Gallery that exported it could establish its legal export from Egypt or when or how it would have left Egypt. Given the absence of a credible provenance, the item was determined to be owned by Egypt through its Cultural Patrimony Laws. The item was seized as imported stolen property. ICE worked through its attaché offices in Egypt and Spain to provide the information that led to the forfeiture of the property.

An additional press release adds:

Suspicions were confirmed when Felix Cervera, a Spanish gallery owner who had shipped the sarcophagus into the U.S., could not provide proper provenance (documentation showing ownership of a valued object or work of art or literature).

I also observe that since the news broke the membership list of the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA) has been updated. There are no longer any members in Spain.


Image
© ICE

Basel Ancient Art Fair 2008

Details of the Basel Ancient Art Fair (BAAF) 2008 are available on the web. We are informed:

BAAF’s quota of leading world specialists makes it not only the largest, but also the most important fair of its kind under one roof. All participants are members of the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA) and follow a strict code of ethics concerning the authenticity and provenance of the objects they sell.

Among the objects listed on the press release are:

• Greek marble head of a veiled goddess. Private Israeli Collection, acquired in the 1970's. Safani, New York.
• Mycenaean kylix. Private German Collection, acquired in 1985. Safani, New York.
• Kiliya marble figure of a goddess. Private American Collection since 1985. Safani, New York.
• Canaanite bronze female fertility goddess. Ex. private collection UK, acquired early 1980s. Rupert Wace, London.
• Graeco-Roman torso of Dionysos. Professor Bernhard Kommel Collection. Safani Gallery, New York.
• Torso of the Doryphoros. Paris, private collection. Jean-David Cahn, Basel.

Jerome Eisenberg returns antiquities: a correction

On Saturday I commented on the return of eight antiquities to Italy by Jerome Eisenberg. In it I posed the questions:

What was his due diligence process? Had he consulted and obtained clearance from the Art Loss Register?

Dr Eisenberg has responded to me (and his letter has been attached in full to the original posting). He leads with this statement:

It should be brought to your attention that the Art Loss Register was not established until 1991.

He is right (see ALR website) though there was an earlier archive established by The International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR) in 1976. I must apologise for giving a misleading impression.

The earlier history for six of the eight antiquities is available:

a. The neck-amphora surfaced at Sotheby's (London) in 1985, passed through the Freiburg market, and was in the possession of the Royal-Athena Galleries by 1992.
b. The hydria surfaced in the Royal-Athena Galleries in 1990.
c. The column-krater surfaced at Sotheby's (London) in 1987 and then passed to the Royal-Athena Galleries, featuring in the catalogues for 1991 and 2006.
d-f. The three bronzes are reported by the Italian authorities to have been stolen from Italian collections in 1970, 1971 and 1975. I do not know when the Royal-Athena Galleries acquired them (though they are said to have been sold to a North American collector during the 1980s).

Dr Eisenburg would not have been able to check the histories of these six objects with the Art Loss Register (ALR) as the Royal-Athena Galleries acquired them before the formation of that organisation in 1991. (I include within the six the neck-amphora and the column-krater that were in his possession by 1991 and 1992.)

I do not know when the Royal-Athena Galleries acquired the other two pieces.

However some of the pieces were in the possession of Royal-Athena Galleries after 1991 and the creation of the Art Loss Register. The column-crater (Beazley Archive no. 19523), for instance, featured in a 2006 catalogue (Art of the Ancient World vol. 17).

Lee Rosenbaum ("Italian Criminal Charges Possible in Connection with Antiquities Recovery from Private Collector; Accord Reached with Princeton Museum", Culturegrrl, June 28, 2007) has commented specifically on two of the bronzes (the Nike and the athlete):

Eisenberg told me [sc. Rosenbaum] that he had sold the bronzes in the 1980s to collector John Kluge, who put them up for auction at Christie's on June 8, 2004. Eisenberg repurchased them there (for $6,573 and $9,560, respectively). He said that he had also voluntarily returned other pieces, when he learned that they had been illegally taken from Italy.

The Royal-Athena Galleries are members of the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA). Their "Code of Ethics and Practice" states:

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.

Did the Royal-Athena Galleries consult the ALR database once the bronzes had been re-acquired? Or was the fact that they had owned the pieces back in the 1970s or 1980s deemed to be sufficient? Or had Christie's run a check on the bronzes prior to the 2004 sale?

I have commented elsewhere on the use and limitations of the ALR ("The Art Loss Register and Antiquities").

Jerome Eisenberg returns antiquities: new deal with Italy

Reports are breaking that Jerome Eisenberg of the Royal-Athena Galleries in New York has returned eight antiquities worth US$510,000 to Italy (Alessandra Migliaccio and Adam L. Freeman, "Art Dealer Eisenberg Returns Antiquities to Italy", Bloomberg.com, November 6, 2007; Ariel David, "Looted Art Returns to Italy From NY", Guardian Unlimited, November 6, 2007).

This comes hard on the heels of the news that Princeton has come to an agreement with Italy.

The items, some of which had already been sold, include "three bronze Etruscan statues, four vases" and "a 1st century Roman statue of a reclining woman that was used to decorate a fountain". Two items are reported to have been returned to Italy in the fall of 2006.

Ariel David notes that most of the returning items were acquired at auction in London during the 1980s.

Eisenberg, who has been exhibiting at the Basel Ancient Art Fair over the last few days, is quoted as saying:

It was the right thing to do and maybe it will set an example for other people.

Who are the other people? Fellow dealers or private collectors?

Royal-Athena Galleries, which handled some of the antiquities that have been returned from the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and the J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu, belong to the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA).

It is now clear that the Code of Ethics and the due diligence processes conducted by members of the IADAA are not rigorous enough.

Perhaps more significant is the fact that members of the IADAA agree to the following action:

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.

Antiquities worth over half a million US dollars are likely to have fallen into this category.

Did the Art Loss Register (ALR) --- an organisation also present at Basel --- issue certificates to say that the items had been checked? And if so, does the ALR need to address, as a matter of urgency, the issue of researching antiquities ?