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.

Further statue from temple of Eshmun, Lebanon seized in New York City

Bull from temple of Eshmun, Lebanon.
Source: ARCA

ARCA (and other sources) has commented on the seizure of a second statue from the temple of Eshmun in Lebanon that had formed part of a New York private collection. The figure is holding an animal: a calf, sheep or goat. The collector is reported in the legal papers as Michael Steinhardt.

The marble bull's head that was also seized in New York is due to be returned to the Lebanon in the next two weeks.

Christos Tsirogiannis has established that the Beierwaltes, through whose hands the bull passed, were clients of Robin Symes. Is this the source for the bull?

And if so, did Symes handle the other statue?

And what other material removed from Lebanon could have passed through this route?

Postscript
Colin Moyniham, "Couple Drops Lawsuit Over Disputed Antiquity", New York Times, October 13, 2017: "The calf bearer sculpture passed though some of the same hands as the bull's head, according to the letter. It too had been excavated at Eshmun and was stolen from the Lebanese Republic, prosecutors said. It was then sold in 1996 by Mr. Symes for $4.5 million to the Beierwalteses, who later sold it to Mr. Steinhardt, Mr. Bogdanos wrote." The bull's head was purchased for $1 million in 1996.

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 H. Steinhardt, in 2010. Mr. Steinhardt lent the relic to the Met that year, but after learning that Lebanon was disputing its provenance, he asked the Beierwaltes to take it back and compensate him.

The London based dealer has not been named although other legal papers identify one of their sources (discussed by Christos Tsirogiannis, "Mapping the supply: usual suspects and identified antiquities in ‘reputable’ auction-houses in 2013." Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología 25 [2015] 107-44 [esp. p. 135] ).

William G. Pearlstein, who is acting for Beierwaltes is reported to have said:

“We believe the district attorney’s position is ill-founded, ... The Beierwaltes are bona fide purchasers with clean hands. By contrast, for more than 50 years, Lebanon has failed take any action domestically or internationally to report any theft of the bull’s head.”

As a point of correction, if the head was published 50 years ago, and the civil war was taking place in the 1980s, then the possible removal from the storage facility was only 30 years ago.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art is quoted:

“Upon a Met curator’s discovery that this item on loan may have been stolen from government storage during the Lebanese civil war, the museum took immediate action. We contacted the Lebanese government and the lender, we took the item off display, and we have been working with federal and state authorities, which recently involved delivering the head of the bull to the Manhattan D.A. upon its request.”

I am sure that Beierwaltes will disclose the name of the London-based dealer who supplied the bull's head. From there it should be possible to identify the source of the head.

The Dioskouroi from Syria

Dioskouroi
featuring in the Schinoussa Archive
and on display in New York MMA

New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art has been displaying a pair of Roman statues (on loan since 2008). The reported (but unauthenticated) collecting history attempts to place the pieces in a Mithraeum at Sidon with their discovery in the 19th century. However the paperwork seized in Basel (see here), Switzerland places them in Syria. Is this another case of 'adjusted' findspots?

It is important to stress that these statues were not removed during the present conflict.

A parallel discussion needs to take place around the Christian mosaics acquired by Fordham University.

Looting in Syria

© David Gill

BBC's File on Four investigative team have made a detailed exploration of the movement of looted antiquities from Syria to the markets of western Europe. They look at material that is on offer for sale in Beirut, and other objects that have been seized in Lebanon. The journalist asked specifically about Roman mosaics.

One of those interviewed spoke about the shift in volume of material moving out of Syria since the start of the recent conflict.

The BBC emphasised the need to verify information especially about the amounts of money highlighted from captured UCB sticks.

One of the UNESCO officials spoke of the need to dampen down the market as she expected some objects could be stored for some years. A middleman in Turkey talked about one object that had sold for $1.1 million.

Some material apparently from the region was spotted on the London market.

There was a discussion of the lack of regulation ("unacceptable") in the antiquities market in London.

Buying from the Lebanon market

Those buying antiquities that had once allegedly passed through the Lebanese market need to be on their guard when conducting their due diligence search. Items include the major silver hoard, the Morgantina treasure, that was clearly derived from Sicily. The Sevso treasure was claimed to have been derived (among a number of locations). The Sarpedon krater was reported to have a Beirut connection. Likewise the statues of the Dioskouroi on loan to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art are linked to Sidon when other documentary evidence points to a findspot in Syria.

Back in 2010 I even draw attention to Late Antique (Byzantine) mosaics with a Lebanon link. Does this sound familiar?

Fordham and Chasing Aphrodite

My colleagues over on Chasing Aphrodite have a detailed piece on the Fordham mosaics. The post highlights some of the issues that should have been addressed prior to acquisition.

It is time to look at the Beirut market in a bit more detail. Consider, for example, the Morgantina hoard that clearly came from Sicily.

Creative collecting histories?

The "Merrin Zeus" is a reminder that purchasers need to have fully documented collecting histories that can be traced back to the period before 1970. If the Zeus was indeed removed from the Museo Nazionale Romano in 1980 it would appear that the collecting history that it had been in an old Swiss collection in the 1960s was fabricated. Who created the account? Who knew it was fiction?

The Castor and Pollux statues now on loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art also have an interesting collecting history. Where did they acquire the reported find-spot of the Mithraeum in Sidon? The curatorial staff at the Met have yet to present their documented and authenticated collecting history.

What do the Zeus and the Dioskouroi have in common?

Image
Head from Roman marble statuette. The Schinoussa Archive.

The loan of Castor and Pollux: looking for a full collecting history

In mid-July I wrote to Tom Campbell, Director of New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, about the loan of a pair of statues, Castor and Pollux, made in 2008. A helpful member of staff pointed me to Art of the Ancient World XII (2001) as providing not only the complete collecting history but even the (possible) find-spot.

I asked the following question, but have not received a response.

I have now asked a further question ("What is the basis for saying that the pieces were in a Lebanese private collection, and that they passed through Asfar & Sarkis in the 1950s?") and await a reply.

The composite photograph shows in the bottom the pair on display in New York. The top comes from the (seized) archive of a dealer unlisted in Art of the Ancient World XII (2001). Indeed the top photograph clearly predates 2001.

Is the Met aware of the full collecting history of the statues? How rigorous was its due diligence search prior to accepting the loan? How reliable is the suggestion that the pair once resided in a Lebanese private collection? Has any part of the "published" collecting history been fabricated? Is there any any reason to believe that the pieces were found in the Mithraeum at Sidon? Indeed were they even found in the Lebanon? Did they first surface in the nineteenth century?

There is a serious point here. The statues are being presented as "probably" coming from a specific location (a Mithraeum) at a specific location (Sidon). If this is true - if - then what does this say about the worship of Mithras in the Near East? But what if, hypothetically, the pair had been found in a temple of (say) the Syrian Goddess further to the east? How would this change the way that we view and interpret the statues?

I am still hopeful that I will receive an answer to my question. What is the basis for saying that these statues once resided in a Lebanese private collection prior to the 1950s?

The loan of Castor and Pollux

In 2006 the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) issued new guidance on loans of archaeological material and ancient art (see earlier comments). I have been interested in the loan of the "Roman marble statuettes of Castor and Pollux" to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art (L.2008.18.1, .2). I made a formal enquiry about the collecting history for the pair from Tom Campbell and he kindly asked the Greek and Roman department to let me have the information.

A member of the department sent me details derived from when the pair passed through the Royal-Athena Galleries (Art of the Ancient World XII [2001] no. 12): "The provenance of the two Roman works on loan to the Museum is well known and published". The catalogue informs us that the statues were "probably from the Mithraeum in Sidon, excavated in the 19th century". The collecting history is laid out: "ex private collection, Lebanon; Asfar & Sarkis, Lebanon, 1950s; George Ortiz Collection, Geneva, Switzerland; collection of an American private foundation, Memphis, acquired in the early 1980s".

At some point the statues passed through the Merrin Gallery where they were published by Cornelius C. Vermeule, in Re:Collections (Merrin Gallery, 1995).

I have now asked a further question ("What is the basis for saying that the pieces were in a Lebanese private collection, and that they passed through Asfar & Sarkis in the 1950s?") and await a reply.

What is the authenticated documentary evidence to show that the pair of statues were in an anonymous private Lebanese collection and that they were handled by Asfar & Sarkis in the 1950s? Were the statues complete in the 1950s? Or were they restored in the subsequent decades? Were the statues found at Sidon? Have any other dealers handled the statues? If so, when?

As this collecting history information is said to be "well known and published", I look forward to receiving a response in due course.

Image
Castor and Pollux, on loan to New York MMA L.2008.18.1, .2
H. 61 cm (left), 63.5 cm (right).
© Christos Tsirogiannis

The Morgantina Hoard: the Lebanese "connection"

I have been working on some Lebanese connections. I came across this statement in The Medici Conspiracy by Peter Watson and Cecilia Todeschini (p. 216). This appears in the purported collecting history ("provenance") of the Morgantina silver hoard:

It [sc. the Met] had said that the silver was acquired on two separate occasions, in 1981 and 1982, purchased from a certain Nabil el Asfar, a dealer in antiquities  from Beirut. According to this account, Asfar had acquired the silver pieces from his father sometime after World War II and in 1961 they had been sent to Switzerland, where they had remained until the Metropolitan Museum decided to buy them.

Operation Phoenix: The Geneva Link

The Italian authorities revealed more than the Medieval Frescoes seized on Schinoussa from "the home of Greek shipping heiress Despoina Papadimitriou. She is the sister of the late Christo Michailidis, a London-based art dealer who supplied Greek, Roman and Etruscan antiquities to the Getty" ("Italy recovers lost Byzantine frescos from Greece", AP, May 19, 2009 [link]). (For an antiquity presented to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art in memory of Michailidis see here.)

But these were not the only pieces on display:

Police also showed off some of the 251 artifacts, worth a total of some €2 million, discovered as part of another investigation, dubbed Operation Phoenix, into looted antiquities found in Switzerland.

The goods were handed over to Italian authorities by two Lebanese brothers who operated a Geneva antiquities gallery. Police said they hoped that such a gesture would be repeated by anyone who had illicit antiquities in their possession.

It does not say when these antiquities were seized or provide the names of the two Lebanese brothers in Geneva. (See also the report by Adam L. Freeman, "Swiss Gallery Surrenders EU2 Million in Antiquities to Italy", in Bloomberg, May 19, 2009.)

I can only find mention of a Swiss-Italian raid on a Geneva warehouse back in 2001 that included less than 100 terracotta items (mostly pots) reportedly found in Italy.