Newly Surfaced Archaic Greek Objects

My attention has been drawn to two separate lots from the sale of "The Stanford Place Collection of Antiquities" auctioned at Christie's (London) on Wednesday April 26, 2006. (It is a collection I have discussed before.)

They illustrate some of the intellectual consequences of recently-surfaced antiquities.

• Lot 3: 'a Greek silver-gilt repoussé plaque'. 'circa 540-525 BC'. 'With winged Nike in a frontal chariot with facing quadriga, each pair of horses with heads turned to opposing sides, with finely incised details, bound lotus filling motifs, pierced around the edge for attachment, from an arm-guard'. 6.8 cm high. Unsold.
• Lot 18: 'Three Laconian bronze helmeted warriors'. '6th century BC'. 'Each animated nude standing figure standing with right arm outstretched to the side and left arm raised, with fists clenched, wearing tall crested helmet'. 6.4 cm high (max). £30,000.
  

Both were acquired from "Ward & Company Works of Art, New York", lot 3 in the "mid 1990s" and lot 18 in 1998.

Both pieces were accompanied by a certificate from The Art Loss Register.

The silver-gilt plaque is almost identical ("similar") to a more fragmentary example acquired by the Princeton University Art Museum in 2002 (and illustrated in the Record of the Princeton University Art Museum 62 [2003] 151-52 [JSTOR]):

• "Greek (North), mid-6th century B.C.: pierced appliqué plaque: frontal quadriga with Nike charioteer, gilt silver, h. 5.9 cm, w. 6.5 cm. Museum purchase, gift in memory of Emily Townsend Vermeule ... (2002-155)."

And does the "arm-guard" interpretation suggest that it was a part of a set of armour, perhaps from the burial of a warrior? Do the two plaques derive from the same deposit? Or were they just the products of the same workshop?

And the fact that there are three near identical bronze warriors also intrigues me. Were they found together? Or did they come from three separate private collections and converge, fortuitously, in the New York gallery? Do they need to be Laconian?

I am left asking some questions.

• Who owned the "Stanford Place" plaque and the warriors before they were purchased from Ward & Company Works of Art, New York?
• Who sold the plaque to Princeton? Does the plaque have a documented history?
• Do these pieces come from several locations or a single deposit?
• When were these pieces first known?
  
• Is the certificate issued by the Art Loss Register worthless?
  

All these pieces may, of course, have been in old documented collections (though I am surprised that the sale catalogue had not mentioned the fact).

What is needed is more transparency.

The Art Loss Register: "The Stanford Place Collection of Antiquities"

In April 2006 Christie's (London) auctioned "The Stanford Place Collection of Antiquities". The 71 lots in the sale realised £2,186,880: of this £736,000 was represented by the "Stanford Place Apollo" (lot 29). Each lot (except the books) was accompanied with the statement:

"This lot is accompanied by a certificate from The Art Loss Register".

Does consulting The Art Loss Register mean that the antiquities were known prior to the 1970 UNESCO Convention?

Items known before 1970

Excluding the books (lots 53-57), 20 lots (i.e. 30% of the antiquities) are claimed to have been known prior to 1970. Some come from historic British collections. These include:

1. A Greek bronze "formerly in the collection of Humfry G.G. Payne (1902-1936)" (lot 24).
2. A neo-Attic marble vessel fragment once owned by Sir Charles Walston (1856-1927) (lot 38).
3. A Hellenistic marble draped figure of Artemis "formerly in the collection of the Earls of Hopetoun, Hopetoun House, West Lothian" (lot 41).
4. An Attic black-figured lekythos was known to Sir John Beazley in 1971, and passed into the collection of the Hon. Robert Erskine (lot 19). (I presume Beazley was aware of this before the publication of Paralipomena in 1971 so I have given it the benefit of the doubt.)

Other pieces come from "old" named European collections:

5. An Egyptian Old Kingdom stone jar, "formerly in the collection of Wilhelm Horn (1870-1959), Berlin" (lot 67).
6. A classical Greek marble head first owned by Paul Hartwig (1859-1919) and later part of the Ernst Langlotz (1895-1978) collection (lot 28).

Langlotz is reported to have owned two further pieces:

7. An Attic white-ground fragment (lot 23).
8. A Roman marble head of a boy (lot 51).

Four pieces come from the Swiss-based Erlenmeyer collection:

9. An East Greek marble head of a kore (lot 16).
10. A Western Asiatic stone female head (lot 61).
11-12. Mesopotamian dark grey stone mortars (lots 65, 66)

The remaining eight pieces come from anonymous collections which do not appear to be documented:

13-15. Three Etruscan painted relief fragments (lots 34-36). "Formerly in a Swiss private collection, since the 1960s".
16. A Canosan female figure (lot 37). "Formerly in a Swiss private collection, since the 1960s".
17. "The Stanford Place Apollo" (A Greek bronze head of a youth) (lot 29). "Formerly in a German private collection, since the 1960s"; acquired in 1992; on loan to Antikenmuseum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig, Basel (1996-2006).
18. An Egyptian Middle Kingdom torso of a temple official, Nefer-Rudj (lot 70). "Previously in a North American private collection formed before 1960"; acquired from Rupert Wace Ltd., London 1999.
19. A Western Asiatic limestone head of an ibex (lot 59). "Formerly in a Canadian private collection, since the 1960s"; subsequently sold at Sotheby's New York, 17 December 1997.
20. A Mesopotamian copper alloy head of a bearded man (lot 63). "Formerly in a private collection, acquired prior to 1970"; subsequently sold at Bonhams London, 26 April 2001.

Items known after 1970

The remaining 46 lots come from a range of sources:

The New York market (1988: lot 44; early 1990s: lots 32, 46; 1992: lots 7, 26; 1994: lot 30; mid 1990s: lot 11; late 1990s: lot 40) and specifically

a. Acanthus Ancient Art, New York: 1988: lot 39; 1989: lot 45 (exhibited in Zurich, 1974); early 1990s: lot 33; 1996: lot 42
b. Fortuna Fine Art, New York: 1990: lots 10, 48; early 1990s: lot 2; 1992: lot 49; 1996: lot 6
c. Robert Haber & Associates, New York, 1997: lot 21
d. Ward & Company Works of Art, New York: mid 1990s: lot 3; 1996: lot 5; 1998: lots 14, 18

The London market (1999: lot 64)

e. Bruce McAlpine, London 1993; formerly in an English private collection, early 1980s: lot 22
f. Jean-Luc Chalmin, London: early 1990s: lot 62; mid 1990s, lot 1; 1997: lot 4
g. Phillips London, 1988: lot 43
h. Robin Symes, London, early 1970s: lot 58
i. Sotheby's, London: 1987: lot 71; 1995: lot 47 ("formerly in a European private collection"), lot 50

The Swiss market

j. Donati Arte Classica, Zurich Art Fair, 1994: lot 52
k. Galerie Nefer, Zurich, mid 1980s: lot 20; 1989: lot 27; 1991: lot 25; 1993: lot 69
l. Galerie Rhéa, Zurich, 1990s: lot 13
m. Jean-David Cahn AG, Basel, mid 1990s: lot 15
n. Switzerland, 1992: lot 12

The European market

o. European art market: early 1990s: lot 8; 1991: lot 9; 1992: lot 31

Anonymous Private Collections
Finally there are three pieces from anonymous private collections:

p. American West Coast collection, acquired in 1979: lot 60
q-r. Swiss private collection, since the early 1970s: lot 17; since the 1970s: lot 68

Unsold Lots

In spite of the reassurances that the pieces came with a certificate from The Art Loss Register some 22 lots - including two books - were unsold (lots 2, 3, 10, 11, 15, 20, 24-27, 32, 34, 51, 52, 54, 55, 60-63, 65, 66). 13 of these unsold lots were first recorded after 1970 (lots 2, 3, 10, 11, 15, 20, 25, 26, 27, 32, 52, 60, 62).

"The Stanford Place Collection"

"The Stanford Place Collection" was presented as continuing the line of Grand Tour collections to be found in "grand London houses or country estates such as Wilton House, Holkham Hall and Lansdowne House". Yet only three Stanford Place pieces appear to have been known in the nineteenth century let alone the eighteenth like the objects (mainly sculptures) which once resided in the cited country and city houses. "The Stanford Place Collection" is a new collection largely formed since the 1970s.

"The Stanford Place Collection of Antiquities" was sold by the Trustees. Linda Sadler ("Ancient Clash: Christie's Says It's Greek, Dealers Say Roman", Bloomberg.com, May 18, 2006; and conveniently archived at Phoenix Ancient Art) commented:

"Christie's won't name the seller, though dealers and scholars said the pieces belonged to Claude Hankes-Drielsma, adviser to Iraq, critic of the Oil for Food program, British Museum patron and longtime collector."

Sir Claude Hankes, as he is now known, is an advocate of the Art Loss Register. His view is that if the object had been stolen then it should be listed on the Register. Is that why each object was sold with a certificate?

The Art Loss Register

The Art Loss Register has serious limitations when it comes to providing information about newly-surfaced antiquities. Would objects removed at the dead of night from an unknown and unrecorded archaeological site appear on the Art Loss Register database? Surely not.

As one British-based dealer in antiquities recently put it:

"Smuggled antiquities will not of course appear on a Stolen Art Register because they have never been reported as stolen; in most cases the authorities in their country of origin are not even aware that they have been dug up".

There is no suggestion that any of the pieces from the Stanford Place Collection were acquired illegally. Indeed, the catalogue has been careful to document the sources. But when and how did the antiquities enter the market? Does the Art Loss Register certificate provide any sort of reassurance for the buyers?

The Art Loss Register: the view of a private collector

There is nothing like a thick stack of minutes. During the last few days I have had cause to reflect on the Art Loss Register and the way that it is being cited as part of a "self-regulation" culture in the antiquities market. I was checking the index of evidence for the UK House of Commons 2000 report on Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade (see Gill and Chippindale) and Appendix 2, "Memorandum submitted by Mr Claude Hankes-Drielsma", addressed the issue:

"Counteracting this illicit trade has to start by the countries concerned applying a more pragmatic approach both with regard to losses and economic realities. Furthermore, countries which are concerned with archaeological illegal exports need to ensure that objects excavated and in museums are properly photographed and recorded. This would enable them to identify when these objects are stolen and then ensure that they alert institutions such as the Art Loss Register to the loss. It would enable dealers in antiquities over a certain value to always check with the Art Loss Register or such like organisations to ensure that the objects they are handling are not stolen."

This assumes, of course, that the antiquities surfacing on the market as a result of "illicit trade" had been excavated by archaeologists, placed in a museum or store, and then stolen. These things can happen.

But what about antiquities which surface on the market with a reported but undocumented history? They will not appear in the Register.

Hankes-Drielsma --- or Sir Claude Hankes as he is now --- describes himself in the memorandum as follows:

"I am a former Chairman of the Management Committee of Price Waterhouse and Partners, a collector of antiquities, a Patron and benefactor to the British Museum and on a Committee of the Ashmolean Museum, Patron of the National Portrait Gallery and an Honorary Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford."

Hankes, it should also be noted, was opposed to the UK ratification of UNIDROIT. His memorandum continued,

"Ratification of UNIDROIT by the UK would not only be a direct contravention of free trade but the bureaucracy required to deal with claims would be insurmountable given the above problems. Art trade is a very major international market and if a country could claim art which had been purchased legally was under their domestic law an illegal purchase, and it would then be for the owners of the art to prove this was not the case and these owners would be in an impossible position to fight the resources of a country. Furthermore, the country's laws may be such that they totally contravene the legal rights of ownership of the country under whose jurisdiction the owners are. Any success in this regard for the said countries could generate an avalanche of claims, very often for political reasons rather than cultural."

The UK Government subsequently signed up to the 1970 UNESCO Convention. The Arts Minister, Baroness Blackstone, commented:

"By signing this agreement, we are sending a strong warning to those who do so much damage to the world's cultural heritage that the UK is serious about joining the international effort to stamp out illicit trade in cultural objects. It will also help us claim back objects unlawfully removed from the UK."

A Hoard of Byzantine Silver "from Bulgaria"?

The last time I was in the Benaki Museum in Athens I had a look at set of three pieces of Byzantine silver from a "hoard" - the find-spot was not provided. (A Podcast of my audio notes reacting to the display and label is now available [with an unrelated background].) There was an appeal to buy the silver plates (for a reported 2.2 million Euros) and put them on display in Greece. (The purchase was reported to be from a London-based dealer.)

Where was the "hoard" found?

Recent reports in Kathimerini ("Artefacts in Greece ‘legally’", August 1, 2007; see also "Greek prosecutors investigate Bulgarian claim to Byzantine-era silver plates", International Herald Tribune, July 31, 2007) suggest that Greece has rejected a request from Bulgaria "for the return of nine silver medieval plates which Sofia says were illegally excavated and smuggled out of the country". It is claimed that the hoard was found in Bulgaria during the 1990s. The official press statement from the Bulgarian delegation to Europe suggested that the find was made in 1999 ("Bulgaria struggles to prevent the sale of an ancient silver dish", November 13, 2006).

"The plates, on display in Greece’s Benaki Museum, the Museum of Byzantine Culture and the Byzantine and Christian Museum of Athens, date back to the 13th and 14th centuries and are decorated with gold."

An official from the Hellenic Ministry of Culture is quoted as saying, "Greece will have a full documentation dossier proving they were legally purchased, when the case goes to court".

But the matter in unlikely to stop there. The Sofia press has responded ("Greece probes Bulgaria's claim to Byzantine-era silver plates", Sofiaecho.com, August 2, 2007). It is noted:

"Earlier this month, Bulgarian prosecutor Kamen Mihov said he had “categorical proof” the artefacts were illegally excavated at a Bulgarian site. Bulgarian prosecutors sent documents to Greece claiming the plates were excavated in late 2000 and 2001 at a site near the town of Pazardzhik in central Bulgaria."

Details of the case emerged in May. It appears that an agricultural worker, Naiden Blagnev, had purchased a metal detector in late 2000 and came across the hoard (Matthew Brunwasser, "Looter describes 'beginner's luck'", International Herald Tribune, May 22, 2007).

It appears that Blagnev had seen a picture of one of silver plates - "The Stanford Place Dish" - which had been offered for auction at Christie's in London (Matthew Brunwasser, "Bulgarian relics spark an international scuffle", International Herald Tribune, May 22, 2007). In spite of attempts to stop the sale ("Bulgaria demands suspension of London auction of allegedly looted medieval silver dish", International Herald Tribune, November 7, 2006; "Christie's to sell unique plate regardless of Bulgaria's protests", Sofiaecho.com, November 8, 2006; Dimana Trankova, "The plate of discord", Vagabond), the dish was left unsold and is said to have been returned to the vendor ("Disputed Bulgarian Dish Fails at London Auction", Artinfo, November 9, 2006). A Bulgarian official claimed, "another nine dishes, on display in three Greek museums since October 2003, were part of the same set".

What is this group of apparently related material?

The auction entry for "The Stanford Place Dish" places it stylistically with 13 other silver dishes: the 9 in the three Greek collections, 3 in Paris, and 1 in a private collection in London.

a. The 3 pieces in Paris are said to have been found in 1903 in Tatar Pazarcik, Bulgaria (and purchased there by the French Consul).
b. The 9 pieces in the three Greek collections are said, "by family tradition" to have been "acquired by a Mr. A. Barry after their accidental discovery in Tatar Pazarick. Mr. Barry, an Englishman from the Midlands, was working in Smyrna exporting currants until 1922. As a result of the conflict between Greece and Turkey in the same year, Barry moved to Patras, Greece, and in 1937 sold them to his Greek business partner for £ 15, 000. With the outset of the Second World War, the business partner moved to London and it is also very likely that, at that stage, Barry returned to the Midlands. Upon the former's death, the ten dishes were bequeathed to his son who eventually sold nine to the Greek museums in October 2003". (See also A. Ballian and A. Drandaki, "A middle Byzantine silver treasure", Benaki Museum Journal, March 2003, pp. 47-92.)
c. The London dish is said to have been discovered with "the dishes in Greece ... [which were] discovered together at an unspecified date in the early 20th century also near Tatar Pazarcik, in Bulgaria".

The auction entry for "The Stanford Place Dish" (archived here) provided the history ("provenance") as:

"By tradition acquired by an 'elderly gentleman collector' in the Midlands in the early 1950s"; "Sold to the UK trade in the mid 1980s"; "Purchased by the Trustees of the Stanford Place collection through a London dealer in 1997 or 1998".

This is expanded in the discussion:

"The Stanford Place dish entered the collection sometime in 1998 from the London trade. The dealer from whom it was purchased had acquired it from a middle man who had, himself, acquired the dish some years earlier from a dealer in the Midlands. The latter informed the middle-man that the dish had previously belonged to an 'elderly gentleman collector' from the Midlands since the early 1950s and that he believed it had a Strawberry Hill provenance.

Recent research by archivists seems to show that the dish never came from Strawberry Hill. However, what is possible is that the original hoard from Tatar Pazarick included all of the Paris dishes, the Greek dishes, the London dish and the present lot. Barry may have owned all eleven of the Greek, London and Stanford Place dishes and sold all but the present lot to his business partner. He then returned to the Midlands with the Stanford Place dish. It is therefore possible that the 'elderly gentleman collector' said to have owned the Stanford Place dish was, in fact, Barry himself, or someone to whom he had sold it in the Midlands."

The IHT has revealed the individual behind "The Trustees of the Stanford Place Collection" is Sir Claude Hankes (Hankes-Drielsma) who is perhaps best known for his ethical position over the Oil-for-Food Programme in Iraq (see: "UN orders Iraq corruption inquiry", with interview, April 22, 2004, from the BBC). (For the context of the collection: "The Stanford Place Collection of Antiquities", April 26, 2006). Among his listed interests are "Chairman of the Support Group of the Greek and Roman Department at the British Museum; Patron of the British Museum, ... and the Ashmolean Museum; and a member of the Getty Villa Council, Los Angeles".

It now appears that "The Stanford Place Dish" should not be linked to the 9 pieces of silver plate in the Greek collections. An invoice for "The Stanford Place Dish" has been produced by Hankes' lawyer, Ludovic de Walden. (De Walden acted for the Marquess of Northampton over "The Sevso Treasure"; see his contribution, with Harvey Kurzwell and Leo V. Gagion, "The trial of the Sevso Treasure: What a nation will do in the name of its heritage", in Kate FitzGibbon, Who Owns the Past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law [2005]). The IHT reports De Walden produced an invoice, dated July 7, 1998, "showing that Hankes had bought a 12th-century silver dish for £200,000 from Sam Fogg, a well-known London dealer".

"The Stanford Place Dish" thus seems to have a "paper-trail" predating 2000 when Blagnev is reported to have found his hoard of silver in Bulgaria.

Where now?

Where does this leave the 9 pieces of silver plate in the Greek collections? What is the secure documentary evidence? Who is the London-based dealer?

We watch how the Bulgarian request to Greece will develop.