Christie's withdraws one further lot

Source: Becchina Archive

Christie's New York has withdrawn lot 45, 'Celtic dagger and scabbard'. This is no doubt linked to its appearance in the Becchina photographic archive and undeclared in its collecting history.

Lot 101, the Canaanatie bronze figure, remains in the sale even though it appears in the Symes Michaelides archive. Did Mathias Komor acquire this directly from Symes? What is the full collecting history of the figure? Did Christie's know that it had been handled by Symes but had chosen not to declare this part of the collecting history in case it raised concerns with potential buyers?

The antiquities team at Christie's would do well to reflect on the implications of overlooking such collecting histories.

Surfacing Antiquities at Christie's

Canaanite figure
Source: Symes-Michaelides archive

Two further antiquities due to be auctioned at Christie's New York on December 9, 2015 have been identified by Glasgow University researcher, Dr Christos Tsirogiannis.

• Lot 45. Celtic bronze dagger and scabbard. Estimate: $10,000-$15,000. 'From a Texas Private Collection'. Collection history: 'with Robert Haber, New York. Acquired by the current owner from the above, 1986'. Images of the dagger appear in the Becchina archive where they are listed as 'Villanovan'.
• Lot 101. A Canaanite bronze enthroned deity. Estimate: $100,000-$150,000. 'The property of a New York private collector'.  Collecting history: 'with Mathias Komor (1909-1984), New York (inventory no. F.761). Antiquities, Sotheby's, New York, 29 November 1989, lot 17.' Six images of the figure appear in the Symes-Michaelides photographic archive.

When did lot 45 pass through the hands of Becchina? When did lot 101 for part of the stock of Robin Symes?

These two examples suggest that the due diligence process used by Christie's in New York is unable to identify such recently surfaced pieces. 

Villanovan dagger and scabbard
Source: Becchina archive

Such identifications appear on a regular basis and can only serve to undermine buyers' confidence in the market.

We presume that Christie's will now be contacting the relevant authorities to clarify the situation.

Fordham's Villanovan Hut

It appears that Fordham University is not a stranger to "illicit antiquities". It appears that an impasto "cinerary hut urn" (inv. 4.021) given to the university by William and Jane Walsh (presumably in 2006) had an interesting collecting history. Jennifer Udell has stated that the urn was "illegally excavated, exported, and sold at auction". In fact, the urn was not "excavated" but rather "dug up" or "looted". And where was it sold at auction?

In 2010 the legal title to the hut was handed over to Italy, and the Italian authorities have placed the hut on long-term loan at Fordham.

Interestingly there does not appear to be anything in the press releases for Fordham or the Italian Ministry of Culture. But credit to Udell for making this information public.

We should not forget the bronze Villanovan hut in Princeton. Will that be handed over to the Italian authorities?

Looting Villanovan Cemeteries

I have been re-reading Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri's The Iron Age Community of Osteria Dell'Osa: A Study of Socio-Political Development in Central Tyrrhenian Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). My interest was to get some additional information about the Villanovan bronze hut-urn in the Villa Giulia that was found in the Osteria cemetery at Vulci. Sestieri reminds us that the nature of the finds has prompted "clandestine digging and looting of graves" (p. 9).

The Osteria bronze hut-urn is also discussed in Francesco Buranelli's "The bronze hut urn in the Metropolitan Museum of Art", MMJ 21 (1986) 5-12 [MMA website]. Interestingly Buranelli points to a third example that surfaced in Palladion Antike Kunst in Basel with a significant Vulci association.

So what is the background to the Princeton bronze hut-urn? Where was it found? Who handled it? Who sold it?