Charges against New York art dealer Nancy Wiener

ARCA has provided a text-base version of the charges against New York dealer Nancy Wiener [see here].
There are some points to note:

• apparent falsification of the collecting history ("provenance") of an object
• apparent consigning genuine objects with other works to provide cover when passing through customs
• weakness in the policy for accepting lots by a major New York auction house
• the apparent changing of a stated collecting history by the same major New York auction house

We are particularly interested in co-conspirator #6:

Co-Conspirator #6 and his father are suppliers of illicit cultural property from primarily Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to several recorded conversations, Co-Conspirator #6 has been shipping large quantities of newly dug-up, stolen antiquities from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Thailand, often via Hong Kong, and then to dealers from around the world for more than a decade.

We note:

Co-Conspirator #6, who in the mid-1980s was a child living in Pakistan and England

Arrest of New York dealer

The New York Times is reporting continuing fall-out over the antiquities from Asia case (Tom Mashberg, "Prominent Antiquities Dealer Accused of Selling Stolen Artifacts", New York Times December 21, 2016). The case relates to Nancy Wiener.

The complaint states:

“Defendant used a laundering process that included restoration services to hide damage from illegal excavations, straw purchases at auction houses to create sham ownership histories, and the creation of false provenance to predate international laws of patrimony prohibiting the exportation of looted antiquities,”

Such claims undermine the position of the market at a time when dealers are claiming to conduct due diligence. How common is the creation of "sham ownership histories"? What about placing objects in collections so that they pre-date the 1970 UNESCO Convention?

Jason Felch adds an important observation:

“Even after a decade of reforms, the art market continues to be pervaded with stolen and looted antiquities.”

Why Context Matters: Learning From Raids in California

I have been following the raids on Museums in Southern California with some interest. Today's report by Matthew L. Wald ("Tax Scheme Is Blamed for Damage to Artifacts", New York Times, February 4, 2008) shows the implication of the collecting pattern.

He interviewed Joyce C. White, director of the Ban Chiang Project at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. She is reported as saying:

the items smuggled and sold in the United States tend to be those that are intact, and that for each intact item removed there were doubtless many broken ones. When properly excavated, she said, the ensemble of items establishes the date of the intact artifact and yields countless details about historical and social context.

The looting of “any one piece of intact pottery represents the huge complete erasures of books and books and books that would have, could have, been written had the research been done,” she said in a telephone interview.

...

“Intact artifacts tend to come from burials,” Ms. White said. “What you’re seeing is the remains of graves from all over Southeast Asia being commercially passed around, with all the knowledge about human remains — race, sex, age, genetic makeup, the animal remains that tell what food was eaten, the crucibles that show you how they were making the metals — all thrown out.”

These comments could be made for complete Greek figure-decorated pots removed from Etruscan tombs as much as for south-east Asian ceramics.

Looting has both material and intellectual consequences.

The question should now be asked, 'Who is destroying antiquity?'