RSS Subscriptions and Cultural Property Blogs

Back in July 2010 I took a snapshot of those subscribing to Looting Matters via RSS and Google Reader. I have just taken another look and note that 287 people receive LM in this way. (RSS is also delivering to other Web 2.0 contexts so this is a partial figure.) This means that in October approximately 8000 posts were delivered to electronic desktops, smart phones, iPads and other mobile devices. This was in addition to the 13,695 visits to the website over the same period; email subscriptions are on top of that figure.

For convenience I have combined the latest figures (red) with those for July (blue) to give some idea of how subscriptions have changed.

Robin Symes material on the market

Antiquities handled by Robin Symes are always of interest. Three pieces are listed for the 9 December 2010 sale at Christie's, Rockefeller Plaza.

• Lot 88: "A Cycladic Marble Reclining Female Figure". Attributed to the Schuster sculptor (or 'master' as Christie's choose to use the now obsolete terminology). Collecting history: Marion Schuster, Lausanne, acquired before 1965; in North American private collection in 1987 (Early Cycladic Art in North American Collections, no. 58); with Robin Symes, London, 1990s; U.S. Private Collection; with Phoenix Ancient Art, Geneva (c. 2006); 'Now owned by a private collector' (Phoenix Ancient Art). A report in the New York Times (Carol Vogel, "Potential Titian Buyers Get an Advance Look", October 28, 2010) states: 'And while Mr. Bernheimer will not identify the seller, people familiar with antiquities say the work is being sold by Michael Steinhardt, the Manhattan financier and collector, who is on Christie’s advisory board'. Estimate: $3-5 million. Pat Getz-Gentle, Personal Styles in Early Cycladic Sculpture (2001) 167-68 [reviewed here] lists 16 figures attributed to 'The Schuster sculptor'. Six of the items formed part of the 'Keros haul', while one was excavated on Keros. 
• Lot 148: "A Roman Marble Draped Female Herm". Collecting history: "Sambon Collection, early 20th century"; "with Robin Symes, London, 1974"; "Property from the Collection of Max Palevsky". Estimate: $250,000-$350,000.
• Lot 150: "A Roman Marble Head of Aphrodite". Collecting history: "with Robin Symes, London, 1974"; "Property from the Collection of Max Palevsky". Estimate: $150,000-$250,000.

These lots remind us that some material handled by Symes came from collections formed prior to 1970 (the date of the UNESCO Convention). This is why it is so important to establish full (and documented) collecting histories.

Washington Lobbyist and Coins from Bulgaria

I have recently noted that the sale of some medieval coins from Bulgaria had been stopped. It now appears that Classical Numismatic Group Inc. (CNG), with an office in Bond Street, London, has issued a press statement. The release included this statement:

On 5 November, CNG's London office received a faxed letter from the Bulgarian Embassy in London notifying CNG that "The Bulgarian authorities have reasons to believe" that one of the lots in the CNG auction was part of a collection reportedly stolen in Bulgaria in 2007, and requesting CNG to withdraw the Bulgarian coins from the auction in order to allow the Bulgarian authorities to further investigate the matter.

The interesting thing is that the press release does not appear on the CNG website (as far as I can see). Is there a reason?

So where does the press release appear? On a paid-lobbyist's blog - and if you want to read the release you can click here because this same Washington lobbyist has thoughtfully left the text on Looting Matters. (There is a link to the lobbyist's original page.)

It appears that this same lobbyist is currently retained by two organisations: the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN), and the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG).

The IAPN has apparently paid Bailey & Ehrenberg $20,000 this year for lobbying. (In 2009 is was $10,000.)

IAPN has also apparently paid $10,000 in 2010 to the DLM Group, and specifically to William B. Driggers and Marc P. Lupin.

CNG is a member of the IAPN.

Will the CNG disclose the name of the anonymous private collector who is reported to have consigned the coins at issue?

Coins from Bulgaria

There are reports that Bulgarian police have stopped the auction of medieval coins reported to have come from Bulgaria ("Bulgarian Police Bust Illegal Medieval Coins Auction", Novinite [Sofia] November 11, 2010). The sale is reported to have been through the London registered Classical Numismatic Group (CNG). Apparently the sale included material from a collection stolen in 2007. It would seem to be a good example of pan-European co-operation.

But there must be another question. The London office of CNG was involved with the silver denarius of Brutus. At that time Eric McFadden of CNG was quoted in the London press:

"One looks at the deal on the table. We're business people. If there's any indication something's not legitimate, we don't deal in it."

If that is the case, how did CNG come into the possession of the Bulgarian material? Who sold it to them? What were their sources?

And it should be noted that McFadden wrote an extensive submission on the recent proposed MOU with Greece. This latest incident over the Bulgarian material puts McFadden's comments in new light.

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?

The Met to return objects from Tomb of Tutankhamun

It has been announced today that New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art will be returning objects that had been found in the tomb of Tutankhamun ("Metropolitan Museum and Egyptian Government Announce Initiative to Recognize Egypt's Title to 19 Objects Originally from Tutankhamun's Tomb", press release, November 10, 2010). Tom Campbell, the Director of the Museum is quoted:

Research conducted by the Museum's Department of Egyptian Art has produced detailed evidence leading us to conclude without doubt that 19 objects, which entered the Met's collection over the period of the 1920s to 1940s, originated in Tutankhamun's tomb. Because of precise legislation relating to that excavation, these objects were never meant to have left Egypt, and therefore should rightfully belong to the Government of Egypt. I am therefore pleased to announce—in concert with our long-time colleague Zahi Hawass, who has contributed so greatly over many years to the recognition and preservation of the historic treasures of Egypt—this formal acknowledgment that title to the objects belongs to Egypt.

The press statement also quotes Zahi Hawass:

This is a wonderful gesture on the part of the Metropolitan Museum of Art ... For many years the museum, and especially the Egyptian art department, has been a strong partner in our ongoing efforts to repatriate illegally exported antiquities. Through their research, they have provided us with information that has helped us to recover a number of important objects, and last year, they even purchased and then gave to Egypt a granite fragment that joins with a shrine on display in Luxor, so that this object could be restored. Thanks to the generosity and ethical behavior of the Met, these 19 objects from the tomb of Tutankhamun can now be reunited with the other treasures of the boy king.

See also:

• "New York museum to return King Tut artefacts to Egypt", BBC News November 10, 2010
• "19 objects from the tomb of Tutankhamun returning to Egypt!", Zahi Hawass, November 10, 2010

For recent returns from New York:

• Naos fragment returned

Marion True: "sacrificial victim”

The Rome case against Marion True was dropped, and now her lawyer Francesco Isolabella has spoken out (Gareth Harris, "Marion True's defence lawyer speaks out", The Art Newspaper 4 November 2010). Harris quotes extensively from Hugh Eakin's New Yorker commentary on True.

Lord Renfrew was asked to comment on the case and recognised, as True has asserted, that there was a wider institutional issue:

"It was unjust that senior figures at the Getty did not publicly share the responsibility with Marion True who was clearly not the principal decision maker".

The report finishes with a quote from Isolabella:

“It is worth considering how the Italian state orchestrated a major campaign to obtain works that are now in less committed and less organised environments than before. Considering the universality of these items [belonging to humanity], wouldn't it have been better to leave them in the museums where they were?”

There is no consideration of the wider issues. The recently-surfaced antiquities returned to Italy from the Getty had all lost their archaeological contexts. Why did the Getty acquire such much material? Is Isolabella suggesting that it is acceptable for archaeological material to be ripped from (say) Etruscan tombs so long as it ends up in "universal" museums? Would each of the North American museums that returned material to Italy have wanted all the evidence linked to their acquisition policies paraded in public (and through the press) as part of a legal claim? The Italian authorities have waged a successful campaign that has indeed changed the collecting habits of North American museums. And has that reduced the incentive to loot archaeological sites in Italy?