Antiquities Sales: December 2015 overview

The two major sales of ancient art at Christie's and Sotheby's took place in New York this week. The four sales of ancient art throughout the year raised some $26 million, half a million dollars down on 2014. Once again Sotheby's sales raised more than Christie's: $15.3 million against $10.9 million. This is the fourth year in succession where Sotheby's has been ahead. Sotheby's sold slightly more than in 2014, whereas Christie's were significantly down (at 2008 levels).

We should also note the move to the title 'Ancient Egyptian Sculpture and Works of Art' at Sotheby's for the December sale.

| |

Canaanite Deity Left Unsold

Canaanite figure.
Source: Symes-Michaelides archive

Lot 101, the Canaantite deity, that had been spotted by Dr Christos Tsirogiannis in the Symes-Michaelides archive was left unsold at auction today.

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Christie's New York has withdrawn lot 45, 'Celtic dagger and scabbard'.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.

Christie's Withdraws Zeus and Ganymede

Canosan figure showing Zeus and Ganymede
Source: Becchina Archive

Christie's New York have withdrawn a Canosan terracotta figure of Zeus and Ganymede from their December 9, 2015 sale (lot 36). It comes from 'an Important American Collection'. The reported collecting history is as follows:

• with Boris Mussienko, Upper Marlboro, Maryland. 
• William Froelich, New York, acquired from the above, 1981. 
• with Fortuna Fine Arts, New York, acquired from the above, 1995. 
• with Safani Gallery, New York. Acquired by the current owner from the above, 1999.

Yet there is documentation in the Becchina archive suggesting that this was in his possession in January 1995. Why is this part of the collecting history absent from the above list? Does Becchina sit between Froelich and Fortuna Fine Arts? What is the authenticated documentation that this figure was in the possession of Mussienko and Froelich?

Will Christie's be stating why this lot was withdrawn?

I am grateful to Glasgow University researcher, Dr Christos Tsirogiannis, for this information.

Woodhenge sign stolen

Source: Historic England

The site of Woodhenge in Wiltshire was discovered in the 1920s through aerial observation and it was excavated in 1928. It was placed in state guardianship and metal plaques erected by the Ministry of Works to interpret the site for visitors.

This important part of the heritage of the site has now been stolen.

Woodhenge lies some 2 miles from Stonehenge.

Phil McMahon, inspector of ancient monuments for Historic England is quoted ("Historic prehistoric monument Woodhenge plaques stolen", BBC News November 28, 2015):

The sad theft of these historic plaques has deprived us of an important aspect of the story of Woodhenge. 

They represent a key part of one of the earliest attempts to interpret and present to the public the complex and internationally-significant prehistoric monuments of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site. 

We very much hope that the plaques can be recovered and restored to their rightful place at Woodhenge.

Rigorous Due Diligence Matters

One of the lessons from the so-called Medici Conspiracy --- but also the Schinousa and the Becchina archives --- is that recently surfaced archaeological material has passed through well-known dealers and auction houses in Europe (including London) and North America. It is also clear that these same objects were acquired by major public museums as well as by a number of private collectors.

Yet at the time of acquisition there does not seem to have been documented and authenticated evidence that the objects had been circulating in the period before the 1970 UNESCO Convention. Oral histories and incomplete paperwork seem to have been acceptable (and can now be shown in some cases to have been falsified).

The fact that this same material continues to surface on the market at very regular intervals suggests that some auction houses and dealers do not appear to be taking the matter seriously. They should as the resulting negative publicity can unsettle potential buyers. After all, who would want to spend serious money on an object that may have to be returned (without compensation) to (say) Italy.

There are continuing concerns about the potential for material derived from some of Rome's eastern provinces to be surfacing on the market at the present time. To what extent have the due diligence processes been tightened? What safeguards have been put in place to ensure that the paperwork was been checked?

The due diligence process for antiquities needs to be sufficiently rigorous to prevent so-called illicit material from entering the market.

| |