Looting matters

UCL incantation bowls: report leaked

2009-11-12T16:28:00.000Z

I note that the UCL report on the incantation bowls has been placed on wikileaks. It is clearly a copy of the report placed in the House of Lords library.

The file is the report from an expert inquiry into the provenance of 654 Mesopotamian incantation bowls owned by antiquities collector Martin Schoyen and loaned to University College London. The inquiry was begun after allegations were made that the bowls were were looted from Iraq. The report was suppressed as part of the legal settlement in which the bowls were returned to Schoyen.

Hansard (the record of the UK Parliament) documents a debate in which Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn tells the House of Lords he has deposited a copy of the report in the House of Lords Library.

I should make it clear that Looting Matters does not endorse the leaking of this report.

New report on private collectors in North America: where is the data?

2009-11-12T15:45:00.000Z

In August I commented on the impact that the AAMD decision on handling recently surfaced antiquities was having on private collectors. The Cultural Property Research Institute (CPRI) published their first research study, "Project on Unprovenanced Ancient Objects in Private US Hands", earlier this week (November 10, 2009).

The CPRI "project" raises several questions:
a. Who is the author / are the authors of this "project"?
b. Data. The stated aim of the "project" was to "provid[e] the factual basis for policy-making and consideration". Where can we find the data for this study?
c. Sources of information. "This study is the product of a team approach". Who was consulted? Which private collectors? Which museum curators? Which scholars? Which "members of the trade"? How many people? It is not enought to state: "To preserve the confidentiality of the sources of information, specific individuals or institutions are not discussed in this study."
d. Peer review. "The study has been closely reviewed by individuals familiar with US antiquities law and museum policies". Who? The Board of Directors for the CPRI? William Pearlstein? Peter Tompa? Kate Fitz Gibbon?

There is also a concern about when the material surfaced. The "project" states:

The absence of clear provenance histories or records for most material in private collections, including those objects that have been held long before 1970, thus makes it certain that some large number of objects purchased by US collectors even before that year will be excluded from acquisition by AAMD Member museums.

Imagine a private collector started collecting in 1969 (i.e. before the UNESCO Convention) when they were 25. That would make them 65 now. How many of the collectors consulted for the "project" formed their collections prior to 1970? Or indeed how many continued to form collections in spite of the publicity surrounding the 1973 Archaeological Institute of America resolution? (See earlier discussion.) The "project" should have made this clear.

Without the data the "project" summary is relatively worthless. But let us apply some research findings to the figures that have been presented. If my work with Christopher Chippindale is right, then 93% of the items from private collections will have no indication of find-spots. This means that over 104,000 objects (or at least theoretical objects because the figures are only estimates) in the study (taking the upper figure) will have been deprived of their archaeological contexts. In other words does this report highlight the destruction of over 104,00 contexts to provide "significant material" for private collectors to "own"?

I hope that this self-styled "research institute" will put together a report that will contribute to the research rather than the rhetoric.

I will refrain from awarding a grade.

Theft of Egyptian antiquities in Amsterdam: clarification

2009-11-11T22:26:00.000Z

A colleague from the Netherlands has been in touch today about the theft of the Egyptian antiquities from the Bijbels Museum in Amsterdam.

She / he indicates that that the items were recovered from a named auction-house in New York. They indicate that my hunch was correct.

The antiquities themselves are reported to be in the possession of ICE. However as the insurance company paid out money against the claim the items are now their property. (The money was apparently spent on enhanced security.) It is hoped that the insurers will either donate the items or offer them back to the museum for a nominal sum.

The UCL incantation bowls: did they come from Iraq?

2009-11-11T22:21:00.001Z

I have noted last weekend's discussion of the UCL incantation bowls in the British press. I now see a Washington-based cultural property observer wisely notes that the newspaper article "fails to detail the basis for the conclusion that the bowls originated in Iraq as opposed to Jordan".

And there is the issue. The report has not, as far as I know, been placed in the public domain (though there is now a copy in the library of the House of Lords). But I can only assume that the compilers of the report would have looked carefully at the known archaeological find-spots of incantation bowls that have been retrieved by scientific methods. Do any such bowls come from confirmed excavated contexts outside Iraq?

Theft of Egyptian antiquities in Amsterdam: update

2009-11-10T21:47:00.000Z

In May I commented on the seizure of some antiquities at an unspecified Manhattan auction-house by agents of ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement). The pieces had been stolen from the Bijbels Museum in Amsterdam on July 29, 2007. The objects were identified by the staff of the Art Loss Register (ALR).

The staff of ICE seem to have been regular visitors to Manhattan auction-houses this year. Their activity includes the seizure of a Corinthian krater from Christie's on 1 June, and more recently an Apulian situla and an Attic red-figured pelike. A Roman wall-painting was also seized from the premises of a Manhattan auction-house at the beginning of June, again with the assistance of the ALR.

But to return to the stolen Egyptian antiquities. Judith H. Dobrzynski on "Real Clear Arts" also covered the story (May 28, 2009) but telephoned the ALR where she spoke to a member of staff:

When I called Christopher A. Marinello, ALR's executive director, he declined to name the auction house, but he said that it was one of the big two -- Christie's and Sotheby's.

Today I emailed the press offices of both auction houses.

The press office at Sotheby's was extremely helpful and sent me a short comment:

I’ve now checked with our New York office since I had no recollection of this, and I can confirm that no seizure of this description took place at Sotheby’s.

The public relations officer at Christie's sent a brief statement:

I am unable to confirm this.

I am extremely grateful to the relevant press officers for their prompt and instructive responses.

UCL and the Incantation Bowls: further comment

2009-11-09T15:56:00.000Z

Towards the end of October Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn cited the UCL incantation bowls in a speech in the House of Lords. The Observer has now published a detailed comment on the story (Vanessa Thorpe and James Doeser, "UK scholars linked to 'stolen' bowls of Babylon", The Observer November 8, 2009). The authors appear to have used a copy of the report on the bowls that has been placed in the Library of the House of Lords.

Thorpe and Doeser cite the report:

The UCL report concludes that "the bowls are subject to the Iraq United Nations sanctions order 2003 as cultural objects illicitly removed from Iraq after 6 August 1990 and that UCL has therefore a duty to deliver them to a constable".

The history of the report is also discussed:

The learned team of academics and researchers who worked on the report concluded that both the university and Schøyen were guilty of not showing enough curiosity about the source of the 654 bowls, although it is not suggested that Schøyen knew they might have been looted when he bought them. The team recommended they be returned immediately and asked for the findings to be made public. But in 2007 the report's three authors were made to keep quiet about their conclusions and UCL paid an undisclosed sum of compensation to Schøyen. The authors are believed to have been unhappy about the legal gag.

Wordle on Looting Matters: 5

2009-11-07T21:37:00.001Z

Here is the Wordle image of Looting Matters at the beginning of November 2009.

Looting Matters: Should Auction-Houses Be More Careful Over Antiquities?

2009-11-06T17:43:00.000Z

Looting Matters: Should Auction-Houses Be More Careful Over Antiquities?

A reflection on the need for auction houses and galleries to pursue a more rigorous approach towards antiquities.

Should auction houses adopt 1970 when dealing with archaeological material?

2009-11-05T19:00:00.000Z

The 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property provides a convenient benchmark when discussing recently surfaced archaeological material. The Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) has adopted this date when considering new acquisitions. The objects returned to Italy from North American museums have included objects that were acquired during the 1970s.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, speaking in the House of Lords last week, drew attention to the October 2008 sale of archaeological material at Bonham's in London when several lots had to be withdrawn. These controversial lots all surfaced after 1970.

There is now news that two further pieces, an Apulian situla and an Attic pelike, have been seized in New York. It seems that they passed through an auction in New York City in June this year. Both appear to have surfaced through a Beverly Hills Gallery.

On 1 June this year a Corinthian column-krater was seized at Christie's. It apparently surfaced at a London auction. Items that featured in the same London auction back in the 1980s have also been returned to Italy.

Would auction-houses and dealers be wise to adopt the 1970 date for handling archaeological material?

Pots seized in NYC: comment from Christie's

2009-11-04T21:16:00.005Z

Last week I commented on the seizure of two pots—an Apulian situla and an Attic pelike—in New York City (as reported by Art Daily). The circulated picture of the situla seems to link it with the situla sold at auction in NYC in June this year for $40,000. The reports suggest that the two pots together are worth $120,000.

So we are looking for an Attic red-figured pelike that sold for around $80,000. I see from the Christie's press release for the Antiquities sale of Wednesday June 3, 2009 that they sold "An Attic red-figured Pelike, attributed to the Aegisthus painter, circa 480-460 B.C." (lot 120) for $80,500. The buyer was in the category of "European trade". Is this the same pelike?

Lot 120 ("a large Attic red-figured pelike attributed to the Aegisthus Painter, circa 480-460 B.C. (estimate: $80,000-120,000)") featured in the advance publicity for the sale: "Superb examples of Roman and Greek Art highlight Christie's spring sale of antiquities" (May 4, 2009).

The situla, if the speculation is correction, came from the Allen E. Paulson Living Trust. Four of the top ten pieces in the June 2009 sale came from this same source ("Classical works of art from the Allen E. Paulson Living Trust, including Roman sculpture and Greek vases, accounted for four of the top ten prices"). Two can be identified from the sold lots:

Lot 170: A Roman marble portrait head of the Emperor Nero, circa 59-64 A.D. $80,500

with Galerie Mythes et Legends, Paris, 1984.
with Royal-Athena Galleries, New York, 1984.
with Summa Galleries, Beverly Hills, mid 1980s.

Lot 111: An Attic black-figured pseudo-panathenaic Amphora, circa late 6th century B.C. $60,000

with Nabille Asfar, Brussels, 1983.
with Royal-Athena Galleries, New York, 1984.
with Summa Galleries, Beverly Hills, mid 1980s.

Of the remaining eight in the "top ten" list, six appear in the list of sold lots and can be eliminated. This leaves two pieces which do not appear in the list of sold lots:

Lot 120: An Attic red-figured pelike, attributed to the Aegisthus painter. $80,500.
Lot 187: A Roman marble herm bust of Menander. $188,500

This raises a further interesting question over how two lots that were not sold could appear in a press release saying that they were sold. (No doubt the dealer or gallery ["European Trade"] offered money immediately after the sale. Perhaps a reader of LM could enlighten me.)

I contacted the Public Relations section of Christie's, Rockefeller Plaza, and asked about "the reported seizure of an Apulian situla that appears to have passed through Christie's in June". Sung-Hee Park confirmed that "the transparency of the public auction system combined with the efforts from the U.S. ICE and foreign governments, in this matter, led to the identification of two stolen artifacts".

If the seized Apulian situla and the Attic pelike are indeed the ones appearing at Christie's in June 2009 then it makes the quote from G. Max Bernheimer, International Department Head of Antiquities, all the more significant: “Today’s [sc. June 3, 2009] strong results show that wonderful objects with clear provenance continue to perform exceedingly well at auction.”

What is the "clear provenance" for the situla and pelike?

Lord Renfrew calls for greater diligence over selling antiquities

2009-11-03T21:30:00.000Z

Last week Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn called for greater diligence over the selling of archaeological material in the UK. He gave as a specific example the case of the lots that had to be withdrawn from a Bonhams sale in October 2008 (see my comments from last year).

Renfrew is quoted from his speech in the House of Lords:

Bonhams the auctioneers withdrew from its London antiquities sale at the request of the Italian Government some 10 antiquities, among them items formerly owned by the now sadly notorious dealer Mr Robin Symes. I understand that the Italian authorities had already made representations to the Home Office about several warehouses in London containing antiquities formerly in his ownership—many of them, it is alleged, illegally excavated in Italy.

What is an auctioneer in this country doing, selling antiquities without a documented provenance? It is scandalous that this practice continues, and to put an end to it is one purpose of this amendment. There are serious matters here, which demand government attention.

Does this need further legislation? A better solution would be for those dealing in archaeological material to show a more rigorous level of due diligence.

Zahi Hawass: Vice Minister of Culture

2009-11-02T22:26:00.000Z

The President of Egypt has appointed Dr Zahi Hawass to be the Vice Minister of Culture for Egypt [statement]. Hawass comments:

When President Mubarak made this decision and it was published in the newspaper, the reaction was wonderful; I have never seen before in my life anything like it. All the people of Cairo, rich and poor, the taxi drivers and doormen and everyone was so happy. This response made me very happy, to see that the people appreciate what I do, and they see me as a guardian of the monuments. I saw how happy people were when I got the Louvre to return the tomb paintings of Tetiky, and when I asked for the return of the Nefertiti bust from Berlin. I hope these people continue to support my work to preserve Egypt’s history.

Hawass on return from New York

2009-10-31T07:30:00.000Z

Zahi Hawass has commented on the return of the naos fragment to Egypt. The private collector seems to be male, and the fragment was apparently purchased in the 1970s. Hawass added, "It is also a kind gesture from the newly appointed Met director Thomas Campbell”.

Yet there are still questions that need to be answered. Which funds were used to purchase the fragment? How much was paid? What else is in this collector's possession? Does the collector have any formal links with the Met? Does the collector plan to give the rest of his (or her?) collection to the Met?

Image
From Zahi Hawass website.

Pots seized in NYC: update

2009-10-30T21:41:00.000Z

Earlier today I commented on the two pots seized in NYC. Art Daily now has a little more on the seizure with a picture.

The two pieces are:

an Apulian red-figured Situla (circa 365-350 B.C.)
an Attic red-figured Pelike (circa 480-460 B.C.)

This report added:

The Attic Red-Figured Pelike and the Apulian Red-Figured Situla were part of a collection that in the late 1990s was presented to an expert in the antiquities trade who described the collection as “fresh”, meaning that they were new to the international marketplace for such items. Items of this same collection have been traced back to Giacomo Medici.

The picture of the situla illustrated by artdaily.org corresponds with an Apulian situla that was sold at Christie's Rockefeller Plaza 3 June 2009, lot 132. The situla, attributed to the painter of the Dublin situlae, sold for $40,000. It is dated to "365-350 BC". Its collecting history is as follows:

Summa Galleries, Beverly Hills, 1977 (Catalog 2, no. 13)
Royal-Athena Galleries, New York, 1984
Summa Galleries, Beverly Hills, mid 1980s
sold as property of the Allen E. Paulson Living Trust

Is it significant that a Corthinian krater was seized from Christie's just before the June sale this year? [details] That, too, has been reportedly linked by photographic evidence to Giacomo Medici.

Image
Detail of Apulian situla illustrated by www.artdaily.org

Looting Matters: Why Did the Met Purchase an Object to Return It to Egypt?

2009-10-30T17:45:00.000Z

Looting Matters: Why Did the Met Purchase an Object to Return It to Egypt?: "The Met has announced that it will be returning a granite fragment from a shrine (or naos) to Egypt on Thursday October 29, 2009. The piece bears the name of the 12th Dynasty (Middle Kingdom) pharaoh Amenemhat I (1985-1956 BC)."

Toxic antiquities: Pots seized in NYC

2009-10-30T13:32:00.001Z

Two pots have been seized by US customs agents in New York City ("Millennia-old stolen artifacts recovered in NYC", AP October 28, 2009). The pieces, one dating to c. 460 BCE and the other to c. 350 BCE, had apparently already entered the United States and had been "offered for sale in New York". The pots were worth some $120,000.

It sounds as if the raid was in the full knowledge of the Italian authorities. Had they been offered for sale on the internet or in a published catalogue? Presumably this had alerted the Italian authorities who are clearly monitoring this type of material.

It sounds as if these two pieces feature in the polaroids seized in the Geneva Freeport.

There are some unawanswered questions. Who was selling the pieces? Had the import paperwork been completed correctly? Had the pots been acquired from another source? What is their recent collecting history?

This case illustrates the toxic effect of undocumented antiquities entering the market. Buyers should be very suspicious if there is no recorded history before 1970.

UCL and the Incantation Bowls: Lord Renfrew comments

2009-10-30T13:10:00.000Z

Earlier this week Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn was speaking in the House of Lords on the "Amendment of Treasure Act 1996" [record]. After mentioning the Sevso Treasure he turned to the UCL Incantation Bowls:

The second case to which I shall refer is as scandalous but less well known in view of intimations of libel action by the lawyers of Mr Martin Schøyen, a Norwegian shipowner. He purchased a major series of 654 Aramaic incantation bowls that had been imported into this country in the 1990s in dubious circumstances and lent them for study to a London university. When the university realised that they might be looted antiquities, it rightly set up a committee of inquiry on which I had the honour of sitting under the chairmanship of the distinguished lawyer, Mr David Freeman. We determined that they had indeed been looted from Iraq, or more precisely concluded,

“on the balance of probabilities that the bowls were removed from Iraq, and that their removal took place after 6th August 1990”,

and was therefore illegal. We recommended,

“the return of the incantation bowls to the Department of Antiquities of the State of Iraq”.

A copy of that report is in the Library of the House.

Despite that, I am sorry to say that the bowls were not returned to Iraq: they were returned to the custody of Mr Martin Schøyen. Under the new clause proposed in Amendments 70 and 68, lending and borrowing would both be dealing in terms of the Bill. It would be an offence to deal in undocumented archaeological objects in such a way—and so it should be: it is scandalous that the heritage of Iraq has been treated in this way.

Met returns object to Egypt: some further thoughts

2009-10-28T22:28:00.000Z

Yesterday I commented on the extraordinary story about the New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art acquiring an object so that it could be returned to Egypt. The Met has now issued a press statement.

There are several new details.

a. The granite relief fragment is inscribed with the name of Amenemhat I. Curatorial research showed it was part of a larger monument. Dorothea Arnold is quoted: "For a long time, I puzzled about the object to which this fragment belonged. I finally pieced it together when I came across a photograph showing a naos in Karnak which is missing a corner in an article by Luc Gabolde ..."

b. "The work had been on loan to The Metropolitan Museum of Art from a private owner, though the Museum had never displayed it publicly."

c. Once the identification of the piece had been made, "the Museum reached out to the owner of the work and took steps to notify the Egyptian authorities of the discovery".

d. "The Museum also arranged to purchase the work from its owner in order to take official possession of the work and return it promptly and unencumbered to Egypt".

Thomas P. Campbell, the Met's Director, provides a comment:

The Metropolitan Museum is delighted to be able to assist in returning this granite fragment to its original home. Though the fragment is small, its return is a larger symbol of the Museum's deep respect for the importance of protecting Egypt's cultural heritage and the long history of warm relations the Museum enjoys with Egypt and the Supreme Council of Antiquities.

The precedent for buying the fragment is provided by a 19th Dynasty head from the chapel of Sety I at Memphis. In that case the piece had also been on loan from an unnamed private collector from 1996. (It had reportedly been purchased from Sotheby's in 1981, and before that had been in the collection of Mrs Richard Rogers.) It was purchased and returned to Egypt in 2001. [News story detail]

This latest return raises interesting issues. Who was the collector? Does the collector have any formal links with the Met? Why did the Met have to purchase the piece? Could the collector have been asked to return the piece directly? Is the Met trying to ensure that the collector does not suffer any consequences? Who provided the funds for the purchase? (Remember the cuts at the Met: Culturegrrl)

Perhaps the Egyptian press will provide some of the answers.

Theban Tomb 15: who pays for conservation?

2009-10-28T21:45:00.000Z

I have earlier commented on the Louvre's return of the wall fragments from Theban Tomb 15. Paul Barford has written a discussion of the need to conserve the tomb. Should France be asked to take responsibility?

I think the French government should now be invited to take patronage over TT15, do a proper conservation job and perhaps restoration, and then find a way of making this tomb more secure from further attacks, but also allow its opening to the public and bear all the costs. If they want to "preserve the past", fine. Let them actually do it and not add to the destruction by financing it.

Perhaps the gallery and auction-house that handled the fragments could also be asked to make a contribution.

Met to return Egyptian object

2009-10-27T21:07:00.000Z

The Associated Press is reporting that New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art will be returning an object to Egypt (Joseph Freeman, "The Met returns Egyptian artifact", AP October 27, 2009 [07:58 GMT]). The piece apparently comes from a red granite shrine of Amenemhat I and was purchased from an unnamed collector.

Intriguingly the report states that the fragment "was purchased from an antiquities collector in New York last October so that it could be returned". Does this mean that the collector did not wish to be in direct contact with the Egyptian authorities? How did he or she acquire the piece?

Zahi Hawass commented positively on the way that the Met purchased the item purely so that it could be "repatriated".

The fragment is due to be returned to Egypt on Thursday this week.

CPAC and Italy: Learning from 2001

2009-10-26T22:32:00.001Z

The CPAC will be reviewing the MOU with Italy in November (see announcement). I presume some of the speakers from 2001 are unlikely to be presenting their views given the recent returns to Italy.

Would a former curator at the Cleveland Museum of Art want to talk about why objects acquired on her watch were returned to Italy? And would another individual want to expand on the details behind the trial in Rome? What could a worldwide director of compliance say when several of the antiquities returned to Italy had passed through the London auction-rooms of her company?

Can we expect to hear from officers of the Cultural Property Research Institute? No doubt somebody will be arguing that "collecting coins is not a direct threat to archaeology as most coins in collectible condition are found in hoards outside the archaeological stratum" (summary).

Further reflections on toxic antiquities

2009-10-26T18:44:00.000Z

Earlier this year I wrote about the impact of "toxic antiquities". In other words antiquities that have surfaced on the market in an illicit manner and then lurk in a private collection or as part of a dealer's stock for some years before resurfacing. Take some recent examples:

The Egyptian funerary reliefs in the Louvre. At least one piece is reported to have surfaced in a London auction house in the 1980s.
A Corinthian column-krater seized in New York. It featured in a photograph from the Medici archive.
An Apulian hydria withdrawn from a London sale. It came from a London auction in the 1980s that appears to have had links with Medici. [See also comments on material withdrawn from the same sale.]

The objects could have been purchased in "good faith" but it does not lessen the impact of the bad publicity if a government such as Egypt or Italy makes a claim.

We need to remember that there are well over 10,000 unidentified antiquities waiting for somebody to make the connection between a polaroid seized in a police raid in, say, Geneva or on, say, a Greek island, and the piece appearing in a sale or a museum catalogue.

So what can auction-houses do to protect their reputations? Why not avoid selling any ancient object that does not have a properly documented collecting history that can be traced back to the 1960s?

And what can museums and private collectors do to avoid the sort of "corrosive" publicity that has been attached to the returns to Egypt, Greece, and Italy? They should avoid objects that do not have a properly documented collecting history that can be traced back to the 1960s.

Opaque transparency

2009-10-26T18:20:00.000Z

Nearly a year ago I commented on the AAMD's "commitment" to transparency over the acquisition of archaeological material. One year on I have yet to receive the information that I requested from two (AAMD member) museums about four items that have been acquired since 2002. (Note: these are very recent acquisitions.)

Why are AAMD members reluctant to disclose collecting histories? Why do they send out a signal that they have something to hide?

Looting Matters in London: Contemporary Issues

2009-10-23T21:38:00.000+01:00

Readers have been asking for an overview of yesterday's seminar in London. My starting point was the decision for the Cultural Property Advisory Committee to review the MOU with Italy (on Wednesday) [see discussion of 2001 presentations]. We considered the way that Italy has been increasing the protection of its cultural property, action that has celebrated in a series of exhibitions dispaying returned material. The returns from North American museums and the ongoing trial of Robert Hecht and Marion True serve as disincentives for those who would want to buy recently surfaced antiquities (see earlier comments).

At the same time we reviewed those bodies that are seeking to challenge US Import Restrictions through the FOIA action against the US State Department. The perception by some cultural property lobbyists that the UK Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) is only there to "ensure that the State only keeps what it can reasonably be expected to take care of" (Peter Tompa) was challenged. (It was good to have Roger Bland as a member of the audience.)

We speculated about the implications of the photographic dossier (some 10,000 images) and receipts seized from warehouses in Basel. (Overview of Switzerland.)

A review of the returns of antiquities from North American museums has shed light on some of the dealers, galleries and auction houses that were handling recently surfaced material. There was a reflection on Apulian pots attributed to the Darius painter which supported Ricardo Elia's work on this area. I also addressed the question of the missing memorandum that sought to discredit Elia's research.

We reviewed the October 2008 Bonhams sales of the Graham Geddes collection and the way that the Italian authorities were able to challenge the auction. In the questions members of the audience wondered how reputable museums had been able to accept this recently surfaced material on loan.

Examples of returns to Greece and Egypt were also provided. The seminar was reminded of the Greek request from the Michael C. Carlos Museum at Emory University, and FYROM's desire to reclaim the Koreschnica bronze krater thought to be in a North American private collection.

The presentation closed with a summary analysis of the sale of antiquities at Sotheby's New York in the period 1998 to 2009.

It is hoped to make an online version of the lecture available shortly.

The collecting history of a black-figured stamnos

2009-10-22T15:59:00.001+01:00

Next week Bonhams is planning to auction an Attic black-figured stamnos attributed to the Michigan painter (28 October 2009, lot 193; estimate £60,000 - £80,000). The collecting history ("provenance") is provided:

"Acquired at a German [sic.] auction, Kunstwerke der Antike, Münzen und Medaillen A.G., Basel, Auktion 70, November 14th, 1986, lot 203. Formerly ex Ferrucio Bolla Collection, Lugano, 1960s."

There is a little more we can add as the stamnos appears in the database of the Beazley Archive (no. 3886). It was first published in Numismatica e Antichità Classiche, Quaderni Ticinesi 5 (1976), 39, fig. 3 (A). (The journal was founded by Bolla.) There is nothing cited in the Beazley archive to indicate its history between the 1960s and 1976.

The stamnos was exhibited at the J. Paul Getty Museum in 1980. Bolla died in 1984 and the stamnos was sold at Münzen und Medaillen A.G., Basel in 1986. It was then offered for auction at Christie's New York on 7 December 2000 as lot 433 [not 2001 as in the Beazley Archive database]. The estimate was for $100,000 to $150,000 but the stamnos failed to sell [see report].

The stamnos features in an interview with Hicham Aboutaam (June 19, 2009) [see post].The interview, found here, asks about the collecting history:

Interviewer: Where was this stamnos before Phoenix Ancient Art acquired it?

Hicham Aboutaam: The Stamnos was part of the collection of Mr. Ferruccio Bolla, a banker in the Canton of Ticino, Switzerland and was published in 1976. We also learned that it was exhibited at the J. Paul Getty Museum of Art, Malibu, in 1980.

There is no mention of the history of the piece prior to 1976. What is the basis for Bonham's statement ("Formerly ex Ferrucio Bolla Collection, Lugano, 1960s.")?

I emailed Madeleine Perridge in the Antiquities Department at Bonham's and she replied (Wednesday October 21, 2009)

I am afraid that this is the only information that we have concerning the provenance.

[The stamnos] was part of the collection of Mr. Ferruccio Bolla, a banker in the Canton of Ticino, Switzerland and was indeed published in 1976. But prior to it being in Mr Bolla’s collection, I do not have any more information to give you.

So who supplied the information? Who checked the facts?

The stamnos presently is on offer on-line from artfinding.com for 78,000 euros (or $110,00). The seller is Phoenix Ancient Art. (At today's exchange rate that is the equivalent of £71,000, the mid-point of Bonham's estimate.)