Christie's 2019 Auction

In November 2019, ARCA published a blog post raising questions about a 5th-century BCE polychrome antefix depicting a dancing maenad, which had been consigned to a Christie’s auction and that I believed the piece warranted closer scrutiny. For those unfamiliar, an antefix is a decorative architectural element once placed along the eaves of ancient roofs to conceal the joints between tiles.

What drew my attention was the striking resemblance between the object at right and three other Etruscan antefixes, also portraying maenads, that had previously been repatriated to Italy after being identified as having been illegal excavated and removed from Italy.

The provenance of the previous, 2019-consigned, antefix up for auction at Christie's read:

Provenance:

"with Ingrid McAlpine (1939-2018), London and Epsom, 1994". 

In terms of its circulation history, that sparse entry left roughly 2,500 years unaccounted for as nothing prior to 1994 was specified.  Knowing a bit about the consignor's background, I knew, that before her death, Ingrid McAlpine had been married to the ancient art dealer Bruce McAlpine, and that prior to their divorce, both were listed as proprietors of McAlpine Ancient Art Limited in the United Kingdom.

The McAlpines’ names have surfaced in connection with other trafficked antiquities that passed through the legitimate art market. Among these is an Attic black-figured hydria which reached the McAlpines through Palladion Antike Kunst, a gallery operated by disgraced dealer Gianfranco Becchina. Their names also appear alongside the red flag names of Robin Symes and Barbara and Lawrence Fleischman, in relation to the donation of a looted Apulian bell-krater, both objects of which were later restituted to Italy. 

Villa Giulia, 1937 Excavation

If you look carefully, by her feet you can make out the hoof of the Silenos this lady would have been dancing with.  

This detail is remarkably similar to the antefix in the form of a Maenad and Silenos Dancing which once graced the cover of the exhibition catalog A Passion for Antiquities: Ancient Art from the Collection of Barbara and Lawrence Fleishman.  

After careful restoration that antefix was first seen on the market with Robert Hecht who sold it to the Hunt collection.  Next it was circulated via Sotheby's with that collection was liquidated and bought by Robin Symes, who immediately resold it to the Fleischmanns.  In1994 the couple exhibited the piece , along with their entire collection, at the J. Paul Getty Museum, before it was formally acquired by   the museum in 1996 (96.AD.33).  The piece was restituted to Italy after it was matched by Daniela Rizzo and Maurizio Pellegrino to a polaroid in the Giacomo Medici archive.  Like the one up for sale at Christie's now, both artefacts were broken along the lower half and when whole, depicted a Silenos dancing behind the Maenad.

Now let's look at the provenance the auction house has cited.

Elsa Bloch-Diener (1922–2012) was a Swiss art dealer who operated a gallery at Kramgasse 60 in the old town of Bern.  She is known to have collaborated with Ines Jucker (née Scherrer, 1922-2013), the scholar and sometimes ancient art dealer responsible for the exhibition catalogue Italy of the Etruscans, cited in the Christie’s lot description as an exhibition where this piece was on view to the public. 

Jucker not only authenticated works for Bloch-Diener but also curated the 1991 Etruscan exhibition at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem referenced in the Christie's sale.  Also contributing to that exhibition's catalogue were entries by Giovannangelo Camporeale, Fiorella Cottier-Angeli, George Ortiz, and Christoph Reusser, names that have, at times, prompted debate and concern within the field.

In May 2002, when Swiss and Italian authorities raided Gianfranco Becchina's Antike Kunst Palladion, as well as three of Becchina’s storage facilities in Basel, authorities seized documents which identified transactions between the Sicilian and Ines Jucker which documented that she purchased artefacts from this dealer and sold them onwards.

Along the same theme Jucker studied an Attic Red-Figured calyx krater signed by Syriskos (painter); donated by Lawrence Fleischman and his wife to the J. Paul Getty Museum which had been acquired from Robin Symes in 1988.  Pictured on Medici Polaroid it was restituted to Italy.   Likewise a Black-Figure Cup Fragment with the Capture of Silenus in the Tondo which Jucker sold to Dietrich von Bothmer was also returned to Italy.

In the Israel exhibition Jucker curated, which featured the antefix up for auction and identified it as coming from the ancient site of Veio, some four hundred Etruscan objects were presented, none of large format, some with an inscriptions.  Among them were small bronzes, ceramics, jewellery, terracottas (architectural, votive, and cinerary urns), and sculptural fragments in nenfro.  In total they represented all periods and regions of Etruscan art. 

The main nucleus of the Israel displayed ensemble came from the collection of the late Ivor and Flora Svarc, many of whose holdings would be donated to the Israel Museum.  Svarc's objects were complemented by pieces already in Israeli collections, along with loans from the collector-dealer Jonathan Rosen and other private collectors, mainly in Switzerland.  

As cited by Drs David Gill and Christopher Chippindale in Material Consequences of Contemporary Classical Collecting the vast majority of the artefacts exhibited during this exhibition were previously unpublished.  This made this public display of the items their first concretising stop towards having an art marketable pedigree. 

The fact that we know this object comes from the context of Veio, can also be found in the same catalogue as the restituted Getty atefix, A Passion for Antiquities: Ancient Art from the Collection of Barbara and Lawrence Fleishman.

Page 197 refers specifically to the artefact currently up for auction:

A number of fragmentary examples of antefixes of this type, as well as of molds for producing them, have come to light at Civita Castellana (Falerii) (see Andrén; Sprenger/Bartoloni), finds which clearly prove their local manufacture. But the votive deposit of Campetti at Veii has yielded the head of a silenos of identical type and made of Veian clay (see Vagnetti 1971), which led P. J. Riis to suggest that this type of antefix was invented at Veii. The lower half of an antefix of this type with a provenance from Veii is in a private collection in Switzerland (see Jucker), and similar fragments have recently been excavated in Rome (see Cristo fani). 

With that in mind, it is necessary to return to the same question previously directed at Christie’s: 

On what evidentiary basis, supported by what verifiable documentation, did the auction house authorise the consignment of this artefact?  In the absence of any demonstrable chain of custody or export records, the decision to green-light its sale raises serious concerns regarding the robustness of the auction house’s internal due diligence procedures.

In this case, the question is not rhetorical but fundamental. Is Christie’s in possession of any concrete paperwork supporting the legitimacy of this Dancing Maenad’s appearance on the market, or was the absence of evidence simply overlooked given its publication in an exhibition, in the hope that the object’s passage through the auction process would escape closer scrutiny.

Left: Steve Green and the Controversial Coptic Galatians fragment first offered on eBay in 2012 by Yakup Ekşioğlu. Right: Douglas Latchford and the two plinths with the broken feet of ancient sandstone statues looted from the Prasat Chen temple complex in Koh Ker

Last week we have seen two eye-popping notices of "voluntary" restitution of  ancient artefacts and papyri framents believed to have been plundered from their respective countries of origin.

In one instance, an article by Tom Mashberg, written for the New York Times on January 29th reported that Julia Ellen Latchford Copleston a/k/a Nawapan Kriangsak, has agreed to relinquish a total of 125 artefacts to Cambodia which had been acquired by her father, controversial antiquities dealer Douglas A.J. Latchford, a/k/a “Pakpong Kriangsak.”  Prior to his death, Latchford's handling of suspect material from Cambodia, Thailand and India resulted in the US government filing a 26-page indictment via the Department of Justice's U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York on 27 November 2019.  This case, unfortunately, concluded in advance of any possible legal ruling against the Thailand-based dealer, who died on 2 August 2020 before the bulk of the evidence gathered in the federal case against him could be heard in court. 

The second announcement, delivered two days earlier by Steve Green, Chairman of the Museum of the Bible, was more discreetly posted on the museum's website and highlighted the return of a number of questionable acquisitions which have been discussed with some regularity on  ARCA's blog as well as in greater detail on Faces & Voices, a specialist blog by Papyrologist and ancient historian Roberta Mazza.  Mazza has more articles about the Green's acquisitions than I can link to, so I recommend our readership take some time exploring them all but perhaps starting here with one where she questions (again) the ever-changing provenance story surrounding the P.Sapph.Obbink fragment purportedly sold through a private sale treaty by Christie’s.  

In Green's press announcement, he states that as of 7 January 2021, the Washington DC-based museum had transferred control of the fine art storage facility that housed the 5,000 Egyptian items to the U.S. government as part of "a voluntary administrative process."   Unfortunately, the philanthropic founder of the museum has said very little about whether or not his museum will be more forthcoming about exactly whom the museum paid when purchasing the 8,106 clay objects with suspect or no provenance from the Republic of Iraq or the approximately 5,000 papyri fragments and accompanying mummy cartonnage which also came with suspect or no provenance from the Arab Republic of Egypt.  All we know is that these objects are now, finally, going home.  And while that is a great success for the countries they were taken from, it tells us practically nil about the men who engaged in their sale and profited from these same countries' exploitation.  

At the end of their announcement, the Museum of the Bible's Chairman stated that going forward they would continue to look for ways to "partner with The Iraq Museum, The Coptic Museum, and other institutions, to provide assistance with preserving and celebrating the rich cultural histories of those countries and many others."  I truly doubt, given the circumstances, that the Egyptian government will be taking Mr. Green up on this proposal. 

Museum of the Bible Press Release Screenshot Date:27 January 2021

And so the litigation in these matters, at least as it relates to Iraq and Egypt, appear to be drawing to a close.  

With the flourish of pens in the plump fingers of lawyers, these carefully-timed, and responsibility-for-wrong-doing-absent restitutions by members of the wealthy Houses of Latchford and Green are released to the public without the impediment of contradiction.   Sanitised proclamations which imply good deeds done under trying circumstances, but which impart little about the actual motivations of their delayed generosity.  

Most of us, who have been closely following these events can speculate as to the pressure points behind the disputants' seemingly magnanimous handovers and come away with our own conclusions, but our speculation will never give us their complete stories.  It is reasonable to assume that these individuals, and/or their museum, were motivated, in whole or in part, by a desire to put an end to a publically embarrassing chapter to their respective family's cultural heritage acquisition histories, but their decisions should not be read as merely repentant.  

In relinquishing these artefacts to Cambodia, Egypt and Iraq, the Latchfords and Greens seek to mitigate the damages, financial and reputational, that these scandals have caused them.  And with that in mind, their decisions can not simply be seen in a vacuum of attempting to right past wrongs. They are assuredly more strategic than what is within the purview of the public domain. 

Seen through this narrow lens, these very public announcements of voluntary restitution, published in newspapers with large readership or on museum's websites, serve only to cosmetically cover, not correct, the public blemishes their respective criminal investigations have brought to light over the last ten years.  Actions which, when explored more deeply, can be seen as not only embarrassing, or ethically negligent, but potentially criminal, brought about by the direct involvement of staff and family members who should have, or definitely did know, better.  

Despite these joyous restitutions, we cannot ascertain what catalyst, in each of these drawn-out processes of ensuring restorative justice, brought Mr Green and Ms. Copleston to the restitution table.  Usually, in situations like this, written agreements between the parties make it unlikely that anyone will be at legal liberty to openly discuss the negotiations between the aggrieved parties.  In the MotB case, that includes the unspoken details behind the more than three years of back and forth discussions that the museum itself has admitted took place prior to the culmination of this week's announcement. 

Likewise, by bequeathing his 1,000-year-old Khmer Dynasty collection to his daughter, Douglas Latchford left his offspring with more than just $50 million worth of valuable ancient art.   He left her holding a hand grenade with a pulled pin that she doggedly continued to hold some five months after her father's death.  For no matter how magnanimous Copleston's repatriation gestures to Cambodia may seem in print, her waiting this long to relinquish the sculptures begs its own questions as to motivating factors. 

Why would a lawyer such as herself, who by her own statement in the New York Times defensively admitted that her father "started his collection in a very different era" not have advised her ailing father, who was facing prosecution on his death bed, to clear the family name, if not his own, by simply returning the artefacts to Cambodia himself while he was still living?  Or why,  since Latchford's death, has Copleston, not distanced herself from suspicion by voluntarily doing so immediately after any wills for her father were read?

As regards both of these restitutions I would ask these individuals why, with these grand gestures of reconciliation, did neither party turn over the purchase and sale records for these objects.  Something which would truly make reparations as doing so would allow illicit trafficking researchers and law enforcement investigators to trace and return other pieces of history handled by the individuals responsible for engaging in these two unseemly debacles. 

Instead, like with Green's own statement, we get no real responsibility-taking, only precisely worded announcements with appealing attestations which colour their actions as generous acts of voluntary cultural diplomacy.  This despite the fact that there is so much more they could do, aside from simply cutting their losses by relinquishing material. 

In resignation, I understand that decisions like these, come about as the result of complex cultural arbitration.  And I understand that in such circumstances, the party holding the stronger deck of cards in the dispute, might (still) agree to a more palatable dispute resolution outside the courtroom. One which allows the parties involved to avoid a lengthy, expensive, and in some cases, reputationally damaging legal case, but which also assures an alternatively beneficial outcome for all sides. 

And as much as I want to be privy to these closed conversations, it is important to remind myself that Alternative Dispute Resolutions, known as ADRs in cultural property disputes, often carry with them an adherence to mutually agreed-upon confidentiality regarding the agreements signed off on, even when these types of agreements don't "feel" satisfying to those of us not sitting at the negotiating table. 

As someone who works on the identification of illicit antiquities, I want to see individuals, believed to have behaved criminally, brought to justice.  But I must also understand that these types of quieter negotiations do offer aggrieved parties an opportunity for a speedier and less costly resolution than drawn-out, complex, multi-year litigation which of themselves can be more beneficial to harvest countries such as Egypt and Iraq.   Fighting for restitution in the US court system isn't cheap and the costs can be a financial impediment to some foreign governments who haven't the financial means to represent their interests for years on end, or when the application of legal norms to relevant facts, might fail to deliver any justice at all to them as the aggrieved party. 

Another driving factor to remember in these types of agreements, in contrast to legal proceedings, is that out of court settlements enable the parties involved to, on the surface at least, legally protect their reputations. When cases go to court there is normally a winner and a loser.  And with those court decisions, comes very public case records which can serve to outline, in embarrassing red marker detail, the actions of individuals perceived as culpable, or serve as precedent-setting decisions in future illicit trafficking court cases. 

Lastly, as legislation in the art and cultural heritage field is not fully harmonized, there is always the potential risk that the expensive and protracted court case might not achieve a viable cost-benefit outcome.  Like in legal disputes where the value of the returned artefact is less than the country's legal costs in pursuing the case in foreign courts.  Or, as would have been the case in the Museum of the Bible dispute, or the case against Douglas Latchford, where the sheer number of artefacts being contested, if examined individually and concretised in the court's record, might have resulted in fewer objects going home, or greater exposure of the involved parties to subsequent litigation for their perceived roles in further uncovered, questionable transactions.

So, in the end, I have to accept announcements like those made last week which bring objects home but offer no real retribution against those who behaved badly.  This leaves me, and others who have closely followed these cases, asking:

• Where are the admissions of fault?  
• Where are the acknowledgements of harm having been done? 
• Where are the answers we keep asking as to who sold what, to whom, and when?

I close this overly long rant by saying that when I first learned about these upcoming restitutions and read the press releases, I immediately thought that their announcements reminded me of a rhetorical expression from the 1887 compendium of proverbs called The Salt-Cellars by Charles H. Spurgeon, who once wrote:

“A hog in a silk waistcoat is still a hog.” 

And while I am overjoyed that so many artefacts will finally make their way back to where they rightfully belong, I am in no way fooled that these gestures were magnanimous and selfless, or that in Egypt at least, Ma’at, the goddess of truth and justice, would believe that justice has been well and truly served. 

By:  Lynda Albertson

The tax collectors, unsigned Oil on panel : 78,2 X 100 cm, 16th century

failing to register to collect and to collect New York and local sales tax between 2013 to 2017 on purchases made in and/or delivered to New York despite having a legal obligation to do so. In addition, Christie’s Private Sales also admitted that once certain employees finally determined in 2015 that the entity had an outstanding obligation to register to collect and to collect New York sales tax with the New York State Department of Taxation & Finance (“NYS Tax”), it failed to register the entity to collect tax with NYS Tax because of the perceived audit risk. Subsequently, Christie’s Private Sales began collecting sales tax from its customers without registering, and Christie’s New York, who were long registered to collect sales tax in New York, falsely reported and remitted this sales tax to NYS Tax as its own.