The Disappearing ANS Weiss Collection

.
I see, despite all his current worries, Arnold-Peter Weiss has been nominated for the Board of Trustees of the American Numismatic Society. Good for him.

"A donor to the Society, he is a generous contributor to the ANS collections, Gala, annual appeals, and is one of the founding members of the ANS’ Augustus B. Sage Society".

I am a bit puzzled though, did the ANS have as this Dec 3rd Google Cache suggests an Arnold-Peter Weiss collection? If so, where has it gone? Here's one of his coins in the ANS Collection. It still says: "Gift of Arnold-Peter Weiss". These are his too, according to Google cache (notably made on 3 Jan 2012 23:51:07 GMT), but look at the page NOW. They've already deleted his name. Oh, that is not very nice of the ANS is it? Nor, would I say very transparent or ethical. What does that mean? That only now the Trustees have some "reasonable doubts" about something? What and why? Or what? What's going on?

But they have not nobbled the 2007 story of ANS Trustee Dr. Arnold-Peter C. Weiss donating a (complete?) "Celtic" hacksilver hoard from Spain "dating circa the fourth to third century BC. It consists of 135 pieces of coins and cut jewelry used as money (Fig. 1). This exceedingly rare donation continues Dr. Weiss’s interest in adding to the ANS cabinet items related to alternative money and bullion sources used in early trade". Sadly the newsletter does not say where the object was found, by whom and how it left Spain and entered the USA (see now here). The link in the article now goes to a coin from a hacksilver hoard - without any mention of whose donation it was. There's gratitude for you.

There is slightly more information about the previous history of another of his donations though, this one in early 2005:

A donation of historical importance came from one of the ANS Trustees, Dr. Arnold-Peter C. Weiss: a group of 19 items comprising a fifth-century BC hoard from Egypt which includes a large silver cake ingot (fig. 1). The provenance of this group, which represents one of the few known examples in the United States, is a private collection (from Valais, Switzerland) purchased in the 1950s.

See also the account of a later 2005 donation by Dr Weiss which may be related, or the same. Despite the assurances that this is a pre-1970 UNESCO Convention export from Egypt, the links here too go to catalogue entries of items without (now) any public information who generously donated it to the ANS collection.

Then there is the "group of sixty-six Eastern European Celtic coins" Dr Weiss donated in 2006. If you click on the link in this article, you find the donor's name appears to have been removed by the ANS from the entry here too. Wallachia, Transylvania, and to some extent Banat are all in modern Romania - which has legislation making such coin finds state property, when did these 36 items leave southeastern Europe and how?

It seems the absence of Dr Weiss' name from the online records of the ANS collection is due to deletions which have taken place very recently (the dates of the Google caches) and it seems not unlikely that the ANS has been engaged in what they might see as "damage control", for example that they now have some kind of "reasonable doubts" about the propriety of accepting some of the objects donated in the past by this ANS member. If so it is notable that of less importance is the actual state of hygiene of their collections than the appearance that they are sqeaky-clean. But then, on the other hand, it is also worth drawing attention to the fact that as things stand today, Dr Weiss has not been convicted of any wrong-doing whatsoever.

Readers of this blog who have followed the links I give will be well aware of the frequency with which US coineys apply the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" to their collecting, saying it is up to the accusers to prove guilt. We have seen though that this principle is not always applied by their associations. In July 2011 Salem Alshdaifat (Holyland Numismatics) and Morris Khouli (Windsor Antiquities) were summarily removed from the list ("suspended") of sponsors and members of the Ancient Coin Collectors' Guild because they were in the news as accused of customs irregularities (the case has yet to come to trial). It seems the ANS is reacting in a similar way just days after vague and rather (at the moment) low-profile accusations about Dr Weiss' acquisition of two coins (actually only one of them) appeared in the press. Where is the justice in that? Dr Weiss has been an extremely generous donor to the ANS but the moment a grey cloud appears, they turn their backs on him? If the reason for the deletions is that the ANS is now having "reasonable doubts" about the origins of the coins he gave them, why were those doubts not expressed earlier, when the donations were accepted? This is down to due diligence. What has changed about what the ANS now knows about the origins of Dr Weiss' coins (as opposed to any other coins donated by other ANS members at the same time)?

If they are deleting his name from the acquisition records because of unproven allegations and an impending court case, I think the ANS reaction here is shabby and disgraceful. If I were an ANS member, I'd be cancelling my subscription right now and would be reconsidering any decision to donate them research material if that is the way they treat their sponsors to maintain a facade.

It is also quite interesting in the light of recent events to read Dr Weiss' Sept 2009 comments on the Art Newspaper article 'Hispanic Society to sell historic coin collection?'. He describes the intention to sell this "irreplaceable cultural collection of historical coins related to Spanish history" as "truly despicable" and an expression of "greed".

This type of asset for the US academic community and public can never be replaced. The arguments of context of cultural property are so powerful in this matter that to see the collection broken up and distributed is a sad remark on what a non-profit organization should stand for. Even if the Spanish government buys the collection intact, the issue of transferring legally acquired cultural material from the shores of the USA forever, is problematic. Is this country just going to continue to sell all our cultural assets and material abroad? We could learn some lessons from the British, Austrians, Germans and French in this regard.

Eh? and not the Italians and Greeks, who fight to keep their country's cultural property from going to foreign collectors and do not shrink from getting help from other states to get it back when it does?

Note how these coins, and in particular their arrangement into a collection, has become "our" (ie US) cultural assets. Note also how agitated the American gets here about them being "sold abroad", yet US collectors apparently have no compunction whatsoever about buying other peoples' cultural assets for their own personal entertainment and profit.

[Despite ANS opposition, the Hispanic Society's coins are now up for sale]

UPDATE 3rd Feb: On checking the links, I find that about 22nd Jan the Google cache page containing the details of Dr Weiss' donations to the ANS was deleted too, so no longer works. "Phew", eh, ANS? Several other of the links I gave here now do not work either. My readers will just have to decide whether this blog is a more reliable source of information about what the online sources had to say about the contents of the ANS collection on 12th January than what the ANS now seems concerned to keep from the public. ("DOWN the memory hole with him!") What was it the coineys were campaigning for recently? More transparency ? Surely they'd better start in their own back yard and their own coiney organizations. Ask: what (else) has the ANS got to hide here?

Vignette: ANS "un-person" Dr Weiss (after Chasing Aphrodite, edited)

Egyptian Museum "Kerfuffle"

.
Kate Phizackerley briefly mentions the kerfuffle caused by complaints emerging from the otherwise silent Egyptian Museum staff in Cairo that it is "unfair" to read MSAA press releases with a critical eye (Bloggers and Egyptology) May 04, 2011. She is referring to the comments of Yasmin el-Shazly on my blogging about my attempts to understand what has been happening to the antiquities from the Museum collections (here and here). Phizackerly notes:

MSAA officials are clearly unused to investigative journalism and independent blogging. Until recently, bloggers who criticise the Government have been arrested in Egypt. Indeed, the Military Council has continued the practice. [...] So its really not surprising that MSAA officials are unused to people critically examining press releases and announcements and it is obvious they find the experience uncomfortable. [...] I suspect as Egyptian media become more inquisitive that MSAA officials will realise that they are not, in fact, being treated unfairly. I doubt they will grow to like people checking press releases for consistency - few organisations do - but maybe they will understand that the process is a fundamental part of democracy.

Obviously museums should be fully accountable to the public for whom they claim to be curating cultural property. Here, one gets the feeling that nobody sees any need to account for the many discrepancies and questions in the official reports of what has been happening in the Egyptian Museum. I hope there is an official enquiry when a new government is brought in into both the events of 28th January as well as subsequent actions taken by the bodies concerned and responsible dissemination of information and that a full report is prepared and published. What is there to hide?

[The comment by Tim on Kate's blog is of interest, though unlike him, I am not so sure it is true that the "shield" of dictatorship has been lifted at all in the area we are discussing].

"Absolutely Wrong, but I'm Not Telling You Where"

.
Cairo based Egyptologist Nicole Hansen (28 kwietnia 15:37) talking about antiquity looting in Egypt and the Egyptian Museum in particular says:

Paul [...] You may be trying to make sense of things, but the one part of your latest blog post with which I am intimately familiar,I am 100% you are absolutely wrong. History will tell us what really happened and those who are really concerned about what is happening are doing things you don't see to deal with them, not spending their time on a soap box.

Less concerned about the "soap-box" jibe (another one who does not understand a blog is a blog, is a blog), I suggested off-list that it would be helpful if she would indicate where what I have said here in previous posts is misleading so I can deal with it. Sadly she declines, preferring to maintain an unhelpful I-know-something-you-don't stance, replying:

"You will know when the rest of the world does".

Well, that really "supports the Cairo Museum"! So Barford is wrong, but the accuser cannot say where exactly. Where have I heard that before? (All the time from antiquity collectors).

I really cannot see that in the post to which she refers (bears the tag 'personal') there is much to get "absolutely wrong", since it addresses the points on which I was chastised by Dr El Shazly and quite clearly mostly describes what I myself felt upon the news about the looting of artefacts from Cairo's museum and observing the embarrassing farce surrounding their "recovery", so beats me with what there Dr Hansen feels she is "intimately familiar". Still, its nice to see that somebody is confident that we will ever learn what really has been happening in the Museum.

So until then, readers are warned that somebody called Dr Hansen says that somewhere here is a gap between what I have suggested about the Museum looting and its background and what she knows is true. And since she is not willing to share this information with her professional colleagues, only time will perhaps tell where the discrepancy lies (lay). Perhaps she has proof that the "big black bag" story was true after all?

Vignette: Coy Dr Nicole claims to know something about antiquity Looting in Egypt we do not... and is not telling.

BM Had Doubts on Provenance of the Crosby Garrett Helment in July 2010?

.
I was looking into the winged griffin attached to the top of the restored Crosby Garrett helmet and revisited Dr Ralph Jackson's report published on the PAS website and something else caught my eye.

The finder who we have established from stories about him in the local news media lives in Peterlee, County Durham asserts that the object was dug up "somewhere" by him some time in May but at the beginning of June (having slipped through the hands of the local PAS) it was already down in London at Christie's, where according to Roger Bland it was seen by Sally Worrell. It was however only on 30th August (again according to Bland) that the findspot was revealed. I published my first post on this on the afternoon of 9th September (let it be recalled on being alerted earlier on in the day by metal detectorists concerned about some aspects of this find - it was already being discussed on MD forums earlier that day, but there had not been a peep of information from the PAS before 9th September nor was there to be for some time afterwards). From the beginning I raised the question of how it was ascertained that this newly-surfaced item had not been 'planted'. Questions which the PAS has curtly dismissed.

It was only later (13th September) that the PAS broke their silence about its existence (oddly this report now carries the date 16th September - yesterday). This was well after it had "surfaced" in the Christie's catalogue and in the local and national newspapers. Roger Bland added further details in comments to this blog received about midday on 15th Septemeber.

The PAS "announcement" carries a link to a report written by Dr Ralph Jackson Senior Curator of Romano-British Collections of the British Museum, so a major respected authority. It is clearly dated at the bottom "9th September 2010" (i.e., the date I first published the news about the item questioning the steps taken to verify the stated provenance). This report has an odd beginning:

The helmet was examined by the writer on 22nd July 2010 at Christie’s Auction House Old Brompton Road. It was part way through a process of restoration in preparation for sale at auction. The form of the helmet, its condition, patina, corrosion products and soil accretions appeared entirely consistent with its former use, demise, burial and rediscovery in Cumbria and I see no reason to doubt its given provenance.

So, seven weeks on into the conservation, the object still had "soil accretions"? This was after the restoration was part complete (Jackson uses the form "has been reconstructed" later in his report of the July examination). Was the object being assembled from uncleaned (and therefore unstabilised?) pieces of corroded bronze? Oh, I really would like to see the documentation of this "conservation". Is there dirt and unstabilised crud under the Christie's paint?

But that is aside from the real issue. If it was only after - according to what Roger Bland says - three people had been talking to the finder from Durham three months that the actual findspot in Cumbria was revealed (30th August according to Bland), then to what "given provenance" was Jackson comparing its state to on July 22nd? More to the point, why in fact when visiting Christie's was the first question which Jackson addresses in his report not authenticity (which would be usual in the case of recently "surfaced" antiquities) but the provenance?

Look at this:
"The form of the helmet [...] appeared entirely consistent with its former use, demise, burial and rediscovery in Cumbria ..."
"The [...] condition [of the helmet] appeared entirely consistent with its former use, demise, burial and rediscovery in Cumbria ..."
"The [...] patina, [...] appeared entirely consistent with its former use, demise, burial and rediscovery in Cumbria..."
"The [...] corrosion products [...] appeared entirely consistent with its former use, demise, burial and rediscovery in Cumbria..."
"The [...] soil accretions appeared entirely consistent with its former use, demise, burial and rediscovery in Cumbria,
and I see no reason to doubt its given provenance."

Question one, what "given provenance" on July 22nd? How can any of these things be conclusive that it came from this "given provenance" since the head of the PAS tells us this was not given until the end of August? Patina and soil accretions in particular, there are a lot of soil types across even just Cumbria (but remember that the finder comes from County Durham), so this seems an extraordinary statement and it would be useful to learn just what the author of this brief report knew about the provenance at the time of his visit and what he means by what he wrote six weeks later.

How can any of these things (like soil accretions) talk about the "use and demise" of the object? The form of the object is not typically "Cumbrian", how can the form of the object remove any doubts that the object was found in "Cumbria"? The dent on the nose ("condition"), Jackson asserts is consistent with it being used "in Cumbria". I'd like to know how even the top BM specialist can differentiate a "Cumbrian" dent on the nose from a Syrian or Pannonian one [for example made before it was brought to northern Britain].

What I think Dr Jackson is getting at is the patina and soil accretions he saw on 22nd July were consistent with a findspot in "Cumbria". It is therefore amusing to note that Roger Bland stresses in his version that "As for the suggestion that the helmet has a different patina from other finds recorded by PAS from the parish, this is not relevant. First, the helmet has been completely restored by Christie’s so that its external appearance now is very different from when it was found". By his own account, Jackson saw the object part way through this restoration so presumably did not see it in its "as found" state, but is adamant that it had typical "Cumbrian" corrosion products and soil accretions on it when he saw it.

This is all very confusing. At what stage and why did Dr Jackson insert that passage into his report of his examination of the state of the object on 22nd Jul 2010? At what stage in the investigations of the provenance did "Cumbria" figure as the findspot? What corrosion products and soil accretions did Dr Jackson see and with what is he comparing them?

Dr Jackson may "see no reason to doubt its given provenance", but based on that opinion legitimising this sale, somebody will be parting with hundreds of thousands of pounds. More to the point, in the end when an export licence is deferred, it will be the British public that will be digging into their own pockets to contribute this cash to match the auction price plus additional costs. I think they (who pay Dr Jackson's salary as a staff member of the national museum) are justified in expecting a little more than a bald statement in effect "I see nothing wrong" starting this report. The public report begins with a conclusion which was reached on the basis of evidence it simply does not detail.

Once again the question arises of what specific due diligence steps were taken by the British Museum, and the Portable Antiquities Scheme in particular, to ascertain the veracity of the reported findspot before they allowed the addition of their authorative voice to legitimising this anonymous private antiquities sale?

UPDATE: Since this was written, photos have become available on the Roman Army Talk forum of the inside of the helmet. There it can be seen that there is no trace of the hinge "at the centre of the brow within the curly hair" which Jackson claims to have seen in his examination of the object. He also said that the helmet was fastened shut with a leather strap "which encircled the nape of the head piece and was secured by its eyeleted ends to an iron stud beneath each ear of the mask". Although there is iron corrosion on the jawline on one side at least - the mask has no ears. Also I would be very interested to hear from somebody who can show me corrosion products on dugup metalwork from Cumbria which are like those in the interior of the mask visible in those photos, and quite clearly not cleaned off.
.

Turkish Looters Caught Just in Time, or Too Late?

.
The blogs have been a-buzzing with a recent 'find' from Turkey. A tomb with nice masonry, wall paintings and a chunky carved sarcophagus in the chamber. What is more associated with a known historical personage. Whoopee. But if we take a closer look after the initial excitement fades, a number of questions arise. While the layour of this tomb is still far from clear from the published accounts, we may glean some interesting information from the photo galleries already published (see the references to those given in a comment by Yasar Ersoy on David Gill's Looting Matters blog ) some of which I reproduce below.

The first point is that it turns out that this tomb lies actually under the podium of a temple of Zeus Carios in Milas, a place mentioned in the tourist guides: "the suspects had dug two tunnels— 6 and 8 meters (yards) long, from the house and an adjacent barn, leading to the tomb that is buried some 10 meters (yards) deep" (Turkey Discovers Ancient Underground Tomb), so right under the noses of the antiquities police. That's a lot of earth to shift - where did they put it all without being noticed?

Why on earth did they dig a tunnel 10 metres down ? On the off-chance it would hit something? How did they know there was going to be anything worth robbing here? Or were they just rash and lucky?

The antiquity dealing lobbyists want to see looters as "finders" and just ordinary blokes driven by poverty to do a bit of "subsistence digging". Is that the case here? Hardly. One of the "tunnels" (actually a shaft) comes down exactly in the middle of the burial chamber over the sarcophagus. Now somebody tell me how eight 'ordinary blokes' having dug into a tomb by luck in an adjacent house can marry the measurements taken in the dark underground with the tangle of walls above ground to place that hole so precisely. "Ordinary blokes" with a tape measure, sticks and string?

According to an article "Turkey Discovers Ancient Underground Tomb " Culture Minister Ertugrul Gunay described what he saw at the site last week as:

"not an ordinary treasure hunt. It is very organized and it is obvious that they received economic and scientific help", [...], adding that Turkey also would investigate the suspects' possible overseas links.

This is raised by the question of the equipment used:

They used sophisticated equipment to drill through the thick marble walls of the tomb and were working to remove the coffin from the underground chamber when they were detained, according to the Culture Ministry. [...]

This can be seen in the photo gallery attached to the article: Ahmet Bayrak et al. 'Son 100 yılın en önemli keşfi yerinde sergilenecek' Milliyet 12 August 2010)





A core-cutting tubular drill was used to tunnel through walls to investigate what was behind them.









and used to make a hole in the shaft in the roof of the burial chamber


Here they were obviously going to cut through the side wall.

Another point is this has apparently been going on some years. In one of the earlier accounts I read, I came across a note that among the material the robbers had tsken into the tomb and later found by police was a bottle which had an expiry date of 2005 on it (I cannot fnd it now, but am sure I did not imagine it). While this could have been reused after emptied, it could also suggest a version of the story in which the tomb was in fact discovered more than five years ago. Ministry officials suggest that "several treasures that would have been placed in the underground tomb were most likely looted by the treasure hunters and sold in the illegal antiquities trade".

View down one of the vaulted passages, note the heaps of soil along the walls.Now where did this soil come from? Is it material washed into the tomb after the burial, or did this magnificent tomb simply have a beaten earth floor? Nevertheless it is clear that before the police entered this tomb, the material on the floor had been gone through to recover any collectable items, though at the same time destroying any evidence about where items had been placed in the tomb and what else was in it.

One of the photo galleries includes a shot of a (pierced) Byzantine gold coin, with no indication whether it was found in the tomb (evidence of later intrusion), in the soil on top of the temple platform, or in the houses of the looters.

The picture that seems to be emerging from the early reports is a gang which had come together (after all if a couple of guys stumbled acrosss the tomb, why involve six other people?) to make some money out of the discovery. It is possible that they had 'academic' help actually locating the tomb buried deep below a 3.5m tall masonry platform of a later temple in the first place. It is unclear whether the tomb had been opened in the past (earth on the floor, apparently a smashed coffin lid). The current looters had possibly been working in the tomb for several years, clandestinely putting an unknown number of objects of unknown type on the market, presumably somewhere along the line somebody suggesting to buyers that they come from some unnamed "old collections". These objects have so far passed unnoticed to buyers who asked-no-questions, now we will have to work hard to try and identify them and those dealers and collectors who handled them. Anyone who handled rich items of "Greek type" but of unknown provenance in recent months should fall under suspicion.

The Turkish ministry surmises (or perhaps received information) that having emptied the tomb of its smaller items, the gang turned its attention to the richly carved sarcophagus, worth a couple of thousand green ones on the no-questions-asked market no doubt. Possibly they already have a buyer who is sitting waiting for them to get the object out. maybe they saw it only on a video, or maybe they secretly paid a visit to the tomb recently accompanied by teh gang and agreed a price. But how to get it out? It was probably inserted there using a ramp, and the tomb built around it. Obviously this process could not be reversed under the noses of the townsfolk and antiquities police. It seems to me that cutting the access shaft above the sarcophagus was connected with lowering and operating heavy (diamond-bladed?) cutting equipment which was to cut this magnificent sculpted monolith into smaller pieces to be passed out through a tunnel (the robbers having started exploring where they could dig such a tunnel by drilling throught the tomb walls, or perhaps they were going to use the existing access tunnels). The pieces would be smuggled out to Florida, Tokyo or Dubai or wherever where very probably the buyer is already waiting for it. The question is is somebody waiting for a full sarcophagus or are four different buyers waiting for four relief scenes?

The men accused of looting are taken away for questioning. One commentator has said "if I ever come across the people who looted this tomb, I will string them up and torture them". Let us hope that whatever does happen to these men, that the opportunity is taken to get every piece of information from them possible about what was taken, where it went, who they had been in contact with abroad, and who was interested in buying the sawn-up sarcophagus.




The pro-trade lobby suggests that the problem with looting is the lack of something like "the British PAS system" in place in the "source countries". How can this apply to the present case for example? Would the gang of eight report the find to the Turkish PAS for a reward? What kind of reward? The full market value of everything which the tomb contains (including what they could get for sawing up the sarcophagus - and what about dismantling the slabs with the wall paintings)? These are not "finders" but a gang of looters who seem to have been working to order. How would a PAS-type system stop this? We have seen that the collectors that "support" the British scheme when it suits them in fact completely ignore its existence in their purchases (for example here). It is not in the market's interest that the exploitation of this tomb is stopped and the archaeologists move it - that way there is nothing to sell, no grave goods, no "king's skull with diadem, full teeth", no sawnup bits of sarcophagus. Who would pay for rewarding the "finders" in a case like this, where would the money come from?

Surely here another approach would be more effective, how is it possible that the ill-dressed blokes in the picture above could manage to put on the market items from a newly-discovered tomb and NOBODY NOTICED? Surely what we need is to ensure full transparency of the trading of arcaeological objects so that the moment something of unclear origin comes onto the market, it provokes instant examination of the circumstances. This, and only this, is the way to fight looting. If the antiquities trade has nothing to hide, then why are they so adamant on hiding it? Cases like this one show the profits to be made by nobody asking any questions.

Photos: The photo credits can be obtained from clicking on the links in their capttions, they come mostly from two online galleries from the Turkish media.

US Rule of Law on Illegal Immigrants, what about Illegal Exports?

.

Fox News fanning the flames of xenophobia reports that:

A California city mere miles from the metropolis that imposed a boycott on Arizona over its immigration law has just weighed in on the other side of the debate -- voting to declare itself a "Rule of Law City" where illegal immigrants are not welcome.

What about collectors who have been buying illegally exported artefacts without even attempting to ascertain licit provenance? Any collectors in Costa Mesa?

Mayor Allan Mansoor told Fox News on Thursday that the "Rule of Law" resolution should "set the tone" for tougher policies to come. As Arizona officers are now empowered to do, Mansoor said Costa Mesa law enforcement should be able to ask suspects for proof of legal residency.

If they really want to go to town on residents to see whether they have any connection to activities involving connections to law-breaking, the police in US "rule of law" communities like Costa Mesa could ask to see their artefact collections.

Vignette: Costa Mesa police officers (Daily Pilot)

The Third Highest grossing criminal trade?

.
In a post on the Smart Planet blog, journalist Melanie Kaplan asks rhetorically "What is the third highest grossing criminal trade?" although I do not generally like seeing the looting of archaeological sites for collectables as a genuine part of the art trade, the opportunity to use an attention-grabbing thougfht-provoking headline seems too good to forego.

Art crimes make up the third most costly criminal area in the United States ($6 billion), just behind the drug and arms trades, according to the National Museum of Crime & Punishment in Washington. This month, the museum has teamed up with the Association for Research into Crimes against Art to create a temporary exhibit about art crimes, called Uncovering the Dark Arts: Thieves, Forgers and Tomb Raiders.

I like that, the "dark arts", I suppose that makes the collectors and dealers of the indiscriminate antiquities market "the Dark Side". Kaplan also has a recent article on the FBI’s Art Theft Program.

More Wenneb shabtis on Sale

One "Meechmunchie" (sic) reports on the Yahoo Ancient Artefacts discussion forum that:

It seems like ever since news broke that these objects might be looted there's been a firesale of sorts of Wenneb shabtis on Ebay. I guess ebay buyers are less discerning about that sort of things than customers at actual dealers. Anyway, I'd like to know why Paul Barford (I know this topic is going to attract him like a bug to a light...) thinks these objects have been looted from a newly discovered tomb. Has this been confirmed? Published? If not, why not? This information can only prevent the sale of looted objects if it's published and referable.
Also, I am pretty sure the "Opener of the roads exists" translation of the back of these shabtis is not correct. Why say "the opener of the roads"? The god's name is Wepwawet, which means "the opener of ways" but probably shouldn't be translated literally. It's irking me that people are quoting it, but that's neither here nor there. This post is prompted by the sale of a large lot of these shabtis on ebay currently.

"Bug to a light"? A better analogy for this business would be "a carrion crow to a rotting carcass".

Let's start with the translation of the hieroglyphic inscription. This was not mine, but as I said in my original post is that of some amateurs, collectors of Egyptian dugups who have taught themselves to read hieroglyphics. I am perfectly happy to see this as their mistake, perhaps they will take another look in the light of "Meechmunchie's" suggestions.

Those now being sold on ebay are being offered by seller JFF-Armarna who is based in Homberg, Germany and is quite new (33 feedback points). The sale in question is #250600498508 of "10 Egyptian Faience Ushabtis w. hieroglyphic Text, from my private collection ( previously London art market)" with a buy it now price of US $999.00. The two earlier auctions still visible in the seller's feedback are for a Fayencekette aus Mumienperlen 136cm (#250575104219) und "Ancient Egyptian Scarab of Thutmosis III from my private collection".
One might note that the ten shabtis now being offered for a relatively low price are pretty crude examples as these "Wenneb-shabtis" go. Whoever the person on the "London art market" had obtained this job lot from, the seller had perhaps already got rid of the best of the bunch.

There are a number of reasons why it may be thought that these objects have been looted from a newly discovered tomb and they are presented in several earlier posts on this blog: here , here , here and here for example. Basically, there have been quite a number of these items appearing on the market at the same time, one English dealer is reputed to have (had) "hundreds". None of the items being offered for sale has anything more precise offered as a provence than "from an old [insert country name] collection" type provenances. It is believed that there are no examples known in museum collections, or in old auction catalogues. If there had been a legitimate group of pre-year-X exports of a full tomb assemblage of 365+ shabtis being split up in recent years, collectors would have heard of it. And so on. While none of these features indvidually mean the objects are looted, the combination of several factors together makes this look very likely. So much so that when these objects were being discussed last year, two UK sellers who had them withdrew them from sale and returned them to their source (but see below).

Meechmunchie asks "Has this been confirmed? Published? If not, why not? This information can only prevent the sale of looted objects if it's published and referable". Well, I am not a policeman. It is not my job to confirm is a crime has been committed, or publish that information (I get enough trouble for the things I write on my personal blog!). As I have sais time and time again, I think it is up to collectors to establish for themselves whether any particular item they are ofered is of licit origins or not. Nobody is going to hold their hand while they do so. If they want to collect responsibly, then they need to take responsibility for their own actions. All of the points made above could be determined and confirmed by any collector (or dealer for that matter, but they have a vested interest in not looking).

I did make the point that there should be some kind of antiquities hotline where notifications can be made to the proper authorities. At the moment, since these shabtis are by now scattered all over western Europe as well as the US, who would investigate and prosecute? Who would they go after? But the hotline I am interested in would be to catch cultural criminals, not to prevent indiscriminate collectors becoming ("unwitting") accessories to a crime.

As for disseminating information about such potential problematic material, I have also made the point that antiquities discussion forums like Yahoo's ancient artifacts should have an open archive. Although a lot of discussion on Wenneb shabtis went on there a while ago, this is totally inaccessible to a websearch should anyone who is not a member of that forum (in Yellowknife Canada, for example) be interested in buying one and does a search for parallels before parting with their cash.

Who was the London dealer Mr JFF-Armarna says he bought these ten shabtis from? Information that was being passed round the collectors' grapevine about the origin of these "Wenneb shabti" was that "most of them are now comming from an English dealer who has hundreds of them. I asked dealers in Spain England USA and Italy, they all say that they came in the first place from England". Who is this mysterious dealer that several people are buying stuff from "in good faith" but nobody wants to talk about?

A little transparency from the dealers that have handled these items might be helpful in untangling the problem of the source of these items. After all, if they acquired them legitimately from a legitimate source with all due diligence required by the ADA code of conduct for example, why hide it? Where did these things come from, how did they get on the "London art market"? In the storeroom of which antiquity seller does the rotting carcass of Wenneb lie?