SLAM's Collecting History of the Ka Nefer Nefer Mask (IV): The Little House on Quai de Cologny.

.
Continuing my exploration of the version of the collecting history of the Ka Nefer Nefer cartonage mask now in St Louis Art Museum we now come to the most mysterious of the steps by which it travelled across Europe. In an earlier post I discussed its reported presence for a short while in the "early 1960s" in something called the "Kaloterna Collection". SLAM documentation contains the speculation that "Kaloterna" might be a misspelling of "Kaliterna," a common Croatian surname.

The story is taken up by Malcolm Gay in his excellent summary, 'Out of Egypt' in the Riverfront Times:

The mask was soon resold, according to the provenance, this time to a "Private Collection, Switzerland". The transaction is said to have occurred in the "early 1960s." The provenance contains no documentation of the purchase. Footnotes add that "[t]he Swiss collector requested anonymity," and that "[t]he Swiss collector's letter of July 2, 1997 confirms the sale of the mask to Aboutaam." "The dealer did provide us with a letter to that effect from the individual who owned it that had requested anonymity," says Brent Benjamin. "The museum did verify the identity of that person. We know it's a real person. We know that person exists. We know the address. It's not a fictional person." A copy of the letter obtained by the Riverfront Times identifies the Swiss collector as Zuzi Jelinek
of 84 Quai de Cologny, Geneva Switzerland. The universe of high-dollar collectors is a rarefied one. Nonetheless, when a New York antiquities dealer ran the name "Jelinek" through his 18,000-name database of museums, collectors and dealers at Riverfront Times' request, the search came up negative. According to Swiss telephone listings, a Suzana Jelinek-Ronkuline lives at 84 Quai de Cologny in Geneva. Her telephone number is identical to the one on the letter Phoenix Ancient Art provided to the St. Louis museum.
Reached by phone in Geneva, a man identifying himself as Jelinek's son, Ivo Jelinek, says his mother never owned the Ka-Nefer-Nefer mask.
"This is completely false information. We have nothing to do with any mask, certainly not from the Nineteenth Dynasty," asserts Jelinek, who says he lives at the address listed on the letter. "She has never had interest or invested money in such [objects]."
Jelinek says his mother's name may be linked to the Ka-Nefer-Nefer mask for another reason: the Aboutaam brothers, owners of Phoenix Ancient Art, rented another house she owns on Quai de Cologny. "They were tenants of Lebanese origin who rented one of our houses. They are merchants of perhaps of this type of objects — maybe this is the connection," says Jelinek. "They lived on [Quai de Cologny] at another number, but they left. They are not there any longer."
Presented with this information, Hicham Aboutaam directed the Riverfront Times to a woman identifying herself as Suzana Jelinek, of Zagreb, Croatia. "I bought the mask many many years ago, and I sold it many many years ago," says Suzana Jelinek when reached at her Zagreb home. "I have so many things in my collection that my children don't know what all I have."
"That's very peculiar," the University of Virginia's Bell says. "That's very suspicious. That's a very unconvincing sort of provenance that would not be acceptable anywhere". 

Well, yes it is curious isn't it? Starting at the beginning, Mrs Jelinek reportedly comes from Zagreb, was the Kaloterna vel Kaliterna Collection in Zagreb? Was this where Ms Jelinek claims to have bought this item "in the early 1960s"? How then did it leave Communist Yugoslavia and end up in Geneva?

So, this story has Mrs Jelinek buying the mask in "the early 1960s" and selling it from  84 Quai de Cologny, Geneva in 1997, some 30+ years later to her tenants, the Aboutaams. We do not know what address the Aboutaams rented (or when) on Quai de Cologny (a nice enough location, not very far from the Geneva free port storage facilities) we do learn that Ms Jelinek has another property on the street at number 72 where she put in for planning permission in 2008, but whether that is her only property there is difficult to say.  

In 2006 the Suzana Jelinek to whom the Riverfront Times journalist talked said something which seems rather strange: "I bought the mask many many years ago, and I sold it many many years ago". She was speaking before February 2006 about a sale that had taken place (according to the letter in SLAM) in July 1997, just eight and a half years previously. Would one use today the term "many many years ago" that happened in the middle of 2003?  When does the Zagreb Jelinek think she sold the mask?

Also puzzling is the reported insistence of Ivo Jelinek that "his mother never owned the Ka-Nefer-Nefer mask [...] "This is completely false information. We have nothing to do with any mask, certainly not from the Nineteenth Dynasty," asserts Jelinek, who says he lives at the address listed on the letter. "She has never had interest or invested money in such [objects]".

The  Zagreb Suzana Jelinek explains this away by saying "I have so many things in my collection that my children don't know what all I have". When I first read that, I imagined the Geneva property-owner of Croatian origin inhabiting some vast sprawling pile with vast halls and winding corridors and stairways crammed with antiques. It is perhaps plausible, given enough mummy cases scattered around, that kids might not notice the one with the gilded face standing for thirty years in the passage leading to the servants' quarters (but then son Ivo at the indicated address is adamant that his mother has never invested any money in any such objects). More surprising is what the house from which Suzana Jelinek-Ronkuline sold that item to the Aboutaam brothers looks like. Google Earth it, Google Street View it. It has a nice sloping front garden and a free-standing garage - but is a relatively modest low two storey dwelling nestling on the hillside, somewhat diminutive compared to some of its neighbours (while Number 72 is even smaller). I really cannot imagine anyone walking past the mask (or a 60 cm tall box containing the mask) every day for thirty years not noticing it in such a house. This really casts some doubt on the story that this is where the mask was kept until the Aboutaams bought it from Ms Jelinek in 1997. But then, that seems not to be what happened either, see part VI of this saga.

But for the moment, let us stay with Ms Jelinek and her place in this story. Let us pass to what  Laura Young writes in her study: 'A Framework for resolution of Claims for Cultural Property', 2007) page 51.  At the time of the purchase, it seems that the only document SLAM had in its files as the result of the 'due diligence' it says it carried out before the purchase was a letter from a private Swiss collector, who requested anonymity, provided by the seller. This she reports was dated July 2, 1997 and was addressed   to Hicham Aboutaam of Phoenix Ancient Art, S.A.

This letter verifies that the mask was in a private Swiss collection since the early 1960s until it was sold it to Hicham Aboutamm in 1997. In this letter the Swiss collector writes that,

“this is to certify that I sold you the beautiful Egyptian cartonage mask of a lady…this mask was in my collection since the early 60s…My kind regards and I wish that this Egyptian Lady bring you many luck as she had brought to me” (Saint Louis Art Museum, 1997, p.1).

There were no other documents in the open file to verify this ownership history.

That's rather vague wording. Note nothing defines the time when this transaction took plce, nor that the vague "the beautiful Egyptian cartonage mask of a lady" can in any way be linked with a specific mask now being offered by a dealer who no doubt has had not a few mummy masks pass through his hands. There is no mention of this "certification" being signed in the presence of a notary or any other official. Look at the wording, "this is to confirm that I sold you this", not "to confirm the sale to you of". The writer of the letter intends to establish for the buyer (and presumably at his specific request to do so) a provenance, rather than confirm the transfer of title (eg for tax, export purposes). There is a very significant difference. Note also that neither seller or dealer betray any knowledge of the name of the beautiful (nefer !) lady. Since if the mask could be identified by giving that name, either the inscription was no longer on the mask, or neither collector nor dealer could read it, or naming the individual did not suit the interests behind writing this letter. Which was it?

The Kaloterna (sic) and Jelinek Antiquity Collections in Croatia

.
The provenance supplied for the Ka Nefer Nefer mask now in St Louis Art Museum by the Aboutaams includes passing through the private collections of two Croatian collectors. It might be of interest then to examine the context of this information. As the story goes:

in the early 1960s when the museum reports that “the Mask was a part of the Kaloterna (or Kaliterna) private collection, during which time it was purchased by Ms. Zuzi Jelinek (‘Jelinek’), a Croatian collector in Switzerland. In or around 1995, Jelinek sold the Mask to Phoenix Ancient Art, S.A. of Geneva (‘Phoenix’). On or about April 3, 1998, the Museum purchased the Mask from Phoenix.”

See also Kea Johnston's Egyptology Geek and Gay, Malcolm. "Out of Egypt." St. Louis News [St. Louis] 15 Feb. 2006. Riverfront Times.

The Kaloterna CollectionSo, according to the seller, the mummy mask was part of the collection of one Kaloterna family until the early 1960s. Several people have noted that "Kaloterna" may be a misspelling of Kaliterna, a common Croatian name (Gay, 2006). Now, interestingly there is a webpage dedicated to the question of ancient Egyptian artefacts held in collections in Croatia, in museums, major and minor, as well as private collections. By law in Croatia every private collection has to be reported, examined, and evaluated. If the Kaloterna/Kaliterna collection has not been, it was/is an illegal collection. It is therefore significant that the only object which seems to have been noted as having been in this otherwise unknown collection is one which is now of disputed legality. Where did Mr/Mrs Kaloterna/Kaliterna then in Tito's Yugoslavia obtain such an important artefact from? We recall that the story is that in the early 1950s (1952) is was reputedly in a Brussels gallery, so where was it between then and the early 1960s and how did it end up in Yugoslavia? If one looks at the lists of Egyptian artefacts in the collections of Croatian museums, this mummy mask is quite atypical compared with the rest of the artefacts reaching these collections which are far less ostentatious. It would be useful to conduct more research into this (former?) collection and determine just what else was in it and what happened to the rest of the material.

The Jelinek Collection
There is some confusion here in the story. Initially the information given was that the mask was obtained by a Swiss collector named "Zuzi Jelinek" whose address and phone number were on a provenance letter given to SLAM (Gay, 2006). This turned out to be the address for Suzana Jelinek-Ronkuline, who was once a landlady for the Aboutaam brothers but according to her son she has never collected antiquities (Gay, 2006). Gay had a US dealer search for information on an antiquity collector named Jelinek, but none was found. No information was given how an object of this magnitude allegedly left Yugoslavia and entered Switzerland in the 1960s.

Phoenix Ancient Art however directed Gay to a collector in Zagreb, Croatia named Suzana Jelinek who when asked claimed "I bought the mask many many years ago, and I sold it many many years ago [...] I have so many things in my collection that my children don't know what all I have" (Gay, 2006). It is not at all clear whether the two Jelineks are the same person, in 2006 the Riverfront Times suggests that Suzana Jelinek-Ronkuline still lived in Switzerland.

Concerning this collection of "so many things that my children do not know what I have" (ie a collection so large and rich that an entire gilded mummy mask could simply not be noticed among the other items), if they were held in Croatia in the 1960s, Suzana Jelinek was legally obliged to report them. Where is the official inventory of this collection if it was legal? Where is the export documentation for this object leaving Croatia in the 1990s for Switzerland? Again, it seems that the only information about this otherwise undocumented collection is that it contained an Egyptian mummy mask of questioned legality. How could the Croatian Suzana Jelinek acquire so many objects from the early 1960s onwards, without appearing on the New York dealer's database of 18 000 names of museums, collectors and antiquity sellers? It should be noted that this collection was apparently still existing in 2006. It would be useful to conduct more research into this (former?) collection and determine just what else was in it and what happened to the rest of the material.

The Aboutaams seem to have a propensity for tracking down exceptional artefacts that are assigned a provenance to a collection behind the Iron Curtain and then finding somebody by chance who is able to witness an early sighting, we may recall the odd "findspot" of the Cleveland Apollo in the farmyard of the home of Ernst-Ulrich Walter in Lusatia.

Collector Kaloterna, The Jelinek Connection Under Scrutiny?

There is continued interest in the mysterious collecting history of the Ka Nefer Nefer mask which has documentation which a US court is satisfied (seriously!) means it was actually in two places at once. David Gill asks:

What is the authenticated evidence that Zuzi Jelinek acquired this mask from the Kaloterna collection? Did this take place in the early 1960s? Where was Jelinek living when the acquisition was made? Does Jelinek have any (up to now overlooked) record among her papers?

Perhaps these papers will reveal Zuzi Jelinek's (here too) relationship with Mr/Mrs Kaloterna, and whether she bought any other antiquities from this collection in 'the early sixties'. This brings us back to one of the more puzzling mysteries of the pre-SLAM history of the object. Who was it who scraped the name of the dead person from the mask  (PACHI Thursday, 12 April 2012: ' Scabby Hands at St Louis' - see also K.M. Johnson's wiki)? Obviously such vandalism cannot have happened when it was in the hands of a reputable dealer like the Aboutaam family, or SLAM. It surely must have happened earlier in the collecting history of the object. Was it scraped off by the alleged "Belgian dealer" (and why)? Was it the owner of the otherwise unknown Kaloterna/Kaliterna collection (and why)? Was it Zuzi Jelinek, who in the early sixties - when the mask was acquired - returned to favour after a brief period of exile to became dressmaker to the first lady of Communist Yugoslavia (and today is equally known as authoress of a number of sex manuals)? Why would she do this?  Perhaps those papers Professor Gill mentioned will give a clue. I am sure SLAM too will be interested in sharing the results of their own due diligence regarding this evidence. "This is now 100% about integrity".

Zuzi Jelinek to speak at SLAM?

Zuzi Jelinek

"The officials at SLAM may feel that the legal case is closed. But if the testimony by Jelinek is flawed, as it clearly appears to be, then the Director and Trustees of SLAM have an ethical obligation to return the mask to Egypt".

David Gill, 'St Louis Art Museum: The Egyptian Mummy Mask' Looting Matters, Tuesday, July 1, 2014.

I think that SLAM should mount an exhibition celebrating the Jelinek collection, and why not invite the collector herself to St Louis to talk about her collection and the mask in particular. I am sure there is a fascinating untold story about how she made contact with Mr or Ms Kaloterna and engineered the passage of the half-a-million dollar mask from behind the Iron Curtain to Switzerland. That seems worth SLAM forking out for a first class air ticket for her or a designated representative.

Ka Nefer Nefer Collecting History (V): Meanwhile...

.
The two variant versions of the collecting history most clearly clash in the period when the SLAM-promoted version has it in the possession of Zuzi Jelinek in Geneva. While the documentation supplied to the museum at the time of purchase by the dealer trying to sell it presents it as being in the Jelinek collection (see the earlier post on this and the house in which it was said to have been held), other documentation has it somewhere else.

When the alarm about the mask's whereabouts was initially raised, by Michel Van Rijn (whose previous flamboyant stay in St Louis is discussed here) and Ton Cremers they publicised an email by Marten Raven who drew attention to thefts from the storerooms at Saqqara, and more specifically the Sekhemkhet magazine to the south of the pyramid of Unas  there. This is the one where the mummy mask would have been held if it was still in Egypt. The storeroom contained finds from the Anglo-Dutch excavations (organised by the Egypt Exploration Society in London and the National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden), and was looted after the 1985 season. Dr Raven witnessed the damage to the warehouse first-hand. After this theft, the storage facility was dismantled and the remaining contents relocated. This was the basis for the initial demands that St Louis Museum presented more information supporting its claim of rightful ownership (open letter to St Louis Art Museum director Brent Benjamin requesting information about how the mask had made its way into the museum collection). This is discussed in the February 2006 article: Kaufman, Jason E. 2006a. “This mask belongs to Egypt”, Art Newspaper no 167, March, 4 (reply: Kaufman, Jason E. 2006b. “’This mask is ours’ says St Louis Art Museum”, Art Newspaper no 170, June, 5). 

There seems to be some confusion about what should be in those Saqqara magazines. We recall Goneim's problems were caused by the lack of proper documentation in the 1950s about what was where (he was falsely accused of having let objects be stolen from Saqqara, which later turned up in Cairo). When the mask's collecting history began to be discussed more widely, Zahi Hawass was less clear than he was later about what had happened to the mask since its excavation in 1952. He is quoted in the article "This mask belongs in Egypt" as saying:

“The mask of Ka-nefer-nefer was excavated by Dr Goneim in 1952 and then, like most excavation finds, stored in the Saqqara warehouse, as property of the SCA. It was never, to my knowledge, brought to the Cairo Museum [where finds from Saqqara were sometimes stored]. Therefore, it was...stolen from the storeroom and certainly left Egypt illegally.”

Certainly there were later thefts from the storerooms. Two alabaster vessels in the form of trussed ducks (excavated by the German Archaeological Institute at Dahshur in 1979 and stored in Saqqara) were returned to Egypt in 2008, one by Christie's Auction House, New York, and the other by Rupert Wace Ancient Art Ltd., London (who had earlier acquired it from the Piasa auction house - but see here see herePiasa auction house in Paris). Two additional vessels remain missing. Nevine El-Aref ('Safe and coming home', Al Ahram Weekly, 29 May - 4 June 2008) reports the return in 2008 of another Saqqara artefact, a green 19th-Dynasty ushabti figure of a woman named Hener (removed from sale by auction with the help of Egypt's ambassador to Holland, and in custody in the Leiden Museum following an Amsterdam court verdict). This had been excavated in Saqqara in 1985 by a team from Leiden University. In the SCA account of this piece we get the fuller history of what was determined after 2006:

It was stolen from the Sekhemkhet Magazine at Saqqara in 1987, along with a number of other pieces. This theft was not discovered until an inventory of the magazine in 1995.

It seems though that the Egyptian authorities ascertained that the Ka Nefer Nefer mask had not been among the objects stolen in 1987. They knew that the batch of objects from Goneim's excavations in which the mask should be included were in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo at the time of the Saqqara theft. But the mask was not among them (this was used initially by SLAM to support their claim that the object had never been in that collection - because, they suggest, it had been awarded to the excavator in 1952). This is what excavator of Saqqara Maarten Raven said in 2006. By 2008 it was being stated by the Egyptian authorities that the object had gone missing in 1959 (when Ka-nefer-nefer's funerary mask, along with a number of other objects from Goneim's excavations, was transported from the Saqqara storerooms to the Cairo Museum en route to Tokyo for inclusion in an exhibition that was never mounted). This is the account given on the March 2009 webpage of the Cultural Heritage Resource of the Stanford Archaeology Center

This register (pictured on the Stanford website) shows the object officially entered the Saqqara store and apparently contains no record of deaccession.

SLAM demanded documentation of the presence of the mask in the Egyptian collections, and in response the Egyptian authorities sent a copy of such a document. I am not clear when it was sent, but it is referred to in a text of October 2008 ('St. Louis museum proud of its ancient mask purchase, but Egypt calls it a steal', New York Times 24 oct 2008):

Ghoneim registered his discovery in the official ledger at the government warehouse, or magazine, at Saqqara. The page in the ledger book, a key document Egypt has presented to St. Louis to stake its claim, shows a high-quality photograph of the mask, the finder's name and ID number, and a detailed description.

[Most other accounts of the existence of this ledger date from the end of November 2008]. I understand there is no mention in that register that the object was officially deaccessioned. 

Obviously SLAM must hold the position that the Saqqara ledger page they were shown is a later fake. They have offered no proof however that would stand in a court of law that this is the case.  

The Stanford Archaeology Center webpage shows what the state-of-play was in March 2009:

 H[awass] produced documentation to show that it had been registered as the property of the Egyptian government by 1953, and that in 1959 it had been transported from storage in Saqqara to Cairo for display in the Egyptian Museum. Unfortunately, there is no documentation to show that the mask ever arrived in Cairo, and the assumption is that it must have been stolen sometime after 1959. Nevertheless, this would have been seven years after the mask is alleged to have been on the European antiquities market.

Subsequent to 2008, new information turned up (the records of transport movements will be on paper in those pre-computer days and we have seen recently just how many problems the Egyptian Museum in Cairo is having dealing with its records) which showed that the object did not disappear in 1959. This is significant, because of course an object disappearing in 1959 could appear in the Jelinek collection in Geneva (and indeed the Kaloterna collection in Zagreb) in "the early 1960s". 

The SCA "missing artefacts" website summarises the newly-emerged facts (this was last updated 26 may 2011, but it is unclear when these new facts were added)

In 1959, Ka-nefer-nefer's funerary mask, along with a number of other objects from Goneim's excavations, was transported from the Saqqara storerooms to the Cairo Museum en route to Tokyo for inclusion in an exhibition that was never mounted. It was returned [to] Saqqara, and then sent to the antiquities department conservation lab attached to the Egyptian Museum in 1966. In 1973, many of the objects from the burial of Ka-nefer-nefer were registered at the Egyptian Museum, Cairo. The mask was not among these objects; since it was the most important object in the assemblage, we can infer that it was missing by that time.

On page 2 of Judge Autrey's dismissal of the case we read:

To support its legal conclusion that the Mask was stolen, the Government alleges that the Mask was excavated at Saqqara, Eqypt, in 1952, placed in storage in Saqqara following its excavation where it remained until 1959, and then was “packed for shipping” to Cairo, Egypt, in preparation for an exhibit in Tokyo, Japan. The complaint further states that the Mask was “received by police guards” in Cairo in July of 1959, but instead of traveling to Tokyo, it remained in Cairo until 1962 when it was transferred back to Saqqara. The verified complaint further states that the Mask was removed from Saqqara in 1966 and “traveled” to Cairo in “box number fifty-four,” the “last documented location of the Mask in Egypt.” The complaint then goes on to state that in 1973, an inventory was taken of box number fifty-four, whereupon it was discovered the Mask was “missing.”

On the basis of those facts (ie treated as such) he then sees no grounds for accepting the object was stolen. The point is however if we accept that the mask was in a box in Egypt as late as 1966, this cannot be squared with it having been in the Kaloterna and then Jelinek collections in "the early 1960s". If we accept that fact, the letter Ms Jelinek wrote to Hicham Aboutaam in 1997 no longer has any evidential value. It states things which are not in accord with other facts.

So have the Egyptians and US government just made up "box 54"? This is what SLAM would have to assert - but then accusing a fellow museum of falsifying the records, they really ought to have better proof than the fact that they have in their files a single letter by Ms Jelinek (reportedly Aboutaam's landlady, somebody not known to have collected any antiquities of this class, and stating facts reportedly contradicted by her own son). [They also have the Charly Mathez letter - more on that later]

SLAM's Ka Nefer Nefer and Questions About the Communist Regime of Yugoslavia

Communist leader Josip Broz Tito examines a vase with wife Jovanka...

The interest in the official collecting history of the Ka Nefer Nefer mask now in the museum of a US city currently in the news for brutal police repression, is shifting to the period when it is claimed the antiquity was in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The early 1960s when the mask changed hands were a turbulent time for the Communist republic, rent as it was by ethnic tensions as well as subject to external pressures. Government control was exercised through the State Security Administration (Управа државне безбедности - UDBA) and one of the mechanisms by which this power was exercised was the assassination of suspected "enemies of the state" and numerous arrests and prison sentences handed down over the years for separatist activities.

It is against such a background that concerns may be raised that despite a number of years' research, both before and after its purchase by SLAM, not a single trace has been found of any documentation of even the former existence of the first known owner of the mask in the SFRY, a person (of indeterminate sex) whose surname is given as Kaloterna (The Art Museum Subdistrict of the Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District of the City of Saint Louis and the County of St Louis, v. The United States of America).* The only mention of the former existence of this person has been a chance remark made by its second known owner, a person apparently closely related to the ruling elite of the Communist state after 1964, Zuzi Jelinek, who by her own account acquired this valuable antiquity precisely in this period.

Under what circumstances did the Kaloterna family relinquish ownership of this mask and under what circumstances did a Tito family confidant come into its possession? What happened to Kaloterna, and why is there today apparently zero documentation of this person's existence? One might quite legitimately ask, whether there is a possibility that Kaloterna was 'disappeared' by the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's State Security Apparatus for political reasons. Does Mrs Jelinek have any further information on the identity and fate of this individual? When asked by a US journalist, she was very vague about the whole affair: "I bought the mask many many years ago, and I sold it many many years ago".

SLAM and the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia

Perhaps those who forked out money so SLAM could buy this object deserve to know a little more about the nature and circumstances of this transaction deep in the heart of Communism. That's:

Friends Fund and funds given by Mr. and Mrs. Christian B. Peper, Mrs. Drew Philpott, the Longmire Fund of the Saint Louis Community Foundation, The Arthur and Helen Baer Charitable Foundation, an anonymous donor, Gary Wolff, Mrs. Marjorie M. Getty, by exchange, Florence Heiman in memory of her husband, Theodore Heiman, Ellen D. Thompson, by exchange, Dr. and Mrs. G. R. Hansen, Sid Goldstein in memory of Donna and Earl Jacobs, Friends Fund, by exchange, and Museum Purchase

These people placed their trust in the trustees and staff of the Museum to sort out questions like this before approving the purchase, is there any evidence that this trust was justified? What has SLAM determined about the fate of Kaloterna and the Kaloterna collection in Communist Yugoslavia?

* In any case, the surname Kaloterna is quite uncommon (an internet search reveals it is almost exclusively related to this case) and Kaliterna is a common Croatian surname (and the surname of a famous footballer), is it possible that though from Zagreb herself, Jelinek has mis-rendered the actual name of the person concerned (and why would she do that)? It goes without saying that no trace of a Kaliterna who had an early 1960s antiquity collection is known either.

Ka Nefer Nefer: Swiss Investigations?

.
Switzerland has a cultural property MOU with Egypt. Geneva resident Suzi Jelinek was the last recorded owner of the Ka Nefer Nefer mask before she sold it to the Aboutaam family, she is central to the SLAM case. She is said to have obtained the mask from a "Kaloterna"collection - how and when did this object enter Switzerland? Has Ms Jelinek been involved in the sale of any other ancient Egyptian antiquities for example? Evidence seems to exist that the mask was stolen from a museum storeroom, is there anything else in the  Jelinek collection of doubtful origins?  Given the controversy attached to the passage of the Ka Nefer Nefer mask through the hands of collectors and dealers, I think it would be very lax of the Swiss authorities not to follow this up and see where the trail leads. Or is the Swiss declaration to Egypt not really worth the paper it is written on?

Former Owner of Ka Nefer Nefer Mask Victim of State Repression?

SLAM and the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia

I recently discussed the part of the collecting history of the Ka Nefer Nefer mask referring to the period when it is claimed the antiquity was in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the disappearing of suspected "enemies of the state" by the State Security Administration (Управа државне безбедности - UDBA) in the early 1960s when the mask changed hands (PACHI Thursday, 21 August 2014, 'SLAM's Ka Nefer Nefer and Questions About the Communist Regime of Yugoslavia'). The question is raised again  by the publication in the German media of an article about Tito's assassination squads ('Murder in Tito’s Name: German Journalists Investigate Liquidations by Yugoslav Secret Police', Balkanist January 5, 2015). 

The problem is that despite a number of years' research, both before and after its purchase by SLAM, not a single trace has been found of any documentation of even the former existence of the first known owner of the mask in the SFRY, a person (of indeterminate sex) whose surname is given as Kaloterna, which is an uncommon form. The only mention of the former existence of this person has been a chance remark made by its second known owner, a person apparently closely related to the ruling elite of the Communist state after 1964, Zuzi Jelinek, who by her own account acquired this valuable antiquity precisely in this period. Under what circumstances did the Kaloterna family relinquish ownership of this mask and under what circumstances did a Tito family confidant come into its possession?

What happened to Kaloterna, and why is there today apparently zero documentation of this person's existence? Does Mrs Jelinek have any further information on the identity and fate of this individual? When asked by a US journalist, she was very vague about the whole affair: "I bought the mask many many years ago, and I sold it many many years ago". One might quite legitimately ask, whether there is a possibility that the lack of information about this individual means that Kaloterna was 'disappeared' by the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's State Security Apparatus for political reasons.

Communist leader Josip Broz Tito examines a vase with wife Jovanka...

US museums are very careful about checking acquisitions which might be 'Holocaust Art' appropriated by state authorities under the Nazis, perhaps they need to take equal care not to acquire items taken from their owners in former Communist states during the so-called Cold War. Perhaps those who forked out money so SLAM could buy this object deserve to know a little more about the nature and circumstances of this transaction deep in the heart of Communism. That's:

Friends Fund and funds given by Mr. and Mrs. Christian B. Peper, Mrs. Drew Philpott, the Longmire Fund of the Saint Louis Community Foundation, The Arthur and Helen Baer Charitable Foundation, an anonymous donor, Gary Wolff, Mrs. Marjorie M. Getty, by exchange, Florence Heiman in memory of her husband, Theodore Heiman, Ellen D. Thompson, by exchange, Dr. and Mrs. G. R. Hansen, Sid Goldstein in memory of Donna and Earl Jacobs, Friends Fund, by exchange, and Museum Purchase

These people placed their trust in the trustees and staff of the Museum to sort out questions like this before approving the purchase, is there any evidence that this trust was justified? What has SLAM determined about the fate of Kaloterna and the Kaloterna collection in Communist Yugoslavia? Where are the Kaloterna heirs?

Latest on US Ka Nefer Nefer Fiasco

Rick St. Hilaire, 'Ka Nefer Nefer Forfeiture Case: SLAM Appellate Brief Strongly Criticizes Government', Cultural Heritage Lawyer blog, August 6, 2013. It's not looking at all good at the moment for the White Hat Guys, a right federal Balls-up in fact. In a recent Florida case when things started going a bit wrong, they went in and arrested the guy. Who can they arrest this time and for what? Suggestions off-line only.

Please please Jason Felch, set up an searching interview with  the SLAM directorate (and ask a few Trustees) whether in their heart of hearts they sincerely believe the "Charly Mathez- Kaloterna Collection - Zuzi Jelinek" story. I'd be interested in what they say.

I think also it would bolster their case and save their face if SLAM would make moves to mount a retrospective exhibition of the other items from the two collections that once held one of their prize pieces: the Kaloterna Collection and the Jelinek Collection, with Ka Nefer Nefer as the central piece. Let us see what other stunning pieces the museum can show these two collectors acquired. Can they do that? If not, why not? There are some who say they cannot because these collections never actually existed. Let SLAM vindicate their story and claim to Ka Nefer Nefer and show them wrong.

UPDATE 13th August 2013:
See now David Gill, 'SLAM: will the museum do the right thing?', Looting Matters, August 12, 2013
      

Ka Nefer Nefer mummy mask recap

There seem to be a lot of people on the portable antiquity collecting scene who, despite the relatively large amount of discussion that has been going on since 2006, and depite the fact that a lot of it is freely available on the Internet seem totally unaware of the history behind this mask. they are thus liable to be taken in by the bullish attitudes of the North American dealers who use such "won't get this from me until you prize it from my cold dead hands" type phraseology. several of them, instead of using a bit of Google have been writing to me off list to ask what is meant by the critics of this appointment.

One could try Googling "Sekhemkhet pyramid", and "Zakaria Goneim" for the background. There are some good webpages on this Old Kingdom site and the excavations (a fascinating story in themselves). The 19th dynasty mat burial labelled "Ka Nefer Nefer" above the rubble of the demolished pyramid complex is mentioned only in passing in some of them.

Googling "St Louis mummy mask" would bring up more about the subsequent history of this item once it had been divorced from its true provenance. This should throw up a couple of nice newspaper articles, including some from Egypt from which one can reconstruct the details of the controversy as it developed and then reached stalemate due to US foot-dragging.

Then there are blogs, forums and websites. I recommend SAFE and SAFE Corner, David Gill's "Looting matters", Tom Cremers' "Museum Security Network" in its several incarnations and a few others (look in the list of links in my sidebar). They all have several posts on this matter and related issues. There is nothing much of any is use on any of the collectors' forums, blogs and so on. Why might that be?

Two online texts in particular are very helpful. The first is a well-written and lengthy piece of investigative journalism which names names and fills in a lot of detail. This is the text of Malcolm Gay of 15 Feb. 2006 for the Riverfront Times, entitled "Out of Egypt: From a long-buried pyramid to the Saint Louis Art Museum: The mysterious voyage of the Ka-Nefer-Nefer mask"

The second text that is well worth reading (and not just for the light it sheds on this case) is a post graduate thesis available online. Laura Elizabeth Young, "A Framework for Resolution of Claims for Cultural Property" (MSc in Arts Management, University of Oregon, December 2007). Chapter 3 is a fairly detailed account of the St Louis case, and provides a few additional details about what documentation SLAM posessed at the time of purchase and what joined the files after which clarifies the sequence of events better than the account given earlier by Gay.

The Aboutaams should need no introduction (if they do, Google them and "Pheonix Ancient Art" too)

In particular pay attention to the part played in creating a provenance by a Swiss man named Charly Mathez, who in 1997 attested that he'd seen the Ka-Nefer-Nefer at a Brussels gallery 45 years earlier, but who has - it turns out - fallible memory when asked for details. In 1952 this object was, acording to Egyptian documentation, still in the Sakkara storerooms.

Then there is the Croatian connection. The mysterious 'Kaloterna (Kaliterna?) collection. A half million dollar Egyptian antiquity is stated by the Aboutaams/SLAM to have gone from a Brussels gallery to Croatia in Communist Yugoslavia in the early 1960s. Then it came into the hands of an 'anonymous' collector in Switzerland who gives a provenance of the "early sixties". This Gay discovered was a 'Zuzi Jelinek', who turns out to be a real person, Suzanna Jelinek of Zagreb in Croatia... who it seems was the Aboutaam's landlady in Geneva. A letter from her is the main piece of evidence of where the object was before the Aboutaams obtained it. Then there is the role of Sidney Goldstein, the museum's antiquities curator who initiated and oversaw the mask's purchase in 1997, Brent Benjamin only became director a year later. If Laura Young is right about what joined the SLAM files when, then it would seem they were less than open with Gay and others back in 2006 about what "due diligence" they had in fact applied at the time.

All in all an interesting story. But there is no doubt about it, SLAM failed to exercise enough (in fact very little) "due diligence" (and certainly not "exemplary" as Benjamin insists) and bought something which everything shows was stolen from a museum storeroom, and even by the dodgiest of dodgy antiquity dealers' "codes of ethics" should be returned, no matter when and how it happened.

Mr Aboutaam Buys, and Sells, a Mummy Mask

.
St Louis Art Museum bought a mummy mask  from Phoenix Ancient Art (Invoice to the Saint Louis Art Museum dated March 12, 1998 in SLAM document files). They had been supplied by the seller with a collecting history which seemed acceptable to them at the time, placing it in two central European collections in the early 1960s. Further information was supplied a few months after the purchase (the 4th October 1999 correspondence between  Sidney Goldstein and Peter Lacovara) which seemed to be evidence that it had been on the European market even earlier, in 1952. The object entered the collection at the end of March 1998 (Accession Number: 19:1998).

I have not seen it explicitly stated whose name is on that invoice. This would be worth checking. Phoenix Ancient Art is a family business. It was started in 1968 in Beirut by the Lebanese dealer Sleiman Aboutaam, a wealthy Lebanese businessman who reportedly had amassed a fortune through an exclusive contract to supply general merchandise to oil tankers in the Kuwaiti port of Al Ahmadi (Ron Stodghill, 'Do You Know Where That Art Has Been?', New York Times March 18, 2007). Phoenix Ancient Art (incorporated since 1995) continues today under the leadership of his sons, Hicham Aboutaam and Ali Aboutaam.  The younger son, Hicham (born 1968) having finished studying art history at the University of Michigan began working in father's business before 1998. The galleries changed hands when Sleiman Aboutaam and his wife were sadly among the 229 people who died on board Swissair flight 111 (from JFK New York to Geneva) which crashed six months after the Ka Nefer Nefer mask sale on 2nd September 1998 in the Atlantic off Nova Scotia. Hicham then took over running the New York gallery  and his older brother Ali began running the Geneva gallery. They obviously inherited all their father's stock and documentation.

The possibility therefore exists that the person who was responsible for taking the mask of Ka Nefer Nefer to the US and selling it to the St Louis Art Museum was Sleiman Aboutaam (and therefore we might expect his name to be on the invoice - whether or not it is, St Louis Art Museum has declined to tell us, and that turns out to be rather an interesting circumstance). This would however explain why there are some questions about it that Hicham and Ali are not in a position to answer. Anyway, the SLAM collecting history tells us:

by 1997 - 1998 Phoenix Art, S.A. (Hicham Aboutaam), Geneva, Switzerland, purchased from private collection [5] 

and the footnote 5 to which it refers reads:

[...] [Which?] Aboutaam also states that the mask was in the United States from 1995 until 1997, possibly indicating that it was in the possession of the New York branch of Phoenix Ancient Art, S.A. during that time [letter, September 23, 1997, SLAM document files]. 

[Other texts accept that the object was indeed in the US in 1995, for example one of the earliest, StLToday, 'Art museum sues to keep Egyptian mummy mask', but also 38 other accounts generated only in the last ten days].  So it seems from this that the Aboutaams' purchase and export of the item took place some time before the end of 1995 (remember Zuzi Jelinek's "many, many years ago"?). It is unclear to whom the Aboutaams offered this object. The letter of September 23rd 1997 [who its author was is not stated] seems to be the first approach of Aboutaam to the SLAM mentioned in the information we have. In subsequent documentation Hicham, not Slieman is noted as having bought the object, and having bought it in Geneva. 

 Footnotes [3] to [5] in the SLAM collecting history give us the information from the SLAM document files about the "anonymous Swiss collector" that was stated at the time of purchase to have been the person from whom the Aboutaams had acquired the object:

In a letter of July 2, 1997, addressed to Hicham Aboutaam, the Swiss collector stated that this acquisition took place in the early 1960s . [...] The Swiss collector requested anonymity [...] The Swiss collector's letter of July 2, 1997 confirms the sale of the mask to Aboutaam [SLAM document files].

One or other of the Aboutaams apparently had the mask in the USA since 1995, but only in July 1997 did Hicham Aboutaam get an "I sold you..." letter from a person reportedly his former landlady in order to provide provenance (presumably - since no such material seems to have been passed to SLAM - having no other documentation in hand confirming the sale). Why was this letter not written earlier?  Or were there other letters previous to this?

But look at this:

[3] In a letter dated March 19, 1998 [so a week AFTER the stated date of issue of the invoice for the purchase!], Hicham Aboutaam indicated that an anonymous Swiss collector acquired the mask from the Kaloterna (possibly Kaliterna) family.

It is odd that this suggests that this information is not offered in the July 2nd letter confirming (nota bene) the provenance of the object. Why did this information (apparently) only appear in writing eight and a half months AFTER Zuzi Jelinek wrote that letter and after, it seems, the SLAM had already decided to buy the object? What purpose did providing that additional information serve in March 1998?

While the Charly Mathez letter (intimating that the object was on the market in 1952) is dated "February 11, 1997", but was only shown to the Museum well after the purchase. To whom was it addressed?

Setting out in chronological order how the information obtainable from the material in the public domain about the collecting history as reconstructed by the Aboutaams emerged is quite an interesting exercise - but one I leave up to the reader to attempt, and then draw their own conclusions.

St Louis Art Museum Mummy Mask: "Like Cocaine"

.
Rick St. Hilaire has a piece on his blog: 'US Claims SLAM Lacks Legal Standing— Asserts That Mummy Mask is Illegal Contraband — Discovery Reveals More Information'.

Lawyers for the US Attorney’s Office in St. Louis [...] in their July 27 pleading, contend that SLAM’s “claim of ownership is legally impossible, and as such the Mask is effectively contraband in the hands of the Museum.” The government argues that Egypt’s patrimony law, which gives ownership rights of cultural property to the Egyptians, makes it impossible for the SLAM to own the mummy mask. Therefore, SLAM has no legal standing to assert that it can own the mask. The government’s brief analogizes SLAM’s claim of ownership to the mask is similar to asserting ownership to cocaine — one cannot legally claim ownership. Since the mask cannot be owned by the museum, the museum lacks standing to claim ownership, the government argues.

This is indeed an interesting argument and applies equally to dugup antiquities smuggled to the United States from a number of so-called "source countries". They cannot be legally owned in the USA if they are still the (stolen) property of another entity, a foreign state.

In justification of its case, SLAM supplied Federal authorities with details of the purchase and what due diligence they think they have exercised, including revealing that they "conducted a provenance investigation" by contacting, among others "the Missouri Highway Patrol". Having established that Ka Nefer Nefer was not being sought by them (presumably with regard offences such as hit-and-run, speeding, DUI or driving licence violations in Missouri) or anyone else they asked, they decided to buy it. Although "Swiss legal counsel confirmed [indicated former owner] Jelinek’s address", it's a pity that they did not ask about the Aboutaams' landlady about her "collection". As St Hilaire notes:

Missing from the documents list is a purchase or sales agreement between Jenilek and Pheonix Ancient Art. SLAM claimed in past court filings that such a transaction would have occurred in 1995. SLAM, nevertheless, includes on the list of documents a 1997 fax from Phoenix that purportedly attaches a letter of provenance from Jenilek.

Also missing from the documents list are shipping papers or import papers describing the mask’s entry into the United States. Import papers generally describe a package’s date of entry, location of entry, country of origin, value, and contents. The court papers suggest that the mummy mask traveled from Switzerland to the United States in 1998, but this information remains unclear. The mask must have been imported into the United States at some time and at a specific point of entry. But the question of whether papers exist documenting the importation of the Egyptian mummy mask, valued at several thousands of dollars, remains unanswered thus far.

The question raised about this by St Hilaire is of interest because as will be recalled a few years later (2003) Hitcham Aboutaam was in trouble with federal authorities over the import of an odd-shaped rhyton, supposedly from the Western Cave Treasure in Iran, and in the same year his brother Ali was suspected (apparently accused and maybe even convicted, though details are wholly unclear) of being part of a group of people smuggling artefacts out of Egypt about the same time. With what kind of paperwork did the Ka Nefer Nefer mask enter the US and why has it not been supplied as evidence that SLAM ensured that proper procedure was followed in making this purchase?

New Move in St Louis Mask Case?

According to Ula Ilnytzkye (Egyptian official chides museums over antiquities - AP 22/4/10) Zahi Hawass, secretary general of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, said he was continuing the struggle to get back the Ka Nefer Nefer mask from St. Louis Art Museum, and had turned over to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security "all the evidence that I have to prove that this mask was stolen, and we have to bring it back".

On Wednesday, St. Louis Art Museum spokeswoman Jennifer Stoffel, said the institution "had correspondence with Hawass in 2006 and 2007 and has not heard anything on the matter since". At the time, she said the museum shared information with Hawass on the mask's provenance and said "we would do the right thing ... if there was something that refuted the legitimacy of the provenance." The St. Louis museum has said it bought the mask from an art dealer in the United States in 1998 after checking with authorities and with the international Art Loss Register. It said it also approved the purchase with the Egyptian Museum.

The St Louis museum claims it "has not heard anything' since 2007, but what has the museum been doing to verify the story it wants everybody to accept about its whereabouts in the decades preceding its purchase in 1998? Mr Charly Mathez, who apparently has a memory like a sieve when asked for details about where he saw the mask in 1952 is not likely to provide more information, but what progress have SLAM made in tracking down the mysterious 'Kaloterna (Kaliterna?) collection in Croatia? Then the collector in Switzerland who gives a provenance of the "early sixties", but who turns out to be Suzanna Jelinek who it seems was the Aboutaam's landlady in Geneva. What has SLAM found out about her "collection" in the past few years since the fuss blew up about this item's route from Sakkara to St Louis?

"Pap Dodge" Looks Dodgier

Across the Wall?

Yet another 'collecting history' claimed by an American owner of a dugup antiquity proves to be - ahem - "problematic" (Owen Jarus, 'Gospel of Jesus's Wife': Doubts Raised About Ancient Text' Live Science April 22, 2014). This one has echoes of the Suzie Jelinek story of the St Louis Ka Nefer Nefer mummy mask. Readers will remember that the 'provenance' claimed by the current owner of a controversial papyrus was a document (contract) which stated that "it was purchased, along with five other Coptic papyrus fragments, from a man named Hans-Ulrich Laukamp in November 1999 and that Laukamp had obtained it in 1963 from Potsdam in then-East Germany". Oh, the "turned up in East Germany" card too. Like the "Leutwitz Apollo"? It turns out, here too, not to be too difficult to check, did the Harvard scholar try?

 In an effort to confirm the origins of the papyrus and discover its history, Live Science went searching for more information about Laukamp and his descendents, business partners or friends.  Our findings indicate that Laukamp was a co-owner of the now-defunct ACMB-American Corporation for Milling and Boreworks in Venice, Fla. Documents filed in Sarasota County, Fla., show that Laukamp was based in Germany at the time of his death in 2002 and that a man named René Ernest was named as the representative of his estate in Sarasota County. In an exchange of emails in German, Ernest said that Laukamp did not collect antiquities, did not own this papyrus and, in fact, was living in West Berlin in 1963, so he couldn't have crossed the Berlin Wall into Potsdam. Laukamp, he said, was a toolmaker and had no interest in old things. In fact, Ernest was astonished to hear that Laukamp's name had been linked to this papyrus. [...]  Ernest said, adding that, as far as he knows, Laukamp had no children and has no living relatives [...] Another acquaintance of Laukamp — Axel Herzsprung, who was also a co-owner of ACMB-American Corporation for Milling and Boreworks — told Live Science (in German in an email) that while Laukamp collected souvenirs on trips, he never heard of him having a papyrus. To his knowledge, Laukamp did not collect antiquities, Herzsprung said.

How convenient that Laukamp has no living relatives. Jarus then raises the question of the copy of a "typed and signed letter addressed to H. U. Laukamp" that dates to July 15, 1982, from Peter Munro, a now-deceased professor at the Freie University Berlin" which refers to "one of Mr. Laukamp's papyri" 

King wrote that the letter said that "a colleague, Professor Fecht, [had seen these papyri]  However, if Ernest and Herzsprung are correct, and Laukamp never collected antiquities, the question becomes: Why and how does this document exist? Munro died in 2009, and the "Professor Fecht" may be Gerhard Fecht, an Egyptology professor at the Freie University Berlin who passed away in 2006,

The collecting history relies on: Laukamp (died 2002 no heirs) being a collector, Munro (died 2009) not being around to ask about what he really knows about Fecht, who equally is not around because he died in 2006. Nothing can be verified, and the letter itself is only known as a 'copy' . "Pap Dodge" looks dodgier.

Friday Retrospect: Vandalism of Ka Nefer Nefer Mask - Who is Responsible and Why Did They do it?

In her discussion of the Ka Nefer Nefer case, K.M.Johnston ('Now You See It, Now You Don’t: A Hieratic Scrawl on the Ka Nefer Nefer Mask', Posted on August 7, 2012) discusses further "something that I’ve seen mentioned once in the literature, though I can’t remember where". I do not know whether she saw it discussed here, she's been a visitor to this site before, but here is a discussion of the significance of the damage to the object: PACHI Saturday, 26 March 2011: 'A Question for St Louis'; and this problem will not go away: PACHI Thursday, 12 April 2012 Scabby Hands at St Louis. That damage is very noticeable, yet there is nothing that suggests that SLAM questioned the seller about it either before the sale, nor after when they had the object, and most tellingly of all when they realised (only in 1999) that they'd bought an object from 1951-2 excavations in Sakkara published a few years later and shown in the publication with the inscription still intact.

That photo is quite significant, it was probably taken in 1956 and is credited to the Supreme Council of Antiquities, the significance of that is that the "collecting history" being propagated by SLAM has the object already in Brussels in 1952, so it cannot have been photographed (with the inscription intact) in Egypt in 1956. Unless it WAS in Egypt still in 1956, in the Sakkara storerooms. If there was any correspondence with the seller and previous owner (Zuzi Jelinek) or the SCA (to see if the negatives survive and there is any documentation of where and when those shots were taken), trying to get to the bottom of this discrepancy, it apparently has not survived in the archives of SLAM.

Egypt will not abandon its right to Ka-nefer-nefer mask

19th dynasty Book of Dead of Ani

Egyptian State Information Services, Saturday, 14 June 2014:
"Antiquities Minister says Egypt will not abandon its right to “Ka-nefer-nefer” mask":

Egypt lost the pharaonic “Ka-nefer-nefer” mask after the US appeals court refused the challenge submitted by the US federal government against St. Louis Art Museum because it failed to submit the documents which prove Egypt’s ownership of the mask. Accordingly, the court issued its decision that the mask inside the St. Louis Art Museum isn’t going anywhere.

Minister of Antiquities Mohamed Ibrahim said that he will resort to the private sector in the United States to practice pressures on St. Louis Art Museum according to the agreements signed in this regard. He stressed that Egypt will not abandon its right to “Ka-nefer-nefer” mask.

There are a number of opportunities, one of the best seems to be acting on potential SLAM donors, inviting to reconsider whether their money is best spent by going to a museum which through a lack of proper due diligence ends up buying an object that the museum insists was in two places at once, and which they only ended up hanging on to because the US government employed some lawyers who give the impression of being less than competent. The Egyptian government could also seek ways to sue the Trustees of SLAM in a civil case.

 Another option is asking in the framework of the existing MOU between Switzerland and Egypt for an investigation of the not-so-anonymous Swiss collector (Suzie Jelinek) who says she owned this mask before it went to the US. This may well produce some interesting results. In particular, it is an open question how she managed to find and get the object out out of Croatia, then behind the Iron Curtain. What other antiquities have passed through her hands and where did they come from?

Alternatively, SLAM, having made their point, could now make a magnanimous gesture towards the Egyptian people and give them back their stuff. Couldn't they? Maybe though before they do, they can give it a bit of much-needed conservation. And fill in the gaps in the documentation of its collecting history based on what we now know, and trying to follow up what we do not.

Vignette: Ammit, the Devourer of Souls awaits in the Hall of Two Truths the verdict of the Feather of Ma'at on the SLAM Trustees in the Afterlife. There is still time for them to reject their 'second truth'.

A Question for St Louis

.

The good people of St Louis have in their city a museum which has a mummy mask from a Ramesside burial at Sakkara, excavated in 1952. The Museum trustees insist the object came onto the market soon after excavation by entirely legitimate means. The Egyptian authorities however say this is not true and allege it came onto the market after a theft from a museum storeroom in the 1980s. So are the citizens of St Louis harbouring a stolen artwork?

There is a question that St Louis Art Museum has not yet answered, and I would like the people of St Louis to ask the Museum's trustees for an answer.At some stage in its collecting history the object has been tampered with and this has led to the concealment of a vital piece of information about its origins and associations.

When the mask was originally found, there was a hieratic inscription in black ink near the thumb on the left hand reading from right to left "Neferu". ie. The name of the owner. This is visible in old pictures of the mask but was apparently rubbed off when the object was sold onto the antiquities market. It is not visible in modern pictures (from K. M. Johnston's wiki page on the Ka Nefer Nefer burial).

Indeed it is not. The inscription could be transcribed into something that looked like this:
It reads "The Osiris, Neferu".

The erasure of this inscription raises an important question, when and by whom was this done and why?

Let us note that the assurance by the dealer who sold it to SLAM that the object was licitly obtained relies on a chain of ownership, each owner being assured that the object was legitimately on the market and passing that assurance on to the next owner.

Secondly most collectors would value an object with an inscription linking it to a particular person (and in this case, since it is published, a particular findspot) over an anonymous, generic, object. Quite apart from any ethical issues, removing the inscription reduces the value of the mask as a collectable, removes a part of the "story" it can tell.

These are two good reasons why a collector who believed the object was legitimately obtained would not remove the inscription naming the person it represents.

There is however a very good reason for removing the inscription. If the object was stolen and somebody was intending to sell it, it would have been rather awkward if the potential buyer did a search for the name in a resource like Porter-Moss and found the Goneim Sakkara "Neferu" mask in the literature and started asking questions. Removing the name makes it more difficult for the average buyer to make the connection (SLAM obviously did not). It reduces the risk that the object will be immediately identified as of illicit origins.

Removing the name makes sense ONLY if the person selling this object knows it has been illicitly-obtained.

So now we have a plausible reason "why", we may ask when and by whom was this done?

- By the dealer in an unnamed Brussels gallery where, according to the Phoenix-SLAM version of the collecting history, it was seen by a Swiss man (Charly Mathez) in the 1950s?

- In the collection of one "Kaloterna" (Kaliterna?) family, according to the Phoenix-SLAM version of the collecting history, until the early 1960s.

- In the early 1960s, according to the Phoenix-SLAM version of the collecting history, when it was bought by a Swiss collector named "Zuzi Jelinek"?

- Four decades later, when it came into the possession of the dealers Phoenix Ancient Art in 1997?

- When the St Louis Art Museum bought it in 1998?

Let the Trustees of St Louis Art Museum answer the question, how would the fact that any of these people would have altered the object in this manner square with their story that the object was checked out by SLAM staff and they found no evidence that the object was not of licit provenance? Is not the erasure of this inscription evidence in itself that somewhere along the line one of the sellers was trying to hide something? Doing proper due diligence before purchase surely would entail finding out what that was, and if that was impossible, walking away from the deal. What is the preferred explanation of the Trustees of St Louis Art Museum for the removal of the inscription, and will we or the people of St Louis ever hear it? Maybe somebody there can ask them outright.

Ka Nefer Nefer on PACHI

The PACHI 'honk if you hate heritage thieves' bumper sticker

I must admit I thought right would prevail in the Ka Nefer Nefer case, despite the Museum's resistance, and I gave it quite a lot of coverage on this blog. Intellectual curiosity alone (strangely not shared by the museum that stands by its collecting history for it) would demand getting to the bottom of some of the issues that narrative raises. So I had a bash at that, and came up against more than a few discrepancies which have yet to be explained. The starting point of my exploration was the Feb 15, 2006 article "Out of Egypt: From a long-buried pyramid to the Saint Louis Art Museum: The mysterious voyage of the Ka-Nefer-Nefer mask" by Malcolm Gay in the Riverfront Times. This was an excellent piece of investigative writing such as is seldom found in coverage of antiquity collecting. The alarm however had initially been raised by Michel van Rijn and Ton Cremers. Not covered here are some posts detailing similarities between this case and the "Cleveland Apollo", nor the issues of repatriation and museum issues generally, in which the Ka Nefer Nefer mask is mentioned.

2008-10 (mostly related to Benjamin's appointment to the CPAC and collectors' reactions to that):

Sunday, 12 October 2008, 'The President's CPAT Appointment'
Tuesday, 14 October 2008, 'Tompa and Welsh on St Louis Mask'
Wednesday, 15 October 2008, 'Ka Nefer Nefer mummy mask recap'
Monday, 8 December 2008, 'Salt on St Louis'
Monday, 19 January 2009, 'Hawass Biding Time?'.
Friday, 23 April 2010, 'New Move in St Louis Mask Case?'.

2011:

Wednesday, 16 February 2011, 'Slam the SLAM for their position on Egyptian Looting'.
Thursday, 17 February 2011, 'The St Louis Affair: Two Local Responses'.
Saturay, 26 March 2011, 'A Question for St Louis'. Never answered.
Friday, 1 April 2011, 'A Warning From Beyond the Grave for Looters' (perhaps not wholly true).
Friday, 15 April 2011, 'The theft of the golden mask'.
Sunday, 17 April 2011, "My ancient lineages". Oh boy...
Tuesday, 3 May 2011, 'Hawass: Ka Nefer Nefer mummy Mask Returns Next Week'/ Tuesday, 10 May 2011, 'Hawass: Ka Nefer Nefer mummy Mask Returns Next Week'. Bluster/mistranslation.
Monday, 1 August 2011, 'The Kaloterna (sic) and Jelinek Antiquity Collections in Croatia'.
Monday, 1 August 2011, 'St Louis Art Museum Mummy Mask: "Like Cocaine"...'.
Tuesday, 2 August 2011, 'The Status of Egyptian Antiquities "Floating Around the USA"?'
Sunday, 20 November 2011, 'Rich US Collector Pair Patronise Loot-Retaining Missouri Museum'.

2012:

Friday, 30 March 2012, 'The Curse of Ka Nefer Nefer and "Collectors' Rights"...'.
Monday, 2 April 2012, 'Forfeiture Claim on Ka Nefer Nefer Mask Dismissed' [District Court Judge Henry Autry]
Monday, 2 April 2012, 'Cremers on SLAM'.
Monday, 2 April 2012, "Repose for the Mummy"?
Saturday, 7 April 2012, 'SLAM: The Game is (Hopefully) on Again'
Saturday, 7 April 2012. 'St Louis Art Museum "Looking After" Ka Nefer Nefer?'.
Tuesday, 10 April 2012, 'What do they Know in St Louis?'.
Thursday, 12 April 2012, 'Scabby Hands at St Louis'.
Saturday, 7 April 2012, 'Focus on the Ka Nefer Nefer "Collection History" (1) ("Here Zakki, you can have this, old chap")'
Tuesday, 10 April 2012, 'Ka Nefer Nefer and the SLAM-Promoted Collecting History (II) The Mysterious Mr Mathez'. Some interesting new facts here.
Wednesday, 11 April 2012, 'Ka Nefer Nefer and the SLAM-Promoted Collecting history (III) The Kaloterna Collection'. One of the most mysterious of collectors - behind the Iron Curtain.
Thursday, 12 April 2012, 'SLAM's Collecting History of the Ka Nefer Nefer Mask (IV): The Little House on Quai de Cologny'. Another puzzling/improbable collector. SLAM swallowed it.
Friday, 13 April 2012, 'Ka Nefer Nefer Collecting History (V): Meanwhile...'.
Saturday, 14 April 2012, 'Mr Aboutaam Buys, and Sells, a Mummy Mask Collecting History (VI)'.
Thursday, 12 April 2012, 'Did They Know Where their Money was Going?'. 
Wednesday, 9 May 2012, 'US Government Insists on Being Heard over SLAM Ka Nefer Nefer Mask'.
Tuesday, 15 May 2012, 'Ka Nefer Nefer: Right and Wrong in St Louis'
Tuesday, 15 May 2012, 'Ka Nefer Nefer: Swiss Investigations?'
Saturday, 19 May 2012,'Ka Nefer Nefer: The Gloves Could be About to Come Off'. 
Wednesday, 30 May 2012, 'The SLAM and its Ethics'.
Thursday, 31 May 2012, 'What do You Think About St Louis Art Museum' Stance Over Ka Nefer Nefer Mask?'
Monday, 4 June 2012, 'US Government Case SLAMMED'.
Wednesday, 13 June 2012, 'Parties Knew of or Were Wilfully Blind to Problems in Ka Nefer Nefer Provenance'. 
Wednesday, 24 October 2012, 'SLAM Belatedly Decides to do the Decent Thing?'. Naaaahhh... .

2013: 

Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 'Upcoming Discussion of Ka Nefer Nefer Settlement Terms'.
Wednesday, 17 April 2013, 'Ka Nefer Nefer "Negotiations" Fail'.
Monday, 3 June 2013, 'Unanswered Questions about Ka Nefer Nefer mask'.
Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 'SLAM Still Trying to Hang on to Ka Nefer Nefer'.
Tuesday, 6 August 201, 'Latest on US Ka Nefer Nefer Fiasco'.
Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 'SLAM and Article 7'.
Monday, 12 August 2013, 'SLAM and the Parallel Universe: Gullible, Plausible or Culpable?'

2014:

Monday, 13 January 2014, 'Oral Arguments Scheduled in Ka Nefer Nefer Mummy Mask Appeal'.
Thursday, 12 June 2014, 'Two takes on the Ka Nefer Nefer Forfeiture Finale'.
Thursday, 12 June 2014, 'US Museum Keeps Mask that They Insist Was in Two Places at Once'.
Friday, 13 June 2014, 'Once Again: "Brent Benjamin for CPAC"?

To be continued.... until they send it back.