Macedonian police hold 17 over antiquities looting

A statement by the Macedonian police reports that they have carried out raids across the country and arrested 17 people, including two state museum employees, for alleged involvement in an antiquities looting gang (Associated Press, 'Macedonian police hold 17 over antiquities looting', May 1, 2013). A number of archaeological artefacts were confiscated, including pottery, a clay female figurine and 121 coins. Fourteen church icons were also seized.

The arrests and seizures took place late Tuesday after raids on 23 homes and business premises in the capital Skopje and four other cities. The suspects include a police officer. Authorities are also seeking two Serbian nationals suspected of involvement in the ring that allegedly sought to sell the antiquities abroad.

Egypt Reportedly Challenges Bonhams with Allegations of "200 Stolen Antiquities"

An odd article from Al Ahram Online makes a sweeping allegation. According to the text, Egypt has informed the International Criminal Police Organisation Interpol of allegedly stolen artefacts on sale at London's Bonhams auction house on May 1st. A collection of more than 200 of them, it says.

 It claims that "the Repatriation of Antiquities Department (RAD) at Egypt's Ministry of State for Antiquities (MSA) is following the issue with the Interpol officials", and that "Interpol is in contact with relevant authorities in the United Kingdom (UK)". The Egyptian Ambassador to London Ahraf Alkhouly has complained and asked Bonhams to put on hold the Egyptian artefacts auction ("Alkhouly added that he is still waiting for the RAD of the MSA to send him the documents which claim the items on sale were stolen"). Bonhams rejects the accusations. According to Al Ahram:

The objects include an Egyptian polychrome painted wood sarcophagus fragment (664-30 BC); a limestone fragmentary royal stele for King Merenptah (19th Dynasty, 1212-1201 BC); a bronze cat (600 BC) and a bronze seated figure of Neith (Late Period, 664-332 BC).

The Merenptah stela is easy to identify as lot 279 ("Provenance: D. Barr Collection, New York. Acquired in 1978-9 from Nicolas Landau (1887-1979), Paris"). The catalogue notes that it has been suggested that from the quality of the carving, "this stele is probably from the funerary temple itself or possibly from Karnak Temple on the east bank"). In which case one might ask how and when it left the ground (or lapidarium?) and exited Egypt. I'd say it is perfectly justified for a seller to have to address this issue. The item had a reserve of £40,000 - 60,000/ US$ 62,000 - 93,000/ €47,000 - 71,000 and failed to sell (was it withdrawn?).

There are several "bronze cats" on sale. One of them is the Lot 315 "An Egyptian bronze cat Late Period, circa 600 B.C."   26.5cm high excluding tang, mounted Estimate: £30-50,000/ US$ 46-77,000/ €36-59,000). The provenance is interesting: "Swedish private collection of Lars von Celsing (1916-2009), acquired in Cairo in 1972, whilst ambassador to Egypt". Presumably left Egypt in a diplomatic bag, was it given to him as a diplomatic gift or did he purchase it in some souk? Is this the one the Egyptians want back? (note the date). There is another: "lot 329 An Egyptian bronze cat Late Period, circa 664-332 B.C."  17.7cm  high excluding the tenons Estimate: £15-20,000/ US$ 23-31,000 /€18-24,000. "Provenance: Acquired in Vienna in 1984. Steyskal Paur Collection, Austria, before 1983". I will admit that this one, despite its scabby corrosion is attractive, the raised left paw is a nice touch. It did not sell.

Then there is Lot 330 "An Egyptian bronze seated figure of Neith Late Period, circa 664-332 B.C.",   10cm high, estimate: £6-8,000/ US$ 9,300 - 12,000 €7,100 - 9,500 "Provenance: Peeters Family Collection, Belgium, formed between 1958-1976".

There are several sarcophagus fragments,  Lot 283 (TIP 1069-702 B.C.) for example. My guess is what is mentioned is lot 334
Three Egyptian wood polychrome sarcophagus panels Late Period, circa 664-332 B.C. The polychrome painted gesso on wood depicting on panel (a) a ba-bird surmounted by a sun-disc and atef feathers, panel (b) depicting two priests carrying ankhs in front of Imsety and Duamutef, panel (c) depiciting Osiris in typical mummiform, his name above, surmounted by a winged sun-disc with uraeus, composed of five fragments, each panel approx 18¼in (46.5cm) long, mounted in a wood and perspex case Estimate: £6,000 - 8,000 US$ 9,300 - 12,000 €7,100 - 9,500 Footnotes Provenance: Swiss private collection, acquired from Schuler Auction, Zurich in the mid-2000s. Swiss private collection formed in the 1970s.  
I suspect that there is more behind this challenge than the apparently euphemistic "Swiss private collection" There are at least four such items in this sale:
lot 286: An Egyptian alabaster lidded kohl jar, Middle Kingdom.
lot 313: An Egyptian bronze statue of Neith, Late Period.
lot 334: Three Egyptian wood polychrome sarcophagus panels, Late period.  
lot 354: An Egyptian wood mummy mask, Late Period.
(Notably, that "late period" is dated two different ways)

We are asked to believe that all four passed from the same "Swiss collection" through a Swiss auction house without being split up, and to another (?) "Swiss collector" who now about a decade later has decided to sell all four. What lies behind this?

There are some other stated collections which have some interesting disposal histories in this auction.  It is rather odd to see here eight isolated items (for example the rather nice lot 296) from this collection: "UK private collection. Formed by Sgt William Ellott (d.1915) of 1st Battalion Scots Guards, and J.G. Judd, (b.1923), collecting in the 1940s", since the bulk (?) of that collection figures in an upcoming auction by Bonhams later on this month (May 8th sale lot 282 to 291). These are also popping up on ebay too (seller andy_sayer1).

Then there is the mysterious fate of something called "German private collection, the Ruhr". This is an odd one. To look just at those being sold at the beginning of May we have an interesting situation:
Bonhams May 1st Lot 257:  Byzantine reliquary, "German private collection, the Ruhr, acquired in the 1970s. Edward J. Smith Collection, Weehawken, New Jersey, USA, prior to the 1970s".
Bonhams May 1st Lot 262: Predynastic green schist palette, "German private collection, the Ruhr, acquired in the 1970s. Edward J. Smith Collection, Weehawken, New Jersey, USA, prior to the 1970s."
Bonhams May 1st Lot 281: turquoise glazed composition shabti  "German private collection, the Ruhr, acquired in the 1970s. Edward J. Smith Collection, Weehawken, New Jersey, USA, prior to the 1970s".
Bonhams May 1st Lot 111: Roman bronze horse, "German private collection, the Ruhr, acquired in the 1970s. Edward J. Smith Collection, Weehawken, New Jersey, USA, prior to the 1970s".


Bonhams May 1st Lot 271:  figure of Montu, "German private collection, the Ruhr. With Nicholas Wright, London, circa 1980.". Is this the same German collection from the same region, but sold to a different dealer and now appearing on the market coincidentally at the same time as the others?

But then what about the next two?
Bonhams May 1st Lot  142: Bactrian banded alabaster bowl, "German private collection, the Ruhr. With Gawain McKinley, London, prior to 1980".
Bonhams May 1st Lot 140: Mesopotamian shell leopard amulet "German private collection, the Ruhr, acquired in the 1970s. With Gawain McKinley, London, prior to 1980".

Then we have some more in the upcoming May 8th sale:
Lot 245,  Roman carnelian intaglio of Athena "German private collection, the Ruhr, acquired in the 1970s. Edward J. Smith Collection, Weehawken, New Jersey, USA, prior to the 1970s".
Lot 251:  Byzantine carnelian intaglio "German private collection, the Ruhr, acquired in the 1970s. Edward J. Smith Collection, Weehawken, New Jersey, USA, prior to the 1970s".
but then:
Lot 330 :  Egyptian green glazed composition amulet of a ram, "German private collection, the Ruhr. J.N. Claesen Collection, Holland, formed prior to 1975".
Lot 332,  Egyptian green glazed amulet of a hedgehog Saite Period, 26th Dynasty "German private collection, the Ruhr. J.N. Claesen Collection, Holland, formed prior to 1975".
 
So what is going on here, one or four separate "German private collections", all from "the Ruhr" ad all being split up this year?

What is behind the Egyptian newspaper article's accusation of "200 stolen objects"? Beaurocratic overreach/overenthusiasm, or a genuine complaint? Or is it just journalistic hyperbole or mistranslation? Why are the identified objects picked out, and why did none of them sell?

Actually many of the objects auctioned off by Bonhams on May 1st failed to sell. I'd like to think it was due to doubts over the still rather too vague collecting history-substitute texts (all called "footnotes" by Bonhams.

Anon: Egypt challenges a UK auctioneer over 200 'stolen' antiquities Ahram Online, London , Wednesday 1 May 2013

Bonham's Egyptian Sawnoffs

An Egyptian polychrome painted wood sarcophagus
fragment Late Period, circa 664-30 B.C. (al-Ahram after Bonham's catalogue)

The Egyptian artefacts in the mayday London antiquities sale aroused some controversy (see the post above this). There is another aspect here, the presentation of portableised fragments as a whole. So we have bits of a wall, rectangular piece of stone (with eroded edges) framing three heads in a pleasing manner - lot 277, 52 cm long, mounted (Estimate: £10-15,000/ US$ 15-23,000 /€12-18,000) "Egyptian sandstone relief fragment Karnak, Amarna Period Provenance:  "North American private collection, 1970s". Leaving aside the question of how and when it left the site and Egypt, its value is purely decorative (and I suggest only that if lit as in the photo) and of course as a trophy.

But then we have other oddities. Like lot 283 "An Egyptian polychrome painted wood coffin fragment Third Intermediate Period, circa 1069-702 B.C."  sold for £2,500 inc. premium ("Provenance: German private collection, the Ruhr. C. Tautenhahn Collection, Houston, Texas, USA, formed prior to 1980"). This item is marginally attractive because of the oval shape of the wood fragment (natural or helped by a dealer? We are not shown the back or the edges in the catalogue) which frames the representation of a man's arms outstretched, offering a container with unguent and the remains of three columns of text. Now the hieroglyphics are pretty roughly done, the object as a whole was probably not of high quality, and a cynic might wonder whether broken into smaller pieces it was not only more easily smuggled (whenever it was taken out of Egypt) but also more saleable.

Another chunk is lot 350 , an "Egyptian polychrome painted wood sarcophagus fragment Late Period, circa 664-30 B.C."

 Depicting five squatting oarsmen on a boat with a shallow hull, the bow and the stern decorated with two finials in the shape of a lotus flower, the steering oar in the shape of a falcon head, an umber lattice pattern on the upper register, 18in (46cm) long Estimate: £1,500 - 2,000 US$ 2,300 - 3,100 €1,800 - 2,400 Footnotes Provenance: Dutch private collection, acquired in the 1960s. 

Not mentioned are the vertical straight edges which frame the picture. While - to judge from the peg holes -  the one on the right might be original (we are not shown the sides or end of the fragment), my bet is that the one on the left is modern and connected with making a dug-up plank into a portable "art object" for selling to a Dutchman who does not mind a bit of destruction involved in the production of the pretty trophy geegaws he wants to buy. 

Another example of the dismantling of an object to make it more portable and saleable is the so-called "Egyptian wood mummy mask Late Period, circa 664-332 B.C." - Lot 354. Of course this is not a mummy mask at all, but the face block of a wooden coffin. If we could see the back, we'd see the holes by which it was pegged to the boards. This object has lost most of its gesso (it is possibly from a damp tomb, for example in the delta region?) and probably when found by whoever found it consisted of boards pegged together with mud plaster packing. Not very nice for collectors and jolly difficult to transport anyway. The solution adopted was that which produced many so-called "wooden mummy masks" on the current market - a crowbar or adze/digging hoe could easily separate the face-block from the coffin boards which would then be discarded. The face has rather raw features, would look nice tastefully lit. This one had an estimate of £2-3,000/ US$ 3,100 - 4,600 €2,400 - 3,600. the provenance was "Swiss private collection, acquired from Schuler Auction, Zurich in the mid 2000s. Swiss private collection formed in the 1970s" (uh-oh).
 

Lot 335 is a cracker. Note the way that the catalogue photo crops the image just inside the actual ends of the fragment, presumably to hide the rather embarrassingly straight edges. This object has been sawn into pieces- and Bonhams only got one part, this one a suitcase-size bit at 58,5cm long, of the "Egyptian polychrome painted wood sarcophagus fragment for Iah-ir-dis Late Dynastic Period, 26th Dynasty, circa 664-525 B.C."

Composed of the leg area of a coffin with profile figures of the four Sons of Horus in a column on either side, the columns of text with funerary offerings specified as 'incense, clothing, unguent, water, (food)-offerings, a goodly burial, and all good things' for the deceased an untitled man called Iah-ir-dis, son of a man called Pen-maiw, and born to a 'Lady of the House called Senbes', with offerings asked of Osiris and a goddess who is 'Great and Divine Mother', probably Isis, 23in (58.5cm) long [...]  Provenance: Acquired by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art on 03 December 1980. Gift of Mr and Mrs Ronald Berger. 

But they obviously got rid of this destructively-commercialised antiquitist embarrassment, nevertheless it sold for £1,875 inc. premium

Egypt challenges a UK auctioneer over 200 'stolen' antiquities Ahram Online, London , Wednesday 1 May 2013

Antike Münzen...

Antike Münzen können archäologische Gegenstände sein. 

That is if they are treated properly and not hoiked out and flogged off to greedy dealers like potatoes. Talking of which, see the treatment of this old (11. Dezember 2012) judgement by the Munich Bundesfinanzhof at the hands of  Dealer Dave and lobbyist Peter Tompa.  Dave is besides himself with excitement:

This decision determines that the ancient coin trade is no longer obligated to apply for export permits in order to export ancient coins from Germany.

Not that I expect there was a lot of that going on anyway ("contents: metal stampings").

The case, as Wayne Sayles ("German Supreme Court ruling favorable to Ancient Coin Collectors") explains, involves  a German auctioneer, Stefan Sonntag, who:

"on October 31, 2008 presented an export declaration for 32 coins and medals to the Port Customs Office of the Main Customs Office.  The objects were declared to be between 1,500 to 2,400 years old.  The Main Customs Office rejected the export declaration and demanded an Export Permit, citing EEC law involving export of cultural property. 

As St Hilaire notes, the important detail of where they were from and exactly what types of items they were are not described in the subsequent proceedings. The whole matter then went through the courts and ultimately Sonntag - in order to avoid applying for an export licence for these items to pass on to his clients - ended up appealing the case to the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) in Munich.  It is with the final ruling of this body on March 1, 2013 which the coineys are so pleased. The court indicated that the contested Customs interpretation, that EU law requires the artefacts to have an export licence 

"...would incompatibly bring the coin trade with third party customers to a standstill when it comes to free movement of goods."

Like it does in the UK, where all dugup artefacts over 50 years old require one? So Germany cannot cope with doing what the UK does?

The Bundesfinanzhof apparently is ruling on what an archaeological object is and determined that the Customs and Fiscal Court interpretations were "based on an incorrect notion of 'archaeological object' or 'archaeological discovery'."  It really beggars belief that German antiquities law does not have at its basis a proper and archaeologically-compliant definition of what an archaeological artefact is, but such is the situation (in fact English law is totally lacking in any such definition also). One wonders just where German archaeologists have been all through the last two centuries of German legislation and whether they intend doing anything to rectify this situation, as the moment developers latch onto this one, there may be additional difficulties (forgive me for not outlining them). This is just another area where the commercialisation of dugup artefacts by those who cannot be bothered to do any decent paperwork is doing a huge amount of damage.  The Bundesfinanzhof's definition runs like this: 

Archaeological objects as defined in EC legislation on the export of cultural goods (Regulation No. 116/2009) are only those that have a value for archaeology, that is man-made or worked on objects, able to convey the findings of past cultures, especially about about their customs, the then technical and artistic development, political and social structures, religion and the like. Items that illustrate lessons learned elsewhere about past cultures and therefore possibly for archaeology have no meaning, and are not "archaeological objects" or finds.

But this is nonsense from several points of view, just to take the case in hand every coiney will tell you that by the(ir) "study" of loose decontextualised coins they can tell you about all these things. So why then according to the definition of the Federal Fiscal Court are coins not archaeological artefacts? But then the next sentence is that they are: Antike Münzen können archäologische Gegenstände sein. The court wrote:

The archaeological interest in an object is to be evaluated in this context by the Principal Customs Office or the judge according to the circumstances of the individual case, taking as key criteria, in particular, how the object in question is valued in the market and whether the same or similar objects to a greater extent involving the trade are ones in which archaeological institutions and collections are not involved, but where collectors are involved who are not interested in such coins as an "archaeological" interest but out of a passion for collecting, because of the aesthetic value of the objects or other interests.

The court therefore defines archaeological value as equivalent to financial value (it is interesting to note that Sayles edits out of his quotation of this passage - page 8) apparently deliberately. Quite rightly so, this is total and utter nonsense as the Financial Court would have found out if they had called expert witnesses apart from the Badische Landesmuseum staff (who said that? Can we have the responsible official's name please?). Sayles comments:

Of considerable interest to American collectors and dealers was the court's comments about what does constitute an archaeological object.  "The Plaintiff rightly asserts that coins coming from Antiquity generally have no archeological value and thus are not archaeological objects, especially when they are available in large numbers and they - which the Badische Landesmuseum [State Museum] also mentions in its opinion referred to by the Main Customs Office in the hearing - can no longer be assigned to a specific place of discovery. 

In fact it is of so much interest to the importing coineys, anxious to avoid going through the export licencing procedure, that somebody has had a certified translation of the court ruling prepared (dated 23rd march 2013 in a New York notary's office) and made available on the Sayles website: http://wgs.cc/German_Court_Ruling.pdf. Yes, if you rip coins out of a context and sell them off in bulk and mixed mass like so manyt potatoes, their archaeological value is reduced (though is it totally gone?). That is the point preservationists are making about the no-questions-asked trade in such items.

Another coiney, Dr. Hubert Lanz, president of the Federation of European Numismatic Trade Associations was very concerned that Rick St Hilaire should see an "English version of the court decision", on the basis of which he wrote another account ('German High Court Rules No Export Permit Required in Case Where No Evidence Offered That Ancient Coins & Medals Were Regulated Archaeological Goods', Wednesday, May 1, 2013 ). This notes that the full text of the decision may be found at docket VII R 33 34/11 and adds the important detail missing from the accounts of Sayles, Tompa and Welsh:

The court's web site explains that the "Federal Fiscal Court only adjudicates on the correct application of law in concrete individual cases. Although its decisions can only bind the respective parties, they are still authoritative for the taxation of other tax paying citizens where the same facts of case apply." 

Certainly it has no effect on US law, or that of Cyprus, Italy, Greece, China or Egypt or any other country a US dealer would like to import mass quantities of dugup artefacts from. 

As St Hilaire explains, and the coineys skip over, Normally European Commission Council Regulation EC No 3911/92 (presently  No 116/2009) require dugup artefacts to have an export permit because they are among the categories of protected cultural goods. There is an exception to this requirement in the EC regulations where goods "are of limited archaeological or scientific interest, and provided that they are not the direct product of excavations, finds or archaeological sites within a Member State, and that their presence on the market is lawful." The whole case hinges on whether these 32 coins fell into that category, the customs office said they did not, the seller says they did, and provided his reasons for saying so.  plaintiff disagreed with the customs office decision and took legal action.  What also
Sayles, Tompa and Welsh skip over is  the bit in Regulation No 116/2009 noted by St Hilaire:  

The export licence may be refused, for the purposes of this Regulation, where the cultural goods in question are covered by legislation protecting national treasures of artistic, historical or archaeological value in the Member State concerned. 

[D]irect export from the customs territory of the Community of national treasures having artistic, historic or archaeological value which are not cultural goods within the meaning of this Regulation is subject to the national law of the Member State of export.

Likewise something travelling under an export declaration which fall into this category are also liable to seizure - in fact more so, possession of a valid export licence is protection against that.

Looting at Abu Sir Al Malaq

Blogger Zeinobia ('Save our History : Abu Sir Al Malaq', 27th April 2013) alerts us to another looting scandal in Egypt. There is another huge archaeological disaster occurring at the site of Abu Sir Al Malaq in the lower Nile valley, just below the Fayoum. The site has pre-dynastic remains and tombs from the 17th dynasty up to the Coptic era, and is currently being looted for saleable artefacts. She posts a link to this upsetting video featuring Monica Hana:  

posted by elbadiltv·

As can be seen here, sarcophagi are being smashed up (too big to smuggle out of the country onto the willing market), mummies are torn up and left in the sun.

There is no security what so ever in the site and sadly enough the locals after the revolution come at night and dig [...] In a country like Egypt , in these rural areas the unofficial digging in areas can not happen without being noticed by the officials in the city mainly the police [who are] not trying to [make] any effort to do its duty. The digging was systematic and not amateurish thing in some areas in the site. Egyptologist Monica Hana spoke in this video about what happened to the site. She believes that there are organized gangs involved in the digging and raiding of the tombs.

Abusir al_Malaq (arrow), El-Hibeh is the pink square below

It is notable that the site at El-Hibeh, where something very similar was happening in plain sight is just 50 km to the south. Equally Dashur, the subject of international concern not only because of apparent ongoing looting, but also uncontrolled encroachment of modern buildings into the archaeological conservation zone  lies 64 km to the north. All this looting is going on in a zone that could be patrolled by a single police car in a single day. If there was the will to do it.

So, I expect we will now be hearing from the collectors (who say they have the "rights" to collect and preserve the world archaeological heritage if they want to) that since the brown-skinned people and 'corrupt local authorities' are not going to protect the sites from the looters, then it is theirs by rights. By buying the little bits the looters are searching out by smashing into tombs and smashing up the tomb equipment and desecrating the human remains, they claim they are "protecting them"  (the little looted objects). I would say the fact that people with no scruples and self-serving (pseudo) arguments will willingly buy things like this without even batting an eyelid let alone asking any searching questions is the main reason why these people are digging into these sites, smashing what they cannot sell. If world opinion turns against these unscrupulous collectors and dealers, shames them into changing their ways, the looters lose their customers.  But then, how much shame do these collectors have anyway?  Enough to make them start asking their suppliers for some frank answers to some pretty straightforward questions? Enough shame to clean up this dirty and destructive market?

Have a look on any antiquities site, have a look on some of the internet auction venues. Where are all those little artefacts coming from? Where have all the little artefacts taken from sites like El-Hibeh and Abu Sir Al-Malaq gone? What actually are the reasons for assuming that the one question does not answer the other? Ockham's razor is poised above the "it's from an old collection, but I cannot document that" argument, surely.

Let's STOP this now.

Farmer Brown Seems Unaware of PAS "Outreach"

I can only assume that a recent tweet from Daniel Pett ‏@portableant can only be seen in relation to Heritage Action's latest from their guest writer for farming matters, Farmer Brown. ("Farmer Brown on why Somerset landowners should beware of history locusts!"). The Portable Antiquities Scheme's Mr Pett complains (29th April):

Not many people in archaeology seem aware of @findsorguk guidance for landowners http://finds.org.uk/getinvolved/guides/guidancelandowners … issued in 2010

But then the 15 million quid question is whether more than a handful of landowners are aware of the PAS "Guidance for landowners, occupiers and tenant farmers in England and Wales"? What kind of "outreach" is it if they are not?

 But then, what kind of archaeological outreach is it providing anyway? I am sure it is very helpful to cap-in-hand "partner" artefact collectors to have a document setting out the alleged "benefits" to them of letting artefact hoikers onto their land, where is the corresponding section out lining the archaeological issues of doing so? Complete;ly absent, that's where it is. With whom (apart from the NCMD on a number of occasions) was this consulted?

Trouble in store: the crisis facing UK archaeological archives

There is an interesting account by Heritage Action of the RESCUE meeting:

 ‘Trouble in store: the crisis facing archaeological archives‘. 

The bald facts are that many museums simply cannot keep pace with the scale of developer-led archaeology and, largely due to swingeing government cuts simply do not have the resources to deal with the finds and documentation archives created by development such as those from  Kingsmead Quarry, visited earlier in the day. The point was made that although publication and deposition of findings is often a legal requirement attached to many developments, there is no associated legal requirement for local authorities a) to provide museum facilities or b) to provide deposition facilities, which creates a very large problem.

Which is I suppose one argument for letting collectors walk off with lots of archaeological material. There is obviously much work to be done to try to resolve some of these issues, but with very few easy answers forthcoming.