Museum works to repatriate artifacts looted from West Africa

[robinjojo]

I saw this interesting segment two days ago on the PBS News Hour.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/museum-works-to-repatriate-artifacts-looted-from-west-africa

 

[DonnaML]

To me, the massive looting by British troops in Benin is a much clearer case for repatriation than the many cases of materials found in excavations conducted with the permission of the local authority, or otherwise taken with the permission of the local authority, whether that authority was the Ottoman Empire or some other entity, "colonial" in nature or otherwise. With the caveat that, as I've mentioned before, I believe that vandalized portions of a still-existing structure, such as the Parthenon, should be returned regardless of the local authorities' contemporaneous approval. Especially when, as in that case, there's no longer any question about whether they would be properly cared for after being returned.  Just as I would call for the return of the Statue of Liberty's head and/or torch if they had been removed and taken to Europe under similar circumstances.

 

Edited December 9, 2022 by DonnaML

[kirispupis]

While I agree that these items were definitely looted and the right thing to do is return them, I do wonder whether we're heading down a slippery slope.

Presumably, many of these items have changed hands since they were looted. What if someone had spent tens of thousands to procure one? He obviously didn't do the looting and was likely unaware of that history. Was it his fault for not doing the research? What if he didn't even know it was among the artifacts considered looted because its provenance wasn't disclosed?

In the case of museums, I think in many cases they can take the hit of returning the artifacts. Many of the pieces have likely been in their collections for some time. Where I worry is when this comes to private individuals.

[DonnaML]

These were voluntarily returned. A lawsuit would be required to try to force your hypothetical private good faith purchaser, who bought such an artifact after many intermediate sales and had made the necessary inquiries/investigations to qualify as having made the purchase in "good faith," to relinquish it. (Subjective lack of knowledge doesn't get someone off the hook without a reasonable investigation, as when a buyer just closes their eyes to suspicious facts so they can just say "I didn't know"!) Whereas the threat of public opprobrium may deter museums (especially those associated with universities like Penn) from fighting a return by forcing a lawsuit, especially when (as here) there's evidence of original theft, such a private purchaser presumably wouldn't be deterred by public criticism if they had spent a great deal of money. (On the other hand, there might not be a valid legal defense to raise, regardless of good faith, depending on which country's law were applied.)

By contrast, Shelby White, from whom millions of dollars of artifacts were recently seized by the Manhattan DA's office, was, together with her late husband Leon Levy, the original purchaser of those artifacts years ago, some from dealers with shady reputations, and apparently made the purchases without any documented provenance or making any investigations. Which buyers had better make sure they do before spending huge sums on ancient artifacts. Or even coins: I note that the Diocletian gold denio (10 aurei) medallion from the Aquilea mint, up for auction as Lot 830 in next months's CNG Triton XXVI auction, for an estimate of $500,000, has a page-long catalogue description without a single mention of the coin's provenance. Even if I were a billionaire, I wouldn't bid on it without information on when and under what circumstances it was discovered and exported to the USA.

Edited December 9, 2022 by DonnaML

[kirispupis]

@DonnaMLthanks for the clarification on this, since I know you have a legal background and are therefore providing more context than the rest of us could provide.

Edited December 10, 2022 by kirispupis

[CPK]

5 hours ago, DonnaML said:

These were voluntarily returned. A lawsuit would be required to try to force your hypothetical private good faith purchaser, who bought such an artifact after many intermediate sales and had made the necessary inquiries/investigations to qualify as having made the purchase in "good faith," to relinquish it. (Subjective lack of knowledge doesn't get someone off the hook without a reasonable investigation, as when a buyer just closes their eyes to suspicious facts so they can just say "I didn't know"!) Whereas the threat of public opprobrium may deter museums (especially those associated with universities like Penn) from fighting a return by forcing a lawsuit, especially when (as here) there's evidence of original theft, such a private purchaser presumably wouldn't be deterred by public criticism if they had spent a great deal of money. (On the other hand, there might not be a valid legal defense to raise, regardless of good faith, depending on which country's law were applied.)

By contrast, Shelby White, from whom millions of dollars of artifacts were recently seized by the Manhattan DA's office, was, together with her late husband Leon Levy, the original purchaser of those artifacts years ago, some from dealers with shady reputations, and apparently made the purchases without any documented provenance or making any investigations. Which buyers had better make sure they do before spending huge sums on ancient artifacts. Or even coins: I note that the Diocletian gold denio (10 aurei) medallion from the Aquilea mint, up for auction as Lot 830 in next months's CNG Triton XXVI auction, for an estimate of $500,000, has a page-long catalogue description without a single mention of the coin's provenance. Even if I were a billionaire, I wouldn't bid on it without information on when and under what circumstances it was discovered and exported to the USA.

That is strange that such an expensive and rare coin would not have a known and published provenance.

[FrizzyAntoine]

3 hours ago, CPK said:

That is strange that such an expensive and rare coin would not have a known and published provenance.

Hardly strange, if anything the lack of provenance rather makes sense if the coin is a recent find, which is entirely possible. As for publication of the find, given the stringent laws around ownership and export of such artefacts in Italy - the most likely place for it to have been found - I can understand why someone might have decided against reporting to the authorities or publishing their discovery, given the significant pecuniary incentive at play. That's not to say the coin is looted, it may well have all the required export paperwork in order, but in general such "unsavoury" things do occur rather frequently when it comes to artefacts, including coins.

[seth77]

I read initially "museum works to repatinate..." 

[DonnaML]

10 hours ago, FrizzyAntoine said:

Hardly strange, if anything the lack of provenance rather makes sense if the coin is a recent find, which is entirely possible. As for publication of the find, given the stringent laws around ownership and export of such artefacts in Italy - the most likely place for it to have been found - I can understand why someone might have decided against reporting to the authorities or publishing their discovery, given the significant pecuniary incentive at play. That's not to say the coin is looted, it may well have all the required export paperwork in order, but in general such "unsavoury" things do occur rather frequently when it comes to artefacts, including coins.

Yes, but I think any collector, no matter how wealthy, would have to be out of their mind to bid on a $500,000+ coin without any documented or even claimed provenance whatsoever, given the obvious potential exposure to confiscation if it turns out the coin was illegally exported from Italy (as you say, the likeliest find-spot given the minting in Aquilea) or imported into the USA. I have to believe that CNG isn't that careless either, and that perhaps they do have documentation that they're keeping private other than to actual qualified bidders. The sale of the coin doesn't make sense to me otherwise. But why wouldn't they simply say that in the catalogue? Am I missing something in the lot description, or some other logical explanation?

Edited December 10, 2022 by DonnaML

[FrizzyAntoine]

8 hours ago, DonnaML said:

Yes, but I think any collector, no matter how wealthy, would have to be out of their mind to bid on a $500,000+ coin without any documented or even claimed provenance whatsoever, given the obvious potential exposure to confiscation if it turns out the coin was illegally exported from Italy (as you say, the likeliest find-spot given the minting in Aquilea) or imported into the USA.

I certainly agree, and I would hold the same viewpooint even if I had the budget to buy this coin, which I think is likely to sell for more than a million dollars. However I can understand if someone has a net worth in the billions of dollars, as a few prominent collectors of ancients do, and decides to bid. At that point the value tied up in this coin becomes relatively inconsequential for them. And seeing as this is the only example to come to market in quite literally a century, if they want one they're extremely unlikely to ever get another chance at owning one. May as well take the risk in buying an unprovenanced rarity, store it discreetly at a freeport with your other "grey" holdings, and sit back and enjoy. Depending on where they keep the coin and where they reside, it's possible there may not even be a way for Italian authorites to have the coin returned. 

8 hours ago, DonnaML said:

I have to believe that CNG isn't that careless either, and that perhaps they do have documentation that they're keeping private other than to actual qualified bidders.

While I admire CNG and love them as an auction house, I'm personally not so sure. NAC for example lists when a coin has export permissions from the country of origin even for relativley low-value coins in the hundreds of Francs. CNG too lists provenance even for low-value coins in e-sales, so the lack of anything in the listing of this coin is rather telling. And seeing as they will allow individuals who are most certainly never going to be able to buy the coin to hold the coin itself, I doubt they would then only disclose export paperwork and provenance to vetted bidders (I have a friend who was allowed to hold it and take pictures at a coin show recently, and the coin looks absolutely stunning in hand! Though there's a 0% chance my friend could ever be considered a qualified bidder for this coin at present).

Even the most reputable auction houses have been found to sell illegally excavated coins lacking export permissions. One example that springs to mind is the case of the Alexander Dekadrachms. However a UK-based auction house was involved in that case, and is somehow even still regarded as reputable by many buyers despite that fiasco and the thousands of similarly unprovenanced coins they regularly sell with flimsy or outright false provenances. In the case of the dekadrachms even the pre-UNESCO 1967 provenance some of the coins had was found to be a forgery, however that was created by the dealer who consigned them rather than the auction house. As for CNG, they and Nomos were the sellers of the infamous Cabinet W collection from Dr. Arnold Weiss - a group of similarly rare and extremely valuable coins from Italy with no provenance that were to be sold at a January feature sale. If memory serves, in that case I think Dr. Weiss made trouble for himself and CNG by telling an undercover FBI agent at a coin show that the coins had to be real as they were just recently excavated in Italy. Failing that rather foolishly arrogant blunder on his part, it's quite possible those coins would have sold without a hitch and been deposited in the collections of the same sort of people that will end up purchasing this coin.

9 hours ago, DonnaML said:

The sale of the coin doesn't make sense to me otherwise.

9 hours ago, DonnaML said:

Am I missing something in the lot description, or some other logical explanation?

I may just be cynical, but I think the allure of likely $225,000+ in buyers fees is the most logical explanation. It's enough to pay the annual salaries of multiple employees, so why bother about legalities when the likelihood of enforcement is so low, and the return is both immediate and massive. It's the same reason every auction house, CNG included, sells massive quantities of coins obviously found in recent hoards (for example the hundreds of Kyrene didrachms sold over the past 2 years at CNG, very very few with provenance, all with similar wear and surfaces, and all coming from a source country where their export is illegal).