Author Archives: Chasing Aphrodite

Latchford’s Footprints: Suspect Khmer Art at the Kimbell and the Met

Posted on December 24, 2012 | 8 comments

We’re continuing to trace suspect Cambodian antiquities linked to Douglas Latchford, the man at the center of the on-going federal looting probe that we’ve detailed in previous posts here. Last week we wrote about suspect Khmer antiquities at the Denver Art Museum. Here are our latest finds:

The Kimbell Art Museum

Screen Shot 2012-12-22 at 5.54.33 PM

In 1988, the Kimbell Art Museum purchased an important 7th century Khmer sculpture from Latchford.

At the time of purchase, the statue had no documented ownership history. The only record the Kimbell obtained about its origins was a signed guarantee from Latchford claiming the statue had been in his possession in Thailand since 1968 and had legally been shipped to the UK in 1987, a museum spokeswoman said.

Latchford has made similar claims about contested Khmer statues at Sotheby’s and the Norton Simon Museum that are now the focus on a federal lawsuit. Federal investigators have alleged in court filings that Latchford purchased those statues after they were looted in the early 1970s and smuggled to Thailand, a claim Latchford denies. (See our previous coverage of the case here.)

The statue represents Harihara, a Hindu deity that combined the destructive force of Shiva and the creative power of Vishnu. The statue’s style suggests the piece came from the pre-Angkor ruins of Prasat Andet, in central Cambodia. The Kimbell has no evidence of legal export from Cambodian, a museum spokeswoman confirmed.

Cult Statue of a Goddess (Aphrodite)Acquiring an object based exclusively on a dealer’s warranty — rather than an actual documented ownership history that proves it was not looted — was a common tactic in the 1980s, particularly for pieces that were likely looted. As we described in Chasing Aphrodite, the J. Paul Getty Museum passed a new acquisition policy for antiquities in 1987 that called for a dealer warranty in place of an inquiry into an object’s origins. The practice allowed the Getty to continue acquiring objects it knew or suspected had been looted — including an $18 million statue of Aphrodite — while providing a modicum of legal and public relations cover if the statue were later questioned. But the policy failed: The Getty returned the Aphrodite to Italy in 2010 after our investigation in the LA Times made clear the dealer warranty was a thin cover for the truth — the statue had been looted from an archaeological site in central Sicily.

Kimbell1The Kimbell believes the Harihara is the only object in its collection with ties to Latchford, but can’t be certain, a museum spokeswoman said. It is not the only suspect piece of ancient art to surface at the museum. In February, we wrote about the Kimbell’s 5th century BC Greek cup by the Douris painter. After we noted the cup’s ownership history had been traced to Elie Borowski, a dealer who has been linked to the illicit trade in Classical antiquities, the Kimbell announced it would publish the cup on a registry of objects maintained by the Association of Art Museum Directors. The cup was never listed in the registry — likely because it was acquired prior to 2008, when the directors group began requiring suspect antiquities to be posted. (This leaves the question: where should suspect antiquities acquired before 2008 be posted publicly to encourage further provenance research? Museums should be publishing the complete known provenance of all their antiquities, but don’t. We’ve proposed our own answer.)

The Metropolitan Museum of Art

met.hariharaWhile researching the Kimbell’s Harihara, we noticed that The Metropolitan Museum of Art purchased a similar Harihara, also linked to Prasat Andet, in 1977. We’ve asked the Met for the provenance of the statue, as none is listed on their website.

The Met also has several pieces from Latchford. The New York Times has previously noted that Cambodia will ask the museum to return its two prominently displayed Standing Attendants, which also came through Latchford from Koh Ker. As Paul Barford has noted, the knees of those statues bear clear signs of having been hacked from a base by looters. (The Met’s high resolution photos and zoom tool are quite useful here.) Screen Shot 2012-12-23 at 10.50.29 PM

David Gill has also noted that the statues came to the museum in fragments from different sources acquired over several years and were reassembled at the Met. Martin Lerner, the Met’s former Asian Art curator, noted the happy coincidence in the catalog: “It is particularly gratifying that the monumental bodies join up with heads already in the collection.” This appears similar to a pattern we’ve seen in objects passed through smuggling networks that dealt in Classical antiquities, the so-called “fragments game” identified by Italian investigators and noted by Gill here.

Gill has also helpfully identified several other Latchford donations at the Met:

1983_551_232391-1A 10th century Khmer Head of Buddha acquired in 1983 as a gift from Latchford. (1983.551)

A 12th century Bodhisattva from Nepal acquired in 1989 as a gift from Spink & Son Ltd. and Douglas A. J. Latchford.  (1989.237.1)

A bronze 9th century Bodhisattva Maitreya from Thailand acquired in 1989 as a gift from Spink & Son Ltd. and Douglas A. J. Latchford. (1989.237.2)

A 2nd century Ghandaran plaque from Pakistan acquired as  gift of Spink & Son Ltd. and Douglas A. J. Latchford in 1989. (1989.237.3)

DT5214The gifts suggest several things: Latchford was a generous donor to the Met over several years, and dealt not just in Khmer art but also material from South Asia. It would be worth perusing the Met’s 1994 catalog of Asian Art for other examples of material from South East Asia. For example, given the history of looting at Koh Ker, we were interested in how this gilt bronze statue of a king from Kor Ker (left) ended up in the collection Walter Annenberg before being acquired by the Met in 1988.

We’ll continue looking for Latchford objects in other museums. If you’ve got any tips, drop us at line at ChasingAphrodite@gmail.com

8 Comments

Posted in News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Douglas Latchford’s Footprints: Suspect Khmer Antiquities At the Denver Art Museum

Posted on December 19, 2012 | 49 comments

13COLLECTOR-popupWho is Douglas A. J. Latchford?

That is the question many are asking since the Bangkok-based British collector who describes himself as an “adventurer-scholar” emerged at the center of the legal fight over an allegedly looted 10th Century Khmer warrior now at Sotheby’s.

Federal prosecutors have said in recent court filings that Latchford knowingly purchased the Sotheby’s statue and its companion at the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena from “an organized looting network” that stole the objects from the ruins of the Koh Ker temple complex deep in Cambodia’s northern jungles. Latchford allegedly conspired with the London auction house Spink to obtain false export permits for the statues, which were transported it to London in the early 1970s, the filings claim.

[Our previous coverage of the Sotheby’s case can be found here.]

DP212330-1As the New York Times reported in June, Latchford is also listed as the donor of record for two prominent Khmer pieces at the Metropolitan Museum of Art that Cambodia wants back. All four of the statues are believed to have been looted from the ancient temple complex of Prasat Chen and smuggled out of Cambodia sometime in the late 1960s or early 1970s.

Latchford denies the allegations. In an interview this month, he told the New York Times that prosecutors were “weaving together suppositions.” “This is somebody’s imagination working overtime,” he said in an interview at his Bangkok home with reporter Tom Mashberg. He claims that the London auction house Spink at times used his name for purchases of objects he never owned. Spink claims it has no longer has records from those years.

At the same time, Latchford suggested he had a transcendental claim to Khmer art: Buddhist priests once told him he was Khmer in a previous life, “and that what I collect had once belonged to me,” he told the Times. Asked about his early collecting,

Mr. Latchford spins tales of bumping his Jeep along makeshift roads in the jungles of Thailand and Cambodia, exploring vine-entangled temples and the shattered outposts from a 1,000-year-old fallen empire.

He and other well-known collectors, he said, would buy and trade what became available without fretting over the provenance details that govern modern antiquities transactions. They were rescuers, not plunderers, he said, pointing out that he and others have restored, protected, cataloged and donated artifacts that might have been broken into pieces or lost or neglected.

The feet of two ancient sandstone statues were left behind by looters at a temple in Koh Ker, Cambodia. One statue is now at Sotheby's, the other at the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena.

The feet of two ancient sandstone statues were left behind by looters at a temple in Koh Ker, Cambodia. One statue is now at Sotheby’s, the other at the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena.

The final statement is ironic, as federal prosecutors suggest the statue at Sotheby’s was purposefully broken by looters to make it easier to smuggle, a claim supported by Sotheby’s own analysis of the statue’s surface. Indeed, both statues’ feet remain in place at Koh Ker.

Latchford gave another revealing answer in a 2010 interview with the Bangkok Post when asked where a piece in his considerable private collection had come from:

“The ground,” he answered. “Most of the pieces I have come across in the past years have been excavated, or dug up. You know, there is a farmer in the field who digs something up, and he probably thinks if I take it to Bangkok or Singapore or a middle man I can get $100 instead of getting $10.”

Dougla

Latchford has close ties to Emma Bunker, the Khmer art expert hired by Sotheby’s to help with the sale of the contested Khmer statue. In emails to Sotheby’s, Bunker stated that the statue was “definitely stolen,” and said her “culture spies” could help Sotheby’s navigate Cambodia’s cultural heritage bureaucracy. Latchford and Bunker have co-authored several books on Khmer art, including Adoration and Glory, which boasts that “the authors were able to gain access to private as well as public collections worldwide to give unparalleled access to more than 150 objects,” many of which are published there for the first time.

bookComplicating matters, Latchford, now 81, has become a prominent donor to Cambodian museums of both antiquities and money. Emails from the Sotheby’s case make clear his generosity has earned him close ties to cultural officials in the Cambodian government, including to Hab Touch, who is today pressing Cambodia’s repatriation claims but in the past has praised Latchford’s scholarship.

Given this history, we’ve started to scratch around to see where else objects tied to Latchford have ended up. Here’s the first of those reports.

DENVER ART MUSEUM

The Denver Museum has six objects in its permanent collection acquired from Latchford, four of them acquired as gifts. Here are details provided by the museum:

1. Painted Vessel from Thailand, 400-200 BCE. Earthenware and paint
Gift of Douglas A.J. Latchford. Accession #2000.67 No additional provenance available.

2. Goddess of Transcendent Wisdom, Prajnaparamita Cambodia, Angkor period, late 1100s–early 1200s sandstone, 59 inches (130 cm) high. Purchased from Latchford “in honor of Emma C. Bunker.” Accession #2000.198

DAM_Website_2000.198

The museum’s website suggests the piece could be from the Bayon Temple at Angkor Thom: “The gentle smile and lowered eyes are features associated with sculptures from the Bayon temple built by Jayavarman VII, the last great ruler of the Angkor royal line.”

The museum said the piece was originally purchased by “Ian Donaldson” in Vietnam around 1964-66; then shipped from Thailand to the UK on February 12, 1994 and imported from the UK on March 10, 1994. It is worth noting that Adoration and Glory contains a very similar statue listed as being in a private collection.

surya3. Sun God (Surya) from Cambodia or Vietnam. 600’s to 700’s, Pre-Angkor period, sandstone. Purchased from Latchford in 2004. Accession #2004.371. Published in “Adoration and Glory.” No other provenance information was provided.

4.  Sleep of Vishnu and the Birth of Brahma, Cambodia, 700’s, Pre-Angkor period. Sandstone. Gift of Douglas A. J. Latchford. Accession #2005.104. The piece was published in “Adoration and Glory” and listed as being held in an “American Collection” on page 84. No other provenance information was provided.

5. Bronze Bell, Cambodia, 1st Century BCE, Iron Age. Gift of Douglas A.J. Latchford. Accession #2005.105. No provenance or publication history provided.

6. Wood Cabinet with Chinese Motifs, 1700’s Thailand. Gift of Douglas A. J. Latchford & Emma C. Bunker. Accession #2006.81. No provenance or publication history provided.

rama_1986_44Among the museum’s Khmer objects not included in the list are other objects from Koh Ker, such as this statue of Rama, whose ownership history is not listed.

In short, in recent years the Denver Art Museum has acquired several Cambodian antiquities with little or no documented ownership history — much less evidence of legal exportation — from a man now at the center of a federal looting probe. For several of those objects, the only documented history was a book written by Latchford himself. The museum’s position is further complicated by the fact that Emma Bunker is listed as research consultant for the museum, suggesting a possible conflict of interest. All of these are serious red flags.

In a statement, a spokeswoman for the museum said, “The Denver Art Museum curatorial team conducts provenance research on an ongoing basis and posts results online as they become available both on the museum’s website and on the AAMD object registry. The Museum adheres to AAMD guidelines for the acquisition of archeological materials and ancient art set forth in 2008. In coming into full compliance with AAMD guidelines for antiquities and archeological material, the Denver Art Museum now requires all available provenance information to be provided for new acquisitions.”

The statement suggests a deep misunderstanding of modern acquisition ethics. The moral obligation on museums to obtain clear provenance — concrete evidence that an antiquity had not been recently looted — did not begin in 2008, after the wave of museum scandals we wrote about in Chasing Aphrodite, but in 1970 with the passage of the UNESCO convention. Further, the museum’s postings on the AAMD Object Registry suggest that South East Asian antiquities are not the only problematic collecting area for the Denver museum: it has acquired nine pre-Colombian objects since 2008 that do not have provenance pre-dating 1970.

We’ll follow-up on these matters with Denver, which has still not provided a list of Latchford objects that were lent to the museum.

Meanwhile, if you know of other Latchford material in public or private collections, drop us a line confidentially at chasingaphrodite@gmail.com

49 Comments

Posted in News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Inside Sotheby’s: Auction House Response Reveals Key Players in Fight Over Khmer Statue

Posted on December 9, 2012 | 6 comments

SothebySotheby’s has responded to the U.S. government’s amended complaint in the legal battle for the Khmer warrior from Koh Ker, arguing that the US Attorney’s failure to cite a Cambodian national ownership law is a”fatal flaw” in their effort to seize the allegedly stolen statue.

[See our previous coverage of the case here.]

“The [government’s amended complaint filed recently] claims a Cambodian king a thousand years ago built the Prasat Chen temp where the Statue’s feet were allegedly found, and asserts the Statue…therefore automatically belongs to the modern Cambodian state. No court has ever forfeited property on such a theory, which squarely conflicts with the settled and undisputed law articulated in McClain and Schultz,” which both required a “clear and unambiguous” national ownership law, Sotheby’s stated.

Sotheby’s arguments focus squarely on the legal foundation of Cambodia’s claim and largely sidestep the government’s amended complaint, which alleged the auction house was deceitful about the statue’s origins in omitting the role of Bangkok-based collector Douglas Latchford. Those claims are an effort to “change the subject,” Sotheby’s said in its response, accusing the government of using selective quotations from internal auction house emails revealed during discovery.

To support that position, Sotheby’s helpfully attached those internal emails to its response as exhibits, giving us an unusual glimpse into the vetting process used by leading auction houses with a piece of ancient art they knew would raise legal and public relations concerns.

The Sotheby’s emails reveal for the first time the identities of several key players in the drama:

1354101788635Anu Ghosh-Mazumdar, Assistant VP, Indian and SE Asian Art at Sotheby’s. Most directly responsible for coordinating the statue’s vetting and sale.

f10sindconladyZara Porter-Hill, Head of the Indian and SE Asian Department at Sotheby’s London. She corresponded directly with collector Douglas Latchford about the statue’s origins. Latchford initially told her he had the statue in London in 1970, but later claimed that Spink must have purchased the statue in Bangkok. (See Exhibit 3)

16_March_Henry_press_previewHenry Howard-Sneyd, Vice Chairman of Asian Art at Sotheby’s, was asked to be the point of contact between Sotheby’s and the government of Cambodia before the statue’s proposed sale. He demurred, saying, “we simply wanted to be informing him out of politeness and did not want to raise this to important or ‘pay attention’ levels.” (See Exhibit 9). Ultimately it appears that contact with the Cambodians was handled by Jane Levine, head of Worldwide Compliance for Sotheby’s and a former prosecutor of antiquities cases in the same US Attorney’s office now suing for the statue’s return. (see Exhibit 12.)

Guanyin_testing

John Twilley: A conservation expert hired by Sotheby’s to examine the statue after questions were raised about its authenticity. Twilley noted that the difference in condition between the head and body suggested the statue may have been purposefully broken  “for ease of transport” from the site where it was found  (See Exhibit 7) Ironically, Twilley was also an expert at the Getty workshop on the looted statue of Aphrodite, which was broken by smugglers for ease of transport.

Pieter Meyers: A former senior scientist at LACMA, Meyers conducted an analysis of the statue’s stone, confirming the link between the statue’s head and its torso. (See Ex. 8)

hab2Hab Touch: The Cambodian government official who Sotheby’s debated notifying before the statue’s sale. (see Exhibit 10) Dismissed as a “bureaucrat,” Touch ultimately objected to the statue’s sale and asked for its return to Cambodia.

Below we’ve embedded Sotheby’s response followed by the exhibits we’ve referred to above.

6 Comments

Posted in News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Feds: Subhash Kapoor “one of the most prolific commodities smugglers in the world.”

Posted on December 6, 2012 | 28 comments

SAC Hayes seized itemsICE

Federal authorities announced this week that they have seized an estimated $100 million worth of ancient art linked to Subhash Kapoor, the New York art dealer currently facing trial in India — and an arrest warrant in the United States — for his alleged role in an international antiquities smuggling network.

For some perspective on that number, the FBI’s art squad has seized a total of $150 million in art since its inception in 2004, according to its website.

subhash kapoor“In our view, Mr Kapoor is one of the most prolific commodities smugglers in the world,” said Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent in Charge James T. Hayes (shown above with the seized objects.) “It’s one of our most significant antiquities and artifacts investigations that we’ve conducted in the history of this agency.”

Our past coverage of the Kapoor case and museums that have material from him can be found here.

The seizures revealed Wednesday were valued at $5 million and secured with cooperation from Customs and Border Protection, the Manhattan DA’s office, Interpol and Indian authorities. They include a 14th Century bronze Parvati figure from the Chola dynasty that was surrendered to ICE by an unnamed dealer in Europe. “Even though the statue had been placed on the Interpol Stolen Works of Art Database, the Parvati had passed through the hands of six different dealers and been given multiple layers of false provenance over the past six years,”  Hayes said. In addition, four bronze figures were seized in recent months that are believed to have been stolen from temples in Tamil Nadu.

Parvati ICEHayes stressed that the Kapoor investigation, dubbed Operation Hidden Idol, was on-going as agents continue to dig into Kapoor’s four decades as a Manhattan dealer whose gallery Art of the Past sold objects to museums around the world. Those include some of the more than 200 objects sold by Kapoor that we’ve identified in previous posts.

Hayes urged collectors and museums that had purchased objects from Kapoor to come forward and notify investigators.

“We ask that those collectors contact us,” Hayes said. “Our investigation is on-going and we’re looking to confirm the legitimacy of those objects. We have already received several calls from law firms representing people who had acquired pieces through Kapoor and were concerned about whether they were in possession of stolen goods.”

I took the opportunity to ask Hayes about ICE’s work combating the antiquities trade. To their credit, ICE has significantly ramped up their investigations of the illicit trade in recent years: more than 6,600 artifacts have been returned to 24 countries since 2007. But critics note that those forfeitures and flashy repatriation ceremonies with foreign officials have often not been followed by criminal charges against key players in the trade.

ICE“The focus is always to return stolen property to its rightful owners,” Hayes acknowledged, saying making criminal cases was desirable, but challenging. “You have to have a legal basis to prove those items, and you have to prove certain things and that proves very difficult. We’re dealing with laws around the world, in foreign courts and different jurisdictions.”

To be sure, ICE investigators have played an important role in several recent criminal investigations that led to guilty pleas, including Arnold Peter Weiss and Morris Khouli. “From where I sit, we’re very focused on putting those smuggling networks out of business,” Hayes said. “At the end of the day, our primary responsibility is to get stolen property back to its rightful owners.”

 

28 Comments

Posted in News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Dallas Museum of Art Returns Orpheus Mosaic, Five Other Looted Treasures in Announcing New Art Loans Initiative

Posted on December 3, 2012 | 4 comments

Orpheus Mosaic

The Dallas Museum of Art has agreed to return six looted antiquities from its collection and announced a broad new initiative to exchange expertise and artwork with cultural institutions around the world.

“The problems of illegal excavation and the illicit import of cultural property require the consideration of new models of cooperation among institutions,” the museum said in a release announcing the initiative, dubbed the Dallas Museum of Art Exchange Program, or DMX.

The effort was announced Monday while signing an agreement with Turkey, the museum’s first partner, for the return of the Orpheus Mosaic, a Roman mosaic floor looted near Edessa (today’s Sanliurfa) and acquired at a Christies auction by the DMA in 1999.

Microsoft Word - Orpheus mosaic in situ.docxIn explaining the return, the museum cited compelling new evidence presented by Turkish investigators about the mosaic’s illicit origins: “Two newly recovered in situ photos of the mosaic showing it being removed by the smugglers. The photographs also show the full work with its decorative borders intact, prior to it being removed from the ground. The photographs were printed by a local photo shop in Sanliurfa and are currently evidence in a criminal investigation being carried out by the Sanliurfa Head Prosecutor in order to identify everyone involved in the crime.” The image shows the mosaic with a border that was likely removed by looters, the museum notes, adding, ” The canister visible in the lower right contains a Turkish brand of glue, which looters–not archaeologists–would have used to make repairs.”

Notably, the Dallas museum initiated the return of the mosaic instead of waiting for it to be identified by Turkish authorities, who have been on a campaign to repatriate looted antiquities. Soon after Maxwell Anderson started as director in January, he asked the museum’s antiquities curators to identify objects with troubling ownership histories. The mosaic was found to be nearly identical to several published on a website of Turkey of looted objects. Anderson told the Dallas Morning News:

the last thing he wanted was “to be the recipient of a claim by Turkey and be unprepared, seeing all of that evidence. So, I wrote to the embassy, saying if you have any information about this mosaic, please let us know. I didn’t have any specific information, but it seemed circumstantially that it was very likely that it was removed from that site.” Turkish officials came forward with the photograph of the mosaic, “which is all you need to know,” Anderson said.

In addition to the Orpheus mosaic, the Dallas museum agreed to return five antiquities to Italy in response to law enforcement requests. All five  Two of those objects were first questioned by us in a Jan. 11 email to the museum inquiring about links between the DMA and the illicit trade, including antiquities dealer Edoardo Almagia. After our inquiry, the DMA contacted Italy and has now agreed to return them.

UPDATE: In February, we requested provenance information for 15 of the DMA’s recent acquisitions, including the five pieces returned this week, that we selected at random. They helpfully provided the list we posted here. We asked yesterday on Twitter whether other objects on that list might also be returned — several come from dealers who have also been implicated in the illicit trade. A museum spokeswoman now tells us: “Italian and Greek authorities have reviewed  our collections records, including the works you refer to in your recent post, and have advanced no other claims.” Of course, some of the material on the list, such as the Cycladic figurine, likely came from other countries.

The objects going back to Italy — and the DMA’s explanation for their return — offer a helpful who’s who of the illicit antiquities trade.

dma_507360

Two Etruscan shields with the head of Acheloos (Etruscan 6th Century BC)

Volute Krater (Pulian, 4th Century BC). 

As we noted in February, both were purchased from  antiquities dealer Edoardo Almagià in 1998.  The museum describes Almagià as “a former New York antiquities dealer…currently named in a criminal case for conspiracy to commit the illegal export and smuggling of cultural property pending before the Public Prosecutor of Rome. Almagià has been under investigation since at least 2006, when U.S. Customs officials raided his New York apartment, confiscating photographs, documents, and archaeological material. He was also the subject of a New York Times story in 2010 that revealed he and Michael Padgett, former antiquities curator at the Princeton University Art Museum, were the focus of an investigation of the illegal export and laundering of Italian archaeological objects. The Italian government named Almagià in the criminal case for having ‘sold, donated, or lent’ nearly two dozen works looted from Italian sites to the Princeton Museum. Roughly twenty other objects are listed in the case as having been obtained illegally by Almagià and sold to other American institutions in the 1980s and 1990s, including this pair of shields.” UPDATE: The DMA incorrectly referred to Padgett as the former antiquities curator at Princeton. The Princeton Museum confirms he remains on staff there, and the DMA has corrected is post.

dma_507363As evidence that the statue and krater were looted, the museum cited “photographs provided that were seized by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials” and “archival evidence seized by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, including records of sales and correspondence currently serving as evidence in the criminal investigation and court case.”

Dallas now joins the Met and Princeton in returning objects linked to the dealer. (We’ve written about those returns here and here.) Will the other museums we’ve identified with Almagia material — including the Getty, the Boston MFA, San Antonio Museum of Art, Indiana University — now be motivated to do the same?

dma_507366A Red Figure krater (Apulia, 4th Century BC) acquired by DMA at Sotheby’s in 1996.

A Calxy Krater (Campagnia, 4th Century BC) acquired from the vases form Ward and Co. around 2005, said to be from a “Swiss private collection.” 

Both vases have been linked to Gianfranco Becchina, who the museum describes as “a Sicilian antiquities dealer who has been convicted in Italy of dealing in stolen antiquities. Becchina started dealing in antiquities from his premises in Basel, Switzerland, in the 1970s and is said to have sold to several major museums, sometimes through Sotheby’s and Christie’s auction houses in London. In May 2002, the Carabinieri, in collaboration with the Swiss police, raided his storage facilities in Basel, recovering thousands of objects in various stages of restorations, photographs of artifacts, and other documents.”

dma_507370“The J. Paul Getty Museum and the Toledo Museum of Art have both returned material to Italy that was acquired from Becchina and subsequently shown to have been illegally exported.”

“In April 2012 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement seized two works from Christie’s New York auction house that were associated with the investigation of Becchina. According to the Carabinieri, Gianfranco Becchina has been identified as one of the most prolific known traffickers of Italian cultural heritage, and all property that has been shown to have been illicitly trafficked by Becchina is subject to confiscation.”

You can find a list of our previous posts mentioning Becchina here.

dma_507364Etruscan head of an Antefix. Said to be from Henri Jacques of Geneva. Purchased from Robin Symes in about 1999.

A photograph linked this antefix to Giacomo Medici, who the museum describes as “a former antiquities dealer based in Rome, Italy, and Geneva, Switzerland, who was found guilty of receiving stolen goods, illegal export of goods, and conspiracy to traffic by the Italian government and sentenced to ten years in prison and a €10 million fine. In 1995 the Carabinieri, in concert with Swiss police, raided Medici’s storage space in Geneva, which contained thousands of objects, photographs (including many Polaroids), and documents relating to his business practices and connections. The Cleveland Museum of Art, J. Paul Getty Museum, and Metropolitan Museum of Art have all returned objects that were acquired via Giacomo Medici. Along with Gianfranco Becchina, he has been identified by the Carabinieri as one of the most prolific known traffickers of Italian cultural heritage.”

Robin Symes, the dealer form whom the DMA purchased the objects, has also been linked to the illicit trade, the museum notes. “Symes is also accused of playing a pivotal role in the illegal trade of looted antiquities. Several museums, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, have already returned several objects acquired through Symes. He is known to have commercial relations with dealer Giacomo Medici, who was the ultimate source of the artifacts that would subsequently be sold through dealers or auction houses. Prior to the Medici conviction, Robin Symes had been involved in a civil court case, and in January 2005 he was sentenced to two years in prison for contempt of court for not fully disclosing his assets.”

You can find our other posts mentioning Symes here.

We’ll have more on the significance of the returns and the DMA’s new loans initiative in a future post.

4 Comments

Posted in News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Guardian and the Goddess: Looted Statues Reveal Workings of Illicit Trade

Posted on November 27, 2012 | 4 comments

The Getty’s Aphrodite

The Contested Temple Guardian

What does a 10th century Khmer temple warrior have in common with a Greek cult goddess from the 5th Century B.C.?

Quite a bit, it turns out. Both were objects of veneration whose remarkable craftsmanship represented the apex of their respective cultures’ artistic achievement. Both massive limestone statues were looted and purposely broken  to make them easier to smuggle — telltale scars that decades later would bear witness to a violent and illicit origin. And both reveal a strikingly similar story about the ugly inner workings of the trade in ancient art.

We told the story of the Getty’s goddess in Chasing Aphrodite. The story of the Khmer temple guardian is being told today in legal filings by Sotheby’s and the US Attorney’s office, which is suing for the return of the statue on behalf of Cambodia in a federal court in Manhattan. (We’ve written previously about the case here here and here.) Both parties agree the statue was removed at some point from an ancient temple complex at Koh Ker, where the statue’s feet remain to this day. The key question — unanswered in the government’s earlier filings — is when.

The Norton Simon’s Bhima

This month the U.S. Attorney’s office amended its original complaint with damaging new details that apparently came to light through pre-trial discovery of Sotheby’s internal correspondence. The filing, which we’ve embedded below, is worth reading in full. Among other things, it reveals how little the art world has changed since the 1980s, when the Getty bought its cult goddess amid clear signs the statute had been recently looted and then sought to cover up those illicit origins.

Here are some highlights:

Date of looting: The federal government is now stating that the Sotheby’s statue, representing Duryodhana, and its companion at the Norton Simon Museum, representing Bhima, were looted from a temple complex in Koh Ker “in or around 1972.” This addresses Sotheby’s earlier contention that the statue might have been removed sometime prior to the 1920s.

Intentional Damage by Looters: Like the Getty’s Aphrodite, the Koh Ker statues were intentionally dismembered to make them easier to smuggle:

“In the case of monumental statues like the [Sotheby’s warrior] the heads would sometimes be forcibly removed and transported first, with the torso following later, due to the difficulty of physically transporting the large torsos.”

In September 2010, this detail was noted by an expert hired by Sotheby’s to prepare a condition report on the statue.

“[The Scientist’s] theory is that the sculpture was either forcibly broken for ease of transport from the find site and then put back together later, or that the head and the torso did not belong together.”

The feet of the two ancient sandstone statues were left behind by looters at a temple in Koh Ker, Cambodia.

The Scientist proposed a testing plan to determine which was the case. Instead of accepting that plan, Sotheby’s fired the expert, the complaint alleges. Readers of Chasing Aphrodite will recall that similar questions were raised about the head of the Aphrodite and the fresh breaks on the statue’s body (p. 93 – 94.) Luis Monreal, the head of the Getty Conservation Institute, proposed tests on soil and pollen found in the folds of the statue Aphrodite to determine its origin. The Getty Museum instead opted for ignorance.

Market Path: The amended complaint specifies that after they were stolen from Koh Ker by “an organized looting network,” the statues at Sotheby’s and the Norton Simon were smuggled to Bangkok and delivered to a Thai dealer, who sold them to a “well known collector.” The New York Times has identified that dealer as Douglas A. J. Latchford. (Latchford co-authored a book on Khmer art with Emma Bunker, the expert cited in previous filings as saying in emails to Sotheby’s that the statue had been ‘definitely stolen.’) Latchford allegedly conspired with the London auction house Spink to obtain false export permits for the statues and they were transported it to London in 1971 or 1972, the amended complaint states. The Duryodhana was sold to a Belgian businessman in 1975, and his widow consigned it for sale by Sotheby’s in 2010.

Sotheby’s Deceit: The complaint alleges Sotheby’s knowingly misled potential buyers, Cambodian officials and U.S. investigators about the statue’s ownership history, claiming it had been seen in the UK in the late 1960s — well before the 1970 UNESCO convention. In fact, the government alleges, Sotheby’s knew the statue had been with Latchford in SE Asia until the early 1970s. To support their claim, the complaint cites emails between Sotheby’s and Latchford, who is described as “the original seller of the sculpture back in 1975.” One of those internal emails reveals Sotheby’s concerns about how the statue’s provenance will affect its sale:

“The most important question is the provenance. Can [the Collector] tell us if he acquired this sculpture before 1970? That’s the standard [an art advisor to a prospective buyer] is applying. It’s what his client wants.”

“Sotheby’s inaccurate representations dating the [statue’s] appearance in the United Kingdom to the late 1960’s, rather than after 1972, therefore eliminated a significant obstacle to the selling the [statue,]” the complaint states.

Indeed, Latchford’s name was omitted from the object’s stated ownership history.

In a statement to the New York Times, Sotheby’s denied the government’s claims, saying the U.S. attorney’s office was trying “to tar Sotheby’s with a hodgepodge of other allegations designed to create the misimpression that Sotheby’s acted deceptively in selling the statue…That is simply not true.”

4 Comments

Posted in Hot Docs, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Canada’s Royal Ontario Museum Has Ties To Alleged Antiquities Trafficker Subhash Kapoor

Posted on October 23, 2012 | 7 comments

UPDATED: In recent years Canada’s Royal Ontario Museum has acquired eight objects from Art of the Past, the Manhattan antiquities gallery specializing in South Asian art that is now the focus of an international investigation into its owner’s alleged ties to the illicit antiquities trade.

The now shuttered gallery is owned Subhash Kapoor, the American antiquities dealer of Indian extraction who has sold ancient art to museums and private collectors around the world since 1974. As we’ve reported previously, Kapoor was arrested in Germany last year and extradited to India, where he facing charges of trafficking in looted Asian antiquities and being the mastermind of a network of temple looters operating in Tamil Nadu. In July, American authorities issued an arrest warrant for Kapoor and seized $20 million worth of ancient art from his Manhattan warehouse. Indian investigators have also asked authorities in Australia, Singapore and the United Kingdom for help with their expanding investigation.

We’ve previously traced more that 200 Kapoor objects to museums around the globe. We can now add the Royal Ontario Museum to that list. Six of the Kapoor objects at the ROM are modern works on paper, a specialty of Kapoor’s that are not the subject of the current investigation. Two other objects, however, may be of interest to investigators.

The first is a Ghandaran stone reliquary from the 1st to 2nd century A.D.. in the shape of a stuppa that was featured in the museum’s 2004-2005 newsletter. “Purchased through the generous support of the Louise Hawley Stone Charitable Trust, the ROM acquired a beautiful Buddhist Reliquary dated to the 2nd century CE,” the newsletter said. “The outer container is made of steatite, a grayish stone common to the region of Gandhara, in presentday western Pakistan. The inner container is carved from rock crystal and is decorated with stunning gold granular ornamentation, a testament to the level of skill in ancient gold craftsmanship. The ROM’s reliquary would have contained the relics (ash, bone, precious metals) of an important Buddhist monk and would have been placed in the centre of a large burial mound, called a ‘stupa.'”

UPDATE: In response to our questions, a museum spokeswoman said, “The Gandharan Reliquary was in the personal collection of a well-known US-based collector since 1969. A signed letter by the owner is on file at the museum and ownership was confirmed through direct contact with the collector.” We’ve requested the identity of the collector and any underlying documents to support that provenance and will post them when we have them.

The Taliban-controlled region of western Pakistan where the Gandharan culture thrived centuries ago has been the subject of extensive looting in recent years.

The second Kapoor object of interest is an 18th century bronze figure of Krishna Venugopala. While not ancient, it is listed as coming from Orissa or Bengal, India. It is not clear when the piece left India or whether it received the required export permit. Kapoor is alleged to have used false export permits to disguise stolen cultural objects as garden furniture or modern handicrafts.

UPDATE: The ROM museum apparently purchased this object in 2006 with no record of legal export. A museum spokeswoman tells us: “The statue of Krishna from Bengal or Orissa was in a UK-based collection since 1970. There is no documentation on file at the museum and we continue to investigate its provenance further.” We’ve requested details on the UK-based collection and will post it here when we get it.

Beyond the objects purchased from Kapoor, the museum has an extensive collection of recently acquired objects from South Asia that are of interest, some of which were acquired recently. (In an email, a museum official notes the South Asia collection has been built since the founding of the museum, with most of the historical collection coming into the museum in the 1920s to 1950s.)

For example, this 10th century figure of a yogini from the Chola dynasty of Southern India was acquired in 1956  in 2004. It is described by the museum as “part of a dispersed set of goddessed [sic] that occupied a temple in the Tamil region of southern India,” an area known for the rampant looting of temple idols. When did the group of objects leave the temple? Does it have a legal export permit from India? The museum is silent on these questions.

UPDATE: A museum official notes the object was acquired in 1956. “It is part of a set of similar sculptures dispersed across museums in India (Government Museum Chennai), Europe (British Museum, Guimet), and North America (Asian Art Museum San Francisco, Freer Sackler Galleries, and others). This set has been extensively documented and its collecting history published in a new book: Scattered Goddesses: Travels with the Yoginis by Padma Kaimal, 2012.”

Then there’s the ROM’s bronze dancing Shiva from Chola dynasty of the 12th century A.D., also from the Tamil region. The Shiva bears  some resemblance to those that Indian authorities said were allegedly removed from Tamil temples by looters in recent years. (One has allegedly been linked to Australia’s National Gallery of Art.) The ROM’s description of the object notes, “Such bronze sculptures were predominantly produced from the Chola period onward, a dynasty of kings that ruled over much of southern India from the ninth to the twelfth centuries AD. They were housed in temples and regularly brought out and decorated for processions.” Again, when did this particular object leave India, and did it have a valid export permit? UPDATE: A museum official says the Nataraja was acquired in 1938.

In a statement about the Kapoor objects, museum spokeswoman Shelagh O’Donnell said, “Following museum policy, each acquisition was carefully investigated in terms of quality, authenticity and provenance. The antiquities in this group have been documented as having acceptable provenance from published auctions or from known private collections. The modern works comply with all current Indian export regulations. The ROM is in the process of re-examining the documentation for this group of objects.”

On October 3rd, we asked the ROM to provide the underlying documentation supporting the ‘acceptable provenance’ for several of the above objects. We have not received a response. We’ll let you know when we learn more.

Here is the full list of Kapoor objects released by the museum:

7 Comments

Posted in Hot Docs, News

Tagged , , , , ,

CAVEAT EMPTOR: Arnold Peter Weiss on the Dangers of the Ancient Coin Trade

Posted on September 23, 2012 | 4 comments

UPDATE 8/5/14: The federal government has returned to Greece five ancient coins that were seized from Dr. Weiss after his arrest in Jan 2012. They are among 23 coins Weiss was forced to forfeit during the investigations detailed below, according to ICE.  

Caveat Emptor, the court-mandated essay written by Rhode Island coin dealer Arnold Peter Weiss, is a long-overdue call for collectors of ancient coins to begin following the law.

Dr. Arnold Peter Weiss

Weiss is the prominent Rhode Island hand surgeon and ancient coin dealer who was arrested on January 3rd at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City for felony possession of an ancient coin recently looted from Sicily. He has served as a board member of the American Numismatic Society, the founder of a Swiss coin dealership and a prominent donor to American universities. According to the criminal complaint, he was caught on tape telling a police informant that he knew the coins had been recently looted in Sicily: “There’s no paperwork, I know this is a fresh coin, this was dug up a few years ago.” In July, Weiss pleaded guilty to three counts of attempted criminal possession of ancient coins. It turned out the “looted” coins were clever forgeries.

As part of Weiss’ plea bargain, he agreed to write an essay that “will raise needed awareness about unprovenanced coins and will promote responsible collecting among numismatists.” That article has now been published in the American Numismatic Society Magazine. (See the complete article below.)

The situation recalls a scolded student being forced to write a half-hearted apology on the chalkboard. But Weiss’ essay is worth reading for what it reveals about the trade in ancient coins.

Weiss opens with a candid admission: “I was very active in the ancient coin marketplace and paid little attention to foreign cultural property laws, as if they really did not matter within the U.S. Well, they do.” Weiss is not alone — coin collectors have often displayed a surprising ignorance of the laws that govern their hobby, or open disdain for them. Weiss’ arrest has become an object lesson for the field, and Weiss uses his essay to underscore the point:

“Until recently, the prevailing view among coin dealers and collectors in the US has been that such foreign laws do not affect the purchase of objects in the US….Whether one agrees or not with the various laws of Italy, Turkey or China, for example, this must take a secondary role in this debate. The US honors the laws of cultural patrimony of foreign nations where those laws are in place and enforced by the source country.”

He is referring, of course, to the McClain Doctrine and the National Stolen Property Act, which makes it a crime to purchase or possess looted antiquities taken from a country with patrimony laws that are reasonably enforced. (See here and here for more on the law.)

Weiss goes on to expose the coin market’s dirty secret: the hoards of ancient coins that regularly appear on the market today are almost certainly the product of looting.

“Dealers and collectors with any reasonable experience can tell that such a simultaneous offering just does not happen naturally, except after a recent hoard of coins has been found and dispersed into the marketplace….The purchase of coins that derive from hoards is likely to be illegal and detrimental to scholarship, and these might be reasons enough for the buyer to be aware.”

This admission — both obvious and long-denied by collectors — is reminiscent of another remarkable whistle-blower moment: Getty Museum antiquities curator Marion True’s June 2000 speech before the Assoc. of Art Museum Directors, in which she told museum officials that it was time to accept the fact that most, if not all, undocumented antiquities were the product of looting.

But Weiss notes another reason for careful collecting: The prevalence of sophisticated forgeries on the market, like the ones he was trying to sell in New York City. Weiss notes such forgeries share something in common with looted coins: the lack of a clear collecting history.

They come with fantastic stories…From personal experience I can say that these forgeries are stunning and are being introduced into the coin market with fake provenance information…Forgery is often the domain of highly-organized criminal enterprises, most often based in the source countries themselves, but now occurring worldwide due to the spread of high-tech machinery.

Weiss concludes his essay with a call for “a different kind of collecting requiring a proactive rather than passive approach to provenance” and outlines six steps every collector of ancient coins should take:

1. Research the history. No excuse not to — the ANS has a complete set of auction catalogs dating back to the 18th Century.

2. Ask questions. Weiss notes coyly that “sometimes dealers or curators know more about the coins than might be published.”

3. Beware the Old Swiss Collection and other bogus provenance. As Weiss notes, “the words ‘collection of’ for a coin that has never been previously published or documented ought to be a sign that further research is required.”

4. Know the Law. Weiss notes the “complex” and “contradictory rules” on what is legal to acquire, but offers 1970 as an accepted cut-off date for when an object should have left its country of origin.

5. Trust your Gut. If a coin feels “wrong,” don’t buy it.

6. Avoid recent hoards. Look out for coins with gleaming smooth surfaces, come in multiples and offered by the dozen.

This is a decent checklist for all antiquities collectors to obey. But what is perhaps most remarkable is that in 2012 this needs to be explained to coin collectors. One is left to wonder whether the problem with the market today is really ignorance of the laws or merely a stubborn unwillingness to obey them.

Will Weiss’ essay — published by the official organ of the US coin collecting community — mark a turning point? It should. Ute Wartenberg Kagan, the executive director of the American Numismatic Society, took the opportunity to announce the ANS’s new collecting policy, which is more strict that the steps outlined by Weiss.

In a strongly worded editorial, she too calls for a new era of collecting — “a path of responsibility, careful research, and best practices to enhance numismatics and the responsible collecting and caring for of ancient coinage and history.”

“Collecting ancient coins will be different,” she assures her members, “but will not die out.”

Ultimately, the success of Weiss’ statement and the ANS’s new policy at changing the culture of American coin collectors will be measured by the time. If criminal cases continue to reveal collectors buying unprovenanced coins like those Weiss warned against, we’ll know that ignorance was never the problem with the market in ancient coins.

UPDATES:

Archaeologist Paul Barford has written about Weiss’ essay here, noting several things Weiss has omitted: details on his own case; the role of dealers like himself; the importance of precise find spots, not just hoards; the role of ethics that go above and beyond the letter of the law.

Coin collector lobbyist Peter Tompa has (finally) written about the Weiss case. He says he “doesn’t have much to quibble with” about Weiss’ advice, but notes that the statement was made under duress and questions whether the “archaeological lobby” might have edited it.

Ute Wartenberg has responded to Tompa on his blog, saying, “ANS staff and I edited the piece after it was submitted, but the people acknowledged in my editorial preface such as John Russell, who is a professor of Near Eastern Archaeology, kindly provided illustrations at my request. Their names can be found with the relevant photos. None of those acknowledged read Weiss’ article or provided editorial comment.” So much for that theory.

Ever the provocateur, Arthur Houghton (who describes himself as a friend of Peter Weiss) picks up Tompa’s theory in the same thread and runs with it: “Who else may have intervened in the article’s wording and who may have cleared it for publication…And did those or any other person in authority then coerce, by subtle suggestion or by direct demand, the Society to publish? Could we have a little transparency please?” Houghton goes on to tell Col. Bogdanos to “man up” and “come out of the shadows.” “…Let us know exactly what your role was in creating, framing and clearing Peter Weiss’ article? But could we have a little confession from you at an early moment?”

Tompa has the last word, saying he has confirmed with Wartenberg that “the articl [sic] had to be approved by Col. Bogdanos as part of the plea deal, but any changes to the article based on comments from the NY District Attorney’s office or any sources the DA consulted, took place BEFORE the ANS accepted the article for publication and it was edited by ANS staff.”

Our final thought: No one would dispute that Weiss’ essay was “coerced” — it was a condition of the plea deal after he was caught breaking the rules he claims to promote. We are far more interested in Tompa’s and Houghton’s thoughts on the worthiness of those rules and the new ANS policy. Helpfully, Tompa has offered this link. For those wondering about Houghton’s views (and actions) on the law, we offer this.

A few additional questions we’d welcome thoughts on: Are ancient coin collectors often ignorant of the law, as Wartenberg suggests? Or have they flouted it knowingly, perhaps because they think it’s unfair? Have the ANS and other leaders in this area done enough to educate their members about the law and enforce a code of ethics in the field? And if Weiss hadn’t written as a condition of a plea deal but instead was whispering to a trusted friend, what would he have said?

4 Comments

Posted in Hot Docs, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

The Battle for Koh Ker: Legal Implications of Cambodia’s Dispute with Sotheby’s

Posted on August 27, 2012 | 5 comments

The legal dispute over an ancient Khmer statue at Sotheby’s could have lasting implications for the sale of ancient art in the United States.

For those catching up on the case: Sotheby’s New York was poised to put the 10th century temple warrior up for auction in 2010 with an estimated value of $3 million. But shortly before the bidding started, Cambodia claimed the statue had been looted from the ruins of a Khmer temple at Koh Ker, where the statue’s feet were found in 2007. In April, federal agents sought to seize the statue on behalf of Cambodia. A judge ordered the statue to remain at Sothebys while the two parties argue the case in court. Sotheby’s filed a motion to dismiss in June and now the government has responded, attaching declarations from two legal experts to support its case. (See below for the complete filings.)

At the heart of the case are familiar questions: What level of evidence is needed to establish when and how an object was illicitly removed from its borders? What amount of due diligence must a museum, collector or auction house conduct to defend an acquisition? When can a looted object in the US be seized by the government and returned to its legal owner? And can those who possess and trade looted antiquities be found criminally liable?

The feet of two ancient sandstone statues were left behind by looters at a temple in Koh Ker, Cambodia. One statue is now at Sotheby’s, the other at the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena.

These questions have only occasionally been brought before federal courts in the United States, so the case law in this area is relatively thin. A handful of key cases have established the current legal regime, which holds that an object looted from a country with an enforced patrimony law can be considered stolen property under US law. Someone who knowingly buys or possesses a looted antiquity can be criminally charged, and the object can be taken by the government and returned to its rightful owner.

This legal regime has not prevented museums from buying suspect objects, but it has been an invaluable deterrent to the open sale of loot and helped raise the bar on acquisition standards in recent years. Given its shaky foundation, however, any new case law on these issues could alter the status quo significantly.  A victory for the government in the Cambodia case might lead to a further tightening of the rules around acquisitions and bring about more cautious collecting practices for collectors and museums. A victory for Sotheby’s, on the other hand, could encourage more brazen acquisitions of looted art.

The point is illustrated in the case filings themselves. Until recently, the leading case on the civil forfeiture of ancient art was Steinhardt, which established among other things that false declarations on import documents could allow the government to seize an object under civil law. But the recent dispute over a mummy mask at the St. Louis Museum of Art appears to have undermined the authority of that ruling, which is cited neither by the government nor Sotheby’s in the Cambodia case. Instead, both sides refer to the St. Louis case, US vs. Mask of Ka Nefer Nefer, in which the judge has found twice that the government presented insufficient evidence that the mask was stolen.

Here’s how Sotheby’s quotes the judge in that case: “[t]he Government cannot simply rest on its laurels and believe that it can initiate a civil forfeiture proceeding on the basis of one bold assertion that because something went missing from one party in 1973 and turned up with another party in 1998, it was therefore stolen and/or imported or exported illegally.”

The Cambodia case, however it is decided, will be cited in similar cases going forward. With that much at stake, the court filings are worth reading — even for those of us who are not lawyers. In the past, we’ve posted the government’s original complaint here, and the flurry of filings over the statue’s seizure here.

In June, Sotheby’s filed its first significant response to the case in a motion to dismiss:

Last week the federal attorneys in Manhattan replied with their opposition to Sotheby’s move to dismiss the case:

To support their arguments, the government filed two declarations:

Caveat and Hat-tip: We’re not lawyers and don’t even play one on TV. For insightful observations about these issues from a legal expert in this area, read Rick St. Hilaire’s indispensable blog: http://culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com/

5 Comments

Posted in Hot Docs, News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

UPDATED: Kapoor’s Footprints: 240 Objects from Alleged Antiquities Trafficker Traced to Museums Around the Globe

Posted on August 3, 2012 | 17 comments

[UPDATED 8/27 with details from SF Asian.]

We’ve begun hearing back from museums that did business with Subhash Kapoor, the New York antiquities dealer under arrest in India for trafficking in looted antiquities.

For those just catching up with the Kapoor story: The dealer, an American citizen of Indian extraction, has operated Art of the Past gallery on Madison Avenue since 1974. He was arrested in Germany last year and was recently extradicted to India, where he is alleged to have been the mastermind behind a network of temple looters operating in Tamil Nadu.

Authorities there have also accused Kapoor of trafficking in looted antiquities from other parts of India, Afghanistan, Southeast Asia and the Islamic world. Federal authorities in the United States have also issued an arrest warrant for Kapoor and seized more than $30 million worth of allegedly stolen antiquities from Kapoor’s Manhattan storage facilities in recent months.

Kapoor has done business with leading museums around the world. Indian authorities have said that Kapoor worked with his brother Ramesh Kapoor, who runs Kapoor Galleries in New York. Kapoor Galleries was not raided by federal authorities, and to our knowledge Remesh has not been charged with a crime.

Here are the 236 Kapoor objects we and others have tracked down so far:

LACMA 

The Los Angeles County Museum of Art acquired 62 objects from Kapoor. Twenty-eight were purchased from Kapoor or his Manhattan gallery Art of the Past between 1989 and 2007. Another 33 were donated by Kapoor between 1978 and 2000. We’ve posted the complete list here.

Twenty-nine of the objects are ancient. All but 8 of them belong to a single hoard of ancient figurines from Madhya Pradesh, in central India.

Two other antiquities are terracotta pieces from the 3rd and 2nd Century BC from Mathura, in Uttar Pradesh. A third is a copper sculture of Mayadevi from Uttar Pradesh, circa 100 AD.

Elephant with Riders, 3rd-2nd century B.C.

Another 18 objects at LACMA were acquired from Kapoor’s brother Ramesh, who Indian authorities say worked with his brother Subhash to import looted antiquities illegally removed from India.

LACMA acknowledges it has no documented ownership history for any of the ancient objects. “We’re re-examining all these items in the light of the recent news,” said museum spokeswoman Miranda Carroll.

BOSTON MFA

The Boston MFA has just one object fr0m Kapoor – a page from a 17th century illustrated manuscript, The Jealous Older Woman and the More Impetuous Younger Woman. It was  purchased in 1995 from Art of the Past. Kapoor bought it at Sotheby’s, New York, in 1994, and was privately owned prior to being sold at auction, museum records show. The MFA also purchased two 17th century works from Kapoor Gallery.

ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO

The Art Institute has two objects purchase from Kapoor.  “We are in the process of confirming the provenance information and will take appropriate steps when we have completed this review,” said museum spokeswoman Erin Hogan. We’ve requested information about the objects — the museum’s online collection database does not allow for searching by provenance.

ASIAN ART MUSEUM of SAN FRANCISCO

Museum spokesman Tim Hallman said, “We have not been contacted by any officials investigating Mr. Kapoor’s dealings. However, when news broke of the investigation, the museum’s director instructed our chief curator to review the collection records to determine if we obtained items from Mr. Kapoor. We are still reviewing the files (our holdings include more than 18,000 artworks).” We’ll post the list of objects when we get it.

UPDATE: Hallman got back to us with details. The Asian Art Museum acquired four objects from Kapoor, including a 14th century statue of the Hindu deity Shiva in the fierce form of Bhairava (above), said to be from Karnataka, the Indian state west of Tamil Nadu where Kapoor is being held for trial. The Asian purchased the statue from Kapoor in 2000. “We have have carefully reviewed our records for each object and have not found any information to suggest that that any of these four art objects were acquired or imported illegally,” Hallman said in an email. The complete list of Kapoor objects at the SF Asian can be found here.

TOLEDO MUSEUM

The Toledo Museum continues to ignore our requests for information about objects they acquired from Kapoor and several other dealers tied to the illicit trade. The New York Times reported that Toledo acquired 44 terracotta antiquities from Kapoor in 2007. The museum’s website appears to offer  information about just one of those objects. It is hard to fathom how a museum whose considerable assets are exempt from taxes because they operate “in the public interest” can refuse to answer the public’s questions about objects in its collection. Only Princeton University Art Museum has shown a similar disdain for the public’s right to know.

THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART

As we reported last week, the Metropolitan Museum of Art acquired 81 objects from Kapoor, four of which are antiquities that have no documented ownership history. For reasons that remain unclear, the museum also knowingly acquired five forgeries from Kapoor in 1991 for the museum’s study collection. Many of the Met’s other Kapoor objects are drawings from the 17th, 18th or 19th century highlighted in the museum’s 2009 exhibit, Living Line: Selected Indian Drawings From the Subhash Kapoor Gift.

NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART, AUSTRALIA

The NGA has acknowledged buying 21 objects from Kapoor, including a bronze Dancing Shiva said to be tied to the Kapoor investigation. That news has set off a wave of press reports in Australia about the case. The museum claims to have followed a “thorough due diligence process” and contacted Indian authorities this week to offer its cooperation in the investigation.

UPDATE: The museum released a statement saying, “The Gallery has commenced plans to undertake a comprehensive re-examination by a panel of internal and external art experts of the supplied documentation as well as the provenance of work acquired from Mr Kapoor, as many international Galleries are also doing. The Gallery is liaising closely with the Indian High Commission in Canberra to ensure that the internationally accepted protocols for dealing with such issues are followed.” The NGA has not yet released details about the provenance of the Shiva or other Kapoor objects.

SMITHSONIAN MUSEUMS

The Freer and Sackler Galleries told the New York Times that the only object they had acquired from Kapoor was a 20th century Indian necklace.

UPDATE: David Gill notes The Sackler has issued a statement saying it is investigating several objects purchase from Kapoor Galleries, controlled by Subhash Kapoor’s brother. The objects include a marble bracket figure, India, 13th c. (purchased in 1995); a seated figure of Jambala, Tibet, bronze, 13th c. (purchased in 1996); a Gautama Buddha, Tibet, gilt copper, 14th c. (purchased 1997); and a pair of lamps of fortune, India, bronze, 17th c. (purchased in 2000). The statement notes that The Freer|Sackler “were among the first U.S. museums to adopt the UNESCO convention of 1970, which forbids the acquisition or display of works illegally removed from their nation of origin after 1970.”

Art Gallery of New South Wales

The Art Gallery of New South Wales purchased six objects from Kapoor, Australian media reported. Former Getty Museum director Michael Brand, who took the helm of the Australian museum in June, said, “No-one has made any suggestions that the works in our collection or stolen or that there are any issues about those works. Should someone come to us and say that there is reason to believe then we would obviously collaborate in any way we can.” Among the objects at the museum are this one, highlighted by David Gill.

WANTED IDOLS

The website of website of the Tamil Nadu police has additional information about the Kapoor investigation, along with photos of missing idols. Where are these idols now? The NGA’s Shiva appears superficially similar to one of the Dancing Shiva’s shown there.

Kapoor’s Alleged Accomplices: Indian authorities are looking for two of Kapoor’s alleged accomplices, The Times of India reports. [A QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING NEIL PERRY-SMITH.] Paul Barford does some digging into the alleged accomplices are finds some intriguing clues. [UPDATE: BARFORD’S POST HAS BEEN REMOVED.]

Have you tracked down other Kapoor antiquities? If so, send us the details and we’ll credit you with the find: chasingaphrodite@gmail.com

17 Comments

Posted in News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,