164 Antiquities with No Listed Provenance in Upcoming French Auction – UPDATED
UPDATE – Here are the sale results.
Same old story, different venue — another auction of antiquities with vague or non-existent provenance, this time at Paris-based Pierre Berge & Associates. Their June 1, 2012 sale opens with 139 lots of ancient Egyptian artifacts of which 89 collectively have no listed provenance or undated provenance (65 have no listed provenance and 24 have undated provenance); and, of the 303 lots offered in the entire sale, 196 collectively have no listed provenance or undated provenance (164 have no listed provenance whatsoever and 32 have undated provenance).
How is this possible? Given the attention to looting and the successful repatriation of antiquities to Italy, Egypt and elsewhere, why would any auction house offer antiquities for sale that have either no listed provenance or undated provenance? And why would any collector purchase such works? It’s entirely possible that the 196 lots in this sale with non-existent or undated provenance are legit — but if that’s the case, why wasn’t the information published in the online catalogue and listed on the auction house’s Web site?
The following 164 lots have no listed provenance: 22, 23, 27, 28, 33, 37, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 92, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 106, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126, 134, 137, 140, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 156, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 167, 169, 171, 173, 174, 175, 177, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 198, 202, 203, 204, 205, 208, 209, 210, 213, 219, 220, 222, 223, 224, 225, 227, 229, 230, 231, 236, 237, 238, 240, 242, 244, 249, 250, 252, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 269, 270, 271, 273, 274, 275, 280, 281, 282, 283, 285, 286, 288, 290, 291, 292, 295, 296, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, and 303.
The following 32 lots have undated provenance: 19, 20, 24, 30, 34, 38, 44, 48, 65, 75, 77, 78, 79, 90, 98, 103, 108, 127, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 138, 200, 218, 221, 253, 255, 279, 287, and 289.
Here are 11 items in the sale with no listed provenance beginning with 6 Egyptian works:
Other works in the sale with no listed provenance:
I attended a “Chasing Aphrodite” talk where the Director of the Walters Art Museum (who is generally sympathetic to repatriation) indicated that many minor artifacts do not have provenances, and that just comes with the territory. I would hope someone who purports to be knowledgeable in the area like yourself would not therefore imply that these artifacts must be the products of recent illicit digs. This certainly is the type of thing that one often hears from archaeologists who have an axe to grind against collecting, but its not a sentiment one often hears elsewhere. If you yourself are a collector of any sort, are you all that sure of the provenance of all your own holdings? Archaeologists may try to distinguish between archaeological objects and others, but that is not a distinction the law recognizes.
Sir – Thank you for your response. At no time did I say/imply, “these artifacts must be the products of recent illicit digs.” Indeed, my blog contained the following statement: “It’s entirely possible that the 196 lots in this sale with non-existent or undated provenance are legit — but if that’s the case, why wasn’t the information published in the catalogue and listed on the auction house’s Web site?” Provenance has become an important topic in the discussion of antiquities collecting and this blog merely points out that more than half the works on offer in this particular auction have no provenance listed in the online auction catalogue or on the auction house’s Web site.