Heart of confusion? EU Regulation 2019/880 on the import of cultural goods and the fight against terrorism

On 12 March 2019, the European Parliament adopted EU Regulation 2019/880 on the import of cultural goods, which is intended to control the import of cultural objects into the European Union (EP 2019). The European Commission first announced the proposed Regulation on 13 July 2017, as part of the EU’s 2016 action plan to ‘strengthen the fight against the financing of terrorism’ (EC 2017a). The focus on terrorist financing was made clear in the press release:

Commission First Vice President Frans Timmermans said: ‘Money is oxygen to terrorist organisations such as Daesh. We are taking action to cut off each of their sources of financing. This includes the trade of cultural goods, as terrorists derive funding from the looting of archaeological sites and the illegal sale of cultural objects. By preventing them from entering the EU, we can help dry up this source of income’.

The press release went on to state that:

At the moment, the EU applies prohibitions on goods from Iraq and Syria but there is no general EU framework for the import of cultural goods. Current rules can be exploited by unscrupulous exporters and importers who can use the profits to fund illegal activities such as terrorism.

Background information presented with the press release also highlighted the problem of terrorist financing and emphasised it would be the intention of the new Regulation to reduce such financing by stopping the import of looted and trafficked cultural objects into the EU (EC 2017b):

Recent reports have also shown that valuable artworks, sculptures and archaeological artefacts are being sold and imported into the EU from certain non-EU countries, with those profits potentially used to finance terrorist activities. For example, two Syrian friezes that may have been intended for criminal gain were seized at Roissy airport, France last year.

The European Commission is now responding to numerous calls for action from the other EU institutions and national governments by proposing measures to counter the illicit trafficking of cultural goods from non-EU countries more effectively. The proposal adopted today is also foreseen in the Commission Action Plan for strengthening the fight against terrorist financing that was presented in December 2016 and aims to disrupt the sources of revenue used by terrorist organisations by targeting their capacity to raise funds.

Paragraph 1 of the Regulation’s preamble explains its purpose in responding to terrorism:

In light of the Council Conclusions of 12 February 2016 on the fight against the financing of terrorism, the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of 2 February 2016 on an Action Plan for strengthening the fight against terrorist financing and Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council, common rules on trade with third countries should be adopted so as to ensure the effective protection against illicit trade in cultural goods and against their loss or destruction, the preservation of humanity’s cultural heritage and the prevention of terrorist financing and money laundering through the sale of pillaged cultural goods to buyers in the Union.

Article 1(1) of the Regulation confirms:

This Regulation sets out the conditions for the introduction of cultural goods and the conditions and procedures for the import of cultural goods for the purpose of safeguarding humanity’s cultural heritage and preventing the illicit trade in cultural goods, in particular where such illicit trade could contribute to terrorist financing.

Thus in its intention and substance the 2019 Regulation is explicitly conceived as an instrument to combat the trade of cultural objects for financing terrorism. Unfortunately, it looks to have fallen short of that goal, largely because of the anachronistic and now flawed categorisation of cultural property which it inherited from the 1970 UNESCO Convention. Paragraph 7 of the Regulation’s preamble states that:

Many third countries and most Member States are familiar with the definitions used in the Unesco Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property signed in Paris on 14 November 1970 (‘the 1970 Unesco Convention’) to which a significant number of Member States are a party, and in the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects signed in Rome on 24 June 1995. For that reason the definitions used in this Regulation are based on those definitions.

Thus the Regulation adopted the 49-year-old 1970 UNESCO categorisation of cultural property for reasons of ‘familiarity’, rather than design a new, more technically precise system of categories – one more suited perhaps to the Regulation’s intended purpose of tackling terrorist financing. The categories of cultural objects subject to control by the Regulation are set out in its Annex, which follows the 1970 UNESCO Convention in making the distinction between (c) ‘products of archaeological excavations’, and (e) ‘antiquities, such as coins and engraved seals’. This distinction is important because legislatively these two categories are treated differently from one another.

Article 4 of the Regulation applies to ‘products of archaeological excavations (including regular and clandestine) or of archaeological discoveries on land or underwater’ and ‘elements of artistic or historical monuments or archaeological sites which have been dismembered’ (including liturgical items and statues), all more than 250 years old. An importer must apply for an import license, subject to certain reservations providing proof of licit export of material from the country of origin. The importer should supply relevant supporting documentation, such as export licenses etc.

Article 5 applies to all other cultural objects, including ‘antiquities, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals’, more than 200 years old. It requires only that the importer submit to customs a signed statement (affidavit) certifying that subject to certain reservations the material was legally exported from the country of origin, accompanied by a standardised document describing the object in detail to enable ‘risk control’.

In other words, while Article 4 controls the import of archaeological products by means of a licensing system, Article 5 only documents the import of antiquities. Furthermore, while Article 4 applies to archaeological products of any value, Article 5 only applies to antiquities valued at more than 18,000 Euros per item. In effect, because of this monetary threshold, virtually all ‘antiquities’ are excluded from any requirement to document through importer statement.

There is strong evidence in Syria of criminals and terrorists targeting what in the Regulation are termed ‘antiquities’ in the form ancient coins and jewellery. On 16 May, 2015, when US Special Forces raided the Syrian compound of Abu Sayyaf, head of the ISIL Diwan al Rikaz (Ministry of Natural Resources and Minerals, including its Antiquities Division), many of the antiquities recovered from his possession were coins from Syria and Iraq, together with electronic images of gold coins and jewellery on his computer (US 2016). Ethnographic reporting from Idlib Governorate in Syria has highlighted how metal-detectors are used searching for coins and other small objects (Brodie and Sabrine 2018), while the importance of coins is also reflected in reports of seizures in Turkey (Myers and Kulish 2016). The ATHAR investigation into the use of Facebook for trafficking cultural objects emphasises that ‘coins represented the most frequently offered artifact in posts’ (Al-Azm and Paul 2019: 37, 38 figures 43-46). Thus what evidence there is for the use of cultural objects in terrorist financing points towards the particular importance of ancient coins, which are not subject to the Article 4 licensing requirement of the regulation and mostly too low-value to be subject to the statement requirement of Article 5. The door is left wide open for the undocumented import and sale of ancient coins and other antiquities that might finance terrorism –expressly counter to the intention of the Regulation.

Other than the familiarity of the 1970 UNESCO categorisation, why ‘antiquities more than one hundred years old’ should be treated differently to ‘products of archaeological excavations’ is not explained in the Regulation (or in the 1970 UNESCO Convention), even though antiquities are commonly understood to be ancient archaeological objects. The distinction between archaeological products and antiquities is there already in Article 1 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, perhaps because at the time the 1970 Convention was being drafted, the term ‘antiquity’ was being used in some national laws to denote an old rather than an ancient object (O’Keefe 2017: 125). A better term today might be ‘antique’. But the specific inclusion of coins in the category antiquities encourages or at least enables an interpretation that ancient coins should be considered separately from products of archaeological excavations.

The monetary threshold imposed by the Regulation on ‘antiquities, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals’ seems to carry over the distinction between important and, by extension, unimportant objects that was established in Article 1 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention. The idea that some cultural property is more important than other cultural property encourages a view that objects of aesthetic or other cultural (and thus monetary) value are more deserving of protection than objects that in themselves are of less aesthetic or cultural value. It is only a short step then to deciding that important objects are more deserving of trade control than unimportant objects. But privileging the ‘primacy of the object’ in this way overlooks or ignores the damage caused to cultural heritage by the large-scale clandestine excavation of small objects such as coins and jewellery, which can be massively destructive, as satellite images of Syrian archaeological sites suggest. When traded in large enough numbers, and they are, they can generate substantial income for criminals and terrorists.

Thus, it is questionable to what extent a legal instrument intending to protect cultural heritage in situ should distinguish between important and unimportant objects, as seems to be the case in the Regulation with its system of control for archaeological products but only documentation (at best) for antiquities. This is a serious problem if, as seems probable, coins and other small objects included in the category antiquities are a primary source of terrorist financing. By failing to exert control over their import into the EU the Regulation has failed in its expressed purpose of combatting terrorist financing.

The reasons for this failure are not hard to discern. First, the Regulation was drafted in light of a very poor evidence base. It was conceived in reaction to public concern about the activities of Da’esh in Syria and Iraq and particularly by widespread reports of Daesh’s control and profiting from the trade in cultural objects. Yet it remains the case that there has been no good quality or reliable research conducted into the problem of the trade in cultural objects funding terrorism, and in the absence of such research the legislators probably had to rely upon unreliable and sensationalist media reporting, with its misleading reports of ‘treasures’ and ‘artworks’ – little more than guesswork in fact. Second, it is questionable to what extent in 2019 the 1970 UNESCO categorisation is fit for purpose. Familiarity is all very well, but the categorisation is now fifty years old and as the Regulation shows it can cripple more forward-looking international legislation. In fact, it might not be too much to claim that unless it is changed or even abandoned it will come to constitute a debilitating ‘heart of confusion’ for any future laws aiming to control the trade in archaeological products/antiquities.


Al-Azm, Amr and Katie Paul, 2019. Facebook’s Black Market in Antiquities. Trafficking, Terrorism and War Crimes. Antiquities Trafficking and Heritage Anthropology Research (ATHAR) Project.

Brodie, Neil and Isber Sabrine, 2018. The illegal excavation and trade of Syrian cultural objects: a view from the ground. Journal of Field Archaeology 43, 74–84.

EC 2017a. Security Union: Cracking down on the illegal import of cultural goods used to finance terrorism. Press release 13 July.

EC 2017b. Questions and Answers on the illegal import of cultural goods used to finance terrorism. Press release 13 July.

EP 2019. Regulation on the Import of Cultural Goods.

Myers, Steven Lee and Nicholas Kulish, 2016. “‘Broken system’ allows ISIS to profit from looted antiquities”, New York Times, January 9.

O’Keefe, Patrick, 2017. Protecting Cultural Objects: Before and After 1970. Leicester: Institute of Art and Law.

US 2016. United States of America v. One gold ring with carved gemstone, an asset of ISIL, discovered on electronic media of Abu Sayyaf, President of ISIL Antiquities Department; one gold coin featuring Antoninus Pius, an asset of ISIL, discovered on electronic media of Abu Sayyaf, President of ISIL Antiquities Department; one gold coin featuring Emperor Hadrian Augustus Caesar, an asset of ISIL, discovered on electronic media of Abu Sayyaf, President Of ISIL Antiquities Department; one carved Neo-Assyrian stone stela, an asset of ISIL, discovered on electronic media of Abu Sayyaf, President of ISIL Antiquities Department, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 2016 (1:16-cv-02442), December 15.

Was it worth it Subhash?

In October 2011, New York-based Asian Art dealer Subhash Kapoor was arrested in Germany and in July 2012 extradited to India where he awaits trial facing criminal charges related to the theft and trafficking of antiquities. At the time of his arrest, Kapoor was proprietor of the sales gallery Art of the Past in New York City, dealing in cultural objects from a range of South and Southeast Asian countries.

Starting in January 2012, the Department of Homeland Security-Homeland Security Investigations (DHS-HSI) followed up Kapoor’s arrest with a series of raids on his New York sales and storage premises, seizing business records and a large number of antiquities thought to have been stolen and trafficked. By April 2015, DHS-HSI had recovered 2,622 antiquities with a total appraised value of $107.6 million (Mashberg 2015). On 8 July 2019, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office filed criminal charges related to antiquities trafficking against Kapoor and seven alleged co-conspirators. The complaint describes a series of offences starting at least by August 1986 with the incorporation of Art of the Past and continuing until 2016. It alleges Kapoor traded thousands of stolen antiquities with a total value exceeding $145 million.

Based on documentation and other evidence recovered during the DHS-HSI investigations, the meticulously detailed complaint contains a wealth of information relating to Kapoor’s activities, which is primarily reproduced in support of the charges brought against him, but which also casts light on the operation of his business and the antiquities trade more generally. One immediate point of interest is the evidence of price mark-ups between what Kapoor paid for an object (cost price) and what he sold it for (selling price). Leaving aside prices recorded on customs forms, which might be fraudulent, the DHS-HSI was able to gain more reliable evidence of mark-ups from Kapoor’s correspondence with his suppliers, sometimes supplemented by informant testimony.

To start with, the complaint provides prices for the purchase and sale by Kapoor of three objects. The complaint also provides Kapoor’s valuations of objects not sold by the time of the DHS-HSI raids. Comparison of the actual selling prices of the three sold objects with Kapoor’s pre-sale valuations of them allows an assessment to be made of the accuracy of Kapoor’s valuations. The valuations can then be used as proxy selling prices for several other unsold pieces and allow the calculation of four further potential mark-ups.

In early 2002, Kapoor bought from the Indo-Nepal Art Centre in Mumbai, India a third-century limestone relief depicting worshippers of Buddha (Worshippers Relief) stolen from the Chadavaram Stupa, Andhra Pradesh, India. He valued it at approximately $550,000. In 2005, Kapoor sold the relief to the National Gallery of Australia (NGA) for $585,000. In September 2016, the NGA returned it to India (NGA 2016; Arlt and Folan 2018). A fax from the Indian vendor records that Kapoor paid $70,000 for the relief, meaning a mark-up from cost price to selling price of 736 per cent and a potential mark-up for Kapoor’s valuation of 686 per cent.

In late 2002, Kapoor bought from the Indo-Nepal Art Centre in Mumbai, India two objects stolen from the Vriddhagiriswarar Temple in Vriddhachalam, Tamil Nadu, India. The first was a twelfth-century granite sculpture of the goddess Pratyangira, which he valued at approximately $250,000. In July 2005, Kapoor sold the Pratyangira to the NGA for $247,000. In September 2016, the NGA returned it to India (NGA 2016). The second was a tenth-century granite sculpture of Shiva as Ardhanarishsvara (Ardhanari), which Kapoor valued at $250,000. In June 2004, he sold the Ardhanari to the Art Gallery of New South Wales (AGNSW) for $225,000. In September 2014, the AGNSW returned it to India. A fax from the Indian vendor records that Kapoor paid 11,00,000 rupees ($22,634) for both pieces together, meaning a mark-up from cost price to selling price of 1,985 per cent and a potential mark-up for Kapoor’s valuation of 2,109 per cent.

The magnitude of these price mark-ups is extraordinary, averaging out at 1,569 per cent. There is also reasonably good agreement between Kapoor’s valuation of the objects and the price he ultimately secured when selling them. Thus Kapoor’s valuations can be used as proxy price indicators, which allows the calculation of several more potential price mark-ups.

In 2005, Kapoor visited Pakistan where he purchased two objects. The first was a second–third-century marble Buddha head (Monumental Buddha Head), which he valued at approximately $4.5 million. On 5 January 2012, DHS-HSI agents seized the Buddha Head from storage in New York. The second was a first–third-century, schist Herakles-Vajrapani holding a sword (Herakles with Sword), which he valued at approximately $1.75 million. On 26 July 2012, DHS-HSI agents seized the Herakles from storage in New York. According to informant testimony, Kapoor paid $500,000 for a batch of antiquities including these two pieces. Even if the cost of other purchased antiquities is excluded, the combined valuation of $6.25 million represents a potential mark-up from cost price of 1,150 per cent. Allowing for the cost of the other three antiquities in the $500,000 cost price, the real percentage mark-up would be higher still.

In April 2006, Kapoor visited Pakistan where he purchased from Rawaiee Al Lotus a number of antiquities, including five eighteenth–nineteenth-century glazed Quranic wall tiles (Quranic Wall Tiles). He valued them in total at $445,000. A fax from Rawaiee Al Lotus shows Kapoor paid $20,000 for the tiles, a potential mark-up from cost price of 2,125 per cent.

On the same April 2006 buying trip, Kapoor bought a second–fourth-century schist statue of Herakles as Vajrapani (Monumental Herakles), which he valued at $950,000. He also bought a second–fourth-century Seated Buddha on Lotus (Seated Buddha), which he valued at $650,000. On 26 July 2012, DHS-HSI agents seized both pieces from storage in New York. Kapoor bought the Herakles and Buddha as part of a lot containing three other objects. A fax from Rawaiee Al Lotus shows that Kapoor paid $200,000 for the lot. Even if the cost of the other three antiquities in the lot is excluded, the combined selling price of $1.6 million for the Herakles and the Buddha represents a mark-up from cost price of 700 per cent. Allowing for the cost of the other three antiquities, the real percentage mark-up for the two pieces would be higher still.

In 2005, Kapoor purchased a twelfth-century sandstone sculpture of the monkey god Hanuman from an Indian dealer in New York, which he valued at approximately $225,000. On 26 July 2012, DHS-HSI agents seized the Hanuman from storage in New York. An informant states that Kapoor paid $30-40,000 for the Hanuman, a mark-up from cost price to selling price of approximately 543 per cent.

Object Mark-up (per cent)
Worshippers Relief 736
Pratyangira and Ardhanari 1,985
Monumental Buddha Head and Herakles with
Quranic Wall Tiles 2,125
Monumental Herakles and Seated Buddha 700
Hanuman 543

Again, averaging out at about 1,200 per cent, the magnitude of these mark-ups is remarkable, though they do not constitute profit. Kapoor would have needed to deduct associated business costs for such things as staffing, conservation and storage, not to mention tax. Not least is the fact that many of the objects remained unsold at the time of the DHS-HSI raids and the potential mark-ups had yet to be realised. It is interesting that the lowest mark-up is for the Hanuman, which Kapoor bought once it was already in the USA. He bought the other objects abroad and imported them, thereby running the risk they might be seized by customs. Perhaps the element of risk was lower for Kapoor when buying the Hanuman, with the lower mark-up reflecting a higher price paid to his supplier who was the one accepting the risk of financial loss or worse associated with importing the piece. The complaint reckons that at the very least there are 39 stolen objects worth nearly $36 million unaccounted for, which probably means they have been sold. That would be something like $33 million for Kapoor before tax and expenses. Was it worth it? He can’t spend the money in prison.

Arlt, Robert and Lucie Folan, 2018. Research and restitution: the National Gallery of Australia’s repatriation of a sculpture from the Buddhist site of Chandavaram, Journal of Art Market Studies 2: 1-17.

Mashberg, Tom, 2015. New York authorities seek custody of stolen artifacts worth over $100 million, New York Times, 14 April.

NGA, 2016. National Gallery of Australia returns two sculptures to India, press release, 19 September.

The Bourne acquisition

On 4 June 2008, the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) adopted new guidelines for the acquisition of archaeological and ancient art objects. Going forward, it recommended that a member museum should only acquire an object when there is evidence to show that it was out of its country of modern discovery before 17 November 1970, or exported legally after that date. The AAMD recognised that there are likely to be objects in circulation that were out of their countries of modern discovery before 1970, but without validating provenance. In such cases, the AAMD recommended that if after appropriate due diligence a member museum concludes that an object was likely to have been out of its country of discovery before 17 November 1970, the object could be acquired but a record of the acquisition should be posted on a new web-based Object Registry. The posting on the Object Registry would constitute a public record of the acquisition, allowing any dispossessed owner to identify the object and make a recovery claim to the museum concerned. On 23 January 2013, the AAMD amended its 2008 guidelines, allowing the acquisition by gift or bequest of objects without the necessary pre-1970 provenance provided a promissory agreement had been reached before the 4 June date of the 2008 guidelines.

By March 2018, the Object Registry listed entries for 1,117 objects in 28 museums. The largest aggregate entry for a single institution comprised 358 objects in the collection of Baltimore’s Walters Art Museum, many of them previously owned by John Bourne. They reflect the museum’s accession in 2009 of 301 objects from the Bourne collection. Aspects of the acquisition have been discussed by Roger Atwood and Donna Yates. Bourne had been assembling his collection since the 1940s, but as the histogram shows, he bought most of his objects after 1970.

As the above example shows, the individual Walters’ Object Registry entries for the Bourne objects state that they were acquired because ‘Communications between the Walters Art Museum and the donor of this gift began in April 2005’. This entry justifies the acquisition by making reference to the amended 2013 AAMD guidelines. Gary Vikan, however, who was director of the Walters at the time of the Bourne acquisition, seemingly contradicts these statements on the Object Registry when he reveals that he first heard about the possible availability of the Bourne Collection ‘near the end of 2008’ [1] – in other words, a few months after the 4 June date of the 2008 guidelines. Before then, in 2000 when he first met Bourne, his hope had been that Bourne might lend the Walters ‘a piece or two’ [2]. At that time, Bourne had promised his collection to the College of Santa Fe.

Vikan defended the acquisition of the Bourne collection by reference to the ‘Vikan Doctrine’ of due diligence, transparency and good faith engagement:

… the acquisition of a work or art would be conducted with full and rigorous investigation and documentation of the work’s history, whether it be a proposed purchase, a promised gift, or a possible long-term loan. If acquired or accepted as a gift or loan, it would then be promptly published on the Walters’ website and on the Object Registry of the Association of Art Museum Directors … the Walters would promptly and openly respond to any plausible claim for repatriation of the work from a possible source country [3].

The confusion over the date of the acquisition agreement does little to foster confidence in the transparency component of the Vikan Doctrine, but what about due diligence, the ‘full and rigorous investigation and documentation of the work’s history’? The only provenance information provided for the overwhelming majority of Bourne objects on the Walters’ website is the date of Bourne’s purchase and the name of the vendor. There are hardly any indications of provenance dating back to before the date of Bourne’s purchase, and while it is always possible that the objects had been in circulation since before 1970, from what is published they might equally have been fresh out of the ground and new on the market. Accepting material with such flimsy documentation of provenance surely runs counter to the Vikan Doctrine and indeed to the ethical principles of the AAMD guidelines.

In the exhibition catalogue of the collection, Vikan mentions that the acquisition was accompanied by a ‘bequest of $4 million for the research, conservation, display, and teaching of the arts of the ancient Americas’ [4]. It would be hard for any museum to refuse a bequest of that size. Perhaps hard enough for the Walters to have suspended Vikan’s Doctrine and evaded the AAMD’s guidelines.


  1. Vikan, Gary, 2016. Sacred and Stolen: Confessions of a Museum Director. New York: SelectBooks, at page 269.
  2. Ibid, at page 269.
  3. Ibid, at page 270.
  4. Vikan, Gary, 2012. Foreword, in Dorie Reents-Budet (ed.), Exploring Art of the Ancient Americas: The John Bourne Collection. Baltimore: The Walters Art Museum.

Lost secrets of Rihani

It is frequently speculated that there are large stores of looted antiquities and other cultural objects maintained in various Middle Eastern countries, with their owners waiting for the market to cool down before selling them on. But although these stores are often talked about, none has been revealed, until perhaps now.

In November 2014, the Yesterday TV channel aired The Lost Secrets of Petra in series two of its Forbidden History strand. The presenter discussed the assembly in Jordan of large collections of undeclared objects, which he said were destined for onwards sale in Europe or the United States. He visited the Rihani family collection in Amman, where there was a tremendous quantity of material on view. The collection was stored in several rooms, and although it seemingly comprised mainly Jordanian material, there were recognisable pieces from Egypt and probably Iraq, including the incantation bowl pictured below. I have reproduced several still images taken from the programme without comment. I think they speak for themselves. As I have noted before, objects said to be from the Rihani collection are often offered for sale in the United Kingdom. Whether they really are from the Rihani collection is a matter for speculation.

It is well worthwhile watching this programme next time it is screened, or searching it out on-line.

Nice work if you can get it

Howard Swains has just published a useful piece on Robin Symes containing informative commentary by my Trafficking Culture colleague Christos Tsirogiannis. Symes was a major international antiquities dealer through the 1980s and 1990s. With Italian and Greek police hot on his trail, he was driven into bankruptcy in 2003 and after serving a short prison sentence for contempt of court in 2005 he disappeared from view. His present whereabouts remain unknown. Swains tells Symes’s story in all its sordid detail and it is well worth a read.

Just by chance, Symes figures in another news article covering the Lebanese claim for the return of a fourth-century BC marble bull’s head from the possession of US collectors Lynda and William Beierwaltes. In 1981, armed Christian militia stole the bulls head from storage in Byblos – it is a conflict antiquity. By 1996, the head was in the possession of Symes, who sold it to the Beierwaltes for $1.2 million. This sale makes Symes a purveyor of conflict antiquities.

Before his disappearance, Symes claimed to possess 17,000 objects in 29 warehouses, most of them antiquities, with a total value of $250 million [1]. It remains to be seen how many conflict antiquities are included in this total. In 2016, Roman, Etruscan and Greek South Italian antiquities from one of his storage facilities in Geneva were returned to Italy. His remaining stock is in the hands of liquidators, but its composition, value and fate remain subjects for speculation. Greek and Italian investigators suspect part and perhaps many of the objects were illegally acquired and would like full access in order to study them further and recover anything that might be stolen property. But his antiquities are being sold without such study taking place.

Until now, the location of Symes’s residual stock has been something of a mystery. Swains points out that in 2015 Companies House made the reports of Symes’s liquidators available on-line for public viewing, and interesting viewing they make too. Each year, major payments from the USD($) account are being made to a New York based storage company with a warehouse in Brooklyn. Perhaps Homeland Security Investigations would like to take a look. Similarly large payments from the GBP(£) account are being made to a separate company for storage in west London.

As Swains notes, the Companies House reports also record the ongoing unpublicised sale of unvetted material (including, presumably, some conflict antiquities) to UK dealers. He reports the concern of Italian prosecutor Paolo Ferri that the sales are being conducted to recover tax for the UK government, but the reality is if anything more shameful. As the intermittent sale of material drags on year after year, any proceeds are being eaten up by storage and insurance costs and legal and other sundry fees and expenses. Everyone is making money it seems except for the creditors. No one seems worried about the probable existence of stolen or conflict antiquities. Nice work if you can get it – and if your moral compass is pointing firmly astern.


  1. Watson, Peter, 2006. Convicted dealers: what we can learn, in Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and the Antiquities Trade, edited by Neil Brodie, Morag M. Kersel, Christina Luke and Kathryn Walker Tubb. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, at 94.

Incident at Bodrum Airport

On 19 August an Englishman was arrested when leaving Turkey in possession of 12 ancient coins. He had found the coins while snorkelling on holiday and was stopped by security at Bodrum Airport. On the face of it, the arrest looks to be a completely disproportionate response to a trivial infraction, punishing a naive holidaymaker for an innocent mistake in misappropriating a handful of old coins. But take a step back for a minute, reflect upon the broader context, and the Turkish action looks justifiable, commendable even.

Since 2014, the international community has been concerned about the terrorist group Daesh (Islamic State) profiting from the sale of looted and trafficked antiquities. Much of this material has passed from Syria into Turkey, and then on to Europe. From seizures made inside Turkey, it is known that the bulk comprises ancient coins. Many of these trafficked coins are likely being sold on eBay and other websites by traders based in the United Kingdom (England to be precise). In March 2015, for example, a Daily Mail investigation headlined ‘2000-year-old artefacts looted by ISIS from ancient sites in Iraq and Syria are being sold on EBAY’, with images of Syrian coins selling for between £57 and £90 each (though not actually looted by Daesh). Turkey is under international pressure to choke this Daesh income stream by stopping the trade passing through its territory. In these circumstances, an Englishman secretly moving ancient coins out of the country must be a viable suspect, one to be held pending further investigation. Maybe he is part of a larger trafficking ring operating out of England? Presumably he will be proved innocent, and the coins will be shown not to have originated in Syria, though taking Turkish coins is in itself an offence. But it is important to know that in the fight against terrorism the Turkish border authorities are doing their job, acting with competence and vigilance when the easy option would have been to confiscate the coins and wave the tourist through. In the United Kingdom, we would expect nothing less of our own border force. The man is now in custody in Turkey. Hopefully he will be released sometime soon. After all, it is not in Turkey’s interest to be frightening away innocent tourists. But we must remember, like most other countries of the world, Turkish public services have been hollowed out by austerity-driven budget cuts, and the release process might take longer than we would like.

Assuming he is innocent, and that Turkey has acted correctly in accordance with international expectations, is anybody to blame? There is endless talk in policy circles of reducing demand for ancient coins and other antiquities by raising public awareness of the issues and risks involved in their trade. But no one seems to have raised the arrested man’s awareness. Flight operators and holiday agencies do nothing to alert customers to the dangers of acquiring ancient coins and antiquities. There is nothing to be seen on the pages of in-flight magazines. Indeed, the opposite is sometimes the case. The British government has done nothing to warn holidaymakers. Where are the announcements in newspapers or on prime-time television? Where are the notices at airport departure desks? There has been much tough talk about the need to stop Daesh from profiting from the antiquities trade, but little concrete action. So rather than criticising Turkey for taking a strong stand against antiquities trafficking, we should look closer to home and ask what more can be done to prevent holidaymakers from breaking the law of foreign countries, and why the British government is not acting to stop its citizens from inadvertently committing illegal acts while abroad. English sellers of trafficked ancient coins must also share some of the blame as they have helped create the problem in the first place. Coins are only trafficked because people are there to buy and sell them. But by their actions they have also raised an atmosphere of scepticism and distrust in Turkey, so that a well-meaning tourist might be suspected of being part of something larger and more sinister than is actually the case. Shame on them.

Capacity degrading

There is a lot of public money being spent these days on capacity building projects designed to help protect cultural heritage in the Middle East. I am not too convinced personally that professional training of this type translates well into cultural heritage protection, but at least some people in the area are benefiting from opportunities that were not previously available, so I can’t complain too much. What I do want to complain about is the opposite of capacity building, what I propose to call ‘capacity degrading’. What is capacity degrading? I intend it to mean reducing a national fund of professional expertise or competence in such a way as to diminish the public good – the opposite of capacity building in fact.

Let us look at Hobby Lobby again. I came across a comment published in 2014 by someone in a position to know that the Hobby Lobby collection contains an ‘enormous collection’ of cuneiform tablets, an observation that chimes well with Hobby Lobby’s own claim to possess ‘One of the largest collections of cuneiform tablets in North America’. So even after the US Customs seizures and returns Hobby Lobby will still retain a large holding of cuneiform tablets that are destined to be studied and published by members of the Green Scholars Initiative. The Green Scholars Initiative comprises ‘Scholars from 60 participating colleges, universities and seminaries around the globe’, but there is no evidence that any of them are Iraqi scholars from Iraqi universities. Similarly, we can look at the Cuneiform Library at Cornell University that holds approximately 10,000 cuneiform tablets formerly in the possession of Jonathan and Jeanette Rosen. This material is being studied and published with commendable alacrity, but again without the visible participation of any Iraqi scholars or universities.

No satisfactory account has ever been offered as to the source of all these tablets. They are widely believed to have been moved illegally out of Iraq in the years following 1990, and are now unavailable to Iraqi scholarship. Furthermore, they are being used to further the careers in Europe and North America of the next generation of cuneiform specialists, none of whom are Iraqi. So Iraq has suffered a double loss, first of the tablets themselves, and then of the intellectual or cultural capital that the tablets engender. Hopefully the next generation of Iraqi specialists is being trained elsewhere. I don’t know. Otherwise, going forward, Iraqi universities might struggle to re-establish themselves as international centres of excellence in the field of cuneiform studies, which is after all the study of Iraq’s history. There will be a long-term loss to the cultural and intellectual life of Iraq, a diminishment of the same public good that capacity building projects are intended to enhance. Thus while projects such as the British Museum’s Iraq Emergency Heritage Management Training Scheme, run in collaboration with the Iraq State Board of Antiquities and Heritage, are busy building capacity, other institutions are just as busily degrading it. Governments and their taxpayers might be excused for asking why their capacity building efforts are being undermined in this way.


Hobby Lobby forfeits more than its reputation (1)

Social and mainstream media are alight with speculation and anger after the release last week of an agreement between the US District Court Eastern District of New York and Hobby Lobby in answer to a complaint filed against Hobby Lobby by the Court. In short, the Court alleged that Hobby Lobby had acquired 3,450 archaeological artifacts probably from Iraq that had violated US customs regulations upon entry into the US. In the agreement, Hobby Lobby undertook to pay a $3 million forfeiture, relinquish claims to and possession of 3,599 artifacts, and implement a new antiquities policy to govern its collections. As always, Rick St. Hilaire provides a succinct summary of the case. Hobby Lobby is a US retail chain owned by the Green family. In 2009, the family established the Green Collection of objects related to biblical history and has funded the foundation and construction of the Museum of the Bible in Washington DC which will open later this year. Joel Baden and Candida Moss published a good overview in the January/February 2016 issue of the Atlantic.

Many commentators have complained that what looks to have been a large smuggling bust by US Customs was followed up with a civil complaint and fine but no criminal charges. The complaint is interesting in itself as it details the complex and evasive manoeuvres necessary to smuggle Iraqi artifacts into the US, and the roles played by a large and diverse cast of actors. Over this and the next post, I will describe the main substance of the complaint and agreement and consider some of their implications.

The inspection

According to the complaint, on 15 July 2010 the Hobby Lobby President and an individual identified as a Hobby Lobby ‘Consultant’ inspected 5,548 artifacts for prospective purchase at an undisclosed location in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The artifacts comprised cuneiform tablets, clay bullae and cylinder seals most likely from Iraq. Also present at the meeting were two Israeli dealers (ID1 and ID2) and a UAE dealer (UAED). In August 2010 the Hobby Lobby Consultant met again with ID1 and ID2, this time in Israel, and on 23 August reported back to the President and the President’s ‘Executive Assistant’. He had been told the artifacts were the property of a third Israeli dealer (ID3) and were part of ID3’s family collection. The collection had been stored in Washington DC before being moved to the UAE for the July inspection. The Consultant advised the President that the asking price was $2,091,000 but that the material would most likely have an appraised value of $11,820,000. On 30 August 2010, ID1 supplied written confirmation of provenance from ID3 for 5,313 of the artifacts. It states that ID3’s father had legally acquired them in the 1960s from local markets and that the collection had been moved to the US for safe storage in the 1970s. (The alleged US custodian subsequently denied ever having possessed the material).

The purchase

While these negotiations were proceeding, on 9 August 2010, at the invitation of Hobby Lobby ‘In-house Counsel’, an invited legal ‘Expert’ made a presentation on relevant aspects of cultural property law to the President, In-house Counsel and Consultant. This presentation was followed up on 19 October 2010 when at the In-house Counsel’s request the outside Expert provided a memorandum detailing the risks associated with acquiring Iraqi cultural property and advising rigorous due diligence. This memorandum was received by the In-house Counsel but not shared with the President, Consultant or any other responsible officer.

On 8 December 2010 the President and ID2 signed a purchase agreement whereby Hobby Lobby agreed to pay $1,600,000 for the artifacts on offer. The associated invoice named ID3 as the seller and stated (falsely) that the artifacts originated in Israel. The President authorised wire transfers of the purchase money to seven personal bank accounts associated with five different people. The payees included ID1, ID2, UAED and two other individuals, but not ID3. Two days after the wire transfers, on 10 December, ID2 asked the President to amend the purchase agreement by replacing ID2 with ID3 as seller. The President complied on 15 December.

The first shipments

UAED starting shipping material through international post in November 2010. None of the shipping labels listed the origin or value of package contents. The shipments were as follows:

Date Description

Number of objects

23 November 2010 Ceramic tiles 13 or 23
19 December 2010 Tiles (sample) 13-18
19 December 2010 Tiles (sample) 13-18
19 December 2010 Tiles (sample) 13-18
20 December 2010 Tiles (sample) 12-18
20 December 2010 Tiles (sample) 12-18
20 December 2010 Tiles (sample) 12-18

Shipments were processed through JFK in New York. Each package was addressed to the President and/or the ‘Executive Assistant’ at Hobby Lobby or one of its affiliates, Mardel, Inc or Crafts, Etc!. The different addresses were used at the request of UAED. The complaint states that such practice is normal for smuggling cultural property so as not to attract the attention of customs agents.

The seized shipments

On 19 January 2011 US Customs and Border Protection seized five FedEx packages despatched by UAED that had been detained at Memphis, Tennessee. Together they contained 223 cuneiform tablets and 300 clay bullae. Three more FedEx packages had previously passed through Memphis and been received by Hobby Lobby. The seized packages were all described as ‘hand made clay tiles’ with Turkey listed as country of origin:

Date Receiving address Contents Declared value Actual purchase price
3 January 2011 Mardel 50 cuneiform tablets $250 $14,020
4 January 2011 Hobby Lobby 300 clay bullae $300 $84,120
4 January 2011 Crafts, Etc! 54 cuneiform tablets $285 $15,142
5 January 2011 Mardel 60 cuneiform tablets $300 $16,824
5 January 2011 Crafts, Etc! 50 cuneiform tablets $300 $16,544

The forfeiture complaint alleges the shipper knowingly falsified customs declarations as to value, description and country of origin.

The forfeiture agreement

On 16 May 2011 Hobby Lobby petitioned for the return of the seized material, submitting in support the provenance statement from ID3 claiming ownership of 5,513 artifacts and a further provenance statement from UAED (dated 1 May 2011) claiming ownership of 527 artifacts – the artifacts that had been seized. On 7 September 2011 Hobby Lobby further petitioned that the separate wire transfers were made to different people so that the original owners were paid directly (in apparent contradiction of the ownership claim made in the ID3 provenance statement).

In September 2011, months after the January seizures, Hobby Lobby received 1,000 clay bullae shipped by ID1 in Israel using international express post. The shipping label accurately described their contents but falsely stated country of origin to be Israel. (If these bullae were amongst those inspected in the UAE in July 2010, they must subsequently have been shipped back to Israel).

On the 5 July 2017 the US District Court Eastern District of New York filed the forfeiture complaint against ‘Approximately four hundred fifty (450) ancient cuneiform tablets; and approximately three thousand (3,000) ancient clay bullae’. The following day (6 July), the court filed the settlement agreement. Rick St. Hilaire has both documents on his blog. The main talking points of the settlement agreement are that:

  • Hobby Lobby agrees forfeiture of 3,000 bullae and 450 cuneiform tablets, together with a further 144 cylinder seals;
  • Hobby Lobby agrees forfeiture of $3 million;
  • Hobby Lobby agrees to implement an internal antiquities policy to govern its collection and future acquisitions of cultural property in compliance with either the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) Guidelines on the Acquisition of Archaeological material and Ancient Art (2013) or its Protocols for Safe Havens for Works of Cultural significance from Countries in Crisis. The policy also provides for training of responsible personnel (including a qualified customs broker) in customs regulations and procedures and the legal and ethical requirements of acquiring cultural property.

Continued in next post …


Hobby Lobby forfeits more than its reputation (2)

A criminal conspiracy?

Many commentators are angry that no criminal charges have yet been brought against any of the actors involved in the Hobby Lobby case. But it seems a fair question to ask ‘what was the crime?’. The assumption is that the material in question was moved out of Iraq illegally, an act that in the US would most likely constitute theft. The situation in Israel or the UAE, which are other possible jurisdictions, is not clear. (Not clear to me at least). In any event, there is no evidence contained in the complaint to prove illegal export after 1936, the year Iraq took all undiscovered artifacts into state ownership.

The acquisition might also be in contravention of United Nations Security Council Resolution 661, adopted on 6 August 1990, in force in the US since then and implemented more specifically for cultural property on 30 April 2008 as the Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Iraq. Under these trade controls, only objects that can be documented as having left Iraq prior to 6 August 1990 can be legally imported. Unless proven false, the statement of provenance supplied by ID3 acts to supply such documentation.

The role of ID3 in the transaction is interesting. This person supplied the document claiming ownership of 5,313 artifacts that had been in the family collection since the 1960s. If the artifacts are ever shown to have been stolen from Iraq, ID3 would be in the position of having admitted possession of stolen property and supplying a false statement in defence of that possession. Yet ID3 was not a direct recipient of any of the money wire-transferred by Hobby Lobby. Who is ID3? An identifiable person? Is whoever it is a convenient front for other dealers, paid by them to face prosecution if evidence of criminal wrongdoing ever does come to light? But what if ID3 never was in possession of stolen property? What is the offence then? Has ID3 now disappeared, leaving a phoney paper trail in his (or her) wake?

Hobby Lobby wire-transferred money to ID1, ID2, UAED and two other unnamed individuals. Assuming for the moment that the purchased material was stolen and trafficked from Iraq sometime during the 1990s or 2000s, which seems most likely, these five people must be the principal actors in what was an organised criminal conspiracy, moving stolen property through a complicated operation of smoke and mirrors, with at least one paid scapegoat, warehousing facilities, access to material moving out of Iraq, and thus presumably from other countries too.

The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) has established that during the years 2002-2012 artifacts from throughout the Middle East were being smuggled through the UAE via London or another European country to Israel, where they could be sold legally as non-Israeli cultural property and receive a valid Israeli export licence. The IAA successfully lobbied for a change in Israeli customs law enacted in 2012 that now requires all imported cultural objects to be accompanied by legitimate export documentation from the appropriate country of origin. The IAA believes this new law has ended the trade through the UAE to Israel. The conspiracy documented here between two Israeli dealers, a UAE dealer, and two other unnamed individuals looks to have been part of this larger operation, with the material shipped directly to the US instead of through London to Israel. The IAA’s knowledge of this operation suggests it would have relevant information about the various actors, but not that any offence would have been committed inside Israel itself. Perhaps the relevant jurisdiction for a criminal prosecution would be the UAE, provided the present whereabouts of the potential offenders are known, which again is not certain. Perhaps a joint investigation between Israel, Iraq, the UAE and the US would result in some convictions, but such collaboration seems highly unlikely in the present political circumstances. In other words, the likely perpetrators of any criminal acts involved in acquiring and selling Iraqi artifacts to Hobby Lobby seem safely immune from any law enforcement response.

Individual innocence but collective guilt?

What about Hobby Lobby? If the acquired artifacts could be shown to have been stolen from Iraq (which again I emphasise has not yet happened), would the President or any other officer or employee of Hobby Lobby be guilty of receiving stolen property? From what is known, the answer is likely no. As a hypothetical, two things look to insulate the President from any knowledge or understanding that the acquired material was stolen. First, there is the provenance document from ID3, which documents the material outside of Iraq since the 1960s or earlier and also demonstrates at least a minimum exercise of due diligence on the part of Hobby Lobby. Second, there was the unexplained and perhaps even derelict decision of the In-house Counsel not to communicate to the President the warnings of the outside legal Expert. Perhaps the President should have been more active in investigating provenance himself. The judge in the Frederick Schultz case ruled that conscious avoidance of knowledge is no defence, but that ruling was made with regard to Schultz, who was an experienced and knowledgeable antiquities dealer. In 2010 the Hobby Lobby President was anything but an experienced antiquities dealer, and it would be easier to construe any inaction on his part as arising out of a naïve reliance upon the expertise of those around him rather than as conscious avoidance of knowledge.

What about those around him? The failure of In-house Counsel to communicate the warnings of the outside Expert remains inexplicable and not much more can be said about it, although he or she never took possession of any material. The role of the Consultant is more interesting though. The Consultant was being paid by Hobby Lobby for his or her expertise, and Hobby Lobby might legitimately expect that expertise to include knowledge of the legal requirements of acquiring Iraqi cultural property and the necessary due diligence when making such an acquisition. The Consultant of course was not acquiring the material for himself, simply offering what turned out to be bad advice, bad advice that ultimately cost Hobby Lobby $3 million. It will be interesting to see whether Hobby Lobby tries through civil action to recover some of that money from the Consultant. But the emerging picture of the Hobby Lobby acquisition is one of individual decisions building towards a collective or institutional decision to acquire what still might prove to be stolen material. It has all the hallmarks of a sophisticated white-collar operation aimed at separating dishonest action from intent, but might instead just be the work of a bunch of bumblers. In this case, it does look to have been the work of a bunch of bumblers – innocent bumblers. Going forward, the agreement quite rightly stipulates the need for a training-backed acquisitions policy. One not so obvious consequence of this stipulation is that the bumblers defence will no longer apply.

Should we be thinking about tax?

Rick St. Hilaire emphasises that the $3 million forfeiture is exactly what it says it is – a forfeiture and not a fine. Forfeitable proceeds generated by the customs violations. Rick cannot identify the source of those proceeds, but talk of proceeds does inevitably turn the mind to thoughts of tax. Commenting on the agreement, a spokesperson for the Museum of the Bible denied the museum had anything to do with the case, thereby drawing attention to what might be a significant material separation between the Green Collection and the Museum of the Bible. The Green Collection was established in 2009 and by 2010 was said to be using Hobby Lobby money for acquisitions, a fact confirmed in the July complaint being discussed here. Hobby Lobby is a for-profit corporation. The Museum of the Bible was established as a non-profit in 2010. It claims on its website to hold thousands of objects under agreement with the Green Collection, though does not ay on what terms. So, the question almost asks itself: what exactly is the nature of the agreement under which the non-profit museum holds material from the for-profit corporation. Could there possibly be a tax consideration in there for Hobby Lobby, and is that what is reflected in the $3 million forfeiture? Rick is certainly thinking that way.

A final thought

Finally, it is worth reflecting on Hobby Lobby’s commitment to implementing an antiquities policy in accordance with the AAMD’s Guidelines on the Acquisition of Archaeological Material and Ancient Art. Guideline III(G) requires that a museum should:

promptly publish acquisitions of archaeological materials and ancient art, in electronic form, including an image of the Work (or representative images in the case of groups of objects) and its provenance, thus making this information readily available to all interested parties.

Guideline III(H) requires for objects acquired without a documented pre-1970 provenance that a museum must:

post on the AAMD object registry an image of the Work (or representative images in the case of groups of objects) and its provenance as well as an explanation of why the acquisition of the Work is consistent with Section F above.

The Green Collection used to claim to possess ‘One of the largest collections of cuneiform tablets in North America’, ‘An array of biblical, classical, and documentary texts on papyrus including several previously unpublished New Testament fragments’, and ‘The second-largest private collection of Dead Sea Scroll fragments, all of which are unpublished’. That is a lot of material with potentially dubious provenances. Will the AAMD registry be up to the task, or will Hobby Lobby be forced to construct its own registry? We must wait and see.





Christie’s says: ‘Bigger is generally better’!

What determines the price of an antiquity? Its quality, measured by its artistic or art historical importance, or its provenance? And if it is provenance, is it the prestige and reputation of a previous owner that adds most to price, or evidence that the antiquity has been in circulation long enough to have passed a legal or ethical threshold of acceptable ownership? Recent received wisdom is that antiquities with a provenance stretching back to before 1970 command a price premium, 1970 being the date of the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The idea of a pre-1970 price premium has gained traction since 2008, when the Association of Art Museum Directors adopted 1970 as a provenance threshold for determining the acceptability of an acquisition. Going forward, collectors wanting to gift or bequest antiquities to museums would need to be careful about this 1970 threshold, and make their purchasing decisions accordingly. Over time, this accumulating customer preference for a pre-1970 provenance would promote a market in well-provenanced antiquities and suppress the market in recently stolen and illegally-traded ones, something I have called autoregulation. Or at least, that is how the argument goes. Reliable statistics making the case for provenance one way or another are hard to come by.

What do art market professionals themselves have to say on the subject? During the run-up to its 25 April 2017 New York Antiquities sale, Christie’s specialist Laetitia Delaloye offered her thoughts on what determines the price of an antiquity. First and foremost, she said, it is a matter of size – ‘As a rule, larger pieces in good condition will sell for the highest prices, while smaller pieces are more likely to survive and are therefore more common on the market’. Then, obviously perhaps, she also highlighted the importance of condition – the extent to which a piece has been repaired or restored. A signed piece is always good too. For provenance, she believes it is the name or reputation of previous owners that is likely to add ‘significant value’ to a piece, and she did not mention any legal or ethical advantages of a pre-1970 provenance, or any positive effect such a provenance might exert upon price.

Delaloye’s post was prefacing the sale on 25 April of a collection Greek figure-decorated pottery from a ‘Manhattan Private Collection’, which included 15 Attic black-figure vessels. Lot 202, a hydria, had an impeccable provenance that could be traced back to the collection of Reverend John Hamilton-Gray and Elizabeth Caroline Hamilton-Gray, which was sold at auction at Sotheby’s London in 1888. It passed next through the possession of the Pitt Rivers family before moving through Geneva to join the Manhattan collector. Lot 206, a trefoil oinochoe, also had a long provenance, first seen at Drouot in 1903 and featured in several publications since then. Alongside these two pieces with a published provenance that could be traced back to before 1910, lot 207 had been first published in 1962, six vessels had been first published later than 1970, and six had not been published at all.

This first chart plots the maximum dimension of each vessel sold (measured in centimetres) against its realised price (in USD). In graphic confirmation of Delaloye’s belief that ‘bigger is generally better’, there is a strong correlation between size and price. The three largest vessels achieved the three highest prices, and not one had a provenance that could be traced back to before 1970. Size is without doubt the primary determinant of price. On the other hand, there is a suggestion that within their size class the well-provenanced lots 202 and 206 performed better than their more poorly-provenanced fellows. Thus there is evidence here that when corrected for size, so that like is compared to like, a long provenance does indeed carry a price premium. By itself, however, this would not be enough to exert a decisive influence on the market. Auction houses would be keen to sell the highest-price vessels possible, and so would discriminate in favour of size, not provenance.  The Manhattan collector acquired four vessels (lots 205, 207, 215 and 216) from Nicolas Koutoulakis in the 1980s. Koutoulakis has been described as the ‘dean of all antiquities dealers active in the Arab world and beyond’ [1]. He figured centrally on the organigram seized by the Italian Carabinieri in 1995 and his name has been associated with the histories of several illegally-traded antiquities. The discussion of due diligence in article 4(4) of the 1995 Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects recommends among other things that ‘regard shall be had to all the circumstances of the acquisition, including the character of the parties’. Thus any names of suspect dealers appearing in the provenance of an object should raise red flags, and discourage its purchase, though that does not seem to have happened here. The prices realised by the Koutoulakis vessels were in accordance with their size. They offer further evidence that a questionable provenance does not unduly discourage purchase nor does it have a serious negative impact on price.

[1] Krosney, Herbert, 2006. The Lost Gospel. Washington DC: National Geographic, at page 66.