Photograph from the Symes and Michaelides archive courtesy of Dr. Christos Tsirogiannis
Market and Public Ethics in Antiquities Collecting
By Christos Tsirogiannis
Hundreds of rare and unique ancient objects have been repatriated over the past two decades (e.g., Watson and Todeschini 2006, 298) to the countries from where they had been looted post-1970, in violation of the UNESCO 1970 Convention and those countries’ own national legislations on the protection of cultural patrimony. Before their repatriation as stolen, looted, and smuggled artifacts, all these antiquities had passed through the hands of the most ‘‘reputable” dealers and the salerooms of the most “prestigious” auction houses in the world, finishing their course in some of the largest and most famous museums in the world, as well as in private collections. As these antiquities circulated through the international antiquities market or were exhibited by their buyers, many antiquities were considered unprovenanced, because they lacked documented legal provenance. Others were discovered to have a provenance that had been deliberately falsified through placement in fictional or anonymous collections or in old collections of which they were never part.
Since 1995, the photographic and documentary archives belonging to the dealers involved in such transactions have been discovered and confiscated by European and US authorities. These archives have not only proven that these antiquities were obtained in illegal ways, but, more widely, have also verified that a significant proportion of the most important antiquities that appeared in the market post-1970 as unprovenanced were actually illicit. Legal, cultural, and judicial authorities have used and will continue to use this evidence in the coming years and decades, along with the research results of forensic archeologists, to investigate thousands of cases.
Aside from the legal details of each case and the analysis of the pertinent evidence, also deserving of attention are the very low ethical standards that prevail in the antiquities market and the way museums and private collectors have negligently acquired illicit cultural property. Indeed, some bought looted and smuggled antiquities without ever demanding any proof of legal origin. No one was turning down such artifacts, or exercising due diligence before or even after acquisition and exhibition. Today, two decades after certain dealers’ archives have become public and dozens of cases have been analyzed by authorities, academics, and journalists, to my knowledge, not a single museum has proactively contacted the relevant authorities in an attempt to clarify the legal status of all the antiquities in its collections; and no auction house or dealer has done so either regarding held stocks, although it should be the most basic step in antiquities provenance research (Tsirogiannis 2015, 32). So far, only one private collector has engaged in this regularization (under my guidance).
Image copyright the Gomperts family
In several cases concerning illicit antiquities and after these antiquities were repatriated to their countries of origin, some museums (e.g., the Speed Art Museum in Louisville, Kentucky) shamelessly maintained that at the time of acquisition, they “followed responsible museum practices” but omitted to explain why they nonetheless returned the objects. Furthermore, they stated that they acted proactively (“initiated contact”) by contacting the authorities. In reality, these museums were forced to communicate with the authorities after they were notified by researchers who had discovered illicit antiquities in their collections; thus, these museums simply wanted to avoid or soften an inevitable embarrassment and ensuing negative publicity (e.g., Tsirogiannis 2019, 824-829). Even worse, auction houses and dealers, when caught red-handed, were dismissive of the accusations, claiming “confidentiality” to protect the identity of the traffickers involved (Mashberg 2017). Some, while never contacting and fully cooperating with the authorities, even attempted—unsuccessfully—to strike back by deliberately lying about not having access to the relevant archives (Tsirogiannis 2015, 32). Similarly, some private collectors have claimed “good faith” at the time of acquisition or ignorance of the illicit origin of the antiquities they owned, or both, in an attempt to distract the authorities and the public from the fact that they had the legal and ethical responsibility to exercise due diligence before proceeding with the acquisition of these (at the time) unprovenanced antiquities.
Starting in November 2008, I gradually was given, by the late Paolo Giorgio Ferri—then Italian prosecutor—, copies of the archives confiscated from antiquities dealers, so that I might conduct academic research. At the same time, I started assisting international authorities in their prosecuting of cases of illicit antiquities and helping various countries to repatriate their stolen ancient cultural heritage. Because my involvement in the process of identification and discovery of the relevant evidence regarding illicit antiquities—many of which have been repatriated successfully—has often been featured in the international press, people on both sides of the Atlantic have contacted me for advice about unprovenanced antiquities in their possession. These individuals were usually not collectors themselves but had inherited these antiquities—although one particular case did concern objects that had been bought at auction directly. None of these individuals had any knowledge about or expertise in antiquities or antiquities trading. All contacted me because they understood that the objects they owned were unprovenanced and potentially illicit in one way or another and, therefore, that as owners they would potentially find themselves in legal danger. Some of them already had in mind the possible return of these antiquities to the countries of origin, although they did not know which countries or even if the objects were authentic.
In documenting these cases, I requested good-quality images of all the objects in question to determine their authenticity and the country where they had been at least produced, if not also the country where they were discovered. I also sought proof of legal origin and acquisition and insisted on hearing every single detail about how these antiquities came into the possession of their current owners to understand and clarify the objects’ legal or potentially illegal status. All owners were cooperative, and all cases were eventually clarified based on research, data, and online discussions. There was no proof of legal origin for any of the objects in the cases I investigated, although I found invoices for some of them, where the date and place of acquisition were indicated. These data were not sufficient to prove anything regarding the legal origin of the objects, but all the objects were found to be authentic. The owners were easily persuaded to take the most ethical step and return these unprovenanced objects to their respective countries of origin or, when the country of origin could not be ascertained, to where they had been produced (e.g., Kouroupakis 2020). The next step was to arrange for the careful wrapping and packaging of the objects and for their safe and straightforward delivery to the nearest relevant embassies.
What about museums? Over the last 18 years, I have witnessed how several museums, although obliged to return the stolen antiquities they owned, attempted to negotiate an arrangement with the countries of origin, whereby they would keep the objects as temporary or indefinite loans or secure other antiquities on loan for temporary exhibitions. In the US, the prosecution authorities forced private collectors who found themselves in a similar position to return the pieces that were identified as illicit in order to avoid prosecution. In the UK, a British collector, who owns a museum in France, participated in a public ceremony UNESCO organized around the repatriation of illicit objects from his collection; he blamed the auction house he had bought these antiquities from for the lack of the required information about their provenance; however, a few years later, it surfaced that this same individual still had in his possession an unprovenanced antiquity with the same collecting history as that of the stolen objects he had previously returned. Moreover, this object was subsequently linked to a convicted trafficker (see Azimi 2024). Evidently, he had not exercised the most basic due diligence either before or after acquiring these antiquities, and he did not accept responsibility in either of these instances.
During the last three years, I have been involved in four such cases on behalf of members of the public who had read of my work. These cases led to the repatriation of 65 antiquities to eight countries (Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Pakistan, Sudan, South Sudan, South Africa, and Australia). Although I never asked or accepted to be paid for my work on any of these cases, I requested from the four owners that they be interviewed by journalists in order to motivate other owners in similar situations to act responsibly and to become examples of ethical behavior to emulate. All four agreed; in their respective interviews, they emphasized that returning these antiquities “seemed like the right thing to do” (Alberge 2022), that the fact that their conscience was clear constituted “the big payoff” (Alberge 2023a), and that “such objects belong to the peoples from whom they had originated” (Alberge 2023b). These interviews contributed to raising awareness and motivating private individuals who own unprovenanced antiquities to first abide by ethical standards and then follow the law.
For the antiquities market, museums, and private collectors, researching the origin of objects is not a priority; what primarily matters is ownership by any means, financial benefit, and the exhibition of these objects—even if they are barely provenanced or completely unprovenanced. In contrast, responsible archaeologists exhaustively research the collecting history of any antiquity. They eagerly support the repatriation of those pieces without legal proof of provenance or that have been proven to be illicit and they constantly urge the public to do what is both ethical and legal. Fortunately, civil society at large has often proven to have higher ethical standards than individual buyers in the upper end of the antiquities market. On a personal note, I believe that the best, safest, and most honest way for someone to return antiquities is the most straightforward and unconditional one: contacting the nearest embassy for the country concerned and making an appointment to deliver the pieces in person. In my experience, people returning unprovenanced antiquities already do so without agendas such as museums have.
The real problem regarding the antiquities market is that, in most countries, the relevant legislation allows for the sale of antiquities with limited or no provenance information. The solution is clearly to reverse the burden of proof: rather than researchers and authorities bringing evidence that an object is illicit, the sellers are those who should offer undisputed evidence about the legal origin of an antiquity. In September 2019, I suggested this reversal to the government of Chile, when I was invited to advise on the revision of the Chilean national law on cultural patrimony. Many other countries should follow this suggestion, as such a shift will immediately and greatly decrease the volume of illicit antiquities offered on the international market (see also Tsirogiannis 2023).
References
Alberge, Dalya. 2022. “Man repatriates 19 antiquities after reading Guardian article.” The Guardian, 11 November.
Alberge, Dalya. 2023a. “US man returns antiquities to Italy after reading Guardian report on looted relics”. The Guardian, 8 March.
Alberge, Dalya. 2023b. “Irish woman inspired to return African and Aboriginal antiquities by Guardian article”. The Guardian, 12 November.
Azimi, Roxana. 2024. “Un objet provenant du Musée d’art classique de Mougins retiré d’une vente chez Christie’s”. Le Monde, 27 January.
Kouroupakis, Apostolos. 2020. “Επαναπατρισμός έξι αρχαιοτήτων από το Λονδίνο”. Η Καθημερινή Κύπρου, 15 December.
Mashberg, Tom. 2017. “Vase, Thought to Be looted, Is Seized From Met”. The New York Times, 1 August.
Tsirogiannis, Christos. 2015. “‘Due Diligence’? Christie’s Antiquities Auction, London, October 2015”. The Journal of Art Crime 14:27-38.
Tsirogiannis, Christos. 2019. “Illicit Antiquities in American Museums: Diversity in Ethical Standards”, in Hufnagel, S. & Chappell, D. (eds.) The Palgrave Handbook on Art Crime. Palgrave Macmillan:815-838.
Tsirogiannis, Christos. 2023. Antiquities: A Crooked Market. Australian Outlook, 13 January.
UNESCO. 1970. Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.
Watson, Peter, and Cecilia Todeschini. 2007. The Medici Conspiracy: The Illicit Journey of Looted Antiquities–From Italy’s Tomb Raiders to the World’s Greatest Museum. New York: Public Affairs.
Author Bio:
Christos Tsirogiannis is a forensic archaeologist based in Cambridge (UK), where he obtained his PhD on the international trafficking networks of antiquities. After a career in Greece as an archaeologist at the Greek Ministries of Culture and Justice, as well as at the Greek Police Art Squad, among other positions he held a post-doc position at the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research (University of Glasgow, 2014-2016), was a research fellow at the Aarhus Institute of Advanced Studies (Aarhus University, 2019-2022) and an expert on illicit antiquities research at the Swiss Federal Office of Culture (2024). He is currently the head of the Working Group on Illicit Antiquities Trafficking of the UNESCO chair on threats to cultural heritage and cultural heritage-related activities (Ionian University, 2022-present) and the 2025 Provenance Research fellow at the Allard Pierson Museum, University of Amsterdam.
This piece was commissioned and edited by Anastasia Paparis and Hélène Ducros.
Anastasia Paparis is an architect and city planner / urban designer based in Veroia, Greece. She obtained her Diploma and an integrated MSc with honors from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, her M. Phil. from University College London, the Bartlett School, and her PhD from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (2011). The title of her PhD was ‘The Identity of the European City through the institution of Cultural Capital of Europe’, where she founded epistemologically the concept of ‘urban spatial identity’, https://phdtheses.ekt.gr/eadd/handle/10442/27192 (in Greek). All her undergraduate and post-graduate courses were honored with Greek-state scholarships. She has taught at the Democritus University of Thrace (2011-2013) and the University of Thessaly (2016-2017), Greece, in undergraduate and post-graduate courses. Founder and CEO of ARCHI.POLIS-Dr Anastasia Paparis Architects & City Planners / Urban Designers with extensive research and projects for the public and private sectors. She is an expert reviewer of international scientific journals, among them Ӱɴý. Member of the European Capitals of Culture (ECoCs) Pool of Experts, European Commission (2022 -).
