Today, Christie’s Paris auction house is offering sacred images and other antiquities from Asia, specifically Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Nepal, Thailand and Tibet. Almost none of the 88 objects has a secure and complete collecting history. Numerous objects appear to have “surfaced“, in archaeologists David Gill and Christopher Chippindale’s term, at this auction.
Thus, with regard to almost all of the 88 objects, there does not appear to be sufficient evidence to reassure ethical buyers that they are not taking any risk of handling stolen cultural goods, illicitly exported cultural goods or illicitly imported cultural goods.
I am not making any accusation of illegal activity. It is impossible to tell what has happened, because of the lack of secure and complete collecting histories. Nonetheless, numerous idols have suffered injuries that resemble the harm from looting, such as heads without bodies and bodies without heads, bodies that have been broken at the ankle…
Furthermore, Lot 32 is advertised as coming from Densatil in occupied Tibet. What is not advertised in the auction catalogue, but is available to any French-speaking shopper who browses Wikipedia, is the fact that the monastery there was looted by Red Guards during China’s ethnocidal Cultural Revolution.
Especially with antiquities from Cambodia (as documented by, for instance, Tess Davis and Simon Mackenzie) and occupied Tibet (as documented in, for instance, a chapter of a book by the International Council of Museums (ICOM)), it is critical to observe due diligence, in order to avoid buying conflict antiquities and thus directly or indirectly financing armed groups and repressive regimes.
Have the past and present handlers observed complete supply chain due diligence? Have they provided the evidence for the market to observe such due diligence? Does the market care about the moral and legal risk for themselves and the political and physical risk to communities in zones of crisis and conflict?
In a follow-up post, I will present a statistical summary of the auction, as I did for Christie’s auctions of Central, South and South-Eastern Asian art on the 15th of March 2016. In this post, I present a critical summary of the catalogue notes.
Lot 1 is a black stone stele depicting the Dancing Ganesha from India around the eleventh century. Yet it can only be traced as far back as Galerie Tao in Paris, France, in 1971.
Christie’s notes advertise that the ‘polished finishing and fine sculpting’ of Lot 2, a ‘rare’ black stone figure of a Jain Tirthankara from India in 1098 C.E., ‘suggest that it once graced a shrine of an important temple’. Yet the collecting history can only trace it as far back as the United States in the 1980s (so possibly as late as 1989). It has a meaningless certificate from the Art Loss Register (Reference: S00078936, 25th September 2013). His head appears to have been broken off his body at the neck.
Lot 3 is an important sandstone stele of Chamunda from India in the eleventh century. Yet it can only be traced back to the United States in 1999, at a Sotheby’s New York auction. It also has a meaningless certificate from the Art Loss Register (Reference: S00064693, 11th September 2012).
Lot 4 is a rare bronze figure of Kali from India in the sixteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to Spink and Son in London, United Kingdom, ‘before 1986’ (so, potentially, in 1985). It, too, has a meaningless certificate from the Art Loss Register (Reference: S00064368, 28th August 2012).
As investigative journalist Jason Felch has documented, Spink and Son is a ‘notorious’ source of looted antiquities, one of which was seized by the United States’ Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), when Operation Hidden Idol raided Christie’s auction house during the Asia Week of auctions in March 2016.
As archaeologist Neil Brodie observed then, this is an ‘opportune moment’ for Christie’s auction house to release its holdings of Spink and Son’s archive, in order to help the art and antiquities market to conduct due diligence.
Lot 5 is an important bronze figure of Shiva Nataraja from India in the late eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in France in the late twentieth century, ‘before 1994’ (so, possibly, in 1993).
Lot is a gilt and black-lacquered bronze head of Buddha Shakyamuni from Thailand in the seventeenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in France of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction. His head appears to have been torn off his body at the neck.
Lot 7 has not been published.
Lot 8 has not been published.
Lot 9 is a gilt and black-lacquered bronze figure of Buddha Shakyamuni from Thailand in the eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in Belgium of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
With regard to Lot 10, a statue of Buddha dressed in bronze from Thailand at the end of the sixteenth century, Christie’s notes advertise that Thailand’s ‘temples were [once] profusely decorated with statues’. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in Italy, which ‘acquired’ it ‘before 1994’ (so, possibly, in 1993).
Attributed to the ‘period’ – but not the site – of Bakheng, Lot 11 is an important, fine and large polished sandstone lingam from Cambodia around the tenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in Italy, which ‘acquired’ it ‘before 1982’ (so, potentially, in 1981).
Attributed to the ‘period’ – but not the site – of Angkor Wat, Lot 12 is a fine polished sandstone figure of Lakshmi from Cambodia in the twelfth century. Yet it can only be traced back to Galerie Tao in Paris, France, in 1971. Her head and arms appear to have been broken off her body. And her body appears to have been broken off her legs at the ankle.
Attributed to the ‘period’ – but not the site – of Baphuon, Lot 13 is a sandstone statue of Uma from Cambodia in the eleventh century. Yet it can only be traced back to the Doris Wiener Gallery in New York, United States, in November 1974. That name may be familiar.
As investigative journalist Jason Felch documented, her daughter’s business, the Nancy Wiener Gallery, was raided by the United States’ Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during the Asia Week of auctions in March 2016. On that occasion, as part of Operation Hidden Idol, ICE seized a Buddhist statue from Cambodia or Thailand and other sculpture.
Attributed to the ‘period’ – but not the site – of Baphuon, Lot 14 is an important sandstone torso of a male deity from Cambodia in the eleventh century. It can only be traced back to a private collection in France, which ‘acquired’ it ‘in the 1970s’. His head and arms appear to have been broken off his body. And his body appears to have been broken off his legs at the ankle. It was first appraised by Jean-Claude Moreau-Gobard in Paris on 28th July 1979.
Attributed to the ‘period’ – but not the site – of Baphuon, Lot 15 is a fine polished sandstone head of Buddha Shakyamuni from Cambodia in the eleventh century. It can only be traced back to a private collection in Belgium, which ‘acquired’ it in Paris, France, ‘in the mid 1980s’ (so somewhere around 1985).
Attributed to the ‘period’ – but not the site – of Baphuon, Lot 16 is a fine sandstone head of Shiva from Cambodia in the eleventh century. It can only be traced back to a private collection in Belgium, which ‘acquired’ it in Paris, France, ‘in the mid 1980s’ (so somewhere around 1985). His head appears to have been broken off his body.
Attributed to the ‘period’ – but not the site – of Koh Ker, Lot 17 is an important sandstone figure of a half-male, half-female deity from Cambodia in the tenth century. ‘No other examples of this kind seem to have been published’, so it is truly remarkable that this one surfaced at Galerie Moderne in Brussels, Belgium, in 1962.
Attributed to the ‘period’ – but not the site – of Koh Ker, Lot 18 is an important sandstone figure of Uma from Cambodia in the tenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to Galerie Moderne in Brussels, Belgium, in 1963.
Attributed to the ‘period’ – but not the site – of Angkor Wat, Lot 19 is a sandstone figure of a female deity from Cambodia in the twelth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collector in “Europe”, who “acquired” it in 1982.
Attributed to the ‘period’ – but not the site – of Pre Rup, Lot 20 is a polished sandstone torso of a male deity from Cambodia in the late tenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in “Europe”, which ‘acquired’ it around the 1960s (so, possibly, as late as 1969). His head and arms appear to have been broken off his body. And his body appears to have been broken off his legs at the ankle. It was published by Jean Boisselier in 1982.
Attributed to the ‘period’ – but not the site – of Pre Rup, Lot 21 is a rare sandstone figure of Brahma from Cambodia in the late tenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in “Europe”, which ‘acquired’ it around the 1960s (so, possibly, as late as 1969). All of his arms appear to have been broken off at the elbow. And his body appears to have been broken off his legs at the knee. It was published by Jean Boisselier in 1982.
Attributed to the ‘period’ – but not the site – of Khleang, Lot 22 is a sandstone figure of a female deity from Cambodia in the late tenth century. It can only be traced back to a private collection in “Europe” in 1967. Her arms appear to have been broken off her body. And her body appears to have been broken off her legs at the ankle. It was published by Jean Boisselier in 1982.
Attributed to the ‘period’ – but not the site – of Bakong, Lot 23 is a polished sandstone figure of a male deity from Cambodia in the late ninth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in “Europe” in 1981. His arms appear to have been broken off his body at the shoulder. And his body appears to have been broken off his legs at the ankle. It was published by Jean Boisselier in 1983.
Attributed to the ‘period’ – but not the site – of Bayon, Lot 24 is an ‘important’ sandstone figure of Buddhamuchalinda from Cambodia in the late twelfth century-early thirteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in “Europe” in 1967.
Lot 25 is a fine volcanic stone head of Buddha Shakyamuni from Indonesia in the ninth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in the Netherlands in 1981. His head appears to have been broken off his body at the neck.
Lot 26 is a fine marble head of Buddha Shakyamuni from China in the late sixth century-early seventh century. Yet it can only be traced back to the early twentieth century, in the collection of Charles Vignier in France around 1930. His head appears to have been broken off his body at the neck.
Lot 27 is a ‘rare and important’ gilt and polychrome wood figure of Guanyin from China in the late tenth century-late thirteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in France in 1954, when it was displayed by the Museum of Decorative Arts in Paris.
Lot 28 is an ‘important’ sandstone pilar depicting a celestial nymph standing below a tree from India in the eleventh century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in France in 1984.
Lot 29 is a bronze head of Buddha Shakyamuni from Thailand in the sixteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in France in 1977. His head appears to have been torn from his body at the neck.
Lot 30 is a bronze figure of Parvati from India in the thirteenth century-fourteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to Galerie Samarcande in France in the ‘late 1990s’ (so, possibly, as late as 1999).
Attributed to the ‘period’ – but not the site – of Baphuon, Lot 31 is a sandstone figure (torso) of Uma from Cambodia in the eleventh century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in France in 1992. Her head and arms appear to have been broken off her body. And her body appears to have been broken off her legs at the ankle.
Attributed to ‘Densatil[/Densathil]’, which is a specific monastery that was ‘shredded‘, ‘destr[oyed]… during China’s Cultural Revolution (1966–1978)‘, ‘almost entirely destroyed and pillaged during the Cultural Revolution [presque entièrement détruit et pillé durant la révolution culturelle]’, Lot 32 is a (definitively) ‘rare’ gilt bronze plaque depicting various deities, which is ‘characteristic of the Kagyu monastic complex of Densatil’, south-east of Lhasa, Tibet, in the early sixteenth century. Unsurprisingly, it can only be traced back to Galerie Slim Bouchoucha in Paris, France, in 1995. Do any of the past or present handlers guarantee that this is not a conflict antiquity, that this is not part of the proceeds of state crime, that this has not financed ethnocide?
Lot 33 is a ‘rare’ wood torso of Indra from Nepal in the fourteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to Sotheby’s London auction house in 1989. He appears to have lost his arms.
Lot 34 is a bronze stupa from Tibet in the fifteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in the Netherlands in the ‘early 1990s’ (so, possibly, as late as 1994).
Lot 35 is a parcel gilt-bronze figure of Guhyasamaja from Tibet or China in the late eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in France of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 36 is two gilt-bronze figures of Sitarara and Vaishravana from Tibet or China in the eighteenth century. Yet they can only be traced back to a private collection in France of unknown date. They appear to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 37 is a gilt-bronze figure of Amitayus from Tibet in the sixteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in France, which ‘acquired’ it in ‘the early 20th century’. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 38 is a gilt-bronze figure of Amitayus from China in the late fifteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in Italy of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 39 is an embossed gilt-bronze figure of a Lama from Tibet in the eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in the United States, which ‘acquired’ it in ‘the 1970s’ (so, possibly, as late as 1979).
Lot 40 is a ‘rare’ thang.ka (also transliterated as thang ka, thang-ka, thangka and tanka) depicting the seventh Dalai Lama from Tibet in the mid-eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in France of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 41 is a thang.ka depicting Yama and Yami from Tibet in the eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to the private collection of Raphaël Petrucci by 1917 ‘by repute’. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 42 is a thang.ka depicting Shri Devi from Tibet in the eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to the private collection of Raphaël Petrucci by 1917 ‘by repute’. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 43 is a fine black-ground thang.ka depicting Sadbhujamahakala from Tibet in the eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in Belgium of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 44 is a fine gilt-bronze figure of Maitreya from Tibet in the fifteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in the Netherlands in 1978, when it was handled by art dealer (Kunsthandel) J. Polak.
Lot 45 is a thang.ka depicting Syamatara from Tibet or China in the late eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to the private collection of Lorenzo Hurtado de Saracho Arregui in Spain by 1984.
Lot 46 is a thang.ka depicting Ekadashalokeshvara from Tibet or China in the late eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to the private collection of Lorenzo Hurtado de Saracho Arregui in Spain by 1984.
Lot 47 is a thang.ka depicting Sadakasharilokeshvara from Tibet or China in the late eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in the United Kingdom of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 48 is a thang.ka depicting Syamatara from Tibet in the eighteenth century-nineteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in the United States of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 49 is a ‘rare’ parcel gilt-wood figure of Maitreya from China in the thirteenth century-fourteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in France, which ‘acquired’ it in Nepal in 1982.
Lot 50 is a ‘very rare and important’ Qingbai-glazed porcelain figure of Buddha Shakyamuni from China in the thirteenth century-fourteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to Galerie C. T. Loo et Cie in Paris, France, in 1965, for which Christie’s auction house provides documentary evidence in the form of the invoice from the gallery. As observed by the International Academic Director for Asian Art at Christie’s auction house, Rosemary Scott,
There is a very small extant group of these Song figures in international collections. Inscriptions and the date of tombs in which these figures have been found suggest that they were made in the second and third quarters of the 13th century – just prior to the Mongol conquest.
Do any of the past or present handlers of the figure guarantee that it was excavated and exported before the introduction of statute that ‘harshly punished’ trafficking from 1909; the decree that licensed and taxed export of cultural goods from 1914; the regulation that obliged the state purchase and conservation of movable antiquities from 1916; the regulations that prohibited foreign excavation from 1928; or the Law on the Preservation of Antiquities, which established state ownership of all exposed or underground antiquities, licensed excavation and required reporting of any accidental finds from 1930?
Lot 51 is two impressive Chinese painted wood figures of Bodhisattvas from China in the fourteenth century-seventeenth century. Yet they can only be traced back to the antiquities dealership of Nuri Farhadi in New York, United States, which ‘acquired’ them in 1974. Both figures appear to have lost both of their hands.
Lot 52 is a polychrome stucco head of Buddha Shakyamuni from China in the fourteenth century-seventeenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in France of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction. His head appears to have been broken off his body at the neck.
Lot 53 is an ‘important’ gilt-bronze figure of Buddha Vairocana from China in the eleventh century. Yet it can only be traced back to the private collection of Mr. Bisseling in the Netherlands in 1941, for which Christie’s auction house provided documentary evidence in the form of an inventory card from the time.
Lot 54 is a gilt and red-lacquered bronze figure of a dignitary from China in the seventeenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in France of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 55 is a gilt and polychrome bronze figure of Guanyin from China in the seventeenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in Belgium, which ‘acquired’ it in ‘the 1930s’ (so, possibly, as late as 1939).
Lot 56 is an ‘important’ gilt-bronze figure of Buddha Amitabha from China in the twelfth century-thirteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in Belgium that possessed it ‘before 1967’ (so, potentially, in 1966).
Lot 57 is six pieces of cloisonne enamel saddle ornaments from China in the seventeenth century. Yet they can only be traced back to a private collection of European arms and armour, which ‘acquired’ them ‘in the first half of the 20th century’ (so, possibly, as late as 1949).
Lot 58 is a large cloisonne enamel lobed basin from China in the early eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in the United Kingdom; it had was inherited by the private collector, inevitably from their grandfather, who had ‘acquired’ it somewhere in ‘the [sic] East Asia’ by 1912.
Lot 59 is a pair of cloisonne enamel Meiping vases from China in the first half of the nineteenth century. Yet they can only be traced to a private collection in France of unknown date. They appear to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 60 is a pair of gilt-bronze duck-form incense burners from China in the seventeenth century-eighteenth century. Yet they can only be traced back to a private collection in France; they were inherited by the private collector, inevitably from their grandfather, who had ‘acquired’ them in an unknown location in ‘the 1940s-50s’ (so, possibly, as late as 1959).
Lot 61 is a gilt-bronze and cloisonne enamel ‘duck’ censer and cover from China in the seventeenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to the private collection of Lorenzo Hurtado de Saracho Arregui in Spain by 1984.
Lot 62 is a painted enamel pink-ground three-piece garniture from China in the nineteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to the private collection of Lorenzo Hurtado de Saracho Arregui in Spain by 1984.
Lot 63 is a carved, red-lacquered polylobed box and cover from China in the eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in France of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 64 is a carved red lacquer cabinet from China in the eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in France of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 65 is a(n eighteenth century-nineteenth century) miniature imperial zitan-covered book and its (fifteenth-century) carved red lacquer box and cover from China. Yet there is no published collecting history whatsoever, even though the pairing of a newer book in an older box is suggestive of ‘Qing court practice’. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 66 is a carved, red-lacquered cushion-form box and cover from China in the eighteenth century. Yet there is no published collecting history whatsoever. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 67 is a carved red-lacquered peach-form box and cover from China in the eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in Europe of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 68 is an iron-red decorated blue and white porcelain ‘dragon’ dish from China in the eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in France of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 69 is a Guan-type baluster vase from China in the eighteenth century. Yet there is no published collecting history whatsoever. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 70 is a crackling-glazed polylobed porcelain dish from China in the thirteenth century-seventeenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in France, which ‘acquired’ it in ‘the 1940s’ (so, possibly, as late as 1949).
Lot 71 is a blue and white ‘Qilin’ Rouleau vase from China in the seventeenth century. Yet there is no published collecting history whatsoever. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 72 is a ‘fine and rare’ sgraffiato ruby-ground famille rose bowl and cover from China in the eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in France; it was inherited by the private collector, from their father, who had ‘acquired’ it in 1950.
Lot 73 is a celadon jade archaistic ‘zhi’ cup from China in the seventeenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in France, which ‘acquired’ it ‘in the 1940s’ (so, possibly, as late as 1949).
Lot 74 is a small celadon jade archaistic vase from China in the seventeenth century-twentieth century. Yet there is no published collecting history whatsoever. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 75 is a celadon jade ‘fish’ vase from China in the eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to the private collection of the Duke of Kent in the United Kingdom of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 76 is a celadon and russet jade ‘peach’ group from China in the eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in a ‘Western’ country of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 77 is a pale celadon and russet jade carved chimera from China in the seventeenth century-twentieth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in the United States of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 78 is a fine very pale celadon rectangular baluster vase and cover from China in the seventeenth century-twentieth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in the United States of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 79 is a celadon jade mountain from China in the eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in France, which ‘acquired’ it in China around 1900. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 80 is a ‘rare’ celadon silk brocade court robe for an imperial princess, which is technically known as a jifu, from China in the eighteenth century-nineteenth century. Yet there is no published collecting history whatsoever. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 81 is an embroidered rust-coloured gauze summer court robe (jifu) from China in the eighteenth century-nineteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to the private collection of Château de Saint-Jean-de-Folleville in France of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 82 is an embroidered rust-coloured silk court robe (jifu) from China in the
nineteenth century. This can actually be traced back to the private collection of Louis Bourret in France, which ‘acquired’ it in Shanghai in 1864. This may be the only example of a secure and complete collecting history in the entire auction.
Lot 83 is a large verte-imari double-headed eagle jar and cover, ‘probably for the Mexican market’, from China in the seventeenth century-eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in France of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 84 is a gilt-bronze and enamel-decorated compass-sundial from China in the eighteenth century. Yet there is no published collecting history whatsoever. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 85 is an ‘important’ twelve-panel Coromandel lacquer screen from China in the seventeenth century, which was ‘commissioned and displayed for special occasions’. Yet it can only be traced back to the private collection of Max Leclerc in France, which had “acquired” it by 1932.
Lot 86 is a gilt-lacquered wood figure of Buddha Amida from Japan in the twelfth century-fourteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in the United States, which ‘acquired’ it in Japan in ‘the late 1940s’ (so, possibly, as late as 1949), ‘by repute’. (It was only properly documented sixty years later, when it was ‘acquired’ by a private collection in France from Shirley Day in New York, United States, in 2008.)
Lot 87 is a gilt, red and black-lacquered wood figure of Buddha Amida from Japan in the eighteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in the United Kingdom of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
Lot 88 is a ‘rare’ gilt-wood figure of Kannon Bosatsu from Japan in the seventeenth century-nineteenth century. Yet it can only be traced back to a private collection in Belgium of unknown date. It appears to have surfaced at this auction.
conflict antiquities 