Unless they want to deal in looted objects, collectors, dealers, and auction houses have to get serious about transparent #provenance. A few facts @Yael_Rice and I have gathered over the past week about the sale in which this stunning, "no-provenance" provenance Qur'an appears.
What's "no-provenance" provenance? I coined this neologism last week to refer to any ostensible 'provenance' that doesn't live up to accepted international standards. #noprovenanceprovenance
Wait, but what's provenance? It's the history of ownership & sale of an object, ideally from the time of its removal from country of origin to the present. Having a complete provenance helps assure dealers & collectors that an object was removed from its country of origin legally
For ancient/medieval objects, a provenance that complete is rare, of course. So UNESCO came up with the somewhat arbitrary date: 1970. Sale of objects removed from countries of origin after 1970 are prohibited unless you can show they were legally removed. portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_…
Objects removed legally prior to 1970 can be sold. It's not perfect - there are many ways you can critique this decision, and it's unevenly applied, but it has become a cornerstone of international cultural property law and museum and heritage ethics. culturalheritagelaw.org/resources/Pict…
Why does this matter? Well, UNESCO declares that "The States Parties to this Convention recognize that the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property is one of the main causes of the impoverishment of the cultural heritage of the countries of origin..."
This reflects the fact that since 1970 heritage has increasingly been included within a "human rights" framework. Cultural heritage, in other words, is more than just old stones or tattered fragments of paper. It's the tangible and intangible building blocks of human identity.
And the theft, looting, and sale of cultural heritage impoverishes a peoples' knowledge of their own identity. It's why, following on the return of Nazi-looted objects, there have been so many calls for repatriation in recent years, argues @artcrimeprof aeon.co/ideas/if-we-re…
So: in an ideal world, collectors, dealers, auction houses would not trade in objects with provenance histories that are incomplete or that don't extend to pre-1970. But ok, we don't live in an ideal word. Still, what we see in this week's Islamic sale at Christie's is egregious.
@Yael_Rice and I did a quick tour through Christie's sale catalog this afternoon.
Here's what we found:
- The sale has 226 items numbered in the catalog
- Lots 109-114 and 150-159 missing or were withdrawn from catalog, so 211 items are described
christies.com/PDF/catalog/20…
Here's what we found:
- The sale has 226 items numbered in the catalog
- Lots 109-114 and 150-159 missing or were withdrawn from catalog, so 211 items are described
christies.com/PDF/catalog/20…
- Out of these 211 items listed in this week's Christie's sale, only 65 have *some* form of provenance history listed (30.81%)
- Of these 65, only 16 have provenance information that establishes that they were purchased prior to the UNESCO treaty date of November 1970
- Of these 65, only 16 have provenance information that establishes that they were purchased prior to the UNESCO treaty date of November 1970
- Two of these 16 list the provenance as the library/collection of the original 16th or 18th c. ruler or patron (lots 40 and 65)! That's great for establishing apparent 'authenticity' but y'all there sure is a centuries-long gap between the 16th c. and 1970 - so make that 14. 
Meanwhile, a handful of the provenance designations stretch the bounds of credulity to the point of cliché. In addition to that old standby "Private Swiss Collection" there is now the more broadly inclusive "Private European Collection" #noprovenanceprovenance
And of course, when that fails, you can always just run with "Property of a Gentleman" #noprovenanceprovenance
In sum: of the 211 items described in the Art of the Islamic and Indian Worlds sale catalog for this Thursday's sale, a total of 14 can be said to adhere to UNESCO 1970.
That's around 6%.
That's around 6%.
Sadly, our 15th c. Timurid Qur'an on Ming paper is not among them. No provenance history is listed in the catalog. An email to Christie's provided the information that it was “bought by the current vendor's father in London in the 1980s”.
Provenance? UNESCO? Whatevs!
Provenance? UNESCO? Whatevs!
Since this manuscript apparently has no provenance prior to the 1980s, we can’t know anything about the context in which it was removed from its country of origin. Was it looted, stolen, or legally sold? Without a traceable history, sadly, we just can’t know.
And lest you think I exaggerate in my opening tweet about dealing in looted objects, Christie's was forced to withdraw objects *just last week* on charges they were looted.
Why? Because they hadn't done their provenance research. theguardian.com/culture/2020/j…
Why? Because they hadn't done their provenance research. theguardian.com/culture/2020/j…
