Sympathy for the Art Collectors
October 7, 2007 by Alun
There’s an odd story on the Independent’s website today. It seems University College, London may have been housing hundreds of artefacts illegally exported from Iraq. It’s controversial not because of UCL’s acquisition of the pots, but for their reaction after it was suggested that these may be illicit materials.
The artefacts are devil bowls dating from the 6th to 8th centuries AD. The idea is that you put an incantation on them and then tip them upside down to trap an evil spirit. These were loaned by the Norwegian philanthropist Martin Schoyen who bought them in good faith from a Jordanian dealer who swore blind that they’d been in his family’s possession for generations. However not everyone was convinced by the story so UCL set up a committee to investigate where these bowls came from. Schoyen, for reasons which aren’t entirely clear, sued for the return of the bowls. The committee, it is said, concluded that they were probably looted from Iraq. Until then this had been unknown to UCL and there’s no evidence that Martin Schoyen had even the faintest inkling that they were looted either.
The Independent story makes it very clear that it was an open and shut case, Schoyen had title to the bowls for seven years, there’s no suggestion that he looted the bowls nor that he was aware that they were looted. The bowls are his. What is causing the fuss is that the Investigating Committee’s report has been withheld as part of an out of court settlement. It’s all puzzling as it would be helpful to know how this pots were able to be fenced without arousing the suspicions of an upstanding citizen. It’s a strong argument for tougher regulation for the antiquities trade as it would be terrible if it could be proven again that someone else has taken advantage of Schoyen’s trust.
If you’re wondering what they look like, a quick search on on ebay reveals that you can buy them for around $600 from the Malter Galleries. You can see photos on their site. Again there’s no evidence these are knowingly looted from Iraq. In fact you can’t be certain where they come from at all apart from the Near East. Is that enough to make them a safe purchase?
CORRECTION OF MEDIA INNUENDO CONCERNING ALLEGED ‘LOOTED’ PROVENANCE OF INCANTATION BOWLS
http://www.schoyencollection.com/news_articles/bowlscorrect-141007.htm
A recent press article in the United Kingdom (Independent on Sunday, 7 October 2007), and subsequently shortened version carried by a major news agency (UPI, 7 October 2007), suggested that the incantation bowls in the possession of the Schoyen Collection may have been ‘looted’. Any such assertion is wholly wrong and unsupported by evidence. The word ‘looted’ was used loosely with no reference to archaeological practice.
The initial UK press coverage was clear in confirming the Schoyen Collection’s title in law to the incantation bowls while the news agency item, a much shortened version of the Independent on Sunday article, did not make this clear and carried other misleading inaccuracies.
These inaccuracies were substantially corrected in a subsequent news items (UPI, 11 October 2007). However, an unsupportable connection is made between the export of the bowls and the Iraq UN Sanctions Order 2003, which was retroactive to 1990. The bowls were exported from Jordan and not from Iraq and already in 1988. The connection is therefore irrelevant.
The Schoyen Collection takes seriously any imputation that it has in any way acted unethically at any time.
[...] 19, 2008 by Alun It shouldn’t be news. I mentioned the possibility in 2005, and again late last year. When you buy unprovenanced antiquities you don’t know who you’re buying them [...]