Today our founder had the honor of attending the repatriation ceremony of the Golden Coffin of Nedjemankh to the nation of Egypt. Leila served as the Egyptian cultural heritage law expert for the Manhattan DA’s Office for the repatriation of this spectacular object. The coffin was looted in 2011 and purchased by the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the “Met”) in 2017 for $4 million. During today’s repatriation ceremony, the DA quite appropriately addressed the importance of due diligence and a commitment to recognizing red flags for stolen antiquities. In this matter, the coffin went on the market and was purchased by the Met in 2017, six years after the start of the Egyptian Revolution. In addition, the magnificent artifact had never been published or studied by scholars. And finally, the paperwork that accompanied the coffin was forged. With proper due diligence and confirming the veracity of the papers, the forged nature of the documentation could have been uncovered. As noted during today’s ceremony, there are ties between criminal networks and the illicit antiquities market, and so it is important to avoid the purchase of stolen items. The District Attorney also acknowledged the Met’s cooperation in returning the priceless object.
The exquisite coffin is now returning to Egypt where it will be exhibited in a state museum. Eventually it will be displayed in the Grand Egyptian Museum after its opening in 2020. As noted by the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs, the coffin is returning to its home, but it is valuable to all mankind.
Our founder, Leila Amineddoleh, worked as a cultural heritage law expert with the Manhattan DA’s Office in furtherance of the repatriation of a looted coffin from Egypt. Yesterday it was announced that the Metropolitan Museum of Art would return the exquisite coffin to Egypt. The prized golden-sheathed artifact was featured in an exhibition, “Nedjemankh and His Gilded Coffin,” that opened last year. The 1st BC century coffin was inscribed for Nedjemankh, a high-ranking priest of the ram-headed god Heryshef of Herakleopolis. The museum featured the coffin as the highlight of an exhibition, set to close on April 21. However, it was closed earlier this week after the museum agreed to repatriate the object after learning that it was looted from Egypt in 2011.
The museum purchased the item for $3.95 million from Parisian art dealer Christophe Kunicki in 2017. The coffin was accompanied by false provenance information suggesting that the item was legally exported. But in reality, the work was recently looted and smuggled out of the Middle Eastern country in contravention of its cultural heritage laws.
The museum publicly announced the high-profile repatriation and stated that it will review its acquisition program to prevent such occurrences in the future. In 2017, the Manhattan DA’s Office formed the nation’s first antiquities trafficking unit. Ms. Amineddoleh is proud to consult with the trafficking unit as a cultural heritage law expert. Led by Matthew Bogdanos, the unit has facilitated a number of repatriations from the Metropolitan Museum of Art within the past few years, including the return of an Etruscan vessel and a marble bull’s head from Lebanon.
Last week, the NY Times featured an article about a 17th-century painting discovered behind a wall in a Parisian commercial space. The 10-by-20-foot canvas was discovered during the renovation of an Oscar de la Renta boutique. The mysterious painting is of a 17th-century nobleman and his entourage entering the city of Jerusalem. Through the use of art experts and historians, it was revealed that the work was painted in 1674 by Arnould de Vuez, a painter who worked with Charles Le Brun, the first painter to Louis XIV and designer of interiors of the Château de Versailles. Le Brun, with a reputation for involvement in duels, eventually fled France and made his way to Constantinople.
It is unclear how the canvas found its way to Paris and was hidden behind the wall of the boutique (it’s speculated that it may have been hidden during WWII). But most interestingly, art historian Stephane Pinta expertly traced the painting to a plate that was reproduced in “Odyssey of an Ambassador: The Travels of the Marquis de Nointel, 1670-1680,” by Albert Vandal. The book, written in 1900, recounted the travels of Louis XIV’s ambassador to the Ottoman Court. The discovery of the book, which includes a rotogravure of the rediscovered painting, reveals that the painting is of Marquis de Nointel arriving in Jerusalem.
After discovering the identity of the painting and its creator, the restoration process began. A team of specialists worked to restore the painting to its original state. However, investigators are still working to study the painting, understand its iconography, and trace its provenance and movements from inception through today.
The story demonstrates the importance of thorough provenance investigations. However, this is not the first case involving the discovery of art hidden behind a wall; there are a number of well-known instances involving artistic masterpieces hidden behind walls. Perhaps the most famous hidden work involves Leonardo’s famed “The Battle of Anghiari.” But the work isn’t hidden in the usual way. Some believe it was in place sight, on (not behind) a wall in the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence. It’s believed that Leonardo’s now lost masterpiece (sometimes referred to as “the Lost Leonardo”) lies beneath a work by Giorgio Vasari. But with the work covered by another intact masterpiece, questions arise as to how to preserve these two dueling artworks.
Works are sometimes hidden due to criminal motivations. Fourteen years after two Van Gogh works were stolen from the artist’s eponymous museum in Amsterdam, officers in Italy’s Guardia di Finanza found the missing works in southern Italy. The paintings were hidden behind a wall in the home of a mafia boss.
Sometimes works are hidden due to family disputes and conflicting claims of ownership. In 2006, Sotheby’s sold a Norman Rockwell painting that had been hidden behind a wall by the painting’s owner. During their divorce, the owner of the work did not want his wife gaining possession of, or making copies of, “Breaking Home Ties.” He hid the painting behind the wall, but his sons discovered the artwork after their father’s passing.
There are a host of other stories involving the discovery of works hidden behind walls, even by the artists themselves. It is always exciting when a work is rediscovered.
One of the challenges associated with authenticating art is that it can sometimes be difficult to procure an expert’s opinion. During the past decade, various artists’ foundations have either dismantled or decided not to provide opinions on authenticity. In addition, some experts refrain from providing advice due to fear of litigation. With the exorbitant expense of defending oneself in court, possible damage to a professional reputation, and the stress involved in litigious battles, some experts abstain from involvement in authentication disputes.
However, in the case of van Gogh works, there is a source that willingly provides expertise—the Van Gogh Museum. This week’s publication of a sketchbook purportedly belonging to van Gogh is creating waves in the art world because the author of the text did not confer with the leading van Gogh authority. Rather than present the works to the recognized experts on the oeuvre of the artist, the author of “Vincent van Gogh: The Lost Arles Sketchbook” excluded the museum’s opinion in the book. However, the museum had repeatedly informed the owners of the sketches that they are not by the Dutch artist. The sketchbook’s anonymous owners approached the museum in 2008 and 2012 and were told that the drawings were forgeries.
The museum has definitively said that the works are fakes for three reasons: forensic anomalies, unclear provenance, and stylistic irregularities. The forensics are wrong—the materials used for the sketches are not the type used by van Gogh. The sketches feature brown pigment, where as Van Gogh used black or purple ink. What’s more, the paper used is different than the type used by the famed artist. The provenance in unreliable, as a source purporting to establish its presence in the 1890s is questionable. And even more damning is the style. The museum asserts that the sketches do not reflect the artist’s style or artistic development during the time they were supposedly drawn. They also feature “typical mistakes.” The museum states that “the person who made them is following the examples of van Gogh in a superficial way and doesn’t know what van Gogh was aiming for.”
However, the academics supporting the van Gogh attribution discuss the sketchbook’s interesting history, and the author of the academic work spent three years examining the work’s history, purportedly tracing it back to a French cafe in 1890.
The recent announcement of the sketchbook draws attention to the art world’s sometimes contentious authentication process, and the inevitable battle of experts that frequently results. However, in a market full of skillfully executed forgeries, it is surprising that any art scholar would not heavily weigh the knowledge of the leading authorities (at the Van Gogh Museum) who were ready and willing to provide valuable expertise. To read more about the authentication process and the history of forgeries, find a copy of my recent academic publication: Are you Faux Real? An Examination of Art Forgery and the Legal Tools Protecting Art Collectors.
I am disturbed by Gary Vikan’s piece, “The Case For Buying Antiquities To Save Them.” What Mr. Vikan proposes is dangerous. Allowing museums to purchase antiquities to “save” them undermines the principles of due diligence aimed at excluding loot from museum collections. By allowing these institutions to accept or purchase unprovenanced antiquities, museums will increase the demand for illicit goods. Allowing irresponsible collecting practices creates a free pass for museums to acquire objects from war-torn regions. Where should we draw the line?
For decades, museums acquired illicit objects, and the system proposed by Mr. Vikan allows museums to openly do so. Trade in illicitly acquired artifacts is a demand-driven crime fueled by buyers. This is unacceptable; museums are the stewards of art and heritage and shouldn’t be contributing to the black market and incentivizing destruction.
And although Mr. Vikan questions whether antiquities fund ISIS, there has been a well-documented increase in the number of antiquities from Syria and Iraq traded on the international market. The massive increase in supply of antiquities from war-torn regions, as reported by US Customs, indicates that at least a significant portion of these objects were illegally excavated. The destruction of artifacts in the Middle East should not be used as an excuse for Western nations to acquire black market goods.
