CQ1EditorialCahn’s Quarterly 4/2017English EditionThe Marble Vases in London: A Reply to the Media ReportsAt this year’s Frieze Masters London, I exhib-ited an Attic lekythos (fig. 1) and a loutro-phoros, both of which were on consignment for sale. These objects at my booth attracted the attention of the media. Unfortunately, their coverage of the matter has been in part biased and in part imprecise. I therefore feel bound, dear customers, to reply to such re-ports and to explain to you my point of view. This is the background of the matter: The Bec-china Collection was the subject of a complex and protracted investigation in Basel-Stadt. According to the public prosecutor’s office of the Canton of Basel-Stadt, the Becchina Col-lection was seized in the course of penal pro-ceedings in late 2001. All of its works of art – about 5,800 objects – were documented and photographed by the public prosecutor’s office. This material was then sent to the competent foreign authorities and their own experts in art and cultural heritage issues. According to the public prosecutor’s office, about 4,500 objects that had demonstrably been obtained illegally were restituted to their probable owners, in-cluding Greece and Italy, after due assessment of all the objects by the competent foreign au-thorities and experts. A further 1,287 objects remained in Basel. As explained by the com-petent public prosecutor's office of the Canton of Basel-Stadt, these items could not, in the assessment of the experts, be linked to any ille-gal activity. The penal proceedings were conse-quently closed and these objects were released. In the following, bankruptcy proceedings were initiated against the owner, and the Canton of Basel-Stadt seized the mentioned 1,287 works of art with a view to selling them in pursuit of the settlement of a debt. Due to the thematic and historical complexity of the objects, the Betreibungs- und Konkursamt, i.e., the can-tonal department responsible for debt collec-tion and bankruptcy, asked me to broker the sale of the seized objects on its behalf. The sale would be done by them as responsible institu-tion. I insisted that I would act as a broker for these works of art only on the condition that the legality of their sale had been established on the basis of a comprehensive assessment of all the legal aspects of the case. At my re- commendation, the Betreibungs- und Konkurs- amt thereupon approached one of Switzer-land’s most renowned experts in art law at the University of Geneva’s Centre Universitaire de Droit de l’Art and asked him to provide such an expert opinion. That expert opinion con-cluded that the Canton is bound by the du-ties of care required by the law governing the transfer of cultural property, and that a sale is permissible under the precondition that the penal proceedings had not been closed solely on grounds of the statute of limitations, and that the potential owners, in this case foreign states, had had sufficient opportunity to exam-ine and review the works of art, as well as the possibility of demanding their restitution. Such questions were forwarded to the public pros-ecutor’s office of the Canton of Basel-Stadt, which confirmed in writing that the proceed-ings for the said 1,287 objects had also been closed on grounds of lack of evidence and that the potential owners had been able to directly review and examine all of the objects. The ex-pert confirmed that under the circumstances, the Canton could proceed with a sale in pursuit of the collection of a debt. In compliance with the due diligence standards of the art trade, all of the objects were comprehensively checked against the Art Loss Register. This inquiry did not produce any matches. Only after all these extensive inquiries had been conducted did I agree, in my function as consultant and broker of the objects that Canton of Basel-Stadt was storing at the time, to appraise their condition and value. At my recommendation, all works of art that were in urgent need of conservation were separated from the others. Responsibility for these objects demanded the prevention of any further degradation. The Canton thereupon sold a carefully chosen, small selection of the said objects, including the two marble vases mentioned above. The buyer who acquired the Attic lekythos and the loutrophoros from the Canton by means of a final and binding public sales decree asked me to exhibit these pieces in London and to offer them for sale. The resale of these two marble vases does not change the find-ings of the extensive investigations and ex-pert opinions hitherto conducted.In spite of the far-reaching investigations on the part of the Canton described here, both the Canton and myself are now being accused of Fig. 1: A FUNERARY LEKYTHOS. H. 60 cm. Marble. Attic, 4th cent. B.C. The vase is documented in the Wid-mer Archive, negative no. 139, October 1977.trading in illegally obtained goods. These ac-cusations have been uncritically taken up by certain media, even though I provided them with all of the information, in particular the legal assessment of the University of Geneva and other official documents, necessary for an objective coverage of the case. I deeply wish that the very biased perception of the art busi-ness currently being promoted – including by some highly regarded media – will soon be given up. Such reporting is especially trou-bling when it is based on a wilful disregard of clear information, especially the above-men-tioned expert opinion and facts provided in support of objective reporting. In spite of the current turbulent times, we must not lose sight of the most important task incumbent on the art business: to advance the preservation and protection of art objects, whose character as works that have shaped our cultural identity makes them of inestimable value, and by do-ing so to enhance our knowledge and under-standing of ancient art and culture. CQ2Cahn’s Quarterly 4/2017Answers to a Moral Dilemma For many years, the German Archaeological Institute and the Archaeological Institute of America have demanded of their authors and members not to publish archaeological objects with no pre-1970 documentation and whose legal provenance has not been fully clarified. In the Editorial of CQ 3/2017, Jean-David Cahn drew attention to the disastrous consequences of this act of self-censorship for archaeology as a science. In the following weeks we received many emphatic letters from readers addressing this thorny topic. With their permission we are publishing some of their statements here.Dear DavidI would like to make just a short remark on your interesting Editorial in the recent CQ. Of course you are completely right in saying that any study on (groups) of objects must incorporate all objects known from the art market, together with the objects published in excavation reports, in museum and private collection etc. in order to get a complete insight and understanding as best one can.To mention just one example, all studies on trade of pottery in a specific period – and there are many of them – are completely invalid if vases from the art market and private collections are neglected for some ideological reason. Moreover, it is obvious that the oeuvre of an indi-vidual Greek vase-painter should be compiled including the numerous pieces known to come from the art market. To neglect those vases would be a mistake and will result in a serious shortcoming in scholarly respects. In short, I am on your side in this discussion. I suppose this is what you expected.Kind regards, HermanHerman Brijder, Professor Emeritus of Classical Archaeology and History of Ancient Art, University of Amsterdam. Former director of the Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam.Former publisher and editor-in-chief of the Allard Pierson SeriesThe DebateDear Mr CahnI read your article with great interest and completely agree with you. Knowledge of art must be public and everything that is known about works of art belongs to all of humanity. As regrettable as it is when the exact origin of an object is not known, it is just as much a fragmentation as an arm missing from a statue. If these objects are published, then in a certain sense they are also safe, which is surely the most import-ant thing.Best wishes, Prof. Dr. Norbert KnoppProfessor Emeritus of Art History, Univer-sity of EichstättDear DavidHere in Germany, too, a lot of things have been going wrong with regard to how loot-ed art is handled and the new Act to Pro-tect German Cultural Property (KSchG) with its disastrous consequences for both the art trade and for provenance research generally.Worst of all, Ms Grütters and Mr Winands seem hell-bent on shutting down large parts of the art trade – and not just the trade in antiquities and coins.This can lead to some truly grotesque situ-ations: Coin dealers are being arrested and kept in custody on grounds of their inability to prove where their coins come from, while the coins themselves remain confiscated pending submission of documentation. With the normal burden of proof thus reversed, we dealers are supposed to account for the whereabouts of the items in our possession between 1933 and 1989 – 1989 because the GDR period and with it the trading activi-ties of Schalck-Golodkowski are now under scrutiny, too. And these rules apply to every object, irrespective of price category. Just last week I received an inquiry from the Lüneburg Museum, which wanted to know where I had purchased a mustard pot that I sold to them in 1988. How am I supposed to supply such information thirty years on?Our fellow art dealer Mr Andreas of J.P. Schneider in Frankfurt and I, together with several other dealers, auctioneers, profes-sional associations and collectors, are now doing some intensive lobbying against both the KSchG and the planned looted art act. Actions for the infringement of Europe-an competition law and of more than one clause of the German constitution are now pending before both the European Court and the Federal Court of Justice in Karls-ruhe.For this reason, too, your article was very heartening. In the sincere hope that the times may yet take a turn for the good, I thank you for your work and with cordial greetings remainYour PeterGallery Henrich, MunichDear DavidThank you for your interesting and thought-provoking editorial. I would like to express my basic agreeement with the view you’ve expressed. As you do, I un-reservedly condemn the illicit trade in an-tiquities and thus all illegal excavations which result in the destruction of the so-cio-historical context of archaeological artefacts and thus in the loss of important, sometimes essential, information.Yet, to dogmatically prohibit the publica-tion of archaeological material of uncer-tain provenance seems to me counterpro-ductive, not only for the reason you state, i.e. that artworks may well be bearers of important messages even if their original socio-historical context has been lost (Ex-ekias’s amphora in the Vatican could be mentioned as one of many examples!), but also because perversely such a prohibition actually assists the illicit trade by allowing hundreds, if not thousands, of fakes to go undetected. At Mediterranean Archaeology, we there-fore decide on a case-by-case basis wheth-er or not to publish a paper presenting an artefact of uncertified origin. It goes without saying that we will not accept for publication an object that is likely to have come from an illegal excavation, nor would we publish a paper that might in-crease its commercial value.Jean-Paul DescœudresEditor of Mediterranean ArchaeologyCQ3Cahn’s Quarterly 4/2017A majority of the books published in the last fifty years about ancient art have depended on illustration of objects which are not from controlled excavations, and to pretend that they are therefore illegal, useless and mis-leading is, of course, absurd, yet this is the logical conclusion to be drawn if the extreme view about “academic” or “moral” integrity is accepted, and all objects not from controlled excavations are ignored. It is a view more easily adopted by a lawyer than a scholar. But the market is still well supplied with objects which seem to have no recent and authentic recorded history, whether from collections or excavation. It is difficult to see that “moral-ity” is in any way involved, rather than the fear that we may be misled by what is not au-thentically ancient, and that we are incapa-ble of 100 percent certainty in the matter. At any rate, science can determine date for us, so we are left with the question whether it is better to ignore what might be an important relic of Antiquity in the interests of a “moral” approach to site-robbers and the market. Cer-2002, p. 136). It is no doubt from the Pales-tine area and its Latin inscriptions show it to have been made for a Eucharist ceremony – “Holy is God, holy the mighty one, holy the immortal one, have mercy on us” – typical for the Eastern Orthodox Church. Its lack of detailed provenance cannot disqualify it as a record of Antiquity. It is, indeed, unusual but totally plausible. It would have been a rather different matter if its shape and the inscriptions were quite unique, and its role in Antiquity difficult to explain. Such objects would indeed be suspect, although generally a forger has not the imagination to produce something totally unique, plausible or not, but goes for the commonplace. It is perhaps a little unwise to give Antiquity the credit for anything quite unexpected or unusual, yet excavation has shown just how innovative Antiquity could be, especially in out-of-the way places. The classicising works found in Central Asia often seem barely cred-ible in terms of established and convention-al scholarship, yet they are from excavation (e.g., the gilt silver disc from Kandahar, J. Boardman, The Greeks in Asia, 2015, pl. XVII; here, fig. 1) and we would have lost much if they had not been excavated but “found” and discredited. We need to be care-ful but not ungenerous in our assessment of what the past can tell us.Academic CensorshipBy Sir John BoardmanThe DebateFig. 1: A gilt silver disc showing the goddess Kybele in a chariot, with priests, a radiate bust of a god, the moon and sun. Dm. 24 cm. Aï Khanoum, 3rd cent. B.C. J. Boardman, The Greeks in Asia, 2015, pl. XVII.Sir John Boardman is Professor Eme-ritus of Classical Archaeology and Art at Oxford. He has excavated in Turkey, Greece and Libya, and published several books on Greek art and gem-engraving, as well as on the diffusion of classical art in the ancient world, especially in Asia. He is 90.tainly, forgers do not deserve to succeed, but I think we have their measure by now. Equal-ly, robbers of sites do not deserve to succeed, but it is very doubtful whether sites can ever be controlled effectively, despite noble efforts by “source countries”. Some years ago it was said that in Turkey boys who found antiquities on an ancient site could sell them to dealers who would then supply them with forgeries to sell on to tourists/collectors. Yet the recent publication of some 500 Roman seals, gems and rings, picked up over some 30 years by a family walking over the fields concealing the an-cient city of Caesarea (S. Amoral-Stark & M. Hershkovitz, Ancient Gems, Finger Rings and Seal Boxes from Caesarea Maritima: the Hendler Collection, 2016) shows how much is still on the surface, and no less valid as ev-idence than excavated material. Take for an example a silver chalice of no known prove-nance in the Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem of around A.D. 500 (Guide to the Collection, CQ4Cahn’s Quarterly 4/2017Discovered for YouSilent Cries for Help to the GodsA Glimpse into the World of Anatomical and Fertility VotivesAs elucidated in our excursion into the world of ancient votive offerings in CQ 3/2017, vo-tives, whether personalized by an inscription or more generally “formulated”, are a silent medium of prayer or thanksgiving to the gods.Votive offerings tied to the wish for health and healing could take on some surprisingly concrete forms. In addition to representations of human organs or extremities, we some-times find graphic visualizations of actual symptoms, too. The healing hero Amynos on the votive relief of Lysimachides from the Amyneion on the Areopagus in Athens, for example, is depicted holding a giant human leg with very prominent varicose veins (fig. 1). Just above the floor in the background at left, moreover, is a niche with two votive feet. It is tempting to imagine that Amynos spe-cialized in legs and feet.The healing heroes were intermediaries and therapists with a territorially delimited radius of action, much of whose work was later tak-en over by the healing god Asklepios; hence the ca. 260 anatomical votive offerings made of clay found at the Asklepieion of Corinth, among them ears, eyes, fingers, arms, legs, and genitals (5th-4th cent. B.C.) attesting to the many different forms of succour that were By Gerburg LudwigFig. 1: A VOTIVE RELIEF OF LYSIMACHIDES. H. 70 cm. Marble. 4th cent. B.C. National Archaeological Museum, Athens, inv. no. 3526. sought and perhaps granted. Probably it was from Corinth that the custom made its way to Etruria, possibly via Gravisca, the port of Tarquinia on the coast of the Tyrrhenian Sea. The Etruscans, themselves very religious with cultic rules and traditions of their own, turned out to be receptive to religious influences from the East.Currently on sale at Gallery Cahn is a life-size votive foot made of clay with very naturalis-tically modelled toes, knuckles, and tendons (fig. 2). The purpose of the hole in the middle of the convex face of the lower leg stump was not to attach the foot to a statue, however; it served rather as a firing hole, as did the two other holes on the underside of the sole. Votive feet like this one, solidly modelled out of clay and often painted, have been found in such huge numbers that we can assume they Fig. 2: A VOTIVE FOOT. H. 16.3 cm. Beige clay, red paint. Italic, Etruscan, 3rd cent. B.C. CHF 2,800were proto-industrially made, whether with the aid of moulds or with the bare hands. Ev-idence of the existence of workshops for this purpose inside sanctuaries, among them the pottery in Marzabotto (south of Bologna), has been found. The giver, in other words, could buy a votive foot either inside or close to the sanctuary, and then dedicate it to a deity whether as a prayer or as a token of thanks for healing. Among the possible addressees were various Etruscan and Italic deities, such as Uni (synonymous with Hera), Menrva (Ath-ena) and Vea (Demeter), Turan (Aphrodite), Aplu (Apollo) or Mefitis as the Samnite and Salus as the Latin healing goddesses.Looking at the flat arch of Gallery Cahn’s votive foot, it is tempting to diagnose a col-lapsed arch as the source of the problem. Yet given the speed with which these objects were mass-produced, the extent to which they show actual symptoms must remain a moot point. Very few anatomical votive offerings bear clear visual signs of disease. It seems that all that was needed to solicit succour or to give thanks was a dedication of the relevant body part; that done, the votive would hence-forth serve the gods as a permanent reminder of the giver’s supplication. Over time, the Etruscans and their Italic neighbours became masters of the choice of materials, the manufacture, and the design of such votive gifts. From the late 4th century B.C. entire series of single organs and extrem-ities were produced. One Etruscan speciality was the individually manufactured human torsos with the abdominal or thoracic cavity opened up like a window to afford a view of the inner organs. The knowledge of how these looked was obtained from haruspicy, i.e. the inspection of entrails by priests, and perhaps even surgical interventions, albeit of limit-ed scope. All the documented finds of ana-tomical votives are without exception from sanctuaries and votive depots, most of them in southern Etruria as far south as Campania and Apulia, the main concentrations being in Veji and Tarquinia. The desire for health was equated with the need for fertility and procreation. Whether the giver of the rather plain, almost minimal-ist phallos votive made of tufa, which Gallery Cahn also has in its programme (fig. 3), dedi-cated his offering as thanks for his recovery or to solicit healing or fertility can no longer be Fig. 3: A VOTIVE PHALLOS. H. 21.7 cm. Tufa with volca-nic inclusions. Italic, 4th-2nd cent. B.C. CHF 4,500CQ5Cahn’s Quarterly 4/2017My ChoiceBy Jean-David CahnA Hellenistic Theatre MaskImprint PublisherJean-David Cahn Malzgasse 23 CH-4052 Basel +41 61 271 67 55 mail@cahn.ch www.cahn.chEditorsJean-David Cahn Yvonne YiuAuthorsSir John Boardman Jean-David CahnMartin FlasharUlrike HaaseGerburg LudwigYvonne YiuTranslationsBronwen SaundersYvonne Yiu PhotosNiklaus BürginUlrike HaaseDesign and LayoutDenise BarthMichael JoosYvonne YiuPrinterDruckerei Deiner www.druckerei-deiner.deFig. 4: A VOTIVE STATUETTE OF A SWADDLED IN-FANT. H. 47.7 cm. Clay with dark inclusions. Etruscan, 3rd-2nd cent. B.C. CHF 6,000ascertained. To answer that question we would have to know more about the origin of the piece and the deity to whom it was dedicated. The choice of material is unusual. Normally reserved for sculpture and buildings, tufa was in such plentiful supply that it constituted a cheap alternative for votive gifts, too.A more concrete instance is that afforded us by Gallery Cahn’s swaddled infant with pret-ty, cherubic face (fig. 4). Little terracotta vo-tive statuettes like this one were dedicated at the sanctuaries of the Italic birth deities and kourotrophoi (the gods who protected chil-dren) by expectant women or parents, either as “personified” thanks for offspring, or to solicit good health, well-being, and divine protection during pregnancy, delivery, and motherhood, and the life of the child. The contrast between the compact, swaddled body – the edges of the swaddling bands actually stand out on some statuettes – and the em-phatically three-dimensional modelling of the shoulders, neck, and head is characteristic of these pieces. Occasionally, as with our stat-uette, the cloth is pulled up to the back of the head to expose the feet. The faces, either hand-modelled or mould-made, in some cas-es show features that go far beyond those of an infant and are almost adult-like. Not until the Hellenistic Period did the representation of little children as children become standard.Anyone who investigates churches and cha-pels in Greece and Italy these days is sure to come across little relief plaques with an-atomical images on them here and there. These prove that certain elements of this very graphic, powerfully visual cult practice have indeed been preserved over the centuries and are consciously cultivated even now.This exceedingly finely made theatre mask is remarkable for its bulbous eyes under bulging eyebrows reaching deep into the furrowed brow, a wide-open mouth, hair rolled up into a speira encircling the fore-head like a wreath, and a fine-ly stranded, fanned-out beard. This small-format version was probably intended as a votive offering, for example for a sanc-tuary of Dionysos. Since all the aforementioned characteristics are redolent of representations of satyrs or Silenus, some con-nection to satyr plays like those performed following the three tragedies at the Great Dionysia is certainly conceivable. Anoth-er possible interpretation is that of a slave in the New Comedy. A tiny hole at the top of the mask probably indicates that it was suspended originally. The reddish clay and outstanding workmanship are a pointer to Myrina as the mask’s place of origin, Myrina being where all the best terracottas were made. The quality of the piece is borne out by the meticulous attention to detail. The model must have still been quite fresh, lending the mask an almost metallic clarity. It was worked while still in a leathery state and then coated in a white clay slip before being painted with red paint.When I saw the piece for the first time, I felt magically drawn to it. That expression of high drama with bulging eyes and hair standing on end – there is a hint of madness to it! And when I hold the mask in my hand, it is almost as if I could hear the droning iambs stream-ing out of its open mouth. This is a far cry from the “noble simplicity and serene gran-deur” so often associated with the culture of the Ancient Greeks. But Greek society could also be bawdy and blunt and had a penchant for the boisterous and the grotesque.This mask invites us to partake in the world that produced it. It is a powerful piece, the best possible clay carving one could wish for. And it also supplies but further proof of how artistic value and commercial value may A THEATRE MASK. H. 11 cm. Terracotta. Greek or Western Greek, 3rd-2nd cent. B.C. CHF 12,000be miles apart. The mask is not obliging; on the contrary, it makes demands of us and re-quires background knowledge. But for lovers of Antiquity, it also promises a lot of art for very little money. CQ6Cahn’s Quarterly 4/2017Pars pro toto: Fragments from AntiquityNew Artworks Monthlyon www.cahn.chA FRAGMENT OF A SARCOPHAGUS WITH MYTHOLOGICAL SCENE (THE RAPE OF PROSERPINA). W. 58.4 cm. Mar-ble. The relief fragment shows the almost completely nude body of a female figure, viewed from behind. Her cloak has slipped off so that it now covers only part of her thigh and lower leg. Lying on the ground with her torso twisted slightly off axis, she uses her left arm to prop herself up, while her right arm would have been raised originally. With her head thrown back and her gaze directed upwards, she is apparently transfixed by the scene immediately above her, her open mouth signalling a certain agitation. Her hair is tied at the nape of her neck, although two long tresses have broken free and are now cascading down her shoulders. Preserved above her is the writhing end of a tail, while the lower part of a vessel of some kind can be made out just above her right foot. The type of the supine figure viewed from behind with robes sliding off her back recurs on numerous sarcophagi whose fronts bear the abduction of Pro-serpina. It is therefore highly likely that our fragment, too, comes from such a context. Premised on this analogy, the point of attachment above the left lower arm might belong to a horn of plenty and the remains of a tail to the chariot drawn by serpents with which Ceres chases after her abducted daughter. Formerly priv. coll. Virginia, acquired from The Folio Society, London, in 1986. Thence by descent. Roman, 2nd cent. A.D. CHF 43,000A FRAGMENT OF AN ANTEFIX IN THE SHAPE OF A WOMAN'S HEAD. H. 19 cm. Reddish clay. The pretty fragment preserves part of the face of a woman. The right eye is almond-shaped and slightly offset by moulded ridges. Iris, pupils, eyelashes, lid and eyebrows painted. The mouth is shaped in the characteristic archaic smile. The hair forms a solid mass, with two individual strands arranged from the centre to the right. Back cursorily smoothed. Remains of colour. Formery MM, Basel, KAM 1978; thereafter, Collection A., Switzerland. Etruscan, last quarter of 6th cent. B.C. CHF 4,800A HANDLE-PLATE OF A COLUMN-KRATER IN THE STYLE OF THE KYKLA PAINTER. W. 10.5 cm. Clay. Bust of a long-haired, bearded man facing to right; outlines and details incised. Face, neck and fillet red. Neckline of chiton below. At upper right edge, part of the zigzag pat-tern decorating the topside of the krater's mouth; edges of handle-plate coated in added red. Formerly priv. coll., The Netherlands (1956-1988). Greek, Middle Corinthian, ca. 570 B.C. CHF 5,600A PLATE. H. 16 cm. Clay. Large fragment of a flat plate, the inside of which is decorated with four magnificent lotus flowers, arranged crosswise, three of which have survived, framed by one narrow and one wide ring. The convex rim is decorated with a frieze of alternating red and black tongues with a separately modelled lip painted black. Finely profiled ring foot, its edge painted black; another narrower ring encircles the outer edge of the base. Reassembled from four fragments. With Fortuna Fine Arts, Ltd., New York, 1990s. Thereafter Stanford Place Collection of Antiquities. Middle Corinthian, 2nd quarter of 6th cent. B.C. CHF 2,200A FRAGMENT OF A TERRACOTTA TILE. H. 10.5 cm. Clay. The frag-ment represents a bearded man in three-quarter profile to right. The hair of his forehead and temples frames his face in fine, soft curls. The beard and moustache are rendered in separate strands. The eyelids are modelled in relief and the painted lashes are still clearly visible. Formerly European private coll. Thereafter German art market, 2005. Etruscan, early 4th cent. B.C. CHF 1,600CQ8Cahn’s Quarterly 4/2017CQ9Cahn’s Quarterly 4/2017Next >