Examination of witnesses (Questions 160
- 179)
TUESDAY 18 APRIL 2000
MR JAMES
EDE and MS
JOANNA VAN
DER LANDE
160. They always know that, do they?
(Ms van der Lande) No, they do not. This is the next
problem and broadens it out into the question of provenance.
(Mr Ede) Can we talk about transparency and provenance.
(Ms van der Lande) It is a very important issue which
has been brought up time and time again.
(Mr Ede) In common with the entire art market and
indeed books there is a huge quantity of objects that have been
on the market for in many cases centuries that have no demonstrable
provenance. In the past it was not regarded as important, it simply
was not on the agenda, and it is now. Therefore the paperwork
that went with these things has gone. I would say this, if you
look in your own house and look at things you have got on the
mantlepiece could you produce documentation to show where it had
come from? The answer is obviously no. And therefore one has to
use one's brains. If somebody brought something wrapped up in
a copy of yesterday's Messagio di Giorno clearly you are
going to ask very serious questions, but little old ladies do
exist and I have bought objects that have been in this country
since 1840 which are not recorded anywhere by any academic but
have been sitting in dusty libraries ever since then.
(Ms van der Lande) There is a fundamental problem
with documentation being kept with the object because apart from
things in our own homes where the majority of us have very little
documentation and paperwork to back up that we are the legal,
rightful owners, in addition to that, if people have bought things
from auctions many years ago or dealers many years ago quite often
that documentation has disappeared. Sometimes we are able to check
it out and other times we are unable do so but bearing in mind
that the trade was legal in many of the source countries until
relatively recently, export licences were obtainable from these
countries but you would often get one export licence, one piece
of paper for one shipment. As we suggested earlier, provenance
is something that really in the last ten years, I think it is
fair to say, has become a very serious issue and people are taking
far more care and have far more conscience and consciousness about
it. Seldom was this documentation, one licence for one shipment,
kept with those objects because the idea of the licence was to
legally export it from that country and once it came into this
country or one of the other countries it is unlikely that that
documentation would have been kept together with that shipment.
So although you have documentation you maybe have 200 objects
in that shipment as a result in this country or one of the other
trading countries that have no documentation now. It is a very
difficult issue to get around that and address that problem but
there are legally on the market many, many thousands of objects
which have no demonstrable provenance. That is something we feel
strongly.
161. How would you like to see the laws in Italy
and Greece changed on export licences?
(Mr Ede) Lord Renfrew has put forward the argument
that the only value of an antiquity lies in how far it was buried
beneath the surface. I do take issue with that because I think
there are historical factors and it is clear there is a value
in the object itself that tells us something historical as well.
However, we do accept that argument of the great importance of
excavation in a controlled way but we are talking about objects
which are inherited in places like Italy which have no provenance
there. Everybody in Italy digs things up. Next time you go to
Tuscany go to the local taverna and you will see vases because
they are dug up at the bottom of the garden all over the place.
Therefore we would like to see the Italians and Greeks conform
to the spirit of Article 28 of the Treaty of Rome and allow free
trade in antiquities that are not items of national importance.
We do accept that every country has a right to protect objects
of national importance but this is being abused by them. They
are blocking the export of everything. I do have first hand evidence
of this. When I was in Rome for the UNIDROIT conference I went
to a dealer and wanted to buy something that had been in the collection
of Lord Flip here which he bought at Sotheby's and he was unable
to get an export licence for me. Not only that, he was also investigated
by the Finanzie and, as we all know, everybody from the President
downwards cannot really risk a visit from the Finanzie. So that
put him off the idea of ever trying again. We would love to see
them liberalise their laws for objects which are in private hands.
It would make a huge difference. They could impose some sort of
export duty to protect their sites, which we are interested in.
(Ms van der Lande) We all have something in common
in that we love culture, we love history. We do not work in museums,
some people do; we work in the trade and we love and protect our
heritage.
(Mr Ede) Something that needs to be said at this point
is we are officially representing the Antiquities Dealers Association
but unofficially we are representing the views of a large number
of academics who in the current climate of witch hunt (which The
Times newspaper seems to have taken on board in a big way)
feel constrained and unable to put forward their view that a workable,
legitimate and open trade is to the benefit of them. They know
that. We do a lot of work for the British Museum and they need
the trade because we bring things to their attention they would
not otherwise find. It is not reasonable to suggest this as being
an academic versus a money problem and the snide remark about
New York I do not think helped either. American museums are funded
in different ways to ours. They have cocktail parties because
they need to raise money. It does not work like that in this country.
I would invite the whole of this Committee to my gallery to see
how it does work and I could probably even find a glass of beer,
although maybe not mild and not bitter. You would be extremely
welcome to see the level we are talking about. We are not talking
about Stonehenge, we are not talking about major monuments. We
are talking about the equivalent of Roman light bulbs in many
cases. If we were sitting here in 3001 and you were to ask this
and I said they were light bulbs, do we need to know where every
light bulb was dug up? There are millions of these things.
Chairman
162. That is quite a get out, is it not, Mr
Ede? Obviously one does not know the provenance of everything
but at the same time if members of your Association, which is
an association of high repute, made the condition they would only
deal in objects whose provenance was authenticated that would
have an effect on the whole trade. I mentioned at a previous sitting
a personal experience of mine when I was in a town in California
and saw a pair of cufflinks made out of what were said to be Roman
coins. I asked the dealer if they could authenticate that and
they immediately took out a certificate from the Israeli Museum
of Antiquities with photographs of the objects and authenticated
it. At this stage in the game it may not be possible to do that,
but if you were to lay down your own rules about authentication
and provenance would not that have an effect upon the illicit
trade?
(Mr Ede) First of all, we do. Authentication and provenance
are two different issues. If we refused to buy objects for which
no demonstrable provenance was available it would impact very
severely on the legitimate trade. Yesterday I brought a large
collection of Egyptian antiquities legally exported from Egypt
in the 1950s as a dowry. I know it to be true. I know the woman
and I would love to put her in front of Lord Renfrew and see what
she said to him. Am I to refuse to buy it?
163. What about at least the last known owner?
(Mr Ede) That leads on to the transparency issue which
they always talk about. Let's move on to that. It is clear that
laws are already in place for the police, the Customs & Excise
and the Inland Revenue to find out where you bought things from.
We all keep stock books, we all keep records and copious records.
I do not wish to make this evidence public, sometimes for very
good, legitimate, commercial reasons. For example, the things
I bought yesterday are 30 per cent of the whole. I do not want
Joanna to know where it came from because she will then bag it
for her next auction.
(Ms van der Lande) That is business.
(Mr Ede) It is also true that some people do not wish
to divulge their name. I bought something from a very noble owner,
perhaps even more noble than Lord Renfrew, and he did not want
his wife to know that he was short of money. These are good reasons.
There is nothing wrong with that and every business allows confidentiality.
Indeed, the Data Protection Act is there to ensure that people
have a right to confidentiality. Surely we are not suggesting
we might find this unacceptable.
(Ms van der Lande) We are not allowed to give this
information because the law prevents us doing that.
(Mr Ede) Being brutal about it, in the current climate,
and this is no bad thing, things with a more interesting provenance
are worth more money. I want to put this information out but I
am constrained from doing so by the person who sold it.
164. Nobody is talking about a betrayal of confidentiality
but ought you not to be at least satisfying yourselves internally
within your dealing so that if allegations were made and the police
came round, you would at that point when the police had arrived
and perhaps had a warrant be able to satisfy the police?
(Mr Ede) I can.
(Ms van der Lande) We are in that position. We would
be mad not to be.
165. So anything that you sell you have got
some form of authentication or provenance?
(Ms van der Lande) Yes.
(Mr Ede) Where did we buy it from? Dealers buy from
other dealers, private collectors and auctions. I keep that information
very carefully and any further information supplied to me I also
keep. There is no question of not knowing who the last person
was you bought it from. It would be madness for us not to know.
We are a legitimate trade dealing with privately owned objects.
That is it.
(Ms van der Lande) That applies to any secondhand
goods, for want of a better term. When we take things at an auction
house we issue receipts to the vendors and they are bound by certain
terms and conditions.
(Mr Ede) I do want to make one point here which is
a little bit contentious. Those people—and it is a rather
small but very vociferous media active pressure group—attacking
the trade at the moment do sometimes let the cat out of the bag
a bit. They talk about: "I used to collect birds' eggs; it
is no longer morally acceptable." "We want it to be
like the fur trade; nice people do not do it." "The
ethical situation has to change so that people do not collect."
This is actually an attack on the entire trade masquerading in
part as a legitimate attack on the illegitimate trade because
I think there is a feeling that in some way antiquities are the
province or the interest of a coterie and that the general public
should not be allowed to collect these things. It is quite clear
from the way things are phrased that these people are not only
interested in stopping the illegitimate trade, they want to stop
the antiquities trade completely and we have to defend our rights
and cultural heritage in collecting these things. The illegitimate
trade is smaller than has been suggested. I have got a quote here
from the Egyptian Ambassador who when asked by the Art newspaper
about the extent of smuggled antiquities said: "It is a problem
that we are facing, though it is hardly widespread." We know
this to be true because we are on the sharp end. The McDonald
Institute have said they do not know any dealers so I do not know
how they can talk about this because they do not want to talk
to us. We know now that what is happening in Egypt is that the
penalties for dealing in illicitly exported trade are so steep
that when farmers find any they throw them in the Nile, and that
cannot be to anybody's benefit either.
Chairman: Mr Fearn, have you finished?
Mr Fearn
166. I would just say if you do send us an invitation
to a cocktail party, we might not accept it!
(Mr Ede) What about a cup of tea?
Mr Fearn: I will come privately.
Mrs Golding
167. Could I deal with some other points. I
understand you want to be squeaky clean and be seen to be squeaky
clean but in your submission to us you suggest that the United
Kingdom law is a model in the area of discovery in that we have
an inducement to people to declare fair discoveries, but if you
tried to do this in Rome you would have a long, long queue of
people queuing up because, as you say, under every bit of soil
you turn over there is something else, so how can other countries
do this?
(Mr Ede) The point is that the Italian model has been
demonstrated not to work. If you put a blanket ban on everything
it does not work so let us try something else at least. Of course
there are a lot of things to find in Italy and there are a lot
of things in the United Kingdom dug up illicitly as well. There
is a problem in the United Kingdom. This will be a problem anywhere
because people will always dig things up but if you can get them
to report it you have the information which Lord Renfrew is so
interested in. You have the archaeological information. You at
least know about quantities. The British Act has worked. I know
because I am valuing a lot of this material.
168. But people do not realise the importance
of some of the things they dig up. It could be something very
small and they might think, "Oh well, it is not important
enough." In this country we do not dig up things at a rate
of knots as they do in Italy and Rome.
(Ms van der Lande) I agree they have far more archaeologically
under the ground than we do. There is absolutely no disputing
that. I think in order to help the problem they would obviously
need help financially or with more archaeologists backing them
up to record the finds. I think that is the only way forward but
it has to also be with an air of co-operation between the two
parties there. I think at the moment that does not exist. There
is a lot of fear between the two parties. If it was felt they
were helping each other maybe that would be the way forward but
unfortunately in all of this more manpower would be needed. I
do not see any way round that.
(Mr Ede) Can we talk about co-operation. We know the
Italian police have in their possession photographs of several
thousand stolen antiquities. We have asked them for them. I have
got a letter here from the Police. We have asked both through
Scotland Yard and Interpol and through the Department of National
Heritage, as it then was, and this letter from Richard Ellis who
was in charge of the Stolen Antiquities Department says: "I
have now heard that the reply from Italy was totally negative
and at this stage they will not release any information of the
photographs in their possession." These are photographs they
had. They did not have the pieces. I can only conclude that what
they want us to do is to buy this stuff and say "Gotcha".
Why will they not co-operate? This is very wearisome. It is not
only Italians. I have examples personally. On one occasion I had
a piece that had an excavation number underneath and we asked
for information because you must remember that in the old days
finds were divided when you made them and some went to the archaeologists
on the particular job, some went to the local museum and some
went to the sponsoring museum so we wrote to the sponsoring museum
asking whose share this was in. We got a letter back saying, "If
you value your reputation you will send the piece to us by return."
We said this was unsatisfactory, please answer the question, which
they did not do. We subsequently discovered that it had been given
to the archaeologist and he had given it to the English Governor,
I think it was, of Cyprus at the time whose son was selling it
at an auction house. They are completely unco-operative. The trade
is extremely anxious. I do not have time for all this. I want
to get about selling good antiquities. We have put ourselves forward
as being willing to enter a serious dialogue about this and I
am afraid our opponents are not.
Chairman: Mr Wyatt?
Derek Wyatt
169. Good morning. You seem to me to be rather
defensive this morning.
(Mr Ede) Cross.
170. Let me ask you about the dealers. You said
there are ten to 12 dealers.
(Mr Ede) There are ten to 12 major dealers in London.
(Ms van der Lande) There are more minor dealers.
171. They are licensed? How does that work?
(Ms van der Lande) No licence is required to set yourself
up as being a dealer.
(Mr Ede) Any more than there is for selling books.
172. In the illicit trade we have certainly
heard different to what you have suggested. We have heard that
Switzerland funds it and Britain buys it.
(Ms van der Lande) I do not think you would have been
told that.
173. We have been told that; I am just repeating
it. We have some evidence we have collected from Rome that we
shall put in the public domain in due course. How many dealers
have been found guilty and gone to prison?
(Mr Ede) In this country?
174. Yes, over the last 20 years?
(Mr Ede) Of doing what?
175. Of dealing in illicit trade.
(Mr Ede) There was one who was a restorer, a famous
case of a restorer working in Egypt who exported illegally to
England. He was sent to jail.
176. We know that case. Would it be fair to
say that dealers know it is illicit and they know it is licit.
(Mr Ede) We do not deny that there is problem with
this. We would not begin to deny that. What we are saying is please
put this in context and please recognise that this trade is much
smaller than that which has been suggested particularly with regard
to the UK. The United Kingdom trade has been in the forefront
of efforts to try and ensure that we deal in provenanced material.
(Ms van der Lande) And we have put ourselves forward
to be included in all the discussion that goes on. When the McDonald
Institute was set up I said presumably the only way you are ever
really going to solve this problem is to get all parties to co-operate
and discuss this. It has not happened. We have put ourselves forward
in order to be involved in this whole project and our offers have
not been taken up.
177. Can I ask you something I have raised before.
When I buy a car or a house, I can eventually see in the register
when I have bought it how much I made or lost, as it were, the
same with a car.
(Mr Ede) And there is no stolen market in cars, yes?
178. That is true.
(Ms van der Lande) It is very true.
(Mr Ede) If you come and buy something from me—
179. My point is—forgive me, I am asking
the questions—why are you so opposed to the fact there should
be a document attached to something that is sold?
(Ms van der Lande) It is a practical issue. If you
go through our auction catalogue everything is illustrated either
in the catalogue or on the Internet so in total every object can
be viewed. In terms of transparency I think that must be a way
forward as recording everything that comes through. It is not
up to us. We do educate our clients as much as possible to keep
all documentation together but inevitably down the line that evidence,
the documents, the catalogue, and so on and so forth, will perhaps
be lost by the second party down the line. We cannot cater for
that. We try and educate people to keep all documents together
but there are many, many thousands of objects which are tiny and
it is impossible to have a large document to go with every tiny
object.
| 
