Academic articles 3 n 26 March 2014, announced its purchase of seven pieces of Late Roman silverware, Roman of Late of seven pieces purchase its n 26 March 2014, Hungary announced of object the had been Treasure The (Hungary 2014). Treasure Sevso of the so-called part the until and 1990, in fi public made rst was existence its since claims ownership icting confl unsalable because of the suspicious circumstances Hungarian purchase had been considered O Neil Brodie Abstract of its discovery and early trading history. In his 2012 paper entitled “Thinking about the Sevso about “Thinking his 2012 paper entitled In history. trading of its discovery and early issues some of the to explore Treasure Sevso of the example Merryman had used the John Treasure”, of his discussion made and in light antiquities, of problematical surrounding the museum acquisition Although this recommendation for its future disposition (Merryman 2012: 51-66). a recommendation so more made topical, is still issues involved the his discussion of by events, overtaken partly has been into two parts, with Treasure sundered the has effectively perhaps by the Hungarian purchase which in the private possession its balance of seven pieces remaining of the Marquess of Northampton – an from Treasure the issue of the Sevso considers This article Merryman was keen to avoid. that outcome Treasure of the Sevso really to blame for the unfortunate affair a new angle, concluding that the parties and unintentionally intentionally advisors who worked together expert and their are the various dealers and, ironically, commodity, and marketable assemblage into a valuable to transform the archaeological in so doing, rendered it unsalable. Sevso Treasure, John Merryman, Marquess of Northampton, looted antiquities, Hungarian antiquities Treasure, Sevso www.artcrimeresearch.org Thinking Some More about the Sevso Treasure the Sevso about Some More Thinking Key Words: Key Words: Introduction to obscure some very real problems that in consequence he fails to consider. The intention of this paper is to flesh out the On 26 March 2014, Hungary announced its purchase of seven nature of these problems and to think some more about their pieces of Late Roman silverware, part of the so-called Sevso implications for understanding some of the issues surrounding Treasure (Hungary 2014). The Treasure had been the object of the Sevso Treasure and unprovenanced antiquities more conflicting ownership claims since its existence was first made generally. To set the scene, it first describes what is known public in 1990, and until the Hungarian purchase had been of the collecting history of the Sevso Treasure since its considered unsalable because of the suspicious circumstances discovery in the late 1970s, and then proceeds to engage with of its discovery and early trading history. In his 2012 paper Merryman’s arguments and to offer an opposing perspective. entitled “Thinking about the Sevso Treasure”, John Merryman had used the example of the Sevso Treasure to explore The Provenance of the Sevso Treasure some of the issues surrounding the museum acquisition of problematical antiquities, and in light of his discussion made The problem for museums with the Sevso Treasure is not that a recommendation for its future disposition (Merryman it has no provenance, but rather that it does in fact have a 2012: 51-66). Although this recommendation has been partly very well-known provenance, and not a very pretty one at overtaken by events, his discussion of the issues involved is that. Merryman relegates his discussion of what he terms the still topical, made more so perhaps by the Hungarian purchase “murky affair” of provenance to a footnote (Merryman 2012: which has effectively sundered the Treasure into two parts, 62 note 2), but knowledge of the Treasure’s provenance is with its balance of seven pieces remaining in the private fundamental to any consideration of museum acquisition, and possession of the Marquess of Northampton – an outcome that so with that caution in mind a full account is offered here. Merryman was keen to avoid. The Sevso Treasure comprises 14 pieces of elaborately For Merryman, the Sevso Treasure is a collection of decorated silver plate, together with a copper cauldron in “unprovenanced antiquities”. The problem, as he sees it, is which it is claimed the silver was found. The pieces are as that due to the hectoring of “establishment” archaeologists, follows: with their claims that unprovenanced antiquities are most likely looted from archaeological sites, and that therefore 1. Hunting (or Sevso) Plate. their acquisition creates a demand that can only be assuaged 2. Meleager Plate. by further archaeological looting (2012: 54-55), museums 3. Achilles Plate. have been bullied into adopting policies that prohibit their 4. Geometric Plate. acquisition. In consequence, museums are prevented from 5. Amphora. fulfilling their public duty to conserve and exhibit ancient 6. Dionysiac Ewer. works of art (2012: 51, 55, 61). Merryman goes on to suggest 7. Animal Ewer. that the owners of the Sevso Treasure might have wished to 8. Hippolytus Situla A. bequeath it to a museum (2012: 51) – preferably, it seems, 9. Hippolytus Situla B. “a major US museum” (2012: 61) – where it would have 10. Hippolytus Ewer. been made available for public delight and edification. If 11. Geometric Ewer A. reliable evidence identifying the findspot of the Treasure had 12. Geometric Ewer B. subsequently come to light, the museum concerned could then 13. Basin. have negotiated in good faith to effect its repatriation to its 14. Casket. country of origin (2012: 61). At first reading, Merryman’s 15. Copper cauldron. argument is persuasive, but upon closer analysis it is undermined by his apparent misunderstanding of certain key It is thought that the individual pieces of the Treasure were points. First, he claims that museums have been reluctant to manufactured at different times, sometime between the late- acquire the Sevso Treasure because it is “unprovenanced”, third century and early-fifth century AD (Mango and Bennett whereas in reality it has a very well documented provenance, 1994; Painter 1990; Visy 2012). The Treasure takes it name and it is the provenance itself that is deterring acquisition, from the large (70.5 cm diameter) Hunting (or Sevso) Plate. not its absence. Second, the idea that the Treasure’s owners An inscription around the plate’s central medallion reads in might have chosen to bequeath it to a museum seems unlikely translation “May these, O Sevso, yours for many ages be, given what is known about the owners’ motives in acquiring small vessels fit to serve your offspring worthily” (Mango and the Treasure, which were overtly pecuniary and seemingly Bennett 1994: 77), identifying a putative Late Roman official far removed from any ideal of public benefit, and in any case named Sevso as donor or recipient of the plate (Painter 1990: proven wrong by the 2014 sale of part of the Treasure to 6; Visy 2012: 10). The medallion itself shows a hunting and Hungary. Merryman’s misunderstanding of these points acts picnic scene, including the label “PELSO” positioned between

4 www.artcrimeresearch.org Academic articles 5 . 2005: 84; 2005: al. et February 1987, the second Geometric ewer and second Geometric February 1987, the together (£2.3 million) for $3.7 million Hippolytus situla cost 1981 had 1980 and in bought pieces equivalent (the between them £573,000) (Norman and Hoving, 1991: 5); of eight pieces, writing that “In 1980, farm workers in the the in workers farm 1980, “In that writing pieces, of eight chamber. an underground their land on discovered …” of the highest importance silver objects This contained by was accompanied the material that emphasized . He also (Norman and export documentation Lebanese appropriate 4). Hoving 1991: in Zurich (D’Arcy the material viewed In 1982, Northampton Trust Abraham 1982 the 15 September 1993: 155), and on and Zietz Wilson, of interests the represent to was formed pieces eight ownership of the assumed Trust The Northampton. Hoving (Norman and and Zietz Wilson already bought by sum of £2.2 million (Eddy 1998: 46), 1991: 4), for a reported by further pieces purchased at the time together with two Trust Abraham In early 1984, the Northampton for £500,000. to the J. Paul Getty Museum, persuading tried selling the silver pose Jenkinson to Geoffrey dealer antiques Guernsey-based per eight for an sale its facilitate to Treasure of the as “owner” 4). In May 1984, (Norman and Hoving 1991: commission cent Antiquities on approval. the silver was shipped to the Getty had already questioned Arthur Houghton of the Getty curator documentation, export Lebanese of the associated validity the however, and in March 1984 he had rmation received Korban that and confi signatures were forged the authorising that as a registered authorities by the Lebanese was not recognized considered to be forged Because of what Houghton dealer. Treasure against buying the the Getty decided documentation, 1997: 140). (True died, and his interest in the Wilson In June 1984, Peter and thus the silver was taken up by his sons Trust Abraham few A (Norman and Hoving 1991: 4). Wilson Tom Philip and word from the Getty about received Mimpriss days later, (Norman and Hoving 1991: 4). documentation forged the Ramiz businessman Lebanese He responded by contacting nally Rizk to obtain replacement documentation, which was fi expenses £628,000 for “all in 1985 at a cost of acquired Kurzweil 45; 1998: (Eddy taxes” including was documentation new After 5). 1991: Hoving and Norman Getty to the Treasure the to sell acquired, a second attempt to other museums and collectors, including failed, and offers Museum of Metropolitan the Antikensammlung, the Berlin 158; (D’Arcy 1993: rebuffed also were Ortiz, Art and George Norman and Hoving 1991: 4-5). Trust, Abraham of the In 1987, operating independently from Korban and pieces bought four more Northampton – of $8.7 million price combined the for reportedly Tkalec, approximately £5.5 million (Eddy 1998: 46): • et December 1981, one of the Hippolytus situlae for situlae 1981, one of the Hippolytus December £525,000 (Norman and Hoving 1991: 4). September 1981, the Geometric Plate for £180,000 (Norman and Hoving 1991: 4). 19 November 1980, one of the geometric ewers for geometric 19 November 1980, one of the £48,000 (Norman and Hoving 1991: 3); Hunting (Sevso) November 1980-January 1981, the (Norman and Plate for £225,000, and one other piece Hoving 1991: 3); Achilles Plate for £525,000 (Norman and May 1981, the Hoving 1991: 3). www.artcrimeresearch.org . 2005: 84; Norman and Hoving 1991: 1). Wilson prepared prepared Wilson 1). Hoving 1991: and Norman 84; al. 2005: as it then stood Treasure the a ten-page brochure describing • silver the cost of acquiring and escalating continuing The to search out further and Zietz Wilson forced piece by piece Overy who was lawyer Allen and of Mimpriss Peter partners. was also lawyer to the Marquess of Northampton, Wilson to that Wilson and in November 1981 he suggested to Kurzweil 45; 1998: (Eddy interested be might Northampton • • • • a Lebanese and supplied In June 1981, Korban obtained offering thus purchased, pieces four rst fi the for permit export Hoving and (Norman ownership of legitimation retrospective 1991: 3). More purchases followed: The fi ndspotThe and fi the early trading history pieces obscure, though its constituent after its discovery are the Treasure of and hoard, or nd, fi single a comprise to believed generally are not cially an assembled artifi collection of archaeologically their increase to order in together brought pieces unrelated the rims value. Impressions formed by monetary aggregate of corrosion layer be seen in the can plates of the four large computer measured and an accurately copper cauldron, the have could pieces of the how all has shown reconstruction 23- 1994: Bennett and (Mango cauldron into the packed been A-6). gure Some and perhaps all25, Treasure offi was in the by Tkalec Anton Serb dealer -based hands of the then Korban Halim dealer Lebanese with concert in Acting 1980. Tkalec Mansur Mokhtarzade, and -based dealer company called started selling pieces to a Guernsey-based retired by the then recently owned jointly Art Consultancy, and his family) (and Wilson Peter of Sotheby’s chairman Hoving Norman and 2001; (Landesman Zietz Rainer dealer Art Consultancy were as follows: purchases by 1991: 2). Initial a servant butchering a boar and a body of water containing containing of water and a body a boar butchering a servant sh. Mango believes “PELSO” might applyfi to the water,the seen close dog, which is also or even a small boar, servant, the Painter and Bennett 1994: 78). (Mango and to the servant identify to is intended “PELSO” that most likely think it Visy for Lake the Roman name water as Lacus Pelso, the body of 10). 2012: Visy 6; 1990: (Painter western Hungary in Balaton • April 1987, the Animal Ewer and the Meleager Plate Hoffman 1994: 42-43; Hoffman 2006: 170 note 56). (Norman and Hoving 1991: 5). In early 1990, under pressure from Yugoslavia, London’s Export permits for these four pieces were again obtained Metropolitan Police had initiated a criminal investigation into through the mediation of Rizk in Beirut for payment of a the acquisition of the silver (D’Arcy 1993: 163; Eddy: 1998: further $460,000 (Eddy 1998: 46; Norman and Hoving 1991: 44; Norman and Hoving 1991: 3), and in July 1990 suggested 5). Sometime around this time, the Marquess of Northampton there was evidence to suggest a conspiracy to defraud (Norman 1987 Settlement trust became the sole owner of the silver, and Hoving, 1991: 3). The police interviewed Northampton in with two beneficiaries: “Abraham” (Philip and Tom Wilson) October 1990, subsequently exonerating him of “any criminal and “Xylander” (Northampton) (Bailey 2014). Northampton intent” and portraying him instead as the victim of a crime entered into negotiations with Sotheby’s about a possible sale (Eddy 1998: 46). By early 1991, the focus of enquiry had (Eddy 1998: 46; Norman and Hoving 1991: 3). shifted to Mimpriss (Eddy 1998: 46), though by that time, the Foreign Office, acting on the advice of a former ambassador On 10 February 1990, Sotheby’s announced the sale in New to Washington (and by then a director of Sotheby’s), had York of what it had by then dubbed the Sevso Treasure suggested that the investigation should be ended (Eddy 1998: (Norman and Keys 1990; Sotheby’s 1990), with a Lebanese 46). The Crown Prosecution Service had also advised there provenience and an estimated price of $50-100 million was insufficient evidence to proceed. Although Northampton (approx. £30-60 million). Despite the Lebanese export was keen for the investigation to continue, it was wound down permits, which seemingly legitimized the material, Sotheby’s (Eddy 1998: 46). undertook to contact all 29 countries with territory falling inside the boundary of the fourth-century AD Roman Empire, In November 2006, the silver was placed on display at Bonhams together with UNESCO, Interpol, IFAR and ICOM, enquiring auction house in London for an invited audience of academics, after any adverse evidence or claims of ownership relating curators, collectors and dealers (Bailey 2006). It had long been to the Treasure that might challenge Northampton’s title rumored that the material held by the Northampton Settlement (Hoffman 2006: 170). The Sotheby’s announcement was the represented only part of the original find (Landesman 2001; first public revelation of the Treasure, and the supposition that Nagy and Tóth 1990: 6) and that there might be eight more it had been found in Lebanon caused Lebanon on 15 February vessels and 185 spoons (Norman and Hoving 1991: 2), and 1990 to file suit in the New York State Supreme Court claiming in March 2007 the Art Newspaper claimed to have seen that the export documentation was forged, that the silver documents attesting to a further 187 spoons, 37 cups and five had been exported illegally from Lebanon, and challenging bowls, all said to be part of the original hoard (Ruiz 2007). In Northampton’s claim to ownership. In March 1990, a judge 2008, the Treasure was divided between the two beneficiaries impounded the Treasure (Kurzweil et al. 2005: 84). In 1990, of the Marquess of Northampton 1987 Settlement trust (Bailey it was also reported that the silver might have been found 2014), and in March 2014 Wilson’s sons sold their share of in a cave close to the Croatian town of and smuggled eight silver pieces plus the copper cauldron to Hungary for out of Yugoslavia in the late 1970s, prompting Yugoslavia €15 million (Hungary 2014). The material bought by Hungary too to stake a claim for ownership, a claim inherited and comprised: maintained by after its secession from Yugoslavia in 1991 (Kurzweil et al. 2005: 85) . Finally, in 1991, Hungary 1. Hunting (or Sevso) Plate. announced its belief that the silver had been excavated in the 2. Geometric Plate. vicinity of Polgárdi, 16 kilometres east of Lake Balaton in the 3. Dionysiac Ewer. late 1970s, and also claimed ownership (Hajdú 2012: 23-34; 4. Geometric Ewer A. Kurzweil et al. 2005: 85). 5. Geometric Ewer B. 6. Basin. The trial commenced in September 1993. Lebanon 7. Casket. relinquished its claim on the eve of the trial (Kurzweil et al. 8. Copper cauldron. 2005: 85), possibly because of escalating legal costs (Eddy 1998: 46). Seven weeks later, the jury concluded that neither Northampton retained possession of the remaining seven Croatia nor Hungary could produce convincing evidence of pieces (Bailey 2014). provenience or ownership, thus reaffirming Northampton as the Sevso Treasure’s owner (Hoffman 1994: 42-43; Kurzweil The Hungarian Claim on the Treasure et al. 2005: 87-92). Hungary and Croatia complained, however, that the court had not scrutinized the circumstances After the end of the New York trial, and despite the court’s of Northampton’s acquisition of the silver, nor had it forced rejection of a Hungarian claim on the Treasure, Hungary him to defend his own claim to title (Hajdú 2012: 26-27; continued to argue that the Treasure was stolen from its

6 www.artcrimeresearch.org Academic articles 7 police believe that Sümegh returned to the cellar with two with two to the cellar returned Sümegh that believe police the sale view to arranging with a probably people, unknown murder him and only for them to all of the silver, of more or 2012: 31). steal it (Hajdú with Provenance Problems been have to now believed is Treasure Sevso the Thus during the 1970s, possibly in Hungary, sometime discovered after provenance Its 1981. in market the onto coming before Northampton is a matter of Zietz and Wilson, acquisition by time the from provenance in gap is the it but record, public encourages that acquisition its of time the to discovery its of For Merryman, treating the epithet “unprovenanced”. is innocent” proved until as “guilty objects unprovenanced of the normal because it constitutes “an inversion unacceptable should that museums 60). He believes order of proof” (2012: is there unless antiquities unprovenanced to acquire be free Archaeological trade. illicit or theft of evidence material at aimed program” dismissed as a “repressive are admonitions 62). (2012: US society of interests” “legitimate the threatening proved until “guilty however, courts, law criminal the Outside cautious – even common- and is an unexceptional innocent” export Lebanese fraudulent The practice. sense – commercial was documents seem proof that the silver in fact taken of identity if the even of origin, country out of its illegally an Merryman purchase Would that country is not known. and with documents only by forged accompanied automobile not, One suspects history? unknown ownership otherwise an the normal juridical no matter how strong his feelings about ordering of innocence and guilt. rejecting already were museums mid-1980s the by As noted, even before the Treasure, of buying the Sevso the chance Hungarian the of details the and case court York New lawyers are known. Northampton’s generally became claim is Northampton Settlement that the tireless in maintaining (Kurzweil et al. 2005: 83- Treasure owner of the the legal but foundation, is without case Hungarian the 96), and that view. dogmatic to take such a legally museums cannot afford leHigh-profi and for the museums expensiveHoard Lydian such as the antiquities of poorly provenanced repatriations ongoing the and 150-162) 1995: Main and (Kaye 1993 in investigations returns to Italy arising out of the Carabinieri P. (Watson, of Giacomo Medici and Gianfranco Becchina museums’ upon the impressed 2007) have Todeschini and C. can acquisitions what appear to be marquee that community mistakes costly and embarrassing into turned be so easily by the discovery of previously unknown and unsuspected to reluctance The museums’ of missing provenance. evidence of collection important is an it of face on the what acquire campaign, intimidating an to has owed nothing silver ancient as Merryman would have it, conducted by archaeologists antiquities. of unprovenanced museum acquisitions against www.artcrimeresearch.org József Sümegh was found dead in 1980, hanging by the neck by the in 1980, hanging was found dead József Sümegh the where from far not cellar, wine of a beam ceiling a from Although at found. been had tetrapod Polgárdi of the remains suicide, investigations his death had been declared the time father (Hajdú re-opened in 1990 at the request of Sümegh’s new and taking evidence the After reviewing 30). 2012: the police established that he had probably witness statements, motives. for possible searching began and murdered been in 1977 Sümegh had come that Neighbors and friends reported from the most likely sum of money, possession of a large into dealer sale of a few pieces of the Sevso silver to an antiquities believe to came police The 2001). (Landesman in in the mid to late Treasure that Sümegh had found the Sevso hidden had and Polgárdi, to close somewhere 1970s, probably lled where the police discovered a back-fi it in the wine cellar, this hole was shown to conform to After excavation, hole. to is believed which Sevso cauldron, of the dimensions the after the silver (Hajdú 2012: 30). Sometime have contained rstthe tworeported piecessale ofof silverthe infi 1977, the The archaeological argument grows out of the (not unanimous) unanimous) (not the of grows out argument archaeological The the Sevso or Hunting Plate was made scholarly opinion that for an important cial Roman (Sevso) offi living or perhaps resident in western Hungary, of Lake Balaton in the area Szabadbattyán at villa Roman excavated nearby owner of the circumstantial albeit 10). Further 2012: Visy 6; 1990: (Painter silver the that idea support the to adduced been has evidence was in but also deposited and discovered not only used 1878, 10 pieces of a Roman-period the same area. In May of were discovered close to the village silver folding stand and donated Lake Balaton, east of Polgárdi, 16 kilometres Originally thought to to the Hungarian National Museum. pieces the 2002 in tripod, folding of a remains the comprise a folding, four-legged were shown to be the surviving parts of terms of date, material tetrapod stand (Mráv 2012: 80-83). In to some pieces stand bears comparison the and decoration, of geometric pair the particularly Treasure, Sevso of the in the have been manufactured all ewers, and they might peninsula Balkan in the one located workshop, perhaps same the the stand complements (Mráv 2012: 80-83). Functionally, bowls or support silver to was designed It Sevso assemblage. there are abrasions plates, such as the Sevso ones, and indeed might that Meleagus Plate Sevso of the the rim underneath 1994: to the use of such a stand (Mango and Bennett attest 151; Mráv 2012: 94). nitiesWhile ofclose material affi and establish cannot of function complementarity and decoration suggestive. direct association, the evidence is nevertheless territory. The Hungarian case is based on two lines of evidence, lines of evidence, on two is based case The Hungarian territory. rst archaeological, and the second arising out of a police the fi József national of Hungarian 1980 death the into investigation 1963 law that is a claim legal basis of the The Sümegh. the at property State be to objects cultural important declares 2012: 27). discovery (Hajdú, time of their For museums, the forged export documentation is a red flag even a receipt (Landesman 2001). But Wilson and Zietz warning of problems ahead – the Treasure has a provenance, were not the only people to have had sight and knowledge and it is a bad one. of the Treasure after its arrival on the market. At least one and perhaps more pieces were viewed by a British Museum Merryman comments favorably on the acquisitions policy expert as early as 1981, who appears to have identified and adopted by the J. Paul Getty Museum in 1987, which required described material prior to purchase (Norman and Hoving, the museum to send details of any prospective acquisition 1991: 3; Watson 1993). In 1982, the collection as it was by to possible countries of origin, enquiring about any material then of 10 pieces was viewed by a small number of scholars objections to acquisition, suggesting it was “responsible and in a Rothschild bank vault in Zurich (Painter 1990: 5). By the constructive” (2012: 60). Other commentators are not so sure, late 1980s, the Treasure was being studied for publication and pointing out that a country of origin would be unlikely to know cleaned and conserved on the premises of University College anything about antiquities excavated and traded in secret. The London’s Institute of Archaeology in advance of the projected policy might even be construed as institutionalizing conscious sale at Sotheby’s (Mango and Bennett 1994: 9; Tubb 2002: avoidance of fact. Since 2004, as museum repatriations have 287). Thus right from the beginning of the acquisition process, continued seemingly unabated, the Association of Art Museum the owners of the Treasure were benefiting from the advice of Directors (AAMD) has been adopting increasingly stringent museum and university experts over the identity, importance guidelines as regards the acquisition of unprovenanced and authenticity of the material under offer. This advice was antiquities, which since 2008 have stipulated that: crucial for the ongoing acquisition of pieces in the 1980s, and establishing the estimated price for the Sotheby’s sale. In Member museums normally should not acquire a other words, it was an essential component of the marketing Work unless provenance research substantiates that process. There is no evidence to suggest, however, that any of the Work was outside its country of probable modern these experts asked any serious questions about provenance, discovery before 1970 or was legally exported from presumably privileging the interests of “scholarship” over its probable country of modern discovery after 1970 their broader civic responsibility to prevent crime (Brodie (AAMD 2013). 2009). At no point did anyone contact the police about the appearance on the market of a collection of previously The Sevso Treasure quite clearly fails this stipulation. unknown and presumptively stolen goods. For their part, the Acquisitions of objects with an incomplete post-1970 police, starting in 1990, did mount a criminal investigation provenance are permitted in certain circumstances, but again, into provenance, interviewing Korban among other people because of the dubious nature of its provenance, the Sevso (Landesman 2001), and after the initial investigation had Treasure is rendered unacceptable. Merryman suggests that petered out, fell to planning what turned out to be an abortive such ethical impediments to acquisition should be “revised to sting operation in 1999 aimed at recovering more silver from accommodate the sensible, publicly beneficial course taken the possession of Tkalec (Landesman 2001; Watson, 2000). by the museum” (2012: 61). But it is worth re-emphasizing Thus the police were willing to act, but forced to do so that the AAMD guidelines were not adopted because of alone. It is regrettable that the various experts who came into pressure from the archaeological establishment, as Merryman contact with the Treasure during the 1980s did not consider claims (2012: 55), but as a pragmatic response to the ongoing it their professional or civic duty to inform the police of any monetary loss and reputational harm being suffered by some suspicions they might have harbored about provenance, and art museums and by extension the art museums community on offering the possibility of collaborating with the police in account of the repatriation of antiquities acquired in adherence investigating the Treasure’s illicit trade. By the time of the to what in retrospect can be seen to have been the reckless 1990 Sotheby’s sale announcement, the chance for such a innocent until proved guilty policies of the type advocated by constructive collaboration had probably passed, and so now Merryman. They were hardly “publicly beneficial”. it is only possible to speculate about what might have been. It is tempting to think that it might have resulted in an early There still remains the matter of the gap in the Treasure’s recovery of the Treasure and identification of its findspot, thus provenance between its discovery and its debut on the open securing return intact to its rightful owner with the prospect market. Sotheby’s did approach possible claimant countries, long-term curation and public display. Subsequent debates but what, if anything, else has been done outside Hungary to over the disposition of the Treasure, such as the one constructed investigate the missing years in the Sevso provenance? The by Merryman, would have been rendered redundant at the answer it seems, is nothing much. The people best placed to outset, and the Hungarian taxpayer might have been spared have investigated provenance were the original purchasers the obligation of funding the buy-back of what is believed to Wilson and Zietz, but they were easily satisfied with an be Hungarian property. assurance of good title backed up by the later provision of Lebanese export permits. The first piece was bought without

8 www.artcrimeresearch.org Academic articles 9 from the damages awarded by the 1999 settlement. If he settlement. 1999 by the awarded the damages from been not have that might after a bequeathal minded, was so nancially damaging, but there isno evidence to suggest that fi in November Instead, such an outcome. to effect he sought in what on display at Bonhams silver was placed 2006, the a to attract attempt to have been an unsuccessful is thought the at on record went 5). Northampton 2006: (Bailey buyer institution or some somebody “I hope that as saying time sons Wilson’s 2006). In 2014, after Peter will buy it” (Riding Northampton’s of the silver to Hungary, had sold their share he had that Northampton as saying about lawyer was quoted his enhance and substantially to “recoup bought the silver as far as changed has not “objective the that and investment” time the By 2014). (Bailey concerned” is Northampton Lord no other 2014, there had been in late of writing this paper dispose of or otherwise sell to moves by Northampton public has even been suggested that Northampton’s It Treasure. the part of a £17 million as a share have received ex-wife might divorce settlement in 2013 (Bailey 2014). Merryman presents what he While discussing the Sevso silver, side of the debate understands to be the “collector/museum” (2012: 55-57). He believes over unprovenanced antiquities “own, to there are antiquities collectors and for museums that us about the human and study” and to tell display, enjoy, another motive for past (2012: 55). He fails to recognize that are Antiquities money. be make to be simply might collectors just as much as they are artworks and historical commodities of examples documents, and there are several well-known value monetary being bought and sold for their antiquities by the British Rail Pension Fund in the alone, including funds in 1985: 208-214) and various investment 1970s (Faith Athena I and Athena Lynch Merrill the 1980s, including the stress the often dealers Antiquities II Funds (Grimes 1989). for what might be called of antiquities, potential investment The evidence speculator-collectors. or investor-collectors should be considered an too suggests that Northampton and to sell his silver, that he hopes one day investor-collector, is not display museum through utility public its realizing that prepared to auction a primary consideration. He was, after all, to the highest bidder in 1990. the material off Conclusion with ultimately Merryman is concerned In his paper, publicly Treasure a strategy for making the Sevso developing preferably through display in a museum, where it accessible, of visitors and engagement for the enjoyment will be available but and positive objective, of scholars. It is a well-intentioned his achieving to a route mapping that in criticism is open to The account of the evidence. goal, he presents a misleading and as “unprovenanced”, neutrally characterised is Treasure whereas a very well-documented legality, thus of uncertain Treasure provenance shows that the instead incomplete albeit 2005: 84). et al. www.artcrimeresearch.org Merryman suggests that the Northampton Settlement should should Settlement Northampton suggests that the Merryman what is a museum, but from the silver to have bequeathed purchasing for motives Wilson’s and Northampton known of actions be deduced from their and from what can Treasure, the always the last a bequest was Treasure, the since purchasing in Treasure, buying into the their minds. Before thing on his family’s had been selling Northampton 1980s the early of ancient collection an important artworks (including on spent be to million than £11 more vases), raising Greek Eddy 154; (D’Arcy 1993: homes his two stately maintaining known in the As a result of these sales, he became 1998: 44). on the lookout for a good investment art world as someone is why he was singled out for approach which opportunity, The 1991: 4). (Norman and Hoving Wilson by Mimpriss and silver read like an describing the Wilson brochure prepared by cost, the such as on matters advising prospectus, investment (Norman purchasers prospective silver, the of rarity and value and Hoving 1991: 4), and describing t how fromthe a profi owners (Norman the among divided would be sale subsequent April 1983, only by already and Hoving 1991: 4). In fact, Abraham the into bought Northampton months after seven plans to sell the 1982, it is on record that in September Trust 10 pieces that then and the well advanced, silver were already April in to the Getty comprised the treasure were packed off Hoving and (Norman of £8.8 million price-tag a 1984 with 1991: t 4), fora the potential syndicateprofi of about 300%. from the outset that Thus Northampton must have known term short-to-medium the silver was being purchased as a important as an curation for long-term not and investment, assemblage of ancient art. ed He to testifi thishe viewed the silver as an when he said that trial effectYork New at the investment vehicle (Kurzweil Problems with Bequeathal with Problems From what is known of the prices paid for the silver and for the silver From what is known of the prices paid associated export licenses, nancial Northampton’s fi outlay more. and probably £9 million, least at must have been alone of his costs by 1998 put them as high as £25–30 One estimate sued Northampton 1991, March In 46). 1998: (Eddy million caused Overy for damages and Allen and Mimpriss Peter the to relation in misrepresentation and deceit by fraud, 1981 between Treasure the of sale potential and acquisition and 1990 (Eddy 1998: 46; Renfrew 2000: 129-131). His suit and the licenses export fraudulent the that on his belief hinged trial had deterred York attending the New negative publicity Treasure the consequence in and purchasers potential any unsalable (Renfrew 2000: 49). In had become effectively out- had been settled the matter 1999, it was announced that £15 received had Northampton that rumored and of-court estimates other 1999), with (Alberge in compensation million 2014). So, although (Bailey up to £24 million ranging has he Sevso silver, his for price high a paid Northampton of his expenditure and perhaps all part recouped a large since was almost certainly illicitly traded, and one day might be vulnerable to a claim for repatriation. It is doubtful that any museum would want to purchase the Treasure in those circumstances (it might even be illegal for them to do so: Gerstenblith 2003: 409-465), and it is significant that no museum came forward after the 1993 New York court decision confirming Northampton’s possession. It was left to Hungary in an expression of confidence in the strength of its case to make the purchase. For the museums’ world, good title is not the same thing as good provenance, and the Treasure does not have a good provenance.

Merryman, of course, does not envisage a museum purchase, but suggests instead that Northampton might choose to bequeath it to a suitable institution. Yet from what can be discerned from Northampton’s intentions and actions, this seems to be an unlikely turn of events. Thus instead of Merryman’s hoped for installation in a museum, the Treasure has been broken apart and some seems fated for the foreseeable future to remain sequestered out of view in the possession of Northampton. This is a regrettable state of affairs, and Merryman would seek to lay blame at the feet of “establishment archaeologists” for bullying museums into adopting stringent acquisitions policies that prohibit the acquisition of unprovenanced antiquities. Museums may well be mindful of the opprobrium of archaeologists. But the seeming reluctance of museums in this matter has nothing to do with archaeologists, and everything to do with the dubious provenance of the Treasure, and the museums’ recent costly experiences of being forced to repatriate similar collections of dubious provenance, rashly acquired according to Merryman’s recommended principle of innocent until proved guilty. Merryman idealizes his collectors and museums as altruists, but he is blind to the essential cupidity and self-interest of market players. The parties really to blame for the unfortunate affair of the Sevso Treasure are the various dealers and their expert advisors who worked together intentionally and unintentionally to transform the archaeological assemblage into a valuable and marketable commodity, and, ironically, in so doing, rendered it unsalable.

10 www.artcrimeresearch.org Academic articles , 11 , edited by N. Brodie , edited Sunday Times Magazine, 1 Sunday Times , 9 February. , 9 February. , 29 December: 2-5. Minerva, 1(7): 5–11. Independent , November, availble at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ at availble November, , , edited by K.W. Tubb: 150-162. London: Archetype. 150-162. London: Tubb: , edited by K.W. , edited by M.A. Adler and S.B. Bruning: 51-66. S.B. Bruning: and Adler M.A. by edited our Pasts, of Future The New York Times Magazine, 16 July. Times New York Independent on Sunday , October: 151-168. , 25 October. Times New York The Atlantic The 11: 409-465. 11: , edited by B.T. Hoffman: 159-177. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoffman: , edited by B.T. Art Newspaper, March, 1, 4. , May/June: 42-43. . London: Hamish Hamilton. . London: Duckworth. , 8 May. The Times Archaeology Antiquities Trade or Betrayed Antiquities Trade Minerva, January: 4-11. . (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 12.1). Rhode 12.1). Series Supplementary Archaeology Roman of (Journal One. Part Treasure. Sevso The , edited by K. Fitz Gibbon: 83-96. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. , edited by K. Fitz Gibbon: 83-96. New Brunswick: acknowledges support from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Seventh European Union’s Council under the European Research support from the acknowledges Property and the Law Property on the law of cultural repatriation.” In Art and Cultural Heritage: Law, Policy and Practice In Art and Cultural Heritage: Law, (accessed 27 October 2014). ce/news/roman-seuso-treasure-repatriated http://2010-2014.kormany.hu/en/prime-minister-s-offi cessed 29 October 2014). theartnewspaper.com/articles/Hungary-keen-to-acquire-Lord-Northamptons-half-of-Sevso-silver/32437 (accessed 27 October 2014). theartnewspaper.com/articles/Hungary-keen-to-acquire-Lord-Northamptons-half-of-Sevso-silver/32437 Journal of International and Comparative Law Cardozo edited by S. Mackenzie and P. Green: 41-58. Oxford: Hart. Green: 41-58. and P. edited by S. Mackenzie March: xxxx. Tanszék. and K.W. Tubb: xxxxx. London: Routledge. Tubb: and K.W. Visy: 80-106. Pécs: Régészet Tanszék. 80-106. Pécs: Régészet Visy: Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research. Santa Fe: School for Island: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Island: Journal of Roman . London Sotheby’s. of the Trustee Order archive/2001/11/the-curse-of-the-sevso-silver/302331/. www.artcrimeresearch.org Who Owns the Past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Policy, Past? Cultural In Who Owns the Treasure.” of the Sevso trial (2005). “The Walden Gagion and L. De Kurzweil, H., L.V. Kaye, L.M. and C.T. Main (1995). “The saga of the Lydian Hoard antiquities: from Uşak to New York and back and some related observations related some and back and York New to Uşak from antiquities: Hoard Lydian the of saga “The (1995). Main C.T. and L.M. Kaye, , edited by Z. Visy: 23-34. Pécs: Régészet Tanszék. Régészet Pécs: 23-34. Visy: Z. by edited Pannonia, and Treasure Sevso In The Hungary.” and Seuso treasure (2012). “The É. Hajdú, perspective.” States a United disputes: property and cultural of art resolution the and transactions art (2006). “International B.T. Hoffman, “Sevso follies of 1994.” (1994). B.T. Hoffman, Hungary (2014). Ancient Roman Seuso-treasure repatriated to Hungary. Hungarian Government, Prime ce, Minister’s available Offi at Alberge, D. (1999). “Sevso treasure dispute settled.” D. (1999). “Sevso treasure Alberge, References (ac- Art, https://aamd.org/standards-and-practices Ancient and Material Archaeological of Acquisition on the Guidelines AAMD (2013). In Criminology manuscripts.” in ancient trade in the illegal involvement Academic and Archaeology relations? Brodie, N. (2009). “Consensual Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC Grant agreement no. 283873. Grant agreement (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC Programme , November: 5. Art Newspaper silver.” M. (2006). “Bonhams U-turn on Sevso Bailey, at http://www. available , May, Art Newspaper silver.” half of the Sevso Lord Northampton’s M. (2014). “Hungary keen to acquire Bailey, Gerstenblith, P. (2003). “Acquisition and deacquisition of museum collections duciaryand obligationsthe offi museums to the public.” (1989) “The antiquities boom – who pays the price?” W. Grimes, The author Fair Vanity Treasure.” of the Sevso D. (1993). “Shadow D’Arcy, Art Market Faith, N. (1985). Sold. The Revolution in the Acknowledgments Eddy, P. (1998). “Hot metal: How an aristocrat lost a vast fortune on treasure that is now worth next to nothing.” is that on treasure lost a vast fortune How an aristocrat metal: (1998). “Hot P. Eddy, Norman, G. and T. Hoving (1991). “Inside the silver syndicate.” Hoving (1991). “Inside the silver syndicate.” T. Norman, G. and sale of silver ‘a daring move’.” Norman, G. and D. Keys (1990). “Sotheby’s True, M. (1997). “Refi ning policy to promote partnership.” Antichità Senza Provenienza II : 137-46. xxxxxxxxx ning policy to promote partnership.” M. (1997). “Refi True, 7-22. Pécs: Régészet Visy: and Pannonia , edited by Z. In The Sevso Treasure Treasure.” of the Sevso Z. (2012). “The known objects Visy, Nagy, M. and E. Tóth (1990). “The Seuso Treasure. The Pannonian connection?” The Pannonian connection?” Treasure. “The Seuso Tóth (1990). M. and E. Nagy, , edited by Z. and Pannonia, edited In The Sevso Treasure Treasure.” Seuso and the stand from Polgardi folding Roman Late “The Z. (2012). Mráv, Landesman, P. (2001). “The curse of the Sevso silver.” Sevso silver.” of the curse “The (2001). P. Landesman, Merryman, J.H. (2012). “Thinking about the Sevso Treasure.” In Treasure.” Sevso the about “Thinking (2012). J.H. Merryman, Illicit Antiquities: The Theft of Culture and the Extinction of Archaeology of and the Extinction The Theft of Culture Antiquities: In Illicit (2002). “Point, counterpoint.” K.W. Tubb, Painter, K (1990). “The Seuso Treasure.” Treasure.” K (1990). “The Seuso Painter, C. (2000). Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership Renfrew, A. (2006). “14 Roman treasures, on view and debated.” Riding, Ruiz, C. (2007). “The silver missing from the Sevso hoard.” : Sold by Settlement of Northampton of the Marquess The Property Antiquity. Late from Collection A (1990). The Sevso Treasure: Sotheby’s Mango, M.M. and A. Bennett (1994). A. Bennett M.M. and Mango, Watson, P. (1993). “Noble shows his class in battle over silver hoard.” Observer, 19 September. Watson, P. (2000). “Scotland Yard double-crossed by criminals in silver treasure sting.” Sunday Times, 20 February. Watson, P. and C. Todeschini (2007). The Medici Conspiracy. New York: Public Affairs.

12 www.artcrimeresearch.org