The Art Loss Register and Antiquities

Is the Art Loss Register (ALR) useful when it comes to preventing the emergence of recently looted antiquities? I have been collecting and discussing a range of views and comments on the subject and it seems to be an appropriate moment to take stock.

First, it is clear that if an object is already known, residing in a public or a private collection, and is then stolen, the ALR can help to identify it when (or if) it re-emerges.

Second, if an object is stolen from a public or private collection, and the theft is reported to the ALR, the database should pick it up if it comes to light.

However, there are problems if an object is stolen but the theft is either unreported, undetected, or predates the ALR. This seems to be the case for the Mummy Mask from Saqqara, or the Stele from the Thebes (Greece) Museum.

But can the ALR detect recently looted ("illegal" in contrast to "stolen") antiquities?

Certainly ALR can help with the "due dilgence" process, but it is not the full picture. A collection which is in part formed after 1970 can still be issued with certificates from the ALR, but they only demonstrate that the objects are not known to have been stolen. (They could have been stolen but the theft could be unreported.)

Private collectors and senior academics seem to be unaware of the limitations of the ALR database when it comes to recently looted (or "illicit") antiquities.

The ALR does important work relating to the identification of stolen items. But does it make the limitations of its database known to potential clients? Is the ALR generating a false sense of security? Its website appears to be noticeably silent on the matter even though it notes the specialised service for antiquities.

How can the ALR become more responsive to the trade in antiquities? How can it help to save antiquities for everyone?

Sphere: Related Content