The failure of Egyptian authorities in London to halt the sale of an exquisite 3,000 year-old brown quartzite head of the god Amun, bearing the unmistakable features of Tutankhamun, highlights an uncomfortable dilemma for countries seeking the return of cultural assets.

Christie’s auction house in London was selling the head on behalf of the Resandro Collection, a private German collection of ancient Egyptian art described by Christie’s as ‘one of the world’s most renowned’.  The head's provenance can confidently be traced back to 1973-74, when it was purchased from the collection of Prinz Wilhelm von Thurn und Taxis.  Christie's press statement  states it entered his collection ‘by the 1960s’.  However, we understand no  supporting evidence of the date of its legal export from Egypt has been presented. 

In the absence of any evidence of having been looted, Christie's relied on recent ownership and their legal right to sell before proceeding with the auction of the sculpture. 

The auction house confirm they reported the forthcoming sale of the head to the Egyptian authorities and it was at this point Egypt raised its concern about the authenticity of the provenance and the lack of any supporting evidence confirming legal export. The Egyptian authorities demanded extra time for further investigation. 

Heads that bear the features of Tutankhamun, the young king of Egypt's 18th Dynasty who ruled between c.1333 and 1323 BC, are not just distinctive, they are also uncommon. Their rarity means they'll always attract the attention of the Egyptian authorities.  This head's full, sensuous mouth, drooping lips and narrow slanting eyes closely match another head of Tutankhamun in the guise of Amun, discovered in the Monthu Temple at Karnak in Upper Egypt and now in the Luxor Museum (Luxor J. 67).

Egypt maintains the head was stolen during the 1970s, probably from somewhere within the same temple complex of Karnak, before being exported illegally. Had supporting evidence for its theft been available, the Egyptian authorities could have stopped the sale and recovered the head.

After their pleas for extra time were ignored, Egypt’s Ambassador, Tarek Adel, issued a press statement the day before the auction condemning the refusal of Christie's to comply with 'relevant international treaties and conventions', adding that 'Moral and ethical considerations related to the preservation and protection of cultural rights and properties worldwide have clearly been sidelined'. 

While protestors gathered outside the auction rooms, Christie’s went ahead with the auction yesterday, selling the sculpture to an unknown buyer for £4.7m or $5.9m (both including fees). 

Was Christie’s within its rights to auction the sculpture before evidence of legal export or illegal looting was confirmed? Is there a legal case for Christie’s to answer? The Egyptian government certainly believes there is and they're understood to be in the process of hiring a British law firm to file a civil suit against Christie’s. 

Speaking to The Guardian , Christie’s maintain they always adhere strictly to bilateral treaties and international laws relating to cultural property and patrimony.  It's quite common to discover holes in an item's  provenance when researching antiquities and even more common to discover there's a lack of export documentation.  Documents get lost over time, particularly when there are changes in ownership.  Christie’s also maintain their research indicated the head had already left Egypt before the date the Egyptians claim the head was removed illegally from the temple site in Karnak. 

Arguing the moral case for returning ancient artefacts, removed without clear evidence of an export licence, presents Egypt with a dilemma.  For nearly two centuries, Egypt oversaw a legitimate and flourishing trade in selling off its own cultural assets. During this period, although securing an export licence was a requirement of legal purchase, the practice was never upheld as rigorously as Egyptian authorities may now have wished. 

It wasn’t until 1983 that Egypt introduced a new code of practice, when stricter regulations banning the possession and export of ancient artefacts came into force.  By this date this head of Amun was already held in a European collection.  So what is the status of items purchased legally before 1983 and where an official export licence may have existed but cannot now be produced? 

Before an Egyptian artefact can be sold, Egypt is insisting the responsibility for proving legal ownership and for providing a valid export licence must rest with the auction house, dealer or vendor - irrespective of whether that artefact was acquired legitimately before 1983 or not. 

This confirms a renewed determination and a deliberate strategy on the part of the Egyptian authorities to target the open art market for the recovery of more of their country's cultural assets.

After this was written.....
Interviewed at the launch of TUTANKHAMUN: Treasures of the Golden Pharaoh  (November 2019), Dr Khaled El-Enany, Egypt's Minister of Antiquities, confirmed that Egypt is still awaiting feedback from the British government on the future of the quartzite head of Amun, which they believe has still not left British territory.

Photo: Brown quartzite head of the god Amun. Egypt 18th Dynasty 

Courtesy of Christie's