Who Owns the Guennol Stargazer?
How a Turkish work of art from the 3rd millennium B.C.E. ended up in the Southern District of New York
1990: "The Lydian Hoard"
Republic of Turkey v. Metropolitan Museum of Art
- Turkish authorities were determined to recover the Lydian Hoard, rumored to have been acquired by the Met in the 1960s. In 1985, Turkish officials were alerted by Turkish journalist, Özgen Acar that the pieces exhibited at the Met closely resembled the Lydian Hoard, but were labeled “East Greek Treasure.”
Ali Riza Durak/Associated Press
When Turkish authorities determined that the objects in the Met’s collection had probably been taken illegally from Turkey, they attempted to work out an amicable settlement but their offer was rejected. Turkey commenced legal proceedings in New York courts asserting the artifacts were illicitly excavated from burial mounds and exported to the United States. It claimed that Turkish law vested ownership in the State of all artifacts found in Turkey and that the Met intentionally concealed the illicit origin of the objects.
In 1990, The Met’s motion to dismiss was denied, and they resolved the dispute out-of-court.
The settlement was arguably prompted by the prospect of Turkey’s likely success at trial due to existing incriminating evidence and the upcoming testimony of museum officials.
Turkey's efforts to recover the Lydian Hoard set the stage for the present-day case to recover the Guennol Stargazer.
Present day: “The Guennol Star Gazer”
Republic of Turkey v. Christie's Inc., 2019
The Guennol Stargazer, Christies.com
One of only fifteen of these figures known to be in existence, the Guennol Stargazer dates to 3,000 B.C.E. and holds striking similarities to the Kiliya-type figurines.
The figure is believed to have been illegally excavated and smuggled out of Turkey in the early 1960s, eventually landing in the John J. Klejman gallery where it was sold in 1961 to Alastair Bradley Martin and his wife, Edith. The couple used the Welsh name ‘Guennol’ to identify their collection.
In 1993, billionaire collector Michael Steinhardt bought the figure and consigned it to Christie’s. The figure was to be placed on auction April 28, 2017, labeled in the catalogue as an “iconic work of art from the 3rd millennium BC.”
April 19, 2017
The Consul General of Turkey submitted a letter to Christie’s claiming the figure was state property originating in and belonging to Turkey.
April 20, 2017
Christie’s responded, challenging the Consul General’s basis for their claims and refusing to halt their sale. The parties reportedly met to resolve the dispute, but were unsuccessful. In this time, an anonymous bidder prepared to pay 14.5 million for the rare figure on the auction date.
April 27, 2017
Just one day before the sale, Turkey filed a formal complaint in the Southern District of New York to halt the sale, reveal the identity of the anonymous bidder, and return the figure to Turkey. They asserted that the work was “illicitly removed” from the country in violation of the 1909 Turkish patrimony law.
On July 27, 2017, Judge Nathan ruled that Christie’s must provide the bidder’s identity to Turkey’s lawyers, but did not grant Turkey’s request for a temporary restraining order on the sale.
August 28, 2017
Christie’s submitted evidence undermining Turkey’s claims of ignorance. Christie's asserted that the repatriation lawsuit must fail, because there is evidence that Turkey knew about the statue’s location before Christie’s published their catalogue.
Christie’s filed counterclaims including tortious and economic interference as well as a motion for summary judgement to dismiss the claim.
The Stargazer sold to a bidder for nearly $13 million USD.
The New York Times published an ad featuring an open letter from Turkey’s Ministry of Culture thanking museums, institutions, and collectors who have cooperated in the return of antiquities. A demonstration was held outside Christie’s on the day of the sale for which Turkey claimed no involvement.
September 30, 2019
Christie’s motion to dismiss was denied, and Turkey’s motion for summary judgement against Christie’s counterclaims was granted. This allowed the case to proceed, and established legal precedent that prominently and publicly displaying a work of art for great lengths does not bar claims for recovery.
Pictured: Statuette of a Woman: "The Stargazer" from the Cleveland Museum of Art.
The court denied the motion to dismiss on the grounds that:
Lacking bad faith possession, the statute of limitations only began to run when Turkey sent their letter to Christie’s and Steinhardt and they refused to return Stargazer, which was within three years of the suit being filed.
A decree of ownership by a precursor state is enforceable in the context of the modern state. The 1906 decree expressed that it was an ownership law applying to modern Turkey by its plain language.
Incomplete provenance does not preclude an issue of origin. Turkey only had to present enough evidence that a reasonable juror could determine the sculpture came from Turkey while the Ottoman decree was in effect.
The court also recognized evidence that J.J. Klejman Gallery, from which the Martins purchased the sculpture, was a known “dealer-smuggler.”
Pictured: Portrait of Mr. and Mrs, Klejman in their gallery by Polish artist, Lowandowski-Lois
Turkey’s motion for summary judgement
against Christie’s and Steinhardt’s counterclaims was granted. They did so on two grounds:
1. There can be no tortious interference with contract for any actions taken before the sale was done, as no contract was formed until that moment
2. The only claims for interference with contract beyond this point were against Turkey’s attempts to reveal the identity of the bidder who won the sale and their requests for discovery from third parties who objected. Judgment was granted on this claim because the court had already approved Turkey’s efforts to learn the bidder’s identity in 2017, and because such requests were a normal part of the discovery process.
Turkey’s Daubert motion to dismiss the expert testimony brought forward by Christie’s and Steinhardt was reserved and the parties’ requests for sealing orders was denied. The court held that there were no sufficient factors to outweigh the First Amendment right of access to summary judgment documents.
Pictured: Live auction at Christie's Auction House in New York City.
This case was scheduled to proceed to a bench trial on April 27, 2020; however, due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the trial was postponed.
Open letter from the Turkish Ministry of Culture published in the New York Times the day after the Stargazer was sold at auction.
The court held that the 1906 decree would have made Turkey the rightful owner of the Stargazer, if Turkey could prove by preponderance of the evidence that the Stargazer was discovered in modern-day Turkey after 1906.
“Although the Idol was undoubtedly manufactured in what is now modern-day Turkey, the Court cannot conclude based on the trial record that it was excavated from Turkey after 1906” - Judge Alison J. Nathan
With so little evidence of where the Stargazer was between 3,000 BCE and 1961 CE, Turkey was unable to prove by preponderance of the evidence that the Stargazer was discovered in modern-day Turkey after 1906. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the defendant.
Though the Stargazer now belongs to the defendant, Michael Steinhardt, the court’s recognition of the 1906 Ottoman decree as vesting ownership of antiquities in the state of modern Turkey is a positive conclusion for future claims on looted antiquities.
To read the ruling, please click here .
