From Colonial Bargains to Contested Heritage: Tracing the Price and Provenance of Cypriot Antiquities (1883-Present)

The island of Cyprus, a crossroads of Mediterranean civilizations for millennia, is home to an archaeological heritage of extraordinary richness. From the earliest Neolithic settlements over 12,000 years ago to the Roman era and beyond, Cyprus' material culture consistently reflects its unique civilization. This very richness has made Cypriot antiquities objects of intense interest, leading to a complex and often painful history of discovery, excavation, trade, and dispersal. For over a century, artifacts unearthed from Cypriot soil – pottery, sculpture, jewellery, tools – have flowed outwards, populating museum galleries and private collections across the globe. This article seeks to trace the trajectory of these objects not just through space, but through the evolving dynamics of the antiquities market. Focusing on the period from the late 19th century, particularly from 1883 onwards, to the present day, we will examine how Cypriot antiquities were acquired, traded, and valued, exploring the legal frameworks that governed (and often facilitated) their export, the key players involved, the impact of political upheaval, and the gradual, yet profound, shift towards an emphasis on provenance and ethical considerations. By analyzing specific historical contexts, notable collections, landmark sales, and, critically, by integrating the role of auctions throughout, we aim to illuminate the intricate relationship between archaeological discovery, colonial administration, market forces, and the ongoing challenges of preserving and understanding Cyprus's dispersed cultural heritage. While acknowledging the crucial role of price and its fluctuation, the article prioritizes a nuanced exploration beyond mere financial value.

The Colonial Context: Regulation, Dealers, and the 1935 Antiquities Law

The story of the formalized trade in Cypriot antiquities during much of the 20th century is inextricably linked to the period of British colonial rule (1878-1960) and the legal structures implemented during that time. While archaeological interest and digging occurred earlier, the British administration sought to impose order and control over the island's cultural patrimony, culminating in the 1935 Antiquities Law. This comprehensive legislation replaced an earlier, less robust statute from 1905 and fundamentally shaped the landscape for the discovery, excavation, trade, and export of Cypriot artifacts, broadly defined as any object modified by human hands before 1700 AD.

The 1905 law had already established the principle that discovered antiquities were, at least partially, government property and introduced excavation licensing, granting excavators a right to a share (initially half) of their finds. This provision itself facilitated significant legal export, most famously enabling the Swedish Cyprus Expedition (late 1920s-early 1930s) to export roughly 12,000 of the 18,000 objects they excavated – considerably more than the half-share technically allowed, highlighting the flexibility or perhaps inconsistency in the law's application.

The 1935 Law represented a more systematic approach. It vested authority in a Director of Antiquities and explicitly declared all undiscovered antiquities as Government property. Procedures were established for accidental finds: discoverers were obligated to report and hand over items to authorities or the Cyprus Museum. The Director held the primary right to acquire these finds for the museum at a "fair market value," with arbitration available for disputes. Only if both the Director and, significantly, the British Museum declined acquisition could the finder obtain a permit to keep or sell the object.

Crucially for the market, the 1935 Law mandated licenses for both archaeological excavation and for dealing in antiquities. Furthermore, it stipulated that no antiquity could be exported without a specific license issued by the Director, who retained the power to refuse export for items deemed essential for the island's heritage or the "scientific complement of the Museum." Penalties, including fines and imprisonment, were outlined for violations like illicit digging or unlicensed export.

While intended to regulate and preserve, this legal framework inadvertently formalized and structured a market for Cypriot antiquities. Licensed dealers could now operate legally, sourcing artifacts through several channels:

• Finds from licensed excavations (where excavators received a share).
• Accidental discoveries reported and subsequently relinquished by the authorities.
• Pre-existing collections assembled before the law or objects legally acquired previously.

This system created an environment where antiquities could be legally bought, sold, and exported, albeit under government oversight. Within this structure, several dealers established businesses, catering to colonial officials, visiting academics, tourists, and a growing international network of private collectors. Crucially, museums, both established institutions in Europe and North America and smaller regional ones, were also active participants in this market. They regularly purchased Cypriot antiquities directly from these licensed dealers to build and enhance their collections, viewing it as a legitimate way to acquire cultural material under the prevailing legal system. This museum demand provided a significant and reliable customer base for dealers operating under the 1935 Law.

Among the most prominent, yet historically elusive, of these figures was Petros Kolokasides, who operated primarily from Nicosia from circa 1932 into the late 1960s. His name appears with remarkable frequency in the provenance records of Cypriot artifacts held in institutions and private hands worldwide, often marking the earliest documented point in an object's history after leaving Cyprus (frequently indicating a direct purchase by a museum or collector from his dealership). However the Cyprus Museum itself sold many antiquities with the Government facilitating their export through the 1935 law.

However, a critical issue permeates the legacy of dealers operating under the 1935 Law, exemplified by Kolokasides: the systematic loss of archaeological context. While the law provided a framework for legal acquisition and export, it appears the enforcement or requirement for detailed provenance documentation, specifically the original findspot, was often lax or non-existent in the context of the trade – a standard that applied equally whether the buyer was a private individual or a public museum. Consequently, museum records frequently list "P. Kolokasides, Nicosia, Cyprus" as the source and note the year of purchase (e.g., a terracotta figure acquired by Harvard in 1953), but the object's pre-Kolokasides life – where it was found, in what type of deposit (tomb, sanctuary, settlement), and with what associated artifacts – is typically unknown. This effectively severs the object from its original historical and cultural landscape, dramatically reducing its scientific value for rigorous archaeological analysis.

The 1935 Antiquities Law, while establishing structures like the Cyprus Museum and asserting government control, simultaneously facilitated a regulated but extensive outflow of artifacts. Dealers like Kolokasides operated effectively within this system, legally commodifying Cypriot heritage for an international market that included significant institutional buyers. The legacy of this era is complex: a period of legal trade operating under colonial oversight, but one that resulted in the wide dispersal of artifacts, often stripped of their vital context, into both public institutions and inaccessible private collections, leaving behind a fragmented archaeological record and persistent challenges for contemporary heritage management. While the law formally remained in place after Cyprus gained independence in 1960, the political context shifted dramatically, leading to a new period characterized by conflict and ethically problematic acquisition practices.

The Scale of Departure: Quantifying the Export of Cypriot Heritage

Understanding the market dynamics requires grasping the sheer volume of material that left Cyprus. While precise figures are impossible, historical records, excavation reports, and export license data allow for estimations that reveal the staggering scale of departure, particularly from the mid-19th century onwards.

The very beginnings of Cypriot archaeology as a recognized field date to the 19th century, although interest existed earlier. Cyprus's role as a major trade hub in antiquity, especially during the Bronze Age (circa 1500 BCE), meant its pottery was exported widely across the Levant and Aegean. Examples have been found in Egypt and Israel, sometimes collected centuries later by individuals unaware of their Cypriot origin (like the Base-Ring jugs acquired in Egypt by Alfred Friedrich von Dumreicher in 1824). While difficult to quantify precisely, the number of Cypriot artifacts finding their way abroad through ancient trade and later incidental discoveries likely numbers in the low hundreds, potentially reaching the low thousands when considering finds across the Near East.

The mid-to-late 19th century marked a dramatic escalation. European and American diplomats stationed on the island, operating under the relatively lax Ottoman legal framework (which nominally granted shares of finds to the landowner, excavator, and government, but was often manipulated), began large-scale excavations. Locals also engaged in digging, often seeking building materials rather than artifacts, sometimes inadvertently revealing sites to opportunistic collectors.

The most notorious figure of this era was Luigi Palma di Cesnola, the American Consul. His extensive, often destructive, excavations yielded a colossal number of artifacts. Cesnola amassed a collection numbering around 35,000 pieces, most of which was sold to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York in 1872. Despite losing approximately 5,000 items when the ship Napried sank, around 30,000 reached their destination. His brother, Alessandro Palma di Cesnola, along with his father-in-law Henry Lawrence, also excavated extensively, claiming finds including thousands of terracottas, glass vessels, and statuettes, contributing another estimated 14,000+ pieces to the outflow. Cesnola himself noted that his activities spurred other Consuls and individuals to dig, suggesting thousands more artifacts were unearthed and potentially exported by contemporaries like Robert Hamilton Lang, Dominic Colnaghi, Thomas Sandwith, Max Ohnefalsch-Richter, and the early Cypriot collector Demetrios Pierides. By the end of the 19th century, a conservative estimate suggests 50,000 to 70,000 Cypriot antiquities had been exported, primarily under the ambiguous Ottoman-era regulations carried over into the early British period.

The period between the enactment of the 1905 Antiquities Law and the implementation of the 1935 Law saw continued, regulated export, primarily through the mechanism allowing licensed excavators a share of their finds. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition's export of 12,000 artifacts serves as a major benchmark for this era. Considering other foreign and local excavations during these three decades, a reasonable estimate for exports falls between 12,000 and 25,000 pieces.

The era governed by the 1935 Law, lasting until the practical cessation of export licenses in the late 1970s, represents the final major phase of legal, large-scale export. As discussed, licensed dealers like Kolokasides facilitated trade, and export required individual licenses issued by the Department of Antiquities. Some license numbers are provided to give us an impression as to the volume of antiquities exported during this period. The following are some dates and license numbers:

• March 1935: License ~550
• July 1937: License ~716
• November 1953: License ~2655
• January 1960: License ~5006
• October 1972: License ~6403
• January 1978: License ~7070

Over 7,000 export licenses were issued between 1935 and 1978. While individual licenses varied greatly in the number of objects listed (from one to over sixty, often counting sherds collectively), assuming an average of 5 items per license yields a conservative estimate of 35,000 exported items.

The total estimated range of the number of exported antiquities is 83,000 (minimum) to 165,000 (upper estimate) legally leaving the island over roughly a century. It is crucial to reiterate that legality under colonial or outdated frameworks does not equate to ethical or desirable practice by modern standards. The methods of figures like Cesnola, though operating within the laws of their time, are now widely condemned for their destructive impact.

Where did these artifacts go? Significant numbers entered public collections. Major museums acquired pieces directly from excavators (like the Met's Cesnola acquisition) or dealers, or received them via donations from excavation funds (like the British Museum's acquisitions from the Cyprus Exploration Fund). Most foreign museum collections were built from these early exports, or gifts by collectors who themselves purchased them from these original exports.

Estimates place the number of exported Cypriot antiquities currently in public collections worldwide between 40,000 and 60,000. This leaves a significant gap: somewhere between 43,000 and 135,000 exported artifacts potentially reside in private collections, smaller institutions, or remain untraced within the market, their locations and conditions largely unknown.

Early Market Perceptions and Pioneering Collectors

Despite the vast quantities being unearthed and exported, particularly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Cypriot antiquities did not initially hold universal appeal in the burgeoning international market dominated by interests in Classical Greece, Rome, and Egypt. For many mainstream collectors and institutions, Cypriot material culture was perceived as somewhat peripheral, lacking the monumental grandeur of Egypt or the perceived artistic pinnacle of Athenian sculpture.

Consequently, the market for Cypriot antiquities was often characterized by a relatively small pool of dedicated bidders and institutions. Much of the demand came from a niche group of scholars, specialized collectors, and dealers who recognized the unique historical and archaeological significance of the island's material culture. Often, the buyers acquiring pieces directly from Cyprus or through early auctions were themselves dealers intending to resell the items into European or American markets.

However, there were notable exceptions – individuals who saw intrinsic value and historical importance in Cypriot artifacts. One such pioneering figure was General Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt-Rivers. A highly influential figure in the development of archaeology and anthropology, Pitt-Rivers was known for his systematic approach to collecting and documentation. He acquired Cypriot antiquities for his private museum, meticulously recording details about his purchases, including the source, date, and crucially, the price paid.

His ledgers provide invaluable, concrete data points for the value of Cypriot antiquities in the late 19th-century market. Pitt-Rivers wrote 9 volumes detailing the purchases of his "second collection" which was later sold in the 1970s. This allow us to trace the prices and provenance of these antiquities from the 19th century to the 21st. One sale we will be following throughout this article is the Cesnola 1883 sale. Pitt-Rivers purchased many pieces either by being a direct bidder or later purchase. Many of these are detailed in his ledgers:

Tracing these specific objects, if they were later resold, allows for direct comparison of price evolution. Adjusting these prices for inflation provides a clearer picture of how the perceived monetary value changed over time, reflecting shifts in taste, academic interest, and market dynamics.

By the early 1900s, Cypriot antiquities began appearing more regularly in major European auction houses, particularly Sotheby's in London and various French auction houses in Paris. These sales often included material dispersed from the large 19th-century collections (like Cesnola's duplicates or items sold off by initial buyers) as well as newer finds channelled through dealers. Prices achieved in these early auctions provide further benchmarks.

These early 20th-century sales indicate a slowly growing, albeit still somewhat specialized, market presence for Cypriot artifacts outside the island, laying the groundwork for the more systematized trade that would emerge under the 1935 Law.

Mid-Century Shifts: Conflict, Cessation of Legal Export, and the Illicit Trade

The period following Cyprus's independence in 1960 did not see a simple winding down of the antiquities market or the cessation of export. Instead, the political landscape, particularly the outbreak of "Bloody Christmas" in December 1963, ushered in a new and problematic era for the island's cultural heritage. Far from stamping out illicit digging and trade as initially hoped [1], the conflict years witnessed an explosion in looting, intricately tied to state policy, communal tensions, and economic hardship.

Contrary to a narrative of diminishing trade, the Republic of Cyprus (by then effectively representing the Greek Cypriot community) implemented a secret policy during the years 1963 to 1973 known as the "silent accord". As described by Vassos Karageorghis, then Director of Antiquities, this policy involved the government reaching a ‘“silent accord”, allowing [Greek] Cypriots who had access to the Turkish [Cypriot] enclaves to buy’ illicit antiquities [2]. This was officially framed as an effort to "rescue" looted artifacts originating from areas outside government control (the Turkish Cypriot enclaves) and prevent them from reaching the international market.

However, this state-sanctioned program represented a profound contradiction. As acknowledged even by a later Director of Antiquities, Sophocles Hadjisavvas, all collected antiquities under this accord were ‘illegal in the sense that they all came from illicit excavations’ [3], meaning the state orchestrated a violation of its own antiquities laws. The scale was significant; Hardy notes that "at least one collector had organised teams of illicit diggers, and more than 1250 people had become collectors, to take advantage of the unprecedented opportunity" [4]. Prominent collections, such as those of Demetrios Pierides and Costakis Severis, were largely formed or significantly expanded during this period under the auspices of the accord [2]. The clandestine programme concluded "with the legalisation of its silent partners’ illicit collections through an amnesty in 1973" [4], effectively laundering vast quantities of illegally acquired artifacts into legitimate private ownership.

The official and scholarly narrative accompanying the silent accord predominantly blamed Turkish Cypriots for the looting, portraying a system of ‘Turkish [Cypriot] looters and Greek [Cypriot]… collectors’ [3]. Research by Samuel Andrew Hardy, however, challenges this narrative by re-analyzing the very collection catalogues published by proponents of the official view. While acknowledging that Turkish Cypriot participation in looting did increase disproportionately during the 1960s – likely driven by the severe impoverishment within the enclaves [4] – Hardy's analysis demonstrates substantial, concurrent looting by Greek Cypriots within areas controlled by the Republic of Cyprus.

Examining the published find-spots for artifacts in the Pierides and Severis collections (collections supposedly built primarily from items looted in Turkish Cypriot enclaves under the accord), Hardy found significant percentages originated from known Greek Cypriot areas:

• In the Pierides collection catalogues (1973 & 1985), artifacts identified as likely looted by Greek Cypriots constituted 37.50% and 47.06% respectively of those with find-spots from the conflict period [4].
• In the Severis collection catalogue (1999/2010), artifacts identified as likely looted by Greek Cypriots constituted 45.45% of those with find-spots [4].

This data indicates that Greek Cypriot collectors, operating under the state-sanctioned "silent accord," were acquiring significant amounts of material looted by fellow Greek Cypriots from within state-controlled territory, directly contravening the accord's supposed rationale. Furthermore, Hardy suggests the smuggling networks required to move antiquities from Turkish Cypriot enclaves likely involved elements within both Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot paramilitaries, potentially linking the trade fostered by the "silent accord" to organised crime [4].

Therefore, the period between 1963 and 1973 was not one of diminishing trade but rather one characterized by large-scale, state-sanctioned acquisition of illicitly excavated antiquities, driven by conflict dynamics and justified by a narrative that obscured significant Greek Cypriot participation in looting. This policy effectively incentivised pillage across the island and demonstrated state complicity in the process, culminating in the amnesty of 1973. This turbulent period of civil war and ethically fraught acquisition policies immediately preceded the Turkish invasion of 1974, which unleashed a new and distinct wave of catastrophic, large-scale, and uncontrolled looting and destruction of cultural heritage, particularly in the occupied northern part of the island.

Many of these objects were exported with approval from the Government of Cyprus through the 1935 Antiquities Law either by collectors themselves or by dealers such as Kolokasides.

Provenance and International Frameworks

The latter decades of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century saw a fundamental shift in the international antiquities market, driven by growing ethical concerns, increased awareness of the damage caused by looting, and the establishment of international frameworks. Provenance – the documented history of an object's ownership, origin, and legality of export – transitioned from a desirable attribute to a more essential requirement for legitimate trade, particularly within major dealers and public institutions.

A key catalyst for this change was the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Although not immediately effective, this convention established an international legal basis for nations to claim ownership of their cultural heritage and seek repatriation of illegally exported artifacts discovered after the convention's adoption (or the date of a state's ratification).

However, the practical application of establishing provenance, especially in light of the UNESCO 1970 convention, presents significant challenges. It's crucial to note that the convention is generally not retroactive; it applies primarily to illicit exports occurring after a country ratified it (typically 1970 or later for early signatories). Despite this, the heightened focus on provenance often places the burden of proof squarely on the current possessor to demonstrate legitimate acquisition and export, particularly for items lacking a documented history pre-dating the convention's relevant date. This becomes particularly problematic for countless objects acquired decades earlier, perhaps under the legal framework of the 1935 law. Many individuals – tourists, colonial officials, or early collectors – purchased Cypriot pottery or figurines viewing them as inexpensive "souvenirs" or decorative "trinkets." They often failed to retain receipts, export licenses (even if legally obtained at the time), or any formal documentation, as the items weren't perceived as significant cultural property requiring such rigorous record-keeping. Decades later, owners or their heirs face considerable difficulty proving the legitimacy of these acquisitions, finding themselves caught between past practices and present-day due diligence requirements, even if the original purchase and export were entirely lawful under the regulations of the time. If you were asked to provide a receipt for a table your parents or grandparents had purchased 60 years earlier, would you be able to?

This growing emphasis on provenance had a direct impact on the market for Cypriot antiquities. Objects with clear, documented histories tracing back to legal excavations, old collections (pre-1970), or demonstrably legal export under the 1935 Law (ideally with accompanying licenses) became increasingly sought after and commanded significantly higher prices. Conversely, objects lacking provenance, particularly those surfacing after 1970 or suspected of originating from the post-1974 looting in Northern Cyprus, became difficult to sell legitimately but cheap to buy. Reputable dealers instituted stricter due diligence procedures, demanding proof of legal origin and export.

Tracing Objects Through Time: Inflation and Value

Tracking individual artifacts across decades offers a fascinating glimpse into the shifting perceptions and market dynamics surrounding Cypriot antiquities. The meticulous records kept by pioneering collectors like General Pitt-Rivers provide invaluable starting points. His ledgers document purchases from foundational sales, such as the 1883 Cesnola auction at Sotheby's, allowing us to establish concrete late 19th-century values.

For instance, a Cypriot jug acquired by Pitt-Rivers from that 1883 sale cost him 16 shillings. Adjusted for inflation, this equates to roughly $100 in today's terms. The same jug was sold recently, achieving a price upwards of $13,000, illustrating a dramatic increase in real value far exceeding simple inflation. Similarly, a large archaic jar sold at Sotheby's in 1926 for £3 5s (around $250 adjusted for inflation) sold again for over $30,000 in the current market.

These initial examples might suggest a straightforward trajectory of exponential value increase – perhaps a hundredfold appreciation over a century. However, the reality is more nuanced, as other sales demonstrate. Consider a lot of three simple Kylix-style bowls sold at Sotheby's New York in 1928 for $37. While its inflation-adjusted value is just under $700 today, the lot's actual current market value might realistically sit between $1,000 and $1,500 – an increase, certainly, but nowhere near the multiplier seen in the previous examples. Likewise, three bichrome jars sold in the same 1928 auction for $45 (around $850 adjusted) might be valued closer to $2,000 today, again falling short of a simple hundredfold projection.

This disparity underscores a critical point: modern valuations are not merely inflation-adjusted historical prices. Today's market reflects a vastly different appreciation and understanding of Cypriot artifacts. Factors such as the rarity of specific decorative motifs (like free-field designs), unusual or aesthetically pleasing shapes, and the overall artistic execution now command significant premiums. While a century ago, broad categories might have dictated price, contemporary collectors and institutions place immense value on specific, often subtle, characteristics. Consequently, two objects of similar type and age can vary dramatically in price – a jug might be worth $100 or $50,000 – depending almost entirely on these refined aesthetic and academic criteria.

A Dispersed Heritage in an Evolving Market

The journey of Cypriot antiquities through the international market over the past 140 years is a narrative of immense scale, shifting legal landscapes, and evolving ethical considerations. From the largely unregulated, high-volume exports of the late 19th century driven by colonial figures like Cesnola, through the systematized but context-damaging trade under the 1935 Antiquities Law facilitated by dealers like Kolokasides, to the abrupt cessation of legal export and the tragic dispersal caused by the 1974 invasion, the pathways these objects have taken are diverse and complex.

Initially often undervalued relative to artifacts from neighbouring cultures, Cypriot antiquities found a dedicated niche among specific collectors like Pitt-Rivers and institutions that recognized their unique historical importance. The 20th century saw tens of thousands more pieces legally leave the island, feeding a global network of museums and private collections, though often at the cost of invaluable archaeological context.

The late 20th and early 21st centuries brought a paradigm shift. The UNESCO 1970 convention, coupled with increased awareness of looting and a greater ethical sensitivity, placed provenance centre stage. Today, the market is sharply divided: legally exported, well-documented artifacts from established collections, as seen in the Morris and potentially Jacksonville sales, can command significant prices, reflecting their historical, artistic, and legal value. Conversely, unprovenanced items face hurdles in the market, tainted by the possibility of illicit origins and lacking the security and academic potential buyers now demand.

The staggering number of Cypriot antiquities residing outside Cyprus – potentially exceeding 100,000 legally exported items, plus countless others illicitly removed – represents both a testament to the island's rich past and a profound challenge for the future. While tracing prices and market trends offers one lens through which to view this history, the underlying story is one of dispersed heritage. The ongoing efforts towards documentation, provenance research, repatriation of illicitly traded items, and ethical collecting practices are crucial steps in reconnecting these objects, where possible, to their origins and ensuring a more responsible stewardship of Cyprus's invaluable cultural legacy for generations to come. The price of an antiquity may fluctuate with market trends, but the value of its history, when preserved, is immeasurable.