Quantcast

Archives by Month: March, 2014

We have had some welcoming developments with regard to the Kapoor loot with respect to the main items in Australian Galleries - namely the Vriddhachalam Ardhanari which we discovered - check statement and the NGA Nataraja check statement- . Thanks to the ABC coverage we now have some very important and interesting documents related to the objects purchased from the same dealer held by the galleries.

We turn our attention to this Seated Jina Mount Abu region, Rajasthan, India

Seated Jina 1163 Sculpture, marble
55.8 h x 45.2 w x 23.1 d cm
Purchased 2003
Accession No: NGA 2003.478

128702

It is clear that the main Jina sculpture is not a perfect match for the Arch.

We now know thanks to the ” Due diligence report” which have now accessed, that it was indeed bought as two different pieces for USD 125,000 in December 2003.

jina_arch1
jina
jina2

The provenance provided:
” bought in Delhi by Sudanese diplomat Abdulla Mehgoub, between 1968 and 1971
with subhash Kapoor of Art of the Past, New York, from 2002 or before”

This was supported by

” Signed letter of provenance from Raj Mehgoub stating that the jina sculpture and arch were purchased in India between 1968 and 1971 by her husband Abdulla Mehgoub, dated 25th Match 2003.
- Expert opinion on the sculpture’s quality and authenticity written by Dr Vidya Dehejia
- Copy of a published article about the sculpture in Arts of Asia, vol 33, no. 6. 2003″

The Provenance is indeed very thin and flies out of the window - based on current information as explained in Chasing Aphrodite

Further the said ” Article” seems to be an Art of Past Advertisement .

advert

Further the same report continues :

“New provenance information found

A comparable jina was found in the sales catalogue for Christie’s sale number 9481 (18 October 2002), South Kensington, London. Close examination suggests that the NGA Jina is the same object sold at the Christie’s sale. The Christie’s catalogue description corresponds to the NGA Jina in terms of size and Materials and its image matches the NGA sculpture exactly.
…..

The details surrounding this, such as the consignor and purchaser, are ye to be confirmed. This information suggests the the provenance letter supplies by Art of the Past was fraudulent, but supports the possibility that the sculpture was legitimately acquired.(sic) It is also possible that the sculpture was purchased at the Christie’s sale by Raj Mehgoub, but this seems unlikely given other information about kapoor.”

Now it gets interesting. This is the Jina sold via Christie and is available through a simple ” google ” check. So you do not need to necessarily subscribe or buy any catalog to view this.

d3995408r

What is more interesting is that the JIna was listed at a base price of $ 1543 - $2315 and sold well above it but even then at a modest $ 6,889.

jina_christies

This was on 12th October 2002 and in our checks there is no comparable Jain marble sold or auctioned during that time. So we are puzzled how even with the addition of the Arch the price of the Jina appreciated from $6889 to $125000 and why the ” Due Diligence report” does not reveal this important little detail? Further being an accountant since the two are distinct pieces and are recorded as separate acquisitions wouldn’t the accounting show the individual amounts instead of lumped under one? If the price NGA paid was fair then was the Christies listing low due to lack of proper provenance? So did Kapoor’s fabricated fake provenance add the $$$$$$$$ ?

Further, from the tone of the report it is clear that despite mounting evidence the NGA plans to hold on to the artifact and hence we are requesting support from volunteers in Rajasthan to help share and forward this photograph and push local vernacular press to publish this photo and seek any information of the possible loot.

128702

The arch is also important as a simple check on main Jain sites in the Jaisalmer and Satrunjaya temples reveal very very similar styled marble arches and many have been recently repaired / replaced. Why were they repaired, do we have any records of loot / robbery etc.

331218167_73257e117c_z
Parsvanatha_Lodhruva
dsc04390

Unless we can find proof we have to continue to appeal to the Australian Government in good faith and mounting circumstantial evidence otherwise.

Leave a comment »

There was a big hue and cry about the Chola King bronze ” said ” to be Sri Raja Raja Chola during the 1000th year anniversary of the Tanjore Big temple.

10THBRONZE_178422e
10th-icons08_thasr__178742e

We had done a detailed post on the same bronze and other portraits of Kings wherein we had approximated the size of the bronze based on this inscription

“14. One solid image of Periya-Perumal, having two sacred arms (and measuring) one mulam, four viral and a half in height from the feet to the hair.”

Lets take Mulam as approx 15 inches and 41/2 virals to mean half of a mulam - so totals up to 22.5 inches or 57 centimeters.

The bronze in the Sarabhai Museum is described by Sri. P. R. Srinivasan as ” The bronze representing a Chola King, height 74 cm “ in his book on Bronzes of South India ( P.R. Srinivasan (F.E. 1963, L.R. 1994))

rrc+srabahai.jpg

Let us see the characteristics of this ” Chola” King once more

sara+rrc+crown+face.jpg
sara+rrc+hands+flowers.jpg
sara+rrc+hands.jpg
sara+rrc+legs.jpg
sarabhai+rrc+anklet

The Key here to the identity that is indeed a ruler is the “veerakazhal” or bravery anklet worn on the left leg.

sara+rrc+legs.jpg

Now, a year ago a reputed auction site listed this interesting bronze for auction with a base price of $ 60,000 to $80,000

A Large Bronze Figure of Chandikeshvara
SOUTH INDIA, CHOLA DYNASTY, 10TH/11TH CENTURY

d1868500x

It is interesting to compare the features of this ” Chandikeshvara” to the accepted bronzes in the Museums in Chennai and Tanjore.

chandi_maa_10cce
chandi_maa_10cce2
chandi_tnj

If you noticed none of them have the anklet on.

Now let us see the ” chandikeshvara” bronze up close and compare to the “Chola” King.

face
anjali
anklet

No doubt this is definitely not Chandikeshwara but a Chola King.

The dimensions as per the auction house is :

247/8 in. (63.1 cm.) high

Which compares more favorably to the dimensions in the Big temple inscriptions

There is no mention of any dates and specific in the Provenance:

Pre-Lot Text

PROPERTY FROM A EUROPEAN COLLECTION

So is this the bronze of the Great Emperor that we should have brought back to the Tanjore Temple ? Sadly he sold below the list price for $ 58,750.

Leave a comment »

 Page 1 of 2  1  2 »