Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization
Organisation des directeurs des musées d’art canadiens
This project has been made possible by the Government of Canada.
The Canadian Holocaust-Era Provenance Research and Best Practice Guidelines Project (CHERP) is an initiative of the Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization (CAMDO-ODMAC), undertaken with the support of the Government of Canada via the Museums Assistance Program of Canadian Heritage.
Project director: Moira McCaffrey
Research and writing: Anke Kausch
Translation: France Jodoin
All rights reserved CAMDO-ODMAC, 2017
Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization
Organisation des directeurs des musées d’art canadiens
400-280, rue Metcalfe St, Ottawa ON K2P 1R7
With the participation of:
Art Gallery of Windsor
Art Gallery of Ontario
McMaster University Museum of Art
Royal Ontario Museum / Musée royal de l’Ontario
University of Lethbridge Art Gallery
Winnipeg Art Gallery
With the support of:
Musée des beaux-arts Montréal / Montreal Museum of Fine Arts
National Gallery of Canada / Musée des beaux-arts du Canada
We acknowledge the support of the Canada Council for the Arts, which last year invested $153 million to bring the arts to Canadians throughout the country.
Nous remercions le Conseil des arts du Canada de son soutien. L’an dernier, le Conseil a investi 153 millions de dollars pour mettre de l’art dans la vie des Canadiennes et des Canadiens de tout le pays.
The Canadian Holocaust-Era Provenance Research and Best Practice Guidelines Project (CHERP) is an initiative of the Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization (CAMDO-ODMAC), undertaken with the support of the Government of Canada via the Museums Assistance Program of Canadian Heritage. The goal of CHERP was to develop best-practice guidelines that will empower Canadian art institutions to understand and embrace their stewardship responsibilities in Holocaust-era provenance research, and to undertake their own research in the coming years. In presenting these guidelines, CAMDO-ODMAC joins international research efforts to aid potential claimants worldwide in their pursuit of restitution and justice.
CHERP is a proactive project that grows from the Canadian art museum community’s longstanding desire to participate more broadly in international efforts to undertake Holocaust-era provenance research. CAMDO-ODMAC was a strong voice at the 2001 Canadian Symposium on Holocaust-era Cultural Property (co-organized by the Canadian Museums Association and the Canadian Jewish Congress). In 2007, CAMDO-ODMAC conducted a survey of its members to assess the scope of collections requiring provenance research, and the challenges of undertaking this work. The results of the needs assessment, as well as ongoing discussions with various stakeholders, led to the formulation of CHERP and the development of these best practice guidelines.
At the onset of the project, six CAMDO-ODMAC members volunteered to be the core participants, to allocate resources from their institutions, and to provide access to collections in their care. They are Matthew Teitelbaum (Art Gallery of Ontario), Catharine Mastin (Art Gallery of Windsor), Carol Podedworny (McMaster Museum of Art), Janet Carding (Royal Ontario Museum), Josephine Mills (University of Lethbridge Art Gallery), and Stephen Borys (Winnipeg Art Gallery). In addition, CAMDO-ODMAC members Marc Mayer (National Gallery of Canada) and Nathalie Bondil (Montreal Museum of Fine Arts) provided resources and advice to support the project.
As a pilot project, CHERP furthers the goals enunciated in the 1998 Washington Principles by helping to build new provenance research information on museum collections, creating tools to disseminate information for the benefit of potential claimants and other researchers worldwide, and empowering institutions to put the principles of Holocaust-era provenance research into practice.
This key resource document comprises an introduction and two main sections. The first section provides an overview of events and documents related to the history of Holocaust-era provenance research in Canada. A case-study is also presented, namely Gerrit Van Honthorst’s The Duet restituted to the heirs of the Spiro family by the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts in 2013. The second section presents a step-by-step guide to carrying out provenance research, and includes references to online and bibliographical research resources worldwide.
Many individuals and institutions contributed to the success of this project. In the first place, we wish to acknowledge the support of the Government of Canada via the Museums Assistance Program of Canadian Heritage, without which these Guidelines could not have been prepared.
We owe a huge debt of gratitude to Anke Kausch (Director, Acquisitions / Provenance at VKS Art Inc.) who authored this document. Anke brought to bear her considerable experience in provenance research in Canadian contexts. She managed the difficult task of balancing the depth of knowledge required for this complex area while also explaining background, procedures, and resources in a clear manner that can support future research.
The CHERP steering committee consisted of Josephine Mills (University of Lethbridge Art Gallery), Stephen Borys (Winnipeg Art Gallery), and Moira McCaffrey (Executive Director, CAMDO-ODMAC), who also served as Project Director.
Six participating CAMDO-ODMAC members, and the institutions they lead, were integral to the success of the project. They are Matthew Teitelbaum and later Stephan Jost (Art Gallery of Ontario), Catharine Mastin (Art Gallery of Windsor), Carol Podedworny (McMaster Museum of Art), Janet Carding and later Josh Basseches (Royal Ontario Museum), Josephine Mills (University of Lethbridge Art Gallery), and Stephen Borys (Winnipeg Art Gallery). Curatorial, collections management, archival, and conservation staff at these institutions generously shared their time and expertise to provide access to artworks and associated records.
We wish to thank Janet Brooke (Provenance Research Specialist) and Nancy Karrels (Research Assistant) for carrying out on-site museum and gallery research that was integral to the development of CHERP, and we also acknowledge contributions by Kate Muller (Fundraising Coordinator).
The CAMDO-ODMAC membership in general is to be commended. They recognized the importance of the organization providing leadership in this key area, and supported the dedication of time and focus required by McCaffrey.
Significant support was provided by the National Gallery of Canada through its sharing of office space and research resources. In particular, Marc Mayer (Director), Paul Lang (Deputy Director and Chief Curator), and Anabelle Kienle Ponka (Associate Curator, European and American Art) were generous in offering guidance and information.
The Montreal Museum of Fine Arts provided substantial advice drawn from their experience in provenance research, and significant content with the case study included in these Guidelines. Nathalie Bondil (Director and Chief Curator), Danièle Archambault (Registrar and Head of Archives), and Danielle Champagne (Director of the Foundation) all lent assistance.
The term “provenance” derives from the Latin verb provenire, “to originate”. In the field of art history, provenance refers to an object’s ownership history from the time of its creation to the present day. Traditionally part of art historical practice, provenance research is an important tool for authenticating and attributing works of art. It reveals the historical, social, and economic circumstances in which art was commissioned, created, and collected, and provides insights into the history of taste, patronage, connoisseurship, and art dealing.
A distinguished provenance adds value to a work of art, as does an unbroken ownership history. An object’s ideal provenance would include all owners’ names, dates, and locations of ownership, and means of transference from the time of the artwork’s creation to the present. Complete ownership histories are not the rule but the exception, however, and most works of art have gaps in provenance.
The process of finding every owner and each transaction in which an object has changed hands in the past can be a time consuming and difficult process, and in many cases an object’s complete ownership history can never be traced.
From 1933, with Hitler’s ascent to power, through to the end of World War II in 1945, the National Socialists (Nazis) conducted a massive seizure of art and cultural property throughout the European continent. Hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of works of art were looted or otherwise misappropriated from mainly Jewish art collections in the countries occupied by the Nazis throughout Europe. Although pillaging of cultural property has always been an instrument of warfare, the scale of systematic looting by the Nazis was unprecedented in history.
While the majority of stolen works of art were returned to their rightful owners in the immediate post-war years, large numbers of objects entered new collections – private and public – through the international art market. It is estimated that worldwide about 100,000 artworks are still misplaced today.
Since the late 1990s museums around the world have become increasingly concerned with art that was purchased, sold, or created during the Nazi-era. The main reason for this renewed awareness has been the declassification of archival documents related to Nazi-looted art in the United States, and the opening of archival resources in Eastern Europe due to the fall of the Iron Curtain. These events revealed that large quantities of cultural objects from Western European public and private collections, thought to have been lost forever, were in fact kept in Eastern Europe. Legal claims by Holocaust victims and their heirs, whose artworks were pillaged by the Nazis between 1933 and 1945, have raised awareness of an increased need for provenance research in museums and other cultural institutions not only in relation to existing collections but also with regards to new acquisitions. Extensive global press coverage of prominent art restitution cases such as the Schwabing Art Trove and films like The Rape of Europa, Monuments Men, and Woman in Gold have finally brought the issue to the attention of the general public.
World War II-era provenance research is a highly specialized field that is not usually addressed in academic art history programs. It is interdisciplinary in nature and requires specific expertise. Researchers must be familiar with methods of art historical, historical, as well as genealogical research. They need to be informed about WWII politics and military history, Nazi looting practices in the German-occupied countries, collecting activities by certain Nazi officials, and the removal of so-called “degenerate” art from German museum collections, and be aware of certain dealers and scholars who facilitated Nazi art looting activities.
Researchers also need to educate themselves about where to look for information related to Nazi looting and post-war restitution. A number of European and North American archives hold such information, and in recent years several databases have become available online that facilitate provenance research considerably, saving researchers time and travel costs. Foreign language skills, German especially, are useful since some related resources are not available in English or French. Patience and perseverance are also assets. Provenance research resembles detective work and a successful outcome is not always guaranteed.
Nazi-looted art continues to be a serious concern for anyone working in the art field today. It is therefore important that museum professionals be informed about the issues related to Holocaust-era looted art, learn how to examine their collections for pieces that may have been misappropriated by the Nazis between 1933 and 1945, and prevent such objects from entering public collections through acquisition or donation.
The AAM Guide to Provenance Research (2001) by Nancy H. Yeide, Konstantin Akinsha and Amy L. Walsh, is an excellent introduction and extremely useful manual for researchers in this field. This volume contains a trove of information related to Holocaust-era art looting.
It is incorrect to assume that Canada has not been affected by Nazi art-looting activities due to its distance from continental Europe. In fact, the art market was very active during and after the Second World War, and many Canadian cultural institutions purchased works of art on the international market during the post-war decades without paying much attention to provenance. Therefore, the probability of finding Nazi-spoliated art in Canadian public collections today should not be underestimated.
In 1998, the Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets raised awareness of the need to conduct in-depth research into museum collections to identify works of art that were looted during WWII. Canada was among 44 governments and 13 NGOs to endorse the Washington Conference Principles On Nazi-Confiscated Art (Appendix A).
The Principles include the following:
During the same year, the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) issued the Report of the AAMD Task Force on the Spoliation of Art during the Nazi/World War II Era (1933-1945) (Appendix B), which urged that museums make serious efforts to conduct research into objects in their collections.
The guidelines include the following:
In 1999, CAMDO-ODMAC adopted guidelines patterned closely after those issued by the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD).
The American Association of Museums (AAM) drafted their own guidelines in 1999 to assist member museums in identifying and publicizing possible looted artworks in their collections. Then in 2001, the AAM, AAMD, and PCHA (Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States) issued joint standards: The AAM Recommended Procedures for Providing Information to the Public about Objects Transferred in Europe during the Nazi Era.
In October of 2000, the International Forum on Holocaust Era Looted Cultural Assets was held in Vilnius, Lithuania, with the support of the Council of Europe as a follow-up to the 1998 Washington Conference. Canada, as one of 38 governments, adopted the Vilnius Forum Declaration (Appendix C), which can be regarded as a ratification of earlier agreements. Among other points the Vilnius Declaration asks that each government maintain or establish a central reference and point of inquiry to provide information and help on any query regarding looted cultural assets, archives, and claims in each country.
In 2001, the National Gallery of Canada hosted the Canadian Symposium on Holocaust-Era Cultural Property (Appendix D) to exchange information and expertise on the present state and future prospects of Holocaust-era research in Canadian public art museum collections. This symposium was jointly organized by the Canadian Museums Association (CMA) and the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), with major support from the National Gallery of Canada, the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization (CAMDO-ODMAC), the Gelmont Foundation, and Christie’s and Sotheby’s auction houses. Its goal was to explore the complex historical, research, legal, and moral issues and challenges posed by the potential presence of Nazi-spoliated cultural property in Canadian museum collections, and to develop recommendations toward a national strategy to address these issues with the diligence and professionalism they demand.
The symposium recommendations included the following:
Following these recommendations, most major Canadian art museums have since identified works from their collections with Nazi-era provenance gaps, and posted them on their websites. As of April 2017, the National Gallery of Canada lists 105 works (https://www.gallery.ca/research/provenance); the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts lists 71 works (https://www.mbam.qc.ca/en/collections/provenance-research-project/); the Art Gallery of Ontario lists 46 works (http://www.ago.net/spoliation-research); the Vancouver Art Gallery lists 7 works (https://www.vanartgallery.bc.ca/collection_and_research/provenance.html); and the Beaverbrook Art Gallery lists 15 works (http://beaverbrookartgallery.org/en/collection/spoliation-research).
In 2002, acting on behalf of the three university heirs of the Estate of Dr. Max Stern, Concordia University in Montreal launched the Max Stern Art Restitution Project. Max Stern (1904-1987) was a German Jewish art dealer from Düsseldorf, who fled the Nazi regime and relocated in Canada during the Second World War. The heirs are seeking the restitution of works of art originally owned by Stern that were either confiscated by the Nazis or sold under duress in the 1930s. While Stern managed to recover a few pieces of his former holdings after WWII, the majority of his property was never returned. Since Concordia University initiated the project, 400 artworks previously owned by Stern have been identified, including pieces by Brueghel, Bosch, Carracci, and Winterhalter. Sixteen paintings have been successfully recovered thus far.
In 2006, the travelling exhibition Auktion 392 was mounted by the FOFA gallery, Concordia University. Auktion 392 was created by Professor Catherine MacKenzie in collaboration with gallery coordinator Lynn Beavis, and MA students from Concordia’s Department of Art History. The exhibit focused on the 1937 forced sale of Stern artworks by the Lempertz auction house in Cologne, and pointed out the challenges confronting victims of Nazi persecution who seek the return of art sold under duress. The exhibit has since been shown at various international locations.
In 2007, the National Gallery of Canada (NGC) launched the NGC Provenance Research Project. The Gallery’s Foundation endowed a two-year position for a researcher to conduct Nazi-era provenance research on the National Gallery of Canada’s permanent collection of European Art. More than 140 paintings and sculptures with gaps in provenance between 1933-1945, which had been in continental Europe during this period, were thoroughly examined. A clear chain of ownership could be established in 47 cases. In the spring of 2009, Dr. Anabelle Kienle Ponka, the NGC’s Associate Curator for European and American Art, and provenance researcher Anke Kausch, presented a session entitled “Holocaust Era Cultural Property: Workshop on Research Methodology” at the national conference of the Canadian Museums Association in Toronto. The session provided an overview of prominent restitution cases with potential implications for Canadian institutions, as well as offering practical advice on how to conduct provenance research including guidelines, tips, resources, and case studies. In 2014, another researcher was hired to continue provenance research on the NGC’s permanent collection. Kirsten Appleyard held the position of Sobey Chief Curator Fellow in Provenance Research from October 2014 to August 2015, and will hold the position of Curatorial Assistant and Provenance Researcher from December 2016 until May 2018.
Over the past few years the National Gallery of Canada and the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts have periodically engaged independent researchers to assist them with routine checks on new acquisitions and the examination of critical cases in their permanent collections. Funding for permanent provenance research positions in cultural institutions, as exist in numerous museums in Europe and the United States, has thus far not been available in Canada.
In 2007, acting upon the recommendations of the Canadian Symposium on Holocaust-era Cultural Property cited above, and with the support of the Department of Canadian Heritage, CAMDO-ODMAC undertook a survey of its membership in an attempt to quantify for the first time, the nature and magnitude of the issue of Holocaust-looted art and related provenance research for Canada’s museum community. In its Report on Provenance Research Needs for Holocaust-Era Cultural Property in Canadian Art Museums (Appendix E), CAMDO-ODMAC reached a number of conclusions based on the data collected in the survey, and presented options for future strategies by stakeholders:
The 2007 survey identified 822 works of art in Canadian museums with ownership history gaps between the years 1933-1945. Survey responses were received from a majority, but not all member institutions with collections of European art. Therefore, the actual number of works with Nazi-era provenance gaps in Canadian museums may be considerably higher.
In 2009, an international conference on various Holocaust-related topics was held in Terezin, Czech Republic (formerly Theresienstadt). Canada was a signatory, among 47 countries and non-governmental organizations, to the Terezin Declaration (Appendix F), which re-emphasizes the importance of the Washington Principles and calls on governments to ensure that their legal systems or alternative processes facilitate “just and fair solutions” with regards to the restitution of Nazi-looted art (http://www.holocausteraassets.eu/en/news-archive/detail/terezin-declaration/).
In 2013, the Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization launched the Canadian Holocaust-Era Provenance Research and Best Practice Guidelines Project (CHERP) with the support of the Department of Canadian Heritage via its Museums Assistance Program. This project aimed to develop and disseminate best-practice standards and guidelines for use by the Canadian museum community in their future work in this urgent international research effort. Six Canadian art museums participated in the project: the Art Gallery of Ontario, Art Gallery of Windsor, McMaster Museum of Art, Royal Ontario Museum, University of Lethbridge Art Gallery, and Winnipeg Art Gallery. In preparation for the development of these guidelines, two researchers assessed and examined a number of artworks from each of the participating institutions.
With the present Best Practice Guidelines: Holocaust-Era Provenance Research in Canadian Art Museums and Galleries, CAMDO-ODMAC is contributing background information, resources, and a practical research tool to assist Canadian museum professionals in examining art collections for paintings with incomplete or uncertain WWII ownership histories. The Guidelines should also help to prevent artworks that have been looted or otherwise misappropriated during the Holocaust from entering Canadian public collections in the future.
In 2006, the Board of Trustees of the National Gallery of Canada (NGC) approved the deaccessioning from the collection of Édouard Vuillard’s painting Le Salon de Madame Aron when provenance research indicated that the artwork had been plundered by the Nazis during World War II. It was returned to the heirs of Alfred Lindon.
The NGC had purchased the painting in 1956 from the Galerie Dubourg in Paris. A first attempt to document the work in the 1970s revealed that it had belonged to a collector named Bellanger and later to Paul Strecker, who died in 1950. In 1997, however, the original typewritten Répertoire des biens spoliés en France durant la guerre 1939-1945 was republished, and listed a work by Jean [sic] Vuillard entitled Intérieur, belonging to the Lindon family. Alfred Lindon was a French businessman of Jewish descent who died in 1948.
The NGC’s first attempt to return the painting to the Lindon family in 2000 failed. Jacques Lindon, Alfred Lindon’s son, twice refused the painting, stating that it had never belonged to him or to his family. The painting was then listed on the NGC’s Provenance Research website. Three years later, the National Gallery received proof from the French government that Jacques Lindon’s father, Alfred, had indeed owned the painting in 1940. Represented by Denis Lindon, the family then undertook legal proceedings and Le Salon de Madame Aron became theirs once again.
In 2013, the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts (MMFA) returned The Duet by Gerrit van Honthorst, a master of the Caravaggesque school of Utrecht, to the heirs of the Spiro family. Provenance research revealed that the painting had been taken from their forebears Ellen and Bruno Spiro through a forced sale in Germany in 1938. It had entered the MMFA’s collection in 1969, when the Museum had purchased the artwork in good faith, without knowledge of its true origin (http://www.mbam.qc.ca/bibliotheque/media/pressrelease-honthorst-and-waldmuller-mmfa.pdf).
Johannes Cornelisz Verspronck (Dutch 1597-1662),
Portrait of a Lady, 1652, Art Gallery of Hamilton
In 2014, the Art Gallery of Hamilton (AGH) deaccessioned the painting Portrait of a Lady by Dutch 17th-century artist Johannes Verspronck. The artwork was returned to Sarah Solmssen, great-granddaughter-in-law of Alma Bertha Salomonsohn, who was the wife of Arthur Salomonsohn, Chairman of the Board of the Deutsche Bank. The Nazis confiscated Salomonsohn’s art collection in 1940. The AGH had received detailed documentation to support the Solmssen family’s claim, explaining the circumstances surrounding the loss of the work. Portrait of a Lady had entered the AGH’s collection through donation by the AGH Volunteer Committee, which had purchased it at auction in 1987 (http://www.artgalleryofhamilton.com/agh_news/AGH_Restitution_MediaRelease.pdf).
On April 23, 2013, the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts (MMFA) returned Gerrit van Honthorst‘s The Duet to Gerald Matthes, the grandson of Bruno Spiro, who was a wealthy Hamburg merchant of Jewish origin. The MMFA had purchased the 17th-century painting in good faith from an art gallery in 1969. The restitution was the result of in-depth provenance research led by the MMFA’s Archives Department, and the receipt of new information from representatives of the family.
Gerrit van Honthorst’s The Duet entered the MMFA’s permanent collection in 1969. According to the catalogue raisonné [J. Richard Judson and Rudolf E. O. Ekkart. Gerrit van Honthorst, 1592-1656. Doornspijk: Davaco, 1999, cat. no. 255 p. 197], the painting’s ownership history had a gap between 1931 when it was sold from the Hermitage collection, Saint Petersburg, through the Berlin auction house Lepke, to 1945 when it was with a “Dr. Wilham, Hofgeismar”, Germany [Judson and Ekkart misspelled the name in their catalogue raisonné. Wilham was identified as Dr. Wilharm]. For the period between 1931 and 1945, Judson and Ekkart list the work’s inclusion in several Berlin auctions, but its actual owner remained unknown.
This provenance gap was eventually filled by consulting several German archives. The lostart.de database, where the painting was listed as “singing couple – possibly identical with Honthorst’s Duet”, led to documents at the Landesarchiv Berlin, which identified Ellen Spiro as owner of the work. These documents, however, included no image and described the painting merely as “singing, couple, 17th century” – a description too vague to serve as evidence (http://www.lostart.de/Webs/EN/Datenbank/EinzelobjektSucheSimpel.html?param=EOBJ_ID%3D429307%26SUCHE_ID%3D1690184%26_page%3D0%26_sort%3D%26_anchor%3Did4406).
Ellen Spiro was the wife of Bruno Spiro – a wealthy arms dealer and well-known art collector. Bruno Spiro was arrested by the Nazis in 1936 and committed suicide the same year in the concentration camp Fuhlsbüttel (Hamburg). The Spiros, who were both Jewish, owned a large mansion in Berlin but had their main residence in Hamburg. It turned out that the Hamburg State Archives held a vast trove of archival material related to the Spiro family.
Ellen Spiro, who immigrated to Great Britain in 1939, was forced to give up all her assets to the Nazi regime. After the war, she temporarily moved back to Hamburg and attempted to reclaim some of her lost property. She finally received several compensation payments by the German government and a life pension. The archival material in Hamburg – mainly court documents regarding Bruno Spiro’s arrest and Ellen Spiro’s claim for compensation – also contained a handwritten deed by Bruno Spiro dated October 7, 1931, which mentioned the painting as “couple playing music by Honthorst” on display in the music room of the Spiro’s Berlin mansion. This document eventually served as proof that the Montreal painting was in fact Bruno Spiro’s property, and from October 7, 1931 until March 1938, was owned by his wife Ellen. Ellen Spiro was forced to give up the Berlin house to the Nazi regime without receiving proper compensation, and had to sell its contents below market value, including the painting by Honthorst. A list issued by the “Union” auction house, Berlin, dated March 25, 1938, as well as a “Union” auction catalogue from April 26, 1938, which also provides an image of the work, show that the painting was included in a “forced sale”.
The provenance report for Gerrit van Honthorst’s The Duet – including description, provenance, and notes – is presented below. The report was prepared by Anke Kausch in 2012, and is reproduced here with the permission of the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. Minor editorial changes and omissions have been made to facilitate reproduction of the document in this format.
Provenance Report by Anke Kausch, January 2012
(on file at MMFA, curatorial files)
Gerrit van Honthorst (Utrecht 1592 – Utrecht 1656)
The Duet, 1623-1624
Oil on canvas, 79.1 × 95.3 cm
Montreal Museum of Fine Arts
Marks, labels, inscriptions:
|Upper element:||Right element:||Lower element:|
“1600” (blue pencil)
“mit Gravierung” (blue pencil)
“(1430)”; “1600”; “x”; Bohler” (blue pencil, all same hand)
“890L” (or in reverse “1068”) (pencil)
|Top element:||Left element:||Transverse bar:|
“rey [?] NVIII”; N62 Delanotte (black crayon) (n.b. during his sojourn in Italy, Honthorst was known as Gherardo Delanotte)
SEGURA A.? no.615 (or Secura) (rectangular stamp)
“L88” (red pencil);
“162” (white chalk, faint)
|“850”; “1375” (blue pencil)|
Rectangular stamp: “SEGURA A.? no. 615 (stretcher)
Erased illegible inscription (Delanotte?)
The main source for this provenance is J. Richard Judson and Rudolf E.O. Ekkart’s catalogue raisonné, cat. no. 255 [J. Richard Judson and Rudolf E.O. Ekkart. Gerrit van Honthorst, 1592-1656. Doornspijk: Davaco, 1999, p. 197]. Exceptions and other supporting documents are noted.
 Gerrit van Honthorst’s The Duet is mentioned by Gustav Friedrich Waagen as part of the Stroganoff collection [Waagen, Gustav Friedrich. Gemäldesammlungen in der Kaiserlichen Ermitage zu St. Petersburg. Munich 1864, p. 404]. The painting remained in the possession of the Stroganoff family until 1919, when their art collection was nationalized by the Soviet government and integrated into the Hermitage State Museum collection.
 See note . In May 1931 the painting was sold by the Soviet government through the Berlin auction house of Rudolph Lepke [Rudolph Lepke, May 12, 1931, cat. no. 37, http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/lepke1931_05_12/0049, http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/lepke1931_05_12/0050]. It was estimated at 4000 Reichsmark and according to a handwritten note in the auction catalogue, sold to an unknown buyer for 2400 Reichsmark [Lepke auction, May 12, 1931, Knoedler Library on microform, art auction catalogues. New York: Knoedler; Teaneck, N.J.: Chadwyck-Healey, 1973].
 See note . Since the 1920s the Stalinist government had sold objects from Soviet museum collections in order to raise funds to purchase industrial equipment from the West. The Berlin auction house of Rudolph Lepke was one of the main venues for the sale of Soviet museum treasures. The Stroganoff collection sale at Lepke consisted of about 200 objects. Members of the Stroganoff family protested the sale, but had no legal means of claiming nationalized property [Yeide, Nancy, Konstantin Akinsha and Amy Walsh. The AAM Guide to Provenance Research. Washington 2001, p. 135].
 Bruno Richard Spiro possibly purchased the painting at the Lepke auction in May 1931. Spiro was a wealthy arms dealer of Jewish descent from Hamburg, Germany. Five months after the Lepke auction, in a handwritten document, dated October 7, 1931, Spiro mentions the painting as “musizierendes Paar” (a couple making music) by Honthorst, [p. 2 line 8], on display in the music room of his Berlin mansion. In this document Bruno Spiro transfers the ownership of his stately Berlin house on Heerstraße 85 with all its contents, including the Honthorst painting, to his wife Ellen Clara Spiro, née Herz [deed, Hamburg State Archive, 351-11, Amt für Wiedergutmachung, 7076 Austin, Ellen Clara (verw. Spiro), 1953-1968, document 351-11_7076 (93) - 351-11_7076 (95). The document bears the signatures of Bruno Spiro, his wife Ellen, and the signature and seal of a notary].
 Ellen Clara (also “Ella”) Spiro married Bruno Spiro in 1916. The couple resided in Hamburg, St. Benediktstr.13, Germany, and also owned a large mansion in Berlin. See note . Both were Jewish. Bruno Spiro was arrested in July 1936 and charged with tax evasion and currency offence. He committed suicide on September 29, 1936 in the concentration camp Fuhlsbüttel, Hamburg [Hamburg State Archive, 351-11, Amt für Wiedergutmachung, 7076 Austin, Ellen Clara (verw. Spiro) 1953-1968, death certificate, document 351-11_7076 (237)]. His wife Ellen, who had also been arrested, was released after his death and left Germany for Great Britain three years later, in August 1939. Through the move, she lost most of her assets to the Nazi government. She remarried in London in 1940 and took on the name Austin. In 1953, three years after her husband’s death, Ellen Austin moved back to Hamburg [Hamburg State Archive, 351-11, Amt für Wiedergutmachung, 7076 Austin, Ellen Clara (verw. Spiro), 1953-1968, applications for compensation, documents 351-11 7076 (151-162), (828-829)]. With the help of her lawyers, her requests for compensation for damages suffered during the Nazi era were accepted by the German government and she received several restitution payments, as well as a pension from 1953 until her death on July 7, 1977 [Hamburg State Archive, 351-11, Amt für Wiedergutmachung, 7076 Austin, Ellen Clara (verw. Spiro), 1953-1968, 351-11_7076 documents 326, 608-611, 1164].
In her applications for compensation to the German government, Honthorst’s The Duet is not specifically mentioned. Ellen Spiro apparently attempted to sell Honthorst’s Duet in 1934 and again in 1937, to no avail. The painting was up for auction at Gemälde neuerer Meister der Sammlung St.-Berlin; alte und neuerer Gemälde aus Privatbesitz. [Rudolph Lepke auction house, Berlin, Germany, sale 2074, April 25, 1934, lot. no. 55, http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/lepke1934_04_25/0012; Gemälde alter und neuerer Meister, Antiquitäten, Möbel und Kunstgewerbe at Rudolph Lepke auction house, Berlin, Germany, sale 2116, November 4, 1937, lot. no. 162c, http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/lepke1937_11_04/0020].
In 1938, the Spiro’s Berlin mansion was taken over by the Nazi government [Hamburg State Archive, 351-11, Amt für Wiedergutmachung, 7076 Austin, Ellen Clara (verw. Spiro), 1953-1968, application for compensation, documents 351-11_7076 (47), (161)]. Ellen Spiro was forced to sell its contents and consigned them to the auction house “Union” (owned by Leo Spik), Berlin, Germany. In her “auction order” (“Versteigerungs-Auftrag”), dated March 25, 1938, the painting is listed as “painting, 17th century, singing couple”, lot. no. 244, and estimated at 200 Reichsmark [Landesarchiv Berlin, LAB A Rep. 243-04, Nr. 61]. The painting sold at auction on April 26, 1938 to an unknown buyer [Versteigerungshaus “Union” (Leo Spik), sale no. 2068, Berlin, Germany. The Knoedler Library on microform: art auction catalogues, New York: Knoedler; Teaneck, N.J., Chadwyck-Healey, 1973.
 In their catalogue raisonné Judson and Ekkart mistakenly recorded the owner’s name as “Wilham”. Karl Wilharm, is known for having purchased Franz-Xaver Winterhalter’s Girl from the Sabine Mountains in a “forced sale”. The painting was recovered by the Max Stern Art Restitution Project, Montreal, in 2008.
 According to the stock book of the Kunsthandel AG Lucerne, the painting was purchased in March 1968 from Dr. H. Braun. The latter is possibly identical to the art historian Dr. Hermann Braun (b.1928), who published a dissertation on Gerrit van Honthorst at the University of Göttingen in 1966. A note in the stock book indicates that the painting was co-owned by a person named Wertheimer [Kunsthandel AG, Lucerne, stock book 1968, no. 10755, Julius Böhler Archive, Bayerisches Wirtschaftsarchiv, Munich, Germany].
 See note .
 The painting was purchased by the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts (MMFA) in 1969 from Kunsthandel AG, Lucerne [correspondence between Julius Böhler, owner of Kunsthandel AG, and David G. Carter, director of the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, November 5, 1969, MMFA curatorial file].
Provenance research requires that a meticulous series of steps be followed. A step-by-step guide is outlined below, and listed in the CHERP Provenance Research Checklist (Appendix G).
All works of art that were acquired after 1932 and created before 1946, and have been in continental Europe during this time period, need to be examined.
If objects in this category have gaps in provenance or an unclear ownership history between 1933-1945, they need to be set aside for comprehensive research. This includes objects from the permanent collections, as well as all new acquisitions and donations.
Maintaining a research log for each case is highly recommended. All research steps should be thoroughly recorded in order to maintain a clear overview of what has been and what still needs to be done. List all resources that have been checked and briefly summarize your findings.
The object – a painting in the case of these guidelines – is the most important primary document for provenance research. Recto and verso should be carefully inspected for marks, labels, seals, stamps, and inscriptions. If the frame has been part of the object’s history, it should be similarly studied. Once a preliminary examination has taken place, the painting should be removed from its frame and housing materials, and all elements should be re-examined.
Dealer labels, custom stamps, exhibition stickers, wax seals with family crests or monograms, inventory numbers, and transport stamps can provide invaluable first-hand provenance information. If physical access to the work is impossible, photos of the object’s verso can often be found in the conservation files.
All findings should be photographed.
Verso of Edgar Degas, Woman with Umbrella (Berthe Jeantaud), c. 1876 [National Gallery of Canada, no. 15838], showing multiple labels, stamps, and inscriptions
Custom stamps can be identified by contacting the national customs administration of the respective country. For the identification of collectors’ marks and stamps, consult: http://www.marquesdecollections.fr/index.cfm?lang=2.
The Nazis often marked confiscated artworks with collection codes [e.g., R followed by a number stands for Rothschild, SEL for the prominent Paris art dealer Seligmann]. A list of codes used by the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg (a Nazi Party organization that seized cultural property during the Second World War) is provided in the AAM Guide for Provenance Research (2001), Appendix K, and can also be found online at https://www.errproject.org/jeudepaume/collection_list.php.
The inscription AR 848 (on the verso of a painting by Berchem in the collection of the MMFA) is a code that was used by the Gestapo for artworks from the collection of Alphons von Rothschild, Vienna. This work was confiscated in May 1938 and destined for Hitler’s Linz Museum, but at the time of the Allied bombing was instead stored underground in the Alt Aussee salt mines near Salzburg. It was recovered by American troops at the end of WWII and brought to the Munich Central Collecting Point. The painting was restituted to the Austrian State on April 25, 1946, and returned to Clarice de Rothschild, Alphons von Rothschild’s widow, in 1947. The red seal on the verso of the same painting could be identified as that of the Domville baronetcy of St. Alban’s in the County of Hertford, UK, indicating that the work had been in possession of the Domville family during the 19th century before entering the Rothschild collection.
Curatorial files, conservation files, donor files, correspondence files, and institutional archives should be carefully examined for provenance information on the respective object.
Alternate titles and former attributions of the object should be noted and made a part of the search when consulting library and online resources. One should also take into account that there might be different versions of the object by the same artist.
The conservation files may contain clues to a possible change in the object’s physical appearance. Details in a painting might have been over-painted or removed, or a canvas or panel might have been cropped. For example, the fig leaf on Lucas Cranach’s Venus at the NGC was found to be a later addition to the work and has been removed by the NGC’s conservators https://www.gallery.ca/collection/artwork/venus-0.
Library research should be based on information gathered from the object’s examination and institutional files.
Consulting the appropriate catalogue raisonné, if there is one, is a good starting point. Catalogues raisonnés are scholarly compilations of an artist’s body of work and are critical tools for researching ownership history and attribution. An online database of published catalogues raisonnés and catalogues in preparation can be found on the website of the International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR).
All publications, including journal articles and exhibition catalogues, listed in the curatorial files in relation to the object should be carefully checked, as well as other publications about the artist, art movement, etc.
All published information available about the object should be assembled. If publications are not available at your institutional library, they can be located at worldcat.org and ordered via inter-library loan.
Provenance information appearing in publications should always be examined critically. It should not be taken for granted that all published provenance information is correct. Sometimes mistakes are passed down from one author to the next. Ideally, published information should be verified with additional documentation.
In recent years, numerous databases that list Nazi-looted art have become available online, facilitating provenance research considerably, and saving valuable time and travel costs.
All objects that have been in continental Europe between 1933 and 1945, with gaps in provenance during this time period, should be searched in the databases listed below.
The list that follows should serve as a basic research tool. Although by no means comprehensive, it is a good starting point for researching an object with an unclear ownership history.
Provides three databases:
Le Répertoire contains information about looted property in France. Vol. II (and its supplements) is dedicated to works of art, and is based on Rose Valland’s invaluable notes. During the Nazi occupation of France, Rose Valland (1898-1980) was working at the Jeu de Paume Museum in Paris where she secretly recorded all activities of the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg (ERR,) the German art looting agency. Valland risked her life by keeping meticulous records of the destination of each shipment of looted art from the Jeu de Paume, which greatly facilitated postwar investigations for their recovery.
Owner’s names are listed. Contains some photographs. [In searchable PDF format on lootedart.com]
For example, Ruben’s Stormy Landscape, now in the collection of the NGC, is listed in Le Répertoire des biens spoliés en France durant la guerre 1939-1945 as seized from the collection of Adolphe Schloss, Paris. The painting was restituted to the heirs of Adolphe Schloss shortly after WWII.
In many cases major works of art passed through the hands of wealthy individuals, who often held prominent positions and are therefore relatively easy to trace through library or online research. The following databases list the names of prominent collectors and art dealers.
Lesser known former owners or art dealers might be traceable by searching postal and telephone directories, ancestry.com, Who’s Who, peerage and gentry publications, business guides, obituaries, and newspaper archives.
Collectors who are still alive and art dealers who are still in business should be contacted by mail or email. Provide a detailed explanation for your inquiry, including images, inventory numbers, etc. in order to facilitate a search in their personal archives. Recognize that art dealers protect their sources and are committed to confidentiality towards their clients, so they often will not be willing to disclose names, especially if the sale was relatively recent.
Auction catalogues occasionally list the name of the seller, and many catalogues by Sotheby’s and Christie’s include a list of buyers that can be found attached to the front or back of the catalogue. Some copies of auction catalogues also include handwritten notes in the margins, which disclose the names of buyers and hammer price.
Sotheby’s, Christie’s, and several other auction houses maintain restitution departments today to which one can direct inquiries regarding provenance matters. However, auction houses are committed to confidentiality towards their clients, so they are unlikely to disclose buyer’s or seller’s names if the sale was recent. They may sometimes be willing to forward a letter to the seller or purchaser of the work in question on your behalf.
Graves, Algernon. Art Sales from Early in the Eighteenth Century to Early in the Twentieth Century. London: A. Graves, 1918-21.
Mireur, Hippolyte. Dictionnaire des ventes d’art faites en France et à l’étranger pendant les XVIIIme & XIXme siècles. Paris: Maisons d’éditions d’œuvres artistiques, 1911-1912.
Annuaire des ventes de l’année. Paris: L. Maurice, 1919-1931.
Art Prices Current. Folkestone: W. Dawson & Sons, 1907-1973.
The following criteria can serve as indicators that an object was possibly involved in an illegal transaction between 1933-1945:
The object’s provenance contains the name of a Jewish art collector or art dealer, who has been a victim of Nazi art looting.
The object’s provenance contains names of individuals or government departments responsible for the systematic looting of cultural property.
The object’s provenance contains the name of a Nazi collector, collaborator, or art professional (art historian, dealer, appraiser, transport firm, etc.) who is known to have facilitated Nazi-looting activities.
A list of the “Red Flag Names” assembled in the OSS (US Office of Strategic Services) Art Looting Intelligence Unit (ALIU) Reports 1945-1946 can be found online at lootedart.com and in the AAM Guide to Provenance Research (2001), Appendices H and I.
It should be noted that some of the names listed in the ALIU’s Biographical Index of Individuals Involved in Art Looting are of art dealers and collectors who also conducted numerous legal business transactions during the same time period.
If any of the above listed criteria apply, the work in question should be set aside for comprehensive research.
Although the style of an artwork alone can by no means serve as an indicator of its possible involvement in Nazi art theft, researchers should be aware of certain patterns of Nazi collecting.
A number of leading Nazi officials collected art, including Adolf Hitler, Hermann Göring, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Joseph Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, and Albert Speer. Their taste in art was mainly retrospective, reflecting Nazi ideology. The main focus was on Old Masters, German as well as Dutch and Flemish, whose art was regarded by the Nazis as manifestations of “Aryan superiority”. Italian and French art dating from the Middle Ages to the 18th century was also of special interest to them.
The Nazi’s condemnation of modernism and so-called “degenerate art”, and their systematic removal of modern art from German public institutions in 1937, did not prevent them from legally and illegally acquiring works by modern masters. French Impressionist and Post-Impressionist paintings and works by German Expressionists were often confiscated and used in exchange for Old Masters.
Provenance information should be recorded in chronological order from the earliest to the most recent owner. It should be as complete as possible, and include:
Notes should contain supplemental information regarding dates and ownership, supporting sources, and any other relevant explanatory information. This includes, for example, names of art dealers (as owners or acting as agents), auction information (including lot numbers and sale prices), as well as information about unlawful appropriation during the Nazi era and subsequent restitution.
The National Gallery of Canada has adopted a standardized format for recording provenance data (Appendix H).These guidelines were originally developed by the Saint Louis Art Museum (SLAM). Dr. Anabelle Kienle Ponka, the NGC’s Associate Curator, European and American Art, collaborated on the development of these guidelines while working at the SLAM, and initiated their adoption by the National Gallery of Canada in 2007. We wish to thank Simon Kelly, the Saint Louis Art Museum’s Curator of Modern and Contemporary Art, Ella Rothgangel, the Saint Louis Art Museum’s Registrar, and Anabelle Kienle Ponka for permission to publish these guidelines here.
The SLAM/NGC guidelines are exemplary and should serve as a model for Canadian cultural institutions of how to record provenance information. They include detailed annotations and templates for the listing of sources as well as marks and labels. The ownership histories for 105 paintings and sculptures that were created before 1945 and acquired after 1933 are published in this format on the National Gallery of Canada’s Provenance Research website.
Examples of provenance data entered using the SLAM/ NGC guidelines can be found below.
Jacob van Ruisdael, A Waterfall, c. 1660-1670, National Gallery of Canada (no. 5878)
Benozzo Gozzoli, The Virgin and Child with SS. Gregory, John the Baptist, John the Evangelist, Julian, Dominic, and Francis, c. 1476-1477, National Gallery of Canada (no. 6084)
The 1998 Washington Principles recommend that, “if the pre-War owners of art that is found to have been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted, or their heirs, can be identified, steps should be taken expeditiously to achieve a just and fair solution, recognizing this may vary according to the facts and circumstances surrounding a specific case.”
There are no laws in Canada that regulate how Nazi-looted art should be handled. The Washington Principles are a non-binding “soft law instrument”: they provide recommendations for the restitution of Nazi-looted art in an ethical way and upon a case-by-case examination.
In order to reach a “just and fair solution” it should be remembered that for the families of the victims of Nazi art theft, restitution cases are most likely a very personal and highly emotional matter. In most cases it is not about ownership of a valuable piece of art, but the return of a tangible memory of their deceased family member who was murdered in the Holocaust.
On the other hand, it should be also be acknowledged that the cultural institution, which likely had acquired the object in good faith and without knowledge of its past, has put considerable effort into preserving the artwork over the years and making it accessible to the public.
There are various possibilities that can be considered for resolving Holocaust-era art restitution:
When arranging the restitution of Honthorst’s The Duet to the Spiro family in 2014, the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts handled the situation in an exemplary manner. The Museum filled the gap in its permanent collection by acquiring Woman Tuning a Lute, a work by the same artist produced during the same year as The Duet showing a comparable subject. In an amicable agreement with the heirs of the Spiro family, the MMFA received compensation for acting in good faith, and in return dedicated the newly acquired painting to the memory of Bruno Spiro and his wife Ellen. The return of the The Duet to the grandchildren of its rightful owners and the acquisition of the new work were celebrated in a festive public ceremony.
The International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR) provides a list of case summaries on its website that describe out-of-court settlements between museums and claimants of Nazi-looted art (IFAR, World War II-Era/Holocaust Related Art Loss, Case Summaries: Non-litigated/Out-of-Court Settlements).
More case studies can be found on the website of lootedart.com.
Campfen, Evelien. ed. Fair and Just Solutions? Alternatives to Litigation in Nazi-Looted Art Disputes: Status Quo and New Developments, 2014.
Tythacott, Louise and Kostas Arvanitis. eds. Museums and Restitution: New Practices, New Approaches. London and New York: Routledge, 2014.
Murphy, Nathan. “Splitting Images: Shared-Value Settlements in Nazi-Era Art Restitution Claims.” Florida Law Entertainment Review, 2009.
Range, Daniel. “Deaccessioning and Its Costs in the Holocaust Art Context: The United States and Great Britain.” Texas International Law Journal, vol. 39, p. 655, 2004.
Works of art have been subject to war looting throughout history from antiquity to the present, precisely because they are objects of beauty that possess significant cultural and often monetary value. Unfortunately, this is not likely to change anytime in the future.
Every researcher immersed in the process of reconstructing a work of art’s ownership history – the painstaking work of piecing together bits of information gathered from the object itself, from books, journals, newspapers, online databases, institutional and public archives, and personal correspondence – will ask themselves if this laborious, time-consuming puzzle couldn’t have been avoided in the first place. Gaps in provenance occur because of negligent record keeping, the wish for privacy by certain owners, and sometimes criminal intent. Labels, stamps, and inscriptions on the object that provide evidence of ownership can easily be removed. Receipts or certificates that authenticate the work or serve as evidence for a transaction between different owners can be destroyed, stolen, forged, or simply lost. Today new technologies are being developed that can securely link objects with their chain of owners, thereby holding the potential to make provenance research a thing of the past.
Companies like Ascribe, Verisart, Monegraph, Deloitte and Everledger are using blockchain technology to record works of art and their respective owners. The blockchain is a decentralised network available to everyone that consists of digitally recorded and time-stamped data blocks, where each added block is unchangeable and cryptographically linked to the previous block. Originally developed as a public ledger for verifying and tracking transactions of the cryptocurrency bitcoin, the blockchain can be applied to various uses, including securely recording provenance data for artworks. Once a work of art’s basic information, authorship, and ownership records are uploaded to the blockchain, this information is embedded in a digital file and can never be removed or changed. This makes the blockchain extremely useful for intellectual property registration for physical artworks such as paintings, sculpture, installations, works on paper, art editions, as well as digital art, which has been especially vulnerable to piracy in the past.
DNA fingerprinting is another new technology with the potential to create sound provenances for works of art in the future. The companies Tagsmart and Provenire Authentication have both developed labeling systems for works of art using synthetic DNA. Almost invisible tags that meet archival standards and are impossible to remove from the artwork without leaving traces of DNA, can be applied by the artist to the object right after its creation, certifying his or her authorship. Tagsmart links the forensically verifiable tags by encryption to a cloud-based database that records information about artist, work, and ownership, and can be updated whenever the object changes hands. Aside from this “digital passport”, a certificate of authenticity on paper is issued that is linked directly to the tag and digital database.
Both blockchain technology and synthetic DNA labeling are art authentication methods that are particularly useful for the primary art market. They can serve as tools for artists who are looking for ways to securely claim authorship for each piece they create. Used smartly and consistently, they have the potential to establish reliable ownership histories for the future, bringing more transparency to an opaque and still largely unregulated art market.
Getty Research Institute photo study collection, Los Angeles
Frick Art Reference Library, New York
National Gallery of Art photo collection, Washington DC
Musée du Louvre documentation centre, Paris
Musée d’Orsay documentation centre, Paris
Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte photo archive, Munich
Art historical research institute of Germany.
Aalders, Gerard. “By Diplomatic Pouch: Art Smuggling by the Nazis,” Spoils of War 3 (December 1996): 29-32.
Aalders, Gerard. Nazi Looting: The Plunder of Dutch Jewry during the Second World War. Oxford: Berg, 2004.
Adams, E. E. “Looted Art Treasures Go Back to France,” The Quartermaster Review 26 (September-October 1946): 16-23, 77.
Adams, Robert. Lost Museum: Glimpses of Vanished Originals. New York: Viking Press, 1980.
Akinsha, Konstantin and Grigorii Kozlov. Beautiful Loot: The Soviet Plunder of Europe’s Art Treasures. New York: Random House, 1995.
Akinsha, Konstantin and Grigorii Kozlov. Stolen Treasure: The Hunt for the World’s Lost Masterpieces. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1995.
Alford, Kenneth D. The Spoils of World War II: The American Military’s Role in Stealing Europe’s Treasures. New York, 1994.
Alford, Kenneth D. Hermann Göring and the Nazi Art Collection: The Looting of Europe’s Art Treasures and Their Dispersal after World War II. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2012.
American Association of Museums. Vitalizing Memory: International Perspectives on Provenance Research. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums, 2005.
American Commission. Records of the American Commission for the Protection and Salvage of Artistic and Historic Monuments in War Areas (The Roberts Commission). U.S. Government Printing Office, 1943-1946.
Baard, H. P. Kunst In Schuilkelders: de odyssee der nationale kunstschatten gedurende de oorlogsjaren 1939-45. ‘s Gravenhage: D. A. Daamen, 1946.
Balawyder, Aloysius. The Odyssey of the Polish Treasures. Antigonish, NS: St. Francis Xavier University Press, 1978.
Bambi, Andrea and Axel Drecoll. eds. Alfred Flechtheim. Raubkunst und Restitution. Berlin: De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2015. (in German and English)
Barron, Stephanie. Exiles + Emigrés. The Flight of European Artists from Hitler. Los Angeles: LACMA, 1997.
Barron, Stephanie. ed. “Degenerate Art”: The Fate of the Avant-Garde in Nazi Germany. Los Angeles: LACMA, 1991.
Bazin, Germain. Souvenirs de l’exode du Louvre 1940-1945. Paris: Éditions d’art Somogy, 1992.
Bernhard, Marianne and Kurt Martin. Verlorene Werke der Malerei. Munich: Friedrich Adolf Ackermanns Kunstverlag, 1965.
Bertz, Inka and Michael Dorrmann. eds. Raub und Restitution: Kulturgut aus jüdischem Besitz von 1933 bis heute. Jüdisches Museum Berlin and Jüdisches Museum Frankfurt am Main, 2009.
Bohn, Elga. “Der Central Collecting Point München: erste Kunstsammelstelle nach 1945,” Kölner-Museums-Bulletin (1987), part 4.
Bouchoux, Corinne. Rose Valland, la résistance au musée. Geste editions-Archives de vies, 2006.
Bradsher, Greg. “Nazi Gold: The Merkers Mine Treasure,” Prologue: Quarterly of the National Archives and Records Administration 31 (Spring 1999): 7-12.
Breitenbach, Edgar. “Historical Survey of the Intelligence Department, MFAA Section, in OMGB, 1946-1945,” College Art Journal 9 (Winter 1949-1950): 192-198.
Brenner, Hildegard. Kunstpolitik des Nationalsozialismus. Rowohlt, 1963.
Brückler, Theodor. ed. Kunstraub, Kunstbergung und Osterreich 1938 bis heute. Vienna, 1999.
Buhse, Karl-Heinrich. Der Schutz von Kulturgut im Krieg: unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Konvention zum Schutze des Kulturguts im Falle eines Bewaffneten Konfliktes vom 14. Mai 1954. Hamburg, 1959.
Buomberger, Thomas. Raubkunst, Kunstraub, die Schweiz und der Handel mit gestohlenen Kulturgutern sur Zeit des Zweiten Weltkriegs. Zurich, 1998.
Buomberger, Thomas and Guido Magnaguagno. Schwarzbuch Bührle: Raubkunst für das Kunsthaus Zürich? Zurich: Rotpunktverlag, 2015.
Busterud, John A. Below the Salt: How the Fighting 90th Division Struck Gold and Art Treasure in a Salt Mine. Xlibris, 2001.
Cassou, Jean. Le Pillage par les Allemands des oeuvres d’art et des bibliothéques appartenant à des Juifs en France. Paris: Editions du Centre, 1947.
Chamberlin, Russell. Loot! The Heritage of Plunder. New York: Facts on File, 1983.
Comune di Firenze. L’Opera ritrovata – Omaggio a Rodolfo Siviero. Cantini, 1984.
Coremans, Paul B. La protection scientifique des oeuvres d’art en temps de guerre: l’expérience européenne pendant les années 1939 à 1945. Brussels: Laboratoire central des musées de Belgique, 1946.
Czernin, Hubertus. Die Auslösung: der Fall Thorsch. Vienna, 1998.
Davies, Martin and Ian Rawlins. Wartime Storage in Wales of Pictures from the National Gallery, London. London: HMSO, 1946.
De Jaeger, Charles. The Linz File: Hitler’s Plunder of Europe’s Art. Exeter, England: Webb & Bower, 1981.
Dorléac, Laurence Bertrand. L’Art de la défaite 1940-1944. Paris: Seuil, 1993.
Ebert, Hans. Kriegsverluste der Dresdener Gemäldegalerie: vernichtete und vermisste Werke. Dresden: Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, 1963.
Edsel, Robert M. The Monuments Men. New York: Center Street, 2009.
Edsel, Robert M. Rescuing da Vinci. Dallas: Laurel Publishing, 2006.
Eichwede, Wolfgang and Ulrike Hartung. Betr., Sicherstellung: NS-Kunstraub in der Sowjetunion. Bremen, 1998.
Ekkart, R.E.O. et al. Herkomst Gezocht. The Hague: Commissie-Ekkart, 1998.
Ekkart, R.E.O. et al. Origins Unknown – Report on Provenance of Art Recovered from Germany. The Hague: Commissie-Ekkart, 1998.
Enderlein, Angelika. Berliner Kunsthandel in der Weimarer Republik und im NS-Staat. Berlin, 2006.
Entartete Kunst – Bildersturm vor 25 Jahren. Munich, 1962.
Esterow, Milton. The Art Stealers. New York: MacMillan Co., 1966 (revised ed. 1973).
Estreicher, Karol. Cultural Losses of Poland: Index of Polish Cultural Losses during the German Occupation. London, 1944.
Farmer, Walter I. The Safekeepers: A Memoir of the Arts at the End of World War II. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000.
Fasola, Cesare. Le Gallerie di Firenze e la Guerra – The Florence Galleries & the War. Florence: Casa Editrice Monsalvato, 1945.
Feigenbaum, Gail and Inge Reist. eds. Provenance: An Alternate History of Art. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2012.
Feliciano, Hector. The Lost Museum: The Nazi Conspiracy to Steal the World’s Greatest Works of Art. Paris: Editions Austral, 1997.
Flanner, Janet. “Beautiful Spoils, I – A.H., Linz.” The New Yorker (1947): 31-48.
Flanner, Janet. “Beautiful Spoils, II – Collector with Luftwaffe.” The New Yorker (1947): 33-49.
Flanner, Janet. “Beautiful Spoils, III – Monuments Men.” The New Yorker (1947): 38-55.
Flanner, Janet. “The Beautiful Spoiles,” in Men and Monuments: Profiles of Picasso, Matisse, Braque & Malraux. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1947.
Florisoone, Michel. “La commission française de récupération artistique.” Mouseion (1946): 55-56.
Francini, Esther Tisa, Anja Heuss and Georg Kreis. Fluchtgut-Raubgut: Der Transfer von Kulturgüten in und über die Schweiz 1933-1945 und die Frage der Restitution. Zurich: Chronos, 2001.
Friemuth, Cay. Die geraubte Kunst. Berlin: Westermann, 1989.
Freitag, Gabriele. “Archival Material on National Socialist Art Plundering during the Second World War,” Spoils of War 1 (December 1995): 34-36.
Gaugusch, Georg. Wer einmal war. Das juedische Grossbuergertum Wiens 1800-1938. A-K. Vienna, 2011. http://www.jewishfamilies.at/2.html
Geismeir, Irene. Dokumentation des Fremdbesitzes: Verzeichnis in der Galerie eingelagerten Bilder unbekannter Herkunst. Gemäldegalerie Staatliche Museen zu Berlin Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Berlin, 1999.
Gołos, Jerzy and Agnieszka Kasprzak-Miler. eds. Straty wojenne: Zabytkowe dzwony utracone w latach 1939-1945 w granicach Polski po 1945 (Wartime Losses: Historic Bells Lost Between 1939-45 within Post-1945 Borders of Poland). Poznań, Ministerstwo Kultury i Sztuki, 2000.
Greenfield, Jeannette. The Return of Cultural Treasures. 2nd. ed. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Grimsted, Patricia Kennedy. Archives of Russia: A Directory and Bibliographic Guide to Holdings in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Armonk, NY, 2000.
Grimsted, Patricia Kennedy. Trophies of War and Empire: The Archival Heritage of Ukraine, World War II, and the International Politics of Restitution. HURI: Harvard University, 2001.
Grimsted, Patricia Kennedy, F. G. Hoogewoud and Eric Ketelaar. eds. Returned from Russia: Nazi Archival Plunder in Western Europe and Recent Restitution Issues. London: Institute of Art and Law, 2007.
Haase, Günther. Die Kunstsammlung Adolph Hitler – Eine Dokumentation. Edition q, 2002.
Haase, Günther. Die Kunstsammlung des Reichsmarschalls Herman Göring – Eine Dokumentation. Edition q, 2000.
Haase, Günther. Kunstraub und Kunstschutz. Eine Dokumentation. Hildesheim, 1991.
Hall, Ardelia R. “The Recovery of Cultural Objects Dispersed during World War II,” Department of State Bulletin 25, no. 635 (August 27, 1951): 337-340; 344-345.
Hall, Ardelia R. “The U.S. Program for Return of Historic Objects to Countries of Origin, 1944-1954,” Department of State Bulletin 31, no. 797 (October 4, 1954): 493-498.
Hamlin, Gladys E. “European Art Collections and the War,” College Art Journal 5 (May 1946): 219-228.
Hammer, Katharina. Splendor in the Dark: the Recovery of Art Treasures in Salzkammergut at the End of WWII. Vienna: Osterreichischer Bundesverlag, 1986.
Hammond, Mason. “War and Art Treasures in Germany,” College Art Journal 5 (Marcy 1946): 205-218.
Hamon-Jugnet, Marie. Collection Schloss : oeuvres spoliées pendent la deuxième guerre mondiale non restituées (1943-1998). Nantes: Ministère des Affaires Étrangères, 1998.
Hancock, Walker. “Experiences of a Monuments Officer in Germany,” College Art Journal 5, no. 4 (May 1946): 271-311.
Harclerode, Peter and Brendan Pittaway. The Lost Masters – The Looting of Europe’s Treasure Houses. Victor Gollancz, 1999.
Hartt, Frederick. Florentine Art under Fire. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1949.
Hartung, Hannes. Kunstraub in Krieg und Verfolgung: die Restitution der Beute – und Raubkunst im Kollisions – und Völkerrecht. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2005.
Hartung, Ulrike. Raubzüge in der Sowjetunion: das Sonderkommando Künsberg 1941-1943. Bremen, 1997.
Henraux, Albert. Les Chefs d’oeuvres des collections privées françaises retrouvée en Allemagne. Paris: Musée de l’Orangerie, 1946.
Hickley, Catherine. The Munich Art Hoard: Hitler’s Dealer and His Secret Legacy. London: Thames & Hudson, 2015.
Hinz, Berthold. Art in the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon Books, 1979.
Hofmann, Meike and Nicola Kuhn. Hitlers Kunsthändler: Hildebrand Gurlitt 1895-1956. Die Biographie. Munich: C. H. Beck, 2016.
Hollander, Pieter den. De zaak Goudstikker. Amsterdam, 1998.
Honan, William H. Treasure Hunt: A New York Times Reporter Tracks the Quedlinburg Hoard. New York: Fromm International, 1997.
Hoogewoud, F. J. and J.E.P. Leistra. The Return of Looted Collections (1946-1996): An Unfinished Chapter. Actes du colloque d’Amsterdam, 15-16 April, 1996. Amsterdam, 1997.
Houpt, Simon. Museum of the Missing. Sterling Publishing Co., 2006.
Howe Jr., Thomas Carr. Salt Mines and Castles: the Discovery and Restitution of Looted European Art. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1946.
International Military Tribunal: Nurnberg. Online: Nizkor Project, 1996-1998. http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/
Ilatovskaya, Tatiana. Master Drawings Rediscovered: Treasures from Prewar German Collections. Abrams, 1996.
Jenkinson, Hilary and H. E. Bell. Italian Archives During the War and at Its Close. London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1947.
Kaczyński, Lecha. Pro Memoria – Warszawskie biblioteki naukowe w latach okupacji – 1939-1945. Warsaw: Biblioteka Narodowa, 2004.
Kelleher, Patrick. The Holy Crown of Hungary. Rome: American Academy in Rome, 1951.
Klessman, Eckart. “Die Amerikaner beienten sich aus den Depots der Nazis,” Art (Hamburg) 8 (August 1993): 78-81; 187.
Kline, Thomas R. and Willie A. Korte. “Archival Material on National Socialist Art Plundering during the Second World War,” Spoils of War 1 (December 1995): 40-41.
Koordinierungsstelle der Länder für die Rückführung von Kulturgütern. ed. Spoils of War – International Newsletter. Magdeburg, 1995-2003.
Kostenevich, Albert. Hidden Treasures Revealed. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1995.
Kreis, George. Switzerland and the Looted Art Trade Linked to World War II. Center for Security Studies and Conflict Research, 1997.
Kubin, Ernst. Sonderauftrag Linz: Die Kunstsammlung Adolf Hitlers. Vienna, 1989.
Kudelski, J. Robert. Tajemnice Nazistowskiej Grabieży Polskich Zbiorow Sztuki. Warsaw: Tower Graphics, 2004.
Kurtz, Michael J. America and the Return of Nazi Contraband. Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Kurtz, Michael J. Nazi Contraband: American Policy on the Return of European Cultural Treasures, 1945-1955. New York: Garland, 1985.
Kurz, Jakob. Kunstraub in Europa, 1939-1945. Hamburg, 1989.
La Farge, Henry. ed. Lost Treasures of Europe (427 Photographs). New York: Pantheon Books, 1946.
Lambourne, Nicola. War Damage in Western Europe: The Destruction of Historic Monuments During the Second World War. Edinburgh University Press, 2001.
Lavagnino, Emilio. Cinquanta Monumenti Italiani Danneggiati Dalla Guerra. Rome: Associazione Nazionale Per Il Restavro, 1947.
Łaskarzewska, Hanna. ed. Pro memoria: warszawskie biblioteki naukowe w latach okupacji 1939-1945. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Biblioteki Narodowej, 2004.
Lehmann-Haupt, Hellmut. Art under a Dictatorship. New York: Oxford University Press, 1954.
Le Masne de Chermont, Isabelle. À qui appartenaient ces tableaux ? La politique française de recherche de provenance et de restitution des oeuvres d’art pillées durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Paris: Réunion des Musées nationaux, 2008.
Levin, Itamar. The Last Chapter of the Holocaust? The Struggle over the Restitution of Jewish Property in Europe. Rev. ed. Jewish Agency for Israel and the World Jewish Restitution Organization, 1998.
Levy, Adrian and Catherine Scott-Clark. Amber Room: The Fate of the World’s Greatest Lost Treasure. Walker & Company, 2004.
Lillie, Sophie. Was einmal war: Handbuch der enteigneten Kunstsammlungen Wiens. Vienna: Czernin Verlags GmbH, 2003.
Linklater, Eric. Art of Adventure. London: McMillan, 1947.
Lütgenau, Stefan August, Alexander Schröck and Sonja Niederacher. Zwischen Staat und Wirtschaft: Das Dorotheum im Nationalsozialismus. Vienna & Munich: Oldenburg Verlag, 2006.
Marino, Lazzari. La Protezione del Patrimonio Artistico Nazionale dalle Offese della Guerra Aerea. Florence: Casa Editrice Felice Le Monnier, 1942.
Mazauric, Lucie. Le Louvre en Voyage 1939-1945. Paris: Plon, 1978.
McCamley, Nick J. Saving Britain’s Art Treasures. England: Barnsley, 2003.
McLeave, Hugh. Rogues in the Gallery: The Modern Plague of Art Thefts. Boston: David R. Godine, 1981.
Methuen, Lord. Normandy Diary: Survivals and Losses in NW France, Island of Walcheren & Belgium 1944-45. London: Robert Hale Limited, 1952.
Mihan, George. Looted Treasure: Germany’s Raid on Art. London: Alliance Press Limited, 1944.
Ministero Degli Affari Esteri & Per I Beni Culturali E Ambientali. Treasures Untraced: An Inventory of the Italian Art Treasures Lost During the Second World War. Rome, 1995.
Ministero Della Pubblica Istruzione. La Ricostruzione del Patrimonio Artistico Italiano. Rome: La Libreria Dello Stato, 1950.
Mission d’étude sur la spoliation des Juifs de France. Le Pillage de l’art en France pendant l’Occupation et la situation des 2000 oeuvres confiées aux musées nationaux. Paris: La Documentation Française, 2000.
Mission d’étude sur la spoliation des Juifs de France. Le Pillage des appartements et son indemnisation. Paris: La Documentation Française, 2000.
Molajoli, Bruno. Musei Ed Opere D’Arte Di Napoli – Attraverso la Guerra. Naples: Soprintendenza Alle Gallerie, 1948.
Mravik, László. Sacco di Budapest: Depredation of Hungary 1938-1949. Hungarian National Gallery for Joint Restitution Committee, 1998.
Muhlen, Ilse von zur. Die Kunstsammlung Hermann Görings – Ein Provenienzbericht der Bayerischen Staatsgemäldesammlungen. Munich, 2004.
Müller, Melissa. Lost Lives, Lost Art: Jewish Collectors, Nazi Art Theft, and the Quest for Justice. New York: Vendome Press, 2010.
Musée du Québec. Le retour des trésors polonaise. Publications du Québec, 2001.
Nicholas, Lynn H. Rape of Europa: The Fate of Europe’s Treasures in the Third Reich and the Second World War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994.
O’Connor, Anne-Marie. The Lady in Gold. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2012.
Office belge de l’Économie et de l’Agriculture. Missing Art Works of Belgium Part 1: Public Domain. Belgische Dienst Voor Bedrufsleven En Landbouw, 1994.
Office of the United States Chief Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality. Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression: Opinion and Judgment [Chapter: The Plunder of Art Treasures]. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1947.
Opper, Dieter, Jost Hansen, and Doris Lemmermeier. eds. Cultural Treasures Moved because of the War: a Cultural Legacy of the Second World War (Documentation of the International Meeting in Bremen 30.11.-2.12.1994). Bremen: Koordinierungsstelle der Länder, 1995.
Palmer, Norman. Museums and the Holocaust: Law, Principles and Practice. London: Institute of Art and Law, 2000.
Panzera, Antonio Filippo. La tutela internazionale dei beni culturali in tempo di guerra. Torino, 1993.
Paoletti, Paolo and Mario Carniani. Firenze Guerra & Alluvione – 4th of August, 1944 – 4th of November, 1966. GIUSTI di Saverio Becocci, 1991.
Pars, H. H., pseud. Pictures in Peril. Trans. from the German by K. Talbot. New York, 1957.
Perry, Victor. Stolen Art. Jerusalem and New York, 2000.
Petropoulos, Jonathan. Art as Politics in the Third Reich. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996.
Petropoulos, Jonathan. The Faustian Bargain: The Art World in Nazi Germany. Oxford University Press, 2000.
Petropoulos, Jonathan. “Not a Case of ‘Art for Art’s Sake’: The Collecting Practices of the Nazi Elite.” German Politics and Society 32 (Summer 1994): 107-124.
Piketty, Caroline. Guide de recherches dans les archives des spoliations et des restitutions. Paris: La Documentation Française, 2000.
Pillages et restitutions – Le destin des oeuvres d’art sorties de France. Musées de France, 1997. (Conference, December 17, 1996)
Plaut, James S. “Loot for the Master Race,” Atlantic Monthly 178, no. 9 (September 1946): 57-63.
Plaut, James S. “Hitler’s Capital,” Atlantic Monthly 178 (October 1946): 73-78.
Pool, James. Hitler and His Secret Partners: Contributions, Loot and Rewards, 1933-1945. Pocket Books, 1997.
Popa, Opritsa D. Bibliophiles and Biblio-thieves: The Search for the Hildebrandslied and the Willehalm Codex. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003.
Poste, Leslie Irlyn. Development of US Protection of Libraries and Archives in Europe during World War II. PhD Dissertation, Graduate Library School, The University of Chicago, 1958.
Puloy, Monika. “Imperialists, Dictators and Supermuseums,” Issues (London) 4, no. 2 (1996): 104-116.
Puloy, Monika. “High Art and National Socialism Part I: The Linz Museum as Ideological Arena,” Journal of the History of Collections 8, no. 2 (1996): 201-215.
Ritchie, Andrew. “The Restitution of Art Loot,” Gallery Notes, Albright Art Gallery 11 (July 1946): 3-10.
Ritchie, Andrew. “Return of Art Loot from and to Austria,” College Art Journal 5, no. 4 (May 1946): 353-357.
Ritter, Waldemar. Kulturerbe als Beute? : die Rückführung kriegsbedingt aus Deutschland verbrachter Kulturgüter: Notwendigkeit und Chancen für die Lösung eines historischen Problems. Nürnberg, 1997.
Romanowska-Zadrożna, Maria and Tadeusz Zadrożny. Straty wojenne: Malarstwo obce: obrazy olejne, pastele, akwarele utracone w latach 1939-1945 w granicach Polski po 1945 bez ziem zachodnich i północnych (Wartime Losses: Foreign Painting: Oil Paintings, Pastels, Watercolours, Lost Between 1939-1945 within post-1945 Borders of Poland Excluding the Western and Northern Territories) Poznań, Ministerstwo Kultury i Sztuki, 2000.
Ronald, Susan. Hitler’s Art Thief: Hildebrand Gurlitt, the Nazis, and the Looting of Europe’s Treasures. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2015.
Rorimer, James J. Survival: The Salvage and Protection of Art in War. New York: Abelard Press Inc., 1950.
Ross, Marvin C. “Kunstschutz in Occupied France,” College Art Journal 5 (May 1946): 336-352.
Roxan, David and Ken Wanstall. Rape of Art: Hitler’s Plunder of the Great Masterpieces of Europe. New York: Coward-McCann, Inc., 1965.
Rudolph, Sabine. Restitution von Kunstwerken aus jüdischem Besitz. De Gruyter, 2007.
Sautow, I. P. et al. Bernsteinzimmer: Drei Jahrhunderte Geschichte. St. Petersburg: Aurora, 2003.
Schrenk, Christhardj. Schatzkammer Salzbergwerk: Kulturgüter überdauern in Heilbronn und Kochendorf den Zweiten Weltkrieg. Heilbronn: Stadtarchiv, 1997.
Schwarz, Birgit. Hitler’s Museum: Die Fotoalben Gemäldegalerie Linz. Vienna: Böhlau Verlag Ges.m.b.h. und Co. KG, 2004.
Simon, Matila. Battle of the Louvre: the Struggle to Save French Art in World War II. New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1971.
Simpson, Elizabeth et al. Spoils of War – World War II and Its Aftermath: the Loss, Reappearance, and Recovery of Cultural Property. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Publishers, 1997.
Siviero, Rodolfo. Second National Exhibition of the Works of Art Recovered in Germany. Florence, 1950.
Siviero, Rodolfo. L’Arte e il Nazismo – presentazione di Silvio Bertoldi. Cantini Edizioni d’Arte SpA, 1984.
Siviero, Rodolfo. Recovered Works of Art: Dedicated to Rodolfo Siviero. Cantini Edizioni d’Arte, 1984.
Skilton Jr., John D. Defense de l’Art Européen: souvenirs d’un officier americain specialiste des monuments. Paris: Les Editions Internationales, 1948.
Smyth, Craig Hugh. Repatriation of Art from the Collecting Point in Munich after World War II. Maarssen / The Hague: Gary Schwartz / SDU Publishers, 1988.
Tatzkow, Monika and Gunanr Schnabel. Nazi Looted Art: Handbuch Kunstrestitution weltweit. Berlin: Proprietas-verlag, 2007.
Treue, Wilhelm. Art Plunder. Methuen & Co Ltd., 1960.
Trienens, Howard J. Landscape with Smokestacks: The Case of the Allegedly Plundered Degas. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2000.
United States. Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States. Plunder and Restitution: The U.S. and Holocaust Victims’ Assets, Findings and Recommendations of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States and Staff Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2000.
Vagheggi, Paolo. “Capolavori d’arte prigionieri di guerre,” La Repulica: culture & scienze (February 21), 1998.
Valland, Rose. Le Front de L’Art : Défense des collections françaises, 1939-1945. Paris: Librairie Plon, 1961.
Varshavsky, Sergei and Boris Rest. The Ordeal of the Hermitage: The Siege of Leningrad 1941-1944. New York: Aurora Art Publishers – Leningrad: Harry N. Abrams, Publishers, 1985.
Venema, Adriaan. Kunsthandel in Nederland 1940-1945. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij De Arbeiderspers, 1986.
Verhoeyen, Etienne. België bezet 1940-1944. Brussels, 1993.
Vitaly Aksionov. Fuhrer’s Favorite Museum: Stolen Treasures. St. Petersburg: Neva Publishing House, 2003.
Vlug, Jean. Report on Objects Removed from Germany from Holland, Belgium, and France during the German Occupation of the Countries. Amsterdam: Report of Stichting Nederlands Kunstbesit, 1945.
Vries, Willem de. Sonderstab Musik. Amsterdam: University Press, 1996.
Walker, John. “Europe’s Looted Art,” National Geographic 89 (January 1946): 39-52.
Weber, Annette. ed. in collaboration with Jihan Radjai-Ordoubadi. Jüdische Sammler und ihr Beitrag zur Kultur der Moderne [Jewish Collectors and their Contribution to Modern Culture]. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 2011.
Wechsler, Helen. Museum Policy and Procedure for Nazi-Era Issues. Resource Report. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums, 2001.
Wildenstein, Georges. “Works of Art: Weapons of War,” La République française (December 1943).
Williams, Robert Chadwell. Russian Art and American Money, 1900-1940. Cambridge, 1980.
Wilson, David. “Return and Restitution: A Museum Perspective,” in Who Owns the Past? Pp. 99-106. Oxford, 1985.
Wolfe, Robert. ed. Captured German and Related Records: A National Archives Conference. Ohio University Press, 1974.
Woolley, Lt.-Col. Sir Leonard. Record of the Work Done by the Military Authorities for the Protection of the Treasures of Art and History in War Areas. London: H. M. Stationary Office, 1947.
Yeide, Nancy H. Beyond the Dreams of Avarice: The Hermann Goering Collection. Dallas, TX: Laurel Publishing, 2008.
Yeide, Nancy H., Konstantin Akinsha and Amy L. Walsh. The AAM Guide to Provenance Research. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums, 2001.
For more publications on Holocaust-looted art, consult Research Resources: Books & Publications on http://lootedart.com.
In developing a consensus on non-binding principles to assist in resolving issues relating to Nazi-confiscated art, the Conference recognizes that among participating nations there are differing legal systems and that countries act within the context of their own laws.
AAMD Statement of Purpose: “The purpose of the AAMD is to aid its members in establishing and maintaining the highest professional standards for themselves and the museums they represent, thereby exerting leadership in increasing the contribution of art museums to society.”
I. Statement of Principles
AAMD has developed the following guidelines to assist museums in resolving claims, reconciling the interests of individuals who were dispossessed of works of art or their heirs together with the fiduciary and legal obligations and responsibilities of art museums and their trustees to the public for whom they hold works of art in trust.
III. Database Recommendations
The Vilnius Forum,
Recognizing the massive and unprecedented looting and confiscations of art and other cultural property owned by Jewish individuals, communities and others, and the need to reach just and fair solutions to the return of such art and cultural property,
Referring to Resolution 1205 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art,
Noting in particular their emphasis on reaching just and fair solutions to issues involving restitution of cultural assets looted during the Holocaust era and the fact that such solutions may vary according to the differing legal systems among countries and the circumstances surrounding a specific case,
Makes the following declaration:
Canadian Museums Association and Canadian Jewish Congress
A Matter of Justice: Recommendations of the Canadian Symposium on Holocaust-era Cultural Property, Ottawa, ON, November 14-16, 2001
The following observations and recommendations arise from the Canadian Symposium on Holocaust-era Cultural Property, held at the National Gallery of Canada from 14-16 November 2001.
The Canadian Museums Association (CMA) and the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) organized the symposium jointly with major support from the National Gallery of Canada, the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization (CAMDO), the Gelmont Foundation, Christie’s and Sotheby’s auction houses.
The aim was to explore the complex historical, research, legal and moral issues and challenges posed by the potential presence of Nazi-spoliated works of art and other cultural property in Canadian public collections; and to develop recommendations toward a national strategy to address these issues with the diligence and professionalism they demand.
Some 80 invited speakers and delegates attended from Canada, the United States and Europe. They represented a cross-section of interests from museums to art dealers, libraries, archives and concerned federal departments and agencies.
Panels were organized around four key issues:
The panels were followed by two discussion groups charged with bringing forward recommendations concerning three questions:
The discussion groups independently developed very similar recommendations indicating a strong consensus as outlined below.
The enormity of the Nazi looting of art is unprecedented in history and momentum is growing throughout the world to resolve this long-standing issue. Museums, including galleries, archives and others housing objects with gaps in their provenance traced to the Nazi era, are on the front line in this effort and Canada is no exception.
There is a growing sense of urgency to resolve the issue as the original victims, and even their descendants and heirs, succumb to the passage of time. As most of the victims perished in the concentration camps, there are untold thousands of looted works outstanding with no apparent heir and little likelihood of finding one. As the surviving victims fail and pass on with greater frequency, they and their descendants are naturally feeling the pressure to seek closure to a long-standing and painful experience.
As this pressure grows in intensity, governments and cultural institutions around the world are increasing their efforts to identify spoliated works and effect restitution on behalf of the victims. A myriad of on-line archival registries and document research centres has sprung up in Europe and North America focused on the provenance of spoliated holocaust-era assets. In fact, as the amount of information available to victims and researchers grows exponentially, this in itself is fuelling expectations and increasing the pressure of institutions to respond in kind.
In this setting, two pivotal international conferences on the treatment of spoliated Holocaust-era assets—one in Washington, DC (1998), and the second in Vilnius, Lithuania (2000)—produced groundbreaking declarations urging concrete action on this front by participating governments and cultural institutions. Canada was represented at both gatherings and has endorsed the recommendations.
Canada has not been idle in responding to the call for action. In 1999, the Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization (CAMDO), including the Directors of some of Canada’s most prestigious art museums, adopted guidelines patterned closely after those issued by the American Association of Art Directors (AAMD), for dealing with the problem. As well, a number of institutions have worked for some time to research their collections and publish works on the Internet with gaps in their provenance during the Nazi era.
Recent events indicate, however, that the pace of progress is uneven throughout Canada and that opinions vary on the ways and means of achieving progress. Following consultations with the Department of Canadian Heritage and a sizable cross-section of museum executives, the CMA and CJC agreed that a symposium of key stakeholders would be timely and essential to provide a suitable focus on the issue and establish a firm basis for concrete action.
What should be the main elements of a Canadian strategy on Holocaust-era Cultural Property?
There are key principles that should govern Canada’s treatment of Holocaust-era cultural property:
The systematic plunder of cultural treasures during the Nazi regime has robbed many thousands of innocent victims and their descendants of their cultural identity, dignity and security. The price is still being paid by the victims’ families who must often contend with a long, complicated and emotionally painful journey when trying to find and redeem their lost objects.
Recognizing the varied and complex legal requirements bearing upon the treatment of Holocaust-era cultural property, this is also a fundamental moral issue that speaks directly to Canada’s stature as a proponent of social justice and diversity. It is also an urgent issue calling for immediate action by all parties concerned.
Every museum in Canada has a moral obligation to check its collection for possibly tainted works from the 1933-45 era. Where there are gaps in the provenance of such objects, museums have the responsibility to declare this publicly and pursue restitution in accordance with recommendations in this report and guidelines issued by professional associations.
However Canada may respond to the issue, any strategy must conform to our particular and unique geopolitical circumstances. There are several factors:
While the immediate focus of discussion is on Holocaust-era cultural property, the broad principles engaged apply as well to other circumstances (e.g., First Nations). Canada’s strategy, therefore, should be designed as a template for guidance in dealing with comparable issues in the future. It should be adaptable to changing circumstances and not regarded as a single-purpose and temporary exercise.
This is a national issue engaging a broad array of stakeholders. The strategy must incorporate mechanisms to ensure that the interests of all stakeholders are taken into account. These include:
One of the central goals of the strategy must be to ease the task of Holocaust victims and their descendants in locating and recovering their lost property. Our strategy must engage potential claimants through outreach initiatives and other means to encourage and facilitate the search for information. Furthermore, the planning and decision process must be open and transparent to the public.
While the focus of discussion is on spoliated art, Canada’s strategy must consider other forms of cultural property that may be tainted, including documents and other kinds of moveable property such as furnishings and historic artefacts.
Institutions should avoid litigation to the extent possible. An adversarial approach to resolving claims is not only costly to the institution in both time and resources; it is also emotionally and financially draining for claimants who are often of modest means and elderly.
There are options available for the resolution of claims that can achieve satisfaction for both parties. Our basic stance should be to seek alternative solutions to civil recourse whenever possible. To this end, Canada requires a current and nationally accessible repository of information on the resolution of claims, based upon case studies at home and abroad.
As most of the victims perished in the concentration camps, there are untold thousands of looted works outstanding with no traceable heir and little likelihood of finding one. Despite their best efforts at tracing provenance, therefore, institutions may well find such works of spoliated art in their collections.
In such cases, museums, galleries, libraries and other institutions should, as a minimum, display commemorative messages along with exhibits of the works. Similar notes should accompany inventory lists of works whether on display or not. Institutions should also consider options that could include, for example, donation to Jewish community institutions or an appropriate Holocaust memorial fund.
The first major step in developing Canada’s strategy must be to define the scope of the problem, in terms of institutions and collections potentially affected. It stands to reason that not all institutions will include suspect works. On the other side, it is important to sound planning that we develop an estimate of the number and location of institutions and collections falling within the search criteria. Furthermore, it is important to assign levels of priority for allocating resources to the problem based upon the areas within collections at greatest risk.
Recommendation: That a national assessment be made of cultural collections with the aim of identifying collections in Canada at risk of including spoliated Holocaust-era cultural property.
It is important that institutions adopt a consistent approach to the resolution of matters related to Holocaust-era cultural property. There is a strong consensus that Canadian institutions must move forward based on common standards governing the treatment of possible tainted cultural property. Such standards would apply to the identification of works with incomplete provenance for the period 1933-45, through initial screening and provenance research, to the investigation of claims, access by claimants and the public to related information, cooperation with external researchers and other institutions and the management of restitution cases.
Such standards must also recognize the diverse operational and legal regimes in which institutions work across Canada and should, therefore, take the form of “best practices.” Moreover, they must be subject to continuing review in light of changes in methodology, policy and law and the continuing international emergence research data.
Apart from guidelines developed by the Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization (CAMDO) some three years ago, and the Ethical Guidelines developed by the CMA, there is no common policy or standard governing the acquisition of works, the conduct of provenance research or the restitution of Holocaust-era cultural property.
Recommendation: That the CMA and provincial museum associations jointly develop common standards, in the form of “best practices”, for application throughout Canada concerning the identification and treatment of potentially spoliated cultural property; and that such best practices be reviewed and updated on an annual basis.
Canada’s success in resolving the issue of Holocaust-era cultural property rests largely upon our ability to enlist cooperation and continuing interest by the Canadian public, institutional stakeholders and the media. Delegates are concerned about an apparent lack of awareness and understanding among all three constituencies of the nature of the issue; its importance to the integrity of the Canadian cultural community and our international standing; the various and complex challenges involved; and the important work being done.
Central to Canada’s strategy for dealing with the issue, therefore, must be an assertive and continuing information and awareness program aimed at informing and guiding the institutions, the public and the media. That effort, moreover, should provide opportunities for the target audiences to engage directly in the discussion and resolution of key issues.
This would require extensive coordination in the design, development and delivery of particular information products and services. It would also entail the serious commitment of communications resources through outreach strategies aimed at directly engaging the audience.
Recommendation: That a national communications strategy be implemented focussed upon stakeholder institutions, professional and volunteer staff, the public and the media, for the purpose of enlisting their support through increased awareness, understanding and acceptance of Canada’s obligations concerning Holocaust-era cultural property, the nature of the challenges and related issues.
This issue has an international political dimension directly engaging the Government of Canada. Canada’s stature as a proponent of global cultural enrichment dictates not only that we take up our domestic responsibility, but that we also assert ourselves in the continuing international effort to resolve the spoliation issue.
One of the practical and important ways of assuming leadership would be for the Government of Canada to join the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (Rome, 1995) That convention enjoins the Contracting States to “contribute effectively to the fight against illicit trade in cultural objects by…establishing common, minimal legal rules for the restitution and return of cultural objects between Contracting States, with the objective of improving the preservation and protection of the cultural heritage in the interest of all.”
Federal officials contend that the Convention is not retroactive and could not, therefore, address the issue of Holocaust assets. Furthermore, officials point to the need for agreement of the provinces within whose legal jurisdiction much of the cultural property would fall.
Delegates recognize both challenges. They are not persuaded, however, that this is sufficient cause for Canada to defer action on UNIDROIT. Indeed, despite the limitation in the Convention’s scope, signing on would represent a visible and important commitment by Canada to the growing international movement to curb crimes against cultural property. It would also represent a much-needed baseline for future action in similar circumstances.
Furthermore, while cultural property might arguably fall within the civil jurisdiction from a litigation perspective, there may be policy options available that would satisfy the provinces while enabling Canada to sign on (e.g., qualifying declarations). Delegates consider it timely and important that Canada open formal consultations with the provinces on the subject.
Recommendation: That the Canadian Museums Association, as the voice of the museum community on national issues, petition the Minister of Canadian Heritage to open formal consultations with the provinces on the goal of Canada’s accession to the UNIDROIT Convention.
Operational decisions regarding the investigation and treatment of potentially tainted assets fall within the separate responsibility of the concerned institutions, in accordance with their respective governance structures. Nevertheless, delegates agree upon the need for a central body to guide the implementation of key measures.
The precise form of such a body has yet to be determined; however, it could take the lines of a national council of stakeholders with secretariat support provided on a cost-sharing basis. Its general functions would include:
Recommendation: That a national body of stakeholders be established to guide, monitor and report upon the implementation of Canada’s strategy for the identification and restitution of spoliated cultural assets.
Researchers are confronted by a vast and growing array of research focused on Holocaust-era cultural property. A myriad of Internet-based and published resources, operating in loose association or independently is an impediment to the effective and efficient investigation and resolution of potential restitution cases.
Furthermore, while there is an abundance of expert resources to assist researchers, the bulk of institutions lack resident resources having the necessary expertise to assist in managing the issue.
Delegates expressed concern that potential claimants are equally challenged in their search for information by the absence of a coherent research capability. While some institutions have moved to exhibit works of uncertain provenance on their Web sites, this is not considered sufficient in itself to maximize the prospective claimants’ access to information. At any event, the present capability is confined to only a handful of Canadian institutions.
Delegates agree that Canada has a great opportunity to bring some order to the researchers’ task, by establishing a central point of access (a portal) that would facilitate Canadian and foreign institutions, as well as potential claimants, in their investigations, expedite the resolution of claims and contain associated costs.
Such a portal should contain more than links to the concerned database resources. It would also contain relevant documentation (e.g., Canadian and international law and policy, studies of instructive cases); reference to Canadian and foreign sources of expertise; practical guidance on the various steps involved; and a forum for information sharing among stakeholders. Delegates further agree that the portal should have a public access component enabling claimants and independent researchers to gather information relevant to their concerns.
Recommendation: That a national, on-line research and information service be established that would make accessible current and relevant information and documentation, links to resources and guidance to institutions and the public in relation to Holocaust-era cultural property issues.
Provenance research and the resolution of claims against suspected spoliated works impose a major operational burden upon institutions, especially smaller institutions struggling at the best of times to operate within severe budget constraints. There are several factors:
Recommendation: That the Department of Canadian Heritage establish a program to enhance institutions’ capacity to resolve provenance and restitution issues, including direct financial support and expert consultation resources.
Submitted to the Department of Canadian Heritage, November 30, 2007 (revised February 5, 2008). Conducted by the Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization under contract to the Department of Canadian Heritage in consultation with the Canadian Museums Association and the National Gallery of Canada.
The objective of this needs assessment was to determine the scope of provenance research on Holocaust-era cultural property in Canadian art museums for the Canadian heritage community, as represented by the CAMDO members, in order to inform policy development domestically and internationally.
The 2001 Canadian Symposium on Holocaust-era cultural property identified a growing sense of urgency among Canadian museums to conduct provenance research on Holocaust-era cultural property in their collections. The complex historical, research, legal and moral issues were considered in light of the possibility that spoliated works may exist in Canadian public collections.
Five years later, several organizations including the Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization, the Canadian Museums Association, the National Gallery of Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Conference for Jewish Material Claims Against Germany met to assess progress on Holocaust-era provenance research in Canada. At this meeting, parties agreed that there was not enough information available about the scope of the issue in Canada, impeding efforts by all stakeholders to develop strategies and assess resource requirements to grapple with this challenge. The purpose of this study is to assess the scope of this issue for Canadian art museums in order to inform future decision-making and strategies by all stake-holders.
The survey was sent to all of the institutions represented by the CAMDO membership (84 institutions) on July 23, 2007. Although the survey only yielded twelve completed surveys, many institutions replied to the request indicating that the issue is not relevant to their collection. There may be a handful of additional institutions with works that may require provenance research.
The total number of works under consideration is relatively small: 822; however, only 378 of these are paintings and sculpture. The lack of documentation on drawings, prints and graphic arts severely impedes conclusive research, therefore these could arguably be deemed a lower priority, in the context of limited resources.
Almost all institutions have 95-100% of their collection entered into an electronic database. All of the institutions either have a provenance field or have the capability to add one. In about half of the cases, the database is accessible online in a limited capacity. In other institutions the database is for internal use only and made accessible to researchers in special cases. Only one institution indicated that its collection is entirely available on Artefacts Canada.
Half of the institutions have some expertise in-house on provenance research, however, only two institutions have employees who are extensively trained and experienced in Holocaust-era cultural property. Incidentally, these are also the only two institutions who feel that they have adequate expertise to complete their research. Half of the institutions have employees who are devoting some of their time to Holocaust-era provenance research, however, this is primarily focused on provenance of potential acquisitions.
The required resources that have been identified by the respondents are fourfold:
The respondents identified the following methods for training adequate researchers in Holocaust-era provenance research:
None of the institutions have a dedicated provenance research budget due to restrained resources. Incidentally, none of the institutions can accurately estimate their expenditure on research in 2006-07.
Only three institutions have had claims made against works in their collections. Only one work has been restituted from among the twelve responding institutions.
Based on the observations of this survey, CAMDO submits the following recommendations to the community of stakeholders:
Upon the invitation of the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic we the representatives of 46 states listed below met this day, June 30, 2009 in Terezín, where thousands of European Jews and other victims of Nazi persecution died or were sent to death camps during World War II. We participated in the Prague Holocaust Era Assets Conference organized by the Czech Republic and its partners in Prague and Terezín from 26-30 June 2009, discussed together with experts and non-governmental organization (NGO) representatives important issues such as Welfare of Holocaust (Shoah) Survivors and other Victims of Nazi Persecution, Immovable Property, Jewish Cemeteries and Burial Sites, Nazi-Confiscated and Looted Art, Judaica and Jewish Cultural Property, Archival Materials, and Education, Remembrance, Research and Memorial Sites. We join affirming in this
Recognizing that art and cultural property of victims of the Holocaust (Shoah) and other victims of Nazi persecution was confiscated, sequestered and spoliated, by the Nazis, the Fascists and their collaborators through various means including theft, coercion and confiscation, and on grounds of relinquishment as well as forced sales and sales under duress, during the Holocaust era between 1933-45 and as an immediate consequence, and
Recalling the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art as endorsed at the Washington Conference of 1998, which enumerated a set of voluntary commitments for governments that were based upon the moral principle that art and cultural property confiscated by the Nazis from Holocaust (Shoah) victims should be returned to them or their heirs, in a manner consistent with national laws and regulations as well as international obligations, in order to achieve just and fair solutions,
Recognizing that the Holocaust (Shoah) also resulted in the wholesale looting of Judaica and Jewish cultural property including sacred scrolls, synagogue and ceremonial objects as well as the libraries, manuscripts, archives and records of Jewish communities, and
Aware that the murder of six million Jews, including entire communities, during the Holocaust (Shoah) meant that much of this historical patrimony could not be reclaimed after World War II, and
Recognizing the urgent need to identify ways to achieve a just and fair solution to the issue of Judaica and Jewish cultural property, where original owners, or heirs of former original Jewish owners, individuals or legal persons cannot be identified, while acknowledging there is no universal model,
Examine recto, verso, stretcher, and frame, and take photos of all findings.
Consider alternate titles and former attributions while conducting research.
For further provenance related information and resources listed by country, consult lootedart.com.
(Developed by the Saint Louis Art Museum and adapted by the National Gallery of Canada)
The three main sections in a narrative provenance are:
Dates and Collection/Owner are written chronologically from the earliest owner to the latest owner. Notes follow this line of ownership and list supporting references and supplemental information. These three sections are explained in detail below.
1. Dates reflect the beginning and ending dates of ownership of a particular collection. Documentation must support each date.
2. Each date includes a hyphen to indicate duration of time, following the examples below:
|1955 - 1970||The work was in this collection from 1955 to 1970.|
|1955 -||The work entered this collection in 1955, but we do not know when it left.|
|- 1955||We do not know when the work entered this collection, but it left in 1955.|
|by 1955 -||We know the work was in this collection by 1955, but it may have entered earlier. Can be combined with an ending date|
|- still in 1955||We know the work was still in this collection in 1955, but it may have left at a later date. Can be combined with a beginning date.|
|1955||The work was only in a collection during one year. Most frequently used with dealers.|
|1955/06/25||The work was purchased on this exact date or was offered at auction on this exact date. Format: year/month/day. Years are four digits. Months and days are two digits.|
Exact dates are used as beginning dates (to the left of the hyphen) but not as ending dates. For this reason, when the seller and purchaser are both known, the ending date of the seller is the year only. The beginning date of the purchaser is the exact date.
Other date examples:
|c.1955||We do not know the exact date, but sources indicate that it was around 1955. Can be used as either the beginning date or the ending date, with the appropriate hyphens. Explain the circa date in a corresponding note (example: According to Mr. Doe, the work was purchased around 1955).|
|Decade formats when the exact date is not known, but a decade or part of a decade is known. Can be used as either the beginning or the ending date, with the appropriate hyphens.|
early 18th century
late 18th century
|Century formats when the exact date is not known, but a century or part of a century is known. Can be used as either the beginning or ending date, with the appropriate hyphens.|
|[blank date]||A collection name with no date given indicates that we know the work was in this collection, but we do not know precisely when. We do know the work was in this collection between the owners listed above and below, though there may be other unknown owners in the chain of ownership.|
1. The collection/owner line contains three types of information:
Each type is explained in detail in points 3, 4, and 5 below.
2. The collection/owner line appears directly beneath each date.
3. Name of the collection
The name of the owner(s) is given first. Do not use the word Collection unless only a last name is known.
Collection of John Smith (incorrect)
John Smith (correct)
John and Mary Smith (correct)
Smith Collection (correct, only the last name is known)
If known, include the birth and death dates of the owner, especially if they relate to the object’s transfer of ownership. Use a hyphen without spaces to separate birth and death years. Use b. to abbreviate born. Use d. to abbreviate died.
John Smith (1800-1890)
John Smith (b.1800)
John Smith (d.1890) and Mary Smith (d.1895)
Private Collection. Use Private Collection when the name of the collector is not known, or when the collector’s name is known but he or she wishes to remain anonymous. If a collector wishes to remain anonymous, indicate this in a corresponding note.
Unidentified Dealer. Use Unidentified dealer when it is known that the work was with a dealer, but the name of the dealer is unknown.
Saint Louis Art Museum. For objects in the permanent collection, the Saint Louis Art Museum is the final owner. Include the name of the museum as Saint Louis Art Museum without a preceding “The.” For works acquired prior to the Museum’s name change in 1972, still use Saint Louis Art Museum as the final owner, because the Museum continues to own the work under this name.
4. Location of the collection
If known, the location follows the name of the collection, separated by a comma. If the location is outside the United States, use the format city, country.
Example: M. David Schevitch, Paris, France
If the location is inside the United States, give the city, state (two-letter abbreviation), and USA.
Example: Albert Blair (d.1931) and Susan N. Blair, St. Louis, MO, USA
Exception 1: When the Saint Louis Art Museum is the owner, omit the location.
Exception 2: If the object is made in the United States and never leaves the United States, it is not necessary to include USA.
If the collector moves while owning the artwork, list each location in chronological order, separated with a semi-colon.
Example: Eugene Fischhof (1850-1912), Paris, France; New York, NY, USA
If the collector resides in multiple cities, also separate each location with a semi-colon.
5. Method of transfer
The means by which the object entered the collection (method of transfer), if known, is entered after the name and location of the collection, separated with a comma. Frequently used terms include purchased from, given by, bequest of, commissioned by, and by inheritance.
by 1930 - 1939
Clarence H. Mackay (1874-1938), Rosyln, NY, USA, purchased from Cyril Andrade
Saint Louis Art Museum, bequest of Morton D. May
If an object transferred directly from one person to another, but the method is unknown, use acquired from.
c.1948 - 2003
Private Collection, France, acquired from Adeline Oppenheim Guimard
6. Auction purchases
For works acquired at auction, the auction house, location, date, and lot number (in that order) follow the name of the purchaser. The title of the auction may or may not be listed, depending on its length and relevance.
Edward Rose Tunno, London, England, acquired from the artist
Haines Collection, London, England, purchased at the sale of the Edward Rose Tunno collection, Christie’s, London, July 11, 1863, lot no. 136
Saint Louis Art Museum, purchased at auction, “Contemporary Art, Part I,” Sotheby’s, New York, November 10, 1986, lot no. 13
Exception. When we know an item was offered at auction but we do not know the purchaser, follow the example below:
In auction of “Important Paintings” at Parke-Bernet Galleries, New York, April 29, 1943, lot no. 41
7. Lengthy ownership within one family
For works that transferred to individuals in a family, generally through inheritance, the names of these individuals can be given in one line separated by semicolons. This is particularly useful when ownership dates for each individual are not known. The method of transfer, if known, follows each name, separated by a comma.
by 1768 - 1942
William Irby Boston (1706/1707-1775), 1st Baron, Hedsor Lodge, Maidenhead, Berkshire, England; Frederick Irby Boston (d.1825), 2nd Baron, by inheritance; George Irby Boston (1777-1856), 3rd Baron, by inheritance; George Ives Irby Boston (d.1869), 4th Baron, by inheritance; Florance George Henry Irby Boston (d.1877), 5th Baron, by inheritance; George Florance Irby Boston (d.1941), 6th Baron, by inheritance 
Individuals in a family may have different locations. Include their locations, if known, after their names and before the method of transfer.
late 19th century - 1974
Jervis D. Brown, Milford, CT; Florine Brown Cave, by gift or inheritance; Annette Cave, The Dalles, OR, by gift or inheritance 
If the names of individual inheritors are not identified, but it is known that a work stayed in a family, describe the inheritors by their relation.
c.1930 - 1971
Edwin S. Webster, Boston, MA; his family, by inheritance 
by 1953 -
Mrs. Adrien Jaubert (d.1953), France; her grandson, by inheritance 
8. Dealers and galleries
In general, use the same format for dealers and galleries that is used for individuals. In addition, if the dealer/gallery was owned by a named representative, who personally handled the object’s sale, include the name of that person in parentheses after the name of the dealer/gallery. The representative’s name does not need to be included in subsequent references.
Fine Arts Associates (Otto Gerson), New York, NY, USA
1957 - 1983
Morton D. May, St. Louis, MO, purchased from Fine Arts Associates
If a dealer, gallery, or individual acted as an agent between a seller and a purchaser, do not include the agent on his or her own line. Rather, include the agent as part of the purchaser’s line.
1960 - 1983
Morton D. May (1914-1983), St. Louis, MO, purchased from Paul I. Heymann, through agent Saul Schulhoff
Saint Louis Art Museum, purchased from Philip M. Stern, through Blum Helman Gallery, Inc., New York, NY
10. Joint ownership
When two or more individuals or businesses own an artwork, include each party’s name and location, followed by (owned jointly), followed by the method of transfer (if known).
Galerie Paul Cassirer, Berlin, Germany, and Galerie M. Goldschmidt & Co., Frankfurt, Germany (owned jointly), purchased from the artist 
1937 - 1938
M. Knoedler & Co., New York, NY, and Valentine Gallery (Valentine Dudensing), New York, NY (owned jointly), purchased from Lee Ault
11. Partial and promised gifts
For objects that are partial and promised gifts to the Museum, include the donor on his or her own line, followed by the Museum on its own line. Include the location and method of transfer for each.
For the ending date, use the year the donor gave complete ownership to the Museum. If complete ownership has not been transferred, do not give a closing date on the donor’s line.
If complete ownership has been transferred, indicate this with the phrase full ownership transferred in [year] in the Museum’s line.
Example 1: (partial transfer of ownership given in 1961; complete ownership transferred in 1962)
by 1954 - 1962
Mr. and Mrs. Richard K. Weil, St. Louis, MO, purchased from Sam Salz, Inc. 
Saint Louis Art Museum, partial and promised gift of Richard K. Weil, full ownership transferred in 1962
Example 2: (partial transfer of ownership given in 2001; complete transfer of ownership not yet given)
Joseph Pulitzer Jr. (1913-1993) and Emily Rauh Pulitzer (b.1933), St. Louis, MO, purchased from E. V. Thaw & Co.
Saint Louis Art Museum, partial and promised gift of Emily Rauh Pulitzer
12. Works owned by the artist
In general, works owned by the artist for a significant length of time (decided on a case by case basis), should list the artist as the initial owner. When the artist is included in his or her own line, follow the same rules for collection name except:
Example: (object made in 2001)
Nicholas Nixon (b.1947), Brookline, MA
Saint Louis Art Museum, given by the artist
If an artist owned an object for only a short duration, it is not necessary to include the artist in his own line as an owner.
Example: (object made in 1869)
Alfred Stevens (1823-1906), purchased from the artist
Artworks that have been excavated can include the excavation event as collector/owner. Include the excavator’s name if known.
Excavated by Sir Austen Henry Layard (1817-1894), Northwest Palace, room L,
Nimrud, Assyria (modern day Iraq)
John Crowfoot, excavated in Mississippi County, AR
14. Confiscations and Restitutions
When an artwork was illegally seized from an owner, use confiscated from as the method of transfer. When the artwork was returned to that owner use restituted from as the method of transfer.
by 1937/1938 - early 1940s
Dr. and Mrs. L. Katzenstein, Wiesbaden, Germany
early 1940s -
German National Socialist (Nazi) government, confiscated from Dr. and Mrs. L. Katzenstein
Städtische Galerie, Frankfurt, Germany
1945 - 1949
Central Collecting Point, Wiesbaden, Germany
1949 - 1961
Dr. F. C. Katzenstein, Salem, IL, USA, restituted from Central Collecting Point, Wiesbaden
1. The notes area contains two types of information:
2. Notes begin two paragraph spaces below the date/collection area, preceded by Notes: on its own line. Separate notes with a single paragraph space. Information in the notes area should be written clearly and concisely.
Most notes receive a number in brackets (, , etc.), that corresponds to a number in the Dates/Collection/Owner area. Sometimes it is appropriate to include a general unnumbered note that applies to the provenance as a whole. Details and examples of unnumbered notes are given in points 10 and 11.
Full bibliographic citations are given in brackets. Bibliographic citations follow the Chicago Manual of Style [Author Last Name, Author First Name. “Title.” City: Publisher, Date], with the exception that titles are in quotes instead of italics. Catalogue numbers or relevant page numbers can be given after the date, if known.
In the 1936 catalogue raisonné, Georg Hess is referenced as owner [Schardt, Alois. “Franz Marc.” Berlin: Rembrandt Verlag, 1936, p. 162].
Citing Auction Catalogs.
Citations for auction catalogs follow a slightly different format [“Title of Auction.” Auction House, Location, Date(s) of Sale, lot number]. Follow the example below:
See the auction catalog [“Catalogue of Pictures by Old Masters, the Property of the Right Hon. the Late Lord Boston.” Christie’s, London, March 6, 1942, lot no. 52].
For other sources and their citation formats, see Appendix E, Citation Format Guidelines.
4. Citing the Museum’s ownership
Reference the Saint Louis Art Museum’s acquisition of a work by citing:
The “Minutes” are the Museum’s official documents that record proceedings of acquisition meetings. The name of the body that presided over acquisitions changed over time, as did the name of the Museum. A list of board and committee names and their dates of existence is provided at the end of this Appendix (page 30). The name of the board or committee cited in the note must correspond to the date of acquisition. Likewise, the name of the Museum referenced in the note must correspond to the name of the Museum as it was on the date of acquisition.
Invoice dated November 2, 1934 [SLAM document files]. Minutes of the Administrative Board of Control of the City Art Museum, January 3, 1935.
Bill of Sale dated February 1, 2002 [SLAM document files]. Minutes of the Collections Committee of the Board of Trustees, Saint Louis Art Museum, February 25, 2002.
Citing the Board of Trustees. In recent years, some acquisitions have required the approval of the Collections Committee and the Museum’s Board of Trustees. Include both bodies in the note.
 Purchase agreement between Michael Werner Gallery and the Saint Louis Art Museum, May 1, 2003 [SLAM document files]. Minutes of the Collections Committee of the Board of Trustees, Saint Louis Art Museum, March 4, 2003; and the Minutes of the Board of Trustees, Saint Louis Art Museum, March 10, 2003.
5. Citing documents in the document files
When citing documents (invoices, correspondence, staff memos, conservation reports, etc.) from the SLAM document files, do not specify closed or open files. Simply describe the document, followed by [SLAM document files]. For letters and invoices, always give the sender and the date. If the letter or invoice recipient is someone at the Museum, it is not necessary to include the recipient’s name. If the letter or invoice recipient is someone outside of the Museum, include the recipient’s name.
 According to a letter from Hirschl & Adler dated April 23, 1969, the painting remained in the family of the original owner until it was acquired by the gallery [SLAM document files].
 A letter from Alfred Stieglitz to Mrs. Stix dated February 25, 1926, acknowledges Mrs. Stix’s purchase of this painting [SLAM document files].
If information is cited from current SLAM accession records, or the Museum Minutes, this can be explained within the corresponding note, and does not need to be within brackets.
Morton D. May acquired the quilt from Meyer, according to a handwritten note on the SLAM accession record.
It is not necessary to include [SLAM document files] when citing published references that are available to any researcher through most public libraries. Include [SLAM document files] only if the copy in the document file is especially rare or uniquely annotated.
6. Citing conversations
When citing a conversation you have had, compose a note about the conversation, and cite that note in the provenance reference (also add the note to the document file). Both on the note and within the citation, include the date of conversation and the names of the people involved.
According to Kay Robertson, daughter of Adolph Loewi, Loewi had joint ownership of the painting with Rudolf Heinemann, who was his partner and worked closely with him…[notes of telephone conversation between Kay Robertson and Museum researcher Beth Hinrichs, August 2002, SLAM document files].
7. Citing archives
When citing a document from an archival collection, include the name of the item, date of the item, and the name and location of the depository. If applicable, also include the name of the collection and series or file name. If the document is from an archive outside of the Museum, and there is a photocopy of the document in the document file, indicate this at the end of the citation.
A Vigeveno Galleries stockcard indicates that the painting was sold to Mr. and Mrs. Samuel J. Levin in September of 1951 [record card, James Vigeveno Galleries records, 1940-1975, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.; photocopy, SLAM document files].
If citing a document from the Saint Louis Art Museum’s archives, it is not necessary to include the location of the archives.
 The sitter in this portrait, Lucy Turner Joy, lent the picture to the Museum prior to the Museum purchasing the work from her in 1917. The start date of the loan is not known [letters to and from Lucy Turner Joy dating from August 24 - December 31, 1917, Robert A. Holland Director’s Correspondence, Archives, Saint Louis Art Museum].
If the name and date of the item is included within the sentence of the note, it is not required in the bracketed citation.
Per invoice from Catherine Viviano Gallery to Morton D. May dated May 21, 1957 [May Archives, Saint Louis Art Museum].
8. Repeated references to the same information
If a note references information (including sources) provided in an earlier note, use See note [x] to reference the earlier note. If what is being referenced is unclear, either give an explanation or use an abbreviated citation (see point 9).
 Dealer correspondence states that the painting came into the collection of the Royal family of Spain through Count Dominguez [letter from dealer Arnold Seligmann, Rey & Co., Inc., dated February 28, 1935, to the Museum, SLAM document files].
 In Seligmann’s 1935 letter (see note ), there is a statement indicating that the picture was in a Spanish collection, not yet discovered…
9. Abbreviated Citations
Once a full citation has been given, and See note [x] does not clarify which source is being referenced, abbreviate the citation in subsequent notes. In most cases, author’s last name and page numbers suffice.
 According to a note in a 1983 exhibition catalogue, the sculpture was acquired by Rosy and Ludwig Fischer after the 1919 sale at the Galerie Ludwig Schames [Barron, Stephanie. “German Expressionist Sculpture.” Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum, 1983, cat. 68]. It is not clear, however, whether Rosy and Ludwig Fischer acquired the work from Galerie Ludwig Schames at this time. This sculpture is visible in a 1923 photograph of the dining room of Ludwig and Rosy Fischer, taken the year after Ludwig Fischer’s death [Heuberger, Georg, ed. “Expressionismus und Exil: Die Sammlung Ludwig and Rosy Fischer, Frankfurt am Main.” München: Prestel, 1990, p. 18].
 The Fischer collection was divided and inherited by Ludwig and Rosy Fischer’s sons, Max Fischer and Ernst Fischer (1896-1981). This sculpture was part of the collection inherited by Max Fischer [Heuberger, p. 170, 116, 118].
10. General note: single main source
When the majority of the provenance comes from one source such as a catalogue raisonné, the first note should be an unnumbered note, which explains this and cites the source. If other sources are used to support the provenance, indicate this with the phrase Exceptions and other supporting documents are noted. Cite these documents in subsequent notes.
The main source for this provenance is de la Faille’s catalogue raisonné, the 1970 revised edition, cat. no. 379 [Faille, J.-B. de la. “The Works of Vincent van Gogh: His Paintings and Drawings.” Amsterdam, Meulenhoff International, 1970]. Exceptions and other supporting documents are noted.
 The artist gave the painting shortly after it was completed in 1887 to Alexander Reid, with whom he was living in Paris [Pickvance, Ronald. “Van Gogh in Arles.” New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1984; Cooper, Douglas. “Alex Reid, van Gogh, and the Lefevre Gallery,” in “Yearbook and Directory of Members of the Society of London Art Dealers,” 1994].
11. General note: other
Other information relevant to understanding the provenance of the work can also be included within an unnumbered note. One common example of a general note is an explanation that the piece is one of a pair or set that may or may not share the same provenance.
This piece is part of a seven piece bedroom suite (183:1977.1-.7). Each piece in the suite shares the same provenance.
An object may require two general notes. Separate into two paragraphs with a single paragraph space between.
The main source for this provenance is the catalogue raisonné, cat. no. 488 [Constable, W.G. “Canaletto: Giovanni Antonio Canal, 1697 1768.” 2nd ed. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press, 1989, cat. no. 488]. Exceptions and other supporting documents are noted.
This painting is part of a pair. The other painting from the pair, “Capriccio: an Island in the Lagoon, with a Church and a Column” (Constable 487), shares the same history with this painting until they were separated following the 1966 Hall collection auction.
After all collection names and dates have been entered correctly into the narrative provenance field, these should be entered and/or verified in the ex-collection constituents area in TMS, following the same order and date format. See Section III, pages 67-70.
Max Beckmann, The King, 1933-37, 850:1983
The main source for this provenance is Göpel’s catalogue raisonné, cat. no. 470 [Göpel, Erhard and Barbara Göpel. “Max Beckmann: Katalog der Gemälde.” Bern: Kornfeld & Cie., 1976]. Exceptions and other supporting documents are noted.
 Max Beckmann kept lists of most of his paintings which often included the dates that they were worked on. This painting appears on Beckmann’s 1933 list with a note that says he finished work on the painting in 1937 in Amsterdam. Before it was completed, the painting was exhibited in its first state in 1934 and 1935 [“The 1934 International Exhibition of Paintings.” Pittsburgh: Carnegie Institute, 1934, cat. no. 289; “Carnegie International 1934.” San Francisco: San Francisco Museum of Art, 1935, cat. no. 37]. In 1937 in Amsterdam, Beckmann revised and completed the painting and signed it.
 Stephan Lackner was a lifelong supporter of Max Beckmann and his art. According to Göpel, Lackner acquired this painting in 1939. We know that in September 1938, Beckmann and Lackner closed a contract for the collector to purchase two paintings per month from Beckmann for a flat fee. It is likely that the acquisition of “The King” by Lackner was a result of this arrangement. Lackner may have then brought the picture with him to the United States when he emigrated from France in April 1939. By 1940, the painting was exhibited in San Francisco as well as at the Buchholz Gallery, New York [“Golden Gate International Exhibition.” San Francisco: Palace of Fine Arts, 1940, cat. no. 605; “Max Beckmann Paintings 1936-39.” New York: Buchholz Gallery Curt Valentin, 1940, cat. no. 5]. In 1949, according to Reifenberg and Hausenstein, the painting was still in Lackner’s possession [Reifenberg, Benno and Wilhelm Hausenstein. “Max Beckmann.” München: R. Piper, 1949, cat. no. 367].
 The sale of the painting is documented in an invoice dated July 5, 1950 [May Archives, Saint Louis Art Museum].
 Last Will and Testament of M. D. May dated June 11, 1982 [copy, May Archives, Saint Louis Art Museum]. Minutes of the Acquisitions and Loans Committee of the Board of Trustees, Saint Louis Art Museum, September 20, 1983.
Robert Henri, Betalo Rubino, Dramatic Dancer, 1916, 841:1920
 Minutes of the Administrative Board of Control of the City Art Museum, February 5, 1920.
French, Animal Capital, first quarter 12th century, 86:1949
 An engraving of the capital lying among a group of architectural fragments near the church of La-Charité-sur-Loire is illustrated in an 1840 publication [Moreller, M., M. Barat, and E. Bussière. “Le Nivernois: Album historique et pittoresque.” Vol. II. Nevers, 1840, p.10].
 According to Brummer’s inventory card of the capital, he purchased it from “Charbonnel” on July 2, 1934 [inventory card, Brummer files, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY, transcript in SLAM document files]. Charbonnel is likely J. Charbonnel, a dealer who sold other medieval objects to Brummer in the 1930s including the Museum’s “Lancet Reception Window” (accession number 3:1935). Charbonnel’s first initial is listed on Brummer’s inventory card for the stained glass window [SLAM document files]. It is not known how or when Charbonnel acquired the object.
The capital remained in Brummer’s estate upon his death in 1947 and was included in the 1949 auction of his collection [“Classical and Medieval Stone Sculptures. Part III of the Joseph Brummer Collection.” Parke-Bernet Galleries, New York, June 8-9, 1949, lot no. 594, p. 142].
 See note . Invoice from Parke-Bernet Galleries, Inc. dated June 8-9, 1949 [SLAM document files]. Minutes of the Administrative Board of Control of the City Art Museum, October 6, 1949.
Canaletto (Giovanni Antonio Canal), An Island in the Lagoon with a Gateway and a Church, 1743-44, 12:1967
The main source for this provenance is the catalogue raisonné, cat. no. 488 [Constable, W.G. “Canaletto: Giovanni Antonio Canal, 1697 1768.” 2nd ed. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press, 1989, cat. no. 488]. Exceptions and other supporting documents are noted.
This painting is part of a pair. The other painting from the pair, “Capriccio: an Island in the Lagoon, with a Church and a Column” (Constable 487), shares the same history with this painting until they were separated following the 1966 Hall collection auction.
 According to the catalogue raisonné, the painting was said to have been bought by Lord Boston in Italy and to have remained with the family since it was painted. Canaletto died in 1768. If the painting was purchased from the artist as Constable suggests, then this would have been the latest that the painting could have entered the Lord Boston Collection.
 See the auction catalog [“Catalogue of Pictures by Old Masters, the Property of the Right Hon. the Late Lord Boston.” Christie’s, London, March 6, 1942, lot no. 52].
 Georges Bernier is listed as the purchaser in the Sotheby’s auction catalog [“Catalogue of Important Old Master Paintings.” Sotheby’s, London, July 6, 1966, lot no. 65; list of buyers and prices, SLAM document files]. Correspondence between the Saint Louis Art Museum and Bernier indicates that Bernier owned the painting jointly with Thaw when it was sold to the Museum [letter dated March 1, 1967, SLAM document files].
 Invoice dated May 23, 1967 from E. V. Thaw & Co. [SLAM document files]. Minutes of the Administrative Board of Control and Associate Members of the Board of Control of the City Art Museum, May 11, 1967.
Swiss, Pavise (Archer’s Shield), before 1467, 94:1932
 According to the Arnold Seligmann, Rey & Co., Inc. invoice dated October 1, 1932, 94:1932 was purchased on behalf of the Museum at the Count Erbach sale “Gräflich Erbach’sche Waffensammlung aus dem Rittersaal zu Erbach im Odenwald” held at Galerie Fischer in Lucerne, Switzerland, on September 6-7, 1932 [SLAM document files]. The pavise entered the auction as lot no. 49. It was entered into the Museum’s Accession Log on October 6, 1932 [Accession Log, Archives, Saint Louis Art Museum].
François Boucher, The Dovecote, 1758, 75:1937
The primary source for this provenance is Ananoff’s 1976 catalogue raisonné, cat. no. 513 [Ananoff, Alexandre, and Daniel Wildenstein. “François Boucher.” Volume 2. Lausanne: La Bibliothèque des Arts, 1976, pp. 184-185, cat. no. 513]. Exceptions and other supporting documents are noted.
 Berthélémy Augustin Blondel d’Azincourt was a wealthy collector with an impressive gallery of art and other curiosities by many of the leading artists of the day, including François Boucher. In d’Azincourt, Boucher found a loyal patron evident by the 500 drawings by the artist that d’Azincourt owned at the time of his death in 1794 [“Azincourt, Barthélémy-Augustin Blondel d’(Dazaincourt),” Grove Art Online, accessed April 14, 2004, ]. It is unknown when this painting was acquired by d’Azincourt, or who purchased the painting at the 1783 auction of his collection [“Catalogue des Tableaux, dessins, marbres, bronzes, terre cuites, pierres gravées, meubles precieux...du Cabinet de M. d’Azincourt.” Hôtel de Louvois, Paris, February 10, 1783, lot no. 44]. Since d’Azincourt was a patron of Boucher, perhaps he commissioned the painting from the artist.
 The painting was in Paris for the 1884 auction of Baron L. d’Ivry’s collection at the Galerie Georges Petit. It is unknown if the painting was purchased during the sale [“Catalogues des Objets d’Art et d’ameublement et des tableaux anciens dependant de la succession de M. Le Baron L. D’Ivry.” Galerie George Petit, Paris, May 7-9, 1884, lot no. 5].
 H. Winterfield’s name is listed as the lender to a 1932 benefit exhibition of Boucher held at the residence of M. Jean Charpentier in Paris [Nolhac, Pierre de. “Exposition: François Boucher (1703-1770).” Paris, 1932, cat. no. 87]. According to Ananoff’s 1976 catalogue raisonné, Winterfield was from Nice, France; the catalogue entry also lists the previous owners as d’Azincourt and the Baron d’Ivry. It is unknown how Winterfield acquired the painting, or how his collection was brought to London for the 1936 auction.
 See note . In an annotated copy of the auction catalogue, R. Frank is handwritten in the margin next to the entry. R. Frank is Robert Frank, a London dealer [“Catalogue of Highly Important Paintings and Drawings.” Sotheby’s, London, December 9, 1936, lot no. 87, annotated copy in SLAM document files; letter from the Getty Provenance Index dated November 24, 1987, SLAM document files].
 Bill of sale from Arnold Seligmann, Rey & Co., Inc. dated January 5, 1938 [SLAM document files]. Minutes of the Administrative Board of Control of the City Art Museum, November 4, 1937.
Janet Cardiff, Taking Pictures, 2000, 62:2000
 This work was commissioned from the artist for the special exhibition “Wonderland” [Steiner, Rochelle. “Wonderland.” St. Louis: Saint Louis Art Museum, 2000]. Invoice dated July 7, 2000 [SLAM document files]. Minutes of the Collections Committee of the Board of Trustees, Saint Louis Art Museum, September 6, 2000.
Byzantine, Bracelet, c.400, 54:1924
 A letter dated January 4, 1922, from the dealer Kouchakji Frères indicates that the bracelet was excavated by 1913 from Tartous, Mount Lebanon, Syria. The excavator kept the bracelet in his collection until his death, after which Kouchakji Frères purchased it from the excavator’s heirs [SLAM document files].
 See note .
 Invoice, dated May 19, 1924 [SLAM document files]. Minutes of the Administrative Board of Control of the City Art Museum, June 4, 1924.
Nicholaes Maes, The Account Keeper, 1656, 72:1950
 In a letter dated November 5, 1980 the National Gallery in Prague provided detailed information about the provenance of this work [SLAM document files]. Initially the painting belonged to the collection of Count Christian Sternberg of the castle Zásmuky, Bohemia. From there it went on long-term loan to the newly established picture gallery of the Society of the Patriotic Friends of Art in Prague, Czechoslovakia. In 1827 the painting was included in a publication featuring the works on display at this gallery. In 1861 it was returned to its original owner, Count Christian Sternberg. However, in 1864, the painting was published as still in the Patriotic Friends picture gallery [Parthey, G. “Deutscher Bildersaal. Verzeichniss der in Deutschland vorhandenen Oelbilder verstorbener Maler aller Schulen.” Berlin: Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1864].
 According to a statement from Mortimer Brandt Gallery dated April 8, 1950, this owner expressed the desire to remain anonymous and unpublished [SLAM document files].
 Bill of Sale, April 14, 1950 [SLAM document files]. Minutes of the Administrative Board of Control of the City Art Museum, May 11, 1950.
Egyptian, Butchering Scenes, Tomb of Prince Mentuemhat, c.680-650 B.C., 1:1958.1,.2
 It seems the reliefs (1:1958.1, 1:1958.2) were uncovered sometime between 1885, when archeologist Auguste Eisenlohr cleared out part of the chamber from which they were taken, and 1891 when Vincent Scheil published a precise description and illustration of the reliefs [Leclant, Jean. “Montouemhat: quatrième prophète d’Amon, prince de la ville.” Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1961, p. 175-176; Scheil, Vincent. “Le tombeau de Montou-m-hat.” In “Tombeaux thébains de Mai, des Graveurs, Ratéserkasenb, Pari, Djanni, Apoui, Montou-m-hat, Aba,” 613-23, pls.1-2. Paris: n.p., 1891].
 A letter from John D. Cooney dated January 9, 1957 indicates that the reliefs were in the possession of the Mallons when Cooney examined them a few days before he wrote the letter [SLAM document files].
 The bill of sale, dated March 5, 1958, lists Mrs. M. Mallon as the seller. A handwritten invoice, dated January 15, 1958 confirms that Mrs. M. Mallon and Mrs. Paul Mallon are the same person [SLAM document files]. Minutes of the Administrative Board of Control and the Advisory Committee of the City Art Museum, January 9, 1958.
Warren McArthur, Floor Lamp, c.1937-40, 16:2006
 According to Nicholas Brown in an email to C. McCarty, dated April 28, 2006, Richard Grieco purchased the floor lamp from a dealer in Boston, MA [SLAM document files].
 See note .
 Invoice dated May 8, 2006 [SLAM document files]. Minutes of the Collections Committee of the Board of Trustees, Saint Louis Art Museum, June 20, 2006.
Kem Weber, Zephyr Electric Clock, 1934, 77:2005
Adams Stationers, St. Louis, MO 
 A label on the bottom of the clock indicates that it was offered for sale at Adams Stationers in St. Louis.
 John Roslevich purchased the clock at an estate sale in 1977. He hypothesized that the Shrewsbury collector might have been the first owner of the clock, since it still had a stationer’s label on the back of it when he purchased it [notes from a conversation with Janeen Traen of the Saint Louis Art Museum, October 21, 2005, SLAM document files].
 Deed of Gift, signed October 25, 2005 [SLAM document files]. Minutes of the Collections Committee of the Board of Trustees, Saint Louis Art Museum, November 29, 2005.
Charles Greene and Henry Greene, Hanging Lantern, from the Hallway of the Robert R. Blacker House, Pasadena, California, c.1908-9, 61:2001
This lantern is one of a pair; the second lantern (62:2001) shares the same provenance.
 Robert R. Blacker commissioned the Greenes to design the residence and furnishings, various outbuildings, and the gardens for 1177 Hillcrest in Pasadena, CA. The 5.1 acres, buildings, and furnishings remained intact until the death of Nellie Blacker, the last Blacker family member, in 1946 [Makinson, Randall L. “Greene & Greene: The Blacker House.” Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, 2000].
 According to Makinson (see note ), in 1947 the property was divided and some of the outbuildings were sold along with the smaller parcels of the property. A series of probably three owners purchased the main residence in the period between 1947 and c.1950, including C. O. Bockelmann.
 The original lighting devices remained in the main residence throughout the Hills’ ownership [Giovannini, Joseph. “Controversy Over the Stripping of a Historical Pasadena House.” “New York Times.” (June 6, 1985): 21]. Barton English, a collector, and Michael Carey, an art dealer, formed a partnership to purchase the Blacker House from Margery Hill. They removed the approximately fifty original decorative lighting devices and either sold or donated them to various U.S. museums, before selling the residence in 1988 [Walters, Jonathan. “Stripped of Dignity: Historic Pasadena House to be Sold in Pieces.” “The Washington Post.” (June 6, 1985): B2; Pastier, John. “Stripping of Greene & Greene House by New Owner Protested.” “Architecture.” vol. 74 (August 1985): 116].
 The invoice from Barry Friedman, Ltd. lists provenance information and includes Washington, D.C. art dealer Geoffrey Diner and the private anonymous collector from whom Barry Friedman purchased the lanterns. Exact dates of the transactions are not noted [Barry Friedman invoice, dated May 25, 2001, SLAM document files]. It is not known from whom or when Geoffrey Diner acquired the lanterns.
 See note .
 Invoice dated May 25, 2001 [SLAM document files]. Minutes of the Collections Committee of the Board of Trustees, December 4, 2001.
Maori, Figurehead from a Fishing Canoe, 18th-early 19th century, 1558:1983
 A. H. W. Williams was the grandson of William Williams of the Church Missionary Society. According to a 1978 auction catalog, A. H. W. Williams brought the piece from New Zealand to England in the 1880s [“Important Tribal Art.” Christie’s, London, June 13, 1978, p. 21]. J. L. H. Williams is the son of A. H. W. Williams. J. L. H. Williams offered the piece at auction in 1978, but it is unknown whether the piece sold [“Important Tribal Art,” Christie’s, London, June 13, 1978, lot no. 239, p. 21].
 See note .
 Ronnie Nasser, doing business as HRN Primitives, refers to the canoe prow in a letter to Morton D. May dated December 3, 1980 [SLAM document files].
 Invoice of HRN Primitives dated January 12, 1981 [SLAM document files].
 Last Will and Testament of M. D. May dated June 11, 1982 [copy, May Archives, Saint Louis Art Museum]. Minutes of the Acquisitions and Loans Committee of the Board of Trustees, Saint Louis Art Museum, September 20, 1983.
Per the Chicago Manual of Style, use this formula in this order:
“Minutes of the”
Name of the body
Month [not abbreviated] Day [comma] Year [period]
Minutes of the Administrative Board of Control of the City Art Museum, February 5, 1920.
Do not add the location of the museum (St. Louis or Saint Louis) to the citation.
|1909, March through June||Board of Control of the Saint Louis Museum of Fine Arts|
|Nov 3, 1909 – March 29, 1912||Board of Control of the City Art Museum|
|June 5, 1912 – April 12, 1956||Administrative Board of Control of the City Art Museum|
|May 10, 1956 – Feb 7, 1963||Administrative Board of Control and the Advisory Committee of the City Art Museum|
|March 7, 1963 – April 7, 1969||Administrative Board of Control and Associate Members of the Board of Control of the City Art Museum|
|Oct 24, 1969* – Dec 1971||Acquisitions Committee of the Board of Trustees, City Art Museum|
|Jan 1972 – Dec 19, 1979||Acquisitions Committee of the Board of Trustees, Saint Louis Art Museum|
|Feb 20, 1980 – Dec 1987||Acquisitions and Loans Committee of the Board of Trustees, Saint Louis Art Museum|
|Feb 26, 1988 – present||Collections Committee of the Board of Trustees, Saint Louis Art Museum|
|Since 1988, if the object required the approval of the Board of Trustees, include both the Collections Committee and the Board of Trustees in the citation. See…for example.|
* It appears that the gap of time between meetings on April 7 and October 24 is correct. October 24 is the first set of minutes appearing in the Acquisitions Committee Binders (red leather with plain spines).
Government of Canada website at https://www.canada.ca/en/heritage-information-network/services/collections-documentation-standards/holocaust-research-art-museums-galleries.html#a6b, accessed 31 May 2018