It Surfaced Down Under!

Antiquities Sting in Nepal

2012-02-01T14:30:00.000-08:00

This article came to my attention this morning, courtesy of my colleague Noel Hidalgo-Tan (ANU). It concerns the recent arrest of many of the players in an antique/antiquities smuggling ring operating in Kathmandu. According to the article, the heads of this particular smuggling operation are "real estate brokers," while the on-the-ground operatives are younger "daily wage earners." It appears that most of the items confiscated off them are historic period religious manuscripts such as the Tibetan manuscript Ratnaketu Dharani, however a sword (undescribed in the article) was also seized. Investigation is underway in regards to clients and paper trails, and charges will be pressed under Nepal's Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, originally conceived in 1956, but very recently extended and updated. Let's hope more information will surface in time and that every illegally traded artifact will be recovered.

Spreading the Word: Angkorian Plate Returned to Cambodia

2012-01-29T17:00:00.000-08:00

This post is to further spread the word on the recent repatriation of an Angkorian (Jayavarman VII) era silver plate to Cambodia. The original article is here, and this story came to my attention through the vigilant reporting of my colleague Alison Carter (here). Thanks! What's important to me is that the article suggests the plate was voluntarily returned by its original purchaser, one Zelnik Istvan, a Hungarian businessman who claimed to have purchased the item in 1970 in order to add it to his private Southeast Asian Gold Museum. Of course, the legal export status, context, ownership history and provenance of the other 50,000 artifacts is not discussed, but this case demonstrates that repatriation is not out of the question for his museum when warranted, which is very commendable.

According to the article, the original vendors claimed a provenience around the Banteay Chhmar temple, but this is unverifiable. Tit Sokha, a representative of the National Museum in Phnom Penh, mentions the ICOM Cambodia Red List of stolen antiquities, which has encouraged the return of some specific artifacts (mostly sculpture) by private foreign collectors, but no mention is made if the plate was on the list itself, or known about at all before Istvan returned it. Thus, although original context will forever be lost, the return of this item at least allows it to be repaired and shared with the Cambodian people (and the world) as part of their heritage.

Two Repatriation Successes

2012-01-24T14:09:00.001-08:00

I can happily report that two recent legal efforts to repatriate important items of cultural heritage, long held outside of their place of origin, have both ended in success. The first case (also here) conserns the return of a gold bead in the shape of a screaming monkey with turquoise eyes belonging to the Moche culture, which flourished along the northern Peruvian coast from c. 100BC-800AD (see above left). The pendant is known to have been illegally looted from an unidentified tomb (suggested by one of Peru's most preeminent archaeologists, Dr. Walter Alva, to stylistically affiliate with funerary objects from the elite tombs of Sipan, in the northern Lambayeque valley) in 1987. For decades, archaeological sites large and small have been targeted by huaqueros (tomb robbers) in this region, but transnational cooperation between Universities, museums, the more consciencous private dealers, and governments themselves have begun to turn the tide.

The case for repatriation began when Dr. Alva recognized the artifact in the Palace of the Governors History Museum in Santa Fe, New Mexico. As noted in the article, artifacts similar to this pendant have likely been looted from smaller sites within the Sipan sphere of influence, making the removal of this item from the private antiquities market all the more unusual, especially given the high prices fetched for other golden Moche artifacts on the black market or in federal stings. The bead was originally part of the Bourne collection, dubbed by journalist Roger Atwood as "the finest small collection of pre-Colombian art anywhere," but obvious care seems to have been given in its curation, and museum authorities commendably agreed that this artifact more appropriately belongs in Peru so that, in the words of Director Frances Levine "it can be better used to help museums in Peru tell their own stories."

The second case involves the recovery of 20 severed Maori heads (!) by New Zealand after almost two centuries of storage in museums. The repatriation ceremony occurred at the Musee du Quai Branley, Paris, with relevant governmental authorities, New Zealand embassadors, and anthropologists/historians from the Te Papa museum, Wellington. According to the article, 200 heads have been returned from a total of 14 countries (demonstrating the wide distribution these "memento mori" had during the Colonial period), but several others "might remain in private collections."

What struck me specifically about this case is both that a special law had to be passed to finalize this specific repatriation (why?), and that French authorities "worried that this might set a worrying precedent for other artefacts such as Egyptian mummies and the bones of early Christian martyrs." Given that many of the artefacts taken during colonial expeditions have been languishing in museum storage for as long if not longer than the Maori heads discussed above, perhaps success stories such as the above WILL provide the incentive needed for small European museums to assess their old collections, record all that can be recorded from such human remains, and then take the lead in repatriation instead of waiting for legal action. Fair's fair...

Antiquities Smuggling through the Sunderbans

2012-01-09T19:29:00.000-08:00

Today, this article came to my attention (via Museum Security Network). It concerns the recent busting of an antiques smuggling network through India's Sunderbans (the vast wetland formed by the superconfluence of the Brahmaputra, Padma and Meghna Rivers and their tributaries), into today's Bangladesh and Myanmar. According to the article, 11 people were arrested, but authorities had an inkling of this network's existance as far back as 2010. Due to its remoteness and primarily waterlogged state, artifact and people smuggling and wildlife poaching have proven difficult to patrol throughout this vast area.

The primary artifact confiscated in 2010 was a two-foot tall bust of the Buddha, but no mention is given in the article of the type or age of the antiques or antiquities most recently confiscated. Numerous cases involving the smuggling of historic period or ancient Hindu and Buddhist statuary and religious paraphernalia, sometimes boldly robbed from temples at night, have been reported in recent years, including on this blog (e.g. here and here). Now that those who appear to be the main ringleaders have been confiscated, we can wish the local and transnational authorities much success in all future raids and in getting to the bottom of just how extensive antique/antiquities smuggling is in the Sunderbans.

Happy New Year!

2011-12-27T20:15:00.000-08:00

No, those aren't belated Christmas offerings from me to you, dear reader. Instead, they represent yet another grim reminder of the kinds of small antiquities (some with human remains!) that continue to be trafficked in the Southeast Asian region, whether in Hanoi, where I took this photo (the Viet Culture antiquities shop), or even in countries "Down Under" themselves.

I post it as a promise of more active blogging in the New Year, during which I will eventually share more photos and on-the-ground information from my most recent time in Hanoi this past November, as well as launch into discussion of new themes, cases and ideas as they themselves "surface." When I can wrestle time from the PhD, job/post-doc hunts, contract archaeology (survival funds always appreciated...) etc. As always, I consider this blog somewhat "open-source," so feel free to shoot ideas my way and I'll give them due consideration.

Season's greetings and Happy New Year!

Good News From China!

2011-11-08T21:43:00.000-08:00

This link points to a recent news article discussing new measures to patrol and prevent maritime looting of shipwreck sites around the Xisha (Paracel) Islands, in the South China Sea. Although a few controlled excavations have been done, according to the article, the scope of illegal wreck diving is severe, and the area to monitor is immense, but officials acting on any further recognition of the problem is a step in the right direction. Some success in boat and artifact confiscation is already reported. Let's wish local authorities even more resources and vigilence.

Getting the (Copper) Out

2011-10-28T15:10:00.000-07:00

This link will point you to a Salon.com article written by Associated Press reporter Donna Bryson, for which myself and my colleague Dougald O'Reilly were interviewed. In the end, the report focused on the theft of contemporary bronze sculptures and statuary from South African art museums, so that these expensive, highly elaborate pieces could be sold for next to nothing and melted down for scrap. A real crime in its own right! However, Dougald and I were happy to provide comparative information on the Southeast Asian antiquities trade, specifically the looting and sale of metal artifacts from late prehistoric contexts. Although no equivalent rash of museum thefts in Southeast Asia has come to my attention, the information we provided would come in handy if a media release comparing the antiquities trade situations in Southern Africa (or across the continent) and Southeast Asia should be written in future. In my opinion, there is ample room for comparison.

Human Remains Repatriated to Namibia

2011-09-27T20:02:00.000-07:00

This is a quick post to report on the successful repatriation case of 20 human skulls to Namibia, after more than a century of storage at the Charite teaching hospital in Berlin (see the photo above left for an example). Namibia, then known as German Southwest Africa, was the site of Germany's brief attempt at colonial rule of foreign lands; a chapter in its history which ended rather badly. These skulls were taken from those who died in German prison camps during a retaliatory campaign of genocide against the Harero (Herero) and Nama (Namaqua) tribes from 1904-1907. This "first genocide of the 20th century," according to the article, was in response to a Harero uprising in January 1904 over alleged theft of land, cattle and women which killed 123 newly settled German civilians. The skulls were kept in a medical hospital to inform later eugenics-themed "research" intended to lend scientific credibility to Nazi claims of racial superiority.

It is great news, then, that these skulls will finally be returned on October 4th, with a reburial memorial and traditional mortuary rights being held on the 5th in the capital, Windhoek. As Namibia's former ambassador to Germany noted in 2008 (quoted in the article), the return of the skulls is "a question of retaining our dignity." I couldn't agree more. As this additional article points out, this repatriation is the tip of the iceberg, with the Charite museum allegedly having at least 7,000 skulls in its collections, as well as a variety of other bones, and several other museums in Germany the same; acquired under equally dubious circumstances. In their year of remaining funding, it is my hope that the physical anthropologists and historians involved will be able to collaboratively identify the most likely origin events that brought these skulls to Germany and arrange for their repatriation, after making sure that all relevant data that can be collected from them is. The injustices of the past should always be acknowledged and remedied as much as possible, but in my opinion, this does not excuse collecting all relevant information.

The "tomb raiding" crisis in China continues.

2011-09-14T19:02:00.000-07:00

As I gather my thoughts and photos together from Vietnam to soon begin a series of posts discussing the antiquities trade in Hanoi as I observed it last month, this interim post concerns the following article. It concerns the continuation and apparent escalation of organized, literal tomb raiding in several provinces around China, specifically highlighting the situation in Shaanxi province. Criminal gangs from several nearby provinces have descended on the province in droves, with local police having solved 250 cases of raiding/smuggling since 2009 alone.

However, it is clear from the article that this is a drop in the ocean of what's really going on. What was most disturbing, and obviously the most challenging for local and national archaeologists and non-corrupt officials to deal with, is the degree and extent to which these gangs form "alliances" with either local villagers or even local police. This is not a new phenomenon, nor is it confined to China, but the situation again indicates why the severity of looting in China is among the worst in Asia; similar to what's going on in Peru.

On the upside however, the article suggests that increased village patrols, police presence, and even the self-induced reformations of former gang members/leaders while in prison appears to be having some effect. Note as an example the case of Pan Baocheng, the 53yr old gang member from Henan. He started to loot out of greed, was caught, and saw the error of his ways in prison. Or, the case of Pan Liusuo (see photo above left), also from Henan, serving time in the Dafeng detention centre. Sometimes, if the stolen and smuggled antiquities are "high profile" enough (like the grave goods of Wu Huifei, sold in 2006 to US collectors, but later returned to the Shaanxi History Museum), they can be tracked down and repatriated. Perhaps a similar fate would have awaited the Baphuon lintel described in my last post (if authenticated), should it have been purchased and shipped? It is common knowledge, however, that such high profile pieces are a tiny fraction of the global trade.

The legal punishments mentioned in the article strike me as very fair (and I would never advocate the death penalty), but at the end of the day, the task remains to stop these crimes before they start. Like anywhere else, increased vigilance, education, transnational cooperation and (where possible) the fostering of greater responsibility on the "demand" side. However, it can't be stated enough: the only way to avoid complacence in the destruction of global heritage and the archaeological record and/or avoid scams, fakes and individual ties to additional criminal activities is to NOT PURCHASE ANTIQUITIES!

Reprehensible...

2011-09-01T22:51:00.000-07:00

A colleague recently sent me this opinion piece, published on the "living if" website. Brazenly entitled "taking home a piece of Angkor Wat," it describes in very open terms the process of shopping for antiquities in Bangkok, a place "where a person can get anything they want, for a price." At first glance, one might assume that this is an expose piece focused on the reality of the antiquities trade, and the real ethical and moral "dilemmas" contained therein. Sadly, this is not the case. The author instead seems to take pages straight out of Cuno's playbook in arguing the "aesthetic" point of view, perpetually seeking to justify the transborder sale of antiquities for beauty's sake. "Why should cultural relics stay in a place rather than cross borders and share their beauty with people who can't make it to their original location?," the author posits. The possibility of the international movement of carefully excavated and recorded artifacts as part of a museum exhibit on loan to a foreign institution doesn't even come up.

The gist of the internal "debate" the author and his wife engage in in this article concerns the purchase of a piece of the Bayon temple from a Bangkok dealer. Questions of authenticity (deemed likely real, given their "research," but no way to guarantee it without asking Sotheby's "experts"), price (too expensive!), and shipping (look how easily we can fool US Customs...) all come up in the author's investigations. One might hope that their raising of these questions would lead them to realize how risky and ethically fraught the purchase of looted antiquities is (if the piece is even real), but instead, their actions are continually justified through the same tired arguments. You know the drill: Priceless artifacts are safer permanently in foreign museums or living rooms; "sharing" the "beauty" of artifacts (whether devoid of context or not?) helps otherwise apathetic Westerners care about "those" countries that have or are suffering political turmoil; private buyers (as well as foreign museums and institutions) are required to help preserve objects for the good of humanity, etc. These arguments sound no more or less like "sugar coated" cultural property internationalism...

The final line really got to me. "The lessons we learned in the process though, were worth it, without finding a piece we loved, doing the research, debating amongst ourselves, and deciding, we wouldn't have had the opportunity to think through the right, wrong and grey area of being a tomb raider." A tomb raider? Really?! The public misconception of archaeology that helps fuel the trade continues. Without deliberate outreach effort to counteract pieces like these, it will only get worse...

Back in the 'Berra

2011-08-21T15:31:00.000-07:00

I have made it back to Canberra after a successful, but rather hectic, final research trip to Hanoi. All in all, the data collection went well, and should definitely improve the final PhD produced. I also had a bit more time to investigate antiquities sellers in more 'remote' areas of Hanoi; the very area (around Nghi Tam St., West Lake District) in which I first documented a no-questions asked antiquities trade during my first trip (although you can bet I did ask questions where appropriate).

As expected, numerous stores were once again encountered in this area, of which I had time to look around, posing as a 'buyer off the street,' and talk to the owners of three. Unfortunately, I did not have time to seek out similar stores in Saigon. Maybe next time. I will blog about what I uncovered at each of these locations in time; what they were selling, for how much, what they had to say or not about how to ship items abroad, their usual clientele, or the general acknowledged legality or illegality of the enterprise. While I fully admit that my "sample size" is small, nothing that I learned caused me to view this information as atypical for the city. In my opinion, on-the-ground "check-ups" and documentation every once and awhile is very important. As an example of the primarily Iron Age Dong Son artifacts encountered in most stores, see the photo above left. Photo courtesy of the author, taken at the Chi Lan "souvenir shop and art gallery," Hang Bong St., Hanoi. More to come, so stay tuned.

Grim Discoveries...

2011-08-07T22:46:00.000-07:00

Exploration of side streets and back alleys in search of those scattered shops that still openely sell genuine antiquities has been occurring at a decent pace, whenever I can squeeze it in between my "day job" and those times that it's not pouring down rain. My investigations see me posing as a potential "buyer"/tourist off the street, to see who shows me what, for how much etc. Of the three shops visited so far, one only offered clear and freely admitted replicas of prehistoric artifacts (Dong Son drums, for example), but genuine historic period ceramics and 18th-19th c. statuary. A second shop sells a wide variety of genuin historic period pieces (mostly Han-Ly/Tran Dynasties) with some admitted by the owner to derive from shipwrecks off the central coast, but deliberately avoids handling prehistoric objects.

The very first shop I entered, however, was the most open about their activities. Located in the heart of the central Old Quarter district by Hoan Kiem lake, the "Van Hoa Viet" (Viet Culture) shop displayes two to three glass cases full of genuine prehistoric-historic ceramics (Neolithic period to Han), as well as Dong Son spear heads, axe heads, bangles (with human remains!), bracelets, a few beads, and several late Palaeolithic ("Da But" period c. 6-5,000BP) shouldered adzes, crafted from a variety of stone. I asked about price while pretending to comparison shop. It seems that, at least at this store, antiquities are also able to be bargained down if one can manage it. At all such shops I've visited to date, I was told that "friends" (middlemen or genuine friends of the family or both?) would call them personally when new items were found, or else go from shop to shop to sell what they could. It is my opinion that those who deal openely in antiquities here are probably aware of local heritage laws (which dictate that nothing real over 100 years old is allowed out of the country), but ignore them anyway. This matter will be investigated further-with caution.

In my remaining time here, I will search out as many other shops as I can; both in Hanoi and in Saigon when there. I readily admit to a lingering language barrier between me and my informants, but I can only do my best. Further thoughts and findings, and many photos, to come. Stay tuned.

Status Update

2011-07-14T17:57:00.000-07:00

As I continue to run around in last minute preparation for one final PhD related research trip to Hanoi, this is to announce that I intend to blog at least occasionally while over there. As I'll be on the ground in what is both a source and, increasingly, a demand country for Southeast Asian antiquities (from prehistoric "field finds" like those in the photo at left, courtesy of the author, to historic period statuary, sculpture, shipwreck ceramics etc.), I will make it my goal to take a "status report" of the antiquities trading scene on the ground in Hanoi (and to a lesser extent, Saigon), to whatever extent I can. My very first post for SAFE detailed my observations on the local Hanoi antiquities trade c. early 2010. I am doubtful much has changed, but I will do my best to document and observe what I can.

"Other People's Treasure" on the High Seas

2011-06-27T19:49:00.000-07:00

It seems that, according to this article (also here), hundreds of artifacts from "dozens" of Spice Route-era shipwrecks (c. 1500-1800AD) off of the Tanjung Tuan coast, Malaysia, have been stolen by illicit underwater looters (here read 'salvagers') since the 1990s. What really struck me about these short articles, however, was that on the one hand, the Museum Authority was asked by the state government to gather more information for prosecutions, but on the other, the government itself tried to offer (bribe?) salvage companies to retrieve further artifacts, with the deal most likely to include the local retention of some finds, but the open sale of others (as the full-scale salvage of a single wreck was not the stated goal, unlike the controversial Javanese shipwreck whose artifacts might soon be displayed by the Smithsonian). What maritime excavation methodologies do any of the solicited companies employ? Any regards to context preservation? Nothing is stated.

The article implies that the most active salvage companies or private small enterprises already knew that the wrecks in question have been picked clean. As the time, effort and money involved to 'loot' underwater is far beyond "subsistence digging," the issue to me seems to be one of how to define "national treasure" in the case of high seas 'salvaging?' The people involved were locals of a specific ethnicity (Malay or Chinese-Malay in this case), and the artifacts removed came out of near-shore (i.e. not "international") waters. However, their shipwreck context indicates that such objects recovered from cargo holds were collected and transported far and wide in antiquity. If sold, would pieces such as the Chinese blue and white porcelain (see photo above left) go to a) local Malay dealers; b) non-Malay dealers from countries such as China, people who might see no problem profiting from the sale of "treasure" originally made within the former or current boarders of their country, or c) Western dealers and buyers seeking to cash in on possibly romanticized stories of arduous long distance trade voyages in the time of sail ships and pirates? Each of the parties mentioned above could stake a different claim on anything 'salvaged' from these wrecks, but at the end of the day, looting is still looting when insufficient care is given to archaeological context, no matter how it's dressed up or couched in nationalistic terms.

A quick detour...

2011-06-19T23:12:00.000-07:00

I couldn't let this news story pass me by without commenting on it here. It appears that the Jordan River Bank site, on the northern edge of suburban Hobart, Tasmania, is to have a highway built above it, despite previous coverage, and local activists and academic and consultant archaeologists attesting to its extreme importance as a likely meeting place/lithic manufacturing centre from c. 42,000BP into historic times (see here as well). Despite reassurances from engineers that the site (a sandbank separate from the river's main course) will not be disturbed by construction, the incredible artifact density (potentially up to three million stone tools or flakes left over from manufacture, left behind on several "living floors" deposited over the millennia), and the fact that the site was only discovered last year, strongly suggests there is more to uncover there. The preliminary archaeological report provides a more technical assessment of the site's importance, for those interested.

At a price tag of $60 million AUD and two additional years suggested by local governmental authorities to be needed to survey a new route for the highway, it is doubtful that calls for preservation will be heeded in the end. At the very least, perhaps further excavation can be carried out to uncover/salvage as much of the site as possible. Obviously, this post does not pertain directly to looting, and there is no reason to suggest any prehistoric (as opposed to ethnographic) artifacts from the site or region have ended up on the market, but it's impossible to know if any local surface collecting has occurred. Hopefully this won't be the case if/when a construction crew descends on the site. I will return to the post series in progress soon, but as controversial, heritage relevant stories from this part of the world often get overlooked overseas, I felt it important to share.

"Other People's Treasure" Pt. 2: Sybolic Loot?

2011-06-09T21:44:00.000-07:00

A brief press release has come to my attention that strikes very close to home for me. In fact, it concerns the one and only "ancient relic" that currently serves as the official "symbol" of University House, where I currently live on the ANU campus (see photo above, courtesy of Bob Miller, The ANU). In fact, it features on all official University House brochures, letterheads, memos etc. Specifically, we now learn that the "2,500 yr old ancient Greek cup" now held by University House (of the Attic tradition) will be on display in the new "Spirit of Enquiry" exhibition at the National Museum of Australia, an exhibit designed to "explore the last 200 years of Australian science, education and ideas." All in all, a fine concept for an exhibit, I agree. However, this does not negate the fact that, in the case of objects like this cup, a looted antiquity is still being put on display.

I was interested to learn that Professor Dale Trendall, the first "Master" of University House (a prestigious position then and now) collected the cup while traveling in Europe in the 1950s. Does its acquisition and export before the UNESCO laws were put into place make it any more 'legit,' or any less looted (especially in a time when modern, context conscious archaeology barely existed anywhere)? Even if the cup is now most valued for its symbolic links to ANU and University House, and not so much because it's an especially rare example of Attic pottery (but I'm not a Classicist, so don't quote me on that), does this excuse either the University or the National Museum from acknowledging its likely illicit origins (again, despite the lack of appropriate legislation at the time)? I don't think so.

Prof. Trendall is credited with creating the largest catalog of Apulian and Attic ceramics to date, with painstaking stylistic and morphological analyses conducted to attempt to distinguish the various styles in use from the 5th-4th c. BCE, as well as the 'signature' characteristics of individual painters. However, the work that underpinned this effort also put Trendall in contact with numerous local and international dealers, including some future big names, such as Geddes, and spawned a rush of looting in Southern Italy and Sicily, especially during the 1980s (see e.g. Gill, 2010). Although Trendall could not arguably have anticipated this, and even if this particular Attic cup did not recently 'surface,' the fact remains that the use of this particular piece of "other people's treasure" to bolster the image of "refinement" that both University House and the ANU wish to convey to the world, does not go unnoticed. Even though repatriation is impossible (and has never been requested), would not an image of the Parthenon (for example) suffice? Unfortunately, in my opinion the Classics Museum (and dept.) here has at best a mixed track-record of acknowledging provenance where known, collection method, and/or the pre-1970s origins of what's on display. Let's hope the National Museum is more upfront. I will report on the matter when I've seen the display in person.

In this instance, then, we can draw parallels between the use of artifacts from Classical antiquity in "demand" nations in both hemispheres; as signifiers of a person's or institution's aesthetic and cultural sophistication via the display of "pieces" made by the same people who 'founded' "Western Civilization." A spurious argument wherever it's used. This post will lead into future discussion of how "other people's treasure" is used as a marketing ploy in private antiquities sales down here, whether "Classical" or not, but (as per my interest) retaining a Southeast Asia focus.

Related to that, I'm glad to further report on a good example of an antiquities dealer in Britain doing the right thing by way of a looted Afghan statue! Good job! Thanks to The History Blog for covering it first. On the other hand, this article demonstrates that, in the complex world of knock-offs, duplicates, and genuine rare antiquities that is the Chinese antiquities trade, even local dealers can fool local buyers! How much does the desire for "other people's treasure" extend to collecting the antiquities of one's own national or ethnic past in this part of the world? Let the investigation continue!

"Other People's Treasure" and Looting in the Philippines

2011-06-04T20:16:00.000-07:00

This post will be the first in a series focusing on the topic of the collection of "other people's treasure" (or the alleged reclamation of "treasure" thought to affiliate with ones' own ethnic or national history) as an ongoing motive for looting and antiquities trading in the Southern Hemisphere. In this instance, I'm referring to a new case of looting that recently occurred (sometime last year, from what I understand from the article) at the sites of Maulohin Cave and Istar Cairn, on Imorigue island in New Ibajay town, Palawan province, Philippines. Dr. Victor Paz (in full disclosure, a colleague of mine) first reported this incident to get the National Museum of the Philippines involved in the investigation, noting that these 500 year old remains, with clear contextual affiliation with Metal Age ceramics and iron weapons, were "stolen by Japanese descendants of missing World War II soldiers."

Paz, acting in his capacity as a representative of the National Museum and member of the Palawan Island Palaeohistoric Research Project, convinced the Museum Director, one Cecilio Salcedo, to send additional experts to Palawan to work with local authorities to investigate what occurred, when, and the extent of the damage. Not surprisingly, but in my opinion rather suspiciously, the Japanese Embassy is refusing to comment and feigning ignorance.

Although reports of what occurred still seem unconfirmed, or based upon a few "known facts" and several interviews and "unconfirmed reports," it appears that in May last year, Japanese Nationals with local guides visited the sites and carefully "sorted and sacked" all the bones for removal, but guards stopped the removal before it could go ahead, and the remains were eventually turned over to the Palawan Island Palaeohistoric Research Project team who returned them to their original sites, with bilingual signs placed "in clear view" stating that these re-deposited remains were those of prehistoric ancestral Philippinos. Apparently, another sack of mostly material cultural items and shell was also produced, coming from a site no one on the excavation team recognized...suggesting that other nearby sites have also been hit. Dr. Paz, doing his part as a true advocate of archaeological education and anti-looting outreach in his country, has discussed looting issues with concern before, noting again (in light of this case) that "at the rate the looting is going, we will have nothing left for future generations of Filipinos to protect and learn from."

Despite this, the article suggests (if I read it right) that the remains have just recently been removed again, thus sparking the outrage and calls for thorough investigations discussed in the article. As Dr. Paz and others who've worked in the Philippines have personally informed me, many looting cases like the above relate to the story of "Yamashita's Treasure," the likely-mythological burial of immense quantities of gold and other spoils of war 'stolen' by the Japanese fleet from various locations around Southeast Asia and then hidden in caves, tunnels and booby-trapped enclosures throughout the Philippines. The legend has been thoroughly spread by local and American population culture sources (TV, books, video games etc.), but Philippino historian Ambeth Ocampo (among others) has observed that both foreign and Philippino "treasure hunters" have been looking for 50yrs, using every supposed map and bit of oral history testimony they can find, and have still recovered nothing substantial. Yet the dissemination of(ahem) "revisionist" history fueling the search continues apace (e.g. here).

So, here we have the theme of "other people's treasure" seen from two angles: Locals (especially, it seems, foreign nationals and rural villagers) exposed to such legends by foreign and local media and aware of the prices that gold etc. could fetch on the open market, continue to search, occasionally looting prehistoric sites in the process. On the other hand, the Japanese students and nationals allegedly connected to the initial (and perhaps subsequent) removal of bones and artifacts from archaeological context at Maulohin and Istar Cairn destroyed another piece of the Philippines' non-renewable archaeological heritage (i.e. "other people's treasure") to reclaim "ancestors" they erroneously believed to be theirs. The end result is the same. Although this example does not involve a clear intent to sell "other people's treasure" (i.e. human remains and artifacts) on the antiquities market, this motive deserves further investigation where actual looting with intent to sell is concerned.

Forthcoming posts in my first series built around a theme will deal with justifications and influences currently affecting the Southern Hemisphere antiquities trade. Not just the import of antiquities from abroad into source countries (primarily Australia and New Zealand, but also Africa or South America where relevant), but also the trade in Aboriginal or Maori artifacts, remains, or pieces of historic "Australiana" and "Kiwiana" which might find markets amongst the new middle class in Asia. Of course, Southeast Asia remains a primary focus. Is the desire to own a tangible piece of the past of a country with a much longer written and/or unwritten history that yours enough of a reason to support the trade? How is the concept of "other people's treasure" used in antiquities marketing down here, or even the marketing of local prehistoric artifacts overseas (where observable)? Is the non-Indigenous collection of Indigenous artifacts still tied to "exoticization" of the "other?" Stay tuned for some semblance of an answer, hopefully with concrete examples to boot. Onwards!

A Few News Items and an Announcement

2011-05-22T01:37:00.000-07:00

The gist of this post is two part: A weekend "news dump" of relevant antiquities trading stories, and an announcement about the future direction of this blog.

1. The first article (here) concerns the seizure of 163 archaeological artifacts and antiques confiscated by the Jamshoro police department (Hyderabad, India) and evaluated by the Sindh Culture Department. These items include antique rifles, coins from several nations, Kashmiri papier mache artwork, swords, and shell statues. A rare "Ayuda Muddhra' statue of the Buddha (with provenance given only as "Far East"), as well as an "Italian" shell sculpture, were among the loot. Disturbingly, one of the suspects apprehended was known to have been a museum guard at the Ranikot Fort museum. The items seized have already been handed over to the Culture Department. Where to after that? Not sure....

2. The next article (here) also concerns artifact seizures in India, with the reported arrest of five individuals in connection with attempted smuggling of four rare "Panchaloha" idols (statues). The raid targeted Max New Bean Bag Shop in Jayanagar, Bangalore, and it is alleged that some of the statues weighed as much as 2.9k! Mobile phones and bikes were also seized. For some reason, only the youngest of the four suspects (a 20 year old man identified as Anand from Harohalli) charges are mentioned in the article. What happened to the other individuals?

3. The third and final piece (here) ventures more into the political/PR side of looting and heritage management. It came to my attention via Museum Security Network (as did those above), but was originally a blog post on the well written, but more contemporary art/antiques focused "artknows" blog (maintained by one Tom Flynn). An auction occurred in the town of Dorchester, UK, on the 19th May, run by the more provincial Woolley and Wallis in Salisbury and Duke's of Dorchester auction houses, to sell off 19th c. Qing Dynasty artifacts known to have been looted from the Summer Palace, Beijing, at that time. Controversy arose not only in regards to the exceptionally high prices some pieces fetched, but also that a number of high-profile buyers were Taiwanese, while at the same time, a contingent of Chinese dealers and delegates contested the sale of these cultural heritage items. A Taiwanese bidder (with clients) suggested that Taiwanese attempts to purchase this material was not "politically motivated," but rather "a chance to buy high quality material with an imperial provenance at very reasonable prices."

The article stresses that the sale of "Asian art" (likely including more ancient antiquities) in England is seemingly now more confined to these "provincial" auction houses, as opposed to high profile auctioneers and galleries in London, due to both the quality of the material and attestations by primarily Asian buyers that "real expertise" is now to be found in the sticks. What of concerns for provenance, collection history etc.? I get the sense that, as with Asian art sales in New York, and antiquities sales everywhere, when the historic/archaeological record becomes vague in regards to provenance, so does the concern of your average purchaser.

P.S. And Now for Something Completely Different: In the near future, dear readers, the tone of this blog will change. To date, I have focused more on gallery/dealer/high profile case exposes and reporting the gist, and my perspectives on, current news items concerning the Southern Hemisphere antiquities trade. However, I would like to go further, into explorations of what underpins the trade down here. Questions such as:

How does it differ from Northern Hemisphere (read Europe and the US) activities? How is collecting of "other people's treasure" justified? What further background on dealer's associations needs down here needs to be aired (i.e. the AAADA)? Local coverage of cases of overseas, and even local, prehistoric and historic period looting, and where it lacks? How autonomous is the Southern Hemisphere trade in Classical/European antiquities (e.g. some of the galleries I originally covered in my first posts)? What role do major Southern Hemisphere demand countries (i.e. Oz and NZ) play in the global trade? What is the market for fakes in the Southern Hemisphere, and what's being faked the most? Where are they produced (only China and Hong Kong, for example?). The misuses/uses of heritage and heritage objects (loosely defined) in mass media/popular culture in regional countries...on coins, stamps, phonecards etc? The list goes on and an (and, in the interest of disclosure, I thank my colleague Paul Barford for these suggestions).

With that said, you are more than free to help me on this quest. If you come across local news items, auctions, on-line sales, new galleries that make you suspicious etc., feel free to get in touch with me. As I'm only one person, I'd also be amenable to the possibility of guest bloggers once we discuss what you'd talk about. Thanks for your attention to date. Let's see what the future holds!

Another Repatriation Case

2011-05-18T23:28:00.001-07:00

It appears there has been another successful thwarting of human remains smuggling from Southeast Asia to the West, according to an article that has come to my attention today (courtesy of Museum Security Network). Additional coverage is here. ICE and Homeland Security authorities in New York investigated the suspicious origins of a package shipped from Bali, Indonesia (declared customs value of $5!), found to contain five carved and decorated "head-hunting" trophy skulls, believed to ethnographically originate with one of the many Dayak tribes in Borneo (Kalimantan). The skulls are believed to have been collected sometime during the 18th-19th centuries, although it is highly unlikely that any specific written records would tie these particular skulls to a specific location or time period; instead, appraisers would be required to rely on decorative motif analysis.

Because the total price exceeded $20,000 after a local appraiser "evaluated" what are acknowledged by the authorities, rightly in my opinion, to be priceless human remains, Customs could stop shipment at port in New Jersey. Amidst the usual speeches by officials of both nations, consultants etc. when repatriations are made, I find it unfortunate that these specifically Dayak ethnological artifacts (read stolen ancestral remains/heirlooms) were glossed as the "heritage of the Indonesian people" in this article. I have yet to find any information on whether or not community officials or leaders from one or more Dayak villages (i.e. longhouses) were on hand to witness the repatriation or claim the remains? I suspect not... The article merely suggests that they will be conserved in Indonesia...somewhere.

No information is given on the original shipper or intended destination, so perhaps that is still under investigation as part of prosecutory efforts. From what I can gather, this has yet to receive any independent press in Indonesia itself (the skull returned on the 16th May). Unfortunately, gallery webpages like this (the source of the photo above left) strongly suggest that a market for human remains still exists, with or without the participation of "independent," individual below-boards dealers on e-commerce sites like eBay. At least the above represents one more apprehension and, hopefully, ensures the conservation of these skulls for both future study and perhaps even eventual return to the appropriate community(s).

A SAFE Haven

2011-04-30T18:43:00.000-07:00

Just a reminder to my readers to please support the efforts of SAFE (Saving Antiquities for Everyone) in whatever way you can. The antiquities trade is a global crisis, and SAFE remains one of the only full-time organizations dedicated to education and outreach around the world; doing their (our) best to demonstrate and communicate that looting and the antiquities trade are deleterious wherever they occur. Furthermore, by now several other regionally-specific antiquities trade/heritage conservation focused blogs or organizations, including this one, connect to SAFE, and we all must stand in solidarity.

Statue Thievery Spreads to Bangladesh

2011-04-24T04:50:00.000-07:00

Just a quick post on a new incident of statue and idol thefts and attempted smuggling, this time out of Bangladesh, according to a recent article in the Daily Star (here). All involved were arrested in Bangladesh's main airport in Dhaka after being busted by customs before they could board flights to Bangkok. According to the articles, many of the confiscated statues were made of touchstone, metal or terracotta and depicted Hindu motifs. Amazingly, it appears that the guilty individuals were attempting to transport these bulky items in their luggage, although it's not clear if "luggage" in this case would actually refer to shipping crates.

A related article published in the Financial Express (another apparently prominent newspaper out of Bangladesh) came to my attention (once again) through Museum Security Network, and details that events of this nature have an active recent history in the country. It now seems that museums, and even archaeological sites exposed through planned excavation or development projects, are being deliberately targeted. Despite the somewhat strident tone of nationalistic rhetoric (in my opinion), the article makes a fair point that no nation should have to sit by and watch its heritage sites crumble, its archaeological sites be threatened by poorly planned development, and its movable cultural heritage be siphoned off, due to both local corruption and international avarice. Perhaps India, Nepal and Bangladesh can now work together on increasing enforcement and improving legislation to restrict cross-border trade in what is now apparently a subcontinent-wide problem. At the very least this should reduce the numbers of South Asian antiquities available to unscrupulous dealers and collectors overseas.

Not only the environment at risk...

2011-04-13T19:53:00.000-07:00

A recent news article published by Africa Review (out of Kenya), once again coming to my attention through Museum Security Network, clearly implies that not only natural resource/habitat destruction and forced human migration can result from seemingly rushed 'development,' but that it undiscovered archaeological sites might also be at risk. The project in question is the Ambatovy mine (targeting nickel and cobalt sources in the east of the island; slated to be the world's largest nickel mine by 2013), a joint venture with Canadian, Korean and Japanese partners (see photo above left).

Operational since earlier this year, it has already come under some criticism, according to the article, for clearing thousands of hectares of forest and displacing 'traditional' villages, due to the 220km long pipeline laid to connect the mine to treatment plants on the coast. This pipeline, adn the disturbance created to install it, occurred very close to several UNESCO World Heritage sites, according to the article. This is despite the apparent implementation of "conservation programs" to offset habitat losses, trumpeted by the Sherrit International Corporation, the mine's primary financial backers. However, the main point of the article is to publicize an international meeting that recently took place at the Malagasy Academy (in Antananarivo) to discuss the apparently 4,851 archaeological objects, ranging from ceramic to bone to "tumblers" to plastic (?), discovered during construction of mining facilities.

Unfortunately, the article gives no information as to context, level of previous disturbance or amount of archaeological material on the surface. The description provided makes it seem to me that the 'site' destroyed might even be a late historic-modern midden (trash mound). If any genuinely prehistoric or historic sites have been, or will be, uncovered during future mining expansion, the publicly available Ambatovy "code of conduct" should prevent the willful destruction of sites or sale of artifacts, if enforced. What more comes of this, how increased public exposure affects or reshapes operational procedures in the future, and how many new archaeological sites are even present in the area to discover...all appear to be unknowns. Thorough and up to date archaeological survey and excavation work around Madagascar has been growing in recent years, despite episodes of unrest and the continuous need to negotiate with/around development and conservation projects (here, here, and here for examples). What this history means for any future excavations, salvage or otherwise, in relation to Ambatovy, is unclear. Once again, time will tell...

On to Bangkok?

2011-04-01T16:53:00.000-07:00

In the same vein as the numerous recent examples of Hindu statues and idols I've posted about (e.g. here), two recent news articles suggest that a waive of Buddhist statue thefts have been occurring throughout Thailand (here and here). Apparently, dogs and alarm bells guarding many of these temples were not sufficient to prevent the thefts, which feed into a wide-spread network of illegal smuggling and sale. Fortunately, however, authorities have been on the ball, moving quickly to apprehend the perpetrators of the most recent reported theft (the Luang Phor Chiang Saen Buddha image, stolen from Wat Makok Simaram, Muang district). Their efforts netted two suspects and recovered 50 previously unaccounted for stolen items. Furthermore, the thieves confessed to eight other robberies since 2009, all targeting Buddha statues and temple paraphernalia. What is unfortunate is that the article reports that 36 registered statues have been stolen between 1996 and 2011, but only three have been retrieved. 531 unregistered statues (from smaller temples or rural villages?) have also been stolen, with only five recovered. Although in the case of the Chiang Saen statue, its final recipient and destination were within Thailand, it is unknown and unmentioned how many other stolen statues have found their way onto the international market. Although the villagers tried everything "metaphysical" within their power to ensure the statue's return, from 'merit-making' at the temple, to "cursing the robbers," in the end, the swift action of police came through. Let's hope this most recent arrest heralds increased vigilance and resources devoted to guarding these temples at all hours and recovering as much of what's already been stolen as possible.

The Repatriation of...wait for it...Chinese artifacts!

2011-03-12T23:09:00.000-08:00

Another quick offering here, as a follow up to my February 19th post. Turns out that the artifacts mentioned in that post (the seizure reported in Paramus, NJ, daily newspaper) have joined others confiscated in Alaska and New Mexico in being officially repatriated to China this past Friday, according to a new article released yesterday. A country wide operation dubbed "Operation Great Wall," netted two Northern Wei dynasty terra cotta horses, a Ming dynasty stone frieze and a Song dynasty Bodhisattva head; all priceless pieces of China's movable cultural heritage (although given their size, arranging for their clandestine shipping would most likely have proven difficult). An example can be seen in the photo above left. A bilateral agreement (an M.O.U.) was signed between Beijing and Washington in 2009, yet there is still much work to be done to prevent antiquities from leaving China in the first place, let alone reaching their intended destination. As with all examples of successful repatriation reported in the media, they unfortunately represent only the tip of the iceberg. Nevertheless, a job well done!

Recent News of Interest...

2011-03-11T03:22:00.000-08:00

This is a quick post about a few recent news items of interest which once again have come to my attention through Museum Security Network. It is in advance of a post on the SAFECorner blog which will detail my own personal participation in the "hand back ceremony" for several looted Iron Age bronze artifacts, many still containing human remains, that occurred two days ago at the Cambodian Ambassador's residence here in Canberra, Australia. Lead-in information can be found here, and in this blog post by a friend and co-attendee of the ceremony, Mr. Noel Hidalgo-Tan, also of the ANU. More to come on this!

The first article of interest appeared in the New York Times March 10th edition, and details how the members of three separate archaeological organizations (unnamed in the article) have written to the secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to express concern over its planned hosting of an exhibition centred around the artifacts recovered from a 9th century shipwreck of an Arab dhow, sunk in the Java Sea, but "salvaged" by a German company called Seabed Exploration GbR, according to the article. The critics attest that, due to this company's alleged faulty methods, valuable information was lost in the 'salvage,' as opposed to what can be gained through more controlled excavation, even in a challenging underwater environment. Issues surrounding methodology and ethics in shipwreck archaeology are not new concerns. Furthermore, the article attests that most of these artifacts were sold to a private company in Singapore for $32 million, and the exhibit just happens to now be on display in the ArtScience Museum there. A panel meeting to discuss the archaeological community's concerns is scheduled to occur in advance of a final decision to display the exhibit.

The next article concerns the repatriation of the skeletal remains of 138 Indigenous people, likely from Torres Straight Islanders, although only 19 individuals have been thoroughly provenanced to "one of the Torres Straight Islands," according to the article. The rest are believed to derive from either the Torres Straight, southern Papua New Guinea or northern Cape York Australia. The exact details of the 'testing' done to confirm this prior to repatriation is not stated, but from the range of possible points of geographic origin, I would assume that minute samples of tooth enamel have been tested for isotopic 'signatures' of the elements strontium and/or oxygen; a by-now common means of 'sourcing' skeletal remains, although not without controversy.

From ethnographic accounts, none of the remains are posited to be more than 200 years old, and most were collected from caves, although a few "trophy skulls" are part of the assemblage. I personally feel that good points were raised on both sides as to why repatriation should eventually occur, but also why and how new developments in archaeological and bioarchaeological science (my field, after all) can continue to shed light on ancient remains. The state of mutual cooperation and agreement reached in this case is arguably the best possible outcome, but one that still occurs far too infrequently when debating repatriation cases. All parties involved should be commended on reaching such an equitable decision!

Chinese antiquities bust in Jersey

2011-02-19T20:25:00.000-08:00

One of my earlier blog posts in June last year highlighted the growing trade in Dynastic period antiquities from China, and the various means by which they go from ground to gallery, fuelled by pop-culture and public misconception of the archaeological process. In that vein, a recent example of another smuggling attempt is worth mentioning here. According to an article in the Paramus Post (a daily newspaper out of Paramus, New Jersey), Customs and Homeland Security officers and investigators have seized five large-scale artifacts, including two sandstone Buddhas, two terracotta horse/rider sculptures, and a Bodhisattva head sculpture, roughly dating from the Northern Qi, Northern Wei and Song Dynasties (see example photo above left).

A final location(s) for the pieces is not mentioned; perhaps the relevant receipts/import-export forms were missing. Again according to the article, these artifacts could have fetched $250,000 together on the open market, but this is only an estimate. It is fortunate that this shipment was stopped at customs, but not surprising given the size of the artifacts involved. Unfortunately, for every large piece of sculpture or statuary that is recovered and repatriated, an untold quantity of smaller artifacts will reach their final private or gallery destinations, and China still has numerous difficulties stemming internal looting, controlling forgery and illicit auction houses, and conducting construction work with appropriate attention to at-risk archaeological/heritage sites, as this 2005 article suggests. Still, all involved in the above-mentioned apprehension should be given our heartiest congratulations. Constant vigilance!

Idol Hands...

2011-02-10T19:38:00.001-08:00

A quick update on the ongoing, subcontinent-wide phenomena of idol theft/smuggling occurring throughout India, and perhaps Nepal: Two additional men were arrested in the 'Civil Lines' area of Allahabad last Wednesday night, on their way to deliver another stolen 'ashtadhatu' idol to a client in Mumbai, where they would then have received more than Rms. 20 million ($400,000USD)! According to police inspector R.B. Singh, the specific idol in question was of the goddess 'Durga,' and was stolen from a temple in Gujarat, although which specific temple is not mentioned. The report suggests that the two arrested individuals were well-established in the regional idol-smuggling world, with clients in many states and perhaps Nepal as well. All of the above fits established patterns, but I wouldn't be surprised if even more prominent "middle-men" are eventually arrested. The very fact that so many above-ground, publicly used temples are being robbed region wide, in addition to other, archaeological antiquities on the market from India, is a disturbing trend...

Idols for Sale...

2011-01-16T14:04:00.000-08:00

A recent article brought to my attention via the Museum Security Network provides an update on the ongoing idol/antiquities thefts still occurring throughout India. A Times of India story is now reporting that many of the so-called 'ashtadhatu' (eight metals) idols, the genuine article stolen from temples in many states throughout the country (see photo at left, taken from www.hindu-blog.com), can now be increasingly found for sale at many places of tourist renown (e.g. Agra, Varanasi, Allahabad, etc.). In fact, according to the article, 18 ashtadhatu idols have been stolen from three temples over the past two weeks alone (pre-dating Jan. 10th), in three ongoing cases!

As recently as last year (May, June, and September), several independent groups of criminals were arrested near the Nepalese border, part of a trend frequently noted by members of both the SOG (Special Operations Group: police) and STF (Special Task Forces: detectives); namely, that of India or Nepal based middlemen and criminal syndicates arranging for transport of the stolen idols and antiquities into Nepal for later transport to the international market. Apparently, states and regions such as Uttar Pradesh, Kashinagar and Kanpur have been especially hard hit, but it seems reasonable to expect that every state sharing a border with Nepal has seen smuggling events. Now, however, it appears that the stolen antiquities are increasingly sold through local channels in tourist hotspots such as those mentioned above, according to Arvind Chaturvedi, of the Special Task Force.

Although such thefts are in clear violation of the Indian Penal Code (sections 414 and 411), and the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act of 1972, the high prices involved still drive many to take the risks. Thus, only increased monitoring of porous international borders, bolstered customs agency staff, and increased night patrols of vulnerable temples (and open archaeological sites in general, I might add) will 'arrest' this problem. Unfortunately, it seems that communication problems between local priests, the police and investigating authorities is hampering this effort. Although one senior police official is on record in the article for 'vehemently denying' that his region (the Kanpur region) has become a 'hub of antique idol smuggling,' based solely on the occasional apprehension of smugglers heading for the border or to meet clients in urban areas, if the Special Task Force detectives are noting such a marked uptick in the number of arrests and cases, this is arguably still cause for concern.

Another issue raised by an unnamed customs official is the problem of within-country circulation of antiquities from north to south (and presumably vise versa) for "re-use" in different Hindu temples than those they came from. "During one of my trips to South India, many valuable sculptures, coins, manuscripts, statues, paintings, and ornaments from across the nation were freely available there in art markets," the article reports. One would hope that the purchasers of such items for religious purposes would question whether or not they were initially stolen! I will keep following developments in this situation as I encounter them, but here's hoping that the increased monitoring attested to in the article will be accompanied by at least some additional funding for local authorities to keep doing their jobs, as well as increased awareness by potential overseas purchasers that that intriguing, 'exotic,' idol for sale at the local night market, on eBay, or at an upscale gallery, just might not come from "an old family collection."

Repatriation Down Under

2011-01-09T17:38:00.000-08:00

In the spirit of a recent post over on the SAFECorner blog, regarding the repatriation of Native American remains under NAGPRA laws, now 20years on, I would like to take this opportunity to share a repatriation story from my adopted "home," Australia. This story conserns the return and reburial of two adult skeletons, ceremonially wrapped in bark cloth and buried according to the still-living mortuary customs of the Bundjalung people, whose Country lies near Lismore, New South Wales, after being stored for 200 years at the Leiden University Medical Centre in Holland.

Originally spirited out of Australia for "research purposes" by the famed botanist Joseph Banks, they were seemingly quickly forgotten about until an effort was made to identify and track them down as part of Australia's "National Repatriation Program," overseen by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Ethnographers from the National Museum of Australia, here in Canberra, as well as the Dutch ambassador (left nameless in this article), helped to assure their smooth transfer to the National Museum, and then Southern Cross University (near Lismore) upon their return to Australia, while two Bundjalung community elders (Gwenn Hickling and John Morrissey) traveled to Leiden to oversee the first stage of the repatriation. What is especially touching to me is the immense pride that several younger members of the community felt knowing these 'old people' have now returned. This even included the singing of a Welcome song by Goonellabah Public School students in the local language, part of continuing efforts at cultural and linguistic preservation/revival. Good on them!

It is not specified as to how much, if any, the remains were anthropologically or osteologically studied and recorded before repatriation occurred, nor what exact criteria was used to determine that the Bundjalung community are the closest living descendants. Like much of coastal temparate/tropical Australia, the Lismore/Richmond Rivers area would've been home to numerous small, linguistically distinct groups at the time of European contact. This, to me, demostrates that 100% certain, 1:1 examples of archaeological/ethnohistoric remains being matched to one particular ethnic group is still problematic across much of Autralia, as it is in America, Canada, and anywhere else that Western contact saw the forced movement and mixing of peoples. Indeed, there are even claims, primarily made by the descendants of European settlers, that the peoples known as Arakwal and Bundjalung "don't exist," but the validity of this is hotly contested. However, it is possible that supporting documentation/"labeling" by Banks himself might have been curated along with the remains and associatied mortuary artifacts. Nevertheless, this is an event that should be celebrated by all, given the solace it has so obviously provided. As Elder Bertha Kapeen stated, "It's very significant for Aboriginal people everywhere, not just here."

Two Blogs to Watch Out For...

2010-12-23T19:56:00.000-08:00

Two blogs have recently come to my attention that both, in their own way, highlight certain aspects of the antiquities trade/heritage preservation issues worldwide, and deserve further exposure here.

The first blog, simply called "Looting," administered by Dr. Nathan Craig and Margaret Brown-Vega, details the ongoing threat of grave robbing/looting ('huaqueando' in Spanish) still encountered throughout Peru and South America. Most entries consist primarily of photos of all the scattered remains, discarded "worthless" artifacts, and irreparably scarred landscapes left behind by looting. The broken bones, the complete ceramics with holes punched through them from looter's testing poles, the cloth scraps, hair, etc. All that context and irreplaceable data, all that disrespect and violation of the ancestors, just so the still-impoverished looters can feed the habits of rich middlemen and the international market. As poignant as the blog is, this is the kind of information that needs to be broadcast far and wide, wherever it occurs.

The other blog, "Culture in Peril," is run by one Mr. Nicholas Merkelson, an up-and-coming early career archaeologist and cultural heritage specialist with field experience from Spain to Kenya, museological experience at the National Museum of Natural History and National Museum of Kenya, and current employment with Adventures in Preservation, a sustainable heritage tourism company. With a world-wide focus, centred more on the ethics/controversy inherent in heritage conservation, site preservation, and the illicit trade in themselves, more than news from any one region, this blog nevertheless offers well-reasoned arguments, a breadth of stories and unrestricted commenting. To quote from his initial post (Feb 7th, 2010) "Culture in Peril will point followers towards the latest reports of heritage issues ongoing in the world today and provide insight into why and how these issues are--and must be--a concern to every individual." In this blogger's opinion, Culture in Peril is meeting it's goal very well!

Keep up the good work, and Season's Greetings, readers!

Let's Not Forget the Palaeontologists...

2010-12-13T19:26:00.000-08:00

Despite the number of times that archaeologists get confused for palaeontologists (no, we do NOT excavate dinosaur bones), it is easy to overlook the fact that those who do uncover the world's pre-Homo sapiens past often face their own set of illicit smuggling/collecting threats to their work, field sites, and continued integrity as a scientific discipline. This recent article from the New York Times highlights these problems well.

The article details the ongoing illicit excavation and smuggling threat to an immense cache of 40 million year old marine reptile, shark and whale fossils, now being gradually exposed by the elements in Peru's Ocucaje desert, near the south coast city of Ica. Discoveries include "gigantic fossilized teeth from the legendary 50-foot shark called the megalodon, the bones of a huge penguin with surprisingly colorful feathers and the fossils of the Leviathan melvillei, a whale with teeth longer than those of the Tyrannosaurus Rex, making it a contender for the largest predator ever to prowl the oceans." The area is becoming well known to palaeontologists with marine mammal specializations, such as Dr. Christian de Muizon, of the Natural History Museum of Paris, perhaps rivaling parts of Pakistan, long known for its concentration of whale fossils.

However, now that so many nearby, and national, archaeological sites have been/are being looted out, smuggling attention is turning to fossils. Peruvian law classifies fossils along with archaeological artifacts as "national patrimony," and thus special permission is needed for their export. The hyper-remoteness of the region, it's aridity, and the near-complete lack of police presence means enforcement's more or less a pipe-dream. Indeed, many shops in Ica itself sell fossils: shark teeth for from $60-100, with rarer pieces going for higher. I wonder what kind of documentation comes with purchase, or is available upon request to prove that one's new store-bought fossil was excavated according to best palaeontological practice? If that segment of the illicit fossil trade that violates international laws at the behest of greedy dealers is anything like the antiquities trade (and it's clear that it is), I'm guessing the answer is no. According to the article, it's mostly itinerant seaweed harvesters/merchants who collect fossils on their way back from the coast. I would guess that this is not the world's most lucrative profession, thus making the urge to brave tough conditions in the desert a strong one.

According to the article, 2,200 seizures of illicit fossil cargo occurred this year at Lima's airport, up from 800 last year. This could be viewed in one of two ways: does the increase mean illicit smuggling attempts are increasing, or that customs agents are getting better at recognizing fossils and the tell-tale signs of concealed cargo, or both? It's hard to tell. What is apparent is that this is a growing concern, even in this remote region, as the still-impoverished huaqeros (tomb robbers) look for new ways to feed the market. By way of summary, the article linked to above details the rescue of more than one dozen Chimu-era artifacts robbed from a tomb near Conache, with a lawyer now contacted, and police and archaeologists stepping up patrol of the area. Similarly, professional palaeontologists, both local and foreign, must now race against time, the elements, and the criminal underworld to complete expensive field expeditions successfully, when they are fortunate enough to find good specimens of the species they're after. With the palaeontological community aware of the problem, it is now up to ethical local dealers and international buyers to cut off the illicit market at the source, only allowing sale of 'duplicate' skeletal elements from common species with a complete paper-trail and provenance provided. Buen suerte, Peru!

Pakistani Smuggling Attempt Thwarted...

2010-12-01T13:44:00.000-08:00

A new article from the Daily Times (a national newspaper out of Pakistan), brought to my attention via the Museum Security listserv, reports on a significant confiscation of artifacts bound for export, but stopped at the Allama Iqbal airport, Lahore. The Federal Archaeology Department recovered a shipment of 272 ceramics and pieces of Gandharan statuary (although the presence of the latter is not clear from the article) originating from the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan regions, including the Kuli site complex, but that some of the smaller ceramic objects might even have been unearthed on personal property, during home or yard maintenance for example.

Noting that artifacts such as these will often end up in the hand of collectors all over the world, the confiscating official lamented "ancient sites are plundered for short-term gains, this results in both the loss of heritage to indigenous people and irreparable damage to archaeological sites." Very savvy words indeed! Cultural heritage law in Pakistan dictates that if an object is verified authentic, but less than 75 years old, it is returned to its owner. In this instance, apparently the smuggling attempt wasn't well-disguised, and an on-the-spot determination of the general antiquity of the artifacts could be made, warranting their being turned over to the FAD. The stark cut-off point of 75 years applies even to small, more 'personal' items, as the ex-wife of famous Pakistani cricketer and politician Imran Khan found out 15 years ago, when she attempted to take a few tiles from the couple's house out of the country, but was arrested and tried for antiquities smuggling instead, the customs official reported.

The international and Pakistani archaeological communities are fortunate that, this time, the relevant authorities were on the ball, and this confiscation could be made. However, we in the illicit trade monitoring world know that for every one apprehension, many more get through. Thus, the burden of proof remains firmly on the shoulders of international galleries, such as Gandhara Galleries, to demonstrate that the 'priceless' objects they are selling for a fraction of their true, immeasurable, worth (while still reaping absorbitant profits) are either replicas, or have valid pre-1970s export licenses and, ideally, completely in-tact paper trails from surfacing to export to sale. Since it's all too apparent that most recent artifacts smuggled from places such as Pakistan will lack this documentation, dealers and galleries can't provide it, and most don't care, confiscations like this will, at least occasionally, continue.

Another Arrest Made!

2010-11-17T19:01:00.000-08:00

Another arrest, this time of two men from Harihar, Karnataka (names given as Parashuram and Vijayanand) was made this past Monday in the ongoing case of the smuggling of idols and statuary out of southern Indian temples. Specifically, these two individuals "used to steal ancient Panchaloha (alloy of five metals) idols as well as gold and silver ornaments from temples, Bhootasthanes, Jain Basadis etc., located in Udupi and Uttara Kannada districts since the last some years." Targeted this time was the Panchaloha idol of Karvalu Vishnumurty temple, Erlappady village, a conch shell with silver foil covering, a statue "belonging to Hiriyadka Garody," and the Panchaloha idol belonging to Brahmavar Mahalingeshwar temple.

All were recovered when the arrests were made, and a van and motorbike used for transpart were also seized. Occasionaly, artifacts such as these are unearthed from controlled or uncontrolled archaeological contexts, but this arrest represents yet another example of targeted looting from poorly guarded, but actively used temples. Thanks again go to Mr. Santosh Kumar, local deputy director of police, and his Provincial and local detective colleagues. It will be interesting to see if further investigation of the (any) paper trail linking these statues to a pre-arranged international buyer, local middle-men, or even upscale 'final destination galleries, will be brought to light this time.

A report on the Berlin conference...finally!

2010-10-31T20:56:00.000-07:00

Ok, I've finally found time to gather my thoughts and write about goings-on at the EurASEAA conference just passed in Berlin. All in all, a roaring success! Held at the Free University of Berlin (nestled in the midst of a leafy residential area on the Southwest edge of the city...unfortunately far from a diversity of food options), but still within quick metro ride to the heart of Berlin, and the conference venues were sleek, modern, and provided excellent acoustics. Participation stood at around 200 people (by my estimate); small but comfortable as conferences go, with only two-three overlapping sessions at any one time, and easy movement between rooms.

Sessions covered topics ranging from new research on prehistoric exchange networks in beads and glass, to maritime archaeology itself (shipwrecks, boat construction, merchant marine iconography etc.), new insights into the Southeast Asian Palaeolithic period (i.e. the "Hoabinhian"), a small representation of bioarchaeologists/palaeoanthropologists (like myself), and a session covering/reassessing the terminology, and archaeological, linguistic, and skeletal evidence we use to define and understand the still-vague "Neolithic" period (c. 6,000-3,500BP?). This was where I presented...the "only bioarchaeologist in the village." Regardless, I feel that our session came together particularly well, raising many critical issues. The need for more data and more excavations is never ending in archaeology, especially in this still under-explored region.

Other panels discussed new GIS/geophysical/archaeological work on the Angkorian road system, the increasing number of late prehistoric (c. 500BC-50AD) sites knows from the Mekong Delta region (some represented by very large, but partially looted burial grounds), new rock art research in Malaysia, new archaeological survey work in the Laos/Cambodia border region, new excavations in Sumatra, and even the discovery of vast burial grounds, with associated settlement sites and metal weapon/jewelry manufacturing centres, in the still under-explored Yunnan-Guizhou area of southern China, dating to as early as 3,300BP. Sessions were well moderated, timely, and usually feedback was relevant. Several authors had books for sale, and Prof. Ian Glover (something of a deity in this field) was signing copies of an edited volume devoted to his life and times. I got mine!

Although catering was a bit lacking, we all had a lovely reception at the German Archaeological Institute and the Ethnological Museum, with mid-conference tours on offer to the Pergamon Museum and Neues Museum; repositories of the early 1900's German contribution to both nascent world archaeology (mostly Classical), and the "encyclopedic museum," with all its pros and cons as far as Heritage and the antiquities trade is concerned. Seeing the original "Helen of Troy" artifacts from the Schleimann excavation, and the original bust of Nefertiti (along side impressive exhibits on European prehistory etc.) was certainly awe-inspiring, displayed as they were within suitably contextualized exhibits, but the same arguments can be leveled against these institutions as can be directed towards the major museums of any former colonialist power regarding their retention of such artifacts for so many decades; enough already! It was fascinating to me to learn so much more about Germany's pre-and post World War role in the development of archaeology as a discipline, in the city to which so many early excavations returned, and from which many of Germany's current contributors to Southeast Asian archaeology hail from.

Throughout the conference, only minimal attention was given to the issue of looting, or sites under threat from such activities, but it was clear to me that many of the new sites discovered and recently excavated were only done so because archaeologists found them first; not due to any sudden uptick in the protection of the region's prehistoric past. Of course, this is a problem needing to be further monitored, as the antiquities trade continues to take its tole. While the new research disseminated at the conference certainly represents (for the most part) cutting edge analyses of new discoveries, it remains to be seen how the Southeast Asian archaeological community itself will continue to address, and more proactively deal with, the looting problem...to the extent that we can control it. Thus, while still presenting new research, this blog will continue to put the antiquities trade front and centre....where it belongs!

Take 2

2010-10-02T18:54:00.000-07:00

Ok, maybe promising "live blogging" when on a conference schedule, still jetlagged, and having many colleagues to catch up with was a bit of a stretch! However, I can report that I took copious notes which I'll share the highlights of very soon; attending more than 3/4ths of all presentations, and leaning many new things about SE Asian art history/archaeology...the bulk of these new discoveries remaining under threat. I am in New York for one week now to visit SAFE (savingantiquities.org) colleagues. A real update soon, I promise.

Live blogging from Berlin

2010-09-27T22:41:00.000-07:00

I am currently at the 13th Annual European Association for Southeast Asian archaeologists conference in Berlin, Germany. I will present preliminary results from my ongoing dissertation work, and I hope to give you, dear readers, one or two updates while here regarding the cutting edge research occurring in the region today. Although only one session specifically deals with heritage conservation, the looting problem is one that all Western archaeologists in collaboration with local colleagues have to continue to address. So, stay tuned for more....

Focus, Special Report: Art Crime in Cambodia

2010-08-20T20:34:00.000-07:00

Through the online Museum Security listserv, I've come across this video (here), a newscast from the Focus program, hosted by the France 24 International News network. Centering around the recent return of several pieces of Khmer statuary to Cambodia from the US, under the auspices/pomp and circumstance of the US State department, the video then goes further, discussing some more recent thefts, such as those now occurring from active Buddhist monasteries throughout SE Asia. An excellent teleconference interview is then conducted with Christopher Marinello, of the Art Loss Register in London.

In regards to the ongoing theft of early Historic and Angkorian statuary from more remote outlying temples, Mr. Marinello makes the good, but entirely obvious point that it's all about following the money. People coerced into looting believe they'll be automatically lifted out of poverty forever by the middlemen who con them, private dealers will pay millions and spend inordinate amounts of time planning "thefts to order," and the local law enforcement in many countries, including Heritage Police in Cambodia, are unfortunately still quite underfunded in response. As the video highlights well, the flow of money and artifacts these days is not merely from poorer non-Western countries to richer Western countries, but is transnational in the broadest sense of that word.

In my opinion, resources like the Art Loss Register can be a meaningful aid in the recovery of those large pieces that would most likely eventually be noticed to be missing (if, as noted, individuals and countries come forward to report the thefts), but much less effective in dealing with the no-questions asked antiquities trade that continue to fuel the destruction of prehistoric sites in Cambodia (and elsewhere). I have heard tell via online contacts that a "registry" system was proposed to the members of various dealer and "responsible" collector groups as a way to better sort those licit items in circulation for decades from those recently surfaced, but I have yet to see or hear of any initial implimentation of this idea. All in all, I commend France 24 International News for airing this expose and helping to give more exposure to the looting problem in Cambodia, but would've liked to have seen a segment detailing the threat to prehistoric sites, from which followers of this blog (and Heritage Watch) would know the majority of artifacts come from.

Scrambled Eggs?

2010-08-10T06:21:00.000-07:00

Previously, it was reported on the Portable Antiquities Collecting and Heritage Issues blog (here) that a dinosaur egg "collected in the Henan province in China and (was) valued at $1,700" was stolen from the Otago Museum last week. The original reporter was asked by an independant observer if the thief or thiefs also happened to steal any export licence paperwork associated with this find, to demonstrate that it legally left China, but at the time of this writing, the answer to this question is not known. The answer is relevant, as if affirmative, it would both increase the likelihood that the egg entered the museum's shop by legal channels (perhaps sold as an excess 'common' specimen from the acquisition of an old excavation assemblage), and make it easier for the thief to sell to any "responsible" dealers.

Now The Southland Times reports (here) that a "52 year old Invercargill artist" has been arrested and charged in relation to the theft of the egg, which was very well recorded by the museum shop's video cameras. Apparently, the perpetrator was also brought up on unrelated shoplifting charges, and returned the egg (voluntarily?) after two days, leaving it in a shopping bag at the museum reception desk. This seems like a very basic and spur of the moment robery...probably done merely to pay off some minor debts, as without official collecting history paperwork and export license, no responsible dealer, gallery or auction house should touch it. Much the same as what should be done to perform due diligence on any suspect archaeological artifacts...an infrequent and incomplete process at best.

New Insights into Hanoi's Prehistory

2010-07-30T22:27:00.000-07:00

The links here, from the China Daily Post and Thanh Nhien News.com, discuss the recent archaeological discovery (in April, this year) of approximately 15 "tombs" (read earthen pit graves) dating to the "Phung Nguyen" culture c. 3,500 BP, within the urban Dong Anh district of Hanoi, in advance of ongoing development. The excavation was lead by my colleagues Drs. Nguyen Lan Cuong and Lai Van Toi of the Vietnamese Institute of Archaeology (Vien Khao Co Hoc). The photo above-left is of Professor Lan Cuong himself hard at work*! The results of the excavation indicated that men, women and children were buried in this cemetery, and that the local "aristocracy" (here defined as individuals with a somewhat greater quantity of diverse ceramic and bronze grave goods), consisted of adult individuals with their upper incisors removed (a practice referred to as tooth ablation in the bioarchaeological literature). Numerous studies can now be done on these individuals to determine their place of birth, any familial connections within this so-called "aristocracy," dietary, health or activity differences between the sexes, comparison to other sites, etc. Let the science commence!

Although I take semantic issue with use of the term "aristocracy" when referring to the social organization of this still-poorly understood time period, the material culture found in the graves, and in surrounding and overlying archaeological stratigraphy, all make sense as belonging to the Red River plain Bronze Age sequence. The uppermost soil stratum was even reported to contain "a system of holes believed to be the outer most rampart of the Co Loa citadel," but this claim will certainly take more excavation over a wider area, and further analysis, to verify. Regardless of the final verdict, the recovery of an intact prehistoric site with burials in urban Hanoi is quite fortunate, as many of the objects, especially the ceramics and bronze artifacts, are common finds in urban "souvenir" shops, even if many of them turn up through field plowing in surrounding areas. Furthermore, uncontrolled development has damaged several sites throughout urban Vietnam. The fact that the Phung Nguyen burials were 1.5m under the modern ground surface no doubt helped preserve them. Hopefully, this is the first of a series of new sites that will be discovered and carefully excavated before they are destroyed as Hanoi continues to "modernize." Fingers crossed.

*=photo from Thanh Nhien Daily.com

Taking a Quick Overview

2010-07-24T00:07:00.001-07:00

This link, to a piece written by Terressa Davis of the NGO Heritage Watch, is an excellent summary of the c. 2006, and arguably still current, situation pertaining to the trade/smuggling of illicit antiquities, both historic and prehistoric, out of Cambodia; deserving to be further disseminated. While prehistoric and small portable artifacts now make up the bulk of the Southeast Asian trade, even a casual perusal of online sources will demonstrate that genuine Southeast Asian archaeological material culture of all types (with the occasional forgery thrown in) is still reaching its final destination in private collections and museum gallery floors, sometimes still with the compliance of major auction houses. Even with the majority of large pieces of Angkorian (12th-16thc) statuary still on the art market having at least some provenance back to the early-mid 20th century, stopping the in-country flow of those objects that are being traded, given continued cases of local corruption hampering efforts, remains difficult. Without the cooperation of source and demand country governments and citizens and further time and effort devoted to diverse educational outreach, current momentum will stagnate. Constant vigilance!

Continued Tragedy in Iraq

2010-07-10T15:17:00.000-07:00

Although I'm aware that Iraq is not in fact in the Southern Hemisphere, I want to post a link to this video here to do my part to give it further coverage in the media and blogosphere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76yWh3ongT0&feature=player_embedded

I originally encountered the video here. The source is AlJazeera's English Language broadcast. It is only by further investigations and reporting like this, but in other heavily threatened locations around the world as well (Cambodia, for example), that the "Big Lie" perpetuated by die-hard antiquities dealers can be further exposed. Can anyone, especially anyone claiming to be a "responsible collector," look at videos like this and still not think that fresh loot is fueling the global market? Wouldn't one have to at least become a little "suspicious" as to the authenticity of that "Old Collection" provenance lable seen on yet another cylinder seal or cuneiform tablet? Yes, broken up musuem and private collections pre-dating 1970 do exist, but those items too are especially likely to have left their context through what would today be defined as looting, given the near-complete lack of heritage laws and systematic, scientific archaeology at the time. Seeing essentially the same activities continue today in war-torn countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, or those still reeling from the effects of war 35yrs on, could lead only the most willfully ignorant to the conclusion that the looting threat is "over exaggerated!"

China's Sorrow...and the World's

2010-06-26T17:52:00.001-07:00

I bring to your attention two recent articles regarding the current uptick in tomb robbing occurring these days in China. The first was written by Dr. Magnus Fiskesjo, an anthropology professor at Cornell University (and former Director of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities in Stockholm). It was published in the China Daily newspaper. The second is by Calum MacLeod, for USA Today. Both center around the recent discovery of the tomb of general Cao Cao, a famous historical figure who lived between AD 155-220, at the very beginning of the Three Kindgoms Period (AD 220-280).

Although the tomb was eventually excavated (read "salvaged") by archaeologists, according to one of the farmers turned collectors in Anyang province (in the vicinity of Cao Cao's tomb), quoted in MacLeod's article, "since 2007, five gangs have targeted the tomb, and the region's poverty is the main driver." Although many locals supplement their meager income with selling field finds (usually obtained by less drastic means than the combination of metal detecting, bulldozing, mobile phone photography, "feng shue" divination and "traditional archaeological techniques" increasingly favoured by the organized tomb raiding teams), the articles stress that at least a few small-scale local collectors who might otherwise wish to see museums built to curate their artifacts are increasingly afraid of draconian penalties.

Both articles stress what is lost in terms of context and more specialized archaeological knowledge when a tomb is ripped open in search of artifacts. Importantly, however, Dr. Fiskesjo stresses that the majority of the blame should not lie at the feet of local looters or even local middle-men (beyond devising more appropriate punishments to act as deterrents as much as possible...certainly not the death penalty). Rather, the urban dealers and private collectors in China and abroad are assigned most of the blame; rightfully so, in my and the author's opinions.

The articles bolster this sentiment by pointing out that urban dealers and collectors in China are encouraged to only accept "the real deal" by such pop-cultural phenomena as antique shopping shows and game shows with content and discussion of antiquities far removed from the on the ground realities of looting. Indeed, MacLeod's points out how just how much "antiques have become the new currency of bribery" amongst corrupt officials in China, notes collector Hu Wengao (as quoted in MacLeod's article). This goes hand in hand with the rise of numerous "antiques malls" in Beijing, increasing export of rare pieces (or retention by corrupt local officials) and a thriving fakes industry, especially out of Hong Kong.

Banned under Mao in 1949 as "too capitalist," the MacLeod article notes that since the 1980's the "hobby" has been making a come back. However, the ideas proposed by Feskijo to use pop-culture as a force for good; something to remove the "lime light" that looting and collecting have been given in the local Chinese media, and expose the messy side of the trade to international collectors who might only see cleaned-up pieces online. To quote Fiskesjo "Alongside the antique shopping shows on TV, there could be programs that highlight this destruction. One could make arrested robbers walk the sites with reporters, under experts' guidance, and explain the damage they have done and reveal the names of persons who payed them to do it. Similar tell-all shows could be conducted with dealers who knowingly sell recently stolen items. One could interview collectors and ask them to reflect on the sad consequences of their activity."

While these seem like intriguing ideas in principle, I think it'd be rather difficult to actually arrange informants to interview or display to the public. However, if participation in such a program was implemented as a legal "community service" option, perhaps in exchange for a reduced fine, jail time, or a stay of execution, especially for those poor rural residents who might only be engaged in "subsistence digging," more of those convicted might try to arrange for it. Indeed, Fiskesjo concludes by noting that the shame itself could be a powerful deterrent, at least for locals (even urbanites who have yet to purchase and are simply not aware of how that shiny bronze object actually got into that gallery's window display). Shaming foreign (primarily Western) middle-men, collectors and dealers into giving up their hobby is another thing entirely.

The future of Chinese prehistoric and historic archaeology appears to be at a cross-roads, and as local and international archaeologists continue to collaborate in their race against time, they key here (as in Southeast Asia and everywhere else looting is felt...i.e. pretty much everywhere), is changing public attitudes. Easier said than done, but in my view, factually-grounded outreach can only be a force for good.

You call this "Archaeology," do you?

2010-06-20T02:37:00.000-07:00

Yet another one... This time I direct you towards this VCoins.com and Trocadero affiliated dealer, simply called "Archaeology." Seriously. Operating out of Bendigo, Victoria, since 1996 (online since 2002), Mr. and Mrs. Munday claim to have, over their 12 years of operation, "formed fabulous relationships with dealers," primarily working with Licenced Antiquities Dealers in the Holyland (Israel). They boast that they have also received materials, of unstated provenance and collection history, from the former Museum of Biblical History in Columbus, Ohio (what, exactly, happened to it?). Indeed, through their "expertise" (primarily, it seems, in Classical World coins) they "hope to be able to help you with your collection, gift, or coffee table talking point" (italics mine). Coffee table talking point?!

There's nothing new about how they advertise their wares. Prices are usually offered, sometimes with discounts, sometimes noting what's been sold. No provenance, no collecting history, no mention of how these European and Middle Eastern coins made it to "a small country town" in Australia. However, what I want to highlight is the following statement: "We not only love our business, but also love ancient history and the fantastic feeling of connection with the past that antiquities and ancient coins provide the bearer. We hope to be able to share our passion and enthusiasm with you as we display our fantastic range of ancient history and art." If unsatisfied, items can be returned for a full refund, but if they come back damaged, don't worry...purchaser and supplier can just "talk about what went wrong." Really?!

The existence of stores like this represents, to me, the very fringes of the "no questions asked" antiquities trade. It is unfortunate to find them apparently alive and well in Australia, and using the same tired rhetoric used by dealerships/galleries big and small.

Angkorian Statuary Repatriation: What's Behind the Headlines?

2010-06-19T01:19:00.000-07:00

The Seattle Post Intelligencer picked up an AP wire story dated June 17th, pertaining to the repatriation of seven pieces of c. 1000-1500AD Khmer statuary, including "two heads of the Buddha, a bas relief, and an engraved plinth" (photo at left). See here for the Phnom Penh Post's take. The statues were unloaded in port at Sihanoukeville on Thursday, after traveling aboard the USNS Mercy; bound to Cambodia on a "13-day mission to provide free medical care to Cambodians." The article makes some to-do about these pieces being recovered during a 2008 "raid" by US Immigrations and Customs (I.C.E.) agents, on the location they were being held at somewhere in Los Angeles, yet fails to report where this locations is, who possessed them, if they were recovered from private residences or institutions post-sale or were in some warehouse somewhere awaiting delivery. The article notes that, despite the M.O.U. (Memorandum of Understanding) signed between Cambodia and the US (and, I should note, the existence of an I.C.O.M. "Red List" for Cambodia since 2009), numerous artifacts large and small have ended up in private collections overseas. This is indeed true, and ongoing. What I question is whether there's more to this story than meets the eye.

What's missing completely from this article is any mention of this, the "seedier" side of the antiquities trade in Asian archaeological artifacts. A colleague of mine and I have been discussing the possibility that this repatriation came about as a result of the "Robert Olson" investigation, during which official warrant-mandated searches of his Los Angeles residence in 2008 directly led to the recovery of photographs, reference books, receipts, files, and "more than 2,000 bronze and terra cotta artifacts, mostly imported from Thailand, Vietnam, and other South Asian (sic) countries, from two storage lockers..."

The knock-on effect of this raid expanded to his son and daughter, four Southern California museums (including the high-profile L.A.C.M.A., or Los Angeles County Museum of Art), two LA art galleries, and a private collection in Chicago. Although he repeatedly tried to pass the buck and feign ignorance (the "I was just doing what THEY told me to do" routine), he was found guilty and had most of his property and asetts seized. Although 12th-15th century Angkorian sculptures are not mentioned in the list of seized materials, or photos/receipts documenting sold items, the very high profile nature of this return, the bulk and rarity of objects involved, and their recovery in/shipment from Los Angeles does make it seem possible that an unreported connection exists.

I will keep monitoring this situation to see if any more news is released post-repatriation. The welcomed occurrence of these repatriations, however, does not mean that other recently surfaced artifacts, even large statues, are not even now on display in international museums or being arranged for transport. While the deliberate or undeliberate selling of fakes to "satisfy" a private collector would mean one more genuine artifact might remain in situ, or at least in-country where it can be recovered and/or curated, galleries such as Gandhara Galleries (reported about here), should still be closely watched.

Annam Antiques and Gifts: From Bangkok With "Love"

2010-06-12T16:10:00.000-07:00

As I, and others, have discussed numerous times before, Bangkok and Singapore have long served as major transit points for Southeast Asian antiquities to reach online markets far and wide. Yet, encountering examples of galleries based in either of these cities with active online sales is rather difficult, as many do not have active websites, but instead rely on walk-in traffic, telephone calls, or private email orders...spread by word of mouth on online dealer/collector forums, such as the Yahoo "Dong Son" forum. As a counter-example, I will discuss Annam Antiques and Gifts, a stark example of the "middle" step in the regional antiquities trade.

Located in Bangkok, in the Silom Galleria, and run by "Tom Chicago" (which certainly sounds like a pseudonym to me), they appear to have been in business since 2007, and are registered members of Trocadero; known hosts for several other online antiquities dealers. Very little about the organization or its history is made available, nor is a biographical statement about the owner/dealer. We are able to glean that they are self-proclaimed "specialists in Southeast Asian art with an emphasis on artifacts from Lao, Cambodia, Vietnam." They also offer Chinese ceramics, and one can email privately to request more information about the "Extremely RARE and absolutely Magnificant Champa artifacts in our collection!" When you're dealing in the illicit, it's best to shy away from public scrutiny as much as possible...

While the company's catalog mentions a few examples of contemporary and recent historic art and antiques (paintings, ceramics, sculpture etc.), the focus appears to be on the prehistoric/ancient historic...mostly metal and ceramic artifacts. Within that category, distinctions are made between Dong Son pieces (especially drums) originating in Vietnam, and those claimed to have come into their hands from "excavations" in Cambodia...undoubtedly coming from a site just like Prohear, or even Prohear itself. Some catalog entries, like this "assortment of Dong Son axes," are marketed for later resale by other dealers (with a bonus bracelet included)! Artifacts such as these are quite frequently encountered in antiques or 'souvenir' shops throughout Vietnam, and can usually be bought in bulk. Several different examples of Dong Son drums can be purchased (with Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Yunnan "provenance"), as can bells, classic Dong Son orange wear ceramics,Cham earrings, Khmer influenced ladles etc. They're even hawking ceramics from the Hoi An Hoard, which suffered some illicet "salvaging" until divers could get to it. Annam helpfully warns buyers that it's now or never for these purchases.

I'm not surprised anymore that no information is given for any of these objects pertaining to previous ownership, and that many prices are only available through email contact. Indeed, chances are that not only would the seller and Mr. Chicago have no clear idea where the objects are deriving from (beyond "Cambodia" or "Vietnam"), but wouldn't care. As purchases at village level by middle men are done with cash in person, Annam Antiquities would then likely be the first point of sale from which a paper trail would begin, assuming these artifacts end up in Western markets....and if any subsequent dealers or collectors would care to follow up. As has been demonstrated, chances are slim that due diligence is performed.

To close, I highlight this brazen example of the flagrant dismissal of ethics in regards to where Annam Gifts gets its loot from. The only piece clearly from Thailand in this Thai gallery, it is stated to have been assembled after many days or weeks of burial looting around central and northeast Thailand. The 72 pieces strung on this necklace represents an unknown number of burials destroyed to "recreate" this item...and they've even had to offer it at a discount! What's worse is that they admit that these beads come from burials, and even provide a page from a book (this textbook) on prehistoric Thai archaeology to demonstrate this fact. Perhaps this "gruesome" origin will keep it unsold?

The take home lesson is that much of the small, easily portable loot stemming from Southeast Asia will first pass through galleries like this one. If it doesn't stay in-country (a growing possibility as Southeast Asia's middle class rises and gains more disposable income), then more often than not, artifacts will then end up in Australia, or New Zealand, the US, Europe...on into the shadowy world of online trading networks. It is important for monitors and responsible collectors (should any actually collect Southeast Asian materials...) to realise that fraudulent statements of provenance for a prehistoric Southeast Asian object in the catalog of any major online gallery will be covering up residence in a gallery like this one where, as far as prehistory is concerned, it's apparently anything goes.

The AAADA, Ethics, and Justifications...

2010-05-28T21:24:00.000-07:00

The AAADA (Australian Antique and Art Dealer's Association) represents the largest professional network of on and off-line dealers in Australia. Although they have been mentioned before on this blog in association with the highly-suspect dealings of two affiliated galleries specializing in antiquities (BC Galleries and The Unique Things Store), nearly every medium to large scale online dealer of antiques or antiquities (from contemporary pieces to ancient artifacts) are registered members. Founded in 1992, and now boasting "more than 130 national members," the AAADA is "your brand for quality," where "your purchase is guaranteed and your transaction professional." This from the official online "Message" of President Warwick Oakman, who himself has a gallery dealing in recent antiques.

To further bolster the confidence of a gallery's clients who might investigate just who the AAADA is, upon finding out their favourite gallery is a member affiliate, the President's "Message," and web-site in general, advertises dozens of specialized service providers (conservators to customs and insurance agents to interior designers) to make sure that clients "get the most" out of their purchases. Since 2001, the AAADA has even offered an annual showcase of dealers and their wares, "the only event of its type fully vetted for quality and description." Underlying the Association's function is a "Code of Practice," to which all prospective members must, apparently, swear to uphold. As will be discussed in more detail, it appears that oversight of these standards is minimal, at least where antiquities are concerned.

While I must again emphasize that the vast majority of dealers affiliated with AAADA appear to offer only recent/contemporary antiques (entirely different from antiquities with former archaeological contexts), the points I will highlight from the "Code of Practice" are supposed to apply to everyone. So, for example, Rule #1b requires that all dealers list the price, manufacturing date, material, maker's mark (if relevant), and restorations for each item offered, and to state upfront if something is a reproduction or not. What about provenance or collecting history? Apparently not... Rule #2 requires that "the member shall not attempt to confuse or mislead the customer or falsely describe any of the goods he/she offers for sale or seeks to purchase." Is this another barrier against the selling of forgeries? Rule #4 requires that "members shall accept responsibility for descriptions of items given to members of the public by their staff." This rule seems to have been added to make sure no dealer can pass the buck onto their "underlings" if caught selling forgeries....but what about selling recent dug-ups?

Rule #5: "Members shall not make unsolicited visits to private domestic premises" struck me as strange. Does this actually happen? Is this to mitigate against shady back-room dealing? Rules #7 and 8 seem to absolve the Association of responsibility if a member dealer or gallery gets into trouble, while rule #10 requires that "members cooperate to the best of their ability with consumer protection agencies (e.g. the police, trading standards authorities). At the end of the list, the webpage states that, although the AAADA can not act on any wronged parties legal behalf, they do offer Conciliation Services to mitigate disputes. Why go through all this trouble if everything is above board to begin with? Furthermore, if the AAADA is so concerned with being Australia's foremost representative body for the licit sale of antiques, why allow any galleries in the much more risky/controversial antiquities trade to join? For that matter, why is the President's own gallery listed an an antiquities dealer?

Under the section of the webpage entitled "Our Services," something else suspicious came to my attention. When discussing how viewers of the website can "collect antiques with confidence" when purchasing from an AAADA affiliated gallery, the requirements that "members seek to advance the professional reputation of the Association," and "build long term relationships with their clients" are stressed. However, this point is also offered: "Clients wishing to form collections are able to do this discreetly and with complete confidence." Huh?! What need is discretion when only above-board, recent or contemporary antiques are being purchased? Does this imply that some member dealers are known to be less-legitimate than they let on, even with supposed adherence to the Code of Practice? Or...is that addendum merely to shield those who look for AAADA affiliation when they purchase antiquities off the black market? I feel this is a question needing answering.

In regards to the AAADA's stated international affiliations, I must highlight a further point. As Australia (and New Zealand, and all Southern Hemisphere markets for that matter) are still somewhat off-mainstream in terms of the global antiquities markets, it only makes sense that major dealer networks representing Southern Hemisphere countries would themselves be affiliated with larger networks. In this case, AAADA is a member of C.I.N.O.A. (as highlighted on my first post about BC Galleries). CINOA, out of Brussels, is Europe's largest art/antiquities dealing association, with most international/online dealers under its umbrella-and located in a country which even today is known as a major world centre for the trade.

I highlight the following sentence: "Through its membership of C.I.N.O.A., the international trade Association, it takes part in decisions of international and environmental heritage importance. These decisions can also affect your rights and ability to continue to enjoy collecting antiques for private use." Paul Barford has done an excellent job of demonstrating just how convoluted the "collector's rights" arguments have become, and the less-than-stellar responses to open questions that proponents of the no-questions-asked trade perpetually give. Leaving aside a potential scenario of the purchase of, say, a 19th century clock made using wood from a now endangered tree species, or the shipment of objects needing biological quarantine (which would run up against relevant environmental legislation and be subject to severe import restrictions, coming into Australia at least), it seems to me that a proviso such as this would only apply to the antiquities trade.

I'll now provide a couple of examples, from two different member galleries, to illustrate that, at least as far as antiquities are concerned, AAADA membership seems to be little more than a front, with the Code of Practice not being visibly adhered to. The first comes from Moorabool Antique Galleries, out of Geelong, Victoria. While specializing primarily in historic to recent period ceramics, they also deal in "glass, silver, artworks, and tribal & antiquities." As of today, there are 90 artifacts offered under antiquities, but only a few have pictures available and almost none have any stated collecting history (outside of the occasional previous sale at Christies or Bonhams, or the break-up of some c. 1980s private museum). See this Neolithic Thai ceramic pot and this Iranian buffware zoomorphic vessel for good examples! Look for a more detailed blog post on this specific gallery soon. These two antiquities (here and here), for sale via the Peter Lane Gallery out of Adelaide, have even less information attached to them. So, where's the oversight? What assurance can AAADA membership provide to a prospective honest collector that they're not being cheated if some affiliated galleries don't even offer the prices they're selling their antiquities for, let alone any pertinent background?

To close, while the AAADA might be a good idea in principle, and be able to quite capably handle its ethical and legal oversight responsibilities in representation of Australian dealers on the international stage when it comes to recent antiques, it seems that it has some explaining to do in regards to what it lets antiquities dealers get away with. Constant vigilance!

Soo Tze Oriental Gallery: A small contribution from Tasmania?

2010-05-20T16:33:00.001-07:00

Another gallery, dealing in a mixture of contemporary, recent historic, and ancient art and antiquities, has come to my attention as needing mention here; another member of the Southern Hemisphere (and more specifically, Australian) trading "scene." Soo Tze Oriental Galleries is currently based out of Hobart, Tasmania (since 2005), but previously operated out of a Melbourne shop since 1983, with an online presence since June, 2003. To quote from their online homepage, it "is now Australia's premier private gallery dealing in a broad range of Buddhist and related art and ethnographic materials from Tibet, Mongolia, Nepal, China, and Bhutan, in addition to works from the rest of Asia." Furthermore, they highlight the "broad time span" and "high quality" of their products, and the self-stated fact that "items from our inventory [are] now found in many of the best private collections, galleries and museums around the world."

All signs point to this dealer operating a very small enterprise, or at the very least running a very controlled on-line store, as only six categories of artifacts/contemporary art are listed, each with very few items on display at any one time. These categories are "sculptures," "paintings," "objets d'art" (i.e. "small functional and decorative items...dating from 1000BCE to the 19th century"), "rugs & textiles," and "Tsakali and miniature thangkas." Leaving aside those objects that are being sold as contemporary art, ethnographica, or recent pieces (very few of which have displayed provenance regardless....provenance DOES matter, even for recent acquisitions), I will now turn to those few pieces recognizable as suspect antiquities.

What first made me determined to report about this gallery is this vessel, said to come from the site of Ban Prasat, northeast Thailand. Nearly identical examples are also on display at the Phimai museum. As is all too common, no provenance information, collecting history, or even price, is given for this artifact on sale. Without holding it in my hands, determining its authenticity just from photographs is difficult, but the form, color, and shape all match... Other artifacts, like this "Liao Dynasty copper funerary mask," this "repousse copper Linga cover," c. 17th century Nepal (albeit with provenance stated as from a 1994 Christie's auction), or this fragment of "Yuan Dynasty silk," are all equally suspicious to me. Although China has long been known for a thriving fake antiquities industry, most dealers naturally try to do their best, and stake their reputations, on the fact that they only offer genuine artifacts to the best of their knowledge. The fact that no prices are given, to me, points to even more suspicious dealings...artifacts, albeit in small quantities, bought and sold for a select group of favourite customers perhaps?

The burden of proof is now on Soo Tze Oriental Gallery to either provide evidence that due diligence has been conducted on these objects (and, ideally, make this information available as part of the listing for each artifact offered), or admit that they haven't, and remove from sale anything demonstrated to be a forgery or a recently surfaced artifact. If they can't and won't comply with these basic ethical standards to foster a licit and non-destructive trade, preferring to continue with business-as-usual, then they will be further exposed as such.

An all-too-typical example of Southeast Asian Looting

2010-05-14T18:48:00.000-07:00

As a brief, interim post to keep this blog going, I would like to share the following two links, to give further publicity to a very important project:

1. The first describes the discovery and eventual cessation of looting activity during 2007 at the village of Prohear, Prey Veng Province, Cambodia. What has come to be understood as a very important Iron Age cemetery site-crucial to understanding how the complex and stratified social organization that characterized the Angkorian Empire arose-was almost immediately looted out before archaeologists (from the Memot Centre) could reach the site. Eventually, collaboration was established with the locals and the controlled excavation of what was left could begin. Unfortunately, many of the rarer and more intact pieces were sold off immediately...the complete Dong Son drum being one of the more striking examples (see above left for jewelry examples). This event is not widely known outside of Southeast Asian archaeology circles, so I've chosen to give it more publicity here, as it's important to provide more examples of the kinds of materials turning up on the market, often with no provenance more specific than "Cambodia" or "Thailand," and provide proof that fresh loot is still flowing out of the region.

2. This link, from the Deutsches Archaologisches Institut (German Institute of Archaeology), led by Dr. Reinecke and an international team of colleagues, documents this important work in more detail, in the context of recent archaeological discoveries across the boarder in Vietnam and elsewhere in Cambodia. 52 intact burials were uncovered in the last of the "emergency digs" conducted in amongst the looter's pits, and only because they were positioned directly under the village road, which no one wished to destroy! Results, however, were beyond all expectations for such a ravaged site-demonstrating the site to represent one of the most elaborate and wealthy burial grounds (i.e. communities) in the entire southwestern region of Southeast Asia. Three of the 52 burials even contained Dong Son drums, establishing connections far to the north. Just imagine if the entire estimated 20,000 square meters had been reached...if local poverty and international greed hadn't gotten to it first...

While the more detailed technical and restorative aspects of the excavation are ongoing, outreach to the local public and archaeological community is already occurring. As always, it is fervently hoped that future work at sites of this type throughout the region, especially in Southeast Asia, will begin in time to mitigate as much of the damage as possible.

I am currently conducting research into two current and former collectors who have direct ties to the overall antiquities trade emanating from East/Southeast Asia, and will blog about them in more detail soon. Stay tuned...

Looting on the High Seas

2010-05-05T15:45:00.000-07:00

Once again, a colleague of mine here at ANU (thanks J.L.!) has brought two recent news articles to my attention, both previously released in the World Archaeological Congress digest. They both (here and here) concern the arrest and travel ban imposed on British born Australian "treasure hunter" Michael Hatcher, who is wanted for "trying to smuggle thousands of pieces of Ming dynasty (1368-1644) porcelain out of Indonesia in July. Police intercepted two ships containing the items, for which they have "strong indications" that they came from a wreck site in the Java Straight. If convicted, he "could be jailed for 5 years and fined 50 million rupiah ($6,000)."

What's the most troubling about these articles to me is not the relatively insignificant fine he'll have to pay (although this slap on the wrist is tempered somewhat by the jail time), but that he has been "excavating" ship wrecks since the 1980s, making $17 million US at his first government sanctioned auction (of gold ingots and Chinese porcelain from a wreck off of Sumatra's Riau islands). Furthermore, despite his pending trial and 'house arrest' in Indonesia, the articles report that "he has already begun to market items from his latest wreck."

Another immense haul of ancient artifacts from a unidentified 10th century shipwreck "off of Cirebon, West Java" was brought to the surface between 2004 and 2005 by Belgian "treasure hunter" Luc Heyman's Cosmix Underwater Research, Ltd., and his "local partner" Paradigma Putra Sejathera, who, despite "arranged survey and excavation licences," faced the temporary arrest of two of their divers, conflict with the Indonesian Navy and rival 'salvage crews,' a "year of litigation and two years of waiting while Indonesia drafted new regulations to govern such work." In spite of the immensity and diversity of the haul and "expressions of interest from across Asia," the US $16 million deposit to bid, and short notice of the auction's existence, resulted in the auction being a bust. The disappointment of the "treasure hunters" in a situation like this is almost palpable, as they'd have walked away with one half of all proceeds! Even the UNESCO Director-General has weighed in on the matter, expressing concern over the fact that these important archaeological artifacts would have been (and still might be) dispersed wholesale.

There are numerous examples of shipwreck looting around the world, such as this instance from Spain, and this drastic response measure concerning a Greek wreck off of Croatia. Southeast Asia (e.g., cases from the Philippines and Cambodia), unfortunately, is becoming even more well-known when it comes to underwater looting...and let's make no mistake: "Treasure hunting" by divers, often as part of well-financed companies with backers and buyers already lined up, IS looting! As one dive shop owner in the Philippines article linked to above said "And this you can quote me-ankle weights, crowbars, hammers and chisels are not the ordinary tools of fun divers." For much more information on maritime (nautical) archaeology as it's really performed by professionals, please see the home pages of two of the best Nautical Archaeology academic programs in the world: Texas A&M University (College Station, Texas, USA), and Flinders University (Adelaide, Australia). Let's hope for both a fair trial for Mr. Hatcher, but a quick succession of these clandestine activities as well, and museum curation/display by Indonesian and international authorities of as much of this haul as possible.

Archaeo Gallery: The Antiquities Trade Out West

2010-05-02T17:41:00.000-07:00

In my previous posts, I have initially been focusing on galleries and trade activities (the online antiquities trading "scene," if you will) operating out of the major cities of Southeastern Australia (and an example from New Zealand). Although Sydney, Melbourne and Auckland are the region's largest cities, with the greatest amount of traffic (legal and illegal) attempting to flow through customs and quarantine, it is important to not overlook goings on on the other side of the continent in Western Australia. This post will detail and discuss one such example: Archaeo Gallery.

Archaeo Gallery is based out of Herne Hill, a suburb of Perth, Western Australia's capital, and the only major city/port for the entire western half of the continent. Indeed, its position on the Indian Ocean makes it closer to South and Southeast Asia than to Sydney. As usual, authenticity is stressed above all else ("certificates" included), with the gallery's webpage proclaiming itself "Western Australia's Premier online dealer in legally acquired (italics mine), affordable ancient art and archaeology." Indeed, their Sales Policy page states "in the unlikely event an item is proven to be "not authentic" a full refund or exchange will be granted, these claims must be accompanied with a written letter from a respectable dealer or museum."

Like the disclaimers offered by other dealers I've blogged about, this makes me wonder just how frequently Southern Hemisphere dealers have unwittingly purchased/sold forgeries, or if they have difficulty keeping track of the activities of their suppliers... Why offer this option at all if they're so sure that everything is authentic? Nevertheless, the gist of the gallery's website strongly suggests to me that they offer many examples of recently, or semi-recently, surfaced artifacts within their "vast selection of art from all ages and cultures," with free and quick worldwide shipping. The existence of a privately maintained guestbook which satisfied customers can sign to receive updates and special offers seems to be the key method by which they respond to customer "needs" and keep things going.

Catalog categories are indeed diverse, ranging from "Prehistoric" (flints, Danish Neolithic axes), to "Later Fine Antiques" (which includes the rather ironic sale of three antique albumen prints depicting early 20th century Roman excavations in England, all of which passed through Christie's in 1983-now on offer for $5-600). Perhaps this is what Archaeo Gallery staff truly believes archaeology still to be? All major Classical World categories are present, and separate pages exist for coins, weapons, "tribal art" (currently empty), Islamic art, and even one entry under "Fossils Natural History." Very few catalog categories have more than 3 pages of entries for them, and nothing currently on sale was offered for more than $11,500AUD (Ban Chiang jewellery), or $7,900AUD (this gold and agate Indus Valley necklace), although how much those items listed as "sold" actually sold for is unknown. The overall small number of catalog entries, and generally low prices for the artifacts on offer, suggests to me that business is modest overall, even allowing for the likelihood that what's displayed online is a fraction of what this gallery might have in storage.

Let's talk stated and unstated provenance now, shall we? Very few artifacts for sale have a multi-stage "paper trail" attested to upfront (which unfortunately does not eliminate the possibility of forged provenance). Without a doubt, the majority of catalog entries either have no stated provenance or acquisition date whatsoever, or are listed as coming from "private collections" (Australian, West Australian, German, UK, Netherlands, Denmark), or as deriving merely from the Australian, London, or general UK "art markets." Statements such as "acquired by previous owner circa late 1960's, Israel," just won't cut it for valid provenance these days. Let's see that paper trail. Several minor, and a few major, collections are also listed as previous homes for these artifacts, among them the Frieda & Milton Rosenthal Collection (USA), the Dr. Paul Otto Taubert Collection (both seemingly more focused on contemporary art), the Russel Collection (Arizona), the Dr. C. Gallanos Collection (Melbourne), and the Dr. Harley Baxter Collection (Melbourne).

There are pieces surfacing at Archaeo Galleries with stated claims of previous membership in the Royal Athena Galleries and Geddes collections, both of which, but especially Geddes, have been under intense scrutiny of late. There is even a piece which passed through Bonhams (as sale 10059, lot 62) after an undisclosed period of time in a private UK collection. Bonhams itself has also been much in the news lately, recently having to remove several Medici and Symes objects from an auction in April due to very negligent provenance checking. Its pre-Archaeo Galleries "provenance" as stated is, to me, certainly not enough to waylay reasonable suspicions, especially given Bonham's recent embarrassments. My favorite is this offering of a Roman stucco wall fragment, coming from a "private New York Collection," which apparently acquired it from a "reputable New York City auction house." Another example is this Canaanite vessel "acquired from a reputable New York auctioneer." Really? Names, dates, and evidence please...
The "Asian Art" section itself contains Thai, Vietnamese, and Khmer antiquities, along with more frequently encountered artifact types from China, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, but relatively few artifacts of each category. There is even a "guaranteed authentic" vessel from the Hoi An shipwreck! Let's not forget that the looting of shipwreck sites around the world, but especially in Asia, is also a major issue.

What to do about this? As always, appropriate, effective, and legal response to trade in blatant disregard of the law is difficult, and takes time. Beyond better archaeological community monitoring of traffic flowing into Perth, if some of the objects detailed above (and in the catalog in general) have more secure or independently verifiable provenances, now would be an excellent time for Archaeo Galleries to make this information public on the relevant catalog entries, and to authorities, or else remove them for sale. If they were interested in truly proving that they deal in "legally acquired" artifacts across the board, then why not chase up ownership/provenance history for any artifact that's missing it, question their suppliers more thoroughly, curtail business with any local dealer or middleman known to be procuring recent loot, and remove anything for sale that first surfaced post-1970? Due diligence would also dictate that if an artifact was offered to them with a stated pre-1970s surfacing and specific find spot, they check that at least this basic information is accurate, even if the object then dissappeared until it resurfaced in their possession. The current website and catalog strongly suggest to me that this is not being done, and Archaeo Galleries is thus quite complacent in today's modern online trade. I, for one, will be keeping a closer eye on what surfaces here. Constant vigilance!

Gandhara Galleries: "Statue-ary Rape"

2010-04-25T21:14:00.000-07:00

Another gallery has come to my attention as of two days ago, well deserving of more intense scrutiny. The word "unscrupulous" comes immediately to mind! Gandhara Galleries, based out of an undisclosed location in Australia, boasts on their website of 20 years experience in the acquisition, appraisal, and sale of stone, wood, and bronze statuary from "Gandhara," that is Afghanistan to China to Southeast Asia, with a stated specialty in, and strong representation of, pieces from Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar (Burma). On their website, they take pride in the fact that they've "developed a client list, who return to buy from us again and again," and boast about their offering of pieces "at the same price as the dealers, galleries, museums, and auction houses," which "can of course amount to considerable savings."

Yet again, authenticity is emphasized above all else, and extensive description of the art historical background to Gandhara region sculpture is provided, with emphasis placed upon the uniqueness, and time-consuming manufacturing methods, of every piece offered. To whit: "All pieces are unique, individually hand-crafted by master sculptures using ancient techniques and driven by Buddhist religious ideology and merit, carved and sculptured for religious purposes. Bronzes were produced using the lost wax method, a highly innovative process requiring great skill, experience and patience." Despite the underlying truth that such sculptures (and indeed all artifacts traded as "antiquities," to one degree on another) would've been made with refined and well-practiced techniques, it is statements such as these that directly appeal to the "Connoisseur's View" guiding those who would repeatedly purchase antiquities on the global black market, especially something as bulky, difficult to smuggle, and expensive as complete statues.

Let's talk about the issues of authenticity and provenance as displayed (or not) on this site. First of all, I highlight the following: "Please note: all pieces for sale through Gandhara are in Australia at the time of advertising for sale, unless stated otherwise" (italics mine). The heyday of the wholesale looting and removal of temple frescoes and statuary (or just the heads from said statues), at least in Cambodia, occurred in the 1980s/early 1990s, although statuary looting incidents were known during French colonial days as early as 1924. With more stringent APSARA (local Cambodian Heritage police) and U.N. protection now in place around the major temple complexes, tourism has greatly increased, as have collaborations between Cambodian, regional, and Western authorities to implement new legal and educational measures. As a result, confiscations and apprehensions have begun to occur. Evidence from both Gandhara galleries and others, such as BC Galleries, suggests such apprehensions are nowhere near enough.

If the majority of the pieces left the country many years ago, even pre-1970s, and have been moving from legitimate owner to legitimate owner since then, then where's the evidence up front? Why no provenance history (even as suspicious as "private collection," "Old collection," or "Ex Christies or Sothebys") for all of them? It is readily apparent to anyone who views their website that what they offer for sale could never have 'surfaced' "accidentally" as a "field find." Regardless of when the destruction occurred, or if any actual digging was required to get the piece out of the ground, the mere fact that they had to be located, transported, packaged and shipped is proof positive that these artifacts are 'victims' of organized efforts. I point out again that their own website only puts them in business for 20 years!

Where were all these pieces hiding before that if they weren't instead taken out of their source countries recently? I found a scant few examples of artifacts with minimally stated provenance identifying it as part of a previous auction (e.g. this c. 12th century Naga balustrade), or this pre-Angkorian head of Vishnu, and these bronze statuettes (appraised, but purchased in the "late 1970s" From whom?). The catalog entries for many objects mention published sources to check and similar examples sold at auction elsewhere, yet even the robbery of monasteries as an act of looting to provide the market with, for example, these colossal Lao bronze Buddha statues, is unsurprisingly completely ignored. In countries currently experiencing warfare and ethnic strife, such as Afghanistan in this case, the antiquities trade can operate all the more openly.

Note how almost none of the objects have stated prices (except for a few small items, such as these coins), bur are rather "P.O.A." (price on application). At the same time, on the Guarantee page, they state "We are constantly offering quality Gandharan and Asian artifacts at extremely competitive prices, a fantastic opportunity for private collectors and people interested in ancient objects to acquire truly unique works of art, all of which are almost 2000 years old, only previously believed to be accessible to museums and art galleries." So why not state your prices upfront? On what basis do they determine the price of the priceless art/artifacts they sell?

Further adding to my sense of an underlying "caveat emptor" (buyer beware) attitude is that, for all the emphasis they place on statements of authenticity (highlighting soil accretion, weathering, damage, and a few T.L. dated objects), a disclaimer is provided stating that a customer can return the object within five days (in its original packaging) if it's not found to match the description. "After this initial five day period any goods you wish to return must be accompanied by a written evaluation from an internationally recognized dealer of Asian Antiques stating that the item(s) purchased are not authentic pieces as described within our description." Why offer this service at all? Have they themselves been fleeced by in-country middle-men before? Just who would be acceptable to provide the second opinion and appraisal needed? That segment of the professional academic archaeological/art historical community with the relevant specialization for pieces such as these isn't exactly large... All things considered, I fear that in this respect at least, they're doing 'honest business.'

I will close this expose post with description of what might be Gandhara gallery's most galling affront to heritage laws and humanity's shared past of any I came across; namely the advertised sale of fragments of the original Bamiyan Buddhas! As discussed on their "Talaban destruction of ancient Buddhist Art in Afghanistan" page, they first 'set the scene' by describing the role of central Afghanistan as a major cross-roads (when once the Kingdom of Kushan), with "one of the world's greatest archaeological treasures;" namely, the Bamiyan Buddhas, at its heart. Lamenting a few previous attempts by Muslim individuals (the "fanatical trader Yaqoub") and groups (the Hezb-i-Whadat and Taliban political parties) to destroy these and other related statues both during antiquity, and during the recent/ongoing wars. The description closes with the final destruction of the Bamiyans, to the horror of the international community.

The very last sentence in the text shocked me. "In the days that followed we were offered a number of pieces mainly stucco, in order to preserve these rare historical artifacts we now offer them for sale on our website in Gandhara Afghan galleries." Although nothing on offer in the relevant galleries is specifically identified as formerly part of the Bamiyan Buddhas, what the above makes clear is that the Afghan pieces for sale would almost certainly have left the country after the Taliban resurgence c. 2001! Although no antiquities related M.O.U. exists between Afghanistan and major demand countries yet, an IUCN Redbook has since 2006...yet, here these artifacts are...languishing in some undisclosed warehouse somewhere, rotated on and off line until they're bought, forgotten about, or perhaps, someday, returned to where they belong. Constant vigilance!

Is it really just "Old Money"?

2010-04-18T20:09:00.000-07:00

Much has been written, both academically and on blogs, regarding the logistics, ethics, complexities, and archaeological significance of the trade in ancient coins world wide, but particularly in the Northern Hemisphere. For example, the Archaeology and Numismatics blog frequently provides new information concerning the deleterious effect that the wholesale removal and trade in ancient coins can have to the larger archaeological record of those locations and time periods in which coins routinely surface during excavation; primarily within Mediterranean countries. In short, it is becoming increasingly well documented that coins, even commonly minted coins, out of context, are as "adrift" as any other category of artifact. Furthermore, the ongoing blogging by another colleague of mine, Mr. Paul Barford (Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues), has been consistently monitoring and responding to the sometimes voracious and vociferous extents that the majority of the pro-collecting lobbies and "activists" in the Northern Hemisphere, primarily England and the USA, can go to in order to keep the trade in illicit recently-surfaced 'dugups' going, while branding all opposition as baseless propaganda by "cultural heritage nationalist" radicals. As usual, the Southern Hemisphere is still widely overlooked in this discussion. This blog post will report my observations and thoughts about one such dealer; namely "Walter Holt's Old Money" ("In proud association with M.R. Roberts' Wynyard Coin Centre").

Based out of Sydney, the Wynyard Centre maintains its own newsgroup (with all subscribing members receiving a free copy of NUM$NEWS ("Numis News"), the official newsletter of Walter Holt's Old Money), although no separate webpage or online order forms could be located for this gallery specifically. Mr. Holt began collecting at 14, he has spent the intervening years amassing a large collection while traveling, meeting people, and seeing "scores of wonderful places," all of which have helped him "gather substantial knowledge about ancient coins and the places from which they come." Nothing mentioned about how they arrive on the market, or when, or from whom...? Initial efforts to emphasize the antiquity and authenticity of the coins for sale was first encountered on the "Old Money" homepage itself, on which Mr. Holt clearly advises potential customers that "if you have a 1915 Sovereign or a 1952 Australian Penny then DO NOT call me - it's not ancient, I can't help you. Ok! Basically, if it isn't well over a thousand years old, I may not be able to help you unless it is a British hammered coin. Thanks!" The seeming exasperation noted in the above quote suggests to me that Mr. Holt has encountered this problem before, and only the rare will suffice for sale.

"Old Money" is a direct subsidiary, for sales purposes, of the world-wide online clearing house "VCoins.com," and also maintains links to "A.S.A.N." (Australian Society of Ancient Numismatics), provides many related books or identification guides for perusal or purchase, as well as detailed guidelines for customers to learn how to correctly interpret coin quality, description, and mint of origin (in antiquity) information when browsing. Consistently absent from all catalog entries and supporting information is clear indication of provenance for any artifacts offered for sale. Most lack any indication of a collection, museum, or archaeological site of origin, or the year or decade of acquisition by Old Money. In short, it seems that this Southern Hemisphere dealer is borrowing liberally from the play book of Northern Hemisphere colleagues. A "free-market" antiquities trade, no questions asked.

Ancient coins are not the only antiquities traded in by Old Money. A link is also provided to a separate webpage offering a small selection of Greek, Roman, and Egyptian artifacts. As readers and potential customers can see, much information on artifact condition, hieroglyphic text translation, and academic background is provided up front, along with age and price. Perhaps information about date and place of 'surfacing,' and pre-1970 collection/auction history is provided with purchase...perhaps not. I strongly suspect that, like the coins, no one knows for sure. Perhaps Old Money feels that they make up for this dubiousness by suggesting the services of an on-call hieroglyphics specialist?! Authenticity above legality?

This is certainly not the only such coin dealer in the Southern Hemisphere, especially located as it is within a major 'importing' nation like Australia. The fact that Old Money is well connected to VCoins.com, and that they advertise international shipping, indicates that although their operations are small, they are not overly isolated from new "merchandise." This does not appear to be merely the gradual sale of a single, large deaccessioned private collection. Indeed, Mr. Holt has boasted about his past and current travels. Although the mere act of purchasing is legal, the sale of small, "common" objects such as coins is still antiquities trading. As this article documenting the various uses for coins in Medieval Italy, and this image showing a Late Romano-British grave good assemblage for an adult male indicate, coins have diverse contexts in their own right! It is now up to all concerned citizens, ethical archaeological, historical and numismatic professionals, and investigative authorities to keep monitoring operations such as these, and to not purchase from such organizations without upfront and verifiable proof that, at the very least, the coin in question did not just recently 'surface Down Under.'

New Zealand joins the club: Antiquarius

2010-04-13T18:00:00.000-07:00

I can now report that there is at least one well-established source for illicit antiquities in the country of New Zealand, a country that is generally seen as being even more "off-radar" on the world scene than the major galleries of Australia. This time I'm specifically referring to "Antiquarius," a dealer with an online presence since 1980. Robert and Jenny Loosely, according to their website, both received their start in the antiquities business under the watch of Seaby Limited, the London based numismatists in operation since 1969, founding Antiquarius in 1980. This would explain, then, why the very same "About Antiquarius" page of their website makes it clear that their specialty is "ancient coins and classical antiquities," with a market of "predominately Australasian clients." As expected, this implies that they regularly face something of an isolation by distance problem when it comes to getting access to new "merchandise," requiring regular travel to Europe and the US. Of course, the "authenticity" of all purchases is stressed up front, with certificates provided, and FREE shipping and insurance.

What really surprised me, however, was the statement that "Antiquarius is New Zealand's only official valuer for the Commonwealth of Australia..." Really? The "expert appraisers" over at BC Galleries weren't available? This 'outsourcing' by the antiquities trading community in Australia suggests to me a closer connection between operations in the two countries than suspected. The contacts page directs you to Mr. Loosely's P.O. Box in Auckland (suggesting it is this city that operations are based out of), but, for a limited time only, the Mark Hutchins Gallery, a contemporary art gallery out of Wellington, will host an exhibition of choice Classical World artifacts juxtaposed with locally produced modern art; for example, this South Italian pelike (from an "old English collection." Really? Which one? Whose? Where and when acquired?). From the website, it does not appear that these artifacts are available for on-the-spot purchasing, thus it seems to me that exposure is the goal.

Their catalogue is divided into the following categories: "Antiquities" (with Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Cypriot, Near Eastern, Far Eastern, Jewelry, and "Under $200" subcategories), "Coins" (Greek and Roman),"New Items," "New Coins," and three somewhat odd sounding subcategories under the heading of "Themes" ("Wine," "Animals," and "Cults & Religion"). One may search the website, or invent a username and password to receive updates and browse more freely. The vast majority of artifacts proffered as catalog entries merely list their price and a brief description of form, function and/or chronology, with a zoom-able photograph available. For examples, see this pair of "Late Dynastic Period c. 600BC" gold earrings, or this rare "Old Babylonian cylinder seal c. 1850-1650BC). No supporting documentation or information provided up front. For all intents and purposes, it is arguable that they have just 'surfaced'! While some larger, more bulky items are for sale, such as this Han Dynasty horse sculpture from China (which would have required much more preparatory work to smuggle into the country, even if the purchase that exports it again is well-documented), the majority of the rather modest collection viewable online is of small, easily transportable items, such as coins, or this "pleasing"(!) Roman North African sherd decorated with a goat motif.

Two other aspects of this antiquities dealership, as self-advertised via their website, surprised me. The first is the near-complete lack of Asian (let alone Southeast Asian) artifacts on offer. While the web-site does imply that Antiquarius seeks to be affiliated first and foremost with the Classical antiquities trade (in which the Loosely's received their start), bypassing the much closer source of antiquities emanating from Southeast Asia, countries with substantially looser borders in this regards, seems to me unusual. Perhaps they realize that other galleries, in Australia and elsewhere, have the market cornered? Of course, it might be that numerous Southeast Asian artifacts are waiting in their storerooms to be eventually rotated into the online catalog, but it seems doubtful. The second is an even more troubling thought. As their website states, they are "Advisers to Australasian museums and universities" as well. This begs the question: What otherwise reputable academic and professional institutions are they connected to? Perhaps, as claimed, they merely share their acquired "appraising" expertise. If, however, artifacts are loaned for display, teaching purposes, or are bought and sold between countries, what does this say about the complacency behind the modern-day antiquities trade, globally and in the Southern Hemisphere?

New Zealand, like Australia, is a signatory of both the Antiquities Act of 1975 and the UNESCO and UNIDROIT Conventions, which allow New Zealand to reclaim "protected objects" greater than 50 years old from other countries, AND all other signatory countries to do that same if their cultural property is currently being illegally held in New Zealand. The open sale of extra-local antiquities with no clear or stated original provenance, or supporting documentation, provided on the catalog, flies in the face of these conventions, and requires much greater attention from all concerned.

Getting up to speed...

2010-04-11T21:36:00.000-07:00

While I start the hunt for the first major new events or stories to detail on my blog (and simultaneously deal with all the 1,001 other things that seem to crop up during the course of a graduate student's day), I figured I'd dedicate my 2nd post to bringing nascent readers up to speed on the blogging I've been doing since joining SAFE (as activist, resources/webpage editor, blogger, and all around fan).

My first post for them concerned my most recent research trip to Vietnam (November 2009-January 2010), and specifically, observations and photographic documentation that I was able to collect of the innumerable small, portable, prehistoric and early historic period artifacts available for sale in many general antique and "souvenir" shops, in not only Hanoi and Hoi An (where I personally observed these transactions), but all points in between. Overall, Vietnam has not been considered a major Southeast Asian source country for the recent antiquities trade (compared to Thailand and Cambodia), but I'm worried this is changing. News and updates as events warrant. The original post is here.

I then wrote about the fanfare that surrounded the release of the latest I.C.O.M. "Red List" series of guidebooks meant to help customs agents thwart the antiquities trade at points of transit. This time, Cambodia was the focus. Although I did my best to weigh both the pros and cons of this new edition to the fight, my review and analysis left me feeling that, unless it can be used in the context of wider (ongoing) outreach efforts to stop new looting before it starts, then it won't do much good. However, please do read the post and judge for yourselves. Discussion appreciated!

On February 17th, 2010, Dr. Christopher Chippindale, of Cambridge University, came to ANU to give a guest lecture on what the antiquities trade has done (and is doing) to the world of Classical Archaeology. In the end, it all boiled down to a fundamental clash between the "Archaeologist's view," and the "Connoisseur's view." One recognizes aesthetic qualities inherent in an artifact, but elevates the importance of context, while the other idolizes aesthetics to the near-total ignoring of context. Guess which one's which... The numerous case studies from Dr. Chippindale's (and colleagues) own work made it that much more of an informative lecture. My original post is here.

Finally, I most recently wrote two related posts (here and here) centered around two galleries based in Australia who have recently, due to public pressure, removed from their online catalogs (or eBay store in the case of the smaller of the two galleries), late Iron Age "Dong Son" culture bronze coiled bangles and 'armlets' (gauntlets) with human bones still inside. For an example of what this looked like while on display for purchase, see the photo accompanying my first post on this blog. The former director of one of the galleries (BC Galleries), was recently arrested in Thailand for smuggling artifacts from Egypt back to Australia....yet it's business as usual at BC Galleries. Even a cursory glance will reveal hundreds of items with little to know stated provenance, and that's just a fraction of what's admittedly in storage. The two incidents detailed in these posts, personal observations in the field, and a growing sense of unease over the degree to which the "antipodes" are overlooked, form the impetus for this blog.

Further searching of the BC Galleries website has, just this moment, revealed that they are still trying to sell artifacts containing human bones (above left). More on this as it develops.

By Way of Introduction....

2010-04-11T05:34:00.000-07:00

So, where to begin? How can one blog written by one person help the world to better get a handle on the scope of the global antiquities trade today, the trickery and outright greed that keep it going, and the urgency and necessity of keeping up the fight?

Not sure yet....but this blog will represent my best efforts to join with others by presenting a forum for keeping tabs on at least one half of it; that overlooked portion of the trade that increasingly flows through galleries, warehouses, auction houses, and private hands throughout the Southern Hemisphere.

Although the gist of my blogging will pertain to galleries operating out of, news stories emanating from, and general facts and opinions about, dealing and dealers from Australia and New Zealand, eventually I can see this blog covering the entire breadth of the hemisphere, in which, in my opinion (and much discussion and, I hope, debate to follow), the wealthy "first-world" countries have been long overlooked as destinations for illicit loot, while specific regions, like Southeast Asia and South America, remain active sources. Yet even with the "bad-old-days" of, say, the wholesale dismantling of an entire Angkorian temple wall in Cambodia largely curtailed due to at least somewhat increased UNESCO monitoring, local law enforcement, the gradual bolstering of museums, and ongoing local public outreach, the antiquities trade (in Cambodia and throughout Southeast Asia) has shifted focus to survive, and unfortunately remains as active as ever. Indeed, my Heritage Watch colleagues continue to rightly state that looting in Cambodia "has reached epic proportions." All evidence points to a similarly active trade in South America...and the situation in Africa (outside of Egypt and Roman North Africa) is even more sparsely reported on!

This blog will also seek to touch on that oft-discussed meme of "Who owns heritage?," as it uniquely applies to relationships between richer and poorer countries of this region. What does having a predominantly wealthy, "European" derived population, these days becoming increasingly multi-ethnic (and with much of that ethnic diversity coming from Asia), with "exotic" Southeast Asia "in its back yard" imply for the continued fueling of the Southern Hemisphere trade? Why is evidence for the looting and sale of Pacific Island prehistoric artifacts so infrequently encountered? Is the sale of Australian Aboriginal or Maori prehistoric artifacts (and the deliberate looting or surface collection on private property that implies) as severe (or high profile) as that affecting Native American sites in North America? And again...outside of Egypt and Mali...what's going on in Africa? Especially Southern Africa, with its more entrenched European-derived population and a more lingering legacy of colonialism.

Finally, I hope to include one other aspect (feature, if you will) of this blog. Where the situation warrants, I will do my best to provide examples of exactly what kinds of information and data have been lost to provide the market with a looted artifact (to borrow Paul Barford's term, a "dugup"). Sure, we in the archaeological/heritage preservation community always talk about "context" (and our detractors use their overall misunderstanding of the term, and what we archaeologists mean when we say it, to perpetually deride us), but to me it seems that understanding of this concept for most people, especially those who are still indecisive about whether to purchase antiquities or not, is still rather abstract. I'm convinced that a blog is an appropriate multi-media enabling format to convey the deeper meanings of what context can tell an archaeologist, or a bioarchaeologist. To take one very recent and gruesome example, the photo above left is one of two catalog entries recently on sale by BC Galleries, out of Melbourne. As you can see, a late Iron Age (c. 500AD or so) bronze bangle with grave fill and human bones still inside was on offer for $650AUD! It was recently taken down....but where has it gone?

If you arrive at this blog because you have previously read my posts for SAFECorner, then great! Rest assured, I will remain active in my roles with SAFE as well.

So there you have it, future readers! I do hope you'll check back regularly as I get the blog up and rolling. I'll leave it to you to let me know if I'm doing my job, and feel free to send blog-worthy content my way. Constant vigilance!

Sincerely,
Damien