This time, on the road from Paris!

Hello blogosphere! As always, my apologies for the lack of updates recently. So, this is to confirm I am still alive, very busy at work plumbing the chemical secrets of the ancient dead (the usual), writing, applying for jobs, etc. I'm on the road again, this time from the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists conference, to be held at Universite Nanterre de la Defence.

Myself and a colleague will co-chair a panel on antiquities trade issues, with situations in Vietnam, Thailand, Philippines, and perhaps maritime Indonesia being covered. Everyone is really here, to be honest, to enjoy as much of Paris as possible! I will live Tweet as much as I can (given the very spotty WiFi on everyone's phones, apparently), and write again to debrief once home on the 12th. Happy 4th of July to all my American colleagues or readers!

On the road from the SAAs

Just a quick check in from the road, the road that's led to San Francisco. This, the 80th Annual SAA conference, is proving to be just as exciting and hectic as I suspected. I have enjoyed staying with family, getting some opportunity to explore locations inside and outside of San Francisco proper, reunite with old friends and colleagues (if only in passing), and learn a fair amount.

My first talk is tomorrow, in the long-awaited illicit antiquities trade panel hosted by Dr. Donna Yates and featuring a number of leaders in the field. I will provide what I hope to be an informative update on the research that Prof. Chappell and I have been doing on the global online trade in human remains which we began in Huffer and Chappell 2014.

My second talk will introduce preliminary results of the isotopic work I've been doing on some Bronze Age Mongolian faunal remains, in the context of provious/ongoing studies of human remains from the numerous khirigsuurs (burial mounds), in light of Smithsonian Anthropology dept. colleague's larger efforts to understand the origins of pastoral nomadism on the Central Asian steppe. I look forward to meeting in person some individuals I only know from their published work, and hope I do the cause some sort of justice.

So, wish me luck and good tidings. Fun (if tiring) times had, and more to come!

Faint Traces, Grand Prospects?: Isotope Geochemistry and the Antiquities Trade

In the world of antiquities trade research, reporting and prosecution, especially where the seizure and repatriation of recently surfaced items is concerned, one of the most challenging tasks we all face is discerning whether or not what is stated about a piece (in documents or by suspects) is actually true, and known to be so at the time of sale or donation. The problematic legal loophole that a claim of purchase in "good faith" can represent, and the challenge often placed on claimant countries to meet the "burden of proof," instead of insisting that the defendant demonstrate that a contested item was not in fact looter or illegally exported; can make restitution challenging.

In an ideal world, the process of due diligence would always run smoothly. Every high-profile piece purchased by a museum, at auction, or online would automatically come with complete and independently verifiable documents attesting to legal export and import before the UNESCO convention, as well as before the passing of any State ownership legislation for the country in question.

Of course, the provenience, age, and archaeological culture stated in the paperwork would also match reality as determined by "subject matter expert" assessment. I don't need to tell you that the scenario above can at times be far off the mark. The very fact that the reality of the trade at all levels remains so messy is what keeps much illicit antiquities trade research, numerous federal investigations, and related calls for policy and legal reform, alive and well.

In this post, I'll provide some general background to what I think is a relatively overlooked and under-explored means to address some of these pressing cultural property concerns using the methods and tools of science! So let's start at the beginning. Forgive me for getting technical for a moment as I attempt to summarize the complex.

The Basics of Stable Isotopic Research

Every element on the periodic table has a variable number of 'isotopes' that differ in the number of neutrons in their atomic nuclei, but not the number of protons or electrons. Therefore, each separate isotope will have the same elemental properties, but slightly different atomic masses (deemed 'heavy' or 'light' based on neutron numbers).

For example, carbon has isotopes referred to as C12, C13, and C14. Numbers 12 and 13 are 'stable,' in that they always have the same mass and have never been known to decay. On the other hand, measuring the rate of decay of C14 against a known 'half-life' and relevant calibration curves gives us "carbon 14 dating." Isotopes that decay as a function of time are termed 'radiogenic.'

Although stable isotopes have consistent mass, they can vary in concentration ('abundance') across a geologic landscape, with altitude and latitude, through time, between species, or between materials. Measurements of variation in abundance ('fractionation') between what is sampled, and known or suspect naturally occurring background rates (primarily using IRMS: Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry) has opened a wide variety of new research avenues in many fields.

Geologists remain the main practitioners of isotope geochemistry, usually relying on the concentrations (not isotope ratios per se) of rarer 'trace elements' to drive new research on topics ranging from the origin and composition of meteorites, to planetary formation. However, since the 1980s or so, isotopes (especially carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, strontium; occasionally sulfur, calcium or barium) have seen exponentially increasing application to fields and diverse as palaeoclimatology, palaeontology, ecology, and my own human bioarchaeology.

In these fields, it is generally agreed that a 'multi-isotopic' approach can best serve attempts to reconstruct ecosystem trophic level, the complexities of diet, variation in water source, and migration across the lifespan of animals and humans both living and dead.

Whether one's topic is the impact of human activities on marine ecosystems over time using squid as a proxy measure, or my own postdoctoral research seeking to reconstruct changes in ancient human diet and community structure across various spatio-temporal contexts in the Near East and Mongolia; the goals are similar and the isotopes used are the same. Yet every day, labs around the world strive to push the frontiers of what's possible and devise new applications.

The Wide World of Applications

This brings us back to what I first set out to discuss; possibilities for stable isotopic research to inform antiquities trade questions. Can it be done? Is there precedent? Yes, there is! As a means to clarify a most-likely region of origin and simultaneously indicate that something might not in fact derive from where it's said to, stable isotopes are revealing their potential in numerous 'applied' contexts.

From tracking poaching patterns (here and here), investigating suspicious food origins (here or here), tracing illicit drug shipments (here and here) and even forensic homicide investigations, their use continues to grow. Even within archaeology, the analysis of food residues from ceramics is a hot topic.

And yet, work that utilizes isotopes (primarily oxygen and strontium) to understand how an artifact's raw material source does or does not correlate with known or suspected archaeological provenience and any dealer or museum records that may exist; such work is still in its infancy. Any artifact with an organic component to it (shell, bone, wood, fiber, hair, you name it) is fair game.

So, why isn't this done all the time, you might ask? A couple of caveats do need to be mentioned, such as the need to destroy an albeit tiny amount of the artifact in question, and thus the need for permission to sample and keep good records. Furthermore, all such investigations must be cognizant of the fact that a multi-component artifact with unknown origins can not be fully investigated by sampling just one component.

To develop the full potential of isotopic research within the antiquities trade arena, criminological and legal expectations will need to be matched to the reality of what the science can provide at the moment through as many different test-cases as possible. This is no quick-fix or palliative. I've wondered in the past if there are too many variables, but it's my opinion that it just hasn't been looked at hard enough.

Sneak Preview

I personally remain convinced of the untapped potential, despite the trial and error that will be required. Is it not worth it to add every tool possible to the global fight against the trade? This post is the first of what I hope to be a short series exploring this possibility in more detail via hypothetical scenarios, as well as sharing details of an actual project that myself and a few colleagues currently have in pilot stage and are working to take further.

In the meantime, for those of you also on Twitter, I am pleased to announce that you can now follow a brand new Twitter feed I've created. @FaintTraces is dedicated specifically to news, views, job postings, etc. pertaining to bioarchaeology, isotopic approaches to archaeological science, and applications to cultural heritage questions. This is in addition to my usual @DamienHuffer.

For now, my own labwork continues apace with the data starting to come in. Skeletal sampling also marches forward, nearing its end, and I am gearing up for a busy Spring. As I continue to prepare for conferences in February and April, various talks, and the quest for continued employment (beginning more or less now), I look forward to once again sharing my musings on this and other exiting topics.

New human remains trade research in the SAA 2015 illicit antiquities panel

Its been awhile, so here's wishing everyone well! I am still brainstorming new ideas and directions for this blog in among the continued deluge of post-doctoral research and writing obligations, plus the added bonus of having family and future in-laws in town (tour guiding around DC...feeling like a local now). Life is good, but oh so hectic.

Therefore, this is just a quick place holder post to announce the excellent panel on illicit antiquities trade issues put together by Dr. Donna Yates for next year's Society for American Archaeology conference. San Francisco!! I am really looking forward to participating; working once again with my friend and mentor Prof. Duncan Chappell to present an update of the ongoing research into the online trade in human remains that we began with this paper and continued discussing here. Several new cases have come to light, and more undoubtedly will before April, thus providing new angles to explore, legal scenarios to examine, and further our ability to discus how better to achieve transparency. There promises to be plenty of pictures for sure.

The panel itself will be very hard hitting; covering diverse regions, numerous high-profile cases, grounded in comparative theory, and cutting-edge in focus. If you will be attending the conference (or will be in the San Fran area and want to crash the world's preeminent gathering of archaeologists), then come on by. More details of exact day, time, and place to come.

I Have Re-Surfaced Down Under!

Greetings, archaeo-blogosphere! I have triumphantly returned from a successful conference and fieldwork trip to Cambodia and Vietnam. The IPPA conference was a smash hit, and my panel on the illicit antiquities trade in Southeast Asia garnered much more attention than I expected, to my great honour. I feel that this topic is finally "on the radar" for our region, so that documentation, research, and advocacy will increase.

What's more, it was fun to participate in the "live-Tweet" team, organized by my colleague Noel Hidalgo-Tan. We successfully, I think, covered a wide spectrum of talks and topics during the conference as they occurred! I had never done this before, but will do so again.

My time in Hanoi was also very productive. Besides catching up with old friends and colleagues, there was much learned and some (I feel) very important data gathered. While there is not much I am really at liberty to blog about at the moment, I'm sure that as time goes on, this might change.

It was lovely to be in Vietnam again for the Tet New Year (Year of the Horse), and I look forward to my next chance to visit and continue this project throughout the country someday. For now, I look forward (with trepidation) to the two months to come, where "organized chaos" will rule my life as I prepare for an international move. Wish me luck! Until next time.

Season's Greetings!

Season's Greetings to all of you in the cultural heritage blogosphere who visited my home in cyberspace this past year, or may do so in 2014. This is just to confirm that I'm still alive, so be prepared for more news and updates on my travels and adventures. As a preview, I can report that I will attend the IPPA (Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association) conference in Siem Reap, Cambodia in January. I am honored to be able to host a small panel on the illicit trade in Southeast Asia, which should bring together speakers who can offer both archaeological and legal/criminological insight as applied to that region of the world.

From there, I am Hanoi bound for two weeks in order to conduct "pilot" research for what I hope will be a long term project to better understand the antiquities trade within and from Vietnam using quantitative and qualitative data (see initial announcement here in the Oct. 1st post). Planning continues apace, but as always with research in this part of the world, some aspects will be played by ear. However, good outcomes are anticipated by myself and all involved.

As a final happy announcement, I am overjoyed to report that I will officially be a post-doctoral fellow at the Smithsonian Institution from April next year. Yes, this does mean that I am DC bound. I will maintain three affiliations, be engaged in what should be a very exciting bioarchaeology research project, and also be well positioned (I feel) to keep things going in regards to antiquities trade research (and the application of archaeological science to it) and public outreach. So, whilst updates here might be intermittent (more so!) from February through April, once I've arrived I will do my best to tap into the Smithsonian's wider outreach and training programs as a way to share what I do with an even wider audience and do new things to boot. Stay tuned!

As we close out 2013 (where did it go?!), may I take this chance to wish one and all Happy Holidays and a joyous New Year.

Homework Sucks!

As many of you out there can recall from your school days, not doing your homework, even just once or twice, would almost surely make you fall behind. Some might cheat to try to catch up, some might beg "the smart kid" for answers (but I'll be your best friend!), and some might accept their fate and be more diligent.

This metaphor perfectly sums up the moral of a story that has recently come to my attention. A figurative cry for help has reached me, in the form of a comment left on my VERY first blog entry for SAFE, way back in April, 2010. Who would've imagined anyone still read that far back?! Let's see what's going on.

As you can see if you click on the link above, on October 24th, someone simply going by the name Mo has commented. In it, he informs myself (and all of SAFE) that he'd recently bought five rings from BC Galleries (referred to as a Local Antique shop...does this mean he's in Melbourne)? He wants my personal help in ID'ing/authenticating, as he's "not good at Hellenic culture." Right...like I am?!

The story continues with the assertion that he's a "university accounting student also interested in Antique," but that he went ahead and spent $2,700 US (allegedly) on these rings...without getting anything independently verified first! If this is true, I'd also assume that he only found out about SAFE and my blog post after the fact. One would hope! He goes on to beg my help as, apparently, he could find no appropriate specialists in Australia (not even at the undisclosed "Local Museum"). No experts, he says? Perhaps it's merely that he's worried the experts won't help...because since when is it their responsibility? They have enough on their plates! I have thus become his "last hope."

So, seems like Mo wants me to "do his homework" for him, perhaps after the fact. Either he's clueless and got had, so now reaches out to whomever he can in the hope that someone can assuage his buyer's remorse with a vindication that he's purchased real items...and to hell with considerations such as import/export legality or whether he's holding "toxic antiquities."

On the other hand, would a Uni accounting student (!) with apparently some cash to blow (lucky him!) buy no-questions-asked online? Wouldn't you want to talk to the dealer in person first? Would any but the most gullible ever buy, say, a car from a used-car salesman (not known for their honesty, alas) without performing "due diligence" first?

If anything resembling a licit global market entirely separate and not fed by the illicit market is ever going to exist, if that's even possible, then everyone involved on the demand side has the utmost responsibility to perform due diligence not just afterwards when caught or investigated (or uneasy about one's purchases). When one tries to click on the links to each individual catalog item as offered in his original comment, "not found" messages appear.

Given the numerous evidence-based arguments put forth already that strongly suggest licit can't be separated from illicit in this case (see here and here), I have my doubts. If such a development can ever occur in any meaningful sense, it will be a celebration worthy public policy outcome of new research in this field welcomed by many I'm sure.

As this unexpected example shows, and as we in this scholarly/investigative field continually stress, everyone who voluntarily chooses to further this risky business via "ethical" participation at any level MUST "do their own homework" by asking all the right questions, not just the most pressing afterthoughts.

Your Feedback is Important to Us!

As those of you who follow this blog would know, Vietnam and its ancient past are near and dear to my heart. The need to better conserve its archaeological record and understand what threatens it remains important...but the degree to which it is threatened is less known than other countries in the region. Research begun by myself and a colleague with legal and criminological expertise in art crime will begin to remedy this.

As part of our overall goal, we have drafted a series of questions designed to produce qualitative data via elucidating Western and Vietnamese archaeologists' experiences and observations of looting and the antiquities trade on the ground. We have already posted a call for interview subjects on three key Southeast Asian archaeology forums. I announce it here as well so as to keep spreading the word. If you or your colleagues would like to contribute, let us know and we can send you the questionnaire and more information about the project and its goals. There's plenty of time, and a diversity of perspectives would be very informative! Anonymity will be preserved.

If You Happen to Find Yourself in Chicago...

On November 14th, please make an effort to attend this one-day symposium, to be offered by the DePaul University College of Law Centre for Art, Museum and Cultural Heritage Law. The symposium "will address the underlying legal, ethical and moral reasons and policies behind the return of cultural objects. Panels will discuss provenance research, museum acquisitions, the 1970 UNESCO Convention and historical appropriations, and the ethical issues that come into play when requests for repatriation are made." It is rare to see so many influential scholars on this topic in the same room at the same time, so this is truly an opportunity not to be missed (if you're not on an entirely different continent, as I am).

Topics will include "market and legal" perspectives on the need for more thorough provenance (ownership history) research, how museums can negotiate the acquisition of artifacts that lack a pre-1970 provenance (and should they?), legal and moral aspects of international calls for repatriation of artefacts lifted during the Colonial-era, and the oft-contentious issue of when museums and private dealers or collectors should and shouldn't heed calls for repatriation. All in all, it seems like quite the fascinating gathering...one that I wish I could attend! If any readers of this blog do attend, and would like to guest-blog about what they learned, they are more than welcome.

A "Wrecked" Opportunity?

Yet another historic shipwreck has been discovered and heavily plundered off the coast of Vietnam (Quang Ngai Province), the third since 1998. Thanh Nien News reports that towards the end of June, about 30 boats full of "treasure hunters" rushed over to plunder the shallow wreck; unfortunately discovered no more than 100 meters from the coast and 1.5m deep (more news here).

The seabed around the clusters of likely c. 16th-17th century blue-on-white ceramics discovered has also been dredged and disturbed in the hunt for more artifacts, thereby revealing some of the wreck itself, but also destroying vital archaeological context regarding site formation and taphonomy. There is even testimony to the effect that axes and crowbars were used to free individual artifacts from the wreck as quickly as possible, smashing other pieces in the process!

Fortunately, police have allegedly been on patrol since last Friday morning and a southern Vietnamese "salvage" company was contracted out to conduct an excavation of what remained (see photo above left). The trajectory of discovery, looting, patrol, and "salvage" that occurred for this wreck is very similar to that which occurred for another c. 13th-14th century wreck in the area.

The merits of approaching a salvage company (headed by a known antiquities collector...), as opposed to an organization devoted to maritime archaeology such as the Vietnam Maritime Archaeology Project Centre (full disclosure: colleagues of mine), is open to debate. I'd assume it's just a question of time and money, as always.

Here's hoping that authorities will have better luck recovering looted items this time around, but how many are destined for international markets as opposed to local collections is anyone's guess. Vietnamese heritage law would theoretically prevent their export (search for Vietnam here), but enforcement and detection is another matter. With the likely upcoming expansion of Dung Quat port, time is running out to decide what to do with these wreck; remove it or preserve it in-situ as a tourist attraction? Given that other wrecks from different time periods remain unexcavated (but already looted?), how authorities deal with this situation will set important precedent. Stay tuned...  

Truly no quick fix...

This excellent article by Tom Mashberg of the New York Times deserves further dissemination, so I am happy to help spread it through the cultural heritage "blogosphere." It quite clearly emphasises the varying rates of success in repatriation claims by non-Western countries to Western (demand nation) museums, depending on the degree to which a claimant nation's government is willing to 'cooperate' with museum compromises or requests for replacement exhibits/loans. These considerations beyond mere cut-and-dry "evidence" are too-often overlooked.

Most importantly to me is the call, yet again, for "universal standards" that can guide ALL Western museums greatly hampers efforts to organize and carry out repatriations in best accordance with all available evidence. As it stands, this lack of standards provides, in my opinion, another loophole that irresponsible or lazy individuals can exploit to avoid thorough due diligence/provenance checking, even when, as suggested in the article, research can only reveal that at one point an object passed through the hands of a dealer with "a history" of illicit dealings, requiring a judgement call to be made in the end.

Fortunately, the article highlights examples of museums (such as the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston) that are being increasingly proactive in balancing evidence and moral/ethical concerns and cooperating with investigations before things get out of hand. Victoria Reed, the museum's curator for provenance, is quoted as saying "As we strive for greater diligence today, these past acquisition mistakes provide our greatest learning tool." This really demonstrates to me that some cultural institutions that acquire and display antiquities truly get it by now. It's about time that everyone gets on the same page... Concerned citizens and professional scholars alike who watch the dramas unfold are willing to give those behind the curve time to draft and publicize new acquisition's policies, but if you fail to enforce them, be prepared to accept the PR consequences.

In other news, you can now follow me and this blog on Twitter: @DamienHuffer

The Saga Continues...

New revelations have surfaced, reported in The Australian (related, older news here), that the National Gallery of Australia in Canberra does indeed possess one of the most high profile artifacts of those known to have been purchased from extradited antiquities dealer Subash Kapoor; a "dancing Shiva" statue worth approximately US $2 million on the open market (photo at left). It is suggested that this item was in fact stolen from a temple in Tamil Nadu state in 2008 and immediately snapped up by Kapoor before being bought apparently no questions asked by the gallery.

The other 20 items purchased from Kapoor that remain in the NGA's collections are alleged to have had sufficient due diligence and ownership history documentation provided demonstrating their exportation pre-1970...and yet an "investigative committee" has been established, the items remain unidentified to the public, and the gallery's director stated in a Senate hearing that they "were cooperating with authorities" and "needed to be as careful as possible." This stance is commendable and understandable, especially given direct evidence for previous high-profile oversights. All eyes are now upon them to see how this compliance plays out and what further investigation turns up.

UPDATE: According to my esteemed colleagues over at Chasing Aphrodite, the NGA seems likely to soon have alot more explaining to do...

UPDATE #2: New reporting in The Australian has revealed that $5.1 million was paid for this statue by the NGA, not $2 million, making this one of the most expensive art or antiquities deal done in Australia. A victim of fraud? Hmmmm...

UPDATE #3: The latest article in The Australian details how continuing revelations of high profile Australian museums and art galleries active and knowing participation in the South Asian antiquities trade via Kapoor have finally caused the Chair of the Australian Association of Art Museum Directors (one Mr. Tony Ellwood) to "place this issue on our next agenda." Let us hope this is carried out and that new accession guidelines for antiquities will be drawn up on par with those in the US and, importantly, made public and actually enforced!

I am quoted in the article and I stand behind my statements, but in retrospect, credit must always be given to investigators of the Tamil Nadu police department's Idol Wing for first alerting the world of some of these thefts. As well, I would more appropriately refer to Kapoor as the "Medici of South Asia" or just "Asia." All in all, these are minor points. All of us now eagerly await more revelations. I will continue to help uncover this "iceberg" as much as possible.

Museums and the Market: When Cultural Institutions Must Sell

An interesting and thought provoking piece has come to my attention recently. It specifically posits the question of what, and to what extent, an established but deeply indebted museum (using Chicago's Field Museum as an example) can sell off previously held collections on the open market. Using the example of the sale of several paintings by Catlin in order to raise proceeds to pay curatorial staff who originally tended the collections, the question of how respectable museums can adapt to times of budgetary stress in an ethical manner comes to mind.

Some have argued for the legal release and sale of artifacts or pieces of artifacts (such as ceramic sherds) in which numerous allegedly identical examples might be found in any one excavation. I would respond by saying that just because two or more objects LOOK the same stylistically does not mean future scientific analysis won't reveal different manufacturing centres, raw material types, or adhering residues that could explain differences in archaeological context. Within the academy, the fields of archaeology and physical anthropology are becoming increasingly focused on methodological advances in "archaeological science" (archaeometry) to breathe new life into old collections or previously curated remains...revealing increasingly minute details of human life history or artifact manufacture, exchange, and use.

Carrying out new excavations successfully (for research purposes) is not only tied to the availability of funds (and thus national, state and local fluctuations in the economy), but also requires a certain degree of luck to find in-tact and well preserved sites before the global antiquities trade claims them. The role of museums and secondary collections in the continuation of global archaeological and anthropological research is therefore not to be underestimated. Selling off already curated items (even with paperwork attached) should therefore be avoided at all costs as, even if this trade would arguably be more "licit," it would still be detrimental to overall scholarly efforts to truly understand and share the past, not just aesthetically "appreciate" it.

Another issue raised is the concept of "donor security" being shaken if it became known that high-profile institutions are being forced to sell or auction off collections. Apparently, if donors get jittery that items they have consigned to museums for long-term safe keeping will now be sold off, and possibly not even returned to them, they will be less likely to donate in the first place. Even in Western countries, where storage space, proper curatorial technique, and security tends to be less of an issue, good intentions will never entirely buffer against ill economic winds.

If the items in questions (e.g. antiquities or fossils) have known or suspected illicit origins, it would seem likely that the economic hardship affecting many of the world's museums would only increase the likelihood of unscrupulous dealers or collectors continuing to do wrong by humanity's past by choosing the "free market" of the no-questions-asked antiquities trade as the final destination for items they no longer want the burden of holding on to. What can be done about this, in relation to the antiquities and fossil trade especially?

It's a tough question, but one that needs practical solutions, barring the sudden generation of revenue from thin air. Will previously free museums have to begin charging entrance fees or levy taxes on acquisitions from private donors? Making "gifts" and "bequests" no longer able to receive tax write-offs could be a start (and would, in my opinion, perhaps make donors more prone to double checking ownership history and documentation). I don't pretend to have a solution readily at hand, but I would love to discuss this topic further. How do YOU think cash-strapped museums can raise revenue without sacrificing too many employees, their ability to provide documented collections for new research, or indirectly fueling the antiquities trade?    

10 Years After...

This month marks the ten year anniversary of the tragic looting of the Iraq Museum in Baghdad during the initial days of the US occupation. Numerous pieces remain missing from this event, and the museum remains closed to the general public. Only the work of the late Donny George and his staff, with the assistance of the US military, prevented the complete loss of the museum's entire collections and archives. Work to restore this institution is, understandably, very slow going.

To commemorate this event and why it still matters in terms of the global looting crisis and continued discussion of the role of museums and concerned private citizens in preventing the trade, SAFE is running a virtual candle lighting campaign so that the world community can honour what was lost and look towards the future. Candle lighting and other, written or multi-media contributions will be accepted until July, and hosted on the website.

You, too, can light a candle here, as well as watch a relevant video here and read my own reflections here (as part of SAFEs additional campaign to collect personal reflections from heritage professionals and concerned citizens alike). Please help me spread the word, and join the cause yourself! What future, without our past?

Start Spreading the Word

Colleague Rick St. Hilaire has kindly announced on his blog that the campaign to renew the MoU between China and the US is soon to relaunch. Continued instances of grave robbery and archaeological site destruction such as that which tore this 130 year old Qing dynasty mummy from its archaeological context, continue at a frightening pace. CPAC will apparently meet on the 14th of May to begin soliciting public comment and simultaneously announce when the public comment period will end. Therefore I, and I hope as many of you readers as possible, can be sure to submit comments or full letters on the Resolutions.gov website by then, as was recently done for Cambodia.

Live Blogging from Bhutan

For the last week, I have been attending the 1st annual "International Conference on Protection of Cultural Property in Asia" conference, in Thimphu, Bhutan. Pre-conference tours have been incredible, with scenic Himalayan mountain views, visits to Dzongs (monasteries) as old as the 8th and 16th centuries (such as the Taktsang, or "Tiger's Nest," at left) and weekend markets, nightlife, cultural institutions, and interesting and spicy food were all enjoyed. We even "auspiciously" caused a lovely snow fall yesterday and today through our very presence, according to many! The people, both the governmental, military and Ministerial authorities who have made this conference possible, and the "civilian" Bhutanese themselves, have been most accommodating to our varied international diets, levels of cold-tolerance, the occasional technical difficulties, etc. All in all, a wonderful time.

Conference delegates derive from numerous countries across Europe, North America, Australia, and several Asian nations; all united to share the latest developments in issues of policing, monitoring, documenting art and antiquities crime, and preserving heritage. Representatives of INTERPOL, UNESCO, most of Bhutan's governmental ministries concerned with heritage preservation, several museums, textile conservators, and numerous archaeologists and criminologists from several Universities.

Topics have touched on all aspects of local and international law and treaties, loopholes needing to be closed, how to better facilitate networking, active cases (some as current as last month), museum security, unique aspects of the Asian trade, etc., etc. I have left humbled, yet again, by the complexity of this problem, but also its urgency and the commitment, against often steep odds and dire statistics, to do something about it wherever possible.

Stay tuned for more detailed summaries here and elsewhere!

Interesting Developments out of Vietnam

Exciting and relevant news out of Vietnam recently concerning a new "circular" that will take effect on the 15th February, specifically banning nine new categories of ancient artifacts and documents from leaving the country...except for purposes of "exhibition, research, or preservation in foreign countries." It specifically includes prehistoric "fossilized" human, animal, and plant species, "prehistoric items of various materials of both historical and cultural value," relevant important documents pre and post-1945, and "ancient deposits" and items derived from Vietnam's ethnic minorities dating to pre-1975.

The wording of the missive as reported suggests that most categories of archaeological artifact will be included, ideally including human remains as well. The question still remains as to what changes this new law will effect regarding the vigilance and authority of Vietnamese Customs to seize and search shipments bound for export, as well as (the BIG question), what kind of previsions will be made to ensure that import/export requests made under the new "exhibition, research or preservation" criteria, especially from overseas parties, really are for these purposes? Relevant quarantine forms from specific University departments would be one valid example, but how will the issue of forgery and mislabeling on export permit/customs documents be dealt with?

Fundamentally, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism should be commended, and I foresee that such new legal measures will help to keep the international market in Vietnam-derived antiquities in check, while ongoing research continues to define and quantify the market itself.  Many thanks to my colleague and friend Noel Hidalgo-Tan for initially picking up the story!

Renewed Cambodia-US MoU Pending?

A meeting to decide on whether or not to renew the MoU between the governments of the US and Cambodia, as well as to add Honduras to the list, will be held February 27th-March 1st at the Dept. of State in Washington, DC. Official talks will be closed to the public, but an open session will be held on the 27th, and anyone in the area is free to attend. Also allowed is the submission of written opinions and information for the committee to consider; the sooner the better.

The Cambodia-US MoU was first signed into law in 2003 and extended for another five years in 2008. MoUs remain one of the most powerful legal tools at the disposal of authorities in both countries involved to enforce Customs seizures and import/export restrictions of prohibited and highly sought after categories of artifact on the black market, and aid in prosecutions. I urge everyone concerned about preserving Cambodia's cultural heritage to make their voice heard. I certainly will be!

And The Verdict Is...

The recent legal victory (see here) of BC Galleries and its owners to have several Han, Qi and Tang dynasty period sculptures, as well as a c. mid 1900s mounted trophy skull from the Philippines, returned to sender, has greatly challenged the efficacy of current Cultural Property import and export laws in Australia. While those of us who have been directly involved in this case are still very relieved that the Iron Age Cambodian artifacts and human remains were repatriated (see here), we were left flabbergasted about this final verdict.

As I understand it, the aspect of this verdict that alleges innocence due to a lack of proof on behalf of the prosecution that the artifacts in question genuinely came from within China's borders is as shocking as it is problematic. Unless the dealer was deliberately trying to sell forgeries produced on the well-attested-to Hong Kong forgeries market (e.g. here), something even some honest collectors are acknowledging (here), then the origin of these allegedly authentic antiquities within the borders of modern China ("owner" of Hong Kong since 1997) is all but certain.

Also relevant is the historically and archaeologically attested fact that Hong Kong and the Guangzhou region itself flourished as a trading centre during the specific dynasties in question, especially the Tang (for general background, see here and here). The question of what to do with confiscated artifacts seized within the border of a modern country that once was controlled by an empire with its headquarters in another modern country is always tricky (Roman coins, anyone?). However, in my opinion, it has long since lost its utility as an excuse to cover up smuggling or provenance manipulation.

As someone privy to the original verdict as handed down, I would also suggest that the argument used to get the trophy skull returned is quite flawed. I can share with readers that an internationally renowned expert in human osteology was asked to take cranial and facial measurements of the skull and run this data through a program routinely used in forensic cases to determine the most likely genetic ancestry of an unidentified person. Several runs of the dataset consistently showed the skull to derive from an Asian population distinctly not native to the Philippines. When mounted as a trophy by former "head hunters," it was thereby modified and adopted into the tangible cultural heritage corpus of the ethnic minority group in question.

Importantly, it would have been bought and sold by middle-men, and eventually by BC Galleries, as an ethnographic "curio" from the Philippines! However, because the craniometric measurements suggested a non-native ancestry for the skull in question, all other claims were rendered null and void. Really?!! If a local or international dealer was attempting to sell, say, the freshly dug up remains of a WWII veteran (of any nationality), straight from the grave...THAT is a different story. In that case, forensic osteological techniques would be ideal to help confirm a recent war casualty and affect appropriate repatriation. Not in this instance...

The article first sited above raises one last, worrying point. The verdict as currently stands does, to me, allegedly imply that it will be harder for the Australian government, international authorities via local embassies, and lawyers and criminological professionals advocating against the illicit trade to force and follow through with new seizures, especially against moneyed defendants. What is needed now to further the global fight are more up-to-date (and update-able) databases that can quantify temporal trends and regional and intra-national variation, especially regarding the smaller, portable, or more "common" artifacts that so often escape confiscation or media attention.

Information such as this would greatly assist outreach efforts towards the general public, producing consultable resources for customs officers in source and demand countries, museums, and even those responsible dealers and collectors who wished to consult the reports produced. There are currently several teams (e.g. Trafficking Culture) and independent scholars engaged in such research, and come December, a colleague and I will join these efforts. When things get fully underway, details will be shared as events warrant. Stay tuned!

Destroying Syria's Past...

This excellent report, compiled in May, is just too important not to share. It details the massive damage still occurring to Syrian archaeological sites of all time periods, with or without World Heritage listing. It also documents the even more recent looting of some key museums (e.g. the Homs museum), and the involvement of players on all sides of the conflict. Despite repeated and ongoing calls for on-the-ground help and greater contingency efforts, it appears that the situation remains grave. Another excellent summary can be found here, with video testimony.

Much praise needs to go to Mrs. Cunliffe, of Durham University, for her hard work in bringing this information to light, and in such a multifaceted way. The use of photos, media links, YouTube etc. is, in my opinion, an ideal combination of resources that can ensure the facts reach the widest possible audience and stick. Unfortunately, it seems that the desperate times inherent in such situations of "cultural heritage in conflict" is the very reason behind the production and availability of such materials. Thus, the biggest kudos goes to those Syrian archaeologists and concerned citizens who are watching this happen and doing their best to do something about it.