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.

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

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?    

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.

Hide and Go Seek?

A few days ago, a guest-blogger on the Chasing Aphrodite blog (one M. Frechette), added what I deem a well-thought out contribution to the debate surrounding the upcoming Paris sale of the Barbier-Mueller collection of Latin American antiquities, slated for 22nd March. Further in-depth discussion (with more likely forthcoming) has also been offered by Donna Yates here and here.

One of the commentators, a Dr. Geoffrey A. Smith, stated in rebuttal words to the effect of "published provenance is not always an accurate one," and "just because provenance isn't listed in the catalog doesn't preclude legitimate ownership." Potentially valid, but also contentious, claims. I can attest from my own ongoing research that issues like this are what makes investigating and quantifying the antiquities trade, especially data from past auctions gleaned from catalogs, a time-consuming and complicated task. Relevant but difficult.

My response to Dr. Smith raised what I feel to be a salient point. In the highest-end echelons of the so-called legitimate antiquities trade that auction houses like Sotheby's, Christie's, Bonham's, etc. supposedly now represent, and after several embarrassing exposures of legal and ethical wrong-doing in recent years (discussed ad nausea elsewhere), the question remains: Why hide information from your customers if, in providing it (especially in online forums), you absolve yourself from any claims of fraud or illegal (internationally illegal in many cases) activities? Remaining purely profit-driven is one thing (as Dr. Smith suggests in a follow-up comment), but how can any claims to transparency and reform be taken seriously, and why should they?

As a case in point (and in-line with my general interests in all things Asian antiquities related), I present to you this item.  Allegedly bought at a garage sale in 2007 for $3 (but from an anonymous family), its arrival and sale on March 20th at Sotheby's New York caused shock waves. Listed as a "Rare and Important 'Ding' Bowl, Northern Song Dynasty," first of all let's note that its estimated price was $200,000-$300,000, but it sold for a whopping $2,225,000! Provenance (a.k.a. "ownership history") is offered as solely belonging to a "New York State private collection." When did the original owners (pre-2007) actually acquire it, and how?

In the catalog notes and descriptions, much text is spent describing the aesthetic details of the piece, including a couple citations that provide other examples of similar bowls. One in particular stands out, and I quote the catalog description itself:

"Only one other bowl of the same form, size and almost identical decoration is known; the piece in the British Museum London, published in The World’s Great Collections. Oriental Ceramics, vol. 5, Tokyo, 1981, pl. 57. This bowl was bequeathed to the museum in 1947 by Henry J. Oppenheim, together with a small number of other ‘Ding’ pieces, including a plain dish with foliate rim, pl. 62, and a bowl with molded decoration of boys and flowers, pl. 61."

Relatively detailed information is also provided, with a couple of references, about the general provenience of the Ding ceramic kiln site, with manufacturing dates and stylistic changes observed from the 10th-13th centuries (see Kerr 1982; Kerr and Thomas, 2004). Much is also made of the fact that Ding ware has been argued to be a high-status vessel type, stored in official warehouses and made in imitation of gold or silver objects. NO mention, citation, or even slight hint is revealed as to where and when this particular vessel surfaced, how long it has been outside China, inside the US, and if there are significant gaps in its ownership history. Did the bowl derive from the kiln site itself, a grave, a warehouse stockpile? If originally part of the haul from a legal excavation, even before the days of scientific, systematic archaeology, some relevant notes must exist somewhere for such a rare piece?

And what of the c. 1947 nearly identical piece mentioned above? One might also reasonably inquire as to whether or not, as Dr. Smith suggested, the 1947 provenance could be trusted should it ever arrive at auction. Bought by Giuseppe Eskenazi, current owner of a long established London gallery, might it now be purchased by one of numerous museums who have previously bought from him before, including several in Australia? It is highly unlikely, to me, that any professional museum with a 21st century acquisitions policy would touch this piece unless more clarity and documentation could be provided.

If a museum does purchase it, let us hope that, even for such a tiny and easy-to-overlook piece, everyone will do their job to ensure legal export pre-1970 (and in accordance with Chinese laws that date to 1982 and earlier). Furthermore, may they also have success in clarifying as detailed an ownership history as possible, and perhaps (with luck) obtaining information regarding provenience and context. As pointed out by SAFE and others, China's illicit antiquities trade continues, but national and international action is being taken. It's worth noting here that the latest US-China MoU (2009) will be up for renewal again next year. In closing, I feel that not only are these questions worth raising, but also that the questions themselves demonstrate that the claims to full transparency and reform by such elite auction houses are yet to be satisfactorily achieved. 

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!

My Note to CPAC

In regards to the Cambodian MoU renewal meetings set for February 27th, I have posted the following comment, and advance of a more formal letter. I encourage my readers and blogosphere colleagues to do the same. The website is here. Comments are due by the 6th February. You may also contribute your time and volunteer power to SAFE's "Say YES to Cambodia" campaign, the cause page of which is here. It's all about getting the word out and letting the government know exactly WHY archaeologists, heritage professionals, scholars and followers of the antiquities trade, and concerned citizens alike all seek to renew the MoU for another five years. If you have more to add, a different perspective to share, or feel you can do better, I encourage you to do so. For even more inspiration, see here. It will take as much concerted group effort as possible to make sure this renewal goes through.


"To the CPAC committee"

I am a professional archaeologist and physical anthropologist with field experience in Southeast Asia (primarily Vietnam, for which no MoU yet exists), and an ongoing project at the University of Sydney's Institute of Criminology, attempting to better quantify the illicit antiquities trade from South and Southeast Asia to Western destinations. It has long been recognized that active MoU's remain the most effective legal means that the US government possesses to bilaterally enforce heritage laws, prosecute offenders, and lend weight to Customs efforts in both source and demand countries.

The last five years have seen the continued implementation of the Cambodian MoU and its elimination now would render the world's largest antiquities market fully open for business once again, as well as ensure that affecting measurable decline in looting in Cambodia itself would become much more difficult. For the sake of the people and irreplaceable historic and prehistoric heritage of Cambodia, the integrity of the archaeological record, and the future ability to use archaeological science to continue to understand the past, I urge CPAC to renew the US-Cambodia MoU."

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!

Breaking News: Another Repatriation Claim for Khmer Antiquities

I just received an article a few moments ago from a colleague, written by NY Times authors Tom Mashburg and Ralph Blumenthal. It concerns a new repatriation case to get two c. 921-945AD statues ("The Kneeling Attendants") that likely stood at Koh Ker before their theft in the 1970s returned to Cambodia. This time, the Met is the defendant, with the Cambodian government's cultural heritage division (APSARA) and UNESCO currently assembling the evidence for this claim. 

In the Met's defense, the article attests that internal investigation in 1997 resulted in the return of a 10th c. head of Shiva to APSARA. However, from my own visits there in 2010 at least, I can attest that many of the prehistoric artifacts on display, due to their types and rarity (especially grave goods), have much more suspect origins. Their newest acquisitions policy, on paper, is supposed to be very strict in terms of all antiquities having pre-1970 provenance, but...?

The article alleges that these statues would have stood mere yards from the standing statue (referred to as Duryodhyana) that the US and Cambodian governments are trying to get returned by Sotheby's. All these peaces were connected to the London auction house Spink & Sons in the 1980s, likely arriving in London via Bangkok after being looted during the chaos of the Khmer Rouge regime. If the testimony of local villagers given in the article that the temple "had been virtually unmolested" before the 1970s is true, then this would add to the case, but the doubt expressed as to their origins by the individual who originally purchased them from Spinks is worth noting.

If Spinks really did loose the paperwork, this will make the case harder to prove. The Met's current Director of External Affairs is here on record giving the standard argument that Western museums have some sort of right/obligation to acquire cultural property/heritage at all costs, "especially if, by doing so, they might be protected from disappearance completely from public view and from study." While this may seem noble, it can never excuse arranging, relying on, or condoning obvious looting in order to flesh out one's 'encyclopedic' museum shelves.

On the other hand, however, Cambodia was in a state of turmoil and these pieces very well could have been destroyed if Koh Ker was bombed... I won't deny that cases like these are far more complicated than dealing with prehistoric SE Asian antiquities on the market, but the high profile nature of these statues should at least encourage all possible information to be gathered. All we can do is stay tuned as  this newest case develops.

Organized Crime and the Antiquities Trade?

A manuscript released in January of this year, written by Dr. Alderman of the University of Wisconsin law school, takes a very thorough overview of the global antiquities trade's key factions and the purported links between it and trans-national organized crime. Providing numerous case studies and discussing several categories of so-called "criminal excavators," the middlemen they supply (both local wholesalers and inter-regional traffickers), and the roles of final-destination retailers, private owners, and museums/curators of diverse ethical stances in completing the circle. It is this very cycle that Drs. Neil Brodie and Simon Mackenzie and colleagues from the University of Glasgow have just received a major grant (and popular press) to study in more depth. I imagine that a good visual representation of the connection between syndicates and the trade is something like the visual above left...

Most case studies discussed in this original document derive from European, North American or South America, but the Southeast Asian trade through Bangkok and Singapore gets some mention. I am especially happy to note that the trade in small, portable items from Southeast Asian prehistoric sites (e.g. "beads by the bucketful," pp. 24) is also discussed, along with the more visible word-wide trade is historic period statuary from Cambodia, region-wide, and elsewhere. The key discussion of organized crime and the antiquities trade at the end of the document centers around the issue of "lateralization," i.e. the inter-connectivity of the various elements that sustain the trade (creatively termed a "biosphere," pp. 31).

The claim that there is no such thing as a licit trade truly separate from the illicit one is something that I in my research have come to agree with. As discussed in the manuscript, the licit trade uses the infrastructure of the illicit trade to support itself, and all participants help support said trade, even those individuals who "insist on provenance and have never handled a tainted object" (pp. 32). Although there are specific points I disagree with (e.g. referring to those who sell the occasional artifact found while digging gardens or plowing fields-the "subsistence diggers"-as criminal), the information provided is well written for the informed general public, well referenced, and deserving of wider dissemination.