I Report, You Decide...

Last year, I posted a series of blog posts concerning allegations that an art gallery (Art of the Past) on Madison Ave., NYC, was connected to multiple thefts/international smuggling of 12th-13th c. statues and "idols" from southern India; that they were serving as the end-point in this trade. For reporting on the stories that others wrote, I was threatened with legal action by the concerned party's lawyers, although I never ascertained if this threat was real  and I removed some of the offending posts in order to move on to other topics. Today I have received another article (Times of India, written by Ajay Kanth) from a colleague that once again seems to point to this same gallery, even mentioning the arrest of its high-profile owner in October, 2011 in Germany. I present it here for your perusal... I have hopes that at the very least this investigation will now go further, and let the verdict fall where it may.

Exploring the Depths of Vietnam's Ancient Past

A conference recently held in Hanoi (summarized here) sought to bring together new research, perspectives and voices of both international and Vietnamese archaeologists in a concerted effort to modernize the practice of our discipline within Vietnam itself, as well as give the general public a more accurate understanding of their own nation's past...before nation states existed. An example of just why this matters can be read here, in which the sale of a Dong Son Iron Age period bell (and many other items such as those in the photo above left) is discussed against a melange of viewpoints re cultural/national origins.

In preparation for an overview exhibit of Vietnamese archaeology and history that will tour three museums in Germany from 2014-2015, numerous scholars assembled at the Goethe Institute from Feb 29-March 2 to decide which sites, artifacts, maps etc. can best illuminate the last 4,000 years of Vietnamese prehistory and, most importantly, place it into regional context. The institutions in question are the Museum of Archaeology in Herne, the Reiss-Englehorn Museum in Mannheim, and the Archaeology and History museum in Chemnitz. It appears that the key sites and institutions in both northern and southern Vietnam (still a politically, culturally, linguistically and historically relevant division) are to be included in this traveling exhibit-thus providing a more unified background onto which the exhibit can 'map' the complexities of what is currently known about Vietnam's ancient past.

The goals of this conference in the abstract were two-fold: To highlight the importance of using and sharing contextualized archaeological discoveries as a means to counter-act the still prevalent nationalistic leanings of official interpretations and local public perception of the ancient past (when thought of at all), as well as share the richness of pre-Colonial Vietnamese history with a German public suggested to be mostly ignorant of it, according to project liaison Stefan Leenen. To me, the focus on continued improvement of methodology and analytical technique and the need for the current generation of local archaeologists (many the recipients of overseas training/field school experience and/or directly benefiting from international collaborations) to join the "pioneers" in "setting their own agendas for research," as noted by Prof. Ian Glover, one of the delegates.

As native Vietnamese speakers, they are the best suited to directly disseminate the results of their research to the public, and I have been honoured to work with and learn from many of them during my own tenure at the Institute of Archaeology in Hanoi. I would add (as I always do), that for this collaborative progress to continue, it is crucial that more foreign archaeological scholars in Southeast Asian countries make efforts to learn at least one of the main local languages. The conference also saw the inevitable airing of differences in Western and Vietnamese viewpoints, and the use of the past (and key symbolic artifacts within, such as Dong Son drums) as a means to assert economic sovereignty to contested territory, such as the Parasol Islands, which Vietnam, China, and several other nations currently seek to occupy/exploit, and use deliberately targeted archaeological "research" to further.

While these are important, I will leave them aside in favour of giving proper mention to the looting issue as discussed at this conference. The fact that Vietnamese site looting (often less visible on the ground that in other regional countries such as Cambodia) was mentioned at all is a very positive outcome, if Vietnamese and international scholars and activists are going to ever stem the "cultural rape" (as Prof. Higham succinctly puts it) occurring throughout the region. With the collection of ancient artifacts, especially Dong Son metalwork, still openly discussed online, the outcomes of conferences such as the above deserve all the international press they can get. Let's see what shape the final exhibits take, how Germany receives them, and most importantly, how the Vietnamese public receives them.

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.

Is Christie's Turning Over a New Leaf?

Perhaps this is nothing more than a PR stunt to counteract some of the recent bad press that major auction houses like Christie's and Sotheby's have received of late in regards to Southeast Asian antiquities, but this article (brought to my attention by colleague Tess Davis), is worth sharing. It concerns a recent auction held in Phnom Penh by Christie's, in which recently produced pieces of contemporary Khmer art (mostly sculpture and painting), made by some of Cambodia's best up-and-coming artists. They were sold off purely to raise money for the NGO Cambodian Living Arts, a subsidiary project of the Marion Institute.

CLA enjoys a 14 year long history of helping to revitalize Cambodia's "intangible" cultural heritage, and is, according to their website, founded by and maintained by Khmer/ethnic minority individuals; both the masters who teach and the students who take instruction. Their logo above left captures their commitment to teaching both traditional dance and music (instrumental and vocal). Especially commendable to me is their scholarship program for high school-University students (in collaboration with the Ministry of Culture), as well as their commitment to including English and computer literacy to all their students, especially those from remote rural villages. As a 'home grown' way to continue to respond to the tragedies of the Khmer Rouge (that killed off 90% of the ethnic Khmer artists, let alone those of minority groups), these days it appears to be getting increasingly positive publicity and recognition nationally and internationally. It's multi-media Season of Cambodia show will even play New York City in 2013!

Of course, noble charity events like this do not excuse otherwise notorious auction houses of past crimes or current/future transgressions in regards to the selling of recently looted or insufficiently provenanced antiquities. However, their willingness to attach their name to this at least demonstrates that someone in their employ or board of directors is not solely concerned with profits, and I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt re their motives in this instance. Considering all the money such auction houses have made from the wholesale destruction of tangible heritage, giving some of it back to help preserve the intangible (itself arguably as finite as the archaeological record) is the least they can do.

(Re) Defining Cultural Heritage in Vietnam?

It appears that debate over what defines cultural heritage in Vietnam, both tangible and intangible, is being held once again. This article describes the goings on of "a series of conferences," all centered around the issue of where to draw the line between cultural performances for tradition's sake vs. renewing/maintaining customs that otherwise might die solely for the benefit of tourists. This is especially true for aspects of "intangible" heritage, such as folk music and singing and theatre, the beauty and merits of which would most likely not translate well or, rather unfortunately, be deemed not aesthetically or aurally pleasing enough for the majority of tourists. Certain aspects of a culture like clothing or handicraft will always find a market if the objects are at the very least "beautiful" enough (even if original dyes and patterns are not used, or if the more abstract meanings behind the use of authentic motifs are kept secret to foreigners).

"Intangible" heritage doesn't even have this luxury, yet it deserves protection all the same, especially as some styles of song and dance are being kept alive by very few elderly masters, desperate for apprentices. Examples given in the article from Vietnam include Central Highlands gong music (video example here). Although I can't personally attest to the accuracy of this video, I agree with the general sentiment expressed that renewing such performances for tourist's sake only would cheapen them in time, even if the younger generation would not have been made aware of these "lost" ceremonies otherwise. More popular forms, such as Hanoi's Water Puppet Theatre will always have its commercial and international appeal, but where does that leave the so-called 'niche market' styles like Quan Ho (northern) or Ca Tru (central), or music of any of the numerous ethnic minorities (e.g. the Jarai)? Let alone those of the dozens of other ethnic groups throughout the region and more contemporary styles influenced by traditional music from (e.g. a Karen music video here and slightly older Khmer folk/pop here)?

I also agree with Dr. Trung Quoc's statement that too much government involvement, as opposed to grass-roots community initiative, is in the end not a good thing. The same problem is always at hand in regards to historical and archaeological site preservation/excavation vs. commercial management for tourism vs. short-term looting. The reality in much of Southeast Asia (and the world) is that there is only so much independent academic researchers/NGOs can be expected to foot the bill to subsidize the day to day needs/gear of non-commercial musicians (or everything needed to preserve an excavated site).

World class institutions such as the Musical Instrument Museum and Earthwatch routinely sponsor their own research or arrange for volunteers to help on digs, with the proceeds helping to fund the project. With so many art and music styles (and archaeological sites) worthy of protection or rediscovery before they are lost, a happy medium needs to be found soon. As with the archaeological record, linguistic diversity, biological diversity etc., when taken out of the purely academic realm, time is of the essence to preserve what we study for its own sake and the people who have always lived with it first and foremost.

Antiquities Sting in Nepal

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

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.