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!

On the Road Again!

I am writing this from one of the many airport lounges of the Hong Kong airport, on my way to London and points beyond for two months of exciting, archaeology-filled travel. Why? On the occasion of the successful submission of my PhD, I figure a break is needed before the mad-cap process of application filing, paper writing, and the inevitable thesis corrections in a few months time, is allowed to resume! I am very excited to visit countries in the UK that I have dreamed of visiting most of my adult life, as well as a return to the US to visit family; catching up with archaeological and antiquities trade research colleagues both old and new.

I am also honoured to attend and present at the 14th EurASEAA (European Association for Southeast Asian Archaeology) conference in Dublin from the 18th-21st September, including chairing its first ever panel devoted to bioarchaeology. I will do my best to "live-blog" at least twice while the conference is on (and with more promptness than I mustered in Berlin). A post or two giving my impressions of the British Museum's displayed archaeological collections is inevitable... Stay tuned for all these updates and more as I set off on my next great adventure!

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

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.