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

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.

All in the (Kapoor) Family?

As the Kapoor case continues and deepens, I'd like to quickly share two new news articles just released on the 11th in The Hindu (here and here), as they raise some important questions and reveal more important information about goings on, especially from 2008-2011. Paul Barford weighs in here. Both primarily concern allegations currently under investigation that imply that Kapoor's daughter, son and brother (allegedly directly implicated by Kapoor), as well as his father, are all tied to the smuggling ring. Both articles suggest again that the numerous charitable (tax-deductible?) donations Kapoor (and most likely his brother) made to museums were designed to curry favor AND most likely move pieces known to be "hot."

Having already had one shipment seized in 2007, and being on record in the US as being aware of relevant cultural property laws, further evidence is surfacing that suggests he continued to acquire new recently surfaced pieces from 2008 onwards, perhaps right up until his arrest by Interpol. Also pertinent is further revelation of the role of one Asokan, Kapoor's alleged primary middle-man in Tamil Nadu. Besides allegedly holding meetings with Kapoor in posh hotels across India during the height of the smuggling operation and coordinating most temple thefts via robbery and bribery, it is now known that Asokan and his associates were not always successful in exporting their acquisitions.

Previous reports have already begun to reveal the market prices some of these pieces taken from his warehouse could have fetched if sold; many staggeringly high. This latest Hindu article has begun to release prices for some of the pieces from the Art of the Past gallery itself; also substantial. It is especially intriguing for me to now have another source suggest that the smuggling network extended to Pakistan and Southeast Asia, including at least a few Gandharan pieces (in light of the recent Pakistan-internal smuggling and forgery cases) Examples of these can allegedly be seen above left, but their authenticity and exact collecting history is not yet confirmed.

I'll close this update with one final observation: As the investigation and preparation for trial by US authorities continues, it is interesting to know that repatriation claims have begun on at least four pieces. It is my hope that those pieces now residing in museums far and wide, with clear Kapoor association, can be returned with as little legal red-tape as possible...once, and if, the completed investigation confirms all hypotheses beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Two Repatriation Successes

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

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

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

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

Human Remains Repatriated to Namibia

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

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

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

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

Recent News of Interest...

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

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

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

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

Repatriation Down Under

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

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

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