Status Update

As I continue to run around in last minute preparation for one final PhD related research trip to Hanoi, this is to announce that I intend to blog at least occasionally while over there. As I'll be on the ground in what is both a source and, increasingly, a demand country for Southeast Asian antiquities (from prehistoric "field finds" like those in the photo at left, courtesy of the author, to historic period statuary, sculpture, shipwreck ceramics etc.), I will make it my goal to take a "status report" of the antiquities trading scene on the ground in Hanoi (and to a lesser extent, Saigon), to whatever extent I can. My very first post for SAFE detailed my observations on the local Hanoi antiquities trade c. early 2010. I am doubtful much has changed, but I will do my best to document and observe what I can.

"Other People's Treasure" on the High Seas

It seems that, according to this article (also here), hundreds of artifacts from "dozens" of Spice Route-era shipwrecks (c. 1500-1800AD) off of the Tanjung Tuan coast, Malaysia, have been stolen by illicit underwater looters (here read 'salvagers') since the 1990s. What really struck me about these short articles, however, was that on the one hand, the Museum Authority was asked by the state government to gather more information for prosecutions, but on the other, the government itself tried to offer (bribe?) salvage companies to retrieve further artifacts, with the deal most likely to include the local retention of some finds, but the open sale of others (as the full-scale salvage of a single wreck was not the stated goal, unlike the controversial Javanese shipwreck whose artifacts might soon be displayed by the Smithsonian). What maritime excavation methodologies do any of the solicited companies employ? Any regards to context preservation? Nothing is stated.

The article implies that the most active salvage companies or private small enterprises already knew that the wrecks in question have been picked clean. As the time, effort and money involved to 'loot' underwater is far beyond "subsistence digging," the issue to me seems to be one of how to define "national treasure" in the case of high seas 'salvaging?' The people involved were locals of a specific ethnicity (Malay or Chinese-Malay in this case), and the artifacts removed came out of near-shore (i.e. not "international") waters. However, their shipwreck context indicates that such objects recovered from cargo holds were collected and transported far and wide in antiquity. If sold, would pieces such as the Chinese blue and white porcelain (see photo above left) go to a) local Malay dealers; b) non-Malay dealers from countries such as China, people who might see no problem profiting from the sale of "treasure" originally made within the former or current boarders of their country, or c) Western dealers and buyers seeking to cash in on possibly romanticized stories of arduous long distance trade voyages in the time of sail ships and pirates? Each of the parties mentioned above could stake a different claim on anything 'salvaged' from these wrecks, but at the end of the day, looting is still looting when insufficient care is given to archaeological context, no matter how it's dressed up or couched in nationalistic terms.

A quick detour...

I couldn't let this news story pass me by without commenting on it here. It appears that the Jordan River Bank site, on the northern edge of suburban Hobart, Tasmania, is to have a highway built above it, despite previous coverage, and local activists and academic and consultant archaeologists attesting to its extreme importance as a likely meeting place/lithic manufacturing centre from c. 42,000BP into historic times (see here as well). Despite reassurances from engineers that the site (a sandbank separate from the river's main course) will not be disturbed by construction, the incredible artifact density (potentially up to three million stone tools or flakes left over from manufacture, left behind on several "living floors" deposited over the millennia), and the fact that the site was only discovered last year, strongly suggests there is more to uncover there. The preliminary archaeological report provides a more technical assessment of the site's importance, for those interested.

At a price tag of $60 million AUD and two additional years suggested by local governmental authorities to be needed to survey a new route for the highway, it is doubtful that calls for preservation will be heeded in the end. At the very least, perhaps further excavation can be carried out to uncover/salvage as much of the site as possible. Obviously, this post does not pertain directly to looting, and there is no reason to suggest any prehistoric (as opposed to ethnographic) artifacts from the site or region have ended up on the market, but it's impossible to know if any local surface collecting has occurred. Hopefully this won't be the case if/when a construction crew descends on the site. I will return to the post series in progress soon, but as controversial, heritage relevant stories from this part of the world often get overlooked overseas, I felt it important to share.

"Other People's Treasure" Pt. 2: Sybolic Loot?

A brief press release has come to my attention that strikes very close to home for me. In fact, it concerns the one and only "ancient relic" that currently serves as the official "symbol" of University House, where I currently live on the ANU campus (see photo above, courtesy of Bob Miller, The ANU). In fact, it features on all official University House brochures, letterheads, memos etc. Specifically, we now learn that the "2,500 yr old ancient Greek cup" now held by University House (of the Attic tradition) will be on display in the new "Spirit of Enquiry" exhibition at the National Museum of Australia, an exhibit designed to "explore the last 200 years of Australian science, education and ideas." All in all, a fine concept for an exhibit, I agree. However, this does not negate the fact that, in the case of objects like this cup, a looted antiquity is still being put on display.

I was interested to learn that Professor Dale Trendall, the first "Master" of University House (a prestigious position then and now) collected the cup while traveling in Europe in the 1950s. Does its acquisition and export before the UNESCO laws were put into place make it any more 'legit,' or any less looted (especially in a time when modern, context conscious archaeology barely existed anywhere)? Even if the cup is now most valued for its symbolic links to ANU and University House, and not so much because it's an especially rare example of Attic pottery (but I'm not a Classicist, so don't quote me on that), does this excuse either the University or the National Museum from acknowledging its likely illicit origins (again, despite the lack of appropriate legislation at the time)? I don't think so.

Prof. Trendall is credited with creating the largest catalog of Apulian and Attic ceramics to date, with painstaking stylistic and morphological analyses conducted to attempt to distinguish the various styles in use from the 5th-4th c. BCE, as well as the 'signature' characteristics of individual painters. However, the work that underpinned this effort also put Trendall in contact with numerous local and international dealers, including some future big names, such as Geddes, and spawned a rush of looting in Southern Italy and Sicily, especially during the 1980s (see e.g. Gill, 2010). Although Trendall could not arguably have anticipated this, and even if this particular Attic cup did not recently 'surface,' the fact remains that the use of this particular piece of "other people's treasure" to bolster the image of "refinement" that both University House and the ANU wish to convey to the world, does not go unnoticed. Even though repatriation is impossible (and has never been requested), would not an image of the Parthenon (for example) suffice? Unfortunately, in my opinion the Classics Museum (and dept.) here has at best a mixed track-record of acknowledging provenance where known, collection method, and/or the pre-1970s origins of what's on display. Let's hope the National Museum is more upfront. I will report on the matter when I've seen the display in person.

In this instance, then, we can draw parallels between the use of artifacts from Classical antiquity in "demand" nations in both hemispheres; as signifiers of a person's or institution's aesthetic and cultural sophistication via the display of "pieces" made by the same people who 'founded' "Western Civilization." A spurious argument wherever it's used. This post will lead into future discussion of how "other people's treasure" is used as a marketing ploy in private antiquities sales down here, whether "Classical" or not, but (as per my interest) retaining a Southeast Asia focus.

Related to that, I'm glad to further report on a good example of an antiquities dealer in Britain doing the right thing by way of a looted Afghan statue! Good job! Thanks to The History Blog for covering it first. On the other hand, this article demonstrates that, in the complex world of knock-offs, duplicates, and genuine rare antiquities that is the Chinese antiquities trade, even local dealers can fool local buyers! How much does the desire for "other people's treasure" extend to collecting the antiquities of one's own national or ethnic past in this part of the world? Let the investigation continue!

"Other People's Treasure" and Looting in the Philippines

This post will be the first in a series focusing on the topic of the collection of "other people's treasure" (or the alleged reclamation of "treasure" thought to affiliate with ones' own ethnic or national history) as an ongoing motive for looting and antiquities trading in the Southern Hemisphere. In this instance, I'm referring to a new case of looting that recently occurred (sometime last year, from what I understand from the article) at the sites of Maulohin Cave and Istar Cairn, on Imorigue island in New Ibajay town, Palawan province, Philippines. Dr. Victor Paz (in full disclosure, a colleague of mine) first reported this incident to get the National Museum of the Philippines involved in the investigation, noting that these 500 year old remains, with clear contextual affiliation with Metal Age ceramics and iron weapons, were "stolen by Japanese descendants of missing World War II soldiers."

Paz, acting in his capacity as a representative of the National Museum and member of the Palawan Island Palaeohistoric Research Project, convinced the Museum Director, one Cecilio Salcedo, to send additional experts to Palawan to work with local authorities to investigate what occurred, when, and the extent of the damage. Not surprisingly, but in my opinion rather suspiciously, the Japanese Embassy is refusing to comment and feigning ignorance.

Although reports of what occurred still seem unconfirmed, or based upon a few "known facts" and several interviews and "unconfirmed reports," it appears that in May last year, Japanese Nationals with local guides visited the sites and carefully "sorted and sacked" all the bones for removal, but guards stopped the removal before it could go ahead, and the remains were eventually turned over to the Palawan Island Palaeohistoric Research Project team who returned them to their original sites, with bilingual signs placed "in clear view" stating that these re-deposited remains were those of prehistoric ancestral Philippinos. Apparently, another sack of mostly material cultural items and shell was also produced, coming from a site no one on the excavation team recognized...suggesting that other nearby sites have also been hit. Dr. Paz, doing his part as a true advocate of archaeological education and anti-looting outreach in his country, has discussed looting issues with concern before, noting again (in light of this case) that "at the rate the looting is going, we will have nothing left for future generations of Filipinos to protect and learn from."

Despite this, the article suggests (if I read it right) that the remains have just recently been removed again, thus sparking the outrage and calls for thorough investigations discussed in the article. As Dr. Paz and others who've worked in the Philippines have personally informed me, many looting cases like the above relate to the story of "Yamashita's Treasure," the likely-mythological burial of immense quantities of gold and other spoils of war 'stolen' by the Japanese fleet from various locations around Southeast Asia and then hidden in caves, tunnels and booby-trapped enclosures throughout the Philippines. The legend has been thoroughly spread by local and American population culture sources (TV, books, video games etc.), but Philippino historian Ambeth Ocampo (among others) has observed that both foreign and Philippino "treasure hunters" have been looking for 50yrs, using every supposed map and bit of oral history testimony they can find, and have still recovered nothing substantial. Yet the dissemination of(ahem) "revisionist" history fueling the search continues apace (e.g. here).

So, here we have the theme of "other people's treasure" seen from two angles: Locals (especially, it seems, foreign nationals and rural villagers) exposed to such legends by foreign and local media and aware of the prices that gold etc. could fetch on the open market, continue to search, occasionally looting prehistoric sites in the process. On the other hand, the Japanese students and nationals allegedly connected to the initial (and perhaps subsequent) removal of bones and artifacts from archaeological context at Maulohin and Istar Cairn destroyed another piece of the Philippines' non-renewable archaeological heritage (i.e. "other people's treasure") to reclaim "ancestors" they erroneously believed to be theirs. The end result is the same. Although this example does not involve a clear intent to sell "other people's treasure" (i.e. human remains and artifacts) on the antiquities market, this motive deserves further investigation where actual looting with intent to sell is concerned.

Forthcoming posts in my first series built around a theme will deal with justifications and influences currently affecting the Southern Hemisphere antiquities trade. Not just the import of antiquities from abroad into source countries (primarily Australia and New Zealand, but also Africa or South America where relevant), but also the trade in Aboriginal or Maori artifacts, remains, or pieces of historic "Australiana" and "Kiwiana" which might find markets amongst the new middle class in Asia. Of course, Southeast Asia remains a primary focus. Is the desire to own a tangible piece of the past of a country with a much longer written and/or unwritten history that yours enough of a reason to support the trade? How is the concept of "other people's treasure" used in antiquities marketing down here, or even the marketing of local prehistoric artifacts overseas (where observable)? Is the non-Indigenous collection of Indigenous artifacts still tied to "exoticization" of the "other?" Stay tuned for some semblance of an answer, hopefully with concrete examples to boot. Onwards!

A Few News Items and an Announcement

The gist of this post is two part: A weekend "news dump" of relevant antiquities trading stories, and an announcement about the future direction of this blog.

1. The first article (here) concerns the seizure of 163 archaeological artifacts and antiques confiscated by the Jamshoro police department (Hyderabad, India) and evaluated by the Sindh Culture Department. These items include antique rifles, coins from several nations, Kashmiri papier mache artwork, swords, and shell statues. A rare "Ayuda Muddhra' statue of the Buddha (with provenance given only as "Far East"), as well as an "Italian" shell sculpture, were among the loot. Disturbingly, one of the suspects apprehended was known to have been a museum guard at the Ranikot Fort museum. The items seized have already been handed over to the Culture Department. Where to after that? Not sure....

2. The next article (here) also concerns artifact seizures in India, with the reported arrest of five individuals in connection with attempted smuggling of four rare "Panchaloha" idols (statues). The raid targeted Max New Bean Bag Shop in Jayanagar, Bangalore, and it is alleged that some of the statues weighed as much as 2.9k! Mobile phones and bikes were also seized. For some reason, only the youngest of the four suspects (a 20 year old man identified as Anand from Harohalli) charges are mentioned in the article. What happened to the other individuals?

3. The third and final piece (here) ventures more into the political/PR side of looting and heritage management. It came to my attention via Museum Security Network (as did those above), but was originally a blog post on the well written, but more contemporary art/antiques focused "artknows" blog (maintained by one Tom Flynn). An auction occurred in the town of Dorchester, UK, on the 19th May, run by the more provincial Woolley and Wallis in Salisbury and Duke's of Dorchester auction houses, to sell off 19th c. Qing Dynasty artifacts known to have been looted from the Summer Palace, Beijing, at that time. Controversy arose not only in regards to the exceptionally high prices some pieces fetched, but also that a number of high-profile buyers were Taiwanese, while at the same time, a contingent of Chinese dealers and delegates contested the sale of these cultural heritage items. A Taiwanese bidder (with clients) suggested that Taiwanese attempts to purchase this material was not "politically motivated," but rather "a chance to buy high quality material with an imperial provenance at very reasonable prices."

The article stresses that the sale of "Asian art" (likely including more ancient antiquities) in England is seemingly now more confined to these "provincial" auction houses, as opposed to high profile auctioneers and galleries in London, due to both the quality of the material and attestations by primarily Asian buyers that "real expertise" is now to be found in the sticks. What of concerns for provenance, collection history etc.? I get the sense that, as with Asian art sales in New York, and antiquities sales everywhere, when the historic/archaeological record becomes vague in regards to provenance, so does the concern of your average purchaser.

P.S. And Now for Something Completely Different: In the near future, dear readers, the tone of this blog will change. To date, I have focused more on gallery/dealer/high profile case exposes and reporting the gist, and my perspectives on, current news items concerning the Southern Hemisphere antiquities trade. However, I would like to go further, into explorations of what underpins the trade down here. Questions such as:

How does it differ from Northern Hemisphere (read Europe and the US) activities? How is collecting of "other people's treasure" justified? What further background on dealer's associations needs down here needs to be aired (i.e. the AAADA)? Local coverage of cases of overseas, and even local, prehistoric and historic period looting, and where it lacks? How autonomous is the Southern Hemisphere trade in Classical/European antiquities (e.g. some of the galleries I originally covered in my first posts)? What role do major Southern Hemisphere demand countries (i.e. Oz and NZ) play in the global trade? What is the market for fakes in the Southern Hemisphere, and what's being faked the most? Where are they produced (only China and Hong Kong, for example?). The misuses/uses of heritage and heritage objects (loosely defined) in mass media/popular culture in regional countries...on coins, stamps, phonecards etc? The list goes on and an (and, in the interest of disclosure, I thank my colleague Paul Barford for these suggestions).

With that said, you are more than free to help me on this quest. If you come across local news items, auctions, on-line sales, new galleries that make you suspicious etc., feel free to get in touch with me. As I'm only one person, I'd also be amenable to the possibility of guest bloggers once we discuss what you'd talk about. Thanks for your attention to date. Let's see what the future holds!

Another Repatriation Case

It appears there has been another successful thwarting of human remains smuggling from Southeast Asia to the West, according to an article that has come to my attention today (courtesy of Museum Security Network). Additional coverage is here. ICE and Homeland Security authorities in New York investigated the suspicious origins of a package shipped from Bali, Indonesia (declared customs value of $5!), found to contain five carved and decorated "head-hunting" trophy skulls, believed to ethnographically originate with one of the many Dayak tribes in Borneo (Kalimantan). The skulls are believed to have been collected sometime during the 18th-19th centuries, although it is highly unlikely that any specific written records would tie these particular skulls to a specific location or time period; instead, appraisers would be required to rely on decorative motif analysis.

Because the total price exceeded $20,000 after a local appraiser "evaluated" what are acknowledged by the authorities, rightly in my opinion, to be priceless human remains, Customs could stop shipment at port in New Jersey. Amidst the usual speeches by officials of both nations, consultants etc. when repatriations are made, I find it unfortunate that these specifically Dayak ethnological artifacts (read stolen ancestral remains/heirlooms) were glossed as the "heritage of the Indonesian people" in this article. I have yet to find any information on whether or not community officials or leaders from one or more Dayak villages (i.e. longhouses) were on hand to witness the repatriation or claim the remains? I suspect not... The article merely suggests that they will be conserved in Indonesia...somewhere.

No information is given on the original shipper or intended destination, so perhaps that is still under investigation as part of prosecutory efforts. From what I can gather, this has yet to receive any independent press in Indonesia itself (the skull returned on the 16th May). Unfortunately, gallery webpages like this (the source of the photo above left) strongly suggest that a market for human remains still exists, with or without the participation of "independent," individual below-boards dealers on e-commerce sites like eBay. At least the above represents one more apprehension and, hopefully, ensures the conservation of these skulls for both future study and perhaps even eventual return to the appropriate community(s).