A "Wrecked" Opportunity?

Yet another historic shipwreck has been discovered and heavily plundered off the coast of Vietnam (Quang Ngai Province), the third since 1998. Thanh Nien News reports that towards the end of June, about 30 boats full of "treasure hunters" rushed over to plunder the shallow wreck; unfortunately discovered no more than 100 meters from the coast and 1.5m deep (more news here).

The seabed around the clusters of likely c. 16th-17th century blue-on-white ceramics discovered has also been dredged and disturbed in the hunt for more artifacts, thereby revealing some of the wreck itself, but also destroying vital archaeological context regarding site formation and taphonomy. There is even testimony to the effect that axes and crowbars were used to free individual artifacts from the wreck as quickly as possible, smashing other pieces in the process!

Fortunately, police have allegedly been on patrol since last Friday morning and a southern Vietnamese "salvage" company was contracted out to conduct an excavation of what remained (see photo above left). The trajectory of discovery, looting, patrol, and "salvage" that occurred for this wreck is very similar to that which occurred for another c. 13th-14th century wreck in the area.

The merits of approaching a salvage company (headed by a known antiquities collector...), as opposed to an organization devoted to maritime archaeology such as the Vietnam Maritime Archaeology Project Centre (full disclosure: colleagues of mine), is open to debate. I'd assume it's just a question of time and money, as always.

Here's hoping that authorities will have better luck recovering looted items this time around, but how many are destined for international markets as opposed to local collections is anyone's guess. Vietnamese heritage law would theoretically prevent their export (search for Vietnam here), but enforcement and detection is another matter. With the likely upcoming expansion of Dung Quat port, time is running out to decide what to do with these wreck; remove it or preserve it in-situ as a tourist attraction? Given that other wrecks from different time periods remain unexcavated (but already looted?), how authorities deal with this situation will set important precedent. Stay tuned...  

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.

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?    

10 Years After...

This month marks the ten year anniversary of the tragic looting of the Iraq Museum in Baghdad during the initial days of the US occupation. Numerous pieces remain missing from this event, and the museum remains closed to the general public. Only the work of the late Donny George and his staff, with the assistance of the US military, prevented the complete loss of the museum's entire collections and archives. Work to restore this institution is, understandably, very slow going.

To commemorate this event and why it still matters in terms of the global looting crisis and continued discussion of the role of museums and concerned private citizens in preventing the trade, SAFE is running a virtual candle lighting campaign so that the world community can honour what was lost and look towards the future. Candle lighting and other, written or multi-media contributions will be accepted until July, and hosted on the website.

You, too, can light a candle here, as well as watch a relevant video here and read my own reflections here (as part of SAFEs additional campaign to collect personal reflections from heritage professionals and concerned citizens alike). Please help me spread the word, and join the cause yourself! What future, without our past?

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.