Interesting Developments out of Vietnam

Exciting and relevant news out of Vietnam recently concerning a new "circular" that will take effect on the 15th February, specifically banning nine new categories of ancient artifacts and documents from leaving the country...except for purposes of "exhibition, research, or preservation in foreign countries." It specifically includes prehistoric "fossilized" human, animal, and plant species, "prehistoric items of various materials of both historical and cultural value," relevant important documents pre and post-1945, and "ancient deposits" and items derived from Vietnam's ethnic minorities dating to pre-1975.

The wording of the missive as reported suggests that most categories of archaeological artifact will be included, ideally including human remains as well. The question still remains as to what changes this new law will effect regarding the vigilance and authority of Vietnamese Customs to seize and search shipments bound for export, as well as (the BIG question), what kind of previsions will be made to ensure that import/export requests made under the new "exhibition, research or preservation" criteria, especially from overseas parties, really are for these purposes? Relevant quarantine forms from specific University departments would be one valid example, but how will the issue of forgery and mislabeling on export permit/customs documents be dealt with?

Fundamentally, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism should be commended, and I foresee that such new legal measures will help to keep the international market in Vietnam-derived antiquities in check, while ongoing research continues to define and quantify the market itself.  Many thanks to my colleague and friend Noel Hidalgo-Tan for initially picking up the story!

My Note to CPAC

In regards to the Cambodian MoU renewal meetings set for February 27th, I have posted the following comment, and advance of a more formal letter. I encourage my readers and blogosphere colleagues to do the same. The website is here. Comments are due by the 6th February. You may also contribute your time and volunteer power to SAFE's "Say YES to Cambodia" campaign, the cause page of which is here. It's all about getting the word out and letting the government know exactly WHY archaeologists, heritage professionals, scholars and followers of the antiquities trade, and concerned citizens alike all seek to renew the MoU for another five years. If you have more to add, a different perspective to share, or feel you can do better, I encourage you to do so. For even more inspiration, see here. It will take as much concerted group effort as possible to make sure this renewal goes through.


"To the CPAC committee"

I am a professional archaeologist and physical anthropologist with field experience in Southeast Asia (primarily Vietnam, for which no MoU yet exists), and an ongoing project at the University of Sydney's Institute of Criminology, attempting to better quantify the illicit antiquities trade from South and Southeast Asia to Western destinations. It has long been recognized that active MoU's remain the most effective legal means that the US government possesses to bilaterally enforce heritage laws, prosecute offenders, and lend weight to Customs efforts in both source and demand countries.

The last five years have seen the continued implementation of the Cambodian MoU and its elimination now would render the world's largest antiquities market fully open for business once again, as well as ensure that affecting measurable decline in looting in Cambodia itself would become much more difficult. For the sake of the people and irreplaceable historic and prehistoric heritage of Cambodia, the integrity of the archaeological record, and the future ability to use archaeological science to continue to understand the past, I urge CPAC to renew the US-Cambodia MoU."

Renewed Cambodia-US MoU Pending?

A meeting to decide on whether or not to renew the MoU between the governments of the US and Cambodia, as well as to add Honduras to the list, will be held February 27th-March 1st at the Dept. of State in Washington, DC. Official talks will be closed to the public, but an open session will be held on the 27th, and anyone in the area is free to attend. Also allowed is the submission of written opinions and information for the committee to consider; the sooner the better.

The Cambodia-US MoU was first signed into law in 2003 and extended for another five years in 2008. MoUs remain one of the most powerful legal tools at the disposal of authorities in both countries involved to enforce Customs seizures and import/export restrictions of prohibited and highly sought after categories of artifact on the black market, and aid in prosecutions. I urge everyone concerned about preserving Cambodia's cultural heritage to make their voice heard. I certainly will be!

New SAFE blog post: Nancy Dupree in Afghanistan

A new blog post has 'surfaced' on the SAFE site within the last few days that I am happy to share. It features an important interview with one Nancy Hatch Dupree, dubbed by some as "Afghanistan's grandmother." The interview in insightful and even poignant, and describes her (and her late archaeologist husband's) own personal history and connection to the country, its archaeological heritage, preserving this heritage, and the ongoing work of the Afghanistan Centre at Kabul University that she and her late husband helped found. All this in the face of the constant strife plaguing the country over the last three decades. Worth checking out!

Season's Greetings!

From me at It Surfaced Down Under to you readers out there, may the season bring you joy, happiness, and continued constant vigilance! Two posts are in the works, and there will be much to share in regards to my ongoing research as is takes off in earnest. To continued success and progress in 2013!

Merry Christmas and a Happy (Western) New Year!

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!

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.