ART
Stolen artefacts, lost heritage
|
Is it right to sell ancient artefacts from countries that do not have a record of their national treasures or ways of tackling smuggling? SUDHA ANANTHARAMAN
|
Courtesy: BOAF 2007
Difficult to track ownership: 12th century gilt bronze statue of Manjuvajra;
The third international Brussels Oriental Art Fair, a meeting point for collectors, experts, curators and amateurs of Asian art, was held from June 6-10, 2007, under the aegis of the non-profit organisation BOAF. Art dealers (31 in all) from as far a
s Australia and the United States as well as those from mainland Europe shared space with galleries that make up the reputed antique centre of Sablon in downtown Brussels.
The organisers said that the reason the fair was held in Brussels was due to the interest evinced by the general public and art collectors, in particular, to past fairs in this “hospitable city, with its wealth of artistic treasures, ideally located within easy travelling distance of other great European centres”. Also Brussels, they believed, has a “long tradition of openness to arts from all over the world”.
Courtesy: BOAF 2007
Fourth-Fifth century terracotta statue;
BOAF, in its press release, guaranteed authenticity and the highest possible quality of artefacts and antiques. Their exhibitors had “been selected according to the most exacting standards of excellence”, and were “representatives recognised…throughout the world” for the “indisputable” quality of the works they exhibit and their “uncontested” expertise.
Combating art theft
While BOAF confirmed, in its press release, that the most scrupulous selections were made from among the rarest pieces of antiquity from the near and far east and they were all authenticated (some with carbon dating from western institutions) and guaranteed, no mention was made of the legitimacy of ownership of the antiquities on sale. In response to a question about ownership, the organisers said that so long as the objects were not listed in the Arts Loss Register — a database set up in 1991 jointly by the art community, auction houses and insurance companies to combat art theft — the question of whether they constitute illicit cultural property does not arise.
This is ironical because while authenticity and genuineness of the objects seem to be of paramount importance, none seems keen to establish whether it is right to sell ancient artefacts from countries that have a reputation for not having many or any of their national treasures on record, leave alone keeping missing registers. Perhaps this works to the advantage of dealers who continue stripping Asia’s civilisations of their invaluable heritage?
In December 1999, Lalit Kumar, then curator of the Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Museum in Ahmedabad, wrote to the Art Theft Register — possibly mistaking it for the Art Loss Register — asking if it was possible to obtain a list of reported articles of theft from India to aid in his study of museum thefts in the South Asian region. He received a reply saying there were no listings of India’s cultural property thefts in the register. Also Interpol’s first CD listing stolen art showed no entries from India. Almost eight years down the line, the situation is no different. Listings are still unavailable although proof of Indian antiquities continuing to get past the borders is all too evident.
Proof of the unhindered passage of goods is readily available in many outlets of Indian art objects abroad. Though furniture, both new and old, seems to constitute the bulk of what is sold in many of these places, there are beautiful old doors evidently ripped out of derelict palaces and ancestral homes, bronzes and other objects, which would certainly be deemed ‘antiques’ and should, therefore, have been prohibited from getting past Indian borders. It’s quite easy getting past Indian customs, says one shop-owner. It’s all a question of whether one has the right contacts.
In her article, “Spirited Away”, (Time magazine) in 2003, writer Hannah Beech focused on art thefts in India, Cambodia and China. She quotes Kathryn Tubb, conservator of the Institute of Archaeology at University College
, London: “It’s commonly accepted by those of us who work in the field that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the material on the market is illicit.” Beech added that “the dramatic ransacking of Baghdad’s national museum during the Iraq war (in 2003) may have grabbed headlines…but the consistent, widespread and largely un-remarked looting of Asia (is) far more damaging.”
In June 2003, the Indian police arrested handicrafts trader Vaman Marayan Ghia for masterminding a massive antique-smuggling network, which had gone undetected for three decades. It was reported that, in Ghia’s home in Jaipur, photographs of ninth to 11th century statues and a long list of private collectors’ and 68 auction-house catalogues featuring some of the artefacts, were found. Ghia is reported to have confessed to having stolen 50,000 idols, paintings and statues from ‘protected’ monuments around the country.
No proper laws
In a written statement, Ghia stated that private collectors and dealers from abroad toured deserted temples to pick out precisely what they wanted stolen. Some of Ghia’s stolen artefacts are said to have ended up with big auction houses abroad. When Christie’s, London, was questioned about the Ghia case, they reportedly said that they were helping the authorities with their inquiries. Diana Philips of Sotheby’s said they did not knowingly sell any items consigned by Ghia and did not offer on sale any object that they suspected was “stolen, smuggled or looted”.
Courtesy: BOAF 2007
Second-Third century marble torso of the Buddha.
Since countries like India, China and Cambodia do not have proper laws regarding export of ancient treasures or a detailed provenance for items of antiquity, there is no way of checking ownership. Colonialism gave invaders the “right” to treat whatever they fancied as their legitimate property. Therefore, international dealers and auction houses argue that it is very difficult for them to track ownership.
But are they trying hard enough? Is relying on the listings in the Art Loss Register an adequate excuse for selling another country’s ancient treasures with no qualms at all? A joint endeavour by countries to crack down on both exporting and importing antiquities has to be made. It should be made illegal for dealers to import objects and artefacts beyond a certain age from countries, which lack or lag behind in having written records of their treasures. Countries like India, China and Cambodia should begin archiving their cultural heritage and perhaps use databases like the Arts Loss Register to report losses. And organisations like BOAF could perhaps aid in such endeavours.
The writer is a freelancer based in Brussels.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
