It appears that Sotheby's is in hot water yet again in relation to their unscrupulous selling of Khmer antiquities. A news article has come to my attention concerning the recovery and repatriation of a c. 950 AD warrior statue, likely looted from the site of Koh Ker during the Vietnam/American War. The Cambodian government recently asked the US for help with recovering this priceless artifact when it was discovered that not only was Sotheby's slated to sell it at auction in March last year, but a pedestal base/feet are, rather poignantly, awaiting reattachment at Koh Ker itself. Importantly, the other statue of the pair was found residing at the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, CA, since 1980 (the height of historic artifact looting in Cambodia), awaiting future legal action to get it repatriated--something antiquities lawyers claim will be more difficult to do given how long Cambodian authorities have known about its presence there.
Despite continued claims by both Sotheby's spokespeople, in-house research suggests that the 'noble European lady' who allegedly purchased it in 1975 (from Spink & Sons auction house, London) had "clear legal title." Given that the documents can allegedly no longer be found, this seems fake to me. To further attempt to hold on to their prize. Sotheby's lawyers alleged that "Cambodia's willingness to negotiate indicates that under American and Cambodian law it has no legal claim." Nevertheless, Marine Corps Reserve corporal Matthew F. Bogdanos (the man who spearheaded the effort to recover loot from the Baghdad museum in 2003) summed up this "conflict" perfectly by saying: "Whatever the letter of the law may state, you have to ask yourself, 'Does this item pass the smell test?'" In other words, what does the on the ground evidence say?
The NY Times article I link to above makes no indication if the legal challenges have been resolved yet. As suggested in the article, it is implied that one Mr. Istvan Zelnik will purchase the statue for $1mill and return it to Cambodia as a donation. Mr. Zelnik appeared in the news very recently in relation to another Angkor period antiquity (see here). If this goes ahead, this act of good will should be commended, but it remains sad that forging deals with wealthy foreign collectors can sometimes be the only way to get such large items repatriated if matching the price at auction requires several million dollars. Cambodia is certainly not the only country faced with this dilemma or come up with this solution.
The acquisition practices of Southey's in regards to Cambodian antiquities has been quantitatively challenged before (see Davis, T. 2011), but controversy immediately arose around these claims and how much studies like these actually affect large auction house practices are debatable. However, a good outcome from this Koh Ker case might be a shift in the cut-off point (to 1925 from 1993) after which an antiquity for sale from Cambodia can be considered looted or illegally exported, although the burden of proof would remain on archaeologists, detectives and the Cambodian government. If these cases do affect changes to international law, the next step for Cambodia will be to make sure that every artifact class on the ICOM Red Book (especially small, prehistoric items) are included. Although many will undoubtedly continue to slip through customs, at least legal repatriations could more readily be affected if such crutches as "from an old Swiss collection" are removed. In the meantime, here's hoping this latest international collaborative effort to keep cultural heritage in the hands of those it belongs to succeeds. Look forward to further updates as this story develops.
Despite continued claims by both Sotheby's spokespeople, in-house research suggests that the 'noble European lady' who allegedly purchased it in 1975 (from Spink & Sons auction house, London) had "clear legal title." Given that the documents can allegedly no longer be found, this seems fake to me. To further attempt to hold on to their prize. Sotheby's lawyers alleged that "Cambodia's willingness to negotiate indicates that under American and Cambodian law it has no legal claim." Nevertheless, Marine Corps Reserve corporal Matthew F. Bogdanos (the man who spearheaded the effort to recover loot from the Baghdad museum in 2003) summed up this "conflict" perfectly by saying: "Whatever the letter of the law may state, you have to ask yourself, 'Does this item pass the smell test?'" In other words, what does the on the ground evidence say?
The NY Times article I link to above makes no indication if the legal challenges have been resolved yet. As suggested in the article, it is implied that one Mr. Istvan Zelnik will purchase the statue for $1mill and return it to Cambodia as a donation. Mr. Zelnik appeared in the news very recently in relation to another Angkor period antiquity (see here). If this goes ahead, this act of good will should be commended, but it remains sad that forging deals with wealthy foreign collectors can sometimes be the only way to get such large items repatriated if matching the price at auction requires several million dollars. Cambodia is certainly not the only country faced with this dilemma or come up with this solution.
The acquisition practices of Southey's in regards to Cambodian antiquities has been quantitatively challenged before (see Davis, T. 2011), but controversy immediately arose around these claims and how much studies like these actually affect large auction house practices are debatable. However, a good outcome from this Koh Ker case might be a shift in the cut-off point (to 1925 from 1993) after which an antiquity for sale from Cambodia can be considered looted or illegally exported, although the burden of proof would remain on archaeologists, detectives and the Cambodian government. If these cases do affect changes to international law, the next step for Cambodia will be to make sure that every artifact class on the ICOM Red Book (especially small, prehistoric items) are included. Although many will undoubtedly continue to slip through customs, at least legal repatriations could more readily be affected if such crutches as "from an old Swiss collection" are removed. In the meantime, here's hoping this latest international collaborative effort to keep cultural heritage in the hands of those it belongs to succeeds. Look forward to further updates as this story develops.