.
With regard to the post above about the reported correspondence of Dr Emma Bunker with Sotheby's over a statue taken from a Cambodian temple, others have picked up the controversy and presented their thoughts in an interesting manner. See for example Samarkeolog's "Don’t mention the feet! I mentioned them once, but I think I got away with it. Cambodia looting and academic collusion". Conflict Antiquities April 6th 2012

"I just want to tease out some of the lowlights of academic collusion in this particular case of illicit antiquities trafficking and trading.Remarkably, Dr. Emma C. Bunker, the scholar who affirmed that the statue was ‘definitely stolen’, variously advised Sotheby’s: not to sell the statue publicly; to sell the statue publicly, but not to acknowledge the existence of a crime scene; and to ignore legal advice".
[with some comments underneath from a supporter of Dr Bunker]
Getting Dirtier in the “swampy terrain of auctioning antiquities”, April 5, 2012
I loved the bit at the end:
Meanwhile, the bloggers at the Cultural Property Observer, self described as: 'A Web Log Championing the Longstanding Interests of Collectors in the Preservation, Study, Display and Enjoyment of Cultural Artifacts Against an "Archaeology Over All" Perspective ', weighed in to support Sotheby’s:My advice to Sotheby’s would be to fight. Experience teaches that press reports sourced to the archaeological lobby may not provide either a complete or accurate depiction of the actual strength of the Government’s case.
I do not think the author was too impressed with the sentiments expressed.
Now SAFECORNER's Federal Court Judge rules that 10th c. Khmer statue remains at Sotheby’s … for now April 11 2012.