By Kent Davis [Click here to download a PDF of this full article]
…like a good Indiana Jones movie, the real story of this lost treasure began with a flash of archaeological insight in a remote Asian jungle half a world away….
Koh Ker, Cambodia – Protests from the Kingdom of Cambodia recently halted the multi-million dollar Sotheby’s sale of an ancient stone statue with the support of the United States government. When the Cambodians sought help bringing the thousand-year-old Khmer statue back to their country the New York Times ran a detailed article entitled “Mythic Warrior Is Captive in Global Art Conflict.”
10th century Cambodian sculpture previously scheduled for a multi-million dollar Sotheby’s sale.
Their investigation reveals that the legal and moral issues surrounding the ownership and sale of ancient art are quite complex. In this case, one generous art collector may actually provide a positive solution. But like a good Indiana Jones movie, the real story of this lost treasure began with a flash of archaeological insight in a remote Asian jungle half a world away.
Mystery of the Missing Men of Koh Ker
One thousand years ago, the Khmer Empire ruled most of what is now Southeast Asia from its capital in Angkor. During their heyday, the architecturally and artistically sophisticated Khmer people created some of humanity’s most extraordinary stone temples and statues. Apart from a few stone inscriptions, however, no written records of the civilization survived. Out of necessity, archaeologists have had no alternative but to piece the story of the Khmer people together, clue by clue and stone by stone.
Rising above 30 meters in height, Koh Ker’s central temple-mountain of Prasat Thom was built 100 years before Angkor Wat. Photo: Khmersearch, Panoramio.
Early in the 10th century (for reasons that are still unclear), King Jayavarman IV and his son Harsavarman II relocated the empire’s capital from Angkor to an isolated plateau 100 km to the northeast. There they built the city of Koh Ker, a huge new complex of temples and shrines, where they established their throne for a brief 16 year period (928-944 AD). Like all great Khmer cities, Koh Ker was ultimately abandoned and swallowed up by the jungle. The rediscovery of the Khmer civilization by Westerners didn’t begin until French explorers arrived in the second half of the 19th century.
In 2007, stone conservator Simon Warrack was working with the German Apsara Conservation Project (GACP), a scientific organization that had been doing critical restoration on Angkor Wat temple for more than a decade. In May, Warrack took a side trip to the Koh Ker site (Google Map link) to consider future conservation needs there.
At Koh Ker, Warrack noticed two distinctive pedestal platforms in the first enclosure of Prasat Chen. There, by the west gopura (an entry structure), he saw the feet where two statues had clearly been broken off. But the gods that once stood there were nowhere to be found. The mystery sparked his imagination.
The two Koh Ker pedestals as Warrack found them at Prasat Chen in May 2007. The pedestal circled in red shows a fabric section still attached in the center.
Virtually Connecting Ancient Dots…and Stones
From my own research cataloging the devata of Angkor I can attest that field work is generally hot, uncomfortable and distracting. Almost all of my discoveries happen at my desk in Florida examining photos taken weeks or years before at remote locations. Warrack continued his search in similar fashion.
The Norton Simon dvarapala featured in “Adoration and Glory”, p. 149.
He pondered the distinctive bases and began searching for photos in books and research archives. Finally, he found a possible solution. In “Adoration and Glory – The Golden Age of Khmer Art” by Emma Bunker and Douglas Latchford one image stood out. It showed a figure identified as a dvarapala (guardian) at the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena California. That statue was missing its feet, but many are. The key to solving this puzzle was the unique tail at the bottom of its clothing element. After scanning images and digitally combining them Warrack confirmed the close match between the two fragments.
Warrack’s 2007 digital superimposition of the base and body of the Koh Ker statue.
Warrack immediately wrote a short paper to seek opinions from others in the field of Khmer studies. He forwarded copies to friends and associates as well as to key authorities including the APSARA Authority, which manages the Angkor region’s heritage assets; the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts in Phnom Penh; and the École française d’Extrême-Orient (EFEO), a French organization dedicated to Asian studies that has been active in conservation efforts at Angkor since 1907. I met Simon in 2007 shortly after his find and the photos above come from the original article he shared with me.
Everyone who saw his image realized the importance of this observation. Determining the original location of displaced objects can be a huge help in interpreting their meaning and significance within the context of an ancient civilization. The record shows that the Norton Simon piece was acquired legitimately and is on public display for educational, artistic and cultural appreciation. But not all art ends up this way. Much of it disappears into private collections, out of view.
Such was the case of the complimentary statue that stood face to face with this one more than a thousand years ago at the Khmer capital of Koh Ker.
Sotheby’s twin Khmer warrior. Note the unbroken base of the fabric tail.
The Long Lost Twin Reappears
In the summer of 2010, a “noble European lady” contacted Sotheby’s to discuss the sale of a “spectacular tenth-century Cambodian sculpture, 160 centimeters in height and exceptionally well carved.” Word got out quickly to the worlds of art and archaeology. When pictures began to circulate it was instantaneously clear that this was the long-lost companion to the statue Warrack had connected to the Norton Simon Museum three years earlier.
Meanwhile, in New York, the matching sculpture was estimated to sell for millions of dollars. According to the owner’s records, she legally acquired the piece in 1975 from the now-defunct London art dealer Spink & Son. The Norton Simon Museum also acquired their piece that year. Some evidence suggests that both statues left Cambodia in the late 1960s, but exactly when and how that happened, and who arranged it, is unknown.
Paraphrasing Sotheby’s Senior Vice President Jane A. Levine, the New York Times article stated “Ms. Levine countered that the statue could have been removed any time in its thousand-year history, and said the word ‘stolen’ was often ‘used loosely.’ ” Meanwhile, Christie’s auction house acquired Spinks in 1993 and claims that the 1975 records of the statue’s origin are “no longer available.”
Regardless of the lack of facts, the ownership of both statues seems quite legal under international laws. Which brings us to a question at the heart of this matter.
Who Should Own Historical Art?
An idealistic answer is “humanity” but even this dream can have unexpected consequences as we’ll discover below. My personal goal would be for historical assets to be accessible to everyone who wants to respect them, preserve them, appreciate them and learn from them. But this philosophy wouldn’t get me through the front door at most of the world’s public institutions holding these assets (let alone to private collections).
Most of us are fortunate enough to live in a free society. We can buy, sell and own personal property within the law. The laws protecting heritage assets have evolved considerably over the past few decades, and they continue to do so. But the fact remains that countless artifacts were legally acquired by collectors (“noble ladies” included) as well as public museums since the beginning of time. Isn’t it their right to display, use and sell their property as they see fit?
Let’s consider some difficult questions raised by recent news:
The taller Buddha of Bamiyan before and after destruction. Photo: Wikipedia.
1. Can a government or private entity decide to demolish old structures? This happens every day in every city around the world. Sometimes historical societies rally to save a site. Sometimes they can’t, as seen in the shocking annihilation of the Buddhas of Bamiyan. Was that government right? Were those people right? And who are you to judge? Do you live there?
In Sarasota Florida some local groups rallied to have this mural erased from a shop.
2. Can a government or private entity destroy something offensive or blasphemous to their values or religion? How far does freedom of expression go? This Yale article discusses the destruction of Buddha images in the Maldives. But it also mentions things like Henry VIII’s systematic destruction of all the monasteries in England, Wales and Ireland. Near my home in Sarasota Florida a debate has run for months about erasing a mural that may promote gangs. Acts of artistic control and destruction happen all the time. Update April 6: The store owner reluctantly chose to paint over the art due to the controversy. For comment see this Sarasota Herald Tribune editorial by Denise Kowal, the event chairwoman of the Sarasota Chalk Festival that brought the artist to the city: ”Mural was an opportunity for growth.”
Sunken treasure found by Odyssey Marine 1700 feet deep in the Atlantic Ocean.
3. Can a private group use its own funds to recover or preserve historical objects that were clearly abandoned by the original owners hundreds or even thousands of years earlier? In other words, does everything actually belong to some hypothetical “rightful owner”? And who owned these things before them? Odyssey Marine Exploration in Tampa Florida just got a harsh lesson in how arbitrarily this question can be answered. Odyssey spent years working to locate and salvage a ship in international waters off the coast of Portugal. It lay, unknown and untouched for two centuries in 1700 feet of water.
Ironically, that silver and gold was mined in Peru by peasants working under slave-like conditions. Peru, of course, came under Spanish control in the 16th century when conquistadors brutally subjugated the Inca civilization in their quest for territory, power and treasure. But to the US courts, 200 years of ownership was enough to confiscate assets for an “original” owner…but not 400 years. US courts ruled against Odyssey and returned all the artifacts to Spain but Peru’s claim to the artifacts was ignored.
On the other side of the gold coin, salvage operations generally destroy much of the archaeological evidence that exists on a wreck site. I took an archaeological research diver workshop at a Florida galleon site, and I’ve also had the privilege of discussing this topic with the father of underwater archaeology, George Bass. I am quite opposed to the wholesale destruction of history to recover precious metals on land or at sea.
But in this case, Odyssey Marine consistently gathers a lot of archaeological data from their sites. And is it reasonable to ask when and how carefully archaeologists would be excavating this particular site more than half a kilometer deep? It seems we can all learn much from Odyssey’s digital photos, detailed site maps and the thousands of objects recovered. More than we would have known if the site was never found. Now the responsibility falls to Spain to educate and inspire us with their recovered objects. The world watches.
The “Angel of Beng Mealea” – March 5, 2006 and February 12, 2007.
4. Do poor people have the right to take abandoned objects from public places just to survive? I wrote about my own painful experience with this at Beng Mealea in this article “Death of an Angel.”
There are countless examples. There will be countless more. Each situation is different. Right and wrong are not always clear. And certainly never appear the same to opposing parties in a disagreement.
Back in 2008 I bought a used car legally. But what if the original owner (or the factory, or the country where it was built) tried to reclaim it because “I parked it too long” or “I wasn’t taking care of it” or “they want to study it” or “it belongs in the original place”? I can’t say I’d be too happy.
But there are solutions to these issues…as there are to most human conflicts: communication, empathy and diplomacy. Fortunately, a combination of these factors may lead to a resolution to the quandary of the Sotheby’s statue sale.
Collectors Who Share
Cultural sensitivity about who historical objects should belong to is a fairly new concept. As noted above people have the right to own private property. This has been going on for a long time. Humans are an acquisitive species by nature.
It’s worth noting that some of the most successful “acquirers” (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates come to mind) have also proven themselves as some of our most generous givers. And some art collectors have proven themselves in this way, too. After a lifetime of actively hunting, obsessively gathering and painstakingly preserving the rare objects they crave…many end up donating their collections to public institutions.
In the world of Khmer art, Douglas Latchford, co-author of “Adoration and Glory” with art historian Emmy Bunker, is one example. He began collecting Khmer artifacts 56 years ago (1956). Over the years he and his friends have shared financial gifts with the National Museum of Cambodia. More significantly, he is the museum’s biggest contributor of artifacts (read more about Douglas Latchford on KI-Media).
Initially, another collector tried to assist with a solution to the thorny situation of the Koh Ker statue at Sotheby’s.
Dr. István Zelnik, founder of the Gold Museum in Budapest, Hungary.
During the 1970s, Dr. István Zelnik served as a Hungarian diplomat in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Like many passionate collectors he invested his money in rare books, antiques and works of art. Motivated by a love of art and curiosity about the objects he found, he became an increasingly sought after consulting expert for museums and archaeologists around the world. In 2011 his dreams culminated with his greatest achievement: founding the Zelnik István Southeast Asian Gold Museum in Budapest Hungary.
In a statement to the New York Times Dr. Zelnik expressed interest in purchasing the statue for donation to the people of Cambodia. That would have been a generous, diplomatic and expedient solution in our complex world. The owner would be compensated for her private property, huge amounts of time and money would not be wasted on legal litigation, and the people who respect and admire the art of the Khmer people could once again see this expression of creativity in the land where it was born.
Now that this case has gone into litigation his proposal was negated, but the idea is still valid. I encourage he, Mr. Latchford and other generous collectors to continue sharing the objects of their passion with the world.
The two mythic Cambodian warriors as they one faced each other at Koh Ker. Below, Simon Warrack asks if they can one day be reunited?
Could Two Ancient Brothers Meet Again?
To conclude this article I contacted Simon Warrack to ask his current ideas about the ownership of historic art. Here’s what he had to say:
“The concept of “ownership” may be the wrong place to start when considering important objects. It is the value and significance of an object that should be thought of first, rather than who it belongs to.
”The questions should really be about the object itself, not who it belongs to. Where is the object best valued? Where is it best appreciated? Where is it best understood? Where is it best conserved?
“Who an object belongs to should be secondary. As one of my colleagues observed ‘Objects are not important because they are in museums. They are in museums because they are important.’ The object itself is the important factor, not the museum that possesses it.
“After finding the empty pedestals seven years ago actually seeing both Koh Ker statues is remarkable. The possibility now exists that, one day, they may be reunited.
“Today, I called HE Hab Touch to ask his opinion on this matter. He is optimistic but noted that at this early stage no decisions or agreements are in place. However, Cambodia is ready and there are at least two suitable, secure locations where the pieces could be located for public appreciation. In the National Museum, of course, but plans are also being made for a museum at Preah Vihear, the same province where Koh Ker is located. There, the museum will become a gateway to the World Heritage Site and these figures could, once again, provide a wonderful center piece to welcome visitors from around the world.”
Simon closed by mentioning a concept from the book, Who Owns Antiquity by James Cuno. Cuno observes that national museums in wealthy nations host “encyclopedic” collections of objects from around the world, while national museums in less wealthy countries host indigenous local art relating to their own history.
He suggests that the global exchange of art would be a good direction to head in. Just as it is good for a child in Pasadena to experience the art of Cambodia, wouldn’t it also be wonderful for a child of Cambodia to see pieces of American history? Or the creations of Greece, Rome, Egypt, Mexico, etc.?
With communication, empathy and diplomacy we can all grow and learn.
###
About Simon Warrack
“The Ancient Life” documentary host Brit Eaton interviewing Warrack at Angkor Wat.
Stone conservator Simon Warrack worked on structures throughout Europe including Venice’s Ducal Palace, Rome’s Trevi Fountain and Forum of Trajan, and the Cathedral of Bourges in France.
In 1993 he turned his talents to Asia working to conserve Cambodia’s Temple of Preah Ko. In 1995, he began more than a decade of work with the German Apsara Conservation Project preserving critical sections of the 12th century temple of Angkor Wat. Warrack has also helped establish several stone conservation training programs, including a workshop for students at Preah Vihear.
NEWS UPDATES & COURT FILING DOWNLOADS
March 29, 2103 UPDATE
Judge Says Cambodian Statue Case can Move Forward
April 4, 2012 UPDATES
NY Times : Officials Set to Seize Sotheby’s Cambodian Antiquity in New York
LA Times: Feds vs. Sotheby’s: Antiquity looted in Cambodia, complaint says
Legal Filing in Federal Court: US Attorney Complaint PDF Download
Legal Request from Sotheby’s Attorney: Requesting that Sotheby’s retain possession of the statue (granted by the court)
Legal Reply to Request: Objections from US Attorney Preet Bharara (denied by the court)
RELATED LINKS & RESOURCES
Adoration and Glory: The Golden Age of Khmer Art
Adoration and Glory
A photographic tribute to rare Khmer art objects from public and private collections around the world. The contents were curated by Douglas Latchford and Emma Bunker and each piece includes a detailed analysis.
Koh Ker Research by Chanratana Chen, Phd.
Mr. Chen has conducted a major study about the history, art and archaeology of Koh Ker and the reign of Jayavarman IV. The title above links to his related lecture at the Royal University of Fine Arts (RUFA) in Phnom Penh on February 4, 2012. He also founded Kerdomnel Khmer, a Khmer studies research magazine and website with multi-lingual content.
Koh Ker information on Angkor Guide (with map)
Heritage Watch is a non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation of Southeast Asia’s cultural heritage.
Promoting responsible tourism with news about archaeological discoveries and conversation efforts around the world.
Related posts:
- Cambodia’s National Museum Marks 90th Anniversary Museum founder’s daughter celebrates her father’s love for Cambodia Phnom...
- Treasures of Khmer Culture-The National Museum of Cambodia By Darryl Collins (First published in 2005, this article...
- Bulldozers Destroy Priceless Archaeological Site in Cambodia A 2500 year old archaeological site was unexpectedly destroyed in...
7 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Excellent post. Good food for thought, specially if you work in underwater archaeology. Our issue is not so much about ownership, but about the damage that is done to a wreck (and its hull) when treasure hunters dig out the cargo. We know so little of ships, that our priority is usually to find out more about them. But this objective is not a priority in treasure hunting companies, who want to obtain objects that they can sell. I have a problem with the whole ownership thing, mostly because of the “imperialistic” and “colonial” implications that can be perceived when one goes to, for example, the British Museum. But it would not be fair to say that these museums don’t work very hard to look for alternative solutions to share heritage.
In the case of the Mercedes/Odyssey and the Peruvian, Colombian and Bolivian gold (the gold could have been extracted from all of those countries), Spain is already taking into consideration to curate, study and ultimately share the gold with those countries. However, the terms of the agreement haven’t been decided. It could be a itinerary exhibition, a permanent loan, who knows. But the fact that they are already thinking about it shows that this issue is not settled, and that it should be a priority for any museum and government.
And just some thoughts about private ownership of cultural heritage. My issue is not with those who share “their” objects, it’s more about those who don’t. There is no law that forces owners to allow access to the objects to neither researchers nor the public. I think that an owner of an archaeological item should be legally forced to 1) curate the object and be held responsible for damage if negligent, and 2) grant access to the object at least to researchers. That way we can be sure that the objects are being looked after, and that they can be studied.
On a personal basis, I have to admit that I would love the world to be so pretty and caring that those two statues could be placed in their original place, so we can experience what the old Khmer would have felt when they visited Koh Ker…people wouldn’t chip-off the faces of the beautiful apsaras and devatas…nor rub-off bas-reliefs in their travel diaries…nor write Mary Was Here on the walls of an ancient temple…Oh! What a beautiful world that would be!
Thank you for your thoughtful contributions to this discussion. In turn, I appreciate all the useful articles and resources you and your team provide at http://www.ArchaeologyForTravelers.com.
You’re absolutely right that crude “treasure hunting”, wherever it takes place, is incredibly destructive. But large professional concerns (like Odyssey) are very serious about documenting the archaeological context of their finds and establishing provenance. But locating and recovering objects like sunken ships is a multi-million dollar venture that needs ways to recover expenses. Governments can’t (or won’t) fund most of these explorations.
As we agree, ownership isn’t the issue — it is having access to the knowledge that objects (and sites) represent. Continuing with the Odyssey example, they pulled up 594,000 (!) coins. After the site has been properly documented and each coin is photographed and weighed why shouldn’t Odyssey be allowed to sell them to recover costs? They could even give the world’s museums first pick. Heck, there are only 2000 museums in ICOM…give each one a coin to start.
I’m making light of this but another point in the article above is that not only should private collectors share their heritage for others to see…*countries* should share…starting with the biggest countries who took control of the most historical stuff over the last couple hundred years (UK, France, Germany, Italy, US, etc.). Of course asking people (or museums, or countries) to share is always tricky.
Your point about obligating private owners of archaeological objects to have them curated is excellent. You have the seed of something great there! And how about starting by obligating museums to do this first? There are infinite things hidden in the basements of every museum around the world. Just one example is found in Michael Falser’s fascinating paper on plaster castings of rare Cambodian art, hidden in French storehouses and monasteries for many decades.
It seems that most researchers don’t care who “owns” something, as long as people have the opportunity to see and know the objects. Take my example of the devata photos I study, or the coins mentioned above. Once the knowledge is recorded, the object and its ownership become secondary.
My concern is that if collectors (or museums, or countries) fear confiscation of their objects then they are motivated to keep hiding them. And everyone loses. Well we almost have another article here so I’ll stop. I look forward to reading more on your site!
Well, I don’t mention museums because to me, that’s a different subject. It might look the same but the problem there is management and funding, since I am assuming that the law forces museums to look after the pieces and make them available for researchers and the public (maybe I’m assuming too much!?). I know this is not always the case, and there is a large number of bad practices…Just a few years ago they “discovered” in a basement in the British Museum a 19th century set of sails from the Pacific islands they didn’t know they had! This stuff happens all the time, specially if we go to big museums, like the BM. In my opinion (and because I am quite pro-local museums in the object’s place of origin) the greediness of 19th century museums haven’t left the buildings. And de-accessioning, the name they give to the sale of artifacts they don’t want anymore, is rubbish. If the material has been curated and it’s not displayed, the museum should look at ways of giving it to museums of the country where it came from or to create temporary exhibitions in museums of other countries to show the public other cultures of the world. I think we’ve grown enough to look for alternative solutions to the “it’s mine! I paid for the excavation/object/thief to steal it for me one hundred years ago when we were mighty and powerful and there were no fair laws to stop me” and so on.
Regarding Odyssey, I don’t think they do really good archaeology. In the case of the Mercedes, they just extracted the gold and other material, but they didn’t study the wreck site. They shouldn’t have excavated without a permit (which they did) from the original owner of the vessel, and scooped *only* precious metals in the dead of the night. The pace at which they extracted the coins makes it impossible to do proper archaeology, and the depth of the wreck makes it unlikely that someone might come and steal the coins while you are processing your data…So it is quite obvious that they were there for the gold coins and their archaeology left much to be desired. That’s what worries us (archaeologists) from treasure hunting companies: that they will always prioritize profit at the cost of other non-profitable historical information. We’re in the middle of a huge debate over this issue, and companies like Franc Goddio’s are looking for alternative ways of working in the sector without having to sell the artifacts. We’ll see where we are going…
Again, you’ve laid the groundwork for several more articles! Regarding museums, yes, I think most suffer from tight budgets, small staffs that hinder cataloging, and lack of space to display their assets. But I fear that deceptive practices, jealous rivalries and huge, self-indulgent egos may lurk behind the scenes as often as they do in the world of art collectors. Just a hunch, mind you.
As Odyssey is near me in Tampa I’ve contacted them for a response. I agree that the Mercedes appears to have been purely a precious metal grab. If you add related articles to Archaeology for Travelers please post the links here.
Continuing the Discussion