<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7652.24">
<TITLE>Thai Antiquities, Resting Uneasily </TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P><A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/arts/design/17fink.html?_r=1&oref=slogin"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/arts/design/17fink.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</FONT></U></A>
</P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">THE NEW YORK TIMES</FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Arts and Leisure Preview </FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=6 FACE="Times New Roman">Thai Antiquities, Resting Uneasily </FONT></B>
<BR><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">By JORI FINKEL </FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Published: February 17, 2008 </FONT>
<BR><I><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">(Note: This article will appear in this Sunday's Arts & Leisure section.)</FONT></I>
</P>
<P><A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/02/12/arts/12fink-slideshow_index.html"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Times New Roman">http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/02/12/arts/12fink-slideshow_index.html</FONT></U></A><B></B>
<BR><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">IT just might rank as one of the biggest accidental discoveries in archaeology. In the summer of 1966 a </FONT><A HREF="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/harvard_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Times New Roman">Harvard</FONT></U></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> student named </FONT><A HREF="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/y/steve_young/index.html?inline=nyt-per"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Times New Roman">Steve Young</FONT></U></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> was living in a village in the northeast reaches of Thailand, going door to door canvassing political opinion for his senior thesis, when he tripped over the root of a kapok tree. As he hit the ground he found himself face to face with some buried pots, their rims exposed by recent monsoons. Intrigued by the look and feel of the unglazed shards, he knew enough to bring them back to government officials in Bangkok. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">What he had stumbled upon is now viewed as one of the most important prehistoric settlements in the world. Initially dated as early as 4000 B.C.</FONT> <FONT FACE="Tahoma">—</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> a date since revised amid much controversy to 2000 B.C. or even later</FONT> <FONT FACE="Tahoma">—</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> the so-called Ban Chiang culture is the earliest known Bronze Age site in Southeast Asia, documenting the early arrival of culture, agriculture and technology to the region. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Now Ban Chiang is in the news again as a result of a five-year undercover investigation by three federal agencies. Their examination centers on two Los Angeles antiquities dealers, Cari and Jonathan Markell, and a wholesaler, Bob Olson, who federal agents say donated Ban Chiang artifacts to museums at inflated values in a tax fraud scam. Last month four California museums</FONT> <FONT FACE="Tahoma">—</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> the </FONT><A HREF="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/l/los_angeles_county_museum_of_art/index.html?inline=nyt-org"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Times New Roman">Los Angeles County Museum of Art</FONT></U></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">, the Bowers Museum of Art in Santa Ana, the Pacific Asia Museum in Pasadena and the Mingei International Museum in San Diego</FONT> <FONT FACE="Tahoma">—</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> were raided as part of the inquiry.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">The investigation could also have broad implications for other museums across the country. In the affidavits filed to obtain search warrants, the agents laid the groundwork for a legal argument that virtually all Ban Chiang material in the United States is stolen property. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">In essence, the paperwork states, antiquities that left Thailand after 1961, when the country enacted its antiquities law, could be considered stolen under American law. And since Ban Chiang material was not excavated until well after that date, practically all Ban Chiang material in the United States could qualify. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Among the many American museums with Ban Chiang artifacts are the </FONT><A HREF="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/metropolitan_museum_of_art/index.html?inline=nyt-org"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Times New Roman">Metropolitan Museum of Art</FONT></U></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> in New York; the Freer and Sackler Galleries in Washington; the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; the Cleveland Museum of Art; the Minneapolis Institute of Arts; and the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco. And that roster includes only institutions that have published highlights of their collections online. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">“I believe that virtually every big American art museum that collects Asian art has some Ban Chiang material,” said Forrest McGill, chief curator at the Asian Art Museum. His museum owns 77 Ban Chiang objects, from painted earthenware bowls to bronze bracelets and stone ax heads. After learning of the federal investigation, he said, he reviewed these acquisitions</FONT> <FONT FACE="Tahoma">—</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> almost all made before he arrived at the museum in 1997</FONT> <FONT FACE="Tahoma">—</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> for links to the Markells. He found none.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">“We are nervous about everything</FONT> <FONT FACE="Tahoma">—</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> been nervous, getting nervous,” Mr. McGill said. “It’s not as easy as you would think to be up to date and conversant with different countries’ laws and to know which foreign laws the U.S. is committed to enforcing and which not.” </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">The Freer and Sackler have 56 works, mostly ceramic vessels. The Met has 33 pieces in its holdings, among them vessels, bronze bracelets, bells and ladles. The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, has 17, including gray stoneware pots and beakers and assorted clay rollers. The Cleveland Museum has eight artifacts, mainly jars. The Minneapolis Institute owns two ceramic jars and three glass ear ornaments. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">None of the acquisition records posted online mention the Markells or Mr. Olson. And for sheer volume of material, none of these museums approach the Bowers, which has roughly 1,000 artifacts.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">But the very specter of “looted goods” can prove a public relations nightmare for museums, which helps to explain why few curators contacted at those museums were willing to be interviewed about Ban Chiang artifacts. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Beyond public relations problems are the potential legal difficulties. In the most extreme example Marion True, a former antiquities curator at the </FONT><A HREF="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/getty_j_paul_museum/index.html?inline=nyt-org"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Times New Roman">J. Paul Getty Museum</FONT></U></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> in Los Angeles, was indicted in Italy on charges of conspiring to acquire stolen objects for her museum. More generally United States case law on cultural patrimony is fast evolving, reflecting a growing awareness that collecting certain objects can encourage looting of archaeological sites. American museums have thus seen foreign laws that were long overlooked at home suddenly taken seriously. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">In the affidavits supporting the search warrants in the federal investigation, for example, agents invoke a 1961 Thai law, the Act on Ancient Monuments, Antiques, Objects of Art and National Museums, stating that “buried, concealed, or abandoned” objects are “state property” and cannot legally be removed from Thailand without an official license. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">They quote a Thai government official as saying that as far as he knew, Thailand’s Department of Fine Arts “had never given a license to anyone to take antiquities out of Thailand for private sale.” </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Then, because a foreign country’s law is not necessarily recognized in the United States, the affidavits cite two federal laws that could give the Thai statute some teeth, the National Stolen Property Act of 1948 and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Of course it’s ultimately up to the courts, not federal agents, to determine what constitutes a violation of American law. And no indictments have been filed. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">But Patty Gerstenblith, a </FONT><A HREF="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/depaul_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Times New Roman">DePaul University</FONT></U></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> law professor, said the affidavits signaled a serious federal interest in Ban Chiang as well as tax fraud. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">“I can’t say it’s going to be a slam dunk for the government if this reaches court, but I will say the information in those affidavits is impressive,” she said. “It was, after all, a five-year investigation. We can as outside observers draw the conclusion that there is a fairly substantial likelihood that this Ban Chiang material could be considered stolen property under U.S. law.”</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">The first major excavations of Ban Chiang began in 1974, led by the </FONT><A HREF="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_pennsylvania/index.html?inline=nyt-org"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Times New Roman">University of Pennsylvania</FONT></U></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> in partnership with a Thai group. Joyce White, a scientist who now oversees the Ban Chiang project at the university’s museum and is assisting the federal government with the current investigation, was a graduate student at the time. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">She remembers seeing crates of excavated material arriving at the university on loan from the Thai government. “There were what archaeologists call small finds</FONT> <FONT FACE="Tahoma">—</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> bronze bracelets, clay rollers and so on,” she said. “And then there were bags and bags and bags of broken pottery.” (Some research material remains at the museum on long-term loan.)</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">By the 1980s Ban Chiang material was flooding the international market. “I’m told that some 40,000 pots have come out of Ban Chiang, excavated from the site,” said Mr. Young, the former Harvard student, in a telephone interview in which he confirmed the details of his discovery, down to the bruises from his fall. The son of a former American ambassador to Thailand, he said he never collected the work himself out of concern for his family’s reputation and now owns only one pot, a gift from a Thai princess.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Other collectors did amass the material, however, especially in the 1980s and ’90s. The objects were abundant and, by comparison with other antiquities, cheap</FONT> <FONT FACE="Tahoma">—</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> typically under $1,000. It was mainly during this time that leading American museums secured donations and, to a lesser extent, made acquisitions to help fill gaps in their Southeast Asian collections. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Museums have in the past argued that they were safeguarding objects already on the open market. But many archaeologists find the collecting of such artifacts distressing because it removes objects from their original, information-rich context. “It destroys the archaeological record,” Ms. White said. “It’s shameful really, a destruction of knowledge.” </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Increasingly sensitized to those concerns, many museum curators now say they wouldn’t touch the stuff even if offered by their most prestigious donors.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">“We would turn it down,” said Robert Jacobsen, chairman of the Asian art department at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, “and not just because of the investigation in California, but because times have changed. There’s a moral basis here.” </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Asked whether his museum would consider repatriation, Mr. Jacobsen said: “When we acquired or were given these works, and I think I speak for all museums here, we did not think of them as illegal. But if it comes to pass that legislation declares this material illegal, we would simply return it.” </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Mr. McGill in San Francisco also said he would take any claims “very seriously,” while noting that the Thai government has never contacted him for the museum’s Ban Chiang artifacts, despite a history of collaboration. “We did a big exhibition borrowed from Thailand two years ago,” he noted, “and the director of the National Museum in Bangkok was at our museum several times.”</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Still, he said, he is watching closely to see how the federal investigation unfolds.</FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">So are legal experts in cultural patrimony. Ms. Gerstenblith said the inquiry could lead to criminal trials or civil forfeiture proceedings. In the meantime she is urging all museums, “for ethical if not legal” reasons, to review their Ban Chiang objects. “When they accepted those donations, what kind of documentation did they ask for? Where did the pieces come from?” </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Stephen K. Urice, a professor at the </FONT><A HREF="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_miami/index.html?inline=nyt-org"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Times New Roman">University of Miami</FONT></U></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> School of Law, said the legal issues were far from cut and dried. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">He pointed out that National Stolen Property Act of 1948 applies only to property valued above $5,000 and that federal courts had not yet upheld the application of Archaeological Resources Protection Act to foreign antiquities. He also cited a precedent established by a 2003 federal appellate court decision against the antiquities Frederick Schultz, which puts a burden on the foreign government to show that it enforces its own property statute. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Imagine “you have this vast body of archaeological material over which another government has waved its wand and said it’s ours,” Mr. Urice said, “but they have not done anything more than that to protect it. Under those circumstances, there is an open question as to whether the U.S. would treat it as stolen.” </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">As for the next steps in the federal investigation, Mr. Urice is not placing any bets. </FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">“The whole thing could be dropped altogether because of insufficient evidence or because they are feeling weak about their legal theories,” he said, “or this could move forward into an important, precedent-setting case.”</FONT></P>
</BODY>
</HTML>