The idol-collecting cabal has been increasingly critical of many much-needed actions by states including criminal prosecutions and civil forfeiture of stolen property in recent years. What is baffling is that these are conditions that these nations have agreed upon when they signed the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The Convention urges “States Parties to take measures to prohibit the trafficking of cultural property and provides a common framework on the procedures to prevent their import and export”.
With specific reference to restitution, Articles 7 and 13 of the UNESCO Convention provide the relevant provisions. For objects inventoried and looted from a museum or public or religious monument, Article 7 provides that states should “undertake appropriate measures to seize and return any cultural property stolen and imported”. Article 13 states that parties are responsible at the national level in terms of restitution and cooperation. According to UNESCO, “The return and restitution of cultural property is central to the Convention and its duty is not only to remember but to fundamentally safeguard the identity of peoples ...”
The US has increasingly been looked upon as a trailblazer with proactive and aggressive action—mainly due to high-profile seizures, especially by the NYC district attorney’s office—to tackle the illicit antiquities market. We highlight the cases of two museums in the US and how they continue to blatantly violate the basic tenets of the UN statute.
First, let us look at The Walters Art Museum. Gary Vikan, former director of the museum and columnist, in his piece ‘Why US museums and the antiquities trade should work together’, starts off interestingly: “For years, the AAMD [Association of Art Museum Directors] required of its members that they only ‘not knowingly’ acquire or accept as gifts works of art that had been exported from their country of origin in violation of national laws.” So how did the museum accept the Krishna with butterballs sculpture from the now arrested and indicted art dealer Subash Kapoor in 2004 without any paperwork beyond 1981, long after the UNESCO Convention? And the museum still continues to hold it!
More interesting is the provenance of an amazing 10th century bronze of Shiva and Parvati, which as per the museum’s own provenance disclosure makes for a rather sad reading: “Bashir Antiquities, New Delhi; purchased by John and Berthe Ford, Baltimore, February 1989; given to Walters Art Museum, 2008.”
This means it was acquired in Delhi in 1989 in blatant violation of India’s Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, which the museum was aware of.
There are more obvious red flags in the following acquisitions:
A Dancing Ganesha from Uttar Pradesh that the museum says is from the 9th/10th century. The provenance reads: “Ramesh Kapoor [brother of the arrested Subash], New York; purchased by John and Berthe Ford, New York, July 25,1983; given to Walters Art Museum, 2004.” Note that there is no provenance prior to 1983.
A 9th century sandstone Ganesha with an even stranger provenance (or the lack of it): “Mr. and Mrs. John G. Ford, Baltimore [date and mode of acquisition unknown]; Walters Art Museum, 1987, by gift”. We had a big ceremony to welcome the over-100-years-old Annapoorna in Varanasi in November and here we have a 11th century Saraswati, from the same place, acquired by The Walters Art Museum from known and self-confessed smuggler William Wolff with a strange question mark in its own admission. The provenance reads: “Present in Varanasi, India (?); acquired by William Wolff, New York; purchased by Walters Art Museum, 1969.”
The UN website for the 1970 Convention has this interesting reference that is useful to debate the above case: “For cases of return ... that do not fall under the preceding provisions, such as objects stolen from private property or coming from illicit excavations or not yet listed, bilateral negotiations between States are encouraged ... . The UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee (ICPRCP) can also be solicited to facilitate bilateral negotiations between States concerning requests for the return and restitution of cultural property. The return or restitution of cultural property will therefore be carried out in the spirit of the 1970 Convention.”
Vikan, in the column mentioned earlier adds: “A final, decisive blow to America’s antiquities-collecting ecosystem came in 2008 with the rewrite of the AAMD’s acquisition guidelines, which now includes this critical passage: ‘AAMD members normally should not acquire a work unless research substantiates that it was outside the country of probable modern discovery before 1970.’” That is, they are still not willing to follow the spirit of the UN Convention and are hiding behind the ‘before 1970’ fig leaf.
Now take the case of The San Diego Museum of Art. The museum’s policy on accepting donations starts with these lines: “All donations must undergo curatorial review before being accepted”, and ends with, “If the object is accepted for the collection and the donor wishes to declare it as a tax deduction, the donor is responsible for obtaining a third-party appraisal.”
Now take a look at the list of some of the art works donated by Mr and Mrs Vilayanur Ramachandran: Shri Devi (14th century, Karnataka); Shiva Bhikshatana (18th century, Tamil Nadu); Brahma (11th century, Rajasthan); chariot bracket with horsemen (18th century, TN); chariot panel with Krishna and the Gopis (18th century, TN); sandstone Ganesha (11th century, Rajasthan); Garuda (17th century); infant Krishna crawling and holding a butter ball (17th century, Karnataka); Bronze Deepalakshmi (Paavai Vilakku, 17th century, TN); Granite Ganesha (12th/13th century, TN) (all details according to the museum’s own website).
It is shocking that none of these have even a pre-2000 provenance, except one and even in that case, there are no acquisition details. Will the museum publish the curatorial review for any of these acquisitions and also clarify if any tax benefits were availed by the donor?
S Vijay Kumar
Co-founder, India Pride Project and author of The Idol Thief
(vj.episteme@gmail.com)