Welcome to ARCA’s PG Cert Alumni Spotlight Series, a collection of in-depth Q&A interviews conducted by Edgar Tijhuis*, highlighting the professional journeys, achievements, and ongoing contributions of graduates from ARCA’s Postgraduate Certificate Programs in Art Crime and Cultural Heritage Protection. Through these conversations, we aim to showcase the diverse paths our alumni have taken—across academia, law enforcement, museums, research, policy, and the cultural heritage sector—and to share the insights, motivations, and experiences that continue to shape their work in safeguarding the world’s shared artistic legacy.

My undergraduate degrees are in History of Art and International Relations while my graduate degree is in Art Business. However, my life took a slightly different turn and I did not pursue a career in my chosen fields of study. After 11 years in high-end sales and logistics, I decided that my life would not be complete if I do not pursue my initial passion of combining History of Art, International Relations and Art Market Studies. I just had to figure out how to do it.

I got in touch with the late Charley Hill, the former Scotland Yard Art and Antiques Unit undercover officer, then an art detective as well as specialist advisor and mentor on my graduate degree, MA Art Business at Sotheby’s Institute of Art in London. Charley was delighted to help, offering his inimitable advice and support. He urged me to get in touch with all the contacts I made during my MA studies and reassured me that not all is lost despite the long hiatus but that it would be hard work.

It was a chance encounter at the 2014 Cultural Heritage Conference at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London where I noticed that a person sitting next to me was Richard “Dick” Ellis, the founder of the Scotland Yard Art and Antiques Unit, then a private art investigator and a UK government advisor as well as an instructor on the ARCA Postgraduate Program. Dick was one of the “primary sources” I contacted on Charley’s recommendation while investigating the fate of stolen masterpieces from public collections in the United Kingdom for my MA dissertation. We chatted and commented on the conference presentations, and I reminded Dick how helpful and insightful the interview he gave me was in 2001. Dick suggested that we meet for lunch in the following few weeks. He told me about the ARCA Postgraduate Program urging me to consider it as it was, and still is, the unique program that could help me “refresh” my expertise and professional network in order to get back into the fray. As they say, the rest is history.

The visit to the necropolis of Banditaccia at Cerveteri at the beginning of the program had a lasting impact on me because I realised that I had made a good decision in terms of my future career. The study trip was led by Stefano Alessandrini, an ARCA instructor as well as head of Italy's Archaeological Group and an adviser to the Ministry of Culture and the Advocate General of Italy on the recovery of looted antiquities. Stefano’s passion for the Etruscan civilisation and unequalled encyclopaedic knowledge of archaeology was generously shared with us. I realised that this niche field is not just a potential career option, it is a calling which embodies passion and purpose.

Equally, the course Provenance Research Methodology – Theory and Practice taught by Marc Masurovsky, an economic plunder historian and co-founder of Holocaust Art Restitution Project, was instrumental in shaping my current career path where I realised that my academic background would be a perfect fit to the multidisciplinary approach in provenance research that Marc is adamant about. This is where I honed my interest in the intersection of my chosen fields of study, that is the ethical and legal treatment of cultural objects across borders (“space and time!”) as a reflection of social, economic and political changes under the motto “give me an object and I will tell you its story.” Most importantly, I was finally aligned with my personal experiences of war, loss, plunder, cultural destruction, and this was a chance to channel it positively.

What was your favourite course or topic, and why did it stand out?

It would be difficult to isolate one favourite course or topic! The courses that had the most impact on me professionally and personally are Provenance Research Theory and Practice taught by Marc Masurovsky; Criminology taught by Edgar Tijhuis (and Marc Balcells);  Museum Security taught by the late Dick Drent (now taught by Ibrahim Bulut), and last but not least Fine Art Policing taught by Dick Ellis. Each course was instrumental in encouraging us to think analytically and outside the box as well as including details of case studies that have not yet been published.

The Provenance Research course was formative because it has geared my career path to what it is now while reiterating the importance of history in order to understand the present issues –  history indeed is our greatest teacher! The Criminology course shed light to why certain individuals commit recidivist cultural crimes, what drives them and builds networks around them. The Museum Security course deepened my comprehension of the efforts and challenges that cultural institutions face as custodians of our heritage. The Art Policing course illuminated the challenges of the intersection of public and private policing as well as their respective recovery efforts. Having these courses taught by both practitioners and academics enabled me to learn first-hand from instructors involved in the discussed cases while being encouraged to ask questions deepened my understanding of each topic and case study.

I have been based in London since 1995 and I am enamoured of the cultural melting pot that this great city represents. The international nature of the ARCA program was a deal breaker for me especially considering that after fleeing Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1990s war, I lived in Tunisia, Libya, and Malta, As an undergraduate student, I attended study abroad programs that took me to Cuba, China and Hong Kong as well as Russia. In the context of ARCA, the ability to learn directly from our American, Italian, Iraqi, Syrian and Spanish peers, as well as our, American, British, Dutch and Italian instructors, to name but a few, and get their own perspectives on some of the pertinent cultural issues and jurisdictional variations is priceless and unparalleled. Not to mention the fun get-togethers where we shared our regional culinary delicacies and humour while learning about our national and personal histories even more.

Did the program change or shape your career path? If so, how? 

Absolutely! The program has changed my career path, and my life, significantly and goes down as one of the most formative experiences. I am convinced that I would not have been able to make a career change without it. On the suggestion of Lynda Albertson, ARCA’s CEO, I attended the 2017 Art Crime Conference before committing to the full program. I met numerous professionals and started collaborating with some of them. It was obvious that the faculty, the student body as well as the annual conference attendees I met at ARCA represent a close-knit professional community where I made useful contacts and felt welcome even as a novice.

After the completion of the program in 2018, my professional connections expanded and resulted in fantastic international projects, both pro-bono and paid work. I strongly believe that I would not be where I am now, working alongside some of the greatest and most passionate professionals in the world who have also become lifelong friends.

My ARCA dissertation, under the insistence as well as unrivalled support and patience of Dick Ellis to “produce something original”, allowed me to rediscover my own personal and national history by researching the art plunder and restitution during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This effort was not in vain because I gained invaluable knowledge and developed important professional networks in the region. The edited and updated version of this topic was published under the encouragement of Professor Saskia Hufnagel as “Recovery and Restitution of Plundered Cultural Property in Bosnia and Herzegovina”  In M.D.Fabiani, K. Burmon, & S. Hufnagel (Eds), Cultural Property Crime and the Law: Legal Approaches to Protection, Repatriation, and Countering Illicit Trade, by Routledge in May 2024. 

It is thanks to the ARCA program that I was hired by Marc Masurovsky to work on the Pilot Project – The Fate of the AdolpheSchloss Collection in 2020 and 2021. Together with Marc and our colleague Claudia Hofstee, I have continued to work on the Schloss Collection as a labour of love after the end of the project. These endeavours have led to becoming a Board Director at Holocaust Art Restitution Project and working with The Ciric LawFirm, PLLC in New York City. When I think of ARCA’s long-term impact on my life, Hegel’s famous quote comes to mind: “Nothing great in the world has ever been accomplished without passion.”

What was it like to live and study in Amelia, Italy?

I have been visiting Italy for a very long time and it has always felt like home because I  spent my childhood on the other side of the Adriatic coast and my early adulthood on the other side of the Mediterranean in countries with strong Italian influence. Culturally, I have always felt a close affinity to the Italian way of life so La Dolce Vita was much welcome. Amelia has many charms – you become local in no time due to its size; it is rural and picturesque; you can enjoy some of best fresh produce;  it is quaint and steeped in history, and the locals are friendly and welcoming. The food is just superb! 

One has to appreciate Amelia’s size and its proximity to other cities, such as Orvieto or the metropolis of Rome. In Amelia, one can just roll down or up Via della Repubblica and get to class in 5-20 minutes, depending where one’s lodgings are situated. It wins on every level especially if one considers battling the ever-infuriating summer traffic and transport strikes in Rome or London! Having said that, there is plenty of time to complete all the reading, assignments and presentations due to the lack of unnecessary distractions. The transport links are excellent for any exploration and breaks.

Can you share a memorable interaction you had with faculty, guest speakers, or fellow students?

Memorable interactions with students and faculty are manyfold. We had many a heated discussion in the classroom that would spill into a local bar or the Pasticceria Russo about the criminogenic nature of art crime, the colonial legacy of cultural property and what it means to be a “universal museum” today.

In the Museum Security course, our instructor asked us to share a profound personal experience in utmost confidence in order to build trust between us. This was a formidable exercise because our perception of each other changed and it made us appreciate each other’s experiences beyond the program curriculum.

One cannot forget the countless aperitivos and dinners shared amongst the fellow students and faculty after each milestone, whether it is a presentation or completion of a course – all are still deeply ingrained in my memory.

What advice would you give to someone considering applying for the 2026 session?

My advice would be to have a clear idea of what you want to take away from the program and target your professional and personal interests and ambitions. It is important to talk to your instructors and connect with them – they are there to help you every step of the way. The ARCA connections and networks can become a professional lifeline. If opting to do the full Postgraduate Program, you will have ten weeks to do the reading, coursework and research including presentations, essays and making an impression –  it is up to you to get it done. This is a professional development program and you are in charge of what you wish to accomplish.

On the lighter note, the local bread could be used as a weapon or a door stop due to its hard texture. And, of course, bring plenty of insect repellent, the Umbrian pappataci are relentless!

How has your understanding of art crime evolved since completing the program?

My understanding of art crime since the program has evolved significantly especially in terms of understanding the international jurisprudence and jurisdictional differences, complex networks in international antiquities trafficking as well as the laborious and painstaking efforts required to recover stolen cultural property. It is impossible to visit any cultural institution and look at its displays without considering the security conditions such as security cameras, motion sensors, smoke alarms or quality of the protective cases. Equally, it is difficult to attend an exhibition or look at a museum display without paying attention to its signage and wording ­– is the story of plunder told or swept under the carpet, was the object “appropriated” or was it a part of the partage agreement, and what do they mean by “acquired”? The program has equipped me with analytical tools and has fed my inquisitive intellectual curiosity. Needless to say, my professional and social interactions are never a dead-end.

One should join ARCA’s program if one wants to broaden their understanding of the importance of cultural heritage protection and to make a difference in art crime prevention ensuring the long-lasting impact on humankind in the form of justice being served regardless of the passage of time for the generations to come.

About Saida Hasanagic 

Saida Hasanagic, MA, is an art historian based in London, England. She is an independent scholar specialising in provenance research, art crime and its prevention from perspectives of art history, art market studies and international relations. Saida worked as a provenance researcher and data analyst for the Jewish Digital Cultural Recovery Project Foundation, Berlin on The Pilot Project – The Fate of the Adolphe Schloss Collection. She is affiliated with Holocaust Art Restitution Project and The Ciric Law Firm, PLLC in the USA. Her main areas of research are European Modernism, the Second World War art plunder and restitution, and cultural crimes committed in conflicts since 1945, notably in the former Yugoslavia with focus on spoliation, recovery and restitution of cultural property in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

📌 ARCA Postgraduate Certificate Programmes (Italy | Summer 2026)

• Post Lauream I (22 May – 23 June 2026): PG Cert in Art & Antiquities Crime

• Post Lauream II (26 June – 26 July 2026): PG Cert in Provenance, Acquisition & Interpretation of Cultural Property

➡️ Take one track—or combine both in a single summer.

Today in Italu, it was announced that the Preventive Measures Section of the Palermo Court of Appeal has overturned a sweeping asset confiscation order issued against Gianfranco Becchina, 85, the Sicilian-born antiquities dealer whose name has been at the centre of international art trafficking investigations for more than three decades. The preventive measures panel of the Court of Second Instance, (Italy's court of appeals), revoked entirely the order issued on 22 October 2021 and made public on 26 May 2022 by the Tribunal of Trapani.  

That ruling ordered the confiscation of a significant portion of movable, real estate and corporate assets "attributable to a well-known international trader of works of art and artefacts of historical-archaeological value" long suspected to have links with the Sicilian mafia, in and around the port town of Trapani,   This we know was Gianfranco Becchina and by extension his family.  Those assets were ordered seized on the premise that, according to the prosecution, the antiquities dealer had laundered illicit archaeological finds for the Matteo Messina Denaro clan of Cosa Nostra.

In delivering their 2026 reversal, the Court of Second Instance accepted the defence's appeals, concluding that no disproportion existed between the family's accumulated wealth and their declared legitimate sources of income, effectively ruling that Becchina's assets had been lawfully acquired.  But having said that one must remember that the Italian Judge Rosalba Liso dismissed all antiquities trafficking-related charges against Gianfranco Becchina due to the running of the statute of limitations in 2011.  

Judge Liso is also the judge who ordered the seizure of 5,919 of Becchina’s antiquities (seized in 2002 and 2009), holding that “from the evidence…it emerges that Becchina bought antiquities from tombaroli.” Addressing the antiquities themselves (both those seized and those depicted in the seized photographs), Judge Liso found that “all come from clandestine excavations conducted in Italy…[and that]…the copious documentation seized from Becchina definitely certifies that those objects come from clandestine excavations and excludes any legitimate provenance.”

While Judge Liso noted that a substantial portion of Becchina's wealth was generated through the sale of illicitly excavated antiquities, it should be underscored that it was the passage of time, rather than the absence of underlying misconduct, that limited the possibility of the Sicilian dealer's criminal prosecution, due to statutes of limitation.

Among the most symbolically significant assets returned under the ruling is the Palazzo dei Principi Aragona Pignatelli Cortes in Castelvetrano, an iconic landmark of the city's historic centre originally rebuilt in the sixteenth century and incorporating the Castello Bellumvider, a fortification commissioned by Frederick II in the twelfth century. Considered a monument of considerable architectural and cultural significance, this and other property has now been ordered returned to the family, eight years after their seizure in November 2017 by Italy's Anti-Mafia Investigative Directorate, through the Criminal and Preventive Measures Section of the Court of Trapani. 

Prosecutors had alleged, but according to the appellate court failed to prove, that Becchina laundered illegally excavated archaeological artefacts on behalf of the Messina Denaro crime family, whose patriarch, before his arrest and subsequent death, had been Italy's most wanted Mafia boss. The courts at both levels found the allegations of a relationship between Becchina and the Messina Denaro clan difficult to sustain. 

Even at the court of first instance, the Tribunal of Trapani had already rejected the Mafia association claim after reviewing the testimony of multiple informants, noting the generic nature of their statements and finding a "lack of certainty not only regarding affiliation, but also regarding specific unlawful conduct attributable to Becchina in support of Cosa Nostra."  That same tribunal had also established that the vast majority of artefacts stored in Becchina's Basel warehouses originated from Campania, Lucania and Puglia on the Italian mainland.

These findings are also borne out by examination of the Becchina Archive, which revealed that over 80% of the antiquities derived from Apulia and of the Apulian vases, over 90% were traceable to a single source within Becchina's network: convicted tombarolo and later intermediary trafficker Raffaele Monticelli, and were therefore unconnected to the Messina Denaro clan in Sicily.

It is worth noting, however, that the court's rejection of a formal Cosa Nostra connection does not discount the question of organised criminality in the antiquities trade, nor Becchina's alleged role within it.  Art crime investigators and cultural heritage scholars have long distinguished between two distinct, though sometimes overlapping, criminal ecosystems.

The first comprises Italy's primary poly-crime-oriented syndicates, the hierarchical organisations most commonly associated with the structured Mafia model. These groups maintain formal leadership, internal codes of conduct, long-term territorial control, and well-established codes of silence. They are, in the broadest terms, powerful transnational clans that extort, tax, or directly control criminal operations across territories with distinct geographic origins and international reach. 

The most prominent of Italy's Organised Crime Groups (OCG) is the Cosa Nostra, which despite sustained pressure from law enforcement continues to maintain its territorial grip on Sicily, adapting constantly to evade scrutiny and remaining the most historically recognisable and publicly emblematic of the Italian mafias. 

The 'Ndrangheta, rooted in Calabria and built upon blood ties and tightly-knit family clans known as 'ndrine, has grown into arguably the most formidable of the four, having expanded into the most countries and dominating Italy's cocaine trade through networks stretching across South America and West Africa. 

The Camorra, operating primarily out of Naples and Caserta, functions through a volatile mixture of large cartels and smaller, more fractious clans engaged in drug trafficking, extortion, and illicit financial schemes, with profitable operations extending across Spain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, and Dubai. 

The Apulian crime groups, namely the Sacra Corona Unita, the Società Foggiana, the Camorra Barese, and the Gargano Mafia, evolved from their origins in cigarette smuggling into a broader criminal portfolio encompassing human trafficking, drug and weapons running, as well as illegal waste disposal, with networks present in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, and Albania.

Heritage-crime criminal ecosystems, by contrast, are more loosely structured. Often, they consist of temporary collaborations among tombaroli (clandestine diggers), middlemen, couriers, restorers, and dealers who cooperate in specific territories in relation to specific transactions.Taken together, however, these actors form a sophisticated supply chain fully capable of functioning as a form of organised crime in its own right. 

Unlike traditional Mafia-styled OCGs, most antiquities trafficking OCG networks lack formal leadership structures, initiation rituals, or territorial monopolies enforced through violence. Instead, they rely on highly specialised divisions of labour, shared financial incentives, and the complicity, or at the very least the indifference, of segments of the international art market that have historically looked the other way regarding the illicit origins of the objects they traded.

The consequences of that indifference is severe. Over several decades, well-developed supply chains have enabled the large-scale, systematic removal of archaeological material from some of Italy's most significant cultural landscapes. Looted objects flowed steadily from easily exploited heritage-rich sites to storage facilities, freeports, and private galleries, where they were laundered using  fabricated collecting histories and sold onward to major Western museums and private collectors. 

It is within this framework that law enforcement and art crime researchers have directed sustained attention toward the activities of Gianfranco Becchina.  Rather than viewing him solely through the lens of his Mafia contacts, many analysts position him as a central and well-connected node within a commercially motivated antiquities trafficking network. In this role, the Sicilian dealer functioned as a high-level intermediary whose gallery connections and market relationships enabled large numbers of illicitly excavated antiquities to enter the legitimate international art market, contributing significantly to the long-term exploitation of Italy's archaeological heritage.

Originally from Castelvetrano and for many years resident in Switzerland, Becchina operated for decades within the international art and antiquities market, and his name appears repeatedly across multiple investigations into the illicit trafficking of antiquities sourced from Italian territories. Investigators allege that over roughly thirty years he accumulated his wealth through the proceeds of international trafficking in archaeological artefacts, many of which had been clandestinely looted from sites throughout southern Italy where his cordata operated.

The scale of the damage is reflected in the volume of significant objects that have since been repatriated. Through what investigators describe as a lucrative criminal enterprise, Becchina supplied several important antiquities to the J. Paul Getty Museum and other American artistic institutions, works that have since been restituted to Italy. 

Among the more notable returns, some of which have been discussed on this blog, are the Paestan red-figure calyx krater painted and signed by Asteas, the Sarcofago della Bella Addormentata, a grouping of helmets later gifted to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and an important  black-figure kalpis depicting the myth of Dionysus being kidnapped by pirates whom he transforms into dolphins. These objects are just a few of the numerous works circulated by Becchina and traced through documentation seized by the Italian heritage crime authorities, which helped art crime analysts reconstruct the full extent of the network and actors involved in funnelling artefacts from Italian soil onto the international antiquities market.

This month's appeals ruling in Becchina's favour does not erase any of that contested history. 

As recently as February 2025, the United States returned 107 archaeological artefacts, collectively valued at $1.2 million to Italy, items identified through ongoing investigations as having been looted and illicitly exported by traffickers including Becchina. Among the recovered objects was a fourth-century BC bronze patera that had passed through Becchina's hands before reaching a New York antiquities dealer and eventually being seized by Manhattan's Antiquities Trafficking Unit. 

The appellate ruling likewise does not address the broader international record of illicit artefacts connected to Becchina's operations that have been recovered by law enforcement agencies over the past two decades, nor does it resolve the wider question of how a sophisticated, decentralised criminal network trading in looted antiquities, operated quite apart from any single organised crime family, and was able to function effectively for decades.

The consequences for Italy's archaeological heritage has been devastating and, in numerous instances, permanent. Sites cannot be unlooted. Context, once destroyed, cannot be restored. The historical knowledge embedded in the ground alongside these objects fenced to Becchina is gone forever.

What makes this court ruling especially difficult to reconcile is the striking disparity in how the law treats different categories of organised crime. Those convicted of Mafia association in Italy routinely face lengthy custodial sentences, with the full weight of anti-racketeering legislation brought to bear against them. 

Those caught participating in the trade in looted antiquities, by contrast, have historically faced far more lenient consequences, despite the fact that the harm they inflict on the collective cultural memory of a nation is, by any meaningful measure, quite serious. Until the legal frameworks governing cultural property crime begins to reflect the true scale of that harm, the gap between the severity of the offence and the severity of the punishment will continue to undermine the protection of the world's shared archaeological inheritance.

By:  Lynda Albertson

If you read our recent article about the Dong Son bell identified at a museum in Assen and the troubling questions surrounding its provenance, you will recognise a pattern that extends far beyond that single suspect artefact.  That case, resting on little more than a hypothetical pre-1970 export date, forms part of a larger story that has been unfolding for years.  It is a story that continues to cast a long shadow over the global market in Southeast Asian antiquities, museum institutions, and private collections worldwide.  Time and again, it is a story in which the fingerprints of Douglas Latchford can be found on objects that passed through his hands, sometimes decades before his alleged crimes were brought to light.

Recently, I was working to identify the Cambodian, Thai and Vietnamese artefacts purchased by Leon Black which were mentioned in some of the three million documents released by the U.S. Justice Department on 30 January 2026 as part of the Jeffrey Epstein data dump.  During my wanderings my searches brought me back to Latchford's and Emma Bunker's artistic publications. 

Cultivating the image of a passionate scholar-collector prior to his indictment, the Bangkok-based dealer worked closely with Bunker to publish a series of lavishly illustrated books on Southeast Asian and Khmer art that featured many of the objects he circulated through the antiquities market.  Far from being neutral scholarly exercises, these publications functioned as instruments of laundering. 

Sculptures and bronzes with little or no documented provenance were presented alongside established museum holdings and described as significant works from private collections.  They were framed within authoritative art historical narratives that obscured both their true ownership history and the circumstances of their removal from Cambodia.  By embedding freshly surfaced objects in academic-style volumes, Latchford and Bunker effectively manufactured a sort of cosmetic legitimacy, transforming recently trafficked antiquities into catalogue-worthy published masterpieces, thereby smoothing their path into major collections.

In the book Latchford and Bunker went on to describe the unusual piece as coming from Angkor Borei, adding:  

This fierce little Hanuman once surmounted a battle standard to which he was attached by a short tang under the foot. Hanuman waves his arms vigorously as he balances on one foot, a pose very similar to that of a gilded-bronze male figure from Vietnam in the Musee Guimet that has also been identified as a standard emblem. Hanuman is often represented in later Khmer art.

In their 544-page tome, and including this bronze, there is an outstanding number of pieces, which appear courtesy of "Skanda Trust."  Formed just three months before the book’s publication, Skanda Trust is now understood to have been one of Latchford’s offshore vehicles, registered in Jersey in the Channel Islands, and estimated by experts to have held art-related assets valued at approximately $10 million.  An email from Latchford dated 23 April 2007 to a New York dealer left little to no doubt about the dealer's level of direct involvement and knowledge in transnational criminal activity against Cambodian artefacts. In it Latchford offered his colleague (and sometimes cohort in crime) a looted standing Buddha from the same pre-Khmer site of Angkor Borei.  That artefact was depicted in a photo that showed signs of recent excavation.

So where did this Hanuman wander off to?

In a 2017 Facebook post, the Asian Civilisations Museum shared a photograph of an eighth-century bronze monkey figure identified as probably depicting Hanuman and coming from Angkor Borei.  The figure was described as unusual because it was unclothed.  I had saved a screenshot of that image for use in my course on open-source intelligence research in object tracing. It served as an excellent example of how museums use social media and how such posts can reveal information about objects in their collections, even when full catalogues are not accessible online or researchers cannot physically visit a specific institution in another country.

That is why the image clicked in my memory when reviewing Latchford’s publication.  They were one and the same.  The museum appears to have acquired the bronze in 2014 and assigned it Accession number: 2014-00439.

The presence of this Hanuman in a Latchford publication, attributed to Skanda Trust and later accessioned into an important museum collection, is not a trivial detail.  It places the object squarely within a museum collection that has already led to previous restitutions to India. 

In recent years, the museum has begun to confront the uncomfortable reality that publication history and aesthetic importance cannot substitute for clear, documented provenance.  If they are serious about transparency and ethical stewardship, then works linked to Latchford’s orbit warrant their careful review. 

The question is no longer whether these objects are beautiful or significant. It is whether they left Cambodia lawfully.  One hopes that this bronze will receive that scrutiny it needs, and that if the evidence points where other cases have led, that his path home will be quick. 

By:   Lynda Albertson

Few dates have shaped museum acquisition practice as profoundly as 1970. The adoption of the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property has come to function not only as a legal reference point but as a moral dividing line. In many institutions, an object documented outside its country of origin before 1970 encounters fewer obstacles. After 1970, the questions begin in earnest.

But what happens when the decisive date is 1969?

To finance the acquisition, the museum applied for a subsidy from the Brabant Museum Foundation, but the Foundation hesitated.  Was the purchase compatible with international agreements governing cultural property? It asked the Ethical Code Committee for Museums - formerly the Museum Code of Conduct Committee to review the case.

The Commission framed its advice around two questions: whether the museum had complied with the relevant provisions of the professional code of ethics, and whether it had exercised sufficient care in investigating the provenance of the bell. The export date of 1969 was noted as falling just before the 1970 UNESCO Convention. Although the Netherlands had not ratified the Convention at that time, the Dutch ethical code expected museums to act in accordance with its spirit.

The Commission acknowledged that the proximity of 1969 to 1970 might raise doubts. Nevertheless, it found no reason to question the stated circulation of the piece as supplied by Nies. On that basis, it concluded that illicit trade, as defined under the code, was not at issue and that the acquisition had been carried out with appropriate care. The Brabant Museum Foundation accepted the advice and the purchase proceeded.

The advice, however, was not unanimous. One member of the commission dissented and stated that he "would have been in favour of asking the opinion of the government of the country of origin in order to overcome the one-sidedness of the information available to the purchaser".  If doubt existed regarding provenance, as he believed it did, the museum should not proceed.  Even before 1970, he argued, the object should not have left Cambodia without authorisation from the relevant authorities. 

This minority view will later take on greater resonance.

In 2005, Jos van Beurden revisited the case in the academic journal Culture Without Context. His analysis focused on two aspects that had received relatively light treatment in the Commission’s recommendation.  The first concerned the certainty of the 1969 date. The Commission had referred to the possible coincidence of 1969 and 1970 but ultimately accepted the dealer’s account's of the object's circulation. Yet, in subsequent conversations Nies reportedly described 1969 as only "most probable" rather than definitive. The boundary between acceptable and problematic rested on a date that was not firmly documented, and instead amounts to hearsay. 

The second issue concerned Cambodian law. The assertion that no permission was required for export from Cambodia to Thailand sits uneasily with information we know about Cambodia's cultural property laws.  Extensive legal protections for Cambodia's cultural heritage date to the French colonial period, the early years of the country's independence, the Khmer Rouge period, as well as modern times.

In 1863, a treaty between France and the Kingdom of Cambodia established Cambodia as a protectorate of France. In 1884, a Convention between the Kingdom of Cambodia and France gave the administrative power of the State to the French, giving the French Governor for Cambodia power over all territory.

Both a 1900 decree law and a 1925 decree expressly state Cambodian cultural artefacts as being the property of the state.  According to these, no object could be exported without the authorisation of the Governor General, something the Dutch museum's bell does not have. 

Following the adoption of a new Constitution in 1993, earlier existing laws remained in force unless expressly repealed.  Legal experts, including former Director of UNESCO's Department of Cultural Heritage Lyndel Prott, supported the view that the 1925 legislation had not been abrogated by the intervening turmoil of the Khmer Rouge period.  If her interpretation was correct, the removal of the bell from Cambodia without authorisation would have been in contravention of domestic law, regardless of whether it occurred before or after 1970. Taken into focus, the dissenting commissioner’s suggestion therefore that Cambodian authorities should have been consulted before this object's purchase now appears less an outlier than a missed opportunity.

Despite this, the museum’s co-founder and curator, Dr André Lehr (1929-2007),  defended the acquisition that the Ethical Commission had approved. What more, he asked, could reasonably be required?  Implicit in that response was a narrower understanding of cultural heritage, one that placed greater weight on monumental works of art than on portable everyday religious objects. 

Yet for source countries such as Cambodia, portable antiquities are integral to the archaeological record as well as to national cultural identity. The distinction between movable and immovable, monumental or portable has little relevance in the country's heritage law and even less in the lived experience of loss among its  people. 

But this Asten case illustrates how the year 1970 has come to function as a kind of ethical shorthcut. For many institutions, “pre-1970” suggests relative safety, while “post-1970” triggers more rigorous investigation.  Over time, the date has risked becoming less a reference point for inquiry than a substitute for it.  If a buyer can be convinced that an object can plausibly be placed outside its country of origin before 1970, the intensity of scrutiny may diminish.

The difficulty is that plausible is not the same as proven.

A prominent collector and dealer in Southeast Asian antiquities, living in Thailand, Latchford was indicted in the United States for crimes related to a many-year scheme to sell hundreds of looted Cambodian antiquities on the international art market.  In September 2020, the indictment against him was dismissed following is death. 

Prior to his Denver donation, Latchford had attempted to sell two other Dong Son bells to a private American buyer one year before the Dutch museum purchased their own from Nies.  In a 2003 email Latchford described the bells as rare and referred to a recent find in the Battambang region of northwestern Cambodia, noting that he had been able to obtain several examples. Photographs taken before cleaning of these objects showed encrustations consistent with recent excavation not a storied life in a permanent collection.

In November 2021, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced a civil forfeiture complaint seeking the return of four looted Cambodian antiquities from the Denver Art Museum.  Three of these, including the Dong Son bell were gifts from Douglas Latchford, while the forth had been purchased by the Thai-based dealer outright.  Later that month, the DAM deaccessioned the pieces from its collection and they were picked up by U.S. officials for return to Cambodia

While the Denver case does not establish that the bell acquired by the Dutch museum in Asten is illicit, it does, however, reveal how narratives once accepted as adequate can later unravel.  References to a “recent find,” coupled with physical evidence of fresh excavation, transformed what might once have been treated as plausible provenance into grounds for forfeiture.  And Latchford's association with other Dong Son bells from Battambang further sharpens our scrutiny of the Dutch bell's collection story.

While there are other instances of bells of this type in circulation within the art market. the parallels in both museum acquisitions are difficult to ignore.  Both the Denver and the Assen bells are stated to have been found in Battambang and both circulated through Thailand where Latchford lived and operated.  

Both also have limited to no documentation with a heavy reliance on the donor or dealer's stated account as to their origins.  And in both cases, institutional approval was based on circumstantial information provided by the individual proffering the work for aquisition or donation.

Marcel Nies has stated in the past that he never sold any piece on behalf of Latchford directly and that he wasn’t aware of the gravity of the allegations against the antiquities dealer until he was indicted.  Despite this, seven artefacts in Nies  publications match to Skanda Trust artefacts which were published in Latchford’s and Emma Bunker's books.  

For cultural policy observers, the comparisons are instructive. It suggests that the absence of disconfirming evidence at a given moment does not resolve underlying uncertainty.  It also highlights the evolving expectations placed on museums today as what was considered reasonable due diligence in the early 2000s may no longer suffice.

Back in 2004, the dissenting member of the Dutch Ethical Commission proposed a straightforward step: consult the source country.  At the time, that suggestion did not prevail.  

Today, direct engagement with source-country authorities and subject matter forensic researchers is increasingly viewed as standard due diligence practice when documentation is incomplete, vague, or contradictory.  The burden of proof is finally shifting toward demonstrating lawful export rather than relying on the absence of proof to the contrary.

This shift reflects broader changes in the governance of cultural property. Source countries have become more assertive in seeking restitution and international cooperation has intensified.  High-profile cases involving traffickers have exposed the fragility of dealer-based narratives where once vague provenance statements like: Private collection Italy, 2000 once sufficed.  As result, forward-thinking museums have responded by strengthening provenance research, enhancing transparency and, in some cases, revisiting past acquisitions.  

The bronze bell purchased in Asten in 2004 sits at the intersection of these complex developments.  The Dutch Ethical Commission concluded that the Assen acquisition complied with the applicable code and that sufficient care had been taken.  Within the framework applied at the time, that conclusion may have been defensible.  Yet the minority opinion and subsequent events invite reconsideration of what sufficiency should mean.

The 1970 Convention remains a cornerstone of international cultural property policy. It provides an essential baseline.  But it was never intended to function as a rubber stamp date for hypothetical transactions that left their countries of origin in circumstances that remain unclear.  Treating 1970 as a bright line can obscure the continuing relevance of domestic export laws and the ethical imperative to seek clarity when doubt arises.

The Asten and Denver bells together illustrate a larger point.  Provenance research is not merely an administrative exercise.  It is an inquiry that unfolds, sometimes over decades, shaped by new evidence, evolving norms and changing relationships between museums, identified bad actors in the art market and source countries. 

Decisions that appeared settled in one decade now look provisional in the next.

By Lynda Albertson

Last Fall, the French Ministry of Culture took a notable step toward strengthening accountability in the museum sector by preparing a comprehensive provenance research guide for public institutions titled: Handbook for provenance research

This regulatory gap raises a pointed question: why are American taxpayers left exposed to subsidising donations of artworks that may later be shown to have been stolen or illegally exported?

The issue is not hypothetical.  When museums accept donations of art with incomplete or problematic ownership histories, their donors often benefit from substantial tax deductions based on the object's appraised value.  If those same objects are later seized or relinquished due to their problematic origin, the financial risk has already been absorbed by the American public.  In effect, its US taxpayers who have underwritten both the acquisition and the reputational fallout, while the institutions themselves face few standardised federal requirements requiring them to demonstrate that adequate provenance research was conducted prior to accepting a gifted work of art.

In the U.S., the primary federal touchpoint for donated artworks is the Internal Revenue Service, which evaluates donations almost exclusively through the lens of valuation and tax deductibility.  The IRS requires donors to substantiate fair market value and complete appraisal documentation, but it does not meaningfully assess whether an object was lawfully exported, ethically acquired, or free from claims by source countries.  As a result, the legal status of an artwork’s past is often treated as peripheral, so long as its monetary value can be justified.

France’s model suggests a different path, one in which government agencies acknowledge that provenance research is not merely an internal museum matter but a public accountability issue.  By issuing a government-backed guide, the state is taking the first steps of establishing a baseline for responsible stewardship, one which creates clearer expectations for institutions that operate with public support. Such guidance does not eliminate complex provenance questions, but it does reduce ambiguity and by doing so strengthens institutional accountability going forward. 

Advocates of due diligence in US museums can argue that similar federal guidelines in America could help protect cultural heritage, improve public confidence, and help ensure that charitable tax policies are not inadvertently rewarding the circulation of looted or illicit material.

As international scrutiny of museum collections continues to grow, the absence of U.S. federal provenance standards is increasingly difficult to justify.  France has demonstrated that government leadership in this area is both possible and practical. Whether the United States will choose to follow suit, and in doing so safeguard both cultural heritage and public funds, remains an open and increasingly urgent question.

Detail of the altarpiece of the main altar of Santa Eugenia

On the night of 17–18 July 1979, the church was targeted by thieves. Four polychrome wooden sculptures depicting the Evangelists, among them San Lucas, all attributed to Gil de Siloé, were removed from the predella and stolen along with a silver censer. The theft was later linked to René Alphonse Ghislain Van den Berghe, the notorious trafficker of sacred art known as "Erik the Belgian." 

Considered to be the greatest art thief of the 20th century, by his own admission, Van den Berghe is believed to have stolen over 600 works of religious art including altarpieces, capitals, crosses, panel paintings, carvings, tapestries, books, paintings, goldsmiths’ works, and furniture from churches and religious institution across Spain. 

That silence was broken more than forty years later when a photo of the polychrome sculpture depicting Saint Luke was recognised by the directors of Theotokopoulos Gallery María Elizari and Pedro Ramón Jiménez in sales material advertising an upcoming auction at Cambi Casa d'Aste in Genova, Italy.   Misattributed to the 20th century Italian sculptor Angelo Biancini with an unbelievably low estimated sales price. After studying the piece and determining its origins they notified the Historical Heritage Section of Spain's Civil Guard. 

Likewise, the recovery of San Lucas underscores the enduring value of paper, not just digital archival records, which can be critical in ascertaining ownership. It also serves as a reminder that safeguarding religious heritage is not merely a matter of devotion, but of vigilance, without which centuries of cultural history can vanish in a single night.