Blog Subscription via Follow.it

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query center for art law. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query center for art law. Sort by date Show all posts

July 28, 2009

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - No comments

Lessons in Looting

Lessons in Looting
By Stephanie Goldfarb

“Preservation of cultural heritage is of great importance for all peoples of the world and it is important that this heritage should receive international protection.”

Since the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the large-scale looting of Iraq’s cultural treasures from archaeological sites and museums has captured the attention of the world. Civilians, museum directors, archaeologists and politicians have watched with dismay and desperation as the cradle of civilization has been systematically stripped of its cultural heritage. Under the less than watchful gaze of the occupying forces of the United States and its coalition, Iraq fell victim to some of the most extensive and costly wartime looting the world has ever seen. In the shadow of this tragedy, however, lurk the ghosts of lootings past.

The looting of Iraq is an eerie reminder of the state-sponsored looting of Kuwait by Iraq during its August, 1990 invasion and subsequent seven-month occupation. In the wake of current cultural devastation, the systematic pillage of Kuwaiti heritage has been buried in the dust of the Gulf War, ignored and forgotten. Yet the Iraqi looting of Kuwait, particularly of the Kuwait National Museum and Dar al-Athat al-Islamiyya, was one of the greatest art crimes of the twentieth century. In order to understand the significance of the plunder of Kuwait, this event must be contextualized within a history of wartime art looting. Plundering the artistic and cultural heritage of a defeated adversary is a practice stretching back to the earliest civilizations. The scale and purpose of these looting practices has changed throughout history, and an examination of the evolution of wartime thievery of cultural heritage will allow for an understanding of the trajectory which led to the cultural rape of Kuwait in 1990.

In the earliest stages of human civilization, wartime art crimes were committed in order to glorify the victory of the conqueror. The oldest work of art known to be plundered in antiquity is the victory stele of the Akkadian ruler Naram-Sin, which commemorates Naram-Sin’s defeat of the Lullubi in a battle which took place around 2250 BC. In 1158 BC, the Elamites conquered this area and seized the stele as a prize of war, adding an inscription in Elamite which records and “celebrates the Elamite triumph over Naram-Sin’s much the later decscendants”. The victory of the Elamites was emphasized by the pillage of Naram-Sin’s own monument of triumph. There are many other instances of wartime art looting during the first millennium BC: the sack of the Temple of Solomon in 586 BC, the pillage of Athens by Xerxes in 479 BC and again by Sulla in 86 BC, and the seizure of art in defeated provinces by early feudal Chinese kings . All of these examples exhibit a similar underlying motivation—to symbolize the conquering power of the victor.

The Romans perpetuated the tradition of cultural plunder as a symbolic glorification of their conquering empire. The first wide-scale Roman looting took place during the sack of Syracuse between 214 and 212 BC. In The Parallel Lives, Plutarch describes the looting that took place under the direction of the general Marcellus: “He carried back with him the greater part and the most beautiful of the dedicatory offerings in Syracuse, that they might grace his triumph and adorn his city . . . trophies of triumphs”. For Marcellus, bringing home the loot of Syracuse was a way to celebrate his victory and to enrich his own city. Seizing the art of a conquered people and bearing it to Rome was a physical manifestation of Roman strength and virtue, and the pillaged art existed in Rome as constant reminders of military success.

Roman looting continued throughout the republic and into the imperial era. The most notable instance of wartime looting during the Roman Empire occurred during the sack of Jerusalem in 70 BC by the Emperor Titus. The Roman army pillaged the Temple and bore the treasures back to Rome, where the victory, looting and triumphal parade of stolen treasures are still recorded on the Arch of Titus to this day. This depiction in the friezes of the Arch demonstrates how looting had become an integral component of Roman military conquest. Victory was completed by the act of sacking an enemy city and bearing their cultural heritage home as trophies of military superiority: “parading captured artworks . . .symbolized conquest to the citizens of the victorious nation”. In the millennia since these Roman triumphal parades and the erection of monuments celebrating the looting, the Roman experience has become a model for subsequent empires that have adopted the same conception of wartime art looting.

During the Dark Ages and early Middle Ages, however, plundering lost much of the significance which it held during the Roman Empire. In these centuries, looting “tended to be strictly practical, the victorious general being more interested in that which could be eaten, worn, or turned into coin”. Thus, in these centuries, the motivation for art looting had become strictly economic and utilitarian. However, in the Renaissance, the plunder of art was largely propagated for cultural enrichment, which became the primary motivation for wartime looting . The Romans benefited greatly from the pillage of other peoples’ cultural heritage: almost all Roman art, architecture and literature was influenced or inspired by objects looted on the battlefield and paraded back to Rome in triumph. However, cultural enrichment was an added bonus for the Romans, as the main purpose of looting lay in the glorification of Roman victory. In the Renaissance, however, cultural enrichment became the central and primary impetus for the plunder of art. For example, Gustavus Adolphus, the seventeenth century king of Sweden, turned his court at Stockholm into a “cultural center” by filling it with loot plundered from across the continent . However, looting for the enhancement of culture, as practiced by Adolphus and other great plunderers of the Renaissance, would largely disappear with the reign of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Napoleon perpetuated a wide-scale systematic seizure of art which would surpass all art crime which had previously been perpetuated during war. Napoleon strove to model his own empire after that of the Romans and consequently embraced the Roman paradigm of wartime art looting. For Napoleon, looting was thus a declaration of triumph, as it had been for the Romans, but it was also a demonstration of his ideological goals. Napoleon imagined that he was founding a new empire to rival that of Rome, and sought to demonstrate the similarity (but also the superiority) of Napoleonic France to ancient Rome. In order to align himself with the Roman Empire, Napoleon not only embraced the Roman model of looting, but specifically sought to seize the treasures of the Roman Empire itself. For Napoleon, conquering Rome meant conquering a symbol of power, and hence he “took symbolic possession of its treasures rather like a savage eating the heart of a noble enemy in order to ingest his powers”. He believed that “the Romans, once an uncultivated people, became civilized by transplanting to Rome the works of conquered Greece”, and France would do the same.

As a result of this ideological goal, Napoleon’s armies purged Rome of its most treasured cultural objects, including over 500 paintings and sculptures from the Vatican . On July 27-28, 1798, the first envoy carrying the treasures taken by Napoleon in Italy arrived in Paris—an occasion celebrated by the triumphant parade of the looted art through the streets of Paris . This spectacle included some of the most distinguished works of classical art—the Laocoon, the Apollo Belvedere, the Medici Venus, and the Discobolus among others—a parade which “deliberately echoed the classical Roman triumph”. The Horses of San Marco, the great bronze statues which graced San Marco in Venice, were another pivotal item on Napoleon’s wish-list. To Napoleon, the Horses of San Marco were the physical embodiment of the conqueror as plunderer:
The Horses of San Marco sum up, in their eerily beautiful forms, two millennia of cultural plunder. Venice herself had plundered them—from Constantinople after the infamous sack of 1204. But Constantinople, too had obtained them by violence.

As a result, the Four Horses were taken to Paris as yet another emblem of Napoleon’s triumph. Thus, wartime plunder under the reign of Napoleon exhibited a characteristic which had not previously been a major part of looting—the integration of ideology into plunder. Pillage of cultural heritage was perpetuated not only for military glory (as it had been for the Romans), not only for cultural enrichment (as it had been during the Renaissance), but also to further the ideological goals of Napoleon’s regime.

Napoleon further contributed to the development of wartime art plunder by instituting an extensive system of state-sponsored looting in the countries that his armies conquered. Hitherto, looting was largely an activity perpetuated by individual generals or even individual soldiers in an army. During the sack of a city, the conquering general and army would simply take what they desired from the vanquished, without direction from the king or emperor. In contrast, for the first time, Napoleon instituted a government-run, systematic plunder of Europe. In 1794, the Commission Temporaire des Arts established a subcommittee to compile lists of works of art in countries where the republican army was expected invade . Under Napoleon’s specific direction, his armies seized thousands of works of art throughout the countries he invaded. Therefore, under Napoleon, wartime art looting became a large-scale, state-sponsored, military activity perpetrated for ideological and other reasons.

The most well-known large-scale wartime art looting was perpetrated by the Nazis during World War II. However, during the reign of the Nazis, plunder became an entirely different and vastly more dangerous military policy . The Nazi plunder of cultural heritage began with the appropriation and destruction of “degenerate” art in Germany itself and eventually grew into a broad-scale looting operation throughout its many occupied territories. The Nazi art operation began with the seizure of Jewish property, as a component of the larger Nazi propaganda campaign against the Jews. Ultimately art thievery expanded to include any other works that Nazi officers, especially Hitler and Goering, desired—either for personal collections or for Hitler’s intended super-museum in Linz. Art was pillaged throughout the countries which Germany invaded and occupied, including Austria, Poland, France, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Ukraine and Italy.

As under Napoleon, Nazi art looting was state-sponsored, but the Nazis took it to an entirely new level. Seizure and confiscation activities were overseen by Alfred Rosenberg, the intellectual head of the Nazi party, and the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg (ERR), a special division of the Nazi forces charged with “one simple objective: the looting of Europe’s art”. In the judgment delivered at the Nuremberg Trials, it was declared that the Einsatzstab Rosenberg was “a project for the seizure of cultural treasures”. During the trial, Rosenberg was held responsible “for a system of organized plunder of both public and private property throughout the invaded countries of Europe” and was found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging. Such a systematic, government perpetrated execution of art crime was unparalleled in the history of the world. Furthermore, the extent of the activities far surpassed any previous instances of wartime looting. Rosenberg himself aptly proclaimed the looting accomplished by the ERR as “the greatest art operation in history”. An examination of the monetary value of the art seized by the Nazi party proves that this claim was not empty boasting. Francis H. Taylor, the director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, estimated that the total value of all art looted by the Nazis to be $2-2.5 billion, an amount equivalent to $21.6-27 billion today.

What truly distinguished the Nazi art looting from any previous wartime art plunder, however, was the extent to which it was ethnically, religiously and racially motivated. The purposes of wartime art looting are nuanced and complex, and Nazi plunder must be understood as the result of a multiplicity of motivations—economic and political considerations played a role, but plunder was also perpetuated for vital ideological reasons. Looted art provided a continual source of nourishment for the Nazi war machine—art which was not desired for either the personal collections of Hitler and Goering or for the German museums was auctioned off to provide much needed funds. Political revenge also served as a major motivation for Nazi looting. In 1940, Goebbels initiated a project called “Repatriation of Cultural Goods from Enemy States” in order to seize all artwork of German origin or provenance taken from the country since 1500 (and particularly during the Napoleonic Wars). However, art looting by the Nazi party was primarily motivated by the ideology of Aryanism. Art seizures began as yet another way of denigrating the Jewish people and other societal groups deemed inferior by the Germans. The Nazis sought to glorify Germanic works of art and destroy “degenerate” ones. Perpetration of art looting became an extension of the larger Nazi program of ethnic, religious and racial cleansing, and in this way is completely unique from all other wartime art plunder which preceded it.

The emotional and economic devastation which resulted from the Nazi art looting program pervaded Europe in the years after the war. As the complexities of returning the collections of museums, palaces, churches and private collectors from across Europe came to light and with the condemnation of Rosenberg and other leading looters at the Nuremberg trials, the attention of the world became focused on the protection of cultural heritage. The Nazi art operation had shown the world how devastating the impact of art plunder perpetrated to promote ideologies of racial, ethnic and religious cleansing could be. As a result, on May 14, 1954, on the initiative of Italy, UNESCO called a Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict at The Hague which was attended by 86 nations. The nations of the convention declared that “damage to cultural property, belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind” and consequently that “it is important that this heritage should receive international protection” . All ratifying nations agreed in Article 4 Section 3 to “undertake to prohibit, prevent and if necessary, put a stop to any form of theft, pillage or misappropriation of, and any acts of vandalism directed against, cultural property”. Unfortunately, the Hague Convention of 1954 did not prohibit further wartime art looting, as several recent instances demonstrate: the destruction of historic buildings in the Balkans during the 1990’s, the targeting of religious monuments by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 and most recently the nation-wide looting of archaeological sites and museums in Iraq in 2003. Art crime of the post-cold war era combines “the cultural cleansing of World War II and the large-scale looting of the Cold War era”, a terrible combination which is demonstrated not only in the previously given examples but also in the devastating looting of Kuwait in 1991.

During the seven-month Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, the Kuwait National Museum and Dar al-Athat al-Islamiyya were pillaged in one of the greatest wartime art looting expeditions of the twentieth century. On the orders of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi army looted over 20,000 valuable artifacts which were removed to the Iraq National Museum in Baghdad. The seized art was primarily from the Islamic Art Collection housed at the Dar al-Athat al-Islamiyya—an unparalleled collection of Islamic cultural heritage which was on permanent loan to the museum from Sheik Nasser Sabah al-Ahmed al Sabah and his wife Sheika Hussah Sabah al-Salim al-Sabah. The Iraqi army did not constrain itself to looting art. During the occupation, the army also seized important archives from the foreign ministry, the prime minister’s office and other government departments. Nor did Hussein’s army limit its activities to looting. After the museums were thoroughly looted, they were torched during the withdrawal of the Iraqi army from Kuwait in March 1991. The armies not only set fire to the museum, but also gutted the interior of Parliament and burned the library at the Self-Receptor Palace as if they were a “medieval army which conquered, looted and then burned”. The Iraqi pillage of Kuwait thus included not only art, but was a complete and utter destruction of Kuwaiti cultural heritage.
In order to truly understand the significance of the looting of Kuwait, this event must be analyzed within the historical framework of wartime art looting as explicated in this paper. In many ways, the plunder of Kuwait follows in the long historical trajectory of conquerors that seized the property of subjugated nations. Until very recently, art and cultural relics were “widely accepted as ancillary prizes that rightfully fell to the victors of military conflicts”. Thus, looting under the Hussein regime evoked “the behavior of conquerors in earlier wars, including European monarchs and Napoleon”. Just as the Emperor Titus, Napoleon and so many other conquerors had paraded the cultural heritage of defeated nations into their cities as symbols of victory, Saddam Hussein embraced the stolen art as trophies of war. Technology brought the triumphal parades which had once graced the streets of Rome and Paris into the living rooms of the Iraqi people, as Hussein exhibited the collection stolen from the Kuwait National Museum on Iraqi television as “war booty” in September 1990. However, Iraqi wartime looting seems to exceed the bounds of this sort of traditional “law of nature” looting, where the strong exact what they will from the weak.

Rather, in its extent and in the ideological motivations driving the plunder, Iraqi wartime looting most closely recalls the looting by the Nazi party. Looting under the Hussein regime was both formally and ideologically similar to wartime art plunder by the Nazi party:
The systematic looting of public collections in Kuwait by Saddam’s bureaucrats had imperialistic overtones similar to the Nazis’ looting in Eastern Europe during World War II. . .special teams methodically inventoried and confiscated valuable historic, archival, scientific and reference collections in order to reduce the cultural patrimony of a conquered people and increase their own.

Hussein employed a similar system of methodic looting, perpetrated by special teams charged with the seizure of valuable cultural objects, just as the ERR had been under the Nazi regime. Most shockingly, however, for Hussein, just as it had been for the Nazis, the primary purpose of ransacking and ultimately razing Kuwait’s museums was to eliminate its cultural identity. For this reason, the Iraqi troops sought “to confiscate or destroy the cultural artifacts of Kuwait”. Thus, art looting was just one component of a “systematic effort to strip the nation of its very identity”. Hussein’s program of ethnic cleansing motivated the systematic looting of Kuwaiti heritage in an uncanny, uncomfortable resurgence of Nazi art plundering from the previous century. Consequently, the looting of Kuwait is important not only because of the extent of the plundering, but also because of the purposes behind it.

The ethnic, religious and racial cleansing which had motivated Nazi art looting, and which the nations of the world had so desperately sought to prevent in the future, returned in the terrifying cultural rape of Kuwait. Eighty-six nations ratified the Hague Convention of 1954 and thus resolved to protect the cultural heritage of the world from ever again falling victim to the wide-scale wartime plunder of the past several millennia. Yet, the systematic looting of Kuwait’s national heritage during the Iraqi occupation proves that despite this and other resolutions designed to protect cultural heritage, wartime looting is a clear and present danger. Like Hitler before him, Hussein attempted to use the pillage of cultural heritage to strip a nation and a people of its identity and ideals in order to further his program of ethnic cleansing. Yet today, this devastating, methodical destruction of Kuwaiti nationhood is all but forgotten. Thus, the looting of Kuwait’s cultural heritage offers a caveat to all peoples: the horrors of ideological wartime looting are not a ghost of the past; they are a threat of the present. For this reason, protection of cultural heritage must be a priority for all nations.

Bibliography:
Chamberlain, Russell. Loot! The Heritage of Plunder. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1983.
Fisk, Robert. Something Evil Has Visited Kuwait City. The Saddam Hussein Reader: Selections from Leading Writers on Iraq. New York: Thunder's Mouth P, 2002. 288-91.
Hayden-Guest, Anthony. "Great Art Thefts of the 20th Century." Forbes 28 Feb. 2001. Forbes Magazine. 19 Apr. 2009 .
Houpt, Simon. Museum of the Missing: A History of Art Theft. New York: Sterling Publishing Co., 2006.
Knuth, Rebecca. Burning Books and Leveling Libraries: Extremist Violence and Cultural Destruction. Westport: Praeger, 2006.

"Iraq to Return Kuwaiti Loot." Online Article. 14 Aug. 2002. BBC News World Edition. 19 Apr. 2009 .

Merryman, John Henry and Albert E. Elsen. Law, Ethics and the Visual Arts. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987.

Miles, Margaret M. Art As Plunder: The Ancient Origins of Debate about Cultural Property. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Nemeth, Erik. "The Artifacts of Wartime Art Crime: Evidence for a Model of the Evolving Clout of Cultural Property in Foreign Affairs." Art and Crime. Ed. Noah Charney. Santa Barbara: Praeger, 2009.

Nicholas, Lynn H. The Rape of Europa. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.

Plutarch, Parallel Lives: The Life of Marcellus, 21-22.
Riding, Alan. "AFTEREFFECTS: ART OBJECTS; In Kuwait, Lost Items And a Blackened Museum Are Effects of Earlier War." New York Times 11 May 2003, sec. 1: 16. New York Times. 11 May 2003. 19 Apr. 2009 .
United Nations. UNESCO. Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. 1954. The Hague Convention of 1954. 19 Apr. 2009 .
Wines, Michael. "CONFRONTATION IN THE GULF; Iraq Seen Looting Kuwait of Identity." New York Times 29 Sept. 1990, sec. 1: 4. New York Times. 29 Sept. 1990. 19 Apr. 2009 .

May 26, 2021

Theft to Restitution: a timeline of two 9th and 10th century architectural lintels returning to the Thai people after 50 long years

Tatum King, Special Agent in Charge, Homeland Security Investigations with Mungkorn Pratoomkaew, Consul-General of Thailand

While everyone is celebrating the long-overdue restitution to Thailand of the two stolen Khmer lintels, ARCA thought a bit of context might add some additional points to ponder when taking in the carefully-worded, announcements of cultural diplomacy and restitution.

Starting with this work in progress chronology:

25 October 1926
During the reign of King Rama VII, the first law on the export of antiques and objects of art in the country of Siam comes into force. 

The preamble to this law states that in advanced countries the government has the responsibility to conserve antiques and objects of art for the benefit and education of the people. 

This law defined terms for antiques and objects of art, as follows:

Antique, referred to any ancient moveable article, whether originating in Siam or elsewhere, which has value for knowledge or for studying the chronicles and archaeology.

Object of Art referred to a rare article created by craftsmen of special skill.

The Siam Act banned the export of antiques and objects of art without permission from the Royal Institute, and imposed penalties of imprisonment of up to three months, or a fine up to 3,000 baht, or both to violaters.  The Act also set out procedures for applying for permission to export, including presenting the article for inspection, and authorising the search of vehicles, and empowering the court to seize suspect objects without compensation.

23-24 June 1932
A bloodless coup d'état takes place in Siam in a rebellion led by Pridi Phanomyong and Colonel Plaek Phibunsongkhram (Pibul Sonngram) against King Prajadhipok's government.  This event transforms the country's absolute monarchy into a new constitutional monarchy.

30 June 1932 - 20 June 1933 
Phraya Manopakorn serves briefly as prime minister until he is deposed in a subsequent military coup. 

3 April 1933
King Rama VII suspends the constitution and establishes a Council of State.

20-21 June 1933
Three months later, Colonel Phraya Phahon Phonphayuhasena leads a successful rebellion against the Council of State and is appointed as Prime Minister.

1934 written, 1935 comes into force
The country of Siam enacts its first somewhat comprehensive Act on Ancient Monuments, Objects of Art, Antiques and National Museums, which will come into force in 1935.

This act introduces new definitions of antique, ancient monument, object of art, and museum and commands the director-general of the FAD to draw up a registry of ancient monuments, including Buddhist wat (temples) and other religious buildings, both those that have existing owners and those that are ownerless. The heritage act further requires that the director-general has to inform owners in writing of the requirements for registration and if the owner objects to said registration, the matter is to be taken up and adjudicated by a minister. 

Once a monument was entered on the register, it could not be transferred, repaired, modified, altered, or destroyed without written permission from the director-general, and then within conditions imposed by the director-general.  The Act further prohibited the removal of property from Siam that is culturally and/or historically significant except under limited circumstances. 

2 March 1935
King Rama VII abdicates in favour of his nephew, Prince Ananda Mahidol.

24 June 1939
The country of Siam, called Mueang Thai by its citizens, is officially renamed Thailand according to the decision of Field Marshal PlaekPhibunsongkhram, the Prime Minister of Thailand during the Pacific War.

1943
An amending heritage Act is passed by Thailand which removes the requirement for the director-general to gain approval from the minister for the movement of objects between national museums, for disbursements from the central fund, and for the payment of rewards. 

1946 to 1948
Thailand is renamed Siam again for a brief period of two years, after which it again reverted to "Thailand".

1958
The Society for Asian Art is incorporated as an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit founded by a group of individuals dedicated to winning Chicago industrialist, Avery Brundage's art collection for the city of San Francisco.

Among the early organizers active in courting Brundage in hopes that he will donate his extensive art collection to San Francisco are Elizabeth Hay Bechtel, Jane Smyth Brown, Katharine Caldwell, Dorothy Erskine, Gwin Follis, Martha Gerbode, Edwin Grabhorn, Alice Kent, Kitty and Charles Page, Marjorie Bissinger Seller, Mrs. Ferdinand Smith, Wallace B. Smith, Marjorie Stern, and Joe Yuey.  

1959
After considering a number of other major cities, including Chicago, the donor's hometown,  Avery Brundage agrees to donate 7,700 Asian artworks to the city of San Francisco on the condition that the California city builds a museum to house the artefacts and agrees to details outlined in the draft contractual agreement.   Once executed, Brundage's donation ultimately forms the primary core of the collection eventually held by the proposed San Francisco museum.


1960-1961
Black and white photo documentation from a site survey by Manit Wallipodom conducted sometime between 1960 and 1961 shows that a lintel, dating from 1000-1080 CE depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld, remains in situ at Prasat Nong Hong, a Khmer sanctuary in Buriram Province, Thailand which dates to the 16th Buddhist century, and is comprised of three brick pagodas built on the same laterite base and surrounded by a laterite wall with a moat.

1961
The 1961 Act on Ancient Monuments, Antiques, Objects of Art and National Museums, B.E. 2504 comes into force in Thailand deeming cultural objects such as temple lintels, state property.  This law specifically forbids the unlicensed export of archaeological artefacts from registered archaeological sites.

An amendment of Clause 24 extends coverage to, “Antiques or objects of art buried in, concealed or abandoned within the Kingdom or the Exclusive Economic Zone,” where the Exclusive Economic Zone includes the territorial waters of Thailand.

Date Unknown, possibly on/around 2508 Thai (1965) 
The architectural lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld, spanning a doorway at Prasat Nong Hong in Buriram Province is looted.

Date Unknown
The architectural lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld, which once spanned a doorway at Prasat Nong Hong in Buriram Province is illegally exported out of Thailand without the benefit of an export license.

1966
The lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld, from Prasat Nong Hong in Buriram Province is purchased by Avery Brundage in London, UK.  In the Verified Complaint for Civil Forfeiture In Rem, filed in the US Courts in the Northern District of California - San Francisco Division, the name of this auction house/gallery is not revealed and is cited simply as "Gallery 1."

Subsequent to its purchase in the UK, the architectural lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld from Prasat Nong Hong in Buriram Province is imported into the United States in violation of Thai law, and as such constitutes stolen, smuggled, and/or clandestinely imported or introduced merchandise pursuant to Title 19, United States Code, Section 1595a(c)(1)(A).

August 1966
Scholar Michael Sullivan estimates that the Avery Brundage's private collection includes at least 5,000 objects, of which three-fifths are Chinese, 500 are Japanese, 300 are Korean, and the remaining being from the Indian subcontinent and south-east Asia.  

Later in 1966
After its import, the lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld from Prasat Nong Hong also joins the promised collection to be gifted by Avery Brundage to the future Asian Art Museum of San Francisco.

"With respect to the lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld from Prasat Nong Hong, the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco had several letters documenting exchanges between Brundage and representatives of "Gallery 1" concerning the purchase of art.  Among other things, one of the representatives of "Gallery 1" and Brundage exchanged letters concerning the potential that at least one lintel that Brundage had purchased had been stolen from Thailand and that another artefact had been taken out of Thailand illegally. 

These records also included archaeological surveys from Thailand, indicating that the lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld had been removed from Prasat Nong Hong temple. These communications concretise that the museum's donor was at least peripherally aware that at least a portion of his collection had been illegally exported from Thailand and that the museum itself had records that concretised the suspect nature of the artefact. 

1967
Photo documentation from a survey done by M. C. Subhadradis Diskul shows that a lintel, depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland, dating from 975-1025 CE, remains in situ at Prasat Khao Lon, a brick temple in Khmer architectural style, built approximately in the early 11th century, located in Charoensuk Village, Taprach sub-district, Tapraya district, Sakaeo province.

Date Unknown
The architectural lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland spanning a doorway at Prasat Khao Lon in Sakaeo province is looted.

Date Unknown
The architectural lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland, which once spanned a doorway at Prasat Khao Lon in Sakaeo province, is illegally exported out of Thailand without the benefit of an export license.

Between 1968 and 1969
Negotiations are underway with Avery Brundage regarding the city of San Francisco receiving the second part of his collection.   Talks are started at the end of John Francis "Jack" Shelley's tenure as the city's mayor and continue through Mayor-elect Joseph L. Alioto who began the first of his two terms of office in 1968. 

In furtherance of this goal, Mayor Alioto and the Board of Supervisors draft a municipal ordinance that will formally establish the museum, then called the Center for Asian Art and Culture.  This independent municipal entity is to be governed by the Asian Art Commission. In addition, the Asian Art Museum Foundation is created to function as the institution's principal fundraiser. 

Once registered, the new museum is initially opened as a wing of the  M. H. de Young Memorial Museum in Golden Gate Park.

1968
The lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland is purchased by the Asian Art Museum from a Paris gallery with the advice of Avery Brundage.

Subsequent to its purchase the architectural lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland is imported into the United States in violation of Thai Law, and constitutes stolen, smuggled, and/or clandestinely imported or introduced merchandise pursuant to Title 19, United States Code, Section 1595a(c)(1)(A).

1968
The lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland is accessioned into the collection of the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco. 

According to the Verified Complaint for Civil Forfeiture In Rem, filed in the Northern District of California - San Francisco Division, letters between Avery Brundage and representatives of an again unnamed gallery, cited simply as "Gallery 2" concerning the lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland indicate that a Thai lintel in Brundage's possession has been reported as stolen by the Thai government and the Thai government had asked Avery Brundage to return said lintel. Avery Brundage subsequently seeks the advice of a representative of "Gallery 2" regarding the situation. 

The records included a copy of an article published in the Bangkok Post which describes the lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland as being present in the United States and indicated that, according to the leader of a Thai archaeological conservation group, Thai officials want to recover the lintel as it had been improperly looted from Thailand. 

1973 
The Center for Asian Art and Culture is rebranded as the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco

June 1973
Avery Brundage marries Princess Mariann Charlotte Katharina Stefanie von Reuss, daughter of Heinrich XXXVII, Prince of Reuss-Köstritz.  She is 37 years old.  He is 85. 

8 May 1975
Avery Brundage dies. 

3 March 1977
According to the Royal Gazette no 52, The Fine Art Department announces that Prasat Nong Hong has been listed as a national historic site.

1987
San Francisco mayor Dianne Feinstein proposes a plan to revitalize Civic Center which includes relocating the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, which has outgrown its Golden Gate Park location, to the stately beaux-arts library building designed in 1917 by architect George Kelham.

1988
San Francisco’s Main Library is slated to move to a new facility and the city begins to redesign the 1917 library facilities into its new state-of-the-art home for the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco collection. 

16 July 1989
According to the Royal Gazette no 106, chapter 112, The Fine Art Department announced that Prasat Khao Lon has also been listed as a national historic site.

2003
Renovations orchestrated by Italian architect Gae Aulenti are complete on the former San Francisco library and the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco moves into its newly designed 163,000 square-foot museum space located at Civic Center Plaza.  It is now the largest institution of exclusively Asian arts in the United States.

By 2010
Of the approximate18,000 objects held by the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, approximately 40% are derived from donations made by the museum's founding collector Avery Brundage.


Late July 2012
Activists with the Asians Art Museum's Samurai Blog create edible tortilla art which features a graphic representation of Avery Brundage as a severed Buddha head.  They distribute these food treats to museum-goers at the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco along with a highly critical flyer about the founding donor's collecting ethics surrounding his acquisitions and his subsequent donations to the museum. 


At this point, the San Francisco museum's administration should have no doubt, that not just art historians, but members of the local Asian community in San Francisco have begun to have concerns regarding the acquisition practices of the museum's founding donor as well as the ethical responsibility of the museum to address the city taxpayers' concerns. 



2 August 2016
The Facebook Group สำนึก ๓๐๐ องค์ publishes its own concerns regarding Avery Brundage's acquisitions.  Activists post photos of the architectural lintel depicting  Yama, the deity of the underworld from Prasat Nong Hong on their group's Facebook page which is dedicated to identifying looted Thai heritage. The series of photos depict the temple, with the lintel in situ prior to its theft.  The social media post further records that the artefact is on display at the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco.  

NB, This Civil Society Organization will go on to raise awareness and identify a series of suspect Thai sculptures and architectural artefacts in various museums around the globe.

August 2016
A Peace Corps member based in Thailand emails the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco imploring the museum to return the lintel depicting  Yama, the deity of the underworld from Prasat Nong Hong to the local community. 

on/around 24 September 2016
The Consul General of the Royal Thai Consulate General in Los Angeles, California visits the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco and observes both looted lintels on prominent display in the museum. 

Subsequently, the Royal Thai Consulate General speaks with the lead curator of the museum and expresses his desire for these two artefacts to be returned to their country of origin. 

The museum, however, made no further communication with the consul general or any Thai official until nudged into action by the formal US federal investigation. 

31 May 2017
The Thai Minister of Culture meets with the Chargé d'affaires at the United States Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand along with a Special Agent from Homeland Security Investigations.  During this meeting, the Thai Minister informs the Chargé that Thai officials had reviewed the evidence regarding the architectural lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld illegally removed from Prasat Nong Hong and the lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland, illegally removed from Prasat Khao Lon, both of which are held at the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco.  After their review, the Thai authorities conclude that the artefacts have been illegally exported from the country while both architectural elements were protected under the laws in place in Siam/Thailand since 1935. 

In making their case for the objects' return, the Fine Arts Department of Thailand had commissioned two archaeological surveys outlining the provenance of the lintels. One survey placed the lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld at the Prasat Nong Hong Temple in Non Din Daeng District, Buriram Province, Thailand in place at least until, at least up until 1959. 

Subsequent archaeological photos record the lintel in situ until the survey season of 1960/61. 

The second archaeological survey placed the lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland at the Prasat Khao Lon Temple, Ta Phraya District, Sa Kaeo Province where the object was photographed in situ as late as 1967.

13 June 2017
Thailand forms a restitution committee with the established mission of reclaiming Thailand’s plundered historical artefacts from foreign nations. 

2017
The US Government informally brings the issue of the plundered architectural lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld illegally removed from Prasat Nong Hong and the plundered lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland to the attention of the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco informing them of the rights of the Thai government as a potential claimant to the artefacts.  Subsequent to this meeting, both artefacts are removed from public view but no statements are forthcoming from the museum's management regarding any decision to voluntary restitute the stolen artefacts.

November 2017
The US Homeland Security Investigation (HSI) sends Thailand photos of 69 ancient artefacts for examination and verification as possibly suspect as having been illegally brought into the US.

According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Thailand,  HSI sent the photos to the Thai Consulate in Los Angeles and requested the Thai authorities to examine and verify if they were from Thailand.

October/November 2018 
Following a one-year investigation by a ministerial committee, assisted by experts from the National Museum in Bangkok, the Kingdom of Thailand’s culture minister announces the Thai government’s demand for the return of 23 antiquities, including the two lintels at the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco, as well as other objects in the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, and New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art all parts of collections since the late 1960s.

January 2020
Another two years go by and the US. attorney's office in the Northern District of California sends the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco a list of national archaeology sites that were appended to Thailand’s 1935 law.   Listed among the sites are the two temples where the two contested lintels in the museum's collection come from.

June 2020
Facing increasing criticism surrounding Avery Brundage's well-documented antisemitic, racist, and sexist views, pervasive throughout his career, as well as questions around restitution, Dr. Jay Xu, director of the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, advises the press that the museum plans to eventually move Avery Brundage's commemorative bronze bust, created by artist Jean Sprenger and on display in the museum's lobby, to “a discreet space” where the public can learn about museum's donor and “where the core of our collection came from.” 

Xu also indicates that the museum will hold public programs to critically examine Brundage and his legacy, “as well as questions around provenance and restitution.”

July 2020
The Asian Art Museum of San Francisco is formally notified that the U.S. attorney’s office is planning civil litigation to ensure the return of the plundered architectural lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld illegally removed from Prasat Nong Hong and the plundered lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland from Prasat Khao Lon.


6 July 2020
The Asian Art Museum of San Francisco places a white box over Avery Brundage's commemorative bronze bust.

on/around 13 July 2020

August 2020
The Bangkok Post reports that according to the Thai Department of Fine Arts (DFA), the lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld from Prasat Nong Hong and the lintel, depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland from Prasat Khao Lon in the collection of the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco are predicted to be returned to Thailand in March 2021.

24 August 2020
The Thai Public Broadcasting Service  (องค์การกระจายเสียงและแพร่ภาพสาธารณะแห่งประเทศไทย produces a documentary (in Thai) outlining the facts surrounding the stories of the contested lintels removed from Thailand.


22 September 2020
The Asian Art Museum of San Francisco releases a statement saying that the museum's board is noted to have begun the deaccession process for the lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld from Prasat Nong Hong and the lintel, depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland from Prasat Khao Lon.  Note that this decision only seems to have moved forward four years after attention was drawn to their suspect status.


In its press release, the museum further stated:
"The museum’s study found no evidence that these lintels were removed from their sites contrary to the laws of Thailand, but the museum was also unable to locate copies of the export documents that the laws of that time required. With this information in hand, the museum felt it was appropriate to begin the process of deaccessioning the artworks from the collection and to move forward with returning them to the Thai authorities."

8 October 2020
Ahead of the upcoming civil filing, lawyers from the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco sends a letter to the U.S. attorney’s office, indicating the museum's surprise over the government's plan for legal action and that the museum had previously stated that it “would prefer to return the lintels without litigation.”  

In filing the complaint with the court, under Title 19, United States Code, Section 1595a(c)(1)(A) and Title 28, United States Code, Sections 1345 and 1355 it is believed that the lintels constitute merchandise that has been introduced into the United States contrary to law, as the property was stolen, smuggled, and/or clandestinely imported or introduced into the United States. 

30 October 2020 
Speaking with regards to the formal complaint in an Art Newspaper article, Robert Mintz, deputy director for art and programs at the San Francisco Asian Art Museum,  contends that the process for repatriating both lintels was already underway prior to the civil complaint.  Mintz tells the newspaper that “Deaccessioning requires two votes, separated by six months’ time,” indicating that this was the reason for the museum's apparently sluggish March 2021 date for potential restitution.   

Mintz doesn't seem to recollect that the museum was first informally notified by the US authorities of the problems with these Thai artefacts in 2017, and after having been queried by the Royal Thai Consulate General in 2016. Time enough to have allowed the board to meet a minimum of six times to address the deaccession of these problematic pieces prior to the filing of the US Federal Complaint.

10 February 2021
The United States and the City and County of San Francisco enter into a settlement agreement signed by U.S. District Court Magistrate Donna M. Ryu, in which San Francisco consents to the forfeiture to the United States of the Lintel with Yama, the deity of the underworld, 1000-1080 (Lintel 1) and the Lintel, 975-1025. Northeastern Thailand, Khao Lon Temple, Sa Kaeo province (Lintel 2).

Upon the completion of the San Francisco Asian Art Museum’s deaccessioning process for the Thai lentils in March 2021, their repatriation to Thailand should move forward.

The Thai lintels, according to the agreement, will be returned to Thailand through the U.S. Department of Justice’s victim remission program. Upon their return, the lintels will be placed on exhibition for the religious and cultural appreciation of the people of Thailand.   


25 May 2021
The Thai lintels depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld from Prasat Nong Hong and the lintel, depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland from Prasat Khao Lon are handed over to Thai authorities in Los Angeles during a formal handover ceremony attend by Mungkorn Pratoomkaew,  Consul-General of Thailand and carried out by Tatum King, Special Agent in Charge of Homeland Security Investigations in San Francisco.

In an interview with the Star Tribune David Keller, the Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent who oversaw this case over the last four years said that officials believe that European dealers illegally exported the lintels out of Thailand.

28 May 2021 (Thai 2564)
The two Thai lintels are expected to fly back home via Korean Air and to arrive at Suvarnabhumi Airport in Bangkok, Thailand on Friday evening local time.  Once back on Thai soil, they will be received by officials from the Fine Arts Department and then put on public display at the National Museum until July.

March 15, 2017

Fighting Art Trafficking and Art Crime in Bosnia: the work of CPKU


By: Helen Walasek

The importance of South East Europe as a major route for the illicit trafficking of looted and stolen art and antiquities, as well as a source region itself is recognised by international art crime researchers and professionals. However, the activities of the Tuzla-based Center Against Trafficking in Works of Art (Centar Protiv Krijumčarenja Umjetninama – CPKU), the only organisation in Bosnia-Herzegovina dedicated to documenting and fighting art crime, is not as well-known as it should be. 

CPKU is also playing a role in focusing attention on one of the great unanswered questions of the 1992–1995 Bosnian War: that of the enormous amount of cultural property looted during the conflict. This has never been adequately addressed, either with regard to the detailed documentation of missing objects, or investigation of the movement, destination and whereabouts of looted cultural property. Nor (so far as the author is aware) have any formal claims for restitution of looted cultural property been made by governmental or institutional authorities. 

Since the centre was established in December 2014, CPKU has worked to establish a national system of coordination and cooperation on art crime between national and international agencies and owners of cultural property (both public and private). Yet despite being the only state-wide organisation working in the field, the centre is often told by international bodies that as an NGO it does not have the authority to deal with these issues. However, as CPKU’s founder-director Dženan Jusufović has pointed out, official bodies which should be dealing with such issues, simply aren’t. Nevertheless, CPKU is having a significant impact in creating a greater awareness of the issue in official bodies and continues to forge a growing number of links with law enforcement and judicial agencies in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

In October 2015 CPKU convened its first major event, a roundtable conference on the illicit traffic in art in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which brought together over 40 representatives from key stakeholders engaged in the fight against organised crime and war crimes, including international, national and entity agencies and law enforcement bodies, as well as from cultural institutions such as museums and galleries, alongside private collectors and NGOs.

Growing out of the conference were calls for the creation of a national database of missing works of art and other cultural property, for training in art crime for law enforcement officers, prosecutors and the judiciary, and for the formation of specialised art crimes units. Parallel with this, the holders of cultural goods (whether public or private) were urged to assist in the fight against the illicit traffic in cultural property by regularly updating their documentation of objects (including making good quality photographic documentation). 

Since then CPKU has produced guidelines for documenting works of art and reporting thefts, as well as providing detailed instructions on the best ways of photographing objects for documentation purposes (both downloadable from the CPKU website). Last year it published the first manual (also downloadable ) on the illicit art trade in Bosnia-Herzegovina which incorporates information on the legal international and national legal framework, how art is trafficked across the country and the region, and suggested preventive measures, as well as reproducing the sample documentation instructions.

A public awareness-raising event/performance, Giants of Art (Velikani Likovne Umjetnosti), was held in partnership with the National Gallery of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Association of Artists of Bosnia-Herzegovina at the Sarajevo-based gallery in April 2016 to alert the wider public to the issue of missing works of art – some of which had no photographic documentation.

All these initiatives have been supported by CPKU’s principal partner, the French Embassy in Sarajevo. The embassy was also instrumental in bringing Corinne Chartrelle, Deputy Head of France’s L'Office Central de Lutte Contre le Trafic de Biens Culturels (OCBC), to speak at a recent CPKU seminar on the illicit art market at the headquarters of the Centre for Judicial and Prosecutorial Training of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina (CEST).

By May 2017 CPKU hopes to release a database of artworks missing or stolen from Bosnia-Herzegovina. Dženan Jusufović has noted that only thirteen cases of stolen artwork from Bosnia are registered on Interpol’s database of stolen art, despite that thousands of items of cultural property disappeared during or in the aftermath of the 1992–1995 war.

In addition to ongoing support from the French Embassy, CPKU also has partnerships or cooperation with national and international bodies and institutions, including ICOM Observatory, Interpol, UNESCO, ICOM Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Centre for Judicial and Prosecutorial Training of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina (CEST), the British Council, the National Gallery of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Historical Museum of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Association of Artists of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Faculty of Law at University of Tuzla, the NGO Akcija, and other museums, galleries, heritage institutions and legal-judicial bodies. 

For further information contact:
Centar Protiv Krijumčarenja Umjetninama (CPKU)
Atelje Ismet Mujezinović
Klosterska 19
75000 Tuzla 
Bosnia-Herzegovina

Email: cpkubih [at] gmail [dot] com
Phone: +387 61 185 733
Website: www.cpku.org
Facebook: Centar-protiv-krijumčarenja-umjetninama

January 3, 2020

Friday, January 03, 2020 - No comments

Noah Charney, leading expert on art crime and founder of ARCA, will teach at ARCA's 2020 Postgraduate Program in Art Crime and Cultural Heritage Protection

This year, the ARCA Postgraduate Program in Art Crime and Cultural Heritage Protection will be held from May 28 through August 12, 2020 in the beautiful heart of Umbria in Amelia, Italy. In the months leading up to the start of the program, this year’s lecturers will be interviewed. My first interview is with Noah Charney, the founder of ARCA, who will return to Amelia this summer to teach on our program. Noah is having coffee in one of the picturesque old coffee bars in the center of Ljubljana, near the famous Triple Bridge, and is pleased to tell about his plans for the summer.

By Edgar Tijhuis


Noah Charney ARCA program
Can you tell us something about your background and work? 

I was trying to decide what to study--traditional art history or playwriting believe it or not--when I stumbled into the field of art crime. I originally decided to study art history but did so in London where I could also go see a lot of plays. During that time I thought I wanted to be a playwright and actually got an agent for my plays. But she said that it was far easier to make a living as a novelist than a playwright and did I maybe have a novel in mind? I didn't, but I got started writing. It was the era of The Thomas Crown Affair and The Da Vinci Code and I thought I'd try something along those lines. As I began my research I realized that there was very little published on true art crimes, especially from an academic angle. The outcome was I wound up writing The Art Thief, which I was very lucky with.

My interest in studying art crime was piqued at that point and eventually I shifted from art history into criminology, in order to focus on its motivating factors. Turns out I was one of the very few academics drawn to studying this type of crime. While working towards my PhD I organized a conference in Cambridge that brought together art police and academics researching art related crimes. I got lucky again and the conference and this blending of law enforcement and academia were written up in The New York Times. This really kicked things off and was the starting point for my deciding to found ARCA as a research association on art crime, in order to bring together individuals from the various disciplines and specializations that, at the time, seemed so separated from one another.

What is new for you in 2020? 

I've got a number of book projects, and I'm trying to focus more on books (which are more fun, creative and relaxing) and less on smaller, busy work like articles and editing. We're about to release our first round of books via ARCA Publications, the imprint that we launched via our successful Kickstarter campaign last year. We're a bit behind schedule (as we guessed we would be), but now the books are in layout and are looking beautiful. I'm working on two new books of my own with a new art publisher, Rowman & Littlefield. One is called The Devil in the Gallery, and it is about how negative things actually helped shape and advance art. The other is called Making It: The Rising Artist's Handbook and is a co-authored project with a friend of mine, the great contemporary artist JASA. It is a handbook for art students and aspiring artists, told through the story of a successful artist who learned things the hard way--a bit of a parallel to Anthony Bourdain's Kitchen Confidential but for the art world. I'm hoping that a long-term project with Google will come to fruition, involving the creation of a sort of "museum of lost art" based on my recent book. Finally, I've been asked to design a grand tour on behalf of Atlas Obscura and AirBnB, a sort of "around the world in famous art thefts," and that should be great fun.

What sets the ARCA program apart from others developed later? 

I'm very proud of ARCA's post graduate program, both in terms of what we have created, and what it has supported its graduates to gone on and do professionally. The program itself was written up in a separate article in the New York Times specifically because of its distinctive subject matter and for it being the first program of its kind in the world, in which one could study art crime but also in a very unique and distinctive format. The program runs every summer over 11 weeks and we bring in 11-15 world experts in varying disciplines who each teach, or co-teach, one of eleven course modules, each of which are interconnected and make up the foundation of our postgraduate-level professional development program. Some of our lecturers include Richard Ellis, the founder of Scotland Yard's Art and Antiques Squad, Marc Masurovsky, who is an expert on Holocaust looted assets, Dorit Straus, who is an art insurance underwriting expert who also sits on the United State's Cultural Property Advisory Committee, and Dick Drent, the former director of security for the Van Gogh Museum who is a risk management consultant for museums around the globe. We are also lucky to have a judge, three criminologists and two archaeologists as primary course professors and guest lecturers who come in every year and speak on current cases and art crime deterrent initiatives, which add to the diversity of material we cover.

I myself teach our history of art crime course, which has a heavy emphasis on forgery. In developing our format, students pursuing MAs and PhDs and professionals can take the program over the course of one summer, or split the program up over two summers and still get the time to explore Italy and Europe. Setting up the program in this way also allows us to bring major experts in the fields, who otherwise have full-time jobs elsewhere, to teach with us one week or two weeks each summer, sharing their knowledge.

Since ARCA's first year of programming in 2009, we have now trained more than 275 alumni who come from 36 different countries around the world and from all different professional backgrounds. Some of our participants go on to work on Masters degrees or their own PhD's, and others already work in allied art industry fields. What's interesting is that the profile of our participants cuts across all disciplines and age groups from those in their twenties to mature senior learners. We have had graduates invent new careers in the field, some who have moved on to prominent roles at art law firms, consulting with UNESCO and other heritage organizations, or who blaze their own trails, working in the fields of provenance research or within museums in varying capacities.

It is always a wonderfully bonded group that falls in love with the town of Amelia in Italy where the program has been held for more than a decade and who stay in touch with one another, networking long after the program concludes. That chemistry and diversity is something that we are very proud of. Another thing we are proud of is our training of scholars working in conflict countries. Last season we ran a Kickstarter campaign to raise funds so we could offer more scholarships to heritage professionals from countries where cultural heritage is particularly at risk as the result of war and or poverty. Since 2015 we have been able to give scholarships to professionals working in Yemen and Iraq and Syria and we would like to be able to do more in this capacity.

What would a typical day be like in your classroom?

Our program schedule is very intensive -- 5 hours a day for 5 days a week. But while there are a lot of lecture hours, 220 over the course of all 11 course modules, the overall feeling during the summer is quite relaxed. Classes begin at 10:30 in the morning so it is not exactly at the crack of dawn. We also have a generous 2-hour break for lunch and classes finish by 5:30 in the evening so participants still have time to adjourn to lovely gardens or cafes and to enjoy some wine and pizza.

Amelia 
We also try to balance the quantity of home-based assignments with in classroom assignments. For me, I love teaching and the 5 hours a day of lectures I give fly by. Teaching the history of art crime with a focus on forgery, my goal is to highlight historical case studies that help participants understand how to analyze criminal cases. Even when we have incomplete information on the crime committed by delving into these historical examples we shed light on present and future issues. I also always include a bonus lecture for our participants that focuses on strategies for writing their thesis or any academic journal article. If there is time and enough interest, I also include a second bonus lecture on how to get published and earn money as a freelance writer. There are lots of lessons that I had to learn through experience that I think can really help people and it's my pleasure to offer anything I can to help our participants who are interested in writing, whatever their age or background might be.

While each year participants are very enthusiastic about your course, is there anything you learn from them in class?

I am always learning and part of the fun is the fact that art crime is both so understudied and also so multifaceted. As only a limited amount of material has been published in detail on this subject area, and as so few people in the world have historically focused on art crime in the art world, each person who studies with us has a chance to make a real and meaningful contribution by exploring the nuances of the genre. By the very reason that this subject area is a rare though important field of study, postgraduate scholars can make real breakthroughs that can really shake things up and contribute to the knowledge base within this sector. As an emerging area of focus, there are lots of empty spaces and unanswered questions that need to be filled in.

One of the field trips
For example one of our earliest participants focused on the specific ways certain criminals had passed off forgeries and looted works of art as legitimate. By fabricated documents to create a plausible collection history of the artwork, what people in the art trade call provenance documentation, this disreputable player had created a wholly fictitious backstory in order to legitimize the sale of objects on the art market. Knowing that there was no real focus on gathering and confirming or discounting presented documentation in order to determine an object's illegitimacy, the criminals had laundered artworks onto the market with impunity.

When I talked about some of the ways that historically criminals have tricked the art trade and buyers one participant explained that in their country, in many art market situations and sales environments there isn't anyone whose job it is to verify an objects providence, or to determine whether or not the consigned object or its paperwork, were forged. The fact that an industry the size of the art market was so intentionally vulnerable, all in the name of sales, was a real eye opener.

What makes the yearly ARCA program so unique? 

The program is unique. That phrase is often used as hyperbole but in this case it is very true. ARCA's PG Cert was the very first program in the world where you could study art crime in an interdisciplinary academic way. There have since been other programs developed that have popped up long after ours was initiated but they tend to focus on specific subsections of art crime, such as criminal investigation or law as it relates to specific countries, or to the illicit trade in antiquities. Whereas ours remains the only comprehensive program out there. So for me, if someone wants to study our crime I believe this is still the only place where one can really do it full justice as we aren't restricted to one subject discipline.

Is there anything you can recommend for future participants to do in Amelia or Umbria?

Corpus Domini - Flower Festival
Amelia is a wonderful place to spend a summer and our participants inevitably fall in love with the town and the region and the people in the city and their fellow participants. Many of our alumni come back to our summer art crime conference every year not just for the interesting scholarship but also as an excuse to visit old friends and colleagues. Over the course of a summer it is also easy for participants to explore every nook and cranny of Amelia as it is modest in size but with surprising riches such as a city's spectacular Duomo.

Borrowing a car, or better still, a friend with a car, is a great thing to do because there are wonderful day trips to do near Amelia. There are many wonderful towns worth seeing in Italy, and I'm not just talking about the grand tour cities of Rome and Florence and Venice and Naples. Bomarzo, with its amazing and crazy mannerist sculpture garden, is full of these stone sculptures of giants and monsters that are much larger than life size and which is only a half hour away from where we are based. Orvieto and Viterbo, Civita di Bagnoregio, Narni, Spoleto...are also gems worth visiting.

Civita di Bagnoregio
Maybe one of the nicest activities to do that is beyond the traditional beaten tourist path is to attend a summer sagra. This village food festivals pop up all over Italy throughout the summer. Each one has a theme focusing on a special food from their area and during these it is like a giant pop-up communal restaurant filled with local townspeople, eating at long tables. These provide lots of camaraderie and dancing and are a cheap way to enjoy delicious speciality eats with locals.

Can you tell us something about your books outside the field of art and crime? 

While I'm known mostly for my books on art crime I've also enjoyed branching out in recent years. I just finished helping a famous Slovenian chef with his latest cookbook and I had great fun publishing a book about my adventures living in Slovenia called Slovenology. This book has been very well received and translated into several languages. I seem to be known for two things: art crime and for being an American expat in Slovenia. I hope I have brought some positive changes and interpretations to both of these subjects!

For a detailed prospectus and application materials or for general questions about this postgraduate program please contact us at education@artcrimeresearch.org

Edgar Tijhuis
Edgar Tijhuis serves as the Academic Director at ARCA and is a visiting scholar at the Institute of Criminology in Ljubljana. He is responsible for the postgraduate certificate program in the study of art crime and cultural heritage protection and since 2009, has taught criminology modules within the ARCA program.

January 25, 2019

Duncan Chappell returns to Amelia to this summer to teach "Art and Heritage Law" at ARCA's Postgraduate Program in Art Crime and Cultural Heritage Protection

By Edgar Tijhuis 

In 2019, the ARCA Postgraduate Program in Art Crime and Cultural Heritage Protection will be held from May 30 through August 14, in the heart of Umbria, in Amelia, Italy. In the months leading up to the start of the program, this year’s professors will be interviewed. In this occasion, I am speaking with Dr. Duncan Chappell, a lawyer and criminologist, who also serves as Chair of the International Advisory Board of the Australian Research Council’s Center of Excellence in Policing and Security and is the former Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology.

Can you tell us something about your background and work? 

I have enjoyed a rather peripatetic and varied career which began in the remote Australian island state of Tasmania, or Van Diemen’s Land as it was originally called by its 1642 Dutch discoverer, Abel Tasman. It later became infamous as the dumping ground for most of the criminals transported by the British following Australia’s establishment as a European settlement and penal colony in 1788, all described in an entertaining and comprehensive way by the late art critic Robert Hughes in his book, The Fatal Shore.

I graduated with dual degrees in Arts and Law from the University of Tasmania in the early 1960’s and then received a scholarship with the University of Cambridge where I completed a PhD in criminal law and criminology. I should probably add that my original choice when arriving in Cambridge was to study for an international law degree with a view to perhaps joining eventually the Australian foreign service. However, on arrival at my Cambridge college in 1962 I was persuaded by my college supervisor to go and chat with Professor Leon Radzinowitz about possibly becoming a member of the then newly established Cambridge Institute of Criminology. It was at that point that I guess that I became an accidental criminologist! 

I suspect that many career choices are made in this way! But it also proved to be a happy choice because at that time there were very few lawyers who also had criminological qualifications. As a result I had no difficulty getting a job back in Australia when I graduated in 1965 where I took a job which involved teaching criminal law and criminology to law students at the University of Sydney, the academic institution where now in 2019 I remain an honorary faculty member.

During 50 years or so I have been very fortunate to live and work in a number of countries and professional settings including the United States, Canada and Italy. I think it was in part the Italian experience in the 1990’s when I was attached to the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute [UNICRI] in Rome that I first began to develop an extensive interest in art crime, as I witnessed the richness of Italy’s cultural heritage and also learned of the rampant plunder of its antiquities that was occurring as well as the measures being taken to try and prevent it. 

That interest in heritage crime has continued to the present time and led to numbers of collaborative multidisciplinary research and writing projects on topics ranging from fraud in the indigenous art market in Australia to the illicit traffic in cultural property in Vietnam.

What do you feel is the most relevant aspect of your course?

The course that I have now taught at ARCA for the past five years provides a broad based introduction to those aspects of art and cultural heritage law that relate to theft, fraud and looting. Reflecting the students who participate in the course, it is designed for a multi-disciplinary audience although much of the relevant law, national and international, does raise some rather tricky and complex legal issues.

What do you hope participants will get out of your course?

I hope they will begin to appreciate and understand some of the legal and practical challenges that exist in combating any form of art crime. To assist this process one of the key features of the course is the choice each participant makes to select a particular area of the online art market to study in more depth, as theft and fraud can be persistent problems in the digital market. The choice they make then forms the basis of a short classroom presentation, and is extrapolated on in greater detail in a formal research paper. The range and quality of the presentations and papers resulting from this process has been quite astounding.

The necropolis of Banditaccia
Image Credit:  ARCA
What would a typical day be like in your classroom? 

In addition to the presentations, as much as possible I seek to stimulate discussion and dialogue throughout my classes. We also spend one day in a field class visiting the World Heritage listed Etruscan necropolis site at Cerveteri, Banditaccia.  There, entering the city of the dead of a now disappeared civilization, among the graves, we get a look at what history loses during illegal excavations, as unprotected Etruscan sites throughout Italy have been looted and robbed. This visit helps to encourage lively discussion about the complexity of protecting cultural heritage.

While each year participants are very enthusiastic about your course, is there anything you learn from them in the class? 

I have been massively impressed by, and grateful for, what I have learned from the wonderful individuals who have participated in the ARCA program over the years I have been associated with it. The richness and variety of the experience and knowledge they communicate has been one of the enduring strengths and delights of the program for me.

In anticipation of your courses, what book, article, or movie would you recommend to students?

For a rollicking account of the contemporary art market I strongly recommend reading Don Thompson’s book The Orange Balloon Dog. And for a little more detailed historical background and description of that market Phillip Hook’s Rogues Gallery which is equally stimulating and quite informative. 

For a detailed prospectus and application materials or for general questions about this postgraduate program please contact us at education@artcrimeresearch.org


Edgar Tijhuis serves as the Academic Director at ARCA and is a visiting scholar at the Institute of Criminology in Ljubljana. He is responsible for the postgraduate certificate program in the study of art crime and cultural heritage protection and since 2009, has taught criminology modules within the ARCA program.