Summary
- In October 2013, Elizabeth H. Moore, then Professor of South East Asian Art and Archaeology at SOAS, University of London, donated to SOAS a ceramic vessel about 2,000 years old from Ban Chiang, Southeast Asia’s most important prehistoric site.
- The Ban Chiang archaeological site was rampantly looted, particularly during the early 1970s, which is when Prof. Moore said her former husband bought the vessel in Bangkok or Singapore.
- The vessel, if indeed a Ban Chiang antiquity as Prof. Moore stated, is very likely grave goods looted and illegally exported from Thailand.
- SOAS officials accepted the vessel without conducting any due diligence.
- This is the second example exposed so far of SOAS accepting a Thai antiquity without proper due diligence. The first example occurred in March 2018, when SOAS art historians encouraged and facilitated the university’s acceptance of an unprovenanced 13th-century Thai Buddha sculpture valued at 60,000 euros from a pair of Postgraduate Diploma in Asian Art alumni.
- SOAS should immediately contact Thai authorities about these two potentially looted objects of Thai cultural property.
- These cases raise the question of whether SOAS owns more illicit artefacts from other countries around the world. Very little information about SOAS’s collection, mostly held in storage, is publically available.
- The role of SOAS art historians in both cases highlights the engagement of academic staff in the art market – and the lack of SOAS ethical guidelines for such activity.
- Both items also involve SOAS art historians who are now running SOAS’s £15 million Alphawood Southeast Asian art programme. Their careless attitude towards Thai cultural heritage draws into question SOAS’s dedication to the stated purpose of the programme to ‘preserve’ ancient Southeast Asian art.
Below, I discuss this situation in detail, citing the information I received from SOAS under the Freedom of Information Act. The documents provided by SOAS can be seen here.
A 2,000-year old vessel from Thailand at SOAS
On 26 October 2013, Elizabeth H. Moore, who was at that time Professor of South East Asian Art and Archaeology, donated to SOAS a “Ban Chiang ritual offering vessel Thailand,” dated to “ca. 100-500 BCE,” 24.5cm in height and 19.5cm in diameter, as described in the SOAS Collections Record. From May 2014 to September 2016, the vessel was displayed in SOAS’s Brunei Gallery in an exhibition of Southeast Asian items owned by SOAS. Subsequently, it was published in the exhibition catalogue, The Arts of Southeast Asia from the SOAS Collections (Penang: School of Oriental and African Studies and Areca Books, 2017), on page 20, where the vessel is noted as a gift of Elizabeth Moore:
Ban Chiang: Southeast Asia’s “most important prehistoric settlement”
Ban Chiang is a village on a prehistoric mortuary site located in Udon Thani province in northeast Thailand. It was inscribed to the Thai Fine Arts Department’s list of archaeological sites in 1960. Officials began to focus on the site in the late 1960s after an American student picked up pieces of ancient painted pottery there. Some of the shards were dated by thermoluminescence to the fourth and fifth millennia BCE, an astounding discovery (later found to be incorrect.) When word of this spread in 1970, collectors and dealers in Bangkok converged on the site. Impoverished villagers found a new source of income in illicitly digging for and selling Ban Chiang material. The period from 1970 to 1972 was “the most intensive” period of looting at Ban Chiang, as one of the archaeologists who pioneered its excavation has written. (Gorman, 1982: 34) By 1972, there were no major areas of the site left undisturbed by looting. Although Thailand’s 1961 law on antiquities already protected the site, in 1972, the Thai Prime Minister issued a decree specifically forbidding illegal excavation and transport of Ban Chiang items. This lessened but did not end illicit activity, as digging expanded to neighbouring areas; fakes were also produced. (Gorman, 1982: 29-34)
The illegal excavation and smuggling have been widely reported in international media, as well as academic studies, and the effects of the extensive theft still resonate. For example, in 2008, three US federal agencies raided four California museums and other locations where artefacts were stored, and exposed a scheme to make donations of smuggled Southeast Asian antiquities, mainly from Ban Chiang, to museums in exchange for tax deductions. This case made world headlines and resulted in the return of hundreds of Ban Chiang artefacts to Thailand as well as prison and penalties for convicted dealers.
Despite the losses, archaeological investigation through the years has established the great historical significance of Ban Chiang. In 1992, it was named a UNESCO World Heritage Site. As UNESCO remarks,
“Ban Chiang is considered the most important prehistoric settlement so far discovered in South-East Asia. It marks an important stage in human cultural, social and technological evolution. The site presents the earliest evidence of farming in the region and of the manufacture and use of metals.”
How the Ban Chiang vessel came to SOAS
SOAS’s Collections Record states the vessel was:
“Purchased by EM’s [Elizabeth Moore’s] former husband, in the early 1970s in Bangkok or Singapore. Given to EM in 1995.”
Thus, it was during the early 1970s – at the height of looting at Ban Chiang – that this pot was bought by Prof. Moore’s ex-husband in Bangkok or Singapore. How could this fail to attract concern among SOAS officials handling this gift? Indeed, the Collections Record prepared by SOAS staff for the vessel refers to Ban Chiang’s significance and to the UNESCO honour. But there is no indication of concern at SOAS as to how this artefact was removed from Ban Chiang.
As Prof. Moore was Professor of South East Asian Art and Archaeology, she had to have been aware of the illicit activity at Southeast Asia’s most important prehistoric site. Yet she chose to give the vessel to SOAS. Why? Her reasoning, at least in part, is indicated in the Object Receipt/Entry Form she apparently filled out describing this vessel and a number of other items she also donated to SOAS (which SOAS has redacted from the form as I only requested information about the vessel.) Prof. Moore wrote on the form:
“All of the pieces were given to me as gifts. Having kept them in my office for many years, a Thai scholar who visited recently said they made a useful collection and that I should have them displayed in the Brunei Gallery. This seemed a useful suggestion which prompted me to offer them to the Gallery collection. The prehistoric pottery and glazed pieces widen the Southeast Asian objects in the collection.”
Thus, Prof. Moore states that her donation to SOAS was made on the urging of a “Thai scholar.” Perhaps she followed the suggestion hastily without due contemplation of the matter. Consider, for example: Were I to dig up a hoard of Anglo-Saxon gold coins in my garden, my duty would be to abide by the relevant UK law, the Treasure Act 1996, no matter if some British scholar insisted I could keep it or donate it to my preferred institution. Under Thailand’s Act on Ancient Monuments, Antiques, Objects of Art and National Museums of 1961 (strengthened in 1992), buried antiques are the property of the State. Also, any antique, whether owned by the State or not, cannot be exported without a license from the Thai Fine Arts Department. There is no sign of such a license for this Ban Chiang vessel, assuming it is authentic.
In sum, even though SOAS officials were informed that the vessel was purchased in Bangkok or Singapore in the early 1970s and Ban Chiang is a very significant archaeological and famously looted site – making it very likely the vessel was looted – they still accepted it.
SOAS’s acceptance contrasts with the treatment of Ban Chiang material by neighbouring University College London (UCL). In 2009, UCL’s Institute of Archaeology discovered 16 Ban Chiang items during an audit of its collections and returned them to the Thai Fine Arts Department. The Thai Embassy and UCL subsequently announced a joint project to promote Thai Studies and a scholarship for PhD fieldwork in Thailand. Why didn’t anyone at SOAS contact Thai authorities about this likely stolen vessel?
I myself am not immune from guilt in this situation. Prof. Moore was my PhD supervisor from 2007 to 2011, and, thanks to her kind recommendation, I was named a Research Associate of the SOAS Department of the History of Art and Archaeology from 2013 to 2016. She retired from her professorship in 2015 but still holds today key part-time posts (more about this below). I do remember seeing the Ban Chiang vessel among the various items in her office, though I was not told how she obtained it. As mentioned above, the vessel was also included in a 2014 public exhibition of Southeast Asian art at SOAS. As a Research Associate, I composed labels for the Thai manuscripts and books (not the vessel) included in that exhibition, and these labels were later published in the catalogue. Particularly as I am a researcher of Thai art, it should have been my ethical duty to question why an item from a notoriously looted Thai site was displayed in Prof. Moore’s office and then publically exhibited. I regret my silence. I should not be afraid of raising uncomfortable but necessary questions, even to those I respect and like. I hope that Prof. Moore understands her error in making the gift and will urge SOAS to contact Thai authorities.
SOAS’s weak due diligence regime
For its part, SOAS told me that it conducted no due diligence on the Ban Chiang vessel because its policy did not require it at the time. The Due Diligence Procedure for Philanthropic Gifts (2011) then in force waives due diligence if (1) the gift is less than £10,000 in value and (2) SOAS identifies no risk from “a relationship with the donor or acceptance of the gift.” The value of the Ban Chiang vessel was £500 according to the Collections Record, and apparently, SOAS disregarded the high risk that it was looted.
It is worrying that for the last seven years and more, SOAS’s practice of due diligence has been limited by the financial value of a gift. From (at least) 2011 to 2016, SOAS policy deemed due diligence unneeded for gifts less than £10,000. In 2016, the policy was revised to waive due diligence for gifts below £1,000. This is out of step with museum standards. Public museums and respectable collections in the UK conduct due diligence on every acquisition they consider, no matter its market value, and they only accept an item when they feel confident that it can be legally acquired and was not stolen or illegally exported.
The question then arises as to how many artworks and objects of cultural property stolen and/or smuggled have been accepted over the years by SOAS with no due diligence. This question cannot be answered given the current lack of transparency: SOAS’s inventory of art objects and artefacts is not available publically, nor does SOAS have a permanent exhibition. Its items are usually kept in storage, hidden from public view – a fact that also provokes the question of why SOAS accepts art and artefacts at all. I have filed Freedom of Information Act requests on only two items so far, and in both cases, SOAS’s poor due diligence was exposed. What other items of cultural property from countries around the world does SOAS own, and what is the history of ownership and acquisition of each?
The unprovenanced 13th-century Thai Buddha sculpture accepted by SOAS and its donor Mr. Paul Slawson (photo from SOAS World ‘Alumni donate ancient torso to AFSOAS in honour of inspirational teaching at SOAS’webpage, accessed 18 May 2018)
Even where SOAS has been required to conduct due diligence on a gift, the due diligence actually performed could be perfunctory and substandard. Last year, emails and documents I received through Freedom of Information revealed that SOAS’s Head of Galleries and Exhibitions, Mr. John Hollingworth, accepted the gift of a 60,000-euro 13th-century Thai Buddha sculpture despite having zero evidence of how and when this rare artefact left Thailand. Before Development staff even started their due diligence, Mr. Hollingworth contacted movers about bringing the sculpture from the donor to the Brunei Gallery. Mr. Hollingworth was also SOAS’s gallery manager at the time SOAS acquired the Ban Chiang vessel.
As I have discussed previously, a major flaw in SOAS’s donation procedures is that they are designed for gifts of cash, not material items. Although SOAS’s Due Diligence Procedures (both in 2011 and in the 2016 update) apply to “art” and “artefacts,” they do not mention any of the specialised due diligence needed for objects of cultural heritage. The form for the SOAS Gift Acceptance Record likewise does not refer to the confirmation of acceptable provenance that is considered essential for such objects according to national and international standards of museum acquisition. Furthermore, the process of acceptance of the Thai Buddha sculpture revealed how SOAS’s weak procedures were easily thwarted: Mr. Hollingworth evaded a standard review of the donation by obtaining an undisclosed, unappealable waiver by the Chair of the Brunei Gallery Advisory Panel (who is also the head of SOAS, Ms. Valerie Amos). Other conflicts of interest in the approval process were disregarded, as described below.
SOAS art historians and ethics
The gifts of the Ban Chiang vessel and the Thai Buddha sculpture are both examples of donations in which a member of SOAS’s Department of the History of Art and Archaeology encouraged the university to accept a potentially looted object of cultural property. In the case of the Thai Buddha sculpture, the SOAS art historians Dr. Peter Sharrock and Dr. Heather Elgood encouraged and facilitated SOAS’s acceptance of the gift of an antiquity that they knew had no evidence of provenance. They were friends and former teachers of the donors, Paul and Mary Slawson, alumni of the Postgraduate Diploma in Asian Art – who presented the gift in honour of Dr. Sharrock and Dr. Elgood.
It should be a serious concern to the Department of the History of Art and Archaeology that three of its staff members sought to legitimise potentially illicit objects of Asian cultural heritage having zero proof of provenance. The Department should urge SOAS Administration to contact the Thai authorities about these items. It should also act to prevent the occurrence of similar cases in the future. In the UK, the Museums Association’s Code of Ethics urges museum staff to avoid private activity that conflicts with the public interest; avoid private dealing in cultural property, and when providing opinions, distinguish their personal views from those of their institution. Although SOAS is not a museum, I would argue that because it is a public educational institution, which trains future curators, heritage professionals, and teachers, it should serve as a model for the highest ethical behaviour. Both practicing and teaching ethical treatment of cultural property should be prioritised at the Department especially given its remit is the art and archaeology of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. SOAS should institute ethical guidelines for staff engagement in advisory and art market-related activities, if SOAS indeed believes in the ethical treatment of cultural property.
It is also concerning that Prof. Moore, Dr. Sharrock, and Dr. Elgood are among those who have been appointed by SOAS Administration to manage SOAS’s largest privately financed initiative, the Southeast Asian Art Academic Programme (SAAAP). This was created in 2013 by a £15 million donation from the Alphawood Foundation, a charity funded by the personal wealth of Mr. Fred Eychaner, an Asian art collector and alumnus of the Postgraduate Diploma in Asian Art who was befriended by Dr. Sharrock and Dr. Elgood. SAAAP’s declared purpose is “to further the understanding and preservation of ancient to pre-modern Buddhist and Hindu art and architecture in Southeast Asia.” Prof. Moore is SAAAP’s paid In-region Liaison; Dr. Sharrock is its salaried Communications and Outreach Manager, and Dr. Elgood is a Programme Board Member. All three are also Members of the SAAAP Outreach and Scholarships Committees. Despite the problematic aspects of Dr. Sharrock’s and Dr. Elgood’s roles in SAAAP, Ms. Valerie Amos, head of SOAS, has continually protected them. What confidence can we have in SOAS management when those it entrusts with ‘preserving’ Southeast Asian art treat Thailand’s cultural property in this careless fashion?
How sincere is SOAS Administration’s ‘Decolonising SOAS Vision’?
In 2017, SOAS Administration instituted a ‘Decolonising SOAS Vision’ programme, which has a stated goal “to actively make redress for [impacts of colonialism] through ongoing collective dialogue within the university and through our public obligations.” Late last year, a reporter from SOAS Spirit, the university newspaper, asked SOAS how the acquisition of the Thai Buddha sculpture fit with that objective. SOAS’s spokesperson replied that the Thai antiquity “provides a platform for just these kinds of discussions and for them to be evaluated.” This astounding response exposes SOAS’s blatant hypocrisy and its own recognition of the indefensibility of its actions. Their line of reasoning would have us burn down a house in order to have a conversation on fire safety. But does SOAS Administration mean what it says, that it sees the opportunity for a discussion on the issues? If yes, then they should organise a public forum. I would be happy to participate in an open discussion with SOAS representatives.
Reference:
Gorman, Chester F., ‘The Pillaging of Ban Chiang: Artifacts from a site in Thailand feed the illicit world trade in antiques,’ Early Man (1982), 28-34
