On 15 June, SOAS Director Valerie Amos sent SOAS staff this email addressing some aspects of my analysis of the matter of the unprovenanced 13th-century Thai sculpture acquired by SOAS. The email, which was kindly forwarded to me by a number of people inside and outside of SOAS, contains statements that are not consistent with the evidence provided by SOAS under Freedom of Information and elements of SOAS’s written policy. More worryingly, the email indicates a misunderstanding of government and museum industry standards for the treatment of objects of cultural heritage.
My analysis, published on my website on 8 June, is fully referenced to the data provided by SOAS, and all are welcome to study it and decide for themselves whether they agree or not.
Below I address points offered by the Director.
(1) The Director stated that the evaluation of the gift was conducted according to SOAS’s Collections Management Policy, Section 5.10 of which states that the School “will adhere to the 1970 Unesco Convention (on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property).”
In the years since the Convention, the ‘1970 threshold’ has become a widely recognized standard for museums and public collections, including those in the UK. The 1970 threshold holds that a sale or transfer of an object of cultural property should only occur where there is documentary proof that it left its country of origin before 1970 or was legally exported after 1970.
SOAS has admitted that it has zero documentary evidence of the history of ownership or provenance of the Thai sculpture. Thus, it has no proof that this acquisition meets the 1970 threshold. There is no evidence for how and when this sculpture was removed from Thailand and how and when it entered the UK or any intermediate countries. The acceptance of an unprovenanced artefact contravenes UK government as well as national and international standards of museum practice, all of which emphasise the need for rigorous due diligence in the evaluation of histories of ownership and transfer and especially prioritise the importance of obtaining secure evidence:
— In 2000, the UK Government stated: “The Government endorses the broad principle that museums should avoid acquiring any object that has no secure ownership history, unless there is reliable documentation to show that it was exported from its country of origin before 1970, or the museum is able to obtain permission for the acquisition from the relevant authorities in the country of origin.” (p. 4)
— The UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s Due Diligence Guidelines for Museums state: “Museums should acquire or borrow items only if they are certain they have not been illegally excavated or illegally exported since 1970.” (p. 4)
— The Acquisition Guidance on the Ethics and Practicalities of Acquisition set out by the Museums Association, the main industry body in the UK, states: “Reject any item if there is any suspicion that, since 1970, it may have been stolen, illegally excavated or removed from a monument, site or wreck contrary to local law or otherwise acquired in or exported from its country of origin (including the UK), or any intermediate country, in violation of that country’s laws or any national and international treaties, unless the museum is able to obtain permission from authorities with the requisite jurisdiction in the country of origin. Reject any item that lacks a secure ownership history, unless there is reliable documentation to show it was exported from its country of origin before 1970.” (Clause 2.8)
— The Code of Ethics of the International Council of Museums, an organisation affiliated with UNESCO, is a set of standards recognised worldwide as a key benchmark for museums. The Code states:
“Every effort must be made before acquisition to ensure that any object or specimen offered for purchase, gift, loan, bequest, or exchange has not been illegally obtained in or exported from, its country of origin or any intermediate country in which it might have been owned legally (including the museum’s own country). Due diligence in this regard should establish the full history of the item from discovery or production.” (Clause 2.3)
“Museums should avoid displaying or otherwise using material of questionable origin or lacking provenance. They should be aware that such displays or usage can be seen to condone and contribute to the illicit trade in cultural property.” (Clause 4.5)
— The acquisition policies of the major UK public museums can all be found online. All public collections and respectable museums in the UK endorse the 1970 threshold.
As the 1970 Convention recognised, objects of cultural property require rigorous protection because of the ease with which they can be covertly taken and transferred. If those who acquire objects of cultural property accept them without proof that the objects were legally obtained and moved, that gives incentive to those who engage in theft, illegal excavation, and illicit transport to lucrative markets. The result is to deprive communities of vital data about their culture and histories. This is why the government and museum industry policies emphasise the importance of documented provenance.
(2) The Director stated, “Requisite checks were made to multiple sources to identify possible concerns or evidence of illegal or illicit acquisition. There were NO red flags to indicate the object might fall within this category.”
In an email of 9 March, Mr. John Hollingworth, the Head of Galleries and Exhibitions, stated that he “will check the registers for Thai stolen sculptures.” (p. 1) The ICOM Red Lists, which were said to be consulted by SOAS, do not cover Thailand, so checking them is pointless. Likewise, the Art Loss Register, a private database, is far from comprehensive and is irrelevant for Thailand. In any case, checking registers is no substitute for obtaining solid provenance, as the government and industry standards express.
SOAS administration argues that even though there is no documentary evidence of the Thai sculpture’s history, the sculpture does not appear on lists of stolen art and so can be accepted. Under government and museum industry standards, however, the absence of a known history or reference to an item cannot be interpreted to mean that there can be no suspicions about the history. In fact, the standards emphasise the need for secure provenance exactly because the lack of documented history cannot put doubts to rest. The reason for this strong evidentiary standard is the severity of the problem of theft and illicit trade of antiquities.
Thailand is a notoriously looted country. This heightens concerns about the antiquity in question having no documented provenance. Also, stone Buddhist sculpture of the Lopburi era (13thcentury) of this size is rare. This is an artefact that should have been treated with great cautiousness and sensitivity.
(3) The Director stated that SOAS’s procedures included “securing academic expert advice.”
According to the emails provided by SOAS, the staff person designated to sign off on the strategic and academic acceptability of the gift was Dr. Heather Elgood, the Course Director of the Postgraduate Diploma in Asian Art and SAAAP Board Member. (p. 5) As I have noted in my blogpost, she was asked to approve a gift presented by Diploma alumni with whom she was friendly. Dr. Elgood’s conflict of interest should have been flagged and another academic chosen for the sign off. A second staff member, Dr. Peter Sharrock, a Senior Teaching Fellow and the SAAAP Communications and Outreach Manager, was the one who encouraged the donor to offer the gift to SOAS. (p. 1) He later assured the Course Director that she could approve the gift even as he told her that there was no documentary provenance. (pp. 7-8) The rejection of the applicability of the 1970 threshold in this case by Dr. Sharrock, who claims to be a scholar of Southeast Asian art, is frankly shocking.
(4) The Director stated, “The offer and acceptance of the statue was not made with abnormal speed nor circumventing normal processes. The offer was made in early February and the agreement to accept was made in mid-March.”
While it is certainly possible that the donor had informal contact during February with some SOAS staff member other than the responsible officer (the Head of Galleries and Exhibitions), it is clear from the emails provided by SOAS that official consideration of the donation began with the Head of Galleries and Exhibitions’ telephone call with the donor on 8 March. (pp. 9-11) The Development department was notified of the donation on 12 March. (p. 23) The Gift Agreement Record indicating all internal approvals were met was completed on 19 March. (p. 29) Thus, the official consideration of this donation took only 8 working days from 8 through 19 March.
Also, review of the donation by the Brunei Gallery Advisory Panel was circumvented when the Director, at the request of the Head of Galleries and Exhibitions (p. 1), declared Chair’s Decision (p. 1), allowing the gift evaluation to proceed without Panel consideration. In my opinion, the use of Chair’s Decision, even if permitted under SOAS rules, should in future never be allowed to occur where a major item of cultural property is under consideration.
(5) The Director stated that all the due diligence checks “were made before physically accepting the donation.”
The emails show a different picture. The first email of Mr. John Hollingworth, the Head of Galleries and Exhibitions, to the Development staff about the donation was on 12 March at 12:12. (p. 23) At 12:25, Mr. Hollingworth emailed the donor to say that he had contacted an art moving company about a move this week. (p. 9) At 13:44, Development staff responded to Mr. Hollingworth’s 12:12 email,telling him they would conduct due diligence on the donor. (p. 23) At 15:41, Mr. Hollingworth emailed the donor, “I’m trying to arrange the transport for Thursday this week.” (p. 9) At 17:40, he wrote the donor to say he would confirm the pick-up by the moving company for Thursday. (p. 8) The Development staff’s first contact with the donor was the next day, 13 March at 15:43 (p. 8). Thus, the Head of Galleries and Exhibitions hardly waited for the due diligence checks to be completed before arranging the delivery of the sculpture.
Another question arises. If Development staff completed its due diligence on the donor in the hours between first learning of the donation on the 12thand their first contact with the donor on the 13th, then their checks apparently did not include posing any questions to the donor; at a very minimum, they should have secured proof of identity. Also, Development’s initial email to the donor does not even mention due diligence but instead focuses on preparing for the future advertisement of the gift. (p. 8) As I have noted, this weak due diligence process is probably not unique to these staff members but indicates deeper flaws in SOAS’s due diligence regime. Neither SOAS’s Due Diligence Procedures for the Acceptance of Philanthropic Gifts nor its form of Gift Acceptance Record account for the specialised due diligence needed for objects of cultural property. The due diligence process and the documentation are designed for cash gifts, not gifts in-kind.
(6) The Director stated, “The suggestion that the Thai authorities are unaware is untrue – the Thai Ambassador was shown the sculpture in April and was informed that it was a recent gift to the School.”
The reference is probably to a tour by the Thai Ambassador of the exhibition of 19th-century photographs in which the sculpture is now installed. When the Thai Ambassador was shown the Thai sculpture in April, did SOAS inform him that it was accepted with no evidence of provenance?
(7) The Director stated, “The suggestion that the School is seeking to take donated objects with the hidden intention of then selling and using the proceeds raised for other purposes is entirely false and stands in complete contradiction to our long-standing practice and our Collections Management Policy.”
The Gift Agreement for the sculpture states: “Prior written consent from SOAS has been obtained stating that, in the event that AFSOAS [American Friends of SOAS] donates the Gift to SOAS [which AFSOAS aimed to do as soon as possible], SOAS agrees to keep the Gift for at least three years from the date of SOAS receiving the Gift.” The Gift Agreement thus enables SOAS to sell the Thai antiquity, valued currently at 60,000 Euros, in three years. SOAS has rendered it a monetisable asset. Moreover, in the future, potential buyers may understandably assume that SOAS had earlier confirmed the security of the sculpture’s provenance, and in any case: disturbingly, the ownership by SOAS would endow this potentially looted and/or trafficked sculpture with a provenance.
The disposal by SOAS of any items in its collection is governed by Section 10 of the SOAS Collections Management Policy. The policy states that SOAS should favour donation or exchange, rather than sale, and prioritise making offers to public institutions, but the sale of the Thai sculpture, even to individuals, in three years’ time is certainly possible under current SOAS policy. The policy also contains no restrictions on the use of funds received from the sale of it.
In closing, I would note that the Thai antiquity, in the SOAS staff emails and in this latest email from the Director, is, tellingly, never referred to as an object of Thai cultural heritage.
SOAS prides itself as a leading global centre for the study of Africa, Asia, and the Near and Middle East. It should be most mindful and knowledgeable about the problems of looting, illegal excavation, and trafficking in many of the countries it covers. It should adhere to exemplary standards of professionalism, ethics, and sensitivity in the treatment of objects of cultural heritage. The negotiation for the return of this Thai sculpture to Thailand should be a model for carrying out restitution.
Again, I welcome all to read my analysis and send any questions or comments.
Update: A second poorly provenanced, potentially looted Thai antiquity was discovered in SOAS’s collection in February 2019. See post here.
