Stolen antiquities in Australian museums owing to lack of due diligence

The National Gallery of Australia (NGA), the Art Gallery of South Australia (AGSA) and the Art Gallery of New South Wales (AGNSW) restituted stolen antiquities to India a few years ago but there are still some pieces left which were plundered from the country

Conventionally, it would not be wrong to assume that state-financed art galleries and museums have stringent guidelines and policies for acquiring ancient works of art for they have accountability towards masses whose incomes in the form of tax revenues are utilised to make the purchases. However, what came as a major jolt approximately seven years ago was the discovery of the blatant disregard of the red flags by museums such as the NGA, the AGSA and the AGNSW. These museums have turned out to be gross failures in matters such as due diligence and provenance. Following these disconcerting exposures, the Australian government, in 2014, released the Australian Best Practice Guide which says: “Provenance includes the full history and chain of ownership of an object from the time of its discovery or creation to the present day, through which authenticity and legal title are determined” and “Due diligence requires that every endeavour is made to verify the accuracy of information before deciding a course of action, particularly in identifying the source and history of cultural material considered for acquisition.”

Return of the Dancing Shiva but museum denies accountability

In 2019, thousands flocked together in the South Indian town of Kallidaikuruchi in Tamil Nadu to welcome the arrival of the Dancing Shiva (Shiva Nataraja), a 16th century bronze statue. The 100-kilogram bronze statue was plundered from a temple in early 1980s and then illicitly exported. It had been in possession of the AGSA for nearly two decades and was among the eight antiquities with values ranging from $225,000 to $5,000,000that Australia has sent back to India since 2014. The decision for repatriation was taken after the discovery of irrefutable proof that all these ancient art works had been stolen from their place of origin. The museums in question denied having any inkling about the authenticity in the provenance of these antiquities despite stolen antiquities investigators like Vijay Kumar asserting emphatically that even a superficial glance at the provenance documents of the idols reveals several glaring inconsistencies. Kumar who is the author of ‘The Idol Thief’ and co-founder of the India Pride Project claimed that the NGA still has nine antiquities while the AGNSW has three pieces that were robbed from India in the 1970s or afterwards. He is nonplussed at the attitude of the Australian museums as they agreed to repatriate only the idols for which in-situ photographs could be produced as evidence although the paperwork for the other pieces were also conspicuously fraudulent.

US-based Indian art dealer linked to illicit antiquities trade

New York-based art dealer, Subhash Kapoor was linked to at least six of the eight antiquities with dubious provenances which were repatriated by the Australian institutions to India. The Australian museums and art galleries in question had purchased these idols from Kapoor, the owner of Manhattan’s Art of the Past gallery, who is now in custody in an Indian prison awaiting trial for allegedly running an international network of illicit trade in stolen antiquities.

British adventurer and art dealer accused of smuggling and illegal excavation

Bangkok-based British explorer and art dealer, Douglas Latchford, who died last year, had been under investigation for misrepresenting provenances and for producing false documents in order to cover up the fact that the South-East Asian antiquities supplied by him since the 1970s to art dealers across the globe were either stolen or obtained through unauthorized excavations. The New York District Attorney’s office which had indicted Latchford revealed that a 2000-year-old statue of Seated Buddha, which the NGA returned to India in 2015 had been supplied by Latchford. According to Jason Felch, an expert on illegal antiquities trade commented that if any kind of connection is found between Latchford and any piece of antiquity should sound the alarm bell for art dealers who have the moral obligation to thoroughly check the documents proving the veracity of the idol in question. However, the NGA, the AGSA and the AGNSW have denied any connection with Douglas Latchford though they did claim that numerous objects with doubtful provenances were being investigated.