Bangkok is a place that a person can get anything they want, for a price. No animal too endangered or request too exotic for a paying customer. There seems to be no end to the ethical and moral dilemma inducing offerings available. While questionable and Chinatown or red-light districts is synonymous, they are words rarely associated with antiques stores. In Bangkok though, the antiques stores have their seedy side, the trade of ill-gotten and illegal antiques from neighboring countries.
With few exceptions, whatever medium or time period of Asia that you love, you can purchase it. If they don’t have it, describe what you want and they will find it. After visiting a few stores you begin to feel like a movie villain, know what you want and where it is? That Hope Diamond you’ve always wanted? For a price it can be yours… Is this right though?
Who owns cultural relics from generations or millennia ago? Just because people were born within the modern borders that a historical sight sits, why do they have the ownership right? Why should cultural relics stay in a place rather than cross borders and share their beauty with people that can’t make it to their original location? At what point of destruction or lack of care does a culture relinquish it’s ownership right?
We came across the antiques district by chance, but returned to consider buying a piece of the Angkor Kingdom. Several days earlier we had fallen in love with a piece of Baphuon temple in Angkor Wat. The days following were spent debating, researching and discussing the ramifications. Not only was it a very considerable sum of money, one that would cut several months off of our trip, we had many questions.
Never would we know if it (above) were an original or a duplicate. Having done our homework and given the history of the temple, we were confident it was real. We considered having a third-party appraiser/historian review it, but even then, authenticity is hard to prove short of taking it to Sotheby’s. We accepted that if it was a fake we would love it just the same, we accepted that for the price we would be willing to accept a duplicate (but would rather be told the truth than be duped).
Due to the difficulties in proving authenticity, the galleries were confident that US Customs would not be an issue. They would provide two sets of paperwork, one with certifications of the piece’s heritage, a second that would travel with it for US Customs. The traveling papers would state that it was a reproduction created in the last 50 years, therefore legal for importation without further scrutiny. We had been assured by many dealers that they had never had problems with US Customs.
The remaining questions we had were moral. Selling, importing and exporting antiquities is not illegal in Thailand, as long as they are not Thai antiquities. That said, to virtually all developed countries ban the trade. Though the Vatican, British and French have plundered many of the world’s treasures, such plundering is no longer in style. Though they are no longer plundering, they are not returning their ill-gotten gains. This may not be a bad thing, as one could argue they are safer in the museums of Europe and America than in their original countries. I cannot argue with that, if safety and preservation is concerned, a museum in France, or even my living room, is probably superior to a Cambodian storeroom.
There is also the argument that the beauty of man’s creation is best shared. It is this sharing that builds empathy, interest and relations. Few people from the Western world will ever step foot on Cambodia soil to stand in awe of the Angkor Kingdom. To those that will never make the trip Cambodia is one of “those” countries, those countries that have suffered political collapse…those distant and dangerous places. Seeing the magnificence of a society builds a connection from afar. Exposing a person to the art and culture of a place humanizes it. The next time something like the Khmer Rouge comes to power, more people will fight against it. Without seeing the beauty of a culture, it is easy to overlook what may be happening “over there”.
Lastly, have Cambodia and other countries with tumultuous histories relinquished their rights to their cultural artifacts? It is in all of our best interest to preserve historical artifacts and doing this requires resources and knowledge that is lacking in much of the world. To maintain paintings, artifacts and documents, I honestly believe the wealthy nations are uniquely qualified. During and after the Khmer Rogue, Cambodia lost many artifacts, just like what is happening throughout the Islamic world today. The only way to have saved the artifacts and history of Cambodia or some countries today is to remove them from bad situations. If this requires private buyers support, so be it, it is either in a living room or suffering the fate of the Buddhas of Baniyan in Afghanistan. Which is worse?
Upon arriving, excited and scared, to purchase our piece of the Angkor Kingdom we received bad news. The price we had been quoted was incorrect by one zero. Previously it was very expensive, but attainable, but now it was just too expensive. The lessons we learned in the process though, were worth it, without finding a piece we loved, doing the research, debating among ourselves, and deciding, we wouldn’t have had the opportunity to think through the right, wrong and grey area of being a tomb raider.
Tags: angkor, Bangkok, Siem Reap
About the Author
thinkCHUA: is an explorer seeking to understand the world's places and people. Currently on a multi-year expedition across Asia and Oceania with my wife, LOCAVORista, we are exploring the places to go, things to do, and uncovering business opportunities.
Comments
Sep 2, 2011
Your moral reasoning is deeply flawed, because you leave out the fundamental moral question, which is not who can best preserve artifacts once they reach the dealer, but what can you do to preserve the information about the past that can only be gained by excavating the artifact properly. Every time you or someone else buys an antiquity in a market that permits unprovenanced artifacts to enter it (that is, almost every antiquities market), you are encouraging looting and are morally implicated in the destruction of the archaeological record, and of our ability to ever gain a fuller understanding of the past.
Sep 3, 2011
I agree with you that if it were possible to protect the sites and preserve the archeological record on site it would be preferable. Through my very non-expert eyes, though the sites aren’t protected, looters do pillage and provenance/history is lost to them. This may be occurring with the implicit or even explicit support of the authorities that are paid to protect these sites. To me the ideal solution would be to have the governments allow premier museums and universities to ID, catalog and then either lease or sell artifacts, using the funds to support further research and protection in the country. Sadly the moral questions of protection in this area take a backseat to the poverty, corrupt officials, and occasional rise of authoritarian governments (i.e. Khmer Rogue). Again I am suggesting the removal of artifacts from their home country, but this is happening anyways due to mismanagement and the free market; we are better to manage the “natural” process than attempt to stop it.
Sep 4, 2011
Those who question whether any country should ever relinquish its right to its cultural patrimony tend to come from outside that country. Individuals do not make decisions for what another sovereign nation does with its property, that’s where international treaties come in.
Sep 4, 2011
You are a raving idiot, a moral midget, and should be ashamed of yourself for even contemplating buying something like this. Much less writing about it.
Also: Have you even been to Cambodia? It ain’t exactly Afghanistan in terms of “grave danger to antiquities.” It’s not Malibu yet, but the majority of the people walking off with Cambodia’s historical treasures are doing so to serve the needs of scumbags like you. Just think on it.
- A Phnom Penh Resident
Sep 4, 2011
I would remind you that in the “tumultuous histories” of many countries which resulted in the destruction of sites and the looting of artifacts (Iraq and Egypt most recently), these actions were fed by collectors like you.
Sep 5, 2011
It’s an obvious fake, which makes me wish you had actually spent your wealth on it.
Sep 5, 2011
SAFECORNER: I do not disagree with you, but the reality is that it is not black and white. The grey area is when a sovereign nation is itself the danger to the antiquities, should we sit by and allow them to be destroyed? As an idealistic believer in sovereign states’ rights it still pains me when nations choose to destroy their cultural antiquities, harm their citizens or impose state religions. There are times and places which we cannot stand by and claim be impartial observers, there are times we must act, and Cambodia had that moment. I would be hard-pressed to believe that the antiquities that were controlled by the Khmer Rogue fared physically better than those outside the country. While there are currently treaties in place to return these artifacts, no matter how ugly the truth is, we must address that these antiquities left the country due to a lapse in control at the sites. I hold that such negligence or willful destruction negates the claims of the sovereign state.
Sep 5, 2011
Yes, but even though antiquities (especially the larger pieces like statuary) left the country through a “lapse of control,” this does not justify individual, illegal purchase or attempted importation for private “enjoyment.” This is not the same thing as buying a painting from an art gallery.
Sep 5, 2011
Others have already made valid points, so I’ll just note that it was perfectly OK with you that the gallery was going to give you a document with what you believed to be false information (“a reproduction created in the last 50 years”) to present to US Customs. That is, you were knowingly going to provide false information to Customs, thereby breaking the law.
Any further discussion of your ethics seems superfluous.
Sep 5, 2011
Sad to see how after visiting Cambodia (and having visited S21 and written quite thoughtfully about the horrors of those times and the trauma that continues for Cambodians today) you manage to switch so quickly into thinking that your privilege and wealth allows you to take a “keepsake”of the culture you admired back to your home in the States.
That you didn’t buy what may or may not have been an actual looted relic makes no difference, your intent seemed to be to excuse your greed through some fairly amateur and specious arguments.
To have kept your thinking would have meant at the end of your sojourn your partner would have a lovely Mountain Gorilla Vest, you could have trodden around the house in some Kouprey skin shoes whilst gazing at your looted artifacts.
All quite lovely for a 19th C explorer but unbelievably shallow in this age.
Here’s is hoping you think about the consequences of your choices while you enjoy your travels, and take back memories and pictures not the heirlooms of another country.
Sep 5, 2011
Sad to see how after visiting Cambodia (and having visited S21 and written quite thoughtfully about the horrors of those times and the trauma that continues for Cambodians today) you manage to switch so quickly into thinking that your privilege and wealth allows you to take a “keepsake”of the culture you admired back to your home in the States.
That you didn’t buy what may or may not have been an actual looted relic makes no difference, your intent seemed to be to excuse your greed through some fairly amateur and specious arguments.
To have kept your thinking would have meant at the end of your sojourn your partner would have a lovely Mountain Gorilla Vest, you could have trodden around the house in some Kouprey skin shoes whilst gazing at your looted artifacts.
All quite lovely for a 19th C explorer but unbelievably shallow in this age.
Here’s hoping you think about the consequences of your choices while you enjoy your travels, and take back memories and pictures not the heirlooms of another country.
Sep 5, 2011
At a moral level, you are far worse than someone packing a saleable amount of heroin on a flight back to the US. Scum.
Sep 6, 2011
you bought a piece of cement you complete knobhead. suck shit.
Sep 6, 2011
thinkCHUA wrote: “we must address that these antiquities left the country due to a lapse in control at the sites. I hold that such negligence or willful destruction negates the claims of the sovereign state.”
So basically you, by natural extension, claim that ‘looting’ during times of conflict or civil disorder is perfectly acceptable. I expect to see you smashing windows and “protecting” TV’s and Laptops during the next riots in the UK or USA very shortly.
Sep 6, 2011
I am so relieved that at the end you didn’t get to purchase that piece of priceless artwork. Being a Khmer who grew up before the Pol Pot era, I can still remember how Angkor Wat looked like then and now. I get the sense as if the war torn Cambodia hadn’t gone through enough hardship and bloodshed, someone had to come and sliced a piece of such treasures living the rest of us to bleed and mourn (it doesn’t matter whether it is genuine or a replica, it’s the idea of it). The audacity of those involved in forging two sets of papers just so the piece can be proudly placed on someone’s mantle and display like a trophy is beyond my comprehension. Furthermore, I doubt if those who have no second thoughts about buying a piece of antiquity would have any sympathy nor interest beyond self-interest.
Sep 6, 2011
Riots in LA. Comparing the Khmer Rouge to riots in isolated cities in the Western World completely misses the point. We do not allow lunatics to overrun our entire country, we subdue and contain such incidents, whereas the Khmer Rouge was allowed to rise to power to become the government/authority itself. I am for the protection of antiquities and stand by my claim that when groups such as the Khmer Rouge rise to power, the best protection is overseas.
Sep 6, 2011
On comparing it to “Mountain Gorilla Vests” (which mis-quotes the famous Simpson’s song) is an incorrect analogy as I actually apply the same framework of thought to Mountain Gorillas that I do to cultural relics: when in a troubled country that cannot or will not protect them, they should be under international control. While cultural relics can be transported to safety, transporting animals out of their natural environment is not feasible. I would be very happy to see international troops stand guard around endangered species so that they are kept away from the dangers of humanity. As with Cambodian relics, the dangers generally come from within the country, the endangered animal poachers are often locals, therefore in a corrupt or ineffective regime I believe international control is the only option. Whenever possible, I attempt to apply the same framework and logic to all irreplaceable things instead of picking and choosing circumstance/item.
Sep 6, 2011
People have clearly had a passionate response to my post, however there has been little attempt to provide a rational argument for other views. The shoot-the-messenger mob mentality of those commenting have made few attempts to provide any evidence or data to support their beliefs. I am fully capable of being enlightened and educated on this subject, but name calling, claims of morality, or ideas held without reason won’t cut it. If you care to help me understand your point of view, please address my key reasons for believing that Cambodian antiquities are better protected internationally than domestically:
1. Looting is a symptom, not the illness. The people that walk into a store, find something for sale and purchase it are not the villains, it demonstrates the fact that Cambodia cannot or will not control the artifacts when they are in their country. The looting that has occurred in decades past, and which continues to take antiquities out of the country is due to lack of oversight by authorities and lack of interest of the locals to protect the antiquities. There are a lot of people that either participate, turn a blind eye, or are paid off in order for something to make it from a “protected” cultural site through the country and across the border.
This lack of control within the country demonstrates the need for international protection, which I believe is most capable outside the country than trying to have international groups attempt to enforce laws inside of Cambodia where these international groups have little, if any legal authority and the judiciary is weak.
2. Need for International Agreements. The existence of international agreements should not be a pride point; this need exists because of the issues within Cambodia, mentioned in #1, that allow antiquities to be taken out of the country. If Cambodia had functioning control, these international agreements and laws in other countries would not be a cultural defense strategy. Taking care of these things should be done at home, with a people and government that demonstrates their respect and care for their history by actively protecting it.
3. The Khmer Rouge were people of Cambodia and some remain among the population. These people’s ideas and hands brought great damage to the people and cultural sites of Cambodia. As much as modern Cambodia wants to separate itself from the Khmer Rouge, it has done nothing to remove perpetrators of barbaric acts against its people and culture. To my knowledge there was never a judicial process that brought the leader and foot soldiers to justice and put them in jail. If more things had been overseas, ideally in proper museums, more of the history would be preserved.
My thesis was: there is a point, through dereliction of cultural duty or outright hostility towards one’s history, that a state relinquishes it’s claim to cultural artifacts. During the Khmer Rouge, Cambodia crossed that point. These antiquities would be better in the hands of universities, museums and collectors (in order of priority).
The reality is, that with no effort or previous desire, I could walk into a store and fine what was purportedly a genuine Cambodian antiquity. The fact it is in a store, sold openly, by sellers willing to go as far as give buyers fake papers and ship it for you, demonstrates that Cambodia does not have working controls in place. I did not seek it out or place an order; I stumbled upon this while looking for breakfast. The post has definitely shed light on the enormity of this problem, but no one has offered a substantive counter argument that demonstrates why Cambodia should be trusted to protect these items after failing for so long.
I welcome you to prove me wrong if you can provide evidence and data that Cambodia has maintained respect, protection and prosecution for those that harm it’s cultural relics…in good times as well as bad. Personal barbs will prove nothing, but a solid argument will go far.
Sep 8, 2011
By purchasing this artifact you are fueling the trade in looted artifacts. You must have had strong reservations about the authenticity of this artifact anyway particularly when they added a nought to the price. Personally I think that you should stay away from items like this that only really have any meaning in the context that they are found.
It would be better to buy something that has been made by a local artisan and supports the local economy. Or sponsor a child’s education in Cambodia.
Sep 8, 2011
I have stated my stance on the buying of looted artifacts in my previous post. What I cannot get my head around is why you wanted to buy it in the first place?
1) It could hardly be called a decorative item.
2) If you bought it as a talking point once you have mentioned it that is the end of that.
3)It has no utility whatsover.
4) It has no value on a market which trades in authentic antiquities. So it is valueless.
5) It could be a fake but may as well be because it has no provenance.
I think that you had a lucky escape.
Sep 8, 2011
On both your comments, I agree with you and like your thinking. The only thing I disagree with is it not being a decorative item, especially if it were a fake, I think it is. It was not about investment potential, like buying art: only buy what you enjoy looking at; or, with a house: only buy a house you want to live in. We were more than willing to part with the money, as counter to what was written on another site, this was not that expensive of an item. There were many false assumptions the author made.
I think sponsoring children is best, for all the positive things people have said about Cambodia, they have a lot of humanitarian needs.
Sep 8, 2011
Yes it is a decorative item. Apart from the looting issues aesthetically I do not like to see items that are out of context with their environment. So anything earlier than say Arts and Crafts/Art Nouveau, I would not give house room. That is my personal view.
Regarding the buying of ivory. Before a certain date it is legal to buy ivory however this sends ot a message that ivory is good to own and valuable. That then fuels the trade in illicit ivory. I see parallels with the Cambodian artefact trade.
There are many benefits to artefacts being displayed in a museum which I am sure you are aware of. One which gets overlooked is that artists gain some of their inspiration from sources that they have seen in museums. Faberge copied Scythian gold. David Andersen copied Viking pieces. Archibald Knox gained inspiration from Celtic design and so it goes on. If these items had been in private collections then these artists may not have been so inspired.
There are plenty of agencies that one can sponsor a child through. World Vision may be involved in projects in Cambodia. It does not just help the child but the project as well.
Sep 8, 2011
You may find this site of interest.
http://www.soschildrensvillages.org.uk/sponsor-a-child/asia/cambodia/child-sponsorship-background-from-angkor-siem-reap-cambodia.
There is also link to a comparison of the different agencies.
Nov 19, 2011
Buying stolen property is … well it’s buying stolen property. If it’s ok to buy stolen property then it’s also ok to purchase sex and drugs.
Morgan (above) makes the interesting point that objects like this suffer a transformation once taken out of context. In other words, when this thing is sitting on your coffee table in Santa Barbara or wherever, you’re going to find (1) that you can only mention it once, after which everyone is bored, and (2), quite a lot of your visitors will hold you in contempt for having bought it illegally.
May 12, 2012
I’m not going to hyperventilate and call you a bunch of names. But if your goal with this website is to be a non-controversial “nice guy” who just wants to share travel stories, then you should seriously consider deleting this post. I agree with your detractors in substance if not in style on the subject of the preservation of SE Asian antiquities.
But setting that point aside, your post makes clear that you thought or hoped that this piece was genuine. You write, “Having done our homework and given the history of the temple, we were confident it was real.”
You then go on to address what your plan was to avoid US Customs restrictions on the importation of cultural relics, writing “They would provide two sets of paperwork, one with certifications of the piece’s heritage, a second that would travel with it for US Customs. The traveling papers would state that it was a reproduction created in the last 50 years, therefore legal for importation without further scrutiny.”
Making a false Customs declaration is a FELONY punishable by up to 5 years in FEDERAL PRISON under 18 USC Sec. 1001.
Please allow me to point out in a general way and not at all as an ad hominem attack directed at you, that a person who would contemplate committing a felony under US law and then advertise that fact on a public website is:
1. Willing to be a criminal
2. Willing to be a liar
3. A fool for attracting attention to points 1 and 2
4. Not an especially attractive source of pleasant travel writing
5. More likely than the average citizen to cheat on his US taxes and, therefore, if statements like the ones on this website are noticed by employees of the IRS, more likely to be subjected to a federal tax audit.
6. An extraordinarily poor example for young people everywhere. It took great character to produce the object that you coveted. What a pity if the character of the man who should acquire it falls so far below the character of the man who produced it. You covet the article exactly because the man who made it took no short-cuts in its production. How is it then that the acquirer should take dishonest short-cuts in its acquisition? There is no honor in that.