8

ing lotus bearing Brahma, the creator STOLEN ART OBJECTS of the world in Hinduism. He is flanked by two flying angels in the altitude of adoration. RETURNED TO On both sides of are scroll and leaf motifs. Comparing to Khmer art in Cambodia, this lintel by M.C. Subhadradis Diskul should date back to about the middle or late 12th century A.D. It was originally at the sanctuary called Prang Ku Suan Taeng, in Putthaisong I,Three of the many art objects Khmer style from Cambodia, depicts District, Buriram Province, North- stolen from Thailand were retreived. the reclining Vishnu, one of the eastern Thailand. The following relates how the Thai greatest Hindu gods. The god is The lintel was stolen from the people and their Government worked shown lying on a naga (snake), which sanctuary on 15 April 1964. Later, it for the return of these invaluable has only one head, upon a dragon appeared in the collection of Mr. cultural heritage. (an aquatic animal showing Chinese Avery Brundage, an American millio- origin). naire. The writer saw the picture of PERIOD He has four arms: the upper the stolen lintel in a catalogue. The STONE LINTEL right supporting his head; the upper catalogue, sponsored by the Asia The first stolen art object re- left holding (he stem of a lotus; and Foundation, was published to illustrate turned to (he Government of Thai- the lower left holding a conch (?). the eastern art collection of Mr. Avery land is a stone lintel from the Lopburi His two consorts are seated behind Brundage, donated to the De Young Period. The lintel, influenced by the his legs. On (op of Vishnu is a bloom- Museum in San Francisco. 9

Left : The Reclining Vishnu Lintel, scroll designs and the figure of a large to various institutions in that country. taken in situ, before it disappeared bird holding an elephant in its beak. After the lecture at the Art from prasat Phanom Rung. The broken piece on the left Institute of Chicago, the writer was side of the lintel represents the same taken around the Institute to look at After quite a long negotiation, motifs as on the right. In addition their oriental collection. While brows- this lintel was kindly returned to the however a standing (king of ing, he immediately recognized the Fine Arts Department of Thailand birds) is represented as holding two right fragment of the stolen Vishnu on 24 July 1970. This was the day nagas (king of snakes) above a kala's Lintel. So, after the lintel disappeared when Mr. Avery Brundage presided (monster) face. Two parrots, one on from the Phanom Rung Sanctuary it over the First Asean Games held in each side of an extending floral pen- was displayed at the Art Institute. .The Lopburi Period stone dant underneath, and a mother mon- The writer learned from one of lintel is now being displayed in the key nurturing her child arc also shown. the officials of the Institute that the Bangkok National Museum.

THE RECLINING VISHNU LINTEL The case of the second art object is much more complicated. It took more time to retrieve than the first one. The art object is a stone lintel from Prasat Phanom Rung in Nang Rong District, Buriram Province, Northeastern Thailand. Stone lintel representing reclining Vishnu at Prang Ku Suan Taeng, Buriram The Prasat Phanom Rung Sanc- Province, Northeastern Thailand. Middle or late 12th century A.D. Returned by tuary was registered as one of the Mr. Avery Brundage on 24 July 1970. national monuments of Thailand on 8 March 1935. The stolen lintel from this sanctuary represents the reclining These two fragments of the Vishnu Lintel was loaned from Mr. Vishnu, on the five-headed naga upon same lintel were photographed twice James W. Alsdorf. He was, during a dragon. The lintel had fallen from in situ in 1932 and 1960 and published that period, the Chairman of the above the doorway on the eastern in a book form in 1967. The date of Institute's Board of Trustees. side of the sanctuary and broken into the lintel should be about the first When the writer returned to two pieces. half of the 12th century A.D. Thailand, he wrote a letter to the A large part, on the right side In about the year I960 or 1961 Director-General of the Thai Fine of the lintel, not only represents the these two fragments disappeared Arts Department. That was in Febru- reclining Vishnu upon the naga and from the sanctuary. On 13 August ary 1973. In his letter he wrote about dragon but also a blooming lotus in 1965, the Fine Arts Department of his discovery and suggested that the middle, supporting Brahma. One Thailand was able to retrieve the left Thailand ask for the return of the consort is shown tending the legs of fragment of the lintel from an antique lintel since there were strong evidences Vishnu. shop in Bangkok. But the where- pointing to the theft of the lintel and Vishnu has four arms. The two abouts of the right fragment remain- that it was smuggled out of Thailand. on the right are holding a discus and ed unknown. Acting upon his suggestion, the supporting his head, while the two on In 1972, a louring exhibition Thai Fine Arts Department wrote to the left arc holding a club and prob- of was held, for the second the Art Institute of Chicago asking ably holding a conch above a lotus. time, in the United Slates of America. for the return of the lintel. The Art On the right side of the lintel are The writer was invited to give lectures Institute, however, replied that the 10

linlel belonged to Mr. Alsdorf. The Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Educa- in southern India and later on appear- lintel, according to them, was only tion and the Department of Fine Arts ed in a museum in the United States. loaned by the Insitute from him. in Thailand. Clearly interested, the writer Again, the Thai Fine Arts Department Meanwhile the restoration of asked the curator how the statue wrote a letter, this time, to Mr. Alsdorf. the Phanom Rung Temple began, was successfully returned to India. But no reply. further to the Anastylosis Method. "American public pressure, that is There is a mystery here. Mr. In 1987, 15 years after the first very important", came the reply. Alsdorf, further to the letters of the discovery of the Phanom Rung lintel When the writer reached Thai- Thai Fine Arts Department, created at the Art Institute of Chicago, the land from India, on 29 October 1987, the Alsdorf Foundation. Then he writer went to New Delhi, India. he wrote a letter to the Director- donated all his collection to the Foun- There he gave a lecture on an ancient General of the Thai Fine Arts Depart- dation. town at Sitep in Petchaburi Province, ment. In his letter he suggested that On the other hand, the Founda- Northern-Central Thailand. since the restoration of Prasat Pha- tion, after the request for the lintel In that lecture he showed many nom Rung was nearly completed, in 1988, claimed that they have pre- slides on antiquities found at Sitep another attempt should be made for viously sent two letters to the Thai which had been smuggled out of the return of the lintel. Government, asking for evidences on Thailand. The smuggled antiquities At the same time, the Director- the theft of the lintel. Moreover, they were, at the same time, exhibited in General should make himself available claimed the Government of Thailand one museum in the United States. for interviews, not only with the Thai never responded to their letters. After the lecture the curator of press but also with the foreign mass Needless to say, thorough sear- the National Museum in New Delhi media, especially those in the United ches were thereafter carried out, by asked the writer whether or not he States. These mass media should the Government of Thailand, Tor the knew of the bronze statue of the include such well-known papers as Alsdorf Foundation letters. But none dancing Siva retrieved by India from the Times Weekly, Newsweek and the were found at the Thai Embassy in a museum in the United States. The New York Times in order to be able Washington D.C., the Ministry of statue had been stolen from a temple to utilize American public pressure. The implementation of the writer's suggestion aroused a lot of public awareness, especially among the in Thailand and also in Chicago. At the same time the Thai Government, through the Ministry of Education, tried contacting the Art Institute of Chicago again. The Art Institute, agreed to return the lintel, provided that an art object of equal value is given as an exchange. They used the 1970 Unesco Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Own- ership of Cultural Property as an obstacle to the return of the lintel without any compensation. Stone lintel representing the Reclining Vishnu at Prasat Phanom Rung, Buriram, Meanwhile, protests held by Northeastern Thailand (first half of the 12th century A.D.). Returned from the Thais living in Chicago progressed Art Institute of Chicago on 10th November 1988. in front of the Art Institute. A lot 11 of Americans joined the Thais in their cause. In fact, an American senator from Illinois even wrote a letter, requesting the President of the Board of the Art Institute of Chicago to voluntarily "give up this priceless Thai treasure to the Thai people to whom it belongs".

In July 1988, Mr. Pisit Charoen- wongsa and the writer met with the officials of the Art Institute of Chica- go, in Chicago. We proposed a revolv- ing loan of three mutually-acceptable lintels to be shown serially at the Insitute over a period of leu years. Surprisingly, the Art Institute of Chicago declared their wish to have this revolving loan continued forever. Because no nation or museum could ever accept such a term, the negotia- tion naturally broke down.

Then the Elizabeth P. Cheney Foundation of Chicago intervened, To make a long story short, the Foun- dation agreed with the Art Institute of Chicago to buy an ancient object, of equal value, in exchange for Thai- land's lintel. On 10 November 1988, the Reclin- ing Vishnu Lintel was returned by the Art Institute of Chicago to the Thai people. The renowned lintel is now installed at its original place, above the eastern door-way of the Phanom Rung Temple in northeastern Thai- land. A warning to art collectors: The writer has seen three replicas of the Reclining Vishnu Lintel in three museums. These museums are located in Switzerland, Germany and the United States of America. Two of them claim they have in their keeping Gold votive plaque representing Maitreya(?) from PetchabunProvince, Northern the original version of the Reclining Central Thailand. Height 7 cm. style,8th-10th century A.D. Returned Vishnu Lintel. to the James H.W. Thompson Foundation on 8 February 1989. 12

THE GOLD VOTIVE PLAQUE and his wife were invited to Thailand defined and understood from every OF JAMES H. W. THOMPSON by the James H.W. Thompson Foun- legal point of view. FOUNDATION dation. A ceremony was held for the 3. In Thailand, clandestine The third stolen cultural trea- return of the gold votive plaque to excavations are going on as well as sure of Thailand was returned in a the House on 8 February 1989. Today, thefts of antique and art objects, much more amicable way. This is a the plaque is proudly displayed in the although a law forbidding such acts gold votive plaque, probably repre- House, which is open to the public. has been created since the 1930's. senting Maitreya, the future Buddha, 'The case of the gold votive The Thai Fine Arts Department, with a stupa (?), a solid monument tablet and the good deed done by the empowered to preserve the national enshrining the relies of the Buddha, Indian and Southeast Asian Art Sec- cultural heritage, is working hard to on his chignon. It was stolen with tion of the Metropolitan Museum of carry out its duties. other pieces from the James H.W. Art in New York, through Mr. Martin Thai law allows the Fine Arts Thompson House in Bangkok in 1980. Lerner, its curator, should be regarded Department to register ancient monu- The plaque shows Maitreya as an illustrious example of what ments, antique and art objects. Un- seated in a cross-legged fashion. His cooperation between two museums inhabited ancient monuments fall right hand is holding a lotus bud can do. It should be highlighted and directly under the care of the Fine while his head is surrounded with an strongly recommended by Unesco as Arts Department. On the other hand, aureole. On the right side of the a possible means for the retrieval of any change of ownership of inhabited plaque figures a stylized form of a stolen cultural objects. ancient monuments must be reported stupa; on the left is of a Wheel of the to the Fine Arts Department. Permis- PROPOSALS Law on a base. sion from the Fine Arts Department The seven centimetre high plaque 1. Although the writer agrees must also be obtained Tor any restora- belongs to the Dvaravali Period, with every recommendation in the tion of inhabited ancient monuments. the first historical period of Thailand. Report by the Intergovernmental As for registered antique and It probably dates back between the Committee for Promoting the Return art objects, changes in ownership is 8th-10th centuries A.D. and was pre- of Cultural Properly to its Countries permissible. However, the Fine Arts sumably discovered in Petchabun of Origin or Its Restitution in Case Department should be notified each Province, Northern-Central Thailand. of Illicit Appropriation, Sixth Ses- lime there is a change. These objects The picture of the plaque has been sion, at Unesco Headquarters, Paris, arc absolutely prohibited from leaving printed in the Catalogue of the House: 24-27 April 1989, the writer still share the country. Ancient objects consider- The House on the Klong, as no. 28 the opinion of one of the member ed less important can leave the coun- and also in the 1972 Asia Society who said that purchasers cannot be try, only with the permission of the Exhibition, The Sculpture of Thailand, regarded as innocent, under the terms Fine Arts Department. cat.7-a. of Article 7 (b) of the 1970 Con- The writer must confess that Mr. Martin Lerner, the Curator vention, if they had not attempted however hard the authorities tried, of the Indian and Southeast Asian Art to obtain information on the art ob- prevention of theft and illicit export Section of the Metropolitan Museum jects they purchased from the State is still one of the most formidable of Art in New York, recognized this of origin. challenges met by the Government plaque in an antique shop in Europe. 2. As already explained, the of Thailand. After convincing the owner of the shop 1970 Convention of Unesco has, time 4. Museums should be highly to return the invaluable piece to the and again, been used as an obstacle recommended not to buy or accept James H.W. Thompson Collection, in the return of stolen objects to the objects that do not have a clear origin. Mr. Lerner wrote a letter to the writer stale of origin, without any compen- Though this action cannot fully pre- on June 6, 1988. The writer is the sation. Therefore, the part of Article 7 vent illicit export because of the pre- incumbent President of the James (ii), slating: "an innocent purchaser sence of private collectors, it will, at H.W. Thompson Foundation. or a person who has valid title to least, cut out half or more of the Thereafter, Mr. Martin Lerner that properly", should be clearly unlawful actions.