Fri 30 Nov 2007
VIDEO: Protest Press Conference
VIDEO: Protest Press Conference 2
Protesters battle police as trucks secretly carry artifacts to the airport en route to Musee Guimet, France.
[Photos: Shahidul Alam/Drik]
Further Reading
1. Shahidul Alam:The Price Of Priceless Objects
##############################################
2. Letter To French Government & Citizens (December 1, 2007)
To The French Government & Citizens
Subject: Musee Guimet’s Non-Transparent Borrowing of Priceless Artifacts from Bangladesh
We the undersigned artists, archeologists, anthropologists, academics & other concerned citizens of Bangladesh are writing to express our strong objection to the manner in which Musee Guimet of Paris is taking invaluable artifacts from the national museum and four other leading museums of Bangladesh for a planned show entitled “Masterpieces of the Ganges delta”. The Musee Guimet transported the artifacts even after widespread protests and a pending citizens’ lawsuit in the Bangladesh court. The manner in which the artifacts were transported, in a secret crating during early morning hours under police guard, added to the controversy. As news of the secret shipment leaked out, protesters gathered to form a human chain, and one protester was arrested. Finally, the first shipment of 10 crates of rare archaeological treasures was taken away, despite resistance, to be flown to Paris on December 1st on an Air France cargo plane. There is also a second shipment of 13 crates which is still pending.
While the exhibition, which has been billed as being of outstanding quality, and consists of the most prized objects from all the major museums of Bangladesh, it is not part of an exchange programme. The only items that the Bangladeshi people will receive in return are 20 exhibition catalogues.
The lack of transparency surrounding the planned exhibition at Musee Guimet includes allegations of under-valuation of artifacts to the scale of hundreds of millions of dollars, lack of accession numbers on numerous objects, improper and incomplete cataloguing (e.g., referring to a set of coins as merely “coins”, with no numbers given), inconsistency between documents, missing descriptions, and descriptions that do not conform to international standards. The official insurance value of the entire collection (stated to be “189 pieces” by the French Embassy) has been set at 4 million Euros for the purposes of this exhibition loan. Such a low insurance value for such a large collection, which dates back to the 4th century BC, has been described by an international archaeological expert as “financial fraud”. Even if this incorrect valuation had been completed by the Bangladesh authorities, one questions why an international museum would accept such a patently incorrect valuation. Most worrying of all, the number of pieces identified in documentation created by the French photographer who catalogued the exhibit does not match with the contract signed by the French Ambassador. The number of artifacts in the contract in turn does not match with the official press releases from the Dhaka French Embassy.
The controversy over the improper handling of the loan escalated over the last two months, resulting in a citizens’ lawsuit (still pending in court) and Bangladesh citizens’ group’s demanded that the Bangladesh government and French authorities allowed experts to inspect the items as per international standards. The Bangladesh government asked the expert committee that is investigating the matter for time until January 15th, 2008 to respond to the committee’s queries. Astonishingly, the Musee Guimet began shipment of the artifacts on 30th November, 2007 — a full 45 days before the expiry of the Bangladesh government’s self-imposed deadline. The Bangladesh government and French Embassy officials have, without informing either the committee or the media, taken the items out of the museum in the surprise shipment described earlier.
Musee Guimet is one of 18 museums that have jointly signed a separate Declaration on Importance and Value of Universal Museums, which opposes returning art works, especially ancient ones, to their original owners. This is in direct opposition to the UNESCO Convention on Stolen and Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (1995). This is particularly relevant since the convention was based on the high incidence of theft that was prevailing. Bangladesh was identified as one of the three most vulnerable countries to such threats. Kwame Opoku’s recent statement “Musée Guimet in Paris which incidentally also holds thousands of stolen/illegal objects from China and the rest of Asia” has increased citizen debate about the lending.
The French embassy in Bangladesh has dismissed the protesters’ concern and said “local procedure in connection with the lending is an internal matter of the Bangladesh government” and there is “no risk in lending artifacts”. The embassy also dismissed the protests as “eminent citizens with mixed qualifications, many far outside the field of archaeology, or with little experience of international exhibitions.” Guimet director Jean-Francois Jarriage and curator of the show Vincent Lefevre refused to meet with Shahidul Alam, a delegate from the protesters, who traveled to Paris for the purposes of securing an explanation. In his own statement, Jean-Francois Jarriage mentions that in the late 50’s he had worked in the department of archeology here. Incidentally, it was during that period that one of the most prized artefacts, a relic casket, of our country, was taken to France for restoration. Mr. Zakaria, former secretary of the ministry of culture, who was then working in the archeology department has since campaigned for the return of the casket, but has failed to get a response from the French government over the last 49 years.
The original show at Musée National des Arts Asiatiques - Guimet was billed as “Masterpieces of the Ganges delta. Collections from the Bangladesh Museums.” The original scheduled dates for the show were 24th October 2007 to 3rd May 2008. The controversy has pushed back the date of the show, but as of today Musee Guimet remains adamant about showing the work without satisfying the demands of the concerned Bangladeshi citizens.
While we were originally open to the idea of showing the work at Musee Guimet provided the transparency issues were addressed, the recent actions of the museum has removed any semblance of trust in the organisation, and we are no longer willing to loan our prized possessions to an organisation with such standards of behaviour. The incident, originally restricted to the issue of an exhibition now appears to have created a general distrust in the French government amongst the Bangladeshi public.
Signed
A. K. M. Zakaria, archeologist and former secretary, ministry of cultural affairs, GOB.
Nazimuddin Ahmed, archeologist, former director, department of archeology, GOB.
Shamsuzzaman Khan, museologist, former director general, Bangladesh National Museum.
Bulbon Osman, art historian, former director institute of fine arts, Dhaka University.
Syed Jahangir, painter, former director, department of fine arts, Shilpakala Academy (Academy of Fine and Performing Arts), GOB.
Borhanuddin Khan Jahangir, art historian, former pro vice chancellor, National University of Bangladesh.
A. K. M. Shahnawaz, professor, department of archeology, Jahangirnagar University.
##############################################
3. Concerns regarding the risk in lending artefacts to the Guimet Museum, Paris
by Serajul Islam Choudhury, AKM Zakaria, Shamsuzzaman Khan and Lala Rukh Selim
The following points are addressed with regards to the explanation of the French Embassy in Dhaka (published in New Age, page 10, dated November 24 and The Daily Star, page 16, dated November 24, 2007, entitled “Artefact issue—French embassy clarification” and “French Embassy says no risk in lending artefacts” respectively) in response to the news conference by what the Embassy dubbed “some art connoisseurs, artists and activists”.
1. The explanation states “the local procedure in connection with the lending is an internal matter of the Bangladesh government on which it (the French Embassy) has nothing to say”. It should be noted that France is a developed and powerful nation in distinct contrast to Bangladesh, a ‘third world, underprivileged country. From an ethical perspective, the French Embassy as a representative of the Government of France does bear a moral responsibility, even if the local procedure is an internal matter of the Bangladesh Government. After all, is it not bad practice to steal candy from a baby? The adult is to blame when an immoral act is perpetrated. It is neither acceptable nor understandable why an adult pleads in that situation should plead innocence.
2. The French Embassy thanks the far-sighted partners who have worked for the resdeepening of cultural relations of the countries for ‘mutual benefit’. Here it is to be noted that no benefit is perceptible to the people of Bangladesh as they say are not borrowing any artefact from France in exchange for the priceless collection of Bangladeshi artefacts which is now in question. In fact, Bangladesh is not receiving any financial benefit as royalty from the exhibition. Bangladesh will receive only 20 copies of the catalogue to be published for the exhibition. Therefore, the ‘mutual benefit’ is a very questionable issue.
3. Unfortunately, even the recent history of France presents many examples where countless artefacts claimed as heritage by the nations they have come from have not been returned. In fact, the Musee Guimet is one of the 18 museums which has jointly signed a separate Declaration on Importance and Value of Universal Museums which opposes returning art-works, especially ancient ones, to their original owners. This is in direct opposition to the UNESCO Convention on Stolen and Illegally Exported Cultural Objects 1995 which laid down regulations that stolen or illegally excavated objects shall be returned to the owners (nations, natural or legal persons), cultural objects exported illicitly shall restituted upon request of the country of origin if it can prove that the illegal export would have an essential impact on scientific and cultural interests or that the object is of essential cultural significance for the country of origin.
As to the Musee Guimet, it is to be noted that it ‘holds thousands of stolen/illegal objects from China and the rest of Asia’.
‘France, . . . are known as dumping grounds for stolen art because of laws regarding ownership of stolen property, according to Ellis: “France, . . . are known as ‘good faith’ countries – their laws say if you buy in good faith, you buy title to the object, not withstanding the fact that it was stolen” (canada.com).
Also to be considered is the Reuters report to affect that French Culture Minister Christine Albanel has called for adapting existing laws to focus more closely on theft and vandalism in museums and heritage sites as the soaring prices for major robberies in recent years.
Because the Guimet has not signed the UNESCO Convention and in view of the above reports, serious doubts may be cast on its credibility and ethics in an exchange with Bangladesh which has already gone against the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums where it is stated, “Museums should conform to all national and local laws and respect them and affect their operation”. Let it suffice to say that there is enough evidence and controversy regarding the Musee Guimet not to put it beyond suspicion. These facts cannot be ridiculous or insulting, they can only deepen the existing concerns.
4. As for there never being any accusations against the National Museums of France, like Guimet, for substituting a fake for the original, only example will be cited here to invalidate this claim. The Louvre is refusing Turkish request for return of Ottoman tiles which were retained for restoration and though most originals were returned, some were replaced by copies bearing French patents on the reverse. Therefore, such spurious statements should not be made by the Embassy of France.
5. Last but not the least, the Embassy of France has said that a small number of “eminent citizens with mixed qualifications, many far outside the field of archaeology, or with little experience of international exhibitions, have been using all means possible to stop the exhibition from happening …”. Unfortunately, this concern for the right qualifications of those remotely concerned with the national heritage or patrimony of the country would have been more understandable if the lack of involvement of such professionals and experts from Bangladesh side during the selection, identification, cataloguing and other stages of the plan of the exhibition had not taken. The French Embassy should be aware that each and every citizen of a country has a right over its heritage and even a farmer or labourer can demand a say on patrimony (property inherited from ancestors , heritage). It should also be noted that the art of the past is not the sole preserve of the archaeologists. Any person in the field of culture has to revert to the past to understand the present. Perhaps the Embassy of France is ignorant about the qualifications and scope of the persons they are alluding to.
Moreover, Mr AKM Zakaria, a pioneer and reputed archaeologist as well as the former secretary to the Ministry of Culture, Bangladesh was the main organiser of the November 22 News Conference. In fact he pointed out how a relic casket found in Mainamati in 1958-59 was sent to France for restoration and has still not been returned after many dialogues. Many other archeologists and related professionals have strongly opposed the exhibition among whom Mr Nazimuddin, Mr Shamsuzzaman Khan, Prof. Shahnewaz and others may be named. Let it suffice to say that culture encompasses all spheres of human activities, and that a country’s heritage is shared by all its citizens. If even the smallest group of ‘eminent’ citizens are concerned about the security of our precious heritage, it should suffice to say that they represent the concerns of many more.
1. Professor Serajul Islam Choudhury,
English Department
Dhaka University
2. Mr AKM Zakaria
Archaeologist and former secretary to the Ministry of Culture, Bangladesh
3. Professor Shamsuzzaman Khan
Former Director General
National Museum, Bangladesh
4. Ms. Lala Rukh Selim
Associate Professor
Institute of Fine Art
Dhaka University
November 30th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Why is the current all powerful govt. with super high morality and “savior of Bangladesh” attitude is completely silent about this? Somebody should ask Moinul his opinion about it. After all, he has an opinion about everything and he is not shy about expressing it!
November 30th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
The more I read this, the more CONCERNED I am about the fate of these artifacts once they leave BD and arrive in Guimet.
I asked before, in UV postings, why do these relics have to go to France to be “catalogued”? whereas major Egyptian relics are only exhibited in REPLICAS, why do Bangladeshi artifacts hve to be sent ORIGINAL (and not replicas)?
Of course, there is no answer to that!!
Secondly, the French govt declaration about these artefact says “they will not be DESTROYED”. (well, we hope not!!). But the declaration does NOT say - “they will be returned to Bangladesh”. That increases my CONCERN more.
Third, as Dhakashohor observed in “unholy alliance”, France has not signed the 1970 UNESCO agreement for protecting ancient relics. Why not? thats a BIG ?? for me.
If France, the mecca of art and artists, does NOT recognize UNESCO, then whom are we dealing with?? Granted, BD has no idea what is art and what is mart, but FRANCE? Tsk Tsk!
Fourth, if Guimet is so good at returning ancient artefacts, then why is it so FULL of the rarest of foreign relics, especially from ASIA ?
I hope my suspicions are not justified, and pray that these artefacts are returned to BD, immediately after the exhibition is over.
We will thank France and Guimet for their sincerity, and we will ensure that our OWN people know the value of our history. Cos if WE dont, others will !
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, we must follow the international conventions, which says ALL our valuable artefacts MUST BE RETURNED, whether taken today, yesterday or decades ago, just as Egypt does.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:40 am
We should comment after weighing in the other sides of the story:
Museum Statues Denied Travel
http://www.drishtipat.org/blog/2007/10/01/museum-statues-denied-travel/
“It all started as a normal routine museum-government contract at least a year ago. The French Ambassador and the First Secretary of the Bangladesh Ministry of Cultural Affaires signed a document with the understanding that some rare and beautiful pieces (some of which have never been exhibited) would be sent to Paris’ prestigious Musée National des Arts Asiatics - Guimet (usually referred to as the ‘Musée Guimet’ – in prestige and standing the equivalent of the V&A or the Royal Academy of Arts in London) as part of the Sonar Bangla festival. The Sonar Bangla festival – with the usual conferences, films and concerts sequence on Bangladesh – has been organized to bring a greater awareness of the wonders and beauty of Bangladesh to the French public. So along with this festive occasion an exhibition called ‘Masterpieces of Ganges delta: Collections from the Bangladesh museums’ was supposed to have been held between the 24th October 2007 and the 3rd March 2008 at Musée Guimet.”
Unholy alliances
http://www.drishtipat.org/blog/2007/10/17/unholy-alliance/
“The past few weeks have seen tempers run high in some part of the artistic and heritage community over the supposed ‘theft’ of our artifacts by a foreign government, their ‘threatened destruction’ and the ‘anti-state’ activity constituted by their exhibition abroad. Quieter voices within both communities have talked about the importance of culture being part of a “universal heritage, which cannot be confined within geographical borders and boundaries but must be shared across communities and countries. But our press has done little to give space to these voices, reporting only the shrill and frankly ignorant (’the Mona Lisa has not been shown outside France’ says one eminent former DG Archaeology – now involved in litigation to stop the artefacts being taken abroad).”
Shonar Bangla in Paris
http://ahmedehussain.blogspot.com/2007/04/shonar-bangla-in-paris.html
“In the west, Bangladesh’s rich and multifaceted heritage has so far remained unappreciated and unrecognised. An exhibition, to be held at the end of October in Musëe National des Asiatiques Guimet, Paris, is going to change the situation, and will highlight the thousand year old glorious past of a country that otherwise hit the headlines of western media for all the wrong reasons.
Bangladesh’s rich and colourful heritage caught the attention of the western eye last summer, when Bangladeshi and French archaeologists, in a joint excavation, unearthed a temple that dates back to the 800AD. This, however, did not come as news to veteran archaeologists as the country’s civilisation is believed to be as old as the Aryan conquest of the South Asian sub-continent. In fact, the ancient city of Pundranagar, now situated in the village of Mahasthan (The Sacred Site) in Bogra, has been mentioned in the Vedas, and has remained one of the oldest urban settlements discovered in the eastern part of the sub-continent.”
December 1st, 2007 at 12:43 am
Also read Rumi’s excellent piece:
http://rumiahmed.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/musee-guimet/
Why are some people objecting to the exhibition?
As each objection has been met and responded to, new ones have been generated. It seems that the real objection of many of the ‘experts’ is that they were not involved/consulted)
1. The Musee Guimet is not a state museum.
[stated by the writ petitioners’ lawyer]
The Museum is a national museum, and regulated, like all other national museums by the Director Museums, an official of the Ministry of Culture. It’s not very difficult to find this out, just go on the website of the French Government.
2. The Musee Guimet is not well known and has a dubious past.
The Museum is internationally renowned as one of the leading European museums of Asian Art.
3. The artefacts listed for exhibition include unique pieces and these are too valuable too travel, so only replicas should be taken. [stated by ‘experts’ eg Prof. Shafi]
International exhibitions do not show replicas, but only originals. Visitors to art exhibitions are interested in seeing original, unique pieces.
Please check the details of the Tutankhamun exhibition, the Pompeii Exhibition, the Arts of Persia Exhibition etc etc all held in major international venues, and more recently the Gupta sculptures exhibition held in Paris.
4. The artefacts have not been insured for sufficient value. [stated by writ petitioner’s lawyer]
They have been insured in accordance with standard international practices, by valuing pieces against the market value of similar items based upon the catalogues of international auction houses, with the insurers have themselves been chosen through open tender.The lender ie Bangladesh Government proposed the rates. This is how the insurance for other exhibitions such as the ones of Afghan Gold or Cambodian artefacts were held, or that of Gupta sculptures from India in Paris. If there are concerns, which there may well be, should these be addressed by more appropriate rates being suggested – through a process involving actual experts ie people with knowledge and experience of this specialised area – rather than contemporary artists, architecs, botanists, professors of literature and others who have weighed in on the issue – and then agreed by the two Governments? Or should they continue to be questioned (with no solutions) resulting in nothing other than delay and presumably eventual cancellation of exhibition.
5. The artefacts if sent in the original will be copied while abroad, and the French Government will keep the originals and return the copies and no-one in Bangladesh will know the difference. [Dr. Yuree, and also Prof. Shafi] In addition to a clause in the agreement that the artifacts will be returned within four weeks, the French Government has passed an order – as is usual– clearly stating that under no circumstances could the artefacts be retained in France on conclusion of the exhibition. It should be noted that while many artefacts have been and continue to be smuggled out of Bangladesh, this is invariably by individuals and is hardly likely in the context of a government to government agreement.
6. The French would never allow the Mona Lisa or Picassos to travel. . [prof. Nizamuddin, an ‘expert’ and petitioner seeking injunction]
Of course the Mona Lisa has travelled abroad as have many Picasso artworks (including to India).
7. The removal of the artefacts will hamper research. [prof. Shafi of Jahangirnagar Univ.]
Quite the contrary. It will enable new interest in the artefacts to be generated. Physical examination of individual items is not always necessary for research.
Concerns for Clarification
One of the Government officials who is supposed to travel with the exhibit has earlier been accused of theft of artefacts. [raised by writ petitioners and their lawyer]
This is of course a concern if correct. The Government should clarify this issue immediately, and if it is correct, then, in the interests of transparency, steps should be taken to depute another person in his place, and to take proper legal action against the person concerned. The Government’s documents in Court already indicate that the person in question is not in fact accompanying the exhibition.
The Government did clarify before Supreme Court that no such person is accompanying the artefacts! But no response to that received from any of the ‘concerned people’.
There is an absolute prohibition of any unique antiquities being taken abroad.
This is a misreading of the law. Antiquities may be sent on ‘temporary export’ ‘for purposes of exhibition etc…’ (See Rule 22 (1) (a) Antiquities Act).In this case the artefacts are obviously going abroad for temporary export as exhibits
What is the current status of the Exhibition?
Due to a High Court stay order on the artefacts being sent to France, the Exhibition will not be opened as planned.
If there is no change in the situation, the Exhibition will be cancelled. Bangladesh will likely have to compensate the French Government for all costs incurred in making preparations for the exhibition printing publicity materials, catalogues etc.
Who will benefit if the exhibition is cancelled?
People who were not part of the process of preparing for the exhibition and who it seems had an axe to grind against it.
People who believe that any interaction with a foreign state is ‘anti-national’ and ‘anti-state’ and have no vision of how Bangladeshi art can be and is part of a universal cultural heritage.
People who for unexplained reasons are intent on Bangladesh not currently being seen in a positive light.
What will happen if all those concerned agree to try to seek a solution which enables the exhibition to take place ?
The Exhibition will go ahead. And thousands of people will be able to learn about Bangladeshi art architecture and our heritage and to understand the depth and diversity of our culture – in a contrast to the negative images portrayed through the news every day.
This in turn will generate interest in Bangladeshi art and architecture, promote research possibilities, and create opportunities for future investment and exchanges of art and culture between Bangladesh and France.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Rezwan,
Why did France INSIST “either ORIGINALS must go to France, or else no exhibition”, if Egyptian exhibitions take place with REPLICAS, not originals? Why couldnt Bangladesh culture be equally promoted using identical replicas, just like Egyptian ones?
That sounded, to me, like France was MORE interested in the original artefacts, than on promoting Bangladesh.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Until yesterday, I was not concerned. Now, after Shahidul Alam’s blog carried those pictures and videos of how it was done, I wholeheartedly join KGazi bhai in his concern.
While in my mind a big problem exists in how the opposition to this exhibition has expressed themselves - usually one idiotic statement after another (”Guimet has not signed UNESCO convention”) - an even bigger problem is that this is not how a self-respecting nation with pride in their culture LEND their history for exhibition.
Firstly, they do not use trucks marked out for remedying a national tragedy (SIDR). That is DISHONESTY of the vilest kind. An explanation from ANYONE - homebound, french embassy or culture ministry - will be appreciated.
And very frankly, an apology would be nice. Not to an “elite”, pampered Bangladeshi like me, but to the people who are now suffering from the after-effects of SIDR. I’m sure the art-lovers who will throng the Guimet would have waited a few more days if they knew that the opportunity cost of the transportation was a few more hungry mouths/ be appalled by the ruse. But perhaps I’m being too generous there….
Secondly, they do not do it like thieves in the middle of the night, after questions have been raised about transparency.
Thirdly, they address the valid concerns raised - accession numbers, video/photo documentation - rather than answering those who say “the Museum will make copies” or something bordering on the ridiculous. The more serious claim is that some pieces will go MISSING and be STOLEN. No need to make copies if the documentation is flawed, no need for insurance either.
Fourthly, we heard initially that certain government agencies were against this exhibition and that is why it was stopped. Clearly, they have changed their minds. Given the nature of the current government, we have no idea why the change of heart occurred. It might just be a crime under “emergency” to even ask.
Fifth, I feel immensely sad being a citizen of a country whose police force treats its own people with such disrespect over such an issue. The second video on Shahidul Alam’s blog as well as some of the pictures show a total lack of respect.
Why? To ensure that a (foreign) museum is on schedule? Nijer desher manusher dignity’r mullo ki er thekeo kom? Were these protestors criminals acting in bad faith or good people acting out of valid concerns?
To anyone in Paris now or will be before March: enjoy the exhibit and don’t let a bunch of questions raised by Bangladeshis get in the way.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:27 am
As the Departing U.S. Abassador suggested, Bangladeshis are keen to find consiparacies in everything.
There is currently an exhibition going on in London with many “original” Tuttenkhamen artifacts on display.
We should be happy that an internationally renowned Museum will be displaying our heritage to an international audience. Instead of being happy about it people just decide to make a fuss.
Grow up Bengalis.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:34 am
[...] Comment on Musee Guimet Protests by DhakaShohorBy DhakaShohorI’m sure the art-lovers who will throng the Guimet would have waited a few more days if they knew that the opportunity cost of the transportation was a few more hungry mouths/ be appalled by the ruse. But perhaps I’m being too generous …Comments for Unheard Voices - http://www.drishtipat.org/blog [...]
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:48 pm
How appropriate that Mr Rezwan should quote ‘the departing US ambassador’ in support of his contention that the artefacts are in safe French hands and that the exhibition oppositionitas should grow up. I am curious: Which particular one is he referring to, the one that is now Condoleeza’s chief aide de camp trying to put out the fire ignited by a rebellion of American foreign service officers not wanting to be posted to Iraq (see the Washington Post of two weeks back), or the one that is now actually in Iraq co-ordinating the continual slaughter of Iraqis and irradiating Iraqi soil with depleted uranium bombs so that generations of Iraqi children grow up with malignant cells in their bodies?
Neo-colonialism today, like the older straight colonialism, depends on local middlemen, on the ‘yes o great sahib’ compradors, and Mr. Rezwan’s revealing choice of authority to quote in this particular debate, I’m afraid, throws wide open the question of his ultimate loyalties and concerns. And, I might add, perchance his paycheck.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:49 pm
rezwan haroon #7,
In the King Tut exhibition in British Museum London I personally witnessed - the artefacts were all replicas, NOT originals. So if you, or anyone, attend the King Tut in London this year, pls check out that they are also REPLICAS (NOT originals).
As noted earlier, replicas can be made so immaculate, that even veteran professors CANNOT tell the difference. One has to be TOLD, usually with a LABEL in the museum, or ask a museum curator, if the displays are replica or not.
Also, in USA a King Tut exhibition was documented to be [126 breathtaking REPLICAS]…
http://www.carolinaarts.com/603scstmus.html
Recently, a number of original paintings were confiscated and returned to ITALY from an US museum, after it was verified that the paintings were illegaly acquired BY THE MUSEUM.
You said “We should be happy that an internationally renowned Museum will be displaying our heritage to an international audience” - then should we be happy that they keep the originals, and we keep the replicas?
Or should we prefer it the other way around?
Or perhaps, we should transfer the Taj Mahal piece-by-piece and move it to Paris, so that the Mogul heritage can be displayed to an international audience in Paris, and not in Agra?!
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:00 pm
I agree with # 7 …..GROW UP!
this entire protest is a joke. I am laughing my ass off right now. Aren’t there bigger problems in Bangladesh right now . . . sidr for one! I suggest that everyone who is up in arms about this insignificant problem find a contructive outlet for their pent up anger. take your sticks to the street, and cleanup the garbage that is everywhere.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:03 am
Re # 11 by clam chowdhury, s/he should be aware that the protest effort is part of cleaning up garbage - garbage doesn’t exist merely in the streets, but also in minds, where it does far more harm. He is right, though, about pentup anger, that there are subtexts beneath the surface issue: of an unconstitutional government trucking ahead for far too long, of bureaucratic arrogance, of a new form of corruption, of the shape of coming elections (or not as the case may be), of new families and clans now jockeying for state power under cover of a cleansing drive, of the lack of true press freedom (i.e. there is only one accepted, officially defined corruption they are allowed to talk about), and of course, foreign connections to ensure funding for personalized ‘research institutes’. This present trench warfare is merely the first of many litmus tests and battles to come.
And here, wisecracks don’t help.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:18 am
#11,
we should not keep all our heritage gates open for pilferage, just because of SIDR. Each problem has its own weight, and one problem does not override the other - every problem has to be addressed concurrently.
You can “laugh your ass off” to this ‘insignificant problem’ as you call it, but that itself is the problem. Some people are “laughing their ass off” to the looting of our heritage, the trafficking of our people, and the smuggling of drugs at the borders.
But the rest of the world does not think these are ‘insignificant problems’, to which Bangladeshi people give little value! But only when its TOO LATE do most people in BD realize - “O My God! we have been looted” all our museums are empty!! Dont believe it? Ask any history professor.
Iftekhar Ali, #12
- I wouldnt blame this “unconstitutional” govt for this debacle. The project was started by previous govts. We cannot expect this govt to suddenly rise in efficiency to perfection, in a nation governed by inefficiency.
The nation as a whole must rise to the needs of national heritage protection, the value of life, and the value of cultural history.
France cannot give it to us - we have to establish our own.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Re #13 I’m not blaming this particular administration for any debacle re guimet. I have to respect their efforts at generally attempting to clean up the stable. It is only on the matter of guimet, however, that somehow their customary zeal about enquiring into past deals is missing - in fact, they have gone in the opposite direction in attempting some inept damage control. Curiouser and curiouser! But I suspect one day the true story will come out, as it does, and we will know who was on whose payroll.
What I was actually suggesting above in #12 was that some reservoir of anger at not being able to have proper constitutionally mandated channels to express dissent regarding social and political issues also at times may find expression in other areas. It is a part of the broader politics of culture, specially in South Asia, that Mr. Mohaimen writes that he is interested in his other, separate Drishtipat piece.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Shedding light on insurance values:
Three Palm Leaf Folios were sold by Sotheby at US $36,000. Approximately 700 folios (we do not know for sure), might therefore potentially fetch 8.4 million US dollars.
Sale: N08332 | Location: New York Auction Dates: Session 1: Fri, 23 Mar 07 10:00 AM
LOT 24
PROPERTY OF THE ALBRIGHT-KNOX ART GALLERY, BUFFALO, NEW YORK, TO BENEFIT THE RESTRICTED ENDOWMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF WORKS OF ART
u - ILLUSTRATED BUDDHIST MANUSCRIPT
PALM LEAF
EASTERN INDIA
20,000—30,000 USD
Lot Sold. Hammer Price with Buyer’s Premium: 36,000 USD
MEASUREMENTS
dimensions: 2 1/4 by 22 1/4 in (5.7 cm by 56.5 cm) maximum
DESCRIPTION
12th century
The three leaves of the fragmentary Sanskrit manuscript, probably the prajnaparamitasutra, with illustrations including a yellow female divinity, possibly Prajnaparamita, wearing a long diaphanous dhoti and standing against a white halo, a bodhisattva reclining on a charpoy with hands in dharmachakramudra and in discourse with two attendants, possibly the Bodhisattva discussing his return to the earthly realm, and a deity, probably Indra, riding a white elephant, stupas decorating the borders, the binding holes within red and blue rectangles decorated with geometric designs.
PROVENANCE
Nasli M. Heeramaneck, 1938.
CATALOGUE NOTE
Further leaves of the manuscript, some almost certainly illustrated but now lost, would have confirmed the iconographic context of these three delightful illuminations. The three remaining leaves are illustrated with the quintessential charm of the medieval eastern Indian aesthetic, the swift and free hand giving immediacy and animation to the subjects. Compare the free style of a ca. 1100 Karandavyuhasutra now in the British Library, see Zwalf (ed.), 1985, no. 81, pp. 67-9. Such manuscripts have long been preserved in foreign countries, mostly Tibet and Nepal, taken as precious vehicles of the faith before the Buddhist culture and religious artefacts of the country of their origin were decimated by Muslim incursion. Few such pages remain in India. And the ravages of the Indian climate would probably have done for many that might have survived the onslaughts. The medieval Buddhist manuscripts from India, the spiritual home of the philosophy, not only fulfilled the role of transmission of written teachings, but also introduced the Indian art style to their host countries by way of their illustrations. Nepal had always had close links with their immediate neighbours and had a more or less contemporary growth of artistic style, but Tibet had been starved of contact until about the eleventh century, and would have savoured the art as well as the deeper content of the revered texts. Evidence of Tibetan assimilation of the eastern Indian style may be seen in early thanka paintings such as an eleventh century mandala, see Pal, 2003, pl. 115, p. 176.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Shahidul, this is interesting but what is your point? We know stuff gets stolen all the time and this could have been stolen from a monastery just as well as a from a museum.
What is the alternative you suggest? That we never lend out our artifacts for fear they will be stolen? Let’s look instead at what has been happening in our own country - the artifacts in our national museums are covered in dust, they have drops of whitewash on them, they are left to rust, rot and even theft.
Guimet has a pretty good track record and has organised thousands of exhibitions where not a single item has disappeared (India, China, Japan wouldn’t really be exhibiting there if it were, would they?). Indians did not demonstrate against their Guptas (signed by 17 different Indian national museums!) leaving for a temporary exhibition to Paris and have on the contrary initiated these cross-cultural exchanges. Why are we Bangladeshis taking such a moral high ground and revelling in such a misplaced sense of nationalism?
December 5th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Dear Jadugharer bhoot,
My intentions were very simple. Providing information. One of the issues has been the low insurance value. These figures suggest that 2 of the 187 items taken would have a market value of about 8 million USD, whereas the entire exhibit has been insured for 2.6/4 million euro depending on whether you take the Bangladeshi/French version.
Of course my method of extrapolating to estimate the possible cost of the two entire sets of Prajnaparamita is a crude one. One set has smaller folios than the other, and that might affect the market value. Not all the 187 items can be priced in a similar way either. But if we were able to get reliable market figures for the other items, we could take a stab at what the real insurance value should have been. A more informed debate can’t hurt.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
For those who don’t know the Prajnaparamita issue it is the main item in the collection that is not itemized. The two sets of manuscripts have multiple pages (aka folios). The number of folios in the Prajnaparamita are not listed in the catalogue (I checked), in the list handed out to journalists by French embassy yesterday, or the Bangladesh government’s list.
The reason for this may actually be simple and not sinister. The Prajnaparamita is in extreme fragile condition and thus separating the folios could damage them further– this may be why they were never separated while in Bangladesh. Thus they went uncounted when sent for the loan. Therefore protesters allegation that things are uncounted is not entirely unfounded.
Now given the value of individual folios (I have heard that three folios are actually preserved in New York, but am not sure if they come from Prajnaparamita or another similar scroll), it is naturally a cause for anxiety that the official number of folios is not public. Also as pointed out above, the Prajnaparamita alone may have a market value of 8m USD– which may help to resolve the intransigent question of what the correct insurance value should be.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Concerning the two Prajnaparamita manuscripts: one should know that in the art market, only painted folios have a value, this is why - unfortunately - dealers separate folios with text only from folios bearing an illustration. The three folios sold at Sotheby’s New York in Spring were painted and were once part of a very large manuscript which has been dispersed before 1940 after having been most probably collected in Tibet; the main part went to the Baroda Museum, another major part went to the USA where it partly surfaced some years ago, entering then a private European collection; these three folios belong to this very same American lot. All folios belong to a manuscript from the reign of Harivarmadeva who ruled in the area of Mainamati around 1100 AD. And one of the Rajshahi manuscripts shown in Paris belongs exactly to the same reign. Hence it is indeed possible to introduce here a suggestion of price for this manuscript. But again, the value given to a painted folio is not the value (lower) given to a folio bearing only text.
December 25th, 2007 at 3:06 am
[...] Voices also posted the protests in detail which raised concerns over the security of the artifacts during shipping and the financial [...]