Thailand to recover ‘Golden Boy,’ but over 100 stolen artifacts remain abroad

Nontarat Phaicharoen
2023.12.21
Bangkok

From left: Ardhanarishvara – Composite of Shiva and Parvati – Cambodia, pre-Angkor period, 7th-8th century; head of Avalokiteshvara – the Bodhisattva of Infinite Compassion – Cambodia, Angkor period, 10th century, bronze; and four-Armed Avalokiteshvara, Cambodia, Angkor period, 11th century, bronze. [The Metropolitan Museum of Art]

From left: The Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara Seated in Royal Ease, Cambodia, Angkor period, late 10th–early 11th century, copper alloy with silver inlay; Kneeling Female, Thailand, Angkor period, Khmer style of the Baphuon, 11th century, bronze inlaid with silver and traces of gold. [The Metropolitan Museum of Art]

From left: Standing Eight-Armed Avalokiteshvara, Cambodia, Angkor period, late 12th century, stone; face from a male deity – probably Shiva – Cambodia, Angkor period, ca. 930–60, bronze with silver inlay; Standing Female Deity – probably Uma – Cambodia, Angkor period, ca. mid-11th century, stone; possibly Standing Shiva, Thailand, Angkor period, 11th century, gilt-copper alloy with silver inlay. [The Metropolitan Museum of Art]

Head of Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara Cambodia, Angkor period, 9th century, stone; Head of a Buddha; Cambodia, Angkor period, ca. 920–50, stone; Male Deity – probably Shiva – Cambodia, Angkor period, mid-11th century. [The Metropolitan Museum of Art]

When an American museum announced last week that it would return two Angkor era statues to Thailand, including the well-known “Golden Boy ” dating to the 11th century, the emotive issue of stolen antiquities became a hot topic here.

Turns out, many Thais discovered that more than 100 stolen artifacts from their country are scattered in museums worldwide, according to experts.

But the Thai government, for now, has formally requested the return of only about 30 items – the repatriation of artifacts is a long process – and even those efforts have so far proven futile, according to noted local archaeologist Thanongsak Hanwong.

“We have officially submitted documents requesting the return of over 30 artifacts to various countries,” Thanongsak, who’s also a member of a government committee for the repatriation of stolen artifacts, told BenarNews.

“Additionally, there are about ten more cases where official requests have yet to be sent. However, Thai embassies abroad are negotiating their return. Some museums are reluctant to publicize these repatriations.”

Last Friday, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York announced it was returning the two Angkor-era statues to Thailand. The Met, as it is known, further said it would repatriate 14 other Angkor-era artifacts to Cambodia.

What might explain this wide difference in the number of objects going back to the two countries?

Especially considering the museum also holds two notable Thai statues, the 9th century “Bodhisattva Maitreya" and “Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara,” the latter having been a focus of Thailand's recovery efforts since 2016?

One explanation is that many museums abroad simply ignore Thailand’s return requests, despite the artifacts’ provenance established as Thai, said Thanongsak and his group “Sam-nuk Sam-Roi Ong” (SSO), a group of local archaeologists and historians.

6 embed Cambodia_Lintel with Shiva on Nandi_1996.473.jpg — Lintel with Shiva on Nandi, Cambodia, Angkor period, 11th century, stone. [The Metropolitan Museum of Art]

What does not help is that the Thai government has never explicitly said it prohibits its antiquities from being sold and taken overseas, Thanongsak said.

Cambodia’s success in repatriating many of its artifacts is due to its government’s declaration that it never consented to any Khmer art leaving the country. Therefore, such artifacts located outside of Cambodia are considered to have been acquired illegally, Thanongsak said.

“Cambodia has clearly stated that they never permitted the export of their artifacts, unlike Thailand, where permissions have been granted at the discretion of the director-general of the Fine Arts Department,” he said.

“The process of repatriating Thai artifacts is more complex than that of Cambodia, as it requires proof that the items were indeed stolen.”

The Thai government’s Department of Fine Arts is actively pursuing the return of the country's artifacts scattered abroad, Phanom Butrachoti, the department’s director-general, told BenarNews.

“It might seem slow, but each artifact requires careful consideration by relevant committees to ensure its illegal export from Thailand, to avoid future complications,” Phanom said.

thailand statue combo.jpg — Standing Shiva [left], known as "Golden Boy," Thailand, Angkor period, 11th century, gilt-copper alloy with silver inlay and Kneeling Female, Thailand, Angkor period, Khmer style of the Baphuon, second half of the 11th century, bronze inlaid with silver and traces of gold. [Metropolitan Museum of Art]

Take the case of “Golden Boy,” which the Met’s website describes as an 11th century statue, possibly of Hindu god Shiva, made of gilt-copper alloy and silver inlay.

“The process to repatriate the ‘Golden Boy’ took over three years of negotiations and gathering information from local villagers,” Thanongsak said.

The statue (pictured above) had been found by locals in Buriram province in the early 1970s. British antiquities dealer Douglas A.J. Latchford bought it from the locals for 1 million baht back then, and sold it abroad.

“The pursuit to reclaim ‘Golden Boy’ started in 2021. I presented this case to the Committee for the Follow-Up on Antiquities. [Was] sent to Ban Yang (in Buriram), I gathered information to substantiate its origins,” the Thai archaeologist said.

“Our efforts, backed by detailed data and Latchford’s book citing its acquisition from Ban Yang, eventually led to the Met’s representatives negotiating with Thailand, resulting in its return.”

The ‘Phra Narai Bantomsin lintel affair’

This repatriation “is not a common occurrence,” Thanongsak said, adding though that there was one other such case -- of the Narai Bantomsin lintel.

He was referring to a stone carving of a façade from between the 12th and 14th centuries, which went missing or was stolen in the 1960s from Phanom Rung Historical Park and later found displayed at The Art Institute of Chicago.

Its return was a result of extensive campaigns and protests by a charged Thai public.

The way it’s told, what came to be called “The Phra Narai Bantomsin lintel affair” kicked off in February 1988 when Thai newspapers all together published an open letter from the country demanding the lintel be returned.

In May that year, more than 500 Thais protested with the same demand in front of the Art Institute of Chicago .

Also that year, Thai rock band “Carabao” released an album called “Narai Bantomsin,” with the cover showing the Statue of Liberty holding the lintel. Included in the album was a song titled “Return Michael Jackson, bring back Narai.”

Pressure was mounting.

A Chicago-based philanthropic group, the Elizabeth F. Cheney Foundation, noticed the brouhaha and decided to facilitate the lintel’s return.

The foundation offered the Chicago museum Thai artifacts worth 50 million baht if it let go of the object. The museum agreed.

The stone artifact arrived at Don Mueang Airport on the evening of Nov. 10, 1988, to a media reception of the kind reserved for international rock stars, the Bangkok Post reported.

The nationwide telecast of the arrival event, included the opening of the wooden crate that contained the lintel.

When the lid was lifted to reveal the stone carving, the cheer rocked the airport.

Narai Bantomsin was finally home.

Shailaja Neelakantan in Washington contributed to this report.