The Nataraja at Freer Sackler
- In History & Culture
- 01:35 PM, Feb 23, 2017
- Vijay Kumar
This case highlights the need for Museums to be more open in their information sharing especially with regard to problematic acquisitions and also throws up the need for some serious soul searching by celebrated Art Historians & Academics in actively aiding and abetting the illicit trafficking of cultural treasures.
For starters till we along with our volunteers and supporters like Jason Felch and Michaela Boland got the National Gallery of Australia to come clear on the shoddy provenance on the Kushan Buddha ( since returned to India) – the said dealer – Wiener galleries was one of the most celebrated upmarket dealerships and the mother ( Doris) and daughter ( Nancy) would be listed amongst the very elite dealerships of Ancient art parading their wares for 4 decades selling and contributing to every major museums and private collector worldwide. It was the first time a dealer reimbursed the gallery ( a million dollars)for the purchase and made a promise to return the sculpture to India. Even then there was no attempt to carry the investigation further.
However, the work we did on the Subhash Kapoor case along with various law enforcement agencies opened up the Kapoor Dossier – leading to the raids during Asia Week NYC in March 2016 by US customs and seizure of many artefacts from various dealers including the Wierner Galleries.
Nancy Wiener of Wiener Galleries was charged with willfully faking provenance information in December 2016 in America. ( Doris Wiener was the mother of Nancy and died in 2013) The case also listed that the dealers had active links to various smuggling networks in India including Subhash Kapoor and Vaman Ghiya.
Even after this startling expose, many museums and collectors are reluctant to disclose the provenance of the artefacts sourced from the said dealer and only a few have started putting up the information. We faced similar stone walling with the Subhash Kapoor case and even after 5 years – we are catching many famous museums withholding crucial information or not being forthwith in disclosing their dealings with criminal networks. Being institutions of high standing the least we could expect of them is to be forthwith in sharing provenance information.
It is akin to opening a can of worms but then in todays connected world how long can you hide ? Take the case of the Freer Sackler Nataraja.
http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/edan/object.php?q=fsg_F2003.2
After the case filing on Wierner went public, Freer and Sackler has posted provenance information about their TN bronze Nataraja.
To 1973
Rajrama Art Galleries, London, United Kingdom. [1]
From 1973 to 2002
Doris Wiener Gallery, New York, New York, purchased from Rajrama Art Galleries, London, United Kingdom in 1973. [2]
From 2002
Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., purchased from Doris Wiener Gallery, New York, New York on July 2002. [3]
The given paperwork is straightaway problematic since the bronze has no provenance pre 1972 and no information on how it reached london pre 1972. The 1972 year is also clearly after the UN Statute http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
What is interesting in this case is the mention of Vidya Dehejia a Padma Bhushan awardee who was the curator when in 2002 the gallery purchased the Nataraja, Doris Wiener has written this letter - which states that she bought the Nataraja in March 10th 1973 ( invoice date) but actually purchased it in 1972. But the Letter itself is dated Nov 16h 1995.
There is no apparent reason for this explanation but an attempt to push the objects acquisition back by a year ! Further any curator would have sought information on how the bronze landed up in london in the Rajrama Art Gallery in the first place. Further it is interesting that the Nataraja of this rare beauty was never publicaly seen or displayed till 2002.
However, there is another twist in this as well – to apparently overcome the above argument, the gallery has a solution – it claims that another expert Sri Pratapaditya Pal a Padma Sri awardee who is to have "seen" the bronze with Wiener in 1973.
Lastly the museum site listing also mentions that "Dr R. Nagaswamy, who was the Director of Archaeology of India during those years, has examined the Shiv Nataraja and assures us that it is not among those bronzes reported as stolen by Tamil Nadu Temples"
This is highly contestable - as have seen Temple bronzes in Tamil Nadu have been scantly documented and hardly any theft reports are filed - that too way back in the 1970's. Further India was already fighting 2 famous cases - the Pathur Nataraja and the Sivapuram Nataraja - in London during the same period - both of which were excavated bronzes - from buried hordes.
Observing the patina, condition of the bronze - especially the holes in the reverse and on the base pedestal - it is highly likely that this bronze too came from one such illegally excavated buried hoard. In which case there are likely to be no theft reports of FIR’s.
Citing precedence of the Pathur and Sivapuram cases, the UN Statute and the thin paper work India should stake its claim for this bronze purely on the basis of no documented provenance pre 1973 and also take the official statements of the celebrated scholars in this case.
Details below Notes:
[1] See invoice dated March 10, 1973 from Rajrama Art Galleries, London, copy in object file, Collections Management Office.
[2] According to the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Doris Wiener acquired the object in London and imported it into the United States in 1973. See invoice from Rajrama Art Galleries, London, copy in object file, Collections Management Office. See also the Purchase and Sale Agreement, object file, Collections Management Office.
According to Doris Wiener, she purchased the sculpture from Rajrama Art Galleries in 1972. In a letter from Doris Wiener to curator Vidya Dehejia, she writes, “The sales invoice from the London dealer, Rajrama Art Gallery, from whom I acquired the sculpture. The invoice is dated March 10th, 1973. Please note that I viewed and purchased the piece in London in 1972, several months prior to the date of purchase on the invoice.” See letter from Doris Wiener dated November 16, 1995, copy in object file, Collections Management Office.
Furthermore, according to the Curatorial Justification written on June 19, 2002, “The bronze has been in the collection of Doris Wiener Gallery in New York City since 1973; Pratapaditya Pal saw it at the gallery at that time.” The Curatorial Justification also notes that the importation papers dated 1972-3 were reviewed and found satisfactory and that “Dr. R. Nagaswamy, who was the Director General of Archaeology of India during those years, has examined the Shiva Nataraja and assures us that it is not among those bronzes reported as stolen by Tamil Nadu temples.” See Curatorial Remark 1 in the object record.
[3] The object was accepted into the Freer Study Collection on July 2002. On September 2003, it was transferred to the Permanent Collection of the Freer Gallery of Art. See Acquisition Consideration Form, original copy in object file, Collections Management Office.
Comments