The Khmer Standing Male Divinity at the British Museum

This case study was considered as part of a broader provenancing project. Read the summary and other case studies on the project page.

This statue currently held in the stores of the British Museum (BM), is accessioned as figure (1976,1101.1) [Fig. 1]. The following case study provides insight into provenance issues stemming from the trade of Khmer art involving private collectors, auction houses and museums. With four arms, the figure could represent the Hindu god Vishnu or the Buddhist deity Avalokitesvara (?). The BM website lists it simply as a standing male figure, made of sandstone, 1.04 metres high, made in Cambodia circa 1050, and found/acquired in Cambodia.  

The sandstone is of a pale green hue. The head and feet are missing. The four arms are severely truncated. The smooth surfaces of these elements suggest they have been cut by a machine or tool (Fig. 2). The figure would have been standing on a base as there is evidence of additional stone supports behind the feet but these also now are broken (Fig. 3).  As the right leg is shown moving forward, it is a slightly larger than the left leg (Fig. 4). A black stain can be seen on the front surface of the torso from the neck to the chest and slightly above the navel (Fig. 5).

The figure is sculpted in the Baphuon style, and so accords with the dating given on the BM website. Like others in the Baphuon style, this figure stands in a frontal position and has a highly polished surface. There are three small holes in the upper left arm (two on the front and one on the back) (Fig. 6 &7). The image is dressed in a sampot, worn high at the back and lower in front. Its upper hem drops in the front below the navel. The sampot is short with five pockets on the left thigh widening out slightly, the last dropping below the hem. The longer bow in the front below the navel falls above the belt and the right part is missing (Fig. 8). Throughout, the body comprises elegant, gentle curves. The shoulders are relatively wide. The slenderness and relative naturalism are characteristic of the Baphuon style. The delicate and elaborate low relief of the knotted belt in the front, along with the still-intact high relief of the cloth bow in the back, make this piece exceptional (Fig. 9). The elaborate bow tied at the back of Baphuon statues appear more prevalent in market materials than in museum collections and conservation stores in Cambodia. No doubt this feature allows for higher value in public sales.  

According to the 1976 BM Trustee Minutes, the statue was purchased from Eskenazi Ltd with funds from the Brooke T Sewell fund.⁵ The Minutes further note that a Zurich collector, who had acquired the statue from a French colonial family, sold the sculpture to Spink & Son, Ltd., from which Eskenazi then acquired it for an exhibition in March 1972. This additional information on provenance beyond Eskenazi was obtained at the Trustees’ request (possibly at the time of acquisition); the BM website only names Eskenazi Ltd. This market trail with a ‘French colonial family’ and a ‘Swiss dealer’, then Spink & Son and Eskenazi is a red flag. Spink & Son worked closely with Latchford and this vague information could point to a Latchford – or Latchford-style fabrication.⁶  

It is now well established that, in collusion with auction houses and others, Khmer art dealers have provided false export licenses, documentation or oral testimony to conceal looted provenance. Museums and collectors eventually purchased antiquities that Latchford consigned to the auction house.³ Antiquities are known to pass through Switzerland on their way to sale elsewhere. At this point, false provenance is created to allow for public sale.⁴ Beckert & Dewey see the antiquities in two ways: mixed streams of supply, and the “washing” process. False provenance can be simply narratives without official records. Legal and illegal antiquities tend to look similar when placed on the art market, as both often lack provenance documents, transportation details, or excavation histories.⁵ “Washing” is defined as the cleansing process central to the chain of antiquities trafficking. In this scenario, the object is linked to the individual directly involved in looting from the ground.⁶ 

---

All photos by Morokoth Ing in 2022, unless otherwise stated.

1. British Museum Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Trustees, Vol. 4, 30 October 1976, p. 2192. For information on donors/sellers, see more on the British Museum’s website: Eskenazi Ltd, Brooke Sewell Permanent Fund. ↩︎
2. For like situations, see “Antiquities Dealer Charged With Trafficking In Looted Cambodian”, December 3, 2019, Antiquities Dealer Charged With Trafficking In Looted Cambodian Artifacts ↩︎
3. see “Antiquities Dealer Charged With Trafficking In Looted Cambodian”, December 3, 2019, Antiquities Dealer Charged With Trafficking In Looted Cambodian Artifacts ↩︎
4. Beckert & Dewey 2017, 76 ↩︎
5. Beckert & Dewey, 2017, 80 ↩︎
6. Ibid., 82 ↩︎

References

American Association of Museums (2001). AAM Guide to Provenance Research.

C. Adler, D. Chappell & K. Polk (2009). “Perspectives on the organisation and control of the illicit traffic in antiquities in South East Asia” (Paper presented at the Organised Crime In Art and Antiquities, Courmayeur Mont Blanc, Italy, 12-14 December).

Southern District of New York (2019). “Antiquities Dealer Charged With Trafficking In Looted Cambodian,” December 3, 2019, https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/antiquities-dealer-charged-trafficking-looted-cambodian-artefacts. Accessed February 17, 2024.

British Museum Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Trustees, Vol. 4, 30 October 1976, p. 2192.

British Museum Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Trustees, Vol. 4, 25 September 1976, p. 2164.

Beckert, Jens, & M. Dewey (2017). The Architecture of Illegal Markets Towards an Economic Sociology of Illegality in the Economy. Oxford University Press.

Green, Alexandra (2016). “From India to Independence: The formation of the Burma collection at the British Museum.” Journal of the History of Collections 28 (3): 449-463.

Lavy, Paul A. (2015). “Book Review: Khmer Bronzes: New Interpretations of the Past by Emma C. Bunker and Douglas Latchford.” Journal of Siam Society (103): 328-335.

Vicki Oliveri, Glenn Porter, Chris Davies & Pamela James (2022). “Art crime: the challenges of provenance, law and ethics.” Museum Management and Curatorship, 37 (2): 179-195.