S34-4

Curating the Return: What Happens After Restitution?

SOAS University of London, United Kingdom

The return to Cambodia of the 10th-century Koh Ker Duryodhana sculpture from auction at Sotheby’s New York in 2014 represents a watershed moment for restitution efforts in Southeast Asia. The publicity precipitated a slew of further returns from US museums: New York’s Metropolitan, the Norton Simon in Pasadena, the Cleveland Museum of Art and the Denver Art Museum all returned Koh Ker sculptures. Inspired by their neighbour, Thailand followed suit and negotiated the return of two Khmer lintels at the Asian Art Museum San Francisco looted in the 1960s from Prasat Nong Hong temple in Buri Ram Province and the Prasat Khao Lon sanctuary in Sa Kaeo Province respectively. However, in January 2021 a return of an altogether different magnitude was announced. Julia Latchford (a.k.a. Nawapan Kriangsak), daughter of the disgraced art dealer and antiquities smuggler, the late Douglas Latchford, agreed to ‘donate’ over 100 ancient Khmer objects from her father’s collection back to Cambodia. These returns have been greeted with fanfare by the Southeast Asian governments concerned, the international press, and the academic community. However, once the dust settles, many challenges remain. Most of these objects will never be placed back in their original context. The Koh Ker pieces are on display at the National Museum Cambodia, not in situ at Prasat Chen. The lintels from Buriram and Sa Keao are on display at the National Museum Bangkok, not with the local communities in northeast Thailand who campaigned for their return. And what about the over 100 sculptures from Latchford? In many cases, their original contexts will be difficult to establish. Where will such a large collection be displayed and what narratives will be told? This paper will review these case studies and look at ways in which museums and their curators are dealing with these challenges.