The story appears on

Page A7

March 26, 2015

GET this page in PDF

Free for subscribers

View shopping cart

Related News

Home » Opinion » Chinese Views

‘Collector’ statement only increases suspicions about the source of precious Buddha statue

The Dutch collector who presently possesses a statue of Buddha with a mummified monk inside should be clearer on how it was acquired, as powerful evidence from China points to the strong possibility that it was stolen from Fujian Province.

On Monday, the private collector, who has kept quiet amid the intense publicity the stature has received in recent weeks, responded to the swirling speculation in a written statement to Xinhua.

The present holder of the statue said it was bought in 1996 from another collector who acquired the statue around the end of 1994 to the beginning of 1995 in Hong Kong.

The statement said that the previous “owner” acquired the statue from a certain Chinese artist friend.

This account is much too vague.

In fact, the details provided so far only make the statue’s mysterious journey from China to the Netherlands even more suspicious.

This is because the statement fails to clarify one key point: the validity of the process to procure the statue of Buddha.

It claims that possession of the statue shifted twice before the current holder acquired it. Yet no specific dates are given. If someone buys a precious artifact, it is not unreasonable to assume that they would keep detailed files that include the exact dates of the purchase.

The Cultural Relics Appraisal Center of China’s Fujian Province recently sent experts to Yangchun Village and found photos, artifacts, and historical documentation suggesting the mummy hidden inside the statue was an ancestor of the local clan.

The center says villagers had been worshiping a similar statue from the 12th century until it went missing from the temple in 1995.

Vagueness of account

The statement claims that the collector first saw the statue in mid-1995, and the previous holder already possessed it in 1994-1995 — earlier than the statue went missing from Yangchun Village.

But the vagueness of the account — and the lack of supporting evidence — cannot counter the compelling evidence found by Chinese experts.

Moreover, a moral principle that binds art and antique collectors is to not to buy stolen pieces.

But without clarifying the identity of the anonymous “Chinese artist friend,” the source of the statue leaves too much room for speculation.

The Dutch collector said they were a veteran art connoisseur of Chinese arts and antiques, so they should know better than most people that buying a stolen Chinese artifact is not only illegal, but hurts the feelings of Chinese people.

Neither reticence nor wordplay can validate illegal possession of an artifact.

But now that China has begun the process of retrieving the Buddha statue, the Dutch collector will eventually have to provide clear and concrete evidence of how the stature came into their possession.

That is, of course, if they have any.




 

Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.

沪公网安备 31010602000204号

Email this to your friend