ISSUE 130 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2003

CONTENTS & EDITORIAL

11

13

13

39

47

53

59

7 8

80

8 4

8 6

93 99

121

139

149

157

158

160

LETTERS Byzantine arches. Firdaus rugs.

NEWS The Autumn sales; Herwig Bartels remembered.

FRAGMENTS October rug and textile events and more.

PREVIEW Exhibitions: Safavid art, Indian trade textiles and forthcoming exhibitions in brief.

CALENDAR Auctions, exhibitions, fairs and conferences.

SPECIAL REPORT A rare collection o f pre-Columbian textiles.

BOOKS Reviews o f Art Deco and Modernist Carpets: Trade, Temple & Court: The Classical Tradition in Anatolian Carpets-, and Hidden Threads o f Peru. Q'ero Textiles.

FORUM How will Teodor Tuduc be remembered?

AN ARCHAIC TURKMEN CARPET Siowosch U. Azadi Adealer's quest for a rare Turkmen main carpet.

CAPTURING THE MOMENT Udo Hirsch Felt-making in an Anatolian village.

LONG B EI Ceremonial Dragon Covers of the Li of Hainan Lee J. Chinalai & Vichai Chinalai The history o f a rare group of tribal textiles.

GALLERY House style advertisements.

REVIEW Fairs: The HAL1 Fair 2003 and London in June. Exhibitions: Safavid carpets; Indian textiles for Indonesia; felts at the Topkapi; the best o f the rest. Conferences: Turkmens in Ashgabat.

AUCTION PRICE GUIDE Highlights o f the Spring & Summer sales.

DESIGN FILE News; Chinese Art Deco carpets; The Bieber Project: Aubusson repro for Osborne House.

NETWORK Classified advertisements.

PROFILE The inimitable Umberto Sorgato.

PARTING SHOTS Visitors and exhibitors at the HALi Fair 2003.

LAST PAGE Memories o f friendship and fate in India.

T here is some consternation in the United Kingdom among dealers in antiquities, which include ancient textiles recovered from archaeological sites. The cause o f their concern is a p iece o f parliamentary legislation known as the 'D ealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Bill' that has already passed through the House o f Commons, and is now before the House o f Lords for approval before becoming law.

Among wealthy W estern nations, the prime market for ‘illicit’ items o f other countries' cultural heritage, the USA is still virtually alone in having signed the 1970 UNESCO Convention which allows objects to be siezed and, after legal proceedings, to be returned to their countries o f origin. The UK has not, nor the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention, with the result that the ownership and sale o f illicitly acquired artefacts is currently beyond legal remedy. For the moment, moral pressure is the sole recourse. The government had prom ised to reform British law by creating a specific o ffence o f acquiring, handling or selling looted antiquities, but opted instead to allow a private member’s bill introduced in December 2002 by Richard Allan, a member o f the parliamentary allparty archaeology group, who commented “Archaeological sites must be protected. Closing down the market in looted cultural objects would remove the incentive for taking material from archaeological sites.”

O f immediate relevance in the aftermath o f the Iraq war, the preamble to the bill states that its aim is to “Provide for an o ffence o f acquiring, disposing of, importing or exporting tainted cultural objects, or agreeing or arranging to do so; and for connected purposes.” In Mr Allan's words, “This bill would mean that dealers who knowingly trade in artefacts plundered from archaeological sites could be prosecuted.”

When the bill becomes law, the consequences for London as a centre o f the trade may be far-reaching. It would produce a situation akin to that in the US where, for example, dealers in Pre-Columbian artefacts conduct their business in the knowledge that they may be required to demonstrate ’untainted’ provenance, and that the failure to do so could result in severe penalties and the loss o f their goods.

What should our attitude be to these developments? W e endorse the ideal expressed by Kenneth Polk o f Melbourne University in an article 'The Antiquities Trade Viewed as a Criminal Market’ with particular reference to Asian art and artefacts (www.hk-lawYer.com), in which he concludes that, “...what is necessary is a moral clim ate where buyers will not purchase, and dealers will not sell, material that does not have a proper provenance.” But we also recognise that such a high ideal is probably beyond realisation, and that there is a case for a distinction to be made between artefacts that are crucial to the preservation o f a nation’s cultural heritage, and those which, by their relative ubiquity, are less significant, and could, without loss, enter the international market.

Ceremonial mata hari cloth (detail), Coromandel Coast, southeast India, for the lavan or Sumatran market, 19th century. Cotton, two joined panels, printed, mordantand indigo-dyed, 0.97 x 2.67m (3'2“x8'9"). Called mata hari (sun) after the large central sunburst motif surroun­ ded by ornate ‘rays’, the undyed cotton ground of this heirloom textile is printed with an overall pale blue pat­ tern with clusters of red highlights. An almost identi­ cal cloth is in the National Gallery of Australia, Canberra (Robyn Maxwell, Sari to Sarong: Five Hundred Years o f Indian and Indonesian Textile Exchange, 2003, p.121). Most mata hari have a deep red central circle, but there is a rare version with a blue ‘sun’in an otherwise iden­ tical design also in the Tapi Collection (Ruth Barnes, Steven Cohen &Rosemary CriII, Trade Temple & Court, Mumbai 2002, p.62). Tapi Collection, Mumbai, 01.29

THE COVER

i ial 1 130 I5