Spotlight: Chinese Mummy Buddha: Dutch collector's conditions for repatriation raise questioning over his sincerity

The Dutch collector's three conditions for the repatriation of the 1,000-year old Chinese Mummy Buddha, which raised serious questioning over his sincerity, have been rejected by the Chinese authorities except the one on cooperation for researches, Xinhua learnt from well-informed sources.

"Firstly, I want it to go to a big temple instead of the small village temple. Secondly, I want to do some scientific research for which I hope to get some cooperation, and although I finally got a confirmation [from the Chinese authorities], any follow-up failed," the Dutch collector told Xinhua in an interview, after Yangchun villagers initiated legal procedures in mid-November to reclaim the statue.

"Thirdly, I just want them to pay a reasonable amount of money, as is normal. But they are not planning to do so either. Then I have said, it will become part of a bigger collection of art, which already was for sale and to which I added this statue. So now it is only for sale as a part of this collection. And they are also not planning to do so," said the Dutchman.

He insisted that he can scientifically prove that the statue does not come from Yangchun village, but his view stands in opposition to the declaration of the Chinese State Administration of Cultural Heritage (SACH) that this statue known as "Zhanggong Patriarch" had been stolen from no elsewhere but Yangchun village 20 years earlier.

Xinhua learnt from various sources that the Dutch collector, who acknowledges that the statue should go back to the Fujian province in southeastern China, hopes to return it to the South Putuo temple located on Xiamen Island in Fujian.

Hovering above the graceful sea, South Putuo temple is one of the biggest and most famous temples in China. Its worship goes mainly to the Bodhisattva Guanyin. The Puzhao temple in Yangchun village, where there are only 1,800 residents, is a small one that has gone through renovation recently.

"South Putuo temple has told us that since its coming into being, it has never worshiped any mummy Buddha and it has no intention to enshrine and worship the Zhanggong Patriarch now. We have transferred their letter to the Dutch collector," an SACH official told Xinhua.

As for his second requirement, which involves studying stone inscriptions in China, "we have told him that arrangements will be made properly, but under the precondition that an actual intention of return [of the statue] has been reached," the official added.

For Inge van der Vlies, professor of Constitutional Law and Art & Law at the University of Amsterdam, the collector's first requirement makes her think of what museums often do.

"Sometimes, there are disputes on the restitution of a very expensive and very fragile painting or on some cloth for example. Dutch museums may recognize it should be returned to a country, though in these cases is not a hard legal obligation. If the objects are to be returned to a country where not all museum buildings are of a good quality, for example like Indonesia, Africa, Surinam, they will wait until the building concerned meets the standards of a good museum facility. They will only send it back if they are sure that the cultural object will be 'housed well'. The cases I know concern art objects," said the professor.

"This statue is a cultural object as the art objects are, but more especially it is a religious object. The only people that can judge whether this object is well protected or not are the believers, the people that use the temple. So I think this argument is stolen a little bit from another perspective," she told Xinhua.

"The temple is modest or not? It does not matter. The only thing you could be concerned about is the question 'will this mummy be destroyed in this temple in a way that it is not meant to be destroyed'. If it is protected by the temple, then everybody should accept the way the believers deal with it. If the construction is protective for the object and the believers are unanimous about that, it is in principal good enough," said the expert who is also vice-chair of the Dutch commission on the Restitution of Artworks from World War II.

In her opinion, the Chinese villagers have to prove firstly that this Buddha statue belongs to their village, and secondly it is still very important for the living culture and religion in their village.

As for the compensation demanded by the Dutch collector, Prof. van Der Vlies suggested that "from the Chinese perspective it would make sense to offer compensation for the price at which he bought it, though not necessary."

"If you can prove that he knew what he was doing, you can also say 'if it was stolen from the village and he bought it from the thief, he could have known if he would have done his best'," she added, underlining these details are not known to her.

When talking to Xinhua earlier in May, the Dutch collector said he "legally acquired" the statue in mid-1996, and he can prove that he had already seen the statue in Amsterdam in mid-1995, months ahead of the date when Yangchun villagers found that their statue was stolen, which was Dec. 15, 1995. But till now he refused to show any proof for these statements.

"This is an important quarrel," said Prof. van der Vlies, "the judge is predominantly there to review the arguments that the parties bring."

On Nov. 18, Yangchun villagers commissioned a group of lawyers for the return of the statue. "There is not so much case-law on issues like this. It is all new and the only thing you can do is collect as many arguments as there are," said the professor.

Earlier in March, the collector had disclosed that he bought the statue for 40,000 Dutch guilders at the time. He also mentioned that he did not sell it even when 10 million euros were offered.

"Regardless of its purchase price and the subsequent costs for restoration, mounting, documentation, extensive desk and field research, the statue is an extremely rare, kind of 'priceless' historical icon, for which I obviously want to be 'compensated' realistically," said the collector in his latest statement issued in November.

"I have now made the statue a part of a bigger collection of art, which already was for sale," he told Xinhua. "So now it is only for sale as a part of this collection. This way, no separate value can be assigned to the mummy."

According to him, about two years ago, "a collection consisting of a substantial number of Chinese cultural and/or historical works of art was put together by a number of individual European collectors, and a mediator was then asked to promote this collection." Recently, the collector has added Zhanggong Patriarch to this collection.

"In September I told the Chinese government, if my mummy would be acquired as an inseparable part of the collection, it represents a value far less than the numerous offers between 20 and 30 million U.S. dollars," he said.

"He can make any collection he wants, but to suppose that the Chinese will buy it, and to make it a condition, is rather uncomprehensible," commented Prof. van der Vlies.

China has never authorized anyone to deal with the Dutch collector for purchasing cultural relics and will never accept mixing up the return of Zhanggong Patriarch with unrelated matters, according to the SACH.

"The transactions that have taken place will never change the fact that it is a cultural and religious object that has been stolen and trafficked. If you look into international conventions, the Dutch and Chinese laws, or custom and cases regarding similar circumstances, it goes without saying that a settlement of repatriation through purchasing is absolutely impossible," the SACH official added.

"We appreciate the willingness of the Dutch collector to return Zhanggong Patriarch as well as his efforts in doing researches on the statue. We hope that, with genuine good intentions and under reasonable conditions, he can reach an agreement with the Chinese authorities as quickly as possible so as to let Zhanggong Patriarch come back to the place and the people he belongs to," he concluded. Enditem