Over the past 28 years, Cambodia has repatriated more than 1,000 artifacts stolen from its heritage sites and smuggled abroad. 

Often looted from Agkorian remnants during the country’s turbulent past then sold to prominent museums and ultra-wealthy art patrons, these relics have slowly made their way back to Cambodia through voluntary returns, negotiations, seizures, and legal proceedings.

Yet, even as 70 artifacts have been repatriated so far this year, the battle continues as numerous Khmer relics remain trapped in the collections of major museums, notably the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (Met), which has transferred only a fraction of its Khmer artifacts back to Cambodia. 

Cambodia’s Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts (MCFA), which has led the charge for the restoration of cultural property, sent a delegation to the U.S. in September as part of a U.S. State Department program that provides foreign governments tours of various institutions. In a stroke of serendipity, the delegation visited the Met where they would discuss “conservation issues” of the remaining Khmer relics, according to sources familiar with the matter. Absent from the meeting, was an attorney for the ministry who was expelled from attending, heightening the tensions in a years-long campaign to press the most prominent museum in the U.S. to return Khmer treasures.

Drama at the Met

The ongoing negotiations between Cambodia and the Met took a sharp turn on September 3 when Bradley Gordon, a legal representative of the Cambodian government, was barred from a key meeting. 

Gordon, who has worked on Cambodia’s artifact repatriation campaign for a decade, described the Met’s actions as “unethical” and warned they could risk “bar-violations.” 

“For these kinds of negotiations, the client wanted their lawyer to be there,” he said, adding that he expected the meeting to include discussions on the provenance of the museum’s remaining Khmer artifacts, a contentious issue for both parties.

According to Gordon, who has become a prominent face in Cambodia’s national effort to recover lost treasures, he arrived at the museum on the morning of September 3 and was led to a conference room where the Cambodian delegation would meet with Met officials. Before he could even settle in, he reported that members of the museum’s legal team approached him and asked to speak privately outside, instructing him to gather his belongings. The officials then informed Gordon that he was barred from attending the meeting, stating it was a “State Department meeting,” before a guard escorted him out of the museum, according to his account.

Before being escorted out, Gordon persistently pleaded with Met officials and those from the U.S. State Department present to intervene and allow him to stay for the meeting. He mentioned that a member of the Cambodian delegation even called the Minister of Culture, Phoeurng Sackona, who affirmed the importance of his attendance.

At the time, Gordon said the agenda of the meeting was unclear to him, but planned attendees included the Met’s lawyers, the head of provenance research Lucian Simmons, and a number of the museum’s senior people. 

“The Met hijacked their [State Department’s] program – that is my take on it,” he said. 

Gordon later learned that during the meeting from which he was ousted, the Met discussed offering “positive initiatives,” including “gifts and fellowships,” in exchange for retaining the remaining Cambodian artifacts in their collection.

The Met did not respond to CamboJA News’ request for comment on Gordon’s testimony or its plans to return additional antiquities to Cambodia. 

Sharon Cott, the Met’s senior vice president, whom Gordon identified as the arbiter of his ousting, also did not respond to an email from CamboJA News regarding the events of September 3. Likewise, Lucian Simmons did not immediately respond to requests for comment or provide details on the Met’s provenance research concerning its remaining Khmer artifacts.

In recent years, the Met’s collection of Cambodian relics has come under increasing scrutiny from both journalists and law enforcement. In 2021, investigations revealed that several pieces in its collection were linked to Douglas Latchford, an accused antiquities trafficker indicted in 2019. 

After Latchford’s death in 2020, the spotlight on the Met’s collection intensified, with a 2023 investigation finding over 1,100 artifacts previously owned by individuals involved in antiquities crimes. In response, the museum hired researchers – Simmons being one – and agreed to return more than a dozen items to Cambodia which arrived in July of this year, though the Cambodian government claims at least 49 stolen treasures remain in the Met’s possession and are seeking their repatriation.

The 14 relics that the Met has returned – now resting in the galleries of the National Museum of Cambodia in Phnom Penh – represent a step toward reconciliation and healing from a turbulent past. For Cambodian archaeologists, they also offer a chance to learn more about the origins of Khmer society.

“Artifacts are not objects for home decoration or display in anyone’s garden. These national cultural heritages are sacred objects in both Hindu and Buddhist religions, the souls of the Khmer ancestors and the national identity, which holds deep meaning for all Khmers,” said Huot Samnang, the director of the Department of Antiquities at Cambodia’s Ministry of Fine Arts and Culture.

More hardlines: Cambodia “not alone in the battle”

After being sidelined, Gordon was able to return to the Met with a Cambodian official the following day to review its Southeast Asian collection, starting with the gallery and ending in the storage room – or so he thought. 

Despite nearly a year of requesting to see what antiquities from the region the Met keeps in its storage room – which is not listed in its catalog according to Gordon – the revisiting delegation was only able to review those on display, the lawyer said. 

Gordon described the walk-through negotiation on September 4 as nothing more than a contentious gridlock.

“They acknowledge that they [the artifacts] are stolen – to some extent – but the Met does not recognize that they have a moral obligation to do more for the Cambodians,” he said, adding that Cambodia is not seeking the return of all their relics in order to be displayed permanently in their museums or original resting places, but is willing to loan some to the Met after Cambodia’s ownership is reinstated.

When asked why the Met seems to have reached its ceiling for restitution, Gordon asserted that Cambodia is setting a significant precedent for other countries, particularly in India and Indonesia – the countries of origin for the majority of the artifacts in the Met’s Asian collection.

“The Met’s Asian collection has many objects from India. They also have a lot of objects from Indonesia. The dealers who supplied these are the same cast of characters. It’s people like Douglas Latchford, and Subhash Kapoor from India,” he said. 

“Their [the Met’s] biggest fear is that India is going to wake up and Indonesia is going to wake up and they are going to come and say ‘we want our stolen goods back’.” 

Besides the Met, Cambodia remains committed to the repatriation of cultural artifacts from other museums worldwide whose collections link to known antiquities smugglers.

“Among the museums, the Victoria and Albert Museum has shown a fantastic response and deep respect for what Cambodia is trying to do,” said Gordon. “In contrast, the Norton Simon Museum has been reluctant to discuss its large collection of Cambodian artifacts, many of which arrived in the early 1970s during Cambodia’s tumultuous period.”

According to Gordon, the most difficult negotiations have been with the British Museum, which has a long-standing history of resisting repatriation of artifacts acquired during the colonial era.

“The British Museum is fighting the Greeks. They are fighting the Africans. They are fighting everyone to keep their pirate bounty at the British Museum. So, you know, we’re not alone in the battle,” he said.