Buddhist Antiquities in the Market: Commodification, Looting, and Cultural Displacement

By Variyata Vyas

Museums such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York have long exhibited significant Buddhist art collections. In 2023, the Met organized an exhibition titled Tree & Serpent: Early Buddhist Art in India, 200 BCE–400 CE, which displayed over 140 artifacts, including more than 60 items borrowed from India. The exhibit emphasized the historical roots and artistic evolution of Buddhism, drawing interest from global audiences (NDTV, 2023). Buddhist antiques also continue to attract high interest in the auction world. For instance, during Bonhams’ Asia Week in New York in 2023, a collection of bronze figures depicting five patriarchs of the Sakya Order fetched $2.9 million, significantly exceeding its original valuation (Antiques & The Arts Weekly, 2023). Another well-known case involved a bronze statue of the Buddhist deity Cintamanicakra Avalokiteshvara, which was originally bought at a garage sale in Missouri for about $75–100. Two decades later, in 2019, the item was sold for $2.1 million at an auction held by Sotheby’s, the world’s oldest and most prestigious international fine art auction house, after it had gained attention on Antiques Roadshow (Paul David, 2019). These instances show that Buddhist antiques continue to hold substantial interest and command high prices in the international art market.

In Orientalism (1978), Edward Said argued that colonial powers often claimed the right to define and explain other cultures. He showed how European scholars and institutions described Asian societies in ways that made them seem mysterious or inferior, and in doing so, took away the power of local people to speak for themselves. Said believed this process helped justify colonial rule, not just through force, but through knowledge. It allowed the West to decide what was important, what was sacred, and what was worth collecting or displaying. A clear example of this can be seen in the discovery of the Piprahwa relics in 1898. In 1898, the stupa at Piprahwa in Uttar Pradesh was excavated under the leadership of William Claxton Peppé, a British officer and landowner. Within the stupa, he found a stone casket that held bone fragments, gold jewelry, semi-precious gems, and multiple urns. One urn had an inscription in early Brahmi script that referred to the Buddha and his Shakya clan (Cheong & Thompson, 2025). The discovery was deemed important because it was thought to be a possible direct link to the historical Buddha. After the excavation, British officials sorted the items into various groups. The bones and ashes, viewed as sacred relics, were sent to places like Siam (now Thailand). The ornaments and gems, however, were labeled as archaeological artifacts, not relics. This separation reflected a Western way of thinking, where sacred meaning was attached only to bodily remains. But in many Buddhist traditions, all items placed inside a stupa, bones, ashes, gems, and other offerings, are considered śarīra, or relics carrying spiritual significance (Cheong & Thompson, 2025).

This colonial classification has had lasting consequences. In 2025, Sotheby’s announced the auction of a group of objects described as “The Piprahwa Gems of the Historical Buddha.” Although these items were originally buried together in a stupa as part of a sacred offering, Sotheby’s presented them as rare antiquities. The auction, held on Sotheby’s Hong Kong platform, focused on the artefacts’ craftsmanship and historical importance, while largely removing them from their religious context. On May 5, 2025, the Indian authorities issued a legal notice to Sotheby’s and William Claxton Peppé’s family, urging them to cancel the auction and facilitate the return of the relics to India (Indian Express, 2025). The notice stated that these objects were not merely archaeological finds, but sacred items closely associated with the life of the Buddha. These artefacts were excavated from the Piprahwa stupa, which is widely regarded as the ancient site of Kapilavastu, the early residence of Prince Siddhartha (Kalra. V, 2025).
While Sotheby’s described the collection as “one of the most extraordinary archaeological discoveries of all time,” the framing of these objects as historical treasures to be sold to private collectors raises serious ethical concerns. Many Buddhist traditions view the relics as components of a single sacred offering, and removing them from their ritual context to treat them as marketable objects is seen as a violation of the purpose for which they were originally enshrined (Cheong & Thompson, 2025).

This case also fits into a broader pattern of ongoing repatriation efforts. India has been actively pursuing the repatriation of several cultural and religious artefacts taken during the colonial era, such as the Koh-i-Noor diamond, the Amravati sculptures, and the Sultanganj Buddha, which are still held in foreign museums or private collections (Mukul & Narayan, 2024). These disputes raise fundamental questions about restitution, cultural sovereignty, and the long-term consequences of colonial extraction.

Another illustrative example is the case of a 2nd-century red sandstone Seated Buddha from Mathura, India. Its story was extensively detailed by the online platform Chasing Aphrodite under the title “The Hunt for Looted Antiquities in the World’s Museums” in 2015. In 2005, the Royal Ontario Museum in Canada was offered the sculpture by Nancy Wiener, a prominent art dealer from New York with clients such as the Metropolitan Museum and the Asia Society. However, after consulting Indian art expert Dr. Donald Stadtner, the museum’s curator, Deepali Dewan, concluded that the Buddha had likely been illegally exported from India and came with a fabricated ownership history, which led the museum to reject it. Wiener proposed selling the same Buddha to the National Gallery of Australia (NGA) in 2007 for $1.08 million. She asserted that, since the 1960s, the piece had belonged to a British expatriate, Ian Donaldson, who had lived in Hong Kong; the only provenance document was a 1985 certificate signed by Donaldson. The NGA accepted Wiener’s paperwork, including an authentication report, without further verification with Donaldson or external consultation (Chasing Aphrodite, 2015).

In 2012, journalist Jason Felch received an anonymous tip alleging that the Buddha’s provenance was entirely fabricated and that the sculpture had been looted from India. He pursued a Freedom of Information request and, after a legal battle, obtained redacted NGA acquisition records. Indian art dealer, Stadtner, then disclosed that another nearly identical Seated Buddha, acquired in 2000 by Singapore’s Asian Civilizations Museum, had been supplied by Wiener with a similarly dubious backstory, one concocted, in part, by British collector Douglas Latchford. Only in late 2014, under mounting public scrutiny, did the NGA launch a formal investigation. Stadtner reaffirmed his long-held suspicions, and evidence suggested that Donaldson’s ownership claim had indeed been fabricated. In January 2015, Australian authorities formally notified the Indian government that the sculpture was believed to have been stolen from an archaeological site (Chasing Aphrodite, 2015). The NGA subsequently initiated legal proceedings against Wiener and, in 2016, returned the Seated Buddha to India. Along with the Buddha, the gallery also repatriated several other antiquities that had been illegally exported, including a Buddhist relief panel from the Amarāvati region and a Pratyangira figure from Tamil Nadu (Ministry of Affairs, 2017).

The global art market’s valuation of Buddhist relics and antiques rarely reflects the worldviews of the communities to which they belong. Auction catalogues and museum placards often present these objects through the lens of rarity, craftsmanship, and aesthetic brilliance, stripping them of their spiritual and communal significance. This aestheticization not only erases the often-violent histories behind their acquisition but also reinforces a hierarchy of knowledge, where curators and collectors in the Global North are seen as legitimate interpreters and custodians of what are, in essence, sacred objects taken without consent. Museums, especially those in the West, have long justified their possession of indigenous artifacts by citing missions of preservation, education, and public access. While these institutions may argue that they are safeguarding history, this narrative often obscures the exploitative contexts of colonialism, looting, and uneven power dynamics, through which many of these objects were acquired. Once inside the museum, these items are removed from their original contexts and recast as “art” or “antiquity,” diminishing their living, religious significance, and allowing them to circulate freely in the global market. UNESCO records indicate that nearly 50,000 artifacts were removed from India, many of them related to Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist deities, and are currently held in Western museums or private collections (Ray, 2024).
In 2025, centuries-old stone Buddha statues and valuable jewelry, long held overseas, were returned to Indonesia and displayed at Indonesia’s National Museum after being repatriated by the Dutch government. These pieces are part of over 800 cultural artifacts returned under a 2022 agreement between Indonesia and the Netherlands. As noted by Gunawan, head of the museum’s cultural heritage division, many of these objects were not merely taken during war or conflict. They were also appropriated by scientists, missionaries, and colonial agents, often removed without consent during the Dutch colonial era, which spanned over four centuries. This return sheds light on the legacy of colonialism, where sacred objects revered as deities by local communities were uprooted from their cultural and spiritual contexts and displaced into private collections and foreign museums. The act of reclaiming them is not just about possession, but about restoring spiritual and cultural memory to the people they were taken from (Karmini, 2025).

The illegal trade in antiquities functions like any other market, influenced by the forces of supply and demand. Despite the establishment of international legislation like the 1970 UNESCO Convention to protect cultural heritage, the illegal trade continues unabated. Many museums, in their acquisition processes, neglect to verify the origins of artifacts, often overlooking the fact that these items are looted from countries like India. This is compounded by vague provenance claims and a lack of thorough research, leaving room for illicit acquisitions. As a result, museums may contribute to the ongoing exploitation of cultural artifacts. The 11th-century Apsara sculpture from Madhya Pradesh was obtained in two separate pieces: the bust in 1986 by Florence and Herbert Irving, and the lower torso from the infamous art dealer Subhash Kapoor. Despite its questionable provenance, the sculpture was accepted by the Metropolitan Museum of Art (MMA) in 2015, where it now resides. The museum’s failure to thoroughly investigate the sculpture’s origins raises serious ethical concerns and, in effect, perpetuates the illicit art trade (Vijay Kumar, 2020).
Leila Amineddoleh, a prominent attorney specializing in art crime, in her paper The Role of Museums in the Trade of Black Market Cultural Property, examines how museums, often seen as guardians of culture, are complicit in the illicit trade of looted antiquities. She emphasizes the importance of cultural heritage, not only as a historical record but also as a source of identity and tourism revenue. Unfortunately, looted artifacts have become a global commodity, often tied to organized crime, terrorism financing, and money laundering. Amineddoleh argues that museums play a central role in sustaining this black market due to the demand from buyers. Many museums acquire artifacts from questionable sources without adequately verifying their provenance, which perpetuates further looting. High-profile cases such as the trial of Getty Museum curator Marion True and contested acquisitions by institutions like the Metropolitan Museum of Art demonstrate the ethical shortcomings in museum acquisition practices. To address this issue, Amineddoleh calls for stricter regulations, greater legal accountability for museums, and better enforcement of existing laws.
The decontextualization of these looted artifacts is more than just a matter of display; it facilitates cultural displacement, incentivizes illegal excavation, and legitimizes heritage laundering. Institutions that overlook provenance gaps or accept fabricated histories become complicit in laundering stolen cultural property. Even when acquisitions are technically legal, the ethical implications persist, especially as these practices continue to harm the communities from which the artifacts are taken. Although some museums have begun to return looted items under public pressure, restitution is only a partial step. Buddhist teachings, particularly the Noble Eightfold Path, provide a moral framework to examine these issues. The principle of Right Livelihood calls for ethical forms of sustenance that do not rely on exploitation or deceit. From this perspective, the commodification and display of stolen Buddhist heritage becomes an ethical violation. Sacred objects, often removed from their ritual contexts, now reside in elite museums or private collections far from their communities of origin. The ongoing practice of trading these artifacts reinforces systems of harm and dispossession. Moving forward, a moral reckoning that prioritizes justice, accountability, and consent, in addition to legal restitution, is essential to address the ethical crisis surrounding the illicit trade in antiquities.

References:
Amineddoleh, L. (2013) ‘The Role of Museums in the Trade of Black Market Cultural Property’, Art, Antiquity and Law, 18(3), pp. 227–242.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2370699
Bonhams Asia Week sales tally $21 million, 2023. Antiques and the Arts Weekly, 12 April. https://www.antiquesandthearts.com/bonhams-asia-week-sales-tally-21-million/
Cheong, T., & Thompson, A. (2025). Buddha, Empire, and the Auction Block: Reclaiming Sacred Heritage in the Age of Capital. Routledge.
Kalra, V., 2025. Explained: What are the Piprahwa relics, and why is India trying to stop their auction? The Indian Express, 6 May. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-culture/piprahwa-relics-india-auction-9986538/
Mukul, S. and Narayan, P., 2024. Looted and smuggled, how India is bringing Gods and glory home. India Today, 7 July. https://www.indiatoday.in/sunday-special/story/repatriation-india-pride-project-looted-smuggled-gods-statues-colonial-rule-heritage-vijay-kumar-british-museums-2563311-2024-07-07
Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, 2017. Return of three Indian origin antiquities by the National Gallery of Australia, 16 January
https://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/27945/Return+of+three+Indian+origin+antiquities+by+National+Gallery+of+Australia
Over 60 ancient artefacts of Buddhist art from India displayed at The Met, 2023. NDTV, 20 July. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/over-60-ancient-artefacts-of-buddhist-art-from-india-displayed-at-the-met-4225012
Kumar, S. V. (2020) ‘When the buying by museums stops, the looting stops’, The Indian Express, 17 October. https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2020/Oct/17/when-the-buying-by-museums-stops-the-looting-stops-2211383.html#:~:text=Leila%20Amineddoleh%2C%20a%20lawyer%20who,%2Ddriven%20crime.%20…
Karmini, N., 2025. Indonesia showcases returned artifacts it had sought for decades from the Netherlands. AP News, 24 January. https://apnews.com/article/indonesia-netherlands-looted-artifacts-2735c9b4982be31a14f2f19a0431a7c8
Said, E.W., 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.
The Kushan Buddha, 2015: Nancy Wiener, Douglas Latchford, and new questions about ancient Buddhas. Chasing Aphrodite, 1 February. https://chasingaphrodite.com/2015/02/01/the-kushan-buddhas-nancy-wiener-douglas-latchford-and-new-questions-about-ancient-buddhas/