无障碍·translate·翻訳·二维码.cn/i3h.cn/489

---

·搜一搜.cn/Spotlight: Repatriation of Chinese Mummy Buddha: where should he go?

Spotlight: Repatriation of Chinese Mummy Buddha: where should he go?


The Buddha statue on display at the Hungarian Natural History Museum in Budapest in March. (Photo/Xinhua)

THE HAGUE, Dec. 8 (Xinhua) -- The disputed 1000-year-old Chinese mummy Buddha was thrown into the spotlight  once again last week  as the villagers of Yangchun, a small village in the southeastern Chinese province of Fujian  initiated a legal procedure to have the statue returned to its Puzhao temple,  while the Dutch collector insists on giving it to a bigger temple in the same province only if his conditions for repatriation are satisfied.

"I can scientifically prove that the statue does not come from that village," the Dutch collector told Xinhua over the phone. His view stands in direct opposition to the declaration of the Chinese State Administration of Cultural Heritage (SACH) that this statue known as "Zhanggong Patriarch"（章公祖师） had been stolen from no elsewhere but Yangchun village 20 years earlier.
"Reports said villagers remember a hole drilled in the left hand of the Buddha, and that the head was lost. With my hand on my heart I tell you, there is no hole in that hand, and his head is not lost at all," said the collector who still wishes to stay anonymous though his identity has been disclosed by other media.
"Just with these two points I can prove it is not their mummy. They can see the MRI scans of the statue. If they still do not believe it, they can make their own scans," he said.
It was through scans that researchers commissioned by the Dutch collector found out that a mummified body is encased in the statue.

When the statue toured in a mummy exhibition in Hungary last March, overseas Chinese residents there noticed its resemblance to the disappeared Zhanggong Patriarch in their home village and took on a cross-continental quest for its return.
For Chinese cultural heritage researchers, details such as a hole in a hand or a crack in the neck are excerpts from the memory of just a few villagers. "These details cannot be counted as hard arguments, especially when there is a full package of really crucial evidences," a SACH official told Xinhua.
In the photos taken by the villagers in the 1980s sits a Buddhist figure with a faint smile, cross-legged, shoulders slightly hunched forward. "Compared with widely mediated images of the statue now in hands of the Dutch collector, the facial expression, the posture and the decoration do look identical.
In an interview with Dutch daily NRC published last March, the collector said the Buddha statue came into his possession by coincidence, because actually the "crazy thing" did not fit in his collection.
"A Buddha is supposed to sit upright. This man has a curved back and proportionally his head is too large. And he is golden, something the owner does not like," said the NRC article. "But this made the statue intriguing and so the collector bought it for about 40,000 guilders."
An inescapable difference between the figure in villagers' photos and the statue once in exhibition is that the statue in the photos wears clothes, which makes the Dutchman suspect the authenticity of the Buddhist faith of the villagers.
"If someone really took away the statue, why would they have taken its clothes off? That he would ever have worn clothes is ridiculous. A real Buddhist monastery would not put clothes on such a statue. It is completely decorated with decorations of symbolic and religious value, you would not hide those under clothing," argued the collector in a conversation with Xinhua earlier in May.
A SACH document of which Xinhua obtained a copy explains that the specific Patriarch belief in the south of Fujian is a Buddhist belief that has adopted local forms. It is a blend of Buddhism, Taoism, witchcraft and folk-customs. In its particular traditions, Patriarch statues are always crowned and dressed. From generation to generation, village believers have always paraded their statues in full appeal at festivals every year.
In order to convince the collector that Zhanggong Patriarch does come from Yangchun, the SACH official has also sent him pictures of the linen text roll of the village's genealogy, and of the scroll and veiling that Puzhao Temple has kept for centuries.
The ancient text roll records the origin of Zhanggong Patriarch, or "Zhanggong Liuquan Zushi" by its full Chinese name, and shows that it has been worshiped at Puzhao temple in Yangchun village from the Song dynasty (960-1279) to the Yuan dynasty (1279-1368).  The Chinese characters on these documents are consistent with those on the praying mat stolen along with the statue of the mummy Buddha, according to Chinese cultural heritage experts.

Besides, a thorough investigation across Fujian province confirmed that apart from Yangchun village there is no other place where both a "Zhanggong Liuquan Zushi" and a "Puzhao Temple" existed together. In fact, ever since the mummy Buddha gained international attention, no other institution or individual in Fujian has made any claim for its ownership.
The collector also questioned the history of Puzhao temple in Yangchun village. "The temple shown on television is completely new, it is built recently with new wood," he told Xinhua.
However, the SACH told Xinhua that the Puzhao temple has been repaired and rebuilt many times, which actually demonstrates the deep bond and attachment between the villagers and their Zhanggong Patriarch. Certain pillars of the temple still stand on four stone foundations that date back to the Ming Dynasty, which proves that Puzhao temple is not a new construction, said the Chinese experts.
Earlier in March, the Dutch collector argued that the previous owner had acquired the statue in Hong Kong in the winter of 1994-1995 before shipping it to Amsterdam in 1995, and in mid-1996 he himself "legally acquired" it. If his saying proves to be true, the mummy Buddha appeared in both Hong Kong and the Netherlands before Yangchun villagers found their statue was stolen on Dec. 15, 1995. However, the collector did not accompany his statements with any proof.
"I am willing to return it to China, but I am not willing to return it to Yangchun," said the collector in an earlier interview with Xinhua. Contacted in May, he confirmed that negotiations for repatriation were underway with Chinese authorities and he expected that "in one or two weeks" the statue would go back to China "in the smartest way possible".
Last week, the Dutch collector disclosed his three conditions for the repatriation of the Chinese Mummy Buddha, which raised serious questioning over his sincerity. His conditions have been rejected by the Chinese authorities except for the request on cooperation for researches.
"We have told him that arrangements [for his intended researches in China] will be made properly, but only under the precondition that an actual intention of return has been reached," the SACH official told Xinhua.


Xinhua News Agency  on Dec 8, 2015 @ 8:16 AM  Spotlight: Repatriation of Chinese Mummy Buddha: where should he go?
http://www.globalpost.com/article/6701388/2015/12/08/spotlight-repatriation-chinese-mummy-buddha-where-should-he-go

Dutch collector puts conditions on stolen Buddha statue's return to China

A 1000-year-old Buddha statue with a mummified monk inside, now in possession of Dutch private collector Oscar van Overeem, triggered a series of disputes in the past eight months between the collector and villagers of Yangchun in Southeastern China's Fujian province who claim that the statue was the one of Patriarch Zhanggong which was stolen in 1995 from the Puzhao Temple in their village.

Recently, the villagers hired a group of lawyers who obtained evidence in preparation to a lawsuit in Holland. Oscar van Overeem contacted journalists at Xinhua News Agency stressing that he can scientifically prove that the statue is not the one from Yangchun village. He then introduced three conditions on returning the statue to China.

The collector told Chinese journalists that he agreed to return the statue to China but demanded to return it to a grand temple instead of a small temple in a village. The Chinese government agreed to help him do research on something irrelevant to the statue but has failed to deliver on its promise. The Chinese side refusess to overcompensate for his loss on the statue.

"I've suggested adding the statue to a series of Chinese collections. In that case, if someone buys them for China, no one knows the single price of the statue. However, they refused to do so," Oscar van Overeem said.

"I've told the Chinese government in September that if they would buy the statue with other relics, the single price of the statue would be much cheaper than 20-30 million US dollars, which is the asking prices of other people who planned to buy it from me," he said.

The collector once said that he bought the statue for 40,000 Dutch guilders ($20,500) in 1996 from a collector in Amsterdam who had acquired it in Hong Kong, and refused to sell it despite the steep offer of ten million Euros ($10.85 million).

Some European collectors gathered a set of Chinese cultural relics and tried to find an intermediary to sell it in 2013. Oscar van Overeem recently added the mummified Buddha statue to that collection.

According to Xinhua News Agency, the collector wished to return the statue a 1,000-year-old temple in Xiamen city of Fujian province called NanPutuo Temple. The Temple issued a certificate that they had never enshrined and worshipped any mummified Buddha statue in history and would not worship it in the future, but the collector still insisted to return the statue to that temple.


Experts say the statue should return to its original owner, especially when the ethical principle is concerned that human remains should be repatriated to their original country. According to Dr. Inge C. van der Vlies, professor of constitutional and public law at the University of Amsterdam, there were cases that artistic relics were returned at requests of choosing museums with the ability to well protect and display the relics, if the relics are proved to be really precious and in a fragile state. However, the statue of Patriarch Zhanggong is obviously not only an artistic relic, but also a cultural and religious relic.


"As a statue of Buddha, it makes no difference whether the temple is grand or small, ancient or new. The only factor to judge whether it could be well treated and protected should be the people, the believers and users of the statue," said Ms. van der Vlies who is also vice-chair of the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War.


She suggested that villagers of Yangchun should prove that the statue belonged to the village in history and show the world that the statue is still a key part of the cultural and religious life in the village.


The worship of Patriarch Zhanggong never stopped in the village. In an interview with a journalist from China Daily, Lin Yongtuan, a Yangchun villager and one of the first residents to recognize the Buddha from pictures of artifacts in a public exhibition, said the Buddha statue was stolen in 1995, and the annual ritual of worship was never interrupted. Lin also noted that they were busy preparing for the worship ceremony of 2015.


The statue grabbed global attention this February after a scan revealed that it contained the mummified remains of a Buddhist monk. It was part of the Mummy World Exhibition at the Hungarian Natural History Museum in Budapest, which had planned to display it until May.


In March, after seeing picture of the statue, residents of Yangchun pointed out its resemblance to the one that was stolen in 1995. Evidence has been presented by the Fujian Administration of Cultural Heritage suggesting the stolen statue is the one shown in Budapest.


Chinese State Administration of Cultural Heritage said later that it would communicate with the collector of the statue in hopes to convince him to return the Buddha figure to China. The Yangchun villagers also went through official and private channels to negotiate with the collector for the return of the statue.


In addition, the Chinese side stressed that the statue had been proved to be a stolen cultural relic from China. According to the relevant international convention laws in both China and Holland as well as international practices, stolen relics should be returned unconditionally, instead of purchased.


 2015-12-08 16:41chinadaily.com.cn Editor: Wang Fan  Dutch collector puts conditions on stolen Buddha statue's return to China
http://www.ecns.cn/2015/12-08/191752.shtml

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

THE HAGUE, Dec. 9 (Xinhua) -- 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.


by Xinhua Writer Liu Fang  Spotlight: Chinese Mummy Buddha: Dutch collector's conditions for repatriation raise questioning over his sincerity
http://www.globalpost.com/article/6702312/2015/12/09/spotlight-chinese-mummy-buddha-dutch-collectors-conditions-repatriation

Related news

• Fujian villagers sue after Dutch collector refuses to return stolen god2015-11-18

• Buddha statue dispute to be taken to Netherlands court2015-11-17

• Return of mummified statue urged before 'birthday'2015-10-20

• Dutch owner to send preserved monk relic back to China2015-05-20

• Dutch collector agrees to return mummified Buddha2015-05-08

Spotlight: Lawsuit to repatriate Chinese Buddhist mummy starts in the Netherlands
2016-06-15 14:18:31 GMT
AMSTERDAM， The Netherlands， June 15 (Xinhua) -


- A lawsuit has been filed in the Netherlands for the repatriation of a 1000-year-old Buddhist mummy stolen from Yangchun village in China's southeast province of Fujian.
It is believed to be in possession of Dutch national Oscar van Overeem， Dutch lawyer Jan Holthuis who represents the Chinese villagers in Dutch court proceedings told Xinhua.
The villagers told an Amsterdam court on June 8 that the Dutch collector did not acquire the statue in good faith and has no right to own the human remains of an identifiable person under Dutch law.
The Dutch collector lent the Buddha statue with a mummified monk inside for an exhibition in Hungary at the end of 2014. Chinese villagers who saw the reports of the exhibition in March 2015 believed that the statue is "Zhanggong Patriarch" stolen from their temple and wanted it repatriated.
The villagers appointed a group of Chinese lawyers and a Dutch lawyer to start legal proceedings both in China and in the Netherlands. Holthuis International Lawyers is "dominus litis" or master in the Dutch court proceedings.

GOOD FAITH IN QUESTION
Jan Holthuis， managing partner of the Dutch law firm， said: "Van Overeem should have exercised a higher level of due diligence at the time of acquisition to check whether the object was illegally traded. Van Overeem also said the statue was traded through Hong Kong， known for illegal trade of this kind of Buddha statues at that time. We know that he bought the statue from another Dutch trader in Asian art， who was also an informed person."
In a statement sent to media after the statue was withdrawn from the exhibition in Hungary， a spokesperson of the Dutch collector said "the owner of the mummy has been collecting Chinese art for almost three decades" and "the owner bought the sculpture in the Netherlands from a fellow collector who， at that time， was sharing his professional time between Hong Kong and Amsterdam and who was well acquainted with the local Hong Kong art scene."
"In late 1995 in Amsterdam， the current owner noticed the statue first in the fellow collector's collection and by mid 1996 agreed to acquire it. The previous owner shipped the statue from his Hong Kong studio to his Amsterdam residence while he， in turn， in the winter of 1994-1995 acquired the statue from a Chinese art friend in Hong Kong，" according to the statement.
Under the Dutch Civil Code， the possessor must observe the necessary diligence (prudence) at the acquisition of ancient cultural objects. Holthuis said "in professional art trading circles it is known that this kind of old statue could never have been exported out of China without a permit. A professional buyer should have asked for provenance documents and export permit. Apparently， Van Overeem did not."

HUMAN REMAINS INSIDE STATUE
Holthuis said the Buddhist statue carries the human remains of an identifiable person， who is 1，000 years old.
"The statue is a casket around the human remains of a person， and the Buddha statue is so much entangled with the corpse that one cannot be separated from the other. Eventually the leading part in this case is not the Buddhist art， but the human remains of the person that is in there，" said Holthuis.
"According to the Dutch Burial and Cremation Act of 1991 and the interpretation of our Minister of Justice at that time， nobody can own a corpse. Nobody can therefore own this statue even if it is acquired in good faith. According to Dutch law， the family can claim the statue back. If the family cannot， then the caretaker can，" he added.
The Chinese villagers have hundred years old genealogy records that refer to the origin of Zhanggong Patriarch by its full Chinese name， and the records show that it has been worshipped at Puzhao temple in Yangchun village from the Song dynasty (960-1279) to the Yuan dynasty (1279-1368). The Chinese characters on these documents are consistent with those on the praying mat stolen along with the statue.
"This genealogy is the interesting and unique thing in this case that proves Zhang Gong was related to the village temple and the villagers have been looking after their statue for a very long time. A link can be made between the village clan and this statue， and with the fact that the villagers have always worshiped this statue， they have the legal interest to claim back this statue，" argued Holthuis.

WHAT NEXT?
"We sued three parties， Oscar van Overeem and his two companies registered at the same address， because we do not know whether he bought it through his company or privately，" said Holthuis.
After the statement of claims is filed in court， the defendant normally has six weeks to prepare his statement of defense. He can ask an extension of another six weeks， and then again another extension with the approval of the other party.
The court might set a hearing and see whether they need additional information or whether they can already， after the hearing， take a decision. Another round of statements is still possible before the judge takes any decision and both parties can appeal.
"In Dutch legal proceedings， the judge lets the parties make arguments and eventually takes a decision on that basis although he can ask questions during the hearing and decide that one party shall give specific evidence，" Holthuis said.
"The villagers deserve that we do our very best and we hope Master Zhang Gong can return to his usual resting place，" he said.

2016-06-15 22:18:31(Beijing Time) Xinhua English  by Liu Fang， Zindziwe Janse
Spotlight: Lawsuit to repatriate Chinese Buddhist mummy starts in the Netherlands
http://english.sina.com/news/2016-06-15/doc-ifxtfmrp2095818.shtml

Dutch court reportedly issues notice to collector of mummified statue
 2016-11-08 10:56Global TimesEditor: Li Yan


The legal battle between Dutch art collector Oscar van Overeem and Yangchun villagers from East China's Fujian Province has made progress.
The Dutch court has ordered the plaintiffs, Yangchun villagers, to provide a guaranteed court fee of 2,879 euros (about $3,189) and the defendant, Dutch art collector van Overeem, to submit a notice of response no later than November 23, 2016, Chinese media reported.
According to the Dutch law, the statute of limitation for this type of lawsuit is 20 years. The Buddha was said to be stolen at the end of 1995; however van Overeem claimed that he acquired it in 1996 from a Hong Kong art dealer, which left the Fujian villagers with very little time to take legal action, media reports said.
"We are preparing the money right now, it's not a big sum and it's good that there is a deadline for the Dutch art collector to respond to the notice, which he has already postponed twice, the first time he requested a delay of six weeks and the second time four weeks. We know that he is trying to buy time for gathering more legal evidence on his part," Lin Wenqing, a spokesperson for the villagers, told the Global Times Wednesday.

Legal battle
The case was taken to court in Netherlands by a group of volunteer lawyers, including a Dutch lawyer, in June this year, after van Overeem refused to return the Buddha to Yangchun villagers. However it was reported that he would consider to return the Buddha, "if it is proven to have belonged to a Buddhist community that still exists," and then he expressed his willingness to return the Buddha to South Putuo Temple in Xiamen, Fujian Province as it had better facilities instead of the humble village temple.
But his offer was declined by the South Putuo Temple on the grounds of differences in religious beliefs.
Later he changed his mind again by asking a price of $20 million to $30 million for the statue from the Chinese government as compensation, the Xinhua News Agency and Britain's Daily Mail reported.
"His attitude is very ambiguous. We sincerely wish he can return the Buddha to us without going to the court. We know that in the past 20 years he has taken very good care of the Buddha, which our villagers truly appreciate. For us, the Buddha is like a family, we love and worship it so much that no matter how difficult it is going to be, we are determined to get it back. We do not want to take legal action against somebody who is actually our benefactor," Lin Wenqing told the Global Times.
The golden sitting Buddha, which contains the remains of a monk who lived in China's Northern Song Dynasty (960-1127), is about four-foot (1.2 meters) tall. According to the villagers, this Buddha had been placed at the Yangchun village temple for more than 1,000 years and local worshippers called him Zhanggong Zushi and treated him like a god over the centuries. Legend had it that when he was still alive, he devoted all his life to helping and treating sick villagers with herbs, and when he died aged 37, he turned himself into a mummy and his body was placed inside the statue about 200 years later.

Contentious treasure
In December 1995, the Buddha was found to have disappeared from its seat.
Lin Wenqing said a man called Lin Guangming, a brick worker who was working close to the temple, witnessed the theft. He told the villagers he saw a minivan around the temple that night, and when the van left, he even helped to move the bricks out of the way. Twenty years ago, cars and vans were very rare to see, so that minivan caught his attention. He peeked inside the window and saw something being covered by a blanket, which looked like a sick person.
In the following 20 years, villagers have been relentlessly looking for the Buddha but nothing was found.
However in March 2015, an exhibition called "Mummy World" was held in Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest and the centerpiece of the exhibition was a golden sitting mummified Buddha which looked exactly the same as the stolen one from Yangchun village.
"There is a Fujian businessman who lives in Budapest, he is actually from our village, and he is very familiar with the Buddha. When he first saw the photo of the exhibited Buddha in media, he immediately recognized it's the stolen one. And from a reporter of the New York Times, we finally got to know the current owner of the Buddha, a Dutch collector called Oscar van Overeem," Lin Wenqing said.
In 1997, van Overeem took the statue to Utrecht University to have it carbon-dated and scanned and the Dutch scientists found remains of a human body dating back to the 11th century inside the statue. In 2014, the Meander Medical Centre in Amsterdam conducted a scan on the statue, and the results showed the abdominal cavity of the body, where there had once been organs, had been taken out and there were paper scraps printed with ancient Chinese characters in it now, Reuters reported.
"To win the case, the Chinese lawyers and villagers need to gather strong and adequate historical recordings including the village genealogical books, previous pictures of the Buddha and hand-written texts. Normally it is very difficult to trace back relics which were brought to the West long time ago, for example before the 20th century, but it is relatively easy to get back the items which were lost in the contemporary period," Huo Zhengxin, an international law expert from China University of Political Science and Law, told the Global Times in a telephone interview.
"The Dutch collector may try to prove he acquired the Buddha with a goodwill and did not know the fact that the item he bought was smuggled out of China at that time. If he could prove it, then it would be very difficult for the villagers to get the Buddha back according to the Dutch law. However, the lawsuit is helpful in clarifying how this Buddha ended up in the West, because van Overeem would be obligated to respond to the lawsuit and provide evidence," Huo noted.


http://www.ecns.cn/2016/11-08/233162.shtml#