The essay narrates the biography of a single art object—acclaimed in recent history as a “masterpiece” of ancient Indian sculpture—to invoke the larger spectrum of practices and discourses that came to constitute the field of art history in modern India. It explores the shifting locations and aesthetic trajectories that marked the transformation of this artifact from a curious archaeological “antiquity” into a national “art-treasure” and icon of Indian femininity, and later even into “a travelling emissary of ancient Indian art and culture.” On the one hand, the spectrum of travels of this object provides an ideal instance for mapping over the twentieth century the changing colonial, national and international stature of Indian art. On the other hand, its career also pointedly reveals the clash of contending claims and the politics of “return” and “restitution” that have attended the nationalization and artistic consecration of many such objects.

Cicero's speeches and essays—especially the Verrines—were widely read in France and England during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, when they were used in public debates about the fate of art in wartime. The early development of the concept of “cultural property” owed much to careful readings and citations of Cicero's views. The main charge brought against Verres in 70 B.C. was extortion during his term as governor of Sicily, but in the course of his prosecution Cicero depicts Verres as a rapacious collector of art who even took cult statues from temples for his private collection. This portrait of a “collector” who felt entitled to anything he could get and who abused his official authority to acquire works of art was recalled and used in debates about “collecting” many centuries later. This paper examines how Ciceronian views contributed to the development of the concept of art as cultural property.

The British parliamentary report on Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade was published in 2000. Three key areas were addressed: the illicit excavation and looting of antiquities, the identification of works of art looted by Nazis, and the return of cultural property now residing in British collections. The evidence presented by interested parties—including law enforcement agencies and dealers in antiquities—to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee is assessed against the analysis of collecting patterns for antiquities. The lack of self regulation by those involved in the antiquities market supports the view that the British Government needs to adopt more stringent legislation to combat the destruction of archaeological sites by looting.