Today there is a silent world war raging, a secret conflict that embroils nations from all corners of the globe. Diplomats scramble to make amends, politicians make ultimatums, and all the while we’ve had no idea it’s been happening. This isn’t a war fought with guns or bombs, it’s fought with words and diplomacy, nor is it a war over territory, this is a war for history. The struggle for the cultural heritage and treasures of many, often impoverished, nations is reaching it’s culmination. This debate, whether museums and nations should repatriate important artifacts and cultural objects to their country of origin, has reached a fever pitch. Supporters of repatriation argue vehemently that it’s the moral and ethical decision while critics contend that it would endanger the artifacts and limit archaeologist’s opportunities to study the antiquities. Those who dispute repatriation, however, argue against the very principles of archaeology, to unearth our common history, and share it with the world. Artifacts and cultural objects in museums and collections should be reciprocated to their country of origin under the premise that they be shared with other museums throughout the world. This would allow nations to regain their heritage as well as share it with others around the world.
The cornerstone of this debate is the controversy surrounding the famed Elgin Marbles. The West Side Review describes how the marbles were removed from Greece in the early 19th century by Thomas Bruce, the 7th Earl of Elgin. Bruce insisted that he removed the marbles in order to save them from the war raging in the country at the time. However, when he returned the public uproar was so intense that it forced the British government to pay for the priceless antiquities, however they paid the Ottoman Empire, the occupiers of Greece at the time, and not the rightful owners. This is the subject of the controversy, Britain argues that they acquired the marbles legally and that Greece doesn’t have the resources necessary to maintain the artifacts while Greece insists they were removed from the country illegally and rightfully belong to the Greek people. This debate, however, is also striking close to home. Recently the controversy over Incan artifacts between Yale University and Peru has reached a critical juncture as, “Peruvians took to the streets of Cuzco and Lima... to demand the return of Incan artifacts in Yale’s possession” (Yale Daily News). The Peruvian President has even gone as far as to write President Obama a personal appeal asking for the return of the artifacts. Liliana Cino, the head of Peru’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Cultural Division was recently quoted in a video by VOA News saying, “It [artifacts in question] was given as a loan. As a loan, and we hope, really hope that Yale will keep its word and give our things back, our materials, it’s important.” Although mostly unknown the debate over repatriation of artifacts is quickly altering the diplomatic and political landscape of the world.
The primary argument against repatriation is concerns over the ability of the nations in question to preserve and protect the famed artifacts. Many of the western nations, such as the United States, Britain, and France, can better care for the priceless antiquities than more impoverished nations like Greece, Egypt and Peru. Basically critics say that with the current world economy and market for illegal antiquities it’s an unnecessary risk, “the Greeks steadily climbing 33 billion Euro ($34.2 billion) deficit in a recessing economy seems an unneeded risk... Greece also ranks disappointingly low on the Corruptions Perception Index” (West Side Review). The illicit antiquities trade has been afflicting the world for thousands of years, in fact that’s how many of the controversial artifacts were removed from their home country. In many less prosperous countries there is an ever present temptation to make money off of what they have, whether that be natural resources or the remains of an ancient civilization. Unfortunately other times, as in the case of the Elgin Marbles, a nation’s cultural treasures could be stolen or conquered by another culture and actioned off to the highest bidder, “ they were taken from Greece in 1806... when Greece was occupied by the Ottoman Empire” (West Side Review). This flaw, however, can be easily solved.
Although the threat of the artifacts being stolen or damaged, in the care of countries with less resources available for their preservation, is a very real threat this can be neutralized with just a few adjustments. First of all we must create a special division, with real power, of INTERPOL or the UN, they would be responsible for periodic check ins and evaluation of the artifact’s care which would eliminate the risk of damage or theft. As far as the economy is concerned, there is always the option of loaning the artifacts to another country for temporary care. Although loaning the artifacts may seem to go against what repatriation supporters are fighting for, it does not. Nations such as Greece wouldn’t mind sharing the artifacts with the world, by loaning them to other museums, they just ask that their ownership be recognized. It is for this same reason why the current owners refuse to loan the artifacts to the Greeks,“The British Museum has possession of the Elgin Marbles but the Greek government refuses to acknowledge their ownership, paralyzing any prospect of compromise between the two parties” (West Side Review). So essentially the problem at the moment is that the British claim ownership and refuse to lend the marbles to the Greeks because they don’t acknowledge it, “ The difficulty at the moment… is that the Greek government has formally, and recently, refused to acknowledge that the trustees are the owners of the objects. Therefore, in law the trustees could not possibly lend them…” (Neil MacGregor qtd. in The West Side Review). This could all be solved if the British simply returned the Marbles to Greece, with the conditions above (i.e. special UN division) and then, should they later request them for an British Museum exhibition the Greeks could lone them the artifacts with no trouble.
Another argument against repatriation is that, if it succeeds“museums all around the world would be flooded with demands for the return of nationally significant artwork or restitution for ancient ruins” (West Side Review). This is indeed a valid concern because most of the artifacts displayed in the great museums of Britain, the United States, France, Germany, and other western countries are foreign. This is a problem because the purpose of archaeology is to share our common history with the world, how can we do this when the artifacts are restricted to only one nation? Critics also contend if will hurt archaeology on a whole, after all, if museums, organizations, and universities know they won’t be able to study and display any artifacts they discover they won’t spend the money searching for and excavating them. Some could argue that this has already begun with the, “...return of 7,000 cuneiform tablets from Germany to Turkey and 12,000 Pre-Columbian objects to Ecuador from Italy...” (Cuno 153). Basically, critics argue, the worst case scenario is that repatriation will result in reduced viewing and studying of artifacts as well as less investment in archaeology. This argument, that repatriation will essentially be the death of archaeology and of world access to our cultural heritage, it simply not true.
The allegation that repatriation would result in the loss of all artifacts kept by museums is completely false. The nations in question only ask for the return of important, distinguishing, cultural artifacts, “The Egyptian government has called for the [Rosetta] Stone’s return, claiming it is important to Egyptian identity...” (Cuno xiv (preface)). There’s also the matter of lessened interest in archaeology due to costs this, however, is no problem. There will always be interest in archaeology and the funding for it, uncovering the Sphinx and searching for Mayan ruins among huge tracks of jungle weren’t cheap but we did them anyway, and will continue to do so in the future. Repatriation is clearly the moral and ethical thing to do .
The war is still raging with little chance of slowing, if any thing its becoming more controversial and bitter as time goes on. The battle between archaeologists, museums, and diplomats has, if anything, just begun. It is truly a battle over history an unmatched ethical controversy. Museums and collections should return any foreign important cultural and archaeological artifacts to their native nation under the condition that they be shared with the world and subject to quality of care tests. This is to ensure they are receiving top rate care as well as the best preservation and conservation measures as possible. It is very important that we focus more on preserving our past than on petty political and diplomatic disagreements, it’s the best and option and way forward for all parties. Hopefully this will sooth the conflict and create a world were our archaeological and cultural heritage is shared with the world as it was intended.
Works Cited
Countries Want National Treasures Returned. Countries Want National Treasures Returned. 09 Aug. 2010. Web. <8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsocrGSlUOI&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1>.
"Debate: Returning Cultural Treasures to Country of Origin." Debatepedia. Web.
"The Elgin Marbles Belong to the British | The West Side Review." The West Side Review | A Social and Political Dialogue Between Students and Citizens of the West Side of Cleveland, Ohio. 05 May 2009. Web. <http://www.thewestsidereview.com/archives/134>.
Henderson, Drew. "Peru Steps up Pressure on Yale | Yale Daily News." Yale Daily News - The Nation's Oldest College Daily. 9 Nov. 2010. Web. <http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2010/nov/09/peru-steps-pressure-yale/>.
Opoku, Kwame. "RETURN OF THE ROSETTA STONE TO EGYPT: LIMITS TO THE GREED OF THE SELF-STYLED UNIVERSAL MUSEUMS." Modern Ghana. 19 Dec. 2009. Web. <http://www.modernghana.com/news/255494/1/return-of-the-rosetta-stone-to-egypt-limits-to-the.html>.
Ori, Koyne O. "Egypt Demands Return of Stolen Artifacts from Europe and U.S." Afrik-news.com : Africa News, Maghreb News - The African Daily Newspaper. Web. <http://www.afrik-news.com/article16460.html>.
Redman, S. J. "Repatriation – A Passing Fad?: Returning Artifacts to Their Origins." Suite101.com: Online Magazine and Writers' Network. 14 Aug. 2006. Web. <http://www.suite101.com/content/repatriationapassingfad-a1110>.
Interesting argument. You make some very valid points, however, I would argue that artifacts should not be limited by geo-polictical bounderies. Some of the artifacts that you have mentioned are not only important to the people of Greece, Egypt, or Peru but they are important to the human race and our collective history. With the level of corruption in some of the "ancient world" countries artifacts are safer with the muesums that were able to fund their recovery.
ReplyDeleteAnd while one world police organaziation to track these artifacts would be nice but lets look realistically at the "power" of the U.N. If the U.N. truely had power there would not be mass genocide in Dafar, human rights violations in China, human trafficing in Asia.