Introduction
In 1832 Greece demanded the return of marble statues that once served as a decoration in the famous Parthenon temple and were brought to England by Lord of Elgin at the beginning of the century. Almost two centuries later, the marbles are still exhibited in the British Museum, with the issue remaining unresolved. However, it started a trend: like newly independent Greece, many nations and communities began to make similar claims about particular objects that are now stored in other museums all around the world. This situation created an agitated debate that has been going on for many years.
Indeed, the issue of returning artifacts and treasures to the places of their origin is hugely complicated, and many opinions are formed around it. Some specialists claim that many exhibits that are now presented at museums around the world should be returned to the countries or communities that once “owned” them. It should be done as a sign of retribution as most museums that now own these valuables have made their collections because of their countries’ imperial or colonial past. Others have a different point of view, saying that it is better to have these artifacts preserved at museums where they are currently displayed for the reasons of safety, practicality and other factors. I argue that this problem should be solved case-by-case within some – yet to be developed – universal framework. Moreover, countries or communities demanding repatriation should prove the objects’ “ownership” and provide necessary safety and storage for the returned treasures. If these conditions are not met, artifacts should be preserved at their current places of hold as long as their origin is acknowledged and properly represented.
Artifacts Should Be Repatriated
The first argument that supporters of repatriation are expressing dwells on the circumstances of how most artifacts were acquired. For instance, another famous exhibit of the British Museum, the Rosetta Stone, an inscribed stele from Egypt, was first captured by Napoleon and later seized by the British troops. The well-known Priam’s treasure, a cache of gold and other treasures, was first smuggled by Heinrich Schliemann, sold to the Royal Museums of Berlin before the Soviet troops took it to Moscow. Marie Rodet explains: “Most of the global artifacts that are now held in European museums were either looted or bought for a value far below that of the European art market price” (“Do Historical Objects Belong”, 2019, para. 6). The same applies to North American or Australian institutions that have been exhibiting cultural objects from various countries, communities, and epochs for years. While some of the museum exhibits could have been freely given or bought by explorers and collectors, the supporters of culture repatriation argue that they could still be deemed as stolen. This logic becomes more transparent with the presentation of the second argument.
The supporters of cultural repatriation claim that returning objects from first-world museums to the countries and communities of origin is a political and moral responsibility. They base this idea on the fact that most objects that are now exhibited in most prolific museums come from areas and communities having experienced colonialism, imperialism, or some other forms of oppression. For them, the actual origin of an object is of secondary importance, and every fact of acquisition is deemed to be “stealing”. As Jeremiah Garsha (2020) states, “Under colonial times, there was no fair exchange or any transaction between colonizers and the colonized is an example of an acquisition taken under duress” (p. 48). This outlook allows the supporters of repatriation to require museums to return the objects as an act of redeeming the colonial past. Kehinde Andrews, a professor of Black Studies, explains: “The continued sense of entitlement is now just a delusion, and Britain and its European neighbors owe restitution to their former colonies in a myriad of ways” (“The Big Questions”, 2019, para. 15). Returning museum artifacts is thus seen as an act of restitution.
Moreover, reclaiming cultural heritage can re-establish national identity or pride, especially for newly formed states. Lenzerini (2016) argues that cultural objects if returned to its place of origin, can benefit communities’ tourist industries and become “an essential part of people’s pride, self-esteem, and identity” (p. 128). A good example is the repatriation of Native American treasures, objects and human remains to the communities they were taken from. This process has been in motion since 1990 when the U.S. Congress passed The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Fletcher (2008) describes the meaning of this repatriation, “For the Apache, the return of these objects from museum storage to their native soil restores a balance that was thrown off more than a century ago” (para. 3). Significantly, the repatriation happens within the legal framework, and every case is considered separately.
Artifacts Should Stay
The supporters of the counter-position wanting to protect museums’ rights to keep the exhibits are also multiple. This group involves museum officials, culture experts, and members of public. The main argument shared by repatriation opponents is questioning the logic behind notions of theft, restitution, and ownership of cultural objects. They point out weaknesses in the repatriation supporters’ claims, trying to emphasize and contest the controversial nature and emotional connotations of these concepts.
Hartmut Dorgerloh, the director of the Humboldt Forum in Berlin, pointed out in an interview a paradox that restitution is posing. If museums have to return objects to their original owners, it is crucial to answer how far the historical trace should go. He wonders, “How far back will you go? Until Roman times? Because many items in Rome were robbed somewhere in Greece or in ancient Egypt” (Nayeri, 2018, para. 9). Ioannis D. Stefanidis, professor of Diplomatic History at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, brings out a particular example of “Horses of Saint Mark”. These statues of four horses, dated to classical Greek or Roman antiquity, were looted and shipped to Venice from Constantinople in the 13th century, removed from Venice to Paris in 1797, and then returned to Venice. The scholar makes a point: “The fate of the horses raises a number of issues, common to innumerable cases of claimed cultural property around the world” (“Do Historical Objects Belong”, 2019, para. 11). This object was a part of Constantinople’s history, symbolizing equestrian prowess and Venice’s religious life being placed in St Mark’s Basilica. Therefore, according to the logic of repatriation supporters, Turkey might have a foundation for claiming the statues back based on the connection with an existing monument, the Hippodrome, and as their original “owners”. This argument seems logical since both French and Venetians acquired this object as a result of looting.
Moreover, the moral basis for the repatriation is often challenged by specialists with counterarguments stating that many objects that are now claimed back were made by slaves and were symbols of power. For instance, the Parthenon, marble statues of which are now stored in the British Museum, was built by slaves. Other much-contested objects – the Benin Bronzes – were made from Portuguese metal that they used to buy slaves with. Tiffany Jenkins, who came up with these examples, notes, “It is not possible to repair that past. Nor will judging it through the eyes of the present aid an understanding of ancient Athens or the court of Benin” (“The Big Questions”, 2019, para. 5). These arguments make the discussion even more complicated and call for a more in-depth dialogue in establishing the common ground for two opposing sides.
Another stance shared by the repatriation opponents is of more practical natures. It concerns those countries and communities which do not have facilities to store valuable objects or means to protect them. Some countries of Africa and Asia where the precious objects came from are in the state of war or under threat of Islamist terrorism. Some artifacts come from small minorities who do not have adequate institutions to exhibit collections. Olivette Otele comments on this issue, “Many countries in west Africa … do not have the facilities to preserve those valuable artifacts and protect them from theft” (“The Big Questions”, 2019, para. 19). Therefore, in this case, repatriation would mean finding sufficient funds to establish the necessary infrastructure for valuable objects.
Moreover, it is interesting that quite often, it is the former colonies themselves that refuse repatriation acts. For instance, Tanzania rejected the idea that the museums in Berlin should return 20,000 ethnographic artifacts when Tanganyika was a German colony (“The Clamour”, 2019). Therefore, it can be understood that when the practical factor comes into play, the repatriation should not be that hasty or mass-scale.
The third point expressed by representatives of this group is that keeping objects where they currently are helps relationships with the communities and museums, deepening international cooperation and understanding. Lissant Bolton says that the discussions about repatriation tend “to ignore long-standing effective relationships between curators and heritage professionals working in partnership with museums and communities internationally” (“The Big Questions”, 2019, para. 7). A closer connected argument is that objects get their deserving recognition by being stored at the most prominent museums in the world. Tiffany Jenkins notes, “A terrifying sculpture, once an object of domination or devotion, becomes in a gallery an object of enlightenment, beauty, or a social text to be read (“Do Historical Objects Belong”, 2019, para. 5).
Moreover, being a part of a bigger context, these objects present a diverse world, provoke questions, and promote knowledge and understanding. Jones (2019) adds, “To visit a museum of its kind is like walking into the pages of an encyclopedia. This is part of the enlightenment spirit, of sharing and learning about each other’s culture” (para. 23). Thus, decisions about returning artifacts should be discussed based not on ownership or remorse for the past, but on where an object can be kept better and appreciated more.
Concessions
While both sides have their meritorious claims and logic behind their arguments, I firmly believe that each position has its weaknesses. It is understandable that the history of colonialism, centuries of war, and violence that many communities and countries have gone through the call for recognition. However, “the legitimate injustices of colonization cannot be undone even if every object in every museum were restituted” (Farago, 2015, para. 8). Indeed, some objects have to be returned as it is done on a wide-scale level with human remains, sacred and funerary objects. On the other hand, it is crucial to understand that not all objects need to be repatriated. If all the spoils of colonialism or any other painful period of the history are given back, then the representation of the past would be improper.
Moreover, repatriation claims based on national or political origin should take into account that objects, initially taken from their places of origin, nowadays are a part of global culture and a new context. Repatriation should not deny cultural exchange and ideas of diversity that modern museums are now trying to channel. The same critique goes to the opponents of repatriation who can sometimes be quite harsh in denying countries or communities the right to claim objects that once were a part of their cultural value. Even in controversial situations, sensitivity and respect for the history and healthy discussion should be prioritized.
Compromise
Both opinions about whether cultural objects should be returned to their places of origin contest more or less the same issues. Despite the fact that this issue has been discussed for many years, it remains unresolved and still becomes a hot topic of debates among politicians, scholars, museum specialists, and members of the public. Therefore, it is essential to find an appropriate solution and develop an algorithm for solving this problem. In this situation, what can be done is acquiring an integrated approach based on best practices and mutual compromise. I believe that this goal is feasible as both opponents and supporters of repatriation understand museum objects’ value and their meaning to humanity.
Conclusion
In my opinion, the solution lies in developing a framework of universal regulations that would provide a sufficient foundation for reaching agreements in particular cases. Moreover, if repatriations occur, it is necessary to make sure that valuable objects are protected and appropriately kept. Objects should be preserved in places where they would be taken care of and duly presented. If the countries and communities are only on the way to achieving this level, adequate funding and training programs must be ensured. In this case, the objects in question could stay where they are. However, what museums could do in return is to acknowledge and celebrate the origin of the objects and foster an understanding of different cultures and histories.
References
Do historical objects belong in their country of origin? (2019). History Today, 69(2). Web.
Farago, J. (2015). To return or not: Who should own indigenous art? BBC. Web.
Fletcher, K. R. (2008). The road to repatriation. Smithsonian Mag. Web.
Garsha, J. (2020). Expanding vergangenheitsbewältigung? German repatriation of colonial artefacts and human remains. Journal of Genocide Research, 22(1), 46-61. Web.
Jones, C.P. (2019). Should museums return artifacts to their original countries? Medium. Web.
Lenzerini, F. (2016). Cultural identity, human rights, and repatriation of cultural heritage of indigenous peoples. Brown Journal of World Affairs, 23(1), 127-141.
Nayeri, F. (2018). Return of African artifacts sets a tricky precedent for Europe’s museums. The New York Times. Web.
The big questions: Should museums return their treasures? (2019). History Extra. Web.
The clamour to return artefacts taken by colonialists. (2019). The Economist. Web.