Location and ownership can be separated. Objects “on loan” can be displayed in museums for years, not just as part of a special exhibition. Control of the objects whose provenance indicates were stolen should be by the rightful owners. A traveling exhibition of Benin bronzes would raise the cultural profile of Nigeria, but it would also bring in earnings which should belong primarily to Nigeria.
France first colonized Canada in the 1600’s, but try telling the French Canadians they do not belong in Quebec today… at a certain point, it’s too late to demand something back. the question is “how long?” Is the Norman claim to England valid? The current nobility’s claim to Normandy? Does something conceded after defeat, in a peace treaty, really count as settled? (Alsace? Lorraine?)
Note that you know who the real owner was. That is not always clear. And did the owner transfer ownership ? And to who?
I don’t know, but clearly a dead guy is not the owner. That’s why I’m entitled to keep it.
False dilemma. People concerned about the former are often the same people objecting to the latter - e.g. I’m willing to bet the Native Americans appalled and saddened at the Smithsonian storerooms of their heritage in John Oliver’s show would be equally appalled by a Coachella influencer wearing an eagle-feather bonnet.
That is one of the problems with ‘nation states’, they need fixed borders and a constitutional settlement where everyone agrees a sovereign political authority and legal structure.
Just about every nation state has problems either with neighbouring states and rival claims over territory or internal constitutional challenges where some folk would rather be in a different country.
Even very old nation states like the UK ,which benefits by having a bit of sea between it and those rival states on continental Europe, have long standing issues. The UK state incorporates the kingdoms of England, Scotland, Wales and then it gets difficult with Ireland.
The US is famous for constantly agonising over its constitution and goes into crisis from time to time when there is tension between the states and the federal government.
In Europe many nation states are quite young and the continent has had so many wars that national borders seem only to last a few decades. Some territories regularly being seceded or annexed by rival states. Why it happened only yesterday that Russia decided to annex parts of Ukraine. Indeed Russia under Putin regards all of Ukraine to be an essential part of Russia foolishly made independent by his predecessors.
Europe has been through periods of nationalism that has consolidated many small territories into nations such as Germany and Italy. Then at other times the reverse is true and nations split up, as in the case of Yugoslavia. Sometimes peacefully such as Czechoslovakia. In the UK we had the Scottish Independence referendum and the Catalans and Basques of Spain are less than committed to the Spanish state.
Nation states are often prone to instability or the predations of expansionist neighbours. So where does that leave us with the claims they may make on the relics of ancient civilisations?
Hey that nice old stuff is ours! It is a part of our national myth of ancient greatness and we would like it back!..
But where do you draw a line.
There is ‘international law’ but it is very weak. It depends on the observance of international treaties and there is often a big get out clause if a country decides it is not in their national interest. Bigger, more powerful, countries often simply do not participate.
Unesco decided on an arbitrary year of 1970 after which nations should repatriate stolen articles. It had to wait until the big period of decolonisation had settled down. Like many such agreements it depends on governments agreeing and there are usually get out clauses.
So it is with the issue of repatriation of art works stolen during colonial times. No country is going to agree to have its museums stripped of valuable works for the benefit of nationalist politicians in another country. Especially if the government of that country cannot guarantee that valuable works will not find their way back onto the international market. Some countries really do not have the facilities to look after heritage items and it may not even be a political priority. Repatriating valuable works and then later finding them back on the international art market would not be a success. Better to just write a check.
This is a difficult point to argue because it is essentially patronising. But it is the case that heritage does not have the same relevance in all countries. Moreover the politics of some regimes sees reverence of the past and heritage as an irrelevance or a political enemy to be suppressed, it’s possessions to be sold and monuments destroyed. So it was with ISIS in Syria, AlQaeda in Afghanistan and the Kmer Rouge in Cambodia. But more often there is simply not the same reverence for heritage in many countries and cultures and looting of historic sites is part of the local economy.
Indeed, I am wondering whether the emergence of a Nation State and its requirement for some kind of origin myth led to the development of museums as trophy houses connecting the glories of the best bits of the past with the present political regime. Indeed the sad history of the twentieth century and the extremes of nationalism saw the adoption of Roman iconography by Fascist regimes. Even in democratic countries it is common to see statues of great men dressed in togas to associate them with the glories of Classical Greece.
This dependency is a kind of inferiority complex behind national identity. The past serves to endorse the present, no matter how low ago. If the past was glorious, so much the better.
The recent Golden Parade of the Kings ceremony in Egypt also points to the value of heritage as a commercial asset. Tourism is a major income stream for many economies and Egypt clearly has a considerable asset which it promoted with a grandeur to rival the best of Hollywood at its height.
But mass tourism is a recent invention. It is a result of the mass transportation systems that emerged after the industrial revolution. It really only got going once air travel became cheap and that is very much within living memory.
This then is another reason for demands for repatriation. But only for objects that have value as show pieces.
I am pretty sure there is far less demand for collections of village crafts or natural history specimens. Unless, of course it is a valuable gem stone.
If repatriation of heritage items serves only to benefit the current political elite of a country who care little for heritage and simply want to add it to their own wealth. Then it simply becomes undeserved tribute that will rapidly re-enter the international art market.
The case of items that are primarily of religious value is rather more compelling.
A large collection of beetles assiduously assembled by some eminent Victorian naturalist from some tropical country? Not so many petitions about that.
I asked the researcher who specialised in African leather work whether she was in favour of museums. She certainly was, she would never be able to study in her chosen field without these collections and their conservation. Such facilities simply do not exist in many parts of the world. They would simply be lost, leaving no record of the craft and the culture.
So this is another argument for museums as places of study and research. Not all countries have that kind of public infrastructure.
Maybe, in the future, the technology of scanning will develop sufficiently that the physical presence of objects becomes less important. Then, no doubt, there will be some argument over intellectual property rights and subscription fees. Though at least the property will be safer than galleries, museums and libraries, that depend on the economy of a stable nation state to persist provided they are not devastated by war.
Who should have the custodianship and curation of valuable artefacts of human civilisation. This quite complex question.
If every institution made a list of what they have and researched its provenance, that would be a start.
Very complex, yes, and an interesting post.
Yes, let’s not forget the Taliban in their first reign made a point of blowing up as many heathen statues - world heritage sites - as they could manage.
Nothing new - the majority of temples in Egypt that were accessible over history, the faces and hands of the reliefs and some statues have been chipped away, since it was considered idolatry by assorted factions of Christianity and Islam to depict humans in a temple setting, or anything that might pass for an object of worship.
We see something similar today, where the Hindu fundamentalist party in India is leading the push to destroy mosques; of course, the excuse too is these mosques were built over sites that supposedly used to be Hindu temples. The anti-idolatry group (Wahabi?) in Saudi Arabia have been systematically destroying the historical pieces around Mecca, since the idea that people might want to see houses, tombs, and other high points of the Prophet’s life also smacks of idolatry over worship.
And as mentioned above, the Protestant reformation, taking a page from iconoclastic movements of earlier days, eliminated a lot of the exquisite decoration of earlier churches. The English nobles who benefited from the “acquisition” of the assorted monasteries and 10% of the land that the church owned, apparently made a fortune over the next decades selling the contents of the monastic libraires, destined as one contemporary put it, “to service the jakes of Europe”. The Magna Carta copy on display in the British Museum/Library is apparently the one rescued by a noble whose tailor was about to cut it up as scrap paper (or… parchment) to make a pattern for the clothing he was ordering.
People are the reason people just can’t have nice things.
Please do not obfuscate the issue under discussion.
The issue under discussion is the British relinquishing colonial acquisitions. If the perceived societal upheaval in the looted country is preventing the British from doing this, then there are many easy solutions : one of the solutions is the United Nations. Brits can relinquish control of the valuables to the UN that can then decide how to repatriate the same or keep control of it.
Your characterization of India above is totally wrong but I will not take the bait and derail this conversation.
Afghanistan was a stable and progressive country in the 70s - did the British return the loot then ? No!
Please stop Brit-splaning the abject thuggery of the British.
I’m not Brit-splaining the behaviour of a country that completely vandalized its own rich religious heritage in order to enrich its elite and so its ruler could get his first divorce, or later destroying what was left in the name of fighting idolatry. (Chopping the king’s head off was just a bonus).
I’m pointing out that turmoil - religious, civil, and criminal - happens all over the world. It’s not just a result of colonialism, it’s a result of men behaving badly which appears to be our nature. A huge amount of the architectural heritage of Europe was destroyed in a matter of a few years on an industrial scale. The rich heritage of the Incas and the Aztecs was destroyed by zealous missionaries. Quite often it was accompanied by death on a large scale.
No one country has a monopoly on good or bad behaviour, good or bad government. All countries seem capable of vandalizing their heritage at times. The more powerful (typically European) also manage to do unto to others. Apologies if I appear to have singled out India - I was just citing one example of many. Obviously, the history of India includes the reverse, where the invading Muslim armies imposed themselves onto the Hindu occupants and proceeded to appropriate some sacred sites for themselves.
I guess it’s a microcosm of the entire debate here - how far back should we go in history to right the wrongs done in the past? What is the appropriate correction? When is it too late to correct what’s done?
I think this whole thread has pointed out one obvious answer - when the former colony is sufficiently outraged over cultural or religious significance of the items taken, it is likely an indication that they should be returned, if the country that demands them is capable of preserving them.
Establishing the rightful owner of the Koh-i-Noor diamond may not be straightforward…this jewel has quite a history.
It seems there are at least three modern states (four including the UK) laying claim to the assets of long gone kingdoms and empires that have existed since the diamond came out of the ground.
The UN resolution on repatriation does not apply to anything before 1970. I can understand why when something could have passed through a whole chain of owners over the years and the legitimacy of each transaction would no doubt be disputed by rival claimants.
As in my example above, lacking who among the possible rightful owners can firmly establish their claim, the car belongs to me. That’s fair right? So f’rinstance if some steals the stone now it should belong to them now, right?
That assumes there is a law that everyone is subject to. That is not the case between states unless there is some binding treaty and that is only as good as the commitment on both sides. In times of war, legal niceties are suspended and the winner gets to decide which laws apply to the newly acquired territory.
For much of history, it is simply ‘winner takes all’ when it comes to war between states. I don’t think much has changed.
Is there a “statute of limitations” on claims of return for simple stolen goods? I’m thinking of the equivalent “squatter’s rights” or adverse possession, where usually if a person has openly used a property for a time (10 years, 20 years) they obtain title. Obviously for international relations and the spoils of war, things are not that simple or easily forgotten.
I’m also reminded of the time I toured Versailles. Much of the furnishings were taken by the revolutionary government and sold off for cash two hundred plus years ago. To restore the look of this and other museum buildings, France is trying to buy back what it can. They don’t claim a right to repatriate that supersedes current ownership. Similarly, much of the great art found in American museums is a result of overly rich American collectors touring Europe and buying up what the desperate owners were perhaps “forced” to sell to keep themselves in bread or champagne. At what point is a transaction unconscionable? (Notre Dame too was taken from the church by the Revolutionary Government and turned into a stable)
Similarly, the Elgin marbles were not stolen in the dead of night. Nobody pries off tons of marble several dozen feet long and transports them to a port many miles away without the approval of the local authorities. Whether the authorities had the right to sell them? Well, now we get into the whole issue of homelands and rights of independence… At one point the Kohinoor belonged to the rulers of the Kingdom of Punjab. Does the Kingdom of Punjab have a right to exist, or does its annexation by force take precedence over other claims? (Canada has a similar debate where some in the province of Quebec insist they should be allowed to secede, while denying the indigenous people of Quebec would have the reciprocal right to secede their lands from Quebec) When does a conquest or annexation become a fait accompli with the new rulers the owners having the right to dispose of what they now possess?
The short answer is - “who the hell knows?” It’s a debate without a solution.
When was Greece a Colony of the British Empire?
From 1973 to 1978, maybe. That isn’t stable.
And if the “loot” had been returned, it would have been stolen, sold off or destroyed. Was Afghanistan a Brit colony? They did have a puppet on the throne there for a couple years.
I visited the Museumsinsel (Museum Island) in Berlin and one exhibit was an empty case with a note inside saying something along the lines of “This case used to have an important and valuable artifact, but the Soviet army stole it in WW2 and Russia refuses to give it back”.
No doubt.
But also no doubt that it was not a Nazi item.
Yeah, we tend NOT to display nazi memorabilia in museums. In fact, it’s verboten.
Maybe I’m confused. I thought in the context of your remarks that you were suggesting that Germans shouldn’t be able to request items back that were looted during WW2. But I guess you were just demonstrating Godwin’s Law?
I’m assuming he’s making the quasi-humorous remark that the current German government is not too interested in repatriating Nazi-themed display items.