Should museum artifacts be repatriated? Who actually owns the artifacts? Are there any legal obligations to return artifacts?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A theft scandal at the British Museum has fueled the debate over repatriating artifacts. Those in favor of repatriation say that many objects were stolen or taken unethically. Opponents say museums are the safest places for them and it\u2019s often unclear who they belong to.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Below we’ll take a look at both sides of this complex argument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
In August, the British Museum announced that around 2,000 objects in its collection had gone missing over the past decade<\/a>. Some had been auctioned off on eBay for a fraction of their value. Evidence pointed to the theft being an inside job: The suspect, a curator of Greek antiquities, was fired. The museum\u2019s director subsequently resigned<\/a>, acknowledging he\u2019d been too slow to act on evidence he\u2019d received in 2021.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This incident comes in the context of mounting pressure on museums over repatriating artifacts in their collections. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The idea that culturally important objects should be returned to their communities isn\u2019t new. In the early 1800s, soon after Lord Elgin had brought the Parthenon marble sculptures to Britain, one British parliamentarian called the movement of the sculptures an \u201cact of spoliation<\/a>.\u201d As part of a vocal minority, he suggested that Britain hold the sculptures in trust until Athens asked for them back.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main reasons people give for repatriating cultural property are as follows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Those calling for return point out that in many cases, these objects were taken without permission, often as colonial plunder or the spoils of war. Even the British Museum acknowledges, for example, that the Benin Bronzes were looted amid \u201cwidespread destruction and pillage<\/a>\u201d in a vengeful operation by British soldiers. And, even if something was legally acquired at the time, those historical laws may not reflect our contemporary sense of what\u2019s right and wrong. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Those in favor of artifact repatriation argue that objects that were created within a particular culture belong to that culture. Many museum pieces are imbued with sacred meaning that gets lost when they\u2019re viewed out of context. For the people of Rapa Nui (Easter Island), for example, the stone moai statue standing in the British Museum contains the spirit of an ancestor<\/a> who now can\u2019t do his job of protecting his descendants on the island. Returning these objects also supports members of the community to pass on their culture to the next generation<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Many contested pieces are the spoils of colonialism, so some argue that holding onto them perpetuates the damage done by colonization. One Egyptian scholar has called the British Museum\u2019s refusal to return the Rosetta Stone as \u201ca symbol of Western cultural violence against Egypt<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Because there\u2019s no overarching legal obligation to return objects, returning them is a gesture of goodwill. As such, it opens avenues for international cooperation and understanding. When Germany returned 20 Benin Bronzes to Nigeria last year, for example, foreign minister Annalena Baerbock said she hoped the return would pave the way for improved trade relations between the countries<\/a>. US law enforcement efforts against trafficking cultural property are also explicitly framed as diplomatic efforts<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Museums, and some politicians, have countered that it\u2019s better for both the objects and humanity as a whole to have the objects stay where they are.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Museums have long held that they\u2019re the safest place for culturally important objects<\/a>. They point out, for example, that the sculptures that remained at the Parthenon site after Elgin took the rest were damaged by vandalism, weathering, and air pollution<\/a>, and that unstable or war-torn countries often don\u2019t have adequate facilities for the storage and display of fragile objects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In answer, some of the countries soliciting returns have stepped up their facilities. Greece built a state-of-the-art museum<\/a> to receive the Parthenon sculptures in 2009\u2014but they\u2019re still waiting for a marble delivery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cultures and national boundaries shift over time. These changes can make it hard to determine where an object should be returned to<\/em>\u2014where does an object belong if the culture that created it no longer exists? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Returning objects may also break the connection of diaspora communities to their home countries. One group in the US, for example, is suing to block the Smithsonian\u2019s repatriations<\/a> because members of the local community are descended from slaves traded at ports in the Kingdom of Benin. The plaintiffs say the Benin Bronzes are part of their heritage and therefore shouldn\u2019t be removed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another common argument is that museums should tell \u201cthe story of our common humanity,\u201d<\/a> and to that end, they need to showcase the diversity in human cultures. Displaying creations from all around the world and from different historical eras gives visitors a unique picture of how different parts of human history are interconnected. <\/p>\n\n\n\n There\u2019s currently no framework within international law<\/a> that governs the return of cultural property. The 1970 UNESCO Convention<\/a> outlined a broad framework for preventing the trafficking of antiquities starting in 1970 and was eventually joined by 143 states<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention<\/a>, however, which introduced clearer legal guidelines, only covers circumstances in which there\u2019s evidence the objects were illegally obtained. It\u2019s also only been joined by 54 states<\/a>, with big receiver countries like the US, the UK, Japan, and Germany absent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n UK museums can further cite national laws like the British Museum Act of 1963<\/a> and the National Heritage Act of 1983<\/a>, both of which bar museums from letting go of property in their collections. Legal analyst Tatiana Flessas argues, however, that these laws aren\u2019t set in stone; with some political will, they could easily be overturned<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A final fear is that if objects are returned to their place of origin, museums will have nothing left to display. (This argument is most convincing when made on behalf of smaller museums: The British Museum displays only 1% of the eight million objects in its collection<\/a>.) However, while most museums won\u2019t literally be left empty, they may suffer in the future when potential donors are scared away because they don\u2019t have the right paperwork<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Repatriation efforts have picked up momentum in the last five years. Just this year, the following high-profile repatriations have already taken place:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Should museum artifacts be repatriated? Who actually owns the artifacts? Are there any legal obligations to return artifacts? A theft scandal at the British Museum has fueled the debate over repatriating artifacts. Those in favor of repatriation say that many objects were stolen or taken unethically. Opponents say museums are the safest places for them and it\u2019s often unclear who they belong to. Below we’ll take a look at both sides of this complex argument.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":115469,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,24],"tags":[727],"class_list":["post-115468","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-history","category-society","tag-articles","","tg-column-two"],"yoast_head":"\n1. Arguments for Repatriation<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
They\u2019re Stolen Objects<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
People Have a Right to Their Own Cultural Heritage<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Holding the Objects Perpetuates Colonial Damage<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Repatriation Strengthens International Relationships<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
2. Arguments Against Repatriation<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Objects Are Safer in Museums<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s Not Always Clear Where the Objects Belong<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Museums Should Teach Us About Humanity as a Whole<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Repatriating Is Against the Law (or at Least Legally Complicated)<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Returning Contested Objects Will \u201cOpen the Floodgates\u201d<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
A Changing Tide<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n