Repatriation: New
Life in an Old Debate
Wilbur
Norman
The
recent turmoil in Egypt has added fuel to the repatriation debate, not least
because Zahi Hawass, the recently resigned Minister of State for Antiquities
Affairs, has been one of the most flamboyant voices on the issue since early
1983 when Melina Mercuri did a short film pressing for the return of the Elgin
Marbles. Opinions on repatriation
have been forwarded from many sides and predictably run the gamut from Ôlet the
locals decideÕ to cautious, toe-in-the-water statements from the dealer
fraternity. The scholarly set, for
the most part, have decried the theft and vandalism in Egypt and left the war
of words to others. From the Ôlet the locals decideÕ corner I read this
blog: ÒIt is sad if they [Egyptian antiquities] are
restolen (sic), destroyed or resold to private collectors ... as many were
during the golden age of archaeology in Egypt. But it is not the
(sic) our responsibility to tell them how to preserve their history.
They've been raiding their own tombs since the age of the Pharaohs. It is their own history that has been lost. We have enough of our
own to discover and preserve. - http://www.blufftontoday.com/blog-post/original-gangsta/2011-03-04/got-ya-zahi-hawass-limits From
the antiquities trade (International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art,
Cologne, Germany) we can read the following mild sentiment: Òthe incidents during the Egyptian
revolution could be taken as a basis for a change of discussion.Ó A
natural consequence of the first voice would seem to be, for example, that the
destruction of the Bamiyan buddhas in Afghanistan,
while unfortunate, is, or was, really none of our business. In this light people have the right to
determine what happens to cultural patrimony within their sphere of power
(well, the powerful people do, anyway.)
This view, as odd as it may sound to culture mavens, finds some
expression in UNESCOÕs simple equation that cultural property = national patrimony. That is, the current government of a country
has the decision-making authority over all cultural items found within its
borders whether or not the existing, modern culture and peoples have any
connection to the cultural material in question. This position is hardly surprising
considering that UNESCO is a part of the United Nations, an organization of
nation-states that seek to maximize their own interests. This is why it is perfectly legal for
LibyaÕs Col. Quaddafi to sell antiquities in London from the great Roman ruins
at Leptis Magna (yes, he has) and why it would be illegal for me, or an
ordinary Libyan for that matter, to spirit a few things out and consign them to
the sales rooms. Hawass, responding to current musings on the early
2011 Egyptian upheavals and his governmentÕs failures to successfully secure,
in a timely manner, its museums and storehouses offered this sound bite: "Arguments against repatriation because of the
current situation in Egypt are completely wrongÉ. If the police left the
streets of New York City, London, or Tokyo, criminals of those cities would
smash the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the British Museum, or any other museum
in those cities." As
there are always criminal elements waiting for an opportunity, Hawass may be
correct but a natural or industrial catastrophe is a far different animal than
political instability, even if the after-effects of both may have
similarities. Deep, game-changing,
political instability is not part and parcel of the so-called western
democracies though safety of artifacts is always, like freedom, a relative
thing. As
it happens, we have a tragic, instructive example coming immediately on the
heels of HawassÕ comment. After the
March 2011 tsunami in Japan people stood in orderly lines at supermarkets,
among other good-citizen behaviors, and bought only what they needed so as to
leave supplies for others. No
riotous behavior ensued and no banks were robbed. Oh, and no museums were looted (even as
known members of the organized crime syndicates, the Yakuza, assisted in relief
efforts). Can
we use the ÔhomeÕ countryÕs ability to care for returned artifacts in the
course of ordinary stewardship as a factor in repatriation debates? Perhaps this is a key question in light
of the oft-heard, Òthey canÕt take care of what they
have!Ó Some of the dreariest, needy
museums I have visited are in western, democratic countries. The state of many displays in ItalyÕs
premier museums is but one example.
And as for stewardship, one only need look to ItalyÕs Culture Minister,
Sandro Biondi, for a telling comment.
Writing on the recent collapses of famous buildings in Pompeii (15 have
crumbled since 2008) he penned, ÒThe [recent] collapse did not involve anything
of artistic, archeological, or historical worth.Ó This, at a site visited by more than 2.5
million tourists each year, each of whom pays Euro 11 for a visit! I must add, as a personal note, that not once in a month-long visit to Italy
last year (where many signs in Pompeii tout the importance of these fragile
structures) did I see in any museum any Italian contributorsÕ names on the
label under a work of art naming the benefactor who paid for a workÕs
restoration. Surely they must
exist, but all the names I read appeared non-Italian. (I concede that some names could have
been Tyrolian.)
We
Americans, of course, cannot lay any claim to taking care of our non-displayed
cultural heritage any better than some so-called Third World countries. In his December 2009 report, Museum Collections: Accountability and Preservation,
the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) wrote, ÓOur audit found that DOI is failing to fulfill its
stewardship responsibilities over museum collections. Specifically, we found a widespread
failure to properly accession, catalog, or inventory museum collections. At DOI facilities [holding an estimated
146 million items], elements of the NationÕs heritage are being neglected and
forgotten in thousands of boxes that contain millions of objects neither
identified nor accounted for.
Additionally, DOI has little idea of what museum collections non-DOI
facilities hold.Ó Would
you want to give your cherished items to an institution or country with this
report card? But,
having written this, there are compelling arguments, indeed, for the return of
artifacts, especially those recently taken from their land of origin. (Iraq comes readily to mind.) Just as raw materials moved from
Òless-developedÓ economies to the more developed ones, so too, has art. I find the rebuke of culture writer
Kwame Opoku a thought-provoking one: ÒA person who steals my Mercedes-Benz may be a
better driver than myself and may even look after the vehicle better than I can
ever dream of doing. But would his
skill in driving or his excellent maintenance affect the property relations
involved?Ó – Dr. Kwame Opoku, A
History of the World with 100 Looted Objects of Others: Global Intoxication? At
the same time I find Fayza HaikalÕs argument a more emotional and less
compelling one: ÒI believe that people who use the revolution [in
Eqypt] as an argument for not returning artifacts do not even deserve to be
taken into consideration. These people are taking advantage of a dramatic
situation to justify their point of view, a fact that is unethical and better
ignoredÓ. EgyptÕs Museums XVV: ÔOur open-air museumÕ. A Q & A with Fayza
Haikal, Egyptology professor. -http://www. almasryalyoum.com/en/node/360092 Yet,
despite OpokuÕs logic, I do find myself torn on the many variations in
repatriation as the issues very often do not lend themselves to a black or
white, right or wrong summation. As
in life, there is nuance; there are shades of grey. On one hand I think of Dr. OpokuÕs
comparison and, on the other, posit the question, why hand non-transparent
governments the plum of repatriation when these governments are, by their
authoritarian and totalitarian nature, unstable? The bubbling ferment of the dispossessed
is always just under the surface and the safety of artifacts, more likely than
not, will eventually come into question as such governments rarely go
peacefully. Some would say,
however, that the internal workings of a country are no one elseÕs business. Western
institutions obviously are not blameless in the age-old grasp for the rare and
beautiful, just simply the current target.
And well might they be in a number of cases. The hubris of the Getty in behaving much
like any arrogant, rich, western country comes to mind. In their relations with Italy over the
famous and iconic cult statue of a goddess usually identified, probably
mistakenly, as Aphrodite, their modus operandi was deny, deny, deny and stick
their heads in the sand. The
long-drawn-out end result is that they gave up a curator as the sacrificial
lamb, sullied their reputation and lost 40 artifacts. Much of their distress would have been
avoided if they had done the right and honorable thing in the first place:
given up those pieces with a recent problem provenance. It
is also obvious that formal repatriation is not the only possible method of art
restitution. We need only look to
the Chinese to see individuals rapidly buying back their cultural
patrimony. One day, presumably,
these items will enrich Chinese museums as bequests of their current
owners. (Although China also is
said to have created research teams in
the last few years as a possible prelude to repatriation claims. These teams have been pouring over the
catalogued holdings of western museums.
They appear to be searching for, in particular, items from the 1860 sacking
of the Old Summer Palace during the Second Opium War – carried out under
the orders, by the by, of the 8th Earl of Elgin, son of Lord Elgin
of Parthenon marbles fame.) If
Nigeria wants re-possession of Benin art that was taken in the nefarious British
1897 ÔPunitive ExpeditionÕ (for a description of the sacking of Benin see this
short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh2Tac1gNPU),
could they not continue to buy them back with their oil revenues? Or, use some of the money that goes into
the pockets of the corrupt? So what
that the bronzes were taken by force?
However terrible and bone-headed war may be, it is one of the constants
in human interaction. For most of
human history the gathering up of the defeatedÕs most precious objects was a staple
activity for the victor. How far
back in time do we go with transferring cultural material back to its
ÔrightfulÕ owner? The restitution
of Nazi-looted material from WWII has sharpened this dialogue, but may not tell
us much except that the attempt to make whole (in an art sense) those affected,
benefits from the fact that they are (or were) Europeans and, hence, are Ômore
like us.Õ The return of Nazi loot
is also about returning material to individuals
whereas most other current repatriation
dialogues involve countries. Where
do we draw a statute of limitations on artifact restitution and do we start the
clock from the time taken or from when their return is sought? Should the famous Horses of St. Marks in
Venice be returned to the Hippodrome of Constantinople from whence they were
looted in the Fourth Crusade of 1204 AD?
Or, should they be re-installed on the island of Chios, where, under
Theodosios II, they are mentioned in the 8th or early 9th
century? Or, might they be given to
Greece since there is a belief and possibility that the 4th century B.C.
sculptor Lysippos created them?
Perhaps we ought to suspend judgment until science decides if the horses
are actually the product of a Roman hand, as some metallurgists believe. As if this is not confusing enough, the
horses did once leave Venice, residing in Paris as Napoleonic spoils of war
before they were given back to Venice in 1815! Is
Spain really entitled to the $500 million cargo of coins (as a Tampa, Florida
court has ruled) that were salvaged in 2007 by Odyssey
Marine Exploration from what is thought to be the wreck of the Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes? The frigate
was deep-sixed by the British in 1804.
Peru and descendants of Spanish colonial figures who had private
material aboard have also made claims of ownership. Spain argues the treasure comes
from a flagged naval vessel and even though no attempts were ever made to
salvage it in international waters, they say the coins remain SpainÕs. But what of the
rights of Peru? What of the
rights of the descendants of the thousands of slaves who worked the mines from
whence came the silver to make the estimated one million coins? What of the rights of the
descendants of the indigenous peoples whose artifacts were
melted down to mint the coins? Perhaps we should take repatriation claims to their
logical,
silly maximum? One of the hallmarks
of any given culture or country is its languages. Is there anything that types a
people/culture more than its language? Why not rule that languages can be spoken only in their country of origin, by the
people born there? Why not
stipulate that coins and currency can only be used in their home country and
repatriate all the worldÕs physical money right away? Why
not, indeed! For me the answer is
that, just as in matters of art, the necessary exchange of the worldÕs ideas
and commerce is made possible by the ability to communicate outside of oneÕs
native language anywhere in the world.
Likewise, the necessary buying and selling of commodities is supported
by the ability to exchange monetary instruments any and everywhere. And just as these exchanges often
take place between partners unequal in power, knowledge and willingness to
parley –- in fact often between unwilling partners, transactions still
take place. While I hesitate to say
it is the way of nature, it is the way of men. Are we to stipulate that Spain ought to
pay enormous and long-term reparations to countries in Central and South
America because they looted the physical and human wealth of those lands? Ought Africa be reimbursed for the
generations of misery sustained during and after the slave trade? How would we even approach such tasks? In
the same way, it seems to me to be a PandoraÕs box without resolution to empty
the worldÕs western museums of their long-held art to fulfill a ÔrestitutionÕ
demand from the countries that say this material is rightly theirs. I count myself among those who believe
it better to begin dialogues for the long-term loan of cultural material in both directions. A final note: Art loans seem to be going in the
opposite direction. Since I wrote
this in March, the Czech Republic has withdrawn many loaned artworks around the
world fearing their legal seizure.
This stems from a successful (so far) suit brought against the Czech
government by an individual and his company. He has filed seizure petitions in
Austria and France, among other countries, to take possession of Czech-owned
art to pay for the judgment.
Austria has actually taken 3 artworks into custody. Along similar lines, Russia has banned loans to U.S. museums in retaliation
for a U.S. judge's ruling it must return some 37,000 books, manuscripts and
pages of rabbinic writings (known as the Schneerson Collection) to the Jewish
group Chabad. The group was founded
in 18th century Russia and the materials had been seized during the
Russian Revolution and World War II. Lastly,
Zahi Hawass, who always seems to land on his feet, has a new appointment from
EgyptÕs Prime Minister. He is now
the Minister for Antiquities, surely good news for Eqypt if bad news for some
of the worlds museums. See WilburÕs Last Word column on page 41 for more about the Czech
situation. ********** Reprinted From: The ATADA NEWS Summer 2011, page 14-17 |