Who Owns Antiquities?
On a recent trip to the British Museum, it occured to me: "Who owns all this?"
It's a pretty complex question to be asking though. As I wandered past the Elgin Marbles, I overheard a couple of tourists discussing how Greece wanted the ancient relics back. Apparently hacking the marbles off the Parthenon and shipping them over to show in the British Museum doesn't sit too well with our Greek friends. Go figure.
Should the museums of the world, packed full of "stolen" ancient treasures and permanently borrowed artefacts from around the globe start returning the wares back to the countries where they originate?
Archaeologists and Museums have often been at loggerheads over the matter. Archaeologists want to see national and international laws which will restrict, if not prevent, the international movement of antiquities. Some museums, surprisingly, are against any such legislation as it would result in their treasure chest suddenly becoming rather bare.
Unprovenanced antiquities is the hot potato - items whose whereabouts in modern times aren't fully documented. The liberation of Iraq saw the National Museum, Baghdad looted in April, 2003 with tens of thousands of artefacts removed. International reaction condemned the looting, but the items stolen turned up around the world on the black market.
It's somewhat a stark contrast to the days of Lord Elgin, who along with his crew of men, set about working on the Acropolis as per their permit with the Ottoman Rulers. Allegedly, an Ottoman firman allowed Elgin to remove some items and take them back to Britain. In removing the marbles and transporting them to England, Elgin may well have saved them from the sorry state that was the Parthenon in the early 1800s. And then the British Government paid Elgin for them to the tune of a cool £39,000.
So wait - essentially Elgin did what a FOX News employee did in 2003, and bring back some antiquities with him in the hope of selling it on for a handsome profit. Except the employee got arrested at Customs - apparently that's the sort of thing you're supposed to declare. Elgin, on the other hand, never had to deal with Heathrow Airport Customs.
That said, Elgin did lose his wife to his best friend, lost a chunk of his nose after a particularly bad infection and came close to bankruptcy after his wife took him to the cleaners in the divorce settlement.
But who really owns the antiquities? Can the museums really lay claim to something when the originating country wants them back? Or do ancient artefacts lose all ownership? Lets face it - it's not as if anyone can directly lay a claim to say it belongs to them personally. So in fact, do antiquities belong to us all?
Simply put, it's a huge grey area. The Elgin marbles have been the subject of debate for the past 200 years since they first came to British soil, and they're still here! The argument with many such antiquities is that they're better off in the museums of developed nations where they can be properly conserved. Which is fair enough. But then the counter argument comes that countries are being denied the rights to their own heritage. Which is another good point. And which is also why this whole thing seems to keep going around in circles.. again, and again, and again..
Frederick Schultz was a New York art dealer jailed for three years in 2002 for smuggling Egyptian antiquities into America on the pretence that they were cheap souvenirs. Having violated the United States law of the National Stolen Property Act, he attempted to plead that he was not guilty as the law stated it was illegal to import or subsequently come into the possession of items which were stolen property. And Egypt's 1983 law on national patrimony did not share the definition of "stolen" as is commonplace within the United States.
And of course he lost. Mainly because he was citing a law which said all antiquities discovered in Egypt are property of the Egyptian State, and hence belong to the nation. It continues, detailing that any such artefacts that come into the possession of a person, or institution, without the permission of the state means you're handling stolen goods, and breaking the law. So really, citing that was a bit silly.
But it brings about an interesting point - in particular with regards to the commercial value of such artefacts. Archaeologists will argue that the best way to stop this sort of trade is for everyone to just stop buying antiquities, and hence making them all worthless. Leave it to the archaeologists to sort out, and that then, the blackmarket trade will cease. Wishful thinking, methinks..
So who owns antiquities? The origin country who claims their national soul has been taken from them, and demand for it to be repatriated? The foreign museums who claim the countries of origin are unable to preserve the artefacts as well as they can? Is there any gain from moving a treasure from a museum where it will be seen by millions to a museum where it will be seen by a handful?
Needless to say, it's a topic with no easy answer.
I find it remarkable that in this age where globalisation and modern technology is making the world smaller and smaller, and we're all learning much more about one another, sharing information freely, the subject of antiquities hasn't changed. Nations and museums still bicker and argue about who owns what, and mankind's heritage is being restricted in the process.
So what is to be of it all? Well for a start, Heritage Key is cataloguing the world's collection of historical antiquities and bringing it to life for anybody with a computer and an internet connection to enjoy.
For me, this is where the future for accessing antiquities will lie.
Read 3 comments, or leave your own





Comments
The first step to restoration of the antiquities could be the use of virtualization technologies as you use in Heritage-Key, reconstructing the site/monument to close to what it was like before. Then as people become aware of the removal/theft of the artifacts from the site, demand will be put on public officials to arrange for their return. -ls/cm PS: I believe that the Parthenon marbles should be returned.
I think you made a very valid point when you stated that Lord Elgin (and others) brought antiquities back for monetary gain. Are the governments requesting artefacts back doing it for any nobler reason? I think not. The debates are never about what is best for the artefacts themselves – just in case they are better off in the country they currently reside, or if they would be better off away from the public in temperature and humidity controlled store-rooms. These repatriation issues are often political, and always about revenue.
Normal 0 21 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
WHO OWNS ANTIQUITIES?
You have made a valid point which requires some reflection;
“I find it remarkable that in this age where globalisation and modern technology is making the world smaller and smaller, and we're all learning much more about one another, sharing information freely, the subject of antiquities hasn't changed. Nations and museums still bicker and argue about who owns what, and mankind's heritage is being restricted in the process.”
With increasing and improving communications, many of the original owners of antiquities are becoming increasingly aware about the locations of their looted or stolen cultural property. You might be surprised that the location of many of the looted African objects are now gradually becoming known through exhibitions and travels by individual Africans. Many of these objects are not on permanent display anywhere and with the racist travel restrictions of European States, most Africans have no chance of seeing these objects that are now in the Western States.
My guess is that with increased awareness of the advantages accruing to Western States that have looted African objects, the peoples of Africa will increase efforts to repatriate objects which mean more to them, spiritually and culturally but mean nothing to Westerners who keep insulting Africans at every available opportunity. Please read some of what the directors of the various Western museums are offering as justifications for retention of admittedly looted or stolen African objects. Take for example, the scornful attitude of the British Museum, the Ethnology Museum, Berlin, Ethnology Museum, Vienna, the Art Institute of Chicago and the Musée du Quai Branly, Paris. The Nigerians and The Royal Family of Benin have asked several times for the return of some of the Benin Bronzes which the British looted in 1897. The British kept some of the bronzes and sold the rest to the Germans, Austrians, Americans and the French. Not only have these museums not returned anything but also do not even bother to acknowledge the receipt of the demands. Can you understand the frustration and anger of the African peoples, when the very Westerners who described us as primitive peoples steal our cultural objects and refuse to return any?
I believe what those who find the time to reflect on these issues should ask themselves why this patent arrogance and disrespect towards our peoples? Do the Europeans need African cultural objects more than the Africans? They seek to declare our looted cultural objects as part of a world culture but are reluctant to return some (note, some and not all). Are Africans not part of humanity? What kind of morality do these civilized nations hope to convey by this attitude? These are some thoughts you might wish to pursue further.
Dr. Kwame Opoku
Post new comment