While Peru sues Yale over artifacts collected almost a century ago, the Guardian reflects on why museums keep artifacts that dont belong to them and refuse to return those artifacts to their country of origin. For example, the Parthenon (Elgin) Marbles were brought to the British Museum where they have been on display since 1806. Greece claims that the marbles should be returned immediately to Athens.
I would like to put the case for the other side. In many instances, national treasures are better off outside their countries of origin - better cared for, receiving more attention, and more accessible. Last week, I was on holiday in Sudan. The territories now lying within Sudan form a minor but fascinating part of the ancient Egyptian story, and I wanted to see what treasures were still there. Of course, it was difficult. Until recently, to visit historical sites outside Khartoum, you had to go to various ministries, asking civil servants to stamp your letter of request to see the pyramids at Meroe or the temples of Naqa. It is only in the past month or so that you have been able to just turn up and pay the price of admission.
Even in Khartoum there are problems. When I visited the National Museum, the employee at the till tried to refuse me entry as she didn't have 400 dinars change from a 500-dinar note, letting me in only after a long argument. There are some extraordinary Christian frescoes, but I have no idea what they are or where they are from. There is hardly any labelling, and the guards prowling about are mostly interested in extracting "baksheesh" from you, or selling you 30-year-old Christian evangelical pamphlets.
I think this is a fair concern. Indeed, moving the Elgin Marbles, for instance, may horribly damage them. And enough cant be said about giving a country back millions of dollars in artifacts only to watch it go up a despots nose.
Very few people ever make it to Addis Ababa; the world comes to Rome. Ethiopia is rich in antiquities, and ought to be able to spare this one.
It may be, too, that Lord Elgin acquired the Parthenon marbles in dubious circumstances. But even the marbles, for most of their modern history, gained authority and lustre from the fact that they were on show not in a provincial capital such as Athens, but a world city: London. It is one of the paradoxes of culture that museums confer as much as acknowledge beauty. Strangely, one of the reasons people visit Athens - and will, in the end, visit Khartoum - is that a significant part of those cities' treasures is not there, but in London or Berlin. One ought to recognise that fact before too hastily handing anything over.
This highlights my big problem for keeping artifacts that dont belong to the city of origin: a snotty, self-serving assumption that they will be given more authority and care in one place over another. The assumption is that Athens isnt a world city, or that people dont go to Addis Ababa. Yet, the culture that created those artifacts dont go to those places either. Perhaps the Marbles are safer in London, but theres something to be said about having to go to another country to view a national treasure.
We also shouldn't forget that a lot of artifacts were basically sold by the countries of origin. They charged money to allow researchers to excavate and remove the items.
I can see that returning anything looted is right thing to do, but that doesn't really apply to the Marbles. Museums would be rather dull if they only contained local items. The article seems to be arguing that for a museum to buy artifacts is tantamount to committing a cultural crime, if not at the time of purchase that perhaps at some future time, when the items are seen as being more important/valuable.
quagmirething said:
I can see that returning anything looted is right thing to do, but that doesn't really apply to the Marbles. Museums would be rather dull if they only contained local items. The article seems to be arguing that for a museum to buy artifacts is tantamount to committing a cultural crime, if not at the time of purchase that perhaps at some future time, when the items are seen as being more important/valuable.
Err...which article are you reading? He pretty much argues for the objects staying in London museums.
Museums would be rather dull if they only contained local items.
Rather, WESTERN museums, which have been built off the stolen cultural tresures of others, would be very dull. What would the British or German Museums have without the cultural treasures they jacked?
Is it true that many of these countries don't really have the resources available to take care of them properly? Yes. But that generally has to do with the history of colonialism and the wreckage of their countries that still exists years after colonial powers left, along with the booty.
If these Museums were interested in real cross cultural exchange, they would foster relationships with what professional anthropolgists and archeaologists exist in the country, and help fund education and outreach to people so there could be enough people to take care of them. That way these artifacts could one day be transferred to their home country and then the tourist money would ALSO go to the home country.
CallahanApr said:
I think a 100 years is way past the statuate (sp?) of Limitations for theft.
This is very true.
How about they give Australia back to the abogininals, America back to the Native Americans and Israel back to the Arabs as well?
(I'm being facicious here- I know that won't work)
Sometimes artifacts just get destroyed in their countries of origin (I seem to remember a lot of Iraqi history literally going up in smoke recently)
However, Greece is actually a reasonably safe place for them.
This 'get your hands off our marbles' debate has been running so long tho...
Clov said:
So the fact that I was irresponsible enough to have my iPod stolen means someone else should keep all of my valuables to save my property from myself?
Only if that iPod then generates a large amount of tourist money for the thief.
We must save these savages from themselves! We are the best curators of THEIR culture!
Clov said:
So the fact that I was irresponsible enough to have my iPod stolen means someone else should keep all of my valuables to save my property from myself?
Only if that iPod then generates a large amount of tourist money for the thief.
We must save these savages from themselves! We are the best curators of THEIR culture!
Clov said:
So the fact that I was irresponsible enough to have my iPod stolen means someone else should keep all of my valuables to save my property from myself?
Only if that iPod then generates a large amount of tourist money for the thief.
We must save these savages from themselves! We are the best curators of THEIR culture!
this sounds eerily like the same logic used by pro-lifers.
Christopher
Portland, OR
November 2002
APR 25, 2006 09:34 PM