Debate has raged for almost two centuries about the ownership and display of cultural treasures that were frequently acquired from the (then) developing world by imperial powers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and dis- played in Western museums. This debate most often uses the Elgin, or Parthenon, Marbles, masterpieces of classical Greek sculpture that Lord Elgin removed from the Parthenon in 1801 and sold to the British Museum in 1816. Greece has consistently demanded their return since independence in 1830. The issue of who owns cultural treasures reemerged following World War II, when the victorious Allies, principally the Soviet Union, seized art from the defeated Axis powers. During the last decades of the twentieth century, Native Americans successfully waged a number of campaigns for the return of their sacred relics.
Pros
Cons
Cultural treasures should be displayed in the context in which they originated; only then can they be truly understood. In the case of the Elgin Marbles, this is an architectural context that only proximity to the Parthe- non itself can provide.
Art treasures should be accessible to the greatest number of people and to scholars. In practice this means display- ing them in the great museums of the world. Return- ing treasures to their original context is impossible. Too much has changed physically and culturally over the centuries for them to speak more clearly in their coun- try of origin than they do in museums where they can be compared to large assemblies of objects from a wide variety of cultures. In any case, copies could be placed in original locations.
Display of cultural treasures in Western museums is an unfortunate legacy of imperialism. It reflects the unac- ceptable belief that developing nations are unable to look after their artistic heritage. The display of imperial trophies in institutions such as the British Museum or the Louvre has become offensive.
For whatever reason the treasures were first collected, we should not rewrite history; sending such artifacts back to their country of origin would set a bad precedent that could denude museums around the world. Placing great artifacts in a geographical and cultural ghetto— African sculptures could be viewed only in Africa, Egyp- tian mummies only in Egypt—would leave the world much poorer and reduce popular understanding of the achievements of such civilizations.
Cultural Treasures, Return of |67
Artifacts were often acquired illegally, through looting in war, under the duress of imperial force, or by brib- ing officials who were supposed to be safeguarding their country’s artistic treasures.
Although some art treasures may have been acquired illegally, the evidence for this is often ambiguous. For example, Lord Elgin’s bribes were the common way of facilitating any business in the Ottoman Empire and do not undermine Britain’s solid legal claim to the Parthe- non marbles based upon a written contract made by the internationally recognized authorities in Athens at the time. Much art was freely sold to the imperial powers, indeed some art was specifically produced for the Euro- pean market.
Some treasures have religious and cultural associations with the area from which they were taken, but none for those who view them in glass cases. Descendants of their creators are offended by seeing aspects of their spiritual- ity displayed for entertainment.
This may be true, but religious artifacts may have been originally purchased or given in good faith, perhaps with the intention of educating a wider public about the beliefs of their creators. Descendants should not be allowed to second-guess their ancestors’ intentions. Also, many cultural treasures relate to extinct religions and cultures; no claim for their return can be validly made. In the past, countries may not have been capable of
looking after their heritage, but that has changed. A state-of-the-art museum is planned in Athens to house the surviving marbles, while pollution-control mea- sures have reduced sulfur dioxide in the city to a fifth of its previous level. At the same time the curatorship of institutions such as the British Museum is being called into question, as it becomes apparent that controversial cleaning and restoration practices may have harmed the sculptures they claim to protect.
In the case of the Parthenon marbles, Lord Elgin’s action in removing them was an act of rescue because the Ottoman authorities were pillaging them for building stone. They cared nothing for the classical Greek heri- tage. Furthermore, had they been returned upon Greek independence in 1830, the heavily polluted air of Athens would by now have destroyed them. Similar problems face the return of artifacts to African or Native American museums. Delicate artifacts would be destroyed with- out proper handling and preservation techniques. These institutions frequently lack the qualified personnel or necessary facilities to preserve these treasures.
sample motions:
This House would return cultural treasures to their country of origin. This House would return the Elgin Marbles.
This House believes a jewel is best in its original setting. This House would lose its marbles.
Web Link:
Stolen Property or Finders Keepers. <http://home.att.net/~tisone/problem.htm> General site offering information on the issues •
concerning many stolen historical artifacts.
Further reading:
Carman, John. Against Cultural Property: Archaeology, Heritage and Ownership. Duckworth, 2005.
Gibbon, Kate Fitz, ed. Who Owns the Past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law. Rutgers University Press, 2005. Hoffman, Barbara, ed. Art and Cultural Heritage: Law, Policy and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Merryman, John Henry, ed. Imperialism, Art and Restitution. Cambridge University Press, 2005.