Repatriation Of Cultural Property Research Paper

1. Heritage Of The Group Or Of Humanity?

This environment is conditioned by the historical interplay of two basic human desires: (a) the urge of individuals to give meaning to their lives through their sense of belonging to a special group; and (b) the fascination that human beings have for the ancient and the exotic, the beautiful and the bizarre, and the unknown and the faraway.

People declare their group identity through physical objects that symbolize the special relationships they share. Ultimately, these objects take on an almost mythical significance with the possession and curation of them considered essential to the physical well-being and the spiritual continuity of the group. Throughout history, conquerors in recognition of the importance of such objects have mutilated or destroyed them and confiscated them as lasting reminders of conquest and subjugation.

Thousands of objects have been removed from their homelands as souvenirs. Explorers and travelers have filled the museums of Europe and America. A global tourist industry has enabled people everywhere to participate in a culture of humanity-at-large, a shared world heritage. Western European countries, inspired by the art and literature of the classical world, helped both to create and to disseminate this composite heritage of humanity. Objects from the ancient Mediterranean region now grace the halls of museums worldwide.

These influences created an appreciation of other cultures and sometimes a better understanding of them. Unfortunately, what is seen by Europeans and Americans as appreciation and understanding is often interpreted as domination, exploitation, and appropriation by many indigenous people and former colonial subjects. However, these two versions of heritage are not antithetical. One may appreciate the cumulative global human achievement and at the same time participate fully in one’s chosen group.

2. Setting The Stage For Repatriation

The exploration that introduced exotic people and their cultural property to Europeans spawned a period of economic expansion, imperial conquest, and colonial exploration. European explorers and conquerors brought home strange and beautiful objects from all over the world. Among these objects were often the very physical symbols that maintained the social, political, and spiritual identity of the subjugated. Objects were acquired as the booty of war, legitimate diplomatic and personal gifts, honorable and forced purchase, and outright thefts. Many were the motives for transferring objects of cultural heritage from their homelands to the museums and private collections of the conquering nations: aesthetic desire, religious fervor, military vengeance, international competition, commercial greed, imperial arrogance, cultural ignorance, and racial intolerance (Greenfield 1996, Messenger 1999).

During the last half of the twentieth century, the demand for antiquities increased dramatically. The clandestine looting of protected archaeological sites, the widespread theft of antiquities, and the illicit trade in cultural property aroused the conscience of officials and politicians, as well as the anger of indigenous people, archaeologists, and private citizens. Efforts to control this looting of world cultural heritage resulted in the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Several major art-importing countries, for example, the UK, are not yet signatories to it.

The twentieth century also saw the breakup of the colonial empires and the emergence of new nations eager to recover the physical symbols of their cultural identity. Tribal groups with long memories and functioning cultures began to seek the return of their cultural property. Those politically conscious groups that had already lost their cultural heritage attempted to recreate it through repatriation.

Tourism became a critical component of world economy and tribes and nations alike wanted to have their cultural symbols available for tourists to see. The great European and American museums that displayed the shared global heritage were reluctant to disperse their collections through repatriation. Some of the objects involved, such as the Elgin or Parthenon Marbles in the British Museum and the Venus de Milo in the Louvre, had become ‘national treasures’ of great importance to the heritage of their new homelands.

3. International Repatriation

The return of cultural property at the international level has been carried out for a long time. After Alexander the Great conquered the Persians in 331 BC, he forced them to return the Tyrannicides sculptures they had removed when they defeated Athens in 480 BC. The idea that cultural property was not the booty of conquest was present in European treaties of the twentieth century. It was established in international law when France was required in 1815 to return the art taken by Napoleon. The laws of different countries are often contradictory, making the resolution of claims complex and difficult, but the main problems are not so much legal as moral. Who owns the past? Who curates the cultural property? Who controls the cultural heritage?

Despite these problems, many repatriations have been carried out internationally, especially since World War II. At least a dozen countries have returned cultural property to more than 30 nations, from the Icelandic literary treasures returned to Iceland by Denmark, to the human skeletons turned over to the Australian Aborigines by the University of Edinburgh, and the Lydian Hoard sent back to Turkey by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. However, other international claims continue to be controversial and unresolved, the most celebrated of which is the Greek effort to retrieve the Parthenon Marbles from the British Museum (Greenfield 1996, pp. 42–90).

4. Domestic Repatriation

Although restitution of cultural property at the international level attracts a great deal of attention, the most important developments in repatriation have taken place in domestic or internal national contexts. Beginning in the 1960s, indigenous people in the USA, Canada, and Australia documented losses of cultural heritage and made claims for the return not only of their cultural property but also of the bones of their ancestors. They made these claims using the legal and political processes available to citizens in their countries.

In the USA, the creative tension between the national culture and minority groups is not unlike that between the heritage of all humanity and that of ethnic groups. Just as in the global situation, special groups of American citizens take part in the national culture without giving up their cultural identity. American Indian activists had two additional advantages. First, after World War II, the USA began to recognize the rights and needs of its minority citizens and to celebrate its cultural diversity. Second, American Indians are not just another minority group. They have a special status as domestic sovereign nations within the American legal system, continuing the British colonial practice of dealing with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis. Building on this special status, Indian leaders in the Native American Rights Fund and the National Congress of American Indians insisted that Indian citizens had a right to the control of their cultural heritage and that the bones of their ancestors deserved proper and respectful treatment.

During the national debate on these issues, many tribal groups provided examples of past mistreatment and injustices, the loss of cultural property through warfare, theft, and deceit, and especially the indignities caused by the storage of the bones of their ancestors in museums. In general, the members of the public, increasingly aware of the many injustices suffered by Indian people, especially during the westward expansion of the nation, supported their claims. In 1990, the Congress, influenced by this public support, passed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).

A complex and comprehensive piece of legislation, NAGPRA requires that museums receiving federal assistance inventory their American Indian holdings, report them to appropriate tribes, consult with the tribes, and respond to requests for repatriation of human remains and associated grave goods, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. Some museum professionals feared that NAGPRA would cause them to lose all of their Native American materials. Some archaeologists predicted the end of research on American Indian cultures. Biological anthropologists expressed concern that skeletons would be reburied without scientific analysis. This concern is a continuing problem because lineal descent is often difficult to demonstrate and cultural affiliation for remains from remote time periods cannot be assumed solely on the basis of geography. In practice, the requirement that museums and Indian tribes consult with one another has been a powerful mechanism for building positive relationships. The consultations have led to highly productive new working arrangements characterized by considerable good will and cooperation. In sum, although there are still some issues to be resolved, NAGPRA is working reasonably well, as are comparable laws in other countries (Bray and Killion 1994, Mihesuah 2000, Swidler et al. 1997).

5. Basic Principles

The various historical, political, legal, and emotional contexts in which the removal and redistribution of cultural property have taken place make each case unique. Case by case analysis is necessary to establish ownership, the method of acquisition, the nature of the cultural property, and the significance of it to the claimants.

Concepts of property differ from one culture or country to another. However, answering the ownership question is often difficult, especially in international situations, because of the secrecy surrounding transactions, the lack of regulation of the art marketplace, and the questionable practices frequently employed. Purchase of an object ‘in good faith’ from a ‘rightful owner’ is meaningless unless the place of origin, the means of acquisition, and the subsequent history of the object are known. Fraudulent documentation designed to legitimize stolen and smuggled objects, not only clouds the ownership but also compounds the ethical issues (Messenger 1999).

NAGPRA has been successful because it eliminates problems of acquisition and ownership. The NAGPRA focus is on the nature of the object and its significance to the claimant. If an object fits the statutory definition, is culturally identified with the claimant group, and is significant to that group, it is eligible for repatriation. The question is not the legality of current ownership, but the appropriateness of the proposed repatriation.

Although there may always be problems of definition, cultural affiliation, legality, and even morality, the basic principles for dealing with repatriation claims are clear. Experience shows that these principles work reasonably well, especially when applied in a climate of good will and mutual trust and respect. The USA has facilitated the international return of cultural property through innovative use of its criminal law and has transformed domestic repatriation by creating a new legal framework that allows its American Indian citizens to reclaim with dignity the cultural and spiritual traditions of their heritage.

The right of a people to possess their symbolic cultural property and to control their cultural heritage underlies the very concept of repatriation. Repatriation is neither an effort to go back to the past nor an attempt to redress past injustices. Rather, it is an opportunity to start again in a new relationship based on mutual trust and respect. Such relationships are now the norm in the southwestern USA, where American Indians, anthropologists, and curators have been in close contact for more than 100 years. They have discovered how to talk and listen to one another, how to disagree and compromise, and how to learn from one another. Out of this experience has come the kind of trust and respect that has made possible meaningful consultations, ethical decisions, and successful repatriations.

Bibliography:

1. Bray T L, Killion T W (eds.) 1994 Reckoning with the Dead: The Lausen Bay Repatriation and the Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC
2. Greenfield J 1996 The Return of Cultural Treasures, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
3. Messenger P M (ed.) 1999 The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property: Whose Culture? Whose Property? 2nd edn. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM
4. Mihesuah D A (ed.) 2000 Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains? University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE
5. Swidler N, Dongoske K E, Anyon R, Downer A S (eds.) 1997 Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground. Altamiva Press, Walnut Creek, CA