Hong Kong’s recent auction of a Qing dynasty treasure, a carved white jade figure of the star god of longevity, rekindled a contentious debate on the morality of auctioning “war booty” plundered during bloodshed. The heat of the debate ensuing the decision by Springfield Museums in Massachusetts to sell the 12 Chinese artifacts valued at millions of dollars reveals the larger problem of artifact acquisition by colonial-era collectors, who have scooped up innumerable items of art and historic interest from Europe’s colonial possessions.
This article examines encyclopedic museums’ moral obligation to right the wrongs of the past, why retention perpetuates the notion of western superiority, how foreign displays of artifacts violate cultural or religious doctrines, and ultimately posits that repatriation is is the only moral way forward, however laborious.
First and foremost, retaining artifacts perpetuates the injustices from which they were obtained. Countries retaining possession of cultural artifacts have a moral obligation to ‘correct past wrongs’. To put this in context, the British Museum holds 73,000 artifacts from Africa, a reminder of scientific racism, whilst France holds 90,000 artifacts from its colonial rule and Chinese artifacts were obtained under the duress of imperial forces. As illustrated, in the majority of acquisitions made under unjust circumstances involving coercion and transactions under the 'fig leaf’ of colonialism, legal acquisition can hardly justify retaining artifacts. Such artifacts are viewed as ‘souvenirs’ of imperialism, retaining a ghost of cultural ownership long after the waning of occupying powers. Retaining cultural property from countries also perpetuates ‘cultural colonialism’, which complicates foreign relations. Repatriation thus serves as a viable opportunity to resolve tension and build new diplomatic relations between nations. On moral grounds, there is simply no defense to the charge of misappropriation.
Secondly, the display of artifacts in encyclopedic museums are centralized in western nations. This gives rise to the notion of ‘western superiority’ and makes the artifact inaccessible to peoples with cultural affiliations with it. The argument that retaining artifacts in museums with diversified collections is for the ‘greater good’ is nullified since it can only be applied to western populations in Northern America and Europe. Retaining objects with cultural significance to tribes scattered across the globe deprives these minorities of any connection to their ancestral roots and such a defense reeks of western privilege.
On another note, foreign displays of artifacts violate the cultural or religious doctrines of their original cultures. In the case of native American artifacts, ancient human remains are the main object of reverence at religious burial grounds. The Tabot are sacred religious objects with which only priests are allowed to touch, not to be displayed as objects of curiosity. This issue is not case-specific, since each and every artifact will undeniably have cultural, ethnic or religious associations to its origin, but none for those who view them in sterile glass cases. To the descendants of their creators it is offensive to see aspects of their spirituality displayed for entertainment. Despite the museum’s efforts to remove its neo-colonial narrative, such changes do not amount to reversing the violation of cultural and religious doctrines.
Fourth, repatriation provides LDCs with an additional source of income. Displaced national treasures diverts revenue from nations of origin in utter disregard for dedication gone into the creation of these artifacts. For reference, the British museum generated over £289 million in the year 2018 alone. Another example of how critical heritage tourism can be to economies is Ghana’s Year of Return programme in 2019, which attracted over a million visitors and generated $1.8bn in additional spending. Such proceeds can then contribute to the overall betterment of societies from which the artifacts originated from, which can serve to compensate for the trauma inflicted upon invaded nations.
Lastly, displaying artifacts in their original context allows them to be better understood. In the case of the Elgin marbles, only proximity to the Parthenon itself can provide the architectural context in which the marbles should be appreciated. Nigerian sculptures looted by British troops currently presented in the British Museum against a bland monochrome backdrop, will invariably provide visitors with a limited understanding of African culture compared to an exhibition at their sites of discovery. With respect to the common goal of educating global citizens, national treasures, due to their cultural significance, should be returned to their countries of origin in order to set forth an accurate and authentic depiction of different cultures worldwide.
Proponents of artifact retention advance a number of arguments, which could be debunked and have been preempted. Western nations have advanced the International showcase argument, arguing that encyclopedic museums with richer collections would be able to provide a more holistic experience and facilitate the integration of culture. However, this line of reasoning only applies to western nations, and renders artifacts inaccessible to global citizens, defeating the sole purpose of encyclopedic museums. Other concerns include competing claimants, risk, inconvenience and practical difficulties repatriation entails but entirely misses the crux of the debate. If we could establish from the outset that an item’s acquisition is morally wrong, it could hardly be defensible to bring up the inconveniences it poses to western nations. It is even more morally repugnant to denounce the ability of the local populace in organizing its own affairs, seeing as issues such as the transportation and maintenance of artifacts can now be circumvented with technological advancements. All opposing arguments do not detract from the fundamental notion that property does not belong to the appropriator.
Finally, and most importantly, the moral debate has already been won. Museums in Sweden, Germany, the US and the Vatican have acknowledged their moral obligation to repatriate artifacts, and have returned artifacts from the Acropolis thereafter. France returned items misappropriated by Napoleon, including bronze horses from St Marks, and the Swedish government, approached by the Heisler people, returned the aboriginal Heisler totem pole of Kitimat. Japan also returned 1,000 artifacts to South Korea - items plundered during colonial occupation. The principle of repatriation has already been enshrined in UNESCO regulations and is now fortified by well-established precedents. Repatriation is no longer an arid debate, it is already in motion - the moral argument has already been won.
Sources:
https://www.museumnext.com/article/repatriation-why-western-museums-should-return-african-artefacts/
Writing: Angela Chan
Editing: Bernice Lau
Graphics: Ran Zhao
Comments