Zack Beasley

Dr. Zawilski

RC 2001

13 April 2017

An issue has arisen within the field of history and archeology concerning various

countries cultural artifacts. A number of artifacts have been taken from their native country and

sold or deposited in encyclopedic museums found throughout the Western world. Many of these

artifacts have been taken from Middle Eastern countries, but this issue is not exclusive to that

area of the world. Western Civilizations have taken these artifacts claiming they are protecting

them while countries are going through political or social unrest or some blatantly state that the

artifacts are theirs. Many of the countries to which the artifacts are native to are now requesting

the return of the artifacts and are being denied. It has become a great point of contention between

those countries who are holding the artifacts and those to whom the artifact originally belongs to.

The artifacts are a great source of cultural heritage and history that belongs to the country of

origin. National artifacts help provide a country with an identity and history that should be in the

hands of nation of origin. By holding the artifacts overseas the countries are appropriating

another countrys culture, and further pushing an outdated colonialist style of thinking.

Many arguments exist, but there are a specific few that warrant examination. One such

argument comes from James Cuno in his article Culture War: The Case Against Repatriating

Museum Artifacts argues the importance of these artifacts within encyclopedic museums such

as the Louvre, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the British Museum. He writes that by

presenting the artifacts of one time and one culture next to those of other times and cultures,

encyclopedic museums encourage curiosity about the world and its many peoples. (Cuno, 120).
This quote reflects one of the key arguments of those who oppose repatriation of artifacts. They

articulate that encyclopedic museums provide individuals access to information and artifacts that

they would otherwise be unable to see. This is reinforced by a personal anecdote from Cuno

himself where he retells a story of how he observed an ancient artifact the Ancient Near East and

how engaging it was(Cuno, 121-122). By sharing the artifacts and information with the world

encyclopedic museums help cultivate a more broad world view, a kind of shared history. This

creates an antagonistic view towards these countries to whom the artifacts belong to, painting

them in a way that makes it seem that they are being selfish with their culture, and do not want to

participate in the shared world heritage.

One of the most famous examples of cultural artifacts being take is the Elgin Marbles.

Named after the Earl of Elgin, Thomas Bruce, the marbles are frieze, metopes, and pediments

taken from around the Parthenon in Athens, Greece. The marbles were sold to the British

Museum in 1816 where they are now displayed. In 1983 the Greek Government asked for the

return of these artifacts. Greek Minister of Culture Melina Mercouri is the representative who

made the appeal saying This is our history, this is our soul You must understand us. You must

love us. We have fought with you in the second war. Give them back and we will be proud of

you. Give them back and they will be in good hands. Mercouri was also observed as being

near tears as she ran her fingers over the white marble structures. (Merryman 1880-84). The

heart of John Henry Merrymans argument within the article Thinking about the Elgin

Marbles is that the appeals being made by the Greek government are only emotional ones, and

have no real basis or evidence for why the marbles should be returned. Merryman cites that too

often the emotional case is weak on the facts or the law or both. (Merryman 1883). Merryman

also goes on to argue a case similar to Cuno, that by repatriating the Elgin Marbles back to
Greece and away from the British Museum the Greek government was denying the public a

chance to examine a physical piece of history (Merryman 1895).

Merryman continues with his case that emotional appeals are not sufficient arguments for

the return of the artifacts, and that the British Government and Elgin were in their legal rights to

excavate and take the marbles. Merryman specifically cites legal documents known as firmans,

which serve as a grant or permit given to Elgin on behalf of the Ottoman Empire who at the time

was in control of Greece to allow him to excavate and claims that because the Greek government

waited until 1983, one hundred and fifty five years after Greek gained independence to file a

claim for the artifacts they exceeded the statute of limitations and are unable to sue for the

artifacts (Merryman 1897-1904). These legal precedents put Britain in the right, and prevent

Greece from having a leg to stand on in terms of legislation.

Some countries hold strong to the notion that these artifacts are safer in foreign countries

where they are not able to be destroyed or stolen from militant terrorist groups. It is hard to argue

against this case, as stolen or destroyed artifacts have become a major concern for archaeologists

and historians in certain areas. Iraq is one such area. In 2003 the Iraqi National Museum lost

approximately 50,000 artifacts due to looting or destruction (theGlobeandMail.com). Many of

these artifacts will be lost forever as they are incredibly difficult to track down, or in some cases

are melted down for their gold and lost forever. There is no easy solution to finding these

artifacts, so it easy for those who oppose repatriation to argue that many of the artifacts that have

been taken from these turmoil stricken areas to remain where they are to keep them safe.

Logically this makes sense, and so it is a difficult point to oppose. The point where this can

become an issue is when/ or if they should be returned. When will this area become safe again?
Will the area become safe? And so while it is easy for the artifacts to leave their native country it

is extremely difficult to have them return.

Scholarly articles in the defense of repatriation of these artifacts are somewhat difficult to

find. This is most likely due to the fact that many of the sources I have found come from

countries who are in possession of said artifacts, or have been part of such practices where

artifacts are taken from their native countries. It is difficult for the native countries to have much

legal ground to stand on, as many of the artifacts were taken through legal means that have

become outdated, as is the case with the Elgin Marbles. Many native countries must rely on

emotional appeals that few countries are willing to listen to. However, that is not to say there are

no sources which support the act of repatriation. One such article in defense of repatriation

comes from the International Journal of Cultural Property by Alexander A. Bauer who provides

a more balanced view on the subject than other sources who focus on opposing repatriation.

Bauer critiques two of the main defenses posed by countries who take these artifacts from

their native countries. They include the notion that buying antiquities from Iraq and Syria saves

them and that the continued possession of world cultural treasures by Western collectors and

museums is justified because they are safer there (Bauer 2-4). Bauer believes that these

arguments are misguided, and do not pay due diligence in regard to who should be able to claim

ownership to these artifacts.

A most commonly cited defense of countries who take artifacts from their native

countries is that they are saving them from destruction by terrorist groups-this is especially true

in regards to artifacts that come from the Iraq/Syria region. Bauer postulates that while in some

cases this is true, an object taken from its context is effectively meaningless. (Bauer 2) This

means that an artifact taken away from its home removes it from the place where it holds the
most significant value. The environment that the artifact is found in is almost as important as the

artifact itself. A piece of the Greek parthenon is much more powerful, and holds much more

significance in Athens than in London or elsewhere. Bauer also goes on to state that the very

terrorist groups who threaten to destroy monuments and other historical artifacts, profit from the

sale of these artifacts to foreign buyers creating quite the dilemma. It provides weight to the

argument that artifacts from this region should stay there rather than be sold, because by

purchasing the artifacts buyers may be incidentally supporting a terrorist regime.

Bauer condemns the practices of many larger countries who refuse to repatriate artifacts

to their native countries, claiming that there is an unequal flow between wealthy and poor nations

regarding cultural artifacts. Separating communities from key products of their history

and symbols of their cultural identity, such as in the case of the Parthenon sculptures or the Afo-

A-Kom perpetuates a kind of symbolic violence against those communities(Bauer 4). This

quote dictates that there is a distinctly antagonistic attitude held by the countries who refuse to

repatriate the artifacts.

There are cases where countries return artifacts because they know it is the morally

correct thing to do, even if they are legally in the right by possessing them. Such is the case

with Dominique de Menil, who bought a collection of stolen frescoes to protect them from

further harm. Menil consulted with the country of Cyprus to confirm their validity, and the two

reached an agreement that Menlil could keep them for 20 years before they had to be repatriated.

Once the items were repatriated Josef Helfenstein, the director of the Menil Collection is quoted

Of course we were sad, but in the end we were very proud because ethically, from a moral point

of view, this was exactly what needed to happen,"(Donadio, NYTimes.com). Here is a perfect
example of an individual buyer supporting the repatriation of an artifact back to its native

country. Unfortunately, not all countries are so lucky to encounter a morally sensitive benefactor.

A number of famous artifacts have been taken from their native countries without any

plans for reparation. The Ishtar Gate in Germany, a number of Iraqi-Jewish artifacts that are

currently being held in the National Archives in Washington DC, and a stelae that displays the

Code of Hammurabi that is being held in Paris (Mason, historybuff.com). While some of these

were taken in a technically legal manner the fact remains that the artifacts are being held by a

foreign nation that does not plan on repatriating them. Many countries see no moral obligation to

return these artifacts, and benefit from the cultural heritage of other countries.

It is not acceptable for countries to hold on to these artifacts solely for the purpose of

benefiting from another countrys heritage. Artifacts such as the Elgin Marbles or the Ishtar Gate

contain pieces of their respective countries identity and belong to the native country. Citing

outdated legal doctrines is unfair to native countries who only seek to have a part of their history

returned to them. There are exceptions to every rule, such is the case with Iraq where the 50,000

artifacts were either stolen or destroyed. In extreme circumstances such as those artifacts may be

safer in the hands of another country albeit only until the native countrys environment becomes

more stable. Repatriation can help solidify or repair political bonds with countries who exchange

these artifacts. In short repatriation is the right course of action for countries who are holding

artifacts hostage from their native country.

Bibliography

Bauer, Alexander. The Destruction of Heritage in Syria and Iraq and its Implications
Editorial International Journal of Cultural Property, 2015, USA

Cuno, James. "Culture War: The Case against Repatriating Museum Artifacts." Foreign
Affairs 93.6 (2014): 119-129.
 Donadio, Rachel. "Repatriated Works Back in Their Countries of Origin." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 17 Apr. 2014. Web. 19 Apr. 2017.

Mason, Julia. "Should Western Museums Keep Stolen Artifacts to Prevent ISIS from
Destroying Them?" History Buff. N.p., 7 Jan. 2016. Web. 19 Apr. 2017.

Merryman, John Henry. Thinking about the Elgin Marbles. Michigan Law Review, vol. 83, no.
8, 1985, pp. 18811923., www.jstor.org/stable/1288954.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0940739115000090

Writer, Staff. "Robbing the Cradle, Civilization's Loss." The Globe and Mail. From Thursday's
Globe and Mail, 20 Mar. 2009. Web. 19 Apr. 2017.