Illustration by Camila Garcia
Some not-so-ancient history could set the record straight once and for all. The long-held conversation surrounding stolen artifacts is, unfortunately, an ongoing one.
The main commentary concerns whether or not museums should return items from foreign countries, and, more specifically, the extent that museums must adhere to laws regarding how they were acquired.
A recent artnet article describes the specific return process of more than 30 pieces from the United States to Egypt, after some of the antiques surfaced during criminal investigations. As decided by Egypt’s Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, along with the two of the nations’ Memorandum of Understanding, the Tahrir Square Museum will now restore and display all of the returned artwork.
But why the issue in the first place? Most of us understand that throughout history, artwork has been stolen and moved from place to place. This is commonly seen during times of war to either preserve a culture or erase it, with the driving force being financial gain.
This means that today, there is an overwhelmingly unfair distribution of antiques in museums that can’t be ignored.
Many countries find themselves out of possession of their artifacts, the majority of which are located outside their borders. One prime example includes the Parthenon Marbles of Greece. In the early 1800s, when Greece was under Ottoman occupation, the British allegedly received permission from Turkish authorities to remove certain pieces of art from the infamous Parthenon Hill in Athens.
The pieces travelled from Greece to the British Ambassador’s private estate. From there, they ended up in the British Museum and are still there today. Of the Parthenon ruins that survived, 50 percent are housed in the British Museum. The other half reside in their origin location of Athens — primarily in the Acropolis Museum, either on display, in restoration or in process of being digitally preserved.
If we recognize the issue of displaced artifacts, why are they not already returned, if this argument and its laws seem obvious?
Pushback primarily comes from encyclopedic museums like the British Museum. They claim that visitors can better understand artifacts when placed in a global context in relation to other cultures– essentially an international timeline of historic events, people and ideas.
Moreover, there is an underlying sentiment that travelers are more likely to visit museums in places such as Great Britain or the United States, as opposed to non-western places like Egypt.
Now, while Greece is technically part of the west, the principle of the argument remains the same. Artifacts deserve to be preserved and displayed in their home countries. For cultural significance, proper understanding and ethical adherence.
There is a thread that connects nations and cultures whose artifacts are currently illegally displayed by other countries: disregarding the descendants of the civilizations being preserved in museums.
In nearly all cases, countries want their pieces back and are willing to fight for them.
With stories like these, the opposition usually inflates a “righteous cause.” In this case, they claim that lobbyists are looking to empty out the world’s most renowned museums.
But in defending these “museums” — the ones that bear the most clout and gain the most from holding foreign artifacts — they are also supporting illegal acts and crimes against cultures.
In a way, this violates the essence of museums — they are no longer museums, but hoarding spaces. Those who oppose reparations are, in fact, shareholders parading around with insincere titles like “cultural observers and enthusiasts.” For these people, the glory of museums lies in the financial benefits it provides them.
There is also a contradiction with the situation — cultural objects have value, but the country they come from does not. It is an insult to insinuate that cultural objects can only be appreciated when presented in polished, western environments.
Put plainly, the way major western museums operate is nothing short of a pickpocketing practice.
It is a downplayed, yet long-lasting consequence of imperialism: to shamelessly claim otherwise is a slap in the face to our intelligence, our country’s struggles and the indisputable right of owning our heritage.
Whether we realize it or not, as rising citizens of the international community we must hold wrongdoers accountable.
Whether museum curators and leaders are ready to admit this truth, let alone act on it, is trivial. Allowing this to continue means relinquishing control of who tells the stories of the world.
This is more than an artistic conflict. This is about how our culture’s history and dignity are at stake.
