Historical Artefacts Should Be Repatriated to Their Country of Origin

‘It’s the right thing to do’ isn’t really a concrete answer. Says who? Why? Can the original country preserve the artefact as efficiently? Does it change ownership after a certain period? If these artefacts are made to return to their country of origin, what is to say that other countries may not demand the same thing. They are generally better taken care of in Museums where they are, and if one artefact is given back, shouldn’t they all? It is unrealiable and unrealist to do this.

These questions need to be addressed.

The artefacts’ place of origin has more often than not changed dramatically; for instance, it is absurd to think that a relic of Roman Britain would be somehow illuminated by being displayed in contemporary London, where almost all traces of Roman civilisation have been erased. The Acropolis of Athens has been unusually well preserved and reconstructed as a heritage site; however, I am still not convinced that the context of modern Orthodox Greece aids visitors’ appreciation of an ancient pagan relic.

The Nigerians have a few Benin bronzes that the British Museum sold back to them for £75 in total, but it is nigh impossible to view them. How would the Benin people or the rest of the world be able to appreciate them in their place of origin if they could not view them?

Museums all over the world do loan out their collections. Just because they are held in another country’s museum does not mean that the place of origin would not be able to access artefacts.

Unesco regulations only require the return of artefacts removed from their country of origin after 1970. This international body has therefore stated that the appropriation of artefacts before this date is legal and permissible. Precious objects have been taken as the spoils of war since ancient times; many of these artefacts are probably built from materials (or even using the labour) acquired through war and conquest. Anyway, objects seized in war time are usually taken for their own protection, as the country of origin is not in a suitably stable position to care for them properly; this is the case for the Elgin Marbles. Don’t the nations who have expended resources protecting and preserving these arguments deserve in return the right to display them?

The countries who have supposedly lost artefacts, such as Greece, often have plenty of other ameneties which are a great draw for tourists; warm weather, good beaches, attractive scenery etc. Plus they retain the attraction of being the original locations of historical events or places of interest. The sanctuary’s of Olympia and Delphi in Greece are a good example of this; they are not filled with artefacts, but continue to attract visitors because the sites are interesting in themselves. Also, people who have seen an artefact in a foreign museum may then be drawn to visit the area it originated from.

It is the tourist trade of the nations where these artefacts are held (mostly northern European nations, like Britain and France) which would suffer if they were repatriated. Lacking the climate and natural amenities of other tourist destinations they rely on their cultural offerings in order to attract visitors.

There is no reason to politicise this argument; museums have no ‘political’ agenda but merely wish to preserve historical objects. Their reasons for keeping these items may be financial, or in the interests of keeping the artefacts safe and accessible to the public; whatever they may be, they are not political.

Additionally, why would countries want to remember past oppression? Wouldn’t they rather move on from the darker areas in their history and look at the more triumphant victories that they had?

Even with modern transport links and technology, transporting every artefact in a foreign museum back to its location of origin would be an impractically mammoth task. The risk of damage to artefacts would be unavoidable, not to mention the possibility of theft or sabotage en route. Important artefacts in transit would be an ideal public target for acts of terrorism.

The home countries might not even have the space or resources to create a suitable place to house the returned artefacts. Then if we consider the financial and environmental impact of all these transfers, it is clear that to move so many valuable objects around the world is not a practical idea.

What if the “corruptness” leads to destruction of the artefact? For example, look at the way that the Italian government has destroyed Pompeii – a wall collapsed in the last few months, and a restaurant has been built directly on top of one of the buildings. If we want to preserve our archaeology, we need to make sure that archaeology is looked after – it’s not just a case of looking after the artefacts which are in your local area, but of the world coming together to preserve our archaeology. If remains from Pompeii would be better preserved in London than in Naples Museum, why shouldn’t they be moved there?

I say so, we are debating artefacts not people!!!

Wealthier countries sometimes simply have better resources to protect, preserve and restore historical artefacts than their country of origin. Our moral obligation is to preserve the artefact for future generations, and if this is best achieved by it remaining in a foreign country then that must be the course of action.

Artefacts have a historical and symbolic meaning that transcends their origins; over the years they acquire a connection with the place that they are housed. For example, the Egyptian obelisk that stands in the Piazza di San Pietro in Rome was brought to Italy in the reign of Caligula. It is no longer merely an ‘Egyptian’ artefact- it has become a symbol of Roman dominance in the ancient world and the European Christian culture that succeeded it. Another Egyptian obelisk, brought to New York in the 19th century, has a symbolic association for Freemasons as a link to their predecessors.

The place of origin should not have a monopoly over their own artefacts; they are part of our collective history and should be open to anyone who is interested in what they have to tell us. Therefore they ought to be exhibited in places which receive the most visitors and are most accessible to people of all nationalities. Larger institutions are the most suitable home for these artefacts, especially since some UK museums are supported by external funding and thus do not charge a fee to see the exhibits.

The majority of artefacts are acquired fairly and their ownership is not disputed. Therefore to argue that all artefacts should be repatriated to their countries of origin is ridiculous; for the most part, the country of origin is perfectly happy for these objects to be held by foreign museums. Symbolic or controversial items like the Axum obelisk or the Elgin Marbles are a rare exception.

For example, Olduvai handaxes (from countries in Eastern Africa such as Tanzania) are held in the British Museum – but the people who made them are our ancestors just as much as they are the ancestors of local people. Holding these in London encourages us to see the common ground we hold with people everywhere in the world, whereas keeping them only in their local country highlights our differences and tribal identities; this is something which could eventually lead to racism. Similarly, having Greek displays in England (with artefacts such as the Parthenon Marbles) encourages us to realise the similarities between our own modern culture and Ancient Greece, showing us “what the Greeks did for us”, so to speak.

==