COMPLEX ISSUE OF RECLAIMING ARTEFACTS

‘Spoils-of-war’ attitude is changing to a collaborative international ‘winwin’ situation

of artefacts from its rich and colourful ancient past is Egypt.

Just last month Egypt’s Ministry of Antiquities confirmed the recovery of a stolen ancient artefact listed for sale at a London auction house — a section of tablet engraved with the royal symbol of King Amenhotep I, who ruled between 1514 and 1493 BCE (Before Common Era). It was stolen from the Karnak Open Air Museum in Luxor, Egypt, in 1988, smuggled out of the country, and ultimately offered for auction in London.

Seven months earlier, Egypt repatriated nine smuggled artefacts, including statuary and coffins, seized in a Paris train station in 2012.

These results reflect Egypt’s intensified efforts in recent years to stop the trafficking of its heritage. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Marauding powers have been plundering the cultural heritage of subjugated nations since time immemorial.

These include Ramses II, Egypt’s ruler for 66 years starting in 1279 BCE, who enriched his kingdom with treasures from his military expeditions north into Mediterranean countries.

Likewise, the Romans glorified plunder and systematically carried off works of art and other treasures.

In modern times, attitudes have been changing for the better. For example, prestigious institutions such as the J. Paul Getty Museum of Art in Los Angeles and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York have returned looted or stolen artwork or antiquities.

According to Prof Carol A. Roehrenbeck of Rutgers University in the US, “these events signify a shift away from the historic tradition of plunder and theft, and evidence a move to protect and repatriate cultural property”.

However, efforts to reclaim and return stolen or looted artefacts face complex issues. There is ongoing debate, for example, about a country’s ownership of cultural property, she says.

At present, there are two approaches: “Cultural Internationalism” supports the idea that everyone has an interest in the preservation and enjoyment of all cultural property wherever it is located.

Thus, the cultural property belongs to the global community, and the country with the better resources to care for another country’s cultural property should retain possession.

From the viewpoint of those holding this view, treasures such as Neffertiti’s Bust in the Neues Museum in Berlin (which Egypt is trying hard to get back) and the Elgin Marbles in the British Museum should remain in those respective museums, where they are protected, cared for and available for all the world to see.

The 1954 Hague Convention embodies the Internationalist attitude.

“Cultural Nationalists”, on the other hand, believe that cultural property belongs within the borders of the nation where it was created.

Nationalists emphasise national interests, values and pride. They argue that such artefacts are important to cultural definition and expression, to shared identity and community. This philosophy gained greater recognition with the ratification of the 1970 Unesco Convention.

This battle, Roehrenbeck stresses, is contentious because “at its base, it is a conflict over identity, and over the right to reclaim the objects that are tangible symbols of that identity”.

The repatriation process itself, she adds, requires delicate cooperation among governments, law enforcement, museums, and antiquities dealers.

While we wait for things to play out, let us welcome the changing “spoils-of-war” attitude to a more collaborative international “winwin” situation, exemplified by the impending repatriation of the Niah specimens to Sarawak.

The writer is a fellow of the Washington-based Global Federation of Competitiveness Councils and former director of the United Nations University’s Institute of Advanced Studies in Tokyo