The right to return of cultural heritage: a solution

There is an intriguing ongoing debate about the obligation of conquering and colonial powers to return tangible objects representing the culture, traditions, art and achievements of communities or countries to their source.

The public debate constantly gains momentum because of everyone’s access to, and power of, the media.

The principal arguments by the possessors of the appropriated heritage in favour of holding on to them are the “universal museums” claim and the, usually unstated, argument that the objects will not be properly looked after if returned to their places of origin.

The “universal museums” claim has various dimensions, including the contention that the works have become part of the culture of the country in which the museums are found and that, if dispersed, fewer people will view the objects. An example given is that of the Rosetta Stone, which has more than twice as many visitors in their millions seeing it at the British Museum than it would have if returned to the Cairo Museum.

This is a variation on the naturalist Gerald Durrell’s justification for zoos. He said that if no-one outside Africa saw a real rhinoceros or giraffe there would be little interest in the conservation of their environment. That may hold true for animals but, thanks to modern science, it need not hold true for tangible cultural objects.

There is a solution that satisfies the arguments from both sides. I leave aside the issues of proving who is entitled to a particular object and whether it was obtained by looting, conquest, theft, purchase or permitted archeological endeavour.

It is possible with modern technology, in most cases, to recreate virtually exact copies of the object in question, at least to the inexpert eye of the average museum visitor. Even experts have been fooled by good fakes in the past.

Most of the fascinating objects you can see in the Louvre Museum in Paris, the Metropolitan Museum in New York, or the British Museum in London can be replicated, often using the same or similar material to that used to create the original.

Most of us would be surprised how many times we have seen something purporting to be the original that is the product of the latest laser and 3D facsimile fabrication. There is no reason why cultural objects as famous or infamous as the Parthenon Marbles could not be replicated in this way.

It needs agreement between the current lawful or unlawful possessor and the lawful owner of the object to make the replica in the first place, based on an actual or cultural copyrights. After that it becomes a matter for negotiation and compensation.

The possessing museum can keep the original and give the claimant the replica, or the other way around. The museum will then pay an amount or, preferably, a periodic rental for keeping and displaying the original (for a higher rent) or keep the replica. If there is any concern about the preservation of the original once returned, money can be put up to ensure that it is kept in the most suitable surroundings.

Some museum visitors will be unhappy at the thought of looking at a replica rather than an original. There will be little cause for that complaint, however, if it is to all intents and purposes an exact copy.

The experience will be the same when looking at an object behind the glass of any museum. Any museum that wants to show the original can get it back temporarily in the same way that museums have always exchanged objects and artworks for exhibitions.

Of course this all comes at a cost. Restoring imbalances always does. In this case, the cost will be well spent in the cause of international comity and recognising the value and importance of indigenous cultural heritage.

IT IS POSSIBLE WITH MODERN TECHNOLOGY TO RECREATE VIRTUALLY EXACT COPIES