In this post I am going to briefly explore why the national
retention argument against repatriation, laid out by scholars like James Cuno,
is not a valid argument. This post acts
as an introduction to my thoughts, I will build upon this over the next few
weeks by looking at successful cases of repatriation within the last decade,
specifically the case of the agreement between the Yale Peabody Museum and
Peru.
Cuno criticizes
the use of the term cultural patrimony and relative laws, arguing that cultural
patrimony is a political construct, as well as a retentionalist policy, because
many countries consider all antiquity found within their borders as cultural
property that is central to their national identity (Cuno 2005 and 2008). He
also questions the idea of national identity and cultural property, mainly
because many ancient cultures span the borders of many modern nation-states,
which makes the idea of repatriation to a single country difficult in many
cases (Cuno 2008). If an item, however, belonged to a culture that only spanned
one nation, and perhaps created in a modern nation, then Cuno‟s argument that
repatriation to a single country would not suffice. In the case of the Machu Picchu collection,
the objects clearly originate within the borders of Peru, and even if cultural
patrimony is a political construct, that does not necessarily negate the right
for repatriation.
I do understand
several of Cuno’s arguments, such as his concern that cultural patrimony laws
are retentionalist, but I do not believe that museums should not return
cultural property to a source country, especially if that country has evidence
that the antiquities originated there and left illegally. Hiram Bingham, however, legally removed the
Machu Picchu collection from Peru (although some argue against this).
I previously argued that a successful repatriation consists
of multiple factors, one of which involves a cultural agreement between the
parties in the dispute. Such agreements
include cultural exchanges like a long-term loan of artifacts, research opportunities,
and a strong sense of public relations.
In regards to long-term loans, I wrote that countries wishing to have antiquities
returned to their country should consider making agreements with museums, which
provide opportunities for long-term loans and collaboration. Countries that signed the 1970 UNESCO
Convention agree to promote an exchange of knowledge, and I believe that loans
are a good way for material to move around the world and attract interest in a country’s
culture, while that country still retains property rights to the material. Museums must also make efforts to loan
countries and other museums material because this will allow other countries to
showcase material outside its borders.
Concerning
research opportunities I believe that agreements that involve research
opportunities, such as the ability for students to travel between countries and
study collections, should satisfy critics who state that source countries
restrict knowledge (Cuno 2005 and 2008; Merryman 2005). In response to those
who argue that cultural property belongs to all of humanity, the continuous exchange
of antiquities will provide a broader audience the opportunity to view the
antiquities, and hopefully antiquities will not remain in one place for decades
or centuries. I feel that when a country
restricts access they also restrict the ability for students to broaden their
knowledge.
In my next
post, I will delve deeper into the Yale/Peru agreement, and demonstrate why it
acts as a prime example of a successful repatriation.
No comments:
Post a Comment