If the country has a conflict and you’re worried about it being destroyed, do you think it should be returned once it becomes safe again?

21 comments

  1. If that country has the fasilities and the resources to care for/protect those artefact, then yes.

  2. I would say it always depends on the context.

    My country has committed horrendous crimes in the past.

    Many works of art were stolen from us and not all of them have been returned yet. Should we return them? Definitely.

    But if we simply made a rule that everything that was stolen must be returned, then we too would have a very long list of artworks that were originally German and are now mainly in Russia and the USA.

    And there are a few more problems, such as how far back in the past the case may lie. Often something has been paid for, but who has to prove that the price was reasonable, the buyer or the person who reclaims it? What if someone else has the property in the meantime? And so on.

    Simply saying that everyone gives everything back is an unworkable proposition and, in my view, under-complex for such a difficult problem.

  3. My first reaction is an unconditional “Yes, immediately”, BUT (in capital letters) it’s not THAT easy:

    I am German and Berlin museums are known for their “rich fundus of ancient artefacts”, especially from Egypt, but also a number of other cultures and places. We have stared at it, but it’s neither our culture, nor have those artefacts been given to the German museums by their rightful owners. They have been digged out by state-financed adventurers, brought to Germany and the Emperor claimed those artefacts being “his rightful property”.

    Theft, in other words. “Legalized” by the arrogant feeling of superiority of the white, northern men above those “wild, dark people down there”.

    You with me so far? Good! Because now comes the BUT: Nearly everything those expeditions have stolen from Egypt is still in Berlin, restored by the World’s leading experts, conserved in perfect climate conditions, catalogued documented by scientists. a part of the knowledge about ancient Egypt came and comes from the scientific institutions who cared for those stolen artefacts over the last 130 or so years.

    And it was a race – ~~grave robbery~~ scientific expeditions had become a time sensitive business. Everyone was sending ~~raiding parties~~ archaeology-experts down south and most stolen artifacts never made it to the surface anymore. Not all expeditions delivered their stolen findings to museums and the problem of “local talent” joining the market was also huge. Not all grave robbers came from the North.

    ~~Slaves~~ local workforce digging for a European party copied the business-plan and set up their own shop just after mining for their foreign bosses. Very often the loot was just divided, gold and/or jewlery was converted, sculptures were destroyed (too hard to transport), coffins were compromised (air, temperature, humidity) … it sounds very false, but “Thanks God for the artefacts “found” by state-financed expeditions”.

    Yes, all should be returned, if the local situation allows for conservation and continuous research. If this is not the case, if the local situation is “critical”, the ownership should still be recognized and royalties should be paid until the situation is stabilized and allows for a physical transfer.

    It’s not ours. Let’s be honest and give it back!

  4. Coming from a country where we have the facilities to care for the artifacts and would probably make a better job of it yes give them back. I’m not aware of anything in museums in Ireland that were taken from another culture or country. We have artifacts that were collected by individuals in their travels that may have dubious pasts or questionable ownership rights that were then donated to the state, but they wouldn’t be massively significant items like royal treasures or Egyptian obelisks or anything like that. If there are I’d be all for returning them to where they came from and using it as a way to build cultural links between museums here and museums in whatever country they go back to. Maybe there is more that can be shared, travelling exhibits, loaning items for display or study for a period, swapping staff to gain more knowledge that kinda thing.

  5. If it’s from a very ancient era like Roman republic or classical Greece I think we could keep it for educational purposes and usually a lot of museums in Europe have several remnants from those eras, so it’s not a big deal imho.

    Although paintings and arts from still existing countries should be returning to their countries and it’s on them if it got destroyed by whatever is going on over there.

  6. Yes and Denmark should give Norway Lagabøtes Lands og Bylov Back which is the second oldest codified and built legal document which is to a certain extent still used.

  7. No.

    The source countries might lack the financial resources, expertise, and security to care for them properly.

    Many of the source countries are still unstable. [Museums have been looted in Egypt](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i-38AWATok), and IS has damaged and looted ancient sites in the Middle East, just to name a few examples. It is far less likely that something like that would happen in, say, Britain.

    Contrary to popular belief, most objects were acquired legally.

    There is cultural value in having artefacts from humanity’s history collected in one place. Besides, most of the cultures that created the artefacts are long gone.

  8. It’s probably pragmatic but no. Mostly because museums would be pretty boring with stuff only from the Czech Republic. I have the naive idea that people want to see something new and uncommon in museums to maybe learn about a different culture. I also don’t see myself travelling all the way to Egypt to see artefacts from ancient Egypt.

  10. Well. It’s already the case and should obviously be done.

    If your post is about the artifacts from the colonies (afaik in Belgium it’s the only debate on that topic. I don’t think that anyone want to get all the painting from Flemish peinters back), as defining what is legaly obtained, stolen, … end up with endless discussions I’m in favor of making a duplicate of everything for our museums and send the original to it’s former country.

    That ends the discussion once and for all. We can’t distinguish between the original and the copy when we visit the museum so it doesn’t change anything for the public.

    The only loss is for the people studying those artifacts but it’s a minority of people and it’s also not “our history” so we can let the people from the original countries take care of that (or not). It’s their call.

  11. I do think that if that country wants them, you should return them back all and let them destroy their stuff if they want to.

    Also there are safe looted countries like greece or italy

  12. Yes, they should be. If a country for whatever reason doesn’t want them back, their citizens should atleast be able to get free entrance to the museum exhibitions in which they get displayed.

  13. Well offcourse even if some shady transactions have been done. Like with our Parthenon marbles.

  14. It’s a tricky question for sure – even if from a purely ethical standpoint it might seem obvious that artifacts that were acquired illegally through e.g. colonialism, plunder or war ought to be given back to their country of origin.

    Sweden is definitely guilty of possessing a lot of stolen goods from other countries as well, especially from the many wars all around Europe during the Swedish Empire era. Most famous are perhaps the Devil’s Bible and the Silver Bible, both of which were stolen from Prague.

    And I guess that one can even go so far as the say that items that were forcibly taken from other places in a country to the capital ought to be returned to their home region as well. For example, a lot of art and other culturally important items from here in Scania were stolen and taken up to Stockholm during various wars and raids, and now sits in museums or palaces around there. Most controversial of all though is the question of the Barum woman – a woman from the Paleolithic who is one of the oldest and most well-preserved skeletal finds in Scandinavia from that time. She was found buried here in Scania but taken to the Historical Museum in Stockholm. This was very controversial and a lot of people think that she should be returned home to Scania.

    But, on the other hand I can also see a lot of good things about having museums like the Louvre or the British Museum, where cultural and historical treasures from around the world are gathered in one place in a global city where they are kept safe, preserved and by leading experts while being easily accessible for a lot of people from around the world to experience first hand, either completely for free as at the British Museum or for a small entrance free as at the Louvre. That is truly amazing.

    If all cultural and historical items were only to be seen in their country of origin, I feel that we risk becoming more ignorant of other cultures than our own. Let’s face it, very few people would travel to for example some small African or Pacific island country to visit a museum, so a lot of amazing culture would never be seen in person by outsiders and it would be a lot more unknown to the world at large.

  15. Ideally yes, but this can quickly become a huge controversial mess of fuck ups, others not wanting to give away, two modern cultures fighting over their “parent cultures” artefacts, also cultures go pretty often beyond modern borders, so who or the same culture or share a parent culture gets to have the artefacts?

    Having open museums for study seems alot better imo and having these museums transfer items in between them in a personal note if they want to return it to it’s “rightful people” or struck a deal. But forcing it as the right thing to do morally will lead to alot of issues.

  16. Yeah, the Titanic was built in Belfast not London. Many historical Irish texts are stored in Oxford, apart from the texts the English burned years ago.
    That’d be a big yes from me 🇮🇪👍
    However the English got a statue as thanks for dealing a blow to Napoleon. It should be a case by case. How they got it in their museums and ask the origin countries if they wish it returned

  17. Depends on when it was taken. Within like a 300 year period, sure, more than that and I think it’s very much a country to country basis and situation to situation.

  18. I think it also depends whether the people who made the artefacts are still alive as a gorup and ethnically and culturally related to the people who made them. Some of those areas can be questioned, especially with areas such as Egypt.

  20. It depends. I think to a certain degree, acting as if modern states are equivalents to their ancient predecessors is a bit difficult and not always as simple as most people think.

    Do you give it to the country that now occupies the area the artifacts come from? Do you give it to the people who are the cultural descendants of the population that made those artifacts? Is a statue recovered in Alexandria that was shipped there from Ephesos Egyptian, Greek or Turkish? You could make claims for all three.

Leave a Reply
You May Also Like