6 ms·

> While some critics of repatriation have raised concerns over how poorer countries will care for their returned artifacts, Marieke van Bommel, director general

> While some critics of repatriation have raised concerns over how poorer countries will care for their returned artifacts, Marieke van Bommel, director general of the National Museum of World Cultures, tells the New York Times’ Lynsey Chutel that “the thief cannot tell the rightful owners what to do with their property.” But the government of the country the artifacts are being returned into isn’t the rightful owner. (I do think returning is the right thing to do, but it should be a bit more thought through.)

pfortuny 2y ago
This is spot on. Why should a “mosern country” be the owner of an artifact? I wonder honestly, I am not just whining.
- ajsnigrutin 2y ago
  You steal a mummy from egipt, take it to london, put it in a museum. Who has more claim on the item... someone who stole it and kept it for 100, 150, 200 years? Or people of egypt represented by their government,living in an area where the mummy was stolen from?
  - umvi 2y ago
    Yeah but it gets absurd if enough time passes. "Your ancestors wronged my ancestors 1000 years ago, so now modern you owes modern me"
    - soco 2y ago
      Yes, and repay it by giving back said object. Egypt or those countries didn't ask for rent or back payments so let's stop imagining strawmen.
      - TeaBrain 2y ago
        Repay what? The people of modern Egypt have no connection or inheritance claim to the ancient artifacts, other than their having been created in a similar place where the modern Egyptians are currently living. They don't even share a remotely similar culture. The same is true of many other places that had their artifacts collected, in that the people have no legal claim to the artifacts other than their having existed in a place in time nor do they often have any shared culture with the people who created the artifacts.
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        Indeed, it is even arguable whether they are even genetically similar to the ancient Egyptians, due to the migration of the Arabs from the peninsula when spreading Islam over time.
        TeaBrain 2y ago
        From what I've read, the Egyptian genetics are still relatively similar to Egyptians from several thousand years ago, due to the relatively small number of Arabs involved in the Arab conquest of Egypt. However, the only kinds of inheritance that I believe are strong are familial or cultural. I don't believe in broad umbrella genetic inheritance claims without any establishable familial connection. Beyond this, I think the idea of geographic artifact ownership claims, based solely on the geographic origin of artifacts, have little to no merit.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Beyond this, I think the idea of geographic artifact ownership claims, based solely on the geographic origin of artifacts, have little to no merit. That's fine, but the world disagrees with you, by and large. And it needs to have some way of adjudicating these claims. Granted, fine-grained aspects of "familial" vs. "genetic" inheritance (throwing in migrations and multiple waves of forced assimilation) might muddy the waters a bit. But the vastly bigger point is -- to a first-order approximation, the criterion of "proximate geographic origin" provides at least some form of an objective basis of ownership, and a reasonably workable and intuitive one at that. Meanwhile, as of the 21st century, the consensus view is that the ownership "claims" of recent colonial powers who extracted these artifacts coercively have no merit or basis whatsoever. Per what the world at large seems to think about these matters. You can disagree of course, and go stand in front of your local museum and hold up a sign stating so, if you like. (And nevermind the "solely" part please. Yes, there are corner cases like Anatolia where one group comes in and basically genocides the groups living there, so why should the current population get ownership of everything buried underground? Interesting questions, but again corner cases -- and the current population of Egypt seems to be the very opposite of such a case, for the very reasons you stated).
    - roughly 2y ago
      This is I think a thing that is difficult for Americans to understand, because the only Americans who have a thousand years of family history in the place they currently live are also asking museums for their stuff back.
      - jahewson 2y ago
        There’s a big difference between a culture that mostly ceased to exist in the past 200 years, because of the USA, and one that ceased to exist 3500 years ago.
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    false dilemma, there are more options the "most right" answer doesn't mean its the right answer. compromise results in wrong answers when there is a right answer. this isn't a standardized test.
  - moi2388 2y ago
    Depending on the time period, anyone between the Egyptians, Hyksos, Nubians, Libyans, Persians, Assyrians and the Romans, and indeed the British, since they all at one point were the official rulers of Egypt. I have no idea why citizens of modern Egypt, which didn’t get formed until 1953, would be more entitled to up to 3500 year old artifacts more than the then actual owners (agree with the means or not)
    - rightbyte 2y ago
      Mummies are maybe a bad example, as one could argue, that bodies should be by their grave.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - bell-cot 2y ago
        Or a perfect example - because there are extremely few cultures and circumstances in which very old human graves are moved when the government or rulers changed?
      - nickff 2y ago
        Graves generally aren't permanent; most plots are leased for a fixed term. What is done with the caskets and contents thereafter varies widely.
        cuteboy19 2y ago
        Is that really how pyramids worked? King Tut in the pyramid for 60 years then to the Nile his bones?
        bloak 2y ago
        It sort of worked like that, though that wasn't the intention? By which I mean, as I understand it, all the pyramids were robbed a very long time ago, but Tutankhamun's tomb survived undisturbed until the 20th century because it wasn't in a pyramid.
  - graemep 2y ago
    > Or people of egypt represented by their government,living in an area where the mummy was stolen from? Whose culture and polity have no continuity with that of the people who made the mummy, but rather with that of later invaders.
  - pfortuny 2y ago
    What do you mean “stole”? From whom? They were literally abandoned.
    - ksec 2y ago
      >They were literally abandoned. Interesting take. If they were abandoned then I dont see how anyone could claim ownership of it.
      - shiroiushi 2y ago
        Abandoned property generally belongs to whoever finds it and claims it.
  - Log_out_ 2y ago
    The act of stealing was buying it from a local trader who considered it part of the heathen past.
- noworriesnate 2y ago
  Because they are more secure there. These are irreplaceable items. Pick your favorite cultural artifact, would you help move it to a more secure location if there was a lot of instability that could lead to it being destroyed? Even if that more secure location was a different country? I personally would.
  - pfortuny 2y ago
    Sorry: I must have explained myself badly. We agree (I preder the artifacts in, say, London rather than in modern “Egypt”).
  - Covenant0028 2y ago
    I would recommend reading "Africa is Not a Country" that delves into this exact question. It is the pinnacle of self-serving arguments for European countries to first spend centuries colonising Africa, stolen its wealth and cultural artifacts, enriching themselves in the bargain, and dividing the continent in a way that would guarantee political instability, to then use that same instability as an excuse for not returning those cultural artifacts. Of course this article is about Indonesia - that's not a country that screams instability in any case
    - gwervc 2y ago
      Having been multiple times at the Chirac Quai Branly museums, it's pretty clear the argument is valid: most pieces seem totally forgettable and would likely have been discarded by their owners. Heck, even the "royal door of XXX king palace" is a 1-meter wooden door with carvings that aren't particularly fine. Those artifacts still exist and have value because they are exposed in a museum in Paris, otherwise nobody would care.
      - Neonlicht 2y ago
        The Netherlands has accumulated so much art and antiques in the last 200 years that most of it never sees the light of day. It sits in giant secured vaults.
      - 2y ago
- Metacelsus 2y ago
  especially when you consider the British Museum hasn't been great about preventing theft recently
isodev 2y ago
> isn’t the rightful owner. And who is qualified to determine the "rightful owner"? The current government of the nation from which the items were taken is the one in charge of policy regarding their cultural and historical artefacts.
- ckuehne 2y ago
  There is no "nation from which the items were taken".
  - isodev 2y ago
    I’m not sure I follow - The items were taken from somewhere at some point in time and now there is a country on that territory.
    - returningfory2 2y ago
      Take an extreme hypothetical. Suppose in the 1500s the government of Spain had taken some artifacts relating to the indigenous peoples of New Mexico. Would the government of the United States really be the rightful owner of these artifacts? For other countries it's not quite as extreme, but in general the link between ancient culture in place X and modern country in place X is less strong than people try to make out.
      - isodev 2y ago
        I don’t see the controversy of your example because since there was no UNESCO and other global agreements in the 1500s, the indigenous people of this area are still around and so it would be the local Native American tribes that can have a legitimate claim on their heritage.
        pie420 2y ago
        Lots of native american tribes committed genocide and destroyed other tribes. If Tribe A made some artifacts, and then was genocided out of existence by Tribe B, which was then conquered by the Tribe C (USA). Would you want Tribe B to have ownership of the artifacts of tribe B?
aithrowawaycomm 2y ago
Many artifacts were stolen from legitimate kingdoms / village councils / etc that no longer exist, so for these artifacts returning it to the corresponding modern government is fairly appropriate. Otherwise, unless there is a clear claim of individual/familial ownership vis descendancy, then returning artifacts to a legal national government is still a least bad option. In this case the artifact belongs to the people and is stewarded by the peoples' government - the government doesn't "own" it in the way King Charles owns the Crown Jewels. (Ideally this government would be democratic, but international legitimacy should be enough for the UK to hand over the goods.) There are a ton of exceptions - Rohingya artifacts shouldn't be sent blindly into Myanmar - but I promise the people involved are taking this seriously. It seems condescending and arrogant van Bommel really failed to "think through" her usage of a metonymy.
- beaglessss 2y ago
  Would make sense imo to auction them to the highest bidder and distribute it to the heirs. Or give the heirs shares of a corporation that holds the artifact. I'm not sure about Indonesia government but I'm confident if my forefathers made artifacts and it got 'returned' to US gov what would happen is a bunch of rich city dwellers would get to see it in an exhibit somewhere, some director will see a fat salary and meanwhile I have no share or compensation nor practical ability to access the artifact.
- Covenant0028 2y ago
  > Otherwise, unless there is a clear claim of individual/familial ownership vis descendancy, then returning artifacts to a legal national government is still a least bad option. How do you expect such a clean and clear historic record considering these artifacts were taken from places subjected to deep exploitation by the same countries that today possess the artifacts? Surely keeping records of historical artifacts for use centuries later, would have been a lower priority for the local population than survival.
- perilunar 2y ago
  > the government doesn't "own" it in the way King Charles owns the Crown Jewels Would the Crown Jewels still be owned by Charles (or his heirs) if the UK ceased to be a monarchy? I hope not — when the monarchy falls all “royal” property should become public property.

pfortuny 2y ago

This is spot on. Why should a “mosern country” be the owner of an artifact? I wonder honestly, I am not just whining.

ajsnigrutin 2y ago
You steal a mummy from egipt, take it to london, put it in a museum. Who has more claim on the item... someone who stole it and kept it for 100, 150, 200 years? Or people of egypt represented by their government,living in an area where the mummy was stolen from?
- umvi 2y ago
  Yeah but it gets absurd if enough time passes. "Your ancestors wronged my ancestors 1000 years ago, so now modern you owes modern me"
  - soco 2y ago
    Yes, and repay it by giving back said object. Egypt or those countries didn't ask for rent or back payments so let's stop imagining strawmen.
    - TeaBrain 2y ago
      Repay what? The people of modern Egypt have no connection or inheritance claim to the ancient artifacts, other than their having been created in a similar place where the modern Egyptians are currently living. They don't even share a remotely similar culture. The same is true of many other places that had their artifacts collected, in that the people have no legal claim to the artifacts other than their having existed in a place in time nor do they often have any shared culture with the people who created the artifacts.
      - satvikpendem 2y ago
        Indeed, it is even arguable whether they are even genetically similar to the ancient Egyptians, due to the migration of the Arabs from the peninsula when spreading Islam over time.
        TeaBrain 2y ago
        From what I've read, the Egyptian genetics are still relatively similar to Egyptians from several thousand years ago, due to the relatively small number of Arabs involved in the Arab conquest of Egypt. However, the only kinds of inheritance that I believe are strong are familial or cultural. I don't believe in broad umbrella genetic inheritance claims without any establishable familial connection. Beyond this, I think the idea of geographic artifact ownership claims, based solely on the geographic origin of artifacts, have little to no merit.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Beyond this, I think the idea of geographic artifact ownership claims, based solely on the geographic origin of artifacts, have little to no merit. That's fine, but the world disagrees with you, by and large. And it needs to have some way of adjudicating these claims. Granted, fine-grained aspects of "familial" vs. "genetic" inheritance (throwing in migrations and multiple waves of forced assimilation) might muddy the waters a bit. But the vastly bigger point is -- to a first-order approximation, the criterion of "proximate geographic origin" provides at least some form of an objective basis of ownership, and a reasonably workable and intuitive one at that. Meanwhile, as of the 21st century, the consensus view is that the ownership "claims" of recent colonial powers who extracted these artifacts coercively have no merit or basis whatsoever. Per what the world at large seems to think about these matters. You can disagree of course, and go stand in front of your local museum and hold up a sign stating so, if you like. (And nevermind the "solely" part please. Yes, there are corner cases like Anatolia where one group comes in and basically genocides the groups living there, so why should the current population get ownership of everything buried underground? Interesting questions, but again corner cases -- and the current population of Egypt seems to be the very opposite of such a case, for the very reasons you stated).
  - roughly 2y ago
    This is I think a thing that is difficult for Americans to understand, because the only Americans who have a thousand years of family history in the place they currently live are also asking museums for their stuff back.
    - jahewson 2y ago
      There’s a big difference between a culture that mostly ceased to exist in the past 200 years, because of the USA, and one that ceased to exist 3500 years ago.
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  false dilemma, there are more options the "most right" answer doesn't mean its the right answer. compromise results in wrong answers when there is a right answer. this isn't a standardized test.
- moi2388 2y ago
  Depending on the time period, anyone between the Egyptians, Hyksos, Nubians, Libyans, Persians, Assyrians and the Romans, and indeed the British, since they all at one point were the official rulers of Egypt. I have no idea why citizens of modern Egypt, which didn’t get formed until 1953, would be more entitled to up to 3500 year old artifacts more than the then actual owners (agree with the means or not)
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    Mummies are maybe a bad example, as one could argue, that bodies should be by their grave.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - bell-cot 2y ago
      Or a perfect example - because there are extremely few cultures and circumstances in which very old human graves are moved when the government or rulers changed?
    - nickff 2y ago
      Graves generally aren't permanent; most plots are leased for a fixed term. What is done with the caskets and contents thereafter varies widely.
      - cuteboy19 2y ago
        Is that really how pyramids worked? King Tut in the pyramid for 60 years then to the Nile his bones?
        bloak 2y ago
        It sort of worked like that, though that wasn't the intention? By which I mean, as I understand it, all the pyramids were robbed a very long time ago, but Tutankhamun's tomb survived undisturbed until the 20th century because it wasn't in a pyramid.
- graemep 2y ago
  > Or people of egypt represented by their government,living in an area where the mummy was stolen from? Whose culture and polity have no continuity with that of the people who made the mummy, but rather with that of later invaders.
- pfortuny 2y ago
  What do you mean “stole”? From whom? They were literally abandoned.
  - ksec 2y ago
    >They were literally abandoned. Interesting take. If they were abandoned then I dont see how anyone could claim ownership of it.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      Abandoned property generally belongs to whoever finds it and claims it.
- Log_out_ 2y ago
  The act of stealing was buying it from a local trader who considered it part of the heathen past.
noworriesnate 2y ago
Because they are more secure there. These are irreplaceable items. Pick your favorite cultural artifact, would you help move it to a more secure location if there was a lot of instability that could lead to it being destroyed? Even if that more secure location was a different country? I personally would.
- pfortuny 2y ago
  Sorry: I must have explained myself badly. We agree (I preder the artifacts in, say, London rather than in modern “Egypt”).
- Covenant0028 2y ago
  I would recommend reading "Africa is Not a Country" that delves into this exact question. It is the pinnacle of self-serving arguments for European countries to first spend centuries colonising Africa, stolen its wealth and cultural artifacts, enriching themselves in the bargain, and dividing the continent in a way that would guarantee political instability, to then use that same instability as an excuse for not returning those cultural artifacts. Of course this article is about Indonesia - that's not a country that screams instability in any case
  - gwervc 2y ago
    Having been multiple times at the Chirac Quai Branly museums, it's pretty clear the argument is valid: most pieces seem totally forgettable and would likely have been discarded by their owners. Heck, even the "royal door of XXX king palace" is a 1-meter wooden door with carvings that aren't particularly fine. Those artifacts still exist and have value because they are exposed in a museum in Paris, otherwise nobody would care.
    - Neonlicht 2y ago
      The Netherlands has accumulated so much art and antiques in the last 200 years that most of it never sees the light of day. It sits in giant secured vaults.
    - 2y ago
Metacelsus 2y ago
especially when you consider the British Museum hasn't been great about preventing theft recently

isodev 2y ago

> isn’t the rightful owner. And who is qualified to determine the "rightful owner"? The current government of the nation from which the items were taken is the one in charge of policy regarding their cultural and historical artefacts.

ckuehne 2y ago
There is no "nation from which the items were taken".
- isodev 2y ago
  I’m not sure I follow - The items were taken from somewhere at some point in time and now there is a country on that territory.
  - returningfory2 2y ago
    Take an extreme hypothetical. Suppose in the 1500s the government of Spain had taken some artifacts relating to the indigenous peoples of New Mexico. Would the government of the United States really be the rightful owner of these artifacts? For other countries it's not quite as extreme, but in general the link between ancient culture in place X and modern country in place X is less strong than people try to make out.
    - isodev 2y ago
      I don’t see the controversy of your example because since there was no UNESCO and other global agreements in the 1500s, the indigenous people of this area are still around and so it would be the local Native American tribes that can have a legitimate claim on their heritage.
      - pie420 2y ago
        Lots of native american tribes committed genocide and destroyed other tribes. If Tribe A made some artifacts, and then was genocided out of existence by Tribe B, which was then conquered by the Tribe C (USA). Would you want Tribe B to have ownership of the artifacts of tribe B?

aithrowawaycomm 2y ago

Many artifacts were stolen from legitimate kingdoms / village councils / etc that no longer exist, so for these artifacts returning it to the corresponding modern government is fairly appropriate. Otherwise, unless there is a clear claim of individual/familial ownership vis descendancy, then returning artifacts to a legal national government is still a least bad option. In this case the artifact belongs to the people and is stewarded by the peoples' government - the government doesn't "own" it in the way King Charles owns the Crown Jewels. (Ideally this government would be democratic, but international legitimacy should be enough for the UK to hand over the goods.) There are a ton of exceptions - Rohingya artifacts shouldn't be sent blindly into Myanmar - but I promise the people involved are taking this seriously. It seems condescending and arrogant van Bommel really failed to "think through" her usage of a metonymy.

beaglessss 2y ago
Would make sense imo to auction them to the highest bidder and distribute it to the heirs. Or give the heirs shares of a corporation that holds the artifact. I'm not sure about Indonesia government but I'm confident if my forefathers made artifacts and it got 'returned' to US gov what would happen is a bunch of rich city dwellers would get to see it in an exhibit somewhere, some director will see a fat salary and meanwhile I have no share or compensation nor practical ability to access the artifact.
Covenant0028 2y ago
> Otherwise, unless there is a clear claim of individual/familial ownership vis descendancy, then returning artifacts to a legal national government is still a least bad option. How do you expect such a clean and clear historic record considering these artifacts were taken from places subjected to deep exploitation by the same countries that today possess the artifacts? Surely keeping records of historical artifacts for use centuries later, would have been a lower priority for the local population than survival.
perilunar 2y ago
> the government doesn't "own" it in the way King Charles owns the Crown Jewels Would the Crown Jewels still be owned by Charles (or his heirs) if the UK ceased to be a monarchy? I hope not — when the monarchy falls all “royal” property should become public property.