The Return of Artefacts (Or Lack Thereof)
Words by Emilia Sogaard
The suggestion that there are occasions when museum artefacts should not be returned to their country of origin perpetuates the idea of global hierarchies where specific countries believe they can determine the rightful location of objects of cultural importance. In the current political climate certain institutions have given themselves the authority to decide where is safe or unsafe to have objects of cultural importance. We need to reassess the use of cultural institutions as global sanctuaries.
Marble relief (block XLI) from the North frieze of the Parthenon. Athens, 438–432 BC. Image from British Museum Website.
A museum artefact is an object found within the institution’s collection which has been acquired (whether legally or illicitly) because of its cultural importance. UNESCO defines cultural property as material objects, designated by the State, to be “on religious or secular grounds” important “for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science.”
In my opinion, when these objects are exhibited in a museum, they become imbued with a connection to the place of exhibition, which severely compromises the understanding of their original cultural identity. This is due to the de-contextualisation and perceived cultural superiority that goes with exhibiting artefacts outside of their country of origin. The questions we need to ask ourselves are: what is the harm of displacement and the enforced dis-location of museum artefacts?
Parthenon, Acropolis, Athens, seen from the north-west. Photo from RIBA Collections.
From an art historical perspective, it is the intrinsic and instrumental value of museum artefacts which leads them to becoming part of a cultural identity which is the most important reason for always returning museum artefacts to their country of origin. It is precisely the capacity of the object to have a cultural significance which justifies their return. When museums refuse to return an artefact held in their collection (whether in display or in storage) they are prioritising their own agenda and disregarding the significance of the item to its origin society.
Icom logo. Taken from ICOM Website.
Allowing a country to safeguard its own artefacts allows it to safeguard its own identity as a distinct group – as cultural heritage is irreplaceable to those who created it. The nature of museum artefacts as objects with both material and immaterial importance is what led France Desmarias (a director at the International Council of Museums) to suggest that objects of cultural heritage are refugees. While I do not fully agree with this statement it highlights the vulnerability of the objects and implies that cultural expropriation shows intention for further disregard of cultures.
The role of the museum as an institution to educate, inform and guide a visitor about the artefacts in their collection is an essential part of this debate, as a museum has the potential to manipulate the visitor experience. How can we allow an unassuming public to be mis-informed about unjustly kept artefacts?
Tipu's Tiger', 1780s or 1790s, Mysore, India. Museum no 2545. Image from Victoria and Albert Museum, London website.
In allowing this we are enforcing (not just a colonial perspective) but an attitude of dismissal to other countries’ identities and histories. For example, at the Victoria & Albert the display of Tipu’s Tiger as an imperial trophy which presents a two-sided colonial image of self and other has arguably become an object of tourist attraction and of commercialisation, rather than one of identity and reflection. Originally constructed by Indian Sultan Tipu as a sign of resistance to the extension of British imperial rule, it was captured when his city was sacked and is now displayed in the ‘Imperial Courts of Southern India' exhibition, and throughout the V&A shop Tipu’s Tiger appears across different products. The fact that Tipu’s Tiger is exhibited as it is, enforces the representation of cultures in a hierarchy that reproduces inequalities of power.
Tourists in front of sculptural details from the frieze. Image from British Museum Website.
The educational argument that a museum with a higher amount of visitors is a better location for an artefact due to higher visibility and interaction than its’ original location, cannot be justified or sustained. This reasoning overlooks the vital importance of viewing an artefact within its original context in order to understand it most comprehensively and secondly often leads to an economic motivation and the trivialisation of the object. Ivan Karp writes of how “For children, the highpoint of the school visit to the Victoria and Albert was making the tiger (which was a barrel organ) roar by pulling its tail”, which then they can go purchase on a badge, magnet or postcard as a souvenir.
There is an argument for the replication and rotation of objects throughout museums of the world – suggesting that artefacts could be handled like this instead of being sent back to potentially to avoid the destruction or lack of conservation of the artefact. But this means the countries holding onto the artefacts still have the monopoly over objects which culturally do not belong to them and perpetuates the view of institutional hierarchies.
REFERENCES:
France Demarais, “Red Lists and Red Lines: The Role of Museums in Protecting Heritage in Danger,” in In Harm’s Way: Aspects of Cultural Heritage protection. Essays, ed. Roy Bacon, (London: The British Council, 2017), 40.
