Antiquities, Museums, Repatriation

In the most recent New Yorker, there is an article on the problem of antiquities – who owns them, how illegal their trade is, and when they should be repatriated to their countries of origin.

Obviously, the claim countries of origin make on ancient works of art “owned” by foreign museums has as much to do with politics and economy as it does with any real “right” of ownership. Though many of these antiquities were found by treasure hunters or tomb raiders, and sold illegally to museums, countries of origin would have less interest in retrieving these ancient works if they weren’t extremely valuable. An ancient vase or statue can be as much of a draw for a tourist as the David or Mona Lisa.

Still, illegal trade in antiquities, and treasure hunting, are a worse problem than portrayed in the article. The goal of the article is to illustrate the muddy moral waters of the antiquities trade – but though the trade is ambiguous, tomb raiding is a much worse crime than the writer portrays it.

Carlos Picón, curator of the Greek and Roman department at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, said this:

“In the nineteenth century, it was called treasure hunting – you would go to foreign lands far and wide and you would gather what was going to be destroyed and bring it back to a safe place in the Age of Enlightenment.”

This is so historically inaccurate, I hardly know where to begin. Not only were early treasure hunters and tomb raiders in search of profit, early archaeologists, professional and amateur (most were amateurs in those days) focused heavily on treasures because of the prestige and fortune they would bring. Much of the problem with excavating today in places that had been discovered in the nineteenth century is that the clumsy digging of treasure seekers has destroyed the site. Even the archaeologists then had no regard for real history, but instead devastated what would otherwise have been a rich source of information to get a few gold trinkets. The only people doing any “destroying” were the ones seeking the antiquities in the first place.

I don’t support repatriation of antiquities wholesale, because I believe in a world where we can all share our cultural heritage. I do believe, though, in claims of ownership. Just as an essay I’ve written is “mine,” an ancient Roman statue “belongs” to Italy – the Met has no place owning or selling it, unless they have already bought it in an entirely legal manner. However, just as I wouldn’t mind letting an essay be read by many people or distributed in libraries, I would like to see that statue at the Met, because it makes it more accessible to more parties. Then, perhaps, after a period of ten years or so, the statue can hit the road for a different museum – one in Argentina perhaps, or India. I hope for a system where antiquities can be shared internationally, without the petty claims famous museums or nation-states would put on them. In the world we do live in, though, I would give much more weight to the claims of repatriating countries. That a foreign museum could “own” something it bought from an illegal tomb raider is laughable.

Picón says:

“I thought, Let’s have a case of this sensational glass, because it is a feast to the eyes. I am sorry, but that is not Turkish patrimony, or Italian patrimony. Here am I, a Puerto Rican of French, Spanish, and Italian descent – this is as much my culture as somebody who was born in Florence. Actually, it’s more mine, because I have taken my time to study it.”

I agree that history belongs to us all, particularly given the nebulous nature of the claim of the modern nation-state on historical bloodlines. People move around; it’s hard to tell who is really descended from whom, and it shouldn’t matter all that much anyway. However, while I believe in a universal cultural heritage, I cannot shake the history of tomb raiding, which is imperial powers stealing the heritage of poorer nations. In the nineteenth century, Italy, Greece and Turkey were impoverished countries like Egypt or Iraq today (maybe not so much Iraq). They were the subject of pompous northwestern European treasure hunting expeditions, and had their claim on their own heritage – which, certainly, must at least be equal to that of a Brit or German – taken from them. Not to mention the inherent problem of amateur excavation, where more history is destroyed than recovered.

In many ways, repatriation efforts are small minded and nationalistic. But the illegal antiquities trade, and antiquities ownership by powerful, famous international museums in general, stems from an imperial legacy and promotes the exotic (treasure) over the historical (potsherds and garbage piles). Both are repugnant in their own ways, but between the two, I would rather see Roman art for the Romans.

Picón:

“If I want to spend three wonderful hours learning something about sixth-century China, I don’t want to see their Tupperware. But some archeologists only care about the dirt.”

You’re goddamn right they do. And it’s a step forward.