The obligation to repatriate

column last Tuesday

The 1970 UNESCO convention on the trafficking of cultural property commits its signatories, including the United States, Egypt, China, Britain and France, to the repatriation of illegally acquired antiquities. Legislation in individual countries also regulates the trade in cultural property; present laws in Egypt and Greece, for example, effectively prohibit the export of any and all antiquities. Beyond laws, a country also has claims on its own heritage that outweigh the collector’s thirst and the foreign museum’s usefulness. Historically, antiquities were acquired in times of war, invasion, destruction or devastation; the cultural enrichment of a few countries came from the impoverishment of others. Repatriation is a form of restitution, whether the theft was recent or distant. Out of respect to these legal and ethical claims, the Princeton University Art Museum returned eight objects and transferred titles to seven others to Italy in 2007.

The fear that museums would hemorrhage antiquities after one rightful repatriation is unjustified. Convincing a museum to repatriate a single exhibit is often difficult, even when the antiquities have been looted or improperly acquired. In 2008, for example, the Louvre refused to return wall fragments from the TT15 tomb at Thebes, despite documentation of the intact wall confirming the theft, until Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities halted the museum’s Saqqara excavations. Likewise, the Yale Peabody Museum refused to return a temporary loan of Peruvian artifacts for over a century, only capitulating when Peru took the museum to court. It should be noted that when a monument or artifact has been broken into fragments and sold, as in the case of the wall paintings in TT15 or the Parthenon, restoring the fragments to their original context and wholeness only increases our appreciation of them.

Applbaum is incorrect in claiming that repatriating antiquities would mean removing them from museums and reducing public access to them. Many of the countries requesting repatriation, including Mexico, Egypt, Turkey, Italy and China, have excellent museums of their own. His description of these countries as “geographical and cultural ghettos” is condescending and inaccurate. Repatriation requests are often motivated by a country’s desire to make its cultural heritage available to its own people. In most countries that have suffered and continue to suffer extensive cultural theft, relatively few people can afford to travel to the American and European museums where major pieces of their heritage are on display. In 2010 the per-capita gross domestic product of Great Britain, where the Rosetta Stone is displayed, was $35,000; in Egypt, it was $6,200. The plane ticket between these countries is likely to be more affordable in one than the other. A long-term loan of the Rosetta Stone to Egypt would permit, without loss to the British Museum, millions of Egyptians to view a cornerstone of their history for the first time.

One of the stronger arguments against repatriation is that the security and means for preservation in the requesting countries are sometimes subpar. During the recent revolts in Egypt, archaeological sites and magazines at Saqqara, Abusir and Memphis were looted, and several museums in Cairo were attacked. But our responsibility to these security failures should not be to pat ourselves on the back for wisely refusing to return their antiquities. It is easy to approach the problem of preservation from a paternalistic point of view. But it is better to offer freely, when and where it is needed, our help in safeguarding a country’s museums and archaeological sites, by monitoring the traffic of antiquities over national borders, donating security systems and equipment or sending experts in conservation. By doing so we would discourage looting, improve cultural institutions around the globe, strengthen our relations with other countries and contribute to the maintenance of our world’s cultural heritage.

In this postcolonial world, we must recognize the sovereignty of other states not only in self-government but also in the management of their cultural patrimonies. While recognizing the importance of the legal acquisition of antiquities by museums, we cannot forget our obligations to those countries that have been plundered of their pasts, and we ought, where it is legally or ethically required of us, to repatriate — to render unto Egypt what is Egypt’s.

Lily Yu is an English major from West Windsor, N.J. She interned at Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities in 2009. She can be reached at eyu@princeton.edu.