Repatriation (cultural property)

Repatriation

Subclass of	restitution, recovery
Facet give	art, recovery

Repatriation be de return of de cultural property, often referring to ancient anaa looted art, to ein country of origin or former owners (anaa dema heirs).

De disputed cultural property items be physical artifacts of a group or society taken by anoda group, usually insyd de act of looting, whether insyd de context of imperialism, colonialism, or war. De contested objects vary widely den include sculptures, paintings, monuments, objects such as tools or weapons for purposes of anthropological study, den human remains.

De Napoleonic looting of art be confiscations of artworks den precious objects by de French army or officials. After Napoleon ein defeat, some looted artworks were returned to their country of origin, according de Treaty of Paris, among them de Horses of Saint Mark, repatriated to Venice.

Insyd de early 21st century, debates about de colonial context of acquisitions by Western collections have centered both around arguments against den insyd favor of repatriations. Since de publication of de French report on de restitution of African cultural heritage insyd 2018, these debates have gained new international attention den have led to changes regarding de public role of museums den to restitutions on moral rather than merely legal grounds.

Background

War den looting

Ancient world

War den de subsequent looting of defeated peoples have been common practice since ancient times. De stele of King Naram-Sin of Akkad, which be now displayed insyd de Louvre Museum insyd Paris, be one of de earliest works of art known to have been looted insyd war. De stele commemorating Naram-Sin ein victory insyd a battle against de Lullubi people insyd 2250 BCE be taken as war plunder about a thousand years later by de Elamites who relocated it to ein capital insyd Susa, Iran. There, it be uncovered insyd 1898 by French archaeologists.

De Palladion be de earliest den perhaps most important stolen statue insyd western literature. De small carved wooden statue of an armed Athena served as Troy ein protective talisman, which be said to have been stolen by two Greeks who secretly smuggled de statue out of de Temple of Athena. E be widely believed insyd antiquity dat de conquest of Troy was only possible because de city had lost ein protective talisman. Dis myth illustrates de sacramental significance of statuary insyd Ancient Greece as divine manifestations of de gods dat symbolized power den were often believed to possess supernatural abilities. De sacred nature of de statues be further illustrated insyd de supposed suffering of de victorious Greeks afterward, wey include Odysseus, who be de mastermind behind de robbery.

According to Roman myth, Rome be founded by Romulus, de first victor to dedicate spoils taken from an enemy ruler to de Temple of Jupiter Feretrius. Insyd Rome ein many subsequent wars, blood-stained armor den weaponry be gathered den placed insyd temples as a symbol of respect toward de enemies ein deities den as a way to win dema patronage. As Roman power spread throughout Italy where Greek cities once reigned, Greek art was looted den ostentatiously displayed insyd Rome as a triumphal symbol of foreign territories brought under Roman rule. However, de triumphal procession of Marcus Claudius Marcellus after de fall of Syracuse insyd 211 be believed to have set a standard of reverence to conquered sanctuaries as it engendered disapproval by critics den a negative social reaction.

According to Pliny de Elder, de Emperor Augustus be sufficiently embarrassed by de history of Roman plunder of Greek art to return some pieces to ein original homes.

A precedent for art repatriation be set insyd Roman antiquity when Cicero prosecuted Verres, a senate member den illegal appropriator of art. Cicero ein speech influenced Enlightenment European thought den had an indirect impact on de modern debate about art repatriation. Cicero ein argument uses military episodes of plunder as "case law" den expresses certain standards when e come to appropriating cultural property of anoda people. Cicero make a distinction between public den private uses of art den what be appropriate for each den he sanso asserts dat de primary purpose of art be religious expression den veneration. He sana sets standards for de responsibilities of imperial administration abroad to de code of ethics surrounding de collection of art from defeated Greece den Rome insyd wartime. Later, both Napoleon den Lord Elgin would be likened to Verres in condemnations of ein plundering of art.

Looting during Napoleon's Empire

De Napoleonic looting of art be confiscations of artworks den precious objects by de French army, or officials, insyd de territories of de First French Empire, wey include de Italian peninsula, Spain, Portugal, de Low Countries, den Central Europe. De scale of plundering was unprecedented insyd modern history, de only comparable looting expeditions taking place insyd ancient Roman history. Insyd fact, de French revolutionaries justified de large-scale den systematic looting of Italy insyd 1796 by viewing demaselves as de political successors of Rome, insyd de same way that ancient Romans saw themselves as the heirs of Greek civilization. Na dem sanso support dema actions with de opinion dat ein sophisticated artistic taste would allow them to appreciate de plundered art. Napoleon ein soldiers crudely dismantled de art by tearing paintings out of ein frames hung insyd churches den sometimes causing damage during de shipping process. Napoleon ein soldiers appropriated private collections den even de papal collection. De most famous artworks plundered include de Bronze Horses of Saint Mark insyd Venice (itself looted from de Sack of Constantinople insyd 1204) den de Laocoön den His Sons insyd Rome (both since returned), plus de latter then being considered de most impressive sculpture.

De Laocoön had a particular meaning for de French because e be associated plus a myth insyd connection to de founding of Rome. When de art be brought into Paris, de pieces arrived insyd de fashion of a triumphal procession modeled after de common practice of ancient Romans.

Napoleon ein extensive plunder of Italy be criticized by such French artists as Quatremère de Quincy (1755–1849), who circulated a petition dat gathered de signatures of fifty oda artists. Plus de founding of de Louvre museum insyd Paris insyd 1793, Napoleon ein aim was to establish an encyclopedic exhibition of art history, which later both Joseph Stalin den Adolf Hitler attempted to emulate insyd ein respective countries.

Napoleon continue ein art conquests insyd 1798 wen na he invade Egypt in an attempt to safeguard French trade interests den to undermine Britain ein access to India via Egypt. Na ein expedition insyd Egypt be noted for de 167 "savants" na he take plus am wey dey include scientists den oda specialists den equip plus tools for recording, surveying den documenting ancient den modern Egypt den ein natural history. Among oda things, na de expedition discoveries include de Rosetta Stone den de Valley of de Kings near Thebes. Na de French military campaign be short-lived den unsuccessful den de majority of de collected artifacts (wey dey include de Rosetta Stone) be seized by British troops, ending up insyd de British Museum. Nonetheless, na de information gathered by de French expedition na dem soon after publish am insyd de chaw volumes of Description de l'Égypte, wich include 837 copperplate engravings den over 3,000 drawings. In contrast to de disapproving public reaction to de looting of Italian works of art, na de appropriation of Egyptian art see widespread interest den fascination thru out Europe, wey dey incite a phenomenon wich cam to be called "Egyptomania". A notable consequence of looting be ein ability to hinder contemporary repatriation claims of cultural property to a country anaa community of origin. A process wey dey require proof of theft of an illegal transaction, anaa dat de object originate from a specific country, fi be difficult to provide if de looting den subsequent movements anaa transactions be undocumented. For example, insyd 1994 na de British Library acquire Kharosthi manuscript fragments wey e since refuse to return dem unless dem fi identify dema origin (Afghanistan, Pakistan, anaa Tajikistan), of wich na de library einself be unsure.

Repatriation after de Napoleonic Wars

Art be repatriated for de first time insyd modern history when Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington returned to Italy art dat had been plundered by Napoleon, after ein den Marshal Blücher ein armies defeat de French at de Battle of Waterloo insyd 1815. Dis decision contrasted sharply to a long-held tradition to de effect dat "to de victors go de spoils." Dis be remarkable considering dat insyd de battle of Waterloo alone, de financial den human costs be colossal; de decision to not only refrain from plundering France but to repatriate France ein prior seizures from de Netherlands, Italy, Prussia, den Spain, be extraordinary. Moreover, de British paid for de restitution of de papal collection to Rome because de Pope could not finance de shipping einself. When British troops begin packing up looted art from de Louvre, there be a public outcry insyd France. Crowds reportedly try to prevent de taking of de Horses of Saint Mark den there were throngs of weeping ladies outside de Louvre Museum. Despite de unprecedented nature of dis repatriation effort, there be estimations only about 55% of what be taken be actually repatriated: de Louvre Director at de time, Vivant Denon, send out many important works to oda parts of France before de British fi take dem. Chaw works remain insyd French museums, such as de Louvre, de Bibliothèque Nationale insyd Paris or oda collections insyd France. Wellington viewed einself as representing all of Europe ein nations den he believe dat de moral decision would be to restore de art insyd ein apparently proper context. Insyd a letter to Lord Castlereagh he write:

De Allies then, having de contents of de museum justly insyd ein power, could not do otherwise than restore them to de countries from which, contrary to de practice of civilized warfare, they had been torn during de disastrous period of de French revolution den de tyranny of Bonaparte. ... Not only, then, would it, insyd my opinion, be unjust insyd de Sovereigns to gratify de people of France on dis subject, at de expense of ein own people, but de sacrifice they would make would be impolitic, as e will deprive them of de opportunity of giving de people of France a great moral lesson.

Wellington sana forbid pilfering among ein troops as he believed dat e lead to de lack of discipline den distraction from military duty. He held de view dat winning support from local inhabitants be an important break from Napoleon ein practices.

De great public interest insyd art repatriation help fuel de expansion of public museums insyd Europe den launch museum-funded archaeological explorations. De concept of art den cultural repatriation gain momentum through de latter decades of de twentieth century, den begin to show fruition by de end of de century, when key works dey return to claimants.

20th den 21st centuries

Looting by Germany during de Nazi era

One of de most infamous cases of art plundering insyd wartime be de Nazi appropriation of art from both public den private holdings throughout Europe den Russia. De looting begin before World War II plus illegal seizures as part of a systematic persecution of Jews, which dey include as a part of Nazi crimes during de Nuremberg Trials. During World War II, Germany plundered 427 museums insyd de Soviet Union den ravaged or destroyed 1,670 Russian Orthodox churches, 237 Catholic churches den 532 synagogues.

Looting insyd Iraq after de fall of de Saddam Hussein regime

A well-known recent case of wartime looting be de plundering of ancient artifacts from de National Museum of Iraq insyd Baghdad at de outbreak of de war insyd 2003. Although dis be not a case insyd which de victors plundered art from ein defeated enemy, e be result of de unstable den chaotic conditions of war dat allowed looting to happen den which some will argue be de fault of de invading US forces.

Archaeologists den scholars criticize de US military for not taking de measures to secure de museum, a repository for a myriad of valuable ancient artifacts from de ancient Mesopotamian civilization. Insyd de several months leading up to de war, scholars, art directors, den collector meet plus de Pentagon to ensure dat de US government will protect Iraq ein important archaeological heritage, plus de National Museum insyd Baghdad being at de top of de list of concerns. Between 8 April, when de museum dey vacate den 12 April, when some of de staff returned, an estimated 15,000 items den an additional 5,000 cylinder seals be stolen. Moreover, de National Library be plundered of thousands of cuneiform tablets den de building dey set on fire plus half a million books insyd; fortunately, na preserve chaw of de manuscripts den books. Na a US task force be able make e retrieve about half of de stolen artifacts by organizing den dispatching an inventory of missing objects den by declaring dat der no go be punishment for anyone returning an item. In addition to de vulnerability of art den historical institutions during de Iraq war, na Iraq ein rich archaeological sites den areas of excavated land (Iraq be presumed to possess vast undiscovered treasures) e fall victim to widespread looting. Na hordes of looters disinter enormous craters around Iraq ein archaeological sites, sometimes using bulldozers. Dem estimate na dem despoil dat between 10,000 den 15,000 archaeological sites insyd Iraq.

Legal issues

National government laws

United States

Insyd 1863 US President Abraham Lincoln summon Francis Lieber, a German-American jurist den political philosopher, to write a legal code to regulate Union soldiers ein behavior toward Confederate prisoners, noncombatants, spies den property. De resulting General Orders No.100 or de Lieber Code, legally recognized cultural property as a protected category insyd war. De Lieber Code had far-reaching results as e become de basis for de Hague Convention of 1907 den 1954 den dey lead to Standing Rules of Engagement (ROE) for US troops today. A portion of de ROE clauses instruct US troops not to attack "schools, museums, national monuments, den any oda historical or cultural sites unless they be used for a military purpose den pose a threat".

Insyd 2004 de US passed de Bill HR1047 for de Emergency Protection for Iraq Cultural Antiquities Act, which allows de President authority to impose emergency import restrictions by Section 204 of de Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CCIPA). Insyd 2003, Britain den Switzerland put into effect statutory prohibitions against illegally exported Iraqi artifacts. Insyd de UK, de Dealing insyd Cultural Objects Bill be established insyd 2003 dat prohibited de handling of illegal cultural objects.

United Kingdom

Repatriation insyd de UK has been highly debated insyd recent years, however there be still a lack of formal national legislation dat expressly outlines general claims den repatriation procedures. As a result, guidance on repatriation stems from museum authority den government guidelines, such as de Museum Ethnographers ein Group (1994) den de Museums Association Guidelines on Restitution den Repatriation (2000). Dis means dat individual museum policies on repatriation can vary significantly depending on de museum ein views, collections den other factors.

De repatriation of human remains be governed by de Human Tissue Act 2004. However, de Act itself does not create guidelines on de process of repatriation, it merely states e be legally possible for museums to do so. Dis again highlights dat successful repatriation claim insyd de UK are dependent on museum policy den procedure. One example include de British Museum ein policy on de restitution of human remains.

International conventions

De Hague Convention of 1907 aimed to forbid pillaging den sought to make wartime plunder de subject of legal proceedings, although insyd practice de defeated countries did not gain any leverage insyd ein demands for repatriation. De Hague Convention of 1954 for de Protection of Cultural Property insyd de Event of Armed Conflict take place insyd de wake of widespread destruction of cultural heritage insyd World War II den be de first international treaty of a worldwide vocation dey focus exclusively on de protection of cultural heritage insyd de event of armed conflict.

Irini Stamatoudi suggest dat de 1970 UNESCO convention on prohibiting den preventing illicit import den export and de 1995 UNIDROIT convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects be de most important international conventions related to cultural property law.

UNESCO

De 1970 UNESCO Convention against Illicit Export under de Act to implement de convention (de Cultural Property Implementation Act) allowed for stolen objects to be seized, if there be documentation of it insyd a museum or institution of a state party, de convention sanso encourage member states to adopt de convention insyd dema own national laws. De following agreement insyd 1972 promoted world cultural den natural heritage.

De 1978 UNESCO Convention strengthened existing provisions; de Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting de Return of Cultural Property to ein countries of origin or ein restitution insyd case of illicit appropriation be established. E dey consist of 22 members elected by de General Conference of UNESCO to facilitate bilateral negotiations for de restitution of "any cultural property which has a fundamental significance from de point of view of de spiritual values den cultural heritage of de people of a Member State or Associate Member of UNESCO den which has been lost as a result of colonial or foreign occupation or as a result of illicit appropriation". E sana created to "encourage de necessary research den studies for de establishment of coherent programmes for de constitution of representative collections insyd countries, whose cultural heritage has been dispersed".

In response to de Iraqi National Museum looting, UNESCO Director-General, Kōichirō Matsuura convened a meeting insyd Paris on 17 April 2003, to assess de situation den coordinate international networks insyd oda to recover de cultural heritage of Iraq. On 8 July 2003, Interpol den UNESCO signed an amendment to ein 1999 Cooperation Agreement insyd de effort to recover looted Iraqi artifacts.

UNIDROIT

De UNIDROIT (International Institute for de Unification of Private Law) Convention on Stolen or Illicitly Exported Cultural Objects of 1995 called for de return of illegally exported cultural objects.

Customary international law

Catharine Titi suggests dat states ein attitudes to de repatriation of cultural property have changed dramatically insyd de last few years den that, as a consequence, a new rule of international law dey emerge wey dey require de return of important cultural property to ein country of origin, if na dem be unlawfully anaa unethically removed.

Cultural heritage insyd international contexts

Colonialism den identity

From early on, de field of archaeology be deeply involve insyd political endeavors den insyd de construction of national identities. Dis early relationship can be seen during de Renaissance den de proto-Italian reactions against de High Gothic movement, but de relationship become stronger during 19th century Europe when archaeology become institutionalized as a field of study furnished by artifacts acquired during de New Imperialism era of European colonialism. Colonialism den de field of archaeology mutually supported one anoda as de need to acquire knowledge of ancient artifacts justified further colonial dominance.

As further justification for colonial rule, de archaeological discoveries sana shape de way European colonialists identified plus de artifacts den de ancient people who made them. Insyd de case of Egypt, colonial Europe ein mission be to bring de glory den magnificence of ancient Egypt closer to Europe den incorporate be into knowledge of world history, or better yet, use European history to place ancient Egypt insyd a new spotlight. Plus de archaeological discoveries, ancient Egypt be adopted into de Western historical narrative den came to take on a significance dat had up until dat time been reserved for ancient Greek den Roman civilization. De French revolutionaries justified de large-scale den systematic looting of Italy insyd 1796 by viewing einself as de political successors of Rome, insyd de same way dat ancient Romans see einself as de heirs of Greek civilization; by de same token, de appropriation of ancient Egyptian history as European history further legitimated Western colonial rule over Egypt. But while ancient Egypt become patrimony of de West, modern Egypt remain a part of de Muslim world. De writings of European archaeologists den tourists illustrate de impression dat modern Egyptians be uncivilized, savage, den de antithesis of de splendor of ancient Egypt.

Museums furnished by colonial looting have largely shaped de way a nation imagines ein dominion, de nature of de human beings under ein power, de geography of de land, den de legitimacy of ein ancestors, working to suggest a process of political inheriting. E be necessary to understand de paradoxical way insyd which de objects on display at museums be tangible reminders of de power hold by those who gaze at dem. Eliot Colla describes de structure of de Egyptian sculpture room insyd de British Museum as an assemblage dat "form[s] an abstract image of de globe plus London at de center". De British Museum, as Colla describes, presents a lesson of human development den progress: "de forward march of human civilization from ein classical origins insyd Greece den Rome, through Renaissance Italy, to modern-day London".

De restoration of monuments be often made insyd colonial states to make natives feel as if insyd ein current state, they be no longer capable of greatness. Furthermore, sometimes colonial rulers argued dat de ancestors of de colonized people do not make de artifacts. Some scholars sana argue dat European colonialists use monumental archaeology den tourism to appear as de guardian of de colonized, reinforcing unconscious den undetectable ownership. Colonial rulers use peoples, religions, languages, artifacts, den monuments as source for reinforcing European nationalism, which be adopted den easily inherited from de colonial states.

Nationalism den identity

As a direct reaction den resistance to colonial oppression, archaeology sana be use for de purpose of legitimating de existence of an independent nation-state. For example, Egyptian Nationalists utilized ein ancient history to invent de political den expressive culture of "Pharaonism" as a response to Europe's "Egyptomania".

Some argue dat insyd colonized states, nationalist archaeology be used to resist colonialism den racism under de guise of evolution. While e be true dat both colonialist den nationalist discourse use de artifact to form mechanisms to sustain ein contending political agendas, der be a danger insyd viewing them interchangeably since latter be a reaction den form of resistance to de former. On de oda hand, e be important to realize dat insyd de process of emulating de mechanisms of colonial discourse, de nationalist discourse produced new forms of power. Insyd de case of de Egyptian nationalist movement, de new form of power den dey mean dat surrounded de artifact furthered de Egyptian independence cause but continued to oppress de rural Egyptian population.

Some scholars argue dat archaeology can be a positive source of pride insyd cultural traditions, but can sana be abused to justify cultural or racial superiority as de Nazis argue dat Germanic people of Northern Europe be a distinct race den cradle of Western civilization dat was superior to de Jewish race. Insyd oda cases, archaeology allows rulers to justify de domination of neighboring peoples as Saddam Hussein use Mesopotamia ein magnificent past to justify de Iraqi invasion of Kuwait insyd 1990.

Some scholars employ de idea dat identity be fluid den constructed, especially national identity of modern nation-states, to argue dat de post-colonial countries have no real claims to de artifacts plundered from ein borders since ein cultural connections to de artifacts are indirect den equivocal. Dis argument asserts dat artifacts should be viewed as universal cultural property and should not be divided among artificially created nation-states. Moreover, dat encyclopedic museums be a testament to diversity, tolerance den de appreciation of chaw cultures. Oda scholars will argue dat dis reasoning be a continuation of colonialist discourse attempt to appropriate de ancient art of colonized states den incorporate it into de narrative of Western history.

Cultural survival den identity

Insyd settler-colonial contexts, many Indigenous people dat have experienced cultural domination by colonial powers dey begin to request de repatriation of objects dat be already insyd de same borders. Objects of Indigenous cultural heritage, such as ceremonial objects, artistic objects, etc., dey end up insyd de hands of publicly den privately hold collections which were often given up under economic duress, taken during assimilationist programs anaa simply stolen. De objects be often significant to de Indigenous ontologies possessing animacy den kinship ties. Objects such as particular instruments used insyd unique musical traditions, textiles use insyd spiritual practices or religious carvings have cult significance be connected to de revival of traditional practices. Dis means dat de repatriation of these objects be connected to de cultural survival of Indigenous people historically oppressed by colonialism.

Colonial narratives surrounding "discovery" of de new world have historically result insyd Indigenous people dema claim to cultural heritage being rejected. Instead, private den public holders have worked towards displaying dese objects insyd museums as a part of colonial national history. Museums often argue dat if objects be to be repatriated they would be seldom see den not properly taken care of. International agreements such as de 1970 UNESCO Convention against Illicit Export under de Act to implement de convention (de Cultural Property Implementation Act) often no dey regard Indigenous repatriation claims. Instead, these conventions focus on returning national cultural heritage to states.

Since de 1980s, decolonization efforts dey result insyd more museums attempt to work plus local Indigenous groups to secure a working relationship den de repatriation of dema cultural heritage. Dis be result insyd local den international legislation such as de Native American Graves Protection den Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) den de 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects which take Indigenous perspectives into consideration insyd de repatriation process. Notably, Article 12 of UNDRIP states:

Indigenous peoples have de right to manifest, practise, develop den teach ein spiritual den religious traditions, customs den ceremonies; de right to maintain, protect, den have access insyd privacy to ein religious den cultural sites; de right to de use den control of ein ceremonial objects; den de right to de repatriation of ein human remains. States shall seek to enable de access and/or repatriation of ceremonial objects and human remains in their possession through fair, transparent den effective mechanisms developed insyd conjunction plus indigenous peoples concerned.

De process of repatriation has often been fraught plus issues though, result insyd de loss anaa improper repatriation of cultural heritage. De debate between public interest, Indigenous claims den de wrongs of colonialism be de central tension around de repatriation of Indigenous cultural heritage.

Controversies

De repatriation debate

De repatriation debate be a term referring to de dialogue between individuals, heritage institutions, den nations who have possession of cultural property den those who pursue ein return to ein country or community of origin. E be suggested dat many points insyd dis debate center around de legal issues involve such as theft den de legality of acquisitions den exports, etc. Two main theories seem to underpin de repatriation debate den cultural property law: cultural nationalism den cultural internationalism. These theories emerged den developed following de creation of many international conventions, such as de 1970 UNESCO Convention den de 1995 UNIDROIT Convention, den act as de foundation of contradicting opinions regarding de transport of cultural objects. However, de dual theory of cultural internationalism den cultural nationalism be on de decline.

Cultural internationalism

Cultural internationalism has links to imperialism den decontextualization den suggests dat cultural property be not tethered to one nation den belongs to everybody. Calls for repatriation can therefore be dismissed since they be often request when a nation declares ownership of an object, which according to dis theory be not exclusive.

Some critics den even supporters of dis theory seek to limit ein scope. For example, proponent of cultural internationalism John H. Merryman dey suggest dat make dem no export unauthorized archaeological discoveries as information go be lost wey dem go remain intact if na dem stay wer dem be discovered.

E dey further argue dat dis theory has close resemblance to de 'universal museums' theory. Following a series of repatriation claims, leading museums issued a declaration detailing de importance of de universal museum. De declaration argue dat over time, objects acquired by de museums have become part of de heritage of dat nation den dat museums work to serve people from every country as "agents insyd de development of culture". E be on dis justification dat many repatriation requests be denied. A notable example dey include de Greek Parthenon marbles housed at de British Museum.

Cultural nationalism

Cultural nationalism has links to retentionism, protectionism, den particularism. Following de 1970 UNESCO Convention den de 1995 UNIDROIT Convention, cultural nationalism become more popular than ein opposing internationalist theory.

Under de theory of cultural nationalism, nations seek to withhold cultural objects as dema own heritage den actively seek de return of objects dat be abroad (illegally anaa unethically). Cultural nationalists suggest dat keeping den returning objects to dema country of origin tethers de object to ein context den therefore dey override ein economic value (abroad).

Both cultural nationalism den internationalism can be used to justify de retention of cultural property depending on de point of view. Nations of origin seek retention to protect de wider context of de object as well as de object einself, whereas nations who acquire cultural property seek ein retention secof dem wish to preserve de object if der be a chance e go be lost if transported.

De repatriation debate often dey differ on case-by-case basis due to de specific nature of legal den historical issues wey dey surround each instance. Most of de arguments dem commonly use be discussed insyd de 2018 Report on de Restitution of African Cultural Heritage by Felwine Sarr den Bénédicte Savoy. Dem fi be summarized as follows:

Arguments against repatriation

• Artifacts be a part of human history, den encyclopedic museums like de British Museum, Louvre den Metropolitan Museum of Art cultivate de dissemination of knowledge, tolerance, den broad cultural understanding. James Cuno dey suggest dat repatriation claims be arguments against dis encyclopedic promise.
• Artifacts be frequently excavated or uncovered by looters, who bring to light a piece of artwork dat will otherwise never have been found; foreign-led excavation teams have uncovered items dat contribute to cultural knowledge den understanding.
• Nationalist retentionist cultural property laws claiming ownership be founded on constructed boundaries of modern nations plus weak connections to de culture, spirit, den ethnicity of de ancient peoples, who produced those works.
• Cultural identities be dynamic, inter-related den overlapping, so no modern nation-state can claim cultural property as ein own without promoting a sectarian view of culture.
• Having artwork disseminated around de world encourages international scholarly den professional exchange.
• Encyclopedic museums be located insyd cosmopolitan cities such as London, Paris, Berlin, Rome anaa New York, den if de artworks dey to be moved, they would be seen by far fewer people. For instance, if de Rosetta Stone be to be moved from The British Museum to The Cairo Museum, de number of people, who view it, would drop from about 5.5 million visitors to 2.5 million visitors a year.

Arguments for repatriation

• Encyclopedic museums such as de British Museum, Musée du Louvre den Metropolitan Museum of Art be established as repositories for looted art during imperial den colonial rule, den thus be located insyd metropolitan cities out of view den reach of de cultures from which dem be appropriated.
• Na precedence of repatriated art already be set insyd many cases, but de artworks dat museums currently refuse to repatriate be often dema most valuable den famous artworks.
• Na foreign-led excavations justify colonial rule den vice versa; insyd de pursuit of obtaining knowledge about de artifacts, na der be a need to establish control over de artifacts den de countries, wer dem be located.
• De argument dat art be a part of universal human history be a derivative of colonial discourse dat appropriated de art of oda cultures into de Western historical narrative.
• De encyclopedic museums dat house much of de world ein artworks den artifacts be located insyd Western cities den privilege European scholars, professionals den people, while at de same time excluding people insyd de countries of origin.
• De argument dat artwork will not be protected outside of de Western world be hypocritical, as much of de artwork transported out of colonized countries be crudely remove, often damaged den sometimes lost insyd transportation. De Elgin marbles for example, be damaged during de cleaning den "preservation" process. As another example, de Napried, one of de ships commissioned by di Cesnola to transport approximately 35,000 pieces of antiquities dat he had collected from Cyprus, be lost at sea carrying about 5,000 pieces insyd ein cargo.
• Art be best appreciated den understood insyd ein original historical den cultural context. Following de return of cultural property, de intangible meaning den aspects of dat culture sana return, dis may promote de return of intangible traditions den educate future generations insyd indigenous communities.
• Art taken out of de country as a spoil of war, by looting, den as a deliberate act of colonialism, be unethical, even if dis be not explicitly reflected insyd legislation. De possession of artwork taken under these conditions be a form of continued colonialism.
• De lack of existing legal recourse for claiming de return of illicitly appropriated cultural property be a result of colonization. Michael Dodson notes dat colonization has taken "our distinct identities den cultures".
• Art be a symbol of cultural heritage den identity, den de unlawful appropriation of artworks be an affront to a nation ein pride. Moira Simpson suggest dat repatriation help indigenous communities renew traditional practices dat be previously lost, dis be de best method of cultural preservation.
• Susan Douglas den Melanie Hayes note dat national collections often have fixed practices, like collecting den owning cultural objects, which can be influenced by a colonial structure.
• Following de repatriation of cultural objects den ancestral remain, indigenous communities may begin to heal by connecting de past den de present.

De 'New Stream' theory (Indeterminacy)

Pauno Soirila argue dat de majority of de repatriation debate be stuck insyd an "argumentative loop" plus cultural nationalism den cultural internationalism on opposing sides, as evidenced by de unresolved case of de Parthenon marbles. Introducing external factors be de only way to break am. Na introducing claims center around communities dema human rights lead to increased indigenous defense den productive collaborations plus museums den cultural institutions. While human rights factors alone cannot resolve de debate, e be a necessary step towards a sustainable cultural property policy.

International examples

Australia

Australian Aboriginal cultural artefacts as well as people have been de objects of study insyd museums; many be taken insyd de decades either side of de turn of the 20th century. There has been greater success plus returning human remains dan cultural objects insyd recent years, as de question of repatriating objects be less straightforward dan bringing home ancestors. More dan 100,000 Indigenous Australian artefacts dey hold insyd over 220 institutions across de world, of which at least 32,000 be insyd British institutions, include de British Museum den de Victoria & Albert Museum insyd London.

Australia get no laws directly governing repatriation, buh der be a government programme wey dey relate to de return of Aboriginal remains den artefacts, de International Repatriation Program (IRP), administer by de Department of Communications and the Arts. Dis programme "dey support de repatriation of ancestral remains den secret sacred objects to dema communities of origin to help promote healing den reconciliation" den dey assist community representatives work towards repatriation of remains insyd various ways.

Gweagal man Rodney Kelly den others have been working to achieve de repatriation of de Gweagal Shield den Spears from de British Museum den de Museum of Archaeology den Anthropology, University of Cambridge, respectively. Jason Gibson, a museum anthropologist working insyd Central Australia, notes how der be a lack of Aboriginal authority surrounding collections den so protocols have instead been made by non-Indigenous professionals.

De matter of repatriation of cultural artefacts such as de Gweagal shield be raised insyd federal parliament on 9 December 2019, receiving cross-bench support. Plus de 250th anniversary of Captain James Cook ein landing looming insyd April 2020, two Labor MPs called on de government to "establish a process for de return of relevant cultural den historical artefacts to de original custodians den owners".

Returns

De Return of Cultural Heritage program run by de Australian Institute of Aboriginal den Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) begin insyd 2019, de year before de 250th anniversary of Captain James Cook ein first voyage to Australia. De program dey work toward de return of a number of de approximately 105,000 identified object hold by foreign institutions.

Insyd late October 2019 de first collection of many sacred artefacts hold insyd US museums be return by Illinois State Museum. Forty-two Aranda (Arrernte) den Bardi Jawi objects remove from central Australia insyd 1920 be de first group. De next phase of de project will repatriate 40 culturally significant objects from de Manchester Museum insyd de UK, which will be returned to de Aranda, Ganggalidda, Garawa, Nyamal den Yawuru peoples. AIATSIS project leader Christopher Simpson say they hoped that de project could evolve into an ongoing program for de Federal Government. Insyd November 2019, de objects be returned from Manchester Museum, which include sacred artefacts collect 125 years earlier from de Nyamal people of de Pilbara region of Western Australia. Manchester Museum return 19 sacred objects to de Arrernte people during de COVID-19 pandemic, which finally be celebrated insyd May 2021. Anoda 17 items hold at de Kluge-Ruhe Aboriginal Art Collection at de University of Virginia sana due to be returned to a number of Aboriginal nations. Four items insyd de Auckland Institute den Museum insyd New Zealand be to be returned to de AIATSIS at de end of 2022. Belonging to de Waramungu people, they be collected by Baldwin Spencer insyd de early 20th century. Insyd September 2023, Manchester Museum has returned 174 artefacts to Indigenous Australian people. De director for culture den emergencies at UNESCO say "May dis occasion be a source of inspiration, encouraging odas to embark on similar journeys."

While communities note de positive impact of returning bones of ancestors back to ein country of origin, some sana declare it has provoked tensions insyd communities e.g. de requirement of legal title of land to bury them den determining who has de authority to perform traditional ceremonies.

Keeping Places be Aboriginal community-managed places for de safekeeping of cultural artefacts, often include repatriated cultural material along plus oda local cultural heritage items anaa knowledge.

Belgium

Insyd Belgium, de Royal Museum of Central Africa (aka. Africa Museum) houses de largest collection of more than 180,000 cultural den natural history objects, mainly from de former Belgian Congo, today ein Democratic Republic of de Congo (DRC). As part of ein first major renovation insyd more an a 100 years, a new approach of "decolonization" towards de presentation of cultural heritage insyd de museum has been carried out. To dis end, de public collections of de Africa Museum have been complemented by elements of contemporary life insyd de DRC. Saana, Belgian sculptures showing Africans insyd a colonial context have been relegated to a special room on de history of de collections. De influence of de discussion insyd France has sana led to announcements to change de relevant laws den to intensify cooperation plus representatives of African countries.

Canada

De Haisla totem Pole of Kitimat, British Columbia be originally prepared for chief G'psgoalux insyd 1872. Dis aboriginal artifact de donated to a Swedish museum insyd 1929. According to de donor, he had purchased de pole from de Haisla people while he lived on de Canadian west coast den served as Swedish consul. After being approached by de Haisla people, de Swedish government decided insyd 1994 to return de pole, as de exact circumstances around de acquisition be unclear. De pole be returned to Kitimat insyd 2006 after a building had been constructed insyd order to preserve de pole.

During de 1988 Calgary Winter Olympics, de Glenbow museum receive harsh criticism for ein display "De Spirit Sings: Artistic Traditions of Canada ein First People". Initially, de criticism be due to de Olympic ein association plus Shell Oil who were exploring oil den gas insyd territories contested by Lubicon Cree. Later Mowhawk would sue de Glenbow museum for de repatriation of a False Face Mask they had displayed arguing dat they considered be to be of religious ceremonial significance. De museum do not listen to de Indigenous claim den brought de issue to court. Glenbow won de be able to display de mask but de controversy highlighted de ways insyd which museums have often dismissed de living cultures they should be working plus. Dis led to a movement to improve de involvement of Indigenous people insyd ein representation insyd museums. De Canadian Museums Association den Assembly of First Nations lead a Task Force on Museums den First Peoples. De task force will publish de report Turning de Page insyd 1992 dat put forward a series of findings which would help improve Indigenous involvement insyd de museum process. Among these was a focus on creating a partnership between Indigenous people den de museum curators which involves allowing Indigenous people into de planning, research den implementation of collections. Museums be urged to sana improve ongoing access to de collections den training for both curators den Indigenous people who want to be involved insyd de process. Finally, an emphasis be placed on repatriation claims of human remain, locally held objects (using practice customary to de Indigenous people in question) den foreign objects dem hold.

Insyd 1998, over 80 Ojibwe ceremonial artifacts be repatriated to a cultural revitalization group by De University of Winnipeg. De controversy come as dis group be not connected to de source community of de objects. Some of de objects be later return but many be still missing.

De Buxton Museum den Art Gallery insyd England repatriated items to Haida Gwaii den de Siksika Nation peoples. De Museum returned de items as part of ein initiative to return Native American den First Nation artefacts.

Works dem cite

• Anderson, Benedict (2006). Imagined Communities. Verso. pp. 163–186. ISBN 978-1-84467-086-4.
• Colla, Elliot (2007). Conflicted Antiquities: Egyptology, Egyptomania, Egyptian Modernity. Duke University Press.
• Cuno, James (2008). Who Owns Antiquity? The Battle Over Our Ancient Heritage. Princeton University Press.
• Diaz-Andreu, M. (1993). "Theory and Theology: Spanish Archaeology under the Franco Regime". Antiquity. 67: 74–82. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00045075. S2CID 163485510.

• Kohl, Philip; Fawcett, Clare (1995). Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge University Press. pp. 3–18.
• Miles, Margaret M. (2008). Art as Plunder: The Ancient Origins of Debate About Cultural Property. Cambridge University Press.
• Moss, Paul (16 January 2009). "Masada legend galvanises Israel". BBC. Retrieved 6 November 2010.
• Said, Edward (1994). Orientalism. Vintage Books.
• Silberman, N.A. (1982). Digging for God and Country. Knoph, New York.

Read further

Books

• Herman, Alexander (2021). Restitution: The Return of Cultural Artefacts. London: Lund Humphries. ISBN 978-1-84822-536-7.
• Jenkins, Tiffany (2016). Keeping Their Marbles: how the treasures of the past ended up in museums – and why they should stay there. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-965759-9.
• Merryman, John Henry (2006). Imperialism, Arts and Restitution. Cambridge University Press.
• Reid, Donald Malcolm (2002). Whose Pharaohs?: archaeology, museums, and Egyptian national identity from Napoleon to World War I. University of California Press.
• Schuhmacher, Jacques (2024). Nazi-Era Provenance of Museum Collections: A Research Guide (PDF). London: UCL Press. ISBN 978-1-80008-689-0.

• Subotic, Jelena (2026). The Art of Status: Looted Treasures and the Global Politics of Restitution (in English). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-890975-0.
• Titi, Catharine (2023). The Parthenon Marbles and International Law. Springer. ISBN 978-3-031-26356-9.
• Waxman, Sharon (2008). Loot: The Battle Over the Stolen Treasures of the Ancient World. Times Books. ISBN 978-0-8050-8653-9.

Online

• Sullivan, Ann Marie (2016). "Cultural Heritage & New Media: A Future for the Past" (PDF). John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 15 (3): 604.

Art repatriation

• The Return Address: Where Does Heritage Belong? (2020, dir. Issabella Orlando) Documentary Film

• Discussion of ethics Archived 8 September 2019 at the Wayback Machine
• 2006 article from the University of Wisconsin

Looted art

• San Francisco Chronicle, 2003 article on repatriation of looted art
• Attempts to locate looted art in British regional museums
• Quedlinburg Art Affair

Cultural repatriation

• US National Park Service on International Repatriation
• Return of Aboriginal Australian remains from England
• Smithsonian cultural repatriation program