Theft and obfuscation are open secrets in the antiquities exchange. With more calls than ever for restitution, how can we make sure to place artifacts most responsibly?
An unfortunate preface to this conversation: when an item of historical significance is procured by theft at any point in time, it becomes a statistic in this problem. Alongside looters, the illicit trade is equally so empowered by the individuals and institutions who either keep looted pieces or resell them with little or no regard to whom they are going. TL;DR: an artifact simply being available – especially by auction – doesn’t mean it should go to just anyone, except to a rightful museum (or otherwise to professionals to negotiate its placement). And yet, these invaluable pieces are being trafficked by the thousands every day.
As with any market, the trade of looted pieces takes place both horizontally and vertically; that is, there is a hierarchy to the circulation, which includes layman collectors all the way up to museums and other prestigious institutions. It sounds bad when you put it that way – because it is – but unfortunately, museums around the world are still harboring certain artifacts which were only made available by looting. While this isn’t exactly a secret, it is something we’ve unfortunately normalized because, well, history does belong to everyone, right?
Sure, appreciating history is a privilege which should be afforded to everyone – but ownership on the actual artifacts themselves is quite literally another story. Enough crucial pieces have gone missing, wrongly so, from civilizations past that the descendant peoples cannot even begin to take count of what they have lost. Imperialism is one example of historic theft; and of course, this is a transgression on a massive scale which only recently ended in the grand scheme of the human story. Antiquities were stolen in such large numbers during imperial years that returning any of them in the present day is breaking news. It was deemed a “historic first move” just this past Wednesday when France initiated legislation to return 27 pieces to Senegal and Benin; 27 “trophies” France had stolen during colonization. By all means, this is a hopeful sign for years to come – but we’re at the beginning of a long road, and you could deduce that just from the tone of that one article by itself.
However wrong it is for those in power to keep hold of looted antiquities, we know at the very least that these pieces are generally in the hands of scholars (which we can only hope to one day return the objects to their rightful place). But the severity of the situation broadens when we account for the thousands more items being up for sale to just anybody. Yes – there are objects known to be stolen openly available for sale by auction houses online. Take Bonham’s in Britain, for example, who oversaw the auction of a 2,500-year-old Greek wine jug in 2010. Bonham’s was given word prior to the sale that the artifact was being sold by a convicted (!) trafficker (!) – but they went ahead and permitted the sale anyway. Nine years lapsed in full before the Greek jug was submitted to another sale in Munich – and, thankfully, was withdrawn after leading antiquities experts alerted police.
How can we be better stewards over the antiquities? How can we most ethically determine who has the property rights for historic pieces? The answer to this question (and so many others in the arts/antiquities wheelhouse) boils down to provenance.
Discerning the rightful ownership for any single artifact is naturally challenging as it comes with hundreds (or thousands) of years in ownership and exchange. We already know that scholars work through a rigorous process to evaluate and ascertain provenance – but exactly which attributes of the object dictate whether it should go to this museum or to that royal household? Do some of these attributes precede others?
Below is a limited outline of the endlessly complicated questions which scholars are tasked to answer:
- Culture of origin: by which people (and inside which political borders) was the object produced? Who and where are these people today?
- Procurement: when, where, and in what context was the item removed from its place of origin (and circulated thereafter)?
- Significance: what is this item’s turn in the historical conversation, both inside and outside its place of origin?
- Rightful ownership: based on the above, must the artifact be returned? Or, may it be rightfully kept on a “finders-keepers” basis?
Most often, there is no singular cut-and-dry answer for any of these questions. It only makes sense, then, that the antiquities exchange continues in trails of moral and amoral complexity, which the general public quite frankly cannot be bothered with. It’s a major reason why France and other powers have kept hold on so many once-looted artifacts with little or no international controversy.
So where do we go from here? Well, we have to be optimistic about France’s movement toward restitution (however slow this movement may be). Optimism aside, raising awareness is always the next best step; so we have to take these small increments of progress for what they are worth, keep holding these institutions accountable, and inspire change elsewhere.
In the meantime, Present Preservation will continue to follow the story on France’s legislation from both a legal and ethical standpoint. Related stories and editorials are available below:
Nigeria challenges Christie’s over “looted” treasures
Present Preservation 