General Treatment: Museums as Intermediaries in Repatriation

Introduction

Museums that focus on the art, archaeology, history and cultures of the Central and East Mediterranean, including the Middle East and North Africa, have long been immersed in debate and controversy regarding the repatriation or restitution of objects in their collections to their countries and communities of origin. The role of museums in repatriation is a complex cultural, legal, and moral topic that cannot be tackled easily or comprehensively. This is especially the case given the closely intertwined challenges of nationalism, political diplomacy, and community discourse that run parallel to such claims and events (Merryman 2006; Tythacott and Avantis 2014). Repatriation has become a significant concern for museums that may have acquired art objects and artifacts through donation, purchase, and occasionally by force or as spoils of war. Museums containing significant collections from archaeological fieldwork have typically received fewer repatriation claims largely because of a key difference in how these collections were formed and subsequently managed – usually through formalized and legal divisions or partage agreements with antiquities authorities or governments (Kersel 2015).

Egypt, Turkey, Greece, and Italy are the most prominent “source countries” in the Mediterranean calling for repatriation of archaeological objects and artworks, typically from Northern European and North American museums within the so-called traditional “market countries.”¹ Other countries involved in repatriation, although at a less intensive scale, include Israel, Jordan, the Palestinian Territories, and Cyprus.

Most repatriation claims relate to objects acquired from private collections or purchased on the antiquities market that are suspected to have been looted, stolen, or illegally exported from their country of origin. Repatriation claims involving museums have tended to focus on the larger and more prestigious institutions, in part because their acquisitions have been made possible due to the availability of considerable funds, or relationships with high-profile collectors and donors. These museums are important because, as institutions that often share a public service mandate, they are also subject to a high level of interest and scrutiny by the media, their visitors, the scholarly community, and the wider world. Repatriation events are typically negative media stories for museums, as they can indicate and suggest complicity in unethical or improper acquisition practices that may have supported a wider illicit trade. Yet the tide has turned as many museums have turned repatriation into a positive opportunity for public relations and international cooperation.

This essay reviews repatriation events from Northern European and North American museums to Mediterranean countries through a number of case studies. It provides examples of recent success stories, and indicates how museums can play a more active role in building good relations with countries and communities, and greater public awareness of repatriation and acquisition practices.

To Retain or Return?

The debate concerning the repatriation of objects from museums is closely tied to the ways in which such objects have been acquired in the first place. The ability for museums to avoid future repatriation events is connected to their adherence to laws and ethical guidelines in respect to the acquisition of antiquities that lack known provenance.

Colin Renfrew (2000) is one of the most active proponents against the looting of archaeological sites—illustrating connections between the illicit antiquities market and the acquisition of unprovenanced antiquities by museums, including examples that have subsequently been repatriated. He indicates the futility of acquiring antiquities without context: “unprovenanced antiquities that have been ripped from their archaeological context without record… can tell us little that is new” (Renfrew 2000: 9). The impact of looting on the archaeological record has nevertheless intensified in recent decades (Brodie et al. 2006; Cunliffe, Muhesen, and Lostal 2016; Desmarais 2015; Parcak et al. 2016), and sadly shows little sign of abating.

James Cuno (2008, 2011) has argued in favor of collectors and universal museums wishing to continue to acquire antiquities lacking archaeological provenance. He argues that objects without context retain important art historical information and rich ownership histories. Objects lacking archaeological provenance can therefore have historical, cultural, and aesthetic value within an encyclopedic museum setting. Cuno is critical of archaeologists who support the UNESCO 1970 convention and the nationalistic agendas of the countries that they work within. While he...