Egypt wants the
Rosetta stone back. Nigeria wants the Benin bronzes.
Greece wants the
Elgin marbles. And
Scotland's SNP wants the return of the
Lewis chessmen. The common denominator? The originals are in the
British Museum, acquired or purloined from centuries of
Empire, conquest and political manoeuvring.
Finders keepers, losers weepers.
Advocates of the restitution of treasures to their country of origin mention national pride, historical injustice, and contextual meaning provided by place. Promoters of the
status quo talk about the difficulty of the logistics of moving ancient objects, the threat of fragmentation of the world's great collections, and the resulting loss to academia.
So who's right? The distribution of artefacts is an early kind of
globalisation. If globalisation is the movement of people to seek available work and resources, then countries biggest assets are their
populations. Why not decide on the best locations for international treasures based on their safety for future generations where most people can see them? If terrorist attack is a tangible threat (e.g. the
Afghan buddhas), then artefacts should not be returned? If global warming threatens the lie of the land (e.g.
South Pacific treasures) then the goodies should be looked after elsewhere. In an era of
carbon footprint awareness, perhaps the greatest treasures should be the things to travel rather than the people? And custodianship should be in the gift of a global body, say
UNESCO, rather than any national government, but experts from each relevant country would play key advisory roles in preserving artefacts for future generations.
Let's put the boot on the other foot. How would the
British like it if
Stonehenge was relocated to
California? How would the
Americans cope if the
Liberty bell was the star attraction at the
Louvre in
Paris? How would the
Chinese feel about the
Terracotta army being rehoused in
Russia? It doesn't make sense, yet that's what has happened in similar cases throughout the ages, with only the passage of time taking off the edge off the absurdity.
Tourism has to be balanced with natural justice. Wouldn't it be great if world collections that may lose control of work that wasn't theirs to keep encouraged the development of their own indigenous culture, invited guest, itinerant exhibitions from other countries to fill the gap, and displayed magnificent copies of treasures to satisfy the memory of historical displacement (e.g. the
Roman antiquity copies at the Victoria and Albert museum in
London)?
