The world is very different place today from what it was fifty or even twenty-five years ago. Digital communications technology, the internet, the end of communism, are just a few of the factors that have combined to bring about that phenomenon we know as globalisation. In recent years enormous and unprecedented levels of wealth have been generated, new middle classes have emerged in China, India, Russia and elsewhere. We've also seen new levels of instability in the world as terrorism has emerged as a global threat. Such momentous economic and geopolitical shifts were sure to have an impact on culture. As a result, some are now arguing that cultural property claims by developing nations represent a new and dangerous strain of nationalism.

Before outlining some of the more interesting aspects of this complex and increasingly global issue, I'll just briefly run through a very small selection of significant repatriation cases to demonstrate the diversity of objects and circumstances this topic embraces. And I'll include here examples of cases that were satisfactorily returned as well as some that are yet to be resolved. Forgive the speed with which I'll move through these, but time is limited and there are other issues I want to draw attention to.

Image 2 — The New Acropolis Museum  

So, the Parthenon Marbles remain the most important repatriation issue. Paradoxically they have become even more problematic since the Greeks completed their new Acropolis Museum in Athens, designed by the Swiss-American architect Bernard Tschumi and due to open officially in a couple of months time. The erection of the new museum removed one of the central planks of the British Museum's historical case for retaining the Marbles, namely that the Greeks were incapable of looking after the objects to the required standard because they had no proper museum in which to house them. That argument no longer holds water and so the British Museum has shifted its position to concentrate on other lines of attack and defence.

Image 3 —  The ivory Queen Idia & The Benin Brasses
Although the Parthenon Marbles are an international issue insofar as they impact on Greek communities the world over, they are also international in that fragments of the Acropolis sculptures are dispersed across a number of European and North American museums. This is also true of the Benin brasses, ivories, and other regal objects looted by the British from the Benin Kingdom in West Africa in 1897. Today there are significant collections of Benin works in the British Museum which olds 900 examples, the vast majority of which are languishing in storage, the Horniman Museum in South London, the Ethnology Museum in Berlin and at the Art Institute of Chicago, to name just a few. Museum in Berlin and at the Art Institute of Chicago, to name just a few.

Image 4 — British Soldiers from the Punitive Expedition

What makes the Benin issue so particular in the eyes of those seeking their return is that it represents one of the darkest aspects of the colonial era, namely the subjugation of weak, undeveloped nations and the appropriation of their indigenous natural resources and cultural objects by violent means. And here I’m showing an image of the British Punitive Expedition of 1897 when the treasures of the Benin kingdom were removed by force and brought back to London. They were eventually auctioned off and dispersed to various museums and private collections around the world. And here you can see British soldiers posing with ivory tusks and other looted material.
The museums that are refusing to return the Benin brasses generally reply, "That was then, this is now" and insist that the crimes of the past cannot be erased by a simple act of return. In an echo of the Marbles issue, they also argue that Benin is incapable of responsible stewardship of such important objects. And it is worth bearing in mind that many Nigerians and natives of Benin itself agree with this position, acknowledging that until corruption is eradicated and good governance installed, the objects are better off in their current Western locations. I add this point to illustrate that the repatriation debate is far from simple and a full understanding requires that we measure the nuances and identify the grey areas rather than see it as black and white.

Image 5 — The Axum Obelisk in Rome, 2002

Not every issue is unresolvable. Here you can see the Obelisk of Axum, an 80-foot high granite stela weighing 160 tons and dating from around the 4th century AD. It was made in the Kingdom of Aksum, an ancient Ethiopian civilisation and was perhaps used as a marker for an underground burial chamber. It was looted by Italian soldiers in 1937, during Mussolini's conquest of Ethiopia and taken back to Rome as a spoil of war where it was used by the fascist regime to commemorate the birth of what Mussolini saw as the "new Roman empire". Although Italy agreed in 1947 to return the object under the auspices of a United Nations charter, it was not until 2003 that the process of dismantling the obelisk began.

Image 6 - Axum Obelisk returned

The pieces were returned to Ethiopia in April 2005 and re-erection finally began in June 2008, supervised by UNESCO. What makes the Axum Obelisk such an iconic and encouraging instance of successful repatriation is that it brought together a number of nations in a process of warm cultural cooperation, all parties united by a determination to overcome numerous logistical, financial and other barriers. It remains a shining example of what can be achieved through cultural diplomacy when both sides enter into discussion without prejudice or preconditions. 

Image 7 — Marischal Museum, Aberdeen, Returns Sacred Headdress

In 2003, the Marischal Museum at the University of Aberdeen repatriated a horned head-dress with an eagle feather trailer to the Blood Tribe in Canada. The head-dress was identified by members of the Blood Tribe during a visit to Aberdeen in November 2002, after which they submitted a request for its repatriation. Neil Curtis, Senior Curator of the Marischal Museum said at the time, "Unlike many repatriation requests, this has been marked by understanding and friendship on both sides and has had a very positive outcome for us all. The museum has learnt much more about the head-dress and traditional life on the Plains. I hope that the museum's care of the head-dress has contributed to the strengthening of Blood cultural traditions and that its return will be the beginning of new links between Aberdeen and one of the First Nations of Canada." Randy Bottle, a member of the Horn Society of the Blood Tribe, said, "We are very fortunate to have located another one of our sacred bundles. This will ensure that future generations can continue the practices and teachings, which are important to our people. We have developed a very positive relationship with the Museum and will be working with the Museum to strengthen the appreciation of our culture in Scotland."

Image 8 — Manchester Museum repatriates Aboriginal skulls  

Also in 2003, Manchester Museum repatriated five Aboriginal skulls to a delegation of tribal elders who returned them to their traditional homelands in the state of Victoria for burial in a sacred place. Brought to Britain over a century ago by early white settlers, as gruesome souvenirs, for experimental purposes, or as scientific curios, such remains are a burning political issue in Australia. Aborigines believe the spirits of these people cannot rest until their bones are laid in their native ground, nor can they be free if the remains are separated. This is where anthropology, sociology and science are conscripted into debates about museum diplomacy. Many scientists argue against the return of human remains on the grounds that they represent invaluable research material, potentially offering insights into human origins. However, a recent study estimated that as much as 80 per cent of UK museum collections remains in storage. In numerous instances objects removed from far-flung regions during the colonial period have never been catalogued, let alone researched, indeed in many cases have never seen the light of day. Tristram Besterman, director of the Manchester Museum at the time of the repatriation, told me, that as far as could be established, the museum had never received a single request from scientists to inspect the remains. This was brought into consideration when deciding to repatriate.  

Image 9 – Parthenon Marbles, BM Facade

Now let's go back to the Parthenon Marbles. I think it’s important to make clear that very few of those seeking the repatriation of the Marbles have a desire to see every single cultural object of even vaguely problematic status in European and North American museums returned to their country of origin. But many directors of the world's most prominent museums continue to argue that this is the covert aim of those arguing for their return. They insist that another agenda is at work — one that seeks to denude Western museums of their rich collections. In this line of thinking – repeated just a few days ago by the great, great, great grandson of Lord Elgin himself – the Marbles are merely the tip of an iceberg which, if conceded, would lead to an uncontrollable proliferation of similar demands for repatriation leading to the stripping bare of western museums. This has become known as the "floodgates" argument, for obvious reasons. You might note that this is tantamount to admitting that Western museums are chock full of objects of dubious provenance or which were unlawfully acquired. But leaving that aside, all the evidence suggests that the floodgates would not open for there is no similar case to the Parthenon Marbles. That issue is unique in its history and implications. There are numerous examples of objects being happily reunited with their source communities but rarely if ever can one point to these directly giving rise to similar claims as if it were some kind of restitution bandwagon that every nation is desperate to jump onto. Indeed I would argue that resisting proper constructive discussion is more likely to encourage further claims as source nations look to litigation in order to have their case heard. However, when a museum is enlightened enough to embark upon the diplomatic route this often leads to improved cultural relations and creative cooperation between the returning museum and the source community making the claim. When the opposite occurs and requests are met with patrician disdain occasionally bordering on the outright racist, a cultural Cold War ensues. This has often been the case with the London Athens dispute.

Now you will have gathered that this process is anything but easy. Every case needs to be taken on its merits. As we've seen, the process is often straightforward and positive. But occasionally it is fraught with difficulties. What happens, for example, when a museum is approached by a community or nation who seek the return of sacred remains and who express a desire to destroy or bury them for ritual or other sacred reasons once they are returned, as was the case with the Manchester Museum Aboriginal heads mentioned above?

Such requests are often refused on the grounds that human remains are better off as a source of human knowledge in a museum environment. But often they simply end up in storage. What function do they fulfill in this vacuum? How can we justify the cost of safeguarding them? Are we safeguarding them if we don't know what they are? Is it not insulting to hold on to them when the countries from which they were taken want them back for whatever reason? These are all questions that bear on this debate and which help explain why it has become one of the most contentious issues in global cultural relations.

Image 12 – Euphronius krater

Moreover we are now in a new world. Museums cannot resist indefinitely the increasingly clamorous claims on their collections from source countries. Only recently the Metropolitan Museum in New York was effectively forced to return the ancient Greek wine-mixing vessel known as the Euphronios krater (shown here) back to Italy when indisputable evidence was forthcoming that it had been illegally exported during the 1970s. It was a source of embarrassment and chagrin to the Met, but to its credit the museum did the right thing and returned it (although the prospect of unseemly litigation may have concentrated their minds). As the Euphronios krater issue revealed, there is plenty of evidence that progress is happening, particularly in instances where enlightened museum directors such as Tristram Besterman are providing strong, progressive leadership for their institutions and surrounding communities.

Less constructive, however, is the intransigent and often combative position adopted by the directors of encyclopedic museums who appear unwilling to enter into constructive dialogue with developing nations over a fairer distribution of historical material culture. Instead, James Cuno argues that so critical is the encyclopedic museum to the development of humanity and the pursuit of human knowledge that every major city, even in developing nations, should have an encyclopedic museum. This is patently ridiculous when even advanced western museums can no longer afford to acquire important objects or run their institutions.

In my view Mr Cuno's position also represents a failure to recognise that for many developing nations the encyclopedic museum is a negative signifier, a symbol of imperial conquest. Last year, Dr Kavita Singh, a professor at Jawarhalal University in New Delhi, wrote an article in the Art Newspaper in which she said: “Western museums are seen outside the west as terrifying places with insatiable appetites for works of art. They are also seen as the arm of a more powerful state, with infinite funds and power at their command. To tell a Bangladeshi protestor that universal museums ‘build bridges across cultures and promote mutual understanding’ would only provoke anger or derision.”

In controlling the rights to the objects in their collections, encyclopedic museums also write and control the stories generated around them. By emphasising their beauty and thereby deflecting attention away from the brutal circumstances in which the Benin brasses were acquired, for example, James Cuno seeks to efface the true provenance of the objects. But to museum visitors, their beauty is self-evident; their history as a trophy of colonial adventure is not.

Similarly, when British Museum director Neil MacGregor says of the Parthenon Marbles, “The life of these objects as part of the story of the Parthenon is over. They can't go back to the Parthenon. They are now part of another story,” he is revealing the autocratic nature of the universal museum as the purveyor of authoritative historical narratives. But those narratives, once thought unassailable and beyond criticism, are now being challenged on a range of different fronts.

In conclusion, we don't need more encyclopedic museums. We need a new and more equitable model for museums in the twenty-first century. There is some evidence that this could happen. But not until we re-think the concept of universality and accept that not everything about the European Enlightenment, was positive or beneficial to the rest of humankind.