Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014
Cultural treasures, returning of
Section F. Culture, education and sport
It is difficult to define a cultural treasure, but the Proposition team must have a go, and perhaps nominate a body that will make specific decisions. Treasures can be defined as including relics, documents, artefacts, etc. The British are most under pressure to return many treasures held in the British Museum and so the arguments highlight them and high-profile treasures such as the Parthenon (or Elgin) Marbles from Greece, the Rosetta Stone and artefacts from the Tomb of Tutankhamun from Egypt, and the Benin Bronzes from Nigeria. Other countries, however, can also be included; for example, there are Korean treasures, taken during the Korean War, in the Smithsonian in Washington, DC.
Pros
[1] Cultural treasures leave their country in morally dubious circumstances and therefore should be returned. The majority of artefacts were taken during the Age of Empire, when the European powers believed that they could help themselves to whatever they wanted. Other treasures were stolen or bought from those who had no right to sell them.
[2] At present, the country keeping the cultural treasures is benefiting from them instead of the country of origin and this is unfair. The main benefit is that their population can easily access artefacts — for example, a school trip to the British Museum to see the Rosetta Stone — whereas an Egyptian child would have to be very rich to fly to England to see it. The masses are therefore denied access to their cultural heritage.
[3] The country also benefits from the tourism. Many visitors are attracted to London to see the British Museum and its artefacts such as the Parthenon Marbles. Those tourists then spend money in British restaurants, hotels and shops, thereby benefiting the economy. This money should rightfully be going to the poorer countries from which the objects were stolen. It is a continuation of the practice of getting rich from imperialism. Scholars also locate themselves near the artefacts, so universities are able to attract the top academics and further their reputations.
[4] It is important to have good diplomatic relations with countries around the world and absurd to jeopardise these to play ’finders keepers’. An example of this is the good relations needed with Greece over the arrest in 2001 of British citizens for spying when they took photos of Greek planes. The consequently poor relationship with Greece meant that British citizens suffered.
[5] Artefacts in a case in the British Museum cannot be understood or appreciated as they could be if they were to be seen in context. For example, would it not be better to walk into Tutankhamun’s tomb and see the artefacts there, or to see the Parthenon Marbles in the Parthenon? Such a context would improve the experience for tourists and academics alike.
[6] The majority of the British Museum’s collection is in storage and not on display. The Tun-huang statues are not on display in the British Museum — in Malaysia they would be given pride of place. Artefacts that do not matter to the British can be significant in their country of origin and should be displayed there for the world to appreciate them.
[7] Cultural treasures are an important part of a culture. They are tangible evidence of heritage and traditions and can act as unifying symbols and objects of national pride. They often also carry a religious significance. Glasgow returned the Sioux ’ghost shirt’ because the city recognised its holy importance.
Cons
[1] This policy is very difficult to apply in practice. First, how do you define a cultural treasure — who would decide and where do you draw the line? Second, what happens when there are diverse claims (e.g. the Mona Lisa — painted by an Italian, but important to French culture for hundreds of years)? Third, what happens when that culture does not exist anymore (e.g. Incas, Ancient Egyptians, Aztecs, etc.)? Fourth, do authorities still return the treasure if there was a legitimate sale? Fifth, what if an item of cultural significance is not country-based; for example, an important Muslim artefact or an important example of an architectural or artistic school? Finally, would one return treasures to politically unstable regimes?
[2] Cultural treasures belong to the world. Great works of art, artefacts from ancient civilisation or items of political significance are relevant and significant to all of humanity. The fact that it was sculpted on your doorstep does not make it most relevant to you — especially when the civilisations have changed (as with Greece and Italy). Ancient Greece and Rome set up all of Western civilisation — the treasures are not more significant to modern- day Greece and Italy than they are to Britain or France.
[3] Because cultural treasures belong to the world, we should have the best access for the world. Cities such as London are a huge draw for tourists, so many people from around the world can see and enjoy the treasures while on a visit. Such cities also have the infrastructure to support these tourists and their viewing, and London is safe in a way that countries like Egypt and Ethiopia are not.
[4] We can guarantee that these treasures will be preserved in London — we cannot guarantee that in countries such as Nigeria or Afghanistan. If they fail to preserve them, due to either economic pressures or political strife, then the artefacts would be lost for the whole world.
[5] There is a legal principle of ownership. Many artefacts were acquired in good faith. If we insist they go back, what does that mean for ownership? If you were an art collector or a museum, would you risk buying a Monet if you thought in the future it might be taken from you and sent back to France?
[6] The British Museum has been preserving these artefacts for centuries. Without this, they would have been ruined. When Elgin took the marbles, the Parthenon was in disarray. The British saved the artefacts and have spent a fortune on them over the years — why should they now be punished?
[7] These artefacts represent an important part of British cultural heritage — the empire and the exploration and excavation periods. For example, school children in the UK study Howard Carter and the discovery of Tutankhamun. Objects can become important to their host country while their country of origin values them less.
Possible motions
This House would return cultural treasures to their country of origin.
This House believes that the British should return the Parthenon Marbles to Greece.
This House believes in ’Finders keepers, losers weepers’.
Related topics
Arts funding by the state, abolition of
Indigenous languages, protection of