Complex issues are raised by the French president Emmanuel Macron’s talk of returning cultural goods in his country’s public collections to their place of origin.
First, there are questions of legal title. In the UK, the ownership of items in state collections is normally vested in the museum’s trustees, but they are subject to statutory restrictions on disposal. So too in other Western countries, including France. But where there are questions as to legal title, as in the case of Jewish-owned properties expropriated or sold under duress between 1933 and 1945, museums and governments must be open to legal challenge. Legislation has provided for this in the UK.
Second, there are questions of ethics. One set of issues concerns the circumstances in which particular items were originally obtained. The retention of items obtained by “looting” or as “spoils of war” must be ethically problematic.
Another set of issues concerns the category of “works of art” and even that of “cultural goods”. Is an object of religious veneration or the skull of an ancestor sufficiently described as a “work of art” or even a “cultural good”? Another ethical consideration might refer to historical change in the places of origin of such goods. What do ancient Near Eastern cultural remains have to do with predominantly Muslim cultures? In what sense is the Pergamon Altar “Turkish”? Do the Parthenon Marbles “belong” to modern Greece any more than they do to Hellenised Europe at large? It may be impossible to formulate ethical principles to cover all such issues in general terms, and it would seem that a case-by-case approach will always be necessary.
Third, there are questions that may be described as “prudential”. There is no doubt that many fragile “cultural goods” owe their survival to their transfer to Western public collections. They may well be exposed to new hazards if they are returned to their place of origin: consider what might have happened in recent years to items returned to Iraq and Syria in the immediate post-colonial period. Will “cultural goods” returned from Western public collections remain in public ownership after they have been returned? Is there any comparably permanent guarantee of appropriate conservation arrangements? It may be politically incorrect to raise such questions, but the risks are real and they should be reckoned with.
Finally, there are questions of access. It has been argued that the presence of an item in a large Western collection guarantees the possibility of intercultural comparison and the mutual enrichment of the understanding and appreciation of each such item. While this argument prompts the question of whether all such items should be regarded simply as “cultural goods”, there is, however, no doubt that Western collections are much more widely accessible to visitors, to experts and, indeed, to pilgrims, than are most museums elsewhere. There is also a sense in which the great Western collections secure access for future audiences and their unanticipated questions: would the discovery of the common African origins of mankind have been possible if every skull and bone had been returned for interment with its ancestors before the discovery of DNA?
Trustees of museums and even parliamentarians are likely to be increasingly exposed to emotionally charged and high-volume calls for the return of cultural goods to their places of origin. Sometimes legal considerations will apply. There are serious ethical issues to be pondered. And at the same time, considerations of prudence, accessibility and preservation for the future must also be taken into account. There should, however, be no place for grandstanding and virtue-signalling.
Robert Jackson is a former UK minister for higher education and science
Rais wa Ufaransa Emmanuel Macron amezungumzia suala la kurudisha vitu vya kitamaduni katika makusanyo ya umma ya nchi yake mahali pa asili. Kwanza, kuna maswali ya haki ya kisheria. Katika Uingereza, umiliki wa vitu katika makusanyo ya serikali ni kawaida vested katika wadhamini makumbusho, lakini wao ni chini ya vikwazo kisheria juu ya kuondoa. Vivyo hivyo katika nchi nyingine za Magharibi, kutia ndani Ufaransa. Lakini pale ambapo kuna maswali kuhusu haki ya kisheria, kama ilivyo katika kesi ya mali ya Wayahudi iliyotwaliwa au kuuzwa chini ya shinikizo kati ya 1933 na 1945, makumbusho na serikali lazima ziwe wazi kwa changamoto ya kisheria. Sheria imetoa kwa ajili ya hili katika Uingereza. Pili, kuna maswali ya maadili. Mfumo mmoja wa masuala unahusu hali ambazo vitu fulani vilipatikana awali. Kuhifadhi vitu vilivyopatikana kwa "kupora" au kama "mali ya vita" lazima iwe na matatizo ya kimaadili. Mfumo mwingine wa masuala unahusu jamii ya "kazi za sanaa" na hata ile ya "vitu vya kitamaduni". Je, kitu cha ibada ya kidini au fuvu la kichwa cha babu hufafanuliwa vya kutosha kuwa "kazi ya sanaa" au hata "mali ya kitamaduni"? Jambo jingine la kimaadili laweza kurejezea badiliko la kihistoria katika mahali pa asili ya bidhaa hizo. Mabaki ya kitamaduni ya Mashariki ya Karibu ya kale yanahusianaje na tamaduni za Kiislamu? Madhabahu ya Pergamo ni ya "Uturuki" katika maana gani? Je, Mawe ya Marumaru ya Parthenon <unk>hupatikana<unk> katika Ugiriki ya kisasa zaidi kuliko yale yanayopatikana katika Ulaya ya Kigiriki kwa ujumla? Inaweza kuwa vigumu kutunga kanuni za maadili ili kufunika masuala yote kama hayo kwa ujumla, na inaonekana kwamba mbinu ya kesi kwa kesi itakuwa daima muhimu. Tatu, kuna maswali ambayo yanaweza kuelezwa kama <unk> prudential<unk>. Hakuna shaka kwamba "vitu vingi vya kitamaduni" visivyo na nguvu vimeokoka kwa sababu ya kuhamishwa kwa makusanyo ya umma ya Magharibi. "Hii inaweza kuwa hatari mpya ikiwa itarudishwa mahali pa asili: fikiria kile ambacho kingeweza kutokea katika miaka ya hivi karibuni kwa vitu vilivyorudishwa Iraq na Syria katika kipindi cha baada ya ukoloni. """ Je, "vitu vya kitamaduni" vilivyorudishwa kutoka kwa makusanyo ya umma ya Magharibi vitasalia katika umiliki wa umma baada ya kurudishwa? Je, kuna dhamana yoyote ya kudumu inayofanana ya mipango ifaayo ya uhifadhi? Huenda ikawa si sahihi kisiasa kuuliza maswali kama hayo, lakini hatari ni halisi na zinapaswa kuzingatiwa. Mwishowe, kuna maswali ya upatikanaji. """Uwepo wa kitu katika mkusanyiko mkubwa wa Magharibi unahakikisha uwezekano wa kulinganisha kati ya tamaduni na utajiri wa pamoja wa uelewa na uthamini wa kila kitu kama hicho." Ingawa hoja hii inauliza swali la kama vitu vyote hivyo vinapaswa kuchukuliwa tu kama "vitu vya kitamaduni", hakuna shaka kwamba makusanyo ya Magharibi yanapatikana kwa wageni, wataalamu na, kwa kweli, kwa waabudu, kuliko makumbusho mengi mahali pengine. "Hata hivyo, kuna maana ambayo makusanyo makubwa ya Magharibi yanahakikisha upatikanaji kwa watazamaji wa baadaye na maswali yao yasiyotarajiwa: ""Je, ugunduzi wa asili ya kawaida ya Kiafrika ya wanadamu ungewezekana ikiwa kila fuvu la kichwa na mfupa ungerudishwa kwa mazishi na mababu zake kabla ya ugunduzi wa DNA?""" "Wafanyakazi wa makumbusho na hata wabunge wanaweza kuwa na wasiwasi zaidi na wito wa ""kurudisha vitu vya kitamaduni mahali pa asili.""" Nyakati nyingine mambo ya kisheria yatatumiwa. Kuna masuala mazito ya kiadili yanayopaswa kufikiriwa. Na wakati huo huo, kuzingatia busara, upatikanaji na uhifadhi kwa ajili ya siku zijazo lazima pia kuzingatiwa. Hata hivyo, hapaswi kuwa na mahali pa kujigamba na kuonyesha wema wa adili. Robert Jackson, Waziri wa elimu ya juu na sayansi wa Uingereza