The Changing Attitudes towards Restitution

The Changing Attitudes towards Restitution
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date
The Changing Attitudes towards Restitution
Introduction
Antiquities have remained one of the most visible manifestations of people's unique identity and cultural aspects. The cultural heritage of a group is manifested in its artifacts that have survived to date. Without such antiquities, it is challenging to deconstruct how the past was for the ancestors. Artifacts have become a source of wonder and curiosity for the research community and the general public (Macdonald, 2011). People go to museums and exhibitions to look at antiquities from different parts of the world that depict different historical periods. At the same time, antiquities have become a source of contention when used to eliminate the communities. During colonialism in the 18th and 19th centuries, the massive displacement of antiquities in the colonized territories became a reason for the looting and trading of the items. The scientific community exchanged antiquities, displacing them from their countries of origin into European museums. When the former colonies gained independence, the people demonstrated the need to recover their heritage by repossessing the antiquities. Most importantly, the former colonies have demonstrated the need to get their cultural objects scattered in different museums worldwide. Since the 1960s, there has been a massive call for the restitution of antiquities, but something has been met with resistance. Despite the challenges in the restitution of antiquities, museums are changing their attitude towards restitution and accepting to return objects to their rightful owners.
Restitution in International Law
When dealing with the restitution of antiquities, it is essential to consider international law. Under international law, restitution demonstrates a state’s responsibility for reparation from wrongful acts committed by other states. According to Article 35 of the International Law Commission (ILC), restitution implies reestablishing a situation before the unlawful act was done. Article 36 further elaborates that restitution is a primary remedy for reparation (Crawford, Peel & Olleson, 2001). However, compensation occurs where the damage caused cannot be made good via restitution. ILC considers restitution vital because it allows the responsible state to deal with the legal and material results of its wrongful acts by re-establishing the situation that would exist if the act had not been done.
The long-held tradition of the right to conquest led to the idea of looting an enemy’s resources, including artifacts. Looting an enemy’s cultural artifact was celebrated during the Roman era. The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 ended the plundering of cultural artifacts for European sovereigns (Patton, 2019). In the 18th century, European nations almost abandoned the looting of cultural artifacts. The countries urged each other to desist from plundering such objects. This came about due to the change in the perception of justice and reasonableness, which limited the traditional right of conquest.
The need for Restitution
Restitution is critical because it is a major milestone toward recovering part of the memory and identity of the people whose ancestors created them (Ndiaye, 2019). Objects taken from Africa were created by ancestors who wanted to preserve certain memories for generations. The ancestors created the antiquities for a purpose, something the colonialists ignored. Instead, the Europeans took advantage of their superiority to forcefully remove these objects from their rightful owners. Restitution is meant to restore the lost memories of the subsequent generations in the various colonies (Tythacott & Ardiyansyah, 2021). It serves as a means through which people can reconnect with memories.
Additionally, restitution promotes a group’s national identity. The inability of a group to access and control its antiquities lessens its bonds. Repatriation of antiquities is a basic human right since if a group loses part of its cultural heritage, all humanity suffers (Marstine, 2008). In the postcolonial context, restitution is often linked to the efforts to strengthen the cultural and national identity of the people in the previously colonized nations. When these objects are delivered in the hands of their rightful owners, they allow the people to experience the material embodiment of the glorious past. Such a feeling creates a sense of belonging to a particular group (Tythacott & Ardiyansyah, 2021). The visual manifestation of antiquities stimulates personal connections that create national sentiments. The emotional attachment that results from the restitution of antiquities leads to collective national memory. As a result, individuals develop a sense of national identity since they can demonstrate that they share a common past.
Example of Museums that have Restituted Stolen Items
Despite the opposition restitution faces from some scholars and European museums, there have been shifting attitudes towards the same. The changing attitude favoring restitution has been influenced by numerous reports that continue to spark debates on the issue. Sarr, Savoy, Maréchal & Négri's (2018) report demonstrated that European museums have an overwhelmingly large percentage of Africa’s collections. The report indicated that this had left the countries of origin with nothing to show. The report noted that most African objects were obtained through questionable procedures prevailing at the time. Other scholars like Camara (2020) indicate that antiquities constitute national and regional cultural heritage, creating an identity for the people. The researcher calls for the restitution of artifacts held in European museums to their countries of origin. Around the world, museums recognize the need to restitute items in their catalog that were stolen from other countries. In addition, where museums discover items acquired from individuals accused of trafficking antiquities, they are more willing to return such items, in as much as they acquired they paid for.
a) ACM’s Restitution of Hindu goddess Uma Parameshvar
On 19th October 2015, ACM, under the supervision of the National Heritage Board (NHB), returned the 11th-century bronze sculpture of the Chola dynasty. The sculpture depicts the Hindu goddess Uma Parameshvar, which dates back to the Chola dynasty. In 2007, ACM purchased the sculpture from Art of the Past for $650,000which Subhash Kapoor operated (National Heritage Board, 2015). The art dealer was accused of smuggling Indian antiquities into the US. In 2012, ACM received reports through the international media that the sculpture could be subject to a criminal court case in New York regarding art smuggled from India. Following the news, the NHB invited the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), the Indian government body overseeing antiquities, to Singapore for a discussion. ASI requested documentary evidence of the sculpture’s purchase, which ACM provided. ACM also allowed ASI to inspect 29 other objects previously acquired from Art of the Past. On 16th June 2015, ASI requested the return of the sculpture. On reviewing the proof, ACM concluded that no evidence supported that the art was stolen from the Shiva temple in Tamil Nadu, India.
However, ACM considered the confession of Aaron Freedman, an Art of the Past manager, where he identified the sculpture as one of the 150 stolen objects (National Heritage Board, 2015). ACM demonstrated that it acquired the work legally and ethically. The museum purchased the sculpture in good faith and followed all the procedures. However, the restitution was in response to the strong ties NHB has with Indian cultural institutions. It may be possible that the museum acquired antiques legally from credible sources at the time. However, when confronted with evidence that the particular item belongs to a specific country, the actions of NHB and ACM demonstrate that museums are willing to return such items.
b) Horniman Museum and Gardens Restitution of Benin Bronze
The Horniman Museum and Gardens announced on 7th August 2022 announce the transfer of 72 objects to the Nigerian government. The objects were looted in 1897 from Benin City, now Edo State's capital in the south. At the time, a British military operation was taking place in the city, where thousands of artworks belonging to the Benin Kingdom were stolen and taken to the UK. The Horniman Museum and Gardens feels the decision is moral and appropriate since the objects were acquired through force (Sottile, 2022). True ownership belongs to the people of Nigeria; hence, the Horniman Museum and Gardens took a bold step towards working with Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments (NNCMM).
c) The Smithsonian Institute’s National Museum of African Art
In November 2021, the Smithsonian Institute’s National Museum of African Art removed all its Benin bronze from the exhibition (Hickley, 2021). On its display, the museum had 21 objects obtained forcefully from the Kingdom of Benin. The museum acknowledged the need to repatriate the objects back to Nigeria.
d) The University of Aberdeen and Cambridge University’s Jesus College
In February 2022, the University of Aberdeen and Cambridge University’s Jesus College restituted two Benin Bronze (CNN, 2022). The items were part of those stolen from Benin City when the British invaded the Benin Kingdom.
Other Initiatives towards Restitution
a) The Jailing of Artifact Traffickers
The Indian authorities, on November 1, 2022, sentenced Subhash Kapoor and some of his accomplices to 10 years in prison because of leading a ring that smuggled more than 2,600 individual objects valued at more than $143 million (Nayyar, 2022). In 2011, Interpol flagged and detained Kapoor in Germany and later extradited him to India for further investigation and trial. Since then, several museums went ahead and started repatriation of objects purchased through Kapoor. The dealer’s looting network is thought to have falsified ancient artifacts’ authentication before selling them to museums (Solomon, 2022). The arrest and imprisonment of Kapoor is a wake-up call that museums are taking the issue of illegal trafficking of antiquities seriously. Authorities worldwide are cooperating to track down and stop illegal artifact dealers from proceeding with their operations.
b) International Calls for Restitution
On September 30, 2022, cultural ministers and representatives from 150 nations committed to returning artifacts to their countries of or...