Laying the Ancestors to Rest: Should museums give back stolen artifacts?

Posted on by Tasha N. Tavaras

For centuries museums have collected, studied, and displayed many artifacts for the purpose of educating the public on the culture of native people. Many of the artifacts have since been found out to have been stolen from these tribes or have been obtained by unethical methods.  This issue has become a topic of contention, turning the eye of the international law community towards some of the most prestigious museums in the country. Recently it was discovered that the world renowned J. Paul Getty Museum was in possession of several artifacts that had been stolen. “Hundreds of objects still in the collection were acquired with false ownership histories aimed at disguising their origins in the illicit antiquities trade, records, and interviews show.” (Felch. 2013) The issues of cultural property extends beyond the walls of the museums and spills out onto the field of battle, “Some 15,000 artifacts were stolen from the national museum in Baghdad by looters in the chaos that followed the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. More than 4,000 have been recovered.” (Alakbhar 2013). Even though there are several issues with cultural repatriation such as Cultural Internationalism and the spoils-of-war philosophy, museums should work to return stolen artifacts to their native lands because the items are integral parts of native culture, because it is illegal, and because it respects the peoples’ ancestors.

The issue of cultural repatriation does not have an easy fix. Along with the belief that only more established nations have the ability to preserve rare and delicate cultural items and the fact that there is no one centralized, mandatory policy to handle repatriation; there is the sticky and much-debated philosophy of Cultural Internationalism and the age old “spoils-of-war” philosophy.

The philosophy of Cultural Internationalism holds that all cultural property is for the interest and enjoyment of everyone wherever it is located and thus is the possession of the global community. Cultural Internationalism also supports the idea that the country which has the best resources should keep these items, as they are the ones who are able to protect and house them properly. In the article Repatriation of Cultural Property: Who Owns the Past? Carol Roehrnbeck states, “In this view, treasures such as Nefertiti’s Bust in the Neues Museum in Berlin and the Elgin Marbles in the British Museum should remain in those respective museums since they are allegedly in a location where they are protected, cared for, and available for all the world to see.” (Roehrnbeck 910). This idea is greatly contested by those people who believe in Cultural Nationalism which is the belief that artifacts belong to the nation in which they were created.

Sacking a city of all its riches has been a wartime staple. There are accounts dating back as early ancient Egypt that tell of the Pharaohs enhancing their personal collections from the plundering of the lands that they conquered. It persisted in the Hundred Years War and the debate on who owns artifacts that were stolen during this conflict still rages on, “But more often than not, the plunder has remained with the plunderer, despite near universal condemnation of the practice by some current belligerents. The Swiss canton of St. Gallen lobbied for years to force Zurich canton to return a 16th-century wooden globe seized in a 1712 invasion, but in 2006 had to settle for a replica.” (Woodard. 2010) This practice has continued through World War II, when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. “From the first day of the war, the Nazis prepared to strip Soviet museums. As early as the summer of 1941, Hans Posse, who was entrusted by Hitler with acquiring a collection for the grandiose museum that the Fuehrer planned to build in his native city of Linz, Austria, chose Von Holst, an expert on the Leningrad collections, to select objects for the museum.” (Akinsha and Kozlov) This act is even evident as late as the looting which happened after the fall of Saddam Hussein, former President of Iraq. “In 2010, a marble slab from Saddam’s palace was advertised on Craigslist in El Paso, Texas. Federal officials, posing as buyers, discovered the slab in a soldier’s garage along with other Saddam-era items.” (Van Der Vaart. 2013).

In the argument on why museums and arts organizations should work to return ancient cultural items that were stolen or gained illegally is the view that to natives these items have a sacred place in their society. Items usually taken are items that are used to further cultural expression and shared identity. These items, while of great historic and anthropological significance, were created for a purpose specific to the tribe who made them and were never meant to be put on display:

“To many people who trace their roots to European cultures, the scientific study or museum preservation of cultural property is considered of great value. It is important, however, to recognize that these views are not necessarily shared by Indigenous peoples. Items of cultural or religious value created by Indigenous peoples were not intended to be placed in museum collections. The removal of cultural materials to museum archives severs the living connection and contact a people has with its works and past.” (Bergman. 2014)

Museums must respect that these items are not just pieces to be studied but are items that keep a people in touch with traditions and culture. Not only do items that were stolen help to foster cultural identity, their loss could have an effect on how the tribes view their environment. The Zuni people of western New Mexico had two Ahayu:da, which are twin war gods stolen from their reservation in the 1880’s by James Stevenson and Frank Hamilton Cushing. These items ended up being a part of a collection of the Smithsonian museum. In 1987, the Smithsonian returned these items back to the Zuni people. After some negotiations, stipulations were placed in order to guarantee the items’ security and ensure that the museum still had access to study them before an agreement for repatriation was reached. The Zuni believe that to remove the Ahayu:da from their shrine “unleashes their powers resulting in wanton destruction and mayhem. The recovery of the Ahyu:da that was wrongfully removed from the Zuni Indian Reservation thus is of grave concern to Zuni religious leaders.” (William, Ladd, Ferguson, et.al. 525).

The possession of cultural property that has been stolen or otherwise gained through unethical means is considered a crime in most areas of the world. Although there exists no worldwide mandatory law to govern cultural property, there are several policies to which countries can voluntarily commit, in order to help control the flow of stolen objects. The most recognized ones are the 1970 UNESCO convention, the Hague Convention of 1954, and the policy that governs the repatriation of Native items and remains, The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation act (NAGPRA).

The 1970 UNESCO Convention resulted in the creation of a voluntary treaty which states that the import, export, or transfer of ownership of cultural property is illegal. The UNESCO Convention added the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, because of the increase in thefts of art museums and archeological sites at the time. The treaty, commonly referred to as the 1970 Convention, requires its participants to establish preventative measures so that no further theft can take place; restitution provisions for items that will be returned, and an internal frame work to ensure communication and cooperation. This treaty ensures that all parties agreeing to this policy are working together to prevent the further removal of cultural property from their countries of origin as well as the restitution of pilfered items to their rightful owners.
The Hague Convention, also called the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, was signed in The Hague Netherlands and states that all who sign it are required to protect cultural property in war. It has been augmented by articles of the Geneva Convention and the Rome Statute. A few articles contained in the Hague Convention are Article 3, which outlines the safeguarding of cultural property; and Article 4, which speaks to the respect of cultural property. The treaty, while extremely important, only protects cultural property in the event of armed conflict.

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), was enacted on November 16th 1990 and is a United States federal law. It states that any institutions that receive federal funding must return any cultural property back to the tribes to which they belong. These cultural items include sacred objects, human remains, and funerary items. NAGPRA also covers planned excavation on Native and Federal lands and procedures in the event of inadvertent excavation. According to their website, NAGPRA was enacted “address the rights of lineal descendants, Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations to Native American cultural items, including human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony.” (nagpra.org 2014) According to the Federal Agency NAGPRA Statistics, from its inception in 1990 until the year 2006 it has amassed a database of Culturally Unidentifiable Inventories. This database has listed 13,415 human remains that they are trying to identify. NAGPRA has also issued 51 notices to repatriate and is in the process of returning these remains to their rightful owners.

There is a lot to be learned from studying the human remains and funerary items of native cultures but sensitivity must be given to the fact that these are not merely objects; they are the remains of family members. These remains should be treated with the same respect that we would give our personal loved ones and a part of that is returning them, and any items associated with their tribe, back to their families. In the case of The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, tribe developers who wanted to build a residential development uncovered remains of the Coast Miwok, an ancient Native American tribe that lived near what is now the Larkspur, California area. The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, who are descendants of the Coast Miwok people, unearthed these remains and reburied them along with artifacts and animal bones which were found with them in an undisclosed area. Archeologists in the area were enraged at this move, claiming that a prime piece of history had been lost. It is the tradition of this tribe to bury items associated with the deceased person with them and this was the reason Chairman of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, Greg Sarris, gave for not providing archeologist samples to study. “Our policy is that those things belong to us, end of story. Let us worry about our own preservation,” he told the Chronicle. “If we determine that they are sacred objects, we will rebury them. … How would Jewish or Christian people feel if we wanted to dig up skeletal remains in a cemetery and study them? Nobody has that right.” (Bever. 2014) Removing remains from their native environment equals to grave robbing; this act is usually looked down upon and considered criminal. Yet it is perfectly acceptable to remove native sacred objects and remains for the sake of preservation. An activist member of the Pawnee tribe said it best when stated “If you desecrate a white grave you go to jail, If you desecrate an Indian grave, you get a Ph.D” (Kuprecht 9).

The essential issues with repatriation are many and very complicated to solve. Ancient artifacts are of interest to both science and art as they hold significant information on the diet, lifestyle, communication, and culture of a time long since past. They tell us that the history of our country and world should be preserved so that future generations may learn from them. The issue of who should preserve the precious artifacts is another one that should be discussed when talking about cultural repatriation. Should the nations who have better resources for housing and securing these artifacts be the ones who have possession or are they better off in the hands of the people who created them? Was it right that the Smithsonian museum impose stipulations surrounding the security of Zuni peoples sacred artifacts before they gave the back what had been stolen from them?

The long-held spoils-of-war philosophy is another issue that must be faced when dealing with cultural repatriation. The theory that the artifacts and artwork in a country that has been sacked belongs to the invading country is one that is as old as war itself. How does a country affected by plunder go about retrieving the items that were removed from their country by invaders? Have these countries now lost the rights to their cultural property? Should museums that now hold the artifacts have to return them to their proper owners? Can the wartime culture of taking artifacts from a conquered region be changed?

Museums and arts organizations should work to return stolen artifacts to their native lands because the items are integral parts of native culture. The items stolen from indigenous people are not just items that hold no meaning. These items are used to pass along a very ancient culture to the youth. They are used to ensure cultural identity, cultural definition and cultural expression. These artifacts are the key to the continuation of the old ways, without which history is forever erased.
Museums should return any and all stolen items because it is illegal. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) felt that the trafficking of stolen artifacts was of such importance that they came together in 1970 at their 16th general convention to propose a treaty which specifically dealt with ownership and the import and export of cultural property. Other treatises such as The Hague Convention were written specifically to provide rules for cultural property during times of armed conflict. The Hague convention also provided a definition of what exactly constitutes cultural property and the respecting and safeguarding of cultural property during times of armed conflict. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was established to govern items and artifacts pertaining to native and indigenous people including human remains. NAGPRA is actively working to make sure that any institution receiving federal funding must return any indigenous remains that they are in possession of and is also working to make sure that no unauthorized excavation is taking place on Native land. Any museum or arts organization found to be in breach of this treatise may face prosecution, the loss of funding for their organization and other serious consequences.

To Indigenous people, having their ancestors’ remains and artifacts back with them, to bury and honor them as they see fit is a major reason why museums should relinquish them. No one wants to feel like their family members are restless and being disrespected. It’s bad enough that these remains have been disturbed in the first place, for them not to be laid to rest as their family sees fit is adding insult to injury. It is the responsibility of the arts administration community to assure that all art, artifacts, and remains in possession of museums and arts organizations have been garnered through legal and ethical means.

Works Cited

Roehrebeck, Carol. “Repatriation of Cultrual Property: Who Owns the Past? An Introduction to Approaches and to Selected Statutory Instruments.” International Journal of Legal Information 38.2 (2010): 16. Scholarship Law. Cornell Law. Web. 13 Nov. 2014. <http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1216&context=ijli&gt;.

Akinsha, Konstantin, and Grigorii Kozlov. “TOP TEN ARTNEWS STORIES: TRACKING THE TROPHY BRIGADE.” ARTnews 1 Nov. 2007. Print.

Merrill, William, Edmund Ladd, Elizabeth Cruw. ys, Alan Downer, et.al. “The Return of the Ahayu:da: Lessons for Repatriation from Zuni Pueblo and the Smithsonian.” Current Anthropology 34.5 (1993): 523-67. Web.

Kuprecht, Karolina. Indigenous Peoples’ Cultural Property Claims Repatriation and Beyond. Cham: Springer, 2014. Print.

“Us to Return 10,000 Stolen Artifacts to Iraq.” Al Akhbar English. Al Akhbar English, 26 July 2013. Web. 13 Nov. 2014. <http://english.al-akhbar.com/&gt;.

Bergman, Eric. “Reversing the Flow of Traffic in the Market of Cultural Property.” SAIIC Home Page. Nativeweb.org. Web. 13 Nov. 2014. <http://saiic.nativeweb.org/ayn/repat.html&gt;.

“NAGPRA.ORG.” NAGPRAORG RSS. Web. 153 Nov. 2014. <http://www.nagpra.org/&gt;.

Bever, Lindsey. “Native American Tribe, Archaeologists at Odds over Indian Remains.” The Washington Post 28 Apr. 2004. Web. 13 Nov. 2014. <http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-178497.html?&gt;.
Van Der Vaart, Marieke. “Iraqi Antiquities Looted in War Returned.” The Archaeology News Network:. The Archaeology News. Web. 13 Nov. 2014. <http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2011/07/iraqi-antiquities-looted-in-war.html#.VGbZXvnF-So&gt;.

Felch, Jason. “Getty Studies Its Antiquities.” The Los Angeles Times 19 Jan. 2013. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.

Woodward, Collin. “The War Over Plunder: Who Owns Art Stolen in War?” History Net Where History Comes Alive World US History Online The War Over Plunder Who Owns Art Stolen in War Comments. Web. 13 Nov. 2014. <http://www.historynet.com/the-war-over-plunder-who-owns-art-stolen-in-war.htm&gt;.

Sarah Parker Remond: Tracing the Footsteps of Greatness

Posted on by Tasha N. Tavaras

Documentation of the African American experience focuses primarily on lives in the United States. The work and impact of African Americans extends internationally and is often overlooked. Many African Americans worked and lived abroad and one such influential member of society is Sarah Parker Remond. Sarah Parker Remond was born in Salem Massachusetts on June 6th 1815. She was the daughter of John Remond and Nancy Lenox and one of eight children. The Remond family held strong abolitionists beliefs and played host to many slaves heading north as well as leaders of the abolitionist movement such as Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison. It was an incident in 1853 that encouraged Ms. Remond further into activism. It was in this year that she purchased a ticket to see a performance of the opera Don Pasquale at the Howard Athenaeum in Boston. Upon her arrival she was offered segregated seating and upon her refusal was forced out of the theater and pushed down a flight of stairs. Ms. Remond later sued the theatre for damages and won. She was granted $500 in restitution and an admission that the theater was in the wrong. After this she began speaking out against slavery. Although she lacked experience, the American Anti-Slavery Society hired her, her brother Charles, and Susan B. Anthony to tour the state of New York to speak about abolition and the anti-slavery movement. She became one of the society’s most powerful, effective, and polished speakers. She was invited to speak in London where her brother Charles was already quite well known.
During her stay in Great Britian, Ms. Remond took up studies at The Bedford College of Women, which would later become a part of the University of London. While in London, Ms. Remond signed the first women’s suffrage petition, becoming the first woman of African descent to do so. While at The Bedford College of Women, she studied a variety of different subjects including Latin, English Literature, History, and Elocution. It was during these studies when she traveled to Florence and Rome. When she turned 42, in the year 1866, Ms. Remond permanently moved to Florence, Italy and became a medical student at the Santa Maria Nuova Hospital. After completing her education, Ms. Remond began to practice medicine and a physician in Italy. She married a man from Sardinia named Larazzo Pinto. She passed away in December of 1894 and is interred at Cimitero Protestante in Rome.

I propose to do a photographic study on Ms. Remond’s life and death in Italy. I would visit, document, and photograph the area where Ms. Remond lived, learned, and practiced medicine. I would document the circumstances surrounding her death and the site of her burial. Ms. Remond was an important part of African American history as well feminism. It is important to preserve this aspect of history to show that African Americas legacy extends beyond the borders of America and to show that during a time when both African Americans and women were denied equal rights, a black woman had the strength, fortitude and the courage to leave her home country to achieve freedom and success. Photography is the ideal medium to accomplish this because the power of images often exceeds what can be said with words yet, photographs have a way of crossing the barriers of time to transport viewers to another time and place. Sarah Parker Remond’s story deserves to be told and preserved for current and future generations. The steps that she took demand to be documented, discussed and learned from. My knowledge and passion for photography, historic preservation and my yearning to learn more about Ms. Remond make me the perfect person to document and preserve her life and death in Italy.