Repatriation Of Relics & Antiquities: Should They Be Returned?

[stu neville]

I've seen many pictures of Van Gough's works in art books, online, and on TV, but the museum in Amsterdam blew me a way. Ditto Salvador Dali. Ditto Whistler.

Which is why I made the point of differentiating between art and artefacts. Paintings and sculpture tend to be self-contained, and as such provide their own context (indeed, in the case of landscapes it could be argued that in many cases they were meant to be viewed elsewhere.) What I'm getting at here is whether or not locally significant artefacts and antiquities should, in the best of possible worlds, be displayed and maintained in their native context.

I've seen countless presentations, images, websites etc. about the valley of the kings and the grave-goods of the pharaohs (for example), but seeing them inches away (in both London and Egypt) was an incalculably different (and more illuminating) experience.

Similarly, the sheer scale and imposing nature of the Easter Island ancestor-figures was simply unappreciable before i saw one in the British museum. To visit one in-situ would be the best all round but that's simply not an option for the vast majority. Free entry to the British museum is.

I quite agree - I haven't been to Egypt, or Easter Island, but I have been to the British Museum a number of times. Then again, the proximity issue does matter - I can get to London in under two hours, but for a lot of people in Northern England and North Wales, let alone Scotland and Northern Ireland, a day trip to London isn't really a practical option, unless they fly - so the cost or no-cost of entry to the museum is a moot point. OK, it's more accessible than, say, the Giza complex, but then no-one's seriously contemplated re-siting that to somewhere more convenient to curious Westerners*. As you say, you've seen Egyptian grave goods both in situ and in London - how did the experiences compare (not making any rhetorical points here, I genuinely want to know )?

If the public rely on the discovery channel, CD-ROMs, and coffee-table books for their experiences of artefacts, we are certainly selling our most precious treasures cheap. These are 2-D ersatz imposters by comparison.

The experience does not compare.

Museums Rock.

Again, I quite agree. I think if anything museums are more important today than ever before, as a point of physical contact in an increasingly abstracted world. What I'm saying, though, is that many museums hold artefacts that in the past were safer and more accessible there than in their place of origin, but that nowadays cheap travel and a host of other advances (not least various cultures now taking their own history seriously) have made these arguments less conclusive. For a start, I totally agree that until very recently the Elgin marbles were still a lot safer over here than bolted back onto the Parthenon - however, the Greek government have recently completed the Parthenon Museum, and are presently in the process of transporting and conserving the remaining marbles from further damage (also worth bearing in mind is that conservators at the British Museum themselves did a lot of damage to the London-held marbles in the 30's, in a misguided attempt to clean them with caustic materials....)

I'm not saying for one minute that there's any clear-cut rules or views on this. As usual there's huge swathes of grey-shades - I'm just interested to hear what people think.


*they'd have to surgically remove Zahi Hawass for a start, who as we all know owns the Valley of the Kings, and in fact wants to copyright bits of it.

 

[Quake42]

It's a real "thin end of the wedge" argument.

One may be in favour of the repatriation of the Elgin Marbles, or the Lewis Chessmen or the Lindisfarne Gospels, and such campaigns have a certain emotional appeal. But where does it end? Museums cease to be centres of world culture and end up as parochial exhibits of items dug up within a five mile radius. Far too often, the campaigns to bring such treasures "home" are simply rather cynical and manipulative exercises by politicians trying to whip up nationalistic or irredentist sentiment.

A few years ago in Amsterdam I went to the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. It was fascinating and it had some wonderful exhibits from the Dutch Golden Age. But... in truth there wasn't much else, and it compared very unfavourably with the eclectic range of things to look at in the Birtish Museum. One comes away from the BM having seen all sorts of things from Babylonian sculpture to modern African art. I enjoyed the Riksmuseum but there is no doubt that the BM provides for a much wider and more satisfying experience. It would be a great shame if all one could see there were objects excavated from within the M25.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

A few years ago in Amsterdam I went to the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. It was fascinating and it had some wonderful exhibits from the Dutch Golden Age. But... in truth there wasn't much else, and it compared very unfavourably with the eclectic range of things to look at in the Birtish Museum. One comes away from the BM having seen all sorts of things from Babylonian sculpture to modern African art. I enjoyed the Riksmuseum but there is no doubt that the BM provides for a much wider and more satisfying experience. It would be a great shame if all one could see there were objects excavated from within the M25.

And? All the pretty goo gaws, ripped out of context and served up in attractive cabinets, perhaps with an MP3 player, giving an audio accompaniment. Much as I enjoyed that vast cabinet of curiosities, the real story the British Museum has to tell is somewhat occluded, that of the fabulous booty of 200 years of World Empire.

I found the London Museum, in the Barbican actually more satisfying, as it helped provide context and history, the back story for the City, itself. And it is a great story.

 

[Quake42]

I found the London Museum, in the Barbican actually more satisfying, as it helped provide context and history, the back story for the City, itself. And it is a great story.

It is a great story. But do you really think that this is all that Londoners should seen in their museums? Do you really think that every artifact should be returned to the people that shout the loudest, even if they have little cultural connection to the civilisation that built it?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

It is a great story. But do you really think that this is all that Londoners should seen in their museums? Do you really think that every artifact should be returned to the people that shout the loudest, even if they have little cultural connection to the civilisation that built it?

And, what is the cultural connection of the British Museum, to the vast dragon's horde of it's treasures?

 

[Quake42]

And, what is the cultural connection of the British Museum, to the vast dragon's horde of it's treasures?

Well that's rather my point. I'm not sure that any real or imagined "cultural connection" matters, or is relevant. I know that after a visit to the British Museum, I come away intrigued and fascinated about ancient and more modern cultures which I may have know little or nothing about previously.

If all I could see were bits of Roman sandle from Londinium, or photos of heroic East Enders during the Blitz, I would feel far less intrigued, fascinating though their stories are.

I see institutions like the British Museum as repositories of human culture - not just Europe, not just England, not just London. At the risk of cliche, they show that what binds us together is far more important that what keeps us apart.

A small example - some time after the September 11 attacks, my mother came to visit me and we went to the BM. Her view on Islamic culture and history (previously entirely hostile) changed and became far more nuanced after she saw an exhibition of the art of the Mughals.

I think world class museums should challenge in this way and I think it would be a terrible shame if the parochial and nationalistic demands of particular groups led to a situation where such institutions could only display a very narrow set of exhibits for fear of being accused of "imperialism".

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

I see institutions like the British Museum as repositories of human culture - not just Europe, not just England, not just London. At the risk of cliche, they show that what binds us together is far more important that what keeps us apart.

...

So not as a symbol of Britain's once Great, power, wealth and influence, then? The story of Britain's foray into adventurism, piracy, conquest and Empire?

 

[Quake42]

So not as a symbol of Britain's once Great, power, wealth and influence, then? The story of Britain's foray into adventurism, piracy, conquest and Empire?

Yes, that as well. That's certainly part of it.

But to say that collections such as the BM's should be broken up because of colonial guilt at the actions of a hundred years ago seems rather to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You seem to have sidestepped the question. Do you really think that museums would be better if they contained nothing but parochial artifacts?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

You seem to have sidestepped the question. Do you really think that museums would be better if they contained nothing but parochial artifacts?

I don't think that big museums should have special pleading, just because they are big.

Lewis would certainly profit from a return of its artefacts and the chessmen could only gain meaning, when returned to their original context. It's not an unstable region of the World, where the chessmen would come into danger.

Benin should get its bronzes back and the aboriginal peoples of the World have a right the return of the remains of their ancestors. Greece should have its marbles back, too.

Why not? Facsimiles can be just as realistic and the kids would enjoy animatronic demonstrations, all the more.

 

[Quake42]

Lewis would certainly profit from a return of its artefacts and the chessmen could only gain meaning, when returned to their original context.

Although the number of people who would trek out there to see them is probably barely in double figures. And as someone (Stu?) said on the other thread, if we're going to be fundamentalist about this, surely the Norwegians could have a claim on them.

Greece should have its marbles back, too.

As Yith says, the Greeks have consistently failed to care for the marbles still in their possession. I'm not clear why they get so excited about the ones in the BM, other than the issue being used cynically by politicians to whip up some nationalist sentiment.

aboriginal peoples of the World have a right the return of the remains of their ancestors

I have a bit more sympathy on this front, although I think each claim should be looked at on its merits.

You still haven't answered my question about whether you think that museums should contain only items exacavated from the immediate vicinity, lest someone somewhere decide they have a better claim to it through geography or ethnicity. Instead you have sidestepped it with a few jibes about Britain's imperialist past. I suspect that this is because you don't really agree with the logical conclusion of your argument, but I may be wrong.

 

[rynner2]

Lewis would certainly profit from a return of its artefacts and the chessmen could only gain meaning, when returned to their original context.

But is Lewis today "the original context"? I saw a documentary on Callanish once: it seems that when such stone circles were built, the Hebrides were heavily wooded, but now, as a result of human activty, Lewis is mostly one giant dreary peat bog (I've seen it for myself!) with only one town of any size, the fishing port of Stornaway.

But maybe this deforestation was already complete in Viking times. But all that is by the by: according to Wiki

"The Lewis chessmen (named after their find-site) belong to some of the few complete medieval chess sets that have survived until today.

The chessmen are believed to have been made in Norway, perhaps by craftsmen in Trondheim (where similar pieces have been found), sometime during the 12th century. During that period the Outer Hebrides, along with other major groups of Scottish islands, were ruled by Norway. Some historians believe that the Lewis chessmen were hidden (or lost) after some mishap occurred during their transportation from Norway to wealthy Norse settlements on the east coast of Ireland."
(my bolds.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_chessmen

So the things weren't made in Lewis, and may only have got there by accident!

So assuming we house these chessmen in Stornaway, how accessible are they? Well, most of Scotland's population live in the Glasgow - Edinburgh region: starting from there, it is a 150 mile journey (as the crow flies!) across the bulk of the Highlands, to get to Ullapool. From there it is a ferry journey of 42 miles to Stornaway. Hardly a day trip, is it?

For those more interested in bits of carved walrus bones than stone circles, amazing scenery, brochs and wonderful Atlantic beaches, getting to the Hebrides probably seems a bit of a hassle!

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Lewis would certainly profit from a return of its artefacts and the chessmen could only gain meaning, when returned to their original context.

Although the number of people who would trek out there to see them is probably barely in double figures. And as someone (Stu?) said on the other thread, if we're going to be fundamentalist about this, surely the Norwegians could have a claim on them.

...

The patronising parochialism of big city dwellers, for the unknown territories beyond their collective ring roads, is sometimes breathtaking.

And, if the Lewis Chessmen didn't attract thousands of chess and/or, viking board game fanatics, from Britain and around the World, what would it matter? People could always look at pictures, or buy the tasteful facsimile copies, available from all good Museum and National Trust Property shops.

As to whether the chessmen should should be returned to Norway, why? The Hebrides and the Northern Isles were part of the Scandanavian colonisation of Northern Europe, along with large parts of Northern Britain. The reason why the Lewis chessmen should be returned to Lewis, is because they were found there, they belong there and most importantly, they help illustrate and tell the very long, colourful, history of Lewis, back in the days of the Lords of the Isles and the Jarls of Orkney and Shetland.

...

You still haven't answered my question about whether you think that museums should contain only items exacavated from the immediate vicinity, lest someone somewhere decide they have a better claim to it through geography or ethnicity. Instead you have sidestepped it with a few jibes about Britain's imperialist past. I suspect that this is because you don't really agree with the logical conclusion of your argument, but I may be wrong.

I haven't bothered to answer your question, because I don't like the 'Reductio ad absurdum' argument that lies at its heart. My opinion is that context is everything. If other countries, or peoples can make a good case for the return of and provide a safe home for, their artefacts, then why not send them home, to help tell their real story in context?

Otherwise, huge collections, like those at the BM are nothing more than glorified 'wonder Kabinetten' reflecting the spoils of Empire and cultural colonisation. Displays of booty, with a thin veneer of academic respectability, laid over the top.

Just how much of that collection languishes in warehouses, when it could do better service on display, in the places from where it was originally plundered?

The Tate has started to show the way, with its new gallery in St Ives. The BM, should be a bit more open-handed and a bit less grasping.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Thinking about it, apart from the fact that I was on Lewis this Autumn and can testify that it has a great deal more to offer, than just Callanish (nice, but a bit of a disappointment compared to the likes of the Ring of Brodgar and the Stones of Stenness, on mainland, Orkney), I also remember a trip to Lindisfarne, where it would have been absolutely wonderful to have see the real Lindisfarne Gospel, rather than just a facsimile, albeit with a very nice multimedia exhibition attached.

In fact, not only would these artefacts and their original homes benefit from their return, but those who came looking for them might benefit greatly, from the chance not only to see them in context, but also, having the added element of a sort of cultural pilgrimage, attached. There's much to be said for having to earn something, rather than having handed to one, on a plate.

Then, rather than just being another goo-gaw in a collection, such priceless and irreplaceable artefacts might assume something like their true cultural worth and value, to onlookers, in their proper context.

 

[rynner2]

...and on the other hand, the inhabitants of a little hamlet in the middle of nowhere, three houses and two cows, might feel rather proud that some artefact found nearby finally ended up on display in a world class museum like the BM! 8)

 

[Quake42]

The patronising parochialism of big city dwellers, for the unknown territories beyond their collective ring roads, is sometimes breathtaking.

Pietro it would be nice if, just for once, we could have a discussion which didn't involve gratuitous personal abuse from you. I have no idea what your issue with me is, but I am tired of it and I don't think it is appropriate in a mod.

For the record, I live in London now but spent a large portion of my life in small town Northumberland. So I have seen both sides of the debate about the importance of the metropolis in national life and the negative effects this has on the regions.

Would some people go to Lewis to see the chessmen? Probably. I should imagine though it would be very, very few. Will thousands more see them at the BM? Undoubtedly.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

The patronising parochialism of big city dwellers, for the unknown territories beyond their collective ring roads, is sometimes breathtaking.

Pietro it would be nice if, just for once, we could have a discussion which didn't involve gratuitous personal abuse from you. I have no idea what your issue with me is, but I am tired of it and I don't think it is appropriate in a mod.

...

I didn't mean you alone. But, I spent several years living in London. I speak from experience.

So, apologies if you thought that it was just meant for you.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...and on the other hand, the inhabitants of a little hamlet in the middle of nowhere, three houses and two cows, might feel rather proud that some artefact found nearby finally ended up on display in a world class museum like the BM! 8)

Might be nice if they were asked occasionally, then.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

The chessmen are believed to have been made in Norway, perhaps by craftsmen in Trondheim (where similar pieces have been found), sometime during the 12th century. During that period the Outer Hebrides, along with other major groups of Scottish islands, were ruled by Norway. Some historians believe that the Lewis chessmen were hidden (or lost) after some mishap occurred during their transportation from Norway to wealthy Norse settlements on the east coast of Ireland."
(my bolds.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_chessmen

So the things weren't made in Lewis, and may only have got there by accident!

...

They may have been made in Norway and, after that, the level of speculation quickly rises into the zone of wishful thinking, creative fantasy and ancient prejudice.

 

[Yithian]

As you say, you've seen Egyptian grave goods both in situ and in London - how did the experiences compare (not making any rhetorical points here, I genuinely want to know

Well, the contexts were obviously very different, and to some extent the context of experiencing ancient Egyptian artefacts in Egypt goes far deeper: you go and meet modern Egyptians, smell the desert, eat the food--I'd say 'get a feel for the place and mindset' if it didn't sound a little patronising and gloss over the massive differences betwixt the ancient and modern countries.

That said, the British Museum offers a very different but quite valuable context. You can walk a minute or two and compare the exhibits to those of the same era in other parts of the world. IIRC, Assyrian, Babalyonian, Greek and Roman works are (literally) just around the corner, with a short trek to European, American, and Far-Eastern Works of the same era. The possibility of such comparisson and the blunt juxtaposition is pretty damned helpful. As Pietro was shouting, there is obviousy the subtext of Empire: why on Earth are all these things here, in London, in a vast classical repository?

For me, the counterweight to this is that, unlike in Egypt, the scholarly support in the BM is always present and of a very high level. Even where dates and locations are not possible, there is always some kind of background with supporting evidence and (very importantly) references for further study. In Egypt, even with Egyptian speakers, the information was very simplified and the exhibits were often left to stand for themselves (which isn't a bad thing, but I value context, citation and evidence). Perhaps it was just my feeling, but they seemed more objects of veneration than study. I felt a little encouraged to gawp rather than seek illumination.

Also, the Egyptians let you get far more up close and personal. Perhaps not the 'treasures' themselves, but you can touch every surface you can reach in Karnak and the Valley of the Kings as countless engraved names and dates attest. Even though I loved the feeling, I know this is unwise. Ankor Wat is the same.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Yithian]

In fact, not only would these artefacts and their original homes benefit from their return, but those who came looking for them might benefit greatly, from the chance not only to see them in context, but also, having the added element of a sort of cultural pilgrimage, attached. There's much to be said for having to earn something, rather than having handed to one, on a plate.

You've put this better than I have.

This is what i was trying to refer to when I was talking about seeing Egyptian artefacts in Egypt.

The problem is, of course, that many don't have the time and money to make such trips.

 

[rynner2]

On the Lewis chessmen

They may have been made in Norway and, after that, the level of speculation quickly rises into the zone of wishful thinking, creative fantasy and ancient prejudice.

In other words, there is absolutely no evidence to link them to the native culture of the Hebrides!

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

On the Lewis chessmen

They may have been made in Norway and, after that, the level of speculation quickly rises into the zone of wishful thinking, creative fantasy and ancient prejudice.

In other words, there is absolutely no evidence to link them to the native culture of the Hebrides!

That would only be true, if you weren't aware of the Hebrides rich history and particularly with their importance in the pivotal role they played, in the control of the Western sea routes, between Scandanavia, The Shetlands, The Orkneys, the Western coast of Britain and beyond, in Viking times.

 

[rynner2]

On the Lewis chessmen

They may have been made in Norway and, after that, the level of speculation quickly rises into the zone of wishful thinking, creative fantasy and ancient prejudice.

In other words, there is absolutely no evidence to link them to the native culture of the Hebrides!

That would only be true, if you weren't aware of the Hebrides rich history and particularly with their importance in the pivotal role they played, in the control of the Western sea routes, between Scandanavia, The Shetlands, The Orkneys, the Western coast of Britain and beyond, in Viking times.

As a sailor myself, I'm well aware of the seafaring nature of the people of all those islands - if you're not a seafarer, and aviation hasn't been invented yet, getting about would have been a bit problematical otherwise!

However, much of this seafaring was carried out by the Norse, who actually controlled most of the area at that time.

The point I was making is that the Hebrideans were (and still are, to a certain extent) a Gaelic-speaking culture, not a Norse one. No doubt there were dealings between the two peoples (both friendly and otherwise) but they had separate identities.

The chessmen are generally reckoned to be of Norse manufacture, and so have little to do with Gaelic culture.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

However, much of this seafaring was carried out by the Norse, who actually controlled most of the area at that time.

The point I was making is that the Hebrideans were (and still are, to a certain extent) a Gaelic-speaking culture, not a Norse one. No doubt there were dealings between the two peoples (both friendly and otherwise) but they had separate identities.

The chessmen are generally reckoned to be of Norse manufacture, and so have little to do with Gaelic culture.

True, however, I think you'll find Old Norse speakers are also a minority in present day Yorkshire and Cumberland, not to mention the Isle of Man, or even Orkney and Shetland.

 

[Spookdaddy]

They may have been made in Norway and, after that, the level of speculation quickly rises into the zone of wishful thinking, creative fantasy and ancient prejudice.

...to which neither side of the argument is entirely immune.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

They may have been made in Norway and, after that, the level of speculation quickly rises into the zone of wishful thinking, creative fantasy and ancient prejudice.

...to which neither side of the argument is entirely immune.

No, not at all. The fact is there were long established Viking settlements in Uig, in the West of Lewis, long before the chessmen were placed there, mid 11th Century AD.

A Viking Cemetary at Cnip, Uig, Isle of Lewis [9th Century AD]
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/PSAS_2002/pdf/vol_125/125_719_752.pdf

A Viking Burial from Kneep, Uig Isle of Lewis [10th Century AD]
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/PSAS_2002/pdf/vol_117/117_149_174.pdf

...

Conclusion
Each of the objects recovered from the grave would have required a wide range of specialized skills in their production. Viewed as a whole, they represent many man-hours of work, possible only in a well-organized craft-based community with ready access to source materials and trade. No such centre has been recognized in the Western Isles or within Scotland at this period and we can only assume that the artefacts recovered from this site would have been imported from centres in Scandinavia (such as Birka in Sweden) or possibly, Ireland (Dublin).

Certainly the level of technological sophistication in the production of such pieces as the oval brooches, the ringed pin or the glass necklace would have required elaborate, well-established workshop facilities capable of manufacturing items essentially for ornamentation. However, it seems unlikely that any community would wish to remain entirely reliant upon trade from abroad to furnish itself with the more basic essentials of life. The smithing of simple iron tools (the knife, sickle and needles) for daily domestic use would have required relatively simpler techniques, the facilities for which could have been more readily established, and the production of such personal utilitarian items as clothing (textile making and leather working) and other essential products could well be viewed as domestic industries. If the woman buried on Kneep headland is seen as a member of one of the first few generations of Scandinavian settlers in the Western Isles of Scotland, the presence of the range of artefacts buried with her may perhaps reflect not only the continuing links with the Scandinavian homeland, but also a strengthening technological base in new territories.

...

So, if nothing else, the trade in sophisticated and highly worked goods, from other Scandinavian settlements to Uig, was already well established, a hundred years before the chessmen found their way to Lewis.

Also mention of a possible Norse, promontory fort, at Gob Eirer, in Uig, Isle of Lewis, dating from the early Mediaeval period.

http://www.arcl.ed.ac.uk/arch/lewis/index.html
http://www.arcl.ed.ac.uk/arch/annrept/report99/

 

[Spookdaddy]

They may have been made in Norway and, after that, the level of speculation quickly rises into the zone of wishful thinking, creative fantasy and ancient prejudice.

...to which neither side of the argument is entirely immune.

No, not at all. The fact is there were long established Viking settlements in Uig, in the West of Lewis, long before the chessmen were placed there, mid 11th Century AD.

Facts of which I am already very aware thankyou.

As this appears to be a thread dedicated to the subject in general I was making a general point (there appears to be another thread dedicated specifically to the Lewis Chessmen) concerning the often emotive subject of the 'return' of historical artifacts. And anyone who believes that in some situations those demanding the return of objects are not themselves sometimes guilty of "wishful thinking, creative fantasy and ancient prejudice" is, I would surmise, walking around with a bag over their head.

 

[tilly50]

Perhaps the answer would be for major exhibitions to travel, like the "terracotta army" and "Tutankhamun" have done recently, out of their original countries.

To be able to view the art and artifacts of another culture separate from ones own (either historically or geographically) enables people to broaden their veiwpoints with all the hopefully attendant benefits that knowledge brings (tolerance, understanding, etc).

There are countries other than our own who probably do not have museums with artifacts representing other cultural backgrounds to there own judging by their lack of understanding and tolerance of the rest of the world.

We are lucky that we have an open society where we can discuss things freely. This has come about, in part, by us having a broad access to other cultures, and viewing their art and artifacts with informed context in our museums has, in my opinion, played no small part in this.

It has been by being able to look at other cultures artifacts that the viewpoints of our society have changed. What may have started out as a peep show has led to the changes in attitude that are present today.

More worrying than what we took from other cultures is what we left behind!

 

[many_angled_one]

Replicas, pictures, video etc are all well and good but at the end of the day I want to be looking at something I know was created hundreds, thousands or millions of years old and wonder a the history behind it, think of hands that touched them etc and generally marvel at the antiquity and personal history of the item. Replicas have no personal history and to be honest I have no real interest in looking at them whatsoever. It would be the same as standing on the battlements of a castle where thousands lost their lives in battle and then standing on an exact replica a mile off to one side. Ultimately hollow. Everthing is better in context and artifacts are a context unto themselves with their personal history.

Sure, it would be indesputably better to go to local museums and see the local artifacts in their original context but you have to balance that against the few people that would ever see them. Sometimes I go to a museum and see something that piques my interest, which makes me go and learn more about the subject in question and more about where it was found. Big museums also have much better security, than say a local location which will help deter theft and destruction of artifacts.

One thing I've never been able to solve though with exhibits, at what point do things taken in previous history become "ours" or still "rightfully belonging to X" ...50 years, a hundred, two hundred..etc? And does this apply to war conquests, archaeological finds, purchases etc and if so under what circusmstances? I'm sure many things are obtained under (now, but then perfectly acceptable) dubious circumstances in museums all over the world. Personally I am really tempted to say if anything was acquired (in non completely outrageous ways) before, say 1930/1940 and kept and displayed safelty then finders keepers - if acquired after that then open to discussion although it's a simplified approach. Obviously human remains etc are a slightly different isse though.

You could do round in circles debating this however as I see both sides.

 

[OldTimeRadio]

Is a pharaonic necklace so bound to a given place that it only has beauty in Egypt?

Are the masters of the Hudson Valley School so mediocre that they can only resonate with inhabitants of New York State? Should it be forbidden to hang a Constable in a United States or even a Canadian museum. Grant Wood outside Iowa?

Who started this mad rush to re-provincialize World Art?