Today, the New York Times is reporting this story, Cambodia to Ask Met to Return 10th-Century Statues, although it’s not really a story yet because Cambodia hasn’t actually asked the Met to return anything. But, apparently, they will. That’s fine, ask away, and then we’ll discuss it.
The only reason I’m linking to the story here is because of this passage:
The debate is somewhat different when a contested artifact is held by a museum rather than a private collector or auction house. Many in the museum world and beyond have argued that… advanced security systems at some institutions make them more appropriate places to house cherished artifacts and ensure they are available for worldwide study and appreciation.
Ok, technically, some people have argued that, like ten years ago. The idea that “many” people in the museum world are arguing this at present is questionable at best. This is the kind of patriarchal mentality that used to justify retention of colonially acquired artifacts like the Parthenon Marbles. I’m just not convinced this is a viable point anymore. The arguments that Cuno and those in support of encyclopedic museums have made in recent years don’t quite approach this level of condescension. I’d be interested to know who exactly is arguing that Cambodia is incapable of preserving its cultural artifacts to the point that they should not get illegally excavated and exported artifacts returned to them.
Having said that, it’d be nice if supposedly high quality reporting institutions like The New York Times could give such assignments to someone who knows something about the current climate of the cultural heritage debates, rather than generalists who write on topical scraps from the death penalty to gays in the media to opera singers.
Nice to see a voice against condescension, Thanks! In my personal opinion, which I know is insignificant, cultural property should be enjoyed, safeguarded and shared by those who have a sincere love of the objects and a fascination with the culture that created them. The fact that a nation has patrimony laws does not make it a protector of the past any more so than the notion that large museums are more resistant to theft or are better preservationists than private collectors. One does not need a Google Search to bring both ageless and recent proofs of that to mind. It would be nice if institutions, and private citizens who love the past, could cooperate to enjoy and protect it rather than fight over it. Alas, the world we live in doesn’t work that way. There will always be a predator, condescending in the name of self-righteousness, and always a victim. In the end, the greatest victim is usually culture itself. How do you make that into a New York Times headline?
Hi Kim â With regards to museum passage above, I completely agree that collectors, curators, and others should NOT still be using that argument, but I encounter far too many who DO. I get one or two questions about it each time I speak, even to audiences whom you’d think would know better, like those at archaeology conferences. Perhaps this is because I’m generally talking about Cambodia, about which a large percentage of the US population is ignorant, but the same point also comes up during my more general antiquities trade lectures. And while I won’t name names, in the off chance I misheard, some top museum officials are guilty of it and I’d not be surprised if these are the same ones who talked to the NYT on background. I’ve been really shocked myself â not that folks still have such a colonial attitude per se â but that they’re not embarrassed to voice it aloud. When they do, I politely remind them that the largest art heist in history took place in Boston, and that quickly hushes them up. Hope you’re well!
PS: Also, I’ve worked with both Ralph Blumenthal and Tom Mashberg, and they know more about cultural heritage issues than most professors and lawyers in the field. Tom also happens to be one of the world’s top authorities on the Gardner heist. They’re both great guys and I’m happy to put you in touch with them. Just say the word. Take care!
It seems to me to be a spin-off of the old “because so-called third world countries are poor, they can’t protect, and don’t care about, their own heritage, so the West should hoard it all instead of helping such countries improve their museums and archaeological research programs.” As a practicing Southeast Asian archaeologist, I’d advocate the exact opposite approach, and I enjoy working along side local colleagues and learning from them. What they’ve managed to do with the little money they have/get from international collaborative research grants is impressive, even though much remains to be done. Thus, it’s my humble opinion that Cambodia in this case deserves the benefit of the doubt even if the post-1970s paper trail is proven to be a dead end. Unfortunately, almost everything ancient historic or prehistoric from SE Asia now in Western archives, collections, or on the market derives from looting at one time or another…
The Met’s Tom Campbell on June 4th re: contested Khmer statue: “But I would like to emphasize the efforts that the museum has made since acquiring those objects, to ensure that they were properly assembled, publicly displayed, published, researched and posted on our website, which now has some 45 million visitors a year. So we are doing our bit in terms of our mission to promote the understanding of works of art.”