Iniquity and Antiquities?

When one thinks of questionably acquired objects, one usually thinks of the Getty Museum. There are other cases where the issue is murkier, the Elgin marbles for example. (Note the Elgin marbles have no legal basis for return as the case with items returned to Italy that were looted during the 1970s in violation of international treaties. Elgin's actions were carried out over 200 years ago and with the approval of the rulers the in power.) Archeologically rich countries have recently started to lobby for the return of their cultural heritage. However, this calls into question what defines cultural heritage and a nation’s history, be it a continuous evolution from cultures from the past or a separate thread that emerges. Can countries truly claim items that belong to them only in terms of geography and still lay claim to their cultural heritage? Regardless of where someone falls on these issues when it comes to the possibility of returning items, is it fair to deny a country articles based on their economic and political instability. Let us consider the Elgin marbles and Greece for a moment or Ancient Egyptian artifacts and modern-day Egypt.

“Museums argue that they are custodians of the world's cultural heritage, but they are increasingly careful to avoid buying artworks that may have been looted. These issues are part of a larger debate about the rights to define cultural heritage and own cultural property.” –Anthony Kuhn

The above quote comes from a recent story on NPR regarding Cambodia lobbying for the return of a statue that they suspect has been looted from the temple complex at Koh Ker. Cambodia is recovering from 30 years of civil war. However, the country has a growing tourist industry to its fabulous archeological sites, namely the temple complex at Angkor Wat. The site a Koh Ker is older and larger. but less well-known. The site is also surrounded by dense jungle and until recently, landmines. Despite these factors, apparently a 1,000 year old statue of Hindu warrior Duryodhana went missing from the site only to appear in New York at Sotheby’s auction house. Sotheby’s denies that the object was conclusively looted from Cambodia and as a result maintains that it should be able to auction the item. The case will be decided by a U.S. court.

Regardless of the decision of the court, if the item is returned to Cambodia, can it be protected to make sure it is not potentially stolen again? If not, will a museum purchase the item? Would it be ethical for a museum to do so considering the controversy? And if a museum does not acquire the item due to the issues and it is not returned to Cambodia, will it vanish from public view all together into a private collection. I think these are points worth considering. Personally, I hope the Cambodian government does recover the statue if it can be proven that the artifact was looted. If this cannot be proven, I hope the statue goes to a museum, even if the object’s background is a little sketchy.

"Cambodia Vs. Sotheby's In A Battle Over Antiquitie​s" by Anthony Kuhn describes the situation and the evidence that Cambodia has produced supporting its claims to the statue. "Romancing the Stones: Who Owns the Rights to the Elgin Marbles?" appears on the Daily Beast and offers a discussion of the topic regarding the marbles.