Could Repatriation be Dangerous?

An article in The New York Times called “Seeking Return of Art, Turkey Jolts Museums” brought to my attention that repatriation cases could turn ugly. In September of 2012, Turkey had an aggressive campaign to reclaim “looted” antiquities. They have, in turn, received an ancient sphinx and other treasures from their history.  Recently, Turkish officials have filed a criminal complaint to investigate the illegal excavation of 18 antiquities that are now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Turkey’s director-general of cultural heritage and museums, Murat Suslu, told Met officials to “prove the provenance of ancient figurines and golden bowls in the collection, or Turkey could halt lending treasures.” This has now taken effect.  The Met calls it cultural blackmail, but Suslu is adamant that the objects belong to Turkey.

                This has caused a debate because Turkey has shifted borders for centuries, so it is not certain the objects belong to them. Museums are using the Unesco convention to keep items that were acquired before 1970. Turkey is citing a 1960 Ottoman-era law, which bans the export of antiquites, to claim any object after that date, although the ratified the Unesco convention in 1981. Turkey is also refusing to lend treasures, delaying archaeological excavation licensing, and putting down museums publicly.

                Turkey has had their fair share of repatriation success, which could be due to their agrressive ways. Hermann Parzinger, president of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation has said;

“The Turks are engaging in polemics and nasty politics. They should be careful about making moral claims when their museums are full of looted treasures”

                The Turkish officials still are harping on the Met, while the Met is trying to hold onto the objects. The Turkish say stealing is wrong, and apparently will do anything to get their antiquities back. This article made me realize how controversial and important the issue of repatriation is. It could be a lot worse than this case, too.

By Kiera Lanni

Source

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/arts/design/turkeys-efforts-to-repatriate-art-alarm-museums.html?pagewanted=all

A Case of Repatriation and Native Americans

I recently stumbled upon a website entitled SAFE; Saving Antiquities for Everyone.  http://www.savingantiquities.org/tag/repatriation/ Their goal is to "raise public awareness about the irreversible damage to the study of history and culture that results from looting, smuggling, and trading illicit antiquities." Visitors are encouraged to donate to their cause, and are given tips on how to help items return to their homes. SAFE posts many stories and cases of repatriation. One that was interesting to me was entitled, the right to rest in peace: Native American human remains and NAGPRA final rule.

Native Americans have had a problem with the repatriation of unidentifiable remains. Some people believe it belongs to all humans, and not just Native Americans. Separately, it has been over twenty years since the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act has become a law. It still causes debates between Native Americans, cultural institutions, and academics, however. On December 12th 2010, a contributor to the New York Times, Robert R. Kelly, wrote an article about the final rule the U.S Department of Interior made on March 15 2010, concerning the disposition of Native American culturally unidentifiable human remains. Kelly is quoted with saying that the final rule will “destroy a crucial source of knowledge about North American history and halt a dialogue between scientists and Indian tribes that has been harmonious and enlightening”.

The final rule states that “if there is no request from an Indian tribe regarding culturally unidentifiable human remains, a museum or federal agency must initiate consultation with officials and traditional religious leaders of all Indian tribes from whose tribal land or aboriginal land the human remains were removed. The consultation may include Indian groups that are not-federally recognized, but are known to have a shared group identity with the human remains at issue, at discretion of the museum or federal agency.”

                Concerning the types of remains, the NAGPRA defines two of them, which are “culturally affiliated” and “culturally unidentifiable.”  Culturally affiliated remains can be link historically to a present day Native American tribe. They are repatriated to the tribe, and then laid to rest. Culturally unidentifiable are those with no lineal descendent.  Out of respect for the Native Americans, the DOI invited public comments on the issue of how to deal with unidentifiable remains correctly.

They came up with these priorities to determine repatriation

“1. Indian tribes from whose tribal land, at the time of excavation, the remains were removed;

2. Indian tribe or tribe’s aboriginal to the area from which the remains were removed;

3. Other Indian tribe who accept to take care of the disposition of the remains;

4. Not a federally recognized tribe.”

If these cases do apply to the situation, the museum or federal agency may reinter the human remains according to State or other law, however all Native Americans involved in the consultation have agreed with the final disposition.

                Native Americans have a shared history, which they feel makes them equal. This makes the case of repatriation difficult because of the interpretation of cultural heritage. The Native Americans also feel they have the right to claim their own cultural objects since it was their land, but others argue that it belongs to the United States.  Obviously, the case of repatriation even exists here in America. Any culture could have a case regarding the subject, and still, there is no clear answer to this sticky situation.

by Kiera Lanni

Sources
http://www.savingantiquities.org/tag/repatriation/

The Case of Katana's Missing Viango Statues

Kigango statues, carved and praised by the Mijikenda people of Kenya, hold much significance to it's people. They are carved to honor deceased relatives and loved ones. In this one specific case, an elderly man named Katana carved two Viango (plural for Kiango) statues representing his two recently deceased brothers. These statues were held at the Gohu Society, which was a fraternal club that the brothers partaked in together. In 1985, Monica Udvardy, a cultural anthropologist went to visit Katana to learn about the Gohu Society and saw Katana with his newly carved statues. But shortly after her visit, the statues went missing.Udvardy heard of this horrible crime and made it her duty to find the viango and return them to Katana. it took her 15 years, but eventually she found them both. One of them belonging to the Illinois State University Museum, and the other in the Hampton University Museum in Virginia.
It is not uncommon for art dealers to perceive these artifacts as art, but really they are part of the Mijikenda people's culture and are part of their rituals. If they are stolen, the spirits would inflict harm on their living family members. These viango were not to be taken as a joke or just a beauty, but they are part of  lifestyle.

This is an example of a looting case that is not from a natural historic site, but from someone's own personal property. This also shows that looting really can harm many people. I think that Looters need to learn their boundaries. Although it is wrong to loot anywhere at all, it gets very personal when you are taking something from a specific person and treating it as a cultural artifact and selling it on the markets. I want to hear from all of you, does it make it any different for artifacts to be stolen from one specific person, does it even make it robbing rather than looting? Write your responses bellow!

http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/kenya/cultural-property-global-commodities-case-mijikenda-m

Posted by Rachel Armus

Edward George Johnson: The One man Heist

Edward George Johnson: The One man Heist

By, Ben Hall

     In February of 2002, helicopter pilot Edward George Johnson was sent into Cairo with the American military for an eight month tour ending in October of the same year. He was tasked to transport troops and scout areas to dangerous to trek on foot. He served the full eight months and the end of 2002 and beginning of 2003, Johnson had ended up walking away with $20,000. Sounds pretty nice for being a helicopter pilot for only 8 months in Egypt right? Well it turns out that this considerable amount of money was not made from Johnson’s excellent piloting skills, but rather from his skills as a looter.   

Some Artifacts taken by Johnson, Photographed by Amged Maky

 Johnson had stolen some 80 artifacts from Egypt over  the course of his military tour. This first came to the public’s eye when Johnson had contacted a dealer who had been working with the government.  It is reported that the artifacts, before falling into Johnsons hands, where help in the Ma’adi Museum. Initially, looting from dig sites is a crime large enough for one to go to jail, and a disgraceful heinous act, but Johnson looted an actual museum, which in my opinion is 10x worse. It would be the equivalent of an Egyptian coming into the Museum of Natural history in New York during a time of chaos, and taking artifacts that rightfully belong to it. Essentially Johnson took advantage of the situation in a time where it was completely unnecessary.

     

Outside of the Ma’adi in Cairo

     Johnson, in this situation, is the only one to blame. There were no accomplices reported assisting Johnson when stealing and shipping the artifacts. It was his idea alone, and only he alone executed it. Not even the Ma’adi is to blame, as it is not their fault. Sure, security should have been beefed up, but during such a time of crisis and confusion anything can happen because most of the time people are vulnerable. Johnson took advantage of not just a museum, but an entire culture.

Comment if you agree with my opinion on Johnson being the only one that should be held accountable for this crime.  

Works Cited

"Blogger." : Create Your Free Blog. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2012. <http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3173095721550120408>.

Feuer, Alan. "Army Pilot Held in Sale of Egyptian Artifacts." The New York Times. The New York Times, 07 Feb. 2008. Web. 23 Nov. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/nyregion/07soldier.html>.

"News Releases." ICE Returns Stolen Antiquities to Egypt. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2012. <http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/0812/081203newyork.htm>. 

Our Own United States Helicopter Pilot Charged with 80 Accounts

Our Own United States Helicopter Pilot Charged with 80 Accounts

By Rachel Armus

 

Edward George Johnson, a Chief Warrant Officer and helicopter pilot for the U.S. Army was convicted and charged with selling stolen antiquites from Egypt. He sold over 80 artifacts to an art dealer in Texas, and were resold to art gallories in New York. The artifacts that he found were mostly pottery dating all the way back to 300 BC and are said to be stolen form the Ma’adi Museum near Cairo. Although they were stolen in 2002, the artifacts were discovered earlier by archeologists in the 1920’s. Johnson was charged with wire frauda nd transportation of stolen property, and can face up to 15 years in prison for it.

I believe that Johnson is guilty for a few reason. One reason being that these artifacts were discovered in a meuseum in Cairo, showing that they rightfully were in Egypt as it is. Johnsons actions were more stealing than looting because looting is taking something out of their natural environment, and in this instance they were stolen from a rightful owner. Also, Johnson did not have any real documentation to show the art dealer in Texas that these artifacts were obtained legally.

Another person that should be charged for these accounts is the art dealer in Texas. He should have asked for legal documentation that showed the artifacts were infact his.

I also believe that the Ma’adi Museum should be held accountable for looting because these artifacts were taken from their natural environments. If the New York gallories are getting these artifacts illegally, wouldn’t it be illegal for the Ma’adi Museam to have them illegally too. It is hard to tell whether any artifacts were obtained legally, so who knows if the other gallory had them legally in the first place considering all of the flaws in the system of antiquity trades.

Comment below and tell us, do you feel that Johnson is the only one that did wrong here? Or do you think that the Museum in Cairo, the dealer in texas and the New york Gallories should be held accountable as well?

 

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/nyregion/07soldier.html?_r=0

The Elgin Marbles, or the Parthenon Marbles? Greece's Argument

            Britain had made quite the claim regarding why they should keep the Parthenon marbles. Overall, they want the marbles because they feel it had been in their possession long enough that they should keep it. Of course, Greece is not at all happy about that. Reflecting back on Morag Kersel’s article, “The Politics of Playing Fair, or, Who’s Losing Their Marbles?” , Kersel offered many legitimate reasons why Greece wants the marbles;

1. First, “The monument to which the sculptures belong is in Athens (Hellenic Ministry of Culture 2002).”
2. Second, “in Athens the Marbles will be exhibited within sight of the Parthenon, and the visitor can form a complete image of the temple in its entirety (Prunty 1984. I 178).”
3. Third, “the cultural and historical significance of the sculptures as well as their aesthetic importance to Greece act as symbols of national heritage-the symbol of Greek Classical civilization at its apogee.”
4. Lastly, “the Marbles were removed during a period of foreign occupation when the Greek people had no say in the matter (Greenfield 1996. 83).
5. “The Marbles were wrongly taken by Lord Elgin and have never legally or morally belonged to him or Britain (Merryman 1985, 1897)” (Kersel 48).

http://action.hellenicleaders.com/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=7659 (a website asking for the marbles back, pretty interesting!)

Greece, as they should, feels the marbles are rightfully theirs. In came from their land, and was basically stolen from them by Lord Elgin. Greece, at the time, was under control of the Ottoman Empire, therefore they did not really have a true say in the matter. The means by which Britain obtained the marbles is sketchy, and Britain even knows that.

      The marbles are a symbol of democracy and of the Classical era of Greece. They want the marbles back in the Pantheon to, perhaps, show the world how proud they are of their culture, and to display the marbles in their own home to offer more meaning to the marbles.  Furthermore, Greece is capable of taking as well as care of the marbles as Britain is. Also, regarding Britain’s thought that the marbles have become their history too; the marbles are a symbol of Greece, made in Greece, and have nothing to do with Britain. They are essentially in the museum illegally if one was to think about it: they were stolen after all. Greece is simply asking for a part of their culture back, which they ultimately deserve.

      In Conclusion, both sides offer compelling reasons as to why they should own the marbles. It is a tricky situation. Perhaps in the future, the two countries could work out a deal. Maybe Greece could give them another artifact, or maybe the two countries could share the marbles. Britain could display them for a year, and then Greece could, over and over. My personal opinion is that I feel it is silly that two countries are fighting over the marbles. They could work something out, but then again, if Greece wanted them that bad, I feel they would make sure that they got them. On the other hand, there are many campaigns to get the marbles back to Greece, such as this one; http://www.cyprusnewsreport.com/?q=node/5436. The situation is like a ping pong match going nowhere. Hopefully a deal will come out of this one day.