Various major museums from around the world have issued a document declaring the importance of the Universal Museum. It is thought that part of their aim behind this, is in an attempt to prevent having to return artefacts from their collections (with dubious provenance) to their original owners. This is of particular concern to many Australian Aboriginal groups, who were having a certain level of success in working towards a commitment for the return of artefacts involving human remains.
From:
The Age (Melbourne) [1]
Museums get tough on ‘trophy’ returns
December 11 2002
By Peter Fray,
Europe Correspondent,
LondonA group of leading European and US museums have issued a declaration opposing the wholesale repatriation of cultural artefacts seized during imperial rule or by means now considered unethical.
They say the universal role played by collections of archaeological, artistic and ethnic objects in promoting culture outweighs the desire by individual countries or racial groups for their return.
The declaration is the most significant move by the world’s leading museums to protect treasures, often seized during colonial rule, from being returned – such as the Elgin Marbles, which the Greek Government desperately wants back, the Benin bronzes in the British Museum, and thousands of Egyptian works in the Louvre.The declaration may harm Australian Aboriginal campaigns for the return of artefacts and human remains from Europe. A British working group, due to report by Christmas, is expected to urge the Blair Government to relax laws hindering the return of bones to Aboriginal people.
The declaration’s signatories include the Louvre in Paris, the Hermitage in St Petersburg, the Prado in Madrid, the Metropolitan, Guggenheim, Whitney and Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, and the State Museums in Berlin.
The British Museum, which has a collection of Aboriginal remains, did not sign the declaration but said its director, Neil MacGregor, supported its intent. “We don’t believe in breaking up collections,” said spokesman Andrew Hamilton.
The declaration described repatriation as “a disservice to all visitors” although it said requests for specific objects would be judged individually. “We should acknowledge that museums serve not just the citizens of one nation but the people of every nation,” it said.
While they are opposed to illegal trafficking in objects, they draw a distinction for material seized “decades or even centuries ago” and now held in museums.
“We should recognise that objects acquired in earlier times must be viewed in the light of different sensitivities and values, reflective of that era.”
Several European institutions have recently returned artefacts to traditional owners or original countries. Italy has agreed to repatriate an Ethiopian obelisk, seized by Mussolini in 1937, and a Scottish museum has returned to the Sioux Indians a spiritually significant ghost-dance shirt, worn at the battle of Wounded Knee in 1890.
But most institutions remain opposed to the return of prized collections. Mr Hamilton said the British Museum was a place where “you can come and see the entire history of mankind in one place”.
Asked why his institution did not sign the declaration, he said the British Museum was “quite happy” to let others take the initiative.
The British Government will soon receive a report on the repatriation of human remains from a group of leading historians, museum directors, lawyers, anthropologists and medical specialists.
The group, led by Professor Norman Palmer, a legal academic from University College, London, found that two-thirds of British museums held remains.
European and British museums are believed to hold thousands of Aboriginal bones, hair and soft tissues, removed from Australia usually against the wishes of local people or without their knowledge.
Two years ago Prime Minister John Howard and British Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed to speed up the return of human remains between the two countries, but several institutions, including London’s Natural History Museum, opposed the idea.
But there have been some repatriations, including the return by the British Royal College of Surgeons of remains of Truganini, one of colonial Australia’s most famous Aborigines.
The Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre and the Foundation for Aboriginal and Island Research Action have campaigned for more than 20 years for the return of remains. Although Aboriginal campaigners concede that human remains are not the same as artefacts, repatriation opponents use the same justification – that collections are universal – to deny attempts to return material.
Lyndon Ormond Parker, a London-based Aboriginal researcher and postgraduate student, said the museums’ declaration showed that years of campaigning by indigenous groups were having an impact.
“Museums which have the most to lose are getting together to fight this with a united front,” he said. Letters published in the current edition of the Science and Public Affairs journal, between repatriation opponent Robert Foley, of Cambridge University, and repatriation supporter Jane Morris, the editor of the Museums Journal, reveal why the issue has become one of science’s hottest topics.
Professor Foley, director of the Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, tells Ms Morris that “the ultimate justification is that skeletal collections are kept as part of global human heritage, not the preserve of any one culture”.
“Will future generations of Western and aboriginal cultures be more grateful that the past was preserved rather than lost or intentionally destroyed because of current political fashion?” he asks.
In another he writes: “As custodian of one of the major research centres, I do not want future generations to look back and say we threw away an opportunity to use anthropology and science to bring a better understanding of our species.”
The working group is expected to deliver its report before Christmas.
From:
Sydney Morning Herald [2]
Top museums unite to fight Aboriginal claims
By Peter Fray in London and Alexa Moses
December 11 2002Several museums in Europe and the United States have issued a landmark declaration opposing the wholesale repatriation of cultural artefacts seized during imperial rule or by means now considered unethical.
The museums say the universal value of collections of archaeological, artistic and ethnic objects in promoting culture outweighs the desire by individual countries or racial groups for their return.
The declaration is the most significant attempt by the world’s leading museums to protect treasures, often seized during colonial rule, from governments or descendants of original owners.
Disputed high-profile treasures include the Elgin Marbles and the Benin bronzes in the British Museum and several thousand Egyptian works in the Louvre. The declaration on the “value of universal museums” may harm Australian Aboriginal campaigns for the return of artefacts and human remains from Europe.
It shows how difficult it will be for Aboriginal campaigners and Australian museums to persuade many European institutions to return pieces from their collections. Signatories include the Louvre in Paris, the Hermitage in St Petersburg, the Prado, Madrid, the Metropolitan, Guggenheim, Whitney and Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, and the State Museums, Berlin.
The British Museum, which has a collection of Aboriginal remains, did not sign the declaration, but said its director, Neil MacGregor, supported its intent. Yesterday it was releasing the declaration to British-based media on request. “We don’t believe in breaking up collections,” said a spokesman, Andrew Hamilton.
The declaration described repatriation as “a disservice to all visitors”, though it said requests for specific objects would be judged on an individual basis. “We should acknowledge that museums serve not just the citizens of one nation but the people of every nation,” it said.
“We should recognise that objects acquired in earlier times must be viewed in the light of different sensitivities and values, reflective of that era.”
Mr Hamilton said the British Museum was a place where “you can come and see the entire history of mankind in one place”.
The British Government will soon receive a report on the repatriation of human remains, including Aboriginal ones, from a group of leading historians, museum directors, lawyers, anthropologists and medical specialists. The group, chaired by Professor Norman Palmer, a legal academic from University College, London, is understood to have found that at least two-thirds of British museums hold remains.
European and British museums are believed to hold several thousand Aboriginal bones, and quantities of hair and soft tissues, removed from Australia usually against the wishes of local people or without their knowledge.
Two years ago the Prime Minister, John Howard, and the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, agreed to speed up the return of human remains between the two countries, but several institutions, including the Natural History Museum in London, oppose the idea.
But there have been some recent repatriations, including the return by the British Royal College of Surgeons of several remains of Truganini, one of colonial Australia’s most famous Aboriginal figures.
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commissioner, Rodney Dillon, said the repatriation of remains was decided by each institution that held them. “It’s very delicate for Aboriginal people and very hard to deal with. We’re talking about people’s grandmothers and grandfathers.”
From:
BBC News [3]
Monday, 9 December, 2002, 14:58 GMT
Museums thwart artefact claimsSome of the world’s leading museums have joined forces to declare that they will not hand back ancient artefacts to their countries of origin.
Directors of 18 institutions, from St Petersburg to New York, signed a declaration saying their collections act as “universal museums” for the good of the world.
People have only been able to fully appreciate ancient civilisations because their institutions have provided access to archaeological, artistic and ethnic objects, they say.
The statement follows increased calls for the return of artefacts that were removed decades or centuries ago, such as the controversial Elgin Marbles, which are in the British Museum.
A similar row has simmered over the Benin Bronzes that are kept in London and Berlin, while Turkey has been pushing for the return of the Pergamon Altar, also currently on show in Berlin.
In 1993, the Metropolitan Museum of Art reluctantly handed over 363 pieces of gold, silver, precious stones, paintings and sculptures to Turkey after a court case.
The directors’ declaration said: “The universal admiration for ancient civilisations would not be so deeply established today were it not for the influence exercised by the artefacts of these cultures, widely available to an international public in major museums.”
It said Greek culture would not have become so lauded if museums had not put statues on show.
‘Not comparable’
“The collections of public museums throughout the world marked the significance of Greek sculpture for mankind as a whole and its enduring value for the contemporary world.”
The acquisition of objects in past eras cannot be treated the same as illegal trade in antiquities today, the directors said.
“The objects and monumental works that were installed decades and even centuries ago in museums throughout Europe and America were acquired under conditions that are not comparable with current ones,” the statement said.
Parthenon row
The statement was discussed at an informal meeting of directors earlier in 2002, and the heads of institutions including the Louvre in Paris, the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York signed up.
The British Museum has not signed up to the declaration, but says it fully supports it.
Over recent years, it has faced growing calls to hand back the Elgin Marbles, sculptures taken from the Parthenon in Athens in the 19th century.
But the British Museum has said it is the “best possible place for them”.
“They must remain here if the museum is to continue to achieve its aim, which is to show the world to the world,” director Neil McGregor said recently.
Museums signed up to the declaration:
The Art Institute of Chicago
Bavarian State Museum, Munich (Alte Pinakothek, Neue Pinakothek)
State Museums, Berlin
Cleveland Museum of Art
J Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles
Solomon R Guggenheim Museum, New York
Los Angeles County Museum of Art
Louvre Museum, Paris
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
The Museum of Modern Art, New York
Opificio delle Pietre Dure, Florence
Philadelphia Museum of Art
Prado Museum, Madrid
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg
Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum, Madrid
Whitney Museum of American Art, New York