Recent thefts at the British Museum and another institution in Cologne, Germany, where valuable Chinese Ming and Qing dynasty porcelains went missing, have reignited the long-standing debate on the repatriation of stolen artifacts. These events underscore a broader issue that many countries, especially nations with ancient civilizations like Egypt and China, grapple with.
Yara Ismail, an academic at Cairo University, emphasizes the significance of cultural relics to a nation’s identity. She poetically quotes an Egyptian proverb, which translates to “Who misses his past is lost.” For Ismail, cultural relics form the bedrock of a nation’s memory, character, and identity.
Echoing Ismail’s sentiment, many Chinese citizens have voiced their yearnings on social media platforms for the return of their nation’s cultural treasures. Yet, the journey of repatriating these treasures is riddled with obstacles.
Huo Zhengxin, an expert at the China University of Political Science and Law, acknowledges that the international calls for repatriation have indeed stirred reflection among nations that possess these artifacts. This self-examination has sparked an international trend towards returning cultural relics. Nevertheless, Zhengxin cautions that achieving a comprehensive and systematic return remains a gradual endeavor.
Liu Yang, a seasoned researcher affiliated with China’s Old Summer Palace (Yuanmingyuan) Society, highlights that Western museums with wartime-looted artifacts have honed the art of “whitewashing” to validate the possession of these items. Liu illustrates the example of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in the US, which uses indirect methods, essentially functioning as a third party, to obtain and then “donate” artifacts, thereby circumventing direct legal implications.
Historical records reveal the staggering magnitude of this issue. Following the Opium War in 1840, over 10 million Chinese cultural treasures found their way into foreign lands, with over a million being prime cultural assets. The path to their return is intricate, as the origins of these artifacts vary – some were acquired through legitimate means, while others were war booty or donations.
Liu believes in the potential of fostering strong institutional ties between countries that hold these artifacts and their countries of origin to expedite repatriation. China, for instance, has successfully repatriated over 150,000 artifacts since 1949.
Yet, the road to repatriation is strewn with legal challenges. International conventions, while noble in intent, often lack the teeth for enforceability. Many Western nations remain hesitant to endorse conventions advocating the return of cultural relics. Huo Zhengxin, however, notes that even when legal paths seem blocked due to time limitations, there are alternate routes, such as mediation, to achieve repatriation.
Recent global trends hint at a possible positive shift. Countries are showing a willingness to cooperate on cultural heritage protection, as witnessed by Switzerland’s recent return of five invaluable relics to China. Similarly, France demonstrated its commitment by returning cultural assets to its former colonies.
Despite these positive moves, some Western museums have historically justified retaining cultural treasures by claiming superior protective capabilities. However, with recurrent scandals at institutions like the British Museum, these justifications wear thin. Nations like Egypt, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and China continue to demand the return of their cultural heirlooms.
Ismail critiques such museums’ hesitance, attributing it to fears of a potential floodgate of repatriation requests that could leave them empty. Huo concurs, suggesting that many of these museums, deep-rooted in foreign artifacts, dread the domino effect of repatriation. Nonetheless, as global awareness and sensitivity grow, it is hoped that the rightful return of stolen treasures will become not just an exception but a norm.
READ MORE: