scorecardresearch
Follow Us:
Tuesday, September 28, 2021

How objects get to museums

Sending stolen statues back to Cambodia,the Met sets a responsible standard

Written by Neha Paliwal |
June 3, 2013 12:21:35 am

Sending stolen statues back to Cambodia,the Met sets a responsible standard

This month,the Metropolitan Museum of Art repatriated two 10th century statues,“Kneeling Pandavas”,to Cambodia. These had been illicitly obtained in the 1970s from the archaeological site of Koh Ker during the civil war in Cambodia,and donated privately to the museum in the ’90s. After establishing their dubious history of acquisition,the Met voluntarily decided to return the statues to the Cambodian people.

This event is remarkable not simply because two great cultural artefacts get to go home again (as the Latin roots of “repatriate” imply),but also because it sets a benchmark for responsible museum practices.

Public museums are wonderful spaces because they allow us to see and imagine things and societies that most of us will never get to witness firsthand. At the same time,we rarely question how these objects have been obtained; how they move through the world and ultimately come to rest in a museum where we can see and be moved by them. The Met’s actions force us to ask this question,and to realise that many collections,private and public,contain items that have been obtained by violent means — previously by imperial and colonial governments,and more recently through looting during stressful times such as civil war,in the case of these Cambodian statues,or war,in the case of the National Museum of Iraq in 2003. It is clear that such plunder happens precisely because of the great aesthetic and cultural value of the artefacts,often at the behest of private collectors. For example,the looting of the Iraqi museum was clearly organised,as if some of the looters were working from a list.

Illicit traffic is hardly unique to cultural objects. But in these cases,museums play a critical role because the provenance,or the history of ownership,of such objects is difficult,if not impossible to establish. So when an object is loaned or donated to a museum,with little verifiable information about origins,its display in a public institution masks its violent acquisition,assigns it value and legitimises it. In other words,displaying a statue looted from a remote site in Cambodia in the halls of the Metropolitan Museum allows similar artefacts to circulate,and gather value in the international art market. We must recognise that the movement of the object is a process,and each step — from its looting,smuggling,sale to a private collector,donation to a museum,its display in a gallery and our appreciation of it as museum-goers — is connected. It is our appreciation of the art on the walls and the statues in a hall,and our unquestioning belief in the credibility of the museum that confers final value on the artefact. As public institutions,museums then have a special responsibility to ensure that the objects they display are not dubiously acquired.

To be sure,the argument for considering ancient objects as global cultural heritage and therefore displaying them in “universal” museums such as the Met or the British Museum has some credibility. The Met will definitely have more visitors than Koh Ker this year,and so the statues would be seen by more people if they remained at the Met. Some,like Getty curator James Cuno,make the case that “encylopaedic museums” spur curiosity about distant places,that nationalist notions of cultural property are narrow.

However,we must acknowledge that the universal museum itself is a product of modern imperial and colonial interests. They are located almost exclusively in First World countries,their visitors are overwhelmingly from the West,and their collections are filled with objects taken from poorer nations over the last few centuries. Such situations do not make for universal access,by any measure. In recent decades,countries such as China,Italy,Greece,and Egypt have made claims to numerous artefacts on display in British,French and American museums. India too has demanded the return of the Koh-i-noor diamond and other objects from the British. There is little chance that these countries will see the repatriation of all the objects that have been looted from them and are now on display in the West — but perhaps more loans,greater circulation of artefacts between the big collecting musems and those in other nations would create a more genuinely cosmopolitan kind of museum.

The return of the Cambodian statues is one act in the recent history of repatriations that signals a change in attitude among museums. It shows us that,more and more,illicit acquisition of cultural and historically significant artefacts is intolerable,not just when buying or receiving artefacts as donations in the future but also with regard to past acquisitions. In this instance,the Met has set a standard that other museums ought to follow,both with regard to international acquisitions as well as artefacts obtained within the nation — from minority and oppressed communities.

Even as we speak about the responsibilities of museums as public institutions,we as visitors also have a responsibility — to ensure that our museums reflect the concerns and values of their communities. The next time you visit a museum,you might wonder how a Manipuri manuscript found its way to the display case,and maybe you’ll even ask the curator.

The writer is a museum studies scholar

express@expressindia.com

📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App.

  • The Indian Express website has been rated GREEN for its credibility and trustworthiness by Newsguard, a global service that rates news sources for their journalistic standards.
0 Comment(s) *
* The moderation of comments is automated and not cleared manually by indianexpress.com.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement