i agree completely that the country of origin should have control over the artifacts within its borders and should be able to display the remains of its history and culture, but i am going to play devils advocate here for two points; first, education. many people, kids especially, would have no access to those exhibits and would be denied a chance to access and learn from them, perhaps denied the chance to be inspired to join in the field of said culture’s exploration. if the artifacts are exported, either permanently or on a lend program between educational institutions, this solves this.
my second point is stability; many of the nations that such artifacts are pulled from don’t have museums, or are so unstable due to war or natural disasters that these artifacts, as well as what can be gleaned from them, could be lost forever. an example here; a nearly full fossilized skeleton of the Spinosaurus existed in a German museum in Munich, until WW2… and was so utterly destroyed by bombing, along with all records of its discovery, what information was pulled from it, it’s restoration, etc. and that was one specific incident in German that almost erased one of the most interesting extinct species form record forever.
consider also; the destruction of artifacts and historical sites in Iraq during the invasion by ISIS. so much lost, perhaps forever, and these artifacts and sites resided in a region of relative instability in the world. they would be arguably safer in a european or american museum. this was of such concern in the early stages of the War in Iraq (2003) that entire platoons were dispatched alongside archeologists to try and recover some priceless pieces of history from destruction in the at-risk national museum in Baghdad, and the movie Monuments Men was made regarding this practice in WW2.
so… i believe, wholeheartedly, that the nation of origin should have say, ownership, and control over the artifacts. but… it’s complicated and imperfect. would such a well-intentioned policy result in the destruction of artifacts? or is that a risk worth taking?
I am inclined to agree- and I think the devils advocate points are extremely valid, especially the second point concerning stability. Although that one does become a bit sticky as you allude to…. To play the devils advocates adversary-
Throughout history- modern history, we have lots of examples of history and cultural artifacts being destroyed or allowed to rot.. by their “owners.” The French or any number of revolutions- the new government destroys and defaces old or ancient sites or objects… A “victor” in a civil war etc. destroys the physical and recorded history that conflicts their narrative or offends their values or challenges their control… So we do have an issue regarding wether it’s better in some cases where it is almost a given or it is good odds that a priceless treasure stands to be destroyed- is it better to risk it not existing, or to know it exists… far away and relatively safe for posterity?
Which brings a certain arrogance- if a nation is hoarding the treasures of others under a banner of stability and responsibility- that nation is basically saying they know they have such strength that war or such isn’t a danger to them, or that they at the least believe they are more stable and responsible than those they are taking the treasure from. Of course sometimes a people share a history and not a present- same region and ancestors but different groups now. In such cases both groups may have claim to an artifact and may fight over it- causing conflict or at least danger to the object or site. If such an object is already in the hands of a third party, choosing one side is both akin to showing favor but also akin to saying that you believe they are the more stable and responsible party. There are all these little nuances that we can sort of relate to in our own social dealings such as arguments when people die and leave property and such.
But at the end of the day we have two big questions that underpin all this..
1. Who does history belong to? The moon landing was a significant event for humanity- but does it only “belong” to America? Should only Americans be able to own any relics of that history? How far back do we have to go before we decide that something doesn’t belong to a people and how do we handle migration and immigration and conquest? If the modern “French” persons ancestors settled lands 10,000 years ago that belonged before that to another genetic group- would artifacts of 11,000 years of older belong to the other group? What if they split and members of that group exist across different areas?
2. Who is history owed to? What if any right is there to history- to an person, a group, a nation, humanity? If China wanted to destroy the Great Wall, does anyone else get a say even though the wall was built by a long gone imperial government and the imperial government was conquered by a communist government..
.. in the 20th century who’s claims to the wall amount to some possible genetic connection to the builders among their modern people, or the fact it happens to be within land they claim? What of a place or item that shares significance between people? The Statue of Liberty in America is a piece of American history but also French history. And beyond intentional destruction is neglect or questionable care. What happens if a group or government lacks the funds or skill or will to maintain a piece of history? The individualist answer would say whoever legally owns something can do what they want with it. That if you move in to a historical building you should be able to tear it down and build condos from the dirt, or if you managed to find lost writings of a major religions holy prophet from thousands of years ago you should be able to allow your kid to use it to doodle on or mulch it for hater cage litter if you like.
Which bridges to the point you raise about access- a king held debate concerns historical or artistically important objects in private collections. Where a person or trust or other entity gets to decide who if anyone may see or study an object or access a place. Is that right? Is it suddenly more right when a government does it? But what is the alternative? Allow anyone and everyone free access so paintings can be covered in oil or ancient cave drawings can be destroyed by human breath or statues and relics can be broken or defaced? If of course the other issue is that of what we assign historical or cultural value. In a thousand or so years a disposable water bottle or a $20 ring from wish could be worth millions or more. Every building is a historic building if it stands long enough. Almost every place on earth has some archeological value or geological etc etc. or is a place where people died.
So how do we reconcile that agaisnt progress and the needs of the present and the future? When a day comes that we no longer need a once important site that sits in valuable land people could live on or farm etc- what do we do? These things are usually handled case by case and sadly often come down to the old saying “money talks..” but it is true that perhaps not building a much needed school or hospital or some other prudent place because someone found a goblet and some old seeds and thinks it may be an old dining hall… that seems questionable too.
It’s a sticky wicket. One that isn’t just about history but the future.
As we hopefully loom towards space- questions that still stand unanswered or agreements made because no one thought it would ever be tested will be challenged. We already face certain questions such as who owns what if it falls from space? Objects that were owned by someone when they went into space- it seems like they’d still be owned by that person when they fall back down, but objects with no clear owner like space rocks… who owns those? What happens when an owner no longer exists? Does the Russian Federation own any space materials the USSR sent up? If so why? Because they have the same zip code? When the USA left the base of the lunar orbiter in the moon it was made to be discarded. They didn’t reasonably expect they’d ever be able to retrieve it. If someone were to go retrieve that… could the USA demand it back? Should that be ok since they essentially left it as garbage?
Tricky tricky, sticky sticky. Overall it does seem most reasonable to me that “ownership” of an object where a chain of ownership can’t be clearly followed, would generally go to whomever was closest to the original or last known or most likely owner. A chalice at a dig sight might likely have belonged to a certain people and whoever is closest to those people could be inferred to have “inherited it.” It sucks if your sibling inherits your parents house and then gets it foreclosed on in a matter of years. It sucks more when you know you could have managed it better and it would still be around… but if that piece of family history was left to your sibling… that was the will or assumed to be the will of your parents (ancestors.) So I guess maybe that’s just how that works…? That still leaves the issues of wether that’s right and wether a person has responsibility to maintain and make available that history to others with internet or shared roots.
It also doesn’t answer the question of ownership in cases where items are so old and or ambiguous that it may be impossible to narrow ownership down conclusively to any one group on earth let alone a specific family like or person. That’s also a bit… problematic… a system as it rewards those of “purer blood” and/or “deeper roots” who’s ancestors didn’t interbreed outside a narrow genetic range and who’s ancestors were not prone to migration. Because a person ls ancestors kept their partners within a group one MIGHT conclude that lineage would have stronger ties to the older culture an item belongs to- but that can be completely untrue, especially when the cultures are separated by leaps in time. You may meet people or people from certain groups may have 60% or more “Neanderthal DNA” where other persons and groups generally have little or none- so we might reason that these persons or groups with high percentage of Neanderthal DNA were the “rightful inheritors” of Neanderthal sites…
.. and it objects and such.. but do any of them practice Neanderthal culture in any meaningful way beyond whatever remnants of that are present in the world at large as it has evolved over time? Do they identify as Neanderthal and take pride in the uniqueness of their Neanderthal ancestors and people? So they even know anything about the Neanderthals beyond what you might learn on a cereal box? So they are in reality and in general no closer to the Neanderthals than your average person. Claims to Neanderthal history tend to fall primarily on who “owns” the area of the find or who claims their ancestors lived in the area or migrated along a path near the areas.
Is that enough? Should it be? Who should own Neanderthal tensions if anyone?
so… i believe, wholeheartedly, that the nation of origin should have say, ownership, and control over the artifacts. but… it’s complicated and imperfect. would such a well-intentioned policy result in the destruction of artifacts? or is that a risk worth taking?
Throughout history- modern history, we have lots of examples of history and cultural artifacts being destroyed or allowed to rot.. by their “owners.” The French or any number of revolutions- the new government destroys and defaces old or ancient sites or objects… A “victor” in a civil war etc. destroys the physical and recorded history that conflicts their narrative or offends their values or challenges their control… So we do have an issue regarding wether it’s better in some cases where it is almost a given or it is good odds that a priceless treasure stands to be destroyed- is it better to risk it not existing, or to know it exists… far away and relatively safe for posterity?
1. Who does history belong to? The moon landing was a significant event for humanity- but does it only “belong” to America? Should only Americans be able to own any relics of that history? How far back do we have to go before we decide that something doesn’t belong to a people and how do we handle migration and immigration and conquest? If the modern “French” persons ancestors settled lands 10,000 years ago that belonged before that to another genetic group- would artifacts of 11,000 years of older belong to the other group? What if they split and members of that group exist across different areas?
2. Who is history owed to? What if any right is there to history- to an person, a group, a nation, humanity? If China wanted to destroy the Great Wall, does anyone else get a say even though the wall was built by a long gone imperial government and the imperial government was conquered by a communist government..
It’s a sticky wicket. One that isn’t just about history but the future.
Is that enough? Should it be? Who should own Neanderthal tensions if anyone?