The recovery and return of cultural relics has always been a hot topic of continuous concern in the world.
In just one month alone, there have been many news around the world that cultural relics have been seized and returned to their hometowns. On March 29, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security seized 13 fragments of artifacts in ivy league art galleries, many from unprotected temples in the region, sold by antique dealers and sold to museums.
On the same day, the Manhattan area announced the return of two marble busts to North African countries, one of which was even permanently lent to the Metropolitan Museum of Art for display.
On March 21, according to the Hindustan Times, Australia took the initiative to return to India 29 "stolen" precious cultural relics, including sculptures and paintings, covering a number of traditional Indian themes such as "Shiva and his disciples", "Shakti worship" and "Vishnu and his incarnation".
Veiled woman's head, Cyrene, 4th century
Image credit: Manhatan District Attorney's Office
These frequent news is not only shocking, but also can't help but start to reflect:
How many cultural relics have been stolen and left in other countries around the world?
When will these precious cultural treasures be available to their people?
Not only overseas, but also in China, the return of cultural relics has always been a topic of public concern.
Whenever we mention the cultural relics that have been lost overseas, people can always recall the head of the beast in the Yuanmingyuan, the tiger that has just been exhibited in the Year of the Tiger for a hundred years, the calligraphy and paintings treasured by the Manchu Qing court, and the carvings of tomb murals in various places...
Bronze statue of a horse's head in the Yuanmingyuan, Qing Dynasty (Source: State Administration of Cultural Heritage)
On the issue of the return of cultural relics, whenever relevant news appears, it will trigger a wide range of discussions in society.
However, at the international level, because there is no unified relevant norms or legal standards for the recovery and return of cultural relics, it still causes certain difficulties for the return of cultural relics.
For example, in the 2015 case of the "flesh Buddha" recovery in Yangchun Village, Sanming City, Fujian Province, because the defendant lived overseas, and the legal standards in China and the Netherlands were different, the Dutch court failed to return the ownership of the buddha in the flesh to Yangchun Village, so it was finally not resolved, which is very deplorable.
However, this situation of different international standards has undergone some pushing changes in recent days. On March 11, 2022, the International Commission on University Museums and Collections of the International Council of Museums (ICOM-UMAC) published the Guidance for Restitution and Return of Items from University Museums and Collections, hoping that University Museums will revisit their collections. And return certain special collections.
The first page of the "Guide to the Return and Return of University Museum Collections"
The release of the Guide may be related to the cultural relics recovery incidents that have occurred in universities in Europe and the United States in recent years. In February 2020, a report in the British newspaper The Times said that in the past five years, British universities have continuously received requests for cultural relics, and these universities have completed the return of more than 80% of cultural relics and returned the cultural relics obtained in the colonial era to their places of origin.
University Museum of Cambridge (Image source: University Museum of Cambridge official website)
The Guide provides a more detailed breakdown of this category of collections that should be returned and refused to be acquired, which are broadly divided into the following categories: (1) booty; (2) human remains or objects acquired through desecration graves; (3) items acquired without permission and authorization; (4) items looted in Europe between 1933 and 1945; and (5) items and data (e.g., blood samples, photographs, biological data, etc.) that were unethically acquired in the name of research. At the same time, the Guide provides detailed advice for university museums in the design of the restitution and return process.
In fact, the publication of the Guide has also undergone a long period of study and a series of examinations of the actual situation. Below, we'll list some specific examples of university museums returning collections over the past year, and take a look at what recommendations the International Council of Museums has offered to university museums.
Witness the History of Native Americans in the Pomca Tomahawk
In May 2021, Harvard University held talks with descendants of Native American civil rights pioneer Standarding Bear, which revolved around a tomahawk that once belonged to the Pomca tribal chief and is now housed in Harvard's Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.
Standing Bear was a prominent Native American civil rights leader in the late 19th century. In 1878, in order to return his son's soul, he left the Poncak tribe's legal reservation in Oklahoma and brought his son's remains back to his hometown in the Neobra Valley, Nebraska. For leaving the Indigenous reservation, the federal government tried him. In court, the Native American protested to the federal government on behalf of all Native Americans. "I have the same color of blood in my body as you, and I am human, and we are all created by the same God." He courageously fought for the equal rights of Native Americans.
Standing Bear's Tomahawk (Image: Harvard Crimson via AP)
In 1908, after The Standing Bear's death, his tomahawk was donated to his lawyer at his own will, and when the lawyer died, the tomahawk was sold to a private collection. Finally, in 1982, Harvard University acquired and collected the monumental battle axe.
After learning of the tomahawk, the people of the Pongka tribe began to actively negotiate with Harvard University. Jane Piknin, director of the Harvard Peabody Museum, also expressed a willingness to support it, saying the Peabody Museum would push the Tomahawk home.
Bronze statue of Standing Bear (Credit: Joseph Morton/Omaha World-Herald via AP)
Larry Wright Jr., chief of the Pongka tribe, believes that the return of the tomahawk is a powerful symbol of the revival of the tribe. Two hundred years ago, indigenous peoples were forced to leave their homes and were subjected to many unfair treatments. "This tomahawk bears witness to our history and shows the world who 'we' are and why we can stand back on Nebraska soil today," he said. So, it's perfectly appropriate to let it return to its homeland. He believes that such cultural relics can remember history and remember everything that their ancestors have experienced, and should return to the Pongka tribes as soon as possible.
According to the Guide, this category of items recognized as cultural significance by the region or ethnic group to which it originally belonged should be returned on a priority basis.
Remains collected in the name of research will also be subject to moral and ethical scrutiny
Many schools may have collected human remains, but in the Guidelines issued by the International Association of International Museums, the return of "human remains" is explicitly placed in the priority sequence of museum returns.
Universities, on the other hand, hold human remains, which can sometimes spark controversy.
In April 2021, the University of Pennsylvania was mired in such a controversy. The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology has been accused of unethically possessing the remains of a subset of teenage girls.
The skeleton included part of the girl's pelvis and femur. The owner of the remains may have been a teenage girl from a black family in Philadelphia who was killed in a 1985 bombing. Her father, the leader of the black organization MOV, was also killed in the police-caused bombing.
Smoke billows from the neighborhood near the scene of the explosion (Image: Getty Images)
After the explosion, the two bones were transferred to Penn Professor and Museum Director Aram Mann because the forensic doctor could not identify the owner of the remains. From then until 2001, the remains of the teenage girl were kept at the University of Pennsylvania, and after 2001, she came to Princeton with Mann. In 2016, due to the need for research on bone recognition, the remains were returned to the University of Pennsylvania Museum.
University of Pennsylvania Museum of Pennsylvania (Image courtesy of the museum)
Penn Museum is blamed for not only not voluntarily returning the remains of the girl to her family, but also as a case study in the online course "Real Bones: A Forensic Human Credentials". Although the course has been canceled, it still caused people to be angry.
MOVE held a press conference to explain the May 13, 1985 bombing in Philadelphia, when philadelphia police classified MOVe as a terrorist organization and dropped two bombs at the building where the members were located, killing five children and six adults (including the girl's father, MOVE's leader at the time). Members of the organization said at a news conference, "36 years later, I can't imagine that they would show our family members, or even treat them as excavated dinosaur fossils." They launched an online petition demanding that the University of Pennsylvania return the remains.
Other skulls in the collection of the University of Pennsylvania Museum (Image: University of Pennsylvania)
After the incident fermented, a museum spokesman said the remains remained unidentified and said he understood the importance of the remains reuniting with their families and was "working to find a mutually respectful and consultative resolution." Penn's president and provost added: "In short, it all seems insensitive, unprofessional and unacceptable. ”
Now, the University of Pennsylvania says it has hired lawyers to investigate why the bones were admitted to the museum and is working to return them to their families.
Benin bronzes, as spoils of war, returned to Nigeria
Between the 19th and mid-20th centuries, European colonists and their armies plundered across the globe. In addition to the well-known Chinese of the Eight-Power Alliance burning the Yuanmingyuan, there are also many cultural relics looted in the war. The Guide also clearly states that the loot and unauthorized items stored in the university museum should be returned to the original owner first. This standard, as well as the design of the return process, may have been referenced by two Universities in the UK to return benin bronzes last year.
Last October, the University of Aberdeen and the University of Cambridge returned to Nigeria bronzes looted by British troops from the Nigerian city of Benin.
Ceremony to return the bronze head of the monarch of Benin (Image: Nigeria Radio and Television Channel)
The University Museum of Aberdeen was the first institution to voluntarily return bronzes to Nigeria. Prior to this, the University of Aberdeen had successfully returned a number of relics and remains to Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
During a review of the collection, the University of Aberdeen found that a bronze head of the Monarch of Benin in their possession had been acquired in an immoral manner, and they immediately took proactive measures and contacted the institution that was able to receive the bronze that was about to return.
In 1897, British troops invaded the city of Benin and looted thousands of metal, ivory sculptures and carved crafts, which flowed into the market through auctions, art dealers, and became museum or private collections. The University of Aberdeen acquired the bronze statue, a model of Beninese art, at an auction in 1957.
Bronze head of the monarch of Benin (Image: University of Aberdeen)
In 2020, the University of Aberdeen, through a law professor at Babcock University in Nigeria, engaged in dialogue with Nigeria's official heritage-keeping organisation, the Royal Court, on its return. After nearly 1 year, the bronze head of the Monarch of Benin was successfully returned to Nigeria after completing the entire process.
At the same time, Jesus College, University of Cambridge, also returned a bronze rooster statue of a Benin bronze vessel called "Okukor". The statue, also lost during the war in 1897, was looted from the Benin court and given to Jesus College in 1905 by the parents of a student at Cambridge University.
Nigerian stakeholders participating in the benin bronze return ceremony with "Okukor" (Image: Nigerian Radio and Television Channel)
Expressing his gratitude, The current leader of Benin, Ewuare II, called on other institutions around the world to revisit their collections and say, "Returning stolen works of art is the most correct thing to do." Some people say that these collectibles were bought by themselves and not stolen, so they are at ease, and I think this is completely wrong. ...... In fact, these collections, which need to be returned, are a reminder that they have continued to treat a people in an unjust way for many years. This return will become an incentive – we will usher in a future of friendly return of cultural relics. ”
The successful return of these two bronze artworks provides a reference for the formulation and release of the Guide.
How do I return university collections?
The Guide believes that the collections of the University and its museums come from many places around the world. For nearly a hundred years, the University Museum has been collecting, organizing, displaying, and using these collections for research and teaching. The University Museum wants to be a place where people are encouraged to contact, study, enjoy and learn from various human experiences, and to be the most suitable home for a wide range of collections. But in their long and complex history of acquisitions, many unethical collections have also emerged. Only now has there been a growing awareness that such collections should be returned or refused to be acquired.
Recommendations on the establishment of a restitution procedure in the Guidelines for the Return and Return of University Museum Collections
Recognizing the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination over their cultural heritage, university museums should welcome applications for restitution from individuals, groups and public institutions.
In the face of these restitution applications, the Guide advises university museums on the restitution process. First of all, the identity, history, and connection between the applicant and the returning party need to be investigated. Second, consideration should be given to the consequences of returning or continuing to preserve cultural objects, such as the possibility that they may be displayed, studied, destroyed, altered or restricted. University museums can also discuss with the units to which the cultural relics belong to make replicas, leave image materials, cooperate in research, etc., so that the university museums can continue to "share" the collection with the affiliated units.
epilogue
At present, people are gradually realizing that because of the nature of the museum itself, the display of these collections in exhibitions with popular science significance will have a worse impact. On Western university campuses, some students are also calling for the re-resolution of these "historical problems", which has increased the phenomenon of returning and returning university museum collections, and even invisibly caused some pressure on other public museums.
At the 2010 Academic Annual Meeting of the Museology Professional Committee of the China Association of Museums, Tu Xiaoyuan and Tian Jiaxin, experts from the Tianjin Cultural Relics Bureau, believed that while formulating corresponding domestic laws and regulations, establishing specialized agencies, and improving customs, we should make full use of the international convention and let the signed museums return illegally obtained collections in accordance with relevant regulations.
Although the Guidelines issued by the International Association of International Museums are only guidelines, their ultimate purpose is to promote the healthy development of university museums and at the same time protect the rights of individuals or units to which cultural relics originally belonged. But while providing help and advice to university museums, it also suggests in the original text that other Western collecting institutions are equally mired in the problem of such restitution. Perhaps, the Guide will also be able to promote reflection and compliance with relevant conventions in the West.
With the efforts of the whole world and the whole society, we have reason to believe that more and more cultural relics will return to their hometowns.
![Musk will have to pay about $11 billion in taxes in 2021[fig]]()