# Objects of cultural heritage / historical interest



## jonquiliser

Hi all,

The other day I watched a few minutes of a documentary on Egypt's pyramides and cultural heritage. As far as I understood, the Egyptian authorities were trying to bring back important historical items that for some reason or other have been scattered around the world. 

A representative of the British Museum, where some key items (such as the Rosetta stone) are kept, argued that the items should remain in Britain, saying something along the lines of this making it possible for a wide audience to get familiar with the objects and perhaps gaining an interest in ancient Egyptian history. 

Another representative of a museum in a similar position (I can't remember which) said the history of our common humanity shouldn't be the property of some (the Egyptians, I presume) but accesible to all (why this wouldn't be possible were the objects in Egypt, she didn't say).

Now, I don't particularly believe history is the property of anyone (though certainly it is _created_ so marked by who makes it), but somehow I found these attitudes to be rather smug and arrogant (especially regarding how they seemed to think of "the West" and "the rest"). Why wouldn't Egypt be worthy enough a place for keeping these objects? Why couldn't people visit Egypt, instead of London, to see the masks and stones etc?

My question is, how are issues of these kinds usually considered in your respective countries/regions? Can objects of historical importance be said to "belong" somewhere? Or is it fair that whoever got their hands on something should get to keep it if they so wish?


----------



## jinti

In the US, there is now a law called the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA -- passed in 1990), which says that burial sites should be left alone and any remains/artifacts already taken out of them should be returned to descendants. Of course, NAGPRA doesn't extend outside of the US, so there are plenty of Native American artifacts in private collections and museums in other countries which aren't legally required to return them. Some do anyway, but I doubt it's the majority.

I think it's commonly agreed among US researchers and museum curators that remains and items taken from Native American gravesites should be repatriated. But there are still grey areas about what is considered art and what is considered sacred.


----------



## sokol

There was one nice piece on cultural heritage here in Austria, namely the *Gustav Klimt* collection, especially his *Adele Bloch Bauer* - to cut the story short: the original owners, Austrian Jews, were dispossessed during the Nazi years and lost the Adele plus four other paintings to a Nazi solicitor who wanted to get rid of the picture as it was considered _entarted _by the Nazis.

The Austrian Gallery bought them and the Adele was on public display in Austria after the war. It was always considered as an object of cultural heritage (as Klimt is Austrian), but even more so, in 2005, when it became clear that the paintings would actually be given back to the Jewish family's heirs and that no financial settlement was to be found as the Austrian Gallery saw no way to pay the market price of the paintings.
(Although the heirs were of a mind with the Austrians that Adele should remain in Austria no agreement concerning the price could be found.)
Adele was sold from the heirs, and the only consolation was that at least the painting will be on public display.

(Austria was offered the chance to buy Adele back for $ 300 million for all 5 pictures which were given back, but the government decided they couldn't afford it. Well, they could have, somehow: such things always are political decisions. Had we had another government at the time, or had the media put more pressure on the politicians than they did, the outcome could have been another one. - Adele alone was sold shortly after for a mere $ 135 million, another one for $ 88 million. The irony of it being, had Austria given the 5 pictures back a few decades earlier then Austria probably would have been able to buy them back without overstreching the budget - art nowadays fetches outrageous prices, really.)

The buyer, though private collector, has his own gallery, the Neue Galerie in New York, where the painting is shown. If you're interested in the details you can google yourself - there was much publicity in America too, so you will find enough information in English.

How Austrians feel about that particular case?
I can only speak for myself: it is of course legitimate to make up for evil from the past, and especially from the Nazi era, and it really is a shame that in this case it took so long.

However, Austria now has lost part of its cultural heritage, and most likely for ever. The Klimt paintings might even sometime in the future disappear into some private collection and never been seen in public again. But at least not for now, as mentioned.


----------



## alexacohen

Hello,

Many objects d'art now scattered in different museums all over the world were not bought, but stolen.
Even if we don't agree with governments that, in the past, sold entire temples, paintings, obelisks, sculptures, for whatever economic reason they deemed necessary, the fact is that many things were sold. 
And not many countries would be able to buy them back.
But the stolen objects, and I'm very much afraid there are millions, should be returned to their countries of origin.
Jonquil, I think the main point is that if all those stolen objects were to be returned, many major museums would be left with nothing to display.


----------



## K-Milla

In Mexico we do have lots of things that are part of _art history_. Some of them, I think that the most important ones, are abroad because they were stolen.

Nowadays, you could visit the pyramides and you could see lots of interesting and _new_ things that I guess that everyone believes and never doubt.


----------



## Outsider

jonquiliser said:


> A representative of the British Museum, where some key items (such as the Rosetta stone) are kept, argued that the items should remain in Britain, saying something along the lines of this making it possible for a wide audience to get familiar with the objects and perhaps gaining an interest in ancient Egyptian history.
> 
> Another representative of a museum in a similar position (I can't remember which) said the history of our common humanity shouldn't be the property of some (the Egyptians, I presume) but accesible to all (why this wouldn't be possible were the objects in Egypt, she didn't say).


I tend to agree, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they were just being self-serving, rather than smug. 

Having said this, from a pragmatic point of view I wouldn't say that it's always best for historical items to be left in their country of origin. Sometimes their current possessor can be in a better position to care for them than anybody in the homeland. If the items of the Baghdad Museum had been in the British Museum, they wouldn't have been stolen a couple of years ago.


----------



## alexacohen

Outsider said:


> Sometimes their current possessor can be in a better position to care for them than anybody in the homeland. If the items of the Baghdad Museum had been in the British Museum, they wouldn't have been stolen a couple of years ago.


No, they wouldn't.
And if a war starts in Spain for whatever stupid reason, all our monuments and paintings would be in a better position if they had been far away in Kiev instead of here (and so would people).
No one can say what's going to happen in the future.


----------



## Brioche

Interesting question.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the return of artifacts would mean the end of all museums, including the Egyptian museum in Cairo. All of King Tut's stuff should be stuffed back into his little tomb.

The Egyptian government is currently taking an interest in the country's past, and stabilizing and restoring ancient monuments, mostly with an eye to the tourist dollar.

However, if you go to Alexandria you will see the wonderful 19th and 20th century buildings just being let fall apart. The situation is much the same in Cairo. On the whole, the only buildings in Egypt that are in a reasonable state of repair are mosques. The only well cared for buildings are foreign-owned - embassies, hotels, banks and the like.

Nasser would have been quite happy for everything south of the high Aswan dam to have been drowned. It was the rest of the world which saved Abu Simbel, Phillae and 22 other monuments.

If the Temple of Dendur, now in New York, and the Temple of Debod, now in Madrid, had not been moved out of the country, they would now be under the waters of Lake Nasser.


----------



## alexacohen

Brioche, I don't know if the Egyptian government would have been happy or not to have all those monuments lost underwater. 

But I doubt very much they had money or resources enough to move Abu Simbel and the rest of the temples from their original sites.

The rest of the world was interested in saving those monuments, only God knows why because the rest of the world hasn't lift a finger to save many others, and many Egyptian historical objects were given in return for their help. Including those two temples.

I haven't seen the temple in New York; but the one in Madrid looks out of place, awkward and it is a utterly sad sight, fading away in a cloud of highly contaminated air with no one lifting a hand to save it from decay and destruction.


----------



## linspiration

I agree with alexacohen... 
La mayoría de los objetos fueron robados, y aunque hayan pagado por ellos, a menudo fue bajo coacción o a cambio de baratijas. Lo que distingue a los británicos de los francenses durante la colonización de África es que los británicos trataron de justificar todo aquello que se llevaban... 

Esta pregunta es un verdadero dilema: es cierto que algunos países tiene dificultades para custodiar los vestigios de su pasado, pero ¿por qué? Los países que tienen los medios para "custodiar bien", ¿no han contribuido de alguna manera a que los no pueden custodiar estén en ésta situación? 

Por otra parte, no estoy de acuerdo con que el único interés en recuperar lo perdido/robado sea por dinero: es una cuestión de cultura y de memoria histórica. Los museos forman parte de esas instituciones que ayudan a crear una identidad común a nivel del estado... Para un museo europeo tener vestigios sumerios o egipcios es una manera de mostrar su gran pasado imperial... 

El Templo de Debod, se está degradando a una velocidad increíble porque está al aire libre. Existen numerosos proyectos que han querido protegerlo, y ninguno ha sido financiado por las autoridades públicas, ¿porqué? ¿Será que no valoramos lo que tenemos? 

Y EEUU, ¡qué gran filántropo! Por eso entró con sus tanques de combate en Babilonia, destrozando vestigios de más de 4000 años, o dejó que se saqueara el museo de Bagdad. ¿Lo habrá permitido porque de todos modos no era "suyo"?

Ahora bien, esperando a qué cambien las cosas, es evidente que los que tienen medios para ello, custodiarán mejor un vestigio que de otra forma se puede perder; pero eso no justifica que se nieguen a devolver algo que otros pueden guardar convenientemente. Si la memoria histórica es de todos y de nadie, ¿porqué no hacemos algo para que todos disfruten de ella?


----------



## sokol

alexacohen said:


> Brioche, I don't know if the Egyptian government would have been happy or not to have all those monuments lost underwater.



These were different times, Nasser's Egypt mostly did care for progress and the ancient relics weren't at all as valued in their country as they are today. (Egypt however did fare much better than China during the cultural revolution - which happened about the same time than the building of Nasser's dam - when countless objects of cultural heritage were lost, forever.)

This indeed was the _zeitgeist _in poorer (and even some richer) countries in the 1960ies: don't look back!

However, in principle I agree that some cultural objects really look out of place if they do not refer to local cultural tradition. Others, like Cleopatra's Needle of London, really now are part of the 'landscape'.

And then there are other cases, like the Ephesos ruins recovered by an Austrian team of archaeologists in Turkey and on exhibition in Vienna: the archaeologists did work very hard for the recovery - they both invested much time and money at a time when the Turkish regime showed no interest at all in Greek history which wasn't considered as *their *history (even if the ruins were in Turkish soil).
This now slowly changes.
So the question is: is the Turkish regime entitled to gather all the Greek artifacts from all over the world which were dug up by others and weren't even stolen? (The Ephesos artifacts in Vienna weren't - the Osman rulers allowed the archaeologists to take them away.)

I think this would be rather unfair.


----------



## alexacohen

> Originally Posted by *sokol*
> So the question is: is the Turkish regime entitled to gather all the Greek artifacts from all over the world which were dug up by others and weren't even stolen? (The Ephesos artifacts in Vienna weren't - the Osman rulers allowed the archaeologists to take them away.)
> I think this would be rather unfair.


Sokol, I have already said that the objects that should be returned to their countries of origin are the stolen ones - and there are many.
The ones that were legally bought or legally taken should stay where they are. 
At least, that's what I think.


----------



## cuchuflete

linspiration said:


> I agree with alexacohen...
> La mayoría de los objetos fueron robados, y aunque hayan pagado por ellos, a menudo fue bajo coacción o a cambio de baratijas. Lo que distingue a los británicos de los francenses durante la colonización de África es que los británicos trataron de justificar todo aquello que se llevaban...
> 
> Esta pregunta es un verdadero dilema: es cierto que algunos países tiene dificultades para custodiar los vestigios de su pasado, pero ¿por qué? Los países que tienen los medios para "custodiar bien", ¿no han contribuido de alguna manera a que los no pueden custodiar estén en ésta situación?
> 
> Por otra parte, no estoy de acuerdo con que el único interés en recuperar lo perdido/robado sea por dinero: es una cuestión de cultura y de memoria histórica. Los museos forman parte de esas instituciones que ayudan a crear una identidad común a nivel del estado... Para un museo europeo tener vestigios sumerios o egipcios es una manera de mostrar su gran pasado imperial...
> 
> El Templo de Debod, se está degradando a una velocidad increíble porque está al aire libre. Existen numerosos proyectos que han querido protegerlo, y ninguno ha sido financiado por las autoridades públicas, ¿porqué? ¿Será que no valoramos lo que tenemos?
> 
> Y EEUU, ¡qué gran filántropo! Por eso entró con sus tanques de combate en Babilonia, destrozando vestigios de más de 4000 años, o dejó que se saqueara el museo de Bagdad. ¿Lo habrá permitido porque de todos modos no era "suyo"?
> 
> Ahora bien, esperando a qué cambien las cosas, es evidente que los que tienen medios para ello, custodiarán mejor un vestigio que de otra forma se puede perder; pero eso no justifica que se nieguen a devolver algo que otros pueden guardar convenientemente. Si la memoria histórica es de todos y de nadie, ¿porqué no hacemos algo para que todos disfruten de ella?



Gracias por el revisionismo histórico.  Aunque estoy de acuerdo con mucho que has dicho aquí, no tiene que ver con la pregunta original, que preguntaba....



> My question is, how are issues of these kinds usually considered in your respective countries/regions? Can objects of historical importance be said to "belong" somewhere?


----------



## linspiration

cuchuflete said:


> Gracias por el revisionismo histórico. Aunque estoy de acuerdo con mucho que has dicho aquí, no tiene que ver con la pregunta original, que preguntaba....


 
Sorry, I thought my answer could reflect one of the several points of view that exist in Spain (but I am also french). And I don't think that we can generalize one opinion to an entire country... 
Why did you say "revisionismo"?


----------



## jonquiliser

Jinti, Sokol, Alexa, K-M, Out, linspiration, Brioche; thank you all for your replies, it's been interesting reading them. I don't claim that there are any easy or self-evident solutions, but I certainly think there are problems with both past occurences and present attitudes/policies. 

It might be true that some countries don't have the funds to keep certain objects. But then, that position is usually not just a coincidence. Also, items of particular interest/value probably generate some income themselves (tourism) which could contribute to changes. 

But what interested me the most of the museum representatives was their tendency of talking as if were they in the centre of the world. It makes me think about the ease with which some cultures (past or present) are exoticised, and how assymmetrically boundaries for what is at all interesting or legitimate to exhibit are. I'm thinking of eg. Saartjie Baartman who was only recently returned to her native South Africa. 

Certainly the two museum reps were being self-serving. But the way they put their concerns (or what they saw as concerns) told of much more than just an interest in keeping the items in their respective museums.


----------



## alexacohen

linspiration said:


> Why did you say "revisionismo"?


Hola Lins,
Porque no se preguntaba por la Historia, sino por la situación actual.

Gracias también a tí, Cuchuflete.


----------



## linspiration

alexacohen said:


> Hola Lins,
> Porque no se preguntaba por la Historia, sino por la situación actual.
> 
> Gracias también a tí, Cuchuflete.


 
I thought I was talking of present times! And I think it is impossible to think about the present without having in mind the past. Excuse me again if my reply annoyed some of you, it's just that this is a subject that I have discussed plenty of times...


----------



## jonquiliser

Ah  sí, gracias Cuchu por el recordatorio


----------



## cirrus

linspiration said:


> I agree with alexacohen...
> La mayoría de los objetos fueron robados, y aunque hayan pagado por ellos, a menudo fue bajo coacción o a cambio de baratijas. Lo que distingue a los británicos de los francenses durante la colonización de África es que los británicos trataron de justificar todo aquello que se llevaban...


Entonces lo de la Louvre es puro accidente?  Voy bastante al British Museum pero de veras que me quedé atónito de la envergadura de las colecciones en París.


----------



## alexacohen

linspiration said:


> I thought I was talking of present times! And I think it is impossible to think about the present without having in mind the past. Excuse me again if my reply annoyed some of you, it's just that this is a subject that I have discussed plenty of times...


Lins, I don't think you've annoyed anyone.
Many a Spaniard think the way you do.
But the past cannot be changed and cannot be amended.
And, though many Spaniards think that Spain should return to the original owners the objects that we have here and that our ancestors took from America, I doubt any museum or government would agree to do it.


----------



## K-Milla

Once, my sister and I were talking about this. We said that if Mexico ask for their items that were stolen, where we could have them? I mean, we have museums and galleries, but the people here doesn't like that. They are not fond of art and when someone ask them, they could reply so proudly: oh yeah, it's gorgeous!

Actually, I think that they are safe wherever they are and lots of people could see them and _*value*_ them!


----------



## sokol

alexacohen said:


> Sokol, I have already said that the objects that should be returned to their countries of origin are the stolen ones - and there are many.
> The ones that were legally bought or legally taken should stay where they are.


I very much appreciate your opinion and, in principle, I agree.
But it is not so easy; what with cases like:

- item A is not 'quite' stolen but bought from the one who had it stolen, as in case of Klimt's Adele (+ 4 paintings): these were in Vienna, Austria, where they 'belong' to culturally, but the heirs of the original owner, when the paintings were given back, sold them to be shown elsewhere, namely in the US; and there are millions of similar cases - just consider where all the Van Goughs, Picassos and Monets will be found nowadays ... and not always the transactions were legal

- item B was taken out of country from archaeologists with explicit permission of the regime, but when the regime changed the old one was declared as an 'unrightful' regime which had not the right to give away the item and therefore they claim that the item should be given back: for that one I can't quote an actual case but I am sure there have to be many

- item C, although still being in the country of origin, is owned by a private collector who is not willing to put the object on public display; this of course means that the item could as well be at the other end of the world as only a very small group of persons (the ones invited by the collector) ever will lay their eyes on that object of cultural heritage; and equally, not all the private collections in the world came into being via strictly legal dealings

- have you heard or read of the 'Iceman Ötzi'? he died on the border between Austria and Italy (more precicely, the provinces of Tyrol/Austria and Southern Tyrol/Italy), his mummy was found almost exactly on the border between the two countries; there was a quarrel for several years as to who should have the right to show the mummy and it was decided that Italy should have him as the mummy seems to have been found a few feet south of the borderline, and the mummy was transferred from Tyrol to Southern Tyrol



jonquiliser said:


> But the way they put their concerns (or what they saw as concerns) told of much more than just an interest in keeping the items in their respective museums.


Well yes, of course, in times like these each museum will try and keep their items, and they will present any argument which they think might help them. That's only natural and to be expected. However, it doesn't solve the original question, either.

And then there's another one, this interesting attitute of K-Milla:


K-Milla said:


> Actually, I think that they are safe wherever they are and lots of people could see them and _*value*_ them!


I think she too has a point.


If one thinks about it, one really would have to decide about a certain object of cultural heritage only *after *one has heard the story attached to it.

Or what would the Americans say if the French ever would claim the Statue of Liberty as an object of French cultural heritage?
(Yes, I agree, this sounds ridiculous.  But what do we know about what the future keeps in store?)


----------



## alexacohen

Sokol, you're confusing me.

Maybe I should have said that every case is different, and that every case should be studied and be treated differently.
I know Ötzi's story; but in his case, my thoughts are completely different: what I think is that once he was examined he should have been kept form public exposure. Like the corpse of Ramses the Second. 
Showing off human remains is disrespectful. They should be left to rest in peace.


----------



## sokol

alexacohen said:


> I know Ötzi's story; but in his case, my thoughts are completely different: what I think is that once he was examined he should have been kept form public exposure.



Well, I personally have no objections against showing Ötzi, even though I am no fan of ancient mummies. But I certainly accept your point of respect to the dead.

On the other hand, the question of *where he belongs* still is burning hotly under the nails of scientists: you know, it could make an anthropologist's career to being able studying the corpse. And it seems to already have made some careers. ;-)
Apart from that, concerning cultural heritage Ötzi of course belongs to neither Italy nor Austria, or *if *anything then he belongs to both of them.
Nevertheless he already has become the symbolic 'ancient Tyrolean' (as on both sides of the border the region is called Tyrol there's no doubt about him being Tyrolean, or is there? - well, of course there is, he certainly wasn't Tyrolean ...).

Whatever ... it is difficult to decide any case of cultural heritage in such a way that all sides taking part in a conflict will be satisfied in the end.


----------



## alexacohen

sokol said:


> Whatever ... it is difficult to decide any case of cultural heritage in such a way that all sides taking part in a conflict will be satisfied in the end.


Yes, it will (or would?) be really difficult in many cases. 
But not in others: I still think that an old Egyptian temple belongs nowhere in Madrid, even though it was legally acquired.


----------



## linspiration

Cirrus, I didn't say that; the difference is that the British were already thinking about how to justify what we can calify as a "plunder" but no the french... So nowadays, the former can say "we bought them" and the latter just "we stole them". So the process for asking the devolution is not the same depending on how was taken an item. 


Alexa for sure we cannot change history, but there are many different ways of understanding the past. It is not because there are different points of view that one of them is doing "revisionismo"; I mean, concretly in what I said, I still don't know what new historical theory I have proposed, or which old theory I have revised...

It is true that no many museums (if any) would be willing to return their collections, and it's true that sometimes they are much better conserved than how they would be in their "original country". That's why I said it is a dilemma. And I think that what you said it's true: "every case is different"...


----------



## alexacohen

linspiration said:


> It is true that no many museums (if any) would be willing to return their collections, and it's true that sometimes they are much better conserved than how they would be in their "original country". That's why I said it is a dilemma. And I think that what you said it's true: "every case is different"...


Well, I for one can think of one instance where the items should be returned to the original site: the Parthenon Marbles and the caryatid from the Erechtheion.
Greece can very well take care of them, and what Lord Elgin did to take them away was one step short of robbery.


----------



## Jaén

Bueno, yo iba a decir lo que pienso sobre el penacho de Moctezuma estar en Viena y los tesoros de los cenotes sagrados de Yucatán estar en el museo de no recuerdo cuál universidad americana, pero después de ver algunos posts borrados por aquí, entiendo que no se aceptan opiniones personales en este hilo, a pesar de que la pregunta del hilo lo pide específicamente.

Saludos.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

La pregunta del hilo es la siguiente, donde no pide opiniones personales sino nacionales.



> My question is, how are issues of these kinds usually considered in your respective countries/regions? Can objects of historical importance be said to "belong" somewhere? Or is it fair that whoever got their hands on something should get to keep it if they so wish?



Jaen makes a point, however, in regard to the other questions in this opening paragraph.  Please remember to phrase your posts in terms of national opinion and claims and not on our personal ideas of what is fair.

Thanks.


----------



## Nanon

sokol said:


> Whatever ... it is difficult to decide any case of cultural heritage in such a way that all sides taking part in a conflict will be satisfied in the end.



Extremely difficult. Have you heard about the Maori head?
The museum of the city of Rouen, France, decided to restore the tattooed and naturalised head of a Maori warrior to New Zealand. The head belonged to the museum's collection since 1875. The city of Rouen wanted to set an example by restoring a "part of the human body" to its place of origin. However the Minister of Culture stopped the restoration process claiming that the head was a work of art, an inalienable part of an art collection, which thus could not be returned.
Whatever the final decision, it will set a precedent: how many items containing human fragments and stored in French museums should be returned?

And on a lighter note:


sokol said:


> Or what would the Americans say if the French ever would claim the Statue of Liberty as an object of French cultural heritage?


They won't.  There are several replicas of the Statue of Liberty in France...


----------



## jonquiliser

Hi again. 

I'm glad that you mods try to keep the discussion on track. Let me just say I don't think personal opinions and general info are mutually exclusive; I'm not only after the majority view or national dogms/myths of any country, I am very much interested in knowing also competing views, or marginal(ised) views. And it's especially relevant to know whether they one or the other, and suggestions for how to interpret this.

Thanks again to everyone for your input


----------



## sokol

Nanon said:


> Extremely difficult. Have you heard about the Maori head? (...)  Whatever the final decision, it will set a precedent (...)



Yes, precedents are set by such desicions which might even affect other countries of the European Union (with the EU law being unified to a degree) or even nations outside the EU.

You all noticed that this questions of restitiution are a relatively young trend? No one asked much questions about that a hundred years ago.

But it is not as such thoughts didn't exist in former times at all.
One case interesting in this context would be Kosovo with being the site of the downfall of the Serbian Kingdom of the Middle Ages. But it is not only that but more important the historical 'heart' of Serbian Orthodox Church with the monastery of Peć. 
Now have Serbians a right to claim that the monasteries of Kosovo spread all over the regions should remain in Serbia despite the province nowadays being predominantly Albanian and of Muslim belief?
Of course there is no solution for that (except a political solution which will have to be found either way when in a few months' time, as is expected, Kosovo will declare independence).

And as this is no political thread, I think we shouldn't discuss the political implications of this case here in this thread, or even at all in this forum (I am not sure if the forum guidelines would allow for that).
But it makes one think - of what rights a nation should and would have on any objects of cultural heritage.

One should tread very carefully here, really.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

jonquiliser said:


> Let me just say I don't think personal opinions and general info are mutually exclusive; I'm not only after the majority view or national dogms/myths of any country, I am very much interested in knowing also competing views, or marginal(ised) views. And it's especially relevant to know whether they one or the other, and suggestions for how to interpret this.
> 
> Thanks again to everyone for your input



Nevertheless, personal opinions fall outside the scope of this forum.  Please keep posts to the cultural/national viewpoint so that they can remain in the thread.

Thanks for your understanding.


----------



## alexacohen

I'm sorry, but I don't understand.

There is no such thing as a cultural/national viewpoint on a _subjective _matter. Objective statements can only be made when we are talking about objective facts.

So, the only way to answer the question from a national point of view is this:

Spain has 45.200.737 citizens.

8.120.071 think that objects of cultural heritage stolen and/or ilegally acquired should be returned to their places of origin.

3.200.120 think that objects of cultural heritage should stay where they are.

17.150.964 don't know what objects of cultural heritage are.

16.340.482 don't care two hoots about objects of cultural heritage.

With all due respect,

Alexandra Cohen, who has finally become the spokeswoman for her entire country.


----------



## Miguel Antonio

The archaeological museum in Madrid possesses exhibits from all over the country, whose ownership is now being questioned by the local authorities of the locations where they were found. So who is entitled to keep them in this case?

The _Portico de la Gloria_ in the cathedral at Santiago de Compostela was almost sold to the Victoria & Albert Musuem a couple of centuries ago, the Chapter finally-fortunately decided not to sell it, thought the outcome was that a plaster cast was made that ruined the original paint on the sculptures.

The Metropolitan Museum of NY has a building called "The Cloisters", an entire Spanish monastery _sold _less than a hundred years ago for a pittance.

And?


----------



## sokol

Miguel Antonio said:


> And?



And - yes!
That's the point exactly.

If we start to restitute everything to everywhere a huge quarrel about all the objects shown in museums and even kept in private collections will arise, and no solution will be found.

Even though the case of Moctezuma's feather crown, still remaining in Austria, seems to be rather easy (it's not valued as national treasure in Austria whereas it *is *in México), restitution could mean, as so often, a case of precedence and cause an avalanche that would be difficult to stop.

By the way, I am convinced that a vast majority of Austrians would not object against Moctezuma's crown being given back to México.

But I can be even more sure that in the case of the *Lippizzan *horses - yes, a very strange case as far as cultural heritage is concerned, but a case nevertheless! - a vast majority objects against taken their traditional name away: this was in the media some years ago when Slovenia claimed (rightfully) that the Lippizzan horses originated in a Slovenian stud farm in the village of Lipica (Lippizza being the Italian form of the village name) and that therefore (!) only Slovenian Lippizzan horses should have the right being called like that.
I think the case was dropped again by the Slovenian government; I am not entirely sure (as personally I do not care too much about Lippizzans; but many of my fellow Austrians do).

Now, does one have a right to a historical name like the Lippizzan horses even though these horses and the tradition attached to them (the _Spanische Hofreitschule_ and all that, and yes: the tourism attached to it too, certainly) has centuries of tradition in Vienna already?

Well yes, they are not exactly objects, the horses - but the case was quite similar, a case of restitution (even if 'only' of a name).


----------



## cherine

*I think our dear Alexandra expressed the problem with this thread very well:*


alexacohen said:


> There is no such thing as a cultural/national viewpoint on a _subjective _matter.
> [...]
> So, the only way to answer the question from a national point of view is this:
> 
> Spain has 45.200.737 citizens.
> 
> 8.120.071 think that objects of cultural heritage stolen and/or ilegally acquired should be returned to their places of origin.
> 
> 3.200.120 think that objects of cultural heritage should stay where they are.
> 
> 17.150.964 don't know what objects of cultural heritage are.
> 
> 16.340.482 don't care two hoots about objects of cultural heritage.


*I can say the same thing about Egypt (except for the numbers, of course  ) and I think we can agree it's the case everywhere in the world.*

*That said, this thread is closed. Thank you all for your understanding and your contributions.*


----------

