Who rightfully owns artifacts?
Who is the rightful owner of the respective artifacts in the archaeological record? I am not any more qualified to address this topic as the next guy, however, as an anthropology student, my interest is piqued. On principle alone, my consensus is that artifacts created in a culture should remain in that culture. If artifacts are stolen, ethically, they should be returned to their culture or country of origin. The controversy begins when asked the important question: ‘What if that culture is no longer identifiable in the modern era?’
Antiquities were commonly transported to other countries after excavations in the past, specifically, the Western world has been known to take artifacts back with them. The Global Heritage Fund asks, “What do the Rosetta Stone, Bust of Nefertiti, and Elgin Marbles all have in common?” the answer being, “[they are] items that currently reside outside of their countries of origin.” Due to this, archaeologists have shifted to an indigenous archaeology style—archaeology being conducted by, for, and with Indigenous people in hopes of empowering indigenous populations and eliminating possible transportation of antiquities. This ideal excavation style has risen in response to the theft of artifacts by archeologists and foreign governments. While this is a step in the right direction, we still need to examine the stolen artifacts of the past in hopes of placing them with their rightful owners.
Should blood or conquest determine the rightful owners of artifacts? Arguably, there is no better place to discuss artifacts stolen by colonialism than those stored in The British Museum in London, England. One of the world's most important artifacts, the Rosetta Stone, has been held in London since 1801 after being stolen by Napoleon's army in 1799, according to The British Museum. While the original argument of the colonizers (to paraphrase of course) has been “You want it back? Try and take it from me,” the modern response has been concern for the safety of the artifacts and access to the public. The problem with this argument, though, is ‘who are the colonizers to determine who is and isn't fit to take care of their own artifacts? Secondly, how are these artifacts more accessible to the public in London or New York in comparison to the Middle East or South America—the sources of the vast majority of the artifacts?’ Museums are businesses and their primary goal is to make money. I am not saying that you should feel ashamed or avoid Western museums, but I ask you to question if this is where these artifacts rightfully belong.
As I have stated, it is not always clear who has the rightful claim over artifacts when culture and power have shifted; This is increasingly apparent when talking about ancient artifacts. How will their artifacts be returned if a group of people have been colonized? When artifacts are returned, they most commonly belong to the state and, as we know, the state is not always representative of its people. In cases like this, has the artifact really been returned to its rightful owner or simply placed in the hands of another colonizer?
Unfortunately, there is no clear consensus to me. I wholeheartedly believe that artifacts should not be stolen by colonizers and those who stole in the past, like the British, should not have a rightful claim to them. The problem is not if stolen artifacts should be returned, but who exactly they should be returned to.
Thumbnail photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons