Indeterminacy in the cultural property restitution debate

Pauno Soirila

doi:10.1080/10286632.2021.1908275

Pauno Soirila

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2021.1908275

Copy DOI

Abstract

ABSTRACT The debate over the restitution of cultural property is usually framed as the dispute between what John Henry Merryman defined as ‘cultural nationalism’ and ‘cultural internationalism’: the opposite viewpoints that argue whether cultural heritage objects should be returned to their countries of origin or spread around the world as determined by other principles. I argue, however, that the concepts are problematic both in their definition and their perception as two dialectically opposed sides of a dispute. This article analyses the restitution debate by examining some of the most important arguments and counterarguments used in the debate and by comparing them to the international law ‘New Stream’ theory. It is revealed that a similar indeterminacy which defines international law in the theory also defines the restitution debate, and that cultural nationalism and internationalism do not in fact provide answers to the debate but only function as two entry points that echo each other without a way to end the debate. Therefore, it is necessary to see beyond the two concepts in order to find solutions to the disputes.

Highlights

News such as the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union and the French President Emmanuel Macron’s declaration to return cultural objects taken from African countries during colonialism have rekindled the debate over the restitution of cultural heritage
The debate over the restitution of cultural property is usually framed as the dispute between what John Henry Merryman defined as ‘cultural nationalism’ and ‘cultural internationalism’: the opposite viewpoints that argue whether cultural heritage objects should be returned to their countries of origin or spread around the world as determined by other principles
After John Henry Merryman (1985, 1986) coined the terms in the 1980s, the debate has commonly been framed between the opposing concepts of ‘cultural nationalism’ and ‘cultural internationalism’, where the former argues for the return of objects to their countries of origin based on their inherent belonging with the culture and the latter argues mostly for their retention in so-called universal/encyclopaedic museums through principles of universality of cultural heritage

Summary

Introduction

News such as the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union and the French President Emmanuel Macron’s declaration to return cultural objects taken from African countries during colonialism have rekindled the debate over the restitution of cultural heritage. After decades of little advancement, recently many museums have begun to be more accepting of the idea of restitution in cases where the objects have been acquired through the abuse of colonial or other inequal power relations These are especially cases involving indigenous items and human remains. When it comes to public and legal debate in high-profile cases between nations, and objects used for national identity purposes, very little seems to change in the argumentation, still based on ownership arguments (Tythacott and Arvanitis 2014, 5). This keeps causing tensions between states and the status quo may even be upholding colonial relations and imperialist attitudes This keeps causing tensions between states and the status quo may even be upholding colonial relations and imperialist attitudes (see, e.g. Abungu 2019; Shyllon 2009; Barkan 2002)

Objectives

Conclusion