Repatriation in archaeology refers to returning cultural objects and human remains to their regions of origin. The issue began in the 20th century, with nations demanding the return of artifacts historically exploited. Proponents argue that removing items deprives people of their cultural heritage, while opponents believe all people have the right to appreciate history. Issues include looted art, grave goods, and social/political problems. Arguments can get violent, with protests staged worldwide. Both sides want preservation, study, cataloging, and display, but disagree on who has rights to the objects.
In archaeology, repatriation refers to the return of cultural objects and human remains to their regions of origin. The issue of repatriation really only began to arise in the 20th century, when many nations historically exploited for their archaeological treasures began demanding the return of some or all of these artifacts. Proponents of repatriation argue that removing items from their region of origin deprives people of their cultural heritage, while people who don’t support repatriation believe that all people have the right to appreciate the rich history of the human race.
There are a number of issues related to repatriation. One of the biggest problems is that of looted art and antiquities. Looting has been happening for centuries, making it very difficult to establish the provenance of the artifacts. This is especially true in the case of artefacts that have been in the custody of private owners or venerable institutions such as the British Museum for centuries. The argument is that when items are forcibly removed or sold under questionable circumstances, it deprives native peoples of their heritage and governments of potential control over those items.
Another problem concerns grave goods and human remains. Archaeologists find burial sites rich in cultural artifacts, allowing them to learn a great deal about ancient peoples, but in some cases, descendants of these people object to studying burial sites, claiming it violates the dead. These people would prefer to see such sites left undisturbed, or studied and then restored, and strongly oppose the removal of grave goods and remains. This has been a particularly serious problem in the United States, where a special Bureau of Repatriation handles concerns about American Indian remains.
Archeology has also historically been plagued with problems. Prior to the development of ethical codes in archaeology, objects were often forcibly removed or stolen, especially from colonial subjects, and were sometimes mishandled and stored. Proponents of repatriation argue that looted and stolen artifacts belong to the regions they came from, even if the cultures that created them are long dead.
Repatriation is also wrapped up in social and political issues. After the end of World War II, for example, a commission was set up to return Nazi-looted art objects to their rightful owners, and the commission uncovered a number of cases where the provenance of the art was unclear. Citizens of developing nations argue that they have essentially been stripped of their culture when antiquities are removed and displayed in the developed world, while some people suggest that such artifacts are safer in the developed world, implying that the developed world is politically more stable and better equipped to handle artifacts safely. This attitude may seem very patronizing to people who are trying to preserve the heritage and culture of their regions.
Arguments about repatriation can sometimes get violent. Protests have been staged around the world to support the repatriation of particularly valuable artifacts, and archaeologists have been debating the issue behind closed doors for decades. As a general rule, both sides want to see the objects preserved, studied, cataloged and sometimes displayed, but disagree on who has rights to the archaeological objects.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
