49

Problems and possibilities 8 8 .8 . in recovering dispersed cultural heritages

Luis Monreal

Wars, invasions, occupation of foreign territories, illicit trading and commercial interests are some of the factors instrumental'in the dispersal of the cultural heri- tage of many countries. Aware of the equal rights of all its members to culture, the world community should not accept the vicissitudes of history as permanent and unchangeable. For this reason, Unesco is advocating that measures should be adopted at government level which are aimed at preventing further loss of cultural heritages and at the return or restitution of cultural property to its countries of origin which had been deprived of it.

These two actions are in line with the concern expressed by the non-govern- mental organizations maintaining relations with Unesco. In the case of movable cultural property, the International Council of Museums (ICOM) launched a campaign among its members, in the 1960s, to combat illicit trading in cultural property. At the moment, it is actively promoting and supporting, as a professio- nal specialist body, efforts to reconstitute dispersed heritages.

The fight against illicit trading in cultural property

Illicit trading is still, today, the most real threat to the unity of the cultural heri- tage of nations. It includis all types of crime, such as theft, reprehensible accord- ing to natural law, and offences under the legislation adopted by each State regarding the transfer and export of cultural property.

There was international recognition, a few decades ago, of the size of the prob- lem of illicit trading. Noting the paradoxical fact that museums, which are public institutions of science, culture and education, can acquire objects that are known to be of doubtful origin from the moral viewpoint, ICOM drew up and published a document on the ethics of acquisition.' Studies carried out by the specialist ICOM committees have also helped museum professionals to develop a greater awareness of this problem. AS a direct result, different national museum associa- tions and institutions in various countries have adopted codes of ethics2 which define the attitude museums, as public institutions, should take towards illicit trad- ing and the behaviour curators should adopt towards such delicate issues as the acquisition of objects from foreign countries, expert evaluation in a private capacity, and their relations with the art market.

At government level, the awareness has led to the adoption by Unesco in 1970 of the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property which has so far been

1. ICOM, Ethics ofAcquisition, Paris, ICOM, 1971, 8 p.

2. The Museum Association of Great Britain has published Guidelines for Professional Coiiduct (1 97 7, 3 p.) and Code aPractice for Museu?n Atithorities (1977, 6 p.);theAssociationofArtMuseum Directors (United States) has published Code of Ethics (1972); the Association for American Museums (AAM) and Canadian specialists are also carrying out studies.

10 Luis Monreal

3. Unesco, Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, adopted by the General Conference of Unesco at its sixteenth session, Paris, 14 November 1970 (this text is also available in French, Russian and Spanish). On this occasion the convention was ratified by the following countries: Algeria, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Central African Empire, Democratic KampudLea, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, German Democratic Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, India, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Ne al, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Poind, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Yugoslavia, Zaire.

ratified by thirty-nine Member States. This international legal instrument has a twofold value. Pirst, it invites States to adopt appropriate legislation for the protection of their cultural heritage, or to adapt existing legislation to suit present- day needs. Second, it raises the issue of an international code of ethics for the protection of mankind’s heritage, which should override purely national interests. This means ,that the States parties to the convention undertake to recognize offen- ces which may have been committed outside their respective territories and recog- nized as such under foreign legislation, and to take action to make good the damage resulting from these offences.

The adoption of an international code of ethics and of the legal machinery to back it up will Lot, of CQWSC, be enough to put an end to the illicit trading in cultural property. In order to tear out the evil by the roots, repressive measures taken by national police forces and by Interpol will have to be accompanied by adequate control measures. Each State should assume responsibility for the secu- rity of its archaeological sites, the movable cu lmd property in its museums, its places of worship and private collections; it should also take the necessary steps to draw up an inventory of the historical and cultural heritage of its people, some elements of which may still be used in the way they always were down through the centmies.

Udortunately, some nations have not yet realized that the protection of their respective cdtural heritages should be based on adequate and realistic legislation, as well as on the provision of the necessary corresponding means-technical, administrative, police, customs and so on. Paradoxically, countries which have very rigorous kgdation prohibiting any lawful export of their cultural heritage are impoverished by &sit trading. Some of these countries refrain from asking for international co-operation via Interpol, of which they are members, to help recover the stolen works, which makes one wonder just how serious they are about protecting their heritage.

In spite of this, litele by little, international authorities, at governmental and non-governmental level, are making progress in the fight against illicit trading, and it should not be forgotten that this is the most important factor in assuring

ity of heritages, a prerequisite for any other efforts at reconstitution.

‘

Spreading h ~ w l e d g e OP the cultures of the world SO that peoples can understand each other better, and thereby live in peace side by side, is another of Unesco’s constitutional objectives. The idea that there is a heritage common to mankind implies that means must exist to facilitate the lawful exchange of objects between nations.

Some of the museums of the world have very rich collections, wide in historical and geographical range, which enable an international public to realize the univer- sality and plurality of culture. These musems are, as it were, a mirror in which the whole of mankind can be seen through creations achieved throughout genera- tions. These institutions are of service to the international community and should, therefore, be preserved under the best conditions.

There are other museums, however, whose collections are incomplete and not adequate for the purpose of ‘enabling a people to recover part of its memory and identity’. Strangely, many of the objects lacking in these museums are to be found, sometimes in great numbers, in museums in other countries. For this reason, HCOM has for some time been entertaining the idea of promoting more international exchanges which are based on cultural grounds rather than political circumstances. It should be pointed out again that many exhibitions organized from one country to another comprise famous works of art because they are arran- ged to coincide with the visits of heads of State and are designed solely to create

Problems and possibilities in recovering dispersed cultural heritages - -

a favourable climate. The motive is valid since the exhibition contributes to a better understanding between peoples, but this should not be the only motive justifying exchanges between different countries.

To promote the circulation of cultural property according to broader criteria, ICOM conceived in 1968 the idea of creating a special unit within its secretariat to facilitate and co-ordinate international exchanges.

This project led some years later to the adoption of the Museums Exchange Programme (MUSEP) which started working on an experimental basis in Sep- tember 19 7 8. This programme provides for the following activities : (a) collecting information and relevant practical details about museums willing to exchange or loan objects or receive loans; (b) proposing different forms of contract for the adoption of bilateral agreements between museums ; (c) offering technical and legal advice for solving any problems which may arise in carrying out the exchan- ges; and (d) acting as negotiator between the institutions concerned. In short, MUSEP wiU he& to put into effect the Recommendation Concerning the Inter- national Exchange of Cultural Property, which was adopted by the General Conference of Unesco at its nineteerith session on 26 November 1976.4

This recommendation has many objectives : first, to create awareness of the need for a more equal distribution of the heritage; secondly, to use in a rational way the often very important collections held in store in most museums; thirdly, to offer museums a new channel for the lawful acquisition of objects missing from their collections. The recommendation mentions the legal forms that these interna- tional exchanges can take whether they are carried out on the basis of a mutual transfer of ownership, or on the basis of two-way long-term loans and deposits.

30 ANCIEN PALAIS ROYAL, Abomey, Benin. An inhabitant explains to his children the allegorical meaning of the bas-reliefs which decorated this historical monument in the times of the kings of Abomey.

4. This text is also available in Arabic, French, Russian and Spanish.

1 2 Luis Monreal

S. Special Committee of Governmental Experts to Prepare a Draft Recommendation and, if Possible, a Draft Convention Concerning the Prevention and Coverage of Risks to Movable Cultural Property, Lisbon, 4-1 3 April 1978. ‘Draft Recommendation for the Protection of Movable Cultural Property‘, Draft Find Report, Paris, Unesco, 1978,9 p. (this text is also available in French and Spanish).

6. ‘ICOM Guidelines for Loans’, ICOM News (Paris, ICOM),Vol. 27, No. 3/4, 1974, p. 50-1, 78-9.

7. Unesco, Meeting of Experts on the Exchange of Original Objects between Museums and the Reconstitution of Dismembered Works of Arc, Paris, June 27-July 2 1966, Final Report, Paris, Unesco, 1966, 1 3 p.

8. Unesco, An Illrutrated Inuentoory ofFamoris Disnieinbered Works of Art-Europan Painting, with n Section on Dismembered Tombs in France, Paris, Unesco, 1974, 223 p., ill. (available also in French and Spanish).

The latter method is designed to enable exchanges to take place, including those between countries whose legislation concerning the cultural heritage does not foresee the r e l i n q ~ s h e n t of ownership by the State.

It must also be mentioned that this recomendation should have two subsidi- ary effects: it shodd launch the idea that exchanges of cdturd property do not go against ethical norms and, in certain cases, it should help to reconstitute a dispersed heritage. It is thus one of the instruments that make it possible to obtain the return to its country of origin of cultural property which is a fundamental part of that c~untry’s heritage, a requirement to which the Director-General of 8;ibaesco referred in his appeal launched in June 197’8.

Finally, to complement this recommendation9 Unesco is preparing another : Recommendation for the Protection of Movable Cultural Property,’ aimed at urging Member States to take the necessary action, especially by giving govern- ment guarantees, to make the circulation of cultural property possible or easier.

There is no doubt that exchanges between museums involve many risks for the works concer~~ed. ICOM has therefore drawn up a d o c ~ ~ ~ e n t entitled,

which specifies the name of these risks and suggests ways of reducing them to an acceptable minimum. Written with both the lending and receiving parties in mind, this document contains a detailed analy- sis OP all the points that shodd be taken irato consideration, and provides the techical basis for putting &e Unesco recommendations into effect.

bong the actions designed to preserve the c d m a l heritage as an whole, three main CQUFS~S of action were suggested to Unesco: (a) c to ilaf~rm the public and specidst cirdes of the problem SQ as to create favowable to the assembly of works of art; (b) the drawing up of inventories of dispersed W Q ~ ~ S OP art by m u e m s and other institutions concerned; (c) the adoption of legislation to prevent and put an -end to any action whish could in any way mutilate OF disperse the heritage. These orientations are still valid and should h e l ~ to support the present CO appeal for the return of cultural pro- perty to its country of origin. In ~ Unesco organized in Paris a meeting OB ewperts to examine this problem.

In the same h e of action Unesco published in 1974 A n Illustrdted Inventooly of Fczmozis ~ i s m e ~ b e r e ~ W Q ~ ~ S of Art--Etm.~peczn Pczinting a written by art histo- rians from different co~~tricjs. Apart from its documentation value, this book prompted the publication of various national inventories of dispersed works, pares of whish are to be B Q W ~ in other countries. AU these efforts have created, at international level, a climate of solidarity

towards c o ~ t r i e s dispossessed of important elements of their heritage. In 197 3, the General Assembly of the United Nations had a debate on the restitution prob- lem with particular reference to countries whish had suffered through colonization

occupation. On this occasion, Greece brought up the question of the loss of cultural property as a result of other historic circumstances, which case was not, however, induded in Resolution 3.187 which was adopted as a result of the debate. In B97J, the United Nations General Assembly again voted a resolution, adopted by a large majority, on the necessity of returning to its coun-

n cultural property of fundamental importance lost during the colonial period or durhg foreign occupation. At its eighteenth (1974) and nineteenth (1976) sessions the General Coderence of Unesco advocated similar action (res- olutions 3.428 and 4.128, respectively). Consequent to these two resolutions, the Director-General of Unesco launched an appeal to the world.

M Guidelines for

The resolutions adopted by Unesco should be put into practice according to a series of principles which sh~uld be f i rdy rooted in the minds of the parties in-

Problems and possibilities in recovering dispersed cultural heritages J 3

volved: (a) the cultural heritage is a basic element of a people's cultural identity, and it should not be deprived of it; (b) the restitution of dispersed cultural prop- erty is an act of international solidarity which concerns not only belligerent States or former colonial powers but also all those who, often by legitimate methods, have benefited from the dispersal of these heritages; (c) a policy of returning cul- tural property to its country of origin should not result in the dismantling of museological institutions-of the kind to which we have previously referred- which offer a panoramic view of man's activities down through the ages and therefore play a key role in contemporary society, making people understand the universality and the plurality of culture.

If it is to be scientifically done, the reconstitution of cultural heritages should be carried out keeping in mind two fundamental requirements : first, the necessity for every country to be in possesion of the objects and documents which, because of their socio-cultural value, are essential for an understanding of its roots; secondly, the necessity for the country to which the cultural property has been restored to guarantee that it will be preserved, used for the benefit of the public, and given the protection of the law. It is obvious that the restitution operation should be preceded as often as possible by the following measures: (a) assessment of the losses suffered by the different cultural heritages, so as to enable priority to be given to the countries which deserve to benefit most from the international solidarity drive; (b) an inventory of objects preserved in the countries of origin and a survey of measures taken on a national level to identify, preserve and pre- sent them to the public; (c) a country-by-country inventory of objects in foreign collections.

There is no denying that carrying out such activities with a view to restitution- assessing losses and drawing up inventories-will raise problems which will often be impossible to solve. We know from experience that, even in the most advanced countries, the exhaustive inventory of national movable cultural pro- perty is still in its infancy. Of course, the big museums employing a large staff already have complete inventories of their collections. However, as a general rule, there are still no catalogues or inventories of private collections and those belong- ing to institutions other than museums, such as, for example, religious orders. This situation is due to human and financial factors, notably the lack of sufficient spe- cialized staff and national cultural policies with other priorities. This means that steps will have to be taken through an effort of international co-operation to com- pile complete inventories of cultural property whose importance and significance warrants return to its countries of origin.

As a professional organization, ICOM considers that a detailed plan of action will have to be prepared which will take into account the problem entailed by the need to have an inventory that is as complete as possible. This plan implies first the adoption of a simple method, but one that is adequate for the purposes of identifying the object, capable of being understood by people of different levels of training and, at the same time, one that can be used at the international level. Secondly, it should provide, as a priority, for the professional training of museolo- gists in the countries towards which, because of the losses tbey have suffered, this campaign based on the solidarity of the international community will be gea- red. Finally, it may be necessary to create research teams to compile inventories in different countries of cultural property likely to qualify for return to its country of origin. The financial resources required for putting such a plan into operation should be realistically calculated in terms of the impact aimed at, and voted by an international governmental organization such as U n e s ~ o . ~

Lastly, it seems advisable to create with the aid of voluntary contributions from Unesco Member States a special fund which could be used: (a) to finance techni- cal assistance (contracts for experts and training courses); (b) to facilitate the resti- tution transactions (transport and insurance); and (c) to facilitate, in certain excep- tional cases, the acquisitïon of cultural property on the market."

Many other difficulties stand in the way of the reconstitution of dispersed heri-

9. On this issue it is important that Unesco's effort to train museum staff through the provision of fellowships and the organization of seminars should give priority emphasis in the coming years to teaching inventory and cataloguing techniques to museum staff in the developing countries since they will have a key role to play in carrying out the proposed plan.

Fund could first play the role of Treasury for countries of origin, by advancing funds that would ultimately be reimbursed: this aid would be valuable since the very nature of transactions in this field hinders budgetary programming for future acquisitions, except if one can be assured of a substantial budget for this purpose. The Fund could also, in certain circumstances, grant non-reimbursable acquisition subventions under terms that would vary according to, for example, the property's interest and its meaning within the context of the programme of reconstitution of cultural heritage of the country concerned.'-ICOM, Sttidy o12 the Principles, Conditiolis aitd Meaizs for the Restitution or Return of Cultwal Projery ìti View of Reconstitz&g Dispersed Heritages, Paris, ICOM, 1977, 19 p.

10. 'Several technical methods are possible: the

1 1 . Unesco Committee of Experts to Study the Question of the Restitution of Works of Art. Venice, 29 March-2 April 1976, Fiizd Report, Paris, Unesco, 1976, 9 p.

12. Unesco Committee of Experts on the Establishment of an Intergovernmental Committee Concerning the Restitution or Return of Cultural Property. Dakar, 20-23 March 1978, Find Report, Paris, Unesco, 1978, IS p.

tages. Among these we must recall the lack of awareness among the international public of the moral and ethical reasons for such action. The information campaign organized by Unesco with the help of IGOM should do a lot to surmount this obstacle. We must admit, to be readistic, that there is an urgent necessity for this campaign; on the one hand, the media, especially in countries possessing objects which might possibly be restituted, were reticent about the Unesco recommenda- tion and the Director-General's appeal; on the other hand, a general lack of knowledge about the ethical basis for such action, about the principles and means proposed for returning cultural property to its country 0% origin, and der- standable reservations about the size of the whole operation, explain the negative reaction in some sectors. It is i.ndeed a @eat pity that the generous initiative of the international c o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u n i t y r has come up against a wall of hostile public opinion f ~ ~ d e d on insufficient and tendentious information.

Such an idormation campaign should also be directed at museum professionals and authorities responsible for these institutions. In some countries, at this level, there is still obvious distrust with regard to the intentions and the extent of the r emn of cultural propmy. It seems that the international consensus on the expe- diency of the restitution of dispersed heritages will create in the near future a favourable current of general opinion which will help to dispel these misgivings. In the face of this, the governments of countries which hold the cultural property in question will, of their own accord, even if only as a symbolic gesture, return the objects to their countries of origin-without even being f~~onnady requested to do so. The museologist should be prepared for this eventuality, so that account may be taken of his opinion concerning the works which, from the scientific point of view, might be returned; in other words, so as to avoid restitutions based on purely political motives-as so frequently happens with the exchange of exRibi- tions-and so as to enable the return to the country of origin to be carried out according to c~herent principles. We are convinced that an open, generous and understanding attitude on the part of museum professionals would lead to a beeter understanding between the parties involved, resulting in most cases, in agreements satisfactory to all concerned.

Other difficulties are of a psychological nature. In some cases, the return of cultural property to its country of origin may seem to the State or foreign institu- tion which possessed it for years like implicitly recognizing that possession was up till then illicit. But, as we have already mentioned, in many cases the property in question was acquired in a perfectly lawful way according to the legislation and geo-political situation obtaining at that time. Finally, there are s t a numerous legal obstacles to be overcome, as was pointed out by the meeting of experts organized by Unesco in Venice in B 976," including the constitutional and legis- lative situations in many countries which make it extremely difficult, if not impos- sible, to transfer ownership. In Mexico, for example, private individuals only have the usufruct of cultural property. AU the difficulties mentioned above can no doubt be overcome on the basis

of goodwill; by the catalysing action of Unesco, its Director-General and the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Culturd Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation which Unesco has created. In any case, it seems evident that the task of reconstituting dispersed national heritages will gradually be achieved thanks to the opening of bilateral negotiations resulting in agreements between States, as well as to the simpler procedure of agreements on deposits, loans or exchanges between museums, in accordance with the principles set forth in the recommendation of the nineteenth General Conference of Unesco.

Some of the technical and legal possibilities for carrying out this operation have been examined in detail in the Appendix, page 62, 'The Study on the Principles, Conditions and Means for the Restitution or Return of Cultural Property in View of Reconstituting Dispersed Heritages', prepared by ICOM for the Meet- ing of Experts organised by Unesco, in Dakar, in B978.12

,

Problems and possibilities in recovering dispersed cultural heritages 1

31 OAKLAND MUSEUM, Oakland, California. Funeral statues, Anc Peru, pre-Columbian. Returned of origin following an agreemen and the Oakland Museum.

on Chancay, to their cow it between PI

ttry :ru

J(j bruis Monreal I -

32

33

Problems and possibilities in recovering dispersed cultural heritages Y7

Finally, the viability of the Unesco campaign for the restitution to their coun- tries of origin of fundamental elements of their cultural heritage has already been proved by the return of objects to Peru (Fig. 31) and Panama by five American institutions, namely the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Har- vard University, the Brooklyn Museum, the Oakland Museum, and the Pennsyl- vania University Museum (Figs. 32, 33) and finally, by the transfer to Papua New Guinea by the Museums of Sydney, Australia, and Wellington, New Zea- land (Fig. 3 4 , of various highly important ethnographic objects.

It can therefore be said that the Director-General of Unesco's wishes are already being fulfilled for the return to all peoples of 'at least the art treasures which best represent their culture, which they feel are the most vital and whose absence caused them the greatest anguish'.

There still remains one serious problem of a technical and political nature: a good number of developing countries do not yet have the appropriate means of ensuring that their most fragile movable property will receive the treatment indis- pensable to its safeguarding, and are even unaware of the utility of it. The solu- tion in this case would seem to lie in decentralizing presentation policies according to regions of the world facing similar problems, on the basis of the recommenda- tions of ICOM and the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) in Rome. In any case, there is a growing movement throughout the world that no obstacle can stop of contestations by the frustrated countries and interventions by competent orga- nizations for the return or restitution of exported cultural property.

The aim of Museum, at this juncture, has been not only to compare the view- points of the parties concerned but also to give particularly representative examples of arrangements concluded or being concluded between countries by way of demonstration and exhortation.

'

32 MUSEO NACIONAL, Panama. Objects found in tomb No. 16 in the Conte Site, Cocle Province (between 800 and 1200). Returned to their country of origin following an agreement between the Patrimonio Nacional Histórico (Panama) and the Pennsylvania University Museum, Philadelphia.

33 MUSEO NACIONAL, Panama. Pre-Columbian ceramics (800-1 200) found on the Conte Site, Cocle Province. They were ceded to the Patrimonia Nacional Histórico (Panama) by the Pennsylvania University Museum following a loan agreement with option of renewal.

34 INSTITUT DES MUSÉES NATIONAUX DU ZA~RE, Kinshasa. Royal statue in sculptured wood (about 1900). Kuba tribe. Returned to its country of origin following a bilateral agreement between Belgium and Zaire.

34