Chinese Artifact Repatriation

Transcription

1 Coombs 1 Marissa Coombs 8 May 2016 Eng A1 Common Ground Essay Chinese Artifact Repatriation The renowned Parthenon Marbles, brilliant and intricately carved, are famous not just for their artistic value. The Rosetta stone, missing link to Egyptian Hieroglyphics, and the bust of Nefertiti, likeness of an ancient queen, symbolize more than the mystique of ancient Egypt. Besides their historical significance, these three remnants of antiquity share something else in common: removed from their original resting places during the colonial era, they now sit atop pedestals in Western museums. Now, they stir interest in the international community once again as a controversy thickens around them this time, they are seen as victims of colonial exploitation, or, conversely, global citizens kindling cultural enlightenment. Most have at least heard of these artifacts, if not of the debate about whether they belong in Western museums or their original settings. But while the cases of the Parthenon Marbles, the Rosetta stone, and Nefertiti s bust are well publicized, other equally significant artifacts slip below the media s radar. Chinese calls for repatriation often receive little attention globally. In several hundred years of troubled Chinese- Western relations, many Chinese historical treasures imperial seals, ritual bronzes, and jade pendants, for example have found their way to the West. China would like them returned, but museums are hesitant to hand over their prized pieces. Because of this, rifts are growing between China and countries that house such artifacts. In order to rectify shaky diplomatic relations that

2 Coombs 2 have formed over the centuries, China and Western museums and governments must work together to find a solution to the problem of artifact repatriation. Historical Setting The root of these artifacts dispersal to the West stems from West-East trade and relations. These relations began in the 1500s, during the Ming dynasty. From the Ming to the Qing dynasty (which ended in 1912), the Chinese pursued isolationist trade policy. Their empire was self-sufficient; what they lacked compared to Western technologies, they made up for in sheer manpower. Because imperial China had no desire to trade with the West, it opened only the port of Canton to foreigners. However, the Europeans, hooked on Chinese goods such as tea, porcelain, and silk, were eager for trade. After the British unleashed the opium trade in China, the trade deficit turned to favor the Western powers. Coupled with the Opium wars, this trade flow created three different scenarios through which artifacts left China for the West. The Journey to the West In the first scenario, artifacts were (and still are) exported legally from China and purchased legally in the West. Little controversy surrounds such artifacts. Examples include wares and traditional handcrafts that were traded by Ming and Qing merchants. More modernly, these items include artifacts legally obtained and exported by artifact dealers. Sir Mark Jones, director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, which has a large collection of Chinese artifacts, states, "The vast majority of our collections are traded goods If we have 10,000 Chinese items then perhaps a few dozen pieces might have questions marks about them." Because objects exported legally have a lawful place in the West, they play no prominent role in the repatriation controversy.

3 Coombs 3 The lines become blurred when Western museums pay in good faith for artifacts that were exported illegally from or obtained illegally in China. This second type of artifact, legal on one side, shady on the other, is more controversial than the first. There are several factors that contribute to these artifacts illegality. Howard French, writer for the New York Times, quotes that from the 1980s to 2005, roughly 300,000 to 400,000 tombs were raided in China. The chain starts when poor farmers dig up artifacts for cash to make ends meet. Dealers then smuggle the artifacts, which are state property, out of the country. French notes that one smuggling route is through Hong Kong, which has separate, looser laws than Mainland China. Though the situation is improving, Honk Kong s artifact smuggling laws were not strictly enforced in the past (French). In this way, many illegally obtained artifacts are bought by unwitting foreign collectors or auctioned off to museums that fail to inspect dealers closets for skeletons. Chinese and Western governments are working together to solve the problem of artifact looting and illegal export. Starting from one end of the chain, museums now make efforts to check artifacts backgrounds before purchase, following artifact acquisition standards drafted during the 1970 UNESCO conference. These regulations will help to prevent future smuggling, but they do not give solutions for smuggled artifacts that are already in museums. Such artifacts often have obscured origins, which makes tracing them decidedly difficult. The third and most controversial type of artifact is the kind taken from China during the era of Western imperialism. Some examples of this are artifacts taken from the Old Summer Palace (Yuan-ming-yuan) in Beijing during the second opium war. After British and French forces marched to the capitol, they pilfered and sacked the imperial resort. The loot (which made up a portion of a colonial soldier s pay) was taken back to Europe, where it remains today. The director of the Old Summer Palace park estimates that 1.5 million artifacts from the Old Summer

4 Coombs 4 Palace are housed in 47 countries around the globe, most in Britain (Ding). The most famous objects taken from the palace are twelve bronze animal heads, each representing an animal of the Chinese zodiac (see Fig. 1). These bronze heads are Fig. 1. A Tale of 12 Bronzes from Yuanmingyuan. China.org.cn. China.org.cn, 24 Jun Web. 9 Mar the Chinese counterparts to the Parthenon marbles. Now that some of the heads have resurfaced in the West, the Chinese public has responded with appeals for repatriation. Much of the Chinese artifact repatriation debate concerns artifacts taken during the Western colonial era. Side One: Museum Point of View Museums and China disagree about whether and when artifacts should be repatriated. As the purpose of a museum is to house historical and exotic artifacts, museums are inherently more opposed to repatriation than China. They give many arguments against it. In his article against art repatriation, Michael Kimmelman, New York Times writer, states that patrimony claims too often serve merely nationalist ends. Kimmelman rebuts repatriation claims by asking, Why should any objects necessarily reside in the modern nation-state controlling the plot of land where, at one time, perhaps thousands of years earlier, they came from? Essentially, the crux of his argument is that because the idea of the nation is an artificial (and usually modern) construct, artifacts cannot be returned to a nation they never came from it. Because of this, a country s demands for repatriation only serve a nationalist purpose that divides people and culture (Kimmelman). Kimmelman s argument hinges upon two warrants: first, that nationalism is bad, and second, that when an artifact is being returned, it is being returned to the state.

5 Coombs 5 Kimmelman s argument, that patrimony claims bolster nationalism, is partially valid in China s case. The current Chinese government has exploited the story of the looting and burning of the Old Summer Palace, making it a poster-image of the century of humiliation imposed on China in the 1800s by Western imperial powers. Chris Bowlby, reporting about the issue for the New York Times, writes that China's leadership has tried to reinforce its authority by encouraging patriotic pride in the country's history and teaching citizens that only strong government today can prevent a repeat of the 19th century humiliation by outsiders. The ruined site of the old Summer Palace offers an ideal place to make this point. The Chinese express indignation and anger over the relics of the palace that are housed in Western museums. Yet, despite this clear-cut example of nationalist demands for repatriation, not all Chinese repatriation claims are the same way. Few cases receive as much patriotic media coverage as the twelve bronze heads or other Old Summer Palace relics. Even if as Kimmelman advocates claims based on nationalism are invalid, plenty of Chinese repatriation claims hinge on valid grounds such as academic study or public education. Another argument against artifact repatriation is that artifacts do not belong just to one people; they belong to the world. In his short Op-Ed for the New York Times, Kwame Appiah puts this succinctly: Art from everywhere can matter to people from anywhere. In his piece, Appiah denies the notion that art is a product not of an artist but of a people whose identity is channeled though an artist. Based on this warrant, Appiah opines that artworks should not go home on grounds of nationalism, though he allows that there are other valid reasons for repatriation. He claims that though objects are made by individuals, their meaning changes with time as new people attach different importance to them (Appiah). Once again, nationalism appears in the conversation. This begs the question: is returning an artifact to a country because

6 Coombs 6 it originated there really nationalism? It is true that art can matter to people everywhere. However, artifacts are influenced by the culture and society of the artist, and because of this, people from the maker s home culture will understand an artifact better than outsiders they share the maker s cultural background. Examples of this in the Chinese setting are calligraphy and painting. Greg M. Thomas, Professor of Fine Arts at the University of Hong Kong, recounts that when the British and French sacked the Old Summer Palace, they removed much priceless porcelain and jade, but few paintings or calligraphies. Thomas notes: Painting and calligraphy were the highest of China s classical arts, and imperial calligraphy carried supernatural status as a physical embodiment of imperial authority. Such works should logically have been collected as the Chinese equivalent of Italian paintings by Leonardo and Raphael held in the Louvre. Yet none of the European looters seem to have recognized any aesthetic, political, or monetary value in these works of art. (Thomas) Because the Europeans shared little culturally with the Chinese, they could not appreciate the value of the paintings and calligraphy. Their actions reveal that certain artifacts are far more significant within their home culture than in any other, leading to another question: should art be placed where the most people will see it, or where it is valued most by those who see it? A last concern that Western museums have about Chinese artifact repatriation is artifacts safety. Given China s tumultuous recent past, this argument holds water. During the Chinese Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and 70s, revolutionary youth under the jurisdiction of Mao Zedong set about eradicating the last vestiges of the Chinese imperial caste. Simply put, this meant that many historic sites were defaced, many cultural artifacts destroyed. But since the

7 Coombs 7 snuffing of the revolutionary spark (and Mao) in 1976, the country has become stable. Ma Weidu, the owner of a private Chinese art museum in Beijing, observes that the Chinese attitude toward antiquity is changing. While the Chinese previously prioritized economic development over Fig 2. Red Guard burns cultural artifacts. Burn, Loot and Pillage! Destruction of Antiques During China s Cultural Revolution. ACF China. Roger Schwendeman/New Trade Group Holdings Ltd., 10 Feb Web. 9 May archaeology, now they are more aware of the value of their buried heritage (French). Because China has, for the most part, stabilized, the bigger concern now is that China s museums may be inadequate. Yao Le, writer for China s Global Times newspaper, points out that in a recent case, a rich entrepreneur purchased marble columns from Norway that were originally from the Old Summer Palace. The columns had to be housed at Peking University, because the Old Summer Palace park could not house and maintain them (Yao). This is a valid point artifacts should be housed where they can be taken care of, and because the Chinese state has only recently lessened economic emphasis to turn to the arts, not all of its museums are state-of-the-art. Side Two: Chinese Point of View The Chinese have their own reasons for advocating repatriation. They feel a strong sense of injustice about objects taken during colonial warfare they consider these their stolen heritage. Wang Daocheng, former Qing History professor at Renmin University, states that though [colonial powers] try to maintain the so-called moral high ground, their actions are unjustified (Qtd. Bowlby). However, emotions, no matter how heart-felt, cannot replace facts in

8 Coombs 8 court trial in this case, a custodial battle. Providing some substance for the cause, Kwame Opoku addresses the problem of colonial-era artifacts in his opinion piece, China s Purchase of Chinese Looted Artifacts: An Example For Other States? He holds that countries should not buy back their own artifacts, and justifies his claim with ample evidence. First, Opoku alleges that [pursuing] a policy of purchasing your own looted artifacts is clearly not what was envisaged by United Nations and UNESCO resolutions which request the holders of such artifacts to return them to their countries of origin. Second, Opoku contends that through a scheme of buying one s looted artifacts, the looters will be doubly rewarded and the dispossessed owners doubly deprived. Aside from the past wealth exodus from colony to colonizer, the post-colonial country again benefits through reselling artifacts to the former colony at exorbitant prices. Furthermore, paying for an artifact formally legitimizes the other party s right to it and, as Opoku asserts, the means they used to obtain it (Opoku). Opoku s three claims are strong, particularly the claim that buying back artifacts contradicts UNESCO standards, because this is based on a clearly defined, widely accepted regulation. Despite this, Opoku s overall argument is a little extreme Western museums are not willing to give away their valuable collections gratis, especially now that the colonial era is over. Demanding something does not guarantee its return (especially not when the object in question has monetary value) and a solution acceptable to both China and Western museums must compensate each side. A more concrete argument advocating artifact repatriation is that repatriation strengthens diplomatic ties between nations. Historically, Western imperialism in China and the development of Chinese Communism, among other factors, have cloven a deep rift between China and Western nations. In a fresh take on the issue of artifact repatriation, Erik Nemeth writes for U.S.

9 Coombs 9 News that repatriation is favorable to museums, because it saves museums the distasteful process of dealing with provenance tiffs and legal squabbles. Instead, museums can promote their own image and their country s by repatriating disputed objects (Nemeth). Nemeth s idea is original, but again it slants to one side it assumes that museums would willingly sacrifice key collection pieces to promote that lofty ideal of good foreign relations. This idea would be less viable when museums are private or not connected to the government, as then their interest in promoting international goodwill would be less strong. Furthermore, while Nemeth advocates that repatriation would reduce diplomatic tension, his comment that museums can wait to be challenged on the provenance of artifacts or realize an opportunity for strengthening relations describes a relationship of apprehension rather than cooperation. Nemeth s idea that artifact repatriation can bridge gaps in foreign relations is workable. However, his solution, which involves merely handing over valuable artifacts, needs adjustment. Building the Bridge Not all artifacts leave China under the same conditions, so each type of artifact must be dealt with accordingly. Artifacts that leave China legally have few questions attached, and so may attract either attention or dust where they are. However, artifacts taken during Colonial war times and artifacts exported illegally are more fickle. Given that things taken without permission should be returned, these artifacts should go back if not in whole, then at least in part. But when objects are repatriated to China, what should the terms be? First, in order for an artifact exchange to foster good foreign relations, the proposition must benefit both China and the museum. As the Chinese government holds that paying for artifacts legitimizes Western claims to them, a preferable solution should be sans-silver. Furthermore, a slippery-slope fear of Western museums is that capitulating to one repatriation

10 Coombs 10 claim would open a floodgate of other repatriation claims from different nations, leaving museums archives thin and balding. One solution that takes all of these factors into account is an exchange of artifacts. China has no lack of culturally significant rarities, and, in turn for key pieces from Western museums pieces that could include such things as relics from the Old Summer Palace it could reciprocate with other worthy pieces. Alternatively, China could establish a rotating artifact loan system for the museums involved. In this way, China would not need to pay highly inflated prices to secure artifacts return, and museums would not be left with empty pedestals. This solution would work particularly well for items taken during colonial era. In cases where museums have paid a dealer for an artifact, only later to discover its shady past, a different solution is required. In order to regain these illegally exported treasures, China might compensate museums for either part or the whole cost of the item in question. Even though China would prefer not to pay for these objects, this solution would at least avoid the high, inflated prices charged for its artifacts in the past. Both parties would lose money, but neither would pay the full price for the mistake. Though the basic premises for a workable solution have been established, some concerns have yet to be addressed. When Western museums are concerned for the safety of an article, a probationary period should be set. If, after twenty years or so, China is still stable, the object would be returned. Where Chinese museums are found lacking, Western museums would retain artifacts until a museum is deemed adequate to accommodate them. Artifacts might also be stored in other facilities besides museums, such as universities or public library archives, where they would still be accessible to the public. Even if artifacts are a global heritage, not a national heritage, artifacts must still be housed in a nation, and this nation matters. Historical artifacts do matter to everyone everywhere.

11 Coombs 11 However, artifacts matter more to people who know the story behind them, as these people appreciate them for what they were intended to be. Artifacts do not belong to nations. Instead, they belong to the people, and should be placed where the people with the closest access to them can understand them. Thence, artifacts are not just gilded trophies on a shelf they are vessels for understanding and knowledge. In essence, when artifacts are repatriated, they should not be repatriated because they came from a nation they should be repatriated because they came from a people. Artifact repatriation should not be a tug of war with national borders as the defining line; instead, it should be a way to push those borders aside and move forward.

12 Coombs 12 Works Cited: Appiah, Kwame A. There is No National Home for Art. The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 5 May Web. 13 Apr Ascherson, Neal. End the Exile. The Guardian. Guardian News, 20 Jun Web. 11 Apr Bowlby, Chris. The Palace of Shame that Makes China Angry. British Broadcasting Corporation. British Broadcasting Corporation, 2 Feb Web. 27 Mar Ding, Wenlei. Tracing the Lost Treasure. Beijing Review. Beijing Review, 5 Nov Web. 28 Mar French, Howard. Saving Chinese Artifacts: A Slow Fight. The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 1 Apr Web. 28 Mar Kimmelman, Michael. Who Draws the Borders of Culture? The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 5 May Web. 11 Apr Nemeth, Erik. the Diplomatic Case for Repatriating Art and Antiquities. U.S. News. U.S. News and World Report, 15 Nov Web. 20 Apr Opoku, Kwame. China s Purchase of Chinese Looted Artifacts: An Example for Other States? Modern Ghana, ModernGhana.com, 16 Mar Web. 12 Apr Thomas, Greg M. The Looting of Yuanming and the Translation of Chinese Art in Europe. Nineteenth-Century Art Worldwide. Nineteenth-Century Art Worldwide, N.D. Web. 18 Apr Yao, Le. Artifact Recovery Should be Left up to State. Global Times. Global Times, 17 Feb Web. 10 Apr