Opinion - Editorials   

Stolen antiquities

The reinstallation of the 1,700-year-old Aksum Obelisk was recently completed at the world heritage site of Aksum in Ethiopia. The obelisk was taken to Rome in 1937 as a trophy by fascist Italy’s troops. The Ethiopians persistently requested its return and, with UNESCO mediating successfully, the Italian government returned the priceless monument and paid for its transportation and reinstallation. Not all stolen antiquities face such happy endings. The Rosetta Stone, which Britain seized from France in Egypt and brought home in 1802, and the Elgin Marbles, which were vandalised from the Parthenon in Athens and brought to London — also in the early 19th century — are some of the priceless antiquities in contention. UNESCO may not be able to successfully mediate all claims by independent countries once under colonial or semi-colonial rule for the restitution of their stolen antiquities. Much depends on how erstwhile colonisers negotiate the new realities and turn sensitive to the aspirations of the aggrieved countries. Unfortunately, a small literature has emerged in western countries to defend the indefensible — by providing an ideological-philosophical basis for the non-return of stolen antiquities: “antiquities are the cultural property of all humankind…not of a particular nation state” and “antiquity knows no borders.”

If this is one part of the problem, the other is the illicit traffic in antiquities. Priceless cultural property stolen from museums, looted from archaeological sites, or obtained through unauthorised digging of historical sites, lands in auction houses, in private collections, and, shockingly, in respected museums. UNESCO adopted a convention in 1970 to curb the illicit traffic. A 1995 convention adopted by the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), an independent intergovernmental organisation, expanded the definition of cultural objects. India has a set of laws, especially the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act (1972), to protect its heritage objects but this has not curbed the demand for, or supply of, stolen antiquities. The infamous case of Vaman Ghiya of Jaipur, described as the operator of “one of the most extensive and sophisticated clandestine antiquities rings in history,” speaks to this reality. Enforcement of laws and vigil can of course be enhanced. However, better results can be expected only when the museums and auction houses adopt a strict code of practice, and patrons of museums hold them to account. To support any act that enables or legitimises the plunder of the past must be treated as ethically beyond the pale.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

End of Musharraf era
Stolen antiquities
Best path to prosperity is to take ownership
Ideal and reality: media’s role in India
Georgia: the super cop vanishes
Corrections and clarifications
Musharraf’s exit
Muslims in India
Dedicated scientist

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu