Search

This review of Elizabeth Esterling's monograph Indigenous Cultural Property and International Law: Restitution, Rights and Wrongs, emphasizes the complexities of cultural property restitution rights under International Law. The article examines the language of customary international law, expanding on Esterling's analysis of UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) with a comparative analysis of ICRIN (International Covenant on the Rights of the United Nations. Following Esterling's use of textual, purposive, and contextual lenses, particular attention is given to Article 11 of UNDRIP in relation to paragraph 11 of ICRIN. The legal language surrounding culture and its relationship to territory is significant in these texts. Even under these frameworks, the self-determination of Indigenous peoples has been historically minimized and complicated by the formation of international legal codes. Human rights discourse too often becomes an obstacle to indigenous rights, given the pitfalls of essentialism as a political strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Treasures of the past play an important role in the broader process of learning about one's own past, but they have also played and continue to play an important role in the international arena. In this capacity, they are an important element of a country's public diplomacy - this theme has been evident in international politics since at least the 19th century, when, with the development of archaeology and history, more and more such finds, often very spectacular, began to be exhibited in numerous museums as an element of national pride, but also as a good cultural ambassador for one's own country. In such a capacity, the Romanian state had already been using one of its greatest treasures - the one excavated in Pietroasa in 1837 - since the 1860s. In the capacity of a kind of cultural ambassador, the treasure was used at world exhibitions in Paris and Vienna, while also being the subject of much political discussion. The object of the article will be to analyse the exhibition policies of Romania - that is, to identify the places where it was decided to exhibit the greatest national treasures; in addition, to indicate both the motives and the political benefits of such action between the 19th and 21st centuries. Due to limitations, only a preliminary analysis will be made of the currently vital issue of restitution of cultural property, also an important element of public diplomacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document explores the role of museums in relation to cultural heritage and issues of ownership. It offers teaching and assessment ideas for educators to discuss these topics in the classroom. The lessons cover various aspects, including the significance of cultural property, arguments for and against its return, the impact of looting and illegal trade, the role of museums in acquiring and storing artifacts, and the representation of diverse perspectives in museum displays. The document includes a glossary of relevant terms. Two contrasting views on the return of historical objects to their countries of origin are presented, highlighting the ongoing debate surrounding this issue. Ioannis D. Stefanidis argues for establishing the origin of artifacts and raises complex questions about repatriation, while Nicholas Thomas emphasizes the need for careful consideration on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the cultural and social benefits of the artifacts. The text also emphasizes the importance of investing in museums and educational programs. [Extracted from the article]

This research paper finds that Thailand adopts its cultural property law by applying the concept of cultural nationalism embedded in the 1970 UNESCO Convention and ASEAN regional framework even though Thailand has not yet ratified the UNESCO Convention. Thailand has implemented these international and regional frameworks by providing legal measures—including the registration of cultural property, the preservation of national treasures and the prohibition of cultural property export—to pursue the retention of cultural property within the country. Recent cases of repatriation show that Thailand has attempted to borrow the spirit of an international legal framework to support this repatriation, but the country was disadvantaged and encountered difficulties, even though its illegally removed cultural property was eventually repatriated. This research recommends that, regardless of the international framework, Thailand should cooperate with the requested party by making a bilateral agreement for repatriation. This is because the reciprocity embedded in such an agreement would be more helpful than the international framework for Thailand to resolve cultural property disputes and reconcile their mutual interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Vatican Apostolic Library houses the Cerulli Collection of Ethiopian Manuscripts, donated by Enrico Cerulli, a scholar of Ethiopian languages and literature. Cerulli was accused of war crimes by Ethiopia but was not prosecuted. The question of whether the manuscripts should be returned to Ethiopia is discussed in relation to the Treaty of Peace between Italy and Ethiopia. The author notes that no official request for their return has been made. The text explores the evolving trend in international law regarding the return of cultural objects and suggests that the Vatican City should consider the moral and cultural aspects of the case. [Extracted from the article]

This article delves into the ongoing issues surrounding the restitution of artwork stolen by the Nazi regime during the Second World War. It highlights the less-explored case of German dentist Hans Sachs and his extensive poster collection, shedding light on the challenges faced by heirs of Nazi-looted art and revealing the stance of German cultural institutions and courts. It traces the history of Sachs’ collection, its significance in cultural heritage, and the subsequent attempts to recover it. The focus then shifts to Peter Sachs, the collector’s son, and his pursuit of justice through legal means, detailing the various court decisions that marked the progress of the case. Through this comprehensive analysis the article provides insights into the broader issues of art restitution, the complexities of legal battles involving Nazi-looted art, and the implications for cultural heritage preservation. It concludes with a summary of the key findings and the implications of the Hans Sachs case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the Second World War, and thereafter until the end of the communist regime in 1989, a massive amount of privately owned works of art came into the possession of the Hungarian state. The ownership of the property thus collected was only partially clarified after the war. After the fall of communism, nationalized cultural property was subject to restitution laws, but restitution typically meant partial compensation. The aim of this article is to highlight the shortcomings that still characterize the restitution of cultural property held in public collections in Hungary. After summarizing the historical-legal situation pertaining to restitution measures in Central and Eastern Europe, we provide a comprehensive overview of the Hungarian legal environment in terms of restitution. The focus is on the restitution rules adopted in the 2010s that were intended to settle the possession of cultural property held in public collections. The roots of constitutional issues related to the regulation arise from and are reflected in the intermingling of private law and public law characteristics and guarantees. In the presentation of civil law disputes concerning the ownership rights of property held in public collections, we outline the characteristics of the Hungarian regulatory framework regarding protected cultural property and the issues arising from their application. Finally, we provide an overview of the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence on the protection of property rights and an assessment of Hungarian regulations before the Court. We claim that the lack of predictability and certainty of the latter authority’s proceedings may lead to human rights issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a comprehensive visual analysis often repatriated Benin Bronzes, following their return from Germany to Nigeria in December 2022. The study employs compositional interpretation and visual methodology to examine the forms and contents of these iconic artifacts, which were looted in 1897 and have since been scattered across European museums. Through a decolonial lens, this research aims to recontextualize these artworks within their original cultural framework, challenging the long-standing Eurocentric interpretations that have dominated their narrative. The analysis reveals the intricate craftsmanship, symbolic significance, and historical importance of the Benin Bronzes, highlighting their role in preserving Benin's cultural memory and artistic traditions. By focusing on readily available images of the returned works, including ceremonial heads, ivory carvings, and decorated plaques, this study offers insights into the aesthetic and cultural values embedded in these artifacts. Furthermore, the paper addresses the understudied nature of Benin Bronzes within their home context, attributing this gap to their prolonged absence and limited visual art education in the region. The research contributes to the ongoing discourse surrounding the repatriation of cultural artifacts and advocates for a shift in perspective that centers on African voices and knowledge systems. By decolonizing the gaze through which these artifacts are viewed and interpreted, this study not only enriches our understanding of the Benin Bronzes but also underscores the importance of cultural restitution in fostering a more inclusive and equitable global art history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Arte y Políticas de Identidad is the property of Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In 2020, French senators voted to return 27 objects held in the country's museums to Benin and Senegal. When speaking to the French Press, the French Minister of Culture, said, "the bill is not an act of repentance, but an act of friendship and trust (Selvin)." Without repentance, how can France hope to build friendship and trust with its former African colonies? Although extant literature (Curtis; DeBlock; Hicks; Maaba; Maples Munjeri; Nevadomsky; Roberts; Shyllon; and Thompson) provides insight into how France could restitute African cultural property, this literature has not explicitly considered the role that anti-Black racism plays in France's resistance to the restitution of African cultural property. Therefore, we investigated the research question: in what ways might Critical Race Theory (CRT) inform policies and practices on the restitution of African cultural property from France back to African nations? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the use of morality in determining a claimant's entitlement to restitution of cultural property looted during 1933-45. Topics include the application of moral standards for restitution claims under the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, which call for fair and just solutions.

The article discusses the author's new role as Museum Reviews Editor for the Periodical, highlighting the evolving landscape for museums post-COVID-19. Topics discussed include the resurgence in museum attendance, the impact of revised repatriation laws and ethics, and the integration of diverse perspectives and global practices in museum reviews.

The heavy military attack and colonial domination during the successive Japanese invasion wars hit the Chinese traditional culture and people the hardest and wreaked havoc on cultural relics, causing a catastrophic and irremediable loss to society. The topic of restitution of looted Chinese cultural relics during these wars arose owing to the long-pending historical issues between China and Japan. However, this issue has never attracted significant attention from the international community. Applying empirical analysis and drawing on the case study, this paper primarily focuses on two typical representative cases of the recovery of looted Chinese cultural relics from Japan, which triggered three significant issues to be addressed: the legal analysis of two recovery cases through litigation and non-litigation relief; proving the legality concerning different ownership rights of the Chinese government and individuals seeking to recover state-owned and privately-owned cultural relics; exploring the legal grounds for recovering state-owned and privately-owned cultural relics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The book "Africa: Colonizers' Unpaid Debt" edited by Irina Abramova explores the socioeconomic and political impact of European colonization on Africa. The authors argue that the transatlantic slave trade and colonial rule have had lasting effects on the continent, including mass poverty and economic disenfranchisement. The book examines the history of the slave trade, the atrocities committed by colonial powers, and the exploitation of Africa's resources. It also highlights the role of the USSR in supporting African liberation movements and advocates for collaborative efforts between Africa and Russia to reclaim sovereignty and challenge neocolonialism. [Extracted from the article]

Throughout human history, imperial powers colonized other countries and, subsequently, took much of their cultural property. Today, previously looted countries actively seek the return of their cultural property while former colonial powers face the decision of whether to return appropriated artifacts and remains. The United States and United Kingdom (U.K.) serve as two juxtaposing case studies, highlighting the willingness to and resistance against the repatriation of cultural property. The United States maintains a large and successful repatriation program. Under the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, federally funded museums must inventory and return cultural property with connections to Native American tribes. Conversely, the U.K. enacted two weak laws to govern the return of cultural property: the Human Tissue Act of 2004 and the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act of 2009. Because neither U.K. Act mandates the repatriation of relevant cultural property, the Acts leave the decision of whether to repatriate to the museums benefiting from possessing the property. The British public largely abhors their government's strong stance of ownership over previously colonized countries' cultural property--notably the British claim of ownership over the Parthenon Marbles, Benin Bronzes, and Rosetta Stone. Furthermore, international organizations promote repatriation and reproach the U.K.'s resistance toward repatriation. With little to no international or domestic support regarding their retention of such property, the U.K. should reconsider a practical repatriation framework. This Comment recommends that the U.K. should look to the United States's successful framework and adopt a similar approach. Nevertheless, the Comment also addresses issues with the United States's framework of dealing with cultural property--principally, the lack of an exception for scientific studies--and presents the U.K. with strategies to mediate such issues. This Comment ultimately proposes legislation that would be amenable to the U.K., with the hope that the legislation balances the public's desire to repatriate cultural property with the British government's apparent desire to retain as much cultural property as possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article recounts the life and work of Edith Hoffmann, the first successful female art historian in Hungary. Information is provided on the initial difficulties experienced by Hoffman as a female art historian and years of success, her attendance of classes by Austrian art historian Max Dvorák, and her role as a figure in professional relations between Austria and Hungary involved in the process of recovering Hungarian cultural property left in Austria and research on medieval art.

This article explores the ongoing debate surrounding the legacy of the British Empire, focusing on demands for the return of diamonds and gemstones that are part of the crown jewels. It provides specific examples, including the Cullinan II diamond in South Africa and the Koh-i-noor diamond in India. The article also discusses broader issues related to the colonial past, such as the removal of colonial symbols, repatriation of cultural artifacts, and the uncovering of forgotten histories. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the impact of colonialism on contemporary society and advocates for a multidisciplinary approach to decolonization and post-colonialism. Additionally, the article introduces a collection of nine articles that offer new perspectives on colonialism, imperialism, and the legacy of empire, exploring topics such as material legacies, memory management, and representation of colonized people in visual media. The collection aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of complex historical phenomena and examine the impact of colonialism on cultural and national identity. [Extracted from the article]

For decades, the British Museum has been displaying an object in its collection as the shield which was used by Gweagal men defending against Cook's landing at Kamay in 1770. Following a loan of the shield to the National Museum of Australia in 2015/2016, Gweagal man Rodney Kelly lodged a claim with the British Museum asking for the shield to be repatriated. Soon after, the British Museum facilitated and partly funded research which aimed 'to test the argument – or widely held belief – that the shield was collected at Botany Bay in 1770' (Nugent and Sculthorpe 2018, 37). The research all but concluded that the shield was not collected at Cook's landing, and that that shield, if it exists, is now lost (Thomas 2018, 25). Despite this questioning of the shield's identity, it remains on prominent display in the British Museum's Enlightenment room. In this article, I critically examine the new research on the shield, making two related arguments. I argue first that the research is conceptually limited because it assumes that the Gweagal shield is an empirically definable object of property, and second that the research is practically limited because it has been produced in a material context through which the British Museum has reasserted its control and possession of the shield. Engaging with a range of scholarship that uses different methodologies from those used in the research in question, I argue that the 'truth' about the shield cannot be found while it continues to be kept as the British Museum's property. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of History Pages is the property of National Technical University of Ukraine KPI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Review of African Political Economy is the property of Review of Political Economy (ROAPE) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

We present an exhaustive survey of the geological-paleontological collection of the Natural History Museum Vienna (Austria) based on 353,704 objects acquired from 1919 to 2019. The data encompass information on geographic origin, provenance, stakeholders and mode of acquisition. Special focus is laid on the interwar period from 1919 to 1938, the Nazi regime and World War II until 1945, and on the recovery during the postwar phase until the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989. The illegitimate acquisitions during the Nazi regime are documented, referring to the published documents of the Art Restitution Advisory Board. For the first time, all objects sent to the department by soldiers during World War II are reported. A strong increase in acquisitions from Austria took place during the 20th century, whilst international relations appear curbed. A boom phase during the 21st century is related to changing science policy and integration of citizen scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The collection of the Musée des Rois Bamoun (MRB, Museum of the Bamoun Kings), located in Foumban in Cameroon's West Region, testifies to the richness and diversity of the Bamoun Kingdom's art, culture, and history. This article discusses the museum's collection as a framework for studying issues related to the concepts of museum, cultural heritage, conservation, and the restitution of cultural property looted during the colonial period. I use an empirico-historical approach based on heritage sciences, which foregrounds a community perspective, to analyze these notions and their practice in society as endogenous mechanisms for collection conservation, perspectives for reconnecting cultural property with communities of origin, and the potential benefits of restitution for inclusive development. As such, my analysis looks at the specifics of place and, by framing the museum as a place of memory, interrogates how social contexts may modify conservation when considering the restitution of looted cultural property. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The document explores the transformation of Western conservation practices in museums, challenging hegemonic models and broadening the scope of concern. It delves into the complexities of heritage preservation, questioning the ethics and implications of conservation actions. The text highlights the urgent need for decolonial perspectives, intersectionality, and ecological considerations in museum conservation, emphasizing the importance of inclusivity, social justice, and sustainability. Various authors from diverse backgrounds contribute to redefining conservation practices, advocating for dialogue with communities and artists, and addressing the historical and contemporary implications of museum collections. [Extracted from the article]

Restitution and return of cultural property between negotiation and restorative justice: time to bridge the river There is a need for dialogue between two perspectives – the negotiated settlement of legal disputes and the use of restorative justice programmes in post-conflict situations – with respect to the recovery of cultural objects displaced in times of war and/or colonial occupation. Although the application of such perspectives led to the recovery of disputed cultural objects, this has mostly been achieved unwittingly. However, the resolution of restitution claims would benefit from a conscious exchange between experts and practitioners of the two approaches. We will summarise cultural property displacement in its practical complexities, briefly discussing problems related to both 'historical' depredations and the current trafficking in cultural objects, with a focus on the current trend towards increased use of criminal law. However, this is a tool that is mostly ineffective in providing a solution for the most heartfelt questions arising from breaking an object's links to its cultural roots. After carrying out an overview of international conventions currently addressing these issues, discussing why these legal instruments oft cannot actually heal the wounds caused by depredations of cultural property, we will illustrate the need for an approach more focused on the 'human' meaning of questions of restitution of objects that are so much more than 'things'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The First World War was marked by cultural destruction that violated international law and outraged international audiences. This article examines the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and the five post-war treaties (Versailles, Saint-Germain, Neuilly, Trianon and Sèvres) to explore how these issues were resolved in the post-war settlements. Rather than focusing solely on the substance of the treaties, the article examines the process through which they were negotiated, paying particular attention to the crucial role played by lobbyists such as museum directors, writers and politicians. It sets these negotiations in the wider context of the contemporary discourse about cultural destruction. The article asserts that the cultural provisions of the post-war treaties sit at the intersection of two key issues in post-war peacemaking: self-determination and reparations. Many states presented claims for the return of cultural objects or compensation for cultural destruction as essential to their national restoration after the war. Cultural claims generally appeared in the treaties' reparation clauses and their enactment was inherited by the post-war Inter-Allied Reparation Commission. The article argues that the post-war treaties demonstrate the dominance of the cultural claims of Western allies over those of eastern Europe and colonial settings. They also demonstrate a tension between a belief in universal civilisation and the claims of nation states to ownership of cultural property, which was most apparent in cases involving the dissolution of the Habsburg and Ottoman empires. Fundamentally, the decisions reached were often arbitrary rather than being guided by consistent principles or norms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Santander Art & Culture Law Review article discusses the book "Cultural Property Crime and the Law," edited by Michelle D. Fabiani, Kate Melody Burmon, and Saskia Hufnagel. The book explores legal approaches to protecting, repatriating, and countering illicit trade of cultural property, emphasizing the need for innovative legal solutions to address transnational crimes. It brings together scholars and practitioners from various fields to examine the intersections between civil and criminal law in preventing cultural property crimes and holding offenders accountable. The article suggests that the book may be of interest to academics and practitioners in cultural property crime, criminology, law, archaeology, museum studies, political science, economics, and law enforcement. [Extracted from the article]

The quest for the restitution of cultural property has not been an easy endeavour. Despite the availability of multiple legal regimes securing various channels for the restitution of cultural property, improvement has been quite sluggish. This article argues that the debacle to the restitution process lies in the simultaneous operation of two diametrically opposed conceptions of cultural property- the nationalist and internationalist schools of thought. The 1954 Hague Convention sees cultural property as the cultural heritage of all mankind whilst the 1970 Convention takes the view that it is the cultural heritage designated by each country. These two approaches have been used to characterise nations theoretically in the international arena into source nations with nationalistic interests and market nations with international concerns. The conflict between both conceptions of cultural property becomes evident where the nationalists seek to employ legal and extra-legal means to protect their cultural heritage and facilitate their return and restitution; whereas, internationalists sabotage these efforts on the ground that cultural heritage is the common heritage of mankind thereby contradicting the notion of return. This article finds that although both schools of thought have divergent propositions, they nonetheless share a common theoretical underpinning- utilitarianism, which validates their respective ideologies. Since utilitarianism supports the maximisation of the overall happiness of a collective group, nationalists can predicate the protection of their cultural heritage on the need to secure this happiness just like the internationalists. This article, therefore, seeks to examine if the common theoretical foundation which both schools of thought share can serve as a reconciliatory tool that bridges the gap between them towards the promotion of the interest of the international community in protecting cultural heritage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Negotiations between Ukraine and Poland concerning the return of lost treasures have been ongoing since the beginning of the 1990s. In total, during 1997-2020 six sessions were held of the Intergovernmental Ukrainian-Polish Commission for the Protection and Return of Cultural Property Lost and Illegally Displaced during World War II. However, no cultural objects have been returned to Ukraine or Poland. This article analyzes current Ukrainian-Polish intergovernmental relations on the return and restitution of cultural property lost in consequence of World War II, describes the accomplishments, and examines the problematic issues concerning mutual co-operation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent developments in French and international laws concerning the return of cultural property from formerly colonized territories are particularly rich. Most States with large collections of non-European objects are now faced with claims from the countries from which these objects were transferred. France, after having long maintained a legal stance based on strict respect of the principle of inalienability of public collections, has recently changed its position statement. In 2017, in Ouagadougou, President Emmanuel Macron said he was in favour of returning African heritage to Africa. Three years later, on 24 December 2020, the Parliament adopted a law that partially fulfilled the President's wish, by identifying 27 objects for return to Benin and Senegal. As this article will explain, the law's passage was fraught, and opinions continue to diverge on a case-by-case (or object-by-object) approach to return versus a generic statute. There are also questions about what drives the idea of return - from legal responsibility, to moral duty in view of French history, to contemporary politics and diplomacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The debate on the return and restitution of cultural property is by no means a new one. In recent years, however, the debate - stimulated by French President Emmanuel Macron's speech in 2017 - extended to include the question of how to deal with collections from colonial contexts. Whereas international law provides a legal framework for how to deal with war-time looting (the 1954 Hague Convention) and the present-day trafficking in cultural property (the 1970 UNESCO Convention), no such legal regime exists for cultural objects removed during colonial times. Nevertheless, as this article illustrates - with a focus on recent examples in Germany - current developments indicate a movement towards new political and ethical schemes on how to deal with collections from colonial contexts and, in a broader sense, how to come to terms with the colonial past. In Germany, this includes the return of cultural objects and human remains to Namibia as well as the transfer of ownership of all Benin Bronzes held by German institutions to Nigeria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Considering that the vast majority of the objects constituting Indigenous peoples' cultural heritage are now located outside their source communities, the restitution of cultural property has become a pressing issue among Indigenous peoples worldwide and should be understood as part of Indigenous peoples' historical (as well as current) encounter with colonization and its consequences. As such, this article investigates whether international cultural heritage law offers any possibilities for successful repatriation and to what extent the shortcomings of the framework in place could be complemented by alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms and the new mandate of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Expert Mechanism). First, crucial concepts in the repatriation debates are explained. Next the factual background of the case studies of the G'psgolox Totem Pole and Maaso Kova are presented. This is followed by a discussion of the most pertinent mechanisms of international cultural heritage law and the place of Indigenous peoples' rights within such a framework. Subsequently, the concept of ADR is introduced, and the details of the negotiation processes between the Haisla First Nation (Canada) and the Yaqui People (Mexico, the United States) - both with the Museum of Ethnography in Stockholm (Sweden) - are presented. Finally, the article evaluates to what extent ADR could be an appropriate mechanism for the settlement of disputes concerning Indigenous peoples' cultural property, and whether the Expert Mechanism is a well-suited body for facilitating the process of repatriating Indigenous peoples' cultural heritage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The status of colonial objects in European museums touches upon a matrix of legal and historical issues. This article engages with some of them, while referring to the case of a Sri Lankan object in the possession of the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam (RMA) in the Netherlands: a ceremonial cannon looted by the Dutch from the King of Kandy in 1765. The article offers a historical overview of the European colonial domination of Ceylon, distinguishing between the Portuguese, Dutch, and British periods, and for each period distinguishes the nature and the size of the confiscated heritage. It also analyses Sri Lanka's legal title to the cannon, and the discrepancy between the international and mostly Euro-centric legal regime and Sri Lanka's own legal framework. The article moves on to analyses of and reflections about the type of provenance research practiced by the RMA, as well as the broader efforts in the Netherlands for better provenance research. The importance of the cannon for both Sri Lanka and the Netherlands, as well as earlier efforts to retrieve it, are also described and evaluated. In its conclusions, the article proffers suggestions for more balance and equality in the provenance research efforts. The contribution covers legal studies, history, and museum studies and is based on the literature, historical catalogues, and other documents, as well as the practice of UNESCO's Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation (ICPRCP). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Thélème is the property of Universidad Complutense de Madrid and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

On 22 February 2022, the French Parliament enacted legislation1 to enable the restitution of fifteen works (paintings, drawings and sculptures) which had been looted during the Second World War, but whose return was rendered illegal by virtue of the principle of inalienability of cultural objects held in national collections. The draft bill had been announced by the French Culture Minister on 3 November 2021 and sought to authorise the deaccession ('declassification') of certain items of cultural property held in public collections and which the State had decided, for various reasons, to hand over to the heirs of people from whom it was looted during the Second World War. The format of the legislation is simple: it contains four articles, each dealing with a specific cultural item or items, together with annexes detailing the inventory numbers of the items. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent decades, legal changes and a clear policy to combat illicit trafficking in cultural property have allowed the confiscation of pieces and their return to their countries of origin. The recognition of the right of indigenous peoples to the repatriation of the remains of their ancestors received in national regulations has made possible the claims of various groups and communities. These issues have generated profound changes in the ethical positions of scientists and museums regarding the possession and ethics of human remains collections. They have significantly marked the heritage agenda in Argentina. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the fact that claims for the return of cultural property have been present for decades, in recent years they have become a central issue with extensive global coverage, both in countries of origin and in those where the pieces are Located, which has generated greater awareness in these regards. In this article, I recount the Latest advances in matters of cultural restitution and the fight against illicit trafficking and commercialization of archaeological antiquities in the case of Mexico, and I reflect on the role that archaeologists, academics, and specialists can play to communicate and enrich the discussions about them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, the advances of a research carried out in the Atacameño territory, located in the Antofagasta Region in northern Chile, are disclosed. This study aims to study the processes of collecting and patrimonialization of the bodies of the grandparents or ancestors who, since the end of the 19th century, were exhumed and distributed in national and foreign museums, by collectors and scientific expeditions developed in this sector of the Andes. The results of this work are reflected in an initial systematization of relevant collectors, museums and universities, as well as in the creation of an inventory with general information on the Atacameño collections, their characteristics and depository institutions. At the same time, dissemination and awareness-raising activities were carried out among the indigenous communities and organizations, as well as in the academic and governmental spheres. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]