It is a matter of law that "one cannot have clear title with a thief in the
chain."  Therefore, objects should be returned to rightful owners if they
were stolen, or otherwise confiscated.  This means that a museum's
accession is meaningless if the object doesn't have clear title.

However, in international issues the lines are not as clear.  Countries may
choose to cooperate or not; there really is no governing body beyond the
UN.

The entirety of the Louvre's original collection was artwork stolen during
Napoleon's conquests.  These collections became a source of French pride,
symbolizing French superiority.  Likewise, the British have a colonial
history from which they acquired many artifacts from occupied countries.
The Hermitage museum proudly displays confiscated German artwork, held as
perpetual vindication for the devastation of WWII.

The argument goes that these stolen objects become the cultural patrimony
of the  victorious country; that they constitute an historical identity to
the people of the nation.  Some would say that the host country is simply
protecting the object; that the "little, brown" country of origin is ill
equipped to manage its own cultural patrimony.

However, the refusal to return an object is often merely the result of
greed, bigotry, or spite.  Perhaps it is entirely so...


Kyle McQuilkin
Paleontology
Museum of Texas Tech

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).