Museum Vol XXXI, n° 1, 1979 Return and restitution of cultural propertyI Vol. XXX1,No. 1, 1979 Museum, successor to Mouseion, is ublished by the United Nations Education$ Scientific and Cultural Organization in Paris. Museum serves as a quarterly survey of activities and means of research in the fidd of museography. Opinions expressed by individual contributors are not necessarily those of Unesco. EDITOR-JN-CHIEF Anne Erdös Iris Bmembourg Om Prakash Agrawal, India Fcrnanda Camargo de Almeida, Brazil Chira ChongkoL Thailand EDITOR, ENGLJSH EDITION E D I T O W ADVISORY BOARD Joseph-Ma& Essomba, President of OMMSA Raymonde Frin, France Saleheddin Hasan Sury, Libyan Arab Jan Jelinek, Czechoslovakia Grace L. McCann Morley, Consultant, ICOM Luis Monreal, Secretary-General of ICOM, Paul Perrot, United States of America Georges Henri Rivière, Permanent Adviser Vitali Souslov, Union of Soviet Socialist Jamahiriya Agency for South-East Asia ex-oficio of ICOM Republics ' . ~ ._ .. . .. . .~. ."' : . . . , . . . . . . . .. , . . . . A. A . . . . . . <, - . I . . . ! ... " . . I . . Each issue: 24 F. Subscription rates (4 issues or corresponding double issues per year): 72 F (1 year); 120 F (2 years). Editorial and publishing offices: Vnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 7 Place de Fontenoy, 75700 Paris, France 0 Unesco 1979 Printed in France Imp. Maury S.A., 45330 Malesherbes 'Museum Architecture', Vol. XXVI, No 314, 1974 In response to numerous requests this issue has been reprinted in English and is now available. - . .--. . . . , . - , . . . . ...-. , ,- IReturn and restitution Georges Fradier Louis-Jacques Rollet-Andriane of culturalprop ert y Tayeb Moulefera Herbert Ganslmayr Barbara Philippaki Ekpo Eyo P. H. D. H. de Silva J. R. Specht Huguette van Geluwe Peter H. Pott and M. Amir Sutaarga Jeannine Auboyer Luis Monreal Editorial 2 Precedents 4 VIEWPOINTS Algeria 10 Federal Republic of Germany 12 Greece 15 Nigeria 18 Sri Lanka 2 2 ARRANGEMENTS CONCLUDED OR BEING CONCLUDED The Australian Musemn and the return of artefacts t o Pacifc Island countries 28 Belgiunz’s contribution t o the Zairian cultural heritage Arrangements concluded or in progress for the return of objects: the Netherlands- Indonesia 3 8 The exchange of works of art at government level Problems and possibilities in. recovering dispersed crdtrdral heritages 3 2 43 49 A‘PPENDIXES A plea for the return of an irreplaceable cultural heritage to those who createdit 58 A brief history of the creation by Unesco of an Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation Study on the principles, conditions and means for the restitution or return of cultural property in view of reconstituting dispersed heritages 59 622 Editorial Georges Pradier The activities undertaken by Unesco to promote the return of cultural property to the countries having lost it as a result of colonial or foreign occupation have aroused here and there strong reactions and misunderstandings. Pathetic requests have sometimes been met with timid hesitations, certain accusations with irritability. However, these activities, with which ICQM is constantly associated, are aimed only at solving problems existing in these fields by procedures acceptable to all countries: simple and practical d e s to supplement the numerous arrange- ments and adjustments which men of the twentieth century have patiently thought out to facilitate international cultural life. The appeal launched in June last year by the Director-General, Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow (Fig. 11, touched the emotions of ald those it reashed. It was addressed above all to their intelligence and their good sense.’ Since then there has been a new development: in Novem- ber 1978, the General Conference of Unesco unanimously approved the estab- lishment of an Intergovernmental C mittee for Promoting the ral Property to its countries of gin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation. The setting up of this committee marks a new stage in the action undertaken by Unesco since the question was first taken up by the General Con- ference of Unesco, at its eighteenth session, held in 1974. It augurs well for the future action of the committee that several States which are in a position to make an important contribution in this field have expressed their intention to participate in it. The committee, comprising representatives of twenty States, is responsible first of all for facilitating bilateral negotiations for the restitution of any object having ‘a fundamental significance from the point of view of the spiritual values and the cultural heritage of the pe~ple’ ,~ said to have been lost as a result of colonial or foreign occupation. But it should also encourage research which will enable representative collections to be built up in the country whose heritage has been dispersed. h d while seeing to it that the public is informed of the real extent and scope of tRe problem the committee will carry out two other vital tasks: it will encourage the establishent or development of museums as well as the training of their personnel, and it will promote exchanges of cultural property. As can be seen, two concerns henceforth distinguish Unesco’s action: to make use of all the resources of bilateral and international collaboration; to seek practi- cal methods which will enable both the aspirations of the countries concerned and the requirements for the conservation of cultural property to be met, so as to arrive gradually at a more equal sharing of the riches of the world heritage. 1. Text in e.lctemo of the appeal by the DireLror-General of Unesco, see Append& page 58. 2. ICOM study, see Appendix, page 62.3 1 Appeal by the Director-Geizeral of 1978. ‘The men and women of have the right to recover these c1 which are part of their being.’ Uizesc these tltural The present issue of Museum explains this orientation and gives examples. Apart from recalling the long history of despoilment and of restitutions obtained with difficulty throughout the ages, all the articles deal with the present situation and the future. Several ‘viewpoints’ express the revolt against injustice which is objectivelv at the origin of the present undertaking, but the reference to the universality of cultures is more apparent than a withdrawal to exclusive values. Thus‘the position of the ‘requesting countries’ is put clearly by the Director of National Museums of Sri Lanka: ‘We are asking for the restitution of only those unique and especially significant items which express to the world and to our own countrymen the unique cultural heritage that is ours.’ He adds that these countries ‘must also realize that with the restitution of their cultural treasures their responsibility is doubled, for these nations must keep in mind that these priceless objects are also the cultural legacy of the entire human race’. Already some arrangements having the return of objects in view have been concluded, as can be seen in three of the articles, while another describes methods of exchange which may lead in the long term to satisfactory solutions. In any case, museums are by definition the most competent institutions to deal with the matter, whether it be a question of restitution, exchange or loan. An article by the Secretary-General of ICOM provides a complete analysis of the legal and technical possibilities which museums already have at their dispo- sal in this field. The following remark may be mentioned: ‘We are convinced that an open, generous and understanding attitude on the part of museum profes- sionals would lead to a better understanding between the parties involved, result- ing in most cases in agreements satisfactory to all concerned.’ There is no doubt that the readers of Mzíseum will share this conviction. ‘O, 7 assi cou J“lt‘ ntries ets4 cedents The idea that there is a duty to return cultural property removed from a c~untry in time of war or cdonial occupation, or as a result of any other relations of inequality or violence, is not in itself a new one. It is an idea that has not only long been advocated verbally but has, if only episodically, been put into practice. There has, however, been a whole new approach to the problem in recent years which has to a considerable extent altered its implications and import. Tradition It is true that the right to spoils has in most places and at most times been re- garded as being inherent in the right to make war, and with the same consequen- ces. Thus Ancient Greece, where it was said there were more statues than living beings, lost both with a sense of fatality rather than injustice. The historian Poly- bius was something of an exception when he pronounced his well-known and extraordinary exhortation: ‘The city should not owe its beauty to adornments brought in from elsewhere, but to the valour of its inhabitants. . . . 1 trust that future conquerors w d learn from these reflexions not to plunder the cities they bring into subjection and not to take advantage of the distress of other peoples to adorn their homelands.” Even more remarkable, in a sense, was Cicero’s celebrated stand against Ver- res, for it gave rise t~ a judgement against the former Roman praetor, forcing him to pay 4 j m i b n sesterces to the Sicdians in retribution for the artistic riches plundered from their public monuments and temples. The intention behind the orator’s action was truly ‘cultural’, for his indignation was roused more by the loss for the commmity of ‘statues that people would go to Messina tQ see as one of the most beautiful things there’,* than by the official’s unscrupulousness. And again, it was for the same reasons that he praised the conduct of Scipio who ‘having taken Carthage in the Third Punic War, and knowing that Sicily had often and over a long period of time been exposed to looting by the Carthagi- nians, assembled abl the Sicilians and, having ordered them to find out exactly what had been taken from them, promised to secure the return to each town of whatever was bund to belong to it’.3 In this way the statues removed from the town of Himera were returned to its inhabitants and others to the town of Gela. Quoted s. Seferiades in: ‘La Question du Rapatriement des Marbres d‘Elgin Considérée plus Spécialement au Point de Vue du Droit des Gens’, Revue de Droit bteniational, Vol. 2, 1932. 2. De Sipis, C. Verrem oratio, lib. IV. The citizens of Segesta recovered a statue of Diana, and those of Agrigentum their famous b d . we must assume that it was not yet the fashion to use pdveri- zed Phidias marble to stoke lime kilns, or to demolish the columns of the temples of Agrigentum to build the jetties of Port Empedocles. 3. ibid., XXXIII.Precedents 1 2 The Tyranaicides. Group reconstituted from several replicas of the liberators of Athens, Harmodios and Aristogiton. This group was’ taken away by the Persians in 480 B.C. and restored to the Athenians by Alexander the Great after the defeat of the Persians in 3 3 1 B.C.6 Louis-Jacques Rollet-hdriane 4. Muntz, ‘Les Annexions de Collections d‘Art ou de Bibliothèques‘, Revue d’Hirtoire Diplomatique, 1895. S. ibid. 6. ,Quoted by Henry Wheaton in his Elements of Itzterr2ational Law, Vol. 1, in the chapter on rights of war between enemies, p. 1 S (F. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, 18 S.2). 7. Obligations of a similar kind, but numerically fewer and qualitatively less important, had, however, already appeared in a number of seventeenth-century treaties, such as the Treaty of Munster in 1648 between Spain and the Netherlands (art. LXIX); of the Isle des Faisans in 16J9 between Spain and France (art. LIX), of Nimwegen in 1678 between Spain and France (art. XX); of Nimwegen, between Austria and France, in 1679 (art. XIX); of Lunden, between Denmark and Sweden, in 1679 (art. XII); of Ryswick, between the Netherlands. and France, in 1697 (art. II and VI); of Utrecht, between the Netherlands and France, in 17 13 (art. VI), and between France and Savoy (art. XII), etc. Several of these treaties also provide for the return of archives removed from their place of origin or those relating to a ceded territory (cf. Treaty of Paris in 17 8 3 between the United States and Great Britain, art. VI). Similarly, the Treaty of Oliva between Poland and Sweden (1660) provides for the restitution by Sweden of the Polish royal library; and the Treaty of Whitehall between Great Britain and the Netherlands in 1662 provides for the return of works of art belonging to the Stuart collection. 8. Bluntschli, Droit htematzonal Cod$é, art. 650, No. 4. It is also interestmg to note that, in some cases, those reponsible for implementing the Allied decisions of 18 1 S did not stop at merely returning the transferred items to their last owner: some manuscripts which Napoleon’s armies had seized in Rome were restored, not to the Pope, but to the Heidelberg Library whence they had been looted in 1622. sequel in article 246 of the Treaty, compelling Germany to return the original Koran that the Ottoman Government had originally taken from Medina as a gift for William II, not to Turkey, but to Medina (to the King of Hejaz). Similarly, the skull of Sultan Makaoua, which was an object of worship locally, was restored to East Africa. 9. The innovation referred to in note 8 had a It is said that Charlemagne resisted the temptation to ‘enrich his Franco- Germanic possessions with works of art that had been preserved in Italy’ and consulted Pope Adrian as to his duties in the matter.4 Richelieu, Mazarin. Col- bert and Louvois have also been given credit for ‘never having contemplated tak- ing advantage of the victories of the French Armies to enrich the royal collections. During their wars, Louis XII1 and Louis XIV9 while they annexed provinces, scrupulously refrained from despoiling the vanquished of the monuments which were the mementoes of their nation’s past, which embodied their scientific, liter- ary or artistic achievements,.’ The French Revolution and Napoleon, as we know, did not follow their example in this respect, However, the amount of looting of works of art in which they indulged (especially in Belgium and Italy) had consequences that are directly relevant to the purpose of this study, for at the Congress of Vienna, the victors of P 8 11 compelled Prance to effect one of the first large-scale restitutions re- corded in history.‘ The reasons put forward to justify this operation appear to be applicable even today, especially in the concept expressed by the English pleni- potentiary Viscount Castlereagh in the last sentence of the arguments set forth in the circular note addressed to the ministers of the Mied Powers, in which he wondered in the name of what principles France might wish to keep the spoils of the art of all other comtries-objects which, according to him, all modern con- querors had invariably respected as being inseparable from the country to which they belonged.’ Over and above the notion of simple honesty which had hitherto occasionally prompted restitutions of works of art removed from conquered countries, a doc- trine thus began to emerge that had already been foreshadowed by such enlighte- ned t h k e r s as John Locke, George-Frederick Martens and Quatremère de Quhcy, and was now formulated by jurists. According to this doctrine, scientific and artistic collections cannot be expatriated because they ‘ are destined to meet the permanent intellectual needs of the c~unt ry’ .~ This precept was again reflected in the treaty of 3 September 1866 compelling the Grand Duchy of Hessen to return a library taken from Cologne in 1794; in Article 18 of the Treaty of Vienna of 3 October 1366 returning to Venice the ‘objects of art and science’ which had been plundered from it a long time previously; and lastly, in the second paragraph of Article Y6 of the Annex to the Pourth Convention of the Hague in 1907, stipulating that any seizure or destruction of, or intentional damage to, historical monuments, works of art and science was prohibited and should be prosecuted. The First World War put this precept to the test. Article 24 j of the Treaty of Versailles compelled Germany to return to France those works of art that had been removed not only during the recent conflict but also during the 1870 war.9 The Treaty of St Germain likewise obliged Austria to return all deeds, docu- ments, antiquarian and art objects and all scientific and bibliographical material semoved from the invaded territories, including those that had been removed from Italy as far back as 17 1 8. elgium, Poland and Czechoslovakia (which was granted rights going back to the beginning of the seventeenth century) also benefited by this desire to preclude any presumption of prescription. The peace treaty of Riga ( B 8 March 192 1) is of particular interest in this con- nection, in that it lays down the principle of the total restitution of cultural pro- perty removed from Poland since 1 January 1772, that is, a century and a half previously. This text moreover refers to a number of the problems to which the principle of restitution still gives rise in today’s context, and especially: concern not to dismember complete collections or break up groups of items which consti- tute a whole (art. 1 1, para. 7) ; lawful cases of voluntary transactions (ibid., para. 8); opposability of the provisions of the agreement by third parties in possession of the items (paras. B 1 to 14 of Art. 1 B oblige the restituting State to recover this property and bear the costs of any indemnification); and finally the setting up of a Mixed Commission to attend to the implementation of these measuresPrecedents 7 which, it should be pointed out, are not presented as acts of reprisal or revenge but, according to the preamble to the treaty, as constituting a response to the ‘desire . . . of concluding a final, lasting, and honourable peace based on a mutual understanding’-and therefore on the same motivations as those underlying present-day negotiations for the restitution of cultural property to countries that have lost it as a result of colonial or foreign occupation.”, Similar decisions were taken at the end of the Second World War.” But the most pertinent document of this period in respect of our present concern is probably the declaration published in London (and simultaneously in Moscow and Washington) on J January 1943 by seventeen governments and the French National Committee, in which the United Nations ’reserved the right to declare null and void any transfer of or traffic in property, rights and interest, of what- ever nature, which are or were situated in the territories occupied by or under the direct or indirect control of the governments with which they are at war or which are or were in the possession of persons (including legal entities) residing in the territories in question . . . whether such transfer or traffic has taken the form either of evident plunder or of apparently legal transactions, even if the said transfer and traffic are represented as having been effected without constraint’. l 2 It can be seen therefore that most of the legal difficulties which are frequently raised in connection with this subject had already been taken into consideration a long time ago. Nearly all the above-mentioned examples relate to post-war settlements between former adversaries, at a time when the balance of power was tipped in favour of the nations which were demanding restitution of the cultural property they had lost. Not until our present day has the problem been approached in terms of co-operation and justice and, where necessary, for the benefit of the weaker party. A first attempt in this direction was made during the multilateral negotiations which, under the aegis of Unesco, led to the convention signed at The Hague on 14 May 1954 on the protection of cultural property. Ten years later, the recommendation adopted on 19 November 1964 by Unesco’s Member States ‘on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property’ and, even more decisively, the convention on the same subject adopted by the General Confer- ence on 14 November 1970, show a significant development in thinking on the subject of restitutions. It thus appears that, in the framing of this convention, a combination of bilateral and multilateral arrangements was deemed to help solve the problems envisaged. Subsequent action in this field has proved this assumption to be sound. 10. The text of the Treatv of RiEa was published in the League ofNatiom Tre& Series, V01.~6, No. 1, 1921, p. 123-161. 1 1. cf. in Darticular, Art. 7 5 of the treaty with Italy (Utzitedhatiotzs Treaties, Vol. 49, p. f et seq.), providing for the return of cultural property removed from occupied territories by force or constraint’, whatever the subsequent transactions concerning them. See also ‘Statement of Policy with Respect to the Control of Looted Articles’ signed in Paris on 8 July 1946 by France, the United States and the United Kingdom (The Department ofstate Bulletirz, Vol.XXV, No. 636, 17 August 1951)andthe settlement concerning restitutions ado ted by the Interallied Control Council, with heaiquarters in Berlin, in 1946. 12. The Department ofstate Bnlletiiz, Vol. VIII, p. 21-22. c f . also the preamble to Resolution 3.428 adopted by the General Conference of Unesco at its eighteenth session (1974).IO Algeria Tayeb Moulefera 1. Committee of Experts on the Establishment of an Intergovernmental Committee Concerning the Restitution or Return of Cultural Property, Dakar, 20-23 March 1978, Fitial Report, Paris, Unesco, 1978, 18 p. ( C C - ~ ~ / C O N F . ~ ~ ! ? / ~ . ) 2. This refers to a fable by La Fontaine. The vast freedom movement among the colonized peoples which is the outstand- ing feature of the second half of this century is bringing to the international com- munity a new dynamism, giving fresh value to the notions of justice, equity and the advancement of mankind. The corollary of this movement is the return to the country of origin of cultural goods which left their respective countries during the colonial period. The causal link between the two cannot be ignored. cannot, indeed, overlook the importance of the cultural property which, on various pretexts, was taken from the heritage of the colonized nations. The politi- cal emanicipation of peoples cannot be considered complete until they have re- trieved those objects that bear witness to their identity, genius and civilization. Nevertheless, the justice of this claim has not so far managed to get beyond the question-begging stage. During the two years that Unesco has now been endeavouring to formulate a policy for the restitution of national cultural pro- perty, it has been possible to note the impotence of a principle in the face of tive constraints which prevent its introduction into positive in- n the occasion of the Dakar meeting in 1978l it was stated- and this is the main thing to be noted-that the process of decolonization should be completed by the return of cultural property to the nations which have been despoiled of a considerable portion of the evidence of their genius and their civili- zation. Against the legalized right of appropriation, the principle of the return of cultu- rd property might well meet with the fate of the ‘earthenware pot’ when it encountered the ‘iron pot’,* as was made quite clear from the problems raised by the first committee of experts convened by Unesco in Venice in 1976. All the principles of equity and humanism put forward to begin with in fact meet a serious obstacle when faced with the reassertion of the inviolable law of owner- ship and the national legal procedures that protect it. If the law of ownership is finite$ to present possession-without regard to how ownership originated or to its validity-then the rightful claims of formerly colonized countries will remain subject to the laws of supply and demand. In other words, the moral principle of the return of cultural property to its country of origin will not go beyond the question-begging stage. But if, on the other hand, the right of ownership were correctly analysed, that is to say, within the framework of the principle of State succession, then the impe- diment of ownership-possession would be removed. It is true that culturd objects, that is to say, all objects having an obvious significance with regard to the genius, history or civilization of a people, form an integral part of a country’s heritage.Algeria I I Whether that State is a colonial power or an independent nation makes no diffe- rence in that respect. Let us recall all the measures taken by States today to pro- tect themselves against attempts to seize historic property and remains. In the more precise case of decolonization, the former mother country restores to the new State not only its sovereignty but also its heritage, which it administered but did not own. A distinction must be made between appropriation-which colo- nization allows-and ownership, which , remains inalienable from the colonized country. In this case, the former colonizing nation is fully responsible for the objects misappropriated from the heritage of those countries of which it had charge. It is impossible, within the limits of this article, to examine each of the propo- sals in detail. In order to give rise to reflection in a more precise framework, we shall therefore simply look at the principles on which the experts meeting in Dakar reached agreement: 1. The right of all peoples to recover property forming part of their cultural heri- tage is an ethical principle; this idealizes a principle without investing it with practical possibilities. 2. The goal is to ensure the return to its country of origin of cultural property which has a fundamental significance from the point of view of the spiritual value and the cultural heritage of the people. However, in describing this pro- perty, we open up the possibility of a discussion about how the countries to which it originally belonged appreciate it. The notion of ‘fundamental’ is not always perceived in the same light by those claiming the property and those giving it back. 3. The notion of country of origin is ambiguous, all the more so since dimensions of time and space are added to it. The course of history, changing of natural boundaries and state successions give countries which have seized cultural pro- perty a possible means of thwarting claims for restitution. 4. Lastly, and taking into account constraints (lack of information, psychological difficulties and legal obstacles), the meeting encouraged bilateral negotiation and technical co-operation, which could put the despoiled countries back into a position of dependent petitionee. To approach this delicate problem within the limited framework of an article only allows us to touch lightly upon its main aspects. Nevertheless, the action as it has been begun raises an unresolved question. Unesco in fact is basing its policy on a recent past, and, in doing so, would seem to confirm the traditional way as being the only one capable of dealing at present with ‘individual cases’ rather than widening, the discussion.I2 Federal Republic O P Germ Herbert Ganslmayr 1. DieZeit, 21 April 1978. At the General Conference of Unesco in Nairobi in Z 976 it was decided to estab- lish ‘an intergovernmental committee entrusted with the task of seeking ways and means of facilitating bilateral negotiations for the restitution or return of cul- tural property’. The draft statutes for this committee were discussed by a meeting of experts in Dakar, 28-23 March 1978. When, at the 197 rence of Unesco, this intergovernmental committee came into existence, the way was deared for negotiations among the nations concerned. It will be the commit- tee members’ task to encourage multi- and bilateral co-operation in respect of the restitution of cdtural objects, i.e. the members will have to take a basically posit- ive stand on the matter. This does not mean that the prevailing misgivings and doubts have been dispelled-the discussion about the doubts will go on-but any argumentation in favour of restitution will be easier if the committee members’ general attitude is a positive one. This is also true for one of the most important controversial points under dis- cussion so far: the legality of the claims put forward by the demanding nations, which has been contested by the possessing nations. If a positive attitude is taken, if one acknowledges the fast that many nations no longer possess important ele- ments of their c d ~ a l heritage and that these should be returned, as they are essential for these peoples cultural identity, it will no longer matter whether or not the objects 0% collections have left their countries ‘legally’. Once bilateral negotiations have been started, this point may gain importance again, but then it will be a matter for negotiation. ther legal problems, such as questions of ownership of objects, collections, or documents located in museums belonging to federal states or provinces having the final decision in the field of education and culture-as is the case in the Federal Republic of Germany and in Canada-or in collections belonging to foundations or private persons, w d also have to be settled in bilateral negotiations which w d certainly not be easy and w d probably take a h g time. Here the new inter- governmental committee will have to play an important part. Should any of the legal problems connected with a &ange of ownership prove insolvable, one should consider an exchange of objects under a long-term loan contract, or arrange interchanging exhibits, perhaps in the manner suggested by G. von Bac- zensky for the Nefertiti head (Fig. s>, to be shown in turn in Berlin and in Cairo.‘ Certain arguments against a restitution, such as bad conditions prevailing in the museums of the demanding countries, can easily be rejected. Museums can be built in the Third World and equipped in conformity with internationalFederal Republic of Germany I 3 standards; the same applies to the training of museum personnel at all levels. The necessary means could-if not available from international organizations-be allo- cated from the so-called ' development aid funds'. Interesting in this connection is a proposal made by the German Commission for Unesco to render assistance to museums of the Third World, which aims at bilateral aid agreements to improve the infrastructure of Third World museums. Stating that cultural aid of this kind is development aid', this proposal is part of a catalogue of most interesting accompanying measures. Another very important problem is the fear prevailing in countries which have been asked to return cultural objects that after their restitution the objects might appear on the international art market. To avoid this happening, the countries of origin should adopt legislation ruling that the objects returned will continue to be looked upon as part of the World Cultural Heritage, and as such, must be safeguarded and kept accessible to the public. In a very few cases only does restitution of cultural objects mean the uncondi- tional return demanded by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 3.187 of 18 December 197 3. Today most countries concerned would prefer to give other pieces in exchange or pay for the objects. Thus depreciation of collec- tions in the restituting countries would be avoided; in many cases, an exchange of objects would take place as has for a long time been practised between many museums. Of course, there are countries which have nothing to offer in exchange, or which do not have the means to pay for the objects. Here one should consider establishing a fund to provide the necessary resources. This was proposed at the 1977 meeting in Leningrad by Working Group 8 (Restitution of Cultural Pro- perties to the Peoples and Lands of Origin) of the International Committee for Museums of Ethnography (ICME) within ICOM. The proposal suggested that this fund also be used to buy objects and collections offered by art dealers. Why should Unesco not start a campaign for safeguarding collections of this kind, as it has done for Abu Simbel, Borobudur and the Acropolis? At the same time as ICME made this proposal, the Oceanian pieces of the famous Hooper collec- tion were put up for auction; and they did not go back to their countries of origin, notably the Solomon Islands, as these countries did not have financial resources. At the Unesco meeting of experts in Dakar, the possibility of launching a Unesco campaign was discussed, but the final report of the meeting does not mention any proposal that a fund of this kind should be established. The setting up of such a fund should be supplemented by an increase in public relations activities. At the meetings of experts in Venice (1976) and Dakar (1978), a change in public opinion was considered an important aspect in solving the restitution problem. The main need is to make people in the countries at pre- sent in possession of the objects and collections aware of the problem. Recently, people in the Federal Republic of Germany have been particularly concerned at the auction in London of the Hirsch collection with its many works of art by famous German artists, as there was a danger that these pieces would go to places outside of the Federal Republic. The Ministry of the Interior in Bonn was asked by numerous federal states and museums to help raise the funds necessary to bring these works of art back to the Federal Republic of Germany. This was done, showing that the public has become aware of the problem of national cultural heritage and of its importance for a country's cultural identity. It will now be the task of the information media to show that Third World countries have the same problem. Even if the problem of the restitution of cultural objects is a political one- with regard to its causes as well as to a possible solution-museum people play an important part. On the one hand, a solution can, after bilateral negotiations, best be achieved through partnership between museums; on the other hand, museum people can become promoters of the idea. One of their tasks is the optimal preservation of objects and collections originating from many different cultures, and making them accessible to the public and to scientific research.I4 Herbert Ganslmavr Museums concerned with countries overseas-from the European point of view- must also endeavour to convey an impartial picture of these countries’ traditio- nal cultures as well as of their present state of development, in order to help the museum visitor to overcome his Eurocentric approach and prejudice. The cultural identity of a country or a people must be brought to the visitor’s attention. For this purpose9 the presentation of objects and collections carrying a message from those cultures is surely desirable. But the understanding of other cultures should also imply an understanding of these people’s wish to possess those objects and collections which are considered an essential element of their cultural heritage and their cultural identity. therwise one would hardy be able to understand the purpose behind the work of museum people, because it would seem that the individual nation’s cultural heritage is judged after its present location, and that the measure used is an ideolog During the eleventh General Conference of IC Leningrad, in R.977, ICMB proposed that a code of ethics for musew people be worked out, taking into consideration these problems and the divergent points of view: one holding that objects and collections can be of great importance for a people’s cultural iden- tky9 and the other that they constitute an essential part of the World Cultural Heritage. 9COM induded this point in its thee-year programme (2997-80). Once be f~ re HCOM had worked out ethical standards, namely ethics of acquisition (Copenhagen, 1974). e h i in December 1978, ICME again exami- ned this problem of ethical standards for the restitution of cultural o worked out proposah which will later be made known to all members o At its annual meeting in New ...Greece Barbara Philippaki Unesco’s initiative in dedicating an issue of Maseun2 to the highly significant ques- tion of the restitution or return of cultural property is most welcome and con- structive. I am indeed very happy to have this further opportunity of participating in a discussion on this subject, because, walking in the shade of the Acropolis and alongside the banks of Ilissos, it is quite natural for me to consider dialogue as the best means of materializing efforts and of finding ways which might lead to right and fair solutions. This was actually the comforting impression I received at the meeting of the committee of experts in Venice, in 1976, since I consider that the really great difficulties that this issue creates should not be underestimated-even if justice lies on the requester’s side. The objects whose return to their countries of origin is requested are mainly either works of art-including the sculptures of the Parthenon which are unsur- passed masterpieces-or artistic creations whose significance lies in the fact that they are cult objects or national symbols independently of their artistic value. Objects of cultural property are the species dzffeyem%&, the elements that dis- tinguish one nation from another. They are products of experiences lost over the centuries, of unique biological mixtures, as well as of ways of life created under distinctive geographic, climatological, social, religious and political conditions, ‘ and, therefore, they belong to the people who created them and who now claim them as a right, no matter if they are more or less of interest to humanity as a whole. Let us consider some examples which may illustrate this statement. The excessive clearness of the Greek atmosphere, especially that of Attica, which1 renders the outlines of the mountains soft and clear, and the bare land- scape, gave to Greek art and thought their clarity of structure and purity of line, and instilled in the Greeks their love for symmetry-that is the relation of the parts between themselves, as well as to the whole-and a passion for perfection, qualities found in sculpture, vase painting, architecture, poetry, philosophy, in fact in every creation of the Greek genius. To take another example. It is important for someone unfamiliar with the mythology and religious beliefs of a people to approach properly and understand thoroughly this people’s literary or artistic production. For instance, to appreciate and enjoy Greek pottery, one must possess an adequate knowledge of every aspect of Greek life, of which the vases are the best illustrations. The abundance of soft stone and particularly the excellent quality of Parian16 Barbara Philippaki and Bentelic marble were a strong motive for the incomparable flourishing of sculpture in Greece and especially in Athens and the islands. It is also common knowledge today that the concept of beauty itself varies with &e ages, with geographical position and even with individuals. 1 think that these few examples-which might easily be increased in number- dearly demonstrate the need t~ preserve every people’s distinctive cultural traits, independent of location and cultural level. This is especially important today, when the danger of technocracy grows more imminent. Because if a nation is deprived of its own cultural heritage, the personality traits of its people may gra- dually fade out or alter its future development. e should not forget that there were conquerors in the history of mankind who h e w well how to take advantage of similar deprivations. Perusing the pages of great travellers one can see how the people of Greece, although under foreign occupation for about four ce ies, proudly contemplated and drew strength and cowage from their ancie zantine heritage. Deeply wounded and unable to react they watched foreign visitors to their comtry depriving them of their national treasures. This promoted a number of people, such as Lord Byron, Dodwell, D. M. Leake, Chateaubriand, to mention ~ d y the best known, to protest and state outspokenly what the Greeks could only express in legends, such as that of the I I I Q U ~ ~ I I ~ of the Caryatids for their sister who had been taken away. m e n the most powerful countries at that time started fighting over the scdp- tures of the Parthenon, Aphaia and Phigdeia, and the ~ ~ - ~ a l l e d ‘Theseion’ was threatened, the Greek people, seeing, that the situation grew like an epidemic, reacted by establishing at Athens, as early as B 8 1 3 , the ‘ PMomuses Associa- tionss whose main purpose was to protect the damaged or plundered ancient monmehts and to establish a National Museum. And Later, while the Greeks were fighting for their existence, these incidents which show their feelings towards their ancestral heritage. Greek siege of the A ~ ~ p o l i s in 182 1-22, which lasted for over ei the memy enclosed on the Ml and r d n g short of a m m i t i o n began cutting down the marble temples to take the lead from the bronze dowels and cramps which were used by the ancients to fasten the marble blocks together. On seeing this vandabism from below, ~ ~ F Q U ~ S Q S , the Greek chieftain, shouted to them to stop mining the m ~ n ~ i ~ e n t s a d he odd see that they were provided with the lead needed to Eight the Greek besiegers. nd still before the end of the War of Independence, the govern- ing nation dedared ‘all antiquities as national property’ (deci- ary B 826). One year later, on B March 1827, an artide prohi- biting the sale and export of ancient works of art was included in the form of goverment which had been voted by the Third National Assembly at Troezin. Lastly, I wodd like to remind YOU of a very characteristic similar example from the period of antiqtky. Prior to the sea battle of Salamis, in 480 B.G., the city of Athens (abandoned by its citizens) was fired and plundered by the Persians who took away with them the famous group of the Tyrannicides-ty- rants’ mwders (Pig. 2)-because they realized its importance to the Athenians as a symbol of the abolition of tyranny and the establishment of Democracy. After the end of the Persian wars, the Athenians hurried to replace the group with a new one. TWQ and a half centuries later, when the Persian empire was demolished by Ahander the Great, the ori nal group of the Tyrannicides, national symbol OB the Athenians, was restored to Athens. h a n g the various and ~LUTI~FOUS items of cultural property, there are some which must be returned to their homelands as soon as possible, because of their special national and religious character. Such are the four ivory masks of Nigeria- symbols to nearly d the Mrican people. such symbols are sacred to their own people, while to the private collector they may mean nothing more than a mere investment.~ 1 Greece I 7 I I I i ~ However, further negotiations are needed and must cover all aspects of the issue. For we cannot expect to overcome the difficulties, which no one should underestimate, and find the appropriate solutions unless the underlying problems are faced with sincerity and discussed with positive attitudes and in a spirit of I - goodwill, always under the auspices of Unesco. It would also be most helpful to make the greatest effort to promote the above issue through the mass communication media, provided it is done without fanati- cism, prejudice or biased benefit. We must have a chance to listen to both sides equally, as well as to third parties. But, above all, we must expose this whole problem to the opinion of our mature young generation who, we believe, have a clearer and more objective approach to facts, being uninfluenced by intolerance, fanaticism, racial and religious distinctions and excessive profits. ,I 8 Nigeria Ekpo Eyo ne of the two difficult problems with which I have been concerned within the framework of Unesco activities is that of the restitution or return of cultural pro- perty. The other is the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of wnership of Cultural Property the two together, one can see a new thinking which underlines the them. It looks as if the world has now gradually but surely become convinced of the need f ~ r each country to retain and present within its own terri- tory the relics of the ingenuity of its own people. Such action enables a country to create an awareness among its people, to instil. a sense of pride in them and to inspire them to even greater achievements. But the problem of implementation remains. Those countries which had re- moved illegally, though sometimes legally, cultural property from other countries to their own museums and private homes do not always take into account the ideals contained in these documents. But should the recipient countries continue to be so completely oblivious to the feeling of deprivation which is suffered by the loser countries? What is more, in many cases, objects which now adorn museums and private homes in the recipient countries and which. are merely re- garded as curios or objets d’art have overriding cultural and historical importance for the countries of origin. That is why the discussion on the restitution or return of cultural property is often accompanied by impassioned outbursts. Nigeria is one of many countries which have lost more than half of their cultu- ral property through the advent of foreign religions and governments. There are four main ways in which the losses were sustained. The first was by systemati- cally imposing foreign religions on the indigenous population and forbidding them on pain of hell-fire to adore all imagery representing ‘other gods’. As a result, Nigerians either destroyed or left to rot away what were once important objects of great veneration. If they were not destroyed or left to rot away, they were removed as curios to museums and private homes in the countries from where the missionaries came. ne only has to glance through the ethnographic registers in some foreign museums to see how many objects, described simply and derogatorily as ‘fetish’, arrived there during these missionary days. The second way was through gifts either as a mark of hospitality or in exchange for hick-knacks or gewgaws. A good example of the gift exchange is a pair of carved wooden doors from the Palace at Ikere-Ekiti, but now in the British Museum (Pig. 4). They are said to have been given away by the Ogoga of Ikere about 1895 in exchange for a wooden throne presented by a (1990).Nigeria I9 4 BRITISH MUSEUM, London. Carved wooden doors from the palace of the Ogoga Ikere (Ikere-Ekiti). It was imported into the United Kingdom as part of an exchange con between the Ogoga and a British administra of duded .tor. British administrator. When the present Ogoga of Ikere demanded their return he was gently reminded of the exchange that his predecessor entered into which must bind the Ikere people for ever. The third way was through sheer plunder. The most infamous is connected with what is usually referred to as the Benin massacre of 1897. In that year, a British expedition under Consul Philip tried to reach Benin City at the time when the king, Oba Ovonramwen, was carrying out the most important annual religious rites. During such a period, the king neither talks very much nor is he allowed contact with foreign elements, including persons. The expedition was accordingly advised, but Consul Philip tried to force his way through and, as a result, the inevitable happened. The ritual being the most important in the life of the Bini, Philip had to be stopped. One of the oba’s aides, Chief Olugbushe, acting without the oba’s knowledge, caused seven out of nine members of the expedition to be killed. The British reaction was swift. The city was invaded and the Palace where some tens of thousands of art pieces in wood, ivory and bronze were kept was looted (Fig. J ) and eventually burnt down. The king was banished. The art pieces were first removed to London and from there dispersed through- out the world. Today, there are not many ethnographic museums in the world in which one will not find a Benin piece. The fourth way in which losses were sustained has been through research work-G 7Nigeria 21 ers. The Department of Antiquities keeps a dossier on research workers who have in the past (and recently) removed art pieces from Nigeria claiming that they are meant for study collections or that they will help to publicize the art of Nige- ria around the world. Some of these pieces often find their way into public sale- rooms. Restitution Attempts have been made to bring back some important objects which were removed from this country during the period of colonial domination. These attempts include outright purchases of works from the salerooms of the United Kingdom and requests for the return of important pieces. A few examples of these efforts will suffice. In order to show Benin exhibits at the National Museum, which was opened in 19J 7 in Lagos, the Federal Government of Nigeria had to pay for them as they came up for sale. It was possible to obtain some very fine pieces through the help of William Fagg who was then working in the British Museum. So, every Benin piece which is now on show in this museum was bought and brought back to Nigeria. By the end of the 196Os, the prices of Benin works had soared so high that the Federal Government of Nigeria was in no mood to contemplate buying them. When, therefore, a National Museum was planned for Benin City in 1968, we were faced with the problem of finding exhibits that would be shown to reflect the position that Benin holds in the world of art history (Fig. 6). A few unimpor- tant objects which were kept in the old local authority museum in Benin were transferred to the new museum and a few more objects were brought in from Lagos. Still the museum was ‘empty’. We tried using casts and photographs to fill gaps but the desired effect was unachievable. We therefore thought of mak- ing an appeal to the world for loans or return of some works so that Benin might also be able to show its own works at least to its own people. We tabled a draft resolution at the General Assembly of the International Council of Museums (ICOM) which met in France in 1968, appealing for donations of one or two pieces from those museums which have large stocks of Benin works. The resolu- tion was modified to make it read like a general appeal for restitution or return and then adopted. When we returned to Nigeria, we circulated the adopted resolution to the embassies and high commissions of countries we know to have large Benin hold- ings but up till now we have received no reaction from any quarters and the Benin Museum stays ‘empty’. I will end by giving one more example. In 19 3 8, some workmen on a building site discovered a hoard of bronzes at Ile-Ife. An American anthropologist was doing research work in that city at the time and so managed to obtain two of the bronzes which he removed to the United States. An Englishman who was then working for the Daily Times newspaper in Nigeria also obtained one of the bronzes (Fig. 7) and through him it reached the British Museum. The British Surveyor of Antiquities at the time of the discovery of these bronzes put much pressure on the American anthropologist to return to Nigeria ‘where they pro- perly belong’ the two bronzes that were taken to the United States. They were returned, but the one in the United Kingdom has remained there perhaps simply because Nigeria was a British colony. There is no doubt that the question of restitution or return of cultural property raises a number of complex problems, particularly legal problems. There is the question of compensation and that of the safety and accessibility of the objects after restitution. But these problems are only difficult, not impossible, to solve. In many cases they do not even exist. What should be realized is that restitution can bring about the lowering of temperature in the heat of human contact and interaction. It is therefore worth the attention which the United Nations and its SDecialized Aeencv. Unesco. is Davine to it. - I O J ’ L , ” J Looting of the Palace of a Benin king in 1897 during a punitive expedition led by a representative of the dominating power. 6, MUSEUM OF MANKIND, London. Benin mask in ivory, sixth century. A very rare object whose return the Nigerians hope to obtain. 7 BRITISH MUSEUM, London. Bronze hcad, Ile-Ife. One of a series found on a building site in 1938. This work and similar objects brought to light a hitherto unknown African style which makes them an essential part of the cultural heritage of the Nigerian people.2 2 Sri Lanka P. W. D. H. de Silva Practically every nation, at sometime in its history, has lost to another one or more objects of considerable artistic, historical or cdtural significance. has never been su& a large scale and sustained impoverishment of movable cultu- ral treasures as that w&& countries in Asia, Africa and South America experi- enced during the last 300 to 400 years of foreign occupation. If a halt to this ‘cultural erosion’ came when these countries in recent years regained their inde- pendence then a solution to one major problem had only to be sought. But with recent tourist promotionp especially in the ‘deprived‘ countries, the threat to the safe custody of the remaining movable cultural treasures in these countries has greatly increased and the loss so far sustained thereby has been considerable. In fact, we are faced with two problems within the major theme of restitution OP cultural property. This effort of the ‘deprived’ nations to arouse world opinion in favour of the restitution of cultural treasures removed from their countries during foreign occupation is certainly not intended to cause embarrassment to the ‘benefited‘ c o ~ ~ ~ t r i e s nor is it politically motivated. It is an agonizing a y for the evidence of our ‘cultural anhoo hood' which was taken from us leaving us in a ‘cultural vacuum9. Some nations may be able to boast of a preponderance of high-quality movable cultural objects from their countries, but so far as Sri Lanka is concerned this is not true. It is my experience that outstanding movable culturd objects from Sri Lanka are comparatively Pew and their removal from my country creates a culturd void which cannot be fiued. For example, the 143.5 cm high gilt bronze of Tarä (eighth to bert Brownrigg, the London, is &e only one o the two exquisitely carved, gem-stud d ivory caskets (Fig. 9) dispatched by the Sinhala Monarch, King Bhuvanoka ahu VII of Kotte to King Don Juan III Portugal in or about A.D. 1542, which are now in the Schatzkammer der esidem, in Muni&. The royal letters on palna leaf from the Palace of Kandy to the Dutch Governors in Golombo are in Paris, h s t e r d a m and Leiden. The only impression to my knowledge of the seal of the Palace of Kandy (Maha- wäsala) is at the Tropen Museum, Amsterdam. Our best masks are in the United Kkgdom, Federal Republic of Germany, Czechoslovakia, Sweden and Norway. This list could go on. There is a further feature in museum thinking in the affluent countries which, though laudable, is bound to have adverse effects on the already ‘culturally nth century AD.) (Pig. S), prese ritish Governor in Ceylon, to th s kind so far found in Sri LaSri Lanka 2 3 impoverished’ countries. This is the effort of many museums within a city or a single country to depict the ‘culture of the human race’ with good quality objects from the four corners of the world. The cumulative effect of several museums within a single territory attempting to cover the same display field will have dis- astrous effects on the already depleted nations. Another feature, which I have personally experienced to my dismay, is the rich collections from the ‘deprived‘ countries, including my own, in storage in several important museums in Europe and the United States, some of which are rarely exhibited to the public. Indeed, some of these same institutions are crying out for more and more objects from our countries. I believe I am voicing the opinion of several others in the ‘deprived‘ Third World countries that we are not requesting the return of every single object, document, etc., taken away. We think that the cultural image of our countries abroad is as important as it is in our own countries. We are asking for the restitu- tion of only those unique and specially significant items which express to the world and to our own countrymen the unique cultural heritage that is ours and our craftsmanship par excellence. The idea of restitution of unique art treasures to their countries of origin is certainly not completely new, for Sri Lanka was fortunate in obtaining as an outright gift some outstanding art treasures which belonged to the Kandyan Monarchy in 1934 and 1936. On 23 September 1934, the Duke of Gloucester on behalf of the King of the United Kingdom, presented the throne and footstool of the last kings of Kandy (Fig. IO) and the crown of King Sr? Vikrama Rãja Simha, and on 10 September 1936 the sceptre, the ceremonial sword and the cross belt of the last King of Kandy was presented by command of King Edward VIII. Through an act of voluntary restitution, a British private citizen, Josephine Whitelaw of Scotland, recently returned to the National Museum, Colombo, an antique Kandyan Kastäne sword (eighteenth century) which was acquired by her husband about 1930 (Fig. I I ) . An important royal seal of about third century B.C., gifted by H. Parker, an official during the British regime, to the Manchester Museum, was returned in exchange for other Sri Lankan material in 1929 through the good offices of the museum’s director, Dr Carpenter. There have been other instances of similar outright gifts or return in exchange for other material of a few outstanding cultural treasures but these are only spora- dic gestures of goodwill and cultural co-operation. What is required urgently as a first step in restitution is acceptance by all governments that are now in possession of this material of the principle of the restoration of the more significant objects, documents, etc., to their countries of origin. This has to be obtained at the highest level, as a resolution at the United Nations. Following the acceptance of the above resolution, a second and imme- diate step for the governments concerned would be to enact legislation to ensure its effective implementation, making it obligatory for both governments and pri- vate citizens in these countries to support government efforts in this direction. An intergovernmental committee at Unesco level may provide the governments concerned with advice to facilitate such acts of restitution. The ‘deprived‘ countries must be in a position to submit their claims. Better still, the ‘benefited‘ countries may show magnanimity by making the first over- tures. These gestures of goodwill on both sides would help to smooth the path during negotiations and provide a happy and favourable climate for amicable settlement. The receiving countries must also realize that with the restitution of their cultu- ral treasures their responsibility is doubled, for these nations must keep in mind that these ‘priceless’ objects are also the cultural legacy of the entire human race. It would certainly be disappointing if, during the negotiations, the ‘ deprived’ nations were called upon to purchase their cultural treasures from the institutions I 8 BRITISH MUSEUM, London. Statue of the goddess Tarä, gilt bronze, Sri Lanka (eighth to ninth century), offered to the British Museum in 18 30 by a British Governor of Ceylon. It is the only work of its kind. .P SCHATZKAMMER D R RESIDENZ, Munich. A carved, gem-studded ivory casket. Gift of the Monarch of Kotte to the King of Portugal in 1 li42. This work is a uniaue and irreplaceable proof of the heritage of ;he people of §ri Lanka. 10 NATIONAL MUSEUM, Colombo. Throne and stool of the last King of Kandy (nineteenth century) returned to Sri Lanka at the command of King George V of the Unired Kingdom.which now possess them. I hope these will be outright gifts under cultural agree- ments between countries to further goodwill and friendship among the peoples of the world. As for the second problem, I believe that practically all the countries in Asia, Africa and South America have legislation prohibiting the illicit export of cultural material. But these laws appear to be openly violated if we consider the brisk trade in antiquities with foreign tourists that is taking place all the time. Most of these tourists travel to all parts of the country, visiting villages, temples, etc., and purchasing all kinds of material of cultural, artistic and historical significance which they take away when they leave. Governments of the countries from which tourists come should take serious note of this grave problem, for it affects the reputation of the countries themselves for allowing the entry of illegal cultural property into their territory. This is espe- cially so when there are several avenues for legal acquisition of cultural material of other countries at governmental level, at institution level, through joint surveys, study programmes and expeditions and as exchanges by mutual consent. It is urgent and imperative, therefore, that the governments concerned should enact legislation making it illegal for tourists to bring into their home countries cultural material illicitly acquired in the countries they visit, and take meaningful steps to implement effectively such legislation. This two-pronged approach is highly desirable if we are to reduce this illegal but ‘profitable’ activity carried out once again at the expense of the ‘deprived‘ countries already ‘culturally eroded’. Laws are made by man, but man can also rise to an eminently high level through right thought, right understanding and right action. Let not future generations say that we failed to handle this important and delicate issue with wisdom, maturity, restraint and goodwill. 11 NATIONAL MUSEUM, Colombo. Sword, Sri to the museum looking at an ancient weapon. It was acquired by a Scots lady spontaneously returned it to its country of origin. (eighteenth century). young visitors2 8 L ” Jim Specht The Australian M u s e ~ m return of artefacts to Pacific Island countries During the past decade the international community of museums and private col- lectors has become increasingly aware of the need for the restitution QT return of cultural property to their contries cf origin. In company with many other museums, the Australian Museum has received several requests from Pacific Island countries, and this artide describes some of our experiences in the return of arte- facts to Papua New Guinea and to the Solomon Islands. The article also touches on several aspests of the return of cultural property which are often omitted from discussions. The loss of cultural property is not restricted to countries which have emerged from colonial situations over the last two decades. The indigenous peoples of countries like Australia and the United States must also be given consi- deration. In June 1979, the Australian Museum Trust returned to the National Museum and Art Gallery of P a p a New Guinea seventeen artfacts as a gift to mark the opening of the new National Museum buildings at Port Moresby.’ later, in June 11998, the trust presented to the Solomon Islands Mu canoe-prow carvings (Pig. 1 3 ) as a gift to mark the independence of the Solomon Islands from the United Kingdom. Although the timing of these returns was determined by the Australian Museum, each was the result of five years of discus- sions with the receiving institutions. H first visited Papua New Guinea in 1965. The museum was tucked away under the House of Assembly in hot, crowded and ill-suited quarters. It was impossible to consider it seriously as the guardian ofthe national cultural heritage. By the time of my fifth visit (1972) it hardy seemed the same place. It was on this occasion that the first discussions on the possible return of artefacts took place between myself, the Director, Dirk Smidt, and three trustees of the Papua New Guinea Museum. Not one of these persons was a P a p a New Guinea natio- nal, and the country was still three years away from independence from Australia. These early discussions were strongly influenced by three events. The former Commonwealth Arts Advisory Board of Australia ( B) was at that time sponsoring several artefact collection expeditions to New Guinea. These expeditions were organized without consulting the in Port Moresby and, to make matters worse, one of the members of the in Australia who was also a trustee of the P a p a New Guinea Museum had not discussed the planned expeditions with his fellow trustees. The final insult came when one of the collec- tors for the GAAB oDenlv informed Mr Smidt that the obiective of the exDedi- L J Gallery Dirk of Papua Smidtl New ‘The Guinea, Port Museum Moresby’, and Art Mlrserim, Vol. XXIX, No 4. 1977. tions was to remove as much cultural property as possibll before Papua hew Guinea gained its independence. The objective was not in fact achieved, for theThe Australian Museum and the return of artefacts to Pacific Island countries 29 collections made by the CAAB agents were retained by Papua New Guinea for its own national Collections following the disbanding of the CAAB in 1973. The second event was the seizure in June 1972 of several consignments of artefacts which were about to be illegally exported from Papua New Guinea by private collectors. Although export restrictions had existed for many years they had not been systematically enforced and the regulations were openly flouted. The 1972 seizures demonstrated that Papua New Guinea was serious about the preservation of its cultural heritage, and had the capacity to do so. The third event was a major cultural grant from Australia which was being discussed privately in Port Moresby, though it had not yet been made public. The discussions centred on the probability of building a new national museum meeting international standards with trained local staff. The result has been a museum, opened in 1977, which puts to shame many museums around the world. By late 1972, I was convinced that it would soon be impossible to present a rational argument against the return of artefacts to Papua New Guinea which was based on failure to protect locally the country’s heritage or on lack of ade- quate conditions or staff. Following further discussions in Sydney between M r Smidt and the Director of the Australian Museum, the Museum Trust approved in principle the return of selected artefacts onee the new museum was completed. Mr Smidt then visited every major museum in Australia, and in October 197 3 persuaded the Council of Australian Museum Directors to recommend to their respective boards of managemmt that they should follow the lead of the Austra- lian Museum. One museum, for reasons best known to itself, but probably because it was unaware of what was really happening in Papua New Guinea, added the condition that the Papua New Guinea Museum must develop an active field-collecting programme. This stalling tactic was quite out of place for the museum had been so engaged for several years. During the first twelve to eighteen months of discussions we resolved with the Papua New Guinea Museum the basic principles on which further negotia- tions would be conducted. Both M r Smidt and his successor as director, M r Geoffrey Mosuwadoga, emphasized that until a world-wide survey of museums had been attempted, it would be difficult to prepare by negotiation a list of arte- facts to be requested from the Australian Museum. The seventeen artefacts retur- ned in 1977 were selected by the Australian Museum itself, with the approval of the Papua New Guinea National Museum, to fill known gaps or deficiencies in its collections (Figs. 12, 14-26). The next phase of return will be of material selected by bilateral negotiation. In 1973, the Australian Museum Trust was approached by the Solomon Islands Museum with an itemized list of artefacts which the then Curator in Charge, Ms Anna Craven, felt should be returned. Ms Craven had previously completed a survey of major collections from the Solomon Islands, and was able to be more specific in her request. The trust expressed its approval in principle, for the Solomon Islands Museum was proceeding with upgrading its facilities and staff, and also proposed that the returns be on an exchange basis. The trust requested that the Solomon Islands Museum also seek returns from other museums. In 1978, the trust, satisfied that this was being done and that the con- ditions at the Solomon Islands Museum were adequate, approved the return of two canoe-prow carvings. Several points must be emphasized. Despite its title, the Australian Museum is not an Australian Government body, but operates under legislation of the State of New South Wales. Its actions do not necessarily reflect views held by the national government or by other State museums. Secondly, the Act of Parliament under which the museum functions grants the Board of Trustees power to dispose of its property as it sees fit within certain guidelines. It is not hampered by rules of inalienability which apparently hamper some museums from acceding to requests for the return of cultural property. The third point is that we have 1 3 NATIONAL. MUSEUM, Solomon Islands. Canoe prow ornament from hunting canoe, carved wood and painted. New Georgia Group, Solomon Islands. Returned to its country of origin with the help of the Australian Museum, Sydney.3 0 Jim Specht conducted our discussions on a direct museum-to-museum basis, and have not negotiated through diplomatic channels. VJhile it may be necessary in the future to use more formal bines of communication, the close relationships with the museums in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands have permitted honest discussions even though initially they were occasionally hard-hitting and heated. It would be difficult to overstress the value of these close and frequent contacts. In addition to the return of artefacts from its own collection to Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, the Australian Museum has assisted in two other areas. In 197j, an elderly Sydney resident offered us a collection of arte- facts from Melanesia made by her husband about forty to fifty years ago. We suggested that she consider returning them to their countries of origin. This she agreed to do, and we were able to assist in providing the contacts and arranging freight. In another instance, the Australian Museum was offered a collection of stone artefacts illegally exported from Papua New Guinea in 1942. Following a concerted effort by the Customs Bureau in Sydney, the Australian Museum, and the Papua New Guinea National Museum, including a threat to prosecute, the owner returned the artefacts to Papua New Guinea. A similar case is currently under investigation by the Australian Customs Bureau, since it is illegal to import from Papua New Guinea cultural property which does not have an export permit issued by the Papua New Guinea National Museum. In such cases the Australian Museum provides the Customs Bureau with specialist advice. Discussions on the return of cultural property often proceed as though only items of spectacular quality or high monetary value should be considered. I sug- gest that more attention should be given to items of more mundane nature, espe- cially those illustrating the economic and technological aspects of each cultural heritage. These are essential for educational programmes which offer a rounded view of traditional culture. &o, photographic resources should not be neglected. At the Australian Museum we have been printing an extensive collection of nega- tives taken many years ago by a famous social anthropologist who has loaned us the collection to make prints for both ourselves and for the Solomon Idands and Papua New Guinea. W e have also combined with the Institute of Papua New Guinea Studies in a project to photograph our extensive collection of m d m g a n carvings from New Ireland, so that a photographic catalogue is avai- lable for study in Port Moresby. Eventually we hope to extend this programme to other major sections of our collections, and the institute has offered to assist in the identification and documentation of specimens through these photographs. I would like to close with some comments on returns of artefacts in slightly different contexts. ne Australian state museum has received a request from a museum on the west coast of the United States for the return of a very rare ritual object of the Chumash Indians. Within Australia, the Australian Museum has been asked to return to another museum a unique form of container, of which we apparently hold the only known example in Australia and possibly the world. H can see a need for the Australian Museum itself to seek assistance from other museums and perhaps private collectors to permit us to present to the aboriginal people of New South Wales comprehensive displays of their cultural heritage. The Australian Museum holds few artefacts from some parts of New South Wales, especially from the Sydney region. Like the peoples of Papua New Gui- nea, the Solomon Islands and many other countries around the world, the indige- nous peoples of Australia have a right of access to information about their cultural heritage, but find that much of it is held by overseas institutions. One museum in Ireland has set an example by offering, of its own free will, to return to Austra- lia some important items from its Aboriginal collection. Museums around the world should follow this example, and not simply wait until external pressure is applied. Tens of millions of items of cultural property from many different heri- tages are currently held by a relatively few institutions, most of which are remote from the countries of origin. The time has come now for the originators of that cultural property to begin to benefit from its preservation.14 14 NATIONAL MUSEUM, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Mask in vegetable fibres decorated with feathers, twentieth century. Was probably worn by young men during initiation ceremonies. Illegally exported and returned to its country of origin with the help of the Australian Museum, Sydney. 2J NATIONAL MUSEUM, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Funerary mask in painted wood decorated with vegetable fibres. New Ireland, end of nineteenth century. Used in malaizgan mortuary ceremonies. Returned to its country of origin with the help of the Australian Museum, Sydney. 2 6 NATIONAL MUSEUM, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Fighting shield in wood with a woven cover decorated with bird feathers. Returned to its country of origin with the help of the Australian Museum, Sydney. 1 5 16Belgium‘s contribution to the Zairian culfural heritage Huguette van Geluwe I At all periods in history, demands for the return of cultural property have been voiced whenever international negotiations, peace treaties or any other kind of truce agreements, whether bilateral or multilateral, have taken place. In the great forum of ideas and with the international political upheavals that are a feature of our times, the doctrine of ‘return’ and ‘restitution’ has taken on such proportions that every Buropean comtry that has engaged in military, colonial or commercial occupation is confronted with this problem which calls for a short- or long-term solution. Judging by the widespread and diverse reactions to the appeals launched by the United Nations and Unesco, it is clear that the matter of ‘restitution’ is an extremely thorny issue and fraught with implications, be they political and economic, psychological or even sentimental. W e cdture is undoubtedly the crystallization of the creative genius and the inherent character of a people, it is no less true that the products which are disper- sed in other parts of the world are so many witnesses to that culture, and can thus be incorporated into universal culture and spread their influence to broad strata of the world popdation. I need ody quote the example of dhlbrecht Dürer’s wonder when, in B j 20, he discovered in the palace of Charles V in Brussels the treasures brought back from the land of gold (Mexico). With his cool-headed intelligence, Dürer was not often given to displays of enthusiasm over other people’s art, but he was truly fascinated by the beauty of these works of art, and wrote that never before had he seen things of such beauty which had so gladdened his heart. Wistorico-cultural research has shown, furthermore, that, although works of art have been dispersed as a result of war or foreign occupation, regular commercial transactions have had an equal share in exporting them abroad. Such works of art have influenced artistic expression in the receiving countries and have often benefited those countries greatly by ng rise there to a renewal of art. How many of Belgium’s artistic t res have left the country in the course of the long, successive periods of foreign occupation to which it has been ed throughout its history? the other hand, which sovereigns or rich burghers, what castles or churches in Europe did not possess their tapestries ordered from the high-warp tapestry weavers of the Belgian provinces, whose tradition was later carried on by the artisans of the Royal Gobelins Tapestry Works in France? Thus, while the Western merchant fleet exported spices, precious wood, ivory and gold from the Guinea coast. it also brought back to Europe, from as earlyBelgium’s contribution to the Zairian cultural heritage 3 3 as the late sixteenth century, ivory objects (such as salt-cellars, goblets, cutlery, hunting horns, etc.) carved in the style that was fashionable at the time and pro- duced to order for the European market by the ivory-workers of Sierra Leone, Benin and later Loango. Cloth made of embroidered raffia (‘velvet’), greatly prized for its beauty, was made to order by weavers in the former Congo kingdom and dispatched as regular merchandise. This was long before exotic art began to become popular. Unlike most of its neighbours, Belgium, which had itself long been under foreign occupation, was not involved in any colonial activities as such, apart from the-few trading posts set up in Bengal by the short-lived Ostend India Company in the first quarter of the eighteenth century. In fact, Belgium wielded sovereign rights over only one overseas territory, and then only by way of the Congo Free State set up in 1885 in conformity with the decisions of the Congress of Berlin, under the sovereignty of Leopold II, King of the Belgians. The latter bequeathed his African territory to Belgium which, somewhat reluctantly, accepted it; and on 15 November 1908 the Congo became a Belgian colony and remained so until its accession to independence on 30 June 1960. With the founding of the Free State, Leopold II endeavoured to awaken the interest of international public opinion and of his compatriots to the problems of overseas territories in general and to those of Central Africa in particular. Not only did he call upon geographers and other scholars of various nationalities to encourage and organize exploratory expeditions, but he also arranged for the col- lection of documents on natural history and ethnographical and archaeological specimens from the Central African territories. These were exhibited at the Uni- versal Exhibitions held in Antwerp (1 894) and, especially, in Brussels-Tervuren (1897). The idea of a real ‘Museum of the Congo’ had already taken shape in his mind, and the Congolese section of Tervuren was converted into a museum as soon as the exhibition was over. Apart from the commercial aspect, it should be said that the object in mind was essentially scientific. All disciplines were represented, from geology, zoology and botany to archaeology and the other human sciences. From the outset, a twofold role was ascribed to the Museum of the Congo. (MRAC).’ On the one hand, its function was to build up representative collec- tions for each of the scientific disciplines at hand, with a view to preserving and studying them. On the other, the scientific study of these collections was intended to bring out their full value and increase knowledge in terms of pure science, and then to place the collections, seen now in their true light, at the disposal of the widest possible public. More than 700 volumes of MRAC publications testify to the amount of scientific research carried out by the museum. It should be stressed here that all the objects acquired by the museum were procured through the regular channels. None of the specimens, whatever their nature, were obtained through extortion, spoliation or theft. Moreover, no trace of any acquisition made through requisition or confiscation is to be found in the archives of MRAC. The collections, for all of which there are ad hoc documents to prove how they were acquired, were brought into the museum by: (a) purchase from Africans in Africa-(i) by government agents who were allotted special funds for the purpose according to instructions issued by King Leopold II him- self; thus for example, in 1911 each District Commissioner was allotted 500 gold francs for the purchase of objects for the museum and (ii) voluntary workers who received compensation from the museum; (b) purchase in Europe from pio- neers, explorers, colonials and antique dealers; (c) donations; (d) bequests; and (e) exchanges. Through its continuing development and steadily increasing activities, MRAC has contributed, both as a research institute and as a museum (for a long time it was the museum with the highest visiting rate in Belgium) to people’s know- ledge of Central Africa, if only because of the several million visitors who have come to it since its foundation. 1 7 INSTITUT DES MusÉns NATIONAUX DU Z.~~’RE, Kinshasa. Ceremonial cup in sculptured wood. Kuba tribe, about 1900. Used for drinking palm wine. Returned to its country of origin in accordance with a bilateral agreement between Belgium and Zaire. 1. Originally Museum of the Congo at the time of its foundation in 1897, it was given the title of Museum of the Belgian Congo in 1908. After 1960, this title was changed to Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale (Royal Museum of Central Africa), represented by the initials MRAC.34 Huguette van Geluwe It may be noted in passing that long before groups of painters such as Die had produced a systematic study of African sculpture in a volume of its Anndls dated 1902-06, entitled ‘Les Arts-La Religion’, thereby giving a definite impulse to the study of Airi- can art,, which from that time became the subject of ever-growing interest. riicke, Der Blaue Reiter and the Fauves, M The foregoing sums up the situation that existed in Belgium. At the time of its accession to independence, in 1960, there were some thirteen museums in the Congo. Some were public institutions, such as the museums of Leopoldville (now Kinshasa), Lduabourg (now Kananga), Mushenge, Elisabeth- ville (now Lubumbashi), Bukavu, Lwiro, Stanleyville (now Kisangani), and Coquilhatville (now Mbandaka). The others were more private in character, one b-elonging to the University of Lowanium, and others to congregations or m i s - sionary societies, such as those at Kimpese, Kangu, Matadi and the Albert College in Leopoldville. Despite their &en inadequate financial resources and shortage of staff9 these museums had succeeded in collecting a large number of genuine items. Unfortuna- tely, many of these museums were looted as a result of the events that took place after independence and a substantial part, and in some cases all, of their collec- tions disappeared. The building which housed the Musée de la Vie Indigène in 18 INSXTTUT DES MusÉ~s NATIONAUX DU ZAïRE, Kinshasa, Pectoral amdet in sculptured ivory portraying a heeling figure. Hingana Tribe. Returned to its country of origin in accordance with a bilateral agreement between Belgium and Zaire.id Belgium’s contribution to the Zairian cultural heritage Leopoldville was stripped of its entire contents, apart from a few series of minor objects, and was moreover demolished. From 1960, MRAC became the focus for claims sometimes of a very radical nature, from the new Congolese nation, which demanded that it be purely and simply transferred, together with its contents. To remedy this unstable situation and in an attempt to reconcile the legitimate Zairian demands and the equally justifiable Belgian arguments, L. Cahen, the director of MRAC, proposed, earlier than 1966, the foundation of a large natio- nal museum in Kinshasa, under the terms of a Belgo-Zairian cultural agreement. The idea gained ground, and this initiative led, in 1969, to personal contacts between the Presidency of the Republic of Zaire and the governing body of MRAC. These contacts finally resulted in a bilateral agreement endorsed by the respective governments which became operational in March 1970, that is, more than three years before the formal appeal launched by President Mobutu from the rostrum of the United Nations in New York on 4 October 1973, which constituted the starting-point for the policy of ‘restitution’ as it stands today. The Belgo-Zairian agreement comprised two main provisions: (a) placing of specialized scientific and technical personnel at the disposal of Zaire, to assist in the establishment and organization of a museum network; and (b) transfer of ethnographical and art collections from Belgium to Zaire. As regards the first of these provisions, the director of MRAC was entrusted, on a part-time basis and for a limited period, with the setting up of the new body and, in collaboration with the legal services of the Presidency of the Repub- lic, with the drafting of the legal texts relating to the Institut des Musées Natio- naux du Zaire (IMNZ) and to the protection of the artistic heritage. A general delegate recruited locally has since succeeded him. As part of Belgian technical assistance, full-time curators were placed at the disposal of the institute. They are, respectively, an ethnographer, whose previous legal and administrative experience was extremely helpful in drafting some of the texts and in ensuring the smooth operation of the IMNZ, a musicologist, and another ethnographer more specifically in charge of reorganizing the Lubumbashi museum which has been integrated in the IMNZ. Recently a fourth expert was appointed, to be responsible for setting up a section on ethno-history and collecting oral traditions. In accordance with the agreement, the Belgian Government, besides substan- tial logistic aid, made available to IMNZ qualified specialists who carried out short-term missions on behalf of the institute. These consisted of field missions to collect ethnographical and archaeological material and conduct excavations, musicological research and collection, combined with the publishing of music on records, classification and evaluation of the IMNZ’s collections. In addition, several members of the Zairian scientific personnel attended long training courses at the MRAC. A member of the technical staff also attended there a further train- ing course on the conservation and restoration of objects belonging to collections. The second provision of the bilateral agreement, which is directly relevant to the subject of this article, concerns the contribution of collections. From the outset, the Belgians insisted on absolute priority being given to the formulation of a coherent programme for prospecting, inventorying and collecting ethnographical objects on the spot, with the assistance of Belgian scientific per- sonnel. The aim was to preserve for the future these cultural documents, which would otherwise be irrevocably doomed to complete and final disappearance, due either to slow and progressive decay or to illicit trade. Despite the laws passed by the Zairian Government with a view to protecting items of cultural property and countering their illicit export, hundreds of works of art, some of them of very high quality, have left the country illicitly over the past five years. That the campaign for collection on the spot has been crowned with success and has produced doped-for results has been proved by the quantity and quality of the items collected according to rigorous scientific and systematic guidelines, 19 INSTITUT DES MUSÉES NATIONAUX DU ZAÏRE, Kinshasa. Sculptured ivory mask. Lega tribe. Used by a secret society during initiation rites. Returned to its country of origin in accordance with a bilateral agreement between Belgium and Zaire.20 INSTITUT DES MUSÉES NATIONAUX DU ZA~RE, Kinshasa. Upper part of a large ancestral statue; sculptured wood. Yombe tribe. to its Of Origin in with a bilateral agreement between Belgium and Zaire. supplemented by all the conte~tual data as to the origin, function and significance of some 10,000 items. Thus the majority of the cultural tones of highest impor- tance from the point of view of the e th i c arts are represented a h o s t perfectly. In some fields, IMNZ’s collections abound in such valuable items that in quality and quantity they suspass those ~f other museunas. A comparison with some of MUG’S coUections is instructive in this respect: (a) terracotta funeral monu- ments (Mboma)-IM.NZ ( 1 O 1 >, l!&RA@ ( I ) ; (b) soapstone tomb statuettes (Wes- tern Congo)-HMNZ (3941, M M C (60); ( c ) rubbing oracles (Kuba Lele)-HMNZ (1 -/O), (84); (d) twin statuettes (Hemba)-HMNZ (ZOO), M M 6 (2). Mention also be made of the rich collections of European antiques introduced into the lower Gongo region before the Belgian colonization. Besides the co%lection of objects of traditional ethnographical art, a series of works of non-traditional modern art has also been b d t up, induding paintings, ceramic scdptures and repouss6 copperwork. The archaeological coblections which already existed at the Museum of Lubumbashi and the Museum of the eatlpr enriched by collections resulting f r ~ m (Kinshasa campus) wereBelgium’s contribution to the Zairian cultural heritage 37 several excavations conducted on a systematic basis. Less than five years after it was founded, IMNZ was also able to organize or take part in important exhibi- tions abroad. The first was a travelling exhibition in the United States entitled A r t f r o m Zaire. A Hclndred Masterworks from the National Collections. IMNZ’s collections were also shown at the second World Festival of Arts and Culture in Lagos, Nigeria, and at the exhibition The A r t of Black Africa in Tehran, Iran. Abundant though the items collected are, IMNZ’s collection inevitably has its weak points and some inequalities in regard to ethnic and regional representation. This is ascribable to the marked differences between the various cultures in Zaire, as well as to certain historical factors. In order to make good this deficiency, Belgium has undertaken to fill in the gaps by the transfer of collections from MRAC, in so far as this can be done without detriment to their own quality and representativity. For this purpose, Belgium entrusted the head of MRAC’s ethnographical department with the task of assessing the deficiencies that exist and proposing ways of rectifying them. Unlike the policy of prestige followed in many European and American museums which are interested only in works of art which are (often unjustly) pronounced as such, those in charge of the IMNZ are resolved to place items in the broader context of their overall cultures, while believing none the less that a work of art constitutes one of the most significant parameters of the system of values peculiar to each culture. As from the beginning, absolute priority was given to collecting material on the spot rather than acquiring a few spectacular pieces on the international market at ever-increasing prices as a result of the specu- lative interest shown by increasingly broad sectors of the population. The Belgian contribution to the IMNZ collections had the twofold aim of filling in certain gaps in collections of representative sculptures, and of supplying these collections, as must necessarily be the case for cultures which have none in their possession, with a selection of ethnographical documents which, though perhaps of a more modest nature, are none the less rare today, and though more technological in character, are often more significant for the epistemology of a civilization (tools and accessories for various techniques, indispensable everyday objects, weapons, etc.). It was for this reason that Belgium decided to supplement its contribution of 200 works of art with some 1,000 specimens (together with all the relevant in- formation), most of which were primarily of ethnographical interest and were collected well before 1960 by the Belgian researchers from the Institut de Recherche Scientifique en Afrique Centrale (IRSAC) and remitted to the MRAC. Before proceeding to the actual transfer of these collections, Belgium wished to be sure of certain preliminary guarantees. It insisted on the fact that adequate facilities be provided at the receiving end and, especially, that conditions for pro- tection and conservation in suitable buildings be such as to ensure maximum security. Thanks to the efforts of the competent Zairian authorities and the staff of IMNZ, the collections were housed, on metal shelves according to category, in storerooms located within the Presidential precincts, under military guard. A per- manent exhibition of the most outstanding works from a variety of Zairian cul- tures was inaugurated in the exhibition rooms of the Fine Arts Academy. These premises, which are admirably situated and ideally equipped, meet all the required conditions. The transfer of objects from the MRAC consequently began as from March 1977. So far, 892 items have been sent, in five successive batches, to IMNZ through the Belgian Embassy in Kinshasa. The expenses of packaging and transport are borne by Belgium (Figs. 17-21, 34) and the whole operation ends in 1979. Once the entire collection concerned has been transferred, Belgium’s contribu- tion will be sanctioned by Belgian law. It is hoped that this contribution, which is the outcome of successful collaboration, will be a token of fruitful relations between the two nations. 2 1 INSTITUT DES MUSÉES NATIONAUX DU ZAïRE, Kinshasa. Ceremonid object in the form of a hand; in sculptured wood. Kuba tribe. Returned to its country of origin in accordance with a bilateral agreement between Belgium and Zaire.rrangemersts concluded in progre the return sfsbjects: the Ne therlan ds-In donesia Peter H. Pott and M. h i r Sutaarga The problem of the return or transfer of cultural objects is rather complex, and its sollution demands a careful survey of the situation resulting from a historical process. As to the situation existing in the relations between Indonesia and the Netherlands, it is hardly possible to consider that it is the resdt of wilful aliena- tion of cultural property by the Netherlands administration from their former colonies. The export of objects from Asia during the period of the VOC (Dutch East India Company) prior to 179 5 was strictly prohibited, because it would interfere with the trading system of that period. It was ody at the very end of the eigh- teenth century that Nicolaus Engelhard, one of the highest officers of that trading company, and a man strongly influenced by the ideas of Romanticism, started collecting antiquities from ancient sites on Java. Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles, the Lt-Governor of yava and Dependencies during the period of British occupa- tion (1 8 P 1-16) did likewise. W e n Netherlands rule was re-established in the years 18 1 6-1 7, Professor C. J. @. Reinwardt, who was commissioned by King %lBTilliam 1 to organize public instruction and research, sent to the Netherlands a small collection of antiquities chosen from already existing collections, mainly from that of Engelhard. It was at a rather early stage that the Netherlands administration imposed rules to prevent the spoiling of ancient monuments and sites, as well as the export of antiquities. In 1842, a resolution was passed which declared all ancient monu- ments and sites public property, demanded the compilation of an inventory of such sites, and prohibited the export of antiquities. Later, this resolution was amplified more than once; ita 1858, the Batavian Society of A r t s and Sciences was commissioned keeper of objects of cultural value which were owned by the goverment. The board of this society was very active in stimulating governmen- tal policy in the line of the preservation of culture. The most important example of its influence was the government’s decision to have an art protection officer accompany the second military expedition to the island of Lombok. The famous scholar Dr J. L. A. Brandes was assigned to the task. Me succeeded in rescuing the treasures as well as the library of the prince of the island, and had them sent to Batavia (Jakarta). There the board of the society had the opportunity to select those objects which it considered to be of sufficient cultural value to be kept in government possession. It suggested that another part should be sent to the Neth- erlands and be used for the benefit of‘ museums of history and ethnology. The objects were sent to Amsterdam, and were much admired, and questions were then asked about the quality of the objects kept in the museum of the Batavian39 Arrangements concluded or in progress for the return of objects : the Netherlands-Indonesia PUSAT MUSEUM, Jakarta. Statue of Prjaíiäpäramitã, Singasari, East Java, thirteenth century. Returned to its country of origin in April 1978 in accordance with a bilateral agreement beween the Netherlands and Indonesia.40 Peter H. Pott and M. Amir Sutaarga Society. Prompted by questions in Parliament, the Minister of Colonies ordered the whole collection from Lombok to be sent to the Netherlands, where it was exhibited in the National Museum (Rijksmusem) in Amsterdam. In the press as well as in Parliament suggestions were made that the ‘treasues’ should be sold, and the proceeds be used to cover the expenses of the military expedition. The board of the society strongly objected to such suggestions, and finally won the claim. The Minister of Colonies allotted some of the showpieces to the Kjks- museum, and ordered the remainder of the collection selected by the board of atavian Society to be returned to its museum, and the objects of less impor- tance to be used for other museum collections. During the period of colonial administration, the last and most important regu- lation concerning the preservation of cultusal property was the Monuments Ordi- nance of P 3 June II 9 3 1 (No. P 9). This resolution was in fact a more sophisticated version of the principles laid down already in the 1842 enactment, but it also dealt with monuments and sites on private property and provisions were made for i n d e b 9 daims for su& property when listed in the inventory of ancient m o n ~ ~ ~ ~ e n t s and sites from pre-Mobamedan periods. Though the implementa- tion of such a resolution was (and still is) diEicdt when considering the vast area and the situation of a country consisting of so many islands with long borders and many harbours, it did help a great deal to prevent the disappearance of cultu- ral property and its loss by neglect. It is clear, however, that during the years of war and rev~lution (19411-48) many infractions of the rdes must have taken place. As a resdt, relations between Indonesia and the Netherlands became rather strained, and it took many years before a better understanding and co-operation was reached. Pormal relations were restored in 1963, and in 1968 a new cultual agreement was settled. In the context of that agreement a first form of co-operation was established in 1970 between the Parsip Nasional of Indonesia in Jakarta and the Agemeen IESjjksardief (General Records ffice) at The Hague, concerning the exchange of information and of photocopies of important documents. In 1974, Indonesia brought up the subject of the return of objects of cultural importance as part of the effectuation of the cultural agreement. A first conference of experts was held in Jakarta ib7. November 11975. Some of the experts taking part in the conference had already known their ‘counterparts’ Prom the delegation of the other country for a long time. During the proceedings sufficient time had been reserved for informal taks which were essential to learn and understand ideas, ments and general feelings, and to try and find a basis where both ddega- tions cod$ meet. As a result, the delegations were able to formdate a joint recom- mendation which was submitted for approval t~ their respective governments. It proved to be, in particular, a number of objects with a strong historical as well as emotional value held by the other country whish formed the nucleus of the claims. Por such objects whish were State-owned, the delegations could sug- gest ways of transferring them; it would have been unrealistic, however, to do the same for objects held by private persons or by institutions not under State c ~ n t r ~ l . h o t h e r group of daims concerned objects about which no condusive indosmation as to their holders was available, or of which the ownership appeared to be undefined. It was dear that, if the joint recommendation were to be accep- table as well as workable, it would have to be formulated in such a way that no undue resistance against a transfer of objects ~ o u l d be aroused; and sufficient time woad have to be allowed for its implementation. To stimulate a further programe of joint activities in the field of museums and archives for the benefit of both coulatries, the experts also formulated recommendations on some special methods which could be used for this purpose. The ultimate recommendation which was submitted to and accepted by both governments can be summarized as ~ Q ~ ~ O W S :Arrangements concluded or in progress for the return of objects : the Netherlands-Indonesia 41 The transfer of historical and archaeological objects should be implemented' by The first stage of this programme should consist in the transfer of State-owned 23 PUSAT MUSEUM, Jakarta. Some of the Lombok treasures, Bali. The Crown ofLombok (centre) is in fact a dancer's head-dress adorned stages according to a specific programme. objects linked directly with persons of major historical and cultural impor- tance, or with crucial historical events in Indonesia. The transfer should be executed as soon as possible. These objects should comprise in the first instance the Prajñäpãramitã statue from Singasari (Fig. 22), the crown of Lombok (Fig. 23), and such other specimens from the Lombok treasures still kept in public collections in the Netherlands as would be selected jointly by experts from both delegations. As regards objects linked directly with persons of major historical and cultural importance or with crucial historical events in Indonesia that were not State- owned, the Netherlands Government should render assistance within the limits of its competence in establishing the necessary contacts with the present owners. With regard to the objects which once belonged to Prince Dip0 Negoro, and which were kept in the Bronbeek Museum at Velp, the Nether- lands Government should be willing to find ways of transferring them to In- donesia. Should objects of high cultural value-such as the state insignia of Luwu-which disappeared during the war-afterwards be discovered in the Netherlands, the with rubies.Peter H. Pott and M. Amir Sutaarga - 4 2 Netherlands Government should be prepared to establish contact with their holders and to further arrangements for their return to Indonesia. Investigation into any possibly unclear ownership of specimens of high historical and cultural value should be carried out and continued by experts from both sides. A programme of visual documentation for ethnological and archaeological objects of cultural importance, their manufacture, their use and their evaluation within the group which made and used them, should be established as a joint activity. If, in the course of su& activiy, it should become evident that some objects in the collections of one country would be better kept in a collection of the other country from the point of view of a more appropriate use for study, research or display, a transfer of such objects should be stimulated. As to archives, the general principle should be that they should be kept by the administration that originated them, while the reproduction of archival mate- rial should be facilitated, and the transmission of such reproductions stimulated for further research and documentation. The joint recomendations were submitted to both governments, and were accepted as a basis for dealing with the subject. In June 1977, a second meeting of experts was held in the Netherlands, during which the first transfer of objects took place, namely objects from the Lombok treasures (Pig. 3 4 selected jointly by experts from both delegations. During this meeting further points were settled regarding the implementation of the adopted programe. It was decided that the most imgortant transfer, namely that of the famous PrajEäpZramitä statue, should be made in Jakarta on the occasion of the celebration of the second centenary of the Museum Pusat (formerly the museum of the Batavian Society of Arts and Sciences) in April 1978. In the month§ between June 1997 and April 1998, the transfer of the objects which once belonged to Prince Dipo Negoro could be made as well as the presentation of a painting by Rad& Saleh depicting the Prince’s surrender in 1825. On 24 April 1978 the formal transfer of the Prajiiäpäramiti statue was made when the Netherlands Ambassador and the Minister of Education and Culture of Hndo- nesia signed the deed of transfer in the Museum Pusat, where a special exbibition of all the transferred objects had been arranged. On that occasion, a third meeting of experts from both countries was held during which- the still pending problems were discussed, and further recommendations were made on the stimulation of the programe of visual docmentation. At present it may be concluded that the first stage of the programe has been carried out in accordance with the joint recommendations, thanks to the mutual understanding of both parties and their wdingness to find an acceptable solution for those problems in due time. IThe exchange of works of art at government level Jeannine Auboyer 24 MUS~E GUIMET, Paris. Standing buddha. High relief in sandstone, Sârnâth, fourth to sixth century; Gupta period. Deposited with the museum following a bilateral agreement between France and India. This article does not deal with th subject of this issue. Its inclusion the less valuable as it concerns bilateral exchanges of objects u conflicting legal statutes, but ex exchanges at all events. Le specific is none ader .emplary44 Jeannine Auboyer The Musée Guimet is the section of the French National Museums which deals with h i a n art, its collections being devoted entirely to centrd and south &ia and the Far East. ~ o m d e d in L Y Q ~ S in 1879 by B d e Guimet, a private collector, a section OP the museum was tranferred to Paris as from 1888. In 1928, the Musée Gui- met became a National Museum. Famous all over the world, its collections were gradually expanded by means of donations and bequests, contributions received thanks to French excavations, by purchases from individual collectors and antique dealers, and though exchanges. The exchange of either collections or small n u b e r s of objects is generally a long, slow ~ ~ Q C ~ S S , with prudence being exessised on both sides. The object of su& excRanges is the mutal e n r i d u " of the museums taking part, the bilateral agreements reasbed being ratified at goverment level. The matter is first raised by the curators of two national museums, who nego- tiate the equivalence in quality of the objects to be exchanged, taking into account their market price (whish sometimes fluctuates). When they have reached agree- ment they inform their respective goverments of their joint project stressing its cultusal interest. The sacrifice that the museum curator agrees to make for the benefit of the other museun% is based on the cultural importance that the exchange represents The object of this operation is either to fill gaps in_ the collections of the two museus in ~pestion, or to improve their quaky. In both cases, the success of the exshange depends essentially on the uderstandbg reached by the curators and, thus, on a relationship of mutual respect. In any event, however, the process erally slow and often long, because it has to go through higher authorities. e methods of exchange are of three main types : exchange loans for a limited period which can be renewed; exchange of long-term loans, the duration of the loan being specified; and exchange of loans for an indefinite period. One may add the exchange of donations, although this OCGUS in fairly exceptional cases. The MusCe Guimet has taken part in three exchanges which are examples of these methods: with the National Museum in Bangkok, the National Museum in Tokyo and the Sbrnâth hchaedogy Musem which is administered by the a request from the Musée Guimet, hos se collec- request was made in B 9 3 6 when tRe Head Curator of the musem was on mis- §ion in Thabland, and the matter was again taken up in P 9 ?; 7, at diplomatic levd eement was reached between the two curators, and 2 8 November by a departmental order. The Musée Guimet was authorized to deposit at the National Museum in Bangkok, m e n 9 S~WSO refiefs from Had& (Hghaniistan, third and fourth centuries AD.), ~ W Q wooden sculptures of processional chariots (South-East India, C. seventeenth cen- t ~ ) and thirteen Lamaic paintings (tanka). In exchange, the National Museum in Bangkok made a permanent deposit at the ?%usée Guimet of twenty stucco reliefs which were discovered during the excavations at Prah Pathom and Lop- S. 2 / , 24, ( . seventh to eighth century), eight terracotta votive tablets and two bromes. The conditions of tRe agreement excluded the exchange of objests of which there was Q ~ Y a single specimen in either museum. It shodd be mentioned that the objects from Afghanistan @v.en in exchange by the Musée Guimet were discovered during excavations there and attributed to the Musée Guimet by the Mghan Goverment under the terms of a thirty-year agreement signed in 1923 (which also exduded objects of-which there was ody one speci- men). The objects from India and the Lamaic countries had been purchased about forty and thkty years before, respectively. This then is an example of loans with no specific time limit. fQP &§ Own COUntry. S m d and of §QmeWhat poor q d q . A specific2 / MUSÉE GUIMET, Paris. Supporting lion in stucco relief, found in the excavations at Prah Pathom (sixth to seventh century). Dvaravati art. On permanent deposit at the Musée Guimet in accordance with an agreement between France and Thailand. 26 MUSÉE GUIMET, Paris. Head in stucco relief. found in the excavations at Prah Pathom (sixth to seventh century). Dvaravati art. Deposited with the museum in accordance with an agreement between France and Thailand.27 MUSPE GUIMET, Paris. Buddha in scdptured wood, Kamakura period, thirteenth century. Deposited with the museum following a bilateral agreement with France and Japan. 28 MUSÉE GUIMET, Paris. Statuette in terra- cotta (Jomon type, 1000 B.C.). Deposited with the museum in accordance with a bilateral agreement between France and Japan. 'Fhe exchange arranged with the National Museum of Tokyo had different legal implications which we shall discuss further on. In this instance, the request was made by Tokyo. The prehinary steps were taken in 195 3 by a scientific staff member of the Musee Guimet during a h g stay in Tokyo. The essential points of the project had already been worked out by February 195 3 ; the Tokyo Museum wodd send thirty-seven works of Japanese art dating from ancient times (Figs. 29, 281, and about forty neolithic pottery fragments, while the Musee Gui- met agreed to send in exchange to Tokyo fourteen items from central Asia and seven S~UCSO reliefs from Hadda. In Jdy, an agreement was reached on the principle of the exchanges. Then a problem arose, because Japanese legislation conflicted with the French. Por the Japanese, the exchange had to be a mutual donation, because their Minis- try for Finance required that a financial valuation be made in the case of a loan, and imposed a large percentage of tax on this valuation. Under Prench law, to donate objects inventoried in a National Museum is equivalent to relinquishing permanently part of the national heritage. It is therefore necessary to promulgate a law whish has to be debated at the National Assembly and signed by the Bresi- dent of the Republic (a departmental order is sufficient in the case of a deposit, even if it is on a long-term basis). Despite the dzficdties ~nvohed, the Director of French Museums agreed to take the necessary steps because of the cultural interest of the exchange: the Japa- nese collection in the Musée Guimet was relatively poor and far from representa- tive; as for Japan, it had no objects at all in the series it was requesting. Therefore, the Ministry for Cultural Affairs was informed of the dual proposal for the mutual donations. A draft law was put forward in March 1954 and revised in November of the same year. However, it was not put the schedule for debate in the National hsembly. The Director of Prench M u s e u s took the matter up 5 5, and again in October. Finally, the Law was adopted by the COW^ of the Republic on 7 February B9J6, and later, on Bb June 1956, by the National Assembly, without a debate (Law No. 5 6-6 3 1 of 29 June B 9 5 6) . The procedure was certainly complicated, but the outcome was very satisfying4748 Jeannine Auboyer for both parties and, for more than twenty years, both museums have been e&- biting works of art which enable people in the two countries to have a better knowledge of h i a n civilisations.. The third exchange-between the Musée Guimet and the SIrnâth hchaeology enares) (Pigs. 24, 29)-&e that made with the Tokyo Museum, was e spot by a scientific staff member from the Musée Guimet. There was a large gap in the musem's collections covering the classical period (fourth to sixth centuries) and objects from this period are rarely found on na1 market. Negotiations were opened in December 1958 with th Director General of Archaeology in India. From the outset, the office requested in enrdange some ivories of Indian origin which had been found at Begsâm in Mghalaistan and acquired by the Musée Guimet in 1937, ~ ~ t ~ d e r th terms of the B 92 3 agreement mentioned above. The objects requested by both sides were either kept in the museums' reserves or exhibited in duplicate SO that their being deposited for an unlimited length of time in no way affected the collections of either museum. Negotiations continued in 19 j 7-59 within the framework of Unesco's ' ]East- West' major project. On 4 June 1959, the Advisory Committee of Curators of French National Museums was hformed of the proposal to deposit twelve Begâm ivories at the Sârnâth e m on a permanent and reciprocal basis: the committee gave its mg ha lai mou The project was finalized Federal Republic of Germany, in July B9j9, when the second great exposition of Indian ht came to E~ope- i t then visited Ziirich and Paris (1960). The maner was then pursued by the Prend Embassy in New Delhi, and in France itself? by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (October 19J9). The Indian authorities had been trying for over a year to obtain, in addition to the ivories, the loan of a Kh" sculpture whish the Head Curator of the Musée Guimet was not willing to put on sit in New Bek i (March 1960). Then, in May of the same year, the final ement was signed (without the addition of the Khmer sculpture) and ratified by departmental order on 20 August 1960, from whish date it took effect. In 'January 1969, the objects were dispatshed from Paris, after the usual valuation form&ties, whde the objects from the Indian w&& had been sent in .?Slay9 arrived im Paris at the beginning of July. 1 B September 1963, an extension with no fixed date limit was obtained This then is an example of an operation which took time but which resulted, of loans for an d m i t e d period of time. This is in fact the most productive arrangement from the cultupal point of view, as it guarantees that the collections continue to be used rationally to impart idormation directly by the aid of genuine works OB art which have been carefdy &osen and whose transfer is, if necessary, revocable, which is not possible in an exchange of donations. To sum up, the underlying motive for the exchange of objects OK collections is to improve museums, to aid them in their task of spreading knowledge of cultu- res and civilizations, and of their aesthetic values. This is the fundamental role of museums. If they were made weaker or their collections dismembered, they ~ o u l d no longer be the essential direct link between the public and the work of art, whatever its origin. Situated in the heart of Paris, the Musée Guimet is like a shop window for the arts of Asia. The Asian countries which, through exchanges and donations, have added to its collections were not misden. The Repubbic of Korea, in turn, has recently opened similar negotiations because it considers, and rightly so, that the collections of Korean art at the .Mus& Gaimet are not adequate enough. In the near future, it intends to make an important deposit of ancient works of Korean art which is still too little known to the public of the West. ernational s y m p ~ s i ~ ~ ~ held in Essen, by tacit agreement and ratified by a departmental order. ah, in satisfaction for both sides. It is yet another case of an exchan49 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 createProblems 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 nti led, 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: the1 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 :ruJ(j bruis Monreal I - 32 33Problems 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. 34Appendixes An appeal by Mr Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow, Director-General of Unesco One of the most noble incarnations of a peo- ple’s genius is its cultural heritage, built up over the centuries by the work of its architects, sculp- tors, painters, engravers, goldsmiths and all the creators of forms, who have contrived to give tangible expression to the many-sided beauty and uniqueness of that genius. The vicissitudes of history have nevertheless robbed many peoples of a priceless portion of this inheritance in which their enduring identity finds its embodiment. Architectural features, statues and friezes, monoliths, mosaics, pottery, enamels, masks and objects of jade, ivory and chased gold-in fact everything which has been taken away, from monuments to handicrafts-were more than decorations or ornamentation. They bore witness to a history, the history of a culture and of a nation whose spirit they perpetuated and renewed. The peoples who were victims of this plun- der, sometimes for hundreds of years, have not only been despoiled of irreplaceable master- pieces but also robbed of a memory which would doubtless have helped them to greater self-knowledge and would certainly have enabled others to understand them better. Today, unbridled speculation, fanned by the prices prevailing in the art market, incites traf- fickers and plunderers to exploit local ignorance and take advantage of any connivance they fmd. In Africa, Latin America, Asia, Oceania and even in Europe, modern pirates with sub- stantial resources, usin modern techni ues to satisfy their greed, s p o j and rob archaeaogical sites almost before the scholars have excavated them. The men and women of these countries have the right to recover these cultural assets which are part of their being. They know, of course, that art is for the world and are aware of the fact that this art, which tells the story of their past and shows what they really are, does not speak to them alone. They are happy that men and women elsewhere can study and admire the work of their ancestors. They also realize that certain works of art have for too long played too inti- mate a part in the history of the country to which they were taken for the symbols linking them with that country to be denied, and for the roots they have put down to be severed. These men and women who have been depri- ved of their cultural heritage therefore ask for the return of at least the art treasures which best represent their culture, which they feel are the most vital and whose absence causes them the greatest anguish. This is a legitimate daim; and Unesco, whose Constitution makes i t responsible for the reservation and protection of the universal [eritage of works of art and monuments of historic or scientific interest, is actively encouraging all that needs to be done to meet it. The return of cultural assets to their countries of origin nevertheless continues to pose particu- lar problems which cannot be solved simply by negoriated agreements and spontaneous acts. It therefore seemed necessary to approach these problems for their own sake, examining both the principle underlying them and all their various aspects. This is why, on behalf of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organiza- tion which has empowered me to launch this I solemnly call upon the governments of the Organization’s Member States to conclude bilateral agreements for the return of cultural property to the countries from which ir has been taken; to promote long-term loans, deposits, sales and donations between institu- tions concerned in order to encourage a fairer international exchange of cultural property, and, if they have not already done so, to ratify and rigorously enforce the Convention giving them effective means to prevent illicit trading in artistic and archaeological objects. I call on all those working for the information media-journalists of press and radio, produ- cers and authors of television programmes and films-to arouse world-wide a mighty and intense movement of public opinion so rhat respect for works of art leads, wherever necessary, to their return to their homeland. I call on cultural organizations and s ecialized associations in all continents to hefp formu- late and promote a stricter code of ethics with regard to the acquisition and conserva- tion of cultural property, and to contribute to the gradual revision of codes of professional practice in this connection, on the lines of the initiative taken by the International Council of Museums. I call on universities, libraries, public and pri- vate art galleries and museums that possess the most important collections, to share gene- 0 appeal, rously the objects in their keeping with the countries that created them and which some- times no longer possess a single example. I dso call on institutions possessing several similar objects or records to part with at least one and return it to its country of origin, so that the young will not grow up without ever having the chance to see, at dose quarters, a work of art or a well-made item of handi- craft fashioned by their ancestors. I call on the authors of art books and on art critics to proclaim how much a work of art gains in beauty and truth, both for the unini- tiated and for the scholar, when viewed in the natural and social setting in which it took shape. I call on those responsible for preserving and restoring works of art to faditate, by their advice and actions, the return of such works ro the countries where they were created and to seek with imagination and perseverance for new ways of preserving and displaying them once they have been returned to their homeland. I call on historians and educators to help others to understand the affliction a nation can suf- fer at the spoliation of the works it has crea- ted. The ower of the fait accompli is a survi- resentment and discord which prejudices the establishment of lasting peace and harmony between nations. Finally, I appeal with special intensity and hope to artists themselves and to writers, poets and singers, asking them to testify that nations also need to be alive on an imagina- tive level. Two thousand years ago, the Greek historian Polybius urged us to refrain from turning other nations’ misfortunes into embellishments for our own countries. Today when all peoples are ack- nowledged to be equal in dignity, I am convin- ced that international solidarity can, on the contrary, contribute practically to the general happiness of mankind. The return of a work of art or record to the country which created it enables a people to recover art of its memory and idenrity, and tions which shapes the history of the world is still continuing in an atmosphere of mutual res- pect between nations. val of l! arbaric times and a source of proves t K at the long dialogue between civiliza- Amadou-Mahtar M’BowA brief history of the creation by Unesco of an Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Culrural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation At its nineteenth session at Nairobi in October- November 1976 the General Conference of Unesco invited the Director-General to take all the necessary measures with a view to the es- tablishment, at its twentieth session in, 1978, of an intergovernmental committee entrusted with the task of seeking ways and means of facilitating bilateral negotiations for the restitu- tion or return of cultural property to the coun- tries having lost them as a result of colonial or foreign occupation’. Today, this goal has been reached, the result of five years of work by the Unesco Secretariat. The starting-point for this 1Qng-term internatio- nal effort was a resolution of the General Conference at its eighteenth session (1974) which invited the Director-General to contri- bute towards work for the restitution of cultural property ‘by defining in general terms the most suitable methods, including exchanges on the basis of long-term loans, and by promoting bilateral arrangements to that end. By this resolution the General Conference also drew attention to the need for preventing the illicit im ort, export and transfer of ownership of So far as the question of exchange is concer- ned, a Recommendation to Member States on the International Exchange of Cultural Pro- perty was adopted by the General Conference at its nineteenth session. This instrument is based on the principle that a systematic polic for the exchange of cultural pro erty WJ contribute to a better distribution ancfuse of the cultural heritage on a world-wide scale and will be a means of combating illicit traffic and the rise in price of such property, which renders it inaccessible to the least-favoured countries and institutions. ~ At the same time, the Secretariat pursued its work to avert risks to works of art, notably the risks of theft and illicit traffic. The Secretariat .has thus attempted by various means. to encou- rage the application of both the Recommen- dation and the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, adopted by the General Conference in 1964 and 1970 respectively. Mention should also be made of the comple- mentary work which has been going on for several years, whose aim is to improve security conditions in museums and other collections and to reduce the cost of insurance, particularly c L l tural property. when international exhibitions are held. To this end, an international recommendation was pre- pared and adopted by the General Conference at its twentieth session in 1978. It recommends that Member States should adopt a series of measures aimed in particular at strengthening security systems in museums and similar institu- tions, at improving the protection of private collections, religious buildings and archaeologi- cal sites, eliminating risks during transportation and temporary exhibitions and at combating such crimes against cultural property as theft, illegal excavations and acts of vandalism. It also recommends the adoption by museums or simi- lar institutions of a risk management pro- gramme to enable them to secure the best possi- ble insurance terms from the point of view of cover and cost, as well as the establishment of total or partial governmental guarantees to cover risks incurred during temporary exhibi- tions or other loans of cultural property for cul- tural purposes. It was in this context that a first meeting of experts was organized in Venice in 1976. This meeting marked the first international contribu- tion towards conceptualizing the issues involved and defining the action required. Its final report underlined the need to create a world-wide cli- mate of opinion to encourage at all levels the possibility of restituting or returnin cultural suggested that an intergovernmental organ be created for t h i s purpose. At its nineteenth ses- sion (1976) the General Conference accepted the proposal and defined the type of body that would contribute most rapidly and efficiently to achieving the desired objective. This marked the completion of the first phase in the elabora- tion of an international framework. What were the measures taken by the Direc- tor-General in 1977-78, during the second phase leading to the situation before us toda 1 So as to fulfil the mandate handed to him, t i e Director-General attempted first of all to sensi- tize public opinion as well as that of the special- ists concerned. He addressed a special message to the twelfth General Assembly of ICOM held in Moscow in May 1977 which appealed to the members of that body ‘to help disinheri- ted countries to constitute representative collec- tions of their heritage and to facilitate bilateral governmental negotiations in this field‘. The General Assembly subsequently decided to ‘assist in the restitution or return to their coun- property to its countries of origin. T a e experts60 3J NATIONAL MUSEUM, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. The Minister for Education, Science and Culture and the Director of the National Museum of Papua New Guinea together with the New Zealand High Commissioner looking at a Yupin figure used during initiation rites Enga Province), a Zealand, Wellington. donation from the Nation d Museum of New tries of origin of the most significant objects’ and entrusted an nd hoc committee set up for the purpose to study the various teclanical aspects of the question and in particular ‘to define an ethical code on the restitution or return of such objects’. We must not forget the solemn appeal laun- ched by the Birector-General on 7 June 197 8, the text of which is reproduced in the Appen- dix, page S 8, intended to draw the attention of governments, of the various professional circles involved, and of the general public to the importance for the countries of origin of the return of objects which are of crucial signifi- cance for the spiritual values and cultural heri- tage of the people concerned. He sent this appeal to all Unesco’s Member States and Associate Members, inviting them to conduct a publicity campaign in order to create a favour- able climate of opinion for the measures to be taken in this sphere. In order to facilitate this task, Unesco published in its various periodicals information on the nature, scope and ethical basis of the action which should be undertaken in this field and organized in Europe and Asia a number of seminars on this theme for journalists. While these measures began to generate at best an acute awareness of the problems involved- if not a unanimously favourable worldwide climate of opinion-the Secretariat pursued its task of creating an intergovernmental com- mittee. ICOM collaborated actively in studies concerning not only the various historical, museo- logical and legal aspects of the question (see Appendix, page 62) but also the means of action and the method of work of the proposed body. A meeting in Dakar in March 1978, in which thirteen experts from as many Member States took part, together with an observer from ICOM, stressed that ‘the main princi- ples for the return or restitution of cultural property are based on the combined notions of the reassembly of dispersed heritages-the aim being to ensure the return to its country of origin of cultural property which has a fundamental significance from the point of view of the spiritual values and the cultural heritage of the people-and of the primacy of the object-implying that certain conditions of protection and conservation should pre- vail and that the objects returned be used for cultural purposes and made accessible to-as many people as possible in the country of origin’. The suggestions made by the experts concerning the draft statutes of the intergo- vernmental committee were included in the text submitted to the General Conference at its twentieth session in the autumn of 1978. On this occasion, the ‘restitution or return’ question was the subject of one of the most lively debates. A special working group of the Culture and Communication Commission of the Conference patiently worked out, after an in-depth plenary debate had made clear all the various national positions, a revised draft ver- sion of the statutes providing for an Intergo- vernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation. This initiative is a response to the Director- General’s appeal for a true spirit of solidarity61 and international co-operation. It is a major step forward no doubt, but still only a begin- ning. The Intergovernmental Committee must above all strive to create a favourable interna- tional climate, freed of misconceptions, m i s u n - derstandings and unjustified fears of one kind or another. The following twenty Member States were elected members of the committee: Belgium, Bolivia, Congo, Cuba, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Senegal, Spain, Thailand, U.S.S.R. and Yugo- slavia. Defined in its Statutes as an advisory body whose services will be available to Member States and Associate Members of Unesco, the committee will seek ways and means of facilita- ting bilateral negotiations on the basis of offers and requests formulated by States themselves. Multilateral co-operation will also be promoted, together with research and studies for the estab- lishment of coherent programmes for the consti- tution of representative collections in countries whose cultural heritage has been dispersed. Other domains of activity will be ublic infor- training of scientific and technical personnel wherever necessary to assure pro er safeguard of returned objects, promotion ofinternational exchanges and finally, general guidance to Unesco for the execution of its programme in this area. The committee will meet in regular plenary session at least once and not more than twice every two years; its secretariat will be provided by the Director-General of Unesco. The preparation of the first meeting of the mation, encouraging museum deve P opment and committee in 1979 will not preclude, naturally, the use of the Director-General’s good offices to facilitate effective return of cultural property whenever the possibility arises. In parallel, a new Museum Exchange Programme (MUSEP) created by ICOM will promote co-operation among museums, particularly to reinforce conservation infrastructures and inventories of cultural roperty and to effect exchanges of ob- jects as &reseen by the 1976 Recommendation on the International Exchange of Cultural Property . 36 RIJKSMUSEUM VOOR VOLKENKUNDE, Leiden. The Indonesian Ambassador, the Directors of Cultural Affairs of Indonesia and the Netherlands and the Director of the Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde, Leiden, taking part in a ceremony to commemorate the return of the Lombok treasures to Indonesia (Leiden, 1 July 1977).62 Prepared by the A d Hoc Gommitte appointed by the Executive Council of ICOM: H. Ganslmayr, H. Landais, G. Lewis, P. Makambila, P. N. Perrot, J. W. Pré and J. Vistel INTRODUCTION 1. Unesco has the International Gound of Muse~rm to conduct a study on the PrindPal Problems% and Possible raised by the restitution or return of cultural property lost in consequence of colonial os are involved. foreign occupation. 6. The authors of this study have thus con- stantly kept in mind the idea that a world C ' J m u n i ~ essential goal is to make the public aware of the the culturd heritage is an essential element of world-wide cultural heritage as a whole whi& national identity, and that. people must have is in accordance the objectives of TJnesco's at their disposal the objects that are irreP- Constitution. l[t &,o seemed to them that, since laceable testimonies of their heritage. This is a the position of requesting Problem Of solidarity which concerns not O'{ ]ssown, it was preferable to focus on the prob- States at war or former colonial powers, but a lems raised for the countries which have directly or indirectly, and property by its restitution and return. These lat- more Often that were legal at the ter are most directly concerned by the practical time, profited from and sometimes taken undue solutions en+agd to this problem. F ~ ~ J ~ , it advantage of the dispersion of these patrimo- w;u be that ICOM, as a non-govern- nies. mental international organization, has studied 3. This Problem is not new. We need not go this matter from strictly scientific (with priority back to the l 8 l 5 Con!Tess of Vienna to see to the object) and cultural (the concern for the that solutions to this problem have been found dissemination of values transcending in the Past, either b o u g h bilateral agreements national identities) points of view. At the stage between States Or1 more co"o'Y~ of practical solutions, i t is none the less un- agreements between a method which deniable that effectiveness WU be far greater and the success of restitution or return guaran- has-proved to be efficient. 4. The scale Of the Problem is however no teed if these problems are entrusted to specia- longer the Same and we now to lists and professionals in the conservation of those peoples which have been deprived of the works of art and ,.ulmal propeq. fundamental elements of their cultural heritage. ideas in mind, this study As the Director-General of Unesco recalled in has been divided into sections: the first is 1977: ''Ome have lost almost a' the "- devoted to the princip1i.s and conditions of the Pr0PeT that constitutes a vital Of restitution or return of cultural property, and their a message handed the second to an analysis of the obstacles to be down from their aSt?kese Peoples call for an Overcome and the measures to be implemented 197 7-80 triennial programme, the Internatio- nal Council of Museums has stated that, in P R I N C I P L E S A N D C O N D I T I O N S o p T H E accordance with these Unesco concerns, the R E S T I T U T I O N OR R E T U R N OF policy pursued in this area should be part of an C U L T U R A L P R O P E R T Y T O I T S C O U N T R Y international code of ethics. 5 . It is obvious that th i s policy should not result in the disappearance of the major institu- tions that have played an essential role in science and in disseminating culture, and whose very mission consists in presenting a synthesis of universal culture; thus, more and more, the important museums are presenting works of art, permanent ambassadors of Mrican, Asian or Latin American cultures, which bear testimony to and reflect these civilizations and in this way assure closer and more fertile relations among different cultures. The major museums are not the o d y Ones concerned; a great number of small museums in precise 2. Through its international instances, the considers that is quite holding 7. ~~~i~~ memo understanding o P their loss.' Therefore, in its end. O P O R I G I N 8. Taking as a basis the work accomplished by the Committee of Experts which met under the auspices of Unesco in Venice in April 1976 and the exchange of views that took place on that occasion, the authors of this reporr have found it nearly impossible to establish time and space limits for restitutions or returns that are desi-rable. It would certainly be unrealistic to go back indefinitely into the past, and thus be confronted with the hazards of national history and the succession of States. But it is equally true that the community of nations now consi- ders as an element of jas cogerts the right of all peoples to recover cultural property which forms an integral part of their cultural identity. This contradiction is only apparent if we consi- der that the unique goal to attain is to reconsti- tute a given heritage which has been dispersed and it is clear, therefore, that the problems must be considered in their entirety, without estab- lishing strict limits. 9. The principles can thus be based on the double notion of the coherence of reconstituted heritage and the primacy of the object. The cohereme of reconstitilted heritage 10. The goal is to assure the return to their countries of origin of those objects and docu- ments which are indispensable to people in understanding their origin and culture. I I. We must thus be sure that restitutions and returns cover all the categories defined by the Committee of Experts in Venice in 1976: (a) objects and documentation of ethnological interest; (b) works of fine art and decorative art; (c archives and documents; (d) palaeonto- lo@ 1 and archaeological objects ; and (e) zoo- logical, botanical and mineralogical specimens.' 12. Only those objects which have an essen- tial socio-cultural value for the countries in ques- tion should be subject to a request for restitution or return. In this respect, it is necessary to guard systematically against obsession with the masterpiece, the appreciation of which is often transitory, and the value too often strictly aes- thetic and even often more commercial than cul- tural. It is therefore necessary to give absolute priority to objects which find their meaning in the identity of the people: objects of ethnogra- phic interest or of historical or religious impor- tance. It is equally desirable and recom- mendable that countries relinquish certain objects which can only take on their full and true cultural meaning when they are replaced in their original context. 13 . It must be emphasized, nevertheless, that the question whether an ob'ect belongs to of attribution, to which even historians do not always have the solutions. Such is the case of masterpieces used by several cultures in succes- sion, and which are part of another national cul- ture. In this respect, one can cite the obelisks of Rome or the Chinese vases utilized by artists in the eighteenth century or the profound in- fluence of African art on the techniques of painting in the twentieth century. The principle of dissemination and interrelation of cultural values, advocated by Unesco, thus comes once more to the fore. 14. Finally, one cannot hide the fact that the notion itself of country of origin is often ambi- guous. I t can in fact indicate the country in which the work was created, the country of which its author is a national or the last country to hold the object prior to its removal. Due to the course of history, the changing of national boundaries and State succession, the three ele- ments do not always coincide and contempor- ary events show that the partitioning of States still takes place. 15. In the light of the preceding observa- tions, it would seem highly desirable that stu- a certain culture or not poses di f' ficult problems dies be undertaken to: determine those coun- tries which have undergone the most heavy Ilosses, so that the efforts of the international community can first be directed towards them; draw up an inventory of the objects remaining in the country of origin and of the measures taken for their identification, conservation and accessibility to the public-it is indeed certain that requests for restitution or return made for each category of objects will inevitably be h- ked to the findings of these studies and the weight of the arguments presented, such an in- ventory will also be very useful in the struggle against illicit traffic; draw up for each country of origin and each category, an inventory of objects existing in different collections in coun- tries other than the country of origin. 16. Finally, it should be emphasized that the requests for restitution will be considered all the more justified if it is clearly shown that the goal is to reconstitute essential parts of a dispersed heritage. This implies that requests should take into consideration, without prejudice, all the socio-cultural, religious and regional factors of the country of origin. 17. Without anticipating the necessary means which are indicated later in this study, it is necessa to lay stress from the outset on basis that such a policy will imply for the spe- cialists in the countries concerned. International assistance will be a prerequisite. the considera 7 le volume of work on a long-term Pyivzaq of the object 18. For those in charge of cultural heritage, the raison d'être for their professional ethics is to ensure its conservation, dissemination and trans- mission. If a policy for the restitution or return of cultural property is to be fully successful, cer- tain conditions must prevail, namely those nor- mally observed and repeatedly recommended by competent international organizations (ICOM, ICOMOS). 19. The principle of the object's primacy has in fact a, triple aspect: It is first a question of ensuring its conservation and security in accordance with the essential vocation of museums. Already a certain num- ber of countries requesting the restitution or return of objects have appropriate institutions which offer satisfactory conditions for the returned objects. If they do not exist in the country receiving the objects, serious studies should be undertaken with a view to creating such institutions. To implement a policy of wide scope re uires more extensive interna- tional technica? assistance than is at present available; the modalities of such assistance will be set forth in the next chapter. Secondly, it is a question of ensuring as far as possible that the objects are used for essen- tially cultural purposes, and that they are accessible to as many people as possible in the country of origin. This proposal obviously does not exclude the use of certain objects for p oses other than public exhibi- tion, such a s 3 r example, scientific research. But in general, it is hardly desirable that a returned object be reserved for purely private use. Finally, the policy of restitution and return is based on the idea that certain objects belong to the inalienable and imprescriptible heri- tage of a nation. It is thus indispensable that the country of origin ensure complete legal protection for the returned objects. 1. At its twentieth session (1978), the General Conference of Unesco adopted a resolution (Records ofthe General Coiference, Vol. 1) modifying this list as follows: 'cultural property shall be taken to denote historical and ethnographic objects and documents including manuscripts, works of the plastic and decorative arts, palaeontological and archaeological objects and zoological, botanical and mineralogical specimens'2. See the following works in particular: Unesco, ‘Climatologie er Conservation dans les MusCeslClimatology and Conservation in Museums’, Mmezim, Vol. 13, No 4, 1960, p. 202-89, ill., bibliog.; Robert L. Feller, ‘Contrôle des Effets Détériorants de la Lumière sur les Objets de Muste/Control of Deteriorating Effects of Light upon Museum Obects’, Mziseam, Vol. 17, No 2, 1964, p. 57-98, d., bibliogr.; Robert G. Tillotson, in: Diana D. Menkes (ed.), Maseunt SectiritylLa Séczirite’dans les Mu&, Paris, ICOM, 1977, 244 p., ill., bibliog. ; Committee of Experts on Insurance and Other Forms of Coverage of Risks to Works of Art (8-12 July 1974, Paris). ‘Guidelines for Loans’, Final Report, Paris, Unesco, 1974, 21 p. 20. Therefore (and this deontological principle is well known among museum professionals) any effective policy for restitution or return should never lose sight of the threefold requisite of protection, accessibility to the public and transmission of the objects. In no case should an object restituted or returned be subject to conservation conditions that do not meet inter- national standards.l While this fundamental principle could not justify a refusal to restitute property, it would, in many cases, necessitate the training of specialized personnel and the set- ting up of adequate facilities with, if need be, international assistance. OBSTACLES TO BE OVERCOME AND MEANS TO BE DEPLOYED 21. Taking into account the wide variety of possible cases of restitution or return, and the multiple difficulties they imply, it would be tõtally unrealistic and artificial to present pre- cise and systematic guidelines. In this field, practically each case is a special one, and it seems preferable to record both the main obstacles that those in charge will have to surmount as well as the ways and means of achieving a positive result. 22. There are essentially three obstacles to be overcome: information gaps, psychological difficulties and legal obstacles. In each case there exists a solution, in which Unesco’s role is vital. InJ5ormation gdps 23. The first need is for international public opinion to become aware of both the impor- tance of the problem and of its implications. In this area, Unesco has a fundamental role to play, taking as models the campaigns previously launched in favour of major cultural objectives. The proposed campaign would be supported by the mass media, and would give a large amount of publicity to those cases of restitution already accomplished yet remaining relatively un- known, which can be instructive for future cases. This campaign should be directed not only towards countries holding possession of objects being claimed, to show them the ethical and cultural value of this movement, but also to the countries of origin, so as to inform them of existing solutions and also of the real difficulties implied by their claims. 24. The appeal to international public opi- nion previously mentioned will only produce positive results if co-operation among museum officials is at the same time strengthened. This effort to inform should first of all apply to requesting countries which suffer from serious lacunae in the precise knowledge and inventory of transfers of their cultural wealth as well as its current dispersion throughout the world. Requesting countries should be enabled to draw up a coherent restitution programme so as to re- assemble the heritage which is representative of their national culture. 25. One must admit that there is often a serious inadequacy of means (human as well as financial and technical) available to make the inventory of and evaluate the cultural heritage remaining in the country, which serves as necessary terms of reference for programming requests for restitution. All the more serious are the difficulties involved in obtaining detailed data on individual objects being considered for restitution (their present whereabouts, their scientific value and legal status in the country holding possession of the object). 26. It is therefore indispensable that museums holding collections make them acccs- sible to researchers from the country of origin. If the latter are too few in number, experts should be made available to museums request- ing restitution, or in certain cases, training cour- ses should be set up in liaison with the major museums in various countries. This is an example of the fundamental role that ICOM, and above all Unesco, could play in technical assistance. Priority should first be given to documenting and taking inventory of the needs and objects that are lacking so as to set up a coherent programme to reconstitute the disper- sed heritage; in a spirit of co-operation and soli- darity, this effort should concern the countries holding possession of the objects as well as those requesting their restitution. Psychological &ficdties 27. Certain psychological difficulties are lin- ked to the incriminating aspects of the act of restitution because this act implies that the pos- session of the object was up till then illegiti- mate. A good number of countries and private owners would accept with difficulty to be pla- ced in the position of the accused, since the objects in question were added to their collec- tions by means that were legal and legitimate at the time, and since they could well, it seems, invoke the principle of non-retroactivity Insti- tutions currently holding possession of claimed cultural property often express concern for the property s preservation and conservation, which they feel may be jeopardized upon return to the country of origin. Without dwelling on the motives for such an argument, it admittedly constitutes a major psychological obstacle in obtaining positive results in restitution cases. 28. Without attempting systematically to transpose the most complete legal systems for the protection of cultural property, the existence of precise rules in the country of origin concern- ing the inalienability and imprescriptibility of museum objects would certainly help develop within the countries holding possession of the property a favourable attitude towards the prin- ciple of restitution or return. It cannot be denied that unfortunate precedents have some- times led one to doubt that these principles have been rigorously applied. None the less, most countries are currently reinforcing legal protec- tion for their cultural pro erty on a domestic as the Accra Conference and the recommendation of African countries for reinforcing protective legislation for heritage). This effort, as one of the best guarantees for success in the field of restitution or return, should be pursued and further developed. The concern for security is also present in matters concerning museum installations stricto sensu; the conservation of objects stricto sensu or their protection against theft and fire for in- stance requires a minimal amount of technical installations; costly reliminary studies and suf- ficient financial bac K ’ g are undeniably necess- ary. Consequently, certain nations will only be able to overcome this handicap through interna- tional technical assistance and financial aid from major multilateral aid organizations. Lastly, this security policy will have a lasting effect only if accompanied by the training of specialized per- sonnel who should benefit as much as possible from foreign experiences. Mere also is an open field of action for co-operation between museum institutions and international organiza- well as an international P eve1 (cf. in particulartions and, in particular, ICOM. All of these psychological difficulties can thus be overcome. It is obvious and in accordance with Unesco resolutions that the implementa- tion of possible solutions cannot be a pre-condi- tion for negotiations in view of the restitution or return of property to its country of origin. The authors of this report merely wanted to call attention to some of the reasons that are likely to be brought up in the course of possible nego- tiations and which might sometimes jeopardize a positive outcome. Legal obstacles 29. The Unesco Committee of Experts which met in Venice in 1976 recognized that ’the constitutional and legislative situation at present constitutes in many countries the most powerful obstacle to action in this field. A certain number of solutions can none the less be prepared. 30. The object claimed is very often the pro- perty of the State or of a public collectivity, which means that it is subject to rigorous rules concerning derestriction. In the case of coun- tries like France, Italy or the United Kingdom, for example, the property title of an object registered on the inventory of a public museum can only be transferred by passing a law voted by the national parliament. Resorting to such a procedure could only be exceptional, and the political difficulties implied would make osi tive results rather illusory. Difficulties are al! th; greater in the case of museums owned by local collectivities, which in this field have great autonomy in regard to State power. In such cases, the State can only have recourse to means of persuasion and not to coercion. 31. It would thus be preferable that the transfer of property remain relatively exceptio- nal, given, on the one hand, the serious legal and political difficulties involved in this dure, and on the other hand, the availabi&Z technical methods which are much more flexible and easier to implement at the simple level of museum institutions, and which lead to practi- cally identical results. Such is the case for long- term loans, in particular, which are renewable ad aetemum by tacit agreement (this method has been used in the recent past, in particular at the time of the agreement between France and Algeria in 1968). Two examples have thus pro- ved that museum collections completely des- troyed by war can be fully reassembled by resorting to this method and to the solidarity of foreign museums; they are the cases of Faenza in Italy and Warsaw. 32. Finally, in some cases, certain obstacles or hesitations which seem insurmountable could be overcome through exchange procedures; this system could be applied, for example, when the need arises to complete a collection or series. The requesting country would receive an object which is of fundamental importance to its heri- tage in exchange for an object that is either a duplicate ‘or .j, equivalent to other objects remaining in its possession. 33. The problems raised by the return of claimed cultural property are much more com- plicated to resolve, whether they are owned by a private party or by an institution. In a good number of countries concerned with pos- sible cases of restitution or return, the right of ownershi is guaranteed and protected at a high juridical [vel if not b the Constitution or Bill would be inconceivable for the federal govern- ment to decide that an object should be resti- of Rights. For examp T e, in the United States it tuted to its country of origin by a private museum or one owned by a local community. In France or the United Kingdom it is hardly thinkable that the State could resort to a method of public expropriation for the benefit of a foreign country. Entire legal systems would have to be overturned, and public opinion in the countries concerned would certainly find this unacceptable. 34. On the other hand, certain ob’ects clai- med might be the property of a pubic or pri- vate museum, but through the donation or legacy of a private party, they may be subject to precise conditions or designations which must be respected, otherwise the donation would be null and void and the objects would have to be returned to their heirs. These condi- tions are often ve strict: obligation to exhibit remove the object from the museum even for a temporary exhibition, etc. 3 j. Thus, the authors of this report strongly emphasize that restitution or return of an object belonging to a private party will only be pos- sible, in a good number of countries, through the goodwill of the owners. Coercive interven- tion on the part of the State is illusory and cer- tainly unenforceable without a complete uphea- val of the existing political and legal systems. 36. A certain number of solutions can none the less be envisaged. Many privately owned objects that are likely to be claimed by the country of origin will sooner or later appear on the art market. In many cases, purchasing the article will be the sole means of ensuring its return. In this regard, it is recalled that several States have the right of preemption at public sales held on their terri- tory, which gives them by law a prior claim over the rights of the last purchaser, on condi- tion of compensating the latter (cf. for example, the 192 1 French law). It could thus be envisa- ged that, through bilateral conventions, the right of preemption may be exercised to the advantage of a foreign State when cultural pro- perty forming an integral part of its cultural heritage and identity appears for sale at a public auction. Financial assistance in acquiring such objects on a foreign market may constitute one of the missions of the special fund, the creation of which is considered later. In accordance with the spirit and text of the 1970 convention on the repression of illicit traffic of works of art, it is considered as a general legal principle that the bona fide pur- chaser of property that was illegitimately taken from its country of origin has the right to equi- table compensation. In principle, this expense is to be borne by the requesting State, but this may prove extremely difficult for young nations. Through Unesco’s direct intervention in the process of restitution or return, the fears of cer- tain private donors concerning the future of the object in question, and its eventual use might be dissipated. Briefly, the donor would give the property claimed to Unesco, wllich would be responsible for ensuring its return to the country of origin and guaranteeing that the property was finally placed and used for cultural purpo- ses, in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations General Assembly resolution 31.48 on promoting and spreading cultural values by making them accessible to all. UNESCO’S ROLE in a given room o 7 the museum; prohibition to 3 7. The authors of this report have many times66 felt that the lack of international mechanisms for catalysing and facilitating co-operation between countries and museum institutions in view of restitution or return of cultural property was one of the greatest difficulties encountered. Consequently, the mission to be accomplished is vital. In pursuance of the proposals made at the meeting of experts in Venice in April 1976 (item 2 5 of the final report) and accepted at the nineteenth session of Unesco’s General Confe- rence in Nairobi (October-November 1976), an international committee for the reconstitu- tion of dispersed patrimonies should be set up, under the auspices of Unesco. The missions and work erformed by this committee could serve as a l a m e of reference and possibly even as catalysing agents for parallel bilateral negotia- tions and co-operation between museums of dif- ferent countries. The committee would perform a valuable role by carrying out studies and advising the Director-General. It is in this way, and by actively sup orting action taken by the truly effective. The terms of reference and composition of the future committee should be clearly defined from the outset. The duration of the mandate should preferably be limited to a ten-year period so that maximum speed and efficiency in its actions can be assured and long-drawn-out action avoided. The committee should also be composed of a limited number of participants, fifteen at the most, who would be a pointed by the General Conference. They shoufd be individuals particu- larly competent from a scientific point of view. The committee’s composition should be suffi- ciently multidisciplinary to cover the wide range of problems (legal as well as strictly cultu- ral) raised by restitution and return. The committee’s first mission would be to assure overall coherence in restitution opera- tions. To this end, it would play a documentary role for the different parties involved, and would conduct all necessary studies-technical, legal and scientificat the request of museums or on its own initiative; it would keep itself in- formed of restitution or return programmes set up for the reassembly of dispersed patrimonies as well as the progress of current bilateral nego- tiations. A special fund, financed through voluntary contributions, wodd be the committee’s best tool of action. This would, in particular, give the committee three courses of action: To offer technical assistance by financing either expert contracts, personnel training sessions, or pre-investment in studies necessary for improving certain museum installations. To exercise a logistic funtion by contributing in particular to insurance and transport expen- ses involved in restitution or return opera- tions. Finally, in certain circumstances, to contribute to financing the acquisition of cultural pro- perty. Several technical methods are possible: the fund could first play the role of treasury for countries of origin, by advancing funds chat would ultimately be reimbursed; this aid would be valuable since the very nature of transactions in this field hin programming for future ac if one can be assured of a s for this purpose. The fund could also, in cer- tain circumstances, grant non-reimbursable acquisition subventions under terms that WO@ vary according to, for example, the Director-General t g at the committee can be property’s interest and its meaning within the context of the programme of reconstitution of the cultural heritage of the country con- cerned. One must not overlook the fact that the effecti- veness will strictly depend on the speed with which these efforts are pursued, and will rely on the constant circulation of information among museum officials. ICOM’s National Commit- tees could play a fundamental informative role, acting as agents, if need be. The Director-General could rely on this com- mittee to bring about and facilitate negotiations for multilateral agreements for the regrouping of collections or for the reconstitution of an ensemble of cultural objects which was formerly homogeneous but is today dispersed. In all events, the Director-General of Unesco is called on to play a major role not only by facilitating bilateral agreements, but by offering his good offices to Member States c&ng on his aid. These particular initiatives cannot of course be separated from the general mission entrusted to him at the Nairobi General Conference, i.e. ‘to bring about a state of mind conducive to the return of cultural property to the country of origin’. CONCLUSION 38. The reassembly of dispersed heritage through restitution or return of objects which are of major importance for the cultural identity and history of countries having been deprived thereof, is now considered to be an ethical prin- ciple recognized and affirmed by the major in- ternational organizations. This principle will soon become an element of jw cogens of international relations. 39. Finally, one should recall the principle which is constantly emphasized during meetings devoted to this problem, i.e. that the restitution or return of cultural property to the country of origin should be determined in each case through bilateral negotiations. These would take place at different levels of responsibility, often at the very highest. It should be emphasi- zed, none the less, that in many cases mere dis- cussions and agreements between museums con- cerned and other scientific institutions of the countries in question will lead to positive results without it being necessary to call systematically on governmental authorities. 40. It is a matter of course that this latter mechanism of negotiation cannot be isolated from the general context in which the problem of restitution or return is placed and that inter, national organizations, governmental or non- governmental, will play a major role in this cause. It WU be up to them, in particular, not only to ensure co-ordination and coherence, which are indispensable for success in this type of policy, but also to make sure that the funda- mental principles of cultural accessibility and the preservation of works are respected and that the latter are facilitated and reinforced. And finally, it will be their role to help improve mutual understanding by the parties concerned of their respective problems. Such has been the desired general philosophy of the principles and means of action indicated in this report.Authors JEANNINE AUBOYER Conservateur-en-Chef of the Musée Guimet (Department of Asiatic Arts of the National Museums), Paris. Titular professor at the École du Louvre since 1965 ; previously responsible for research at the National Centre of Scientific Research. Since 1956, has carried out about ten missions to India and Democratic Kampuchea, under the sponsorship of the Ecole Française d'Extrême-Orient and Unesco. Author of some ten books and important contributions to international encyclopedias (Escyclopaedia Universalis, Encyclopaedia Britannica) as well as numerous articles of an informative or scientific nature. EKPO EYO M.A. in social anthropology (Cambridge University, United Kingdom). Post-graduate academic diploma in prehistoric archaeology (Institute of Archaeology, University of London). Ph.D. in archaeology (Ibadan University). Has been vice-chairman of the Museums Association of Tropical Africa (AMAT-MATA), vice-chairman of the Commonwealth Association of Museums and a trustee of the Leakey Foundation. Director of the Nigerian Federal Department of Antiquities since 1968. Archaeological excavations at Rop, Ife and Owo. Author of numerous articles on archaeology, ethnography and history of art and of the work: Two Thoasand Years Nigerian Art, Lagos, Federal Department of Antiquities, 1977. HERBERT GANSLMAYR Studies in Ethnology, .Egyptology, Ancient History in Munich and Basle (Switzerland); Ph.D. in 1965. From 1965 to 1968: lecturer in ethnology at Munich University. From 1969 to 197 1 : field-work in southern Nigeria. From 1971 to 1975: curatorofthe Ethnographic Dyartment and since 1975 director of the Uberseemuseum, Bremen, where he is responsible for the rebuilding of the museum and the reorgariization of its galleries. Chairman of the ICOM International Committee for Ethnography Museums. Member of the ICOM Executive Council. P. H. D. H. DE SILVA B.Sc. (Cey.), Ph.D. (Wales). Director, Department of National Museums, Sri Lanka, since 196 5 , Head of the Division of Zoology of the Colombo National Museum from 19 5 1 to 1965. Is a zoologist, conducting research on the biology, ecology and taxonomy of marine annelids and reptiles. His research findings were published in Spolia Zeylanica, the Natioital Mtiseuin Research Bulletin and in several other journals abroad. Author of A Catalogue of Antiquities and other Cultural Objects f r o m Sri Lat1k.a (Ceyloiz) Abroad (1975, 506 p.). Member of ICOM. Has also participated in several Unesco projects. LUIS MONREAL Former acting director of the Marés Museum, Barcelona; ex-professor of museology at Barcelona University (1 970-7 3). Member of various archaeological missions in Nubia, Sudan, Egypt and Morocco (1962-66). Secretary-general of ICOM since 1974. Author of numerous works on art and archaeology and particularly a study in seven volumes on collections of paintings in the museums of various countries. TAYEB MOULEFERA Law degree, higher diploma in political science. Director (I 969) of the National Army Museum and member of the Algerian National Commission for Monuments and Sites; member of the National Council of Scientific Research and of the National Council of Archives ; director-general of the National Museum at Moudjahid up to June 1978. Vice-chairman of the ICOM International Committee for Archaeology and History; member of the ICOM Executive Council. BARBARA PHILIPPAKI Graduated from Athens University (1 940). Diploma in classical archaeology (Oxford University, 1948) and doctor of philosophy with the thesis The Attic Stamnos (Oxford University, 1950). Member of Princeton Institute for Advanced Study (195 1-52). Entered the Greek Archaeological Service in 1956. Epimelete of Antiquities in Samos, Ephor in Delphi, Thebes and National Museum of Athens (assistant director and then director). At present, general Ephor of antiquities in the National Museum. Has organized exhibitions in the museums of Brauron, Marathon, Chios; also the temporary exhibitions of vases of Thera and of The Child iiz Antipig1 in the National Museum. PETER H. P o n Studied indology at universities of Utrecht and Leiden (Ph.D. and D.Litt. (Leiden), 1946). Thesis: Yoga and Yaiztra. Keeper, Indian Department, Rijksmuseum voor Vokenkunde, Leiden, 1947-54, director from 195 5 to date. Museum consultant for Unesco-museological missions in 19 5 8 and 19 5 9 in Liberia, and 1968 in Nepal. Professor of museology, University of Leiden, from 1974 to date. Has published various books and articles on Buddhist archaeology and iconography of India, Tibet and Indonesia; monographs on Tibetan art and culture, articles on general museum policy, and (in Dutch) on visual perception about alien cultures, under the title Naar Wijder HoriTon, 1 9 6 2. LOUIS-JACQUES ROLLET-ANDRIANE B.A. degrees in arts and law (1940-43). Diploma of Higher Studies (Far Eastern Literatye, 1944) at Lyon Universi of the Ecole Libre des Sciences Pz$:?ma (Centre de Lyon, 1940-44). Permanent consultant to the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property, Rome. From 1967 to 197 3, special representative of the Director-General of Unesco in Rome, responsible for conducting the International Campaign for the Safeguarding of Florence and Venice. From 1956 to 1967, responsible for drawing up and carrying out a programme of universiv relations and cultural exchanges between member countries of the South-East Asia Treaty Organization, and later for organizing the whole administration of the Organization. Publication: Sauver Venise (Paris Unesco, 1970). JIM SPECHT Curator of anthropology (Oceania) at the Australian Museum, Sydney. Undergraduate studies in classics and archaeology at Cambridge University, United Kingdom. Ph.D. in 1970 at the Australian National University. Primarily an archaeologist, working in the Papua New Guinea islands and north coast. MOHAMMAD AMIR SUTAARGA Studied law and anthropology at the University of Indonesia, Jakarta, graduated in 1963. Has donemuseum work since 1948; studied museology at the National Museum of Ethnology, Leiden (195 5-56). Director of the Central Museum of Indonesia, 1962-7 5 ; Director of the Institute for National Museums (1964-66); Director, Directorate of Museums, Directorate General of Culture (1966 to date). Chief editor of Maseograja, a quarterly published by the Directorate of Museums since 1966. Author of Mtueum Problems in Indonesia (1 962) and Capita Selecta, Mziseography and , Mrmology, Vol. I and II. HUGUETTE VAN GELUWE Graduated at the State University, Ghent (History Department); joined the MRAC in 1949, appointed by the IRCB (now the Académie Royale des Sciences d'Outre-Mer) to the Ethnographical Documentation D Central African societies. Moved to the Ethnography Department in 1958, took charge of the management of its collections and their museographical and scientific presentation. Organized the exhibition on traditional art in Central Africa in Rome ( 19 5 9) and Copenhagen (1960), and worked on a number of important international exhibitions such as those held at Dakar (1 9 57) and Algiers (1969). Has published various articles and contributed to several catalogues. Is a regular lecturer in extra-European arts at the Institut Supérieur de l'Histoire de l'Art et d'Archéologie, Brussels. Missions in Africa. Research missions in Melanesia, Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America. artment, where she was given the special tas Y of producing monographs on certain Photo credits 1, Unesco, Michel Claude; 2, Collection Gallimard; 3, F. L. Kennett; 4-7 Nigerian museums; 8-22, Colombo National Museum; 12-16, The Trustees, Australian Museum, Sydney; 17-21,34, Musée Royal d'Afrique Centrale, Tervuren; 22, 23, 31, Photo-Commissie, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam; 24-29, Musée Guimet, Paris; PU, Unesco /P. A. Pittet; 31, Oakland Museum, United States; 32,39, Patrimonio Nacional Histórico, Panama.Programming for museums i Tom Hume Editorid Per Kâks ~ntrod2~ction THEORETICAL ASPECTS C h d e Pecquet ~r0gr~qnm~ng-a tool at the service of the curator, the ~onzmissioning &uthorio mad yrne the architect Smita J. Bard Cr&s Mujeum d t New Yani Herremann Using historic monuments as irnuseums (Mexico City, Oaxaca, Guddaldjdrdj Germaine Pelegrin ~ r o g r ~ m ~ i ~ g and the Louvre David W. Scott Dieter Ronte James A. M. Bell Claude Mollard The new baildiBg of the Natiotial Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. ~nst&ll~tìon f the Wd/rdplRichdrQ ~ 2 ~ s e u ~ l ~ ~ ~ d w i g &!kseum, Cologne The Museum of London The eorges ~ompidou Cetitre of A r t and Calture, Pdris Louas Valensi The 1 Mz~seum of AqaitaiTze, Bordeaux Raymond O. Harrison The eer and District Museam in Albert&