So, remember how we talked about that little “blunder born of racism”? You know, the one where actual Egyptians weren’t even allowed to study Egyptology? For this reason and others, many people think that even objects obtained through partage, especially “important” objects, should be repatriated. Even if they were obtained legally, it is argued, Egyptians weren’t part of the decision making. Going even further, Egypt has an inherent right to reclaim artifacts no matter what the circumstances; some objects just should be in Egypt. (although this is by no means a claim unique to Egypt!)
Here, I think, we see an additional reason the MFA has put up signs explaining how they have these objects – to convince us that the MFA has a right to keep the artifacts. Arguably, to convince us that the MFA has a right to keep a very particular artifact – the Bust of Prince Ankhhaf.
In April 2007 Zahi Hawass (former Egyptian Minister of Antiquities and History Channel super-star) demanded the return of the Bust of Prince Ankhhaf. Hawass acknowledged that the bust was acquired legally, but still argued that ethically the piece should be in Egypt. Today, Mohamed Saleh hopes that the bust will hold a prominent position in the new museum, set to open in 2013 “in the shadow” of the Giza pyramids.
I am certainly not one to say that objects acquired through partage should be unquestionably immune to repatriation requests. However, Zahi’s demand lumps objects acquired through partage in with objects that were looted; these are very different circumstances, and we should be careful treat them as such. It risks slandering museums that may actually be taking steps to enact more ethical acquisition and retention/repatriation policies. Even more so, it risks devaluing the importance of having a definite, archaeological context and ignores the amount of damage that is wreaked by true looting.
Blustering propaganda aside, does he have a point? Even if they don’t have legal rights, do countries have inherent ethical rights to certain cultural objects? To be honest, I don’t know my answer to that.
I do, however, think that the preservation of artifacts should be fairly high on the list of priorities. When wealthy countries tell poorer countries that they can’t have stuff because they can’t take care of it, that is problematic. It smacks of all sorts of nasty things. But, in this case, I think the MFA has a pretty good case for keeping the bust of Ankhhaf. The bust is extremely fragile, and moving it at all would most likely cause damage.
A close-up look at poor Ankhhaf’s back:
Here is a video that further explains the situation.
My favorite is the plea, “they wanted us to have it.” It is kind of hilarious. It also shows how desperately museums these days are forced to justify their collections. As we’ve seen, among objects acquired during a time period characterized by colonial insensitivity, the bust of Ankhhaf is a best-case scenario in terms of provenience, legality, and good scholarship. Yet, the MFA is routinely called upon – by both governments and their own public – to defend their right to own objects.
What do you think?
Museum Meddlers 