Partage: what do you think?

Over the course of the past few weeks, I’ve talked quite a bit about  partage.  I mentioned that some believe partage should be reinstated.

James Cuno is one of the most outspoken proponents of reinstating partage.  He is in favor of what he terms “encyclopedic” museums; museums that allow the visitor to view objects from all over the world in one place.  This creates a deeper understanding of our similarities and differences as people, and can help breakdown close-minded views.  These museums can show that our culture is not the shining ideal, but is rather one among many. In order for such places to exist, museums must be able to acquire objects from other countries.  An updated version of partage might be a way to facilitate this, while giving the source nation a choice, and valuing the archaeological process.

Yet, as David Gill points out in his blog Looting Matters, there are other ways of sharing cultural heritage. Long or short term loans, for example.  Is there an inherent good to museums owning artifacts, rather than just having them on loan? In terms of research, I can see some benefit in actual ownership, although loans can certainly also include research components.

Cultureboyy also has a fantastic essay here.  He outlines especially well why partage may be thoroughly outdated, and even seen as institutionalized looting.  He also offers some alternative suggestions.

Should countries be able to control all of their own national cultural heritage, or should we work towards and international understanding of “world” heritage? Or, would partage be a way of getting the best of both worlds?

Now it’s time for you to tell me your thoughts on the matter!

From A(nkhhaf) to Z(ahi): the Egyptian Collection at the MFA, part 3

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?

Investigating Signs: the Egyptian Collection at the MFA

This first Meddling Highlight starts with a sign.

One of the first things you see when you enter the Egyptian section of the MFA is this bold sign asking you the very question this blog asks: How did these objects come to the MFA?  How very kind of the MFA to tell us the answer!

The sign reads:

Between 1905 and 1947, an archaeological expedition jointly sponsored by Harvard University and the Museum of Fine Arts conducted excavations at sites throughout Egypt and Sudan.  The project’s director was George Andrew Reisner, whose pioneering techniques earned him the title “Father of American Egyptology.”  Reisner kept meticulous records of his work and was among the first excavators to make extensive use of photography to document his finds.  The Harvard MFA Expedition was based at the important Old Kingdom site of Giza – home to the great pyramids of Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaura – where it worked alongside teams from Germany and Italy.  In addition to the pyramid complex of Menkaura the Expedition excavated vast cemeteries of tombs belonging to high officials of the era.

During the first half of the 20th century, the Egyptian Antiquities Service generously awarded a portion of all archaeological discoveries to the institutions that conducted the digs.  As a result, the MFA houses not only one of the world’s foremost collections of Old Kingdom funerary material, but also an unparalleled archive documenting its context.  Most of the objects in this gallery come from Reisner’s excavations at Giza.

I am so thrilled about this sign.  Thrilled.  I am pretty impressed by the MFA in regard to their entire Egyptian collection.  They display and document side-by-side not only the ancient past, but also the more recent past of archaeological practice.  Their displays have achieved a beautiful balance of aesthetic appreciation, scientific knowledge, and historical sensitivity.  Now, let’s look a little more in depth into the historical realities surrounding this “generous award.”

What is Partage?

Partage, from the French word meaning “to share,” was a system put in place to divide up ownership of excavated artifacts.  The Egyptian authorities had first choice and ultimate control over who got what of the antiquities from excavations.  However, it is important to note that the “Egyptian authorities” at this time were mostly Frenchmen.  Egyptians were not allowed to become Egyptologists until around 1923.  It wasn’t until 1952, after a nationalist revolution, that Egyptians were fully in control of their own Antiquities Service.  In her book Loot, Sharon Waxman aptly calls this “a blunder born of racism” (p 57).  Nevertheless, many people believe that this system should be reinstated, sans racism, as a way of encouraging exchange and international education while still giving source countries authority over their cultural heritage

The MFA-Harvard expedition took place as this “blunder born of racism” was being phased out, but we would be remiss to attribute the MFA’s ownership of these items purely to Egyptian’s generosity or gratitude.  The division of goods took place within a very specific socio-political atmosphere.

Does this mean that the MFA is being dishonest? That these artifacts shouldn’t be at the MFA? That the MFA-Harvard project at Giza was a horrible, terrible thing? No, of course not.  In fact, the reality is quite the opposite.  By publicly addressing issues of ownership as part of their educational goals, the MFA far surpasses many museums in transparency and honesty.  The Egyptian artifacts were acquired legally, and in this case acquired under close-to-ideal conditions, especially given archaeological practices of the time.  I do, however, find it interesting that even in this best-case scenario, the shadow of history still muddles our understanding of how these objects came to be here.

If you’re interested in finding out more about the MFA-Harvard expedition, check out the fabulous digitized database the Giza Archives.

Works Cited 

Waxman, Sharon. Loot: the Battle Over the Stolen Treasures of the Ancient World. New York: Times Books, 2008.