I've had a quick through my list of blogs and didn't see anything on this topic but I'll start with an apology if I've been here and done this topic before. I know I've written about it a number of times on Twitter and even one of my uni essays went this way so it has good reason to feel familiar territory for me.
I love museums. I worked in one, as a cleaner, and working through my degree modules it was the workplace I aspired to. The particular type of museum wasn't hugely important; art, archaeology, anthropology, natural history, social history...museums are just INTERESTING. From world renowned collections to even very small local ones with relatively little to offer - they provide an invaluable learning resource.
So yeah, I like museums and I've been to all sorts all over the place. Had an almost religious experience (actually, it probably was... #praisetheAten) in Luxor Museum.
When it comes to 'controversies' I mostly take the side of the museum. I say 'mostly' because when it comes to human remains there's a whole different set of ethical nightmares to consider but I'm keeping this blog off that one. Possession isn't really the point; so long as they're available to the public and preserved for future generations.
It is somewhat problematic that somewhere like London has such a high concentration of world artefacts - admittedly disasters like The Great Fire or The Blitz are unlikely to destroy this huge wealth of treasures - but even within a small nation like the UK there are many who will never see such things; even in the south it is considered too far for many schools to offer educational trips. There is an argument to be made for safety of these objects, though. If all the artefacts of a particular culture were returned to its home nation and that nation was to be ravaged by war or fall to religious zealotry (see Buddhas of Bamiyan, Timbuktu, Ninevah, Nimrud) ...isn't that a risk too high to take? There's a reason putting all your eggs in one basket is a bad idea.
However, I do see the wisdom in it too...London is a major world city, a busy hub for tourists and business-people. An awful lot of people will have a chance to visit at some point in their life - more, it could be argued, that would pass through an awful lot of other capitals. And that is the crux of my argument - that world treasures belong to the world, not just the nation from which they originate. Not least of all when the culture from which they originate - such as with Ancient Egyptian artefacts - is no longer extant. The modern people of Egypt have next to no cultural connection with the pharaonic era...especially if you consider the Ptolemaic dynasty was Greek. Then there are the Romans who got all over Europe. If you were going to do such a thing, who would artefacts be returned to - their country of manufacture or the country they were found in? Or would you argue that everything Roman belongs to Rome and no other Italian city, let alone the rest of the empire?! IF such a practice of 'returning' items was to be adopted it would be an absolute logistical nightmare for starters.
I also feel very strongly for people of non-caucasian origin living in the UK...what message does it send them if artefacts of African, Asian, Aborigine origins are sent away? Why should diaspora be denied access to their cultural heritage? Why should European museums be limited to European history? How do we educate the young of the importance of other world cultures if the evidence of them is no longer there???
I believe, very strongly as you may have noticed by now, that these things belong to the world as a whole more than they do to specific places or even peoples.
But the reason for this blog post is, as so often, an article I saw on BBC News about the efforts to create a digital museum of hidden palaeontological artefacts: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46497406 It may take 50 years to complete the digital recording of the 40 million fossil specimens at The Smithsonian ALONE. FORTY MILLION FOSSILS that may have incredible scientific value but are never seen and inaccessible.
"there are drawers here in the museum that haven't been opened for decades,"
said Kathy Hollis (Smithsonian)
THIS is what makes me angry about arguments over objects like the Benin Bronzes or Elgin Marbles. They get fought over cos they're famous and envied but they're constantly available to be enjoyed by the general public somewhere at least. No one seems to give a fuck about museums holding MILLIONS of items in storage.
No, I have not gone stark raving mad, OF COURSE I know there is a huge difference between fossilised animal bones and the artefacts of human cultures BUT just think on it for a moment: museums of all kinds have 'surplus stock' - possessions which for a variety of reasons (mostly logistical) are neither displayed nor studied. Worse even than them being in private collections if they're not even being enjoyed! Just think about it...paintings which are never looked at. Why is THAT not something to get mad about?
There's an argument that possession will be of negligible importance in the digital age - as treasures are digitised and made available on the internet will there be a demand for real-world museums with actual stuff in them? OF COURSE THERE WILL BE! There's a thrill to seeing something for real for the first time that is ENHANCED by having seen pictures of it beforehand. Ownership however might become obsolete - the accessibility of artefacts either publicly or privately owned displayed or in storage can only be for the good. I get that people like things to be THEIRS alone but there's something decidedly off about big museums hoarding stuff only to keep it away from people who might study or enjoy those items.
Possession and ownership are not the same thing of course, and part of what makes me mad about stored objects is that they're not on loan to other museums and galleries who could make good use of them. A museum could still own what was on loan and another museum, perhaps in another nation, could possess it - for a time at least.
Example: The Alfred Jewel was found in Somerset and when it was at The Museum Of Somerset in Taunton it garnered enormous attention - queues around the courtyard, people fainting in the heat...staff stressed and cleaners exhausted lol. It normally resides at The Ashmolean in Oxford. Not so very far away and yes, it is on display...I've seen it there too...utterly ignored; a small object unimportant in amongst more exciting displays. So just imagine what a non-displayed object might do to revive a small local museum, or else to found an entirely new one. These objects could and perhaps should be sent around the globe to share the wealth of knowledge and art and history with EVERYONE.
And if they won't share and display actual objects it is probably long past time for ALL museums to digitise their entire collections. To preserve for posterity as well as to enable access.
We need to stop squabbling over a (relatively) few items that are contentious and deal with the bigger scandal that big museums act like monopolies, acquiring and hoarding for no gain - huge hidden collections do not add to their appeal (and footfall) or to the accumulated knowledge of the communities they serve. Because knowledge is power, not what you have hidden away under lock and key.
