Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Trafficked Lebanese Antiquities: Can They Be Repatriated from European Museums?

2017; Penn State University Press; Volume: 5; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.5325/jeasmedarcherstu.5.1.0027

2166-3556

Lina G. Tahan,

Memory, Trauma, and Commemoration

In this essay, I review the issue of repatriation from the Lebanese perspective. I examine the history and context of how artifacts from Lebanon were illegally exported and present one example where the objects have been returned. It is alarming that, even in the twenty-first century, Western politicians and curators do not want treasures returned to their countries of origin as they have become part of the local heritage of the Western people. There are two important things to consider in a historical monument: its use and its beauty. Its use belongs to its owner, its beauty to everyone in this world, to you, to me and to all of us. Therefore, it is beyond our right to destroy it.1 (Hugo 1832: 621; translation by L. Tahan) Nearly 200 years ago, Victor Hugo in his article “Guerre aux Démolisseurs” (War on Destroyers) wrote that historic monuments belong to their owners, meaning by this the country in which they are present, but their beauty is for all humankind. His thoughts and words resonate with us even today. De facto, cultural property has been vandalized, looted, trafficked and sold to Western museums. A lot has been written on illicit trafficking in Lebanon and the Middle East, but thus far no one has thought of the issue of repatriation to Lebanon. Is this subject taboo? Are curators afraid of requesting their artifacts back in order not to cause any diplomatic crises? Or is it that the Lebanese museums are so engrossed in work that they have not bothered to ask for the return of important archaeological finds?In what follows, I explore the history of how key objects left the Lebanese territories and entered (mostly) the collections of the Department of Near Eastern (formerly Oriental) Antiquities at the Louvre in Paris. I then analyze whether repatriation is the solution or if the loan of artifacts is a more constructive way to move forward.Repatriation is the restitution of cultural goods to their countries of origin. These artifacts were taken either as war booties or just as an appropriation when developing countries where under the control of a foreign power. In the case of Lebanon, it happened under the Ottoman Empire and later under French Mandate. Repatriation is a very delicate and complex issue and most of the time curators do not like to discuss it openly as it involves moral, ethical, legal, and diplomatic factors. Very many Lebanese antiquities were taken to Western museums. Some were taken in the nineteenth century and others in the early part of the twentieth century. Yet others were given to the archaeological missions excavating during that period under ‘partage’ (sharing) agreements. This practice existed until the 1950s. Afterwards, no object was allowed to be exported legally out of its country of origin.Lebanon was under Ottoman rule for 400 years. During that time, the Ottoman Empire controlled the export of archaeological artifacts, but managed to retain the large collections that are now found in the Istanbul Museums. For example, the prized Alexander sarcophagus with a scene of the Battle of Issus (Fig. 1), discovered in 1887 by Osman Hamdi Bey in Sidon, Lebanon, is now exhibited at the Istanbul Archaeology Museum along with many Lebanese artifacts. It is to that museum what the Mona Lisa is to the Louvre! The Turks point out that the sarcophagus was legally acquired because at the time it was excavated, Sidon was part of the Ottoman Empire. On the other hand, Turkey itself is threatening US and European museums in order to retrieve some of its important objects (The Economist, May 19, 2012).The French Mandate was implemented with the best of intentions. It was the brainchild of a South-African general, placing the territories that formerly belonged to the Syrian province of the by-then defunct Ottoman Empire under the tutelage of the League of Nations. France's mandate was to establish Syria and Lebanon as independent nations under French supervision, to favor local autonomy, to secure the defense, the safety and the foreign relations of the territories and to guarantee privileges and immunities to foreigners (Fournié and Riccioli 1996: 19). Over time, these mandated regions ended up becoming colonized territories, coping with paternalistic politics that had an impact on the execution of archaeology and heritage management.The period in between the two world wars was the ‘golden age’ for Near Eastern archaeology and scientific exploration. Disrupted by WWII, the explorations gradually resumed with the official help of efficient Mandate authorities. When the territories were still under Ottoman rule and the hostile attitude of the locals abounded, archaeologists did not enjoy such favorable work conditions as under the French Mandate (Fournié and Riccioli 1996: 19). “The French naturally carved their lion's share in Syria and in Lebanon just like the British did in Palestine and in Iraq”2 (Fournié and Riccioli 1996: 138). Notably, the rich archaeological heritage had been stripped off by the European archaeologists and the Ottoman administrators; at that time, well before the Mandate, Syria and Lebanon did not have any museums. French military officers and civil servants were interested in safeguarding the antiquities, hence they took over what the consuls, dragomans, travelers and missionaries had been either collecting or selling. Archaeology, both practice and representation, became the major concern of the French authorities in the mandated territories of Syria and Lebanon (Fournié and Riccioli 1996: 138). Consequently, France significantly impacted the Lebanese ‘museum cultural prototype.’ The period of the French Mandate witnessed the regulation of archaeological digs and the establishment of the National Museum of Beirut. However, it remains very ambivalent as some of the important artifacts traveled to the Louvre and entered the collections of the Oriental Antiquities Department.Many artifacts left the territories of Syria and Lebanon in the ‘valise diplomatique’ (see Archives of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Archives in France hold correspondence between antique dealers and senior curators from the Louvre or other museums in the West such as the Ny Glyptotek in Copenhagen, the Museum of Archaeology in Leiden, the Pergamon Museum in Berlin, and others. It is clear from these exchanges of letters that the lucrative business of the dealers deprived both countries of very important artifacts. At that time, the locals had no say over their looted heritage.For instance, a major event for the Louvre museum was the arrival of the sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II (Fig. 2). It was of particular importance as its lid featured a ‘Phoenician’ inscription of twenty-two lines, the longest known. The sarcophagus had been discovered by Aimé Péretié, chancellor of the French consulate in Beirut, an amateur archaeologist, avid collector and antiquities dealer who was active between 1844 and 1880. The expenses for his archaeological discovery had been covered by an earlier sale of three objects to the Louvre.3 The debate on whose property this find had been discovered started in early 1855. France almost lost the ownership of the sarcophagus due to two facts: On one hand, the British consul insisted that the monument was discovered on land that in the past had belonged to Britain; therefore, he concluded that the sarcophagus should belong to the British as well. On the other hand, the Ottoman government claimed to be the legitimate owner of all antiquities found within the territories under its supervision. Count Nieuwerkerke, director of the French national museums, asked É. Thouvenel, director of political affairs in the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to intervene in order for France to maintain possession of the Eshmunazar II sarcophagus. He even went on to state: It is in the best interest of the museum to possess the sarcophagus as it adds a new value at a time in which we start studying with great zeal Oriental antiquities until now unknown in most of Europe. (Translation by L. Tahan)4Nieuwerkerke suggested sending an official request to the Sultan, confident that the Sultan would be sympathetic and grant permission to the Louvre Museum to keep the sarcophagus (Fontan 2002: 7). Indeed, it was Honoré Théodoric Paul d'Albert Duke of Luynes, an archaeologist, epigraphist, numismatist, chemist, mineralogist, photographer and illustrator, who donated the sarcophagus to the Louvre Museum in 1856, paying an indemnity to Péretié. According to the records of the Oriental Antiquities Department at the Louvre Museum, the discovery of the antiquity is attributed to Péretié, but according to the archives of the Musées Nationaux,5 the actual discoverer is Alphonse Durighello. Durighello was the vice-consul of France in Sidon, who “for a long time was involved in archaeological excavations.” He acquired, for a fee to Mustapha Effendi, the Mufti of Saida at that time, the exclusive right to dig on land belonging to the mufti. Having discovered the Eshmunazar II sarcophagus, he sold it bona fide to Péretié (Klat 2002: 102). On February 9, 1855 the sarcophagus arrived in Paris and was displayed on February 15, 1855, as part of the Assyrian collection of the Louvre Museum (Fontan 2002: 7).The example of the sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II tells the story of the antiquities trade on a smaller scale. It is shocking to learn what was happening at that time and how European museums enriched their collections. Obviously, it would be ideal for the Lebanese to receive the Eshmunazar II sarcophagus back, as well as the Yehawmilk stele (Fig. 3), since these are very important artifacts due to the presence of Phoenician inscriptions on both these objects, but I think we will never see them returned along with other artifacts. A broken piece of the Yehawmilk stele lies in the storage rooms of the National Museum of Beirut and has never been shown to the Lebanese public. These two important artifacts are of national importance, but they have never made headlines.Two hoards of artifacts, however, that have made the headlines were the contested Sevso treasure (Fig. 4) and a group of votive marble statues, the so-called Eshmun babies (see Figs. 5 and 6). The Sevso silver was acquired in the 1980s by the Marquis of Northampton in the UK who tried to auction them at Sotheby's in New York in the 1990s. The governments of Lebanon, Croatia, and Hungary contested the sale, claiming that the treasure had been unearthed in an illegal excavation in their territories and sold on the black market. Lebanon claimed that the silver had been taken from the Baalbek region during the civil war (1975–1990), but the prosecutors rejected this claim and the objects were not returned to the Lebanese. Subsequently, seven items of the Sevso treasure were purchased for a sum of € 15 million and on March 29, 2014 were placed on temporary display in the Hungarian Parliament Building (Landry 2014). On the other hand, the Eshmun babies were going to be sold at Sotheby's in Geneva when Dr. Rolf Stucky, a Swiss archaeologist who studied the archaeology of the Al-Bass area, noticed them in the Sotheby catalogue. He had a record and photos of them, which proved that they were from Bustan Al-Sheikh near Sidon. Luckily, Lebanon was able to reclaim these statues; they are now on exhibit in the National Museum in Beirut.In the latter case, repatriation was successful, but no Western museum has yet returned any artifact to the Lebanese museums. The remarkable silence on the part of the Lebanese museums makes us question why some countries, like Turkey or Greece, make a point of claiming back their heritage, while the Lebanese are not doing anything. The answer is: The Lebanese have to maintain a good political relationship with France because their museum and heritage professionals seek and need the help of their French counterparts to create museums and conserve cultural monuments.In a recent debate in the House of Commons, the previous British Prime Minister David Cameron stated that if the British were to start to return objects to their countries of origin, then their museums would be left with nothing. Talking about the Elgin Marbles or Parthenon Marbles, Mr. Cameron even went on to claim that Britain was not going to lose ‘its marbles’ (Mulholland 2011). It appears that repatriation is unlikely to happen, although only 13 percent of the British public want the Elgin Marbles to stay at the British Museum and 69 percent want to see them repatriated (Johnston 2016). Such objects are now the property of the countries that curate them, be it Britain, France, Germany, or others. More pertinently, the Elgin Marbles have become part of British identity. The idea of “returnism” was criticised by the Museum Association as Mr. Cameron insisted that museums should “do exactly what they do, which is link up with museums all over the world to make our collections - to make sure that the things that we have and look after so well - are properly shared with people around the world” (Heal 2013). Museum directors fear that if museums start to surrender objects that were acquired in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, this action would lead to a flood of further claims. So, in general it is fair to say that repatriation only happens when an object is deemed sacred to a certain community rather than when one deems it is important to reconstruct missing pieces of indigenous heritage.Perhaps it is worth ending this forum contribution by discussing the issue of repatriation and why when I approached one of the curators at the Louvre Museum and asked her about the issue, I was told: “Never! It is you who have allowed the very material of your heritage to leave the country, then it is you who bear responsibility for such an act! The only object that can tour for a three-year loan period between the Louvre Museum and the NMB is the Yehawmilk stele, as part of that object is in the Louvre Museum and a small part in the National Museum of Beirut” (Personal communication, 2002). This is a false claim, we have never had a say on which object could be exported out of Lebanon, it was the Ottomans and then the French who drafted the antiquities laws and took whatever they wanted to enrich the Greco-Roman and Phoenician museum collections in Constantinople or Paris. Hence, apparently the only artifact that can travel to its land of origin for the Lebanese to see is the Yehawmilk stele. Regarding the Eshmunazar II sarcophagus, it is impossible to remove it from the crypt due to conservation reasons (personal communication, 2002), therefore the Lebanese have to go all the way to the Louvre Museum to ‘admire’ it. It seemed to me that such a comment was utterly untenable, as museums should overcome such mindset. Their demeanor should change, they cannot continue to display an attitude of “this stuff is there, it is being looked after, it would have been destroyed if they hadn't taken it, but now it is accessible to everybody and therefore it won't be returned” (Griffin 1993, quoted in Simpson 1996: 224).Obviously, repatriation is a very sensitive issue in museums, but: If museums are to demonstrate that they have shaken off the colonial mantle, they must address fully the issue of repatriation. To have a blanket “no returns” policy reflects a failure to recognise or acknowledge the relevance of the concepts of spiritual ownership, cultural patrimony and the cultural importance of certain objects to cultures that did not die out in the nineteenth century, as was expected. One of the reasons for acquiring some of the material was to document dying cultures, to preserve for posterity the last remains of material evidence of dying races. But the cultures did not die: they live and thrive today and their people seek the return of objects which are symbols of cultural identity and survival, potent and necessary ceremonial items and resources for teaching the young and ensuring cultural continuity. (Simpson 1996: 246)While we are aware that not all artifacts are safe to return (e.g., to some Middle Eastern countries such as Syria or Iraq) other countries (such as Lebanon) are equipped to care for and preserve them in their national collections.And so the debate on restitution continues and we as heritage and museum professionals are unable to find a solution that would please both sides of the debate. Some famous museums argue that the artifacts are best left in Europe as they are being well researched and better taken care of there and that they have a universal value for all humankind. The latter argument, however, is not valid as any artifact has a universal value even if it is exhibited in its place of origin. Others say that the idea of ‘universal value’ is disingenuous because in practice only people living in the West benefit. Heritage belongs to all humanity, but if we return objects, we are correcting the wrong that was done in the past. It is an act of reconciliation with now independent nations and appreciating the artifacts in their places of origin is important because they are part of the cultural identity of the people who live there.Successful acts of repatriation represent our common humanity and set good examples for other nations. They help build strong relationships with the local communities and correct the wrongdoings of colonial times. In the immediate future, loaning artifacts is a way of making progress towards resolving the complex issues surrounding repatriation. Curators from both sides can negotiate agreements that suit governments on both sides. The Louvre has already loaned a lot of its collections of art and archaeology to the Louvre Abu-Dhabi, and I do not see why the same cannot be done with Lebanese artifacts that are in storage at the Louvre.