Early last year, I recall writing about the repatriation of objects and the power of corporate tycoons in buying back priceless jewels. The process of repatriation can be severely complicated and multilayered. This is especially true for cases of religious and cultural importance. Pressing questions on rightful ownership and the ethical nuances of commodifying an object of utmost sanctity are just some of the grievances that follow these cases.
Nations and communities tend to seek the repatriation of objects and artefacts they deem their cultural property as this helps in shaping their cultural identity and preserving their history. In a number of cases, when repatriation is unsuccessful, communities often feel a deep sense of injustice and the festering wounds of colonialism, slavery, war and destruction. But then, how does one go about the handling or repatriation of ancient relics, plundered generations ago?
The UNESCO Convention (1970) defines ‘cultural property’ in its first article as ‘property, which, on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each State as being of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science.’ This is a highly subjective definition of cultural property since what one group of people deem of immense value may not hold true for another.
It is therefore integral to broadly define scenarios under which repatriation may be sought. The repatriation case for artefacts that are creations of a culture that can quite easily be traced to an existing, descendent culture falls into one such scenario or category. These include the Maqdala Manuscripts, Rosetta Stone, the Benin Bronzes or even the highly contested Elgin Marbles. Last year, Westminster Abbey announced that they would be returning a sacred tablet to Ethiopia. The beautifully carved and inscribed wooden tablet was one of the many artefacts stolen by British soldiers during the Battle of Magdala in 1868. The tablet is sacred to Ethiopian culture with all churches of the country housing one, which can only be seen by the priest of the church. The decision was made in principle when the governing body of the Abbey acknowledged the vital importance the tablet had for the people of Ethiopia.
Thousands of stolen and illegal artefacts rest in museums all across the globe. It is easier to analyse the case of repatriation for objects that were illicitly taken in more recent times. For example, the Vishnu lintel from Phanom Rung in Northeast Thailand. The lintel was broken in two pieces, one part was seized from an antique shop in Bangkok in 1965 while the other was displayed at The Art Institute of Chicago and reported in 1973. This clearly shows how Northeast Thailand was not looking after its cultural artefacts and hence such a plunder occurred where the object was not only stolen but also damaged.
How one of the parts reached Chicago is still uncertain but after a number of negotiations, the institute and the authorities were convinced that the morally right thing to do would be to return the lintel. The decision was taken knowing that the lintel had been stolen and was part of Thailand’s culture and historical context. However, whether this was the ethically right thing to do by the Art Institute of Chicago can be contradicted. The museum did identify the illegal acquisition. But one cannot say for certain whether the object would be preserved and looked after in its home country. Thailand has been a victim to several illegal export cases and has not signed the UNESCO 1970 Convention either.
In the last few weeks, debates and discussions have sparked around the sale of Piprahwa gemstones. These gems or relics, which include dazzling amethysts and pearls were planned to be auctioned by Sotheby's Hong Kong for an estimated $20 million. However, the sale has been postponed following an appeal by the Indian Ministry of Culture and the Archaeological Survey of India that they must be repatriated to India where they belong. But do they really belong in India? The Jewels have been part of the Peppé family for four generations. Cases where objects are owned by private estates or individuals can be even more complicated and tricky to navigate. In 1898, the relics were discovered at the Piprahwa Stupa by William Claxton Peppé at his colonial estate in Uttar Pradesh.
Alongside the jewels, bone fragments and ash belonging to Lord Buddha were uncovered. This was a historic moment with the finds holding immense spiritual importance to Buddhists. All relics were transferred to the British Raj at the time. The bone and ash were then sent to various Buddhist institutions across Asia and a majority of the gems were kept by the government and are now part of the Indian Museum in Kolkata’s collection. But a small part of the exquisite gems was kept by Peppé given that it was he and his home where the discovery was made. Since then, this collection has been part of the Peppé family. Ever since the present custodians inherited these jewels they have only tried to make them accessible to a larger audience.
The Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Asian Civilisations Museum in Singapore and the National Museum of Korea in Seoul are only some of the highly reputed institutions where the jewels were exhibited over the years to be witnessed and appreciated by millions. The Peppé’s even set up a website called The Piprahwa Project to make the research they had gathered on the jewels and their historic significance readily available to any person interested.
Now when the family has decided to auction the jewels, a debate has erupted. Should grave artefacts, which are highly sacred for Buddhists, be belittled to commodities in an auction? Is it ethical to trade them in an open market?
These are objects of deep, deep meaning to a community but does that mean they are brought to India? The main collection of gems part of the museum in Kolkata is not displayed for decades now so what certainty is there that this small portion would be made available for veneration and contemplation?
Several artefacts are being repatriated in recent times and museums are acting in an ethical manner to a large extent. Countries are realising the need to protect and preserve their cultural heritage and joining International treaties. It is now up to individual nations to bend their legislations and laws when a case for repatriation takes place and focus on the object's cultural heritage and the ability of the country seeking repatriation to care and preserve it. Perhaps, the Piprahwa Jewels can be distributed and divided in integral Buddhist institutions, where they will hold deeper meaning?