The Value of the Repatriation of South African museum artefacts - Debates, Case Studies and a way forward

Overview

This report sets out the results of an investigation of the strategic policy and implementation problems relating to the repatriation of South African cultural artefacts from museums and galleries around the world. The investigation provides an overview of the salient academic literature and legal landscape as well as the outcome of an online survey and focus group discussion. This benefitted from the input of key informants drawn principally from the museum and cultural organization ecosystem in the Republic of South Africa.

The key arguments for retaining the global status quo in cultural artefact distribution centre on arguments that support or challenge the concept of the “universal museum”. These arguments are premised on providing global access and security to previously plundered cultural artefacts from other countries. How cultural values are formed and categorised are shown to underpin the legal, economic and moral arguments concerning repatriation. The report outlines the chronology and reach of an extensive body of international laws, conventions and treaties relating to disputes over the provenance and trade in plundered cultural artefacts. Other means of dispute resolution and various repatriation options are also critically assessed and considered via survey and focus group scrutiny.

The arguments for the repatriation of African cultural artefacts rest on three main pillars: Justice and moral rights of ownership; Social and cultural significance and value; and Economic values. In the first case, there are those who argue that the only way forward is the unconditional legal and physical return of the object. However, as the case studies and review of international laws and practices have shown, unconditional, or even legal, return is very seldom achieved, and can delay any kind of agreement for decades.

In the second case, the value of the object to the people of the country of origin is argued to be greater than to those in the foreign country. This is particularly the case with objects of important cultural or spiritual significance. Some objects of “national importance”, as defined by SAHRA, may be regarded as part of the cultural capital of the country and of great importance to the heritage and identity of its people. The main values sought in this case are the cultural, education and research activities and appreciation by people in the country of origin.

A less often used argument is the economic one – that the physical location of significant cultural artefacts contributes to the national and international prestige of museums, which attracts tourists and research grants. The main values sought in this case are financial (and possibly those related to research status).

A wider range of repatriation options (other than unconditional return) could be considered in the case of social and cultural or economic arguments for repatriation, especially if the object in question is interesting and important, but not a unique part of the national estate. Other repatriation options may include legal return with the payment of royalties to the country of origin; Permanent loan; Touring (if funds are shared); and Mutually Beneficial Repatriation Options (MBRAs).

The report concludes with a number of recommendations on the way forward. The first is to establish a database of significant cultural artefacts held outside of South Africa, perhaps based on a scoring system to determine the level of importance of such artefacts and the urgency of their repatriation. Another recommendation is that, for cases where legal arguments will be pursued, it is important that existing international conventions related to the protection of cultural heritage be ratified.