In recent years, Southeast Asian nations have intensified their campaigns to reclaim cultural artefacts appropriated during colonial times. Notable successes in 2024 include the return of a 900-year-old bronze statue, the ‘Golden Boy,’ to Thailand from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the return of 70 artefacts to Cambodia from various US institutions. The previous year, two Dutch museums also repatriated artifacts from Indonesia and Sri Lanka.
The 1970 UNESCO Convention seeks to support the repatriation of cultural items while discouraging illicit trade. Steven Schindler, incoming Co-Chair of the IBA Art, Cultural Institutions and Heritage Law Committee, notes that it urged museums globally to scrutinise the provenance of culturally significant objects more closely, moving toward ethical collecting practices.
However, Kristin Hausler, an expert on cultural heritage, argues that existing legal frameworks often fail to facilitate the return of artefacts. She indicates that moral imperatives can sometimes lower legal barriers once decisions to return are made. Interestingly, legal frameworks tend not to assist in these returns.
Brad Gordon, a Managing Partner at Edenbridge Asia, points out that the Convention is limited to artefacts taken post-1970s, leaving items from earlier periods, such as the Dutch colonial era, unprotected. This explains why only four Southeast Asian countries ratified the Convention: Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam.
Additionally, the Convention only pertains to inventoried objects, excluding those considered looted. In discussing colonial contexts, Stephen Murphy highlights the ambiguity surrounding what constitutes looting versus preservation. Because of these limitations, repatriations have often relied on litigation rather than the Convention itself, especially in cases involving private museums in the US.
Cameron Shapiro underscores the Convention’s role in fostering diplomatic interactions and initiating local legal reforms that protect cultural heritages, showcasing Cambodia’s advancements in heritage protection as a positive outcome.
Hausler believes that broader ratification of the Convention could discourage illicit acquisition of artefacts and signal a commitment to protecting cultural legacies in Southeast Asia. Gordon adds that repatriation initiatives aren’t confined to the West; some artefacts are located in regional markets like Hong Kong or Singapore, demanding attention as well. However, Murphy cautions against viewing the Convention as a simple solution, emphasising the need for thorough engagement in the repatriation process.
Southeast Asian countries are increasingly reclaiming cultural artefacts, evidenced by the return of significant pieces like the ‘Golden Boy’ statue to Thailand. The 1970 UNESCO Convention aims to support these efforts; however, its limitations, especially regarding artefacts taken before the 1970s, pose challenges. Legal frameworks often do not facilitate return processes, leading to an increased reliance on litigation. There is a need for more regional cooperation to protect cultural heritage effectively.
The ongoing repatriation of cultural artefacts in Southeast Asia signifies a strengthening commitment to reclaiming lost heritage. Major returns, such as Thailand’s ‘Golden Boy’ and the Cambodian artefacts from the US, reflect growing success against historical injustices. However, legal frameworks, primarily the UNESCO Convention, present challenges, as they often don’t cover artefacts taken before the 1970s or those deemed looted under colonial rule. Thus, nations are encouraged to pursue litigation while also pushing for more robust international cooperation to safeguard their cultural heritage.
Original Source: www.ibanet.org
