Comments on: Archives, Nations, Ownership https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2007/04/30/archives-nations-ownership/ Culture, Politics, Academia and Other Shiny Objects Thu, 03 May 2007 16:11:46 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.15 By: jpool https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2007/04/30/archives-nations-ownership/comment-page-1/#comment-3509 Thu, 03 May 2007 16:11:46 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=369#comment-3509 We’ve wandered off down a side point to the original post, but I’ll just say that, while that’s a very plausible sounding scenario, what with the place names and all, I tend to believe that the combined pressures of the international tourist market and concerns about international reputation/prestige would strongly mitigate against it, at least in the specific cases we’ve been talking about. That is, I would concede the point that there are in some cases/nations ruling kleptocracies who are not to be trusted and where it would be entirely ethical to hold off on repatriating plundered materials. I don’t, however, see that as applying to either Greece or Egypt, where there are strong enough national institutions, as well as a clearly demonstrated interest in their national antiquities.
On the issue of touring exhibits, this is the situation already. If anything my concern would be that touring exhibits would prove so profitable that national citizens wouldn’t have much of a chance to view the objects.

]]>
By: withywindle https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2007/04/30/archives-nations-ownership/comment-page-1/#comment-3508 Wed, 02 May 2007 17:50:19 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=369#comment-3508 JPool,

1) Thanks for the information on Ghanaian research interests.

2) Yeah, I think one can worry that them national treasures wouldn’t be totally secure. They’d get sent back to Gatekeeper City, and go into storage; and somehow the money to get them out of storage wouldn’t get appropriated, and when it was appropriated, it would get diverted. A few items, the sort that can fit in a suitcase, would go missing, and be rumored to be in a private collection in Jiddah, by way of a private auction in Zurich, but who knows? The items that did get into the museum might not be preserved perfectly–and whatever money was provided for preservation in the initial round of publicity might leach off later. The museum would close for renovations and not re-open for several decades, at which point it would only be open on alternate Thursdays, except if you provided some money to the museum guard to let you in. And occasionally the smaller items would go on tour, after the Metropolitan Museum had paid tens of millions of dollars as a payoff, before even getting to the insurance costs.

Or maybe it would work out better than all that. But I wouldn’t bet the house on it.

]]>
By: jpool https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2007/04/30/archives-nations-ownership/comment-page-1/#comment-3507 Wed, 02 May 2007 09:11:46 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=369#comment-3507 1) Sure, those could both be genuinely held. The first one one presumes to be about international access rather than simply national self-interest, where the second is simply institutional self-interest, as well as a highly selective belief in possesion through theft as determining the ownership of works of art. But, yes, one could genuinely believe both those things. I’m just not sure that they (major western museums refusing to repatriate plundered national treasures) do. Besides, what would that genuine concern about bureaucratic gatekeepers mean in the British Museum example? That Greek or Egyptian bureaucrats wouldn’t allow the world to view or study their national treasures? Really?

2) There would of course be many Ghanaian research priorities, and some might well either dovetail with or find supporting materials in documents of the slave trade (the study of precolonial polities is of continuing interest for Ghanaian as well as foreign historians). One could respond to this question by noting that Ghanaians in general see the slave trade either as an embarassment or as a not terribly relavent part of the remote past, while the Danes are collectively fascinated by and guilt-ridden about the slave trade, as it forms their historical connection to Ghana. But some contemporary Ghanaian historians, such as Akosua Perbi, have worked to show that slavery and whether one is descended from slaves is of continuing relavance in Ghanaian history and society, so it’s not a matter of these concerns being wholly separate at the academic level, simply of them reflecting different institutional interests.
There is a great deal of interest in Ghana, at both the popular and academic levels in 20th century history — the development of political institutions under colonial conditions being one popular theme — and while some of archival materials related to this have been microformed (and the Cooperative Africana Microform Project seems like a good model for the sort of institutional cooperation Tim’s been discussing), some of the originals are disintegrating (tropical heat + 1950s high acid paper = paint chips) and others lie uncatalogued waiting for some intrepid librarian/archivist-to-be to make sense of them.
To give as example of institutional cooperation that is less uneven, though one that, to my knowledge, has not included a digitization component, the Norwegian Programme for Development, Research and Education (NUFU) has funded a research partnership with the University of Ghana which has helped to fund both graduate and post-graduate research. While one might note that this program, as directed by Per Hernæs, has tended to push research along certain lines, it has, as far as I can tell, also allowed a great deal of lattitude for researchers to pursue their own visions and interests, while centrally collecting oral and archival data.

]]>
By: withywindle https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2007/04/30/archives-nations-ownership/comment-page-1/#comment-3506 Wed, 02 May 2007 06:09:41 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=369#comment-3506 1) Tim’s point speaks to JPool’s point. Even if one trusted the Egyptian museums to keep proper care of the artwork, one worries about what the other bureaucratic gatekeepers would do. And one can genuinely worry about corrupt gatekeepers while also wanting to keep one’s collections intact; not mutually exclusive, and both equally genuine motivations.

2) What would be a Ghanaian research priority?

]]>
By: jpool https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2007/04/30/archives-nations-ownership/comment-page-1/#comment-3505 Tue, 01 May 2007 22:13:03 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=369#comment-3505 Two points re Withywindle: While concerns about corrupt gatekeepers (or putatively less competent museum professionals) are often the stated reason for concerns about repatriation, the real concerns, especially for larger institutions, are about setting a precedent that might decimate current pluder-derived and revenue/prestige producing collections. There are plenty of qualified proefessionals in Egypt, but what would the British Museum be without its stolen treasures?
While the organizations you list might well fund digitization of European archives, in Ghana it’s the Danes (Danida) who are funding it. This doesn’t challenge your “liberal face” argument (though the current Danish administration is only “liberal” in the sense the word is given in Europe), but nor does it challenge Diana Jeater’s point about the setting of priorities for digitization. So, in the Ghana example (as I understand it), Danida has given funding priority to preservation of records from the era of the slave trade. There’s nothing wrong or sinister in this, but it does represent the research priorities of Danes rather than Ghanaians.

]]>
By: Timothy Burke https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2007/04/30/archives-nations-ownership/comment-page-1/#comment-3504 Tue, 01 May 2007 19:23:12 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=369#comment-3504 Actually, Withywindle, a lot of the archives I’ve worked in in southern Africa are themselves fairly open and well-managed. I haven’t been in the Zimbabwe archives since 1998, but they were doing very well with extremely limited resources. The issue in that case, and in many others, is not the archive itself, but the ways in which access to the archive is mediated through the state and through state-dominated civic institutions. The problem in Zimbabwe in the 1990s was first the Research Council and second the bureaucracy within the University of Zimbabwe (not at the departmental level, which again was fairly collegial and open), and then beyond that whatever barriers the state was putting on residency and entry for foreign nationals or on forms of dissemination and publication within the country by nationals and foreigners alike.

]]>
By: withywindle https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2007/04/30/archives-nations-ownership/comment-page-1/#comment-3503 Tue, 01 May 2007 15:27:42 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=369#comment-3503 As for “neocolonialism triumphes” … I suspect the funding for digitization worldwide will come from the Rockefeller Foundation, Gates Foundation, Spielberg (who’s already funded the digitization of all Yiddish literature!), etc. … this brand of neocolonialism will come with a liberal, or perhaps techno-libertarian, face.

]]>
By: withywindle https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2007/04/30/archives-nations-ownership/comment-page-1/#comment-3502 Tue, 01 May 2007 15:26:03 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=369#comment-3502 Query: is there a good example of a corrupt, third-world archival institution that has managed the transition to openness and honesty? If so, then part of the conversation should be about how to transfer best practices to its peers.

]]>
By: withywindle https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2007/04/30/archives-nations-ownership/comment-page-1/#comment-3501 Tue, 01 May 2007 15:23:01 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=369#comment-3501 Incidentally, it’s suspicion of corrupt gatekeepers, broadly speaking, that lies behind a good part of the unwillingness to repatriate artworks.

]]>
By: djeater https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2007/04/30/archives-nations-ownership/comment-page-1/#comment-3500 Tue, 01 May 2007 15:21:39 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=369#comment-3500 Completely agree with you there, Tim. I guess I’m focusing more on managing the transition, whereas you’re mapping out the vision of where it would be good to reach. It’s a good conversation to have.

]]>