|
Illicit Antiquities |
Afghanistan’s cultural heritage in Norwegian museums?Atle Omland & Christopher PrescottDepartment of Archaeology, History of Art and Conservation
|
|
|
The demolition of the Bamiyan Buddhas in March 2001 caused outcries of disgust around the world, including Scandinavia. Yet, at the same time, collectors and museums continued to drain Afghanistan of its cultural heritage. This article examines a Norwegian case, the first- to seventh-century ad fragments of Buddhist manuscripts from Afghanistan presently owned by the Norwegian businessman Mr Martin Schøyen. Cultural heritage originating in Afghanistan has for several years been removed from the country and sold into private and public collections — a dramatic example was the plundering of the National Museum in Kabul. Another more recent case is the collection of about 1400 fragments of Buddhist manuscripts purchased six to seven years ago by the private Schøyen Collection in Norway through the dealer Sam Fogg in London. The initial coverage in the Norwegian press of the purchase by Martin Schøyen, as well as reports of his involvement in the ‘rescue’ of these manuscripts, was positive. This coverage, however, led to a more critical debate about the ownership by private or public institutions of Afghanistan’s cultural heritage. The debate also unexpectedly exposed differing attitudes to the antiquities trade in general (e.g. Aftenposten January 17, 2002; Dagens Naeringsliv March 18, 2002; Museumsnytt 1 & 2, 2002; The Times June 22, 2002). This debate has become all the more urgent now that plans have been announced to sell the entire Schøyen Collection for an estimated £60 million. The announced sale has triggered a media campaign, featuring prominent members of the government and cultural bureaucracy, to persuade the Norwegian government to bid for the collection. The motivation for a government purchase is to keep the collection in Norway; for example, at an open seminar in March 2002 at the University of Oslo, the director of the University Museum of Cultural Heritage (University of Oslo) suggested that the Schøyen Collection, including the Afghanistan manuscripts, should be purchased by the Norwegian government and given to his museum. The Afghanistan manuscripts are remnants of a Buddhist monastery library, most likely destroyed during the eighth-century Muslim invasion. The texts are written on palm-leaf, vellum and bark, and are described as ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls of Buddhism’. They date from the first–seventh centuries ad. The events that preceded the arrival of the manuscripts in Norway are not clear. The initial press coverage in Norway suggested that Martin Schøyen himself orchestrated a rescue operation on behalf, or through, refugees or Buddhist monks. According to this version the manuscripts were brought out of Afghanistan to Pakistan in dramatic circumstances: on the back of a donkey through the Hindu Kush and under constant threat from the Taliban. Though this might be true, the story could simply be the portrayal of a smuggling operation in more flattering terms. Be that as it may, Schøyen acquired the manuscripts through several purchases and most questions concerning the legality of Schøyen’s possession are now met by referring to a legitimate purchase in London from the manuscript dealer Sam Fogg. There is no reason to question the legality of these transactions, but important questions remain unanswered: How were the manuscripts procured in Afghanistan — who was the legitimate owner, what was the storage context there, and what damage was inflicted on the archaeological context in the course of and after the removal of the manuscripts? How were they smuggled out of the country and how did the manuscripts come to be sold in London? If the Taliban threatened the manuscripts, and if Martin Schøyen and his partners actively saved the manuscripts from destruction without damaging cultural contexts of perhaps great long-term worth, then Schøyen deserves our gratitude. Schøyen certainly deserves credit for the way he has made his collection public. He has generously made his collection accessible for researchers, for example, through a group lead by Professor Jens Braarvig at the University of Oslo, who in 2000 edited a publication of several of the manuscripts (Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection. Buddhist Manuscripts, vol. 1). Parts of the collection have also been made available to the general public through the web site of Norway’s National Library (http://www.nb.no/baser/schoyen/). But despite these praiseworthy actions, and setting initial concerns about the procurement aside (as well as the present conditions of storage), there are still grave issues concerning the ownership and custodianship of these and similar man-uscripts. A pressing question concerns the management of items of cultural heritage exported from countries at war — and also countries submerged in civil war — where the combatants destroy monuments and collections as part of their policy of cultural domination. We are certain that, in time, there will be internationally supported demands for the return of artefacts and texts smuggled out of Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, the civil wars that followed and the Taliban regime. Similar situations have arisen previously in other countries, for example after the fall of the Khmer Rouge regime that had destroyed and plundered Cambodia’s cultural heritage. Closer to home, in the wake of the press coverage of the Afghan manuscripts, the Egyptian ambassador to Norway has expressed concerns about the legality of the acquisition of Egyptian objects in the Schøyen Collection. She has therefore called on the Ministry of Culture to make inquiries into how Schøyen came by his Egyptian objects. In October 2002, however, the Norwegian government stated it could not make such an inquiry because the UNIDROIT Convention — that Norway became signatory to in 2002 — does not give retrospective force. We find it all the more bizarre therefore that in the Norwegian media, people previously or presently responsible for prominent public national collections in Norway, as well as members of cabinet, only emphasize the positive aspects of a Norwegian purchase of the Schøyen Collection. They have generally avoided important issues that entail the return of the Buddhist manuscripts to Afghanistan when conditions permit and the government’s responsibility not to unduly stimulate the illicit or semi-illicit trade in antiquities. The Norwegian responses (until recently) are in contrast to internationally expressed concerns. For example, UNESCO and the Ministry of Information and Culture of Afghanistan organized in May 2002 an international seminar about the rehabilitation of Afghanistan’s cultural heritage. At this seminar the participants urged UNESCO to appeal to the international community, and particularly to those countries where Afghan cultural material is traded, to co-operate in the prevention of illicit traffic in these objects. Several NGOs outside of Afghanistan also take care of objects that originate there and monitor the present condition of the Afghan cultural heritage. In 1994 The Society for the Preservation of Afghanistan’s Cultural Heritage (SPACH) was founded in Pakistan. In the Newsletter of the International Institute of Asian Studies no. 23, 2000, a founding member of SPACH, Juliette van Krieken, describes the shock she experienced when she first heard of the Buddhist manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection. Her remarks serve as an introduction to an account of the destruction of Afghanistan’s monuments and how objects from Afghanistan are ending up in western collections. SPACH is striving to prevent this by purchasing objects when possible, with the goal of repatriating them to Afghanistan. In several other articles, members of SPACH have provided information concerning the tragic circumstances of Afghanistan’s cultural heritage, for example ‘excavations’ that entail the demolition of Buddhist monasteries with bulldozers to secure artefacts for the international market (see Nancy Dupree’s articles in Archaeology 1996 & 1998). Other organizations that work for the protection of the Afghan heritage include the Swiss-based Afghan Museum in Exile (that takes care of objects from Afghanistan with the aim of later returning them to Afghanistan), the Virtual Kabul Museum in Japan designed to present ‘displaced’ cultural property from Afghanistan and call for their return (http://www.seenk.com/kabul-museum/), and The International Committee for the Salvation of the Cultural Heritage of Afghanistan (ICSCHA) in California. In light of these international efforts to protect and restore the cultural heritage of Afghanistan, it is legitimate to raise questions concerning the last six to seven years’ history of the Buddhist manuscripts now in the Schøyen Collection. As widespread plundering is already a fact and valuable artefacts are in circulation, any line of action must represent a compromise between conflicting considerations. Organizations such as SPACH and the Afghan Museum in Exile have arrived at the conclusion that they must acquire important cultural artefacts themselves to secure their return to Afghanistan. This is, of course, a difficult policy to pursue, as it could stimulate black-market trading and plundering in Afghanistan (and other places). Still, the International Council of Museums (ICOM) and UNESCO support this policy. In The Times (June 22, 2002) Colin Renfrew also suggested that the Schøyen manuscripts should be donated to the UNESCO-approved Afghan Museum in Exile. In addition to the international efforts to save Afghan heritage and later restore smuggled objects, several international conventions are relevant in regard to the Schøyen Collection. The Hague Convention of 1954 protects cultural heritage during war, the UNESCO Convention of 1970 deals with illegal export, import and transfer of ownership of cultural objects, and the UNIDROIT Convention of 1995 regulates the international return of stolen or illegally exported cultural artefacts. Though Norway has ratified the Hague Convention and acceded to the UNIDROIT Convention this year (2002), the country has not been a staunch supporter of UNESCO’s work to limit the international trade in cultural artefacts, despite its own restrictive national policies. Though the government acknowledges a need to demonstrate solidarity with countries exploited for their cultural heritage, national interests rank higher than arguments of solidarity. As yet, Norway has not ratified the UNESCO 1970 Convention, and the Afghanistan manuscripts presently in the Schøyen Collection are an example of how national interests will conflict with ratifying the UNESCO convention. It is thus highly problematic when some researchers, directors and politicians call on the Norwegian government to buy the entire Schøyen Collection. A common argument voiced in the media is that the acquisition of the Schøyen Collection, including the Buddhist manuscripts, would enhance Norway’s cultural prestige internationally. Some other arguments mustered to support a purchase are short-sighted, indeed ridiculous, for example:
On a more serious level, Professor Jens Braarvig’s observations in the Newsletter for the Centre for Advanced Study (no. 2, Oct. 2001, p. 4) are interesting: ‘At the risk of not being absolutely politically correct, I dare to assert that in our day and age it is the European intellectual tradition that is most concerned about safeguarding ancient cultural treasures’. Braarvig has a point, but when he uses it to validate keeping Afghan manuscripts in Norway he subverts international efforts to deal with the inherent problems. He also underestimates the effect this tradition, and the political and ideological context from which it stems, has had on other regions, in this case Afghanistan. Braarvig’s historical reflections are, in part, ‘historically blind’. Looking beyond the ethical and political dimensions of a Norwegian purchase of the collection, there are numerous international guidelines that come into play, even though Norway has not ratified the UNESCO 1970 Convention. Museums and collections that are members of ICOM are bound to strict ethical guidelines concerning the acquisition of cultural objects. Such objects must have a valid, documented provenance. In a war situation — as in Afghanistan — such provenance is usually at best unclear. However, the circumstances surrounding all objects acquired from Afghanistan during the last six to seven years and now circulating in the private market should be subject to close scrutiny. Any government purchase or permits to allow re-export and private sale must thus be subsequent to rigorous legal, ethical and cultural considerations. It is unquestionably fortunate that the Buddhist manuscripts from Afghanistan still exist and are made accessible for researchers and the general public. If the Buddhist manuscripts were actually salvaged from Taliban destruction, and if other valuable monuments and archaeological contexts were not destroyed in the process, the people responsible for their rescue deserve our gratitude. Given the circumstances in Afghanistan, it might also be fortunate that the manuscripts are in Norway for the time being. Still, the fundamental position taken by UNESCO, NGOs that work to protect the Afghan cultural heritage, and by various international conventions, is that such objects should be returned to Afghanistan, and this should guide future actions. When Afghan authorities are in a position to manage the country’s cultural heritage, any institutions or private collectors (be it Martin Schøyen or the Norwegian government) who then own the Buddhist manuscripts will be morally obliged to return them to Afghanistan. Whether the establishment of acceptable conditions in Afghanistan takes a year or a hundred years is immaterial. Norwegian history up to independence in 1905, and the relatively young Norwegian state’s efforts and strict legislation to secure the nation’s cultural heritage as part of a strategy to build a national identity, should render Norwegians particularly sympathetic to Afghanistan’s plight. As the director of the National Archives in Norway, John Herstad (Museumsnytt 2, 2002), has suggested, one would hope that the same generosity and decency that was shown the young Norwegian state in similar matters 100 years ago will be awarded to an Afghanistan hopefully emerging from the series of tragedies which started with the Soviet occupation. Returning the manuscripts should thus be the fundamental guideline for the Norwegian government if they choose to buy the collection. In light of the risk of further stimulating trade in antiquities, and the plundering that supports such trade, it would be preferable if Martin Schøyen followed Lord Renfrew’s appeal in The Times (June 22, 2002): the only decent thing to do is to give his collection to the UNESCO-approved museum in Switzerland so that it can be returned when order is fully restored. Links to various sources of information concerning this case can be found on http://folk.uio.no/atleom/manuscripts.htm. First posted June 2003; Page design updated September 2006 |
