DOCUMENT: Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums

Abstract

I n December 2002, a “Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums” was signed by leading museums of Europe and North America. Through the Declaration, these museums wished to stress the vital role they play in cultivating a better comprehension of different civilisations and in promoting respect between them. They also stress the need to address claims for restitution on a case by case basis, with attention to the historical and legal circumstances of acquisition. > On the issue of restitution, is it reprehensible to insist on the examination of each case of acquisition and restitution individually? Of course not, for any claim for unconditional return to the place of origin of a work would be legally questionable and would also show no respect for the history and fate of the object. For example, where and to whom does a Greek Attic vase of the 5 century B.C. belong, which was exported 2,500 years ago from Athens to Etruria, was excavated legally by a Delegation from the Vatican, sold to a Prussian monarch and lastly transferred from the royal collection to the nascent public museum some 170 years ago? Does the vase now belong to Athens, Vulci, Rome or Berlin ? Moreover, many priceless objects would have been destroyed had they not been rescued by archæologists, as is the case with the Pergamon Altar, saved by German archæologists. > From the outset, the State Museums of Berlin based their acquisitions on the decisions of a committee of directors (replacing the personal tastes of largely aristocratic individuals), and displayed the arts and cultures of the whole world. This is why the objects in the collections of major museums may be considered to be part of world heritage. Often these objects only gain their notoriety because they have been displayed, in these universal museums, to a wide international audience for hundreds of years. > The collections in Berlin were acquired through the art market or private commerce. No deal was in fact possible without a contract of sale or permission to export. This does not mean that nothing was sold or exported. But it does mean that all objects came legally into the collections. > The Directors of the State Museums in West Berlin adopted a Declaration in 1976 which condemned illegal excavations, the concealment of origin and the illegal trade of archaeological objects. It argued for cultural exchange through loans between museums which would respect the requirements of preserving and restoring the works. As a consequence, long-term loan agreements have been introduced between Germany and both Italy and Greece. In 2002, we also prepared a Declaration to the effect that we, as Universal Museums, will not loan out for exhibition any objects of dubious legal background. Our international congress on Illegal Archaeology, planned long before the Declaration on Universal Museums, again denounced unauthorised excavation and illegal art-dealing, and proposed solutions. > In connection with the demand for the restitution of art works in the possession of our museums, we distinguish four categories of case. Firstly, there are historical art works, which were as a rule purchased legally. Secondly, there is war booty seized on behalf of the State as reparation or as war trophy. This is the case between Germany and Russia. Thirdly, there are cultural possessions acquired as a consequence of persecution – art looted by the Nazis. And lastly, there are stolen goods from illegal excavations and plundering. 4