Repatriation in Context: The Case for Cooperation

By John Freeman

Cultural heritage is contentious.^[1] Recent litigation between the Getty Museum and Italy is a testament to the polarized nature of these disputes, which pit museums against nation states.^[2] While Italy argues that the ancient bronze statue known as the “Victorious Youth” should return to Italy, the Getty Museum contends that the work should remain in its collection.^[3] This case is individually nuanced and significant; however, in their quarrel over whether to repatriate (i.e., return the object to the nation state), both sides advance arguments that are decades old.

Repatriation has always been controversial. Given the great cultural (and economic) value of these artifacts,^[4] it is hardly a surprise that ownership debates have been ongoing for centuries. Over that time, two competing approaches—one in favor of repatriation, one against—have ebbed and flowed in a dance that, as of Getty v. Italy, remains unresolved.

This article traces a brief evolution of that discourse. In doing so, it highlights how arguments against repatriation—the very same arguments now advanced by the Getty—have remained unchanged for decades. While there is truth to these repeated assertions, their ongoing use in litigation today functions to perpetuate polarization. This article suggests that, to reach an enduring resolution, museums should instead collaborate with nations (as they have in recent years) to pursue creative solutions to repatriation disputes, such as replicas and long-term loans. In a world where cultural heritage is undervalued, those who care should be working with—not against—one another.