Pirates of the Smithsonian

            There is a lot of controversy over whether the Smithsonian should still show their “Shipwrecked” exhibit. In 1998 on the coast of Indonesia’s Belitung Island, local fisherman diving for sea cucumbers discovered a shipwreck vessel containing objects from China’s Tang Dynasty.  Due to the Indonesian government’s poor regulation, the fisherman began looting the treasures. Some of the treasure ended up being sold on eBay. They eventually took control of the situation and hired Seabed explorations to excavate the site. Seabed sold most of the excavated artifacts to the Singaporean government for $32 million and gave the Indonesian the recovered artifacts and $2.5 million. The Smithsonian’s plan was to bring the artifacts that are already on display in Singapore in their “Shipwrecked” exhibition to DC. There is an argument whether they should do this or not because the artifacts are considered to be looted and weren’t excavated properly. Smithsonian is also a member of the Council of American Maritime Museums which follows the saying, “shall not knowingly ... exhibit artifacts which have been stolen ... or removed from commercially exploited ... sites." A lot of people think that the Smithsonian should cancel their exhibition because of this.

It is hard to say which side is right or wrong in this debate, but I think that Smithsonian should still go ahead with their plans on the “Shipwrecked” exhibition. The artifacts that in their exhibition, according to the Smithsonian, are from Seabed, and aren’t the stolen ones. In my opinion, they aren’t doing anything wrong. They have permission to use the artifacts and aren’t using the stolen ones or stole them themselves. I don’t see this as going against their statement they follow because Seabed went in and excavated the site after being hired, paid the Indonesian government, sold the artifacts to Singapore, and recovered the stolen ones. The artifacts are already on display right now in Singapore and these ones are the excavated ones by Seabed.

I think it is important for them to show the exhibit so everyone will be able to see the artifacts and experience that culture. The Practices of Looking book talks about how a person understands the meaning of something by experiencing it. It is different seeing an object in person than just an image of it. If everyone was able to go to the Smithsonian exhibit and be able to really visualize and touch these artifacts from the Chinese Dynasty, they could get more of a sense of the Arab and Chinese culture and the trade between the two countries. It also proves that it really did exist. Finding the shipwreck was a huge moment in history and everyone should be able to experience that part in history. Museums are meant for displaying moments and time pieces in history so we can get a sense of what it was like in that time period and culture.

            Many museums have displayed pieces or artifacts that weren’t from their country or culture or that were stolen before. The British Museum has a piece of the Parthenon in Greece that was removed in the early in 1800s by the Ottoman Empire. This was considered vandalism, so they then offered to pay for it. The Geneva Convention has gotten back some of the artwork stolen from Jews by the Nazis during 1933-1945. The Louvre’s collection was shaped by colonialism. This means, “A relationship of domination that helped to rationalize French proprietary rights to a colony’s cultural production” (422). These rights from colonialism are still under negotiation. The Smithsonian didn’t take any artifacts from another country or use the stolen artifacts, so I think they should still show they exhibition.