The book is a milestone in the field of cultural property, addressing the enduring question of whether cultural objects removed under colonial or coercive conditions should be returned or retained.
Gerstenblith insists this is both a legal and ethical issue, embedded in colonial histories and structural inequalities. Framed around reparative justice, she argues that legal ownership must always be situated in historical context, particularly in light of imperial conquest, asymmetrical power, and the persistence of Western dominance in museums and conservation practices.
Underlying the entire study lies a liberal ethics of heritage. The book is a pinnacle of this tradition: It assumes that historical injustices can and should be addressed through law and institutional reform. It embodies a belief in progress and accountability.
For instance, the author’s analysis of the US legal framework on the repatriation of Native American graves (NAGPRA) emphasizes its implementation by museums receiving federal funding. Yet in today’s climate, when federal funding to museums is likely to stop, the question arises: What becomes of the achievements of NAGPRA when the world seems to be turning once again toward realpolitik?
The book’s limitations are equally instructive. Its perspective remains largely Euro-American, with minimal engagement with South American, Asian, or African scholarship. This is also reflected in how the cases are framed.
While the book discusses the Yuanmingyuan and Benin Bronzes, it is only in their involvement with museums in Europe and the United States, with no attention to inter–Third World narratives.
The book also does not fully address the contemporary political economy of restitution; why claims are mobilized by governments and communities today, and to what ends.
