Museums" Property Claims Are Not Simply About Evidence The decision by the Metropolitan Museum of Art to return two ancient Khmer statues to Cambodia last month, less than a year after their ownership was challenged, shows how quickly museums can act on cultural property claims in an era when source countries are far more demanding. But given the implications of surrendering an item, speedy decisions remain rare. More typical are disputes like one between Turkey and the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles over a fifth-century bronze bed known as a Lydian kline, which has been an item of contention since 1995. Last year two scholars, whose research was supported by the Getty, found that the bed was likely looted from Turkey in the 1970s. The Getty has called the findings intriguing but "circumstantial" and said it hopes to continue talks with Turkey while awaiting "more secure and compelling evidence." Is the disparity in time - some cases resolved quickly, others unsettled for decades - simply a matter of which countries present the more convincing evidence? Hardly, according to experts who say the calculus of repatriation involves less cut-and-dried measures like the outlook of the museum and its board, the institution's public relations needs at the moment, the identity of the donor of the disputed item and even the identity of the country that is asking for its return. In dealing with the Met, Cambodia was diplomatic, made a targeted claim and reacted to the return with effusive praise. Both sides also saw an opportunity to strengthen their ties, and Cambodia has agreed to a major Khmer exhibition at the Met next year. The Turks have been more ambitious and strategic in their demands, refusing to participate in loan exhibitions with several museums under a tactic that some officials have compared to blackmail. In the case of the Getty, officials there say the Turks first questioned the museum's ownership of several dozen items without providing any backup, then cut that number in half. "Our experience with these requests does not give us confidence in their merit," said James Cuno, the Getty's president. And it is not clear, Getty officials say privately, that simply returning the bed will do much to sate Turkish interest in a host of other items. For their part, Turkish officials have said characterizations of their repatriation requests as aggressive and unsupported by the evidence are self-serving. Even as Western museums have grown more receptive to cultural property challenges in the last decade, they remain bound by fiduciary obligations, ethical principles and burdens of proof that can vary by institution. "Museums must untangle a lot of knots before making such an irrevocable decision," said Stephen K. Urice, a professor and expert on cultural heritage law at the University of Miami School of Law in Florida. The stickiest question is what constitutes proof positive that a holding violates the intent or spirit of laws and rules adopted since 1970 to help stem the trade and acquisition of illicit artifacts. For example, in 2008, the Association of Art Museum Directors, the industry's major trade group, wrote sweeping guidelines advising museums that they "normally should not" acquire a work unless solid proof exists that the object was, before 1970, outside the country where it was discovered in modern times, or was legally exported from that country after 1970. But there is a wide latitude in what constitutes solid proof or how to interpret phrases like "normally should not," according to experts like Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, a cultural heritage lawyer. He said the lack of "a clear evidentiary or procedural standard that universally guides provenance investigations at museums" contributes to uneven decision making among institutions. In one case last September, the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology agreed to a Turkish request to return 24 gold pieces. They were sent back on indefinite loan. Among the evidence the museum relied on was a speck of soil lodged in a pendant that matched a site known to have been illegally excavated. The museum had acquired the items in 1966, which is in accord with the museum association guidelines, but the return was also based on other factors, including assurances that the university can continue excavations in Turkey and hold an exhibition of new artifacts dug up from royal tombs.