« Collier on the Food Crisis | Main | Do local currencies do any good? »
Who Owns Antiquity?
If by chance a scholar came across the Rosetta Stone in a private collection, she would be discouraged from publishing it in today's leading English-language, archaeological journals. Those journals have policies against serving as "the initial place of publication or pronouncement" of any unprovenanced object acquired by an individual or institution after December 30, 1970, unless it was in a collection prior to that date, or there is evidence that it was legally exported from its country of origin...Not being acquired or published, and thus neither studied nor deciphered, the Rosetta Stone would be a mere curiosity, Egyptology as we know it would not exist...
That is from James Cuno's excellent Who Owns Antiquity: Museums and the Battle Over Our Ancient Heritage. The book criticizes nationalistic identity politics, calls for measures to broaden international access to antiquities, and argues that museums should again be allowed to acquire undocumented antiquities. In other words he favors a cosmopolitan, property rights approach. Here is the book's web page. Here is an interview, with incisive questions.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 3, 2008 at 03:17 PM in Law | Permalink
Comments
If a scholar came across the Rosetta Stone in a private collection -- he would probably do exactly what some scholars did with the Dead Sea Scrolls (which, note, are before the policy Cuno criticizes). Namely, sit on them for decades so nobody else gets access.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls
"...the documents from Cave 4, which represent 40% of the total finds. The publication of these had been entrusted to an international team led by Father Roland de Vaux ... This group published the first volume of the material entrusted to them in 1968, but spent much of their energies defending their theories regarding the materials, instead of publishing them.
"Geza Vermes, who had been involved from the start in the editing and publication of these documents, blamed the delay—and eventual failure—on de Vaux's selection of a team unsuited to the quality of work he had planned, as well as relying on "his personal, quasi-patriarchal authority" to control the completion of the work.
"As a result, a large part of the finds from Cave 4 were not made public for many years."
Actually, I would guess things are a lot better now since high quality digital photography can easily be put in a digital archive. That won't work for all scholarly endeavors, but it will for a lot of them. I would guess it would work very well for something like the Rosetta Stone.
Posted by: ZBicyclist at May 3, 2008 3:56:34 PM
Important stuff. Hershel Shanks at the Biblical Archaeology Review has been fighting for broader scholarly access to the James Ossuary for some time. At least from the way Shanks tells it, it appears the Israeli government authorities working in this area have developed a bunker mentality.
http://www.bib-arch.org/debates/antiquities-trial-01.asp
Posted by: Michael F. Martin at May 3, 2008 5:45:08 PM
To the rest of the world the almost exclusively North American position that "Antiquities ... are the cultural property of all humankind" looks pretty similar to just dressed-up legitimising of looting. Ask any informed Iraqui about the loss of treasures as the state crumbled through the sanctions years of the 1990s (let alone developments since 2003), and then take a hard look at the unscrupulous growth of corresponding collections at the Metropolitan. It's not a pretty story, however well dressed up, and it's easy to proclaim that "what's yours is ours" when you don't have much of an antiquity of your own.
Posted by: anon at May 3, 2008 6:44:56 PM
Smuggling of antiquities is a continuing problem, especially in countries that cannot afford to document them, let alone protect them from looting. Just like the trade in endangered species, the traffic only flows because there is a market for it. There is not a lot that can be done about personal collectors with deep pockets, since they are by and large unlikely to care about provenance. But surely it's a bit rich for institutions, especially ones with academic and scientific aspiration/pretense, to re-delineate the display of looted items as ethically ok.
Posted by: taj at May 3, 2008 8:57:36 PM
WW(I)JD?
[What Would Indiana Jones Do?]
"It belongs in a museum".
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at May 3, 2008 8:58:59 PM
I am hardly an expert on this, but I think what is truly dangerous is to house all antiquities from a certain region in the museums of a single country. Especially when countries and, therefore, the collections they house are subject to political tides--wars, changes of regime, etc. It seems like simple risk management to spread antiquities around the globe thereby reducing the possibility that they could be destroyed or looted in one catastrophic swoop (a war in which museums are looted for example). Not to mention that there are social benefits in sharing each other's history and cultures--especially when so much of the world seems fractured and distant.
Posted by: anon at May 3, 2008 10:14:47 PM
--To the rest of the world the almost exclusively North American position that "Antiquities ... are the cultural property of all humankind" looks pretty similar to just dressed-up legitimising of looting.
Yeah, except it's not just North America--it's Europe, too. And when Western Civilization legitimizes such "looting", funny how
a: the treasures get preserved and restored
b: the treasures become accessible to millions of people
Show me how Saddam Hussein gave a damn about making sure anyone other than his clan ever saw any of his country's antiquities and maybe you'd have a point. Look at how Egypt cannot save its Pyramids or the Sphinx. Look at the great job letting the Taliban be in charge of their region's antiquities worked out, and maybe I'd care if "we" are "looters" who put things in museums open to the world's public.
Posted by: mouse at May 3, 2008 11:14:24 PM
Ah yes, about time the White Man's Burden argument was trotted out. Mouse, artifacts of a culture's history are not a circus sideshow to be some part of a $10 show and tell. If it is so important for the West to preserve these items, surely they can assist with money and expertise without shipping them overseas? Contrary to what you are implying, by the way, you are today free to fly to Egypt to look at the Pyramids and the Sphinx, to Cambodia to look at the Angkor Wat, to India to look at the temples at Hampi, and ten years ago it was still possible to visit museums in Baghdad. And it would bring in the tourist dollars necessary to help restore them, as is actually happening in many of these places despite the poverty and corruption. Tell me mouse, what test do coloured people need to pass before they are deemed worthy, in your eyes, of remaining the owners of their own history? And context matters. I think you might agree that an otherwise unimpressive item like the Liberty Bell would lose a lot of its historical impact sitting on a pedestal in a hall in the National Museum of New Delhi with a 3x4 plaque next to it.
Posted by: taj at May 3, 2008 11:52:57 PM
"Ah yes, about time the White Man's Burden argument was trotted out. Mouse, artifacts of a culture's history are not a circus sideshow to be some part of a $10 show and tell. If it is so important for the West to preserve these items, surely they can assist with money and expertise without shipping them overseas?"
So you not only want to keep the antiquities, you think that the man ought to be paying you off because.. well, I'm not sure why. Oh, you guys don't have the expertise either...
Posted by: Dennis Mangan at May 4, 2008 12:12:52 AM
No, I am saying if it really is that important to the West, then pony up without demanding ownership. If not, then leave it alone and stop pretending to be doing it for the good of all mankind.
Posted by: taj at May 4, 2008 1:01:41 AM
Egypt's and Greece's antiquities are alright for them to claim, as are the Mayan sites in Guatemala, but a lot of the Iraqi antiquities are from Sassanid or Achamenid Persia. Where do the modern Iraqis, descendents of the conquerors of the area they now live in, get off claiming cultural ownership of the people they dispossessed, or the people the people they dispossessed dispossessed?
The same can be said for Roman ruins in Hungary/Turkey/Syria/North Africa, if people in those places are also complaining. Your ancestors didn't build it, you have no claim on it.
Posted by: jb at May 4, 2008 1:56:49 AM
I like taj's argument: pay us off or the antiquity gets it.
Posted by: assad at May 4, 2008 11:50:09 AM
at leat are only stone.In the countries of the andean community biological research is forbideen without natives permissionns. They own nature. Supposedly trasnational will steale their ancient recipes. Wich onesa their life expectancy is 20 years for a man 15 for a woman
Posted by: karl at May 4, 2008 12:52:31 PM
assad - that's a pretty fair assessment of my position. The problem at hand is the lack of funds, enforcement and expertise at source (at least in the case of less developed countries - I don't know how Italy will work out). Traffic in "undocumented" artifacts is not a sustainable solution. A better model, perhaps, would be one where museums and galleries get a fixed-term or fixed-profit right to the artifacts (perhaps with first publishing rights in case of research papers), and in return they provide expertise and surplus profit to the source nations or archaeological bodies. Let's call it Philanthropy Plus Fifteen Percent, in honour of Cecil Rhodes. I'm surprised something like this hasn't been mentioned so far. As less developed countries get more and more nationalist, this is going to going to become a bigger issue, especially since some museums in the West, in the UK for example, have collections that are teeming with colonial spoils.
Posted by: taj at May 4, 2008 3:11:12 PM
(Sorry about the lack of parabreaks - I don't know why my browser is doing it). I guess I am getting a bit indignant because it seems folks are missing what is clear to me - historical artifacts are, at a simplistic level, no different a national resource from oil, minerals or biomass. Nobody would consider giving up their land for free to someone else to dig for oil because they are incapable of doing it themselves, so why treat antiquities differently? Or to put it another way, world over countries say, "pay us or the oil never leaves the ground." I see no difference.
Posted by: taj at May 4, 2008 3:28:16 PM
I guess I am getting a bit indignant because it seems folks are missing what is clear to me - historical artifacts are, at a simplistic level, no different a national resource from oil, minerals or biomass.
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't Cuno's "property rights" approach in fact much closer to how these other "national resources" are actually treated than is the "cultural rights" approach? I don't think Cuno is advocating removing antiquities from source countries without compensation to the owner, merely that a free market should exist in these goods--much like there is a market in minerals. After all, you said earlier that "...if it is so important for the West to preserve these items, surely they can assist with money and expertise without shipping them overseas?" But I don't think anyone would suggest that Saudi Arabia shouldn't ship oil overseas, so I can't see how treating antiquities the same as other resources (which you say are "no different" from antiquities) involves strong restrictions on export.
Posted by: Steven at May 4, 2008 7:16:19 PM
Mouse, artifacts of a culture's history are not a circus sideshow to be some part of a $10 show and tell.
Why not? As someone who has spent $10, €10, £10 etc for show and tell shows, and has gotten a great deal of value out of them, this seems quite a sensible approach to me.
Posted by: Tracy W at May 5, 2008 3:09:11 PM
I think the main problem is that Western museums have been taking whatever they could get their hands on from source nations for so long without reserve, and the source nations have had enough. The UNESCO Convention was created to give source nations some means to stop their antiquities from being looted and exported illegally, over which they have historically had little control. I would imagine some source nations now are using the political constructs Cuno has described as a way to hoard their objects rather than continue to disperse them. Who can really blame them after seeing so many cultural treasures leave their countries without their knowledge?
The main problem I have with Cuno's argument is that he is spending valuable time trying to convince the world (from a Western cultural standpoint) that American museums are now the victim and the source nations the enemy, rather than trying to look at the long-term picture and come up with workable solutions that can and will eventually benefit everyone. The idea of partage is definitely a good one, but will source nations will be any more likely to cooperate with a director who has so vigilantly and openly excoriated source nations' efforts to preserve antiquities? I'm not so sure.
Posted by: tk at Jun 1, 2008 2:43:29 PM
WILL CUNO AND CO EVER LEARN?
Cuno is a defender of the so-called "universal museums”, now called "encyclopedic museums" and perhaps more correctly, imperialistic or totalitarian museums. The museum that never has enough of anything and seeks a total control of all cultural objects by all means, including the use of force by the army of the country where the museum is situated-Louvre, British Museum, The Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Art Institute of Chicago. These museums now lament the end of the imperialistic and colonial period in which they amassed most of their stock. This was the period when the Europeans could take virtually from any country what ever cultural object they desired. That period is, mercifully, at an end and Cuno and co are agitating for the return to that system, so-called partage system which enabled the Europeans to take away massive archaeological objects from countries like Egypt. Cuno labels those who seek the return of the stolen cultural objects as nationalists but what about those who fight to keep the objects in the museums of the West, are they internationalists or what?
This new book does not advance in anyway the debate about the restitution of cultural objects. On the contrary it will only help to solidify the known positions. That leading museum directors do not understand the desire of Africans and Asians to recover their stolen cultural objects, is a sad commentary on the cultural landscape of the world. The perspective would have appeared better without the addition of this book which will only serve as additional object for heated controversies and it comes from a museum director of one of the leading museums of the Western world.
Kwame Opoku. 22 May,2008.
Posted by: DR. KWAME OPOKU at Jun 7, 2008 2:35:24 PM
WILL CUNO AND CO EVER LEARN?
Cuno is a defender of the so-called "universal museums”, now called "encyclopedic museums" and perhaps more correctly, imperialistic or totalitarian museums. The museum that never has enough of anything and seeks a total control of all cultural objects by all means, including the use of force by the army of the country where the museum is situated-Louvre, British Museum, The Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Art Institute of Chicago. These museums now lament the end of the imperialistic and colonial period in which they amassed most of their stock. This was the period when the Europeans could take virtually from any country what ever cultural object they desired. That period is, mercifully, at an end and Cuno and co are agitating for the return to that system, so-called partage system which enabled the Europeans to take away massive archaeological objects from countries like Egypt. Cuno labels those who seek the return of the stolen cultural objects as nationalists but what about those who fight to keep the objects in the museums of the West, are they internationalists or what?
This new book does not advance in anyway the debate about the restitution of cultural objects. On the contrary it will only help to solidify the known positions. That leading museum directors do not understand the desire of Africans and Asians to recover their stolen cultural objects, is a sad commentary on the cultural landscape of the world. The perspective would have appeared better without the addition of this book which will only serve as additional object for heated controversies and it comes from a museum director of one of the leading museums of the Western world.
Kwame Opoku. 22 May,2008.
Posted by: DR. KWAME OPOKU at Jun 7, 2008 2:36:08 PM
WILL CUNO AND CO EVER LEARN?
Cuno is a defender of the so-called "universal museums”, now called "encyclopedic museums" and perhaps more correctly, imperialistic or totalitarian museums. The museum that never has enough of anything and seeks a total control of all cultural objects by all means, including the use of force by the army of the country where the museum is situated-Louvre, British Museum, The Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Art Institute of Chicago. These museums now lament the end of the imperialistic and colonial period in which they amassed most of their stock. This was the period when the Europeans could take virtually from any country what ever cultural object they desired. That period is, mercifully, at an end and Cuno and co are agitating for the return to that system, so-called partage system which enabled the Europeans to take away massive archaeological objects from countries like Egypt. Cuno labels those who seek the return of the stolen cultural objects as nationalists but what about those who fight to keep the objects in the museums of the West, are they internationalists or what?
This new book does not advance in anyway the debate about the restitution of cultural objects. On the contrary it will only help to solidify the known positions. That leading museum directors do not understand the desire of Africans and Asians to recover their stolen cultural objects, is a sad commentary on the cultural landscape of the world. The perspective would have appeared better without the addition of this book which will only serve as additional object for heated controversies and it comes from a museum director of one of the leading museums of the Western world.
Kwame Opoku. 22 May,2008.
Posted by: DR. KWAME OPOKU at Jun 7, 2008 2:36:19 PM
THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO DISTANCES ITSELF FROM THE CONTROVERSIAL BOOK OF ITS DIRECTOR, JAMES CUNO, WHO OWNS ANTIQUITY?
Finally, the Art Institute of Chicago has reached the conclusion which others have reached long time ago, that the position and the views Cuno and his followers have been propagating over a long period, are not conducive to good and friendly relations. The view that the strong can take the artefacts of the weak and keep them has never been morally acceptable, no matter what James Cuno, Director, Art, Institute of Chicago, Neil Macgregor, Director British Museum, Phillipe de Montebello, Director, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, may say to the contrary. That there has been so far no strong resistance to the activities of the Western museums should not be taken as evidence that they are on the right path.
If the various museums in Chicago have finally seen the light of the day, we would expect them to act soon and swiftly. They should rest assured that they have the support of most of the intellectuals in the West, they can rely on the moral support and approval of the peoples of Africa, Asia, Latin America and Oceania in their efforts to clean up their museums and return cultural artefacts to their countries of origin as, the UNESCO and the United Nations have been asking over the last thirty decades.
The museums in Chicago should know that by showing respect to the African peoples and their artefacts, they are also showing respect to their African American population who can never feel completely free when they know that the cultural and religious symbols of their ancestors have been detained in museums across the USA. They cannot feel at ease in a country which insists on treating the valuable and cherished religious and cultural symbols of their ancestors as mere museum pieces which can be forcibly taken away from their societies of origin and placed in other societies which treat them as war trophies or objects for aesthetic contemplation.
The US museums are not responsible for the atrocities of the British in 1897 but they should not condone criminal and illegal acts by remaining silent and
dealing with stolen objects as if they had been legitimately acquired. The ignoble acts of the 19th and 20th century need not be perpetuated by conferring on them any semblance of legality and legitimacy.
Should the Chicago museums remain steadfast and sweep their museums clean of any vestiges of colonialism and imperialism, they would make an inestimable contribution to improving relations to peoples on both sides of the Atlantic.
We congratulate the Board of Trustees of the Art Institute of Chicago on their first step in the right direction. They can count on our unfailing support in this endeavour.
The Trustees should also take a serious look at the infamous Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums which embodies the ideas of Cuno and his supporters, such as Philippe de Montebello and Neil MacGregor. By this Declaration the Western holders of artefacts illegally and illegitimately acquired from Africa and elsewhere declared their intention of not returning these stolen artefacts which were declared as part of Western culture:
“Over time, objects so acquired—whether by purchase, gift, or partage—have become part of the museums that have cared for them, and by extension part of the heritage of the nations which house them”
This Declaration and its further elaboration by Cuno and his allies has had the effect of making more acrimonious the debate on restitution of cultural property. The abrasive language of Cuno and the arrogance displayed in the writings of supporters of retention of stolen cultural objects and their insensitivity ion have done incalculable damage to the relationship between the Western countries and African and Asian countries. The colonial and 19th century imperialist pomposity which runs through the whole Declaration has engendered resistance to Western hegemonial tendencies.
The Board of Trustees of the Art Institute of Chicago should, in contact with the American signatories of the infamous document, endeavour to find ways of counterbalancing the damage done by that document and, if possible issue a clear statement defining their own approach to the question of restitution of stolen/looted African cultural objects. A general approach should be worked out to provide a solution to this general question. The infamous Declaration envisaged a case by case approach but given that there are thousand of these objects in Western museums, it could take ages to solve a problem which should not take so long to solve,if there is genuine goodwill.
The world has serious problems of poverty and hunger to resolve and we should not let a few museum directors create problems where there should be none.
Those interested in following the arguments and controversies surrounding the views of Cuno and related issues may wish to consult:
“DO PRESENT-DAY EGYPTIANS EAT THE SAME FOOD AS TUTHANKHAMUN? REVIEW OF JAMES CUNO’S WHO OWNS ANTIQUITY?” http://www.afrikanet
“BENIN TO CHICAGO: IN THE UNIVERSAL MUSEUM”http://www.museum-security
“NEFERTITI, IDIA AND OTHER AFRICAN ICONS IN EUROPEAN
MUSEUMS: THE THIN EDGE OF EUROPEAN
MORALITY”http://www.modernghana.com
Kwame Opoku. August 08, 2008
Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums
The international museum community shares the conviction that illegal traffic in archaeological, artistic, and ethnic objects must be firmly discouraged. We should, however, recognize that objects acquired in earlier times must be viewed in the light of different sensitivities and values, reflective of that earlier era. The objects and monumental works that were installed decades and even centuries ago in museums throughout Europe and America were acquired under conditions that are not comparable with current ones.
Over time, objects so acquired—whether by purchase, gift, or partage—have become part of the museums that have cared for them, and by extension part of the heritage of the nations which house them. Today we are especially sensitive to the subject of a work’s original context, but we should not lose sight of the fact that museums too provide a valid and valuable context for objects that were long ago displaced from their original source.
The universal admiration for ancient civilizations would not be so deeply established today were it not for the influence exercised by the artifacts of these cultures, widely available to an international public in major museums. Indeed, the sculpture of classical Greece, to take but one example, is an excellent
illustration of this point and of the importance of public collecting. The centuries
long history of appreciation of Greek art began in antiquity, was renewed in Renaissance Italy, and subsequently spread through the rest of Europe and to the Americas. Its accession into the collections of public museums throughout the world marked the significance of Greek sculpture for mankind as a whole
and its enduring value for the contemporary world. Moreover, the distinctly Greek aesthetic of these works appears all the more strongly as the result of their being seen and studied in direct proximity to products of other great civilizations.
Calls to repatriate objects that have belonged to museum collections for many years have become an important issue for museums. Although each case has to be judged individually, we should acknowledge that museums serve not just the citizens of one nation but the people of every nation. Museums are agents in the development of culture, whose mission is to foster knowledge by a continuous process of reinterpretation. Each object contributes to that process. To narrow the focus of museums whose collections are diverse and multifaceted would therefore be a disservice to all
visitors.
Signed by the Directors of:
The Art Institute of Chicago
Bavarian State Museum, Munich (Alte Pinakothek,
Neue Pinakothek)
State Museums, Berlin
Cleveland Museum of Art
J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles
Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York
Los Angeles County Museum of Art
Louvre Museum, Paris
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
The Museum of Modern Art, New York
Opificio delle Pietre Dure, Florence
Philadelphia Museum of Art
Prado Museum, Madrid
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg
Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum, Madrid
Whitney Museum of American Art, New York
# # #
Posted by: Dr.Kwame Opoku at Aug 9, 2008 2:48:40 PM
