Stakeholders and Interests in Cultural Heritage Issues

Archaeologists, museums, dealers, and collectors are the most frequently referenced "stakeholders" in cultural property issues. Archaeologists and other scholars are concerned about the destruction of information resulting from looting. Museums are concerned about mainting the prestige and integrity of their collections and exhibiting to the public. Collectors have a passion for the ancient world that is expressed through personal acquisition and often enjoy the physical or tactile connection the past. Dealers acquire objects and sell them at a profit to those want to acquire them. The general public is often ignored as one of the stakeholders, but SAFECORNER recently commented on the public's interest.

One group of stakeholders, those who profit financially, have been heavily involved in the issues and are waging a sort of public relations battle, claiming to be "better scholars" than trained professionals, in order to distance themselves from their inherent commercial interest as tradesmen (see for example, Jerome Hall's "The Fig and the Spade" and my post on SAFECORNER "Archaeologists don't care about coins"). In light of some recent activity, I have discussed the divergent interests, and asked why some dealers often allege archaeologists and other scholars have ulterior motives for their stances on cultural heritage issues. Read the post at: "'Dilettanti and Shopmen': Divergent Interests in Looting and Cultural Heritage Issues."

James Cuno's Illogic

James Cuno's new book, Who Owns Antiquities?, continues to push the case he has been arguing for several years now in print against current international conventions designed to protect cultural heritage from looting. Such conventions, he has suggested, are in bad faith. "If only current international agreements were intended to preserve archaeological knowledge," Cuno has written elsewhere. "If only they were meant to make sure that we know where the world's archaeological objects were found and that its archaeological sites are preserved. But they are not. They are intended instead to preserve the integrity of one nation's cultural property at the expense of the world's interest in international exchange."

Bad faith, of course, could equally well be charged against those with an interest in international exchange -- the museums and collectors who benefit from current international agreements allowing them to purchase artifacts without having to show that the provenance of these objects is legitimate (or even having to register their purchase at all). If only such agreements were intended to preserve archaeological knowledge. If only they were meant to make sure that we know where the world's archaeological objects were found and that its archaeological sites are preserved. But they are not. They are intended instead to promote the interest, not of the world but of individual collectors and museums, at the expense of the integrity of one nation's cultural property.

If Cuno does not choose to complain about agreements that favor collectors and museums, it is because he believes that harm done to archaeological knowledge is always and only caused by retentionism. The source of all evil, retentionism not only prevents "the world" from benefiting from the chance to own antiquities -- it actually puts archaeological objects at greater risk. This is supposedly illustrated most dramatically by what happened in Afghanistan, where a retentionist policy meant that excavated artifacts were hoarded in the Kabul Museum, making it easy for them to be destroyed by the Taliban.

It is not difficult to see a problem with Cuno's logic here. Suppose the Taliban had inherited a museum built on internationalist principles rather than retentionist ones. Does Cuno really believe that they would then not have still considered whatever artifacts the museum held idols to be destroyed? The Taliban policy of iconoclasm would have been pursued regardless of whether the previous policy had been internationalist or retentionist. The only difference would have been that rather than destroying only Afghan artifacts the Taliban might also have destroyed items loaned or exchanged by other museums under an internationalist system.

There is no logical link between retentionism and iconoclasm, pace Cuno. Nor is there a logical link between retentionism and the looting of the Iraq National Museum, Cuno's other incendiary claim. Antiquities in Iraq, in fact, were among the safest in the world under the retentionist regime of Saddam Hussein (at least until the sanctions regime and the no-fly zone sapped his power). What put the Iraq National Museum's collection of antiquities at risk was not retentionism, but the failure of American forces to secure the Museum grounds after smashing Saddam's government to smithereens.

The lesson here is not that retentionism is a better policy than internationalism. It is, rather, that the fate of cultural heritage depends less on a country's legal framework -- retentionist or internationalist -- than on its power to enforce whatever laws it has, and its will to protect (or, in rare instances like the Taliban, its will to destroy) its cultural property. A police state in which the leader cares about cultural heritage is one in which law and order will be maintained, and cultural property secured and conserved. Conversely, a free country with an internationalist cultural heritage policy but inadequate resources for maintaining law and order (whether in general or with regard to cultural property in particular) will be susceptible to the ravages of looting. And, of course, the greater the demand from collectors individual and institutional, the more at risk heritage will be, whatever the legal regime in place.

If Cuno really is concerned about knowing where objects are found and about conserving archaeological sites, it would make far better sense for him to stop obsessing about retentionism and focus instead on what the museum and collecting community could do to direct resources towards policing efforts. Individual contributions by wealthy contributors would be wonderful, but an even stronger measure would be for collectors to call for a tax to be levied on all purchases of antiquities, with the revenues generated by the tax dedicated to anti-trafficking efforts.

To own or not to own: Is that the question?

“Who Owns the Past?” “Who Owns Antiquity?” “Who Owns Culture?” “Who Owns Art?” “Who Owns Objects?” “Who Owns History?” A flurry of similar-sounding questions has been circulating in the media for some time now. Varying on the same theme, they are used as headlines in an array of formats: books, articles, lectures, panel discussions, etc.

While these questions raise some interesting points, we would like to ask some of our own:

1. “Who Owns __?” advocates imply: The right to ownership and possession of artifacts trumps all other considerations.

SAFECORNER asks: By focusing on ownership, are we neglecting the single most important point: the discovery of our yet-unknown past through protection, and the proper excavation of, ancient sites and tombs and burial grounds? What about the "past" / "antiquity" / "culture" / "art" / "objects" / "history" that remains underground? What part do these arguments have in stemming the plunder of cultural heritage caused by looting and the illicit antiquities trade?

2. “Who Owns __?” advocates contend: International conventions and national laws have failed because looting persists.

SAFECORNER asks: Instead of challenging the best legal mechanisms we have, should not more effort be made to observe and respect them? We don't throw away the criminal justice system because crimes are committed, do we?

3. “Who Owns __?” advocates insist: The importance of archaeological context is overstated, because virtually everything we need to know is inherent in the object.

SAFECORNER asks: If not found in graves, or in context, what could the Tilya Tepe hoard tell us about ancient Bactria if it had been discovered as loose pieces of beautiful gold jewelry? One doesn’t need to be an Afghan to appreciate the value inherent in discovering an untouched ancient site. Conversely, aside from speculations, what do we know about who was buried in the now-looted tombs of Cerveteri? What do we really know about the Vicús culture, which has been looted to near-extinction, or the civilization that created the artifacts looted from Batán Grande, now on display at the Met?

4. “Who Owns __?” advocates suggest: The stakeholders in these debates are archaeologists versus acquirers: museums, dealers, and private collectors.

SAFECORNER asks: What about the rest of us? Many people from all walks of life who are not archaeologists, collectors, museum curators, dealers, nationalists, or socialists also feel very strongly about these issues. Our opinions also matter. After all, it is public opinion that shapes politics and policies and the politicians who create them. UNESCO is an organization of member nations that choose to join. And sovereign nations are governed by politicians who exercise power on behalf of the public, for the most part.

5. “Who Owns __?” advocates argue: Nations that did not exist in ancient times have no inherent right to ancient artifacts found within their territories. For example, does Italy really have the right to claim objects taken from institutions such as the Metropolitan Museum of New York, which was actually built before the Italian state was formed?

SAFECORNER asks: Is a nation ever too young to assert its sovereignty or jurisdiction? What about the United States? Barely over a couple hundred years old since our founding fathers created the nation, should we give up all claims to Native American artifacts? Revoke the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)?

Finally, we recommend that ALL stakeholders ask themselves this question: what are we going to do to stop the continued destruction of our "past" / "antiquity" / "culture" / "art" / "objects" / "history"?

Five Years On, SAFE Remembers the Looting of the Iraq Museum

“The way you remember the past depends upon your hope for the future.”-Story Musgrave, astronaut

Five years after the looting of the Iraq Museum, SAFE is still the global leader in commemorating this tragic event and making sure that its lessons are not forgotten. Cultural heritage around the world remains vulnerable to looting and destruction, but sometimes the most powerful gesture of commitment to cultural heritage is a simple gesture.

Between April 10 and 12, 2003, the world watched as the Iraq Museum in Baghdad fell victim to rampant looting and destruction. Despite the efforts of the Museum’s staff-and repeated warnings from international experts that the Museum was vulnerable-the building remained unguarded as looters stole priceless artifacts and destroyed valuable museum archives. The Iraq Museum was the most important repository of artifacts from ancient Mesopotamia, the first civilizations in the world. As thousands of these stolen pieces are still missing, invaluable knowledge about our human past is missing too. Since April of 2003, looting has also been rampant at archaeological sites across Iraq, meaning that the knowledge contained in those sites will never be known. To ensure that the memory of these events is not forgotten, but remains a cautionary tale for the future, SAFE organized the Global Candlelight Vigil for the Iraq Museum.

The first Global Candlelight Vigil was organized in 2007, and we were moved by the response we received. Twenty vigils were held in six different countries, each one a unique memorial to the events of 2003 and a show of support for the protection of cultural heritage. This year, the fifth anniversary of the looting of the Museum, SAFE again gave out the invitation to host vigils, and we were once again inspired by the even greater response we received. Twenty-eight vigils, in six countries on three continents, representing countless supporters, registered with SAFE. To read more about the 2008 vigils, please visit our Candlelight Vigil site.

For SAFE, the second successful year of vigils is a powerful sign that we are not alone; we are joined by countless others across the globe who share our concerns and are not going to forget this tragic event that impacted the heritage of us all.

Photo credits for this post, from top to bottom: Vigil at Worchester Art Museum, Worchester MA-Gary Staab; Wall projection at Reid Hall, Bozeman, MT-Elisa Cooke; Iraq Museum staff with candles-Khalid Al-Timimi.

Antiquities Under Siege: Cultural Heritage Protection after the Iraq War

Review of “Antiquities Under Siege: Cultural Heritage Protection after the Iraq War” April 9 2008, National Press Club, Washington D.C.

“A nation stays alive when its culture stays alive.” ~ as seen above the door of Kabul’s Museum in Afghanistan

On April 9, 2008 members of academia, press, SAFE and the public gathered together at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. to voice concern over the continuation of illegal looting in Iraq since April 2003. The panel of assembled experts included Lawrence Rothfield, Director of the University of Chicago’s Cultural Policy Center, Col. Matthew Bogdanos, USMC Reserves, Donny George Youkhanna, former Director-General of the Iraq Museum, Patty Gerstenblith, Professor of Law at DePaul College of Law, McGuire Gibson, Professor of Archaeology at the University of Chicago and Corine Wegener, President of the U.S. Committee of the Blue Shield.

Over the course of the next hour and a half, those in attendance were treated to an impassioned presentation about the looting which began at Iraq’s National Museum in April 2003 but which continues throughout Iraq today. Each presenter spoke on his or her area of expertise and built upon one another’s lectures so that the result was a heady conversation which began with the history of Iraq and ended with the dictates of international law with regards to cultural heritage during armed conflict.

Perhaps most provoking was the message with which the presenters left the audience – that the destruction of Iraq’s cultural heritage was preventable and that we, the American people, could have made a difference if we had only been able to reach across political barriers and classrooms and share with one another the importance of cultural heritage.

This story about Iraq’s looting is a tragedy, but it does not have to be the ending to the story. By shaking off our apathy, we, the American people, can ensure that our policymakers and soldiers are well-aware of the value of cultural heritage…that they gain awareness that a few bricks can tell us more about ourselves than a lifetime of conversations….that if this rate of destruction in Iraq and elsewhere does not slow down and end, we are in danger of losing our very selves.

As Donny George put it, “The looting of the National Museum is so tragic because it was the one place in the world where someone could go to trace all of civilization under one roof.” If we remain silent while the looting continues, then we not only actively silence the voices of the past but we distance ourselves from those who paved the way for today’s civilization. When we no longer hear their voices, how will we understand our own?

Are Strings Attached?

Today's New York Times article When Strings Are Attached, Quirky Gifts Can Limit Universities rekindles concerns over the ethical and moral issues of big donations to educational institutions.

Two years after the announcement of the $300 million gift from private collector Shelby White to New York University to finance a new Institute for the Study of the Ancient World (ISAW), the furor seems to have faded, if not completely disappeared. Ms. White, who has been criticized for allegedly collecting objects that are looted from their countries of origin, recently returned a number of disputed objects to Italy.

Robert K. Durkee, vice president and secretary of Princeton was quoted in the article that “Institutions do get shaped by the interests of donors”. We can only hope that the fears of Randall White, a professor of anthropology at NYU for 25 years, who resigned his honorary position with the university’s existing Center for Ancient Studies in protest over NYU's acceptance of the gift are unfounded.

According to its website, "ISAW is a center for advanced scholarly research and graduate education, intended to cultivate comparative and connective investigations of the ancient world." Perhaps the study and "analysis of artifacts", also mentioned on ISAW's website, will emphasize the importance of documentation and context, so that such investigations may be possible.

The Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Iraq

Yesterday marked the London launch of the book The Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Iraq, edited by Peter Stone and Joanne Farchakh Bajjaly.

The book is being released on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the looting of the Iraq Museum with the sad acknowledgment that cultural heritage in Iraq is still in a dire state. The book is highly personal, representing the intimate and varied experiences of a number of individuals who were involved at different levels. The contributor list reads like a who's who of the cultural heritage field.

Though the book's spotlight is on Iraq, the issues and lessons brought up can be applied to any number of conflict areas. The discussion that followed Prof Stone's presentation of the book highlighted the need to learn from the mistakes of Iraq and look forward to new solutions and attitudes in order to safeguard the world's cultural heritage in times of conflict.