Who owns antiquity? It's a good question, and one that has been in the headlines since the publication of Christopher Hitchens' treatise on the Parthenon Marbles and James Cuno's volume on the ownership of ancient heritage.
While Hitchens' book contains few surprises - he is a long-standing advocate of the return of the marbles - Cuno's arguments bear greater examination.
His main contention is that laws declaring antiquities to be state property and restricting their export are nationalistic and impede access to what he describes as "the cultural property of all humankind".
Although Cuno admits that antiquities need to be protected from looting, he argues that restrictive national laws and international conventions have done little to halt the illicit trade in antiquities.
But Cuno's real problem with these laws is that they prevent stuff reaching his museum, the Art Institute of Chicago, and others like it.
He wants museums to be able to acquire unprovenanced antiquities without hindrance by legal niceties. His startling conclusion is that we should return to the system of partage, whereby source countries share newly discovered artefacts in exchange for archaeological help.
So "encylopedic" museums, as Cuno describes them, could once again launch archaeological expeditions and in return for their expertise receive a cut of the findings.
This is a plea for encyclopedic museums to be able to acquire more of the world's cultural property with impunity. Cuno's argument that such museums serve the whole world ignores the fact that most people will never have the means to visit them.
Cuno's response is that the world needs more encylopedic museums. A neat idea: we take your culture; we classify and display it as we see fit, and then we tell you how to organise culture, according to our model, in your country. Who said cultural imperialism is dead?
Sharon Heal, editor
sharon@museumsassociation.org
Reviews of Who Owns Antiquity? and The Elgin Marbles: The Case For Restitution will appear in future issues of Museums Journal.
While Hitchens' book contains few surprises - he is a long-standing advocate of the return of the marbles - Cuno's arguments bear greater examination.
His main contention is that laws declaring antiquities to be state property and restricting their export are nationalistic and impede access to what he describes as "the cultural property of all humankind".
Although Cuno admits that antiquities need to be protected from looting, he argues that restrictive national laws and international conventions have done little to halt the illicit trade in antiquities.
But Cuno's real problem with these laws is that they prevent stuff reaching his museum, the Art Institute of Chicago, and others like it.
He wants museums to be able to acquire unprovenanced antiquities without hindrance by legal niceties. His startling conclusion is that we should return to the system of partage, whereby source countries share newly discovered artefacts in exchange for archaeological help.
So "encylopedic" museums, as Cuno describes them, could once again launch archaeological expeditions and in return for their expertise receive a cut of the findings.
This is a plea for encyclopedic museums to be able to acquire more of the world's cultural property with impunity. Cuno's argument that such museums serve the whole world ignores the fact that most people will never have the means to visit them.
Cuno's response is that the world needs more encylopedic museums. A neat idea: we take your culture; we classify and display it as we see fit, and then we tell you how to organise culture, according to our model, in your country. Who said cultural imperialism is dead?
Sharon Heal, editor
sharon@museumsassociation.org
Reviews of Who Owns Antiquity? and The Elgin Marbles: The Case For Restitution will appear in future issues of Museums Journal.
