Earn Who Owns Antiquity?: Museums And The Battle Over Our Ancient Heritage Crafted By James Cuno Shared As Electronic Format

far, I am only in the introduction, but I really enjoy what I am reading, It has discussed the Elgin/Parthenon Marbles, the Rosetta Stone and ancient Chinese Bronzes, It is very easy to read and I am interested to see where it goes from here, Cuno argues that current laws and policies regarding archaeological finds are conducive only to nationalism, not education, "What, we wondered, is a national culture in this modern age, when the geographic extent of so many cultures does not coincide with national borders, and when national borders are usually new and artificial creations designating sovereignty over the cultural artifacts of peoples no longer extant or no longer in political power" The book discusses the topic of retentionist cultural property policies and why they are a bad idea because of nationalism, instead the book argues for partage.
I don't entirely agree on some of the point though, The book discusses politics, history, law, and sociology, The book examined the case of Turkey and China to explain this point further, The book emphasizes exchanges between cultures throughout history,


Some critiques and comments:

The argument seems to hinge on encyclopedia museums' ability to teach, The one thing the book didn't mention in that aspect was why the original and not a reproduction is required, I know the answer is because it's more useful for research purposes Tiffany Jenkins mentioned it in sitelinkKeeping Their Marbles: How the Treasures of the Past Ended Up in Museums And Why They Should Stay There, but Cuno didn't discuss it, though it seemed like it was mildly implied, so I'm not going to argue against something he didn't write as an argument.
He discussed how he became interested in cultural artifacts but the issue is, why does it matter if it's a real or fake artifact The outcome would be the same: awe and a spark of interest.
Also, he mentioned transportation but at the same time he didn't really discuss the issues that arise when transporting fragile artifacts, Compared to Jenkins' book, I think she provides a more uptodate look on the same view of the topic than this book from, Still, he provides good points on understanding how it looks from a legal and political POV, I just disagree on what that means though, Partage sounds like a compromise but the issue comes when thinking about what that means locally, Yes, it can increase nationalism, but they are the ones who would more immediate community that are the inheritors think: 'next of kin' when someone dies.
Sure, tell the world they are dead, but maybe let the next of kin know first, Politics is involved either way, those countries that hold the artifacts still benefit from them whether it be one country or another, In cases of war, that may require alternative accommodations for the artifacts,

The book also discussed imaged communities and discusses nationalism as a more recent development, He also discussed how artifacts were intended to last "'forever' but not for a particular unknown and unknowable modern nationstate" p,. I get the emphasis is that they didn't expect the artifact to be in one place/nation/country forever but they did think it would be inherited by their descendants.
I'm not sure if he's arguing from the original intention or something Jenkins also tried this argument in how the people expected that upon victory artifacts will be looted.
The question then is what does that mean for present day people who find significant in it In regards to the locals, he states that most do not think much of it, and when they do it's for nationalist purposes example: Turkey.
At the end of the book, he emphasized our shared human history and culture, god what a prick Cuno was wrong inand he's even more wrong a decade later, I strongly disagree with this books premise, but it provides a good overview of cultural heritage law development, and I find the authors selfcontradictions amusing.
James Cuno is a divisive figure in the field of cultural heritage repatriation, which means returning some art and archaeological objects back to their countries of origin for moral reasons.
Big encyclopedic museums like the Louvre own objects from around the world, Some of these objects were acquired during colonial times, In theth Century, former colonies and indigenous peoples gained independence, Over the past few decades, some of these nations governments have been asking for the return of valuable objects that were taken from their lands under circumstances we would now consider coercive or even criminal.
James Cuno, currently head of the Getty, is the voice of the antirepatriation camp, This book is Cunos argument for why museums should not have to return such objects,

Basically, he feels the trend is a slippery slope that will empty out Western museums, and then he wont get to look at pretty objects from foreign places anymore.
But his logic is faulty, and changes from page to page, He makes me angry, and he makes me laugh in disbelief, Regardless of your feelings on the subject, though, if you can separate his opinion from the historical thread, the book is also a very useful narrative of the major cases and trends in cultural heritage law of the last century.
I first read it when I was searching, unsuccessfully, for an overview of repatriation trends, Since most folks interested in such laws are usually prorepatriation, Cuno has actually done his opponents a favor in providing a readable, concise book on the subject.


sitelink Get Who Owns Antiquity: Museums and the Battle over Our Ancient Heritage from the Denver Public Library

Sarah E An interesting, passionate argument against retentionist cultural property laws.
I am inclined to lean toward the author's side of the fence, in that antiquities are the property of the world community and do not belong to single nationstates, but the text's praise of "globalization" made me a bit apprehensive.
A global community is ideal, but until we get past nationstate egos my fear is of globalization becoming some kind of weapon "the most superior nationstate gets to globalize in its own image" and so on.
But that's beside the point this is still a good primer in cultural property law, Interesting because he lays out the legal arguments, as well as cultural arguments of why groups may or may not have claim to antiquities simply because they were once part of their land.
Whose cultures have benefitted How have acheologists and anthropologists avoided being an active and productive part of the discussion Cuno addresses these topics and more.
I will never visit an art, natural history, or cultural museum with the same eye ever again, While I didn't agree with every point Cuno made, I think Who Owns Antiquity makes some important points about the weaknesses of international law regarding cultural heritage, and some of the messy problems museums, governments, and archeologists must tackle.
I'm not clear why so many people seem to have found it difficult to read I found it straightforward, if a tad repetitive at times and highly recommend it as an introduction to the subject.
While still conspicuously ignorant of the subjects, museum acquisitions, museology in general, and the debates concerning reappropriation of “culturally significant objects” all fascinate me, James Cuno manages to cover all these bases in this book whose major question is: Do modern states have the right to demand the return of objects that may be deemed to have cultural, aesthetic, or national value And if they do, what reasons validate this demand

Cunos short answer is that states dont have this right at all.
Instead, he sees the rise of these cultural reappropriation laws as a way of shoring up nationalist pretentions, His argument seems strong. Two of his chapters, “The Turkish Question” and “The Chinese Question,” examine this assertion in detail, For example, when the Baathists took control in Iraq in, they adopted strict laws of cultural appropriation in concert with their virulently nationalist rhetoric, “Their intention was to create a nationalterritorial consciousness resting upon the particular history of Iraq and, equally significantly, of what the regime, or a powerful circle within it, presented as the history of the Iraqi people.
Central to this effort was an official drive to foster archaeology as a way of making people aware and proud of their ancient past, including that of the preIslamic era.
At the same time, the Party encouraged local folklore for the purpose of inspiring communities with a sense of internal Iraqi unity, and emphasizing Iraqs uniqueness among the nations of the world at large” p.
. In other words, at least on the level of political propaganda, the purpose of these new laws was not to maintain and preserve ancient artifacts, but rather a proxy for a relatively new country to build a sense of cultural and national identity.


Much the same thing happened to the young Turkey while trying to survive the birth pangs of early Ataturkism and subsequent westernization, “The emergence and the development of archaeology in Turkey took place under constraints that are deeply rooted in history, Confrontation between the traditional Islamic framework and the Western model, the endeavor to survive as a nonArabic nation in the Middle East while the empire was disintegrating, the hostile and occasionally humiliating attitude of Europeans, and growing nationalism have all been consequential in this development The pace that archaeology took in Turkey is much more related to the ideology of the modern Republic than to the existing archaeological potential of the country” p. a direct quote from Mehmet Ozdogans article “Ideology and Archaeology in Turkey”, In a similar way, the Elgin Marbles served as political symbols critical to the identity and “national spirit” of the modern nationstate of Greece, not just as archaeological artifacts.


The claim to national identity is also a common one, and one that Cuno rejects with equal fervor, We are so used to the argument that this object or that belongs here or there because of the important part it plays in making a people who they are.
However, these objects are often so removed in historical time that the number of things these artists shared with the supporters of cultural appropriation shared is vanishingly small.
Look at contemporary Egyptians. They share neither a common language, a body of customs, a religion, or law with ancient Egyptians, yet we are still urged to believe that one is an integral part of the identity of the other presumably because of geographical proximity.
That dynamic thing we call culture has worked over dozens of centuries to produce these widely divergent changes, The claims of contemporary Egyptians on the cultural artifacts of ancient Egypt seem tenuous at best, The everpresence of boundarycrossing and the impermanence of cartography both speak to the capriciousness that is “cultural identity, ”

Cuno argues for what he calls “partage,” the provision of archaeological and historical expertise in return for the partitioning of important discovered objects.
One of the only other alternatives would be to potentially let these objects onto the black market, where they would certainly lack the curatorial and historical expertise they would be afforded in a museum.


While Cuno effectively cottons on to an important lesson of the last few centuries that the modern nationstate will stop at nothing to traduce any obstacle that gets in the way of imparting its influence he does go out of his way to paint many of these states as heterogeneous and uniform in their power, which is misleading at best.
Not all nascent nations practiced nationalism, either on an ideological or pragmatic level, with equal vim and vigor,

As convincing as Cunos arguments were, I often found myself reversing the cultural tables and asking myself what I would do if, for whatever counterfactual

historical reason, an original copy of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution had found its way into the halls of the Kremlin or the Forbidden City.
Could Americans who argue against cultural reappropriation laws have the intellectual courage to say, with a straight face, that it doesnt matter that these objects are not permanently housed in the United States Then again, were much closer in historical time in language, heritage, culture, and mores to the people that created this country than the contemporary Chinese are to Shangera potters or the contemporary Greeks are to those brilliant artisans who created the Elgin Marbles, which may further complicate an already intricate argument.


Whatever your opinion on the issues, provided you had one prior to exposure to this book, it will make you rethink how art, identity, cultural appropriation, and museumbuilding are all intimately connected.
It does a wonderful job at raising intelligent questions about how these concepts are linked, I never want to see or hear about this book ever again thanks Thought provoking, Certainly an interesting take on a challenging issue, who owns what is found below the ground of the country you're in My two main issues with this book are:
Although I, at least at some level, think it's worthwhile for art to be all around the world for the benefit of cultural exchange, I don't think Cuno provides a good argument for it.
To quote one previous review, "what a prick, "
The writing, quite honestly, was not engaging and polished,

The political view of the reasons for collecting antiquities is very interesting, but, as I said, I don't think it should be the main issue.
Of course we shouldn't support thievery and looting, but should the reasons for that really be political What about a more "art for art's sake" argument, with people viewing and studying for their pleasure and overall edification Title is selfexplanatory discusses issues of nationality and imperialism in the management of historical artefacts.
The author is making an argument against nationalistic retention, but still provides a very good overview, The crux of Cuno's argument is essentially promuseum: Ancient art and artifacts belong to humankind and should therefore be held in a way that they can be best studied and viewed by all, as well as be best preserved, and modern nationstates, particularly when they have no lineage from or appreciation of the ancient civilization from which the works came, should not have property rights in such works simply because the works happened to have been found in the soil within a given nationstate's boundaries.
His point is wellmade, although he seems to take longer than necessary to make it, The middle of the book contains lengthy analysis of Turkish and Chinese examples I reached a point where I just skimmed a lot of the Chinese material and went straight to the conclusion, where Cuno criticizes theUNESCO convention as weak because it is basically optional for its participating members.
After reading previous proclaimant viewpoints, Cuno's work certainly brought me back closer to the middle, but I think that strict adherence to his position without fully considering the nature and circumstances of claims can lead to unjust results.
I do certainly agree with him, though, that art and antiquities are treasures that merit great protection, and when their existence is threatened, such as in Kabul during the reign of the Taliban or during the looting in Iraq, reasonable action by the international community is often necessaryand it needs to have some teeth.
.