And the virtues of partage also seem clear. As Cuno points out, the collections at the great museums of the world could not have been put together under our current system of cultural property laws, and the millions of people who have marveled at these collections would be poorer for not having seen them.
What superficially may seem a simple matter of 'ethnic nationalism' is described as considerably more complex, dealing with such matters as 'cultural property,' the notion of nation-states, and 'partage'—the sharing of archaeological finds the author's suggested solution to disputes. All readers interested in current interaction among museums, academics, collectors, politicians, and so forth will be well informed here. Marantz, Choice. Cuno mobilizes a wealth of anecdotes and examples to support [his] position.
The 'select bibliography' is ten pages. It explores in great depth all of the recent turmoil regarding the legal ownership of antiquities. No one involved in the acquisition of antiquities can ill afford to pass this book by as it sets the stage and defines the complexities involved in this heated battle that is sure to rage on for years to come.
Eisenberg, Ph. Gill, American Journal of Archaelogy. The book has provoked equally spirited controversy. Nationalistic agendas are set within a compelling theoretical argument that should be read by those engaged in writing as well as following museum and archaeological policies, provided that the reader understands that Cuno's emphasis is on objects and access to them rather than on the more pressing issue of the preservation of archaeological sites and cultural landscapes for a cosmopolitan world community.
Milliner, First Things. It is not necessary to agree with everything said, but there is much room for thought. This is a must-read for all concerned with the fate of our ancient heritage, whether source countries, archaeologists, collectors, or museum curators.
The topic is of the greatest importance to all of us. Nor the famous Nefertiti bust held in Berlin. Nor the incredible Haremhad statue detained at the Met.
Nineteen trinkets is nothing to crow about. Ahhh but the magnanimous purveyos of culture will crow. Stolen objects that reside in the great museums of the world are nothing more than a monument to imperialism and the days of overt exploitation. I swear to God it took me nearly two years. That would be Europe or America. Cuno wants to do away with all that. From the Princeton Press website: Whether antiquities should be returned to the countries where they were found is one of the most urgent and controversial issues in the art world today, and it has pitted museums, private collectors, and dealers against source countries, archaeologists, and academics.
Controversy indeed. It also built the local museums and their collections. The Baghdad Museum, Kabul, Cairo, were built through the process of sharing the finds that foreign excavators found. But not in terms of an identity with those ancient people. It is not on the basis that they are the modern heirs to the achievements of these ancient peoples, that they descend from them in any kind of continuous or natural way and that the modern culture is akin to the ancient culture.
I nearly fell off my chair when I read that. Rarely do we see today such blatent cultural superiority except from my friend Frank, a Canadian who seriously thinks the remaining Amazonian tribes would be served best if they were moved wholesale into apartment buildings in Sao Paolo or Lima.
My position as a professional archaeologist no longer practicing has long been that human remains and artifacts should be returned to the nations wherin they reside.
I see, for example, no reason for the Elgin marbles to remain in London. They belong in Greece. In that process, however, there must be some careful consideration because we have to find a way to avoid some of the problems brought on by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAGPRA wherein remains have been returned to tribes who have no relation to those remains or where valuable scientific study has been stopped by a tribe that has no relation to the remains found on or near their current land.
We also need to recognize that, as Cuno correctly points out, culture is a process not a thing and that culture developed and continues to develop through interaction between cultures and over trade routes.
It is a very fine line to walk. I do agree with Cuno that many of the national laws protecting cultural resources are based on an idea of static, nationally distinct cultures. However, preaching some sort of cultural superiority and entitlement adds nothing healthy to the debate.
I should add that it bothers the hell out of me, for example, that China, with its very tight controls on antiquities leaving China has no problems with ancient Chinese items being bought and sold within China with no thought to where these items came from nor what they could tell researchers. This is a tired century-old canard that claims an ethnic group has only a tenuous tie to their ancestors.
Is language not enough for him? Return to the Elgin marbles, for instance. Cuno worries that cultural artifacts may be destroyed if located in a singular place. Yet Lord Elgin destroyed the marbles themselves in removing them, lost many in the Mediterranean, and the British Museum allowed patrons to dump wine on them during wild fundraisers.
Or amputating the torch arm on the Statue of Liberty, and passing it to Sierra Leon ooof…bad joke there, I know.
And all the names on Vietnam War Memorial? Should we share them out with Vietnam? The Parthenon still exists. The marbles are the frieze of the Parthenon. And have you taken a look at the new Acropolis Musuem? Well, what does that make Cuno and his ilk? Worse than nationalists, me thinks. Attempting to parse cultural descendency is violently political. It seems safest to eliminate that nationalisim infused scholarly hassle of who gets the goodies and let the countries where the artifacts lie take jurisdiction.
Plymouth Rock? The French get Montreal. Spain gets the Southwest missions? Nor does he seem to understand why they may want to prevent current and future theft. While the statements that these items may be better preserved in rich, stable countries with abundant resources seems noble, I found no offer to help build satisfactory preservation systems in the nations of origin.
One has to wonder if Cuno and Princeton!! John David. 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? Contents pp. Preface pp. Introduction: The Crux of the Matter pp. One: Political Matters pp. Two: More Political Matters pp.
Three: The Turkish Question pp. Four: The Chinese Question pp. Five: Identity Matters pp. Epilogue pp. Afterword to the Paperback Edition pp. Notes pp. Select Bibliography pp.
0コメント