next »

[Please Support Us!]

Please Support Us!

November Goal: $40.00
Due Date: Nov 30
Gross Amount: $25.00
PayPal Fees: $1.58
Net Balance: $23.42
Below Goal: $16.58
©

59% 

November Donations

7th Anonymous $20.00

5th Anonymous $5.00

TRAILBLAZERS
for students

ArchaeoFind
Archaeology News
Articles
Browse Attachments
Calendar
Downloads
Forum
Gallery
Links
Member Map
Our News Feeds
Submit Article
Tag Cloud
Video Channel

Odyssey Marine in the media
Trailblazers
Play Phaos
Chat
Trailblazers: Virtual Tours

[Bart]

Who does it belong to?

Cultural Property Nationalists, who presently dominate UNESCO, the Archaeological Institute of America and several academic organizations, rail incessantly about the need to control cultural property "for the good of all mankind". What's wrong with that?

Indeed, the notion sounds altruistic and compelling?at least at first blush. However, as often is the case in life, there is a fly in the ointment. Those who would save the past FOR us really believe they are saving the past FROM us. They are fixated with the notion that all objects of a particular culture, no matter how common and insignificant, belong to the place from whence they came. Those who transport them beyond the lands of their origin for the purpose of experiencing that culture at first hand (primarily museums and private collectors) are, in the Cultural Property Nationalist view, defilers of someone else's cultural heritage and are inherently bad people whose activities need to be repressed.

The organized movement to do just that began in 1972 with the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The resolutions passed at that convention are shocking but few  have ever heard of this convention, much less read the fine print.

Just what is Cultural Property? The Parthenon sculptures? Mummified Egyptian Pharoahs? Rare works of art? Unique illuminated manuscripts? Perhaps. But the UNESCO convention presents a much different picture of what constitutes cultural property:

"Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "cultural property" means property which, on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each State as being of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science and which belongs to the following categories: Rare collections and specimens of fauna, flora, minerals and anatomy, and objects of palaeontological interest; property relating to history, including the history of science and technology and military and social history, to the life of national leaders, thinkers, scientists and artists and to events of national importance; products of archaeological excavations (including regular and clandestine) or of archaeological discoveries; elements of artistic or historical monuments or archaeological sites which have been dismembered; antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals; objects of ethnological interest; property of artistic interest, such as: pictures, paintings and drawings produced entirely by hand on any support and in any material (excluding industrial designs and manufactured articles decorated by hand); original works of statuary art and sculpture in any material; original engravings, prints and lithographs; original artistic assemblages and montages in any material; rare manuscripts and incunabula, old books, documents and publications of special interest (historical, artistic, scientific, literary, etc.) singly or in collections; postage, revenue and similar stamps, singly or in collections; archives, including sound, photographic and cinematographic archives; articles of furniture more than one hundred years old and old musical instruments. "

Did they miss anything?

"But this only applies to 'Illicit' objects", squeal the convention's proponents. However, in the very same breath, they deny that there is any such thing as a "Licit" market. Of course, predictably, some "States" have laid claim to anything and everything that is found in the ground, on the ground or in the sea. In many places around the world, personal property rights are nonexistent. This lack of reason encourages Cultural Property Nationalists to support very wide ranging restrictions on all sorts of "cultural property". They not only reject the concept of private ownership, they are exceedingly hostile to museums funded by donations from private collectors.

The concept that cultural heritage is geographical is radically flawed. Are Italian Americans less "Italian" than those living in Italy? In antiquity, the western and southern coasts of Turkey were populated almost entirely by Greeks (the Turks came well over a thousand years later). Many artifacts created by Greeks are found in Turkey today. Is the cultural heritage of Greece preserved by preventing these objects from leaving Turkey? Should a 19th century Armenian family Bible be sequestered in Turkey when the sole survivors of the family that originally owned it now live in the United States? Should refugee families of modern conflict or political oppression be forced to leave precious family heirlooms behind (to those who uproot them) simply because they do not have proper records of provenance?

One could spill a lot of ink listing all of the inequities that linking culture to geography create. Culture is a condition of spirit and blood, not of political boundaries. Except in rare cases of true national treasures, the control of cultural property is irrational, immoral and certainly in a geographical context impractical. The prohibition of private collecting of cultural objects, which is exactly what UNESCO seeks, is the kind of personal repression that ought to cause every thinking person to pause and reflect deeply on where this is all headed.

Author Unknown

[Solomon]

I am not surprised that the author of this is unknown, or anonymous. No matter how good the case, the argument is so replete with pejorative language that the author risks turning away the reader - me certainly.

Just what is Cultural Property? The Parthenon sculptures? - That'll do for me.

Are Italian Americans less "Italian" than those living in Italy? - I would have thought so.

The author's objections seem to focus on this: One could spill a lot of ink listing all of the inequities that linking culture to geography create. I would have thought that any set of rules would create some inequities - that's the nature of rules.

What I did not see was a counter proposal. This leads me to suspect that the author has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, in which case I think we deserve to have been told.

[Bart]

Beside the obvious vitriol, I thought he brought up a current topic that will eventually be addressed here to some degree. The author is probably an American, and vitriol is such common cultural trait here these days, it's nearly impossible to avoid. Spin, disengenuousness, agenda - driven, all are a part of a declining culture, and history, and many, all have gone before.

But the base topic is artifacts, as I see it, especially those acquired in past era's, as in the "Golden Era of Archeology", Woolley, Carter, et al.

Artifacts acquired 'on the sly', as seems to be obvious in the current Marion true situation, are another matter entirely.

Then in the middle of that are artifacts acquired between the above mentioned periods. Those that are being demanded to be returned to the country of origin, despite provenance, with much of the battle being played out in the media, generating a public opinion that has an impact.

Naturally, the views will vary here, but already I discern a tremendous impact upon archeology, which could well be negative, in the future. Change is inevitable, and constant, and seemingly more rapid than at any time in the past. Sometimes it is good, sometimes not, and fear is always a companion associated with change.

[Solomon]

Museums buying and displaying artefacts (and works of art) of doubtful provenence is, unfortunately, not unusual. It encourages both theft and forgery - both are common, illegal and a disgrace to the museum/gallery involved.

Historical theft can appear to be a grey area, especially when one belongs to a nation that has done the stealing and the looted treasures have become a part of that nation's hertitage.

In the UK, we have the 'Elgin Marbles', which Elgin bought from the then government (of occupation). This was not theft and it has been argued that as Athens was then in the middle of a war and the marbles were in grave danger, Elgin did the world a favour. Even so, to mind mind, as Greece wants them back, then their proposal of using a laser to make a 3-D model and then a perfect set of replicas for the British Museum to keep, is acceptable.

What is the importance of an artefact? Partly its aethestic value, but, I would have thought, mainly what we may learn from it. These days, none of that demands that an artefact resides in any particular place. The issue that the author implies is one of national pride.

Personally, I am a patriot rather than a nationalist, so I disgree with the substance of what the author seems to be arguing for.

[Sovereign]

Oh, I see what he's demanding: we've got it and we're going to keep it. Playground politics. That's why he expresses himself so crudely 

[Solomon]

This is on the subject: Greece reclaims two Getty antiquities

[Solomon]

Greece fights for its lost treasures
2 August 2006

"Smuggling is a very big problem and it is becoming bigger by the day. Everybody in Greece is doing some kind of digging or looting somewhere."

Yannis - the name he gives himself - is a key figure in the international smuggling network.

It starts at the top, from politicians down to ordinary people," he continued, "and the motivation is always money."

"Everyone knows it's illegal. There's dirt on all layers of Greek society. I repeat: A lot of dirt!"

Greece has at least 3,000 museums and open-air archaeological sites, and about 20,000 shipwrecks.

Protecting the antiquities and stopping the looters has always been difficult.

Greek laws governing the ownership of antiquities are in fact very strict: everything you find on Greek soil belongs to the state and must be registered.

There's also the 1970 Unesco Convention on Cultural Property, which supports international co-operation on ownership.

[Administration]

Here is a point to ponder: we don't own anything.

Let me expand.

I see all the things we possess as belonging to two categories:

1. Those we consume.
2. Those we borrow.

Things we consume are houses, cars, boats and the more obvious such as food and clothes. I use "consume" for these because they exist for us to use and during that use, they will, despite our loving care, deteriorate. Eventually, even a well-maintained vehicle will expire - just look at the old wooden ships - most of them have had many parts replaced.

What we borrow is land and works of art. When we pay money for them, we are not buying them, but paying rent. It's a form of leasing.

You can never own a great painting, for example. On purchase, you pay some money and in return, you have possession of it for a while. That's all. The possessor may display the painting and that's about it. It can never be consumed. The worst that can happen is that it is destroyed, but we have not consumed it.

Same with land: it's not made any more and all one can do is occupy it. Maybe during occupation one mines it, farms it or builds on it. But in the end, there is the plot. It's not going away, regardless of what one does to the soil and so on.

That's why I think we must regard works of art - and that includes artefacts - differently to other objects and possessions.

[Solomon]

This story is of relevance: Greece reclaims two Getty antiquities

[Bart]

You are correct of course Solomon, ownership is a misnomer.  Stewardship is much more accurate, and an under-taught concept. Like freedom, it comes with responsibility, a burden which too many disavow these days. We have many to thank for what has been preserved, and I wish to extend to you and others here my personal gratitude for your part/s  in it. Know that far into the future, generations of others will do likewise, without ever knowing as much as your name.

Over the past Labor Day weekend here, I divested myself of numerous antiques, many at a financial loss simply because someone showed an interest or appreciation for them. I "got my money's worth" out of them in appreciation of them for the time I borrowed them, and decided it was time for them to move along down the road of history. I am not "out" anything, for I have gained from each and every item in varying degrees. On nearly every item, I gained from searching the history of it, and who else may once have borrowed it.

One item in particular has a poignant history. It was a woolen bag that made one of the 'Trail of Tears' displacement saga's of a Winnebago family of Native Americans from this area. It made it's way from Wisconsin to  several points west when the Winnebago's were " being rounded up at gunpoint, loaded into boxcars and shipped to "their reservation" in Nebraska" after they 'lost' their land here in the 1830's.  Forced from a woodland prairie environment to a semi-arid tree-less reservation, many of the survivors walked back on their own over the next several decades, and have flourished in both places despite all the hardships. The woolen bag was one piece that aided them in the circuitous saga.

I was awed and inspired in the learning of the history of the people associated with this bag and other items they kept, preserved, and passed on to their children. A beautiful people, in every sense of the word, as I saw from actual photographs of them and their immediate descendants. Many of the items passed through me to private museums, along with their written history, and the proceeds went to pay the property taxes of a widow. Gain or loss should seldom be viewed from the financial aspect, the human and historical aspect holds an incredibly higher value and meaning.  I was privileged and honored to be a small link in the chain of history for these people and their artifacts.

http://www.ho-chunknation.com/heritage/culture_history_page.htm

[Solomon]

Very nicely said, Bart. I really like the origin of the word, too: the House of Steward. That certain titles, such as this and mayor derive from real people, who accepted certain responsibilities over generations, impresses me.

The first known member of the Stewards was Flaald I (Flaald the Seneschal), an 11th century Breton noble of Norman descent who was a follower of the Lord of Dol and Combourg. Flaald and his immediate descendants held the hereditary and honorary post of Dapifer (food bearer) in the Lord of Dol's household. His grandson Flaald II was a supporter of Henry I of England and made the crucial move from Brittany to Britain, which was where the future fortunes of the Stewarts lay. Walter the Steward (died 1177), the grandson of Flaald II, was born in Oswestry(Shropshire).

Today's British royal family (of mainly German descent) gains it ancient lineage from links to the Stewards. Cities of over the world have mayors. Both titles imply responsibility as much as authority. Both Stewards and Mayors began as carers for others and their possessions.

I'm a believer in caring and I reckon it enriches me. The "I don't care" attitude is poor and impoverishes us all.

I recognise your story Bart. I've built up collections as good as many a museum and have, ultimately, made sure that much ended up in them.

Solomon

[Solomon]

Innocent Souvenir Hunting Or Raping Our Legacy?

Say, you're idly wandering along a path at a Civil War battleground site and you notice something shiny lying in the weeds. You pick it up and you find that it is part of a belt buckle once worn by a Confederate soldier. "What a find," you say as you pocket your treasure and prepare to leave the park. Whether you realize it or not, you have just broken a federal law. And it is a violation that the National Park Service (NPS) says is happening often enough to be of concern to all of us. According to the NPS, they recorded over 11,000 violations of either the Archeological Resources Protection Act or the American Antiquities Act of 1906 in 2002 alone. But, they contend that, while a good number of the violations were of the innocent variety, there were a substantial number which were committed by professional treasure hunters and others more interested in the commerce of artifacts than collecting keepsakes.
   
The federal government has indicted 70-year-old Alfred Lucien for removing artifacts he dug up back in 2000 in Valley Forge National Historical Park. Lucien's wife contends that her husband's unfair prosecution, where he could face jail time and fines, has led to a decline in his health. She says that there were no signs posted anywhere where Lucien was doing his digging. The NPS essentially says that ignorance of the law is no defense in Lucien's case. They also view his prosecution as a sign that the government means business in stopping the pillaging of artifacts from government lands. While the government isn't claiming that there is an epidemic of this behavior at Valley Forge, they have greater concerns over what has happened at other parks in the NPS system. Last year, James Meachum of Alabama was apprehended and charged with violating the act (scroll down to second incident) at the Vicksburg National Military Park. Meachum received a probated two year sentence during which he was forbidden to enter NPS land and paid a $500 fine.

The largest relic hunting bust culminated in convictions or guilty pleas from a ring which had operated in the Death Valley National Park. They had taken over 10,000 artifacts valued at $20,000 and had caused about $100,000 worth of damage to park property. The group received sentences of 18 months in prison and fines of close to $100,000. But park officials say that even if they manage to recover every artifact stolen, that the very act of removal from their location reduces their historical value.