Skip to main content

Ownership, Stewardship and Cultural Property

I have commented before on the difference between stewardship and ownership. The forthcoming Cairo conference seems to be continuing the onwership debate. Is the debate going to be about where specific items of world heritage should be on public display?

Thus the Parthenon marbles are known to have formed part of the architectural sculptures on the Athenian akropolis whether or not they are displayed in London or Athens. The head of Nefertiti continues to be part of the archaeological record of Amarna whether it remains on display in Berlin or is placed in the new exhibition in Cairo.

Those are two examples of the debate over the "ownership" of cultural property.

But the more complex issue is the ongoing destruction of archaeological sites. The 1970 UNESCO Convention reminded the universal community of the need to protect the archaeological record. And English-speaking archaeologists, museum curators and collectors were reminded of the issues by the 1973 AIA declaration. The debate needs to concentrate of how we, as an international community, can be good stewards of the archaeological sites.

Will the Cairo conference recognise the two separate issues?


Bookmark and Share so Your Real Friends Know that You Know

Comments

David Berry said…
Have you been following the ACTA debates?

Popular posts from this blog

Codename: Ainsbrook

I have been watching (UK) Channel 4's Time Team this evening. The programme looked at an undisclosed field (under a potato crop) where a Viking burial had been found. The location in Yorkshire was so sensitive that it was given a codename: Ainsbrook. Here is the summary:
In late 2003 two metal detectorists were working in a field in Yorkshire. They found 'treasure' buried just beneath the surface – a collection of Viking material next to a body. Although they had been detecting on the site for a number of years, during which time they had made large numbers of finds, nothing they had uncovered previously compared with this. They decided to share their discovery with archaeologists.The programme explored the tension between metal-detectorists and the English Heritage sponsored archaeologists putting six trenches into the field based on a geo-physical survey. Finds made by the metal-detectorists did not easily map onto the archaeological features.

Part of the programme had an …

The scale of the returns to Italy

I have been busy working on an overview, "Returning Archaeological Objects to Italy". The scale of the returns to Italy from North American collections and galleries is staggering: in excess of 350 objects. This is clearly the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the material that has surfaced on the market without a history that can be traced back to the period before 1970. 

I will provide more information in due course, but the researcher is a reminder that we need to take due diligence seriously when it comes to making acquisitions.

Stele returns to Greece

The Hellenic Ministry of Culture has announced (Saturday 8 September 2018) that a stele that had been due to be auctioned at Sotheby's in London in June 2017 has been returned to Greece (Friday 7 September 2018). The identification had been made by Cambridge-based forensic archaeologist Dr Christos Tsirogiannis.

It appeared that the stele had been supplied with a falsified history as its presence with Becchina until 1990 contradicted the published sale catalogue entry. It then moved into the hands of George Ortiz.

A year ago it was suggested that Sotheby's should contact the Greek authorities. Those negotiations appear to have concluded successfully.

The 4th century BC stele fragment, with the personal name, Hestiaios, will be displayed in the Epigraphic Museum in Athens. It appears to have come from a cemetery in Attica.