Introduction to Repatriation and Global Heritage

Imagine this; a group of archaeologists have just discovered an amazing new artifact in a temple in Mexico. They are floored to discover such a rare piece of history, and cannot wait to bring it to their university in the United States to study and restore it. Imagine all the secrets and answers in can hold! Do these archaeologists, however, have the right to take this item as their own and study it? Or does it belong to the government of Mexico? This is the question that has hung over the field of archaeology since it began. 

 Repatriation of artifacts is a subject of much controversy. From an article, Who’s Right? Repatriation of Cultural Property by Malcolm Bell III, “The Oxford English Dictionary defines “repatriate” as “to restore (an artifact or other object) to its country or place of origin,” and recognizes repatriation as a process of restoration, of making whole again”. Organizations such as UNESCO have worked in protecting and restituting cultural property. The Global Heritage Fund works to protect endangered and important cultural sites and their treasures. These organizations and other government programs work to end the stealing of antiquities, undocumented excavating, and preserving culture. 

 Many believe that an artifact should stay in its place to protect the culture of a community. Do these artifacts, though, really belong to them? As said in the article, World Heritage Rights Versus National Cultural Property Rights: The Case of the Jikji by Sun-Young Kwak, “Is cultural property the universal common heritage of mankind or do specific communities or nations have proprietary rights to their own cultural property?” It is hard to say who really exactly owns these artifacts, which is why the other side of this issue argues that one should take these artifacts for study and show off in museums for all to see rather than being “unsafely kept” where it was found.  Again from the article, Who’s Right? Repatriation of Cultural, the author Malcolm Bell III brings up the issue of “moral” rights.  Some of the rights he stated were;

“• The right to continued existence

• The right to proper conservation.

• The right to the preservation of relevant historical or archaeological documentation.

• The right to public access.

• The right to consolidation when a work exists in fragments.”\

            These issues, and more, will be discussed on this blog. This blog will look into some trials and artifacts that are subject to controversy due to repatriation and global heritage.  Each week, we will look at each side of the argument; why the government or people of where the object was found want it, and why the people who found it or museums want it. As the weeks go on, we hope to gain a better understanding of the issues surrounding excavations, as well as truly reflecting on “who owns the past”. As a side note, this a blog for a college class and the information presented is not written by professionals, just students.

            To learn more about Unesco and The Global Heritage funds, click the links below.

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/

http://globalheritagefund.org/about_us/ghf_mission

By Kiera Lanni

Bibliography

Bergman, Eric. "Reversing the Flow of Traffic in the Market of Cultural Property." n.d. Abya Yala News Online . October 2012 <http://saiic.nativeweb.org/ayn/repat.html>.

Kwak, Sun-Young. "World Heritage Rights Versus National Cultural Property Rights: The Case of the Jikji." 22 April 2005. Carnegie Council . October 2012 <http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/archive/dialogue/2_12/online_exclusive/5153.html>.

Malcolm Bell III, James Cuno. "Who’s Right? Repatriation of Cultural Property." 2 November 2010. IIP Digital . October 2012 <http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/publication/2010/10/20101022140412aidan0.7519953.html#axzz297GmMHqL>.