What do you think?
Rate this book
Who Owns Antiquity?: Museums and the Battle over Our Ancient Heritage
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. Maintaining that the acquisition of undocumented antiquities by museums encourages the looting of archaeological sites, countries such as Italy, Greece, Egypt, Turkey, and China have claimed ancient artifacts as state property, called for their return from museums around the world, and passed laws against their future export. But in Who Owns Antiquity? , one of the world's leading museum directors vigorously challenges this nationalistic position, arguing that it is damaging and often disingenuous. "Antiquities," James Cuno argues, "are the cultural property of all humankind," "evidence of the world's ancient past and not that of a particular modern nation. They comprise antiquity, and antiquity knows no borders."
Cuno argues that nationalistic retention and reclamation policies impede common access to this common heritage and encourage a dubious and dangerous politicization of antiquities--and of culture itself. Antiquities need to be protected from looting but also from nationalistic identity politics. To do this, Cuno calls for measures to broaden rather than restrict international access to antiquities. He advocates restoration of the system under which source countries would share newly discovered artifacts in exchange for archaeological help, and he argues that museums should again be allowed reasonable ways to acquire undocumented antiquities. Cuno explains how partage broadened access to our ancient heritage and helped create national museums in Cairo, Baghdad, and Kabul. The first extended defense of the side of museums in the struggle over antiquities, Who Owns Antiquity? is sure to be as important as it is controversial.
Cuno argues that nationalistic retention and reclamation policies impede common access to this common heritage and encourage a dubious and dangerous politicization of antiquities--and of culture itself. Antiquities need to be protected from looting but also from nationalistic identity politics. To do this, Cuno calls for measures to broaden rather than restrict international access to antiquities. He advocates restoration of the system under which source countries would share newly discovered artifacts in exchange for archaeological help, and he argues that museums should again be allowed reasonable ways to acquire undocumented antiquities. Cuno explains how partage broadened access to our ancient heritage and helped create national museums in Cairo, Baghdad, and Kabul. The first extended defense of the side of museums in the struggle over antiquities, Who Owns Antiquity? is sure to be as important as it is controversial.
288 pages, Paperback
First published April 21, 2008
14 people are currently reading
499 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
September 21, 2011
One year ago, New York’s Metropolitan Museum announced that it will return 19 objects from King Tut’s tomb to Egypt – 19 small bits and fragments. The Met has been quick to toot its own horn, saying the return of these objects was voluntary and that they were under no legal obligation to do anything. But we’re not talking the Rosetta Stone here. 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.
And so I can finally announce that I succesfully scraped my way through James Cuno’s “Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle Over Our Ancient Heritage”. I swear to God it took me nearly two years. It’s a frustrating read.
Basically, Cuno, Director and President of the Art Institute of Chicago, proposes a return to “partage”. Partage is the idea that most archaeological resources excavated in Third World countries should end up in the land of the “experts”. That would be Europe or America.
Over the past thirty years, the idea of “partage” has given way to national laws and international conventions designed to keep antiquities in their nation of origin. 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. Maintaining that the acquisition of undocumented antiquities by museums encourages the looting of archaeological sites, countries such as Italy, Greece, Egypt, Turkey, and China have claimed ancient artifacts as state property, called for their return from museums around the world, and passed laws against their future export. But in Who Owns Antiquity?, one of the world’s leading museum directors vigorously challenges this nationalistic position, arguing that it is damaging and often disingenuous. “Antiquities,” James Cuno argues, “are the cultural property of all humankind,” “evidence of the world’s ancient past and not that of a particular modern nation. They comprise antiquity, and antiquity knows no borders.”
Cuno argues that nationalistic retention and reclamation policies impede common access to this common heritage and encourage a dubious and dangerous politicization of antiquities–and of culture itself. Antiquities need to be protected from looting but also from nationalistic identity politics. To do this, Cuno calls for measures to broaden rather than restrict international access to antiquities. He advocates restoration of the system under which source countries would share newly discovered artifacts in exchange for archaeological help, and he argues that museums should again be allowed reasonable ways to acquire undocumented antiquities. The first extended defense of the side of museums in the struggle over antiquities, Who Owns Antiquity? is sure to be as important as it is controversial.
Controversy indeed. And Cuno doesn’t seem to be bothered by the controversy…nor does he seem bothered by showing himself to be an imperialistic ass.
In an AP interview from about 18 months ago Cuno stated:
“Historically, partage has not simply built the collections of the host nations of excavating teams. . . . 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.
“Partage encourages a broader understanding of the achievements of different ancient peoples, encouraging the sense that we all collectively have a stake in the preservation of this material.”
Sounds nice. But he also said:
“I think any of these modern nations can exercise a greater claim than any other nation on antiquities found within their jurisdiction. 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.”
Wow. 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. And China certainly doesnt have a problem destroying someone else’s cultural heritage.)
Cuno revists the imperialist claim that modern nation-state ethnic groups have no claim on the actions and achievements of their ancestors:
“I think any of these modern nations can exercise a greater claim than any other nation on antiquities found within their jurisdiction. 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.
Arg.
This is a tired century-old canard that claims an ethnic group has only a tenuous tie to their ancestors. The notion of a “continuous and natural” descent is, IMHO, offensive and bigoted – reminiscent of some particularly odious racial theories from the 19th century which read a mixture of bloodlines as reason enough to dispute strong connections with ancestral pasts. What, after all, does Cuno mean by “a natural way”? Is language not enough for him? Sure, some nations use artifacts for political reinforcement of nationalist goals but is that reason enough to dismiss a people’s ethnic and cultural affinities with these same artifacts?
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. PAR-TAY! To insist on ‘spreading the wealth’ of the Parthenon marbles is as smart as perhaps cutting Jefferson’s face from the statue at the memorial and giving it to the Chinese. 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?
Absurd.
The Parthenon still exists. The marbles are the frieze of the Parthenon. They certainly don’t belong in London. Period.
And have you taken a look at the new Acropolis Musuem? Stunning. The idea that countries can’t care for their own history is silly. If the West really cared, we’d help them build the proper facilities.
It is also rather bothersome that Cuno claims that the modern nations who want to retain their archaeological resources are nothing more than “nationalists”. 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. Wouldn’t the other way give Britain claim to Boston’s historical sites? Plymouth Rock? The French get Montreal. Spain gets the Southwest missions?
Throughout the book, Cuno doesn’t seem able to grasp why people in Greece, Italy, Africa and so on might want the stolen antiquities back. 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!!) are more worried about what would be left in places like the Met or the Field Museum in Chicago if all antiquities (…more often than not acquired by rather dubious means…) were to be returned to their country of origin?
As with the Teabaggers, I think what we may be seeing here is a major whine from declining cultural imperialists who can’t bear the thought that their days of entitlement have come to an end.
Now its your turn to tell me why I’m wrong.
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.
And so I can finally announce that I succesfully scraped my way through James Cuno’s “Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle Over Our Ancient Heritage”. I swear to God it took me nearly two years. It’s a frustrating read.
Basically, Cuno, Director and President of the Art Institute of Chicago, proposes a return to “partage”. Partage is the idea that most archaeological resources excavated in Third World countries should end up in the land of the “experts”. That would be Europe or America.
Over the past thirty years, the idea of “partage” has given way to national laws and international conventions designed to keep antiquities in their nation of origin. 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. Maintaining that the acquisition of undocumented antiquities by museums encourages the looting of archaeological sites, countries such as Italy, Greece, Egypt, Turkey, and China have claimed ancient artifacts as state property, called for their return from museums around the world, and passed laws against their future export. But in Who Owns Antiquity?, one of the world’s leading museum directors vigorously challenges this nationalistic position, arguing that it is damaging and often disingenuous. “Antiquities,” James Cuno argues, “are the cultural property of all humankind,” “evidence of the world’s ancient past and not that of a particular modern nation. They comprise antiquity, and antiquity knows no borders.”
Cuno argues that nationalistic retention and reclamation policies impede common access to this common heritage and encourage a dubious and dangerous politicization of antiquities–and of culture itself. Antiquities need to be protected from looting but also from nationalistic identity politics. To do this, Cuno calls for measures to broaden rather than restrict international access to antiquities. He advocates restoration of the system under which source countries would share newly discovered artifacts in exchange for archaeological help, and he argues that museums should again be allowed reasonable ways to acquire undocumented antiquities. The first extended defense of the side of museums in the struggle over antiquities, Who Owns Antiquity? is sure to be as important as it is controversial.
Controversy indeed. And Cuno doesn’t seem to be bothered by the controversy…nor does he seem bothered by showing himself to be an imperialistic ass.
In an AP interview from about 18 months ago Cuno stated:
“Historically, partage has not simply built the collections of the host nations of excavating teams. . . . 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.
“Partage encourages a broader understanding of the achievements of different ancient peoples, encouraging the sense that we all collectively have a stake in the preservation of this material.”
Sounds nice. But he also said:
“I think any of these modern nations can exercise a greater claim than any other nation on antiquities found within their jurisdiction. 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.”
Wow. 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. And China certainly doesnt have a problem destroying someone else’s cultural heritage.)
Cuno revists the imperialist claim that modern nation-state ethnic groups have no claim on the actions and achievements of their ancestors:
“I think any of these modern nations can exercise a greater claim than any other nation on antiquities found within their jurisdiction. 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.
Arg.
This is a tired century-old canard that claims an ethnic group has only a tenuous tie to their ancestors. The notion of a “continuous and natural” descent is, IMHO, offensive and bigoted – reminiscent of some particularly odious racial theories from the 19th century which read a mixture of bloodlines as reason enough to dispute strong connections with ancestral pasts. What, after all, does Cuno mean by “a natural way”? Is language not enough for him? Sure, some nations use artifacts for political reinforcement of nationalist goals but is that reason enough to dismiss a people’s ethnic and cultural affinities with these same artifacts?
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. PAR-TAY! To insist on ‘spreading the wealth’ of the Parthenon marbles is as smart as perhaps cutting Jefferson’s face from the statue at the memorial and giving it to the Chinese. 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?
Absurd.
The Parthenon still exists. The marbles are the frieze of the Parthenon. They certainly don’t belong in London. Period.
And have you taken a look at the new Acropolis Musuem? Stunning. The idea that countries can’t care for their own history is silly. If the West really cared, we’d help them build the proper facilities.
It is also rather bothersome that Cuno claims that the modern nations who want to retain their archaeological resources are nothing more than “nationalists”. 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. Wouldn’t the other way give Britain claim to Boston’s historical sites? Plymouth Rock? The French get Montreal. Spain gets the Southwest missions?
Throughout the book, Cuno doesn’t seem able to grasp why people in Greece, Italy, Africa and so on might want the stolen antiquities back. 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!!) are more worried about what would be left in places like the Met or the Field Museum in Chicago if all antiquities (…more often than not acquired by rather dubious means…) were to be returned to their country of origin?
As with the Teabaggers, I think what we may be seeing here is a major whine from declining cultural imperialists who can’t bear the thought that their days of entitlement have come to an end.
Now its your turn to tell me why I’m wrong.
November 26, 2017
god what a prick
August 5, 2013
While still conspicuously ignorant of the subjects, museum acquisitions, museology in general, and the debates concerning (re)appropriation 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?
Cuno’s short answer is that states don’t 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 Ba’athists took control in Iraq in 1968, they adopted strict laws of cultural appropriation in concert with their virulently nationalist rhetoric. “Their intention was to create a ‘national-territorial 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 pre-Islamic 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 Iraq’s uniqueness among the nations of the world at large” (p. 58-59). 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 non-Arabic 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. 83, a direct quote from Mehmet Ozdogan’s 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 nation-state 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 ever-presence of boundary-crossing 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 nation-state 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 Cuno’s 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 doesn’t matter that these objects are not permanently housed in the United States? Then again, we’re much closer in historical time – in language, heritage, culture, and mores – to the people that created this country than the contemporary Chinese are to Shang-era 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 re-think how art, identity, cultural appropriation, and museum-building are all intimately connected. It does a wonderful job at raising intelligent questions about how these concepts are linked.
Cuno’s short answer is that states don’t 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 Ba’athists took control in Iraq in 1968, they adopted strict laws of cultural appropriation in concert with their virulently nationalist rhetoric. “Their intention was to create a ‘national-territorial 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 pre-Islamic 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 Iraq’s uniqueness among the nations of the world at large” (p. 58-59). 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 non-Arabic 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. 83, a direct quote from Mehmet Ozdogan’s 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 nation-state 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 ever-presence of boundary-crossing 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 nation-state 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 Cuno’s 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 doesn’t matter that these objects are not permanently housed in the United States? Then again, we’re much closer in historical time – in language, heritage, culture, and mores – to the people that created this country than the contemporary Chinese are to Shang-era 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 re-think how art, identity, cultural appropriation, and museum-building are all intimately connected. It does a wonderful job at raising intelligent questions about how these concepts are linked.
June 10, 2024
This was absurd. Honestly made me mad reading it. Very very flimsy argument essentially arguing for a return to partage. This is exactly the kind of book I would expect a man with a J name to write. Bleh
October 19, 2020
Interesting points about UNESCO but mostly racist
September 16, 2021
I never want to see or hear about this book ever again thanks
January 24, 2016
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.
November 26, 2013
blah. apologia for the centralization of global history into museums built, funded and run by rich dead (on the inside) europeans. Q: Who owns antiquity? A: The same people who own everything else.
January 2, 2021
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 Keeping 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 (2016), I think she provides a more up-to-date look on the same view of the topic than this book from 2008. 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 nation-state" (p. 125). 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.
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 Keeping 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 (2016), I think she provides a more up-to-date look on the same view of the topic than this book from 2008. 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 nation-state" (p. 125). 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.
August 16, 2020
This work is of significant importance.
In an age when broad swathes of the community accept simple argumentative propositions, simplistically presented, and often then stridently adopt them as social campaigns, it is valuable to have available a comprehensive enunciation of the less fashionable side of any argument. Even if it is probable that vast swathes of those broad swathes will be uninterested in pursuing the matter as far as listening to some of the contrary points.
In this context, one does not look for a neutral presentation of all the arguments of both sides, but a thorough-going presentation of the less popular perspective.
JAMES Cuno is not a disinterested party in the question of whether museums should expatriate items from their collections to entities located in the present-day nation in which antiquities were found. He is an important player in the community of what he calls encyclopedic museums, that is museums which seek to develop collections representing many cultures in many locations, rather than collections relating to the local area only.
I think it is most likely that the present climate would see a substantial majority in the community arguing that the Elgin Marbles ought to be expatriated to Greece and that, consistent with that view, archaeological and palaeontological finds in general ought all be offered to the museums located in the current national entity where the items were found (or were presumed to have been found). So this book is likely going against the contemporary tide, and is the more valuable for that.
It is also more valuable because it is, while partisan, measured, balanced, and very thorough. Cuno has researched the background impressively. Given his professional C.V., we would expect him to have comprehensive command of matters related to museums, archaeologists, collectors, and government ministers. However, his book gains greatly by his full accounts of the histories of the various regions on which he focuses. The point of this is to show that national boundaries are transient and that the relationship of the “nation” to a particular geography is similarly impermanent. Furthermore, the present “nations” are managed by groups of politicians whose policies are politically motivated, one form of this motivation being the encouragement of nationalist fervour.
In an age when broad swathes of the community accept simple argumentative propositions, simplistically presented, and often then stridently adopt them as social campaigns, it is valuable to have available a comprehensive enunciation of the less fashionable side of any argument. Even if it is probable that vast swathes of those broad swathes will be uninterested in pursuing the matter as far as listening to some of the contrary points.
In this context, one does not look for a neutral presentation of all the arguments of both sides, but a thorough-going presentation of the less popular perspective.
JAMES Cuno is not a disinterested party in the question of whether museums should expatriate items from their collections to entities located in the present-day nation in which antiquities were found. He is an important player in the community of what he calls encyclopedic museums, that is museums which seek to develop collections representing many cultures in many locations, rather than collections relating to the local area only.
I think it is most likely that the present climate would see a substantial majority in the community arguing that the Elgin Marbles ought to be expatriated to Greece and that, consistent with that view, archaeological and palaeontological finds in general ought all be offered to the museums located in the current national entity where the items were found (or were presumed to have been found). So this book is likely going against the contemporary tide, and is the more valuable for that.
It is also more valuable because it is, while partisan, measured, balanced, and very thorough. Cuno has researched the background impressively. Given his professional C.V., we would expect him to have comprehensive command of matters related to museums, archaeologists, collectors, and government ministers. However, his book gains greatly by his full accounts of the histories of the various regions on which he focuses. The point of this is to show that national boundaries are transient and that the relationship of the “nation” to a particular geography is similarly impermanent. Furthermore, the present “nations” are managed by groups of politicians whose policies are politically motivated, one form of this motivation being the encouragement of nationalist fervour.
March 29, 2020
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?
- 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?
December 22, 2021
Cuno was wrong in 2010 and he's even more wrong a decade later.
June 18, 2025
SO BORING.
February 7, 2017
I strongly disagree with this book’s premise, but it provides a good overview of cultural heritage law development, and I find the author’s self-contradictions 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 the 20th 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 anti-repatriation camp. This book is Cuno’s 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 won’t 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 pro-repatriation, Cuno has actually done his opponents a favor in providing a readable, concise book on the subject.
Get Who Owns Antiquity?: Museums and the Battle over Our Ancient Heritage from the Denver Public Library
- Sarah E
Basically, he feels the trend is a slippery slope that will empty out Western museums, and then he won’t 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 pro-repatriation, Cuno has actually done his opponents a favor in providing a readable, concise book on the subject.
Get Who Owns Antiquity?: Museums and the Battle over Our Ancient Heritage from the Denver Public Library
- Sarah E
June 18, 2009
The crux of Cuno's argument is essentially pro-museum: 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 nation-states, 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 nation-state's boundaries. His point is well-made, 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 the 1970 UNESCO convention as weak because it is basically optional for its participating members. After reading previous pro-claimant 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 necessary--and it needs to have some teeth.
February 12, 2017
I felt like this book was bland. I know Cuno's trying to make some points; it's just soooo tiring getting there. There are a couple of good nuggets, but overall, it's just soooo blah. There are a few times of "Oh, I hadn't thought of that point in the argument of who should get to keep certain antiquities," and some good history/details of international rules about antiquities. But overall... Blah.
I suppose this would be a good resource if you were in the middle of writing policy about stolen/illegally imported artifacts, or if you were in the middle of that type of situation, and you wanted pros and cons of keeping or not keeping the items. Other than that... blaaah.
I suppose this would be a good resource if you were in the middle of writing policy about stolen/illegally imported artifacts, or if you were in the middle of that type of situation, and you wanted pros and cons of keeping or not keeping the items. Other than that... blaaah.
May 28, 2008
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 nation-states, but the text's praise of "globalization" made me a bit apprehensive. A global community is ideal, but until we get past nation-state egos my fear is of globalization becoming some kind of weapon ("the most superior nation-state 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.
December 18, 2008
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?"
November 8, 2008
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.
Want to read
December 4, 2008So 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.
February 6, 2011
Thought-provoking. I don't entirely agree with Cuno's conclusions about western museums as the best custodians for ancient artifacts but he makes a good case and raises all the right issues using real-world examples.
July 27, 2012
A very good read, in all. However, the parts on the political side, especially in terms of international and nationalistic retentionist policies, were too technical. Apart from that, it was well thought-out, and the history was told well.
March 20, 2017
SO boring and the digital edition's quality was awful; black boxes instead of images, a dearth of capital letters at the beginning of sentences and proper nouns... Dreadful. I couldn't bring myself to finish it.
January 12, 2015
If you believe that the Elgin marbles should be returned to Athens because the contemporary geopolitical entity that holds sovereignty there asserts they belong to it because they are essential to its cultural esteem (and where they were found), this book is not for you.
Read
September 12, 2015Title is self-explanatory - 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.
April 9, 2012
At times difficult to read but has some very thought-provoking content.
October 23, 2012
This book changed the way I view antiquities and their ownership. It systematically goes through every possible argument and debunks it. This is truly a great read!
February 23, 2014
Thought provoking. Certainly an interesting take on a challenging issue, who owns what is found below the ground of the country you're in?
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews