Customer Reviews

Who Owns Antiquity?: Museums and the Battle over Our Ancient Heritage

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

(A version of this review first appeared in the August/September 2008 issue of First Things.)

"Hey hey, ho ho. Western culture's got to go!" So went the chants on the campus of Stanford University in 1988, criticizing the classical canon. Well, it's going -- literally. Antiquities of questionable provenance held by many museums are being "repatriated" to their source nations, sometimes as the result of a mere threat. When a claim is made, should museums comply? "The world is divided on this question," explains James Cuno, with "museums, private collectors and art dealers" on one side, and "archaeologists, academics, and source nation cultural ministers" on the other. Cuno defends the museum side of the issue, and he is well suited to make the case. Cuno, once director of the Harvard University Art Museum, is currently director of the Art Institute of Chicago.

The hero of Cuno's book is the Enlightenment-inspired "encyclopedic museum," such as the Louvre or the British Museum. The villain is nationalism, which is fortified by recent laws that keep archaeological discoveries within national borders or demand their return. These laws, says Cuno, are an unenforceable "bouillabaisse of good intentions and bureaucratic ambitions," and their "trajectory of retention is tightening, from protection to prevention to return." Cuno's alternative is the legal scholar John Merryman's triad of knowledge, preservation, and access. Museums that best meet such benchmarks should get the goods.

The book is packed with informative tangents but will do little to mollify those who suspect Western museums of purchasing or retaining illegally exported antiquities. Because UNESCO resolutions have not prevented looting, Cuno calls them a "failed regime." We could say the same of "Thou shalt not steal." Cuno laments violent, divided humanity, and he promises that museums "serve as a force for understanding, tolerance, and the dissolution of ignorance and superstition about the world." Museums are indeed wonderful, but while there are no easy answers to the antiquities question, there may be more compelling explanations for human imperfection than the fact that not enough people spend afternoons at the Met.

This book is a pompous yet feeble argument for allowing art and antiquities pilfered from age-old civilizations to remain in the hands of thieving, bowtie-wearing blowhards like author Cuno and his harrumphing confederates. The argument is easily undercut, as it has been by other reviewers, by the tale of the Elgin Marbles. But applying Cuno logic would also mean, for example, that if the Ark of the Covenant, stolen by the Romans, were someday to pop up in Italy, the land of Israel would have no claim on it. Same applies to the art looted by Nazis that has yet to resurface. What say some of it does reappear, in 100 years, in Buenos Aires, in a Cuno-esque *global museum*? How could one claim it should be returned to the Jews of Poland, who essentially no longer exist? What about hunters of American Colonial artifacts who come from Holland and Canada with metal detectors? Do they get to keep the Revolutionary sabres and muskets they find? One must suppose Japan has no claims on the glorious 600-year-old Samurai swords confiscated by the US military after WWII, all of them great works of art - and national treasures - fattening collections and wallets on the Eastern Seaboard. AFter all there are no more Samurai. No, Cuno really has no case here, just a lot of vain bluster from a chief perpetrator and beneficiary of the depredations he shamelessly espouses.

Anyone who has ever been enthralled visiting one of the world's great archeological museums would benefit from James Cuno's book. So would archaeologists, museum directors, curators, antiquities dealers...and journalists who have signed on to the out-of-control drumbeat demonizing museums and collectors. Source country bureaucrats and power-wielders should read it as well, but they probably will not. Cuno's is a refreshing, insightful and intelligent counterpoint to mainstream misinformed denigration of the world's great archaeological museums. It convincingly argues that nationalistic retention laws for antiquities neither preserve sites nor objects, nor do they benefit the larger interests of civilization and mankind. There is probably more here than the non-specialist is interested in, but the beginning and end of the book are more than enlightening, and the reader can go back to middle chapters for background and revealing histories of the modern nations of Turkey, China and Italy. This book is an eloquent plea to save the inspiring fragments of mankind's long history which belong to us all. Cuno believes using them for nationalistic agendas is not the way.

The cover of Who Owns Antiquity shows two military police officers armed with automatic rifles guarding what appears to a museum entrance. From the cover, the reader-to-be is lead to believe the insides will contain a dramatic telling of the fight over antiquities. While the reader shouldn't expect a "shootout-over-the-ruins" the cover sets the reader up for action and intrique. For instance, this reader is aware, there have been criminal trials of American curators regarding the alleged illicit acquistion of antiquities, but this book doesn't recount even one such trial.

Instead Who Owns Antiquity, is one long arguement for "encyclopedic museums" (museums which present artifacts from many cultures) over "nationalistic" museums (a museum that contains only the cultural heritage of a specific nation).

Like a good scholar, the author, tries to consider opposing points of view, but too often his analysis is weak. For instance, he complains, over and over, about China's national retentionistic policies, yet acknowldeges that the Chinese have a "first-rate" musueum to display and study the artifacts the policy aims to protect.

Further, the author whines and whines about how national retention policies have kept antiquities, in particular antiquities whose provenance could never be established, from being shared with the world. He clearly belives these artifacts should be available to whole world (and by extension avaiable for his study). Yet how comfortable would Americans be if a Chinese musuem displayed Native American artifacts or the letters of Benjamim Franklin not available in any American musuem?

Nationalistic retention policies, can bred intolerance. The Taliban's destruction of Buddihst statues being a prime example. However, again this example of extreme intolerance is at the end of the book -- after among other things, a detailed and largely academic discussion of UNESCO's goals and American foreign policy.

Still, a case can be made for the importance of encyclopedic museums. The author, in the epilogue, recounts his first visit to Louvre. He recounts how he was so impressed he was with the sight of artifacts from around the world. The reader feels the passions of a career-path aroused in a young man. In the author's first visit to Louvre, we see the importance and impact attached to appreciating all cultures. Here, in the epilogue, is the author's most powerful argument for the power and importance of all-inclusive museums.

Written with more drama, Who Owns Antiquity, could have a greater impact. As it stands, it is largely just one scholar complaining about the difficulties encyclopedic museums have in adding to their collections.

¡Bienvenidos al neoliberalismo cultural!

James Cuno elabora todo un panfleto de más de 200 páginas para justificar y tratar de perpetuar las antiguas prácticas de los grandes museos estadounidenses (privados y públicos, muchos de ellos universitarios) en la adquisición de antigüedades de fuera de los EE.UU. sin una cadena de propiedad legítima.
En su cosmovisión globalizadora de los bienes del Patrimonio Cultural, debería suprimirse toda legislación nacional o internacional que restrinja el comercio de los mismos, aunque surja del amplio consenso de la disciplina académica arqueológica como requisito mínimo para la prevención del expolio de los sitios arqueológicos y su registro documental, así como del tráfico ilícito de sus materiales.
El autor no duda en deslegitimar a la UNESCO, a la CPAC y a toda la profesión arqueológica, y asegura que las "leyes de propiedad cultural retencionistas" se han desarrollado solamente por los intereses "nacionalistas" de los países de origen de las antigüedades, en algunos casos para aumentar su peso en la escena internacional. (Confunde intencionadamente los conceptos "nacional" y "nacionalista").
Sí, amigo James, me ha quedado bien clarito en qué consiste la globalización "neocon": debe eliminarse toda barrera que entorpezca la libre circulación de capitales (el comercio de bienes culturales), de modo que las multinacionales (los grandes museos) puedan maximizar beneficios (adquirir más piezas) aunque provoquen directa o indirectamente la destrucción del medio ambiente y el empobrecimiento de las sociedades en vías del desarrollo y del Tercer Mundo (el expolio de los sitios arqueológicos y el patrimonio, con la consiguiente pérdida de los contextos culturales que hacen de humanidad un caleidoscopio diverso).
Simplemente lamentable.

This is the definitive counterargument to the museum directors who put overly stringent conditions on collecting antiquities and exposes the claims of Italy and others for what they are. Anyone who wants to enter the debate in this area must read Cuno's book first. The last several chapters are padding. Everything you need is in the book's first half.

Some ancient art belongs to the world, not necessarily to the present nations who now claim it. Several times over the years, I have seen, studied, photographed, and talked about the Elgin Marbles in London's British Museum. During my long life I have heard about and have read about the Parthenon, but I have seen it only once--two years ago. Should I now try to go to Greece to see the Elgin Marbles? At age 81 and here in California I think of the Elgin Marbles as being from ancient times that are basic to our civilization and not just to the present Greek nation. Should the British "give them back"? I don't think so. The book, "Who Owns Antiquity..." by James Cuno ©2008 legitimately takes the museum point view which I enthusiastically share. John L. Sommer.

I've been lucky enough to stand on the steps of the Parthenon on one day, and then stand in front of the Elgin Marbles in the British Museum the next day. My initial reaction upon looking at the Marbles was that it seemed somewhat unfair that these pieces were sitting in London when they should be housed at their intended setting in Athens. I have to confess that I was ready to join the chorus who calls for the British Museum to turn over the Marbles to Greece.

James Cuno would say that I was letting sentimentality, political correctness, and/or nationalism blind me to the bigger picture. In Who Owns Antiquity, Cuno argues that museums like the British Museum are the perfect forum to house art from various cultures, because those museums can display and describe those works of art within the broader context of humanity's development. Cuno persuasively argues that these museums not only have a vital place in our society, but are also bulkwards against nationalistic tendencies that hoard art simply on the basis that it was discovered within a modern nation's boundaries. Cuno also makes a very good case that UNESCO is more interested in protecting a specific country's claims than in cultivating the broader interest of humanity. As a result, Cuno concludes that only museums which feature art and artifacts from a wide swath of history and cultures can adequately protect and explain humanity's heritage.

Am I convinced by Cuno's argument? Not entirely. While Cuno does offer a solution to sharing future art/artifact finds, his solution to claims by modern countries of origin on art/artifacts that are currently sitting in museums seems to be "tough luck...they're in the place best suited to house them." It seems there has to be an alternative solution to that situation than the one Cuno implies. Still, Cuno's writing is forceful and his defense of museums is very convincing. By providing that "other side" of the argument, Cuno has performed a valuable service in shaping the dialogue on this issue which will (hopefully) find a compromise. As a result, Who Owns Antiquity is required reading for anyone who has even the slightest interest in the issue about whether art/artifacts belong in the modern country of their origin or in another setting.

Cuno is a defender of the so-called "universal museums", now called "encyclopaedic museums" and perhaps more correctly, imperialistic or totalitarian museums. The museum that never has enough of anything and seeks a total control of all cultural objects by all means, including the use of force by the army of the country where the museum is situated-Louvre, British Museum, The Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Art Institute of Chicago. These museums now lament the end of the imperialistic and colonial period in which they amassed most of their stock. This was the period when the Europeans could take virtually from any country whatever cultural object they desired. That period is, mercifully, at an end and Cuno and co are agitating for the return to that system, so-called partage system which enabled the Europeans to take away massive archaeological objects from countries like Egypt. Cuno labels those who seek the return of the stolen cultural objects as nationalists but what about those who fight to keep the objects in the museums of the West, are they internationalists or what?
This new book does not advance in anyway the debate about the restitution of cultural objects. On the contrary, it will only help to solidify the known positions. That leading museum directors do not understand the desire of Africans and Asians to recover their stolen cultural objects, is a sad commentary on the cultural landscape of the world. The perspective would have appeared better without the addition of this book which will only serve as additional object for heated controversies and it comes from a museum director of one of the leading museums of the Western world.
Kwame Opoku. 22 May,2008.

The book underlines the attitude behind Cuno's outspoken cultural superiority. In a recent AP interview, Cuno said: "Cuno: 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."

This is a century old canard that claims an ethnic group has only a tenuous tie to their ancestors. His words about a "continuous and natural" descent are 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? That some nations use artifacts for political reinforcement of nationalist goals is not reason enough to dismiss a people's ethnic and cultural affinities with these same artifacts.

Take the case of the Elgin marbles, for instance. He 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 spill wine on them during fundraisers. To insist on spreading the wealth of the Parthenon marbles is as smart as perhaps cutting Lincoln's face off the memorial and giving it to Singapore, or amputating the arm holding the torch on the statue of liberty, and sending it to Uruguay.