Whose Culture? A Book Review

Who owns culture? But more importantly, who decides the answer to that question? James Cuno investigates this question in his compilation of essays by various scholars in Whose Culture? His book further investigates the controversial issue of looting and the significance and importance of artifacts without context or provenance.

In his introduction, Cuno tackles various problems existing in the sphere of cultural heritage. How do we decide whats important? Who decides whats important? And who does it belong to?
I thought it was incredibly interesting how Cuno offers a completely different point of view from what we have been looking at all semester. It was refreshing to see that Cuno understood the importance of artefacts without context or provenance. While he understands how context is important in archaeology, he chooses to focus on how museums should handle such objects. In his introduction, Cuno states that, "This book considers the question of why museums, especially art museums should acquire antiquities, even unexcavated antiquities with incomplete provenance." While Cuno understands and supports the legalities and ethics concerning objects, he argues that museums have an obligation to the public to house and preserve artefacts. He then goes on to list instances in which artefacts without context have proven to be beneficial to the academic sphere. Most notably, he talks about the Rosetta Stone, which was found out of context, excavated without archaeological practices or regulations, let helped decipher an entire language. Of course this object is important, and thats exactly the point Cuno is trying to make. Artefacts without context can be beneficial to archaeology, history, and cultural heritage.

Cunos book is broken up into three parts, all consisting of essays by various scholars.

Part One deals with the value of museums. The main focus here is in encyclopedic museums, such as the British Museum, that display a plethora of different artefacts from around the world. Many of the objects that are at the British Museum were acquired prior to the formation of UNESCO and were obtained during the Enlightenment in which there was a resurgence of Classical interests. The issue here is that there is now 191 signatories of UNESCO, and countries like Greece, Egypt, Iran and the like are fighting for their cultural heritage to be returned. Here lies the question: Who owns cultural heritage? Well after readings the essays Cuno had chosen for this part, many interesting and noteworthy conclusions can be made. First of all (I had not even considered this before), cultural property belongs to the imperialists, the great nations, the rich. In the age of the Enlightenment, it was easy for countries like Britian to take artefacts from poorer and occupied countries like Greece and India. The idea that culture belongs to the powerful is a new one to me but it makes a lot of sense. Moreover, there seems to be an awareness that richer nations are more able to take care of and preserve artefacts making it seem justified to rip nationalist symbols for other nations.

Part Two consists of the value of the antiquities themselves. I will not delve very far into this section of the book due to the fact that I talked about it indepth at the beginning of this review. However, I will say that I found Sir John Boardman's essay quite endearing. I agreed with him wholeheartedly in the fact that museums had an obligation to the public to acquire artefacts regardless if they have no context because there is a "value of museums as repositories for the preservation and presentation of antiquities and considers the benefits to knowledge of acquiring and studying undocumented antiquities."

Part Three is about "Museums, Antiquities, and Cultural Property." Again, here we are looking at the question: Who owns cultural heritage? What can be read in the essays in this chapter can be related to everything we have spoken about all semester. On one hand, museums are centers of knowledge and should serve to teach us about our past. It would be a great injustice if all artifacts were to go back to their home countries because it would make it increasingly difficult for people to view and learn about the treasures of the past. On the other hand, antiquities can be important symbols in modern day politics and culture and can serve as nationalistic tools. For example, Michael F. Brown talks about indigenous societies and their attempt to reclaim and preserve lost heritage and culture. The next essay by Derek Gillman talks about artefacts that have served as important examples throughout the course, such as the Bamiyan Buddhas and the Elgin Marbles. Here we see a juxtaposition of one country wanted to destroy a part of their history in the name of nationalism and another country lobbying for the repatriation of artefacts to fuel nationalism. In this book, many political ideas regarding nationalism were brought up that I had never thought of before. Before reading this book, I had never fulling considered the different spheres of nationalism. Moreover, I had never even considered that cultural heritage is mostly owned by the rich, especially when we look at encyclopedic museums like the British Museum and the Louvre, as well as private collectors. Cultural heritage can be owned at any price. Even though many nations are lobbying for the return of lost cultural property, places like the British Museum refuse to repatriate any objects - and they really don't have to. While there are many protests and public opinion regarding the manner, the Elgin Marbles for example were obtained prior to the 1970 UNESCO convention and thus encyclopedic museums have a right to ownership for many of the objects that they display.

In conclusion, I found Cuno's book very refreshing in that it raised many questions that I had never before considered even though it seemed like the perfect culmination for all that we had studied all semester. Call me a bit naive, but I had never truly realized the gravity of Western ownership on artefacts. I don't have any problems with this book, I think it offered many different insights into an interesting ethical dilemma. I would not say that Cuno failed in providing his audience with opposing positions because he stated in his Introduction that that was not the intent of the book. The book was to study one side and one side only and I think it did a great job of doing so. Anyone interested in archaeological ethics can pick up almost any book and read about the opposing view and that's exactly why Cunos book is so important because its the one offering the rare insight into an opposing opinion. What is unsettling though is the realization that no solution will be met, at least not any time soon, by Cuno himself. I guess that's what I've learned most from Archaeological Ethics: there are many theorists, many ideas, many dilemmas, and many solutions, but absolutely no answers.

No Context, No Provenance: A-OK!

This article is very interesting. China is offerring rewards for artifacts and relics that were taken out of the country during its "century of shame." I find it interesting because here we see a government offering money for artifacts that may or may not have any known context or provenance. One of the questions that has come up over the past semester has been: are looted artifacts or collected artifacts, especially those with unknown context or provenance, just as important as excavated ones? Do they have any significance?


"While China will not concede any of its original claims of rightful ownership, Chan said that China may be willing to provide “fair and reasonable” compensation to the “benevolent holders” of its looted artifacts, in accordance with international treaties and conventions."

I find this quote to be very interesting in that China is offering money, which could be interpreted as China understanding that they do not actually own the artifacts. For example, Greece will never ask the British Museum for a loan on the Elgin Marbles due to the fact that Greece would then be recognizing the British Museums ownership of the artifacts.

"Now, as China’s economic might grows, greater efforts are being made to restore its lost cultural heritage."

So, we can assume that the context of the artifact is not important here. Can one have any cultural heritage without actually knowing the history of the object? I say yes. This is due to the fact that artifacts can mean more than a piece of history. They are symbols of patriotism. Just witnessing a piece of art can invoke a lot more pride than the actually history of it. This isn't always the case, but its true.

"Last month, the director of Beijing’s Summer Palace said China would send a team of experts to museums around the world in an attempt to create a complete catalog works looted from the Summer Palace when it was ravaged and burned by British and French forces in 1860"

Here we can also see that the artifacts can also symbolize independence. They had lost artifacts from invading foreign forces and recovering these lost objects can help in rebuilding pride and establishing independence.

Case Study

This entry is in reference to the case study that we did in class.


Our case study was about a man named Dr Charles who had been working in west Africa for years. He was an archaeology who was also very involved the community. The community began to depend on him for employment, funds, and education. Moreover, they wished for his help in building up tourism. Unfortunately, Dr Charles wanted to move onto different sites around the world in order to compare his findings from the site in west Africa. Also, political tension had been developing and poor infrastructure, like roads, was compromising his research.

I suppose the ethical question here is what is an appropriate role for an archaeologist to play in the community?
If an archaeologist chooses to include the community in his research, how much should the community be involved? What are the obligations of the archaeologist towards the community and vice versa? Should the community depend on the archaeologist the way they have depended on Dr Charles?

Dr Charles had been working in west Africa for years, thus he may have also become a part of the community. He is a member who is providing education of this particular towns cultural heritage. His research as provided employment for a (I'm assuming) poor region. Evidence of a poor economic situation is shown in the fact that this town has poor roads. And because Dr Charles has played such a significant role in helping this community learn about their past, does he have an obligation to not only continue teaching but also help in creating a tourist spot?

Creating a tourist spot does not require a site. It also requires good infrastructure, which this town does not have. Moreover, if Dr Charles were to stay and help this community, he would have to step outside of his role as an archaeologist.

The case study does provide a question: How does one leave the community? Dr Charles may have a close and personal connection with this town and its people. He wants to move on to study comparable sites, but he is torn. If he stays, he can help build the community, however if he leaves he is jeopardizing knowledge and even jeopardizing any further knowledge of this west African site. In order for him to fully understand his research in this region, he must travel outwards to compare and contrast his findings. But how does he do this knowing that this community relies so heavily upon him for employment and education? Or does Dr Charles' academic interests trump the needs and wants of the community that allowed him to work there for several years?

I would have to say, even know this is not ideal, that Dr Charles should either stay in the community and help it grow or allow grad students to work there in order to keep employment and education alive within the community. I only say this because Dr Charles made the choice to not only include the community but to also be a part of it.

Famous Bodies

Are you curious about the about picture? Trying to figure out what exactly you're looking at? Well, it's Galileo's finger. That's right. His FINGER.

Apparently, Galileo's body parts became collectors items 95 years after his death when the Catholic church moved his body to consecrated ground. Other body parts include vertebrae. Other pieces of Galileo exist, but Florence's History of Science Museum has only been able to conserve these two parts. The rest has been lost to collectors.

We talk about collecting artifacts but we rarely talk about whether or not it is ethical to collect bodies and even put them on display for the public. For example, you can meet Lenin face to face with Lenin in Moscow even though he has been dead since the 1920s. Moreover, these little pieces of Galileo will be put on display for the public.

What is it with this fascination to preserve and view the famous as if they are relics? Is it really necessary to view these bodies? What can we learn from Galileo's fingers? Or do museums display the bodies of the famously deceased in order to feed upon the general publics morbid fascinations?

Is it ethical to display bodies? I can understand that these famous people may be heroes, and I can understand cemetery pilgrimages, but call me old fashioned but I really wouldn't want to view a decomposed corpse. And is this in the name of cultural heritage? Does it contribute to any historical or archaeological advancements? Or is this a museums way of being a "Ripley's Believe it or not" without losing any credibility?

And if we are supposed to be discouraging looting? These body parts of Galileo were obviously looted and made their way through collectors. Does putting body parts on display at museums encourage looting of graves, especially of those who are famous?

Archaeology and Criminology

Until I read this article, I had never considered what an Archaeologists role would be in the criminology sphere. This entry may not deal specifically with ethics, but it does raise some very valuable questions and shed some light on the different roles of archaeologists throughout the world.

I suppose that we all assume that archaeologists are academics who lecture, go on digs and publish their findings to the world. However, in this particular case, archaeologists can help criminologists uncover the truth.

The story goes: A real estate agent in Lousiana uncovers about 100 bones in the basement of a house. Officials believe that they are from the 19th century. Moreover, officials say that they may even be Native American bones, which they then will fall under NAGPRA.

"Before it can be determined if the bones are native, they will be sent for analysis. Moreover, this analysis will determine if a crime has occured.
If the remains are American Indian, then the “appropriate” tribes will be consulted, he said. If the bones turn out to belong to another ethnic group, different groups may be notified."

We have spoken about NAGRA before, but not in terms of how it would be implemented in terms of crime. Moreover, it seems that NAGPRA would not be in effect if a crime had occured. So therefore, crime takes precedence over NAGPRA, no matter how old the remains are.

"If there is no crime, and the bones are more than 50 years old, they then fall under the responsibility of the state’s Division of Archaeology."

The site is an archaeological site, no doubt. Officials found arrowheads during investigation. Therefore, I wonder how the archaeologists will work with the criminalists and vice versa if it is true that a crime had taken place. Moreover, I wonder how the rules of NAGRA would apply.

After reading the article and looking more in depth into this situation, I think the remains preceded the house, therefore they are probably not the result of a crime but rather proper burial. Now, my question is: can native tribes, using NAGPRA, make any claims to the home? What will become of the home? Will there be a full excavation? Or will the bones be left as is?

UNESCO is Powerless

In a quote taken from an article on UNESCO, Francesco Bandarin, director of UNESCO's World Heritage Centre, admitted that UNESCO only had moral power and could not place restrictions upon countries.
It's interesting that we are studying UNESCO so in-depth, when they really have no power. Moreover, the article raised an important fact: the sites listed on UNESCO only account for a small fraction of sites in the world that require protection. The problems lies in the fact that countries place certain sites up for nomination. Therefore, countries can pick and choose which sites are important to cultural heritage. How is this fair to the world, if heritage belongs to us all? Countries are picking and choosing what deserves to be preserved and what should be left to detriorate. I believe that countries purposely pick and choose what will become a UNESCO site in order to generate money. If a site is listed on the UNESCO World heritage list, the more likely tourists will visit the site and the surrounding area.

The site of Iwami Ginzan is a specific example of a country attempting to utilize UNESCO to generate money. While the site had no "outstanding universal value" it still won the bid to become a World Heritage Site.

From article: As one conservationist responsible for a British World Heritage site, who preferred not to be named, put it: "A site that will not be of interest to paying visitors isn't going to be a priority. Unesco wants people to go there. They call it public education. We call it tourism."

The problem still remains that UNESCO has no political power over sites. If a country chooses to take control over a site, then UNESCO will put in "In Danger" yet they cannot actually do anything to stop destruction other than lobbying for protection. One could argue that promoting awareness can be just as beneficial to the preservation of sites, however UNESCO has only a small fraction of sites that need to be protected on their list. If cultural heritage needs to be protected, then why be so stingy on which sites are accepted?

Only one site has even been delisted from UNESCO when Oman descided to deplete the The Arabian Oryx Sanctuary by 90%. Instead of actually placing sanctions on Oman, UNESCO simply delisted it. Now, because of UNESCO not coperating with Oman to ENSURE a solution be made, the population of the Onyx has gone from 450 to only 4 mating pairs left. Is this at all acceptable?

UNESCO is of course aware of the issue, but the absolutly need to gain some form of autonomy over the sites that they sign to the list, otherwise the sites are only protected on paper and countries can still do what they please with them.

Archaeology, Museums, Tourism and the Environment

In this weeks class, we discussed how archaeology was a destructive science. Now that we are living in the green age, we are supposed to be more consciously aware of how our actions affect the environment. While we may be looking at UNESCO in relation to archaeological sites, UNESCO also serves to protect environmental sites like the coral reef in Australia.

Because archaeology, whether on land or underwater, is so destructive to the site, the artifacts, and even the environmental habitat, do archaeologists have an obligation to help "fix" the environment after excavation?

While excavating, do they have an obligation to be aware of the natural habitat around them? If it came between a great archaeological find and the protection of the habitat of a species, what would be the final choice?

Moreover, the tourism that is the by-product of archaeology and museums can also have a huge affect on the environment.

In Mexico, an underwater museum is being created in order to fix the damage done by tourists. On the 19th of November, sculptures will be submerged in the water in hopes of attracting algae.

"According to the park's director Jaime Gonzalez, one of the aims is to reduce the pressure on the natural habitat in other areas of the park by luring tourists away from existing coral reef, which has suffered damage from hurricanes and human activity."

The program which is funded by the Mexican government understands what a detrimental effect tourism has on the environment. However, this underwater museum is much different from others around the world. There has been support for an underwater museum in Alexandria which would showcase treasures of Cleopatra. This type of museum is much different than the one in Mexico in that it could prove to be detrimental to the ecosystems living under that water. While the museum in Mexico is trying to use art to attract tourists away from other ecosystems, like the coral reefs, an underwater museum in Alexandria would purposely attract hundreds to thousands of tourists to a single ecosystem which will then be gravely threatened.

Archaeology, museums, and tourism can work with the environment. Tourists should realize that it is their obligation to respect the environment and think about how their vacations can destroy certain habitats. Moreover, archaeologists are obligated to ensure that the environment is not harmed because our future is just as important as our past.