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.