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.