Developed vs. Developing countries.
The “looting” of antiquities in developed nations are almost entirely limited to storehouse
[i.e museum] theft, that is: not on-site, so already removed from archaeological context,
and more often than not, paintings or art objects created for art’s sake (as opposed to
religious relics or ceramics).
A look at UNESCO World Heritage Sites: in developed nations mostly landscape,
architecture—unlootable
Not Archaeological sites, or if they are, landscape, burial mounds. No looting
recorded (Sweden—Birka and Hovgaarden (**Viking, not Christian))
Repatriation claims are almost entirely one-way: Third World to First World, with
the exceptions of Italy, Greece, and Nazi repatriation claims.
(Greece: industrialized nation, in the top 25% of the world’s
economies. (University College London Hospital))
Nazi Looting, France:
Mostly paintings: Klimt, Picasso, Gainsborough, Matisse, Gaugin, Rodin,
Brueghel, Vuillard, Chagall, Degas, Miro, Monet, Picasso.
Egon Schiele’s Portrait of Wally:
In 1997, the Leopold Museum-Privatstiftung (Leopold) presented the work to the
New York Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) for a temporary exhibition. After the
exhibition, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office subpoenaed the painting.
That subpoena was quashed initially by the New York Court of Appeals because
it violated New York’s anti-seizure statute. That same day a Federal Magistrate
Judge issued a seizure warrant for the work based on probable cause that Dr.
Leopold, had violated the National Stolen Property Act. The painting has been in
storage since the beginning of the dispute in 1998, while the value of the “Portrait
of Wally” has soared to between $5 and $10 million.
November 2006: Angela Merkel, summons culture ministers and museum
directors to discuss overhauling the restitution law.
provoked art lovers and museum directors complained that Germany's
artistic heritage is being spirited away from public view and sold off for
millions to private collectors.
Ethical question: “artistic heritage” or “cultural heritage” would be
dry, misleading, and only Nationally-based (Third World
Countries’ Museums overwhelmingly only about National
Heritage [which is part of the nation-building attempts to
Without a question, the prescription for every nation state is to take
all means possible to prevent looting NOW, and in the future, but
how far back can retroactive repatriation claims be extended?
With the Elgin Marbles example, to acquiesce to Greek demands
for the return of the marbles, which were taken during a bygone
era is to deny historical truth out of guilt—because of political
incorrectness—the historical truth of the era of imperialism and
colonialism; a major turning point in world history.
By seeing which pieces have ended up where, and in what volume,
we learn a lot of our current culture. Repatriation demands that
cite an outmoded imperialism [in the sense of having been at one
point over-powered: the Ottoman Empire’s power of what is now
Greece, for example] as justification of return
A political realist (of which I am not, but I am trying to extend the
line of thought to one end of its logical extreme) would even argue
that the consequence of the Elgin Marbles ending up in England is
a consequence of the political reality that Greek unification [i.e its
current territorial configuration] was not achieved until 1947.
(again, I do not agree with this: it would be hyperbolic of me to
suggest the UNESCO [unwitting] statute of limitations be extended
retroactively
THE QUESTION OF TIME
(PRESCRIPTIONS)
The words “Now, and in the future” are highlighted above, because in writing this I have
started to look at the statute of limitations and its overarching importance from a different
angle: I think that the repatriation debate is not universally applicable; a reasonable, and
clear time bound1 is necessary in order to solve at least some current repatriation issues.
Otherwise, the nature of archaeology is in itself hypocritical: to most of us, the idea of
opening and robbing the grave of someone who died yesterday is horrific and amoral; but
to open and essentially rob the grave of someone who died a thousand years ago is
considered research.
My theoretical demand to create an official temporal “split” is sort of carried out in
practice, by the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing
the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property created such a
split for the modern trade of antiquities. However, I think the line should be drawn not at
1970 but should extend back to World War II [temporally recent, survivors still alive,
major turning point in human history etc2], to include Nazi repatriation demands
1
Of course this does bring us right back to the issue of whether this information [provenance/provenience]
is known, etc…
2
I discount the fall of the Soviet Union because over time, it became economically completely turned
inward.
The clear split would also enforce that articles with shaky provenance NOW can (and
should, in my opinion) be firmly, unquestionably regarded as contraband.
It is only now, that within the context of industrialization and
Western liberal democracy that we have come to [at least
superficially3, or morally/theoretically] value human life.
Democracy is not inherent to human society.
STRUCTURE/Rule of Law?
The case study we discussed about the religious cult that uses caves as part of its
ceremonial rites really points out the privileges of legitimacy within the
international system. Only because it is now an unquestionably legitimate entity
can Greece’s demand for the restitution of the Elgin Marbles—removed a quarter
century before Greek Independence was even achieved, before the establishment
of cultural patrimony laws, and over a century and a half before the 1970
UNESCO convention—be entertained.
Yet in class, nobody argued that perhaps the members of the religious
group had the right to use the cave as their traditions prescribed. This is in
part because the ceremonial rites were destructive, but really the act was
not because of the reduction of that group of people into a “religious cult”
without legitimate recognition.
States—i.e politically legitimate entities—engage in the wholesale
destruction of gigantic chunks of their cultural heritage quite
frequently, and the U.N does nothing to stop it. (failed states and
regions of the world embroiled in civil/ethnic conflict are a
different story—the U.N will intervene, but again, failed states and
ethnic groups are not recognized as holding legitimate power).
For example, the Three Gorges Dam in China, caused
irreparable and humongous damage to cultural sites, the
environment, and to human life, although China has signed
the UNESCR (Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights) and
the ICCPR (Civil and Political Rights)
Worse, the UNDP is supporting some very similar projects
around the world, such as the construction of the Sardar
Sarovar dam in India, which will ruin numerous
3
The simple, thoughtless purchase of certain commercial goods (clothes, shoes, gold, diamonds) sustain
economic practices often closely linked to gross human rights violations in other areas of the world: labor
practices in South Asian shoe factories; the purchase of any diamond re-enforcing the economic demand
for conflict diamonds in Sierra Leone, etc.
archaeological sites, cause environmental damage, and
displace over 300,000 people.
The claims of the religious cult in the case study is equitable to the
plight of indigenous groups all over the world, many of which are
granted nominal self-determination by the ruling state but little or
no political autonomy, and no power to protest destructive
economic and environmental practices that encroach upon their
culture, and more often than not, their basic human rights. (eg: the
Aborigines in Australia, the Sarawak in Malaysia)
(*imperialism certainly still exists, but within completely
different/revamped structures, systems, and institutions that make
these claims sort of a moot point.) that extend too far back into the
past are politically unrealistic; it reminds me of the can be
paralleled to those that say that the State of Israel really shouldn’t
exist because it was forcibly imposed upon……….
CONJECTURE:
Developed States; or, why no one would steal a smaller relic from Westminster Abbey:
Economic stability
Bigger budget = Tighter monitoring
Institutional infrastructure
Assumption: (potential) ability to enforce Cultural Patrimony Laws
But what of the exceptions of Greece and Italy?
Hypothesis: the hold of Christian Imperialism**
(Fine art, art for art’s sake: vs. religious statuary, burial mound content)
Christian icons also commodified, but not as novelty, or collectible, or
proof of worldliness/cosmopolitanism.
(Besides fact-finding in Jerusalem…think of political influence of
Christianity.)
Provinciality of European life.
First unified under Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire,
Royal families continue grappling for power (1066), but all under
auspices of the Church
Unification (not until 1800’s: Germany, Italy, France)
Ancient Greece and Rome revered as cultural epitomies, but not in Real-Time (as
opposed to Christianity, War on Terror)
 Commodification of culture.
Cultural Imperialism
A Developing Country’s “National Museum” or “National Gallery” completely
ethnically and geographically concentrated. The more developed a country, the more it
begins to attempt to build global collection. Of course, there are exceptions: for example,
Balkan states have a higher likeliness of having works of non-national Western European
art in their National Collections.
LDCs (Least Developed Countries):
-
“National Museums” in Kabul, AFGHANISTAN; Phnom Penh, CAMBODIA; Male,
MALDIVES; Dhaka, BANGLADESH; Addis Adaba, ETHIOPHIA; Vientiane, P.R
LAOS; Kinshasa and Lubumbashi, D.R CONGO;
1. National Museum as strictly identity-building exercise: ancient religious relics
and everyday objects such as ceramics and accessories that construct historical
narrative of national heritage, culture, etc
 need to establish political stability a factor: nation-building exercise
 eg: Afghanistan’s National Museum in Kabul [Switzerland]
Developing Countries (Medium Development):
-
“National Museums” eg: Abuja, NIGERIA; Hanoi, VIETNAM; Gaborone,
BOTSWANA; Jakarta, INDONESIA; Lima, PERU; Nairobi, KENYA; Accra,
GHANA; Havana Fine Arts Museum, CUBA;
1. same as above: collections geographically/ethnically concentrated in origin
2. showcase works of fine art of artists from that nation
NICs (Newly Industrialized Countries i.e not quite a developed country):
-
“National Museums” eg: Manila, PHILLIPINES; Bangkok, THAILAND; Istanbul,
TURKEY; Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA; Delhi, INDIA; Seoul Museum of Art still
1. same as above: national historical narrative
2. showcase works of national artists
3. a few National Galleries among the NICs feature foreign collections,
particularly modern art:
 Suan Pakkard Palace; Bangkok, THAILAND





 Asian antiques collection4
National Gallery of Modern Art; Delhi, INDIA
 foreign exhibitions
National Gallery of Modern Art; Mumbai, INDIA
 modest Picasso and Egyptian collection
National Art Museum; Riga, LATVIA
 foreign exhibitions
Museum of Contemporary Art; Monterrey, MEXICO
 foreign exhibitions, small collection
National Gallery; Beograd, YUGOSLAVIA
 Dutch, Italian, French painting, some “foreign graphic art”
Developed Country:
- “National Gallery”:
- Washington D.C: includes, British, American, French, German, Spanish,
sculpture from Middle Ages, Renaissance bronzes, Chinese porcelain.
- London: Western European painting 1290~
- Greece: Greek and European art.
http://news.usti.net/home/news/cn/?/living.arts/2/wed/dd/Uisraelmasada.RfmV_HME.html
http://www.hoammuseum.org/english/
Located in Yongin City. Audio tour and profile of the affiliated Institute of Conservation
of Cultural Properties.
L.A Museum and Italy
4
Not listed in MuseeOnline.org’s “Fine Arts Museums Index”, which includes Belcourt Castle in Newport,
RI.