Who Owns the Past?: Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law
Kate Fitz Gibbon
Rutgers University Press, 2005 - Social Science - 362 pages
"Who Owns the Past? challenges all who care about the arts to work together toward policies that consider traditional American interests in securing cultural resources and respect international concerns over loss of heritage."--BOOK JACKET.
What people are saying - Write a review
LibraryThing ReviewUser Review - LibraryThing
Though I am constitutionally sympathetic to arguments that no single group, however it has suffered, can claim to own portions of human heritage, this book mostly managed to push me in the opposite direction by its largely smug insistence that only the values of those who want nearly unrestricted commerce in art and antiquities matter. There were good points made, and I understand why the people on the authors’ side might feel highly defensive, and yet. If your conclusion is “Having taken much, we should make restitution, not by returning mummies or amphorae but by sharing our own riches: technology and expertise in management and conservation,” I’ve got to wonder: what if the beneficiaries of our restitution actually want the mummies and amphorae, instead of or in addition to our technology and expertise? The collection would have been a lot stronger if there’d been an actual debate in its pages; the strongest restrictionist argument was a decades-old reprint about the destruction caused by looting of archaeologically important sites to serve the collectors’ market. The modern essays, by contrast, took demand for artifacts as a given that couldn’t be changed and blamed, with greater or lesser degrees of sensitivity to the economic conditions involved, corrupt source country officials and the poor people who engage in looting when subsistence farming doesn’t provide enough security, and who still don’t get much of the money involved. (The best point made there was that a lot of historically significant sites are more threatened by development projects, like the construction of dams, than by excavations looking for artifacts. But mostly the contributors seemed to think that problem should be addressed by someone else, ideally someone making sure that the artifacts there should be made available for market transactions.) One impetus for the US law encouraging the return of Native American remains to tribes connected to those remains was the following incident: a road crew in Iowa excavated a gravesite with the skeletons of 26 whites and one Indian woman. “State officials reburied the white bones in a new cemetery, but shipped the Indian remains to Iowa City for further study.” Respect can be tangible. Nor are fights about cultural appropriation some new evolution: As the essay on the Elgin marbles points out (while generally supporting the idea that the marbles are better off in Britain where they can be taken care of and are part of the “common heritage of mankind,” since they apparently wouldn’t be so if they were returned to Greece), even at the time Elgin took the marbles there were Britons and others who argued that he had committed a wrong. Most of the contributions are contemptuous of restrictions on objects leaving their source countries, with varying degrees of insistence that importing countries can take better care of them (or at least just as good care). Again, there are serious questions here—UNESCO’s delay in allowing Afghanistan’s major art museum to get artifacts out of the country ahead of the Taliban, on the ground that objects should stay in their source countries, meant that, by the time UNESCO figured out that applying its policy was ridiculous, huge numbers of irreplaceable pieces of art and history had been destroyed. Historically and artistically significant artifacts may indeed be “ours” as a species rather than the “property” of one particular group, but turning that into a conclusion that “our” stuff should be in “our” (this time meaning rich nations’) museums where “we” (ditto) can see it was hard for me to accept, even in the face of the argument that source-country claims to stewardship contribute to the “uncritical adoption of nationalist programs” that have “encouraged the falsification of history and the promotion of religious and ethnic prejudice.” When the authors ask, “should we be willing to define ‘culture’ as if it were a sort of national corporate brand, with governments holding the rights to reproduction...
Who owns the past?: cultural policy, cultural property, and the law
作者：Kate Fitz Gibbon,American Council for Cultural PolicyIntroduction 重點整理
3. 聯合國教科文組織1970對於非法取得文物交易的規範與前提:the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural and educational purposes increases the knowledge of the civilization of Man, enriches the cultural life of all people and inspires mutual respect and appreciation among nations.”
Part I.各國文資法概要 LAW
Part II. 收藏與交易COLLECTING AND TRADE
Part III. 瀕危的藝術ART IN PERIL
Part IV. 各樣的博物館THE UNIVERSAL MUSEUM
Kate Fitz Gibbon:有關從帕特農神殿運到大英博物館典藏的艾爾金大理石的辯論。
Kate Fitz Gibbon:文物輸出管理機制
Erich Theophile and Cynthia Rosenfeld 與 Emma C. Bunker 都在討論有關文物歸屬的問題，討論範圍涵蓋的古物販子，收藏家，博物館，考古學家等等眾多相關人物的角色。
American Council for Cultural Policy (ACCP) was formed by a group of politically influential antiquities dealers, collectors and lawyers in the United States, with its headquarters in New York and representatives in Washington D.C.
The original goal of this organization was to allow legally excavated archaeological artifacts to be circulated freely and legitimately. ACCP's treasurer William Pearlstein has famously described Middle Eastern cultural heritage laws (especially those of Iraq) as "retentionist" and expressed a desire for the possibility of the free circulation of antiquities
Some Archaeologists, academics, and cultural heritage lawyers have found such declarations worrisome, since the members of ACCP are politically influential figures. Archaeological Institute of America's code of ethics maintain that its members "refuse to participate in the trade in undocumented antiquities and refrain from activities that enhance the commercial value of such objects. Undocumented antiquities are those which are not documented as belonging to a public or private collection before December 30, 1970 when the AIA Council endorsed the UNESCO Convention on Cultural Property, or which have not been excavated and exported from the country of origin in accordance with the laws of that country." (Source: AIA official webpage) It is widely believed by many academics that the trade and collectorship of antiquities fuel the looting and destruction of archaeological sites around the world.
Alternative to Embargo (P.291-303)
2. 目前制度的優點( P291第三段)
7. 「Art-rich and Cash-poor」，這些鑑定機制如何回饋給文物輸出國
A Historical Perspective
Archaeology and the Art Market
Observations of a Combatant
THE UNIVERSAL MUSEUM
A Licit International Trade in Cultural Objects JOHN HENRY MERRYMAN
Alternatives to Embargo KATE FITZ GIBBON
The Kathmandu Valley Preservation Trust ERICH THEOPHILE CYNTHIA ROSENFELD
The Acquisition and Ownership of Antiquities in Todays Age of Transition EMMA C BUNKER
1 Who Owns the Past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Property and the ...
Who Owns the Past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Property and the Law has an ambitious. and worthy goal, that is, “to explain the ethical, legal, and practical ...
portfolio.du.edu/ portfolio/ getportfoliofile?uid=85626
Scriblio Demo » Who Owns The Past? : Cultural Policy, Cultural ...
Welcome to the demo site for Scriblio, the open source software that powers Plymouth State University's Lamson Library and Learning Commons, Tamworth New ...
nov9.scriblio.net/ read/ 134080
A Licit International Trade in Cultural Objects in WHO OWNS THE ...
A Licit International Trade in Cultural Objects in WHO OWNS THE PAST? : CULTURAL POLICY, CULTURAL PROPERTY, AND THE LAW ...
www.law.stanford.edu/ publications/ details/ 3176/
phdiva: WHO OWNS THE PAST? THE COLLECTOR’S VIEW
WHO OWNS THE PAST? THE COLLECTOR’S VIEW By Dorothy King Minerva, March/April 2006 In recent years one of the most controversial topics in art and ...
phdiva.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 02/ who-owns-past-collectors-view.html
Phoenix Ancient Art sa
Who Owns the Past, Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law will be published by Rutgers University Press, Art in the Public Area Series in Fall 2005 ...
www.phoenixancientart.ch/ media/ 37
American Council for Cultural Policy - Wikipedia, the free ...
... has recently edited a book entitled Who owns the past: Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law (Rutgers University Press 2005), which mostly ...
en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ American_Council_for_Cultural_Policy
Who Owns the Classical Past?: Syllabus and Readings - *** THIS ...
Who Owns the Past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law (2006). Note: (1) Although most pages of these books are indicated below as required ...
proteus.brown.edu/ classicalpast/ 1666
China and Cultural Property: Who Owns the Past?
... which Vishakha alluded to – Who Owns the Past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Property and the Law. When we began this project Kate Fitz Gibbon, the editor, ...
www.asiasociety.org/ speeches/ 06ny_culturalproperty.html
Illicit Antiquities Research Centre : further reading
Further reading. Listed here are some of the wide range of books, articles and other publications useful for research into illicit antiquities. ...
www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/ projects/ iarc/ links/ reading.htm
The —Grand Compromise“: A Hybrid Approach to Solving the Problem ...
in Who Owns the Past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law, edited. by Kate Fitz Gibbon (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey and ...