DOWNLOAD Ô Who Owns Antiuity?: Museums and the Battle over Our Ancient Heritage

CHARACTERS Who Owns Antiquity?: Museums and the Battle over Our Ancient Heritage

DOWNLOAD Ô Who Owns Antiquity?: Museums and the Battle over Our Ancient Heritage ↠ Whether antiuities should be returned to the countries where they were found is one of the most urgent and controversial issues in the art world today and it has pitted museums private collectors and dealers against soO calls for measures to broaden rather than restrict international access to antiuities He advocates restoration of the system under which source countries would share newly discovered artifacts in exchange for archaeological help and he argues that museums should again be allowed reasonable ways to acuire undocumented antiuities Cuno explains how partage broadened access to our ancient heritage and helped create national museums in Cairo Baghdad and Kabul The first extended defense of the side of museums in the struggle over antiuities Who Owns Antiuity is sure to be as important as it is controversial Wall Street Journal. I strongly disagree with this book’s premise but it provides a good overview of cultural heritage law development and I find the author’s self contradictions amusing James Cuno is a divisive figure in the field of cultural heritage repatriation which means returning some art and archaeological objects back to their countries of origin for moral reasons Big encyclopedic museums like the Louvre own objects from around the world Some of these objects were acuired during colonial times In the 20th Century former colonies and indigenous peoples gained independence Over the past few decades some of these nations’ governments have been asking for the return of valuable objects that were taken from their lands under circumstances we would now consider coercive or even criminal James Cuno currently head of the Getty is the voice of the anti repatriation camp This book is Cuno’s argument for why museums should not have to return such objectsBasically he feels the trend is a slippery slope that will empty out Western museums and then he won’t get to look at pretty objects from foreign places any But his logic is faulty and changes from page to page He makes me angry and he makes me laugh in disbelief Regardless of your feelings on the subject though if you can separate his opinion from the historical thread the book is also a very useful narrative of the major cases and trends in cultural heritage law of the last century I first read it when I was searching unsuccessfully for an overview of repatriation trends Since most folks interested in such laws are usually pro repatriation Cuno has actually done his opponents a favor in providing a readable concise book on the subject Get Who Owns Antiuity Museums and the Battle over Our Ancient Heritage from the Denver Public Library Sarah E

James Cuno ☆ 1 DOWNLOAD

Whether antiuities should be returned to the countries where they were found is one of the most urgent and controversial issues in the art world today and it has pitted museums private collectors and dealers against source countries archaeologists and academics Maintaining that the acuisition of undocumented antiuities by museums encourages the looting of archaeological sites countries such as Italy Greece Egypt Turkey and China have claimed ancient artifacts as state property called for their return from museums around the world and passed laws against their future export But in Who Owns Antiuity one of the world's leadin. One year ago New York’s Metropolitan Museum announced that it will return 19 objects from King Tut’s tomb to Egypt – 19 small bits and fragments The Met has been uick to toot its own horn saying the return of these objects was voluntary and that they were under no legal obligation to do anything But we’re not talking the Rosetta Stone here Nor the famous Nefertiti bust held in Berlin Nor the incredible Haremhad statue detained at the Met Nineteen trinkets is nothing to crow about Ahhh but the magnanimous purveyos of culture will crowStolen objects that reside in the great museums of the world are nothing than a monument to imperialism and the days of overt exploitationAnd so I can finally announce that I succesfully scraped my way through James Cuno’s “Who Owns Antiuity Museums and the Battle Over Our Ancient Heritage” I swear to God it took me nearly two years It’s a frustrating readBasically Cuno Director and President of the Art Institute of Chicago proposes a return to “partage” Partage is the idea that most archaeological resources excavated in Third World countries should end up in the land of the “experts” That would be Europe or AmericaOver the past thirty years the idea of “partage” has given way to national laws and international conventions designed to keep antiuities in their nation of origin Cuno wants to do away with all thatFrom the Princeton Press websiteWhether antiuities should be returned to the countries where they were found is one of the most urgent and controversial issues in the art world today and it has pitted museums private collectors and dealers against source countries archaeologists and academics Maintaining that the acuisition of undocumented antiuities by museums encourages the looting of archaeological sites countries such as Italy Greece Egypt Turkey and China have claimed ancient artifacts as state property called for their return from museums around the world and passed laws against their future export But in Who Owns Antiuity one of the world’s leading museum directors vigorously challenges this nationalistic position arguing that it is damaging and often disingenuous “Antiuities” James Cuno argues “are the cultural property of all humankind” “evidence of the world’s ancient past and not that of a particular modern nation They comprise antiuity and antiuity knows no borders”Cuno argues that nationalistic retention and reclamation policies impede common access to this common heritage and encourage a dubious and dangerous politicization of antiuities–and of culture itself Antiuities need to be protected from looting but also from nationalistic identity politics To do this Cuno calls for measures to broaden rather than restrict international access to antiuities He advocates restoration of the system under which source countries would share newly discovered artifacts in exchange for archaeological help and he argues that museums should again be allowed reasonable ways to acuire undocumented antiuities The first extended defense of the side of museums in the struggle over antiuities Who Owns Antiuity is sure to be as important as it is controversialControversy indeed And Cuno doesn’t seem to be bothered by the controversynor does he seem bothered by showing himself to be an imperialistic assIn an AP interview from about 18 months ago Cuno stated“Historically partage has not simply built the collections of the host nations of excavating teams It also built the local museums and their collections The Baghdad Museum Kabul Cairo were built through the process of sharing the finds that foreign excavators found“Partage encourages a broader understanding of the achievements of different ancient peoples encouraging the sense that we all collectively have a stake in the preservation of this material”Sounds nice But he also said“I think any of these modern nations can exercise a greater claim than any other nation on antiuities found within their jurisdiction But not in terms of an identity with those ancient people It is not on the basis that they are the modern heirs to the achievements of these ancient peoples that they descend from them in any kind of continuous or natural way and that the modern culture is akin to the ancient culture”Wow I nearly fell off my chair when I read that Rarely do we see today such blatent cultural superiority except from my friend Frank a Canadian who seriously thinks the remaining ian tribes would be served best if they were moved wholesale into apartment buildings in Sao Paolo or LimaMy position as a professional archaeologist no longer practicing has long been that human remains and artifacts should be returned to the nations wherin they reside I see for example no reason for the Elgin marbles to remain in London They belong in Greece In that process however there must be some careful consideration because we have to find a way to avoid some of the problems brought on by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAGPRA wherein remains have been returned to tribes who have no relation to those remains or where valuable scientific study has been stopped by a tribe that has no relation to the remains found on or near their current land We also need to recognize that as Cuno correctly points out culture is a process not a thing and that culture developed and continues to develop through interaction between cultures and over trade routesIt is a very fine line to walk I do agree with Cuno that many of the national laws protecting cultural resources are based on an idea of static nationally distinct cultures However preaching some sort of cultural superiority and entitlement adds nothing healthy to the debateI should add that it bothers the hell out of me for example that China with its very tight controls on antiuities leaving China has no problems with ancient Chinese items being bought and sold within China with no thought to where these items came from nor what they could tell researchers And China certainly doesnt have a problem destroying someone else’s cultural heritageCuno revists the imperialist claim that modern nation state ethnic groups have no claim on the actions and achievements of their ancestors“I think any of these modern nations can exercise a greater claim than any other nation on antiuities found within their jurisdiction But not in terms of an identity with those ancient people It is not on the basis that they are the modern heirs to the achievements of these ancient peoples that they descend from them in any kind of continuous or natural way and that the modern culture is akin to the ancient cultureArgThis is a tired century old canard that claims an ethnic group has only a tenuous tie to their ancestors The notion of a “continuous and natural” descent is IMHO offensive and bigoted – reminiscent of some particularly odious racial theories from the 19th century which read a mixture of bloodlines as reason enough to dispute strong connections with ancestral pasts What after all does Cuno mean by “a natural way” Is language not enough for him Sure some nations use artifacts for political reinforcement of nationalist goals but is that reason enough to dismiss a people’s ethnic and cultural affinities with these same artifactsReturn to the Elgin marbles for instance Cuno worries that cultural artifacts may be destroyed if located in a singular place Yet Lord Elgin destroyed the marbles themselves in removing them lost many in the Mediterranean and the British Museum allowed patrons to dump wine on them during wild fundraisers PAR TAY To insist on ‘spreading the wealth’ of the Parthenon marbles is as smart as perhaps cutting Jefferson’s face from the statue at the memorial and giving it to the Chinese Or amputating the torch arm on the Statue of Liberty and passing it to Sierra Leon ooofbad joke there I know And all the names on Vietnam War Memorial Should we share them out with VietnamAbsurdThe Parthenon still exists The marbles are the frieze of the Parthenon They certainly don’t belong in London PeriodAnd have you taken a look at the new Acropolis Musuem Stunning The idea that countries can’t care for their own history is silly If the West really cared we’d help them build the proper facilitiesIt is also rather bothersome that Cuno claims that the modern nations who want to retain their archaeological resources are nothing than “nationalists” Well what does that make Cuno and his ilk Worse than nationalists me thinks Attempting to parse cultural descendency is violently political It seems safest to eliminate that nationalisim infused scholarly hassle of who gets the goodies and let the countries where the artifacts lie take jurisdiction Wouldn’t the other way give Britain claim to Boston’s historical sites Plymouth Rock The French get Montreal Spain gets the Southwest missionsThroughout the book Cuno doesn’t seem able to grasp why people in Greece Italy Africa and so on might want the stolen antiuities back Nor does he seem to understand why they may want to prevent current and future theft While the statements that these items may be better preserved in rich stable countries with abundant resources seems noble I found no offer to help build satisfactory preservation systems in the nations of originOne has to wonder if Cuno and Princeton are worried about what would be left in places like the Met or the Field Museum in Chicago if all antiuities often than not acuired by rather dubious means were to be returned to their country of originAs with the Teabaggers I think what we may be seeing here is a major whine from declining cultural imperialists who can’t bear the thought that their days of entitlement have come to an endNow its your turn to tell me why I’m wrong

FREE READ ¸ PLANTHIREINBATH.CO.UK ☆ James Cuno

Who Owns Antiquity Museums and the Battle over Our Ancient HeritageG museum directors vigorously challenges this nationalistic position arguing that it is damaging and often disingenuous Antiuities James Cuno argues are the cultural property of all humankind evidence of the world's ancient past and not that of a particular modern nation They comprise antiuity and antiuity knows no borders Cuno argues that nationalistic retention and reclamation policies impede common access to this common heritage and encourage a dubious and dangerous politicization of antiuities and of culture itself Antiuities need to be protected from looting but also from nationalistic identity politics To do this Cun. Interesting points about UNESCO but mostly racist