Trade of antiquities in all parts of the world is still a large industry, though these artifacts are often taken by unethical and illegal means. Many times, the way they are acquired destroys archaeological information. Additionally, the objects taken out of concepts are often stripped of their cultural context and instead forced to be understood through Western standards and ideas. Some solutions to these problems are to educate people about archaeological heritage and to improv law enforcement.
The point is made that the imputation of aesthetic excellence and consequence of high monetary value bias the judgement of an antiquity’s original purpose, significance, and value. It goes on to discuss that there is an almost fetishistic power of antiquities that can transform personal and social values. I feel like these two points go hand in hand, especially considering that a monetary value can skew personal values when an antiquity is being reviewed and this further blurs the lines between what is educational and what is for aesthetic purposes only. But is there really room to draw a line of what is strictly educational and what is aesthetic?
It is important to note that the popular Western idea of the archaeologist being the “defender of artifacts” is not necessarily shared by the rest of the world. For example, the discovery of the site in Sipan, Peru, drew archaeologists, looters, collectors, and other people to the site in order to gain possession of the artifacts located there. Though one might argue that archeologists had the best intentions of all those who laid claim there, locals from the village of Sipan viewed archaeologists as thieves who stole from the tombs. Even though a “local” museum was established to house the f...
... middle of paper ...
...ntries face archaeological looting and unauthorized trade; however, there are few laws that deal with what should be done. Robert Hicks, whom is mentioned in the reading, suggests two strategies to deal with looting crime. Hicks believes that improvements in law enforcement are needed and to engage the public for support.
Trustees have an obligation to make sure that their museums do not have artifacts that will have to be deaccessioned for restitution purposes, which would cause the museum to have a financial loss. It is more their responsibility than anyone else's in the museum. Art museums have many illegal collections because of archaeology in places that have recently become independent nations. Some museums voluntarily gave the stolen and illegal collections back, while others took the matters to court. This can be related to ethical issues within the museum.
To identify the specific type, functions and time period of the artifacts, various archaeology books, reports, and journal were referred. The interpretation was then conducted by dividing the artifacts into different area on the map and investigating their relationships.
However, I feel this act forces archeologists to halt further investigations and possibly damages lost records of history. Returning these artifacts and bones prevents them from being preserved a...
There has been a lot of controversy regarding human remains and the field of archaeology for some time. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) protect the Native American’s rights over their human remains and cultural items. Proposed by the Morris Udall, former Congress Member for Arizona second District, NAGPRA was passed by the Congress in November 1990. The congress’ intention was to facilitate the repatriation of the Native Americans skeleton and cultural remains that were held in museums and federal agencies. In compliance with the Act, anthropologists returned several skeletal remains that were conserved in their study laboratories and museums to the respective Native tribes. In 1998, for example, the University of Nebraska repatriated over 1702 cultural artifacts to the affiliated Native Americans (Niesel 1). This was a significant blow to the scientific and anthropology studies as it marked the loss of necessary resources in unraveling the development of the human being.
...otion to the cause of maintaining knowledge is strong, and unhampered by personal ambition or pride. They possess a sensitivity and reverence for the Memorabilia, and knowledge in general, that allowed them to maintain and protect the sacred documents. However, it is their sense of responsibility towards the products of this knowledge, and their understanding of the dangers such knowledge could present, that makes them the ideal protectors and regulators of knowledge. While they welcome anyone who wishes to study the Memorabilia with open arms, for they love knowledge too, they also hope to imbue knowledge-seekers with foresight and an ethical obligation to the products of that knowledge, in hopes that scientists with a conscience might avoid another Flame Deluge.
Duncan’s (1991) analysis of western museums is defined through the theme of “durable objects” as a criterion to judge the heritage of American and European art as a ritual of the modern state. In this manner western art museums are built like “temples” as a symbolic and figurative representation of greatness of western culture throughout the world: “[They] are more like the traditional ceremonial monuments that museum buildings often emulate—classical temples” (Duncan 90). This interpretation of American/European museums defines a dominant source of cultural heritage that ritualizes
For years on end, countries have been fighting with big museums from other countries for ancient artifacts that belong to the original countries. The argument of whether or not the museums should be able to keep them still remains. It is the right of the country to have their own artifacts. It is imperative for countries to be able showcase their historical artifacts, therefor museums should return them to their rightful owners.
After a recent lecture by Dr. Dyfri Williams, Research Keeper of Greek and Roman antiquities at the British Museum, several members of the audience stood up on behalf of Greece and expressed their outrage at the British Museum’s refusal to return the Parthenon Sculptures, or the Elgin Marbles, to the city of Athens. Dr. Williams answered their scathing interjections with a well-rehearsed summary of the issues key points and complexities of the issue, and it was clear he encountered such protests regularly. By now, even the casual student of history is at least aware of the debate surrounding the ownership of the Parthenon Sculptures. On the one hand, the British Museum appears to have legal ownership over the sculptures according to the various councils and summits that have hammered out the finer points of international art law in the last century. On the other hand, the Greeks maintain that the sculptures were sold out from under them by the occupying Ottoman Empire and should be returned to Greece as symbols of her national heritage. However, while the debate over the sculptures is far from resolution, the issue is indicative of a larger dilemma currently facing the art world; that is, what rights can a museum exercise over works in its possession? And in turn, what rights does a country have over works of art found on its soil?
2003Virtue Ethics and the Practice of History: Native Americans and Archaeologists along the San Pedro Valley of Arizona. Pp 2-32. Association for Practical and Professional Ethics Twelfth Annual Meeting.
A kouros purchased by the J. Paul Getty museum brings about skepticism of its legitimacy. According to Dr. Richard Serros the legitimacy of ancient works of art is often overlooked, as explained in the chapter titled, “Art and the Truth: The Getty Kouros and Provenance”. This is a notion worth noting as many priceless pieces of art may be seen as legitimate by several museums when in fact they are forgeries. These forgeries lack a true origin and may prove that many museums are indifferent as to where or from whom they receive ancient works of art.
...troversy as all countries have lost, to a great or lesser extent, treasures of national renown and significance over time. Wars, theft, treasure seeking, changing boundaries and migration have all in some way contributed to this diaspora of art. There is clear evidence that the historic placing of objects in locations remote from their origin has on occasion afforded protection and preservation, The Elgin Marbles in The British Museum being a case in point. However, given the overarching principle of self determination it is difficult to argue that serendipitous historic placement is sufficient reason for items of true national heritage to be kept indefinitely. A world-wide system of touring exhibitions and cultural exchange, with context being provided by the originating society may provide the natural progression to the accessible widening of people’s experiences.
Despite the fact that it has been over two decades since the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the issues of ethical conduct revolving around repatriation are still highly relevant today. The political implications of repatriation show just how delicate the issue can be for both archaeologists and tribal members. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Public Law 101-601; 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013) describes the rights of Native American lineal descendants, Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations with regard to the treatment, repatriation, and nature of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony, referred to communally in the statute as cultural items, with which they can show a relationship of lineal descent or cultural affiliation. Repatriation legislation
In “Whose Culture Is It, Anyway? ”, Kwame Anthony Appiah begins by pointing out that some of the museums of the world, particularly in the West, have large collections of artefacts and objects which were robbed from developing and poor countries. He then raises a question: who owns these cultural patrimony and properties? Our first answer may be that since they make up the cultural heritage of a people, they belong to the people and culture from whom they were taken. Appiah has doubt about this and argues that if some cultural artefacts are potentially valuable to all human beings, they should belong to all of humanity. He thinks that when they make contribution to world culture, they should be protected by being made available to those who would benefit from experiencing them and put into trusteeship of humanity.
Kauffman, Joshua. “Putting the Legal Squeeze on Stolen Art” Art Business News 36. Wilson, Claire. “Documenting Museum Forgeries” Art and antiques (2001):
According to The Society for American Archaeology, the definition of Archaeology is, “to obtain a chronology of the past, a sequence of events and dates that, in a sense, is a backward extension of history.” The study of ancient civilizations and archaeology is rather ambiguous due to the primitive nature of the time period. With little imagery and even less textual evidence, professionals in the field must work diligently when studying their subjects. Naturally, archaeologists cannot see or communicate with those whom they are studying, so they must be extraordinarily meticulous when analyzing past cultures. This relates to all aspects of the ancient world including; foods, raw materials, artifacts, agriculture, art work and pottery. All of these elements can collectively provide new and innovative information to curious archaeologists who may wish to gain a better understanding of those who came before us. This information is equally beneficial for both historians and archaeologists who plan to compare the histories of societies from all around the world. In the world of archaeology, archaeologists strive to better explain human behavior by analyzing our past. Therefore, the study of archaeology is a key element in understanding a time before our own.