Ownership of Relics Should be Based on 'Cultural Debt'

U Ideas in Science -- July 2001University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Contact: Mark Reutter, Business & Law Editor (217) 333-0568; [email protected]

ARTIFACTS & THE LAWLegal ownership of relics should be based on 'cultural debt'

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- Ancient relics taken from third-world nations should be returned to their rightful owners. This principle sounds fair enough and has been put forward in foreign claims against sculptures, paintings, pottery and other property held in U.S. private and museum collections.

But who really owns the past? a University of Illinois legal scholar asks. The question of "cultural patrimony" is not as simple as it seems, according to Sean R. Odendahl writing in the University of Illinois Law Review.

Be they Mayan murals or African tribal masks, artifacts of history are the products of vanquished cultures that often bear little resemblance to the present occupiers of the same location, Odendahl, a UI College of Law graduate, noted. In fact, many of the artifacts now in U.S. museums were plundered from their original makers by the ancestors of the present claimants.

"Historically, conquering nations have looted from their victims the spoils of war that inevitably included artifacts of significant monetary and cultural value," Odendahl wrote. The Greeks and Romans plundered impressive amounts of art from their foes, and the practice was followed during the Spanish conquest of the New World, by Napoleon's armies and by rival clans and governments in Third World regions.

To complicate matters further, many leaders in Third World regions traditionally have encouraged the sale or barter of historic artifacts. What is the difference between the export of cultural objects and the sale of grain or gold by the same country?

The danger of relying on a strictly "nationalist" definition in sorting out cultural ownership is that the process may deny the public the enjoyment and discovery of past treasures. Moreover, many nations that claim ownership are ill-equipped to handle, protect or display the works.

To handle these conflicts, Odendahl offers a legal framework that he calls cultural internationalism. "The international view identifies the cultural inheritors of the past not by geographical location, but by cultural debt. This view holds cultural property as components of a common human culture, whatever their places of origin or present location, independent of property rights or national jurisdiction."

The most pressing concern in deciding disposition of ancient artwork should be preservation, Odendahl argued. Artifacts must be protected from destruction from inadequate care and from the ravages of terrorism, war and vandalism. Another element is accessibility in which artifacts are made available to the most people through exchanges and public viewing.

Laws could be structured, for example, to require a private owner to make important cultural artifacts available for study and display. "Should the owner fail to observe certain minimums, then the state has the right to seize the artifact and compensate the owner," Odendahl wrote.

-mr-