[MSN] 'Cultural Property': At Odds with Globalism

[Museum Security Network Mailinglist]

'Cultural Property': At Odds with Globalism

Commentary by Wayne G. Sayles
Guest Commentary
Sunday January 14, 2007

Since the end of World War II, there has been an increasing emphasis in
industry, commerce, politics and society toward globalization. This has led
to a dramatic rise in international transactions, ranging from the growth of
multinational corporations and worldwide financial markets to the free and
immediate flow of information through modern communication technologies.

Along with this growth of cross-cultural contacts, a new interest in peoples
of other lands has emerged. Inevitably, that interest leads to a rendezvous
with history. The question is not merely, "Who are we?" but also, "How did
we come to be who and what we are?"

As we search for answers to these questions, the most relevant sources are
images and artifacts. Touching a piece of the past often triggers an emotion
that borders on the spiritual. It is in that moment that a collector is
born.

Collectors come in a multitude of varieties - all ages and all walks of
life. The one thread that binds all private collectors is the element of
ownership. Collectors universally take great pride in the fact that they
possess the objects of their admiration, whether postage stamps or rare
Greek vases.

As Joseph Alsop pointed out in "The Rare Art Traditions," this aspect of
collecting can be traced back to the days when man lived in caves. It is a
natural condition of our species.

There is a school of thought that views this natural tendency as a sort of
failure of evolution, and argues that certain objects should be owned by all
of mankind in common.

These objects, referred to as "cultural property," ought to be carefully
controlled and preserved by stewards of the public trust, some think.
Further, there are those who believe that cultural property should be
transferred from its point of origin only under strict state controls.

While this might sound altruistic, in practice, the objects in question are
often far from national treasures or rare links to the past. Under the
UNESCO accord of 1970, the definition of "cultural property" includes:

"Flora, fauna, minerals, anatomy or objects of paleontological interest;
objects relating to history, including the history of science and technology
and military and social history, to the life of national leaders, thinkers,
scientists and artists and to events of national importance; products of
archaeological excavations (including regular and clandestine) or of
archaeological discoveries; elements of artistic or historical monuments or
archaeological sites which have been dismembered."

Further, the definition covers: "Antiquities more than 100 years old, such
as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals; objects of ethnological interest;
property of artistic interest, such as pictures, paintings and drawings
produced entirely by hand on any support and in any material (excluding
industrial designs and manufactured articles decorated by hand); original
works of statuary art and sculpture in any material; original engravings,
prints and lithographs; original artistic assemblages and montages in any
material."

The list goes on to include: "Rare manuscripts and incunabula, old books,
documents and publications of special interest (historical, artistic,
scientific, literary, etc.) singly or in collections; postage, revenue and
similar stamps, singly or in collections; archives, including sound,
photographic and cinematographic archives; articles of furniture more than
one hundred years old and old musical instruments."

We are literally surrounded by cultural property every day of our lives.

How, in a global environment, can it be possible to restrict the transfer of
such a broad class of objects between nations?

Those who strive to do just that are called "cultural property
nationalists." They reject the concept of legitimate markets for cultural
property, and are especially active in their efforts to repatriate cultural
property to its point of origin.

Under the subterfuge of recovering "stolen property," they indiscriminately
attack collectors and institutions as being complicit with "looters."

To these nationalists, even a collector of common coins and postage stamps
from the past is anathema. They launch vicious attacks in the national media
against the collector community, referring to ordinary citizens who happen
to collect what UNESCO calls "cultural property" as greedy and unscrupulous
supporters of terrorism and looting.

That the charges are blatant propaganda and disinformation seems not to
matter.

By anyone's definition of the word, these are zealous radicals. We should
simply ignore their aberrant view - except that they are typically very
highly educated, articulate, well-endowed financially, and persistent. They
can and do hold seminars and conventions at will, and employ all of the
substantial resources of academia in their efforts.

They preach a tale of massive destruction of the past, and they assure
decision makers in Congress and the State Department that the only solution
is to place control and stewardship in their hands.

It is a persuasive argument on the surface, and many times a busy legislator
or executive department decision maker does not have time to evaluate all of
the nuances and details.

Collectors, lacking the string of credentials, the institutional backing or
the time to mount an effective defense are left without a voice in the
decision making process.

The one weapon that collectors do have in this cultural property war is the
will of the people. In a democracy, the common man has a powerful voice when
raised in unison.

That reality has hit home with more than one politician in the not too
distant past.

If you are a collector of anything on the list above, you owe it to yourself
to learn more about the movement to restrict collecting of "cultural
property." If something seems awry, speak out.

If you are not a collector, but you believe in personal property rights and
individual freedoms, you might be concerned about the direction this sort of
mentality is taking us.

Wayne G. Sayles of Gainesville, Mo., is the executive director of the
Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (accg.us). His commentary reflects his own
views, and not necessarily those of The Signal.


http://www.the-signal.com/