Two Ways of Thinking about Cultural Property

Abstract

One way of thinking about cultural property—i.e., objects of artistic, archaeological, ethnological or historical interest—is as components of a common human culture, whatever their places of origin or present location, independent of property rights or national jurisdiction. That is the attitude embodied in the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of May 14, 1954 (hereinafter “Hague 1954”), which culminates a development in the international law of war that began in the mid-19th century.

Bullet impacts and built heritage damage 1640–1939

“…Major periods of conflict, such as the sacking of Athens by the Persians and the targeted destruction of major sanctuaries in 480 BC, provide clear historical precedents in the ancient world [1]. Within the last century, Europe-wide destruction of dwellings during the world wars as part of bombings [2] may be compared with the dramatic deterioration of statues and buildings in the Angkor Wat compound during the 20-year Khmer Rouge-driven conflict (through post-conflict neglect as much as direct damage [3]). Such instances have left dramatic scarring on the built environment.…”

Repatriation and the Radical Redistribution of Art

“…Moreover, the very concept of cultural property emerged largely in the context of thinking about the ethics of war, hardly an apolitical context for theorizing. For historical context, see Merryman (1986).…”

“…Although my proposal may seem extreme, it is striking to see that versions of it are latent in the work of some opponents of repatriation themselves, though to my knowledge, never fully developed. For instance, in Merryman's classic treatment of cultural property, he levies the universal value of cultural heritage in order to support an "internationalist" or "cosmopolitan" approach that criticizes nationalist policies of retention that inhibit the free flow of cultural resources around the world (Merryman 1986). However, as rosemary Coombe has noted, Merryman seems less willing to credence the implications of such an approach when applied to major Western museums and holdings in cultural resources:…”

Making Heritage Legible: Who Owns Traditional Medical Knowledge?

“…23 Here, in other words, was a sort of Orientalism in reverse, a market Occidentalism that encouraged the global circulation of Ayurvedic goods on the premise that this heritage belonged not to India alone but to all humanity: a phenomenon that John Merryman, referring to another context and era had termed "cultural internationalism." 24 Over the last few years, that prediction proved to be only partially right, and therefore partially wrong. I was wrong on two counts.…”