Abstract
A Global Database of Antiquities (GDA) could foster compromise among the stakeholders in cultural property debates and contribute to the eradication of the illicit market for ancient artifacts. The technical feasibility of such a database is discussed, as are the motivations for both ‘nationalists’ and ‘internationalists.’ The issue of orphaned objects will be addressed by suggesting that those for which a source country cannot make a claim are granted amnesty from future attempts at repatriation, and an accompanying legal framework for regulating a GDA is proposed that draws on the precedent of mutually beneficial repatriation agreements.
Résumé
Une Base de données mondiale des antiquités (BDMA) pourrait permettre d’atteindre un compromis dans les débats sur les biens culturels et contribuer à l’éradication du trafic d’objets anciens. Nous discutons de la faisabilité, d’un point de vue technique, d’une telle base de données, ainsi que des motivations des camps « nationaliste » et « internationaliste » . Nous nous intéressons au problème des objets « orphelins » en suggérant que ceux qui ne peuvent être revendiqués par un pays d’origine devraient échapper à toute future requête de rapatriement. Nous proposons également un cadre légal pour réguler la BDMA qui tire parti d’accords de rapatriement antérieurs s’étant avérés avantageux pour toutes les parties impliquées.
Resumen
Una Base de Datos Mundial de Antigüedades (GDA, del inglés Global Database of Antiquities) podría fomentar el compromiso entre las partes interesadas en los debates sobre los bienes culturales y contribuir a la erradicación del mercado ilícito de objetos antiguos. Se debate la viabilidad técnica de dicha base de datos, al igual que las motivaciones tanto para “nacionalistas” como para “internacionalistas”. La cuestión de los objetos huérfanos será abordada sugiriendo que aquellos para los que no se pueda reclamar un país de origen les sea otorgada amnistía de intentos futuros de repatriación, y se propone un marco legal que les acompañe para regular una GDA que eche mano del precedente de acuerdos de repatriación mutuamente beneficiosos.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen Institute for Brain Science. 2012. (http://alleninstitute.org/science/core_capabilities/information_technology.html)
Allen, P. 2011. Why We Chose Open Science. Wall Street Journal, November, 30 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204630904577058162033028028.html)
Alderman, K. L. 2008. The Ethical Trade in Cultural Property: Ethics and Law in the Antiquity Auction Industry. ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 14(3):1–22.
Alderman, K. L. 2012. Honor Amongst Thieves: Organized Crime and the Illicit Antiquities Trade. Indiana Law Review 45(3):601–628.
Audi, A. 2007. A Semiotics of the Cultural Property Argument. International Journal of Cultural Property 14(2):134–136.
Bauer, A. A. 2007. New Ways of Thinking about Cultural Property: A Critical Appraisal of the Antiquities Trades Debates. Fordham International Law Journal 31(3):690–724.
Cohan, J. A. 2004. An Examination of Archaeological Ethics and the Repatriation Movement Respecting Cultural Property (Part Two). Environs: Environmental, Law and Policy Journal 28(1):1–115.
Cultural Policy Research Institute. 2009. Project on Unprovenanced Ancient Objects in Private US Hands (http://www.cprinst.org/Home/issues/project-on-unprovenanced-ancient-objects-in-private-us-hands)
Cuno, J. (2008) Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle Over Our Ancient Heritage, Princeton University PressPrinceton.,
Falkoff, S. 2007. Mutually Beneficial Repatriation Agreements: Returning Cultural Property, Perpetuating the Illicit Antiquities Market. Journal of Law and Policy 16(1):265–304.
Fincham, D. 2008. How Adopting Lex Originis Rule Can Impede the Flow of Illicit Cultural Property. Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts 32(1):111–150.
International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (1995) Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, International Institute for the Unification of Private LawRome.,
Kreder, J. A., Bauer, B. 2011. Protecting Property Rights and Unleashing Capital in Art. Utah Law Review 3:881–925.
Kurtz, D. 2004. www.beazley.ox.ac.uk. Archeologia e Calcolatori 15: 497-508
Lufkin, Martha B. G. 2002. End of the Era of Denial for Buyers of State-Owned Antiquities United States v. Schultz. International Journal of Cultural Property 11(2):305–322.
Mackenzie, S. R. M. 2005. Dig a Bit Deeper: Law, Regulation and the Illicit Antiquities Market. British Journal of Criminology 45(3):249–268.
Massey, L. 2008. The Antiquity Art Market: Between Legality and Illegality. International Journal of Social Economics 35(10):729–738.
Merryman, J. H. 1986. Two Ways of Thinking About Cultural Property. The American Journal of International Law 80(4):831–853.
Miller, M. A. 2007. Introduction to Feature Section: Looting and the Antiquities Market. Athena Review 4(3):18–26.
Pearlstein, W. G. 1996. Claims for the Repatriation of Cultural Property: Prospects for a Managed Antiquities Market. Law and Policy in International Business 28(1):123–150.
Renfrew, C. (2000) Loot Legitimacy, and Ownership: The Ethical Crisis in Archaeology, DuckworthLondon.,
Salzmann, M. T. 2008. Cultural Imperialism and Heritage Politics in the Event of Armed Conflict: Prospects for an “Activist Archaeology”. Archaeologies 4(3):368–389.
Shapiro, D. 1998. Repatriation: A Modest Proposal. New York University Journal of International and Social Policy 31:95–108.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2011. Annual Report for the Year 2010–2011. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
Udell, J. (editors) 2012. Ancient Mediterranean Art: The William D. and Jane Walsh Collection at Fordham University, New York, Fordham University Press.
U.N. Resolution A/RES/56/97.
Wolkoff, J. S. 2010. Transcending Cultural Nationalist and Internationalist Tendencies: The Case for Mutually Beneficial Repatriation Agreements. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 11(2):709–738.
Acknowledgments
Thank you to the many individuals who took their time to comment on and speak with me about the ideas outlined in this paper. Special thanks are due to Rick Witschonke for his time and feedback over the past several years. Thanks are also due to David Gill, Matthew Bogdanos, Evan Barr, Blythe Bowman, and Paolo Ferri for their commentary and the time that they took to meet with me at various points in the development of this idea. Thanks also to Friedrich Schipper for his patience with me and perseverance with the Archaeologies in Conflict project. This paper is better for all of the help I have received; any remaining errors are entirely my own.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Levine, A. A Global Database of Antiquities: Some Thoughts on Structure and Implementation. Arch 9, 252–266 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-013-9232-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-013-9232-5