Regarding the following:
 
Yes, a country shoud care for its own heritage, even if it means its
eventual destruction.  What would have happened had the treasures not
been stolen?  And even so, it is your business what you do with your
granmother's wedding gown, not the person who climbed in the window and
took it, or hit you over the head and took it.  Now we know who has the
stolen goods; give them back.
 
Sule Greg C. Wilson
Pueblo Grande Museum
4619 East Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ  85034
 
comment:
 
At first glance the above argument seems reasonable.  Heritage imposes an
obligation on the owner of historical artifacts; but the owner, like the
owner of just any-old object, may destroy it if he wishes.  After all,
property is property, and property confers certain rights upon owners.
 
I would argue, in contrast, that cultural artifacts are different.  Many
such items of historical and cultural significance impose upon their
"owners" a duty of care that extends beyond the obligations and privileges
of legal ownership.  Inherited cultural property, i.e. architecture,
cultural remains, works of art, etc. that just happen to be located in a
particular place are not "owned" in the same
manner as your grandmother's wedding dress.  Rather -- and this argument
should sound familiar to anyone associated with the preservation of Native
American cultural artifacts -- as "owners" we are merely one in a series of
"caretakers," custodians and trustees self-elected by the privilege and
obligations of ownership, or nominated by the fact of inheritance to make
sure that these items (such that we deem significant) are preserved for our
legal descendants and future generations.
 
As guardians we recognize that we are ephemeral, but the objects
(hopefully) are everlasting.  It is our duty to earn the trust given to us.
 Although not mandated by law, this concept has its corollary in laws
governing real property, where the interest of the society and community
often impose restrictions on land use in the form of zoning, activity, and
even in style of architecture permitted.  Owners of real property,
therefore, are also considered to be current caretakers for future
generations.
 
History and culture, their records and their artifacts, including those of
our own making, impose upon our present civilization a duty to preserve
them for the future.  Within reason, we don't have the right to let them
perish.  If we cannot manage their care ourselves, we must attempt to find
someone who can, or find resources from outside that can help us.
Restoration efforts all around the world in poorer countries are often
funded from abroad.  Artifacts unearthed during excavations are (or were)
frequently deposited in established research institutions where the chance
of their being studied is higher than if they are left in their country of
origin.
 
Only the crudest of materialistic philosophies can brand these activities
"theft," for the regents of these sites knew that in the long run they had
more to gain from the knowledge and intellectual reconstruction of history
and culture that would evolve from these endeavors.
 
Indeed, there was (and is, and always will be) "theft" of cultural
property, as exhibited in the article posted on this board a few days ago
about site plundering in Iraq.  This kind of robbery, we must recognize, is
of two sorts.  First and foremost is the theft of our past.  When
archaeological sites are disturbed, reconstruction and documentation become
next to impossible.  The second issue usually looms larger in the press
than the first.  It concerns the fate of the artifacts themselves.
Plundering collectible objects of value is a direct affront to our
inherited system of owned property.  One can only hope that they will
inevitably migrate (percolate) into public view or public ownership in fair
condition.  But even in such cases, what would have been lost is their
ability to communicate their aesthetic, historical and cultural context --
and that is the real crime.  And that loss no one can restore; it can't be
given back.
 
So, in the sense defined above, has the Temple of Zeus been plundered and
looted?  Not by a long shot.
______________________________________
Robert A. Baron
Museum Computer Consultant
P.O. Box 93, Larchmont, NY 10538
[log in to unmask]