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]