Cuno redux

[Mark]

In his book "Who Owns Antiquity?", James Cuno argues that scholars have betrayed
their principles by acquiescing to politicians who have exploited antiquities to
legitimize themselves and their governments. Saddam Hussein was the most
blatant, turning Iraqi archeology museums into propaganda for himself as the
modern Nebuchadnezzar, but other leaders have been just as cynical in using
antiquities to bolster their claims of sovereignty.

Dr. Cuno advocates the revival of partage, the traditional system in which
archeologists digging in foreign countries would give some of their discoveries
to the host country and take others home. That way both sides benefit, and both
sides have incentives to recover antiquities before looters beat them to it. (To
debate this idea, go to nytimes.com/tierneylab.)

As the director of the Art Institute of Chicago, Dr. Cuno has his own obvious
motives for acquiring foreign antiquities, and he makes no apology for wanting
to display Middle Eastern statues to Midwesterners.

"It is in the nature of our species to connect and exchange," Dr. Cuno writes.
"And the result is a common culture in which we all have a stake. It is not, and
can never be, the property of one modern nation or another."

read it all at

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/sc...tier.html?_r=1

[Michael]

I honestly don't believe artifacts should be removed from countries any more. There are certainly many cases that could be made for sharing artifacts between nations with common cultural heritages but why does the United States need to be the permanent repository for artifacts unearthed in the Middle East?

To me it seems like museums could and perhaps should set up a system of certified replica distribution (to reduce the chances of fraud and discourage black marketeering). More museums would thus be able to build large collections that are representative of mankind's shared history.