A Plea For Fair And Equal Treatment: Comments On An Article By Alan Behr Entitled “a Humanist Plea For Free-Ranging Antiquities”

In an article entitled, “A Humanist Plea for Free-ranging Antiquities,” (1)
Alan Behr, a New York lawyer praises James Cuno's book, Who Owns Antiquity? Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion but surely we must try to base our opinions on facts and also on a broader understanding of the issue we are dealing with. It seems to me that Behr has based his views on a very narrow and false understanding of the issue at the centre of the debate generated by Cuno's book.
He seems to think the debate is between those who would allow free movement of antiquities and those who would restrict such a free movement, in the name of nationalism and cultural purity. He sees on the one hand, “the museums that, like bees ranging over a broad field, pollinate the world with the art, history and culture of its constituent regions. The Elgin Marbles were carved in Athens and the Rosetta Stone was found in Egypt, but they are now displayed at the British Museum, in London. The Pergamon Altar was built by the Greeks, removed from what is now Turkey and is on view in Berlin.” He immediately supports this side.

On the other hand he sees, summarizing Cuno,

"nationalist retentions cultural property laws" that effectively prohibit the export from modern countries of anything of artistic or cultural importance found within their borders — regardless of whether those nations or their inhabitants have any affinity to the makers of the antiquities other than to have inhabited the same space at a different time. .”

Behr recognizes that Cuno's book is a brief for one side but he thinks it is a very good one:

“Cano has done a fine job. As in many briefs, Cuno makes his key points more than once and perhaps too often, but they are points worth making: that all consequential culture becomes international, and all culture should therefore be shared with the world, not hoarded for reasons of skewed nationalism (or out of desire for tourism revenues) in the places where artifacts were made or just happened to have been dug up.”

Behr follows his praise of Cuno with attacks on “nationalist retentionist cultural property laws.” According to Behr, “The most telling part of Cuno's thesis is his warning that the impulse to hoard antiquity is related to the perils of excessive nationalism”. He goes on to make this astonishing statement: “Although Cuno is too gracious to drill his argument through the next level - that the final stop on the line to nationalism is facism and that the result of ethnic and religious purity is all too often persecution and worse - the implications cannot be ignored”.
Behr quotes Kwame Anthony Appiah (“Cultural purity is an oxymoron”) and states further, apparently summarizing Cuno's views, that “Cuno calls for an expansive view by which nations understand that all countries are built and maintained with foreign influences, and that the world's store of antiquities needs to be shared so that that process can continue. It is that enduring humanist message, more than the law and the politics recounted by Cuno, that makes his book compelling.”

The criticisms of Cuno's basic arguments have been amply discussed already in various places and I would not repeat them all here. (2) I would however, like to comment on some of the points raised by Alan Behr's article.

The basic issue is not between those who would permit free movement of cultural goods and those who would restrict this movement as presented by Behr. The basic issue is between those who support acquisition of artefacts, including looted artefacts and objects with no provenance, no clear history and those who believe museums and individuals should not acquire such objects with no clear provenance such as looted articles.

The first group does not accept that by purchasing objects with no provenance or looted objects, the museums support illicit traffic in antiquities and does not think that government control reduces the illicit traffic. The second group considers the purchase of unprovenanced objects as support for the illicit traffic and supports legislation instituting control of exports and import. It argues that by taken objects
of their context, we lose forever information that could have been obtained through excavation by archaeologists.

The first group does not see much use in the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property whereas the second group supports the Convention.

It is always amusing to hear US Americans and other Western Europeans, such as the British, Germans and the French accuse others of nationalism. What has been happening in the history of mankind from the fourteenth century to today? Has the world not been basically moved by the nationalism of the British, French, Germans and the Portuguese? What was the whole colonial history about if not the working out of the various European nationalisms? Have the US Americans not been controlling much of the history of the last hundred or so years in the pursuit of their national interest, sometimes presented as pursuit of liberty?

How can Behr accuse those seeking recovery of their property of nationalism? What about those holding on to stolen or illegally acquired property? Are the Greeks more nationalists than the British simply because the Greeks are seeking the return of their stolen cultural property, the Parthenon Marbles and the British are refusing to return them?

Behr, following Cuno, puts all those who support recovery of cultural property, in the category of nationalist retentionists. He does not seem to realize that many, for example support the Greeks in their claims who cannot be described as nationalists. What about the British groups that support the Greeks? Are they also nationalists?

It is rather strange that Behr seems to want to attribute to those seeking recovery of their cultural objects, some kind of cultural purity-“unique cultural identity”-Kwame Anthony Appiah (“Cultural purity is an oxymoron”). When the Greeks claim the return of the Parthenon Marbles or the Nigerians claim the Benin Bronzes or the Egyptians, the return of Nefertiti's bust or the Rosetta Stone, they do not claim on the basis of any cultural purity but on the fact that these objects were stolen or illegally taken from their countries. Behr is trying to mystify a clear issue
by introducing a false element.

Behr tells us that the next level to nationalism is fascism. To whom is he really addressing this warning? To the British, French, Germans, Portuguese and US Americans who in the pursuit of national interest have roamed the oceans, conquered other peoples in Asia, Africa and America, subjected them to slavery and colonial hegemony and when all failed, massacred and eliminated them? No. He is addressing this to the Greeks, Italians, Egyptians and Nigerians and others in Africa and Asia who are making claims for the return of their stolen cultural objects. What does Behr mean by skewed nationalism? Does it occur also in the US and Europe or only in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America that are demanding the return of stolen cultural objects? Who invented fascism? Should there not be some proportionality in all this? In which countries do we still have fascists groups operating and agitating openly for the elimination of other ethnic groups?

Who has been introducing an ethnic element into the whole discussion on cultural property? Certainly not the “retentionist nationalists” who claim in the name of their States but their opponents such as Cuno and Behr who do not tire to point out:

“So we have Egypt — a country both Arab and Muslim — claiming national ownership of all antiquities from the age of the Pharaohs, and China claiming rights to works by ancient populations that weren't even Chinese, such as the Uighurs of the province of Xinjiang, who were a mix of Mongol and Indo-European peoples.”

Cuno points out that the present Egyptians do not eat the same food as ancient Egyptians and refers to their religion, clothes etc. Is this the humanist approach that Behr is trying to support, by bringing in religious and racial differences?

We could all agree with Behr that “the world's store of antiquities needs to be shared “. Was this really the message of Cuno? But guess who is not sharing “the world's store of antiquities” Are the British Museum, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Louvre, Paris, Musée du quai Branly, Paris, Ethnological Museum, Berlin, sharing or ready to share? And who is hoarding? Those who have few objects and are requesting the return of their stolen items or those who have so much that they cannot display?

Behr, like many Westerners who write on cultural matters, do not seem to be aware of their very Eurocentric perspectives. Many seem worried that they may not be able to see the marvels they saw in the museums in Berlin, London, Paris, New York or Chicago when they were young: “I used to be able to take a ten-minute walk to The Metropolitan Museum to see the Euphronios krater , one of the finest surviving bowls of classical Greece, but I can't do that anymore because it was packed off — not to Greece, but to Italy”.

The focus of Behr is understandably, New York but can he think of others outside those cities, those in Africa, Asia and Latin America, that they would also like to have their cultural treasures close to them; that they would not like to have to go to New York or London to see and wonder at products of their own culture such as the Benin bronzes, the bust of Nefertiti or the Rosetta stone? This is admittedly hard for those who have been brought up to believe that they are the centre of the world and that the rest of mankind should come to them if they want to see anything worthwhile, including their own cultural objects. The best African art is still to be found in London, Paris, New York or Berlin and not in Lagos, Accra Bamako, Nairobi or Yaoundé. Is there not something wrong here? But is it too much to ask these Westerners to make an intellectual effort to understand the position and feelings of peoples from Africa, Asia and Latin America? Cuno's views have no room for the rest of mankind outside the western world and indeed outside places such as, New York, Berlin, Chicago, Paris and London.

We should also note Behr's swipe at hoarding cultural objects for the sake of collecting revenues from tourism:” out of desire for tourism revenues in the places where artifacts were made or just happened to have been dug up”. This is really an interesting comment. Why does the British Museum keep the Rosetta Stone, the Parthenon/Elgin Marbles, the Benin bronzes as well as several other objects from Africa, Asia and the Americas? Why does the Berlin State Museum, Altes Museum keep the bust of Nefertiti? Do the revenues from tourism have nothing to do with the resistance of the British Museum and the Berlin Museum? Why and how have museums become popular these days? Does this have nothing to do with the masses of tourists that visit museums and generate funds for either these institutions or for their countries? One should read the reports on the museums. It is right for the French, British, Germans and Americans to derive funds from mass tourism because of the stolen objects they display but for the Nigerians, Egyptians, Greeks and Italians and others to keep their cultural objects or demand their return for the same reason appears unacceptable to Behr. What a strange world are we in? What kind of humanism is this?

It is remarkable that Alan Behr, a lawyer, who practices intellectual property law in a firm involved in matters concerning international art repatriation, does not say anything about the 1970 UNESCO Convention or about the illicit trade in antiquities. He does not seem to be interested in the objections the archaeologists have against Cuno and others for their support, however indirect, to unprovenanced acquisitions. A practising lawyer could give us some insight from his practice. He is no doubt aware of the new rules on acquisition introduced by the AAMD (Association of Art Museum Directors) and those of the AAM (American Association of Museums). (3) It may be interesting to mention that Bahr writes in support of Cuno's views just a few days after Cuno's own institution, the Art Institute of Chicago where he is president and director, has distanced itself from the views as expressed in Who Owns Antiquity? (4)

I have assumed that humanism, however defined, always involves an ability and willingness to determine issues on the basis of universal qualities available in all human beings and hence on the basis of equality and fairness. Surely the ability to put one's self in the place of the other is an ingredient of humanism. Can one be Eurocentric and at the same time a humanist? Can one accept that the British, French, Germans and American attract thousands of tourists to their countries partly because of African, Asian and Latin American objects they have but deny the same right to others? What kind of humanism does Alan Behr support? One that allows the Americans and the British to benefit from the cultural objects of Africans and Asians but sees the seeds of nationalism and fascism the moment Africans and Asians start demanding the return of their stolen cultural objects?

Kwame Opoku, 17 August, 2008.

NOTES

(1) Culturekiosque: Art and Archaeology Book, http://www.culturekiosque.com

(2) “Do Present-day Egyptians eat the same food as Tuthankhamun? Review of James Cuno's Who Owns Antiquity?” http://www.museum-security.org .htm l ;
“Reviews of Who Owns Antiquity?” http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com

(3) http://www.aam-us.org/login.cfm

(4) “The Art Institute of Chicago Distances itself from the Controversial Book of its Director, James Cuno. Who Owns Antiquity?” http://www.afrikanet.info/