The Reception in Europe, Protection of Cultural Heritage - Essay Example

The Author's Name] [The Professor's Name] [The Course Title] [Date] Cultural Objects Introduction Cultural property worthy of being classified as part of our global patrimony must be of immense significance to the cultural inheritance of every nation. The Schliemann artifacts are considered by many scholars to be such property. The treasure satisfies the definition of cultural property in two respects. First, the artifacts are our only evidence of the literary Homeric age, and second, the artifacts hold cross-cultural importance for many people. The Convention asserts that properly preserving and displaying these artifacts greatly furthers world interest in the protection of world cultural heritage. The treatment of cultural property reflects its importance, and indicates that its preservation and display are the most significant factors to be considered when deciding upon its disposition. Despite the fact that international law has incorporated the need to avoid the loss of cultural property, the world still lives with the legacy of cultural property exploitation. Given this legacy of removal of cultural property, the international community must now reexamine that property's disposition. In Europe at the end of the nineteenth century, African and Pacific artworks were regarded as ethnographic curiosities. Aesthetic appreciation was implied but rarely stated. Art critic Owen Jones was among the few writers who approached what was then called "savage" art from an aesthetic viewpoint. (Balfour, 45-50) He regarded the "ornament of savage tribes" as the evolutionary source of the arts, comparing it to children's art. Yet he praised its excellence and judged its various examples to "rival the works of the highest civilizations" and to exhibit the "most refined taste and skills."(Balfour, 1983 45-50) Jones admired these artists' affinity with nature, an affinity which "civilized" peoples lacked. He hoped modern art "would return to a more healthy condition...we must get rid of the acquired and artificial, and return to and develop natural instincts" (in Jacknis 1976:109). Balfour's benefactor, Lieutenant-General Lane Fox Pitt-Rivers, saw ethnology as an effort to trace the evolution of all the material arts. Following this definition, Balfour highlighted the aesthetic aspects of these "primitive" works as man's "first efforts...to produce objects which should be pleasing to the eye, and gratify his growing aesthetic feelings." This terminology focused on material culture as opposed to works of art. Thus the language of evolution placed the discussion within a legitimized discourse: addressing the subject in aesthetic terms would have been an unacceptable challenge to the belief in the biological determinism of racial hierarchies. Even the avant-garde could extend the aesthetic frontier only as far as Japan. (McLaverty 82-105) Although the objects were viewed through the lens of evolutionary theory, European interest was based on their aesthetic qualities. Even before the avant-garde declared the arrival of Primitivism, Benin works were already widely appreciated, surpassing their categorization as ethnographic curiosities. The Reception in Europe Turn-of-the-century knowledge of Benin culture was fragmented at best. When the Oba's palace was looted in 1897, there was no scientific auxiliary with the British expeditionary force and no attempt to preserve cultural integrity; under the circumstances it is not surprising that "little or no account [of the artworks] could be given by the natives" (Pitt-Rivers 1976 [1899]: intro.). The first extensive report on the plunder, "Benin Antiquities at the British Museum," appeared in the London Times on September 25, 1897. (McLaverty 82-105) But this was almost the end of the story. The interest these objects had elicited immediately following the conquest in February of that year far surpassed their attraction as war spoils. Given the reported savagery of Benin culture, and the violence of the conquest, the Time’s rhetoric testified to a radical transformation in the attitude of Europeans seduced by a new aesthetic. The exhibition, pronounced "remarkable" by the paper, included about three hundred bronze and brass plaques "which, both by the novelty of the subjects and the technical perfection of the work, are surprising evidences of the skill of the Benin native in the casting of metal." (Henry, 110-115) That some doubted the ability of Africans to create such art is to be expected: the authenticity of the first cave art, discovered a generation earlier, was still in dispute at the time. Perhaps the true surprise, then, was the swiftness with which the establishment accepted that these sculptures were indeed African. Strong international demand was driven by German buyers, especially Felix von Luschan and Leo Frobenius. By one count, more than half the Benin objects in the European market ended up in Germany. Because art collecting required approval by the German government, the purchasers represented their acquisitions as requiring daring "individual" initiative; von Luschan portrayed his decision to bypass official channels as a minor act of administrative heroism (Irek 1990). Although these claims were somewhat exaggerated, the acts were indeed noteworthy in signifying aesthetic commitments from museums whose interests were primarily anthropological. The auction process and the market availability of artworks rejected by the British Museum clearly showed that the differentiation between objects was based on aesthetics rather than on a scarcity of objects or on their "savagery." (Alfred 34) Reacting to the demand for more pieces, Lagos dealers initiated the production of replicas, a trend that is still familiar in African art. Protection of Cultural Heritage The importance people place on protecting their heritage is amply demonstrated by the reception given Schliemann's Trojan discoveries. The ancient ruins of Troy were in total neglect for centuries as a result of a lack of archaeological expertise and motivation on the part of the Turkish government. (Henry, 110-115) It was not until Schliemann arrived from Germany and began his archaeological studies that any attempt was made to recover the Trojan works from oblivion. The Turkish government recognized that Schliemann's interest in the excavations was partly motivated by an intention to ensure the protection, preservation, and display of these buried masterworks, but they did not realize that his intentions were also influenced by greed, glory, and contempt for the modern cultural heritage of Turkey. (Henry, 110-115) His actions are one example of the mixed patrimony of past archaeological exploration, the benefit of preservation and discovery, and the burden of removal and disregard for national controls. International law explicitly recognizes that artifacts can achieve the status of being part of humankind's common heritage and must be administered for the good and benefit of humankind. The pieces found in the Schliemann excavation must be preserved, protected, and relocated for the benefit of all people, not just to satisfy the nationalistic yearning of any one nation. The question is whether removal of artifacts is the only way to preserve protected artifacts for the benefit of all. Many nations now have the resources to care for artifacts that in the past would have been sent to Europe without hesitation. On the other hand, parochial claims by nations may deny humankind's common cultural heritage in a brazen attempt to expropriate for itself that which cannot belong to any one nation, but which must be preserved for all by those capable of doing so. During the period in which the artifacts were not in the possession of the government, Turkey failed to ratify the Convention. By this lack of ratification Turkey may have impliedly accepted the status quo, including the ownership of the lost artifacts, and now must treat the country of possession as the country of origin of the artifacts, provided the only international agreement to be used is UNESCO. (Ben-Amos 67-80) As a general rule, the Convention is intended to legitimize the status quo existing at the time it is ratified. Artifacts such as those Schliemann discovered at Troy are now considered by many to be part of the cultural heritage of humankind. The Schliemann artifacts from Troy fit squarely within both (b) and (c). Thereby qualifying them as the cultural property of the art-rich nation and beyond any claims of the art-poor nation. The Schliemann artifacts are presently located outside of Turkey. (Ben-Amos 67-80) In addition, it should be noted that at the time of the excavations, permission to excavate was given by the Turkish government. It would seem that action also fulfills the sole requirement of article 4(b), (Ben-Amos 67-80) as interpreted by other commentators. However, an art-poor nation may not only claim possession, but may also claim that the Schliemann artifacts are reposing legally within its boundaries. This claim is thought to be substantiated by the art-poor nation's satisfaction of the two-fold test of legitimate cultural property set forth in article 4(c). (Greenfield 111) First, the cultural property must be acquired by an archaeological mission and second, such an acquisition must be made with the consent of the competent authorities of the country of origin. Whether both conditions are met in a case like the Schliemann artifacts rests on timing and history. If one looks at the UNESCO Convention of 1970 as year one, then all acquisitions previously acquired are to be considered originating in the country in which they resided as of 1970. The artifacts acquired by a nation prior to 1970 would be eligible for incorporation under article 4. (Greenfield 111) In the celebrated case of the Elgin Marbles, artifacts originally produced and discovered in Greece, which were later removed to England, (Martin 257-277) were stolen from the British National Museum and returned to Greece. Professor Nafziger states that under Article 4 of the UNESCO Convention, the Marbles would clearly form a part of England's cultural heritage. (Martin 257-277) Likewise, the artifacts of Troy now clearly form a part of the cultural heritage of the country of possession. By signing and ratifying the UNESCO Convention, a nation is held to have accepted the status quo regarding ownership of lost artifacts; it must then promulgate legislation which effectively prohibits the import of the stolen piece of the art-rich nation's cultural heritage into the art-poor nation’s (Martin 257-277) inventories. Conclusion Our discussion adopts a different focus when we acknowledge that many artifacts have been taken from nations in their infancy, or in a state of turmoil. For under the veil of official sanction or scientific archaeology, many artifacts like Schliemann's were removed under circumstances inconsistent with UNESCO's goals For this reason, recovery must be permitted under circumstances where there is significant doubt as to the competency of the authority granting permission. This should be evaluated in light of the importance of the artifact at the time of removal, and at the present time. Archaeological missions of dubious scientific qualifications which have removed artifacts should also be examined with a bias to recovery. Many of the art-rich nations of today have developed to such a state that it can no longer be argued that they are unable to provide for or protect important articles. Today the underdeveloped nations of yesteryear are ready and willing to protect their own national cultural heritage, as well as their portion of the world. Works Cited Balfour Henry. 1983. The Evolution of Decorative Art: An Essay upon Its Origin and Developments Illustrated by the Art of Modern Races of Mankind. London: Rivington, Percival & Co. Ben-Amos Paula. 1990. The Art of Benin. London. Greenfield J. 1996. The Return of Cultural Treasures. Alfred, Haddon C. 1894. The Decorative Art of British New Guinea. Irek, Malgorzata. 1990. "From Spree to Harlem: German 19th Century Anti-Racist Ethnology and the Cultural Revival of American Blacks," Social anthropologische Arbeitspapiere, Freie Universitat Berlin 27. Ira, Jacknis. 1976. Savage Icons: Victorian Views of Primitive Art. M.A. thesis, University of Chicago. Jenkins, Simon. 1995. "Out of Africa and out of Context," The Times (London), Oct. 7. Martin, Richard. "On Some Aesthetic Relations." Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 39 (1981): 275-277. McLaverty, James. "The Mode of Existence of Literary Works of Art: The Case of the Dunciad Variorum." Studies in Bibliography 37 (1984): 82-105. Pitt-Rivers, Augustus. 1976 [1899]. Antique Works of Art from Benin. With a new introduction by Bernard Fagg. New York: Dover Read More