By Wayne Sayles – Ancient Coin Collecting Blog
One view in archaeology today is that private citizens of any given country have an ethical responsibility to preserve the cultural heritage of all countries. The foundation for this view seems to be that cultural property protection requires a global effort. In 1970, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) codified this view through a resolution designed to control the transfer of cultural property between nations through the application of implementing legislation in member states. Indeed, the adherents of UNESCO 1970 would like to see a more global approach to this legislation.

It is hard to deny that in the modern age we do see a dramatic increase in economic, political and social interaction between people of diverse national and social backgrounds which often is referred to as “globalization”. The internet is a prime example of how globalization actually transcends nationalism. One would think that this might, by default, lead to the evolution of global ethics, but that seems not to be the case.

Oddly, those dealing directly with objects classified by UNESCO as “cultural property” often reject a global view of culture. Instead, they advocate retentionist laws and policies that promote nationalism rather than globalism. The fervor with which these cultural property nationalists press their agenda seems directly proportional to the rise of globalism in all other aspects of life.

It seems incongruous that a nation like China, for example, should press for free trade of their export products and at the same time seek over-reaching restrictions on trade in former export products now deemed cultural property. It seems equally incongruous that a country like Cyprus can lay claim to everything ever made in the country’s classical past, no matter where it is today or when it left Cyprus. Is it unethical for someone outside of Cyprus to possess such an object without the explicit written permission of the modern government of Cyprus?

Fortunately, ethics (being purely subjective) have nothing to do with the situation. Law and international agreements guide the actions of states and individuals. While some might wish for uniformity of law among nations, the inescapable fact is that one size does not fit all. Since the prospect of reaching any global consensus on cultural property law is remote, we all are bound by the jurisdictional codes of the place that we happen to be.

Trying to shift the debate over cultural property control from a legal to an ethical framework is pointless. Instead, we ought to be looking for justice and ethics at the source of law. When cultural property nationalists eventually see that cultural isolation is neither possible nor advantageous, we will hopefully be able to get back to cooperative ventures that serve the global interests of cultural preservation.

Related posts:

1. In violation of a convention?
2. Sale of Old Coins Irks Archaeologists
3. Drivel Control
4. Ad Usam: A philosophical straight jacket
5. The “illicit” antiquities trade
6. IAPN Comments on FOIA law suit
7. It’s the Law
8. FOIA Suit Filed Against US Dept of State
9. The Phantom Opera
10. Cypriot Ambassador disparages Ancient Coin Collecting while State Department sings the chorus