Document Type

Article

Disciplines

International Law

Abstract

The looting of archaeological sites has persisted for centuries, but since the end of World War H its scope has grown dramatically while, at the same time, the ability of scientific excavation to recover critical historical and cultural information has been revolutionized. The divergence in these two paths has made the question of preservation of the past, so that knowledge and understanding in the future can benefit, of ever greater urgency for the public interest and has led to the development of particular legal and public responses. One of these responses is the restitution of stolen and looted cultural objects to their owners. In proposing that the remedy of restitution is one of the most effective means of encouraging preservation of the past, it is necessary to examine that public interest and the methods that have evolved for effectuating it.

The word, restitution, means a remedy involving return.' In discussing restitution, it is necessary to acknowledge that there are, broadly speaking, three categories of cultural objects that have been subject to claims of restitution. The first of these categories consists of art works that were created primarily for their aesthetic value and were always intended for sale as art works. These types of objects are found in public or private collections. The second category is composed of archaeological objects that are, by definition, recovered from archaeological sites or that were part of an integrated architectural monument. This category consists of both objects that at one time may have had primarily aesthetic value and those that were created primarily for utilitarian functions.2 In fact, the purpose of such objects in the past may no longer be their primary characteristic today.' While objects that were at one time primarily utilitarian may now be viewed as having significant aesthetic value, all objects that are part of an integrated context, including archaeological sites, now carry scientific, historic and cultural value. The third category includes ethnographic objects, which may be defined as objects that are of cultural or religious value to a non-industrialized, indigenous community. This article will focus exclusively on the public interest in the restitution of antiquities that have been looted directly from the ground. These objects raise particular problems and require a special legal and public response to resolve these problems. This article will attempt to identify the public interests in the restitution of archaeological objects and then examine the legal and public responses that have evolved to further these interests.

Accessibility Requirements

1

Download

Share

COinS