Cultural Heritage and the Law
Many of the earliest laws in Western countries affecting archaeologists were created to protect monuments; the most recent have been passed to effect the repatriation of human remains, artifacts, and other pieces of cultural heritage to the countries of their origin and/or descendants (see Antiquities and Cultural Heritage Legislation).
As more countries continue to gain economic and political footholds in the global economy, many more today are in a position to create their own cultural resource programs, train their own archaeologists, and maintain their own museum collections. Academic research projects are today multi-institutional, with many more countries outside of the West originating projects or at least acting as equal partners with Western universities. Many countries now have legislation that limits foreign excavations or the ability for foreign researchers to remove artifacts from their home countries. One result is an increase in the number of scientific archaeological publications are appearing in languages beyond the traditional triumvirate of English, French, and German; some as required by host countries, others as part of public archaeology vehicles. Statistics on these new programs are not readily available today, but their influence is already readily apparent in entries within this encyclopedia today.
One effect of the World Wide Web is that information about museum collections is now effectively public. The enormous stores of Western museums collected from around the world by nineteenth century explorers are now recognized on a global scale. In addition, the force of public opinion may be brought to bear on the behaviors and situations involving artifacts and archaeologists that in the past may not have been considered. Museums have been established in home countries, and they, not unnaturally, are lobbying for the return of their cultural heritage. Recent calls for the repatriation of artifacts to Greece, Egypt, Italy, and Peru have made international headlines and involved extended court battles. They are surely only a harbinger of things to come.
Repatriation
After centuries of collecting, whether completed under the rubric of archaeology or not, museums and repositories in the developed world hold much of the cultural heritage of the developing world. While many of these collections were made under contract with the governments of origin, many were not; and developing governments would like these materials back as icons of cultural heritage. However, simply returning cultural materials is not a particularly straightforward process. Many collections were not completely recorded and thus require extensive negotiation and sometimes costly investigation assuring proper ownership rights. In addition, resistance to the return of the objects is strong in some areas, since much time and money has been invested in the repositories, and many museums rely on income related to the ability to exhibit objects which by rights belong elsewhere.
Some legislation has been passed, such as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Act of 1982 in Australia, and the United States’ Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990, and other countries are working on policy changes or laws. International conventions such as UNESCO’s Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property and the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects are also useful tools for assisting with the repatriation of artifacts to their native countries or people (see Illicit Antiquities).
Human Skeletal Material
In the United States, the repatriation movement has been most successful with the return of human remains and artifacts associated with burials. Early application of the United States NAGPRA reburial laws has meant that scientifically valued human skeletal material has been reburied prior to complete investigation. Interestingly, the limits on testing in terms of time and the amount of material that may be destroyed in the process have been ameliorated by the use of new less-intrusive tests such as AMS dating and computer imaging, in which digital storage of information on human remains may be preserved long after the materials are reburied.
To date in the United Kingdom and Australia, repatriation has been a matter of policy and negotiation, rather than legislation. Both countries are actively seeking input from indigenous communities to proceed (see Ethical Issues and Responsibilities; Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act).
Protection of Monuments
Archaeological sites which have been deemed important to the world in general have been given World Heritage status since 1972, with the establishment of the international treaty called the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Between 1978 and 2006, the committee named 830 properties World Heritage Sites. Listing a property carries with it the benefit of technical advice and financial assistance to a member country to safeguard, repair, and develop historic and natural monuments. Unfortunately, naming a monument part of world heritage can also make it a target in the cultural wars of a member state. Recently targeted World Heritage Convention (WHC) properties include the Bamiyan Valley monuments of Afghanistan, which were destroyed by the Taliban in 2002 (see World Heritage Sites, Types and Laws).
Looting and the illegal antiquities trade The looting of archaeological sites around the world continues, despite the passing of several national and international laws, and the active involvement of Interpol and other national and international police systems. The reasons looting continues unabated largely lie within the economic factors inherent in the system: there is a large demand for authentic antique artifacts, from artifact dealers, collectors, and art museums. International borders are more porous than ever today, and the ready availability of international transportation coupled with political instability make trafficking in stolen artifacts a lucrative business.
Unfortunately, technological advances which have made so many changes in the study of archaeological science have also assisted in the illegal antiquities trade. Internet auction sites are difficult to police, and the remote sensing techniques such as ground penetrating radar, satellite imagery, and metal detectors assist looters, as well as archaeologists.
Thefts from museums and art collections are tracked by Interpol, which maintains a database of stolen objects. Estimates on the amount of money traded in the antiquities market are very difficult to make, since countries do not often track losses, do not pass on that information to Interpol, and are not necessarily aware of thefts until the objects appear on the market.
One way countries have begun to fight back against illicit looting is the development of archaeological permitting processes. In some countries, archaeologists must present credentials to be permitted to excavate, negotiate whether they may take artifacts out of the originating country and for how long a period, and what tests may be accomplished. Additionally, many countries such as Egypt, Peru, and Italy have begun to sue museums for the return of artifacts taken illicitly (see Antiquities and Cultural Heritage Legislation).
Protection during armed conflict Armed conflict is prevalent in many places in the world today, and looting and the destruction of historic monuments is one of the costs. The United Nations Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict was enacted at the Hague in 1954, in the wake of the massive destruction of cultural monuments seen during World War II. A protocol was set at that time to prevent the export of cultural property from occupied territory. In 1999, a second revised protocol was established to broaden the definition of cultural property and to help member countries take steps to prevent problems during peacetime. While the UN is aware that protecting cultural monuments is not of paramount importance during time of warfare, the convention was constructed because it was felt that ‘‘cultural heritage reflects the life of the community, its history and its identity. Its preservation helps to rebuild broken communities, reestablish their identities, and link their past with their present and future.’’
World History
