SWA # 17

Bettelheim, Adriel, and Adams, Rachel. “Stolen Antiquities.” Congressional Quarterly Researcher. 13 April 2007. Web. March 9, 2012.

  In this article, the author discusses the issue of cultural artifacts being in countries other than their countries of origin in general. Bettelheim focuses on the readers that do not have enough background about the problem and tries to make the aware of this issue. The author says that about $4 billion worth of artifacts are not in their countries. Then he provides a list of the most important of these artifacts and talks about their values. He also mentions the 1970 UNESCO agreement, which was signed by 102 countries. The agreement obligates the countries to prevent the illicit transfer, export or import of cultural property. Bettelheim also presents the different points of view about this issue. He even proposes a suggestion that he thinks might work well. He suggests that we use the 1970 agreement as a time limit, therefore, any artifacts that were acquired before that can remain where they are now, and any artifacts were acquired after that date should be returned to their countries of origin.

  I learned from this piece new information about the different ways the artifacts left their countries of origin and now I know the fact that most of them were illegally acquired. The writer uses some findings and statistics from reliable sources such as the Art Institute of Chicago and Thomas Jefferson University.  Furthermore, he quotes from some experts in the field to add more credibility to his paper. I found some key words that I can use to find more resources. The article helped me understand the perspectives that are used by different countries in their claims about whether the artifacts should be repatriated or not. I am going to use some of the findings in my project and his proposal of using 1970 agreement as a time limit as a presented solution even though I disagree with him on that.

 =========================

Winter, Irene. “Cultural Property.” Art Journal.  Spring, 1993. Web. March 9, 2012.

  In this piece, Winter puts his focus on the weakness points of some conventions that are created to protect cultural treasurers such as the 1970 agreement and the European cultural convention. He mainly focuses on defining some related terms that, according to Winter, the 1970 agreement failed to define. He thinks the definition of terms such as “countries of origin,” “illicit” and “cultural property” can be very complex. He believes that the definitions of these terms in the 1970 UNISCO agreement are neither clear nor specific enough and which may cause some trouble in the future. He brings some issues that are not discusses in any convention. For instance, the artifacts that were taken from countries whose borders have been changed over the years, cultural heritage lost during periods of colonial or foreign occupation and the black market. At the end, he talks about the legally acquired artifacts and how they should be treated, and talks about the role of diplomats in losing a large number of cultural heritages. Winter also discusses the moral and ethical sides of this issue and provides some examples. His proposal is that we need to have an international cultural convention that is comprehensive and we can refer to in every situation instead of having different national or regional laws.

  I am going to use the notes he made against the 1970 UNISCO agreement in the overall solution that I will present in my final paper. The writer seems to be not neutral and he tends to be against the repatriation of cultural artifacts to their countries of origin Winter’s disagreements with the alternative views and the ways he addresses each one of them represent him as an expert in this field. I agree with him on the point that we need an international law that is clear, comprehensive, and not complex. He quotes for some experts in this issue to support his argument and to make his paper more reliable. I like the fact that he brings other issues to the table, that might change something when the problem of cultural property is discussed, such as colonization, borders-changing and the black market.