art, heritage, & law
Janet Ulph has given a helpful overview of the seizure by UK Customs of this funerary statue. The statue was seized after Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs said the statue was “misdeclared”. It was declared as a statue from Turkey, with an estimated value of $110,000. Yet HMRC alleged the statue originated from Cyrene, Libya and its value was closer to £1.5m.
Kim Lee has authored a student note entitled “The Amaigh’s Fight for Cultural Revival in the New Libya: Reclaiming and Establishing Identity Through Antiquity“, 11 Seattle Journal for Social Justice 1 (2012). From the introduction:
A look at the Amazigh and the ongoing conflict in Libya illustrates this issue. This article seeks to investigate the problems that are caused by a lack of governing laws and conventions by using the Amazigh as a lens into the issue, and to serve as a catalyst for further exploration of the subject. This article’s primary purpose is to draw attention to the debate about indigenous antiquities and cultural property, while acknowledging that events surrounding the debate are constantly developing. More specifically, this article asserts four main points. First, because indigenous communities are already underrepresented in their societies, a barrier is created that prevents the recognition of threats to their archaeological artifacts and cultural property. Second, there is often a dearth of information associated with antiquities of indigenous communities, making current bodies of law difficult to apply. Third, even if such information were available, current international law is still inapplicable because it is seriously inadequate when it comes to addressing indigenous artifacts and cultural property. And fourth, the complex nature of But very few of these conventions and treatises address indigenous antiquities and cultural property. This is especially true when an indigenous community has been oppressed by a governing regime that is later overthrown, and when specific information regarding the indigenous community’s antiquities is difficult to obtain or perhaps even nonexistent. Given the large number of indigenous communities in the world, this is an issue that must be addressed. A look at the Amazigh and the ongoing conflict in Libya illustrates this issue. This article seeks to investigate the problems that are caused by a lack of governing laws and conventions by using the Amazigh as a lens into the issue, and to serve as a catalyst for further exploration of the subject. This article’s primary purpose is to draw attention to the debate about indigenous antiquities and cultural property, while acknowledging that events surrounding the debate are constantly developing. More specifically, this article asserts four main points. First, because indigenous communities are already underrepresented in their societies, a barrier is created that prevents the recognition of threats to their archaeological artifacts and cultural property. Second, there is often a dearth of information associated with antiquities of indigenous communities, making current bodies of law difficult to apply…
In yesterday’s Washington Post, Ariel David has an interesting article on Italy’s decision to repatriate this Roman statue of the goddess Venus. The statue is a copy of a Greek statue which has never been found. It was discovered in 1913 by Italian troops near the ruins of the ancient city of Cyrene on the Libyan coast. It was probably created in the 2nd Century AD. It’s currently housed at the National Roman Museum in Rome.
Libya requested the return of the statue in 1989, however a legal dispute involving a group which considered the statue part of Italy’s heritage has prevented the return for the last 4 years. Last week an Italian Court rejected a plea from the Italia Nostra conservation group, as international agreements “obliged” Italy to return the Greek statue.
Edmondo Zappacosta, counsel for the Libyan government said “This is a granite-like sentence, with solid arguments… On the basis of historical and juridical considerations, it was virtually a foregone conclusion that the Italia Nostra appeal would be rejected.” The statue can now be returned to Tripoli. A date has yet to be set for the return.
The ruling is an interesting one. Many of the news reports indicate that it allows Italy to claim that other nations should return antiquities illicitly taken from Italy. I think a better reading of the decision is that it limits the ability of individuals to challenge the return of cultural heritage. This was a decision about whether the Italia Nostra could block the return. If angry citizens groups were allowed to challenge repatriation decisions, it would be very difficult to effectively repatriate objects, especially if the objects at issue are part of a popular collective heritage, like Greek or Roman civilization.