Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:59:19.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The return of cultural property

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2015

Jeanette Greenfield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries bore witness to the zenith of the European art of 'collecting' antiquities. The second half of the nineteenth century saw the beginnings of systematic archaeological techniques of excavation, field survey, conservation and protection. It saw what Professor Seton Lloyd has called the 'birth of a conscience' regarding the expropriation of antiquities from other countries. In the twentieth century the idea has emerged that cultural property is a matter of international concern, as being part of the 'heritage of mankind'. This concern has centred around looting from and destruction of archaeological sites, cultural heritage, the illicit traffic of art in the international market, and the return of cultural property. ildditional controls have been sought to establish the protection of cultural property in time of war as well as peace.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 60 , Issue 228 , March 1986 , pp. 29 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bibilography

BATOR, P. 1983. The international trade in art (Chicago).Google Scholar
CATER, R.R. 1982. The Taranaki panels: a case study in the recovery of cultural heritage, Museum, XXXIV, 256—8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DANIEL, G. 1982. Editorial on Times article, ‘Should we give back these treasures?’, Antiquity, LVI, 1—4.Google Scholar
DANIEL, G. 1984. Editorial, Antiquity, LVIII, 234.Google Scholar
FRADIER, G. 1978. Return to the homeland: entire regions have been deprived of their cultural past, The Unesco Courier, XXXI, 6—11, 33.Google Scholar
ICOM., 1979. Study on the principles, conditions and means for the restitution or return of cultural property in view of reconstituting dispersed heritages, Museum, XXXI, 62—6.Google Scholar
KRISTJANSSON, J. 1981. The homecoming of the manuscripts (Reykjavik: in Icelandic).Google Scholar
LEWIS, G. 1981. Restitution of cultural property, Royal Society of Arts Journal, 129, 435—43.Google Scholar
LOWENTHAL, D. Where does our heritage belong? (unpub-lished paper, University College London).Google Scholar
MERRYMAN, J.H. MACRORY, P. FELDMAN, M.B. & BATOR., P.M. 1977. The International protection of cultural property. Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 196—207.Google Scholar
MERRYMAN, J.H. 1983. International Art Law: from cultural nationalism to a common cultural heritage, Journal of International Law and Politics, 15,4, 757—87 (New York).Google Scholar
NAFZIGER, J.A.R. 1983. The new international legal framework for the return, restitution or forfeiture of cultural property, Journal of International Law and Politics, 15,4, 789—812 (New York).Google Scholar
PRUNTY, A.P. 1984. Toward establishing an international tribunal for the settlement of cultural property disputes: how to keep Greece from losing its marbles, The Georgetown Law Journal, 72, 1155.Google Scholar
UNESCO., 1983. Backgrounder: return or restitution of cultural property (Paris).Google Scholar
VARINE, H.DE. 1983. The rape and plunder of cultures: an aspect of the deterioration of the terms of cultural trade between nations, Museum: unesco Quarterly Review, XXV, 152—7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WILLIAMS, S.A. 1978. The international and national protection of movable cultural property: a comparative study (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.).Google Scholar