Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T12:15:17.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Coordinated Legal and Policy Approach to Undiscovered Antiquities: Adapting the Cultural Heritage Policy of England and Wales to Other Nations of Origin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2008

Derek Fincham
Derek Fincham
Affiliation:
London School of Economics Forum for Law and Cultural Heritage, London, England. Email: derek.fincham@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Blanket ownership laws, export restrictions, and the criminal law of market nations are the default legal strategies currently used by nations of origin to prevent the looting of archaeological sites. Although they have been remarkably successful at achieving the return of looted objects, they may not be the best strategies to maximize the recording and preservation of archaeological context. In England and Wales a more permissive legal regime broadly applied and adopted by the public at large has produced dramatically better results than the strong prescriptive regime of Scotland, which can be easily ignored.

This article attempts to clear up any misconceptions of the cultural policy framework in England and Wales. It accounts for the legal position accorded undiscovered portable antiquities, and describes how this legal framework is perfected by a voluntary program called the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS). This approach stands in stark contrast to Scotland, which has used a legal strategy adopted by most other nations of origin.

The domestic legal framework for portable antiquities in England and Wales is unique and differs from the typical approach. Coupled with the PAS, this legal structure has resulted in a better cultural policy, which leads to less looting of important archaeological sites, allows for a tailored cultural policy, and has produced more data and contextual information with which to conduct historical and archaeological research on an unprecedented scale. Compensating finders of antiquities may even preclude an illicit market in antiquities so long as this compensation is substantially similar to the market price of the object and effectively excludes looters from this reward system. Although the precise number of found versus looted objects that appear on the market is open to much speculation, an effective recording system is essential to ensure that individuals who find objects are encouraged to report them.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , August 2008 , pp. 347 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2008

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

Bauer, Alexander A. “New Ways of Thinking About Cultural Property: A Critical Appraisal of the Antiquities Trade Debates.” Fordham International Law Journal 31 (2008): 690.Google Scholar
Bland, Roger. “Rescuing Our Neglected Heritage: The Evolution of the Government's Policy on Portable Antiquities in England and Wales.” Cultural Trends 14 (2005): 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bland, Roger. “The Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme: A Progress Report.” Journal of Art, Antiquity and Law 4.3 (1999).Google Scholar
Carey Miller, David L. “Treasure Trove in Scots Law.” In Summa Eloquentia: Essays in Honour of Margaret Hewett, 75–89, 2002, South Africa: University of South Africa.Google Scholar
Carey Miller, David L. “T.B. Smith's Property.” A Mixed Legal System in Transition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005: 173–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey Miller, David, and Sheridan, Alison. “Treasure Trove in Scots Law.” Art, Antiquity & Law 1 (1996): 393–406.Google Scholar
Cheek, Annetta L. “Protection of Archaeological Resources: History of the Archaeological Protection Act.” In Protecting the Past, edited by Smith, George and Ehrenhard, John E., 1991. http://www.cr.nps.gov/seac/protecting/index.htm (accessed May 10, 2008).Google Scholar
Chippindale, Christopher, and Gill, David. “From Malibu to Rome: Further Developments on the Return of Antiquities.” International Journal of Cultural Property 14 (2007): 205–40.Google Scholar
Coggins, Clemency. “United States Cultural Property Legislation: Observations of a Combatant.” International Journal of Cultural Property 7 (2005): 94.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. Metal Detectors and Archaeology. Report of the Committee on Culture and Education (Doc. 4741). Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, 1981.Google Scholar
Cuno, James. “Art Museums, Archaeology, and Antiquities in an Age of Sectarian Violence and Nationalist Politics.” In The Acquisition and Exhibition of Classical Antiquities, edited by Rhodes, Robin F.. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
de Bracton, Henry. De legibus et consuetudinibus Angliae, Vol. 2 (Thorne, Samuel trans.). 1977, Cambridge, Mass.Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Delafons, John. Politics and Preservation: A Policy History of the Built Heritage, 1882–1996. London: Spon Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Department for Culture, Media, and Sport. The Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice (2nd rev.). London: DCMS, 2002.Google Scholar
Department of National Heritage. The Treasure Act 1996. Code of Practice (England and Wales). London: Department of National Heritage, 1997.Google Scholar
Dobinson, Colin, and Denison, Simon. Metal Detecting and Archaeology in England. York: English Heritage; Council for British Archaeology, 1995. Available at http://www.britarch.ac.uk/detecting/cont.html (accessed May 10, 2008).Google Scholar
Doyal, Stephanie. “Implementing the UNIDROIT Convention on Cultural Property into Domestic Law: The Case of Italy.” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 39 (2001): 657–77.Google Scholar
Drake, Cathryn. “Italy Awaits Biggest Ever Trial of Tomb Robbers.” Art Newspaper, January 28, 2008. Available at http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article.asp?id=7375 (accessed May 10, 2008).Google Scholar
Felch, Jason. “Raids Suggest a Deeper Network of Looted Art.” L.A. Times, January 25, 2008. Available at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-museums25jan25,0,101198.story?page=1 (accessed May 10, 2008).Google Scholar
Fincham, Derek. “Why Federal Criminal Penalties for Dealing in Illicit Cultural Property are Ineffective and a Pragmatic Alternative.” Cardozo Art and Entertainment Law Journal 25 (2007): 597–645.Google Scholar
Fincham, Derek. “Rejecting Renvoi for Movable Cultural Property: The Islamic Republic of Iran v. Denyse Berend International Journal of Cultural Property 14 (2007):111–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
General Accounting Office. Problems Protecting and Preserving Federal Archaeology Resources. GAO/RCED-88–3. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, 1987.Google Scholar
Gerstenblith, Patty. “Controlling the International Market in Antiquities: Reducing the Harm, Preserving the Past.” Chicago Journal of International Law 8 (2007): 169–95.Google Scholar
Hicks, Robert D. Time Crime: Protecting the Past for Future Generations.” FBI Publications, 1997. http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1997/july971.htm (accessed May 10, 2008).Google Scholar
Hill, George. Treasure Trove in Law and Practice. Oxford: Clarendon, 1936.Google Scholar
Merryman, John Henry. “Cultural Property Internationalism.” International Journal of Cultural Property 12 (2005): 11–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Malcolm. “Tourists ‘Stripping Ancient Rome Bare.’” The Telegraph, 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1583825/Tourists-%27stripping-ancient-Rome-bare%27.html (accessed March 3, 2008).Google Scholar
Normand, Andrew. Review of Treasure Trove Arrangements in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive, 2003. Available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47063/0023827.pdf (accessed May 10, 2008).Google Scholar
Palmer, Norman. “Treasure Trove and the Protection of Antiquities.” The Modern Law Review 44.2 (1981): 178–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Norman. “Title to Antiquarian Finds: Perpetuating the Impenetrable.” Journal of Art, Antiquity and Law 1 (1996).Google Scholar
Portable Antiquities Scheme. Annual Report 2006. London: Department of Culture, Media and Sport, 2007.Google Scholar
Prott, Lyndel V. “The International Movement of Cultural Objects.” International Journal of Cultural Property 12 (2005): 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Povoledo, Elisabetta. “Collector Returns Art Italy Says Was Looted.” New York Times, 2008. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/arts/18collect.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin (accessed May 10, 2008).Google Scholar
Renfrew, Colin A., “Foreword.” In Trade in Illicit Antiquities: The Destruction of the World's Archaeological Heritage, edited by Brodie, Neil, Doole, Jennifer, and Renfrew, Colin, xi. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2001.Google Scholar
Salt, Alun. “The Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Indifference of Government.” Archaeoastronomy, 2008. http://archaeoastronomy.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/the-portable-antiquities-scheme-and-the-indifference-of-government/ (accessed May 10, 2008).Google Scholar
Saville, Alan. “Treasure Trove in Scotland.” Antiquity 76 (2002): 796–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffman, Lisa. “Riding for the Brand.” Archaeology, 2005. http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/schalk/index.html (accessed May 10, 2008).Google Scholar
Valdés, Juan Antonio. “Management and Conservation of Guatemala's Cultural Heritage: A Challenge to Keep History Alive.” Art and Cultural Heritage (2006): 94.Google Scholar
“Viking Treasure Hoard Uncovered,” BBC News, BBC, published July 19, 2007. Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/6906107.stm (accessed May 10, 2008).Google Scholar