CAT 2026 Slot 3 VARC Q2: Cultural Property / Patrimony Laws

In 2008, the Louvre agreed to return the Euphronios krater, a masterpiece Greek urn that had been a museum draw since 1974. In 2009, the Prado agreed to return 35 objects to Greece, including a marble Apollo, in the midst of looting scandals. And in January, Christie's and a private collector agreed to return an ancient Khmer statue of a warrior, pulled from auction two years before, to Cambodia.

Cultural property, or patrimony, laws limit the transfer of cultural property outside the source country's territory, including outright export prohibitions and national ownership laws. Most art historians, archaeologists, museum officials and policymakers portray cultural property laws in general as invaluable tools for counteracting the ugly legacy of Western cultural imperialism.

During the late 19th and early 20th century — an era former Louvre director Henri Verne called "the age of plunder" — American and European art museums acquired antiquities by hook or by crook, from tomb raiders or souvenir hunters, bounty from digs and ancient sites in impoverished but art-rich source countries. Patrimony laws were intended to protect future archaeological discoveries against Western imperialist designs. . . .

I surveyed 85 countries with one or more archaeological sites on UNESCO's World Heritage Site list, and my study shows that in most cases the number of discovered sites diminishes sharply after a country passes a cultural property law. There are 210 archaeological sites listed for those 85 countries. When you look into the history of the sites, you see that all but 18 were discovered before the passage of cultural property laws. . . .

Strict cultural patrimony laws are popular in most countries. But the downside may be that they reduce incentives for foreign governments, nongovernmental organizations and educational institutions to invest in overseas exploration because their efforts will not necessarily be rewarded by opportunities to hold, display and study what is uncovered. To the extent that source countries can fund their own archaeological projects, artifacts and sites may still be discovered. . . . The survey has far-reaching implications. It suggests that source countries, particularly in the developing world, should narrow their cultural property laws so that they can reap the benefits of new archaeological discoveries, which typically increase tourism and enhance cultural pride. This does not mean these nations should abolish restrictions on foreign excavation and foreign claims to artifacts.

Japan provides an interesting alternative approach for source nations eager for foreign archaeological investment. From 1940 to 2005, Japan had a restrictive cultural property law that prohibited foreign ownership of Japanese cultural artifacts. In those years, Japan's most significant archaeological discovery occurred by chance, in 1981, when farmers accidentally uncovered rows of buried bronze bells, which are part of Emperor Nintoku's spectacular tomb system.

In 2005, the Japanese government switched course, dropping its cultural property law and embracing collaborative international archaeological research. Since then, Japan has nominated 9 archaeological sites for inclusion in the World Heritage Site list, including six in 2015, the most ever for Japan.