Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T11:00:24.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Law and the Politics of the Past: Legal Protection of Cultural Heritage in Greece

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2010

Daphne Voudouri
Daphne Voudouri
Affiliation:
Panteion UniversityAthens, Greece. Email: dvoudouri@yahoo.gr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the main lines of Greek legislation on antiquities and on cultural heritage in general, in the course of its history, with an emphasis on the innovations and continuity of the current Law 3028 of 2002. It attempts to place the Greek case in the context of the relevant international experience and the broader debate about ownership of the past. It throws light on the relationship between the legal framework of antiquities and the formation and fostering of national identity in Greece, and on their close connection with the state, while at the same time criticizing the view that opposes a “cultural internationalist” approach to heritage to the “cultural nationalism” of Greece and other source countries.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , August 2010, pp. 547 - 568
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2010

The material remains of ancient Greece played a crucial role in shaping national consciousness and legitimizing the modern Greek state, established in 1830, in conjunction with the high esteem in which they were already held in Europe, notably in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and the growing demand for them among foreign travelers. For the new state, ancient monuments were the obvious, “the sole ready-made national symbols which it could use,” as has been observedFootnote 1 and is shown by the well-known words of the first president of the Athens Archaeological Society and Secretary of State for Public Education, on the Acropolis in 1838: “It is to these stones … that we owe to a large extent our political renaissance.”Footnote 2 Thus, during the building of the Greek nation-state, a pioneering and strict national legislation on antiquities was adopted. Its basic principles still permeate their status today, a status that remains privileged, while legal protection has been progressively broadened to cover other cultural legacies.

This article examines the main lines of Greek legislation on antiquities and on cultural heritage in general, in the course of its history, with an emphasis on the innovations and continuity of the current Law 3028 of 2002.Footnote 3 It attempts to place the Greek case in the context of the relevant international experience and the broader debate about ownership of the past. It tries to shed light on the relationship between the legal framework of antiquities and the formation and fostering of national identity in Greece, and on their close connection with the state. But at the same time, it argues that it would be oversimplifying the case to regard Greek legislation as an instrument in the nationalistic use of antiquities by the state and more generally to oppose a nationalist (bad) to an internationalist (good) approach to cultural heritage.

1. HISTORICAL OUTLINE

1.1. Protective Measures During the Greek War of Independence

Concern for the protection of antiquities, as a fundamental element of national consciousness, had been expressed even before the foundation of the Greek state,Footnote 4 during the War of Independence against Ottoman rule (1821–1830), by the various revolutionary executive and legislative bodies. By way of illustration, a decree was issued in 1825 by the minister of the interior of the revolutionary government, regarding the collecting and safeguarding of antiquities in schools, and the following year the Provisional Administration laid down measures to preserve the monuments of Athens.Footnote 5

Most importantly, in 1827 a resolution of the National Assembly of Troezen introduced a prohibition on the sale and export of antiquities.Footnote 6 This special concern was also deeply felt by many of the freedom fighters, as shown by the often cited words of General Makriyannis to soldiers who were preparing to sell two ancient statues to Europeans: “Even if they were to give you ten thousand thalers, do not agree to these leaving our homeland. It was these that we have fought for.”Footnote 7

At the National Assembly of Argos in 1829, the ban on export was confirmed, though at the same time relaxed, in order to make it possible to cede fragments of antiquities to academic establishments of foreign governments. This amendment was adopted on the proposal of Governor Kapodistrias (1828–1831), following pressure from the French, who had asked for finds from the excavations of the Expédition Scientifique de Morée at Olympia.Footnote 8 The difficult diplomatic position of the fledgling state was already apparent: On the one hand, it claimed exclusive rights over antiquities; on the other hand, it sought to avoid displeasing the Great Powers, on whom it was dependent.

In order to deter their exportation and to safeguard antiquities within Greece, the National Museum was founded in 1829 in Aegina by Kapodistrias.Footnote 9 In a circular of the same period concerning the protection of antiquities and the enrichment of the museum, the special symbolic value that antiquities held for modern Greeks was graphically expressed:

These stir the spirit of the modern Hellenes to imitate and call to mind the brilliance and glory of their ancestors. They bring great honour to the nation. Honoured by wise Europe and sought after day by day by travellers, they make manifest their value, and it is as if they were saying to the Hellenes: “You must not undervalue the relics of your ancestors! They have assisted you and it is your duty to respect them, because they are sacred and are your possessions and are part of your dignity and honour.”Footnote 10

1.2. Antiquities Legislation of the Nineteenth Century

In 1834, at the time of the Regency (1833–1835), and under the influence of Bavarian neoclassicism, the first comprehensive national legislation on antiquities was introduced, which was pioneering for its time.Footnote 11 The author of the law, Georg Ludwig von Maurer, stressed the enormous political importance of ancient monuments for the Greek kingdom, because he considered that Greek antiquity had been and should continue to be the link between modern Greece and Europe.Footnote 12

According to article 61 of the law, “all antiquities within Greece, as works of the ancestors of the Hellenic people, shall be regarded as national property of all Hellenes in general.” In the spirit of earlier documents,Footnote 13 this resounding declaration expressed the idea of cultural heritage, even if the term had yet to be introduced.

The following articles recognized nevertheless a right of ownership of antiquities by individuals under certain conditions. Private ownership was recognized in the case of antiquities which at the time were already held in private collections, while in the case of those discovered on or beneath private land after the coming into force of the law, a division of the finds between landowners and the state was established. The full and absolute ownership of the state was recognized in the case of antiquities found on publicly owned land or beneath it; at the bottom of the sea; or in rivers or public streams, lakes, or marshes.

The law also introduced a set of measures for the protection of antiquities that were inspired by legislation passed by the Papal State of Rome in 1820.Footnote 14 They included, in particular, an obligation to declare a find and to notify a sale; a right of preemption of the state in the purchase of antiquities; a prohibition on excavation or export without a permit and sanctions for its violation; and sanctions against destruction of, damage to, or theft of antiquities.

The law of 1834 also systematically regulated matters concerning the State Archaeological Service, which had been established in the preceding year,Footnote 15 as well as the museums that the state planned to set up and should be open to the public.

Special mention should be made of the Convention of 1874 between Greece and Germany on the excavations at Olympia. This convention is considered to be the first international regulation of long-term scientific excavation of a major site, serving as a model of many excavation agreementsFootnote 16 and establishing a new form of cultural diplomacy.Footnote 17 It is also the earliest convention recognizing state property in archaeological finds,Footnote 18 given its provision for ownership of Greece over the finds, with the possibility of the ceding, at the discretion of the Greek government, duplicates or replicas to Germany.Footnote 19 Nevertheless, this clause on the ceding of duplicates provoked strong reactions in Greece and was not included in the Greek-French agreement of 1887 on the excavations at DelphiFootnote 20 or in other similar instruments.

The 1834 law, laying the foundations for Greek legislation on antiquities, was replaced in 1899 by the stricter Law 2646.Footnote 21 Its main innovation was the establishment of an exclusive right of ownership of the state over all antiquities, movable and immovable, found anywhere in Greece, even on private land. This rule and other provisions of the 1899 law were incorporated, together with later legislative provisions—concerning, inter alia, possession of movable antiquities by individuals, private collectors of and dealers in antiquities—into Codified Law 5351/1932, which served as the basic text for the relevant Greek legislation until 2002.Footnote 22 Although in today's world the vesting of ownership of antiquities in the state is to be found not only in the legislation of Greece but also of many other archaeologically rich countries, commonly referred to as “source countries,” it seems that in 1899 it had not yet been introduced into other national legislations, at least clearly enough.Footnote 23

The replacement of the 1834 law was based on the consideration that while in force there had been a general increase in illicit dealing in antiquities (arhaiokapilia), which was castigated as a sacrilege and as a “worm gnawing at our national honour,” in the terms of a circular on the implementation of the 1899 law, while those who destroyed, or illegally sold or exported antiquities (arhaiokapiloi) “should be regarded from now on as the greatest enemies of our homeland.”Footnote 24 This circular began as follows:

We Hellenes owe our independence to a large extent to the glorious name and the immortal monuments of art which we have inherited from our ancient ancestors. And just as we have a duty to make every effort at all times to show ourselves worthy of the name which we bear, so in the same way there is a sacred duty incumbent upon us all to regard as sacred heirlooms and to safeguard the antiquities if we wish to prove to the civilized world that it was justly that we became an independent State and that justly are we called Hellenes.

Thus, through the appropriation of the ideological position of European superiority that harked back to an idealized Greek antiquity,Footnote 25 the protection of the “ancestral” works was employed to assert in the eyes of Europe (which was held up as an incontestable model, but also as a constant observer) national independence, the national name, and the inclusion of the Greek state in the European modernity. At the same time, it is apparent that the archaeological heritage had a double dimension: It was perceived not only as an advantage and source of pride but also as a burden for the new Hellas, given that the safeguard and even the love of antiquities was pointed out, in the same text, as a national duty.

Nevertheless, the state authorities did not overlook the economic importance of antiquities, which “will turn Greece into an object of pilgrimage for all the civilised peoples and will in this way prove not only objects of honour and veneration, but also a source of wealth for our country,” as foreseen in the above circular.Footnote 26

1.3. The Field of Protection and Its Extension During the Twentieth Century

The law passed in 1834 under the Regency also provided for the inclusion of “objects of art dating from the most ancient period of Christianity or the so-called Middle Ages” in its field of application.Footnote 27 Moreover, a decree of King Otto (1833–1862) of 1837 required the preservation of the medieval relics of Athens, which were further defined as “Byzantine, Venetian and Turkish,” even if “they are intermingled with Greek or Roman antiquities.” Their preservation was demanded because they “increase the curiosities of the capital,” a consideration that expressed a romantic taste for the picturesque.Footnote 28

In practice, however, in spite of these provisions, protection during the nineteenth century was limited to the monuments of antiquity, with emphasis on those of the classical age. Monuments of a later date were not only neglected but often destroyed in the interests of “purifying” the material evidence of the ancient Greek past and the restoration of their “authentic” form. The object of the largest operation of so-called clearing of the postclassical remains, which also illustrates the mutual dependence of preservation and destruction, was the Athenian Acropolis. In this strategy, a key figure in the early years was the neoclassicist architect Leo von Klenze, who planned to remove “all the remnants of barbarism” in his restoration of the Acropolis project officially inaugurated in 1834.Footnote 29 He was, however, in favor of preserving certain picturesque medieval structures, such as the Frankish tower in the Propylaia. In a more inclusive approach to “barbarism,” this tower was demolished in 1875 by the Athens Archaeological Society, which played a leading role in the clearing operation and, more generally, a decisive role in discovering and protecting antiquities during the nineteenth century.Footnote 30

In the same spirit, the museums set up by the end of the century were exclusively archaeological, the provisions of the 1834 law on the establishment of public museums with a different content (including collections of pictures and copper engravings) having not been implemented.Footnote 31

State concern for the protection of Byzantine monuments, which also corresponded to the more general reevaluation of the Middle Ages by romanticism, manifested itself in practice only around the end of the nineteenth century. In 1899, the law included within the field of application of the antiquities legislation objects of “medieval Hellenism,” a term that suggests the adoption of the tripartite scheme of Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos's History of the Hellenic Nation.Footnote 32 Consequently, objects from the Byzantine period dating up to the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 came within the definition of antiquities belonging to the state.Footnote 33

This legal provision reflected and reinforced the new version of national identity, which stressed a rehabilitated and Hellenized Byzantium as an intermediary link in the unbroken continuity of Hellenism from antiquity down to the present, with a view to dealing with new national needs and ambitions. This synthesis of the Hellenic and the Christian (Orthodox) elements, which focused on the incorporation of the Byzantine period into the national narrative, facilitated the incorporation of the other historical periods and could be seen as a revolt against an image of the national self that had been imposed by Europe.Footnote 34

In 1914, the first Byzantine museum was established, and 1918 saw the creation of the first folklore museum, both set up as state museums.Footnote 35 The latter's creation can be seen within the same context as evidence of the continuity of Greek national life from antiquity to modern times, given that folklore studies at their inception focused on the quest for “monuments of Greek antiquity living on in the Greek people of the present day.”Footnote 36

The 1914 law setting up the Byzantine and Christian Museum also introduced measures of protection for Byzantine, Christian, and medieval works of art and of historical value dating up to 1830, the year marking the foundation of the Greek state. In addition, in 1920 a provision was introduced for the protection of churches and other artistic and historic monuments and buildings older than 1830.Footnote 37

The extension of the field of legal protection beyond antiquities corresponded also with the need to integrate the new populations that were incorporated into the Greek state following the Balkan Wars (1912–1913) and the Asia Minor Catastrophe (1922).Footnote 38

Cultural properties dating from after 1830, referred to as modern or recent ones, became the object of legislative protection only in 1950, with Law 1469.Footnote 39 This law provided for the protection of objects belonging to the following categories, under condition of their classification by an administrative act:

  • • Sites of particular natural beauty

  • • Buildings or monuments considered as works of art deserving special protection

  • • Paintings, sculptures, architectural works, and prominent works of handicraft or notable popular art deserving special protection

  • • Historic buildings and historical sites

As can be seen from the terminology used, this law expressed an aesthetic view of the objects worthy of protection. It did not cover the whole range of materials with a cultural interest, such as industrial remains or movable objects on the ground of their historical value.

2. THE NEW CULTURAL HERITAGE LAW OF 2002

2.1. Broadening the Scope of the Protection

Law 3028 of 2002 “On the protection of antiquities and cultural heritage in general” takes into account contemporary approaches and needs, the mandate of the Greek Constitution for the protection of the cultural—and natural—environment in the context of sustainability,Footnote 40 and the relevant international legal instruments.Footnote 41 It therefore offers a broad definition of the cultural objects to which it applies, as witness to human existence and creativity. It adopts a territorial criterion for their linkage with the country's cultural heritage, thus including in its field of application the remains of the differing civilizations that flourished, met, or even fought against each other within the Greek territory. It extends further its scope to include manifestations of the intangible heritage, for which it introduces a special protective status.Footnote 42

Its main innovation is the establishment of a global and coherent legal regime that applies to all kinds of elements of the country's cultural heritage.

Ancient and other protected (tangible) cultural objects or “monuments,” to use the terminology employed (mnimeia, term referring to memory),Footnote 43 are now treated in the same spirit, thereby transcending a narrowly archaeocentric approach. Nevertheless, their basic typology and the extent of their protection are still determined on the basis of chronological criteria which, moreover, employ the same landmarks of Greek history, so rich in symbolism, of the years 1453 and 1830. In this respect, the new law did not break away from the national framework established in the nineteenth century.Footnote 44 The definition of antiquities has now been extended to cover cultural objects dating from prehistoric times to 1830,Footnote 45 but the protection of those dating up to 1453 remains augmented. On the one hand, all these objects are, without exception, automatically protected, being characterized as ancient monuments, or antiquities, directly by the law. More specifically, included directly within the protection of the law are all immovable cultural objects that date from up to 1830, all movables that date from up to 1453, and movables of the period 1454–1830 that are finds from excavations or other archaeological research or have been detached from immovable monuments, or consist of religious icons or liturgical objects. The other cultural objects need to have been classified as monuments, because of their significance (of their particular significance, in the case of objects lees than hundred years old), by a relevant administrative act.Footnote 46 On the other hand, the principle of state ownership of antiquities dating up to 1453 is reiteratedFootnote 47 and determines their status of protection.

The 2002 law also goes beyond the narrowly aesthetic approach that imbued the status of modern monuments under the 1950 law, since their classification by an administrative act may now take place on the grounds of their architectural; urban; social; ethnological; folk; technical; industrial; or generally historical, artistic or scientific significance. However, a parallel law on modern architectural heritage remains in force (article 4 of the General Construction Regulation, concerning classified buildings and traditional ensembles Footnote 48), so a certain confusion of competences between the relevant administrative authorities persists.

The legal provisions just mentioned concern, of course, the objects that could be characterized as monuments worthy of protection and can be seen in the context of a more general tendency toward patrimonialization of virtually anything that is developing in Western societies in our age. However, which of these objects are selected and effectively protected constitutes—inevitably—a choice with ideological and political dimensions that deserves further examination. It is worth investigating, through the study of the archives of the competent public administration, for instance, to what extent Ottoman remains or medieval relics other than Byzantine monuments (Venetian, Frankish, etc.) are actively protected or what proportion of the classified buildings in Greece are neoclassical.

A recent case illustrating the problems surrounding the choice between the ancient—notably classical—and the modern heritage, and somehow reminiscent of the purification practices of the nineteenth century, concerns the project of the demolition of two classified buildings on Dionysiou Areopagitou Street across from the Acropolis. The primary justification for the demolition of these buildings, dating from the first decades of the twentieth century, was to improve the visual contact between the new Acropolis Museum and the “Sacred Rock.” The reasons invoked were, however, judged to be insufficient by the Council of State, who annulled in July 2009 the decision of the minister of culture ordering the demolition, which was based on a provision of Law 3028 for the possibility to waive the protection of one monument in order to protect another and had provoked many reactions.Footnote 49In addition, in January 2010 the new head of the Ministry of Culture decided to stop the demolition of two other neoclassical buildings behind the Acropolis Museum, which had not been classified.Footnote 50

Besides monuments, Law 3028 also protects archaeological and historical sites, although a special regime for groups of buildings was not finally introduced.Footnote 51 As can be seen in many of its provisions, the law highlights the relation of cultural objects to their context, which enables them to effectively play their role as evidence of the past.Footnote 52 It also puts an emphasis on the provenance of antiquities, in the interests of restricting their illicit traffic.Footnote 53

The new law broadens not only the object but also the content of the protection, mainly by giving emphasis to the social function of heritage, the preservation of which is not understood as an end in itself.Footnote 54 The notion of protection includes, among others, the inventory, documentation and study of the protected elements, their accessibility to the public and scholars, their enhancement and integration into contemporary social life, and public awareness of them. The law also refers to their integration into the planning processes, taking into account the principle of integrated conservation, although one issue that remains is the extent of the effective coordination between laws and public policies that may have an impact on heritage.

2.2. The State-Centric Character of the Protection Persists

According to article 24, para. 1 of the Constitution, the protection of cultural environment is an obligation of the state and—as added in 2001—a right of everyone. Nevertheless, and despite the steps forward that have been made, the involvement of individuals and communities in defining and managing heritage is not a simple issue,Footnote 55 and heritage protection remains fundamentally state-centric.

The state has a key role in producing cultural heritage, by designating which cultural objects are worthy of protection, not only through the normative action but also through the classification process. Under Law 3028, classification takes place by decision of the minister of culture, following an opinion of a council that includes officials of the ministry and academics or other experts assigned almost exclusively by the minister.Footnote 56 Even the protection of intangible heritage falls under the remit of the Ministry of Culture.

The 2002 law undertakes to improve the relations between citizens and the administration for its implementation, currently called the State Archaeological Service, which is often perceived as a source of trouble and delay. To this end, it limits the margin of the administration's discretionary power by defining more specifically the conditions for granting or refusing the different permits required.Footnote 57 It lays down time limits for the administration's actions, procedures of notification, and the right of interested persons to a hearing and provides, among other things, for compensation and rewards. It also establishes tax and other financial incentives, rather limited though, so that the protection remains based mostly on coercion.Footnote 58

The administration of heritage and in particular of antiquities remains centralized. The local Ephorates of Antiquities are services of the state, and more specifically of the Ministry of Culture, while local authorities are only marginally involved.

The connection between state and cultural heritage is tighter in the case of antiquities, and especially those dating up to 1453, which in principle belong to the state and are extra commercium, as well as those discovered during excavations.Footnote 59 The close—although no more exclusiveFootnote 60—association of antiquities with the state also shapes the legal status of museums. Archaeological museums in Greece, including Byzantine museums, are state-owned, with very few exceptions.Footnote 61 Moreover, they are in principle incorporated into the legal person of the state and, in their large majority, form part of the local Ephorates of Antiquities.Footnote 62 In contrast, the overwhelming majority of the museums of other kinds belong to local government bodies or other public entities or to private nonprofit organizations, while those few that are state-run have in principle their own legal personality.

It is also worth pointing out that any, even tentative, moves on the part of the legislator toward any slackening of the tight embrace of antiquities by the state have met with and still meet with strong reactions, coming mainly though not exclusively from the archaeologists of the State Archaeological Service. By way of illustration, the attempts to implement the provisions of Codified Law 5351 of 1932, allowing the sale of antiquities deemed to be redundant to the state's museums and smaller collections, faced intense resistance and have remained a dead letter. And it could be noted that no such possibility for disposal by sale or gift is provided for in the current law. Law 654 of 1977, which provided for the temporary export of antiquities for exhibitions in museums abroad, also attracted sharp criticism. Its implementation drew many protests, including mass demonstrations, particularly at an early phase, in which, on the other hand, the sending abroad of antiquities was used chiefly to promote the so-called national issues, such as the Aegean or Macedonia. Law 3028 of 2002 retains the prohibition of export of monuments without a permit, while allowing, under certain conditions, the lending of up to five years (subject to renewal) and the exchange of antiquities belonging to and possessed by the state. It is, however, instructive that this provision is the one that met with the most objections to the bill for the new law.Footnote 63

There has also been reaction to the setting up of the new Acropolis Museum as a public law legal entity in 2008,Footnote 64 as in 2005 against a governmental project of transforming a number of archaeological museums into separate legal entities. In the same spirit, there was opposition in 1997 to the transformation of major archaeological museums into special services of the ministry, separated from the local Ephorates, as well as to the establishment of a public enterprise in the form of a joint stock company for the promotion of Greek cultural heritage, on arguments opposing its commercialization.Footnote 65 The view is widely held—among archaeologists at least—that antiquities do not belong within the logic of the market and they should not be dragged into the arena of trade, a view that is reminiscent of the thinking about national symbols and the “fetishization of their sanctity.”Footnote 66

Needless to say that what matters is not only what is provided by the text of the law but also if and how it is implemented, an issue related to established administrative practices and prevailing attitudes and mentalities.

3. THE GREEK CASE IN THE BROADER HERITAGE DEBATE

3.1. How Unique Is the Greek Case?

The special position and legal treatment of antiquities in Greece, as compared to other cultural legacies, are clear and go together with their close association with the state, in a context of a wider and more inclusive approach to heritage and other important recent legislative innovations. This special status, which can be traced back to the nineteenth century, provides evidence that even today, in spite of the enormous changes that have occurred in the meantime at many levels, ancient monuments remain a privileged symbolic foundation for national identity and, in parallel with their growing role in other fields, especially in the tourism industry, objects of ideological and political perception and use.

The causes, consequences, and perspectives of these functions that they serve need further investigation, in the context of the reflection on the role of the nation-state in the global era, on the appeal to antiquity in order to acquire value for the national self, and on the complex issue of national identity in a multicultural society.

The connection of archaeology with nationalism and with the nation-state cannot be regarded as an exclusively Greek phenomenon. Indeed, the near universality of a relationship between nationalism and the practice of archaeology has been highlighted by many scholars.Footnote 67 As has also been pointed out, it would be simplistic to consider the study of this link as a study of the abuse of archaeology by nationalism.Footnote 68

Regarding the state-centric character of heritage protection, the observation made for France could also be considered relevant for Greece, in that it results from historical reasons related to the centralized tradition of the country and the perception of monuments as elements of national identity.Footnote 69 It goes without saying, though, in connection with this character, that the effects on heritage management due to the serious structural problems of the Greek state, particularly evident in the current financial crisis, deserve further investigation.

Nevertheless, as has been stated for the nineteenth century, “nowhere in Europe showed a closer connection between politics and historical consciousness than Greece.”Footnote 70 A particular source of tension is the fact that Greek antiquity has been considered the fount of Western civilization. Consequently, modern Greece has been described as “the archetype of stress between local and global heritage” and the Elgin or Parthenon Marbles as exemplifying “the problem of a legacy that is both Greek and global.”Footnote 71 Furthermore, and in conjunction with this, the key position of antiquities in the national consciousness and imagination and the early, pioneering, state control over and legislation on archaeological remains should be viewed as specific to Greece.

In any case, the special legal regime of archaeological objects compared with other cultural objects is not only due to their value as national symbols. It is also related to factors such as their age, their link with the ground where they have been buried, and the importance of their context, which also justifies a special territorial link to the country of modern discovery.Footnote 72

Strict export controls and declarations of state ownership of antiquities are also to be encountered in the national legislation of many other source countries, as already mentioned.Footnote 73 Moreover, in comparative terms, Greek legislation does not appear excessively restrictive, since it permits under certain conditions the export, exchange, and loan, even long-term, of movable antiquities as well as their possession by private persons, under state control. State ownership of antiquities could thus be understood as a collective right over objects lying still undiscovered and, in any case, judged too important to be at the mercy of purely private and coincidental interests. Furthermore, such national ownership laws strengthen the deterrents against clandestine excavation by enabling this to be punished as theft and by facilitating the recovery of the looted objects, even in a foreign jurisdiction.Footnote 74 They appear therefore to be adapted to the specificities of undiscovered antiquities and protecting the contextual integrity of archaeological sites.

So, even in so-called market states, archaeologists and other heritage professionals often support national export controls and ownership laws and claims for return or restitution of archaeological and other cultural objects to the country or community of origin. They also react against sale, privatization, or other practices perceived as excessive commodification of cultural patrimony.Footnote 75

3.2. Cultural Nationalism Versus Cultural Internationalism?

A view that is often put forward, originally expressed by John Henry Merryman, professor at the Stanford Law School, pits “cultural internationalism” against the “cultural nationalism”Footnote 76 of Greece and other source countries, supported, in this bipolar scheme, by UNESCO and archaeologists in the market countries, who depend on host nations for their research. According to “cultural internationalism,” generally invoked by art dealers, private collectors, and many major art museum officials, cultural property belonging to any people is “the cultural heritage of all mankind” (in the words of the Preamble of the 1954 Hague Convention), and what matters most is preservation of, truth about, and access to it, wherever it is situated, from whatever cultural or geographic source it derives. In parallel, the liberalization—within certain limits—of the international trade in cultural property is regarded as necessary. This viewpoint has also been invoked in favor of the acquisition of unprovenanced antiquities recently surfaced by museums in market states, chiefly by the director of the Art Institute of Chicago, James Cuno.Footnote 77 In his publications, Cuno criticizes what he calls “nationalist retentionist cultural property laws” and the governments of the countries of modern discovery, claiming identity with ancient cultures, for manipulating antiquities for political gains.

But is the idea of “the cultural heritage of mankind” meaningful or is it an “empty vessel”?Footnote 78 As has been observed, “while cultural treasures may generate universal inspiration and appreciation, they are not universally created nor can there be international possession.”Footnote 79 This notion seems thus ahistorical, if not self-contradictory, since “confining possession to some while excluding others is the raison d' être of heritage.”Footnote 80 Though the concepts of “common cultural heritage” or “world heritage,” as used in UNESCO instruments, are not so precise, it is clear that they refer not to ownership but to common responsibility of the international community for the protection of essential cultural legacies, while respecting the sovereignty of the state in whose territory they are situated, recognized as the main responsible party.

Moreover, the cultural internationalist approach would seem somewhat hypocritical, insofar as it does not lead to a fair distribution of antiquities and cultural objects in general (and, indeed, using this logic, why not include other material resources as well?) throughout the world. But, instead, it leads to a one-way flow from less developed or from former colonies to wealthier countries in the West, so that it ends up looking far more like cultural imperialism.Footnote 81 At the same time, this way of thinking is used to justify the retention even today of cultural objects derived from different regions of the world by the so-called universal museums of the great metropolitan centers in Western Europe and North America,Footnote 82 which have acquired them in other eras by questionable means and with the aim of asserting the cultural superiority of their nations. As has been aptly suggested, these “retentionists” often

defend their position by deconstructing the national identity of their opponents—claiming, for example, that modern Greeks are not “true” descendants of ancient Greeks … [without] simultaneously willing to call into question their own nationalistic claims to cultural superiority. In other words, retentionists are quick to condemn the parochial nationalism of their opponents, but rarely question their own more imperial nationalisms, which they mask in the name of internationalism.Footnote 83

From another aspect, this “internationalist” approach is criticized of being used often “as an excuse for reliance on market-based principles and as apologetic for the wide-scale looting of archaeological sites.”Footnote 84 In any case, trading in art and antiquities remains the only major sector of international trade where secrecy prevails as to the provenance of the acquisitions, a fact that encourages further looting and the destruction of archaeological sites and the loss of archaeological contexts.Footnote 85 This argument tends to prevail today with regard to museum policies, which largely oppose the acquisition of unprovenanced items, even if in several cases museums have been rather forced to think differently by source nations' restitution campaigns and criminal investigations.Footnote 86

Moving away from binary dichotomies and polarized approaches that have dominated the debate, and from unproductive controversies among governments and institutions with competing interests, many voices are raised nowadays in favor of more balanced views. These views support collaborative solutions for heritage preservation and accessibility, such as mutually beneficial partnerships to reduce the incentive for pillage and illicit traffic and to develop joint research projects and international exchange through traveling exhibitions and long-term loans.

Footnotes

1. Skopetea, The “Model Kingdom,” 197.

2. Speech of Iakovos Rizos Neroulos, in Synopsis ton Praktikon tis Arhaiologikis Etairias 1838, 26.

3. “On the protection of antiquities and cultural heritage in general,” Ephimeris tis Kyverniseos (Government Gazette, hereinafter FEK) A′ 153. An official translation of this law into English—though not followed faithfully in this article—may be viewed at http://www.unesco.org/culture/natlaws/media/pdf/greece/gre_law_3028_engtof.pdf (accessed 10 April 2010).

4. The first promptings for the preservation of “the proofs of our ancestral glory” and the founding of a museum, named “Hellenic Museum,” are attributed to the leading representative of the Greek Enlightenment, Adamantios Korais, in a document dated from 1807 (reproduced in Kokkou, The Care for Antiquities, 28–31).

5. Decree of Grigorios Dikaios (Papaflessas) of 10 February 1825, Ephimeris ton Athinon 38, 24 June 1825 and Decree of 22 February 1826, Geniki Ephimeris tis Ellados 41, 27 February 1826. The latter was based on the consideration that all the relics of antiquity are the nation's and need to be conserved and the former was based on the following arguments: “…so that, with the passage of time, every school will acquire its own Museum, something which is most necessary for history, for the discovery of the ancient names of cities and places, for a knowledge of the skill of our ancestors, and for the esteem for such things which the wise nations of Europe, who censure us because we give them away or sell them at a low price to their travellers visiting Greece, rightly entertain.”

6. Article XVIII of the Resolution of the Third National Assembly “On the organization of the Administration of the Greek State” of 1 May 1827 (reproduced in Protopsaltis, Historical Documents on Antiquities, 30) stated that “it shall be the duty of the Governor to take care that Antiquities shall not be sold or conveyed outside the State.”

7. Vlachoyannis, Memoirs of General Makriyannis, 2: 63.

8. Resolution X of the Fourth National Assembly of 2 August 1829 (see Protopsaltis, Historical Documents on Antiquities, 94, and more generally on this issue, 73–75, 91–93, 159–62).

9. Resolution of Kapodistrias 49 of 21 October 1829, Geniki Ephimeris tis Ellados 77, 16 November 1829. See also his circular 953 of 23 June 1830, Geniki Ephimeris tis Ellados 50, 28 June 1930.

10. Circular of the Provisional Commissioner of Elis, Panayotis Anagnostopoulos, 73 of 7 October 1829 (Protopsaltis, Historical Documents on Antiquities, 107–109).

11. Law of 10/22 May 1834 “On scientific and technological collections, on the discovery and conservation of antiquities and the use thereof,” FEK 22. Historical data (e.g., O'Keefe and Prott, Law and the Cultural Heritage, 1:31–71) show that comprehensive national laws on antiquities date in principle from after 1834. Even in Italy, the first major national protective legislation was enacted in 1902, long after unification, although the earliest legislation for the protection of ancient monuments seems to have been the Papal Bull of Pius II of 1462.

12. Maurer, Das Griechische Volk, 544.

13. See, for example, the 1826 Decree of the Provisional Administration and the 1829 Circular of the Provisional Commissioner of Elis, mentioned above (notes 5 and 10).

14. Maurer, Das Griechische Volk, 551. More specifically, the edict promulgated by Cardinal Pacca in April 1820.

15. A few months after the arrival of King Otto in Greece, in the decree setting up the Secretariat of State for Church Affairs and Public Education, were included among its competences “the preparation for excavation and discovery of the lost masterpieces of the arts, care for the preservation of those already existing, and vigilance to see that these are not exported from the State” (art. 2 of the Royal Decree of 3/15 April 1833, FEK 14). Soon after were nominated the first Ephors of Antiquities.

16. O'Keefe and Prott, Law and the Cultural Heritage, 1:72.

17. Marchand, Down from Olympus, 84.

18. Siehr, “The Beautiful One Has Come—To Return,” 130.

19. Article 6 of the Greek-German convention signed in Athens on 13/25 April 1874 and ratified by Law 541/1875, FEK 59. The convention also provided for the financing of the excavations by the German government, recognized its exclusive right to make casts and moulds for a five-year period, while the right of publication of the finds was divided between the two governments.

20. This convention was concluded in Athens on 23 January/4 February 1887 and ratified by Law 1974/1891, FEK A′ 126. Both agreements were reached after prolonged and hard negotiations and provoked reactions on both sides.

21. Law 2646/1899 “On antiquities,” FEK A′ 158.

22. Law 5351 “On antiquities,” codified by the Presidential Decree of 9/24 August 1932, FEK A′ 275. This codification was a compilation of provisions that did not always have logical cohesion and raised a number of problems of interpretation which the case law attempted to solve. It should also be mentioned that Greek Constitution provides for a special legal regime for the property and cession of archaeological treasures and sites (article 18, para. 1 of the current Constitution of 1975), since 1911 (article 17, para. 2 of the Constitution of 1911).

23. For instance, in the Ottoman Empire a decree of 1906 declared for the first time that all antiquities found in or on public or private lands were state property; previously, under a decree of 1884, one-half of any antiquities fortuitously discovered on private land were given to the landowner (Ozel and Karadayi, “Laws Regarding the Protection,” 2–5). For Italy, see note Footnote 11. As early as 1883, in Egypt a decree declared all antiquities property of the state, but a decree of 1891 provided for the division of archaeological finds between the excavator and the state (Urice, “The Beautiful One Has Come—To Stay,” 141–42, 178–79). A Mexican law of 1887 also declared all archaeological monuments to be state property, but it seems that this declaration was not sufficiently clear, as was accepted by the U.S. courts in the McClain decisions, who held that Mexican law did not clearly vest ownership in the Mexican government until 1972 (545 F.2d at 997–1004 and 593 F.2d 658 at 670–71).

24. Circular 11538 of the Minister of Church Affairs and Public Education, A. Eftaxias, of 30 August 1899, “Instructions concerning the implementation of Law 2646 on antiquities,” reproduced in Geniki Ephoria Arhaiotiton, Collection of Archaeological Laws, 346–350. In a similar spirit, in a circular of 1865, it was pointed out that those who dig without a permit and sell the antiquities they find to foreigners “not only deprive the national Museum of the precious heirlooms of our ancestors but bring disgrace upon the nation among those to whom they sell them, as trading in the relics of its forebears—those very relics which both aroused in it the sense of its own nationality and brought about the acquisition of its freedom” (Circular 874 of the Minister A. H. Londos of 4 February 1865, Geniki Ephoria Arhaiotiton, Collection of Archaeological Laws, 50–51).

25. See especially Lowenthal, “Classical Antiquities”; Morris, “Archaeologies of Greece.”

26. See note Footnote 10.

27. Article 111. It should be noted that Maurer, the author of the law, had studied medieval German history, while it is also interesting that the rescue of the Byzantine Kapnikarea Church of Athens in 1834 was due to the intervention of the keen classicist Ludwig of Bavaria, father of Otto.

28. Royal Decree of 1/19 December 1837, Geniki Ephoria Arhaiotiton, Collection of Archaeological Laws, 34. Similar considerations, in pleasing contrast with ancient monuments, explain the proposal for the preservation of certain churches in the first town plan for Athens, that of Kleanthis and Schaubert (Kokkou, The Care for Antiquities, 112). Interest in these monuments which, though limited, was explicit, may be also be linked with a parallel turn in the interests of Otto toward the Byzantine Empire, whose system of government better matched his own monarchy (see Dimaras, Hellenic Romanticism, 338; Hamilakis and Yalouri, “Antiquities as Symbolic Capital,” 121).

29. At the inaugurating ceremony on the Acropolis in August 1834, in an attempt to tie symbolically the rebuilding of the Parthenon with Otto's reign, Klenze announced the following: “All the remnants of barbarism will disappear … not only here but in the whole of Greece, and the remnants of the glorious past will be surrounded with new shine… as a solid basis for the present and the future.” See Mallouhou-Tufano, The Restoration of Ancient Monuments, 19, who also shows (at 282) that the purifying interventions of the years 1835–1885 were similar to those that had taken place in other European countries that period, especially in Rome during the first three decades of the nineteenth century. See also, among others, Hamilakis, The Nation and Its Ruins, 57–64, 85–93.

30. The Society was founded in 1837 and had a sui generis relationship with the state, given that it was entrusted with powers and granted privileges and means peculiar to the state. On its history see Petrakos, The Athens Archaeological Society.

31. Nevertheless, around the end of the century two museums belonging to private associations, the Historical and Ethnological Society, constituted in 1882, and the Christian Archaeological Society, founded in 1884, were set up in Athens. The National Gallery was established in 1900.

32. Article 1 of Law 2646/1899. Paparrigopoulos is considered the national historian of Greece. His monumental work, History of the Hellenic Nation, appeared between 1860 and 1876.

33. As has been accepted by the consistent case law of the Court of Cassation (Areios Pagos) in interpreting the provisions of articles 1 and 2 of Codified Law 5351/1932, which are derived from Law 2646/1899 (Judgments 407/1972 [Plenum], 673/1973, 305/1990, 1031/1991,1205/1992, 558/1998, 895/2006 etc.).

34. Liakos, “For the Restoration of Completeness and Unity,” 180–181. Cf. Hamilakis, The Nation and Its Ruins, who calls this new synthesis (different from the imported Western Hellenism) “Indigenous Hellenism.”

35. Law 401/1914 “On the foundation of a Byzantine and Christian Museum,” FEK A′ 347, as amended by Law 2674/1921, FEK A′ 146; Law 1407/1918 “On the foundation of a museum of Greek handicrafts,” FEK A′ 101, which deals with today's Museum of Greek Folk Art.

36. An expression introduced by the Hellenic Literary Association of Constantinople, which held a competition on the subject (Kyriakidou-Nestoros, Theory of Greek Folklore Studies, 66). See also, among others, Herzfeld, Ours Once More.

37. Article 15 of Law 2447/1920, FEK A′ 169, included in Codified Law 5351/1932 (art. 52).

38. See also Liakos, “For the Restoration of Completeness and Unity,” 195.

39. Law 1469/1950 “On the protection of a special category of buildings and works of art later than 1830,” FEK A′ 169.

40. Article 24, paragraphs 1 and 6, of the Constitution of 1975, as amended in 2001. As the Council of State has held in applying these provisions, cultural environment consists of “monuments and other elements, of every kind, which are derived from human activity and make up the country's historical, artistic, technological and cultural heritage in general” and its protection includes the preservation of these elements in perpetuity (e.g., Judgments of the Plenum 3146/1986, 1097/1987, 2300/1997, 3478/2000).

41. For a further analysis of the new law, see Voudouri, “The New Law 3028/2002”; and, more generally, the contributions included in Trova, Cultural Heritage and the Law.

42. Article 2, subpara. (a), on the definition of cultural objects, article 1, para. 2, on the country's cultural heritage (that is the law's field of application), articles 2, subpara. (e), and 5, on intangible heritage.

43. According to article 2, subpara. (b), by “monuments” are meant cultural objects which constitute material evidence and belong to the country's cultural heritage, whose special protection is called for. Monuments are divided into ancient and modern (or “recent,” in the official translation) (i.e., those later than 1830), and also into immovable and movable.

44. See also Hamilakis, The Nation and Its Ruins, 55, who points out the reference of Law 3028 to the tripartite scheme in the definition of ancient monuments.

45. Article 2, subpara. (b), aa′. Antiquities also include caves and paleontological remains, for which there is evidence that they are related to human existence.

46. Articles 6 and 20.

47. Article 7, para. 1, and article 21, para. 1.

48. Article 4 of Law 1577/1985, FEK A′210, as amended by law 2831/2000, FEK A′ 40.

49. Council of State 2338/2009. The annulled ministerial decision had been taken on August 2007, following a positive opinion of a specific collective body, composed by the members of the Central Archaeological Council and of the Central Council for Modern Monuments, which was voted on a very narrow majority. On the reactions see http://areopagitou17.blogspot.com/ (accessed 10 April 2010). From another point of view, it is interesting to note that the metaclassical phases of the Acropolis are nearly absent from the new Museum's exhibition.

50. The action for annulment of the ministerial decisions concerning the nonclassification and the permit of demolition of these buildings was rejected by the Council of State (Judgments 2339, 2340/2009), who had, however, in the meantime, ordered the suspension of their execution (E.A. 1341/2008 and 130/2009). See also http://www.monumenta.org/article.php?IssueID=2&lang=en&CategoryID=1&ArticleID=464 (accessed 10 April 2010).

51. Article 2, subparagraphs (c) and (d), and articles 12–16. A special protection for groups of buildings (or architectural ensembles) is, however, provided for by the Council of Europe's Grenada Convention of 1995, which is ratified by Greece and is often invoked by the Council of State, as in the above judgment.

52. For example, it includes in the notion of immovable monument its surroundings, decorative elements, or even movables related to its use (articles 2, subpara. (b), cc′ and 6, para. 2), provides for protection zones around monuments (articles 13 and 17), prohibits the removal of all or part of an immovable monument (art. 42), provides for a special treatment of movables detached from immovables (art. 20, para. 1, b′), and favors the conservation in situ of the archaeological finds when feasible (art. 36, para. 8). The principle of preserving in situ the elements of cultural heritage, depending on their nature, is also laid down by the Council of State as deriving from article 24 of the Constitution (Judgments of the Plenum 2300/1997, 3478/2000).

53. See Voudouri, “The New Law 3028/2002,” 36–38, on its measures against illicit traffic of cultural objects, which include provisions for preventing and prohibiting the traffic in Greece in cultural objects acquired or exported from other countries in violation of their legislation. On this subject see also Law 3658/2008 “Measures for the Protection of Cultural Objects,” FEK A′ 70.

54. Notably article 3. See also article 4 on the National Inventory of Monuments, article 45 on museums and article 46 on access to and use of monuments and sites. On the accessibility of monuments see articles 9, para. 3, 11, para. 3, 29, 30, para. 3, and 31, paras. 7 and 9, as well.

55. Cf. Holtorf, “What Does Not Move.”

56. Articles 49–50.

57. For instance, in the cases of the permits for possession of movable antiquities (art. 23), export of ancient or modern monuments (art. 34), dealing in them (art. 32), or the ministerial decisions on carrying out excavations (art. 36), recognizing collectors (art. 31), or museums (art. 45), or allowing loans and exchanges (art. 25).

58. For example, articles 6, para. 5, and 20, para. 3, on hearing procedures; articles 19 and 9, paras. 4–5, on compensations; articles 8, paras. 3–6, and 24, paras. 3–6, on rewards; and articles 47–48, on financial incentives. See also articles 28, para. 6, and 31, para. 11, on the right of preemption of the state, museums, and collectors (in that order).

59. See articles 7 and 21. By way of exception from the principle of state ownership, article 33, para. 3, provides, under certain conditions, for the maintenance of the right of ownership of private persons over antiquities, as an incentive for—licit—importation, and particularly for their repatriation to Greece, with parallel provision that phenomena of illicit traffic should not be favored. In addition, according to the transitional provisions of the law, the existing rights of ownership of the Church of Greece and, more generally, of religious legal persons on religious antiquities are maintained (article 73, para. 1).

60. It is interesting also to note that Law 3028 of 2002 does not reiterate the provision of the previous legislation that immediately followed the rule of state ownership of antiquities, stating “Accordingly, the right and care for their discovery and preservation in public museums belongs to the State” (article 1 of Law 2646 of 1899, included in article 1 of Codified Law 5351 of 1932).

61. The Benaki Museum, which was established by Law 4599 of 1930 (FEK A′ 138), by virtue of a donation to the state and is not purely archaeological, and the N. P. Goulandris Foundation—Museum of Cycladic Art, which was set up by Law 1610 of 1986 (FEK A′ 89) and derived from a private collection, are private-law legal persons, and more specifically foundations. On the status of museums in Greece, see Voudouri, State and Museums.

62. There are only two recent exceptions of state archaeological museums functioning as public law legal entities: the Kanellopoulos Museum (a museum created in 1976 to house antiquities donated to the state), according to Law 3600/2007 (FEK A′ 177), and the—new—Acropolis Museum, established by Law 3711/2008 (FEK A′ 224). The other museums are incorporated into the local Ephorates of Antiquities, except eight major museums functioning as special services of the Ministry of Culture, distinct from the Ephorates (Presidential Decree 191 of 2003, “Statute of the Ministry of Culture,” FEK A′ 146, articles 51–58).

63. On Greek legislation—previous and current—concerning the disposal, import, export and loan of antiquities, see Voudouri, “Greek Legislation Concerning the International Movement.” On the previous regime, see also Petrakos, Essay on the Archaeological Legislation, 30–35, 79–92.

64. By Law 3711/2008, as noted above. See, in particular, the reactions of the Association of Greek Archaeologists at http://www.sea.org.gr/press/pages/viewpress.aspx?PressID=18 (accessed 10 April 2010). In my opinion, certain provisions of this law, concerning, in particular, the separation of the administration of the museum from the administration of the site of Acropolis (even in spite of the policy of connecting closely the Museum to the “Sacred Rock” and to the claim for the return of the Parthenon Marbles), as well as the designation of the Museum's Administration, pose, indeed, a number of problems.

65. See Voudouri, State and Museums, 354–356, 296–316. The above company, whose action seems actually rather problematic, was established by art. 6, para. 2 of Law 2557/1997, FEK A′ 271, and renamed the Organisation for the Promotion of Greek Culture SA by art. 73, para. 16 of Law 3028/2002.

66. To use an expression of Konstantinos Tsoukalas (The Power as People and Nation, 411).

67. In particular, Kohl and Fawcett, Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology; Diaz-Andreu and Champion, Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe; and Meskell, Archaeology under Fire.

68. Hamilakis, The Nation and Its Ruins, 14, who considers that it is the study “of the development of a device of modernity (archaeology as autonomous discipline) to serve the needs of the most powerful ideology of that modernity (nationalism).”

69. Frier, “La loi de 1913,” 260.

70. Mazower, “Archaeology, Nationalism and the Land,” 33.

71. Lowenthal, The Heritage Crusade, 244.

72. See also Siehr, “The Beautiful One Has Come—To Return,” 129.

73. See note Footnote 23. See also the—somewhat outdated—data contained in O'Keefe and Prott, Law and the Cultural Heritage, 1: 34–71, 188–195.

74. National laws vesting ownership of antiquities in the state have been recognized by foreign courts, as recently in the United States, U.S. v. Schulz, 333 F.3d 393 (2nd Cir. 2003), and in the United Kingdom, Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. The Barakat Galleries Ltd, [2007] E.W.C.A. Civ 1374, [2008] I All E.R.1177. See further Gerstenblith, “Schulz and Barakat.”

75. As in France, where the government has been accused of exploiting the patrimony for trade and diplomacy, on the occasion of the recent bilateral agreement concerning the opening of a branch of the Louvre in Abu Dhabi (see, e.g., Le Monde Diplomatique, February 2007; USA Today, 9 August 2007). Another interesting example is the reaction to an Italian privatization law of 2002, even in the form of a petition “against the privatization of Italian excavations, museums and monuments,” signed by the directors of 37 of the world's major museums (see Bauer, “New Ways of Thinking,” 722–23).

76. Notably Merryman, “Two Ways of Thinking” (his basic study) and Talking About the Elgin Marbles (containing most of his articles on this theme).

77. Particularly Cuno, Who Owns Antiquity? and Whose Culture?

78. To use David Rudenstine's words, in his “Cultural Property,” 75.

79. Greenfield, The Return of Cultural Treasures, 312.

80. Lowenthal, The Heritage Crusade, 230.

81. See, in particular, Prott, “The International Movement of Cultural Objects,” 228; Koumantos, “Réflexions préalables sur la protection,” 163; and Lyons, “Objects and Identities.”

82. See the Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums of December 2002 (reproduced and commented in Lewis, “The ‘Universal Museum’”), signed by 19 directors of the world's leading museums, in which, citing the example of the sculpture of classical Greece to illustrate the role of “universal” museums in highlighting its “significance for mankind as a whole,” they oppose the repatriation of “objects which have belonged to museum collections for many years,” considered as “part of the museums that have cared for them, and by extension part of the heritage of the nations which house them.”

83. Handler, “Who Owns the Past?” 71.

84. Gerstenblith, “The Public Interest in the Restitution,” 200.

85. Cf. Bator, “An Essay on the International Trade in Art,” 360. On the international trade in antiquities, see also, among recent publications, Brodie et al., Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and the Antiquities Trade; Bauer, “New Ways of Thinking.”

86. See, among many, Hallman “Museums and Cultural Property.” See also, more recently, in the United States the AAMD's and AAM's new guidelines, Association of Art Museum Directors, New Report of on the Acquisition of Archaeological Materials and Ancient Art, June 2008, (available at http://www.aamd.org/newsroom/documents/2008ReportAndRelease.pdf, accessed 10 April 2010) and American Association of Museums, Standards Regarding Archaeological Material and Ancient Art, July 2008 (available at http://www.aam-us.org/museumresources/ethics/upload/Standards%20Regarding%20Archaeological%20Material%20and%20Ancient%20Art.pdf, accessed 10 April 2010). This evolution is related to recent developments, such as the following: the conviction in New York of Frederick Schulz, former president of the National Association of Dealers in Ancient, Oriental and Primitive Art, for dealing in antiquities removed from Egypt in violation of its 1983 national ownership law (U.S. v. Schulz, see note Footnote 73), the criminal trials in Rome of former J. Paul Getty Museum antiquities curator Marion True and U.S. art dealer Robert Hecht, and the return of looted antiquities from several major U.S. museums to Italy, as of certain items from the Getty to Greece.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bator, Paul M. “An Essay on the International Trade in Art.” Stanford Law Review 34 (1981–1982): 275–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Alexander A. “New Ways of Thinking about Cultural Property: A Critical Appraisal of the Antiquities Trade Debates.” Fordham International Law Journal 31 (2008): 690–724.Google Scholar
Brodie, Neil, Kersel, Morag M., Luke, Christina, and Tubb, Kathryn Walker, eds. Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and the Antiquities Trade. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuno, James. Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle over Our Ancient Heritage. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Cuno, James. Whose Culture? The Promise of Museums and the Debate over Antiquities. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaz-Andreu, Margarita, and Champion, Tim, eds. Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe. London: UCL Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Dimaras, Konstantinos T.Hellenic Romanticism [in Greek], Athens: Ermis, 1994.Google Scholar
Frier, Pierre-Laurent. “La loi de 1913, aujourd'hui.” In Les monuments historiques. Un nouvel enjeu? edited by Prieur, Michel et Audrerie, Dominique, 2, 247–69. Paris: L' Harmattan, 2004.Google Scholar
Geniki Ephoria Arhaiotiton, Collection of Archaeological Laws, Decrees and Circulars [in Greek], 3rd ed.Athens: Ethniko Typografeio, 1905.Google Scholar
Gerstenblith, Patty. “The Public Interest in the Restitution of Cultural Objects.” Connecticut Journal of International Law 16 (2001): 197–246.Google Scholar
Gerstenblith, Patty. “Schulz and Barakat. Universal Recognition of National Ownership of Antiquities.” Art, Antiquity and Law XIV (2009): 21–48.Google Scholar
Greenfield, Jeanette. The Return of Cultural Treasures, 2nd ed.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Hallman, Robert. “Museums and Cultural Property: A Retreat from the Internationalist Approach.” International Journal of Cultural Property 12 (2005): 201–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilakis, Yannis. The Nation and Its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination in Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Hamilakis, Yannis, and Yalouri, Eleana. “Antiquities as Symbolic Capital in Modern Greek Society.” Antiquity 70 (1996): 117–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handler, Richard. “Who Owns the Past? History, Cultural Property, and the Logic of Possessive Individualism.” In The Politics of Culture, edited by Williams, Brett, 63–74. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Herzfeld, Michael. Ours Once More. Folklore, Ideology, and the Making of Modern Greece. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Holtorf, Cornelius. “What Does Not Move Any Hearts—Why Should It Be Saved? The Denkmalpflegediskussion in Germany.” International Journal of Cultural Property 14 (2007): 33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohl, Philip L., and Fawcett, Clare, eds. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Kokkou, Angeliki. The Care for Antiquities in Greece and the First Museums [in Greek]. Athens: Ermisffff, 1977.Google Scholar
Koumantos, Georges. “Réflexions préalables sur la protection internationale des biens culturels.” In Festschrift zum 65.Geburtstag von Mario M. Pedrazzini, edited by Brem, Ernst, Druey, Jean Nicolas, Kramer, Ernst A., and Schwander, Ivo, 159–71. Bern: Verlag Stampfli, 1990.Google Scholar
Kyriakidou-Nestoros, Alki. Theory of Greek Folklore Studies. A Critical Analysis [in Greek], 3rd ed.Athens: Etaireia Meletis Neou Ellinismou, 1986.Google Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey. “The ‘Universal Museum’: A Case of Special Pleading?” In Art and Cultural Heritage: Law, Policy, and Practice, edited by Hoffman, Barbara T., 379–85. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Liakos, Antonis. “For the Restoration of Completeness and Unity: The Construction of National Time” [in Greek]. In Academic Meeting in Memory of K.Th. Dimaras [in Greek], 171–99. Athens: Ethniko Idryma Erevnon, 1994.Google Scholar
Lowenthal, David. “Classical Antiquities as National and Global Heritage.” Antiquity 62 (1988): 726–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowenthal, David. The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, Claire. “Objects and Identities: Claiming and Reclaiming the Past.” In Claiming the Stones/Naming the Bones: Cultural Property and the Negotiation of National and Ethnic Identity, edited by Barkan, Elazar and Bush, Ronald, 116–37. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2002.Google Scholar
Mallouhou-Tufano, Fani. The Restoration of Ancient Monuments in Modern Greece [in Greek]. Athens: I en Athinais Arhaiologiki Etaireia, 1998.Google Scholar
Marchand, Suzanne L.Down from Olympus. Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750–1970. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurer, Georg Ludwig. Das Griechische Volk. Heidelberg: 1835. Greek translation by Robaki, Olga, edited by Vournas, Tasos. Athens: Tolidis, 1976.Google Scholar
Mazower, Mark. “Archaeology, Nationalism and the Land in Modern Greece.” In A Singular Antiquity. Archaeology and Hellenic Identity in Twentieth-Century Greece, edited by Damaskos, Dimitris and Plantzos, Dimitris, 33–41. Athens: Mouseio Benaki, 3rd supplement, 2008.Google Scholar
Merryman, John H. “Two Ways of Thinking About Cultural Property,” American Journal of International Law 80 (1986): 831–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merryman, John H.Talking About the Elgin Marbles. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000.Google Scholar
Meskell, Lynn., ed. Archaeology Under Fire. Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. London: Routledge, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, Ian. “Archaeologies of Greece.” In Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, edited by Morris, Ian, 8–47. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
O'Keefe, Patrick J., and Prott, Lyndel V.. Law and the Cultural Heritage. 1, Discovery and Excavation. Abingdon: Professional Books, 1984.Google Scholar
Ozel, Sibel, and Karadayi, Ayhan. “Laws Regarding the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Turkey.” In The Law of Cultural Property and Natural Heritage: Protection, Transfer and Access, edited by Phelan, Marilyn, chap. 20.Evanston: Kalos Kapp Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Petrakos, Vasileios. Essay on the Archaeological Legislation [in Greek]. Athens: Ypourgeio Politismou–T.A.P., 1982.Google Scholar
Petrakos, Vasileios. The Athens Archaeological Society. Its 150 years' history (1837–1987) [in Greek]. Athens: I en Athinais Arhaiologiki Etaireia, 1987.Google Scholar
Protopsaltis, Emmanouil G.Historical Documents on Antiquities and Other Monuments of History during the Years of the Revolution and of Kapodistrias [in Greek]. Athens: I en Athinais Arhaiologiki Etaireia, 1967.Google Scholar
Prott, Lyndel V. “The International Movement of Cultural Objects.” International Journal of Cultural Property 12 (2005): 225–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudenstine, David. “Cultural Property: The Hard Question of Repatriation.” Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 19 (2001): 69–82.Google Scholar
Siehr, Kurt G. “The Beautiful One Has Come—To Return.” In Imperialism, Art and Restitution, edited by Merryman, John H., 114–34. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Skopetea, Elli. The “Model Kingdom” and the Great Idea. Aspects of the National Issue in Greece (1830–1880) [in Greek]. Athens: Polytypo, 1988.Google Scholar
Trova, Eleni, ed. Cultural Heritage and the Law [in Greek]. Athens-Thessaloniki: Sakkoulas, 2004.Google Scholar
Tsoukalas, Konstantinos. The Power as People and Nation. Adventure of Meanings [in Greek]. Athens: Themelio, 1999.Google Scholar
Urice, Stephen K. “The Beautiful One has Come—To Stay.” In Imperialism, Art and Restitution, edited by Merryman, John H., 135–65. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Vlachoyannis, Yannis, ed. Memoirs of General Makriyannis [in Greek], 2nd ed.Athens: Vaghionakis, 1947.Google Scholar
Voudouri, Daphne. State and Museums: The Institutional Framework of the Archaeological Museums [in Greek]. Athens-Thessaloniki: Sakkoulas, 2003.Google Scholar
Voudouri, Daphne. “The New Law 3028/2002 under the Light of International and European Regulations for the Protection of Cultural Heritage” [in Greek]. In Cultural Heritage and the Law, [in Greek], edited by Trova, Eleni, 25–41. Athens-Thessaloniki: Sakkoulas, 2004.Google Scholar
Voudouri, Daphne. “Greek Legislation Concerning the International Movement of Antiquities and its Ideological and Political Dimensions.” In A Singular Antiquity: Archaeology and Hellenic Identity in Twentieth-Century Greece, edited by Damaskos, Dimitris and Plantzos, Dimitris, 125–39. Athens: Mouseio Benaki 3rd supplement, 2008.Google Scholar