This thread started as a comment on the relics at Easter Island. I guess we'd call these archaeological artifacts. They belong to a vanished culture and I think most people would like to see them stay where they are and be protected.
There has been comment on the Elgin Marbles. I'm not going to get involved in that blue, but I can draw a parallel with Jawa:- when they came to restore Candi Prambanan, they found that much of the cut stone had been removed to use in the nearby village for building material. The Candi had moved past its period of relevance for the people living around it, so they put the stone to good use as building materials for the living. I dare say we can find many similar examples across the world, for instance in China, where I understand that bricks from the Ming period wall were removed by locals to use as building materials. It seems to be a characteristic of mankind that we will destroy that which we think is useless or irrelevant, and replace it with that which we currently consider relevant and useful. Then a few generations later our descendants curse us for being barbarians.
But apart from this idea of preservation of architectural or archaeological relics, there is another question here.
If all relics of the past are considered as belonging to a defined ethnic group, culture, or society, where does that place the works of art of great artists of the past? Let's not limit our thinking here to just painters, but to sculptors and all forms of art. Works of art that are spread throughout the world, and that are regarded as the treasure of all mankind?
Now, if we consider these things as belonging to one specific group of people, how should we consider various technological advancements? Do these also belong to a single group of people?
What of intangible cultural property? Ideas, philosophies, and so on?
Yes, it is certain that many nations have laws in place that prevent the export of identified objects, such as items of cultural heritage, or works of art.
But is this justified?
Most particularly, is it justified in an age when national boundaries and national identities mean less with every passing day,
I'm afraid I could well be out of step with many of you people, but I see the national boundaries that are spread across our world as simply an extension of tribalism, and evidence of man's inability to cooperate with his neighbour. I have no doubt at all that with the development of human society, national boundaries will disappear, ethnicity will disappear and these objects that are currently being squabbled over in a way reminiscent of children squabbling over toys will be regarded as a common heritage of mankind.
However, my dream is probably a very long way into the future; in the meantime I believe that all of mankind has a duty to protect the creations and the heritage of not only the cultural group or society of which one is a part, but of all cultural groups.
Now, if this is so, how do the various governments across the world, who have no hesitation in destroying items which form a part of our common cultural heritage, excuse their actions?
Are they not acting in a way that is contrary to the best interests of civilization?
Are they not behaving in a fashion that is similar to that of the unlettered villagers who took the stone from Candi Prambanan?
At least these villagers had the excuse of ignorance, they knew no better. But our current politicians, leaders and law makers have had the benefit of very expensive educations, and they still act like unlettered barbarians.
I suppose we can only blame ourselves for this:- in most cases, we elected them.
|