Repatriation: A Work in Progress

Repatriation: A Work in Progress By Rachel Smith Introduction At a 2004 conference held at the Washington University School of Law in St Louis, two lawyers presented arguments about repatriation of the famous bust of Nefertiti. One argued that the bust should remain in Berlin, and the other argued for its return to Egypt. Both arguments were succinct and convincing, grounded in a legal perspective but addressing less tangible considerations as well. However, one small section of a footnote sums up the ambiguous nature of the entire repatriation debate: ‘the organizers of the St Louis symposium requested that the author [Stephen Urice] and Professor Kurt Siehr take opposing positions on the question whether the Bust of Nefertiti should remain in Berlin or be returned to Egypt. As lawyers, both of us might have argued either position’. Urice, S. K. (2006). The Beautiful One Has Come - To Stay. In J. H. Merryman, Imperialism, Art and Restitution (pp. 135-166). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 135, footnote. As a topic that continues to be played out in the public arena, repatriation is controversial, and satisfying answers are difficult to find. Repatriation is debated in academic symposia and international conventions, and amongst nations, museums and source communities, or those who claim to represent them. The media latches on to stories of illicit trade and art theft, drawn out legal suits, and both sides play the blame game. The fact that the debate is not just political and legal in nature, but also moral and ethical, should emphasize its complicated nature. Through this, public perceptions of cultural heritage have been shifting and have raised awareness of the implications of repatriation, both good and bad. While repatriation has had its success stories, there are still many criticisms and complexities worth addressing. Both sides of the repatriation debate have something valuable to contribute, and both sides have also been wrong. As for the question of whether repatriation is ‘a tool to redress historical wrongs and empower source communities, or a move towards the 'privatization' of culture’, I refuse to chose a side as it is a futile argument: both can be true and both can be false. I will attempt to critically analyse the flaws in arguments made both for and against repatriation, while still defending repatriation as a healthy, and generally unavoidable, intercultural activity. Defining Repatriation It would be beneficial to first define repatriation, as with such a controversial topic it is important to be very clear about what it is we are talking about. To give a simple definition, repatriation is the sending back of someone or something to its country of origin, cultural property in this case. Restitution is a related term but connotes a restoration of something lost or taken away. Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Dictionary. Retrieved February 20, 2012, from Merriam-Webster Online: http://www.merriam-webster.com/ ‘Cultural property’, ‘cultural heritage’, or ‘historic or cultural treasures’ are some of the rather ambiguous terms for objects that may be subject to repatriation. Cultural property is one of the most commonly used terms, particularly in UNESCO Conventions, but is also quite problematic. It is both difficult to define, and also connotes property rights and individual ownership, something which is often unclear in repatriation cases. So then what is cultural property? For some nations, like China, cultural property might be defined as ‘antiquities dating from the Paleolithic period, starting in 75,000 B.C., through the end of the Tang dynasty, in A.D. 907, and all monumental sculpture and wall art at least 250 years old.’ Kennedy, R. (2009, January 16). Limits on U.S. Imports of Chinese Antiquities Wins Praise. New York Times, p. C1. These are the stated terms of the US-China bilateral agreement signed in early 2009, while China’s initial request was even more broad, to include ‘artifacts from the prehistoric period through the early 20th century.’ In this case cultural property covers a broad range of objects, including art, archaeology, and anything defined as an antiquity. According to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, cultural property is ‘property which, on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each State as being of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science’. O'Keefe, P. J. (2011). Cultural Heritage Conventions and Other Instruments: A Compendium with Commentaries. Builth Wells, UK: Institute of Art and Law, p. 68. The object should also belong to one of 11 listed categories, which are just as ambiguous, such as ‘objects of ethnological interest’, and ‘property of artistic interest’. Each State is left to designate for themselves, what constitutes as cultural property, and what they define as ‘being of importance’. Greenfield, J. (2007). The Return of Cultural Treasures (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 364. Having defined what repatriation is, and what it means for ‘cultural property’, it would be just as beneficial to reiterate why objects are repatriated in the first place. It seems apparent that repatriation requests are made for a variety of reasons, some of them political or religious in nature. Yet every repatriation request is underwritten by a sense of ownership or right to have that object back. Objects are then repatriated, either willingly or not, when the claim has been determined as justified. It should not be assumed that everything should be or will be repatriated. Likewise, it is not a fair assumption that everything should remain in its country of origin. Not every request made is justified, and neither is the refusal always justified. Practically speaking, in no foreseeable future will all objects be returned to their countries of origin, but each repatriation request should still be treated with due care and in accordance with the relevant legislation, as the process is just as important as the end result. UNESCO 1970: The Turning Point Repatriation has recovered a new importance in this postcolonial and postmodern society. The 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property was a major turning point in terms of repatriation legislation, awareness and acceptance. To date 120 States have become party to the Convention which sought to address the problem of ‘illicit traffic in cultural heritage, particularly antiquities’. O'Keefe, P. J. (2011). Cultural Heritage Conventions and Other Instruments. p. 64. Pertaining specifically to repatriation, several Articles addressed the manner of requests and returns of cultural property. Particularly, Article 7 stated that parties to the Convention would take ‘necessary measures’ to prevent museums’ acquisition of ‘illegally exported’ objects, prohibit the ‘import of stolen cultural property’, and ‘take appropriate steps to recover and return any such cultural property’. O'Keefe, P. J. (2011). Cultural Heritage Conventions and Other Instruments. p. 70-71. Later, under concerns of ineffective implementation, in 2010 the Convention on illicit trade was given priority out of seven cultural conventions for greater monitoring and assessment. O'Keefe, P. J. (2011). Cultural Heritage Conventions and Other Instruments. p. 67. While the Convention was a catalyst for much new relevant legislation and international dialogue, problems were visible from the beginning. The 1970 Convention addressed the illicit trade of artefacts, and also repatriation, but it was not binding, not especially specific, and not retroactive so as to apply to any situations pre-1970. States Parties that ratified the convention were obliged to inform UNESCO of their progress in implementation, but the reality was less than ideal, hence the greater monitoring and assessment in recent years. O'Keefe, P. J. (2011). Cultural Heritage Conventions and Other Instruments. p. 66. What is most telling about the Convention is how much was left up to the States Parties. Phrases like ‘necessary measures’ and ‘appropriate steps’, and even ‘cultural property’ were left up to each State to define for themselves. Some of the various interpretations of these phrases showed up in ‘reservations’ or ‘declarations’ made at the time of ratification. O'Keefe, P. J. (2011). Cultural Heritage Conventions and Other Instruments. p. 11. There are currently 18 reservations to the Convention, including the following interesting excerpts: “… until further decision, the Convention will apply neither to the [Faro Islands] nor to [Greenland]” (Denmark, 26/03/2003). “…it does not consider itself obliged to pay any compensation to any person or persons holding cultural property that has been looted or stolen in Guatemala or exported illicitly ...”(Guatemala, 14/01/1985). “The United States reserves the right to determine whether or not to impose export controls over cultural property” (United States of America, 02/09/1983). UNESCO. (n.d.). Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from Legal Instruments: Conventions: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. The excerpt from Guatemala’s reservation refers to Article 7(b)(ii) about paying ‘just compensation to an innocent purchaser’. Also in the reservation, ‘the Republic of Guatemala does not consider that the purchase of property forming part of its cultural wealth is in good faith solely through having been made in ignorance of the law.’  ‘How far an obligation applies appears to be left to the discretion of the State, possibly even to the extent of waiving any duty to do anything.’ O'Keefe, P. J. (2011). Cultural Heritage Conventions and Other Instruments. p. 10. Ratifying the Convention with a reservation is a way of showing support to the cause against illicit trade, without having to apply all the provisions of the Convention. Perhaps when seeking to improve the effectiveness of the Convention, the content of these reservations gives clues to the concerns, prejudices, and problems needing to be addressed. While the intent of the Convention is to protect world cultural property and come to an international understanding, States Parties appear defensive and may often seek to protect their own country’s interests first. The 1970 Convention was a step in the right direction, but must be seen as a work in progress, and continually be reviewed and improved. UNESCO. (n.d.). Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970. Retrieved February 19, 2012. It was noticed that numerous reservations also carried a common complaint, that the Articles mentioning States and their ‘territories’, sound uncomfortably like colonialism, and ‘are outdated and contrary to the Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples’. Its success depends upon the commitment of those involved, and the resources available to further their efforts. Myths about repatriation The reservations to the 1970 UNESCO Convention revealed the doubts and suspicions of the States Parties. Likewise, the arguments that many museum professionals make against repatriation, and arguments source communities make against museums, can be picked apart to reveal their ‘reservations’. Often there are underlying assumptions that have not been stated but need to be addressed. To focus on the case against repatriation in recent years, the 2002 Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums is a telling statement about the values and ideals of the museums who signed it. The Declaration was begun by the British Museum (although not signed by them), and agreed to by the Directors of eighteen prominent Western art museums that hold massive amounts of cultural material. It is a problematic document, not only because of those museums which agreed to it, but also because of whom they claim to speak for. At first reading, the Declaration makes many valid points about the universal importance of cultural property, fostering an appreciation of cultures, the care of objects in museums, and the value of objects in their museum context. While in the opening line it is unspecific how the museums discourage illegal trafficking of objects, it is conceded that repatriation requests should be judged on a case by case basis. But it is hard to accept that this is what the museums really believe in practice. The wording of the Declaration implies that it is universal, saying ‘museums serve not just the citizens of one nation but the people of every nation’, but that these select museums are special and should be considered separately. International Council of Museums. (2004). ICOM news. Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums , p. 4. The underlying implication is that these museums should be immune from UNESCO 1970, and other laws and codes of ethics. It is as though these museums have a greater right to the cultural heritage of other nations than those very nations. Frankenberg, S. (2008, November 17). unpublished lecture. The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property . USA: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. James Cuno, while not a signer of the Declaration in 2002, came to be CEO of the Art Institute of Chicago, one of the signatories, just a few years later. He purports the same universal ‘common, human heritage’; museums hold objects for the benefit and learning of all humankind. Cuno, J. (2006). View from the Universal Museum. In J. H. Merryman, Imperialism, Art and Restitution (pp. 15-36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 34. The assumption here is that learning and the heritage of humanity is jeopardized when repatriation occurs, and that repatriation will prohibit our understanding and appreciation of other world cultures. In defence, Cuno says museums must not lose sight of their founding principles in the Enlightment, for collecting, preserving and exhibiting, and repatriation goes against these principles. ‘My view is that the modern tendency toward nationalist, retentionist cultural policies is a political gesture against the promise of humanism and the many contributions of the universal museum’. Cuno, J. (2006). View from the Universal Museum. In J. H. Merryman, Imperialism, Art and Restitution p. 33. In contrast, William Boyd argues that ‘the term retentionist as applied to source countries sounds like a pejorative and is inappropriate, especially because museums are also retentionist’. Boyd, W. L. (2006). Museums as Centers of Cultural Understanding. In J. H. Merryman, Imperialism, Art and Restitution (pp. 47-64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 48. He further argues that besides being retentionist, the Declaration on Universal Museums is not very explicit in its terms and not ‘universal in approach’. Boyd, W. L. (2006). Museums as Centers of Cultural Understanding. p. 56. Universal, encyclopaedic or ‘Enlightenment’ museums, as Cuno prefers to refer to them, were developing at the same time as national museums, and a privileging of these Western museums ignores national developments across the globe. Many national museums were first established in the early 19th century, and especially for postcolonial nations, the return of objects is vital to creating a cultural identity in a changing nation. Cuno argues that ‘universal museums are dedicated to the proposition that the dissemination of knowledge and learning and the improvement of taste encourages refined and discriminating judgments between what is true and what is false, and that a prerequisite for this is access to objects representative of the world’s diverse cultures’, in other words, access to cultural objects in Western museum. Cuno, J. (2006). View from the Universal Museum. In J. H. Merryman, Imperialism, Art and Restitution p. 32. But it is the star objects that are often being referred to, the objects that draw the crowds, whether for their beauty, significance, or as with the Elgin marbles their increased value through controversy. Of course, it is not as if the source community can do no wrong. As there are unfair refusals to repatriate, there are also unfair accusations from some of those who request. A prime example involves the 2004 Dja Dja Warrung bark etchings that came on loan to the Museum Victoria in Melbourne from the British Museum. Shortly after the exhibition opened in Melbourne, Gary Murray, a spokesman for the Dja Dja Warrung aboriginal group called for the permanent repatriation of the bark etchings. Through a series of emergency declarations and failed negotiations, the situation spiralled into what was later termed as ‘cultural kidnapping’, in order to keep the barks in Australia. Willis, E. (2008, April 14). The Law, Politics, and “Historical Wounds”: The Dja Dja Warrung Bark Etchings Case in Australia. International Journal of Cultural Property , 49-63. Elizabeth Willis, then curator of the exhibition at Museum Victoria says ‘the debates at the time of the emergency declarations largely ignored [the] historical background’ and were more about colonization than the objects themselves. Willis, E. (2008, April 14). The Law, Politics, and “Historical Wounds”, p. 49., Willis, E. (2008, April 14). The Law, Politics, and “Historical Wounds”, p. 57. The outcome of the case serves to undermine assumptions that are made about indigenous groups and source communities. Murray had begun ‘referring to the objects as having been ‘stolen’’, accusing UK institutions, and using other inflammatory language. Willis, E. (2008, April 14). The Law, Politics, and “Historical Wounds”, p. 54. In reality, the objects were most likely bartered or paid for, not stolen. The collector is known to have lived in the area for more than twenty years, and developed friendships with the indigenous people, who were also aware of his collecting. However, the underlying assumption from the outside perspective was that no exchange of goods during a colonial period could have been legitimate, so they may as well have been stolen. And yet this assumption marks the indigenous people distinctly as helpless under colonial oppression, and victimises them. Another idea challenged was that all indigenous people agreed on the subject, when in fact other indigenous groups were not behind the effort and distanced themselves from the Dja Dja Warrung efforts. Willis, E. (2008, April 14). The Law, Politics, and “Historical Wounds”, p. 56. Even during discussions between the Dja Dja Warrung and a British Museum representative, the suggestion was made that the bark etchings might return to the UK so long as the British Museum admitted they didn’t actually belong to them. Willis, E. (2008, April 14). The Law, Politics, and “Historical Wounds”, p. 55. The importance of ownership is overemphasized in this situation, which is clearly about a power struggle, within a narrative of colonial oppression and coercion. As it unfolded, the bark etchings were eventually returned to the British Museum, but not before damaging some museum and community relationships, and likelihood of future loans from Europe to Australia. The ‘legal loophole that allowed the emergency declarations’ was later closed, and procedures for future loans were made more secure. On the positive side, the British Museum gained a greater appreciation for those objects, and a greater understanding of the makers and their relationship to the collector, and an aboriginal artistic tradition was reinvigorated in Australia. Willis, E. (2008, April 14). The Law, Politics, and “Historical Wounds”, p. 61. However, overall the incident was an unfortunate example of repatriation gone wrong. The Implications of Repatriation When accomplished peacefully, repatriation can be a rewarding experience for both sides. Repatriation is capable of building up or restoring the cultural heritage of developing nations, righting historical wrongs, fostering cross-cultural respect and understanding, and creating a spirit of international cooperation. It does not simply occur as a one-way transaction between museums and indigenous source communities. Repatriation refers to the act of sending an object back to its country of origin, but it also includes import/export and border controls working effectively, and alternatives like long-term loans, exchanges, and use of replicas. Varutti, M. (2012, January 17). unpublished lecture. Cultural property, illicit trade, repatriation . UK: University of Leicester. It is generally agreed that knowledge repatriation creates opportunities for education, but imagining knowledge repatriation of human remains creates more questions than answers. Shared guardianship can also serve as an alternative by redefining the museum/source community relationship. Regardless, museums may consider all possibilities of ‘arrangements with foreign museums and governments that involve reciprocal measures...’ Bator, P. M. (1981). The International Trade in Art. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Repatriation viewed in this light is much broader, allowing for many more positive examples. Arguably, the most outstanding examples of repatriation in recent years are those that involved the return of an undeniably significant piece of cultural property, repatriated voluntarily and without recourse to legal action and mediation, but as thoughtful negotiation between the parties themselves. For instance, the 2006 return of the G’psgolox Pole from the National Museum of Ethnography in Sweden to the Haisla people in British Columbia was accomplished through discussion and negotiations. Over the years of negotiation and building a working relationship between the museum and the Haisla community, it was difficult for the Haisla to convince the museum of the need for repatriation. The turning point in the negotiations involved the Haisla offering to create a new totem pole as a replacement, in exchange for the G’psgolox pole. The pole was seen by the community as ‘a vital link to their ancestral heritage’ although strangely enough it had become state property according to Swedish law. Cardinal, G. (Director). (2003). Totem: The Return of the G'psgolox Pole [Motion Picture]. When examining Sweden’s reservation to the 1970 UNESCO Convention, it becomes clear that what they chose to define as Swedish cultural property had more to do with monetary value than where or by whom something was made. It does not matter whether an item was created by a Swede or ‘non-Swede’, in Sweden or elsewhere, only that it fits into one of the categories of cultural property, and is above a set threshold of monetary value. UNESCO. (n.d.). Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from Legal Instruments: Conventions: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. ‘The term Swedish item of historic interest refers to items which were actually or presumably made in Sweden or in some other country by a Swede. The term foreign item of historic interest refers to items made in another country by a non-Swede. This list is in conformity with rules in force in Sweden at present.’ The monetary value of the G’psgolox Pole to the museum was never mentioned and, admittedly, negotiations took nearly fifteen years. But in this case a satisfactory resolution was reached (as far as we can tell), creating a new precedent. To drive home the assertion that legal action should come as a last resort in matters of repatriation of cultural property, consider the case of ‘Kennewick Man’. Some skeletal remains had washed up on the banks of the Columbia River in Washington State, in July 1996. After preliminary testing it was discovered that the skeleton was approximately 9,000 years old. The skeleton was nicknamed ‘Kennewick Man’, after the nearby town. Shortly after, ‘the Army Corps of Engineers announced its intent to repatriate the remains to an alliance of five Northwest tribes’, who claimed the remains might be an ancestor and they wanted them back immediately for re-burial, without further testing. What ensued was an eight year legal battle via the suit Bonnichsen et al. v. United States of America, between the tribes demanding restitution, and archaeologists and anthropologists demanding to use the skeletal remains for scientific study. Thomas, D. H. (2006). Finders Keepers and Deep American History: Some Lessons in Dispute Resolution. In J. H. Merryman, Imperialism, Art and Restitution (pp. 218-253). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In 2004 the suit was settled in favour of the archaeologists, and the Indian tribes dropped their claims on the skeleton. It was decided that a satisfactory ancestral link could not be proven between the skeleton and the tribes in order to invoke protection under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and research was allowed to recommence on the remains. Sanders, E. (2004, July 20). An 8-Year Fight Ends Over a 9,200-Year-Old Man. New York Times. But the dispute was a loss on both sides in some regards. The discovery site was supposedly destroyed by the Army Corps, making it impossible for scientists to do testing on the site. And on the part of the tribes, oral tradition was not seen as an acceptable form of evidence in court. Thomas, D. H. (2006). Finders Keepers and Deep American History, (pp. 218-253). More importantly the public impression was created that the interests of American Indians and the scientific community were completely incompatible. What was misunderstood was that both parties had legitimate concerns which were not treated as such. World Archaeological Congress. (2012, February 21). The World Archaeological Congress. Retrieved February 21, 2012, from Vermillion Accord on Human Remains: http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/site/about_ethi.php. ‘Article 6. The express recognition that the concerns of various ethnic groups, as well as those of science are legitimate and to be respected, will permit acceptable agreements to be reached and honoured.’ In his discussion on Native American repatriation cases in the US, David Hurst Thomas made this shrewd statement: Perhaps the lasting legacy of the Kennewick Man dispute is that of negative role model. Litigation and legislation appear to be increasingly unattractive ways to settle conflicts over cultural patrimony and intellectual property rights. Over the past decade, we can document literally dozens (and dozens) of cases in which American Indian and scientific interests have elected to work together to resolve their differences amicably... The Kennewick case will be viewed as a worst-case-scenario...’ Thomas, D. H. (2006). Finders Keepers and Deep American History, p. 250-251. Conclusion Repatriation will continue to be a controversial and problematic subject, but huge strides have been made in relevant legislation, and in influencing public perception and attitudes towards it. The 1970 UNESCO Convention was a turning point in the repatriation debate, and began a fruitful international debate on cultural property, nations’ rights, and international law. The Convention was a catalyst for national legislation, bilateral agreements, and import/export controls all in the name of preventing illicit trade in cultural property. However, the years since 1970 have shown that current conventions and legislative acts are only works in progress. As with the Dja Dja Warrung repatriation demands, the negotiation of return of the G’psgolox Pole, and the lawsuit over ‘Kennewick Man’, even in our best attempts, with the most current legislation and the best of intentions, we are still ill-equipped to tackle the complicated and unprecedented situations that arise. After all, who could have planned for the discovery of a 9,000 year old skeleton, or have anticipated the trouble it would cause? As ethnologist Michael Brown put it, resolving conflicts like these should be a process of ‘thoughtful people coming together to negotiate workable solutions, however provisional and inelegant’. Thomas, D. H. (2006). Finders Keepers and Deep American History, p. 251. Many times flawed assumptions and defensive attitudes get in the way and hinder effective communication. At the same time, museums must be aware that, try as they might, they will not always ‘get it right’. Our solutions may not be ideal, but as Brown said, they are ‘workable’. Museums ought to view repatriation requests as opportunities for creating new knowledge and relationships with the peoples whose objects they hold. As in the case of the Dja Dja Warrung bark etchings, even the negative experience has some positive results; the British Museum learned more about the etchings, the visitors to the exhibition learned about the relationship between the collector and maker, and Australian artists embraced a forgotten artistic tradition. Willis, E. (2008, April 14). The Law, Politics, and “Historical Wounds”, p. 61. It seems appropriate to think of the current situation in terms of a learning process, so that the emphasis is on continually reviewing and improving. Repatriation is not ‘a move towards the privatization of culture’, as some have put it, but an acknowledgement of different world views and respect for the interests of all cultures involved. Cultural property may indeed have universal value, but this does not negate the concerns of either party involved. Rather, ‘the concerns of various ethnic groups, as well as those of science are legitimate and to be respected, [and] will permit acceptable agreements to be reached and honoured.’ World Archaeological Congress. (2012, February 21). The World Archaeological Congress. Retrieved February 21, 2012, from Vermillion Accord on Human Remains: http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/site/about_ethi.php Repatriation as we understand it is not the only option available to museums, nations and source communities, but many alternatives can be implemented as well. However, whether or not repatriation occurs, the act of requesting and negotiating still serves a learning function, giving all parties involved new insights and knowledge. As a process it needs refinement, which will come with time, patience and experience. Sometimes repatriation will occur, and sometimes not, but legal action should be a last resort. Museums and source communities must enter into dialogue and come up with creative solutions. Works Cited Bator, P. M. (1981). The International Trade in Art. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Boyd, W. L. (2006). Museums as Centers of Cultural Understanding. In J. H. Merryman, Imperialism, Art and Restitution (pp. 47-64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cardinal, G. (Director). (2003). Totem: The Return of the G'psgolox Pole [Motion Picture]. Cuno, J. (2006). View from the Universal Museum. In J. H. Merryman, Imperialism, Art and Restitution (pp. 15-36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Egan, T. (1996, September 30). Tribe Stops Study of Bones That Challenge History. New York Times . Frankenberg, S. (2008, November 17). unpublished lecture. The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property . USA: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Greenfield, J. (2007). The Return of Cultural Treasures (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. International Council of Museums. (2004). Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums. ICOM news , p. 4. Kennedy, R. (2009, January 16). Limits on U.S. Imports of Chinese Antiquities Wins Praise. New York Times , p. C1. Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Dictionary. Retrieved February 20, 2012, from Merriam-Webster Online: http://www.merriam-webster.com/ O'Keefe, P. J. (2011). Cultural Heritage Conventions and Other Instruments: A Compendium with Commentaries. Builth Wells, UK: Institute of Art and Law. Sanders, E. (2004, July 20). An 8-Year Fight Ends Over a 9,200-Year-Old Man. New York Times . Thomas, D. H. (2006). Finders Keepers and Deep American History: Some Lessons in Dispute Resolution. In J. H. Merryman, Imperialism, Art and Restitution (pp. 218-253). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. UNESCO. (n.d.). Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from Legal Instruments: Conventions: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html Urice, S. K. (2006). The Beautiful One Has Come - To Stay. In J. H. Merryman, Imperialism, Art and Restitution (pp. 135-166). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Varutti, M. (2012, January 17). unpublished lecture. Cultural property, illicit trade, repatriation . UK: University of Leicester. Willis, E. (2008, April 14). The Law, Politics, and “Historical Wounds”: The Dja Dja Warrung Bark Etchings Case in Australia. International Journal of Cultural Property , 49-63. World Archaeological Congress. (2012, February 21). The World Archaeological Congress. Retrieved February 21, 2012, from Vermillion Accord on Human Remains: http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/site/about_ethi.php 17