heritagetalks.org

During the past weeks the fall of the Egyptian regime was dominating the international headlines. For those concerned with the extremely rich Egyptian heritage, the news about the looting of Egyptian museums and historic sites was quite shocking. Especially the image of two heavily damaged mummies caused commotion worldwide. The attacks were reason enough for UNESCO to call all Egyptian parties for a national protection of the treasures. On Tuesday February 1^st the UNESCO-director Irina Bokova stated that ‘all cultural treasures are of great value, as well as for Egypt as the entire world’ and that they should be well protected (i). The cultural heritage of Luxor, Memphis and Alexandria was taken into protection and the nation’s pyramids were closed to the public. Interesting in this case are the motives for the demolition and looting of the treasures, a notorious phenomenon that is a constant threat not only to the Egyptian heritage, but heritage worldwide.

In the discussion about the ‘attack’ on the Egyptian legacy, several motives were mentioned. According to Zahi Hawass, the director of Antiquities of the Egyptian museum in Caïro, the ‘vandals’ were just on the search for gold, smashing ancient wooden objects to pieces when they discovered it was just gold-painted wood. Also mentioned as a motive was the agitators anger about their national legacy being considered a worldwide heritage, especially by western organizations. In this view, the demolition would be considered a cry of anger against the western influence. But to destroy one’s own heritage seems quite a forceful action… At the contrary, there were many reports about Egyptian people that formed a defense against the looters, in order to protect their legacy.

Looting is an enormous and continuous threat to the preservation of the cultural-historic heritage. From the past there can be given numerous examples of objects taken by explorers ‘under the name of research’. A famous historic example are the expeditions of Napoleon into Egypt at the end of the 18^th century, taking home to France many important treasures (ii). Until today there are discussions about the fact if Egyptian objects in the Louvre did end up there in a proper and legal way. Sometimes this results in the return of objects to Egypt. Even in October 2009, five fragments of fresco’s were returned.

Nowadays looters are not in search for historic resources, but loot to gain high profits by selling the items on the black market. Archaeological sites are often very hard to protect because of their size, their number and a lack of finances. Ornamental pieces are just smashed from the ancient objects by so-called ‘treasure hunters’, leaving desperate conservationists behind. In case of a conflict, like the current situation in Egypt, looters profit from the tumult and chaos and the problem emerges rapidly. When Iraq and Afghanistan were in the middle of a conflict, the trade in treasuries increased significantly (v). That looting is not only a problem for the middle-eastern countries, can be concluded from a report of Scottish journalists this week, about the heritage looting of ‘Scotland’s buried heritage’ (iv).

In conclusion, heritage looting is hard to prevent and will always be a threat to the conservation of our heritage. International treaties like the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property or the UNIDROIT 1995 Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects give a legal framework to protect the looting activities. However often this is proven insufficient. Therefore we need to applaud the actions of the Egyptian people who protected their inheritance themselves!

Read more: The article of Christian Manhart on UNESCO’s fight against illicit traffic of cultural property.

—————————————————————————————-

i. ‘Unesco: bescherm Egyptisch cultureel erfgoed’ on website Historiek, 01/02/2011, <http://historiek.net/actueel/unesco-bescherm-egyptisch-cultureel-erfgoed-4150> (viewed 18/02/2011).

ii. Bob Brier, ‘Napoleon in Egypt’, abstract from an article published in Archaeology, Volume 52 Number 3, May/June 1999, on website  Archaeology <http://www.archaeology.org/9905/abstracts/egypt.html> (viewed 18/02/2011).

iii. ‘Kunstschatten uit Louvre terug naar Egypte’ on website RNW, 09/10/2011, <http://www.rnw.nl/nederlands/article/kunstschatten-uit-louvre-terug-naar-egypte> (viewed 18/02/2011).

iv. Chris Watt, ‘Scotland’s buried heritage looted by treasure hunters’ on website Herald Scotland, 17/02/2011, <http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/scotland-s-buried-heritage-looted-by-treasure-hunters-1.1085646?localLinksEnabled=false> (viewed 18/02/2011).

v. ‘Archaeological looting in Iraq’ on website Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_looting_in_Iraq> (viewed 18/02/2011).

“A symbolic milestone in the history of cultural heritage policy! Flowers, champagne, fireworks, joy, and dancing, finally…” reacted Marc Jacobs enthusiastically on the FARO website.[i] – Who says people dealing with heritage are dull? –

The reason for this excitement is the ratification by Georgia of the famous Faro Convention (2005). Following the ratifications of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Italy, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Portugal, Serbia and Slovenia, this was the 10^th and last ratification needed to let the convention enter into force.

But what exactly was agreed upon in 2005? Let’s talk about the essentials of the Faro Convention, becoming operative at July 1^st 2011.

What is the Faro Convention?
The Faro Convention is the ‘Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society’, published by the Council of Europe. It is famous because it is different. It is not an old fashioned treaty full of prescriptions, proscriptions and prohibitions, but an invitation to think differently – more openly, more widely, more flexibly and more collaboratively – about heritage . The convention shifts the focus from objects to people, to their right to participate in cultural life. The framework convention stresses the ethics of use, opposed to the methods of protection already covered by other laws at various levels.[ii]

The Faro Convention was set up in the idea of consolidating a European Identity. Reflecting on society today, it notices that people from all over the world may have different ideas on their cultural identity, but they all face the same question: how can different cultural identities co-exist on the basis of mutual respect and an active desire to live as one community.[iii] The Faro Convention tries to give answers to this question. In the following its essentials will be summarized.

1. Cultural Heritage as ‘Human Right’
Heritage in itself is not simply a public good and it has often been a basis for conflict. Indeed, there is much evidence, in the past and also today, of heritage as a divisive force if it becomes a tool for resistance and the expression of difference (cfr. the destruction of the Tibet Temples, the Bamiyan Buddha’s, the Mostar Bridge, etc.).[iv]

Therefore the Faro Convention stresses everyone’s rights to cultural heritage and promotes intercultural dialogue; dialogue among civilizations which foster cultural co-operation in Europe and beyond. It is not surprising that the physical and social consequences of the fragmentation of post-Yugoslavian South East Europe was one of Faro’s seeds, and that half of the countries that already ratified Faro are within that region. Of course Faro has wider relevance beyond South East Europe. In any country the ongoing globalization brings different cultures with distinctive lingual, religious, social, and ethnic habits in direct contact with each other.

2. Heritage Communities
In order to preserve heritage in this way, new complex constructions need to be made; local constructions with unique mixes between lingual, religious, social and ethnic, but also political, economical contexts. After all, only these case specific constructions provide a framework to respect and even value each other’s heritage.

Therefore the Convention tries to break with the dominating idea that heritage consciousness is only something to elites and experts. After all, looked after by professionals and academics, what is the role of the public, except as passive spectators and witnesses to the decisions of others?[v]

For this reason the convention introduced the notion of ‘heritage communities’. This concept signifies that heritage awareness in the future should stem not only from professional expertise but also from the aspirations of population groups which may not be linked by language, an ethnic tie or even a shared past, but are linked by a purposive commitment to specific heritages.[vi]

3. Information Frameworks
Of course the heritage professionals and experts should not be banned out of the heritage process. But their role will be shifted towards the development of knowledge of cultural heritage as a resource to facilitate peaceful co-existence by promoting trust and mutual understanding with a view to resolution and prevention of conflicts.

The convention argues that this task has to be fulfilled in a co-operative context. This co-operation includes maintaining, developing and contributing data to a shared information system, accessible to the public, which facilitates assessment of how each state party fulfils its commitments under the faro convention. The HEREIN project is to mention in this. This multilingual thesaurus intends to offer a terminological standard for national policies dealing with architectural and archaeological heritage.

This is however just a fragment of what the convention can mean in the future. The book ‘Heritage and Beyond’ believes the Faro Convention to be an asset for heritage conservation to become a driving force for development, an economic power, and a framework for promoting public involvement and understanding.

Will the ratification by Georgia change something to the effects of this convention?
On the one hand, the convention writes that once the convention enters into force the Steering Committee for Cultural Heritage and Landscape will be responsible for overseeing the implementation of the convention. In that sense, the convention will have a physical representation.

On the other hand, all political conventions are agreements of shared intent between the governments that sign and ratify them, but it is the action that follows that gives life and shape and meaning to the words.[vii] These actions for sure don’t have to wait until July 1^st. Various actions in the past are created using the faro convention as a framework. The entering into force is therefore not a major landslide in the field of heritage conservation, but it is for sure a symbolic milestone.

Want to read more?
‘Heritage and Beyond’: The book helps to define and clarify the intentions of the conference, and to suggest actions and activity that the Faro Convention might stimulate. Download it here.

On Wednesday February 16^th, there will be a ‘heritage arena’ in Amsterdam, concerning the Framework convention of Faro. Participation is free, sign up here.

Find the full text of the Framework convention here.

---

[i] Faronet,  s.d., “De kaderconventie van Faro (2005) wordt op 1 juni 2011 van kracht”, On-line, url: < http://www.faronet.be/nieuws/de-kaderconventie-van-faro-2005-wordt-op-1-juni-2011-van-kracht> [consulted: 2011, February 3rd]

[ii] Fairclough, G., 2010. “Florence’s Sister: The Faro Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society”, LCN News Issue, 35(2), 17-19.

Available for download at: http://www.landscapecharacter.org.uk/files/u1/pdfs/LCN-News-35-print.pdf

[iii] Council of Europe,  s.d., “Value of Cultural Heritage for Society”, On-line, url: <http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/identities/default_en.asp> [consulted: 2011, February 3rd]

[iv] Palmer, R., 2009. ‘Preface’, Heritage and Beyond, 7-8.

[v] Thérond, D., 2009. “Benefits and innovations of the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society”, Heritage and beyond, 9-13.

[vi] Ibidem.

[vii] Palmer, R., 2009. ‘Preface’, Heritage and Beyond, 7-8.