Dodgy fossils: international legislation and the meaning of 'cultural property'

Abstract

In our small world of palaeontology, it has ended friendships and ruined careers. Important fossils are lost to science, or are in limbo. In the wider world, people get shot or imprisoned. Through it, fortunes are made by rich people in the West, while peasant farmers in the South lose the fortunes they never had. 'It' is UNESCO 1970: The Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. This paper looks back at the ancestry of UNESCO 1970, to suggest that its ethically inspired progenitors probably would not have wanted it to turn out the way it did. The wrong turn seems to have been in the ambiguity (perhaps intentional, certainly not articulated) of the meaning of 'cultural property' in the 1970 Convention. Merryman (1986) reviewed 'cultural property'; he explained that it has two almostopposite meanings, whose complex bases, in semantics, nationalism and money, are explored in this paper. I ruminate on how differently the word 'culture' might be understood in the minds of legislators (and politicians) in the Signatory Countries to the 1970 Convention, and speculate about how their interpretations might, from one point of view, be inadvertently ('culturally', 'lost in translation') mistaken and how, from another point of view, they might coincide neatly with national interests. Maybe UNESCO 1970 itself did turn out the way its authors intended. The purpose of the Convention's Articles was to police international trade in national and personal property, arguably in support of the principles of capitalism, as variously applied in the signatory counties - and now, nearly 50 years on, globally. Finally, I question whether fossils should be in the Convention at all; I ask: except possibly for fossil hominins, whose 'cultural' property are they?