Pop Quiz #5: Second Argumentative Research Essay

Laying down the foundation: 9 pro scholarly sources and 3 con scholarly sources

Priscilla Laguna
ENG 2105
Dr. Gill
Pro #1 Journal
28 November 2021
“The best writing is rewriting”: 1 Draft, 0 Tutorials, 0 Teacher Conference

          Cuno, James, and Philippe De Montebello. “And What Do You Propose Should Be Done      
                       with Those Objects?” Whose Culture?, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 
                       New Jersey, 2012, pp. 55–70.
Key quote: “The principle of presenting the art of all nations in all nations does not mean that existing encyclopedic collections should be dismembered and dispersed” (James and De Montebello 56).

(Provocative Title) The Role of Museums in Displaying Cultural Heritage

          (Unity/Topic Sentence) As the director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, his years of experience have shown him that museums have the right to keep artifacts that they have acquired despite other countries' claim over them. (Adequate Development/Body) He begins by quoting a prominent expert of the world of antiques, George F. Comfort of Syracuse University’s College of Fine Arts who said in a speech that he gave in 1870, “True art is cosmopolitan. It knows no country. It knows no age. Homer sang not for the Greeks alone but for all nations, and for all time. Beethoven is the musician not of the Germans alone but of all cultivated nations. And Raphael painted not for the Italians alone, but for all of whatever land or age, whose hearts are open to sympathy with the beautiful in art” (55). In other words, the goal of the museum is to be able to display various works of art, not just from the culture of the country in which it is located, but also from various other cultures. How else can this be accomplished than by buying from private collectors or borrowing from other museums of different countries? The argument that opponents usually put is that an artifact should not be displaced from its original archaeological site, or its place of origin. This reasoning has a flaw. Trade has been a method of exchange for hundreds of years. Even if an artifact was originally found in, for example Greece, how do you know if for certain it was made there? It could have easily been a trade from the East. De Montebello gives a real example of this of Ghandaran ivory excavated from a villa in Pompeii. Most likely, it was bought from Afghanistan or Pakistan, but it was found in Italy; therefore, who in fact should have claim over the artifact? Even if a country has legitimate right over an artifact, it may not be in the best interest for the majority to return the artifact to its origin. One time the Metropolitan Museum returned in 1993 the Lydian Treasure to Turkey, its place of origin, because it was illegally taken out of the country in 1960. The museum in Turkey that had them on display only had a total of 769 visitors in 5 years! That is a waste of precious history that could have been seen by thousands more if it had stayed in the Met. (Coherence/Conclusion) Overall, de Montebello argues that it is in the best interest for all that museums should be allowed to display artifacts, even if they were smuggled out of their country of origin originally. At least this is better than having them hidden in the black market forever without giving them a chance to shine in the eyes of visitors.  

 
Pro #2 Journal
          Kowalski, Wojciech. “Types of Claims for Recovery of Lost Cultural Property.” 
                    Museum International, vol. 57, no. 4, 2005, pp. 85–102., 
                    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0033.2005.00543.x.
Key quote: “Purely technical goals of finding, securing, and returning the objects in question are further obstructed by the need to identify their origin or at least the location from which they were carried away. The challenge is indeed enormous as goods were often displaced without any documentation” (Kowalski 93).
                                               (Provocative Title) Three Categories of Recovery of Cultural Property
          (Unity/Topic Sentence) In legal terms, Kowalski defines three categories of cultural property recovery: restitution, repatriation, and return. (Adequate Development/Body) The origin of these terms dates back to World War I and II. For hundreds of years, empires grew their national treasures by booty acquired during times of war. Before the World Wars, it was considered fair that the victor take away from the losing side anything that they thought to hold value. By the turn of the 20th century, this viewpoint changed completely upon the argument of Enlightenment thinkers John Lock and Jacques Rousseau who considered a state’s property as something that cannot and should not be taken away from them, even during times of war. As a result, many treaties were created, such as the Treaty of Versailles, during the World Wars. It first began with condemning the removal of sacred religious objects and later revolutionized to include objects of cultural value. Still, many countries broke these laws, and, in the aftermath, had to return these objects from where they stole them from. This developed into what is known today as restitution. The biggest difference between restitution and the other two terms repatriation and return is that restitution only applies to instances where the objects were taken during times of war. Repatriation refers to simply placing the cultural artifact in its proper context. In other words, giving it to the ethnic group or nation from where it originally was made or owned despite whether it was taken by force or not. This can be difficult to achieve, especially when there is no official documented proof of its place of origin. Finally, return is giving back cultural property to its place of origin based on evidence that the present owner acquired it by illegal means. This seems to be the case that fits most with the dispute between the Getty Museum and Italy in 2006-2007. (Coherence/Conclusion) By tapping into the long history of cultural property acquisition, Kowalski delineates three categories to describe the increasing demand of giving artifacts back to the original owner or state.
 
Pro #3 Journal
          Chippindale, Christopher, and David W. Gill. “Material Consequences of Contemporary 
                    Classical Collecting.” American Journal of Archaeology, vol. 104, no. 3, July 2000, 
                    pp. 463–511., https://doi.org/10.2307/507226.
Key quote: “Since every cultural region has experienced transformation, immigration, emigration, influence, and exchange since antiquity, the inhabitants of the present nation-state are not to be equated with the rightful heirs” (Chippindale and Gill 505).
                                      (Provocative Title) The Difficulties in Providing an Object’s Life History
            (Unity/Topic Sentence) Chippindale and Gill define the complexity behind determining an artifact’s place or origin and life history. (Adequate Development/Body) Life history does not only refer to the place where it was originally made, or its birthplace. It also involves the course of it traveling from person to person and state to state by trading or selling it up until it gets buried in the ground and taken out of circulation. The life history then picks up again when it is unearthed, and the journey continues as it goes from archeologist, or whoever found it first, to dealer and buyer, whether a private collector or museum. The problem is, for most artifacts, their place of origin or life history is unknown or vague. Most of the time, experts make an educated guess by comparing similar characteristics with other known objects. Therefore, when a country claims that an artifact that is presently in the possession of an individual or group should be returned to its place of origin, it is hard to really prove that the object really does belong in that nation. For example, an artifact may be identified as to have belonged in the Hellenistic Era. This does not automatically mean that it belongs in Italy where the capital of the Roman Empire presided. The Roman Empire, as with many world empires throughout history, covered many smaller nation-states over a huge area of territory. Objects are always moving around, so it is hard to pinpoint an exact location of origin. Additionally, national borders, especially in Europe, have changed numerous times and people have migrated both in and out of each country. Is it right to say that the people in that country today are the rightful heirs of an artifact that was originally from that country? A second argument is the fact that many nations say that the artifacts were taken out of the country illegally. During the time of the 1970s and even before, “free movement of antiquities across many national frontiers was both legal by national jurisdictions and uncontested good practice in the museum world” (485). This is the case for many artifacts that today governments such as Italy claim to have a right of possession of from museums and private collectors. (Coherence/Conclusion) In contrast with the article in the con journal also written by Gill and Chippindale, this article takes a more general approach of the complex polarization on the issue of determining where an artifact belongs.
 
Pro #4 Journal
          Cornu, Marie, and Marc-André Renold. “New Developments in the Restitution of Cultural Property: Alternative
                    Means of Dispute Resolution.” International Journal of  Cultural Property, vol. 17, no. 1, 2010, pp. 1–31., 
                    https://doi.org/10.1017/s0940739110000044.
Key quote: “Other interests, too, have a claim to legitimacy by virtue of the universal notion of heritage and the dissemination of cultural plurality, or the need to protect the heritage of mankind. Many museum collections have been established on the basis of this notion” (Cornu and Renold 14).
                                       (Provocative Title) The Basis of Negotiation and the Right to Cultural Property
            (Unity/Topic Sentence) Just like in a previous article mentioned, Cornu and Renold use their expertise in law to analyze the methods and circumstances of restitution, repatriation, and return. (Adequate Development/Body) The focus of the article was on restitution involving the cases between Italy and the Metropolitan and Getty Museums. These cases were based on negotiations where both parties came to an agreement rather than suffer the legal consequences and compensations. On some occasions, the artifacts were returned voluntarily, because there was not enough evidence presented to prove that the objects should be returned. Nevertheless, the museum decided to give the artifacts back to maintain a good reputation and to maintain a relationship in good terms with the nation that requested the objects. In other words, the museum did not have to, legally, give them back, but it decided to do so out of consideration. As a result, a contract was made between both parties. The nation got its cultural heritage back, but the museum also benefits because the nation agreed to loan out other cultural property to the museum for exhibition. (Coherence/Conclusion) Whether there exists proof of evidence that museums acquire artifacts illegally in the past, their sole purpose is for the greater good of showcasing history and cosmopolitan artifacts to the world.

 
Pro #5 Journal
          Li, Luis, and Amelia L.B. Sargent. “The Getty Bronze and the Limits of Restitution.”                   
                  Chapman Law Review, vol. 20, no. 1, 2017, pp. 25–50., 
                  https://doi.org/http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/chapman-law-review/vol20/iss1/2.
Key quote: “A front page article in the New York Times reported, ‘the fishermen were completely absolved of the crime. The court decided that the bronze had been found in extraterritorial waters… The sculpture was legally exported from Italy in 1970 with a clear title’” (Li and Sargent 31).
                                        (Provocative Title) The Complexities of an Artifact’s Country of Origin
            (Unity/Topic Sentence) As advocates and legal advisors for the Getty Museum, Li and Sargent believe that the Getty has the right to keep the bronze statue instead of giving it to Italy. (Adequate Development/Body) The background information on the statue is that it was caught buried under the sea by fishermen off the coast of Italy in international waters in 1964. The fishermen realized that it was an object of value and hid it until they were able to sell it off. In 1965, the people who bought the statue were put under trial for being in possession of stolen property. After going through a lower court, an appeal court, and finally the supreme court, the final verdict found them innocent. The reason given was that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that the statue was of any historical or article value and lack of proof that it was found in Italian waters. Since the Italian courts did not claim the statue as a national or cultural treasure, the buyers were free to do what they wanted with it. The statue made its journey to Brazil and then back to Europe in Germany for restoration. It was in this state when Mr. Paul Getty had his eyes on the statue, but it was not until after his death that the statue was acquired. Upon the purchase, Italian authorities filed for an investigation of illegal exportation of the statue, but the case was not pursued. It was not until about two decades later that an Italian art dealer’s house was raided by Interpol and photographs of stolen artifacts were found. Some of these objects were identified as part of the Getty’s collection, and the Italian government demanded the return of these objects, which included the bronze statue. Ironically, the statue was not in the pictures. Why was the Italian government asking for it now when it was conscious of it being in possession of the museum for several years? Italy argued that since the fishermen’s boat had the Italian flag, once the statue was brought aboard, it was on Italian territory. This argument does not make sense. The authors give an analogy saying that if Italy had taken a pre-Columbian artifact from the sea floor, what that automatically make it part of Italy’s patrimony, or ancestral heritage? No. Even if the statue was found in Italian waters, what was a Greek statue doing there in the first place? Most likely Roman looters were robbing it from Greece and bringing it to Rome by boat, but a shipwreck prevented it from getting to its intended destination. So, who committed the wrong first? (Coherence/Conclusion) Clearly, Italy’s laws of patrimony have their limitations; therefore, the Getty Museum should have the right to keep the bronze statue.

 
Pro #6 Journal
          Basili, Noemi. “The Role of International Law in the Dispute Between Italy and the Getty 
                    Museum Concerning the Case of the Victorious Athlete.” Luiss Guido Carli Library, 
                    Luiss Guido Carli, 2019, http://tesi.luiss.it/25343/. Accessed 29 Nov. 2021.
Key quote: “The statue was found in the high sea and, as established by the Law of the Sea, the high sea is not ownership of any state, on the contrary it can be exploited by the whole international community” (Basili 15).
                                                       (Provocative Title) The Getty Bronze Tug of War
            (Unity/Topic Sentence) Basili writes her dissertation with the goal of analyzing both Italian and American laws concerning cultural property. (Adequate Development/Body) The basis of the disagreement lies in the fact that the statue was found in international waters and whether the fisherman boat should be considered Italian territory or not. In the early 17th century, the Law of the Sea was established to define boundaries over a state’s control within a certain number of miles from shore. The place where the statue was found was beyond the limits of the Italian Sea coverage. Proponents of Italy as the rightful owner of the statue refer to Italian law that states that the fishermen had 3 days in which to report that they had found this statue. Since the statue was not reported to the Italian government, either the fishermen did not know of this law or thought that they would get more money by selling it off than the reward for reporting its finding. Even if they did violate this law knowingly, the court dismissed the charges made against the fishermen. Therefore, they had the right to do what they wanted with the statue. In addition, the United States has an agreement that it will cooperate and address the concerns of any other state if there is reasonable ground and solid evidence to do so. In this case, the United States did not see fit to do so mainly on the claim that Italy had no right over the statue because it was originally found in international waters. (Coherence/Conclusion) It is evident that the Italian government has been fighting hard to gain possession of these artifacts. It was tried once in the 1960s, again in 2006/2007, and now in 2019. Nevertheless, the Getty has maintained a strong hold on the bronze statue.

 
Pro #7 Journal
          Siems, Mathias. “The Law and Ethics of ‘Cultural Appropriation.’” 
                    International Journal of Law in Context, vol. 15, no. 4, 2019, pp. 408–423.,           
                    https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744552319000405.
Key quote: “Unethical conduct needs to (1) deny the origins of a cultural phenomenon, (2) treat it disrespectfully, or (3) diminish its use in the source culture, all of which then also needs to be balanced with other interests” (Siems 422).
                                               (Provocative Title) Is It Wrong to Borrow from Other Cultures?
            (Unity/Topic Sentence) Cultural appropriation is a topic that has been increasing in polarity. (Adequate Development/Body) A basic definition of this concept is to adopt or integrate a part of someone else’s culture into your own. There are arguments from parties that see this as offensive and arguments for those that encourage cultural appropriation. The difficulty lies in the ethics and legalities tied in with symbols, foods, words, clothing, and other objects or ideas of each culture. For example, some products or ideas are subject to copyright or trademark. In this case, the object or idea is under legal protection; therefore, it would be perceived as theft if someone else used it without permission. On the other hand, Siems delineates three reasons that cultural appropriation would be considered unethical. The first is to deny the origins of a cultural phenomenon or not giving credit where it is due. An example given is to label a sparkling wine as champagne when it was not made in the region of Champagne, France. The second unethical use of cultural appropriation involves treating the object or idea disrespectfully. The use of a word in one culture may be taken offensively while in another culture it is not offensive at all. The last criterion for unethical conduct is when a person or group diminishes the use of the object or idea in the culture from which it originates. A hypothetical example is if Japan is banned from making Japanese swords saying that European sword methods would make them even better. Eventually, the art of Japanese sword making would be lost. (Coherence/Conclusion) In conclusion, not all cultural appropriation seeks to take away or replace a culture’s place in originally coming up with the idea or object; rather, a positive aspect is that it can spread and endorse the culture to others.  

 
Pro #8 Journal
          Shehade, Maria, and Kalliopi Fouseki. “The Politics of Culture and the Culture of Politics: 
                    Examining the Role of Politics and Diplomacy in Cultural Property Disputes.” 
                    International Journal of Cultural Property, vol. 23, no. 4, 2016, pp. 357–383., 
                    https://doi.org/10.1017/s0940739116000308.
Key quote: “Grant Strother acknowledges that cultural property disputes with a power-based frame can lead parties to ‘feel as if the negotiation was a zero-sum win-lose game or a compromise in which neither party feels good about the result, but both can co-exist until the next opportunity for conflict and a win’” (Shehade and Fouseki 364).
                                       (Provocative Title) Politics as a Factor in Negotiation of Artifact Ownership
            (Unity/Topic Sentence) Shehade and Fouseki analyze four ways in which politics plays a role in negotiation between a state and museum for artifact ownership. (Adequate Development/Body) The first is the rights-based dispute where the state argues in the national perspective and the museum in the international perspective. In other words, the state emphasizes the need for the artifact to be preserved in its original archeological context. On the other hand, the museum's perspective is that the artifact should be shared and displayed to the world for the benefits of the majority. The issue with this approach is that, if the state does not present sufficient evidence of ownership, the negotiation results in a deadlock. The case can drag on for years, even decades like Italy versus the Getty Museum on a bronze statue. Second is the power-based approach where the states have the advantage in pressuring the museum to give them what they want. If the wishes are not granted, the museum will suffer retribution. In the case of the Getty, Italy threatened with an embargo on future artifact loans. This coercion led to the Getty agreeing to return many objects back to Italy from a separate dispute, but it still held on to the statue claiming it had nothing to do with those other items. The third and fourth methods, diplomatic intervention and the present political situation, are very similar in the possibility of the result leading to a stronger positive relationship between both entities or creating tensions and mistrust amongst them. (Coherence/Conclusion) Comparing these four methods to the case between Italy and the Getty Museum can help determine who was in the right and who was in the wrong.

 
Pro #9 Journal
          Lyons, Claire L. “Thinking about Antiquities: Museums and Internationalism.” 
                    International Journal of Cultural Property, vol. 21, no. 3, 2014, pp. 251–265., 
                    https://doi.org/10.1017/s0940739114000149.
Key quote: “The Getty’s capacity to provide expertise in conservation and preventive care [and] the only public museum outside Europe devoted to the arts of ancient Greece, Rome, and Etruria” (Lyons 258, 262).
                               (Provocative Title) The Getty’s Mission to Conserve and Display Greco-Roman Artifacts
            (Unity/Topic Sentence) Lyons analyzes the outcome of the Getty Museum and Italy dispute over artifacts as both have made four agreements to loan out some of Italy’s precious artifacts. (Adequate Development/Body) Laws made by UNESCO and other organizations that involve in the transactions and legalities between historical and cultural artifacts have made it harder for museums to acquire pieces of their own. There is a higher chance of the museum getting into lawsuits over states demanding that the artifacts were acquired through illegal means. Therefore, the next best option is to form an agreement with these states to let them loan out to the museums their artifacts of cultural heritage. Museums like the Getty have an advantage because not only do they display these artifacts, but they also specialize in the preservation, conservation, and investigation on the historical background of these objects. This makes the offer of loaning out artifacts more appealing to the states. (Coherence/Conclusion) Taking into consideration these goals set forth by museums like the Getty, it is only right that Italy let the Getty keep the bronze statue.
 
Con #1 Journal
          Stamatoudi, Irini. “Alternative Dispute Resolution and Insights on Cases of Greek Cultural Property: The J.P. Getty Case,
                    the Leon Levy and Shelby White Case, and the Parthenon Marbles Case.” International Journal of Cultural
                    Property, vol. 23, no. 4, 2016, pp. 433–457., https://doi.org/10.1017/s0940739116000291.
Key quote: “This case undoubtedly involved looted antiquities, which had found their way into the museum’s collection in a dubious manner and under conspicuous circumstances. The museum had paid a significant amount of money to acquire them but was not diligent enough to have their title and origin thoroughly examined before their acquisition” (Stamatoudi 444).
                                        (Provocative Title) A Peaceful Victory for Greece Against the Getty
            (Unity/Topic Sentence) Stamatoudi is an expert in Greek and Roman artifacts and an advisor in legal cases where artifacts were taken out of their respective country illegally. (Adequate Development/Body) He analyzed three cases in which Greece accused two museums and a private collector of possessing illegally acquired Greek artifacts. The method used in each case is a type of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) called negotiation. The two parties involved in the dispute come to a resolution in a set amount of time where each compromise by returning the said artifacts and even forming an alliance for future circulation and borrowing of other artifacts. In this way, not only does the country get their beloved cultural treasures back, but the party that once had them maintains a good reputation. An example of this is the case of the J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu, California in the United States. There were four artifacts of concern that Greece wanted back because of reasons that the museum acquired them through illegal means. According to the museum’s policy, “a seller’s declaration alone that the antiquity either existed for several years in a private collection or had been imported legally from a third country (and not the real country of origin) into the country where the museum was established was considered to be sufficient” (445). In other words, the Getty Museum did not care whether the artifact that they bought was smuggled illegally into the country from which they bought it from. As long as they, the museum, did not acquire it directly through underground connections, they were in the clear. Neither Greece nor the author believe that this excuse was valid. They both claim that the museum had a flaw in their policy of acquiring artifacts, because they did not investigate thoroughly whether the seller acquired the artifacts legally or not. Greece claimed that artifacts such as the ones in possession by the museum were smuggled illegally out of Greece because they were not documented or published anywhere. (Coherence/Conclusion) At the end, Greece and the Getty Museum agreed for the return of the artifacts and a co-operation between the two for sharing artifacts. In addition, the Getty changed its acquisition policies to be more thorough and prevent another episode such as this one.

 
Con #2 Journal
          Gill, David, and Christopher Chippindale. “From Malibu to Rome: Further Developments 
                    on the Return of Antiquities.” International Journal of Cultural Property, vol. 14, 
                    no. 02, 24 Sept. 2007, pp. 205–240., https://doi.org/10.1017/s0940739107070117.
Key quote: “A study of the antiquities to be returned by the Getty to Italy has raised several issues and has highlighted the corrupting influence of a flawed acquisition policy over the last 35 years” (Gill and Chippindale 225).
                                                                  (Provocative Title) A Flaw in Museum Policy
            (Unity/Topic Sentence) Gill and Chippindale analyze one by one the clues that led to the Getty Museum purchasing illegally acquired artifacts. (Adequate Development/Body) The main reason that the authors give for this repeated pattern of error is that the museum did not make background checks that were thorough enough. Rather, they trusted the dealer’s word rather than taking the time to dig deeper and investigate. When the Italian government requested some of the objects in the Getty collection, they offered proof in the form of photographs that showed these objects as part of a raid taken illegally from the archeological site. Thanks to the Getty Museum’s cooperation, it was discovered that many dealers from which the Getty bought these artifacts fabricated the objects’ place of origin. Another issue that came into question is that some of the middlemen who had these objects in their possession for a period of time were part of the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA). Why did they suddenly leave? Did they resort to unethical methods of artifact acquisition? Did the Getty Museum know about this? (Coherence/Conclusion) Although answers to these questions are more theory than fact, this blow to the museum’s reputation has forced it to reform its policies for buying artifacts.

​

Con #3 Journal
          Scott, David A. “Modern Antiquities: The Looted and the Faked.” International Journal of 
                    Cultural Property, vol. 20, no. 1, 2013, pp. 49–75., 
                    https://doi.org/10.1017/s0940739112000471.
Key quote: “The conservation norm is that monuments must be conserved, in situ, and not removed from their cultural context to be displayed in another, entirely different, or alien context” (Scott 56).
                                        (Provocative Title) Preservation of an Artifact’s Archeological Context
            (Unity/Topic Sentence) In reference to the dispute between Italy and the Getty Museum based on charges of possessing looted artifacts, Scott analyzes the arguments of James Cuno, the CEO of the Getty Trust. (Adequate Development/Body) The first claim that Cuno makes is that museums have a cultural responsibility to provide a variety of artifacts from different cultures. Whether they acquire looted objects or not all comes down to UNESCO’s inability to properly enforce regulations. In fact, these regulations are forcing transactions to happen in the black market even more instead of eliminating them. In opposition, Scott writes that Cuno does not consider that these looted objects are taken out of their historical context illegally before anyone can examine them. This results in a loss of valuable information about the object and the period from which it comes from. Additionally, following World War I, the Athens Charter declared that any cultural property should not be removed from its place of origin unless it is for the safety of the object. Countries who demand these artifacts back consider it a “healing” process in which they feel whole again to have a part of history back with them. (Coherence/Conclusion) Scott offers valuable insight for the reasoning behind the beliefs of the opposing side. 

​

Brainstorm: Prewriting Steps

​

Priscilla Laguna
ENG 2105
Dr. Gill
Second Research and Argumentative Essay
29 November 2021
“The best writing is rewriting”: 1 Draft, 0 Tutorials, 0 Teacher Conference

​

Step 1: Who is my audience?
My audience comprises of those who believe that Italy has the right to ask for the bronze statue back and those who believe the Getty Museum acquired the statue illegally.

Step 2: What is my purpose?
My purpose is to persuade my audience that Italy does not have ample evidence to suggest that the statue was found in Italian waters and that the statue is better off in the Getty Museum.

Step 3: What is my premise?
My premise is that the Getty deserves to keep the bronze statue because the evidence presented by the Italian government proves insufficient for the assertion of illegal exportation of the statue, the artifact’s country of origin involves more than its site of excavation, and the museum’s purpose involves sharing, not take credit away from, a culture’s past history.  

Step 4: What is my chosen quotation?
“While cultural patrimony laws are valuable protective tools under many circumstances, their reach is not infinite, and when used as a sword rather than a shield, the justification for nationalization breaks down” (Li and Sargent 50).

​

Rough Draft

Priscilla Laguna
ENG 2105
Dr. Gill
Second Argumentative Research Paper
28 November 2021
“The best writing is rewriting”: 1 Drafts, 0 WC Tutorials, 0 Teacher Conference

​

                              (Provocative Title) Restitution or Preservation: The Tug of War on Cultural Property

          (Hook) Amidst numerous international laws, Li and Sargent, legal advisors for the J. Paul Getty Museum, argue, “While cultural patrimony laws are valuable protective tools under many circumstances, their reach is not infinite, and when used as a sword rather than a shield, the justification for nationalization breaks down” (Li and Sargent 50). (Bridge) Li and his colleague hold the opinion that proper use of the law requires that both parties involved in a dispute recognize its limitations. (Divided thesis/stasis sentence: Opponent’s claim informed by 3 scholarly sources) Although Italy claims the right of ownership of the Getty statue on the basis of illegal acquisition and the importance of archeological conservation, (Rhetor’s main claim informed by 9 scholarly sources) the J. Paul Getty Museum has no obligation to return the statue, because (Reason/Support 1) the evidence presented by the Italian government proves insufficient for the assertion of illegal exportation of the statue, (Reason/Support 2) the artifact’s country of origin involves more than its site of excavation, (Reason/Support 3) and the museum’s purpose involves sharing, not take credit away from, a culture’s past history.  
          (Narration) The bronze statue’s journey into the modern world began in June of 1964 when a group of fishermen caught in their net a cumbersome object covered from head to toe with barnacles. Upon closer inspection, the fishermen realized that the statue of Greek origin held great monetary value. The statue stayed hidden, first under fishnets and then under a cabbage garden, until a buyer, Giacomo Barbetti, “borrowed 3,500,000 lire ($43,500 2016 U.S. dollars) from his cousin Pietro Barbetti to buy the statue” (Li and Sargent 27). From there, the statue traveled across continents to Brazil and Germany where its restoration took place. From 1977 until the present day, “the Getty Museum of Los Angeles purchased the statue from the German restorer for an amount of money equal to 3.980.000 dollars and from that year the work of art is jealously exposed in the rooms of the American museum” (Basili 10). After realizing the great historical and cultural value of this statue, the Italian government has involved the Getty Museum in a decade long debate over the statue’s proper resting place. Supporters of the Italian government believe that the displacement of the artifact from its place of origin takes away the possibility of unearthing valuable knowledge from the archeological site. They also believe that the fishermen’s act of selling the statue, without reporting its existence to the authorities, gives Italy leeway to claim it as a stolen good. On the other hand, those on the Getty Museum’s side believe that it should not have to suffer the consequences of the error in the past actions of others. Both sides of the issue reflect on the national versus the international standpoint.
          (Confirmation) Over the course of a lifetime, Mr. Getty acquired many historical artifacts from the Greco-Roman era. Instead of storing them in some remote storage shed where they would accumulate dust, Mr. Getty’s vision involved displaying the collection to the public free of charge. In fact, Claire Lyons, a curator of the Getty Museum asserts in “Thinking about Antiquities: Museums and Internationalism” that “more than 1400 artworks are on display in a neoclassical-style building designed as a reproduction of the Villa dei Papiri in Herculaneum” (Lyons 257). While acting as a research and conservation institution, the design of the museum as a copy of a Roman villa offers the visitor an immersive experience into the life of a Roman. As someone who has visited this museum in person, the artifacts on display and the surroundings of Roman architecture give way to the imagination. Clearly, the museum’s mission to proudly present the cultural property of other nations, both past and future, serves as an indication for its right of ownership over these artifacts.
          (Concession/Refutation) It is, indeed, true that museum regulations for buying artifacts were not as strict as today’s policies, which resulted in museum’s acquiring these objects through dubious means. (Scholarly Source 1) According to archeologists Gill and Chippindale in their article, “From Malibu to Rome: Further Developments on the Return of Antiquities”, their analysis reveals that “a study of the antiquities to be returned by the Getty to Italy has raised several issues and has highlighted the corrupting influence of a flawed acquisition policy over the last 35 years” (Gill and Chippindale 225). The emphasis put on the repeated wrongdoing of illegal purchases of artifacts does not solely pertain to the bronze statue. (Scholarly Source 2) Additionally, Irini Stamatoudi, director of Hellenic Copyright Organization in Athens, Greece, in “Alternative Dispute Resolution and Insights on Cases of Greek Cultural Property: The J.P. Getty Case, the Leon Levy and Shelby White Case, and the Parthenon Marbles Case” points out that “the museum had paid a significant amount of money to acquire them but was not diligent enough to have their title and origin thoroughly examined before their acquisition” (Stamatoudi 444). It sounds logical that a museum, a reputable entity, would take the time to go through the time and effort to make sure that the artifact has no strings attached, but the Getty overlooked this step in the process of buying the bronze statue. (Scholarly Source 3) In reference to the opponent’s belief of archeological conservation, Scott, a professor and member of the Getty Program in Archaeological and Ethnographic Conservation, draws on the years of experience acquired through hands-on research. The article titled, “Modern Antiquities: The Looted and the Faked” expresses Scott opinion that “the conservation norm is that monuments must be conserved, in situ, and not removed from their cultural context to be displayed in another, entirely different, or alien context” (Scott 56). In other words, the geographical location of the Getty Museum itself places the bronze statue in a different continent from which the fishermen originally found it; therefore, it does not belong in the museum. (Refutation: Rhetor’s Main Claim + Support 1) But, despite the claims made on the museum’s flawed policies, Italy does not have a stronghold on the bronze statue either. (Toulmin Warrant) Under legal circumstances, the right for someone to own a particular object or idea relies on the presence of clear and ample evidence. (Scholarly Source 1) This statement fails in accordance with the dissertation of a public policy graduate student from Luiss Guido Cardi, Noemi Basili. The research documented in “The Role of the International Law in the Dispute Between Italy and the Getty Museum Concerning the Case of the Victorious Athlete” states that “the statue was found in the high sea and, as established by the Law of the Sea, the high sea is not ownership of any state, on the contrary it can be exploited by the whole international community” (Basili 15). Coming back to the key quote presented in the introduction paragraph, laws have their limitations. A counter argument not mentioned before reasoned that, even though the statue originated from international waters, the moment it stepped onto a ship with the Italian flag, it entered Italian territory. Even if the statue was found in Italian waters, what was a Greek statue doing there in the first place? Most likely Roman looters robbed it from Greece and wanted to bring it to Rome by boat, but a shipwreck prevented it from getting to its intended destination. So, who committed the wrong first? (Scholarly Source 2) Li and Sargent, lawyers for the Getty, further add in “The Getty Bronze and the Limits of Restitution”, “a front-page article in the New York Times reported, ‘the fishermen were completely absolved of the crime. The court decided that the bronze had been found in extraterritorial waters… The sculpture was legally exported from Italy in 1970 with a clear title’” (Li and Sargent 31). The Italian authorities had already once suspected the bronze statue as a stolen good, but the release of the accused proved that the court did not consider the statue of any historical value and that the statue did not originate from Italian waters. (Scholarly Source 3) Upon the concept of cultural appropriation, a professor of commercial law by the name of Mathias Siems outlined the three requirements for unethical use of another culture’s idea or product in “The Law and Ethics of ‘Cultural Appropriation’”. They include “to (1) deny the origins of a cultural phenomenon, (2) treat it disrespectfully, or (3) diminish its use in the source culture, all of which then also needs to be balanced with other interests” (Siems 422). The Getty does not demonstrate a single one of these criteria.  (Conclusion) On the contrary, its efforts to present the bronze statue to a large and varied audience proves its respect for the Greco-Roman culture.
          (Refutation: Support 2) A second reason for believing that Italy does not have the grounds to demand the bronze statue lies in the complexity involved in determining an artifact’s country of origin. (Toulmin Warrant) Archeologists determine an artifact’s country of origin based on assumptions called educated guesses. They compare similar characteristics of a newfound artifact to other objects of “known” origin. (Scholarly Source 1) With an impressive track record in legal applications in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Kowalski shares in the article, “Types of Claims for Recovery of Lost Cultural Property”, “purely technical goals of finding, securing, and returning the objects in question are further obstructed by the need to identify their origin or at least the location from which they were carried away. The challenge is indeed enormous as goods were often displaced without any documentation” (Kowalski 93). The same goes for the bronze statue for the fishermen who sold it the first chance they got instead of notifying the authorities; therefore, if not for the trial made against the buyers, the bronze statue may have never existed on Italy’s radar. (Scholarly Source 2) Although the previous paragraph saw Chippindale and Gill support the opposing side, they also offer a line of reasoning that rules in favor of the Getty’s right to keep the statue: “since every cultural region has experienced transformation, immigration, emigration, influence, and exchange since antiquity, the inhabitants of the present nation-state are not to be equated with the rightful heirs” (Chippindale and Gill 505). A prime example involves the formation of the United States. The Native Americans originally inhabited this area, but the colonization of Spain, France, and England turned the United States into a melting pot of cultures and peoples. The same goes for Italy. People have come and gone, so can it be said that the people in Italy now deserve the restoration of an ancient piece of history? (Scholarly Source 3) Shehade and Fouseki, researchers in finding solutions to cultural affairs such as the one presented in this essay, think outside of the box and present the matter in the point of view of politics. In the article titles, “The Politics of Culture and the Culture of Politics: Examining the Role of Politics and Diplomacy in Cultural Property Disputes”, these two researcher conclude that “cultural property disputes with a power-based frame can lead parties to ‘feel as if the negotiation was a zero-sum win-lose game or a compromise in which neither party feels good about the result, but both can co-exist until the next opportunity for conflict and a win’” (Shehade and Fouseki 364). Basically, Italy forced the Getty Museum to recognize it as the original proprietor in the return of about forty other artifacts, also claimed as loot, by imposing an embargo that prevented the Getty from future loans of Italian artifacts. (Conclusion) Despite efforts made by Italy to try to convince the Getty to recognize it as the rightful owner of the statue, the museum did not give in to coercion.
          (Refutation: Support 3) Lastly, as a place of cosmopolitan value, the Getty Museum seeks to advocate the bronze statue for others to admire rather than keep it holed up somewhere. (Toulmin Warrant) Although some museums have exhibitions that reflect the surrounding geographical culture in which it inhabits, museums like the Getty surpass this expectation by showcasing artifacts of other cultures. (Scholarly Source 1) Former director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Philippe de Montebello wrote in a book authored by James Cuno, “Whose Culture?”, that “the principle of presenting the art of all nations in all nations does not mean that existing encyclopedic collections [in museums] should be dismembered and dispersed” (Cuno and De Montebello 56). In other words, it is unjust to punish the Getty for wanting to show off Italy’s culture in a way in which thousands can have easy access to. (Scholarly Source 2) Furthermore, Cornu and Renold, specialists in cultural and legal affairs, concur with De Montebello’s argument in “New Developments in the Restitution of Cultural Property: Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution” in saying that “other interests, too, have a claim to legitimacy by virtue of the universal notion of heritage and the dissemination of cultural plurality, or the need to protect the heritage of mankind. Many museum collections have been established on the basis of this notion” (Cornu and Renold 14). Both Italy and the Getty share the same objective of providing society a window into the past through these artifacts; consequently, the Getty has as much a right as Italy to want complete ownership of the bronze statue. (Scholarly Source 3) As a member of the Getty, Lyons adds to this previous thought in the article “Thinking about Antiquities: Museums and Internationalism”, highlighting “the Getty’s capacity to provide expertise in conservation and preventive care [as] the only public museum outside Europe devoted to the arts of ancient Greece, Rome, and Etruria” (Lyons 258, 262). Yes, only the best of the best can provide high quality care for valued artifacts such as the bronze statue. (Conclusion) Italy should feel at ease knowing that the statue is in good hands rather than try to rip it away from the Getty Museum.
          (Summation: Argue that your stance on the issue is best for society) After careful consideration of evidence and reasoning provided on both sides of the issue on the bronze statue, the most compelling argument lies with the Getty Museum. The three supports for this conclusion include insufficient evidence to prove illegal acquisition of the statue, the uncertainty of an artifact’s place of origin does not guarantee Italy as the rightful owner, and the Getty’s purpose of providing a multicultural experience to visitors gives incentive to allow the museum to keep the statue. Before, museums had to rely on buying more artifacts to showcase new things in their exhibitions. Now, most of the transactions that museums take part in consist of loans from other museums and nations, so to allow the Getty to keep the bronze statue as theirs adds a nice touch. In fact, this decision benefits society. Imagine if Italy did take the statue away from the Getty. Maybe the statue would be placed in an Italian museum where a good number of people could view it, but what about those who relied on the advantage of the Getty Museum having free admission? That group of people would miss the opportunity of setting their eyes on this historical phenomenon.

​

                                                                                        Editing Log

1. Principle: frag: Sentence fragment. A subordinate clause was punctuated as if it were a sentence on its own.

    Error: Besides changing from a formal writing perspective to a casual writing perspective, the tutor noticed that the sentence
    did not say what would happen if the statue was returned to Italy.

    Original: Imagine if Italy did take the statue away from the Getty.
    Revision:  If Italy did take the statue away from the Getty, perhaps the statue would be placed in an Italian museum where a
    good number of people could view it, but what about those who relied on the advantage of the Getty Museum having free
    admission? That group of people would miss the opportunity of setting their eyes on this historical phenomenon. To make
    best use of the statue, it should reside in a place dedicated to preserving and displaying artifacts of paramount cultural
    significance, which is the Getty Museum.
 
2. Principle:  dev: The point being made should be developed more fully.
    Error: In giving the background history of the statue, I neglected to mention what was it a statue of. The tutor gave me the
    example of mentioning an oil painting. But what is it a painting of? If I said something like an oil painting of the Mona Lisa,
    the reader will have a better idea of what I am talking about.
    Original: Upon closer inspection, the fishermen realized that the statue of Greek origin held great monetary value.
    Revision: Upon closer inspection, the fishermen found that the life-size, Greek bronze statue of a young male athlete, later
    called "the Victorious Youth", had a high monetary value.

​

3. Principle: //: Faulty parallel structure. Give a list of elements by using the same grammatical structure.
    Error: In giving a list of verbs, the ending of the first verb was -ing, but this was not applied to the second verb. The tutor
    suggested that I write the second verb in the  -ing verb to give parallel structure to the sentence.
    Original: The museum’s purpose involves sharing, not take credit away from, a culture’s past history.  
    Revision: The museum’s purpose involves sharing, not taking credit from, a culture’s past history.  

​

4. Principle: awk: Awkward sentence structure that makes the idea unclear or very choppy to read.
    Error: The word order used in the sentence did not make the sentence flow smoothly. It made more sense to say that the
    statue was caught in the fishermen’s net than saying in the fishermen’s net, a statue was caught.
    Original: The bronze statue’s journey into the modern world began in June of 1964 when a group of fishermen caught in their
    net a cumbersome object covered from head to toe with barnacles.
    Revision: The bronze statue’s journey into the modern world began in June of 1964 when a group of fishermen caught a
    cumbersome object, which was covered from head to toe with barnacles, in their net.

5. Principle: frag: Sentence fragment. Punctuated a subordinate clause as a sentence on its own. 

    Error: The subordinate clause that I used contained a subject but no verb, so when read aloud by itself, it felt lacking. The tutor suggested that I either join it with the sentence before it or the sentence after it.  

    Original: The same goes for Italy.

    Revision: With respect to Italy, people have come and gone, so can it be said that the people in Italy deserve the restoration of an ancient piece of history?