Why does the idea of cultural property have so many advocates? “It seems to establish a bulwark against the plunder of antiquities.” And yet how quickly it’s turned into a way of looting premodern artifacts from Western owners whose claim of title is stronger than that of foreign governments or indigenous/Indian tribes. “But if cultural property really did exist, the Enlightenment museum would be an example of it: an institution that evolved, almost uniquely, out of Western civilization. And the cultural property movement could be seen as a persistent attempt to undermine it. And take illicit possession.” (Edward Rothstein, “Antiquities, the World Is Your Homeland”, New York Times, May 27).

About time someone stood up to the demands against Western museums and collectors for repatriation of “cultural patrimony” lawfully obtained at the time (Eric Ormsby, “Treasures on Trial” (review of new James Cuno book), WSJ, Apr. 26; Kerry Howley, Reason “Hit and Run”, Apr. 24; earlier coverage).

Under the proposed law, backed by Supreme Council of Antiquities chief Zahi Hawass, persons around the world would be forbidden to make copies, even for private use, of the country’s famous monuments, scarabs and other Pharaonic survivals. “His comments came only a few days after an Egyptian opposition newspaper, Al-Wafd, published a report complaining that many more tourists each year travelled to the pyramid-shaped Luxor hotel in Las Vegas than to Luxor itself. The newspaper proposed that the US hotel should pay some of its profits to Luxor city.” However, Hawass said that copies of pyramids and other objects that were less than “exact” might escape a royalty obligation, which might get the back of the U.S. one dollar bill off the hook. (Rory McCarthy, “Egypt to copyright the pyramids and antiquities”, Guardian, Dec. 27; “Egypt to copyright pyramids”, AFP/Google, Dec. 26; AP/IHT). More: Coleman.

The brutalist-modern Third Church of Christ Scientist is one of the most widely disliked buildings in Washington, D.C., not least by its own congregation, which groans at the impracticalities of maintaining the concrete monstrosity: “According to one church official, you’ve got to build scaffolding just to reach some of the [light] bulbs [to change them].” But Washington’s local architectural-preservation authorities forbid the congregants from replacing the building, which dates all the way back to 1971. (Charles Paul Freund, “A Brutalist Bargain”, American Spectator, Dec. 18).

• Fear of “retribution” and “legal action” among reasons docs don’t report hazardous colleagues and conditions [WaPo on new Annals of Internal Medicine study]
• Judge rips Milberg for high Chiron fee proposal, questions Skadden’s conflict [The Recorder]
• Felony murder rule is an American exception with results that can be hard to defend [Liptak, NYT]
• UK: “Man broke girlfriend’s leg in damages fraud” [Times Online]
• Often driven by defensive medicine, CAT scans may pose their own risks to patients who undergo them [Newsday on NEJM study]
• Commentator is glad post offices are lawyering up their Operation Santa gift programs [McDonough, CalLaw LegalPad; earlier; possibly related]
• Quebec judge nixes suit by Concordia University mass murderer against former colleagues [Canadian Press]
• Update on Kennewick man and Indian-remains legislation [WashTimes; earlier]
• Magic of compound interest? Uncollected 1977 award for victim of Evel Knievel attack said to have mounted by now to $100 million [AP/Yahoo]
• School discipline now a heavily lawyer-driven affair [Charleston Post & Courier courtesy Common Good]
• Complaint: Cleveland housing authority should have done more renovations to accommodate extremely obese tenant [four years ago on Overlawyered]

Under California law, if you’re digging on your property and you find prehistoric remains, you must contact the state’s Native American Heritage Commission.

The commission then assigns a person known as the “most-likely descendant” to consult with the landowner. But there’s sometimes tenuous or no ancestral ties between the “descendant” and the uncovered bodies, scientists and American Indians said. … Praetzellis and other researchers said it is more important for American Indians to be involved in the moving of ancient remains than to force them to prove a genetic link after being left out entirely for decades.

“They just have to say, ‘Yeah, I feel culturally connected to those remains,’” said Jeff Fentress, a San Francisco State anthropologist. “It is really up to that person to determine how to handle that burial.”

Landowners often pay consulting fees to persons on the designated “descendant” lists, and some persons of American Indian descent say they would like to be on the lists but were left off because of politics. Some Indian activists are also upset that the state law does not give the “descendant” the right to block development. (Matt Krupnick, “Ancient remains causing problems”, Contra Costa Times, Oct. 18). Earlier: Jul. 16, 2005, etc.

At Spiked Online, David Lowenthal has some thoughts on the “heritage wars” and cultural authenticity (Mar. 16)(via A&L Daily)

Melik Kaylan has advice for prospective curator/jailbirds: “The morality around acquiring antiquities parallels that of hunting certain species — it was OK for millennia and suddenly isn’t anymore.” (”A Civilized Solution to Looted Art”, WSJ/OpinionJournal.com, Dec. 14). More on museums in legal hot water: Apr. 28, Dec. 5.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is now sponsoring that very troublesome bill, formerly championed by the departed Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, to amend the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act so as to expand Indian tribes’ power to assert control over prehistoric human remains not associated with any still-existing tribe (see Oct. 18, 2004). The bill would go far to reverse scientists’ victory in the nine-year court battle over tribes’ asserted right on cultural grounds to reclaim the remains of 9.300-year-old Kennewick Man (Aug. 9, 2004, etc.) Cleone Hawkinson, president of Friends of America’s Past, “says the change would make it impossible to study the earliest inhabitants of North America. ‘American archaeology would come to a standstill,’ she said.” A hearing before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee is scheduled for Jul. 28. (Sandi Doughton, “Fate of Kennewick Man study unclear”, Seattle Times, Jul. 15).

More: reader Carey Gage writes in to advise, “check out Moira Breen’s site on this issue. She has been all over it for years.”

Various nationalist governments and well-intended archaeologists are trying to shut down the worldwide trade in antiquities, but it’s far from clear that declaring governments to be the sole rightful owners of historical relics leads to better conservation or better public understanding of them. As the U.S. government increasingly shows itself willing to enforce foreign states’ claims of ownership in artifacts, collectors in this country are tangled in legal uncertainties and faced with demands that they affirmatively document long-ago provenances, an often impossible task. And some of the “cultural patrimony” subject to demands for repatriation is of distinctly recent vintage: China seeks title to “calligraphy and paintings dating from as recently as 1912″. (Steven Vincent, “Ancient Treasures for Sale”, Reason, Apr.). Inasmuch as governments such as those of China, Cambodia and Afghanistan have themselves been pre-eminent destroyers of their own store of cultural antiquities — the damage done during China’s Cultural Revolution period is incalculable — the dispersal of an ancient culture’s artworks around the world may turn out to be an important safeguard in making sure that in future such episodes at least a portion of the treasure survives the wreck.

Colorado Republican Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell is attempting to insert broadening language into the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act “so that any ancient skeleton can be claimed by modern American Indian tribes even though they have no known connection to the remains,” thus reversing the disposition of such cases as the Kennewick Man controversy (see Aug. 9, Aug. 2 and links from there). Such a step “could significantly reduce — and perhaps cripple — legitimate scientific inquiry into the origins of human settlement in the Western Hemisphere. The retiring Campbell apparently hopes that one of his last acts in Congress will be to undermine the sort of vital study that is undertaken in virtually every other region of the globe.” (”Campbell’s assault on science” (editorial), Rocky Mountain News, Oct. 13)(via Moira Breen, by way of Jim Henley). More: Tim Sandefur comments at Panda’s Thumb (Oct. 4).

The Los Angeles Times reports that the eight-year-old legal battle over scientists’ attempts to study the 9,300-year-old bones (Feb. 14) is probably not over, even though Indian tribes and the Department of Justice decided not to appeal the Ninth Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court. Before, Clinton administration objections under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act prevented study. Now, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has custody of the bones, is objecting under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 to anthropologists’ plans to study the skeleton. And the tribes have filed papers expressing their intent to continue litigating. In the words of the Houston Chronicle’s headline-writers in reprinting the LA Times article, “Curse of lawyers surrounds ancient skeleton.” (Tomas Alex Tizon, “Skeleton Case’s New Bone of Contention”, Los Angeles Times, Aug. 2 (via Bashman); Eli Sanders, “An 8-Year Fight Ends Over a 9,200-Year-Old Man”, New York Times, Jul. 20; Tim Sandefur, Panda’s Thumb blog, Mar. 25; Bonnischen v. United States; Friends of America’s Past website and Aug. 4 press release).

A 1990 federal law restricts commercial trade in American Indian archaelogical remains and so-called sacred objects, and pressures public institutions to hand over (”repatriate”) such holdings to tribes. According to its critics, the law has begun to put a serious crimp in archaelogical investigation of the North American continent. It also menaces legitimate dealers of artifacts with prison terms over vaguely defined offenses, all while providing the adherents of certain religious tenets (those claimed to be traditional native beliefs) with powerful legal muscle not available to those of us who may hold other (or no) religious beliefs. (Steven Vincent, “Grave Injustice”, Reason, Jul.). For the “Kennewick Man” controversy, the most famous thus far to arise under the law, see Feb. 14 and links from there. For cases with sometimes-overlapping effect arising from a federal law which restricts trade in artifacts whose components include the feathers of eagles and other protected birds, see Sept. 11-12, 1999.

“The scientific community should be allowed to study the 9,000-year-old human bones known as Kennewick Man, a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled [last week], rejecting an appeal by several tribes claiming kinship and seeking to rebury the remains.” The court found little evidence of either a genetic or a cultural link between the prehistoric corpse and present-day Indian tribes. (Tom Paulson, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Feb. 5) (see Sept. 27-28, 2000; Oct. 11, 1999). See “In our view: Kennewick Man” (editorial), The Columbian (Vancouver, Wash.), Feb. 8; Moira Breen; Lex Communis; Brian Doherty, Reason “Hit and Run”, Feb. 12; Sarah Graham, “Scientists Win Latest Ruling in Kennewick Man Case”, Scientific American, Feb. 6. More: Aug. 2.