Book Review

           In his book Against Cultural Property: Archaeology, Heritage and Ownership, John Carman challenges the idea that material which comes to us from the past should be considered as ‘property.’ Carman successfully discusses the categories of illicit antiquities and the issues associated with ascribing value to them as if they were ‘property’ in his first chapter, stating his thesis that it is the notion of ownership itself which is the problem in the treatment of ancient remains. 

           The second chapter of the book, therefore, deals with property and property relations. He outlines the four types of property: private, common, state, and open access. While private property provides exclusive rights, common property provides shared rights; state property abrogates all rights to a national government, while open access, although the most loosely defined, ascribes the rights to all individuals, to use for any purpose. He concludes the chapter with a discussion of “propertyless culture,” in which he outlines Hyde’s study of the ‘gift’ and argues that the shift of an object from ‘commodity’ (thus property) to ‘gift’ shifts the object from a realm of use, to a realm of symbolic value. 

           In chapter three, Carman argues that archaeological objects are, and should be useless (in the sense of not needing to be used up as a commodity would be) and also priceless. They are heritage, and not a resource. He therefore argues that if they are used as a resource, they become property, whereas otherwise, they are simply priceless heritage. 

           In the next three chapters, Carman discusses archaeology as property, archaeology as common property, and archaeology as an open-access resource in an attempt to present some ideas as to how to proceed,  followed by a conclusion in the last chapter. 

           It is evident that Carman has experience with law, finance, and commercial administration, yet in his discussion of cultural heritage and archaeology, he only once, briefly, mentions ethics. His disregard of ethics in his discussion is a major shortcoming, as it would have perhaps been instrumental in arguing his position and providing new ideas for the treatment of cultural property. In his discussion of the different categories of illicit antiquities, a brief discussion of the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property would further inform the reader of the guidelines for what is considered illicit, and what is not. 

           Lastly, while the book part of a series meant to be accessible to students and scholars alike, Carman frequently talks about “AHM” and the management of AHM in the first two chapters, yet he never defines AHM. After conducting some research, I can reasonably assume that AHM stands for “Archaeological Heritage Management,” however, I could be completely mistaken as it is nowhere defined in the book. 

           Overall, the premise that the ownership of cultural objects is the major problem in the way we conceive, give value to, and treat cultural objects definitely has its merits, and is well argued in the book. Furthermore, Carman acknowledges that there is more than one solution, and personally lays out three possibilities. His major shortcomings are the overlooking of the ethical debate and how it ties into the laws and ideas of ‘property’ and the stakeholders in it, and the accessibility of the book as a single volume of its series.