The Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation is apparently advocating reburial for repatriated objects. See http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/events?eventId=462717&EventViewMode=EventDetails ("[I]n other circumstances only an outright return and reburial of artifacts will satisfy the wronged side.")
However, CPO must claim first credit for that proposal in a post dated, April 1, 2009:
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/04/advocacy-group-hopes-to-recontextualize.html
But at the time, CPO suggested it as an April Fools' Joke!
Hopefully, the Lawyers' Committee's [serious?] thinking about such a proposal will be revealed on its website, but without more, doesn't this all suggest that as far as the self-identified "preservation community" is concerned, "context" is indeed far more important than preserving artifacts themselves?
But, if so, is it really all about preservation or control?![]()
However, CPO must claim first credit for that proposal in a post dated, April 1, 2009:
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/04/advocacy-group-hopes-to-recontextualize.html
But at the time, CPO suggested it as an April Fools' Joke!
Hopefully, the Lawyers' Committee's [serious?] thinking about such a proposal will be revealed on its website, but without more, doesn't this all suggest that as far as the self-identified "preservation community" is concerned, "context" is indeed far more important than preserving artifacts themselves?
But, if so, is it really all about preservation or control?
