Passage - General Questions

[Administrator]

Passage Discussion

Paragraph One:

Mali’s government has legally prohibited the excavation of what the author refers to as “wonderful
terra-cotta sculptures” taken from the city of Djenne-jeno. The issue: the government was unable
to afford either enforcement of the law or its own excavations. As a result, many of the sculptures
(which the author again points out are “fine”) were dug up and sold to foreign collectors in the
1980s. Because of the looting of such sites, a lot of what could have been learned about the culture
may now be lost forever.

Paragraph Two:

In response to the looting in Mali, a protective doctrine, known as the UNESCO Doctrine, has
developed around the issue of cultural property ownership. According to this doctrine, cultural
artifacts should be considered to belong to the culture, part of an “artistic and cultural patrimony to
any individual that belongs to the culture. Many countries have strengthened the UNESCO doctrine,
by prohibiting the export of any antiquities found within their borders.

Paragraph Three:

In this paragraph the author discusses an unfortunate irony: while the government in Mali should
be the one to regulate excavations and decide what to do with artifacts that are found, laws against
private excavation and export can discourage record keeping, making it more difficult to preserve
information about such finds. The author provides the example of a foreigner selling a figure that
was found through unauthorized excavation; the seller would avoid the documentation that is
desirable for cultural preservation, so as not to provide evidence that could lead to a seizure of the
property.

Paragraph Four:

In the final paragraph, the author discusses how things could have been different if, from the
beginning, UNESCO had assisted Mali with excavations and with educating people as to the value of
accurate records, and everything had to be recorded and registered before removal. Such excavations
might not have been perfectly conducted, says the author, but that would still be preferable to what
really took place.

VIEWSTAMP Analysis:

The only Viewpoint presented in this passage is that of the author.

The Structure of the passage is as follows:

• Paragraph 1: Introduce the issue of legally prohibited excavations in Mali, whose
  government could not afford to enforce the law, and the cost of lost artifacts
  and cultural information.
  
  Paragraph 2: Condemn the looting of such artifacts, discuss the protective UNESCO
  doctrine, which provides that cultural property belongs to the culture, and the
  fact that many countries followed up by prohibiting the removal of antiquities
  from within their respective borders.
  
  Paragraph 3: Point out that while it would seem reasonable for Mali to regulate its country’s
  excavations and determine where the statues in question should end up,
  but that such regulation ironically creates a disincentive for buyers and
  sellers to record information about cultural antiquities whose export may be
  unauthorized.
  
  Paragraph 4: Discuss what might have happened if UNESCO had helped Mali to license
  and regulate excavation and educate the people about the importance and
  value of accurate records. Assert that while the resulting excavations might
  not be ideal, and some might still have sought to circumvent the rules, the
  outcome still would have been preferable to the situation that Mali had
  actually experienced.

The author’s Tone seems reasonable and reflects a fairly clear opinion.

The Argument presented in this passage is that if UNESCO had helped the Mali government to
regulate excavations and educate people on the cultural importance of antiquities, the results may not
have been ideal, but would likely have been better than what really happened.

The Main Point of the passage is that preservation of a culture’s antiquities is a very important issue,
and that if broad prohibitions are not effective, regulation and education can help to ensure a better
outcome than the one experienced in Mali.

[gargantua]

Hi,
The main point and the author's exact views in this passage was difficult for me to see. I could not really see the connection between the UNESCO doctrine and how the author was applying this to the excavation and recording of Mali's sculptures. Then, I read the last paragraph that the author brings up what would have happened had Mali used the UNESCO doctrine to protect their sculptures, and I did not see the reasoning behind the last lines of the passage when the author poses a question about whether this would have been better. I don't understand what the author believes would have been better. I understood all of the local questions in this passage, but the global questions were much harder for me to understand.
Thank you for all of your help.

[Steve Stein]

Hi Gargantua,

Good questions--that's an interesting passage. In the first paragraph, the author introduces the issue of legally prohibited excavations in Mali, whose government could not afford to enforce the law, and the cost of lost artifacts and cultural information. Then in the second paragraph, the author goes on to condemn the looting of such artifacts, and to discuss the protective UNESCO doctrine, which provides that cultural property belongs to the culture, that many countries followed up by prohibiting the removal of antiquities from within their borders.

The author asserts an opinion in the final paragraph about how things could have been different if, from the beginning, UNESCO had assisted Mali with excavations and with educating people as to the value of accurate records, and everything had to be recorded and registered before removal. Such excavations might not have been perfectly conducted, says the author, but that would still be preferable to what really took place.

Take a look back at the passage, and the questions that were giving you difficulty, and please let me know whether anything is still unclear.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether everything is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[gargantua]

Your explanation helped me to connect the role that the UNESCO doctrine played for the author in relation to Mali. I was separating the broader ideas that the author was expressing about UNESCO, and, specifically, that the UNESCO doctrine would have been better than what actually happened. I came away from the passage thinking that the author viewed the UNESCO doctrine as only negative. This explanation helped me to answer number 7, the main point and number 10 saying how UNESCO would have stopped some of the abuses that happened.
Thank you very much for the explanation.