These examples compel us to ask: How should we treat objects acquired through violence, displacement, or erasure? Who has the right to speak for a site and who should be entrusted with its care?
Scholars like James Cuno and John Henry Merryman have proposed a triadic framework for engaging with cultural heritage:
While this model offers useful guidance, it has also been used to justify the retention of unprovenanced artefacts by museums and private collectors; often under a Eurocentric logic that casts Western institutions as more capable guardians than the communities from which these objects originate.
We propose a necessary amendment: any framework for heritage custodianship must centre the origin, meaning and living relationship between the object and the people who have historically engaged with it. Cultural artefacts and heritage sites are not inert relics, they are often active spaces of ritual, memory and communal exchange. To treat them merely as specimens for study or display is to flatten their significance and sever their relational depth.
Custodianship, then, is not about possession. It is about responsibility.
It demands humility, dialogue and a commitment to preserving not just the material object, but the cultural lifeworld it inhabits.
In the UK, laws governing archaeology and metal detecting are designed to protect cultural heritage while allowing responsible public engagement. Here's a clear breakdown of the key legal frameworks and codes of practice:
Legal Frameworks in the UK
1. The Treasure Act 1996
2. Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979