Claudia S. Quiñones Vilá

This article examines legal provisions and remedies for illicitly trafficked pre-Columbian antiquities, focusing on Mexico and the United States of America (USA), to determine gaps and areas for improvement. These two countries provide an interesting contrast, as they are contiguous neighbours but have different legal systems and approaches to the protection of cultural property. Nonetheless, Mexico and the USA have a history of fruitful cooperation in the recovery and return of pre-Columbian cultural objects under both domestic and international frameworks, such as bilateral agreements and cultural heritage conventions. In particular, as a country that accounts for nearly half of all global art market transactions, the USA is uniquely placed to act as a gatekeeper for pre-Columbian antiquities and serve as an example for the effective protection of foreign cultural property seized within its borders. However, while the examination of Mexico and the USA provides a useful case study, the illicit traffic of these objects should not be viewed in isolation or characterized as solely a regional problem. Globalization and the international nature of the art market require a more expansive view of the subject, while still taking countries’ legal and cultural specificities into account. A balanced and holistic approach will help increase the effectiveness of both national and international remedies; this will improve the legitimate market as a whole and curb illicit trafficking. By tackling the problem at both ends of the supply chain and increasing visibility, the possibilities of success shall rise.

This article examines the recently proposed ICOM museum definition and its detractors in order to trace the history of museums and their social purpose as they move from a traditional past into a tumultuous present and uncertain future. As countries begin to reframe the role of arts and culture in shaping a world affected by a global pandemic, museums will need to address not only practical measures – such as social distancing guidelines and limited visitor numbers – but also how these institutions are situated within the greater social context. Technology is particularly useful for museums to share their collections with audiences and transcend geographical boundaries, and it also allows these institutions to reposition themselves as relevant within the ongoing cultural heritage dialogue and context. However, it is debatable whether online and digital offerings classify as museums. Even if there is no consensus on the textbook definition of museum, pinpointing common traits will help establish their evolution and role for current and future generations. Embracing digitization, virtual museums, and other non-traditional frameworks allows for a more expansive and inclusive conception of museums, taking into account their dual role: as custodians of public knowledge and spaces for education and development.