This article argues that the question of whether the nation-state or the international community is the legitimate guardian of cultural property can only be answered with reference to what we expect measures of protection of our cultural heritage to accomplish. The very concept of 'protection' is at stake, and two different schools (object-centrism versus functionalism) are to be distinguished. Whereas object centrism focuses on the cultural object and its protection as a value in its own right, functionalism argues that the cultural heritage cannot even be identified as such without reference to society and its meaning for societal processes of acculturation and socialization. This article endorses functionalism and develops a perspective that includes identity and cross-cultural communication as the most important functions of all cultural heritage. These two criteria should guide our thinking about the legitimate guardian of cultural heritage in general.