• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Repatriation Of Relics & Antiquities: Should They Be Returned?

Should ancient treasures be returned to the nations from which they were taken?

  • Yes, it's where they belong.

    Votes: 5 35.7%
  • Only if the treasures will be safely cared for if returned.

    Votes: 6 42.9%
  • No. Finders keepers.

    Votes: 3 21.4%

  • Total voters
    14

KeyserXSoze

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
944
This thread concerns the general issues surrounding repatriation of relics and antiquities to other, prior or prioritized, locations.
For news and / or discussion of specific repatriation requests, cases, and actions see:


Repatriation Of Relics & Antiquities: News & Specific Cases
https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...relics-antiquities-news-specific-cases.66617/


>Source<
Stolen treasures
Zahi Hawass wants the Rosetta Stone back—among other things

By Henry Huttinger

Egypt is once again calling for the return of several celebrated antiquities currently on display in museums across Europe and America, including the Rosetta stone, the famous granite slab that was crucial in deciphering hieroglyphics.

The campaign to recuperate priceless artifacts taken by colonial powers is not new. But in recent weeks Zahi Hawass, Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities and the public face of archaeology in Egypt, has grown more strident in his demands in a campaign that coincides with a world tour of Egyptology’s favorite son, King Tutankhamun. Hawass has even threatened to shut down British and Belgian archaeological digs in Egypt if the artifacts are not returned.

“The Rosetta stone is one of the most important pieces in the British Museum, but it is more important for Egypt,” Hawass said. “It is an essential piece of our Egyptian national and historical identity and was disgracefully smuggled out of the country.”

The Rosetta stone—a dark slab on which a Ptolemaic decree is written in Greek, hieroglyphics and Demotic script—was discovered in 1799 by the French military. When the French surrendered to British forces in 1801, they tried to smuggle the 1,609-pound stone out of the country. It was intercepted by British troops and promptly delivered to the British Museum, where it has remained on display ever since.

Past efforts to retrieve Egyptian antiquities on display abroad have proven largely ineffective. Speaking at the 250th anniversary of the British Museum in London in 2003, Hawass demanded the return of the Rosetta stone. His call fell on unsympathetic ears, and he expressed his indignation to reporters following the event.

“If the British want to be remembered, if they want to restore their reputation, they should volunteer to return the Rosetta Stone because it is the icon of our Egyptian identity,” he said at the time.

Hawass has appealed to UNESCO to mediate the dispute and has encouraged 21 other countries also seeking the return of plundered artifacts to do the same.

“Our previous attempts at returning the Rosetta stone were ineffectual, but we hope that by organizing an international lobby, we can pressure with greater force the countries and museums in possession of such artifacts,” Hawass said.

In London, British Museum Communications Manager Hanna Bolton told Cairo, “The British Museum has not received an official request for the return of the Rosetta Stone.” Bolton refused to elaborate further, saying she was “confused” by Hawass’ statement.

Even with the backing of UNESCO and the collective voices of two dozen states, Egypt’s ability to convince Western museums to return priceless artifacts taken long before the concept of international property rights is uncertain.

There have, however, been some successes. On 19 July, the Australian government handed over several 2,500-year-old funerary statuettes, a bronze axe head and amulets that were confiscated in Melbourne. The artifacts had been smuggled out of Egypt under false papers as reproductions and were subsequently sold.

The Greek government and numerous international action groups have been campaigning for decades for the return of the Elgin marbles from the British Museum. The collection of marble sculptures was removed from the Parthenon in Athens in 1801 and taken to the British Museum, where it has been housed ever since. The museum has been notoriously unresponsive to Greece’s and other countries’ appeals, perhaps because artifacts such as the Rosetta stone and the Elgin marbles are a major draw for the British Museum’s five million annual visitors.

The principal obstacle facing countries like Egypt and Greece is the lack of any international legal framework that would allow countries to file suit against museums in possession of such artifacts.

UNESCO mainly serves as a negotiating forum. It lacks the teeth necessary to force governments to return plundered antiquities. “It is not an international court of justice or arbitration court,” said Mounir Bouchenaki, assistant director general of UNESCO’s Culture Sector.

Hawass, ever the flamboyant face of Egyptian archeology, is undeterred. He told Cairo, “If UNESCO fails, I will do it without them!”

Copyright2005 Cairo Magazine
So what do you think?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Howdy,
I voted for option "B".
I think that the preservation of artifacts should always remain paramount as we pass along this planet to the future generations.
I remember sitting on the couch with my Mother and Father watching a National Geographic special on TV, about the pending flood of Abu Simbel ( LINK ) due to the completion of the High Aswan Dam. I watched, wide eyed, as these huge statues were cut from the faces of the cliffs. For all that was saved, I can only begin to imagine how much must have been sacrificed as the water rose.

The poll does beg at some questions though, what of things that were looted?
Egypt has lost a great amount of historical artifacts but the sad truth is that, through out the 19th and 20th century, they have sold most of it away.
What of Bog-men, or Ice-men?
Questions are easy, tis the answers that often get murky.

Interesting thread, Keyser!

Peace
=^..^=217
 
Can't vote. Was poised to click on option B, but then options A and C suddenly appeared just as valid. And it would be interesting to watch Hawass dressed in a James Bond outfit, suspended on a string from the ceiling and trying to negotiate the sensor beams between himself and the stone ... then sprinting with it down the street and into the nearest taxi to Egypt.

Hawass annoys me. It seems almost impossible these days to watch or read anything about Eyptian antiquities that doesn't have his big head in the foreground, spouting pseudo-expertise, gained via the Edgar Cayce 'university'. He's in the same league as Bush, imo.

WHY are they building the walls around the pyramids? That's what I'd like to know.

But as to the Rosetta Stone; why not hand over a nicely-antiqued copy to Hawass, followed by a cup of tea with the Queen? He'd enjoy the photo opportunity and he probably wouldn't have a clue he was holding a copy, anyway.
 
same here, i definatly dont agree with option C. Finders keepers is just silly, espcialy if you agree with the other options. Id like to see some kind of cooperation to enable the artifacts to be where they should be while still having the care and attenstion they need.

id love to see the Elgin marbles (sp) in an old roman temple that would be simply perfect but athey must be looked after.
 
pintquaff said:
id love to see the Elgin marbles (sp) in an old roman temple that would be simply perfect but athey must be looked after.

I don't think the Greeks would be too happy with that... ;)
 
We must remember, however, that history is not exclusive to one country. Often the course that a country developed along was dictated (either directly or indirectly) to a large degree by the political and social events of other nations around it and the globe.

It was for this reason that the great museums of the world were founded, to bring to those unable to travel the world a taste of the rich historical fabric that lies out there. I feel, rather idealistically, that a country should put education before national pride. This does not mean that I support one country keeping anothers treasures, such a monopoly on artefacts is wrong.

Therefore I am opposed to one country saying: 'This is ours we're keeping it'.

What I think would be best would be a constant transfer of artefacts around the world to different museums - loaning if you like - on a greater scale than already happens. Ensuring that as many as possible get to see some of the treasures.

Of course, this is largely unfeasable outside of the developed world - and unfortunately some of the greatest arceological sites of interest are located in those places where such an agreement would be impossible to create.

All we can do is sit back and watch as the treasures of Babylon go up in smoke.
 
Timble2 said:
pintquaff said:
id love to see the Elgin marbles (sp) in an old roman temple that would be simply perfect but athey must be looked after.

I don't think the Greeks would be too happy with that... ;)

Given the Greeks' longstanding failure to act to prevent acid rain damaging the Parthenon, Italy may be a safer place to send them.
 
Last edited:
Ok ok i got me history a tads wrong there :oops:

With regards to the acid rain ect. thats why i was saying about cooperation between the countries as it would benifet all involved if they could be looked after by a "council" perhaps made of the countries involved. You could also perhaps exhibit them around the world so all (not just those wealthy enought to travell abroad) could see them ; of course thats just not practicle with alot of artifacts but is with others.

As soon as you get this us and them attitude it is always the subject matter that suffers.

Hey Yith, didnt know you wear glasses ;) Nice pic.
 
Regarding the Elgin Marbles, I'm sure I read somewhere that as soon as they were in British hands they were scoured, scrubed and bleached removing the painted surface. A similar thing happened I think with church alters which had thier brightly painted surfaces removed as fashions changed! So acid rain may be the least on the conservationists problems.

As for the question of returning treasures like the Elgin Marbles then i'm in sympathy with pintquaff and rjmrjmrjm here. Return 90% of the Marbles and make up the remaining 10% with some British treasures which could be held in a British Hall at a museum in Athens - call it a cultural exchange. Greek kids can learn about Britain and British kids can learn about Greek culture, ancient and modern, in a Greek Hall at a museum in the UK. Other exchanges could be established with other countries.

<I>edited for this:</I>
Is the Rosetta stone really that important, what was carved upon it is of world importance and that is available to all. We've got some great Egyptian mummies on display in the UK and i'll take them over a rock any time. Lets give them the stone back, some pots, bone tools, a steam engine and one of Isembard Kingdoms Brunel's top hats and help them set up a Britsh Hall in an Egyptian museum - "education, education, education."
 
byroncac said:
Regarding the Elgin Marbles, I'm sure I read somewhere that as soon as they were in British hands they were scoured, scrubed and bleached removing the painted surface. A similar thing happened I think with church alters which had thier brightly painted surfaces removed as fashions changed! So acid rain may be the least on the conservationists problems.

See here:
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/gr/collo.html

The documents and The British Museum's own view of events and their consequences for the sculptures have been published in Ian Jenkins The 1930's Cleaning of the Parthenon Sculptures in The British Museum (now published as: Cleaning and Controversy, The Parthenon Sculptures 1811-1939, British Museum Occasional Paper no. 146 (2001))

Papers given by colleagues in the Greek Archaeological Service are now published on this site (note: illustrations not yet available). All in PDF file format:

K. Kouzeli, "The Composition and Structure of the Patina on the Parthenon and other Greek Monuments"
K. Kouzeli and E. Papaconstantinou, "Observations on the Parthenon Frieze in The British Museum"
A. Mantis, "Observations on the Parthenon Sculpture in The British Museum"

Other speakers have chosen to publish their contributions elsewhere and these are listed below.

M. Beard, “What are we all really talking about?”, The Art Newspaper 99, January 2000, 18-19
I. Doganis, Forthcoming in Studies in Conservation
I. Jenkins, “The Elgin Marbles: Questions of Accuracy and Reliability”, International Journal of Cultural Property 10, no. 1 (2001) 55-69
A. Oddy, Forthcoming in Studies in Conservation
W. St. Clair, “The Elgin Marbles: Questions of Stewardship and Accountability”, International Journal of Cultural Property 8, no. 2 (1999) 391-521

In addition to publications by the speakers themselves, some of the Distinguished Panel have published reports of the Conference.

J. Boardman, “The Elgin Marbles: Matters of Fact and Opinion”, International Journal of Cultural Property 9, no. 2 (2000) 233-62
M. Daley, “Beware restorers bearing chisels”, Art Review Dec./Jan 2000, 57-9
R.H. Marijnissen, “Les marbres de Lord Elgin: Les traitements de conservation dans leur contexte historique”, Nuances no. 24, June 2000, 3-10
O. Palagia, “Cleaning the Elgin Marbles”, Times Literary Supplement (Letters to the Editor) 17th December 1999
 
Links to several of those articles on the site itself.
 
It's a sad thing that often those who acquire ancient artefacts (whoever they are) with the best of intentions end up mistreating them.

Many papyri have been damaged through various processes thought at the time to be beneficial.. In the 30's one method of preservation was to tape the papyrus between two pieces of glass, "sandwiching" them, as it were. I think I remember hearing that some of the papyri were even lacquered in an attempt to preserve them... if you can believe that..

Some of the earliest known Christian paintings found at Dura Europos are now unrecognizable due to the use of a consolidant that caused the paintings to disintergrate..

These things happen...

But I still think antiquities should be returned, as the mistreatment of artefacts is by no means restricted to particular countries.
 
My thanks to the Yithian and the link from Rubyiat.

Rubyait wrote:

It was important because it led to our modern understanding of hieroglyphs.More info can be found below;

I don't see the object itself being all that important, it is the information it imparts that is of importance. Is there anything else to be learnt from the Rosetta Stone that a copy can't supply?

Edited for this afterthought:

Is there anything to learn from the tool marks left from carving the stone? And, what of the context in which the stone was found, can we gain anything from that?
 
I don't see the object itself being all that important, it is the information it imparts that is of importance. Is there anything else to be learnt from the Rosetta Stone that a copy can't supply?

I dont see any if there are. After all without the writing it would only be a piece of black basalt.

Is there anything to learn from the tool marks left from carving the stone? And, what of the context in which the stone was found, can we gain anything from that?

Im not sure what you already know about how it was carved and found. Im doing some more reading on the subject...
 
Im not sure what you already know about how it was carved and found. Im doing some more reading on the subject...

Not a great deal unfortunatly, but i'm following up a few links from the British Museum page you gave and reading a little bit - all interesting stuff!
 
My first reaction is A, but I voted B because of the
connection to Zahi Hawass. That man makes me
foam at the mouth in true Fortean style! If the
Rosetta Stone IS returned few, if any, of us would ever be
allowed to see it again in his lifetime. I really
blame him alone for halting the investigation of the
pyramid airshafts.

As a former student of archaeology, I have about
a dozen incomplete pottery jars and bowls from
my undergrad excavation work in Israel. It would be
worthless to anyone there, and these artifacts are now
an important part of my past -- they tell a better story
about me and my life than they do their original creators/owners/discarders.

I have used one discarded bowl base as the oldest ashtray
in town (approx. 3,000 years) for almost half my life!
(No, I'm not a smoker -- but if friends are, I have something
for them to use!)

FWIW
TVgeek
 
have used one discarded bowl base as the oldest ashtray
in town (approx. 3,000 years) for almost half my life!
(No, I'm not a smoker -- but if friends are, I have something
for them to use!)

8)
 
Personally, I feel that many of the antiquities from Egypt, Ireland and other various hot spots are not only carrying the legacy of the land they are in, but of the CIVILIZATION that built them. And seeing as there is a strong possibility of a MOTHER CULTURE that spawned the various great cultures of ancient times, then theses antiquities belong to EVERYONE.
So, whatever museum can take care of them, study them and then give us beneficial and insightful info about them, they should have first dibs.
Now, if looting is involved, then I agree they should be returned to their homeland.
As for the ROSETTA STONE, it's decephering took place not in Egypt, but in England I believe and it has been a major benefit to egyptology and therefore I feel that it is a part of the legacy of it's encrypter/translator and the many brilliant minds who studied it and passed the discovery on to the masses. In essence it should stay where it is at. Not many people can go to Egypt, but plenty can go to Britain.
Also, many countries with a rich heritage cannot even begin to care for the valuable antiquities coming from their land. Just look at what happened to the museums in the Middle east during the war. Had those precious artifacts been transported to bigger and better facilities, they could have been spared. Now they are making the rounds on the black market.
As for ZAHI HAWASS, he was once my inspiration to become an Archaeologist because I wanted to go to Egypt and excavate every inch, because as we all know, not even 5% of egypt has been excavated. But he is close-minded. I understand he wants to preserve the monuments of Giza which are experiencing wear from the countless tourists coming and going through there daily, but he has NO right to stop anyone from seeing them.
They belong to ALL of us.
He also favors his OWN theories in regards to many discoveries and dismisses others.
And finally, Edgar Cayce was right about a lot of things, so I am waiting for the day when the hall of records, between the Sphinx's paws is revealed.

WW
 
My problem with returning antiquities is that the logical conclusion is that museums can only show exhibits from the country where that museum is based.

Something like the British Museum is amazing simply because it has objects from all time periods and all cultures.

Contrast that with something like the Reijksmuseum in Amsterdam which has some wonderful exhibits from the Dutch Golden Age, but not a lot else.

I would say the former gives visitors a much richer experience and a far far better understanding of other cultures.
 
WondrWmn said:
As for the ROSETTA STONE, it's decephering took place not in Egypt, but in England I believe and it has been a major benefit to egyptology and therefore I feel that it is a part of the legacy of it's encrypter/translator and the many brilliant minds who studied it and passed the discovery on to the masses.

Actualy the finnal decypherment of the Rosseta stone took place in France using a facsimily (many of which were produced by the B.M. for for scollers(sp) to study at their leisure)

Wm.
 
Antiquities

The history of the world belongs to all the peoples of the world.

Thus Egyptian or Greek history doesn't belong solely to Egypt or Greece any more than United States history is the sole property of the United States.

American items can be found in the ethnological and historical musuems of Britain and Germany, but I hear no Americans clamoring for their return.

And although London and Berlin managed to drench each other with blockbuster bombs during World War Two, none of Berlin's Mesopotamian artifacts nor London's Egyptian treasures seem to have been harmed.

Had the Ishtar Gate, especially, been retured to Iraq at that time there is some question as to whether it would still exist today.

Many of the archaeological treasures in question would never have been discivered in the first place had not Europeans and Americans excavated them during the Nineteenth Century (often to the cost of their own ruined health), when the Egyptian government had NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in them. The Cairo Museum itself was built by the French and later run for decades by the British (at the expressed invitation of the Egyptian government).

And American and European foreign aid to Egypt over the past 50 years, alone, ought to have put paid to a LOT of ancient stones and trinkets.
 
The great question is to whether ancient works of art are merely of PROVINCIAL interest, and therefore of strictly limited artistic value, and belong solely to the countries of their origins (which may no longer even exist) or are instead WORLD-TREASURES which belong to EVERYBODY.

Great art TRANSCENDS its birthplace.
 
It occurs to me that if the current view that all archaeological and anthropological treasures should be preserved in situ in the locations of their origin is carried to extremes, many discoveries made in recent years should have been left exactly where they were found....in the depths of the sea.
 
Following today's reports (and corresponding thread)regarding requests to "repatriate" the Lewis chessmen, I think it's high time we had a discussion about where best to display artefacts - point of origin, or place of best exposure?

To set out my stall, I believe that while previously museums paid a huge part towards education, bringing as they did an otherwise largely inaccessible world to the public, today mass media have largely superceded them - that said, I equally believe that in terms of art (as opposed to artefacts) and local history they have as great a part to play for any community as they ever did.

Personally, I would say that given assurances that a country of origin could and would display a local artefact safely and in a manner befitting its importance, that today there's no reason to refuse to repatriate or relocate any item - there's nothing to stop a museum that previously held such an item from displaying a replica, with a note to that effect.

This could have interesting Fortean implications, IMHO. What does anyone else think?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
With modern IT, we can get all the information on any artefact (Photos, X-rays, spectrographic analysis, text, translations, etc, etc) onto a DVD or two.

These can be copied, and supplied to every museum in the world. They could even be on sale to interested members of the public.

And then...

We destroy the originals! :twisted:

(That'll stop the arguments! 8) )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Museums smack a little of Empire to me.

When we stuffed them full of spoils of war and conquer I'm sure we had the best interests of the natives at heart, but times move on. There's no info that we can't gain from t'internet, and if we simply MUST see things, then lets visit the place they came from and see them in context.

Lewis (chessmen) and Shetland (St Ninnians silver hoard) are good examples of communities stuggling on the very edge of Europe with relatively little tourism, yet we strip them of artifacts that would draw people to these islands, and display them in the Capitals...and just to rub salt in the wound we charge the islanders taxes to pay for the priveledge.
 
I'm not in favour of destroying the originals, but otherwise I agree that there is no need to remove things from their original location. After all, the original "Elgin" marbles aren't on display in the BM, it's a bunch of plaster replicas.
 
Anome_ said:
I'm not in favour of destroying the originals, but otherwise I agree that there is no need to remove things from their original location. After all, the original "Elgin" marbles aren't on display in the BM, it's a bunch of plaster replicas.

Originals are there alongside plaster casts.

The telling point being that due to successive Greek governments having failed to protect the originals that remain there, the casts now reveal a lot more detail than the sadly eroded originals.

To me, this encapsulates the most important reason for not letting them leave London.
 
stuneville said:
I believe that while previously museums paid a huge part towards education, bringing as they did an otherwise largely inaccessible world to the public, today mass media have largely superseded them

I've seen many pictures of Van Gough's works in art books, online, and on TV, but the museum in Amsterdam blew me away. Ditto Salvador Dali. Ditto Whistler.

I've seen countless presentations, images, websites etc. about the valley of the kings and the grave-goods of the pharaohs (for example), but seeing them inches away (in both London and Egypt) was an incalculably different (and more illuminating) experience.

Similarly, the sheer scale and imposing nature of the Easter Island ancestor-figures was simply unappreciable before i saw one in the British museum. To visit one in-situ would be the best all round, but that's simply not an option for the vast majority. Free entry to the British museum is. If the public rely on the discovery channel, CD-ROMs, and coffee-table books for their experiences of artefacts, we are certainly selling our most precious treasures cheap. These are 2-D ersatz imposters by comparison.

The experience does not compare.

Museums Rock.
 
Back
Top