id Nelson's short article ('Egyptologists still digging up past, even with uncertain future', Medill Reports* Jan 19, 2012) has a few words on repatriation of ancient Egyptian objects taken out of the country pre-1970 which might be of interest. Among his those he talked to was Kathleen Scott, director of publications at the San Antonio chapter of the American Research Center, and Emily Teeter, a research associate at the Oriental Institute, at the University of Chicago: For Egyptians, the ancient civilization their ancestors established along the life-giving Nile River and beyond is still a sense of national pride.[...] Tied to the revolution is the question of repatriation of ancient artifacts. In recent years some native Egyptologists have requested the return of such items as the bust of Queen Nefertiti, now in the Neues Museum in Berlin, and also the Rosetta Stone, now in the British Museum in London. [...] But with current situation in Egypt, historical materials are even less likely to be returned.
“Zahi Hawass loved to bring this topic up every now and then,” Scott said, referring to the former minister of antiquities. The appointee of Mubarak, often sporting an Indiana Jones-like fedora, Hawass frequently demanded the return of objects in foreign hands. “In certain circles, it was popular. The truth is, the Rosetta was part of a treaty in the early 1800s, it’s nothing that the British Museum is going to relinquish," Scott said.
“Hawass’s job was to keep Egypt in the news,” Teeter said of the flamboyant now-retired minister, “and he did a good job of that.” However, most don’t put much stock in the sometimes controversial debate. “There are very specific laws that if a good case is made, then an artifact should go back,” Teeter said. “But there are things that have been out of the country for hundreds of years and have no legal basis for repatriation."
Scott said it is unlikely any famous artifacts will be returned. “Unless they were illegally obtained somehow," she said. "But for the most part they were obtained as gifts or through international treaties. It’s a difficult political discussion.”
Of course one reason why "famous artefacts" might go back is so that the museum displays of the 'source country' can give a much more complete picture. For example we could take the case of the bust of Nefertiti. If at some future date a prestigious, super-modern site museum was to be set up at Amarna with many of the premier pieces of Amarna art from the site displayed alongside each other attempting to give a holistic picture of the period and place. Should this iconic piece then be allowed to remain in far-off Berlin as, let us be honest, a piece of trophy art, rather than taking its place and serving a function among the other items produced in Egypt at a specific place and time, a place and time which precisely this one work epitomises so well? (The same goes of course for the Parthenon Marbles.)*Medill Reports is written and produced by graduate journalism students at Northwestern University’s Medill school. Nefertiti bust from Wikicommons.
"The truth is, the Rosetta was part of a treaty in the early 1800s, it’s nothing that the British Museum is going to relinquish," Scott said"
ReplyDeleteScott should provide the name of the treaty, date of signature and the parties involved. We must remember that a treaty between France and Britain transferring an object illegally taken by the French, without the consent of the Egyptians is not valid on grounds of illegality and if the Egyptians were not parties to the treaty, it is an act between the two which does not necessarily bind a third party. Moreover, even if an occupying authority signed or approved the treaty, this is not accepted. Occupying powers are not empowered to sign away the cultural artefacts of the people they are dominating
"Scott said it is unlikely any famous artifacts will be returned. “Unless they were illegally obtained somehow," she said. "But for the most part they were obtained as gifts or through international treaties. It’s a difficult political discussion.”
There is no truth in the statement that most famous artefacts were given as gifts. Under the conditions of imperialism that reigned in most states under colonial rule or imperial domination, we would have to examine carefully the so-called gifts which may have been given under direct or indirect duress. Most dominated countries and peoples would not have been in a position to say “no”
to a colonial administrator who took a liking to a cultural object and wanted to send it to the imperial capital. The peoples would have preferred to let the object be taken quietly out of the country than risk the attacks of the mighty military force of the occupying force.
Kwame Opoku.
That - in the case of the Rosetta Stone - would be the Capitulation of Alexandria (1801) to which the Ottomans governing Egypt at the time were party. Frankly I do not see anything particularly "illegal" in that particular transfer. The stela was being used as building rubble at the time of discovery and only became a "cultural property" when it was removed from that context. I do not believe that we can or should uncritically apply the thinking of the Hague Convention and related documents way back to past actions, otherwise where will it end? Will Poland get back what the Swedes took 300 years ago in the "Deluge" on those grounds for example? Or what the Czechs carried off in the invasion of the 1030s? So where do we draw the line?
ReplyDeleteRather I see the matter of repatriation as a moral /ethical issue more than a legal one, and there again, where do we draw the line, and on what grounds? I think the Rosetta Stone, Parthenon Marbles and Benin treasures are three separate cases with three separate sets of issues concerning whether and why they should be returned.