I wonder if the British Museum will do the right thing and return previously stolen artefacts?
replies(5):
> then you visit the original country where it’s from and they themselves have nothing or very little left from that era.
You seem to generalize quite a lot in order to validate your view point that everything stolen should stay stolen.
Sometimes it's the entire opposite. It's not being shown anywhere, it's just hidden in a museum collection in the UK. In other cases it's exposed but with very little relevant information because it's not particularly relevant to the local culture or the colonizer is too ashamed of the real history of how this object got there that they fail to explain the true story of it.
Here's a great podcast that I hope will make you change your mind, lots of examples: https://www.cbc.ca/listen/cbc-podcasts/1030-stuff-the-britis...
A few simple examples of nations who have went through rather devastating wars and civil wars including Islamists who's main ideology is that anything pre-Islamic is to be destroyed as it might lead to heresy, and who go out of their way to destroy historical places and artifacts. And if not war, then the fact that the cultures of those areas traditionally dont value historical artifacts the same way the developped European, or Chinese influenced countries did in their times.
I am sorry but it is not defending colonization, it is a legitimate issue given that the middle east is stuck on an unresolved powder keg of issues, keeping the Pregammom in Britain instead of where it came from is a good thing.
Even during WW2 the UK, Germany and France set out programs to saveguard historical cultural treasures in protected areas.
Are you under the impression that the British Museum does not show its Egyptian collections?
>it's not particularly relevant to the local culture
Ancient Egypt also has essentially nothing to do with the culture of most of Egypt, with the exception perhaps of the Copts.
I think you are misrepresenting GP & parent's comments.
Yes, absolutely, totally, Brits have a well-deserved reputation of colonisation.
But as a hypothetical conundrum, who would you return the relics from a long expired society to -- the current (arguably quite distinct, religiously & culturally) administrations of those lands?
What moral right is exercised (or exercisable) of relics of, say, Atenism, crafted 3 to 4 thousand years ago -- locals with an orthogonal religion & culture, or foreigners with an orthogonal religion and culture?
(Personally I instinctively lean towards your take, albeit a little less abruptly - but I think it's all quite complicated - partly with the bizarre 'cultural birthright' thing, partly curator cred, less so the accessibility claims.)
Event if culture and religion has changed those artifacts are part of those peoples heritage, if it weren't then why would the UK care about Stonehenge or Hadrian's Wall? Or Italians about the Coliseum?
Just a single anecdotal point but I'm from Latin America and while there's little indigenous blood in me I would still consider indigenous culture and artifacts as part of my culture and that's at the extreme end of colonisation as natives were pretty much wiped out.
The stronger version: how is it the case that Egypt, or Egyptians, today "own" something that has been in the British museum far longer than any of them have been alive? Even if the artifacts were wrongfully taken in the first instance, does that automatically mean that the only right thing to do is to return them, even after centuries? Are the myriad other interests that have accumulated in the interim simply not matter? How long domes something have to remain in Britain for it to meaningfully become part of British heritage as well as Egyptian? Should we also be working to return artifacts looted by the ancient Egyptians to their own ancestral homes, even though the looting occurred thousands of years ago when they were the dominant power? Perhaps they should give back everything south of the First Cataract to the Nubians. (Hopefully it's clear that this is a reductio not a policy proposal!)
That's not to say I think it's categorically acceptable for powerful nations to take historical artifacts. But I don't think this has really anything to do with "stealing" in the usual sense. if anything, that rhetoric just obscures the issues here that might truly be worth thinking about.
Regarding the Bust of Nefertiti, I guess it's debatable whether 100 years ago qualifies as "quite recently," but I suppose it does seem like yesterday when one is thinking about ancient Egypt! In any case, the analysis certainly may differ depending on the artifact. If the the date of the looting makes a difference I think that only supports the general thrust of my argument.
Has this ever been in doubt? With Egyptian artifacts, they’d go to Egypt, with looted Greek artifacts they’d go to Greece. With the heads of Māori warriors, New Zealand Maori.
Are there any real world situations where it’s confusing as to who they would be returned to?
Did they though? That sounds revisionist.
Eg The Badeker raids in one direction, a Bomber Harris and everything he did in the other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baedeker_Blitz
> A few simple examples of nations who have went through rather devastating wars and civil wars including Islamists who's main ideology is that anything pre-Islamic is to be destroyed as it might lead to heresy, and who go out of their way to destroy historical places and artifacts.
The Reformation shows that this isn’t just an Islamic trait. Plenty of religious artifacts, and location were destroyed.
> the middle east is stuck on an unresolved powder keg of issues
It is. And several of the key players in this are missing from your comment. The US, the UK, Russia and China. This isn’t a problem with undeveloped Islamic countries, it’s considerably broader than that.
I think it was true, on some level, at the time the bust of Nefertiti was taken in the 1920s. Supposedly, the Germans nominally followed some sort of legal process for removing the artifact -- though perhaps with less-than-full transparency.
Perhaps there are other reasons to claim that Egyptian artifacts were 'stolen.' But I'm trying to have a conversation about what those might be since the subject is not as obvious to me as others seem to think it is.
We see this happening now on a smaller scale with metal detecting and what happens with their finds.
Yes, many.
Artifacts whose creation predates the current dominant culture in a region (assuming nation state borders and names have morphed over the time), especially when that contemporary culture actively rejects those earlier cultures, are a prime example.
The Bamiyan Buddhas are a great example - or at least lead to a follow-up question to your question. If, say, the British Museum had transported artifacts of similar historical value (beauty, etc, whatever criteria you want to use) decades or centuries ago, but the ruling regime there now demanded their return, whilst making no secret of their intent to destroy those artifacts upon receipt -- what's would you advise the British Museum?
Beyond the dubious nature of geographical happenstance implying inarguable custodianship - another example of nuance to counter your 'everything is black and white' position would be around artifacts from pre-partition India (Pakistan), and who should own those, or more recently Yugoslav-era artifacts. There are myriad examples like these, of course.
Again, if you're happy to ignore the complexity and potential dubiousness of ancestry claims, or orthogonal religious / cultural values, etc - you're back to a geographical claim - 'there are people in roughly the same region as some different people, some time ago'.
500 years ago.
I’m sure there are some examples where the location of the find is unknown, and yes, that would be a difficulty.
A lot of the heat would leave the debate if the blindingly obvious examples looting were resolved - The Elgin Marbles.
Yes, again you're conflating where with who, and that was the crux of my questions to you in the previous post.
Unknown source locations - are a bit of a (minor) edge case I think, but aren't a major problem.
I have no strong opinions on Elgin Marbles, and I haven't been following any debate around that one. In the abstract, I suspect resolving one claim of ownership wouldn't assist in resolving much of 'the debate', but as I say, a bit ignorance on that specific example you cite.
As for your first point, the nations set to safeguard their treasures, doesn't mean they weren't at a total war were destroying those of the enemy is out of bounds. The fact that Germany and the UK safeguarded paintings and sculptures doesnt mean they dont destroy the other's one.
As for the Reformation, it happened 500 years ago. Even before and after many heresies and iconoclastic movements destroyed artifacts and historical things for being pagan but I don't see why are you trying to go so far back when there are literal examples of the Taliban explosing Buddhist symbols that date of this century, or Palmyra.
Yes, and? I am sorry but what does that have to do with anything. The point is that Middle Eastern countries dont value their historical heritage enough and in case of civil conflict would at best sell it in the black market, at worst destroy it for ideological reasons. I think in the region only Turkey, Armenia, Georgia and Jordan are trustworthy enough to safe-keep their cultural artifacts existing abroad.