I always heard Indy say this. (or at least if i had A-B repeat on)
My concern is when it comes to the pilfering of grave goods and spoils of war, who has the right of ownership when it comes down to owning/exhibiting such items.
I'm thinking also that most Belloqs wouldn't (or couldn't) care less as to who eventually 'owns' the said piece. The rule of thumb is usually to the victor the spoils, but that is impossible to determine.
If you are a serious collector, and can afford to purchase on whatever principle, then fine. This obviously elliminates the chance of joe public ever laying their hands on such exhibits -as it will undoubtedly be sold to the highest bidder. Making additons to thier private museums. Unless of course they are liberated. Which is a relative and subjective debate.
But during times of war, theft and pillaging, these war trophys end up being sold onwards. (if only to raise finance for the miltias involved) and usually, depending on the political status of the 'bailiff' as to who will become the 'owner'.
Many museums accross the world exhibit artifacts from accross the world.
It doesn't matter what the artefact is, but who actually attains rightful ownership. If we are to assume that is based purely on who has the bigger stick, then that makes us all neanderthals.
Still, even though various bodies may be set up (in their divine wisdom) to distribute these artefacts, who merits it and on what principles? and furthermore the fact that you are a historian, or a professor, or a beaurocrat doesn't automatically grant you that entitlement to make these decisions. Especially if your salary influences your decisions
...and who decided that you should hold such a priviliged position?
I think every museum curator world over should justify why they feel entitled to exhibit and/or own such curiousities.
No, don't tell me...
We have top men working on it!
Fortunately, we're more enlightened about those kinds of issues than we used to be, when priceless archaeological treasures were indeed bought and sold on the whims of foreign governments, conquerors, wealthy collectors, etc.
Nowadays, it seems like historical and archaeological treasures belong in the country in which they were discovered.
On a more philosophical note, I really think those kinds of things belong to "all mankind" - not to get too cheesy or sentimental - and should be kept and displayed in such a way that they can be appreciated by as many people as possible.
Fortunately, we're more enlightened about those kinds of issues than we used to be, when priceless archaeological treasures were indeed bought and sold on the whims of foreign governments, conquerors, wealthy collectors, etc.
Nowadays, it seems like historical and archaeological treasures belong in the country in which they were discovered.
On a more philosophical note, I really think those kinds of things belong to "all mankind" - not to get too cheesy or sentimental - and should be kept and displayed in such a way that they can be appreciated by as many people as possible.
There's nothing cheesey, sentimental, twee or glib about national treasures. Some races and cultures where wiped off the planet for such merciless wanton desires!
...but what of the spoils already plundered. Seems there's no dignity in death.
some people may argue that Coronados dead, and so are all his grandchildren.
Even Achilles conceded that the body of Hector be returned. I believe such artefacts be returned to there country of origin ( or it's modern day state equivelant)
Achilles had his fun showing off Hector's body before acceding to Priam's request to return it. It's not like he returned it out of his generosity of spirit.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, what happens when Western museums empty their collections and leave their museums empty? As jingoistic as certain Western nations are caused of being, when you close the museums you're cutting out one more chance for the locals to learn a bit of history. Also, what if the Western museum is better equipped for preservation that the home nation?
For example, the British Museum was created in 1753 and officially opened in 1759, and the original Egyptian Museum wasn't built until 1835 and later relocated to its next location in 1858. The current museum wasn't established and built until 1902. That's working on two-hundred years of experience.
Why don't we talk about Italy then?
We have hundreds of our greatests pieces of art and artifacts in many museums across the world.
However I do not condamn a country reluctant to restitute the threasures they took/stole because, at least, if an artifact goes to a museum there will be the opportunity for people to see it and think about the men who created it.
...New York Times about this very subject. It seems that Zahi Hawass is causing a stink about a 3,500 year-old bust of Nefertiti recently unveiled at a German museum.
Location: Berlin, Germany, but born & raised in Chicago
Posts: 34
Being an archaeologist, I have studied many artifacts in museums that came from distant countries. These collections allowed me to understand the ancient people who created them, etc. My researches have also brought me to the countries where these artifacts originated.
After so many experiences in these other museums, I realized that some countries simply do not have the funding or capabilities to maintain their collections. Poor storage conditions, improper displays, etc can all be more devastating for the artifacts than having them lost in private collections. Developing countries i.e. Mexico, the Southeast Asia region, Egypt, and even Greece (even after the 2004 Olympics), simply do not have the necessary money to properly maintain their cultural heritage. Ideally, I believe that artifacts should stay in the countries where they came from, but the reality is that it is too risky for the artifacts to be kept in unacceptable conditions when other facilities are available and willing.
Secondly, these countries rarely have archaeological courses at higher levels or enough students to make contributions to academia. These collections allow regions where archaeological students are in a higher density to have access to study and enrich these countries with cultural history. Don't get me wrong, archaeology does not simply come from westerners, but when considered with my previous statement regarding improper facilities, then this can be seen as an additional benefit.
So, when every country has the ability to maintain collections at the current standards in which they are kept now (compare the museums in Cairo to the newly built and opened Neues Museum in Berlin featuring the bust of Nefertiti; it is better off left in Berlin for now), then the artifacts should remain where they are. The side benefit being these museums tend to be accessible by budding archaeologists.
I think the destruction of the Bamyan Buddhas by the Taliban is a good argument for western museums holding onto ancient treasures. How many treasures currently in the possession of western museums would have been long destroyed had they not been removed?
To me, Archaeology is more about context, it's not so much the artifact, but where the artifact was found. Only when everything has been learned from the object in context should the artifact be taken away to a museum for further examination.
Of course I think the country, in which the artifact was found, should have jurisdiction over what happens to said object, but I agree with fellow posters here that the best conditions for these artifacts are in well funded museums, that many nations just cannot supply.
There are positives and negatives to moving artifacts from their native country, but moving them is so those far away, in distance, and in the future can enjoy and explore history. So the things that we have learned stay with us and don't get clumsily destroyed over war or brutal dictatorships. Anyways, enough of my rant, back to studying.
I wrote my senior thesis about this very topic. I found the book "Loot" by Sharon Waxman to be a really interesting look into this extremely complex debate. She examines the issue from all angles, using particular cases like the Zodiac of Denderah, the Rosetta Stone, the Nefertiti Bust.
"Orientalism" by Edward Said is interesting too. It presents a theory about how cultural resources from the far east are objectified by the west, and museums display their art simply to show how "exotic" and "foreign" it is.
One of the huge issues I have with museums is the fact they tend to buy stolen objects with no provenances in the name of preservation, and then post a blurb in their museum next to the object on display that simply states where it comes from and nothing more, effectively erasing the history of how it got from it's original location to the museum. If museums are going to claim that they are preserving history I believe they need to preserve all of it, not just the parts they like.
...New York Times about this very subject. It seems that Zahi Hawass is causing a stink about a 3,500 year-old bust of Nefertiti recently unveiled at a German museum.
Okay, the bust of Nefertiti wasn't recently unveiled. It's been the showcase item at the Berlin Museum for generations. Discovered in 1912 by a German archaeological team and snuck out of the country.
Just posted about this topic on another page about Zahi Hawass. I hate to quote myself, but rather than retyping....
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodeknight
Finally, regarding his push for the return of artifacts to Egypt, he's completely justified, particularly in cases where significant finds were essentially smuggled out of the country. The Rosetta Stone was taken during French occupation, and the bust of Nefertiti was (if I recall correctly) smothered in mud and shipped out as 'another unfinished bust' from a workshop. Though its value was known immediately by the German team that discovered it, they snuck it out of the country, bounced it around museums for a while low key, and eventually displayed it as the bust of the famed Queen Nefertiti. Rather nefarious.
The village of Gourna outside of Luxor is famed for being the home to many generations of looters, who built their homes over the entrances to tombs. They looted for a living, and sold mummies and grave goods to archaeologists, tourists, and curators. If they found gold statues, they usually melted them down because selling a bar of gold was easier than fencing a gold statue. Sad to think how many statues or other gold relics were lost because of that. So there are literally thousands and thousands of stolen artifacts scattered around the world. Hawass just want to get some of the more important ones back.
Hawass also assisted in getting the mummy of Ramses I returned to Egypt after a museum bought the Egyptian collection from a museum of the bizarre in Canada at Niagra Falls. Good going there.
As was said earlier, less important artifacts or even minor mummies should be displayed around the world. Egyptian history is the world's history. But Hawass is right in thinking royal mummies, and artifacts like the Rosetta Stone and bust of Nefertiti should be returned to Egypt. They belong in a museum! The Egyptian Museum!
Also, good to see someone quoting Orientalism! That was the topic of my Master's thesis at the American University of Cairo. Referenced it in my Hawass post.
Michael Kimmelman continues on the topic of "who owns antiquity?" with another article, this time on the Elgin Marbles. Greece has demanded their return from the British Museum, and parties from both countries sat down for talks beginning yesterday.
Quote:
The British Museum is Europe’s Western front in the global war over cultural patrimony, on account of the marbles. The pamphlets give the museum’s version for why they should stay in Britain, as they have for two centuries — ever since Lord Elgin, the British ambassador to the Sublime Porte at Constantinople, and with the consent of the ruling Ottomans (not to mention a blithe disregard for whatever may have been the wishes of the Greek populace), spirited them from the Acropolis in Athens. The pamphlet stresses that the British Museum is free and attracts millions of visitors every year from around the world, making the sculptures available to, and putting them in the context of, a wide swath of human civilization.
Drop in on The New York Times to read up on the Demands for the Elgin Marbles. You can also read up on the reasons why the British Museum thinks the sculptures should remain on their dreary isle of blight.
...It belongs in a museum!
