After delays, Egypt set for lavish opening of grand museum
phys.org
phys.org
I was in Egypt about two weeks before the arab spring revolution and not too long after terrorists shot a bunch of tourists in the Luxor area. There were very few tourists because of the terrorist attack, and so in Luxor my wife and I had a driver and a egyptoligist tour guide that normally works with large tour groups. They drove us around (with a handgun under the driver's seat and a rifle in the trunk that I pretended not to see) to different sites for a few days and the guide gave excellent academic-like guiding.
Later we were in Cairo and it felt like I had their main museum completely to myself. There were only a few tourists and they were outnumbered by the docents/security. We saw the tutankhamen exhibit by ourselves.
What I'm confused about is that I read that during the spring revolution the tutankhamen exhibit was looted, and yet it still goes on tour. It was here in Switzerland a couple of years ago. Are they showing copies of the original exhibits? Or I suppose not everything was on exhibit at once and so a subset was looted? I never got a good explanation to this.
During the security turmoil following the 25 January Revolution, the museum was broken into on 28 January 2011, by unidentified individuals, and 54 artifacts were stolen. Zahi Hawass, the then director of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, stated "My heart is broken and my blood is boiling".[30] Hawass later told The New York Times that thieves looking for gold broke 70 objects, including two sculptures of the pharaoh Tutankhamun and took two skulls from a research lab, before being stopped as they left the museum.[31] In response, the military cordoned off the museum to secure it against looting and theft.[32]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Museum
And a page about the foreign exhibitions and tours
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhibitions_of_artifacts_from_...
Grabbed this one as it was the first I found that a picture from the museum looking out at the pyramids.
One day I will.. and this museum looks like a place I will truly appreciate looking around in.
> 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.
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.
500 years ago.
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.
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.
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?
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'.
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.
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.
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.
>The ministry found that the artifact had passed from a museum restoration specialist to a silver trader to the owner of a jewelry workshop.
>British Museum gems for sale on eBay - how a theft was exposed
The British Museum is also vulnerable to staff theft.
Humans or groups can be responsible for many foolish acts. Stealing is one of those traits. I am open to accepting this when referring to the British Museum. However, I am also open to groups of people DESTROYING historical items all because they do not share their culture or religious views!
Again, I see no issue in Countries like UK returning items that's not theirs but only under grounds that they will be SAFE in their new (returned) home. However, the middle east is mixed with different cultures -- languages and religions. It's also a place of much conflict.
As a British man myself and interested in Ancient Egyptian mythology, I would be just as much heartbroken of ancient items being destroyed. You don't have to be an Egyptian who's lineage traces back to this historical times.
Its sad, really. One of these days those pyramids will likely be destroyed. Perhaps by War. Perhaps by religious uprising.
Again - is "stolen" correct, here? If the British did not take any of these back with them, would many of these items still be around? It could have been destroyed of gone missing.
Just a thought.
That's none of Britain's concern. How would you feel if Americans showed up and started breaking the angels off of Westminster Abbey or carting off Stonehenge because they didn't trust you to keep them SAFE? You'd probably riot.
The belief that you're entitled to another culture's knowledge and artifacts is colonialist thinking. They have the right to destroy their own culture if they want, you only have the right to ask and negotiate with them as peers. What Britain did in many cases wrt these artifacts was clearly theft.
And Europeans stripped the Colosseum for parts and the Church destroyed the artifacts of European pagan culture. You people really have no moral high ground to stand on.
Let's not change things up with a made up invasion compared to the discovery of ancient egypt in 1800. Two different scenarios. We already have a good understanding of the meaning to Stonehenge today. For a Country to 'take it' is different compared to discovering something COMPELTELY NEW and captivating!
The point I am making is that I am not having some bias or attachment with my comment just because I live in the same Country that has "stolen" goods.
Doesn't matter whether I am British or not. Certainly not entitled.
If anything was stolen over 200 years ago from Britain but is "safe" today elsewhere at some museum is no concern for me. It is what it is. However, I am open to returning things back to their original Countries. Despite being British, it's unlikely to be my decision.
> They have the right to destroy their own culture if they want
It's not their own culture culture I am worried about.
> You people really have no moral high ground to stand on.
> And Europeans stripped the Colosseum for parts and the Church destroyed the artifacts of European pagan culture
There is NOTHING I have said/wrote that gives me a 'moral high ground' to any of this. Just focusing on Britian, we have a rich history - this includes changes in many ways, including culture, religion, artifacts, etc. This country on it's own has lost many historic things as a result - and I find it an absolute shame! Imagine the type of evidence we could have that may be in the BC era. It's not just about Britain but many other places around the world with rich history.
But I will say/write this - if we do return things, they are returned to a place where they are preserved/protected.
Seriously - don't get me started with Britain. Again, I am in favour of many things being returned. I only say this because this Country might be doomed in the next 50 years. Whatever we have that is historic to Britain.. whether Christain or pagan.. will likely be destroyed. This includes anything in museums. All because it goes against the "right" religion.
I don't write this as a Christian myself - but as an Atheist.