[debian3]

I’m conflicted. I understand the concept that stolen goods should be returned and it’s the right thing to do, but at the same time it was centuries ago and the preservation was done by them. I have seen well preserved exposition in that museum and then you visit the original country where it’s from and they themselves have nothing or very little left from that era.

[jeromegv]

We never fail to find someone to defend colonization!

> 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...

[pdabbadabba]

You're using the word "stolen" here with a lot of conviction but, imho, not a lot of rigor. In what sense did people "own" the artifacts that the British removed from Egypt? Who owned them? If nobody owned them, how were they "stolen"? That's the weak version of the problem.

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.

[wbl]

The Egyptian peasant lives today much the same as his ancestors did. It's a remarkable degree of continuity! And some works were removed contrary to law quite recently like the head of Nefertiti.

[pdabbadabba]

Interesting points, but can you explain how they apply here? It's interesting and, afaik, true that modern Egyptians's lives today are more similar to their ancient ancestors' than you might expect (moreso than in many other nations). But how should we think about the relevance of this fact to debates about looted artifacts? Does the fact that they still work fields irrigated by the Nile suffice to give them a claim to repatriate artifacts taken generation ago? (Perhaps there are more similarities than this. I don't mean to be flippant on this point, I just am not an expert on all the similarities.) Or is it significant that they have generally abandoned the ancient Egyptian religion in favor of Islam, have a President rather than a Pharaoh, own televisions and smartphones, are now generally safe from crocodiles, have controlled the Nile's annual flooding (whose volatility was a dominant source of danger and drama in ancient life), etc.?

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.

[lostlogin]

If someone went to England and took the rocks from Stonehenge and carted them off to a museum overseas, that would surely be stealing?

[pdabbadabba]

Probably so. I imagine the U.K. has laws that make such artifacts the formal property of the state. Was this true for 19th century Egypt?

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.

[lostlogin]

It seems likely that designating artifacts property of the state is something that happened as a result of looting/stealing/collecting in the past.

We see this happening now on a smaller scale with metal detecting and what happens with their finds.

[Jedd]

> We never fail to find someone to defend colonization!

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.)

[lentil_soup]

you could, even though I disagree, use that argument for some artifacts, but surely not for the massive collection of things from Greece and Egypt. Those are pretty obvious you can return to the modern countries that sit on those lands.

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.

[lostlogin]

> 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?

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?

[Jedd]

> 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'.

[lostlogin]

I argue that they should go back to where they were found.

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.

[Jedd]

> I argue that they should go back to where they were found.

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.

[suddenlybananas]

Greek artifacts from Anatolia, should they go to Greece or Turkey?

[lm28469]

You can have negative views of colonization and also accept the fact that most artifacts were lost because they were looted before Europeans even arrived.

[u_sama]

> Syria 2011 > Lebanon 1970s > Algeria 1990s > Afghanistan 1990s

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.

[lostlogin]

> 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.

[u_sama]

All EU nations have programs to safeguard cultural artifacts and the UK had trainings as late as the 80s or 90s I think.

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.

[suddenlybananas]

>The Reformation

500 years ago.

[akudha]

Can't this be on a case by case basis? After all, the British stole from so many places in the world - what if they returned stolen items to countries (India for example) that are interested and capable of safeguarding artifacts and didn't return to those countries where they might get destroyed (Afghanistan etc)?

[arethuza]

What about examples where there was nothing like theft involved and no colonisation - the Pergamon Altar in the amazing Pergamon Museum in Berlin is a good example...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pergamon_Altar

[Podrod]

Although the Pergamon Museum also has the Ishtar Gate which was basically smuggled out of Iraq brick by brick.

[u_sama]

I dont see an issue with such a thing, except on the case of legitimate purchase or corruption like the Egyprian bracelet that was smelted for gold.

[suddenlybananas]

>It's not being shown anywhere, it's just hidden in a museum collection in the UK.

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.

[lostlogin]

This argument would be stronger if the Egyptians were displaying Stonehenge and a few long barrows.