piratediver
Sr. Member
Finder's Keepers?
November 17, 2009
> Findings
>
> A Case in Antiquities for âFinders Keepersâ
> By JOHN TIERNEY
>
> Zahi Hawass regards the Rosetta Stone, like so much else, as stolen
> property languishing in exile. âWe own that stone,â he told Al
> Jazeera, speaking as the secretary general of Egyptâs Supreme Council
> of Antiquities.
>
> The British Museum does not agree â at least not yet. But never
> underestimate Dr. Hawass when it comes to this sort of custody
> dispute. He has prevailed so often in getting pieces returned to what
> he calls their âmotherlandâ that museum curators are scrambling to
> appease him.
>
> Last month, after Dr. Hawass suspended the Louvreâs excavation in
> Egypt, the museum promptly returned the ancient fresco fragments he
> sought. Then the Metropolitan Museum of Art made a pre-emptive display
> of its âappreciationâ and âdeep respectâ by buying a piece of a shrine
> from a private collector so that it could be donated to Egypt.
>
> Now an official from the Neues Museum in Berlin is headed to Egypt to
> discuss Dr. Hawassâs demand for its star attraction, a bust of
> Nefertiti.
>
> These gestures may make immediate pragmatic sense for museum curators
> worried about getting excavation permits and avoiding legal problems.
> But is this trend ultimately good for archaeology?
>
> Scientists and curators have generally supported the laws passed in
> recent decades giving countries ownership of ancient âcultural
> propertyâ discovered within their borders. But these laws rest on a
> couple of highly debatable assumptions: that artifacts should remain
> in whatever country they were found, and that the best way to protect
> archaeological sites is to restrict the international trade in
> antiquities.
>
> In some cases, it makes aesthetic or archaeological sense to keep
> artifacts grouped together where they were found, but it can also be
> risky to leave everything in one place, particularly if the country is
> in turmoil or canât afford to excavate or guard all its treasures.
> After the Metropolitan Museum was pressured to hand over a collection
> called the Lydian Hoard, one of the most valuable pieces was stolen
> several years ago from its new home in Turkey.
>
> Restricting the export of artifacts hasnât ended their theft and
> looting any more than the war on drugs has ended narcotics smuggling.
> Instead, the restrictions promote the black market and discourage the
> kind of open research that would benefit everyone except criminals.
>
> Legitimate dealers, museums and private collectors have a financial
> incentive to pay for expert excavation and analysis of artifacts,
> because that kind of documentation makes the objects more valuable. A
> nation could maintain a public registry of discoveries and require
> collectors to give scholars access to the artifacts, but that can be
> accomplished without making everything the property of the national
> government.
>
> The timing of Dr. Hawassâs current offensive, as my colleague Michael
> Kimmelman reported, makes it look like retribution against the
> Westerners who helped prevent an Egyptian from becoming the leader of
> Unesco, the United Nationâs cultural agency. But whatever the
> particular motivation, there is no doubt that the cultural-property
> laws have turned archeological discoveries into political weapons.
>
> In his book âWho Owns Antiquity?â, James Cuno argues that scholars
> have betrayed their principles by acquiescing to politicians who have
> exploited antiquities to legitimize themselves and their governments.
> Saddam Hussein was the most blatant, turning Iraqi archeology museums
> into propaganda for himself as the modern Nebuchadnezzar, but other
> leaders have been just as cynical in using antiquities to bolster
> their claims of sovereignty.
>
> Dr. Cuno advocates the revival of partage, the traditional system in
> which archeologists digging in foreign countries would give some of
> their discoveries to the host country and take others home.
> That way
> both sides benefit, and both sides have incentives to recover
> antiquities before looters beat them to it. (To debate this idea, go
> to nytimes.com/tierneylab.)
>
> As the director of the Art Institute of Chicago, Dr. Cuno has his own
> obvious motives for acquiring foreign antiquities, and he makes no
> apology for wanting to display Middle Eastern statues to
> Midwesterners.
>
> âIt is in the nature of our species to connect and exchange,â Dr. Cuno
> writes. âAnd the result is a common culture in which we all have a
> stake. It is not, and can never be, the property of one modern nation
> or another.â
>
> Some of the most culturally protectionist nations today, like Egypt,
> Italy and Turkey, are trying to hoard treasures that couldnât have
> been created without the inspiration provided by imported works of
> art. (Imagine the Renaissance without the influence of âlootedâ Greek
> antiquities.) And the current political rulers of those countries
> often have little in common culturally with the creators of the
> artifacts they claim to own.
>
> Dr. Hawass may consider the Rosetta Stone to be the property of his
> government agency, but the modern state of Egypt didnât even exist
> when it was discovered in 1799 (much less when it was inscribed in 196
> B.C., during the Hellenistic era). The land was under the rule of the
> Ottoman Empire, and the local historians were most interested in
> studying their Islamic heritage.
>
> The inscribed stone fragment, which had been used as construction
> material at a fort, didnât acquire any significance until it was
> noticed by Napoleonâs soldiers and examined by the scholars on the
> expedition.
>
> When the French lost the war, they made a copy of the inscriptions
> before surrendering the stone to the English victors, who returned it
> to the British Museum. Eventually, two scholars, working separately in
> Britain and in France, deciphered the hieroglyphics.
>
> This all happened, of course, long before todayâs nationalistic
> retention laws and the United Nationsâ Convention on the Means of
> Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of
> Ownership of Cultural Property. But what if the Rosetta Stone were
> unearthed in modern times?
>
> Were the Rosetta Stone to appear on the art market without the proper
> export permits and documented provenance, Dr. Cuno says, a museum
> curator who acquired it would risk international censure and possible
> criminal charges. Scholars would shun it because policies at the
> leading archeological journals would forbid the publication of its
> text.
>
> âNot being acquired or published, the Rosetta Stone would be a mere
> curiosity,â Dr. Cuno writes. âEgyptology as we know it would not
> exist, and modern Egyptians would not know to claim it as theirs.â
>
> The Supreme Council of Antiquities wouldnât even know what it was
> missing.
Pirate diver
>
November 17, 2009
> Findings
>
> A Case in Antiquities for âFinders Keepersâ
> By JOHN TIERNEY
>
> Zahi Hawass regards the Rosetta Stone, like so much else, as stolen
> property languishing in exile. âWe own that stone,â he told Al
> Jazeera, speaking as the secretary general of Egyptâs Supreme Council
> of Antiquities.
>
> The British Museum does not agree â at least not yet. But never
> underestimate Dr. Hawass when it comes to this sort of custody
> dispute. He has prevailed so often in getting pieces returned to what
> he calls their âmotherlandâ that museum curators are scrambling to
> appease him.
>
> Last month, after Dr. Hawass suspended the Louvreâs excavation in
> Egypt, the museum promptly returned the ancient fresco fragments he
> sought. Then the Metropolitan Museum of Art made a pre-emptive display
> of its âappreciationâ and âdeep respectâ by buying a piece of a shrine
> from a private collector so that it could be donated to Egypt.
>
> Now an official from the Neues Museum in Berlin is headed to Egypt to
> discuss Dr. Hawassâs demand for its star attraction, a bust of
> Nefertiti.
>
> These gestures may make immediate pragmatic sense for museum curators
> worried about getting excavation permits and avoiding legal problems.
> But is this trend ultimately good for archaeology?
>
> Scientists and curators have generally supported the laws passed in
> recent decades giving countries ownership of ancient âcultural
> propertyâ discovered within their borders. But these laws rest on a
> couple of highly debatable assumptions: that artifacts should remain
> in whatever country they were found, and that the best way to protect
> archaeological sites is to restrict the international trade in
> antiquities.
>
> In some cases, it makes aesthetic or archaeological sense to keep
> artifacts grouped together where they were found, but it can also be
> risky to leave everything in one place, particularly if the country is
> in turmoil or canât afford to excavate or guard all its treasures.
> After the Metropolitan Museum was pressured to hand over a collection
> called the Lydian Hoard, one of the most valuable pieces was stolen
> several years ago from its new home in Turkey.
>
> Restricting the export of artifacts hasnât ended their theft and
> looting any more than the war on drugs has ended narcotics smuggling.
> Instead, the restrictions promote the black market and discourage the
> kind of open research that would benefit everyone except criminals.
>
> Legitimate dealers, museums and private collectors have a financial
> incentive to pay for expert excavation and analysis of artifacts,
> because that kind of documentation makes the objects more valuable. A
> nation could maintain a public registry of discoveries and require
> collectors to give scholars access to the artifacts, but that can be
> accomplished without making everything the property of the national
> government.
>
> The timing of Dr. Hawassâs current offensive, as my colleague Michael
> Kimmelman reported, makes it look like retribution against the
> Westerners who helped prevent an Egyptian from becoming the leader of
> Unesco, the United Nationâs cultural agency. But whatever the
> particular motivation, there is no doubt that the cultural-property
> laws have turned archeological discoveries into political weapons.
>
> In his book âWho Owns Antiquity?â, James Cuno argues that scholars
> have betrayed their principles by acquiescing to politicians who have
> exploited antiquities to legitimize themselves and their governments.
> Saddam Hussein was the most blatant, turning Iraqi archeology museums
> into propaganda for himself as the modern Nebuchadnezzar, but other
> leaders have been just as cynical in using antiquities to bolster
> their claims of sovereignty.
>
> Dr. Cuno advocates the revival of partage, the traditional system in
> which archeologists digging in foreign countries would give some of
> their discoveries to the host country and take others home.
> That way
> both sides benefit, and both sides have incentives to recover
> antiquities before looters beat them to it. (To debate this idea, go
> to nytimes.com/tierneylab.)
>
> As the director of the Art Institute of Chicago, Dr. Cuno has his own
> obvious motives for acquiring foreign antiquities, and he makes no
> apology for wanting to display Middle Eastern statues to
> Midwesterners.
>
> âIt is in the nature of our species to connect and exchange,â Dr. Cuno
> writes. âAnd the result is a common culture in which we all have a
> stake. It is not, and can never be, the property of one modern nation
> or another.â
>
> Some of the most culturally protectionist nations today, like Egypt,
> Italy and Turkey, are trying to hoard treasures that couldnât have
> been created without the inspiration provided by imported works of
> art. (Imagine the Renaissance without the influence of âlootedâ Greek
> antiquities.) And the current political rulers of those countries
> often have little in common culturally with the creators of the
> artifacts they claim to own.
>
> Dr. Hawass may consider the Rosetta Stone to be the property of his
> government agency, but the modern state of Egypt didnât even exist
> when it was discovered in 1799 (much less when it was inscribed in 196
> B.C., during the Hellenistic era). The land was under the rule of the
> Ottoman Empire, and the local historians were most interested in
> studying their Islamic heritage.
>
> The inscribed stone fragment, which had been used as construction
> material at a fort, didnât acquire any significance until it was
> noticed by Napoleonâs soldiers and examined by the scholars on the
> expedition.
>
> When the French lost the war, they made a copy of the inscriptions
> before surrendering the stone to the English victors, who returned it
> to the British Museum. Eventually, two scholars, working separately in
> Britain and in France, deciphered the hieroglyphics.
>
> This all happened, of course, long before todayâs nationalistic
> retention laws and the United Nationsâ Convention on the Means of
> Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of
> Ownership of Cultural Property. But what if the Rosetta Stone were
> unearthed in modern times?
>
> Were the Rosetta Stone to appear on the art market without the proper
> export permits and documented provenance, Dr. Cuno says, a museum
> curator who acquired it would risk international censure and possible
> criminal charges. Scholars would shun it because policies at the
> leading archeological journals would forbid the publication of its
> text.
>
> âNot being acquired or published, the Rosetta Stone would be a mere
> curiosity,â Dr. Cuno writes. âEgyptology as we know it would not
> exist, and modern Egyptians would not know to claim it as theirs.â
>
> The Supreme Council of Antiquities wouldnât even know what it was
> missing.
Pirate diver
>
