Archaeological remains - who cares?

[hoplite14gr]

I have to say I am not satisfied with 1970 arrangement BUT we have to draw a line somewhere. Better something than nothing.
Some interesting angles for this discussion:
In all the world -irrespective of race or creed-the concept of "inheritance" is legal rule everywhere.
Many people consider various items part of their legacy and would like them returned. More so if these people made though millenia of history.
Usually there is no place for rational arguments there.

Also the rattling of money. I respect the common man´s desire to see national treasures restored but I cannot forget the governments who want to fill their coffers from tourists.

Charles's point deserves serious examination with the help of modern digital technology, now that we have it. An item found can stay with its culture/people and digital detailed images can be distributed through the Net.

And yes some credit must be given to the travelers of the old on the ground that they preserved what might be lost through neglect.
Thought I belive that in all fairness all items should be returned.

Also where is war there is looting. Sorry guys but there are no innocent armies in this. And ancient treasures are part of the loot.

Lets not forget also wealthy peoples desire to posses what othera cannot have.

Just my two pennies worth.

Kind regards

[Andreas Gobinius]

Caius Fabius wrote:

Lastly, any illegal artifact diggers should be sentenced to several years labor, at McDonald's or other fast food establishments, and encouraged to eat Big Macs and french fries / pommefritz until they no longer have the ability to bend over and dig in archaeological sites.

I fully agree with that point Caius

[Magnus]

I say if your country got looted because you got your butt handed to you in a war, TOO BAD! Dems da breaks. Stop whining about it, and hope the country that has all of your artifacts is nice enough to put them in a museum that everyone can enjoy.

I get tired of all this "They took my stuff 200 years ago, and I want it back!". All these people griping about their dead ancestor's possesions, or land and asking for it back. Hey, guess what? That's life, so unless you want to build a marauding army and fight and spill blood for said plunder, get over it, and go enjoy the artifacts in the disputed museum like every other person.

Nationalism in terms of objects is WAY over rated.

[Robert Vermaat]

I say if your country got looted because you got your butt handed to you in a war, TOO BAD! Dems da breaks. Stop whining about it, and hope the country that has all of your artifacts is nice enough to put them in a museum that everyone can enjoy.

[..]

Hey, guess what? That's life, so unless you want to build a marauding army and fight and spill blood for said plunder, get over it, and go enjoy the artifacts in the disputed museum like every other person.

Hmmm. Well, for my country that would mean that we would have had to leave Germany in possession of all the art the Nazi regime looted from us between 1940 and 1945, and that would go the same for all of occupied Europe.

Minus of course what was looted from Germany after the victory in 1945, that would then be seen in the US and other allied countries..

[Andreas Gobinius]

As Robert wrote, it is difficult to solve... Probably the most difficult with drawing the chronological line from which we will reconsider, where relics should be present...
I come from the country occupied trough 200 years of its history and remains of our culture are presented now almost everywhere... Archaeological remains too...
I cannot place here unequivocal opinion about these previously stolen relics present in Ermitage, Berlin and other places, but I am sure that citizens of civilizied nations should not buy any artifacts from Bulgaria, Ukraine, Moldawia or Poland, stolen by prospectors of antiquities recently...
I think, that it is mostly the problem of our consciousness then the law.

[A_Volpe]

I'm not looking for answers to these questions, Just things to think about.

what about the purpose of museums in the first place, a center of education and sharing of cultures and arts that "everyone" can enjoy?

Can it be possible for countries/governments and museums to negotiate about works that are discovered to be "stolen" or smuggled, as to whether the museum can keep them or be returned? Could the country of origin be willing to let the museum in question keep the pieces, as a way of sharing culture and knowledge et al? Wouldn't the country be proud to allow a foriegn museum to display that country's artifacts?

Can it be possible that if the country of origin is determined to have the piece(s) returned, can there be a "grace" period for it's display, perhaps possible restoration/conservation to further protect the piece, and, had a period in which artisan(s) could come in with exclusive access to make accurate reproductions of that piece before it's returned?
(is it not better to have a copy of the piece to look at rather than not being able to see it at all?)

What about the people who collect art, and later find out it was stolen, are they now the "bad guy"? Why should they be harrassed and bullied when they did not know thier source was illegal, people can be decieved by even the most legitamate looking company/dealer. And where is the pursecution of those illegal dealers, thieves and smugglers? Can't these people do something better to make a living? What's the government doing to help thier citizens out? Why are they focusing on beating down museums for [stolen] art?

What about funding for archaeological research and sites? What about funding and staffing for security for those sites so they're not pillaged? Why are governments so concerned about funding for nuclear destruction, that money could go to better use.
Why is it on stations like PBS and BBC and History Channel that have these great programs on important discoveries or explorations of artifacts, they always run out of funding and/or time at the very last minute? Sure it makes for "drama" for TV, but it's a kick to the teeth of people trying to do good research. (ie, there are great programs on TV from PBS, BBC, History and Discovery that will have an important find that someone is looking for, only to be given x amount of time/money to look for it. Sure, it's "drama" for TV, but it always ends down-to-the-wire, 5 minutes left on site, and they *just* find something, only to head home empty handed and having to raise enough funds over the next 20 years to try again...Why does that have to happen?)

Don't great works of art and culture deserve to be looked at, rather than stuffed into a storage closet for decades collecting dust?

Or am I asking "ridiculous" questions about an imperfect, selfish, power-hungry world?...Are we not supposed to learn something from History?

[hoplite14gr]

Andy, the "ridiculus" questions are part of the problem in this and other issues too. So in my opinion you are right to ask them.

Kind regards

[Robert Vermaat]

Well, some answers then.

Can it be possible for countries/governments and museums to negotiate about works that are discovered to be "stolen" or smuggled, as to whether the museum can keep them or be returned? Could the country of origin be willing to let the museum in question keep the pieces, as a way of sharing culture and knowledge et al? Wouldn't the country be proud to allow a foriegn museum to display that country's artifacts?

All depends on the countries involved, the goodwill and the relations. Depending on what sort of artefact and the individual case (a recently stolen Rembrandt is different from the Elgin marbles), different laws apply. See below.

Can it be possible that if the country of origin is determined to have the piece(s) returned, can there be a "grace" period

There is no law that regulates material sold under earlier regimes. In such cases, it's pure goodwill when items are returned. For stuff like stolen artwork, international law applies.

(is it not better to have a copy of the piece to look at rather than not being able to see it at all?)

That's something that museums already do with their own collection!

What about the people who collect art, and later find out it was stolen, are they now the "bad guy"? Why should they be harrassed and bullied when they did not know thier source was illegal, people can be decieved by even the most legitamate looking company/dealer.

No, that's their risk. Let the buyer beware! Claiming ignorance is no defence, because everybody can claim ignorance. Too bad, but that's the law in most countries - when you buy something, you must be aware of provenance. there's always a grey area, of course, but in the case of archaeological artefacts ar artwork, well, there's enough discussion to make everybody watch what they buy.

And where is the pursecution of those illegal dealers, thieves and smugglers? Can't these people do something better to make a living? What's the government doing to help thier citizens out? Why are they focusing on beating down museums for [stolen] art?

If they can be caught, punishment is severe. Jail time in the UK, Germany.

Why is it on stations like PBS and BBC and History Channel that have these great programs on important discoveries or explorations of artifacts, they always run out of funding and/or time at the very last minute?

That's just to fool you into thinking that there was really something to find, had they not 'just' run out of money. :twisted: It's a scam! There was nothing there to begin with!

[Spurius]

It is my opinion that the whole matter is a logistical nightmare. In some cases, things should be highly considered to be returned (human remains, exceptional and unique relics). But when a ruling is posted, often it ends up dictating the guidelines for all items, even those which are somewhat common, or those which would be of greater expense to return and/or catalogue and file than the item is worth.

For me, it is a challenge enough when faced with a similar circumstance on a small scale. Recently an aged member of my family passed away, and now there is some tension as to how certain possessions of this person will be handed out to the descendants. I mention this because, if this is difficult enough at the scale of a family spanning only a few generations, how much more difficult is this when considering nations and cultures over the course of centuries and millenia?

[Andreas Gobinius]

Spurius wrote:

if this is difficult enough at the scale of a family spanning only a few generations, how much more difficult is this when considering nations and cultures over the course of centuries and millenia?

Hmmm... I think that we should separate logistic problems from the general problems of the archaeological heritage ownership...
When we consider the course of millenia we may say, that it is our common - Paneuropean heritage, especially in the case of items connected with people we don`t know by name or language, but only called as archaeological culture remains...

[Arthes]

Personally, I am always in two minds about remains.
I have a fascination with archaelogical facial reconstruction and obviously love to see the grave goods. Lets face it....we couldn't accurately re-enact the past if it wasn't for some of those.. :wink: and the thrill of actually being able to touch something from so long ago.....that was worn or used.... :roll: :roll:
However, I also feel it is wrong to seperate the remains from their grave goods and even, in some cases, to exhume a body.
When watching the television programme about Nefertiti, seeing the damage to the mummy's face upset me; stupid as it may sound, I thought how Nefertiti (if it were her) would feel.
If the bodily remains cannot be left in situ, I feel that most, if not all grave artifacts should be kept with the body. The Aigai-Vergina graves are a good example of what I would like to see more often.....and this would, I suppose mean returning artifacts to the original or subsequent gravesite.
Tut-ankh-amun is in his tomb, but where are most of his grave goods...?
When they finally find Alexander The Great, there is likely to be another war of the Diadochi...! Who would he actually belong to and if, for instance, Andrew Chugg is correct and they find him under St Marks in Venice posing as a saint :lol: ....does he stay there or return to Alexandria or Macedonia - Aigai...If he is under Nebi Daniel Mosque....the same question, at Siwah, the same question....etc; Are Alexander's wishes respected, or those of the government who insists they 'own' him as a result of heritage, ancestry or a long term tenancy....? :evil:
Regards
Arthes

[Berbescu]

Charles's point deserves serious examination with the help of modern digital technology, now that we have it. An item found can stay with its culture/people and digital detailed images can be distributed through the Net.

There are already projects to do that. The problem is that it is incredibly time consuming and expensive.

If you can make exact copies, then the whole idea of 'collecting artifacts' for their intrinsic value would go by the wayside in most cases. This would eventually stop looting of sites for 'priceless artifacts', and send the 'just for money collectors' back to collecting baseball cards and autographs.

Even the poorest of museums already have replicas for sale. This doesn't stop people from looting archaeological sites, nor does it stop people from dealing in antiquities. If everyone had a replica of the Mona Lisa hanging on their living room wall, would the monetary value of the original decline? If a particular museum in London had a large collection of replicas including, let's say, Michelangelo's David and Trajan's Column, would as many people go to see the replicas as the originals? Would people look on the replicas with as much awe as they would the real things? People make a distinction between them. A scientist might value the replica almost as much as the original because of it's scientific value, but the public likes to feel that they are in the presence of something ancient.

Also, there should be an international agreement that all finds must be published (online and in accessible media) within so many months of recovery, depending on conservation requirements and that all artifacts must be conserved and recorded in a timely fashion. This would slow down the legal digging about and disturbing of sites and give unemployed history graduates a job. :lol:

Who will pay for those jobs?



Ioan.

[Paullus Scipio]

History is just that.......we cannot undo the past. We cannot bring back countless irreplaceable artworks and artefacts such as marble statuary burnt to make lime or mortar, and we should be grateful to the Lord Elgins of this world for helping to preserve what little we do have......
Just as the ebb and flow of history has seen treasures of the past move from Alexandria to Constantinople then to Venice, and others from Greece to Italy, then on to England and France, so in the future, History will see the Great Works continue to move around ( the Getty Collection springs to mind)......it is really of little consequence where they are at any given time, so long as that part of humanity's heritage is preserved for the future.......and surely that is the primary function of Art Galleries, Museums and Archaeology? Preservation of Humanity's Heritage........

When it comes to that preservation, countries should pool together since some have much money but little archaeological heritage, while others, such as Italy and Greece to pick but two, have an embarassingly rich archaeological heritage, without the means to support or even preserve what is there.
Take this case in point:-

If a particular museum in London had a large collection of replicas including, let's say, Michelangelo's David and Trajan's Column, would as many people go to see the replicas as the originals?

If you want to see what Trajan's column looked like, you would do better to go and look at the casts made by Napoleon III now in London ( V&A museum), or the Museo de Civilita Romana outside Rome, or the museum at St Germain-en-Laye.
The studio photographic plates made by the German Professor Cichorius of the Italian copy cast in the 1890's provides the basis of all studies of the Column.
And the original? While still 'in situ' it has been damaged almost to the point of complete destruction by ever-increasing car pollution ( producing sulphuric acid which reacts with and dissolves marble). When I last saw it in 2005, it had significantly deteriorated in the less than ten years since the time before......soon it will be gone......the same fate has befallen the excavated portions of Pompeii and Herculaneum ( fortunately two thirds of Pompeii and most of Herculaneum still lie buried)
PRESERVATION must be paramount, lest we lose what little of the past we still have.........

[Iagoba]

This remenbers me the Odissey "trasure hunter" polemic.

I won´t say "that ship and his contents may belong to Spain, and it can be a tomb of Spanish people" (that would be a looong legal matter)

Where is the modern "scientific interest" in this case?

Do they excavated, researched, published information?

I´m sure they only want the valuable relics (and gold, silver) to be sold. Like in "ye olde times"...

They can keep the gold and so. We will never won the 30 years war and recover Flanders with it :lol: Too late to pay Captain Alatriste...

But please, give us the name of the ship. Give us the reports. Give us what it´s more important to the History:the facts. Not the items.

Even today, we have "people thirsty of gold" :evil:

I know maybe not all the people will share this, but I thought it was a good idea to comment it.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, some answers then.

quot;](is it not better to have a copy of the piece to look at rather than not being able to see it at all?)

That's something that museums already do with their own collection!

So you are saying the Elgin Marbles on display in London are only copies of the original? Then it should not be an issue toreturn the originals to Athens!?