Skip to main content

The Rosetta Stone: should it return to Egypt?

The Rosetta Stone has a special, if not unique, place in the history of Egyptology. Its parallel texts allowed scholars to decipher ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.

The inscription, dating to the second century BCE, was discovered by the French during the Napoleonic Wars when they were reconstructing a 15th century fort at Rosetta. The defeat of the French forces led to the seizure of archaeological finds as part of British war booty and the stone was put on display in the British Museum.

Dr Zahi Hawass has been mounting a case for the return of the Rosetta Stone along with other significant Egyptological pieces such as the head of Nefertiti in Berlin.

Is there a legal case to return the Rosetta Stone? The benchmark international agreement is the 1970 UNESCO Convention on on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The United Kingdom became a signatory in 2002.

It should be noted that the UK has a statement about the interpretation of Clause 7 (b)(ii). The clause in the convention reads:
The States Parties to this Convention undertake:

...

(b) ...

(ii) at the request of the State Party of origin, to take appropriate steps to recover and return any such cultural property imported after the entry into force of this Convention in both States concerned, provided, however, that the requesting State shall pay just compensation to an innocent purchaser or to a person who has valid title to that property. Requests for recovery and return shall be made through diplomatic offices. The requesting Party shall furnish, at its expense, the documentation and other evidence necessary to establish its claim for recovery and return. The Parties shall impose no customs duties or other charges upon cultural property returned pursuant to this Article. All expenses incident to the return and delivery of the cultural property shall be borne by the requesting Party.
The UK interprets this as follows:
The United Kingdom interprets Article 7(b)(ii) to the effect that it may continue to apply its existing rules on limitation to claims made under this Article for the recovery and return of cultural objects.
Egypt has made a case for the return of recently looted (or "stolen") antiquities that appear to have surfaced after 1970. These include:
Not all cases pursued by Egyptian authorities have been successful and there is an on-going request for the return of a mummy mask in the St Louis Art Museum (SLAM).  Hawass claims that it was stolen from the Saqqara store. Egypt has also been pursuing a number of antiquities dealers, and an Australian national was detained in Egypt. One recent case saw an unsuccessful detention in Sofia, Bulgaria; this appears to have been linked to a larger case.

However, the Rosetta Stone was removed from Egypt long before 1970, and indeed well before the creation of the modern independent state of Egypt.

This does not rule out voluntary returns of material that left Egypt before 1970. This would appear to include the naos fragment of Amenemhat I that was returned from New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art (though the museum purchased it from the collector apparently to preserve their anonymity).

But should countries be denied the right to make claims on cultural property just because the objects were removed before the notional 1970 date? International law, and more importantly public museums, private collectors as well as dealers, need to respect the local laws of the country concerned.

Egypt is arranging a conference to discuss the return of cultural property in Cairo in the spring of 2010. And clearly the intention is to seek a solution for objects that Egypt deems to be important.

So where do I stand on the issue of the Rosetta Stone?

In a December 2009 interview I made the point that while (in my personal opinion) there is no legal case to be made, the Stone is so unique and central to the study of Egyptology that it should be displayed in Cairo:
“I would say that there is a very weak legal case to be made, but I think there is a very strong moral case to be made for this shortlist of significant objects to be displayed in Egypt ...

To me the argument is much more about ‘here is a unique icon of Egyptology, here is the stone that was used to unlock hieroglyphics’. It is so significant for the study of Egyptology that it’s more appropriate for it to be in Egypt,”
Could it be returned on loan? Does the title for the piece need to be given to Egypt? And there would be concern from some quarters about setting a "dangerous precedent".

But this debate is so much more than a discussion of the ownership and display of cultural property. The real concern is the large-scale looting that feeds the international market in antiquities. This is the main area that needs to be addressed.

  • For the Heritage Key debate on the Rosetta Stone click here.

Bookmark and Share so Your Real Friends Know that You Know

Comments

secblog said…
I believe that Rosetta Stone should return to its base home. There are useful article about the Rosetta Stone at Rosetta Stone

Popular posts from this blog

Marble bull's head from the temple of Eshmun

Excavations at the temple of Eshmun in Lebanon recovered a marble bull's head. It is now suggested that it was this head, apparently first published in 1967, that was placed on loan to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art (Tom Mashberg, "Met Museum Turns Over Another Relic With Disputed Past to Prosecutors", New York Times August 1, 2017 ). The head is reported to have been handed over to the Manhattan district attorney after a request was received from the Lebanese authorities.

It is suggested that the head may have been looted from an archaeological storage area at Byblos in the 1980s during the Lebanese civil war. Mashberg has rehearsed the recent collecting history:
The owners of the bull’s head, Lynda and William Beierwaltes of Colorado, say they have clear title to the item and have sued Manhattan prosecutors for its return.  The Beierwaltes bought the head from a dealer in London in 1996 for more than $1 million and then sold it to another collector, Michael …

Sardinian warrior from "old Swiss collection"

One of the Sardinian bronzes of a warrior was seized from an as yet unnamed Manahattan gallery. It appears to be the one that passed through the Royal-Athena Gallery: Art of the Ancient World 23 (2012) no. 71. The collecting history for that warrior suggests that it was acquired in 1990 from a private collection in Geneva.

Other clues suggested that the warrior has resided in a New York private collection.

The identity of the private collection in Geneva will no doubt be telling.

The warrior also features in this news story: Jennifer Peltz, "Looted statues, pottery returned to Italy after probe in NYC", ABC News May 25 2017.

Attic amphora handed back to Italians

The research of Dr Christos Tsirogiannis has led to the return of an Attic red-figured amphora, attributed to the Harrow painter, to Italy (Tom Mashberg, "Stolen Etruscan Vessel to Be Returned to Italy", New York Times March 16, 2017).

The amphora is known to have passed through the hands of Swiss-based dealer Gianfranco Becchina in 1993, and then through a New York gallery around 2000 (although its movements between those dates are as yet undisclosed).

During the ceremony, Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., the District Attorney stated:
“When looters overrun historic sites, mine sacred spaces for prized relics, and peddle stolen property for top dollar, they do so with the implicit endorsement of all those who knowingly trade in stolen antiquities” More research clearly needs to be conducted on how material handled by Becchina passed into the North American market and into the hands of private and public collectors.