Skip to main content

Excavations in time of war

I have been finishing a paper, "Excavating Under Gunfire: Archaeologists in the Aegean During the First World War", and raised a question on academia.edu about objects excavated on territory acquired from an enemy. I was pointed to a discussion of the Shellal Mosaic that was recovered by Australian troops during the second battle for Gaza; it was actually excavated by the senior Australian military chaplain (see here). There has been much discussion in the Australian and Israeli press: Andrew Taylor, "Questions raised over 'looted' mosaic", Sydney Morning Herald August 14, 2011; 'Removal of Gaza mosaic may constitute war crime', Jerusalem Post August 14, 2011. The mosaic now resides in the Australian War Memorial (here).

I have reviewed the initial publication report as well as viewed the photographs of the mosaic in situ. There is little to suggest that it was "plundered".

I find the legal musings a little misleading.
A leading legal expert said the removal of an antiquity was a crime under international law. 
''In a general sense [the soldiers] could be said to have violated the laws and customs of war,'' said Emeritus Professor Ben Boer from the University of Sydney's Law School. But Australia did not appear to be bound by these laws in April 1917, he added. 
Professor Boer also said international law did not require the Australian government to return the Shellal Mosaic to its rightful owner.
The further complexity is that the mosaic was excavated in territory that was then part of the Ottoman Empire.


Bookmark and Share so Your Real Friends Know that You Know

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Codename: Ainsbrook

I have been watching (UK) Channel 4's Time Team this evening. The programme looked at an undisclosed field (under a potato crop) where a Viking burial had been found. The location in Yorkshire was so sensitive that it was given a codename: Ainsbrook. Here is the summary:
In late 2003 two metal detectorists were working in a field in Yorkshire. They found 'treasure' buried just beneath the surface – a collection of Viking material next to a body. Although they had been detecting on the site for a number of years, during which time they had made large numbers of finds, nothing they had uncovered previously compared with this. They decided to share their discovery with archaeologists.The programme explored the tension between metal-detectorists and the English Heritage sponsored archaeologists putting six trenches into the field based on a geo-physical survey. Finds made by the metal-detectorists did not easily map onto the archaeological features.

Part of the programme had an …

George Ortiz collection to be displayed in London

Christie's is due to display part of the former collection of the late George Ortiz in London in a non-selling show to mark the 25th anniversary of the exhibition at the Royal Academy. There is a statement on the Christie's website ("The Ortiz Collection — ‘proof that the past is in all of us’"). Max Bernheimer is quoted: ‘Ortiz was one of the pre-eminent collectors of his day’.

We recall the associations with Ortiz such as the Horiuchi sarcophagus, the Hestiaios stele fragment, the marble funerary lekythos, and the Castor and Pollux.

Bernheimer will, no doubt, wish to reflect on the Royal Academy exhibition by reading Christopher Chippindale and David W. J. Gill. 2000. "Material consequences of contemporary classical collecting." American Journal of Archaeology 104: 463-511 [JSTOR].

Bernheimer will probably want to re-read the two pieces by Peter Watson that appeared in The Times: , "Ancient art without a history" and "Fakes - the artifice b…

Tutankhamun, Christie's and rigorous due dligence

It was announced today that the Egyptian authorities would be taking legal action against Christie's over the sale of the head of Tutankhamun ("Egypt to sue Christie's to retrieve £4.7m Tutankhamun bust", BBC News 9 July 2019).

The BBC reports:
Egypt's former antiquities chief, Zahi Hawass, said the bust appeared to have been "stolen" in the 1970s from the Temple of Karnak. "The owners have given false information," he told AFP news agency. "They have not shown any legal papers to prove its ownership." Christie's maintain the history of the piece as follows:
It stated that Germany's Prince Wilhelm von Thurn und Taxis reputedly had it in his collection by the 1960s, and that it was acquired by an Austrian dealer in 1973-4. However the family of von Thurn und Taxis claim that the head was never in that collection [see here].

Christie's reject any hint of criticism:
"Christie's would not and do not sell any work whe…