Nefertiti and the Parthenon Marbles

I am grateful to my sharp-eared colleague Chris Hall for drawing my attention to this interview.

Salima Ikram, American University in Cairo, and Tom Holland, were in conversation with John Humphrys of BBC Radio 4's "Today" programme earlier today [Monday, February 21, 2011: interview]. They discussed the limited looting in the Cairo Museum and were in agreement that the people of Egypt demonstrated that they cared about the protection of their antiquities.

Humphrys explored the issue of distributing significant finds across a number of museums around the world. They considered the issue of material from Afghanistan and drew attention to the forthcoming exhibition at the British Museum.

Salima Ikram was asked what she would like to see returned to Egypt and top of her list was the head of Nefertiti in Berlin. She was also concerned to see fragmentary pieces reunited. She also made it clear that she was not speaking in an official capacity.

Tom Holland seemed to hesitate over the question, and when pressed by Humphrys closed with the words, "I wouldn't say the Elgin marbles".

Image
© David Gill

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:

• The Third Intermediate Period coffin of Imesy seized in Miami and consigned by a Barcelona galerista.
• Two Middle Kingdom alabaster ducks apparently stolen from the Saqqara store and appearing with a major auction-house in New York and a dealer in London.
• The fragments from the tomb of Tetaky at Thebes (TT 15) acquired by the Louvre.
• A fragment from the tomb of Mutirdis (TT 410) that was due to be offered at auction in London.
• The head of Amenhotep III removed from Egypt by a British restorer.
• The eye from a statue of Amenhotep III returned from Switzerland.

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.

Cairo Conference: The Return of Cultural Property

Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities has announced that it will be hosting a conference in April to discuss the return of antiquities. The conference will be seeking to resolve issues over cultural property that the home countries consider to be "stolen".

There will be a discussion of legal solutions though the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property is an internationally recognised benchamark. No doubt some countries will be seeking the return of obects acquired well before 1970.

The press release specifically cites Egypt's desire to reclaim the Rosetta Stone and the head of Nefertiti.

Among the coutrnies due to attend are Greece, Mexico, Peru, Afghanistan, Iraq, Cambodia and China.

Other countries should also be represented. Bulgaria has a sigificant claim on a hoard of Byzantine silver, and FYROM (the Republic of Macedonia) is seeking the return of an archaic krater from a North American private collection.

The Rosetta Stone: "an icon of our Egyptian identity"

Matt Bradley has written about Zahi Hawass' claims for the return of cultural property from European and North American museums (Matt Bradley, "Indiana Jones, but in reverse", The National December 19. 2009). Bradley anticipates the 2010 conference that is expected to have representations from 12 different countries (including China, Greece, Italy, and Mexico). An earlier Reuters interview is cited where Hawass restated his desire for the Rosette Stone to be returned to Egypt.

Among those interviewed for the piece were James Cuno, Katja Lembke (director of the Pelizaeus Museum), and myself.

Image
©David Gill

The Rosetta Stone: Clarification from Hawass

Zahi Hawass has commented further on the request for the Rosetta Stone (Harpreet Bhal, "Egypt to ask British Museum for Rosetta Stone", Reuters, December 14, 2009). In an interview held over last weekend, Hawass told Reuters:

I did not write yet to the British Museum but I will. I will tell them that we need the Rosetta Stone to come back to Egypt for good ... The British Museum has hundreds of thousands of artefacts in the basement and as exhibits. I am only needing one piece to come back, the Rosetta Stone. It is an icon of our Egyptian identity and its homeland should be Egypt.

He seems to have moved his position from his earlier request of a loan for the opening of the Giza Museum in 2012. Reuters commented that Hawass "would no longer settle for just a loan".

I was interviewed for the report and talked about the issue of other issues in the collection:

The whole issue for the British Museum is if they say we're going to give you back the Rosetta Stone, it sets a precedent.

The case for the universal museum displaying objects from world cultures was made in an interview with a tourist from Japan:

It is easy to travel here especially for tourists compared to travelling to Egypt. And that makes it open to everybody.

The British Museum issued a short statement last week in connection with Hawass' visit to the Museum:

The current situation with regard to the Rosetta Stone is that the Museum has received a request from the Supreme Council of Antiquities requesting the short term loan of the stone for the opening of the new museum in Giza in 2012 or 2013. The Trustees of the British Museum will consider this request in due course.

The British Museum exists to tell the story of cultural achievement throughout the world, from two million years ago to the present. The Museum is a unique resource for the world: the breadth and depth of the collection allows a wide public to re-examine cultural identities and explore the complex network of interconnected human cultures. The Trustees feel strongly that the collection must remain as a whole in order for the Museum to continue to fulfil this purpose.

The Rosetta Stone: The Times Responds

Graham Stewart, a columnist for The Times (London) has responded to the publicity surrounding the Rosetta Stone ("The booty included the four bronze horses of St Mark's, Venice", The Times December 12, 2009). Stewart confuses two separate issues: significant cultural objects that left their countries long before 1970; and the recent (i.e. post 1970) looting of archaeological sites to provide material for the market.

Stewart presents a simplistic view of those who argue for the return of cultural property:

"To those who believe antiquities must be repatriated to the land that created them it is all about honouring context and respecting national identity."

First, archaeological objects can be understood when they are retrieved from archaeological contexts in a scientific manner. Second, archaeological objects lose their contextual information when looted. Third, recently looted archaeological objects should be returned to the country from which they had been looted. Thus the Athenian Euphronios / Sarpedon krater was not returned to Greece but rather to Italy because it appears to have been snatched from an Etruscan tomb.

Stewart's presents a Cuno-like argument for the universal museum:

"worldclass museums protest that they exist to promote scholarship and cultural understanding far beyond the narrow confines of their own national borders."

But one of the things that we can learn from the returns to Italy is that several "worldclass museums" in North America were more keen to acquire than to put in place ethical acquisition policies.

The British Museum is now faced with requests to return the Parthenon marbles (Stewart insists on using "The Elgin Marbles") and the Rosetta Stone.(And what about the Benin Bronzes?)

Stewart sees the justification for retaining cultural property in the actions of Napoleon:

"The French looted far more from their fellow Europeans than from the Egyptians."

Indeed Stewart cites the bronze horses of San Marco in Venice as examples of material "stolen" by Venetians from Constantinople.

Stewart asks a further question:

ought the British to demand that the Russian National Library returns its copy of the 8th century manuscript of the Ecclesiastical History of the English People by the Venerable Bede? The key work by the father of English history could hardly be of greater significance to the country of its origin. Yet, that it exists at all may be precisely because a Russian diplomat, Peter Dubrovsky, removed it from Paris during the French Revolution, fearing it was not safe in a city being plundered by Jacobin mobs.

Stewart states that the Northumbrian Bede should remain in St Petersburg. There is an implicit statement about the Rosetta Stone and the Parthenon marbles.

Stewart avoids the main questions. Is it better to display the Parthenon marbles in a purpose-built museum within sight of the Parthenon or to let them remain in the Duveen Gallery in Bloomsbury? And is the Rosetta Stone such an icon of Egyptology that it deserves to be displayed in Egypt, the land where it was found?

The Rosetta Stone and the Global Village

I noticed a letter in today's Independent by Alan D. Foster in response to the Rosetta Stone debate (December 14, 2009):

... Taken to its logical conclusion, every significant cultural artefact from another country currently housed in the British Museum would have to be repatriated. But how dull, then, if our country boasted only its own heritage and culture. Surely part of living in the global village is learning to share and value each other's art and history? ...

But is Egypt asking for the emptying of all the Egyptian sculpture galleries in the British Museum, or asking for the loan of a single, unique document that is iconic for the study of Egyptology?

Hawass: "We are not the Pirates of the Caribbean"

The Rosetta Stone was debated on this morning's BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme. Sarah Montague interviewed Zahi Hawass and Roy Clare (Museums, Libraries and Archives Council).

Hawass rejected a short-term loan. He commented on the security of the new museum in Cairo: "Security will be perfect". He rejected the suggestion that Egypt would not return a loan: "We are not the Pirates of the Caribbean."

He asked for the return of the Rosetta Stone as part of Egypt's identity: "I want the Rosetta Stone to be back in Egypt".

Clare presented the legal position and the role of the Trustees of the British Museum. He made it clear that he did not want a discussion about the "recovery" of the Rosetta Stone. Clare stated that it is an "icon for global culture", in effect making a case for the universal museum. He described the British Museum as a centre for world culture.

Montague asked if Hawass would get the Rosetta Stone back: "Believe me, we will". Hawass then talked about the case of the wall-paintings returned from the Louvre. When Montague mentioned the action that Egypt had taken against the Louvre, Hawass rejoined, "I am not going to threaten the British Museum".

Clare asserted that the Rosetta Stone has "acquired" additional "culture" by being displayed in the British Museum.

Hawass also talked about the proposed meeting in Cairo to discuss the return of cultural property.

Al Jazeera, Zahi Hawass, and Egyptian antiquities

Lee Rosenbaum's CultureGrrl has drawn attention to Zahi Hawass' interview with Riz Khan (July 12, 2007) on Al Jazeera ("Rosetta Stone: Why the British Museum Distrusts Hawass").

There are several areas of interest in the interview. Hawass makes a distinction between items stolen from stores in Egypt, objects removed from archaeological sites, and high profile objects which reside in collections outside Egypt.

First, he talks about items stolen from archaeological stores in Egypt. This includes the Middle Kingdom alabaster duck that had been stolen from the store at Saqqara and had then surfaced at Christie's in New York. It has since been returned.

He then turned to the St Louis Art Museum and the Middle Kingdom mummy mask that Hawass claims was stolen from the Saqqara store.

Hawass was then questioned about the scale of the problem though no clear cut figure was given. I have noted elsewhere that Sotheby's in New York sold some $41 million worth of Egyptian antiquities between 1998 and 2007 of which I observe,

Nearly 70% of the Egyptian antiquities auctioned at Sotheby's New York appear to be unknown before 1973.

Hawass also talks about items which reside in European and North American collections. In particular he mentions his hope that several pieces will be loaned to ("visit") Egypt for the opening of the Grand Egyptian Museum. Among the pieces he hopes to borrow are the Rosetta Stone in London, the bust of Nefertiti in Berlin, the 4th Dynasty bust of Prince Ankhhaf ( "From Giza, tomb G 7510. 1925: excavated by the Harvard University-Boston Museum of Fine Arts Expedition; 1927: assigned to the MFA in the division of finds by the government of Egypt"), the Zodiac from the Dendera temple in Paris, and the statue of Hemiunnu in Hildesheim. The loan of Hemiunnu has now been agreed; Boston and the Louvre have declined to make loans. For Hawass the sanction is to "stop scientific co-operation".

As Rosenbaum observes, there may be more to these loans. As Hawass develops his theme, he states,

The Rosetta Stone is in England. We own that stone. The motherland should own this.

For interview