4 ms·

That's a good question. Another good question is "Should the nation of Greece and the Greek people be allowed to profit off of pictures that the British Museum

by Teever 7y ago

That's a good question. Another good question is "Should the nation of Greece and the Greek people be allowed to profit off of pictures that the British Museum has taken of objects that are only in the British Museum because they were pillaged by British soldiers?" It seems really bad that a nation can invade many other nations and pillage their cultural pieces to squirrel them away in a museum and then dictate to the citizens of those nations what they can or can't do with pictures of the artifacts. The notion that the British Museum can tell Egyptian citizen what they can or can't do with photographs of the Rosetta Stone is pretty odious.

new2628 7y ago
I agree with the sentiment, but at a more abstract level it is almost as shaky that an Egyptian citizen today is entitled to art from the pharaonic times more than a British citizen today.
- kingkawn 7y ago
  Nothing shaky about it since the Egyptian citizens would be the ones who would have those artworks today had the brits not come round to express their ancient tradition of thieving
  - renewiltord 7y ago
    It's the classic problem. I think when I am much older I will commit a lot of crime to benefit my great grandchildren. Time will ease their culpability and they can use arguments like the above.
    - eru 7y ago
      Right of conquest is often how kings get a kingdom or expand it.
      - rbg246 7y ago
        And was criminalised after world war 2, so its proceeds from a historical crime.
        desas 7y ago
        By that standard so is the whole of America. There's a line to draw somewhere.
        kingkawn 7y ago
        How convenient for America
        eru 7y ago
        To be a snarky: that was a cartel that benefited from the deed in the past outlawing its competition.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    This conclusion assumes many things that are not a given, such as the assumptions that it would have been not have been lost, damaged, or stolen by a third party during all of that time.
    - subroutine 7y ago
      Indeed, 'ownership' of ancient things is never so simple. The stone was carved ~196 BC (Hellenistic period) Circa 1470 AD the stone was taken (probably from the town of Sais) by slaves of Egyptian/Syrian Sultan Quaitbay for use as raw building material for a military Fort (Fort Jullien aka Fort of Qaitbey) The French discovered it during Napoleon's Egypt/Syria campeign in 1799 AD The British defeated the French and took the stone to London under the Capitulation of Alexandria in 1801 AD > The Rosetta Stone is a fragment of a larger stele. No additional fragments were found in later searches of the Rosetta site. Owing to its damaged state, none of the three texts is absolutely complete. The top register, composed of Egyptian hieroglyphs, suffered the most damage. Only the last 14 lines of the hieroglyphic text can be seen; all of them are broken on the right side, and 12 of them on the left. wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone
    - octodog 7y ago
      So because it is possible someone else may have come along and stolen it, that is a justification for the Brits to steal (and keep) it? The point is that Britain has those artifacts now and Greece/Egypt/other countries want them back now.
      - jshevek 7y ago
        >So because it is possible someone else may have come along and stolen it, that is a justification for the Brits to steal (and keep) it? Please do not pollute the conversation with strawmen. There are more options here than the two extremes. Take a look at the comment to which I was responding: >...the Egyptian citizens would be the ones who would have those artworks today had the brits not come round to express their ancient tradition of thieving And take another look at my actual comment: >This conclusion assumes many things that are not a given, such as the assumptions that it would have been not have been lost, damaged, or stolen by a third party during all of that time. The comment to which I was responding presented an absurd and presumptive claim. Absurd claims should be called out for what they are, regardless of which 'side' you perceive to be strengthened or weakened by doing so.
- rbg246 7y ago
  It's not 'just' ancient artefacts. There are also indigenous australian remains and artefacts stolen and refused to be returned. Stolen up into the mid 20th century.
mellosouls 7y ago
For readers after a more nuanced view with context: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/magazine/2017/03-04/parthenon-sculptures-british-museum-controversy/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/magazine/2017/03-...

by Teever 7y ago

new2628 7y ago

I agree with the sentiment, but at a more abstract level it is almost as shaky that an Egyptian citizen today is entitled to art from the pharaonic times more than a British citizen today.

kingkawn 7y ago
Nothing shaky about it since the Egyptian citizens would be the ones who would have those artworks today had the brits not come round to express their ancient tradition of thieving
- renewiltord 7y ago
  It's the classic problem. I think when I am much older I will commit a lot of crime to benefit my great grandchildren. Time will ease their culpability and they can use arguments like the above.
  - eru 7y ago
    Right of conquest is often how kings get a kingdom or expand it.
    - rbg246 7y ago
      And was criminalised after world war 2, so its proceeds from a historical crime.
      - desas 7y ago
        By that standard so is the whole of America. There's a line to draw somewhere.
        kingkawn 7y ago
        How convenient for America
      - eru 7y ago
        To be a snarky: that was a cartel that benefited from the deed in the past outlawing its competition.
- jshevek 7y ago
  This conclusion assumes many things that are not a given, such as the assumptions that it would have been not have been lost, damaged, or stolen by a third party during all of that time.
  - subroutine 7y ago
    Indeed, 'ownership' of ancient things is never so simple. The stone was carved ~196 BC (Hellenistic period) Circa 1470 AD the stone was taken (probably from the town of Sais) by slaves of Egyptian/Syrian Sultan Quaitbay for use as raw building material for a military Fort (Fort Jullien aka Fort of Qaitbey) The French discovered it during Napoleon's Egypt/Syria campeign in 1799 AD The British defeated the French and took the stone to London under the Capitulation of Alexandria in 1801 AD > The Rosetta Stone is a fragment of a larger stele. No additional fragments were found in later searches of the Rosetta site. Owing to its damaged state, none of the three texts is absolutely complete. The top register, composed of Egyptian hieroglyphs, suffered the most damage. Only the last 14 lines of the hieroglyphic text can be seen; all of them are broken on the right side, and 12 of them on the left. wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone
  - octodog 7y ago
    So because it is possible someone else may have come along and stolen it, that is a justification for the Brits to steal (and keep) it? The point is that Britain has those artifacts now and Greece/Egypt/other countries want them back now.
    - jshevek 7y ago
      >So because it is possible someone else may have come along and stolen it, that is a justification for the Brits to steal (and keep) it? Please do not pollute the conversation with strawmen. There are more options here than the two extremes. Take a look at the comment to which I was responding: >...the Egyptian citizens would be the ones who would have those artworks today had the brits not come round to express their ancient tradition of thieving And take another look at my actual comment: >This conclusion assumes many things that are not a given, such as the assumptions that it would have been not have been lost, damaged, or stolen by a third party during all of that time. The comment to which I was responding presented an absurd and presumptive claim. Absurd claims should be called out for what they are, regardless of which 'side' you perceive to be strengthened or weakened by doing so.
rbg246 7y ago
It's not 'just' ancient artefacts. There are also indigenous australian remains and artefacts stolen and refused to be returned. Stolen up into the mid 20th century.

mellosouls 7y ago

For readers after a more nuanced view with context: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/magazine/2017/03-04/parthenon-sculptures-british-museum-controversy/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/magazine/2017/03-...