4 ms·

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 t

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 6y 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 6y 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 6y ago
    Right of conquest is often how kings get a kingdom or expand it.
    - rbg246 6y ago
      And was criminalised after world war 2, so its proceeds from a historical crime.
      - desas 6y ago
        By that standard so is the whole of America. There's a line to draw somewhere.
        kingkawn 6y ago
        How convenient for America
      - eru 6y ago
        To be a snarky: that was a cartel that benefited from the deed in the past outlawing its competition.
- jshevek 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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.

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 6y 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 6y 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 6y ago
  Right of conquest is often how kings get a kingdom or expand it.
  - rbg246 6y ago
    And was criminalised after world war 2, so its proceeds from a historical crime.
    - desas 6y ago
      By that standard so is the whole of America. There's a line to draw somewhere.
      - kingkawn 6y ago
        How convenient for America
    - eru 6y ago
      To be a snarky: that was a cartel that benefited from the deed in the past outlawing its competition.
jshevek 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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.