Since I can't start a poll...... just an informal survey.

To whom do antiquities belong? By antiquities, I mean old works of art, sculptures, artifacts.

1.) The possessor (be it private collection or museum)
2.) The government of the country/tribe/area of origin
3.) Descendants of the original owner

Depends on the antiquity in question.

Exactly

I'm sure any Greeks on the board will be up in arms about the Elgin Marbles

Possession is like, 9/10 of the law.

Get yer paws offa my shit David.

Finders keepers, bitch.

ya, aren't most works donated to a museum or collection?

It belongs in a museum!

What about choses in action*?









*I don't even remember what that is... it just sounds cool.

it's sad that so many countries like Egypt were literally RAPED of their antiquities by the European powers (*cough*) Britian and France (*cough*). But then again, history belongs to the winners so there's little likelihood of them returning stuff to them.

Is that really in the best interests of history? We all remember how the former rulers of Afghanistan treated Hindu & Buddist artifacts. Wouldn't it be best to take them to someplace safe?



This is a interesting statement and kinda why I posted this thread.

Where they really "raped" of them? Wouldn't many of them have been lost forever if they had not been preserved in European museums? And isn't this one of those cases of cultural revisionism? It used to be ok possess and care for antiques.... encouraged even... now it's not. Do we have to try and undo the past? Are the inheriters of these goods guilty of the "new crimes" of their forefathers?

I tend to think that the posesser should keep what they have, especially if it's found on their property, but from now on new discoveries should be negotiated with the local authorities.

Don't the Jews own everything?

Just for safety's sake, the above post is meant in jest. I have taken a gross stereotype and overstated it for means of humor and/or comedy. Hopefully I succeeded. Good day to you all.

Well you know, you can argue that in the case of Egyptian treasures that England or France pillaged and say well they protected them, but look at all the artifacts that stayed in Egypt and are just fine. Does Paris STILL need to have the Rosetta Stone? Does London still need that oblisk they have in Trafalagar Square? Egypt wasn't so war-torn to have lost those? In any case, they are such museum draws, France and GB will never return them.

They should be in public museums in the counties in which they were discovered, and the archaeologist can have a big fucking plaque or something if it helps his ego.
Antiquities and remnants of the rise of humanity should be shared by all, not housed by a priviliged few.

I think the Rosetta stone in the London Natural History museum. Cause I think I saw it there.

Anyway.

I am not really familiar with the history of Egypt, but I do believe that their museums and archeological sites have been looted many times since the Europeans were there. Who knows what would have happened to these things pieces of history if they had been left there.

And if you (not u in particular) are gonna say it's "morally right" to return these things, how much of a leap is it to then say countries must return land to it's original owners?

Yeah the RS is in the British Museum in London. What obelisk is in Trafalgar Square? Do you mean Cleopatra's needle? If so, it's on the banks of the Thames.

I agree though - they should give them back to the countries in question; provided they have the funds to look after them properly though

I agree with this.

Let's say you're a coin collector and you work at a store. You notice a rare coin in the cash register. Now you know that if you just leave it there, it's going to get spent, or rolled and sent back to the bank, or some other wasteful thing, so you take it, and replace its face value in the register. This is the same as what people did with antiquities years ago, except usually they didn't leave anything in their stead. But honestly, some old jar in the desert wasn't worth shit to the local government, so they weren't removing anything of "value" as far as they were concerned at the time.

Now today, it's a different story. The local gov'ts know the value of what they've got, and will work to protect them (at least when they're not dynamiting them) so they items do have "value" to them. To adjust my metaphor, it would be as if the owner of the store you work for were also a coin collector and sifts through the change every night in search of rarities.

As for the return of antiquities taken decades or centuries ago, I don't think anyone but the current possessor should have any rights since there was no clear "owner" at the time they were taken. This is in contrast to art that was stolen from the Jews by the Nazis, for example. If true ownership by a person or other organization can be established, and it can be shown that an item was "stolen", it should be returned.