[pdabbadabba]

You're using the word "stolen" here with a lot of conviction but, imho, not a lot of rigor. In what sense did people "own" the artifacts that the British removed from Egypt? Who owned them? If nobody owned them, how were they "stolen"? That's the weak version of the problem.

The stronger version: how is it the case that Egypt, or Egyptians, today "own" something that has been in the British museum far longer than any of them have been alive? Even if the artifacts were wrongfully taken in the first instance, does that automatically mean that the only right thing to do is to return them, even after centuries? Are the myriad other interests that have accumulated in the interim simply not matter? How long domes something have to remain in Britain for it to meaningfully become part of British heritage as well as Egyptian? Should we also be working to return artifacts looted by the ancient Egyptians to their own ancestral homes, even though the looting occurred thousands of years ago when they were the dominant power? Perhaps they should give back everything south of the First Cataract to the Nubians. (Hopefully it's clear that this is a reductio not a policy proposal!)

That's not to say I think it's categorically acceptable for powerful nations to take historical artifacts. But I don't think this has really anything to do with "stealing" in the usual sense. if anything, that rhetoric just obscures the issues here that might truly be worth thinking about.

[wbl]

The Egyptian peasant lives today much the same as his ancestors did. It's a remarkable degree of continuity! And some works were removed contrary to law quite recently like the head of Nefertiti.

[pdabbadabba]

Interesting points, but can you explain how they apply here? It's interesting and, afaik, true that modern Egyptians's lives today are more similar to their ancient ancestors' than you might expect (moreso than in many other nations). But how should we think about the relevance of this fact to debates about looted artifacts? Does the fact that they still work fields irrigated by the Nile suffice to give them a claim to repatriate artifacts taken generation ago? (Perhaps there are more similarities than this. I don't mean to be flippant on this point, I just am not an expert on all the similarities.) Or is it significant that they have generally abandoned the ancient Egyptian religion in favor of Islam, have a President rather than a Pharaoh, own televisions and smartphones, are now generally safe from crocodiles, have controlled the Nile's annual flooding (whose volatility was a dominant source of danger and drama in ancient life), etc.?

Regarding the Bust of Nefertiti, I guess it's debatable whether 100 years ago qualifies as "quite recently," but I suppose it does seem like yesterday when one is thinking about ancient Egypt! In any case, the analysis certainly may differ depending on the artifact. If the the date of the looting makes a difference I think that only supports the general thrust of my argument.

[lostlogin]

If someone went to England and took the rocks from Stonehenge and carted them off to a museum overseas, that would surely be stealing?

[pdabbadabba]

Probably so. I imagine the U.K. has laws that make such artifacts the formal property of the state. Was this true for 19th century Egypt?

I think it was true, on some level, at the time the bust of Nefertiti was taken in the 1920s. Supposedly, the Germans nominally followed some sort of legal process for removing the artifact -- though perhaps with less-than-full transparency.

Perhaps there are other reasons to claim that Egyptian artifacts were 'stolen.' But I'm trying to have a conversation about what those might be since the subject is not as obvious to me as others seem to think it is.