ROSETTA STONE REPLICAS

Explanation of the Court Trial Against Zahi Hawass

Editor — Thu, 12 May 2011 18:25:22 +0000

by Zahi Hawass

I have to tell the world right now, there is a story going around that I am going to be in jail, which is a complete misunderstanding.

Last year, we were taking bids from different companies to run a book store inside the Egyptian Museum. There is a person, who was renting a bookstore inside the Museum. He wanted to stop the bidding process, because he thought he should keep his contract. This person filed a case with the Misdemeanor Court in Agouza, Cairo, in order to stop the bidding process. This case was filed against the Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA), not against me personally, but against the role I was holding at that time.

However, before the case came to trial, the bidding process ended at the end of May 2010, and the Supreme Council of Antiquities (now the Ministry of State for Antiquities) chose a company, the Egyptian Sound and Light Company, to run the bookstore. Shortly after this decision was made, the court trial happened, at the beginning of June, so the SCA representatives did not have time to present evidence that the bidding had finished. Therefore, the court made a ruling that the bidding should stop. However, it was too late to do anything.

He still wanted to get his way, so this person continued to bring action against me in the court. In November 2010, the court made a ruling, that I was innocent, because as the Secretary General of the SCA, I was not in charge of legal affairs at the SCA, this was under the control of the Ministry of Culture at that time. But this was not enough for this person, he brought the case to the court again, claiming he had evidence that I was in fact in charge of legal affairs, and this time, the SCA did not have a legal representative present at the court. The court made the current ruling that I, as head of the SCA, was sentenced to a year in jail. This is how the court in Egypt works, and this is not an uncommon thing that the head of an organization gets sentenced like this. When a ruling like this is made, the defendant (in this case myself as Secretary General of the SCA at that time) has a certain amount of time to appeal the decision of the court.

Tomorrow, the head of the Legal Affairs Department at the Ministry of Antiquities will go to the court to file our appeal. He will present evidence that the bid for the bookstore contract was finished before the original court ruling, so therefore we could not follow the ruling to stop the bidding. We already had completed the bidding! I have every confidence that this matter will be cleared up very soon, so I want to tell everyone not to worry. I respect the laws of my country very highly, and the rulings of our courts. I intend to handle this matter entirely within our legal system. Nothing will cause me to lose focus from my goal of protecting the sites of Egypt.

Egypt’s Antiquities Caught in the Revolution

Editor — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:52:47 +0000

by Alexander H. Joffe
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2011, pp. 73-78 (view PDF)

http://www.meforum.org/2869/egypt-antiquities-revolution

The initial spasm of images from the Cairo Museum shocked observers. As tens of thousands of demonstrators confronted the security forces in what quickly evolved into the first popular revolution in Egypt’s history, the museum was ransacked in a scene reminiscent of the looted tombs of ancient Egyptian kings. A statue of Tutankhamun astride a panther was ripped from its base but then cast to the floor when thieves discovered it was gilded and not solid gold. A boat model from a tomb was smashed, the figures huddled in the boathouse pulverized but the navigator at the bow still pointing sadly forward. Two mummies were beheaded, mouths agape; it was rumored that they were Tut’s grandparents.

At the Cairo Museum, a statue of Tutankhamun astride a panther was ripped from its base but then cast to the floor when thieves discovered it was gilded and not solid gold.

The extent of the chaos was unknown but ominous. Egypt’s antiquities were suddenly caught up in a revolution. But those antiquities have always been both a tool to create Egypt and Egyptians in the present as well as a telling map of Egyptian society.

Conflicting Narratives

A second narrative quickly appeared. In this one, the police, military, and most importantly “everyday Egyptians,” joined together to protect museums and sites. Farid Saad, a 40-year-old engineer, was quoted as saying, “I’m standing here to defend and to protect our national treasure.”[1] The nation was united in protection of its past.

For his part, Zahi Hawass, secretary-general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, reacted with characteristic histrionics, which for once might have been justified: “Of course, I was so worried. I have been protecting antiquities all my life. I felt if the Cairo Museum is robbed, Egypt will never be able to get up again.”[2] Hawass’s ego is perpetually on display; every television documentary about ancient Egypt appears contractually bound to feature him in his full braggadocio, and he has long been the absolute master of which archaeologist does and does not work in Egypt.

But after forty-eight hours, his assessment of the situation changed. Hawass, appointed Mubarak’s minister for antiquities after the eruption of chaos, now reported that nothing much had been stolen or destroyed, that all the museums were safe, that the people stood united against the looters, and that even the looted objects had been restored. “People are asking me, ‘Do you think Egypt will be like Afghanistan?’” he recounted. “And I say, ‘No, Egyptians are different—they love me because I protect antiquities.’”[3]

After seventy-two hours, Hawass was even more resolute:

I am the only source of continuing truth concerning antiquities, and these rumors are aimed at making the Egyptian people look bad. If anything happens to the museum, I would bravely tell everyone all over the world because I am a man of honor, and I would never hide anything from you. It is from my heart that I tell people everywhere that I am the guardian of these monuments that belong to the whole world.[4]

Now Egypt’s monuments belonged to the world, but the source of all truth was made clear. The identification of Egypt’s antiquities with a single man is not simply supremely egotistic but telling of a tradition where rulers point to monuments and demand respect, legitimacy, and obedience. It is only one of many apparent constants in Egyptian history.

Whether or not Egyptians are different from their Iraqi or Afghan brethren, however, remains to be seen. As the Taliban came to power, the contents of the Afghan National Museum in Kabul were moved to safe locations.[5] The museum itself was destroyed in 1994. Other antiquities, most notably the Buddhas of Bamiyan, were destroyed by the Taliban in a campaign of iconoclasm in 2001. The Baghdad Museum was looted in 2003 by local Iraqis and probably museum insiders and professional thieves during the U.S-led invasion.[6] Though the site had been used as a firing position to attack U.S. forces, Washington was blamed for the looting and for failing to secure Iraq’s thousands of archaeological sites, many of which were mined for antiquities that have disappeared, presumably onto world markets.

Even as Mubarak held on, Hawass’s positive narrative of the regime in command was challenged by telephone calls, faxes, and tweets that were aggregated on various web sites outside of his control. Near Cairo, reports indicated that looters attacked tombs and antiquities storehouses in Saqqara and Abusir. In Middle Egypt, the site of Ehnasya was attacked, but in Upper Egypt, Luxor and Aswan, sites with major tourism interests, were reported to be safe. And in a curious echo of ancient Egypt, “Sinai Bedouins” apparently attacked the Qantara Museum. Some allegations have even emerged that the thugs and villains who attacked the Cairo Museum, and who attacked opposition demonstrators gathered on Tahrir Square, were policemen and goons in the employ of the regime. True or not, such allegations have galvanized the opposition. After the fall, Hawass was forced to admit that another gilded statue of Tutankhamun was missing from the Cairo Museum, along with other objects. “I have said if the Egyptian [Cairo] Museum is safe, then Egypt is safe. However, I am now concerned Egypt is not safe.”[7] As ever, the fate of Egypt was tied together with that of its leaders and its past.

Why Antiquities?

But why were antiquities targeted? The simplest answer is that most of Egypt’s eighty-three million people survive on approximately US$2 per day. Antiquities represent valuable commodities to be exploited, whether directly as gold and other precious metals or as saleable items on a black market. The world’s antiquities markets and museums could easily absorb better objects, disguise their recent origins, or hide them in stasis for years. This happens every day with loot from every corner of the earth. Wealthy collectors would be made aware of these objects as well, and private deals arranged. Common objects, which were not destroyed in the search for more excellent ones, would also be absorbed and marketed at the street level in places such as London and Geneva. Tourism annually contributes $15 billion to Egypt’s gross domestic product of some $216 billion. How much looted objects would bring in is unknown.

Looting tombs has a particular antiquity in Egypt. In ancient Egypt, tombs of commoners and kings were often looted just hours after the burial. The practice of sending the deceased toward the afterlife with elaborate and even lavish equipment was taken to an extreme by Egyptians. To these customs, the world owes thanks for the preponderance of items that fill museums today, which originated in the grave. Pyramids were burrowed into, subterranean chambers were mined, and mummies were torn open in search of gold, silver, and precious stones. Little seems different today. As in the past, stolen loot will fill the stomachs of Egyptians.

But another answer to why Egypt’s antiquities have been targeted has to do with the relationship of past and present in Egypt. Nationalism everywhere uses the imagery of the past and the fruits of archaeology to create a narrative about the greatness of today, in particular the “nation” and its leaders. The Egyptian state has not been an exception, but there are features that make it unlike other places. For one thing, Egypt, despite its immense size and subregions, has always been a single geographical and cultural unit. It was unified under a single dynasty—really military rule that later assumed theocratic dimensions—before 3200 BCE. Egypt is a container, bordered by deserts to the west and east, populated with unruly sand dwellers, and to the south in Nubia by tribes that are racially distinct.

The novelty of pharaonic antiquities was not lost on Egypt’s Greco-Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic rulers. The mythical power of Egyptian hieroglyphs and their mystical knowledge were compelling, and objects from scarabs all the way up to obelisks were bought, sold, and gifted. But the Islamic era also created a new series of monuments and narratives regarding Egypt’s singularity and glory. The neighborhoods of old Cairo were the Fatimid, Mamluk, and Ottoman core of the city; they contained alleys and lanes, mansions and apartments that were the settings for Naguib Mahfouz’s novels. Al-Azhar seminary, Khan al-Khali bazaar, and the al-Hussein mosque were the monumental core of another authentic and distinct Egyptian culture.

That culture did not always mesh with the pharaonic past. In 1156, al-Aziz Uthman, son of Saladin, tried to demolish one of the Giza pyramids. The fourteenth-century Sufi Muhammad Saim ad-Dahr is reputed to have smashed the nose of the Great Sphinx when he saw peasants making offerings. After an earthquake in 1300 loosened the casing stones of the Giza pyramids, Sultan an-Nasir Nasir ad-Din al-Hassan took the opportunity a few decades later to remove them to build the mosques and fortresses of the still new city of Cairo. Symbols always vie with utility even for rulers. But the Islamic heritage of Egypt forms another important strand in the modern identity of Egypt, one that complements yet stands somewhat at odds with the more dramatic pagan monuments of the pharaohs.

Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt in 1799 ushered in antiquarian and then scientific research. His hundreds of artists and savants spread out across the land as part of a vast scientific and military enterprise documenting things as they were on the very edge of modernity. Europeans poured into the country and by the middle of the nineteenth century the continent’s museums were filled with Egyptian objects and even monuments, torn from that country with no thought for science and still less for Egyptians. A sense of violation formed a thread in the growing Egyptian national consciousness and was made more intense by the British occupation of the country in 1882. But this began the golden age of Egyptian archaeology, tourism, and the growth of the modern state. The Oriental style that shaped Cairo and Alexandria and the obvious privileging of the pharaohs was a joint European and Egyptian project. Egyptian art and literature valorized the age of the pharaoh in the poems and plays of Ahmad Shawki and Mahfouz’s early novels. Like Iraq and its Mesopotamian past, and Lebanon with its Phoenician past, the achievements of Egyptian ancestors were inspiration and legitimization for the emerging greatness of the present.

Divergent Identities

But the Nasserite revolution of 1952 and pan-Arabism brought contradictions into the open. Was Egypt part of the “Arab nation” or was it Egyptian? The nearly simultaneous rise of the Muslim Brotherhood brought out similar contradictions with respect to Islam. Was Egypt an Arab or Egyptian country, or part of a Muslim world that knew no earthly borders? Just what is Egypt and Egyptian nationalism?

These questions, too, have a certain antiquity. Egypt was always ruled from the core outward, but the pharaoh spent much time traveling the length of his realm paying obeisance to local deities, checking up on local authorities, and putting down rebellions. In the core today, in Cairo and its surroundings, where there is a developed upper and middle class, the answers will likely lean toward a nationalist explanation of pride and connection to the past. Egypt’s pharaonic past is integral in the same way that the Cairo Museum, built in 1902, is an inextricable part of that city where a medieval Muslim core melds with the Oriental style of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries while flanked by the looming monuments of antiquity to the west, and everywhere surrounded by the ugly towers and slums of modernity. That geography points to the shape of today’s problems.

As in the past, more remote areas of the Nile delta and those in Middle and Upper Egypt, which are removed from the political, cultural, and religious centers at Memphis or Cairo, were more underdeveloped, impoverished, backward, and traditional in outlook and practice. Only a few sites, such as Luxor and Thebes were patronized by the royalty and later by the modern Egyptian regimes in the name of tourism. The Bedouins of the Sinai rankled under the pharaoh’s control and yearned to break free and lash out. In all these respects, little has changed today. The interpretation of nationalism and treatment of the past will likely follow this geography, at least for a while. Everywhere, however, the competing Islamic narrative looms.

Egypt at least is an integral unit. One useful contrast is with Iraq. Ancient Mesopotamia saw the land divided into Babylonia in the south and Assyria in the north. These two regions were socially and ethnically distinct, but from an early time, Mesopotamian kings created a mythological vision of unity, which they then used as justification for violently attacking and dominating their neighbors. Unity was a fiction but a divine one. The reality consisted of fractious tribes, agricultural villages, competing city-states, and violent politics. This was no less true for Saddam Hussein at-Tikriti than it was for Sargon of Akkad, the “true king,” who rose from cup-bearer to the king of Kish to the king’s killer, and went on to unite Mesopotamia and found a dynasty. Kings themselves were the greatest source of disorder.

In ancient Egyptian tradition, one of the greatest roles of the ruler was ma’at, the legitimate maintenance of order and balance. Of course, minions of the ruler recorded this pretension for posterity, but fear of chaos was pervasive, not only for the ruler but the ruled. Invasions by desert tribes, the annual floods—which could bring too much water or not enough, or bring it too early or too late in the growing season—and famine, hunger, and violence were all too real. The reward of living in a rich ecosystem is plenty with the caveat that nature is fickle. A kind of national awareness emerged in ancient Egypt, at least with respect to xenophobia toward foreigners, in part through fear of chaos. The fact that the kings of Egypt were depicted literally as gods who held heaven and earth together was another metaphysical dimension of the ancient Egyptian “nation,” always backed up by military force. Piety vied with poverty and with fear. But then as now, the state was the provider. Most ancient Egyptians were bound to various royal or temple establishments. Despite any liberalization undertaken by Mubarak, state and military industries continue to dominate the Egyptian economy. The fate of many Egyptians was and is tied directly to the regime.

Uncertain Future

A similar sort of chaos is playing out in Egypt today. Price subsidies for food and fuel account for 7 percent of the state’s budget, and more than 40 percent of Egypt’s food is imported.[8] Food inflation reached 17 percent in December 2010,[9] and hundreds of thousands of university graduates are unable to find jobs.[10] Chaos thus has many sources—an educated population shut out from prosperity and an underclass on the verge of hunger. Antiquities—identified now with the Mubarak regime and a potential source of revenue for impoverished Egyptians—have suffered from time immemorial. The upper and middle class Egyptians who locked arms to protect the Cairo Museum from the initial bout of looting are too few and spread too thin to defend even a fraction of Egypt’s museums and monuments. But the rioting that has unfolded, perhaps with the regime’s contrivance, has given Egyptians a clear picture of chaos. Egypt’s prisons have been emptied of criminals, terrorists, and political prisoners, and reports indicate that looting of shops and homes is widespread.[11] The army stands as the last defender of order and balance and may yet step in to restore order, end the neo-liberal economic experiment, and defend its own prerogatives. It has done so for 5,000 years.

As the Muslim Brotherhood emerges from the shadows to participate and perhaps dominate the revolution, the question of its regard for antiquity must also be raised. Egypt’s Islamists also have a vision of the past. It is difficult to discern what their attitudes toward antiquities would be except indirectly. For example, Egypt’s grand mufti Ali Gomaa issued a fatwa in 2006 banning the display of statues in homes and was joined in his condemnation by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. The fatwa was condemned by Egyptian intellectuals and even by the Muslim Brotherhood.[12]

It is also well to remember that Khalid al-Islambouli cried, “I have killed the pharaoh,” after shooting Anwar Sadat on October 6, 1981.[13] The pharaoh is not a positive Qur’anic image but a tyrant. The Luxor massacre of 1997, where sixty-two tourists were slaughtered, saw the Islamist al-Gama’a al-Islamiya attack the Temple of Hatshepsut. The modern Egyptian and Western relationship with the Egyptian past was the setting for the attack. Tourism was clearly intended to be the victim. How the Muslim Brotherhood, dedicated to Islamizing Egypt, would deal with tourism, museums, and antiquities is unclear. Certainly, in the short term, for the sake of foreign currency and appearances, little will change. But the example of Afghanistan under the Taliban is in the background. The destruction wrought on remains of the Jewish temples in Jerusalem by the Palestinian Islamic authorities should also be mentioned. Perhaps most telling, however, is the almost complete erasure of Islamic historical remains from the cities of Mecca and Medina, including structures associated with Muhammad.[14]

An Egypt dominated by the military will almost certainly seek to restore both the country’s symbols and the practical mechanisms of tourism. Whether the military can ride the crocodile of popular unrest and a population empowered by social media yet lacking meaningful liberal democratic roots remains to be seen. But the religious desire to create a rupture with the past in the name of fighting idolatry is deep.

In all this, the practicality and wisdom of repatriating antiquities to Egypt is dubious. Zahi Hawass in particular has been determined in his pursuit of antiquities that were taken from Egypt over the past centuries. The Rosetta Stone, found by French engineers but taken as British war booty, tops his list. But even objects given by Egypt as gifts have come under his acquisitive eye. Cleopatra’s Needle in Central Park was erected in 1881, a gift from the Khedive of Egypt. But 130 years of standing out in the rain does no obelisk good, and Hawass has demanded that it be preserved, or he will take it back. His pursuit of Egyptian objects outside of Egypt has been almost as relentless as his drive to become the face of Egyptian archaeology everywhere.

The pharaoh is gone and so is Hawass. [15] In the meantime, those concerned about Egypt’s past can only sit back and watch as a genuinely Egyptian transformation takes place, one in which the relationship of past and present will inevitably be redefined yet along familiar lines.

Alexander H. Joffe is a Middle Eastern historian and archaeologist. He is the author of “Museum Madness in Baghdad,” published in the Spring 2004 Middle East Quarterly. He has taught archaeology at the Pennsylvania State University and Purchase College, State University of New York.

[1] The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 28, 2011.
[2] The Washington Post, Jan. 30, 2011.
[3] The New York Times, Feb. 1, 2011.
[4] Zahi Hawass, “State of Egyptian Antiquities,” Zahi Hawass website, Feb. 3, 2011.
[5] “Afghanistan: Hidden Treasures from the National Museum, Kabul,” National Geographic, accessed Feb. 8, 2011.
[6] Alexander H. Joffe, “Museum Madness in Baghdad,” Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2004, pp. 31-43.
[7] NewsCore Agency, Feb. 13, 2011.
[8] Al-Masry al-Youm (Cairo), June 8, 2010.
[9] The Egyptian Gazette (Cairo), Jan. 18, 2011.
[10] “Youth Unemployment, Existing Policies and Way Forward: Evidence from Egypt and Tunisia,” The World Bank, Washington, D.C., Apr. 2008.
[11] The Gulf Today (Dubai), Jan. 30, 2011.
[12] Middle East Online (London), Apr. 3, 2006.
[13] Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), p. 50.
[14] “Muslims start petition to stop Saudi destruction of Mecca and ‘The House of Mohammed,’” Militant Islam Monitor, Sept. 29, 2005.
[15] The New York Times, Mar. 3, 2011.

Hologram Artifacts go on Display at Llangollen Museum

Editor — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:00:22 +0000

The artefacts were taken to a laboratory to be recorded

A museum is displaying holographic images of artefacts made using a new imaging technique pioneered in Wales.

The holograms and 3D computer images will be shown at the Llangollen Museum in Denbighshire.

The imaging technique was developed by Professor Hans Bjelkhagan of Glyndwr University in Wrexham.

The museum claims the technique allows smaller venues to exhibit key works without having to borrow them from national museums.

An entry on the museum’s website says: “Although the national museums have programmes in place to lend out artefacts, it often is not possible for smaller museums to borrow items that they may wish to – there may not be the space or there may be security and storage issues.

“This exhibition aims to use modern technology to enable people to view three-dimensional ‘images’ of the artefacts in various different forms.”

The museum claims the holograms “convince the viewer that the object is actually there behind the glass”.

In the museum, they have put an axe and the hologram next to it and people can’t tell which is the real image

Prof Hans Bjelkhagan

Prof Bjelkhagan has been working on the new technique for 15 years and said Wales was the first country in the world to use the technology.

He explained: “It’s an imaging technology that is absolutely perfect. No computer can reproduce images like this.

“We freeze the light as it comes from the object, so we actually capture the light coming from the object which can then regenerate the object as if it was still there.

“In the museum, they have put an axe and the hologram next to it and people can’t tell which is the real image.”

The technique uses three lasers which are combined into one white light

The technique uses three lasers, in red, blue and green, which are then combined into one white light.

Prof Bjelkhagan said: “You have to put a glass plate in front of the object, and the light from the object goes back into the glass and is recorded. It’s like ‘old-fashioned’ film photography.

“All the artefacts were brought to the labs at Optic to be recorded.

“One of the most unique artefacts is a 14,000-year-old necklace engraved with a horse which is so valuable no-one can have it here in Wales.

“It’s kept in the British Museum. For the first time people in Wales will be able to see it. It was found in Llandudno, in the Great Orme mountain, where they also want to show the exhibition.”

The Bringing the Artefacts Back to the People exhibition is the result of a partnership between museums across north Wales, and Optic Technium in St Asaph, Denbighshire.

The exhibition is being taken on tour over the next two years once it leaves Llangollen.

The project was funded by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, an independent grant-making organisation.

BBC — http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/north_east/8663167.stm

—————————————————————————————-

Will 3-D digital technology replace the genuine objects? What do you think, as it pertains to the Rosetta Stone?

The Rosetta Stone: Some Historical Background

Editor — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:56:13 +0000

The Capitulation of 30 August 1801 was signed by representative of the Britain: Admiral Kieth, J. Hely Hutchenson, Lieutenant General, Commander-in-chief. Representative of France ABBDOULLAHY, JACQUES, FRANCOIS MENOU, General in chief of the French Army. Representative of the Sublime High Port: Hussein, Capitan Pasha.(Clarke, Hewson. The history of the war: from the commencement of the French revolution to the present time , Volume 1,1816:530) With no representative of the Egyptians who began at that epoch to form their own leadership which were of religious nature.

The armistice and peace treaty which followed the defeat of Napoleon and the invasion of France did not make particular provision regarding confiscated art treasures or under treaty, or even property taken prior to Napoleon’s activities; after the Congress of Vienna in 1815 many objects under all these headings were simply returned. The Prussians without waiting the signature of any treaty or the consent of their allies, had already packed their own works of art into wagons and sent them off to Berlin. The King of the Netherlands recovered the Flemish masterpieces which Napoleon had housed in the Louvre . The Venus of the Medici went back to Florence; the horses of St Marks were, taken down from the arch of the Carrousel and restored to Venice; and the Pope sent Canova on a special mission to Paris to catalogue and recover the treasures which had once been his.

Utilizing Rosetta Stone in the wall construction was not signal of Egyptian disdain for these treasures but an ancient Egyptian custom survived among the modern dwellers, they used to bury figures of gods under their houses to prevent evil spirits and devils entering them from the earth, in Fustat, or “Old Cairo” many householders had buried under their thresholds bronze figures of gods, stone Ushabtiu figures, and even portrait statues, for the same purpose as their ancestors. In one quarter the first stone a man stepped on after passing through his street door was always an ancient Egyptian sepulchral Stela, and the greater number of those were laid with the inscribed side uppermost.

Both the stones and the inscriptions were supposed to be “lucky” and the hieroglyphic characters were believed by many to have magic in them. (Budge, E. A. Wallis. By Nile and Tigris, Vol. I, London (1920):85-87) This did happen in all parts of Egypt. As result of this habit, one of the reused Stela was point of quarrel between France and Britain in 1815, the Stela was fixed as the slab of Emir Akhor Mosque –ruined mosque in Cairo-, Mohammed Ali, Egypt’s ruler, justified his primary refuse with his fear of the people’s rage, if he extracted the slab and dedicated it to Britain or France.

The Reuse of Egyptian monuments’ blocks was practiced on the hands of the Pharaohs themselves it was not a new phenomenon, as many much stone blocks from Giza Pyramids were reused by King Amnemhat I of the Twelfth Dynasty in building his own pyramid at Lisht.

Buildings of both Amenemhat I and Senwosert I were found re-used in later Ptolemaic temples. In Italy, similar partial dismantling for the Coliseum was acted to build the Farness Palace.

Rosetta Stone was lent by the British Museum to the Louvre in 1972 so how its provenance land can not get similar honor?

– submitted by Hend Mohammed

Returning the Rosetta Stone to Egypt

Editor — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:57:30 +0000

By Jonathan Downs, author of “Discovery at Rosetta.” Jonathan will be willing to personally respond to any comments.

Discovery at Rosetta
Author: Jonathan Downs
Publisher: Constable
ISBN: 184529579X

The status of antiquities such as the Rosetta Stone continues to have considerable impact on the way in which Britain is perceived abroad – particularly by those ancient nations whose treasures are currently on display in the British Museum. The question of whether the Rosetta Stone should be repatriated to Egypt affects the political as well as the popular relationship between Egypt and Britain, and could have positive consequences in relations with the Islamic world.

It is clear that the Rosetta Stone falls into a unique category of controversy, quite different to the Elgin or Parthenon Marbles, owing to the complexity of its past. It sits in London largely as spoils of war, a trophy of a victory by Britain over France in Egypt in 1801. It was not excavated and subsequently looted, as in the case of the bust of Nefertiti. There are many common misconceptions surrounding the stone’s discovery but it has long been proven and accepted that it was used as a building-block in the foundations of a fifteenth-century wall at Fort Julien in Rosetta, and discovered by chance during renovations by the French army in 1799.

Had it been removed to France without the intervention of the British army in 1801, it could have been considered a clear case of theft: Napoleon in no way declared war on Egypt, or the Ottoman Empire (which governed Egypt at the time) and indeed did his best to avoid this. Instead he invaded Egypt in 1798 as a ‘friend’ of the Ottomans, to liberate it from the clutches of its corrupt Mameluke governors. Had he made a legal declaration of war, he could have taken whatever he chose under the internationally recognised rights of conquest – but no such declaration was made, in order to avoid direct confrontation with the largest military force in the Middle East.

The French were defeated in Egypt by an allied British and Ottoman army, but the British dictated the surrender terms. The Articles of Capitulation of Alexandria, signed in 1801 was the result: Article 16 stipulated that all treasures recovered by the French in their three-year stay were to be handed over to the British.

The French at first refused, claiming these items were personal souvenirs of various officers – the Rosetta Stone was supposedly the property of the French general, the universally despised Jacques-François Menou. Fearful of it falling into British hands, Menou hid it amongst his baggage in the back-streets of Alexandria. It was only through the cooperation of French scholars and British agents that the Rosetta Stone was recovered and the negotiations successfully concluded. The surrender document legitimised British ownership of the stone and all of the other artefacts confiscated at Alexandria, elevating them from stolen goods to legally untouchable spoils of war. It is for this reason that the Rosetta Stone rests in London, and not Paris.

Dr Zahi Hawass, the Secretary-General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Egypt, first requested the stone’s return in 2002. It was not until 2005 that the British Museum could confirm its legal ownership of the object: archivists consulted the original surrender treaty of 1801 and found that it had indeed been signed by the Ottoman and Mameluke commanders, the legal representatives of the government of Egypt at the time. Apparently Egypt accepted this legal position. But this is not what should be at issue. What is now argued is the morality of the ownership of the stone, not its legality. Few commentators have addressed the question that it is not whether eighteenth and nineteenth-century European nations had the right to recover artefacts, but whether today they have the right to retain them.

The Rosetta Stone stands alone in the hoard of sculpture and statuary taken from Alexandria, in that it is not a great work of art, taken from a temple or mosque. It is a functional item, a statement concerning the taxation of the priesthood. It was unimportant to the Egyptian builders who used it and much other useful rubble as masonry to support a wall, a common practice. Many Europeans cite this as ammunition against Egypt’s claim for its return: though carved in the last days of the pharaohs, the stone’s value was appreciated only by the European scholars who worked to decipher it, their subsequent successful efforts thereby making it a priceless object.

But the political world has changed dramatically since those days – the state of Egypt has gone from being a mismanaged province in the Ottoman Empire to becoming a modern nation, very much aware of its cultural identity and heritage, which rightly includes the Rosetta Stone as the key to its most ancient script. Discovered and deciphered by the French and preserved by the British, the Rosetta Stone has an overlapping cultural and historical significance for all three nations. To claim it belongs more in one than another does not answer today’s problem.

Although the repatriation of artefacts to their lands of origin holds justifiable fears for museums across the globe, the Rosetta Stone, by its very nature, could lead the way to a positive solution: rather than the current tug-of-war between Britain and Egypt, the stone could become the subject of a tripartite international ownership agreement, on a rotational display basis – from the British Museum to the Louvre, and to the new Grand Museum of Gizeh planned for 2012. Such an arrangement could be administered by an appropriate UNESCO committee to be agreed by all parties, and is certainly not beyond the scope of that body, which already acts as an arbiter and forum for the repatriation of artefacts to their lands of origin.

Of all the prime antiquities in the British Museum’s Alexandria collection, the Rosetta Stone is the most portable, durable and popular, and would suffer little from its new ambassadorial role. It was created in 196 BC to communicate a decree to a population divided by culture and language; let it now be used once more for a similar, higher purpose, and forge a link between these three nation-states as never before.

Return of the Rosetta Stone

Editor — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:42:16 +0000

The following is a recent letter to the editor (The Independent) by Jonathan Downs, the author of Discovery at Rosetta. Jonathan has granted permission to post this piece and is willing to respond to any questions raised in the comments section below:

Discovery at Rosetta
Author: Jonathan Downs
Publisher: Constable
ISBN: 184529579X

RETURN OF THE ROSETTA STONE

The British Museum was originally the storehouse of a vast collection of small curiosities, and the hoard from Alexandria in 1802 which included the Rosetta Stone, was the first of its kind in its halls, providing large, dramatic pieces as never before.

The stone, unlike the Elgin Marbles, is in the BM by dint of an aged treaty, signed by occupying military forces at a time when both Greece and Egypt were not yet modern nation-states as they are today – to claim that ‘Greece’ or ‘Egypt’ in any way agreed to the removal of these treasures is ludicrous as well the BM or any historian knows.

The objects were obtained with the permission of the Ottoman Empire – in the case of the Rosetta Stone, the treaty concerned [Articles of the Capitulation of Alexandria 1801] was signed by a Mameluke warlord, having just witnessed not only the utter destruction of the French by the British army, but also the intimidation of the mighty Ottomans by their apparent British allies, who threatened to march back down to Cairo to rescue surviving Mameluke figures from execution at the hands of Ottoman commanders.

That this Mameluke successor, Osman Bey, would have dared defy such a military machine arrayed before him is most unlikely.

Any competent barrister in The Hague could easily argue that he signed under duress, grateful to be rid of both the French and the Ottomans all at once.

It is time this treaty were put aside, and measures considered for the international ownership of the stone, by the French, Egyptians and British: for the French who deciphered it, for the British who have preserved it, and for the Egyptians who created it.

Such a step would not bring the BM crashing down but indeed raise it to the dizzying heights of approbation, a pleasant change from its current role as target for vilification.

- by Jonathan Downs, author of ‘Discovery at Rosetta’ [London, 2008]

Zahi Hawass Visits London’s British Museum (and ‘Doesn’t’ Mention Rosetta Stone)

Editor — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:08:33 +0000

Written by Sean Williams

The British Museum’s Egyptian Sculpture Gallery was packed last night, as hundreds of dignitaries flocked to see The World’s Most Famous Archaeologist (copyright all bloggers) Dr. Zahi Hawass, speaking ahead of the release of his latest book A Secret Voyage. Cameras in hand, Heritage Key was there to witness Dr Hawass’ appearance, heralded more like the second coming than a book signing.

Stood in front of the museum’s colossal head of Ramesses the Great, Dr. Zahi Hawass boomed out at his fans like an emissary from the pharaoh himself. But as he spoke, you could sense he was looking longingly above all our heads at the Rosetta Stone — the repatriation of which he continues to crusade.

Yet as Dr. Hawass steps up his quest for the Stone, he tried to placate things with BM director Neil MacGregor in his introduction: “When I first came here, everyone thought I came to take back the Rosetta Stone! But I’m not here to talk about the Rosetta Stone…” followed by a couple of minutes talking about the Rosetta Stone.

Dr Hawass speaking in the Egyptian Sculpture Gallery.
Image by Ann Wuyts

The granodiorite slab, famous for unlocking the secrets of the Egyptian language, promised to be the evening’s unsettling white elephant. But once Dr Hawass had launched into his famous acerbic rhetoric half an hour later (after an amusingly Hollywood-esque introductory video) the issue of repatriation had been left behind tales of the SCA’s latest discoveries.

Secret tunnels, lost queens, mixed-up mummies and ancient dams were just a few of Dr Hawass’ topics, pock-marked with his dry humour. “I had no idea archaeology would be my life. In fact, I hated archaeology.”; “At the tomb of Tutankhamun, when Lord Carnarvon asked Howard Carter, ‘What do you see?’ he said, ‘Wonderful things’. In my excavation, when my assistant asked me, ‘What do you see?’ I smelt the sewage, I said, ‘S**t.’”

We were then treated to around five minutes listing the celebrities Dr Hawass has met recently, including of course President Barak Obama.

Yet I couldn’t help but think that seeing Dr Hawass in a suit addressing a room full of dignitaries isn’t the right place to be seeing him in action. Take a look at some videos of Dr Hawass on Youtube.com in full swing, attired in denim shirt, hat and chinos. After all, he is called the ‘real Indiana Jones’.

What Dr Hawass’d give to get his hands on this. Image by Ann Wuyts

– Sean Williams is an English Literature graduate, who currently works as a writer and journalist in London. He enjoys ancient history, theatre and sport. Check out his blog here

Angry Egypt demands Britain returns Rosetta Stone

Editor — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:27:31 +0000

LONDON (AFP) – A top Egyptian official pressed Britain Wednesday to return an ancient stone tablet seen as an icon of his country and denied his countrymen were “pirates of the Caribbean” seeking to steal it back.

Zahi Hawass, head of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities, said he had changed his mind after requesting a temporary loan of the Rosetta Stone from London’s British Museum due to their allegedly prickly attitude.

He now just wants the stone — a basalt slab seen as key to deciphering hieroglyphics — back for good.

“When I said… I want to have it on a short-term loan, the British Museum wrote a letter to say that (they) need to know the security of (the) museum that will host,” the stone in Egypt, the archaeologist told BBC radio.

He did not like the tone of the museum’s letter, he said, adding: “Even some people in the press began to say: ‘If the British Museum will give the Rosetta Stone to Egypt, maybe Egyptians will not return it back.’

“We are not the pirates of the Caribbean. We are a civilised country. If I… sign a contract with the British Museum, (we) will return it,” Hawass added.

“Therefore we decided not to host the Rosetta Stone, but to ask for the Rosetta Stone to come back for good to Egypt, because it’s a part of the icon of the Egyptian identity.”

The stone, which dates back to 196 BC, was discovered in Egypt by French forces in 1799 and given to the British under a treaty two years later.

Its discovery led to a breakthrough in deciphering hieroglyphics, since it includes the same text in the ancient Egyptian script plus two other languages, including ancient Greek, for comparison.

Roy Clare, head of Britain’s Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, said the stone must stay in London.

“This icon is an icon globally. What happens to an object is it inherits additional culture through its acquisition,” he said, adding that through scholarship it “becomes important in relation to other cultural iconography.”

He reiterated that the British Museum could be willing to loan the Rosetta Stone to Egypt on a temporary basis.

“If Dr. Hawass were to at some point request a loan, the trustees would clearly consider it. But it would be helpful not to have this in the climate of debate about recovery” of the stone on a permanent basis by Egypt, he said.

The British Museum in also home to the Elgin Marbles, removed from Greece at the start of the 18th century, which have long been the subject of dispute between London and Athens.

Rosetta Stone: What are the Distinctive Features of the Replica Project?

Editor — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:06:12 +0000

WHAT ARE THE DISTINCTIVE FEATURES
OF THE ROSETTA STONE REPLICA PROJECT?

i. We believe that we are the first and only entity in the world to offer commercially-available, full-size, 3-D replicas of the original Rosetta Stone to potential purchasers for whatever private or public interests they may have. In other words, a potential customer is not required to represent a bona fide museum or educational institution to obtain one of our innovative Rosetta Stone replicas. Our full-size, 3-D replicas are available for purchase by anyone in the general public. This is one of the most compelling aspects of this project, which matches our desire to provide a hands-on experience with a replica of one of the important archaeological artifacts ever discovered…for millions of people.

ii. We provide a special discount for museums, educational institutions and any other bona fide non-profit organization that desires to use the replica for educational/exhibition purposes (31% off introductory price for Classic Rosetta model). Tell us about your organization (include your website) when you ask for more information.

iii. We are developing various models to match large or small budgets — unique innovations that exhibit well in either large or small spaces — for domestic or more expansive exhibition purposes.

iv. Once you have selected the model you want to purchase, we can generally ship a replica within 3-4 weeks to any customer, anywhere in the world — a rather quick turn-around for something of such unusually fine quality…hand-crafted especially for you. These are not “off the shelf” replicas made on some assembly line in China. All replicas are made in the USA.

v. We provide excellent, world-class customer service before, during and after your delivery. We will respond ASAP to any of your questions via email or phone (410-991-9718). Upon request, customer references are available.

vi. Here’s one of the most exciting features: Our Classic Rosetta models mimic the appearance of the genuine Rosetta Stone (after the original Rosetta Stone was cleaned in 2004). The rose-colored vein of granodiorite that came to light after the 2004 cleaning of the original Rosetta Stone is set in the upper left hand corner of our natural colored, 3-D replicas. This is an extremely difficult aspect of the original Rosetta Stone to duplicate when fabricating a three dimensional piece of art, utilizing rotational casting technology. It is our objective to offer nothing but excellence on every level. You’ll see…

The Rosetta Stone: A Proud Trophy?

Editor — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:23:26 +0000

The following is an extract from Discovery at Rosetta (by Jonathan Downs, Constable, 2008, pp.210-215) outlining the current status of the Rosetta Stone, the facts governing its legal ownership and its possible repatriation to Egypt. Jonathan has granted me permission to post this piece and is willing to respond to any questions raised in the comments section below:

Discovery at Rosetta
Author: Jonathan Downs
Publisher: Constable
ISBN: 184529579X

THE ROSETTA STONE: A PROUD TROPHY?

Despite the Rosetta Stone’s public profile, historically its status as an exhibit in the British Museum has not been nearly as contested as that of the ‘Elgin’ or Parthenon Marbles. To many it is immediately recognizable and more memorable than the sculptures that were formerly part of the Athenian Acropolis. This is understandable; until the end of the 1990s the Rosetta Stone rested on an angled frame close to the entrance of the museum – unavoidable, it was one of the first objects to be encountered, and crowds of visitors have gathered round it for the past two hundred years. Cleaned by conservators, it now occupies an equally prominent position in the centre of the Egypt collection by the Great Court entrance, upright within a protective case, still one of the most famous objects in the world. Before the arrival of the antiquities from Egypt in 1802, the British Museum contained little grand sculpture, its halls filled chiefly with smaller curiosities. The acquisition of the Rosetta Stone and the cargo from the Alexandria victory was an important step in the development of the institution.

Since 1999 and the bicentenary celebration of its discovery, there has been a reawakening of Egyptian interest in the Rosetta Stone. In July 2003 an article in Britain’s Sunday Telegraph newspaper claimed that Egypt was calling for its return. The feature stated that negotiations for the repatriation of the stone were under way with Dr Zahi Hawass, the Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Cairo. However, in early 2005 the British Museum confirmed that Britain’s legal title to the Rosetta Stone was indisputable – the Articles of the Capitulation of Alexandria show that Osman Bey and Hassan, the Kapudan Pasha, leaders of the Mameluke and Turkish forces representing the recognized government of Egypt in 1801, had signed the treaty with the British and the French, thereby accepting Article 16, that Britain had the right to the antiquities collected by Bonaparte’s expedition. In the circumstances, Dr Hawass apparently requested a replica of the stone, which was duly sent to Rosetta for display.

It seemed that Egypt had accepted the legality of British ownership of the stele; but at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin, Dr Hawass called for the return of key artefacts from around the world including the Rosetta Stone. In autumn 2007, a Bloomberg news report stated that Dr Hawass had made further representation to the British Museum for its return, be it permanent or by temporary loan, for the planned opening of the new Grand Museum at Gizeh, to be completed in 2012.

The restitution or repatriation of ancient artefacts to their native lands is a growing concern for the world’s museums for obvious reasons. According to reports, Dr Hawass has succeeded in reclaiming some 4,000 items since he took up the post of Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities. It has been argued that to return the tens of thousands of Egyptian relics dispersed across the world would be virtually impossible; however, with prominent statuary, the political issues intensify through increased public awareness, stimulating powerful emotion – as witnessed by the case of the bust of Nefertiti currently displayed in Berlin, the cause of considerable public resentment in Egypt today. Such relics cease to be ancient artefacts and become instead a nebulous but much more contentious ‘cultural heritage’ – and there is little moral justification for any nation to possess or exploit the heritage of another against its wishes.

Technically the Rosetta Stone and all the relics confiscated by the British from the defeat of Alexandria were legally obtained, their release granted by representatives of the national government which ‘owned’ them. In the case of Egypt in 1801, this is not as clear-cut as that of Italian pieces from individual city-states such as Venice or Rome, whose native governments were displaced by Napoleonic conquest, their treasures looted and later restored upon liberation. The state of Egypt, as it is recognized today, took no hand in the decision to relinquish its historic antiquities because it did not exist.

The Ottoman Kapudan Pasha represented a foreign military dictatorship and Osman Bey exercised direct Mameluke rule ostensibly in the name of the sultan. Although the Mamelukes had become naturalized Egyptians over the centuries it could be argued they were still a foreign people – warrior-slaves and mercenaries from the remote plains of the Ottoman Empire, they had been rulers of the country since the Middle Ages, and contrary to Ottoman wishes exercised a rebellious independence and tyrannical military oppression of the general population. The question arises then whether Osman Bey and Hassan Pasha had the right to relinquish Egyptian antiquities. Perhaps those best qualified to dispose of Egyptian heritage in 1801 were the sheikhs of the Divan or the learned men of the Al-Azhar Mosque. However, there was no resistance to the collection of the ancient relics on cultural or religious grounds – after the tumult of the French defeat in 1801 and the accession of leader Muhammed Ali Bey similar treasures were exported with official sanction.

It would be a mistake to view past incidences of archaeological collection purely as cultural theft. In the eighteenth century the collection of art and architectural fragments from remote rural sites in the Mediterranean was not seen as looting or vandalism, but as rescue and preservation. To the European antiquary, civilized nations cared for their art treasures – to find broken statuary and religious artefacts lying deserted in a state of ruination suggested a lack of civilized understanding – the ruins themselves evidence of a once-great culture since fallen into decay in the hands of a backward or barbarian government. The French savants in Egypt were presented with precisely this situation: the relics of a lost civilization lay neglected in the wastes of sand, ignored, if not feared, by locals. Before the arrival of collectors in the late eighteenth century, artefacts in Egypt were certainly in danger of destruction – as in the case of the Great Sphinx, which had been wilfully defaced, and the Rosetta Stone, buried in foundations, or Louvre stele C122, built into the threshold of a mosque.

The Napoleonic expedition had one other supreme right, internationally recognized since war began: the right of conquest. However, the legality of this right could also be challenged. Bonaparte invaded Egypt under the pretext of aiding the Ottoman sultan and did not officially declare war – far from it, he did his utmost to avoid such an open conflict for as long as possible. Theoretically, Bonaparte could not legally claim any treasure as spoils of war, even though he had defeated his enemies on the battlefield. Because of this neither had the savants [scholars attached to the expedition] been able to secure the legal rights from the ruling Ottomans to remove Egyptian antiquities – although there was no specific opposition to their scientific operations, the pieces had therefore been obtained without permission. In this regard, the artefacts standing in the British Museum from the fall of Alexandria could be considered plunder, just as Colonel Turner described them in 1810. The document that created a legal provenance of their ownership, and prevented Britain from becoming a receiver of stolen goods, was the Articles of the Capitulation of Alexandria. According to Article 16, the antiquities of Egypt – and the Rosetta Stone – had been transformed into spoils of war.

The Rosetta Stone falls into a different category from the other artefacts collected by the French expedition and captured by the British in Egypt. It was not a work of art, or religious icon, taken from a temple or mosque. Unlike the other antiquities, its value upon discovery arose from the potential information it could yield as a code-key in the decipherment of hieroglyphs. Herein lies the overlapping nature of its cultural importance: although a piece of Egyptian heritage, its function was fulfilled only by the Europeans who found it. It is therefore by no means clear to which people it should by rights ‘belong’ – to the British, by right of arms, and the pioneering work of Young; to the French, for its discovery and the success of Champollion – or to the Egyptians, to whose ancient past it owes its origin. For this reason it has been described as an exhibit of world heritage, part of the ‘universal museum’, which to many implies that it makes little difference where it is located so long as it is properly preserved and accessible to the majority of people. One might expect something of universal value to be shown liberally around the world, yet in the 206 years since it was brought to London, it has left only once, in 1972, for a special exhibition in Paris celebrating the 150th anniversary of Champollion’s historic ‘Letter to M. Dacier’ [in which he outlined his solution to the interpretation of hieroglyphs]. The French request for the stone for the occasion was initially refused by the British Museum and granted only after further consideration.

There is a strong case for rejecting the Ottoman right to dispose of Egyptian artefacts, but this is a moral judgement, not legal. However, the relevance of bills, receipts and treaties relating to the acquisition of artefacts by nations that no longer exist, such as Bonaparte’s France and the British and Ottoman Empires, must be questioned in the light of today’s modern world. Few historical or legal arguments address the relevant issue: it is not whether European nations had the right to acquire Egyptian antiquities, but whether today they should have the right to retain them.

Despite the Articles of the Capitulation of Alexandria and the binding nature of nineteenth-century Ottoman signatures, it would be difficult to argue that the Rosetta Stone belonged more in Britain or France than in Egypt. Yet, erected by the priests of the pharaoh, discovered by French savants, and preserved by British scholars, the Rosetta Stone unites two of the elder states of Europe with the most ancient of western civilizations. Two centuries later, still on the threshold of a new millennium, this unique cultural relationship could complete the cycle of discovery and decipherment, and herald a new era for the Rosetta Stone in the land of its creation. This ‘gem of antiquity’ could evolve beyond its original task – where once its message united a diverse culture, its renewed power could bind nations.

Jonathan Downs
‘Discovery at Rosetta’,
London: Constable, 2008