Bit bare, innit?
Bit bare, innit?
50 comments
-
-
Well, apart from all the stone, bronze and Iron Age artifacts from our own country, and all the stuff (legally) on loan…
-
And properly bought, or received as gifts. These things do exist.
-
They do, the meme is just being cheeky about the Brits having notoriously sticky fingers throughout the 19th century.
-
-
So... Why don't they return all the things they stole?
-
-
-
I like how this one doesn't even need an explanation.
-
Even had to return the ceiling.
-
Pretty sure every country that exists today has museums full of stolen stuff, ok not every country, third world countries don't have anything, it's all been stolen already.
-
C'mon, museums in developing nations still have good stuff, don't shame em.
-
-
Quick! Put the Sutton Hoo mask on everything! It even has a mustache!
-
I can't believe this image can still make me sad because of the show ending not because of the brits stealing artifacts
-
I visited Copenhagen recently and that was my thought walking through Carlsberg's collection of statues. It was pretty cool though
-
Pretty funny to think how people treat ownership.
The societies that created the artefacts are dead and gone, the only thing connecting them and those alive today is the land they lay upon. Who has the right to the artefacts if there is no one left to claim them from the originators? Might aswell be those that take care of them and preserve them.
-
It's an interesting conundrum. What inspiration could a local population get from seeing artifacts of their lands ancestors and how they lived? How might a society and individuals be improved when exposed to museums and art that those before them created? We seem to put a lot of emphasis on the importance of the arts in western culture so it seems to be relevant by our own standards.
How does the securing and profiteering of those said artifacts by outside forces effect the area (economically and religiously) and the populations opinion on those historic and ancient sites when abused and seen as an excuse to enslave and brutalize the locals?
Who, in those outside forces that come to remove what they seem valuable, gets to determine what is cared for/sold and preserved? What positive narrative do they wish to portray of a land and people that they have no real connection too?
History has already shown the outcomes in museums when we refer to barbaric and "savage" people. Do you really think those institutions have always had the best in mind when concerning all of this?
-
It's an interesting conundrum. What inspiration could a local population get from seeing artifacts of their lands ancestors and how they lived?
They might have, but there is evidence that they didn't. At the very least not any society they would deem as savage, brutish or sacreligious. There is a long history of people that didn't value recording the past. It's frustratingly one of the many reasons that most of recorded history is either Chinese or Christian.
How does the securing and profiteering of those said artifacts by outside forces effect the area (economically and religiously) and the populations opinion on those historic and ancient sites when abused and seen as an excuse to enslave and brutalize the locals?
Don't know, but its hardly a new occurrence. It has always been the case that property and land is subject to conflict. The difference is that the Renaissance and industrial age GREATLY affected the outcome between those that has technology and those that didn't.
Who, in those outside forces that come to remove what they seem valuable, gets to determine what is cared for/sold and preserved? What positive narrative do they wish to portray of a land and people that they have no real connection too?
Its of course easy to be self righteous after the fact, but given the times when they happened, most of us wouldn't have any choice in the matter. I would perhaps equate it to something like clothes today. You know that a child likely made the clothes you wear, but would you go naked outside? The artefacts where either purchased by a ruler of the land, or taken by the proposed rulers of the land, so it would be theirs by right.
History has already shown the outcomes in museums when we refer to barbaric and "savage" people. Do you really think those institutions have always had the best in mind when concerning all of this?
Like i said earlier, acting like other people were savages wasn't exactly a new occurrence in the Imperial age. Just exacerbated by difference in technology. I don't think that they did, but to compare them to institutions of today more than a hundred years after the fact is just not relevant in my eyes.
-
-
-
Welcome to Earf.
-
artefacts
-
That's the British English spelling if you're insinuating it's incorrect spelling.
-
50 comments
Much of what the British and French didn't take, was LOOTED for private collections; dug-up Egyptian mummies were literally sold on the Cairo streets to be ground up into "medicinal" potions:
Do you think those old grave burglars wanted the jewelry as it was, as some sort of sacred amulet? Bullshit, they melted those artifacts, all they cared or knew about was the street price of gold by weight.
In many cases, being taken into public museums around the world, saved many priceless objects from being destroyed or becoming part of some wealthy asshole's secret art stash.
That doesn't explain why, in the 21st century, they can't give things back to countries that are now stable and safe.
For example, there's still lots of Irish artefacts in British museums that they refuse to return to Ireland. Greece has also been requesting the Elgin Marbles back but Britain continuously refuses.
Granted, there's also lots of artefacts in Irish museums that were put there when Ireland was a part of the British Empire. But the difference here is that Ireland seeks to repatriate them and Britain does not.
Britain taking care of those artefacts to protect them from looting is one thing, but when a country of origin requests their artefacts back, its the refusal that turns the caretaker into the thief.
We're still looking at it.
I like to joke about "archeologists" selling mummy cocks for rich folks to grind up as an aphrodisiac, but there is a dark twist often to my humor (humour, as the penis eaters might spell it)
Alternative point of view: maybe if British and French didn't colonise those countries, there wouldn't be this LOOTING. Do people in Britain and France practice LOOTING their own relics? Do you think LOOTING is an inherent trait of savages or maybe there's some other reason like British and French people destroying their country?
This take is hilariously racist. "Primitive non-europeans were innocent passengers of history living in paradise". People in other areas of the world weren't that different to Europe, they just didn't have the same technology.
"Looting" isn't something unique to Europe, finding old things magical/mysterious isn't something unique to Europe.
Especially in regards to Egypt which had famously been looted since forever. The day after someone was buried in an extravagant mastaba someone probably started planning how to dig it up.
Ancient Egyptians made anti-looting measures on their graves because ancient Egyptians were already looting graves.
Grave robbers have been around as long as there have been ornate graves. It was a noted problem in Ancient Egypt.
I don't think "Steal the items first" is much of a solution, but let's not pretend that looting is something that was kicked off by the Euros.
Historically? Uh, yes.
Looting is an inherent trait of any sufficiently large human society (ie over maybe 100 people)
Tombs were robbed since whey were first made. The pyramids had protective measures to keep them away, ask yourself why they're put them there in the first place. Abbott Papyrus is a document from 3000 years ago that describes tomb robbery. Fact is, people have been thieving ever since someone had something more than the other.
Over a span of 5000 years and the tombs only got robbed when the British and French showed up yes