Looters Destroy Mummies in Egyptian Museum: Official

Reuters ^ | january 29, 2011 | Staff

[lbryce]

Looters broke into the Egyptian Museum during anti-government protests late Friday and destroyed two Pharaonic mummies, Egypt's top archaeologist told state television.

The museum in central Cairo, which has the world's biggest collection of Pharaonic antiquities, is adjacent to the headquarters of the ruling National Democratic Party that protesters had earlier set ablaze. Flames were seen still pouring out of the party headquarters early Saturday.

"I felt deeply sorry today when I came this morning to the Egyptian Museum and found that some had tried to raid the museum by force last night," Zahi Hawass, chairman of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, said Saturday.

"Egyptian citizens tried to prevent them and were joined by the tourism police, but some (looters) managed to enter from above and they destroyed two of the mummies," he said.

He added looters had also ransacked the ticket office.

The two-storey museum, built in 1902, houses tens of thousands of objects in its galleries and storerooms, including most of the King Tutankhamen collection.

[SunkenCiv]

· GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach · · join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
	Antiquity Journal  & archive  Archaeologica  Archaeology  Archaeology Channel  BAR  Bronze Age Forum  Discover  Dogpile  Eurekalert  Google  LiveScience  Mirabilis.ca  Nat Geographic  PhysOrg  Science Daily  Science News  Texas AM  Yahoo  Excerpt, or Link only?	Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. Looters destroy mummies in Egyptian Museum Breaking: Images of Egyptian Museum Damage Egyptian army storms museum to protect from looters (but not before the "street" drew a line) Were Tut's treasures damaged? (Egyptian Museum Looted) Would-Be Looters Rip Heads Off Two Egyptian Museum Mummies from the FRchives: Looters raid Arafat's home, steal his Nobel Peace Prize Looters raid Arafat's home, steal his Nobel Peace Prize To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
· History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword · · Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·

[bgill]

Thanks. I didn’t know all that. While I agree, national treasures should stay in their respective countries, since everyone signed off on the bust then it was Borchardt’s to do with what he wished. If the french savant or whomever wasn’t smart enough to do his job and properly identify the object, then that’s not Borchardt’s fault. Ah, well.

[Scoutmaster]

While I agree, national treasures should stay in their respective countries . . .

Even that raises some questions. Every several years, I re-read King of the Confessors by Thomas Hoving, former Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It's a fascinating, almost Indiana Jones-esque story of Hoving's pursuit of the Bury St. Edmunds Cross, an ivory medieval masterpiece. This year, I also read Hoving's Making the Mummies Dance, Fakebusters, and Tutankhamun, The Untold Story in sequence.

I finished Tutankhamun today.

There are immense amounts in those books about the legal export and smuggling of antiquities and art.

The concept of 'national treasures' raises these issues. Who decides if it's a 'national treasure'? At what point does something buried or standing on private land become owned by the nation and not the landowner? Many of Italy's great treasures were above-ground for, what?, 1800 years or more, until a market developed for them? And they were only considered a national treasure at that point?

If a 'national treasure' is found on private land, is the landowner compensated and, if so, at the true value of the piece or at what value? What if the national treasure is an antiquity that was created in another country but seized as the spoils of war thousands of years ago? In that case, is the piece a national treasure of the country where it was created, or the country where it has been for the last two thousand years?

If the piece is in one country but clearly originated in another country, how does one know if it was the spoils of war, or purchased legally 2,500 or 1,000 years ago?

[bgill]

Not that anyone asked me, but I’d say a national treasure would be something that has historical significance to the country. Now, if it was stolen or ended up there as an act of war, then if it’s ownership can be traced or it occurred during memorable history (such as the nazi looting) then by all means, it should be returned to the rightful owners or their heirs. However, something that has remained (for whatever reason) in a country for thousands of years without a known traceable ownership should remain in that country no matter where it was made.

Aren’t the pyramids and tombs on government lands? If so, then they and their contents should be considered owned by the government and as such any significant find would be a national treasure. I realize back during Carter’s time, there probably wasn’t so much a legal contract detailing the payment for finds, but more of money passing under the table. Now days, I would assume there are such contracts in place to stop the transport of antiquities and hopefully cutting back on kickbacks. Smuggling and other illegals acts is another subject. Antiquities on private lands, imo, belong to the land owner. If the item is up for purchase, the owner should allow the government to purchase it. If the government can’t beat a private collector’s price then too bad, so sad. But again, what do I know.

[Scoutmaster]

Actually, in the time of Lord Carnarvon and Howard Carter, there was a boilerplate legal document with sixteen clauses that granted a concession to dig, and dealt with the division of any antiquities that were discovered.

With the exception of intact tombs (that is, tombs that had not been opened in antiquity - and even Tut's tomb had been opened twice by robbers in antiquity; they simply didn't get much), or works of special historical or archaeological significance, the Antiquities Services and the concessionaire agreed upon an equal split of the treasures.

And while the Giza Pyramids and the tombs in the Valley of the Tombs of the Kings are on government lands, in some countries the state claims ownership of antiquities found on private land. I'd need to do some research on what compensation, if any, is paid to the landowner - the but state confiscates the antiquity.

[numberonepal]

My point is that the spectacular building skills and art of the ancient Egyptians c.3100-1200 BCE have never been duplicated.

The Egyptians might have helped, but they didn't build anything. There is ample evidence the Pyramids were already there before the 1st Dynasty and definitely before Kuhfu. All later attempts at pyramid building were met with failure and abysmal design. No one could ever again figure out the 52° slope.

[bgill]

the Antiquities Services and the concessionaire agreed upon an equal split of the treasures.

Cool. Thanks for that info on the contract. As for the agreed upon split, imo, that's letting treasures out of the country. Sad, very sad, indeed.

in some countries the state claims ownership of antiquities found on private land. I'd need to do some research on what compensation, if any, is paid to the landowner - the but state confiscates the antiquity.

Yep, Big Brother theft.

[Scoutmaster]

As for the agreed upon split, imo, that's letting treasures out of the country. Sad, very sad, indeed.

In some ways, you have to understand the context of the times.

At the turn of the 20th century, there were no trained Egyptian archaeologists and no budget for Egyptian national archaeology. There were, however, entire communities of tomb robbers who at that late date would scour the hills and cliffs near Luxor, by the Valley of the Tombs of the Kings. Some of the small caves and tombs they found were as much as 300' down the cliff, and they would reach them by rappelling down by ropes. They would remove whatever was there, on public lands, and sell them on the black market.

During periods of heavy rain, they would watch to see water patterns down the cliffs over miles of landscape, looking for indications of caves and tombs.

The concession method, allowing private individuals to dig at their own cost and peril, was a means of beating the robbers. Many, if not most, concessionaires found nothing. Lord Carvarvon and Henry Carter were in their sixth season searching for Tutankhamon's tomb before they found it. The costs of the dig put George Herbert, Fifth Earl of Carnarvon, in serious financial peril.

IF something was found, Egypt paid nothing to find it. Egypt had the right to anything of historical or archaeological importance. What was left was divided.

There were so many papyri to go around that they had very little value. You could buy antiquities throughout Egypt. What most concessionaires found was of little value. Items were found in bulk - and had they been left in Egypt, we would have learned very little from them.

Had the Rosetta Stone remained in Egypt, archaeologists may still be trying to decipher hieroglyphics. The stone would probably be shelved somewhere in a museum basement, or would have been sold in a Cairo or Luxor market place and now used as a doorstop in a home.

[bgill]

IF something was found, Egypt paid nothing to find it.

Some things never change.

Had the Rosetta Stone remained in Egypt, archaeologists may still be trying to decipher hieroglyphics. The stone would probably be shelved somewhere in a museum basement, or would have been sold in a Cairo or Luxor market place and now used as a doorstop in a home.

Again, some things never change.

[a fool in paradise]

“That’s a good-looking mummy!”-—Bill Clinton