REPATRIATE RASHID
REPATRIATE
RASHID
The Petition
We, the signatories of this petition, demand that Dr. Mostafa Madbouly, the Prime Minister of Egypt, submits an official request to repatriate the Rosetta Stone and the other sixteen artefacts and objects that came out of Egypt by illegal means.
The signatories of this petition realize the fact that this prominent monument of Egyptian history left Egypt according to Article Sixteen of the Capitulation of Alexandria document (1801), a treaty negotiated and signed by the Ottoman, French, and English forces, which was not signed by a single Egyptian-based entity, which makes the legal positions of the Egyptian Antiquities when they came out of the country ambiguous.
Under the terms of this treaty, the Rosetta Stone along with sixteen other artefacts, were handed over from the French side to the combined army of the Anglo-Ottoman forces, after which the English army, without a documented Ottoman concession, seized these objects and sent them over to the British Museum; to be visited unethically and illegally ever since.
The articles of this capitulation violated all the international and customary laws being enforced at that time, as well as robbing Egypt of its right to have an opinion and sovereignty over its cultural heritage, especially considering it was subject to colonial occupation.
The Rosetta Stone was undeniably a spoil of war and an act of plunder that was outlawed in the 17th and 19th centuries.
The confiscation of the Rosetta Stone, among other artefacts, is an act of encroachment on Egyptian cultural property and identity, and is a direct result of cultural colonial violence against Egyptian cultural heritage. The presence of these artefacts in the British Museum to this day supports past colonial endeavors of cultural violence and deprives Egypt as the country of origin of not only the physical return of these objects, but also of their important role as Egyptian cultural heritage that spans millennia of rich history.
History cannot be changed, but it can be corrected, and although the political, military, and governmental rule of the British Empire withdrew from Egypt years ago, cultural colonization is not yet over.
The preservation of antiquities and artefacts that were forcibly removed from their original places through violence and illegal treaties is evidence that cultural decolonization is not a simple story from the past, but a contemporary issue that needs to be addressed and remediated.
This is a substantial opportunity for Egypt to lead the Arab and African regions to recover the heritage looted under colonialism. The return of the Rosetta Stone would be an example of putting an end to western hegemony over Egyptian heritage. It would also have an important impact, not only on the restoration of emaciated Egyptian cultural rights, but also on economic rights in a significant way. The repatriation of the Rosetta Stone to its original location in the city of Rashid will also change the tourist map and attention to this ancient historical city.
We call on the Egyptian Prime Minister to work hard through all available diplomatic and legal means to recover this distinctive artefact alongside the other pieces that came out with it from different parts of Egypt. We also call on Egyptian citizens to sign this petition to show the will of the Egyptian people to recover their cultural heritage and work towards ending the cultural colonization of Egyptian heritage.
INTRODUCTION
The sequestration of the Rosetta stone was based on the Capitulation of Alexandria (1801), a treaty negotiated and signed by Ottoman, French, and English forces. Under the terms of this treaty, the Rosetta Stone was surrendered by the French to the Anglo-Ottoman forces.
Not only was Egypt under the occupation of the Ottoman Empire and had no say nor sovereignty over its own cultural heritage, the articles of the treaty of Alexandria are in violation of the law of nations, customary international laws, and Islamic laws applicable at the time. This means the sequestration of the Rosetta Stone is a spoil of war and an act of plunder; an act which was already prohibited from the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries.
The confiscation of the Rosetta Stone, among other antiquities, is an act of transgression on culture property and cultural identity, and a direct result of a long history of colonial violence. Its presence in the British Museum supports endeavours of past colonial violence. It also deprives its country of origin, not only of the material repatriation of the artifact, but also of any form of reparation connected to the ongoing intangible damage linked to centuries of violence, occupation, and an unjust balance of power.
History can’t be changed, but it can be corrected. And despite the withdrawal of political, military, and governmental rule of the British Empire from Egypt over a century ago, decolonisation is far from over.
Keeping the monuments and artifacts ripped from their homes through violence and unlawful treaties is proof that decolonisation is not a simple story from the past, but a very contemporary issue that needs to be addressed and rectified.
This is a powerful opportunity for Britain to demonstrate moral leadership, and to choose to follow moral principles over profit and support the healing of the wounds inflicted by colonial powers. An act of Parliament will allow the Rosetta Stone to be restored to its rightful home in Egypt.
We urge everyone who believes in the right of cultural identity, the right of equality among nations, and the inalienable right of each sovereign state to enjoy their own heritage and reclaim that heritage if it has been taken from them, to sign this petition in support of the return of the Rosetta Stone to its country of origin: Egypt.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Rashid is a port city in the Nile Delta in Egypt's Beheira governorate, located 65 kilometers (40 miles) east of Alexandria [1]. Rashid is the second city, after Cairo, which contains the most Islamic monuments [2]. It is a unique city for its architecture and civil harmony since the Ottoman era [3]. One of Rashid’s Islamic sites has an important significance in the History of Ancient Egypt [4]. This site is known as Julian fort, San Julian castle, or Qaitbay Castle. In Arabic, it is named Tabyet Rashid "Tabyet means Redoubt".
J. Cary, A map of Egypt, Internet Archive, April 28, 1811.
Rashid fort was renamed Fort Julien to commemorate Napoleon Bonaparte's aides-de-camp Thomas Prosper Jullien [9]. Jullien was killed while he was going to Rashid, on 2 August 1798 [10]. The fort is located dual miles from the northeast exposure of the port city of Rashid [11]. Jullien Fort dates to the Mamluk era, during Sultan Qaitbay’s reign [12]. However, the Rosetta Stone was discovered in the fort, and was most probably used as a building material in the fort’s foundation [13].
Egypt region map,Historicaleve
1 (“Loot: The Battle over the Stolen Treasures of the Ancient World - Sharon Waxman - Google Books” n.d., 32) 2 (Ghodya, Abd-Elkader Azzam, and El-sayed Maarouf 2021, 3382) 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 9 Pradines, Stéphane. "Napoleonic Fortifications in Egypt 1798-1801." Fort: Journal of the Fortress Study Group 42 (2014): 103. 10 Ibid. 11 Andrews, Carol AR. The Rosetta Stone. London: British Museum Publications, 1981: 5. 12 Ibid, 4. 13 Ibid, 1.
R. Phillips, An Egyptian Boat in front of St. Julien fort, Wikimedia, March 11, 1803.
Etch, Hossam, St. Julien Fort, Wikimedia, September 24, 2017.
Hillewaert, Hans, The Rosetta Stone in the British Museum, Wikimedia, November 20, 2007.
The Rosetta Stone is a fraction of the granodiorite stele that dates to 196 BCE [18]. This stone was a decree from priests in Memphis to Egypt’s king at the time, Ptolemy V (205 BC - 180 BC) [19]. The purpose of this decree was to exhibit their gratitude for exempting the people from taxes [20]. Another purpose was to support Ptolemy during the Punic wars which were taking place between his country, Rome, and Carthage. Decrees like the Rosetta Stone were usually written from a council of priests to the public [21].
The Rosette Stone is 112.30cm in length, 75.70cm in width, and 28.40cm, and 75.70 cm in width [24]. It is unique in that it was written in 2 languages: Greek "54 lines" and ancient Egyptian language, composed of Hieroglyphs “the temple language" in 14 lines, and Demotic “the public language" in 32 lines [25].
The French expedition in Egypt, also known as the Napoleonic expedition (1798 - 1801), was a massive undertaking led by Napoleon Bonaparte [28]. The expedition was more than a military campaign; Bonaparte had brought 167 savants from various discipline to write and publish a detailed description of Egypt, which became the book "Description de l'Egypte"[29]. Furthermore, one of the most important achievements of the French in Egypt, was the discovery of the Rosetta Stone in 1799 [30].
18 Gagnon, Alexandra, and Matt Gibbs. "The Rosetta Stone." (2021): 7. 19 Ibid, 4. 20 (“Loot: The Battle over the Stolen Treasures of the Ancient World - Sharon Waxman - Google Books” n.d., 33) 21 Ibid. 24 (“Collection Search | British Museum” n.d.), EA24. 25 Ibid. 28 Weissbach, Muriel Mirak. "Jean François Champollion and the true story of Egypt." 21st Century Science and Technology 12, no. 4 (2000): 27. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid.
Depiction of the Rosetta Stone, which is part of a Stela. ©British Museum.
During the summer of 1799, led by the French engineer Pierre Francois Xavier Bouchard (1772-1832) [33], one stone stood out from many others during excavations of the foundations supporting an old fort near Rashid [34]. Bouchard recognized the significance and value of this inscribed slab from the moment it was extracted from the ground [35]. The stone was promptly sent to the Institution De l'Egypte in Cairo, which Napoleon formed for the savants to work on the expedition's findings [36].
Baron Antoine-Jean Gros, The Battle of the Pyramids when Napoleon and his French troops conquer Egypt, July 21, 1798.
In March 1801, the British forces surrounded the French forces and defeated them [42]. In 1801 a treaty was concluded between the British and the French called the "Treaty of Alexandria" [43]. Article 16 stipulates that the French must hand over all the antiques they discovered to the combined army (British and Ottoman Forces) [44]. On this basis, the Rosetta Stone was delivered, along with 16 other pieces from different Egyptian cities. The British side agreed that the French savants could keep the papers of their research results and some small artifacts [45].
J. Cary, A map of Egypt, Internet Archive, April 28, 1811.
After the Treaty of Alexandria, serious attempts to decipher the Rosetta Stone began, but a dispute arose between the two parties as they disagreed on who had the priority right to the task of deciphering the stone. Dr. Thomas Young made the first steps and was followed shortly after by Jean-François Champollion, who is credited for deciphering the Ancient Egyptian language.
33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 Pradines, Stéphane. "Napoleonic Fortifications in Egypt 1798-1801." Fort: Journal of the Fortress Study Group 42 (2014): 94. 36 Champollion, Jean François. "How Champollion Deciphered the Rosetta Stone." (1999) 42 Weissbach, Muriel Mirak. "Jean François Champollion and the true story of Egypt." 21st Century Science and Technology 12, no. 4 (2000): 27. 43 Ibid. 44 (“Views of Ancient Egypt Since Napoleon Bonaparte: Imperialism, Colonialism ... - Google Books” n.d., 71) 45 (Account of pieces of ancient sculpture taken by the British from the French, 1802)
Thomas Young (1773 - 1829) was a British physicist and physician with an FRS [49]. He became a member of the Royal Society in 1802, then in 1804 became a fellow [50]. In 1814, Young had two sources to improve his work on the Rosetta Stone [51]. First, J.W Bankes discovered an obelisk in Philae Temple with two scripts, Hieroglyphs and Greek, with the name Ptolemy IX engraved on the obelisk, which aided Young in his work on the Rosetta Stone [52]. Second, he was given two papyri written in Demotic and Hieroglyphs from Luxor [53].
Thomas used the experimental route in his approach to deciphering the Rosetta Stone[59]. Counting how many times a given word, such as "king," was written in the Greek script [60], then comparing it to the demotic to determine which word was repeated the same number of times to realize it signified "king" [61]. Young's methodology for deciphering the Rosetta Stone was inadequate for the intricacy of the language, and his word and name decoding remained suspect since he lacked a clear and definite method [62]. He published the results of his research in 1818. The outcome, did not revolutionise Egyptology perhaps because ,despite Young's supremacy in other subjects, he was not as excited by this form of work [63].
Briggs, Henry, Portrait of Thomas Young, Wikimedia, January 2, 1822.
49 Champollion, Jean François. "How Champollion Deciphered the Rosetta Stone." (1999): 99. 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid. 59 Weissbach, Muriel Mirak. "Jean François Champollion and the true story of Egypt." 21st Century Science and Technology 12, no. 4 (2000): 33. 60 Ibid, 27. 61 Ibid. 62 Ibid. 63 Weissbach, Muriel Mirak. "Jean François Champollion and the true story of Egypt." 21st Century Science and Technology 12, no. 4 (2000): 27
Cogniet, Léon, Jean-François Champollion, 1831, © Musée du Louvre
Champollion was born in 1790 in Figeac, in the southwest of France [68]. Champollion's father was a bookseller, who instilled in Champollion a passion for reading and research [69]. It was Jean-François’ older brother, Jacques Joseph, who took up his education and assigned him learning to a religious teacher who taught him Latin and Greek [70]. After that, in 1802, Jean-François learned Arabic, Hebrew, Kurdish, and Coptic [71]. Through Jean-François’ deepening knowledge of oriental languages, and with the presence of the French campaign and the discoveries it brought, Jean-François became passionate about Egyptian civilization [72]. He sent a letter to his brother in 1806 telling him that he wanted to study and understand the Egyptian civilization, and made it clear that he loved the Egyptians, as he said, "I will admit that no one is equal to the Egyptians in my heart" [73]. At the time, he was eleven years old. At the age of eighteen, he was even more deeply interested in Egypt's relics, language, coffins, and history [74]. When he reached the age of twenty, Jean-François became an assistant professor. Most of his writing up to that point had been about Egypt and its history, including an article he published on the geographical description of Egypt before the conquest of Cambyses [75]. In 1807, Champollion studied many languages at the French College and the School of Oriental Languages, such as Syriac, Coptic, Persian, and Chaldean [76]. With time, Champollion became more passionate about the Coptic language, which made him want to study it and know it like the French language [77]. Therefore, he studied the Coptic language at the hands of an Egyptian priest named "Youhanna Shefchi". Champollion got to know him through his teacher, Dom Raphael, in the Church of Saint-Roch in Paris, from where he sent a letter to his older brother in 1809 informing him that he spoke Coptic fluently, "I speak Coptic on my own (as no one can understand me)" [78]. Champollion was able to conclude that hieroglyphs, demotic, and hieratic writings are nothing more than copies of the same text [79]. Champollion compared the three texts to each other using some available materials from papyrus and publications of the Book of the Dead [80]. Through study and comparison, he was able to conclude that Demotic is only a simplified form of hieroglyphs writing [81]. Although, at first he could not read the texts, he was able to take the texts in demotic and match them with some texts in hieroglyphs [82]. Later there were many debates as to whether hieroglyphics and demotic were phonetic, ideographic, or symbolic. The controversy existed until 1822 when Champollion concluded that hieroglyphic and demotic are ideograms [83]. This means that sometimes they are symbols, drawings, and ideas, and sometimes they are linguistic sounds [84]. Through this theory, he concluded that the number of words in Greek will be the same as the number of words found in hieroglyphs [85]. But after he counted the words, he concluded that hieroglyphs are more than the demotic, which negates the theory that hieroglyphs and hieratics are ideographic writings [86] but are phonetic writings. After that, Champollion succeeded in comparing the phonetic signs found in hieroglyphic, demotic, and Greek. From here, Champollion was able to compare the demotic version of Cleopatra, in what is known as the Kasati Papyrus, and the Greek, and found similarities in the pronunciation of the names [87]. Through this, he concluded that if demotic and hieroglyphs are similar, then this means that the phonetic match between demotic and Greek also applies to hieroglyphs [88]. Champollion was able to confirm this theory by applying it to the obelisk of philae [89]. After the success of that theory, Champollion was able to decipher the Rosetta Stone and by apply the same theory [90].
68 Rosetta Stone, “Unlocking the Civilization of Ancient Egypt How Champollion Deciphered the Rosetta Stone” 8, no. 3 (1999): 98. 69 Ibid, 99. 70 Ibid. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid, 101–2. 75 Rosetta Stone, “Unlocking the Civilization of Ancient Egypt How Champollion Deciphered the Rosetta Stone” 8, no. 3 (1999), 101–2. 76 Rosetta Stone, “Unlocking the Civilization of Ancient Egypt How Champollion Deciphered the Rosetta Stone” 8, no. 3 (1999): 101. 77 Ibid. 78 Ibid, 102. 79 Ibid. 80 Ibid. 81 Ibid, 102–3. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid, 103–4. 86 Rosetta Stone, “Unlocking the Civilization of Ancient Egypt How Champollion Deciphered the Rosetta Stone” 8, no. 3 (1999): 103–4. 87 Ibid. 88 Ibid. 89 Ibid. 90 Ibid.
TRAVEL INEQUALITY
Egypt region map,Historicaleve
Every year, many British tourists come to Egypt. British tourists come to visit archaeological sites such as museums and temples, and sometimes they come to visit natural sites such as reserves and salt lakes. This is because of the ease of travel from Britain to Egypt. A British citizen can obtain an Egyptian visa once they arrive in Egypt from the airport at the visa office [110]. It can also be obtained online by filling out a form and owning a current passport [111]. In the visa form, whether online or at the visa office located inside the Egyptian airports, some information is required, including the person's name, surname, family name, country of origin and nationality, and information about the passport [112]. After that, they pay 25 US dollars, equivalent to 473.5 Egyptian pounds [113]. Among the airports where visa offices are located are Cairo Airport, Hurghada, and Burj Al Arab in Alexandria [114]. This greatly facilitates British tourists visiting Egypt anytime they wish as long as their passport is current. As for Egyptians, it is difficult for them to travel to Britain [115]. This is due to the procedures and security permits for the traveler [116]. In addition, the procedures can take up to six months to be completed before the date of travel [117]. Among the procedures that Egyptians follow when traveling to Britain are the following:
110 Egypt e-visa, “تأشيرة مصر عند الوصول.” 111 Egypt e-visa. 112 Ibid. 113 Ibid. 114 Ibid. 115 Visa index, “متطلبات فيزا بريطانيا. 116 Visa index 117 Ibid
VISA
• Passport [118].
• A letter from the employer that includes the traveler's position in the company and the value of the traveler's salary [119].
• A letter from the educational authority if the traveler is a student. This letter includes the period of absence allowed for the student and the student's enrollment [120].
• Previous commercial register or the traveler's invoices [121].
• Previous travel records or passports [122].
• Proof of legal residence for the traveler from a country other than the country of his nationality [123].
• Financial documents such as bank accounts and savings books. This is to ensure that the traveler has a financial source that can meet his needs in Britain [124].
• If the traveler has a sponsor during the travel, the kinship relationship or the relationship between the traveler and the sponsor must be defined [125]. The sponsor must also be a person who lives in Britain and holds British citizenship [126].
• If the traveler is a minor, in that case, a letter from the legal guardian or the parent is submitted. The letter includes the consent of the guardian and supervisor of the minor during his stay in Britain. It also includes the length of stay and the place of residence [127].
• After that, the visa will be applied for by paying 95 pounds sterling, equivalent to 2152.7 Egyptian pounds [128].
• After completing the visa submission, the wait is from three weeks to a month, which can be extended [129]. After this period, the visa may be refused or accepted [130].
• In the event of refusal, an appeal is made to the court, and this takes a period of no less than three months [131]. In the event that the appeal is rejected, a criticism of the court's decision is made [132]. The appeal or cash is made by paying from 80 to 140 pounds, equivalent to 1812.8 to 3172.4 Egyptian pounds [133].
118 British embassy, “Visit the UK as a Standard Visitor: Overview - GOV.UK.” 119 Ibid. 120 Visa index, “متطلبات فيزا بريطانيا.” 121 Ibid. 122 British embassy, “Visit the UK as a Standard Visitor: Overview - GOV.UK.” 123 Ibid. 124 Ibid. 125 Visa index, “متطلبات فيزا بريطانيا.” 126 Ibid. 127 British embassy, “Visit the UK as a Standard Visitor: Overview - GOV.UK.” 128 Visa index. 129 Ibid. 130 Ibid. 131 Ibid. 132 Ibid. 133 Ibid.
In order to obtain a visa to travel to Britain, some documents must be collected, which are the following:
FLIGHT TICKET
The price of airline tickets from Egypt to Britain range from 585 dollars to 1344 dollars, which is the equivalent of 11,085.75 Egyptian pounds to 25,468.8 Egyptian pounds [134]. There are many procedures and difficulties that an Egyptian citizen faces in order to travel to Britain. Also, the Egyptian citizen may end up spending more than thirty thousand Egyptian pounds in order to complete the procedures and the ticket only; this is beside the amount they need in order to stay in Britain.
R. Phillips, An Egyptian Boat in front of St. Julien fort, Wikimedia, March 11, 1803.
134 “Tickets from Egypt to London.”
Egypt region map,Historicaleve
One pound sterling is currently (September 2022) worth around 22.63 Egyptian pounds. Thus, it will be easy for any British visitor to come to Egypt and enjoy visiting archaeological sites, such as museums and temples, without spending huge sums of money. However, if Egyptians want to visit the Egyptian monuments in Britain, such as the Rosetta Stone, it is difficult for them to travel. The cost of visiting Britain for an Egyptian citizen can reach approximately fifty thousand Egyptian pounds. Therefore, Egyptians should have the right to recover Egyptian antiquities from Britain, such as the Rosetta Stone. Egyptians also have the right to visit Egyptian antiquities because it is part of their identity. It is not fair, nor just, that antiquities belong to Egyptians can be accessed more readily by a British person than an Egyptian.
THE IMPORTANCE OF REPATRIATING HERITAGE FROM AN ETHICAL STANDPOINT
Hillewaert, Hans, The Rosetta Stone in the British Museum, Wikimedia, November 20, 2007.
The significance of repatriation lies in decolonizing archaeological research that still reflects colonization, as well as being conscious of the implications of the emergence of archaeology alongside the colonial enterprise and how it affected the “relationship between imperialism and forms of archaeological knowledge” [164]. The residues of colonialism are certainly still extant in archaeological museums, and we must acknowledge the fact that the act of gaining independence, of a republic or country does not make people truly postcolonial in their thoughts and instincts [165]. It is in this sense that archaeological museums should be engaged in teaching and helping people unlearn colonialist ideals.
Taking into account the views of disenfranchised communities and people, minorities, historically and politically marginalized populations and their demands for control over rightful land and cultural property, museums and institutions should be working with communities to establish conditions of ethical and decolonized practice [166]. Restitution and repatriation encompass not only material objects or pieces of land, but also intangible aspects like feelings, thoughts, and beliefs that are part of human heritage. Land, monuments, and objects all physically represent what some cultures refer to as "the soul of things." Repatriation of cultural property is thus an act of returning significant parts of cultures' souls [167]. Viewing repatriation as the return of human remains and sacred objects to their source communities, and as a process that comprehends many of the problems and incompatibilities posed by attempts to rectify colonial inequities is important [168]. It is also vital that those in positions of power in cultural organisations consider their responsibility to the people being studied and ensure that their cultural heritage rights are restored [169]. Thus, if archaeology or heritage work is paid or generates revenue for private companies or the wider economy; in compliance with laws and regulations, it should require the consent of indigenous or other groups because it deals with issues or concepts that people genuinely care about and feel entitled to [170]. Benefitting from cultural property is entangled, at all levels, from local to global forms of geopolitics, cultural diplomacy, investment, and economics; elements that intersect in complex and sometimes surprising ways with public memory [171].
Establishing intercultural dialogue and new forms of relationships among cultural groups in a postcolonial, post-dictatorial manner, must start with an approach to culture based on the understanding that cultural dialogue requires two sides. Restitution is only one aspect of the movement; there is also an important period of cultural recovery, of regaining cultural pride and confidence through re-empowerment of heritage [172]. UNESCO states that those calling for the restitution or return of lost cultural objects of fundamental significance may, in cases where international conventions cannot be applied, call on the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation [173]. Furthermore, museums and institutions should incorporate a goal of facilitating bilateral negotiations for the restitution or return of cultural property to its countries of origin [174] “Egypt, Italy, and Greece are all vying for center-stage in the repatriation movement. Each uses political clout to facilitate the return of archaeological objects- even when there are no apparent legal grounds to necessitate repatriation” [175]. Another constant rebuttal to the repatriation of cultural property is that legally there are no grounds for asking or demanding their return, even if they historically belong to that certain region. Nevertheless, this proves that significant public outreach and ongoing discourse has ethical importance and can cause change as it increases public pressure on museums to repatriate artifacts. An example of this would be the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which voluntarily returned 19 objects from King Tutankhamun’s tomb to Egypt in November 2010, even though the law didn’t require them to do so [176]. This was also the case of Yale university returning the Macchu Picchu artifacts to Peru in 2010 [177]. Thus, the Ethics-based repatriation movement demonstrates its viability as a means of reclaiming and repatriating cultural property.
Instead of relying on requests for cultural property to support repatriation claims, it could be argued that repatriation should be required as part of reparations for historical injustices, specifically the unjust acquisition of cultural objects and the unjust campaigns of colonial occupation and genocide in which such acquisitions were frequently embedded [178]. It could also be argued that because many museums are committed to serving as trustees of universally valuable collections for all humanity, they should be more concerned with achieving a just distribution of such cultural resources, as opposed to the retentionist position that is frequently supported [179].
Many Western museums' collections were created during a period of colonial expansion and subjugation, both physically and conceptually, of "others," and were designed to reinforce Enlightenment-based notions of progress and national identity among western powers. Thus, maintaining these collections, even as historically contingent "relics," can be interpreted as continuing to sanction the symbolic violence of the collecting practices and the mindset they represent [180].
164 Lydon, Jane, and Uzma Z. Rizvi. Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology. London: Routledge, 2016. 165 Tahan, Lina. "New Museological Ways of Seeing The World: Decolonizing Archaeology in Lebanese Museums." In Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology, 296-305. Left Coast Press, 2012. 166 Lydon, Jane, and Uzma Z. Rizvi. Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology. London: Routledge, 2016. 167 Scheiner, Tereza M. "Museums, Museology and the Restitution of Cultural Heritage at the dawn of a new global ethics." ICOM International Committee for Museology 33rd ICOFOM Annual Symposium, November 2010, 31-33. 168 Lydon, Jane, and Uzma Rizvi. "Part III: Addressing/Redressing the Past: Restitution, Repatriation, and Ethics." In Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology, 241-295. Left Coast Press, 2012. 169 Lydon, Jane, and Uzma Z. Rizvi. Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology. London: Routledge, 2016. 170 Ireland, Tracy, and John Schofield. The Ethics of Cultural Heritage. Basingstoke: Springer, 2014. 171 Scheiner, Tereza M. "Museums, Museology and the Restitution of Cultural Heritage at the dawn of a new global ethics." ICOM International Committee for Museology 33rd ICOFOM Annual Symposium, November 2010, 31-33. 172 Scheiner, Tereza M. "Museums, Museology and the Restitution of Cultural Heritage at the dawn of a new global ethics." ICOM International Committee for Museology 33rd ICOFOM Annual Symposium, November 2010, 31-33. 173 UNESCO. ""Return & Restitution" Intergovernmental Committee." UNESCO. Last modified April 21, 2022. https://www.unesco.org/en/node/66142. 174 Ibid. 175 Alderman, Kimberly. "Yale Agrees to Return Machu Picchu Artifacts to Peru: Ethics-Based Repatriation Efforts Gain Steam." SSRN Electronic Journal, 2011. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1734420. 176 Ibid.177 Ibid. 178 Matthes, Erich Hatala. "The Ethics of Cultural Heritage." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2018. 179 Ibid. 180 Bauer, Alexander. "Cultural Property: Internationalism, Ethics, and Law." In Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology, 286-295. Left Coast Press, 2012.
LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR REPATRIATING THE ROSETTA STONE
The treaty of Alexandria violates the International Laws and Customs applicable at the time (Breach of the Law of Nations, Customary International Law, and Islamic laws):
The treaty of Alexandria violates the customs and laws practiced during the 18th and 19th century.
In fact, the customary law that was practiced by the nations in the 18th and 19th century awards special protection to cultural heritage, dictating that cultural property must always be protected and shall not be taken as spoils of war. The enforcement of this granted protection was manifested in the actions of European nations refraining from looting cultural property and their protest against the Napoleonic crimes towards cultural property; creating a repeated and sufficiently widespread practice that formed a binding international custom [1].
The treaty utterly ignores and disregards the values and ethics of the Roman law, one of the primary sources of foundation of the Law of Nations. The Roman Law, and subsequently the Law of Nations, both established an important distinction between objects subject to human law “res ius humanum”, and objects that were subject to divine law “res divini iuris” [2]. In This distinction, cultural monuments and artefacts were viewed as objects of sacred value, and thus were subject to divine law. This entailed that objects of cultural and historical nature shall be under the custodianship of the sovereign without giving the sovereign any rights to destroy or sell such objects [3].
In reality, an international custom emerged when Italian city-states suffered from multiple campaigns by Napoleon (1796) before his campaign on Egypt. Those campaigns were similar to the Egyptian campaign, in the way that they resulted in acts of plunder of many artefacts of Italian heritage. In fact, Napoleon was able to acquire ownership rights over all works of art in Italy because of the conquest of the Italian peninsula. This occured through a series of unlawful treaties struck with the papal territories which later extended to all of Italy [4]. Those treaties, that awarded France ownership on the looted Italian monuments, were heavily challenged by several European nations, and were declared illegal during the Italian restitution efforts after France was defeated by the allied forces [5].
With the support of the British Empire and its allies at the Congress of Vienna 1815, the Italian diplomat Antoine Canova (1757–1822) was able to restore 77 pieces of Italian cultural property, by defying the legality of the treaties which enabled the objects to be displaced [6].
The abovementioned series of events not only introduces a precedent that later paved the route for more restitution cases, but it also highlights how the French and British governments acted in conformity with the values and ethics of the customary international law applicable at the time regarding the protection and sanctity of cultural heritage, but purposefully disregarded and violated these same values in the case of the Rosetta Stone and other pieces of Egyptian cultural heritage.
1 Zhang, Yue. 2018. "Customary International Law and the Rule Against Taking Cultural Property as Spoils of War." Chinese Journal of International Law 943–989. 2 For the classifications, see Charles P. Sherman, 2 Roman Law in the Modern World (1917), 139; Aelius Gallus, another Roman jurist, had a similar classification of property in the late Republic. See Alan Watson, The Spirit of Roman Law (1995) 3 Gilks, David. " Attitudes to the Displacement of Cultural Property in the Wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon. " The Historical Journal 56, no. 1 (2013): 113-143. 4 Howard, Letters and Documents of Napoleon, Vol. I, p. 173. 5 Stone, Peter G., ed. Cultural heritage, ethics and the military. Vol. 4. Boydell Press, 2011. 6 Scovazzi, Tulio. "The «First Time Instance» as Regards Restitution of Removed Cultural Properties." Agenda Internacional 19, no. 30 (2012): 9-19.
The Capitulation of Alexandria does not mention explicitly that the antiquities belong to the British generals:
Article 16 of the treaty states that the antiquities shall be considered as public property or are at the disposal of the generals of the combined army [7].
Due to their sacred nature, as it has been established by the Law of Nations and as well by the Roman Law, cultural property and antiquities are not at the disposal of the sovereign like other public properties since the sovereign has the explicit duty of protection and preservation towards them. These objects fall under the custodianship of the sovereign without giving the sovereign any rights to destroy or sell such objects [8] [9].
Additionally, there is a clear contradiction between antiquities being referred to as “public property”, and them being at the disposal of the generals of the combined army, which resulted in them ultimately being confiscated by the British generals to be taken to Britain.
At the time, Egypt was under the control of the Ottoman Sultan Selim III [10], who delegated Captain Pasha (Kapudan Pasha) and the Grand Vizier to lead the Ottoman troops in fighting alongside the British army against the French army [11]. Following their defeat, the French troops retreated to Alexandria where they were besieged and offered to surrender on proposed terms. The Capitulation of Alexandria (1801) was negotiated and signed by General-in-Chief Abdoullah Jacques Francois Menou, Admiral Keith, Lieutenant General Hely-Hutchinson, Lieutenant Colonel and Secretary James Kempt, and the Captain Pasha [12].
The documented negotiations confirm that the term “generals of the combined army” refer to the Ottoman and British parties [13]. Therefore, according to the terms of the treaty, the antiquities should be at the disposal of both the Ottoman and British generals. Taking into consideration the fact that the Ottoman Generals did not sign over the ownership of the antiquities to the British generals, the British, therefore, violated the treaty in their execution. Furthermore, the combined army was dismantled after the union served its purpose of asserting the continuity of the Ottoman Empire's ruling of Egypt. Consequently, since the combined army was dismantled, the antiquities should have been considered the public property of Egypt.
Moreover, not only the Islamic laws, which predominately governed the Ottoman Empire, placed noteworthy requirements on the protection of cultural and historical monuments and artifacts, but it was also customary during this period to have official decrees (Firman) on matters related to historical artefacts [14]. The lack of direct authorization to displace cultural property, let alone forfeiting it to a third party, puts the legitimacy and the validity of the treaty altogether in question. It additionally demonstrates that the Ottoman authorities did not follow their duty of protection as sovereigns and violated International Customary Law and the decrees and laws of the Ottoman Empire.
Since the terms of Article 16 of the Capitulation of Alexandria allowed the sequestration of cultural artifacts based on colonial conquests in a warfare context, the terms were, therefore, in violation of the laws and customs of war established and practiced at the time.
7 Wilson, Robert. 1803. History of the British expedition to Egypt : to which is subjoined, a sketch of the present state of that country and its means of defense : illustrated with maps, and a portrait of Sir Ralph Abercromby. London. 8 Zhang, Yue. 2018. "Customary International Law and the Rule Against Taking Cultural Property as Spoils of War." Chinese Journal of International Law 943–989. 9 Gilks, David. "Attitudes to the Displacement of Cultural Property in the Wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon." The Historical Journal 56, no. 1 (2013): 113-143. 10 Naff, Thomas. "Reform and the Conduct of Ottoman Diplomacy in the Reign of Selim III, 1789-1807." Journal of the American Oriental Society 83, no. 3 (1963): 295-315. 11 Wilson, Robert. 1803. 12 Wilson, Robert (1803) 13 Wilson, Robert. 1803. History of the British expedition to Egypt: to which is subjoined, a sketch of the present state of that country and its means of defence: illustrated with maps, and a portrait of Sir Ralph Abercromby. London. 14 Ira M. Lapidus, A History of Islamic Societies, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002, pp. 260-261
EGYPT'S RIGHT TO THE ROSETTA STONE
Spoken and written language is the method that helps people communicate and understand others. Therefore, the Hajar Rashid (Rosetta Stone) discovery triggered an important shift in understanding the ancient Egyptian language because it was difficult to read the hieroglyphs [196]. The stone has two languages, ancient Egyptian and Greek [197]. What helped decipher these codes is the fact that the content of the writings is unified, The Hajar Rashid was the key to solving these codes for Egyptian archaeology and, and a result of the translation, as it became easier to understand the history of Egypt’s civilization and its secrets as documented in manuscripts on and temple walls [198].
In addition, the Hajar Rashid contains a narrative of an era in the history of Egypt. This is one of the reasons for the call for repatriation of the stone to its original homeland. History is part of the identity and cultural heritage of the Egyptian people. UNESCO defines cultural heritage as tangible and intangible heritage that has been preserved for ancient generations. Due to colonialism and wars, Egypt was stripped of this heritage. It is natural for Egyptian society to demand the return of its heritage to its country after the end of colonialism and the beginning of stability, but the British Museum refused the request, This indicates of the museum's continued 'imperial museology', i.e. the museum's continued control over the artifacts of other countries for their benefit [199]. The situation continues even though UNESCO, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 27, states that the law must protect public health and the rights and freedoms of others [200]. Retrieving the Hajar Rashid is in the public interest and is one of rights of the Egyptians. As such, the Hajar Rashid should be returned to its people in Rashid, preserved and gain tourist interest, such as in other famous tourist areas where Egyptians enjoy visiting their cultural heritage and this heritage places a part in the local economy.
196 Ray, john. The Rosetta Stone and rebirth of ancient Egypt. United Kingdom, 2007. 197 museum, British. THE ROSETTA STONE. London: The British Museum, 1922. 198 Scalf, Foy. "The Rosetta Stone: Unlocking the Ancient Egyptian Language." American Research Center in Egypt. feb 2019. https://www.arce.org/resource/rosetta-stone-unlocking-ancient-egyptian-language. 199 Volante, Anna. "Renouncing the Universal Museum's Imperial Past : A Call to Return the Rosetta Stone Through Collaborative Museology." University of San Francisco, 2018: 5-7. 200 Robinson, Patrick. "ARTICLE 27: LIMITATIONS ON THE APPLICATION." In The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights Background, principles and application, by Henk A. M. J and Michèle S. Jean, 335. 2009.
ECONOMIC BENEFIT
The concept of the sustainability off museums has developed from their function which, in the past, was limited to preserving the tangible cultural heritage of objects. Today with the intervention of the economic and social side of sustainability, this has developed into the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, goals which have helped the communities and businesses around the British Museum grow and flourish [216]. These goals have provided significant financial subsidies and enhanced identity building for the British Museum at the expense of the stolen Egyptian pieces. Sustainable Development Goal 8 (Economic Growth) entails many elements of the other goals (addressing issues such as poverty, hunger, education, health and so on). Thus, by improving economic income, it is the umbrella under which all ways of improving the performance of the British Museum are gathered [217]. The British Museum benefits from the Rosetta Stone through mini-sales of the Rosetta Stone and other merchandise sold by the museum stores.
Explain of Rosetta Stone watch
Explain of Rosetta Stone Sculpture
The Rosetta Stone is copied in many forms, for example, there is a miniature Rosetta Stone that is precisely the same, £125, a watch costs £35, a Rosetta Stone painting £40, an umbrella £34, Lanyard £2.99, Rucksack £15.99, Bookmark £2.50, Apron £16.99, Bookend £60.00, Purse £11.99, Cufflinks £19.99, Stylus £6.99, Paperweight £9.99, Oven Glove £13.99, Jigsaw Puzzle £13.99, Snow Globe £9.99, Tote Bag £11.99, Glasses Case £6.99, Nail File £1.99, Pin Badge £2.99, Mug £11.99, Postcard £4.50, Tie £30.00, Wash Bag £8.99, Mouse Mat £8.99, Spinning Keyring £3.99, Passport Holder £6.99, Packable Bag £9.99, Metal Keyring £2.99, USB Stick £15.99, Souvenir Coin £4.50, Folding Wallet £18.99, Lens Cloth £4.99, Socks £5.99, Silk Scarf £35.00, Silver Necklace £35.00, Cushion Cover £16.99, Coaster Set £14.99, Laptop Sleeve £11.99, Luggage Tag £4.99, iPhone 7 Cover £19.99 and Relaxer Toy £5.50
ARE MUSEUMS IN EUROPE A SAFE HAVEN FOR OBJECTS?
Dealing in antiquities was a popular profession for westerners in the 19th century. Antiquities dealers came to Egypt as if they were travelers watching Egyptian tourist attractions, especially in Upper Egypt, but, in fact, they were traveling to Upper Egypt specifically to search for antiquities. “Giving permission to the French tourist named "Kalio" to go to the waterfalls in order to search for antiquities”. This is an example of permission for a French tourist, not an archaeologist, named Kalio to search for antiquities. This permission was given in 1820 by the Egyptian government. Many antiquities dealers came to Egypt after Jean-François Champollion (1790–1832) [218] revealed his achievement in the decipherment of the Rosetta Stone [219]. It became like a competition between European countries, and archaeologists, to collect the most magnificent Egyptians objects. Europeans at this time called Egypt the land of treasures [220]. Egypt was colonized by France (1798-1801) because of military motivation to control profitable trade from India through Egypt, not for the purpose of liberating Egypt from the oppression of the Ottomans, or for social and economic reform. The French campaign assembled an antiquities collection during their stay in Egypt, which was surrendered to the combined army, and after that seized by the British army [221]. This collection included the Rosetta Stone, and other objects like a statue of a woman sitting with a lion’s head made of black granite, two statues made of white marble, a small figure kneeling with hieroglyphics, a colosseum ram’s head, a mutilated kneeling figure made of black diorite, and a fist of a colosseum statue found in the ruins of Memphis. After that, Egypt was ruled by Mehmet Ali, the Ottoman ruler from (1805-1848), who supported the French consul Bernardino Drovetti (1806-1814) (1821-1828) in collecting his magnificent collection “The consul of France residing in Alexandria has traveled to Damietta if he stopped in Menufia and wanted to dig some spots to discover antiquities don't oppose him” [222]. As mentioned above, Egyptians did not have the chance to rule their country themselves and to decide what they wanted to do with the antiquities. Instead, Egypt was divided between foreigner consuls competing to collect the most magnificent objects for their home countries [223].
216 Izabela, Luiza. Anca, BORZA.2014. Economia. Seria Management, Increasing the Sustainability of Museums through International Strategy. 217 Mcghie,Henry. 2019. Museums and the Sustainable Development Goals 218 L. Koefoed, Michael Haldrup. 2020. "Orientalism." In The Foucauldian Legacy, by Michael Haldrup L. Koefoed. Accessed March 12, 2022. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/orientalism. 219 Blair, Alexia. 2014. Revolution Egypt blogs. 16 December. Accessed March 12, 2022. http://revolutionegypt.blogs.wm.edu/2014/12/16/early-modern-egypt-in-the-crosshairs-of-orientalism/. 220 Nicole B. Hansen. 2020. The Collector. 10 March. Accessed March 12, 2022. https://www.thecollector.com/jean-francois-champollion/. 221 Reid, Donald Malcom. 2002. Whose Pharaohs? . California: University of California Press. Accessed March 12, 2022. 222 Maaia senia turkey, daftr 3, permission from al-wali Muhmet Ali, 5 September 1818 223 Cola, Elliott. 2007. Conflicted Antiquities . London: Duke University Press. Accessed March 12, 2022.
THE YOUNG MEMNON BECAME AN ARTIFACT (1816-1819)
A photo of the statue in the British Museum (Cola, 2007).
The Young Memnon, as they say, is an ancient Egyptian statue, one of two huge granite heads from Thebes, Upper Egypt's Ramesseum funerary temple. It portrays king Ramesses II of the nineteenth dynasty wearing the nemes headdress with a cobra diadem on top. Since its creation, the injured statue has lost its body, and its legs. It was originally one of two colossi that flanked the Ramesseum's entryway. In William Hamilton’s often cited Aegyptiaca 1809 he noted that the French tried to remove the colossal head by using explosives, but they failed in this attempt leaving a hole in it. In 1815 a wealthy Englishman called William John Bankes took ropes and pulleys in the hope of moving the colossal statue but was unsuccessful. In the same year (1815), Mehmet Ali was persuaded by Borchardt to send the colossal head as a present to the Prince Regent in England, but he did not consider the colossal head as a valuable gift for him. In 1816, Henry Salt, who was the British consul in Egypt, hired Giovanni Belzoni to remove the colossal granite bust of Rameses II and transport it down the Nile. Salt had many reasons to remove the colossal statue having read about it in many travel accounts as well as. receiving many reports from John Lewis Borchardt about the incredible artefact. Salt did not take much time to decide to be an antiquities dealer [224]. After just one year in his position in Egypt, he, like many consuls in Egypt, took up antiquities deal because he realized that the official salary was deficient. In late July 1816 the workers led by Giovanni Belzoni removed the head from its location (Thebes). On 14 January the British military engineers unloaded it at the Pasha’s (Mehmet Ali) warehouse in the port of Alexandria. On 9 January, 1819, the young Memnon turned from a monument into a museum artifact for exhibition. The statue was tax free because it was a gift from Egypt to the British Museum. According to the many attempts mentioned above for removing the colossal statue from its site using dangerous methods like explosives, as employed by French, it certainly seems true to say that the west did not care about the security of the artefacts per se but would do anything to acquire them [225]. All these issues, procedures, and permissions were supported by Mehmet Ali as mentioned above, and even though he did not see the statue as a valuable gift, the concept of the gift was not refused [226]. This nuance was used to support the British consul, Henry Salt's “Permission to the commander of the boat rented by the English consul to transport archaeological artifacts of stones excavated in the regions of Armant and Qurna, with no prohibition by the provinces scouts, port employees and others" [227].
224 Ronald, Ridley. 2001. Napoleon.ORG. Accessed March 12, 2022. https://www.napoleon.org/en/magazine/publications/napoleons-proconsul-in-egypt-the-life-and-times-of-bernardino-drovetti/. 225 Wilson, Robert. 1803. History of the British expedition to Egypt: to which is subjoined, a sketch of the present state of that country and its means of defense: illustrated with maps, and a portrait of Sir Ralph Abercromby. London. 226 Theban mapping project, Henry Salt. https://thebanmappingproject.com/glossary/salt-henry.227 Maaia senia turkey, daftr 17, serial number 437, aljanab aleali - amar murur, 15 August 1824
EUROPE IS NOT SAFE EITHER
One risk that may occur in museums is explosions. Evidently, such events are very dangerous for antiquities and museums' collections. Unfortunately, an explosion occurred at Berlin’s Humboldt forum on 8 April 2020. The accident, which happend on the construction site of the museum project, was serious. The construction project itself was damaged and, a worker was injured. The New York Times journal mentioned that no damage occurred to the collection but that the accident was very risky for the antiquities. “It emitted a lot of smoke, so it looked really dangerous,” said Michael Mathis, a spokesman for the museum, in a telephone interview [228].
A picture during the accident (Marshall, 2020).
228 Kamp, Justin. 2020. "An explosion rocked Berlin’s Humboldt Forum museum." New York Times. Accessed March 12, 2022. https://www.artsy.net/news/artsy-editorial-explosion-rocked-berlins-humboldt-forum-museum.
As in this image, this damage happened in several Berlin museums, where, Egyptian artifacts were among items sprayed with olive oil on Friday 23 Oct 2020. All the damaged Egyptian pieces are from the collection of the museum and are not part of a temporary exhibition in Germany, as was rumored. On Berlin's Museum Island, a UNESCO world heritage site with five major museums, sixteen Egyptian artifacts were among 69 objects sprayed with olive oil, including 16 Egyptian pieces, not including the bust of Queen Nefertiti. We believe that this sentence ‘not including the bust of Queen Nefertiti’ indicates they care about the bust as a masterpiece, and the rest of the Egyptian objects are seen as less important. The damage from the olive oil is very hard to rectify due to the fatty acids and triacylglycerol in the oil which, once attached to and object, generates a high-tension force between the oil, and the surface of the artifact [229]. In this case, mechanical cleaning methods will not be work, therefore unfavourable chemicals will have to be used.
This picture indicates the damage of olive oil on the Egyptian artefacts (El-Aref, 2020).
229 Dimitrios Boskou, Georgios Blekas, Maria Tsimidou. 2006. "Olive Oil." In Chemistry, and Technology, by Georgios Blekas, Maria Tsimidou Dimitrios Boskou, 41-72. AOCS Press. Accessed March 12, 2022. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9781893997882500080.
The accident occurred in Paris on a Monday evening; a massive fire destroyed Notre Dame Cathedral, an icon of beauty and heritage in Paris that suddenly filled the city sky with smoke. Thousands of spectators gathered along the banks of the Seine river and the courtyard of the nearby Hôtel de Ville, watching flames leap from the cathedral's wooden ceiling. The question is why didn't this archaeological building, which is as important as the cathedral, not have security precautions to stop such a disaster? Or were the security systems not working well? The strange thing is that no one seems to know the real cause of this accident, but everyone in Paris was standing watching the cathedral burn [230]. There is doubt that there will ever be a safe haven for Egyptian antiquities, and that the issue is not about the type of antiquities at all [231].
Picture during the fire accident (Kainaz Amaria, 2019).
230 Willsher, ‘One year after Notre Dame fire, officials struggle to keep restoration on track. 231 Kainaz Amaria, Jen Kirby, and Jennifer Williams. 2019. The devastating Notre Dame Cathedral fire, in 19 photos. 15 April. Accessed March 12, 2022. https://www.vox.com/world/2019/4/15/18311852/notre-dame-cathedral-fire-spire-collapse-photos-pictures-paris-france.
GALLERY
Our Team.
Dr. Monica Hanna
Acting Dean, College of Archaeology and Cultural Heritage The Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport
Dr. Nashwa Elbendary
Dean, College of Computing & Information Technology The Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport
al-Hassan abu al-Nasr Mansour
Mustafa khaled khodary
Nashwa Mahmoud Mohamed
Youssef Hossam Shahin
Asmaa Omar Yusuf Ali
Habiba Abdelnabi Abdelshakour
Esraa Ahmed Abd el Ghany
Youstina Elia Fawzi
Mariam Abuadma
Bishoy Abdelmassieh Aiad
Nour Zakaria Eltarzy
Fady Atef Shaker
Melania Samir
Beshoy Mark El-Mallah
Nourhan Hussein Mohamed
Fatma Omar Yousef Ali
