Case Study #2
WHO OWNS THE ART ANYWAY?
* Moscow recently announced that the so-called Priam's Treasure (which was excavated on the site of ancient Troy between 1873 and 1890 by the German amateur archaeologist Heinrich Schlieman and then looted by the Red Army from Nazi Germany) is still in Russia at the Pushkin Museum and went on public view in early 1996, for the first time since the Second World War.
The public admission by Moscow of the Treasure's existence raises questions about the 30,000 to 100,000 other stolen works of art that the German embassy in Moscow estimates are still in Russian Hands. Whose property are they? The Germans say they are stolen and should be returned. The Russians say the Germans stole thousands of artifacts during the occupation of the Soviet Union, many of which have been disbursed into private and public collections in Europe and the United States and are impossible to trace. The Russians state that while many journalists call it theft, it is really reparation for the damages inflicted on their country in World War ll.
How can one argue with that, given the loss of millions of Russian lives during the long war and the flagrant and wanton destruction of the Russian Royal palaces during the retreat of the Germans from Leningrad (now St. Petersburg)? Who has the moral high ground here? Who has the right to the property now, 50 years after the war? Whose property is it anyway?
If the treasures had been excavated under today's standards, the Treasure would have had to remain in Turkey. It would never have gotten to Germany in the first place. Shouldn't the Turks be brought into the negotiations between the Germans and the Russians since they could have a claim on the objects taken to Germany by Schlieman 50 years before?
* What about the heirs of Frank Calvert, the British field archaeologist and diplomat, who preceded Heinrich Schlieman as excavator of Troy? They are planning to file a claim to a portion of Schlieman's Trojan treasures that were found on his land in Hisarlik, Turkey. Frank Calvert owned the eastern half of the Hisarlik mound, site of the ancient city, and the Turkish government the western half. If during the 1873-90, excavations, Schlieman recovered artifacts on Calvert's land, Calvert's heirs might have a basis for claiming a share.
In the morality of determining ownership of archeological materials, who has priority: the country of possession or the country of origin? Modern day Turkey would have a tough claim to make if it said it and Ancient Troy are in any way one and the same.
If the country of possession should have priority, then wouldn't Russia have just as much of a claim as Germany since it has possession and promises to exhibit it in 1996?
IF YOU ARE THE JUDGE, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE TREASURE?
Case Study #2
WHO OWNS THE ART ANYWAY?
* Moscow recently announced that the so-called Priam's Treasure (which was excavated on the site of ancient Troy between 1873 and 1890 by the German amateur archaeologist Heinrich Schlieman and then looted by the Red Army from Nazi Germany) is still in Russia at the Pushkin Museum and went on public view in early 1996, for the first time since the Second World War.
The public admission by Moscow of the Treasure's existence raises questions about the 30,000 to 100,000 other stolen works of art that the German embassy in Moscow estimates are still in Russian Hands. Whose property are they? The Germans say they are stolen and should be returned. The Russians say the Germans stole thousands of artifacts during the occupation of the Soviet Union, many of which have been disbursed into private and public collections in Europe and the United States and are impossible to trace. The Russians state that while many journalists call it theft, it is really reparation for the damages inflicted on their country in World War ll.
How can one argue with that, given the loss of millions of Russian lives during the long war and the flagrant and wanton destruction of the Russian Royal palaces during the retreat of the Germans from Leningrad (now St. Petersburg)? Who has the moral high ground here? Who has the right to the property now, 50 years after the war? Whose property is it anyway?
If the treasures had been excavated under today's standards, the Treasure would have had to remain in Turkey. It would never have gotten to Germany in the first place. Shouldn't the Turks be brought into the negotiations between the Germans and the Russians since they could have a claim on the objects taken to Germany by Schlieman 50 years before?
* What about the heirs of Frank Calvert, the British field archaeologist and diplomat, who preceded Heinrich Schlieman as excavator of Troy? They are planning to file a claim to a portion of Schlieman's Trojan treasures that were found on his land in Hisarlik, Turkey. Frank Calvert owned the eastern half of the Hisarlik mound, site of the ancient city, and the Turkish government the western half. If during the 1873-90, excavations, Schlieman recovered artifacts on Calvert's land, Calvert's heirs might have a basis for claiming a share.
In the morality of determining ownership of archeological materials, who has priority: the country of possession or the country of origin? Modern day Turkey would have a tough claim to make if it said it and Ancient Troy are in any way one and the same.
If the country of possession should have priority, then wouldn't Russia have just as much of a claim as Germany since it has possession and promises to exhibit it in 1996?
IF YOU ARE THE JUDGE, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE TREASURE?
