Repatriation of the Bust of Nefertiti
Repatriation generally refers to the process of returning an item or asset of significant value, reluctantly or forcibly to its country of origin or citizenry. Art repatriation is the return of objects of cultural value back to their country of origin. Repatriation can also mean to return to one’s native country. In in this case repatriation would be to return the bust of Nefertiti to its native Egyptian country. (Silverman p56)
The bust of Nefertiti was discovered by an Egyptian worker. He was digging along the river banks of river Nile when he spotted an unusual object. Ludwig Borchardt, the leading researcher of the excavation project helped in removing the sculpture from the rubbles. What materialized from the ground was a 33000 year old limestone bosom of an ancient female ruler covered and colored with gypsum lacquer. The fossil consisted of a flat top head on top of well-defined contenance .The Nefertiti bust, was the queen of Egypt and wife of pharaoh who ruled in the 14th century BC. Archeologists believe that Nefertiti came from a noble family which lived in Thebes. The antique is believed to have been created in 1340 BC when Akhenaten was in power. The sculpture was made public in the year 1924 and became a symbol of beauty. As per the terms agreed at that time, after the excavation, the finding were shared between Egypt and the foreigner who had an excavation license. In their partition, the fossil of Nefertiti would not only belong to Egypt but to Germany as well. Therefore, it was transported to Germany and given to one of the sponsors of the excavation project, James Simon. In 1920 it was given to Berlin museums where it was displayed years later (Bazley p90).
As an issue that keeps on emerging day in and day out in the public arena, repatriation is a thorny subject and absolute answers are hard to find. The simple fact that the argument is not only political but cultural, historical and ethical in nature explains its sophisticated attributes. Repatriation requests are made for apparent reasons some of which may be political or leaning towards religion reasons. Every repatriation desire is driven by a hidden sense of control or right to have the asset back, in this case Nefertiti. The item can then be repatriated either voluntarily or not after the claim has been proven to be legit. On the other hand, it is unfair to think that every item should be repatriated or would be repatriated to its place of origin. It is not practical to return everything in the near future to their native country although each repatriation request should be considered keenly in accordance with the law (Flessas p71)
Some people argue that African fossils and art should stay abroad because of its abject poverty and the lack of proper structure and resources to secure and maintain these fossils, in this case bust of Nefertiti. Another side of this debate suggests that Nefertiti belonged to the Germans the moment Egyptian government gave the German explorer permission to excavate the monument. But the rebattling argument to this statement questions the validity of the latter statement. Africa is not a country but a continent and cannot be at affected by war as a whole hence it has the ability to keep fossils and other treasures belonging to it safe and secure. The absence of the bust of Nefertiti has cost Egypt a huge blow economically. Arts council of England estimated that for every $1 of wages paid to the arts and culture industry, it multiplies by $2.02 in the economy. Therefore, Nefertiti fossil could be able to create jobs and grow skills; attract and bring up businesses in other related fields (Flessas p43).
The value of Nefertiti goes beyond basic economical expense. This piece of fossil would have been used for educational purposes and other life changing subjects that would have impacted the society and restored its citizens’ identity. The vacancy left by this historical fossil has generated an empty history which lacks life, culture and ancestry. This in turn affects creativity and modernization (Flessas p46).
The current policies of Egypt are political and try to emulate traits of national archeology. Just as the Ramesses 1 was repatriated back to Egypt and was given honors, the bust of Nefertiti should also be returned to its country of origin. Repatriation of Ramesses to its place of origin in Egypt brought back its archeological connection and its rightful power. Antiquities should only be used for national and territory reasons (Turnbull & Michael, p87).
Excavations give archeologists the ability to study fossils and confirm their customs. The bust of Nefertiti provided insight on the personal life and social connection of the ancient society to other dynamics. Taking an antique out of its original geographical region only destroys consistency in the evidence that resulted from its discovery .Morally, it is a good decision to return the bust of Nefertiti to its native country. The fossil has a specific connection to Egypt and will help in reviving the historical culture of the area. The only way Nefertiti can be truly appreciated is by placing it back and linking it with its historical country. Moreover, most people cannot afford to travel to Germany to see the artefact, yet, it is part of their cultural history and society (Turnbull & Michael, p 31).
In the past, there was no technology that could facilitate the return of an antique back to its native country due to the burden of transporting everything at ago. However, currently, transportation is faster and easier making the transfer swift. Therefore, the fossils would not be damaged. Hence the bust of Nefertiti can be safely returned to Egypt (Silverman, p56).
The government of Germany most of the time has argued that ‘the right thing to do’ is not quite a solid answer to support repatriation of the bust of Nefertiti. They have often doubted the capability of Egypt to preserve the antique. If the government of Germany was to return the antique back to its native country, what would prevent other countries from making similar demands? The Germans insisted that the bust is being well taken care of (Walther, p23)
Germany also claimed that the location where Nefertiti was found is not an indicator that it belonged to Egypt because some Egyptian antiques have been found in other parts of the world where Egyptian civilization was not totally wiped out. For example, remains of roman civilization have often been found in Britain. Therefore, Egyptian antiques have been found in other places where Egyptian civilization was not entirely wiped out. For example remains of roman civilization have often been found in Britain. Location cannot interpreted as ownership (Walther 49).
Another argument by the German government against the repatriation of Nefertiti is: just because an artefact is exhibited in another country does not mean that the native country has no access to it. Facts about the artefact remain intact in spite of a change in location. Location does not distort any fact. UNESCO rules and regulations only apply to artefacts that were moved after 1970. This exempts the bust of Nefertiti from the list and the queen is legally in German. Many valuable items have often been taken forcefully from other countries as spoils of war. Hence, there is a possibility that Nefertiti was built with material, labor, skills and efforts of resources seized from other parts of the world. Ownership cannot be a matter of locality and culture alone but can be extended to material things, giving Germans the right to possess the priced artefact (Walther, p55).
Germany cannot be discredited for the role they have played in ensuring the preservation of the bust of Nefertiti. It has preserved the artefact for posterity .And because of that role the artefact can be seen today. The fact that the museum preserved and kept safe the bust of Nefertiti does not give them the right of ownership since the manner in which it was obtained by Germany is still a subject of controversy. Egypt is now capable of housing and protecting Nefertiti. A museum has no right to hold on to an artefact for the simple reason that one of their country men had the resources and means to exploit the object during susceptible periods. The fact that the Berlin museum has refused any efforts by third parties to repatriate and restore bust of Nefertiti shows that they have truly benefitted from it.I personally belief in acquiring knowledge but also agree that the rights of native citizens should be obeyed and respected. Repatriation should be supported and items should be returned to their place of origin (Silverman p 68).
Works cited
Bazley, Tom. Crimes of the Art World. Santa Barbara, Calif: Praeger, 2010.
Flessas, Tatiana. The Repatriation Debate and the Discourse of the Commons. London: London School of Economics, Department of Law, 2007
Silverman, Helaine. Contested Cultural Heritage [recurso Electrónico]: Religion, Nationalism, Erasure, and Exclusion in a Global World. Estados Unidos: Springer New York, 2011
Turnbull, Paul, and Michael Pickering. The Long Way Home: The Meanings and Values of Repatriation. , 2010.
Walther, Matthias. Repatriation to France and Germany [recurso Electrónico]: A Comparative Study Based on Bourdieu's Theory of Practice. ,
