Schliemann’s duplicitous actions saw him smuggle these treasures out of the country without the permission of the Turkish government. We in the Turkish ministry of culture seek what is basic the original return of stolen property. While we concede that the Turkish government has made a previous attempt to seek a return of these treasures, it must be noted that the context of this court case could be considered to have played a major role in the outcome of this case.
The court case was held in Greece in 1874, the relationship between Greece and Turkey throughout history has often not been positive, as was the case during this time period of this court hearing. The Turkish government was forced to settle this court case for theft of property, and what it received was minor. In a modern context, surely this international court can see that justice can be recognized. The fact that the treasure was eventually donated to the Berlin Museum of early history and pre-history further ads validation to our claim.
Schliemann had tried to sell these treasures to many museums throughout the world and all rejected it due to doubts of his right to sell it. Many museums perceived the risk involved in purchasing these treasures as the Turkish government may successfully win a court case to have them returned. In simple terms the museums thought “why would we have to pay for something that there is a good chance that we would have to give back”. The Russian argument that the treasure was “appropriate reparations for war damage to Russia” is not valid.
The Research paper on Organizational Culture: the Case of Turkish Construction Industry
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm Organizational culture: the case of Turkish construction industry Ela Oney-Yazıcı, Heyecan Giritli, Gulfer Topcu-Oraz and Emrah Acar Department of Architecture, Division of Project and Construction Management, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey Abstract Purpose – The main ...
While we acknowledge Russia has suffered much at the hands of Germany in WWII, their taking of the treasure and keeping it in secret for almost 50 years are not the actions of an honorable nation. This is a chance for modern democratic Russia to demonstrate how far advanced they are in comparison to their former communist state. Unfortunately Russia’s constitutional court in 1999 upheld the motion that “Russia is not obliged to return trophy art to governments of aggressor nations”.
This is a direct reference to Germany and its wartime allies of WWII of which Turkey was not one. In the 1990’s, the government’s general director of monuments and museums, Engin Ozgen sent nine communicants to officials in Bonn and Moscow, claiming ownership of the treasure and asking to be included in negotiations over their fate. Not one of these communicants was responded to by either government. Russia’s “finders’ keepers argument” is not respectable in a modern setting, nor is the Berlin museum’s position.
Its statement on the eve of the 1995 exhibition of the treasure at the Pushkin Museum that “contrary to custom, the Pushkin museum will be exhibiting the Schliemann gold without the participation of its owner” is a further insult to Turkey. From a modern archaeological perspective, it also makes scientific sense to return the treasure to its place of origin. The current trends in archaeology are for objects considered of historical value to be placed in their original context so attempts can be made to comprehend how, why and by whom the items were used.
Archaeologists could gain more information of historical value to the world if these treasures were in their appropriate context. The world is considerably changed since the time of Schliemann’s discoveries and thieving. We only seek what is rightfully ours and believe that Russian and German claims to these treasures are simply not valid as they were stolen from Turkey in the first place. Thank you. Bibliography 1. “Bookrags”, online book summary