Abstract
FURTHER details of the allocation of antiquities from Ur as between the Bagdad Museum and the institutions which were responsible for the Joint Expedition are given by Dr. Leonard Woolley in Antiquity of March. These, unfortunately, had to be omitted from his communication in The Times (see NATURE, 134, 999; 1934); but they should convince any impartial judge of the fairness of Dr. Woolley's contention that the principle of division has operated in favour of the Bagdad Museum, and that there is no ground for the accusation that Iraq has received a negligible proportion of the finds or has been deprived of priceless treasures which should not have left the country. Dr. Woolley admits that in the earlier years of the excavations objects of exceptional importance or value were allotted to the share of the Expedition; but this was due to the fact that the Bagdad Museum had not then the technical equipment necessary for their special treatment and preservation. As Dr. Woolley's statement is precise, its detail is open to verification; but a reply which has since appeared in the Bagdad paper el Bilad evades this issue. Dr. Woolley goes on to show specifically in detail that the Antiquities Department of Iraq, having first choice, was in a position to, and did, select the most valuable and finest specimens for its proportion of the finds, without any compensation being given to the Expedition. The law is interpreted in such a way that there is a danger that the share of any Expedition may become insufficient to justify the expenditure entailed by the work of excavation. The reduction of the number of expeditions in this field to three indicates that this view is only too well founded.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Antiquities in Iraq. Nature 135, 499–500 (1935). https://doi.org/10.1038/135499b0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/135499b0