Not directly within our purview, but the mention of Alexander the Great gives me an excuse to include this interesting bit from the Telegraph:

A stone carving of the head of a guardsman from the ancient palace of Persian kings at Persepolis is at the centre of a High Court battle that could have worldwide repercussions for museums and art collections.

For more than 30 years, the 5th century BC relief has been in the possession of a Frenchwoman who bought it at an auction in New York in 1974 and displayed it on her living room wall.

When Denyse Berend, 85, tried to sell it through Christie's auction house in London in 2005, the Islamic Republic of Iran claimed it as stolen and launched a legal attempt to get it back.

Now Mr Justice Eady must decide who is the rightful owner in a case that one expert has described as having the potential to act like a "nuclear bomb" on the antiquities market.

If Iran wins this case, the Iranians will not stop there and will begin targeting private collectors and museums around the world, said Michel van Rijn, an art dealer and antiquities expert.

"If the High Court goes the direction of Iran it will send shivers down the spines of art collectors and museums," he said. "It could set a precedent and Iran could claim many more pieces worldwide."

Mrs Berend bought the relief "in good faith" at a public auction in New York and she is its rightful owner, the High Court was told yesterday.

The relief depicts the bearded head of a spear-carrying guardsman, wearing a feathered head dress and with his hair and beard arranged in tight curls.

Iran says it was originally part of the eastern staircase of the audience hall at Persepolis which was the ceremonial home of Persian kings until 330BC when, according to ancient sources, it was sacked and burned to the ground by Alexander the Great after a drunken revel.

The ruined palace was not excavated until 1932, by Prof Ernst Herzfeld, and Iran says the relief must have been removed after that date.

Under Iranian law, dating back to before the fall of the Shah, the republic says it remains the property of the state as part of a national monument.

The relief surfaced in the Christie's Faces from the Ancient World sale in 2005, but was withdrawn and has remained in legal limbo.

Michael Lazarus, for the republic, told Mr Justice Eady that Mrs Berend consigned the fragment from her home in Paris to Christie's in January 2005 for the auction.

He said Iran learned that the fragment was included in the sale catalogue and, in April 2005, successfully applied for an interim injunction restraining Christie's from selling it. Mr Lazarus added: "Christie's has retained the fragment pending the resolution of the dispute."

He told the judge: "The principal issues in the case are first, whether the court should determine the question of title according to the substantive law of France or of Iran and, secondly, if the applicable substantive law is French law, whether Mrs Berend acquired title under French law thereby extinguishing Iran's prior title."

Iran based its title to the fragment on two sources —historic title and Iranian statutory law. However, Paul Lowenstein, for Mrs Berend, said she bought the fragment through an agent and took possession of it in "good faith".

The barrister also argued that the collector obtained "good title" to the relief "by proscription" under French law as it was in her "continuous and open possession for a period of over 30 years" before she sent it to Christie's for sale.

Mr Lowenstein urged the judge to dismiss Iran's claim and order an inquiry into the damage Mrs Berend had suffered as a result of the Republic's application for the injunction.

The hearing continues.

... which leads to an obvious question: why aren't Greece and Italy going after the private collectors? Or are they?

========
Comments
========

Al Schlaf writes:

It just seems to me increasingly silly the multiple claims of return of stolen patrimony by various countries.

In this case, I wonder if Iran can document exactly the spot on the relief where this piece was stolen and whether it post-dates the applicable statute on when this constituted "property of the state." IOW, if they can conclusively prove the removal of this was after the enactment of the statute (to say nothing of the founding of the modern state of Iran), fine, they may very well have a case. However, if they cannot, then, to put it bluntly, they need to shut the hell up and live with it.

I support the right of countries to enforce the theft of their cultural patrimony/treasures/artifacts by statute in the present, but to cast back to times pre-dating such statutes or even the modern political existence of said countries to lay claim to objects obtained decades or centuries before that is ludicrous in the extreme. By the same logic, Greece should have claim to art works looted by the Romans now in modern museums.