I’m wondering how the stone is presented to the viewing public. Did you happen to see the sides where the British desecrated this ancient relic by carving an account of their “confiscation” of the Stone from the French?
What may be more impressive than the stone itself is how modern politics gets reflected in the stone like it’s a mirror. As one might expect Egypt has been entrenched in a Decades long battle to have the stone returned as a object of their national identity. And yet to your point that no reproduction/photo can do it justice, at one point the British actually produced a replica and gifted in to Egypt in lieu of the real thing.
This concept is one that fascinates me because in a strange twist of fate The British Museum is now also a historical artifact. Just like the Rosetta Stone or the Elgin Marbles, the museum is now a work of art created by a fallen empire. It can only exist in its current state as long as they have the political strength to protect it. It is probably only a matter of time until it is fittingly destroyed by the victimized nations reclaiming their artifacts.
The real politics is actually on how they quickly realised calling it “Egyptian” was a mistake due to ownership claims, and proceeded to start calling their looted artefacts by their dynasty (i.e “Babylonian” or “Sumerian”) rather than the name of the country it was stolen from (“Ancient Iraq”) in a way of stripping the country away from its heritage.
The same tactic has now been employed in dismissing land claims or pretending that ethnic cleansing isn’t ethnic cleansing by hostile groups in the region since the 50s.
Are they wrong? Why does a modern person living in Egypt have any more claim to something like Imhotep’s toothbrush any more than anyone else? Just by possession of the land where it was left? I don’t believe in real estate staking an ownership claim. I have more in common with my worst enemy than I do with my ancestor in 4000 BC.
Yes, they are clearly wrong? Modern Egyptians obviously share more links (ancestry, bloodline, culture, geography, etc.) with ancient Egyptians than you do. Whether they have more in common with modern Brits or their ancestors has nothing to do with anything.
Sure they have more links. But why does that give them ownership of Imhotep's toothbrush? If possession equals ownership for land (i.e. nobody is really claiming that the land that Egyptians live on should be given to someone other than Egyptians), why not for artifacts?
> calling their looted artefacts by their dynasty (i.e “Babylonian” or “Sumerian”)
There is no "Sumerian" dynasty nor even any similar concept. There is a language we refer to as Sumerian. We don't really know anything about Sumer; we took the name from the traditional royal title "King of Sumer and Akkad".
I don't see what your problem is with identifying artifacts by the period they come from. First, that is significantly more informative than identifying the modern region occupying the same area. Second, no one is going to be confused over which modern country holds the site of Babylon. Third, as you might have noticed me alluding to, "Iraq" did not actually exist at the time.
Who do you think should have the strongest moral claim to royal artifacts from the 23rd dynasty of Egypt? Does putting "Egypt" in the name help answer the question?
What may be more impressive than the stone itself is how modern politics gets reflected in the stone like it’s a mirror. As one might expect Egypt has been entrenched in a Decades long battle to have the stone returned as a object of their national identity. And yet to your point that no reproduction/photo can do it justice, at one point the British actually produced a replica and gifted in to Egypt in lieu of the real thing.