This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1sorlil
The Greeks have built a new museum below the Acropolis to house the Acropolis treasures and have left space for the return of the Parthenon (Elgin) marbles. Isn't it about time the Brits gave them back?
2appaloosaman
This is a very difficult question. It's emotional appeal to Greeks is very clear and simple - but the underlying principle has far wider ramifications. This is not a case of booty carried off in a military plundering expedition. At the time Lord Elgin purchased the marbles, the Ottoman empire was (as a matter of public international law) the de facto and de jure sovereign in Greece and free to dispose of state property on whatever terms it pleased.
The world's museums and public buildings are full of items that were acquired from governments (corrupt or otherwise) that saw fit to dispose of items at the time and which now look like a bad deal from someone else's point of view. Sometimes those governments are later overthrown and the new government (or restored government) would like to undo what its predecessor has done. That would make it impossible for museums or private buyers to acquire anything with confidence if a successor government could come along and say, "We don't recognise the legitimacy of our predecessor government - we want to undo all its acts." In truth, they never do want to undo all their predecessors' acts - only those they deem unfavorable to their present interests.
The world is full of countries whose present governments came to power by conquest of an earlier legitimate government - and that includes Britain itself. The problem is that we can never know which governments will be the ones that last - and therefore, in the long view, be considered safe for a museum to deal with, whether it be by purchase from that government or private acquisition sanctioned by an export certificate from the government of the day.
The argument is often couched in terms of inequality. In the Elgin marbles case, the inequality is that Greeks in Athens at the time had no say in their removal because they were ruled by the Ottomans. In other cases countries argue that their rulers or owners of the day did not appreciate the true worth of what they were selling. In other cases people claim there was, at the time, economic force majeure and it was only because the country was so cash-strapped that they agreed to the deal - but now their stock has risen in the world they would like to undo the deal. Perhaps the Russian Federation will demand that the US sell back Alaska at the price paid to the revolutionary government when it was impoverished and didn't realise that Alaska was one big oil well?
The Greek government claims the Elgin marbles are a special case - that the Pantheon and the Erechtheion are central to Greek culture. I wouldn't disagree but who knows how many other governments would claim that other great artifacts in museums around the world are central to their cultures? Whatever country a person lives in, they only have to look at their country's great museums and ask themselves how many of its star attractions are actually central to that country's national culture and a product of it. Why, indeed, should it stop with museums? Perhaps countries will start demanding that all the great works of art produced by its greatest artists be returned to their country of origin as being "central to their culture" - virtually every non-European art gallery would be emptied.
I believe the real solution would be for Britain's parliament to amend the act governing the British Museum so as to allow the trustees to repatriate articles like the Elgin marbles if it wished to do so and on such terms as it saw fit. We have never heard what value the Greek government puts on the marbles or what (if anything) it proposes to offer in exchange.
The world's museums and public buildings are full of items that were acquired from governments (corrupt or otherwise) that saw fit to dispose of items at the time and which now look like a bad deal from someone else's point of view. Sometimes those governments are later overthrown and the new government (or restored government) would like to undo what its predecessor has done. That would make it impossible for museums or private buyers to acquire anything with confidence if a successor government could come along and say, "We don't recognise the legitimacy of our predecessor government - we want to undo all its acts." In truth, they never do want to undo all their predecessors' acts - only those they deem unfavorable to their present interests.
The world is full of countries whose present governments came to power by conquest of an earlier legitimate government - and that includes Britain itself. The problem is that we can never know which governments will be the ones that last - and therefore, in the long view, be considered safe for a museum to deal with, whether it be by purchase from that government or private acquisition sanctioned by an export certificate from the government of the day.
The argument is often couched in terms of inequality. In the Elgin marbles case, the inequality is that Greeks in Athens at the time had no say in their removal because they were ruled by the Ottomans. In other cases countries argue that their rulers or owners of the day did not appreciate the true worth of what they were selling. In other cases people claim there was, at the time, economic force majeure and it was only because the country was so cash-strapped that they agreed to the deal - but now their stock has risen in the world they would like to undo the deal. Perhaps the Russian Federation will demand that the US sell back Alaska at the price paid to the revolutionary government when it was impoverished and didn't realise that Alaska was one big oil well?
The Greek government claims the Elgin marbles are a special case - that the Pantheon and the Erechtheion are central to Greek culture. I wouldn't disagree but who knows how many other governments would claim that other great artifacts in museums around the world are central to their cultures? Whatever country a person lives in, they only have to look at their country's great museums and ask themselves how many of its star attractions are actually central to that country's national culture and a product of it. Why, indeed, should it stop with museums? Perhaps countries will start demanding that all the great works of art produced by its greatest artists be returned to their country of origin as being "central to their culture" - virtually every non-European art gallery would be emptied.
I believe the real solution would be for Britain's parliament to amend the act governing the British Museum so as to allow the trustees to repatriate articles like the Elgin marbles if it wished to do so and on such terms as it saw fit. We have never heard what value the Greek government puts on the marbles or what (if anything) it proposes to offer in exchange.
3jcbrunner
Well argued (small correction: The US acquired Alaska from the reformer but not revolutionary Tsar Alexander II in 1867; together with the Louisana purchase, a great example of US real estate skills).
A point less considered is marketing: Artefacts abroad are valuable showcases. The obelisks in Paris and Rome point to Egypt as does Nefertiti/Nofretete in Berlin. Free advertising and extra exposure. Many more visit the British museum, the Met etc. than travel to the individual countries (especially if the countries are more exotic than Greece or Egypt).
A replica in Athens (as in the old museum) is quite sufficient for us hoi polloi (and better from a conservation point of view). Besides, Athens isn't starved of other ancient exhibits and remorselessly milks them in tourist traps. The Elgin Marbles would be just one highlight among many, many others (In Athens, I prefer the elegant Museum of Cycladic Art to the old Acropolis Museum and the National Museum. When I was there in post-Olympic shock 2005, the stylish showroom for the new museum looked promising, although execution is not a Greek skill - in Marathon, the 2004 prepackaged museum restrooms still awaited installation.).
A point less considered is marketing: Artefacts abroad are valuable showcases. The obelisks in Paris and Rome point to Egypt as does Nefertiti/Nofretete in Berlin. Free advertising and extra exposure. Many more visit the British museum, the Met etc. than travel to the individual countries (especially if the countries are more exotic than Greece or Egypt).
A replica in Athens (as in the old museum) is quite sufficient for us hoi polloi (and better from a conservation point of view). Besides, Athens isn't starved of other ancient exhibits and remorselessly milks them in tourist traps. The Elgin Marbles would be just one highlight among many, many others (In Athens, I prefer the elegant Museum of Cycladic Art to the old Acropolis Museum and the National Museum. When I was there in post-Olympic shock 2005, the stylish showroom for the new museum looked promising, although execution is not a Greek skill - in Marathon, the 2004 prepackaged museum restrooms still awaited installation.).
4appaloosaman
Thanks for the correction - Homer nodded! That, of course, would improve my argument that if the present Russian Federation sought to say the old imperial government was corrupt and the sale of Alaska was not in the Russian national interest - it's just a spit across the Bering Straits and Alaska is properly part of Russia. :)
5wildbill
I was ignorant of just what these pieces were and looked it up. The Elgin marbles include various pieces from the Parthenon, a caryatid from the Erechtheum and various other antiquities from Athens, Attica and other sites. Elgin requested the opportunity to measure, sketch and copy the pieces and also obtained authority to take away pieces of stone with old inscriptions and figures thereon. He kept them to himself for ten years and then in 1816 sold them to the Crown for 35,000 pounds. What Elgin did would be illegal under international law today.
I am an attorney and Appaloosaman's argument in legal terms is that Elgin was a bona fide purchaser for value. He bought the property from the rightful owner and paid fair market value (?). It would win in any American court. At some point a transaction must be considered final. Elgin also did make sure the pieces were preserved at a time when others were lost.
I started writing convinced that the pieces should be returned to the Greeks. Now I think the British should want to return the pieces to the Greeks.
I am an attorney and Appaloosaman's argument in legal terms is that Elgin was a bona fide purchaser for value. He bought the property from the rightful owner and paid fair market value (?). It would win in any American court. At some point a transaction must be considered final. Elgin also did make sure the pieces were preserved at a time when others were lost.
I started writing convinced that the pieces should be returned to the Greeks. Now I think the British should want to return the pieces to the Greeks.
6sorlil
Some interesting points however Lord Elgin did not actually have permission to cut reliefs from the Parthenon, he only had permission to take the pieces lying on the ground. I don't advocate the return of all historical artefacts to their original source but I do think the Parthenon marbles are a special case. There is no image more iconic of classical Greece than that of the Parthenon.
The moral argument used to keep the marbles in London has been that they are best preserved in the British museum, with the building of the new museum in Athens this argument is no longer relevent. In fact the marbles have not been particularly well looked after in London having been damaged through 'cleaning'.
I also write as a lover of Greek antiquity and in the interest of display and effect the best display of the marbles is definately not in a dull back room of the British museum.
I also quite enjoyed the museum of Cycladic Art but having studied Greek architecture and sculpture I went to Athens particularly to see the Acropolis sculpture and it was quite annoying to then have to make a separate journey to London to see the other half of the Parthenon frieze.
The moral argument used to keep the marbles in London has been that they are best preserved in the British museum, with the building of the new museum in Athens this argument is no longer relevent. In fact the marbles have not been particularly well looked after in London having been damaged through 'cleaning'.
I also write as a lover of Greek antiquity and in the interest of display and effect the best display of the marbles is definately not in a dull back room of the British museum.
I also quite enjoyed the museum of Cycladic Art but having studied Greek architecture and sculpture I went to Athens particularly to see the Acropolis sculpture and it was quite annoying to then have to make a separate journey to London to see the other half of the Parthenon frieze.
7varielle
I seem to recall the story of the Turks storing gun powder in the Parthenon resulting in an explosion that would have destroyed or seriously damaged the marbles if they had not previously been removed by Lord Elgin. Is this story true?
8Autodafe
> 3
I agree with you about the value of copies. I'm all for copies. But I'd go much further. Hide the originals in an oxygen-free temperature controlled vault somewhere on the Moon and never let them see the light of day.
I'm serious.
Only scholars, researchers and conservationists have a good excuse for putting their gloved hands on these artifacts anyway.
I propose that it would be in the best interests of all museums internationally, if not, humanity, to hide away their originals in this way and work with copies.
I'm also cynical.
Sadly, history has shown that the human race cannot be trusted with the long-term preservation of objects of cultural /artistic / historical significance. There has always been far too much instability in the world that makes these masterpieces susceptible to theft or destruction, in times of conflict, or by any nut job / terrorist group / criminal organization / regime that wants to make a statement.
I cite the senseless burning of the Library at Alexandria, the looting of Iraq's national museum of antiquities, the Taliban's barbaric destruction of the large Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, the recent internal thefts of treasures at the Hermitage or the recent theft and damage of Edvard Munch's painting, "The Scream," as examples.
Furthermore, if humankind finally pushes itself to the point of self-destruction, at least there is an archaeological record of our passing that a more responsible civilization (hopefully) can study and take stewardship of.
I agree with you about the value of copies. I'm all for copies. But I'd go much further. Hide the originals in an oxygen-free temperature controlled vault somewhere on the Moon and never let them see the light of day.
I'm serious.
Only scholars, researchers and conservationists have a good excuse for putting their gloved hands on these artifacts anyway.
I propose that it would be in the best interests of all museums internationally, if not, humanity, to hide away their originals in this way and work with copies.
I'm also cynical.
Sadly, history has shown that the human race cannot be trusted with the long-term preservation of objects of cultural /artistic / historical significance. There has always been far too much instability in the world that makes these masterpieces susceptible to theft or destruction, in times of conflict, or by any nut job / terrorist group / criminal organization / regime that wants to make a statement.
I cite the senseless burning of the Library at Alexandria, the looting of Iraq's national museum of antiquities, the Taliban's barbaric destruction of the large Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, the recent internal thefts of treasures at the Hermitage or the recent theft and damage of Edvard Munch's painting, "The Scream," as examples.
Furthermore, if humankind finally pushes itself to the point of self-destruction, at least there is an archaeological record of our passing that a more responsible civilization (hopefully) can study and take stewardship of.
9RainMan
On #7
The chronology is reversed. The ammunition explosion was more than a century previous (1687 acc. to Wiki), when the Venetians bombaded the Acropolis.
So one could blame the Venetians for bombarding the antiquities, or the Ottomans for storing ammunition there, but I guess we can't thank Elgin for 'saving' the sculptures in advance.
Of various wonderful books on the Acropolis Imight recommend Mary Beard's book on {The Parthenon}.
The chronology is reversed. The ammunition explosion was more than a century previous (1687 acc. to Wiki), when the Venetians bombaded the Acropolis.
So one could blame the Venetians for bombarding the antiquities, or the Ottomans for storing ammunition there, but I guess we can't thank Elgin for 'saving' the sculptures in advance.
Of various wonderful books on the Acropolis Imight recommend Mary Beard's book on {The Parthenon}.
