Elgin Marbles Poll

[Jona Lendering]

The inevitable question...

[Robert Vermaat]

I know this question is deeply rooted in politics, but there's a lot of angles involved.

Suppose I bought my neighbour's house, and after a century his grandchildren suddenly demand it back from my grandchildren because according to them he should never have sold it? Not a correct analogy, I know, but there's more involved than 'national heritage' or whatever that means.

[DanM]

I think of it like, how would I fell if foreigners took stuff from the washington monument.

[john m roberts]

Isn't Greece having a tough enough time preserving the ancient artifacts still there? Between air pollution and earthquakes it's a hard environment for marble.

[DanM]

I thought there is less air pollution since the olympics in 2004.

[Robert Vermaat]

I think of it like, how would I fell if foreigners took stuff from the washington monument.

But how would you feel if, sort of, parts of the Washington Monument had been sold by the government to the british in the 19th century?

[Libitina]

It's a dilemma!

Ideally it would be nice for each country to have their own heritage to show off however I'd imagine finances, resources etc can't allow that any more... So I think as long as artifacts are being looked after and preserved and (ideally) displayed by someone, somewhere then that's at least a compromise.

I don't know enough about the Marbles to comment specifically however if another country had Stonehenge for example. I'm sure a large part of me would want it back!

[jvrjenivs]

It's a dilemma for sure.

I think it's important that world heritage is looked after, I mean, it's kept in good conditions etc, and that it is avaliable for research and public, so most preferable in a museum.

On the other hand it's also nice to see stuff in de area where it is found, and thus was used or even made, etc.

A hard question.

[Epictetus]

The Wall Street Journal has an article about the opening of the Acropolis Museum and briefly discusses the problem with the Elgin Marbles.

It's really tough. I couldn't make up my mind which way to vote in this poll.

[Robert Vermaat]

I don't see the difficulty of the question. It's a question of legal ownership. The statues were sold, sold again etc., and now they are in the posession of the latest owner. As simple as that.
Was the sale illegal? I have not seen evidence that substantiates that claim. Besides, we have treaties about stolen art.

Should the marbles be returned 'because they belong to Greece'? Well, no, of course not. I mean, I can understand why countries whose art was sold by corrupt officials for what now seems just a small amount of money, would want to see their art returned, especially because money could be made through those who'd want to visit them. But is that reason enough to substantiate such a claim as this?

Suppose the United Kingdom would sign some agreement, and the museum would be forced to return the marbles to Greece. What would happen next? Egypt would demand the return of every mummy. Every western museum would have to turn over the heart of their collection - after all, if a sale in the 18th or 19th century can be disputed, what can be considered to have been legal?
Suppose The Netherlands would demand the return of every Rembrandt, Van Gogh etc etc, pantings legally sold and resold, 'because they are Dutch heritage'?

[Paullus Scipio]

I agree entirely with Robert....if one applies "National Heritage" arguments where would it end ? Should Roman artifacts found on the Rhine be shipped back to Italy because they are "Roman National Heritage" ? :?

And let it be remembered that but for Lord Elgin, the marbles from the Parthenon would no longer exist.....and, yes, pollution is a huge problem in Athens and the Greeks are having enormous problems preserving the Parthenon in that environment. I would suggest that in this day and age, duplicates are easily made and could be displayed 'in situ', while 'originals' should go to/stay where they can best be preserved for the future, with no/minimal risk to them .

[Praefectusclassis]

duplicates are easily made and could be displayed 'in situ'

Duplicates in general have the added advantage that they can be made less fragile and as they're duplicates to begin with, can be displayed wherever so that people can study them up close. In the case of the Elgin marbles - and many other items like it - that would seem to be a huge advantage over gawking at them several meters away in their original location!

[Epictetus]

Okay, I’ll play Devil’s Advocate for the moment. :wink:

I believe there are some questions on the legality of the sale. An English translation of an Italian translation of the original Turkish authorisation for Elgin says:

[I]t is incumbent on us to provide that they meet no opposition in… [And here follows a long list of activities, from walking through to copying, drawing, molding, and measuring] and that no one meddle with their scaffolding or implements nor hinder them from taking away any pieces of stone with inscriptions and figures.

Gibbon, Who Owns the Past? page 115.

Evidently at the time the worried British Parliament used this clause as justification for their purchase from Elgin. Legal scholar John Henry Merryman claims that dismantling and taking possession of the marbles exceeded the authority granted to him. (See above citation.)

From what I understand, though, is that the original documents from the Sultan are gone so this avenue may be a dead end. With no original document and only a flimsy justification from a 200-year-old translation of a translation how can legality be assured?

Instead an argument can be made regarding “cultural property” which is defined by the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property as “property which, on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each State as being of importance for archaeology, pre-history, history, literature, art or science.”

If there is question of the legality of ownership, why should Greece not claim the marbles as their “cultural property,” using the strictest definition? Britain or France could claim Roman-era finds in their soil as their own “cultural property” because they were once part of the Roman Empire. But what claim can Britain make on the Parthenon?

(Note that the above book has quite a bit more, both pro and con, on this issue. It really is quite fascinating.)

[PhilusEstilius]

It was recently shown on TV that Greece has a new Parthenon Museum and from what I saw it looks just tremendous, it was also mentioned that the British Museum have said that some of these treasures can go back but only on loan and have to be returned.
This offer has been declined and I think rightly so for with the strings that have been stated it's no more than the British Museum yet again throwing down the Gauntlet.
Where we go back to Elgin who took these artifacts for his own pleasure then all his plans fell apart he made something out of it by putting them into the BM.
I would think that all these old stories about pollution have just worn a little bit thin by now infact it's got nothing to do with smoke "its only a smoke screen"

I think with such a wonderfull situation as this new museum they should go back.

[Matthew Amt]

One of the things that gets me about the whole issue of "cultural heritage" is the double standard--"international law" is being used to seize property strictly for nationalist purposes! (Or tribal!) Aside from the fact that many of the governments involved didn't even exist when these artifacts were made, or removed... Why not ship the Elgin Marbles back to Turkey? They're the ones who owned them when Elgin got them...

There also does not seem to be any consideration of *personal* heritage. In other words, I'm an American of German descent, but would I be allowed to waltz into the storage rooms of any German museum to view my cultural heritage? Not likely! But it seems that some folks from Egypt or Greece don't want me to have any access to *their* cultures.

The vast majority of artifacts held by any museum are packed away in storage. They have no cultural value at all if no one can see them. Most of the stuff packed away in Greek, Egyptian, or Italian musuems has never even been published. They simply don't have the money, time, space, or staff to care for it properly. We also know that thefts from such places are common, usually blatant inside jobs. And they want us to turn over everything we've got as well?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to shut down the trade in stolen and looted antiquities, whether through vicious and brutal punishments or maybe mass-production of fakes to spoil the market. Or any other clever solution that actually solves the problem. But if Greece wants to promote its heritage, it really seems to be going about it the wrong way. Heck, if they legally sold off a few vases and statues that are cluttering their back rooms, they could buy themselves a new country in short order! But Nooooo, it's CULTURAL HERITAGE, and the idea of anyone ELSE owning it is blasphemy, Blasphemy!

Sorry, I'm starting to froth, I'll shut up...

Matthew