Elgin Marbles Poll

[john m roberts]

There are people around here who think we should return the continent our ancestors stole. It's not going to happen.

[Robert Vermaat]

There are people around here who think we should return the continent our ancestors stole. It's not going to happen.

Make that continentS. Nah, I agree with you there, the likelyhood of that hapopening is.. remote?

[Jona Lendering]

There are people around here who think we should return the continent our ancestors stole. It's not going to happen.

Make that continentS. Nah, I agree with you there, the likelyhood of that hapopening is.. remote?

The ultimate consequence is that we give everything back to the Neanderthal people, I guess... :wink:

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion ... y_stuff_go

[Robert Vermaat]

The ultimate consequence is that we give everything back to the Neanderthal people, I guess... :wink:

Like the clergyman said when he threw the collection money into the air: "He can keep what He can catch".

If the Neanderthals come forward I'll support their claim.
Greece waited about 180 years with making a claim for the return of their "History and Soul" (in the words of former minister Melina Mercouri). That's not as long as the Neanderthals, but somehow I think that neither party cared overmuch in the meantime. :twisted:

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/...y_stuff_go

Droll. Especially this: Pharaoh Tutankhamun is an Egyptian king who ruled from 1333–1324 B.C. He can be reached at [email protected] . lol:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

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.

Not really Robert. The marbles were sold by a foreign occupying power, and without greek concent. As if that appears to have mattered then, or now apparently. :? Greece is nowmore than capable of keeping them safe.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

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'?

Depends on how you view foreign occupation I guess Robert?

[Robert Vermaat]

Depends on how you view foreign occupation I guess Robert?

C'mon Byron, give me some credit here. That's just a cheap shot. Yes, the Turks were in power, and had been for 400 years. There had been no 'Greece' before that, because modern nations like we speak of (as in 'foreign occupation') had not been invented yet in the Middle Ages. So are you really looking at the Roman empire as a foreign occupation?
In that case, ‘Greece’ had been occupied by the Romans before being occupied by the Turks.
In that case, the Romans had accupied all of Europe.
Meaning that the Franks ‘liberated’ Gaul from Roman occupation, in the way that America liberated France more recently?

Yes, the Ottoman provinces of what is now modern Greece were not self-ruling. And to intents and purposes, the Ottoman authorities (in which Greeks functioned as well as other cultural groups) had a complete right to sell whatever they wanted to, without asking the locals. This has nothing to do with ‘foreign occupation’.

I consider that remark only a little cheap shot and continue in the gist of what I take it that you mean.
My point was that there was no claim for a very long time. When did Greece become independent? In 1982, the year before they made their claim? Of course not, it was in 1827, meaning they waited for 156 years before making a claim. No ‘foreign occupation’ hindered them.

I retain my point: the sale was legal. There's no 'legal' reason for the return of the marbles. The museum has the ownership (aka the state).
Also, Greece is literally full with material from a very rich past. there is just no point whatsoever to 'bite into' this case as if these statues were the only ones.

[Jona Lendering]

The marbles were sold by a foreign occupying power, and without greek consent.

I retain my point: the sale was legal.

Both opinions are too simple. Let's have a look at the procedure. The Sublime Porte was against selling the Parthenon Marbles. It gave a firman, however, to make moulds on July 6, 1801. On July 22, the firman arrived in Athens; it was directed to the voivode, who gave assistance to Elgin's team. The document itself is lost, but there is an Italian translation. Elgin's right-hand man, Hunt, removed a metope on July 31 - something he was not allowed to; during the next year (1801-1802), the rest followed. When Elgin himself arrived, everything had already been taken down. The voivode looked in another direction - some money had made him "extend ... the precise permissions of the firman", as Hunt admitted in 1816.

In other words: the Turkish government did not sell the Parthenon Marbles, and neither was the sale legal. They were stolen. The argument that if the Parthenon Marbles are to be send back, they must be send to Ankara is of course meant as a provocation, but it is not entirely faulty either.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes Robert perhaps it can be viewed a a cheap shot, but I cannot understand how anyone can not understand a greeks desire to have one of the most prominent pieces of its history returned? Especially one as obviously intelligent as yourself. :?
The Parthenon is now a symbol of Greece, both modern and ancient.
My great grandfather obviously felt that 400 years of Ottoman occupation did not erase the need to be rid of the yoke, which is why they rose up against it.
Even as recently as the year before the Olympics, older greeks still refered to the Ottoman occupation as 400 years of nothing.
They obviously feel it is important.


Sorry if you take offense to my statement, but the people who really count in this argument, the Greeks, do feel it was an occupation.
They view the Romans with a different light because they feel they left something of value.

And perhaps it took them that long to start thinking of the cultural icons that were taken, because getting a country on its feet takes a little while?

[Robert Vermaat]

The document itself is lost, but there is an Italian translation.

Indeed, the document is lost, and the Italian 'translation' shows omissions and lacks a seal. Which means that it's impossible for us to prove or disprove what was granted on paper. maybe the voivode looked away, or maybe he had granted more than was written in the Italian 'translation'. Anyway, to say that 'they were stolen' is, as my and Byron's point of view, too simple. The local authorities knew what was going on, and my guess is that the workmen hired to take down the statues were not Turks, nor British, but most probably local men of Athens. But that's (more) speculation.

If these goings on would be the basis of the return of the statues, then we'd best be prepared here to open up the museums, because i would want to bet a good deal of money the most items 'acquired' by museums before 1900 did not come with a proper receipt from the local owners. :evil:

OK, even if the legal part of the question is not that clear-cut, my second pont remains: why are these statues the focus of a problem that's far larger? Greece does not lack in stutues. Why make such a fuss for these?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I can only suggest my comment above!

[Jona Lendering]

my guess is that the workmen hired to take down the statues were not Turks, nor British, but most probably local men of Athens. But that's (more) speculation.

As far as I know, the commander of the garrison (the Akropolis was still a fortress) ordered his soldiers to help. Whether these were Athenian boys or levies from Anatolia, I do not know.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

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

Hey Matt I have a bag of Magic beans. Is that good enough trade for Mount Rushmore? :twisted:

Not much of a comparison between the Parthenon Marbles and few vases. And if your not afraid to fly, you can get on a plane and visit any counrty in the world. Almost. :wink:

[M. Demetrius]

Hmm. Maybe. What do the magic beans do? Send me one of them, with planting instructions, and I'll exchange it for a really, really ancient rock. If we don't like the bean, you can keep the rock. How's that for fair? :wink: :!: