You snooze you lose. Keep them where they belong, bang in the heart of London.
Ever been burgled ?
Not in the 1800's so I wouldn't feel the loss personally.
It might also set a precedent for resolution of historic crimes and misdemeanors with consequences for reparations etc.
If to return them was the end of the matter avoiding all the above, then I've no objection to returning them.
It's hardly important right now though given what else is going on in the world.
Is that a bad thing?
Not necessarily, but how far back do you go to draw the line and if a line isn't to be drawn, who's the appropriate authority to adjudicate on such matters.
Why not do the right thing in this instance, give back the marbles, and then cross those bridges when we get there?
I don’t think we should “avoid” the idea that we should consider how this country has benefitted significantly from the exploitation of other parts of the world and, if there is a genuine case for restitution, then it should be considered.
That makes the (big) assumption that giving the marble back is the "right thing" because they were stolen in the first place. I'm no expert by any means, but isn't that the whole point?
It is certainly my belief that giving the Elgin Marbles back to Greece is the right thing to do. Doesn’t even feel like a particularly big assumption.
You snooze you lose. Keep them where they belong, bang in the heart of London.
Ever been burgled ?
Not in the 1800's so I wouldn't feel the loss personally.
It might also set a precedent for resolution of historic crimes and misdemeanors with consequences for reparations etc.
If to return them was the end of the matter avoiding all the above, then I've no objection to returning them.
It's hardly important right now though given what else is going on in the world.
Is that a bad thing?
Not necessarily, but how far back do you go to draw the line and if a line isn't to be drawn, who's the appropriate authority to adjudicate on such matters.
Why not do the right thing in this instance, give back the marbles, and then cross those bridges when we get there?
I don’t think we should “avoid” the idea that we should consider how this country has benefitted significantly from the exploitation of other parts of the world and, if there is a genuine case for restitution, then it should be considered.
@se9addick - I think my latest post, which you hadn't seen when you posted this, addresses my thoughts on this in that, in an ideal world, all such cases would be considered, but resources are limited and a line is needed. A practical reality I'm afraid.
I'm not convinced that we, the living today, should be held accountable for the actions of our forebears personally, which is what paying reparations from out of the public purse would do if it came to it.
You snooze you lose. Keep them where they belong, bang in the heart of London.
Ever been burgled ?
Not in the 1800's so I wouldn't feel the loss personally.
It might also set a precedent for resolution of historic crimes and misdemeanors with consequences for reparations etc.
If to return them was the end of the matter avoiding all the above, then I've no objection to returning them.
It's hardly important right now though given what else is going on in the world.
Is that a bad thing?
Not necessarily, but how far back do you go to draw the line and if a line isn't to be drawn, who's the appropriate authority to adjudicate on such matters.
Why not do the right thing in this instance, give back the marbles, and then cross those bridges when we get there?
I don’t think we should “avoid” the idea that we should consider how this country has benefitted significantly from the exploitation of other parts of the world and, if there is a genuine case for restitution, then it should be considered.
@se9addick - I think my latest post, which you hadn't seen when you posted this, addresses my thoughts on this in that, in an ideal world, all such cases would be considered, but resources are limited and a line is needed. A practical reality I'm afraid.
I'm not convinced that we, the living today, should be held accountable for the actions of our forebears personally, which is what paying reparations from out of the public purse would do if it came to it.
Even when the “public purse” still benefits from the legacy of our forebears and the descendants of those exploited still suffer from related consequences?
the marbles are ancient sculptures originally housed in the Parthenon . It seems the Earl of Elgin did a deal with the Ottomans, the occupying power in Greece at the time, to buy the remaining sculptures and transported them to Britain. This was a very common practice for wealthy Britons at the time, the British Museum and other Museums around Britain contain thousands of similar artifacts from all over the world. It could be argued that Elgin's actions saved the marbles from decay and destruction, if that is so, we will never know. The marbles depict important historical events and fables from ancient Greek history and i m o, as a gesture of goodwill and friendship, they should be returned to Greece.
There is another furore around the Koh I Nor diamond and should 'king's Consort' Camilla be wearing a crown that displays this priceless stone at the forthcoming coronation of the new king. Whether or not ol Cammy should even be a part of the coronation festival is a matter for discussion elsewhere. The Koh I Nor's providence is very obscure, who stole/plundered it from whom etc etc. My opinion is that the diamond should be sold off along with a few palaces, royal paintings, gold, silver, embroideries and other assorted nick knacks and the proceeds used to help pay the salaries of nurses, doctors, teachers and care workers. That would be a coronation event well worth celebrating
The Elgin Marbles were not stolen. Elgin purchased them from the Turks, who ruled Greece at the time. They were using the Acropolis as an explosives store and the Marbles would have been lost forever if it had exploded. He bought them as an act of conservation; they were neglected and in poor condition. Facts should be paramount in considering returning them.
You snooze you lose. Keep them where they belong, bang in the heart of London.
Ever been burgled ?
Not in the 1800's so I wouldn't feel the loss personally.
It might also set a precedent for resolution of historic crimes and misdemeanors with consequences for reparations etc.
If to return them was the end of the matter avoiding all the above, then I've no objection to returning them.
It's hardly important right now though given what else is going on in the world.
Is that a bad thing?
Not necessarily, but how far back do you go to draw the line and if a line isn't to be drawn, who's the appropriate authority to adjudicate on such matters.
Why not do the right thing in this instance, give back the marbles, and then cross those bridges when we get there?
I don’t think we should “avoid” the idea that we should consider how this country has benefitted significantly from the exploitation of other parts of the world and, if there is a genuine case for restitution, then it should be considered.
@se9addick - I think my latest post, which you hadn't seen when you posted this, addresses my thoughts on this in that, in an ideal world, all such cases would be considered, but resources are limited and a line is needed. A practical reality I'm afraid.
I'm not convinced that we, the living today, should be held accountable for the actions of our forebears personally, which is what paying reparations from out of the public purse would do if it came to it.
Even when the “public purse” still benefits from the legacy of our forebears and the descendants of those exploited still suffer from related consequences?
Is there a line in the Government financing statements quantifying any of that? I'd also argue there isn't anyone qualified to evaluate those effects and they're certainly not provable to a causal link.
The Horses of St. Mark's Basilica in Rome were stolen by Napoleon and set atop of the Arc de Triomphe in 1797. Eighteen years later, the French returned them to Rome. All good.
Except they were only in Rome because Enrico Dandolo had stolen them from Constantinople in 1204. So, really the Italians should send them back to Turkey. That would end the matter.
Except that Constantine stole them from the Greeks around 330AD, so Turkey, once they have received them back from Italy (who regained them from France) should really return them to Greece.
Meanwhile, the Rosetta stone is in London, having been passed to British custody when the French surrendered Egypt to England in 1801, two years after the French discovered it near Alexandria. Should the Rosetta stone be handed back to Egypt? Or France?
And The Dapper Foundation bought the Bangwa Queen statue for about £3m in 1990 from a private collector in California, who had bought it at Sotheby's in 1966 from Helene Rubenstein who owned it from the 1930s, about ten years after the Volkerkunde Museum in Berlin, having "acquired it" in the late 1890s. Cameroon wants it back. But from whom?
More recently, Gustav Klimt’s Portrait ofAdele Bloch-Bauer I painted in 1907 was bought by Ronald Lauder for $135 million in 2006 for his museum, the Neue Galerie, in New York. The painting once belonged to the husband of the subject, who, in 1938, left Austria as the Nazis were rising to power during World War II. The Nazis then gave the work to the Belvedere Museum in Vienna, where it remained for years afterward. Maria Altmann, repeatedly claimed that the work had been looted by the Nazis, and undertook various legal actions in an attempt to get it back. In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Altmann could sue Austria, and a tribunal in that country decided that she was the rightful owner of the Klimt. Helen Mirren played Maria Altmann in a movie about her.
On the basis that in ancient times everybody nicked something from someone else, rewrote history to say it was theirs in the first place or invariably enslaved people to build and make those things, anything we now have is ours and anybody saying they want it back can politely do one.
No reason for this to become political so thought it might be interesting to see the CL thoughts and wisdom on this subject which seems to be, according to this BBC piece raising the possibility of an arrangement for the sculpture to be returned to Greece. I’d certainly support that idea
We should return stolen goods to their rightful owners.
Depends what you mean by "stolen", surely?
If items were bought, gifted or removed with the full permission of the relevant authority at the time then that's completely different to if someone just turned up and helped themselves.
Otherwise we'd better "give back" Cleopatra's Needle whilst we're at it, as well as anything made of gold that wasn't mined in the UK!
Originally Cleopatra's needle was a pair; the ship carrying one of them sank in the Med, so it's now at the bottom of the briney!
don't think it sank, it certainly was knackered after a storm. I think they manage to tow it back to Gravesend. There are 3. One in London, one in paris and one in New York.
There plenty of 'needles' or Egyptian obelisks all over the globe. The three obelisks in New York, London and Paris aren't part of the same 'set'. Both the New York and London ones came from Heliopolis. The Paris 'needle' came from Luxor and is one of a pair, the other remains in Luxor.
Six rescure men were killed when the ship almost sank in the bay of Biscay, they are honoured on a plaque.
I can see that the Elgin Marbles do have particular meaning to the Greeks, and indeed to the Acropolis, so in this case I might be more sympathetic to returning them.
But such returns should be judged on a case by case example, as the world's knowledge has immensely benefited because of museums being able to showcase other cultures.
And the world has always had countries exploiting other countries, including the ancient Greeks who were dominant in their day.
No reason for this to become political so thought it might be interesting to see the CL thoughts and wisdom on this subject which seems to be, according to this BBC piece raising the possibility of an arrangement for the sculpture to be returned to Greece. I’d certainly support that idea
Personally I’m against returning them, although I’m not particularly bothered. Mainly, because, as others have said, they were not stolen or looted. They were purchased from the government of the time. I’d look at it differently if the Ottoman Empire had only recently conquered Greece, but they had been in power since the 15th century.
As for the Koh-I-Nor, it’s passed through so many hands, normally as the result of conquest, I’d suggest it’s impossible to know who has the best claim. Currently I believe India, Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan all claim it belongs to them.
Stuff that’s clearly been looted, like the Benin Bronzes or artwork taken by the Nazis clearly fall into the list of things that must be returned, but so many other artifacts have much more complicated histories.
No reason for this to become political so thought it might be interesting to see the CL thoughts and wisdom on this subject which seems to be, according to this BBC piece raising the possibility of an arrangement for the sculpture to be returned to Greece. I’d certainly support that idea
We should return stolen goods to their rightful owners.
Depends what you mean by "stolen", surely?
If items were bought, gifted or removed with the full permission of the relevant authority at the time then that's completely different to if someone just turned up and helped themselves.
Otherwise we'd better "give back" Cleopatra's Needle whilst we're at it, as well as anything made of gold that wasn't mined in the UK!
Originally Cleopatra's needle was a pair; the ship carrying one of them sank in the Med, so it's now at the bottom of the briney!
Remember visiting the BM as a kid and having to draw some of them for a History project, some kind lady saw me struggling and drew them for me, They stood out in my exercise book like a sore thumb, but in a very good way. The drawings she did were fantastic, she was so nice i still remember her 55yrs later
Once the rest of the world acknowledges we created "modern" football and pays us for even taking part in the sport and we host let's say every other global tournament then they can have they're precious artifacts back. Deal?
Where do you draw the line with this? You could argue that the Bayeux Tapestry, made by Kentish nuns is hugely important to our history and the French should return it to Canterbury where it was made. Scandinavian museums have articles on display that were looted from England in the 10th century. Should we demand them back? Once you start this you there will be no stop to it. I agree that the case of some items looted recently such as the Benin bronzes and Nazi art thefts should be returned. However the Elgin marbles are in a free museum open to the world and were purchased not looted.
We should send a strongly worded letter to the Ottamans, detailing the fact that someone who is long dead was sold goods that were not theirs when they were living to sell. ANYONE got their address?
We should send a strongly worded letter to the Ottamans, detailing the fact that someone who is long dead was sold goods that were not theirs when they were living to sell. ANYONE got their address?
Erdoğan will do. I'm sure he'll respond in his usual generous way...
This is one of those issues that for me has two very logical sides to the argument.
The @Chizz logic above, and the other which is if a nation/people have a strong cultural/emotional connection to the item(s) in question that should have some weighting.
England has a treasure in the marbles, but is it more than a treasure to the Greeks?
There can be a spiritual and deeply emotional connection in a museum object for people/cultures from where the piece originated.
For example some Maori shrunken heads and other Maori treasures have been repatriated from various parts of the world back to their tangata whenua (their people) in NZ.
Maori have a world view of things carrying the 'mana' of those that made them and a 'mauri' or life force of their own. Witnessing the raw emotion expressed at a Maori ceremony when receiving such 'taonga' (which can be insufficiently translated as treasured heirloom) back to their iwi (tribe) is impossible not to be moved by.
If the Greeks two hundred years ago took Stonehenge and stuck it in a museum in Athens, would you want it back, now? What would Stonehenge mean to Athenians? Would they have feelings about it like you do?
How about the same scenario but this time it is the Valley that's been relocated to a museum in Athens!
This is one of those issues that for me has two very logical sides to the argument.
The @Chizz logic above, and the other which is if a nation/people have a strong cultural/emotional connection to the item(s) in question that should have some weighting.
England has a treasure in the marbles, but is it more than a treasure to the Greeks?
There can be a spiritual and deeply emotional connection in a museum object for people/cultures from where the piece originated.
For example some Maori shrunken heads and other Maori treasures have been repatriated from various parts of the world back to their tangata whenua (their people) in NZ.
Maori have a world view of things carrying the 'mana' of those that made them and a 'mauri' or life force of their own. Witnessing the raw emotion expressed at a Maori ceremony when receiving such 'taonga' (which can be insufficiently translated as treasured heirloom) back to their iwi (tribe) is impossible not to be moved by.
If the Greeks two hundred years ago took Stonehenge and stuck it in a museum in Athens, would you want it back, now? What would Stonehenge mean to Athenians? Would they have feelings about it like you do?
How about the same scenario but this time it is the Valley that's been relocated to a museum in Athens on the peninsula!
So should the British Museum be what it says on the tin? A museum with only material sourced from the UK. Do you return everything of high value to its place of origin? The BM maintains it's free admission so the people of the world can visit to enjoy a snapshot of the global brilliance of man kind. Give everything back and that ends. Do you give back items from Assyria to places that a few years ago were home to ISIS iconoclasts? The BM preserves world heritage for all man kind.
So should the British Museum be what it says on the tin? A museum with only material sourced from the UK. Do you return everything of high value to its place of origin? The BM maintains it's free admission so the people of the world can visit to enjoy a snapshot of the global brilliance of man kind. Give everything back and that ends. Do you give back items from Assyria to places that a few years ago were home to ISIS iconoclasts? The BM preserves world heritage for all man kind.
There is a logic here too, but how would you feel about, say, (ignoring the logistical problems/dangers) making the British Museum the World Museum and relocating it to a new host country every two years? That would be fair right? If England has treasures from around the world, the rest of the world can take turns holding the same including England originated treasures. I mean i get what you are saying but it is problematic and smells a bit of ...post-rationalisation. And who is England to say "keep the treasures with us, we'll let you visit, for free! (ignoring the cost of flights, and in-England costs which okay yes help bring even more wealth into our country)?
You snooze you lose. Keep them where they belong, bang in the heart of London.
Ever been burgled ?
Not in the 1800's so I wouldn't feel the loss personally.
It might also set a precedent for resolution of historic crimes and misdemeanors with consequences for reparations etc.
If to return them was the end of the matter avoiding all the above, then I've no objection to returning them.
It's hardly important right now though given what else is going on in the world.
Is that a bad thing?
Not necessarily, but how far back do you go to draw the line and if a line isn't to be drawn, who's the appropriate authority to adjudicate on such matters.
Why not do the right thing in this instance, give back the marbles, and then cross those bridges when we get there?
I don’t think we should “avoid” the idea that we should consider how this country has benefitted significantly from the exploitation of other parts of the world and, if there is a genuine case for restitution, then it should be considered.
That makes the (big) assumption that giving the marble back is the "right thing" because they were stolen in the first place. I'm no expert by any means, but isn't that the whole point?
They belong exactly where they were designed for and attached until they were removed by Elgin. No amount of whataboutary can alter the fact that the best place for them is in Greece and attached to the Building for which they were sculpted.
Elgin bought them, if they want them back let them make us an offer, I think thats how it works normally. Perhaps they could throw in a couple of the nicer Greek Islands.
I worked with a lot of Greek people over the years, the marbles constantly came up in conversations. They are, and goes without saying, of immense significance to the Greek people and in my opinion should be returned to where they came from at the earliest opportunity. Elgin, (he may have thought), may well of taken them for all the right reasons at the time but time has moved on, give them back on the proviso the Greeks pay post and packaging. That should add another 20 years on to their stay while the Greek government sorts out the finance.
Comments
I'm not convinced that we, the living today, should be held accountable for the actions of our forebears personally, which is what paying reparations from out of the public purse would do if it came to it.
It could be argued that Elgin's actions saved the marbles from decay and destruction, if that is so, we will never know.
The marbles depict important historical events and fables from ancient Greek history and i m o, as a gesture of goodwill and friendship, they should be returned to Greece.
There is another furore around the Koh I Nor diamond and should 'king's Consort' Camilla be wearing a crown that displays this priceless stone at the forthcoming coronation of the new king.
Whether or not ol Cammy should even be a part of the coronation festival is a matter for discussion elsewhere.
The Koh I Nor's providence is very obscure, who stole/plundered it from whom etc etc. My opinion is that the diamond should be sold off along with a few palaces, royal paintings, gold, silver, embroideries and other assorted nick knacks and the proceeds used to help pay the salaries of nurses, doctors, teachers and care workers. That would be a coronation event well worth celebrating
Except they were only in Rome because Enrico Dandolo had stolen them from Constantinople in 1204. So, really the Italians should send them back to Turkey. That would end the matter.
Except that Constantine stole them from the Greeks around 330AD, so Turkey, once they have received them back from Italy (who regained them from France) should really return them to Greece.
Meanwhile, the Rosetta stone is in London, having been passed to British custody when the French surrendered Egypt to England in 1801, two years after the French discovered it near Alexandria. Should the Rosetta stone be handed back to Egypt? Or France?
And The Dapper Foundation bought the Bangwa Queen statue for about £3m in 1990 from a private collector in California, who had bought it at Sotheby's in 1966 from Helene Rubenstein who owned it from the 1930s, about ten years after the Volkerkunde Museum in Berlin, having "acquired it" in the late 1890s. Cameroon wants it back. But from whom?
More recently, Gustav Klimt’s Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I painted in 1907 was bought by Ronald Lauder for $135 million in 2006 for his museum, the Neue Galerie, in New York. The painting once belonged to the husband of the subject, who, in 1938, left Austria as the Nazis were rising to power during World War II. The Nazis then gave the work to the Belvedere Museum in Vienna, where it remained for years afterward. Maria Altmann, repeatedly claimed that the work had been looted by the Nazis, and undertook various legal actions in an attempt to get it back. In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Altmann could sue Austria, and a tribunal in that country decided that she was the rightful owner of the Klimt. Helen Mirren played Maria Altmann in a movie about her.
The Paris 'needle' came from Luxor and is one of a pair, the other remains in Luxor.
Six rescure men were killed when the ship almost sank in the bay of Biscay, they are honoured on a plaque.
But such returns should be judged on a case by case example, as the world's knowledge has immensely benefited because of museums being able to showcase other cultures.
And the world has always had countries exploiting other countries, including the ancient Greeks who were dominant in their day.
The @Chizz logic above, and the other which is if a nation/people have a strong cultural/emotional connection to the item(s) in question that should have some weighting.
England has a treasure in the marbles, but is it more than a treasure to the Greeks?
There can be a spiritual and deeply emotional connection in a museum object for people/cultures from where the piece originated.
For example some Maori shrunken heads and other Maori treasures have been repatriated from various parts of the world back to their tangata whenua (their people) in NZ.
Maori have a world view of things carrying the 'mana' of those that made them and a 'mauri' or life force of their own. Witnessing the raw emotion expressed at a Maori ceremony when receiving such 'taonga' (which can be insufficiently translated as treasured heirloom) back to their iwi (tribe) is impossible not to be moved by.
If the Greeks two hundred years ago took Stonehenge and stuck it in a museum in Athens, would you want it back, now? What would Stonehenge mean to Athenians? Would they have feelings about it like you do?
How about the same scenario but this time it is the Valley that's been relocated to a museum in Athens!
Yeah, it was "sold" by a body who claimed they had the authority to do so at the time, but it belongs to us so we should have it back. No?