Whilst I agree the Elgin marbles should be returned, they were not stolen. That's just a lazy myth that suits certain persons arguments. We were allowed to purchase them, for a vast sum, from the Ottoman Empire who were the rulers at that time as a thank you for us helping them fight off Napoleon's invasion.
Whilst I agree the Elgin marbles should be returned, they were not stolen. That's just a lazy myth that suits certain persons arguments. We were allowed to purchase them, for a vast sum, from the Ottoman Empire who were the rulers at that time as a thank you for us helping them fight off Napoleon's invasion.
and therefore no reason to return them...
Not that simple. The Turks were themselves a conquering empire so it can be argued the Marbles weren't really theirs to sell.
Iraq is the words oldesrmt civilization andhad lots of artifacts in the Baghdad museum. It was so sad when it was looted by the locals.
Britain has cared for many artifacts from around the world and even secured them during the war.
My fear about handing artifacts back to Egypt is the instability of the area. Devout followers of Islam may regard them as idolising a false god and destroy them in line with Islamic teaching.
They are safer in England. However England shouldn't demand rent and continue to care for them free of charge.
For me the situation is far too complex to say that all artefacts should go or stay. I don't think you can discuss all artefacts as if they are the same. We should look at the circumstances of each item individually and take into account many different criteria: What is their provenance? How did 'we' come by them? Were they stolen, traded, bought, given, rescued...? Has our care for them meant that they are in better or worse condition than if left with the original 'owners'? Indeed, were there original owners? What would have happened had they been left in their original places? What relationship do the modern day museums/cities/countries that want them have to the items historically? Who will care for them the best in the future? Where can they most easily be seen by the majority of interested people? Do they form part of of a set that would be better kept together? or, are there so many of a particular type that they can afford to be separated without diminishing their value? What are the dangers of transporting them? Could they be transported more and go on semi-permanant tour? How important is it to have trans-cultural collections that show the development of ideas across time and place?
For some items, answering those questions (and others) will give a clear steer that repatriation is the best way forward. For others it may become clear that it is better to keep the items in-situ. For, I suspect, a larger number there will still be no clear cut and obvious answer, and so the discussions will continue.
The Elgin Marbles should stay in London in homage to Lord Elgin and his magnificent efforts to bring them here. In fact the project was to bring him bankruptcy, but that was by no means the worst of his troubles.
First, a shipment of the marbles was lost at sea, and had to be salvaged two years later (none of the sculptures were lost). Obviously, that was a costly undertaking.
However, his most disastrous decision was to take a detour via Paris, while not knowing that war between Britain and France had broken out again. He was then under house arrest in France for three years. While being released by the French, he made a deal with them saying that, if summoned, he would return to France. In England, this made him unemployable in regards to getting another position as a diplomat.
To make matters worse, when he returned to Britain, he discovered that his wife was having an affair with a neighbour. The ensuing divorce caused considerable public scandal.
Furthermore, his health had been destroyed while serving as an ambassador in Constantinople. Plagues, fevers, melanoma, and syphilis afflicted him. In particular, his case of syphilis was most serious because it caused disfigurement in an unfortunate spot: his nose. Part of it had to be cut off.
Virtually penniless, Elgin was in dire straits. A series of bad decisions and extremely poor luck cost him financially. Despite this, he still wanted to have the sculptures housed in the British Museum in London.
The Elgin Marbles should stay in London in homage to Lord Elgin and his magnificent efforts to bring them here. In fact the project was to bring him bankruptcy, but that was by no means the worst of his troubles.
First, a shipment of the marbles was lost at sea, and had to be salvaged two years later (none of the sculptures were lost). Obviously, that was a costly undertaking.
However, his most disastrous decision was to take a detour via Paris, while not knowing that war between Britain and France had broken out again. He was then under house arrest in France for three years. While being released by the French, he made a deal with them saying that, if summoned, he would return to France. In England, this made him unemployable in regards to getting another position as a diplomat.
To make matters worse, when he returned to Britain, he discovered that his wife was having an affair with a neighbour. The ensuing divorce caused considerable public scandal.
Furthermore, his health had been destroyed while serving as an ambassador in Constantinople. Plagues, fevers, melanoma, and syphilis afflicted him. In particular, his case of syphilis was most serious because it caused disfigurement in an unfortunate spot: his nose. Part of it had to be cut off.
Virtually penniless, Elgin was in dire straits. A series of bad decisions and extremely poor luck cost him financially. Despite this, he still wanted to have the sculptures housed in the British Museum in London.
I work with quite a few Greek people and they do get very animated on the subject of the Elgin Marbles. As we work virtually next door to the British Museum it is always good to remind them that the marbles and other stuff can be viewed in their lunch hour. And postcards are available on the way out.
The British Museum has preserved much that would otherwise have perished, and they have the knowledge, skills and capability to maintain them, in a venue that the whole world can access..
Agree in part. At a time when many countries were uninterested or unable to secure the future of artefacts the fact that countries like Great Britain and France were able to do so has undoubtedly helped save and preserve many items that otherwise would have been lost. We are however in the main talking about the Victorian age through until the fifties. Since then countries like Egypt have realised the potential and cultural rewards for preserving and exhibiting artefacts and monuments. Egypt’s tourism outside of the Red Sea resorts is totally reliant on what is on offer culturally.
To say that the whole world can access the British Museum is of course nonsense. No more than the whole world can access Cairo but at least in Cairo the displayed items can be seen in context and as a whole collection given the chance. The expertise in displaying and preserving is not tied to Great Britain. That knowledge can and is transferable so not really an argument in my view. Ironically the mere fact we have “mummies” at all is due to the skill and ingenuity of the Egyptians.
I think it rather sad that eg the obelisk (Cleopatras Needle) on the embankment is so out of place in its London home when it should be in its original setting or at least in Egypt where it can be viewed in the context of its culture and history.
It wasn't finders keepers though was it. It was invaders stealers. It is a conundrum that will take ages to resolve. I think there's no reason not to return the stuff really.
The only reason to not return it is if they will trash it. Probably wouldn’t be sending artefacts back to Syria right now for instance.
It wasn't finders keepers though was it. It was invaders stealers. It is a conundrum that will take ages to resolve. I think there's no reason not to return the stuff really.
The only reason to not return it is if they will trash it. Probably wouldn’t be sending artefacts back to Syria right now for instance.
Syrian city of Palmyra, for example.
Spot on. We haven’t stolen these artefacts but merely looking after them with great care. People can view them at nil cost. Some might say that this is patronising but at the end of the day, they ain’t getting them back so ner!
Comments
Britain has cared for many artifacts from around the world and even secured them during the war.
My fear about handing artifacts back to Egypt is the instability of the area.
Devout followers of Islam may regard them as idolising a false god and destroy them in line with Islamic teaching.
They are safer in England. However England shouldn't demand rent and continue to care for them free of charge.
For some items, answering those questions (and others) will give a clear steer that repatriation is the best way forward. For others it may become clear that it is better to keep the items in-situ. For, I suspect, a larger number there will still be no clear cut and obvious answer, and so the discussions will continue.
First, a shipment of the marbles was lost at sea, and had to be salvaged two years later (none of the sculptures were lost). Obviously, that was a costly undertaking.
However, his most disastrous decision was to take a detour via Paris, while not knowing that war between Britain and France had broken out again. He was then under house arrest in France for three years. While being released by the French, he made a deal with them saying that, if summoned, he would return to France. In England, this made him unemployable in regards to getting another position as a diplomat.
To make matters worse, when he returned to Britain, he discovered that his wife was having an affair with a neighbour. The ensuing divorce caused considerable public scandal.
Furthermore, his health had been destroyed while serving as an ambassador in Constantinople. Plagues, fevers, melanoma, and syphilis afflicted him. In particular, his case of syphilis was most serious because it caused disfigurement in an unfortunate spot: his nose. Part of it had to be cut off.
Virtually penniless, Elgin was in dire straits. A series of bad decisions and extremely poor luck cost him financially. Despite this, he still wanted to have the sculptures housed in the British Museum in London.
Com'on, give the guy a break!
I thought 'go back to where you came from' was a term reserved for undesirables to use.
As we work virtually next door to the British Museum it is always good to remind them that the marbles and other stuff can be viewed in their lunch hour. And postcards are available on the way out.
To say that the whole world can access the British Museum is of course nonsense. No more than the whole world can access Cairo but at least in Cairo the displayed items can be seen in context and as a whole collection given the chance. The expertise in displaying and preserving is not tied to Great Britain. That knowledge can and is transferable so not really an argument in my view. Ironically the mere fact we have “mummies” at all is due to the skill and ingenuity of the Egyptians.
I think it rather sad that eg the obelisk (Cleopatras Needle) on the embankment is so out of place in its London home when it should be in its original setting or at least in Egypt where it can be viewed in the context of its culture and history.
We haven’t stolen these artefacts but merely looking after them with great care. People can view them at nil cost. Some might say that this is patronising but at the end of the day, they ain’t getting them back so ner!
I have in mind the many artifacts destroyed by ISIS / Taliban in recent years and the damage done in the Balkans/ Sarajevo etc before that.