To think that the Elgin Marbles should remain in the British Museum

[hagiasophia]

Elgin bought the marbles and had a permit to remove them. Before anyone says well it was the Ottomans who sold them to Elgin, not the Greeks, they were not his to sell; you are incorrect. The Attic peninsula had been under Ottoman rule between 1458-1821(or 1830). That is as long as Scotland has been part of the UK. The idea of Greek people being one was yet to come, and even in antiquity was highly contentious.

The idea of Athens as a symbolic heart of the Greek people is a relatively new idea, considering that in the period of their transportation to Britain, Athens was merely a village or small unimportant town.

Whilst of course, no one would support the removal of part of an ancient monument today, this was not the case in the period.

Some may argue that they ought to be reunited with the rest of the Parthenon frieze, however, this itself is not even atop the Acropolis anymore. It is housed in a museum, just like the Elgin Marbles are.

The wider contemporaneous history of the Parthenon was that of rapid decline. Under the Government of the day, it was being looted for use for building materials. In the 17th century, it had been blown up whilst used as a gunpowder store. So it could be said that Elgin's removal of the sculptures indeed may have saved them from further damage such as acid rains that have effected the remaining stones.

To argue that pieces in museums ought to be sent back to their place of origin is ridiculous. If one piece is sent back that was fairly and legally purchased then everyone will want everything back. Remember; Britain has important pieces of our past in foreign museums too. Whilst returning pieces that were proven to have been stolen such as the painting by Klimt, pieces that were fairly purchased have no grounds to stand on.

Great post serena.

Birdsgottfly yours is a sensible argument but what is its logical conclusion?

Because the marbles were once at risk in Greece, they should never be returned?
Or because other historical buildings have sadly been destroyed elsewhere in the world in recent conflict, we should hang onto the marbles as they are safer here than Greece?
While it holds true for parts of the world, and was once true of Greece, I don’t believe it is a justification in the case of the marbles which could safely be returned to Greece.
I don’t buy the damage argument either.

How do you feel about repatriation of indigenous peoples' remains?

It's a UN right for Indigenous people to have their people's remains repatriated. And yet many hundreds (even thousands potentially) of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander remains are held in international museums, particularly British ones.

Help me understand why there is such reluctance to return these remains so their spirits can rest?

The whole thing smacks of an imperialistic assumption that classical culture belongs to the UK.

I'd love to see the OPs perspective if the situation was reversed, and a priceless piece of British history was sitting in a museum in Greece or Cairo.

I went to the British Museum last year, after a long gap. Early 20-something never questioned why items were there. As a 40-something I honestly felt embarrassed at the sheer scale/number of the items removed from their country of origin - sacred statues, parts of tombs, burial materials? A lot of it just felt wrong. :(

Having said that, I needed to go all the way to New York to see two of Holbein's masterpieces of members of the Tudor court.

It should also be noted that one must pay to go to the Acropolis Museum, whilst the BM is completely free for all...

I don’t think that’s relevant OP. It’s of little consolation to Greece that they can see their heritage for free. All they need is to pop to one of the world’s most expensive cities for a weekend break!
Seriously though, Idon’t think we can use the fact that more people have free access to the marbles in the BM than back in athens as justification for keeping them.

Maybe doctor - I agree with your sentiments although the point was made above that paintings were always meant to be bought, sold and transported from owner to owner and I think it’s a fair distinction.

Free for all Londoners, yes. I imagine the BM has a healthy list of sponsors, as the Acropolis museum has only been opened fairly recently it will not have a comparable list.

If we're defending keeping plundered goods by it being free to see them, there's probably not a strong argument for keeping our hands on them.

We in the "West" have a very paternalistic view of culture. I saw it when I was living abroad in a former British colony. Colonial architecture was valued by expats almost to the point of fetishisation. Attempts to renovate or demolish on the part of the country's government were strongly opposed by expat groups.

It made me think. If India had colonised Britain, would we really be wanting to preserve the buildings they constructed, as reminders of our colonial humiliation? Doubtful.

"It should also be noted that one must pay to go to the Acropolis Museum, whilst the BM is completely free for all..."

Does the Acropolis charge the equivalent of an EasyJet flight from Athens and a weekend in a London Travelodge ? Wow! . No wonder the Greeks were rioting in the streets a few years ago!

The acropolis museum does charge (10 euros full price, 5 euros off season, lots of reduced/free entry for students etc etc) ... but that's somewhat irrelevant as anyone who is interested in this sort of thing is surely going to want to see the rest of what's in there anyway - the carvings from the previous temples etc are fabulous.

Given how poor Greece is, I'm surprised they don't charge foreigners more tbh ... even moreso the National Archeological museum which is only 5 euros. If any of you are interested enough in archeology to be on this thread and haven't been, do go ... gaze upon the face of, ok, not Agamemnon but one of his predecessors... and so much more. Best 5 euros you'll ever spend.

Yes I agree with this. The parthenon wasnt even the big spiritual site some like to claim. It was basically used as a bank.

I just wish more had been 'looted' from Palmyra.

And I agree with your analogy. Its a bit like if Yugoslavia had started demanding the 'return' of ancient Macedonian stuff.

Do we have enough classicists on here to get a good Classics thread going?

What a GF. Here, have my first

First of all the marbles were not excavated, so Elgin was in breach on contract, second it turns out that the man who offered him the contract actually had not obtained permission from his superiors to make the contract. He probably just put the money in his own pocket. So the marbles were obtained illegally.

Also have you been to British museum and seen them? When I first heard of the marbles it was presented as if Elgin took "a couple of marbles". He didn't. He took enough to build a new temple. He took enough to fill a smaller museum. It is completely ridiculous how many he took. There is no way it was done in good faith.

I think the Elgin marbles are an integral and important part of the structures they came from. Shocking vandalism whatever the terms of the sale. I would rather see them where they were created to be.

Absolutely this.

Their absence is glaring and heartbreaking in the Parthenon museum.

Deeds of colonial vandalism should be atoned for, not held up.

About twenty years ago I used to work at The British Museum, part of my department was the museums's cast service, which looked after all the moulds and casts of many museum exhibits.

When Elgin removed the friezes he had bought, he also took papier mâché moulds of many of the frieze panels that remained. Those moulds still exist.

When the Acropolis started to build their new museum they came to the BM, not only for replicas of the panels in the BMs collection, but also for replicas taken from these moulds, because the originals which had remained in Athens had been so badly eroded and damaged in the intervening years - mostly by pollution.

Legally however, it seems clear that they should stay. Greece did bring a case for repatriation in an international court some time ago, and lost. Not only is the BM free, but it has many more visitors per year than Athens, from all around the world.

Morally it is a more difficult question, although I agree that in the case of human remains there is no argument to be had, and British institutions have repatriated many of these remains.

We have to remember that most of these exhibits were taken at a time of extraordinary discovery, when there was huge interest in other lands, peoples and cultures. I know that we can look at anything on our phones, at the touch of a button, but it's not the same as looking at the real thing. Surely it is better for us all to try and learn and understand different cultures, even if it does mean the relocation of some items?

Greece is not a war zone, so stop bewailing Palmyra. Even if for the sake of argument Elgin took the marbles solely to preserve them (he didn't, he even kept them privately until he was broke enough to sell them in desperation to the BM!), there is no preservation argument now not to return them, and there hasn't been for decades.

Bit reductionist to say the Parthenon was only a bank. It was a symbol of the might of Athens and the wealth of the Delian League, not a branch of Barclays.

We have enough Greek treasures in the BM. Next to the Parthenon gallery there's the (in my view) much more impressive Nereid Monument nicked taken from Xanthos in Turkey. We also have hacked off the front of the tomb of Atreus (Agamemnon's father) plonked unceremoniously in a doorway with a tiny sign.. and we'd see even more if we could give up those bleached marbles.

Some very interesting and relevant points above. It seems generally those most educated in Greek history understand the situation the most.

Perhaps we should get a classics thread going! (I am a Classicist in training, you can guess from where..)

Byzantium?

Serenaoverjoyed - exactly. We should return them to Greece.

I went to the British Museum last year, after a long gap. Early 20-something never questioned why items were there. As a 40-something I honestly felt embarrassed at the sheer scale/number of the items removed from their country of origin - sacred statues, parts of tombs, burial materials? A lot of it just felt wrong. sad

I completely agree with you, it’s just a display of stolen goods. Add in those who say stuff can’t be repatriated becuase the locals couldn’t possibly look after the artefacts of their heritage to the same standard. Or, heaven forbid they may sell them on. I think the British are long over due a long, hard look at our colonial past.

I know its very in going on about colonialism, but the vast majority of westerners in Greece were there for history. You should look at how ruins were treated before archeology became a thing, spread by western 'colonials'. I've been to a ruin in sparta, an old shrine of Helen that was being used as a campsite.

Why shuld the Athenian empire/ 'delian league' (also built on slavery), be celebrated, but all subsequent empires be torn apart?