To think it’s reasonable to return the Elgin Marbles to Athens?

[Digita]

Learned I have to start a new thread rather than resurrect an existing one if I want to discuss this. Original zombie thread (learned new term!) FYI: www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/776736-to-think-it-outrageous-that-Britain-refuses-to-give-back

Old thread still relevant imo because 13 years later and the Elgin (Parthenon) marbles have still not been returned to Athens. Still a topic that reoccurs in the news cycle. Most recent article was within last month.

Athens asked for marbles back nicely and waited patiently. Even through Brexit negotiations, apparently.

I think it’s reasonable to return the Parthenon marbles. Athens have asked for them and also shown they are capable of taking care of their own heritage too. Doesn’t seem fair to require Athenians to get flights to London if they want to see the Parthenon marbles that were dedicated to their city’s patron deity.

Even if the claims that Elgin ‘bought’ them from the occupying Ottomans are true, it could be counter-argued that the marbles are priceless and shouldn’t have had a material value on them. In fact, who decided the price? Doesn’t sound like the Greeks had a say at the time…

Hmm… when I read the book about Sophia Duleep Singh that was the first time I realised that Punjab (before partition) was all ruled by her family.

She lived to see partition of her grandfather’s kingdom.

Sounds tragic because he unified the region. But the colonisers took their profits and partitioned it, so that the region was torn about by religious violence.

In her will, Sophia left money to three charities: one Sikh, one Hindu and one Muslim. Her grandfather was about religious toleration and regional unity. And so was she it seems.

‘Stole’

Thats quite accusatory. I can see why patriotism won’t like be labelled as criminal thieves. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial.

Question is - in what court and what judge/jury?

@Ylvamoon ”But if you want to see how powerful Western institutions (museums) are have a look into the case from Peru about returning artefacts looted from Machu Pichu... it takes some digging but makes for interesting reading!”

Hadn’t even heard of that. I’ll look into it. Thanks.

I wonder why some things are talked about more than others?

“I am less fussed about the Kohinoor- too complicated to give that back”

Because the family it belonged to are conveniently all dead? Do you think that’s right though?

Duleep Singh had 8 children. None had heirs of their own. 4 were married.

Sounds suspicious. Then add to it that there’s a record that Queen Victoria chillingly commanded Duleep’s daughter-in-law to not have children.

If the family are dead then that makes the case for keeping what was taken by underhand means easier. No legitimate heir to contest or claim. And too complicated to give back because who do we give it too?

A dark and sinister strategy that feels uneasy to process because it worked it seems.

I work next to the Acropolis museum and look at the Parthenon daily.

The whole landscape surrounding is a symbol of ancient Greece. There is an atmosphere here in this part of Athens that can't be denied either.

I have seen the marbles in the BM. I understand the history surrounding how they ended up there, but they don't belong there. It is an emotive subject here in Greece, not least because of how they were acquired. The loss of them represents the loss of a whole lot more to Greece. While Europe prospered during the Industrial revolution and had flourished during Renaissance, Greece missed out entirely under Ottoman rule.

It's annoying when people so casually refer to them as "fair and square' acquisitions of Britain while imagining their fate back in our "smog ridden" capital.

The only "fair" fate for them is back in their homeland. Everything beyond that is the business of Greece. Though for anyone who has visited like @TheKeatingFive there is no concern about the environment waiting for their return. The journey back home for these marbles should begin.

@Zumatalaa there is no such thing a "fair" fate for such items. It's just not how these types of things ever worked in the past, or will work in the future. Imperial/colonial powers have always went abroad and raped and plundered and brought back trophies.

A lot of the material in our museums was gathered in such a way. We took material, and they are now ours. It takes something extra-special for that to change. Even in the UK, look at the issues with returning the Stone of Scone to Scotland. These items might have a special place in Greek memory, but they also have a special place here are a reminder of our (disappearing) role as a major world power.

These items might have a special place in Greek memory, but they also have a special place here are a reminder of our (disappearing) role as a major world power.

Did you actually type that in good faith. Jesus 🤦‍♀️

This says it all folks.

Wonderful post Zumatalaa. I have lovely memories of the Acropolis museum and the impact of situating of these artefacts in their original location. I welled up a little when I then saw the remainder of the marbles in the BM and how poorly equipped it was to do them justice in comparison. They deserve to be returned to their origins. And everyone who wants to see them deserves to do so in this magical spot.

@Zumatalaa ”While Europe prospered during the Industrial revolution and had flourished during Renaissance, Greece missed out entirely under Ottoman rule.”

Maybe view it as a blessing in disguise. Much of Greece and Greek culture of hospitality and family may also have been preserved as a result of missing out on the industrial revolution.

I remember how few fast food places there are in Athens. Actually rather charming that the local tavernas have seen off multi corporate fast food chains. And it’s down to the culture.

@TheKeatingFive this type of material just not going back :)

www.britishmuseum.org/our-work/departments/greece-and-rome

"The Department of Greece and Rome has one of the largest and most representative collections of ancient Mediterranean artefacts in the world."

Who knows, it's likely that at some point in the future, some our important monuments may be on display in locations we can't imagine. That's history.

I don’t think British people would be happy if that was done unto them. Especially if it was by underhand means (because that’s what opens up the claims).

They wouldn’t say “that’s history” fair game.

They’d be requesting return like everywhere else. And pointing to justice issues.

Feels only natural.

"The Department of Greece and Rome has one of the largest and most representative collections of ancient Mediterranean artefacts in the world."

It's absolutely no credit to them when they would be presented so much better elsewhere as is the case with the marbles. Quite the opposite.

The Greek's case is strong, I have faith they'll be returned in time. And I'll be back to Athens to see them in their true glory.

@Stepinside ”there is no such thing a "fair" fate for such items. It's just not how these types of things ever worked in the past, or will work in the future. Imperial/colonial powers have always went abroad and raped and plundered and brought back trophies.”

Sort of follow you on this in terms of “all is fair in war”.
Except, it’s not that simplistic. Wars must also be subject to justice and the rule of law too. Was the declaration of war just or unjust?

Can’t just go around declaring war abroad to rape, plunder and bring back trophies just because you can. That would be lawless.

Living in a perpetual state of war or threat of war isn’t helpful or sustainable to anyone, even to warmongers. Most strive for peacetime as that’s when wealth and the enjoyment of the arts and intellect flourish.

International law on justice feels relatively modern post-world-wars. But there have always been legal Treaties to keep the peace.

This is why I think the kohinoor is so problematic. The legal Treaty is dodgy because it’s signed by an eleven year old child.
But even the two declarations of war seem to have been manufactured on the back that the child’s formidable father had died and the kingdom was being ruled by a woman, Queen Mother. Except, they underestimated the Queen Mother. I vaguely recall her letters arguing that there were breaches in the peace Treaties and agreement, meaning she viewed the declarations of war as unjust invasions.

Lord Ellenbrough (Nov. 20 1843) “The mother of the boy Maharaja Duleep Singh seems to be a woman of determined course, and she is the only person apparently at Lahore, who has courage.”

Maybe it’s the curse of too many victories? How can we not be great if we’re always on the winning side?

Winning all the time means there’s little space for reflection, and even if there is space it’s skewed by rose tinted glasses. Winning often means being brutal and ruthless, not being fair and just.

Defeat leads to humility, reflection and reconciliation. Not too many victories.

Failure can be a great teacher too.

As a reasonable person with a history degree majoring in the history of my country under my belt, I can quite confidently say there were many, many negatives, to the indigenous people

And you are here in Britain enjoying those benefits yourself, but bashing the British about the past. The epitome of hypocrisy. Enough said.

11 year old child surrendering to a 30 year old woman

It's not a 'child', and it's not a 'woman'. They were the two heads of state at the time with the authority to engage in the transaction that they did.

It's patronising to suggest otherwise and you are dismissing the governance and political structures in place in that country at the time. That's the problem of looking at events with a 'modern view'

Don't talk so much rubbish. I am most certainly not 'enjoying the benefits' I'd be a lot better off in my on country!

I very much wish that Britain could acknowledge its' own benefits, from the past, while celebrating their adventurism, and start to be less defensive about its history, and have more humility and generosity when it comes to the tangible benefits, it 'acquired'.

'own country'. Cripes.

It's not just the UK that has the Parthenon Sculptures.

You are in Ireland @TheKeatingFive ? You have an axe to grind it seems

Opinions like these need to be taken with a pinch of salt

You are in Ireland @TheKeatingFive ? You have an axe to grind it seems

I lived in the U.K. for many years. Plenty of people in the U.K. feel as I do. So no, not at all.

play the ball not the player and all that 😉

Just because it would be difficult to repatriate all stolen artifacts, and that it would diminish the collections of many British museums, does not mean it should not be done. If the country of origin wants them back, they should be sent back. Imagine if British cultural artifacts were stolen today, by a foreign nationals and taken to museums in other countries, wouldn't we expect them back eventually? The fact that British institutions refuse such request is quite shameful really. It appears that they're only happy to acknowledge the errors of the past when it suits them.

It is possible to recognise that fortunes are often built upon the misfortunes of others. Lest we forget (in its original form from scripture) is about that remembrance too.

I do understand why you find any talk of negatively about the British Empire distasteful. That’s because there were actions that were distasteful and by far worse for those who were on the receiving end and suffered greatly.

‘Until the lion learns how to write every story will glorify the hunter’

Point is. There are two sides to history. Historically Britain has focused on the glory without the rest of the story.

It’s challenging now that there is no empire and no more European Union either. Britain is on its own in many ways now and needs to build diplomatic bridges with other nations who feel they were not treated fairly by the empire or have a grievance (such as Greece wanting their marbles back. How their reasonable request gets treated will influence how the Greeks broker any deals etc).

You mean that the British obeyed the law of the invading country and fought wars accordingly.

Indian rulers adopted their heir if they did not have children and it was widely practiced in India. Lord Dalhousie bought in ' doctrine of lapse' to simply not allow this legitimate practice. Waged war citing this rule.
They did not follow any law when they went around conquering the world !

If it was a treaty between the heads of state then it should have been with the Queen mother and the British.

It's not a case of right or wrong, or legal or not. It's just not how it works. Even in recent times, look at the invasion of Iraq, if we'd been on the losing side some of our leaders (rightfully!) would be found guilty of war crimes. But guess what? We're not on the losing side, so we're not found guilty.

We've a history of invading other countries, pillage, rape, taking trophies, etc. Greek city states were very much the same in the past.

"Imagine if British cultural artifacts were stolen today, by a foreign nationals and taken to museums in other countries, wouldn't we expect them back eventually?" ... this will certainly happen some day! Of course British people might like to get them back, but I'd not expect it to happen!

British looted 45 trillion dollars from India and it is not just the rich who benefitted from this plunder.
Every single British household benefitted from this loot - directly or indirectly.

I cannot imagine how much revenue Britain made from slave, cotton, sugar.

There is a reason why most of colonising countries are rich, their cities better, have clean water, better housing.

Look at the living standards of 18th centuryand 20 th century Western Europe - colonisation helped !