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…

The British Royal Family apparently do. They only give the Kohinoor diamond to a woman because of a frightening curse.

They’re in possession of the Kohinoor so maybe they know something we don’t.

That doesn't mean you are right. It wasn't
the Turks heritage he was giving away here

Turks heritage is also Byzantine, which is Greek. You don’t actually think Turkey is full of East Asian Turkmen, do you? The conversion to Islam was cultural, with a ruling class that became genetically assimilated, though their religion spread to the locals. The Sultan had the right to sell them, being the successor state to the Byzantines

The Sultan had the right to sell them, being the successor state to the Byzantines

No, don't agree at all. Plus you haven't addressed the evidence point,

But her name has been preserved as the city’s namesake. I was talking about names, not statues.

So, Clearly hasn’t been turned out. Athens/Athens/Athena.

….you called them Athena’s Parthenon Marbles. I pointed out that Athena was kicked out of the Parthenon long ago. When the Greeks converted to Christianity, basically. And then they lost her statue, maybe they ground it up because their pagan heritage was deemed worthless. I think the Ottomans actually preserved it better (well, until it was blown up).

@BananaSpeel ”Athena was turfed out long ago.”

And the city of Athens is named after… Athena.

Not turfed out.

You don’t agree, that’s fine. But the Ottomans were in fact the successor state to the Byzantines, Athens was ruled from Istanbul/Constantinople since Byzantine times. So you cannot simply say the Sultan (or his military attache) didn’t have the right to sell them.

I doubt they’d let Elgin hack off the marbles without express permission, being a military fort and all. You may not accept the documentation, but it’s pretty outlandish to suggest someone like him could steal it from a military garrison.

That doesn’t change the fact that the Parthenon marbles were dedicated to her, Athens. No one else. City that housed them retained her namesake. The Parthenon marbles were never dedicated to Elgin.

Goddesses have a harder time holding their place compared to gods and staying afloat in patriarchal history. Athena’s done well to hold on to Athens, as a clear indication of the historical stamp that’s her turf.

You don’t agree, that’s fine. But the Ottomans were in fact the successor state to the Byzantines, Athens was ruled from Istanbul/Constantinople since Byzantine times

Doesn't mean they have rights over Greek cultural artefacts, see my Irish/Celtic analogy above.

I doubt they’d let Elgin hack off the marbles without express permission, being a military fort and all.

He was never able to evidence this 'permission'

You may not accept the documentation, but it’s pretty outlandish to suggest someone like him could steal it from a military garrison.

In a war situation a few hundred years ago? Are you kidding? It is well documented he paid many bribes.

FAO @BananaSpeel

She was turfed out of her own temple by Christian Greeks. They didn’t care about their pagan heritage, it was less than worthless to them. She has as much to do with the Parthenon as Jesus Christ does, tbh, as functioned as a Christian church for 1000 years

Celts and English do not appear to be ethnically the same people. You could not say this about the Greeks and Turks. The people in Istanbul are largely the same since Byzantine times. Just because they are now Muslim doesn’t mean they don’t inherit Byzantine heritage. They absolutely do.

And you don’t have any more proof that the Elgin marbles were a theft any more than BM has proof that he paid for them. I don’t know, neither do you.

I’m just saying it’s ridiculous to suggest he stole them from a military garrison.

You could not say this about the Greeks and Turks. The people in Istanbul are largely the same since Byzantine times.

We're talking of the people of Athens.

And you don’t have any more proof that the Elgin marbles were a theft any more than BM has proof that he paid for them. I don’t know, neither do you

We both know that they didn't start off in his possession so the burden of proof would be on proving the transaction

I’m just saying it’s ridiculous to suggest he stole them from a military garrison.

of course it isn't, he was bribing people all over the place.

We're talking of the people of Athens

who have been ruled from Constantinople/Istanbul since Roman/Byzantine times. So it’s not correct to say that the Sultan had no jurisdiction

who have been ruled from Constantinople/Istanbul since Roman/Byzantine times.

but not at the time of the construction of the Parthenon

So it’s not correct to say that the Sultan had no jurisdiction

Not over cultural history that predated his arrival - like the Irish example above

As I said. Goddesses generally have a harder time surviving the patriarchy than gods.

The city didn’t turf Athena out, she’s still the namesake. A woman god holding on to her own name is of more value. Athena survives through the city name - people ask where Athens comes from and her ancient historical story survives through that tradition.

Maybe adds more credence to the possibility that what Athena’s actually not happy about is how Parthenon marbles dedicated to her (a goddess) are now named after a mortal man called Lord Elgin.

Depends on the origins but I read a bit in the classics where there’s a power dynamic issue between goddesses and mortal men (it’s as though the mortal man dominates and that’s degrading for some goddesses). But gods with mortal women is different because the god dominates.
Hence why such a fuss was made over the arranged marriage between Thetis (a goddess/immortal) marrying a mortal man Peleus. It was a sensitive arranged marriage and degrading for Thetis to be subservient to a mortal man. Thetis wasn’t happy and that was part the reason extra effort was made to exclude Eris (goddess of discord). Organisers were trying to manage that wedding and keep the peace.

It’s so weird you are talking about a pagan heritage that the people of Athens had long abandoned.

Athens is still associated with the goddess Athena. Whether she had been abandoned by the people or not. Quite impressive given the number of occupations there were of the city and for how long too. The city name could have changed, but it seems like it didn’t. Athena held on.

Anyway, for all you know the tradition of respecting Athena still continued alongside other heritages? Maybe that’s how she retain her city status namesake.

My point is that she’s relevant to the Parthenon marbles because in terms of their origin story they were dedicated to her, Athena. Marbles Taken from city she’s associated with through both name and ancient history.

Wisdom is knowing you don’t know.

Athens as an independent city-state ceased under like, Alexander the Great. Come on. It is relevant that it was ruled by fellow Greeks from Constantinople (and later Istanbul). Christian Greeks and Muslim Turks are both inheritors of Byzantine culture, and neither particularly appreciated their pagan heritage.

Only a bunch of North Europeans cared about it at that time, for whatever reason.

Anyway, for all you know the tradition of respecting Athena still continued alongside other heritages? Maybe that’s how she retain her city status namesake

To use your parlance, perhaps losing the marbles is the punishment for a city that desecrated the temple of their namesake, turning it into a Christian church and destroying all that they could easily reach and losing (honestly probably destroying) the statue of Athena. Why don’t you look at it that way 😆

Athens as an independent city-state ceased under like, Alexander the Great.

So? Connections to their ancient heritage and culture remain. Ireland as a country of Gaelic warlords has ceased to exist for centuries, it doesn't mean the Irish don't have rights to their Celtic past.

and neither particularly appreciated their pagan heritage.

How are you in any position to speak for the hundreds of thousands of Greeks across time ? Regardless, it's their heritage, not the Brits.

Connections to their ancient heritage and culture remain. Ireland as a country of Gaelic warlords has ceased to exist for centuries, it doesn't mean the Irish don't have rights to their Celtic past

I don’t know why you insist on using Ireland as an example as they weren’t traditionally ruled from London by fellow Celts.

I don’t know why you insist on using Ireland as an example as they weren’t traditionally ruled from London by fellow Celts.

Not strictly true, Scots, Welsh and Anglo Irish were amply featured in the ruling classes.

But that doesn't mean that Celtic artefacts, sold during colonial rule, would be rightfully considered the property of anyone but the Irish.