i like to start a discussion about the return of the Elgin Marbles. i will use the best arguments pro and against in a essay for school. when you post here, it means that you give me permission to quote you. Thanks very much :bow:
Printable View
i like to start a discussion about the return of the Elgin Marbles. i will use the best arguments pro and against in a essay for school. when you post here, it means that you give me permission to quote you. Thanks very much :bow:
In 2500 years, the people have changed. Simply living in the same place as the historical building does not mean they are yours. The Book of Kells was written in Scotland by Scottish people, yet we do not ask for its return.
what are the elgin marbles?
They are the marble friezes from the Parthenon on display in the British Museum in London.
Well, it is part of the nation's cultural heritage, and it should be returned. Examples include British and French museums stuffed with artifacts from Africa, China, Egypt and India. It is part of their identity, and is theirs by right.
If the British crown jewels were spirited away by thieves, whatever lordly title they might hold or colonial power they might wield, and then put on display in a museum in Athens, would the British seek for their return? Of course.
The long argument about the location of the Stone of Scone is another good example. Edward I stole it as a spoil of war. Four Scottish students stole it back in 1950. The British government found out and stole it back a second time in 1951. In 1996, the British government decided after years, even centuries, of pressure to finally return the stolen national icon to Scotland where it now resides in Edinburgh castle; although reserving the right to bring it back to Westminster Abbey for coronations. There are still some, maybe many, in Scotland who view Edinburgh castle as still too British a location as the headquarters of the British army in Scotland; so they want it moved someplace with no British influence.
Why then, is it different when artifacts of great historical, traditional and sentimental significance to other countries have been essentially stolen and put on display in Britain? Do the marble decorations of the Greek national icon of the Parthenon hold less significance than the British crown jewels or the Scottish Stone of Scone?
The historical treasures of the ancient world were systematically plundered by the powerful and wealthy of the 1st World precisely because the items had some historic significance in their original setting. They are one of the last vestiges of colonialism. They should be returned if so requested. Perhaps a deal can be worked out allowing a "loan" to the current location, with acknowledgement of ownership being given to the country of origin. The whole idea of "it's ours because we stole it from you fair and square" is ludicrous.
They were taken by some English Lord during the time that there was no Greek nation, only an area populated by a mix of Greeks and Turks. And he didn't plunder, he smuggled them.
Now that Greece is a proper nation, they do have a case for it to be returned. Moreso then for example Arabic Egypt for pharaonic artifacts, since there's a great deal of cultural continuity between old and modern Greece.
Perhaps I simply don't understand this argument of continuity of nationality in the origin nation of the artifacts. The British crown jewels were for the most part made upon the restoration of Charles II, since Cromwell had melted down most of the previous set. This makes them Stuart relics, doesn't it? And yet the current ruling house is German, changing the name from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and the surname of Wettin to the House of Windsor because of anti-German sentiment during WWI. The crown jewels of the UK are English, or to be more exact Scottish and English, since they belonged to the House of Stuart.
Where am I going with this? The rulers of Greece and Egypt and everywhere else may have changed over the millenia; but the people of the country are still genetically tied to the original inhabitants at the time of the artifacts in question. So what changed to make artifacts which are a part of the history of those people less important simply because the rulers changed? The artifacts are of historical significance to the people, not just to the rulers. In much the same way, the British crown jewels are a national icon to the people of Britain even though the ruling family is German. Is the importance of the crown jewels to the British diminshed simply because the crown is German? Certainly not. So, why then is the importance of the Elgin marbles to the Greek people lessened? Why is the importance of the relics of pharaonic Egypt to the people of Egypt lessened because the rulers of the area have changed over time? For that matter, even if the entire population had been supplanted in the far past - with no genetic connection whatsoever - how does that make the artifact somehow more British or German or French or whatever than the location of its origin?
It's their country. It's their history. The artifacts belong to the people where they were found; whether or not those people are the same as the original inhabitants. The argument that the people in the origin locale are different now seems feeble at best. I read somewhere that there are more descendants of the House of Stuart in North America than there are in the UK. Shouldn't the crown jewels be removed to the location where most of the people reside who - by this odd argument of original peoples - have more in common with it than a German ruling family?
It just doesn't seem to me to be at all sensible to make such distinctions in order to try and lessen a claim to ownership; which, no matter how you dilute it, is still far more worthy than a claim to ownership based upon having it now, no matter how it was acquired.
Ick. Nationalist sentiments. Vade retro.
Heh, well the vade mecum of logic says that works of art should be exposed in their organic entirety. For the more aesthetically minded, the parts will be better served by existing in a functional relation with the whole.Quote:
Ick. Nationalist sentiments. Vade retro.
Also the greek government hasn't asked for a change in the ownership status, but for a series of loans to the new Akropolis Museum, with the hope that at some point in the future a more viable solution can be found, even the eventual restoration of the frieze and Akropolis. In return, a number of artifacts will be loaned to the British Museum.
That one can host tea parties in the Elgin Marbles hall is secondary to the issue heh
I've generally been against this kind of sentimentalist nationalism, but if the Greeks feel so strongly, then maybe we should hand them over in exchange for a full set of virtually perfect Pentelic-marble replicas.
It would serve no purpose to re-erect the marbles on the Parthenon, replicas yes but not the originals. Do you want to destroy them?Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Impresario
Also, if Elgin had left the 'marbles' in place, the aesthete would supposedly have enjoyed the decrepit state too which they would by now have been reduced. I think I prefer Elgins' vade mecum of aesthetic logic to yours, vandal or not. ~;)
Ermm, there are parts of the frieze who didn't have the honour of being "surgically" removed by Elgin's crew. The British Museum isn't the only one to have parts of the frieze, but with their return, a great portion can be brought together again. There also parts (not of the freeze ofcourse) that can be reinstated, and large scale restoration works have been going on for quite some time on the Parthenon, but I mentioned generally Akropolis.
Now that the "safekeeping" is no longer of relevance - they didn't do a very good job mind you; too bad no French guy with a frieze fetish for villa decoration was around, Louvre would had kept it in a much better condition- it seem only logical to return them. The Akropolis Museum is already there, and many a politician would want to have a "contributed to the return of the Elginean Marbles" in his resumé.
BTW It´d be nice if Elgin could have saved the whole structure by transporting it to England, but then again I think it´d be too kitsch a scenery for british standards...maybe he should have stuck with the dwarves and save the all of us from such trouble.
Ahh, so your sentiments are anti-British. That explains your stance. Understood, no problem. ~;)
thank you guys very much. i guess i have what i need. ofcourse continue your discussion
Yes, everyone has aQuote:
Ahh, so your sentiments are anti-British. That explains your stance. Understood, no problem.
favouritefavorite colonialist/imperialist archetype~;p
Oh, ha ha...
Yes how increadibly witty of you.
Congratulations to you sir as well.
I'm always fascinated by such exquisite displays of sarcasm. Truly incredible.
Ofcourse one could leave out the suspension points, as it shows an underevaluation of the receiver's ability to distinguish between the various modes and figures of speech.
And if I'm permitted to stray a bit away from the subject, here's the official greek position on the issue:
http://www.culture.gr/6/68/682/e68213.html
The same site has a great amount of information, from a greek perspective that is.
Merely imagining it has me groaning.
Not in the least bit nationalist. The art belongs where it was found, not where it was taken by people who believe themselves superior to the people of the origin location. If anything, the nationalist sentiment lies with the outdated, racist and entirely unsupportable belief that the 1st World knows better and it's for the savage's own good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I don't really see what the White Man's Burden has to do with this. All the more so as AFAIK the Brits never tried to apply it to the Greeks anyway.
The whole idea that it was acceptable to spirit away the Elgin marbles, like a thief in the night, and then to have them displayed in a British museum while the Brits proclaim that the marbles are theirs by what amounts to a "right of conquest" has everything to do with it.
The Nazis used the same exact arguments when stealing the treasures of most of Western and Eastern Europe. And yes, you may now invoke Godwin's Law. :dizzy2:
So would it perhaps have been preferable if they'd take those along via the old-fashioned way, with fire and steel and lots of corporal harm being spread around on a very unbiased basis, this being the usual practice of aquiris quodocum rapis ?
So what state would the Marbles be in now if left outside with the acid rain?
Acid rain. Yes. Another "gift" from the West. The argument now becomes that the Elgin marbles were "saved" by the brave British? If we're going to resort to argumentum ad absurdum and post hoc ergo propter hoc logic (since Watchman is fond of inserting Latin ~;) ), then we can simply suppose that the West is saving the history of the savage poor peasants of underdeveloped countries from conditions which the West itself has caused.
I don't see those poor peasants complaining about that, though. More like also wanting a car and a refrigerator and a TV and a PC and a... I might as well quote that brilliant opening line from Trainspotting here, couldn't I ?
Well you could, but a movie about heroine addicts hardly seems germaine; unless your point is that Lord Elgin may have been a heroine/opium addict. But I'm not at all certain there is enough evidence to make that connection. :laugh4:
It seemed at the time they were happy enough to sell off the marbles (in a black market no doubt) and that they could do nothing to protect them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Nor do I equate where someone lives with having automatic rights to artifacts that were created in a region. I concur with giving back gene related artifacts to descendents of those people. On a similiar note I can understand ones who are the same memes wanting their cultural artifacts back... but modern Greeks are hardly into polytheism anymore are they. They share the same land coordinates but not the same culture or time frame as the creators of the marbles.
To use the arguement that someones ancestors where there and hence you own something is truly absurd. It could be extension be used to justify every colonial invasion of Africa as we all had ancestors there...
The common idea of Elgin's contemporaries was that the Ancient Athenians were the Master Race. He almost certainly did not think he was superior to the Ancient Athenians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
No, just that by a serendipitous co-incidence, the marbles are in a better condition than they would erstwhile have been.Quote:
Acid rain. Yes. Another "gift" from the West. The argument now becomes that the Elgin marbles were "saved" by the brave British?
I fail to see both how the West has cause the poor conditions and also how this bears any relevance to the issue at hand.Quote:
we can simply suppose that the West is saving the history of the savage poor peasants of underdeveloped countries from conditions which the West itself has caused.
If you 're aware of the actual arguments being used in the greek government's request, there isn't actually any such point.Quote:
Nor do I equate where someone lives with having automatic rights to artifacts that were created in a region. I concur with giving back gene related artifacts to descendents of those people. On a similiar note I can understand ones who are the same memes wanting their cultural artifacts back... but modern Greeks are hardly into polytheism anymore are they. They share the same land coordinates but not the same culture or time frame as the creators of the marbles.
To use the arguement that someones ancestors where there and hence you own something is truly absurd. It could be extension be used to justify every colonial invasion of Africa as we all had ancestors there...
A sample:
And we 're not talking about individual artifacts here, we 're talking of an edifice, an architectural monument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greek Prime Minister
BTW, there are still a few thousand polytheists here heh
Perhaps we should take the Acropolis and put it in London? There is surely, therefore, as much reasoning for that as taking the Marbles and sticking them on the Acropolis if the goal is to re-unite the Acropolis with the Marbles. That really is just an excuse to demand them. The whole issue is filled with tha afore-mentioned nationalist sentiment.
And what does the fact that there are polythiests hanging around have to do with the matter?
One should attempt to make note of the smilies next to facetious statements before arguing against them. :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
The marbles weren't sold to Lord Elgin. He had them removed. Stole them, essentially. Why? Because he could. It's pretty much that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Please explain how Britiain's claim on the marble friezes from the Parthenon is more valid than the claim of the Greeks. Is it really your contention that because the modern Greeks aren't polytheists and aren't exactly the same people as those who erected the temple in the first place they, therefore, have less claim to the marbles than the country where they were taken to in what amounted to theft? I'm just not understanding your position, I suppose, Papewaio.
Are you saying that because modern Egyptians don't walk about in skirts with kohl around their eyes while worshipping pharaoh that it should be OK for some more powerful country to come there, dissassemble the pyramids and remove them wholesale somewhere else? Simply because the people there now didn't erect them, don't worship the same way and are related only by virtue of being in the same place now? Please think your logic through to its conclusion.
Assuming a natural right of origin is more fanciful than assuming that might makes right? I could, perhaps, be convinced that the weight of argument might go in Britain's favor if the marbles had actually been removed for safekeeping rather than cheap theft; but they weren't. Had a meteor dropped out of the sky and fortuitously popped the marbles to the UK, then perhaps an argument that they're better off where they are might hold water. But none of that is the case. They were removed. They were stolen. They should be returned to the location from which they were stolen. It doesn't matter if the people living there now are a race of small pygmies who don't even know how to spell marble. The artifacts, and I'm including all stolen artifacts here, should be returned. All arguments otherwise are nothing more than mental gymnastics and specious arguments which amount to "possession is nine tenths of the law and therefore too bad, bugger off!"
Well, if you want to get down to the harsh basics of it the Brits have them now, the Greeks can't exactly coerce them, and that's that. If they don't feel like turning them over, SUX 2 B U.
Which is, of course, why they engage in all that annoying whining over the matter.
It's not like we Finns are going to return that gilded throne Alexander I left here as a symbolic representative of the Czar regardless of how many times the Russians ask, either. Or the gilded two-headed eagle sitting atop that obelisk down in the Market Harbor (I've been told it's about the last of the originals surviving today). Or that one little British launch captured off the coast in a Crimean War skirmish (by some accounts the last British surface combatant ever to be captured by enemies). Or the Swedes want to even discuss all the stuff they nicked from Germany back in the Thirty Years' War.
... or that the French pilfered from Italy and other countries, or what the Russians pilfered from Germany, who in turn pilfered it from other countries, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Perhaps you should insert smilies next to facetious statements -- none of the things I addressed had smilies except one which indicated confusion (:dizzy2: ) and another where you addressed Watchman and was not the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
He claimed to be doing it to preserve the marbles -- which technically he succeeded in doing, since that part of the Acropolis was destroyed/severely damaged during the War of Independence. Furthermore, he had permission from the Sultan, who ruled Greece at the time.Quote:
The marbles weren't sold to Lord Elgin. He had them removed. Stole them, essentially. Why? Because he could. It's pretty much that simple.
So, if there's some war or epidemic in Britain, can I ship you off to some other place in the world, place you in a cage to be looked at for the rest of your life, if your Queen or Prime Minister give me permission to?
No, that's called slavery, and is something quite different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
They're still called smilies, whether you recognize them as such or not. It might also be helpful to include the entire context of the statement, as well; although that would require the learning of Latin on your part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
He claimed. Yes, indeed. Very well said. They were saved by the valiant Lord Elgin from the savages. Well, war's over. No excuse now to keep them. Unless one means that carrying an old lady's groceries up the stairs for her means you can keep the gorceries after. So much for that argument.Quote:
He claimed to be doing it to preserve the marbles -- which technically he succeeded in doing, since that part of the Acropolis was destroyed/severely damaged during the War of Independence. Furthermore, he had permission from the Sultan, who ruled Greece at the time.
As for the Sultan agreeing to Elgin's theft, from what I've read, the firman given to Elgin was for making drawings and castings of the antiquities, removing any new (non-antiquity) construction if needed to better view the antiquities and removing any statues inside that he might find.. for the Sultan. Elgin decided that statues meant everything that wasn't attached to the bedrock and went far beyond what was permitted or even implied in the Sultan's firman.
Now, as to nationalism, which is the furthest from what I argue, I find it rather amusing that all of those arguing "it's ours now!" don't see themselves as being nationalistic. "It's our now!" is the crux of every argument made so far on behalf of the looters, not just those supporting the British view on the Elgin marbles, but all of it. I find that attitude very nationalistic. It's ours now! The seedy buggers couldn't take care of it themselves, so we stepped in. It's better off in our hands, etc. It doesn't get much more condescending and nationalistic than that, does it?
For those of you still intellectually honest enough to think through to the logical conclusions of your own arguments. Let's do a little thought experiment, shall we?
The amber room. It was made for a czar. It was stolen by the Nazis. Then it disappeared while in Nazi custody. If it's found, then who gets it? Using the logic of some here, the Russians would have no claim on it; since it was made for a czar and Russia has since been ruled by the communists and now the post-communists. If the descendant of the Nazi officer who looted it were to appear and lay claim to it, then by the logic of some here it would belong to that person - especially if that person produced some document claiming that it had been stolen to save it from the destruction of the war. Still others appear to stake out the position that it would belong to the finder, in spite of its historical significance as an artifact that was stolen. A few, myself included, maintain that it wouldn't matter who found it, why it was removed or for how long, who lives where it was, or who lives where it is - that it belongs where it was found, regardless. Where do you find yourselves on that scale? Hmmm?
Well, let's quote the entire "facetious" argument of yours with the smilies (only the first of the three arguments I quoted, by-the-by).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Well, apart from the fact the Rector of my school did not let me take Latin, I can glean a few words, "an absurd argument" and "after this, thus because of this", well, Elgin claimed already to have taken the marbles to save them before he took them, so that latter latin phrase of yours is wrong.Quote:
Acid rain. Yes. Another "gift" from the West. The argument now becomes that the Elgin marbles were "saved" by the brave British? If we're going to resort to argumentum ad absurdum and post hoc ergo propter hoc logic (since Watchman is fond of inserting Latin ), then we can simply suppose that the West is saving the history of the savage poor peasants of underdeveloped countries from conditions which the West itself has caused.
And even if he had not claimed such and that the argument that they have erstwhile been saved is wrong, your latter argument is not only absurd, but wrong, since the West did not cause such conditions.
Except that the old lady gave him permission to keep the groceries.Quote:
He claimed. Yes, indeed. Very well said. They were saved by the valiant Lord Elgin from the savages. Well, war's over. No excuse now to keep them. Unless one means that carrying an old lady's groceries up the stairs for her means you can keep the gorceries after. So much for that argument.
From what I have read, the firman allowed for the removal of any piece of stone with inscriptions or figures thereon. Furthermore, there is documentation of correspondence between the Ottoman government and the port at Piraeus telling the port to let the marbles sail out.Quote:
As for the Sultan agreeing to Elgin's theft, from what I've read, the firman given to Elgin was for making drawings and castings of the antiquities, removing any new (non-antiquity) construction if needed to better view the antiquities and removing any statues inside that he might find.. for the Sultan. Elgin decided that statues meant everything that wasn't attached to the bedrock and went far beyond what was permitted or even implied in the Sultan's firman.
The British Museum's stance on the issue
Just a thought, is Athens not the cradle of Western Civilization? Hence, ultimately responsible for acid rain?!! :laugh4: Why not as there are many absurdities in the arguments here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Fact is, some people (non-Greeks) really want the 'brave British' as you sarcastically call them (though we like to think of ourselves as brave, of course ~;) ) to be forced to return the 'marbles' in order to humble them, with an element of Schadenfreude thrown in. Go on just admit it.
I can understand the Greek desire for their return but their case is very dubious IMO and they can only really depend on a goodwill gesture. Maybe if the Frenchies, Americans, Germans etc, return their Greek antiquities then we can think about it.
Just to add a little bid of (olive) oil on the fire, up to when the restitution of goods and values? No, because Rome (so Italy) killed half of the Gaul (my ancestors, well officially at least) and enslave ¼. So, can I expect some compensation? And what about Greece thinks about to compensate Iran for the pillage of Persepolis?:laugh4:
You'd have a hard time finding any Romans to sue, though. Italians may like to claim descent, but everyone knows that's pretty much a load of fertilizer.
The Russians could sue Mongolia for the ravages of the Golden Horde, though. Iran, Iraq and Syria too for the Ilkhanids.
...I wonder if the Sámi want their old hunting grounds from before we pushed them up north back, though...
I'll agree with Red Peasant that all of the antiquities should be returned. This isn't just about the Elgin marbles or Britain itself. The marbles are just the most visible and currently in vogue symbol for the systematic looting of many places around the world by the colonial powers. Britain bears the brunt because Britain was well-practiced at it, both colonialism and looting. It's about the arrogance and condescension and greed in the way some countries have acted for centuries. Countries which refuse, because of an overabundance of national pride to admit to any wrong-doing. Other countries aren't exempt. There are pieces of the Parthenon in Paris and Copenhagen. The same applies to artifacts from other sites residing in other museums as well.
We should move this thread to the backroom, though; since Duke Malcolm persists in being obtuse and I can't unleash on him in a fruitful way here. The argument is getting us nowhere. We shall just have to agree to disagree.
A few thousand polytheists does not an entire culture make.Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Impresario
The current Greek people are not the same culture as those who made the Acropolis. Therefore they have no more right to a piece based on cultural inheritance then another nation.
Also the arguement for this is if someone from the same geographic lands made something and then another one sells it to someone else, if enough time passes you can have it back because it was made in the same geographic lands as you currently possess. Some strange idea that ultimate ownership goes to the occupier of the site of manufacture. Kind of a long term lease. "Buy it now and in 99 years time it goes back to whoever holds these lands".
So in a hundred years time I can expect whatever culture holds Taiwan to demand back all the cultural artifacts... millions upon millions of plastic army men with Made in Taiwan (TM) stamped on their feet.
Those pesky Maori might start demanding their land back and such, eh?
TheTreaty of Waitangi.
So they already can, have and done so.
I do believe that is a six old chap.
Please come again.
Who said the opposite anyway? I just commented merrily on one previous statement. Parthenon had been a church and a mosque as well hehQuote:
A few thousand polytheists does not an entire culture make.
Claiming that the above comprise the argument for the return of the marbles is merely a way to discredit the "opposing" view, I wouldn't want to call it a strawman though, because some people actually use it. It's still debatable whether they 're wrong or right but ultimately it isn't comprising any official position for what it's worth.Quote:
The current Greek people are not the same culture as those who made the Acropolis. Therefore they have no more right to a piece based on cultural inheritance then another nation.
Also the arguement for this is if someone from the same geographic lands made something and then another one sells it to someone else, if enough time passes you can have it back because it was made in the same geographic lands as you currently possess. Some strange idea that ultimate ownership goes to the occupier of the site of manufacture. Kind of a long term lease. "Buy it now and in 99 years time it goes back to whoever holds these lands".
So in a hundred years time I can expect whatever culture holds Taiwan to demand back all the cultural artifacts... millions upon millions of plastic army men with Made in Taiwan (TM) stamped on their feet.
Oh, did I mention that we don't have in this specific case individual artifacts?
Firstly, Red Peasant didn't say all the antiquities should be returned, just that it would rely on peer pressure -- other countries would have to return them first. Secondly, it is just about the Elgin Marbles. The Greek Government has stopped pressing for all antiquities to be returned, the onus is now just on the Elgin Marbles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
If you can only "unleash on me in a fruitful way", then I would wish the thread stays here, since I can only assume that that would mean insults against me and my compatriots. This forum should suffice -- you can put forth your arguments here as long as they are factual and reasonable. You have thus far responded to several of my arguments with slights against myself, in replies 32, 39, and the above quote. If you cannot debate without addressing counter-arguments by somewhat rude comments against myself then this debate is not exactle productive. There is no need to move this thread to the Backroom if we discuss the matters reasonably and in a civil way.Quote:
We should move this thread to the backroom, though; since Duke Malcolm persists in being obtuse and I can't unleash on him in a fruitful way here. The argument is getting us nowhere. We shall just have to agree to disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Even more so for the Athenians/Greeks, I'd say!!
Anyway, nobody is going to agree on this matter, so the argument boils down to possession, and Britain has them.
If you're hard enough, come and take 'em! :laugh4:
Tino rangatiratanga . Game, set, match. Play again?Quote:
Originally Posted by PapewaioThe
So they already can, have and done so.
I do believe that is a six old chap.
Please come again.
Precisely the Maoris have a Treaty in place which can/could/should be adhered to. While the Elgin Marbles do not.
The Maori seek self govenorship (which is in fact ceded by article 1 of the Treaty of Waitangi)... they where made British subjects and were supposed to have full property rights and tribal authourity.
The Waitangi Tribunal is an attempt to fulfill the Waitangi Treaty and modern cultural understanding.
So the Maori seek self determination within the framework of a treaty. That is the kahurangi approach. It is on the whole a positive change for the whole of the society.
The Elgin Marbles are tied to no treaty and the only leverage is a bogus attempt at shame based on the people asking for it sharing a geographic location with those who created it. Do all works of art and craft return to their country of origin? No. So why try a guilt trip on the Elgin Marbles.
If it really is so important to them, cough up the dough or stop whining.
Umm, Papewaio, we weren't arguing anything about treaties. You brought up Waitangi when I brought up the Maori as an aside in the discussion about claims of indigenous peoples. The treaty of Waitangi has absolutely nothing to do with the Elgin marbles. Nice attempt, though.
And speaking of coughing up the dough...
That brings up another question. If Elgin was saving the marbles, as he claimed and as is being used as a basis for absurd arguments now, then why did he turn a profit selling them in 1816 to the British museum? They weren't donated. They were sold to the museum. So, did he remove them to protect them, or remove them for personal gain? If the former, doesn't that imply that he was safe-guarding them for someone else? The whole protecting the marbles argument is just an excuse. He looted the marbles. He then sold the marbles to the British museum for a very nice sum. Thief and fence, the Earl of Elgin and the British Museum - what a pair. I wonder, did Elgin inform the Sultan of his profits? After all, the Sultan supposedly (and this is in some dispute, as far as the Sultan's firman is concerned) gave Elgin permission to take the marbles. Did the Sultan know that the Earl of Elgin was going to turn around and sell them to the British museum a few years later?
Actually the treaty has everything to do with it.
You brought up the Maori claims trying to show the validity of claims of the Elgin Marbles. I pointed out that the Maori have a valid treaty. So using your own example of the Maori and applying it to the Greeks we end up with the following.
- No Valid Treaty
- Hence no valid claim on the Elgin Marbles.
As for Elgin, once ownership was passed onto him by the then Ruler of Greece, he could do as he pleased with the items. I'm glad he sold them to a museum rather then a private collector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I did nothing of the sort. Try again. I mentioned the Maori asking for their land back. I didn't refer to the Elgin marbles. It had nothing to do with the Elgin marbles. It was a dig at you for the ridiculous comment about plastic army men and Taiwan. Somehow you've twisted and morphed it into a discussion about treaties applying to the Elgin marbles. This has to be the biggest non sequitur I've ever seen in a forum debate. Frankly, I expected somewhat better from you, of all people.Quote:
You brought up the Maori claims trying to show the validity of claims of the Elgin Marbles.
Ownership was never passed to the Earl of Elgin by the Sultan. I'll say it again. The Sultan's firman had nothing to do with Elgin removing just about everything from the Parthenon that could be removed plus more from other buildings on the Acropolis. The idea that Elgin had such permission is pure fiction. He had permission to do certain things, none of which entailed removing whole parts of the Parthenon and shipping them off to England and then selling them to the British Museum. However even the limited permission he seems to have been given is in question.
If you wish, take the time to peruse this document which was originally included in Appendix A of the submission of the British Committee for the Restitution of the Parthenon Marbles to the House of Commons Select Committee. The only existing firman, appears not only to have been something much less than a firman (an official ruling of the Sultan) but may, in fact have even been nothing more than a mektub, or letter, with no legal weight behind it at all, and was never even seen by the Sultan. In addition, none of the other documents claimed by Elgin have ever been found, even though all such official documents are supposed to be recorded.
Basically, the British museum and Parlaiment F***ed up. They purchased stolen goods, which were achieved by the bribing local officials, and now they're trying to make it all seem somehow open and honest. It wasn't ever open and honest.
A few things, Aenlic. Firstly, you brought up to issue of the Maoris to counter Papewaio (who is from Australia, not New Zealand). You used the Maori to counter Papewaio's argument, and hence to try and prove your view on validity of the claims.
Also, Elgin also expressed he intended to give the Marbles to the British Museum early on in his endeavours for the Marbles. He was bankrupt when he finally got the Marbles back to Britain, and started asking the Government for money for the Marbles. They refused. They finally offered him a paltry sum, which he had no option but to accept, because he had no money.
As for that website, which is also biased but...
The document is a letter from the acting Grand Vizier, a senior official in the Ottoman government, no? Also, it is only a copy. It may be that it is a simply letter to the Athenian folks, and the firman was kept elsewhere and is lost, destroyed, or somesuch thing.
Similarly, just because no original documents remain does not mean they never existed. The correspondence shows they existed, the port allowed the marbles to leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Website
The Museum and Parliament did no such thing. They purchased legally acquired goods.
Actually I was born in Fiji, raised in NZ and live in Australia. I agree that it is an absurd idea that future residents of Taiwan would demand back the plastic army men on the claim that they were manufactured there in the past and hence belong to them. The parallel is that the Marbles were manufactured in the distant past by someone in the same land as Greece and that the future residents of that land now want it back.
You also tried to dent my arguement by bringing up the Maori, which only meant you lead a lesser trump to a superior hand. You tried a play and got another thread that shows why the Marbles should not automatically belong to a people based on being the residents of the area. (My grandmother worked at the Treaty of Waitangi House).
“He looted the marbles. He then sold the marbles to the British museum for a very nice sum.” That was a accepted method to become rich, like slaughtering yours neighbours and pillaging their houses. You can’t put a moral statement on events which took place two centuries ago…
“I mentioned the Maori asking for their land back”: Is it valid for every country? What will be the date of reference? Every country had an Empire at one moment. Hum, almost every country…
So, all countries loot and trade what was either stolen or taken. That is history.
I see, Papewaio. My jab about the Maori wasn't serious; but apparently your ridiculous mention of plastic army men was serious. That's appalling.
35,000 pounds is not and never has been a "paltry" sum. As for letters, missing documents, non-firman firmans and intent. There is one existing letter from Lusieri, Elgin's project manager, which suggests that the political situation in Greece was changing and that they'd better take advantage of favorable Ottoman conditions before the government changed. Think about it. It was as if the Swiss consul in Paris was being told he'd better hurry up and loot the Louvre because there was an invasion in Normandy and the occupying power was about to get booted. Luckily, that didn't happen in Paris (although the Nazis stole art works just about everywhere else); but it did happen in Greece.
Brenus, I was not arguing that indigenous people should get their lands back. I was being sarcastic in reply to what I originally thought was sarcasm on Papewaio's part; but which turned out, sadly, to be a serious argument about plastic army men.
Actually it was sarcastic response... but that is all the ridiculous idea of sending the Elgin Marbles to people who have a geographic location the same as the makers deserves.
Find a vaild reason other then being in the same site of manufacturer.
Treaty? no
Same culture? no, I do believe even Europe is capable of change in a 2000 year time span.
Same DNA? No, its not a human artifact.
Same religion(s)? Not really unless Greek Orthodox has disappeared.
It was released from Greece with the consent of the lawful rulers of the time. There are plenty of artifacts that are in the same state as the Marbles... and I would hazard a guess that Greece museums hold quite a few artifacts that were not manufactured in Greece either.
These are irrelevant to the issue.Quote:
Find a vaild reason other then being in the same site of manufacturer.
Treaty? no
Same culture? no, I do believe even Europe is capable of change in a 2000 year time span.
Same DNA? No, its not a human artifact.
Same religion(s)? Not really unless Greek Orthodox has disappeared.
It's also clear that many previous posters aren't exactly aware of the current status and precedents, not only regarding the parthenon marbles, but also about the various aspects of the bilateral dialogue and public opinion in Britain and worldwide.
Actually it's not a strictly bilateral issue and UNESCO has also tried to facilitate the talks, Parthenon being a World Heritage monument.
If one is seriously interested in the historical context, then read William St. Clair's "Lord Elgin & The Marbles", which also contains the original italian translation of the 2nd firman(1801), before attempting to present any "facts".
The book additionally presents official documents of the British Museum that outline the attempts made to hide from the public eye the damage perpetrated to the marbles during the 30s, documents that remained hidden until quite recently.
Oooooh
If you would like to discuss the Treaty Of Whaitangi I am open to...
Anyway, so you are suggesting that laws have nothing to do with this matter, niether anything else considered legal?
Oh ok ummm we have them and we shall keep them.
They are perfectly relevent to the issue.
What right to an artifact does a modern civilisation have? (This applies to the Brits, the Greeks and everyone else).
I think artifacts that are of a genetic heritage (dead people, drinking cups out of skulls) should at the request of the descendents go back to them for burial, but not returned for display at a for profit site.
Artifacts of a living culture that should go back to the users. If there is a holy artifact or ceremonial artifact and the culture still makes use of it then it should be given back at least on those ceremonial occassions.
If there is a treaty/writ/article of law that covers ownership of an item then that should be used. However it should not be a case of selectively choosing the laws, it should be a more holistic approach.
Nor should an artifact be singled out as if it alone will have the laws applied to it. I assume that if by law the Marbles are returned it will mean that other artifacts should be returned to the land that they were created (site of manufacture).
What we need is an approach that can be applied that will not just resolve one issue but can be applied across the board. I would much rather people of the world be able to view artifacts of the world were ever they go. This might mean an approach of lending out more sets of artifacts along with the hazards of transit.
Edit: Reply removed in light of a later post by Papewaio which was more sensible. :wink:
On these two statements, I agree with you 100% without reservation. In fact there is a wonderful examination of the issue and how it might be resolved which discusses that very concept. That by resolving the Elgin marbles issue with compromise on both sides, outstanding issues with artifacts in other museums and locations might then be more easily resolved for the good of everyone. The case study was done for the Trade Environment Database project at the American University School of International Service. http://www.american.edu/TED/greekmarbles.htm See particularly the conclusion in Section VI, 25 and 26.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Having the Marbles spread out allows them to be seen by more, to let more people experience Ancient Athenian culture. Many would be willing to go to their local(ish) museum to see them, but not fly to Athens to see them.
Also, the Hellenic Republic still only asks for the Elgin Marbles, no other collections of artifacts. Surely if they ask for one, then all should be asked for? Double standards is not a good quality...
Well, according to your logic, I have the consent of the legitimate ruler of Scotland. I am also protecting you from harm by keeping you confined for the rest of your days. Ultraviolet rays cause cancer you know, so it's all for your own well-being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
:juggle2:
Not really, the Marbles are inanimate remains of something long ago, with little connection to the people asking their return.
I am a living thing, a human.
Edit:
And if one is to ignore those vital differences, The Ottoman Empire was ultimately responsible for the Parthenon at that time, it was theirs to give away.
Since neither HM the Queen nor the First Lord of the Treasury own me, I am not theirs to give away.
*Sigh*Quote:
Not really, the Marbles are inanimate remains of something long ago, with little connection to the people asking their return.
They are part of an UNESCO protected Wold Heritage monument, called the Parthenon. The Parthenon is currently located in Greece AFAIK.
On legal terms, if you had actually read the firman, then you'd know that the legal claim dubious at best:
"..al portar via qualche pezzi di pietra con inscrizioni, e figure, e nella sufferita maniera operiate, e vi comportiate." Guess what's missing.
And some rebus sic stantibus could apply in case you disagree.
Anyway, I 've already provided some good reading if anyone's really bothered to discuss about the issue in a historical context, because the legal is of no importance, since there is another, extrajudicial, approach to the issue.
The general question of distinct and individual artifacts is of a different nature. You might have heard about the Getty scandal:
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/italytrial/
http://www.artknowledgenews.com/museums
http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/nationa...ty-greece.html
Accountability surely has a long way to go, at least when talking about the "big" museums.
If you would peruse through the thread, you would notice Aenlic posted a link to the english translation. The translation seems to give Lord Elgin permission.
And they are still inanimate remains of something long ago, with little connection to the people asking their return, except that the people asking their return also own the World Heritage site.
As for that trial ditty, you might notice that it concerns an obvious breach of the law, which specifically stated that all the antiquities discovered after 1902 are owned by Italy. And because the artefacts were removed after 1902, they are in direct breach of that law. They were looted during the war.
That is different from the Marbles case. Elgin had permission to remove the Marbles from the government of the time.
Now, might I ask what "rebus sic stantibus" mean? As I said, my Rector did not allow me to take Latin...
And might I also enquire as to your extrajudicial approach?
I posted a link to the English translation, which does NOT show that Elgin had permission to remove the marbles. It shows that in context he was given permission to make castings and drawings of the inscriptions on temples, specifically mentioning the painters to be allowed access, and to remove any modern constructions to better view the inscriptions and artwork and to remove and fallen materials, and stones. The implication being he was given permission to remove fallen stones in the way of his work, not that he was given permission to remove them entirely and abscond off to England with them. He then bribed port authorities to allow him to sail off with them, after they initially refused. If he had a firman allowing him to take them as his own and saunter off to England, then why did he have trouble at the port? Hmmm?
It's appalling. The arguments all boil down to the same simplistic idea. We stole them fair and square, so they're ours! Nyah, nyah!
This is all just British imperialist, colonial BS. The remnants of an empire grasping desperately at the last vestiges of faded glory. And it's being perpetuated by jingoists parroting the same tired old falsehoods and half-truths originally spun by the Earl of Elgin to cover his crime. The only thing missing in this display of rah-rah nationalism is brown shirts, black ties and jack boots to make the national pride image complete.
The British should just get over their last tidbits of imperial pride and admit that they puchased stolen goods; and that far from keeping the marbles safe, they actually damaged them further by trying to "clean" them up and make them prettier with copper chisels and caustic washes.
And, of course, there is the opinion expressed by some of the countrymen of the Earl of Elgin at the time. Just so we don't suppose that everyone in the UK at the time was a petty fence for a cheap thief.
From "Childe Harold's Pilgrimage" by Lord Byron:
Dull is the eye that will not weep to see
Thy walls defaced, thy mouldering shrines removed
By British hands, which it had best behoved
To guard those relics ne’er to be restored.
And Sir John Newport's reaction:
"The Honourable Lord has taken advantage of the most unjustifiable means and has committed the most flagrant pillages. It was, it seems, fatal that a representative of our country loot those objects that the Turks and other barbarians had considered sacred"
And an MP at the time in question, Thomas Hughes, had this to say:
"The abduction of small parts of the Parthenon, of a value relatively small but which previously contributed to the solidity of the building, left that glorious edifice exposed to premature ruin and degradation. The abduction dislodged from their original positions, wherefrom they precisely drew their interest and beauty, many pieces which are altogether unnecessary to the country that now owns them."
Wikipedia turned out to be useful for once. Go figure.
Did you read the bit in your link? In italics was a handy bit:-Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
"and that when they wish to take away any pieces of stone with old inscriptions or figures thereon, that no opposition be made thereto"
Also:-
"or in excavating, when they find it necessary, the foundations, in search of inscriptions among the rubbish; that they be not molested by the said Disdar (or commandant of the citadel) not by any other persons"
There is no such implication. They are allowed to excavate and are allowed to remove.
He had trouble at the port because, as I previously stipulated, the Port authorities were unsure if he was allowed to remove the Marbles. Correspondence between the Ottoman Government and the Port of Piraeus (referred to in your link, no less) rectified the matter and the 7th Earl sailed.Quote:
He then bribed port authorities to allow him to sail off with them, after they initially refused. If he had a firman allowing him to take them as his own and saunter off to England, then why did he have trouble at the port?
Not really, the argument boils down to "We took them fair and square".Quote:
It's appalling. The arguments all boil down to the same simplistic idea. We stole them fair and square, so they're ours! Nyah, nyah!
The Counter-argument boils down to "We live where they came from, thus we should have them".
My, my, you do like these odd ideas, don't you? There was me thinking the remnants of the British Empire had gone along time ago. Ah, but we never had Greece, nor Turkey... Imperialism? Colonialism? Yes, Athens was a Crown Colony, wasn't it? Lord Elgin was vying for the post of Governor of Athens?Quote:
This is all just British imperialist, colonial BS. The remnants of an empire grasping desperately at the last vestiges of faded glory. And it's being perpetuated by jingoists parroting the same tired old falsehoods and half-truths originally spun by the Earl of Elgin to cover his crime. The only thing missing in this display of rah-rah nationalism is brown shirts, black ties and jack boots to make the national pride image complete.
More opportunism than colonialism...
Kept them in better nick than they would have been if they stayed in the Acropolis. And I don't suppose being in the open in Athens would be too good for them, either.Quote:
The British should just get over their last tidbits of imperial pride and admit that they puchased stolen goods; and that far from keeping the marbles safe, they actually damaged them further by trying to "clean" them up and make them prettier with copper chisels and caustic washes.
Of course there were critics of him, just as their are critics of him now. Just because a handful of his contemporaries had the same view as you does not make what he did illegal.Quote:
And, of course, there is the opinion expressed by some of the countrymen of the Earl of Elgin at the time. Just so we don't suppose that everyone in the UK at the time was a petty fence for a cheap thief.
One hardly needs Wikipaedia to find out that there were critics of him. It is nice that you can copy and paste thence.Quote:
Wikipedia turned out to be useful for once
Reading comprehension appears to be a lost art.
Indeed it is. You should practise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
ah thats the point. Elgin never had permission to take them to england. so he stole them. and stolen goods should be give back to the owner when found...(in this case the ottoman empire) but the empire doesnt excist...no who is the owner? England who "found the stolen artifacts" or greece the place where the artifacts were stolen...:wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
EDIT: never mind point has already been adressed