The Elgin Marbles

[L'Impresario]

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.

These are irrelevant to the issue.
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.

[Incongruous]

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.

[Papewaio]

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.

[Aenlic]

Edit: Reply removed in light of a later post by Papewaio which was more sensible.

[Aenlic]

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.

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.

[Duke Malcolm]

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...

[Avicenna]

No, that's called slavery, and is something quite different.

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.

[Duke Malcolm]

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.

[L'Impresario]

Not really, the Marbles are inanimate remains of something long ago, with little connection to the people asking their return.

*Sigh*
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.

[Duke Malcolm]

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?

[Aenlic]

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.

[Duke Malcolm]

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.

Did you read the bit in your link? In italics was a handy bit:-
"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 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?

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.

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!

Not really, the argument boils down to "We took them fair and square".
The Counter-argument boils down to "We live where they came from, thus we should have them".

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.

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?
More opportunism than colonialism...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wikipedia turned out to be useful for once

One hardly needs Wikipaedia to find out that there were critics of him. It is nice that you can copy and paste thence.

[Aenlic]

Reading comprehension appears to be a lost art.

[Duke Malcolm]

Reading comprehension appears to be a lost art.

Indeed it is. You should practise.

[The Stranger]

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.

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...

EDIT: never mind point has already been adressed