The Elgin Marbles

**Rodion Romanovich** · 05-20-2006, 18:42

what are the elgin marbles?

**Duke Malcolm** · 05-20-2006, 18:59

They are the marble friezes from the Parthenon on display in the British Museum in London.

**Avicenna** · 05-20-2006, 20:53

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.

**Aenlic** · 05-20-2006, 22:13

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.

**Kralizec** · 05-20-2006, 23:37

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.

**Aenlic** · 05-21-2006, 01:23

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.