<p>Yale University has announced that it will be returning to Peru all the artifacts from Macchu Picchu that were stolen by Hiram Walker and given to Yale in the early 1900’s.</p>
<p>Nice going!</p>
<p>Can we hope that one day the Elgin marbles will be returned to Athens by the British Government?..</p>
<p>Why should they do that? The British government aren’t in possession of the Elgin Marbles, the British Museum are. They weren’t stolen; in fact Greece gave them to the British.</p>
<p>Correct, the British Museum has them, but pressure from the government could certainly bear on whether they keep them or not. I have never heard that the Greeks “gave them” away. I was under the distinct impression that Lord Elgin persuaded the Greeks that the marbles would be in ‘better care’ if he were to take them to England. Greece probably didn’t care too much at the time because it had serious, internal problems to deal with and was too poor to worry about antiquities.</p>
<p>I know that now Greece would like them back at the acropolis. Isn’t there an attempt to re-build the parthenon (and maybe other temples) underway, right now, made up of an international team of experts?</p>
<p>Why should Britain keep them?</p>
<p>Please cite a reference which proves your assertion.</p>
<p>
Nice to know that everything has changed! I hadn’t heard about that!</p>
<p>A little research reveals that “permission” to take the marbles was given by authorities of the Ottoman Empire (Elgin was the British Ambassador to the Empire then) which had hegemony over Greece at the time. This action was controversial even in England and remains so today.</p>
<p>Furthermore, it was the British government that purchased the marbles (from Elgin, I suppose) and housed them in the British Museum.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Doubtful considering it is illegal for the British Museum to return artefacts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If that were true then maybe there would be a case for returning them, but as it stands Greece has no plans to place the marbles in it. This begs the question, what is the point in returning these marbles (at great risk) only to sit in another museum, especially one which is so obscure and inaccessible to most people.</p>
<p>If all the worlds artefacts were returned to their country of origin then there wouldn’t be any museums.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wikipedia provides a host of credible reasons.</p>
<p> The maintenance of a single worldwide-oriented cultural collection, all viewable in one location, thereby serving as a world heritage centre.
Experts agree that Greece could mount no court case because Elgin was granted permission by what was then Greece’s ruling government.
Display in the British museum puts the sculptures in a European artistic context, alongside the work of art which both influenced and was influenced by Greek sculpture. This allows parallels to be drawn with the art of other cultures.
The notion that the Parthenon sculptures are an item of global rather than solely Greek significance strengthens the argument that they should remain in a museum which is both free to visit, and located in Europe’s most visited and largest city. The government of Greece intends to charge visitors of the New Acropolis Museum, where they can view the marbles (as of 2010 the price is 5).</p>
<p>I say, good for the Greeks that they are trying to profit from their heritage, after all, the economy could use it!</p>
<p>It’s so easy to say that something as significant as the marbles ‘should’ be kept where more people will see them because they “belong to the world”, when in fact those items are inherently Greek and, by rights, should be in Greece.</p>
<p>I am quite certain that the vast majority of Greeks at the time of Elgin’s larceny would have been against such an arrangement, just as they abhored the yoke of Ottoman rule. What was done then was, at best, under duress. Quit sure that even then the real Greeks felt that the deed was null and void, just as they do now. The Turks did not speak for the Greeks.</p>
<p>Whether or not it was right isn’t the issue, it was legal at the time. The United States’ annexation of Texas certainly raised a few eyebrows in Mexico, but is that land being returned just because it isn’t seen to be fair or legal by modern spectators?</p>
<p>The town in which I live once had a very fine, grand house which was demolished in 1927. The staircase survived and now resides in the Metropolitan Museum of Art; just because I want it returned home doesn’t mean it should be.</p>
<p>Yes, and the Parthenon still stands so it’s not like the marbles wouldn’t have a place to go.</p>
<p>Anyway, I am curious, are you against the move due to legalities or do you have another reason for depriving Greece of a very important part of its past? Byt he way, Greece still stands, too, despite the negative current events.</p>
<p>What a good idea, why shouldn’t we put these priceless and delicate marbles into a roofless and exposed environment like the Parthenon where anything could happen to them?</p>
<p>I’m against it for all the reasons I’ve stated above; their origin is irrelevant and shouldn’t determine where they’re kept.</p>
<p>Come, come, Dionysus, sober up! Do you really think they would risk exposing the marbles to the elements if they proved to be too delicate and fragile?! No, no, an appropriate display structure would have to be built. The Greeks aren’t idiots – although they do have a full complement of Cretans…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like this? [The</a> Acropolis Museum](<a href=“http://www.theacropolismuseum.gr/default.php?pname=Parthenon&la=2]The”>http://www.theacropolismuseum.gr/default.php?pname=Parthenon&la=2)</p>
<p>Yes, like that!</p>
<p>Thank you for posting this, Booklady.</p>
<p>That museum, as I have already alluded to, is precisely the reason why they should not be returned.</p>
<p>I don’t follow, Dionysus, are you saying they shouldn’t be returned simply because the museum is hard to get to? If so, that’s a pretty lame argument. The museum looks to be a wonderful place to display the marbles!</p>
<p>No, I’m saying that because the museum is so modern and unbefitting of the marbles (unlike the British museum where they are at least in a European artistic and historical context, being on display with so many other artefacts) they should not be returned. There is no point in moving them to what is pretty much an empty building on the periphery of Europe where nobody will ever see them.</p>
<p>Dionysus,</p>
<p>Your argument rings hollow and it comes across as stubborness on your part. Do you have some vested interest in keeping them at the British Museum? There is really no reason to continue housing Greek marbles in London when they truly belong in Athens. Athens is, after all, a modern and vibrant city, not some ancient ruin no longer inhabited. It can well manage to house its own artifacts. To say otherwise really is nonsense.</p>
<p>Why do they truly belong in Athens? You have offered no substantial argument other than the decidedly foolish sentiment that because they’re Greek in origin Greece has an inherent right of ownership. Would you extend that curtsey to all objects in foreign museums?</p>
<p>Many valuable artifacts from antiquity would no longer exist if they remained in situ, so I applaud the British for recognizing the importance of preserving these treasures. Indeed, British Egyptologist Howard Carter discovered and catalogued (in the employment of another Brit, Lord Carnarvon) the tomb of Tutankhamun, much of which now resides in Cairo. It would have taken decades for the Egyptians to undertake the endeavor and the tomb could have been destroyed in the meantime.</p>
<p>Excuse me, but I cannot find any merit in the arguments of apologists for exploiters in the guise of cultural benefactors – it just ain’t so!</p>
<p>Furthermore, when I go to Athens – the Cradle of Western Civilization – I want to see, right there, those relics and artifacts that were part of the greatness of ancient Greece. I believe the vast majority of people would want it that way too, given a choice.</p>