Why the Elgin Marbles Should Stay in the British Museum
It seems that almost everybody with an opinion has taken the political, and emotional, stance that the Elgin Marbles should return to Athens, so I was surprised to come across an article by Richard Dorment this week which stood firmly on the side on the marbles remaining in the British Museum (Ok, well it was in The Telegraph, so I shouldn't have been that surprised).
For the sake of argument, let's look at his main points:
"Lord Elgin paid the enormous sum of £39,000 to acquire the marbles, and was careful to obtain documents from the Turkish Government approving their removal from Greece, which had then been part of the Ottoman Empire for 350 years."
This would be a valid point, and it’s the one that the British Museum rests most heavily on. However, only fragments of this document remain, and although these do grant some permissions, they don’t quite seem to permit Elgin to simply cart off whatever he likes back to England. What’s more, the authenticity of this document is disputed. Professor Dimitriadis, a scholar from Crete, points out that two authenticating elements are missing from the document - the Sultan’s emblem (a tougras), and an invocation to God (da’vet tahmid). Without these elements, he questions whether the document was genuine. Also, the Ottoman Empire were foreign rulers who no longer exist – should documents issued under their rule be adhered to now?
"Since Parliament legally purchased the marbles from Lord Elgin in 1816, the British Museum’s title to them is unassailable."
Surely this is dependent on whether Elgin was the rightful owner of the marbles in the first place, and at liberty to sell them to the BM? See above.
"The British Government cannot simply transfer their ownership to another European state. Objects in our national museums belong in law not to parliament but to their trustees. This ensures that no government can sell works from our museums to raise revenue (as happened in Russia in the 1920s), or give them away for short- term political advantage."
This sounds like a rather woolly loophole that can be called upon, or ignored, at will. The British Museum has already agreed to repatriate two bundles of aboriginal human remains to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre of Australia. Italy managed to return the obelisk of Axum to Ethiopia, and thousands of artefacts looted by the Nazis during WWII have been returned to the Jews. Repatriation happens all the time.
I'm sorry, Richard Dorment, but I'm afraid your arguments don’t convince me. Although I couldn't help but crack a smile at your suggestion that:
"The Greeks should erect a statue of Lord Elgin near the Parthenon to express their nation's gratitude to him for saving the Marbles."
Maybe that should be built into the conditions of repatriation?
Image by WV Jazzman. All rights reserved.
Read 2 comments, or leave your own
Comments
Normal 0
Normal 0
".. should documents issued under their rule be adhered to now?"
Apparently under present day Greek law such old documents of the Ottoman era are sometimes referred to and adhered to in cases such as disputed land rights; so the answer is yes.
".. whether Elgin was the rightful owner .. and at liberty to sell .."
The issue was investigated by a specially formed parliamentary committee which decided that he was and he did. This decision was endorsed by majority vote of the full parliament in favour of a bill, passed into law, to purchase the collection for the nation. For anyone believing in the principles of democracy and the rule of law, as Mr Dorment explains, that decision cannot simply nor ever should be overturned.
"The Greeks should erect a statue of Lord Elgin .."
Greece should certainly not be using EU funds, some sixty to eighty million euros from all nations of the EU including a good few million from the pockets of British tax payers, to erect a building specifically designed with the express intent of shaming the British government and people. Ministers of the Greek government are using unjust and un-diplomatic language in a most childish way to brand the one time British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire a "plunderer", "looter", "vandal" and "thief". This must be the most blatant propaganda campaign waged by a European State aimed at undermining the authority of British parliamentary democracy since the demise of Joseph Goebbels.
Normal 0
Thank you for your comment, which raises some interesting arguments. You mention the parliamentary committee, and question the principle of overturning a democratically-reached decision. However, this decision was reached on the basis that the translation of the firman, used as evidence, was accurate. The accuracy of this document has since been questioned by a number of prominent figures.
Absolute Astronomy cites: 'A detailed study by Professor David Rudenstine of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law concluded that the premise that Elgin obtained legal title to the marbles, which he then transferred to the British government, "is certainly not established and may well be false".' If the evidence on which the decision was made is false, then the decision is flawed and should be challenged.
In additional to the disputed legality of the decision, the circumstances on which the decision depend have now changed. The committee decided that the marbles should stay in Britain precisely because Greece did not have a suitable venue to house them. This, as we all know, is now not the case. Another good reason to revisit the decision.
Post new comment