Give the Parthenon marbles back to Greece – tech advances mean there are no more excuses

Here's an op/ed piece by Simon Jenkins in today's Guardian that some might find interesting, on a very longstanding debate:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/20/parthenon-marbles-greece-british-museum

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

According to the British Museum, Elgin was granted a firman (letter of instruction) granting him permission to take away the pieces… … “as a personal gesture after he encouraged the British forces in their fight to drive the French out of Egypt, which was then an Ottoman possession”

If I tell you that’s it’s ok to take my belongings, I can ask for it back - but you don’t have to comply, if the transfer was legal to begin with

 

I think the situation is a little more complicated. The permit to remove the marbles was granted by the Ottomans, who were in charge at the time.

Since then Greece became an independent nation. They are claiming that the marbles, removed by with the approval of a foreign power and not by the Greeks, who were not consulted and I am sure would never approve, should be returned to them as an important part of their heritage. As the article notes, this is an ongoing issue with many nations claiming cultural heritage for artifacts in western and other museums around the world.

 

The fundamental point that you're eliding is that your "I" comprises two very distinct actors: the "I" who gave permission to mutilate the Parthenon by hacking pieces off was the Ottomans, who couldn't have cared less about ancient Greek monuments; the "I" who wants it back, and long has, is an independent Greece. Of course the British acquired the marbles "legally" -- they were always happy to recognize the Ottoman conquests when convenient -- and nobody's arguing that Greece could win a lawsuit compelling the marbles' return. Rather, it's a moral and ethical issue, both as concerns whether the Ottomans' permission should still bind the Greeks, and whether Britain should continue to rely on that permission now, given that the practical excuses made in the past for keeping the marbles have largely gone out the window.

If the Nazis had conquered the USA and given permission to some third country to hack off the head of the Statue of Liberty and take it away, and 100 years later the US regained independence and demanded the head back, I suspect that most Americans wouldn't accept as a valid excuse that the head was taken legally.

 

Good analogy!

 

LOVE IT! And agree.
Had some really good discussion on the topic a bit back: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/everyone-hey-britain-those-arent-yours-britain-so.388489/
@David Atherton posts a video, highlighted by Steven Fryon the subject that I highly recommend on the second page

 

To play devil's advocate, the Ottomans had ruled Athens for some 350 years at the time the marbles were removed. The USA has existed for less than 250 years, not much longer in fact than the marbles have been in British possession. Should American antiquities in places like the Smithsonian be surrendered to Native nations? What constitutes legitimate ownership of so-called 'cultural property'?

 

So now we find ourselves on thin ice. How would ancient coins figure into this quagmire?
Perhaps there could be two categories: significant and insignificant objects? But who decides?

 

I don't think your coins would compare to the Parthenon which is the most important ancient monument in the world. It is also an irony that a museum holds the mutilated marbles so the archaeologists who fight against export of your 100$ coins think otherwise when it conveniently suits them. Because if the British museum returns the artifacts they "acquired" from Greece, Egypt and so many other nations, what would be left for them to display?

 

The Nazis did steal many artifacts even from Greek museums. I believe they only stole movable objects and didn't reach the levels of British and French antiquity hunters of the previous century. BTW Germany still owes war reparations to Greece which they do not recognize.

There was also a rally on who would steal first the statue Aphrodite of Melos now in Louvre. French henchmen were the winners bribing the Turks and the shepherd who unearthed the statue.

 

I truly mean no offense to the respected members who like to discuss issues such as this but I can’t help but note that these non-coin related opinion threads tend to lead to bickering and often stay on the front page for days while well researched coin threads drop like a stone. The topic seems a better fit for the general discussion section.

I’m honestly not looking forward to another thread on this topic where people I like and respect snark at each other. I did not find the previous discussion fun or enlightening. Just my opinion.

 

I think there needs to be a distinction between coins and artifacts, especially major or significant artifacts as the Parthenon Marbles.

Coins were made with the intention of having them circulate through local, regional and distant economies. They were not intended to remain in one place, whereas other artifacts were created for exact locations, such as the carvings of the Parthenon. Because of their specificity, both in terms of location and their religious/ cultural/historical significance to ethnic, linguistic and nationalist groups, one could argue that their expropriation by imperialist powers by was nothing short of theft, even with the approval of the Ottomans, as in the case of the marbles.

The conflict can be expressed in the market economy of commodification of artifacts, making them objects of monetary value, versus experiential value, that has no monetary value. The countries seeking to repatriate artifacts are saying "These objects have cultural value" or experiential value. The market, on the other hand, focuses on the monetary value, hence the demand for these objects. Of course collectors often place experiential value on the objects they collect, but the main factor behind the exportation of these objects is purely monetary, on the part of the finders, who are often poor and living in dire circumstances, the dealers who sell these objects at a profit, sometimes very substantial, to the collectors and investors who acquire them often in the hope of appreciating values.

Coins are found everywhere, throughout the landscape of former antiquity. While there are restrictions on the legal export of coins from various countries, the whole issue of ancient coins, their discovery, their legal exportation, and provenance (or more often lack thereof) makes for muddy water. We have seen common ancients seized by Customs and declared great rarities, a bit of hyperbole to say the least. Unfortunately international relations and politics are the elephants in the room, but I do think putting ancient coins at the same level as the Parthenon marbles or other objects of historical significance is not appropriate.

 

The French had the same kind of problem with the English in the late middle ages, but it was not about some iconic work of art, it was about the whole kingdom!

The Treaty of Troyes (1420) stipulated that the King of England would inherit the Kingdom of France at the death of the King of France Charles VI. When he died in 1422 the infant King of England Henry VI was declared King of France, which was confirmed by the Treaty of Amiens (1423) signed by the main vassals of the King of France, the Dukes of Brittany and Burgundy.
All this was perfectly legal. According to all laws in force at the time, the King of England was legally King of England and France. The fact that the French king Charles VI who signed the Treaty of Troyes was a mental patient didn't have to be taken into consideration.
Being now included in this new United Kingdom sparked outrage among a large part of the French, led by popular opinion leaders like Joan of Arc. "We want our kingdom back!" they said, and France was deeply divided between Burgundian remainers and Armagnac frexiteers. In the middle ages this kind of controversy was not resolved by a vote, but rather by an all-out war. Frexiteers finally prevailed, but it was not formally recognized by the English who stood firm on the legality of their right. For this reason the English Monarchy continued to officially claim the crown of France and include the French fleurs-de-lys in its official coat of arms until 1801, probably because there was no more crown of France to claim, the kingdom being now a republic.

British monarchy's official coat of arms in 1423, 1800 and 1801 :