It is complex. With the fall of Constantinople in 1204, the victorious Venetians pillaged and plundered the defeated city and the four horses were dismantled and shipped to their new resting place atop St. Mark's Basilica as a symbol of triumph. Are they going back to Turkey? What about the Temple of Dendur at the Metropolitan Museum? An ancient Egyptian temple built in the first century B.C. a gift from Egypt to the United States. Did the government have the right to give away a piece of the country's heritage? Did London have the right to sell London Bridge to the US. Then there's The Cloisters in New York, not to mention the huge number of historical objects stolen by Hearst. There's even talk about the Koh-i-noor diamond being repatriated but four different countries claim to be its rightful owner. And if repatriated who benefits ?
Thanks for this. My first exposure to the missing sculptures was at the Parthenon and inside the Acropolis Museum, this year.
The story of "The West" is powerful with many layers. the British colonial period influences American culture, too: Philadelphia, where I'm from, with its namesake drawn from Greek, a name that even can be traced back to an ancient Lydian city in Anatolia. I guess my point is there's trajectory and direction to this historical paradigm, artifacts and sculptures aside, it lives in the Americas, in names and in architectural styles.
Americans have their own versions of this: how and whether to return federal lands like National Parks to Native Americans. Also, how and whether to pay reparations for slavery.
I've been to the Parthenon but I haven't had a chance to see the Elgin marbles in person yet! I want to see the Tennessee recreation of the Parthenon sometime, too.
I’m not entirely convinced, though I loved my full-scale immersion in the British Museum through the 1970-90’s. It was wondrous. As was living in Greece for a time in the 70’s and experiencing the zeitgeist there. So I’ve been of two minds for quite a while.
I’m trying to parse out the potential connection between one stance: “It was made by our ancestors, is part of our history, and so belongs to us: you stole it,” and the other: “It would have been lost or ruined if it had been left with you; we saved it and so it’s ours, and besides, it wasn’t against the law when we took it.”
The rationalizing leaves me uncomfortable. How is the latter position essentially different than “might is right,” or “possession is nine points of the law”?
I’m not making a call here, just voicing my own unease—essentially because, I suppose, I agree with both sides. But in the final analysis, the stewardship is the determining factor: if the artifacts had not been saved from destruction, we would not be having this discussion at all.
So, the Solomon metaphor may well be the best outcome, yes, but even that leaves me uneasy.
I suggest following the money. If Greece can afford to pay for the Marbles "storage" and all the scholarly work surrounding them, fine, take them but to suggest there is any "right" to them is the same kind of nonsense that plagues all rights-based arguments.
In Canada, repatriation of indigenous artifacts is pretty much assumed to be inevitable, so the white majority, who have painstakingly preserved artifacts that would have long ago been lost, will have to pay to build museums and "capacity" among the First Nations so they can simulate the same colonialism they say they want to be freed from.
It is complex. With the fall of Constantinople in 1204, the victorious Venetians pillaged and plundered the defeated city and the four horses were dismantled and shipped to their new resting place atop St. Mark's Basilica as a symbol of triumph. Are they going back to Turkey? What about the Temple of Dendur at the Metropolitan Museum? An ancient Egyptian temple built in the first century B.C. a gift from Egypt to the United States. Did the government have the right to give away a piece of the country's heritage? Did London have the right to sell London Bridge to the US. Then there's The Cloisters in New York, not to mention the huge number of historical objects stolen by Hearst. There's even talk about the Koh-i-noor diamond being repatriated but four different countries claim to be its rightful owner. And if repatriated who benefits ?
So many great examples! Thank you!
Amazing. Raises so many points to think about.
Thanks for this!
Thanks for this. My first exposure to the missing sculptures was at the Parthenon and inside the Acropolis Museum, this year.
The story of "The West" is powerful with many layers. the British colonial period influences American culture, too: Philadelphia, where I'm from, with its namesake drawn from Greek, a name that even can be traced back to an ancient Lydian city in Anatolia. I guess my point is there's trajectory and direction to this historical paradigm, artifacts and sculptures aside, it lives in the Americas, in names and in architectural styles.
Americans have their own versions of this: how and whether to return federal lands like National Parks to Native Americans. Also, how and whether to pay reparations for slavery.
I've been to the Parthenon but I haven't had a chance to see the Elgin marbles in person yet! I want to see the Tennessee recreation of the Parthenon sometime, too.
What!? How did I never know that existed. Yes, sounds idiosyncratic and amazing.
Right?!
Absolutely fascinating!
Thank you ☺️
I’m not entirely convinced, though I loved my full-scale immersion in the British Museum through the 1970-90’s. It was wondrous. As was living in Greece for a time in the 70’s and experiencing the zeitgeist there. So I’ve been of two minds for quite a while.
I’m trying to parse out the potential connection between one stance: “It was made by our ancestors, is part of our history, and so belongs to us: you stole it,” and the other: “It would have been lost or ruined if it had been left with you; we saved it and so it’s ours, and besides, it wasn’t against the law when we took it.”
The rationalizing leaves me uncomfortable. How is the latter position essentially different than “might is right,” or “possession is nine points of the law”?
I’m not making a call here, just voicing my own unease—essentially because, I suppose, I agree with both sides. But in the final analysis, the stewardship is the determining factor: if the artifacts had not been saved from destruction, we would not be having this discussion at all.
So, the Solomon metaphor may well be the best outcome, yes, but even that leaves me uneasy.
I suggest following the money. If Greece can afford to pay for the Marbles "storage" and all the scholarly work surrounding them, fine, take them but to suggest there is any "right" to them is the same kind of nonsense that plagues all rights-based arguments.
In Canada, repatriation of indigenous artifacts is pretty much assumed to be inevitable, so the white majority, who have painstakingly preserved artifacts that would have long ago been lost, will have to pay to build museums and "capacity" among the First Nations so they can simulate the same colonialism they say they want to be freed from.