The marbles were flogged off by a people who were then, and are now, eminently "in-business".
Elgin and his representatives didn't have a crystal ball to tell them what the future held for Greece and the opportunity to rescue these iconic objects for international posterity
(and British glory) was too much to pass up.
Ancient Egyptian monumental statuary and grave goods are found in many museums around the world, but the Egyptians would like their mummies back. There's perhaps a better case for repatriating them too, so should we, or is something invaluable lost in the process ?

Yes they should be repatriated surely? What would be lost? I can't say as I don't know what they would return to, but if all that is to be lost is British glory or pride then yes they should go. If they are to be neglected then perhaps not. But it's my understanding that the marbles would not be neglected by the Greeks, though I may be misinformed.

Do you believe the British Museum should only display British material ?
Public museums are full of foreign objects because they are a development of the Enlightenment which strove to compare, contrast and find order among artifacts and natural materials from all over the known world.
I can't see any reason to single out the Elgin Marbles for repatriation when you can walk through the galleries and see thousands of things taken from their place of origin. Museums are part of our European cultural heritage and are stuffed full of objects that encourage us to contemplate and cross bounderies. If you don't like the whole ethos of museums, that's quite another issue.

Apologies for going off at a tangent, but should an institution such as the British Museum reflect World or even European heritage, and if so to what extent ?
I must admit that a lot of the collections in the BM do absolutely nothing for me. Galleries of fine porcelain may excite people with an interest in that particular subject, but to me it’s like walking through Harrods chinaware department.

One of the items I’ll always remember at the BM (although no longer there) is the diary of Captain Scott, opened at the last page, that was very moving to read.

I find collections of moths and butterflies pinned to boards, rather sickening to look at, the same goes for stuffed birds and animals.
Although I could spend all day in the geology section at the NHM, looking at the rocks and meteorites.

It’s horses for courses.

quote:

Originally posted by mlh:
Do you believe the British Museum should only display British material ?

That is a very good question. What is the function of the British Museum? Very often when I visit somewhere and go to its museum I am looking for items relevant to the place itself. You have to do a lot of walking around the BM to try and locate all the British stuff. It is much more of a Museum In Britain than a Museum of Britain.

quote:

Originally posted by Steffan:

quote:

Originally posted by mlh:
Do you believe the British Museum should only display British material ?

It is much more of a Museum In Britain than a Museum of Britain.

Which in itself, is what makes it such a valuable institution. There's also the point, which a great many people still forget, that displaying items is only part of what museums actually do. The collections are there for study as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris D:
There's also the point, which a great many people still forget, that displaying items is only part of what museums actually do. The collections are there for study as well.

Then would it not be fairer for Greek researchers to have the Elgin Marbles in a Greek Museum where they can easily access them for study.

In that vein, would it not be fairer for the Egyptians to have all their mummies and other artefacts back for easy access to study? The same with, for example, native South American or Amerindian artefacts?

It would make thousands of museums throughout the world far poorer places to visit. I enjoy being able to visit pieces of far-flung places in a museum relatively local to me - I couldn't afford to keep jetting off round the world to see artefacts in their native home and nor could most other people. If British museums were restricted to British displays and artefacts (and, similarly, other foreign museums were restricted to native-only displays), how would this impact upon their visitor numbers and attraction and funding? The Museum of Anthropology in Cambridge would have virtually nothing left if it returned all its displays to their homes!

Would museums also inspire the same love of the variety and internationality of history in visitors? If the only Egyptian coffin you ever saw was on Discovery, would it impact upon you the same way as seeing the genuine article? Would it invoke such a curiosity and interest? Would the musuems themselves educate and inform us in the same way?

I would love to be able to answer those questions, but I really do not know. It was great being able to take some kids down to the Egypt centre in Swansea, and my son has always enjoyed the Mummies at the BM.

From a UK point of view, would we not be a little upset about our artefacts being on show in foreign museums to which we had less access.

Personally, Steffan, no I wouldn't - providing we still retained examples for UK display. I appreciate that each artefact from the days of pre-mass production is actually unique and if it is taken abroad that exact article can no longer be seen in the UK, but I'm happy if we retain sufficient similar examples to enable museums to carry out their study/research and display a flavour for the public.

The primary argument here surely is about theft? We took these from their rightful owner then we have the audacity to say this is justified because we would look after them better!

How they look after their own possessions does not mitigate an immoral and illegal act, no matter how eloquent the debate.

I suppose if we are accusing the Egyptians about how they look after their prehistoric archaeology, maybe we should understand how we treat our own?

Recent reading about "scheduled monuments" has added these sites to my
"quarry list" ...

Scorton cursus lost to gravel extraction, and by now it may all have
been destroyed. The monument was at least 2.1 km ....In 1976 the
cursus from NZ 234010 to NZ 236008 was stripped by gravel workings ..

Catterick Henge lost to quarrying.

The Giant's Grave, a long mound or barrow, destroyed by quarrying

Yarnbury henge "a single entrance gap on the south-east side which has
partly been damaged by modern quarrying." ..."About 13.0m to the N of
the entrance the bank and ditch have been destroyed by modern
quarrying about 10.0m in diameter which has sectioned the bank
revealing its content of earth and stone." NMR

The Bull Ring site has been damaged in the past by quarrying,..

A ring ditch or hengiform monument at Grendon destroyed in the 1970s by gravel extraction. No excavation was possible prior to quarrying.

The site had been recorded initially as a cropmark, but had also been visible in the 1960s as a very spread low mound up to 0.5 metres high and up to 60 metres in diameter. The ditch itself enclosed an area circa 50 metres in diameter, and the cropmark suggests that there was a causeway on the west. It appears to have been suboval rather than circular, and observations in the 1960s of scattered lumps of limestone in the ploughsoil have been suggested to represent remains of a brokne cist or a kerb/retaining wall around the mound. The presence of a mound cetainly suggests interpretation as a barrow, although the cropmark evidence has led to suggestions that the site may have been a henge or hengiform monument. This site was originally recorded as part of SP 86 SE 22,

Maxey great henge "Some of the mound material and topsoil was removed by the quarry operator..." "Site of a Neolithic henge at Maxey, excavated in 1986. The henge lay in an area where the gravel pit was being extended northwards...."

A Neolithic cursus at Dorchester on Thames, largely known as cropmarks and partly excavated in 1947-52 and 1981.

Dorchest Henge - one of only seven type 2a henges in Britain - destroyed by quarrying.

Much of its course has been destroyed by gravel quarrying "Whittle et al described the complex as displaying "arguably the greatest diversity of monuments and the longest sequence of development of all the Upper Thames complexes." NMR

Buckden, Cambridgeshire, TL 212 664 , A possible cursus was identified as a cropmark on a JK ST Joseph air photograph, however the site has been destroyed by quarrying. Note however the existence of two further cursus-like cropmarks in the vicinity (TL 26 NW 41,42)...."Site quarried away; no remains." NMR

A cursus at Brampton, partly destroyed by quarrying, the remainder visible as cropmarks on air photographs. Orientated roughly northwest-southeast, the cropmarks are visible for circa 300 metres.
The northwestern end was lost to quarrying before the existence of the monument was known. Thus the full length of the monument is uncertain.

TL 5203 2716 In 1985-6, excavations by the Oxford Archaeological Unit .... carried out in advance of quarrying... "survival of organic
material which has provided a series of C14 dates. These, when calibrated, include the earliest dates obtained from a cursus so far,
centering on the mid-4th millennium BC."

Maxey neolithic cursus, parts of which have been destroyed through gravel extraction. The cursus monument represents the earliest phase of activity on the site. The Maxey cursus is clearly visible from Dr St Joseph's photograph. The 1956 RCHME survey of archaeological sites
on rivers notes that the Maxey cursus has a definite change in alignment about 3/4 mile from the Welland end. Any evidence for a junction in the cursus had already been destroyed by gravel quarrying.

Cursus monument at Aston Upon Trent, located on the gravels of the Trent valley... The northeast terminal has not been recorded as a cropmark, but may well have lain in an area which has been quarried away.

Central Henge at Thornborough, damaged by quarrying, owned by a quarry company and still under significant threat.

Thornborough Cursus - 50% quarried, meaning out of the total numbers of known cursuses in North Yorkshire, 75% have been quarried.

Millfield monument complex in Northumberland - last year, Britain's largest Neolithic settlement was destroyed by quarrying - recording of the archaeology had to be funded out of the public pocket because Tarmac "could not afford" to pay for it themselves.

This list continues and it is clear that whilst we covet egyptian relics to the point of justifying theft, we clearly do not care about our own heritage from the same period and will allow the majority of sites, regardless of their importance, to be destroyed.

So, does our own record stand up to that of the Egyptians?

Absolutely Venutius! Museums would still be able to display items from other countries on loan surely. The question is whether the items were looted or loaned and whether anyone wants them back. Perhaps not all overseas victims of British 'collecting' would want their stuff back, but those that do should get it.

I may worry that MLH is careless with her DVD player but that doesnt mean I can burgle her house and justify looking after it better than her. Not entirely the same situation I know but some similarities.

quote:

The primary argument here surely is about theft? We took these from their rightful owner then we have the audacity to say this is justified because we would look after them better!

What theft ? They were more or less rescued but money changed hands. A building had been blown up and bits were scattered everywhere.
Ownership under these circumstances is a bit dubious isn't it ? Throughout history the victors have re-distributed the spoils and what I'm saying is....the bits of the Parthenon bought by Elgin are scarcely any different to everything else in international museums. Don't they have a statue of Akhenaton in the Louvre ?

Of course we could send everything back to Greece, but not to the same greeks that built the Parthenon and worshipped in it. The marbles do a great job as ambassadors for Classical Greece.

Rescued in the same may people are "rescuing" archaeology in Iraq at the moment?

Removing objects from a blown up building is either looting or theft. Purchasing such items is also illegal and does not bestow ownership in UK law.

MLH

'More or less rescued' ? More or less stolen? More or less bought?

'Ownership' as such is dubious in relation to artefacts that are ancient, that doesn't justify our possession. They aren't the same Greeks for sure, but the current Greeks want them back and they have as much if not more call on the items. Ambassadors? I'm not sure about the validity of imputing agency to inanimate objects, but ignoring that could they not be ambassadors in Greece?

And could not the money we are spending preserving those objects not be spent on preserving and protecting those of British origin? It is clear there is not enough money to protect our own heritage artifacts and sites, yet we spend a fortune on those from elsewhere.

I have yet to see a decent display of British Prehistory in ANY museum, all I have seen put far too much emphasis on "sexing up" non native artefacts leaving just space for a snapshot of our own heritage.

I do think artefacts from elsewhere are enlightening and important for a global perspective, but it seems to me that many museums are so packed with these items that they have very little space. time or money for native heritage assets. In many cases it is obvious the museum is unable to afford to properly look after exotic artefacts and I think a proper audit would reveal some grim truths behind our claims of looking after these better than the country of origin.

quote:

I do think artefacts from elsewhere are enlightening and important for a global perspective, but it seems to me that many museums are so packed with these items that they have very little space. time or money for native heritage assets.

Museum content is a completely different argument and much coloured by public demand. I don't know which museums you visit but I've been to lots that have fine exhibitions about British material....or in the case of the National Museums of Scotland, Pictish and Scottish material (nod to Ian)

I think you have to see international collections in the right context. For example, when the Sloane Collection was being amassed, (foundation of the British Museum), the peoples of many countries were delighted to facilitate the wholesale removal of their national heritage, because they had no great interest in it at the time, and money and work meant much more. There is no "more or less" as far as I can see. The Parthenon frieze had been destroyed by explosives. There was no law against picking artifacts up and the marbles were purchased. Objects of global importance are regularly exchanged for exhibition and attracy a very large audience. It's unrealistic to try and repatriate everthing that isn't where is started from. You would have to dismantle the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople to take out the pillars which belonged to the temple of Diana at Ephesus.
Around 7 million people each year get to see the Elgin Marbles at the British Museum which is a better level of public engagement than they would get in Greece. Merely asserting that it's right to repatriate doesn't move me I'm afraid.

quote:

Originally posted by mlh:
...... >..Around 7 million people each year get to see the Elgin Marbles at the British Museum which is a better level of public engagement than they would get in Greece..<.....

I wonder how many of the people who visit the BM, actually look at them ?

What if a fluffy kitten was to be half drowned then battered with a brick mlh? Would that move you?

BTW wasnt suggesting everything everywhere be repatriated - only if people in place of origin want it back. And what is the footfall at the Parthenon? Perhaps it woukld be more with Marbles there? Mind you why people get so het up about little round bits of glass I dunno.

Last time I visited the MOL for example - virtually nill space for anytihng pre-Iron Age Britain.

I had travelled 200 miles to visit our premier museum and I was very dissapointed.

quote:

Originally posted by Venutius:
Last time I visited the MOL for example - virtually nill space for anytihng pre-Iron Age Britain.

I had travelled 200 miles to visit our premier museum and I was very dissapointed.

Why is the MOL "our premier museum"?