Elgin Marbles: Restitution - Yes or No?
The previous blog gave a very brief history of the Elgin marbles or sculpture and the debate around them. The key arguments for their restitution rest upon notions of fairness of ethical and moral rights of the country from which artefacts are extracted. As important is the role of such artefacts in establishing or maintaining the cultural heritage and so cultural identity of the country. Set against these are usually the arguments below:
They artefacts were legally acquired and so part of legally binding concepts of property and ownership enforced by international law
Taking the artefacts has ensured that they are protected which the host country would not have done and so the British should keep them to protect them
Having these artefacts displayed in the context of all the other artefacts Britain has provides more of a a contextual global overview of different cultures and so increases the appreciation of the public able to see them
If every artefact everywhere was subject to restitution there would be nothing virtually left in museums worldwide or at least in Western museums
The British Museum gets a lot more visitors than equivalent museum in the artefacts host countries so more people see the artefact and are exposed to the culture heritage
As a display of the artefact, in this case the Elgin marbles, has been around for a long time in Britain, 1807 in the case of the marbles initially removed from Greece, they are now really part of British heritage and cultural identity.
The first argument is based on the property rights being sacrosanct in Western culture and so an inalienable right of the owner. Ownership means that the owner can do what they want with the artefact. No discussion or negotiation or alternative interpretation is required, the owner can provide the official version. People, let alone institutions and governments, are loathed to give up property rights and rights of ownership that this confers. The legality of the ownership could be questioned given one imperial power asked another imperial power could it take stuff, but this argument requires a common framework or set of structures within which all parties agree to accept the outcome of the judgement. The 1816 parliamentary inquiry may not fit as appropriate given the potential bias of those judging.
It could be argued that the Greece of the sculptures no longer exists. The modern state may occupy the same space, but it is a modern construct and so has no cultural history or identity with which to claim moral justification for restitution. This argument could be applied across the whole world and so makes any claim to an artefact tricky to justify on the basis of location and modern statehood or nationhood. Location in this context confers ownership rights to the state. Within this context, frameworks of international law can be used to judge on rights over the artefacts, in theory at least.
The second to fourth justifications seem to be based on some sort of feeling of cultural superiority of the British. We can protect artefacts better than other states, we have that knowledge others don’t. We have an appreciation of multiple cultures, or at least their artefacts, that others don’t. We have a lot more visitors so more people see the artefacts out of their original context, even if the people seeing the artefacts have no cultural heritage connection to them. The emptying of national museums, at least ones in the Western world, harks back to ownership rights.
The last justification that the sculptures have been in Britain so long that they are now part of British cultural heritage is an interesting one. The implication is that possessing the artefacts for so long has made them vital for British cultural identity. The question of what the artefacts are expressing about British cultural identity is not fully explained or explored. Is it expressing and celebrating the ability of a former empire to take anything it wants from a colony, albeit not its own colony? Is it expressing the cultural superiority of Britain in owning and understanding the cultural significance to humanity if artefacts other countries are incapable of doing appropriately? Is it celebrating the cultural superiority of a particular class of British society who believe that they should own important artefacts?
Asking the British public about the Elgin marbles in 2021 and 2023, YouGov got the results in the tables below. It would appear that the British public are mainly of the view that they don’t mind or believe that the sculptures should be returned to Greece. This would suggest that the British public does not view the artefacts as vital for the cultural identity of Britain. Is a continued insistence that they are indicative of the opinion of the general public or of a specific sector of the public, one with access to the networks of power to enforce their views? Digging into the YouGov data in more detail it is clear that there is a divide between ‘Remain’ and ‘Leave’ supporting respondents and respondents voting Conservative. Both Leave and Conservative voting respondents, although not in the majority, are more likely to believe that the sculptures remain in Britain. This could represent a view of British exceptionalism applied to restitution or the power of the ownership coconut or both.
So is there a solution? Within the current context of ‘culture wars’, any potential solution is unlikely to satisfy everyone. A hint might be provided by another YouGov poll published on 28th November 2023 which asked who should make the decision about returning the marble where 50% of those surveyed said the British Museum. A further poll on 4th December 2023 suggested that 78% of the public hadn't even seen the Elgin marbles. Collaboration between museums in different countries seems an interesting solution. Although fears of other countries ‘not returning’ exhibits on loan raise the spectre of ownership once again, the principle of loans could be the basis of further developing a more ‘ownerless’ view of cultural heritage that is of value globally. Loans may be made, but the idea that the artefacts are ‘owned’ or ‘controlled’ by a single country could be reduced so that ‘stewardship’ becomes a more appropriate metaphor to apply to the overseeing of the future of artefacts. If an international organisation such as UNESCO could oversee this process then that could reduce tensions and accusations of bias between states about claiming absolute ownership rights. This may be idealistic but it is a way around the ownership issues.
Retention of a physical artefact could also be increasingly replaced by virtual counterparts for immersive experiences. Although there might be arguments that such virtual displays are not ‘authentic’, there is a whole debate to be had on what that might mean - this is not an unusual situation even within British museums. In 1873, for example, the Victoria and Albert Museum opened the Cast Courts within which were and are displayed plaster casts (and other forms of reproductions) of famous artefacts such as Michelangelo’s David and Trajan’s Column, both of which remain in situ and in context in Italy. Going down the virtual reality route also increases the accessibility of artefacts as well as enabling curators to vary the context in which they are viewed, i.e. with other cultures, with the original environment of their creation, etc. Arguments against this increasingly open and, it could be argued, democratic display of artefacts will be interesting to hear.
The Parthenon Marbles are a collection of Ancient Greek sculptures that were removed from the Acropolis in Athens from 1801‑12 (when Greece was ruled by the Ottoman Empire) and have been on display in the British Museum since 1817. The Greek government has requested their permanent return, but the British Museum has refused. Where do you believe the Parthenon Marbles belong?
All values as percentage of sample
The British Museum in London houses the Parthenon Sculptures (also known as the Elgin Marbles), a set of classical Greek sculptures removed from the Parthenon in Athens, Greece, 200 years ago by Lord Elgin. Some people think Britain should return the Marbles to Greece, while others think they should remain here. Do you personally think Britain should return the Elgin Marbles to Greece or keep them in Britain?
Comments
Post a Comment