nordmann wrote:

As the Greek case was put more stridently however and it seemed that international opinion was tending to agreement with their argument the BM, and in fact what might be called the British establishment, effectively closed ranks on the issue and it is their collective stance that has played the largest role in influencing public opinion, I would suggest.

The BBC seems to have played a major role in this. For example a while back the issue was raised on The One Show (a popular, prime-time, lite entertainment and current affairs magazine on television). The program gave a contrived vox pop (from both Athens and the UK) whereby all the Athenians interviewed said that they wanted the collection re-united at the Acropolis while all the UK people (including the obligatory cabbie) demanded that they stay. The program’s presenters also kept referring to the Parthenon Marbles as ‘ours’ and they even got the Prime Minister (who was a guest on the program) to say that they should stay in the UK. The whole tone was basically one of yah-boo.

Caro - not being from the UK (or from Greece) should in no way preclude your opinion from value. Quite the reverse. One of the reasons being put forward by the British Museum for not returning the marbles is that the Trustees believe that, they being where they are, somehow makes them 'free for all the world to see'. One wonders if this means that that the UK will pay for the air-fare and the food and the accommodation costs for someone, say, from New Zealand (or China or Bolivia etc) who wanted to come to the UK to see the artefacts.

Caro wrote:

Not being really British oriented was one of the reasons I didn't originally want to vote.  I don't have many feelings towards this issue at all.  I do sometimes wonder why the Elgin Marbles seem to generate such controversy when there are so many items in museums from outside their country of origin, often on the grounds that they allow far more people to know about them and their origins.

Only the last bit makes a valid point regarding location, And even then it assumes that the artefacts' present location exceeds in relevance and appropriateness that of their intended destination, at least under the terms you appear to assume. I would tend to differ.

You have to remember that "The Elgin Marbles" were not some collection of artefacts "discovered" by Thomas Bruce. Nor were they material "gifted" by the then proprietors. They were an intrinsic part of a very well known building already widely recognised for its historical and cultural importance to which he happened to gain exclusive access through rather dubious means and which he then proceeded to hack from their context and transport to England. In any other instance, judged by any other contemporary standards, this action would be judged to be cultural vandalism.

Outside of Britain it is this aspect to their appropriation which matters most. Inside Britain it is the fact that they now are in "British possession" which is the only fact that is deemed to matter. To me, especially when I hear the British Museum pontificate about righting wrongs and returning Maori, Hawaiian, Easter Island and other such possessions to their "rightful" owners, the so-called "Elgin Marbles" (admittedly a lucrative bequeathment) and the BM's opposition to their repatriation strike me most forcibly as double standards in play.

The 'British' aspect is interesting, particularly when viewed from somewhere where that particular identity is so much in flux. It might also be that my view is coloured by it being almost as easy and as cost effective to see them in Athens as in London, and there is certainly something to that, but it's more about context: there's an analogy with seeing lions in a zoo as opposed to seeing them in Tsavo. One's right, the other isn't.


Artefacts can travel without becoming entirely orphaned, bits of buildings can't, even when they are acquired legitimately.

All flippant and "yah-boo, sucks to you" attitudes aside, I think the reference to "common sense" in this Guardian article is key here:

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/oct/19/return-the-elgin-marbles-to-athens-helena-smith


As a Briton, I hang my head in shame but take heart in what the poet Titos Patrikios, an old friend, calls Greece’s “unbeatable weapon”; the common sense of ordinary Britons who for almost two decades have overwhelmingly endorsed repatriation in successive opinion polls. It was another poet, Yannis Ritsos, who summed up the marbles’ predicament best. “These stones don’t feel at ease with less sky,” he wrote. They needed the luminosity of Attica to be appreciated most.

Most "ordinary Britons" do (on the whole) yearn for that warm glow that comes from doing the right, the honourable, the fair thing. But you have to help us you know: lecturing and hectoring, shaming and bullying - Lord, you all sound so British in your lofty superiority - just doesn't work.

It is a matter of morality, not legality; I fully agree with that, but how warily you have to tread when there is any discussion of such "morality". Feathers get so easily ruffled; attitudes harden; heels get dug in. Remember the transactional analysis model of human relationships - all that adult/parent/child stuff? That good old pop psychology still works: controlling, stern, "you must" parent always brings out the defiant yah-boo adolescent in us all, especially, it must be admitted to our shame, in us Brits.

Shall I change my vote yet again, weak, vacillating person that I am? But not prevaricating I hope. And definitely not adamantine. What to do indeed.

There was a debate in London a couple of years ago with Stephen Fry and Tristram Hunt, the historian, on all this. It's on YouTube. Will have a look for it.

PS "Yah-boo, sucks to you", the expression used by Vizzer above, could well baffle overseas posters and readers here. It is one of our odd English ways of putting things - not rude or nasty at all, just a bit childish and silly - often used when losing an argument.

EDIT:

Temp wrote:

... lecturing and hectoring, shaming and bullying - Lord, you all sound so British in your lofty superiority - just doesn't work.

In areas where some vital information pertinent to any subject obviously requires to be imparted I am afraid lecturing is almost unavoidable. Universities, I believe, are particularly fond of the technique. Stating one's argument however in a discussion should never be confused with that technique, I agree. Yet so far all I have read on this thread is the statement of arguments and viewpoints. Am I missing something?

Hectoring and bullying are really the same thing, I reckon, and in fact I find no evidence of bullying anywhere on this thread so far.

However there is little one can do of course to deter a person from subjectively interpreting even the most reasonably made point as lectured hectoring. Which is also the issue with "shaming". To effectively shame a person one first has to establish an agreed notion of shame attached to a particular act and then depend on that person to voluntarily assume that shame through acknowledging that their action or behaviour merits it. As far as I am aware no one here has accused either you or indeed "ordinary Britons" of nicking anything, Temp. So really there is nothing to be ashamed about at all, believe me. Unless of course you know different ...

Thanks for the link to that debate - it demonstrated the paucity of the argument supporting retention of the artefacts in London very well, I thought, and it is interesting that a televised debate with the possibility of conveying their argument to such a wide audience has been passed up by representatives of the Museum's trustees yet again. This has also been a feature of this issue in recent decades and one that only serves to cement the notion that a closing of the ranks at the establishment level has occurred. Hunt and Fernandez-Armesto's incredibly weak arguments and delivery at times bordering on buffoonery cost them the debate but yet I suspect that this is still about as coherent an argument as can be made on the BM's behalf - an official policy of "no comment" on that institution's part is completely understandable, if regrettable.

Temperance wrote:

Most "ordinary Britons" do (on the whole) yearn for that warm glow that comes from doing the right, the honourable, the fair thing. But you have to help us you know: lecturing and hectoring, shaming and bullying - Lord, you all sound so British in your lofty superiority - just doesn't work.

I don't understand Temp, who is lecturing and bullying?

nordmann wrote:

As far as I am aware no one here has accused either you or indeed "ordinary Britons" of nicking anything, Temp. So really there is nothing to be ashamed about at all, believe me. Unless of course you know different ...

Well, actually yes - I do know different. I was feeling that I should be ashamed. For someone as brainy as yourself, you do sometimes miss the subtext, nordmann. My shame was nothing to do with nicking stuff, but more to do with the defiant adolescent response that I - and perhaps many of my countrymen - go in for at times, especially when Our Nation's Glorious Imperial Past is alluded to.

Huh, what did the Romans - or the Brits - ever do for anyone?

I was really desperately trying to fight that childish response this morning, desperately trying - believe it or not, and you probably won't - to be fair and honest about it all. That's why I posted the Stephen Fry/ Tristram Hunt debate (and the Guardian article). I was persuaded, and was seriously considering changing my vote yet again.

But I feel a bit sulky again now.

But I'll get over it, probably by teatime. I could well change my vote then.

But it would be nice if occasionally someone said with a bit of good humour: "Come on, Temp; do the right thing, old girl. You know you want to really." That would work wonders.

And for the record, you - or anyone else -  giving us lots of interesting information is not what I meant by lecturing at all.

Just watched the video of the debate, thanks for posting it Temp. Very interesting and entertaining, but heck that Tristram Hunt is a right plonker, for a supposed historian I had expected an argument based on informed fact not the tosh he presented. I can see why he is a politician though.

Islanddawn wrote:

Just watched the video of the debate, thanks for posting it Temp. Very interesting and entertaining, but heck that Tristram Hunt is a right plonker, for a supposed historian I had expected an argument based on informed fact not the tosh he presented. I can see why he is a politician though.

Wasn't Stephen Fry good? It was his erudition and eloquence, plus his disarming humility, that did it for me - and that reference to doing "the classy thing". Not the easiest option sometimes.

I have changed my vote and that's final - no more chopping and changing.

PS I was a bit over-the-top saying bullying.

At least the Elgin Marbles are on display.  Today I hear that 107 Maori and Moriori artefacts are being returned from America in a collaboration between Te Papa (Museum of New Zealand) and the American Museum of Natural History.  They include tattooed heads, thigh skins and skeletal remains.  They are returning on December 5, with a powhiri (welcome ceremony) and then go through a process of quarantine and conservation before being returned to the whanau (families).  I am interested that they will be returned to their families; that in itself must have been the subject of intense discussion and negotiation.

They are being welcomed home by Maori leaders and two representatives from the Government; I assume Government would have been involved in their return as well.  It's not just between two museums, though that has been the main focus.  They have not been on display for many years now. Maori heads returned

Temperance wrote:

Islanddawn wrote:

Just watched the video of the debate, thanks for posting it Temp. Very interesting and entertaining, but heck that Tristram Hunt is a right plonker, for a supposed historian I had expected an argument based on informed fact not the tosh he presented. I can see why he is a politician though.

Wasn't Stephen Fry good? It was his erudition and eloquence, plus his disarming humility, that did it for me - and that reference to doing "the classy thing". Not the easiest option sometimes.

I have changed my vote and that's final - no more chopping and changing.

PS I was a bit over-the-top saying bullying.

Yes Fry was excellent, and I think, his impassioned speach won the debate for the pro-return side. His associate (can't be bothered checking for his name ) was good too although not as eloquent (understandable considering Fry's profession) as Fry.

The speakers for the other side were poorly chosen, Hunt just blathered inanities and BM spin whilst the other fellow was just plain boring. It was difficult not to nod off whilst he had the floor.

Not changing my vote. Have the poll been worded 'Would you like the Elgin Marbles returned to Greece? My integrity says,  yes.  But, Should '   suggests an obligatory issue - and as said before I never once have jumped to a 'You should/ought/must....' opening. It appears to thwart compromise, negotiation and a balance of reasoning. I used to be impressed by Stephen Fry's eloquence but then  lost him in his cloud of self importance and inference that he is always right. Has he played Cicero, yet?

Cicero would have been proud of you, P. Not everyone can drive a horse and carriage at full tilt between semantics and syntax and get away with it. A career in law defending dubious members of East End gang members awaits you.

"Should" in auxiliary function can of course imply obligation, and indeed stems from the Old English root "sceolde" indicating something owed. However, as even Stephen Fry might agree, if a little self-importantly, it is equally valid in auxiliary function when it implies a request made politely.

"Ought" would have flipped you completely, I fear! That was a close one ...

Priscilla wrote:

Not changing my vote. Have the poll been worded 'Would you like the Elgin Marbles returned to Greece? My integrity says,  yes.  But, Should '   suggests an obligatory issue - and as said before I never once have jumped to a 'You should/ought/must....' opening. It appears to thwart compromise, negotiation and a balance of reasoning. I used to be impressed by Stephen Fry's eloquence but then  lost him in his cloud of self importance and inference that he is always right. Has he played Cicero, yet?

But isn't compromise exactly what is needed here? Perhaps if I am too dithery (woolly), you are a tad stubborn?

Do consider changing your vote, Priscilla.

Voting "yes" (again) has made me feel all glowy and virtuous.

I'm off to glow down the muesli aisle in Sainsbury's now.

Ah yes, I expect it would seem stubborn but there it is. Being true to myself has long been tempered on the lonely fires of many issues against Messrs Should,Must and Ought so no need to seek a  warming glow. Strange that though, I have never actually ben called stubborn before. The first time I dug my flat feet down against a 'Should' of great strength and numbers startled even me as well.

Gosh, you sound like Gordon of Khartoum, Priscilla!

(That's a joke, so please don't be offended.)

To be serious - briefly - surely admitting to indecision and doubt on a matter such as this is not an indication of a failure to be true to one's self? I do hope not. What exactly is being true to one's self anyway? Answers on a postcard please while I heat up my warming Thai Beetroot soup - an exotic  "Taste the Difference!" comestible which I put in my trolley out of sheer curiosity. I didn't know they had beetroots in Thailand.

PS In Sainsbury's just now I saw a lad with "HUFF" emblazoned across his T-shirt. Honestly - I'm not making this up for effect. I was dying to ask him where he'd bought it, but I didn't.

nordmann wrote:

"Should" in auxiliary function can of course imply obligation, and indeed stems from the Old English root "sceolde" indicating something owed. However, as even Stephen Fry might agree, if a little self-importantly, it is equally valid in auxiliary function when it implies a request made politely.

"Ought" would have flipped you completely, I fear! That was a close one ...

Ouch!

That all brings back memories of my mother .... who could garnish the English conditional tense with shades far more subtle and immensely darker than I care to remember. When I was a teenager, her imperious: "Shall you be getting your hair cut this afternoon?!", was never a question, rhetorical or otherwise ... nor a request, plea, invitation, or suggestion ... but a forceful, albeit subtley-worded, order! Even in later life when she was in a care home with advanced Alzheimer's - when she thought I was her own father - she could still dominate me with her cunning application of modal verbs, combined with her subtle manipulation of tense and case, just when using the simple English verb:  "to be". 



Sorry ..... all that was not really on topic. And so to return to the Parthenon Sculptures .....

Meles meles wrote:

Sorry ..... all that was not really on topic.

Nor my witterings about soup.

But I shall resist the enormous temptation to delete the (my) message. To thine own self be true and all that - even if you are possibly wrong.

Meles meles wrote:

And so to return to the Parthenon Sculptures .....

Someone's changed his/her vote. Not me this time.

Offended, Temps? I would  need a thermal lined flounce today. Of course I felt like Gordon when I made my many stands - I don't have to do it often in Essex, in the East, however it was  constant.  To my astonishment my greatest adversary there told 0thers I was the only person she really trusted. 

Very much on topic, MM. It is the nature of asking and the implications and assumptions that are my issue. Not changing my vote, anyway so there yah sucks boo. 

The situation is sort of like handing back a loved and protected adopted child  taken from abuse and neglect - and which subsequent events in war may have continued, to its real family now in a position to benefit from it in within its own culture.   The marbles belong among their own  but  indignant demand   by Messrs  Should, Must and Ought -  grates.

Temperance wrote:

Someone's changed his/her vote. Not me this time.

We'll it isn't me... I posted my opinion early on and have stuck by that. But I do find it a very worrying that on this site we can only get nine people to voice any opinion, if only an anonymous vote. Is that it then? So Reshistorica has only has nine vocal contributors plus a handfull others. So perhaps twenty regular contributors in all,  if I'm being generous.

Maybe Nord, you should have given us 3 votes each ... that would accommodate the unsure amongst us and it might also have made this website look very slightly more interesting to anyone that just happens to come across it.

As it is ... nine votes in total ?! ...

... all that says to me is that Reshistorica is virtually dead.

MM, think of RH as the Bloomsbury Group of the History Boards. They were 10. Do we need numbers? I feel more relaxed in this smaller group. We are very different but all we lack is real port to pass round. Cheer up. Mark you, our dictator may be fed up with such a small group because it takes work to run it. Should we close down?  Nah!

One for the captions thread maybe.

Could that his enormity sitting, MM standing at his shoulder and we three girlies in our appointed place?

You'd never get Priscilla sitting on the grass in an appointed place like that. No, here she is with El Nord discussing Cicero. Who's that on the right? Gil?

Hmmm, no, not how imagine him, perhaps Paul? 
So who's the other humble acolyte then if not P? I don't see ID squatting there meekly either.

MM, I belong to four message boards, and they all only have about that number of regulars.  It's just the way it is - perhaps people go more to blogs, but then you can't (or can you?) initiate your own musings on someone else's blog. The only blog (apart from family ones) I go to rewgularly also only has half a dozen people commenting.

Res Historica has been nearly dead from the moment it started. That's why us necrophiliacs keep coming back.

But for what it's worth according to Google Analytics (yes, I know - shut up, Cicero) our little Elgin Marbles thread has already been viewed by 150,000 visitors, who stayed on average for over four minutes each (meaning most of them are actually reading the stuff). They cannot contribute because the vast majority of them are Americans and the Marbles debate concerns culture - at least that's how I'm interpreting their willingness to read but reticence to join in.

Meles meles wrote:

the Parthenon Sculptures

A disappointing thing about this whole issue is not being able to ring up the agent for the quarry in Morayshire and order some of this stuff. Carrara marble is just too tacky for northern climes but Purbeck has its uses. One might fondly imagine that 'Elgin marble' could be similarly right for British design purposes. A bit like Purbeck, maybe, but more Scottish-grey-Aberdeen-granity. Polished concrete for those for whom only the best will do. Self-assured, cool, stylish and yet understated.

150 000 silent viewers? I cannot believe it. What sort of people look into a debate - almost private debate, without feeling the need to chip in? I doubt I have ever been to a lecture/talk withou asking questions. Not being overly educate or an intellect, there is always something I want to know or, on occasion, dispute. On this marbles matter I have not canvassed support of how I see it - in a meeting situation I might. Turning meetings  on issues close to me is quite another matter. And you are right, I would not be sitting on the grass - and if on the sofa, probably not speaking; just silently gathering  mental ammunition. Isn't being a people fun?

Viz, if we are to have copies get some 6th form eager nerds busy with their 3d printers..... I know some. The finished job can then be covered in all manner of finishes. I did sculpture at college for a year using all manner of stuff. I ought add that my mother tossed it all out when I went abroad.

Temperance wrote:

You'd never get Priscilla sitting on the grass in an appointed place like that. No, here she is with El Nord discussing Cicero. Who's that on the right? Gil?

Not I. This is more my style.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9qYF9DZPdw

No need to bother making replicas of the Sculptures as Athens already has some excellent ones and it would be very easy to do a swap. Although with the offer of other equally if not more stunning antiquities in place of the Marbles on the table then casts wouldn't be necessary. Imo, it would be far more interesting to see a new and different exhibition with every trip to the BM than just looking at the same sad old dusty stones anyway. Although I do wonder sometimes just how many of the most ardent objectors to their return (I'm not referring to anyone here btw) have actually bothered to go and see them at the BM, or indeed have bothered to make the short trip to Athens.

It is not me changing my vote as you've all probably guessed, never and simply because all various arguments aside, returning them is the correct thing to do.

Priscilla wrote:

150 000 silent viewers? I cannot believe it

And you were right. One "0" too many in my post, I'm afraid. Still - 15,000 isn't bad either ...

Tripadvisor have just released their Top 25 Museums in the World based on millions of traveller reviews. It appears that the BM needs to up it's game a bit, perhaps returning some rocks will help...  

http://www.tripadvisor.com/TravelersChoice-Attractions-cMuseums-g1

The one remaining argument that the British Museum has regarding holding on to Elgin's hoard which could be deemed plausible in the context of it being of public value to retain ownership of these artefacts is that it forms an integral part of a greater "history of civilisations" theme running through the museum's public displays. While this sounds all very noble, valid and justifiable, I for one am not actually convinced that this theme on its own warrants their continued display. In the context of presenting Greek civilisation of the period the portion of the frieze (the actual subject matter of which is not actually understood any more by anyone) serves in fact to confuse rather than clarify any impression of this civilisation's culture, aspirations and beliefs. The BM has many more exhibits that do this job rather better, their Room 23 exhibit for example illustrates very well through sculpture the transition of these facets of Greek civilisation from Athens of the period and on into their Roman adoption and form. Room 19, which features especially artefacts from Athens' golden age and in particular from the Temple of Athena Nike and the Erechtheum, actually supersedes the Parthenon display completely in terms of variety, clarity, accessibility, information and exposition of the culture that also produced the frieze. One actually goes through these rooms en route to the infamous Room 18, so in theory if one has been observant and taken the time to read the excellent information associated with these exhibits, one has already learnt as much as the museum can convey through exposition about Athens' contribution to the concept of Greek (and later) civilisation before one even arrives at "the marbles".

However this argument, for what it's worth, is the one that is now trotted out with the most regularity by museum top brass and never, I have noticed, in forums where its authenticity might be challenged. Not very (Greek) civilised behaviour at all, is it? At least anyone in Athens of the period who had something worthwhile to say made straight for the nearest agora.

Seventy years ago today was the start of the Dekemvriana, Civil War in Greece between the Left and the Right, which resulted in British intervention;

British paratroopers supported by a Sherman tank, fighting ELAS forces in Athens, December 1944;

Don't think we can blame Elgin for that one!

I've been hesitant to mention it here Trike, thought Temp and P would be feeling set on enough over the Marbles without this on top of it.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/30/athens-1944-britains-dirty-secret

nordmann wrote:

Don't think we can blame Elgin for that one!  

Definitely not. But it probably should be in a thread of its own if anyone is interested though.

Islanddawn wrote:

I've been hesitant to mention it here Trike, thought Temp and P would be feeling set on enough over the Marbles without this on top of it.

I have only the vaguest knowledge of these events, ID.

Did note that George Grivas was on the same side as the British at that time, later of course he was with EOKA in Cyprus.

That's not surprising Trike, there is an excellent British documentary from 1986 on it that was aired only the once in Britain before it was banned. Parts 1 & 2 are on Youtube and named Greece - The Hidden War, it is well worth watching.

nordmann wrote:

At least anyone in Athens of the period who had something worthwhile to say made straight for the nearest agora.

Nothing much as changed then, in contemporary Athens anyone with something worthwile, or even not worthwhile, to say heads straight for the nearest kafeneion. 

Found it, ID. Will look at it later when I've a bit more time;



(in English with Greek subtitles)

Vladd will keep them!!!!!

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/the-elgin-marbles-leave-britain-for-first-time/ar-BBglAR0?ocid=iehp

The Pergamon Altar in Berlin. Should this be returned to Greece?

The French have pieces as well;

http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/head-horseman-known-rampin-horseman

This article is 6 years old, don't know what the air pollution in Athens is like today.

Are these artefacts better off where they are in nice air-conditioned rooms?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-13/archaeologist-says-pollution-threatening-last/2402058

As far as I'm aware it has always been the intention to remove all the remaining sculptures to the new museum just as Mantis recommends. Funding of these activities is presently the biggest obstacle, not logistics. The last I was aware many of these have been packed in protective material while the general restoration project continues so the urgency is probably not as great as Mantis implies.

Athens pollution levels are indeed higher than many cities of comparable size. Ironically however, the Parthenon is probably in one of the best locations of all to avoid its worst ravages. I have a feeling Mr Mantis is simply giving the system a kick to see if he can generate an extra few bob for the restoration project itself. He is after all the supervisor of the site. The people doing all the humming and hawing in response to his plea are mainly those who dish out that lolly.

Oh, irony of ironies - the British Museum Shop Online has just sent me an Email - their "Christmas Gift Guide for Art Lovers." I see I can purchase an Elgin Marbles pressie for a loved (or unloved) one for £120 (£108 for members).

You can also buy a Venus de Milo (large replica) for £1,350. Crikey - that's an expensive - and rather large - stocking filler. Murder to wrap, I should think.

I do like the little Greek horse statue though: it's only £125.




EDIT: I am confused: the Venus de Milo is in the Louvre. How come the British Museum shop is flogging replicas?

Triceratops wrote:

Vladd will keep them!!!!!

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/the-elgin-marbles-leave-britain-for-first-time/ar-BBglAR0?ocid=iehp

I doubt Putin will keep them, namely because Russia is in pretty much the same situation as Britain over the Schleimann Hoard.

But I contest the headlines currently screaming across the British press today, anyone would be forgiven for thinking that the Marbles were sculptured in London and hadn't resided in Athens for 2,000 years at all.