Sign In
Create Account
0
As many people may or may not be aware, the British Museum houses a huge number of very important ancient artifacts, many of them entirely unique, and none of them actually from Britain. Instead, they are relics bought or taken during the time of the Empire.
Recently the question came up of the Elgin marbles (the marble friezes which used to decorate the outer walls of the Pathenon) which are on display in the museum in London. To briefly sum up the article for those who don't want to read it, although it's quite short, the Greek minister is asking, now that a suitable museum has been constructed in Greece, that the marbles be returned.
The question is now: who has the right to own them? Does anybody have a right to history?
Geographically speaking, the Greeks of course own what was made in Greece. Yet had they not been preserved by the British when they were, it is likely that the Elgin marbles would have been degraded by pollution and not received adequate care (simply because that's how it is!). Similarly, the marbles were purchased by the British, and in terms of availability to people wishing to view them, they will receive considerably more visitors in the British Museum than in almost any other suitable museum in the world. Indeed, they have their own permenant gallery, and are complemented by similarly magnificent pieces from other time periods and places, also stored in the British Museum.
So there are plenty of 'for' and 'against' arguments to be made-- but which is most persuasive? Is it that the history will be best kept, most available to the public, geographically correct, that history was purchased? Can 'history' embodied in works such as the Elgin marbles have some sort of value in themselves-- are they intrinsically Greek because it was the ancestors of today's Greeks who made them? And of course how this applies to other situations, not necessarily just the Elgin marbles.
What do people think?
Back to top
