Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Considered putting this in Great Debates. Do you believe colonial archaeology helped to preserve ancient cultures’ artifacts more than merely robbing a country of their artifacts? At the time of the colonial archaeology, many of these countries were poor and it was still common for raiders to hit potential sites to steal artifacts to sell for cash. One downside of the colonial archaeology is as these artifacts arrive in major museums and major publications, it helped to increase demand in the black market for such artifacts. Today those poor nations now have their own archaeological governmental laws and controls to protect the sites and to help prevent black market activities robbing their history.
What's the difference between an artifact stolen for cash versus an artifact stolen to be put in a museum? Either way, while the artifact may be free from destruction, it has been taken from the culture it belongs to, and every effort should be made to track down and return them (sorry British Museum).
What's the difference between an artifact stolen for cash versus an artifact stolen to be put in a museum? Either way, while the artifact may be free from destruction, it has been taken from the culture it belongs to, and every effort should be made to track down and return them (sorry British Museum).
A properly recover artifact will have documented evidence of location including depth of dig and surrounding structures. Such evidence and documentation plays a big part in preserving the research of the lost culture. Raiders breaking into structures do so looking for items to sell. Their method of access and removal is destructive of items that may provide valuable information on the culture. Once sold in the black market all trace evidence is lost.
A properly recover artifact will have documented evidence of location including depth of dig and surrounding structures. Such evidence and documentation plays a big part in preserving the research of the lost culture. Raiders breaking into structures do so looking for items to sell. Their method of access and removal is destructive of items that may provide valuable information on the culture. Once sold in the black market all trace evidence is lost.
In that example, I'll say we're better off with the artifact that has been properly documented and put into context of its environs. I struggle with the paternalistic attitude over today's museums with regard to returning the artifacts, though. Why does the Museum of Mankind in Paris have hidden in its basement 18,000 skulls that include the remains of African tribal chiefs, Cambodian rebels and 200 Native Americans? It's time to give up the spoils of colonialism.
In that example, I'll say we're better off with the artifact that has been properly documented and put into context of its environs. I struggle with the paternalistic attitude over today's museums with regard to returning the artifacts, though. Why does the Museum of Mankind in Paris have hidden in its basement 18,000 skulls that include the remains of African tribal chiefs, Cambodian rebels and 200 Native Americans? It's time to give up the spoils of colonialism.
Agree. In some cases it’s about money. Certain historical exhibits are sources of money (visitors, traveling exhibit, grants, donations, etc). Once artifacts, like skulls for example, have been documented (DNA, 3D scans, etc) then they should be returned to nation of origin.
What's the difference between an artifact stolen for cash versus an artifact stolen to be put in a museum? Either way, while the artifact may be free from destruction, it has been taken from the culture it belongs to, and every effort should be made to track down and return them (sorry British Museum).
I totally agree, and as soon as the US returns all the European Art and first edition literature back to Europe, then we will discuss sending other items back to other nations.
Sorry Getty Museum, Folger Shakespeare Library and numerous other such US museums and institutions.
The British Museums collection by and large is not full of looted artefacts, and the museum has managed to send teams to war torn parts of the world over the years to save many artefacts, including most recently in relation to the destruction of museums, ancient sites and artefacts by Islamic fundamentalist groups.
Whilst the Museum world with other museums, and lends artefacts, in order than the most people possible across the globe have access and can view such exhibitions.
The British Museum also has experts in the preservation of collection items, and some items would have been lost for ever if it hadn't been fr the British Museum and collectors such as Hans Sloane.
Last edited by Brave New World; 03-25-2023 at 05:41 AM..
During the colonial years in many countries, the indigenous cultures were considered quaint but inferior and mostly pagan -- sometimes dangerous. There were different forces at work to destroy cultural or religious sites or pilfer/steal anything of value or deemed artistic or just a novelty. That even included people in some cases. The cultural patrimony of many, if not all "subordinate" or "protected" colonial nations was fair game. Museums had little or nothing to do with it until late in the game. They, at least, made an effort to preserve what was left of the cultural artifacts.
Now we have some different issues with museums. Many large to medium sized museums have warehouses full of stuff that never goes on display to the public. That undermines any claim that they are keeping this material for a broader public view. There is also the question of human remains being held in museums. If museums send everything back to Honduras (or elsewhere) that was taken over the centuries, how much would be seen in public and how much sold into private collections?
Now, there are certain artifacts that stand out as problematic acquisition, if not theft. One example might be "Cleopatra's Needles" -- two ancient Egyptian obelisks from Alexandria that now reside in London and New York. These date to the time of Thutmose III and Rameses II. Paris also has an obelisk dating to Rameses II from Luxor. These were acquired as "gifts" from the Egyptian rulers in the 1800s. Egypt owed considerable debt to certain countries and the rulers jettisoned some of its cultural icons as gifts.
The British Earl of Elgin more or less looted Athens of the statues and Parthenon friezes in 1801 while Greece was under the control of the Ottomans. Elgin claimed he had permission from the Ottoman Sultan to take the Greek statues back to London. They are now housed in the British Museum. Newly independent Greece later asked to have them back in 1835. They are still in the possession of British Museum and Greece is still adamant that they be returned. UNESCO was to serve as a mediator in 2013 but Britain refused, and negotiations still continue sporadically. The British Museum is concerned about the precedent of having to repatriate everyone else's cultural artifacts if they agree to return the Elgin Marbles to Greece.
It's not just colonial acquisition of cultural patrimony or the British Museum -- various museums around the world have acquired similar collections from developing countries or tribal cultures that they retain or were parceled out and sold to collectors over the years. Museums sometimes have a problem with donors giving them too much stuff, often without adequate provenance.
There was a similar acquisition controversy between Peru and Yale University/Peabody Museum over hordes of artifacts brought back from Machu Picchu by Hiram Bingham beginning in 1911. These were supposed to be on loan from the Peruvian government for 18 months. Peru asked to have them back in 1920. Yale finally returned three large shipments of artifacts to Peru in 2011. Yale and Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco have a joint stewardship agreement. The artifacts are held at a museum and research center in Cusco and the Peabody Museum has some artifacts displayed - but on loan.
What's the difference between an artifact stolen for cash versus an artifact stolen to be put in a museum? Either way, while the artifact may be free from destruction, it has been taken from the culture it belongs to, and every effort should be made to track down and return them (sorry British Museum).
What about Mesopotamian and Ancient Egyptian artifacts? The governments there today have no respect for these culture and would likely neglect or destroy them. They certainly have no interest in destroying them. The Rosetta Stone was used as part of a wall for god's sake. Also look at what the Taliban did to Buddhist relics.
During the colonial years in many countries, the indigenous cultures were considered quaint but inferior and mostly pagan -- sometimes dangerous. There were different forces at work to destroy cultural or religious sites or pilfer/steal anything of value or deemed artistic or just a novelty. That even included people in some cases. The cultural patrimony of many, if not all "subordinate" or "protected" colonial nations was fair game. Museums had little or nothing to do with it until late in the game. They, at least, made an effort to preserve what was left of the cultural artifacts.
Now we have some different issues with museums. Many large to medium sized museums have warehouses full of stuff that never goes on display to the public. That undermines any claim that they are keeping this material for a broader public view. There is also the question of human remains being held in museums. If museums send everything back to Honduras (or elsewhere) that was taken over the centuries, how much would be seen in public and how much sold into private collections?
Now, there are certain artifacts that stand out as problematic acquisition, if not theft. One example might be "Cleopatra's Needles" -- two ancient Egyptian obelisks from Alexandria that now reside in London and New York. These date to the time of Thutmose III and Rameses II. Paris also has an obelisk dating to Rameses II from Luxor. These were acquired as "gifts" from the Egyptian rulers in the 1800s. Egypt owed considerable debt to certain countries and the rulers jettisoned some of its cultural icons as gifts.
The British Earl of Elgin more or less looted Athens of the statues and Parthenon friezes in 1801 while Greece was under the control of the Ottomans. Elgin claimed he had permission from the Ottoman Sultan to take the Greek statues back to London. They are now housed in the British Museum. Newly independent Greece later asked to have them back in 1835. They are still in the possession of British Museum and Greece is still adamant that they be returned. UNESCO was to serve as a mediator in 2013 but Britain refused, and negotiations still continue sporadically. The British Museum is concerned about the precedent of having to repatriate everyone else's cultural artifacts if they agree to return the Elgin Marbles to Greece.
It's not just colonial acquisition of cultural patrimony or the British Museum -- various museums around the world have acquired similar collections from developing countries or tribal cultures that they retain or were parceled out and sold to collectors over the years. Museums sometimes have a problem with donors giving them too much stuff, often without adequate provenance.
There was a similar acquisition controversy between Peru and Yale University/Peabody Museum over hordes of artifacts brought back from Machu Picchu by Hiram Bingham beginning in 1911. These were supposed to be on loan from the Peruvian government for 18 months. Peru asked to have them back in 1920. Yale finally returned three large shipments of artifacts to Peru in 2011. Yale and Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco have a joint stewardship agreement. The artifacts are held at a museum and research center in Cusco and the Peabody Museum has some artifacts displayed - but on loan.
Perhaps the Greeks can return the remains of the 371 young British soldiers, who were mostly National Servicemen (Conscripts), along with the 21 British policemen who died during the Cyprus Emergency (1955 to 1959), the majority having been killed by Greek Terrorist group the EOKA, in places such as Nicosia's murder mile.
There was even a civil war in Greece during WW2, when Communist forces fought Government forces, and the Greeks a far smaller and less able country have always had problems with their Turkish neighbours, indeed if it wasn't for the continued British presence they wouldn't even have a part of Cyprus, as the Turks would have taken the whole country, and British peacekeepers remain there to this day.
To put things in perspective regarding Greece and Turkey, Greece has a population of nearly 11 million, whilst Turkey has a population of over 85 million.
As for the Parthenon Mables, the British Museum has agreed to give some of them back, and the rest can regularly be loaned to Greek Museums.
The British Museum also issued a statement dispelling some of the myths regarding the Parthenon Sculptures, and it also shows their policy on the issue.
As for Cypriot Greek and Turkish communities, they can be found in Britain, and most notable in areas such as Green Lanes, Palmer Green, Wood Green etc.
Both communities are linked to serious organised crime and the powerful Turkish Mafia families are linked to the importation of heroin and other such drugs, that bring misery on to the streets of Britain and Europe.
Some common misconceptions regarding the Parthenon Marbles -
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Parthenon Sculptures: The Trustees' statement - British Museum
Common misconceptions
All of the sculptures from the Parthenon are in the British Museum
This is incorrect. About half of the sculptures from the Parthenon are lost, having been destroyed over the 2,500 years of the building's history. The sculptures that remain are found in museums in six countries, including the Louvre and the Vatican, though the majority is divided roughly equally between Athens and London.
The Parthenon sculptures now in the British Museum were stolen
This isn't true. Lord Elgin, the British diplomat who transported the sculptures to England, acted with the full knowledge and permission of the legal authorities of the day in both Athens and London. Lord Elgin's activities were thoroughly investigated by a Parliamentary Select Committee in 1816 and found to be entirely legal. Following a vote of Parliament, the British Museum was allocated funds to acquire the collection.
The Greek government has asked for a loan of the sculptures which has been turned down by the British Museum
The Trustees have never been asked for a loan of the Parthenon sculptures by Greece, only for the permanent removal of all of the sculptures in its care to Athens.
The Trustees will consider (subject to the usual considerations of condition and fitness to travel) any request for any part of the collection to be borrowed and then returned. The simple precondition required by the Trustees before they will consider whether or not to lend an object is that the borrowing institution acknowledges the British Museum's ownership of the object. In 2014 the Museum lent the pediment sculpture of the river-god Ilissos to the State Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg, Russia, on the anniversary of that museum's foundation. The Trustees frequently lend objects from the collection to museums all around the world, including Greece. The Museum lends thousands of objects to hundreds
of museums worldwide each year.
The Trustees' policy and their willingness to consider loans to Athens has been made clear to the Greek government, but successive Greek governments have refused to consider borrowing or to acknowledge the Trustees ownership of the Parthenon sculptures in their care. This has made any meaningful discussion on the issue virtually impossible.
The British Museum argues that the sculptures in their collection should remain in London because there's nowhere to house them in Greece and that the Greek authorities can't look after them
Neither of these claims is true, and the British Museum doesn't argue this. The Trustees argue that the sculptures on display in London convey huge public benefit as part of the Museum's worldwide collection. Our colleagues in Athens are, of course, fully able to conserve, preserve and display the material in their care. We admire the display in the Acropolis Museum, in which the Parthenon sculptures are complemented by casts of all of those in London and elsewhere, creating as full a picture as is now possible of the original sculptural decoration of the temple.
The division of the Parthenon sculptures is a unique case. The sculptures can only be appreciated as a complete set
This isn't so. Europe's complex history has often resulted in cultural objects, such as medieval and renaissance altarpieces from one original location being divided and distributed through museums in many countries. Bringing the Parthenon sculptures back together into a unified whole is impossible. The complicated history of the Parthenon meant that by 1800 about half of the sculptures had been lost or destroyed.
The sculptures could be reunited on the Parthenon
This isn't possible. Though partially reconstructed, the Parthenon is a ruin. It's universally recognised that the sculptures that still exist could never be safely returned to the building: they're best seen and conserved in museums. For this reason, all the sculptures that remained on the building have now been removed to the Acropolis Museum, and replicas are now in place.
The matter could be solved by the British Museum setting up an outpost in Athens
The Trustees of the British Museum believe that there's a great public benefit to seeing the sculptures within the context of the world collection of the British Museum, in order to deepen our understanding of their significance within world cultural history. This provides the ideal complement to the display in the Acropolis Museum. Both museums together allow the fullest appreciation of the meaning and importance of the Parthenon sculptures and maximise the number of people that can appreciate them.
UNESCO have offered to mediate on the issue but the British Museum has refused
The British Museum has a long history of collaboration with UNESCO and admires and supports its work. However, the British Museum isn't a government body. The Trustees have a legal and moral responsibility to preserve and maintain all the collections in their care and to make them accessible to world audiences. The Trustees want to strengthen existing good relations with colleagues and institutions in Greece, and to explore collaborative ventures directly between institutions, not on a government-to-government basis. This is why we believe that UNESCO involvement isn't the best way forward. Museums holding Greek works, whether in Greece, the UK or elsewhere in the world, are naturally united in a shared endeavour to show the importance of the legacy of ancient Greece. The British Museum is committed to playing its full part in sharing the value of that legacy for all humanity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
