Cultural Issues of the Elgin Marbles

“the Parthenon marbles are to the Greek nation a thousand times more dear and more important than they can ever be to the English nation, which simply bought them”
-Frederic Harrison, “Giving Back the Elgin Marbles”

Without the financial means and economic support for recovering the Parthenon marbles, Greece is forced to miss essential pieces of its history and culture. The Parthenon marbles consist of one-hundred and fifteen panels of frieze, only ninety-four of which are extant. Of the surviving panels of frieze, the British Museum holds fifty-six, and of the surviving metopes (of the original ninety-two), it holds fifteen. The building and sculptures of the Parthenon were conceived and executed together for a specific purpose. They are better understood and appreciated if they can be seen together as a united image of Greek culture and identity. The negative effects of looting pushed Elgin to remove the marbles from their original historical and cultural context and to split them up, destroying their most effective display. Greece’s cultural identity would be better preserved if its archaeological cultures could be displayed altogether. Looting has split up cultural material from its country of origin which has caused negative effects on the presentation of the modern archaeology.

Looting has further created a negative image of the British Museum which currently holds the majority of the Parthenon marbles taken by Elgin. The British Museum has consistently attempted to present itself as a capable home for the Parthenon marbles. The Museum states that the marbles are seen by five million visitors a year and are actively studied and researched in order to promote a worldwide understanding of Greek culture. This seems like a valid argument, but Greece and its advocates continuously counteracts it by stating that the marbles cannot be considered completely part of the Greek culture unless they are displayed within (or at least closer to) their original context. The British Museum has also received criticism for harming the cultural identity of the Greeks due to the presentation of the Parthenon marbles in the museum. The Parthenon marbles were made to be on the outside wall of the Parthenon, but at the British Museum, they are displayed on the inside of the wall.

 
           The British Museum and its capability of presenting the Parthenon marbles have been negatively affected by looting. The modern archaeology of Greece and its representation to the wider populace has been damaged due to looting removing the archaeological evidence from its original and therefore most effective context.

Financial Issues of the Elgin Marbles

I decided to continue my discussion around the Elgin marbles for this week’s blog posts because one, I find this situation to be fascinating, and two, because they were discussed in our readings for this week’s class. This post discusses the financial implications that the Elgin marbles have had.

The political struggles did and still do transfer to the financial struggles that have resulted from the removal of the Parthenon marbles. Elgin had funded the project with his own money and thus introduced a personal dimension of finance into the situation. In 1816 Elgin sold his collection of the Parthenon marbles to the British government, which then presented the marbles to the British Museum. Regardless of the reason for the selling of the marbles by Elgin to the British government, it is evident that financial factors were at play in the situation during the nineteenth century.

A difficult financial situation still exists in today’s case of the Parthenon marbles. As of 2010, the financial problems in Greece have escalated due to poor tax-collection and the reluctance of the wealthy to pay taxes. This situation presents Greece as an unstable home for the Parthenon marbles. Furthermore, the New Acropolis Museum opened in 2009 to a very welcoming populace. The construction of this museum purposely places a huge emphasis on the display of archaeological remains, and Athens has spent millions of dollars on the museum which is ready to house the Parthenon marbles.

           
          The return of the marbles would improve Greece’s current financial situation. The financial struggles of Greece are having negative effects on the Parthenon’s modern archaeology and the presentation of it. The Elgin marbles presents us with a situation concerning archaeological ethics and how morality is often highly affected by finances. Even though morals/ethics and finance are supposed to be two very different topics of interest, they often intersect, making it necessary to consider them both at the same time.

Political Issues of the Elgin Marbles

Elgin’s disregard for the historicity of the Parthenon and the images that it preserved caused great upset and turmoil among the Greek population. The removal of the Parthenon marbles created strains between Greece and England which would continue for centuries after.

Complex political relationships resulted from the power of empires in the nineteenth century which affected the political situations between the Ottomans, British, and the Greeks. During the time of Elgin and his project of the Parthenon, Greece was under the power of the Ottoman Empire. In the case of the Parthenon marbles, the Ottomans showed little to no concern for the temples under their control and even desecrated them for their own purposes. This indifference towards the Greek culture by the Ottomans only added to the pre-existing hatred for them by the Greeks. It has been suggested by some scholars that the Ottomans’ decision to allow the British to have control over the Parthenon marbles resulted from the fact that the Ottomans were grateful to Britain, which had blocked the advance of Napoleon in Egypt. The political relationship between the Ottoman Empire and the British Empire ultimately resulted in the destruction of the Greek culture. In 1821 there was a national Greek revolution, during which the Greeks expressed themselves strongly about the removal of the Parthenon marbles. In 1829 the Greeks gained complete independence from Ottoman rule and immediately began to advocate their dismay to the British. This devastation of the Greeks would transfer from the Ottomans to the British in later years.

The Greeks united after being freed from Ottoman rule and began to take steps towards getting the Parthenon marbles back from the British. In 1835 the Greek Archaeological Service came to be formed with the Acropolis under its jurisdiction. The Service then became responsible for all conservation, excavation, and restoration of the Parthenon. The Service paved the way for future efforts of restoring the Parthenon to its original magnitude. The poor political situation between the Greeks and the British still exists today and thus has a negative impact on modern archaeology. Today the Greeks are employing various political devices in order to get the British to return the Parthenon marbles. For example, the British Committee for the Restitution of the Parthenon Marbles has called upon a previous UN resolution, which states that “the return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin...[is for the means of] protecting cultural property.”

I believe that Greece has a right to its own heritage and should not have to prove their ability to care for it. Looting, which influenced the desire for the Parthenon marbles, has created a tense political situation between England and Greece which will not be resolved very easily. Modern archaeology has been negatively affected by this political situation because the Greeks feel that they are not able to present the archaeological evidence of their own heritage in a proper manner.

Introducing the Elgin Marbles

Lord Elgin

One of the many removed Parthenon Marbles

 This post is related to this week’s and last week’s discussions of looting and the “ethically correct” owner’s of looted objects. The controversy of the Parthenon Marbles can be used to determine the negative role of looting in history and how it still affects the modern archaeology of Greece today. This post will introduce the controversy of the Elgin or Parthenon Marbles.

In 1799 Thomas Bruce, the seventh Earl of Elgin, was appointed as British ambassador to the Ottoman government. In his new position, Bruce began travelling to Athens and it was here that he became intrigued with the Parthenon and, consequently, became involved with what some would call looting. In April of 1801, Elgin’s plan surpassed making copies and representations, he now wished to collect a few scattered pieces of the Parthenon. Elgin devoted himself and all of his efforts towards removing as much of the Parthenon marbles as he possibly could manage and sending them back to England.

In July 1801 Elgin was granted a firman, or ‘official letter’, by the Ottoman Sultan which allowed him to continue his work on the Parthenon without any pressing legal conflict. Translations have revealed that the firman authorized Elgin to ‘remove some stones with inscriptions and figures,’ not to violently remove sculptures from the Parthenon. There still remains a considerable amount of doubt around what the firman actually allowed Elgin to do.

This particular event in history can be related to Julian’s stance as an antiques dealer. Elgin can be considered an antiques dealer of a sort. He was collecting important artifacts from the Parthenon for a British museum collection. Elgin sought the most beautiful and artistic pieces from the Parthenon and sent them back to England to be put on display. Elgin’s actions were essentially those of an antiques dealer, so are his actions justified in that sense?

I personally think that Elgin was justified in his actions as an art collector, but succeeded in destroying a very important part of Greece’s history. His removal of the marbles was not in any way archaeological and he therefore can be considered a looter. There are many questions and problems that surround his actions. Hence, I feel that it is important to analyze this event from more than just an archaeological perspective.

Issue: Relic Hunters in Quantico, Virginia

“Typically relic hunters are only interested in the object. But even those who care about the history of an artifact take it out of context when they collect it, then you don’t know where it came from. Taking an artifact makes it no longer a reliable piece of information.” - John Haynes (Archaeologist at the Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Va.)

                I found this issue to be of interest because it relates particularly to what we were discussing in class this past week. There have been issues at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia regarding the protection of the archaeological Civil War campsites located around the base’s school. The area, even though it is not a historical landmark, is protected under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. The Protection Act governs the archaeological sites on federal and Indian lands in the United States, and the removal and disposition of archaeological collections from those sites.

                The main concern at the Marine Corps Base is that some artifacts that are easy to uncover, such as bullets, arrowheads, and buttons, are not protected under the Protection Act of 1979 and are therefore being removed from the site and consequently the archaeological context. John Haynes (see quote above) explains the problems with relic hunters and their carelessness towards the context of an object that they take. Even if the relic hunter is interested in the historical significance of an object, they do not care about the context, which is one of the most important aspects of an archaeological find.

                For instances such as the one in Quantico, surveillance of these protected areas must be enforced and looters and relic hunters should be punished appropriately for removing important pieces of history from their context.