Images of Hellenism
March 4, 2014
The Elgin Marbles: Fact or Feeling?

“In a confrontation between Greece and Britain over the marbles, Greece is clearly the sentimental favorite.” – John Henry Merryman

“The Elgin Marbles.” “The Parthenon Marbles.” “The Marbles.” Regardless of their description, these works of art are inarguably controversial. The debate surrounding the marbles is heated and far from reaching conclusion. Today, the controversy takes the shape of public protests, press releases from public figures, web-campaigns, and popular media coverage. Why is it that so many in the past have cared, and so many in the future likely will care, about the marbles? Perhaps they offer insight into the human condition, providing us with a global and cultural identity. Or maybe we simply enjoy the aesthetic appeal. Yet the reasoning behind a global interest in the marbles is not what lies at the heart of the controversy. The real issue is ownership. And allowing arguments based on national sentiment rather than legality and preservation to dictate the fate of the Elgin Marbles is irresponsible and, to some degree, disrespectful. Before a meaningful exploration of ownership can be pursued further, critical details regarding the actual acquisition of artifacts must be examined. First of all, Thomas Bruce (more commonly known as the Seventh Earl of Elgin, or Lord Elgin), and his crew brought back to Britain 247 feet of the 524 foot long Parthenon frieze. In addition to the frieze, Lord Elgin acquired 15 of the 92 metopes that “surrounded the top of the Parthenon’s outer colonnade and recounted assorted historical mythical battles.” Seventeen pedimental figures and a few architectural fragments were also included in Lord Elgin’s acquisition. While yes, ninety-five percent of the removed artifacts are currently in the British Museum, it is important to note the other five percent are scattered throughout the world. Fragments are featured in Vienna, Palermo, and even the Vatican. What antiquities Lord Elgin did bring to Britain by no means fell into his hands. Painstaking and often damaging excavation efforts occurred. And just as the massive stone sculptures were physically hard to remove, acquiring the legal rights to permanently transport them was similarly difficult. The British Government purchased the Elgin Marbles from Lord Elgin in 1816 for 35,000 pounds. But did Lord Elgin really have the right to profit off of stolen goods? Did the British government really see it fit to pay a large sum of money for stolen treasure? Or perhaps they were they never really stolen. For Lord Elgin may have been rough in his archaeological methods, yet he was somewhat meticulous in the area of documentation. At the time of the excavation, Greece was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, who issued Lord Elgin not just one but many “firman” necessary for overseas transport of the marbles. These firman, or permits, “gave written orders to the Athenian authorities to permit the shipment.” It is no secret, that the language and wording of these permits is ambiguous, yet a lack of clarity should not be considered as grounds for dismissal complete of these legal documents. By this logic, Lord Elgin possessed the right to sell goods he collected from a foreign country because the governing body at the time of transport gave him the documented authority to do so. Is it not “both fair and practically advantageous that people be able to rely on the existing law to determine the legality of their actions?” Greece won independence from the Ottomans in 1828. The first formal and widely vocalized movement to reclaim the marbles was not until 1983, 155 years after Lord Elgin’s departure from Athens. Why the sudden change of heart? Tourism. After World War II, “tourism grew into one of the globe’s largest industries,” and “Classical Athens’s acropolis drew millions of visitors, becoming a significant part of Greece’s economy.” It is tempting to assume those advocating for the repatriation of the marbles to Greece wish to return the sculptures back to monument itself, essentially completing the monument for the sake of originality. Yet the plan has never been to restore the marbles back onto the monument, rather to house them in a newly constructed museum nearby. Yes, the sculptures would be physically within the national borders of Greece, yet still removed from the Parthenon itself. But no self respecting Greek art historian, politician, or average citizen would lead with the selling point of generating capital flow as a result of tourism as a persuasion tactic. Instead, the phrase “cultural significance” would likely be implored. Because “in a confrontation between Greece and Britain over the marbles, Greece is clearly the sentimental favorite.” The sculptures were presumably crafted, positioned, and displayed in Greece. They reflect aspects of Greek history, despite how mysterious they are with regards to specificity and accuracy. To quote Melina Mercouri, the most public and revolutionary advocate for the repatriation, “this is our history, this is our soul…you must understand us. You must love us.” On the other hand, it is unfair to claim the marbles are not culturally significant to the British. The Elgin Marbles “arrived in England at the height of the transition from neo-classicism to romanticism.” Most believe Elgin sought the sculptures in the first place because he valued their craftsmanship, aesthetic inspiration, and cultural significance to his own people and not the price tag. His operations “were prompted by an interest in having Greek remains in material form, a concern that precedes the aesthetic criterion of authenticity of origin.” Casts were made and studies completed in order to improve future art forms and explore the Classical culture on which Western society so solidly rests. The fact of the matter is that relatively little is known about the history of the Parthenon, it’s creators or its purpose. So the attribution of “cultural significance” should be considered with caution as it depends “upon managed omissions and recently-acquired memories.”Both cultures are able to provide examples of why the marbles prove “culturally significant” to them, rendering this argument rather inconclusive. For when “cultural property does not seem important enough to call for deliberate consideration…sentiment may so overpower the other that they become impatient with the argument.” Simply stating the cultural significance of the marbles for Greek citizens has not proven persuasive enough, and the Greek government has, “rather than arguing about the legality of validity of the ‘firman’,” formulated a purely emotional argument. In other words, Greece’s persuasion tactics to reclaim the marbles hinge on shaming the British government, claiming more significant emotional attachments. There is no hiding this shaming technique, as the Greek government has funded a new Acropolis museum and left “large open space for the sculptures,” standing as a theatrical symbol of an open, cultural wound.
But is this new space enough proof that Greece is capable of displaying, maintaining, and securing the marbles at or above the level the British have? In Craig Childs’ book, Finders Keepers, a similarly controversial art history scandal is referenced in order to discuss the Elgin Marbles. Childs’ refers to the “Diamond Sutra” scroll and other manuscripts, predating even the Gutenberg Bible, as an example of a beneficial foreign possession accomplished by Aurel Stein, a Hungarian-British archaeologist. Childs claims, “if the Chinese had taken immediate control of the manuscripts prior to Stein’s arrival, their fate may have been far worse.” The government lacked funding, interest, and regulations to properly care and display the valuable items. A building is not conclusive proof. Going further, Childs implores the ideas of prominent archaeologist James O. Young: “cultures cannot rightly claim everything produced by past members…it would be untenable, a flood coming out of museums, private collections, and all those who bought trinkets at roadside stands.”
Emotions are inherently tied to any subject deemed “controversial.” Yet emotions, primarily sentimentalism and nationalism, are fleeting, evolving, and unreliable feelings lacking concrete evidence. Allowing the fate of the marbles, these global treasures, to be dictated by sentiment seems so uncalculated, unscholarly, and irresponsible. The Society for American Archaeology, issued a set of globally applicable, ethical principles and guidelines in 2000. The statement from the SAA highlights that “it is the responsibility of all archaeologists to work for the long-term conservation and protection of archaeological record…for the benefit of all people.” Of all people. Moving the marbles back to Greece could mean damaging them further, subjecting them to less than ideal preservation, and would stand as an example for future repatriation efforts that emotions, not legality and rationality, dictate the fate of the world’s art.