A few British Museum treasures

[foxy]

I only had a short 3 hours this morning but what I did see was really great. The museum is free but there was a huge line outside. Luckily the friends I was with are members so we went right in before the crowds. It pays to know the right people lol. 

[foxy]

For those interested, on the British Museum website, you can find something called The Parthenon Sculptures: The Trustees’ statement regarding their position about returning the sculptures to Greece. It’s worth a read and you can decide for yourself if you agree with their position or not. 

British Museum

WWW.BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG

---

Welcome to the British Museum - discover two million years of human history and culture.

 

[+ nycman]

3 hours ago, foxy said:

For those interested, on the British Museum website, you can find something called The Parthenon Sculptures: The Trustees’ statement regarding their position about returning the sculptures to Greece. It’s worth a read and you can decide for yourself if you agree with their position or not. 

British Museum

WWW.BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG

---

Welcome to the British Museum - discover two million years of human history and culture.

 

Please, if the Ottomans (who had been ruling Athens for over 350 years) hadn’t turned them over to the British in the very early 1800’s the entire thing would be dust by now. The Greeks should thank the Brit’s for saving their heritage and be stupendously happy with the high quality reproductions that now sit in an Acropolis museum. Today it’s an idiotic political football. Nothing more. I hope the British protect them για πάντα (forever). 

Edited June 13, 2024 by nycman

[Welshman]

The Elgin Marbles have been cited in recent debates about whether items held in British museums should be sent back to their own nations. Indeed the Welsh Government has stated that it believes 90% of the items held in museums in Wales do not belong in Wales.

There is a touring exhibition of items from the British Museum collected in the 17th century by Sir Hans Sloane, however due to the Welsh Governments "Anti Racial Wales" policy instituted in 2020, every time it is exhibited in Wales every piece has a counter exhibition called "We were here first" which is a collection of "art that demonstrates we were always here" from artists representing "the global majority" as a protest against the collection

Re-examining Sir Hans Sloane’s collections

WWW.NHM.AC.UK

 

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

Love The British, but FUCK they have a lot of the Parthenon. 

Would it kill them to give it back?

[+ nycman]

47 minutes ago, BenjaminNicholas said:

Love The British, but FUCK they have a lot of the Parthenon. 

Would it kill them to give it back?

Fuck off, the god damn Greeks should give them the remaining 5% to make a compete set.

grin

[Monarchy79]

7 hours ago, BenjaminNicholas said:

Love The British, but FUCK they have a lot of the Parthenon. 

Would it kill them to give it back?

There’s been a lot of controversy over the Brits and the Americans turning over  artifacts from other nations (Greece (the Parthebon) and Africa (the Benin Bronzes).

I understand why it’s “right” to return them (in a social-awareness sense, based on principles), but technically, museums like the British Museum and the Smithsonian have the resources and technology to ensure that these artifacts are protected and preserved, and are located in places that gives them better access for the world to see. 
 

[CuriousByNature]

6 hours ago, Monarchy79 said:

There’s been a lot of controversy over the Brits and the Americans turning over  artifacts from other nations (Greece (the Parthebon) and Africa (the Benin Bronzes).

I understand why it’s “right” to return them (in a social-awareness sense, based on principles), but technically, museums like the British Museum and the Smithsonian have the resources and technology to ensure that these artifacts are protected and preserved, and are located in places that gives them better access for the world to see. 
 

True enough, and I have enjoyed seeing artefacts gathered in one place like the British Museum, but ultimately these were not created for the world to view.  They were often made for a specific people, at a specific time and place, and for a specific (often sacred or ceremonial) purpose.  I used to think these treasures were better off in museums where they could be preserved, but now I think they're best placed with their creators.  Even if that means they cannot be preserved to the same level of perfection as in a museum setting.  Exact copies could be made and kept at museums, and then the originals could be returned so that the local population might preserve a bit more connection to their history and culture.  I doubt this will likely happen on a wide scale, but it would be nice if the local population had greater access to artefacts their ancestors created.  To be clear, I would advocate for the return of objects that were taken and had a ceremonial or sacred purpose, not artefacts that were created to be sold or traded.

Edited June 16, 2024 by CuriousByNature

[+ nycman]

1 hour ago, CuriousByNature said:

ultimately these were not created for the world to view

Says who?

1 hour ago, CuriousByNature said:

now I think they're best placed with their creators.

Most of whom have been dead for centuries.
So…do you want us to bury them, place them on funeral pyres, inside pyramids, or sink them to the bottom of the ocean?

1 hour ago, CuriousByNature said:

Exact copies could be made and kept at museums,

Why not give these "exact copies’ to the locals, and let the museums keep preserving the originals as they have for centuries?
The originals cannot be replaced. That way, when the "locals" loose, destroy, or simply misplace their copies (which you know they will), they can just be given more copies.

1 hour ago, CuriousByNature said:

greater access to artefacts their ancestors created.

yeah…like in free museum, in a world capital, someplace everyone can get to…you know, like London. 

1 hour ago, CuriousByNature said:

I would advocate for the return of objects that were taken and had a ceremonial or sacred purpose, not artefacts that were created to be sold or traded.

Good luck figuring out which pieces those are.
You know all the "world famous" pieces would immediately be classified as "sacred" by the locals, regardless of their origin or purpose.

Your intentions are noble, but I feel misguided. They will lead to a great loss for humanity. 

At the end of the day it’s all about the money. To pretend otherwise is naive and/or disingenuous. 

[CuriousByNature]

7 hours ago, nycman said:

Says who?

Most of whom have been dead for centuries.
So…do you want us to bury them, place them on funeral pyres, inside pyramids, or sink them to the bottom of the ocean?

Why not give these "exact copies’ to the locals, and let the museums keep preserving the originals as they have for centuries?
The originals cannot be replaced. That way, when the "locals" loose, destroy, or simply misplace their copies (which you know they will), they can just be given more copies.

yeah…like in free museum, in a world capital, someplace everyone can get to…you know, like London. 

Good luck figuring out which pieces those are.
You know all the "world famous" pieces would immediately be classified as "sacred" by the locals, regardless of their origin or purpose.

Your intentions are noble, but I feel misguided. They will lead to a great loss for humanity. 

At the end of the day it’s all about the money. To pretend otherwise is naive and/or disingenuous. 

1. I would venture to guess that the majority of artefacts were created without the notion that they would be on display for the world to see.  Many, like totem poles, fetish statues, etc were for the use of the community itself, or even for a specific figure.  Others, such as the Elgin Marbles, were likely created to impress visitors to Athens, not visitors to the British Museum.

2. By 'creators' I mean the culture they were created by, not the actual manufacturer.  If the carver of the Elgin Marbles is still alive he might be living in Florida or Palm Springs now.

3.  The originals would probably have a deeper meaning to those from whom they were taken, compared to those who walk by in a museum.  Some artifacts are imbued with a spiritual significance by the maker, such as certain tribal regalia, that a facsimile would not carry.  Therefore, let the creating culture benefit from the original.  And if the original is ultimately damaged or lost, that's sometimes unavoidable.  It happens in museums too, unfortunately.  Throughout history artefacts were created and eventually degraded through use by those groups who created them.  There's nothing wrong with that.

4. The vast majority of people from villages where artefacts were created will never be able to travel to see their treasures on display in the British Museum, or other museums around the world.  Museums provide access to those who are well-off enough to live in a major city, or have the funds to travel to such places.  And it's probably painful for people to see their cultural treasures on display and not being used for the purpose they were originally intended - in Canada this is why numerous artefacts are being returned to First Nations, so that they can be kept within the community and for the community's benefit.

5. It isn't that difficult to determine which objects are ceremonial and which are for trade/sale.  Most cultural groups are concerned with specific artefacts that hold a particular value to their history and practices, or were clearly meant to remain in situ until they naturally degraded - such as totem poles and the Elgin Marbles.  

I don't think my intentions are particularly noble - I love going to museums and seeing the artefacts I would never get to see otherwise.  But that said, I understand why cultures wish to reclaim their artefacts.  Non-indigenous Americans and Canadians have not really faced having our cultural property taken away and kept from us.  It would be like Saudi Arabia removing the 911 memorial and placing it on display in Riyadh, where the majority of Americans will never be able to visit.  And if they do, it would never have the same meaning as it does on American soil.

[JourneysEnd]

On 6/17/2024 at 1:51 AM, CuriousByNature said:

1. I would venture to guess that the majority of artefacts were created without the notion that they would be on display for the world to see.  Many, like totem poles, fetish statues, etc were for the use of the community itself, or even for a specific figure.  Others, such as the Elgin Marbles, were likely created to impress visitors to Athens, not visitors to the British Museum.

2. By 'creators' I mean the culture they were created by, not the actual manufacturer.  If the carver of the Elgin Marbles is still alive he might be living in Florida or Palm Springs now.

3.  The originals would probably have a deeper meaning to those from whom they were taken, compared to those who walk by in a museum.  Some artifacts are imbued with a spiritual significance by the maker, such as certain tribal regalia, that a facsimile would not carry.  Therefore, let the creating culture benefit from the original.  And if the original is ultimately damaged or lost, that's sometimes unavoidable.  It happens in museums too, unfortunately.  Throughout history artefacts were created and eventually degraded through use by those groups who created them.  There's nothing wrong with that.

4. The vast majority of people from villages where artefacts were created will never be able to travel to see their treasures on display in the British Museum, or other museums around the world.  Museums provide access to those who are well-off enough to live in a major city, or have the funds to travel to such places.  And it's probably painful for people to see their cultural treasures on display and not being used for the purpose they were originally intended - in Canada this is why numerous artefacts are being returned to First Nations, so that they can be kept within the community and for the community's benefit.

5. It isn't that difficult to determine which objects are ceremonial and which are for trade/sale.  Most cultural groups are concerned with specific artefacts that hold a particular value to their history and practices, or were clearly meant to remain in situ until they naturally degraded - such as totem poles and the Elgin Marbles.  

I don't think my intentions are particularly noble - I love going to museums and seeing the artefacts I would never get to see otherwise.  But that said, I understand why cultures wish to reclaim their artefacts.  Non-indigenous Americans and Canadians have not really faced having our cultural property taken away and kept from us.  It would be like Saudi Arabia removing the 911 memorial and placing it on display in Riyadh, where the majority of Americans will never be able to visit.  And if they do, it would never have the same meaning as it does on American soil.

I generally agree with your points however I think the comparison with the 911 memorial is a false equivalence- and a very emotive one. You can't fairly compare a memorial to an event in living memory to objects of antiquity.

[CuriousByNature]

5 hours ago, JourneysEnd said:

I generally agree with your points however I think the comparison with the 911 memorial is a false equivalence- and a very emotive one. You can't fairly compare a memorial to an event in living memory to objects of antiquity.

I see your point, and agree with that for most museum items.  But there are artefacts that while significantly old, still hold incredible importance to the community they were created for.  It's not 'apples to apples' by any means, but I believe there is some equivalency.  For example, the return of the Wampum Belts to the Six Nations Iroquois in Ontario back in the 1980s was incredibly important and emotional for that community.

[mike carey]

5 hours ago, JourneysEnd said:

I generally agree with your points however I think the comparison with the 911 memorial is a false equivalence- and a very emotive one. You can't fairly compare a memorial to an event in living memory to objects of antiquity.

In general that's true, but it relies on our concept of antiquity and of historical time. Many cultures have a similar concept of things from their history as we do. Some indigenous, and oral, cultures don't have that distinction, memory that is personal and that is passed down orally, whether one generation or a thousand, is seen as the same thing.

[+ Charlie]

The Parthenon friezes were probably considered more culturally important to educated Britons of 19th century London than they were to most citizens of 19th century Athens, who were doing nothing to preserve them. For most Orthodox Greeks, they were remnants of a false religion which they had rejected. Two hundred years later, perspectives on relations between material art and the culture that created it have changed, particularly among educated persons everywhere, and questions of ownership are no longer considered simple judicial matters. Rational arguments can be made for returning the art to Greece or for keeping the work at the British Museum, and one side will certainly be dissatisfied with whatever the outcome is.

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

On 6/16/2024 at 8:51 PM, CuriousByNature said:

It would be like Saudi Arabia removing the 911 memorial and placing it on display in Riyadh, where the majority of Americans will never be able to visit.  And if they do, it would never have the same meaning as it does on American soil.

And yet, pieces of the World Trade Towers steel are on display across the world.  In Las Vegas, one of our local Fire Departments has steel from the World Trade Center on display at its station.  And no, the original Architects of the World Trade Center never intended for those buildings to be on display outside other buildings' original site.  This supports what the world is doing now: spreading the wealth of art and artifacts around the world for as many people to see and preserve.

Edited June 27, 2024 by Vegas_Millennial

[forrestreid]

On 6/27/2024 at 12:37 AM, Charlie said:

The Parthenon friezes were probably considered more culturally important to educated Britons of 19th century London than they were to most citizens of 19th century Athens, who were doing nothing to preserve them.

That is unfair.

At the time Parthenon Marbles were removed, Athens was under Turkish rule. Many of the locals may not have understood the significance of the marbles, but many of the more educated certainly did.

Within two years of the foundation of the first proper independent Greek administration in 1832, the Greek state had passed national legislation on the protection of antiquities, which provided that  “all antiquities within Greece, as works of the ancestors of the Hellenic people, shall be regarded as national property of all Hellenes in general” 

This at a time when few western European countries had legislation on protecting antiquities.

Also, although the nineteenth century Greeks were very proud of their Christian Byzantine heritage, they were also proud of their Classical history. Just look at government buildings built in Athens in the nineteenth century, like the university building or the National Library building. All strictly classical, intended to hark back to  what they saw as their "golden age".

[+ Charlie]

6 hours ago, forrestreid said:

That is unfair.

At the time Parthenon Marbles were removed, Athens was under Turkish rule. Many of the locals may not have understood the significance of the marbles, but many of the more educated certainly did.

Within two years of the foundation of the first proper independent Greek administration in 1832, the Greek state had passed national legislation on the protection of antiquities, which provided that  “all antiquities within Greece, as works of the ancestors of the Hellenic people, shall be regarded as national property of all Hellenes in general” 

This at a time when few western European countries had legislation on protecting antiquities.

Also, although the nineteenth century Greeks were very proud of their Christian Byzantine heritage, they were also proud of their Classical history. Just look at government buildings built in Athens in the nineteenth century, like the university building or the National Library building. All strictly classical, intended to hark back to  what they saw as their "golden age".

Thanks for reminding me of the historical reason why the friezes were not being properly maintained at the time that Elgin made his argument for removing them to London.. Of course, Elgin did not know what the Greeks would do after they won their war of independence from the Turks, so the British Museum felt that technically they had a right to keep artwork that they had gone to considerable trouble to obtain. As I said, attitudes have changed over the years toward art that many people now considered to have been "stolen" from the "rightful owners." Museums are now facing the same pressures to return anthropological holdings, such as corpses, to the descendants of the cultural groups from which they were taken.

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

Indiana Jones would be considered the bad guy in today's cancel culture 😢 

 

[+ APPLE1]

First things first, I have no doubt that there are countries, cultures, private collectors, etc who have absconded with antiquities of others unscrupulously. But, I am not convinced ALL antiquities have been gathered unscrupulously or need to be returned.

After visiting Greece and Turkey and getting a local perspective, I was left with many questions about "antiquies theft."
The locals voiced frustration over construction. Claiming that 'with a civilization this old, any time you dig, you inevitably find old crap. Then you have to contact the gov't, wait months or years for someone to show up, look at the stuff, and decide if it's important, or you can keep/throw away the stuff on your land.'

I think it's important to recognize that 'familiarity breeds contempt' is a significant concept that transcends all socioeconomic boundaries. I am not convinced that if it was excess crap to me, and I threw it away, gave it away, or sold it, years later some ancestor is simply entitled to decide it's not crap to them and reclaim it.

In some countries, outside of human remains, you basically own, and are free to do with what you please, anything you find on your land. I am not only left with questions about when the controlling authority changed philosophy or law within a nation, but also "who" was "in charge" of their release.

In earlier eras, when record keeping and public awareness was less, were there landowners selling/giving away antiquities? Government officials acting outside their authority and granting approval? Taking of bribes? Someone just too lazy to create a proper official record of the transfer?

[euwc888]

Can recommend a film starring Josh O’Connor about, depending on your opinion, the preserving or looting of art/artefacts

La Chimera (2023) - IMDb

M.IMDB.COM

---

2h 10m | Not Rated

La Chimera - Official Trailer | IMDb

M.IMDB.COM

---

A group of archaeologists and the black market of historical artifacts.