No, it really doesn’t. If an Indian prince gave/sold historic artifacts to the Britons during the period that said prince was regarded as the legitimate ruler of that territory, then the current Indian government doesn’t just get to dismiss all previous rulers as illegitimate and overturn their decisions. That is chaos, not some orderly system of property rights.
For example, the Indian government has demanded the return of the Koh-i-Noor diamond, currently in the British Crown Jewels; however, in 2016 the Solicitor General of India told the Indian Supreme Court that the Koh-i-Noor “was given by the successors of Maharaja Ranjit Singh (of Punjab) to the East India Company in 1849 as compensation for helping them in the Sikh wars … The British did not steal the famed Kohinoor diamond.” (cite) Do we accept his words? Why or why not? (Remember, this was in 2016, and the solicitor general had not yet been born when the British left India, so this isn’t some colonial appeasement.)
Adding to the confusion, the governments of Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan have also demanded the return of this exact same diamond. Who are you going to return it to, and why is theirs the “better” or more legitimate claim?
See, here’s where I think you demonstrate inconsistency if not hypocrisy. In South Asia you are ready to turn the artifacts over to the CURRENT governing authority, even if they weren’t the ones who made the artifacts, even if they were the ones who chased away or massacred the ones who do have a cultural link. In South Asia, you don’t care about the history or who forced who away; it only matters who is there now, while in North America you do care about the history and “legitimacy.” Other than the race of the current governing authority, what is the basis for this difference in your opinion?
The operative word here is 'claim". The Ottomans ruled and changed Greece quite a bit during their 300 years , the Greek intelligentsia migrating to Western Europe and the other Greeks leaving the plains of the Greek peninsula and resettling in the mountains. Not to mention a couple millenia of Roman rule.
Just because you live on the same landmass, doesnt mean you have claim to everything ever built or made there.
And the Ottomans were the recognized legitimate sovereign rulers of Greece. And they sold the Elgin marbles. Are you saying they didnt have the authority to do so? They ruled Greece for around 300 years.
Interesting zombie but, I’m pretty darn sure the Greeks did not consider the Ottoman’s as legitimate rulers nor did they approve of the removal of the Elgin Marbles by the Ottomans.
Any discussion of their status will need to start from the provenance of their removal.
I, honestly, don’t understand the refusal to acknowledge that invading, colonizing, and stealing historic artifacts is bad. Such items should be returned to local authorities for their benefit.
I know, the British museum will look more empty with only British items and not the colonial loot… Quelle dommage. No sympathy.
I don’t think it would be that bad really - museums loan or rent out items to other museums, so it’s quite possible for a museum to have an interesting display without needing to ‘own’ it all; furthermore some of the items on display in museums are replicas (while the original is onsite, but stored safely in a crate in the basement) - why do they even need the original in those cases?
The Byzantines certainly considered themselves Romans, but their language and culture were Greek. It was certainly not foreign rule. The Byzantine period meant more than 1000 years of Greek rule.
But it seems to me that all this is beside the point with regard to the Elgin Marbles.
Whether the Ottomans were the legitimate rulers or not, whether Lord Elgin obtained them legally or not, whether he ‘saved’ them or not – what difference does it really make?
The fact is the British Museum has them, but they are central to Greek history and culture, and Greece wants them back.
They should be returned simply because of their value and importance to Greece, whether as a gift, or reparation, or however you choose to look at it.
I think what the British Museum is afraid of is a slippery slope, and being deluged with requests. But I think that’s unfounded. They should consider requests on a case by case basis, and return important and unique items that matter.
As @Mangetout says, with modern technology it’s possible to make replicas that are practically indistinguishable from the originals, as far as the museum-going public are concerned, anyway. There’s no reason they can’t display replicas and return the originals.
Yep, if you’ve ever been to an exhibition of ‘The Treasures of Tutankhamun’, chances are you were looking at replicas. I suppose it isn’t as thrilling as the real thing, once you know.
I think for everyday objects such as many of the small finds on display in the British Museum, there’s no real reason for them to be repatriated - especially if they are examples of something that has been found more than once, but for unique articles of national significance, I think the country where they were found should have a say in their destiny
The fact is the IRS has my tax money, but they are central to my history and culture, and I want them back.
They were sold by the legitimate government. Now it is sad that the Ottomans did so, but if they hadnt, there quite possibly wouldnt be any Marbles to argue about. Or they’d be badly damaged.
The Greek Government can offer to pay for them to get them back, and the Museum shoudl consider any reasonable offer.