Archaeological remains - who cares?

[Robert Vermaat]

Well, the title seemed nice to get the attention. This thread is started to get some opinions about rights and duties, and the grey area inbetween.

CAREFUL though, lest we stray into politics. mentioning politics is of course allowed, as long as it's to do with the subject, and not when it comes to 'my country has more rights than your country' etc. etc.

I agree about the politics issues Vortigern though i didnt and dont intend to expand on those further i would hate to leave uncommented a point that was just a flare way beyond historical facts (something we care alot around here).

I can see the logic behind your points about early days of archaeology. I agree that we cant undo the past. But we can do the future. Since now archaiology isnt about tombraiding but about scienceof the highest level, and we claim to be more civilized than the people before us why dont return all the artifacts staying abroad to their rightfull owners. The exploit of those artifacts displayed in museums for centuries has payed back and more all the efforts the ''hosting'' countries have done.

I see your point. I can well understand the thought of modern people who feel robbed because so many of their ancient treasures is now in a museum in another country. And yes, my own country has its share of this.

The reasons for those treasures to move from one area, as we agree, hardly matters nowadays. Wheter stolen through greed, sold for profit, taken for study, the reasons then are not always agreed with now, or even known.
Items stolen in WWII have been dealt with in the courts (many of them quite recently), but how to deal with claims that go back at least a century or more?

Myself, I am not happy with the general idea of retrieving efforts. For one, they tend to stray quite quickly into an area where not the object is discussed, but nationalistic claims. Does a modern nation automatically have the rights on an object that was manufactured there, say, 2000 years ago?

Careful with your answer!

Why? Think of the consequences. Sure, the Elgin marbles would go to Greece. Sure, remain of ancient Polynesians would go home. But also every mummy would go to Egypt. And what about the obelisk in Rome? How about the Venice tetrarch statues – they would return to Istanbul, robbed as they were during the Crusades.

And so on, and so on. Would museums have to make an analysis of every object, and can every modern nation then claim that object, whether it was robbed or legally traded during its possible long history?

The ramifications are endless.
So, my thought and advice on this hot matter?

Be careful what you wish for. You might get it. :wink:

[Jona Lendering]

How about the Venice tetrarch statues – they would return to Istanbul, robbed as they were during the Crusades.

And after that, they would have to be returned to Alexandria, where they were stolen - by the very people who "took care" of the corpse of Saint Mark, if I recall correctly. :wink:

I think that the current int'l law, which applies to the return of Antiquities that left their original country after 1970, is fine. What was stolen/sold/taken before that year, can remain where it is. It is not the ideal solution, but it is a way to make this complex matter easier.

[taira1180]

It would be endless. In Portugal we would have the right to demand from france lot's of paintings and jewelry who were stolen in the napoleonic wars; but the indians (from India) could ask for lots of goods we plundered in the XVI/XVII century.

[Caius Fabius]

First, we have come a long way in methods of recording, testing a reproducing artifacts. Instead of passing the actual items from glass case to glass case, or back room to back room, the originals should be carefully examined, scanned, computer recorded, and stored in an archivally safe manner, by any country which can afford to do that. Any country having a unique artifact, whatever it's origin, should make copies available at a reasonable cost, to any museum or display that can display them for educational purposes.

If you can make exact copies, then the whole idea of 'collecting artifacts' for their intrinsic value would go by the wayside in most cases. This would eventually stop looting of sites for 'priceless artifacts', and send the 'just for money collectors' back to collecting baseball cards and autographs. :lol: Most people going to a museum don't know the difference between an artifact and a copy, (as can be proved by the movie experts who create costumes for Roman movies after wandering through some Italian museums).

Also, there should be an international agreement that all finds must be published (online and in accessible media) within so many months of recovery, depending on conservation requirements and that all artifacts must be conserved and recorded in a timely fashion. This would slow down the legal digging about and disturbing of sites and give unemployed history graduates a job. :lol:

All construction should be banned in areas where there are archaeological ruins, (especially pre-1300AD), and ring roads and new buildings should be limited to construction in the backyards of politicians and lawyers, (who must not be allowed withing 100,000 meters of suspected archaeological sites. This would have the added benefit of forcing lawyers and politicians to leave most of Europe and migrate to deserts or places like the USA and Australia. (I actually have Native Amerindian archaeological ruins from 1100-1200 in my area so they can't move here). :lol:


Lastly, any illegal artifact diggers should be sentenced to several years labor, at McDonald's or other fast food establishments, and encouraged to eat Big Macs and french fries / pommefritz until they no longer have the ability to bend over and dig in archaeological sites.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Seems there is never going to be a solution!
I feel the efforts the Greeks made to build a museum specifically for the Parthenon marbles have been ignored, and should be given their dues. What better place to see them than in the vicinity of the Acropolis? True this is just one issue, but it is one I feel is brushed aside at every mention.
Yes, at the time the marbles would eventually have been ground down for mortar or lime, but that time has long gone, and if it is possible to make exaxt copies, then there should not be a problem of having copies made for London, and returning the originals to Athens!
I think one or 2 countries have already made token gestures along this line, so it would kudos to any nation that made such a supreme and magnaminous effort, I think! I hope I am not being too political here, but if we are going to discuss this subject at all, seems to be there are some issues that have to be mentioned..... :roll:

Also, I hope I am not expected to recite in detail the entire history of every subject I comment on....not that I know it all :oops: :?

[Caius Fabius]

But then, in Nashville, TN, USA there is a complete replica copy of the Parthanon, 1 to 1 scale, so the Elgin marbles should be displayed there.... and they have a specific museum as well. :lol:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes verrrrrrry funny! :evil: :evil: :lol:

Not quite the same feeling to it though! 8)

[Caius Fabius]

You are right, the Parthanon in Nashville is not destroyed.

[Lusitano]

It is an interesting question, but if the "goods" were returned to their original place would that help archeology in general?

I mean lets face it, the "golden societies" of old are nowadays with a lot of economical difficulties. Would there be fundings in those countries so that reserach would be maintained?

I rather have artifacts in some place were people actually care for them and do proper research then to have them gather dust and mold in some forsaken museum.

Of course i would love to see portuguese armors here in portugal instead of watching them through photos in US or UK museums. But i also know the true reality of museums here in portugal, there is absolutely no funding. The military museum here in lisbon (portugal) has tons of arms and armor stuck in a basement (and because of its proximity to the tagus river sometimes gets flooded) just packed in boxes. They havent enough qualified labor to restore the artifacts and no space to display them.

I imagine that something similar can happen in other countries.

[lisa]

I have a particular interest in museum ethics (I have worked in several now). I have to say, most of our effort should be devoted to looking after artifacts that are in danger NOW through illegal trading rather than returning the pre-1970 stuff, as there is such a huge blackmarket (and not blackmarket, Sotheby's and Christie's are still full of looted artifacts and fakes) for illicit antiquities. In the end, as an archaeologist, most of the things that are currently in museums and bought off the art market are so divorced from any useful archaeological information as to make an argument for their return on that grounds rather meaningless. As art objects without context, their use for archaeology is incredibly low.

Cases like the Parthenon marbles are unique but still worth the debate. The BM legally has every right to keep them, so the question becomes whether or not they are serving the good of the world best by keeping them (for the record, my personal opinion is that the BM should give back the marbles but that they don't have to). The BM takes the stance that it is a world museum, like the Louvre, and should be a place where people can come and see all world cultures, not just Britain. I don't know whether that's a good thing or not--one stop shopping, or the necessity to go to the far corners of the world to get the same experience (and here I'm thinking of Adamklissi again, where it is wonderful to see all of the sculpture in an onsite museum, but how many people actually go? I saw very few people there and I know that area of Romania is difficult to reach.

Anyway, the BM has an interesting page about the Parthenon debate on their website
[url:3lpoe098]http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/gr/grparth.html[/url]
I don't agree with some of their arguments (the Greeks have been asking for the marbles for longer than is stated) but overall they give the sides of the debate fairly. It would likely set a bad precedent if the marbles went back to Greece--it would be the opening of Pandora's box. Pretty much everything in the Louvre was looted from Italy by Napoleon, but objects like the Mona Lisa and the Nike of Samothrace are now part of the Louvre's identity. Is it fair to say that, because a museum has only had an object for a few hundred years, that they aren't entitled? It's all part of the life history of works of art. We should focus our efforts on the ones that can still be saved.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes I would love to go see the marbles in London.... I have lived here for 32+ years, and the thing stopping me is the cost of going and staying in London!
The "Parthenon" imitation in the states is a fine copy of the real thing to be sure, but it will not have the feel of the real thing, in whatever state that may be now! I'm sure if the one in Nashville were to be destroyed, no one would blink an eye about it's loss, because it would not be a loss!
It is only a copy! 8)

The very fact that the marbles originated in Athens would draw even more people to it, and the site of the new museum is in view of the Acropolis, which would really put things in a perspective that the display in London will never have, nor a trip to Nashville! :wink:

Also, a needle was just returned to ?Etheopia?, by the Italian govt, so it is hardly going to open a pandoras box if the marbles are returned. They were after all, purchased from the Ottomans, not the Greeks, so the legality is pretty dubious?

That they have had an item for a few hundred years is all the more reason why the return of an item, if feasible, should be considered! :!:

[Ebusitanus]

I believe there are remains and then there are remains. The marbles, in this case, are part of quite an important complex and almost a national emblem. They should be returned.

Nations that have evolved and show to be able to care properly for their remains should be helped recover big national symbols. I would never return right now, say, the Ishtar gate to Irak...actually..the more we could cart away from there the better.

[lisa]

I would never return right now, say, the Ishtar gate to Irak...actually..the more we could cart away from there the better.

I hope you're being facetious. Iraq is one of those cases where we should be devoting our energy to protecting items that are being torn out of the ground for the sake of a little profit. It's just one of the many disasters America has brought down on that country. There should be more patrolling of sites and museums in danger and a bigger crackdown on the art market--the looting going on is against international law for a reason.

To play devil's advocate: The Ottomans sold the Parthenon marbles to Lord Elgin. There is some argument about whether Elgin took more than he was entitled, but it was all legal, as Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire at that point, and the sale is still legal even though the empire no longer exists. There is no proper court in the world that would not say the BM is legally entitled to keep them. Although the Greek argument would be that Greece did not want to be part of the Ottoman Empire, the reality is that it was. The Romans themselves looted art from dependant provinces in their own time, but they wouldn't have seen it as looting--those territories "belonged" to them. We rightly, hopefully, see that as bad behaviour to be prevented now, but it wasn't then.

Archaeological and museological ethics are as complicated as in any other discipline. There is generally no right or wrong answer, just prevailing points of view that change over time. I like this debate even though it usually gets my blood boiling

[Robert Vermaat]

The Romans themselves looted art from dependant provinces in their own time, but they wouldn't have seen it as looting--those territories "belonged" to them.

Exactly! And during Late Roman times, they hauled all kinds of stuff to decorate Constantinople, robbing more than a dozen cities, rather than carving it all anew.

Where would it end?

[Ebusitanus]

No, I mean UN sponsored safe keeping of valueable historic objects that should be dear to humanity and not at some bomb or looter´s mercy. I would evacuate till further solution of the conflict the most important pieces.