Argument: Developing countries are able to guard and preserve their own cultural treasures

It may have been true that countries such as Greece were not capable of looking after their heritage in the past, but that has now changed. Since 197

5 Greece has been carefully restoring the Acropolis and Athens now has a secure environment to maintain the marbles. The state-of-the-art New Acropolis Museum, which cost $200m, has now been completed to house the surviving marbles [1] , and even contains a replica of the temple, thus the marbles would appear as being exactly the same as on the real temple. Pollution control measures (such as installing pollution monitoring stations throughout metropolitan Athens and ensuring that motor vehicles must comply with emission standards [2] ) have reduced sulphur-dioxide levels in the city to a fifth of their previous levels.

At the same time the curatorship of institutions such as the British Museum is being called into question, as it becomes apparent that controversial cleaning and restoration practices may have harmed the sculptures they claim to protect. In the 1930s the British museum’s attempt to clean them using chisels caused irreparable damage. [3] They have also been irresponsible when it comes to protecting the fate of many of its artefacts: “The British Museum has sold off more than 30 controversial Benin bronzes for as little as £75 each since 1950, it has emerged”; “The museum now regrets the sales” [4] .

[1] Acropolis museum, Home page.

[2] Alexandros.com, ‘Greece’.

[3] Smith, Helena, ‘British damage to Elgin marbles ‘irreparable’’, The Guardian, 12 November 1999.

[4] BBC News, ‘Benin bronzes sold to Nigeria’, 27th March 2002.

Candidate 1: "Scholars will have better access to artefacts, and more opportunities for study and collaboration, if they are stored in the west

If the Rosetta Stone had not been taken by the British in 1801, the deciphering of the ancient hieroglyphic language of the ancient Egyptian civilizations would have been near impossible. The British Museum is within just hours, and in some cases minutes, of such world-renowned institutions as Cambridge, Oxford, UCL, and Edinburgh. The scientific research that occurs in stable developed countries and scientifically excelling countries is of the highest degree, and parallels to this high level of study are simply non-existent in many underdeveloped countries."
Candidate 2: "For whatever reason the treasures were first collected, we should not rewrite history. There is no reason to politicise this argument; museums have no 'political' agenda but merely wish to preserve historical objects for their intrinsic value. Their reasons for keeping these items may be financial, or in the interests of keeping the artefacts safe and accessible to the public; whatever they may be, they are not political. Don’t the nations who have expended resources protecting and preserving these artefacts deserve in return the right to display them?

Additionally, not all artefacts held outside their country of origin are the result of imperial or exploitative relationships. The original Medieval Crown of England is held in Munich [1] . Artistic exchange has nothing to do with politics anymore.

[1] Bayerische Verwaltung der staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen, ‘Treasury (Schatzkammer)'"
Candidate 3: "Artefacts should be made accessible to the largest possible number of visitors

Art treasures should be accessible to the greatest number of people and to scholars, because only then can the educational potential of these artefacts be realised. In response to a question about whether museums have any social responsibility, Richard Armstrong, director at the Guggenheim, said “Absolutely, it began with the French Revolution. It is the more than a 200-year-old quest to have the most powerful cultural artefacts available to the greatest number of people. One could say it is the project of democratizing beauty” [1] . In practice this means retaining them in the great museums of the world. Further some of the world great museums, such as those in Britain and the Smithsonian in Washington D.C. are free of charge.

[1] Boudin, Claudia, ‘Richard Armstrong on the Future of the Solomon R Guggenheim Foundation’, 4th November 2008."
Candidate 4: "The historical significance of artefacts extends beyond their culture of origin

Artefacts have a historical and symbolic meaning that transcends their origins; over the years they acquire a connection with the place that they are housed. For example, the Egyptian obelisk that stands in the Piazza di San Pietro in Rome was brought to Italy in the reign of Caligula. [1] It is no longer merely an ‘Egyptian’ artefact - it has become a symbol of Roman dominance in the ancient world and the European Christian culture that succeeded it. During the Middle Ages it was believed that the ashes of Julius Caesar were contained in the gilt ball at the top [2] .

Further, all artefacts are part of a world-wide collective history. Olduvai handaxes (from countries in Eastern Africa such as Tanzania) are held in the British Museum [3] - but the people who made them are our ancestors just as much as they are the ancestors of local people. Holding these in London encourages us to see the common ground we hold with people everywhere in the world, whereas keeping them only in their local country only highlights our differences and tribal identities. “Culture knows no political borders. It never has. It’s always been mongrel; it’s always been hybrid; and it’s always moved across borders or bears the imprint of earlier contact” [4] .

[1] Saintpetersbasilica.org, ‘The Obelisk’.

[2] Wikipedia, ‘List of obelisks in Rome’, And Wikipedia, ‘Saint Peter’s Sqaure’, (Both have useful links and pictures.)

[3] The British Museum, ‘Highlights Olduvai Handaxe’.

[4] Cuno, James, author of ‘Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle over our Ancient Heritage’, quoted in Tiffany Jenkins, ‘Culture knows no political borders’, The Spectator July 2008."
Candidate 5: "The artefacts' place of origin has more often than not changed dramatically since they were in situ there. It is therefore unconvincing to argue that the context of modern Orthodox Greece aids visitors’ appreciation of an ancient pagan relic. Too much has changed physically and culturally over the centuries for artefacts to speak more clearly in their country of origin than they do in museums, where they can be compared to large assemblies of objects from a wide variety of cultures. Similarly, a great many cultural treasures relate to religions and cultures which no longer survive and there can be no such claim for their return. Technology has also evolved to the point that Ancient Greece can be just as accurately evoked virtually as it could be in modern Greece [1] .

Countries with cultural heritage retain the attraction of being the original locations of historical events or places of interest even without all the artefacts in place. The sanctuaries of Olympia and Delphi in Greece are a good example of this; they are not filled with artefacts, but continue to attract visitors because the sites are interesting in themselves. In 2009 2,813,548 people visited Athens, with 5,970,483 visiting archaeological sites across Greece [2] , even without the Parthenon marbles. Also, people who have seen an artefact in a foreign museum may then be drawn to visit the area it originated from. It is the tourist trade of the nations where these artefacts are held (mostly northern European nations, like Britain and France) which would suffer if they were repatriated. Lacking the climate and natural amenities of other tourist destinations they rely on their cultural offerings in order to attract visitors

[1] Young Explorers, ‘A brief history of…’ The British Museum.

[2] AFP, ‘New Acropolis Museum leads rise in Greek Museum visitor numbers for 2009’, Elginism, June 8th 2010. (Breakdown of visitor figures according to major destinations. )"
Candidate 6: "In many cases, returning an artefact may prove to be unreasonably expensive

Even with modern transport links and technology, transporting every artefact in a foreign museum back to its original location would be an impractically mammoth task. The risk of damage to artefacts would be unavoidable, not to mention the possibility of theft or sabotage en route. Important artefacts in transit would be an ideal public target for acts of terrorism. Moreover, the infrastructure of developing countries is probably not sufficient to cope with that volume. Greece may have spent $200m developing a new museum but relatively it is one of the more wealthy countries of origin for artefacts in the British Museum; places such as Nigeria are unlikely to put such emphasis on cultural investment.

Museums all over the world do loan out their collections [1] . Just because they are held in another country’s museum does not mean that the place of origin would not be able to access artefacts. Creating a generous and dynamic network of sharing relics between museums would be a much more realistic way of sharing and ensuring that all could benefit from seeing them.

[1] The British Museum, ‘Tours and loans’."
Candidate 7: "In the case of the Parthenon marbles, Lord Elgin’s action in removing them was an act of rescue as the Parthenon was being used as a quarry by the local population. [1] The Parthenon had already been destroyed by an explosion in 1687. [2] Having been removed the result was that the British protected them between 1821 and 1833 during the Greek War of Independence was occurring and the Acropolis was besieged twice. [3] Furthermore, if they had been returned upon Greek independence in 1830, the heavily polluted air of Athens would have caused extensive damage to such artefacts that would be open to the elements and Greek attempts at restoration in 1898 were as damaging as the British. [4] Today economic austerity lends new uncertainty to Greece’s commitment to financing culture.

Similar problems face the return of artefacts to African museums; wooden figures would decay in the humid atmosphere. Artefacts in Northern Africa are at risk because of the recent revolts and civil wars [5] . Wealthier countries sometimes simply have better resources to protect, preserve and restore historical artefacts than their country of origin. Our moral obligation is to preserve the artefact for future generations, and if this is best achieved by remaining in a foreign country then that must be the course of action.

[1] Beard, Mary, ‘Lord Elgin - Saviour or Vandal?’, BBC History, 17 February 2011.

[2] Mommsen, Theodor E., ‘The Venetian in Athens and the Destruction of the Parthenon in 1687’, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol 45, No. 4, Oct-Dec 1941, pp. 544-556.

[3] Christopher Hitchens, The Elgin Marbles: Should They Be Returned to Greece?, 1998,p.viii, ISBN 1-85984-220-8

[4] Hadingham, Evan, ‘Unlocking Mysteries of the Parthenon’ Smithsonian Magazine, February 2008.

[5] Parker, Nick ‘Raiders of the Lost Mubarak’, , The Sun, 1st Feburary 2011."
Candidate 8: "Although some treasures may have been acquired illegally, the evidence for this is often ambiguous. Experts agree that Greece could mount no court case because Elgin was granted permission by what was then Greece's ruling government. Lord Elgin’s bribes were the common way of facilitating any business in the Ottoman Empire, and do not undermine Britain’s solid legal claim to the Parthenon marbles, based upon a written contract made by the internationally-recognised authorities in Athens at the time. The veracity of the document can never be fully dismissed as it is a translation. And while some Benin bronzes were undoubtedly looted, other “colonial trophies” were freely sold to the imperial powers, indeed some were made specifically for the European market."

In the case of the Parthenon marbles, Lord Elgin’s action in removing them was an act of rescue as the Parthenon was being used as a quarry by the local population. [1] The Parthenon had already been destroyed by an explosion in 1687. [2] Having been removed the result was that the British protected them between 1821 and 1833 during the Greek War of Independence was occurring and the Acropolis was besieged twice. [3] Furthermore, if they had been returned upon Greek independence in 1830, the heavily polluted air of Athens would have caused extensive damage to such artefacts that would be open to the elements and Greek attempts at restoration in 1898 were as damaging as the British. [4] Today economic austerity lends new uncertainty to Greece’s commitment to financing culture.

Similar problems face the return of artefacts to African museums; wooden figures would decay in the humid atmosphere. Artefacts in Northern Africa are at risk because of the recent revolts and civil wars [5] . Wealthier countries sometimes simply have better resources to protect, preserve and restore historical artefacts than their country of origin. Our moral obligation is to preserve the artefact for future generations, and if this is best achieved by remaining in a foreign country then that must be the course of action.

[1] Beard, Mary, ‘Lord Elgin - Saviour or Vandal?’, BBC History, 17 February 2011.

[2] Mommsen, Theodor E., ‘The Venetian in Athens and the Destruction of the Parthenon in 1687’, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol 45, No. 4, Oct-Dec 1941, pp. 544-556.

[3] Christopher Hitchens, The Elgin Marbles: Should They Be Returned to Greece?, 1998,p.viii, ISBN 1-85984-220-8

[4] Hadingham, Evan, ‘Unlocking Mysteries of the Parthenon’ Smithsonian Magazine, February 2008.

[5] Parker, Nick ‘Raiders of the Lost Mubarak’, , The Sun, 1st Feburary 2011.
