Who Owns Antiquity: A Response

In my efforts to focus on creating an article about Antiquity these past few days, my eyes fell upon an article from the New York Times titled “The British Museum Says It Will Never Return the Elgin Marbles, Defending Their Removal as a ‘Creative Act’.”

And so I began digging and wondering why it was not a topic I had broached before now. With that being said, this article does not attempt to take a side in this age-old argument, but rather differentiate between arguments and make a case for  the cultural repatriation of objects to their original location, if that would in fact benefit the art itself and its surrounding culture.

A Case Study

For some of the art which has been dispersed from its native lands, it is not a question of provenance (or ownership).

Case in point: We know where the ‘Elgin Marbles’ originated. The Acropolis. The Parthenon. Athens. To be more exact - Ottoman Empire-run Greece. So while Lord Elgin had “permission” to technically “loot” the Parthenon of its artifacts from the Ottoman Empire, it begs the question: Is the British Museum (the current “owners” of the Elgin Marbles) right in their insistence to not return the so-called “Elgin Marbles” to their place of ‘discovery’ by Elgin? That is, back to their most-recent intended location, in-situ at the Parthenon (or at least the Acropolis)?

While the British Museum thinks not, Greece has already prepared a home for their return at the Acropolis Museum.

Where Have I Heard This Before?

But the case of the Elgin Marbles is not new; It is not an anomaly in the art world. (i.e. Many art pieces were either stolen or destroyed in acts of war. There is a movie dedicated to telling the story of the ‘Monuments Men,’ who repatriated as much as they could back to the native lands and locations after World War II. Again, Woman in Gold tells the story of the famous Klimt painting which was looted by Nazis in Austria and how one woman fights to have it returned to her family...where it was before it was looted during the years of World War II.) Cultural heritage debates abound; arguments of ownership; with so much art to be repatriated, how do we make sense of it all?

Debate of Cultural Heritage

It has long been debated as to who owns the cultural heritage of antiquity when we are so far removed from that point in history. Likewise, when art has changed ownership many times over, after having been removed from its original location, how do we, as art historians, begin to even dissect everything? There are numerous sides to each argument. And each has its points. But...from the perspective of those attempting to secure cultural heritage, the art such as the Elgin Marbles, should be returned to their original home…back to their origin of context.

The other side of the argument is based on what the consequences would be  if the British Museum, one of the most prominent organizations in possession of such a large quantity of antiquities, is to return the marble sculptures. What then? Precedent-wise, it would open up more avenues through which cultural heritage sites to more definitely get their country’s works back. And the British Museum is not alone in not wanting to part with something that they have ‘owned’ for over a century and part of the intrigue for museum visitors.

Art Market vs Black Market

The term “art market” is thrown around when referring to how art is obtained. However, it has been noted that the art market can not always be trusted. Forgeries and stolen objects float around the art market...much like they do the black market. So what makes them different? When it comes down to it, are not art objects received under questionable circumstances from the black/dark side of the art market to begin with? And where do museums and curators sit with that? Where is the moral line when contemplating the art market and the obtainment of art?

Are there limits to the reaches they are willing to go to when it really comes down to it?

Creative Act(s) or Criminal Act(s)?

Using the Elgin Marbles as a case study, once more, the British Museum states that their removal was a creative act. The director of the British Museum, Hartwig Fischer, ultimately states that when museums offer a new context to engage with cultural heritage they are being creative. From an interview with the Greek daily newspaper Ta Nea, Fischer is quoted as saying “When you move cultural heritage into a museum, you move it out of context. Yet that displacement is also a creative act.”

His comments have since been criticized for their imperialist connotation. It would not be the first time that the British people have been condemned for their imperialist attitudes towards other countries, people, and artifacts. Fischer essentially asserts that because the sculptures are important to European history, they therefore deserve to be displayed in a place of prominence. And that place just so happens to be the British Museum, for this instance/situation.

While the above statement may be true, at what point does it become a criminal act?

Especially where items of antiquity are concerned. The Elgin Marbles are not the only items in question. Items spanning from the Penn Museum to the British Museum have been called into question and requested by the origin countries to be returned to their homeland. Yet, standards have been set in place through various contracts and organizations such as UNESCO that prevent that from happening requiring countries to begin threatening the loss of access to historical sites to these groups of people who deem the works they find to be theirs’. It becomes a catch 22 whereby something is being lost regardless of the decision. Is it therefore better/worse to lose the item in question or to lose access to centuries worth of claim to archaeological sites in places such as the Middle East?

To return those items would be admitting, at least partially, that the items did not belong to or in their current locations; and the admission of guilt is possibly enough to keep museums and organizations away from doing so. On this same line of thought, does the fact that these countries have granted access of these historical sites to various archaeological groups mean that some sort of unspoken agreement or permission is being granted to then uproot the objects and house them in museums out of context?

For more information:

Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle over Our Ancient Heritage

Who Owns Antiquity? Museums, Repatriation, and Armed Conflict (A Podcast)