Some cool free legal documents images:
Statue & Temple from the Elgin Marbles at the British Museum
Image by Chris Devers
From the Wikipedia page on the Elgin Marbles:
[[[
The Elgin Marbles, known also as the Parthenon Marbles, are a collection of classical Greek marble sculptures, inscriptions and architectural members that originally were part of the Parthenon and other buildings on the Acropolis of Athens.[1][2] Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin, the British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1799–1803, had obtained a controversial permission from the Ottoman authorities to remove pieces from the Acropolis.
There is controversy as to whether the removed pieces were purchased from the ruling government of the time or not. [3] From 1801 to 1812 Elgin’s agents removed about half of the surviving sculptures of the Parthenon, as well as architectural members and sculpture from the Propylaea and Erechtheum.[4] The Marbles were transported by sea to Britain. In Britain, the acquisition of the collection was supported by some,[5] while many critics compared Elgin’s actions to vandalism[6] or looting.[7][8][9][10][11]
Following a public debate in Parliament and subsequent exoneration of Elgin’s actions, the marbles were purchased by the British Government in 1816 and placed on display in the British Museum, where they stand now on view in the purpose-built Duveen Gallery. The legality of the removal has been questioned and the debate continues as to whether the Marbles should remain in the British Museum or be returned to Athens.
Contents
• 1 Acquisition
• 2 Description
• 3 Legality of the removal from Athens
• 4 Contemporary reaction
• 5 Damage
•• 5.1 Use as a Christian church
•• 5.2 Morosini •
•• 5.3 War of Independence
•• 5.4 Elgin
•• 5.5 British Museum
•• 5.6 Athens
• 6 Ownership debate
•• 6.1 Rationale for returning to Athens
•• 6.2 Rationale for retaining in London
• 7 Public perception of the issue
•• 7.1 Neologisms
••• 7.1.1 Opinion polls
••• 7.1.2 Popular support for restitution
• 8 Other displaced Parthenon art
• 9 Further reading
• 10 See also
• 11 References
• 12 External links
•• 12.1 Pros and cons of restitution
Acquisition
In December of 1798, Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin, was appointed as "Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty to the Sublime Porte of Selim III, Sultan of Turkey". Prior to his departure to take up the post he had approached at least three officials of the British government to inquire if they would be interested in employing artists to take casts and drawings of the sculptured portions of the Parthenon. According to Lord Elgin, "the answer of the Government… was entirely negative."[5]
Lord Elgin decided to carry out the work at his own expense and employed artists to take casts and drawings under the supervision of the Neapolitan court painter Giovani Lusieri.[5] However, while conducting surveys, he found that Parthenon statuary that had been documented in a 17th century survey was now missing, and so he investigated. According to a Turkish local, marble sculptures that fell were burned to obtain lime for building.[5] Although the original intention was only to document the sculptures, in 1801 Lord Elgin began to remove material from the Parthenon and its surrounding structures[12] under the supervision of Lusieri.
The excavation and removal was completed in 1812 at a personal cost of £74,240 (about million in today’s currency).[13] Elgin intended the marbles for display in the British Museum, selling them to the British government for less than the cost of bringing them to Britain and declining higher offers from other potential buyers, including Napoleon.[12]
Description
Main articles: Parthenon Frieze and Metopes of the Parthenon
The Elgin Marbles include some 17 figures from the statuary from the east and west pediments, 15 (of an original 92) of the metope panels depicting battles between the Lapiths and the Centaurs, as well as 247 feet (of an original 524 feet) of the Parthenon Frieze which decorated the horizontal course set above the interior architrave of the temple. As such, they represent more than half of what now remains of the surviving sculptural decoration of the Parthenon. Elgin’s acquisitions also included objects from other buildings on the Athenian Acropolis: a Caryatid from Erechtheum; four slabs from the frieze of the Temple of Athena Nike; and a number of other architectural fragments of the Parthenon, Propylaia, Erechtheum, the Temple of Athena Nike and the Treasury of Atreus.
Legality of the removal from Athens
As the Acropolis was still an Ottoman military fort, Elgin required permission to enter the site, including the Parthenon and the surrounding buildings. He allegedly obtained from the Sultan a firman to allow his artists access to the site. The original document is now lost, but what is said to be a translated Italian copy made at the time still survives.[14] Vassilis Demetriades, Professor of Turkish Studies at the University of Crete, has argued that "any expert in Ottoman diplomatic language can easily ascertain that the original of the document which has survived was not a firman",[15] and its authenticity has been challenged.[16]
The document was recorded in an appendix of an 1816 parliamentary committee report. The committee had convened to examine a request by Elgin asking the British government to purchase the marbles. The report claimed that the document[17] in the appendix was an accurate translation in English of an Ottoman firman dated in July 1801. In Elgin’s view it amounted to an Ottoman authorization to remove the marbles. The committee was told that the original document was given to Ottoman officials in Athens in 1801, but researchers have so far failed to locate any traces of it despite the fact that the Ottoman archives still hold an outstanding number of similar documents dating from the same period.[16] Moreover the parliamentary record shows that the Italian copy of the firman was not presented to the committee by Elgin himself but by one of his associates, the clergyman Rev. Philip Hunt. Hunt, who at the time resided in Bedford, was the last witness to appear before the committee and claimed that he had in his possession an Italian translation of the Ottoman original. He went on to explain that he had not brought the document, because, upon leaving Bedford, he was not aware that he was to testify as a witness. The English document in the parliamentary report was filed by Hunt, but the committee was not presented with the Italian translation purportedly in his possession. William St. Clair, a contemporary biographer of Lord Elgin, claimed to possess Hunt’s Italian document and "vouches for the accuracy of the English translation". In addition, the committee report states on page 69 "(Signed with a signet.) Seged Abdullah Kaimacan". But the document presented to the committee was "an English translation of this purported translation into Italian of the original firman",[18] and had neither signet nor signature on it, a fact corroborated by St. Clair.[16] The lines pertaining to the removal of the marbles allowed Elgin and his team to fix scaffolding, make drawings, make mouldings in chalk or gypsum, measure the remains of the ruined buildings and excavate the foundations which may have become covered in the [ghiaja]; and "…that when they wish to take away [qualche] pieces of stone with old inscriptions or figures thereon, that no opposition be made thereto". The interpretation of these lines has been questioned even by non-restitutionalists,[19] particularly the word qualche, which in modern language is translated as some. According to non-restitutionalists, further evidence that the removal of the sculptures by Elgin was approved by the Ottoman authorities is shown by a second firman which was required for the shipping of the marbles from the Piraeus.[20]
Despite the controversial firman, many have questioned the legality of Elgin’s actions. A study by Professor David Rudenstine of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law concluded that the premise that Elgin obtained legal title to the marbles, which he then transferred to the British government, "is certainly not established and may well be false".[21] Rudenstine’s argumentation is partly based on a translation discrepancy he noticed between the surviving Italian document and the English text submitted by Hunt to the parliamentary committee. The text from the committee report reads "We therefore have written this Letter to you, and expedited it by Mr. Philip Hunt, an English Gentleman, Secretary of the aforesaid Ambassador" but according to the St. Clair Italian document the actual wording is "We therefore have written this letter to you and expedited it by N.N.". In Rudenstine’s, view this substitution of "Mr. Philip Hunt" with the initials "N.N." can hardly be a simple mistake. He further argues that the document was presented after the committee’s insistence that some form of Ottoman written authorization for the removal of the marbles was provided, a fact known to Hunt by the time he testified. Thus, according to Rudenstine, "Hunt put himself in a position in which he could simultaneously vouch for the authenticity of the document and explain why he alone had a copy of it fifteen years after he surrendered the original to Ottoman officials in Athens". On two earlier occasions, Elgin stated that the Ottomans gave him written permissions more than once, but that he had "retained none of them." Hunt testified on March 13, and one of the questions asked was "Did you ever see any of the written permissions which were granted to [Lord Elgin] for removing the Marbles from the Temple of Minerva?" to which Hunt answered "yes", adding that he possessed an Italian translation of the original firman. Nonetheless, he did not explain why he had retained the translation for 15 years, whereas Elgin, who had testified two weeks earlier, knew nothing about the existence of any such document.[16]
In contrast, Professor John Merryman, Sweitzer Professor of Law and also Professor of Art at Stanford University, putting aside the discrepancy presented by Rudenstine, argues that since the Ottomans had controlled Athens since 1460, their claims to the artifacts were legal and recognizable. The Ottoman sultan was grateful to the British for repelling Napoleonic expansion, and the Parthenon marbles had no sentimental value to him.[12] Further, that written permission exists in the form of the firman, which is the most formal kind of permission available from that government, and that Elgin had further permission to export the marbles, legalizes his (and therefore the British Museum’s) claim to the Marbles.[20][citation needed] He does note, though, that the clause concerning the extent of Ottoman authorization to remove the marbles "is at best ambiguous", adding that the document "provides slender authority for the massive removals from the Parthenon… The reference to ‘taking away any pieces of stone’ seems incidental, intended to apply to objects found while excavating. That was certainly the interpretation privately placed on the firman by several of the Elgin party, including Lady Elgin. Publicly, however, a different attitude was taken, and the work of dismantling the sculptures on the Parthenon and packing them for shipment to England began in earnest. In the process, Elgin’s party damaged the structure, leaving the Parthenon not only denuded of its sculptures but further ruined by the process of removal. It is certainly arguable that Elgin exceeded the authority granted in the firman in both respects".[19]
Contemporary reaction
When the marbles were shipped to England, they were "an instant success among many"[5] who admired the sculptures and supported their arrival, but both the sculptures and Elgin also received criticism from detractors. Lord Elgin began negotiations for the sale of the collection to the British Museum in 1811, but negotiations failed despite the support of British artists[5] after the government showed little interest. Many Britons opposed the statues because they were in bad condition and therefore did not display the "ideal beauty" found in other sculpture collections.[5] The following years marked an increased interest in classical Greece, and in June 1816, after parliamentary hearings, the House of Commons offered £35,000 in exchange for the sculptures. Even at the time the acquisition inspired much debate, although it was supported by "many persuasive calls" for the purchase.[5]
Lord Byron didn’t care for the sculptures, calling them "misshapen monuments".[22] He strongly objected to their removal from Greece, denouncing Elgin as a vandal.[6] His view of the removal of the Marbles from Athens is also reflected in his poem "Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage":[23]
Dull is the eye that will not weep to see
Thy walls defaced, thy mouldering shrines removed
By British hands, which it had best behoved
To guard those relics ne’er to be restored.
Curst be the hour when from their isle they roved,
And once again thy hapless bosom gored,
And snatch’d thy shrinking gods to northern climes abhorred!
Byron was not the only one to protest against the removal at the time:
"The Honourable Lord has taken advantage of the most unjustifiable means and has committed the most flagrant pillages. It was, it seems, fatal that a representative of our country loot those objects that the Turks and other barbarians had considered sacred," said Sir John Newport.[13]
A parliamentary committee investigating the situation concluded that the monuments were best given "asylum" under a "free government" such as the British one.[5] In 1810, Elgin published a defence of his actions which silenced most of his detractors,[4] although the subject remained controversial.[citation needed] John Keats was one of those who saw them privately exhibited in London, hence his two sonnets about the marbles. Notable supporters of Elgin included the painter Benjamin Robert Haydon.[5]
A public debate in Parliament followed Elgin’s publication, and Elgin’s actions were again exonerated. Parliament purchased the marbles for the nation in 1816 by a vote of 82-30 for £35,000.[6] They were deposited in the British Museum, where they were displayed in the Elgin Saloon (constructed in 1832), until the Duveen Gallery was completed in 1939. Crowds packed the British Museum to view the sculptures, setting attendance records for the museum.[5] William Wordsworth viewed the marbles at the museum and commented favorably on their aesthetics.[24]
Damage
Some of the Marbles were damaged prior to Lord Elgin’s obtaining them.
Use as a Christian church
After the conversion of the Greek people to Christianity the Parthenon was eventually converted from a temple of the Virgin (Parthenos) Athena to a holy temple (hieros naos) of the Virgin Mary.[25] The church of the Parthenon and Athens in general was considered the fourth most important pilgrimage in the Eastern Roman Empire, after Constantinople, Ephesos and Thessalonica.[26] The temple’s use as a Christian church constitutes the single longest period of its history (ca. 500–1450 AD) and its importance as a church and Christian pilgrimage was greater than that it enjoyed in Ancient Greece.[27] During this period, frescoes and inscriptions were added to the marble walls and columns as it was a custom of the era’s pilgrim to mark their visit.[25] Altogether some 220 funerary inscriptions survive for the years 600-1200, though many more were probably lost due to structural damage to the building and erosion of the surface.[25] Similar inscriptions were found in the Propylaia as well as on the church of St. George in the Keramykos, which in antiquity was a temple of Hephaistos and is today called the Theseion.[28] From 1205 to 1456 Athens was ruled by Western Crusaders and the church was converted into a Latin cathedral, although the stream of pilgrims continued.[29]
Morosini
Another example of prior damage is that sustained during wars. It is during these periods that the Parthenon and its artwork have sustained by far the most extensive damage. In particular, an explosion ignited by Venetian gun and cannon fire bombardment in 1687, whilst the Parthenon was used as a munitions store during the Ottoman rule, destroyed or damaged many pieces of Parthenon art including some of those later taken by Lord Elgin.[30] In particular this explosion sent the marble roof, most of the cella walls, 14 columns from the north and south peristyles and carved metopes and frieze blocks flying and crashing to the ground and thus destroyed much of the artwork.Further damage was made to the art of the Parthenon by the Venetian general Francesco Morosini when he subsequently looted the site of its larger sculptures. His tackle was faulty and snapped, dropping an over life-sized Poseidon and the horses of Athena’s chariot from the west pediment to the rock of the Acropolis forty feet below.[31]
War of Independence
The Erechtheum was used as a munitions store by the Ottomans during the Greek War of Independence[32] (1821–1833) which ended the 350-year Ottoman rule of Athens.
The Acropolis was besieged twice during the Greek War of Independence, once by the Greek and once by the Ottoman forces. During the siege the Greeks were aware of the dilemma and chose to offer the besieged Ottoman forces, who were attempting to melt the lead in the columns to cast bullets, bullets of their own if they would leave the Parthenon undamaged.[33]
Elgin
Elgin consulted with sculptor Antonio Canova in 1803 about how best to restore the marbles. Canova was considered by some to be the world’s best sculptural restorer of the time; Elgin wrote that Canova declined to work on the marbles for fear of damaging them further.[5]
To facilitate transport by Elgin, the column capital of the Parthenon and many metopes and slabs were either hacked off the main structure or sawn and sliced into smaller sections causing irreparable damage to the Parthenon itself to which these Marbles were connected.[34] One shipload of marbles on board the British brig Mentor was caught in a storm off Cape Matapan and sank near Kythera, but was salvaged at the Earl’s personal expense;[35] it took two years to bring them to the surface.
British Museum
The artifacts held in London suffered from 19th century pollution—which persisted until the mid-20th century[37] — and they have been irrevocably damaged[38] by previous cleaning methods employed by British Museum staff.
As early as 1838, scientist Michael Faraday was asked to provide a solution to the problem of the deteriorating surface of the marbles. The outcome is described in the following excerpt from the letter he sent to Henry Milman, a commissioner for the National Gallery.[39][40]
The marbles generally were very dirty … from a deposit of dust and soot. … I found the body of the marble beneath the surface white. … The application of water, applied by a sponge or soft cloth, removed the coarsest dirt. … The use of fine, gritty powder, with the water and rubbing, though it more quickly removed the upper dirt, left much imbedded in the cellular surface of the marble. I then applied alkalis, both carbonated and caustic; these quickened the loosening of the surface dirt … but they fell far short of restoring the marble surface to its proper hue and state of cleanliness. I finally used dilute nitric acid, and even this failed. … The examination has made me despair of the possibility of presenting the marbles in the British Museum in that state of purity and whiteness which they originally possessed.
A further effort to clean the marbles ensued in 1858. Richard Westmacott, who was appointed superintendent of the "moving and cleaning the sculptures" in 1857, in a letter approved by the British Museum Standing Committee on 13 March 1858 concluded[41]
‘I think it my duty to say that some of the works are much damaged by ignorant or careless moulding — with oil and lard — and by restorations in wax, and wax and resin. These mistakes have caused discolouration. I shall endeavour to remedy this without, however, having recourse to any composition that can injure the surface of the marble
Yet another effort to clean the marbles occurred in the years 1937–38. This time the incentive was provided by the construction of a new Gallery to house the collection. The Pentelic marble, from which the sculptures are made, naturally acquires a tan colour similar to honey when exposed to air; this colouring is often known as the marble’s "patina"[42] but Lord Duveen, who financed the whole undertaking, acting under the misconception that the marbles were originally white[43] probably arranged for the team of masons working in the project to remove discoloration from some of the sculptures. The tools used were seven scrapers, one chisel and a piece of carborundum stone. They are now deposited in the British Museum’s Department of Preservation.[43][44] The cleaning process scraped away some of the detailed tone of many carvings.[45] According to Harold Plenderleith, the surface removed in some places may have been as much as one-tenth of an inch (2.5 mm).[43]
The British Museum has responded to these allegations with the statement that "mistakes were made at that time."[38] On another occasion it was said that "the damage had been exaggerated for political reasons" and that "the Greeks were guilty of excessive cleaning of the marbles before they were brought to Britain."[44] During the international symposium on the cleaning of the marbles, organised by the British Museum, Dr Ian Jenkins, deputy keeper of Greek and Roman antiquities, remarked that "The British Museum is not infallible, it is not the Pope. Its history has been a series of good intentions marred by the occasional cock-up, and the 1930s cleaning was such a cock-up". Nonetheless, he pointed out that the prime cause for the damage inflicted upon the marbles was the 2000 year long weathering on the Acropolis[46]
Dorothy King, in a newspaper article, claimed that techniques similar to the ones used in 1937-1938 were applied by Greeks as well in more recent decades than the British, and maintained that Italians still find them acceptable.[12] Attention has been drawn by the British Museum to a purportedly similar cleaning of the temple of Hephaistos in the Athenian Agora carried out by the conservation team of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens[47] with steel chisels and brass wire in 1953.[35] According to the Greek ministry of Culture, the cleaning was carefully limited to surface salt crusts.[46] The 1953 American report concluded that the techniques applied were aimed at removing the black deposit formed by rain-water and "brought out the high technical quality of the carving" revealing at the same time "a few surviving particles of colour".[47]
According to documents released by the British Museum under the Freedom of Information Act, a series of minor accidents, thefts and acts of vandalism by visitors have inflicted further damage to the sculptures.[48] This includes an incident in 1961 when two schoolboys knocked off a part of a centaur‘s leg. In June 1981, a west pediment figure was slightly chipped by a falling glass skylight, and in 1966 four shallow lines were scratched on the back of one of the figures by vandals. During a similar mishap in 1970, letters were scratched on to the upper right thigh of another figure. Four years later, the dowel hole in a centaur’s hoof was damaged by thieves trying to extract pieces of lead.[48]
Athens
While the levels of nitrogen oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter pollution in Athens are average compared to other European cites,[49] air pollution and acid rain have caused damage to marble and stonework at the Parthenon.[50] The last remaining slabs from the western section of the Parthenon frieze were removed from the monument in 1993 for fear of further damage.[51] They have now been transported to the New Acropolis Museum.[50]
Until cleaning of the remaining marbles was completed in 2005,[52] black crusts and coatings were present on the marble surface.[53] The laser technique applied on the 14 slabs that Elgin did not remove revealed a surprising array of original details such as the original chisel marks and the veins on the horses’ bellies. Similar features in the British Museum collection have been scraped and scrubbed with chisels to make the marbles look white.[54] Between January 20 and the end of March 2008, 4200 items (sculptures, inscriptions small terracotta objects), including some 80 artifacts dismantled from the monuments in recent years, were removed from the old museum on the Acropolis to the new Parthenon Museum.[55][56] Natural disasters have also affected the Parthenon. In 1981, an earthquake caused damage to the east facade.[57]
Since 1975, Greece has been restoring the Acropolis. This restoration has included replacing the thousands of rusting iron clamps and supports that had previously been used, with non-corrosive titanium rods;[58] removing surviving artwork from the building into storage and subsequently into a new museum built specifically for the display of the Parthenon art; and replacing the artwork with high-quality replicas. This process has come under fire from some groups as some buildings have been completely dismantled, including the dismantling of the Temple of Athena Nike and for the unsightly nature of the site due to the necessary cranes and scaffolding.[58] But the hope is to restore the site to some of its former glory, which may take another 20 years and 70 million euros, though the prospect of the Acropolis being "able to withstand the most extreme weather conditions — earthquakes" is "little consolation to the tourists visiting the Acropolis" according to The Guardian.[58] Directors of the British Museum have not ruled out temporarily loaning the marbles to the new museum, but state that it would be under the condition of Greece acknowledging British ownership.[13]
Ownership debate
Rationale for returning to Athens
Defenders of the request for the Marble’s return claim that the marbles should be returned to Athens on moral and artistic grounds. The arguments include:
• The main stated aim of the Greek campaign is to reunite the Parthenon sculptures around the world in order to restore "organic elements" which "at present remain without cohesion, homogeneity and historicity of the monument to which they belong" and allow visitors to better appreciate them as a whole;[59][60]
• Presenting all the extant Parthenon Marbles in their original historical and cultural environment would permit their "fuller understanding and interpretation";[60]
• Precedents have been set with the return of fragments of the monument by Sweden,[61] the University of Heidelberg, Germany,[62] the Getty Museum in Los Angeles.[62] and the Vatican[63];
• That the marbles may have been obtained illegally and hence should be returned to their rightful owner;[64]
• Returning the Elgin Marbles would not set a precedent for other restitution claims because of the distinctively "universal value" of the Parthenon.[65]
• Safekeeping of the marbles would be ensured at the New Acropolis Museum, situated to the south of the Acropolis hill. It was built to hold the Parthenon sculpture in natural sunlight that characterises the Athenian climate, arranged in the same way as they would have been on the Parthenon. The museum’s facilities have been equipped with state-of-the-art technology for the protection and preservation of exhibits [66]
Rationale for retaining in London
A range of different arguments have been presented by scholars[13], political-leaders and British Museum spokespersons over the years in defence of retention of the Elgin Marbles within the British Museum. The main points include:
• the maintenance of a single worldwide-oriented cultural collection, all viewable in one location, thereby serving as a world heritage centre. The British Museum is a creative and living achievement of the Enlightenment, while the Parthenon, on the other hand, is a ruin that can never now be restored.[48]
• the assertion that fulfilling all restitution claims would empty most of the world’s great museums – this has also caused concerns among other European and American museums, with one potential target being the famous bust of Nefertiti in Berlin‘s Altes Museum;[13] in addition, portions of Parthenon marbles are kept by many other European museums, so the Greeks would then establish a precedent to claim these other artworks;[12]
• scholars agree that the marbles were saved from what would have been severe damage from pollution and other factors, which could have perhaps destroyed the marbles,[12] if they had been located in Athens the past few hundred years;[13]
• experts agree that Greece could mount no court case because Elgin was granted permission by what was then Greece’s ruling government and a legal principle of limitation would apply, i.e. the ability to pursue claims expires after a period of time prescribed by law;[13]
• More than half the original marbles are lost and therefore the return of the Elgin Marbles could never complete the collection in Greece. In addition, many of the marbles are too fragile to travel from London to Athens;[13]
• display in the British museum puts the sculptures in a European artistic context, alongside the work of art which both influenced and was influenced by Greek sculpture. This allows parallels to be drawn with the art of other cultures;[67]
• the notion that the Parthenon sculptures are an item of global rather than solely Greek significance strengthens the argument that they should remain in a museum which is both free to visit, and located in Europe’s most visited and largest city. The government of Greece intends to charge visitors of the New Acropolis Museum, where they can view the marbles (as of 2010 the price is five Euros),
• a legal position that the museum is banned by charter from returning any part of its collection.[68]
The latter was tested in the British High Court in May 2005 in relation to Nazi-looted Old Master artworks held at the museum; it was ruled that these could not be returned.[69] The judge, Sir Andrew Morritt, ruled that the British Museum Act – which protects the collections for posterity – cannot be overridden by a "moral obligation" to return works known to have been plundered. It has been argued, however, that connections between the legal ruling and the Elgin Marbles were more tenuous than implied by the Attorney General.[70] However, despite the British Museum’s charter preventing the repatriation of items within its collection, a 2005 bill concerning the repatriation of ancestral remains allowed for the return of Aboriginal human remains to Tasmania after a 20-year battle with Australia.[71]
Another argument for maintaining their location within the UK has been made by J. H. Merryman, Sweitzer Professor of Law at Stanford University and co-operating professor in the Stanford Art Department. He argued that if the Parthenon were actually being restored, there would be a moral argument for returning the Marbles to the temple whence they came, and thus restoring its integrity. The Guardian has written that many repatrionists imply that the marbles would be displayed in their original position on the Parthenon.[12] However, the Greek plan is to transfer them from a museum in London to one in Athens. The sculptures which Elgin spared have been taken down and put in the New Acropolis Museum. "Is it more spiritually satisfying to see the Marbles in an Athenian museum gallery than one in London?"[50] Other voices, this time in the House of Lords, have raised more acute concerns about the fate of the Elgin Marbles if they were to be returned to Greece. In an exchange on 19 May 1997, Lord Wyatt, stated:
My Lords, is the Minister aware that it would be dangerous to return the marbles to Athens because they were under attack by Turkish and Greek fire in the Parthenon when they were rescued and the volatile Greeks might easily start hurling bombs around again?[72]
Public perception of the issue
Neologisms
The practice of plundering artifacts from their original setting is sometimes referred to as ‘elginism’,[73][74][75][76] while the claim, sometimes used by looters and collectors, that they are trying to rescue the artifacts they recover has become known as the "Elgin Excuse".[77]
Opinion polls
Despite the British Museum’s position on its ownership of the marbles, in 1998, a poll carried out by Ipsos MORI asking "If there were a referendum on whether or not the Elgin Marbles should be returned to Greece, how would you vote?" returned these values from the general adult population:[78]
• 40% in favour of returning the marbles to Greece
• 15% in favour of keeping them at the British Museum
• 18% would not vote
• 27% had no opinion
A more recent opinion poll in 2002 (again carried out by MORI) showed similar results, with 40% in favour of returning the marbles to Greece, 16% in favour of keeping them within Britain and the remainder either having no opinion or would not vote.[79] When asked how they would vote if a number of conditions were met (including, but not limited to, a long-term loan where by the British maintained ownership and joint control over maintenance) the number responding in favour of return increased to 56% and those in favour of keeping them dropped to 7%.
Both MORI poll results have been characterised by proponents of the return of the Marbles to Greece as representing a groundswell of public opinion supporting return, since the proportion explicitly supporting return to Greece significantly exceeds the number who are explicitly in favour of keeping the Marbles at the British Museum.[78][80]
Popular support for restitution
An internet campaign site [81], in part sponsored by Metaxa aims to consolidate support for the return of the Elgin Marbles to the New Acropolis Museum in Athens.
Other displaced Parthenon art
The remainder of the surviving sculptures that are not in museums or storerooms in Athens are held in museums in various locations across Europe. The British Museum also holds additional fragments from the Parthenon sculptures acquired from various collections that have no connection with Lord Elgin.
The collection held in the British Museum includes the following material from the Acropolis:
• Parthenon: 247 ft (75 m) of the original 524 ft (160 m) of frieze
•• 15 of the 92 metopes
•• 17 pedimental figures; various pieces of architecture
• Erechtheion: a Caryatid, a column and other architectural members
• Propylaia: Architectural members
• Temple of Athena Nike: 4 slabs of the frieze and architectural members
Further reading
• Mary Beard, The Parthenon (Profile Books, 2004) ISBN 978-1-86197-301-6
• Marc Fehlmann, "Casts and Connoisseurs. The Early Reception of the Elgin Marbles" (Apollo, June 2007, pp. 44–51)[82]
• Jeanette Greenfield ‘The Return of Cultural Treasures’(Cambridge University Press 2007)
• Christopher Hitchens, Imperial Spoils: The Curious Case of the Elgin Marbles (with essays by Robert Browning and Graham Binns) (Verso, March 1998)
• Ian Jenkins, The Parthenon Frieze (British Museum Press, 2002)
• Dorothy King, The Elgin Marbles (Hutchinson, January 2006)
• François Queyrel, Le Parthénon, Un monument dans l’Histoire (Bartillat, 2008) ISBN 978-2-84100-435-5.
• William St Clair, Lord Elgin and the Marbles (Oxford University Press, 1998)
See also
• Acropolis Museum
• Greece – United Kingdom relations
References
• ^ "What are the ‘Elgin Marbles’?". britishmuseum.org. http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/article_index/w/what_are_the_elgin_marbles.aspx. Retrieved 2009-05-12.
• ^ "Elgin Marbles — Greek sculpture". Encyclopædia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-184554/Elgin-Marbles. Retrieved 2009-05-12.
• ^ www.athensguide.com/elginmarbles. http://www.athensguide.com/elginmarbles.
• ^ a b Encycolopedia Britannica, Elgin Marbles, 2008, O.Ed.
• ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Casey, Christopher (October 30, 2008). ""Grecian Grandeurs and the Rude Wasting of Old Time": Britain, the Elgin Marbles, and Post-Revolutionary Hellenism". Foundations. Volume III, Number 1. http://ww2.jhu.edu/foundations/?p=8. Retrieved 2009-06-25.
• ^ a b c Encyclopedia Britannica, The Acropolis, p.6/20, 2008, O.Ed.
• ^ Linda Theodorou; Facaros, Dana (2003). Greece (Cadogan Country Guides). Cadogan Guides. p. 55. ISBN 1-86011-898-4.
• ^ Dyson, Stephen L. (2004). Eugenie Sellers Strong: portrait of an archaeologist. London: Duckworth. ISBN 0-7156-3219-1.
• ^ Mark Ellingham, Tim Salmon, Marc Dubin, Natania Jansz, John Fisher, Greece: The Rough Guide,Rough Guides, 1992,ISBN 1-85828-020-6, p.39
• ^ Chester Charlton McCown, The Ladder of Progress in Palestine: A Story of Archaeologic
The Constitution in Peril
Image by Renegade98
The Constitution in Peril
Books: America’s Terror War on America
The War on Terror didn’t start as an attack on Americans’ rights, but several new books argue that’s exactly what happened.
By Christopher Dickey
Newsweek
Oct. 8, 2007 issue – A slew of recent books about the Bush administration’s wars (at home as well as abroad) might leave you wondering if President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are their own Axis of Evil. In excruciating detail, these tomes tell of torture and warrantless wiretaps; they show a relentless arrogation of power and abrogation of what were thought to be solid constitutional principles. In these books, apocalyptic delusions got us into Iraq and misjudgments have helped keep us there. The picture that emerges is so bleak that even serious journalists and scholars sometimes veer toward conspiracy theories.
Consider, for instance, the lurid title of an otherwise scrupulously researched book by Pulitzer Prize-winning Boston Globe reporter Charlie Savage: "Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy."
The administration’s impassioned defenders, meanwhile, grow strident. Norman Podhoretz, the dean of neoconservatives, writes in "World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism" that the Bush administration is up against "a domestic insurgency" led by "journalistic devotees of the Vietnam syndrome," isolationists, "liberal internationalists" and (heaven forbid) "realists."
In fact, the situation is far from a "civil war," as Podhoretz (an adviser to Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani) would have us believe. But this is a good moment to take stock of the more subtle narrative in these books: stories of score-settling at home, a new kind of enemy abroad, righteous intentions, grand visions and bad information. And if there is a recurrent theme, it’s that this administration set out to create its own reality, whether approaching the Bill of Rights like a classified document to be redacted or girding itself for war in Iraq with a steady diet of dubious intelligence.
The Bush and Cheney who emerge from these pages cherish secrecy, they deplore constraint and they sneer at dissent, so nothing and nobody can dissuade them from their chosen course. Reality checks are not allowed. "Democracies die behind closed doors," federal appeals court Judge Damon Keith said in 2002. "The Framers of the First Amendment did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us. They protected the people against secret government."
Jack Goldsmith, who served briefly in 2003 and 2004 as head of the Office of Legal Counsel—a key position because it determines for the government what is legal and what’s not—suggests that the "strange and unattractive views on presidential power" held by Bush and Cheney will create a backlash compromising future presidents. That may be, but for now, in many respects, the Bush-Cheney vision has triumphed. Savage concludes that Cheney and Bush will leave presidential powers enhanced at the expense of Congress and the courts, to the detriment of the checks and balances essential to our constitutional system. (Savage suggests there’s already some nervousness among Republicans fearful that Hillary Clinton will reap the benefits. No president will want to see his or her imperial authority eroded.) "The expansive presidential powers claimed and exercised by the Bush-Cheney White House are now an immutable part of American history—not controversies, but facts," says Savage. The worldwide war with terrorists that is so important to the arguments for that presidential power, including the occupation of Iraq, will go on as well. Last week all the leading Democratic presidential candidates admitted as much. What might have seemed farfetched political and military fantasies seven years ago are inescapable realities today.
To tell the story of how this happened, it’s useful to start, as Savage does, by following Cheney’s career. Cheney was chief of staff in the Gerald Ford White House, fighting a rear-guard action to protect presidential power from a vindictive and meddlesome Congress in the aftermath of Vietnam, Watergate and public scandals about the CIA’s secret operations. Later, serving in Congress himself, Cheney remained a passionate defender of the executive, arguing that the legislative branch had no right to rein in the secret presidential activities that led to the Iran-contra scandal. As secretary of Defense under President George H.W. Bush in 1991, Cheney insisted that approval from Congress wasn’t needed for a war against Saddam Hussein. The elder Bush overruled him. But when Cheney became vice president 10 years later, the veteran Washington infighter was paired with the younger Bush, George W., who was, as Savage puts it, "one of the least experienced presidents ever to take the oath." Cheney and his staff, particularly his longtime aide David Addington, soon came to dominate almost every debate over constitutional issues that touched on national security and executive authority. Goldsmith remembers how they addressed all laws they didn’t like: "They blew through them in secret based on flimsy legal opinions that they guarded closely so no one could question the legal basis for the operations."
From the beginning Bush’s staff, guided by Cheney’s, "hoped to enlarge the zone of secrecy around the executive branch, to reduce the power of Congress to restrict presidential action, to undermine limits imposed by international treaties, to nominate judges who favored a stronger president and to impose greater White House control over the permanent workings of the government," writes Savage. Then 9/11 happened and suddenly "the war on terrorism’s climate of perpetual emergency provided a vehicle for turning [Cheney's] vision of an unfettered commander in chief into a reality."
Goldsmith, a conservative academic and generally a supporter of a strong executive, argues in his book "The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration" that much of what was done in the early days after 9/11 is perfectly understandable. Threats seemed to be everywhere. A second wave of attacks appeared imminent and all but inevitable. "The President had to do what he had to do to protect the country," writes Goldsmith. "And the lawyers had to find some way to make what he did legal." But unlike previous war presidents—Lincoln, FDR—who bent the Constitution in order to save it, and took responsibility for doing so, the Bush administration stonewalled, as if public ignorance were the best way, in many cases, to give the president the powers he needed.
It was the administration’s ignorance of the enemy that it now confronted that led it, in part, to resort to extreme tactics. Al Qaeda had emerged as a major threat in the late 1990s. Ever since the end of the cold war, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency and more than a dozen other intelligence organizations that answer to the president had been struggling to adapt their sources and methods to the new menace. As Amy B. Zegart argues in "Spying Blind: The CIA, the FBI, and the Origins of 9/11," they just weren’t up to the job. "With FBI agents keeping case files in shoe boxes rather than putting them into computers, with CIA operatives clinging to old systems designed for recruiting Soviet officials at cocktail parties rather than Jihadists in caves … the U.S. Intelligence Community did not have a fighting chance against Al Qaeda," Zegart writes. The intelligence community was well aware of the threat. It had given Bush a daily brief in August 2001 with the heading "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." But the paper was full of old news, and the various agencies failed to act on the new information that they actually had in hand about some of the 9/11 terrorists living in the United States. Zegart, blaming institutional inertia more than individuals, counts more than 20 specific instances where the CIA or the FBI missed chances to stop the 9/11 attacks.
Problems that ran so deep were not going to be changed in time to meet the clear and present danger that now faced the country. As the United States launched a war in Afghanistan (and planned for one in Iraq), the administration needed a lot more information about Al Qaeda than was available. "Really, they did not have anything very useful," says Karen Greenberg, head of New York University’s Center on Law and Security. "It was worse than you can imagine." One answer to the problem: the use of extreme and painful methods to make captured members of Al Qaeda and other suspects tell everything they knew—and sometimes more than they knew. "The most advanced nation in the world was relying on 14th-century torture techniques," says Greenberg. (The same problem arose in 2003, when U.S. forces in Iraq discovered they knew next to nothing about the insurgents attacking them. The resulting abuses at Abu Ghraib were partly born of desperation.) Suspected Qaeda prisoners were taken to secret sites, or to Guantánamo, or grabbed by "rendition" teams who took them to countries where interrogators had long experience with torture, or simply held incommunicado in American military prisons. Still another measure: dispensing with warrants when tapping into phone conversations between the United States and suspected terrorists or their contacts in the rest of the world.
To a layman’s eyes, all these measures would seem to violate the Bill of Rights (and in some cases the Geneva Conventions). The pervasive secrecy threatened the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. The wiretaps flew in the face of Fourth Amendment guarantees that no warrants for searches (or, by extension, surveillance) would be issued without probable cause and specific details. The detentions, especially of American citizens designated "enemy combatants," defied the Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial, to be confronted with witnesses and to have legal counsel. And the interrogation techniques certainly were cruel and unusual punishments of a kind you’d think is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Indeed, these issues continue to be fought ferociously in the courts and debated in Congress. But the president’s positions have been hard to roll back.
The reading of the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, international treaties and congressional laws on torture by the administration’s smart and highly ideological lawyers was quite different from a layman’s. In a series of opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel that were written by conservative zealot John Yoo but signed by his superiors, conventional understandings about the meaning of the Constitution were turned on their heads. In an August 2002 opinion, Yoo defined torture as "only extreme acts" of the kind that might "cause death or organ failure." This was to be part of the guidance used by American interrogators, who wanted to make sure they couldn’t be prosecuted later for what the administration approved today. It told them a whole world of pain and suffering could be inflicted so long as the subject didn’t expire. For example, such techniques as "waterboarding" might make a suspect fear he was on the brink of drowning.
"The message," says Goldsmith, "was indeed clear: violent acts aren’t necessarily torture; if you do torture, you probably have a defense; and even if you don’t have a defense, the torture law doesn’t apply if you act under color of presidential authority." Goldsmith revised some of the legal reasoning of the August 2002 opinion in late 2004. But by then most of the key leaders of Al Qaeda responsible for September 11 had been captured (apart from bin Laden and his colleague Ayman Al-Zawahiri), and they had already been squeezed for months or years to extract whatever tales they might tell to stop the pain. (There was some measure of vengeance, in fact. According to a CIA officer privy to high-level discussions at the agency who did not want to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the press, there was internal opposition to having the CIA hold these suspects at secret sites after they’d told what they could about imminent attacks. But others argued that "these people were just scum and they wanted to waterboard them every day forever," the officer told NEWSWEEK. The waterboarders won until 14 of the prisoners held at secret sites were finally transferred to Guantánamo last year.)
Meanwhile, as we now know, the Bush administration had begun preparing for an attack on Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein even before the war in Afghanistan was over. The potential dangers to the United States posed by Saddam’s erratic behavior and longstanding desire to have weapons of mass destruction were a major preoccupation for many in the administration, especially those around Cheney.
Containment wouldn’t be enough. A new war was needed that would "shock and awe" America’s enemies, and possibly even open the way for new democratic regimes throughout the region. It would also continue the sense of emergency that helped shore up presidential power in Washington.
But, again, the intelligence community was disappointing the Bush administration. Leads in the supposedly slam-dunk case against Saddam kept losing their bounce. So the administration and the top CIA leadership put increasing faith in an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, who supposedly had worked as a chemical engineer in Saddam’s biological-weapons program, and claimed to have seen what could be mobile bioweapons factories mounted on trucks. Los Angeles Times correspondent Bob Drogin lays out the whole sorry tale in his forthcoming book, "Curveball: Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War." The defector was in German hands, and was never interviewed by the Americans before the invasion. The Germans had warned that Curveball might be making up all or most of his story—and he was. He had never worked in the biological program; he’d been a taxi driver before heading to Germany to seek asylum. There were no mobile labs. The Bush administration had believed what it wanted to believe.
"President Bush launched the wrong war," writes Philip H. Gordon in a book titled, as it happens, "Winning the Right War: The Path to Security for America and the World," an argument for combating terrorism with more than military might. Bush "hyped the terrorist threat as a means of winning political support," says Gordon, a fellow at the Brookings Institution. "And while he talked of a war that challenged the nation’s very existence, he fought it on the cheap, as if he knew that Americans would not have been onboard had they been told what the war would entail."
Today, of course, those costs are no secret. And the Bush administration’s very special vision of a powerful president waging endless war, which once would have seemed fantastical, has become the painful reality that Americans may be living for generations to come.
URL: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21047601/site/newsweek/page/0/
________________________________________
MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2007 MSNBC.com
Statues from the Elgin Marbles at the British Museum
Image by Chris Devers
Reblogged elsewhere — thanks!:
* aubade: nothing more terrible
* ARSVITAEST
From the Wikipedia page on the Elgin Marbles:
[[[
The Elgin Marbles, known also as the Parthenon Marbles, are a collection of classical Greek marble sculptures, inscriptions and architectural members that originally were part of the Parthenon and other buildings on the Acropolis of Athens.[1][2] Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin, the British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1799–1803, had obtained a controversial permission from the Ottoman authorities to remove pieces from the Acropolis.
There is controversy as to whether the removed pieces were purchased from the ruling government of the time or not. [3] From 1801 to 1812 Elgin’s agents removed about half of the surviving sculptures of the Parthenon, as well as architectural members and sculpture from the Propylaea and Erechtheum.[4] The Marbles were transported by sea to Britain. In Britain, the acquisition of the collection was supported by some,[5] while many critics compared Elgin’s actions to vandalism[6] or looting.[7][8][9][10][11]
Following a public debate in Parliament and subsequent exoneration of Elgin’s actions, the marbles were purchased by the British Government in 1816 and placed on display in the British Museum, where they stand now on view in the purpose-built Duveen Gallery. The legality of the removal has been questioned and the debate continues as to whether the Marbles should remain in the British Museum or be returned to Athens.
Contents
• 1 Acquisition
• 2 Description
• 3 Legality of the removal from Athens
• 4 Contemporary reaction
• 5 Damage
•• 5.1 Use as a Christian church
•• 5.2 Morosini •
•• 5.3 War of Independence
•• 5.4 Elgin
•• 5.5 British Museum
•• 5.6 Athens
• 6 Ownership debate
•• 6.1 Rationale for returning to Athens
•• 6.2 Rationale for retaining in London
• 7 Public perception of the issue
•• 7.1 Neologisms
••• 7.1.1 Opinion polls
••• 7.1.2 Popular support for restitution
• 8 Other displaced Parthenon art
• 9 Further reading
• 10 See also
• 11 References
• 12 External links
•• 12.1 Pros and cons of restitution
Acquisition
In December of 1798, Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin, was appointed as "Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty to the Sublime Porte of Selim III, Sultan of Turkey". Prior to his departure to take up the post he had approached at least three officials of the British government to inquire if they would be interested in employing artists to take casts and drawings of the sculptured portions of the Parthenon. According to Lord Elgin, "the answer of the Government… was entirely negative."[5]
Lord Elgin decided to carry out the work at his own expense and employed artists to take casts and drawings under the supervision of the Neapolitan court painter Giovani Lusieri.[5] However, while conducting surveys, he found that Parthenon statuary that had been documented in a 17th century survey was now missing, and so he investigated. According to a Turkish local, marble sculptures that fell were burned to obtain lime for building.[5] Although the original intention was only to document the sculptures, in 1801 Lord Elgin began to remove material from the Parthenon and its surrounding structures[12] under the supervision of Lusieri.
The excavation and removal was completed in 1812 at a personal cost of £74,240 (about million in today’s currency).[13] Elgin intended the marbles for display in the British Museum, selling them to the British government for less than the cost of bringing them to Britain and declining higher offers from other potential buyers, including Napoleon.[12]
Description
Main articles: Parthenon Frieze and Metopes of the Parthenon
The Elgin Marbles include some 17 figures from the statuary from the east and west pediments, 15 (of an original 92) of the metope panels depicting battles between the Lapiths and the Centaurs, as well as 247 feet (of an original 524 feet) of the Parthenon Frieze which decorated the horizontal course set above the interior architrave of the temple. As such, they represent more than half of what now remains of the surviving sculptural decoration of the Parthenon. Elgin’s acquisitions also included objects from other buildings on the Athenian Acropolis: a Caryatid from Erechtheum; four slabs from the frieze of the Temple of Athena Nike; and a number of other architectural fragments of the Parthenon, Propylaia, Erechtheum, the Temple of Athena Nike and the Treasury of Atreus.
Legality of the removal from Athens
As the Acropolis was still an Ottoman military fort, Elgin required permission to enter the site, including the Parthenon and the surrounding buildings. He allegedly obtained from the Sultan a firman to allow his artists access to the site. The original document is now lost, but what is said to be a translated Italian copy made at the time still survives.[14] Vassilis Demetriades, Professor of Turkish Studies at the University of Crete, has argued that "any expert in Ottoman diplomatic language can easily ascertain that the original of the document which has survived was not a firman",[15] and its authenticity has been challenged.[16]
The document was recorded in an appendix of an 1816 parliamentary committee report. The committee had convened to examine a request by Elgin asking the British government to purchase the marbles. The report claimed that the document[17] in the appendix was an accurate translation in English of an Ottoman firman dated in July 1801. In Elgin’s view it amounted to an Ottoman authorization to remove the marbles. The committee was told that the original document was given to Ottoman officials in Athens in 1801, but researchers have so far failed to locate any traces of it despite the fact that the Ottoman archives still hold an outstanding number of similar documents dating from the same period.[16] Moreover the parliamentary record shows that the Italian copy of the firman was not presented to the committee by Elgin himself but by one of his associates, the clergyman Rev. Philip Hunt. Hunt, who at the time resided in Bedford, was the last witness to appear before the committee and claimed that he had in his possession an Italian translation of the Ottoman original. He went on to explain that he had not brought the document, because, upon leaving Bedford, he was not aware that he was to testify as a witness. The English document in the parliamentary report was filed by Hunt, but the committee was not presented with the Italian translation purportedly in his possession. William St. Clair, a contemporary biographer of Lord Elgin, claimed to possess Hunt’s Italian document and "vouches for the accuracy of the English translation". In addition, the committee report states on page 69 "(Signed with a signet.) Seged Abdullah Kaimacan". But the document presented to the committee was "an English translation of this purported translation into Italian of the original firman",[18] and had neither signet nor signature on it, a fact corroborated by St. Clair.[16] The lines pertaining to the removal of the marbles allowed Elgin and his team to fix scaffolding, make drawings, make mouldings in chalk or gypsum, measure the remains of the ruined buildings and excavate the foundations which may have become covered in the [ghiaja]; and "…that when they wish to take away [qualche] pieces of stone with old inscriptions or figures thereon, that no opposition be made thereto". The interpretation of these lines has been questioned even by non-restitutionalists,[19] particularly the word qualche, which in modern language is translated as some. According to non-restitutionalists, further evidence that the removal of the sculptures by Elgin was approved by the Ottoman authorities is shown by a second firman which was required for the shipping of the marbles from the Piraeus.[20]
Despite the controversial firman, many have questioned the legality of Elgin’s actions. A study by Professor David Rudenstine of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law concluded that the premise that Elgin obtained legal title to the marbles, which he then transferred to the British government, "is certainly not established and may well be false".[21] Rudenstine’s argumentation is partly based on a translation discrepancy he noticed between the surviving Italian document and the English text submitted by Hunt to the parliamentary committee. The text from the committee report reads "We therefore have written this Letter to you, and expedited it by Mr. Philip Hunt, an English Gentleman, Secretary of the aforesaid Ambassador" but according to the St. Clair Italian document the actual wording is "We therefore have written this letter to you and expedited it by N.N.". In Rudenstine’s, view this substitution of "Mr. Philip Hunt" with the initials "N.N." can hardly be a simple mistake. He further argues that the document was presented after the committee’s insistence that some form of Ottoman written authorization for the removal of the marbles was provided, a fact known to Hunt by the time he testified. Thus, according to Rudenstine, "Hunt put himself in a position in which he could simultaneously vouch for the authenticity of the document and explain why he alone had a copy of it fifteen years after he surrendered the original to Ottoman officials in Athens". On two earlier occasions, Elgin stated that the Ottomans gave him written permissions more than once, but that he had "retained none of them." Hunt testified on March 13, and one of the questions asked was "Did you ever see any of the written permissions which were granted to [Lord Elgin] for removing the Marbles from the Temple of Minerva?" to which Hunt answered "yes", adding that he possessed an Italian translation of the original firman. Nonetheless, he did not explain why he had retained the translation for 15 years, whereas Elgin, who had testified two weeks earlier, knew nothing about the existence of any such document.[16]
In contrast, Professor John Merryman, Sweitzer Professor of Law and also Professor of Art at Stanford University, putting aside the discrepancy presented by Rudenstine, argues that since the Ottomans had controlled Athens since 1460, their claims to the artifacts were legal and recognizable. The Ottoman sultan was grateful to the British for repelling Napoleonic expansion, and the Parthenon marbles had no sentimental value to him.[12] Further, that written permission exists in the form of the firman, which is the most formal kind of permission available from that government, and that Elgin had further permission to export the marbles, legalizes his (and therefore the British Museum’s) claim to the Marbles.[20][citation needed] He does note, though, that the clause concerning the extent of Ottoman authorization to remove the marbles "is at best ambiguous", adding that the document "provides slender authority for the massive removals from the Parthenon… The reference to ‘taking away any pieces of stone’ seems incidental, intended to apply to objects found while excavating. That was certainly the interpretation privately placed on the firman by several of the Elgin party, including Lady Elgin. Publicly, however, a different attitude was taken, and the work of dismantling the sculptures on the Parthenon and packing them for shipment to England began in earnest. In the process, Elgin’s party damaged the structure, leaving the Parthenon not only denuded of its sculptures but further ruined by the process of removal. It is certainly arguable that Elgin exceeded the authority granted in the firman in both respects".[19]
Contemporary reaction
When the marbles were shipped to England, they were "an instant success among many"[5] who admired the sculptures and supported their arrival, but both the sculptures and Elgin also received criticism from detractors. Lord Elgin began negotiations for the sale of the collection to the British Museum in 1811, but negotiations failed despite the support of British artists[5] after the government showed little interest. Many Britons opposed the statues because they were in bad condition and therefore did not display the "ideal beauty" found in other sculpture collections.[5] The following years marked an increased interest in classical Greece, and in June 1816, after parliamentary hearings, the House of Commons offered £35,000 in exchange for the sculptures. Even at the time the acquisition inspired much debate, although it was supported by "many persuasive calls" for the purchase.[5]
Lord Byron didn’t care for the sculptures, calling them "misshapen monuments".[22] He strongly objected to their removal from Greece, denouncing Elgin as a vandal.[6] His view of the removal of the Marbles from Athens is also reflected in his poem "Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage":[23]
Dull is the eye that will not weep to see
Thy walls defaced, thy mouldering shrines removed
By British hands, which it had best behoved
To guard those relics ne’er to be restored.
Curst be the hour when from their isle they roved,
And once again thy hapless bosom gored,
And snatch’d thy shrinking gods to northern climes abhorred!
Byron was not the only one to protest against the removal at the time:
"The Honourable Lord has taken advantage of the most unjustifiable means and has committed the most flagrant pillages. It was, it seems, fatal that a representative of our country loot those objects that the Turks and other barbarians had considered sacred," said Sir John Newport.[13]
A parliamentary committee investigating the situation concluded that the monuments were best given "asylum" under a "free government" such as the British one.[5] In 1810, Elgin published a defence of his actions which silenced most of his detractors,[4] although the subject remained controversial.[citation needed] John Keats was one of those who saw them privately exhibited in London, hence his two sonnets about the marbles. Notable supporters of Elgin included the painter Benjamin Robert Haydon.[5]
A public debate in Parliament followed Elgin’s publication, and Elgin’s actions were again exonerated. Parliament purchased the marbles for the nation in 1816 by a vote of 82-30 for £35,000.[6] They were deposited in the British Museum, where they were displayed in the Elgin Saloon (constructed in 1832), until the Duveen Gallery was completed in 1939. Crowds packed the British Museum to view the sculptures, setting attendance records for the museum.[5] William Wordsworth viewed the marbles at the museum and commented favorably on their aesthetics.[24]
Damage
Some of the Marbles were damaged prior to Lord Elgin’s obtaining them.
Use as a Christian church
After the conversion of the Greek people to Christianity the Parthenon was eventually converted from a temple of the Virgin (Parthenos) Athena to a holy temple (hieros naos) of the Virgin Mary.[25] The church of the Parthenon and Athens in general was considered the fourth most important pilgrimage in the Eastern Roman Empire, after Constantinople, Ephesos and Thessalonica.[26] The temple’s use as a Christian church constitutes the single longest period of its history (ca. 500–1450 AD) and its importance as a church and Christian pilgrimage was greater than that it enjoyed in Ancient Greece.[27] During this period, frescoes and inscriptions were added to the marble walls and columns as it was a custom of the era’s pilgrim to mark their visit.[25] Altogether some 220 funerary inscriptions survive for the years 600-1200, though many more were probably lost due to structural damage to the building and erosion of the surface.[25] Similar inscriptions were found in the Propylaia as well as on the church of St. George in the Keramykos, which in antiquity was a temple of Hephaistos and is today called the Theseion.[28] From 1205 to 1456 Athens was ruled by Western Crusaders and the church was converted into a Latin cathedral, although the stream of pilgrims continued.[29]
Morosini
Another example of prior damage is that sustained during wars. It is during these periods that the Parthenon and its artwork have sustained by far the most extensive damage. In particular, an explosion ignited by Venetian gun and cannon fire bombardment in 1687, whilst the Parthenon was used as a munitions store during the Ottoman rule, destroyed or damaged many pieces of Parthenon art including some of those later taken by Lord Elgin.[30] In particular this explosion sent the marble roof, most of the cella walls, 14 columns from the north and south peristyles and carved metopes and frieze blocks flying and crashing to the ground and thus destroyed much of the artwork.Further damage was made to the art of the Parthenon by the Venetian general Francesco Morosini when he subsequently looted the site of its larger sculptures. His tackle was faulty and snapped, dropping an over life-sized Poseidon and the horses of Athena’s chariot from the west pediment to the rock of the Acropolis forty feet below.[31]
War of Independence
The Erechtheum was used as a munitions store by the Ottomans during the Greek War of Independence[32] (1821–1833) which ended the 350-year Ottoman rule of Athens.
The Acropolis was besieged twice during the Greek War of Independence, once by the Greek and once by the Ottoman forces. During the siege the Greeks were aware of the dilemma and chose to offer the besieged Ottoman forces, who were attempting to melt the lead in the columns to cast bullets, bullets of their own if they would leave the Parthenon undamaged.[33]
Elgin
Elgin consulted with sculptor Antonio Canova in 1803 about how best to restore the marbles. Canova was considered by some to be the world’s best sculptural restorer of the time; Elgin wrote that Canova declined to work on the marbles for fear of damaging them further.[5]
To facilitate transport by Elgin, the column capital of the Parthenon and many metopes and slabs were either hacked off the main structure or sawn and sliced into smaller sections causing irreparable damage to the Parthenon itself to which these Marbles were connected.[34] One shipload of marbles on board the British brig Mentor was caught in a storm off Cape Matapan and sank near Kythera, but was salvaged at the Earl’s personal expense;[35] it took two years to bring them to the surface.
British Museum
The artifacts held in London suffered from 19th century pollution—which persisted until the mid-20th century[37] — and they have been irrevocably damaged[38] by previous cleaning methods employed by British Museum staff.
As early as 1838, scientist Michael Faraday was asked to provide a solution to the problem of the deteriorating surface of the marbles. The outcome is described in the following excerpt from the letter he sent to Henry Milman, a commissioner for the National Gallery.[39][40]
The marbles generally were very dirty … from a deposit of dust and soot. … I found the body of the marble beneath the surface white. … The application of water, applied by a sponge or soft cloth, removed the coarsest dirt. … The use of fine, gritty powder, with the water and rubbing, though it more quickly removed the upper dirt, left much imbedded in the cellular surface of the marble. I then applied alkalis, both carbonated and caustic; these quickened the loosening of the surface dirt … but they fell far short of restoring the marble surface to its proper hue and state of cleanliness. I finally used dilute nitric acid, and even this failed. … The examination has made me despair of the possibility of presenting the marbles in the British Museum in that state of purity and whiteness which they originally possessed.
A further effort to clean the marbles ensued in 1858. Richard Westmacott, who was appointed superintendent of the "moving and cleaning the sculptures" in 1857, in a letter approved by the British Museum Standing Committee on 13 March 1858 concluded[41]
‘I think it my duty to say that some of the works are much damaged by ignorant or careless moulding — with oil and lard — and by restorations in wax, and wax and resin. These mistakes have caused discolouration. I shall endeavour to remedy this without, however, having recourse to any composition that can injure the surface of the marble
Yet another effort to clean the marbles occurred in the years 1937–38. This time the incentive was provided by the construction of a new Gallery to house the collection. The Pentelic marble, from which the sculptures are made, naturally acquires a tan colour similar to honey when exposed to air; this colouring is often known as the marble’s "patina"[42] but Lord Duveen, who financed the whole undertaking, acting under the misconception that the marbles were originally white[43] probably arranged for the team of masons working in the project to remove discoloration from some of the sculptures. The tools used were seven scrapers, one chisel and a piece of carborundum stone. They are now deposited in the British Museum’s Department of Preservation.[43][44] The cleaning process scraped away some of the detailed tone of many carvings.[45] According to Harold Plenderleith, the surface removed in some places may have been as much as one-tenth of an inch (2.5 mm).[43]
The British Museum has responded to these allegations with the statement that "mistakes were made at that time."[38] On another occasion it was said that "the damage had been exaggerated for political reasons" and that "the Greeks were guilty of excessive cleaning of the marbles before they were brought to Britain."[44] During the international symposium on the cleaning of the marbles, organised by the British Museum, Dr Ian Jenkins, deputy keeper of Greek and Roman antiquities, remarked that "The British Museum is not infallible, it is not the Pope. Its history has been a series of good intentions marred by the occasional cock-up, and the 1930s cleaning was such a cock-up". Nonetheless, he pointed out that the prime cause for the damage inflicted upon the marbles was the 2000 year long weathering on the Acropolis[46]
Dorothy King, in a newspaper article, claimed that techniques similar to the ones used in 1937-1938 were applied by Greeks as well in more recent decades than the British, and maintained that Italians still find them acceptable.[12] Attention has been drawn by the British Museum to a purportedly similar cleaning of the temple of Hephaistos in the Athenian Agora carried out by the conservation team of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens[47] with steel chisels and brass wire in 1953.[35] According to the Greek ministry of Culture, the cleaning was carefully limited to surface salt crusts.[46] The 1953 American report concluded that the techniques applied were aimed at removing the black deposit formed by rain-water and "brought out the high technical quality of the carving" revealing at the same time "a few surviving particles of colour".[47]
According to documents released by the British Museum under the Freedom of Information Act, a series of minor accidents, thefts and acts of vandalism by visitors have inflicted further damage to the sculptures.[48] This includes an incident in 1961 when two schoolboys knocked off a part of a centaur‘s leg. In June 1981, a west pediment figure was slightly chipped by a falling glass skylight, and in 1966 four shallow lines were scratched on the back of one of the figures by vandals. During a similar mishap in 1970, letters were scratched on to the upper right thigh of another figure. Four years later, the dowel hole in a centaur’s hoof was damaged by thieves trying to extract pieces of lead.[48]
Athens
While the levels of nitrogen oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter pollution in Athens are average compared to other European cites,[49] air pollution and acid rain have caused damage to marble and stonework at the Parthenon.[50] The last remaining slabs from the western section of the Parthenon frieze were removed from the monument in 1993 for fear of further damage.[51] They have now been transported to the New Acropolis Museum.[50]
Until cleaning of the remaining marbles was completed in 2005,[52] black crusts and coatings were present on the marble surface.[53] The laser technique applied on the 14 slabs that Elgin did not remove revealed a surprising array of original details such as the original chisel marks and the veins on the horses’ bellies. Similar features in the British Museum collection have been scraped and scrubbed with chisels to make the marbles look white.[54] Between January 20 and the end of March 2008, 4200 items (sculptures, inscriptions small terracotta objects), including some 80 artifacts dismantled from the monuments in recent years, were removed from the old museum on the Acropolis to the new Parthenon Museum.[55][56] Natural disasters have also affected the Parthenon. In 1981, an earthquake caused damage to the east facade.[57]
Since 1975, Greece has been restoring the Acropolis. This restoration has included replacing the thousands of rusting iron clamps and supports that had previously been used, with non-corrosive titanium rods;[58] removing surviving artwork from the building into storage and subsequently into a new museum built specifically for the display of the Parthenon art; and replacing the artwork with high-quality replicas. This process has come under fire from some groups as some buildings have been completely dismantled, including the dismantling of the Temple of Athena Nike and for the unsightly nature of the site due to the necessary cranes and scaffolding.[58] But the hope is to restore the site to some of its former glory, which may take another 20 years and 70 million euros, though the prospect of the Acropolis being "able to withstand the most extreme weather conditions — earthquakes" is "little consolation to the tourists visiting the Acropolis" according to The Guardian.[58] Directors of the British Museum have not ruled out temporarily loaning the marbles to the new museum, but state that it would be under the condition of Greece acknowledging British ownership.[13]
Ownership debate
Rationale for returning to Athens
Defenders of the request for the Marble’s return claim that the marbles should be returned to Athens on moral and artistic grounds. The arguments include:
• The main stated aim of the Greek campaign is to reunite the Parthenon sculptures around the world in order to restore "organic elements" which "at present remain without cohesion, homogeneity and historicity of the monument to which they belong" and allow visitors to better appreciate them as a whole;[59][60]
• Presenting all the extant Parthenon Marbles in their original historical and cultural environment would permit their "fuller understanding and interpretation";[60]
• Precedents have been set with the return of fragments of the monument by Sweden,[61] the University of Heidelberg, Germany,[62] the Getty Museum in Los Angeles.[62] and the Vatican[63];
• That the marbles may have been obtained illegally and hence should be returned to their rightful owner;[64]
• Returning the Elgin Marbles would not set a precedent for other restitution claims because of the distinctively "universal value" of the Parthenon.[65]
• Safekeeping of the marbles would be ensured at the New Acropolis Museum, situated to the south of the Acropolis hill. It was built to hold the Parthenon sculpture in natural sunlight that characterises the Athenian climate, arranged in the same way as they would have been on the Parthenon. The museum’s facilities have been equipped with state-of-the-art technology for the protection and preservation of exhibits [66]
Rationale for retaining in London
A range of different arguments have been presented by scholars[13], political-leaders and British Museum spokespersons over the years in defence of retention of the Elgin Marbles within the British Museum. The main points include:
• the maintenance of a single worldwide-oriented cultural collection, all viewable in one location, thereby serving as a world heritage centre. The British Museum is a creative and living achievement of the Enlightenment, while the Parthenon, on the other hand, is a ruin that can never now be restored.[48]
• the assertion that fulfilling all restitution claims would empty most of the world’s great museums – this has also caused concerns among other European and American museums, with one potential target being the famous bust of Nefertiti in Berlin‘s Altes Museum;[13] in addition, portions of Parthenon marbles are kept by many other European museums, so the Greeks would then establish a precedent to claim these other artworks;[12]
• scholars agree that the marbles were saved from what would have been severe damage from pollution and other factors, which could have perhaps destroyed the marbles,[12] if they had been located in Athens the past few hundred years;[13]
• experts agree that Greece could mount no court case because Elgin was granted permission by what was then Greece’s ruling government and a legal principle of limitation would apply, i.e. the ability to pursue claims expires after a period of time prescribed by law;[13]
• More than half the original marbles are lost and therefore the return of the Elgin Marbles could never complete the collection in Greece. In addition, many of the marbles are too fragile to travel from London to Athens;[13]
• display in the British museum puts the sculptures in a European artistic context, alongside the work of art which both influenced and was influenced by Greek sculpture. This allows parallels to be drawn with the art of other cultures;[67]
• the notion that the Parthenon sculptures are an item of global rather than solely Greek significance strengthens the argument that they should remain in a museum which is both free to visit, and located in Europe’s most visited and largest city. The government of Greece intends to charge visitors of the New Acropolis Museum, where they can view the marbles (as of 2010 the price is five Euros),
• a legal position that the museum is banned by charter from returning any part of its collection.[68]
The latter was tested in the British High Court in May 2005 in relation to Nazi-looted Old Master artworks held at the museum; it was ruled that these could not be returned.[69] The judge, Sir Andrew Morritt, ruled that the British Museum Act – which protects the collections for posterity – cannot be overridden by a "moral obligation" to return works known to have been plundered. It has been argued, however, that connections between the legal ruling and the Elgin Marbles were more tenuous than implied by the Attorney General.[70] However, despite the British Museum’s charter preventing the repatriation of items within its collection, a 2005 bill concerning the repatriation of ancestral remains allowed for the return of Aboriginal human remains to Tasmania after a 20-year battle with Australia.[71]
Another argument for maintaining their location within the UK has been made by J. H. Merryman, Sweitzer Professor of Law at Stanford University and co-operating professor in the Stanford Art Department. He argued that if the Parthenon were actually being restored, there would be a moral argument for returning the Marbles to the temple whence they came, and thus restoring its integrity. The Guardian has written that many repatrionists imply that the marbles would be displayed in their original position on the Parthenon.[12] However, the Greek plan is to transfer them from a museum in London to one in Athens. The sculptures which Elgin spared have been taken down and put in the New Acropolis Museum. "Is it more spiritually satisfying to see the Marbles in an Athenian museum gallery than one in London?"[50] Other voices, this time in the House of Lords, have raised more acute concerns about the fate of the Elgin Marbles if they were to be returned to Greece. In an exchange on 19 May 1997, Lord Wyatt, stated:
My Lords, is the Minister aware that it would be dangerous to return the marbles to Athens because they were under attack by Turkish and Greek fire in the Parthenon when they were rescued and the volatile Greeks might easily start hurling bombs around again?[72]
Public perception of the issue
Neologisms
The practice of plundering artifacts from their original setting is sometimes referred to as ‘elginism’,[73][74][75][76] while the claim, sometimes used by looters and collectors, that they are trying to rescue the artifacts they recover has become known as the "Elgin Excuse".[77]
Opinion polls
Despite the British Museum’s position on its ownership of the marbles, in 1998, a poll carried out by Ipsos MORI asking "If there were a referendum on whether or not the Elgin Marbles should be returned to Greece, how would you vote?" returned these values from the general adult population:[78]
• 40% in favour of returning the marbles to Greece
• 15% in favour of keeping them at the British Museum
• 18% would not vote
• 27% had no opinion
A more recent opinion poll in 2002 (again carried out by MORI) showed similar results, with 40% in favour of returning the marbles to Greece, 16% in favour of keeping them within Britain and the remainder either having no opinion or would not vote.[79] When asked how they would vote if a number of conditions were met (including, but not limited to, a long-term loan where by the British maintained ownership and joint control over maintenance) the number responding in favour of return increased to 56% and those in favour of keeping them dropped to 7%.
Both MORI poll results have been characterised by proponents of the return of the Marbles to Greece as representing a groundswell of public opinion supporting return, since the proportion explicitly supporting return to Greece significantly exceeds the number who are explicitly in favour of keeping the Marbles at the British Museum.[78][80]
Popular support for restitution
An internet campaign site [81], in part sponsored by Metaxa aims to consolidate support for the return of the Elgin Marbles to the New Acropolis Museum in Athens.
Other displaced Parthenon art
The remainder of the surviving sculptures that are not in museums or storerooms in Athens are held in museums in various locations across Europe. The British Museum also holds additional fragments from the Parthenon sculptures acquired from various collections that have no connection with Lord Elgin.
The collection held in the British Museum includes the following material from the Acropolis:
• Parthenon: 247 ft (75 m) of the original 524 ft (160 m) of frieze
•• 15 of the 92 metopes
•• 17 pedimental figures; various pieces of architecture
• Erechtheion: a Caryatid, a column and other architectural members
• Propylaia: Architectural members
• Temple of Athena Nike: 4 slabs of the frieze and architectural members
Further reading
• Mary Beard, The Parthenon (Profile Books, 2004) ISBN 978-1-86197-301-6
• Marc Fehlmann, "Casts and Connoisseurs. The Early Reception of the Elgin Marbles" (Apollo, June 2007, pp. 44–51)[82]
• Jeanette Greenfield ‘The Return of Cultural Treasures’(Cambridge University Press 2007)
• Christopher Hitchens, Imperial Spoils: The Curious Case of the Elgin Marbles (with essays by Robert Browning and Graham Binns) (Verso, March 1998)
• Ian Jenkins, The Parthenon Frieze (British Museum Press, 2002)
• Dorothy King, The Elgin Marbles (Hutchinson, January 2006)
• François Queyrel, Le Parthénon, Un monument dans l’Histoire (Bartillat, 2008) ISBN 978-2-84100-435-5.
• William St Clair, Lord Elgin and the Marbles (Oxford University Press, 1998)
See also
• Acropolis Museum
• Greece – United Kingdom relations
References
• ^ "What are the ‘Elgin Marbles’?". britishmuseum.org. http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/article_index/w/what_are_the_elgin_marbles.aspx. Retrieved 2009-05-12.
• ^ "Elgin Marbles — Greek sculpture". Encyclopædia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-184554/Elgin-Marbles. Retrieved 2009-05-12.
• ^ www.athensguide.com/elginmarbles. http://www.athensguide.com/elginmarbles.
• ^ a b Encycolopedia Britannica, Elgin Marbles, 2008, O.Ed.
• ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Casey, Christopher (October 30, 2008). ""Grecian Grandeurs and the Rude Wasting of Old Time": Britain, the Elgin Marbles, and Post-Revolutionary Hellenism". Foundations. Volume III, Number 1. http://ww2.jhu.edu/foundations/?p=8. Retrieved 2009-06-25.
• ^ a b c Encyclopedia Britannica, The Acropolis, p.6/20, 2008, O.Ed.
• ^ Linda Theodorou; Facaros, Dana (2003). Greece (Cadogan Country Guides). Cadogan Guides. p. 55. ISBN 1-86011-898-4.
• ^ Dyson, Stephen L. (2004). Eugenie Sellers Strong: portrait of an archaeologist. London: Duckworth. ISBN 0-7156-3219-1.
• ^ Mark Ellingham, Tim Salmon, Marc Dubin, Natania Jansz, John Fisher, Greece: The Rough Guide,Rough Guides, 1992,<a href="http://en.wik
I will continue to photograph their happy smiles and share them wherever possible. No "busy-body" neighbor or misguided police officer will stop me from this.