Ethical question: Parthenon sculptures

 

The Parthenon sculpture seems to be a very controversial subject to this day.  From what I have heard based on only SmartHistory, the video on, “who owns the Parthenon sculptures,” explains that Lord Elgin had used his own money to extract the sculptures from the Parthenon 1812.  As an ambassador of the Ottoman empire.  Elgin was a prime representative of the British during the time that he asked for funding to extract art.  Elgin’s intent was to create copies, molds, drawings of the pieces.  Everywhere you look is an accusation that Elgins motives were purely for his personal gain.  Elgin went through a legal way in securing a permit to work and handle objects of the Parthenon.  In the permit that has survived, it states, “ Elgin’s men were allowed to draw, make casts, erect scaffolding, and excavate.”  Then at the end of the permit it says,”No one should,…take away any pieces of stone with inscriptions and figures.”  

  

With the knowledge I have I would think that if the sculpture can be returned, preserved and held with the same care that they are currently inside the British museum, then yes, send them back.  That is easier said than done of course.  Even with the right precautions for bringing the sculptures back, this should not shadow the fact that the sculptures have been cared for at the British museum.  Artifact of humanities past should always belong to where they came from.  Though, scientists, archaeologists, museums and so many others have the intent of learning and preserving.  Not everyone has that intent, and that is clear by what Elgin did by taking sculptures that were legally protected in the permit given to him and his workers.  What if those sculpture did stay at the Parthenon?  Would they have even lasted this long?  Would there even be any of those sculptures left?  It is easy to argue weather something should remain where it was found, but artifacts are what they are because someone in history preserved it.  Museums have the purpose to keep them safe, and they are safe where they are.  I do not think any of those sculptures should move from the British museum unless it is certain that they can be cared for, and not damaged on the way back to where they were found.

Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris, "Who owns the Parthenon sculptures?," in Smarthistory, March 16, 2018, accessed September 10, 2020, https://smarthistory.org/who-owns-the-parthenon-sculptures-2/.

Comments


  1. You make some really good points. What I found interesting was that Lord Elgin had to destroy part of the Parthenon to take his pieces away, and he kept it as his private collection for a while before the crown purchased it. I think he might have done it legal but it was done really shady. It should be treated like a prisoner of war and be returned back to its original origin, plus it really wasn’t the Ottoman Empire’s to give.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ethically speaking, I think that the Parthenon sculptures Elgin collected weren’t his to freely take, let alone sell to the British Government. They are a part of a long standing, rich, rooting culture. I understand that the civilization that built the parthenon is no longer here, but even the Greek people of today see it as a symbol of national identity for themselves.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Artwork analysis: My son sanctuary

Artwork analysis: The Black Death

Artwork analysis: Igbo Ukwu