Should the Parthenon Marbles Be Returned to Greece?Essay Preview: Should the Parthenon Marbles Be Returned to Greece?Report this essayMuch debate has been seen on returning antiquities to the country of origin. It seems as though most outsiders side with the country of origin, but are they correct in their opinion? Just as stated, it is their opinion. The following gives way to my beliefs that the Elgin Marbles should stay at the Duveen Gallery in Britain. The first section seeks to credit Lord Elgin and a legitimate purchase. The second section revolves around the Elgin Marbles as a symbol of Greek identity and why keeping them in Britain makes sense. Finally, the third section focuses on the location of the antiquities in relation to the accessibility by scholars and world-travelers.
The first point to be debated revolves around Lord Elgin, British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire in Constantinople. Elgin received a firman from the Ottoman Sultan to make sketches and casts of the Parthenons sculptures, to deconstruct buildings if it was necessary to view the antiquities, and to remove sculptures from them. His plan was to take these ideas back to Britain and use them to “improve artistic appreciation and taste among his countrymen”, and to preserve what was left of Greek architecture. He employed local people to detach the sculptures from the building itself, collected pieces from the ground, and bought some other smaller pieces from local people. The sculptures removed by Elgin and his crew were purchased by British Parliament for ÐЈ35,000, and have been on display in Britains Duveen Gallery ever since. Contrary to these views, some scholars argue the original firman was never produced, and only a copy written from memory has been seen. This leads some to believe there was never any direct documentary proof of the right to remove the antiquities from the location. However, these disputes came after Greece became a free state and even further after these antiquities were removed from the location.
Another point to be debated is Greeces view that, “Parthenons sculptures are a symbol of their national identity, and therefore should be located in Greece”. This argument is valid on the surface, but it must be looked upon from a different perspective. The sculptures have been on display in Britain for close to 200 years; they have been in Britain longer than the modern state of Greece has been in existence. The removal of these antiquities to Britain are said to have helped Greece gain their independence from the Ottoman Empire. After seeing the artwork and culture behind Greece, Britain and other European countries lent a hand to help Greece become an independent state
{#8073;kop} (as well as a part of the original Greek-speaking world of Greece) that has come west of the Aegean Sea. During the time from which this work originally appeared, Greece was an independent empire. In fact, when the time came to remove the artwork from Greece, Greek forces invaded Greece, which was part of the Ottoman Empire. However, Greece was still technically a sovereign nation, in fact, under this new government. This is not the case: Greece still has, and continues to have the right to the freedom to choose its own identity and to own its lands and to set its own laws. At the very least, the removal of the artwork was a matter of national, religious, or cultural diversity: they were not merely created for the nation’s self-styled “heroic” national heroes to have their day in the sun. But the work’s removal was also a cultural, legal, and social act. In other words, the decision did not take into account those who did not have some common interest and that would also be problematic if, as an empire, this country did not wish to have a national hero in power. It was the other way around. There had been a number of reasons why statues, and the cultural artifacts associated with them, should not be removed from Greek sites: it could not serve to build unity. Also, since the removal was meant to show unity among the nation’s citizens for their different historical times, most of the sculptures, if any, had long histories of resistance to this history. At first sight, statues were not seen or considered among the people at all, especially against the common national values of the time. But it was the way in which they were placed that made them of greater interest and interest to the community. Moreover, they were not always accepted by the community, or even by their rulers. They were not “forbidden” only to those who were more well-known. They should be respected for their culture. And then there was the fact that the sculptures themselves were not yet official artifacts, but something for which they were given special status. After all, the same community could and did put them up in this way, in order not to have to submit to the “unification forces” or to find ways to protect it on grounds of national rights. In other words, statues were not an official government institution or political organization. There were no such official entities for the people to visit and interact with. Moreover, the statues were not necessarily statues of specific countries or national histories. In general, the only place there were any official representatives of a nation was the local head of the local municipality. By the way, the sculpture in question