Museums will not hand back stolen artefacts
Agamemnon
Museums thwart artefact claims
Some of the world's leading museums have joined forces to declare that they
will not hand back ancient artefacts to their countries of origin.
Directors of 18 institutions, from St Petersburg to New York, signed a
declaration saying their collections act as "universal museums" for the good
of the world.
People have only been able to fully appreciate ancient civilisations because
their institutions have provided access to archaeological, artistic and
ethnic objects, they say.
The statement follows increased calls for the return of artefacts that were
removed decades or centuries ago, such as the controversial Elgin Marbles,
which are in the British Museum.
Click here to see a full list of the museums
A similar row has simmered over the Benin Bronzes that are kept in London
and Berlin, while Turkey has been pushing for the return of the Pergamon
Altar, also currently on show in Berlin.
In 1993, the Metropolitan Museum of Art reluctantly handed over 363 pieces
of gold, silver, precious stones, paintings and sculptures to Turkey after a
court case.
The directors' declaration said: "The universal admiration for ancient
civilisations would not be so deeply established today were it not for the
influence exercised by the artefacts of these cultures, widely available to
an international public in major museums."
It said Greek culture would not have become so lauded if museums had not put
statues on show.
'Not comparable'
"The collections of public museums throughout the world marked the
significance of Greek sculpture for mankind as a whole and its enduring
value for the contemporary world."
The acquisition of objects in past eras cannot be treated the same as
illegal trade in antiquities today, the directors said.
"The objects and monumental works that were installed decades and even
centuries ago in museums throughout Europe and America were acquired under
conditions that are not comparable with current ones," the statement said.
Parthenon row
The statement was discussed at an informal meeting of directors earlier in
2002, and the heads of institutions including the Louvre in Paris, the
Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York
signed up.
The British Museum has not signed up to the declaration, but says it fully
supports it.
Over recent years, it has faced growing calls to hand back the Elgin
Marbles, sculptures taken from the Parthenon in Athens in the 19th century.
But the British Museum has said it is the "best possible place for them".
"They must remain here if the museum is to continue to achieve its aim,
which is to show the world to the world," director Neil McGregor said
recently.
Museums signed up to the declaration:
The Art Institute of Chicago
Bavarian State Museum, Munich (Alte Pinakothek, Neue Pinakothek)
State Museums, Berlin
Cleveland Museum of Art
J Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles
Solomon R Guggenheim Museum, New York
Los Angeles County Museum of Art
Louvre Museum, Paris
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
The Museum of Modern Art, New York
Opificio delle Pietre Dure, Florence
Philadelphia Museum of Art
Prado Museum, Madrid
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg
Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum, Madrid
Whitney Museum of American Art, New York
Bernard Rhodin
Troy is stored is NOT allowed to sign the list.
State Museum of Berlin claims it is STOLEN from them. Where it
originally came from, neither seams to bother..
Pathetic, indeed!
Bernard Rhodin
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message news:<at4241$dhl$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
astron
to Athens for the benefit of all mankind so that it can appreciate Van Gough
. Better still put a statute of limitations of the crime of say 5-10 years ,
after which the paintings resurface and become the property of the Athens
Museum and the all Mankind to enjoy in perpetuity .
Greece should withdraw from all the relevant conventions and aggressively
retaliate against these countries with help of Greek billionaires and their
foundations .
These countries are looting Greece as we speak through their Greek cohorts
i.e. illegal smugglers and excavators . Should not Greece return the favor
?
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:at4241$dhl$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.426 / Virus Database: 239 - Release Date: 2/12/02
astron
>
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:at4241$dhl$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > BBC Monday, 9 December, 2002, 14:58 GMT
> >
>
I heard 2 Van Goughs were removed from Amsterdam's Van Gough Museum last
week . Greece should take them to Athens for the benefit of all mankind , so
that it can appreciate Van Gough . Better still put a statute of limitations
on the crime of say 5-10 years , after which the paintings "mysteriously"
resurface and become the property of the Athens Museum and all Mankind to
enjoy in perpetuity .
Greece should withdraw from all the relevant conventions and aggressively
retaliate against these countries with help of Greek billionaires and their
foundations .
These countries are looting Greece as we speak through their Greek cohorts
i.e. illegal smugglers and excavators . Should not Greece return the favor
?
Should not operatives be infiltrating well known agents for smuggling Greek
antiquities to the Metropolitan Museum like the infamous " Royal -Athena
Galleries " in New York City ?
Matt Giwer
> BBC Monday, 9 December, 2002, 14:58 GMT
>
> Museums thwart artefact claims
>
> Some of the world's leading museums have joined forces to declare that they
> will not hand back ancient artefacts to their countries of origin.
At some point there has to be a reasonable position taken. I don't know that
this is it. The wording borders on sanctimonious.
If the story is true the Elgin Marbles are a good example, saved from
destruction to make lime. Had they not been bought they would be gone.
Something like declaring the current laws on antiquities theft considered
retroactive feels reasonable. The Marbles would be legal the Troy artifacts not.
--
If there is no censorship of the US media why is it there
is no publication of information contrary to the Washington
political line? Such stories are published outside the US.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2118
Agamemnon
"Matt Giwer" <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:OOrJ9.350608$fa.66...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> Agamemnon wrote:
> > BBC Monday, 9 December, 2002, 14:58 GMT
> >
> > Museums thwart artefact claims
> >
> > Some of the world's leading museums have joined forces to declare that
they
> > will not hand back ancient artefacts to their countries of origin.
>
> At some point there has to be a reasonable position taken. I don't know
that
> this is it. The wording borders on sanctimonious.
>
> If the story is true the Elgin Marbles are a good example, saved from
> destruction to make lime. Had they not been bought they would be gone.
BULLSHIT. The act of chiselling the out of the body of the Parthenon caused
more damage to them than leaving them where they were.
Nicolas
> Agamemnon wrote:
>
>> BBC Monday, 9 December, 2002, 14:58 GMT
>>
>> Museums thwart artefact claims
>>
>> Some of the world's leading museums have joined forces to declare that
>> they
>> will not hand back ancient artefacts to their countries of origin.
>
>
> At some point there has to be a reasonable position taken. I don't
> know that this is it. The wording borders on sanctimonious.
>
> If the story is true the Elgin Marbles are a good example, saved
> from destruction to make lime. Had they not been bought they would be gone.
make lime.
Hyperbole is a way of life with you, isn't it?
Nicolas
Matt Giwer
> "Matt Giwer" <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:OOrJ9.350608$fa.66...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>>Agamemnon wrote:
>>
>>>BBC Monday, 9 December, 2002, 14:58 GMT
>>>
>>>Museums thwart artefact claims
>>>
>>>Some of the world's leading museums have joined forces to declare that
>
> they
>
>>>will not hand back ancient artefacts to their countries of origin.
>>
>>At some point there has to be a reasonable position taken. I don't know
> > that
>>this is it. The wording borders on sanctimonious.
>>If the story is true the Elgin Marbles are a good example, saved from
>>destruction to make lime. Had they not been bought they would be gone.
> BULLSHIT. The act of chiselling the out of the body of the Parthenon caused
> more damage to them than leaving them where they were.
I said, IF the story is true. The story was they were saved from being burned
to produce lime. If that it not true then my statement does not apply. If the
locals were not preserving them (they were Turks weren't they? you can blame
then can't you?) then someone did even if they screwed them up a century later
in the cleaning.
>>Something like declaring the current laws on antiquities theft considered
>>retroactive feels reasonable. The Marbles would be legal the Troy
> > artifacts not.
--
Mere assertion and repetition of exaggerations and misleading statements
is the tool of propaganda. That is all the government gives us about
the war against Iraq.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2100
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Agamemnon wrote:
>>> BBC Monday, 9 December, 2002, 14:58 GMT
>>> Museums thwart artefact claims
>>> Some of the world's leading museums have joined forces to declare
>>> that they
>>> will not hand back ancient artefacts to their countries of origin.
>> At some point there has to be a reasonable position taken. I don't
>> know that this is it. The wording borders on sanctimonious.
>> If the story is true the Elgin Marbles are a good example, saved
>> from destruction to make lime. Had they not been bought they would be
>> gone.
> Please indicate how and when other parts of the Acropolis were used to
> make lime.
> Hyperbole is a way of life with you, isn't it?
The story I read was the locals were going to burn the stones to produce lime
and were bought from whoever had the franchise on the limestone. I said IF.
Maybe the Brit made it up. I haven't researched the story. The IF made it an
example.
--
Ever notice it is only braindead creationists like
W. Bush who support Israel?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2108
Xtes-00k
lime
and were bought from whoever had the franchise on the limestone. I said IF.
Maybe the Brit made it up. I haven't researched the story. The IF made it an
example.
----Oh come on! You should've known better than anybody that the lime story
obviously was made up by the Limies (Brits).
Xtes-00k
"Matt Giwer" <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ZHzJ9.354135$fa.67...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Matthew Taylor
was begun by the British Museum
"He said it began as a largely European initiative; another museum director,
speaking on condition of anonymity, said it began as a "call for help" from
Neil MacGregor, director of the British Museum."
So they come up with the idea, but then don't sign it so that it looks as
though the idea came from somewhere else.
From:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/11/arts/design/11RETU.html?ex=1040274000&en=a
b22a7c5b6324808&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
Major Museums Affirm Right to Keep Long-Held Antiquities
By CELESTINE BOHLEN
Directors of major European and American museums have issued a strongly
worded statement affirming their right to keep long-held antiquities that
countries like Greece and Egypt, with increasing insistence, have demanded
be repatriated.
The statement, signed by directors of 18 museums, including Philippe de
Montebello of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the heads of nine other
American institutions, was released last week to a newspaper in London,
where the British Museum has resisted Greek demands for the return — even on
temporary loan — of the marble sculptures and friezes removed from the
Parthenon by Lord Elgin in 1801 to 1803.
That statement acknowledges that illegal traffic in ancient and ethnic
artwork should now be "firmly discouraged." But it argues that objects
acquired in the past should be "viewed in the light of different
sensitivities and values, reflective of that earlier era."
Those objects "have become part of the museums that have cared for them, and
by extension part of the heritage of the nations which house them," the
statement says.
Nonetheless, the statement notes that each repatriation case should be
judged individually. "The point of the statement was not to take clear-cut
positions on any individual case," said James N. Wood, director of the Art
Institute of Chicago and one of the signatories, "but really to understand
the history, the contribution and the importance of the universal museum as
a concept."
Mr. de Montebello, in an interview yesterday, said that the statement was
first discussed at an international meeting of museum directors held in
Munich last October. He said it began as a largely European initiative;
another museum director, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it began
as a "call for help" from Neil MacGregor, director of the British Museum.
Greece has been lobbying hard to have the Parthenon marbles returned to
Athens for the 2004 Summer Olympic Games, where they would be the
centerpiece of a new museum being built at the Acropolis.
The Greek campaign began in earnest some 20 years ago when Melina Mercouri,
then minister of culture, made the return of the marbles a matter of
national pride. "The marbles were martyred by an Englishman to decorate his
house," said the fiery actress. "It was an act of barbarism. For Greeks the
Parthenon isn't just any monument, it's the monument. It represents our
soul."
Interestingly, neither the British Museum nor any other museum in Britain
are listed among the signatories of the statement, which was circulated
electronically as directors made changes to the text. The statement first
appeared on Sunday in The Sunday Times of London, where Mr. MacGregor is
quoted as supporting the statement.
Many major works of art over the centuries have ended up in museums far from
their place of origin, and disputes over ownership surface periodically.
There are other unresolved restitution cases besides the Parthenon marbles,
including the Pergamon Altar, claimed by Turkey, now at the Pergamon Museum
of the state museums of Berlin — among the signatories, along with the
Louvre, the Prado in Madrid and the State Hermitage Museum in St.
Petersburg — and the Benin Bronzes from Nigeria, now held at the Royal
Academy of Arts in London.
Lord Elgin obtained Turkish permission to remove the marbles from the
Parthenon when he was ambassador to the Ottomon Empire, of which Greece was
then a part. They were later sold to the British government, which insists
to this day that the marbles were legally obtained.
"Today museums would not condone what people did 200 years ago," Mr. de
Montebello said. "But you cannot rewrite history. Those were different
times, with different ethics and different mores." Mr. de Montebello
insisted that the statement did not refer to any recent acquisitions, which
are governed by international conventions, including one adopted by Unesco
in 1970, and by an increasingly strict interpretations of United States law
on stolen property.
In recent years the art world has been rocked by a series of ownership
disputes. Heirs of Holocaust victims have laid claim to artwork that was
looted by the Nazis, and later improperly sold to collectors and museums.
Art-rich countries in Europe, but also Latin America, have become more
protective about their cultural patrimony, passing laws that declared
anything found beneath the ground to be national property.
Given the perplexing tangle of law, diplomacy and moral claims now facing
museums, some directors at the Munich meeting tried to expand the statement
to include guidelines for future acquisitions. But that effort failed for
lack of a consensus, said one museum director, speaking on condition of
anonymity.
"Museums feel that they ought to remind people that they are not private
collections, that the great works of antiquities are not kept behind closed
doors, but that they are out there — to be admired, studied, and viewed,"
Mr. de Montebello said. "They are there to be seen in the context of other
civilizations."
bob
>
> "Matt Giwer" <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:OOrJ9.350608$fa.66...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > Agamemnon wrote:
> > > BBC Monday, 9 December, 2002, 14:58 GMT
> > >
> > > Museums thwart artefact claims
> > >
> > > Some of the world's leading museums have joined forces to declare that
> they
> > > will not hand back ancient artefacts to their countries of origin.
> >
> > At some point there has to be a reasonable position taken. I don't know
> that
> > this is it. The wording borders on sanctimonious.
> >
> > If the story is true the Elgin Marbles are a good example, saved from
> > destruction to make lime. Had they not been bought they would be gone.
>
> BULLSHIT. The act of chiselling the out of the body of the Parthenon
caused
> more damage to them than leaving them where they were.
true, but now that it's been done, and the marbles are in british musuem, we
have to ask what now? hindsight is 20/20..
the problem with the marbles (and ALL museum artifacts all over the world)
is that if the marbles must be returned, then why can't EVERY country demand
EVERY artifact of it's own origin be returned for domestic museums? it's
just not reasonable, people could only see artifacts of a country by
visiting that country..suppose for example that to see african art you had
to travel to africa? to see chinese art you had to travel to china? to see
artifacts of present day turkey you had to travel to turkey? or to see
anything italian renaissance you had to go to florence? it's just not
reasonable..so for greece to demand the marbles back, it sets precedent that
we wouldn't like to see......i know it seems nauseating but the
ramifications are just too difficult to take the marbles back...
although they never should've been taken in the 1st place, that's almost
immaterial at this point in time..
bob
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Roger Pearse
> BBC Monday, 9 December, 2002, 14:58 GMT
>
> Museums thwart artefact claims
>
> Some of the world's leading museums have joined forces to declare that they
> will not hand back ancient artefacts to their countries of origin.
And quite right too. Security of property is the basis of all
civilised life.
The only motive behind all these attempts to steal property from major
museums is a mixture of greed and sleazy nationalism; and only
third-world states do this, and however much they steal, they remain
as poor as ever.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
astron
of politicians elected democratically by the people those museums are found
in .
Or , they can endure the reverse ( see my previous posts on the issue ) .
"Roger Pearse" <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.02121...@posting.google.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 6/12/02
Matthew Taylor
"bob" <st...@castlegate.net> wrote in message
news:3df88...@corp.newsgroups.com...
<snip>
>
> the problem with the marbles (and ALL museum artifacts all over the world)
> is that if the marbles must be returned, then why can't EVERY country
demand
> EVERY artifact of it's own origin be returned for domestic museums? it's
With repatriation of cultural artefacts, every case is different & assessed
on its own merits. All laywers who specialise in this field are in agreement
that it is an area where no generalisations can be made, as the
circumstances of each case are so different.
Many artefacts in museums were acquired entirely legally - therefore they
are on the whole uncontested.
Many artefacts in museums are not specifically unique - there are other
similar or comparable artefacts, therefore there importance to a specific
culture is not so great as for those artefacts that are unique. Eg. there
are more than enough Greek vases or carved Cycladic figures that it is not
generally regarded as a problem if they are held all over the world - There
are still similar ones in the country of origin.
The Parthenon marbles were an integral part of a building that still
partially survives - they were designed to be seen in the contect of & to
relate to this building - they are not like paintings, or movable sculptures
that were dsigned without a specific location in mind.
> just not reasonable, people could only see artifacts of a country by
> visiting that country..suppose for example that to see african art you had
> to travel to africa? to see chinese art you had to travel to china? to see
> artifacts of present day turkey you had to travel to turkey? or to see
> anything italian renaissance you had to go to florence? it's just not
> reasonable..so for greece to demand the marbles back, it sets precedent
that
> we wouldn't like to see......i know it seems nauseating but the
> ramifications are just too difficult to take the marbles back...
I think that if you read everything properly, that this is not what anyone
has seriously suggested.
Conversely - Why should it be the other way around that Africans (who can
not afford to) would have to travel abroad to see the heritage of their
country, whereas the people from the countries where the artefacts are held
are now far more easily able to travel to Africa to see it (if they so wish)
You don't think that the african art is important to a greater percentage of
the people in Africa than outside of Africa?
Matthew
Matthew Taylor
news:<at4241$dhl$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > BBC Monday, 9 December, 2002, 14:58 GMT
> >
> > Museums thwart artefact claims
> >
> > Some of the world's leading museums have joined forces to declare that
they
> > will not hand back ancient artefacts to their countries of origin.
>
> And quite right too. Security of property is the basis of all
> civilised life.
>
> The only motive behind all these attempts to steal property from major
> museums is a mixture of greed and sleazy nationalism;
How did the museums acquire the items in the first place? We are not talking
here about items that were acquired legally.
> and only
> third-world states do this, and however much they steal, they remain
> as poor as ever.
I don't think that the third world states were the ones doing most of the
stealing.
The reason that they are the only ones that are so vocal about the return of
items (in your opinion) is that they were the only ones who had large
quantities of their heritage stolen in the first place by colonial forces
from first world nations.
Matthew
Matthew Taylor
Afromet Replies to European, American Museum Directors
Addis Tribune (Addis Ababa)
NEWS
December 13, 2002
Posted to the web December 13, 2002
AFROMET, the Association for the Return of Ethiopia's Maqdala
Treasures, reacted yesterday to the recent statement of European and
American Museum Directors opposing the restoration of cultural
artifacts to their country of origin.
AFROMET said that the Museum Directors, seeking to cling on to their
treasures, many of them acquired by loot or other doubtful practices,
claimed that their collections enable audiences to gain a comparative
view of world culture.
AFROMET, in its statement signed by its Chair, Professor Andreas
Eshete, declared that the Museum Directors' statement was no more
than Eurocentric special pleading. Referring to the extensive looting
of religious and secular artifacts from Maqdala in 1868, AFROMET
declared that the Museum Directors' statement ignored the fact that
such acquisition had no basis in international law, and was indeed no
more than a theft, involving sacrilege, according to a statement from
AFROMET.
The Directors, as AFROMET sees it, are now conducting a rearguard
action, for the principle of restitution of cultural artifacts to
their country of origin is now increasingly accepted. The right to
restitution is now supported by both UNESCO and the African Union,
and the Italian Government declared itself committed to the return to
Ethiopia of the Aksum obelisk looted from Ethiopia on Mussolini's
personal orders in 1937, the AFROMETrelease said.
AFROMET believed that Ethiopia's culture, and that of the African
people as a whole, should be accessible to the descendants of those
who produced it. Few of Ethiopia's sixty or so million inhabitants
are in a position to visit the great museums of Europe or America to
inspect their heritage; and it is unseemly of the museum directors to
expect those robbed of their rightful inheritance to have always to
grovel for it, it said.
__________________________________________
From: "Jullien, V."
Subject: Press Release ICOM - repatriation of Cultural
Property
Date sent: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:27:06 +0100
Press Release
13 december 2002
ICOM
Repatriation of Cultural Property
The International Council of Museums (ICOM) welcomes the strong
emphasis on discouraging illegal traffic in archaeological, artistic
and ethnic objects, as made in a declaration signed by 18 museums in
Europe and the United States.
ICOM, as it is widely known, strongly supports the UNESCO Convention
on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export
and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970) and the
UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen and Illegally Exported Cultural Objects
(1995).
ICOM realises, however, that objects acquired in earlier times must
sometimes be viewed in the light of different sensitivities and
values.
Museums have over the years safeguarded a rich variety of
collections, and have made them available to the public in various
ways.
Repatriation of objects is an issue that should be very carefully
dealt with. Wise and thoughtful judgement is necessary. Unnecessarily
strong judgements or declarations should in any case be avoided.
As is stated in the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums: "In response to
requests for the return of cultural property to the country or people
of origin, museums should be prepared to initiate dialogues with an
open-minded attitude based on scientific and professional principles
(in preference to action at a governmental or political level). In
addition, the possibility of developing bilateral or multilateral
partnerships with museums in countries that have lost a significant
part of their cultural or natural heritage should be explored."
Museums all over the world are institutions in the service of society
and its development, and share a common goal.
ICOM welcomes a thoughtful approach and a thorough debate, and it
will certainly take the initiative in developing a balanced view on
the sensitive issue of the repatriation of objects.
ICOM
Maison de l'UNESCO - 1, rue Miollis - 7532 Paris cedex 15 - France
Tel: +33 (0) 1 47.34.05.00 Fax: +33 (0) 1.4306.78.62
_______________________________________________
Date sent: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 09:26:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Clifford Scheiner
There needs to be a serious discussion of who legitimately owns
cultural property. If private property is lost by accident or war or
natural disaster, or is intentionally buried for safe keeping or
funeral purposes, when does the private individual, or their heirs,
lose the property right to that material, and have it become the
property of the entity that currently governs the place the property
is currently located in? It can't be 50 years, as current practice
concerning property looted in World War II demonstrates. What about
100 years or 1000 years or 5000 years? This is a slippery slope
arguement with no simple answer.
And what about once public property built or owned by governments
that no longer exist? Why should any modern government be legal heir
to the public buildings of ancient Babylonia or the Aztecs? There has
been no continuity of government from that which created the
buildings to the current political regimes which claim them.
In essence antiquities and valuable cultural properties are treated
as war booty by governments. Governments for the most part allow the
private ownership of property at their whim. Governments appoint
themselves the guardians of desirable properties even when the
private owner is known. Let's admit that and set down in writing
rules that apply equally to private and public property throughout
the world.
C.J. Scheiner
_________________________________________
From: "wyxhsz"
The directors of 18 European and American art museums go too far!
They are impolite and unjust, both to original source and their
people! We admire the 2001 statement deploring the Taliban's
destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and other art objects in
Afghanistan. The statement shows a sense of justice to protect the
cultural heritage for Afghanistan and EVERY NATION. We also admire
the 1998's guidelines for dealing with art confiscated by the Nazis
during the Holocaust since it shows the great sympathy to Jewish
victims and condemnation to war, although it happened in DECADES AGO.
Unfortunately, the new statement shows a different view to the two
formers. It is true that "major museums" have played important roles
in conservation and exhibition of ancient objects and monumental
works. However, if those objects were acquired under colonialism or
invasion war or other unjust means, the museum which hold them could
say it serves EVERY NATION including the original nation? Such
acquirsition are illegal whenever it happened decades ago or
centuries ago. We do not see any sense of justice and sympathy to
those nations and people who lost thier cultural property in EARLIER
TIMES from this statement. It is contrary to the principle of
encouraging the return of cultural heritage to the original nation,
which is initiated by the international society, including the
international museum community. Although those major museums are
opened to every nation and every visitor, how could they serve those
original nation's people who are not able to visit those museums?
Cultural Heritage Watch
www.culturalheritagewatch.org
Beijing China
astron
The whole world can then enjoy them in Greece . They are the cultural
property of the whole world and should not be in the Rijksmeseum .
Anybody get my hint .......oink, oink ?
choro-nik
british lord has got several. i heard him bragging on tv.
--
choro-nik
*******
"astron" <ast...@texas.com.us> wrote in message
news:atgq64$kd3$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Matthew Taylor
from:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1039660114241762793-search,00.html?collec
tion=wsjie%2F30day&vql_string=museum%3Cin%3E%28article%2Dbody%29
THE GALLERY
'Museums Serve Every Nation'
Following is the full text of Declaration on the Importance and Value of
Universal Museums
signed by the directors of 18 European and American art museums. The
declaration, which was
issued in London last weekend, was prompted by the growing world-wide chorus
calling for the
return of such treasures as the Elgin Marbles and the Pergamon Altar, both
masterpieces of
ancient Greek art housed in, respectively, the British Museum and the
Pergamon Museum in
Berlin. The Greek government has been lobbying for the return of the Elgin
Marbles in time for
the 2004 Olympics in Athens. The Turkish government is claiming the Pergamon
Altar.
It is rare for museum directors to speak out as a group on an issue. In
March, 2001, the
Association of Art Museum Directors, representing museums in the United
States, Canada and
Mexico, issued a statement deploring the Taliban's destruction of the
Buddhas of Bamiyan and
other art objects in Afghanistan. And in 1998 the AAMD issued a set of
guidelines for dealing
with art confiscated by the Nazis during the Holocaust that has since turned
up in museums. ------
-----------------
The international museum community shares the conviction that illegal
traffic in archaeological,
artistic, and ethnic objects must be firmly discouraged. We should, however,
recognize that
objects acquired in earlier times must be viewed in the light of different
sensitivities and values,
reflective of the earlier era. The objects and monumental works that were
installed decades and
even centuries ago in museums throughout Europe and America were acquired
under conditions
that are not comparable with current ones.
Over time, objects so acquired -- whether by purchase, gift, or partage --
have become part of
the museums that have cared for them, and by extension, part of the heritage
of the nations
which house them. Today we are especially sensitive to the subject of a
work's original context,
but we should not lose sight of the fact that museums too provide a valid
and valuable context
for objects that were long ago displaced from their original source.
The universal admiration for ancient civilizations would not be so deeply
established today were
it not for the influence exercised by the artifacts of these cultures,
widely available to an
international public in major museums. Indeed, the sculpture of classical
Greece, to take the one
example, is an excellent illustration of this point and of the importance of
public collecting. The
centuries-long history of appreciation of Greek art began in antiquity, was
renewed in
Renaissance Italy, and subsequently spread throughout the world marked the
significance of
Greek sculpture for mankind as a whole and its enduring value for the
contemporary world.
Moreover, the distinctly Greek aesthetic of these works appears to all the
more strongly as the
result of their being seen and studied in direct proximity to products of
other great civilizations.
Calls to repatriate objects that have belonged to museum collections for
many years have
become an important issue for museums. Although each case has to be judged
individually, we
should acknowledge that museums serve not just the citizens of one nation
but the people of
every nation. Museums are agents in the reinterpretation. Each object
contributes to that
process. To narrow the focus of museums whose collections are diverse and
multifaceted would
therefore be a disservice to all visitors.
Signed by the Directors of:
• The Art Institute of Chicago
• Bavarian State Museum, Munich (Alte Pinakothek,
Neue
Pinakothek)
• State Museums, Berlin
• Cleveland Museum of Art
• J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles
• Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum of Art, New York
• Los Angeles County Museum of Art
• Louvre Museum, Paris
• The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
• The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
• The Museum of Modern Art, New York
• Opificio delle Pietre Dure, Florence
• Philadelphia Museum of Art
• Prado Museum, Madrid
• Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
• State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg
• Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum, Madrid
• Whitney Museum of America, New York
Roger Pearse
> "Roger Pearse" <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3a88eeea.02121...@posting.google.com...
> > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:<at4241$dhl$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > > BBC Monday, 9 December, 2002, 14:58 GMT
> > >
> > > Museums thwart artefact claims
> > >
> > > Some of the world's leading museums have joined forces to declare that
> they
> > > will not hand back ancient artefacts to their countries of origin.
> >
> > And quite right too. Security of property is the basis of all
> > civilised life.
> >
> > The only motive behind all these attempts to steal property from major
> > museums is a mixture of greed and sleazy nationalism;
>
> How did the museums acquire the items in the first place? We are not talking
> here about items that were acquired legally.
Be serious.
bob
>
> "bob" <st...@castlegate.net> wrote in message
> news:3df88...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
> <snip>
> >
> > the problem with the marbles (and ALL museum artifacts all over the
world)
> > is that if the marbles must be returned, then why can't EVERY country
> demand
> > EVERY artifact of it's own origin be returned for domestic museums? it's
>
> With repatriation of cultural artefacts, every case is different &
assessed
> on its own merits. All laywers who specialise in this field are in
agreement
> that it is an area where no generalisations can be made, as the
> circumstances of each case are so different.
but what happens when the british lawyers and greek lawyers disagree on this
issue? who gets the final say?
> Many artefacts in museums were acquired entirely legally - therefore they
> are on the whole uncontested.
> Many artefacts in museums are not specifically unique - there are other
> similar or comparable artefacts, therefore there importance to a specific
> culture is not so great as for those artefacts that are unique. Eg. there
> are more than enough Greek vases or carved Cycladic figures that it is not
> generally regarded as a problem if they are held all over the world -
There
> are still similar ones in the country of origin.
> The Parthenon marbles were an integral part of a building that still
> partially survives - they were designed to be seen in the contect of & to
> relate to this building - they are not like paintings, or movable
sculptures
> that were dsigned without a specific location in mind.
i never said they shouldn't be returned, but i'd like to see them returned
w/out having to return them by legal force..it'd be great if the brit museum
would just give them up willingly..but being that they will not, then the
idea of forcing them back legally comes into play..and the precedent that
will be set is that any country that has a valid reason for wanting their
artifacts (or paintings or sculptures or whatever) back will start to demand
it back by the millions..it's unfortunate.
> > just not reasonable, people could only see artifacts of a country by
> > visiting that country..suppose for example that to see african art you
had
> > to travel to africa? to see chinese art you had to travel to china? to
see
> > artifacts of present day turkey you had to travel to turkey? or to see
> > anything italian renaissance you had to go to florence? it's just not
> > reasonable..so for greece to demand the marbles back, it sets precedent
> that
> > we wouldn't like to see......i know it seems nauseating but the
> > ramifications are just too difficult to take the marbles back...
>
> I think that if you read everything properly, that this is not what anyone
> has seriously suggested.
> Conversely - Why should it be the other way around that Africans (who can
> not afford to) would have to travel abroad to see the heritage of their
> country, whereas the people from the countries where the artefacts are
held
> are now far more easily able to travel to Africa to see it (if they so
wish)
> You don't think that the african art is important to a greater percentage
of
> the people in Africa than outside of Africa?
nobody should have to travel somewhere to see art if a specific background,
that's the pt i believe..artifacts from all over the world should be housed
all over the world so that someone visiting, say, new york, could go to the
met museum and see artifacts from all over in 1 place..that's the british
musuem's claim to the marbles too, albeit a weak one..
Matthew Taylor
http://www.chicagotribune.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Museum Security Network"
Museums balk at art returns
Objects acquired centuries ago not negotiable
By William Mullen
Tribune staff reporter
December 15, 2002
Art museums have been asked to return works stolen by Nazis from
wealthy Jews. Native Americans have demanded the return of human
remains and sacred objects taken without permission from their
ancestors and now in the hands of history museums. If at first these
museums balked at losing some of their most treasured possessions,
they soon bowed to both laws and public opinion and repatriated many
artifacts. The process had become commonplace enough that a statement
by 18 directors of the world's most prominent art museums made public
last week was startling in its contrary position. While the museums
have no dispute with requests by Nazi survivors or Native Americans,
they take issue with a rising tide of claims for repatriation of
antiquities acquired centuries ago in an atmosphere of ethical
standards far different from today's. The signatories, including
James Wood, director of the Art Institute of Chicago, argued that
long-held antiquities in their collections "have become part of the
museums that have cared for them, and by extension part of the
heritage of the nations which house them." The statement is seen by
some as an indication of how deeply worried museum administrators are
about erosion of their core collections.Especially worrisome are
antiquities that came to their collections from colonial lands 100 or
200 or more years ago during the heyday of 18th and 19th Century
western imperial conquest. Released in London, the statement was
issued in the face of increasingly insistent demands on museums from
nations such as Greece and Egypt that want priceless historical
relics returned to them. The Elgin Marbles is an example. The British
Museum acquired the priceless marble frieze from the Parthenon in
Greece 200 years ago in a way that would be illegal by today's
standards of museum ethics. "Is there a statute of limitations on
this sort of thing?" asked Neal Harris, a University of Chicago
historian. "I don't think you can issue flat-out edicts on the return
of things acquired centuries ago. It's very complex when things are
taken a long time ago. If people can make legal claims in those sorts
of situations, it would put all museums at risk, not to mention
individual collectors," he said. Wood called each of the museums
signing the statement "universal museums" that display in one place
great works of art from all the world's cultures, with examples of
their art represented from antiquity through the modern era. "This is
a much broader issue than the question of national patrimony," he
said. The statement is not "trying to make clear-cut positions on any
particular repatriation case, but get people to understand the
history, contributions and importance of the universal museum
concept." Wood insisted the statement simply reiterates the position
most museums have taken for many years. It was formulated during an
international meeting in Munich of more than 200 art museum directors
who "thought it would be positive thing to affirm our thinking." What
may have triggered the statement is a 200-year battle the British
Museum is having with Greek authorities over ownership of the Elgin
Marbles.
In 1801, when Greece was a part of the Turkish-ruled Ottoman Empire,
Lord Elgin, the British ambassador at the Ottoman court, got
permission to remove the exquisitely sculpted frieze from the
Parthenon in Athens. At the time, the Parthenon building, erected in
450 B.C., was a steadily crumbling ruin so ignored by the Ottomans
that, had Elgin not rescued the frieze, historians believe it would
have been lost forever. By the time Elgin sold the frieze to the
British Museum in 1816, Greeks were demanding its return, as were
many prominent Britons. But the sculptures have inspired so many
generations of artists and historians at the British Museum that they
are considered among the most seminal cultural influences in western
civilization. In recent years, Greece has mounted a new campaign to
have the sculptures returned in time for the staging of the Olympic
Games in Athens in 2004. The Greek campaign has won a surprising
amount of public sympathy in England. A poll reported in the Times of
London in October showed 56 percent of all Britons favored giving the
sculptures back to Greece, though 76 percent of those polled said
they knew "not much" or "nothing" about the sculptures. "I think
what's new," said Kimberly Rorschach, director of the Smart Museum of
Art at the University of Chicago, "is this notion of claiming
illegalities in transactions that happened 200 years ago or more.
"The Elgin Marbles legally were removed with the permission of the
Ottoman government. To look at it with our own sense of justice
today, the legality might be called into question, but I don't think
we can go back and change what happened 200 years ago." What is going
on, said Ohio State University historian Steven Conn, is an evolution
of the concept of cultural patrimony, artifacts that embody the
history and essential spirit and beauty of a nation's peoples. "The
Europeans developed a fairly confident sense of their cultural
patrimony by the late 19th Century," he said.
That sense came in no small part because of their unease in seeing
rich Americans swarming across their lands, buying up refinement by
the boatload in the form of fine and decorative arts, and shipping it
across the Atlantic. "At some point," said Conn, "European
governments decided the Americans were taking away too much, that it
represented a raid on their cultural heritage. "They began enacting
regulations about what sorts of artifacts that could and could not
legally leave their countries, and so the notion of `cultural
patrimony' was born." Conn said there is a danger in trying to
reverse what's already happened. "It is very easy to issue
retroactive indictments on the past. That is a tricky and dangerous
business" said Conn, author of a 1998 book on museum history,
"Museums and American Intellectual Life." "Had Elgin not rescued the
Marbles from the frieze at the Parthenon, they almost certainly would
have been destroyed. If you regard this sort of material as somehow
transcending notions of ownership belonging to the world, you can see
museums as ideal repositories for them. "Much of the material that
survives in museums from ancient Mesopotamia, located on the border
of modern Iran and Iraq, would have been destroyed by war in the last
20 years had it remained in the ground," he said. "Think of the
lunatic government in Afghanistan blowing up the giant Buddha
sculptures. The whole museum enterprise has its roots in western
expansion and imperialism, but these institutions should not be
burdened with that responsibility, but only be mindful of it.
"The kind of public service these museums provide is pretty
remarkable."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Matthew Taylor
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/17/1039656395914.html
Lost marbles lock up our bones
By Peter Fray, in London
December 18 2002
Britain's long-running dispute with Greece over the return of the Elgin
Marbles sculptures threatens to stall Australian efforts to repatriate
thousands of Aboriginal remains from leading British museums.
Members of an independent British working group, due to report on the export
of human remains, say they have recently been warned against recommending
law reforms that might indirectly assist the Greek claims.
British laws effectively prevent the return of remains from the British and
Natural History museums, which house the country's largest collection of
Aboriginal remains.
The Greek Government has recently renewed efforts to have the marbles, given
to the British Museum by the Earl of Elgin in 1816, returned in time for the
Athens Olympics in 2004.
The working group of prominent academics, museum curators and lawyers is
expected to recommend early next year in favour of repatriation of human
bones and other tissues, often taken without the permission or knowledge of
Aboriginal people during the 19th and 20th centuries.
But group members have told the Herald that they had been warned by an
official from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport at a meeting last
week not to compromise Britain's position on the Elgin Marbles. Dr Maurice
Davis, the deputy director of the British Museums Association, told the
Herald the Government appeared "nervous" about introducing legislation which
could be used by Greece in its long-running campaign.
"It was made clear to us that the Department of Culture is worried that
campaigners may make a link between any legislation about de-accessioning of
human remains with the Elgin Marbles," he said. "Legislation generally
appears to be slipping down the political agenda."
Dr Davies declined to discuss the report but said it would be "sympathetic
and understanding" to repatriation. A survey by the group has found human
remains, including Aboriginal, in more than 60 British museums.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport denied that any
attempt had been made to link repatriation of human remains with the Elgin
Marbles.
Matthew Taylor
> "Matthew Taylor" <matthew....@NOSPAM.mtaylor.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:vh-cncEkMsZ...@brightview.com...
> >
> >
> assessed
> > on its own merits. All laywers who specialise in this field are in
> agreement
> > that it is an area where no generalisations can be made, as the
> > circumstances of each case are so different.
>
> but what happens when the british lawyers and greek lawyers disagree on
this
> issue? who gets the final say?
Unesco has a commitee for arbitration in International disputes over
cultural property.
>
> i never said they shouldn't be returned, but i'd like to see them returned
> w/out having to return them by legal force..it'd be great if the brit
museum
> would just give them up willingly..but being that they will not, then the
> idea of forcing them back legally comes into play..and the precedent that
> will be set is that any country that has a valid reason for wanting their
> artifacts (or paintings or sculptures or whatever) back will start to
demand
> it back by the millions..it's unfortunate.
The Greeks are not trying to use any legal force. They have withdrawn all
legal claims of ownership a few years ago.
> nobody should have to travel somewhere to see art if a specific
background,
> that's the pt i believe..artifacts from all over the world should be
housed
> all over the world so that someone visiting, say, new york, could go to
the
> met museum and see artifacts from all over in 1 place..that's the british
> musuem's claim to the marbles too, albeit a weak one..
But this has been a rather one sided decision, that is currently only of
benefit to the museums that now hold the artefacts. Who apointed this select
group of institutions to act as (first) world museums, & why should there
not be museums similary endowed with a wide range of international treasures
located in other parts of the world.
If the topic under discussion was items that we believe to be a part of our
national heritage, held in a museum in eg. Nigeria, would we see that case
in the same way as it currently appears from our side as the only ones who
benefit from it materialy?
Matthew
Matthew Taylor
----- Original Message -----
THE AGE - EDITORIAL - Melbourne Australia
Transparency and glass cases
December 15 2002
Museums that seek to retain plundered or culturally sensitive artefacts
should think again.
The model of anthropologist Baldwin Spencer, which sits in a glass case in
the Melbourne
Museum's Aboriginal centre, Bunjilaka, challenges us to ask what he might be
doing there. The
words painted on the glass - "We do not choose to be enshrined in a glass
case with our story
told by an alien institution which has appointed itself ambassador for our
culture" - are from the
Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre.
Under Tasmanian law - the first of its kind in the world - indigenous
Tasmanian remains must be
returned to Tasmania. The skeleton of Truganini, long described as the last
Tasmanian
Aborigine, was displayed in a glass case in the Tasmanian Museum until 1947.
But a revolution
in understanding has taken place since then; a revolution that has changed,
and also enriched,
our ideas about what a museum might be. The Melbourne Museum had its own
extensive
collection of Aboriginal artefacts, but has returned objects of cultural
significance to their
traditional owners. It also houses a "keeping place" where precious objects
are kept in trust for
their communities.
The Melbourne Museum's progressive attitude, and its willingness to adapt to
changing
circumstances, provide an interesting contrast to the declaration by a group
of leading American
and European museums last week. Although the declaration opposes the traffic
in illegal
artefacts, it argues that "objects acquired in earlier times must be viewed
in the light of different
sensitivities and values reflective of that earlier era". It says the
decision to repatriate objects
must be made on a case-by-case basis; that museums have played an important
role in
educating the public about ancient civilisations and "serve not just the
citizens of one nation but
the people of every nation".
The declaration was not signed by the British Museum, which is under intense
pressure to return
the Parthenon marbles to Greece, but its director, Neil MacGregor, said he
supported the
declaration's intent. The British Museum has a collection of Aboriginal
remains. The question of
the repatriation of human remains held by British institutions is being
examined by a House of
Commons working group and its report will be released soon. Some overseas
institutions -
including London's Natural History Museum - have resisted returning human
remains to their
descendants in other countries. Although the issue of human remains raises
questions quite
separate from that involved in the repatriation of artworks, the reasons
given by those institutions
keen on keeping their collections intact are often the same in both cases:
they argue that it is the
integrity of the collection- rather than the concerns of the traditional
owners - that should take
precedence.
In the case of the Parthenon marbles, the Greek Government counters, quite
rightly, that the
statues belong on the site from which they were taken. A new museum built to
house the
marbles stands on the Acropolis; the room designed for the statues has a
glass wall showing the
backdrop of the Parthenon behind them. Although it is understandable that
the British are
reluctant to give up such a splendid exhibit, they have no moral or cultural
justification for not
doing so. Philhellenes such as Lord Byron viewed Lord Elgin's taking of the
marbles in 1806 as
an act of vandalism and theft at the time. Even taking into account the
"sensitivities and values
of an earlier era", the acquisition was a dubious one.
In the case of human remains, the "sensitivities and values" that allowed
themto be taken and
displayed in the first place have been so thoroughly discredited that a
decision to keep such
collections intact would appear, at this stage, like an endorsement of the
racism and cultural
imperialism that allowed such collections to be amassed. A London-based Abor
iginal researcher
and postgraduate student, Lyndon Ormond Parker, says the museums'
declaration is a sign that
they believe themselves to be under serious threat from the repatriation
movement.
The case that the museums put for their own cause - "The universal
admiration for ancient
civilisations would not be so deeply established today were it not for the
influence exercised by
the artefacts of these cultures, widely available to an international public
in major museums" - is
not without merit. Museums have played an important role in scholarship and
education, but, as
the case of the Melbourne Museum demonstrates, this role can be enhanced if
museums are
prepared to take an honest look at their past practices and to make a call
on the most ethical
way to settle mistakes made by their predecessors. This is not to endorse
the wholesale
repatriation of artefacts - it may well be that some collections will be
better off in a well-funded
museum than in their land of origin. It would be wrong to assume, however,
that this is
automatically the case. As the Baldwin Spencer exhibit eloquently
demonstrates, some cultural
practices are not only outdated, but offensive. They are best kept in a
glass case.
Matthew Taylor
----- Original Message -----
State Hermitage Refuses to Return Works of Art
The State Hermitage has declared that it will not return works of art to
their countries of origin.
As a Rosbalt correspondent reports, this was announced on Monday, December
16, at an ITAR-
TASS press conference by Director of the State Hermitage Museum Mikhail
Piotrovsky.
In Mr Piotrovsky's opinion, various countries' demands that works of art
held in museums abroad
be returned to their countries of origin amounts to "stealing stolen
property", an old Bolshevik
slogan. 'We are not talking about those works of art that appeared in
museums after the Second
World War or which are now being smuggled out of their countries of origin,'
said the director of
the museum. However there are a lot of 'foreign' works of art located in
museums, which were
acquired in different circumstances. Mr Piotrovsky said that if we were to
'globalize the problem'
then the whole of the Louvre's Egyptian section would have to be returned to
Egypt, all Greek
works of art, scattered across the globe, would have to be returned to
Greece and the Hat of
Monomakh, which is kept in the Kremlin, would have to be returned to Kazan
as it was made by
Tatar craftsmen. 'It is only worth talking about restitution when works of
art have special national
value,' he emphasised. However, he is sure that there could be different
interpretations of this:
the Parthenon did not have any special value for Greeks of the Middle Ages,
their work has
"returned" to them via Europe, after the Renaissance. 'In large museums like
the Hermitage, the
Louvre and others which don't specialize in any area of art, there are many
works of art that have
been removed from their historic and territorial origins. At the same time
the collections of these
museums display culture that is common to all humankind,' he emphasised.
Enquiring mind
"Matthew Taylor" <matthew....@NOSPAM.mtaylor.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> State Hermitage Refuses
Exactly what is your ulterior motive with this unabshedly pro status quo reporting of
museum pieces never being returned?
Everyone has an agenda, I am curious as to what yours may be.
Matthew Taylor
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/4773873.htm
Posted on Thu, Dec. 19, 2002
Museums balk at returning art objects acquired centuries ago
BY WILLIAM MULLEN
Chicago Tribune
CHICAGO - KRT NEWSFEATURES
(KRT) - Art museums have been asked to return works stolen by Nazis from
wealthy Jews. Native Americans have demanded the return of human remains and
sacred objects taken without permission from their ancestors and now in the
hands of history museums.
If at first these museums balked at losing some of their most treasured
possessions, they soon bowed to both laws and public opinion and repatriated
many artifacts.
The process had become commonplace enough that a statement by 18 directors
of the world's most prominent art museums made public last week was
startling in its contrary position.
While the museums have no dispute with requests by Nazi survivors or Native
Americans, they take issue with a rising tide of claims for repatriation of
antiquities acquired centuries ago in an atmosphere of ethical standards far
different from today.
The signatories, including James Wood, director of the Art Institute of
Chicago, argued that long-held antiquities in their collections "have become
part of the museums that have cared for them, and by extension part of the
heritage of the nations which house them."
The statement is seen by some as an indication of how deeply worried museum
administrators are about erosion of their core collections. Especially
worrisome are antiquities that came to their collections from colonial lands
100 or 200 or more years ago during the heyday of 18th and 19th century
patrimony by the late 19th century," he said.
That sense came in no small part because of their unease in seeing rich
Americans swarming across their lands, buying up refinement by the boatload
in the form of fine and decorative arts, and shipping it across the
Atlantic.
"At some point," said Conn, "European governments decided the Americans were
taking away too much, that it represented a raid on their cultural heritage.
"They began enacting regulations about what sorts of artifacts that could
and could not legally leave their countries, and so the notion of `cultural
patrimony' was born."
Conn said there is a danger in trying to reverse what's already happened.
"It is very easy to issue retroactive indictments on the past. That is a
tricky and dangerous business," said Conn, author of a 1998 book on museum
history, "Museums and American Intellectual Life."
"Had Elgin not rescued the Marbles from the frieze at the Parthenon, they
almost certainly would have been destroyed. If you regard this sort of
material as somehow transcending notions of ownership belonging to the
world, you can see museums as ideal repositories for them.
"Much of the material that survives in museums from ancient Mesopotamia,
located on the border of modern Iran and Iraq, would have been destroyed by
war in the last 20 years had it remained in the ground," he said.
"Think of the lunatic government in Afghanistan blowing up the giant Buddha
sculptures. The whole museum enterprise has its roots in western expansion
and imperialism, but these institutions should not be burdened with that
responsibility, but only be mindful of it.
"The kind of public service these museums provide is pretty remarkable."
---
© 2002, Chicago Tribune.
bob
> The Greeks are not trying to use any legal force. They have withdrawn all
> legal claims of ownership a few years ago.
yes..but a legal decision "somewhere" would have to be made to return the
marbles, since they're not being given willingly..
> But this has been a rather one sided decision, that is currently only of
> benefit to the museums that now hold the artefacts. Who apointed this
select
> group of institutions to act as (first) world museums, & why should there
> not be museums similary endowed with a wide range of international
treasures
> located in other parts of the world.
i agree
> If the topic under discussion was items that we believe to be a part of
our
> national heritage, held in a museum in eg. Nigeria, would we see that case
> in the same way as it currently appears from our side as the only ones who
> benefit from it materialy?
the problem with national heritage is that SO many works of art could be
"claimed" to be such..certainly those marbles are one of the great treasures
of the world, certainly they are one of the very most important pieces in
any museum anywhere in the world, certainly (in hindsight) it'd be great if
they were in the place at which they were intended to be when they were
created..
that said, i just have a problem with singling 1 particular group of items
out, the ramifications just go too far..
Matthew Taylor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Enquiring mind" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header>
> > State Hermitage Refuses
> <snip repetitive info>
FWIW, I don't see anything in hat particular message that was repetitive.
It was the only message in the thread that had a direct response to the
issue from the director of that particular museum, & as such had more of a
focus on artwork in Eastern Europe than the other messages.
He also tries to raise the opinion, that artworks that were [stolen] during
the second war, should somehow be treated differently to those from earlier
periods - a logic that I have never entirely understood (except that they
have something to gain from interpreting things in that specific way)
> Exactly what is your ulterior motive with this unabshedly pro status quo
reporting of
> museum pieces never being returned?
> Everyone has an agenda, I am curious as to what yours may be.
>
To increase public knowledge to the fact that museums throughout the western
world insist that it is perfectly acceptable for them to retain ownership of
items where the initial acquisition was one of dubious legality.
I am not specificaly posting articles with any one opinion, as you suggest,
but instead any articles giving new information from either side of the
article, to increase awareness so that people can make up their own minds.
In a lot of cases we are publicly funding these institutions through our
taxes, so shouldn't public opinion have more of a say in the way they are
run?
Results of polls sugest that if more people knew about these isues, then
more people would be in favour of the restitution of items, whereas at the
moment a significan proportion of the population abstains from the argument
through lack of knowledge.
Eg:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Taylor" <matthew....@NOSPAM.mtaylor.co.uk>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: New Mori poll shows majority in Britain support return of
marbles
<snip>
>
> To the question asking how much people knew about the ongoing debate about
> the Elgin/Parthenon Marbles (We chose to use the term Elgn marbles, as it
> was believed that it was more widely recognised by many people,
particularly
> older people in Britain)
>
> Answers were:
> A great deal - 4%
> A fair amount - 21%
> Not very much - 26%
> Nothing at all - 46%
> Don't know - 4%
>
<snip>
>
>
> The survey found that there is support for the return of the marbles to
> Athens - Moreover, it found that the level of support increased, if the
> folloging conditions were met:
> 1. If the Marbles were given to Greece on a long term loan but Britain
would
> still own them
> 2. If the Marbles were given to Greece on a long term loan but Britain
would
> continue to own them and have joint care of the Marbles
> 3. If a new Acropolis Museum was built in Athens
> 4. If Greece would provide the British Museum with other exhibits
> 5. If Greece agrees to waive all other claims for the return of material.
>
>
> (These are all conditions that the Greek government has already agreed to)
>
> If these conditions were met, 56% of people say that they would support
the
> return of the marbles.
> Only 7% say that even with these conditions they still believe that the
> marbles should be kept in Britain.
> The remaining 37% of people were undecided.
>
> This means ratio of people who support return, to those against is now 8 :
1
>
> Support for the marbles is found to be higher :
> In those over 35, than in those under 35
> In the more affuluent (ABC1s) than those from less affluent backgrounds
> Broadsheet newspaper readers more than tabloid newspaper readers.
> Labor & Lib Dem voters more than Conservative voters
> More highly educated people
> Those who are more aware of the debate about the marbles.
>
> - This last point is critical, as it suggests that if people know more
about
> the subject they are more likely to vote for their return. So increasing
> public awareness is vital.
>
> Of the people who visited the Parthenon Marbles in the British Museum,
Twice
> as many supported their return as supported their retention.
>
So we see that the more people know about the subject, the more likely hat
it is that they support restitution: Hence my forwarding of message on the
subject.
Matthew