The Goddess Complex
theamericanscholar.org
theamericanscholar.org
"The repatriated artifacts are not as well known as the Benin Bronzes, for example, plundered from West Africa by British colonists, or the Parthenon marbles, removed by Lord Elgin in the early 1800s and now on display at the British Museum. They are not symbols of empire, nor are they the spoils of war."
A note, that Parthenon marbles were also plundered, and destructively so, rather than just "removed" and, contrary to what is implied in the latter sentence, they were not spoils of war. They were spoils of spoiled aristocrats.
They did a very bad job at it then. It's the British and Elgin who did the real huge damage to the Parthenon (plus some damage by Venetians, but at least that was accidental). And then the Bavarians, who destoyed hundreds of byzantine churches in the Athens area, and even had plans of building a new palace atop the Acropolis.
So, after 4 centuries of Ottoman occupation, with ocassional brutal incidents, and still most of the damage to the Parthenon happened by "englightened" westerners (who didn't have the decency to return the spoils after 2 centuries of independent Greece).
I'm suggesting that no such destruction of an archaelogical site and sale of historical artifacts to another country (even less so an individual buyer) is legitimate or ethical, regardless of whether it was approved by the occupying force at the time.
Regardless of the matter of "continuity of the state" and the legitimacy of the state of the time (or lack thereof), there's the matter of where those artifacts belong to, and where the claim lies, and this is not just about the technical legality of the sale. A great many scholars, archeologists, and public intellectuals from Britain have addressed those issue.
Especially when the population of the land they've been plundered from has gained its freedom and has been asking to have them returned for over a century.
Even worse when part of Greece was shamefully under British colonial rule at the time of the sale.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2...
But you are saying that they are legitimate just by your reference to "another country". The borders of today and their respective governments take precedence. You would be fine with artifacts from Sparta being sold to a museum in Athens, even though they were separate states at the time, and the Spartans would have not been happy about that. But if Roman artifacts were sold by Italy to a museum in London, this is illegitimate because it's "another country" even though at the time it was all part of the same empire.
We can ask the modern Spartans if you wish. Defending colonial-era archeological plundering gets close to racism fast, and what's said here, (to the tune of: what right do they have to their ancient culture, it's changed from the past anyway) is already heavy on racism and colonial entitlement.
The next step would be to invoke the "white man's burden" to protect those artifacts and have them in a nicer museum than the natives ever could.
All the while ascribing nationalism to the people's connection to their culture (because arbitrary removal of artifacts from their original land and keeping them for display on an colonial power's capital, full of other stolen artifacts from all over the world, is cosmopolitan).
It's still their culture, as it was developed throughout history, you know, as cultures are known to do, adopting different things here and there, coming into contact with other ideas, and so.
Not to mention that the temple has been a holy site for their next religion too, for close to 2 millenia.
Anything to justify colonial plundering I guess...
Using the simple framework of sale of goods for ancient artifacts of deep cultural and historical significance, is, quite literally, colonizer shit. I imagine you would have a very difficult time establishing broad consensus about what "rightful ownership" and "legitimate sale" mean or if they are even possible for objects of this kind. Acting like that's a settled moral and legal framework that we're scandalously disagreeing with is twisted.
I don't recognize claims of continuity here, and to me it sounds more like "it's valuable and I want it" with modern nationalism sprinkled on top. The arguments seem to be really "they're really emotional about it, so give them what they want," and I am not at all sympathetic to that.
Yes, you only recognize a thief briding his way, while a country was under occupation, to break archeological artifacts from the temple structure, and take them away from their original site and land.
>so what special meaning is there to modern Greeks
Maybe ask modern Greeks then?
This is some next level colonial entitlement.
Get off your high horse! Your opinions have no basis in anything else than the stubborn arrogance of internet randos. You know nothing of the things you're talking about.
To the original location of the site.
If someone stole the torch of Statue of Liberty, you’ll return it to the Liberty Island, right?
This demonstratably isn't true. They were destroying cultural artefacts, but occasionally so and often as an act of retribution.
So no, the British have no business and no excuse that they are still keeping the Parthenon Marbles.
The idea expressed in your comment is quite popular in many circles, though. I had a Greek classmate in our intro Ancient Greek class confidently stating that the sound shift of the letter beta (roughly from a /b/ sound to /v/) happened because Ottomans didn’t let them speak their language! This shift actually occurred in Byzantine period (I think around 1100AD). Edit: Oops, I was way off, actually the change happened in the Koine Period, around 200BC (https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta#:~:text=Beta%20(upp....)
This article argues that the British should keep the Parthenon marbles. The logic is that if you steal enough stuff from enough places around the world you can then make the argument that you should not have to give them back because it provides people the opportunity to appreciate them all together "in context". As if Athens is out of context!
Except unlike the stone matrikas, many Egyptian artifacts were friable, like mummies and their wrappings.
In other news, the Holy See has donated fragments of the True Cross to England for use in the coronation of King Charles III. Imagine how many True Crosses you could assemble if you gathered all their fragments together.
Maybe they didn't really care, and had a similar view to us about the matter. I don't think anyone believes the Vatican is sending actual true cross relics for the coronation. Still, the fact that the artefact has been a fake relic for 1000 years, has a history, is being sent by the pope... those are enough for it to function as a symbol.
I think it's always ironically hard, with history, to know if the mindset was different or similar to ours. Ancient economies sometimes seem to work in ways that ours wouldn't for mindset reasons. Other times things are more similar to our times than we suppose.
I think we're bad at recognising which parts of our own culture are unique and novel, and which are relatively trivial, common, or even inherent.
Equally human, equally logical, but with different priors, different axioms, different base truths to reason from.
> Maybe they didn't really care, and had a similar view to us about the matter.
My impression is that this is probably not the case however. Another line following from the above is that ancient people believed their religions, with the same unexamined priors as we believe in our own modern Truths.
But since they were human, too, there is always room for charlatanism, fraud, and delusions of grandeur. And humor as a defensive mechanism against all of that.
That would be pretty unjust considering that the funeral monuments don't belong to modern Egypt, as they were constructed by a radically different people some thousands of years ago. And at the time they were taken by British colonists, Egypt as a nation wasn't a thing either.
So we have three separate entities: Ancient Egypt, whatever Egypt was when the British took some ancient artifacts, and then the modern nation of Egypt.
Maybe the most just thing to do would be to find the descendants of those who were buried with the artifacts and return them their family heirlooms? Or no, perhaps those descended from the artisans and slaves who created the artifacts?
But what of the invaders of Egypt seeking to destroy the artifacts? Should we give them the artifacts? Destruction is perhaps undesirable, so maybe we can place them somewhere in the world with the best steward?
Does this mean my family can be repatriated our ancestral lands in northern Cumbria? If we get to play that game, you may not like how it works out for you.
Or maybe we can stop looking at history with a modern, nationlistic lens. Stop looking at it with our modern sense of values. Stop trying to apply our modern sense of justice and misbeliefs about what did and didn't happen hundreds, thousands of years ago.
It's a complicated question, involving history certainly. But in no was is this us trying to graft modern morals onto the past. But it is a moral question regarding the past, and modern morals are the only ones we have to guide our decisions.
I wondered if the worker who had affixed the rusty plaque had paid the fine.
> What is this about?
> This text is about a complicated history of the Tanesar sculptures, particularly a sculpture of the goddess Matrika, and how it became part of the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It details how the sculptures were illegally trafficked and acquired by the Wiener family and how the District Attorney's office uncovered the smuggling rings. It also discusses the idea of restitution and repatriation of the sculptures and the need for open dialogue about what is best for the sculptures.
The situation can improve if ordinary people feel within their hearts that museums by and large house stolen art from, usually, poorer countries. People should really stop visiting museums like the Met and LACMA. Otherwise they would just be encouraging past patterns of behavior.
I had visited India for a little bit and it was enough to be amazed by the level of craftsmanship that exists today despite all of the automation tools etc. From statues, architecture to clothes, foods, all sorts of items and objects. There is lots and lots to learn here.
I think it's much more closer (though still aggressively reductionist) to model it in your head as base exoticism trophy-taking. Look at the strange works of these lesser beings, and remember that we defeated them.