Elgin marbles

[Firefly]

'A plane at Heathrow' would have to be a hellish big one to transport the Elgin Marbles. I'm not in argument about who picks up the bill, my suggestion, your response, is not as I see it, an argument, as we, that includes you, just don't know.

The state of my knickers is not a subject for debate either.

[Devil]

'The state of my knickers is not a subject for debate either.

why not?

[Firefly]

You have often been able to make me laugh Devil, thank you

[WHL]

'A plane at Heathrow' would have to be a hellish big one to transport the Elgin Marbles. I'm not in argument about who picks up the bill, my suggestion, your response, is not as I see it, an argument, as we, that includes you, just don't know.

The state of my knickers is not a subject for debate either.

Double Dutch comes to mind, trying to decipher your reply

[Firefly]

Ah well, so I suppose to you, it will be, enough said.

[josef k]

Oh my, the flood gates would open.

'That's my mummy', takes on a whole new meaning

Just as a matter of interest, Josef, how would you address it, or think that it should be addressed?

I accept that the return of the marbles may well set a precedent. Whether that results in flood gates opening is just speculation. We must remember that the majority of the British Museum collection is packed away and most items have not seen the light of day for decades. I think we can assume nobody would miss them if they were sent back to their rightful owners. As to the museum being a safe place for such items, people may have forgotten the museum's own admission that hundreds of items have gone missing whilst in their care.

Regarding how I would address the wider issue, I think there are three types of exhibit. Firstly, those from Britain and/or are indisputably British. Clearly these should stay in the museum. Secondly, those from outside Britain that have been acquired through purchase from or donation by legally recognised owners. These should also stay in the museum. Thirdly those items I describe as plunder from foreign lands. These have been illegally seized, smuggled, or purchased from third parties. These should be returned on request.

The Cyprus Church puts a lot of effort into locating items looted from Churches in the north, and presses for their return. This has proved to be successful in a number of instances, as can be seen from periodic news articles you will have seen in the Cyprus Mail. Presumably those who are against the return of the marbles think these items looted from the north should stay where they are. Their current owners, in the main, purchased them after all.

[Firefly]

I think that you are correct that, presumably, nobody would miss many artifacts, I certainly wouldn't. However, that is probably because as a youngster my parents took me to London many times, and we visited most of the museums.

Now I wonder how many children will be afforded the same experience, Will they even want to?

Perhaps it is time to return any 'plunder', we shall see.

[Devil]

okay, here's a factual question:
in 1956, I legally bought three Cypriot artefacts from 800 to 1000 BCE. I took them to the Cyprus Museum which authentified them and put on lead seals on a length of scruffy string. This allowed me to legally export them (at the time). They then lived in Edinburgh, Gosforth and Romanel-sur-Lausanne until 1997 when they came here. I declared them on arrival to the Department of Antiquities and was informed that I could keep them in the country. I still have them but I would be willing to sell them before I die, with permission. The three items are not particularly valuable – I believe they may be worth about €1500 on the open market. My question is should individuals possess ancient artefacts?

[Lofos-Jan]

I must add that the Acropolis museum is superb and a fitting place for the marbles. I always thought they should remain in the UK but after visiting the museum I felt they should be returned. If you haven’t been - I highly recommend a visit

Jeanne

[Firefly]

Devil

That's a very difficult question to answer.

Whether or not one should, is down to the the way in which individuals see the artifact. If they didn't own it, what would happen to it, would it be in a museum, presumably in the country of origin, or would it be discarded as worthless. If it is cherished by the owner, then why not.

My husband and I wandered round the coast at Paphos harbour when they were dredging it. In the discarded spoil heaps we saw large chunks of ancient pottery. tops of amphora, large pottery handles. I expect if we had poked around, we may well have found more interesting bits and pieces. It was very interesting but quite sad really.

[mark4007]

Regarding how I would address the wider issue, I think there are three types of exhibit. Firstly, those from Britain and/or are indisputably British. Clearly these should stay in the museum. Secondly, those from outside Britain that have been acquired through purchase from or donation by legally recognised owners. These should also stay in the museum. Thirdly those items I describe as plunder from foreign lands. These have been illegally seized, smuggled, or purchased from third parties. These should be returned on request.

its an interesting criteria..

Perhaps the hardest thing to agree on is how and who should decide if an object (or land) has been legally acquired. Often this goes to the crux of the matter.

[mark4007]

okay, here's a factual question:
in 1956, I legally bought three Cypriot artefacts from 800 to 1000 BCE. I took them to the Cyprus Museum which authentified them and put on lead seals on a length of scruffy string. This allowed me to legally export them (at the time). They then lived in Edinburgh, Gosforth and Romanel-sur-Lausanne until 1997 when they came here. I declared them on arrival to the Department of Antiquities and was informed that I could keep them in the country. I still have them but I would be willing to sell them before I die, with permission. The three items are not particularly valuable – I believe they may be worth about €1500 on the open market. My question is should individuals possess ancient artefacts?

No.. and yes. Depends on what you mean by possess

If an object is an ancient artifact then it should not be allowed to be owned by any one individual to do as they please.

Many states appear to have adopted a similar position.

That could include an individual having Ownership with restrictions (as appears to be the case in the situation you highlight).

[WHL]

What do people make of this?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 56939.html