The controversy over the rightful ownership Parthenon marbles is an omnipresent issue in contemporary archaeology, continually asserting its presence akin to a tectonically active geography. With the opening of the Akropolis Museum on the 20th of June, the Greeks are set to vociferate more vigorously in favour of their return. I visited the Akropolis in October 2008, and amidst the hordes of pilgrims and ruined marble, there was no shortage of tourist guides voicing the deplorable loss of the marbles. Those with a more politically zealous outlook, such as the Greek minister for culture, brand Lord Elgin’s actions as theft.
What is frequently overlooked is that, in order to remove the marbles, Elgin needed to obtain a firman (a permit) from the Ottoman authority, which permitted him to remove any sculptures, inscriptions and the like as he saw fit. Because of the unwieldy size of some pieces, a number were sawn into sections for easier transportation. The use of contemporary ethics, which are a product of a particular context and time, is merely going to result in a biased perspective that nullifies the Ottoman law and Elgin’s actions, which are a product of a different social, cultural, and political context.
There is no doubt that the Parthenon marbles are infused with a great deal of cultural capital and prestige. They reside prominently as material constituents that affirm the meta-narrative of the glory of western civilization, which has its roots in Classical Greece. Nihilistically speaking, no thing has any value intrinsic to itself – the Parthenon marbles are just that: stone shaped by artisans into particular representations. However, their value resides in the relationships and narratives woven around them over the past 2,500 years, which has transformed them into powerful symbols.
If we view the marbles as manifestations of human achievement, arguably, it should matter less where they are displayed. The fight over their ownership exposes the complexity of issues surrounding the power of the past in the present – politics driven by a (perhaps cynical?) need to gain prestige, and hierarchization of modern cultural identity.
June 19, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Has anybody ever seen the firman that was alleged to have been given to Lord Elgin?
June 22, 2009 at 3:16 pm
The only ‘example’ I have seen, and possess, is a lengthy quotation in an article from the initial firman of the clauses particular to the removal and documentation of marbles. It must be noted that Elgin also obtained additional documents to ratify his undertaking once it became widely known; the sultan even intervened on his behalf to allow a shipment to leave Piraeus which the French were attempting to block. What must also be considered is how the Ottomans perceived the Parthenon: clearly uninterested as it was not something that could be appropriated into their narratives of cultural heritage.
Legally speaking, because Greece was under Ottoman administration, the Parthenon was in effect Ottoman public property, so the issuing of the firman and other documents was in accord with their laws. The moral grounds are more difficult, because we could argue that Ottoman occupation of Greece had no moral credence, thus the same applies to the removal of the marbles. I think this is one implication of the Greek argument in favour of their return. It’s an interesting and complex issue.
July 24, 2009 at 8:44 am
actionman? is this you? i was searching about parthenon and i came across with this blog… such coincidence ha?
July 28, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Sure is. Welcome to my academicky menagerie.