6 ms·

Parthenon marbles were taken by lord Elgin with authorisation from the Muslim Ottoman invaders that were holding Greece at the time. The Ottoman's purpose was t

Parthenon marbles were taken by lord Elgin with authorisation from the Muslim Ottoman invaders that were holding Greece at the time. The Ottoman's purpose was to destroy any marker of civilization in the land they had invaded. At the same time some other brits, notably lord Byron, were fighting the war for Greece's independence against the Ottomans.

coldtea 3y ago
>The Ottoman's purpose was to destroy any marker of civilization in the land they had invaded. 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).
- fallingknife 3y ago
  Return to who? The city state of Athens? Or are you suggesting that whoever governs the land at the time is the owner? If that's the case then their sale by the ottomans to Elgin was legitimate, and therefore the rightful owner is the UK.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >If that's the case then their sale by the ottomans to Elgin was legitimate, and therefore the rightful owner is the UK. 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/2014/nov/04/art-worlds-shame-parthenon-elgin-marbles-british-museums https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2... https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30810596 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30810596
    - fallingknife 3y ago
      > 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. 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.
      - coldtea 3y ago
        >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. 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).
        fallingknife 3y ago
        It's not their culture. The religion of the temple they came from hasn't existed for over a thousand years.
        coldtea 3y ago
        That religion is not their present cultural practice. 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...
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    You're intentionally making other positions look ridiculous, I think. Why not put them back in athens? The entity with the strongest claim to continuity with ancient athens is modern athens. It's not an absurd proposition. 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.
    - fallingknife 3y ago
      Deep cultural significance to who? Modern Greek culture has next to nothing in common with ancient Greek culture. The religion of the temple they came from no longer even exists, so what special meaning is there to modern Greeks (whose current religion is actually responsible for the destruction of many ancient Greek archeological sites anyway)? 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.
      - coldtea 3y ago
        >I don't recognize claims of continuity here 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.
        fallingknife 3y ago
        What country was under occupation? Certainly not Greece. There was no state of Greece at the time, nor had there ever been. What we call Greece now is entirely a construct of modern nationalism. And what we call "ancient Greece" was a collection of different states and cultures in no way resembling modern Greece.
  - FlyingSnake 3y ago
    > Return to who? 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?
- PicassoCTs 3y ago
  The low trust society they left behind damages greece to this day. https://youtu.be/404IeUzGNZ4?t=179 https://youtu.be/404IeUzGNZ4?t=179
bojan 3y ago
> The Ottoman's purpose was to destroy any marker of civilization in the land they had invaded. 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.
Jun8 3y ago
It’s interesting that a lot of people in Turkey wish that Ottomans had done what you say their purpose was, thinking that Turkification of these lands would have made Turkey better off, with more lands perhaps. Luckily, it’s not true. 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(uppercase%2Flowercase%20Β%20β,resemble%20each%20other%20a%20lot https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta#:~:text=Beta%20(upp....)

coldtea 3y ago

>The Ottoman's purpose was to destroy any marker of civilization in the land they had invaded. 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).

fallingknife 3y ago
Return to who? The city state of Athens? Or are you suggesting that whoever governs the land at the time is the owner? If that's the case then their sale by the ottomans to Elgin was legitimate, and therefore the rightful owner is the UK.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >If that's the case then their sale by the ottomans to Elgin was legitimate, and therefore the rightful owner is the UK. 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/2014/nov/04/art-worlds-shame-parthenon-elgin-marbles-british-museums https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2... https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30810596 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30810596
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    > 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. 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.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      >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. 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).
      - fallingknife 3y ago
        It's not their culture. The religion of the temple they came from hasn't existed for over a thousand years.
        coldtea 3y ago
        That religion is not their present cultural practice. 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...
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  You're intentionally making other positions look ridiculous, I think. Why not put them back in athens? The entity with the strongest claim to continuity with ancient athens is modern athens. It's not an absurd proposition. 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.
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    Deep cultural significance to who? Modern Greek culture has next to nothing in common with ancient Greek culture. The religion of the temple they came from no longer even exists, so what special meaning is there to modern Greeks (whose current religion is actually responsible for the destruction of many ancient Greek archeological sites anyway)? 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.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      >I don't recognize claims of continuity here 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.
      - fallingknife 3y ago
        What country was under occupation? Certainly not Greece. There was no state of Greece at the time, nor had there ever been. What we call Greece now is entirely a construct of modern nationalism. And what we call "ancient Greece" was a collection of different states and cultures in no way resembling modern Greece.
- FlyingSnake 3y ago
  > Return to who? 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?
PicassoCTs 3y ago
The low trust society they left behind damages greece to this day. https://youtu.be/404IeUzGNZ4?t=179 https://youtu.be/404IeUzGNZ4?t=179

bojan 3y ago

> The Ottoman's purpose was to destroy any marker of civilization in the land they had invaded. 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.

Jun8 3y ago

It’s interesting that a lot of people in Turkey wish that Ottomans had done what you say their purpose was, thinking that Turkification of these lands would have made Turkey better off, with more lands perhaps. Luckily, it’s not true. 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(uppercase%2Flowercase%20Β%20β,resemble%20each%20other%20a%20lot https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta#:~:text=Beta%20(upp....)