A few British Museum treasures

[foxy]

I only had a short 3 hours this morning but what I did see was really great. The museum is free but there was a huge line outside. Luckily the friends I was with are members so we went right in before the crowds. It pays to know the right people lol. 

[foxy]

For those interested, on the British Museum website, you can find something called The Parthenon Sculptures: The Trustees’ statement regarding their position about returning the sculptures to Greece. It’s worth a read and you can decide for yourself if you agree with their position or not. 

British Museum

WWW.BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG

---

Welcome to the British Museum - discover two million years of human history and culture.

 

[+ nycman]

3 hours ago, foxy said:

For those interested, on the British Museum website, you can find something called The Parthenon Sculptures: The Trustees’ statement regarding their position about returning the sculptures to Greece. It’s worth a read and you can decide for yourself if you agree with their position or not. 

British Museum

WWW.BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG

---

Welcome to the British Museum - discover two million years of human history and culture.

 

Please, if the Ottomans (who had been ruling Athens for over 350 years) hadn’t turned them over to the British in the very early 1800’s the entire thing would be dust by now. The Greeks should thank the Brit’s for saving their heritage and be stupendously happy with the high quality reproductions that now sit in an Acropolis museum. Today it’s an idiotic political football. Nothing more. I hope the British protect them για πάντα (forever). 

Edited June 13 by nycman

[Welshman]

The Elgin Marbles have been cited in recent debates about whether items held in British museums should be sent back to their own nations. Indeed the Welsh Government has stated that it believes 90% of the items held in museums in Wales do not belong in Wales.

There is a touring exhibition of items from the British Museum collected in the 17th century by Sir Hans Sloane, however due to the Welsh Governments "Anti Racial Wales" policy instituted in 2020, every time it is exhibited in Wales every piece has a counter exhibition called "We were here first" which is a collection of "art that demonstrates we were always here" from artists representing "the global majority" as a protest against the collection

Re-examining Sir Hans Sloane’s collections

WWW.NHM.AC.UK

 

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

Love The British, but FUCK they have a lot of the Parthenon. 

Would it kill them to give it back?

[+ nycman]

47 minutes ago, BenjaminNicholas said:

Love The British, but FUCK they have a lot of the Parthenon. 

Would it kill them to give it back?

Fuck off, the god damn Greeks should give them the remaining 5% to make a compete set.

grin

[Monarchy79]

7 hours ago, BenjaminNicholas said:

Love The British, but FUCK they have a lot of the Parthenon. 

Would it kill them to give it back?

There’s been a lot of controversy over the Brits and the Americans turning over  artifacts from other nations (Greece (the Parthebon) and Africa (the Benin Bronzes).

I understand why it’s “right” to return them (in a social-awareness sense, based on principles), but technically, museums like the British Museum and the Smithsonian have the resources and technology to ensure that these artifacts are protected and preserved, and are located in places that gives them better access for the world to see. 
 

[CuriousByNature]

6 hours ago, Monarchy79 said:

There’s been a lot of controversy over the Brits and the Americans turning over  artifacts from other nations (Greece (the Parthebon) and Africa (the Benin Bronzes).

I understand why it’s “right” to return them (in a social-awareness sense, based on principles), but technically, museums like the British Museum and the Smithsonian have the resources and technology to ensure that these artifacts are protected and preserved, and are located in places that gives them better access for the world to see. 
 

True enough, and I have enjoyed seeing artefacts gathered in one place like the British Museum, but ultimately these were not created for the world to view.  They were often made for a specific people, at a specific time and place, and for a specific (often sacred or ceremonial) purpose.  I used to think these treasures were better off in museums where they could be preserved, but now I think they're best placed with their creators.  Even if that means they cannot be preserved to the same level of perfection as in a museum setting.  Exact copies could be made and kept at museums, and then the originals could be returned so that the local population might preserve a bit more connection to their history and culture.  I doubt this will likely happen on a wide scale, but it would be nice if the local population had greater access to artefacts their ancestors created.  To be clear, I would advocate for the return of objects that were taken and had a ceremonial or sacred purpose, not artefacts that were created to be sold or traded.

Edited June 16 by CuriousByNature

[+ nycman]

1 hour ago, CuriousByNature said:

ultimately these were not created for the world to view

Says who?

1 hour ago, CuriousByNature said:

now I think they're best placed with their creators.

Most of whom have been dead for centuries.
So…do you want us to bury them, place them on funeral pyres, inside pyramids, or sink them to the bottom of the ocean?

1 hour ago, CuriousByNature said:

Exact copies could be made and kept at museums,

Why not give these "exact copies’ to the locals, and let the museums keep preserving the originals as they have for centuries?
The originals cannot be replaced. That way, when the "locals" loose, destroy, or simply misplace their copies (which you know they will), they can just be given more copies.

1 hour ago, CuriousByNature said:

greater access to artefacts their ancestors created.

yeah…like in free museum, in a world capital, someplace everyone can get to…you know, like London. 

1 hour ago, CuriousByNature said:

I would advocate for the return of objects that were taken and had a ceremonial or sacred purpose, not artefacts that were created to be sold or traded.

Good luck figuring out which pieces those are.
You know all the "world famous" pieces would immediately be classified as "sacred" by the locals, regardless of their origin or purpose.

Your intentions are noble, but I feel misguided. They will lead to a great loss for humanity. 

At the end of the day it’s all about the money. To pretend otherwise is naive and/or disingenuous. 

[CuriousByNature]

7 hours ago, nycman said:

Says who?

Most of whom have been dead for centuries.
So…do you want us to bury them, place them on funeral pyres, inside pyramids, or sink them to the bottom of the ocean?

Why not give these "exact copies’ to the locals, and let the museums keep preserving the originals as they have for centuries?
The originals cannot be replaced. That way, when the "locals" loose, destroy, or simply misplace their copies (which you know they will), they can just be given more copies.

yeah…like in free museum, in a world capital, someplace everyone can get to…you know, like London. 

Good luck figuring out which pieces those are.
You know all the "world famous" pieces would immediately be classified as "sacred" by the locals, regardless of their origin or purpose.

Your intentions are noble, but I feel misguided. They will lead to a great loss for humanity. 

At the end of the day it’s all about the money. To pretend otherwise is naive and/or disingenuous. 

1. I would venture to guess that the majority of artefacts were created without the notion that they would be on display for the world to see.  Many, like totem poles, fetish statues, etc were for the use of the community itself, or even for a specific figure.  Others, such as the Elgin Marbles, were likely created to impress visitors to Athens, not visitors to the British Museum.

2. By 'creators' I mean the culture they were created by, not the actual manufacturer.  If the carver of the Elgin Marbles is still alive he might be living in Florida or Palm Springs now.

3.  The originals would probably have a deeper meaning to those from whom they were taken, compared to those who walk by in a museum.  Some artifacts are imbued with a spiritual significance by the maker, such as certain tribal regalia, that a facsimile would not carry.  Therefore, let the creating culture benefit from the original.  And if the original is ultimately damaged or lost, that's sometimes unavoidable.  It happens in museums too, unfortunately.  Throughout history artefacts were created and eventually degraded through use by those groups who created them.  There's nothing wrong with that.

4. The vast majority of people from villages where artefacts were created will never be able to travel to see their treasures on display in the British Museum, or other museums around the world.  Museums provide access to those who are well-off enough to live in a major city, or have the funds to travel to such places.  And it's probably painful for people to see their cultural treasures on display and not being used for the purpose they were originally intended - in Canada this is why numerous artefacts are being returned to First Nations, so that they can be kept within the community and for the community's benefit.

5. It isn't that difficult to determine which objects are ceremonial and which are for trade/sale.  Most cultural groups are concerned with specific artefacts that hold a particular value to their history and practices, or were clearly meant to remain in situ until they naturally degraded - such as totem poles and the Elgin Marbles.  

I don't think my intentions are particularly noble - I love going to museums and seeing the artefacts I would never get to see otherwise.  But that said, I understand why cultures wish to reclaim their artefacts.  Non-indigenous Americans and Canadians have not really faced having our cultural property taken away and kept from us.  It would be like Saudi Arabia removing the 911 memorial and placing it on display in Riyadh, where the majority of Americans will never be able to visit.  And if they do, it would never have the same meaning as it does on American soil.

[JourneysEnd]

On 6/17/2024 at 1:51 AM, CuriousByNature said:

1. I would venture to guess that the majority of artefacts were created without the notion that they would be on display for the world to see.  Many, like totem poles, fetish statues, etc were for the use of the community itself, or even for a specific figure.  Others, such as the Elgin Marbles, were likely created to impress visitors to Athens, not visitors to the British Museum.

2. By 'creators' I mean the culture they were created by, not the actual manufacturer.  If the carver of the Elgin Marbles is still alive he might be living in Florida or Palm Springs now.

3.  The originals would probably have a deeper meaning to those from whom they were taken, compared to those who walk by in a museum.  Some artifacts are imbued with a spiritual significance by the maker, such as certain tribal regalia, that a facsimile would not carry.  Therefore, let the creating culture benefit from the original.  And if the original is ultimately damaged or lost, that's sometimes unavoidable.  It happens in museums too, unfortunately.  Throughout history artefacts were created and eventually degraded through use by those groups who created them.  There's nothing wrong with that.

4. The vast majority of people from villages where artefacts were created will never be able to travel to see their treasures on display in the British Museum, or other museums around the world.  Museums provide access to those who are well-off enough to live in a major city, or have the funds to travel to such places.  And it's probably painful for people to see their cultural treasures on display and not being used for the purpose they were originally intended - in Canada this is why numerous artefacts are being returned to First Nations, so that they can be kept within the community and for the community's benefit.

5. It isn't that difficult to determine which objects are ceremonial and which are for trade/sale.  Most cultural groups are concerned with specific artefacts that hold a particular value to their history and practices, or were clearly meant to remain in situ until they naturally degraded - such as totem poles and the Elgin Marbles.  

I don't think my intentions are particularly noble - I love going to museums and seeing the artefacts I would never get to see otherwise.  But that said, I understand why cultures wish to reclaim their artefacts.  Non-indigenous Americans and Canadians have not really faced having our cultural property taken away and kept from us.  It would be like Saudi Arabia removing the 911 memorial and placing it on display in Riyadh, where the majority of Americans will never be able to visit.  And if they do, it would never have the same meaning as it does on American soil.

I generally agree with your points however I think the comparison with the 911 memorial is a false equivalence- and a very emotive one. You can't fairly compare a memorial to an event in living memory to objects of antiquity.

[CuriousByNature]

5 hours ago, JourneysEnd said:

I generally agree with your points however I think the comparison with the 911 memorial is a false equivalence- and a very emotive one. You can't fairly compare a memorial to an event in living memory to objects of antiquity.

I see your point, and agree with that for most museum items.  But there are artefacts that while significantly old, still hold incredible importance to the community they were created for.  It's not 'apples to apples' by any means, but I believe there is some equivalency.  For example, the return of the Wampum Belts to the Six Nations Iroquois in Ontario back in the 1980s was incredibly important and emotional for that community.

[mike carey]

5 hours ago, JourneysEnd said:

I generally agree with your points however I think the comparison with the 911 memorial is a false equivalence- and a very emotive one. You can't fairly compare a memorial to an event in living memory to objects of antiquity.

In general that's true, but it relies on our concept of antiquity and of historical time. Many cultures have a similar concept of things from their history as we do. Some indigenous, and oral, cultures don't have that distinction, memory that is personal and that is passed down orally, whether one generation or a thousand, is seen as the same thing.