|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Rescuing the Past: The Cultural Heritage Crusade |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic View: Flat | Threaded |
anthonyqkiernan 7087 posts |
May 08, 2006, 20:52
|
||
|
Who ought to own ancient artefacts: the countries in which they are found or the countries that find - and can look after - them? The restorer (and convicted smuggler) JONATHAN TOKELEY argues against the widely accepted view that past acquisitions, like the Elgin Marbles, should be returned, claiming that far from solving the problem, such political correctness is hastening the destruction of ancient treasures. Rescuing the Past: The Cultural Heritage Crusade is published by Imprint Academic. I realise this might not come within the remit of this here site, but thought some of you might be interested in this. This bloke was interviewed on Start The Week today. The full (ie uneditted morning edition) should be available to 'listen again' and download as a Podcast here http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/starttheweek.shtml at some point in the next day. I found it quite interesting in much the same way Norman Tebbit fascinates me. Just thought sdome of you lot might be interested. I'd be interested to see what you thought. He made a point that pre-mohamaddian(?) stuff is reagarded as [insert word he used several times to show he knew what he was talking about], which I assume is some sort of un-godly/clean and should be destroyed. As soon as they have monetarty value, they become a resource provided by god.
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
May 08, 2006, 22:27
|
||
|
Yes, I heard the prog this morning as well. Jonathan Tokeley certainly had a bit of a chip on his shoulder but it was refreshing to hear his (the other side of) the story concerning the protection and repatriation of works of art. While taking onboard Tokeley's statement that the people who built the Parthenon have little in common with the people now living in Athens (and therefore don't have as much claim to the Marbles as they make out to have) the Parthenon <i>does</i> have a claim on <i>itself</i>, and the fact that great chunks of it, in the form of the Elgin Marbles are at the British Museum and not where they were designed to be on the Parthenon, is not very good for the integrity of the building. It can be argued that the removal of the Marbles from Athens to the British Museum certainly saved them from degradation had they been left in situ (and also that more people get to see them at the BM than would be the case if they were back in Athens) but it can't be argued that they don't <i>belong</i> on the Parthenon but somehow <i>do</i> belong in a gallery at the British Museum (a gallery where quite a lot of posh and well-paying functions are held after hours incidentally ;-) It's a tricky one, and I don't think there's a one-fit-all solution. In my humble opinion, objects in museums that still have strong religious or social links for people now living to the people (the ancestors who made them) should certainly be returned (provided that is that they're not returned to places or conditions where they might suffer damage); objects created by Australian aborigines for example perhaps fall into that category. I'm not sure that many Egyptian antiquities fall into the same category though - as Tokeley pointed out, the religion and society that produced Egyptian Antiquities has little or nothing to do with modern Egyptian society... but even that's a bit tricky. The religion and society that produced Stonehenge is not the same as modern British society but I think many Brits (especially us lot) would be a bit miffed if the Cairo Museum had one of the Stonehenge lintels in it's collection and refused to give it back :-) That's not quite as fanciful as it sounds; the beautiful Anglo-Saxon Franks Casket with, "...its runic inscriptions, was probably produced in Northumbria between 650 and 750. It is made of whale bone. Four of its five decorated panels are in the British Museum; the right panel (however) is in the Museo Bargello, Florence."* I can hear myself beginning to witter, but surely in this day and age, with reproduction technology as good as it is, it's not beyond the wit of man to produce replicas of the Elgin Marbles, the displaced panel of the Franks Casket etc, put those on display in foreign museums and return the origins to the places where they were first made - then again, as both you and Tokeley rightly point out, it's probably all about money and how much of it can be made by 'owning' the originals. * http://www.engl.virginia.edu/OE/Tour/Personal.objects/Franks.html
|
|||
|
anthonyqkiernan 7087 posts |
May 09, 2006, 10:28
|
||
|
Cheers for the reply. BTW, I was paraphrasing his opinion when I was talking about money. It was more that his agruments got me thinking. I KNEW I completely disagreed with him, but this isn't really stuff that I bother with (or about) so was wondering why I felt that way - especially when he 'seemed' to have some valid points. Maybe I should've just posted my original thought "is he a visionary or raving maniac? I think the latter". Made for some good radio, though.
|
|||
|
wideford 1086 posts |
May 09, 2006, 11:36
|
||
|
"Maybe I should've just posted my original thought "is he a visionary or raving maniac? I think the latter"." thesis>antithesis>(syn)thesis. Provocative statements are often useful in developing the argument that wins through.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
May 09, 2006, 16:57
|
||
|
I think some of what is said about repatriation or otherwise needs to be seen in terms of the particular interests of the authors. There's a prominent American who is hugely big on the merits of moving Eastern stuff from "less developed" countries to the West. But he is also huge in buying and selling antiquities. The London, New York, Paris, Rome antiquities markets, legal, illegal and in-between, are worth billions. There are an awful lot of people supporting the idea that the whole of the treasures of Iraq would be much better off in the hands of Western artifact collectors.
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index |
