Introduction
The Elgin Marbles are the gathered traditional Greek sculptures and architectural material by Thomas Bruce when serving as an ambassador. The historical significance of the Elgin marbles is that they were constructed to honor the Athens, the goddess. They were used as church by the Christian as well as mosque by the Muslims. They were also very important symbol of heritage to the Greek people. Another historical importance of the marbles is that they were built as a symbol of celebrating the victory of the people of Athens democracy.
The Elgin marbles where collected by seventh lord Elgin, Thomas Bruce who asserted that the then ruler of the Athens Ottoman, gave him the authority to collect the marbles. On acquisition of the Elgin Marbles, he moved them to Britain by ship where he later sold them to the British Museum. The arguments made for keeping the marbles in the British museum is that a good care is taken for them there. The other reason is that these marbles were acquired legally because the authority at the time of acquisition approved it. Furthermore, it is asserted that returning the marbles to the Athens would be an attempt to empty the museum. In addition, it is argued that the marbles were saved from destruction from pollution and that would have totally damaged had they been in Athens for the past years. Moreover, the other reason is that most of the marble cannot be traced and therefore returning them back would not complete the gathering in the Athens.
The idea that the Elgin Marbles are of world importance rather than Greek alone is enough reason to support these items to remain in the British museum where individuals are free to see them at no cost and because they are located in a strategic place where most of the people throughout the world visit. The arguments for the marbles to be returned to Athens are based on a number of reasons. For one, it is argued that these marbles would be fully understood and interpreted if they are to be presented in the original and historical place. The marbles are claimed to have been taken illegally so it would be in order to return to the owners. The marbles are said to be of global importance and thus returning them to Athens would not be a ground to be used for other repatriation claims precedents.
Moreover, Sweden has returned some pieces of the monument and thus the British museum are ought to follow the same suit. The argument given is that these marbles would be safeguarded adequately in the new Acropolis museum. One of the questions at issue in this case is who has the right to keep the marble and whether these marbles were legally acquired by the British Museum.
The possible solutions would be to create room for negotiations whereby experts on the issue of the return of the cultural objects are involved to help and be part of the solution. Laws should be formed to give a clear framework on the ownership and custody of such cultural objects. In my opinion, the Elgin marbles should be returned to Athens, since this city has the exclusive right owned them. Additionally, they originated from there and therefore it has the right to claim their possession. Moreover, these marbles were taken away illegally as evidenced by the fact that Thomas Bruce had an interest in them and this means that he could have done anything to acquire these marbles.
Repatriation means to return back cultural items to the country where it was originally created. Moreover, restitution means giving back what does not belong to you to the right person who owns it. There are a number of questions, which are usually raised about repatriation and restitution. Above all, there is a concern about who has the ultimate interest of preserving and enjoying the cultural objects. The argument is that the cultural objects are owned by the world and the country with better facilities to store them and thus such a country should remain with them. For instance, the Elgin marbles should remain with the British museum because they are under proper protection and that this museum is in a better position to take care of them such as cleaning them. The other raised question is why the nation that is asking for the items to be repatriated when it have the plethora with it. This makes sense because it just constitutes a waste of time and resources to the country of origin.
In addition, the other question concerns the law that is to be applied in connection to the disputes on the cultural item. This question attracted attention globally and led to the repatriation of stolen cultural property by the Getty museum to where it was stolen. The of Nazis” items before and after the second world war raised the question of whether being a war victor over another country is enough reason to guarantee a country possession of its cultural objects. This is the same case as in the Iraq whose cultural artifacts were stolen from the National museum.
The argument was that the major uses of arts are for religious reasons and thus cultural objects stolen from the land of origin because it cannot make sense being stored elsewhere. The solution to suggest in such a scenario involving looting to make sure the administrators of the country where the objects are taken are held responsible. The other question is whether the cultural properties where acquired in accordance with the correct legal procedures. The rationale behind this is that if there are irregularities in the acquisition of the object, then it is only fair to be returned to their original country. The US native communities had successfully used the legal framework to return cultural artifacts. Since this argument has been use fruitfully then it provides a guide to repatriation. It is advisable for this argument to be form a precedent to future similar case.
The question of the significance of the cultural properties in the land of origin often arises in the debates. The claim is that cultural items have certain religious value and historical importance. For example, the Greek Elgin Marbles case applied this argument in trying to return these items from the British museum although the case was not successfully. This argument may be practically applicable to some degree where it can be proved that the significance of such cultural items possesses the aforementioned values. The recommendable solution to this is that international laws should be created to consider this argument.
