Temporary loans in exchange for other items on temporary loan (which is what this is), is legally the only way the British Museum can let material leave their collections.
I realise that there is a lot of meme-age worthy material that the British Museum is full of stolen property, but it's worth remembering that most of the items were donated at a time when legal provenance was virtually impossible to establish (particularly if you have to assume a peer of the realm like Elgin is an honest man, lest you find yourself under attack from the entire establishment), and the Museum is prevented by an Act of Parliament from giving items away regardless of later legal claims.
To return the Elgin/Parthenon Marbles to Greece, for example, requires a new Act, which - given the current government's legislative programme - is unlikely to happen in the next 3-4 years, and there's little appetite for it.
A temporary loan deal would be more realistic if both the British and Greek governments trusted each other to make the returns. That means the Greeks would basically need to loan out half the museum of Athens to make it work...
Surely there's no legal reason why the British Museum couldn't, if they wanted to, "loan" things out for a pittance in return, and indefinitely?
The law may prevent them from saying "we are giving these back to Greece", but if they felt it the moral thing to do why not just send it to Greece while maintaining that they officially claim ownership of the items which are out on loan?
(As a Brit, this is what I want to see happen. Even as a better option than actually changing the law - politicians should be focussed on more important matters if the museum can fix the issue this easily.)
People did complain at the time and denied that Elgin had the right to take them in the first place, which is why parliament investigated the matter at the time. While the controversy has intensified in the last few decades, it's been controversial pretty much since day one. It's not a "meme-age" thing.
Whether Elgin did or did not have permission from the occupying Ottoman forces is of secondary importance. Many people at the time already considered the Greeks to be occupied by the Ottomans, which is one reason why all of this was controversial at the time (Greeks were not viewed with the same racism as the occupied people in Africa or Asia – quite the opposite since many people were huge Greek fanboys).
If some official had legally approved removing huge chunks of St. Paul's Cathedral in 1800 then the British would be up in arms about it today, and rightfully so. Nazis had "legal" permission to remove a lot of art works through occupied Europe. No one today would claim that the painting of the Fallen Madonna with the Big Boobies would belong to the inheritors of Herr Flick, no matter how they were acquired in the first place. There are many examples of things done "legally" where today we no longer acknowledge the legality of it.
This is also why the British government is often so disproportionally testy about the entire matter, and why that law was passed in the first place. They know that is is clearly and obviously the right thing to return one of the most prominent cultural and historical artifacts to Greece, removed by someone for his private garden, with dubious permission to do so, and even if it did exist it was given by someone who had no right to give it in the first place. They know they're wrong and don't want to talk about it.
PaulRobinson|7 months ago
I realise that there is a lot of meme-age worthy material that the British Museum is full of stolen property, but it's worth remembering that most of the items were donated at a time when legal provenance was virtually impossible to establish (particularly if you have to assume a peer of the realm like Elgin is an honest man, lest you find yourself under attack from the entire establishment), and the Museum is prevented by an Act of Parliament from giving items away regardless of later legal claims.
To return the Elgin/Parthenon Marbles to Greece, for example, requires a new Act, which - given the current government's legislative programme - is unlikely to happen in the next 3-4 years, and there's little appetite for it.
A temporary loan deal would be more realistic if both the British and Greek governments trusted each other to make the returns. That means the Greeks would basically need to loan out half the museum of Athens to make it work...
swores|7 months ago
The law may prevent them from saying "we are giving these back to Greece", but if they felt it the moral thing to do why not just send it to Greece while maintaining that they officially claim ownership of the items which are out on loan?
(As a Brit, this is what I want to see happen. Even as a better option than actually changing the law - politicians should be focussed on more important matters if the museum can fix the issue this easily.)
megapolitics|7 months ago
Both Kier Starmer and George Osborne are keen for a deal, and the majority of the British public are in favour of the sculpture’s return.
It would be a temporary loan on paper, but everyone involved understands that they would never return to the UK.
arp242|7 months ago
Whether Elgin did or did not have permission from the occupying Ottoman forces is of secondary importance. Many people at the time already considered the Greeks to be occupied by the Ottomans, which is one reason why all of this was controversial at the time (Greeks were not viewed with the same racism as the occupied people in Africa or Asia – quite the opposite since many people were huge Greek fanboys).
If some official had legally approved removing huge chunks of St. Paul's Cathedral in 1800 then the British would be up in arms about it today, and rightfully so. Nazis had "legal" permission to remove a lot of art works through occupied Europe. No one today would claim that the painting of the Fallen Madonna with the Big Boobies would belong to the inheritors of Herr Flick, no matter how they were acquired in the first place. There are many examples of things done "legally" where today we no longer acknowledge the legality of it.
This is also why the British government is often so disproportionally testy about the entire matter, and why that law was passed in the first place. They know that is is clearly and obviously the right thing to return one of the most prominent cultural and historical artifacts to Greece, removed by someone for his private garden, with dubious permission to do so, and even if it did exist it was given by someone who had no right to give it in the first place. They know they're wrong and don't want to talk about it.