The Parthenon Marbles - A Case Study
A Discussion of Ethical Concerns Surrounding Ekphrasis and Ownership of the Artwork That Inspired It
by Caitlin Cacciatore
John Keats wrote his Two Poems on the Elgin Marbles after seeing the titular marbles, more commonly known outside of the UK as the Parthenon Marbles. These marbles take their original name from Lord Elgin, a British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire who oversaw their removal, which was by its very nature a destructive act.
Harvard University notes that Elgin and his men “removed a total of 17 figures from the Parthenon pediments, 15 metopes, 56 slabs of temple friezes, 1 caryatid column, 4 pieces of the Temple of Victory, 13 marble heads, other carved fragments, painted vases, sepulchral pillars, and inscribed albas from the Parthenon between the years 1801 and 1812. In 1816, an Act of Parliament acquired the marbles from Elgin on behalf of the British Museum, where they have since remained and been displayed.”
The Parthenon Marbles, should they ever be returned to Greece, are scheduled to be placed in a custom-built museum that overlooks the ruins of Parthenon itself. The Acropolis Museum, which opened to the public in 2009, was built in order to preserve and protect the plundered artifacts, upon their repatriation, which the Greek government has been requesting both formally and informally since the acquisition of the marbles.
The government of the United Kingdom holds that the actions of Lord Elgin were a legal transaction between the Ottoman and British Empires, while art historians and scholars generally believe that Lord Elgin’s actions were a gross overstep of his legal authority, as well as being an act of destruction and defacement.
According to a BBC feature on the Parthenon, “In 2022, the Greek culture minister accused him of “a blatant act of serial theft.””
The British Museum, where most of the marbles are housed, has expressed concerns that if they were to return the Parthenon Marbles to Greece, that would open the door to further requests and demands for repatriation from nations subject to imperial plunder and conquest. The ‘slippery slope’ argument exposes a fundamental flaw of Western museums. While museums do wonderful work in collecting and preserving the collective history of humankind, imperialistic motivations often drive museums to deny requests for repatriation. The assumption that other nations cannot be the steward of their own cultural heritage is ultimately a settler-colonist perspective, as seen through the lens of the all-powerful empire which believes itself to be wiser, more cultured, more advanced, and generally superior to what it believes is a weaker, more primitive culture to be dismissed as little more than ‘savages.’
Perhaps it is time to call into question considerations of the provenance of items from certain cultural communities, including but not limited to nations formerly under imperial rule; indigenous and First Nations cultures which were subject to forcible removal, theft of land and property, slavery, and genocide at the hands of empire; African peoples who were enslaved and ‘exported’ through the Middle Passage; and other civilizations from whom artifacts were stolen during times of war. Imperialism is an uncomfortable piece of our history to grapple with, but it nevertheless must be addressed in museum spaces.
Requests for repatriation abound. Easter Island’s Rapa Nui community has asked the British Museum to return a Moai head named Hoa Hakananai’a. “Under Chilean law, the Moai are deemed an “integral part of the land” rather than artifacts.” Additionally, a community representative named Anakena Manutomatoma states that the Rapa Nui “want the museum to understand that the Moai are our family, not just rocks.” These unique cultural heritage items now enjoy protection under Chilean law, however, this was not the case when a British naval captain saw it in 1868 and had it removed in an attempt to win the favor of Queen Victoria, who donated the sculpture and another, the Moai Hava, the same officer had stolen to the British Museum, where they remain as of the time of this writing in early 2024.
Discussions between the British Museum and the Rapa Nui have been ongoing but fruitless since July 2018. The British Museum itself is careful not to call the removal ‘theft’ or imply any wrongdoing on behalf of Commodore Richard Powell, Queen Victoria, the British government, or any entities associated with the museum itself. Instead, it is noted that Powell’s crew “discovered” Hoa Hakananai'a and that the Commodore “collected” Moai Hava. This rhetoric is unconvincing, especially in light of the members of the Rapa Nui community who are coming to “realise [sic] just how much of our heritage there is around the world and starting to ask why our ancestors are in foreign museums,” in the words of Rapa Nui sculptor, Benedicto Tuki.
When writing and reading ekphrasis, it is important to take note of the original ownership of the artwork, as well as the context within which the author encountered the art. The potential harm to heritage communities, indigenous nations, spiritual groups, or other cultures must be carefully considered and weighed. Much of the work in museums is stolen; of that – much of it is sacred, or at the very least continues to hold significance to the descendants of the community which created it.
Demands for repatriation should be taken seriously, and ekphrastics, should they be written about materials with contested or wartime provenance, should not be written lightly and should indeed be treated with the appropriate respect for their original owners and those who have a cultural, spiritual, religious, ethnic, or national claim to the art/artifact.
Indeed, all art should be seen through this critical lens of who owned it prior to its current holdings, who benefits from the display of the piece, who profited off its sale, who, if anyone, is harmed by this state of affairs, and whether or not its acquisition was ethical. Sometimes, it can be difficult to find all the answers to these questions about every work of art. Nevertheless, they remain worthy of our consideration and the effort it takes to avoid harming another person or group of people is never effort that is spent in vain.
“The Parthenon Marbles - A Case Study: A Discussion of Ethical Concerns Surrounding Ekphrasis and Ownership of the Artwork That Inspired It” by Caitlin Cacciatore is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.