Castlerigg forum 26 room
Image by thesweetcheat
close
more_vert

That was ironic, right? The history of colonial powers tends not to be filled with respect for the sacred sites of the colonised. I find it mind-boggling, for instance, that despite repeated protests from the Greek government, you still need to travel to London to view many of the statues from the Parthenon.
Hi GJ

Much of what you say is quite true (re: the desecration/destruction of foreign sacred/cultural sites by colonial powers). But it's not just Western colonial powers - China and Japan wreacked havoc on the cultural sites and the artistic legacy of Korea for example, so much so that there are quite possibly more ancient Korean paintings in Japan now than there are in Korea itself! The wrecking and the looting of a country's cultural heritage often goes hand-in-hand with foreign or religious/political control. The British wrecked the Summer Palace just outside Beijing in 1860 and 1900. The Red Army, during the Cultural Revolution in China, wrecked its own cultural heritage. More recently the Taliban wrecked the Buddhist statues at Bamiyam (though thankfully it now seems probable that the gigantic task of restoring them will be undertaken http://www.thaipro.com/thailand_00/128_bamiyan_buddha.htm )

The above are all outrageous examples of desecration and vandalism inflicted by one belief system on another. The fact that the Elgin Marbles are at the British Museum however is a slightly different matter. While I agree with you in principle that they belong in Greece the fact of the matter is that even today, after decades, the Parthenon looks like a building site where the builders knocked off for tea twenty years ago and never came back! The corrosive air pollution of Athens is horrendous, and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that had not the Marbles been removed, cleaned, conserved and kept in an environmentally controlled climate at the British Museum, they would not be in existence today - the Greek authorities should be mindful of that fact, and if they really do want to make a case for having them back they should get on with cleaning up their city and with the restoration of the Parthenon itself (the Elgin Marbles of course never will go back onto the building but into the new Acropolis Museum in Athens http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7380279.stm - in other words from one museum to another).

As I say though I do agree with you in principle that artefacts and works of art should be returned to their country of origin if the country in question asks for them. It's not only the Elgin Marbles of course - the Dunhuang collection of paintings and manuscripts kept at the British Museum and the British Library is another candidate for return. I should point out however that the British Museum is legally bound not to disposed of, in any way shape or form, any item in its collection). Ironically, and on a personal note, I find it mind-boggling that most of the wonderful Anglo-Saxon Franks Casket, with is runic inscriptions, is in the British Museum while the right end panel of the Casket is in the Bargello Museum in Florence ;-)

Absolutely Littlestone. I certainly wasn't pointing fingers at anyone (or nation or culture) in particular. Merely suggesting that we're far from the first to have visitors damage our sacred sites.

Also, and here I'm being very charitable to the Guatemalan individual who prompted this, it is possible that he is from a culture that still sees such sites as living, breathing spaces fully-integrated with the people who use them. As such, he may see it as almost a desecration that such places are effectively moth-balled, there to be looked at rather than used.

Now, obviously that's a whole other kettle of fish, and one only needs to view sites like Macchu Picchu to realise that such places simply aren't capable of coping with the hundreds of thousands of people who turn up every year. Sadly, if every group of visitors decided to perform a Mayan fire ceremony (or whatever) at Castlerigg... or [insert site of your choice]... the location would soon find itself seriously degraded.

So this isn't a call for more of such ceremonies. Just a suggestion that in this case it may have been a genuine case of cultural misunderstanding which shouldn't be classified as either vandalism or desecration.

Or the guy might have been a total arsehole who just didn't give a damn. As I say, I'm trying to be charitable.

Didn't have time to finish earlier, but I have to say that I'm in disagreement with you on the specific subject of the Elgin Marbles. I grew up in Athens and have several friends whose extremely strong feelings on the subject has seeped into me.

You're right when you say that the air pollution in Athens would have done terrible damage to the Marbles had they remained in situ. And that would have been a terrible tragedy. But once you start using that as a justification for looting and vandalism...? Well, where does it end?

The road-building projects that threaten to disturb the landscapes around Tara, in Ireland and Stone Henge, in England... do they qualify for a similar rescue plan and if an American business-man arrived one day and forcefully removed the stones from Stone Henge and shipped them to his private wilderness reserve for display to paying visitors; all against the express wishes of the local people? Would he be justified?

Does that line of reasoning not lead to a situation where anyone can justify cultural looting by claiming they intend to preserve the item(s) in a better condition than the locals are capable?

And that's without getting into the specific circumstances of the Elgin Marbles... bought by an Englishman from the occupying army... that's about as insulting a form of looting as there is! Like that hypothetical American businessman buying Stone Henge from a French occupying force. Imagine watching your enemy... your occupier... selling off your cultural heritage to rich foreigners. And then imagine the rich foreigners sneer at your repeated requests for its return under the pretext that "you're not careful enough with your own heritage".

Is it not better that we risk losing even beautiful things, rather than accept that kind of steal-by-force approach to conservation?