Talk:Elgin Marbles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

Contents 1 Older discussion 2 Not "back" 3 Elgin was the thief not the sculptor 4 Naming 5 Please someone, write an article about the Marbles 6 Merge suggestion 7 "Brought" to Britain, were they now? 8 NEW NAME = stolen from Elgin Marbles 9 What is this article about? 10 Damage to marbles: NPOV 11 Damage to marbles: Strange image 12 bunch of text removed from head of article 13 "Parthenon Marbles" vs. "Elgin marbles" 14 "it is no longer feasible or advisable to reposition them onto the Parthenon"? 15 This is not Right!

[edit] Older discussion

I've changed 'giants' to 'lapiths' and noted that it's not so much Keats's the Grecian Urn but the sonnets that were most influenced by the marbles. The urn's mainly occasioned by the Portland Vase. Also some stuff on the reception in 1803-16

Perhaps the stuff on the reception could be quoted and sourced. People nowadays like to say that there was criticism of the removal of the marbles in 1803. Because there ought to have been. In the general British chorus of approval, where was even one critical voice? The Greeks were silent under the Turkish occupation. The Turks didn't care. Does anyone realize the population of Athens in 1803? It was a village. Does anyone realize the significance of the year 1803? (hint: Peace of Amiens). Wetman 02:30, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Three quotes critical of bringing the marbles to England and none approving? I can't believe that there wasn't someone in England other than Lord Elgin who was glad to have them there.

Are there any links to any sites in favour of the marbles staying in Britain?

[edit] Not "back"

I have removed "back" from "...when the marbles were shipped back to England" as it's pretty clear that they had never been to England before (though it might have been "back home" to Lord Elgin). I also reworded a phrase relating to making wax casts. Sharkford 18:57, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oh suffering jaysas, not only were they "brought" to Britain but they were "brought back". Hang on while I bring the pyramids back to Europe. 193.1.172.138 03:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In 1803 the Greeks couldn't say anything to Turks because Turks did anything they wanted and Greeks weren't so educated as were English wealthy people.I have to say that an old man had told when the workers ruined Parthenon :Please take care of them and when we will rise our nation again we take them back.You have to learn also that we stayed 400 years under the Turkish occupation and we managed to keep our national identity. These marbles are our history so please think of a nation with the majority of his history stolen!There is a site about the catastrophes on greek statues and other ancient woks of art (eg. the statue of Afrodity(Venus) of Milos) but it is in greek, unfortunately. NIKH (or victory ;I'm agreek girl) {{subst:unsigned:62.74.52.69}}

[edit] Elgin was the thief not the sculptor

They should be called Greek marbles of Parthenon. Someone gives his name to something because he made it. Imagine any thief, like Elgin, can give his name to the stolen goods or any killer to his victims!

This page should be renamed to "Akropolis metope and other Greek marbles stolen from Elgin"

Filippos (Filippos2 06:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.5.61.226 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 26 February 2006.

Actually your dispute is probably with the Ottoman Empire. It was the local Ottoman governor who sold the marbles to Elgin. Of course there are still disputes as to the legality of the sale. -- Solipsist 14:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are not just marbles (the raw material), but sections of a frieze and other architerctural structures. At the very least they should be called by their British Museum appelation: Parthenon Marbles. Politis

No, they should be known by their most common name in English, as per Wikipedia naming conventions. Google searches suggest 2:1 in favour of 'Elgin Marbles' compared to 'Parthenon Marbles'. More importantly internal wiki linking via 'What links here' suggests 60:1 in favour 'Elgin Marbles'. -- Solipsist 23:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

To Solipsist : How do you think this sounds if Jack the Ripper assassinated your grandma and all the people call you "Jack the Ripper"? Statistics are not people links are not gods. Thieves must pay for their actions but in this case they take a decoration.

These marbles are not just stolen marbles they are a piece of Parthenon made by Greek sculptors not Elgin.

OK this page should be renamed to "Akropolis metope and other Greek marbles bought(?) from Elgin". Links will be pleased and google too.

The marbles should be returned to where they belong and stop this dispute. In EU, England is allied with Ellas (Greece) not an enemy empire that was before.

Filippos (Filippos2 06:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.5.59.238 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 9 March 2006.

Wikipedia doesn't try and set the world to rights, we just reflect they way things are. When placing an article at a specific title, the most important thing is to use the name that most people would expect. This is largely so that if a future editor is writing another article and wants to link here, they guess the right article title first time without needing to check the link or insert a disambiguation pipe.

In this case, political considerations aside, it is quite clear that 'Elgin Marbles' is the common English usage. In other languages it is different. There doesn't appear to be an equivalent article on the Greek Wikipedia, but the French and Swedish pedias use 'Parthenon Marbles', which is fine if that is the common usage in those languages.

For more, please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and more generally Wikipedia:Naming conventions. -- Solipsist 07:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that the marbles should not take their name from Elgin, the use of the term Elgin Marbles, rather than Parthenon Marbles does cearly differentiate them from the other remaining Parthenon Sculptures in Athens which are not the topic of this article.

[edit] Naming

Wikipedia policy is pretty clear, things should take on the name they are commonly known by. By that policy, this article is definitely the Elgin Marbles. A name like "parthenon marble statues purchased by lord elgin" would be unclear (but we can still make that artcile and redirect).

All that said, in wikiland majority rules. There is nothing preventing millions of Greeks from coming here and moving this article to another name Justforasecond 03:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

By naming this article Elgin Marbles Wikipedia does not adhere to the policy of naming things as the are commonly known by, but contributing to the British propaganda moto. The name clearly plays a role in the whole argument of stolen artefacts from their place of their origin.

The British Museum's official name is 'the Parthenon Sculptures'; of course, they are more than simply marbles (the raw material) but, in the UK they are commonly knows as Elgin Marbles. Candidate for re-direction: Parthenon Marbles (British Museum), or re-naming this article as, Elgin Marbles / Parthenon Sculptures. Politis 15:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You are free to make a redirect from Parthenon...->Elgin Marbles, but the common name is "Elgin Marbles" so that is the correct title for this artcle Justforasecond 17:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

---

WRT naming, I think one should be very clear what the article is about. Elgin Marbles is the name by which the sculptures transported to Britain are most commonly known & despite whatever connotations the name carries, is IMHO the best name for the actual article. The thought that occurs to me though, is whether any mention of the aesthetics etc should be made in this piece or if it should purely be about the history / politics of the removal of the sculptures & their continued retention in the British Museum. One possible scenario is that it would make sense for there to be a separate entry _Parthenon Sculptures_ which would then describe the sculptures as a whole, discussing the aesthetics, interpretation etc as well as any history prior to 1800 & history of those remaining in Athens, with a link to the Elgin Marbles article. My reason for sugesting this approach is that items such as interpretation in the curent article are not specific to the half of the surviving sculptures in the British Museum, but should apply to all to the sculptures in their entirity - eg. those in the BM, those in Athens, those elsewhere & those that have ben destroyed. In the same way, there are many books that treat them as a piece of art without discusion of the politics, or vice versa. Mat8iou 12:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

---

In my opinion the titled should be Parthenon marblesand not Elgin marbles because the pieces of this great monumentbelong to Greeks and to the whole world but not to that dreamfull man Thomas Elgin (he had been dreaming to build up the PARTHENON OF ENGLAND!!!)NIKH (or victory,I'm a Greek girl) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.74.52.69 (talk • contribs) .

---

The marbles must return to Greece where they belong! Elecktra 12:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please someone, write an article about the Marbles

This whole tendentious article is about the tiresome political claim to remove the Marbles, with only a cursory paragraph about these splendid sculptures.

The case for retention is summarised by the British Museum website. Now could we delete most of the other links all making the opposite case?

Better still, replace them with links about the beautiful marbles?

(I'm half Greek!) Jezza 00:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Could someone please describe or categorize the different pieces? Justforasecond 01:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge suggestion

Someone has suggested that this article be merged with Metopes of the Parthenon. Not a good idea. The Elgin Marbles are only a portion of the Parthenon sculpture, and are not identical with the metopes. The sculpture of the Parthenon comes in 4 major categories: pediments, frieze, metopes, and statue of Athena Parthenos. The Elgin marbles are parts of the pediments, frieze, and metopes.

The history of the Elgin Marbles and the controversy over whether they should be returned is notable enough and complex enough to deserve an article. The metopes perhaps deserve their own article, in which case the pediments, frieze, and Parthenos statue should also have their own articles. I prefer the suggestion above that there should be a single article devoted to the Parthenon sculpture. Unfortunately, "Parthenon Sculptures" is a bad title because that's a term used for the Elgin Marbles. Something like "Sculptural program of the Parthenon" or "Sculptural decoration of the Parthenon" would match scholarly usage, but neither is a particularly compelling title. Maybe just "sculpture of the Parthenon"? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that this problem would be best served by two articles - Parthenon Sculptures & Elgin Marbles. As long as there is a clear link to the other article at the top of each, this should limit any confusion which may arise. At present there is a lot of confusio anyway, due to arguments over the choice of name & political connotations thereof etc.

Parthenon Sculptures would describe all sculptural decoration of the Parthenon. Elgin Marbles would describe the historic circumstances & arguments behind the sculptures which curently reside in the British Museumm. In this, reference to the sculptures theselves only needs to be made where it is relevant to this particular issue - eg, describing which sculptures are there etc.

Mat8iou 16:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fairly self-evidently there is a huge amount of controversy over the relocation of the marbles; perhaps what we really need is a separate page on the "return" issue and on the marbles themselves. In the meantime, no sense in the proposed merger. MarkThomas 21:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to try & split the articles in the way detailed above - I think that this would make the most sense logically & hopefully separate the tow relatively unrelated issues from dominating one another. I probably won't have a chance to do it for a while though, as am fairly budy at the moment. Mat8iou 12:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which way of splitting things up is Mat8iou endorsing? Several ideas were proposed above. I gave my opinion of how the articles should be organized up there. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Brought" to Britain, were they now?

Congrats, lads. Only the Brits could be so wonderfully euphemistic about their robbing. 193.1.172.138 03:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NEW NAME = stolen from Elgin Marbles

This is the right name.

The problem is NOT the occupation of marbles. It is NOT a political issue. The problem is not the right name. It doesn't matter if we named Metope or plain Parthenon marbles. The marbles ARE and always be ELLINIKA. BUT the problem IS : Does anyone has the right to name his stolen goods after HIS name? If you think so, then be it. Hail to wikipedia. (although I should say that changing "The Parthenon Marbles, often called the stolen from Elgin Marbles" is a step ahead. Filippos

Please review previous discussion and Wikipedia's policy on article names. -- Solipsist 15:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

WP's policy is to use the most common name in English. How do we decide whether "Parthenon marbles" or "Elgin marbles" is the most common name? Google gives about 730,000 results for a search on the exact phrase "parthenon marbles", but about 225,000 for a search on the exact phrase "elgin marbles". I myself prefer the title "Elgin marbles", because the term "Parthenon marbles" is ambiguous--it can refer either to all of the sculpture of the Parthenon, or those particular pieces that are in the British Museum. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well for one thing, you are doing the wrong search (missing the quotes from the first one). For another, just about every link on the first few pages of the "parthenon marbles" search are to Greek web sites so don't necessarily reflect common English usage. Most UK and other web sites which discuss the Elgin Marbles tend to be even handed so will also mention the alternative name of "Parthenon Marbles". Hence they show up in both searches, whereas the Greek websites exclusively use the term "Parthenon Marbles" and only show up in one. More surprisingly, even when you include the quotes, Google returns pages that use the combination of words but not the exact phrase. I get this BBC link on the 3rd page of the "Parthenon marbles" search, but although the Parthenon is mentioned several times as are the marbles, they only actually use the phrase "Elgin Marbles".

The lesson here (as with so many similar disputes) is to not put blind trust in Google searches, they can be informative, but you have to be careful with the interpretation. A better approach is to pick up some other reference books and newspapers and see what they use - try another encyclopedia or dictionary. For example, I've got the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors here and that only lists 'Elgin Marbles'.

But this is all old ground. I'm getting a bit tired of going over this issue again and again. -- Solipsist 07:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. The google search for parthenon marbles, with quotes, gives about 671,000 results. I take your points on why this search has to be handled with caution, but it at least suggests that many English-speakers use "Parthenon marbles" to refer to the Elgin marbles.

This article from the Discovery Channel quotes the director of the British Museum: "'The Parthenon Marbles have been central to the museum's collections, and to its purpose, for almost two hundred years. Only here can the worldwide significance of the sculptures be fully grasped,' Neil MacGregor, the museum's director, said in a statement." Of course, the article also uses Elgin Marbles in its title and in the body of the article, so this isn't evidence that Parthenon Marbles is more common. But it shows that the Museum's director is happy to use the term, and it's also used in academic articles (such as this article in Archaeology, which uses both "Parthenon Marbles" and "Elgin Marbles"), and newspaper articles (e.g., this article in the Guardian).

Just to be clear, I don't see any reason to change the article's title--I prefer Elgin Marbles because it's the most precise name we've got. Elgin Marbles seems like the most common name in English, but Parthenon Marbles is hardly uncommon. Furthermore, it seems like Parthenon Marbles is becoming a more common way to refer to the sculptures as the dispute over their proper location gains more prominence. It might be good if the article had a section on the different names people use for the sculptures (Elgin Marbles, Parthenon Marbles, Parthenon sculptures), and the reasons behind each one. For instance, Parthenon Marbles seems more common among those who feel strongly that the sculptures should go back to Athens (and this isn't just Greeks). --Akhilleus (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with everything you say there. Given time, the common name will probably become the Parthenon Marbles - its translated equivalent is already the more common name in some other European countries. But in English we are not there yet, and Wikipedia shouldn't lead the way.

A section discussing naming sensitivities would also be a good idea. It might be a good idea to check some older versions of this article so see whether such a section hasn't already been written. This article seems to attract random POV pushers, and I've noticed a number of sections being deleted or twisted to suit different agendas. -- Solipsist 09:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is this article about?

There should be differentiation between the parthenon marbles and the elgin marbles, two different things, whichever way one looks at it. The term "parthenon marbles" can be taken to mean either: those sculptures from the parthenon, amongst the elgin marbles; or: generally, sculptures from the parthenon (not necessarily collected by elgin). There are parthenon marbles in Athens, Paris, London and elsewhere. The term "Elgin Marbles" must, by necessity, encompass marbles not coming from the parthenon - including the Caryatid and the column from the Erechtheion. It's all very well to sit and shout he stole, you stole, give it back etc. but if we don't know what exactly we are talking about it makes us all look a little silly, doesn't it? For example, what of the sculptures from Mycenae collected by Elgin? --5telios 14:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the sculptures from the Parthenon that are displayed in the British Museum, the history of how those sculptures got to the Museum and how they fared in the Museum, including the "cleaning" of the 1930s, and the dispute about the sculptures' proper location. We should point out that in the strictest sense the term "Elgin Marbles" includes:

from the Parthenon: 247ft of the original 524ft of frieze; 15 of the 92 metopes; 17 pedimental figures; various pieces of architecture

from the Erechtheion: a Caryatid, a column and other architectural members

from the Propylaia: Architectural members

from the Temple of Athena Nike: 4 slabs of the frieze and architectural members

This info comes straight out of the British Museum pamphlet. However, "Elgin Marbles" usually just means the stuff from the Parthenon, and people are probably not thinking of the architectural fragments, but the frieze, metopes, and pedimental sculptures. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is my point exactly - given that this is an encyclopaedia, should the article be about what the Elgin Marbles are rather than what most people think they are? - It should cover all the Erechtheion, Propylaea and Athena Nike fragments, which are so often cast aside in the parthenonocentric rhetoric of the fight for / against return. --5telios 07:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm tempted to quote President Clinton, and say it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. "Elgin Marbles" usually denotes the figured sculpture from the Parthenon that's in the British Museum. If that's the way the phrase usually occurs, doesn't that mean that's what the Elgin Marbles are?

Ontology aside, this article should definitely include the strict sense of "Elgin Marbles" (the list of sculpture above)--but WP's mission isn't to educate people about their misuse of a term, especially when, as with the Elgin Marbles, it's disputed whether we should even use the term at all. Rather, WP reports what reliable sources say about a topic. Our sources generally use "Elgin Marbles" or "Parthenon Marbles" to refer to the Parthenon sculpture in England (some of which wasn't even brought there by Elgin). --Akhilleus (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damage to marbles: NPOV

This section contains some peacock terms, especially the second paragraph. Also, many sentences have awkward wording due to extra phrases being tacked on after creation.--Digitalblue 05:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the recent change purely because that bit quotes the British Museum position, which any check on their (cited) site quickly reveals. However, there has also long been discussion of the pollution threat in Athens, which is widely agreed and which has been part of the need to build the new gallery next to the Parthenon; also there was considerable vandalism on the Parthenon since Elgin and this is considered a pro-BM position fact by some. MarkThomas 10:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damage to marbles: Strange image

The image in this section does not belong to the Parthenon frieze on stylistic and thematic grounds. I have no idea where it is from, but it looks more recent. --5telios 13:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No-one has commented in almost three weeks - I am removing the strange photograph. --5telios 22:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bunch of text removed from head of article

--88.104.82.198 17:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)link titleElgin Marbles]</ref> The latter was tested in the British High Court in May 2005 in relation to Nazi-looted Old Master artworks held at the museum; it was ruled that these could not be returned.^[1] The judge, Sir Andrew Morritt, ruled that the British Museum Act – which protects the collections for posterity – cannot be overridden by a "moral obligation" to return works known to have been plundered. It has been argued however, that connections between the legal ruling and the Elgin Marbles were more tenuous than implied by the Attorney General^[2].

[edit] "Parthenon Marbles" vs. "Elgin marbles"

Clearly there has been a significant amount of chat on this, but most of it seems to be grounded in sentiments of nationalism. I'd like to bring up a point which I don't believe has been mentioned. The Elgin Marbles comprise approximately half of the reliefs and statuary that adorned the friezes, metopes and pediments of the Parthenon. Specifically, they are the half that were transported from Greece to England by Thomas Bruce, aka Lord Elgin. The vast majority of the other half is in the possession of the Greeks. I raise the issue because I question the legitimacy of having "Parthenon Marbles" redirect to "Elgin Marbles." Indeed, the Elgin Marbles are a specific subset of the Parthenon Marbles, but they are not the only Parthenon Marbles. Thoughts? Ejectgoose 05:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this article is basically about their ownership and disposition, with respect to which the Elgin marbles are the most contentious part. The purely architectural and sculptural discussion is elsewhere, at The Parthenon#Sculptural decoration. I do agree it's a bit tricky, since there are a few other controversies about disposition of Parthenon marbles other than the Elgin marbles; for example, Heidelberg university had some small pieces of the Parthenon's marbles, which it recently returned. That's not really worth its own article, but maybe should go in this one. Perhaps we should go the other way: Have a more general Parthenon Marbles article to which Elgin Marbles redirects? The Elgin marbles would still form the bulk of that article's discussion. --Delirium 08:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Parthenon Marbles" is a phrase used to refer to the Elgin Marbles. Just do a Google search. The British Museum seems to prefer the term "Parthenon sculptures". Logically, "Parthenon Marbles" and "Parthenon Sculptures" ought to mean all of the sculpture that originally belonged to the Parthenon, but logic doesn't always determine the way words are used. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there have been some edits relating to this issue today, so I want to provide a little more data here. First of all, a Google search for "Parthenon Marbles" ([1]) gives us results that are all about the Elgin Marbles. A search for "Parthenon Sculptures" ([2]) also gives results that are largely concerned with the Elgin marbles, although I saw one result that was about the return of one fragment from Heidelberg, and other results that are about sculptures that are still in Athens. Nevertheless, it seems very clear that the phrase "Parthenon Marbles" often means the sculptures from the Parthenon that are in the British Museum: even the Greek Ministry of Culture uses the phrase this way ([3]). "Parthenon Sculptures" is more ambiguous, but it's still clear that the phrase often means the sculptures in the British Museum. For these reasons, I think the best way to phrase the opening sentence is

The Elgin Marbles (IPA: /'ɛl gən/), also known as the Parthenon Marbles or Parthenon Sculptures,...

Of course, we can and should say that the Elgin Marbles are not all of the sculptures from the Parthenon, and that (confusingly enough), some of the things that are technically "Elgin Marbles" are from buildings besides the Parthenon. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

although I cannot now find it, I have positioned myself on this in the past. I believe that if Wikipedia is to have value it should not be a repository of what people think or what people say, but of what actually is. The "Parthenon marbles" includes marbles not in the collection of Elgin. The "Elgin marbles" includes pieces not from the parthenon, indeed not from the acropolis, and possibly not made of "marble" at all. This should be clear in the article. --5telios 08:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "it is no longer feasible or advisable to reposition them onto the Parthenon"?

My apologies if this is obvious, but could someone elaborate? Pgr94 10:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The basic issue would be pollution. Additionally, the structure is still being restored/rebuilt right now, and you wouldn't want the sculptures to be damaged by construction. It's safer for the sculptures to be inside a museum. Of couse, many people argue that museum should be in Greece... --Akhilleus (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is not Right!

Hello, I am a Korean girl who is writing my opinion. My english skills aren't that superior, so I hope that you can ignore my grammer mistakes. After finishing my homework for finding out what an elgin Marble is, I began to wonder whether the British government to give the marble back, there are many different ways to walk towards this issue, but I believe that the British government must return the marbles. The main reason why I believe so I because the british government bought the marbles with both their money and their agreement, and i believe that ever since then, the British government has the responsibility of the elgin marbles. I know that I am a bad writer, but I hope to receive many serious replies about this issue! Please and Thank you!

• • My email address is <email address removed to protect from spambots>

 No junk mail, please!
--Cjkim724724 07:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello User Cjkim724724 and welcome. I have reverted your post which was vandalized by User:220.76.66.170. Obviously your reasonable and sensible questions irritate some. --Odysses (☜) 18:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)