APPENDIX 38
Memorandum submitted by Mr Peter Baldwinson
I read in The Economist of 18-24 March that
you are chairing an inquiry into the possible return of the Elgin
Marbles to Greece. I do not know whether you have invited views
from members of the public but I thought I would offer you mine
anyway. (In case you are wondering I am not connected with the
British, or any other, Museum).
It seems to me the issue your Committee is considering
goes right to the heart of what museums are for. If one concedes
the principle that cultural objects can be returned to their site
of origin then one begins to undermine the rationale for any museum—whether
it be the British Museum or any other collection. Museums are
collections of objects built up over time from many sites and
countries around the world. That is what they are. Anything that
implies they are collections of items found simply within their
national boundaries is to limit them untenably. If one accepts
the argument that it is correct to return items to their site
of origin then one inevitably reduces museums to being simply
provincial collections. A major plank of their purpose and their
merit is lost. And that is the consequence of accepting the argument
for the return of the Elgin Marbles.
This is not to deny a moral component to the
behaviours of museums. Obviously it is unacceptable for museums—and
particularly state or public collections—to have in their
collections items of doubtful provenance, for example, items looted
by the Third Reich. But that is not the case with the Parthenon
Frieze. There is no firm legal argument for the return of the
Marbles. Otherwise the Greek Government would have begun proceedings
long ago. Nor is there any other persuasive rational argument
that the Greek Government can advance.
Rather their argument for the return of the
Frieze seems to turn solely on sentiment and emotion. To make
this a fundamental consideration in any museum's holdings policy
would be unwise. If similar emotional arguments were to be advanced
by Greece for the return of other items in the British Museum
they would be hard to resist. If Egypt, Turkey, Libya, Tunisia
or Iraq then chose to press the case for the return of other artefacts
which originated within what are today their modern borders one
would rapidly see the dispersal of the collection.
I do not want you to read this simply as a knee-jerk
"thin-end-of-the-wedge" argument. The issues have, as
I hope I have demonstrated, far more serious and wide ranging
implications for the future of museums in this country than just
the loss of one exhibit from London.
March 2000
| 
