British Museum – keeper of Civilisations but what accessibility to cultural heritage if not without controversy and facing difficult choices?

By: Hatto Fischer, Athens

But what accessibility to cultural heritage, if not without controversy and facing difficult choices?

The Parthenon sculptures one such case, the other giving recognition to what cultural heritage!

---

Many museums in the West are caught between the traditional role of keeper of Imperialist Collections e.g. the Parthenon sculptures in the case of the British Museum and a possible new role as safeguarding the cultural heritages of minorities to point a new way into the future. The concept of keeper of Civilization is linked to the missions of museums e.g. bringing people closer to different civilizations. In the case of the British Museum, this means raising the awareness of the existence of different civilizations and what happens at cross-roads when different cultures meet, come together, reinforce each other or else suppress the other. There is another term for what the British Museum is doing, namely by ‘going beyond cultures by focusing on civilizations as a more stable and permanent lineage of existence within a certain framework made up of values, technologies, economy, trade, language, arts and cultures’ to display the intrinsic values of these civilizations. Altogether the museum’s policy is directed towards one essential service, namely providing access to civilizations and their findings i.e. collections thereof as cultural monograms or what signatures these civilizations left behind and still cannot be deciphered fully as there is as much unknown about them even today as what has become known in the meantime. Cultural heritage is in that sense a continuous discovery of new interpretation possibilities. It requires dedication and a long term learning process to facilitate what could be described as a ‘cultural adaptation’ to a largely unknown future but on the basis of these findings a good guidance. This aim to provide accessibility is furthermore underlined by the general policy of the British Museum (like all other national museums of the UK) that no entrance fee is being asked from any visitors if they wish to see the Parthenon Marbles or for that matter any other collection in the British Museum. Naturally there are restricted areas for visitors e.g. the Library, but after the refurbishment, they can enter the library at the front and obtain a sense of what it may have been like when Karl Marx was using it. Yet the British Museum is a controversial one precisely because these findings of other civilizations make up in essence ‘imperialist collections’ brought to Britain when the British Empire still prevailed and these collections served to fortify British rule as evidence of superiority and cultural distinctiveness. One of the key issues surrounding the British Museum is the demand by Greece ever since Melina Mercouri raised her voice that the Parthenon Marbles be returned to their rightful place: the Acropolis. For it is not a rightful collection but stolen property as public good and cultural heritage of Greece but also in terms of museum’s policy the need to preserve the distinction and local identity of Cultural Heritage findings a direct violation thereof. Taking things out of context, and this begins already with the removal of an icon from a church to place it on a naked gallery wall, starts off one of the many examples of an alienation process in terms of meanings, and of which many museums and galleries are guilty of. In the case of the Parthenon sculptures, locality does play a role. Free access to them so that they can be viewed just the same or even better, so the claim by the British Museum, is not the same. Any artificial building will not be able to replace the Greek light which does matter when wishing to view these sculptures in their original as opposed to nowadays artificial setting. They are definitely not illuminated upon in the same way when seen under British grey sky letting only sparsely sunlight infiltrate the scarce rooms of the British Museum. There is a need to understand a bit better some of the issues raised by the British Museum not merely housing the Parthenon marbles known otherwise by the one who brought them to England in the first place, namely Lord Elgin. This concerns not only the treatment of cultural heritage – as issues of protection and promotion – but the very controversial context in which they are presently placed in hinders access to cultural heritage rather than fulfills the mission the British Museum claims and supposed to be doing.

The Parthenon Marbles

The mission statement of the British Museum would obviously not be complete if this nuance of ‘keeping’ tradition by safeguarding also Western Civilization would go unnoticed. As keepers of collections representing these various civilizations, the British Museum’s official standpoint with regards to the Parthenon Marbles – in the book sold in the gift-shop they are called the Elgin Marbles – is that they are better kept in their premises than if returned to the Acropolis in Athens. To set all facts straight and put them on public display, may be applaudable but it shows already under what pressure the British Museum has come to justify the keeping of these sculptures rather than returning them to Greece. Furthermore, a closer look at this frank admittance by the British Museum reveals through their wordings that it is only a fake admission of something being wrong with how this collection got to the museum in the first place. The official texts contain subtle wordings with loaded and twisted meanings while distortions of facts that can only be noticed by careful reading and by knowing the facts differently. To begin with the situation Greece found itself in when Lord Elgin arrived is told with a twist in historical recollection:

In 1799 Thomas Bruce, Earl of Elgin, was appointed British Ambassador in Constantinople (Istanbul), capital of the Ottoman Empire, of which Greece had been a part for nearly 350 years. His subsequent actions have generated controversy ever since.

official text on display in the British Museum for public view July 2005

Any museum has the full responsibility to inform the public truthfully about the historical background of the matter and not to distort it in order to gain like a business man a vantage viewpoint by which things can be easily justified. In this case anyone knowing Greek history would not agree that Greece “had been a part of nearly 350 years of the Ottoman Empire” since Greece was an occupied country very much like Iraq is today by American and British troops since they invaded that country on 21st of March 2003. As it stands, the formulation suggests Greece was an integral part and this for 350 years (when it was 400 years of occupation). To follow such a vantage point, everything else is supposedly legitimized in terms of the actions undertaken by Lord Elgin. The story of the British museum is that he got legally and without any problem the permission for whatever he had set out to do from the Turkish, that is occupying authority. That is very curious but since when can an occupying power grant such a permission? The terms ‘stolen cultural goods’ and ‘illegal trade with cultural heritage artefacts’ have been used, for instance, in the aftermaths of the Iraq invasion when the museum in Baghdad was plundered and other sites of world heritage threatened. It is an international consensus on how cultural heritages ought to be treated. Safeguarding them means above all not to deprive the people of that culture of their own cultural heritage. For instance, Italy has just returned to Ethiopia a pinnacle that Mussolini had robbed when occupying that country. It takes time for those robbing countries to realize their mistakes. Occupying powers have anyone little or no regard for the cultural heritage of the country they occupy and next to raping women of the defeated nations, they have a greater interest in destroying or misusing that cultural heritage. It is the memory base of that country and therefore a source of identity. Potentially it can become easily a source of resistance against the occupying forces. There are other ironies involved when occupying forces invade another country. Many pointed out that while American troops moved quickly to guard the ministry for oil in the Iraq war which started March 2003, no troops were send to protect the museum from being plundered. It is, therefore, not without irony when the British Museum points out that Lord Elgin stands in the tradition of aristocratic habits. It means in reality he did it to further financial gains but under the pretense to do things for a noble cause. Naturally it was a highly prestigious act to rob the Parthenon marbles while it shows all the subtleties in cultural diplomacy when looking how the British Museums presents then the acquisition. It is but another twist in the presentation of facts. For Lord Elgin stood well in the tradition of bringing about another ‘imperial collection’.

Like other aristocratic travelers before him, Lord Elgin assembled a team to record Classical Greek buildings and sculptures for the benefit of the arts in Britain. His team reported on the continuing destruction of these monuments. In 1801 they were granted a firmer (letter of permission) that enabled them to remove antiquities from the Acropolis. This letter was accompanied by a senior Ottoman official, Raschid Aga, who agreed to the removal of sculptures from the Parthenon itself.

official text on display in the British Museum for public view July 2005

The alternative version has it that Lord Elgin had only permission to make drawings and sketches but never the permission to remove the sculptures from the Acropolis. He did it on his own accord, illegally and while Istanbul was not exactly observant as to what he was doing on the Parthenon. Furthermore, anyone can write a report that the Acropolis is being destroyed in order to legitimize what follows afterwards. There was no validation of that report but it help mask their own vandalism by being a noble cause.

It should also be noted that despite the reference of the British Museum text to ongoing destruction so as to paint Lord Elgin and his team in the positive light of being saviors of the Parthenon marbles, in reality they did not take great care of the rest of the building and the remaining sculptures when removing the pieces Lord Elgin had decided to make these pieces into his own collection. He used crude methods to remove them. He was also in a great hurry to get things done in order to avoid that anyone could react before it was too late to prevent such massive vandalism on the Acropolis.

Furthermore, as the next official text on display in the British Museum for public viewing indicates, his motives were by far less noble even though the British Museum wants the public to make belief he did it for the “benefit of the arts in Britain”. He did it for money’s sake and effort to gain prestige amongst the aristocratic class of England.

How naïve the wording of the official text becomes, that is expressed by the passage beginning with “Lord Elgin soon realized the importance of his growing collection…” He was fully aware from the outset about the importance to gain access to the Acropolis under the circumstances he managed with the help of the Turkish occupying power. Greece itself was not a sovereign power and therefore unable to protect its own cultural heritage. But the value of the Acropolis to scholars, philosophers, writers, academics, and politicians was fully known as everyone resorted to the Parthenon as the birth place of Western Civilizations.

Lord Elgin soon realized the importance of his growing collection and wrote to the British Museum in 1802 proposing a special gallery. His plans were interrupted when he was captured by the French on his way home in 1803 and by his subsequent financial troubles. In 1816, however, following an inquiry by a Select Committee, the British Parliament voted funds to enable the British Museum to purchase Lord Elgin’s collection.

official text on display in the British Museum for public view July 2005

What this text reveals is a huge distortion by the British Museum of the imperialist motive underlying his actions. It explains also in a distorted way how the British Parliament responded to it. The truth is that the British Parliament entrusted the British Museum “to keep the Elgin marbles”, making the imperialist robbery into a legal act which all Greek governments since Melina Mercouri’s start of the campaign for the return of the Parthenon Marbles, find very difficult to challenge. By buying illegally obtained cultural heritage artifacts and then converting it by an act of Parliament into a legally acquired property by the British Museum, the safeguarding of these stolen items is made into a double legal flint. For the Greek government can no longer address the British Parliament since by this act the keeper is the British Museum and the British Museum can argue that it has been entrusted officially by the British Parliament and therefore shall remain faithful to having been entrusted to keep the Parthenon marbles.

Accessibility as key argument

They pride themselves in keeping these marble evidences so as to provide access to everyone. By implication they would argue Greece is a remote country and not as readily visited as the millions that come to London and therefore to the British Museum.

The question is, if this argument still holds, in an age of communication and fast transportation making Athens just as accessible as London. The Olympic Games were held in Athens 2004 and no problems were incurred when the International Airport had to handle so many planes landing and taking off.

If that argument no longer holds, then the only other invoked is keeping the marbles safe from air pollution for which Athens was famous for in the past but no longer (or, if the argument is to be taken further, the air in London is not any better either).

“The sculptures now in the British museum were brought to England by Lord Elgin and purchased by the Museum in 1816. Elgin’s actions have always been controversial, but his removal of the sculptures has spared them further damage from vandalism, weathering and the modern threat of atmospheric pollution. Sculptures that remained on the building have been removed and are now mostly in store in the Acropolis museum.”

official text on display in the British Museum for public view July 2005

 

Still, the British museum had to admit that not Athenian air pollution or vandalism over the centuries (see Zbiegniew Herbert, A Barbarian comes into the Garden: the History of the Acropolis) could damage the Parthenon marbles but also its own restoration practices:

“In the 1930s some of the sculptures in London were controversially cleaned before being installed in the present gallery.”

official tex ton display in the British Museum for public view July 2005

The announcement includes reference to the official website for those who wish to obtain a full account of this controversial cleaning process and other matters related to the Parthenon Marbles issue:http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk

Athens is responding to this precondition by going ahead with the construction of the Acropolis museum to be located underneath the Acropolis being right now restored under the guidance of M. Korres. There have been many unfortunate delays in the construction of that museum, delays contributing towards missing the opportunity of the Olympic Games in 2004 as possibility to put the British government, Parliament and British Museum under pressure to return the stolen Parthenon marbles.

Whether or not the marbles will then be returned, that is another matter. A court case dealing with this question of returning or not stolen cultural goods did not favor such a move in May 2005. The fear prevails that this would create precedence for many other countries demanding back what had been taken during times of conquest and the British Empire expanding. But aside from them being returned or not, there are many ways in which the British museum could give a truer recognition to the intrinsic value of the Parthenon marbles. Alecos Alavanos made already in 1994, the year of Merlina Mercouri’s death, the demand that the official texts to explain the background of this collection and to explain the various sculptures should also be available in Greek. To this should be added after July 2005 that these texts should be more truthful in their wordings and especially not distort the story in order to give legitimization to the acquisition, retrospectively speaking. That would curtail access to this invaluable culture heritage of Greece and Europe as well as not serve well as bridge to other civilizations if this wrong legitimization continues to suppress any real debate about their value and reasons for their return to Greece.

 

From Imperial collections to using culture as ‘soft power’

After the bombings on July 7th, the UK is confronting the fact that Islamic and other communities in the midst of British society may work on different value principles and thereby end up isolating themselves from the rest of society as this alienation can lead to such tensions that violent reactions can be translated by misguided fanatics into acts of hatred and terrorism. Of interest is that this touches upon as well the role museums can play in serving as bridges between different cultures (it was the theme specified by ICOM for Museums Day May 18th 2005) to further mutual understanding and giving dignity as part of the self esteem to these minorities and their different communities.

In the aftermaths to these attacks, Alan Riding draws attention to a recent report issued by the Commission on „Delivering Shared Heritage” in London. Here the role of museums is at stake. The report asks what museums can do in terms of helping these minorities be more integrated into British society. The report states clearly that this is also a matter of not merely police control, but also of giving recognition to the cultural heritage of minorities living in the UK. This possibility of giving recognition through opening up collections in the museum to show achievements of these minorities but also by employing them as permanent staff (guides but also specialists trained for purpose of giving interpretations of various cultures and their background) he calls the ’soft power’ of culture in order to fight terrorism. It is an interesting hypothesis and a good way to approach also the question how museums like the British Museum can get away from the negative image of housing merely Imperialist Collections and change into museums that give active recognition to cultural diversity and cultural heritages existing in the UK. Museums should after all serve the community at large and therefore reflect changes going on in the UK but also elsewhere due to immigration / migration and in general the movement of people when they begin to map their cultural spaces and legacies anew. It would mean for the museum the task to trace changing cultures as they have impacts upon our understanding of Western and other civilizations.

Conclusion

In any case, if there is doubt about both the concept and mission of a particular museum, then the task to keep or rather to safeguard that what is housed in the museum means already a lot of work and research has to go into restoration and preservation. Still, the keeping of cultural heritage must reflect the changing role from housing imperial collections to using ‘the soft power’ of culture to give real recognition not of suppressed people but those emancipating themselves as they utilize the energies they receive by this recognition to let their cultures unfold. As such museums offer a huge service in preserving and promoting cultural heritage. They do this not merely according to their own standards and evaluation procedures, but in response to a highly critical audience and media in case this would not be fulfilled by the museum as prime task.

more Comments...