Can an issue be characterized as inscrutable? Or is the term applicable only to people? I ask the question because “inscrutable” seems to apply to an issue as persuasively argued on both sides (see “Leave the Marbles Where They Are!” and “Bring the Marbles Home!”) as whether the Elgin Marbles should be returned to Greece. I have searched and searched, read and reread, looking for some principle that would lead me to one conclusion or the other. But I cannot find it.
The issue of repatriation, as it is known, arises with respect to an enormous amount of cultural property. (The famous head of Nefertiti, for example, now in Berlin, was clandestinely smuggled out of Egypt by German excavators in violation of a specific agreement relating to the distribution of finds.)
I suspect that the positions on both sides are largely emotional rather than rational. We know where we want to come out with regard to any particular object and then seek to support our conclusion with reasons. Lawyers call this a result-oriented decision.
I confess my own guilt in this regard. I have previously considered the issue of repatriation of the famous Siloam inscription chiseled from the wall of an underground tunnel in Jerusalem (“Please Return the Siloam Inscription to Jerusalem,”BAR 17:03). In the 1880s vandals gouged the inscription out of the wall; it ended up in pieces in an antiquities shop. The Ottoman authorities confiscated the pieces and took them to Istanbul. I felt that this inscription should be in Jerusalem, not Istanbul. At the time I began saying so, the inscription was not even publicly exhibited. (Now it is beautifully displayed.) It is not intrinsically beautiful. It contains no precious stones. It is not part of Turkish heritage. But it has enormous historical importance to Israel—it is the most important surviving Hebrew inscription from the First Temple period.
I tried to find some universal or at least widely applicable principle to support my position. But I was no more successful than the protagonists in the debate over the Elgin Marbles. In short, each case is different, and different considerations apply.
In numerous recent cases repatriation has been granted. As Jeanette Greenfield notes in The Return of Cultural Treasures (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989), “The practice of return is becoming more widespread.”
In many cases compromise is possible. Sometimes the treasures can be shared, part of a collection in one place, part in the other. Sometimes exchanges can be worked out, in which the receiving country gives something of interest to the repatriating country. Other possibilities include long- or short-term loans and exhibits. This kind of cooperation and compromise can be the occasion for festive celebrations, leading to better understanding between peoples and appreciation of different cultures. In short, a problem can be turned into an opportunity—an opportunity for education, understanding and mutual good will.
Can an issue be characterized as inscrutable? Or is the term applicable only to people? I ask the question because “inscrutable” seems to apply to an issue as persuasively argued on both sides (see “Leave the Marbles Where They Are!” and “Bring the Marbles Home!”) as whether the Elgin Marbles should be returned to Greece. I have searched and searched, read and reread, looking for some principle that would lead me to one conclusion or the other. But I cannot find it. The issue of repatriation, as it is known, arises with respect to an enormous amount of cultural […]
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
