Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "'They were STOLEN!' | Furious Elgin Marbles row breaks out over Greek artefacts" video.

Modern Greece was created in 1832, ironically after British, French, & Russian forces had liberated it from Ottoman/Egyptian occupation. Battle of Navarino, anyone? Prior to that, it had been a province of the Ottoman Empire for over 350 years, during which the Parthenon had been at various times an ammunition store, and a gunnery target. When Elgin visited Athens, he found that the Ottoman governor was permitting the marbles to be broken up for use as hard core. He purchased some of them from the only recognised authority in Greece at the time, that same Ottoman governor. It might perhaps have been simpler if he had not purchased them, as there would not then be discussion about them, largely because they would for the most part no longer exist. Have a discussion, by all means, but on the basis of facts, and not on the basis of falsehoods and ludicrous analogies, to which Ms. Buxton was reduced.
2
@eleri7024 But the government of Greece at the time and for the previous 350 years, the Ottoman Empire, did.
2
@giorgismaximos8662 An analogy as false as your earlier post. Are you really ill-informed enough to believe this nonsense? : 'Elgin caused damage to the monument that would have never happened.' Do you mean apart from the fact that it had already been used as a munitions store and a gunnery target? Or that parts had been broken up for road fill and for use as fertiliser? Elgin actually appointed himself guardian of the artifacts, spending a large portion of his personal wealth to secure them? Why? Because the Ottoman administration, which had governed Greece as a province for over 350 years, was not interested in them, and no Greek had been able to do much about it during the same period. Elgin did not 'save a burning house.' He rescued some of the fabric of a derelict house which would otherwise would have collapsed completely.
2
@giorgismaximos8662 There was a functioning government in Greece at the time, and there had been for over 350 years. Unfortunately it was an Ottoman one, which had no interest in any artifacts which were not Islamic in origan.
2
@giorgismaximos8662 Run out of credible arguments, have you? That didn't take long.
1
@Usera2324dfre 'Are we clear now !' Indeed we are. We are clear that you are ignorant of events. Elgin spent a considerable part of his personal wealth in purchasing the sculptures from the acknowledged (for over 350 years) governors of the Ottoman province, who had used the Parthenon, at various times, as an ammunition store, a bunnery practice target, and a source of road fill. Where does ego come into this? He could have done as others had done, which was to sketch the ruins and then abandon them to the tender mercies of a succession of Moslem governors. Presumably the idea that he might have acted as he did out of respect for the ancient and long lost glories of 5th century BC Athens is far beyond your intellect even to consider?
1
@giorgismaximos8662 Out of interest, do you bleat equally plaintively about the 30,000 artifacts of Greek and Roman origin in the Metropolitan Museum of New York? You still seem to find the need to use emotive words like 'theft' when more balanced individuals, even those who wish to see the sculptures returned, tend to acknowledge that they were, at some financial loss to the 7th Earl of Elgin, actually 'rescued.' 'The same things that the majority of UK people and the rest of the world have rejected.' You sure about that, or is it simply a cherished wish-fulfilment fantasy?
1
@iggo45 'Museums are places where objects are exhibited, which are found or come from, the place that surrounds them.' Really? Is that why the Metropolitan Museum in New York hs around 30,000 artifacts of Classical origin? Who would have thought that either Greece or Rome had such large colonies in the New World? 'Even the Islamists did not think to touch them.' Apart, of course, from using the ruin that was the Parthenon for, at various times, a munitions store and a gunnery target, and then breaking up some of the stones for road fill, you mean? 'when we got back our liberty from islamic law of occupation.' Actually, you didn't. After the Greek revolt had been largely crushed by Turkish & Egyptian forces by 1826, the British, French, & Russians sent warships & troops to expel them. Presumably, the Battle of Navarino passed you by?
1
@giorgismaximos8662 Perhaps because the destruction of the Ottoman navy was crucial to the defeat of Ottoman/Egyptian forces in the Peloponnese? Especially after those forces had successfully defeated the Greek Revolt. Again the emotive language. The 7th Earl of Elgin negotiated the purchase of the sculptures from the Ottoman Governor.
1
@giorgismaximos8662 You mean the 'hard struggle' which saw the Greek rebels soundly defeated by Ottoman/Egyptian forces? Oh, and now you claim that Elgin 'was a thief and destroyed the monument.' Remarkable. Did Elgin use it as a munitions store,not a warehouse? Did Elgin set off explosions inside it? Did Elgin use it as an artillery target? Your noble Turks did all that, before using some of the stonework for roadfill. Elgin purchased some of the surviving msrbles from the Turkish authorities, using much of his personal wealth to do it, and the Ottoman governor was quite happy to be rid of what he regarded as pre-Islamic blasphemies. As to the relevance of the expulsion of the Ottomans by allied forces, and in particular the Battle of Navarino, that came about because of the major growth in the west of Philhellenism, because of the arrival there of classical artifacts, such as the sculptures. Are you really as blind and prejudiced as you present yourself?
1
@vaggelismanousakis6147 Is that really a serious question? Do you suggest that Elgin should have formed his own militia, to defend the Parthenon from the Ottoman administration? He purchased the sculptures to remove them from the danger of destruction.
1
@vaggelismanousakis6147 But if someone has occupied a neighbour's house and is systematically trashing it, you might well offer them payment to rescue a few items.In this case, that 'someone' had been in occupation for 350 years, and the original inhabitants hadn't tried to do much about it.
1
@elbmw Around 20% of the frieze has been lost. This section is known only from the drawings attributed to French artist Jacques Carrey in 1674, thirteen years before the Venetian bombardment that ruined the temple. Along with the Metopes of the Parthenon and Pediments of the Parthenon it forms the bulk of surviving sculpture from the building.
1
@elbmw Except the 'remainder' of the Frieze does not survive. Parts of it do.
1
@giorgismaximos8662 Nonsense. How could casts have been made by the Ottomans in the first decade of the 19th Century? Do you mean that Greece (which did not exist until 20 years after Elgin rescued the Marbles) should pay Britain substantial compensation for saving items which would otherwise not exist, and then storing them safely & securely for 200+ years?
1
@giorgismaximos8662 Elgin did make some casts, but only of items left behind. Ironically, the casts showed how much the remaining sculptures had deteriorated since Elgin's time. He did not attempt to make casts of the items he had been permitted to remove. 'No one authorized him the " guardian " of Greek monuments ,what he did was for money.' For money? You mean the money he spent buying them? 'Compensate the Greek state for the destruction of the monument which is of incalculable value and the loss of income from tourists.' You think Britain should compensate Greece for the damage done to the Parthenon by the Ottoman Empire, and the subsequent pollution in Athens? That's a good one. 'The damage he caused would not have happened as they were high up and the rest of the monument remained and is still intact,' Untrue. The rest of the frieze was removed from the Parthenon years ago, because of the levels of pollution. The sculptures in London, having largely avoided this, are in much better condition. '
1
With these people, the old Groucho Marx song seems to apply.'Whatever it is, I'm against it.'
1
@ismoojanen8601 Indeed. Because at the time there was no 'Greece.'
1
@andyjenkinson5070 He purchased them from the authorities in place at the time.
1
@digenesakritas1107 Perhaps you weren't aware that England/Britain has never been occupied by a hostile foreign power since 1066. I imagine that, had such a power existed, and been in the process of breaking up Stonehenge or the Roman Baths, many people of the time would have been delighted had these sites been purchased by an individual sympathetic towards them and taken to a place of safety.
1