What do you think?
Rate this book
Who Owns History?: Elgin’s Loot and the Case for Returning Plundered Treasure
Geoffrey Robertson focuses his razor-sharp mind on one of the greatest contemporary issues in the worlds of art and culture: the return of cultural property taken from its country of creation.
Hard on the heels of his best-selling autobiography Rather His Own Man, one of Australia’s foremost public intellectuals turns his mind to one of the most important contemporary questions that divides the world of art and culture: the restitution of heritage treasures removed in earlier times from subjugated peoples who now want them back.
Taking his cue from Cicero, the great Roman barrister, Geoffrey Robertson argues that justice requires the return not only of the ‘Elgin’ Marbles to Greece, but of many looted antiquities on display in the museums of Britain, Europe and America. He argues that the Gweagal Shield – dropped when Cook shot at Aboriginals in Botany Bay in 1770 – should be returned to Australia from the British Museum. He wants the government to acquire the hull of HMS Endeavour recently located off Rhode Island. He has located Arthur Phillip’s tombstone for Yemmerrawanne, the first Australian expatriate, in a South London churchyard, and he wants to bring it back.
Robertson’s judgement is uncompromising: cultural heritage belongs to the people of whose history it is a part, unless its return would be attended by danger to the artwork itself. And since the movement for the restitution of cultural property is based on human rights, governments that want it back must show respect for the rights of the peoples on whose behalf they make the claim.
Who Owns History? not only delves into the crucial debate over the Marbles, but examines how the past can be experienced by everyone, as well as by the people of the country of origin.
Hard on the heels of his best-selling autobiography Rather His Own Man, one of Australia’s foremost public intellectuals turns his mind to one of the most important contemporary questions that divides the world of art and culture: the restitution of heritage treasures removed in earlier times from subjugated peoples who now want them back.
Taking his cue from Cicero, the great Roman barrister, Geoffrey Robertson argues that justice requires the return not only of the ‘Elgin’ Marbles to Greece, but of many looted antiquities on display in the museums of Britain, Europe and America. He argues that the Gweagal Shield – dropped when Cook shot at Aboriginals in Botany Bay in 1770 – should be returned to Australia from the British Museum. He wants the government to acquire the hull of HMS Endeavour recently located off Rhode Island. He has located Arthur Phillip’s tombstone for Yemmerrawanne, the first Australian expatriate, in a South London churchyard, and he wants to bring it back.
Robertson’s judgement is uncompromising: cultural heritage belongs to the people of whose history it is a part, unless its return would be attended by danger to the artwork itself. And since the movement for the restitution of cultural property is based on human rights, governments that want it back must show respect for the rights of the peoples on whose behalf they make the claim.
Who Owns History? not only delves into the crucial debate over the Marbles, but examines how the past can be experienced by everyone, as well as by the people of the country of origin.
273 pages, Paperback
First published November 5, 2019
44 people are currently reading
389 people want to read
About the author
Geoffrey Robertson
56 books84 followersGeoffrey Ronald Robertson QC (born 30 September 1946) is a human rights barrister, academic, author and broadcaster. He holds dual Australian and British citizenship.
Robertson is a founder and joint head of Doughty Street Chambers. He serves as a Master of the Bench at the Middle Temple, a recorder, and visiting professor at Queen Mary, University of London.
Robertson is a founder and joint head of Doughty Street Chambers. He serves as a Master of the Bench at the Middle Temple, a recorder, and visiting professor at Queen Mary, University of London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
abandoned
March 5, 2020I got as far as page xix...
When Robertson, discussing his interventions to prevent scientists from the Natural History Museum in London wanting to do tests on the bones of Tasmanian Aborigines from the Black Wars of the 1830s, wrote this:
Now, I might just have dismissed this intemperate allusion to Mengele as the rhetorical flourish of a showy barrister well-schooled in the art of provoking tabloid commentary in support of his case. I might have read on. But I did not because I was appalled by this cheap shot.
Whatever you think about the return of the Elgin Marbles, or the repatriation of skulls and bones from European museums, or any of the other contested matters to which Robertson has assigned the category of 'cultural crimes', it is morally wrong to assign equivalence between Mengele and contemporary scientists. This allusion is a grievous insult to Mengele's victims and their descendants. Mengele experimented without anaesthetic on living people that he thought were sub-human, he inflicted grievous cruelty on them, and caused the victims who survived to live on with permanent disabilities and horrendous post-traumatic memories. His 'experiments' had no validity. Nothing he did contributed to the pursuit of human knowledge, and his 'experiments' killed many of his victims, many of whom were children. The scientists proposing to examine the bones were doing no such thing. They wanted to extract DNA from the bones.
Even if you don't consider human remains sacred, you might consider this disrespectful. Many people do. Australians venerate every last scrap of human bone found on WW1 battlefields, and invest in careful identification (using DNA) and repatriate the remains home with respect. But a lack of respect for human bones is not the same as a wicked crime against humanity, and as a lawyer Geoffrey Robertson knows that better than I do. His allusion is contemptible.
So I hunted around for the Museum's response. Robertson doesn't quote it, except in ironic quotation marks, so here it is:
Robertson does report on the success of eventual mediation, but apart from acknowledging that the museum had made a 'rationalist case for the acquisition of scientific knowledge', you wouldn't know from anything in this preface (or anywhere else in the book — yes, I checked the index) that in fact human genome mapping has enabled repatriation because many bones are not identified as being from any particular place, and it is recent advances in ancient DNA methods and bioinformatics which has made it possible to return these human remains to where they belong. See https://advances.sciencemag.org/conte...
How did I know this? I saw an SBS documentary series about Indigenous people in the Kimberley who were working with scientists to discover with pride that their ancient stories and genealogies were compatible with scientific evidence from research conducted respectfully.
So Robertson can pontificate as much as he likes about the Elgin Marbles, I don't want to read a book that begins with half-truths mustered to establish his moral high ground.
Update 5/3/20: there's a good review at Inside Story which identifies other flaws in this book. https://insidestory.org.au/poem-in-st...
When Robertson, discussing his interventions to prevent scientists from the Natural History Museum in London wanting to do tests on the bones of Tasmanian Aborigines from the Black Wars of the 1830s, wrote this:
'What they are going to do,' I replied, 'is to experiment with the bodies of victims of genocide.'
That way of describing the exercise did not look good in the next day's papers, neither to the museum's donors, nor to the judge, who extended the injunction and expressed the wish that a solution might be found through mediation. That did not at first attract the museum, whose scientists held the view (as did Dr Mengele) that the pursuit of knowledge is an overriding good in itself.
Now, I might just have dismissed this intemperate allusion to Mengele as the rhetorical flourish of a showy barrister well-schooled in the art of provoking tabloid commentary in support of his case. I might have read on. But I did not because I was appalled by this cheap shot.
Whatever you think about the return of the Elgin Marbles, or the repatriation of skulls and bones from European museums, or any of the other contested matters to which Robertson has assigned the category of 'cultural crimes', it is morally wrong to assign equivalence between Mengele and contemporary scientists. This allusion is a grievous insult to Mengele's victims and their descendants. Mengele experimented without anaesthetic on living people that he thought were sub-human, he inflicted grievous cruelty on them, and caused the victims who survived to live on with permanent disabilities and horrendous post-traumatic memories. His 'experiments' had no validity. Nothing he did contributed to the pursuit of human knowledge, and his 'experiments' killed many of his victims, many of whom were children. The scientists proposing to examine the bones were doing no such thing. They wanted to extract DNA from the bones.
Even if you don't consider human remains sacred, you might consider this disrespectful. Many people do. Australians venerate every last scrap of human bone found on WW1 battlefields, and invest in careful identification (using DNA) and repatriate the remains home with respect. But a lack of respect for human bones is not the same as a wicked crime against humanity, and as a lawyer Geoffrey Robertson knows that better than I do. His allusion is contemptible.
So I hunted around for the Museum's response. Robertson doesn't quote it, except in ironic quotation marks, so here it is:
Dr Michael Dixon, Director of the Natural History Museum, comments: 'This is an enormously complicated issue. We have strived throughout to balance two very different opinions of what is the right thing to do - on the one hand returning the remains to the country of origin; on the other using this invaluable and unique resource for scientific research. We are confident that we have acted with integrity and transparency throughout and at all stages we have recognised the importance of the cultural and religious beliefs of Tasmanian aboriginals. This is precisely why our Trustees decided to return these remains.
However, the Museum's founding principle is the generation of knowledge to promote the discovery and understanding of the natural world for the benefit of humanity. For this reason we have stood by our decision to return the remains following completion of data collection. The remains represent a human population from a time when Tasmania was isolated from the rest of the world and this scientific information gathered from them could enable future generations to understand more about how their ancestors lived, where they came from and ultimately provide a fascinating chapter in the story of what it means to be human'.
Robertson does report on the success of eventual mediation, but apart from acknowledging that the museum had made a 'rationalist case for the acquisition of scientific knowledge', you wouldn't know from anything in this preface (or anywhere else in the book — yes, I checked the index) that in fact human genome mapping has enabled repatriation because many bones are not identified as being from any particular place, and it is recent advances in ancient DNA methods and bioinformatics which has made it possible to return these human remains to where they belong. See https://advances.sciencemag.org/conte...
How did I know this? I saw an SBS documentary series about Indigenous people in the Kimberley who were working with scientists to discover with pride that their ancient stories and genealogies were compatible with scientific evidence from research conducted respectfully.
So Robertson can pontificate as much as he likes about the Elgin Marbles, I don't want to read a book that begins with half-truths mustered to establish his moral high ground.
Update 5/3/20: there's a good review at Inside Story which identifies other flaws in this book. https://insidestory.org.au/poem-in-st...
November 3, 2021
This book broke my heart, made me want to scream in frustration and proved what I had always known, the British Museum hasn’t got a leg to stand on in denying the return to Athens of the Parthenon Marbles, stolen by Elgin in 1803-1812.
Legally, ethically, morally and culturally, the British Museum has no right to keep denying Greek requests to return the Marbles. The fact they have refused UNESCOs offer of mediation, to even enter into discussions, proves they know they can’t argue their case and their continued retention of this particular part of Greek cultural heritage is illegal and wrong.
I wish the Greek government would put it’s big girl pants on and take Britain to court over this, just go the whole hog.
Why does Britain even want to keep them anymore? Brexit proved they don’t want any connection to Europe, I’m sure the Great British Public don’t care where the Parthenon Marbles are housed and would be quite happy to see some more European immigrants go back to where they came from.
Legally, ethically, morally and culturally, the British Museum has no right to keep denying Greek requests to return the Marbles. The fact they have refused UNESCOs offer of mediation, to even enter into discussions, proves they know they can’t argue their case and their continued retention of this particular part of Greek cultural heritage is illegal and wrong.
I wish the Greek government would put it’s big girl pants on and take Britain to court over this, just go the whole hog.
Why does Britain even want to keep them anymore? Brexit proved they don’t want any connection to Europe, I’m sure the Great British Public don’t care where the Parthenon Marbles are housed and would be quite happy to see some more European immigrants go back to where they came from.
March 9, 2022
A must read for anyone with an interest in history, politics or Greece. Geoffrey Robertson masterfully untangles the situation regarding the Parthenon Marbles, providing a moral and legal framework to back up his case. His writing is detailed yet remarkably easy to read - this is a book that demands to be shared with friends and family. Only through education and organisation can the Marbles (and all other stolen artefacts) be returned to their rightful owners. An amazing book overall.
February 14, 2021
Geoffrey Robertson makes a passionate case for the return of stolen cultural objects. Robertson has a way of writing legal theory that is very accessible and dissects the arguments for and against reuniting the Parthenon Frieze and returning the 'Elgin Marbles' from the British Museum to Greece in a very methodical way. Robertson also briefly touches on the cases for the return of the Benin Bronzes, Rosetta Stone, the Gweagal Shield and the Bust of Nefertiti.
I enjoyed expanding my knowledge around the circumstances of how the British Museum 'acquired' the Elgin Marbles, I also enjoyed Robertson's critic of European Museums and Government for their hypocritical approach to 'Nazi Loot' versus artefacts stolen during periods of colonialism.
I don't think this will 'tip the scales' or change anyones mind. However, if you want to deepen your understanding and get into the weeds of the current legal arguments surrounding the return of cultural objects, I would highly recommend this book.
I enjoyed expanding my knowledge around the circumstances of how the British Museum 'acquired' the Elgin Marbles, I also enjoyed Robertson's critic of European Museums and Government for their hypocritical approach to 'Nazi Loot' versus artefacts stolen during periods of colonialism.
I don't think this will 'tip the scales' or change anyones mind. However, if you want to deepen your understanding and get into the weeds of the current legal arguments surrounding the return of cultural objects, I would highly recommend this book.
July 20, 2020
The Law Fights Back
One of the few books that doesn't offer moralistic arguments, but instead combs the evidence to see if there is any legal case to be made in favour of the marbles returning to Athens; and there is. Most notoriously, the firman that Elgin supposedly acquired which, he claimed, gave him permission to take the marbles never existed! Indeed, the only thing that he had was a letter from a sergeant or something permitting him to take stones from the floor. I don't know the level of Elgin's understanding of English, but I believe that there is a slight over-interpretation. In general, it is not a question of if, but of when the marbles go to Athens. Very nice book, but a bit too long and repetitive, hence the 4 stars.
One of the few books that doesn't offer moralistic arguments, but instead combs the evidence to see if there is any legal case to be made in favour of the marbles returning to Athens; and there is. Most notoriously, the firman that Elgin supposedly acquired which, he claimed, gave him permission to take the marbles never existed! Indeed, the only thing that he had was a letter from a sergeant or something permitting him to take stones from the floor. I don't know the level of Elgin's understanding of English, but I believe that there is a slight over-interpretation. In general, it is not a question of if, but of when the marbles go to Athens. Very nice book, but a bit too long and repetitive, hence the 4 stars.
November 6, 2024
The topic of art repatriation is important, and the Parthenon Marbles are a great place to start. The author, however, just keeps saying the same thing over and over. Don't think this book will change anyone's view on the issue.
June 29, 2020
Robertson is of course an Australian great and it's nice to see him lending his powerful, eloquent voice to this debate. Robertson sets out an ordered argument for a new global compact on returning artifacts to their country of origin. For this theoretical tribunal, he lists a series of criteria, largely focusing around whether a work was stolen (implicitly or explicitly) and situations in which, even if a work was given legitimately many moons ago, it may have greater historical resonance in its homeland. He also includes the arguments that should sometimes prevent works from being returned, primarily if the country of origin does not have the facilities to care for it, or in situations where countries' human rights record does not merit rewarding them. This is a barrister's argument, as Robertson admits, and is couched in such terms.
This is an issue on which I have always been biased, despite my best efforts. I will never forget my 7th grade Latin teacher telling us (impartially) the Elgin Marbles situation; even then it seemed to me that any British argument to keep the Marbles rested solely on their claims that it was legitimately taken. Even if these were true - which is much debated - it didn't seem to me then, nor does it now, to outpace the broader ethical arguments in favour of sending them home.
On the surface, then, this book is fighting an obvious cause. As is so often the case, the argument for keeping artifacts (which is the still the world's status-quo) rests on two planks: first, that of power, namely that wealthy institutions backed by polities with an obvious interest continue to champion retention, and second, that it appeals to an arguably misplaced patriotism. No-one wants to believe that their country stole anything; no-one wants to believe that another country can better care for the world's treasures; no-one, even if they accept items were stolen, wants to upset the status-quo if it is working in their favour. (It's worth noting this isn't just a discussion to be had between countries; this is also sometimes an issue within a country, either between its states or between its governing power and the local Indigenous people.)
Yet there are complexities to the narrative which other reviewers have noted. For example, Robertson's argument is an idealistic one rather than one of pragmatism. Such a mythical tribunal would have to tell certain countries that they don't deserve their treasures back because of human rights abuses - which they may well dispute and which sometimes are in the eye of the beholder (some would argue that the US' treatment of many of its citizens is not far off) - or an inability to care for items, which automatically prioritises wealthier nations. Linked to that is the idea that some works have more global importance than others. No doubt this is true, but it's difficult to imagine any of us making that decision without implicit biases, Robertson no less than the rest.
There are some evident flaws in this book but, to be honest, the debate needs some idealists alongside the pragmatists. Right now, we are entering a period of reckoning with how we view the past. When that is done, even if it isn't until much later in the century, we must then deal with how we handle what the past has left behind.
This is an issue on which I have always been biased, despite my best efforts. I will never forget my 7th grade Latin teacher telling us (impartially) the Elgin Marbles situation; even then it seemed to me that any British argument to keep the Marbles rested solely on their claims that it was legitimately taken. Even if these were true - which is much debated - it didn't seem to me then, nor does it now, to outpace the broader ethical arguments in favour of sending them home.
On the surface, then, this book is fighting an obvious cause. As is so often the case, the argument for keeping artifacts (which is the still the world's status-quo) rests on two planks: first, that of power, namely that wealthy institutions backed by polities with an obvious interest continue to champion retention, and second, that it appeals to an arguably misplaced patriotism. No-one wants to believe that their country stole anything; no-one wants to believe that another country can better care for the world's treasures; no-one, even if they accept items were stolen, wants to upset the status-quo if it is working in their favour. (It's worth noting this isn't just a discussion to be had between countries; this is also sometimes an issue within a country, either between its states or between its governing power and the local Indigenous people.)
Yet there are complexities to the narrative which other reviewers have noted. For example, Robertson's argument is an idealistic one rather than one of pragmatism. Such a mythical tribunal would have to tell certain countries that they don't deserve their treasures back because of human rights abuses - which they may well dispute and which sometimes are in the eye of the beholder (some would argue that the US' treatment of many of its citizens is not far off) - or an inability to care for items, which automatically prioritises wealthier nations. Linked to that is the idea that some works have more global importance than others. No doubt this is true, but it's difficult to imagine any of us making that decision without implicit biases, Robertson no less than the rest.
There are some evident flaws in this book but, to be honest, the debate needs some idealists alongside the pragmatists. Right now, we are entering a period of reckoning with how we view the past. When that is done, even if it isn't until much later in the century, we must then deal with how we handle what the past has left behind.
April 27, 2021
Incredibly interesting take on historical artefacts and their place in modern society. If anything, it gave me a little bit of a pessimistic, but realistic view of the world!
It goes into quite detailed legal jargon surrounding the proposition of an international legal framework to enforce the return of stolen artefacts. I am no lawyer, so this didn't interest me as much as the stories themselves about how famous treasures came to be where they are today.
It goes into quite detailed legal jargon surrounding the proposition of an international legal framework to enforce the return of stolen artefacts. I am no lawyer, so this didn't interest me as much as the stories themselves about how famous treasures came to be where they are today.
September 15, 2022
not a bad read. good introduction to the elgin marbles and discussion about other historical objects that have yet to be repatriated. his opinion and voice is clear. i just find the legal discussion, such as establishing a tribunal and such, kinda weak. it felt simplified.
February 17, 2023
I always had a strong opinion in favor of the restitution of the Parthenon Marbles, but after reading this book I can say I have a much deeper understanding of the historical, political and legal sides on the subject.
The author presents a number of cases where national treasures were seized by war or deception by the colonial powers in the 18th and 19th centuries. He argues why some of these artifacts needs to be returned the their cultural descendants while also presents cases where they should not.
He goes on to explain how Elgin exploiting the good diplomatic relations between England and Turkey at the time(1801) and the fact that he could not be prosecuted due to his position he managed through bribery to saw off and steal the Parthenon marbles.
He attacks the so-called firman, which Elgin never produced(there is only an Italian translation) and explains the stance of Sublime Port with regards to despoliation in its territory.
There is a chapter about other known national treasures, such as Koh-i-Noor Diamond, Benin Bronzes, Rosetta Stone and Old Summer Palace in Beijing. Not surprised to learn that it was Elgin's son who after plundering the Old Summer Palace (or the Garden of Perfect Brightness) he put it to the torch.
Perhaps it is time the Western ‘universalist’ museums to re-evaluate their role and stop hoarding endless treasures in their warehouses where no-one can appreciate them . Some of these treasures should be returned where they can be truly appreciated and be the key to unlock each nation's history.
The author presents a number of cases where national treasures were seized by war or deception by the colonial powers in the 18th and 19th centuries. He argues why some of these artifacts needs to be returned the their cultural descendants while also presents cases where they should not.
Offering stolen heritage back on loan – for however long – is a post-colonial insult.
He goes on to explain how Elgin exploiting the good diplomatic relations between England and Turkey at the time(1801) and the fact that he could not be prosecuted due to his position he managed through bribery to saw off and steal the Parthenon marbles.
the Marbles were not ‘sold’ – Elgin never offered to buy them, because he knew his offer would be refused. What he did was lavishly to bribe local officials to turn a blind eye while his workmen pulled down the ornaments of the temple and took them away in crates, first to the courtyard of the British consul and thence to boats (including British warships) in the harbor at Piraeus.
He attacks the so-called firman, which Elgin never produced(there is only an Italian translation) and explains the stance of Sublime Port with regards to despoliation in its territory.
There is a chapter about other known national treasures, such as Koh-i-Noor Diamond, Benin Bronzes, Rosetta Stone and Old Summer Palace in Beijing. Not surprised to learn that it was Elgin's son who after plundering the Old Summer Palace (or the Garden of Perfect Brightness) he put it to the torch.
Perhaps it is time the Western ‘universalist’ museums to re-evaluate their role and stop hoarding endless treasures in their warehouses where no-one can appreciate them . Some of these treasures should be returned where they can be truly appreciated and be the key to unlock each nation's history.
Culture minister Melina Mercouri, an Oscar-winning actress, launched an international campaign, saying: ‘The Parthenon Marbles … are our pride. They are our sacrifices. They are our noblest symbol of excellence. They are a tribute to the democratic philosophy. They are our aspirations and our name. They are the essence of Greekness.'
January 7, 2020
WHO OWNS HISTORY by GEOFFREY ROBERTSON - REVIEW BY IAN SMITH
If you’ve ever sought a can of worms without success, try looking in this work. It could be argued that Geoffrey Robertson is our greatest legal mind ever; his recognition on the international stage tells us that. Here he looks into the restitution of stolen historical items or, more specifically, the possibility of their restitution.
The famous Elgin Marbles that were seconded from the Parthenon feature in this argument, one I’ve had on a plane one time. While Geoffrey argues the legality of their possession it is scary just to think of where it might possibly lead us. There are literally millions of items that fall into the “stolen” category and a handful of museums have a huge amount of them. It should come as no surprise to learn that Geoffrey’s office is just across the road from the British Museum which explains why the marbles feature in this work.
One of the arguments is to make copies of certain key items and return the originals. Hey, it works at the Victoria and Albert Museum. Some people may rail at this idea but I wonder how many know, as they gaze upon the fabled “Gates of Paradise” in Florence by Ghiberti or the statue of David by Michelangelo that they’re both only copies. Two were made of each (the others are in America) and the originals are stored in an underground bunker somewhere.
Returning stuff is worrisome. Declaring a country to be “safe” would be in the hands of who? However, when you consider that the British Museum reportedly only exhibits 1% of its treasures at any given time, surely they (and Le Louvre, Metropolitan in New York, Hermitage in Russia to name but a few) could spare some of the items. Of course, return a couple and suddenly you’ll have a queue.
Another problem is greed (read “money”). Looters spirit away priceless treasures that end up in private collections and it’s all connected by money.
Australia had a case, highlighted by a Four Corners program, concerning the Shiva Nataraja, that initially we hung onto but, ultimately it was returned, thanks to a large degree to the ABC.
It’s such a thought provoking and controversial subject that all this book is doing is adding fuel to a fire that’s already burning quite well and, while there are potential solutions, personally I wonder it they’ll ever bear fruit, such is the power behind those that hold the huge collections.
As with all of Geoffrey’s works, it is thought provoking and written in flawless English and will hopefully provoke wider awareness and discussion in the general populace.
If you’ve ever sought a can of worms without success, try looking in this work. It could be argued that Geoffrey Robertson is our greatest legal mind ever; his recognition on the international stage tells us that. Here he looks into the restitution of stolen historical items or, more specifically, the possibility of their restitution.
The famous Elgin Marbles that were seconded from the Parthenon feature in this argument, one I’ve had on a plane one time. While Geoffrey argues the legality of their possession it is scary just to think of where it might possibly lead us. There are literally millions of items that fall into the “stolen” category and a handful of museums have a huge amount of them. It should come as no surprise to learn that Geoffrey’s office is just across the road from the British Museum which explains why the marbles feature in this work.
One of the arguments is to make copies of certain key items and return the originals. Hey, it works at the Victoria and Albert Museum. Some people may rail at this idea but I wonder how many know, as they gaze upon the fabled “Gates of Paradise” in Florence by Ghiberti or the statue of David by Michelangelo that they’re both only copies. Two were made of each (the others are in America) and the originals are stored in an underground bunker somewhere.
Returning stuff is worrisome. Declaring a country to be “safe” would be in the hands of who? However, when you consider that the British Museum reportedly only exhibits 1% of its treasures at any given time, surely they (and Le Louvre, Metropolitan in New York, Hermitage in Russia to name but a few) could spare some of the items. Of course, return a couple and suddenly you’ll have a queue.
Another problem is greed (read “money”). Looters spirit away priceless treasures that end up in private collections and it’s all connected by money.
Australia had a case, highlighted by a Four Corners program, concerning the Shiva Nataraja, that initially we hung onto but, ultimately it was returned, thanks to a large degree to the ABC.
It’s such a thought provoking and controversial subject that all this book is doing is adding fuel to a fire that’s already burning quite well and, while there are potential solutions, personally I wonder it they’ll ever bear fruit, such is the power behind those that hold the huge collections.
As with all of Geoffrey’s works, it is thought provoking and written in flawless English and will hopefully provoke wider awareness and discussion in the general populace.
February 26, 2021
I really enjoyed this factual book. As a kid I absorbed ancient Roman history at school and I can remember asking my father why some of the most famous marble statues were in London. He tried to explain the ‘spoils of war’ concept but I remember being sceptical even then. This book elaborates on that theme in a readable and interesting way and you don't have to be a history buff. I particularly enjoyed Chapter 7 and the section on The Bust Of Nefertiti; some pretty outrageous things are done with her ancient and eternal image.
The money-making mass replication of iconic symbols and primal works of art are examined. One case (not so much plundered as manipulated) is the disputed ownership of a national treasure the Indian Koh-i-Noor diamond and its eventual ‘acquisition’ by Queen Victoria, on view in the Tower Of London. There’s the black market and countries at civil war also taken into consideration and a proposal put forward. Geoffrey Robertson’s style is light enough, almost wry, but very serious about returning cultural artefacts to their country of origin.
The money-making mass replication of iconic symbols and primal works of art are examined. One case (not so much plundered as manipulated) is the disputed ownership of a national treasure the Indian Koh-i-Noor diamond and its eventual ‘acquisition’ by Queen Victoria, on view in the Tower Of London. There’s the black market and countries at civil war also taken into consideration and a proposal put forward. Geoffrey Robertson’s style is light enough, almost wry, but very serious about returning cultural artefacts to their country of origin.
January 14, 2022
Geoffrey Robertson has a track record of tackling important international legal issues - human rights abuses, the crimes of the Catholic church amongst others - and explaining the complex issues clearly to the lay person. In this book he explores the arguments for returning plundered cultural treasures to the cultures and countries from which they were stolen. Robertson argues that there is an emerging view that international law favours this. He argues that the moral basis is clear - especially in the case of the marble statues looted from the Parthenon by Lord Elgin. This wasn't an issue I had any firm opinions on, or much understanding of. But after reading this excellent book I am persuaded that Robertson is right: the Elgin Marbles should be returned to the Greek people by the British Museum. And that the repatriation of looted treasures shouldn't stop there. That the British Museum (and various British Governments) has resisted this for so long is a immoral and an indictment on the out-dated imperial and colonial attitudes of those in the British establishment.
March 13, 2023
This was a slightly less compelling and more one sided read than I was expecting it to be. Previously I had only a fleeting knowledge of the Elgin marbles and it was good to get the backstory on how they ended up in the British Museum, where I have seen them twice. However, I was expecting a more neutral examination of the issue than what was delivered. Perhaps that is my scientific background showing. Regardless, I found it to be repetitive in the extreme - though at least now I know what a firman is, because Robertson use a lot of text to hammer it home along with his belief that it was not legitimate and hence Elgin's claim to have permission to remove the marbles was false. Certainly in this account Elgin comes across as a bit of a scoundrel. My issue is that, as an interested but inexpert reader I've emerged feeling like I only know one side of the story. I suppose I should have seen that coming given the title.
January 1, 2020
A cogent and compelling explanation of the importance of repatriating stolen cultural heritage. Robertson's argument focuses on the Parthenon Marbles, providing a comprehensive rebuttal of the justifications used by the British Museum (both historically and presently) for the legality of their acquisition by Lord Elgin and the imperatives for keeping them in Britain. Combines insights from history, anthropology, and domestic and international law, in a way that is accessible to a wide audience. The book still remains balanced in its analysis and argument, providing a pragmatic legal framework that would govern all claims for repatriation of cultural heritage. Critical reading for anyone visiting the British and other Museums to see the wide range of cultural treasures pilfered by colonial powers.
May 30, 2020
Comprehensive, passionate and interesting. Robertson builds a compelling case for the return of the Parthenon marbles and shares information about many other cultural heritage treasures stolen from various other countries. His recommendation for a convention for repatriation of important cultural heritage sounds very fair and reasonable, however it will take much courage from the current museums who have these stolen items in their custody to do the right thing.
January 13, 2020
Robertson gives his views on the stolen booty of war, colonisation and conquering. Unveiling the lies that still persist that allows institutions and states to hold onto the cultural property of other states.
One of Australia's greatest legal minds tackles the world of Nation States, property law, Human and Indigenous Rights in highlighting the current and ongoing injustices.
One of Australia's greatest legal minds tackles the world of Nation States, property law, Human and Indigenous Rights in highlighting the current and ongoing injustices.
December 27, 2020
Worth reading, even if you don’t accept the central arguments. Very much a barrister for the prosecution; stressing (and repeating) the stronger arguments and ignoring and down playing the weak points.
May 19, 2025
one of the best books I've read on this topic, I highly recommend it's to get an overview on why restitution is so important. I very much also enjoyed his critique on fellow archaeologists that perpetuate a colonial mindset in their works and the universal museum propaganda
January 15, 2020
It was fascinating to see what the "great powers" got away with. It gives insight into why countries might not have got over having been colonised.
May 20, 2021
As always, Geoffrey writes eloquently and with conviction. A book that transcends political divide. Now one of my favourite books. Would recommend.
August 13, 2022
History, like Justice, Police, Defense, Education, and so on, are trade marks of your beloved king.
Despite the stupid title, I am still curious about who plundered what.
Despite the stupid title, I am still curious about who plundered what.
Want to read
May 22, 2022I didn't read all of it
'This is a book about culture - the word that made Hermann Goring reach for a gun and Chairman Mao misdescribe a revolution which almost destroyed it.' (xi)
'This is not a history book (which I can prove by confessing to having checked some of its facts on Wikipedia)' (xiv)
'Politicians may make more or less sincere apologies for the crimes of their former empires, but the only way now available to redress them is to returns the spoils of the rape of Egypt and China and the destructions of African and Asian and South American societies. We cannot right historical wrongs - but we can no longer, without shame, profit from them.' (xv)
'.. The East India Company and Elgin could have chosen to act honourably. It is because they chose to act otherwise that history condemns them and justice demands the handback of their spoils.' (xv)
'Offering stolen heritage back on loan - for however long - is a post colonial insult.' (xiii)
'It is important to distinguish between history and heritage: the former is the story of the past told as accurately as present information allows (future discoveries may amend it), while the latter symbolises and enlivens the past but is purposely a celebration (sometimes, a mourning) of it, "a profession of faith in a past tailored to present day purposes." Insofar as those purposes are genuine and not propagandistic, restitution of stolen legacy objects matters: they have a meaning that a replica could not - well, replicate.' (xiii)
'How could this [museum testing of ancestral bones of Tasmanian aboriginal people] comport with the right to dignity implicit in human rights and race relation laws?' (xix)
info about 2007 Declaration of RIghts of Indigenous peoples - repatriation of human remains (xix)
'It could be argued that a country's right to possess "the keys to its history" (a phrase that recurs in landmark judgments on cultural repatriation, see Chapter Six) was an attribute of its national sovereignty, and that human rights law protection dignity and privacy rights (including a right to cultural identity) would entitle the people of Greece to have their heritage returned.' (xxi)
I was gripped by that innate British dread of emptying the British Museum. (xxi)
But the present UK government has made it clear it will not allow a single marble to return to Greece, nor shall any loot taken in war crimes in colonial conflict be repatriated. (xxiv)
That principle is easy to express, but difficult to state, as it has to be, in a convention that will be necessary if it is to become a workable part of international law. I have tried in the final chapter to devise one, with some of the ifs and buts, the provisos and exceptions, that must be written into such a document. (xxiv)
This is not, however, a textbook, and I have tried to deal with the law simply without being simplistic. (xxiv)
Trustees of Western museums hold wrongfully taken property in trust for the people from whom they have taken, and have a duty - moral, and (as this book argues) legal - to return possession to those entitled to it. (xxv)
That these rebel itineraries are allowed is a tribute to the tolerance [me: or guilt?] dissonance?] of the great institution, which would be even greater if it washed its hands of the blood and returned Elgin's loot. (xxvi)
'This is a book about culture - the word that made Hermann Goring reach for a gun and Chairman Mao misdescribe a revolution which almost destroyed it.' (xi)
'This is not a history book (which I can prove by confessing to having checked some of its facts on Wikipedia)' (xiv)
'Politicians may make more or less sincere apologies for the crimes of their former empires, but the only way now available to redress them is to returns the spoils of the rape of Egypt and China and the destructions of African and Asian and South American societies. We cannot right historical wrongs - but we can no longer, without shame, profit from them.' (xv)
'.. The East India Company and Elgin could have chosen to act honourably. It is because they chose to act otherwise that history condemns them and justice demands the handback of their spoils.' (xv)
'Offering stolen heritage back on loan - for however long - is a post colonial insult.' (xiii)
'It is important to distinguish between history and heritage: the former is the story of the past told as accurately as present information allows (future discoveries may amend it), while the latter symbolises and enlivens the past but is purposely a celebration (sometimes, a mourning) of it, "a profession of faith in a past tailored to present day purposes." Insofar as those purposes are genuine and not propagandistic, restitution of stolen legacy objects matters: they have a meaning that a replica could not - well, replicate.' (xiii)
'How could this [museum testing of ancestral bones of Tasmanian aboriginal people] comport with the right to dignity implicit in human rights and race relation laws?' (xix)
info about 2007 Declaration of RIghts of Indigenous peoples - repatriation of human remains (xix)
'It could be argued that a country's right to possess "the keys to its history" (a phrase that recurs in landmark judgments on cultural repatriation, see Chapter Six) was an attribute of its national sovereignty, and that human rights law protection dignity and privacy rights (including a right to cultural identity) would entitle the people of Greece to have their heritage returned.' (xxi)
I was gripped by that innate British dread of emptying the British Museum. (xxi)
But the present UK government has made it clear it will not allow a single marble to return to Greece, nor shall any loot taken in war crimes in colonial conflict be repatriated. (xxiv)
That principle is easy to express, but difficult to state, as it has to be, in a convention that will be necessary if it is to become a workable part of international law. I have tried in the final chapter to devise one, with some of the ifs and buts, the provisos and exceptions, that must be written into such a document. (xxiv)
This is not, however, a textbook, and I have tried to deal with the law simply without being simplistic. (xxiv)
Trustees of Western museums hold wrongfully taken property in trust for the people from whom they have taken, and have a duty - moral, and (as this book argues) legal - to return possession to those entitled to it. (xxv)
That these rebel itineraries are allowed is a tribute to the tolerance [me: or guilt?] dissonance?] of the great institution, which would be even greater if it washed its hands of the blood and returned Elgin's loot. (xxvi)
December 4, 2022
Fascinating look at history as a discipline from the view of legal scholarship. I found it almost entirely convincing, although in some parts I felt that I disagreed. Altogether very topical and well worth reading.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews