![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
As I sat down this morning at the kitchen table to peruse through the morning tidings, I delighted at the discovery of an exceptional coverage about the Getty Villa. I enjoyed reading the article, not only because it covered details about the artifacts on display, but about the very human emotion associated with the collection. The actual villa, the article argues, reflects the excesses of ancient Rome. Its fall into disrepair and eventual preservation echos current efforts to preserve the ancient grandure that was, in many ways, the instrument of its own failure. Further, the artifacts themselves reflect the conflict between aquisition for the purpose of display vs. proper ownership. On the one hand, the artifacts are housed in one of the finest museums in the world. On the other hand, some European governments claim that particular artifacts were acquired illegally. And this opens up an entire can of worms.
Frankly, when it comes to an ancient artifact that is no longer connected to a particular person, family or function, who really owns it? Greece still screams for the "Return" of the Elgin marbles from England. 'scuse me - the Elgin marbles were SOLD by the Greek government to an Englishman. Had it not been for that Englishman at the time they were sold, they may have been even further ruined by a non-caring (at that time) Greek people. Modern Egypt is mostly Islamic. Should that particular population be left as curator to the "pagan" artifacts leftover from a completely different culture? Call me a skeptic, but I'm still really pissed off at Afghanistan for the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas.
When you really think about it, how many times has a particular culture in a particular area been conquered/wiped out by invadors when then, in later generations, claim cultural connection to objects from the conquered culture? How much connection do the Irish REALLY have to Newgrange? Built by "the beaker people" (so named because of the beaker-shaped funerary pottery left behind), it still stands as a tribute to a culture that we know almost nothing about. The Celtic Irish came in after the beaker-people, most likely from Gaul. So for all of the Celtic-pride that Ireland has, one could argue that they are really not-as-native as they tend to think. And then we have the English - talk about the most-conquered-melting-pot-on-the-planet! They got hit by Scots, Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, etc., etc., etc. Who knows WHERE all these people really came from in the first place. Heck, where do today's Italians really come from? When Rome fell (as if that happened overnight), it found itself sacked by the Goths, and/or Keltoi and/or any other number of peoples.
The only constant is change.
So who really lays claim to the spectacular items at the Getty? I would argue - the world. Fortunate for us, they are on display for the world to see.
Frankly, when it comes to an ancient artifact that is no longer connected to a particular person, family or function, who really owns it? Greece still screams for the "Return" of the Elgin marbles from England. 'scuse me - the Elgin marbles were SOLD by the Greek government to an Englishman. Had it not been for that Englishman at the time they were sold, they may have been even further ruined by a non-caring (at that time) Greek people. Modern Egypt is mostly Islamic. Should that particular population be left as curator to the "pagan" artifacts leftover from a completely different culture? Call me a skeptic, but I'm still really pissed off at Afghanistan for the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas.
When you really think about it, how many times has a particular culture in a particular area been conquered/wiped out by invadors when then, in later generations, claim cultural connection to objects from the conquered culture? How much connection do the Irish REALLY have to Newgrange? Built by "the beaker people" (so named because of the beaker-shaped funerary pottery left behind), it still stands as a tribute to a culture that we know almost nothing about. The Celtic Irish came in after the beaker-people, most likely from Gaul. So for all of the Celtic-pride that Ireland has, one could argue that they are really not-as-native as they tend to think. And then we have the English - talk about the most-conquered-melting-pot-on-the-planet! They got hit by Scots, Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, etc., etc., etc. Who knows WHERE all these people really came from in the first place. Heck, where do today's Italians really come from? When Rome fell (as if that happened overnight), it found itself sacked by the Goths, and/or Keltoi and/or any other number of peoples.
The only constant is change.
So who really lays claim to the spectacular items at the Getty? I would argue - the world. Fortunate for us, they are on display for the world to see.
