a strong indication that the Ottoman government did, in fact, ratify the removal of the Parthenon sculptures. Therefore, under international law, Elgin’s title -- and Great Britain’s as well -- was legal, and England is entitled to keep the Marbles.Of course, had the Greeks wished to challenge the legality of Elgin’s actions, the Greek government could have brought suit in an English court for the sculptures’ return. However, in the more than 150 years since Greece gained their independence, they have never pursued such an action, and Mercouri’s request that the Marbles be returned was in fact the first official response that the Greek government ever issued. Therefore, with no legal claims to the Parthenon Marbles, it falls on Greece to prove that these sculptures would actually be better off there than in London, something which it has not been overly successful at accomplishing.The restitutionist movement has come up with several arguments over the past 20 years advocating the return of the Elgin Marbles to their country of origin. One of the more popular of these arguments is that the presence of these sculptures in any place other than Greece is an offense to the Greek nation. However, while it is true that they are Greek in origin, these sculptures have been in England for more than a century and a half, and have become a part of British culture as well. Furthermore, there are numerous other works of Greek origin in various museums scattered all over the world. Is this not also offensive to the Greek nation? Yet the level of attention paid to these disowned works is not even comparable to that of the Elgin Marbles. The truth is that economic factors play just as important a role in this debate as do issues of national pride. Possession of the Marbles in a nation’s public collection nourishes that country’s tourism. Still, a Greek argument based on economic value would simply ...
