be re-raising questions of property law, an issue already settled in Britain’s favor.Another, more popular argument involves considering the intact Parthenon as one integrated work of art, where the parts together have more beauty and significance than they have when considered as separate works. However, this argument is flawed as well. The Marbles could not be reinstalled on the building, and even if they could they would be subjected to certain damage from smog and the elements. Restoration is, in fact, not the Greek proposal at all. The Greek government wishes to put the Marbles on display in a museum in Athens, near the Acropolis. While this proposal would put the sculptures geographically closer to the Parthenon, they would be no more integrated with the building than they are in London. In addition, it would be impossible for the proposed museum in Athens to house all of the sculptures associated with the Acropolis monuments, further discrediting the “integrated aesthetic” argument. The final argument for the Marbles’ return involves their protection and preservation. The Greek restitutionists argue that Britain has failed to preserve the sculptures of the Parthenon and have instead actually damaged them. The central focus of this argument is the notorious and controversial cleaning of the Elgin Marbles performed in the 1930s. In the late 1930s the art dealer Lord Duveen offered the Trustees of the British Museum a purpose-built gallery to house the Marbles. In 1937-1938, while the sculptures of the Parthenon were being prepared for installation into this gallery, an unauthorized cleaning of some of the sculptures took place. Of course, the marbles had been cleaned several times prior to this, but it was the method of cleaning in this case which posed a problem.In 1936, Frederick Norman Pryce became keeper of the sculptures, along with his assistant Roger Hinks. The next year, the unauthorized...
