Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bayeux Tapestry Will Return to the U.K. for the First Time in 950 Years

news.artnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: Bayeux Tapestry Will Return to the U.K. for the First Time in 950 Years

#31

Post by PaulRobinson »

megapolitics wrote: post #24
PaulRobinson wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Temporary loans in exchange for other items on temporary loan (which is what this is), is legally the only way the British Museum can let material leave their collections. I realise that there is a lot of meme-age worthy material that the British Museum is full of stolen property, but it's worth remembering that most of the items were donated at a time when legal provenance was virtually impossible to establish (part…

I think a loan of the Parthenon Sculptures within the next few years is more likely than you think. Both Kier Starmer and George Osborne are keen for a deal, and the majority of the British public are in favour of the sculpture’s return. It would be a temporary loan on paper, but everyone involved understands that they would never return to the UK.

That would be a disposal and requires an amendment to the law (specifically the British Museum Act 1963, which I've quoted in a reply to another comment in this thread).

"Everyone involved understands" is not sufficient guarantee to either the Museum or the Greek authorities that the law has been changed. It either must be a temporary loan - and ideally with artefacts of similar value being lent the other way to make clear that the loan is "de-risked" - or it can't happen.

I can't see that change in law happening any time soon.

Re: Bayeux Tapestry Will Return to the U.K. for the First Time in 950 Years

#32

Post by PaulRobinson »

arp242 wrote: post #22
PaulRobinson wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Temporary loans in exchange for other items on temporary loan (which is what this is), is legally the only way the British Museum can let material leave their collections. I realise that there is a lot of meme-age worthy material that the British Museum is full of stolen property, but it's worth remembering that most of the items were donated at a time when legal provenance was virtually impossible to establish (part…

People did complain at the time and denied that Elgin had the right to take them in the first place, which is why parliament investigated the matter at the time. While the controversy has intensified in the last few decades, it's been controversial pretty much since day one. It's not a "meme-age" thing. Whether Elgin did or did not have permission from the occupying Ottoman forces is of secondary importance. Many peo…

Complaining - even quite correctly - about the ethics of ownership is not a legal challenge to ownership.

You even point out yourself that other occupying forces had rights of ownership legally, even if they did not have moral and ethical rights.

I'm not arguing whether Elgin should or should not have taken them. I'm not arguing whether he had permission or not. I'm saying he did take them, and that legally pushing back against that was almost impossible at the time because UK law did not prevent him from presenting them to the British Museum, and multiple acts (the most recent being the 1963 act), have made it clear once an item is gifted to the Museum, disposing of it must only be done for very specific reasons that don't apply to the Marbles.

They could have changed the law then, but they didn't. And they didn't, not because of malice or evil or even incompetence. They didn't because changing the law in that context was hard. And changing it today is hard.

I personally am pretty ambivalent about the items in question. They're nice enough to visit, they're interesting, they could stay, they could go, I'm glad they were salvaged from what sounds like a disaster stone (it's not like they were much loved by anybody in Athens at the time), and sure, they could go back if everyone wanted them to.

But that's all irrelevant - the law is the law. We can't just instruct the directors of the Museum to ignore the law. We can't just expect Downing Street to make an edict. An Act of Parliament has to be passed to amend section 5 of the 1963 British Museum Act. End of. There's nothing else to discuss here.

And parliamentarians will be reticent, because the moment that's in the chamber, every other nation on Earth will ask for other material to be returned regardless of the means of procurement (even if legally bought at auction). In essence, to amend the act for the Marbles would be to disperse the entire collection and close the Museum. You might be OK with that, but given its contribution to the studies of historians and archaeologists for centuries, and the fact it's an incredibly popular (and free to access), tourist attraction, it might be a hard pill for most MPs to swallow.

The Greeks could offer a loan deal for a few years, and we could take it from there, but my original point is that no side trusts the other, and without the law being amended, it all seems rather sadly remote, and the chances of the law being amended seem remote too.

Re: Bayeux Tapestry Will Return to the U.K. for the First Time in 950 Years

#33

Post by swores »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #30
swores wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely there's no legal reason why the British Museum couldn't, if they wanted to, "loan" things out for a pittance in return, and indefinitely? The law may prevent them from saying "we are giving these back to Greece", but if they felt it the moral thing to do why not just send it to Greece while maintaining that they officially claim ownership of the items which are out on loan? (As a Brit, this is what I want to s…

No, they can't. The legislation[0], does allow them to lend things out, but: The Trustees of the British Museum may lend for public exhibition (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) any object comprised in the collections of the Museum: Provided that in deciding whether or not to lend any such object, and in determining the time for which, and the conditions subject to which, any such object is to be lent, the…

If the museum were to argue that it is more in students' interest to see a poster explaining the importance of loaning something back to the country it came from (along with either a photo, or for anything where it's feasible even a real-looking replica), is there any chance they would actually get in trouble - beyond some negative op eds being written in the press?

Considering the law is a) interpreted by humans, and b) only something that matters if somebody both tries to enforce it and succeeds, I still feel they could do this despite what you point out. But I'm not at all an expert either on the subject of artifices like these or on the related legal issues, so you may well be right that it would cause them trouble if they followed my plan.

Re: Bayeux Tapestry Will Return to the U.K. for the First Time in 950 Years

#34

Post by PaulRobinson »

swores wrote: post #33
PaulRobinson wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they can't. The legislation[0], does allow them to lend things out, but: The Trustees of the British Museum may lend for public exhibition (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) any object comprised in the collections of the Museum: Provided that in deciding whether or not to lend any such object, and in determining the time for which, and the conditions subject to which, any such object is to be lent, the…

If the museum were to argue that it is more in students' interest to see a poster explaining the importance of loaning something back to the country it came from (along with either a photo, or for anything where it's feasible even a real-looking replica), is there any chance they would actually get in trouble - beyond some negative op eds being written in the press? Considering the law is a) interpreted by humans, an…

Yes, because the act says that isn't an acceptable disposal.

Re: Bayeux Tapestry Will Return to the U.K. for the First Time in 950 Years

#35

Post by comrade1234 »

topspin wrote: post #4

That headline is... dysfunctional. "The Bayeux Tapestry will return to Britain for the first time in 950 years in a historic deal between Britain and France"

That's way more boring than the story I was picturing, which was more of a Hong Kong story.

Re: Bayeux Tapestry Will Return to the U.K. for the First Time in 950 Years

#36

Post by swores »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #34
swores wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the museum were to argue that it is more in students' interest to see a poster explaining the importance of loaning something back to the country it came from (along with either a photo, or for anything where it's feasible even a real-looking replica), is there any chance they would actually get in trouble - beyond some negative op eds being written in the press? Considering the law is a) interpreted by humans, an…

Yes, because the act says that isn't an acceptable disposal.

I'm talking about calling it a loan, not officially getting rid of it. Who would take them to court to argue that it's actually a disposal rather than a loan?

Re: Bayeux Tapestry Will Return to the U.K. for the First Time in 950 Years

#37

Post by topspin »

comrade1234 wrote: post #35
topspin wrote: post #4

That headline is... dysfunctional. "The Bayeux Tapestry will return to Britain for the first time in 950 years in a historic deal between Britain and France"

That's way more boring than the story I was picturing, which was more of a Hong Kong story.

I agree. It's practically click-bait, although likely unintentional.

Re: Bayeux Tapestry Will Return to the U.K. for the First Time in 950 Years

#38

Post by graemep »

trhway wrote: post #26
daverol wrote: post #11

At least I will be able to visit the exhibition and count them myself: https://allthatsinteresting.com/bayeux-tapestry-penises

The tapestry was made by nuns. I'm not sure what to make of it. May be it was more common occurrence so to speak - because men were basically wearing dresses too, and short ones at that, and even codpieces would appear only centuries later. No fun in Victorian times though: "Interestingly, many of the penises depicted in the original tapestry were not transferred over to the Victorian recreation, as the Leek Embroide…

> The tapestry was made by nuns.

I do not think that is correct. We do not actually know who hade it.

The alleged missed penis was spotted by a historian with the surname Monk though :)

> May be it was more common occurrence so to speak - because men were basically wearing dresses too, and short ones at that

Very likely. They were not that hung up about nudity and accidental exposure.

Re: Bayeux Tapestry Will Return to the U.K. for the First Time in 950 Years

#39

Post by graemep »

arp242 wrote: post #22
PaulRobinson wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Temporary loans in exchange for other items on temporary loan (which is what this is), is legally the only way the British Museum can let material leave their collections. I realise that there is a lot of meme-age worthy material that the British Museum is full of stolen property, but it's worth remembering that most of the items were donated at a time when legal provenance was virtually impossible to establish (part…

People did complain at the time and denied that Elgin had the right to take them in the first place, which is why parliament investigated the matter at the time. While the controversy has intensified in the last few decades, it's been controversial pretty much since day one. It's not a "meme-age" thing. Whether Elgin did or did not have permission from the occupying Ottoman forces is of secondary importance. Many peo…

> . It's not a "meme-age" thing.

Not the marbles, but the "British Museum is full of stolen" stuff is a meme age thing and not true (go there and check the origins of what you see).

Post reply on HN