Ellis Tinios, argues that the sculptures from the Parthenon that remain in Athens are not as well preserved as those in London, but this seems to miss a lot of key points.
Surely, if he was free to take whichever pieces he wanted to, Elgin would have taken the best ones available & not the worst ones.
Secondly, if Elgin’s removal of the sculptures did have an incidental effect of preservation was just that – entirely incidental. Elgin never originally intended the sculptures for anything other than ornamenting his own house. Claims about damage to them in Athens appeared only when the removal process was already very well advanced.
Finally – most of the factors such as acid rain & other pollution are things that Elgin could hardly have anticipated – they are post-rationalised arguments based on looking back with hindsight – which should in no way justify the original actions.
From:
Guardian
The fate of the Parthenon sculptures in Athens
This is the history of what happened to the sculptures on the Parthenon from early Christian times to the 21st century and the damage to those remaining after Lord Elgin bought the majority of them
By Ellis Tinios
Advocates of the “restitution” of the Elgin Marbles do their best to ignore, belittle or dismiss the fact that the sculptures removed by Lord Elgin’s agents from the Parthenon were spared substantial further damage. Instead, the more intemperate of them suggest that Elgin’s actions represent perhaps the worst assault ever perpetrated upon the building.
The history of the degradation and destruction of the architectural sculpture on the Parthenon spans 1,600 years, from the fifth century to the closing decades of the 20th century. In what follows I will seek to place Elgin’s actions in the context of that history before turning to what I regard the central issue in the “Marbles” debate.
Read the rest of this entry »