The Financial Times has published various letters in response to their earlier article on what is required for the Parthenon Marbles to be returned.

From:
Financial Times

The real barrier to a compromise over Marbles
Published: December 6 2008 02:00 | Last updated: December 6 2008 02:00

From Prof John Kapranos Huntley.

Sir, It is refreshing to read a balanced commentary on the future of the Parthenon Marbles by someone who so clearly understands the conflicting feelings and aspirations that surround it (Peter Aspden, “A manifesto for the Marbles”, Life & Arts , November 29/30). A putative voice for reason and conciliation has been raised. What might drown it out is the underlying conflict over a matter the FT and its readership would hopefully go a long way to defend: property rights.

The Parthenon Marbles are not simply artefacts; they are fixtures attached to buildings on the Parthenon for more than 2,300 years until they were forcibly removed. They are not independent pieces of statuary or pottery to be crated around the “cultural” museums of the world.
Read the rest of this entry »

A letter in the Times from John Huntley corrects some misconceptions in the previous coverage of Professor Francesco Buranelli’s proposal on how the sculptures could be reunited.

From:
The Times

From The Times
December 9, 2008
Forgotten Marbles?
Tug-of-war over the Parthenon Marbles

Sir, The suggestion by Professor Buranelli that the Parthenon Marbles “belong to mankind” is aspirational (“Call to unite Parthenon Marbles”, Dec 4); that they “lay forgotten on the ground” until Lord Elgin appropriated them is untrue.
Read the rest of this entry »

John Huntley follows up his earlier letter to the Scotsman, explaining the basis for how legal action could be taken in the Scottish courts over the Elgin Marbles.

From:
Scotsman

Purchase or plunder? A clear case for Scottish court to decide
Published Date: 06 August 2008
By JOHN K HUNTLEY

LET’S go to Fife to see the Parthenon Marbles. We might have done, had Thomas Bruce had his way. The seventh Lord Elgin “acquired” them for his new mansion at Broomhall. Grand designs for a grand man.

Instead, we can see them in London’s British Museum, which “acquired” the “Elgin” Marbles in 1816.
Read the rest of this entry »

John Huntley, follows my line of reasoning, in suggesting that any comparisons drawn between the Elgin Marbles & the Bayeux Tapestry are at best very weak. Comparing one case to another, misleads the public by distracting attention from the key issues behind each of the arguments.

From:
The Scotsman

30 June 2008
Losing your marbles

It is inappropriate to make comparisons between the Parthenon Marbles and the “Bayeux” Tapestry (your report, 25 June). The Parthenon Marbles were removed from the Acropolis in Athens by Lord Elgin in circumstances of doubtful legality. Regardless of where the Bayeux Tapestry was created and by whom, there is no dispute that it is lawfully located in Bayeux (a Normandy possession of the Norman Kings of England).

Whereas there is a real dispute over legal ownership of the Parthenon Marbles, the issue over the Bayeux Tapestry is simply where it would be most appropriately displayed, however temporarily. Thus it is reasonable to speak of the “Bayeux” Tapestry, but inappropriate to speak of the “Elgin” Marbles, rather than the “Parthenon” Marbles while their legal ownership remains unclear.
Read the rest of this entry »