After reviewing the materials and acknowledging both sides of the argument. I have come to the conclusion that England should return the Marbles. Besides the moral implications of failing to do so I would like to discuss the ambiguous legality of this issue. The marbles were procured by Lord Elgin around (1801-1805)for their place of origin, it was during this time that Greece was under Ottoman control, and while many insist that the these statues came into British possession with the Ottomas blessings. It is crucial to note that no such proof of said agreement has yet to be produced.No binding documents have come to light about how the Marbles were allowed into British society. This allows for a shroud of uncertainty when addressing the legal…show more content… It is their duty.. The marbles have a cultural significance that can be best understood in the place of its origin. However I am not naive enough to believe that this is a one dimensional issue. Both side of the arguments have compelling things to say. For example as stated by Tristram Hunt “ If we send back such an iconic collection as the Parthenon Marbles we have indeed started down the slippery slope which would rob our museums of the capacity to nurture…” . This is an interesting argument and it brings up the question what to stop this returning of art to just the marbles. Would every art piece being held in a foreign land have to be returned to its place of origin? There also is an issue of legality surrounding the issue. It is acknowledged that the there has yet to be discovered and tangible evidence of British ownership to the Marbles. It is argued that since the issue has not been brought up in court could there really be any wrongdoing on the part of England. As intrigued as I am by both these arguments argument I cannot forsake my previous opinion. I believe that the Marbles should be returned to Greece simply because that is where is belongs and it would be the decent thing to do on behalf of the
