And upon this rock, I build my... museum

So, the Greeks have opened yet another museum.


When I lived in the Mediterranean (where I was born), I often found that the Hellenistic society around me had a very ignorant attitude to its own history. In some ways, I would equate it to an American in England. They - and evidently I - do not understand why they don't appreciate fully what they have. It would often be the case that time after time, mouments of ancient importance would be moved around to a more convenient location, or be supplemented with modern equivalents; essentially, they were a stage set, not even a museum piece. Many landmarks would be left to ruin, no-one aware of their significance.


This was the case even in Athens in the 20th century; the level of pollution and tourism in the city was damaging its heritage. They were all very proud of their surroundings, but they didn't do anything to look after it: except patriotic politicians of course, firing shots towards their former imperial masters and 'protectors'.


Now Athens - the city known for its wisdom and philosophy, so useful in debates about modern secularisation - has opened a new museum of the Acropolis, that being the hill where the ancient city was centered, around the Parthenon bank.


First of all, this new swanky glass and concrete block completely obliterates the view of the old hill and the ruins on top of it. But overlooking that, they contain many works moved inside to preserve them, ripping them from their original location. Of course, the point of doing this is to make a very expensive point that a few of the marbles nicked by a British noble should go there.


Thomas Bruce was his name - a.k.a. the Earl of Elgin - who was a diplomat to the Ottoman court at the start of the 19th century, who then governed Greece and had done for centuries. They gave this man permission to remove a number of pieces from the site in Athens - then a Turkish fort. He had his critics at the time in Britain when they arrived here in 1812, and so the government stepped in, bought the rocks and housed them in the British Museum a couple of years later.


Anyway, with the rise of Greek nationalism and western liberalism, some argued louder and louder that the logic of retaining them in the Britain didn't make sense.


I argue, however, that the Elgin Marbles should remain in the British Museum and are, therefore, de facto property of the Museum and British state.


The British Museum is no country fayre. It is surely a world heritage site, containing not only the marbles, but an assortment of pieces which chart human civilisation world over, the most notable perhaps being the Rosetta stone. In our modern 'multicultural' and global world society, it makes sense to display different things in one place. The majority of musea around the world are in the same situation. And there is no problem with that. We are all part of the same human family, our cultures are very different, but we can all share in our heritages by virtue of our birth on this planet. The thought of hetrogenous musea - cultural ethnic-cleansing - is disgusting.


Moreover, modern Greece has barely anything to do with its ancient namesake, bar its location and alphabet (that word being just one thing we have the Greeks thank for). Our own British society and culture, as well as the Greek cuture, owes much to ancient Greece. The British, and many other societies, are the successors of ancient Greece. The Hellenic Republic has no monoply on it.


So, the arguments that they have nothing to do with Britain, and that they are solely Greek can be dismissed.


There is a legal argument, though. If the pieces were taken illegally, then they should be returned - they are stolen works.


Well, they are not stolen. Permission of the appropriate authority was sought and gained, and this was upheld by the British government too. Even if they were taken illegally, this argument can be dismissed because of the longevity of the case. A theft 200 years ago, where none of the parties are alive and everything which has happened in between, is surely irrelevant, and using this argument is clutching at straws.


The new museum did not invite any British guests to the opening, and no representitive of the place where part of its Parthenon is located, neither did it invite any royal - though that's not saying much for the country which chucked out its own king.