Well sure keep thinking that. The point is that the artefacts found in the brittish isles make sense to be in the brittish museum which ks located on those isles.
Nobody is thinking that, which is approximately the point. Mostly I just derive a wry amusement from watching the descendants of long-obsolete empires squabble over the creations of their distant ancestors.
Greece making the case that what Turkey has to say about it is of prime importance (if the impression one gets from the Guardian is accurate) seems especially ironic.
I mean I see their point though. The statues were taken from their original spot in the time that area was under Ottoman rule. If there are no records of the ottomans letting them take these statues (their claim to them not really being relevant here) it clearly shows that they were taken without permission (stolen). The question of the turks claiming these statues as their own does not really matter in this case. At least that is how I see it.
So the people who live on the land that a long defunct empire who conquered the land the statues were on get to decide where they artifacts of an even longer defunct empire belong vs the other people who live in a long defunct empire who also conquered the land.
Makes total sense. Especially since the sincerely held religious beliefs of long defunct empire #1 would prefer them to be ground into dust.
Well sure keep thinking that. The point is that the artefacts found in the brittish isles make sense to be in the brittish museum which ks located on those isles.
Nobody is thinking that, which is approximately the point. Mostly I just derive a wry amusement from watching the descendants of long-obsolete empires squabble over the creations of their distant ancestors.
Greece making the case that what Turkey has to say about it is of prime importance (if the impression one gets from the Guardian is accurate) seems especially ironic.
I mean I see their point though. The statues were taken from their original spot in the time that area was under Ottoman rule. If there are no records of the ottomans letting them take these statues (their claim to them not really being relevant here) it clearly shows that they were taken without permission (stolen). The question of the turks claiming these statues as their own does not really matter in this case. At least that is how I see it.
So the people who live on the land that a long defunct empire who conquered the land the statues were on get to decide where they artifacts of an even longer defunct empire belong vs the other people who live in a long defunct empire who also conquered the land.
Makes total sense. Especially since the sincerely held religious beliefs of long defunct empire #1 would prefer them to be ground into dust.