Adventure Travel

The opening of the new Acropolis Museum in Athens has raised thought-provoking questions about museum artifact ownership. This particular debate centers on the Parthenon Marbles (Elgin Marbles), a stunning façade or wall relief that was transported from Greece to the British Museum of Natural History between 1801 and 1805 by Thomas Bruce, 7th Lord of Elgin. So nefarious was his deed, the act of relocating precious artifacts from their natural or national context is now known as elginism and is specifically defined as “an act of cultural vandalism.”

History is ripe with instances of elginism and few nations are innocent of the practice, though it’s clear that the richer the nation, the more common the practice. Museums in Britain, the United States and Germany display a vast tapestry of ancient history with ties that are born of colonization and war. At least these artifacts that were illicitly gained are on display to be appreciated by the masses, even if those masses seldom have any direction lineage to the history they represent. Oftentimes, elginism is even more villainous and criminal. Much of the natural history that’s been stolen from poorer nations resides in private collections, appreciated by individual owners and no one else.

Much has been done in the last 60 years to preserve the natural history of vulnerable nations. The United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has put international law in place to discourage the artifact trafficking and protect monuments, statues and sculptures in their native land. The primary protocol established in 1954 defined specific regulations around the protection of cultural property in the event of war. A second protocol was added in 1999, extending the intention of the law to not only prevent the treatment of cultural artifacts as “spoils of war,” but also to prevent their destruction during armed conflict. An international fund was also established to facilitate the return of cultural property to its rightful nation.

Despite these international laws, recovery of stolen artifacts is often a lengthy process even when nations demonstrate some level of cooperation. In 1990, antiques restorer Jonathan Tokeley-Parry, a shady fixture of the British art collector scene, smuggled a bust of Amenhotep III by coating it in liquid plastic and painting it black and gold. The makeover gave the artifact the look of a tacky souvenir that fooled they eyes of customs officials. Tokeley-Parry was charged four years later in Britain for attempting to sell another ill-gotten archaeological find. Police recovered the Amenhotep III bust five years later, but it would take almost twenty years of legal wrangling by Egypt before the Pharaoh’s bust was returned to its rightful home.

The fate of the Parthenon Marbles remains undecided. The Greek government and populace cry out for their return and state with pride that the Acropolis Museum has been constructed as a worthy and rightful home. Some voices in the British government sing the same chorus, introducing legislation before the Parliament to return the “Elgin Marbles” to Greece. Others worry that the return of the marbles will set an unsettling precedent that will begin a wave of demand for the return of cultural artifacts. They argue that if this flood gate is opened, some of the world’s most beloved museums will soon be barren.

The questions surrounding cultural ownership are complex. There is truth that the stewardship of cultural property by other nations has actually preserved many cultural artifacts that would have fallen into disrepair or been destroyed had they remained in their cultural context. Some argue that when artifacts are gained in conquest or conflict their ownership becomes part of the conquering nation’s history. Ultimately the solution is not likely an all-or-nothing proposition, but lies somewhere in the middle ground of shared ownership.

One wonders what viewpoint Indiana Jones has on this topic. Does this fictitious collector of rare antiquities have an opinion about where the Ark of the Covenant truly belongs? Certainly not with the Nazis. The US government, unlikely. If Dr. Jones had it all to do again, he might just leave it in Tanis satisfied knowing that the Nazis were digging in the wrong place.

Cheating Boyfriends

James Bond is one of the most recognizable names in literature. According to his creator, Ian Fleming, “James Bond is a highly romanticized version of a true spy.” He is articulate as he is cocky. Throughout the years, James Bond has changed faces.

For every generation, there was a version of James Bond. And for this period of time, Daniel Craig portrays the most famous spy in literature and film. He brings a rougher version of the British agent who has captured the imaginations of both young and old.

Daniel Craig shows a more rugged interpretation of the James Bond that we have come to know and love. With the physique that Daniel has, he’s certainly brings a whole new perspective to the role. With his performance in the re-make of Casino Royale, he brought out the more violent nature of being a spy. This was the only Bond movie that didn’t have the arsenal of gadgets surreal that the Sean Connery and Roger Moore movies had.

Casino Royale made over 500 million dollars at the box office and Daniel Craig had the blessing of the roster of actors that, at one time, played Bond on the big screen. When consulting the novel, it characterizes Bond as ironic, brutal, and cold, which makes this Bond an antihero; a protagonist whose character and goals are antithetical to classical heroism. What does this mean? That Bond was an efficient killer, which justifies his having a license to kill, therefore making him more of a real spy than he was as charming as the Mad Hatter. You couldn’t have a Bond film without the women. And women have swallowed this version hook, line, and sinker. Tight abdomens really hit it off with the female population, rather than the sly, cool, ladies man of old. With the immergence of a new image so do the weapons at Bond’s disposal.

One would usually see a Walter PPK on the posters on every Bond film made. In the Quantum of Solace poster, you see Bond in the traditional tuxedo wielding a sub machine gun which only seems logical. A lone spy going up against more than just a handful army of henchmen is just like the old school James Bond we use to know. The sheer number of villains would scare anyone in his right mind; it’s not simply possible for one man to go up against so many people with just a pistol.

Years ago, the old Bond didn’t have much of a body to begin with. He was not as massive as Daniel Craig, simply because they didn’t have knowledge or the technology to achieve such mass in those days. With the image that Craig presents to us, the audience, we see a physique that can actually perform the feats that James Bond is known to make throughout his illustrious career.

This variation of the Bond character is being given credibility to actually exist. Daniel Craig has given us the most versatile James Bond so far. Of course, we can not simply dismiss those who have come before, we can only separate and take them as individuals. Daniel Craig isn’t just James Bond on steroids.