23 Mar 2025
In an article headlined “British Museum is right to keep Parthenon marbles, says new trustee”, Vanessa Thorpe informs us that Dr Tiffany Jenkins, who is against repatriating stolen relics, has been appointed as a trustee of the British Museum.
I read the article, because I’m interested in hearing Jenkins’ reasoning for her opinions. However, not much is said about these opinions themselves, and only little about the doctor herself. She’s described both as a historian and an expert academic, so one would assume that her opinions would be well-founded, but frustratingly the article says little about them other than that she’s written a book on the matter Keeping Their Marbles and that another historian, Dr Alice Roberts, disagrees.
I did some googling so you don’t have to.
Dr Jenkins’ Wikipedia page describes her as “sociologist, cultural commentator and writer”, so it’s curious that Thorpe chooses to describe her as a historian, especially as her book is apparently riddled with historical inaccuracies, according to the second to last paragraph in this review. At the very least, some examination of her credentials as a historian would be appreciated.
Indeed, even in Jenkins’ own article on the matter of stolen artefacts, which Thorpe neglects to link to, there’s no actual justification on why relics shouldn’t be returned to their countries of origin. Her argument there seems to be that we should keep artefacts because the people we stole them off were also not very nice, which while interesting, does not explain why the Benin Bronzes should be in London (or anywhere else for that matter). There’s only the vague assertion that the importance of artefacts is that they “enlighten us about the world and about past peoples”, which is only an valid point if you take as read that nobody deserving and capable of enlightenment would have access to them were they in Nigeria.
Thorpe’s vague assertions of academic standing and lack of detail on Jenkins’ reasoning leaves the reader with no basis on which to form their own opinion. Indeed, the only challenge to her views is that “Her views are at odds with those of another well-known historian and broadcaster, Dr Alice Roberts”, with no information as to why I should believe either doctor.
In conclusion, Vanessa Thorpe has omitted crucial information from this article, leaving the reader little on which to form their own opinions in this contentious matter. Reporting that there is contention without elaborating on any arguments for either side furthers the idea that there is no right answer, and that all opinions are as valid as each other, which is a falsehood commonly found in media today.