R293, thank you so much.
Granted I just read the article and no the actual case, but that case isn't applicable at all to the marbles.
[quote] Citing the 1906 Ottoman Decree, which asserts broad ownership of antiquities found in Turkey, the government said the idol had been wrongfully removed from its territory and should be returned. On Tuesday, Judge Alison J. Nathan of Federal District Court in Manhattan issued a written decision, citing evidence presented during a bench trial in April and ruling against Turkey.
[quote] “Although the Idol was undoubtedly manufactured in what is now modern-day Turkey, the Court cannot conclude based on the trial record that it was excavated from Turkey after 1906,” she wrote, adding that even if Turkey had established ownership it had “slept on its rights” and taken too long to make a claim. In her decision Judge Nathan said the stargazer was notable for its “size and near-mint condition” and that it was “among the most exceptional examples” of its sort in existence. There seemed to be scant question that the stargazer had originated in Anatolia, but Judge Nathan wrote that “where the Idol traveled to after its manufacture is more of a mystery,” adding that such items were probably traded or exchanged.
[quote] Turkey argued that there was no evidence that such idols had traveled beyond Anatolia and that the stargazer could be inferred to have been excavated there. But Judge Nathan wrote that there was “insufficient evidence” to support that view. Although it may be impossible to trace the idol’s path over thousands of years, records show that it surfaced in New York in 1961 . . . “There is no evidence in the record to establish where he [the buyer] first encountered the Idol, how the Idol came to be in his possession, or when and how he brought the Idol to the United States,” she added.
[quote] Turkey, seeking to bolster its case that the idol had been looted, wrote in its court papers that the Met’s former director, Thomas Hoving, once referred to Mr. Klejman as being among his “favorite dealer-smugglers.” Judge Nathan countered that “Hoving’s memoir does not reveal much about Klejman’s specific trading practices” and placed more emphasis on the idol’s visibility after arriving in New York.
[quote] It was exhibited in the Met’s permanent galleries from 1968 through 1993, Judge Nathan wrote, with very few interruptions. She added that it had also been widely discussed in various writings starting in the 1960s and was mentioned in Turkish publications by academics with connections to the Ministry of Culture. The public display of the work, along with its publication history, gave Turkish officials the opportunity to make a claim of ownership, Judge Nathan wrote.
In other words, you snooze you lose.