The article 'British museums weigh the cost of repatriating exhibits', by the Marketplace, quotes Tiffany Jenkins: 

“It’s about knowledge, about understanding, about preservation, about audiences. And it’s not about righting the wrongs of history,” Tiffany Jenkins said. “We should be thinking where can these objects be safest and where can they do the most good? Are objects going to be safe if they are returned to Nigeria, are they going to be seen by many people? I’m not convinced they are.”

Janet Suzman writes to Tiffany Jenkins and questions: "but we live in an age entirely devoted to attempting to right the wrongs of history do we not? All sorts of histories, pre-eminently that of slavery and the colonial occupations of countries and their peoples - and thus of those people’s cultures and possessions - are being questioned. And rightly so. Received mythologies of modern history are increasingly being re-thought and re-interpreted since the end of colonial powers. Britain’s was the most powerful and extensive and we know it took things because it could. The British Museum itself is an astonishing hymn to that concept.

Papers have reached their 50-year limit and are being released or coming to light. Those people who were there to tell the tale reveal are moved to recount the facts as they lived them before it’s too late. Things don’t stay hidden for ever. Pictures are being very slowly restored to their owners having been taken by the SS. Awareness of so many cultural appropriations is higher than ever it has been. Respect for others, so often falling short in practise, is, willy-nilly, now front and centre.

I’m a little surprised, too, that you don’t expand on what you mean by the phrase ’do the most good’. You were, I guess, being Aristotelean, but you might be doing the most good to a nation were you to return what is rightfully theirs, be it a precious skull of some ancient folk-hero, or works of sculpture unsurpassed in all of ensuing history.

Where can certain objects be safest you ask? I would suggest in purpose-built modern museums whose roofs don’t leak and in which the latest technology of temperature control and air conditioning exists. You yourself are an admirer of the stunning New Acropolis Museum in Athens (now more than 13 years old) as I've heard you say so. You cannot surely have a quarrel with the conservatory and scholastic skills at work there?

What I really fail to understand, though, is what the case can possibly be for denying a country authentic works of its own art. I know great art belongs to everyone, but nothing predicates that London is the sole place through which this ‘everyone’ passes. London’s days of being the centre of the known world are long gone. The internet has happened, and digital sharing amongst places of learning are normal. So is travel.

In any case, jaw-droppingly accurate digital replicas are now possible. Why on earth should the British Museum have the originals of the Marbles while denying them to Athens? Reverse that insular notion and hey-presto justice is done and excitement beckons as the BM discovers that no-one can possibly tell the difference. Indeed with perfect replicas of all the objects that were sneakily lifted by Elgin the BM might even rise to a corrective by restoring the exquisite patinas that once graced the Parthenon Marbles before they were scrubbed by crude wire brushes into institutionally white supremacist versions. The exquisite replicas can still ’tell their story’ as the authorities always put it. They could even be painted in the colours they once wore if the BM decided to create a block-buster show, or would that be too, too vulgar?

And as to being seen by many people, I must tell you that the BCRPM took a poll of the proportion of the 6 million annual visitors boasted by the BM only to find that only one sixth of them visit Room 18, the Duveen Galleries. That figure is easily matched and surpassed by the Athens Museum so please don’t worry about numbers.

Righting the wrongs of history is a tussle that the Western world is going through in a big way as I write this, and, Tiffany Jenkins, it has to be lived through and responded to else the BM and like-minded finders-keepers mentalities will hold us in thrall to the high-handed days of yore, which are mainly despicable in the light of modern sensibilities. Take a leaf, say I, out of the thinking that prevails in the great Dutch museums where a certain humanity prevails. Other museums feel the same it seems. UNESCO certainly does, as a whole body.

Nothing bad will happen, only good, if arguably the greatest of the national museums were to behave like a mensch and give the blasted Parthenon Marbles back to the Greeks."

Respecfully and sincerely,
Janet Suzman

Acropolis Museum director, Nikos Stampolidis, called for an end to the division of the sculptures from the Parthenon. Greece requests have been on going since the the 19th century and after independence. The Acropolis Museum is the closest that all visitors can get to the Parthenon and this peerless collection of sculptures.

"It's time for the matter to be resolved," Nikos Stampolidis told AFP in an interview.

"We are not talking about just any work of art far from its place of origin", but of "part of an architectural monument that is a symbol of global culture", stated Stampolidis.

"An act of the English parliament could facilitate the return the friezes to Athens," Stampolidis added.

You can watch the ERT news interview on You Tube, with English subtitles.

The Acropolis Museum is "the one place on earth where you can properly admire the marbles in context, as you stand in front of 2,500 years of history and look across the panoramic vista towards the temple above," Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis wrote in the Daily Mail in November.

In January, the Times, also wrote: "Time and circumstances are changing. The sculptures belong in Athens. They must now return there." 

Letters to the Sunday Times post Lord Sumption's article.

Supporting the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles, and the return of the pieces in the British Museum to the Acropolis Museum:

Greece was under Ottoman-Turkish occupation

Lord Sumption says the Parthenon’s marbles were lawfully given to Lord Elgin by the legitimate government of Greece between 1802 and 1804 (Comment, last week). Not so. Greece was under Ottoman-Turkish occupation, and in 1826 Britain assisted the Greeks in their war of independence. This indicates that Britain also considered the Ottomans to have been unlawful usurpers.
Nemo dat quod non habet is a legal principle which says that no one can sell something which they do not legally own. If, during the Nazi occupation of France in 1940, Hitler had sold the Eiffel Tower to the Americans, would it be OK for the US still to keep it?
Kyriacos Kyriacou, London W8

Shaky reasoning
I hesitate to disagree with a former justice of the Supreme Court, but Sumption’s arguments for keeping the Elgin Marbles in London don’t stack up. It’s true the Ottoman authorities gave them to Elgin: the question is whether they were entitled to do so. It’s also true that cultural artefacts have been plundered for millenniums and often been dispersed in the process. That doesn’t mean this is OK. And to wail about the “gross cultural vandalism” of breaking up the British Museum’s collection seems hypocritical. Why is it acceptable to break up the marbles but not the British Museum’s collection?
Robert Wright, Cheltenham

Bribes paid
Sumption disregards the fact that Elgin did not buy the marbles, and so never acquired legal title to pass them to the British Museum. Elgin’s acquisition costs include “commission and agency … in Turkey” (that is, bribes) but no purchase price. As the museum never acquired title, the marbles do not form “part of the collections” and the British Museum Act 1963 would not preclude the trustees from returning them.
OM Lewis, Richmond, southwest London

Send them back
Sumption makes an intelligent case but he does acknowledge that the Greeks see the Parthenon frieze as “an emblem of their nationhood”. Spot on. What the Greeks feel about the Marbles, we do about Stonehenge. We should look at the issue a different way. The Parthenon Marbles have been on loan to Britain for more than a century. The time has come to return them to their country of origin.
Angus Neill, London SW1

Home truth
It is wrong to argue that something should remain where it is because it allows us to compare it to similarly important items. Yes, historical and cultural comparison has value but this should not detract from the greater value of reintegrating a work in the original place where it belongs.
Anastasia Demetriou, Southgate, north London

Missing argument
It is a bit rich for Sumption to accuse the Greeks of being nationalistic. The Parthenon sculptures are only here because of the chauvinism at the heart of the British Empire. As for the argument traditionally put forward for keeping them in the British Museum — that only we can look after them properly — recent news about hundreds of artefacts going missing from the museum, and previous revelations about damage caused in cleaning, surely put paid to that.
Ronnie Landau, London N12

Letters supporting Lord Sumptions argument for the UK and the British Museum retaining their half of the sculptures removed by Lord Elgin from the Parthenon, and in a fire sale becoming part of the British Museum collection since 1816:

Imperialist Athens
The Greeks do themselves no favours when they complain the Parthenon marbles were stolen. Sumption is right to say that their removal by Elgin was fully authorised. Perhaps we should remind modern-day Greeks that the Parthenon and its marbles were financed by Athens’s own theft of funds from the Delian league of city states, over which it exercised a cruel and greedy imperialism.
Charles Forgan, Great Broughton, North Yorkshire

Museum’s hands tied

The Greeks have no legal claim and the matter keeps going only because people such as George Osborne allow them to claim they are “in negotiations” — even though the proposed transaction is illegal. The British Museum’s trustees do not have a free hand; it’s time they and the board accepted the legal constraints and got on with the boring job of conserving the collection.
David Edwards, Eastbourne, East Sussex

To read Lord Sumption's article visit the Sunday Times. To read Dame Janet Suzman's reply, visit the link here. 

On April 19, 2024, mournful Greece will commemorate the bicentennial of the death of her dazzling adopted son, George Gordon, 6th Baron Byron (1788-1824), whose personal involvement in the Greek War of Independence (1821-1829) turned European attention to the plight of Greece under Ottoman Turkish rule and resulted in the establishment of an independent Greek state for the first time since the Turkish conquest of 1453. Lord Byron died at the age of 36 of malaria complications in Missolonghi, in the land whose captive beauty he mourned in Canto II of his immensely popular “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage” (1812-1818), which made the author a European celebrity overnight. Byron’s fame extended worldwide in the 19th century, with several cities in the US named after him, including in Iowa and Illinois.

Byron’s literary alter ego, Childe Harold, sets forth on a secular pilgrimage Byron himself undertook in 1809 at the time of Napoleonic wars. In Canto I, the hero travels through the southern periphery of Europe, Portugal, and Spain, and laments the fate of Spain fighting for its independence from Napoleon at the height of the Peninsula War. In Canto II, Byron heads to Greece and writes of his first encounter with the land of Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles, Aristophanes, and Pheidias. Educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, Byron was well versed in Greek literature and philosophy, and it pained him to see this famed land languishing under Ottoman Turkish occupation. In Canto III of his massive 16,000-line epic poem “Don Juan” (1819-1824), Byron laments Greece’s lost glory:

“The isles of Greece! the isles of Greece!

Where burning Sappho loved and sang,

Where grew the arts of war and peace,

Where Delos rose, and Phœbus sprung!

Eternal summer gilds them yet,

But all, except their sun, is set.”

After visiting Athens, Byron became a champion of the cause of the Elgin Marbles which remains unresolved today, with Greek and British prime ministers trading harsh words over their fate earlier this year. Removed from Athens by Lord Elgin between 1801 and 1812, half of the surviving Parthenon Marbles remain in the British Museum, a move Byron savaged in his 1811 poem “The Curse of Minerva.”

Last summer, I retraced Byron’s 1809 Greek and Albanian travels and visited the old Turkish fortress in Janina, which is today in northern Greece. Here Byron met Ali Pasha, the ruler of greater Albania, who invited the young poet to his palace in Tepelene, now in central Albania. I explored the ruins of this Albanian fortress as well and stood on the spot where Byron started composing “Childe Harold” − the edge of a cliff over a swift mountain steam rushing towards the horizon in the far distance. Sublime does not begin to describe the location that birthed the Byronic character, forever associated with his creator.

The alienated, cynical, brooding, and dejected hero he created and which to this day bears his name, Byronic, inspired countless literary characters from Rochester (“Jane Eyre”) and Heathcliff (“Wuthering Heights”) to Julien Sorel (“The Red and the Black”) and Edmond Dantès (“The Count of Monte Cristo”). In Alexander Pushkin’s 1825-1832 novel in verse “Eugene Onegin,” the main character, who is described as a “Moscovite in Harold's cloak,” is an avid reader of “Childe Harold” and tries to emulate the Byronic ideal in every possible way, to the bewilderment of his friends and foes. Needless to say, Pushkin wrote the novel under the watchful gaze of a Byron portrait above his desk - and a statue of Napoleon on the mantelpiece - the two quintessential sources of poetic inspiration of the 19th century!

Emerging out of the initial thrill of the French Revolution of 1789 and the eventual disillusionment with the direction of the revolutionary project and the meteoric rise and fall of Napoleon Bonaparte, the Byronic hero captured the Zeitgeist of the age and spoke to the alienation of an entire generation of European young men who became weary of unhindered idealism which invariably devolved into fratricidal slaughter. Anguished and cynical, the Byronic hero resurfaced in the 20th century in the characters portrayed by actors such as Marlon Brando, James Dean, and Heath Ledger, and still haunts the cinematic universes of Star Wars, James Bond, Indiana Jones, Twilight, and, of course, Batman.

“Childe Harold” catapulted Byron to international fame - and many shorter poetic works (The Giaour, The Bride of Abydos, The Corsair) were created at the peak of his literary stardom. As a hereditary member of the House of Lords, Byron delivered two notable speeches in Parliament, but his scandalous bisexual escapades did raise a few eyebrows in England - and he left for continental Europe once again in 1816 - never to return.

After visiting the battlefield of Waterloo (more in my May column), Byron traveled along the Rhine to Switzerland − where he hosted Percy Shelley and Mary Shelley - at the time when Mary was writing yet another masterpiece of the Romantic age, “Frankenstein.” Byron spent several years in Italy, whose fate he glorified and lamented in Canto IV of “Childe Harold.” And in 1823 he embarked from Genoa on his second and final trip to Greece. He offered the Greek independence cause financial assistance and trained troops who were fighting for their homeland in the aftermath of the Declaration of Independence proclaimed in 1821 on March 25 − still celebrated today as Greek Independence Day.

In 1824 Byron wrote: “I gave [Greece] my time, my health, my property, and now I give my life. What could I do more?”

After Byron’s death, the fate of ravished Greece was captured in all its agony by Eugène Delacroix in his 1826 painting “Greece on the Ruins of Missolonghi” and in his “Faust,” Johann von Goethe dedicated to Byron the tragic character of Euphorion, a youth who, like Icarus, flew too close to the sun and crashed to his death. Byron’s death stunned Europe; England, France and Russia, enemies from the Napoleonic wars, united their efforts in support of Greek independence - which was finally recognized in July of 1832 at the Treaty of Constantinople. Greece was the first Ottoman Empire subject to receive full independence and international recognition.

A poem from Byron

On Jan. 22, 1824, three months before his death, Byron wrote a poem that included the following lines:

“Awake (not Greece—she is awake!)

       Awake, my Spirit! Think through whom

Thy life-blood tracks its parent lake

                                    And then strike home!

...

Seek out—less often sought than found—

       A Soldier's Grave, for thee the best;

Then look around, and choose thy Ground,

                                    And take thy rest.”

RIP, Greece’s Euphorion, the inimitable champion of freedom, Lord Byron…

Anna Barker received her Ph. D. in Comparative Literature in 2002 with a dissertation in translation studies. At the University of Iowa she has taught courses in the English Department, in Comparative Literature, in Russian Literature, and in the Honours Programme.

This article was first published in the Iowa City Press Citizen, on 05 April 2024. 

When Emily Sheffield wrote: "I’m sorry, dear Greeks, but the Elgin Marbles simply must stay here." There was an outcry, not just by readers of the Evening Standard but those that were trying to understand how such a statement was meant to show empathy towards a global community that has supported the reunification for decades.

We're guessing that the ES, as the London paper, is quite happy for the Parthenon Marbles to remain divided as it might suit Londoners to pop into Room 18 to have a look at this peerless collection of sculptures. That they are referered to as 'Elgin Marbles' is an afront given the history. But then Emily Sheffield has also been quick to criticise MP Elizabeth Truss for wanting to rewrite history, when the BM has being doing so for some time.

If London visitors don't appreciate that what is exhibited in Room 18, isn't the whole collection, nor that there is another half in the Acropolis Museum, that's just geography. The fact that Lord Elgin removed these sculptures, or rather he paid men with metal saws and crowbars to remove the best ones at a time when Greece had no voice, well that's just a tragic part of history. A part of history museum visitors have to come to terms with too. Well, at least according to Emily Sheffield and the British Museum.

Read Emily Sheffield's article here.

BCRPM's tweet thread on reading the article below, on 21 January 2023.

Pictured above Victoria Hislop in Room 18 on the 13th anniversary of the Acropolis Museum, June 2022. Protest led by BCRPM and supporters.

the Acropolis Museum's 9th anniversary, annual protest at the BM, this was led by R.E.T.U.R.N

Fact: in reuniting these sculptures with their other surviving halves in the Acropolis Museum, the British Museum can still continue to showcase all of the world's cultures under one roof. The sky isn't going to fall in.

typo in above tweet , *nation* ought to be without an 's', apologies. The image quote for legibility below: 

Friday 01 July 2016, 18.30–20.00 @ British Museum's BP Lecture Theatre a 'special event' for the 200th year anniversary of the British Museum’s acquisition of the Elgin collection.

Chaired by Curator Ian Jenkins, British Museum, panellists include David Bindman, Emeritus Professor of the History of Art at UCL, Athena Leoussi, Associate Professor in European History at the University of Reading, and author and historian Dominic Selwood. Introduced by Lesley Fitton, Keeper of the Department of Greece and Rome, British Museum.

And a reminder to Dominic Selwood that if he believes Lord Elgin 'saved the Parthenon marbles' - BCRPM's response is as follows:

1. Whether or not Elgin "rescued" the Parthenon Marbles, that is no excuse for holding on to them now;

2. The Greeks fought their war of independence in the name of Hellenism, a concept and a spirit preserved and transmitted through their language throughout centuries of conquests and occupations;

3. The Parthenon is a monument of unique significance not just for Greece but for western civilisation;

4. The Parthenon is a fixed monument and it is in Greece;

5. The sculptures are integral architectural elements of it;

6. Both the Parthenon and it's other sculpted elements lack artistic integrity while they are separated;

7. Admittedly, the sculptures can no longer be re fixed to the Parthenon or indeed displayed anywhere in the open. However in the glass walled Parthenon Gallery of the magnificent Acropolis Museum, glassed walled and in line of sight of the Parthenon, and only there, they can be viewed simultaneously with the building to which they belong. Thus the case for reunification of the Parthenon marbles is not a legal one about rights of ownership, current or historic, but cultural and ethical. The onus of justification should be on those who resist restoring the integrity of the sculptures from the Parthenon - the Parthenon a UNESCO World Heritage monument, the very emblem of UNESCO itself.

London, Thanasis Gavos

The idea of  "rotating" loans for the sculptures from the Parthenon is unsatisfactory when one also considers that Greece's ask is wholly justified. The ask is for the permanent reunification of all these sculptures. A request that was first made shortly after Greece gained her independence.

British supporters for the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles consider the possible "deal" described by a Bloomberg report on Tuesday night to be disappointing.

Citing sources on the ongoing talks, the news articles said parts of the sculptures could be returned over time and "on a rotational basis" from the British Museum to the Acropolis Museum, as part of a "cultural exchange".

In light of this, Professor Paul Cartledge, Vice-Chair of the British Committee for Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles (BCRPM) and Vice-Chair of the International Association for the Reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures (IARPS), said that he understands that the Bloomberg report has been denied by the Greek Ministry of Culture .

"I can understand why both the British Museum is keen to give the impression that it is not just saying no (to reunification) but that it is interested in some kind of negotiated solution, while on the other hand I fully understand why the Ministry of Culture in Greece would accept nothing less than the return of all that the British Museum and, incidentally, other museums - as a whole and for eternity" the former professor of Ancient Greek Culture at the University of Cambridge told SKAI.

"None of these piecemeal 'here you go, you can have this piece of frieze and then we expect some nice things from you back and then we'll give you some more of the frieze', i.e. we'll lend them to you, we won't give them to you of course," Mr. Cartledge added, rejecting the content of the deal described by Bloomberg sources.

The British professor agrees, however, that even if we have not reached the desired outcome, the constant references to talks and possible agreements prove that progress has been made.

"I think the pressure is intensifying. The fact that the Pope has agreed to give back – and not in some way lend or raise any legal issue – the pieces held by the Vatican Museums, is the latest in a series of different things that have been achieved outside of Britain. All this leads to the conclusion that it is obvious that the British Museum's Chair and Trustees should do the right thing and enter into negotiations on the basis that the relevant laws (preventing reunification) should be amended or withdrawn for this specific case. But also that they wish, not that they are obliged, that they wish to give back (the Sculptures) as they normally should. So there is no doubt that (there is) this  idea of the deal, as if the British Museum has some basis on a moral basis, which we believe it does not have," Professor Cartledge noted.

The rotation of the Sculptures would not solve the issue of ownership. Another thorn, of course, is the British Museum Act of 1963 which prohibits the removal of exhibits from the British Museum's collection.

A possible way out of this is the British Charity Act of 2022, as pointed out by lawyer George Dimaras who specializes in cases of mixed national jurisdiction and works in Greece, Britain and other countries: "Greece's ownership arguments remain strong. However, there is also the recent change in legislation in Britain in 2022 and the Charity Act, which allows museum to request the return of objects found in British museum collections on the basis of moral obligations. Although this is a difficult issue, perhaps the new law could affect decisions regarding the Parhenon Sculptures," the Greek lawyer, George Dimaras told SKAI.

It should be noted, however, that the implementation of two crucial articles of the new law has been put on hold by the British government in order to  carry out additional research in order to "thoroughly asses their impact" on museum collections.

Source: skai.gr

To liten to the report, follow the link here.

23 Februray 2020, Opinion Editorial in the Guardian is headed: The Guardian view on the Parthenon marbles: not just a Brexit sideshow. A government that stresses the importance of national pride should understand Greek claims.

In a week were it seemed that every title under the sun was claiming Greece , with Italy’s backing, had inserted a special clause in the EU’s draft negotiating mandate for a trade deal with Britain. The clause called for the return of “unlawfully removed cultural objects” to their place of origin. It did not mention the marbles by name, and the move was explicitly directed at illegal trade in antiquities in London auction houses.

To read the full article in the Guardia please clik here.

Greece's offficial response to the media frenzy:
Greece distanced itself from suggestions that it planned to drag a centuries-old dispute over the return of the Parthenon marbles into Brexit negotiations.
Government spokesman Stelios Petsas said Athens would keep up its campaign for the return of the 2,500-year-old treasures and would consider which tools could support its cause.
“Greece’s request for the return of the Parthenon marbles remains strong and it is not linked to a Brexit deal,” Mr Petsas said, asked if the issue could be a stumbling point in talks with Britain on its future relationship with the European Union.
“We’ll continue to call for their return and if this is a tool we can use, we’ll consider it in due course,” he said.

LONDON COLLOQUY ON REUNIFICATION OF THE PARTHENON MARBLES LONDON 19 – 20 JUNE 2012

Adv George Bizos SC (A member of Johannesburg Bar and The British Committee for the Reunification Of the Parthenon Marbles) 

A LEGAL AND MORAL ISSUE - WAS A VALID FIRMAN ISSUED?

The Modern Greek state is the successor in title to the territory of Greece that was under control of the Ottoman Empire at the turn of the 19th Century and where the marbles were located prior to their removal by Lord Elgin.  Greece believes that it is legally entitled to the return of the Parthenon Marbles.  Furthermore, it has a clear interest in its cultural heritage, as is reflected in Law 30228 on the Protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage in General.  In particular that law makes clear that Greece has a duty, to itself and to its citizens, “to care, within the context of international law, for the protection of cultural objects, which are connected historically with Greece wherever they are located.”  

The marbles that are the subject of this memorandum adorned the Parthenon, on the Acropolis.  They were removed between 1801 and 1810 from the sites at which they were located by Lord Elgin, a Scottish Earl who was at the time the British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.  The last of the marbles were finally removed from Greek territory in 1810 and were taken by Lord Elgin back to Britain.

In 1816 Lord Elgin sought to sell the marbles to the British government.  The government, which was interested in making the purchase, conducted a parliamentary enquiry into the question whether Elgin had had permission to remove the marbles.  Having satisfied the majority of the members that Elgin indeed had permission, Parliament resolved to purchase the marbles from Elgin.  In 1816, Parliament passed an Act that vested the ownership of the marbles in the British Museum.  The marbles have been housed there ever since.

As will be seen below, it is the opinion of three of us including Richard Moultrie and Adrian Friedman in the Constitutional Litigation Unit of the Legal Resources Centre in Johannesburg that there may well be a case to be made against the current possessors of the marbles for their return.  In our view, the most effective potential cause of action would be based on the principles of private law and would be litigated by means of an action launched in the English Courts, applying the accepted rules of private international law (conflict of laws).  The strongest arguments are those based on a consideration of, and challenge to, the legality of the original acquisition of the marbles by Lord Elgin.

There is a range of possible causes of action for any claim that might be brought by Greece.  Greece could bring a claim based on its possession at the time at which Elgin removed the marbles.  It could also theoretically bring a claim on the basis that it would presently be the owner of the marbles, had they not have been removed.

It is a well-established principle of private international law that the legality of a transfer of property is to be assessed in terms of the law applicable at the time of the transfer.  Because of the 1816 Act that transferred ownership of the marbles from Elgin to the Trustees of the British Museum, it is important to bear this principle in mind.  If one progresses on the assumption that the Greek claim is one of possession, the predecessors in unlawfully dispossessed Greece (or, more precisely, the predecessors in title of the current Greek state) of the marbles, then the claim must be assessed in terms of the law applicable at the time of the dispossession; i.e., between 1801 and 1810.  The 1816 Act then becomes less significant.  In our view, this approach offers the best prospects of success.  The strongest arguments that we have considered concern the question of whether Elgin truly had permission, and was therefore lawfully entitled, to remove the marbles.  If those arguments are to be advanced, it is important to frame the claim as a possessory action, based on the unlawful removal of the marbles from Greece’s possession.  Our recommendations in this memorandum (a fuller version ahs been published “Colloquium: Protection and Return of Cultural Property, Sakkoula Publications, Athens 2001” ) therefore proceed on the assumption that the best prospect of success involves Greece instituting a claim based on its possession prior to Elgin’s removal of the marbles.

This memorandum is based on an approach in terms of which Greece would seek relief from a British court in terms of the law or England.  England is, of course, the jurisdiction in which the property is located and it therefore the appropriate jurisdiction in which to institute an action.  Our prima facie view is that, in terms of the private international law currently applied in England, the court will be required to apply the law applicable in Greece at the time of the dispossession.  This is also a well-accepted principle.  Indeed, in the recent case of Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran v Barakat Galleries Ltd the parties accepted that the dispute had to be determined according to the law of Iran at the time of the removal of antiquities from that country, “being the lex situs of the antiquities at the time of derivation of such title”.  This case is the most recent example of the application of this essentially trite principle.

While we have considered the factual bases for arguments to the effect that Elgin did not have the right to remove the marbles, we have relied exclusively and uncritically upon the work of Rudenstine and Demetriades in relation to the law applicable in Greece at the time of the marbles’ removal.  A full consideration of the legal framework will be necessary before a claim may proceed.  

THE VALIDITY OF THE “FIRMAN” . Those who argue that the removal by Elgin of the marbles was lawful rely on the issuance, by the Ottoman authorities, of a firman that was presented to the authorities in Athens on 23 July 1801.  It is our view that there are a range of arguments that could potentially be raised that contradict the view that Elgin was authorised, through a firman, to remove the marbles. In short, these arguments are:

• That the document on which Elgin relied was not in fact a firman but was simply a letter setting out the recommendation of the writer.  The letter was purportedly signed by Kaimmakam Seyid, Abdullah Pasha, the Deputy to the Grand Vizier or Yusuf Ziyauddin Pasha (then currently in charge of the Ottoman army fighting the French in Egypt), whereas only the Sultan, according to this argument, could give authority for the removal of items from the Parthenon; and

• That the English document commonly relied upon to support Elgin’s claim was in fact a distorted translation of an Italian translation of the original Ottoman document.  On this argument, the document has even less weight when considering whether it did indeed grant the required authority to remove all or any of the marbles.

We proceed to deal with each in turn.  We begin by setting out, briefly, the argument that the “firman” was not in fact a firman.  It must be emphasised that the Ottoman Empire was a theocracy.  There was no legislative body and the law in force was sharia.  The Sultan alone was authorised to interpret the sharia law to the extent that it was inadequately expressed and to issue decrees to the extent that they were not inconsistent with sharia.  This latter power was expressed in the issuance of firmans.

Therefore, if the Sultan had issued a firman to Elgin authorising him to remove the marbles, there would be strong support for the view that the act of removal was legal (subject to arguments discussed below).  However, a case could be made out that the firman allegedly relied upon was not in fact a firman.

According to Demetriades, whose views are supported by Islamic scholars, a valid firman would have had the following features:

• It would have contained a “tougras”, which was the emblem of the Sultan.  Only the Sultan could issue a firman. • It would have begun with an “invocatio”, an invocation to God.

• It would have been headed with the Sultan’s monogram.

• It would have contained an “inscriptio”, which would have mentioned the officials to whom it was addressed.

• It would have contained various phrases that were contained only in firmans.  For example, the section containing the specific authority to perform the particular act would begin with the phrase “Upon arrival of the great imperial document, let it be known that …..”.

• It would have ended with the date in Arabic set out in full.

• It would never have mentioned the name of the drafter or editor because the document was written in the name of the Sultan alone.

The document upon which Elgin relied to establish his authority (in the House of Commons enquiry in 1816) contained none of these features.  Furthermore, it was signed by Seged Abdullah Kaimacan, which would never have occurred in the case of a real firman, for the reasons given above.

As will be discussed in more detail below, the document upon which most modern historians rely in support of their view that Elgin had permission to remove the marbles was an English translation.  The authenticity of the English document is open to serious doubt.  However, even if one accepts that the English translation is an exact translation of the original document issued by the Ottoman authorities, the evidence would tend to support the view that the document was an official letter, rather than a firman.  Its author was a high-ranking official in the army (specifically, the deputy to the Grand Vizier), who was present in Egypt fighting against the French army.  As a result of the defeat by the British of the French, this letter was addressed to Elgin as a sign of gratitude.  It did not, however, have the force of a law that would have applied to a firman.

There is no reason in principle why this could not be achieved during the course of a trial.  The ultimate prospects of success of this argument (or any of the other fact-based arguments) may only be assessed cogently once proper consultation with the relevant expert witnesses has taken place.

The second argument relating to the firman focuses on the translated document upon which Elgin relied in the hearing before Parliament in 1816.  The argument is as follows:

• There are potentially three documents upon which Elgin’s claim to have received permission to remove the marbles is based.  First, there is the original document that Elgin obtained from the Ottomans in Constantinople in 1801.  It was referred to in the report of the parliamentary committee that investigated Elgin’s claims in 1818.  Secondly, there is a document in Italian that was revealed at the 1816 hearings by Philip Hunt, an assistant of Elgin’s who was present with him in Constantinople.  Hunt claimed that this document was a direct translation of the Ottoman firman and that the translation had been done in Constantinople in July 1801.  Thirdly, there is an English translation that was referred to in the 1816 parliamentary report, but which was in fact derived from Hunt’s Italian document.

• The original document is now lost, and was already lost by the time that parliament conducted its enquiry in 1816.  No copy of this document has ever been found and there is no reference to it in the archives of the Ottoman Empire.

• The circumstances surrounding the Italian document are somewhat suspicious.  At the Parliamentary hearings, Elgin testified first.  He was repeatedly asked whether he had written proof of having been given permission to remove the marbles.  He answered that he had been given written permission but that he had not kept any of the documents given to him.  He made no mention at all of an Italian translation of the original document.  Hunt was called as a witness towards the end of the hearings and made reference, for the first time, to the Italian translation.  Despite the clear incentive that Elgin had to fabricate the existence of an authentic translation of the original document (because he desperately needed to sell the marbles and Parliament was eager to be satisfied that he had received permission to remove them), the Committee accepted at face value the authenticity of the Italian document.

• There are arguments against the notion that the Italian document was fraudulently created by Elgin with the co-operation of Hunt: in the first place, it would not have been necessary for the document to have been rendered in Italian.  Secondly, and more importantly, the document does not seem to authorise the removal by Elgin of the marbles (see below).  If one were to devise a fraudulent document in these circumstances, one would expect to devise a document that is water-tight in giving the permission required.

• However, even if one accepts that the Italian document was not fraudulently created by Hunt or Elgin to satisfy the Parliamentary committee, there are discrepancies between the Italian document (which has been rediscovered relatively recently) and the English translation relied upon the Parliament.  These discrepancies undermine the claim that the Italian document is a translation of a firman giving permission to Elgin to remove the marbles.

• If one believes the account provided in the report by the Parliamentary select committee, Hunt was in possession of an Italian translation of the original firman given in 1801.  An English translation of that Italian document is annexed to the parliamentary report and it is upon the latter that those claiming that Elgin had authority to remove the marbles rely.

• In the English translation of the document, there appears the following sentence: “We therefore have written this Letter to you, and expedited it by Mr Philip Hunt, an English Gentleman, Secretary of the Aforesaid Ambassador”.  In the Italian version of the document, this sentence actually reads as follows: “We therefore have written this Letter to you, and expedited it by N.N.”  It seems that the initials N.N. were used when the name of the person in question was to be inserted later.

• The second discrepancy is as follows: In the English translation, it says at the bottom “Signed (with a signet) Seged Abdullah Kaimacan”.  However, the Italian version of the document is not signed, with a signet or at all, by anyone, let alone Seged Abdullah Kaimacan.

• In the light of the above, it is clear that the Italian document could not have been a translation of a firman.  No final document would have contained the initials N.N. in it, because the identity of the deliverer would have been known to the drafter by the time the draft was finalised.  In addition, there is no explanation for translating the firman into Italian since neither Elgin nor Hunt spoke Italian.

• The most plausible explanation of the nature of the document is that it was a document drafted by Pisani, Elgin’s negotiator and translator, which was to be presented to the authorities.  In other words, it was a document that had been drafted by Elgin’s men in the hope that the authorities would approve its content and issue an official letter based on its text.  However, the evidence seems compelling that the Italian document could not have been a translation of a firman and was not even a final version of a letter.

• In short, the Italian version of the document is clearly not a firman and does not seem even to be a final draft of a letter.  The English version of the document is a final draft, but not of a firman.  Although the evidence seems to support the view that it was the Italian document and not the English document that constitutes an authentic translation of the original Ottoman text, on either version there was no firman granting permission to Elgin to remove the marbles.

THE OTTOMANS HAD NO POWER TO GIVE TITLE IN THE MARBLES. There are a range of arguments that might be advanced that relate to the authority of the Ottomans, or the particular officials that ostensibly gave authority, to permit Elgin to remove the marbles.  A brief synopsis of these arguments is as follows:

• To the extent that permission was indeed given to Elgin, it was given by officials who did not have the authority to give it.  This argument is similar to the argument advanced above in respect of the firman.  In terms of this argument, to the extent that Elgin was indeed authorised to remove the marbles, he was authorised to do so by persons who lacked the requisite authority.

• A similar argument is to the effect that the Ottomans were bribed into giving permission and therefore the authority given was not lawful.  This argument must be approached with caution.  As argued above, it is well-accepted, both in terms of private and public international law, that the legality of the acquisition of title in property must be assessed by the law of the country in which the property is acquired at the time at which it was acquired.  In terms of that approach, the validity of Elgin’s acquisition of the marbles must be assessed according to the law in force in Greece at the time of the acquisition (i.e. between 1801 and 1810).  Those that argue that the bribery of the Ottoman officials renders the permission that they gave nugatory, rely on the fact that, at the time, bribery was already proscribed by the law of England.  While bribery may well have been the norm at the time in Athens, we cannot imagine that it would have actually been legal.  However, the question would still arise whether proof of bribery could render the otherwise valid firman invalid – not to mention the further question that there is no indication in any of the evidence that we have obtained that the firman itself was obtained by bribery, whereas it is quite clear that bribes were regularly paid to the local Athens officials such as the Disdar and Voivode.

• The last of the arguments in regard to the authority of the Ottomans to give Elgin permission is of broader application.  In terms of this argument, the Ottomans’ military occupation of Greece did not give them authority to alienate the marbles.  Once again, this argument should be approached with caution.  It is based on developments in the law of occupation under public international law that have occurred in the 20th Century.  On the assumption that the legality of the transfer must be assessed at the time at which it took place, it is difficult to argue that modern developments in the law of occupation may be applied retrospectively.

• More than one third of the members of the British Parliament voted against the purchase of the marbles. Might the result have been different if the House had not been misled by Elgin and his agents?

In another important case of Autocephalous Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus v Goldberg and Feldman Fine Arts Inc the laws of Cyprus, Switzerland and Indiana in the United States were considered.  The case is discussed by Professor Symeon Symeonides, Distinguished Professor of Law; Dean Emeritus Willamette University in “Colloquium: Protection and Return of Cultural Property, Sakkoula Publications, Athens 2001”. Although there may be arguments to the contrary the law of the state of origin of the property should prevail.  The law of Cyprus did prevail even though they were removed from the northern part of Cyprus which is occupied by the Turkish military force. 

However, litigation is not our first option.

The Director of the British Museum persists in describing the Parthenon as a ruin.  For the Greeks and philhellenes, despite the damage done to it by the Venetians, the Ottomans and Lord Elgin, it is still a symbol of Athenian Democracy, civilisation and the spirit of Hellenism.  Pericles who declared that “we are lovers of beauty without extravagance” had the Parthenon in mind.  Lord Byron, the most ardent Philhellene, condemned Elgin’s removal of the marbles.

Nadine Gordimer the Nobel Laureate has written in the foreword to Christopher Hitchens’ book “On any criteria of ability, facility to preserve and display their own heritage of great works of art as their importance decrees, Greece has created a claim incontestably unmatched.  The Parthenon Gallery in the New Acropolis Museum provides a sweep of contiguous space for the 106-metre-long Panatheneaic Procession as it never could be seen anywhere else, facing the Parthenon itself high on the Sacred Rock. But there are gaps in their magnificent frieze, left blank. They are there to be filled by an honourable return of the missing parts from the British Museum.  Reverence - and justice - demand this.”

The people of Greece, of the Diaspora and the Philhellenes of the world cannot rest until the Parthenon Marbles are restored to their home.  It would enhance the friendship between the people of Greece and those in the United Kingdom. It would be the right thing to do. 

Adv George Bizos SC (A member of Johannesburg Bar and The British Committee for the Reunification Of the Parthenon Marbles)

The possible solution to Greece's long-standing request for the reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures from London may be held by... robots.

It is the first time in history that one of the Parthenon Sculptures in the British Museum has been replicated using digital 3D technology and a robot.

The famous chariot horse head of the goddess Selene: the ancient Greeks believed that a goddess Selene carried the moon across the sky each night. They imagined her driving a horse-drawn chariot with two white horses. Selene's crown lit up the moon as her white horses galloped across the night sky. And the horse's head in the British Museum is the exquisite sculpture carved by Pheidias in 5th century BC, and this year, 2022 digitally reproduced and carved by robotic 3D imaging machines.

The director and founder of the Institute of Digital Archaeology (IDA), Roger Michael described to ERT how they managed to scan the sculptures after the British Museum refused them permission.

"We asked the British Museum for permission to scan some of the items. We were surprised when they refused to give it to us, but we decided to take matters into our own hands and so we did the scans using portable equipment at the British Museum. We then converted these scans into a 3D model and from that 3D model, we then created this amazing marble sculpture carved from precious Pentelian marble," Roger Michael told ERT .

The Institute for Digital Archaeology (IDA) chose the head of a horse of Selene, which adorned the right end of the Parthenon's East pediment, as their first work of perfect reproduction.

“It's one of the most well-known works of the Parthenon Sculptures in the British Museum, and we chose it for that very reason, because one of the things we're trying to show with this installation is how great the technology is, how close to the original we can be with this reconstruction. Because it shows an animal reaching the limits of its effort, it's really an incredible sculpture," said Mr. Michael.

"It's chilling, this accuracy! I think it's great that we can feed information into a machine that makes a perfect copy of a work made by a human hand. The magic of it is amazing," Dame Janet Suzman, the Chair of the  tells ERT.

Ms. Suzman, a multi-award winning actress was introduced to the plight of these sculptures, and the campaign by “ the tornado that was Melina Mercouri when she came here to the UK and swept us all along with her, she was a strong wind. And we were like autumn leaves falling and that's when I got excited," as she described her meeting with the culture Minister at the time.

Shuttershock image, user ID 361013921. Photo of Jane Suzman with Melina Mercouri and Vanessa Redgrave 

The Institute for Digital Archaeology (IDA) is proposing to replace the Parthenon sculptures in the British Museum with exact replicas, something that covers the museum's argument as an educational institution and at the same time restores the Greeks' connection to their ancient heritage.

The debate has been intense in recent months about the Greek request, the people support it as shown by the opinion polls, and the Chair of the British Museum, George Osborne himself said that "an agreement is possible". But has the time for such an agreement arrived?

"Greeks love sculptures not only because they represent Greece in that part of history. Greece has many sculptures from the fifth century that do a much better job than these objects of representing this art. They love these works because of what they represent. They are part of their national pride, their heritage, for sentimental reasons, and that is why the originals must return to Greece. Britain needn't care about any of this. It's not their story. It is not their national heritage. It's not their national pride," Roger Michael told ERT.

Asked if she thought the British Museum would take up the idea, Dame Suzman replied: “ It's very imaginative at the moment. That seems to be the case. They haven't gotten there yet. But I think they will. Because they have to. They need to get their feet out of the mud. They are stuck in the mud. They are stuck."

"For 200 years, these things did their job, to awaken British academic, historical, social circles, and the awareness of the classical world was a huge resurgence of research and science , which these guys did," she says, pointing to sculpted replica of the horse's head.

"As my grandmother would say, enough already. They have to go home. They have to go." Dame Suzman stated categorically.

Roger Michael reveals to ERT that he spoke to the Chair of the British Museum, George Osborne in the summer and "there is no doubt that this will happen".

George Osborne has already told The Times "there is a deal that can be done".

The founder of the Digital Technology Institute said Greece's Ambassador, Ioannis Raptakis was speaking directly to Mr Osborne and he thought "negotiations are going very well."

Mr. Michael emphasized that, " in fact, I would not be surprised if when the Prime Minister of Greece comes to England next week he makes some very optimistic announcement. George Osborne is very clever. He is very successful. He's a politician, but he's also the publisher of a major newspaper, so he not only understands politics, but how to communicate politics. He is a man who cares about his heritage. He does not want to be the last who against the moral judgment of the whole world hangs from these things like grim death. He wants to be the man who finds a solution to a 200-year-old conflict and to be a hero, here in Britain but also in Greece, that's the person he wants to be. I guarantee you that's what I got from talking to him. And this is what I take from the knowledge of people who know him. But Ambassador Raptakis is exactly the same, a very pragmatic man but also a man who I think also cares about his legacy and would like nothing better than to be the man who negotiates an agreement ," Mr. Michael pointed out, noting that the problem may be the word to be used, however diplomacy is working in this direction and he thinks "we will hear some good news very soon."

Roger Michel of the Institute of Digital Archaeology (IDA), the 3D sculpted horse's head at the Freud Museum and Ambassador Ioannis Raptakis, Greece's Ambassador to the UK

ERT asked the British Museum about the new proposal and received the following answer:

”There are replicas of the British Museum Parthenon Sculptures in the Acropolis Museum, where they are displayed alongside the sculptures that remained in Athens. Our Greek colleagues from the Acropolis Museum have been to the British Museum in 2013 and 2017 to scan sculptures from the Parthenon."

The horse's head is on display at the Freud Museum in London. "The construction time of the copy was about two months, while it costed about 100 thousand euros"  explained Alexi Karenovska, Director of Technology of the Institute of Digital Archaeology and added that "the next copy will be the depiction of the Battle of the Titans from the Metopian fragment of Parthenon, also in the British Museum."

The first exact copy of the Parthenon Sculptures, the Selene's horse head in the British Museum with the help of 3D digital technology took its place in history, reviving hope for the repatriation of the originals to the Acropolis Museum.

Interview by: Evdoxia Lymberi, to read the article online and watch the news bulletin, follow the link to ertnews.gr here.

All News from Greece and the World @ ertnews.gr

Yannis Andritsopoulos, London Correspondent for Ta Nea, Greece's daily newspaper reporting on yesterday's peaceful protest at the British Museum.

The first-ever ‘protest concert’ held in the British Museum’s Duveen Gallery took place in London yesterday, Thursday 20 June 2019. This also marked the Acropolis Museum’s 10th anniversary with singer and songwriter Hellena performing her song for the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles.

This peaceful protest took place in the British Museum’s Parthenon Gallery. Hellena sang '‘The Parthenon Marbles (bring them back)', which she has written in support of the campaign for the return of the Parthenon Marbles. The song was performed, a capella, 10 times – once for every anniversary year of the Acropolis Museum.

“I wanted the Museum’s visitors to learn the truth and those who run the Museum to understand that there is no way we can stop asking for the Parthenon Marbles to be returned,” Hellena told Ta Nea, Greece’s daily newspaper. “I am very proud of this song, which fully reflects my beliefs and feelings, but also the feelings of millions of people all over the world.”

Hellena’s song was released yesterday, 20 June 2019, to coincide with the 10th anniversary of the opening of the Acropolis Museum – where she believes the marbles should be housed once they are returned to Greece. The song will be used by organisations around the world to “raise awareness of an injustice dating back over 200 years.”

The protest was held in collaboration with the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles (BCRPM) and the International Organising Committee - Australia - for the Restitution of the Parthenon Marbles.

“Hellena is a beautiful and talented singer and songwriter, whose soul has connected to the plight of the surviving and fragmented Parthenon Marbles. A 200 years old request and yet for young people today, it is a new call, perhaps just 10 years old, the anniversary of the superlative Acropolis Museum,” Marlen Godwin, BCRPM’s spokesperson, told Ta Nea.

“For all generations the art of music brings hope and it is hope that will keep this cause alive forever. We thank Hellena for her song and look to the day when music may change the plight of these sculptures for millions to appreciate what the ancients hoped we’d understand and what one, very special museum can do to show respect for an equally special museum, a home to a Parthenon Gallery where this peerless collection is exhibited the right way around, in context and with views to the Parthenon, which still stands. As generation Z look to visit museums for physical spaces they can invest in, communities they can engage with and belong to, it is time for the British Museum to look for other exemplars for Room 18 and allow the sculptures from the Parthenon still in London to re-join their halves in Athens,” she added.

On 7 June 1816, British Parliament voted to purchase from Lord Elgin his collection of sculpted marbles from the Parthenon and elsewhere on the Acropolis of Athens.Despite repeated requests from Greece and elsewhere to find a way to reunite them, these have remained in the British Museum.

On 20 June 2009, the Acropolis Museum in Athens was opened to the public. Since it opened it has welcomed over 14 million visitors from all over the world. The missing sculptures, those still in the UK, are exhibited as casts.

This news report was published in Ta Nea, Greece’s daily newspaper (www.tanea.gr) on 21 June 2019 and to read the Greek version of this article, please click here.

To hear Hellena's song, click here.

TAN The Art Newspaper 23 November 2021

Martin Bailey reports on the classified documents on the sculptures from the Parthenon, compiled in 1991. 

David Miers, became British Ambassador in Athens in 1989 and in 1991 organised a visit to Athens for the then Conservative arts minister Timothy Renton. After this visit, David Miers wrote a report for the Foreign Office which was passed on to the Office of Arts and Libraries (a precursor to the government’s culture department). In this report the UK Ambassador referred to the Parthenon Marbles as an "issue on which we can never win: the best we can do is to keep our heads down as far as possible: and avoid using defensive arguments here in Greece which will sound hollow in Greek ears.”

“For instance I do not think the argument about the trustees of the museum is a very good one for use here. The Greeks know that we could legislate [to allow deaccessioning] if we wanted: the problem for them is that we don’t want [to].” 

A separate letter in the file argues that the Marbles would be safer in London than Athens. A foreign office official wrote that the British government cited “environmental concerns as further reasons for keeping the Marbles in their controlled environment in the British Museum”, in view of “severe air pollution in Athens”.

Then in 2009 the Acropolis Museum opened, and  this year the British Museum has closed Room 18 for maintenance. Reports of the leaking glass roof began in December 2019 and in January and February 2020 heaters where placed in this room whilst in the summer months, the fire exit door was left open for ventilation, underlining the lack of climate controls. This year's closure of Room 18 continues.

During his meeting with Prime Minister Johnson, Greece's Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis pointed out that Greece still holds the UK government responsible for the continued presence of the Marbles in the British Museum.

To read the full article, please follow the link here.

Telegraph 26 November 2021

The Telegraph article cites The Art Newspaper article quoting the British Ambassador to Greece, Sir David Miers, admitting that the UK would not win the argument on the division of the Parthenon Marbles between Athens and London.

The Telegraph also picks up on a letter written by Johnson in 2012 when he was Mayor of London, where he admits that the sculptures from the Parthenon "should have never been removed from the Acropolis."

Saturday 27 November 2021, TA NEA

UK Correspondent Yannis Andritsopoulos interviews Denis MacShane and writes about the opportunity to reunite the sculptures when Tony Blair became Prime Minister.

Denis MacShane goes on to add that he'd met up with George Osborne at a recent function and the matter of the sculptures was raised, however George Osborne, just into his position as the new Chair of the British Museum, was 'full of contempt'.

George Osborne as part of the establishment will no doubt feel that he can be dismissive on this issue and follow the well rehearsed example of successive British Museum Directors and Chairs of the Trustees.

When Hartwig Fisher described the continued division of the Parrthenon Marbles as 'creative', the media world exploded, and when Prime Minister Boris Johnson met with Prime Minister Mitsotakis failing yet again to accept the UK governments responsibility, the media world found more letters and documents to prove that this dismissive attitude by the UK Government is not new. And yet times are changing. Where will the UK stand as more museums are doing their best to return artefacts removed from countries of origin where the voice of that nation, at that time, was not to be heard? History doesn't have to be rewritten for old wrongs to be put right, for there are cases when we can do better than just roll out contempt.

George Osborne made his first official speechduring a dinner held at the British Museum by the Trsutee on Wednesday 24 November. And in reading it, one can but conclude that there will be no visionary changes at the British Museum, with the exception of the new Museum in Nigeria to house the Benin Bronzes.This museum is designed by architect David Adjaye.

Angelina Giovani from Flynn & Giovani, Art Provenance Research took to twitter to respond to Emily Sheffield's Evening Standard article. It's a thread that deserves to be conserved. Thank you Angelina.

You can read Angelina Giovani's thread on 'The Provebance Research Blog' which responds to Emily Sheffield's Evening Standard article: "I’m sorry, dear Greeks, but the Elgin Marbles simply must stay here."

Armand D’Angour is Professor of Classics at the University of Oxford. He has written previously for Antigone on the music of Sophocles’ Ode to Man, on the Song of Seikilos inscription, on Sappho and Catulluse, and on a mysterious graffito at Abu Simbel in Egypt here.

Tista Austin grew up in Cambridge and is a teacher and poet. She studied Classics at University College London.

Both Armand and Tista wrote in Antigone, an open forum for Classics in the twenty-first century. In the 'About' section of this forum it reads: 'the contributors to Antigone are united by a love of Classics. To be sure, not every idea from Classical antiquity deserves to be defended, and we enthusiastically invite critical analysis of those that may be wrong. On the whole, however, our writers do seek to uphold and promote ideals that held sway thousands of years ago: open enquiry, robust debate and the unfettered exploration of ideas.'

And so Armand wrote about the return of the Parthenon Marbles or Sculptures, Tista wrote about retaining this peerless collection in the British Museum. Currently, the surviving pieces, and approximately half are exhibited the right way round in the Acropolis Museum with direct views to the Parthenon. The other half that was removed when Greece was under Ottoman rule, are in the British Museum's Room 18, exhibited facing inwards. Some fragments did make their way to other museums, and there have been returns from the University of Heidelberg (2006), the Fagan fragment from A. Salinas Museum in Palermo (2022), and the Vatican Museum (2023). The Acropolis Musum continues to hope for return of pieces from Copenhagen, London, Munich, Paris, Vienna and Würzburg. 

Read the debate on 'return or retain' in Antigone, and if you wish, do vote, but do take care as the question is a positive response for the Parthenon Marbles or Sulptures, to remain in UK. And 'Elgin Marbles' is a lot more than what Greece is requesting.

The poll concluded with 44.53% voting to Retain the Parthenon Marbles in the BM, 45.68% to Returnthem to Athens, and 9.79% 'I Just Don't Know'.

Saturday 22 July, 2023, the Aspects of History pocast with Oliver Webb-Carter discussed the long running culural conundrum that keeps the Parthenon Marbles mainly divided between two great museums of the world: the Acropolis Museum, Athens and the British Museum, London.

Aspects of History's editor, Oliver welcomed Paul Cartledge, ancient historian and the author of countless books on ancient Greece with Dr Tessa Dunlop, author, biographer and presenter.

BCRPM congratulate the British Museum for the hugely successful 'Rodin And the Art of Ancient Greece' exhibition (26 April - 29 July 2018) and Janet Suzman, BCRPM's Chair, adds that this is the right time to consider reuniting the sculptures from the Parthenon in the Acropolis Museum. 

12 April 2018, Philip Stephens wrote in the Financial Times:

The west's great museums should return their looted treasures.
He refers to the case of the Parthenon Marbles: "To my mind, it also seems perfectly obvious that Lord Byron was right and the Parthenon sculptures belong to Athens, whatever the deal struck by Lord Elgin and the then Ottoman rulers of Greece. I concede, though, that this is a dispute with some way to run. But "hard" cases should not be allowed to obstruct just settlement in instances of egregious looting. The wider debate may not go away, but restitution in these cases would take the museums on to higher ethical ground."

23 April 2018, Donald Lee for the Art Newspaper, wrote: 

Rodin's debt to Parthenon sculptures explored in British Museum exhibition.

In the exhibition Rodin and the Art of Ancient Greece, the British Museum makes clear Rodin's close study and use of the museum's own ancient Greek art for the development of his sculpture.

To read the full article, click here 

24 April 2018 , Melanie Mcdonagh writes in the Evening Standard

Rodin and the Art of Ancient Greece Reviewed. The master sculptor meets the Greek greats at the British Museum.

If ever there were an exhibition that plays to a museum's strengths, it's this one. Rodin and the Art of Ancient Greece is about the artist's obsession with Greek statuary in general and the Elgin Marbles in particular. So the exhibition is a kind of dialogue between Rodin and the artefacts of the museum, which he first visited in 1881 and loved.

24 April 2018, Jonathan Jones writes in the Guardian:

British Museum, London
The Frenchman made some of the best loved sculptures in the world. But his magnificent work is still no match for the Parthenon Marbles. My god, what art!

26 April 2018, Michael Glover also reveiwed the Rodin exhibition in the Independent. He wrote that there's 'a lovely, easy panache to this show'.

26 April 2018, the Greek Ambassador in London, H E Dimitris Caramitsos-Tziras wrote to Hartwig Fischer, Director of the British Museum, you can read his letter here.

28 April, 2018, Hettie Judah's article entitled: 'Rodin and the Art of Ancient Greece, British Museum, review: remarkably handsome and unabashedly sensual'. 

The exhibition is not so gauche as to explicitly suggest the influence of the Elgin Marbles on Rodin as any kind of rationale for keeping them at the museum – more it acknowledges the regard in which they were and are held by artists, and the influence they have had on Western European sculpture.

To read BCRPM's press release, visit here.

05 January 2022, The Telegraph

Nick Squires in the Telegraph: 'Britain should put best foot forward like Italy and give Elgin Marbles back, says Greece.'Athens museum chief hopes return of stone foot fragment from Sicily will put pressure on British Museum to return large friezes.'

“Good for Sicily,” said Janet Suzman, the chairman of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles. “We expect the British Museum to make a more magnanimous gesture.

I cannot think of a single argument in favour of keeping the legacy of Greece locked in Bloomsbury. Certain things must be returned and the Parthenon Marbles deserve to be reunited in the Acropolis Museum.”

To read the article in full, follow the link to the Telegraph.

The Guardian, Angela Giuffrida

Italy returns Parthenon fragment to Greece amid UK row over marbles.

Loan deal could renew pressure on Britain to repatriate ancient Parthenon marbles to Athens.

The Antonino Salinas Regional Archaeological Museum in Palermo, Sicily, returns to the Acropolis Museum, the foot of a goddess for a loan period of four years to be extended by a further four years. However, the move back to Greece could eventually become permanent.

The fragment was loaned to Greece in 2002 and in 2008. Sicily’s councillor for culture, Alberto Samonà said the latest transfer could become permanent, but that it would be up to the Italian culture ministry to take the measures needed to make that happen.

To read the article in full, follow the link to the Guardian.

Acropolis Museum, 03 January 2022

Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis speaking (in Greek) on Monday 03 January at the Acropolis Museum when 10 Parthenon Marble fragments were transferred from the National Archaeological Museum to the Acropolis Museum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gozU5WyrOoM

"Precious fragments of the Parthenon Sculptures were reunited today in the Acropolis Museum. It was a small but significant step, and I hope others now play their part in completing this important journey to reunify a truly unique monument of human civilisation."

Yannis Andritsopoulos reports in Ta Nea on 21 September 2019: Britain has rejected Greece’s request to hold talks on returning the Parthenon Marbles after Athens proposed a meeting between experts from the two countries, it can be revealed.

Ta Nea, Greece’s daily newspaper, has obtained a letter written last year by Jeremy Wright the then culture secretary, which states that the UK will not enter a discussion with Greece about the permanent reunification of the sculptures.

“If the expert meeting is being convened to discuss (the Marbles’) permanent transfer (to Greece), the British Museum cannot participate in further discussion on this issue,” the UK culture secretary wrote on December 3, 2018.

Wright was responding to a letter written by his Greek counterpart, Lydia Koniordou, in which she asked the British government to discuss the matter with Greece “at the appropriate interstate level”.

Koniordou sent her letter on August 10, 2018 and suggested that “a bilateral expert meeting” should take place in Athens “preferably in October or November 2018”.

However, Wright’s response to this request arrived four months later. His letter was addressed to Myrsini Zorba, who had since replaced Koniordou as Greece’s culture minister.

In his letter, the British culture secretary rejected Greece’s invitation, telling his Greek counterpart that any request regarding the Parthenon Marbles should be submitted to the British Museum rather than the British government.

“As is very well known, the Parthenon sculptures in London are owned by and are the legal responsibility of the Trustees of the British Museum, which is independent of Government, and they have been on permanent and prominent public display at the museum for the last two hundred years,” the letter reads.

Wright goes on to say that “the Trustees believe that the British Museum is the best place for the sculptures to be seen in the context of their rich contribution to the history of the whole of humanity. The UK Government fully supports the Trustees' position on the sculptures.”

Responding to Greece’s request for a bilateral meeting in Athens, Wright stresses that it is the British Museum, rather than the government, that should participate.

“The British Museum would therefore be an essential contributor, and indeed lead on any meaningful expert meeting concerning the Parthenon sculptures in their collection and, accordingly, my officials have sought their opinion on Ms Koniordou's proposal.”

However, the British Museum advised that it would not take part in such talks. Subsequently, the Greek government’s request was rejected by the UK government.

“The British Museum's view is that if the expert meeting is being convened to discuss permanent transfer, they cannot participate in further discussion on this issue. Their position on this is very clear, including on the historical, cultural, legal and ethical dimensions of the case, which have been explored at length in recent decades,” the letter reads.

Wright adds, however, that “the Trustees will consider any request for any part of the collection to be borrowed and then returned, provided the borrowing institution acknowledges the British Museum's ownership and that the normal loan conditions are satisfied.”

However, Greece insists that it is the rightful owner of the Parthenon Marbles. The Greek government says that the sculptures were illegally removed from the Parthenon during the Ottoman occupation of Greece in the early 1800s.

‘Deep cultural trauma’

Responding to Wright, Zorba sent her counterpart a letter dated May 30, 2019, in which she says that the ‘dismembered’ Parthenon Marbles “constitute an open wound to a World Heritage Site of the stature of the Acropolis. This is nothing less than a deep cultural trauma in the eyes of mankind.”

Zorba adds that “the return and-re-integration of the Parthenon Marbles remains a firm demand”, stressing that maintaining a dialogue on the issue is “an objective of major importance and of cultural responsibility towards both History and the moral order.”

“We would be willing to participate in it, provided it will not be rendered unrealistic through the insistence on such kinds of prerequisites. We call upon you to re-examine all of the facts, in order for us to be able to resume a well-meaning sincere dialogue, free from prerequisites or binding admissions and able to bear fruit in the future,” Greece’s then culture minister says.

The UK government has not responded to this letter. However, on June 10, 2019, arts minister Rebecca Pow wrote a letter to Dame Janet Suzman, Chair of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles, in which she repeated word for word Jeremy Wright’s response to Zorba.

Dame Janet had previously written to Wright, saying that “the Government and the British Museum must attempt to show respect for the Parthenon and therefore also for its sculptures”.

“Keeping these very specific sculptures divided smacks of imperialism, an era we surely cannot continue to pay homage to without seriously re-considering the mood of the world we live in. Continued excuses not to reunite this peerless collection ring hollow,” she stressed.

Athens has repeatedly called for the permanent return of the 2,500-year-old sculptures that Lord Elgin removed from the Acropolis temple. The British Museum has consistently ruled out giving back the marbles, saying they were acquired legally.

“With an overwhelming sense of awe for the comprehensiveness of the collections in the British Museum, I yet cannot help being equally overwhelmed by its sense of superiority. The same rather smug ownership song is being sung,” Dame Janet Suzman told Ta Nea.

“Can the Director and Trustees not see that there is a different mood in the world? Can they not see that the Duveen Gallery is just one of a myriad of world exhibitions under its impressive roof?,” she added.

“Can they not admit that millions of their visitors find that they have entirely missed the Marbles due to other fascinations? In any case the visitor figures the BM gives out never indicate a figure for those who specifically visit the Marble galleries.”

“The New Acropolis Museum in Athens has an entirely more focussed task; it stands in sight of the Parthenon, and every floor of it is concentrated on the glories that were Greece. The spaces that should be filled by the BM’s Parthenon collection are a painful lacuna.”

“Every decent impulse for reunification should be awakened and seriously discussed by the both the BM Trustees and the British Government instead of repeatedly providing statutory replies. Depressingly they are not. When will they both wake from their Rip van Winkle-ish slumbers and realise the world has changed? The Empire is so very over.”

“Ex-Director Neil MacGregor himself says that the British think of their past in order to comfort themselves, whereas the Germans (he is a student of German history) reflect on their history in order to look to the future. They should start to emulate that honesty before another period of intellectual arthritis sets in,” Dame Janet added.

Published in Ta Nea, Greece’s daily newspaper (www.tanea.gr)    

Publication date: 21 September 2019   

English version: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/exclusive-uk-turned-down-greek-request-experts-return-andritsopoulos

Original version (in Greek): https://www.tanea.gr/print/2019/09/21/politics/agapitoi-ellinescrta-glypta-anikouncrsto-mouseio-mas/

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s last minute cancellation of his meeting with Prime Minister Mitsotakis over the Parthenon Sculptures this week has caused a diplomatic row between Greece and the UK, with Athens calling Sunak’s decision “unprecedented” and “disrespectful.” Bruce Clark, a contributor to The Economist with a long expertise on Greece and the author of the recent book Athens, City of Wisdom, which dives into the story of Lord Elgin and the Parthenon Sculptures, joins Thanos Davelis to discuss this latest move by Downing Street that is putting the issue of the Parthenon Sculptures back in the spotlight.

Bruce Clark is also a member of the BCRPM.

Listen to this episode of the Greek Current Podast.

British Museum 'huge breakthrough', a propaganda stunt according to the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles

The announcement of a "huge breakthrough" by the British Museum, with the discovery of blue paint on some figures from the Parthenon Marbles, looks uncommonly like a propaganda stunt, timed to divert attention from the opening of the New Acropolis Museum in Athens.

The original presence of colour on the Parthenon Marbles has been a matter of common knowledge for years. What is more, ordinary viewers can still see, with their own eyes, traces of it (in this case, dark green) surviving on the drapery in at least one of the original slabs, from the West Frieze of the Parthenon, which is in the new museum in Athens.

Professor Anthony Snodgrass, Chairman of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles commented "it hardly needs 'a new imaging technique' to tell us what we can see for ourselves."

No doubt the British Museum's sculptures also once preserved some of their colour - that is, until Lord Duveen's drastic "cleaning" operation of 1937- 1938, which was designed deliberately to erase any trace of patina or colour.

"By all means let the debates over the proper care of the Parthenon Marbles continue - but on a grown-up level, please" concludes Professor Anthony Snodgrass.

Professor Anthony Snodgrass is a Fellow of the British Academy and Professor Emeritus of Classical Archaeology, University of Cambridge. The British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures (www.parthenonuk.com) has been established since 1983.

Ends: Issued on behalf of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles on 26 June 2009, press contact Marlen Taffarello 07789533791/01780 46145 or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. / This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.