“Any holders of Parthenon Sculptures outside Greece to return them forthwith to Athens, where they can be reunited with their brothers and sisters”, the distinguished historian of the University of Cambridge, Dr. Paul Cartledge, stated in Kathimerini. Vice-Chairman of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles and a 50-year scholar of ancient Greek history, he congratulates the tireless struggle of the Greeks for the return of their stolen antiquities, while stressing the favourable climate in the UK for the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles.

“YouGov polls regularly register above 60 percent support for reunification” argues Professor Cartledge, explaining that “The UK’s main journal of record, The Times, has recently flipped its longstanding editorial policy – from a retentionist to a reunificatory stance”.

Regarding the problems of the sculptures' storage at the British Museum, Cartledge, critical of the British Museum, also stresses their poor conservation, focusing among other things on the issue of dampness in Room 18, as well as the series of thefts by the former curator of the Greek and Roman wings. According to Dr. Cartledge, «The Museum’s repeated claim to have been an exemplary caretaker of ‘its’ Marbles since 1817 has also been exploded on two academic fronts: a) by the late William St Clair, exposing the hushed-up, irreparable damage (‘skinning’) inflicted on frieze sculptures on Lord Duveen’s orders in the late 1930s; and lately b) by international human rights lawyer Professor Catharine Titi exposing the fragility of the UK’s original claim to legality of purchase in 1816”.

The timeline of the sale of the sculptures is set four years after the removal of the sculptures from the Acropolis, but personal debts lead Lord Elgin to submit a proposal to the British Museum to sell the stolen sculptures, estimating their value at £35,000, with the British Parliament accepting Elgin's offer. From then on, the sculptures began to be exhibited at the British Museum with the newly-established Greek state making the first request for their return in 1835.

But did Lord Elgin have the right to sell the sculptures? According to Dr. Cartledge, who relies on the legal assumptions presented in the book, “The Parthenon Marbles and International Law”, “the UK does have legal title to ‘ownership’ of the British Museum holdings, but only with regards to domestic law. Contrariwise it is evidenced that Lord Elgin’s title to what he sold to the U.K. for £35,000 in 1816 was anything but Acropolis rock-solid. So far, despite rigorous searches in Ottoman archives, the best that ‘retentionist’ defenders of the UK and the BM can dredge up is an Italian translation of a permit issued by an Ottoman high-up, not formally carrying the imprimatur of the Sultan himself, allowing Elgin’s men to pick up marbles lying around on the ground and copy stones bearing figures – no mention of hacking worked marbles off the extant Temple itself and having them shipped at great risk of further damage to the UK”.

“Conclusively, one of the issues at the heart of that ancient-history debate is the existence or nonexistence of any sort of official Ottoman firman authorizing Elgin and his cohorts to damage the Acropolis. On the other hand,”, Professor Cartledge adds, “the reunification requires at least one, possibly two Acts of Parliament to be either amended or rescinded: a) of “1816” about the purchasing of and the claim to ownership of the Elgin Collection including the Parthenon Sculptures and, b) of “1963”, “Museums Act”. That requires parliamentary time and support. The present (Tory) UK government is dead against even talking about any legislative change, for example, witness the UK PM’s recent extreme discourtesy to the Greek PM. The Chair of the British Museum Trustees is, therefore, unable to help the Greek government directly, even if he wanted to; his talk about a ‘deal’ is just that – “hot air”.

After two centuries of claims by the Greek State, the provocative fashion show in the Duveen Hall, in front of the Greek antiquities, provoked the anger of the Greek Ministry of Culture, with the Minister of Culture Lina Mendoni speaking of "zero respect", while the British media reiterated the conflict between the two governments and the Greek demand for the return of the sculptures.

As vice-chairman of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles, Professor Cartledge argues for the reunification of the sculptures on Greek soil, stressing, “Outside Athens and Greece any Parthenon Marbles held abroad risk looking like imperial loot without much if any current cultural-political significance”. At the same time, he underlines, “The Parthenon was a temple of as well as on the Acropolis, so any sculptures therefrom that survive but cannot be re-placed on what remains of the temple itself should be reunited in the dedicated Acropolis Museum”.

Highlighting the historical and cultural value of the Parthenon, the distinguished academic elaborates on the argument of return by explaining that, “due to a series of historic conjunctions, like the liberation of the new state of Greece from the Ottoman empire, end of the Ottoman empire, growth of representative democracy, the increased importance of the Parthenon as a symbol of the world’s first democracy or ‘people-power’, division of Europe – and the world -  between democracies and autocracies, Parthenon stands as a symbol of both cultural excellence and political freedoms, and even more importantly so. Therefore”, he adds, “any holders of Parthenon Marbles/Sculptures outside Greece to return them forthwith to Athens, where they can be reunited with their brothers and sisters in a fully appropriate space”.

In summary, the Emeritus Professor of Cambridge argues that the return of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece will influence the global debate on the return of stolen antiquities to their place of origin, pointing out that, “The Parthenon Marbles is, in fact, a unique case, without implications for the fate of any other ‘restitution’ case, but, even so, reunifying the Parthenon Marbles back in Athens would have a mega impact on other legitimate claims for repatriation currently being lodged against the British Museum, above all perhaps that for the Benin Bronzes”.

This article was first published in ekathimerini and writte by Athanasios Katsikidis.

To read the article in Greek, follow the link here.

The 14 texts which follow, each reflecting the writer’s viewpoint, are so rich and comprehensive that it is impossible for an introduction to fully encompass their essence. In most cases, the beginning, middle and end of the text refers to the barbaric act committed by Elgin.

I have therefore chosen not to repeat those well-known, well-rehearsed and well-discussed issues. Instead, I chose to contribute certain new arguments to the cause of returning and reunifying the marbles or sculptures of the Parthenon in the Acropolis Museum, which is their newly designated place of protection and display, a place that stands in close dialogue with the very monument from which those severed members originally came.

As a rich body of international bibliography on the subject makes clear, it is now obvious to all that the so-called firman which Thomas Bruce, the Earl of Elgin and ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1799-1803, is supposed to have procured from the Supreme Porte, in other words from Sultan Selim III, does not exist. If such a document had existed, it would have been submitted to the examining committee of the British House of Commons in 1816 – and the whole question of legality, and restitution claims by the Greek state, would have taken a different turn.

According to Elgin’s testimony to the committee, the original document sent by the Turkish authorities to Athens was lost. The Reverend Philip Hunt, the ambassador’s assistant, offered in testimony what he could recollect, 14 years later, of a translation of a French version of the original firman into Italian and later rendered into English.

However:

ONE

Official firmans of the sultan were always made in two copies, of which one was kept in the official archives and the other was sent to the designated recipient. In the course ofall the investigations made hitherto, the original, archived version of the firman has never been found.

TWO
Genuine firmans were despatched through a special designated messenger or an authorized individual or delivered by captains of the Turkish navy. In this case the so-called firman was brought to Athens by Philip Hunt, Elgin’s assistant.

THREE
For the actions that Elgin was seeking to undertake on the Acropolis, formal permission was indeed necessary because according to an unwritten Ottoman law, marble in all its forms – works of art, ancient or otherwise, and the raw material itself – belonged to the sultan. All the more so if marbles were to be removed from such a well preserved surviving decoration of a monument that was well respected by Ottoman officials as a “temple of the idols” – namely the Parthenon.

Thanks to the authentic firmans that were issued over the years for various purposes, we can ascertain what a genuine sultan’s firman looked like, what formalities it observed, what turns of phrase and calligraphy were used, and all its other features. I will not enumerate the hundreds of examples that might be mentioned. I will focus instead on two sultan’s firmans which are of immediate relevance, because they concern two protagonists of our story – Lord Elgin and Lord Byron. They are also, of course, close chronologically. The first is dated 1802 and was brought to light by Dyfri Williams. It is the official passport-firman granted to Elgin which authorized his trip to Athens and the Aegean archipelago. The second was granted to Byron in 1810 and is presented here for the first time, thanks to the generosity of a particular individual. It is the official travel document which was issued to Byron: its interpretation and presentation are the work of Ilias Kolovos, a scholar of Ottoman history.

When one compares these two original passport-firmans, they turn out to be very much alike in format, despite the fact that Sultan Selim III died in 1808 and was replaced on the throne by Mustafa IV. If we then compare those two documents – the one issued to Elgin and the one granted to Byron, which is available to us in Turkish (in Roman script) as well as English translation – with the so-called firman granted to Elgin which supposedly allowed him to remove sculptures from the Parthenon – at least according to the Italian translation, and its later English rendering. It becomes clear – as was demonstrated by the Ottomanist scholar Vasilis Dimitriadis at a conference on the Parthenon and its sculptures – that Elgin’s so-called permit is anything but a genuine sultan’s firman. He would have needed to get the personal authorization of the sultan, instead of merely relying – as he did - on the deputy to the Grand Vizier, Sejid Abdullah. That deputy was standing in because the actual Grand Vizier – Kor Yusuf Ziyauddin Pasha, otherwise known as Djezzar, (the butcher) – was at the time in Egypt.

Given that the so-called permit for the removal of the sculptures was not a genuine sultan’s act, but merely a decision issued by the deputy to the Grand Vizier – assuming that the Italian translation is real and accurate –how can anyone justify the still-adamant denial by the British authorities and the British Museum that what took place was an act of vandalism – indeed, a plundering of sculptures that were integral to the monument, constituent parts of the Parthenon? Or justify their refusal to return and reunify the marbles in the Acropolis Museum?

To put it more bluntly, how is it that certain officials – in the British Museum and elsewhere in Britain – still regard as acceptable a flawed purchase in 1816, and an arbitrary decision by Parliament in 1963, insofar as these relate to the ongoing captivity of the Parthenon marbles?

This is not the place to delve deep into the reasons for that insistence. Let me focus instead on some initiatives aimed at resolving the issue, in accordance with the realities of the 21st century. In addition to the strong and respectable arguments laid out by many people over two centuries – especially by Melina Mercouri in 1982-83 – all the way up to 2021, a number of developments stand out.

ONE
In September 2021, UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property (ICPRCP) adopted a decision which clearly recognizes Greece’s aspirations as rational, justified and ethical. It also affirmed the intergovernmental nature of the dispute and called for consultations between Britain and Greece.

TWO
A particular methodology was followed in the return and reintegration of the so-called Fagan fragment from Palermo. This was the first return which was treated as a matter from State to State. Initially, in January 2022, the return was presented as an unspecified “deposit” – and then, in June 2022, came the permanent reintegration of the fragment into the Parthenon frieze: an act that was underpinned not merely by legal norms and technicalities but also by the friendship between two nations - Greece on one hand, Italy and in particular Sicily on the other – who share common values.

THREE
In March 2023, Pope Francis returned three fragments of the Parthenon, as an expression of universal truth, for the definitive reunification of the monument’s scattered sculptures.
The British government and the British Museum would do well to ponder the significance all these developments, while also considering certain other factors such as:

ONE
The consistent majority of British public opinion [in favour of return]

TWO
The continued support expressed by the near-entirety of the British press

THREE
International public opinion, which favours the reunification of this world-renowned monument…so that it can be properly presented in all its integrity as a work of supreme architectural and sculptural beauty; and experienced as a symbol of democracy by people of allgenerations and national origins.

And in case those arguments fail to persuade doubters of the moral soundness of Greece’s case, I will add yet another one.

Over the past few decades, there have been some well-known cases of restitution of art works – for example to Italy or to Africa. Such returns have even been made by Britain. Let me specify one example.

On August 1, 2008, the upper section of a funerary monument was returned to Greece from New York.

It was made of Pentelic marble and it dates from the late fifth century – about 410 BCE, shortly after the completion of the Parthenon. Μy Professor George Despinis, as early as 1993, had proven that the piece came from a funerary monument whose lower half had been discovered in the soil of Attica – in Porto Rafti – and was then conserved in the Museum of Βrauron in Attica.

After some negotiations, the purchasers of the upper part – who were American citizens –gave that segment back to Greece, while Greece acknowledged that the purchase had been made in good faith. The matter was settled and the two parts of the funerary monument are reunited in a Greek museum.

I will now refer to a rather similar case, concerning the Parthenon. The lower part of segment number XXVII of the Parthenon frieze – showing a charioteer, part of a chariot and a stable lad –is in the Parthenon Gallery, while the upper part is in the Duveen Gallery of the British Museum.

Just about anybody will readily understand the similarity of the two stories. In particular, the morally equivalent fate of the piece of marble that was broken off and plundered by Elgin’s team and the severed upper part of the funerary monument – while in both cases, the lower sections remained in the place where the works had been fashioned.

So given that the principle of repatriation was applied in the case of the artefact in New York, exactly the same norm should apply in the case of the broken segment from the northern side of the Parthenon frieze.

One could of course take the argument further and note that in the case of the funerary monument, the buyer was in legal terms an individual rather than a state; and then observe that under international law, no state can retroactively justify illegal acts by one of its citizens on foreign soil - given that in such cases international law supersedes anything enacted by local or national legislatures.

In view of all that, how can it be that a state, in this instance the British state, vindicates the vandalism and plunder perpetrated by one of its subjects? Considering that Elgin, as a private individual, committed an act of vandalism, along with his associates, and broke off sculptures from the Parthenon - only to transport them to England in order to decorate his home, where they would have stayed if he had not gone bankrupt.

People who persist in justifying the purchase of 1816 must surely accept this: the mostone might say is that this decision amounted to a “receipt of stolen goods” in good faith – as was the case with the purchase of upper part of the funerary monument from Brauron.

In no way can they justify the illegal actions of a British subject, Lord Elgin – in view of the considerations I have laid out.

Nor, by the same token, should any government οr state wish to carry the moral burden that results from such tainted acts. I believe the moment has come for our British friends to take a noble decision and rid themselves of the moral burden which Elgin - rashly, and in pursuit of personal gain – laid on Britain, the British Museum and the people of Britain.

The above text was the lead article in a Kathimerini supplement published 17 March 2024, entitled:H AΡΠΑΓΗ, 'Tthe Grab, Elgin and the Parthenon Sculptures'

In the same supplement BCRPM member Bruce Clark's article 'Laws, democracy and hypocrisy' was also plublished.

Photo credit for the images of Professor Stampolidis: Paris Tavitian 

On Thursday 28 March the announcement of the the appointment of a new Director for the British Museum.This followed on from Wednesday's news that on Tuesday, London's High Court ordered former curator at the British Museum, Peter Higgs accused of stealing hundreds of artefacts to provide the museum with a list of all items he is suspected of taking and to return those still in his possession.

Over 1,800 items were stolen from the British Museum and so far 356 have been returned.

Interim Director Sir Mark Jones was appointed last September in the wake of the crisis over thefts from the institution's collection. He set a target of five years for the BM’s complete collection, eight million objects, to be catalogued online, each with an image. With 60% of the BM's objects already digitalised, this target will be met.

To read the press release from the British Museum on the appointment of Dr Cullinan, follow the link here.

Dame Janet Suzman, Chair of BCRPM and Paul Cartledge, Vice-Chair of BCRPM and the IARPS welcomed the appointment of Mark Jones last year and following on from yesterday's announcement, a letter to welcome Dr Cullinan. Paul remembered Dr Cullinan giving him "a most gracious tour of an NPG exhibition." Janet is looking forward to the reimaging of the British Museum as it remains out of step with the cultural changes evolving in the rest of the museum world. "Of course the Parthenon Marbles case is unique, and we realise that Dr Cullinan will have a multitude of other issues to contend with and BCRPM wish him every success."

In the Times, George Osborne said Nicholas Cullinan had been chosen because of his “proven leadership today and great potential for tomorrow,” adding that the new director would help put the museum “back on the front foot.”

“He has shown his capacity as director of the National Portrait Gallery to oversee both a major physical renovation and a compelling renewal of purpose in a way that doesn’t take sides, but brings people together — and won universal acclaim. We believe he can achieve this, and more, on the bigger scale of the British Museum as we undertake a once-in-a-generation redevelopment.”

The Guardian describes Dr Cullinan as an energetic leader tasked with the British Museum overhaul. The profile article by David Batty highlights Cullinan's new role as needing "to draw on his fundraising skills to oversee its ambitious masterplan, a 10-year project, estimated to cost £1bn, to modernise its building in Bloomsbury, central London, and redisplay the entire collection." And mention of Dr Cullinan's friendship with Courtney Love, plus his favourite piece of music Jean-Philippe Rameau’s Tristes apprêts, from his 1737 opera Castor et Pollux, his love for Michael Jackson’s debut solo album, Off the Wall, and the American teen comedy Mean Girls.

In the New York Times, Alex Marshall writes that Cullinan is looking forward to taking the British Museum “into a new chapter.” Under his leadership, he expects the museum to undergo “significant transformations, both architectural and intellectual,” he added. “I can’t imagine a better challenge or opportunity to build on that than collectively reimagining the British Museum for the widest possible audience,” he said.

On the Museums Association article Cullinan said of the BM:“One of the greatest museums in the world, it is an honour to become the next director of the British Museum. I look forward to joining its wonderful and dedicated staff and to work with its hugely impressive board in leading it into a new chapter."

 “I want to pay tribute to my predecessors, most recently Sir Mark Jones, and look forward to building on their extraordinary achievements. Leading the remarkable transformation of the National Portrait Gallery over the last decade with its wonderful trustees, staff and supporters has been the honour of a lifetime and I can’t imagine a better challenge or opportunity to build on that than collectively reimagining the British Museum for the widest possible audience and future generations.”

Geraldine Kendall Adams in this artcle adds a section at the end aptly entitled: What’s on the agenda for the new director? There are four headings: theft scandal, masterplan, sponsorship and protest, repatriation.

Under Repatriation, Geraldine writes: Cullinan’s tenure at the British Museum could see significant developments in some of the UK’s longest-running repatriation disputes. Despite several setbacks, there is hope that the museum is close to reaching a “mutually beneficial” deal with the Greek authorities that would see the Parthenon sculptures return to Athens in exchange for rolling loans of other treasures from Ancient Greece.

The museum also recently announced plans to loan Asante royal regalia back to Ghana and is involved in projects to return other disputed artefacts on loan, including its Benin bronze holdings to Nigeria. Other high-profile repatriation cases include Rapa Nui’s demand for the return of two moai statues, Ethiopia’s bid to repatriate the Maqdala collection, and the Aboriginal Australian campaign for the return of the Gweagal Shield.

There are calls for a change in legislation to allow the British Museum and other nationals to fully repatriate objects rather than simply loaning them. This debate is likely to intensify in the coming years.

The campaign for the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles continues, and with that in mind, a reminder of what Richard Morrison wrote in The Times, last summer (11 August 2023)

"So the new director [of the British Musem] needs to be someone with acute diplomatic skills, excellent connections with whoever governs Britain after 2024, brilliant fundraising capabilities and a bold, inspiring vision for museums in the 21st century. I can think of only one person in Britain who has all of that, plus youth and energy. That’s Nicholas Cullinan, the director of the National Portrait Gallery, who has just finished supervising an intelligent and beautiful restoration of the NPG — on time, within budget and with a deftness that won praise from people on all sides of the cultural and political divides."

Image of Dr Nicholas Cullinan by Zoë Law, 2018 © Zoë Law

The Acropolis Museum and the Association of the Friends of the Museum of Aigai present a lecture by the Honorary Ephor of Antiquities, Dr Angeliki Kottaridi, entitled "The Palace of Philip II in Aigai: Monument-Landmark of Macedonia" which will take place on Wednesday 3 April 2024, at 6 p.m., at the Acropolis Museum.

Dr. Angeliki Kottaridi is responsible for the conservation of the restoration project of the palace of Aigai. She will briefly present the history of the research, the basic principles of conservation and restoration of the monument and the reasons why these were chosen.

The presentation will focus on the new evidence that emerged thanks to thorough research and analytical documentation that began in 2007 and was completed in 2023.

These elements helped in the restoration of the palace's form and the restoration of parts of it, while, in combination with historical sources, they shed light on the functions of the emblematic building, which is a milestone in the evolution of ancient architecture. This palace shaping the idea of enlightened hegemony, and is directly linked to major historical events that determined the course of Greece and the World.

The lecture will take place at the "Dimitrios Pandermalis" theatre and will be broadcast live on the Acropolis Museum website www.theacropolismuseum.gr (live streamed). 

To read the article by Helena Smith in the Guardian about the Palace of Aigai, the largest surviving classical Greek building, after its 16-year reconstruction was completed, follow the link here. The article also quotes historian, broadcaster and BCRPM member, Michael Wood.

The popular Athens String Quartet presents two works that, almost a century apart, opened new horizons for this particular composition of music. The focus is on two youthful compositions, starting with the string quartet in G minor by the impressionist Claude Debussy and closing with the string quartet no. 1 in F major by Beethoven.

The Athens String Quartet includes: Apollon Grammatikopoulos (violin), Panagiotis Tziotis (violin), Angela Giannaki (viola), Isidoros Sideris (cello).

TICKET INFORMATION: Due to limited availability, to secure a place at this musical event, an online reservation can be made at events.theacropolismuseum.gr 

The event includes a short tour of the exhibition areas with an Archaeologist of the Museum at 19:30  and the musical event will begin at 20:30in the Parthenon Gallery, the museum's top floor gallery.

A reminded that on Monday 01 April 2024 the Museum's summer opening hours begin (01 April – 31 October: Monday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday & Sunday 9:00 a.m. - 20:00 p.m., and Friday 9:00 a.m. - 22:00 p.m.).

The Greek Children's Library of London and the Museum of School Life and Education in Greece are co-organizing a museum education activity, "In the Footsteps of the Lost Caryatid", which will take place at the British Museum and the New Acropolis Museum on Sunday 10 March 2024.

Children will have the opportunity to discover the history of the Caryatid, become journalists for the day and conduct interviews, chat online with children in Greece to learn more about the other five Caryatids housed in the New Acropolis Museum.

This hands on activity will be conducted in Greek with creative writing and a treasure hunt of ancient Greek exhibits.

Date: Sunday, March 10, 2024, Time: 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM at the British Museum.

This event is open to children 6 to 12 years old, and will last  2 hours.

To book follow the link here.

The Cayatid in the British Museum, read more here.

The five Caryatids in the Acropolis Museum. For more information, follow the link here, plus individual descriptions of each one:

Erechtheion. Karyatid. Kore A

Erechtheion. Karyatid. Kore B

Erechtheion. Karyatid. Kore D

Erechtheion. Karyatid. Kore E

Erechtheion. Karyatid. Kore F