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. 

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)

 Oxford Union Society Magazine, DEBATE, April 1986

Elgin goes to Athens

The President marbles at the Grandeur that was (in) Greece …

On Thursday 12 June Melina Mercouri, the Greek Minister of Culture, is coming to the Oxford Union. Her subject, thanks to dynamic lobbying has a ring of familiarity all around the world: the return of the Elgin Marbles. Powerful forces will cause her to fly to Britain. They are on the one hand the passionate national feeling of the Greek people, and on the other the sophistry and intransigence of the British Government. And caught between these forces is, not a sack of old balls, but the supreme artistic treasure of the ancient world. The debate on 12 June will mark the climax of a renewed campaign by the Greek government to restore to Greece the sculptural embodiment of the spirit of the nation. The vote in Oxford - the centre of British Classical scholarship - will without question affect the decision in Whitehall. To put it crudely, your choice will count.

The background
In 450 BC Pericles, the ruler who steered Athens to her greatness, launched an ambitious programme of monumental public works. The Acropolis, the ancient citadel of Athens, was to become the glory and envy of the world. Puritan spirits objected, claiming that he was wrongfully using tribute from Athenian dependencies to ‘tart up the city like a whore'. But posterity has faulted their judgement. The craftsmen Phidias, Ictinus and Callicrates, with the personal encouragement of Pericles, created buildings and sculpture which are wholly emblematic of the pride and intellectual vigour of Athens. It is on the Panathenaic frieze, which ran along the wall behind the Parthenon's columns, that we see classical art at its most sublime. The technical control is minute, the features calm and passionless. The detachment and self-control of the figures are in harmony with the Periclean vision: of the city and citizens of the virgin goddess independent, self-reliant, and superior to the common calls of the flesh. The Panathenaic Frieze consisted of 111 panels. 97 survive. 56 of them are in the British Museum.

The Parthenon, the temple of Athena the Virgin, has suffered two major catastrophes in its history. The first was in 1678, when a cunning Turkish general, under siege from the Venetians, decided to use it as a munitions dump - like hiding a tank in a Red Cross tent. But the Venetian general Morosini reached for his gun, like Goering, at the mention of culture, shelled it, and blew up most of the central portion. The second major catastrophe was the wholesale pillage of the ancient shrine by Lord Elgin from 1801 to 1811.

Greece was at this time a tumbledown outpost of the Ottoman Empire. The national identity which Pericles glimpsed, and which has returned so conspicuously in the 20th century, had shimmered and vanished. Lord Elgin was Ambassador to the Sublime Porte, and had left behind him in England a young and skittish wife, with a pampered girl's insatiable desire for presents. It was in the Acropolis that he realised he had found a few things that might amuse here. Manipulating Turkish dependence in Britain for military support, he secured from the Sultan a firman to remove 'qualche pezzi di pietra’ - a few pieces of stone - that happened to be lying about on the Acropolis. Elgin's interpretation of this phrase was liberal to say the least. For ten years a team of labourers, under the direction of a rapacious Italian called Lusieri, sawed and hacked at the sculptures of Phidias. Huge ox-wagons daily lumbered down to the Piraeus laden with their pathetic cargo: Hermes’ Knee is still in Athens. The rest of him is in the British Museum.

It was the near-anarchy of the Ottoman Empire that allowed Elgin to get away with it. ‘Do you mind if I borrow these bits of stone for a while?’ was how he might have put it to the local sergeant, and the man would have shrugged and returned to his harem in the Erechtheum. And yet it was on precisely this point that the Whiteheall mandarins rejected, in 1983, the formal request of the Greek government for the return of the marbles: that ‘transaction had been conducted with the recognised legitimate authorities of the time.’ As it turns out, even this paltry defence is invalid: a letter from Elgin of 1811 reveals that the Turkish authorities denied ‘that the persons who had sold those marbles to him had any right to dispose of them.’

To be fair, Elgin did humanity a service by bagging the sculptures before they could be quarried for the construction of Turkish hovels. He lost a fortune on the enterprise, and his wife, who probably found them too cold and immodest, was not happy with them either. In 1816 he sold them to the British government for £35,000. Therefore it would require an Act of Parliament to hand them back. This, needless to say, seems to be a more or less insuperable brake on the process of return - yet it could be passed in an afternoon. The reasons for taking the marbles were good. The reasons for handing them back are better still.

The Elgin Marbles should leave this northern whisky-drinking guilt-culture, and be displayed where they belong: in a country of bright sunlight and the landscape of Achilles, 'the shadowy mountains and the echoing sea'. They will be housed in a new museum a few hundred yards from the Acropolis. They will be meticulously cared for. They will not, as they were in the British Museum in 1938, be severely damaged by manic washerwomen scrubbing them with copper brushes. Legend tells that the statues of the gods shrieked as they were torn from the Parthenon. It is now almost two centuries since Lord Elgin's deed, and the gods are not mocked.

Boris Johnson
Balliol College, Oxford University

April 1986, Debate, official magazine of the Oxford Union Society

This article was discovered by Yannis Andritsopoulos, UK Correspondent for Ta Nea and published in the paper on Saturday 18 December 2021

The Russian Committee for the Return of the Parthenon Marbles is a members of the IARPS and their President, Irina Korobina, presents their committee's new video entitled "Battle for the Parthenon Marbles". To watch it,  please follow the link here.

Below the text that forms part of this video with the presentation made by Irina Korobina.The presentation is in Russian with English subtitles and Irina has kindly supplied us with the English text for the article below.

Lord Byron: The Pilgrimage of Childe Harold

XI.

But who, of all the plunderers of yon Fane
⁠On high—where Pallas linger'd, loth to flee
⁠The latest relic of her ancient reign—
⁠The last, the worst, dull spoiler, who was he?
⁠Blush, Caledonia! such thy son could be!
⁠England! I joy no child he was of thine:
⁠Thy free-born men should spare what once was free;
⁠Yet they could violate each saddening shrine,
And bear these altars o'er the long-reluctant brine.

The act of Lord Elgin caused outrage and condemnation from the very beginning. Lord Byron, a fellow countryman of Lord Elgin, in his poem the Pilgrimage of Childe Harold, frankly called Elgin's act theft and barbarism. It is often suggested that Elgin's goal was to save and preserve the Parthenon sculptures. However, in one of the archives there is a letter in which Lord Elgin boastfully writes: "I have taken out of Greece as many antique values as Napoleon never dreamed of."

I don't think we care about his motivations today, or whether he was a saviour or a robber. It is important for us that the Parthenon, which is for all humankind a symbol of harmony, a symbol of the architectural, artistic and living environment that all humankind throughout history recognizes as the ideal that gave rise to classical art, this symbol has been desecrated and violated. Its most valuable fragments, without which it is impossible to preserve the harmony of integrity, were broken out and taken to another country, where they are still located. Half of the Parthenon's marble sculptures are in the British Museum, in London, and smaller fragments have spread all over the world. And all progressive humanity declares: they must be returned to their native place! Fragments of the Parthenon must be returned to Athens!

The debate about whether Lord Elgin's act was a saviour's mission or barbarism began in British society during his last expedition to Greece, and this debate continues till now.

Back in the 80's of the last century, the famous Greek singer and Minister of Culture Melina Mercuriofficially announced the policy of "insistent return" of the marble sculptures to the Parthenon. In November 2005  the IARPS (International Association for the Reunification of the Par-thenon Sculptures) was created. Today it includes 21 countries, including a very active British Committee. Their appeals have been made since 1983, with statements,  petitions and articles requesting the return of the Parthenon's treasures. In particular, there is also a Russian Committee, which I agreed to become President of because for us, who were students of the Moscow Architectural Institute, the Parthenon and the culture of Ancient Greece are the 'cradle of world culture', including the Russian architectural culture. Russian Classicism and Neoclassicism, the highest examples of Russian architecture of the 18th, 19th and early 20th century, would not have been possible without the Parthenon.

International committees of  the IARPS are actively campaigning for the return of the sculptures - they conduct educational work, organize lectures, exhibitions, but most importantly, they express the position of the cultural community of their countries. It is clear that today the return of the Parthenon's sculptures may not be the main concern of Russians who are going through economic and other crisis. But this is just a first glance. In the culture of different countries, in architecture and art, sometimes incredible phenomena occur. Something that becomes important for all humankind. And it is naive to think that these masterpieces belong only to one country. They belong to the world - all of humanity is interested in ensuring that these 'Points of Power' that inspire everyone are preserved as closely to how they are best understood. And it is immoral, even criminal, to keep them divided... to destroy them, to break out pieces of them, to take them somewhere, to build new temples for them in other countries... this is a manifestation of barbarism and lack of elementary culture, which are is wrapped with beautiful words about salvation, preservation, etc.

The argument on the part of the British, who for many years have categorically refused all Greek requests, is precisely that they care for and preserver world heritage… They have a large scientific and custodial culture, they have a mission to be saviours of other countries heritage and culture. But in 2009 there was an important development - the Acropolis Museum was opened, which was designed by Bernard Tschumi and was the result of 4 international architectural competitions. The world recognition of this Museum is ranked 8th in the top ten museums* in the world, which shows that not only Britain has great specialists and scientists, not only Britain can preserve the treasures of world heritage.

The architectural composition of the Acropolis Museum is unique. The space itself develops vertically and symbolizes the ascent of the Acropolis mountain, which is crowned by the Parthenon. And the composition is such that the  highest level exhibits the friezes, metopes and pediments of the Parthenon. Those parts that are still in the British Museum have been replaced in the Acropolis Museum with plaster copies.

In the 21st century, the display of sculptural treasures has acquired a Museum format, it is important that this is the Acropolis Museum. But the removal of fragments of the Parthenon to other museums is unacceptable - the sculptures are taken out of context and deprived of their natural environment. This is an opinion that I share. It was expressed by historian, academics and more - the display of fragments from the Parthenon in the British Museum, humiliates them. They should be illuminated by the Acropolis. And the Acropolis Museum is the optimal place for them - it belongs to the Acropolis, forming a single whole with it. And there are all the conditions for perfect conservation. All conditions have been created at the highest level to ensure the safety of the priceless sculpture, which British colleagues and professional Museum workers around the world are happy about. If the British Museum delays the return of these great treasures, it will gain a reputation as a provincial, colonial, and regressive Museum.

I think that Parthenon problem has dragged on for a century, not only because Britain does not want to return the unique values that attract crowds of people from all over the world to the British Museum. Obviously, there is a great  many museums, many collections, and many countries that will make claims against each other. This fear is understandable. We in Russia have been discussing the Shchukin collection for many years... Professional museum workers are generally very careful about this issue. Throughout history, all the painful problems evolve. When we are too scarred to touch them - because an explosion may occur. I believe that we need to resolve this. I think that vicious and criminal decisions, as well as serious mistakes, must be corrected. And I believe that this will happen in future, because a culture was built on mistakes is like colossus on clay feet, which sooner or later will collapse. And it is better not to bring it to this collapse!

  * ranking as 8th on the list of the 2017 Travelers’ Choice Awards for Museums, recently released by travel planning and booking site TripAdvisor, in 2018 the Acropolis Museum ranked 6th

William St-Clair brought his profound appreciation of the Romantic writings of the early nineteenth century to his study of the Parthenon Marbles. It was this literary expertise in the world of the Godwins and the Shelleys, Byron and Keats, that imbued his work on the building with unusual qualities. Inspired by the poets’ passionate devotion to Greece, he was especially shocked by Elgin’s careless desecration of the Parthenon and dedicated a lifetime of research to the circumstances that had permitted it.

As early as 1967 he published Lord Elgin and the Marbles. The controversial history of the Parthenon Sculptures, which was revised in two subsequent editions and translated into several languages. In 1998 the third edition incorporated the discoveries he had made concerning the treatment of the Marbles by the British Museum. Following the trail for reliable information, he prised open detailed accounts of the cleaning that whitened but disastrously damaged their surfaces.

By questioning the arrangements Elgin made with the local Ottoman authorities, William had revealed much greater detail of their illegality, which also sparked increased attention to the British Museum’s acquisition and guardianship of the Parthenon Marbles. He presented his research in numerous lectures including the annual Runciman lecture at King’s College London in 2012, when Nicholas and Matti Egonhosted a brilliant dinner in his honour. He was Chairman of Open Book Publishers, who also republished his classic study That Greece might still be free. The Philhellenes in the War of Independence’ (1972) in a revised edition in 2008.

We salute William’s determination to unravel the circumstances of the Parthenon Marbles’ journey to England and the significance of the removal of such vital symbols of Greek culture. We will miss his unmistakable presence and enthusiasm at events to celebrate the Marbles and to campaign for their reunification, and we mourn his untimely passing. With deepest condolences to his family and many friends among the giants of the UK literary world. 

BCRPM's Honorary President Anthony Snodgrass knew William St Clair since the 60's and writes:  

'At times, William St.Clair seemed to have lived more than one life. Even in our supposedly 'globalised' age, it came as a revelation to many of his fellow campaigners for the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles, to learn that he was also an acclaimed literary and historical authority on the Romantic Era - to the point where, on the strength of this, he had been elected a Fellow of the British Academyback in 1992. The same may have been partly true in reverse; and to both parties, it was surprising to find that he had served for years as a senior civil servant in the Treasury, whose research was at first a side-line. His later academic appointments are too numerous to list in detail here, but they covered Trinity College, Cambridge, All Souls at Oxford, the School of Advanced Study in London, Harvard and the Huntington Library in California.'

To read all of Anthony's tribute to William, kindly see the attached here .

You can also hear William speaking to student Nina Kelly in September of 2020 on a subject that he loved to speak about, the Parthenon and its sculptures.

In October 2017, the debating society at UCL schedule a debate for the evening of the 23rd  with the motion: 'This House believes the Elgin Marbles should be repatriated'. The evening, part of society's weekly debate series, was held at the Bloomsbury campus in London  and the speakers for the motion included William St Clair, Tom Flynn and Alexi Kaye Campbell. Below all three speakers pictured with Chair of BCRPM, Janet Suzman. The motion was carried in favour of repatriation.

Law, Morals and the Parthenon Marbles

Treachery, subterfuge and "a steady flow of bribes." Writer Bruce Clark unpicks the dubious legality of Lord Elgin's removal of the Parthenon sculptures.

When Melina Mercouri went to London in 1983, she put the point in her own inimitable way: “This is a moral issue more than a legal issue.” Kyriakos Mitsotakis took a similar line in November when he visited his counterpart Boris Johnson and declared that the sculptures were stolen – a view which Johnson himself, in his student days, had espoused.

The British Museum’s position is diametrically opposed. Its website argues that Elgin acted with the full knowledge and permission of the legal authorities of the day in both Athens and London. Lord Elgin’s activities were thoroughly investigated by a Parliamentary Select Committee in 1816 and found to be entirely legal.

Provocative as it sounds to most Greek ears, the case for the legality of the marbles’ transfer is worth studying. It rests mainly on a document that was apparently issued by an Ottoman official, the kaymakam, at the request of the British embassy to the High Porte, around the beginning of July 1801. It emerged at a high point in Anglo-Ottoman relations, when the two powers were acting in lockstep to expel Napoleon’s forces from Egypt. It was not, strictly speaking, a firman – a term which refers to a decree issued by the sultan himself. But the kaymakam was a high-ranking figure.

Its terms had virtually been dictated by Elgin’s assistant, a shrewd Anglican cleric, Philip Hunt. It allowed a team of mainly Italian artists employed by Elgin to visit the Acropolis, which was also the Ottoman garrison, make drawings and moulds of the antiquities, and specified that …“When they wish to take away some pieces of stone with old inscriptions, and figures, no opposition be made…”

Historians agree that when that text was issued it was understood to refer to picking up objects from or below the ground. (Ever since the explosion of 1687, when a Venetian mortar bomb ignited an Ottoman powder-keg and blew the roof off the Parthenon, plenty of valuable debris had been scattered around on the citadel).

In the course of July 1801, Anglo-Ottoman relations became closer still as fears grew that Napoleon might invade Greece. Hunt was sent back to Athens – on a mission to stiffen the backs of the Ottoman commanders. As he boasted afterwards, this provided an opportunity to “stretch” the meaning of the permit and remove sculptures that were still attached to the temples. In the careful words of historian William St Clair, “Lord Elgin’s agents, by a mixture of cajolery, bribes and threats, persuaded and bullied the Ottoman authorities in Athens to exceed the terms” of the kaymakam’s decree.

As Elgin would later explain, such a document was in any case not the last word – it was a basis for negotiation with local officials, and it did not preclude the need to keep up a steady flow of bribes to ensure that the stripping of the Acropolis continued unimpeded.

Conveniently for Elgin, the post of disdar, or head of the Acropolis garrison, changed hands in mid-1801, as an elderly incumbent, who’d made a steady income in bribes, passed away and the job was taken over by his son. The new disdar felt trapped in the middle of a high-stakes transaction, and he feared dire punishment if he miscalculated. Elgin and his associates made sure that he remained frightened. In May 1802, the disdar became anxious that he might get into trouble with his Ottoman masters because he had been slightly too zealous in accommodating Elgin’s project. But as Lady Elgin smugly reported, one of her husband’s agents “whistled in his lug (ear)” that he had nothing to fear. Or to put it another way, “You have nothing to fear but us…”

Even then, the Ottoman attitude to the legality of the project was never a settled matter. In autumn of 1802, both the disdar and the voivode (governor) of Athens became worried that they might get in trouble with the Porte, because the existing text did not justify the mass stripping which was in progress. Elgin duly procured a fresh document which retroactively legalized the actions of the two officials.

But then fast-forward to 1808, by which time the kaleidoscope had shifted: the Ottomans were at peace with France and spasmodically at war with the British. Many of the sculptures collected by Elgin were still in Greece.

A new British envoy to the Porte tried to get the sculptures released, and was bluntly told that Elgin’s entire operation had been illegal. Only after January of 1809, with the signature of a new Anglo-Ottoman treaty, did the atmosphere change, leading to a fresh document that enabled the export of the sculptures to resume.

During the parliamentary investigation which the British Museum mentions, Elgin was questioned hard as to whether he had abused his position as ambassador to pursue a personal transaction; he replied, absurdly, that, in his antiquarian activities, he was no different from any private archaeologist. But many legislators were unconvinced.

It seemed obvious that the objects for which Elgin was about to be paid £35,000 had been obtained by careful exploitation of diplomatic privilege and of the sweet state of Anglo-Ottoman relations. Elgin got his money, but that does not mean he was believed.

Is this really the kind of behaviour on which British officials should be basing their case? By stressing the very dubious argument for the legality of Elgin’s actions, they risk drawing further attention to the fundamental moral issues.

* Bruce Clark writes for The Economist on history, culture and ideas. He is author of his latest book “Athens: City of Wisdom.”

This article was previously published in Greek at kathimerini.gr, 18 February 2022

Bruce Clark also contributed his article 'Stealing Beauty' to BCRPM's articles section of this website. 

Thursday 25 April 2019, Cambridge Union Debate 

This House Would Return Looted Art Back to its Country of Origin

Proposition:

Alice Procter:
Alice is an independent tour guide and art historian, best known for running the often sold-out Uncomfortable Art Tours, telling the ‘ugly truth’ about the artefacts in Britain’s museums.

Dame Janet Suzman:
Dame Janet is a renowned actor and director of both stage and screen and an Academy Award nominee. She is currently co-Chair of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles, a significant lobby group working to ensure the Marbles’ return to Athens.

Professor Lord Colin Renfrew:
Hailed as, ‘The Great Restitutionist,’ Lord Renfrew is an archaeologist and Senior Fellow of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. He is a former Master of Jesus College and a former President of the Union.

Opposition:

Dr. Kevin Childs
Kevin is a writer and lecturer on art history and has recently developed a series of pieces looking at the contribution to culture and history made by LGBT people over the millennia. He writes regularly for Independent Minds and the Independent.

Neil Curtis
Neil Curtis is Head of Museums and Special Collections at the University of Aberdeen. He is Convenor of University Museums in Scotland, Vice President of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland and a member of the Ethics Committee of the Museum Association.

Lewis Thomas                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Lewis is a third-year historian at Sidney Sussex College.

Below Dame Janet Suzman's prsentation

Mr President,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               The burning of Notre Dame should remind us all how much a building can mean to a people.

               Fellow debaters, ladies and gentlemen,

               I am here pleading for some exquisite pieces of stone to be returned to their birthplace. They have been given shelter for 200 years and now they need to go home. They can no longer be kept hostages to time.

              I am not the first by a long shot -

              In 1986, Melina Mercouri - in a similar debate in what you no doubt call the Other Place - the Oxford Union - was tremendously moving on this special case - specialbecause of what the Parthenon means to the Greeks…

               …means to the world.

               You might say all of Western culture is predicated on this building. It is the logo of UNESCO. Every classical building in the ancient - and modern world - springs from its genius.

               It's where democracy was born.

               And single-mindedly, incomprehensibly, a mere lordling from these isles cut bits off that edifice, which, so perfect in its symmetry, is a work of art in itself.

               The temple tells the thrilling story of the pan-Athenaic procession - carved in relief by Phydias' incomparable team - surging at a gallop round the entire building; Olympians and their creatures once adorned the pediments.

              These marbles were wrenched from a building that belonged - not to 'the one true god', not a tyrant, nor a king - but to the people.

              And there - astonishingly - it still is. After two thousand years plus it still stands atop the sacred rock, bloody but unbowed, and in the eye-line of millions of Athenians going about their business down below. It is embedded in their national identity.

              Imagine the dome of St Paul's sitting in Potzdammerplatz? A Stonehenge dolmen standing in the Tuileries - no, there IS no national equivalent here.

             I was privileged to have had a meeting with His Excellency, President of the Hellenic Republic, Prokopios Pavlopoulos in Athens last Monday the 15th April, while I was attending a conference on the subject of these marbles.

               He wanted to make a very clear point - that the Greek government has never asked for any other piece of statuary in any other museum in the world to be returned to them. And that it never would.

               On the contrary, he said - the Greeks are very proud that the Louvre has the Winged Victory of Samothrace - they are happy to see it there.  

              They are NOT happy that Elgin attacked the Parthenon. They want their marbles back where they belong.

               The British Museum, via the Dept of Culture, stays tight-lipped. That insulting silence is way past its sell-by date.

              The reply to the President's latest request to re-consider by the Culture Secretary prompts me to offer him this simple advice: "Do NOT attempt to 'follow the logic of restitution to its logical conclusion', Mr Wright". Museum acquisitions were not exactly logically obtained, why should restitutions follow suit?

No slippery-slope-ism allowed; each case on its merits if you please.

                              --------------------------------------------------------

               A brief reminder: Greece was under Ottoman occupation when Lord Elgin was appointed Ambassador to Athens.  

               Napoleon was invading Egypt. So, on the principle of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' sacrificing the Parthenon's glories to Elgin's whims was probably for the Sultan a mere bagatelle.

               However, exactly what 'glories' was Elgin allowed to take? Did the Sultanate specifically designate which?

               Proofs, if they exist, have hitherto skulked in murky clouds of smoke and mirrors.

               There is vague wording in an Italian transcript of a 'firman' - an official permission - in the Elgin archives - which give him leave to take 'qualque pezzi di pietra' - the word qualqueindicating 'some' or 'a few pieces of stone'.

               He was permitted to 'copy, draw, mould and dig' around the base of the Parthenon only.

              Dr Tatiana Poulou, an archeologist working on the Parthenon site today likened his depredations to the destruction by ISIS of Palmyra. That is, catastrophic.

               Prof Dimitrios Pandermalis, Director of the New Acropolis Museum, understates these barbarisms of Elgin's as: 'at least surrealistic…' as he wryly points out the upper part of this horse and the lower legs of that.

              Scholars have known, and further Turkish research has confirmed that there exist no permissions to take the friezes and pediments, and none to take down the metopes.

               Hence this headline in the Greek edition of The NY Times: Dated April 16th - the day after my meeting with the President:

               "Acropolis Museum director says Ottoman archives debunk the claim Lord Elgin had permission to remove sculptures".

               The historian William St Clair knows more about the smoke and mirrors than anyone and is soon to publish his further findings, and I think he won't mind if I say that the headline above will not rock his boat.       

                                             -------------------------------------------------

               Ladies and gentlemen - there is far too much to say about the manner of Elgin's acquisitions: his huge bribes to Ottoman high-ups, his trail of 'shattered desolation' - as a witness described the rape of the metopes - the ship that sank with the marbles aboard (Poseidon briefly rejoiced!), Elgin's bankruptcy forcing him to sell to the nation instead of hiding them in his Scottish pile. Yes…he had wanted them for himself!

              Elgin was a terrible imperialist, but the truly colonial-imperial act was that of the British Parliament in 1816 in recognizing Elgin's title to his loot by buying it from him. That Act of Parliament thereby claimed 'ownership'.

               But the BM is not a private company with a board of directors. Trustees are required solely to look after things entrusted to their care, not play at politics.

               Does culture exist outside of politics? I think not.

               Anyway, look, it's done. The BM has them.

               The hornet's nest of Ottoman legalities still unraveling leads me to dwell rather on the NOW, not the THEN.

                                -----------------------------------------------------------

               Post-World War II, international laws should surely persuade parliament to re-think its position?

               Questions arise: does an occupying power have legitimacy to dispose of a vassal nation's heritage for the rest of history?

               Should Britain own a mass of foreign heritage for the rest of time?

               The ownership title that Britain exercises today surely should end at these shores?

              The BM's Director, Hartwig Fischer, has developed a trope about separation being a 'creative act'. Well, he would, wouldn’t he? The Marbles are one of the BM's star attractions.

               The Rodin show last year re-inforced the marbles' supremacy in execution and their diminished meaning in isolation.

               The BM once said the Greeks couldn’t look after their own marbles. The stunning New Acropolis Museum opened all of ten years ago, with the Parthenon serenely in view from every glass-walled gallery. One of them empty of its own. But waiting…

               We can't put Humpty together again but now you can visibly link the two - a revelation for visitors.

              The BM is a great encyclopaedic institution - and the Aladdin's Cave of conquest.

               There's a mood abroad that it must wake up to.

               A revolt against colonialist attitudes.

               The violence of the "Rhodes Must Fall" movement at Cape Town University made sure he did. That's the blunt end of hurt feelings.

              The Museums Association takes a more nuanced and ethical approach. When the balance of power was so heavily skewed towards imperial authority, blunt 'no's are not enough, it says. Polls taken in 2012 are 73% for the return of sculptures to Greece.

               The director of the Rijksmuseum recently said: "It's a disgrace that the Netherlands is only now attending to the return of colonial heritage…We should have done it earlier and there is no excuse".

                Guidelines for their return, he suggests, intend to offer a framework similar to existing directives for Nazi loot claims.

               The V & A is showing an open mind, Macron is thinking out of the box, St Mark's horses are back in Venice, Sweden has returned Icelandic Sagas, Easter Island will have its guardians back, Nigeria its Benin figures - and look! - the heavens have not fallen!

              It is high time the BM showed us a heart within the beast. Make models for heavens sakes! - but do the right thing!

             In the name of fairness and morality' said Melina in 1986 'please give them back. Such a gesture from Great Britain would ever honour your name'.    

20 June 2019

The New Acropolis Museum was officially inaugurated on 20 June 2009 and celebrates this year 10 tremendous years of successful activity. It has grown to be one of the best museums in the world and has received over 14.5 million of visitors. Between 13 and 20 of June the Museum has organised a series of festivities to commemorate its anniversary, with as a major event – on June 20 – the opening of the archaeological excavation underneath the museum. The architectural remains of Late Antiquity (4^th-7^th century AD) excavated during the construction of the museum give an unrivalled insight into the everyday life of an ancient neighbourhood at the foot of the Acropolis. From 21 June 2019 , this new archaeological site will be open to the public.

The history of the New Acropolis Museum goes back to the 1970s. The museum built on the Acropolis itself, whose initially construction dates to the 19^th century, was by then outdated and could no longer cope adequately with the large number of visitors. Moreover, important restoration and conservation works carried out on the monuments of the Acropolis from 1975 on rendered the exhibition space in the old museum too small to accommodate the sculptures that were being taken down from the various Acropolis buildings to preserve and conserve them from the urban pollution.

In 1976, less than two years after the restoration of democracy in Greece, President Constantinos Karamanlis conceived plans for the construction of a new Acropolis Museum and selected the site upon which the Museum was finally built, located in the historic neighbourhood of Makryianni, a natural extension of the south slope of the Acropolis hill. Between 1976 and 2000, no fewer than four architectural competitions were conducted, before the award finally went to the project by design architects Bernard Tschumi, Michael Photiadis and their associates.

The New Acropolis Museum is a three-storey building facing the Acropolis, a transparent construction of structural concrete, stainless steel and marble, with liberal use of glass for the facades and part of the floor. It achieves an interplay between the museum, where the antiquities of all periods of the Acropolis are on display, floating over the in-site excavation, and panoramic views on the Acropolis and the city. The concept of the building is ingenious, divided over four levels: the ground floor of the Museum is suspended on pylons over the archaeological excavation; a gentle slope ending up in a monumental staircase connects the ground floor with the first floor; the top floor or Parthenon Gallery is arranged around an indoor court and rotates slightly so that its orientation corresponds exactly to the orientation of the nearby Parthenon temple. The concept of the Acropolis Museum can thus be seen as an evocation of the topography of the Acropolis in ancient times: a Sacred Way leads visitors from the city up the slope of the Acropolis hill, then up the steps towards and through the Propylaea to the Parthenon.

The display of the artefacts in the Museum strengthens this image. The ruins of part of the ancient city of Athens are situated on the lowest level. The finds excavated on the slopes of the Acropolis in secondary temples, shrines and caves, are on display on the ground floor, along the gentle sloping path. The numerous sculptures and architectural fragments – most of them unique treasures of art – found on the Acropolis, including parts of the Archaic temples, the Erechtheion, the temple of Athena Nike and the Propylaea, are presented on the first floor and can be viewed from all sides. The ambient natural light in the exhibition rooms, changing throughout the day, particularly suits the sculptures on display. The top floor is dedicated to the surviving Parthenon sculptures in Athens, completed with plaster casts of the sculptures actually on display in the British Museum in London. This juxtaposition of original parts with plaster copies underlines the call for the return of the originals in the British Museum. The display in Athens (unlike that in the BM’s Duveen Gallery) is exquisite, the sculptures can be seen exactly as they were placed on the Parthenon, but in a lowered position for the convenience of the visitor. The glass enclosure provides ideal light and enables direct view on the context of the original environment of the Parthenon Sculptures.

The New Acropolis Museum is a thematic archaeological museum, geographically limited to the finds of the Acropolis, the slopes of the hill and its monuments, chronologically limited to artefacts dating from the earliest period to Late Antiquity. It is a “living” museum, constantly in motion and constantly replenishing its exhibition with new finds, as a result of the ongoing archaeological research and the restoration works conducted in the area by members of the Greek Archaeological Service.

In just 10 years, the Acropolis Museum has grown into a leading world museum, with a highly scientific programme, a very competent restoration and conservation department, a strong cultural-museological management, and a suite of dynamic projects for the future. Therefore, one can only regret the more deeply that not all surviving parts of the Parthenon Sculptures – a number of them are dispersed in other museums and collections besides the British Museum – are today reunited in this beautiful museum.

The most important collection of Parthenon Sculptures abroad is actually on – poor – display in the British Museumin London. They were “taken” by the British diplomat Lord Elgin with a view to decorating his mansion in Scotland, at the beginning of the 19^th century, at a time when Greece was under Ottoman rule. In the process several were destroyed. Financial problems too meant that he had to sell the Sculptures, which finally were purchased from Lord Elgin by Act of the British Parliament and entrusted to the care of the Trustees of the British Museum. The young free Hellenic State began negotiations for the return of the Sculptures as early as 1842. A crucial turning point came in 1984 when Melina Mercouri, then Minister of Culture, made a formal request to the British Museum for the return of the Sculptures to Greece and simultaneously a request to UNESCO, which was immediately entered on the agenda of the Intergovernmental Committee on the Return of Cultural Goods to the Countries of Origin. The claim from Greek governmental side for the return of the Parthenon Sculptures is regularly repeated, without reference to legality, but the stance of the British Museum Director and Trustees – a harsh ‘no’, without even a willingness to enter into formal discussions – remains unchanged until today.

The reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures in the Acropolis Museum in Athens is not only a claim made by Greece. It is supported by International Cultural Organisations and by individuals worldwide. The International Association for the Reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures (IARPS), founded in 2005 and consisting of 20 national committees, spread over 18 countries, supports the claim for reunification, in close collaboration with the Greek authorities, who do not wish to engage in litigation at this moment, but prefer a policy of cultural diplomacy. A policy line that the IARPS respects. New approaches are therefore necessary to reach a breakthrough in the dispute. As the Parthenon Sculptures were made for and constitute an intrinsic part of the Parthenon temple on the Acropolis – an emblematic building, symbol of Western Democracy and recognised as a World Cultural Heritage, it is above all, a moral obligation to return and to reunify all the surviving Parthenon Sculptures in the Acropolis Museum, where they are in direct visual contact with the Parthenon temple. Only in this way they can continue satisfactorily to fulfil their mission: testimony of the great craftsmanship of the ancient sculptors in the 5^th century BC and a reminder of the origins of Democracy.

Dr Christiane Tytgat

Historian - Archaeologist

President International Association for the Reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures

President of the Belgian Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures

23 May 2020, Athens, Greece

Greece's  Minister of Culture and Sport,  Lina Mendoni restated the long-standing request for the British Museum to return the Parthenon Marbles, ahead of the 11th anniversary of the Acropolis Museum.

The British Museum in London continues to refuse to return the Parthenon Marbles. The 2,500-year-old sculptures were forcibly removed from the Parthenon, by British diplomat Lord Elgin in the early 19th century when Greece was under Ottoman Turkish rule.

Prior to the opening of the Acropolis Museum on 20 June 2009,  the British Museum had argued that Greece had 'no where to display' the Parthenn Marbles. Now nearly 11 years since the purpose-built Acropolis Museum was opened  to house the antiquities from the Acropolis, the British Museum continues to argue that the sculptures in London are best viewed in London as they can be seen in the context of world cultures.

On 24 January 2019, Ioannis Andritsopoulos, Ta Nea's UK correspondent , interviewed British Mumseum Director, Hartwig Fischer who said: "since the beginning of the 19th century, the monument’s history is enriched by the fact that some (parts of it) are in Athens and some are in London where six million people see them every year. In each of these two locations they highlight different aspects of an incredibly rich, layered and complex history."

"People go to some places to encounter cultural heritage that was created for that site. They go to other places to see cultural heritage which has been moved and offers a different way to engage with that heritage. The British Museum is such a place, it offers opportunities to engage with the objects differently and ask different questions because they are placed in a new context.We should cherish that opportunity." Concluded Dr Fischer.

On Sunday 23 February 2020,  the then Deputy Editor of the Sunday Times, Sarah Baxter wrote her modest proposal for the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles, aptly entitled: "The sane move is to give Greece back its Elgin marbles".

The first 'modet proposal' was written by Christopher Hitchens (pages 104 to 106) in the third edition of 'The Parthenon, The Case for Reunification'published by Verso in May 2008 and launched at Chatham House, London by the BCRPM. The second was written by Stephen Fry in 2011, you can read that heretoo.

Dr Fischer responded to Sarah Baxter's article with a letter to the Sunday Times, which was publish Sunday 01 March 2020:

Greeks should be glad we have the marbles

Sarah Baxter’s column on the Parthenon sculptures asks us to imagine how we would feel if Big Ben had been transplanted to Athens (“The sane move is to give Greece back its marbles”, Comment, last week). This is to ignore the many buildings and artworks that have been reused, reshaped and often moved across borders, such as Duccio’s altarpiece the Maesta, elements of which have been removed from Siena cathedral and are held in museums across Europe and America.

The Parthenon sculptures are fragments of a lost whole that cannot be put back together. Only about 50% of the original sculptures survive from antiquity. The Parthenon has become a European monument precisely because its sculptures can be seen not only in Athens but in London and other European cities. The public benefit of this distribution and what it means for our shared cultural inheritance is self-evident, and something to celebrate.

Minister of Culture for Greece, Dr Lina Mendoni  responded by saying that Dr Fischer's letter was as “unfortunate, if not outright unacceptable.” To read one of the article's quoting Dr Mendoni, follow the link here.

As expected, this was not well received by most, not just in the UK but elsewhere too. Yannis Andritsopoulos, London Correspondent for Ta Nea, Greece's daily newspaper, wrote an article following on from Dr Fischer's letter to the Sunday Times, quoting a number of BCRPM members including Janet Suzman, Alex Benakis, Dr Peter Thonemann and Professor John Tasioulas.

Dr Mendoni insists that “it is time for the British Museum to reconsider its stance ahead of the Acropolis Museum’s next birthday, which is on 20 June 2020. Does it want to be a museum that meets and will continue to meet modern requirements and speak to the soul of the people, or will it remain a colonial museum which intends to hold treasures of world cultural heritage that do not belong to it?” Smilar words were used by Dame Janet Suzman during her participation in the Cambridge Union debate on 25 April 2019. You can read Janet's speech here.

Minister Mendoni urged the International Committees (IARPS) to continue to support this long standing request as they also continue to support the Greek government in their quest for the return of the Parthenon Marbles.

How the Much-Debated Elgin Marbles Ended Up in England
The author of a new book, Bruce Clarkand his latest article published 11 January 2022, in the Smithsonian Magazine.

When Thomas Bruce, Seventh Earl of Elgin, arrived in the city he knew as Constantinople—today’s Istanbul—in November 1799, he had every reason to hope that his mission as Britain’s ambassador to the Ottoman sultan would be a spectacular success.

A year earlier, Napoleon had invadedOttoman Egypt, and Britain hoped to become the sultan’s main ally in reversing the French conquest. The dispatch from London of a well-connected diplomat descended from the kings of Scotland was itself a gesture of friendship toward the Turks. Then 33 years old, Elgin was an experienced statesman who had previously served as a British envoy in Brussels and Berlin.

As well as competing in geopolitics, the British were vying with the French for access to whatever remained of the great civilizations of antiquity. On this front, too, Elgin was confident of faring well. His marriage in March 1799 to a wealthy heiress, Mary Nisbet, had given him the financial means to sponsor ambitious cultural projects. While traveling through Europe en route to Constantinople, he recruited a team of mostly Italian artists led by the Neapolitan painter Giovanni-Battista Lusieri. Their initial task was to draw, document and mold antiquities in the Ottoman-controlled territory of Greece, thus preserving these ancient treasures on paper and canvas, in part for the edification of Elgin’s countrymen, most of whom would never otherwise see Athens’ statues, temples and friezes.

From the start, though, the artists’ mandate was shrouded in careful ambivalence. Elgin declaredthat simply capturing images of the treasures would be “beneficial to the progress of the fine arts” in his home country. But in more private moments, he didn’t conceal his determination to decorate his home in Scotland with artifacts extracted from Greece. “This … offers me the means of placing, in a useful, distinguished and agreeable way, the various things that you may perhaps be able to procure for me,” he wrote to Lusieri.

The initially cloudy mission of Elgin’s artistic team culminated in a massive campaign to dismantle artworks from the temples on the Acropolis and transport them to Britain. Elgin’s haul—representing more than half of the surviving sculptures on the Athenian citadel—included most of the art adorning the Parthenon, the greatest of the Acropolis temples, and one of the six robed maidens, or caryatids, that adorned the smaller Erechtheion temple. Large sections of the Parthenon frieze, an extraordinary series of relief sculptures depicting a mysterious procession of chariots, animals and people, numbered among the loot.

Among critics, the removal of the so-called Elgin Marbles has long been described as an egregious act of imperial plunder. Greeks find it especially galling that Elgin negotiated the removal of such treasures with the Ottoman Empire, a foreign power that cared little for Hellenic heritage. Calls to return the sculptures to Athens began in Elgin’s own day and continue now: While in London in November 2021, Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis stated plainly that Elgin “stole” the ancient artworks. (The British Museum, for its part, has always insisted that its mandate of displaying its collections for the purpose of public education does not allow it to simply give objects away.)

Does Elgin deserve his terrible reputation? He certainly derived little personal happiness from his antiquarian acquisitions. While making his way back to Britain in 1803, he was detained in France by the government. He returned to his native shores three years later, in 1806, only to find that many of the artifacts he had collected were still stuck in Greece. Getting them to England would take six more years: Beginning in 1807, the earl was involved in acrimonious divorce proceedings that left his finances in ruins, and he had to implore the state to buy the objects whose extraction he had financed. In the end, the government acquired the trove for £35,000—less than half of what Elgin claimed to have spent employing Lusieri and his team, arranging sea transport, and bribing Ottoman officials. He was denounced as a vandal in sonorous verses by the poet Lord Byron, a fellow member of the Anglo-Scottish aristocracy, and the broader British public alike. If Elgin deserved punishment, he got a good deal of it in his own lifetime. But in the eyes of posterity, he has fared still worse.

In blurring the line between documenting the antiquities of Greece and taking them away, Elgin was following a template created two decades earlier by the French. A promising French artist, Louis-Francois-Sebastian Fauvel, received an assignment in 1784 from his country’s ambassador to the Ottoman sultan to make exact drawings and casts of Greek antiquities. By 1788, the French envoy was urging his young protégé, then at work on the Acropolis, to go much further than drawing or molding: “Remove all that you can, do not neglect any means, my dear Fauvel, of plundering in Athens and its territory all that is to be plundered.” After his diplomatic boss fell out of grace amid the French Revolution, Fauvel became an antiquarian and energetic looter in his own right. When Elgin took up his post in Istanbul in 1799, he and his compatriots saw it as their patriotic duty to outdo the French in this race to grab history.

Also of note is the fact that Elgin was often surrounded by people whose zeal for the removal of Greek antiquities outpaced his own. These individuals included his ultra-wealthy parents-in-law, whose money ultimately made the operation possible, and the shrewd English clergyman Philip Hunt, who worked as Elgin’s personal assistant. When he learned of his appointment to Elgin’s staff, Hunt explained to his father that the job seemed a “brilliant opportunity of improving my mind and laying the foundation of a splendid fortune.”

In spring 1801, Hunt went to Athens to assess the progress being made by Lusieri and his artistic team. He realized that simply gaining access to the Acropolis, which also served as the Ottoman garrison, would require a burdensome series of presents and bribes to local officials. The only solution, he concluded, was to secure an all-purpose permit from some high-ranking person in the entourage of the sultan. By early July, Hunt had induced the deputy to the grand vizier to issue a paper that would allow Elgin’s team to work unimpeded on the Acropolis: to draw, excavate, erect scaffolding and “take away some pieces of stone with old figures or inscriptions,” as the permit put it.

Over the following month, the situation devolved rapidly. With Napoleon apparently on the verge of invading Greece, Hunt was sent back to Athens on a fresh mission: to reassure Ottoman officials of British support and ward off any temptation to collaborate with the French. Seeing how highly the Ottomans valued their alliance with the British, Hunt spotted an opportunity for a further, decisive extension of the Acropolis project. With a nod from the sultan’s representative in Athens—who at the time would have been scared to deny a Briton anything—Hunt set about removing the sculptures that still adorned the upper reaches of the Parthenon. This went much further than anyone had imagined possible a few weeks earlier. On July 31, the first of the high-standing sculptures was hauled down, inaugurating a program of systematic stripping, with scores of locals working under Lusieri’s enthusiastic supervision.

Whatever the roles of Hunt and Lusieri, Elgin himself cannot escape ultimate responsibility for the dismantling of the Acropolis. Hunt at one point suggested removing all six of the caryatid maidens if a ship could be found to take them away; Elgin duly tried find a vessel, but none were available.

Still, once back in England, Elgin adamantly claimed that he had merely been securing the survival of precious objects that would otherwise have disappeared. In evidence provided to a parliamentary committee, he insisted that “in amassing these remains of antiquity for the benefit of my country, and in rescuing them from imminent and unavoidable destruction with which they were threatened, … I have been actuated by no motives of private emolument.” Betraying the bigotries of the day, Elgin argued that if the sculptures had remained in Athens, they would have been “the prey of mischievous Turks who mutilated [them] for wanton amusement, or for the purpose of selling them to piecemeal to occasional travelers.” He outlined examples of numerous important Greek monuments that had disappeared or been damaged during the previous half-century. In offering these justifications, he was trying to persuade the committee that he had enlarged the scope of his antiquarian project—from merely drawing or molding ancient sculptures to taking them away—only when it became clear to him that the unique treasures were in danger.

There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of these claims. Upon his arrival in Istanbul, the earl had declared an interest in decorating his own house with ancient treasures. But even if Elgin’s argument was dishonest, his point about the likely fate of the artifacts, given the geopolitical situation at the dawn of the 19th century, is a serious one. We can assess its merit in light of what actually happened to the sculptures that stayed on the Acropolis (because Elgin’s people didn’t quite manage to remove them all) versus those that were shipped to England.

Contrary to Elgin’s stated fears, the sculptures that remained in Athens did not vanish. After 1833, when the Ottomans left the Acropolis and handed it to the new nation of Greece, the great citadel and its monuments became a focus of national pride. Protecting, restoring and showcasing the legacy of the Athenian golden age has been the highest priority for every Greek government since then.

 Of course, the monuments and artifacts of the Holy Rock, as Greeks call it, have not entirely escaped damage. Scorch marks from a fire during the 1820s Greek War of Independence, during which the Acropolis changed hands several times, remain visible today. In recent years, the contours of some sculptures have been worn away by air pollution—a problem that was particularly acute in the 1980s. But Elgin’s people also caused damage, both to the sculptures they removed and to the underlying structure of the Parthenon. (“I have been obliged to be a little barbarous,” Lusieri once wrote to Elgin.) Then there were the marbles that sankon one of Elgin’s ships in 1802 and were only salvaged three years later. Even after they arrived at the British Museum, the sculptures received imperfect care. In 1938, for example, they were “cleaned” with an acid solution.

With the benefit of two centuries of hindsight, Elgin’s claim that his removal of treasures from the Acropolis was a noble act, in either its intention or its result, is dubious at best. Still, the earl’s professed concern for the preservation of the glories of ancient Athens raises an interesting line of thought. Suppose that among his mixture of motives—personal aggrandizement, rivalry with the French and so on—the welfare of the sculptures actually had been Elgin’s primary concern. How could that purpose best be served today? Perhaps by placing the Acropolis sculptures in a place where they would be extremely safe, extremely well conserved and superbly displayed for the enjoyment of all? The Acropolis Museum, which opened in 2009 at the foot of the Parthenon, is an ideal candidate; it was built with the goal of eventually housing all of the surviving elements of the Parthenon frieze.

Of the original 524-foot-long frieze, about half is now in London, while another third is in Athens. Much smaller fragments are scattered elsewhere around the globe. The Acropolis Museum’s magnificent glass gallery, bathed in Greek sunlight and offering a clear view of the Parthenon, would be a perfect place to reintegrate the frieze and allow visitors to ponder its meaning. After all, British scholars and cultural figures who advocate for the sculptures’ return to Athens are careful to frame their arguments in terms of “reunifying” a single work of art that should never have been broken up.

That, surely, is a vision that all manner of people can reasonably embrace, regardless of whether they see Elgin as a robber or give him some credit as a preservationist. If the earl really cared about the marbles, and if he were with us today, he would want to see them in Athens now.

Bruce Clark wrote this article for the Smithsonian Magazine and it was published online on 11 Janyary 2022.

Tact and Diplomacy – put down your invective 

“You don’t agree with me. You just saying you agree with me. Go on, leave. English - Pah!”
He was a big guy, full beard and belly resting tight up against the steering wheel of his taxi. We were stopped at the bottom of the hill below the Acropolis where he had taken me when I flagged down his cab outside my hotel. I don’t know which hurt more, him calling me English or his refusal to take agreement when he wanted a fight about the Marbles.
That was thirty years ago. I had three hours before my next meeting and in the uncharacteristic rain of an Athenian spring afternoon I had decided to see the Parthenon. Already firmly convinced of the rightness of Greece’s demands to return the Marbles, I wanted to see the place from where they had been prised by an apparently avaricious Lord Elgin (who sold them to Parliament for £35,000 – a colossal sum in the early nineteenth century).
The offence? the crime? occurred at the time of the Ottoman Empire’s rule over Greece. It is clear that something underhand occurred in the alleged granting of permission by Sultan Selim III. The ‘firman’ – a document granting permission to the Earl of Elgin for the removal of the Marbles – appears to both contemporary and modern scholars to be either a forgery or not to authorise the degree to which the Parthenon suffered desecration. It is said that the commander of the Ottoman fort (of which the Parthenon was then a part) had to be bribed extensively over the eleven year period (!) that the removal of the Marbles took place.
Images of dusty workmen turning up on a Saturday afternoon with a donkey cart and some picks to hack off some murals are way off mark. This was an industrial scale operation. It is worth seeing the Marbles at the British Museum not just for their beauty but also to appreciate their size and weight. Removing them, packing and transporting them would have been as difficult as installing them had to have been.
I am not an historian, an archaeologist or committed to fashionable causes for the sake of it. That day, my first visit to the Parthenon changed my agreement with Greek demands to firm conviction that it was the right thing to do. Some years later, at the time of the crisis of Greek austerity, I wrote to the then Foreign Secretary, William Hague, asking that the Marbles be returned as a gesture of solidarity with the Greek people who were suffering so badly at the hands of economics and politicians. I argued that this would mean so much to that country’s spirit and cost us so little. No answer was the stern reply.
That April afternoon the rain swept across the exposed hill driving all but the hardiest tourists to the cafes below the hill. You have to pick your way carefully over the uneven stones of the Parthenon – doubly hazardous when slick with newly-wet dust. After a while I just sat at the edge of the building looking outwards. I was struck by the tons of stone that were scattered around. Pieces of carved columns, huge squares of marble and rubble by the lorry-load. Elgin hadn’t been the only vandal. But how much of the obvious damage done to the building had he caused?
https://inews.co.uk/culture/victorian-vandals-did-more-damage-to-elgin-marbles-than-greece-pollution-1337727
The comments below from Wikipedia shows the dichotomy at the heart of Elgin’s actions. He seemed single-minded about ‘saving’ the friezes at any cost to the structure:
To facilitate transport by Elgin, the columns' capitals and many metopes and frieze slabs were either hacked off the main structure or sawn and sliced into smaller sections, causing irreparable damage to the Parthenon itself. One shipload of marbles on board the British brig Mentor was caught in a storm off Cape Matapan in southern Greece and sank near Kythera, but was salvaged at the Earl's personal expense, it took two years to bring them to the surface.
Later he tries his utmost to engage the best craftsmen to restore the Marbles. (Canova was a ROCK STAR!)
Elgin consulted with Italian sculptor Antonio Canova in 1803 about how best to restore the marbles. Canova was considered by some to be the world's best sculptural restorer of the time; Elgin wrote that Canova declined to work on the marbles for fear of damaging them further.
There have been several attempts by the British Museum to maintain the Marbles and restore them to their pristine original state (right into the 20th century) – all very commendable, if unsuccessful. The Greek record in restoring the remaining parts of the frieze has been far more impressive.
Again, from Wikipedia:
As early as 1838, scientist Michael Faraday was asked to provide a solution to the problem of the deteriorating surface of the marbles. The outcome is described in the following excerpt from the letter he sent to Henry Milman, a commissioner for the National Gallery.
The marbles generally were very dirty... from a deposit of dust and soot.... I found the body of the marble beneath the surface white.... The application of water, applied by a sponge or soft cloth, removed the coarsest dirt.... The use of fine, gritty powder, with the water and rubbing, though it more quickly removed the upper dirt, left much embedded in the cellular surface of the marble. I then applied alkalies [sic] , both carbonated and caustic; these quickened the loosening of the surface dirt... but they fell far short of restoring the marble surface to its proper hue and state of cleanliness. I finally used dilute nitric acid, and even this failed.... The examination has made me despair of the possibility of presenting the marbles in the British Museum in that state of purity and whiteness which they originally possessed.
The pros and cons can – and do - cover pages of the internet. Those who favour keeping the Marbles in Britain make the case that it is only here that they can be properly cared for – although caring for them is not something that has been very successful to date. They say the Marbles are now part of Britain’s cultural heritage and to return them would open the floodgates for other artefacts to be reclaimed by other countries, affecting museums all over the world. Those who say send them back talk of the rape of the ancient monument – one in a long series of colonial plunderings. And they are much more concerned with the emotional and cultural impact of the Marbles being isolated from the rest of the Parthenon’s remains.
The Greeks have built a magnificent museum to house the artefacts recovered from the Acropolis. The building itself is a work of art and its exhibits are breathtaking. The history of destructive attacks on the Parthenon and the other monuments on the hill are well documented. It is obvious that blaming Elgin alone for the state of the Parthenon today is ludicrous and counter-productive – not that this excuses the results of his (and other people’s) arrogant efforts to ‘save’ Greek treasures from the people of Greece.
A solution to the fate of the Marbles has to be approached in an entirely different way from the fiery verbal challenges which have raged in recent years - or the two sides are condemned to repeat their well-known debating points forever without a conclusion or resolution. Forget history. Forget who said Elgin could have them (or maybe didn’t) . It doesn’t matter and will get us nowhere whether law and justice are on one side or the other. What matters is today. It is without doubt fruitless to continue the argument as it is currently being conducted. It is pretty much a predictable, scripted row.
The strategy to send the Marbles home must be based on morality and conducted in a supremely diplomatic fashion. The national pride of two countries, the will to do the right thing and the simple fact that there is now a fine home for them in Athens are the building blocks for a resolution. In Athens they will sit, bathed in the sunlight of the Acropolis, alongside the other artefacts that tell its story back to the times of their creator, Phidias.
Today, it is no longer relevant who did, or didn’t do, what - unless your objective is to prolong this debate into the twenty second century. Neither side is going to win on the current arguments. Facts exist, of course, but so many facts are also open to interpretation and Elgin cannot stand up and give evidence. There is no over-arching authority who will decide this. Certainly, English law does not seem to provide fertile ground on which to base a case requiring the Marbles’ return.
Law and compulsion aside, it would show immense generosity of spirit if Britain were to send the Marbles home. The simple fact is that they are totemic to the Greeks and although they have been inspirational to see in London, housing them in Athens would no longer mean a reduction in people who could see them. People travel for lesser reasons and the Marbles are one of the wonders of the ancient world. Above all, keep governments out of it until they have to pay the bill. And try to persuade everyone that a period of calm would be conducive to their return, since loss of face now features heavily in this battle of wills. I say persuading great diplomats to fashion a solution removed from blame and removed from shame, is our only hope.
The Marbles were and are always, Greek – that is irrefutable. Generosity by the British will show us as true neighbours and friends to another European country, whatever we think about the European Union. Phidias’ creation will never rest easy until it is united in the sun of Athens – and neither will we.

Ian Hunter OBE

From Janet Suzman
Chair: British Committee for the Reunification
of the Parthenon Marbles (BCRPM)
1st January 2024

It really is very dispiriting that eminences like Lord Sumption (Sunday Times Dec 31st 2023) still make so many wrong assumptions. (Sorry). Here are some of them:

He fails to find a difference between a bas relief (the frieze, running round the perimeter of the building) and the 3D sculptures (metopes and pedimental figures). He can’t see why those pedimental figures make a stunning triangular pedimental shape when placed together, quite lost by enforced separation. The half of the extant frieze not in Bloomsbury is in Athens.

He avers that Lord Elgin obtained a ‘decree from the sultan authorising him to remove the sculptures.’ No such document has ever been found, only a permit (a ‘firman’) from a high official in Constantinople allowing him to retrieve ‘qualche pezzi di pietra’ already fallen down (it is an Italian copy) and to make drawings of pieces out of reach. Elgin, who kept a careful record of his expenses, bribed functionaries at every level to turn a blind eye to his crude attack on an already fragile building. Tourists reported shocking falls of precious metopes and such smashing to pieces, and a disdar – a guard at the time – was described as weeping at the mayhem inflicted on the building.

Elgin commandeered a ship of the line to transport his booty to Britain – so, taxpayers’ money – and had every intention of displaying the pieces at Broomhill, his Scottish seat, and none of sharing them with the public. Only when bankrupted after his rich wife left him did he turn to the British Government for a hasty sale.

Yet what’s done cannot be undone, and what matters now is a solution to a modern moral maze and not an old blame-game. And yet, Lord Sumption widens his argument to justify how artifacts have always voyaged to distant lands for our enlightenment. But this avoids the point; these Parthenon Marbles are sui generis. Elgin took far more than those cut off the Parthenon, but Greece is not asking for the caryatid he stole from the Erechtheum, nor is it asking for the Winged Victory of Samothrace from the Louvre.

In 2019 at a conference in Athens, I was invited into the then President’s rooms in his official residence where he took care to explain to me that Greece is proud that Hellenic pieces are in the Louvre (apart from Parthenon pieces…) and proud that around the world Greece’s treasures are displayed. “Let me be clear: we want only those pieces that Elgin took off the Parthenon itself”, he told me. The Greeks first claimed those Marbles when it was freed of Ottoman rule and became the Hellenic Republic in the 1830s. Melina Mercouri cast a spotlight on that claim in the 1980’s. Boris Johnson, when he was still an honest scholar, wrote a spirited article for the Oxford Union paper pleading for their return to the land of Achilles. The world is today more aware of cultural plunder than during colonial times. The British Museum is the only major museum in the world staying silent about its often ill-gotten contents. All of UNESCO is aware of this silence and is finding it embarrassing.

Sumption seems unmoved that panels from Duccio’s altarpiece are divided between nine museums, as if it might be diminished in some way were the whole to be displayed as Duccio intended. That altarpiece is a separate inspiration, whereas the Parthenon marbles are part of the very fabric of the building; it is one thing, conceived and carved as one thing. Alexander Herman (‘The Parthenon Marbles Dispute; Heritage, Law, Politics’ – Hart, Bloomsbury, 2023) makes this point: ‘Because we live in democratic times, we tend to have a predilection for remnants that connect us to the Athenian prototype. For this reason the Parthenon as a symbol continues to dominate’.

After two hundred years in London and badly displayed in a grey gallery in Bloomsbury since the 1960s, the Marbles have done their work of enlightening Europe to the glories of the ancient world. The United Kingdom is second to none in classical scholarship; the British Museum has millions of other ancient artifacts in its collections, and wonderful objects are promised for exhibition by the Greeks themselves to compensate for the (inevitable) return. George Osborne, Chairman of the BM Trustees, is embarking on an important act of international co-operation.

As to numbers, only one sixth of the 6 million annual visitors that enter its portals visit the Duveen Galleries. Approximately that same number passes through the Acropolis Museum in Athens, and why, one wonders, should not a Greek child be as astounded as a British one at the god-like figures caught in a high wind off Mount Olympus, and be as proud as Punch that his distant ancestors were so utterly brilliant with white stone? Why should the Greek people not thrill to such visions? They might be as far down the line as the Druids are to the English, but just listen to the fuss if half of Stonehenge had been nicked and plonked in Potsdamerplatz.

To read Lord Sumption's article, 'The Elgin Marbles weren’t stolen — Greece is just exploiting our weakness' follow the link to The Times.

A trustee of the British Museum has confirmed the institution is in talks with the Greek government about the disposition of the Parthenon Marbles, but has told Al Jazeera that a deal may be elusive.

“There is certainly movement, but it is being overhyped,” said Mary Beard, professor of classics at Cambridge University and a trustee since 2020.

“I think something is really happening … There have been discussions between [board of trustees chair] George Osborne and [Greek premier] Kyriakos Mitsotakis,” she told Al Jazeera.

“There is real desire to do something. After 200 years, surely we can get somewhere better than where we are,” Beard said. “Is the problem going to be resolved? I’m not sure.”

Read the artucle aptly entitled: "Rumours of Parthenon Marbles’ return ‘overhyped’, experts say"

The British Museum claims Elgin “was granted a permit” to “draw, measure and remove figures”. But critics say he stretched that to remove far more than was intended.

“Among the bribes Elgin is known to have given is 100 pounds to the Kaimacam [district governor] in Constantinople to release the second shipment [of Marbles], and an amount to the Disdar [fortress commander] in Athens equal to 35 times his annual salary. Elgin documented all expenditures because he was financed by his in-laws,” said Elena Korka.

 An Economist survey in 2000 found that two-thirds of British MPs would vote for the Marbles’ return if a motion were tabled.

A Sunday Times survey in August 2022 found that 78 percent of Britons would return the Marbles, and a poll this month by the Evening Standard found a clear majority of 53 percent of Britons favouring their return – more than the majority that voted for Brexit.

“There’s a very important change in the UK in public opinion and individuals who have an opinion on the matter, from the entire political spectrum, who now openly argue in favour of the marbles’ reunification, recognising their uniqueness,” said Mitsotakis.

We would add that public opinion has always favoured the reunification, especially amongst those that were told the whole story about the Parthenon Marbles removal at the start of the 19th century, by Lord Elgin. What has changed is museums around the world entering into talks between on the matter of returns and restitution of artefacts to their countries of origin. Museums are listening to what their publics want to see, and are looking to the future. 

The new Acropolis Museum may prove to be the most lavishly appointed white elephant in history. Nothing will change the view of the British Government that the intended centrepiece, the magnificently sculpted Elgin Marbles, must remain permanently in the British Museum.

Not that the museum will be empty. There will be 4,000 exhibits including the remaining Parthenon sculptures. But the crown jewels, the 247ft of the original 524ft frieze, 15 of 92 metopes and 17 figures from the pediments, all dating to the 5th century BC, will remain 1,500 miles away in London.

Britain has long argued that when the Earl of Elgin took the Marbles between 1801 and 1805, he was acting legally and that, had he not done so, they would have suffered further deterioration. The Parthenon was already a ruin. Also, fearing their destruction in the conflict between the Greeks and the Turks, Elgin got permission from the Turks, whose empire then ruled Greece, to remove the antiquities.

But the British Museum's ownership of the sculptures has been called into question by a challenge to the validity of a crucial 19th-century legal document. A specialist in Ottoman law says that without the signature and seal of the Sultan as supreme head of the Ottoman Empire, Lord Elgin had no legal right to remove the ancient sculptures from the Acropolis.

Professor Vassilis Dimitriadis, of the University of Crete, says that the document of 1801 — an Italian translation of an Ottoman firman or licence which the British Museum acquired two years ago as the only legal evidence of ownership — is invalidated by vital missing elements. More here.

The British Museum argues that the translated document is from a lost original firman in which the Sultan's acting grand vizier was authorised to permit Elgin to acquire the sculptures.

Professor Dimitriadis claims that the original was not a firman because only the Sultan could issue one by Ottoman law, that it lacks the Sultan's emblem (a tougras), and an invocation to God (da'vet tahmid).

More on this topic also here. (18 July 2000)

Boris Johnson was once such a fervent supporter of the Parthenon Marbles being returned to Athens that he wrote to the Greek culture minister to denounce the British government for not giving back the antiquities.

Greek daily newspaper Ta Nea brought to light today previously unseen and unpublished letters, written in 1986, when Johnson was an undergraduate at Oxford University and Oxford Union president.

In the notes, the future British Prime Minister argued passionately for the ancient sculptures’ “immediate” repatriation, accusing the British government of “sophistry and intransigence”.

Johnson, then 21, went as far as claiming that the British government’s policy on the Parthenon Marbles was “unacceptable to cultured people,” and lamented the “scandalous” way it was handling the issue.

He wrote two letters to the then Greek minister for culture, late actor Melina Mercouri, in which he sided unreservedly with the Greek government’s campaign for the relics to be reunited.

He also cited a letter which proves that Lord Elgin removed the sculptures from the Parthenon in the early 19th century without securing legal permission to do so, arguing that its revelation had made the British government’s position “even shakier.”

Despite his enthusiasm for the Marbles’ return as a student, Johnson has refused to countenance such a move during his time as Prime Minister, sticking to the same position as the British government he criticised so heavily in 1986. Last November, Johnson rebuffed a direct request by Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis for the Marbles to be repatriated.

In an exclusive interview with Ta Nea published in March 2021, the British premier claimed that the Parthenon Sculptures “were legally acquired by Lord Elgin under the appropriate laws of the time.”

This claim contradicts Johnson’s statement in 1986 that “the Turkish authorities denied ‘that the persons who had sold those marbles to [Elgin] had any right to dispose of them’.” Johnson accused Lord Elgin of “wholesale pillage” of the Parthenon, arguing that the Scottish peer exploited the “near anarchy” of the Ottoman Empire to remove the carvings.

The letters were found in an Oxford library. Their authenticity has been confirmed by an Oxford source and someone who served as a Greek state official at the time.

Their unearthing comes six months after Ta Nea found a forgotten article written by Johnson in April 1986, in which he urged the British government to return the artefacts to Greece, arguing that they had been unlawfully removed from the ancient temple in Athens.

British government sources tried to downplay the extent of Johnson’s U-turn, arguing that the 21-year-old classics student wrote the now-famous article in a momentary outburst of youthful enthusiasm, but he later changed his mind.

However, the revelation of two letters with similar content indicates that this was not a "momentary" event; the future head of the British government seemed to be devoted to the repatriation cause, knowing - and providing evidence to support it - that the sculptures were removed from the Parthenon without permission.

Athens has campaigned to have the 2,500-year-old artefacts returned from the British Museum since they were removed by Lord Elgin when he was Britain’s ambassador to the Sublime Porte. At the time, Greece was under Ottoman rule.

Johnson invited Mercouri, who became culture minister after an illustrious acting career, to speak in a debate at the Oxford Union on 12 June 1986, entitled: “[This house believes] that the Elgin Marbles Must be Returned to Athens.” He said it would be “a marvellous evening for the cause”. The chamber voted 167 to 85 in favour of the Marbles’ restitution.

In his first letter, dated March 10, 1986, the future Prime Minister and Conservative leader informed Mercouri that “it is my firm intention to hold a debate on an issue that is scandalously handled by the British government, and which I believe to be of great importance.”

He went on to say that “I think the majority of students agree with me when I say that there is absolutely no reason why the Elgin Marbles, superlatively the most important and beautiful treasures left to us by the ancient world, should not be returned immediately from the British Museum to their rightful home in Athens.”

He added that he believed Mercouri would win the vote, something that would send a clear message to Whitehall: “If the motion was successful, and I am sure that it would be, it would be a clear message to the British government that their policy is unacceptable to cultured people. I believe that it would be an important step in your campaign.”

On April 16, 1986, Johnson sent a second letter to the Greek culture minister, insisting that “the issue of the Elgin Marbles (…) has been handled with sophistry and intransigence by the British government”.

“Since the discovery of Elgin’s letter of 1811, the Government’s position has grown even shakier,” he stressed.

The said letter was written on July 31st, 1811, by Lord Elgin and addressed to the Prime Minister, Spencer Perceval. “My successors in the Embassy could not obtain permission for the removal of what I had not myself taken away. And on Mr Adair's being officially instructed to apply in my favour, he understood, ‘The Porte denied that the persons who had sold those marbles to me had any right to dispose of them’,” Elgin wrote.

Lord Elgin had previously received a letter from the former British Ambassador to Constantinople, Robert Adair, which suggested that Elgin had not acquired the marbles legitimately. A 2002 BBC News report noted that Adair’s letter “could help to resolve the row between Britain and Greece over the Elgin Marbles.”

Johnson ended his letter by reassuring Mercouri that the result of the debate “will be a foregone conclusion”. He added: “This will be a great event and a marvellous evening for the cause.”

“On March 21, 1986, under the instructions of Greek ambassador Stefanos Stathatos, I, along with embassy press officer Peter Thompson, and three members of the BCRPM, met with Johnson in Oxford to discuss the debate’s details. He was very receptive and sympathetic to our cause. He later fully adopted the points we sent him on the reunification of the sculptures," Dr Victoria Solomonidis, who was Cultural Counsellor at the Greek Embassy in London for 30 years, told Ta Nea.

“Years later, when he was mayor of London, I met him in his office accompanying ambassador Konstantinos Bikas. I reminded him of the 1986 debate and gave him a framed picture of him next to Mercouri. He smiled, and changed the subject,” added Solomonidis, member of the Melina Mercouri Foundation’s Board of Directors.

In search of ‘cheap ouzo and retsina’

On April 15, 1986, Johnson wrote to Peter Thompson, a press officer at the Greek embassy in London, asking for his help to find “cheap ouzo and retsina”, two of the most famous Greek alcoholic drinks.

“On the day before the debate we will be having a large and splendid party. To make the thing go with a swing, we are in search of cheap ouzo and retsina. I was informed that it might be feasible to obtain it through the Embassy. Could you possibly advise?” Johnson wrote.

The event, titled “The glory that was Greece”, took place on Wednesday 11 June. According to the Oxford Union’s term card, it was a toga party held in the union’s garden.

The term card read: “Come trip it nymphs and dryad maids withal. We bring lashings of the gift of Dionysus, ouzo, lamb souvlaki, and a cornucopia of Greek delicacies to the lyrical strains of a Greek band.”

Article written by Yannis Andritsopoulos for Ta Nea, published on Saturday, 02 July 2022 

Culture and conflict often coexist in an uneasy and paradoxical manner; culture being an essential part of conflict and conflict resolution. Culture makes people understand each other better. Conflict resolution acts as a healing balm providing interaction between the concerned parties and the hope to overcome barriers.

Taking away and damaging the cultural heritage of a society is tampering with its identity. The history of art looting is lengthy and continuous. It begins possibly with Jason and the Argonauts looting the Golden Fleece. It continues with the habit of the Romans of looting art from conquered cities in order to parade it through the streets of Rome, before putting it on display in the forum. In Byzantium, the Hippodrome was adorned with looted art, and during the Fourth Crusade in 1204 the Crusaders looted the city itself. Cultural spoils were taken back to Venice to adorn the cathedral of St Mark, among them, the four gilded horses of the Apocalypse that remain in the city to this day.

In the ancient world, cultural pillage was an act of state planned to demonstrate the supremacy of the conqueror and underline the humiliation of the defeated. By the nineteenth century, however, such actions had been joined by the claim of the acquiring country to be the true heir of Classical civilization. Thus, Napoleon’s victorious armies began concluding a series of treaties with conquered states across Europe that allowed them to usurp artworks to stock the Louvre Museum.

From the colonial era to the Second World War, wars have provided opportunities for art looting on a massive scale, and the restitution of stolen cultural artefacts remains a dispute around the world. The trafficking of stolen art has become as widespread as drugs and firearms.

Private looting has always occurred alongside with state sponsored plundering, although it has evoked more disapprobation. The vandalism of the Parthenon sculptures by Thomas Bruce, seventh earl of Elgin, British Ambassador to the Ottoman court is the most notorious one and remains the archetypal case of looted artworks repatriation demand for more than 200 years.

Since the second half of the 20th century, states have adopted legislative instruments to regulate the illicit trafficking and the return of improperly removed cultural objects as part of a wider effort to enhance the protection of cultural heritage.

Restitution of cultural objects unethically removed from their countries of origin is a today’s global question. Cases concerning the circulation of cultural property are increasingly settled through diplomatic relationships. Museums are institutions representing reconciliation and as such, they have the duty to act ethically.

Antiquities of particular importance to humanity that were removed from the territory of a State in a questionable manner in terms of legality, as well as in an onerous way, need to be returned on the basis of fundamental principles enclosed in international conventions irrespective of time limits or other restrictions. They also need to be returned on the basis of legal principles, customary rules, and ethics. This need is also dictated by increased ecumenical interest for the integrity of the monument to be restored in its historic, cultural, and natural environment. Nobody may fully appreciate these antiquities outside their context. A characteristic example in this respect is the Parthenon Sculptures.

Lord Elgin was a fatal figure in the history of the looting of Greek antiquities. In 1799, he was appointed British Ambassador to the Sublime Porte at Constantinople. A year earlier, Napoleon had invaded Ottoman Egypt, and Britain hoped to become the sultan’s main ally in reversing the French conquest. The dispatch from London of a well-connected diplomat descended from the kings of Scotland who had previously served as a British envoy in Brussels and Berlin was itself a gesture of friendship toward the Turks.

As well as competing in geopolitics, the British were rivalling French for access to whatever remained of the great civilizations of antiquity. Elgin seizes the opportunity for personal gain to acquire a huge collection of antiquities. His attention was focused primarily on the monuments on the Acropolis (the Parthenon topmost) which were very difficult of access and from which no one ever had been granted permission to remove sculptures.

His marriage to a wealthy heiress, Mary Nisbet, had given him the financial means to sponsor ambitious cultural projects. While traveling through Europe en route to Constantinople, he recruited a team of mostly Italian artists led by the Neapolitan painter Giovanni-Battista Lusieri.

Their initial task was to draw, document and mould antiquities in the Ottoman-controlled territory of Greece. The initially cloudy mission of Elgin’s artistic team culminated in a massive campaign to dismantle artworks from the temples on the Acropolis and transport them to Britain. By using methods of bribery and fraud, Elgin persuaded the Turkish dignitaries in Athens to turn a blind eye while his team removed those parts of the Parthenon, they particularly liked.

Elgin never acquired the permission to remove the sculptural and architectural decoration of the monument by the authority of the Sultan himself, who alone could have issued such a permit. He simply made use of a friendly letter from the Kaimakam, a Turkish officer, who at the time was replacing the Grand Vizier in Constantinople. This letter, handed out unofficially as a favour, could only urge the Turkish authorities in Athens to allow Elgin's men to make drawings, take casts and conduct excavations around the foundations of the Parthenon, with the condition that no harm be caused to the monuments.

On 31 July 1801, the first of the high-standing sculptures was hauled down. Between 1801 and 1804, Elgin's team was active on the Acropolis, stripping, hacking off causing considerable damage to the sculptures and the monument. Eventually Elgin’s team detached half of the remaining sculpted decoration of the Parthenon, together with certain architectural members such as a capital, a column drum and one of the six caryatids that adorned the Erechtheion temple, as they could not found an available ship to take all six away! “I have been obliged to be a little barbarous,” Lusieri once wrote to Elgin.

London and Athens now hold dismembered pieces of many of the sculptures. Large sections of the Parthenon frieze, an extraordinary series of relief sculptures depicting the procession of Greater Panathenaia, the most important festival held in honour of the city’s divine patroness Athena, numbered among the loot.

Of the 97 surviving blocks of the Parthenon frieze, 56 have been removed to Britain and 40 are in Athens. Of the 64 surviving metopes, 48 are in Athens and 15 have been taken to London. Of the 28 preserved figures of the pediments, 19 have been removed to London and 9 are in Athens.

The shipping of these precious antiquities to Britain was fraught with difficulties. One ship sank and the sculptures, after prolonged exposure to the damp in various harbours, eventually arrived in England three years later. In London, they were shifted from sheds to warehouses, because Elgin had been reduced to such penury by the enormous costs of wages, transportation, gifts and bribes to the Turks, that he was unable to accommodate them in his own house. So, after the mortgaging of the collection by the British state, he was obliged to sell the Parthenon Sculptures to the government, for £35,000—less than half of what Elgin claimed to have spent. Finally, the British Government transferred the Sculptures to the British Museum in 1817. In 1962, they were placed at the Duveen Gallery. Even after they arrived at the British Museum, the sculptures received imperfect care. In 1938, for example, they were “cleaned” with an acid solution.

Prior to the transaction a Committee was appointed to consider the purchase and the evidence, it gathered was placed before Parliament. A debate took place, where many voices expressed their scepticism and disapproval. Even thoughts about the return of the Marbles were expressed for the very first time. Hugh Hammersley, a Member of Parliament, first raised the question in the House of Commons. Strenuous objections were heard outside Parliament as well, the most impassioned being that of Lord Byron, a poet and fellow member of the Anglo-Scottish aristocracy. Elgin was denounced as a vandal in sonorous verses by Lord Byron.

Contrary to Elgin’s stated fears, the sculptures that remained in Athens did not vanish. After 1833, when the Ottomans left the Acropolis and handed it to the new nation of Greece, the great citadel and its monuments became a focus of national pride. Protecting, restoring and showcasing the legacy of the Athenian golden age has been the highest priority for Greeks since then.

The removal of the so-called Elgin Marbles has long been described as an egregious act of imperial plunder.

Not surprisingly, the British Museum has so far refused all requests to give up one of its most popular exhibits. The Parthenon sculptures have become the most visible, and notorious, collection of Acropolis artifacts still housed in museums across Europe, often with the justification that such objects are emblematic of European civilization, not just of Greek heritage.

The British Museum relies on the supposed legality of an Act of Parliament. The Trustees shelter behind the argument that it is the law – that they are entrusted with these artefacts and cannot divest themselves of them. In reality, as the late Eddie O’Hara, former MP and Chairman of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles (BCRPM) stated, “the government simply needs to legislate to say ‘yes, this is possible.’ – as they did with Nazi loot.”

Even this most difficult of disputes can be resolved with the support of both Museum of Trustees and the UK Government by amending the 1963 Act or by enacting separate legislation. An Act of Parliament could be an Act of Conscience! As Janet Suzman, Chair for the BCRPM declared, the Trustees of the British Museum must get their heads together and break the shackles preventing the just return of Greece’s precious heritage to Athens.

Today, the defenders of keeping the Parthenon Sculptures in the U.K. are looking increasingly lonely. A particularly important development in the long-running request marks both the transformation of British public opinion and the changing trend of museums for the repatriation of cultural treasures, together with the eloquent request for reunification by Greek Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, submitted to his counterpart, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, during his visit in London last November.

Even, The Times, the flagship newspaper of the British establishment, made a historic turn to support the reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures: "Τhey belong to Athens, they must be returned”. The main article of The Times, in an unprecedented fashion, stating that it is like taking Hamlet out of the First Sheet of Shakespeare’s works and saying that both can still exist separately, recognizes the uniqueness of the Parthenon Sculptures!

This support for Greece's request is welcomed by all those that have reinforced the diplomatic route for the reunification of the sculptures, applying constant and methodical pressure and garnering assistance from the international community. It was preceded by the unanimous decision of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Commission for the Return of Cultural Property to Countries of Origin (ICPRCP), which at its 22nd Session on 29th September 2021, adopted for the first time, in addition to the usual recommendation, a text focusing exclusively on the return of Parthenon sculptures. This new text, acknowledging the intergovernmental nature of the subject, was in direct contrast to the British side, which has consistently argued that the case concerns the British Museum. The Commission calls on the United Kingdom to reconsider its position and hold talks with Greece.*

*quotation of the text presented by the Greek delegation to UNESCO's ICPRCP.

Last week, the Μuseum’s chairman George Osborne said: "I think there is a deal to be done – whereby the marbles could be shown in both Athens and London, and as long as there weren’t “a load of preconditions” or a “load of red lines”. Since then, a number of British Lawmakers have also voiced their support for the return of the marbles, and a group of scholars and advocates of the sculptures ‘demonstrated', at the British Museum on the occasion of the 13th birthday of the Acropolis Museum.

The Acropolis Museum’s director general, Professor Nikos Stampolidis, responded with a statement, in which he described the Parthenon Sculptures as representing a procession that symbolized Athenian democracy. “The violent removal of half of the frieze from the Parthenon can be conceived, in reality, as setting apart, dividing and uprooting half of the participants in an actual procession, and holding them captive in a foreign land,” Prof. Stampolidis said. “It consists of the depredation, the interruption, the division and dereliction of the idea of democracy. The question arises: Who owns the ‘captives?’ “The museum where they are imprisoned, or the place where they were born?”

A precursor to the return is the agreement between Italy and Greece. The “Fagan fragment” of the Goddess Artemis, became the first permanently repatriated marble fragment of the sculptures to be restored on the Parthenon frieze, from the Antonino Salinas Regional Archaeology Museum in Palermo, on June 4. It was taken at the same time as the forceful removal of the Parthenon Sculptures by Lord Elgin, and later sold to the University of Palermo.

Meanwhile European governments are rushing to announce policies to return cultural goods to their countries of origin. France returned 26 items, 16th and 17th century bronze art pieces, of unparalleled art to Benin last October, and Germany announced that it would return to Nigeria, the spoils of Benin. In April, Glasgow city council voted to return 17 Benin bronze artefacts looted in West Africa in the 19th century. The Belgian government as well, has agreed to transfer ownership of stolen items from its museums to African countries of origin. Lately, the Plenary Session of the 76th UN General Assembly adopted the decision promoted by Greece for the return of cultural goods to their countries of origin.

Since regaining independence in 1832, successive Greek governments have petitioned for the return of the Parthenon Sculptures. Melina Mercouri, Greek minister of Culture, reenergized the repatriation campaign, by making a request in 1982 for the Greek government to return the Parthenon Sculptures to the UNESCO General Conference on Cultural Policy in Mexico.

The new Acropolis Museum of Athens, which opened in 2009, was built within sight of the actual Parthenon with the goal of eventually housing all the surviving elements of the Parthenon frieze. The Museum’s magnificent glass gallery, bathed in Greek sunlight and offering a clear view of the Parthenon, is the perfect place to reintegrate the frieze and allow visitors to ponder its meaning.

Greece's constant demand for the reunification of the stolen Parthenon Sculptures with the mutilated ecumenical monument is a unique case based on respect for cultural identity and the principle of preserving the integrity of world heritage sites.

As Professor Paul Cartledge, Vice President of BCRPM rightfully said: ‘The key word is ‘Acropolis’. The Parthenon, a UNESCO World Heritage site, derives its significance ultimately from its physical context. A good deal of the original building has miraculously been preserved and in recent times expertly curated. The gap between the Acropolis Museum’s Parthenon display and that in the Duveen Gallery of the British Museum is simply immeasurable. Over and against the alleged claim of legality, there is on our side the overriding claim of ethical probity. Times change, and mores with them.”

The United Kingdom can only benefit from the long-awaited gesture, not of generosity, but of justice. The reunification will finally be given its time.

*The article above formed part of a presentation thatSophia Hiniadou Cambanis gave at the Thessaloniki International Conference : “Art communicating conflict resolution: An intercultural dialogue” co-organized by the Municipality of Thessaloniki and the UNESCO Chair “Intercultural Policy for an Active Citizenship and Solidarity” of the University of Macedonia, on June 30th 2022.

**Sophia Hiniadou Cambanis is Attorney at Law and Cultural Policy & Management Advisor at the Hellenic Parliament

The fragments of the Parthenon sculptures that are exhibited in the British Museum have made headlines again, after an interview with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in which he expressed his objection to the sculptures’ repatriation. Johnson’s refusal is of little consequence. The sculptures are not the responsibility of the British government but of the Trustees of the British Museum; it is their opinion that counts.

Thirty-eight years after the beginning of systematic efforts for the repatriation of the sculptures, the British Museum’s opposition to the reunification of all the remaining fragments in the Acropolis Museum has no substantial basis, neither moral nor scientific. Since 2009, the Acropolis Museum has been the ideal place for the exhibition of all the sculptures that once decorated the Parthenon. The website of the British Museum gives a shaky justification for the Trustees’ objection to the unification of the Marbles: “The Trustees of the British Museum believe that there’s a great public benefit to seeing the sculptures within the context of the world collection of the British Museum, in order to deepen our understanding of their significance within world cultural history.” In other words, viewing the sculptures of Pheidias along with the sculptures of ancient Egypt or Rapa Nui takes precedence over the integrity of a work of art.

This cannot be taken seriously. Imagine that the score of a lost symphony by Tchaikovsky was found and its sheets were scattered in private collections around the world; and imagine that the collector who is in possession of 60% of the score prefers to have the parts recorded on his sheets performed together with music from the Andes or China, instead of allowing the performance of the entire composition. The argument of the British Museum carries similar weight.

So, why does the British Museum insist on its position? The reason, admitted or not, is simple: If the British Museum were to bring the Parthenon sculptures to Greece in any way that might create any suspicion that they have been in its possession illegally, this would set a precedent and might call into question the legitimacy of its collections that were acquired before the establishment of international legal norms for the protection of antiquities and cultural heritage. This is why the British Museum does not rule out sending the Parthenon sculptures to Athens as a loan, but under one important condition: “that the borrowing institution acknowledges the British Museum’s ownership of the object.” For the British Museum, this is not a whim; it is a matter of survival. All Greek governments have declared that they will never acknowledge that the British Museum is legally in possession of the sculptures. Hence the deadlock.

Can Greece break the deadlock by raising legal claims for the return of the sculptures? Lord Elgin was in possession of an administrative document – a letter from the Kaimakam, superior administrative official of Istanbul, to the Ottoman authorities in Athens – when he removed the sculptures from the Parthenon; however, according to Turkish historians, such an act would have normally required a firman (a royal mandate or decree) from the sultan. Elgin claimed that he had been given a firman, but no such document was ever found. The problem is that when the British Museum acquired the Parthenon sculptures in 1816, following a decision by the British Parliament, there was no international law for the protection of cultural property, no Greek state, and no Greek laws for the protection of antiquities. To submit the matter to a British or an international court means accepting unpredictable risks.

By contrast, things are clear from a moral and scientific point of view. Elgin committed greedy and ruthless looting. Anyone who reads the reports of his agents about the brutal way in which the sculptures were removed from the Parthenon still feels the repulsion and indignation that Lord Byron expressed in his poem after his visit to Athens (1811).

Scaped from the ravage of the Turk and Goth,

Thy country sends a spoiler worse than both.

Survey this vacant, violated fane;

Recount the relics torn that yet remain:

“These” Cecrops placed, “this” Pericles adorned,

“That” Adrian reared when drooping Science mourned.

What more I owe let Gratitude attest –

Know, Alaric and Elgin did the rest.

That all may learn from whence the plunderer came,

The insulted wall sustains his hated name.

For today’s civilized world, it is of no relevance what document Elgin had or did not have in 1801. Today, priority must be given to the restoration of a work of art of emblematic significance to world culture. It is in this spirit that the motto of the international committees for the Parthenon sculptures is “Marbles United,” not “Marbles Returned.”

Given that the legal issue of ownership has not produced – and it is unlikely that it will ever produce – any results, it is time for another approach. The proposal is simple: The Greek Parliament’s Committee on Cultural Affairs should appoint a committee of Greek and foreign experts and generally respected figures who will approach the British Museum not on behalf of the Greek state, but on behalf of the Acropolis Museum, in order to examine the conditions under which the reunion of the sculptures will become possible. Since every Greek government would like to triumph over a success and every opposition would look for reasons to stigmatize the government, this committee should be appointed by an increased majority, in order to have cross-party support. In a period of increasing polarization, it would be a real gift to the Greek citizens to have an atmosphere of cross-party understanding on this issue.

Solutions can be found. For instance, the Collection of Antiquities of the University of Heidelberg was in possession of a small fragment of the Parthenon frieze. In 2006 the university did not “return” but “donated” it to the Acropolis Museum. The act of donation – the transfer of ownership from one museum to another – freed the university from any suspicion of illegality, and the fragment found its place in the frieze. There is a difference between a government’s claim for the return of stolen property and and a committee’s efforts to restore for all humanity a monument of universal importance. By shifting the focus from law to culture and from a dispute between a state and a museum to a cooperation between two museums, a new dynamic can be created. Otherwise, Greece will continue to have the right on its side and the British Museum the sculptures in its rooms.

Angelos Chaniotis is professor of ancient history and Classics at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, NJ.

British Government 

Congratulations to Mrs Vardinoyannis for her comprehensive article on the overall issue of the divided sculptures from the Parthenon and for her contribution to this noble cause. Among other things, her article published in VIMAGAZINO and other outlets, highlights the importance of the recent ICPRCP Committee’s emblematic Decision which recognized for the first time the intergovernmental character of the difference over the Parthenon Sculptures and its adoption, is due to the hard work of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs in cooperation with the Greek Culture Ministry.

“JUST A LITTLE MORE, LET US RISE JUST A LITTLE HIGHER”

article by Marianna V. Vardinoyannis, UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador

Published in VIMAGAZINO, January 2022

“All the electric lights won’t stop them from constantly seeking the sweet light of Homer,” renowned French sculptor Auguste Rodin said to Angelos Sikelianos upon seeing the Sculptures “imprisoned” in a dark hall of the British Museum. And he was absolutely right.

Greece is the homeland of the Parthenon Sculptures, Athens is their birthplace, and Greek light is the only light that can bring out their greatness. Only bathed in Greek light can these wonderful creations of human civilization, and, of course, only intact in their entirety, shine and transmit throughout the world the fundamental universal human principles and values of Democracy, Equality Before Law, and Freedom of Speech, just as our ancestors envisioned them.

It has been 221 years since the Greek Sculptures were taken from the hill of the Acropolis. From 1801 and for about a decade, Lord Elgin forcibly removed the Sculptures, even using saws, in order to transport them to the Great Britain. The Sculptures were purchased by the British Museum a few years later.

During these two centuries, the dismemberment of this global monument-symbol remains an open wound, a deep wound, a pressing debt, and a pending moral issue, not towards our country and Greek civilization, but towards our global civilization as a whole.

These Sculptures are not isolated works, but “architectural sculptures”, the decoration of an indivisible whole, a unique architectural work of global history: the Parthenon. A creation that has dominated the Sacred Rock for 2,500 years, looking out onto the Athenian landscape, and challenging historical time, wining the wager of eternity against natural disasters, wars, and geographical and political changes. Despite being manmade, it survived through centuries of human history, remaining the most powerful symbol of Athenian democracy, the first democracy in the history of our societies. A symbol for the entire Western world.

This unique power and the very substance of the monument show us the path we must follow: the path of Dialogue.

About 40 years ago, my dear friend, the late and one and only Melina Mercouri, began a courageous effort as Minister of Culture, opening an international dialogue and raising the issue at the UNESCO Forum of Ministers of Culture in Mexico, with the Forum ruling in favour of the return of the Sculptures to Greece. Melina realised very early on that the path to the return of the Sculptures could only be opened through the creation of international alliances and the launching of an international dialogue based on our country’s just arguments.

From the outset, I had the great honour of being at her side, a companion to her at every step of this “beautiful struggle”, utilising the “weapon” of cultural diplomacy at all my international meetings. And from the moment I had the honour of being elected as UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador, the return of the Sculptures has always remained the focus of my activity. I was one of the last people she spoke to before she passed away. “Marianna, I want you to promise me that you will continue to fight for the return of our Sculptures. When they return, I will be reborn,” were her last words to me. And these words never ceased to be in my thoughts and priorities.

I feel that it was not just I who kept this promise, but the entire Greek people. Every Greek woman and man, every one of us who, throughout these years, never, not even for a moment, stopped envisioning this dream becoming a reality. Every smaller or larger effort, on a national or international level, by the State, Civil Society, institutions and agencies, international committees in many countries, and international organisations, contributed to the significant shift in the climate surrounding the matter recently.

I remember when we held the exhibition titled ‘The unity of a unique monument: Parthenon’, together with Jules Dassin and the ‘Melina Mercouri Foundation’ at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris in 2003, the first voices of support for our country were heard, albeit timidly, within the international organisation, while another great success was the attendance of the UK Ambassador! That is when, through great struggle, we started to acquire important allies, such as UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador Jean Michel Jarre, who, at two concerts at the Odeon of Herodes Atticus organised by our Foundation and the ‘Association of Friends of Children with Cancer ELPIDA’, turned the interest of the global community towards Greece, composing the ‘Hymn to the Acropolis’ and performing it for the first time anywhere at the Holy Rock of Athens.

At the same time, in collaboration with leading international figures in the Arts and Culture who joined in the Heroes struggle for the return of the Sculptures, our Foundation launched major initiatives such as conferences, publications, colloquiums, and our international ‘Return (the Parthenon Sculptures) – Restore (Unity)– Restart (History)’ campaign, in collaboration with the Melina Mercouri Foundation.

Since Melina Mercouri began this struggle, the State has taken important steps on a diplomatic and legal level, while at the same time Greece’s voice in international fora is gaining traction.

The courageous Resolution of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committeeon the promotion of the return of cultural goods to their countries of origin or their restitution in the event of illegal appropriation (ICPRCP) in September 2021, which for the first time recognises the issue of the return of Sculptures as an intergovernmental issue, and not an issue between the two Museums, was the culmination years of systematic efforts. It is also noteworthy that the Resolution calls on the United Kingdom to reconsider its stance and enter into good-faith dialogue with Greece, while also recognising our country’s just request.

The ICPRCP is the only competent UNESCO Committee on matters of negotiation, mediation, and conciliation on international cultural disputes between states and it meets every two years, with the next Meeting scheduled for May 2022. Although this Resolution is not legally binding, it is particularly important that it was reached by the ICPRCP, which is the only international Intergovernmental Commission in the framework of UNESCO – in other words, within the UN – and is a strong international message that the British side cannot ignore.

In 2021, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis – in addition to his bilateral meeting with the British Prime Minister – visited UNESCO headquarters in Paris twice, drawing on the strength of the International Organisation and cultural diplomacy. In September 2021, he raised the issue with UNESCO’s Director-General, Audrey Azoulay, in the context of their meeting, and a few months later, in November 2021, in the context of UNESCO’s 75-year celebrations, Kyriakos Mitsotakis talked about the return of the Sculptures before 192 Heads of State and their representatives.

During these visits, at which I had the honour of being present, and through discussions with Heads of State and world figures of culture, it became clear that there had been a shift in the climate in favour of our country’s just request.

This was also apparent at the recent ‘Greece and Cultural Heritage’ Symposium, which our Foundation hosted at UNESCO’s headquarters in Paris on the margins of the 41st General Conference of the Organisation. During the Symposium, which was held in the context of ‘Initiative 21’ and was attended live by representatives of the 193 UNESCO member states, there were many important voices that spoke of the need for the Sculptures to return to Greece, including Her Excellency the President of the Hellenic Republic, Katerina Sakellaropoulou, as well as the internationally renowned Professor of History at University of Cambridge, Paul Cartledge.

Paying close attention to the developments on the international cultural scene, allows one to observe that this shift does not concern Greece alone. The past two years have seen intense international movement on the issue of the return of stolen cultural treasures to their countries of origin. These are mainly treasures exported illegally during the years when colonialism flourished, from countries with a pronounced colonial past, which today have launched a systematic effort to ‘balance the books’ with regards to past illegal possession of their national cultural treasures.

French President Emmanuel Macron has appointed the former President of the Louvre Museum, Jean-Luc Martinez, as the competent Ambassador for international cooperation and setting the criteria for the return of cultural treasures to their countries of origin. Germany has signed an agreement with Nigeriaon the gradual return of cultural goods, while countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands and Austria have made similar agreements.

The climate with regard to cultural heritage monuments is clearly changing, leading many Museums to change their stance and return national cultural treasures to their countries of origin. Obviously, this climate favours the cause of the return of the Parthenon Sculptures.

The return of the famous ‘Fagan fragment’ from the Antonino Salinas Museum in Palermo to the Acropolis Museum on 10 January 2022, through the process of “long-term deposit”, shows the way and is an important weapon on the Greek side of the argument.

This year, for the first time, the Venice Biennale, Europe’s leading cultural event, which will open its doors in the spring, intends to organise a photography exhibition dedicated to the Acropolis and its Museum. The exhibition will be based on the iconic black and white photographs of emblematic photographer Giannis Giannelos, which form the basis of the exceptional collectible publication of our Foundation, ‘Acropolis, the New Museum’, published by ‘Miletus’. Browsing through this book, which moved the people responsible at Biennale so much that they asked us to hold a separate and autonomous exhibition, one realises that this is the natural space of the Sculptures: under sky of Attica, bathed in Greek light.

All of us must continue the struggle. History has shown that each smaller or greater contribution, every effort has played a role in moving things a little further along, making international public opinion understand that these Sculptures are not just exhibits in a museum. The Sculptures are Greece, they are our national pride, on them is carved our history, and they form part of one of the largest monuments of humanity.

“A little longer
And we shall see the almond trees in blossom
The marbles shining in the sun
The sea, the curling waves
Just a little more
Let us rise just a little higher...”

Let the words of George Seferis, with the music of the great Greek, and my beloved friend, the late Mikis Theodorakis, be our compass, our beacon, and our strength in our “just and beautiful struggle.”

Marianna V. Vardinoyannis, UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, gave his first interview with a European newspaper since becoming the UK’s Prime Minister. In his response to the question of the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles, he told Yannis Andritsopoulos, UK Correspondent for the Greek newspaper Ta Nea that the sculptures held in the British Museum would remain in Britain because they had been legally acquired.

“I understand the strong feelings of the Greek people – and indeed Prime Minister Mitsotakis – on the issue. But the UK government has a firm longstanding position on the sculptures, which is that they were legally acquired by Lord Elgin under the appropriate laws of the time and have been legally owned by the British Museum’s trustees since their acquisition.”, Mr. Johnson said.

Greece's Minister of Culture and Sport, Dr Lina Mendoni issued a statement on the same day to counter Prime Minister Johnson's stand on the issue of the Parthenon Sculptures.

"Upon careful review of the statements made by U.K. Prime Minister, Mr. Boris Johnson, it is clear that he has not been properly informed by the competent state services of his country, of the new historical data regarding , that show that there has was never a legitimate acquisition of the Parthenon Sculptures by Lord Elgin and, therefore neither has the British Museum ever acquired the Sculptures in a legitimate manner. The Ministry of Culture and Sports can provide the necessary documentary evidence that can inform the British people that the British Museum possesses the Sculptures illegally.

For Greece, the British Museum does not have legitimate ownership or possession of the Sculptures. The Parthenon, as a symbol of UNESCO and Western Civilisation, reflects universal values. We are all obliged to work towards this direction."

To read Minister Mendoni's statement in Greek and in English, follow the link here.

 Greek Minister of Culture and Sports, Dr. Lina Mendoni

A timely reminder of  Annex A in the Publication on the UK Parliament Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence:

Was the Removal of the Parthenon Marbles by Elgin Legal?

 24. Abdullah Pasha issued the letter that survived in translation, as a gesture of gratitude to the British Ambassador who was at that time at the peak of his influence at the Porte because of the successful outcome of the war in Egypt. But Abdullah Pasha would not dare to issue a firman to the same effect because he would need the approval of the Sultan himself, who would probably reject Elgin's request. Consequently, the document upon which the "legality" of the removal of the Acropolis monuments is based had neither the strength of a law nor even that of a legal order of the Sultan's government, as it would have if it was a firman, but it is simply a "reference letter" supplied to the British Ambassador by the deputy of the Grand Vezir, succumbing to his persistent demands and his powerful influence at the time. The fact that such a document of inferior authority was enough for the authorities in Athens to allow the ravage of the Acropolis should not surprise us. Elgin himself later said that: "in point of fact, all permissions issuing from the Porte to any distant provinces, are little better than authorities to make the best bargains that can be made with the local magistracies"

THE GUARDIAN 16 November 2021

On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 in the Guardian Peter Walker and Helena Smith wrote that it has long been the official UK position that any return is a matter for the British Museum.

The wider debate about museums returning artefacts taken from other countries during colonial times, has so far been resisted by the UK with the mantra of “retain and explain”. And that the British Museum’s consistent view is that the sculptures were acquired legally, with Elgin receiving formal consent from the Ottoman empire to remove the section of sculptures. “His actions were thoroughly investigated by a parliamentary select committee in 1816 and found to be entirely legal, prior to the sculptures entering the collection of the British Museum by act of parliament,” the museum says on its website.

BCRPM Vice-Chair Paul Cartledge was quoted in the same Guardian article saying that this amounted to “a sleight of hand”.

“It’s a nonsense,” he added. “Even if the trustees agreed to relinquish them, the final decision to rescind the act of 1816 which declared the Elgin Collection to be owned by the nation would legally have to go through the British parliament. There is no doubt that the pressure is building up for genuine, post-imperial reconciliation in the cultural sphere and Johnson is trying to evade it.”

To read thst article in full, follow the link here.

THE TIMES

  Josh Glancey of The Times tweeted on the same day about the British Museum's website statement:

And BCRPM member Benjamin Ramm replied 

Variations in the British Museum's statements, half truths on the information provided in Room 18, have left generations questioning what really happened bewtween 1801-1805 for Greece to have lost to another country half of its surviving Parthenon Marbles, with the Parthenon itself still in Athens.

A helpful video can be found on the Acropolis Museum web site.

GBNews 18 November 2021

On Friday vening BCRPM's member Professor John Tasioulas joined GBNews and took a pragmatic approach on the issue too.

Today, Saturday 20 November, Simon Jenkins wrote in the Guardian and the article headline reads: 'Give the Parthenon marbles back to Greece – tech advances mean there are no more excuses. To read the full article follow the link here. 

THE GUARDIAN 20 November 2021

Simon Jenkins pragmatic approach concludes: 'This issue, so important to the Greeks but not to the British, could be sorted out with goodwill in an instant. Precisely such a negotiation on the marbles was demanded in September by UNESCO, and rejected by Britain. If it requires a “perpetual loan” or an act of parliament, then get on with it. If money is required, raise it. Johnson is being feeble in fobbing off Athens’ request as not being under his purview. The museum is a state institution. Instead of keeping his promise and doing the right thing by the marbles, he has performed another U-turn and funked it.'

THE DAILY MAIL 20 November 2021 

Prime Minister Mitsotakis wrote in the Daily Mail and adds: "Now, given the Prime Minister has told me he would not stand in the way of Greece establishing a formal dialogue with the British Museum over the future of the marbles, I can only assume things will be different – that he will not obstruct any future agreement and, instead, the Prime Minister would seek to amend the relevant legislation to allow the sculptures’ return."

THE TELEGRAPH 20 November 2021

The Telegraph published a double page spread in the main section of Saturday's paper, witten by Gordon Raynor, with the headline questioning:'Could we be on course to lose 'our' Marbles?'

BCRPM's Chair Janet Suzman is quoted:"The British Museum is demonstrably behind the curve.Other world-class institutions have started returning items, so it's a bit smug for the British Museum to refuse to engage. It just keeps trotting out the same mantra it has clung on for the past 200 years. It's terribly impolite for them to just stay silent on this."

The British Museum's reasons for keeping the Marbles in London and divided from their surviving half in Athens is that: " there is a positive advantage and public benefit in having the sculptures divided bewtween two great museums, because in Athens they are seen against the backdrop of Athenian history and in London visitors gain insight into how ancient Greece influenced other civilisations."

Janet adds that this is just "childish, finders keepers stuff. They were forcibly removed, they were brought to Britain, they have excited the western world and classical scholarship went up. They have done their job and it's time for them to go home. It is a moral obligation.

She continues:" Anyone who goes to the museum in Athens can see, that is where they should be displayed. In the British Museum the experience is quite depressing."

To read the full article, visit the Telegraph.

More on this also in the Greek Reporter.