Lord Alf Dubs just after 3 pm, in the House of Lords, made a pertinent and heartfelt plea for the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles:

"In the British Museum there are over 108,000 Greek artefacts of which six and half thousand are currently on display but more importantly will he accept that my plea that we should consider returning the Parthenon Marbles is based on the fact that they are a unique piece of art. That they belong together and have a proud history in terms of the Greek historical traditions, surely we should think again."

Sadly also listening to the well rehearsed replies by Lord Parkinson, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Media, Culture and Sport, other lines came to mind:

'tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time'

When will solemn and honest dialogue begin to reunite this peerless collection of sculptures so senselessly divided, mainly between two great museums? Isn't it time to appreciate the efforts made by Greece to showcase these works of art as close as it is physically possible to the building they were a part of for over two and half millennia? Isn't it time to prove that as people of nations that respect and care about cultural heritage, we can do the right thing?

The Parthenon Gallery in the Acropolis Museum is the one place on earth where it is possible to have a single and aesthetic experience simultaneously of the Parthenon and its sculptures. There are no reasons remaining to prevent the UK from entering into dialogue with Greece now about the terms of and conditions under which return might be considered.

09 February 2022, Ta Nea

UK Correspondent for Ta Nea, Yannis Andritsopoulos has published his article, which can be read online at Ta Nea. He notes that yesterday's ten-minute debate in the House of Lord was held at the initiative of the Lord Dubs, who asked the government to reconsider the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles. 

'In response, the British Under Secretary of State cited the Johnson-Mitsotakis meeting, in which, he said, the British Prime Minister "underlined the long-standing position of the United Kingdom that this is a matter for the Trustees of the British Museum, who are the rightful owners of the Sculptures". He then reiterated that "the government fully supports the position of the Museum's Trustees ( that the Sculptures should stay in London)", adding that Johnson "made this clear to the Greek prime minister when they met".'

We would add that UNESCO's ICPRCP recognised last September, the intergovernmental nature of the request for the Parthenon Marbles and that Prime Minister Mitsotkis stated this in his discussions with Prime Miniser Johnson in November 2022.

What was equally uplifting in yesterday's discussions was the addition of more voices in the House of Lords. These voices were suggesting that it was time for the UK to give this request the serious deliberation it deserved.

We continue to be reminded that when these sclptures were forcibly removed, Greece had no voice. Today, Greece's voice is loud and clear and the support for the reunification here in the UK, and elsewhere is equally loud and clear. There's no better time than the persent. And the case for the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles has been wrapped in immeasurable patience, time for the UK and the British Museum to show the love and respect that we all share for these sculptures.

Elgin Marbles
Volume 834: debated on Thursday 14 December 2023

2:06 pm

Lord Lexden: "To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of proposals to loan the Elgin Marbles to Greece."

And Lord Lexden began with:

"My Lords, the Elgin marbles—or Parthenon sculptures, as some prefer—are famous for two reasons. The first reason is of course because they are magnificent treasures of civilization, part of the heritage of our world. The second reason that they are famous is as regrettable as it is persistent. These great treasures have an almost infinite capacity to provoke heated arguments about their ownership and their location. It is almost impossible to mention them in everyday conversation without instigating a dispute on these points."

To read the entire exchange in the House of Lords, follow the link here.

BCRPM wishes to thank Baroness Chakrabarti for her input, including:

" Regardless of arguments about legality, past or present, the British people know better than too many of their leaders how to make friends by being the bigger person. Most of them support returning the artefacts to the people to whom they mean so much more. A few minutes, let alone hours, at the Acropolis Museum in Athens would lead any noble Lord to understand just how much these artefacts mean to the people of Greece. Few have been fooled by years of buck-passing between museum and government around this issue, when technological advancement should make sharing and return so much easier than ever before."

And Lord Dubs, whose support for our campaign stretches back to when Eddie O'Hara was our Chair, also made pertinent points including: 

"Then there is the argument about loaning or returning them. I appreciate that there is a difficulty because of the 1963 Act. Nevertheless, I think the right answer, in the fullness of time, will be to return the marbles to their rightful place in Athens. If it needs a change in legislation, that could be achieved—but, for heaven’s sake, we cannot forever fall out with our Greek friends on this issue."

Lord Allan of Hallam must be thanked too for pointing out that there are new stories waiting to be made, and remembering our founder Eleni Cubitt:

"Artefacts also add new elements to their stories over time; this is especially true for the Parthenon sculptures. As well as Lord Elgin himself, their story now includes Melina Mercouri, who kicked off that campaign 40 years ago, and Eleni Cubitt, who ran the UK campaign for their return over many years. Our current Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, has now become part of the story; George Osborne may be an even bigger figure if he leads the trustees to agree to some form of display in Athens. It is certainly my hope that we will find a way to have the entire set of sculptures singing their story out from the new Acropolis Museum, while the British Museum continues to tell its rich stories through other fabulous Greek objects from its own collection or from loans."

Lord Frost has received most of the coverage in the UK media as he voiced his personal view:

"Personally, I have never been so convinced by the moral, artistic and cultural arguments for the position we take. The Parthenon marbles are a special situation and we should try to find a special solution. They are one of the supreme expressions of ancient Greek, hence western, art. They were created for a specific building and a specific cultural context. In contrast to much ancient sculpture, we know exactly what that context was and what the work of art was intended to signify. These are not just random museum exhibits and, for as long as they are not seen as a whole, they are less than the sum of their parts."

Adding: "My personal view is that it is a time for a grand gesture, and only the Government can make it." Indedd, the magnanimous gesture called for by so many over such a long period of time has yet to find a UK Prime Minister to support it. Whilst the public support grows, the political will at the top remains fixed.

Most of the voices yesterday afternoon in the House of Lords accepted that there was a unique case in the division of these sculptures. With many supporting the reunification. We urge more voices to join these right thinking folks on a matter of cultural heritage that deserves our collective respect. Greece's ask is wholly justified.

National Heritage Act 1983
Volume 824: debated on Thursday 13 October 2022

Lord Vaizey of Didcot to ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the National Heritage Act 1983.

Lord Vaizey: My Lords, it is obviously time to get cracking. We have only one hour, but we have a stellar cast of Peers here to debate this important issue, including the first major speech by my noble friend Lord Parkinson since he was so cruelly ejected by this temporary Government.Toggle showing location ofColumn 168GC

It is hard to believe that 40 years ago some of our greatest museums were simply adjuncts of government departments—much as I admire government departments. The V&A was actually a section of the Department of Education and Science, as was the Science Museum; the Royal Armouries was part of the Department of the Environment; and Kew Gardens was part of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Heritage Act 1983 did a great thing and set them free, following the model of many other Acts which had put in place the governance of our national museums, including the famous British Museum Act 1963 and many others before. The Heritage Act meant, effectively, that the micromanagement of museums by government departments was to become a thing of the past, and that our museums would become broadly autonomous, steered in all their complexity by engaged directors and trustees—which reminds me that I have to declare my interests. I am a trustee of Tate, and I was appointed today as chairman of the Parthenon Project, for which I am not paid, which is a campaign to return the Parthenon sculptures to the Parthenon. I am sure that I have lots of other interests that encroach, but those are the two that spring to mind immediately.

This approach of making our museums as autonomous as possible has been an unequivocal success. As people know, UK museums are some of the most popular in the world, with 50 million people visiting DCMS-sponsored museums. The British Museum, Tate Modern, the Natural History Museum and the V&A are in the top 10 most popular art museums in the world. We have the best of both worlds: we do not micromanage our institutions, as do the French, and we do not simply leave them to the whims of wealthy benefactors, as to a certain extent our American cousins do.

With the 40th anniversary of the Act falling next year, there is now a chance to reflect on the remaining restrictions that still bind some of our museums. I am talking in particular about the disposal of objects in a museum’s collection. In the 1980s, it was quite right for the Government to impose these kinds of restrictions, just as they were establishing freedom for national museums. That has been very successful. The collections in our museums, which are for research as well as display, are unrivalled by institutions all over the world.

But in the last few years, the debate has moved on to include a sophisticated and important debate about restitution: how cultural objects were acquired and where they might ultimately reside. It has moved on also because, even going back to a time as recent as the 1980s, the ability to travel around the world to look at objects and the ability to study objects through technology have leapt on exponentially.

We need to debate whether the Act still works for what we need today. In 1983, what was not accounted for or considered were restitution requests and the idea that trustees might want, to put it bluntly, to do the right thing and return artefacts to their place of origin.

Things are beginning to move and the museums that do not have restrictions are able to make these decisions. This week alone, the Smithsonian museum decided to return 29 Benin bronzes, taken from Nigeria Toggle showing location ofColumn 169GCduring the 1897 British raid on Benin City, to the National Commission for Museums and Monuments in Nigeria. Nigeria has also made a restitution agreement with Germany that included the handover of two Benin bronzes. Oxford and Cambridge Universities have agreed to repatriate more than 200 Benin bronze items, and the University of Aberdeen has already returned two bronzes—the first British university to do so. The Horniman Museum has agreed to return 72 objects. Glasgow City Council has returned Benin bronzes and the Royal Albert Memorial Museum in Exeter has returned some sacred regalia to the Siksika Nation in Alberta. Many museums, if they are not restricted in the way our national museums are, are getting ahead of the game and leaning into this issue.

Let me show you an anomaly that exists today. The V&A has the “Head of Eros”. The British military consul in Anatolia, Charles Wilson, took it from a Roman sarcophagus in 1879 and loaned it to the V&A. It was then gifted to the V&A by his daughter, but Wilson himself had expressed the wish that the head be returned to whoever ended up caring for the sarcophagus. As long ago as 1934, the V&A tried to return it to the Istanbul Archaeological Museum. It has taken almost a century to physically return it, but it was returned in 2021—but of course as a loan rather than a transfer of ownership. And of course, the Parthenon sculptures have been endlessly debated for the last 200 years. I am not going to get into that in my opening remarks.

The stalemate of the Parthenon marbles is nevertheless a useful issue to look at. If your view is simply binary, either you own them and keep them or you do not own them. The debate around returning artefacts is complex, but it is hard to argue that the “retain and explain” policy on contested heritage that the previous Government put in place has been a success. That policy involved writing to museums, galleries and arm’s-length bodies, even those outside the 1983 Act, advising them not to remove contested heritage from their collections. This was effectively a backwards step on the independence and scholarship of directors and trustees.

One question that is frequently asked when one discusses this issue is whether one will go from one extreme to another, from not giving back any object back to giving back everything so that museum shelves and display cases are stripped clear. That will not be the case. The V&A, which holds more than 2.7 million items in its collections, has received a total of nine restitution cases since 1999. The Spoliation Advisory Panel, which returns Nazi-looted art and is a good example of where the Government stepped up to do the right thing, has returned only 22 objects. I think the Spoliation panel and the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art, where we ourselves say an object is part of our cultural identity and should not leave our shores, are very good models for the Government to follow, should they wish to amend these Acts and put in place a new procedure. One is not—without wishing to contradict myself in my own speech—saying that the trustees would simply have carte blanche to return an object. There would be a reviewing mechanism. It could be an independent body, such as the Reviewing Toggle showing location ofColumn 170GCCommittee for the Export of Works of Art, which would simply give a view on whether this was a wise disposal.

We know there is much talk about a supposed loophole that has appeared in the Charities Act 2022 to allow museums to make a moral disposal but, even under that, it would require an application to the Attorney-General and the agreement of the Charity Commission. The Horniman Museum’s decision to return the Benin bronzes was still subject, in effect, to approval by the Charity Commission; there will, therefore, always be a backstop to allow a director or a board of trustees to think again about a decision.

In these opening remarks, I simply ask the Minister to consider how times have changed. Our world-class national museums are run by world-class directors and curators. The debate on the provenance of objects and their location has become much more sophisticated, technology has changed and travel has changed. We in this House can have a mature debate about that. The Minister has a perfect opportunity, particularly with the debate about the Charities Act loophole and as we celebrate the fifth anniversary of the Mendoza review into national museums’ policy—which certainly needs to be updated and its implementation reviewed—to take a holistic view of our national museums in the 21st century and to put on the table the opportunity to give our museums and their directors and trustees greater freedom to dispose of or to return objects of questionable provenance to their rightful owners or location.

To view the transcrip of the debate follow the link here.

Yannis Andritsopoulos, UK correspondent for Ta Nea has researched UK's parliamentary archives and reported on his finding in today's Ta Nea. His article is aptly entitled: 'Research into the archives of the British Parliament: Two centuries of parliamentary battles over the Sculptures.'
"Mr. Churchill, would you consider the return of the Elgin Marbles to Greece?" 

Yannis begins with a question, which follows a comprehensive report that takes us back to 07 June 1816 and concludes in February 2022. 

What business do Konstantinos Karamanlis, Melina Mercouri, Kostas Simitis, Evangelos Venizelos and Kyriakos Mitsotakis have in the House of Commons and the House of Lords?
As themselves, none. Their names, however, have been mentioned more than once by members of Britain's Upper and Lower Houses.
The reason was none other than the Parthenon Sculptures, the request for the return to Greece, which is as old as their purchase by the parliament of Albion 207 years ago.
As the in-depth investigation of "Ta Nea" in the archives of the British Parliament reveals, the issue has, over the past two centuries, occupied dozens of British MPs, ministers and prime ministers.
The first time London was asked to repatriate Phidias' masterpieces was in the parliamentary debate about their acquisition. On 07 June 1816, Congressman Hugh Hammersley slammed their then-imminent purchase, speaking of a "dishonest transaction" and "looting."
He suggested that "the Marbles, so shamelessly acquired, should be bought, kept in the British Museum, and returned, without further formalities or negotiations, when requested by the present or any future government of the city of Athens."

To read the artricle in full, and in Greek, visit Ta Nea, or for an English translation, the document here.

Successive UK governments when faced with the question about the reunification of these sculptures seem determine not to look at this request as a case in its own right. Yet, no matter how often the response remains unchanged, the thirst to see the surviving sculptures reunited in the Acropolis Museum's top floor, glass-walled Parthenon Gallery is never going to go away.

Saying 'no' repeatedly to Greece is not changing the growing attitude of museum visitors. Is this about power? Probably. Is it about one nation wanting to hang onto its past at the cost of another's need to conserve a peerless collection of sculptures that was removed from a building created over 2, 500 years ago, which still crowns their capital city? Tragically, it would seem just so. Is it disrespect of one nation towards another nations cultural heritage? We hope not.

Let us not forget, that Greece is not asking for all that was removed from the Acropolis before it gained independence. And let us also remember that the British Museum is never going to be denuded of Greek artefacts, it currently has 108,184 of which 6,493 are on display. And once these specific sculptures are reunited with their other surviving half, Greece has offered the UK more artefacts, not seen outside of Greece.

Janet Suzman: "a major piece of research by Yannis! Since these Commons attitudes there has been a huge shift in the public mind-set about cultural appropriations, hence the present majority of people who think the Parthenon Marbles ought to be returned."