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)

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

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

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. 

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

Letter from Chair of BCRPM, Dame Janet Suzman to the Financial Times in response to Sir Richard Lambert's review of Geoffrey Robertson's newly launched book 'Returning Plundered Treasure'. To read the review by Sir Lambert, please follow the link to the FT here. 

Sir Lambert's review ends on a well reheared note: " the trustees are driven by the conviction that the collection is a public good of inestimable value, which it is their duty to conserve and share as widely as possible." One has to wonder if Sir Lambert doesn't believe that the Acropolis Museum's Parthenon Galleryhas such a conviction and that it is here, in Athens that visitors view all of the surviving sculptures (including the casts bought by Greece from the British Museum) facing the right way round and with direct views to the Parthenon, a building that still stands.

Sir Lambert concludes his review by stating that we all own history, indeed we all do but when we have a unique opportunity to put together halves of one peerless collection as close as possible to the building they were once an integral part of, all those thousands of years ago, surely the onus is on all of us to do just that. Respect for cultural heritage of a World Heritage site is key here too. 

RE: Returning Plundered Treasure 

I am offering, if I may, a very simple request which we would like to make to Sir Richard Lambert, who is Chairman of the British Museum, and that is to please reconsider his case for retaining the Parthenon marbles. After two hundred years, when circumstances have so radically changed in the country of origin, that stubborn retention seems wilful, wounding, and unfounded. There may not be faultless legal reasons for returning them, but there are surely humanistic and moral ones that should now come in to play?

The great new Acropolis Museum, which stands directly opposite the Parthenon itself, celebrated its tenth anniversary this year. It longs with all its heart and soul, to re-unite the two halves of the pedimental sculptures, frieze and metopes from that bedraggled but proud building, one half there and the other in the Duveen Gallery in Bloomsbury. 

Why on earth is there no constructive debate about these unique objects? As I understand it, there are no other pieces on display in the BM chopped off a building from the ancient world that is still standing? As I understand it there is no half of a major work in the BM’s collection awaiting re-unification with its other half? As I understand it, there is no major museum in the world that was expressly built to house its incomplete central collection - resolutely thwarted by the BM.

We know it is a noble stance to honour the founding intentions of the BM, which is to display the world to the world, but the quoted numbers that swarm through the BM do not take account of those visitors who simply don't get to the Duveen Galleries, as there are such rich offerings in other departments. Millions swarm through the Acropolis Museum at Athens too, you know, who would be moved and enlightened by seeing where the London marbles ought to be and are not.

Some day Sir Richard Lambert and the great Museum he represents must surely see that its intransigence in the matter of the Parthenon sculptures is way out of date. Colonial plunder is being re-assessed by all major museums. The heavens will not fall were they returned home. On the contrary, the stars will sing in their spheres if the BM resolved, after two hundred years, to make a generous gesture in regard to the only ancient building representing the West's entire political and ethical mind-set still exerting its power from its rock. The great neo-classical facade of the BM itself, entirely inspired by the Parthenon, could then bedeck itself with flags of altruistic joy.

Yours most sincerely,
Dame Janet Suzman DBE
Chair of The British Committee for the Reunification 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.

Greek Culture Minister Lina Mendoni has pledged to ‘fill the void’ at the British Museum should the Parthenon sculptures be reunited with their counterparts in Athens. It’s a brilliant idea.

The Kritios Boy, a masterpiece of ancient Greek marble sculpture, currently stands atop a pedestal in the Acropolis Museum in Athens. For historians he speaks quietly of the transition from the Archaic to the Classical periods in Greek sculpture (as well as having one of the most beautiful derrières in the history of art). He could potentially be among the many extraordinary treasures never previously exhibited in the United Kingdom but which could be seen in London if the British Museum’s trustees were enlightened enough to accommodate Ms Mendoni’s workable solution to the current impasse over the Parthenon Marbles.

Were the British Museum to agree to reunite the sculptures with their counterparts in Athens, Ms Mendoni has promised that Greece would reciprocate by sending rotating loan exhibitions of ancient masterpieces like the Kritios Boy never previously seen by many UK museum-goers. To realise the many cultural and diplomatic benefits of Ms Mendoni’s initiative would require the trustees of the British Museum to expand their vision beyond considerations of ownership and begin a more cooperative relationship with Athens over the future of the Marbles.

The first stage in that process requires the amendment of the British Museum Act of 1963 which currently prohibits the deaccessioning of objects from the Museum’s collections. The British Government’s refusal to even consider such an amendment has two negative consequences. In the first instance, the way the Marbles are currently displayed in Bloomsbury perpetuates a misleading understanding of their historical importance, denying their original significance as part of the Parthenon’s architectural programme. In the Parthenon Galleries of the Acropolis Museum their connection to the monument is clear and deeply moving.

It is the duty of every museum to promote a fact-based understanding of material culture, historical and contemporary. Where the Marbles are concerned, the British Museum is currently failing in that regard.

Secondly, the refusal to amend the 1963 Act deprives the UK’s museum-going public (as well as visiting tourists) of an opportunity to learn more about the art of ancient Greece through new educational displays.

As a scholar of ancient Greek polychrome sculpture, I have visited the Acropolis Museum on numerous occasions, both in its previous romantically ramshackle location on the monument itself, and on many subsequent occasions following the opening of Bernard Tschumi’s superb new Museum at the foot of the Acropolis in 2009. Few other museums in the world are able to offer as coherent an account of the coloured nature of ancient Greek sculpture as the Acropolis Museum.

The superb ‘Colour Revolution’ exhibition currently own show at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford testifies to the enduring public fascination with colour and its impact on art and design in the Victorian era. It also touches briefly on one of the central aesthetic controversies of the nineteenth century — the true coloured nature of ancient sculpture.

The British Museum has been guilty in the past of scrubbing the Parthenon Marbles with wire brushes in a misguided attempt to whiten them. It now has an opportunity to absolve itself of those errors by reopening the conversation with Athens.

The immediate and long-term benefits are obvious for all to see. George Osborne has an opportunity to cement his legacy by persuading his Eton and Oxbridge colleagues in government to revisit the British Museum Act. Mark Jones might also go down in history as more than merely an “interim” director of the Museum but rather the man whose brief custodianship opened a new chapter in museum diplomacy.

Dr Tom Flynn

The Times, 04 December 2021

The Parthenon Gallery in the Acropolis Musem, Athens, Greece.

 George Osborne wrote a Comment piece on page 29 of the Times on Saturday, it was entitled: "It's right to be proud of the British Museum". 

He goes on to ask: "Should we be ashamed of Britain’s past or should we celebrate it?"

He adds: " humans are capable of acts of great kindness and appalling brutality towards one another. The artefacts in the British Museum, with their depictions of love and war, reflect that truth over the course of two million years. It is why they help us understand ourselves better. That was the founding purpose when it was established as the first national public museum of the world in 1753, and it remains the purpose today. It was a product less of the British Empire (which was largely created in the following century) and more of the European Enlightenment."

And he does conceed that much has changed in the last 260 years, praising the 'magnificent Norman Foster roof over the Great Court at the Millennium', which he feels helps the British Museum to confidently call itself “the museum of the world, for the world”.

Although he insists that the British Museum is also 'just a museum', and that it cannot resolve the contractions between the Enlightenment as a western construct and universal human rights, or support those that question the very existence of the British Museum.

"Of course, there are those who demand the return of objects they believe we have no right to hold. That is not new either. Lord Byron thought the Elgin marbles should be back at the Parthenon. Our response is not to be dismissive. We are open to lending our artefacts to anywhere and to who can take good care of them and ensure their safe return — which we do every year, including to Greece."

Sadly he suggests that museums of culture ought not shrink in the face of  'culture wars' - why wars and not cultural cooperation? And that the British Museum needs to tell the story of common humanity. Surely common humanity needs to uphold respect for all countries cultural heritage! 

To read the full article, follow the link to The Times.

UK Ambassador to Greece Matthew Lodge tweeted the link to George Osborne's article in the Times and John Tasioulas, Director, Institute for Ethics in AI, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford and a member of BCRPM, quoted Ambassador Lodge's tweet:

TA NEA, Monday 06 December 2021

Yannis Andritsopulos, UK Correspondent for Ta Nea writes:

Suzman and Cartledge respond to Osborne

Reactions to the statements made by the new Chair of the British Museum on the reunification of the “Elgin Marbles” and their "loan" to Athens

The new Chair of the British Museum, George Osborne, was provocative and uncompromising on the question of the reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures.

A week after the 'Ta Nea' reported that in a conversation former British Minister, Dennis McShane had with George Osborne, the new Chair of the British Museum rejected any talk of a permanent return of the Sculptures, speaking with "contempt" on the subject. Osborne "struck out once more" on Saturday: in an article in  "The Times" where he calls the Parthenon Sculptures "Elgin Marbles" and suggests that Greece discuss the possibility of borrowing them on the condition that Greece could "take good care of them and ensure their return" to London!"

It should be noted that the term "Elgin Marbles" has been officially abandoned by the British Museum for many years. The Museum now uses the name "Parthenon Sculptures", both in the signage of the hall that houses them (closed for a whole year after a water leak from the roof) and on its website.

"Surely there are those who question our right to exist. They did it in 1753, they do it again in 2021. Of course there are those who demand the return of items that they believe we have no right to possess. This is nothing new either. Lord Byron believed that the Elgin Marbles should return to the Parthenon," George  Osborne wrote in the Times.

And attempting to appear "magnanimous," he adds: "Our response will not be dismissive. We are open to lending items in our collection to anyone who can take good care of them and ensures their safe return - something we do every year, including with Greece," he says, ostentatiously ignoring the request for permanent reunification of the sculptures.

In response to Osborne, the Chair of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Sculptures (BCRPM), Janet Suzmantells 'Ta Nea': "I will remind him that Lord Byron's reputation remains heroic, while that of Lord Elgin is ragged. He cannot present the error as correct in pretending that the return of the Sculptures is a trivial matter. Greece must take them back and place them where they belong: opposite the brightest building in the world from where they were snatched."

Speaking to 'Ta Nea', Cambridge Professor Paul Cartledge, Vice-Chair of the BCRPM noted: "An old joke says: Why is the museum called British, since very few of the 8 miilion objects held by the BM are actually British-made'. Are the exhibits actually British? Is the name, British Imperial War Museum more accurate? The time has come for the Sculptures to return permanently to their home."

This is not the first time that Britain has proposed to lend Greece the Parthenon Sculptures. In the exclusive interview with 'Ta Nea' in January 2019, the director of the British Museum, Hartwig Fischer, said that Greece could borrow the "Marbles" for a limited period of time ("there are no indefinite loans", he explained at that time), but if Greece accepts that they belong to the Britain ("we lend to those who recognize the ownershiop as belonging to the British Museum ").

Almost 15 years earlier, in April 2007, his predecessor Neil McGregor said that lending the "Marbles" "for three months, six months" would be possible if Greece recognized the British Museum as the legal owner.

Essentially, what they are asking of Greece is to give up its claim to the Sculptures, "renouncing" its long-standing position (recently reiterated by Kyriakos Mitsotakis and Lina Mendoni) that they are stolen.

The British Government is demanding the same. In August 2018, in a letter from Culture Minister Jeremy Wright to his Greek counterpart Myrsini Zorba, published by 'Ta Nea', the British minister made it clear that "the museum's commissioners will consider any request for lending and, subsequently, returning any part of the collection, provided that the institution requesting the loan recognises the British Museum as the owner".

As is well known, Greece cannot accept Britain's ownership of the Sculptures, and will not agree to a loan as long as this condition is set.

Osborne was elected Chair of the Museum in the summer and assumed the post in October. After his ministerial tenure (2010-2016) he assumed the duties of director of the newspaper "Evening Standard" and advisor to the capital management giant BlackRock and investment bank Robey Warshaw.

In his article titled "It is right to be proud of the British Museum", he writes that "we do not feel ashamed of the exhibits in our collection" (some of which were controversially acquired during the colonial period and claimed as stolen by various states), since, as he also states, "we remain one of the few places on Earth where you can admire under one roof, the great civilizations of the world."

To read the Ta Nea article online follow the link here. 

Jonathan Sumption dismisses any questions that might arise about Lord Elgin's legal title to the sculptures removed from the Partheon at the start of the 18th century. His article 'The Elgin Marbles weren’t stolen — Greece is just exploiting our weakness' (thetimes.co.uk) goes on to state:  

"For most people, however, the issue is moral and cultural, not legal. So be it. What would be morally or culturally admirable about removing the Elgin Marbles from a museum in London to a museum in Athens?

Cultural artefacts have always moved around the world."

To read, BCRPM's Chair, Janet Suzman's response to Jonathan Sumption, please follow the link here. 

Christopher Price, long servicing Vice -Chair of BCRPM, wrote extensively on the merits of cultural mobility, and yet when it came to the Parthenon Marbles, he would have argued that they deserve, (those that survive), to be seen in the context of the Parthenon. An iconic structure, which not only stands, and has been restored and preserved for all humanity, but one that crowns the Acropolis. The emblem of UNESCO.

Jonathan Sumption goes on to list fragments of the sculptures from the Parthenon elsewhere: 'Paris, Vienna, Copenhagen' yet forgets to mention those museums that did have fragments, and that have returned them to be reunited in the Parthenon Gallery of the Acropolis Museum. Those frafments include returns from Heidelberg, Palermoand The Vatican. 

BCRPM agrees wholeheartedly that the Parthenon Marbles, culturally have a great significance for all humanity, yet is right for the UK and the British Museum to dicate how that cultural patrimony ought to be exhibited and understood, even appreciated by all humanity, especially as the removal of the pieces still in London took place when Greece had no voice?

Even without the sculptures in Room 18, the British Museum would still retain its status as a universal museum. In fact it would be elevated even further. For it is cultural co-operation in the 21st century that matters to most. Any references to cultural dispute sound so out of step, and look at the reaction at UNESCO's ICPRCP sessions especially towards the UK and in relation to this impasse. Culture matters, and it matters globally. In the case of this very specific request, Greece's ask is wholly justified. BCRPM's founders, with past and present members, stand by this, as do many all over the world.

Jonathan Sumption goes on to write: "Let no one say that the return of the marbles would set no precedent. The world is watching this dispute.This is a fight that we cannot afford to lose, and certainly cannot afford to concede." And yet again, this is misleading. No mention of the fact that in the British Museum there are 108,184 Greek artefacts, of which only 6,493 are even on display. Or that this is the ONLY request made by Greece since independence, and continues to be the only request made to this day.

The world is watching but only in astonishment at the UK's lack of that very British sense of fairplay. Dare we add, diplomacy and regard for international relations too? How can we forget PM Sunak's decision not to meet with PM Mitsotakis in November? Will any Greek person, or anyone around the globe, forget that snub? Many however, were in admiration of King Charles' tie, worn at COP28, when he met with PM Sunak. The message? Not all world leaders behave like a Head Boy that's not prepared to do more than cancell a pre-arranged meeting that covered timely topics including the continued division of these specific sculptures. 

"The Greeks are pressing their claim because they sense weakness. Since it was first formally advanced in 1983, they have skilfully exploited the relentless denigration of Britain’s past.They calculate that modern Britain lacks the self-confidence to defend itself. Are they right? The present negotiations implicitly concede that they may be.

Rishi Sunak should probably not have rudely cancelled his meeting with the Greek prime minister. But his statement that it should be unthinkable for any responsible British prime minister to contemplate ceding possession of the Elgin Marbles showed a sounder instinct than George Osborne’s." Concludes Jonathan Sumption.

The first request for the return of the sculptures removed only from the Parthenon, came shortly after Greece gained independence. Jonathan Sumption's reference to 1983 is the plea made by Melina Mercouri at UNESCO and that was the year that BCRPM was founded, nearly 150 years after the first request. Repeated requests made by Greece for these specific sculptures. So many have worked on the ways that would make the reunification work, and continue to provide the British Museum with artefacts not seen outside of Greece. For the last 23 years the offer of 'other artefacts' to be made available to the UK, has been on the table too.

Many have voiced their concerns at the UK's lack of empathy or understanding. Polls continue to support the reunification, yet few voices, including Jonathan Sumption continue to justify the division of this peerless collecion of sculptures. BCRPM continues to also add: the time has come to do the right thing by the Parthenon, and to add another chapter to the story of these priceless artefacts. Tell the story. 

As Greece counts 200 years since the beginning of its war of independence in 1821, we can all celebrate the spirit of defiance against tyranny and a dedication to freedom, democracy and human rights. The Iliad-literate prime minister, Boris Johnson, has called Greece’s unique brand of meritocratic indignation the “hallmark of Greek genius”. But what made the Greek Revolution truly exceptional was that from the outset, it was never a matter for the Greeks alone.

The pan-European solidarity expressed at the time of the revolution marked the birth of a strong current of philhellenism that endures to this day. Few embody this better than Lord Byron, whose love letters to Greece paid stunning tribute to the place “where grew the arts of war and peace”. With words that speak down the ages, it is little wonder that he continues to be honoured in Greece, including today on Lord Byron Day.

The Prince of Walesrecently said that without Greece our laws, art and way of life would never have flourished. But without Britain, they would not have survived the test of time. I couldn’t agree more. From the Greek struggle for independence to the two world wars and recent Greek history, the relations between the United Kingdom and Greece are not simply ties between nation states but between people with a shared commitment to freedom, equality, democracy and respect for human dignity. My own personal ties to the UK date back to my student days at the London School of Economics and I have been an enthusiastic Anglophile ever since.

I am also a firm believer in keeping alive our common cultural heritage and educating the generations to come. This year the Benaki Museum in Athens has organised the most comprehensive exhibition of Modern Greek history ever seen. Among a thousand objects sits a portrait of Lord Byron by Thomas Phillips, on loan from the National Portrait Gallery in London. The loan of cultural objects is an important gesture from one country to another but this is also an opportunity to educate the public about the enduring bond between our two countries and to give Lord Byron his rightful place in the Greek story.

Cultural heritage teaches us where we come from, where we have been and helps us understand who we are today. Modern Greece has Lord Byron to thank for this. I also have no doubt this is why Lord Byron informed his mother from Prevesa that he would be returning to Athens, later prolonging his Hellenic journey indefinitely. Here was an English peer with an undeniable thirst to consume Greece in its entirety, from the ancient walls of the Parthenon to the modern Greek we speak today. If he believed that understanding Greece’s cultural heritage held the keys to modern society’s own existence, he would not have been the only one.

As the European Commission’s vice-president for promoting the European way of life, I can relate to Lord Byron’s commitment to the preservation and promotion of cultural heritage (unfortunately not to his poetic genius). It is why I will also be visiting the Benaki Museum’s exhibition at every chance I get, to see the portrait of Lord Byron and the many other pieces on loan from private collections and important museums across Europe.

The bicentenary of Lord Byron’s death at Missolonghi will fall on April 19 2024. What better a time for the United Kingdom and Greece to honour the friendship between the two nations and their people than by marking it with further cultural exchanges befitting of his memory. In these difficult times, cultural heritage should uplift humanity, not divide it.

Margaritis Schinas is vice-president of the European Commission, this article was first published in The Times

Worth watching and listening to the many voices that continue to be inspired by the Parthenon and it's unique and iconic location on the Acropolis Hill. The images are arresting, as is the 15 million plus global visitors to date that have discovered the meaning of so many artefacts. The Acropolis Museum is an experience that many more will continue to enjoy for years and decades and centuries to follow.

As the world continues to look to the UK Prime Minister, his government & the British Museum, for the will and understanding that is needed to facilitate the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles, the Hellenic American Chamber of Commerce hosted an online event on Saturday 10 April 2021, which included a virtual tour of the Acropolis Museum with Professor Pandermalis. The event was beautifully hosted by Chryssa Avrami. You can watch the event by following the link here.

After the welcome to the event, Chryssa Avrami introduced HACC President Markos L. Drakotos, Esq. who noted that “the Acropolis is the heart that breathes life into the Eternal Harmony of this world balancing our existence within time and space." 

Avrami then introduced His Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros of America, who also called for the return of the Parthenon Marbles which remain in the British Museum.

Consul General of Greece in New York Konstantinos Koutras, remembered his first visit to the Acropolis at a young age and reminded us all of the sense of pride he feels when foreign dignitaries visit the site and are awe-struck. So many of us can still remember President Obama's memorable November 2016 visit to the Aropolis Hill and the Acropolis Museum before he concluded his term as US President.

Mareva Grabowski Mitsotakis, the wife of Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, spoke about the miracle of the Parthenon which saw the birth of democracy and so much more - the 'gifts' of civilization that continue to influence our every day lives even today.

Journalist Nikos Aliagas, academic Byzantinologist Helen Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, Paramount Pictures CEO Jim Gianopulos,Olympic gold medalist Yiannis Melissanidis, Phedon Papamichael, Albert Bourla, John Coumantaros also added insights, as did actress, producer and musician Rita Wilson.

Marianna Vardinogiannis, UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador also added her call for the reunification remembering Melina Mercouri's words before she passed away: "when the Marbles will return to Greece, I will be reborn."

Photographer Robert McCabe noted that the Acropolis changes in the light and weather conditions and is a never-ending kaleidoscope for a photographer. When asked to summarize the Acropolis in one word, McCabe said “continuity” as the Acropolis connects the present an ancient Greek civilization and language. We couldn't agree more that the Attica light is such an important element of how the ancient treasures on the Acropolis Hill and the Acropolis Museum are viewed and celebrated by visitors from all over the globe.

Musician George Dalaras, Fashion Designer Mary Katrantzou, Managing Partner IRI/Marshall Islands Registry Clay Maitland, composer Evanthia Reboutsika, Computer Scientist and 2007 Turing Award-winner Joseph Sifakis, Town & Country Magazine Editor in Chief Stellene Volandes, and composer Stavros Xarhakos also shared their thoughts.

A Q&A session with Professor Pandermalis, moderated by Sylvia Papapostolou-Kienzl, followed the virtual tour and concluded the event.

We reflected that the sculptures removed from the Parthenon by Lord Elgin at the start of the nineteenth century were once referred to by the ame Lord as 'stones of no value'. A man of position and influence, Lord Elgin had paid for the sculptures to be forcibly removed, originally destined for his Scottish ancestral home. A fire sale in 1816 has seen them exhibited the wrong way round in a room that has very little natural light in the heart of Bloomsbury at the British Museum's Parthenon Galleries, Room 18. They have been senselessly divided for over 200 years.

Dame Janet Suzman, Chair of The British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles states: "These sculptures are like no other and have done their job in London. It is time for them to join their other halves in the Acropolis Museum's Parthenon Gallery, as it is here, that visitors can have a single and aesthetic experience simultaneously of the Parthenon and its sculptures."

We wish to thank the Hellenic American Chamber of Commerce for today's memorable event, it was uplifting and enlightening to hear so many voices calling for the reunification, there was light, φως...... in the voices and the images of this live event. We especially wish to thank Professor Pandermalis for taking us on this vitual tour, especially as many of us that annually visited the museum, have been unable to do so and cannot wait to return to see that light and those sculptures, the Parthenon Marbles.

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

http://archflip.com/en/new-acropolis-museum-athens

New Acropolis Museum

Thursday, 6 February 2020 from 18:00 to 20:00, Kings College London, a panel discussion: "Who owns history" with Geoffrey Robertson QC,  plus Professor Edith Hall, Department of Classics, King's College London and Professor John Tasioulas, Director of the Yeoh Tiong Lay Centre for Politics, Philosophy and Law, King's College London, Chaired by Professor Philippa Webb, Dickson Poon School of Law, King's College London

Event was held at:

SW1.18, Somerset House East Wing
The Dickson Poon School of Law, King's College London
Strand
London WC2R 2LS
United Kingdom

The panel featured a discussion of Geoffrey Robertson's recently published book, "Who Owns History? Elgin's Loot and the Case for Returning Plundered Treasure".

The biggest question in the world of art and culture concerns the return of property taken without consent. Throughout history, conquerors or colonial masters have taken artefacts from subjugated peoples, who now want them returned from museums and private collections in Europe and the USA.

The controversy rages on over the Elgin Marbles, and has been given immediacy by figures such as France's President Macron, who says he will order French museums to return hundreds of artworks acquired by force or fraud in Africa, and by British opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, who has pledged that a Labour government would return the Elgin Marbles to Greece. Elsewhere, there is a debate in Belgium about whether the Africa Museum, newly opened with 120,000 items acquired mainly by armed forces in the Congo, should close.

Although there is an international convention dated 1970 that deals with the restoration of artefacts stolen since that time, there is no agreement on the rules of law or ethics which should govern the fate of objects forcefully or lawlessly acquired in previous centuries.

Who Owns History? delves into the crucial debate over the Elgin Marbles, but also offers a system for the return of cultural property based on human rights law principles that are being developed by the courts. It is not a legal text, but rather an examination of how the past can be experienced by everyone, as well as by the people of the country of origin.

Follow the link to read Professor John Tasioulas' paper in response to Geoffrey Robertson's 'Who Owns History' panel discussion at Kings College London.

Context Matters: Collecting the Past

Context Matters is based on the twenty essays contributed to the Journal of Art Crime over its first ten years of publication. The contributions are supplemented by articles and review articles that were published alongside them. The chapters were written as museums in Europe and North America were facing a series of claims on recently acquired objects in their collections in the light of the photographic dossiers that had been seized from dealers in Switzerland and Greece. The volume contributes to the wider discussion about the appropriate due diligence process that should be conducted prior to the acquisition of archaeological material.To look at the table of contents, please see the link here.

The essays draw on research undertaken for more than 30 years. One of the major themes relates to the impact of looting on how archaeological material has been interpreted. Lost contexts cannot be replaced, and information can be corrupted as it enters the corpus of knowledge. This is particularly true when the market supplies demonstrably incorrect information to objects that are being offered for sale. Some of the processes by which material enters museum collections is indeed shocking: complete or semi-complete figure-decorated pottery is broken into small fragments. Equally disturbing is the way that archaeological material from Syria and northern Iraq appears to have been surfacing on the London market.

The book also discusses how some modern commentators like James Cuno confuse historic claims over cultural property, such as the Parthenon or the Rosetta stone, with contemporary claims over material that has been looted from archaeological sites in recent years. Alongside this are the intellectual issues relating to cultural property. Whereas we know, in the case of the Parthenon architectural marbles, from which building these sculptures were taken, so many objects that surface on the market will have lost their archaeological contexts and settings for good, and this information will never be reclaimed.

David Gill also reviews Tiffany Jenkins book:Keeping Their Marbles: How the Treasures of the Past Ended up in Museums … And Why They Should Stay There.To read the extract from that review, please follow the link here.

David Gill is Honorary Professor in the Centre for Heritage in the Kent Law School, University of Kent, and Academic Associate in the Centre for Archaeology and Heritage in the Sainsbury Institute for the Study of Japanese Arts and Cultures at the University of East Anglia (UEA). He is a former Rome Scholar at the British School at Rome, and was a Sir James Knott Fellow at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. He was previously a member of the Department of Antiquities at the Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge, and Reader in Mediterranean Archaeology at Swansea University. He was awarded his chair in Archaeological Heritage through UEA, and was Director of the Heritage Futures Research Unit at the University of Suffolk. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts (FRSA) and is a regional lead for the RSA Heritage Network. He is a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries (FSA).

David has a regular column in the Journal of Art Crime. He is the holder of the 2012 Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) Outstanding Public Service Award in recognition of his research on cultural property.

To read Professor David Gill's blog and how to order his book 'Context Matters:Collecting the Past', please follow the link here or to order the book visit the link here.

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

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

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

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

However:

ONE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo credit for the images of Professor Stampolidis: Paris Tavitian 

22 September 2018

When the Parthenon in Athens fell into ruins in early the 1800s, a British ambassador with permission from the Ottoman Empire preserved about half the sculptures, which are now at the British Museum. But Greeks for centuries have wanted them back; the deal was made before their country fought for independence from the monarchy. NewsHour Weekend Special Correspondent Christopher Livesay reports.

Watch the PBS Newshour podcast here or listen to the audio here.

Read the Full Transcript

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

A highlight of London's British Museum is one of its earliest acquisitions, the Parthenon Marbles. These sculptures once decorated the great 5th century BCE temple on the Acropolis in Greece. Considered among the great achievements of the classical world, they depict mythical creatures, stories of the gods along with average people.

• HANNAH BOULTON:

They are very significant and important masterpieces, really, of the ancient Greek world.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

Hannah Boulton is the spokesperson for the British Museum. She admits that how these classical works came to be in England is a sensitive subject, one the museum takes some pains to explain.

• HANNAH BOULTON:

I think it, obviously, has always been a topic of debate ever since the objects came to London and into the British Museum. It's not a new debate.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

The story starts in the early 1800s. The Parthenon had fallen to ruin. Half the marbles were destroyed by neglect and war. Then, a British ambassador, Lord Elgin, made an agreement with Ottoman authorities who were in control of Athens at the time to remove some of statues and friezes. He took about half of the remaining sculptures.

• HANNAH BOULTON:

And then he shipped that back to the UK. For a long time it remained part of his personal collection so he put it on display and then he made the decision to sell the collection to the nation. And the Parliament chose to acquire it and then pass it on the British Museum. So we would certainly say that Lord Elgin had performed a great service in terms of rescuing some of these examples.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

But Greeks don't see it that way. For decades now, they have argued that the Ottomans were occupiers, so the deal with Elgin wasn't valid, and the marbles belong in Greece. Why does Greece want to have the Parthenon Marbles back in Athens?

• LYDIA KONIORDOU:

It's not just bringing them back to Athens or to Greece. That's where they were created. But this is not our claim. Our claim is to put back a unique piece of art. To put it back together. Bring it back together.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

Lydia Koniordou was Greece's Minister of Culture from 2016 to 2018. We met her at the Acropolis where the Parthenon temple stands overlooking Athens.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

So first it was Lord Elgin who removed 50 percent.

• LYDIA KONIORDOU:

Almost 50 percent.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

All of the marbles, she says, have now been removed from the monument for protection from the elements. Then it was Greece that consciously decided to remove the remaining.

• LYDIA KONIORDOU:

Yes, the scientists that were responsible decided to remove and take them to the Acropolis Museum. It was nine years ago when the Acropolis Museum was completed.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

In fact, the Acropolis Museum was built in part as a response to the British Museum's claim that Greece did not have a proper place to display the sculptures. The glass and steel structure has a dramatic view of the Acropolis, so while you're observing the art you can see the actual Parthenon. The third floor is set up just like the Parthenon, with the same proportions. These friezes, from the west side of the temple, are nearly all original. On the other three sides, there are some originals but also a lot of gaps, as well as white plaster copies of the friezes and statues now in Britain.

• DIMITRIOS PANDERMALIS:

We believe that one day we could replace the copies with the orginals to show all this unique art in its grandeur. Every block has two or three figures and here is only one.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

Dimitrios Pandermalis is the Director of the Acropolis Museum where the story of the missing marbles differs widely from that of the British Museum. Presentations for visitors portray Lord Elgin critically. One film shows the marbles flying off the Parthenon and calls it the uncontrollable plundering of the Acropolis. You have these videos that actually show how the pieces were removed. Another film depicts how one of the marbles was crudely split by Elgin's workmen.

• DIMITRIOS PANDERMALIS:

He damaged the art pieces, yes.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

He did damage some of these pieces.

• DIMITRIOS PANDERMALIS:

Of course, it was to be expected.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

The British Museum disputes the claim Elgin damaged the sculptures. It also sees it as a plus that half the collection is in Britain and half in Greece.

• HANNAH BOULTON:

I think the situation we find ourselves in now we feel is quite beneficial. It ensures that examples of the wonderful sculptures from the Parthenon can be seen by a world audience here at the British Museum and in a world context in terms of being able to compare with Egypt and Rome and so on and so forth. But we feel the two narratives we are able to tell with the objects being in two different places is beneficial to everybody.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

But Pandermalis says rather than being in two places the sculptures should be reunified, literally. He showed us examples around the museum, including one that is almost complete save for one thing.

• DIMITRIOS PANDERMALIS:

So this sculpture is original except the right foot.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

And this. The chest of the god Poseidon. So the marble portion in the center where we can see clearly defined the abdomen, that's original but the surrounding portion in plaster, the shoulders, that's in London. So the piece has been completely split in half.

• DIMITRIOS PANDERMALIS:

Yes.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

And perhaps most dramatic, this frieze. So the darker stone is the original and the white plaster that represents what's in the British Museum.

• DIMITRIOS PANDERMALIS:

Yes. Exactly.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

And here it is in the British Museum. The missing marble head and chest floating in a display space.

• LYDIA KONIORDOU:

It just doesn't make sense. It's like cutting, for instance, the Last Supper of Da Vinci and taking one apostle to one museum and another apostle to another museum. We feel also it's a symbolic act today to bring back this emblem of our world. To put it back together.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

If you bring back this emblem, aren't there untold other emblems that need to be brought back. Is this a slippery slope?

• LYDIA KONIORDOU:

We do not claim, as Greek state, we do not claim other treasures. We feel that this is unique. This claim will never be abandoned by this country because we feel this is our duty.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

As for visitors to the Acropolis museum. How do you feel about the fact that half the collection is in the British Museum?

• MAN:

Not good.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

The Roscoe family is from Ohio. What do you guys think?

• JIM ROSCOE:

I think it would be nice to have them in one spot where they originated.

• EMMA ROSCOE:

You're coming here to see the history of it so it would be nice to see the complete history rather than replicas.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

You've seen them in the British Museum. So what do you think about the fact that the collection is kind of split.

• TIM:

It's sad. When you see this. I think this museum is a phenomenal place to display them. It's beautiful and they way it's been built almost waiting to have them back. It's interesting.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

As recently as May the Greek President, Prokopios Pavlopoulos, told Prince Charles that he hoped the Marbles would be returned. And the British opposition Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn has said he too is in favor of returning the Marbles to Greece. But the British Museum's position is the marbles in its collection are legally theirs. They would, however, consider a loan. After all, the British Museum regularly loans pieces from its collection to other museums around the world.

• HANNAH BOULTON:

I think we would certainly see there being a great benefit in extending that lending and trying to find ways to collaborate with colleagues, not just in Greece but elsewhere in the world to share the Parthenon sculptures that we have in our collection.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

But sharing the sculptures is not what the ancient Greeks who created them would have wanted claims Pandermalis.

• DIMITRIOS PANDERMALIS:

They would be very angry.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

The ancient Greeks would be very angry?

• DIMITRIOS PANDERMALIS:

Yes

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

Why?

• DIMITRIOS PANDERMALIS:

Because they were crazy for perfection. It was a perfection but today it is not.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

As for whether he will ever see all the remaining Parthenon Marbles together under this roof.

• DIMITRIOS PANDERMALIS:

I'm sure.

• CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY:

You' re sure that you will see them.

• DIMITRIOS PANDERMALIS:

But I don't know when.

Tuesday, 12 August, 2014. The day started with the tragic news that actor Robin Williams had died. He will be remembered by the world for his amazing parts in many iconic firms, when he made so many of us cry and laugh as well as reflect on so many levels - Mrs Doubtfire, how could you leave now? 

The campaign to reunite the sculptures from the Parthenon has lost a great, yet humble supporter. He will be remembered for his love of all things Greek, not least the sculptures from the Parthenon.

Our thoughts are with his family and friends at this sad time.

And we humbly thank Robin Williams for his support. 

...."I go to all the Greek islands... " , said... Robin Williams. " I have seen archaeological sites that made me think: I can not believe that I am in the country that gave birth to everything we know, everything we read in Greek mythology. Greek history is something that the whole of humanity should respect and salute. Perhaps the Greek economy is going to hell, but this does not mean that you (Greeks) are helpless. Economic data is constantly changing and in Europe and in America and around the world. What never changes is the heritage, your identity. The Parthenon is not leaving Athens. It's there to remind that all this progress and prosperity may return. Today I am in England, for example, and I have nowhere to go. What to see? Buckingham Palace?  As and when I go to Germany, I do not care to see the Berlin Wall. But one can not ignore Delos, the Parthenon and Mycenae !", Robin Williams in an interview with Proto Thema newspaper.

Statement written by Dame Janet Suzman, Chair of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles read out by Danny Chivers during Saturday's BP or not BP? protest at the British Museum.

These unmatched sculptures that you see before you have a home waiting for them. These figures, part of an ancient belief system, have been stranded in the grandest refugee centre you’ve ever seen - the great British Museum itself. But home is where they were created two and a half thousand years ago. 

In Athens stands a fine building especially built to house them, and next year this New Acropolis Museum will celebrate its tenth anniversary. On its top floor there are yearning gaps where these very sculptures should be sitting, joined with the other half of the pedimental carvings and in direct sight of the ancient building from which they were chopped, and which, astonishingly, still stands proud on its ancient rock. That fact alone makes these sculptures unique; we can still see exactly where they first displayed themselves, for they were never intended as separate 'works of art', but as part of the mighty whole of Athena’s glorious temple. Who, one wonders, was a mere occupying Sultan to sign away the genius of Periclean Athens? 

Now is the time to make a grand and generous gesture to the Greek people who in distant times laid the foundations of our modern democracies and who informed our artistic heritage. No sculptures have ever matched these languishing here. They are unarguably part of a history the Greeks feel profoundly. Modern Greeks may be as distant from their forebears as we to Anglo-Saxons but that never stopped a nation feeling viscerally connected to its antecedents. 

Let’s do so by celebrating the tenth anniversary of the Acropolis Museum in 2019 with the return of their prodigals. What a fabulous birthday present that would be! How civilised and decent of the British Museumto divest itself of dated strictures belonging to an era - now so over - of colonialist finders keepers. The time has come to do the right thing. Go BM! Do it! 

For more information on BP or not BP, visit here.

Stephen Fry first wrote a wonderful 'Modest Proposal' in support of the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles. This came after the campaign lost Christopher Hitchens to cancer.

The ties between Christopher Hitchens and our Committee stretch over considerable time and culminated in the third edition of his book ‘The Parthenon Marbles: A Case for Reunification’. This is available from Verso as a paperback or an ebook, the latter was launched on the 07 June 2016 at the Parthenon Marbles Bicentenary Commemorative Eventheld at Senate House. This edition was dedicated to James Cubitt and has a preface that Nadine Gordimer wrote.

Stephen Fry begins his proposal with these words:"I have a modest proposal that might simultaneously celebrate the life of Christopher Hitchens, strengthen Britain’s low stock in Europe and allow us to help a dear friend in terrible trouble."

Perhaps the most beautiful and famous monument in the world is the Doric masterpiece atop the citadel, or Acropolis, of Athens. It is called the Parthenon, the Virgin Temple dedicated to Pallas Athene, the goddess of wisdom who gave the Greek capital its name."

To read Stephen Fry's 'Modest Proposal' in full, follow the link here. 

Post writing this  proposal, Stephen took part in the Intelligence Squared debate: 'Send them back: The Parthenon Marbles should be returned to Athens',which was won 384 for to 125 against. Then in April 2013 at the invitation by the then Minister of Tourism, Olga Kefalogianni, Stephen visited Athens, the Acropolis and Benaki Museums. He went on to Delphi, Ancient Olympia and Messini. To read more on this trip, kindly visit the Greek Tourism Organisations web site here. 

On 04 November the Metro carried the story of Stephen asking the UK once again to ‘stand on right side of history’ and return the Parthenon Marbles from the British Museum to the Acropolis Museum in Greece. More on this Metro article by Mel Evans here.

There are a few points to raise on the article in the Metro including the fact that the Greek government's request first started after Greece gained independence and susequent requests culminated in the 1980's when iconic Melina Mercouri visited London and made her appeal to then British Museum Director, Sir David Wilson. The aricle refers to the 'Elgin Metopes' but this ought to read 'Marbles' or sculptures as the metpes are but one set of sculptures removed from the Parthenon by Lord Elgin.

At the time that Melina came to visit the British Museum as Minister of Culture for Greece, two Committees were campaigning, the first is that of Emanuel Comino in Australia, which was founded in 1979 and BCRPM in the UK, which was founded in 1983.

Stephen Fry tweeted to his followers to support  the petition set up by John Lefas of Lefas Humanitas and the campaign 'Lost My Marbles'. Mr Lefas funded Geoffrey Robertson's book 'Who Own History' and has launched a web site to complement this new campaign, alongside a petition asking the UK Government  to respond to global calls for artefacts to be returned to their place of origin. Mr Lefas is looking to use the petition to change the British Museum Act of 1963. 

BCRPM members John Tasioulis and Edith Hall were on the panel discussion at King's College with Geoffrey Robertson earlier this year to analyse 'Who owns history?' and you can read about that event here. Professor John Tasioulas' paper covered key points in international law as he also made his own strong arguments to reunite the Parthenon Marbles on moral grounds.

In concluding, Professor Tasioulas said that "the key to the return of the Parthenon marbles is the recognition that the UK stands to gain a tremendous amount by relinquishing them. But to achieve those gains – the gains of acting and being seen to act in accordance with one’s deepest values – it must give them up freely, generously, and in the spirit of friendship, not one darkened by the shadow of legal obligation."