Parthenon Sculptures

  • TA NEA 20 November 2021

    LinaMendoni 2021 small

     

    Kyriakos Mitsotakis’ meeting with the British Prime Minister, brought the reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures back onto the world stage. Boris Johnson's response was limited to the long-established rote, that this is a matter for the British Museum, and despite UNESCO’s recent decision that the issue should be discussed between two nations: Greece and the UK. The British Prime Minister's answer has been used before, and has become a standard reply.

    The British Museum is not a state museum. However, it is generously subsidized by the state. And, of course, it is subject to British law. According to the current law (1963), its Trustees are not entitled to consent to the removal of the Sculptures. However, this does not mean that the British Government is not entitled, if the will is there, to amend this law.

    Elgin was an opportunist and used illegal and illegitimate means to fircibly remove and export the Sculptures from Greece for his own purposes, to decorate his ancestral home. This is a blatant act of theft, accompanied by unprecedented vandalism, which caused incalculable damage to the monument, in addition to the physical damage and aesthetic integrity.

    Elgin, acted as a looter, when he went on to sell the Sculptures to the British government, which in turn placed them in the British Museum. The British government , knowingly, accepted products of theft, ignoring the scandal that erupted in public opinion at that time, the strong objections and protests of prominent figures in Britain and Europe. The historical data of the Ottoman rule proves that there was no legal acquisition of the Sculptures by Elgin and, consequently, not by the British Museum also.

    The struggle of Greece for the repatriation of the Sculptures began almost immediately after the establishment of the Greek State. It became international in the 80’s with Melina Mercouri’s passionate, official request, made to both the British Museum and UNESCO.

    Our position has been from the outset and remains national, unanimous, unchanging, and clear. The violent and destructive forced removal of the Sculptures from the Parthenon and their subsequent division from their natural and conceptual environment is contrary to the current laws, the common sense of justice and the morals of the time, which took place, are still evident. Today, it is also still contrary to national and international law, international agreements, and conventions, as well as to commonly accepted principles and concepts for the protection and management of cultural heritage.

    The Greek State does not recognize the British Museum’s right of ownership, and possession of the Sculptures. On the contrary, it is constitutionally and morally obliged to claim and pursue by any  appropriate means their final, permanent return, in order to restore the law and moral order, and above all to restore the integrity of the monument.

    Our claim for the reunification of the Sculptures has in addition a broader and universal cultural dimension. Unlike other looted monuments, the Parthenon Sculptures are integral parts of a complex architecture and artistic creation, constituting a single and indivisible natural, aesthetic, and conceptual entity. At the same time, the Parthenon is in direct relationship and relevance to the buildings that surround it and, which, constitute an inseparable unity, which is determined and highlighted by the natural landscape of the Acropolis. This unity has a specific ideological and conceptual background, while it conveys specific messages and symbolisms.

    Perpetuating the breakdown of the integrity of the Parthenon, with its universal symbolic value and unifying power, is a constant moral and cultural crime. For this reason, the Greek request was not limited to a national context. It acquired an international dimension. It has emerged as a universal, urgent, and always timely demand of civil society everywhere. On a symbolic level it has become synonymous with the international demand for universal respect for and defense of the common cultural heritage of humanity.

    On the other hand, the British Museum, and those behind it, remains attached to colonial origins, starting from a basic component of their character and mentality, the competitive collection and demonstration of all kinds of "acquisitions" and "trophies".

    The Greek State, at the highest level, has declared its intention to remedy the void that the return of the Sculptures will create in the British Museum, offering temporary exhibitions of outstanding antiquities. At the same time, however, it assures the British side that as long as it persists in its refusal, Greece will continue to intensify the pressure internationally, until it becomes unbearable, and the British are forced to reconsider their stance.

    Dr Lina Mendoni
    Minister for Culture and Sports

    To read the original article in Greek, visit Ta Neaand we've added a link to a pdf of that page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    william

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

    UCL bw1200

     

  • Ta Nea, article by UK Correspondent, Yiannis Andritsopoulos

    The Institute of Digital Archaeology to appeal against the British Museum's refusal to allow access to the Parthenon Sculptures

     

    The Institute of Digital Archaeology (IDA) in Oxford will take legal action against the British Museum following the institution's inexplicable refusal to allow the Parthenon Sculptures to be scanned in order to make marble replicas of the fragmented pieces, housed in London since 1816.

    'TA NEA' reported on the rejected response, which infuriated the Institute, as it was denied access to the Duveen Gallery where the masterpieces of Pheidias are housed.

    “I'm really surprised at how short-sighted people can be. This arbitrary refusal reveals the intransigence of the British Museum, its arrogance and snobbishness", stated the director of the Institute, Roger Michel, to TA NEA.

    IDA is a partnership between the universities of Oxford and Harvard. The project of reproducing the sculptures "with millimetre precision", which was reported in TA NEA in January: the Institute will offer the copies to the British Museum, inviting it to return the originals to Greece. The initiative received wide publicity in Britain and was 'applauded' by the conservative press, the ‘Times’ and the ‘Telegraph’.

    The request to photograph these sculptures with three-dimensional imaging cameras was submitted on 08 February. The answer came the day before yesterday. "Digital scanning plays an important role in research and can lead to new discoveries related to various objects such as the Parthenon Sculptures," the response reads, adding, however, that "we are not in a position to approve your request. However, the reasons for the decision shall not be disclosed, nor shall any justification for declining the request be provided."

    "It took almost a month and a half to reply to our request. Every week they would email me and assure me that the request we made is very common and it will be effortless for them to respond positively. In the end, they rejected it, without giving us any explanation," says Michel, a scientific fellow of Trinity College of Oxford.

    It was precisely this fact that made him choose to use the judicial route. "This is an arbitrary and irrational decision. The Museum's refusal conceals a prejudice towards us. I do not think it is legally correct. The Museum, as a state-funded institution, must provide unhindered access to its premises."

    In April, the head of the Institute will appeal this decision in a London court, stating that he is confident that he will be vindicated. "The Museum is obliged to treat all requests in the same way. As a public body, it is not entitled to act unjustifiably and arbitrarily. It does though. That's why I believe that eventually we will be given (by the court) the right to scan the Sculptures".

    AFTER THE APPEAL. At the same time, Roger Michel argues that his move may pave the way for something much bigger: the return of these sculptures to Greece.

    "I sincerely believe that our recourse to justice can be a catalyst for developments. The legality of the transfer of these sculptures to London and their retention by the Museum is blurred. So far, the judiciary has not been concerned that the international conventions to which Britain is bound will not allow it to hold onto cultural heritage. Is the British Museum violating some of these international agreements by keeping the Marbles in London?"

    Litigation can drag on quite a bit. However, Michel is not going to shelve his ambitious project. "We are able to complete this even without the participation of the British Museum. With the material we have already gathered in other ways, we will be able in a few days to begin the three-dimensional imaging of the sculptures, on the basis of which we will make high-fidelity marble replicas."

    The Museum did not provide Ta Nea with any justification for rejecting the request of IDA, other than: "It is not possible to meet all the requests we receive," a spokesman said.

     

    20 March 2022

     

    Sunday Telegraph

    21 March 2022

    The Times

    Article also in 3D Printing Industry, to read more, follow the link here.

    In 2011, the mindset of the British Museum was very different to that of 2022. Architect Niall McLaughlin told The Architectural Review, that his decision to 'quote' the Marbles on the athletes' block came after "researching the history and significance of the screen in architecture through the writings of Gottfried Semper and Karl Bötticher."

    In the event, the decision to use the Marbles was prompted by "a clandestine conversation with senior curator Ian Jenkins late one night in the British Museum." Why clandestine?

    "The last thing I want is for people to think it is to do with representing the origins of the Olympics," said MacLaughlin. 

    God forbid that the Parthenon Marbles in London might be permitted to refer in any way to their Greek origins. After all, they are now what McLaughlin himself aptly describes as "deracinated". (Deracinated, for those without a dictionary to hand, originates from the late 16th century French term 'déraciner' — to tear up by the roots) wrote Tom Flynn.

    This story was also covered in The Architectural Review, 30 March 2011. So what has changed 11 years later? A new Director at the British Museum, a new Chair of the Trustees at the British Museum, new Trustees, the 'retain and explain' mantra laid down by UK's current government? 

  •  

    25 November 2021, Guardian Saturday magazine

    Edith Pritchett, Cartoonist on Millennial Life and visiting a Museum

    edith cartoon

     

  • Ian Jenkins (Senior Curator of Antiquities, British Museum) died suddenly last Saturday 28 November 2020.

    We disagreed of course on the proper abode of the 'Elgin Marbles', but he was a very great scholar/connoisseur and a good friend over many years, the last of them blighted by Parkinson's, and I am very sad that he is no longer with us.

    What not many people will know is that he came from what would once have been called a 'humble', that is a working-class, background: his mother, he told me as we were visiting the Greek section of London's West Norwood cemetery together, had been 'in service'.

    He wrote many excellent books and exhibition catalogues, including on the Parthenon sculptures, but my favourite remains......

    vases ian jenkins
    More controversially, he convened and edited the proceedings of a conference devoted to the 'cleaning' of those Parthenon Marbles confined in the B.M.

    ian cleaning

    BCRPM's Honorary President Professor Anthony Snodgrass adds: one big thing in Ian Jenkins favour was the honesty of his speech at the 1998 BM Colloquium on the 'cleaning' (his conduct later on notwithstanding), in which he said:"The cleaning was a scandal, and the cover-up another scandal."

    Several BCRPM members attended the BM's '200 years of the Elgin Collection lecture' on 01 July 2016 and Ian Jenkins then wrote an article in the September /October 2016 British Archaeology Magazine. This article was written to mark 200 years since the British government's decision in June 1816 to purchase LordElgin's collection of Parthenon (and other) Marbles, and which starts off by noting the latest (July 11) Parliamentary bid to have them restored to their native Athens, he provides a most succinct and pointed resume of the current state of play: how they came into Elgin's possession and then the British Museum's custodianship, what they represent, and what pieces of the Parthenon are not in the British Museum (and not in the new Acropolis Museum, either...).

    In April 2018, the Rodin exhibition opened at the BM and Greek journalist Labis Tsirigotakis interviewed Ian Jenkins for ERT, Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation TV. The questions regarding the Parthenon sculptures put to Ian by Labis were firm, and the replies equally so. 

    A recent, revealing interview with him was published in The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies' ARGO magazine.

    Rest in peace.

    ian jenkins collage

    Paul Cartledge

    A.G. Leventis Professor of Greek Culture Emeritus
    University of Cambridge

     

  • BCRPM web site BM

    Interview by Ta Nea, UK Correspondent  Ioannis Andritsopoulos with the Director of the British Museum, Hartwig Fischer

    Yannis and Hartwig

    Mr Fischer, do you think the Greeks are right to want the Parthenon Sculptures back?

    I can certainly understand that the Greeks have a special and passionate relationship with this part of their cultural heritage. Yes, I understand that there is a desire to see all of the Parthenon Sculptures in Athens.

    Would the British Museum consider returning the Parthenon Sculptures to Greece?

    There is a long-lasting debate on this issue. The Parthenon Sculptures in Athens are being shown in a specific context and since 2009 in this wonderful new museum in a very fascinating display. And the Parthenon Sculptures that are in London tell different stories about a monument that has a very complex history. As a temple of Athena, and then a Christian church and then a mosque. It was blown up in the 1687, and abandoned and neglected. And then rediscovered. And the rediscovery is obviously part of European history. We are showing the Parthenon Sculptures which are at the British Museum in a context of world cultures, highlighting achievements from all over the world under one roof, and showing the interconnectedness of cultures. Since the beginning of the 19th century, the monument’s history is enriched by the fact that some (parts of it) are in Athens and some are in London where six million people see them every year. In each of these two locations they highlight different aspects of an incredibly rich, layered and complex history.

    Greece says that it’s not just about returning the sculptures. It’s about reuniting the sculptures. Because they are a single work of art that should not be divided and fragmented. What’s your take on that?

    People go to some places to encounter cultural heritage that was created for that site. They go to other places to see cultural heritage which has been moved and offers a different way to engage with that heritage. The British Museum is such a place, it offers opportunities to engage with the objects differently and ask different questions because they are placed in a new context. We should cherish that opportunity. You could of course, and with reason, regret that original contexts are dissolved.
    When you move cultural heritage into a museum, you move it out of context. Yet that displacement is also a creative act. That is also true for the Acropolis Museum; the sculptures are out of their original context there. Nothing we admire in the Acropolis Museum was created for the Acropolis Museum.

    It’s there though. The Museum faces the Acropolis. It’s not the same as being (the Sculptures) here in London.

    Absolutely not. You’re right. They are close to the original context but they have still been taken away from it and been transformed through this act.

    So the answer to the question if you would consider returning the Sculptures to Greece, is it a no? Is it a yes? Is it a maybe?

    The British Museum was created in 1753 and opened in 1759 to allow people to not only encounter world cultures free of charge, but also to draw comparisons between cultures. Parliament who created this institution transferred the responsibility for this collection to the Trustees, stipulating that this collection has to be preserved for future generations. And that fiduciary responsibility the Trustees of the Museum take absolutely seriously. The Trustees feel the obligation to preserve the collection in its entirety, so that things that are part of this collection remain part of this collection. And to share them as much and wherever this is possible. The British Museum lends thousands of objects every year. And we also lend to the Acropolis Museum, we have excellent relations with our colleagues there.

    But that is the reason why the Museum will not permanently return the Sculptures? What you just told me about the Trustees.

    Yes.

    However, the British government has the power to pave the way for the Sculptures’s return. The majority of the trustees (15 out of 25) are appointed by the government. The parliament could also legislate. So there is, in theory, a way for it to happen.

    Well, if the British Parliament wants to legislate on this, then it is sovereign in doing so. It would have to pass primary legislation to change the legal basis that we are operating on today.

    A few months ago, I had the opportunity to interview the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. He told me that if he became PM he would make sure the Parthenon Sculptures return to Greece. What’s your comment on that?

    I think that this is Mr Corbyn’s personal view on the question, that you take note of. Obviously, that is not the stance and the view of the Trustees of the Museum.

    And of the Director as well?

    And of the Director.

    Are there active talks between the Museum and Greek officials or authorities about a possible return of the sculptures?

    There are no active talks.

    According to all polls, the British people are in favour of the reunification. Does that mean anything to you?

    I see the value of the objects that are part of the collection of the British Museum in being at the British Museum in the context that we just discussed.

    There is a question over the scultures’s ownership. Would you accept that Greece is the legal owner of the Parthenon Sculptures?

    No, I would not. The objects that are part of the collection of the British Museum are in the fiduciary ownership of the Trustees of the Museum.

    Would you consider an open-ended loan to Greece?

    There are two aspects to this: firstly, there are no indefinite loans. Every thing we lend, even on a long-term basis, will, at some point, return to the British Museum. And then it can go out again. The other aspect is that when we lend, we lend to those places where the ownership is acknowledged.

    There were several media reports last month regarding a leak in the Duveen Gallery where the Marbles are housed. As you can imagine there was a negative reaction. What’s your explanation about what happened?

    We had a tiny leak in one area of the roof in the Parthenon Sculptures’ galleries. A small quantity of rain entered the gallery, but did not touch any of the Sculptures and this was fixed right away.

    But you could see plastic containers collecting water next to the Sculptures. Did you find this embarrassing to the Museum?

    Buildings, especially buildings that are of a certain age, have to be taken care of. I don’t want the slightest little leak in any of the roofs of the Museum. We’re all aware of our responsibilities. And that we all have to do the utmost to live up to that responsibility. And that is what we do.

    Could you reassure the Museum’s visitors that in the future when it rains again they’re not going to see the same phenomenon?

    We will be renovating the building over the next few years. The immediate problem has been solved.

    Have you visited the Parthenon and the Acropolis Museum?

    Of course I have.

    Did you like it?

    You cannot ask me if I like the Parthenon! 

    Why not? Some people might not like it. They have the right not to!

    I think it’s one of the miracles of world culture. When you stand in front of it you are filled by awe and admiration. That also goes for the Museum, but in a different way. The Museum is a major achievement. It’s a beautiful museum. It’s very inspiring.

    Don’t you think that something is missing there?

    Oh, I think that everywhere in the world something is missing. That is our human condition.

    What are the chances the Parthenon Sculptures returning to Greece?

    I think I’ve answered that question.

    You are the first non-British director of the British Museum since 1866. How does that feel, especially in times of Brexit?

    I feel, not as a German, but as the person I am, extremely honoured to be the Director of this institution. And to be responsible for the future of this institution, along with all my colleagues and the Trustees and the patrons. I do not assume this role as a German or the son of somebody who was born French or somebody who is married to somebody who was Italian and is now French and in between was Peruvian. I assume this as a European, who is a citizen of the world and who cherishes this.

    Do you think Brexit would affect the British Museum’s operation?

    Yes. I think that, depending on what kind of Brexit will happen in the end, if it happens, it will have a very strong impact.

    Do you fear a no-deal scenario?

    A no-deal Brexit would have a more profound impact.

    Why did you want to become Director of the British Museum?

    It was not my plan from birth, nor when I started my career. But being asked to think about it, I thought that this is the most wonderful place in the world.

    Have you thought about what you’d like to do after leaving the British Museum – whenever that happens?

    I’ve never thought about those things. I concentrate on the work.

    An option would be for you to be the Director of the Acropolis Museum. If you take the Marbles with you!

    You are a very creative journalist!

    For more on Hartwig Fischer's plans for the Beitish Museum, do read the article by Martin Baily in the Art Newspaper, 01 September 2017, follow the link here.

  •  Yannis Andritsopoulos, London Correspondent for Ta Nea, Greece's daily newspaper visited the Tate Reading Rooms to see Kenneth Clark's original letter.

    yannis and Kenneth letter small

    Kenneth Clark, a British art historian and Trustee of the British Museum, was in favour of the return of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece in the 1940s, it can be revealed.

    Ta Nea, Greece’s daily newspaper, has seen and photographed a letter written by Clark in which he states explicitly that the so-called 'Elgin Marbles' should be sent back to Athens, with the aim of reuniting them with the rest of the Parthenon sculptures in one place.

    "I am, quite irrationally, in favour of returning the Elgin marbles to Greece, not to be put back on the Parthenon, but to be installed in a beautiful building on the far side of the Acropolis, which I think the British Government should pay for. I would do this purely on sentimental grounds, as an expression of our indebtedness to Greece," the letter reads.

    Clark wrote this letter on 3rd September, 1943. He sent it to Thomas Bodkin, then director of the Barber Institute of Fine Arts and Barber Professor of Fine Art at the University of Birmingham. At the time, Clark was Director of the National Gallery. His letter is currently kept in Tate Britain.

    This is the only time that a British Museum Trustee has gone on record as being openly in favour of the Parthenon Sculptures’ reunification, a view standing in stark contrast to the position of the British Museum that the Elgin marbles should stay in London.

    president Greek President Prokopis Pavlopoulos

    Greek President Prokopis Pavlopoulos told Ta Nea: “The request for the return of the Parthenon Sculptures had found, since 1943, an "unexpected" ally in Lord Kenneth Clark, who is included among the most important 20th-century art historians and who, in this capacity, participated in the administration of the most relevant British Institutions, such as the British Museum, the National Gallery, the National Theatre, the Royal Opera House.”

    This example clearly evinces the gentility and nobility of Kenneth Clark’s character as well as the strength and conviction of his ‘cultural morality’. These elements, in conjunction with the expression of his respect for the World Cultural Heritage and the roots of our Civilisation, make him a great representative of Britain’s tradition. Clark’s case also evinces how "miserable" and completely unworthy of Britain's tradition as outlined above is the attitude of the British Museum's officials today, who thus end up appearing inferior to the circumstances and the necessities pertaining to the defence of World Cultural Heritage and our common Civilisation and, furthermore, unrepentant accomplices of Elgin's cultural crime,” Pavlopoulos added.

    Anthony SnodgrassProfessor Anthony Snodgrass

    “Kenneth Clark’s (slightly unexpected) support, for a position now widely held in the U.K., is one pleasant revelation. More important, however, is his perceptive emphasis on the need for separate solutions to individual cases; and, yet more striking, the uncanny accuracy of his prediction, for the Marbles “to be installed in a beautiful building on the far [that is, South] side of the Acropolis”,” said Professor Anthony Snodgrass, Emeritus Professor in Classical Archaeology at the University of Cambridge, Honorary President of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles.

    More than sixty-five years later, the greater part of this prophecy was to be precisely fulfilled; it only remains for the natural sequel, the 'reintegration' of the Marbles, to be enacted too," he added.

    08 herrinProfessor Judith Herrin

    How splendid that Kenneth Clark's 1943 vision of the reunited Parthenon marbles has been perfectly realised in the New Acropolis Museum,” said Professor Judith Herrin, Constantine Leventis Senior Research Fellow Emeritus at King's College London, and one of the longest serving members of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles.

    “On 20th June the superlative Acropolis Museumwill celebrate its 10th anniversary, having welcomed over 14 million visitors from all over the world and one can but imagine how elated Kenneth Clark would have been. Not only to see the top floor of the museum, the Parthenon Gallery but also the floors below and the opening of the area that has been painstakingly excavated to reveal 4,000 metres of homes, workshops, baths – an entire Athenian neighbourhood that existed from classical to byzantine years. What a pity that he is not alive to physically see all this and yet he too would have continued to have added his voice to the reunification of the Parthenon marbles. Britain has not paid for this museum and yet what is still missing are the many pieces that Lord Elgin so crudely removed from a building, currently displayed in the British Museum, the wrong way around, miles away from their other halves. Here’s to the day when they can be reunited in Athens and with views to the Parthenon, which still stands,” she added.

    The Parthenon Sculptures have been displayed in the British Museum since 1817. They were removed from the Acropolis in Athens in the early 19th century by British diplomat Lord Elgin. Greece has challenged claims by the British Museum that Lord Elgin had obtained permission to transfer the Marbles from Athens to London and has demanded Britain open negotiations over their return.

    Kenneth Clark (13 July 1903 – 21 May 1983) was a British art historian, museum director, and broadcaster. He was the National Gallery’s youngest ever Director. He achieved international fame as the writer, producer and presenter of the BBC Television series Civilisation.

    Published in Ta Nea, Greece’s daily newspaper (www.tanea.gr)  . To read the origial article , follow the link here

    Publication date: 14 June 2019

  • King’s Classics Department is hosting a competition to produce creative writing pieces of audio description (AD) that describe the Parthenon Marbles/ Sculptures exhibited at the British Museum.

    The competition is open to King's students of all levels from all Faculties.

    Entries can consider the whole of the Parthenon Marbles/ Sculptures, individual monuments, or anything in between. Inspiration could include helping someone visualise the sculptures, providing a historical or interpretive overview, or sharing a subjective response to the artwork.

    Judges for this year’s contest are:

    Tom Harrison (Keeper of the Department of Greece and Rome, British Museum)
    Sarah Howe (Lecturer in Poetry, King’s College London)
    Jonny Marshall(blind art lover and Research Officer, Royal National Institute of Blind People)
    Jaime Prada(Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Manager, British Museum)
    Will Wootton (Reader in Classical Art and Archaeology, King’s College London)

    The deadline for submission is Wednesday 03 April 2024, and winners will be announced in early summer 2024.

    For more information visit King's College London, news.

  •  

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

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

    article by Marianna V. Vardinoyannis, UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador

    Published in VIMAGAZINO, January 2022


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    ACROPOLIS Marianna Vardinoyannis 26.06.2014

    Marianna V. Vardinoyannis, UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador

  • The statement by then Culture minister for Greece, Melina Mercouri that the road to reunification will be wide open when the Times is in favour followed by last week’s Times article begs the question: is the return of the sculptures prophetic?

     

    Sophia Hiniadou Cambanis, wrote in  Protagon.gr, 13 January 2022

    sophia article prothema header

     Change of landscape.

    The Times, the flagship newspaper of the British establishment, made a historic turn to support the reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures to Greece: "they belong to Athens, they must be returned", writes the leader article!

    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, during his visit to London mid November. The state visit included relevant proposal submitted to his counterpart, British Prime MinisterBoris Johnson.

    This most recent support for Greece's request is welcomed by those that have reinforced the diplomatic route for the reunification of the sculptures, applying constant and methodical pressure and garnerning support from the international community. It was preceeded 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 (27-29 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.

    A precursor to the return, according to the British newspaper, is the agreement between Italy and Greece for the delivery, in the form of a deposit for eight years, the Parthenon marble fragment of the Goddess Artemis, a fragment of the VI stone of the eastern frieze of the Parthenon. This has been returned to the Acropolis Museum from the Antonino Salinas Museum in Palermo, Sicily. The fragment was taken at the same time as the forceful removal of the Parthenon Sculptures by Lord Elgin, from the Ottoman controlled Athens in the early 19th century and later sold to the University of Palermo. In return, Sicily will receive a statue of the goddess Athena of the late 5th century BC and a geometric amphora from the first half of the 8th century BC.

    So the original Greek proposal to send Greek antiquities in return for exhibition at the British Museum is now considered tempting by the author of The Times leader article. As the newspaper explains, the dispute over the ownership of the Sculptures led to the failure of the agreement. The proposed solution, to resell the Sculptures at a symbolic price, is simple according to the article but contrary to the established Greek position, since they were removed illegally. However, the phrase " let Parliament now approve their return" paves the way for an amendment to the 1963 British Museums Act, which precludes the return of cultural heritage objects from the British Museum to their countries of origin. The law, in short, that also prevents the return of the Sculptures to Greece.

    The New York Times in an article last December, entitled "While Europe returns artifacts, Britain remains silent"  singles out London's attitude towards Athens over one of the most high-profile and controversial museum exhibits in the world, the Sculptures of the Parthenon, still on display in the British Museum. Contrary to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who has repeatedly stated that the Sculptures are an integral part of the British Museum's collection, which presents the history of the world under one roof. 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 in October, and Germany announced earlier this year that it would return to Nigeria the spoils of Benin. The Belgian government has agreed to transfer ownership of stolen items from its museums to African countries of origin. Already the recent Plenary Session of the 76th UN General Assemblyadopted the decision promoted by Greece for the return of cultural goods to their countries of origin, a decision considered to be a Greek diplomatic success.

    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. This particular uniqueness of the Parthenon Sculptures is recognized by 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 of them can still exist separately!

    The UK can only benefit from the long-awaited gesture, not of generosity, as the British publication describes it, but of justice. The statement by Melina Mercouri, who first made a request in 1982 for the Greek government to return the Parthenon Sculptures to the UNESCO General Conference on Cultural Policy in Mexico, combined with The Times favouring the return, is prophetic. The reunification will finally be given it's time. 

    Sophia Hiniadou Cambanis

    Sophia Hiniadou Cambanis, legal and cultural management advisor to the Hellenic Parliament

  • LONDON COLLOQUY 19 JUNE 2012

    The Parthenon sculptures: a legal perspective

    Andrew Dismore

    By Andrew Dismore

    1 Ownership: who do the sculptures belong to, in law? The issue of ownership of the Parthenon Sculptures (PS) has vexed politicians, museum curators, campaigners and the public for decades: but does it matter? The way the PS came into the possession of the British  Museum (BM). is a matter of relatively settled historical record. Lord Elgin removed them from the Parthenon under an Ottoman firman, the legal effect of which has been hotly disputed ever since. The first argument is that the firman did not extend to the wholesale removal effected by Lord Elgin; and secondly, the Ottoman firman could not and did not lawfully allow the removal of the sculptures anyway. Be that as it may, Lord Elgin shipped the sculptures to his London home. His expenses were substantial, and his subsequent financial difficulties led him to negotiate for the sale of his collections to the BM In 1816, a House of Commons Select Committee considered the authority by which Lord Elgin's collection was acquired, the circumstances under which that authority was granted, the merit of the sculptures and the importance of making them public property and their value as objects of sale. It adjudged the sculptures to have been properly acquired,  both fit for and worthy of public purchase, and recommended a purchase price of £35,000, less than half the expenditure claimed by Lord Elgin. The Report was debated in the House of Commons. The House voted the money for the purchase by 82 votes to 30, and legislation was then passed giving effect to the recommendations. The collection was purchased from public funds and vested in the Trustees of the BM. The BM (and UK government) case is that the trustees of the British Museum are the legal owners of the Elgin Marbles. They were vested in the BM by the Act of Parliament in 1816, and that is it. There have been suggestions that the BM’s ownership could be challenged, The only way of resolving the ownership issue definitively would be a court declaration or judgment, but anyone attempting to do so would face insurmountable obstacles, in my view. But who owned the PS before Lord Elgin took them? Greece did not exist as a country, nor for that matter did it, when the sculptures were made, as Greece then was a collection of city states. The legal authority was almost certainly vested in the Ottomans and Greece did not emerge as a nation state till the 1820s. It would be necessary to establish and then apply the law of property and of contract as it stood in 1816.  Anyone challenging ownership would need to prove the museum had not lawfully acquired the PS.  A major obstacle is the 200 years delay and the law of limitation. Whilst the limitation period might be arguably disapplied from 1816, it would be a strong defence to say the clock started running at the latest when the restitution campaign began in earnest in the 1980s and started claiming ownership on behalf of Greece- and the limitation period would long have expired since then. The basic principles of the relevant English  law have not substantially changed.  It would be necessary to prove the 1816 Government was not a bona fide purchaser (BFP) for value without notice –an innocent party who purchases property without notice of any other party's claim to the title of that property. Even when a party fraudulently sells property to a BFP, that BFP will usually take good title to the property despite the competing claims of the other party. Bearing in mind the extensive parliamentary debate examining this precise issue at the time, this would be very difficult to establish. And ownership was not challenged by the Ottomans before the parliamentary committee. And as the purchase and transfer was by Act of Parliament, any challenge would face the overwhelming hurdle of the supremacy of Parliament, too. Parliament has overridden private property rights for the public good, including without compensation on other occasions. Any legal challenge could expect to end up in the Supreme Court. Given the analysis above, it is pretty well a lost cause, to think the Court would find any other outcome than that the PS belong to the BM as English law would be applied.

    2 Ownership: does it matter? In the end, such a legal challenge would be an expensive and time consuming side show, as the political debate has moved on. Moreover if there were to be a case and it failed, such a defeat in the courts would be a major setback for the mainstream campaign. Even if the claim was successful, there would then be a conflict between the courts and the statute and consequent powers of the trustees, so a substantive change of the law through statute would probably still be required. The real issue is now generally seen by campaigners both in Greece and the UK as not to be who owns the PS, but where they are physically located, with suggestions about loans of the PS or a BM annex in Athens as part of the new Parthenon Museum, for example. The moral and political arguments about this point are for other presentations at the colloquy and not for this paper- but resolving the issue of location raises legal issues which are at the very heart of the debate. The major obstacle to overcome is the British Museum Act 1963, under which the PS collection is held.

    3 The legislation: a) The British Museum Act 1963 The Act is reproduced in full in its current form as an appendix to this paper. The Act was passed in part to provide for the separation of the Natural History Museum and the separation of the collections between the BM and the NHM. In summary, the relevant provisions are: The BM Trustees have power to enter into contracts and other agreements, to acquire and hold and land and other property, and to do all other things that appear to them necessary or expedient for the purposes of their functions.

    The Trustees must keep the collections of the Museum within its authorised repositories, except if it is expedient to remove objects temporarily for any purpose connected with the administration of the Museum and the care of its collections.

    The Trustees, so far as appears to them to be practicable, must ensure the objects in the Museum (including reserve collection objects) are made available for inspection by members of the public.

    The Trustees may lend for public exhibition (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) any object comprised in the collections of the Museum: provided that the Trustees shall have regard to the interests of students and other persons visiting the Museum, to the physical condition and degree of rarity of the object in question, and to any risks to which it is likely to be exposed.

    Objects vested in the Trustees as part of the collections shall not be disposed of by them otherwise than under section 5 or 9 of this Act [or section 6 of the Museums and Galleries Act 1992]

    Section 5 provides that the Trustees may sell, exchange, give away or otherwise dispose of any object vested in them and comprised in their collection [only] if –

    (a) the object is duplicate of another object, or (b) the object appears to the Trustees to have been made not earlier than the year 1850, and substantially consists of printed matter of which a copy made by photography or a process akin to photography is held by the Trustees, or (c) in the opinion of the Trustees the object is unfit to be retained in the collections of the Museum and can be disposed of without detriment to the interests of students:

    (Section 9 is not relevant as it stands, as this now only relates to transfers between the BM and NHM)

    4 The legislation: b) the Museums and Galleries Act 1992; the Human Tissue Act 2004; and the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009 Section 6 of the Museums and Galleries Act 1992 allows the transfer of objects or related documents between institutions if the transfer is to any other body for the time being specified in Schedule 5 to the Act: relevant extracts are annexed to this paper, including the list of specified bodies, being major museums (including the BM) galleries etc., all situated in the UK. The Human Tissue Act 2004 enables the trustees of the BM to de-accession human remains if it appears to them to be appropriate. The Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009, which was a private member’s Bill I promoted,  confers power to return certain cultural objects on grounds relating to events occurring during the Nazi era. It applies to a list of bodies, including the BM.  A body to which the Act applies may transfer an object from its collections, if the Advisory Panel has recommended the transfer and the Secretary of State has approved the recommendation. The “Advisory Panel” considers claims which are made in respect of objects, and relate to events occurring during the Nazi era.

    5 The current legislation: summary of effect

    The legislation therefore forbids the BM to dispose of items except only in limited circumstances, such as duplication, printed material, or not worthy of being in its collection. It can voluntarily dispose of Holocaust looted art to its rightful owner, and can transfer to other major UK museums. Clearly none of these criteria apply to the PS.

    The BM’s main argument is that it is a “world museum”, and the PS are integral to its story of the history of art and culture through the millennia. This is illustrated by the recent Radio 4 series, of BM director Sir Neil Macgregor, “the History of the World through a 100 objects” (incidentally I highly recommend it, in its own right). However, The BM has used its powers to dispose of other items. In March 2002, it was reported that the British Museum had sold some of its artefacts. The BM admitted selling 30 pieces of Benin bronze in the 1950s and 1960s. (The detail is not clear, but could well predate the 1963 Act so is of limited relevance as a precedent).

    However, what is known is that the British Museum sold 21 duplicate prints in 1986 and a duplicate set of Hiroshige woodblock prints in 1995. Some 2,600 duplicate coins, medals and badges and 117 duplicate western prints have been exchanged for similar material since 1972. Two bronze plaques from Benin were exchanged for a unique bronze horseman in the style of the Lower Niger Bronze industry in 1972. A relic of cannibalism, judged unfit to be retained in the Museum's collection was exchanged with Fiji for a collection of prehistoric sherds in 1975. In 1991, an English court recognised the legal personality of an Indian temple claiming the recovery of an idol, notwithstanding that it was incapable of accepting formally legal personality under English law.

    Whilst the closest similarity is with the Benin Bronzes return, the facts of that case are different and can be made to fit the existing law. When they were taken form Africa in the 1870s, this was seen under the law as it then imperiously stood as either acquisition by right of conquest or war reparations.  Accordingly, this explains  how we end up in the “pass the parcel” approach of the BM and Government, each saying it is the responsibility of the other. The British Museum considers that it is not permitted under its current statute to engage in negotiations to return objects (in the context of the PS). The introduction of any legislation to provide for the return of the Elgin marbles would be the responsibility of the Government. It can however, lend to other museums, including overseas, in tightly controlled circumstances. It is arguable both ways, as to whether in fact the museum could lend the PS under these restrictions (access, condition, rarity, and risk).

    6 changing the law: political will

    It is clear there is no current political will within the coalition government to change the law to overcome these statutory obstacles. When in opposition,  their spokesperson said that the relationship between the Department and the British Museum is underpinned by a crucial arm’s length principle whereby Ministers set the financial, administrative, legal and overall policy framework for public bodies, but those bodies have a considerable and proper measure of independence in individual decision making. It is a long-standing policy of successive Governments in the UK that decisions relating to museum collections are for museum trustees to take, and the Government do not intervene. Nor was there any enthusiasm for changing the law under the previous Labour Government, though there was considerable support on the then Labour backbenches with one Early Day Motion (EDM- an expression of opinion on the backbenches only) attracting over 100 MPs’ signatures, mainly Labour. The Labour Government’s view was that the sculptures were acquired legally and that they are best housed in the British Museum in a multi-cultural context, seen free of charge by up to 5 million visitors a year.... to be clear about the responsibility of the British Museum for the Sculptures. The Trustees have a statutory duty to protect their collections and this duty could only be over-ridden by primary legislation amending Section 5 of the British Museum Act 1963, relating to the disposal of objects in the collections.

    7 drafting a Bill

    So whilst there is no immediate prospect of a reform of the law to enable the return of the PS to Greece, what would such a Bill look like? And what are the potential problems facing it? These can be categorised as both political and legal.

    If a Bill is seen to be very specific and referring only to a particular private interest, for example referring only to the PS and their repatriation, there is a risk the Bill could be deemed to be hybrid. A hybrid bill is a public Bill which affects the private interests of a particular person or organization. It is generally initiated by the Government on behalf of non-Parliamentary bodies such as local authorities and is treated like a private Bill for the beginning of its passage through Parliament. This gives individuals and bodies an opportunity to oppose the bill or to seek its amendment before a select committee in either or in both Houses. This procedure is long drawn out and very problematic, so it is important that any Bill cannot be seen to be hybrid, so it need to be as broadly drawn as possible, and certainly not just referring to the PS alone. This then creates a political problem: the “floodgates” argument. One of the main arguments deployed against the PS return is that if the PS are returned, this will feed demands for other cultural objects to be repatriated too. The most obvious case is that of the Benin Bronzes, but no doubt we can all think of others. The BM strongly argues that removal of the marbles to Athens would encourage similar claims for other objects from other countries which would undermine the comparative principle at the heart of the British Museum's purpose. A subset of this argument that reinforces it is the issue of ownership, deal with above. Of course the political arguments about floodgates are somewhat spurious; there have been exceptions already, most notably the issue of holocaust restitution and human remains, which have not led to a long list of claims. The moral difference appears to be that the events leading to their inclusion in our national collections were more recent than Lord Elgin’s depredations; and the legislation applies not just to the BM but a wider range of institutions. But any Bill that did not head  this off would find it opposed in Parliament on these grounds. A Bill also needs to overcome the problem of the relationship between the BM and Government: the “arms length” relationship that implies ministers cannot order the trustees what to do and that decisions as to the collection should be primarily for the trustees. So the challenge for any Bill is to be sufficiently broad to avoid hybridity, yet sufficiently narrow to avoid these political  problems.

    8 The British Museum Act 1963 (Amendment) Bill: summary of the Bill As set out above, at present the British Museum is prevented by statute from disposing of objects in its collections except in very limited circumstances. A copy of the Bill is annexed  to this paper  The Bill’s purpose is to amend the British Museum Act 1963 to enable the British Museum to transfer to another institution, for public exhibition, any object from its collections, in certain circumstances, where public access is guaranteed. The Bill is in two parts, first providing a more general power of transfer, having regard to the likely public access in the recipient institution, the interest of students and visitors to the museum, to the condition and rarity of the object, and any risks the object might face. The second part of the Bill empowers the secretary of State to require the transfer, if in his opinion, certain circumstances are met. Those circumstances can be summarised as: • where the object would be more widely accessible to visitors than in the British Museum • where it would be more appropriately displayed in the recipient institution than in the British Museum by reason of its historic links, or  where the object came to form part of the collections of the British Museum in circumstances which make its retention in the collections undesirable or inappropriate. To overcome the hybridity issue, the Bill confers these general powers without specific reference to the PS,  but there is only one situation in which it might realistically apply: to repatriate the Parthenon Marbles to Greece. So the Bill firstly empowers the BM trustees to effect a transfer by amending section 9 of the 1963 Act,  overcoming the existing restrictions. And it is the case that the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to override the trustees, which it is accepted interferes with the arms length relationship, but does so in only limited circumstances and after consultation with the trustees. In the end, this has to be necessary, to provide the political impetus to effect a return of the PS. The ownership issue is sidestepped by referring to transfer of the objects rather than arguing over rights of possession, but brings into play the circumstances of acquisition as one of the possible triggers to bring the powers in the Bill into play. The Bill also provides that any transfer should be effected at the expense of the receiving institution, which protects the UK public purse- but may now present a serious obstacle, given the present economic crisis in Greece. The Bill commenced its second reading debate on 15th May 2009, coincidentally on the same date as the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009, but whilst the latter Bill secured its second reading and went on to become law, the British Museum Act 1963 (Amendment) Bill did not: it was “talked out” and has no immediate prospect of proceeding in the current Parliament. Nevertheless, I would argue that it provides the best solution, to overcome the present legal obstacles should the parliamentary circumstances change, and is ready to take “off the shelf” in that eventuality. The second reading debate is set out below.

    9 British Museum Act 1963 (Amendment) Bill: Second Reading Debate Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. I suspect that I will not get the same consensus on this Bill, which, by happy coincidence, is back to back with my previous one—I think it will be a case of “won one, lost one” for me today. I accept that this Bill is a little more contentious than the Holocaust (Stolen Art) Restitution Bill, but it is nevertheless a relatively modest measure and aims to work in very limited circumstances. The Bill’s purpose is to change the British Museum Act 1963 so that the British Museum can transfer to another institution, for public exhibition, any object from its collections, in limited circumstances—where public access is guaranteed, where the object “would be more widely accessible to visitors...than in the British Museum”, where it “would be more appropriately displayed in the recipient institution than in the British Museum by reason of its historic links”, or because the object “came to form part of the collections of the Museum in circumstances which make its retention in the collections undesirable or inappropriate.” That is a general power, but I can think of only one set of objects to which it could realistically relate: the Parthenon sculptures. The time has surely come for the Parthenon sculptures to be reunited in the brand new museum that has been built on the Acropolis in Athens and is due to open next month. The issue is not who owns the sculptures, although they ended up in the British Museum through a very dubious history, but where they are best kept and displayed. In Athens, they would be reunited with the other half of the sculptures—those not taken by Lord Elgin over 200 years ago. Indeed, some of the marbles are literally cut in two, with half the body in London and half in Athens. They would be seen in their correct context, aligned with the Parthenon and in the right Mediterranean light. The argument for their return is popular with the British people, and Greece deserves its heritage back. The Parthenon sculptures—some people call them the Elgin marbles—are a matter of national identity to Greece. I have travelled in Greece over many years. If one asks anyone with any mental image of Athens or Greece to name the first thing that comes to mind, it will be the Parthenon. That is true for visitors, and even more so for Greeks worldwide. The Greek Government take a phlegmatic approach. They are not arguing about how the sculptures came to the British Museum, how they were obtained by Lord Elgin, or who should own them. The argument is simply about their location so far from their original home; Greece has waived all its other claims. The archaeological case is a strong one. The sculptures would be reunified in their original topographical, historical and cultural context. Contrary to popular understanding, not all the sculptures are in the British Museum. The frieze originally consisted of 111 panels, of which about 97 survive. Fifty-six are in the British Museum,40 are still in situ or in the Acropolis museum, one is in the Louvre, and there are fragments in Copenhagen, Vienna and elsewhere. Of the original metopes, 39 are in situ or in the Acropolis museum, and only 15 are in the British Museum. Some sculptures are broken, with heads and torsos split between Athens and London. In the case of the torso of Poseidon, the front—what one might call the Poseidon six-pack—is in Athens, while his rear, shoulders and back are in London; he is split straight down the middle. To view the sculpture, one would have to travel between Athens and London, as 98 per cent. of it is split between them. The Parthenon is the most important symbol of Greek cultural heritage, yet the sculptures are not properly displayed in the British Museum. They not only fail to appear to form a whole, which they do not, but are exhibited on the inside of a wall rather than on the outside. The new Acropolis museum intends to correct all this. The museum, now complete, is ready to re-house the marbles and will make sure that these unique objects are seen at their greatest advantage and close to their original position. The British Museum has always claimed that the sculptures were well cared for, but that is not the case. In the 1930s, they were cleaned, more or less with a Brillo pad and a wire brush, in the mistaken belief that they were originally brilliant white, and in doing so some of the residual ancient paint was taken off, as was the honey-coloured patina of ages. The Parthenon cannot come to London. Reunification would be voluntary, and it would not entail ceding legal titles of ownership and rights. The new museum on the Acropolis opens on 20 June. It is on the same alignment as the Parthenon, slightly below it on the foothills of the Acropolis. It contains a shell of the same dimensions to enable the marbles to be displayed on an outer wall, in their proper relationship, with windows out on to the Parthenon, lit by Mediterranean light reflected in through them. The Guardian recently published a review of the museum, which says: “Athens’s new museum is spectacular, even without its star exhibits...The new museum is undoubtedly going to be a huge tourist attraction. Its breathtaking design, with natural light flooding every corner, is a huge achievement in itself.” What a gesture it would be if our country were at long last able to do the decent thing and return the Parthenon sculptures to their rightful home. Athens has been transformed over the past few years; as a regular visitor, I am astounded by how it has changed. The archaeological sites have been pedestrianised, linking them all together, including the new museum, and the restoration of the Acropolis and the Parthenon itself has gone extremely well. Greece would not bring any other claims, but what is important is that the appalling block to a cultural exchange with Greece would end. We have seen objects and major collections lent to the UK from other places, but no major collections from Greece, and that is because of the dispute over the Parthenon sculptures. How wonderful it would be if, for example, we could see the Mycenaean treasures in the British museum, or some of the Macedonian objects from Philip the Great’s grave. How wonderful it would be if we could see some of the wonderful Minoan artefacts from Crete. We will never see any of those while the dispute continues. Greece has made it clear that it would not leave our art galleries empty, and the time has now come. The population believe that, all the opinion polls show it, and when we have tested it through early-day motions there has been a majority in the House as well. The Government say that, ultimately, it is a matter for the trustees of the British Museum. I cannot agree. The trustees’ refusal so far to deal with this issue is adversely affecting our relations with Greece and our reputation around the world. Greece made major concessions under the previous PASOK Government of George Papandreou, with Mr. Venizelos as Culture Minister, and those concessions have been carried forward by the current Greek Government. Their offer to provide a new home for the Parthenon sculptures on the Acropolis site is one that we should not and cannot refuse. Our Government should give the British Museum an extremely powerful steer to stop its dog-in-a-manger approach and allow the return of the marbles to Athens. My Bill would provide a mechanism to do that, and I hope that the House will accept that it is a moral, if not legal, obligation to return stolen goods back to where they belong 200 years later. Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid-Kent) (Con): I start, as I did on the previous Bill, by congratulating the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on introducing the Bill. I congratulate him also on his success with the previous Bill. As he correctly surmised, I suspect that I shall not be able to be quite as helpful on this occasion. It might inform the debate if we considered for a moment the background details that affect the British Museum. It is one of the most visited attractions anywhere in the UK. Last year it had more than 6 million visits, which far exceeded the Department for Culture, Media and Sport target of 4.5 million. The year before there were a record 5 million visits. It is one of 22 museums and galleries that are sponsored by the Department and receive grant in aid. Of those, 14 are described as nationals because they were founded by Acts of Parliament. The British Museum received just over £41.5 million in revenue last year and just over £3 million in capital grant in aid from the Department. The Department has just confirmed the level of funding that it will provide the museum with for the next three years. As the Bill suggests, the British Museum was set up by Act of Parliament, back in 1753. It was the first national museum in the world. The collection that it houses spans 2 million years of human history and contains art and antiques from ancient and living cultures. Its aim is to hold, for the benefit and education of humanity, a collection representative of world cultures, and to ensure that the collection is housed in safety, conserved properly, curated, researched and exhibited. The relationship between the Department and the British Museum is underpinned by a crucial arm’s length principle whereby Ministers set the financial, administrative, legal and overall policy framework for public bodies, but those bodies have a considerable and proper measure of independence in individual decision making. When asked about the matter in Parliament, the right hon. Member for Barking the predecessor of the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), stated: “It is a long-standing policy of successive Governments in the UK that decisions relating to museum collections are for museum trustees to take, and the Government do not intervene.”—[ Official Report, 5 February 2008; Vol. 471, c. 1040W.] That is a principle with which we would wish to concur. Under the British Museum Act 1963, which the Bill would amend, the trustees of the British Museum are the corporate body with the legal duty to hold the museum’s collection and make it available to a worldwide audience. The museum is, of course, governed by a board of 25 trustees who are non-executive and unpaid. On the disposal of artefacts from the British Museum, the trustees’ general powers are limited to the disposal of objects that are duplicates, that are unfit to be retained, that have become useless for the museum’s purposes and that are pre-1850 printed matter of which it holds photographic or other copies. Special new powers of disposal have been added to cater for special situations when those limitations have stood in the way of returning objects in response to acknowledged moral claims by former owners or their successors. One example of such a power, which the Human Tissue Act 2004 introduced, enables the trustees of the museum to de-accession human remains if it appears to them to be appropriate. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), noted in the Committee’s report, “Caring for our Collections”: “It seems probable that there will at some time in the future be legislation to confer another special power, so that national museums will be permitted to return items which have been ‘spoilated’. Legislation has been recommended by the Spoliation Advisory Panel, which was set up to resolve claims from people, or their heirs, who lost property during the Nazi era”— as we discussed during the previous Bill’s debate— “which is now held in UK national collections. It advises both the claimants and the institution where the object is held, as to what action may be taken. The Panel provides an alternative to legal action, aiming to achieve a solution that is fair and just to everyone involved, taking into account the moral issues of every case”. However, the British Museum has a lending policy to allow its objects to be used in exhibitions elsewhere. Its trustees are able to make loans for the following reasons: first, to further knowledge, understanding and scholarship relating to the works in its care; secondly, to make the collections more widely accessible within the UK and throughout the world; thirdly, to increase national and international co-operation by the exchange of material and exhibitions; and, finally, to enhance the reputation of the British Museum and its good standing nationally and internationally. The trustees of the British Museum make loans under powers conferred by section 4 of the 1963 Act, which is up for amendment today. The Act states that the British Museum may lend for public exhibition (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) any object comprised in the collections of the Museum: Provided that in deciding whether or not to lend any such object, and in determining the time for which, and the conditions subject to which, any such object is to be lent, the British Museum shall have regard to the interests of students and other persons visiting the Museum, to the physical condition and degree of rarity of the object in question, and to any risks to which it is likely to be exposed.” Those points cover the background to the matter. However, five particular issues are worthy of consideration. First, we are concerned that if the Bill is passed, it will breach the arm’s length principle ensuring that Ministers of any party are not able to interfere with the day-to-day running of our national museums and galleries. Secondly, we believe that the British Museum is unique among world museums, in that its collection is able to tell the whole history of human civilisation under one roof. It therefore seems wrong to remove the Parthenon sculptures and put at risk that vital collection and that history. Thirdly, it is important that the Parthenon sculptures stay at a museum where they are properly preserved and available to a world public for free, seven days a week. Indeed, by chance, I went to see them myself last Sunday. Fourthly, the British Museum trustees already have a power to loan the sculptures for a period in response to an appropriate request. I am not aware of any ongoing discussions along those lines with the trustees, but, indeed, that power already exists. Finally, a key part of encouraging people to visit museums is ensuring that our museums, particularly nationally, have high-quality exhibits. For all those reasons, I have grave reservations about the Bill. I know that the Minister wants a couple of minutes to give her winding-up speech, so I shall sit down, but before I do it would be wrong of me not to say that I am afraid that my party too has grave reservations about the Bill. 2.29 pm The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Barbara Follett): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker— Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order.

    10 Appendices: the statutory provisions Relevant extracts from: BRITISH MUSEUM ACT 1963

    An Act to alter the composition of the Trustees of the British Museum, to provide for the separation from the British Museum of the British Museum (Natural History), to make new provision with respect to the regulation of the two Museums and their collections in place of that made by the British Museum Act 1753 and enactments amending or supplementing that Act, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.

    2 General powers of Trustees

    The Trustees of the British Museum shall have power, subject to the restrictions imposed on them by virtue of any enactment (whether contained in this Act or not), to enter into contracts and other agreements, to acquire and hold and land and other property, and to do all other things that appear to them necessary or expedient for the purposes of their functions.

    3 Keeping and inspection of collections

    (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Trustees of the British Museum to keep the objects comprised in the collections of the Museum within the authorised repositories of the Museum, except in so far as they may consider it expedient to remove them temporarily for any purpose connected with the administration of the Museum and the care of its collections.

    (2) Where it appears to the Trustee that any such objects cannot conveniently be kept within the authorised repositories, they may store them at other premises in Great Britain if satisfied that they can be stored in those premises without detriment to the purposes of the Museum.

    (3) It shall be the duty of the Trustees to secure, so far as appears to them to be practicable, that the objects comprised in the collections of the Museum (including objects stored under the preceding subsection) are, when required for inspection by members of the public, made available in one or other of the authorised repositories under such conditions as the Trustees think fit to impose for preserving the safety of the collections and ensuring the proper administration of the Museum.

    (4) Objects vested in the Trustees as part of the collections of the Museum shall not be disposed of by them otherwise than under section 5 or 9 of this Act [or section 6 of the Museums and Galleries Act 1992].

    4 Lending of objects

    The Trustees of the British museum may lend for public exhibition (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) any object comprised in the collections of the Museum:

    Provided that in deciding whether or not to lend any such object, and in determining the time for which, and the conditions subject to which, any such objects is to be lent, the Trustees shall have regard to the interests of students and other persons visiting the Museum, to the physical condition and degree of rarity of the object in question, and to any risks to which it is likely to be exposed.

    5 Disposal of objects

    (1) The Trustees of the British Museum may sell, exchange, give away or otherwise dispose of any object vested in them and comprised in their collection if - (a) the object is duplicate of another object, or (b) the object appears to the Trustees to have been made not earlier than the year 1850, and substantially consists of printed matter of which a copy made by photography or a process akin to photography is held by the Trustees, or (c) in the opinion of the Trustees the object is unfit to be retained in the collections of the Museum and can be disposed of without detriment to the interests of students:

    Provided that where an object has become vested in the Trustees by virtue of a gift or bequest the powers conferred by this subsection shall not be exercisable as respects that object in a manner inconsistent with any condition attached to the gift or bequest.

    (2) The Trustees may destroy or otherwise dispose of any object vested in them and comprised in their collections if satisfied that it has become useless for the purposes of the Museum by reason of damage, physical deterioration, or infestation by destructive organisms.

    (3) Money accruing to the Trustees by virtue of an exercise of the powers conferred by this section [or section 6 of the Museums and Galleries Act 1992] shall be laid out by them in the purchase of objects to be added to the collections of the Museum.

    9 Transfers to other institutions

    (1) Any movable property vested in the Trustees of either Museum may be transferred by them to the Trustee of the other Museum                          

    BRITISH MUSEUM ACT 1963 (AMENDMENT) BILL

    A B I L L

    TO Amend the British Museum Act 1963 to permit the transfer of artefacts in the British Museum; to confer powers on the Secretary of State to require the transfer of artefacts in specified circumstances; and for connected urposes.

    BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    1 Amendment of British Museum Act 1963

    (1) In section 9 of the British Museum Act 1963 (c. 24) (transfers to other institutions) after subsection (1) insert—

    “(2) The Trustees of the British Museum may transfer to another institution for public exhibition any object comprised in the collections of the Museum: Provided that in deciding whether or not to transfer any such object, the Trustees shall have regard to the probable conditions of public access to the object in the recipient institution, to the interests of students and other persons visiting the Museum, to the physical condition and degree of rarity of the object in question, and to any risks to which it is likely to be exposed.

    (3) The Secretary of State may require the Trustees of the British Museum to transfer to another institution for public exhibition any object comprised in the collections of the Museum if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the object— (a) would be more widely accessible to visitors in the recipient institution than in the British Museum, (b) would be more appropriately displayed in the recipient institution than in the British Museum by reason of its historic links with the country or region in which that institution is situated, or (c) came to form part of the collections of the Museum in circumstances which make its retention in the collections undesirable or inappropriate.

     (4) Before exercising the power in subsection (3) the Secretary of State must— (a) consult the Trustees of the British Museum, and (b) have regard to the considerations set out in the proviso to subsection (2). (5) A transfer under subsection (2) or (3) shall be effected only with the consent and at the expense of the recipient institution.”

    2 Short title and commencement (1) This Act may be cited as the British Museum Act 1963 (Amendment) Act 2010. (2) This Act comes into force at the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

    Relevant extracts from: MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES ACT 1992

    6 Transfer of objects or related documents between institutions.

    (1)Any body for the time being specified in Part I of Schedule 5 to this Act may, by way of sale, gift or exchange, transfer an object the property in which is vested in them and which is comprised in their collection, if the transfer is to any other body for the time being specified in either Part of that Schedule. (2)This section applies in relation to a document as it applies in relation to an object other than a document. (3)Where the property in an object has become vested in a body subject to a trust or condition, the power conferred by subsection (1) above shall be exercisable in a manner inconsistent with the trust or condition if the erson who first imposed the trust or condition has, or his personal representatives or (in Scotland) his executors have, consented to the exercise of the power in that manner. (4)Where a body in whom an object has become vested subject to a trust or condition transfers the object under this section to another body, the object shall be held by that other body subject to the same trust or ondition. (5)The powers conferred on a body by subsection (1) above are in addition to any other powers of transfer which the body may have. (6)The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 5 to this Act by adding any body in the United Kingdom to those for the time being specified in that Schedule. (7)The power to make an order under subsection (6) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.  (8)The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under subsection (6) may, for the purpose of this section’s application to transfers of objects by bodies in Scotland, be exercised separately.

    Schedule 5 Part I Transferors and transferees The Board of Trustees of the Armouries The British Library Board The Trustees of the British Museum The Trustees of the Imperial War Museum The Board of Governors of the Museum of London The Board of Trustees of the National Gallery The Board of Trustees of the National Galleries of Scotland The Board of Trustees of the National Library of Scotland The Trustees of the National Maritime Museum The Board of Trustees of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside The Board of Trustees of the National Museums of Scotland The Board of Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery The Trustees of the Natural History Museum The Board of Trustees of the Science Museum The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery The Board of Trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England

    Part II Transferees only Court of Governors of the National Library of Wales The Council of the National Museum of Wales The Trustees of the Ulster Museum The Trustees of the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum The Board of Trustees of The National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland Historic Royal Palaces The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty

    HOLOCAUST (RETURN OF CULTURAL OBJECTS)ACT 2009

    An Act to confer power to return certain cultural objects on grounds relating to events occurring during the Nazi era.

    BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    1 Bodies to which this Act applies This Act applies to the following bodies— The Board of Trustees of the Armouries, The British Library Board, The Trustees of the British Museum, The Trustees of the Imperial War Museum, The Board of Trustees for the National Galleries of Scotland, The Board of Trustees of the National Gallery, The Trustees of the National Library of Scotland, The Trustees of the National Maritime Museum, The Board of Trustees of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, The Board of Trustees of the National Museums of Scotland, The Board of Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, The Trustees of the Natural History Museum, The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, The Board of Trustees of the Science Museum, The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery, The Board of Trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum, The Board of Trustees of the Wallace Collection.

    2 Power to return victims’ property (1) A body to which this Act applies may transfer an object from its collections if the following conditions are met. (2) Condition 1 is that the Advisory Panel has recommended the transfer. (3) Condition 2 is that the Secretary of State has approved the Advisory Panel’s recommendation. (4) The Secretary of State may approve a recommendation for the transfer of an object from the collections of a Scottish body only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers. (5) “Scottish body” means— The Board of Trustees for the National Galleries of Scotland, The Trustees of the National Library of Scotland, The Board of Trustees of the National Museums of Scotland. (6) The power conferred by subsection (1) does not affect any trust or condition subject to which any object is held. (7) The power conferred by subsection (1) is an additional power.

    3 “Advisory Panel” (1) For the purposes of this Act “Advisory Panel” means a panel for the time being designated by the Secretary of State for those purposes. (2) The Secretary of State may designate a panel for the purposes of this Act only if the panel’s functions consist of the consideration of claims which— (a) are made in respect of objects, and (b) relate to events occurring during the Nazi era. (3) “Nazi era” means the period— (a) beginning with 1 January 1933, and (b) ending with 31 December 1945.

    4 Short title, extent, commencement and sunset (1) This Act may be cited as the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009. (2) This Act extends to— (a) England and Wales, and (b) Scotland. (3) The preceding sections of this Act come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint. (4) An order may make different provision for different purposes. (5) Before appointing a day for the coming into force of the preceding sections of this Act so far as they relate to Scottish bodies the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers. (6) “Scottish body” has the meaning given by section 2(5).  (7) This Act expires at the end of the period of 10 years beginning with the day on which it is passed.                                            

  • We also believe, ladies and gentlemen, in the countless possibilities offered by science and technology. Earlier this week, at Olympia, that power of technology was on display with the launch of Ancient Olympia : Commons Grounds, a unique collaboration with Microsoft that is harnessing the power of Artificial Intelligence and opening up a completely new way of expressing what our cultural heritage is all about.

    The scale and depth of Olympia’s pastcan now be experienced on the site itself or remotely anywhere in the world, using cutting edge augmented reality tools.

    This is about using innovation to deliver a new frontier in the preservation and public understanding of our cultural heritage – a mission all the more critical given the changing times we face.

    Because climate change, pollution and international conflicts affect our present and shape our future. But they also have serious implications on our past.

    Our changing environment and extreme weather events pose a direct and growing threat to great monuments of civilization. It is that threat that persuaded us of the need for action, which is why we launched what we considered to be an important initiative called “Addressing climate change impacts on cultural and natural heritage”.

    I would like to thank UNESCO for its invaluable support in that initiative. Of course, it is impossible to overstate the importance of, and our commitment to, the third pillar of UNESCO: CULTURE.

    There cannot be dialogue between nations, without dialogue amongst cultures. Something which presupposes respect for the history, heritage, and identity of each nation. To my mind that means that emblematic monuments, inherently connected to the very identity of a nation, should be a matter of that nation.

    Take the Parthenon Sculptures, which make up a hugely significant piece of the world’s cultural heritage and are perhaps the most important symbolic link between modern Greeks and their ancestors.

    Most of that collection can be found on display in the Acropolis Museum, a few hundred meters from the Parthenon. That they can be seen in situ, in their birthplace, connected visually to the monument which lends the sculptures their global significance, that really matters.

    However, while a part of that collection remains exiled in London that impact can never be fully appreciated. That is why I believe it is essential that the Parthenon marbles in London should be reunited with the majority of the Parthenon Sculptures in Athens.

    Last September a pivotal step was taken by UNESCOs Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property.

    For the first time, it unanimously adopted a decision recognising that “the case has an intergovernmental character and, therefore, the obligation to return the Parthenon Sculptures lies squarely on the UK Government”.

    The UK should move to a bona fide dialogue with Greece. And I urge them to do so. After all, this year marks the 200th anniversary of Greece’s War of Independence. There could be no better time than now, in which to reunite the missing section of the Parthenon Sculptures – in their birthplace – in Greece.

    Thank you very much for your attention.

    Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis

    12 November 2021, Paris, UNESCO’s 75th Anniversary celebration

    Publications that carried more on this include: 

    Reuters 

    eKathemerini

    The Telegraph 

    And on Saturday 13 November 2021:

    The Independent

    The Guardian

    The Belfast Telegraph

    The Metro

    To Vima

    And on Sunday 14 November 2021:

    Parkiaki

© 2022 British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles. All Rights Reserved.