‘200 + 20 years in captivity. The Parthenon Sculptures from Elgin to Boris’

Paul Cartledge spoke at the Culture Through Politics online event on Sunday 11 April 17:00 BST. His talk followed on from Professor Pandermalis, President of the Acropolis Museum and was made alongside other distinguised speakers. 

‘Decolonising’ the Elgin-Parthenon Sculptures

First, may I begin with a huge vote of thanks: above all to the ‘Culture Through Politics’ group for organising this exceptionally important webinar, but also to my very distinguished fellow-invitees, for their important contributions.

Second, let me say a word about the title of our public webinar debate: it alludes of course to a very specific and very special anniversary, a famous bicentenary. And as a Greek historian colleague of mine has acutely observed, you tell me what anniversaries you want to celebrate/commemorate and I will tell you who you are. ‘1821’, in other words, is for Greece collectively and for Greeks individually a magical year – their ‘1789’, if you like. Or, in a way, our – English - ‘1066’! For it marks the beginning of a new Hellenic identity, but not only Hellenic: in retrospect, we can see that it was only the first step on the road to political freedom and ultimately to democratic self-determination throughout the continent of Europe.

To me, however, as a historian of ancient/Classical Greece/Hellas, 2021 has another signification as a major anniversary year: it is the 2500th anniversary of what the Western world’s first historian, Herodotus of Halikarnassos, called τα Μηδικα, what we ancient historians call the Graeco-Persian Wars. As in AD 1821, so in 480-479 BC, democracy as well as freedom was at stake – as I have tried to show in a number of lectures both in Athens and online. And at the beating heart of that ancient Greek – and more especially ancient Athenian – achievement of victory and liberation there lay and there still lies a building, a unique and quite extraordinary structure, one that we today – not quite accurately – refer to for short as ‘the Parthenon’.

What I want to do in my allotted 10 minutes is try briefly to con-textualise what (Lord) Elgin and his cohorts did TO – that is, against – that building and structure in and around 1801. I do so in the hope – probably a vain hope – of bringing the UK’s current, classically-educated Prime Minister to a proper appreciation both of the enormity of that long ago act of vandalism and of what now urgently needs to be done with and FOR those Parthenon Sculptures that are currently not in Athens. Which brings me to …

Thirdly, my own chosen title: “‘Decolonising’ the Elgin-Parthenon Sculptures”. If I may, I shall begin with a little autobiography. I was born in 1947, so that by my early teens I was well aware of the – literal – decolonisation, the shedding of imperial possessions, that Britain was – under its then also classically-educated PNM, Harold Macmillan – in the process of beginning. India had already ‘gone’, ‘been lost’, to the British Empire, so the focus in and around 1960 was on the continent of Africa, and I was at first puzzled to hear that the very word ‘empire’ had become – in some, enlightened quarters - a ‘dirty word’, something to be spoken of with distrust if not contempt. As I entered my late teens – and Oxford University (to read Classics, pretty much the same degree as Macmillan read before me and Johnson read after me) – I became even more acutely aware that there was something called ‘the Third World’, encompassing huge swathes of Asia, Latin America and – of course – Africa. It seemed obvious to me that the ‘Third World’ did not exist as if by nature, but was the direct product of self-interested intervention and depredation, mainly economic but also cultural, by the countries of the ‘First World’.

By the time Melina Mercouri ,in the early 1980s, launched her campaign for the repatriation and reunification of what were then usually called ‘the Elgin Marbles’ in the British Museum, it was becoming clear to me that the fact that the British Museum held the Marbles of the Parthenon (and other Athenian monuments) was part of a broader, imperial or imperial-colonial story.

I became a very early member of the British Committee for the Restitution (now Reunification) of the Parthenon Marbles [BCRPM], as it became ever clearer to me that the ‘British Museum’ should really be known as the ‘British Imperial War Museum’. As regards specifically the Parthenon Marbles in the BM, this was not only because those Marbles had been acquired – stolen – when the British Empire was at its height and as part of a very dirty deal between Britain’s imperial representative in Constantinople and the local Ottoman authorities but also because the attitude of the British Museum Trustees towards their possession of the Marbles was – still, in the 1980s - precisely imperialist or colonialist: not only – in their view – had the Marbles been legitimately (as well as legally) acquired but also they thought the BM deserved to continue to hold them because, under the stewardship of the Trustees and the relevant Keepers and other curatorial staff since 1817, the intrinsic aesthetic and cultural value of the Marbles – the Marbles in London only, that is – had been somehow enhanced. Somehow, their stay in London was represented as so much part of the overall ‘story’ of ‘the Marbles’ that reunification of the ‘Elgin Marbles’ to Athens would somehow diminish them, all of the Marbles.

That indeed remained the status quo down to 2009 – when the entire BM colonialist-imperialist ‘narrative’ was disrupted, rendered null and void, by the foundation of the (New) Acropolis Museum (NAM), under the genial Directorship of Professor Pandermalis. A new justificatory strategy was therefore required by the BM’s Trustees, and they fell back on a supposedly decisive, and incontestable, distinction of hierarchy between ‘universal’ museums such as the BM and supposedly inferior (merely) local or national museums such as the NAM. All the while, the colonialist-imperialist line remained intact for the Trustees, who even invoked the ultimate absurdity that the Parthenon Marbles that were in the BM were better understood IN the BM – better there than anywhere else indeed, because they could be seen and appreciated in the context of all other ‘world’ cultures represented artefactually in that same (8 million…) collection. What the BM Trustees could not, however, either see or anticipate was that a big anti-colonial head of steam was building up, focused especially though not of course uniquely on artefacts looted from Africa.

I know a good deal about that anti-colonial head of steam because it has come to affect not only the Marbles but even my own discipline and profession of Classics, especially since the beginning of this year but not only since then by any means. In the very same decade that the BCRPM was founded (in 1983) scholars who were not actually Classicists began to put it about that Classics as a discipline was fundamentally flawed at its very roots and conception: it was at best an ethnocentric, at worst a racist and sexist, project of Western and male and white supremacy, rooted in the study of societies that were themselves based on slavery and generally sexist too. So, why bother to study two main ancient civilisations – the Greek and the Roman - that had so little that was admirable let alone imitable to offer us?

Needless to say, there are defences – very good defences – available to those who believe (as I do) that Classics has a great deal that is positive still to offer us, and that a key part of that is a story about freedom and democracy, a story that has at - and as - its centre the Parthenon. In my ‘Salamis 2500’ lectures I always end with the Parthenon and its place within the entire Athenian Acropolis building programme of the second half of the 5th century BC. I do so because the Athenians decided democratically to have the Parthenon built, in a quite extraordinary way, as an overpowering symbol: both of what it meant to be Greek, as the Athenians of the 5th century BC understood that – free both personally (free from) and politically (free to), self-governing, and of what it meant to be democratic – that is, giving the lion’s share of the political power of self-determination to the demos of the Athenians, the poor majority of the empowered (free, adult, male) Athenian citizens.

Of course, we must not hide the many features of ancient Athenian democracy that we today would not choose to repeat – the exclusion of women, the exploitation of non-Greek slaves – but these must be understood within the context of those, very different times. The positives also need to be emphasised, unashamedly. Which is why it matters so much to me that ALL surviving sculptures from the Parthenon currently outside Athens – not only but especially those in the BM – should be returned and reunified in Athens. As regards the BM in particular, the case for reunification is not only scholarly, not only aesthetic, but also – and perhaps above all – ethical and moral. And in that regard it is above all anti-colonial: an attempt both to repair the damage both physical and metaphorical done by Britain’s colonial representative Elgin 200 years + 20 ago, and at the same time to make a progressive statement of anti-colonialism today. It is a unique case but also one that is completely in line with and in sympathy with other campaigns affecting other museums and other cultures for the repossession and reintegration of culturally identifying material artefacts.

Professor Paul Cartledge 

Taxiarches, Order of Honour, Greece

A.G. Leventis Senior Research Fellow, Clare College, Cambridge

A.G. Leventis Professor of Greek Culture emeritus, University of Cambridge

Can the British Museum rebrand itself? Historic institution is planning a £150,000 makeover after a string of controversies, writes Chas Newkey-Burden for The Week UK

The British Museum is facing an "omni-crisis" as it launches a £150,000 rebrand project following a series of controversies that have shaken its historical foundations.

"Beset by colonial controversy, difficult finances" and "the discovery of a thief on the inside", the institution is battling to "reframe itself" in the public eye, said The Guardian.

What did the commentators say?

"As the century turned", so did public perception of the British Museum, said The Art Insider. As well as one of the "largest collections of artworks, antiquities and collectibles", the museum also has "one of the largest collections of controversies". To "re-invent itself in a new light" means beginning by "righting the wrongs committed in the past".

In "the years of identity politics", criticism of the museum "coalesces" around the case for repatriating the Benin bronzes, looted by the British from Benin City's royal palace in 1897, and the Parthenon sculptures, the legality of whose removal from Greece by Lord Elgin has been "disputed" for centuries.

It's often claimed that "there'd be nothing left" in the British Museum if it "returned everything" that the UK "allegedly stole from other countries", said Euronews, but the claim is "hyperbolic". In reality, the "vast majority" of the items in the museum originate from the UK.

But the museum's "weak leadership" and failure to properly address the criticism has "done little" to rebut the claim, said The Guardian. Then, in 2023, it emerged that one of the museum’s staff members had allegedly stolen or damaged 2,000 items from the collection, shattering the "assumption" on which its "legitimacy rests" – that it "looks after the objects in its care".

The challenges are part of a wider debate about museums and their evolving role. "Once tranquil places of dusty scholarship", said The Telegraph, they're now "on the front lines" of the culture wars, "grappling with the most modern dilemmas" from "consent and ableism" to "looted artefacts and how to separate the art from the artist".

Read the full article in The Week.

We are all looking forward to a new chapter for the British Museum under the direction of Director Dr Nicholas Cullinan and there is hope for a brighter future.  Here's to a museum that embraces the future with moral and ethical values that best represent the twenty first century as it takes on a new vision with regards to cultural co-operation. And for those at BCRPM, here's to the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles as a sign of respect for the Parthenon, which still stands and crowns the ancient and modern city of Athens, Greece.

http://www.youtube.com

LONDON COLLOQUY 19 JUNE 2012

The Parthenon sculptures: a legal perspective, 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.                                            

 Diary page of The Spectator, 11 March 2023, George Osborne wrotes: 

The Elgin Marbles have always been controversial. Some, like that great Romantic poet Lord Byron, thought they should never have left Greece; but at the British Museum they have been admired by tens of millions of people and I believe they play a vital role in telling the complete story of our common humanity. We trustees are exploring with the Greeks whether there’s a way to solve this 200-year-old dispute so that the sculptures can be seen both in London and Athens, while treasures currently in Greece could be seen by new audiences here. We may succeed, or we may not, but it’s worth trying. I read this week that that other great romantic, Boris Johnson, is worried about it. Surely that can’t be the same Boris who once wrote a column saying that ‘the reasons for taking the Marbles were good. The reasons for handing them back are better still. The Elgin Marbles should leave this northern whisky-drinking guilt culture, and be displayed where they belong: in a country of bright sunlight and the landscape of Achilles, “the shadowy mountains and the echoing sea”’? There must be two Borises.

Read this in The Spectator, 11 March 2023, Diary, page 9.

We would add, that tens of millions of visitors can also see the surviving Parthenon Marbles in the superlative Acropolis Museum, in Athens. A purpose-built state of the art museum which opened on 20 June 2009. The top floor, glass walled Parthenon Gallery, displays the surviving sculptures not removed by Lord Elgin's men at the start of the 19th century when Greece had no voice, and offers direct views to the Parthenon, which still stands.

The Parthenon Gallery in the Acropolis Museum is the one place on earth where it is possible to have a single and aesthetic experience simultaneously of the Parthenon and its sculptures.

For more information on this event please also visit the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sport.

23 October 2013 , Athens, Greece 

Eddie O’ Hara, Chairman of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles

THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF EXPERTS ON

THE RETURN OF CULTURAL PROPERTY

OLYMPIA 23-27 OCTOBER 2013

THE CASE FOR THE REUNIFICATION OF THE PARTHENON MARBLES

I am fortunate today to have available to me the best possible of visual aids to support the case which I shall put before you.  We are sitting in a museum, past winner of the Museum of the Year Award, the principal display of which is the very subject which I shall be presenting.  We also sit within sight of that subject, the Parthenon, whose surviving sculptural components – not adornments – components, are at issue.

THE PARTHENON MARBLES, known also as The Parthenon Sculptures, formerly but I am pleased to say no longer The Elgin Marbles, are the subject of one of the oldest and most passionate disputes over the return of cultural property.

THE BRITISH COMMITTEE FOR THE REUNIFICATION OF THE PARTHENON MARBLES has been campaigning for thirty years in support of the reunification of these marbles.  I pay tribute to Eleni Cubittand her late husband James for their inspiration and initiative in establishing the committee, and the many distinguished academics, many now deceased, who have served the committee over that time.  Over the years similar groups have been established in other countries.  Now there are nearly 17 organisations on four continents, most of them affiliated to the International Association for the Reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures (IARPS). 

I must first present the background to the dispute.  This will be simply factual and descriptive – and brief.  It will not include analysis of the artistic merits of the Parthenon and its sculptures.  It will necessarily skate over some scholarly details.  I apologise for this to those with much knowledge of the subject if this is superficial.  My purpose is to spend as much of my time as possible on the dispute over reunification of the Parthenon Marbles.

What really interests me is the apparent permanent intransigence of the Directors and Trustees [of the British Musem].These are not a collective body of 'idiotes', those aloof from public affairs, but intelligent, knowledgeable and articulate human beings.WHY do they not move? WHY is the decades old response always 'NO'.

Pericles would have been aghast at our lack of progress as a civilisation capable of change and altered thought. I am reminded that he said 'For we alone regard the man who takes no part in public affairs, not as one who minds his own business but as 'good for nothing'. Perhaps an inability to discuss and open fresh lines of dialogue with respect to the ongoing plight of the Parthenon Sculptures is just the same as not taking part.

The New Acropolis Museum approaches it's tenth birthday. We had hoped for success in 2004, then 2009 but still nothing, and again I ask WHY? What factor X beguiles and frustrates our efforts, the will of the British people and our Greek friends. What will stop the Trustees and successive Directors from ALWAYS saying 'NO' and encourage them to engage in productive dialogue.

Christopher Stockdale

Christopher has been actively involved in raising money for charities as well as campaigning for the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles. As a GP from Solihull, he swam from Delos to Parosfor the Parthenon marbles in 2000, he also cycled from the British Museum to the Acropolis Museum in 2005. He has also written a book, Swimming with Hero.

Jack Blackburn, The Times: 'The [British] museum is said to be wary of highly accurate copies. Some fear it could make the argument about returning the sculptures unanswerable'.

It is ALREADY unanswerable! Do the decent thing, British Museum Trustees! And soon.

Professor Paul Cartledge, Vice-Chair of BCRPM

 We would love to have your views too, send us an email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Sir, If the British Museum has thousands of uncatalogued items in store, it should have no higher priority than to catalogue them. But I cannot be persuaded that this has any bearing on the Marbles from the Parthenon. These belong together in Athens, irrespective of the competence of the British Museum’s curation. It is normal archaeological practice to unite broken fragments, just as it is normal curatorial practice to catalogue all holdings.

Professor Andrew Wallace-Hadrill
Faculty of Classics, Cambridge

What can we say about the case for reunifying the Parthenon Marbles that has not been said a thousand times before? What more can we add to the numerous persuasive argumentsalready made for reuniting the dismembered components of Phidias's finest achievement? How many more times must we convene to reiterate the importance of restoring coherence to a work of art whose desecration at the hands of Lord Elgin damaged one of Greece's greatest gifts to the world?

The answer to these questions is that there will always be more to say about the case for reunifying the Marbles. There will always be new and ever more compelling arguments for reuniting them in Athens. And until that happens our generation and future generations will continue to convene and will go on reminding the British Museum of its moral duty to restore to these objects the dignity that Lord Elgin so rudely snubbed.The story the Marbles tell, is of a cultural moment that is a precious and irreplaceable part of our birthright as Europeans and the bedrock of our democratic ideals. That story loses much of its narrative charge while its components remain dispersed across different locations.

The Parthenon Marbles are more than just a work of art. They are more than a mechanism through which to increase the footfall of cultural tourism. They are more than a means by which to impose some meaning on the randomly accumulated collections of an encyclopaedic museum.

The reason the Parthenon Marbles transcend conventional museum categorisation is that they have the potential to demonstrate that in a time of global economic turmoil and geopolitical unrest cultural objects can unite us across national boundaries and remind us of our shared humanity. I say 'potential' because there is an irrefutable logic to the proposition that a united,coherent sequence of objects that speaks with such clarity of our shared background is more likely to foster unity among nations than a fragmented series of objects that continues to symbolise disunion and cultural rupture. For this process to begin, however, the dialogue between Greece and London must rise to a higher level based on mutual trust and generosity of spirit.

The Parthenon Marbles are unquestionably important within the cultural landscape, but they have become renowned for all the wrong reasons. While they should be celebrated for representing the zenith of the Periclean building programme of fifth-century Athens, instead they are more widely recognised as the most controversial and divisive objects in world culture. They should be peacemakers but we are not allowing them to take up that peacekeeping role. Thus they have become emblematic of the wider disputes between western museums and developing nations that have become known as the 'culture wars'. While the Marbles remain immured within the Stygian gloom of the Duveen Galleries where their true significance to European art and culture is so wilfully misinterpreted and misunderstood — our attempts to build harmony in the realm of cultural heritage will be impaired. The international museum community — but more specifically the British Museum — has the power to repair that rupture. The symbolic resonance of a unifying gesture of this kind could be profound and long-lasting.

Dr Tom Flynn

This extract is from a speech that Dr Tom Flynn made addressing a round table organised by the Swiss Committee for the Return of the Parthenon Marbles, held in the  European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium, on the 16th of October 2013.

The UK General Election will take place on 4 July 2024 and whichever party you decide to vote for, we'd like to ask you to consider writing to your constituency MP.

BCRPM has been campaigning for the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles since 1983 and if you wish to add your voice to the plight of the divided Parthenon Marbles/Sculptures we would be grateful.

We've drafted a letter which you can use as a template. Feel free to add anything that you also feel might make your MP understand that amending the Museum Act to allow these sculptures to be reunited with their other halves in the Acropolis Museum would make a great difference.

To download the letter, click the link here.

We thank you. 

“We disagree with UNESCO's decision; the Parthenon Sculptures were acquired legally“, UK government says in a Ta Nea aricle written by Yannis Andritsopoulos, 07 October 2021.

The British government has said that it will not abide by a recent UNESCO decision on the Parthenon Marbles also insisted that “the Parthenon Sculptures were acquired legally” and rejected UNESCO’s call to reconsider its position and to negotiate with Greece on the return of the 2,500-year-old cultural treasures.

Speaking to Greek newspaper Ta Nea, a government spokesperson said that the UK government “disagrees” with the decision, adding that it intends to challenge it before UNESCO.

The response came after the UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property (ICPRCP) voted unanimously for the first time at its 22nd session to include the return of the Parthenon Marbles in its decision document, marking a major step forward since Greece first introduced the request to the meeting’s agenda in 1984.

ICPRCP’s decision says that Greece’s request for the return of the Parthenon Sculptures is "legitimate and rightful" and calls on Britain "to reconsider its stand and proceed to a bona fide dialogue with Greece on the matter".

Most importantly, the Committee acknowledges for the first time that "the case has an intergovernmental character and, therefore, the obligation to return the Parthenon Sculptures lies squarely on the UK Government."

This is in stark contrast to the UK government’s assertion that it is for the British Museum, not the government, to discuss the issue and make decisions related to it.

“We disagree with the Committee’s decision adopted in the closing minutes of the session and are raising issues relating to fact and procedure with UNESCO,” a UK government spokesperson told Ta Nea.

“Our position is clear—the Parthenon Sculptures were acquired legally in accordance with the law at the time. The British Museum operates independently of the government and free from political interference. All decisions relating to collections are taken by the Museum’s trustees,” the spokesperson added.

A British Museum spokesperson told Ta Nea that “the Trustees of the British Museum have a legal and moral responsibility to preserve and maintain all the collections in their care,” adding that “the Parthenon Sculptures are an integral part of (the Museum’s collection) story and a vital element in this interconnected world collection”.

Greece insists that it is the rightful owner of the Parthenon Marbles. The Greek government says that the sculptures were illegally removed from the Parthenon during the Ottoman occupation of Greece in the early 1800s.

In his first interview with a European newspaper since becoming the UK’s prime minister, Boris Johnson dashed Greece’s hopes of getting the Marbles back, telling Greek daily Ta Nea that they were “legally acquired by Lord Elgin under the appropriate laws of the time and have been legally owned by the British Museum’s Trustees since their acquisition.”

The British Museums’ comment to Ta Nea in full:

“The British Museum has a long history of collaboration with UNESCO and admires and supports its work. The Trustees of the British Museum have a legal and moral responsibility to preserve and maintain all the collections in their care and to make them accessible to world audiences. The Trustees want to strengthen existing good relations with colleagues and institutions in Greece, and to explore collaborative ventures directly between institutions, not on a government-to-government basis. This is why we believe that working in partnership across the world represents the best way forward. Museums holding Greek works, whether in Greece, the UK or elsewhere in the world, are naturally united to show the importance of the legacy of ancient Greece. The British Museum is committed to playing its full part in sharing the value of that legacy.

“The Museum takes its commitment to be a world museum seriously. The collection is a unique resource to explore the richness, diversity and complexity of all human history, our shared humanity. The strength of the collection is its breadth and depth which allows millions of visitors an understanding of the cultures of the world and how they interconnect – whether through trade, migration, conquest, conflict, or peaceful exchange.

“The Parthenon Sculptures are an integral part of that story and a vital element in this interconnected world collection, particularly in the way in which they convey the influences between Egyptian, Persian, Greek and Roman cultures. We share this collection with the widest possible public, lending objects all over the world and making images and information on over four million objects from the collection available online.

“The approach of the Acropolis Museum and the British Museum are complementary: the Acropolis Museum provides an in-depth view of the ancient history of its city, the British Museum offers a sense of the wider cultural context and sustained interaction with the neighbouring civilisations of Egypt and the Near East which contributed to the unique achievements of ancient Greece”.

Britain had previously rejected Greece’s request to hold talks on returning the Marbles after Athens proposed a meeting between experts from the two countries.

Unanimous adoption five minutes before the end of the meeting

Yannis Andritsopulos of Ta Neawrites that the decision of the 22nd Session of the Intergovernmental Committee of UNESCO, the ICPRCP was taken with the efforts of  the behind-the-scenes diplomatic steps taken by Greece. The Zambia delegation introduced COM 17 to the plenary at the end of the Summit and the decision was adopted unanimously. Despite subsequent protests from the British side, due process had been followed throughout the proceedings of this session, a Greek government source told the "Ta Nea". The President of this Session of the ICPRCP read out the full text of the decision and asked its members four times if there are any objections. There was none.

To listen to the 22nd Session of the ICPRCP, follow the link here.

Greece was represented at the 22nd Session of the ICPRCP by the Secretary General of the Ministry of Culture Georgios Didaskalou, the new General Director of the Acropolis Museum Nikolaos Stampolidis, the Director of the department for the protection of cultural property of the Ministry of Culture Vasiliki Papageorgiou and the legal advisor of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Artemis Papathanassiou. Greece exerted pressure for the decision on the issue to be finalised. "Although Britain does not accept dialogue, Greece continues to ask for this and on this occassion we asked the committee to do something more," added the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reprsentative, Ms Papathanassiou with the ICPRCP President accepting her request for the drafting of a decision to be adopted by the Comittee. 

Greece was represented at at the 22nd Session of the ICPRCP by the Secretary General of the Ministry of Culture Georgios Didaskalou, the new General Director of the Acropolis Museum Nikolaos Stampolidis, the Director of the department for the protection of cultural property of the Ministry of Culture Vasiliki Papageorgiou and the legal advisor of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Artemis Papathanassiou.  

 "We congratulate Greece on this excellent result and hope that Britain will finally review its stance and engage in dialogue. At some point, the day will come when we will see the Sculptures reunited in the Acropolis Museum," commented Dr Christiane Titgat, president of the International Association for the Reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures (IARPS).

Dr Christiane Tytgat, President of the International Association for the Reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures (IARPS)

BCRPM observations, 07 October 2021.

Wednesday 06 October 2021, saw the final day of the Conservative Party Conference at Manchester Central Convention Complex.Prime Minister Johnson's speech included his take on how to conserve British heritage and culture:

"It has become clear to me that this isn’t just a joke – they really do want to rewrite our national story, starting with Hereward the Woke. We really are at risk of a kind of know-nothing cancel culture, know-nothing iconoclasm. We Conservatives will defend our history and cultural inheritance not because we are proud of everything, but because trying to edit it now is as dishonest as a celebrity trying furtively to change his entry in Wikipedia, and it’s a betrayal of our children’s education."

A reminder that goblal Britain can only claim to be global by being omnipotent? History doesn't have to be rewitten but it has to told as a whole story. And we come back to BCRPM's 20 June protest outside the British Museum, with a poster asking the BM to come clean. Janet Suzman wrote:  

' NOT explaining the full story of these Marbles, and is not worthy of such an august institution. Each case should be considered on its merits since each case is different. The Marbles case is unique.

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

The Rodin show a few years ago re-inforced the marbles' supremacy in execution and their diminished meaning in isolation. Imagine one of Rodin’s great figures from the group called The Burghers of Calais standing separated from its fellows in a far country? That would hardly be a ‘creative act’.

The BM is a great encyclopaedic institution while being an Aladdin's Cave of conquest. Imperial Britain took objects from other countries because it could.

But there's a mood abroad which abhors colonialist attitudes and entitlement that it must wake up to.'

For more on the 20 June 2021 protest follow, the link here.

From the Times'  Leading articles on page 27,  12 January 2022

To read the article on line, please visit the link here.

Tweet by Sarah Baxter, former deputy editor of the Sunday Times, who spoke alongside Janet Suzman and Paul Cartledge in Athens for the conference held at the Acropolis Museum on the 15th of April 2019: 

To the comment piece by Richard Morrison, chief culture writer for The Times on 11 January, 2022 and subsequent letter from BCRPM's Professor Paul Cartledge and Janet Suzman, on page 26, the Letters Page,12 January 2022. 

Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney (NY-12), Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues, Congressman Gus Bilirakis (FL-12), Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues, and Congressman Donald Payne, Jr. (NJ-10) introduced a resolution calling on Great Britain to return the Parthenon Marbles to Greece.

This Stateside call for the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles made by three US Congress Representatives Maloney, Bilirakis and Payne, was issued the day after Greece celebrated Independence Day, on 26 March 2019.

The sculptures from the Parthenon remain fragmented and maily exhibited bbetween two world-lass mseums, the Acropolis Museum in Athens, due to celebrate its 10th anniversary this June and the British Museum in London.

Thomas Bruce, the seventh Earl of Elgin paid men to cut off with huge metal saws, hammers and chiselsabout half of the integral parts of the Parthenon to then transport them to Great Britain, destined originally for his ancestral home in Scotland. Of the 97 surviving blocks of the Parthenon frieze 56 removed by Lord Elgin's men, 40 remained in Athens. Of the 64 surviving metopes 48 are in Athens and 15 in London. And of the 28 preserved figures of the pediments, 19 are in London and 9 are in Athens.

In 1816, Lord Elgin in a fire sale saw British Parliament vote to purchase the Marbles. They have for over 200 years resided in the British Museum, despite requests for their return. The first request was made after Greece gained her independence and many more requests continue to date. Countless efforts to find a way forward have tragically been blocked by the British Museum and UK Goverment. All requests have fallen on deaf ears including attempts by UNESCO to mediate.

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

“The Parthenon Marbles belong in Greece, with the Greek people,” said Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney. “The marbles are some the country’s greatest examples of artistic expression and beauty and are vital pieces of Greek history. The people of Greece and those who visit from all around the world to see the magnificence of the Acropolis should be able to enjoy the Marbles in their rightful home. This resolution calls upon Great Britain to finally return these treasures.”

“Art provides a window into history and is the ultimate freedom of expression,” said Congressman Gus Bilirakis. “The Parthenon Marbles were made by the citizens of Athens under the direction of renowned artist Phidias to celebrate the pride and majesty of the City of Athens. To not house and view these citizen contributions in the city they were originally intended does a disservice not only to the people of Athens, but also to the civilization that paved the path for modern democracy and freedom. I sincerely hope to see these original works and other important elements of Hellenic history finally returned to their rightful owner for future generations of proud Greeks to enjoy.”

“The Parthenon Marbles tell a story of celebration for Ancient Greece, and the marbles are important to Greek culture,” saidCongressman Donald Payne . “To best serve history and to ensure the world can enjoy ancient history in its proper context, the Parthenon Marbles should be returned to Greece.”

In the British Museum’s statement on the Parthenon Marbles, we come across the familiar claim of the legality of Elgin’s acquisition. ‘Lord Elgin’s activities,’ we read, ‘were thoroughly investigated by a Parliamentary Select Committee in 1816 and found to be entirely legal.’ Simple, succinct, almost convincing, this is the only legal argument in the Museum’s arsenal against repatriation. But is it true?

In early 1816, shortly after Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo and the return of his European loot, a parliamentary select committee was formed in London to evaluate Elgin’s request for the British government to buy his collection of marbles and other antiquities. The committee was assigned two tasks: to determine whether the government should acquire the collection, and to assess its monetary value.

Not being a court of justice, the select committee did not have the authority to decide questions of legality – not in the sense that those of us in the legal profession understand ‘legality’. Its official mandate did not explicitly include investigating the lawfulness of Elgin’s actions, although, ultimately, the committee did raise the question as an incidental concern. Did Elgin have permission to remove the Marbles?

The ‘firman’ that was not

Elgin claimed that he had obtained authorisation to carry out the removals. No original proof has ever been produced of that authorisation, the famous ‘firman’ that, if it existed, was not a firman at all (both Dr Philip Hunt, Elgin’s right-hand man, and its presumed Italian translation described the document as a ‘letter’).

At first, the select committee appeared to try to corroborate Elgin’s claim. Did Elgin have a document in his possession attesting permission? He didn’t. If someone had such a document, Elgin said, it would be his agent, Giovanni Battista Lusieri, who was still in Athens, or it would be the local Ottoman authorities in Athens. William Richard Hamilton, Elgin’s private secretary, had a more interesting story: when asked whether he knew anything about the permission, he admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the matter! But let us leave Hamilton aside. Elgin contended that surely the (written) permission must be in Athens. Now one expects that, to conduct a thorough investigation, the committee would need to send to Athens for Lusieri and the local authorities to look there for some proof of the ‘firman’ that was not. How else could the select committee, acting in good faith, decide the matter?

Yet, the committee showed no willingness to make the effort. In its report, it stated:

'The Turkish ministers of that day are, in fact, the only persons in the world capable (if they are still alive) of deciding the doubt; and it is probable that even they, if it were possible to consult them, might be unable to form any very distinct discrimination as to the character in consideration of which they acceded to Lord Elgin’s request.'

If they were still alive? If it were possible to consult them? The Sultan (the one with the authority to sign firmans) was still alive, and it would have been easy to consult him. The British government had an ambassador in Constantinople (Sir Robert Liston) – why not ask him? And why not call in as witness a former British ambassador to the Sublime Porte who openly affirmed that the Ottomans categorically denied Elgin’s ownership of the marbles? On 31 July 1811, Sir Robert Adair informed Elgin that ‘the Porte absolutely denied’ that he, Elgin, had ‘any property in those marbles’.

‘… the Porte absolutely denied your having any property in those marbles.’

Robert Adair’s draft letter to Elgin (31 July 1811). Collection of Theodore Theodorou. Used with permission. For a full transcript, see http://www.adairtoelgin.com.

It was not the first time that Adair shared this knowledge. In April 1811, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Charles Abbot, 1st Lord Colchester, recorded in his diary that Adair ‘was expressly informed by the Turkish Government that they entirely disavowed ever having given any authority to Lord Elgin for removing any part of his collection’. Even Elgin repeated, in an 1811 letter to the then prime minister, Spencer Perceval, that he did not lawfully own ‘his’ collection. People in government were fully aware of the fact that Elgin did not have permission to act as he did.

When the task was to persuade the Ottomans to permit the shipment of the part of Elgin’s collection that had remained in Athens, the government exerted pressure on both its ambassador (Adair at the time) and the Turkish officials. But when it came to determining whether Elgin had permission to act as he did, the select committee forgot it had a British ambassador (Liston) and appeared to hope that the Turkish officials were dead. Better let sleeping dogs lie. The committee took Elgin’s word and entirely ignored the fact that everything other than milord’s own impression pointed to the absence of permission.

The corruption

Then there was the issue of corruption. The select committee had Elgin’s admission of bribes. A list of his expenses incurred to procure the Marbles was published as an annexe to the select committee report. In it, we learn that Elgin paid 21,902 piastres (about £157,500 today) for ‘presents, found necessary for the local authorities, in Athens alone’. To grasp the significance of this sum, let us recall that, when parliament ultimately purchased the marbles, it paid Elgin a mere £35,000 (equivalent to about £4 million today). Corruption we assume just ‘happened’ in the Ottoman empire. But did it also ‘happen’ in Great Britain? Elgin was not an ordinary traveller in the Ottoman empire; he was the British ambassador, a representative of the Crown. Corruption was an offence in England and had been illegal since the time of the Magna Carta. Throughout the 18th century corruption was a crime punishable by English law. In the realm of electoral law, to bribe a voter had been an offence since the 1690s.

That bribes were a relevant legal consideration is also evident from the heated parliamentary debate on the corruption involved in obtaining the Marbles at the time. The acquisition was so inexplicable that some MPs even regarded it as a bribe to Elgin, and MP Preston remarked that, if ambassadors were allowed to get away with what Elgin had done, many would come back home as ‘merchants’. Yet the select committee did not act on the knowledge of the corruption.

The unpalatable truth is that the committee was expected to arrive at a predetermined conclusion: the Marbles should be bought for the nation. The absence of any statement in the committee’s report regarding the legality of the acquisition is significant. The committee repeated statements made by Elgin and his agents as if they reflected the truth. But never did it offer its own express conclusion that the acquisition was lawful. Nowhere in the select committee report do we find the committee’s opinion that Elgin’s actions were ‘legal’ – let alone ‘entirely legal’.

Catharine Titi

Catharine Titi is a tenured Research Associate Professor at the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) and author of 'The Parthenon Marbles and International Law' (Springer 2023).

This event was a panel discussion about the cultural repatriation of national treasures, inspired by the current status of the Parthenon Marbles.The event was held at the LSE by the Hellenic Observatory.

The debate over the reunification of the Elgin/Parthenon Marbles remains newsworthy. With attention post the Black Lives Matter protests signalling initiatives taken to return national treasures to their countries of origin, the campaign continues. For the Marbles, the British Museum has signalled a willingness to consider 'a deal', and the Greek Prime Minister highlighted Greece's willingness to discuss this further. He was due to visit the UK next month and have talks with UK's PM, although he did try to do this when Mr Johnson was PM too, gaining the support of UK audiences with his appearance on ITV's Good Morning Britain,16 November, 2021.

The panel that spoke on 18 October, considered the implications of reuniting the Marbles back to Athens and the issues that would arise should such a maganimous act take place any time soon.

Listen to Professor Paul Cartledge, BCRPM and the IARPS's Vice-Chair, alongside Ed Vaizey Chair of a new campaign the 'Parthenon Project', and Dr Tatiana Flessas, Associate Professor in Cultural Heritage and Property Law at the LSE. You can also revisit the talk that Dr Flessas gave on 09 October 2019 at the seminar held at the City of London University alongside BCRPM's Oliver Taplin, Jonathan Jones from the Guardian and Dr Florian Schmidt-Gabain, Attorney, Zurich, Lecturer in Art Law, Universities of Basel and Zurich.

Whichever side of the fence you may be sitting by, there is no doubt that the compelling moral and ethical reasons for reunificaton are as strong today as they were in June 2009, when the Acropolis Museum was opened. Considering also that the first request was made when Greece became indepependent, a request by the morden state of Greece to the UK, nearly two centuries ago.

Greece's requests have never waned garnering greater impetus through UNESCO's ICPRCP also. Yet the BM have remained firm in not wanting to reunite the marbles, that is up until this summer, when the new Chair of the British Museum Trustees, George Osborne suggested to Andrew Marr on LBC that a 'deal' could be made. This deal rests on Greece accepting to share half of the surviving, fragmented sculptures, and would be formalised as a loan agreement that would enable parts of the sculptures to travel back and forth with fragmented pieces currently held in the Acropolis Museum doing the same. With over 100,000 Greek artefacts in the BM, surely there are other exemplars to display in Room 18 which might allow Greece's justifiable request to be met with magnanimity, understanding and empathy? And let's also not forget that since Greek Minister of Culture Evangelos Venizelos in 2000 visited the BM, Greece pledged that should the Parthenon sculptures be returned, the Greek Government would make sure that the Duveen Galleries would always host Greek antiquities on loan for exhibitions. Greece would be willing to send rare and even newly discovered antiquities, which have never been seen outside Greece. This Greek offer has been repeated, and most recently by PM Mitsotakis when he was last in London.

Martin Bailey wrote in The Art Newspaper on Wednesday, 10 May 2023, revealing declassified UK government documents showed the Foreign Office had been dismissive of the British Museum’s lobbying to retain the Parthenon Marbles in 1983. The year when a formal claim was first lodged, after Greece's then Greek culture minister, Melina Mercouri visited London and the British Museum. 

'The Foreign Office recorded that Mercouri argued that the Marbles “are an integral part of a monument that represents the national spirit of Greece”. Wilson responded that they are part of a museum which is a unique international institution that “should not be dismembered”. But the officials concluded that Mercouri “won the argument hands down”.'

Fast forward four decades, and the argument for the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles is as compeling today as it has been since the 19th century, and the first request made by Greece after gaining independence. 

Janet Suzman, BCRPM's Chair often speaks of what Melina was like when she first met her in London. "Melina was electric, she swept through Britain in the 80's and captured the hearts and minds of all those that understood the injustice of the removal of these sculptures, their sale to the government by Lord Elgin in 1816, plus their continued display in the British Museum as art pieces, not as a collection of peerless sculptures that will always be intrinsically connected to the Parthenon. A building, which after two and half millennia of history, wars and occupations, still stands proud on the Sacred Hill.

"We could be informed how exactly these stone figures came to be here in this cold gallery in London" suggests Janet Suzman. "Since no proof from the Ottoman Sultanate has yet been found permitting them to be taken from Greece, we could, at the very least, be told that fact. Otherwise we must assume the British Museum has a very tenuous hold on reality when it claims they were legitimately acquired."

"The BCRPM wants to see visitors to the British Museum enlightened, either by a leaflet made available in the Greek galleries, or cogent signage on the plinths themselves, with full information about their acquisition."

"The modern Hellenic Republic, free of the yoke of the Ottomans, desperately wants its cultural heritage - these perticular Parthenon scuptures - returned. For over two hundred years it has wanted them returned. The public deserves to know why; Lord Elgin chopped them off the Parthenon and stole them, silently and clandestinely, and they ought to be back in their own place, where the sun shines." Concludes Janet Suzman.

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

“It is with a great sense of pleasure I learned that the Greek Minister of Culture and Sports Dr. L Mendoni has announced the reopening of all museums in Greece from June 15, said Emanuel J Comino AM, founder, and Chairman of the International Organising Committee – Australia – for the Restitution of the Parthenon Marbles.

“The timing is auspicious as on June 20, a mere five days later, we celebrate the eleventh anniversary of the opening of the Acropolis Museum.

The Acropolis Museum is rated one of the 10 best museums in the world. The reason why is obvious as soon as anyone steps inside. It’s a place deeply and dynamically connected with the Acropolis and the Parthenon.

Every time I visit, I’m not only moved by its superb design and the beautiful presentation of the remaining Parthenon Marbles, but I’m touched with a little sadness. I’m reminded of Elgin’s vandalism, and the Parthenon Marbles now kept in the British Museum. This strengthens my commitment to the campaign for their return.

The Parthenon Marbles kept in the British Museum must be returned to Athens and placed in the Acropolis Museum. This is the only place where the people of the world can begin to appreciate the fullness of their beauty and their contribution to the modern world. Only when they are together can people understand what they are telling us about more than 2000 years of glorious Greek history.

I have long recognised that the British Nation and its people strongly espouse and believe in justice, freedom and friendship. They have demonstrated this over the years, wherever these such values are threatened anywhere around the world.

So, it was with interest I also noted comments from Hartwig Fischer, British Museum Director, this week, he said:

“We stand with everyone who is denied equal rights and protection from violence in the fullest sense of these terms. These are challenges that we as a society must address, injustices that must be overcome.” 

These are sentiments that accord with my understanding of Britain as a country that espouses justice, freedom, and friendship.

Mr. Fischer added:

“We will continue to research, acknowledge and address the colonial history of Britain and its impact on our institution in exhibitions like Collecting Histories and Reimagining Captain Cook: Pacific perspectives from 2019. But there is much more to do.”

“Yes Mr Fischer, there is much more to do. The Parthenon Marbles were taken while Greece was under Ottoman occupation, and Britain was an expanding colonial power in the eastern Mediterranean. They were never given to Britain.

Let us hope your comments are not just empty words. It is time to act.”

The BCRPM concurs with our Australian colleagues in their eloquent plea to the Director of the British Museum and would add: “Yes, Mr Fischer, as you say, indeed there is much more to do. The movement unleashed in the world today needs to force those who have profited from peoples deprived of their selfhood by force majeure, to acknowledge that fact, and make restitution.” Dame Janet Suzman Chair of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles.

Dame Janet Suzman with Emanuel J Comino AM, Sunday 14 April 2019 at the Acropolis Museum 

Our recent trip to Athens after a 10 year hiatus, highlighted the favourable and unfavourable changes in this capital city. I travelled with my husband and daughter, and the main aim was to refresh our memories of the cultural magnificence we (as British born Greeks), take for granted.

Having worked in travel for 27 years, I have been lucky enough to travel to many parts of the world both near and far, and both positive and negative changes are inevitable, as was the case on this occasion, when visiting Athens.

The central areas of Athens known as Syntagma Square, Monastiraki and Plaka, somehow did not compare to previous years as I remember them, where the hustle and bustle was leisurely, and probably more traditionally Greek. This area of the city is busy with traditional buildings, luxury hotels, bars, restaurants, shops and crowds filling this space. Time doesn't stand still and Athens has expanded, its population now over 3 million. This central area in my view looked tired, and in need of revival. Perhaps, this was partly caused by the economic crisis of the last 10 years and more recently, Covid 19 and its aftermath.

I was keen for my daughter to experience the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, just off Syntagma Square, below the Hellenic Parliament; and also to visit the Acropolis and of course the main star attraction, the Parthenon.

Once we reached the top of  the Acropolis, Athens' iconic tourist attraction, we watched the Greek flag gently blowing in the wind against a blue cloudless sky, and soaked up the many years of ancient history. I was consumed by a sense of pride and honour of my Greek heritage.

Even in November, the citadel was buzzing with tourists from different parts of the world. The evening view of the Acropolis from Monastiraki was captivating in that one picture was just simply not enough!

We then made our way down to the newly built Acropolis Museum which focuses on the findings of the archaeological site of the Acropolis. The museum houses every artifact found on the rock and surrounding slopes dating back from the Greek Bronze age to Roman and Byzantine Greece. A plethora of artifacts with a wealth of information feeding the curious mind.

This modern museum, officially opened in June 2019, houses the original marble sculptures of the Parthenon, exhibited in the same way as they would have been on the monument. Sadly, it is obvious to also see, the missing sculptures, those so many refer to as the 'Elgin marbles', removed by Lord Elgin when Greece had no voice.

Lord Elgin was forced to sell what he had removed, to the British government in 1816, and in turn the government placed these treasures in trust with the British Museum.

The sculptures that are still in the British Museum's Room 18, have been replaced in the Acropolis Museum's Parthenon Gallery by contrasting, stark white plaster copies, further emphasising their harsh removal.

The importance of this collection of sculptures and why the calls for their return grows louder, and louder, is that these marbles deserve to be returned to their birthplace. They deserve to be housed in this amazing museum, to join their surviving halves, with direct views to the Parthenon. This would be the ultimate gesture of respect by the UK to Greece. The Parthenon Marbles were, and will always be referenced by the Parthenon, the jewel in the crown that is the Acropolis.

Athens will always hold a special place in my heart, and after this latest trip, in the hearts of my family too. Our short visit allowed us to re-engage with our Greek heritage but above all, enrich our minds with the profound cultural wealth present in this amazing ancient capital city.

We're looking forward to visiting again, this time, not leaving it so long.

Zoe Hawa