BCRPM - British Museum

British Museum

When Antiquities Keep Rolling in, You Don’t Ask How

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).

Where best for the Parthenon Marbles? Identity and the cultural repatriation of national treasures

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.

Whose marbles? Britain, Greece, and the Parthenon

By natural law it is just that no one should be enriched by another's loss or injury.¹
- Sextus Pomponius, Roman Jurist.²

At Aôthen, through our Artifacts Project, we are committed to raising awareness about cultural artifacts whose ownership is contested. So, the campaign to return the Parthenon Marbles to Greece falls well within our ambit. Indeed, it compels us to join the Greek cause and lobby for reunification. Greece’s long crusade for restitution began right after its independence in 1832, and yet to this day the British Museum and its abettors insist on keeping the Marbles in London. Greece has been denied the natural right to its cultural heritage in a tragedy spurred by a diplomat and maintained by a museum.

Between 1801 and 1812 the workmen of Thomas Bruce 7th Earl of Elgin—otherwise known as Lord Elgin—hacked away at Athena’s temple. Elgin sought social aggrandisement, and the fragments he had carved off of the Parthenon served as an avenue to finance his climb up the English class system. So, he bundled what he had taken from the Parthenon onto ships, ferried it over to England, and sold it to the British Parliament. Sections of the frieze, metopes, and pedimental figures–the Marbles–were then transferred to the British Museum for safekeeping.

The museum’s official position in the ownership dispute can be found under their webpage for the ‘Parthenon Sculptures’: Lord Elgin, after being granted a “permit”, “removed about half of the remaining sculptures from the ruins of the Parthenon”³. The Marbles were acquired, bought, and are held lawfully.

Only an Italian copy of the supposed permit (or ‘firman’) authorising Elgin’s ‘removals’ has been found. When translated into English, the document clearly limited Elgin’s workers to taking moulds and measurements of the Parthenon, along with a general right to collect rubble and stones littered around it. This contradicts the British Museum’s narrative that pieces of the Parthenon were allowed to be “removed” (a euphemism for ‘sawn-off’). Moreover, the veracity of the firman is in doubt. At the time of Elgin’s despoilment, Greece was under the control of the Ottoman Empire. This meant the Parthenon fell squarely under the jurisdiction of the Sultan, whose formal decrees were adumbrated in the firmans. Yet the firman assenting to Elgin’s expedition does not adhere to official protocols, this indicates the Sultan never gave his approval. The decree is not dated in Arabic, its formal preamble is missing, and the Sultan’s emblem and monogram are entirely absent. The evidence establishes that Elgin’s permit was illegitimate. The firman did not sanction Elgin’s project, and it certainly did not authorise his vandalism.

Still, despite there being no valid legal claim to the Marbles, the British Museum clings to the idea that they ought to remain in London. Four key arguments are associated with this position: the “encyclopaedic museum”, the “slippery slope”, the “matter of law”, and the “Elginisation” objections. Each appeals to the colonial impulse, and each has been repudiated by academics⁴, lawyers⁵, and writers⁶.

Curators like James Cuno⁷ appeal to the “encyclopaedic museum” for justification. Apparently, keeping the Marbles in the British Museum makes them more accessible to the public. By presenting the metopes, frieze, and pedimental figures alongside cultural pieces from Africa, Italy, and Asia, visitors can appreciate the Marbles in a global (hence encyclopaedic) context. Encyclopaedists contend that this arrangement facilitates Greek culture far better than a united Parthenon ever could. But the Marbles, by definition, cannot be authentically appreciated until they are reunified with the Parthenon from which they were wrenched. They exist in a Greek context only, not in the global context Cuno and his supporters thrust upon us. Filling museums with broken segments of architecture does not advance culture, it dilutes it. The British Museum must substitute the Marbles with plaster casts like those Elgin was originally commissioned to make.

Others fear that reunification will trigger a slippery slope: if the British Museum returns the Marbles, where do they draw the line? Must every demand for restitution be satisfied? These questions would carry little weight unless those expressing this concern were aware that entire collections had been dubiously acquired. The confession is implicit in the question. If there is sufficient reason to return a stolen artifact it ought to be returned. As for the Marbles, reunification does not engender a dangerous precedent because the Parthenon has no analogue: Greece endures (unlike, say, Carthage), the Marbles are not a complete work (they are pieces), and the Acropolis Museum in Athens has a dedicated space for them once they are repatriated. Accordingly, fears of an ineluctable declension are unfounded.

In late 2023⁸, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leader of the Conservative Party dodged the issue. He assessed the Parthenon dispute as being ‘a matter of law’. According to Sunak, whether or not the Marbles are repatriated is a decision for the museum trustees, not for the government. But a majority of the trustees (15 of the 25) are appointed by the Prime Minister. Consequently, all Sunak needs to do is pack the board with trustees eager to return the Marbles to Greece. Although it is true the British Museum lacks authority to cede museum property carte blanche, the government can amend the 1963 British Museum Act. By repealing Section 3(4) of the Act, the trustees appointed by Sunak would become authorised to de-accession the Elgin Collection. In fact, this would not be the first time the government used legislation to circumvent de-accession restrictions: the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act of 2009 established the right of British Museum trustees to return artwork stolen from Jewish owners by the Gestapo during World War II. So Sunak should appoint new trustees and amend the law. Simple.

However, do we need to consider the British Museum’s 200 year conservation of the Marbles? As custodians, has London generated a greater right to the Marbles than Greece? This is the ‘Elginisation’ argument, and of all the arguments against reunification, it is the most repugnant. Its logic would exempt a burglar (and his or her beneficiaries) from returning stolen property provided they were responsible. It would mean that so long as a requisite standard of care is maintained over a sufficient duration of time, theft transmogrifies into ownership. This perversion of property rights is, prima facie, wrong. You cannot excuse plunder because the looter happens to be a better steward. Ergo, Elgin cannot be exculpated with appeals to the British Museum’s record, and even if you could, the British Museum has never been a responsible custodian–it has neither protected nor conserved Elgin’s spoils⁹. In the 20th century, the Marbles were ‘whitened’ with scouring agents and copper rods in what came to be known as the ‘Duveen cleaning scandal’. During the whitening, original surfaces were cut away, hammered at, and scraped off. The harm was deemed so egregious that an internal inquiry found the damage was “obvious and cannot be exaggerated”¹⁰. The notion that the British Museum at any point in time generated an entitlement to the Marbles is baseless on both moral and factual grounds.

Evidently, the British Museum has profited from illegal taking. Museums fatuously described as ‘encyclopaedic’ are conglomerations of mass larceny rebranded as temples of edification; that was not their design, it is merely post hoc rationalisation. The Marbles and the Parthenon have no equivalent–historically, culturally, or architecturally–meaning reunification will not bring about a slippery slope. Legislative fatalism is another red herring. Amending British Museum policy is as achievable as the UK government is willing. And finally–and most obviously–stealing is wrong, no matter how conscientious you might be.

Not one of the aforementioned arguments are compelling enough to override Greece’s enduring right to its culture. A fortiori, Greece’s claim to its cultural heritage is legitimate and incontestable. There is no case for keeping the Marbles in London and every reason to return them to Greece. Here at Aôthen, we enjoin the UK government to give back what was never theirs.

— Mortal! — — 't was thus she spake — — that blush of shame
Proclaims thee Briton, once a noble name;
First of the mighty, foremost of the free,
Now honour'd less by all, and least by me:
Chief of thy foes shall Pallas still be found.
Seek'st thou the cause of loathing? — look around.
Lo! here, despite of war and wasting fire,
I saw successive tyrannies expire;
'Scaped from the ravage of the Turk and Goth,
Thy country sends a spoiler worse than both.

- The Curse of Minerva, Lord Byron on the Parthenon and British depredations.¹¹

^{Dominic Wexler's article was first published in Aôthen Magazine (named after the Doric Greek term for the earliest dawn), a magazine that is dedicated to all kinds of classics-inspired content; artworks, poetry, essays, reviews, photography, and more as a celebration of both archaeology and history.}

^{Dominic Wexler studied history, ancient history, and philosophy for his bachelor’s degree and is currently undertaking a graduate degree in law. He is also an aspiring essayist whose work has been published in the L’Esprit Literary Review and hopes to be published again. His interests are broad, from literature to politics. Despite a busy schedule, reading and writing about the classics has remained a fixture in Dominic’s life. You can find him on Twitter @djwexler.}

^{You can also read Dominic's articles on Substack.}

¹ Jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimentum et injuria fieri locupletiorem.

² Jack G. Handler and James Arthur Ballentine, Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, 1994, http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA22885743.

³ “The Parthenon Sculptures,” The British Museum, n.d., https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/british-museum-story/contested-objects-collection/parthenon-sculptures.

⁴ Professor Vassilis Demetriades, “Was The Removal Illegal?,” n.d., http://www.parthenon.newmentor.net/illegal.htm; “Profs. Zeynep Aygen & Orhan Sakin | Ottoman Archives for the Acropolis,” The Acropolis Museum, February 19, 2019, https://www.theacropolismuseum.gr/en/multimedia/profs-zeynep-aygen-orhan-sakin-ottoman-archives-acropolis.

⁵ Geoffrey Robertson, Who Owns History? (Random House Australia, 2020).

⁶ Christopher Hitchens, Robert Browning, with a preface from Nadine Gordimer and a contribution by Charalambos Bouras, The Parthenon Marbles: A Case for Reunification (Verso 2008). Earlier edition also Christopher Hitchens, Robert Browning and Graham Binns, The Elgin Marbles: Should They be Returned to Greece? (Verso, 1997); Christopher Hitchens, Imperial Spoils: The Curious Case of the Elgin Marbles (Hill & Wang, 1988).

⁷ OxfordUnion, “We Should NOT Repatriate Artefacts | Dr James Cuno | 4 of 6,” January 10, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmY6tkTBaks.

⁸ Aletha Adu, “Sunak Says Retaining Parthenon Marbles Is Matter of Law as He Denies ‘Hissy Fit,’” The Guardian, December 1, 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/dec/01/sunak-parthenon-marbles-matter-of-law-denies-hissy-fit.

⁹ William St Clair, “The Elgin Marbles: Questions of Stewardship and Accountability,” International Journal of Cultural Property 8, no. 2 (January 1, 1999): 391–521,
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0940739199770803.

¹⁰ Neils, Jenifer. “Cleaning and Controversy: The Parthenon Sculptures 1811-1939. By Ian Jenkins.” American Journal of Archaeology 107, no. 3 (July 1, 2003): 507–9. https://doi.org/10.1086/ajs40025412.

¹¹Lord Byron, The Curse of Minerva, 4th ed. (Galignani, 1820).

Winning the argument "hands down"

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'.

Yes Mr Fischer, there is much more to do

“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

Zoe Hawa visits Athens with her family, after a 10 year hiatus

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