dl final dissertation - dspace.lib.uom.gr
TRANSCRIPT
SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, HUMANITIES AND ARTS DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN STUDIES
MASTER'S DEGREE IN INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Dissertation on “Who owns the past? Repatriation and return of cultural objects-‐ case study: The Parthenon Marbles”
Professor: K. Chainoglou
by Despoina Laskaridou, A.M. 16003
UNIVERSITY OF MACEDONIA, THESSALONIKI, GREECE
1
1
Η κάτωθι υπογεγραμμένη Δέσποινα Λασκαρίδου του Κωνσταντίνου δηλώνω υπευθύνως ότι όλα τα στοιχεία σε αυτήν την εργασία τα απέκτησα, τα επεξεργάσθηκα και τα παρουσιάζω σύμφωνα με τους κανόνες και τις αρχές της ακαδημαϊκής δεοντολογίας, καθώς και τους νόμους που διέπουν την έρευνα και την πνευματική ιδιοκτησία. Δηλώνω επίσης υπευθύνως ότι, όπως απαιτείται από αυτούς τους κανόνες, αναφέρομαι και παραπέμπω στις πηγές όλων των στοιχείων που χρησιμοποιώ και τα οποία δεν συνιστούν πρωτότυπη δημιουργία μου.
Η δηλούσα
Δέσποινα Λασκαρίδου
I, Despoina Lakaridou confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis.
2
2
AKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank all the lecturers at the MIPA, University of Macedonia for their help and
guidance during the last year. In particular I would like to thank Dr. Kalliopi Chainoglou,
Dissertation Supervisor for her generous feedback and advice.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my family for their support, especially my
daughter Stella for encouraging me to participate to this Masters Degree.
3
3
List of Contents
Introduction
Abstract -‐The aim of this dissertation
4
5
Historical background 6
Methodology 8
Chapter I
I.1. DEBATE – THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES IN BRIEF
I.2. ANALYZING THE ARGUMENTS
9
11
Chapter II
ADOPTED WAYS TO RETRIEVE THE SCULPTURES
II.1 CULTURAL DIPLOMACY
II.2 POLITICAL DIPLOMACY
II.3. INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
22
29
31
Chapter III
EXPLORING THE POINTS OF THIS DISSERTATION
34
Conclusion 44
References 53
4
4
Introduction
The question of who owns the past is always contemporary. Recently the world community
was unable to respond and became witness to the atrocities of ISIS on the Palmyra
archaeological site. These phenomena have been observed in the past and, as it is obvious, still
continue to take place. The tragic events in Palmyra highlighted the perception that people,
some times are enemies of their nature and their history confronting them instead of being a
part of them. Although humanity is making progressive steps forward, International Law is
not applicable under certain circumstances.
Culture is a unique, relative concept belonging to the whole of mankind and respected by the
world community, but in essence, its material features are unprotected. During times of
armed conflict they cannot be covered or protected from vandalism, wherever it comes from.
This is concerning especially archeological sites or huge monuments since they cannot be
removed to a safe place in times of war. These sites or objects are directly exposed to the
enemies and they are the first victims of international hostilities because there are no borders
to contain the outcomes of military actions coming from air or space.
Our new era of globalization is opening new roads for enterprises’ repatriation as a new
tendency. At the same time many countries are claiming the repatriation of masterpieces from
their cultural heritage, but this is not a simple matter of tendency. Repatriation of cultural
objects is far more complicated than the application of trade agreements. Such claims have
their roots to socio-‐political changes that have taken place especially over the last two
centuries. Their handling requires diplomatic, political and legal instruments and maneuvers
and, in any case, the result is uncertain.
5
5
Abstract -The aim of this dissertation
The aim of this dissertation is to examine the legal and political arguments behind the
repatriation and return of cultural objects. The topic of the dissertation is inspired by the fact
that the year 2016 was the 200th sad anniversary of the removal of the marbles by Lord Elgin
and their transfer to the UK. Sadly, 2016 is also the year that Eddie O’ Hara1, the greatest
British supporter for the return of the Parthenon marbles to Greece, passed away. (Article
from The Guardian, 31 May 2016 ‘Eddie O’Hara obituary’, by Julia Langdom)
This dissertation will explore the following points: Resolution of cultural differences between
countries and its complexities, legal arguments, repatriation of cultural heritage as a form of
restoration, integrity and preservation of cultural heritage, national heritage as a national
Identity, cultural heritage and its global significance, cultural heritage as a human right,
collective ownership of cultural heritage, cultural colonization and cultural heritage
trafficking and marketing.
At the same time, the dissertation will present the arguments in favor and against the return
of cultural objects with emphasis on the repatriation of the Parthenon Marbles. While the
British Museum symbolizes a Universal Museum, the gemstone of the British Empire, where
artifacts from past civilizations from around the world are displayed, at the same time, one
should not dismiss the idea that the Parthenon marbles, the symbol of the cultural heritage of
a whole nation, have been subjected to violent and illegal vandalism which took place at a
time that there were no legal instruments to guarantee their protection. However, their
status should be reviewed in light of the contemporary international cultural heritage legal
framework.
1 Edward O’Hara, politician (MP) and campaigner, born 1 October 1937; died 28 May 2016, lifelong devoted to Greek scholarship and culture, fervent enthusiast for the long-‐running campaign for the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles.
6
6
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
I. INITIAL INFORMATION – THE REMOVAL
Athens' Parthenon, a classical temple built by the ancient Greeks, was already in a decaying
condition by the time Thomas Bruce, the seventh Earl of Elgin, became British Ambassador to
the Ottoman Empire in 1799. During the first decade of the 19th century the agents of Lord
Thomas Elgin removed whole boatloads of ancient sculpture from ancient Greece's capital
city of Athens. The pride of this collection was sections of the fifth-‐century BC sculpture taken
from the Parthenon, the temple dedicated to the goddess Athena, which stood on the
Acropolis hill in the centre of the city since 5th century B.C. (Lord Elgin – Saviour or Vandal?
By Mary Beard, BBC History, 2011)
Over a period of a thousand years the Parthenon, transformed first by early Christians,
became church of the Virgin Mary for the Athenians, later converted into a mosque by the
Ottomans and later still was used as a weapons store by the Ottoman Turks. By the time Elgin
took up his diplomatic post in Constantinople, some forty percent of the Parthenon's 2,250-‐
year-‐old sculptures had been destroyed. According to the brochure provided in the Parthenon
Gallery (2015) of the British Museum “The building was altered and the sculptures much
damaged over the course of the centuries.“
According to the official version, Elgin had obtained permission to work on the Acropolis
known as ‘firman’. This permission document came from the Turkish authorities, who ruled
Greece and had control of Athens, at that time. The original document of this permit does not
exist, only an Italian translation survives and its terms are disputed.
After the Marbles’ removal and on his return to England, during a Parliamentary Enquiry,
Elgin told that his motivation in taking them was his desire to protect what was left of these
treasures. The Turks, he claimed, had been even grinding down the statues to make mortar
for house building. One thing he omitted to say was that, during the removal, his workmen
had caused further damage to the fragile ruin.
The sculptures were transported to Britain between 1801 and 1805; by 1807 they were on
show in London.
The Marbles which were taken to Britain include about half (some 75 meters) of the sculpted
frieze that once ran all round the building, plus 17 life-‐sized marble figures from its
pediments and 15 of the 92 metopes, namely the sculpted panels, originally displayed above
its columns. (Lord Elgin – Saviour or Vandal? By Mary Beard, BBC History, 2011)
7
7
II. THE FIRST REACTIONS
The Marbles’ removal from Greece was controversial from the very beginning. Even before all
these sculptures –soon known as the Elgin Marbles-‐ went on display in London, Lord Byron2
attacked Elgin in his poem ‘Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage’ expressing his surprise and anger on
how the antiquities of Greece had been ‘defaced by British hands’. Others welcomed the
arrival of the sculptures in London with great enthusiasm. John Keats penned a sonnet to
celebrate ‘Seeing the Elgin Marbles’ in the British Museum, and from Germany, JW Goethe
hailed their acquisition as the “beginning of a new age for Great Art”. (Lord Elgin – Saviour or
Vandal? By Mary Beard, BBC History, 2011)
III. THE MARBLES’ NEW ‘HOME’
Later, when Elgin was bankrupted and needed cash a new adventure for the Marbles began
this time, as museum objects. (Lord Elgin – Saviour or Vandal? By Mary Beard, BBC History,
2011)
In 1816, Parliament paid £35,000 for the Parthenon Marbles -‐ most of which went to Elgin's
many creditors -‐ and a new home was found for them at the British Museum.
Since 1832 -‐ apart from the years when they were sheltered in Aldwych underground station
to avoid war damage -‐ the Marbles have remained in the British Museum.
2 George Gordon Byron (1788-‐1824) Anglo-‐Scottish poet and a leading figure in the Romantic Movement. He died in Messolonghi, Greece.
8
8
METHODOLOGY
Preliminary research indicated that further exploration of the subject of this dissertation was
going to provide further, in depth information during its development.
There is a large amount of bibliographical and on-‐line resources about the topic, as the
negotiation on the repatriation of the Parthenon Marbles has remained a ‘hot’ issue since
Greece’s initial claim to return the Marbles to Greece in the early 1980’s.
Having easy on-‐line access to almost all the material and information, it is obvious that a
qualitative research was needed to investigate the field of the topic of this dissertation and to
focus on the parameters that make it contemporary and still present.
A careful selection of representative articles or interviews linked with the subject was
considered as the most appropriate method for approaching the subject. Educational material
provided during the courses of the MA in International Public Administration, especially in
the field of the role of International Organizations was very crucial to understanding the
context and developing the outcome.
The time and content constraint for the integration of this dissertation was combined with the
results of the evaluation and the in-‐depth exploration of the issue, to determine its structure.
9
9
CHAPTER I
I.1. DEBATE – THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES IN BRIEF
After the Parthenon Marbles’ removal from Athens, there has been a never-‐ending
international debate about whether they should be returned. (BBC History, 17.02.2011)
There certainly have been arguments from both sides, but the real reason that the dispute has
lasted so long is that it has raised complicated issues related to the legitimacy, fairness and
ownership rights, issues that make it difficult to find a fair solution.
Elgin, who declared himself an art lover, claimed the sculptures were better off in Britain than
the hazardous environment he had found them in. Some say that he was genuinely concerned
to rescue these works of art. According to Daniel Mendelsohn3 “For some, Elgin is an aesthetic
criminal (He severed the sculptures from their proper architectural setting.) For others, he is
a political criminal (He was an arrogant imperialist appropriating native art works.) For
others—a minority viewpoint today, when art-‐world sensitivities about provenance and
patrimony have never been more acute—he was a savior.”4 His motives were not clear. There
is some evidence that he was a self-‐serving aristocrat, seeking the sculpture to decorate his
ancestral home. (BBC History, 2011) It is true that, when Elgin’s men removed the sculptures
from the Parthenon, the building was in a very sorry state, because it had been in continuous
use from the fifth century BC to the seventeenth century AD, originally built as a Greek
temple, then converted into a Christian church and later, during the Turkish rule over Greece
-‐in the fifteenth century-‐ turned into a mosque. ‘The finest mosque of the world’ according to
the travelers of that time. (BBC History, 17.02.2011)
In 1801, Elgin claimed that he had negotiated permission from the Turks -‐ who then
controlled Athens -‐ to remove the statues from the Parthenon.
The interpretation of the document upon which Elgin claimed legality cited by campaigners of
both sides of the argument, differs. The British Museum supports that Elgin was an official
diplomat and had acted with the permission of Turkish authorities.
3 Daniel Mendelsohn: Author. He teaches at Bard College. 4 Article at the New Yorker, THE ANCIENT WORLD “Deep Freeze, What does the Parthenon mean?”, April 14, 2014 ISSUE
10
10
The argument attributed to Elgin that the Marbles in their new location could be admired by
people from all over the world, is contradicted by his original intention to house them in his
private home.
Greek campaigners argue that the Turks, who granted permission for Elgin’s actions, were a
foreign force acting against the will of the people of the country they had invaded.
The opposing sides agree on only one thing -‐ that the Elgin Marbles form one of the most
important collections of classical art in existence, despite the fact that they are part of a
monumental totality.
The British argue that looting classical art was common practice in that era and that, likewise,
fragments from the Parthenon alone ended up in some 10 European countries, or were lost.
Their illegal acquisition has put them at the heart of one of Europe's most entrenched cultural
disputes.
"Elgin believed he was rescuing the sculptures from the risk of further damage," writes Neil
MacGregor, former director of the British Museum, supporting that the British Museum is a
"museum of the world, for the world" "They are integral to the whole idea of the Universal
Museum and the way museums over the last two centuries have come to display and interpret
human culture," writes professor Mary Beard.5
The first recorded request for the return of the Marbles made by Greece to Great Britain was
in 1833 (‘MARBLES REUNITED’ campaign, Newsletter Summer 2009) after the formation of
the modern Greek state and, after that year, the request has been repeated many times but
always informally. Greece still denies the recognition of the British Museum’s ownership. In
1938 Duveen Gallery, funded by the art dealer Lord Joseph Duveen was completed as a new
wing of the British Museum, where the Marbles have been displayed since 1962, due to delays
caused by World War II.
During recent decades, Melina Merkouri6 was the first politician who, as Minister of Culture,
formally demanded the return of the Parthenon Marbles under the slogan “Give them back”
in 1982.
5 Bear Mary, born 1 January 1955, English Classical scholar. She is Professor of Classics at the University of Cambridge, a fellow of Newnham College, and Royal Academy of Arts Professor of ancient literature. 6 Melina Mercouri (Greek: Μελίνα Μερκούρη), born Maria Amalia Mercouri (Greek: Μαρία Αμαλία Μερκούρη) (October 18, 1920 March 6, 1994), was an Academy Award-‐nominated Greek actress, singer and politician. She is considered one of the greatest female figures of modern era in Greece, being an actress of international fame and a politician who left her mark on Greek culture.
11
11
From this slogan she started her campaign. She had the courage to claim the return for first
time ‘on camera’ from Sir David Wilson, the –then-‐ director of the British Museum She is the
one to whom the establishment of the term ‘Parthenon Marbles’ instead of ‘Elgin Marbles’ is
owed. Thanks to her fame and insistence, the campaign began successfully and the debate is
still on going.
According to her friends, Melina Merkouri was inspired by the idea of claiming the Greek
Marbles, during filming “Fedra” by Jules Dassin, 1962, when a scene of the film, with her and
Anthony Hopkins as protagonists was played in the Parthenon Gallery of the British Museum.
Thirty per cent of the sculptures remain in Athens, where the Greek authorities maintain is
their proper home, now housed in the new Acropolis museum. Greeks demand their looted
marbles back but so far British authorities have opposed all calls for the return of the Marbles,
with David Cameron saying in 2013 that he did not believe in what he called "returnism"7.
I.2. ANALYZING THE ARGUMENTS
I.2.1 Logical arguments
There have been several logical arguments developed on the issue of repatriation of the
Parthenon Marbles, considering that Greece was under the Ottoman occupation when Elgin
removed them. As Stephen Frey8 in his speech in front of the Organization “Intelligence”9 on
November 16th, 2013 said: “The idea that it was a legitimate purchase by John Bruce, the Lord
of Elgin, is like saying the American Ambassador to the Netherlands went to Amsterdam when
the Nazis had invaded and did a deal with a Nazi ruler of Holland to buy Rembrandt’s ‘Night
watch’”. And they all signed […] yes, “We are the Germans, we own Holland, they are under
our occupation” and “You can have it, it’s yours”. And Congress then said: “Yes it’s perfectly
legal. We now own the ‘Night watch’”. “…Wouldn’t it be classy if we, as Britain, said “Yes, for
two hundred years, it’s true, we’ve saved it”…If my neighbor has a fire and I go over and say:
‘I’ll take the paintings before they get burnt and put them in my garage’ and then, he comes
back three years later and say ‘I want my paintings back’ and I say ‘Oh no! You can’t have
them back…they would have been burnt if I hadn’t taken them!’ there’s no argument, this is
7 Article at the Greek Reporter, February 2013 8 Frey, Stephen: Born August 24, 1957: Famous British actor, writer, broadcaster, journalist, comedian 9 Intelligence Squared is an organization that stages debates around the world
12
12
just beastliness. Greece was under occupation nine years after Elgin took those, raped those
beautiful and extraordinary pieces of history. Byron died for that cause.” (STEPHEN FRY on
Parthenon Marbles Debate -‐ 11.6.2012)
On the other hand, the British Museum maintains that: “The ‘Elgin Marbles’ have been on
permanent public display in the British Museum since 1817, free of charge. Here they are seen
by a world audience and are actively studied and researched by an international community
of scholars, to promote understanding both of ancient Greek culture and its role in the
cultures of the world.”10
Moreover the British arguments are based on the fact that, Lord Elgin, the British Ambassador
to the Ottoman Empire, acted with the full knowledge and permission of the Ottoman
authorities, the then rulers of Greece. What he removed was “half of the remaining sculptures
from the fallen ruins and from the building itself.”9 According to the same explanatory
material from the British Museum, the public display of the sculptures since the spring of
1817 inspired the Philhellene movement during the Greek War of Independence and
developed sympathy for the ‘inhabitants of modern Greece’. Additionally, according to the
same brochure “Archaeologists worldwide are agreed that the surviving sculptures could
never be reattached to the structure.”
The new Acropolis Museum opened in Athens in 2009. It is designed to display all the
surviving sculptures, in their original layout. Most of the original sculptural or architectural
pieces of the monuments are conserved there. The on-‐going project “Unification of the
Archaeological Sites of Athens” as well as the long-‐term conservation work, have already
enhanced the further protection and the presentation of the site.
"It's time to heal the wounds of the monument with the return of the Marbles which belong to
it," said the –then-‐ Greek President Karolos Papoulias, at the opening of the Acropolis
Museum. (‘MARBLES REUNITED’ campaign, Newsletter Summer 2009)
10 Informational material provided in the Parthenon Gallery (2015)
13
13
On the date of opening of the New Acropolis Museum, Hannah Bolton, Head of Press and
spokeswoman for the British Museum, referred to the ‘twin sculptures’, now located in the
new museum and highlighting the British Museum’s policy of maintaining the Marbles, made
the following comment: “ That division is very beneficial to the world’s public. They can get
these two different but complementary stories about these wonderful objects”.11
After the opening of the Acropolis Museum in June 2009, the British Museum continues to
argue that they had protected and preserved these treasures and displayed them for millions
of visitors from all over the world. They also argue that, by removing the Parthenon
Sculptures from the temple and placing them in the new museum where people can see them
closely, the Greek government simply “continued Elgin’s practice”.12 (Michael J. Repas: On the
opening of the New Acropolis Museum, ‘The Parthenon Sculptures’, Newsletter No 8 (August
2009))
Since 2009 the British Museum has altered its policy on the preservation issue, developing
new arguments on the rights of possession of the Marbles. During the 80’s the British side’s
constant argument was that the Athenian atmosphere was highly polluted for the remaining
Marbles, therefore they could not be protected from possible erosion and that there was no
proper place for them to be exhibited.
I.2.2 National heritage as a national Identity
For Greeks, their arguments for their claim on Parthenon Marbles are more than logical. The
Marbles are a historical testimony of their past, they are their cultural property and they
attribute to the definition of their national identity.
In one of her later interviews in 1993 Melina Merkouri said: “What does Shakespeare mean to
England, St. Paul’s Cathedral [….]what do the paintings in the Sistine Chapel mean to Italy?
The Parthenon Marbles are our pride, they are our identity, they are today’s link with Greek
excellence, they are creations synonymous with our concept of Democracy and Freedom.”
(Melina Merkouri about the Parthenon marbles, YOUTUBE uploaded on 13 May 2008)
11 Youtube files, 21 June 2009, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaY0q9_XVao 12 Neil MacGrecor, Director of the British Museum: a few days after the opening of the Acropolis Museum
14
14
In 2009, at the opening of the Acropolis Museum, Greek President Karolos Papoulias, said: “To
us Greeks it is our identity, our pride. The whole world can see the most important Marbles of
the Parthenon are missing. The wounds of the monument must be healed.”
The Acropolis is inherent with Greeks’ history and national and cultural identity. Thucydides,
in the “History of the Peloponnesian War”13, describes the wealth of Athens: “Apart from
other sources of income, an average revenue of six hundred talents of silver was drawn from
the tribute of the allies; and there were still six thousand talents of coined silver in the
Acropolis, out of nine thousand seven hundred that had once been there, from which the
money had been taken for the porch of the Acropolis, the other public buildings, and for
Potidaea. This did not include the uncoined gold and silver in public and private offerings, the
sacred vessels for the processions and games, the Median spoils, and similar resources to the
amount of five hundred talents. To this [Pericles] added the treasures of the other temples.
These were by no means inconsiderable, and might fairly be used. Nay, if they were ever
absolutely driven to it, they might take even the gold ornaments of Athena herself; for the
statue contained forty talents of pure gold and it was all, removable. This might be used for
self-‐preservation, and must every penny of it be restored. Such was their financial position-‐-‐
surely a satisfactory one.”
The reason that the Marbles are important to Athens is because they represent Athens. There
are 192 soldiers casted on the friezes, because 192 soldiers died at the Battle of Marathon,
between the Athenians and Persians in 490 BC, which highlighted the victory of Hellenes
against the barbarians and predetermined the history of modern freedom and European
civilization. As Byron wrote, ‘Marathon became a magic word’. Reunification of the Marbles
will bring the violently separated soldiers together. The ensemble will be restored to tell the
history in its own words. Periclean Athens and its achievements saw the rise of everything
that the whole of European culture now depends: philosophy, mathematics, analytical
thinking, empiricism and Democracy. The 5th century BC enlightenment, which first appeared
in Athens, inspired and determined the world civilization.
13 Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book2, chapter 13
15
15
I.2.3 Legal arguments – National Law
In the beginning of the 19th century Europe was fascinated by classical art and culture and a
‘collector’s mania’ developed. Passion for Greek antiquities was in its early infancy in England
and France. Until then, only the works of the Romans were highly valued.
Thomas Bruce (Lord Elgin), one typical representative of European art collectors, under the
pretext of reproducing paintings and making plaster casts of Greek sculptures and
architectural fragments, with the supervision of the painter Giovanni Luisieri, obtained the
acquisition of the first document, the ‘firman’14 from the Ottoman Government. This
document must have been issued in Turkish and has never been found. It gave to Elgin’s team
of artisans and workmen access to the Parthenon but since this did not provide enough for
their real intent, a second document, known as the ‘second firman’, still surviving in an Italian
translation, now exhibited in the British museum, is the document that, being misinterpreted,
gave Elgin’s team the permission to go in and out in the Acropolis (“citadel”) under the
pretext of taking measurements, which, finally, led to the removal of pieces of stone with
inscriptions and figures. Even at that time, these documents, described by Elgin and his
company as ‘firmans’ were doubted by their coevals: Not only contesting their legal authority
but also whether they were issued directly by the Sultan, since it does not bear the Sultan’s
seal. It may be considered a mektub15 rather than a ‘firman’. (Cultural Assets, April 7 2016)
The authority to an Ottoman official rather than the Sultan to give permission for the removal
of the sculptures is disputed. Disregarding the authority to permit Elgin’s removal arisen from
the second ‘firman’, all commentators agree that what was removed and the manner in which
it was removed exceeded what was described in the second ‘firman’. (Cultural Assets, April 7
2016) Despite the debate on the degree of authority the permission offered, according to
some scholars like Prof. Merryman16, although the removals exceeded the context of the
second ‘firman’, subsequent documents and actions by the Ottoman authorities ratified Lord
Elgin’s actions to such a degree that his activity was considered legal. And since the removal
was ratified, according to Prof. Merryman, as an issue of international law of that time, the
14 Royal mandate or decree issued by a sovereign in certain historical Islamic states. During various periods they were collected and applied as traditional bodies of law. Any written permission granted by the appropriate Islamic official.
15 Simple written document 16 John Henry Merryman (1920-‐2015) Law professor at Stanford University
16
16
removal was legal and Elgin could transfer title in the Marbles to the British Museum.
(Cultural Assets, April 7, 2016)
The issue here is that these cultural objects were removed during a period that no legal
norms had yet been established, especially norms prohibiting the destruction and removal of
cultural objects in periods of armed conflicts or occupation, which is exactly the point of the
Parthenon Marbles dispute.
According to William Faulkner17 “The past is never dead. It’s not even past” But despite the
truth that lies beyond this statement, this is a philosophical approach, not a legal one.
At a national level, it was only in the 20th century, 100 years after the establishment of the
modern Greek state, that the preservation of antiquities and the prohibition of elicit
excavations of ancient ruins of cities or archaeological sites and the prohibition of all works
on monuments, even if it does not damage it, has been provided by art.50 of Law
Nr.5531/1932, which in fact was the codification of a previous Law, nr. 12/1926. Moreover,
Law Nr.5531/1932 dictated harsh sentences for the violators or offenders.
Recently Greek Law Nr. 3028/2002, which is the current national legislation “For the
preservation of Antiquities and the Cultural Heritage in general” prohibits the exportation of
monuments from the Greek territory (article 34). The same Law states that all monuments or
products of excavations are strictly under the authorization of the Greek Ministry of Culture.
Moreover, all works on monuments such as preservation or restoration should aim at the
preservation of their authenticity, their promotion and their protection (article 40) The same
is true for sculptures, inscriptions and other decorative elements, the works on which must be
supervised by experts (Ephorate of Antiquities) of the Ministry of Culture (article 43). Anyone
who damages or transforms a monument or a cultural good, sited in an open or housed public
space is accountable to the Law and can be punished by imprisonment. (article 50,
”Monument attrition”) Article 63 provides sentences for anyone who exports or attempts to
export cultural goods with the intention of their definite removal from the Greek territory. In
this case, a sentence of 10 years is indicated. The latter is in compliance with the Regulation
3911/1992 of the European Council and the Regulation 752/1993 of the European
Committee.
17 William Cuthbert Faulkner: September 25, 1897 -‐ July 6, 1962, American writer and Nobel Prize, laureate from Oxford, Mississippi.
17
17
In addition, the Acropolis and its surroundings, which constitute monuments per se, are
protected by legislative decrees (Ministerial Decrees F01/12970/503/25.2.82 concerning the
designation of its buffer zone; and F43/7027/425/29.1.2004 concerning the designation of
the peripheral zone of the city of Athens and imposing obligatory control before issuing any
building or development permit within its boundaries). The fact that the site’s buffer zone is a
protected archaeological area itself, along with the implementation of the strict legal
framework – especially for the urban ‘tissue’ in the historical centre of Athens since 2002 –
and the intense monitoring by the competent Ephorate, ensures that urban development
pressures are adequately addressed. Special protection is provided by the Presidential Decree
No 24/2007, which declares the Acropolis area as a no-‐fly zone.
The Acropolis site is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Culture, through the Ephorate of
Antiquities of Athens. This body is responsible for the site’s security and protection.
Moreover, the competent Ministry of Culture implements the legislative decrees concerning
the safeguarding of the property and its peripheral zone (which corresponds to the
boundaries of the ancient city of Athens and its surroundings) and ensures the visual integrity
of the area. Especially for the restoration, protection and monitoring of the property, an
advisory body, the Committee for the Restoration and Conservation of the Acropolis
Monuments, was founded in 1975 and is responsible for planning, directing and supervising
any interventions. In 1999, the establishment of the Αcropolis’ Restoration Service allowed
the increase of the academic and technical personnel who made the immense restoration
works possible, under the supervision of the Committee and in cooperation with the
competent Ephorate.
Besides, the Greek Constitution, as it was revised on May 28th 2008, ensured that monuments
are protected by the State (article 24, par. 1 and 6). Accordingly: “ The protection of the
natural and cultural environment is an obligation and right of every citizen.” and “The
monuments, the traditional areas and the traditional elements are protected by the State”
respectively.
18
18
The Greeks’ right and legal claim to the Parthenon Marbles’, which reemerged a century and
half after gaining of their independence, is stumbling on the applicable statute of limitations
of English Law, according to which, provided their legal acquisition, is six years18 after they
were shipped to England19. The British arbitrary arguments on legality are based on the
principles of ‘International Law’ of the time, according to which, since Athens was part of the
Ottoman Empire, the Ottomans had the jurisdiction to grant permission over their ‘public
property’.20 And even this jurisdiction was exceeded, the permit for the removal and the
transportation of the Marbles, actually ratified the legality of Elgin’s actions21.
Additionally, every time the matter of the return of the Parthenon Sculptures occurs, the
negative argument from the British side is based on the provisions of The British Museum Act
of 1963, according to which the Museum Trustees are prohibited from giving back objects in
the Museum’s collection, unless there are duplicates, which in the case of the Parthenon
Sculptures of course there are none. ((Michael J. Repas: On the opening of the New Acropolis
Museum, ‘The Parthenon Sculptures’, Newsletter No 8 (August 2009))
The British Government is always emphasizing that they have no intention of changing this
law. The paradox in this case is that the British are claiming artwork, looted from the UK
Museums -‐including the British Museum-‐ by the Nazis during the Second World War, be
returned to their rightful owners. (Michael J. Repas: On the opening of the New Acropolis
Museum, ‘The Parthenon Sculptures’, Newsletter No 8 (August 2009))
Nevertheless, recent researches by other scholars are bringing to light details about the
violent way these masterpieces were removed. New announcements at the International
Scientific Congress held in Athens from September 24 to September 26, 2016 reveal a point of
view other than the one that is attempting to legitimize the ratification of the removal.
(International scientific convention for the Parthenon sculptures at the Acropolis Museum,
September 2016)
According to the arguments on the Greek side, the Parthenon Marbles, masterpieces are
currently protected property and their removal resulted in an illegal and disastrous
18 Limitation Act,1939,2 & 3 Geo.6,ch. 21, par. 2(1)(a) 19 Zeman Alexandra, ‘A Game Changer? The Complexities of Cultural Heritage in the Debate over the Elgin Marbles’ (2012), p.34 20 Merryman, Thinking About the Elgin Marbles, (1985), p.1897 21 Merryman, Thinking About the Elgin Marbles (1985), p.1899
19
19
demolition of a cultural icon which took place at a time that there where no legal instruments
to preserve them.
I.2.4 Legal arguments – International Law
The Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict was
adopted in The Hague (Netherlands) on May 14th 1954 in the wake of the massive destruction
of cultural heritage during the Second World War. It was the first international treaty with a
world-‐wide vocation focusing exclusively on the protection of cultural heritage in the event of
armed conflict.
It covers immovable and movable cultural heritage, including monuments of architecture, art
or history, archaeological sites, works of art, manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic,
historical or archaeological interest, as well as scientific collections of all kinds regardless of
their origin or ownership.
The Hague Convention states in its preamble that “damage to cultural property belonging to
any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each
people makes its contribution to the culture of the world”, “the preservation of the cultural
heritage is of great importance for all peoples of the world “, “it is important that this heritage
should receive international protection” and “such protection cannot be effective unless both
national and international measures have been taken to organize it in time of peace”.
According to Article 1, ‘Definition of Cultural Property’, the term ‘cultural property’ covers,
irrespective of origin or ownership:
(a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every
people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular;
archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic
interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or
archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or
archives or of reproductions of the property defined above;
(b) buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit the movable cultural
property defined in sub-‐paragraph (a)
such as museums, large libraries and depositories of archives, and refuges intended to shelter,
in the event of armed conflict, the movable cultural property defined in sub-‐paragraph (a);
(c) centers containing a large amount of cultural property as defined in sub-‐paragraphs (a)
and (b), to be known as `centers containing monuments'.
20
20
According to Article 4, ‘Respect of Cultural Property’, par.1: “The High Contracting Parties
undertake to respect cultural property situated within their own territory as well as within
the territory of other High Contracting Parties by refraining from any use of the property and
its immediate surroundings or of the appliances in use for its protection for purposes which
are likely to expose it to destruction or damage in the event of armed conflict; and by
refraining from any act of hostility, directed against such property.”
As we can see, the Hague Convention provides for the Protection of Cultural Property in the
Event of Armed Conflict, which is a retrospective approach to the case of the Parthenon
Marbles looted at the time of occupation of the Greek territory by the Ottomans. And what is
interesting in this case is that the ‘perpetrator’ of another nation’s property was not the Ruler
of this territory. The Ruler in this case, namely the Ottoman Empire was acting as a mediator
for a third national, the British Empire.
However, this Convention is not applicable in this case retrospectively as the Marbles were
taken long before the Convention entered into force.
Professor Merryman (Merryman, 1985), in his book “Thinking About the Elgin Marbles”22is
isolating the phrases “cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever” and “cultural
heritage of all mankind” to argue that these words, appearing for the first time in any major
piece of international legislation, “announce the important principle that everyone has an
interest in the preservation and enjoyment of all cultural property, wherever it is situated,
from whatever cultural or geographic source” to come to the conclusion: “All of us, from every
country, have an interest in the preservation and the disposition of the Marbles; the matter
does not touch only on Greek and English interests, as the Marbles are “the cultural heritage
of all mankind.” (The Hague Convention of 1954). Furthermore, he argues: “It is early in the
development of cultural internationalism to suggest that it applies to all cultural property in
all circumstances or that in a conflict between a sovereign nation’s preference and the
international interest, the latter will prevail.” (Merryman, 1985)
22 Merryman, Thinking About the Elgin Marbles (1985), p.1916
21
21
In 1963 the Council of Europe engaged its Parliamentary Assembly in promoting the
protection of monuments and sites in Europe as part of the European Cultural and Historical
Heritage Convention. This Convention was originally known as the European Charter of the
Architectural Heritage and it was finally adopted in 1985 in Grenada. It entered into force on
1st December 1987.
The purpose of the Convention is to define architectural heritage and to oblige member states
to respect the rich diversity of European architectural heritage and to take statutory
measures to protect all its forms. The Convention on the protection of Architectural Heritage
of the Council of Europe is limited to the European region and is drafted by the Europeans for
the needs of the member states of the Council of Europe.
For this Convention «architectural heritage» includes «monuments (all buildings and
structures of conspicuous historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific, social or technical
interest, including their fixtures and fittings); groups of buildings (homogeneous groups of
urban or rural buildings distinguished for their historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific,
social or technical interest which are sufficiently coherent to form topographically definable
units); and sites (the combined works of man and nature, being areas which are partially built
upon and sufficiently distinctive and homogeneous to be topographically definable and are of
distinguished historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific, social or technical interest» (article
1). The underlying reasons for the adoption of this Convention are related to the fact that
national attitudes usually differ significantly from one European region to another with
regard to the identification and conservation of architectural heritage. It is noteworthy that
despite the very specific object of protection of this Convention, the Convention symbolizes
the unified will of the member states of the Council of Europe to accept the plurality of
cultural traditions and expressions, even in the form of architectural sites and monuments,
and to deal with problems and challenges in a collective manner. Under articles 17, 18 and 19
a system of coordination of the European conservation policies was established.
22
22
CHAPTER II
ADOPTED WAYS TO RETRIEVE THE SCULPTURES
II.1 CULTURAL DIPLOMACY
The role of International Organizations - UNESCO
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) was created in
1945 in order to respond to the firm belief of nations that in order for a lasting peace to be
established, political and economic agreements were not enough without humanity’s moral
and intellectual solidarity. In 1972 UNESCO adopted the Convention concerning the
Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage23 considering that deterioration or
disappearance of any item of cultural or natural heritage constitutes a harmful
impoverishment of the heritage of all the nations of the world and that protection of this
heritage at the national level often remains incomplete because of the scale of the resources
which it requires and of the insufficient economic, scientific, and techno-‐ logical resources of
the country where the property to be protected is situated,
The Constitution of the Organization states that it will maintain, increase, and diffuse
knowledge by assuring the conservation and protection of the world’s heritage
With this Convention, UNESCO purported to alert the international community and encourage
international cooperation for the protection of the cultural and natural heritage of mankind,
even when national financial resources are lacking. This Convention represents a constant
reminder that natural and cultural heritage belong to all humanity. The history of every single
nation, of every community in this world is stamped on the material and immaterial cultural
heritage. Both these heritages can be considered as a record of the enduring interaction
between people and nature.
Cultural heritage includes monuments, groups of building and sites.
Monuments include “architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting,
elements or structure of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and
combinations of features, which are of outstanding value from the point of view of history, art
or science” (art. 1) (Prof. K. Chainoglou, UNESCO AND CULTURE, 2012)
Groups of buildings include “groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of
their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding 23 Adopted by the General Conference at its seventeenth session, Paris, 16 November 1972
23
23
universal value from the point of view of history, art or science”. (art. 1) (Prof. K. Chainoglou,
UNESCO AND CULTURE, 2012)
Sites include “works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and areas including
archaeological sites, which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic,
ethnological or anthropological points of view” (art. 1)(Prof. K. Chainoglou, UNESCO AND
CULTURE, 2012)
The Parthenon Marbles, as works of monumental sculpture, are a typical example of the term
‘monument’ and the Parthenon, where they belong to, is the exceptional building included in
the Acropolis, a group of connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their
homogeneity and their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the
point of view of history, art or science.
At the same time, the archeological site of Acropolis, the “Holy Rock” as it is called by the
Greeks is a marvelous totality of works of man combined in a natural setting of symbolic and
outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic and ethnological point of view.
(Prof. K. Chainoglou, UNESCO AND CULTURE, 2012)
The Parthenon fulfils all the above criteria and therefore is included in the cultural properties
in the World Heritage List (Date of Inscription: 1987). It represents a masterpiece of art and
human creative genius which exhibits an important interchange of human values over a span
of time within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture, technology and
monumental arts, bearing a unique testimony to a cultural tradition of a civilization which has
disappeared but has left its traces for the world. As an outstanding example of a type of
building and architectural ensemble it illustrates a significant stage in human history being
directly associated with description of events or traditions of the past together with ideas,
beliefs and values. This has determined the European idea and the universal principle of
Democracy. According to the description provided by the UNESCO World Heritage List “The
Acropolis of Athens and its monuments are universal symbols of the classical spirit and
civilization and form the greatest architectural and artistic complex bequeathed by Greek
Antiquity to the world.” (UNESCO, World Heritage List, Acropolis, Athens, description,1987)
and “The Acropolis of Athens is the most striking and complete ancient Greek monumental
complex still existing in our times” (UNESCO, World Heritage List, Acropolis, Athens, brief
synthesis,1987), having survived for twenty five centuries through wars, explosions,
bombardments, fires, earthquakes, interventions and alterations and having been adapted to
24
24
several uses and civilizations. (UNESCO, World Heritage List, Acropolis, Athens, brief
synthesis, 1987) The Parthenon is a complete ancient Greek monumental complex. It is a
supreme expression of the adaptation of architecture in a natural site, it has had an
exceptional influence, not only in the Greco-‐Roman antiquity, during which it was considered
as exemplary model, but also in contemporary times, still inspiring Neo-‐Classical monuments.
It is a unique testimony of the ancient Greeks’ religion and exemplary architectural ensemble
illustrating significant historical phases and continuity since the ancient times. It is associated
with events and ideas that represent living testimonies of the achievements of Classical Greek
politicians who led to the establishment of Democracy. Moreover, it is characterized by its
integrity, its authenticity and perfection of applied building techniques, which is approved by
its resistance to natural forces through time.
Before 1972, in 1970, The Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit
Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property was created under the aegis of
UNESCO. The reason behind this initiative was that at the end of the 1960’s and the beginning
of the 1970’s, looting was increasing both from museums and archaeological sites,
particularly in the countries of the South. At the same time, in the North, “private collectors
and, sometimes official institutions, were increasingly offered objects that had been
fraudulently imported or were of unidentified origin” (UNESCO, Trafficking of Cultural
Property, 2017)
The 1970 Convention required its States Parties to take action in the fields of preventative
measures and provision for restitution, resulting in an International Cooperation Framework.
For the purpose of this Convention, the term ‘cultural property’ means property which, on
religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each State as being of importance
for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science, belonging to specific
categories.(art.1)
According to art.2, the States parties to the Convention recognized that the illicit import,
export and transfer of ownership of cultural property was one of the main causes of the
impoverishment of the cultural heritage from their countries of origin and that international
co-‐operation constituted one of the most efficient means of protecting each country’s cultural
property against all the resulting dangers. (UNESCO, Trafficking of Cultural Property, Text
Convention, 2017)
Greece ratified this Convention in 1981 and United Kingdom accepted it in 2002.
25
25
There are various practical and ethical tools that have been developed by UNESCO to
contribute to the fight against illicit traffic. One of them is the creation, in 1978, of
establishment of the Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation, utilizing the appropriate
intervention of the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural
Property (ICPRCP) to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation.
At its 33rd session, in Paris 2005, a proposal was submitted to UNESCO’s General Conference
for amending the Statutes of the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of
Cultural Property (ICPRCP) to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in the case of illicit
Appropriation, so as to include mediation and conciliation functions (UNESCO General
Conference, 33rd session, Paris 2005)
According to art.4, seeking ways and means of facilitating bilateral negotiations, “the
Committee may also submit proposals with a view to mediation or conciliation to the Member
States concerned, being understood that mediation implies the intervention of an outside
party to bring the concerned parties to a dispute together and assist them in reaching a
solution, while under conciliation, the concerned parties agree to submit their dispute to a
constituted organ for investigation and efforts to effect a settlement. For the exercise of the
mediation and conciliation functions, the Committee may establish appropriate rules of
procedure.” (Resolution 33,C/46). The rules of mediation have only been adopted in
2010.(‘MARBLES REUNITED’/ICOMOS,2014)
Under the context of mediation, at a very crucial moment for the reinforcement of efforts for
the return of the Parthenon Marbles, an international deliberation of the individual
committees was held on Sunday, Oct. 6, 2014 in Athens. In the previous year, during the
meeting of the –then-‐ Greek Minister of Culture, Mr. Panos Panagiotopoulos with
the General Director of UNESCO in Paris in July of that year, Mrs. Irina Bokova24 was asked
to influence from personal and institutional position, in order to initiate the mediation
process with the British side. UNESCO as an international cultural organization wrote a letter
(UNESCO latest news, 3 October 2014) to the British Foreign Minister William Chag, the
British Minister for Culture Ms Maria Miller and the Director of the British Museum Mr.
Robert Neil McGregor. In this letter the British officials were informed officially about the
24 Irina Bokova, Director General of UNESCO. First term: 2009-‐2013. Second term: 2013 – 2017 (UNESCO Official web-‐page)
26
26
request from Greece to proceed to the process of mediation in order to reach a settlement on
the issue of the Parthenon Marbles.
If the British side had agreed to conduct this process, it would have been the first time that
UNESCO would have been enabled to resolve cultural differences between two countries as
the issue of the Parthenon Marbles is steadily since 1987 in the agenda of any conference of
the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to
its Countries of Origin or repatriation in case of illegal possessions.
Unfortunately, the UK did not reply to the UNESCO letter until March 2015
Meanwhile, during its Nineteenth Session at the UNESCO Headquarters in October 2014, the
Intergovernmental Committee for promoting the return of cultural property to its countries
of origin or its restitution in case of illicit appropriation, issued the following
recommendation:
“RECOMMENDATION 19.COM 8
The Committee,
Acknowledging relevant UNESCO recommendations expressing its continuing concern for a
solution to the issue of the Parthenon Sculptures;
1. Acknowledges the fruitful cooperation between Greece and United Kingdom on cultural
matters and expresses the wish that it should continue with a view to assist with the
ongoing discussions in respect of the physical reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures;
2. Acknowledges that an official letter has been sent in August last year by UNESCO to the
United Kingdom government and the British Museum saying:
‘Earlier this year, the Greek authorities approached UNESCO with a request that the
Organization deploy its good offices to explore the possibility of the United Kingdom
agreeing to the procedure foreseen in the Mediation and Conciliation Rules of Procedure
(adopted in 2010) within the framework of the ICPRCP’
and takes note that the United Kingdom has not yet written back to UNESCO although
has in the Nineteenth Session acknowledged that UNESCO stands ready to facilitate
mediation discussions.
3. Invites the Director-General to assist in convening the necessary meetings between
Greece and the United Kingdom with the aim of reaching a mutually acceptable solution
27
27
to the issue of the Parthenon Sculptures; and invites both parties to consider making use
of the mediation process, noting that Greece has already asked for mediation.”
ICOMOS, the International Council on Monuments and Sites, at their 18th General Assembly in
Florence in November 2014, passed resolution 18GA 2014/40 to support UNESCO mediation
for the Parthenon Marbles. It was the first time that Member States of UNESCO were invited
to mediate since these rules had been adopted in 2010.
The discussion continued during 2015 but was fruitless.
Meanwhile, as we will see, the impact of the UK inaction during the period 2013-‐2014 was
Greece’s reconsideration of its position turning to thoughts of taking legal action.
Until then, Greece had decided against taking legal action, concentrating instead on cultural
diplomacy. (Cultural Assets, April 7, 2016)
Campaigners for the return of the Parthenon sculptures to Greece have voiced
disappointment at the replies sent from London to UNESCO in March 2015. British ministers
said they believed the Greek call for "mediation" was intended simply to secure the return of
the Marbles to Athens. Greece criticized British "negativity". (BBC NEWS, 8 April 2015)
The –then-‐ Greek Culture Minister Mr. Xydakis insisted the dispute was between nations, not
museums. (BBC NEWS, 8 April 2015)
In a letter to UNESCO on 26 March 2015, British Culture Minister Ed Vaizey and European
Minister David Lidington, wrote: "We have seen nothing to suggest that Greece's purpose in
seeking mediation on this issue is anything other than to achieve the permanent transfer of
the Parthenon sculptures now in the British Museum to Greece and on terms that would deny
the British Museum's right of ownership."(BBC NEWS, 8 April 2015)
The ministers insisted that the sculptures were legally acquired by UK ambassador Lord Elgin
"under the laws pertaining at the time and the trustees of the British Museum have had clear
legal title to the sculptures since 1816". (BBC NEWS, 8 April 2015)
Writing on the same day to UNESCO, Sir Richard Lambert, chairman of the British Museum's
trustees, said that the Museum "would wish always to align itself with UNESCO's purposes in
the preservation and safeguarding of the world's endangered cultural heritage". (BM letter,
26.05.2015)
28
28
He wrote: "However, the surviving Parthenon Sculptures, carefully preserved in a number of
European museums, clearly do not fall into this category." "The trustees of the British
Museum hold them not only for the British people, but for the benefit of the world public."
(BM letter, 26.05.2015)
The best way forward, he said, was for the British Museum "to collaborate directly with other
museums and cultural institutions, not just in Greece but across the world". (BM letter,
26.05.2015)
He cited the recent loan of the statue of the God Ilissos25, one of the Parthenon Marbles, to the
Hermitage museum in St Petersburg, and loans of objects to museums in Greece. This loan
angered many people n Greece (BBC NEWS, 8 April 2015)
Culture minister Nikos Xydakis expressed his sadness at Britain's stance and rejected "the
continuing effort to downgrade an international issue to a dispute between museums." (BBC
NEWS, 8 April 2015)
Eddie O'Hara6, chairman of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon
Marbles, called the British reply a "sophisticated diversionary tactic" but said it would not
"divert the public's thirst to see the sculptures from the Parthenon reunited in the Acropolis
Museum". (BBC NEWS, 8 April 2015)
Unfortunately, the year 2016, apart from being the 200th sad anniversary of the violent
removal of the Parthenon Marbles by Lord Elgin, was the year that Greeks hailed Eddie
O’Hara, one of the most passionate supporters for the reunification of the Marbles, a great
philhellene, and a great visionary for the reunification of the Marbles.
The failure of the mediation and the subsequent conclusion that an international court would
not have reached a different conclusion after a legal claim submission, was conceived, by the
campaigners on the other side, as the Greek government’s acknowledgement that the British
Museum is the lawful owner of the ‘Elgin Marbles’ (The Telegraph, 14 May 2015)
“Another page has turned definitively in the story of the Parthenon Sculptures. The idea that
Lord Elgin or Parliament did something illegal has finally been dropped, and not before time.
25 The Trustees of BM lent one of the Parthenon Sculptures (Ilissos) to the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg (6 Dec 2014 – 18 January 2015)
29
29
Now the debate can proceed in a less antagonistic manner, and everyone can acknowledge
that it is a question of politics, not looted artefacts.” (The Telegraph, 14 May 2015)
II.2 POLITICAL DIPLOMACY
During his interview with “Vima” magazine on February 16th 2011, Boris Johnson26, Mayor of
the City of London at that time and an expert in ancient Greek literature, was asked his
opinion on the repatriation of the Parthenon Marbles. He said that the question of “the Elgin
Marbles” is a very difficult one. He added that there is no place for the metopes and the friezes
in their original position on the Parthenon, for obvious architectural reasons. So, he
continued, the question is whether it would be better for the “Elgin Marbles” to be housed in a
museum in Athens or a museum in London. He admitted that the Phidias’ marbles should be
collected together, the one next to the other. But “as London’s Mayor” he said, “I deserve to
declare my sovereign right that we have done a marvelous job and that we have preserved
them in the best way. To be honest with you, for us, for Britain, loosing the Elgin marbles from
Bloomsbury, the place, you know, where the British Museum is, is equivalent to a national
disaster. In the future, there may be a chance for repatriation, exchange or sharing of them…..I
absolutely understand the feelings of the Greek people. Once, as a student27, I invited Melina
Merkouri to come to my university to give a lecture on this topic. She gave a wonderful
speech, indeed and I think that we all agreed with her. It is a difficult question [.] It would be a
great loss.” (Boris Johnson’s interview at “Vima”, February 16, 2011)
When he was asked his opinion on the former argument of the British side, namely the poor
preservation of the Marbles, while in Greek hands, due to the lack of proper and safe place for
them, since this argument was ruined after the opening of the New Acropolis Museum, one of
the best in the world, he answered that this argument was only a justification and not a
satisfactory one. And he continued saying that, despite his love for Greece and even if he
would prefer people had the opportunity to admire the sculptures in their original position,
even in the case they could be placed on the monument to which they were belonging, even
26 Boris Johnson (born 1964), MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs since July 13th, 2016, Mayor of London from May 4th 2008 to May 9th 2016. 27 At Eaton College Boris Johnson was secretary of the School Debating society
30
30
then, he had to think, first, of his town, his job, his duty and especially London. Therefore he
suggested for a smart cooperation: The reunification of the Acropolis Sculpture without any
casualties to the British Museum, because, as he said “the British Museum was created around
the “Elgin Marbles”” and he concluded saying that his honest position is that he could never
think of the “Elgin Marbles” abandoning London. (Boris Johnson’s interview with “Vima”,
February 16, 2011)28
In my opinion, this statement reflects Boris Johnson’s absolute position, chauvinist and
arrogant position on the issue. One may assume that he is implying that the reunification of
the Marbles could be achieved by the placement of all of them into the British Museum as the
British Museum was created around the “Elgin Marbles”.
The new Acropolis Museum, a Museum designed to house the Parthenon masterpieces,
opened in 2009, thirty years after the first official political claim by Melina Merkouri in 1982.
This opened a second chance for political dialogue. Nevertheless, the absence of British
officials as guests at the opening day was notable. Hannah Bulton, the British Museum’s
spokeswoman told an Athens radio station that the museum would consider a loan request
from Greece for the sculptures, as it is customary among borrowing Institutions. This
statement made the then Minister of Culture (later Prime Minister) Mr. Antonis Samaras,
answers that a tactic like this would legitimize “Elgin’s deeds”. 27 From the British Museum’s
point of view, this statement was interpreted as the non-‐recognition of the British Museum’s
legal ownership of the sculptures. According to “The Guardian”29 the New Acropolis Museum,
designed by Bernard Tschumi and co-‐sponsored by the EU, was the Greece’s ultimate
propaganda tool that would do away with the argument that “Athens has nowhere good
enough to house the wonders of its golden age” on the eve of the opening of the Acropolis
Museum.
28 Author’s translation from original text/interview in Greek 27 Article from The Guardian, “Greek fury at Elgin Marbles ‘loan deal’, by Helena Smith, Sunday 14 June 2009
31
31
II.3. INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
In 2014, at the time that Greece was awaiting the outcome of the cultural diplomacy and
before UK had declined the offer of mediation from the UN’s cultural organization in March
2015, the Greek Government, in its attempt to reclaim the Marbles, asked for legal advice
from Amal Clooney, a human rights lawyer and her colleagues, Geoffrey Robertson and
Norman Palmer, specialists in cultural restitution. Initially, Greek authorities had approached
the law firm in 2011.
Robertson had described the British Museum’s refusal to return the carvings as “arrogant
cultural vandalism”. “International Law has developed to the stage where a unique, and I
stress unique, cultural artefact should be repaired”, he added. (The Guardian,14 October
2014)
“I hope that an amicable solution to this issue can be found, given the long-‐lasting friendship
between Greece and the UK”, said Amal Clooney (The Guardian, 14 October 2014)
Antonis Samaras’30 administration chose an opportune time to seek legal advice, since both
political and diplomatic efforts seemed to have been exhausted. A new context was needed to
determine Greek government’s next steps. It took almost a year for the advice to be drafted in
a 141-‐page document, following the country’s request. It was financed by a Greek ship-‐owner,
sympathetic to the cause. (The Guardian, 8 May 2016)
According to the legal advice, Greece could either bring the UK before the European Court of
Human Rights, or the UN cultural body UNESCO and could apply for an advisory judgment by
the International Court of Justice. Court action could prompt Britain to agree to arbitration or
mediation. The legal case was considered to be strongly arguable, both under international
customary law and EU Law. (The Guardian, 8 May 2016)
After the failure of the cultural negotiation, the next Greek Government, through a statement
(7 December 2015) from its Minister of Culture A. Baltas withdrew the option of pursuing
legal action and taking Britain to court from fear of loosing the case. “Courts do not by
definition regard any issue at the level of history or morality or humanity-‐at-‐large. They look
at the laws. As there are no hard and fast rules regarding the issue of returning treasures
taken away from various countries, there is no indisputable legal basis”, the Greek Minister of 30 The –then-‐ Greek Prime Minister
32
32
Culture revealed in an interview. Nevertheless as he added: “We consider that international
law has evolved to a position which recognizes, as part of the sovereignty of a state, its right
to reclaim its cultural property of great historical significance which has been wrongly taken
in the past – a rule that would entitle Greece to recover and reunite the Parthenon
sculptures”. (The Guardian, 8 May 2016)
A few days after this statement, on December 12th 2015, the UN General Assembly Plenary
adopted a resolution that would bolster Greece’s ongoing bid for the return of the Parthenon
Sculptures from the British Museum. The resolution, titled “Return or restitution of cultural
property to the countries of origin” called on member-‐states to mobilize for the return of
stolen cultural treasures and made express reference to the return of the Marble Sculptures
removed from the Acropolis by Elgin. The resolution, put forward by Greece, was endorsed by
74 member-‐states, including many European Union member states. (e-‐kathimerini-‐com,
11.12.2015)
Finally, the first-‐ever legal bid to force the UK to return the Marbles to Greece, was brought to
the European Court of Human Rights31 not by the Greek Government, but by the ‘Athenians’
Association’32. In its decision dated 23.06.2016 the bid has been rejected. The Court ruled that
because the alleged theft of the sculptures took place more than 150 years before the UK
signed up to the human rights convention, it did not have the power to consider the lawsuit.
Campaigners for the return of the sculptures pointed out that judges had refused to hear the
‘merits of the case’.(Independent, July 2016)
Characteristically, the Decision mentioned that, due to time-‐lapse of 150 years before the
establishment of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), the true events “would
appear” not to fall within the field of the Court’s temporal jurisdiction. The selfsame text also
mentions: “the refusal [of the United Kingdom] to engage in [UNESCO’s] mediation could
itself be viewed as an act which might arguably amount to an interference with Convention
rights, such as to bring the application within the Court’s temporal jurisdiction”.
Consequently, the ECHR indicates an indirect manner in which Greece would be able, in her
interstate recourse against the UK, to overcome the issue of the significant period of time,
31 Professor N. Zaikos: ‘The European Convention on Human Rights/The European Court of Human Rights’ 32 Cultural group founded in 1895 for the development of Athens city
33
33
which had elapsed since the occurrence that led the Sculptures to Great Britain, enriching a
relevant appeal with additional case-‐law that overcomes the question of temporal
jurisdiction. (Athenians’ Association web page, July 2016)
On the substance, the European court declared that it “has been prepared, in certain
circumstances, to give some degree of recognition to ethnic identity as an aspect of Article 8
rights”, despite the fact that, implicitly, it didn’t consider sufficient the case-‐law specifically
invoked by the Association, leaving open the possibility of expanding, in the future, the
“degree” of recognition of a right to protect cultural heritage, not only on the basis of Article
833, but possibly on the combination of the bases of other articles of the European
Convention of Human Rights and Additional Protocol 134, if these are placed in the context of
an interstate recourse (Greece against the United Kingdom) (Athenians’ Association web
page, July 2016).
“The first step has been taken” stated the ‘Athenians’ Association’ legal representative, Mr.
Vassileios Sotiropoulos, stressing that this Decision leaves open the possibility of a recourse
submitted by Greece being proclaimed admissible and, in any case, without creating a
negative precedent. (Athenians’ Association web page, July 2016)
Andrew George, of the British Association for the Reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures,
said that the ruling did not affect the arguments in favour of sending the sculptures back.
(Independent, July 2016)
On 10 July 2016, a few days after the ECHR decision was released, a cross-‐party group of
British MPs launched a Bill to return the sculptures to Athens, “Where the Acropolis Museum
was built specifically to house them within sight of the Parthenon”. The Bill was launched on
the 200th anniversary of the British Government’s decision to buy them (Independent, July
2016)
33 ‘Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.’ 34 ‘Enforcement of certain Rights and freedoms not included in section I of the Convention’, Paris 20 March 1952
34
34
CHAPTER III
EXPLORING THE POINTS OF THIS DISSERTATION
III.1Resolution of cultural differences between countries and its complexities
Many narratives have been developed and many arguments have been used over the years to
affirm the legitimacy of each side’s claims. The fact is that repatriation of cultural objects is
basically a matter of resolution of cultural differences between countries and, as such, it hides
all the complexities that the negotiations may have. Public policies on repatriation issues of
cultural property nowadays are related to the legal system prevailing at the time of the
objects’ removal, namely the absence of International law. The legitimating analogous at
present times is difficult, if not impossible, to be found, in order to negotiate in terms of the
past. One must consider the explorative, the admiration, the conqueror, the idealistic or the
economic motivation for the appropriation into a long historical process. Therefore, bravery,
together with consensus is needed in order to come up to a resolution of differences between
countries after so many years of unfair appropriation. This presupposes the existence of
sincere and unprejudiced feelings from both sides and the willingness to find or to invent a
diplomatic form of cultural approach during the modern era and within the modern political
context and concept. During the globalization period there must be a glance to the
generations to come. The cultural heritage of the future, must adapt to a new reality.
Arguments based on rights of ownership or on the existing or past international legal systems
or whether acquisitions took place under conditions incomparable with the current ones have
no room in the conversation between two interested parties because the interested parties
are not just two. In fact, the interested parties include the monument itself and humanity in a
broad sense. There are no cultural differences. There must be only one common value. It is
easy for a museum to declare itself Universal35 in the name of the variety of cultural objects
that it is housing. But universalism is not synonymous with exhibiting objects of several
civilizations from all over the world, disregarding the unhealed wounds of the monuments left
behind or the destruction of the totality from which parts or slabs were removed.
Universalism means being concerned with the treasures’ original position, the conditions
35 In December 2002, a “Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums” was signed by eighteen leading museums of Europe and North America.
35
35
under which they were built, the climate and the light, under which, initially, were designed to
be exposed.
“Even if you were to put all the collections of the eighteen [museums] together, they would
still only offer a small and unrepresentative sample. And, as for the suggestion that the
eighteen museums are the best context, it is hardly likely to appeal either to the mobile
viewers who live in the developed west, or to the citizens of those and other countries that
cannot afford to travel to them.”36
One must understand the ideals that each monument represents and focus on the monument
per se, its global significance, its message to the world, its universal value. Under this
perspective, a true and friendly dialogue can be developed on he basis of sharing common
mission and vision and not the fear that many museums might be empty or subject to harmful
impoverishment of their collections.
III.2 Repatriation of cultural heritage as a form of restoration
Repatriation of cultural heritage, when it happens under sincere feelings of respect can be
seen as a form of restoration and as an act of serving the global civilization. Whatever
happened in the past, whatever the conditions of acquisition, repatriation of cultural heritage
is showing generosity and dignity from the part of the donor when it is accompanied by the
principles of reciprocity and does not serve any purpose of flattering or expectations’ building
or bribing.37
In September 2008, the -‐then -‐ Italian President, Giorgio Napolitano, returned fragments of
the Parthenon marbles acquired by a museum in Palermo, Sicily in the 19th century, to Greece.
For the Greek people, this repatriation was seen as a gesture of goodwill between the two
Mediterranean countries. The piece has been returned to Athens on permanent loan and this
gesture was especially appreciated for its important symbolism. In November 2008 the
Vatican returned another small fragment on a one-‐year loan. Two years ago, in 2006,another
tiny fragment of the priceless temple of the Parthenon was returned by the University of
Heidelberg Germany. These gestures symbolize a genuine concept of understanding the past, 36 Imperialism Art & Restitution. The Parthenon and the Elgin Marbles. William St Clair, St Louis. Draft of 23/3/04, p.15 37 The British contemplated returning the marbles in 1941 during World War II. The British Foreign Office proposed returning the marbles as a bribe to flatter the Greeks into resisting fascist and Nazi armies and influences, though the proposal was never followed through. Hamilakis, Nation, 256.
36
36
and the idea of understanding the significance of the totality of the monument, the fragments
of which have been used in several ways by those who removed them and had given them a
different meaning, adaptable across time, changing from ideological to socio-‐political.
III.3 Integrity and preservation of cultural heritage
At the opening of the New Acropolis museum in June 2009, Bernard Tschumi, the architect of
the Museum had said: “It’s meant for the motion to be seen when you walk around…see the
history in front of your eyes. This can only be possible here, could not be possible anywhere
[else].”38 These words epitomize the meaning of integrity as part of the main inspiration of
the designer of the major building erected at the foot of the ‘Hoy Rock’ of Acropolis.
Reassembling the pieces of a monument of an ancient civilization, dispersed in several places,
seems natural and more than obvious as a demand of Greek people for the reunification of the
Parthenon Marbles and for the serving of the universal cultural heritage as well. And it seems
much more obvious that these pieces should be gathered in the place where they were
originally designed, under the sunlight where they stood. Mainly they should be reunified in
order to tell their common story and to be admired by the public in their natural space. When
pieces of antiquities are de-‐contextualized then they lose their integrity and this leads to a
‘double damage’: that of the continuity of the monument and that of the gap of the historical
knowledge. As Geoffrey Robertson39 said “it is a great project, not for Greece but for the world
to reunite the marbles so we can see them clear where Phidias first carved them, to juxtapose
the beginning of human civilization with the threat to it posed today by Isis” (The Guardian,
14 October 2014)
Integrity and preservation are the two main conditions for the protection of cultural treasures
so as to maintain their symbolic significance and their historic value and to be left as assets to
the next generations. The question of who possesses them and who preserved them better in
the past should not be the permanent argument for the so-‐called ‘saviors’. Socio-‐political
conditions change radically as time passes and those who were unable to curry on in the past
may become trustworthy some day and then, they should claim the return of their cultural
belongings. The change in the ‘status quo’, as it happens with all big changes, must be
38 Τα ξένα ΜΜΕ για τα Μάρμαρα (Α΄) , 21 June 2009, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaY0q9_XVao 39 Geoffrey Robertson, human rights barrister, born 30 September 1946
37
37
considered as natural and it requires drastic alterations of policies and reconsideration of
previous stances. Let’s not forget the needs that led to the creation of International
Organizations, their role, the decolonization and its consequences in the 19th and the 20th
century and as a result, the creation of sovereign states. Accordingly, the Greek paradigm on
the request of the repatriation of its cultural objects has been or will be followed in the future,
by other states, as most of them have gradually acquired their national identity after centuries
of occupation or colonization. Recently, in July 27th 2016, the Government of Benin decided to
demand from France the restitution of treasures looted during the time of colonization from
the sub-‐Saharan colonies of Africa and therefore, they started negotiations with French
authorities and UNESCO.40.
III.4 National heritage as a national Identity
National heritage has strong links with national identity and even in the era of Globalization,
citizens of the world still carry their national identity to their new home countries and
continue to be bounded by common values, common language, common traditions, common
culture and practices. National identity plays a very important role in the sense of national
heritage because it is something of great value and very precious. It helps people understand
themselves and their position in the world community as part of the broader community and
it secures their identity. People need exposure to their history much of which is represented
by their cultural objects. National identity whether we like it or not are the roots of the
individual because it connects him with his past and his origins and defines him culturally and
morally. People having no national identity are desperately seeking to find it because they
need to belong to a community sharing the same values. National heritage is one of the
common sharing values that determine national identity. Between nations, cultural and
political agreements and relations have been developed progressively, on the basis of their
national heritage. The narrative of each nation is imprinted on its language, its cultural
heritage, its monuments and its traditions. Even alliances between nations have been based
on common intellectual and moral values. Each nation is proud of its contribution to the
progress of mankind and people deprived of their historical signals are culturally
impoverished.
40 Le Monde Afrique, electronic edition 02.08.2016
38
38
III.5 Cultural heritage and its global significance
Greece’s position has always been that the Parthenon is a symbol of civilization and
democracy. As a symbol it carries all traces of human existence with its cultural, historical and
archaeological significance. This monument has been admired not only in ancient times but
also in the modern era. Apart from this, it is characterized by its symbolic importance for
humanity. It was originally erected to celebrate the victory of the Athenians against the
Barbarians. Soon it became a symbol of the unification of the free citizens of Athens and
gradually it acquired its cultural importance among all Greeks and it became a pan-‐Hellenic
symbol. Its symbolism has been preserved and has adapted to new conditions as time passes
and according to the meaning each ruler gave to it and finally it came to become a symbol
around the world, a symbol of culture, tradition, heritage, democracy, and a milestone in
Western civilization. Its global significance is recognized by scientists, scholars, connoisseurs,
travelers, and by the world community as a hymn to the free spirit, to classicism, to
construction techniques, to fine art. Its impact to architecture and style was and still remains
dominant. The allocation of cultural property is guiding principle and basic merit of
internationalism therefore it must be distinguished by morality and justice.
For the reasons exposed above, ICOMOS the International Council on Monuments and Sites,
recognizing the significance of the Parthenon for humanity and the importance of the return
of the Marbles to Greece, at its 18th General Assembly in Florence, Italy, passed Resolution
18GA 2014/40 in order “To support the mediation process proposed by Greece for the
Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles on the basis of UNESCO’s 2010 mediation and to
encourage both parties (Greece and United Kingdom) to open a fruitful dialogue aiming at a
mutually acceptable solution.” (Marbles reunited, 2014). According to the proposed action by
the Greek ministry of Culture “Mediation is a new procedure, which is not binding and will
encourage collaboration and discussion between the two sides to find a win-‐win solution.”
(Marbles reunited, 2014)
III.6 Cultural heritage as a human right
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was proclaimed by the United Nations’ General
Assembly in Paris, on 10 December 1948 (Resolution 217A), “as a common standard of
achievements for all peoples and all nations” and it set out, for the first time, fundamental
human rights to be universally protected. Considering the atrocities that World War II had
caused, its preamble stated: “Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have
39
39
resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind”, thus expressing
the wish that these atrocities should not to be repeated in the future.
According to article 26, education shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship
among all nations. According to article 27: “Everyone has the right freely to participate in the
cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its
benefits.” (Professor N. ZAIKOS: ‘The concept of human rights and the main sources of
International Human Rights Law’)
Moreover, according to article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
cultural Rights, published on December 16th 1966 and entered into force on January 3rd
1976: “1. The State Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone: (a) to
take part in cultural life; (b) to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications; (c)
to benefit from the protection of the moral and the material interests resulting from any
scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. 2. The steps to be taken by
the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall
include those necessary for the conservation, the development and the diffusion of science
and culture. 3. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to respect the freedom
indispensable for scientific research and creative activity. 4. The States Parties to the present
Covenant recognizes the benefits to be derived from the encouragement and development of
international contacts and cooperation in the scientific and cultural fields.” (Covenant, 1966)
Enjoying cultural heritage is an undeniable human right. Its importance has been recognized
as an international asset, as a precious value to humanity and as a way to better understand
our selves in the global community. Cultural heritage is one of the most basic and elemental
human right because can be enjoyed by everyone, whether rich or poor, young or old,
educated or not. It is offered to all citizens of the world, habitants or travelers, walkers in
public spaces or gallery or museum visitors. If you have it, then you feel safe and secure. If you
lose it, then you feel disoriented. And as it happens with all precious things, it is very fragile,
it can be destroyed in a moment and then, the consequences are tremendous. The right to
share the cultural heritage is as important as the right to freedom is. And the right to
recognize your cultural heritage as a part of your identity is as important as the right to both
freedom and dignity.
40
40
III.7 Collective ownership of cultural heritage
After having been removed in the 19th century, a certain significance was given to the
Parthenon Marbles. They became a universal symbol in the ideology of collective ownership.
The marbles became one of the characteristic exhibits of a so-‐called universal museum, a
milestone of the Western civilization and collective memory. The idea of the universal
museums is that they represent the concept of collective ownership and that, by possessing
magnificent examples of the global civilization, they are the ambassadors of the universal
cultural heritage. According to their representatives’ arguments the visitor can be taught in a
simple way and can experience of the progress of civilizations which had flourished
worldwide over millennia without being obliged to travel to distant locations in order to
explore these artifacts in-‐situ. This argument, together with the other that the gemstones of
several great civilizations are better preserved in the ‘universal museums’ are the two poles
on which a whole theory has been developed and cultivated by these museums. Yet, these are,
in some way, trading and flat arguments that aim at commercializing art and civilization.
Moreover with these arguments, based on the idea of a broad accessibility of masterpieces of
all kind and from all ages of civilization, the supporters of this theory are facing the public as a
fair visitor. They are disregarding the importance of the belonging context of the fragmented
artworks housed in these museums. Collective ownership does not mean that masterpieces
acquired during the times and under certain conditions must be gathered to some specific
points on Earth, so as to be admired by the most possible visitors. The only purpose that this
movement is serving is the right of the powerful against the weak, the wealthy against the
poor, the egoistic and ambitious against the unselfish. Behind the purpose mentioned above,
another main aim served, is the avoidance of the precedent that the return of a cultural object
would create. It would highlight the beginning of a disastrous emptying of these museums of
their treasures. For these reasons the argument of possessing other civilizations’ cultural
heritage under the pretext of better preservation and safekeeping the abstract idea of
collective ownership, is unfair, offensive and rather suspicious because the hidden purposes
are economic and political.
III.8 Cultural colonization and cultural heritage
Aggressive art imperialism became institutionalized under the Romans, beginning with the
looting of cultural property by Roman forces in the sack of Veii, ‘the richest and most powerful
city of the Etruscan nation,’ in 396 B.C. …The art was desired for itself but also for its role in
41
41
political triumphalism: the practice of prominently displaying loot on the return to Rome in
order to stimulate public admiration for the generals and their legions and public approval and
support for the imperial enterprise. Many of these triumphal objects were displayed in the
Roman Forum, which became the world’s first great outdoor art museum. 41
If Elgin had not removed the Marbles, someone else (probably the French, but some Germans
were also interested) would certainly have tried to do so.42 (Cultural Assets, 6 April 2016)
These statements mirror the colonial empires’ period ‘status quo’.
As it happened with all great monuments, the original purpose of the construction of the
Parthenon was the ambition to symbolize the Athenian power among the Greeks and over the
barbarians. As a temple it was an architectural hymn for the victory of the Athenian empire of
that time. As time passed and as eras succeeded one another in the lives of people and of
civilizations the monument became victim in the colonial battlefield. In 17th century, during
the Venetian occupation of parts of Greece, General Morosini attempted to remove sculptures
from the conquered land to display them on his return as trophies, which had nothing to do
with his admiration of the Hellenic heritage.43 Before that, repeatedly, ancient Romans had
taken ancient Greek art to Rome. The Parthenon marbles were acquired by the British Empire
from the Ottoman Empire and since the beginning of the 19th century they are representative
examples of the British colonial Empire, housed in the British Museum, among other
exceptional antiquities of other civilizations all of which are symbolizing its imperialistic and
colonial tactic. From this perspective, ironically the Parthenon Marbles became victims of
their original purpose, being possessed by another Empire and displayed as loot from a time
of its supremacy, while initially they were demonstrating the glory of their home empire.
Although Greece was never a part of the British Empire, some of its most important cultural
assets are possessed by the British who, according to a paradox interpretation, see
themselves as the cultural ancestors of the Periclean Athenians at the height of culture, art,
and politics.
41 John Henry Merryman, “Introduction,” in John Henry Merryman, ed., Imperialism, Art and Restitution, 4-‐5 (2006)
42 Merryman, Thinking about the Elgin Marbles, August 1985, p.1905, 43 St Clair/ Elgin /St Louis. Draft of 23/3/04 p.5
42
42
This is a form of modern cultural colonization, in other words a soft power form of
colonization and represents the English present day colonialism efforts.44 Controlling Greek
national heritage is ignoring Greek people, depriving them from their national identity and
denying them their right to control their national heritage. This is an offensive attitude of
superiority against another nation, a provocative ignorance of fundamental human and
sovereign rights. And what is ironic at this time is that the specific looted antiquity is
universally recognized as the symbol of Democracy.
In the struggle for imperial power, the British have used the Marbles as a bribe in the 1950s
during the anti-‐colonial struggle in Cyprus, which was protesting against British colonial rule.
If the Greek government had withdrew their support from the resistance, then just maybe the
Elgin Marbles would have been returned.45
III.9 Cultural trafficking and marketing
Cultural trafficking and marketing is strongly connected with globalization and consumption.
Although cultural heritage can be described as priceless, it continues to be commercialized.
Possessing cultural objects is a status symbol of power and wealth in Western societies.
Prices in the art market are formed by special rules developed in the art market’s system in a
way that depends on the system itself. There are no standards and the values are changing all
the time, depending more on the international tendency of the time rather than the
symbolism of the cultural objects. They depend also on the current circumstances. It is not
strange that nowadays, in the art stock market, there is a great demand of masterpieces of
Islamic art.
After the 19th century, the collectors’ mania took the dimensions of frenzy. This led to
tremendous and disastrous consequences to the antiquities, as their illicit trade culminated,
and the relative interesting spread further, even to the -‐out of any control-‐ underwater
antiquities.
Cultural trafficking and marketing is the worst enemy of cultural heritage as, under the
commercial perspective, the integrity argument is downgraded and fragments of monumental
art are viewed as art objects subject to ownership instead of being servers of knowledge and
44 Zeman, p.93 45 Hamilakis, Nation, 256
43
43
documentation as parts of a broader context. Trafficking and marketing are creating a new
narrative and a different symbolism from the historical one. Cultural heritage should
stimulate learning and demonstrate morality and must not be viewed as precious owned
objects, detached from their identity and their symbolism. Behind the commercialization lies
the intangible dimension of the cultural heritage, which needs special protection, different
than the care provided to displayed museum objects, based on its significance to the global
community and on its contribution to national or international merits.
44
44
CONCLUSION
The debate over the Parthenon Marbles is an on-‐going one. There are strong arguments on
both sides and great interest in the subject.
The debate has developed through several forms of negotiation based not only on its merits
but also on International Law. At the same time this development is related to other changing
factors such as the precondition of housing the Marbles in the safe and modern Acropolis
Museum, one of the top Museums of the World. The Museum was completed only a few years
ago. It was only in 2009 that one of the strongest British arguments, that of safe housing and
environmental preservation, collapsed.
However, the most significant argument in this case, what is grounded in institutionalization,
was established after the 70’s, following the principles that UNESCO adopted through the
Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and the
Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer
of Ownership of Cultural Property. Other forms of diplomacy such as cultural diplomacy
through mediation was for first time adopted for this specific case. Despite having not been
fruitful yet, one cannot disregard the fact that the negotiation has empowered new arguments
and has acquired a new dynamic. All the publicity lights are still on and the global interesting
is still there.
It seems that the result of this specific debate for a unique case might determine the future of
respective claims worldwide.
A potential positive outcome will bring relief to those who have fought for the repatriation of
cultural objects to their countries of origin for ethical and just reasons, however it will cause
sorrow, bitterness or even anger to those who argue that the Parthenon Marbles, as part of
the world’s shared heritage must stay to the British Museum’s world collection.
45
45
Images:
The second translated firman, 1st page. The British Museum, Image Gallery. Available
from:http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/colle
ction_image_gallery.aspx?partid=1&assetid=259656001&objectid=3008350 [Accessed 24
September 2016]
46
46
Informational material from the British Museum (photo by D. Laskaridou, Nov.2016)
47
47
Informational material from the British Museum (photo by D. Laskaridou, Nov.2016)
48
48
Informational material from the British Museum (photo by D. Laskaridou, Nov.2016)
49
49
Informational material from the British Museum (photo by D. Laskaridou, Nov.2016)
50
50
Informational material from the British Museum (photo by D. Laskaridou, Nov.2016)
51
51
‘The Parthenon Gallery’, British Museum (photo by D. Laskaridou, Nov.2016)
52
52
‘The Parthenon Gallery’, British Museum (photo by D. Laskaridou, Nov.2016)
53
53
References:
Lord Elgin -‐ Saviour or Vandal? By Mary Beard Last updated 2011-‐02-‐17
Available from:http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/parthenon_debate_01.shtml
[Accessed 21 September 2016]
Kevin P. Ray The Restitution, Repatriation, and Return of Cultural Objects: The Parthenon
Debate (Part II), published on 7th April, 2016 on CULTURAL ASSETS . Available from:
http://www.gtlaw-‐culturalassets.com/2016/04/the-‐parthenon-‐debate-‐part-‐ii/ [Accessed
25th September 2016]
Article from The Guardian, 31 May 2016 ‘Eddie O’Hara obituary’, by Julia Langdom
Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/31/eddie-‐ohara-‐obituary
[Accessed 21th September 2016]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSPBuhwNXh , Paraskinio, Melina Merkouri about the
Parthenon Marbles, Uploaded on Mar 20, 2009 [Accessed 24th September 2016]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Ca21dCmhI Melina Merkouri about the Parthenon
Marbles, Uploaded on May 13, 2008 [Accessed 24th September 2016]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdD04uemWmE, STEPHEN FRY on Parthenon Marbles
Debate -‐ 11.6.2012 -‐ Published on Oct 16, 2014, [Accessed 21th September 2016]
Michael J. Repas: On the opening of the New Acropolis Museum, Newsletter No 8 (August
2009) Available from http://www.helleniccomserve.com/pdf/PSNL8_MR%5B1%5D.pdf
[Accessed 24th September 2016]
Professor N. Zaikos: ‘The concept of human rights and the main sources of International
Human Rights Law’, Notes, MIPA Fall semester 2015 -‐2016
54
54
Professor N. Zaikos: ‘The European Convention on Human Rights/The European Court of
Human Rights’, Notes, MIPA Fall semester 2015 -‐2016
Professor K.Ghainoglou: UNESCO AND CULTURE /pdf file/[Accessed 24th September 2016]
UNESCO, Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage
1972. Available from : http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/ /[Accessed 24th
September 2016]
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/404 [Accessed 25th September 2016]
Elgin Marbles: UK declines mediation over Parthenon Sculptures. Article at BBC NEWS, 8
April 2015. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-‐32204548 [Accessed 4rth October
2016]
In.gr.Newsroom DOL: International scientific convention for the Parthenon sculptures at the
Acropolis Museum. Available from: http: //news.in.gr/culture/article/?aid=1500103439,
uploaded on 23th September 2016 [Accessed 25th September 2016]
In.gr.Newsroom DOL: International scientific convention for the Parthenon sculptures at the
Acropolis Museum. Available from: http://news.in.gr/culture/article/?aid=1500103537,
uploaded on 23th September 2016 [Accessed 25th September 2016]
Kevin P. Ray The Restitution, Repatriation, and Return of Cultural Objects: The Parthenon
Debate (Part I), published on 6th April, 2016 on CULTURAL ASSETS Available from:
http://www.gtlaw-‐culturalassets.com/2016/04/the-‐parthenon-‐debate-‐part-‐i [Accessed 25th
September 2016]
Article from the Greek Reporter, by Andy Dabilis, February 21, 2013 . Available from: http://greece.greekreporter.com/2013/02/21/cameron-‐britain-‐will-‐keep-‐parthenon-‐marbles/ [Accessed 4rth October 2016]
55
55
Codification of basic archaeological legislation/Ministry of Culture/ Available from:
http://www.yppo.gr/5/51/chor/pros/erga/gen/kn5351.jsp#Arthro52 [Accessed 25th
September 2016]
The Constitution of Greece. Re-‐Published by the Greek Parliament in June 2010.
Available from: http://www.hellenicparliament.gr/UserFiles/8c3e9046-‐78fb-‐48f4-‐bd82-‐
bbba28ca1ef5/SYNTAGMA.pdf [Accessed 25th September 2016]
http://www.tap.gr/tapadb/files/nomothesia/nomoi/n.3028_2002.pdf [Accessed 25th
September 2016]
Zeman Alexandra: ‘A Game Changer? The Complexities of Cultural Heritage in the Debate over
the Elgin Marbles’ (2012) Available from:
http://digitalwindow.vassar.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=senior_capston
e [Accessed 28th September 2016]
Thinking about the Elgin Marbles by John Henry Merryman
Published by The Michigan Law Review Association, Vol. 83, No. 8 (Aug., 1985), pp. 1880-‐
1923 Available from: http://blogs.bu.edu/aberlin/files/2011/09/Merryman-‐1985.pdf
[Accessed 28th September 2016]
Article from the New Yorker, THE ANCIENT WORLD “Deep Freeze, What does the Parthenon
mean?”, by Daniel Mendelsohn April 14, 2014 . Available from:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/04/14/deep-‐frieze [Accessed 28th September
2016]
Armed conflict and heritage. Available from:
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/armed-‐conflict-‐and-‐heritage/the-‐hague-‐
convention/ [Accessed 3rd October 2016]
UNESCO World Heritage List: Acropolis, Athens. Available
from:http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/404 [Accessed 4rth October 2016]
Article from The Guardian, “Greek fury at Elgin Marbles ‘loan deal’, by Helena Smith, Sunday
14 June 2009. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jun/14/elgin-‐
marble-‐row-‐acropolis-‐museum-‐athens [Accessed 11th October 2016]
56
56
Informational material provided at the BM:
http://www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/news_and_press/statements/parthenon_sculpture
s.aspx [Accessed 4rth October 2016]
http://law.wustl.edu/harris/Conferences/.../StClair_elgin_final_PAPER%20.pdfSt Clair Elgin
St Louis. Draft of 23/3/04. Imperialism, Art & Restitution. The Parthenon and the Elgin
Marbles. William St Clair. [Accessed 1st November 2016]
Article from Le Monde/ Afrique August 2nd 2016. Available from:
http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2016/08/01/tresors-‐pilles-‐la-‐france-‐doit-‐repondre-‐
positivement-‐a-‐la-‐demande-‐du-‐benin_4977095_3212.html?xtmc=benin_patrimoine&xtcr=1
[Accessed 17th November 2016]
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Available from:
http://www.un.org/en/universal-‐declaration-‐human-‐rights/[Accessed 22th November
2016]
https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/BM_letter_to_UNESCO_Greek_translation_26_March_20
15.pdf [Accessed 22th November 2016]
http://www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/news_and_press/press_releases/2015/unesco_me
diation_proposal.aspx [Accessed 22th November 2016]
Article from BCRPM (British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles)
published on Saturay,28 March 2015. Available from: http://www.parthenonuk.com/bcrpm-‐
latest-‐news/323-‐uk-‐declines-‐invitation-‐by-‐unesco-‐for-‐mediation-‐process-‐to-‐reunite-‐the-‐
sculptures-‐from-‐the-‐parthenon [Accessed 22th November 2016]
The British Association for the Reunification of the Parthenon Sculpture/ newsletter of
November 18, 2014. Available from: http://www.marblesreunited.org.uk/2014/11/icomos-‐
passes-‐resolution-‐to-‐support-‐unesco-‐mediation-‐for-‐parthenon-‐marbles/ [Accessed 22th
January 2017]
ICOMOS pdf document of its 18th General Assembly in Florence, Italy 9-‐14.11.2014. Available
from:https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Secretariat/2015/GA_2014_results/GA
_2014_Resolutions_EN_20150109_finalcirc.pdf [Accessed 22th January 2017]
57
57
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Available from:
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-‐
3&chapter=4&clang=_en [Accessed 22th January 2017]
http://www.iemc-‐unesco.org/unesco-‐letter-‐to-‐british-‐government-‐for-‐the-‐return-‐of-‐
parthenons-‐marbles/ [Accessed 22th January 2017]
Boris Johnson’s interview at “Vima”, February 16, 2011. Available from:
http://www.protagon.gr/themata/o-‐tzonson-‐i-‐melina-‐kai-‐ta-‐glypta-‐tou-‐parthenwna-‐
44341186463 [Accessed 1st November 2016]
UNESCO, Restitution of Cultural Property. Available from:
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/restitution-‐of-‐cultural-‐
property/mediation-‐and-‐conciliation/ [Accessed 30th January 2017]
Article from The Telegraph, 14 May 2015 by Dominic Selwood: ‘Greece knows there is no
legal right to the Elgin Marbles that’s why it won’t sue the UK.’ Available from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/11604991/Greece-‐knows-‐
there-‐is-‐no-‐legal-‐right-‐to-‐the-‐Elgin-‐Marbles-‐thats-‐why-‐it-‐wont-‐sue-‐the-‐UK.html [Accessed
31st January 2017]
Helena Smith : Amal Clooney advises Greece on return of parthenon marbles to Athens
(article on The Guardian, 14 October 2014) Available from:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/oct/14/amal-‐alamuddin-‐advises-‐on-‐
return-‐of-‐elgin-‐marbles [Accessed 31st January 2017]
Helena Smith : Greece looks to international justice to regain Parthenon marbles from UK
(article on The Guardian, 8 May 2016) Available from:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/may/08/greece-‐international-‐justice-‐
regain-‐parthenon-‐marbles-‐uk [Accessed 31st January 2017]
Ekathimerini-‐com (News, 11.12.2015) Available from:
http://www.ekathimerini.com/204270/article/ekathimerini/news/un-‐signs-‐resolution-‐
bolstering-‐bid-‐for-‐return-‐of-‐parthenon-‐marbles [Accessed 3rd February 2017]
58
58
‘Athenians’ Association’ web page. Announcement, (July 2016) Available from:
http://www.syllogostonathinaion.gr/anakoinoseis-‐deltia-‐typou/the-‐european-‐court-‐of-‐
human-‐rights-‐on-‐the-‐recourse-‐of-‐the-‐athenians-‐association-‐regarding-‐the-‐parthenon-‐
sculptures/ [Accessed 3rd February 2017]
History of the Peloponnesian War (by Thucydides, translated by Richard Crawley (2011)
Available from:https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/History_of_the_Peloponnesian_War/Book_2
[Accessed 20th September 2016]
Hamilakis, Yannis: The Nation and its Ruins: antiquity, archaeology, and national imagination
in Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.