British Museum: We’ve Proven It- the Marbles are Legally Ours- forever!

INTERNATIONALREPATRIATE PARTHENON MARBLES

Jan 10

Perhaps you’ve heard of the continuing dispute between the people of Greek ancestry and the United Kingdom’s leadership, which includes the British Crown (“BC”), British Parliament (“BP”), and its agent, the allegedly non-governmental but petulant British Museum (“BM”) (collectively, “Britannia”). The term “Britannia” in this context does not include the good people of the United Kingdom.

It is not a recent dispute. It is a wound that has festered in the Greek soul for over 200 years. Despite the tongue-in-cheek title above, Britannia will soon have no option but to return the priceless ancient Grecian sculptures it has held hostage since the beginning of the 19th century. This is because the majority of Britons will not support a government that openly mocks its laws and treaties to keep treasures that it unlawfully confiscated from the people who created them — a nasty habit borne of Britain’s past imperialist and colonial addictions. Ordinary Britons are far more honorable and fair-minded than their monarchs or the politicians they elect.

Britannia asserts that the acquisition of the artifacts known as the ‘Parthenon Marbles’ was not only legal but ‘entirely legal,’ despite the evidence and documentation that contradict its conflicting position, according to both British and International Law.

The Basics

In the art and antiquities world, there are two essential words in this dispute. (the definition in bold is applicable):[1]

prov・e・nance | ‘prävǝn(ǝ)ns | noun

1. the place of origin or earliest known history of something. 2. the beginning of something’s existence; its origin. 3. a record of ownership of a work of art or antique used as a guide to authenticity or quality.

con・sid・er・a・tion | kənˌsidərˈāSHən | noun

1. careful thought, typically over a period of time; a fact or a motive is taken into account in deciding or judging something, thoughtfulness and sensitivity toward others. 2. a payment or reward: Law (in a contractual agreement) is anything given or promised or forborne by one party in exchange for the promise or undertaking of another. 3. archaic importance; consequence.

While the British Parliament claims it is a settled issue, there is no evidence to show that it has any legal claim to ownership of the Parthenon Marbles.

*Fig. 1. Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin.*

Before this article delves into the history of the dispute, the reader must understand why, two centuries after their initial refusal to participate in Lord Elgin’s fraudulent looting of the Parthenon, Britannia would reverse this proper decision and endure today’s increasingly global efforts to convince it to ‘do the right thing’ and return the Parthenon Marbles to Greece.

Firstly, Britannia acknowledges that what it now calls the “Elgin Marbles” were the ancient sculptures that, for 2,000 years, adorned the façade of the Parthenon and other Acropolis temples before Lord Elgin thought they would look better in his Scottish ancestral country home. The British Museum boasts that the ‘Elgin’ Marbles are witnessed by 5 million visitors each year—who can attest that the Marbles continue to reside in the BM today, instead of the Acropolis Museum, where they belong. According to Irini A. Stamatoudi, LLM:[2] “Britain promised to return the Marbles as soon as Greece gained independence from the Ottomans. But this promise was not kept. During the 1940’s, Britain promised again to return the Marbles as compensation to its wartime allies [meaning Greece] for the losses they had incurred during the war. Nevertheless, the marbles were still not returned because the time was found [by the British] inappropriate for such a decision. This attitude was exemplified by Attlee, the Lord Privy Seal, who told the House of Commons in 1941 that, as regards the introduction of a piece of legislation allowing the return of the Marbles to Greece, the moment was “inopportune.”

If you are wondering why Britannia would willingly endure the scorn of much of the free world, including that of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), who collectively claim the acquisition of the Marbles amounted to outright theft, what follows will provide Britannia’s motive and intent.

Fig. 2. Map of British Museum: The British Museum Footprint

It is understandable why Britannia has refused Greece’s requests and demands for the return of its treasured Parthenon Marbles. One need only review the map of the British Museum that appears on its website (See Fig 2).[3] All of the exhibit rooms at the British Museum appear in black. Of the group of rooms on the lower left of the map of the ground floor ‘Level 0’ [enclosed in the red box], most relate to Greek antiquities (except for rooms 6,7,8,9 and 10).

Even a child can see that most exhibition rooms on the main floor are dedicated to Greek treasures. Many of the rooms on the upper floors are also linked to Greek history, as the Greeks were the major civilizing force in the world before the appearance of Christianity. Without the Greek exhibits, the museum would not have many compelling and essential relics, requiring travel to London to see them. Note: the large room marked as #4 on the map is listed as the Rosetta Stone (which the museum considers an Egyptian relic.).

Fig. 3. The Rosetta Stone.

However, the Rosetta Stone (See Fig. 3) is part of an official message about the Pharoah Ptolemy V (204-181 BC). Ptolemy V’s great-great-grandfather, Ptolemy I, was a Macedonian Greek general of Alexander the Great who agreed only to take Egypt when Alexander’s generals negotiated the distribution of his empire. All royals who ruled ancient Egypt during the last and longest Ptolemaic Dynasty (275 years from 332-30 BC) were Greek. This includes Queen Cleopatra (51-30 BC), who famously consorted with Julius Caesar and his general Mark Antony just before Egypt became a province of the Roman Empire. The translation of Egyptian to Greek was the reason for creating the Rosetta Stone in the first place. Thus, many Egyptian relics are relics of Greek dynastic Pharaohs.

The Rosetta Stone relates three languages: Egyptian hieroglyphs, Demotic (Egyptian cursive script), and Greek. In his campaigns, Alexander the Great (Egypt’s Pharaoh who preceded Ptolemy I) sought to have the world speak Greek as it was the preferred language of educated people during that period. Once all of the Parthenon Marbles are returned to Greece, the British Museum might more accurately resemble a small island community museum rather than a former colonial empire.

Once faced with the evidence and ground swell of pressure to be felt by the United States Congress from U.S. citizens who support the return of the Parthenon Marbles, Britannia will face an ever-increasing humiliation for its self-dealing and hypocrisy.

Conditions Leading Up to the Multi-Century Dispute

Great Britain’s successful 7-year War against France (aka, the French & Indian War) was a costly victory. Britannia needed to continue to fund a large army in America to maintain control of its colonies there. As a result, the British Parliament passed the self-serving “The Stamp Act of 1765,” a new tax on the colonies in America, just a year after they passed the “Sugar Act of 1764.” The Stamp Act required all printed material in the 13 colonies, including newspapers, magazines, etc., to be printed on expensive stamped paper that had to be imported from England. The controversy caused by the Stamp Act was sufficient to induce Parliament to repeal it the following year.

While King George III was somewhat popular before he went “nuts,” he failed to realize that the repeal, which was accompanied on the same day by a new law empowering England to legislate for the colonies, was enough to become the final straw in the 1776 grain harvest, costing him his precious, profitable colonies in the New World.

The Rising Star of Lord Elgin

This multi-century dispute would evolve from what the evidence strongly suggests was the personal hubris and greed of Lord Elgin (pictured above), who had been appointed in December 1798[4] as the British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire (which occupied Greece at the time). In fact, his official title was:

“Ambassador Extraordinaire and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty to the Sublime Porte of Selim III, Sultan of Turkey.”

For those without an Oxford dictionary handy, the word plenipotentiary in Lord Elgin’s title is defined as:

‘a person, especially a diplomat, invested with the full power of independent action on behalf of their government, typically in a foreign country.’

Not only was Lord Elgin an ambassador, he was an Ambassador Extraordinaire by order of His Britannic Majesty, George III, King of England, Scotland, Wales, and the Kingdom of Ireland. For readers not overly familiar with the delusional notion of ‘royal blood’ or the unpleasant proclivities and excesses of British royal families, George III was the king who reigned from 1760 to 1820. During that time, those troublesome American colonists objected to the violations of their rights as Englishmen and when Parliament grandfathered itself in as black-market participants in antiquities theft.

Enter the Beautiful Mary Nisbet (See Fig.4)

Fig. 4. Mary Nisbet, Countess of Elgin.

As the world approached the beginning of the 19thcentury, according to best-selling author Cheryl Bolen:

“Despite being one of the wealthiest women in the British Isles, Mary Nisbet . . . led a bittersweet life. [Nisbet] was one of the most well-known women in 19th century Britain. She was born in 1778 as the only child of wealthy Scots . . . “Many aristocratic young men attempted to woo Mary Nisbet for her fortune; she chose Thomas Bruce, the 7th Earl of Elgin, a fellow Scotsman 12 years her senior. Elgin was a handsome man gaining increasingly more important posts in the diplomatic corps. but knew he needed great wealth to distinguish himself truly.” (emphasis added)[5]

Syphilis-No; Asthma-Yes!

Shortly after the wedding, the bride and groom set sail for Constantinople so Lord Elgin could assume his position as British Ambassador. Bolen writes:

“Despite her youth, [Mary [Nisbet] proved to be a capable ambassadress, was admired by all, and was showered with gifts from Turkish leaders, including the Sultan.

“After two and a half years in Constantinople, the Elgins needed R&R. Lord Elgin, who suffered asthma, had — under doctor’s orders — been dousing himself with large quantities of mercury for his frequent lung complaints. It is now believed the mercury (and not the rumored syphilis) caused the abrasions on Elgin’s nose that prompted doctors to cut off its tip, disfiguring him. His recuperative visit to Greece established Elgin’s place in history. (emphasis added)”[6]

Quick question: What kind of doctor would choose to cut off the tip of a patient’s nose to treat an ‘abrasion?’ After a quick Google search for mercury being used for early treatments of people living with asthma, there was no mention of mercury’s use as an early treatment for asthma. However, there were a multitude of results for using mercury, which had some efficacy in treating syphilis. I suspect Bolen’s assessment of Nagel’s biography had validity:

“The rest of the book reads as if Nagel is trying to please Mary’s descendants by telling the reader how wonderful she was. I, for one, would rather be shown.”[7]

A more informed reader might suspect Nagel’s attempt to rewrite the history of Elgin’s rumored syphilis infection was also a consideration.

What Should We Do With All These Marbles?

Bolen further detects a motive regarding Elgin as well:

“It is unclear from Nagel’s work why Elgin appointed himself to remove much of the Parthenon from the Acropolis and tote — at considerable expense and trouble — the ancient statuary back to England. He meant to keep the antiquities for his personal use. (emphasis added)

“Nagel is at great pains to explain that if Elgin had not ‘rescued’ them, they would not have had a chance of being preserved because of the looting practices at the time.”[8]

It is clear why the Elgins chose to remove the sculptures from the Parthenon. Removing a sculpture secured to the Parthenon was often completed by sawing it from its secure attachment to the façade and then throwing it to the ground. Since the sculptures were attached some 40 feet above ground level, it was obvious that many of the priceless relics were damaged or destroyed by the workers hired to denude the structure Lord Elgin allegedly revered.

Stamatoudi writes:

“The Marbles taken by Elgin consisted of fifty slabs, two half-slabs of the frieze, and fifteen metopes. Part of them were shipped in “Mentor” (a ship Elgin had purchased for this purpose) and sank in deep water off Kythera [an island off the southern tip of Greece]. Inevitably, most of the marbles were never found. [emphasis added]”[9]

Just as it is transparent that Bolen points to Elgin’s alleged noble mission to rescue the Marbles from looters other than himself, these sources point to the Elgins’ true motives.

Stamatoudi writes in her report:

“All the Marbles taken from the most representative temple of the High Classical period of Greek art were shipped to Scotland for the private use of Lord Elgin. The most probable intended use was decorating his country house in Scotland.” (emphasis added)[10]

Fig. 5. Broomhall House, built by Lord Elgin.

Acting independently (Parliament initially had no interest in Elgin’s plan to loot Grecian antiquities), his title did authorize his independent actions. The Elgins removed priceless sculptures that had adorned the façade of the Parthenon and other Acropolis temples since the 5th century BC. Lord Elgin intended to adorn Broomhall House, the ancestral home of all the Earls of Elgin, which he had built in Fife, Scotland (See Fig. 5) — to serve as a private museum.

In her review of the Nisbet biography, Bolen adds:

“Mary executed her husband’s plan for removing the pediment sculptures, metopes, and friezes and shipping them back to England while her husband was traipsing about Greece.” (emphasis added)[11]. The Countess of Elgin was better suited to managing the difficult work of denuding a temple and shipping the sculptures back home. After all, Lord Elgin was far too important to soil his hands with marble dust.

“During their three-year assignment in Constantinople, Mary would bear a son and two daughters before setting out to return to England.[12]

Lord Elgin’s asthma did not affect the couple’s marital duties.

“The Elgins sent their children by boat while they planned to travel leisurely through the continent, taking advantage of the fact that Europe was finally at peace after the Treaty of Amiens (an agreed pause of hostilities during the Napoleonic Wars).

After all, the British aristocracy had returned to their “grand tour” holidays, and the Elgins were acting accordingly.

“When they had arrived in France, the Elgins had been happily married for four years, showed every sign of being devoted to each other, and Mary was pregnant with their fourth child.

“While they were in France, though, Napoleon declared war again and decided to take Lord Elgin as a prisoner. He would be a French prisoner for more than two years. The two years put a strain upon their marriage that could never be repaired. When Lord Elgin was in captivity, he was cross with his wife for staying in Paris — with his best friend, Robert Ferguson — working for his release instead of staying near her husband in Lourdes.”[13]

Could this be injecting mistrust into the marital relationship?

“When he [Elgin] was not in captivity but still unable to leave France, his stature was reduced. The only thing that united husband and wife at this trying time was the love of their second son, who was born in France. [The son’s] death 13 months later nearly destroyed Mary, who suffered from melancholy for many months afterward.”[14]

Despite the lack of any document supporting its claim on the Parthenon Marbles, the British Crown portrays Lord Elgin as simply looking to rescue the Marbles from further damage or looting. However, there is more compelling evidence that Lord and Lady Elgin were thieves with titles. In the late 1700s to early 1800s, excavations were made at the burial mounds constructed to honor the dead warriors of the Battle of Marathon, which took place in September 490 B.C.

One of the excavators was Louis François Sébastian Fauvel (1753-1838), who conducted an 8-day dig in 1788. He cut a massive trench in the mound in search of valuable antiquities related to the battle but found nothing. Apparently, he didn’t dig deep enough. In 1802, however, Lord and Lady Elgin (a name inextricably bound up with the sculptures taken from the Parthenon frieze now housed in the British Museum, but husband and (as it appears very prominently active) wife were also at the mound actively scouring as well) searched the mound for antiquities — notably weapons — and found some pottery fragments and a small mass of silver, but little else. While it is clear the Elgins were seeking personal profit, far from the Acropolis, the only accomplishment was significantly altering the mound's shape.[15]

Trouble in Paradise

Bolen drills down into the failing marriage:

“[Mary Nisbet’s] fifth and final pregnancy drove a wedge through the once-happy couple. Lord Elgin ordered her to do something she did not want to do, and was even more angered over the unwanted pregnancy. She determined she would never get pregnant again.”[16]

Undoubtedly, Mary’s decision would negatively impact such a passionate Lord Elgin. Bolen applauds the biographer’s allegation:

“And Nagel alleges (mostly likely correctly) that the cessation of sexual relations is what caused Lord Elgin to seek divorce shortly after his return to England. (Nagel never explains the circumstances surrounding [Elgin’s] release.) But Lord Elgin did have other cause to seek a divorce. Ferguson had fallen in love with Mary, and Elgin mistakenly opened a love letter from Ferguson to his wife. [Elgin] also mistakenly believed he would get all his wife’s money. He got his divorce but not the fortune. Eight years after the divorce, the cash-strapped Elgin would sell the marbles to the British government. He remarried a woman 24 years his junior who bore him eight more children.”(emphasis added)[17]

Those British royals indeed like them young! Elgin should have written to Hollywood with a plot for ‘Days of Our Lives.’ Oh, sorry, motion pictures hadn’t been invented yet.

“By an act of parliament, the British Museum Act of 1816, the [Elgin] collection was transferred to the British Museum on the condition that it be kept together and named “the Elgin Marbles.”[18] Despite Britannia’s multiple promises over the years to return the Marbles to Greece, Parliament was willing to ignore the mountain of evidence against the validity of its acquisition to obtain the Elgin-looted collection. Oddly enough, 147 years after Parliament approved the purchase of the Marbles from Lord Elgin, Parliament thought to cement its unlawful acquisition by passing the ‘British Museum Act of 1963’. Britannia’s longstanding motto was and is: ‘Do as we say — Not as we do!’

Britiannica.com suggests:

“[Lord Elgin] was a lover of art and antiquities. . . [who] was concerned about the damage being done to important artworks in the temples of Greece, then under Ottoman [rule]. Fearing that they would eventually be destroyed because of the occupying power’s indifference, he asked permission of the [Ottoman court at Constantinople] to have artists measure, sketch, and copy important pieces of sculpture and architectural detail for posterity.”(emphasis added) [19]

Posterity is defined as ‘all future generations of people.’ It is not defined as ‘all future generations of wealthy British ambassadors who understand what Greek antiquities were selling for, early in 19th century Europe.’

Whereas the ongoing Britannia position is that the deal made with an empire ruled by marauding killers, rapists, and thieves was “entirely legal,” the birthplace of Western Civilization and democracy had and has no legal standing to repatriate its priceless treasures. While the official decree permitted Lord Elgin to have artists measure, sketch, and copy essential pieces of sculpture, it also may have allowed him to “take away any pieces of stone with old inscriptions or figures thereon.” The Turks have continued that tradition because they were never competent at building things. They have successfully removed evidence of Greek inscriptions and then claimed the relics as their own. The world knows the Greeks and Turks have been at odds since the Middle Ages. The Greeks settled most of Asia Minor (modern Turkey) thousands of years before the Turkish Sultan claimed his ownership of the Byzantine Empire after he sacked Constantinople in 1453 A.D.

The Elgins shipped 170 crates [20]of priceless marble treasures to Malta (then a British protectorate), where they remained for several years.[21] They had all arrived in Scotland by 1812. After his costly divorce and life perhaps plagued by syphilis- ah, sorry, asthma, Lord Elgin finally sold the looted collection of Greek relics to the British government to pay off debts. Parliament then summarily transferred the relics in trust to the BM. Today, the BM exhibits London’s finest looted treasures while its aristocracy fascinates us with titillating scandals.

There are many more indications of the BM’s dismissive notion of its supremacy over other nations’ relics it claims to own. It becomes clear why the Museum believes it should refuse to give back the Parthenon Marbles. Setting aside the world condemnation of Britannia’s refusal to see the hypocrisy of its position, let us examine Britannia’s printed words regarding the precious treasures. On a web page entitled, The Parthenon Sculptures,[22] the Museum lists the following questions:

What Are They?

In the first paragraph, BM provides a concise, accurate summary explanation of the Marbles collection.

In the second paragraph, however, BM feels it necessary to explain the Parthenon’s history, highlighting the destruction of parts of the building. Is this an attempt to create the impression that the Greeks are incapable of caring for these treasures as competently as the British? The final sentence in the second paragraph states:

“It is therefore impossible to reconstruct the monument completely or reunite it with its sculptural decoration.”

This statement is not truthful. Although it may be impossible for the British to reconstruct the monument completely, it is not impossible for the Greeks to do so. In fact, they have been doing precisely that for decades. Moreover, the Greek people are undoubtedly capable of reuniting the Parthenon with its sculptural decoration if the British simply return the looted relics to their rightful place in Athens and history.

The third paragraph is a less than subtle effort to elevate the basis for keeping the stolen Marbles in the BM instead of the new, celebrated Acropolis Museum in Athens. In essence, the Brits say that there were enough relics not taken that allow Greece to provide:

“an in-depth view of the ancient history of the Acropolis and its surrounding religious sanctuaries and civic structures.”

Really? Now, visitors of the BM can exit the museum and enjoy some pub grub and warm beer, whereas, in Athens, they would essentially be in the shadow of the temple from which they were stolen.

How did they come to the British Museum?

The first sentence exposes BM’s misdirection.

“By the early 19th century, the Ottoman Empire had been the governing authority in Athens for 350 years.”

The proper antonymous rebuke for such a claim would be that by the early 6th century, The Roman Empire, the Goths, and the Greek Byzantine Empire all had been the successive governing bodies in London for 413 years. Does the rebuke give Italy or Greece the right to confiscate the treasures in London’s Buckingham Palace? How does such a claim give Britannia the right to hold priceless looted treasures of other countries unlawfully?

If the U.S. were to decide one day to conquer Britain, it could dismantle Parliament’s building complex in London, block by block, and reassemble it in a new location near the London Bridge that endured a similar fate when it became a tourist site in Lake Havasu City, Arizona. At least in the case of the London Bridge, the City of London was looking for someone to buy the defunct and dismantled bridge. Today, the London Bridge is an iconic focus of a Great American tourist trap. It seems Britannia is looking to hold onto its tourist trap at the expense of the soul of Greece.

The second sentence is an allegation—not an explanation.

“Lord Elgin was the British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire and successfully petitioned the authorities to be able to draw, measure and remove figures.”(emphasis added)

The only remaining copy of the firman (permit), does not match the BM’s statement above. The Italian copy translation states: “to have artists measure, sketch, and copy (not remove) important pieces of sculpture and architectural detail.” The web page includes no footnote or link to view the “successful petition,” giving Lord Elgin the authority to remove the Marbles.

The following paragraph claims that:

“[Elgin] was granted a permit (firman). . .”

Yet, the BM fails to produce a copy of the successful permit to Lord Elgin’s allegedly successful petition.

Finally, the third paragraph contains the following claim:

“[Elgin’s] actions were thoroughly investigated by a Parliamentary Select Committee in 1816 and found to be entirely legal, prior to the sculptures entering the collection of the British Museum by Act of Parliament.”

So, the British Parliament concluded that a British Ambassador’s actions were thoroughly investigated by a British Parliamentary Committee and found to be not simply legal but entirely legal to be approved for entering the British Museum collection by an Act of the same British Parliament. Considering the number of scandals related to the British Parliament over the years, one might question the relative objectivity of those who concluded the findings were “entirely legal.”

What has been requested?

Britannia states as fact (emphasis added):

“A formal request for the permanent return to Greece of all of the Parthenon Sculptures in the Museum's collection was first made in 1983.”

Interestingly, the BBC News reported on 28 November 2023,[23]

“The British government bought the sculptures from Lord Elgin in 1816 for display in the British Museum. But when Greece became independent in 1835, the government asked the UK to return them.”

It appears the British Broadcasting Corporation is questioning the veracity of the British government. The BBC also stated:

“Lord Elgin insisted he had permission to remove the sculptures from the Ottoman Empire, which controlled Athens at the time. But the original letter giving him permission has been lost, and the wording of what remains is disputed.”(emphasis added)

Therefore, no actual physical proof of a petition, permit, letter, contract, or identifiable consideration was paid by Lord Elgin to anyone validating his looting of the Parthenon’s priceless treasures.

Finally, under this Question, the BM states (emphasis added):

“The Trustees will consider any loan request for any part of the collection (subject to all our normal loan conditions). Successive Greek governments have refused to acknowledge the Trustees' title to the Parthenon Sculptures.” (emphasis added)

Do BM’s Trustees think the people of Greece are simple-minded? The Greeks were building computers and civilizing the world at a time when the occupants of Britain were still “hunting & gathering.” Why would anyone agree to borrow something they had created and never sold?

The British Museum’s position

It begins:

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

Britannia fails to mention that for those millions of visitors to understand the cultures of the world and how they interconnect, a trip to London is required to grasp this essence. In the case of the Marbles, if they were returned to Athens, visitors would be able to better appreciate the Marbles because they would have a view from the Acropolis Museum to see the Parthenon still standing above them. They could walk through the original ágora (marketplace) where Socrates walked and spoke. A British pub in London doesn’t exactly conjure up visions of the birthplace of democracy.

I guess we’re supposed to accept those heartfelt emotions of the BM to keep the stolen marble and celebrate itself as a world museum—primarily with the confiscated treasures of other nations. It appears the BM believes because it has looted so many relics of other countries, they have become an ‘interconnected world collection.’ I think a German fellow in 1939 also aggressively attempted to create an interconnected world collection via confiscation—but fortunately was prevented by those who opposed the concept.

The position of the Trustees of the British Museum

The Trustees begin by stating for the record that (emphasis added):

‘The Museum is a unique resource for the world: the breadth and depth of its collection allow a global public to examine cultural identities and explore the complex network of interconnected human cultures. The Trustees lend extensively all over the world, and over 4.5 million objects from the collection are available for study online. The Parthenon sculptures are a vital element in this interconnected world collection. They're a part of the world's shared heritage and transcend political boundaries.’ (emphasis added)

I’m afraid you will have to find the document that includes a Trustee’s legal obligation to administer the Marbles according to the purposes specified by the BM. If you can even find it, it seems logical that, based upon the Parliamentary Act of 1963, it will require the Trustees to refuse to repatriate the Parthenon Marbles at all costs. Please continue. . .

The Trustees’ statement continues by granting the Acropolis Museum credit for building an extraordinary museum. Visitors of both museums will conclude that the Acropolis Museum is where the Parthenon Marbles should be exhibited—not just the half that Lord Elgin failed to loot. Their motive is evident from the final sentence of the Trustee’s statement:

‘The Trustees firmly believe that there's a positive advantage and public benefit in having the sculptures divided between two great museums, each telling a complementary but different story.’(emphasis added)

Perhaps to show good faith, the Trustees should carefully cut the Magna Carta in half and ship half of the document to the Acropolis Museum, so those millions of visitors can benefit from having such an important document divided between two great museums as well as who provided the principles of Western Civilization that Greece gave to the authors of the Magna Carta.

The Inconvenient Truths

To better understand the nature of Britannia’s interest in Greek culture, one must consider the consequence of George III’s declaration of war on France in 1803. Napoleon chose to close off Western Europe (which he controlled) from the aristocracy of Britannia, preventing them from partaking in their custom, the “grand tour” of Europe. The result was that Britannia's aristocrats and wealthy citizens chose to tour Greece instead of staying at home. The attacks on Lord Elgin began as these aristocrats returned from the grand tour of Greece with a greater appreciation for the genius of classical Greece. Once the Parthenon Marbles landed on British soil, the press attacked the Elgin theft. Suddenly, the outrage of the Elgin destruction of the Parthenon gave birth to a quirk of fashion among elite British society.[25]

Once fashionable, it became essential to possess artifacts of classical Greece. The British Empire was the premiere looter after some great ancient civilizations were reduced to colonies of the British Empire. (I refer you back to the map of the BM, which shows a large majority of the exhibit rooms related to Greece.) An international trade market opened up with agents looting colonies and nations under the yoke of the Ottoman Turks. The immediate result was that wealthy Britons could have priceless ancient treasures in their living rooms to show their friends and enemies.

The Ottoman Turks had shown the world that they were incapable of running a global empire because those conquering Turks were mostly brutal warriors conquering the civilized Western nations. The Ottoman Sultan outsourced his empire's administrative and operational elements to his Greek and Armenian subjects. While a Greek or Armenian could not sit on a horse if a Turk stood nearby [that would make the Greek or Armenian taller than the Turk], they could intimidate their captive refugees into efficiently running the empire for the Sultan.

The first European nation to declare its independence by revolution was Greece. The ancient Athenian victories at Marathon (490 BC) and Salamis (480 BC) over the Persian Empire must have influenced the Greek decision to go to war. In 1821, Greece began its War of Independence from the Ottoman Turks. It took until 1832 for Greece to regain its independence. After 400 years under the Ottomans' yoke, Greece’s treasury remained the Sultan’s possession.

After 7-years of war, Greece could not sustain its war against the Ottoman Sultan and his ally, the Persian Viceroy of Egypt. By 1827, however, Greece and its culture had been the fashion in Europe for a long time. Pressure from those elites who had personal collections of Greek antiquities made Britannia’s cozy relationship with the Ottoman Turks a liability. As if by magic, the three world powers of the day, the Monarchies of Great Britain, France, and Russia (the three powers were aligned by family or political ties), decided, to the delight of the European elites, to assist Greece in its war. By 1830, Greece was recognized as an independent state under the London Protocol of that year. By 1832, the three powers defined the borders of the newly independent Greek state in the Treaty of Constantinople.

Considering the incestuous nature of the families that ruled over Europe, it is understandable why they thought that the newly independent modern Greece should be reborn with a monarch to lead it. The problem was that Greece had not had a monarch or a typical cankerous aristocracy since the death of Alexander the Great almost 2,200 years earlier. The three powers decided that the Greek people should have a king who was also a member of the first extended family of Europe. Thus, the first chosen modern king of the Greek people would be the 2nd son of King Louis I of Bavaria. Otto von Wittelsbach went from being Bavarian Prince Otto to the Greek King Otto—having received the nation of Greece, perhaps as a sweet sixteen birthday present. With the negligible exception of two Greek consorts, no modern Greek king or member of the Greek royal family has any Greek blood flowing through their veins.

Common misconceptions

The BM Trustees address the two-century dispute over the Parthenon Marbles as a common misconception:[26]

The Parthenon sculptures now in the British Museum were stolen:

‘This isn't true. Lord Elgin, the British diplomat who transported the sculptures to England, acted with the full knowledge and permission of the legal authorities of the day in both Athens and London. Lord Elgin's activities were thoroughly investigated by a Parliamentary Select Committee in 1816 and found to be entirely legal. Following a vote in Parliament, the British Museum was allocated funds to acquire the collection.’ (emphasis added)

When the trustees claim that Lord Elgin “acted with full knowledge and permission of the legal authorities of the day in both Athens and London,” they fail to point out that they had the permission of an occupier Sultan who was now concerned about his survival in the modern world. Plus, we already knew how London undoubtedly supported its acquisition of the stolen treasures. Thus, between the cherry-picked Parliamentary Committee and the later MPs who established a law to prevent the repatriation of a nation’s treasures, this charade was a textbook case of self-dealing.

If you read through the carefully worded “misconceptions” and the Trustees’ authoritative response, I suspect you will detect the insincerity of claiming that Britannia and Greece are colleagues regarding the Parthenon Marbles and how it is impossible to bring the Parthenon Marbles back together. I guess they have a law that prevents them from returning the treasures to Greece as long as they refuse to amend the law to negate the wholesale theft of Greece’s cultural treasures.

The Trustees claim another misconception is that UNESCO offered to mediate the issue, but the BM refused. Their response? “BM isn’t a governmental body.” While they have spent decades claiming to keep the dialogue going, there has been no effort to amend the law preventing a nation from repatriating its treasures. In this way, the Trustees show they are willing to emulate their former British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, who flew to Berchtesgaden to meet with the fellow who also wanted to establish an interconnected world collection based in Germany.

[1] Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford, in Oxford, England—the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries in more than 50 languages

[2] Stamatoudi, Irini A., LLM, Attorney at Law, Athens and Doctoral Researcher at the University of Leicester. The Law and Ethics Deriving From the Parthenon Marbles Case, This article was first published in [1997] 2 Web JCLI, Copyright © 1997, Irini A. Stamatoudi.

[3] The map can be found at: https://www.britishmuseum.org/visit/museum-map

[4] St Clair, William (1967). Lord Elgin and the Marbles (1sr ed.). London: Oxford University Press. pp. 2, 147.

[5] Bolen, Cheryl, New York Times, USA Today Best-selling Author, in her review of a biography ‘Mistress of the Elgin Marbles: A Biography of Mary Nisbet, Countess of Elgin, Nagel, Susan, (2004) William Morrow, (2008) in The Quizzing Glass.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] See footnote 2.

[10] Ibid.

[11] See footnote 5.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Stronk, Jan P. (2019). FROM SARDIS TO MARATHON. GRECO-PERSIAN RELATIONS 499-490 BC: A REVIEW Part two: the Battle of Marathon and Its Implications.

[16] See footnote 5.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Jenkins, Tiffany (2016). Keeping their Marbles, how the treasures of the past ended up in museums and why they should they there. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp 109-110.

[19] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Elgin-Marbles.

[20] https://news.sky.com/story/elgin-marbles-what-are-they-and-how-did-they-end-up-in-the-british-museum-12779617

[21] Busuttil, Cynthia (26 July 2009). "Dock 1 made from ancient ruins?" . The Times. Retrieved 15 March 2015.

[22] https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/british-museum-story/contested-objects-collection/parthenon-sculptures

[23] https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-30342462#

[24] https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/british-museum-story/contested-objects-collection/parthenon-sculptures/parthenon

[25] Casey, Christopher (30 October 2008). ""Grecian Grandeurs and the Rude Wasting of Old Time": Britannia, the Elgin Marbles, and Post- Revolutionary Hellenism". Foundations. Volume III, Number 1. Archived from the original on 13 May 2009.

[26] https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/british-museum-story/contested-objects-collection/parthenon-sculptures/parthenon

Samson Soledad