A Matter of Justice: The Case for the Repatriation of the Parthenon Marbles

It may be unfair to judge the past based on present day morals or beliefs. This does not,

however, excuse allowing past injustices to go uncorrected. Many of the world's most prestigious

museums are filled with "trophies of colonial expansion" (Rubenstein 2004:271) obtained by

"veritable vandalism" (Barringer 1998:21-23). It is no consolation that the responsible parties are

long dead. In fact, the heart of the issue is the legitimacy of those museums themselves. Created

to feed the imperial desire to show their dominance over non-western cultures, their exhibits

consist of "mere representations" (Mitchell 1991:7-9) displayed without the context which is

necessary for them to be understood (Barringer 1998:12). Despite their claims, rather than the

truth, they present their own narrative of western supremacy (Hall 1992:225) which simply

emphasizes prior wrongdoing. Returning notable artifacts to their places of origin would be a

symbolic step in recognizing these injustices. Rather than an opportunity to redress the abuses of

history, the case of the Parthenon Marbles reinforces the political notions of colonialism and

ethnocentrism. Ironically, the refusal of the British to repatriate the Parthenon Marbles to Greece

threatens the rationale offered for retaining them, namely archaeological knowledge, study and

preservation.

The notoriety of the Parthenon (or Elgin) Marbles places them at the forefront of the

issue of repatriation of material culture. In order to properly understand the controversy, it is

essential to appreciate the historical context surrounding them. A collection of large 5 th century

B.C. sculptures originally part of the Acropolis, they are commonly named for the British lord

who brought them to England in the early 1800s (Greenfield 1989:47). These artifacts would be

noteworthy simply for their size. The Parthenon occupied a central part of the Acropolis, and

included an ornately carved, life size "frieze" over 500 feet long (Greenfield 1989:47). In 1801

Thomas Bruce, Earl of Elgin, was Britain's ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, which had

1
conquered Greece in 1453 (Greenfield 1989:61; Hamilakis 1999:307). While scholars can debate

Elgin's claims of approval of the Turkish authorities, there is no doubt he arranged "the violent

removal" of almost 250 feet of these sculptures (Hamilakis 1999:307) which he exhibited in his

London home until eventually selling them to the British government (Greenfield 1989:62).

Although there were opponents of the Marbles' removal from Greece at the time (Greenfield

1989:62,68-69), they were eventually purchased from Lord Elgin and have been part of the

British Museum for over 150 years (Jenkins 2001:60,66).

The circumstances which led to the acquisition of the Parthenon Marbles by the British

Museum created a number of issues making the request for repatriation inevitable. In fact, what

occurred was so flagrant it has been referred to as a "cause celebre" among repatriation cases

(Greenfield 1989:47). To begin, they were not uncovered by British archaeologists after lying

undiscovered for thousands of years. The Marbles were well known symbols of Greek heritage,

which had to be physically severed from the temple walls they had occupied for 25 centuries

(Brysac 1999:74). There was no question of them being willingly provided to Lord Elgin by the

nation which had produced them. The Ottoman Empire treated them as spoils of war, rather than

priceless artifacts (Greenfield 1989:51,61). Finally, Elgin acted out of his own greed, exhibiting

these rare objects in his own home, which was customary at that time (Hamilakis 1999:307).

Therefore, virtually every detail of the Marbles' removal from Greece meant the eventual

demands for their return were unavoidable.

These demands for the return of the Parthenon Marbles by the people of Greece have

been met by various arguments underscoring the colonial outlook which prompted their removal

from Athens (Hamilakis 1999:312). To be fair, there is no suggestion by the British government

or museum officials that such activity should be allowed today (Renfrew 2000:78). On the other

2
hand, they resist repatriation with suggestions that what occurred in the past should somehow be

held to a lesser standard than they would impose currently. This double standard is reflected by

Greenfield, who distinguishes between "historically removed treasures and...contemporary illicit

traffic..." (1989:xvii). In other words, through convoluted reasoning, they condone having acted

in a way which they now condemn others for. They attempt to justify the improper manner in

which these artifacts were originally obtained for purely self-serving reasons. This is evident by

the approach of eminent archaeologist Colin Renfrew who advocates for an end to present day

looting yet excuses cases like the Parthenon Marbles because they were "accompanied by or at

least stimulated great scholarship" (2000:18). He links the growth of museums full of such

treasures with the advent of archaeology as a scholarly discipline (Renfrew 2000:18-19). The

implication is that the actions of imperial Britain actually advanced the cause of so-called

civilization. Thus, a form of new colonialism has arisen to defend the retention of such artifacts

as somehow beneficial to mankind.

Moreover, this new colonialism is apparent in the persistent argument that retention of

the Marbles in the British Museum provides positive educational benefits (Boardman 2000:259).

On the surface, such assertions seem admirable, however, close examination reveals they are

flawed. Firstly, they involve a subjective assumption that a greater level of learning will be

achieved if the Parthenon Marbles remain in London than if returned to their home in the

Acropolis (Boardman 2000:258). Referring to the British Museum, Oxford University's John

Boardman boldly proclaims, "I know of no closely comparable cultural and educational visual

experience of such quality elsewhere" (2000:258). Of course, this would only apply to those who

can physically get to London–primarily the British people. In addition, the belief of Boardman

and others that retaining any artifact in any museum furthers the cause of education of the

3
general public (2000:258-260) is illusory and somewhat naive (Mitchell 1991). The claim "that

museums worldwide can be and are centres for education, at all levels for all ages" (Boardman

2000:259) is not one that is universally shared. According to Mitchell, the display of such

collections is often simply a type of entertainment, part of the unique western desire for

"spectacle" (1991:5). In other words, for some, attending a museum is just an alternative to going

to a shopping mall or sporting event–something to pass the time (Mitchell 1991:10-12). Rather

than knowledge, or "some larger truth," such "representations" actually encourage inaccurate and

colonial interpretations of other cultures (Mitchell 1991:6-7). As such, not only do museums do

little to promote learning, they provide the public with stereotypical perceptions which do more

harm than good. Therefore, those who seek to justify their opposition to the repatriation of the

Marbles on the basis of education reveal an underlying neo-colonialist outlook.

The issue of ownership arises in various ways in the attempt to justify the refusal to

repatriate. Boardman contends that Lord Elgin acquired "legal ownership" despite the "normal

practice" of bribery (2000:233). By pointing out that using bribes to obtain artifacts "remains

common practice in many places today," (Boardman 2000:233) he makes it possible for modern

looters to make a claim to legal ownership of their plunder. Moreover, it is evident that Elgin

could not establish such an entitlement, since it is not necessary to bribe the owner of something

in order to purchase it. Firstly, any permission came not from the Greek people, but the Ottoman

authorities who had conquered Greece in the 15th century (Greenfield 1989:61). More

importantly, that so-called permission is not as clear as claimed. As revealed by Greenfield, the

document allegedly provided to Elgin (it is in private hands and not available for study) is

written in Italian, and translated allows him to excavate and take "some [or 'any'] pieces of stone

with inscriptions and figures" (1989:62). As Greenfield notes, this is at best ambiguous, and

4
concerned the British authorities when they were deciding whether to purchase the Marbles from

Elgin (1989:62,66). Undoubtedly recognizing the weak legal argument, rather than ownership,

Renfrew stresses "secure and documented provenance" and whether the possessor of artifacts can

provide some proof as to how and when they acquired them (2000:11). Renfrew acknowledges

that such a requirement would strengthen calls for repatriation of many objects, which might

include the Marbles (2000:16). Rather than pursuing that to its logical conclusion, his answer is

to make it effective as of some arbitrary date, selecting 1970's UNESCO Convention (Renfrew

2000:16). Not making the need for provenance retroactive to a time prior to that international

treaty conveniently exempts the Parthenon Marbles from consideration (Renfrew 2000:16). This

reinforces the notion that the injustices of the past, by the colonial powers such as Great Britain,

are somehow excusable.

Arguments against repatriation also go beyond the concepts of ownership or other rights

of possession, to that of an almost sacred responsibility (Boardman 2000:240-241). Some

opponents suggest the Marbles must remain in the British Museum for their own protection, with

Boardman alleging Lord Elgin should be praised for his "act of rescue" (2000:240). Hamilakis

refers to "the British argument that the sculptures cannot be properly exhibited in Greece, due to

the lack of a proper museum...[and]...the notorious air pollution" (1999:311). Such contentions

ignore what has occurred to the Marbles while in British hands, including attempts to clean off

British pollution which some say actually damaged the artifacts even further (Brysac 1999:75).

Additionally, concerns about pollution have been addressed by commitments to construct a new

Acropolis Museum including protective display cases (Greenfield 1989:88). This neo-colonial

view of anti-repatriation supporters stresses the importance of stewardship as a duty owed to

mankind to preserve great works over property ownership rights. It reflects the continued

5
perception that only the western world has the capability and knowledge to care for such

treasures.

Regrettably, rather than a question of ethics, the issue of the repatriation of the Marbles

has been caught up in politics virtually since the time of their removal (Greenfield 1988:74-88).

As pointed out by Greenfield, after Greek independence in 1832, almost immediately the new

country demanded the Marbles be returned (1988:74). Since the Marbles were purchased from

Lord Elgin by the British Government, an Act of Parliament is probably required to force their

return (Greenfield 1988:83). As with most political issues, each side seems to impugn the

motives of the other. To illustrate, Boardman claims "the campaign for restitution is in part

politically motivated (loudest when a leftist or pseudo-communist party is in power in Greece)"

(2000:259). Acknowledging repatriation is essentially a "political question," Renfrew criticizes

what he calls the "chauvinist view" of governments who seek the return of their artifacts

(2000:20-21). Characterizing the desire of nations to recover their national treasures in such a

fashion merely perpetuates the colonial outlook which led to the acquisition of artifacts like the

Marbles in the first place. It suggests that somehow the western liberal democratic viewpoint has

a monopoly on integrity. The political volatility of the issue is revealed by the fact Britain's

Labour Party promised to repatriate the Marbles while in opposition, then reneged when in

power (Hamilakis 1999:310). This is despite evidence a large segment of the British people may

support repatriation (Hamilakis 1999:312). Moreover, the Parliament of the European Union has

now called for the return of the Marbles to Greece (Brysac 1999:76). Appealing to the continent

for international assistance may, however, backfire on the Greek cause. In 1983 the

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe proclaimed that "the European cultural

heritage belongs to all Europeans..." (Greenfield 1988:79). Since both nations are members of

6
that organization, this complicates the issue by suggesting Britain has as much right to the

Marbles as Greece (Greenfield 1988:79). Therefore, given the politicized nature of the debate it

seems apparent the efforts of those seeking repatriation need to focus on achieving political

change.

In summary, a detailed analysis reveals that, rather than the Parthenon Marbles being the

catalyst for a new era in ethical treatment of material culture, they remain symbolic of the British

refusal to let go of the imperial past. Ironically, instead of promoting scholarship and education,

their arguments can even be used by contemporary looters of archaeological sites to justify their

own actions. In the face of overwhelming evidence, some continue to defend the acquisition of

the Marbles as legal or ethical (Boardman 2000). Others promote the benefits of them remaining

in the British Museum, either as superior to its Greek counterparts, or as part of an obligation to

mankind as a whole (Greenfield 1988:76,88). In fact, any solution must consider the fact that

western museums actually encourage the attitudes which allowed Lord Elgin to establish the

Parthenon Marbles as "monuments of British colonialism" (Hamilakis 1999:313).

7
 References Cited

Barringer, Tim
1998 The South Kensington Museum and the colonial project. In Colonialism and the
Object: Empire, material culture and the museum. Tim Barringer and Tom Flynn, eds. Pp. 11-
27. New York: Routledge.

Boardman, John
2000 The Elgin Marbles: Matters of Fact and Opinion. International Journal of Cultural
Property 9(2):233-262.

Brysac, Shareen B.
1999 The Parthenon Marbles Custody Case: Did British restorers mutilate the famous
sculptures? Archaeology 52(3):74-77.

Greenfield, Jeanette
1989 The Return of Cultural Treasures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hall, Stuart
1992 The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power. In The Formations of Modernity:
Understanding Modern Societies: An Introduction Book 1. Bram Gieben and Stuart Hall,
eds. Pp. 185-225. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hamilakis, Yannis
1999 Stories from exile: fragments from the cultural biography of the Parthenon (or
"Elgin") Marbles. World Archaeology 31(2):303-320.

Jenkins, Ian
2001 The Elgin Marbles: Questions of Accuracy and Reliability. International Journal of
Cultural Property 10(1):55-69.

Mitchell, Timothy
1991 Colonizing Egypt. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Renfrew, Colin
2000 Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership. London: Duckworth.

Rubenstein, Steven L.
2004 Shuar Migrants and Shrunken Heads Face to Face in a New York Museum. In
Talking to People: Readings in Contemporary Cultural Anthropology. 3rd edition. William A.
Haviland, Robert J. Gordon and Luis A. Vivanco, eds. Pp. 269-274. Whitby Ont.: McGraw-Hill.