Towards the end of November 2023, British prime minister Rishi Sunak cancelled a planned meeting with Greek prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis in London merely a few hours in advance, accusing him of attempting to “grandstand” by campaigning publicly for the return of the Parthenon Marbles to the Acropolis Museum in Greece. These sculptures, which used to adorn the Acropolis of Athens, were removed and shipped to Britain under the authorisation of Lord Elgin, British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the time, between the years of 1801 and 1812, and have remained in the British Museum ever since. Whilst Mitsotakis recognises that the relics were ‘legally acquired at the time’ and are “legally owned by the trustees of the museum”, the Greek government nonetheless urges that the sculptures are reunited with The Parthenon with which they belong, Mitsotakis comparing them to the “Mona Lisa” and claiming that Britain’s retaining them was like cutting the famous painting in half and keeping one part in London and the other in the Louvre.
For over 40 years, the Greek government has taken this stance and pushed for the return of these prized antiques and, although Britain has continued to blatantly refuse such requests, the last few years have marked a possible turning point. When bargaining for the marbles’ return, Greece’s culture minister, Lina Mendoni, assured that “Should the sculptures be reunited in Athens, Greece is prepared to organise rotating exhibitions of important antiquities that would fill the void”. With the emerging of a compromise settlement between the nations, the chair of the British Museum George Osborne told MPs on the culture, media and sport committee in October 2023, “We want to create a proper partnership that would mean objects from Greece coming here (...) and objects from the Parthenon collection potentially travelling to Greece”, although set back by Sunak’s apparent opposition to this, the prospect of returning the marbles has gained significant publicity and support.
In addition to these more recent events, both the British Museum and museums across Europe have been criticised for continuing to exhibit artefacts arguably stolen from other nations, often specifically during periods of European colonisation, over the past few decades. Human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson KC even went as far as to accuse the museum of being among the “world’s largest receivers of stolen property”, this viewpoint raised questions regarding morality and legality: is it only right that museum artefacts are repatriated?
An argument commonly made to oppose repatriation is that the place in which the artefact is kept and showcased often not only best guarantees its preservation and care, but also that exhibiting pieces from around the world in one place can be immensely valuable and beneficial in painting an extensive picture of international history. Whilst in some cases the piece’s native country may not be capable of housing it and ensuring its protection, in the case of the Elgin Marbles, the impressive new Acropolis Museum – which opened in 2009 – seems the perfect place for these sculptures to be exhibited, where they would be preserved, and their value treasured. In fact, it is known that in the late 1930s the British Museum applied wire brushes on the Parthenon Marbles, permanently removing most of the fine details of the pieces and proving this argument for their return to be fundamentally flawed.
Moreover, the British Museum claims that it “takes its commitment to be a world museum seriously”, and that the Parthenon Sculptures are “a vital element” in their interconnected world collection, “particularly in the way in which they convey the influences between Egyptian, Persian, Greek and Roman cultures”. Given their immense impact on humanity’s historical and artistic legacy, it can be argued that they are best viewed in the context of a world collection, and that they deserve to be seen by and made available to the larger audience in London than in Athens. This nuanced purpose which many large European museums serve perhaps demonstrates that they should not give in to returning artworks, even if stolen by 19th-century colonisers, as once they begin to repatriate items it may be difficult to stop, to the extent that they could ultimately be left with nothing. Nonetheless, to honour the value of internationally diverse exhibits whilst respecting the national and cultural importance of artefacts to their native homes, rather than museums hoarding treasures stolen during their countries’ colonial pasts, the establishment of open relationships with other countries and the organisation of temporary exhibitions could kill two birds with one stone.
Another, though weaker, argument against the rehabilitation of artefacts to the regions in which they originated is that they were, technically speaking, taken legally at the time. This is the so-called principle of inter-temporal law. For instance, whilst there are unresolved questions surrounding the legality of Lord Elgin’s taking of the Parthenon Marbles, a Parliamentary Select Committee in 1816 concluded that the purchase was completely legal at that time. However, on the other hand, more modern laws can require the repatriation of artefacts even if they were acquired lawfully many years ago; as in the United States, with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, which demands the return of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. Others argue that repatriation should only be required if countries ask for the artefacts back. Article 11 of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, released in 2007, also seems to encourage repatriation, urging states to restore “cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property” taken from indigenous people without their “free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs”, which not only could apply to the Parthenon Marbles’ association with ethnic Hellenes, but also encouraged Nigeria to pursue a campaign for the return of the renowned Benin Bronzes, displayed at European museums.
In 2017, the President of Benin made an official request to the French foreign ministry for the return of items taken during imperial occupation, notably including items looted by French forces in 1892. Emmanuel Macron responded by expressing his full support of the “temporary or permanent restitution of African patrimony to Africa” within 5 years, his new policy confirming the viewpoint that “African heritage can no longer be the prisoner of European museums”. The following year Nigeria made a further request that the British Museum in London return the Bronzes, which are to be restored in due course. Ultimately, colonial injustices committed by Britain and other European countries advocate for the moral necessity of repatriation. It seems almost anachronistic for Britain to refuse to return artefacts such as the Parthenon Marbles, Evangelos Kyriakidis, Director of The Heritage Management Organisation, even going so far as to call this a “remnant of a colonial era”.
Additionally, repatriation acknowledges the cultural significance and relevance of artefacts to their native regions, and that pieces are simply out of place when separated from them. However, one can argue – taking the Parthenon Marbles once more as an example – that to claim a cultural identity between modern Greece and the ancient Greek city states who created Hellenic classical culture 2,500 years ago is misplaced, as no national identity is continuous in this way, and that claiming that Greek classical art belongs to modern Greece is to degrade the universal legacy of ancient Athens. Moreover, the Acropolis today is not the Acropolis as it stood when the sculptures were created, which perhaps diminishes the wrongfulness of them being separated from the Parthenon. Nevertheless, the pieces were made in Greece to honour the nation’s glory, meaning that they do undoubtably represent a central part of Greece’s cultural heritage, its current government emphasising that the sculptures remain a Greek national symbol of sovereignty with much cultural relevance to this day. Furthermore, it does seem that the artefacts were carelessly taken from one, beautiful whole, and even though not all in the Acropolis has been preserved, this should not detract from the argument for the unity of what remains.
Overall, although it is likely the case that the introduction of a law which compels the repatriation of all museum artefacts to their countries of origin would be neither realistic nor necessary, it seems imperative that countries should respect and abide by the requests of nations for the return of specific, valuable pieces, particularly when they were stolen or taken by force during colonial rule. Indeed, in some cases, the failure to repatriate could indicate that the process of decolonisation has not yet ended. Repatriation also serves a purpose of restorative justice, and whilst artefacts may simply be sources of education to some, for others they are of vast national, cultural and personal value. It should hence be the right of countries most deeply connected to the artefacts concerned to ask that they be repatriated, albeit the offering of alternative, temporary exhibits could also be encouraged between countries so as to sustain the global breadth of institutions such as the British Museum.
Comments