The Elgin marbles
148. In the course of a valuable account of return
claims, their handling and their importance to indigenous communities,
Moira Simpson noted that the true complexity of repatriation issues
was often neglected because attention focused upon the case of
the Parthenon Marbles.[377]
This is an opinion with which we have much sympathy. The term
"Elgin marbles" is a popular and convenient shorthand
for the Parthenon sculptures from the Elgin collection in the
British Museum. These objects form part but not all of the Elgin
collection. They represent just over half of all the surviving
sculptures from the Parthenon; others are in Athens or elsewhere.[378]
149. The Elgin Marbles were removed from the Parthenon
by men engaged by the Earl of Elgin, the then British Ambassador
to the Ottoman Empire. On the basis of an official letter from
the Ottoman Court and by other means, Lord Elgin secured the acquiescence
of the local Ottoman authorities in Athens to the removal of certain
sculptures, which were subsequently transported to the United
Kingdom.[379]
In 1816 a Select Committee of the House of Commons was established
to consider the authority by which Lord Elgin's collection was
acquired, the circumstances under which that authority was granted,
the merit of the marbles and the importance of making them public
property and their value as objects of sale. The Select Committee
judged the marbles both fit for and worthy of public purchase
and recommended a purchase price of £35,000. The longest
section of the Report was devoted to a learned disquisition on
the history of the sculptures, which the Committee admitted was
"somewhat beyond the strict limit of their immediate inquiry".[380]
The Report was debated in the House of Commons and legislation
was then passed giving effect to its recommendations.[381]
The collection was purchased from public funds and vested in the
Trustees of the British Museum.[382]
Mr Howarth stated the Government's view that the acquisition of
the marbles "by the British Museum was legitimate, based
upon the recommendation of a Select Committee, and purchased by
funds voted by Parliament".[383]
150. The decision of Parliament in 1816 ensured that
the Elgin marbles would remain together and on public display
at the British Museum.[384]
There are many arguments advanced by the British Museum and others
in support of the case that this is where they should stay. Some
of these arguments can be briefly summarised as follows:
· the Elgin marbles are properly and legally
held by the British Museum;[385]
· they are displayed there in the unique
context of a museum of world cultures which permits the intellectual
and visual comparison of the art of great civilisations;[386]
· the marbles are now irrevocably established
as museum pieces and their return to the structure of the Parthenon
to which they originally belonged is not envisaged;[387]
· the marbles are freely accessible in the
British Museum to over 5 million visitors a year, three quarters
of whom are from abroad;[388]
· removal of the marbles to Athens would
encourage similar claims for other objects from other countries
which would undermine the comparative principle at the heart of
the British Museum's purpose;[389]
· removal of these and other objects from
the British Museum would discourage potential donors from making
gifts to the British Museum.[390]
151. The Greek case as presented to this Committee
represents part of a development of that Government's approach.
The current case does not dwell upon the circumstances of acquisition
or legal issues.[391]
Equally, that case emphasises the paramount importance of a change
in the location of the marbles, rather than of their ownership.[392]
The principal arguments of the Government of Greece for a change
in location of the Elgin marbles can be summarised as follows:
· return of the Elgin marbles would permit
the "reunification of the Parthenon sculptures in their original
topographic, historical and cultural context";[393]
· the Parthenon is a unique monument with
worldwide cultural significance and "the greatest national
symbol of Greece through our time";[394]
· these unique aspects of the case ensure
that it would not pave the way to other claims of a different
character and the Greek Government's claim is highly specific
rather than part of a general claim for Greek artefacts abroad;[395]
· upon their return, the Elgin marbles would
be displayed in a new Acropolis Museum, together with the rest
of the surviving Parthenon sculptures, at the foot of the Acropolis
and forming part of a reintegrated ancient environment, thus providing
a different and more intense visitor experience;[396]
· the Greek Government is committed to ensuring
that the new Acropolis Museum is completed by 2004 and the Athens
Olympic Games of that year represent a fitting occasion for the
reunification of the Parthenon sculptures;[397]
· the return of the Elgin marbles to Athens
would provide a unique opportunity for strengthened cultural collaboration
between Greece and the United Kingdom to the particular benefit
of the British Museum.[398]
152. The British Museum considered that it was not
permitted under its current statute to engage in negotiations
to return objects.[399]
This last point was endorsed by Mr Howarth.[400]
The introduction of any legislation to provide for the return
of the Elgin marbles would be the responsibility of the Government.
Mr Howarth indicated that the Government was happy to discuss
the issue of the marbles. He considered any progress as dependent
upon "a closer meeting of minds, a closer mutual understanding
of each other's point of view".[401]
Human remains
153. Our approach to the return of cultural property
during this inquiry has been based on a broad consideration of
the many types of cultural property concerned. However, as the
inquiry progressed, we became convinced that a category of return
claims deserves separate analysisthat of human remains.
In some countries, there has already been a fundamental shift
in the way such claims are considered.[402]
154. In the USA, the Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act 1990 required all federally-funded museums
to compile inventories of Native American human remains and associated
grave goods and to seek to identify the geographical and cultural
affiliation of those remains. The museums were also required to
notify tribes of these holdings and to return such remains and
associated objects "expeditiously" upon receiving a
request from descendants or tribes, subject to the tribal claimants
producing the necessary evidence.[403]
155. Similar provisions are made in Federal and State
legislation in Australia.[404]
The main objectives of a strategic plan adopted by the Australian
Cultural Ministers Council are identification, where possible,
of the origins of ancestral remains held in museums, notification
of all communities who have ancestral remains held in museums
and repatriation arranged where culturally appropriate and when
requested.[405]
Museum policies in Australia have been developed based on these
broad principles.[406]
Federal support is given both to holding institutions and to indigenous
communities and their representatives.[407]
156. Mr Lyndon Ormond-Parker of the Foundation for
Aboriginal and Islander Research Action stressed that these policies
had not led to an emptying of Australian museums, but to strengthened
links between those museums and indigenous communities.[408]
In many cases return is not sought; the main benefit for communities
in such cases is the knowledge that museums are sensitive to the
issues which affect human remains.[409]
157. The fundamental principle which underpins legislation
and action in the USA and Australia is that, regardless of current
location, the relevant indigenous community has primary or pre-eminent
rights in respect of human remains.[410]
It is therefore considered in those countries that such communities
ought to have the final say with regard to storage, access, research
and return.[411]
Recognition of such a right need not entail return.[412]
158. During the past, human remains were collected
as objects of curiosity and for the purposes of scientific study,
including past concerns about comparative anatomy.[413]
Remains were collected from a variety of contexts, including graveyards,
battlefield and massacre sites and hospital morgues.[414]
For many indigenous communities, the circumstances of collection
and subsequent treatment are inseparable from wider concerns about
the harsh and sometimes devastating impact of European settlement
upon those communities.[415]
159. Many of these human remains collected across
the world found their way into museums and other institutions
in the United Kingdom. There are records of significant holdings
of remains from the United States, Greenland, Africa, Australia,
New Zealand and other parts of Oceania.[416]
Some of these remains have already been returned to their originating
communities following requests for repatriation.[417]
160. There are significant scientific arguments for
retention of human remains in museums. The Natural History Museum,
which has substantial holdings of human remains from abroadalthough
these are outnumbered by such holdings of United Kingdom originwas
convinced of the continuing value of scientific work in this field.
It referred to research relating to the impact of diet and disease
and the nature of interactions with the environment as well as
in the fields of forensic anthropology and medical osteology.[418]
161. These scientific values have to be balanced
to some extent against the non-scientific concerns of indigenous
communities. These concerns were amplified eloquently in a submission
from the Chitimacha tribe of Louisiana referring to the remains
of two females from that tribe in the Natural History Museum:
"They are our ancestors. We need to put them to rest ...
It is unconscionable that our ancestors have been placed in boxes
on shelves, put on display in cases, handled and examined for
research purposes, knowing that they remain in a state of unrest."[419]
162. Dr Neil Chalmers, Director of the Natural History
Museum, did not consider that it would be possible to concede
requests couched in such terms: "We have a duty to the scientific
international community to use them as a very valuable scientific
resource. We would find it extremely difficult to return any such
objects if there was any doubt at all about their continued safety
and their accessibility. If they were to be buried or cremated
then that would not at all be a possibility for us."[420]
He did, however, consider it a possible way forward for such material
to be put into a special area which satisfied the requirements
of the community concerned and satisfied the Museum about the
ability of the international scientific community to conduct appropriate
research.[421]
This approach to some extent would reflect practice already adopted
in New Zealand and Australia, in one case with Maori objects returned
from Edinburgh University.[422]
Some concerns of indigenous communities about display of remains
can be met in manners which do not conflict with scientific interests.[423]
There is, nevertheless, a tension between the aspirations of scientists
and the expectations of communities, relating both to the sense
in those communities of an entitlement to pre-eminent rights in
respect of their ancestors and to the particular desire in some
cases to see those ancestors buried.[424]
163. The Australian Government argued that the issue
of repatriation of indigenous human remains should be seen as
distinct from the broader issue of the repatriation of cultural
property.[425]
Mr Howarth also considered that "there is a qualitative distinction
to be made between human remains and artefacts, between the remains
of actual human beings and, shall we say, sculptural renderings
of human beings".[426]
We agree. We consider that existing guidance for museums on Restitution
and Repatriation does not give sufficient weight to the particular
issues relating to requests for the return of human remains. We
recommend that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport initiate
discussions with appropriate representatives of museums, of claimant
communities and of appropriate Governments to prepare a statement
of principles and accompanying guidance relating to the care and
safe-keeping of human remains and to the handling of requests
for return of human remains.
164. In line with such documents in Australia and
the United States, the starting point should be the identification,
where possible, of the origins of ancestral remains held in museums,
together with the provision of information to all interested parties.
The Natural History Museum has noted that the information available
on its collection to non-scientists in the past has been "poor".[427]
It is seeking to remedy this deficiency, although the task of
identification is a time-consuming and expensive one.[428]
We recommend that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
seek commitments from all holding institutions in the United Kingdom
about access to information on holdings of indigenous human remains
for all interested parties, including potential claimants, as
part of these discussions.
165. A crucial aim of this process should be the
strengthening of relations and of mutual understanding between
those institutions in the United Kingdom which hold indigenous
human remains and the indigenous communities themselves. Evidence
from Australia suggests that such dialogue will focus on issues
relating to custody and care of collections and will not lead
to immediate large-scale repatriation of human remains from British
collections.[429]
166. There are significant legal barriers to the
return of human remains from certain collections in the United
Kingdom. We have already concluded that general changes to laws
governing disposals by national museums would not be appropriate
and that any legislation should be narrow and specific. We consider
that human remains may merit such specific legislation. Mr Howarth
was sympathetic to this idea: "I think we should be willing
to look sympathetically and constructively at whether it is possible
to ease the law so that if the trustees so wish they can make
amends and they can return human remains."[430]
Even human remains cover a variety of objects. At one extreme
are the remains of named and known individuals which merit especially
sensitive consideration.[431]
Another extreme is represented by human remains which have been
physically modified and thus become artefacts.[432]
There appears to be a less compelling case for inclusion of artefacts
in any such legislation. Other objects vary from full skeletal
remains to hard body parts and soft tissue such as hair. Preparation
of legislation would thus require careful consideration of definition.
We agree with Mr Howarth that any legislation must be permissive,
not mandatory. It should grant limited additional powers to trustees,
possibly subject to independent review and appeal. It should not
grant powers to outside bodies to determine issues of de-accession.
We recommend that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
undertake a consultation exercise on the terms of legislation
to permit the trustees of national museums to remove human remains
from their collections with a view to early introduction of such
legislation.
281 Treasures in Trust: A Review of Museum Policy,
Department of National Heritage, July 1996, para 3.1. Back
282 Q
711. Back
283 B
F Cook, "The Trade in Antiquities: a curator's view",
in Antiquities: Trade or Betrayed, p 181. Back
284 Treasures
in Trust, para 3.2. Back
285 Registration
Guidelines: Registration Scheme for Museums and Galleries in the
United Kingdom, Museums &
Galleries Commission, para 4.2.3. Back
286 Evidence,
p 99. Back
287 Museum
Focus: Facts and figures on museums in the United Kingdom, Issue
2, Museums & Galleries
Commission, p 111. Back
288 Evidence,
p 195; QQ 625, 632. Back
289 Evidence,
p 195. Back
290 Q
51. Back
291 Evidence,
p 14. Back
292 Stealing
History, p 25. Back
293 Ibid,
pp 43-45. Back
294 Registration
Guidelines, para 4.2.5a. Back
295 Evidence,
pp 24, 25. Back
296 Evidence,
pp 14, 201. Back
297 Evidence,
p 201. Back
298 Ibid. Back
299 The
Salisbury Hoard, p 16 and
passim. Back
300 Stealing
History, pp 45-46. Back
301 Evidence,
p 15. Back
302 Evidence,
p 245. Back
303 Q
644. Back
304 Q
48. Back
305 Stealing
History, p 44. Back
306 Q
594. Back
307 Evidence,
p 196. Back
308 Q
337; Evidence, p 99. Back
309 Q
1. Back
310 Ibid. Back
311 Evidence,
p 99. Back
312 Evidence,
p 323. Back
313 Evidence,
p 326. Back
314 Evidence,
pp 327, 328. Back
315 QQ
3, 444; Evidence, p 275. Back
316 Evidence,
pp 100, 327. Back
317 Evidence,
p 326. Back
318 Evidence,
pp 289-290, 140-141. Back
319 Evidence,
pp 289, 354-358, 372. Back
320 Evidence,
p 322. Back
321 J
Legget, Restitution and Repatriation: Guidelines for good practice,
Museums & Galleries Commission, February 2000, p 5. Back
322 M
Simpson, Museums and Repatriation: An Account of Contested
Items in Museum Collections in the United Kingdom, with Comparative
Material from other Countries, Museums Association, 1997,
p 95. Back
323 Q
1; Evidence, p 1. Back
324 Evidence,
p 100. Back
325 Q
25. Back
326 Q
30. Back
327 Q
322. Back
328 Museum
Focus, p 24; Q 352. Back
329 QQ
348, 362-364. Back
330 Evidence,
p 89. Back
331 Evidence,
pp 1, 141. Back
332 Evidence,
pp 1, 141; Q 16. Back
333 Evidence,
p 100. Back
334 Evidence,
p 2. Back
335 Evidence,
pp 17, 100. Back
336 QQ
339, 348. Back
337 Evidence,
p 334. Back
338 Restitution
and Repatriation, pp 19-20. Back
339 QQ
16, 18; Evidence, p 332; J Greenfield, The Return of Cultural
Treasures (Second Edition, Cambridge, 1996), p 261. Back
340 Evidence,
pp 327, 332, 196. Back
341 Evidence,
p 100. Back
342 Evidence,
p 2. Back
343 Evidence,
p 138. Back
344 Evidence,
p 139. Back
345 Evidence,
p 141. Back
346 Q
418; Evidence, pp 141-142. Back
347 Evidence,
p 141. Back
348 Q
429. Back
349 Evidence,
p 141; Q 417. Back
350 QQ
33, 328. Back
351 Evidence,
pp 336-338. Back
352 Ibid. Back
353 Evidence,
pp 100, 196. Back
354 Evidence,
pp 196, 203, 296. Back
355 Evidence,
p 204. Back
356 National
Heritage Act 1983, c. 47, sections 6, 14, 20; Museums and Galleries
Act 1992, c. 44, section 4 (4). Back
357 Ibid,
section 4 (3) and (5). Back
358 Q
35. Back
359 Evidence,
p 332. Back
360 Q
345. Back
361 Q
344. Back
362 Q
612. Back
363 QQ
371, 380. See also Evidence, p 308. Back
364 Evidence,
p 17. Back
365 Restitution
and Repatriation, p 5. Back
366 Ibid. Back
367 Evidence,
p 144; QQ 445, 447. Back
368 Evidence,
p 91. Back
369 Evidence,
pp 3, 17, 101; QQ 28, 333-335. Back
370 Evidence,
pp 364-365. Back
371 Evidence,
p 143. Back
372 Q
423. Back
373 QQ
419, 450, 451. Back
374 Evidence,
pp 101, 333. Back
375 Evidence,
pp 2, 101, 333. Back
376 Evidence,
pp 101, 297. Back
377 Evidence,
p 325. Back
378 Evidence,
p 207. Back
379 Evidence,
pp 209-210, 267-272. Back
380 Report
from the Select Committee on the Earl of Elgin's Collection of
Sculptured Marbles &c,
HC (1816) 161. The tenor of the final section is conveyed by
the footnote on page 11 to a reference to the temple of Apollo
at Phigalia: "the penultimate syllable should be pronounced
long: Phigalia closes two hexameter verses, one of which is quoted
by Pausanias, and the other by Stephanus Byzantinus, from Rhianus
a poet of Crete". Back
381 The
Return of Cultural Treasures,
pp 60-62. Back
382 Evidence,
pp 207, 310. Back
383 Q
692. Back
384 Evidence,
pp 207-208, 304. Back
385 Q
600. Back
386 QQ
618, 625. Back
387 Evidence,
pp 210, 277. Back
388 Evidence,
p 195. Back
389 QQ
600, 618, 710. Back
390 Evidence,
pp 294-295. Back
391 QQ
547, 549, 591, 592. Back
392 QQ
547, 550, 561. Back
393 Evidence,
p 178; Q 554. Back
394 Evidence,
pp 178, 180; Q 547. Back
395 QQ
554, 556, 567. Back
396 Evidence,
p 181; QQ 557, 561, 562. Back
397 QQ
549, 586, 572; Evidence p 179. Back
398 Evidence,
p 181; QQ 547, 559, 575. Back
399 Q
618. Back
400 Q
692. Back
401 QQ
693-694, 711. Back
402 Evidence,
p 366. Back
403 Evidence,
p 330; Archaeology, Relics, and the Law, pp 586-589. Back
404 Evidence,
pp 367, 370, 381-382. Back
405 Evidence,
p 381. Back
406 Evidence,
pp 367, 382. Back
407 Evidence,
pp 89, 92-93, 382. Back
408 Evidence,
p 90; Q 303. Back
409 Q
318. Back
410 Evidence,
p 89. Back
411 Evidence,
pp 93, 382. Back
412 QQ
295, 302, 304. Back
413 Evidence,
pp 381, 89; Q 283. Back
414 Evidence,
pp 89, 330, 365-366, 381. Back
415 Evidence,
pp 89, 365-366, 381. Back
416 C
Fforde, "English Collections of Human Remains" in World
Archaeological Bulletin No 6, 1992; Evidence, pp 370-371. Back
417 Evidence,
pp 137-138, 384. Back
418 Evidence,
pp 295, 298. Back
419 Evidence,
p 291. Back
420 Q
348. Back
421 Q
349. Back
422 Evidence,
p 101; Q 287. Back
423 QQ
288, 294. Back
424 Evidence,
pp 291, 367, 381. Back
425 Evidence,
p 381. Back
426 Q
686. Back
427 Evidence,
p 298. Back
428 Ibid;
QQ 347-348, 362-364. Back
429 Evidence,
pp 384-385. Back
430 Q
686. Back
431 QQ
289, 350. Back
432 Evidence,
pp 205, 352-353. Back