The Isse of the Parthenon Marbles - Alecos Alavanos (1994) - Ποιειν Και Πραττειν

The Isse of the Parthenon Marbles - Alecos Alavanos (1994)

Cultural Actions in relation to Common Cultural Heritage

The practical case of the Parthenon Marbles

presented by Special Study Group to the Fifth Seminar, Cultural Action for Europe, Athens 1994

I. Press and Pubic Relations Release by the British Museum

II. Proposals and Ideas about Cultural Heritage - the practical case of the Parthenon Marbles by Alecos Alavanos

III. Members of the European Parliament in Support of the Initiative by Alecos Alavanos and in favour of the Parthenon Marbles being returned to Greece

IV: Report to the Fifth Seminar concerning the Recommendations of the Special Study Group: The Issue of the Parthenon Marbles by Elias Yanniris

V. Considerations and reflections by Hatto Fischer, organiser of the Fifth Seminar

I. Press and Public Relations Release by The British Museum

Note: This press release was received from Mr. Andrew Hamilton, Head of Press and Public Relations at the British Museum. It was a follow-up of an initial discussion about the proposal of Alecos Alavanos handed to the keeper of Greek and Roman Antiquities of the British Museum, Dr. Dyfri J.R. Williams one day after the funeral of Melina Mercouri. The discussion was meant to prepare the grounds for the Fifth Seminar to take up this issue of the common cultural heritage.

The Sculptures from the Parthenon

Among the sculptures known as the Elgin Marbles the most important are the frieze and other architectural sculptures rescued by Lord Elgin from the ruins of the Parthenon, with the approval of the appropriate authorities, at the beginning of the 19th century. After careful consideration by Parliament the entire collection was purchased from him by the British Government in 1816 and entrusted to the British Museum to be preserved and kept together.

The Museum's collections are vested in the Trustees in accordance with the legislation enacted by Parliament, which since 1753 has prohibited them from permanently disposing of any object (other than duplicates) and has required them to ensure that the collections are preserved, for the benefit of International scholarship and the enjoyment of the general public. In fulfilment of this responsibility the Museum is open seven days a week, free of charge, and attracts more than 6.5 million visitors a year from all parts of the world. The Parthenon sculptures constitute one of the greatest and best-loved of its treasures; and the fact that they exemplify in a unique manner, the aesthetic genius of classical antiquity, which has exerted so profound an influence on the subsequent history of mankind, makes it the more appropriate that they should find their setting in a Museum which is universal in its scope and is designed to resent as complete and integrated a picture as possible of the development of different, but related, cultures through the ages.

The Trustees would regard it as a betrayal of their trust to establish a precedent for the piecemeal dismemberment of collections which recognize no arbitrary boundaries of time or place.

The British Museum
London WC1B 3DG
Tel. 071 636 1555
FAX 323 8614

II. Proposals and ideas about Cultural Heritage - the practical case of the Parthenon Marbles by Alecos Alavanos

Proposals

"....about cultural resources (treasures) of one country-member which exist in another member-country"

It is proposed that nine (9) community regulations be initiated which have to do with following matters:

security
maintenance
management
promotion and display
commercial use
their export to other member countries or outside the European Union
the immediate return of cultural items (treasures) which are stored and not being displayed to the public
the specification of the legal provisions of the European Union so that "cultural goods" which have been i l l e g a l l y exported should be returned immediately
financing of action (programmes), in order to inform the people of the European Union about the importance of 'repatriation' of items of cultural heritage to the countries of origin.

The Cultural Landscape after Maastricht

After the Treaty of Maastricht and the new guidelines for the Cultural Actions of the European Union on the basis of the subsidiarity principle, "the European Union contributes to the development of cultures of the member countries and respects their national and regional diversity, while at the same time promotes the common cultural heritage".
(Paragraph 1, Article 128)

The Proposed Community Regulations

My proposals should probably take the form of Recommendations, since, according to the Treaty, there is no provision for Directives or Regulations (in cultural matters). In the context of the revision of the Treaty, in 1996 or even earlier, I believe that the possibility of the European Union to intervene through Regulations or Directives should be provided.

It is my conviction that a country which has created a cultural heritage ('treasure') has every right to feel concerned with the general condition and management of parts of this heritage which are to be found in some other country member of the European Union. Likewise, I believe it is reasonable and legitimate that the state which has produced ('created') the 'treasure' should have the right to be fully informed by the member-state which 'hosts' its cultural heritage and that both member-states should have consultations between themselves as to the above mentioned matters.

It should be underlined, that the right of the member state of origin to be consulted by the state which hosts the 'treasures' is not, today, recognized within the European Union. Therefore, the legal provisions that I am proposing, if they will be adopted by the European Union, will include, apart from the practical results, the direct or indirect recognition of certain rights of the states upon their cultural heritage which happens to be abroad. Such a development within the European Union could trigger positive reactions even at an international level, which could open the way to new negotiations with countries outside the European Union which possess foreign cultural goods.

In detail, my proposals are as follows:

1. Security of Cultural Treasures

More and more often there appears in Europe the phenomenon of vandalism and robberies of various museums and art collections.

Especially after the recent bomb attack against the Uffici Gallery (Italy) and the repeated theft and destruction of cultural treasures, the member states of which the cultural heritage is abroad, have every reason to be anxious about the well being of these treasures. Let us imagine a vandalism against the marbles of Parthenon in London, in order to visualise the measure of powerlessness on the part of Greece in the face of such a tragic event, since the only possibility would be, for Greece, to stage a protest at a diplomatic level and simply have the opportunity to promote the idea of repatriation of cultural products among the European public.

Thus, the common responsibility of the state which has created the Cultural Heritage and the state which currently "hosting" it, is, I think, necessary.

The matter of security involves not only the place and form of display of these treasures, but also their slightest transport.

It has, likewise, to do with other probable situations of 'deregulation' or emergency in the host country (power cuts, bomb attacks, natural disaster etc.)

2. Management of Cultural Treasures

The continuous emergence of new needs and concepts around museums and their social-educational role, often leads to re-arrangements of the exhibited articles, even to the point of their relocation in new exhibition spaces. At the same time, important development in cultural exchanges constitutes the transfer, for a specific period of time, of collections to other member states.

These matters involve, quite often, the cultural heritage of o t h e r member states, and it is only reasonable that Community provisions regulate the necessary co-operation on such matters of management.

3. The maintenance (conservation) of cultural treasures

The regulation by the European Union of matters pertaining to the (necessary) consultations between the member state of origin and the member state hosting the "treasure" is, I believe, a mature demand.

First, it will enable the transfer of know-how to member states which have no particular tradition in conservation. Likewise, it will facilitate cultural exchanges between member states, which is in accordance with the Maastricht provision about the common cultural heritage.

Lastly, it will enable the member states which created the cultural heritage to participate in their management and conservation independent of the place where the cultural treasures are located.

4. The form of display and publicization of cultural heritage

The way in which cultural treasures of one member state are displayed by another member state has a special moral value.

For instance, the member state which hosts foreign cultural treasures, out of respect for the people of origin of these treasures, should include in the description of the exhibit:

the exact place and country of origin,
whether it is a part of a wider collection, which collection and where the latter is located,
description of the exhibit i n t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a t e o f o r i g i n,

Also, the "advertising" (promotion) of the cultural treasures should be done in such a way, so as the country of origin should not be offended. For instance, the marbles of Parthenon should be mentioned on the labels or in publications as such and not as the "Elgin" marbles.

5. The commercial use of cultural treasures

A serious problem is raised from the commercial use of cultural treasures of a member state by the member state which possesses them.

For example, since the marbles of the Parthenon which are in London constitute an integral part of the Acropolis ensemble (collection), it would be very reasonable the Acropolis Museum to be able to exhibit or sell copies of the Greek treasures in London. The same can be argued for the treasure of Aegina which is to be found in Munich or about other treasures abroad.

Related to that matter is the earnings from publications, slides etc.

The thought that a part from the benefit should go to the country of origin of the cultural heritage is connected, apart from the fact of the relative autonomy of that country, with the previous proposals about the joint management of those treasures, the consultations in matters of security, publicity, display, etc.

6. The potential export of a cultural treasure to other member states or outside the European Union

The potential transport of cultural items which a member state possesses but which constitute the cultural heritage of another member state is a very important question which involves co-operation, but which has to be settled through a community regulation. Special arrangements are even more needed, involving also the European Union itself, in the case these cultural treasures are to be transferred outside the European Union. The involvement of the European Union derives from the fact that it has to do with the common European heritage.

The great importance of these regulations is obvious, since it is a matter of political choice whether the state which produced these treasures agrees or not with their slightest removal from the states which possess them.

7. The need for immediate return of treasures which are stored

There is a need that special community regulations will be rectified which will envisage the immediate return to a member state of its cultural heritage which "exists" in other member states and which is n o t exhibited in public, but it is stored.

The demand for the return of treasures which are stored and not displayed is, I believe, mature and can gain considerable support.

Nobody can seriously argue about the non-return of cultural goods which are not exhibited by the member state which possesses them.

8. The need for community regulations on how to return immediately cultural goods which have been illegally exported

It is necessary the specification of the European Union's legal framework regarding negotiations and the role of the Commission for the return of cultural heritage in the case of illegal import or export from one member state to another. There are certain provisions in the community legal framework, but I believe an in depth elaboration of the details is needed so that the member states are legally bound to the a c t u a l return of cultural goods which are illegally in another member state.

However, the Treaty itself provides only the possibility of recommendations and not of Directives or Regulations, a fact which hinders the application of the Treaty on matters of European Cultural Heritage.

It has to be noted that the General Assembly of the United Nations has addressed UNESCO and the "Intergovernmental Committee for the return of the Cultural Heritage to the Countries of origin, in order to promote bilateral negotiations for the return of cultural heritages.

9. Certain matters concerning the inventory of cultural heritage of member states

The systematic registration (filing) is related to the unified market and the elimination of customs control since 1.1.1993.

I underline here that the General Assembly of the United Nations has reconfirmed in its Resolution 48/15 (12.11.1993) the importance of "consensus" as a primary instrument for the comprehension and protection of the cultural heritage, for the reaffirmation of scattered heritages and as a contribution to the promotion of scientific and artistic knowledges and inter-cultural communication.

I would like to emphasize the need of including, in the inventory of or the heritage of one member-state, of those parts of the heritage which are abroad.

For instance, I think it is inconceivable that Great Britain, France or Germany would submit to the European Union inventories (lists) where Greek treasures are included, while Greece would not include in its inventories items like the Parthenon marbles, the Apteros NIKI, etc..

III.

Members of the European Parliament in support of the initiative by Alecos Alavanos in favour of the Parthenon Marbles to be returned to Greece

1. Germany

Malangrι Kurt
Breyer Hiltrud
Funk Honor
Menrad Winfried
Jarzembowski Georg
Sakellariou
Piermond Dorothee
Vittinghoff Kurt
Kaufmann Silvia-Yvonne
Kertscher Norbert-Helmut
Florenz Karl-Heinz
Kuhn Annemarie
Linkohr Rolf
Roth Claudia
Krehl Constanze-Angela
vo der Vring Thomas

2. Great Britain

Falkoner Alexander
Newman Edward
Elliot Michael
Stewart Kenneth
Simpson Brian
Coates Kenneth
Lomas Alfred
Green Pauline
Hindley Michael
Wilson Anthony Joseph
Seal Barry
Tongue Carole
Prag Derek
White Ian
Wynn Terence
Ewing Winfred
Pollack Anita
Morris David
Barton Roger

3. Belgium

Happard Jojι
Herman Fernand
Staes Paul
Lannoye Paul
Andrι-Lιonadr Anne
Dury Raymonde
Delcroix Claude
Desama Claude

4. Italy

Bontempi Rinaldo
Vecchi Luciano
Speciale Roberto
De Giovani
De Piccoli
Rosseti
Trivelli
Chiabrando Mauro
Catasta Anna
Dalsass Joachim
Mazzone Antonio
Magnani Noya Maria
Mottola Guiseppe
Muscardini Cristiana
Ceci Andriana
Regge
Amendola
Guidolin Grancesco
Barzanti
Melandri Eugenio
Langer Alexander
Napoletano Pasqualina
Cignari Gaetano
La Pergola Antonio
Coppo Gavazzi Maria Tereza

5. France

Ernst Brigitte
Saby Henri
Pinton Michel
Dinguirard Margerite-Marie
Raffin Jean-Pierre
Tauran
Simeoni Max
Mebrak-Zaidi Nora

6. Ireland

Geraghty
Lane Patrick

7. Portugal

Coimbra Martins Antonio
da Cunha Oliveira Artur
Midanda da Silva
Ribeiro Sergio
Barata-Moura Jojι
Belo Maria
Marinho Luis
Margues Mendes A.
Capucho Antonio

8. Spain

Verde i Aldrea Josep
Domingo Teresa
Arbeloa Muru Victor Manuel
Gutierrez Diaz
Puerta Alfonso Josι
Gonzalez Alvarez
Miranda de Lage Anna
de la Camara Martinez
Colino Salamanca Juan Luis
Pons Grau Jojep Enrique
Santos Lopez
Diez de Ribera Icaza Carmen
Barrera I Costa Heribert
Duhrkop Barbara

9. Greece

….

10. Holland

Bertens Jan Willem
Metten Alman
Larive Jessica
Oomen-Ruijten
Muntingh Hemmo

11. Denmark

Bjornvig Birgit
Iversen John

Stand in April 1994

IV.

Report to the Fifth Seminar 'Cultural action for Europe', Athens 1994 concerning Recommendations of the Special Study Group: The Issue of the Parthenon Marbles by Elias Yanniris

The issue of the Parthenon Marbles is a key example on how the European Cultural Policy is going to be perceived.

The demand for the return of the Parthenon Marbles to their country of origin has become stronger over time. That demand was made explicit by Melina Mercouri already a decade ago. At the beginning this demand sounded more like a "foolish idea", something derived from Romanticism. Today, however, there are no longer any valid arguments existing in favour of the "non-return" of this unique cultural heritage. In the Spring of 1994, the majority of members of the European Parliament signed a petition initiated by Alecos Alavanos. It asks for the return of the Parthenon Marbles from England to Greece. The text of this petition is as follows:

"We, the undersigned members of the European Parliament, agree and support the declaration of the 87 members of the British Parliament and the letter of the 29 British actresses concerning the return of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece.

We believe that the Parthenon Marbles, being at the present still in London, are an integral part of the historic Monument of the Acropolis in Athens. The return of this universal treasure to Greece would be an action of great moral significance, and a great step towards the dignification of the European cultural heritage. Such an action would simultaneously render the best honor to the memorable Melina Mercouri, and would symboliZe the movement of the EuropeanUnion towards the future."

With this petition the European Parliament took a positive stand on the priority that such cultural matters should have for the Europe 2002.

The Special Study Group of the Fifth Seminar dealing with the issue of the Parthenon Marbles developed three basic guidelines by which the argumentation in favour of returning the Parthenon Marbles could be made explicit:

The Parthenon Marbles which exist in London are part of a whole: the Monument of the Parthenon. They were deprived from the Building during the last century, because of the rising interest of Europe in Ancient Greek Civilisation. That is at a time when Europe was seeking its own identity. Due to the universal uniqueness of the Parthenon the monument as a whole must be restored.
If Culture is going to be a unifying force for Europe, then there is no excuse in delaying further the correction of past actions which symboliZe until today the historical enmities or hostilities between the various European countries. On the other hand, Europe does derive its modern identity from the ancient Greek civilisation. The return of the Parthenon Marbles can give to the official European Institutions an opportunity to unite cultural policy around this unique symbolic action. It would be a commitment to culture on the part of the Commission, the Council, the European Parliament, the British and the Greek governments, in order to address to the peoples of Europe as well as to the peoples of the whole world the commemoration of a new European era.
In terms of content, the Ancient Greek Civilisation offers Europe the utmost values of democracy, philosophy and Ethos. As the symbol of Western Civilisation, the Parthenon temple belongs to the Common Cultural Heritage of Europe. This symbol must be treated accordingly, and not be a cause of pain. As long as this matter remains to be a national dispute between two member states, the Unification of Europe seems to lose its proper meaning. Therefore, future Community action must be undertaken, on the grounds of ethos and democracy, in order to give to this Common Cultural Heritage its proper place, that is by bringing back the Parthenon Marbles to Greece in order to restore the Temple in its e n t i r e t y.

A special lecture was given during the Fifth Seminar by Dr. Epaminondas Vranopoulos during which he presented in detail the arguments in favour of the return of the Parthenon marbles. He also gave answers to the arguments which have been expressed in the past to be in favour of the non-return of this unique treasure.

Unfortunately, the British Museum, although invited, did not send someone to participate in the Fifth Seminar.

V. Considerations and reflections by Hatto Fischer

A real discussion between the British Museum and those interested that the Parthenon marbles are returned to Greece is but an imaginary point of reference. The real issue is the kind of honesty displayed when the Parthenon marbles are called by their real and original name, but end up in a bookshop booklet of the British Museum being called the 'Elgin marbles'. Cultural appropriation is a term which hides what happened to many cultural artefacts in former colonies of the British Empire, but is also still the practice today.

It is, therefore, of interest to reflect how specific acts of naming things, events, persons etc., and more specifically cultural heritage can determine a museum policy. This is then reflected in the kind of self-understanding to be gained by visiting those museums, insofar as they will inform the public accordingly on how they obtained these artefacts. They are a part of what Klaus Heinrich called 'the imperial collection' since it contains items not created within the own culture as contribution to mankind, but seized, stolen, expropriated, in order to mask the own brutal civilization with the human artefacts of the indigenous cultures.

It is doubtful that a common cultural heritage can be maintained under such a premise as claimed by the British Museum. In that sense, the press release is an important indication of wordings. For it underlines what arguments prevail to make the entire case absurd e.g. it is argued by the British Museum that a collection should not be broken up, but this obliterates in a most obvious and elegant way that the original collection was broken up when Elgin removed 'illegally' the sculptures from the Parthenon in the first place.

It says also that legal processes to be anticipated shall not be successful themselves. Rather the Parthenon Marbles stand for a cultural redemption needed, if Europe is to regain a balance in what has contributed to the making of Western Civilization. Here needs to be added mistakes have been made and redemption would entail correcting them. In the case of the Parthenon Marbles, this would be to restore the original collection at the place where they have been created and which stand for the Western Civilization. That is even attested by some of its fiercest critics like Franz Fanon who said not everything should be build on the premise of the Parthenon. But that does stand for Western democracy. Thus if Europe is to regain its lost balance, as Milton attests, then those violent acts of the past have to be seen under such terms, that cultural appropriations to create imperial collections is deemed 'illegal'. Nothing else makes sense.

Participants of the Special Study Group: The issue of the Parthenon Marbles

Gianniris, Elias - co-ordinator
Regional Planner, Poet and Political Advisor of

Alecos Alavanos, member of the European Parliament

Maglara, Marianne
Research Assistent
DIALOGOS / BEACON

Vranopoulos, Epaminondas Dr.
Teacher of History
Athens College
Psychico, Athens

^ Top

« The Parthenon Marbles | Does the British Museum inform the public properly? by Hatto Fischer »

Ποιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

Navigation