Who Owns the Elgin Marbles?

Who owns the Elgin Marbles?

 A non-partisan perspective on the 200+ year long debate between Greece and the United Kingdom 

Luis Flores 


In 1801, Lord Elgin, a British nobleman, embarked on the typical coming-of-age journey across the European continent, similar to today’s popular standard of a “college graduation trip to Europe”. Prompted by the Western trend of obsession over the exotic and primitive, or what was thought to be, due to colonialism, Lord Elgin was initially granted permission to make sketches of his findings in the unfamiliar yet intriguing territories. Once arriving in Ottoman-controlled present-day state of Greece, Lord Elgin was immediately star struck by the beauty of one of the most significant wonders of the ancient world: The Parthenon. 

The Parthenon

The damaged acropolis, struck recently by an explosion during conflict, still conveyed its monumentality as it does today. As the main landmark for the ancient Athenians who claimed this area years ago, the Parthenon was the center of all religious, social, political, and economic sectors of Athenian society. Serving as the temple for Athena, the Parthenon was adorned with both Ionic and Doric fluted columns, a ginormous metallic statue of Athena thought to be made out of gold, silver, and even ivory, as well as one of the longest outdoor and indoor friezes in the world, depicting Athenian culture and society. But the main figure piece of this marvel was its revolutionary architectural detail: the pediment and its “marbles”. Borrowed from previous Etruscan cultural art practice of placing statues near the roof of the building, the Parthenon’s pediment includes a variety of detailed metopes, triglyphs, and relief statues that tells the basis of Greek mythology. 

The Firman

And Lord Elgin was not stupid; as he understood immediately how precious these art pieces found in the pediment are. After being granted a firman, a legal document from the Ottoman Empire, from the local supervisor of the area under the sultan, Elgin began to work quickly, taking over 200+ boxes filled with statues, metopes, frieze sections, and what is now known as the Elgin Marbles, or the relief statues located in the pediment. With the firman reading “blocks of stone having inscriptions or figured upon them”, Elgin interpreted this clause as his ticket into being able to take anything ancient. This clause has caused much controversy, with the international community continuing to debate if this transaction was legal or illegal. Once back home, a parliamentary committee found that Lord Elgin’s claim over the marbles was legal, based on the legality of the firman. After a few months of touring the marbles and exposing them to the art-crazed Western European community, debt-ridden Elgin decided to sell the marbles to the British government, as he could not financially support them anymore. Since then, the British Museum has held the Elgin Marbles for around 180+ years, exhibiting the marbles as one of their most prized possessions; bringing in millions of tourists from all around the world every year.

The Elgin Marbles

In order to understand the full focus of this conflict, one must first grasp the significance of these marbles to not only the international art community, but also to the whole international community. Firstly, the marbles are marvels of art, often considered as masterpieces of the Greek Hellenistic art period, both in form and content wise. The expressive theatrical emotions conveyed on the figures faces, as well with the detailed and intricate anatomical rendition of the subjects, points towards these pieces being a perfect example of Greek art, specifically seen in the mastering of Greek practices such as chain-folding, Polykleitos’ style of contrapposto following his canon of proportions, as well as the careful and smooth engraving conducted under Phidias. Additionally, the marbles are significant to modern-day Greek culture and ancient Athenian culture, as many present-day Greeks have a strong connection to their ancient roots. Finally, the marbles are significant as a symbol of art repatriation, the process of returning cultural property to its origin, between art producing nations and art importing nations. This debate, regardless of who “wins”, will and has affected the future of cultural property and art repatriation for the entire international community. 

Let’s being by examining international legal sources that can help us determine our focal question: Who owns the Elgin Marbles? Due to the lack of sources, we will be examining two types of international law: customary law and subsidiary law. Customary law is a uniform, widespread and consistent state practice that is generally agreed upon as a common norm. On the other hand, subsidiary law can include writings of highly qualified publicists that can be used to interpret customary law, as defined under the Charter of the International Court of Justice, Article 38. 

That being said, the first legal source to consider is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transport of Ownership of Cultural Property, which reads: Article 2(1): “The state Parties to this Convention recognize that he illicit import, export, and transport of ownership of cultural property is one of the main causes of the impoverishment of the cultural heritage of the countries of origin,” as well as, Article 3: “The import export or transfer of ownership of cultural property effected contrary to the provisions adopted under this Convention by the States Parties thereto, shall be illicit.” As written above, the 1970 Convention set the standard for art repatriation, specifically stating that stealing cultural property is illegal and detrimental to the countries of origin. As 130+ states initially signed this Convention, representing the majority of UNESCO member states, it can be argued that this Convention can be applied as customary law. Nevertheless, it is important to take into consideration that the United Kingdom did not sign onto this Convention, as well as the majority of art importing nations (only two signing: USA and Canada). Although the absence of the United Kingdom can argue against the recognition of the Convention as customary law, one must consider that this Convention started a “spirit of cultural repatriation”, seen evidently as the sole reason for many cases of art repatriation between nations starting since 1970. The majority supporting this Convention, as well as its adoption as a global norm seen with the “spirit of cultural repatriation”, it can be argued that the Convention is customary law, thus forcing the UK to abide to, regardless if an initial signatory or not. 

The second legal source to consider is the United Nations International Institution for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) 1995 Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, which reads: Article 3(1): “The possessor of a cultural object which has been stolen shall return it,” as well as, Article 10(3): “…Convention for the restitution or return of a cultural object stolen or illegal exported before the entry into force of this Convention.” As stated, this Convention recognizes that it is a nation’s duty to return a stolen cultural property to its nation of origin, as well as making this applicable to objects stolen before the ratification of the Convention (1995). This idea of holding nations accountable for their past is not a common practice in international law, proving to be a controversial clause. Thus, only 26 nations signed onto the treaty, with Britain included as those who did not. But it is important to recognize this Convention due to its emergence as customary law, with 46 nations now in agreement since July of 2019. 

The final legal source to examine is the Model Provisions on Sate Ownership of Undiscovered Cultural Objects, by the Expert Committee on State Ownership of Cultural Heritage, stating: Provision 6: “For the purposes of ensuring the return or the restitution to the enacting State of cultural objects excavated contrary to the law of illicitly excavated but illicitly retained, such objects shall be deemed stolen objects.” This example of subsidiary law favors the repatriation of the marbles back to Greece by stating that the legality of the ownership of the art does not matter, as Greece’s main argument is determined if the initial taking of the marbles was legal or illegal. Although an interesting perspective in favor of Greece, it is important to recognize that subsidiary law is not legally binding, as it should only be considered with heavy weight. 

Under these laws, Greece would have legal precedent over the UK for ownership of the marbles, yet none are legally binding. One of the main issues with international law is the lack of accountability, especially when dealing with controversial customary and subsidiary laws. They fail to answer the initial question if the transaction was legal or not, thus making these legal sources inapplicable. In the end, these legal sources are based on the fact if the marbles were stolen or not. Thus, we need to look into the UK’s and Greece’s argument to determine the legality of the transaction. 

First, the British argument relies on the idea of cultural internationalism, or the belief that ancient human culture belongs to the whole of humanity and the international community, not just to one sovereign state actor. This is evident with the marbles residing in the British Museum, an institution that values itself over its worldly collection, as well as their refusal to a UNESCO mediation proposed by Greece in 2013, calling for instead domestic museum-to-museum interactions rather than an international body like UNESCO holding them accountable. In 2014, the British Museum loaned one of the most important marbles from the Elgin Marbles collection to the Hermitage State Museum in St. Petersburg, Russia. This brought much controversy, as it was seen as contradictory to previous UK policy, due to the UK repeatedly refusing to loan the marbles to a museum in Greece or even to a new outpost of the British Museum in Greece. In the past, the UK government have stated that it would be unsafe to repatriate the marbles back to Greece, due to air pollution and unstandardized and unregulated museums. Although this claim has been taken back, due to the new state-of-the-art Acropolis Museum being more than capable to house the marbles, it still points out the double standard the UK has with Greece and other nations it loans the marbles to. Furthermore, in a historical context, the UK claims that the Ottomans had legal authority over the Parthenon and Greece due to modern day international standards of sovereignty, making the firman legal. The UK also supports the parliamentary committee’s decision that rules the transaction legal. In a social perspective, a poll was conducted by yougov.com that surveyed UK citizens, measuring that around 52% of the population, representing the majority, thought that the marbles should be returned back to Greece, while around 30% thought that they should stay in the British Museum. Although the majority of the population believes in art repatriation, it is important to understand how polarizing this conflict is, even internally in the UK. 

Greek Protest in the British Museum

On the Greek side, their argument relies on the idea of cultural nationalism, or the belief that ancient culture belongs to the state where the culture originated, thus claiming that ancient Athenian culture is Greek culture. From an emotional perspective, it is clear that the marbles should be returned to Greece. Yet, it is important to take an impartial stance when looking at this case and to look at every perspective. As stated before, Greece has asked the UK to participate in a UNESCO moderated mediation, yet the UK refused in 2013. Additionally, Greece finds the loaning of the marble to Russia disrespectful, pointing out the clear double standard that the UK has when it comes to loaning the marbles. From a historical standpoint, Greece believes that officials could have been bribed to look the other way, as well as emphasizing that the Greek state was under control by the Ottomans; and thus, their voice was not heard. Greece also supports the idea of the firman not being in its final form, and could have been misinterpreted and mistranslated, as the translated firman to English that was presented to the parliamentary committee who deemed it legal was translated by Reverend Philip Hunt, one of Lord Elgin’s closest chaplains. 

Nevertheless, there still exists many practical implications of changing the ownership of the marbles. If given back to Greece, the Acropolis Museum and Greece in general would obviously see a rise in tourism and economic revenue, while the British Museum would not necessary loose a large amount, due to their museum having many wonders from around the world. Additionally, if given to Greece, the transactions would create a chain of art repatriation internationally, shrinking the collection from western museums drastically. As the Elgin Marbles has been a long-debated conflict, such action taken on it would have lasting ripple effects on the entire int international art community. 

By analyzing the conflict through a legal perspective, it is clear that according to customary law and subsidiary law, Greece has more legal claim than the UK to the Elgin Marbles. This is because international law puts emphasis on ownership, not subjective perspectives on history. Yet, I want to pose the broader question: Does ownership trump accessibility? If the Elgin Marbles controversy is decided in favor of Greece, one must think about the effect this would have on humanity’s access on art. Thus, the international community, regardless of who is the “winner” in this conflict, should take into consideration: What would ensure the accessibility and betterment of art for humanity? 


Report condensed from research capstone group presentation at Yale Young Global Scholars 2019, including collaboration with Laura Somoza, Meeral Tashfeen, and Carrie Xeu. 

Works Cited:

Rudenstine, David. “Lord Elgin and the Ottomans: The Question of Permission.” Cardozo School of Law, 2002, doi:https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1166&context=faculty-articles.

Dyfri Williams, Lord Elgin's firman, Journal of the History of Collections, Volume 21, Issue 1, May 2009, Pages 49–76, https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article/21/1/49/762147

Knox, Christine K. "They've Lost Their Marbles: 2002 Universal Museums' Declaration, the Elgin Marbles and the Future of the Repatriation Movement ." Suffolk Transnational Law Review, vol. 29, no. 2, Summer 2006, pp. 315-336. HeinOnline, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/sujtnlr29&i=320.

Merryman, John Henry. “Thinking about the Elgin Marbles.” Michigan Law Review, vol. 83, no. 8, 1985, pp. 1881–1923. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1288954.

Hamilakis, Yannis. “Stories from Exile: Fragments from the Cultural Biography of the Parthenon (or 'Elgin') Marbles.” World Archaeology, vol. 31, no. 2, 1999, pp. 303–320. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/125064.

Y. Rowan and U. Baram (eds) 2004 Marketing Heritage : Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past. AltaMira Press, pp41-56. The Politics of Playing Fair, or, Who’s losing Their Marbles?

Josse/Scala, et al. “How the Parthenon Lost Its Marbles.” National Geographic, 28 Mar. 2017, www.nationalgeographic.com/archaeology-and-history/magazine/2017/03-04/parthenon-sculptures-british-museum-controversy/.