Embedded Files
On this page:
On this page:
The modern history of the Acropolis sculptures (19th century on)
Perspective: A brief timeline of the complete history of the Acropolis
The modern history of the Acropolis sculptures
The modern history of the Acropolis sculptures
(19th century on)
(19th century on)
Summary
Summary
In the early 19th century, Thomas Bruce, the 7th Earl of Elgin (commonly referred to as Elgin), who was the British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, removed sculptures from the Acropolis of Athens without permission from the Sultan (Korka, 2010; Robertson, 2020) and shipped them to Britain. At that time, Athens was under Ottoman occupation. The removed sculptures, known in Britain as the ‘Elgin Marbles’ but, correctly, referred to as the 'Parthenon Sculptures' (referring to the sculptures removed specifically from the Parthenon) and the 'Acropolis Sculptures' (referring to all of the sculptures removed by Elgin from all the buildings of the Acropolis), included a large number of artistic and architectural pieces, all of which are part of the ancient structures of the Acropolis of Athens. Today, the sculptures that Elgin removed from the Acropolis continue to be kept in Britain, despite the request by Greece and supporters from around the world to bring them back to Athens to reunite them with the matching counterparts in their original geographic, historical, and archaeological context. The state-of-the-art Acropolis Museum in Athens has the capacity to house them all in one complete exhibition, in optimal conditions, in direct view of the monument.
To help you with your research, this page includes in-text citations + a list of full references (available at the bottom of this page).
A story of unauthorised despoliation
A story of unauthorised despoliation
In the early 1800s, Elgin, the British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, removed sculptures from the buildings of the Acropolis of Athens without permission from the Sultan (list of references below). He shipped them to Britain where they continue to be displayed, far from their matching parts in Athens.
Excellent accounts of the modern history of the Acropolis sculptures and their removal by Elgin are provided by the following (in reverse chronological order):
Excellent accounts of the modern history of the Acropolis sculptures and their removal by Elgin are provided by the following (in reverse chronological order):
Korka (2024)
Titi (2023)
Robertson (2020)
Stamatoudi & Korka (2014)
Hellenic Ministry of Culture (2007b)
Rudenstine (2000, 2001, 2002, 2021)
Bartfield, Spencer, and Rudestine (2025)
Despite the historical facts (primary-source material presented below), the British Museum continues to present the story differently, claiming that Elgin had permission. But evidence documents the opposite - please refer to the original material below.
Western side of the Acropolis. The Frankish Tower ('Koulas'), the old external entrance, the dome ('Tholiko') and the Seprenje wall are visible.
Athens, 1851
Alfred Nicolas Normand
© Benaki Museum Photographic Archive
For more photos of the Acropolis from the 19th and early 20th century, please visit the gallery in the Photo chronicle.
What Elgin removed from the Acropolis
What Elgin removed from the Acropolis
Elgin removed the majority of the sculptures that adorned the Parthenon. In addition to this, he dismembered and took parts of the other temples and buildings of the Athenian Acropolis.
In summary, Elgin took:
from the Parthenon:
- Frieze: 56 of the 97 parts that have survived (originally there were 111 parts), i.e. 247ft of the original 524ft of the frieze
- Metopes: 15 of the 64 metopes that have survived (originally there were 92 metopes)
- Pedimental sculptures: 17 of the 28 figures that have survived (originally there were 37 figures)
- Architectural pieces
from the Erechtheion:
- A Caryatid (1 of the 6 Caryatids)
- A column
- Architectural members
from the temple of Athena Nike:
- Frieze: 4 pieces
- Architectural members
from the Propylaea:
- Architectural members
(Hellenic Ministry of Culture, 2007a; Korka, 2024).
The buildings on the Acropolis of Athens are: the Propylaea, the temple of Athens Nike, the Erechtheion, and the Parthenon. Elgin removed sculptures and/or architectural members from all of these buildings and, mostly, from the Parthenon.
Diagram showing the relative position of the frieze, the metopes and the pediments on the Parthenon (G.Niemann). Source: Hellenic Ministry of Culture
Schematic overview of the layout of the frieze and metopes of the Parthenon, indicating the parts that are missing from Athens. Note that this diagram does not show the pedimental sculptures, almost all of which were also removed from the temple by Elgin. Image source: Mantis, 2000. “Disjecta Membra. The Plunder & Dispersion of the Antiquities of the Acropolis”. Source: Hellenic MInistry of Culture
Elgin did not have permission from the Ottoman Sultan to dismember buildings of the Acropolis, or to detach, cut or remove any parts of them
Elgin did not have permission from the Ottoman Sultan to dismember buildings of the Acropolis, or to detach, cut or remove any parts of them
The concept of permission and what research and primary-source material has revealed
In the early 1800s, at the time of Elgin's acts, Athens was under Ottoman rule. What Elgin would have needed to be allowed to remove the sculptures from the buildings of the Acropolis would have been permission from the Sultan in the form of a decree referred to as "firman" (or "fermaun", as also found in texts from that period). A firman was a document with very specific characteristics in terms of syntax and features. But Elgin never received a firman. According to primary-source material (see below), Elgin’s delegate, Philip Hunt, presented as evidence a simple letter (not a firman from the Sultan), which most likely represents a draft document (Rudenstine, 2001, p.1882-1883). Elgin managed to remove sculptures from the Acropolis through bribery and pressure (Rudenstine, 2001, p.1876; Korka, 2010, p.283). The letter presented by Hunt simply asked the Turkish provosts in Athens to allow Elgin’s men to enter the Acropolis, draw and make casts, and, in case they found a small fragment of sculpture or inscription in the ruins around the monument, they could remove it (Hellenic Ministry of Culture, 2007b; Korka, 2010; Stamatoudi & Korka, 2014; Korka, 2024; Titi, 2023). The letter provides few words that "fail to authorize removal of marble statuary from the Parthenon edifice" (Rudenstine, 2002, p.456), also stating that the work done by Elgin's artisans would not harm the sculptures (Rudenstine, 2001, p.1872). Rudenstine (2001) provides a full analysis showing that the letter in Italian is merely a draft - not even a translation of any Ottoman original (p.1882-1883); and no such Ottoman original or copy or even a reference to such a document was ever found in any archive including those in Greece or Turkey (Rudenstine, 2001, p.1860; Smith, 2024). Recent analyses of the letter are also provided by Robinson (2020, p.63-73) and Korka (2024, p.53-58).
Thereafter, for years, the letter in Italian was wrongly referred to as representing 'proof' of the existence of an Ottoman firman, fundamentally misleading the treatment of the (il)legatimacy of the case for years (Rudenstine 2001, p.1878). But according to the evidence, Elgin and his delegate did not have any permission from the Sultan, head of the Ottoman state, to detach or remove parts of the Acropolis buildings.
As Robertson (2020, p.63) explains: "Such a document, signed and sealed by Sultan Selim III and copied in the Ottoman archives, would have been necessary to authorise the despoliation of a temple under Ottoman occupation, and neither a firman nor anything to this effect was ever decreed, although the archives have been repeatedly and authoritatively searched. Confusion – and historians and commentators in Greece and Britain have been thoroughly confused – has been caused by Elgin and Hunt – Englishmen abroad – claiming that they had a firman. Their mistake – or their lie – was taken up by the select committee, and for two centuries the debate has centred on whether Elgin exceeded the terms of his ‘firman’. So let it be clear – he never had one."
This is strikingly also revealed in the primary-source material where, as St. Clair (1998, p.155) explains: "The Turks now declared that Lord Elgin never had permission to remove any marbles in the first place. The activities of his agents at Athens that had been going on, with interruptions, for over eight years had, they declared, been illegal from the start.", with reference to the primary-source material by Adair (1841) and Abbot (1861), presented below.
In 2024, in confirmation of the above, Turkey officially rejected the British claim that Elgin had permission to take sculptures from the Acropolis, as there is no sign of any such document or permit in the Ottoman archives (Smith, 2024).
Elgin did not have permission to commit his acts: the document he mentioned was merely a letter (and not a firman from the Ottoman Sultan)
The letter in Italian shows that the document mentioned (but never presented) by Philip Hunt to the Parliamentary Select Committee was not a firman, as it:
X was not issued by the Sultan
X lacked the signet of the Sultan
X lacked a date (orders from the Porte were dated)
X the acting Vezir did not have the authority to allow the dismembering of ancient buildings
X was in a draft form stating "N.N." instead of the name of the actual courier (who was Philip Hunt)
Also, about the existence of an Ottoman letter overall:
X An original Ottoman letter was never presented by Hunt to the Parliamentary Select Committee
X There is no original or copy or even a reference to such an Ottoman document in any archive including those in Greece or Turkey (Rudenstine, 2001, p.1860; Smith, 2024)
X There is only the letter in Italian (Clair, 1998) and a translation of that into English
X There are discrepancies between the documents in Italian and English
X On the basis of its characteristics, the letter in Italian was probably simply a draft document (and not even a translation of any Ottoman original).
A full analysis explaining these elements is provided by Rudenstine (2001, 2002, 2021) and Bartfield, Spencer, and Rudestine (2025).
Key figures to help you navigate the history and primary-source material presented below
(more information on biographies is available at the ODNB ⧉)
Lord Elgin (or, more briefly, also referred to as Elgin)
(full name: Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin)
Diplomat and collector; British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1799 to 1803.
Without the Sultan's permission, he took sculptures from the Acropolis of Athens and sent them to Britain (see below).
(Wikipedia ⧉)
Giovanni Battista Lusieri
Landscape painter
Worked for Elgin, representing him in Athens in the period 1801-1804. More information about Lusieri's involvement in Elgin's acts is provided by Poulou (2024).
(Wikipedia ⧉)
Reverend Philip Hunt
Priest and antiquarian
Served as chaplain to Elgin. In an effort to show that Elgin had received permission for his acts, he provided an English translation of a letter in Italian, which was presented as a translation of an Ottoman letter the original of which was never found. (Rudenstine, 2001)
(Wikipedia ⧉)
William Richard Hamilton
Antiquarian and diplomat
Worked for Elgin as his private secretary.
(Wikipedia ⧉)
Bartolomeo Pisani
Dragoman (interpreter) of the British Embassy.
Functioned to Elgin as an interpreter (Theodorou, 2003) and negotiator (Rudenstine, 2001).
Primary-source material has proved that Elgin did not have permission from the Ottoman Sultan to remove sculptures from the buildings of the Acropolis
Primary-source material has proved that Elgin did not have permission from the Ottoman Sultan to remove sculptures from the buildings of the Acropolis
Hunt’s English translation of the letter in Italian
Image source: Staveris, 2023; link ⧉
July, 1801
In his defence in front of the Parliamentary Select Committee in 1816, Elgin mentioned a document in Ottoman the original of which was not presented to the Committee or ever found. There is only a document in Italian (Clair, 1998), and a translation of that into English, which shows that the mentioned document was merely a letter and not a firman (decree) from the Sultan. Full document analyses are provided by:- Rudenstine, 2001, showing that the letter in Italian was probably not a translation of any Ottoman original, but merely a draft document (p.1882-1883); he also highlights the discrepancies between the documents Italian and English (p.1872-1874)
- Korka, 2024, p.53-58 and
- Robinson, 2020, p.63-73.
Image source: Staveris, 2023; link ⧉
Adair's letter to Canning
September 25th, 1809
"Sir,
On receiving your separate despatch respecting the antiquities collected by Lord Elgin in the Levant, I did not fail to renew the application which I had already made privately to the Ottoman Government for permission to embark them at Athens. The preliminary steps towards their embarkation not having been taken under the sanction of a firman, I have met with much difficulty in forwarding his Lordship's wishes, and even now it is very doubtful whether the object would be effected so certainly through a firman as through a private application to the Vaivode of Athens. Measures to this effect are now taking by his Lordship's agents in this country, assisted by all the support which I can give them in concert privately with the Reis Efendi."
(Adair, 1841, p.272 ⧉).
As mentioned by St. Clair (1998) in note 10 on p.364-365, the original of this letter is in the archives of the UK National Archives, Foreign Office correspondence 1782-1890: FO 78/64.
Diary of Charles Abbot, Speaker of the House of Commons
April 29, 1811
"Afterwards Lord Elgin came to say that he had made up his mind to sell his collection, including marbles, casts, moulds, and drawings, for the expenses which he had incurred; the amount to be valued by a committee of the House of Commons. He waived all question about the property, and title to them; considering them however to be wholly his own; in which he was recently confirmed by Mr. Adair, our late Minister at the Porte, who says that he was expressly informed by the Turkish Government that they entirely disavowed ever having given any authority to Lord Elgin for removing any part of his collection, and did still refuse to allow the removal of some articles remaining behind."
(Abbot, 1861, p.327 ⧉)
Adair's letter to Elgin
July 31st, 1811
"My Lord
In answer to your Lordship's enquiry respecting the marbles collected by your Lordship at Athens, and for leave to transmit which to this country I was directed by the Sec(retary) of State for foreign affairs to apply to the Turkish government, I have to inform your Lordship that Mr Pisani more than once assured me that the Porte absolutely denied your having any property in those marbles. By this expression I understood the Porte to mean that the persons who had sold the marbles to your Lordship had no right so to dispose of them.
At the same time I beg leave to add that this communication was not made to me in any formal conference with the Turkish ministers."
(Theodorou, 2003; also on the author's website ⧉)
Hammersley (MP) in the UK Parliament debate on the Elgin Marbles purchase
June 7th, 1816
"House of Commons, June 7, 1816, Debate Hansard Parliamentary Debates, 1st series 1031–1033, 1035–1037 (1816)[In Opposition to the Purchase]Mr. Hammersley said, he should oppose the resolution on the ground of the dishonesty of the transaction by which the collection was obtained. As to the value of the statues, he was inclined to go as far as the hon. mover, but he was not so enamored of those headless ladies as to forget another lady, which was justice. If a restitution of these marbles was demanded from this country, was it supposed that our title to them could be supported on the vague words of the firman, which only gave authority to remove some small pieces of stone? It was well known that the empress Catharine had entertained the idea of establishing the Archduke Constantine in Greece. If the project of that extraordinary woman should ever be accomplished, and Greece ranked among independent nations with what feelings, would she contemplate the people who had stripped her most celebrated temple of its noblest ornaments?..."(Merryman et al., 2007, p.351)
Turkey has confirmed that there is no permit in the Ottoman archives
2024
In 2024, Turkey officially rejected the claim that Elgin had permission to take the sculptures from the Acropolis, as there is no sign of permit in the Ottoman archives (Smith, 2024; link ⧉).
And neither has anyone ever found an original or a copy or even a reference to any such Ottoman letter in any archive including those in Greece or Turkey (Rudenstine, 2001, p.1860).
Rudenstine's findings: In 1816 the Parliament applied questionnable practices on this matter
Rudenstine's findings: In 1816 the Parliament applied questionnable practices on this matter
As Rudenstine (2001) details (p.1861-1866): In 1816, a Parliamentary Select Committee convened to evaluate Elgin request that the Brisith government purchase the collection of antiquities he took. Elgin had no documentary evidence to offer to the committee.
Bartfield, Spencer, and Rudestine (2025) established that in the Parliament’s 1816 translation of the Italian document into an English language document (that the Parliament then published in the appendix of the 1816 report) there were major discrepancies between the Italian and English documents. It appears that the Parliament added many words to the English translation not present in the Italian document. It also failed to translate some Italian words into English and to incorporate them in the published English document. It mistranslated a few key words. The article that Rudenstine co-authored with two students sets out in detail the evidence that supports these assertions.
Another article by Rudenstine (2021), also followed by five comments, represents his major effort on this matter. However, when he wrote it, he was not aware of the multiple translation discrepancies set forth in the article referenced above.
Combining the two articles (Rudenstine, 2021; and Bartfield, Spencer, and Rudestine, 2025), Rudenstine established that the Parliament in 1816 applied questionable practices and that, over the centuries, the British Museum has hidden behind this, defending its continued possession of the Parthenon collection.
Simply put, the assumption that the Ottomans gave Elgin permission to take the marbles is a grand illusion (Rudenstine, 2000).
Ottoman officials condemned Elgin's activities on the Acropolis
Ottoman officials condemned Elgin's activities on the Acropolis
"At least twice during the first decade of the nineteenth century, Ottoman officials in Constantinople condemned Elgin's activities on the Acropolis. In 1804 and then again in 1809, Constantinople officials ordered Elgin's workers to cease work and asserted that the work done was done without permission." (Rudenstine, 2002, p.469)
Elgin’s acts were unpopular in Athens
Elgin’s acts were unpopular in Athens
Elgin’s acts were unpopular in Athens, as revealed by original memoirs and letters from European travellers to Athens in that period (Tomkinson, 2006). Elgin, in disregard of the Athenians, arranged to have the sculptures literally cut off the Parthenon and shipped to Britain.
Elgin bribed the Turkish guards at the Acropolis of Athens, to proceed according to his wishes unobstructed (Rudenstine, 2001, p.1876).
Tomkinson’s collection of memoirs and letters (“Travellers’ Greece: Memories of an enchanted land”, 2006) provides invaluable insights into the historical, political and emotional context of the removal of the Acropolis sculptures from Athens.
Quote from a British traveller (1802) (quote found in Kelly, 1995, p.35).
Elgin tried to control the reaction of the locals
Elgin tried to control the reaction of the locals
To calm down the local community, Elgin offered a small clock tower to Athens (1811) which was yet later burned down by the locals (1884).
A pair of iron hands from Elgin's clock tower can be seen in the National History Museum ⧉ (Old Parliament, Athens; item ID number 1697-4).
More information about Elgin's clock tower is available in this article ⧉ (in Greek) and this photo album ⧉.
A photo of Elgin's clock tower is available in the Photo chronicle.
The location of where the Tower of Elgin used to be is indicated in this 19th-century map ⧉ (item #24 on the map). You can also see the same location, today, on Google Maps ⧉.
Elgin caused enormous damage to the Parthenon, other Acropolis buildings, and to their sculptures
Elgin caused enormous damage to the Parthenon, other Acropolis buildings, and to their sculptures
Elgin caused enormous damage to the structures of the Acropolis. Looking at the Parthenon, specifally, Elgin caused the greatest damage to it since Morosini (Korres, 1996).
'With a single saw that I have got from the convent, they have sawn a precious fragment of the cornice of the Temple of Neptune Erechtheus (the Erechtheum) and with the same saw they are now sawing a bas-relief, a part of the frieze of the Parthenon.' (quote of Lusieri; in Smith, 1816, p.202).
Elgin broke pieces off the Parthenon, cutting their artistic facade off their architectural extension with a saw. He then shipped the artistic part of the sculptures to Britain. He abandoned the architectural parts on the Acropolis, which you can still see today. One of them, on which you can see the saw marks, is displayed in the Acropolis Museum. Elgin’s actions would be unacceptable according to today’s conservation standards.
Documentaries about the impact of Elgin's act on the Acropolis are available in the Films & Videos section.
Elgin sawed off the artistic facade of the Parthenon frieze, leaving behind mutilated building parts. This is one of Parthenon’s architectural members that were removed and cut with a saw to detach their sculptural decoration. This piece can be seen on the Acropolis today.
Elgin’s ship sank leaving the sculptures in sea water for 2 years
On its way to Britain, Elgin’s ship that carried the sculptures, ‘The Mentor’, sank outside the island of Kythera, leaving the Acropolis sculptures in sea water for two years (Pavlou, 2011).
Shipwreck of “Mentor”, Elgin’s ship that sank off Kythera in 1802, carrying Acropolis sculptures. Source: Kytherian Research Group ⧉
Elgin was in a critical financial state and, while taking the Acropolis sculptures to Britain was initially a desire to decorate his mansion in Scotland, it was an easy way out of his financial situation.
You can find documentaries explaining Elgin motives in Films & Videos.
In the early 19th century, amongst other Acropolis sculptures, Elgin removed one Caryatid from the Erechtheion, leaving in her place a brick column (you can see it in the image above). Image: Edward Dodwell. Southwest View of the Erechtheion (1821). Image source:Edward Dodwell: Views in Greece, London 1821, p. 39.Source: Wikimedia ⧉
The Erechtheion, today, with replicas of the Caryatids holding the iconic porch. In the early 19th century, before Elgin's arrival, the porch would have looked like this. Today, the original Caryatids are in museums: five Caryatids are in the Acropolis Museum at the foot of the Acropolis; and one Caryatid, removed by Elgin in the early 1800s, is still in London.
When Elgin brought the sculptures to Britain, he placed them in a dirty, damp shed in his house where he kept them decaying for years. At the end of Elgin’s financially devastating adventures, after an enquiry by the British government which aimed to investigate Elgin’s actions, the British government bought the Acropolis sculptures and kept them in the British Museum. Later, in the 1930s, an erroneous belief by the British Museum curators that the sculptures were and should look white, led to damaging practices of British Museum staff using metallic brushes to scrape off what later experts realised was the patina. That practice led to irrecoverable loss of part of the details on the surface of a number of the sculptures. (Robinson, 2020, p.91-95).
A concise account of the adversity and damage associated with Elgin's treatment of the Acropolis sculptures is provided by Stamatoudi and Korka (2014).
Greece has been asking for the return fo the sculptures since the 19th century
Greece has been asking for the return fo the sculptures since the 19th century
The first claim was by Otto (Othon), King of Greece, in the 19th century (24 June/6 July 1836, Royal Decree #125/46; General State Archives) for the return of the frieze parts of the temple of Athena Nike, followed by the famous claim for their return led by Melina Mercouri (late 20th century). The request by Greece and supporters from around the world for the reunification of the Acropolis Sculptures remains continues today, gaining increasing support also from the public in the UK (see links below).
The General National Archive of Greece has more information on this.
London refuses to return the sculptures to Athens
London refuses to return the sculptures to Athens
Despite the historical facts, scientific reasons, popular claims, and ethical basis for the reunification of the sculptures, the British Museum continues to hold the Acropolis sculptures in London, refusing to reunite them with the matching originals in the Acropolis Museum ⧉ in Athens.
A jigsaw puzzle is waiting to be completed while the Acropolis sculptures remain divided. In this example: pieces no. XXXII, XXIII and XXXIV from the northern part of the Parthenon frieze. The middle piece is in London, while its matching, adjacent pieces are in Athens. Source: Greek Ministry of Culture, presentation of the Parthenon Sculptures
Britain can return the Acropolis sculptures to Athens by a new Act of the English Parliament
Britain can return the Acropolis sculptures to Athens by a new Act of the English Parliament
The public opinion, including the public opinion in the UK, supports the return of the sculptures to Athens. The UK can return the Acropolis sculptures to Athens by a new Act of the English Parliament.
The public opinion is increasingly showing their support for the return of the sculptures to Athens
The public opinion is increasingly showing their support for the return of the sculptures to Athens
Watch τhe debate ‘Send them back: The Parthenon Marbles should be returned to Athens' ⧉ (Intelligence Squared Debate, Cadogan Hall, London, 11 June 2012; broadcast by the BBC)
Source: Intelligence Squared ⧉Updates about the Parthenon sculptures
Updates about the Parthenon sculptures
Turkey denies the existence of a firman (Elgin didn't have such permission) ⧉ (June 2024)
Parthenon Sculptures: Pressure growing on British Museum ⧉ (July 2023)
Declassified documents on Parthenon Marbles reveal rift between UK government and British Museum ⧉ (May 2023)
Stephen Fry calls for return of Parthenon marbles to Athens ⧉ (January 2023)
Parthenon Marbles: UK body seeks return of artworks to Greece in 'win-win' solution ⧉ (October 2022)
More sources for your research:
Articles - this page contains more sources - scholarly and newspaper articles - on the modern history of the Acropolis sculptures
Why and how can the reunification of the Acropolis sculptures be achieved?
Why and how can the reunification of the Acropolis sculptures be achieved?
Find out more in the Sculptures section
References
References
Abbot, C. B. C. (1861). The diary and correspondence of Charles Abbot, Lord Colchester ; Speaker of the House of Commons, 1802-1817. John Murray, Albemarle Street. https://archive.org/details/diarycorresponde02abbo/page/326/mode/2up?q=elgin ⧉
Adair, Sir Robert. (1841). The Negotiations for the Peace of the Dardanelles: In 1808-9: with Dispatches and Official Documents: Vol. II. Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans. https://books.google.ch/books?id=M0jRAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR3&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q=272&f=false ⧉ (p.272). As mentioned in the book by St. Clair (1998) in note 10 on p. 364-365, the original of the letter described by Adair on p.272 is in the archives of the UK National Archives, Foreign Office correspondence 1782-1890: FO 78/64 ⧉.
Bartfield, H.M., Spencer, M.E., and Rudenstine, D. (2025) 'The British Museum’s Deceit in the Parthenon Marbles Controversy', Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 43 (2), pp. 253-281. https://cardozoaelj.com/the-british-museums-deceit-in-the-parthenon-marbles-controversy/ ⧉
Clair, W. St. (1998). Lord Elgin and the Marbles (Third Edition). Oxford University Press. (ISBN 0-19-288053-5)
Hellenic Ministry of Culture (2007a). The restitution of the Parthenon marbles: The removed sculptures ⧉. Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture. http://odysseus.culture.gr/a/1/12/ea126.html ⧉
Hellenic Ministry of Culture (2007b). The restitution of the Parthenon marbles: The review of the seizure ⧉. Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture. http://odysseus.culture.gr/a/1/12/ea125.html ⧉
Kelly, M. J. (1995). Conflicting Trends in the Flourishing International Trade of Art and Antiquities: Restitutio in Integrum and Possessio Animo Ferundi/Lucrandi. Penn State International Law Review, 14. https://s3.amazonaws.com/na-st01.ext.exlibrisgroup.com/01CRU_INST/storage/alma/16/10/33/C3/25/1B/3A/95/7D/9F/A1/C9/96/FF/67/F5/bitstream_2181776.pdf?response-content-type=application%2Fpdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20250405T064622Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=119&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJN6NPMNGJALPPWAQ%2F20250405%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=86c79d55cf222fbce30d434f275d00589af2874f801a25184737435922c62e1f ⧉
Korka, E. (2010). A conversation with Elena Korka – The pillaging of the Parthenon Marbles by Elgin. In C. Koutsadelis (Ed.), DIALOGUES ON THE ACROPOLIS: Scholars and experts talk on the history, restoration and the Acropolis Museum. (English Ed., pp. 278-298). Athens: SKAI BOOKS. https://archive.org/details/dialoguesonacrop0000unse/page/278/mode/2up?q=korka ⧉
Korka, E. (2024). New archival evidence for the chronicle of the removal of the Parthenon Marbles by Lord Elgin. In F. Mallouchou-Tufano & Α. Malikourti (Eds.), The Parthenon Marbles in the British Museum. New contributions to the issue (pp. 52–61). Friends of Acropolis Society (Ένωση Φίλων Ακροπόλεως). https://acropolisfriends.gr/%CE%B2%CE%B9%CE%B2%CE%BB%CE%AF%CE%B1/ ⧉
Korres, M. (1996). The Parthenon from Antiquity to the 19th Century. In P. Tournikiotis (Ed.), The Parthenon And Its Impact in Modern Times (pp. 136–161). Melissa Publishing House. https://archive.org/details/parthenonitsimpa0000unse/mode/2up ⧉
Merryman, J., Elsen, A. E., & Urice, S. K. (2007). Law, Ethics, and the Visual Arts (Fifth edition). Kluwer Law International. https://books.google.ch/books?id=_8AddekkdZ8C&pg=PR7&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q=Hammersley&f=false ⧉
Pavlou, L. (2011, August 10). Research on the Shipwreck “Mentor” Which Carried Elgin Marbles ⧉. Greek Reporter. http://greece.greekreporter.com/2011/08/10/research-on-the-shipwreck-mentor-which-carried-elgin-marbles/ ⧉
Poulou, T. (2024). Giovanni Battista Lusieri, Lord Elgin’s unknown agent and his excavations in Athens. In F. Mallouchou-Tufano & Α. Malikourti (Eds.), The Parthenon Marbles in the British Museum. New contributions to the issue (pp. 62–81). Friends of Acropolis Society (Ένωση Φίλων Ακροπόλεως).
Robertson, G. (2020). Who Owns History?: Elgin’s Loot and the Case for Returning Plundered Treasure. Biteback Publishing.
Rudenstine, D. (2000) 'Did Elgin Cheat at Marbles?'. The Nation (May 29), pp. 30-35.
Rudenstine, D. (2001). A Tale of Three Documents: Lord Elgin and the MIssing, Historic 1801 Ottoman Document. Cardozo Law Review, 22(5–6), 1853–1883. https://www.scribd.com/document/20684632/A-Tale-of-Three-Documents ⧉
Rudenstine, D. (2002). Lord Elgin and the Ottomans: The Question of Permission. Cardozo Law Review, 23(2), 449–471. https://cardozoaelj.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Lord-Elgin-and-the-Ottomans-The-Question-of-Permission.pdf ⧉
Rudenstine, D. (2021) ‘Trophies for the Empire: The epic dispute between Greece and England over the Parthenon sculptures in the British Museum’, Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 39(Special Issue), pp. 377–505. https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1489&context=faculty-articles ⧉
Smith, A. H. (1916). Lord Elgin and His Collection. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 36, 163–372. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/625773
Smith, H. (2024). Turkey rejects claim Lord Elgin had permission to take Parthenon marbles. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/article/2024/jun/07/turkey-rejects-claim-lord-elgin-had-permission-to-take-parthenon-marbles ⧉
Stamatoudi, I., & Korka, E. (2014). The Parthenon Marbles issue legal ethical and political issues. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Experts on the Return of Cultural Property. https://pure.unic.ac.cy/en/publications/the-parthenon-marbles-issue-legal-ethical-and-political-issues ⧉
Staveris, S. (2023, December 26). Σαν Σήμερα / Σαν σήμερα, το 1801, τα γλυπτά του Παρθενώνα μεταφέρονται στο μπρίκι Mentor του Λόρδου ’Ελγιν. LiFO. https://www.lifo.gr/san-simera/san-simera-1801-ta-glypta-toy-parthenona-metaferontai-sto-mpriki-mentor-toy-lordoy-elgin
Theodorou, T. (2003). Η επιστολή του R. Adair προς τον λόρδο Elgin: Μια πρώτη ανάγνωση. Τα Ιστορικά, 39, 509–517. Periodical (in Greek): https://askiarchives.eu/show/111342 ⧉; link to the author's website with hyperlinks: https://www.adairtoelgin.com/el#_ednref6 ⧉.
Titi, C. (2023). The Parthenon Marbles and International Law. Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-26357-6 ⧉
Tomkinson, J. M. (2006). Travellers’ Greece: Memories of an enchanted land (Second Edi.). Athens: Anagnosis. Tomkinson's books, containing material organised per region of Greece, are available as Kindle e-books.
More sources can be found in the Memorandum of the Greek Government for the Restitution of the Parthenon Marbles ⧉.
Additional information is available in the Library, specifically in the:
Articles - this page contains more sources - scholarly and newspaper articles - on the modern history of the Acropolis sculptures
Perspective: A brief timeline of the complete history of the Acropolis
Perspective: A brief timeline of the complete history of the Acropolis
>> Click here to view a brief timeline of the Acropolis Sculptures history <<
Early Neolithic Period: An Early Settlement
The Archaic Acropolis
Pericles: 5th century BC (classical Athens): the Acropolis with the classical buildings was created
Pausanias: 2nd century AD (Roman Athens): The Acropolis in Roman times
Roman emperors used the Acropolis to display themselves as figures of power. Pausanias, an ancient traveller, wrote about the Acropolis.
The Parthenon in Christian times
The Parthenon underwent modifications and alterations during the Christian times.
The Parthenon in Ottoman times
The Ottomans used the Acropolis as a fortress and residence.
17th century: In 1674, Jacques Carrey made drawings of the Parthenon sculptures
In 1687: Morosini attack on the Acropolis results in an explosion that damaged the Parthenon
19th century: In the early 1800s, Thomas Bruce ('Lord Elgin') removed sculptures from the Acropolis
1832: Modern Greek State formed: The first request for the return of the Sculptures
1836 Royal decree: Greece asks Britain to return the sculptures to Athens
20th century request: Melina Merkouri
Elena Korka: From return to reunification
2006: Birgit Wiger-Angner from Sweden returns fragment of the Erechtheion to Athens
The fragment had been removed from the Acropolis by her great uncle, a naval officer, in 1896.
2023: The Vatican returns sculptures to Athens - news article 1 ⧉, news article 2 ⧉
2023: French Woman Returns Marble Fragment of the Acropolis - news link ⧉
Britain can return the rest of the Acropolis sculptures to Athens by a new Act of the English Parliament
_______________________________________________________________
Next section page: Photo Chronicle
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse