Editing Elgin Marbles (section)

==Legality of removal from Athens==
In February 1816, a House of Commons Select Committee held public hearings on whether Elgin had acquired the marbles legally and whether they should be purchased by the government.<ref name=":4" /> In his evidence to the committee,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Report from the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Earl of Elgin's collection of sculptured marbles; &c |url=https://archive.org/details/gri_33125008272383/page/n39/mode/2up |access-date=13 January 2023 |website=Internet Archive}}</ref> Elgin stated that the work of his agents at the Acropolis, and the removal of the marbles, were authorised by a ''[[firman]]'' (a generic term employed by Western travellers to signify any official Ottoman order) from the Ottoman government obtained in July 1801, and was undertaken with the approval of the ''voivode'' (civil governor of Athens) and the ''[[dizdar]]'' (military commander of the Acropolis citadel). In March 1810, another ''firman'' was obtained, authorising the second shipment of marbles from Athens to Britain.<ref>Williams (2009). p. 23</ref> Elgin told the committee, "the thing was done publicly before the whole world{{nbsp}}... and all the local authorities were concerned in it, as well as the Turkish government".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Williams |first=Dyfri |date=2009 |title=Lord Elgin's Firman |journal=Journal of the History of Collections |pages=1–28}}</ref>

The committee cleared Elgin of all allegations that he had acquired the marbles illegally or had misused his powers as ambassador.<ref name=":4" /> Elgin's version of events, however, remains controversial. No official record of the July 1801 ''firman'' has been found in the Turkish archives.<ref name="Nation2">{{cite journal |author1=David Rudenstein |date=29 May 2000 |title=Did Elgin Cheat at Marbles? |journal=Nation |volume=270 |issue=21 |page=30 |quote=Yet no researcher has ever located this Ottoman document and when l was in Instanbul I searched in vain for it or any copy of it, or any reference to it in other sorts of documents or a description of its substantive terms in any related official papers. Although a document of some sort may have existed, it seems to have vanished into thin air, despite the fact the Ottoman archives contain an enormous number of similar documents from the period.}}</ref> An Italian translation of the purported ''firman'' is held by the British Museum, and an English translation was submitted to the 1816 Select Committee.<ref name=":2">St Clair, William: Lord Elgin and the Marbles. Oxford University Press, US, 3rd ed., (1998)</ref><ref name=":3">{{cite web |title=firman |url=http://www.parthenon.newmentor.net/firman.htm |work=newmentor.net}}</ref> The document states in part,<ref>Williams (2009). pp. 6–7</ref>

{{Blockquote
|that it be written and ordered that the said painters [Elgin's men] while they are occupied in entering and leaving by the gate of the Castle of the City, which is the place for their observations, in setting up scaffolding round the ancient temple of the Idols [the Parthenon], and taking moulds in lime paste (that is plaster) of the same ornaments, and visible figures, in measuring the remains of other ruined buildings, and in undertaking to excavate, according to need, the foundations to find any inscribed blocks, which may have been preserved in the rubble, be not disturbed, nor in any way impeded by the Commandant of the Castle, nor any other person, and that no one meddle with their scaffolding, and implements, which they may have made there; and should they wish to take away any pieces of stone with old inscriptions, and figures, that no opposition be made.}}

Vassilis Demetriades, of the University of Crete, argues that the document is not a ''firman'' (a decree from the Sultan), or a ''buyuruldi'' (an order from the [[Grand vizier|Grand Vizier]]), but a ''mektub'' (official letter) from the Sultan's acting Grand Vizier which did not have the force of law.<ref name="firman23">{{cite web |last=Demetriades |first=Vassilis |title=Was the removal of the marbles illegal? |url=http://www.parthenon.newmentor.net/illegal.htm |work=newmentor.net}}</ref> [[Dyfri Williams]] states that although the document is not a ''firman'' in the technical sense, the term was widely used informally in diplomatic and court circles to refer to a range of official Ottoman documents. He argues that the document is possibly a ''buyuruldi'', but "[w]hatever the exact form of the document was, it clearly had to be obeyed, and it was."<ref>Williams (2009). pp. 8–12</ref> Historian Edhem Eldem also argues for the likely authenticity of the document and calls it a firman in the broad meaning of the word.<ref>{{cite book |last=Eldem |first=Edhem |date=2011 |editor-last1=Barani |editor-first1=Zainab |editor-last2=Celik |editor-first2=Zeynep |editor-last3=Eldem |editor-first3=Edhem |title=Scramble for the Past. A Story of Archaeology in the Ottoman Empire, 1753–1914 |publisher=Istanbul, SALT |pages=281–328 |chapter=From Blissful Indifference to Anguished Concern: Ottoman Perceptions of Antiquities, 1799–1869 |isbn=}}</ref>

[[File:Parthenon pediment statues.jpg|thumb|Statuary from the east [[pediment]]]]
There is debate over whether the document authorised Elgin's agents to remove sculptures attached to the Parthenon and other structures. Demetriades, [[David Rudenstine]] and others argue that the document only authorised Elgin's party to remove artefacts recovered from the permitted excavations, not those still attached to buildings.<ref name="firman23"/><ref name=":11">{{Cite journal |last=Rudenstein |first=David |date=29 May 2000 |title=Did Elgin Cheat at Marbles? |url=https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Did+Elgin+Cheat+at+Marbles%3F-a062102045 |journal=The Nation}}</ref> Williams argues that the document was "rather open ended" and that the civil governor agreed with Hunt's interpretation that it allowed Elgin's party to remove sculptures fixed to buildings.<ref>Williams (2009). p. 20</ref> Beard concludes, "No amount of poring over the text can provide the answer. As often with documents sent out from head office, the precise interpretation would rest with men carrying out the orders on the spot."<ref>Beard (2002). p. 91</ref>

Legal academic John Henry Merryman argues that the document provides only "slender authority" for the removal of the fixed sculptures, but that legally Elgin's actions were ratified by the conduct of Ottoman officials. In 1802, Ottoman officials in Constantinople issued documents to the civil governor and the military commander of Athens ratifying their conduct and, in March 1810, issued a command allowing Elgin to transport a shipment of marbles from Greece to Britain.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Merryman |first=John |date=1985 |title=Thinking About the Elgin Marbles |url=https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol83/iss8/3/ |journal=Michigan Law Review |volume=83 |issue=8 |pages=1899|doi=10.2307/1288954 |jstor=1288954 }}</ref>

Legal academic Catharine Titi states that Sir [[Robert Adair (politician)|Robert Adair]] reported that the Ottomans in 1811 "absolutely denied" that Elgin had any property in the sculptures.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Titi |first=Catharine |url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-26357-6 |title=The Parthenon Marbles and International Law |date=2023 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-3-031-26356-9 |pages=79–81 |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-3-031-26357-6}}</ref> Legal scholar Alexander Herman and historian Edhem Eldem state that documents in the Turkish archives show that this denial was only a delaying tactic for reasons of diplomacy, and that the Porte eventually granted permission for the transport of the marbles to Britain later in 1811.<ref>{{cite book |last=Herman |first=Alexander |author-link= |url= |title=The Parthenon Marbles Dispute |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |year=2023 |isbn=978-1509967179 |edition= |place=London |pages=45–46}}</ref><ref>BOA, HAT 1277/49548, AH 1225 (AD 1810), quoted in Eldem (2011), p. 292</ref>

A number of eyewitnesses to the removal of the marbles from the Acropolis, including members of Elgin's party, stated that expensive bribes and gifts to local officials were required to ensure their work progressed.<ref name="Edward Daniel Clarke 1818 223ff2">{{Cite book |first=Edward Daniel |last=Clarke |title=Travels in various Countries of Europe, Asia and Africa Part the Second Greece Egypt and the Holy Land Section the Second Fourth Edition Volume the Sixth |publisher=T. Cadell |year=1818 |location=London |page=223ff}}</ref> It is suggested that "little money" was paid to the disdar, and only to induce him to continue the work. No money is ever mentioned for the commencement of the work, which is due to the official authorisation.<ref>Williams (2019). pp. 13, 19</ref> Merryman argues that bribery would not have rendered the acquisition of the marbles illegal by the standards of the time:<ref>Merryman (1985). p. 1901–1902</ref>

{{Blockquote|The Ottomans who were bribed were the responsible officials. Whatever their motivation may have been, they had the legal authority to perform those actions. At a time and in a culture in which officials routinely had to be bribed to perform their legal duties (as is still true today in much of the world), the fact that bribes occurred was hardly a significant legal consideration.}}

Rudenstine, states that further investigation would be required to determine whether, at the time, bribery would have been a significant legal consideration in such official transactions under Ottoman or British law.<ref>Rudenstine (1999) p. 370</ref> Herman argues that bribing officials was illegal under British and Ottoman law at the time, but that the Porte took no action against its officials in Athens and therefore tacitly tolerated their actions.<ref>{{cite book |last=Herman |first=Alexander |author-link= |url= |title=The Parthenon Marbles Dispute |publisher=[[Bloomsbury Publishing|Bloomsbury]] |year=2023 |isbn=978-1509967179 |edition= |place=London |pages=46–48}}</ref>

In May 2024, a spokesperson for Turkey, which is a successor or the continuing state of the Ottoman Empire,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Öktem |first=Emre |date=August 2011 |title=Turkey: Successor or Continuing State of the Ottoman Empire? |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/abs/turkey-successor-or-continuing-state-of-the-ottoman-empire/B3512009F20CED7173E9D27E37A5EE83 |journal=Leiden Journal of International Law |language=en |volume=24 |issue=3 |page=561 |doi=10.1017/S0922156511000252 |issn=1478-9698}}</ref> denied knowledge of the firman and stated that Turkey supported the return of the marbles. The spokesman stated that the marbles' removal was carried out by "UK colonialists", adding: "I don't think there's room to discuss its legality, even during the time and under the law of the time."<ref>{{Cite news |last=Zois |first=Nikolas |date=4 June 2024 |title=Turkey denies firman giving Lord Elgin rights to sell Parthenon Sculptures |url=https://www.ekathimerini.com/culture/1240571/turkey-denies-firman-giving-lord-elgin-rights-to-sell-parthenon-sculptures/ |access-date=4 June 2024 |work=[[Kathimerini]]}}</ref> In response, archaeologist Mario Trabucco della Torretta states that scholars consider that the British copy of the firman is genuine and that it is arguable that it did grant Elgin permission to remove the sculptures.<ref name=":14">{{cite news |last=Trabucco della Torretta |first=Mario|date= 19 August 2024|title=We mustn't lose our Marbles! |url=https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-express/20240819/282110641929563?srsltid=AfmBOorQtcw0t7cXAs-LtFeYs0OvLCkm-sgXtQ_D2VF6X8IuYIyEJwIr |work= Daily Express |access-date= 24 September 2024}}</ref>