Professor David Rudenstine’s
Trophies for the Empire Challenges British Museum’s Claims to Parthenon Marbles
Prof. Rudenstine
00
The British Museum is hiding behind misleading historical evidence and a fraudulent document to justify the retention of one of the greatest collections of ancient art in the world. Cardozo’s former dean and renowned legal scholar David Rudenstine argues in an article in Cardozo’s Arts & Entertainment Law Journal that there is no documentary evidence to support their ownership claim. “The British Museum misrepresents the historical evidence and hides the evidence that would reveal the misrepresentation. The museum utilizes its prestige and prominence to wage an aggressive public relations campaign to defend its continued retention of the stolen art,” Rudenstine writes. The early nineteenth century stripping of the marbles from the Parthenon’s edifice at Lord Elgin’s behest, the British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, was, apart from the seventeenth century bombing of the Parthenon, the most destructive blow to the iconic monument since its construction during the Age of Pericles. Elgin claimed to have obtained a document from the Ottoman Empire giving him permission to dismantle and remove sculptures from the Athenian Parthenon. These sculptures were
CARDOZO LIFE
subsequently added to The British Museum’s permanent collection. Today, the debate continues over which nation, England or Greece, can claim true ownership of the artifacts. Rudenstine’s article —Trophies for the Empire: The Epic Dispute Between Greece and England over the Parthenon Sculptures in The British Museum—was presented at a panel discussion on March 1 that was co-sponsored by Cardozo’s Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, FAME Center and the Art Law Society. Panelists included Frank Lord, The Law Office of Frank K. Lord IV, PLLC and Michael McCullough, partner at Pearlstein McCullough, LLP and adjunct professor at Cardozo School of Law. The panel was moderated by Samantha Anderson ’16, Vice President, Fiduciary Client Group at Sotheby’s, and concluded with a discussion about restitution. The article was published in June in a special issue of the Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal and is based on decades of historical research. Rudenstine assesses the legality of the taking and argues that, contrary to conventional narrative, there is no evidence that establishes that Ottoman officials gave Elgin
FA L L 2 0 21
prior or subsequent written permission to remove the Parthenon sculptures from the edifice. The British Museum continues to misrepresent the essential facts, he says, adding that its misrepresentations are knowing and deliberate. Rudenstine further asserts that the purchase of the marbles from Lord Elgin by the British Parliament was based on a falsified document. “There is no evidence to support the position that the Constantinople Ottoman officials gave Lord Elgin prior written permission to dismantle the Parthenon of its historic sculptures, as claimed by the British Museum,” he states. Rudenstine further asserts that the 1816 British Parliamentary Committee that recommended the purchase of Elgin’s collection by the British government altered a document that was central to the question of whether the Ottomans granted permission to take the sculptures. Rudenstine says in the article that this fraud undermines the integrity of the 1816 Parliamentary vote to purchase Elgin’s collection. The article will intensify claims made by the Greek government against Britain to restore the marbles to their country of origin. ?
00
