DOCSLIB.ORG

The Parthenon Sculptures Sarah Pepin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

BRIEFING PAPER Number 02075, 9 June 2017 By John Woodhouse and Sarah Pepin The Parthenon Sculptures Contents: 1. What are the Parthenon Sculptures? 2. How did the British Museum acquire them? 3. Ongoing controversy 4. Further reading www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 The Parthenon Sculptures Contents Summary 3 1. What are the Parthenon Sculptures? 5 1.1 Early history 5 2. How did the British Museum acquire them? 6 3. Ongoing controversy 7 3.1 Campaign groups in the UK 9 3.2 UK Government position 10 3.3 British Museum position 11 3.4 Greek Government action 14 3.5 UNESCO mediation 14 3.6 Parliamentary interest 15 4. Further reading 20 Contributing Authors: Diana Perks Attribution: Parthenon Sculptures, British Museum by Carole Radatto. Licenced under CC BY-SA 2.0 / image cropped. 3 Commons Library Briefing, 9 June 2017 Summary This paper gives an outline of the more recent history of the Parthenon sculptures, their acquisition by the British Museum and the long-running debate about suggestions they be removed from the British Museum and returned to Athens. The Parthenon sculptures consist of marble, architecture and architectural sculpture from the Parthenon in Athens, acquired by Lord Elgin between 1799 and 1810. Often referred to as both the Elgin Marbles and the Parthenon marbles, “Parthenon sculptures” is the British Museum’s preferred term.1 Lord Elgin’s authority to obtain the sculptures was the subject of a Select Committee inquiry in 1816. It found they were legitimately acquired, and Parliament then voted the funds needed for the British Museum to acquire them later that year. They are now held under the terms of the British Museum Act 1963. From the time of the Museum’s acquisition, there have been suggestions that the sculptures be returned to Athens. Greek Government position In October 1983, following support at UNESCO the previous year, the Greek Government made a formal request to the UK Government for their return. The request was formally rejected by the UK in April 1984.2 The Greek Government later made a case for a change in location, rather than a change in ownership. It argued for the return of the sculptures in order to reunite the collection, which would be displayed in a new Acropolis Museum. Its case was set out in a memorandum to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in 2000 as part of the latter’s inquiry into cultural property.3 In May 2015, it was reported that the Greek Government had both sought and rejected advice for taking legal action against the UK for the retrieval of the sculptures. The BBC reported that Greece’s culture minister would pursue “a diplomatic and political approach” instead.4 UK Government position The UK Government’s policy continues to be that “Issues relating to the ownership and management of the Parthenon sculptures are matters for the trustees of the British Museum.”5 British Museum position The Museum’s general position is set out in a letter of 26 March 2015 to address the UNESCO mediation proposal (described below): The British Museum […] is not a government body, and the collections do not belong to the British Government. The Trustees of the British Museum hold them not only for the British people, but for the benefit of the world public, present and future. The Trustees have a legal and moral responsibility to preserve and maintain all the 1 British Museum, The Parthenon Sculptures: Facts and figures [last accessed 2 May 2017] 2 Ibid 3 Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Cultural property: return and illicit trade, 5 June 2000, HC 371-II, Q547-93 and Memorandum submitted by Greek government [last accessed 2 May 2017] 4 Elgin Marbles legal action ruled out by Greece, BBC news, 14 May 2015 [last accessed 2 May 2017] 5 PQ 122460, 19 October 2012 4 The Parthenon Sculptures collections in their care, to treat them as inalienable and to make them accessible to world audiences.6 Earlier, its position had been set out in minutes of evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee inquiry of 2000.7 Other issues relating to the Museum as owner and custodian, both of which have provoked criticism, are: • The cleaning of the sculptures in 1938. The detailed evidence of this is presented in a British Museum Paper of 2001.8 • The loan of a sculpture to the State Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg in 2014.9 UNESCO proposal for mediation with Greece In 2013 UNESCO, at the request of the Greek Government, proposed a process of mediation in relation to the Parthenon sculptures. The process would involve the British Museum, the UK Government and the Greek Government, and would be facilitated by UNESCO.10 In 2015 both the UK Government and the British Museum declined the request. The UK Government stated in its response to UNESCO that: We have seen nothing to suggest that Greece’s purpose in seeking mediation on this issue is anything other than to achieve the permanent transfer of the Parthenon sculptures now in the British Museum to Greece and on terms that would deny the British Museum’s right of ownership, either in law or as a practical reality. Given our equally clear position, this leads us to conclude that mediation would not carry this debate substantially forward.11 The British Museum in its own response explained: The Trustees would want to develop existing good relations with colleagues and institutions in Greece, and to explore collaborative ventures, not on a government-to- government basis but directly between institutions. This is why we believe that UNESCO involvement is not the best way forward. Museums holding Greek works, whether in Greece, the UK or elsewhere in the world, are naturally united in a shared endeavour to show the importance of the legacy of ancient Greece. The British Museum is committed to playing its full part in sharing the value of that legacy for all humanity.12 6 Sir Richard Lambert, Response of the Trustees of the British Museum to the request put forward by the Greek Government that they should enter into a process of mediation, facilitated by UNESCO, on the subject of the Parthenon Sculptures in the British Museum, 26 March 2015 [last accessed 2 May 2017] 7 Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Cultural property: return and illicit trade, 8 June 2000, HC 371-ii, Q549-651 [last accessed 2 May 2017] 8 Ian Jenkins, Cleaning and Controversy: The Parthenon Sculptures 1811-1939, BM Occasional Paper 146, 2001 [last accessed 2 May 2017] 9 Elgin Marbles: British Museum lends statue to Russia, BBC news, 5 December 2014 [last accessed 2 May 2017] 10 British Museum, The Parthenon Sculptures: Facts and figures [last accessed 2 May 2017] 11 Dept for Culture, Media and Sport and Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Parthenon sculptures in the British Museum: letter to Assistant Director-General for Culture, UNESCO, 26 March 2015 [last accessed 2 May 2017] 12 Sir Richard Lambert, Response of the Trustees of the British Museum to the request put forward by the Greek Government that they should enter into a process of mediation, facilitated by UNESCO, on the subject of the Parthenon Sculptures in the British Museum, 26 March 2015 [last accessed 2 May 2017] 5 Commons Library Briefing, 9 June 2017 Campaign groups In the UK, the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles13 and Marbles Reunited14 are both campaigning for the return of the Parthenon sculptures. 1. What are the Parthenon Sculptures? The Parthenon sculptures consist of the decorative parts of the temple erected to the Greek goddess Athena in the 5th century BC on the Acropolis in Athens. Three main groups of sculpture have survived: the pediment sculptures, the metopes and the frieze.15 Of the surviving Parthenon sculptures, the British Museum has approximately half.16 The rest are either in Athens or in one of the following institutions: • Musée du Louvre, Paris (one frieze slab, one metope, fragments of the frieze and metopes, a head from the pediments) • Vatican Museums (fragments of metopes, frieze and pediments) • National Museum, Copenhagen (two heads from a metope in the British Museum) • Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna (three fragments of frieze) • University Museum, Würzburg, Germany (head from a metope in the British Museum) • Glyptothek, Munich, Germany (fragments of frieze)17 A museum in Palermo, Italy, also has a fragment of frieze which was loaned to Greece in September 2008 and returned to Italy in 2010.18 The sculptures and fragments from the Parthenon which are now exhibited in the British Museum consist largely, but not exclusively, of the collections brought to England by Lord Elgin in the early nineteenth century.19 1.1 Early history The present Parthenon, the temple of Athena, was completed in 432 BC. It was built on the Acropolis in Athens, replacing the previous temple which had been destroyed during the Persian invasion of 480 BC.20 In the 3rd century BC the temple was damaged by fire and restored a little. In the 6th century AD it was converted into a church/cathedral. Later, under Ottoman rule, it was turned into a mosque.21 In 1687, during the Turkish-Venetian War, the Parthenon was being used to store gunpowder for the Turkish garrison when it was hit by a canon ball, igniting the gunpowder and causing an explosion that significantly damaged the building and its 13 British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles [last accessed 2 May 2017] 14 Marbles Reunited [last accessed 2 May 2017] 15 Jessi Stumpfel et al, Digital Reunification of the Parthenon
Recommended publications
  • Classical Nakedness in British Sculpture and Historical Painting 1798-1840 Cora Hatshepsut Gilroy-Ware Ph.D Univ

    Classical Nakedness in British Sculpture and Historical Painting 1798-1840 Cora Hatshepsut Gilroy-Ware Ph.D Univ

    MARMOREALITIES: CLASSICAL NAKEDNESS IN BRITISH SCULPTURE AND HISTORICAL PAINTING 1798-1840 CORA HATSHEPSUT GILROY-WARE PH.D UNIVERSITY OF YORK HISTORY OF ART SEPTEMBER 2013 ABSTRACT Exploring the fortunes of naked Graeco-Roman corporealities in British art achieved between 1798 and 1840, this study looks at the ideal body’s evolution from a site of ideological significance to a form designed consciously to evade political meaning. While the ways in which the incorporation of antiquity into the French Revolutionary project forged a new kind of investment in the classical world have been well-documented, the drastic effects of the Revolution in terms of this particular cultural formation have remained largely unexamined in the context of British sculpture and historical painting. By 1820, a reaction against ideal forms and their ubiquitous presence during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wartime becomes commonplace in British cultural criticism. Taking shape in a series of chronological case-studies each centring on some of the nation’s most conspicuous artists during the period, this thesis navigates the causes and effects of this backlash, beginning with a state-funded marble monument to a fallen naval captain produced in 1798-1803 by the actively radical sculptor Thomas Banks. The next four chapters focus on distinct manifestations of classical nakedness by Benjamin West, Benjamin Robert Haydon, Thomas Stothard together with Richard Westall, and Henry Howard together with John Gibson and Richard James Wyatt, mapping what I identify as
  • Full Thesis Text Only

    Full Thesis Text Only

    A DIACHRONIC EXAMINATION OF THE ERECHTHEION AND ITS RECEPTION Alexandra L. Lesk, B.A., M.St. (Oxon.), M.A. Presented to McMicken College of Arts and Sciences and the Department of Classics of the University of Cincinnati in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2004 Committee: C. Brian Rose (Chair) Jack L. Davis Kathleen M. Lynch J. James Coulton Abstract iii ABSTRACT “A Diachronic Examination of the Erechtheion and Its Reception” examines the social life of the Ionic temple on the Athenian Akropolis, which was built in the late 5th century B.C. to house Athens’ most sacred cults and relics. Using a contextualized diachronic approach, this study examines both the changes to the Erechtheion between its construction and the middle of the 19th century A.D., as well as the impact the temple had on the architecture and art of these successive periods. This approach allows the evidence to shed light on new areas of interest such as the Post-Antique phases of the building, in addition to affording a better understanding of problems that have plagued the study of the Erechtheion during the past two centuries. This study begins with a re-examination of all the pertinent archaeological, epigraphical, and literary evidence, and proposes a wholly new reconstruction of how the Erechtheion worked physically and ritually in ancient times. After accounting for the immediate influence of the Erechtheion on subsequent buildings of the Ionic order, an argument for a Hellenistic rather than Augustan date for the major repairs to the temple is presented.
  • Global Learning in American Higher Education: Strategies for Developing Global Citizens in an Era of Complex Interdependence

    Global Learning in American Higher Education: Strategies for Developing Global Citizens in an Era of Complex Interdependence

    Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management Series Editor Elias G. Carayannis, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA For further volumes: http://www.springer.com/series/8124 Andreas Altmann • Bernd Ebersberger Editors Universities in Change Managing Higher Education Institutions in the Age of Globalization 123 Editors Andreas Altmann Bernd Ebersberger MCI Management Center Innsbruck—The MCI Management Center Innsbruck—The Entrepreneurial School Entrepreneurial School Innsbruck Innsbruck Austria Austria ISBN 978-1-4614-4589-0 ISBN 978-1-4614-4590-6 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-4590-6 Springer New York Heidelberg Dordrecht London Library of Congress Control Number: 2012946186 Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center.
  • Lord Elgin and the Ottomans: the Question of Permission

    Lord Elgin and the Ottomans: the Question of Permission

    Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law LARC @ Cardozo Law Articles Faculty 2002 Lord Elgin and the Ottomans: The Question of Permission David Rudenstine Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David Rudenstine, Lord Elgin and the Ottomans: The Question of Permission, 23 Cardozo Law Review 449 (2002). Available at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles/167 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty at LARC @ Cardozo Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of LARC @ Cardozo Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. LORD ELGIN AND THE OTTOMANS: THE QUESTION OF PERMISSION David Rudenstine* In the early morning light on July 31, 1801, a ship-carpenter, five crew members, and twenty Athenian laborers "mounted the walls" of the Parthenon and with the aid of ropes and pulleys detached and lowered a sculptured marble block depicting a youth and centaur in combatJ The next day the group lowered a second sculptured marble from the magnificent templet Within months, the workers had lowered dozens of additional marble sculptures, and within a few years, most of the rest of the Parthenon's priceless marbles were removed.^ These fabulous marbles, sculptured during the age of Pericles'' under the guiding hand of Phidias' out of fine white Pentelic marble quarried ten miles from Athens and hauled by ox-cart to the Acropolis,® had remained on the Parthenon for 2,200 years before being removed.
  • The British Museum Report and Accounts for the Year

    The British Museum Report and Accounts for the Year

    The British Museum REPOrt AND ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2012 HC 400 £14.75 The British Museum REPOrt AND ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2012 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Museums and Galleries Act 1992 (c.44) S.9(8) Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 12 July 2012 HC 400 London: The Stationery Office £14.75 The British Museum Account 2011-2012 © The British Museum (2012) The text of this document (this excludes, where present, the Royal Arms and all departmental and agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context The material must be acknowledged as The British Museum copyright and the document title specified. Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. This publication is also for download at www.official-documents.gov.uk ISBN: 9780102976199 Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID 2481871 07/12 21557 19585 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum The British Museum Account 2011-2012 Contents Page Trustees’ and Accounting Officer’s Annual Report 3 Chairman’s Foreword 3 Structure, governance and management 5 Constitution and operating environment 5 Governance statement 5 Subsidiaries 10 Friends’ organisations 10 Strategic direction and performance against objectives 10 To manage and research the collection more effectively 10 Collection 10 Conservation
  • United Kingdom Report by Sara Selwood University of Westminster with Maurice Davies, Museums Association

    United Kingdom Report by Sara Selwood University of Westminster with Maurice Davies, Museums Association

    A Guide to European Museum Statistics United Kingdom Report by Sara Selwood University of Westminster with Maurice Davies, Museums Association Introduction - Key Issues It is increasingly the case that hard data is required for a multiplicity of reasons: to support advocacy, not least to present the case for support to government; to assess museums´ efficiency in relation to funding; to inform decision making; to establish, develop and evaluate policies; to identify trends; to measure the progress that the sector is making, not least in terms of delivering government objectives. A current preoccupation is with measuring the impact of museums. Responsibility for national museum statistics falls to Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA), the government's advisory body, which succeeded the Museums & Galleries Commission in April 2000. Following the devolution of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, MLA´s remit is primarily confined to England. At the time of writing (October 2003) there is no dedicated statistical time series on museums, which covers the whole of the UK. The Museums & Galleries Commission's DOMUS database (see below) was abandoned after the 1999 survey, and the only other UK-wide, year-on-year time series are, Sightseeing in the UK and Visits to Visitor Attractions. These present the findings of annual surveys conducted by the National Tourist Boards of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which monitor trends in the visitor attraction market including museums. There are, however, an increasing number of regular reports, which cover local and regional trends (in particular, financial statistics) and the activities of different types of museums. Pulling together a national picture depends on the collation of existing data sets.
  • Arcl0017 Greek Art and Architecture Ucl - Institute of Archaeology

    Arcl0017 Greek Art and Architecture Ucl - Institute of Archaeology

    ARCL0017 GREEK ART AND ARCHITECTURE UCL - INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY Coordinator: Dr. Eva Mol Office hours: weekly chat sessions Wed 12-1pm or by appointment between Mon-Wed 9-17pm. Email: [email protected]; Year 2/3 BA Module, 15 credits Please see the online IoA Student Handbook for instructions on coursework submission, IoA referencing guidelines and marking criteria, as well as UCL policies on penalties for late submission. ARCL0017 1. OVERVIEW&SCHEDULE Introduction This module introduces Greek art and architecture in the period 2500-50 BC. In the context of a broad chronological survey, the focus is on three main themes: (1) the relationship between Greek art and society (2) addressing current problems in Greek art history and contemporary society, and (3) extensive training in visual analysis and the different lenses to look at Greek art. This year, as the course will be taught remotely, it will consist of different modes of online teaching that contain individual creativity, group fun, and lively discussions using famous objects and buildings belonging to the so-called ‘Greek canon’, and lesser known or even excluded object categories that will expand our idea of what Greek art is. Normally, we would go to the British Museum together, and look at all the incredible objects up close. This is not possible for the semester, but that does not mean we cannot discuss or study them. In fact, teaching the module online will provide us with the great opportunity to look beyond the British Museum (or any museum for that matter) and the Classical canon, and discuss together what Greek Art is right now, and how make it more relevant in the future.
  • Susa and Memnon Through the Ages 15 4

    Susa and Memnon Through the Ages 15 4

    Samuel Jordan Center for Persian Studies and Culture www.dabirjournal.org Digital Archive of Brief notes & Iran Review ISSN: 2470-4040 Vol.01 No.04.2017 1 xšnaoθrahe ahurahe mazdå Detail from above the entrance of Tehran’s fire temple, 1286š/1917–18. Photo by © Shervin Farridnejad The Digital Archive of Brief Notes & Iran Review (DABIR) ISSN: 2470-4040 www.dabirjournal.org Samuel Jordan Center for Persian Studies and Culture University of California, Irvine 1st Floor Humanities Gateway Irvine, CA 92697-3370 Editor-in-Chief Touraj Daryaee (University of California, Irvine) Editors Parsa Daneshmand (Oxford University) Arash Zeini (Freie Universität Berlin) Shervin Farridnejad (Freie Universität Berlin) Judith A. Lerner (ISAW NYU) Book Review Editor Shervin Farridnejad (Freie Universität Berlin) Advisory Board Samra Azarnouche (École pratique des hautes études); Dominic P. Brookshaw (Oxford University); Matthew Canepa (University of Minnesota); Ashk Dahlén (Uppsala University); Peyvand Firouzeh (Cambridge University); Leonardo Gregoratti (Durham University); Frantz Grenet (Collège de France); Wouter F.M. Henkelman (École Pratique des Hautes Études); Rasoul Jafarian (Tehran University); Nasir al-Ka‘abi (University of Kufa); Andromache Karanika (UC Irvine); Agnes Korn (Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main); Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones (University of Edinburgh); Jason Mokhtarain (University of Indiana); Ali Mousavi (UC Irvine); Mahmoud Omidsalar (CSU Los Angeles); Antonio Panaino (Univer- sity of Bologna); Alka Patel (UC Irvine); Richard Payne (University of Chicago); Khodadad Rezakhani (Princeton University); Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis (British Museum); M. Rahim Shayegan (UCLA); Rolf Strootman (Utrecht University); Giusto Traina (University of Paris-Sorbonne); Mohsen Zakeri (Univer- sity of Göttingen) Logo design by Charles Li Layout and typesetting by Kourosh Beighpour Contents Articles & Notes 1.
  • English for Specific Purposes 1 Esercitazioni (James)

    English for Specific Purposes 1 Esercitazioni (James)

    DISPENSA A.A. 2018 – 2019 English for Specific Purposes 1 Esercitazioni (James) Risk Recreation Ethical Tourism Cultural Heritage (051-2097241; [email protected]) 1 Contents Page 1 Writing 3 Guidelines on essay assessment, writing, style, organization and structure 2 Essay writing exercises 13 3 Reading texts (including reading, listening and writing exercises) Risk Recreation: Tornado Tourism (essay assignment) 20 Ethical tourism: Canned Hunting 28 Pamplona Bull Running 36 La Tomatina 43 Museums and the Ownership of Cultural Heritage: The Rosetta Stone, The Parthenon Marbles, The Mona Lisa 45 (essay assignment) The Impact of Mass Tourism: Venice, Florence, Barcelona 68 All the copyrighted materials included in this ‘dispensa’ belong to the respective owners and, following fair use guidelines, are hereby used for educational purposes only. 2 1 Writing Guidelines on essay assessment, writing, style, organization and structure Assessing writing: criteria Exam task: 500-word argument essay 1 Task achievement (9 points) Has the student focused on the question and respected the length? Fully answers the question in depth. Answers the question in sufficient depth to cover the main points. There are some unnecessary or irrelevant ideas. There are too many minor issues or irrelevant ideas dealt with. Shorter than the required length. Does not answer the question. Much shorter than the required length. 2 Structure and organization (9 points) Does the essay have a structure? Is there an introduction and conclusion? Is the body divided into paragraphs which are linked? There is a suitable introduction and conclusion. Paragraphs and sentences link up and make the essay easy to read and the text easy to understand.
  • Troubleshooting Rosetta Stone Log-In Issues on Mobile

    Troubleshooting Rosetta Stone Log-In Issues on Mobile

    Portal > Knowledgebase > Teaching Learning and Research > Rosetta Stone > Troubleshooting Rosetta Stone Log-in Issues on Mobile Troubleshooting Rosetta Stone Log-in Issues on Mobile Kyle A. Oliveira - 2019-05-31 - 0 Comments - in Rosetta Stone A recent update to the Rosetta Stone apps on both iOS and Android may cause authentication issues. Please refer to the information below for resolving these issues. iOS To prevent any further issues regarding logging into the app on iOS, you must avoid opening the app unless you've authenticated through Brown's log in portal. Opening the app outside of logging in through Brown, will most likely result in the inability to log in and use the app. If you are having issues logging into it: Solution 1 1. Open your device's web browser, visit rosettastone.brown.edu, and log in 2. Click the “Launch Rosetta Stone Language Lessons” link to launch the app 3. You will experience the same problem as in the past - you will just see a "splash" screen instead of being logged in. On this screen, click Enterprise And Education Learners. 4. On the login screen that appears, type three random values (just a single letter will work) into the Username, Password, and Namespace fields. 5. You will see an error message. Click Try again and proceed with the next step. 6. Return to your web browser and again, visit rosettastone.brown.edu. 7. Click the “Launch Rosetta Stone Language Lessons” link to launch the app again. 8. Wait for the login to proceed - it should work. If you still see the error message, click the Try Again option.
  • The British Museum Annual Reports and Accounts 2019

    The British Museum Annual Reports and Accounts 2019

    The British Museum REPORT AND ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2020 HC 432 The British Museum REPORT AND ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2020 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 9(8) of the Museums and Galleries Act 1992 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed on 19 November 2020 HC 432 The British Museum Report and Accounts 2019-20 © The British Museum copyright 2020 The text of this document (this excludes, where present, the Royal Arms and all departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided that it is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as British Museum copyright and the document title specifed. Where third party material has been identifed, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. Any enquiries related to this publication should be sent to us at [email protected]. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/ofcial-documents. ISBN 978-1-5286-2095-6 CCS0320321972 11/20 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fbre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Ofce The British Museum Report and Accounts 2019-20 Contents Trustees’ and Accounting Ofcer’s Annual Report 3 Chairman’s Foreword 3 Structure, governance and management 4 Constitution and operating environment 4 Subsidiaries 4 Friends’ organisations 4 Strategic direction and performance against objectives 4 Collections and research 4 Audiences and Engagement 5 Investing
  • Wikimedia with Liam Wyatt

    Wikimedia with Liam Wyatt

    Video Transcript 1 Liam Wyatt Wikimedia Lecture May 24, 2011 2:30 pm David Ferriero: Good afternoon. Thank you. I’m David Ferriero, I’m the Archivist of the United States and it is a great pleasure to welcome you to my house this afternoon. According to Alexa.com, the internet traffic ranking company, there are only six websites that internet users worldwide visit more often than Wikipedia: Google, Facebook, YouTube, Yahoo!, Blogger.com, and Baidu.com (the leading Chinese language search engine). In the States, it ranks sixth behind Amazon.com. Over the past few years, the National Archives has worked with many of these groups to make our holdings increasingly findable and accessible, our goal being to meet the people where they are. This past fall, we took the first step toward building a relationship with the “online encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” When we first began exploring the idea of a National Archives-Wikipedia relationship, Liam Wyatt was one of, was the one who pointed us in the right direction and put us in touch with the local DC-area Wikipedian community. Early in our correspondence, we were encouraged and inspired when Liam wrote that he could quote “quite confidently say that the potential for collaboration between NARA and the Wikimedia projects are both myriad and hugely valuable - in both directions.” I couldn’t agree more. Though many of us have been enthusiastic users of the Free Encyclopedia for years, this was our first foray into turning that enthusiasm into an ongoing relationship. As Kristen Albrittain and Jill James of the National Archives Social Media staff met with the DC Wikipedians, they explained the Archives’ commitment to the Open Government principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration and the ways in which projects like the Wikipedian in Residence could exemplify those values.