Appendix 2 - The Interim Report
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
BRITISH MUSEUM
PARTHENON SCULPTURES
INTERIM REPORT
BY
THE BOARD OF ENQUIRY
APPOINTED BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE TRUSTEES
OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM AT A MEETING ON 8TH OCTOBER 1938
1. The Board of Enquiry was appointed by the Standing Committee
at their meeting on 8th October, 1938 in the circumstances and with
the terms of reference set out in the following extract from the
Minutes:-
Damage to Sculpture of the Parthenon
"The Director reported that through unauthorised and improper
efforts to improve the colour of the Parthenon sculpture, some
important pieces had been greatly damaged. He asked for a Board of
Enquiry to consider the nature of the damage and the policy of the
Trustees in regard to publication of the facts; to determine the
responsibility for the damage; and to advise upon the necessary
disciplinary action. The Committee appointed Lord Harlech, Lord
Macmillan, Sir William Bragg, Sir Charles Peers and Sir Wilfrid
Greene as the Board of Enquiry, with power to take whatever action
they should consider necessary."
2. The Board met at the Museum on the 11th and 20th of October
and the 1st of November 1938, with Lord Macmillan in the Chair. At
the first meeting Sir Charles Peers alone was absent, having
unfortunately sustained an accident which prevented his attendance;
at the two other meetings all the members were present.
3. The Board examined the following witnesses:-
Mr. F. N. Pryce, Keeper of the Department of Greek and Roman
Antiquities
Mr. R. P. Hinks, First Class Assistant Keeper
Mr. Sidney Smith, Keeper of the Department of Egyptian and
Assyrian Antiquities
Dr. H. F. Plenderleith, Deputy Keeper in charge of the
Laboratory.
A. S. Holcombe, Foreman Mason
V. A. Fisher, Mason
J. E. Gorman/A. W. T. Lovelock, Mason's Labourers.
They had also the advantage of hearing and conferring with the
Director who was present throughout the meetings. It may be noted
that the Director before his appointment to his present office was
Keeper of the Department concerned from 1932 to 1936.
The pieces of sculpture which were represented as having been
damaged by the treatment to which they had been subjected were
minutely examined by the members of the Board.
4. The portions of the Parthenon sculptures in question are
three in number, namely, the Selene horse's head, the Helios group
and the figure of Iris, all belonging to the East Pediment. On the
16th of September Mr. Pryce left the Museum on short holiday leave.
The three pieces of sculpture were then in their proper places in
the Elgin Room. Before he went away Mr. Pryce gave no instructions
either to Mr Hinks, who took charge in his absence, or to anyone
else with regard to either moving the sculptures or cleaning them
beyond a direction to Holcombe to prepare a mounting for the Iris
figure which involved its removal from the pedestal. The Director
informed the Board that he had previously reminded Mr. Pryce that
this figure must not even be washed without the authority of Dr.
Plenderleith in view of the precarious condition of its surface.
While Mr. Pryce was absent it came to the notice of the Director on
the evening of Thursday 22nd September that tools had been used in
the cleaning of the Parthenon sculptures. He instructed Mr. Hinks
on the morning of 23rd September to see that improper methods were
not being used. On Sunday 25th September the Director happened to
have occasion to pass through the basement of the Department. He
was surprised to find there the Helios group in process of
cleaning. On the bench he observed a number of copper tools and a
piece of coarse carborundum, and from the appearance of the
sculptures he at once saw that the copper tools had been used on
the sculptures. On Monday morning 26th September the Iris was found
by Mr. Hinks to be undergoing similar treatment in an annex of the
new Duveen Gallery, and the Selene horse's head in the Foreman
Mason's workshop. The Director ordered all further cleaning
operations to be stopped and instituted an enquiry into what had
occurred. Mr. Pryce returned to duty on Tuesday 27th September.
5. Although Holcombe denied that he had used any copper tool in
cleaning the horse's head, which he dealt with himself personally,
the Board are satisfied that copper tools were used by Holcombe and
the labourers under him in cleaning all the three pieces of
sculpture in question. Holcombe admitted that apart from the
instruction to prepare a mounting for the Iris figure he had
received no specific instructions from the Keeper or the Assistant
Keeper either to remove or to clean the sculptures. He appears to
have assumed that he was at liberty to proceed at his own hand with
the process of removing and cleaning. He apparently had obtained
some strips or rods of copper from the store and had fashioned
those into tools of various shapes by flattening and sharpening the
ends. He said that he had used similar tools on other occasions for
cleaning marble and he apparently regarded himself as entitled to
use them on the Parthenon sculptures. No effort was made to conceal
them and they were lying exposed to full view on the bench when the
Director first observed them.
6. In the course of the evidence given by Holcombe and the
labourers it emerged that they had used tools in cleaning the
metopes and frieze on which they had previously been engaged for
some time. The Board did not think it to be within their duty to
make a detailed examination of the metopes and frieze with a view
to ascertaining the extent of the damage done, but they were
impressed by the fact that such improper methods of cleaning had
been allowed to be in operation over so long a period.
7. The effect of the methods employed in cleaning the sculptures
has been to remove the surface of the marble and to impart to it a
smooth and white appearance. Mr. Pryce described the Selene horse's
head as having been "skinned." The surface of the sculptures,
showing the evidences of two thousand years of exposure to the
climate of Greece, was a document of the utmost importance. There
being no possible doubt about the history of the Parthenon
sculptures they came to the Museum as authentic masterpieces of
Greek work of the fifth century B.C. and for purposes of study and
comparison they are of inestimable value. The damage which has been
caused is obvious and cannot be exaggerated.
8. The Board inquired as to the staffing and routine of the
mason's workshop and as to the methods of cleaning sculpture. The
following statement prepared by the Director summarises the
position:-
The Staff consists of 3 Masons and 6 Labourers. The latter are
mostly needed for moving heavy statuary; they are not all masons'
labourers by trade, and those who are have no skill in working
stone and marble, and are not allowed by the rules of the trade to
use tools.
The Foreman Mason is a foreman mainly in respect of the moving
operations, which he directs and supervises but does not initiate.
He does not direct the work of the other masons, but is responsible
to the Keeper for the discipline and order of the workshop.
The Masons' work is done under the specific orders of the Keeper
or the officer in charge of the Department, and demands his
personal supervision. It consists mainly in mounting sculpture,
with occasional mending, but cleaning is not masons' work.
All the officers of the Department knew several years ago that
it is dangerous to let masons clean sculpture, because they are
inclined to prefer their own trade processes to our scientific
ones.
Washing the sculpture in the Galleries used to be done
periodically by the labourers with ordinary water and hard brushes,
but in 1932 this procedure was stopped, and the Research Laboratory
was asked to devise a safer and more effective method. Dr.
Plenderleith then prescribed a neutral solution of medicinal
soft-soap and ammonia, and trained one masons' labourer to apply
this in the proper manner with the proper brushes and distilled
water. No other person washed or cleaned sculpture for the next 4
years, and no washing was done except by the Keeper's order and
under his supervision.
It was the tradition of the Department that the Keeper or the
officer in charge made his round of the masons' shop his first duty
in the morning. Important moving operations or work needing
direction during progress often meant a visit from the Keeper
several times a day.
9. The Board have been unable to obtain any satisfactory
explanation of the grave departure in this instance from the proper
practice of the Department. They have, however, ascertained from
Mr. Pryce that a foreman employed by Lord Duveen in connection with
the new Parthenon Gallery had expressed Lord Duveen's desire that
the sculptures should be made as clean and white as possible and
this may very well have become known to the workmen.
10. While the damage to the sculptures was directly occasioned
by the unauthorised actings of Holcombe, it is impossible to acquit
the Keeper and the Assistant Keeper of serious dereliction of duty.
Their main responsibility is the preservation and protection of the
valuable works of art committed to their care. Nevertheless, owing
to absence of direction and to inefficiency of supervision in the
Department, Holcombe was able to remove and to undertake the
cleaning of the sculptures in question at his own hand without the
knowledge, of either the Keeper or the Assistant Keeper. This can
only be taken as indicating a most unfortunate slackness and want
of system in the administration of the Department. In the case of
Mr. Pryce it is true that he had in the course of this year been
suffering from ill health necessitating his absence from work for
two periods, and also that he was on holiday leave when the
particular unauthorised actings of Holcombe with the Pediment
sculptures took place. But the work of cleaning the Parthenon
sculptures was a long and delicate process, calling for a definite
programme and careful and systematic supervision. It was the duty
of Mr. Pryce to see to these matters. It should have been made
clear to the staff that no piece of sculpture must be removed and
no piece of sculpture must be cleaned without specific orders from
Mr. Pryce himself or, in his absence, his deputy. No such step was
taken, with the result that Holcombe considered himself entitled to
remove the Helios group and the Selene horse and to start to clean
those two pieces and the Iris statue on his own initiative. The
necessity for specific instructions with regard to the cleaning of
each individual piece was all the more imperative by reason of the
fact that the condition of the sculptures varies considerably and
special care was necessary in certain cases, for example, the Iris
statue. Mr. Pryce informed us that when the cleaning first began he
gave instructions to Holcombe that it was only [to] be done
according to the approved methods. But it was his duty to see that
these instructions were being carried out. In this duty he failed,
with the result that tools were improperly used in cleaning the
metopes and the frieze slabs without his ever knowing it. The
improper practice thus begun was continued in the case of the
Pediment sculptures during Mr. Pryce's absence. But the fact that
he was absent on that occasion does not free him from
responsibility for the damage done to these sculptures, since if he
had exercised proper supervision when the cleaning of the metopes
first began the practice would have been stopped at the very
beginning. Moreover, when he left for his holiday he ought to have
given proper instructions to his deputy, Mr. Hinks, with regard to
continuing the work of cleaning the sculptures, but he failed to do
so. Mr. Pryce's neglect of his duties is all the more serious in
view of the fact that he had been Deputy Keeper since 27th November
1934 and Keeper since 25th June 1936 and had had the management of
the Sculpture Galleries and workshops from 1925 to 1932, during Mr.
Walter's Keepership, and was presumably conversant with the proper
procedure to be observed in connection with the moving and cleaning
of the sculptures under his charge. When questioned as to how this
occurrence could have taken place if there had been proper
supervision Mr. Pryce was unable to answer, and when asked as to
what steps should be taken to prevent the possibility of the
recurrence of such an incident he exhibited little faculty of
resourceful suggestion.
As regards Mr. Hinks, who entered the employment of the Museum
on 18th January 1926 and was promoted to his present rank on 22nd
June 1936, the Board find that in his case also there was serious
dereliction of duty. He was in charge of the Department when
Holcombe removed the sculptures in question and set about cleaning
them and yet he was quite unaware either of their removal or of the
starting of the cleaning process. If he had been maintaining proper
supervision he could not have failed to be aware of what was
happening. Yet it was not till after the Director had discovered
the mischief that Mr. Hinks, for the first time during Mr. Pryce's
absence, visited the masons' workshop. He failed to carry out at
once the orders given to him by the Director and he did not
indicate any realisation of the seriousness of the matter. Being
interested in other sections of the Department he appears to have
shown little concern as to the Parthenon sculptures which were
under his charge while Mr. Pryce was on leave.
11. As regards the disciplinary action to be taken, the Board
have been given to understand that in accordance with the practice
in the Civil Service an officer against whom any charge of default
in duty is made is entitled to have a statement of the charge in
writing and to be afforded an opportunity of answering it. If the
Trustees should approve of this Interim Report it will accordingly
be necessary that the relevant passages attributing fault to Mr.
Pryce and Mr. Hinks be communicated to them and that any statements
which they may make in answer should be considered. They should
also have an opportunity of being heard by the Standing Committee,
if they so desire.
Until this procedure is carried out it would obviously not be
proper for the Board to deal with that part of their terms of
reference which directs them "to advise upon the necessary
disciplinary action," and they have also meantimes postponed the
branch of their remit relating to the policy to be adopted by the
Trustees with regard to the publication of the facts.
The Board have accordingly thought it right at this stage of
their Enquiry to present this Interim Report for the consideration
and directions of the Trustees.
British Museum
November, 1938