ARIZONA BORDERS AND CITIZEN SAFETY…
Check out these free dating sites australia review images:
ARIZONA BORDERS AND CITIZEN SAFETY…
Image by roberthuffstutter
The United States Border Patrol is a federal law enforcement agency within U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Its 20,200 Agents[1] are primarily responsible for immigration and border law enforcement as codified in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Their duty is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States and to deter, detect, and apprehend illegal aliens and individuals involved in the illegal drug trade who enter the United States other than through designated ports of entry.
Additionally, the CBP enforces federal controlled substances laws (as codified in the Controlled Substances Act) when violations occur or are found during the enforcement of federal immigration laws, via delegated authority from the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Note that there are two personnel segments of U.S. Customs and Border Protection that people often confuse with each other, the CBP Officer [1], who wears a blue uniform and the Border Patrol Agent [2] who wears a green uniform.
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Strategy
2.1 1986: Employer sanctions and interior enforcement
2.2 Inspection stations
2.2.1 El Paso Sector’s Operation Hold the Line
2.2.2 San Diego Sector’s Operation Gatekeeper
2.2.3 Tucson Sector’s Operation Safeguard
2.3 Northern border
2.4 Border Patrol moves away from interior enforcement
2.5 The new strategy
3 Capabilities
4 Expansion
5 Special Operations Group
5.1 Other specialized programs
6 Border Patrol organization
6.1 Border Patrol Sectors
7 Training
7.1 Uniforms
7.2 Border Patrol (OBP) Ranks and Insignia
7.2.1 Border Patrol Shoulder Ornaments
8 Awards
8.1 Newton-Azrak Award for Heroism
9 Border Patrol Uniform Devices
10 Equipment
10.1 Weapons
10.2 Transportation
11 Line of duty deaths
12 Armed incursions
13 Ramos and Compean
14 Criticisms
14.1 Ineffective
14.2 Allegations of abuse
14.3 Corruption
15 National Border Patrol Council
16 National Border Patrol Museum
17 In popular culture
17.1 Books
17.2 Film
17.2.1 Documentaries
18 See also
19 References
20 External links
21 External Video
21.1 GAO and OIG Reports
[edit] History
Immigration inspectors, circa 1924Mounted watchmen of the United States Immigration Service patrolled the border in an effort to prevent illegal crossings as early as 1904, but their efforts were irregular and undertaken only when resources permitted. The inspectors, usually called "mounted guards", operated out of El Paso, Texas. Though they never totaled more than 75, they patrolled as far west as California trying to restrict the flow of illegal Chinese immigration.
In March 1915, Congress authorized a separate group of mounted guards, often referred to as "mounted inspectors". Most rode on horseback, but a few operated automobiles, motorcycles and boats. Although these inspectors had broader arrest authority, they still largely pursued Chinese immigrants trying to avoid the National Origins Act and Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. These patrolmen were Immigrant Inspectors, assigned to inspection stations, and could not watch the border at all times. U.S. Army troops along the southwest border performed intermittent border patrolling, but this was secondary to "the more serious work of military training." Non-nationals encountered illegally in the U.S. by the army were directed to the immigration inspection stations. Texas Rangers were also sporadically assigned to patrol duties by the state, and their efforts were noted as "singularly effective".
The Border Patrol was founded on May 28, 1924 as an agency of the United States Department of Labor to prevent illegal entries along the Mexico–United States border and the United States-Canada border. The first two border patrol stations were in El Paso, Texas and Detroit, Michigan.[2] Additional operations were established along the Gulf Coast in 1927 to perform crewman control to insure that non-American crewmen departed on the same ship on which they arrived. Additional stations were temporarily added along the Gulf Coast, Florida and the Eastern Seaboard during the sixties when in Cuba triumphed the Cuban Revolution and emerged the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Prior to 2003, the Border Patrol was part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), an agency that was within the U.S. Department of Justice. INS was disbanded in March 2003 when its operations were divided between CBP, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The priority mission of the Border Patrol, as a result of the 9/11 attacks and its merging into the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States of America. However, the Border Patrol’s traditional mission remains as the deterrence, detection and apprehension of illegal immigrants and individuals involved in the illegal drug trade who generally enter the United States other than through designated ports of entry. The Border Patrol also operates 33 permanent interior checkpoints along the southern border of the United States.
Currently, the U.S. Border Patrol employs over 20,200 agents (as of the end of fiscal year 2009),[3] who are specifically responsible for patrolling the 6,000 miles of Mexican and Canadian international land borders and 2,000 miles of coastal waters surrounding the Florida Peninsula and the island of Puerto Rico. Agents are assigned primarily to the Mexico–United States border, where they are assigned to control drug trafficking and illegal immigration.[4] Patrols on horseback have made a comeback since smugglers have been pushed into the more remote mountainous regions, which are hard to cover with modern tracking strategies.[5]
[edit] Strategy
[edit] 1986: Employer sanctions and interior enforcement
Border Patrol Agents with a Hummer and Astar patrol for illegal entry into U.S.The Border Patrol’s priorities have changed over the years. In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act placed renewed emphasis on controlling illegal immigration by going after the employers that hire illegal immigrants. The belief was that jobs were the magnet that attracted most illegal immigrants to come to the United States. The Border Patrol increased interior enforcement and Form I-9 audits of businesses through an inspection program known as "employer sanctions". Several agents were assigned to interior stations, such as within the Livermore Sector in Northern California.
Employer sanctions never became the effective tool it was expected to be by Congress. Illegal immigration continued to swell after the 1986 amnesty despite employer sanctions. By 1993, Californians passed Proposition 187, denying benefits to illegal immigrants and criminalizing illegal immigrants in possession of forged green cards, I.D. cards and Social Security Numbers. It also authorized police officers to question non-nationals as to their immigration status and required police and sheriff departments to cooperate and report illegal immigrants to the INS. Proposition 187 drew nationwide attention to illegal immigration.
[edit] Inspection stations
United States Border Patrol Interior Checkpoints are inspection stations operated by the USBP within 100 miles of a national border (with Mexico or Canada) or in the Florida Keys. As federal inspection stations are also operated by the Mexican government within 50 km of its borders where they are officially known as a "Garita de Revisión." or Garitas, they are known also by that name to Latinos.
[edit] El Paso Sector’s Operation Hold the Line
El Paso Sector Chief Patrol Agent (and future U.S. congressman) Silvestre Reyes started a program called "Operation Hold the Line". In this program, Border Patrol agents would no longer react to illegal entries resulting in apprehensions, but would instead be forward deployed to the border, immediately detecting any attempted entries or deterring crossing at a more remote location. The idea was that it would be easier to capture illegal entrants in the wide open deserts than through the urban alleyways. Chief Reyes deployed his agents along the Rio Grande River, within eyesight of other agents. The program significantly reduced illegal entries in the urban part of El Paso, however, the operation merely shifted the illegal entries to other areas.
[edit] San Diego Sector’s Operation Gatekeeper
A Border Patrol Jeep stands watch over the U.S.-Mexico border at San Ysidro, California.San Diego Sector tried Silvestre Reyes’ approach of forward deploying agents to deter illegal entries into the country. Congress authorized the hiring of thousands of new agents, and many were sent to San Diego Sector.[citation needed] In addition, Congressman Duncan Hunter obtained surplus military landing mats to use as a border fence.[citation needed] Stadium lighting, ground sensors and infra-red cameras were also placed in the area.[citation needed] Apprehensions decreased dramatically in that area as people crossed in different regions.
[edit] Tucson Sector’s Operation Safeguard
California was no longer the hotbed of illegal entry and the traffic shifted to Arizona, primarily in Nogales and Douglas.[citation needed] The Border Patrol instituted the same deterrent strategy it used in San Diego to Arizona.
[edit] Northern border
In 2001, the Border Patrol had approximately 340 agents assigned along the Canada – United States border border. Northern border staffing had been increased to 1,128 agents to 1,470 agents by the end of fiscal year 2008, and is projected to expand to 1,845 by the end of fiscal year 2009, a sixfold increase. Resources that support Border Patrol agents include the use of new technology and a more focused application of air and marine assets.
The northern border sectors are Blaine (Washington), Buffalo (New York), Detroit (Selfridge ANGB, Michigan), Grand Forks (North Dakota), Havre (Montana), Houlton (Maine), Spokane (Washington), and Swanton (Vermont).
[edit] Border Patrol moves away from interior enforcement
In the 1990s, Congress mandated that the Border Patrol shift agents away from the interior and focus them on the borders.
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Department of Homeland Security created two immigration enforcement agencies out of the defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). ICE was tasked with investigations, detention and removal of illegal immigrants, and interior enforcement. CBP was tasked with inspections at U.S. ports of entry and with preventing illegal entries between the port of entry, transportation check, and entries on U.S. coastal borders. DHS management decided to align the Border Patrol with CBP. CBP itself is solely responsible for the nation’s ports of entry, while Border Patrol maintains jurisdiction over all locations between ports of entry, giving Border Patrol agents federal authority absolutely[dubious – discuss] nationwide[dubious – discuss].
In July 2004, the Livermore Sector of the United States Border Patrol was closed. Livermore Sector served Northern California and included stations at Dublin (Parks Reserve Forces Training Area), Sacramento, Stockton, Fresno and Bakersfield. The Border Patrol also closed other stations in the interior of the United States including Roseburg, Oregon and Little Rock, Arkansas. The Border Patrol functions in these areas consisted largely of local jail and transportation terminal checks for illegal immigrants. These functions were turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
[edit] The new strategy
Cameras add "Smart Border" surveillance.In November 2005, the U.S. Border Patrol published an updated national strategy.[6] The goal of this updated strategy is operational control of the United States border. The strategy has five main objectives:
Apprehend terrorists and terrorist weapons illegally entering the United States;
Deter illegal entries through improved enforcement;
Detect, apprehend, and deter smugglers of humans, drugs, and other contraband;
Use "smart border" technology; and
Reduce crime in border communities, improving quality of life.
[edit] Capabilities
The border is a barely discernible line in uninhabited deserts, canyons, or mountains. The Border Patrol utilizes a variety of equipment and methods, such as electronic sensors placed at strategic locations along the border, to detect people or vehicles entering the country illegally. Video monitors and night vision scopes are also used to detect illegal entries. Agents patrol the border in vehicles, boats, aircraft, and afoot. In some areas, the Border Patrol employs horses, all-terrain motorcycles, bicycles, and snowmobiles. Air surveillance capabilities are provided by unmanned aerial vehicles.[3]
The primary activity of a Border Patrol Agent is "Line Watch". Line Watch involves the detection, prevention, and apprehension of terrorists, undocumented aliens and smugglers of aliens at or near the land border by maintaining surveillance from a covert position; following up on leads; responding to electronic sensor television systems and aircraft sightings; and interpreting and following tracks, marks, and other physical evidence. Major activities include traffic check, traffic observation, city patrol, transportation check, administrative, intelligence, and anti-smuggling activities.[4]
Traffic checks are conducted on major highways leading away from the border to detect and apprehend illegal aliens attempting to travel further into the interior of the United States after evading detection at the border, and to detect illegal narcotics.[3]
Transportation checks are inspections of interior-bound conveyances, which include buses, commercial aircraft, passenger and freight trains, and marine craft.[3]
Marine Patrols are conducted along the coastal waterways of the United States, primarily along the Pacific coast, the Caribbean, the tip of Florida, and Puerto Rico and interior waterways common to the United States and Canada. Border Patrol conducts border control activities from 130 marine craft of various sizes. The Border Patrol maintains watercraft ranging from blue-water craft to inflatable-hull craft, in 16 sectors, in addition to headquarters special operations components.[3]
Horse and bike patrols are used to augment regular vehicle and foot patrols. Horse units patrol remote areas along the international boundary that are inaccessible to standard all-terrain vehicles. Bike patrol aids city patrol and is used over rough terrain to support linewatch.[3] Snowmobiles are used to patrol remote areas along the northern border in the winter.
[edit] Expansion
Attrition in the Border Patrol was normally at 5%. From 1995-2001 attrition spiked to above 10%, which was a period when the Border Patrol was undergoing massive hiring. In 2002 the attrition rate climbed to 18%. The 18% attrition was largely attributed to agents transferring to the Federal Air Marshals after 9/11. Since that time the attrition problem has decreased significantly and Congress has increased journeyman Border Patrol Agent pay from GS-9 to GS-11 in 2002. The Border Patrol Marine Position was created in 2009 (BPA-M). This position will be updated to a GS-12 position sometime in 2010 or 2011. Border Patrol Field Training Officers may possibly be updated in 2010 to a temporary GS-12 pay rate. In 2005, Border Patrol attrition dropped to 4% and remains in the area of 4% to 6% as of 2009.[7]
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (signed by President Bush on December 17, 2004) authorized hiring an additional 10,000 agents, "subject to appropriation". This authorization, if fully implemented, would nearly double the Border Patrol manpower from 11,000 to 21,000 agents by 2010.
In July 2005, Congress signed the Emergency Supplemental Spending Act for military operations in Iraq/Afghanistan and other operations. The act also appropriated funding to increase Border Patrol manpower by 500 Agents. In October 2005, President Bush also signed the DHS FY06 Appropriation bill, funding an additional 1,000 Agents.
In November 2005, President George W. Bush made a trip to southern Arizona to discuss more options that would decrease illegal crossings at the U.S. and Mexican border. In his proposed fiscal year 2007 budget he has requested an additional 1,500 Border Patrol agents.
The Secure Fence Act, signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2006, has met with much opposition. In October 2007, environmental groups and concerned citizens filed a restraining order hoping to halt the construction of the fence, set to be built between the United States and Mexico. The act mandates that the fence be built by December 2008. Ultimately, the United States seeks to put fencing around the 1,945-mile (3,130 km) border, but the act requires only 700 miles (1,100 km) of fencing. DHS secretary Michael Chertoff has bypassed environmental and other oppositions with a waiver that was granted to him by Congress in Section 102 of the act, which allows DHS to avoid any conflicts that would prevent a speedy assembly of the fence.[8][9]
This action has led many environment groups and landowners to speak out against the impending construction of the fence.[10] Environment and wildlife groups fear that the plans to clear brush, construct fences, install bright lights, motion sensors, and cameras will scare wildlife and endanger the indigenous species of the area.[11] Environmentalists claim that the ecosystem could be affected due to the fact that a border fence would restrict movement of all animal species, which in turn would keep them from water and food sources on one side or another. Desert plants would also feel the impact, as they would be uprooted in many areas where the fence is set to occupy.[12]
Property owners in these areas fear a loss of land. Landowners would have to give some of their land over to the government for the fence. Citizens also fear that communities will be split. Many students travel over the border every day to attend classes at the University of Texas at Brownsville. Brownsville mayor Pat Ahumada favors alternative options to a border fence. He suggests that the Rio Grande River be widened and deepened to provide for a natural barrier to hinder illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.[13]
The United States Border Patrol Academy is located in Artesia, New Mexico.
[edit] Special Operations Group
A Border Patrol Special Response Team searches room-by-room a hotel in New Orleans in response to Hurricane Katrina.
CBP BORSTAR canine team conducting rappeling trainingIn 2007, the Border Patrol created the Special Operations Group (SOG) headquartered in El Paso, TX to coordinate the specialized units of the agency.[14]
Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC)
National Special Response Team (NSRT)
Border Patrol, Search, Trauma and Rescue (BORSTAR)
Air Mobile Unit (AMU)
[edit] Other specialized programs
The Border Patrol has a number of other specialized programs and details.
Air and Marine Operations
K9 Units
Mounted Patrol
Bike patrol
Sign-cutting (tracking)
Snowmobile unit
Infrared scope unit
Intelligence
Anti-smuggling investigations
Border Criminal Alien Program
Multi-agency Anti-Gang Task Forces (regional & local units)
Honor Guard
Pipes and Drums
Chaplain
Peer Support
[edit] Border Patrol organization
David V. Aguilar, Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border ProtectionThe current Acting Chief of the Border Patrol is Michael J. Fisher who succeeded in 2010 David V. Aguilar, who is now the Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection.
[edit] Border Patrol Sectors
There are 20 Border Patrol sectors, each headed by a Sector Chief Patrol Agent.
Northern Border (West to East):
Blaine Sector (Western Washington State, Idaho, and Western Montana.) – stations; Bellingham, Blaine, Port Angeles, Sumas.
Spokane Sector (Eastern Washington State)
Havre Sector (Montana)
Grand Forks Sector (North Dakota)
Detroit Sector (Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Michigan) – stations; Downtown Detroit, Marysville, Gibralter, Sault Sainte Marie, Sandusky Bay.
Buffalo Sector (New York) – stations; Buffalo, Erie, Niagura Falls, Oswego, Rochester, Wellesley Island.
Swanton Sector (Vermont)
Houlton Sector (Maine)
Southern Border (West to East):
San Diego Sector (San Diego, California)
El Centro Sector (Imperial County, California)
Yuma Sector (Western Arizona)- stations; Wellton, Yuma, Blythe
Tucson Sector (Eastern Arizona)
El Paso Sector (El Paso, Texas and New Mexico) – stations; Alamogordo, Albuquerque, Deming, El Paso, Fabens, Fort Hancock, Las Cruces, Lordsburg, Santa Teresa, Truth or Consequences, Ysleta
Marfa Sector (Big Bend Area of West Texas) – stations; Alpine, Amarillo, Big Bend, Fort Stockton, Lubbock, Marfa, Midland, Pecos, Presidio, Sanderson, Sierra Blanca, Van Horn
Del Rio Sector (Del Rio, Texas) – stations; Abilene, Brackettville, Carrizo Springs, Comstock, Del Rio, Eagle Pass North, Eagle Pass South, Rocksprings, San Angelo, Uvalde
Rio Grande Valley Sector (South Texas) – stations; Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Falfurrias, Fort Brown, Harlingen, Kingsville, McAllen, Rio Grande City, Weslaco
Laredo Sector (South Texas) – stations; Cotulla, Dallas, Freer, Hebbronville, Laredo North, Laredo South, Laredo West, San Antonio, Zapata
New Orleans Sector (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and West Florida)
Miami Sector (Florida East and South)
Caribbean
Ramey Sector (Aguadilla, Puerto Rico) and the Virgin Islands, it is the only Border Patrol Sector located outside the continental United States
[edit] Training
All Border Patrol Agents spend 15 weeks in training at the Border Patrol Academy (if they are fluent in Spanish) in Artesia, New Mexico, which is a component of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).Those who are not fluent in Spanish spend an additional eight weeks at the Academy. Recruits are instructed in Border Patrol and federal law enforcement subjects.
Border Patrol courses include: Immigration and Nationality Law, Criminal Law and Statutory Authority, Spanish, Border Patrol Operations, Care and Use of Firearms, Physical Training, Driver Training, and Anti-Terrorism.
FLETC courses include: Communications, Ethics and Conduct, Report Writing, Introduction to Computers, Fingerprinting, and Constitutional Law.[15]
The physical aspects of the Border Patrol Training Program are extremely demanding. At the end of 55 days, trainees must be able to complete a one and a half mile run in 13 minutes or less, a confidence course in two and a half minutes or less, and a 220 yard dash in 46 seconds or less. This final test is much easier than the day to day physical training during the program.[15]
[edit] Uniforms
The Border Patrol currently wears the following types of uniforms:
CBP officers at a ceremony in 2007Dress uniform – The dress uniform consists of olive-green trousers with a blue stripe, and an olive-green shirt, which may or may not have blue shoulder straps. The campaign hat is worn with uniform.
Ceremonial uniform – When required, the following items are added to the dress uniform to complete the ceremonial uniform: olive-green Ike jacket or tunic with blue accents (shoulder straps and cuffs, blue tie, brass tie tack, white gloves, and olive-green felt campaign hat with leather hat band. The campaign hat is worn with uniform.
Rough duty uniform – The rough duty uniform consists of green cargo trousers and work shirt (in short or long sleeves). Usually worn with green baseball cap or tan stetson.
Accessories, footwear, and outerwear – Additional items are worn in matching blue or black colors as appropriate.
Organization patches – The Border Patrol wears two:
The CBP patch is worn on the right sleeves of the uniform. It contains the DHS seal against a black background with a "keystone" shape. A "keystone" is the central, wedge-shaped stone in an arch, which holds all the other stones in place.
Border Patrol agents retain the circular legacy Border Patrol patch, which is worn on the left sleeve.
The Border Patrol uniform is getting its first makeover since the 1950s to appear more like military fatigues and less like a police officer’s duty garb.[16] Leather belts with brass buckles are being replaced by nylon belts with quick-release plastic buckles, slacks are being replaced by lightweight cargo pants, and shiny badges and nameplates are being replaced by cloth patches.
[edit] Border Patrol (OBP) Ranks and Insignia
Location Title Collar insignia Shoulder ornament Pay grade
Border Patrol Headquarters Chief of the Border Patrol Gold-plated Senior Executive Service (SES)
Deputy Chief of the Border Patrol Gold-plated SES
Division Chief Gold-plated SES
Deputy Division Chief Gold-plated GS-15, General Schedule
Associate Chief Gold-plated GS-15
Assistant Chief Silver-plated GS-14
Operations Officer Oxidized GS-13
Border Patrol Sectors Chief Patrol Agent (CPA) Gold-plated SES or GS-15
Deputy Chief Patrol Agent (DCPA) Gold-plated SES/GS-15 or GS-14
Division Chief Gold-plated GS-15
Assistant Chief Patrol Agent (ACPA) Silver-plated GS-15 or GS-14
Patrol Agent in Charge (PAIC) Silver-plated GS-14 or GS-13
Assistant Patrol Agent in Charge (APAIC) Oxidized GS-13
Special Operations Supervisor (SOS) Oxidized GS-13
Field Operations Supervisor (FOS) Oxidized GS-13
Supervisory Border Patrol Agent (SBPA) Oxidized GS-12
Senior Patrol Agent (SPA) (Note: Being phased out through attrition) No insignia Currently GS-11 (Will be upgraded to full performance level GS-12 sometime during the 1st quarter of 2011)
Border Patrol Agent (BPA) No insignia GS-5, 7, 9, 11 (Upgrade to GS-12 pending)
Border Patrol Academy Chief Patrol Agent (CPA) Gold-plated GS-15
Deputy Chief Patrol Agent (DCPA) Gold-plated GS-15
Assistant Chief Patrol Agent (ACPA) Silver-plated GS-14
Training Operations Supervisor (TOS) Oxidized GS-14
Supervisory Border Patrol Agent (Senior Instructor) Oxidized GS-13
Supervisory Border Patrol Agent (Instructor) Oxidized GS-13
[edit] Border Patrol Shoulder Ornaments
[edit] Awards
Newton-Azrak Award for Heroism Commissioners Distinguished Career Service Award Commissioners Exceptional Service Medal Commissioners Meritorious Service Award Commissioners Special Commendation Award Chiefs Commendation Medal
No Image Available No Image Available No Image Available
Commissioners Excellence in Group Achievement Award Purple Cross Wound Medal Academy Honor Award Winner Border Patrol Long Service Medal 75th Anniversary of the Border Patrol Commemorative Medal
No Image Available No Image Available
[edit] Newton-Azrak Award for Heroism
The Border Patrol’s highest honor is the Newton-Azrak Award for Heroism. This Award is bestowed to Border Patrol Agents for extraordinary actions, service; accomplishments reflecting unusual courage or bravery in the line of duty; or an extraordinarily heroic or humane act committed during times of extreme stress or in an emergency.
This award is named for Border Patrol Inspectors Theodore Newton[17] and George Azrak,[18] who were murdered by two drug smugglers in San Diego County in 1967.
[edit] Border Patrol Uniform Devices
Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC) Border Patrol Search, Trauma and Rescue Unit (BORSTAR) Special Response Team (NSRT) Honor Guard Border Patrol Pipes and Drums Cap Badge
No Image Available
K-9 Handler Chaplain Field Training Officer Peer Support
[edit] Equipment
[edit] Weapons
A Border Patrol Agent carrying an M14 rifle.Border Patrol Agents are issued the H&K P2000 double action pistol in .40 S&W. It can contain as many as 13 rounds of ammunition (12 in the magazine and one in the chamber).
Like other law enforcement agencies, the Remington 870 is the standard shotgun.
Border Patrol Agents also commonly carry the M4 Carbine and the H&K UMP 40 caliber submachine gun. The M14 rifle is used for mostly ceremonial purposes.
As a less than lethal option, the Border Patrol also uses the FN303.
[edit] Transportation
Unlike in many other law enforcement agencies in the United States, the Border Patrol operates several thousand SUVs and pickup trucks, which are known for their capabilities to move around in any sort of terrain. This vehicles may have individual revolving lights (strobes or LEDs) and/or light bars and sirens. An extensive modernization drive has ensured that these vehicles are equipped with wireless sets in communication with a central control room. Border Patrol vehicles may also have equipment such as speed radar, breathalyzers, and emergency first aid kits. Some sectors make use of sedans like the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor or the Dodge Charger as patrol cars or high speed "interceptors" on highways. The Border Patrol also operates ATVs, motorcycles, snowmobiles, and small boats in the riverine environment. In 2005, all Border Patrol and ICE aircraft operations were combined under CBP’s Office of Air and Marine. All CBP vessel operation in Customs Waters are conducted by Office of Air and Marine.
Color schemes of Border Patrol vehicles are either a long green stripe running the length of the vehicle or a broad green diagonal stripe on the door. Most Border Patrol vehicles are painted predominantly white.
The Border Patrol also extensively uses horses for remote area patrols. The U.S. Border Patrol has 205 horses As of 2005[update]. Most are employed along the Mexico–United States border. In Arizona, these animals are fed special processed feed pellets so that their wastes do not spread non-native plants in the national parks and wildlife areas they patrol.[19]
[edit] Line of duty deaths
Total line of duty deaths (since 1904): 105[20]
Aircraft accident: 14
Assault: 2
Automobile accident: 28
Drowned: 4
Fall: 4
Gunfire: 30
Gunfire (Accidental): 3
Heart attack: 6
Heat exhaustion: 1
Motorcycle accident: 2
Stabbed: 2
Struck by train: 3
Struck by vehicle: 3
Vehicle pursuit: 2
Vehicular assault: 3
[edit] Armed incursions
On August 7, 2008, Mexican troops crossed the border into Arizona and held a U.S. Border Patrol Agent at gunpoint. Agents stationed at Ajo, Arizona said that the Mexican soldiers crossed the border into an isolated area southwest of Tucson and pointed rifles at the agent, who has not been identified. The Mexicans withdrew after other American agents arrived on the scene.[21]
[edit] Ramos and Compean
In February 2005, Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were involved in an incident while pursuing a van in Fabens, Texas. The driver, later identified as Aldrete Davila, was shot by Agent Ramos during a scuffle. Davila escaped back into Mexico, and the agents discovered that the van contained a million dollars worth of marijuana (about 750 pounds). None of the agents at the scene orally reported the shooting, including two supervisors. The Department of Homeland Security opened up an internal affairs investigation into the incident.[22] See also [23][24][25]
[edit] Criticisms
[edit] Ineffective
In 2006, a documentary called The Illegal Immigration Invasion[26] linked the scale of illegal immigration into the United States chiefly to the ineffectiveness of the Border Patrol. The film claimed that this is due to the lack of judicial powers of the Border Patrol and the effective hamstringing of the agency by the federal government. The film interviews people that deal with illegal immigration on a daily basis, as well as local citizens living in the border areas.
[edit] Allegations of abuse
There are allegations of abuse by the United States Border Patrol such as the ones reported by Jesus A. Trevino, that concludes in an article published in the Houston Journal of International Law (2006) with a request to create an independent review commission to oversee the actions of the Border Patrol, and that creating such review board will make the American public aware of the "serious problem of abuse that exists at the border by making this review process public" and that "illegal immigrants deserve the same constitutionally-mandated humane treatment of citizens and legal residents".[27]
In 1998, Amnesty International investigated allegations of ill-treatment and brutality by officers of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and particularly the Border Patrol. Their report said they found indications of human rights violations during 1996, 1997 and early 1998.[28]
An article in Social Justice by Michael Huspek, Leticia Jimenez, Roberto Martinez (1998) cites that in December 1997, John Case, head of the INS Office of Internal Audit, announced at a press conference that public complaints to the INS had risen 29% from 1996, with the "vast majority" of complaints emanating from the southwest border region, but that of the 2,300 cases, the 243 cases of serious allegations of abuse were down in 1997. These serious cases are considered to be distinct from less serious complaints, such as "verbal abuse, discrimination, extended detention without cause."[29]
[edit] Corruption
Incidences of corruption in the U.S. Border Patrol include:
Pablo Sergio Barry, an agent charged with one count of harboring an illegal immigrant, three counts of false statements, and two counts of making a false document.[30] He plead guilty.[31]
Christopher E. Bernis, an agent indicted on a charge of harboring an illegal immigrant for nine months while employed as a U.S. Border Patrol agent.[32]
Jose De Jesus Ruiz, an agent whose girlfriend was an illegal immigrant, he was put on administrative leave pending an investigation.[32]
Oscar Antonio Ortiz, an illegal immigrant[33] who used a fake birth certificate to get into the Border Patrol admitted to smuggling more than 100 illegal immigrants into the U.S., some of them in his government truck,[34] and was helping to smuggle illegal immigrants and charged with conspiring with another agent to smuggle immigrants.
An unidentified patrol agent who was recorded on a wire tap stating that he helped to smuggle 30 to 50 immigrants at a time.[33]
[edit] National Border Patrol Council
National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) is the labor union which represents over 14,000 Border Patrol Agents and support staff. The NBPC was founded in 1968, and its parent organization is the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO. The NBPC’s executive committee is staffed by current and retired Border Patrol Agents and, along with its constituent locals, employs a staff of a dozen attorneys and field representatives. The NBPC is associated with the Peace Officer Research Association of California’s Legal Defense Fund.[35]
[edit] National Border Patrol Museum
The National Border Patrol Museum is located in El Paso, Texas. The museum exhibits uniforms, equipment, photographs, guns, vehicles, airplanes, boats, and documents which depict the historical and current sector operations throughout the United States.
[edit] In popular culture
[edit] Books
Border Patrol by Alvin Edward Moore
The Border Patrol by Deborah Wells Salter
EWI: Entry Without Inspection (Title 8 U.S.C. § 1325 Improper entry by alien) by Fortuna Testarona Valiente
Tracks in the Sand: A Tale of the Border Patrol by Kent E Lundgren,
On The Line: Inside the U.S. Border Patrol by Alex Pacheco and Erich Krauss
Patrolling Chaos: The U.S. Border Patrol in Deep South Texas by Robert Lee Maril
The U.S. Border Patrol: Guarding the Nation (Blazers) by Connie Collwell Miller
My Border Patrol Diary: Laredo, Texas by Dale Squint
Holding the Line: War Stories of the U.S. Border Patrol by Gerald Schumacher
The Border Patrol Ate My Dust by Alicia Alarcon, Ethriam Cash Brammer, and Ethriam Cash Brammer de Gonzales
The Border: Exploring the U.S.-Mexican Divide by David J. Danelo
Beat The Border: An Insider’s Guide To How The U.S. Border Works And How To Beat It by Ned Beaumont
West of the Moon: A Border Patrol Agent’s Tale by D. B. Prehoda
The Journey: U.S. Border Patrol & the Solution to the Illegal Alien Problem by Donald R. Coppock
Border patrol: With the U.S. Immigration Service on the Mexican boundary, 1910-54 by Clifford Alan Perkins
Border Patrol: How U.S. Agents Protect Our Borders from Illegal Entry by Carroll B. Colby
In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security by Tom Tancredo
[edit] Film
Border Patrolman, a 1936 film in which a Border Patrolman Bob Wallace, played by George O’Brien, resigns in protest after being humiliated by the spoiled granddaughter of a millionaire.
Border Patrol, a 1943 film starring William C. Boyd, Andy Clyde, George Reeves, and Robert Mitchum
Borderline, a 1950 film noir starring Fred MacMurray about drug smuggling across the U.S./Mexico border
Border Patrol, a 1959 syndicated television series, starring Richard Webb as the fictitious deputy chief of the U.S. Border Patrol
Borderline, a 1980 movie starring Charles Bronson about a Border Patrol Agent on the U.S./Mexico border
The Border, a 1982 film starring Jack Nicholson
El Norte, a 1983 film portraying Central American Indian peasants traveling to the United States.
Flashpoint, a 1984 film starring Kris Kristofferson
Last Man Standing, a 1996 film starring Bruce Willis and Ken Jenkins as Texas Ranger Captain Tom Pickett who is investing the killing of an unnamed Immigration Inspector (played by Larry Holt) across the border in Mexico.
Men in Black, a 1997 science fiction comedy action film starring Tommy Lee Jones, Will Smith and Vincent D’Onofrio. The Border Patrol was portrayed as Immigration Inspectors
The Gatekeeper, a 2002 film by John Carlos Frey about the struggles of migrants at the Mexican/US border.
The Shepherd: Border Patrol, a 2007 film starring Jean-Claude Van Damme
Linewatch, a 2008 film starring Cuba Gooding, Jr., as a Border Patrol agent defending his family from a group of Los Angeles gang members involved in the illegal trade of importing narcotics into the United States.
[edit] Documentaries
Border Patrol: American’s Gatekeepers A&E with former United States Attorney General Janet Reno
Investigative Reports: Border Patrol: America’s Gatekeepers A&E Investigates
History the Enforcers : Border Patrol History Channel
[edit] See also
Border Protection Personnel
United States portal
Law enforcement/Law enforcement topics portal
List of United States federal law enforcement agencies
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Border control
Ignacio Ramos
Illegal immigration
H.R. 4437
Minuteman Project
MQ-9 Reaper
No More Deaths
Office of CBP Air
United States Mexico barrier
United States-Canadian Border
la migra
[edit] References
^ "Reinstatements to the northern border". CPB.gov. US Customs and Border Protection. 2008-05-19. www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/reinsta…. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/border_…
^ a b c d e f "Boarder Patrol overview". CPB.gov. US Customs and Boarder Protection. 2008-08-22. www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/border_…. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ a b "Who we are and what we do". CPB.gov. US Customs and Boarder Protection. 2008-09-03. www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/who_we_…. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ Gaynor, Tim (2008-01-23). "U.S. turns to horses to secure borders". Reuters. www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSN2323280820080124…. Retrieved 2008-01-24.
^ www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/border_security/border_patro…[dead link]
^ Nuñez-Neto, Blas (2006-010-25) (PDF). Border security: The role of the U.S. Border Patrol. Congressional Research Service. p. 35. digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs//data/2006/upl-meta-c…. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ Coyle, Marcia (2008-03-03). "Waivers for border fence challenged: Environmental groups take their complaints to Supreme Court". The Recorder.
^ Archibold, Randal C. (2008-04-02). "Government issues waiver for fencing along border". New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/us/02fence.html. Retrieved 2008-04-02.
^ "Conservation groups call for an immediate halt to construction of border fence in San Pedro National Conservation Area". US Newswire. 2007-10-05.
^ Gordon, David George (May 2000). "A ‘grande’ dispute". National Geographic World: p. 4.
^ Cohn, Jeffrey P. (2007). "The environmental impacts of a border fence". BioScience 57 (1): 96. doi:10.1641/B570116. www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1641/B570116. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "Expansive border fence stirs fights over land". Tell Me More. NPR. 2008-03-03.
^ 2007 State of the Border Patrol video[dead link]
^ a b "FAQs: Working for the Border Patrol-basic training". CPB.gov. US Customs and Boarder Protection. 2008-05-29. www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/careers/customs_careers/border_career…. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ Spagat, Elliot (2007-08-16). "Border Patrol uniform gets first makeover since the 1950s". North County Times. www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/08/17/news/sandiego/18_64_3…. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "Border Patrol Inspector Theodore L. Newton Jr.". The Officer Down Memorial Page. www.odmp.org/officer.php?oid=9933. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "Border Patrol Inspector George F. Azrak". The Officer Down Memorial Page. www.odmp.org/officer.php?oid=1368. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ Rostien, Arthur H. (2005-06-09). "Border Patrol horses get special feed that helps protect desert ecosystem". Environmental News Network. www.enn.com/top_stories/article/1731. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "United States Department of Homeland Security – Customs and Border Protection – Border Patrol". The Officer Down Memorial Page. www.odmp.org/agency/4830-united-states-department-of-home…. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ Meyers, Jim (2008-08-06). "Mexican troops cross border, hold border agent". Newsmax.com. newsmax.com/insidecover/mexican_troops_border/2008/08/06/…. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "Glenn Beck: Ramos & Compean – the whole story". The Glenn Beck Program. Premiere Radio Networks. 2008-07-29. www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/13098/. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "Error: no |title= specified when using {{Cite web}}". Ramos-Compean. ramos-compean.blogspot.com/. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "2 Border Patrol agents face 20 years in prison". WorldDailyNet. 2006-08-07. www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51417. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "Ramos and Campean – court appeal". www.scribd.com/doc/219384/Ramos-and-Campean-Court-Appeal. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ (Google video) The illegal immigration invasion. October Sun Films. 2006-04-06. video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1451035544403625746. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ Jesus A. Trevino (1998). "Border violence against illegal immigrants and the need to change the border patrol’s current complaint review process" (PDF). Houston Journal of International Law 21 (1): 85–114. ISSN 0194-1879. www.hjil.org/ArticleFiles/21_1_10.pdf. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ United States of America: Human rights concerns in the border region with Mexico. Amnesty International. 1998-05-19. web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAMR510031998. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ Huspek, Michael; Roberto Martinez, and Leticia Jimenez (1998). "Violations of human and civil rights on the U.S.-Mexico border, 1995 to 1997: a report" (Reprint). Social Justice 25 (2). ISSN 1043-1578. findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3427/is_n2_v25/ai_n28711…. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
The data compiled in this report suggest that law enforcement in the southwest region of the United States may be verging on lawlessness. This statement receives fuller support from announcements emanating from the INS. In December 1997, John Chase, head of the INS Office of Internal Audit, announced at a press conference that public complaints to the INS had risen 29% from 1996, with the "vast majority" of complaints emanating from the southwest border region. Over 2,300 complaints were filed in 1997 as opposed to the 1,813 complaints filed in 1996. Another 400 reports of "minor misconduct" were placed in a new category. Chase was quick to emphasize, however, that the 243 "serious" allegations of abuse and use of excessive force that could warrant criminal prosecution were down in 1997, as compared with the 328 in 1996. These "serious" cases are considered to be distinct from less serious complaints, such as "verbal abuse, discrimination, extended detention without cause.
^ June 23, 2005 "Border agent accused of hiding an illegal entrant". Arizona Daily Star. 2005-06-23. www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/81082.php June 23, 2005. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "Border agent pleads guilty to harboring illegal entrant". Arizona Daily Star. 2005-09-22. www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/94491.php. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ a b "U.S. border agent indicted". Arizona Daily Star. 2005-03-11. www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/65117.php. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ a b "Boarder agent said to also be smuggler". SignOnSanDiego.com. Union-Tribune Publishing. 2005-08-05. www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20050805-9999-…. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ Spagat, Elliot (2006-07-28). "Border agent gets 5 years for smuggling". The Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/28/…. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "About NBPC". National Border Patrol Council. 2008-08-14. www.nbpc.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&a…. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
[edit] External links
Official US Border Patrol website
US Border Patrol history
National Border Patrol Strategy(PDF)
Border Patrol official recruiting page
Border Patrol Supervisor’s Association (BPSA)
Border Patrol agents killed in the line of duty
Large Border Patrol site
Border Patrol Museum official site
National Border Patrol Council official site
National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers
Friends of the Border Patrol
Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding the U.S. Border Patrol
Civilian Border Patrol Organizations: An Overview and History of the Phenomenon by the Congressional Research Service.
Border Patrol hiring forums and information for potential agents
National Border Patrol Museum
Pictures of Border Patrol vehicles
Crossing Guards in Training LA Times report on Border Patrol training.
The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration
Border Patrol unofficial Auxiliary NOT a Government Agency and not affiliated with the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
[edit] External Video
Border Stories
[edit] GAO and OIG Reports
GAO Report: Border Patrol – Southwest Border Enforcement Affected by Mission Expansion and Budget August 1992
GAO Report: Border Control – Revised Strategy is Showing Some Positive Results December 1994
g96065.pdf GAO Report: Border Patrol – Staffing and Enforcement Activities March 1996
GAO Report: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION – Southwest Border Strategy Results Inconclusive; More Evaluation Needed December 1997
USDOJ OIG Report: Operation Gatekeeper July 1998
GAO Report: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION – Status of Southwest Border Strategy Implementation 1999
GAO Report: Border Patrol Hiring December 1999
GAO Report: Southwest Border Strategy – Resource and Impact Issues Remain After Seven Years August 2001
National Border Patrol Strategy March 2005
GAO Report: Effectiveness of Border Patrol Checkpoints July 2005
DHS OIG Report: An Assessment of the Proposal to Merge Customs and Border Protection with Immigration and Customs Enforcement November 2005
[hide]v • d • eBorder guards
Asia Bangladesh · China · Israel · Hong Kong · India (Border Security Force · Indo-Tibetan Border Police · Rashtriya Rifles · Indian Home Guard · Special Frontier Force · Assam Rifles) · Pakistan (Frontier Corps · Rangers) · Singapore · Taiwan · Thailand
Europe Estonia · European Union · Finland · France · Germany · Italy · Latvia · Lithuania · Norway · Poland · Romania · Russian Federation · Switzerland · Ukraine · United Kingdom
North America Canada · United States of America
Oceania Australia (Department of Immigration and Citizenship · Australian Customs and Border Protection Service) · New Zealand (Immigration New Zealand · New Zealand Customs Service)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol"
Categories: Federal law enforcement agencies of the United States | Border guards | Specialist law enforcement agencies of the United States | History of immigration to the United States | United States Department of Homeland Security | Borders of the United States
Hidden categories: All articles with dead external links | Articles with dead external links from June 2009 | Articles with broken citations | Articles needing cleanup from December 2009 | All pages needing cleanup | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements from February 2007 | All accuracy disputes | Articles with disputed statements from December 2009 | Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2005 | All articles containing potentially dated statements
Temple & statues from the Elgin Marbles at the British Museum
Image by Chris Devers
From the Wikipedia page on the Elgin Marbles:
[[[
The Elgin Marbles, known also as the Parthenon Marbles, are a collection of classical Greek marble sculptures, inscriptions and architectural members that originally were part of the Parthenon and other buildings on the Acropolis of Athens.[1][2] Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin, the British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1799–1803, had obtained a controversial permission from the Ottoman authorities to remove pieces from the Acropolis.
There is controversy as to whether the removed pieces were purchased from the ruling government of the time or not. [3] From 1801 to 1812 Elgin’s agents removed about half of the surviving sculptures of the Parthenon, as well as architectural members and sculpture from the Propylaea and Erechtheum.[4] The Marbles were transported by sea to Britain. In Britain, the acquisition of the collection was supported by some,[5] while many critics compared Elgin’s actions to vandalism[6] or looting.[7][8][9][10][11]
Following a public debate in Parliament and subsequent exoneration of Elgin’s actions, the marbles were purchased by the British Government in 1816 and placed on display in the British Museum, where they stand now on view in the purpose-built Duveen Gallery. The legality of the removal has been questioned and the debate continues as to whether the Marbles should remain in the British Museum or be returned to Athens.
Contents
• 1 Acquisition
• 2 Description
• 3 Legality of the removal from Athens
• 4 Contemporary reaction
• 5 Damage
•• 5.1 Use as a Christian church
•• 5.2 Morosini •
•• 5.3 War of Independence
•• 5.4 Elgin
•• 5.5 British Museum
•• 5.6 Athens
• 6 Ownership debate
•• 6.1 Rationale for returning to Athens
•• 6.2 Rationale for retaining in London
• 7 Public perception of the issue
•• 7.1 Neologisms
••• 7.1.1 Opinion polls
••• 7.1.2 Popular support for restitution
• 8 Other displaced Parthenon art
• 9 Further reading
• 10 See also
• 11 References
• 12 External links
•• 12.1 Pros and cons of restitution
Acquisition
In December of 1798, Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin, was appointed as "Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty to the Sublime Porte of Selim III, Sultan of Turkey". Prior to his departure to take up the post he had approached at least three officials of the British government to inquire if they would be interested in employing artists to take casts and drawings of the sculptured portions of the Parthenon. According to Lord Elgin, "the answer of the Government… was entirely negative."[5]
Lord Elgin decided to carry out the work at his own expense and employed artists to take casts and drawings under the supervision of the Neapolitan court painter Giovani Lusieri.[5] However, while conducting surveys, he found that Parthenon statuary that had been documented in a 17th century survey was now missing, and so he investigated. According to a Turkish local, marble sculptures that fell were burned to obtain lime for building.[5] Although the original intention was only to document the sculptures, in 1801 Lord Elgin began to remove material from the Parthenon and its surrounding structures[12] under the supervision of Lusieri.
The excavation and removal was completed in 1812 at a personal cost of £74,240 (about million in today’s currency).[13] Elgin intended the marbles for display in the British Museum, selling them to the British government for less than the cost of bringing them to Britain and declining higher offers from other potential buyers, including Napoleon.[12]
Description
Main articles: Parthenon Frieze and Metopes of the Parthenon
The Elgin Marbles include some 17 figures from the statuary from the east and west pediments, 15 (of an original 92) of the metope panels depicting battles between the Lapiths and the Centaurs, as well as 247 feet (of an original 524 feet) of the Parthenon Frieze which decorated the horizontal course set above the interior architrave of the temple. As such, they represent more than half of what now remains of the surviving sculptural decoration of the Parthenon. Elgin’s acquisitions also included objects from other buildings on the Athenian Acropolis: a Caryatid from Erechtheum; four slabs from the frieze of the Temple of Athena Nike; and a number of other architectural fragments of the Parthenon, Propylaia, Erechtheum, the Temple of Athena Nike and the Treasury of Atreus.
Legality of the removal from Athens
As the Acropolis was still an Ottoman military fort, Elgin required permission to enter the site, including the Parthenon and the surrounding buildings. He allegedly obtained from the Sultan a firman to allow his artists access to the site. The original document is now lost, but what is said to be a translated Italian copy made at the time still survives.[14] Vassilis Demetriades, Professor of Turkish Studies at the University of Crete, has argued that "any expert in Ottoman diplomatic language can easily ascertain that the original of the document which has survived was not a firman",[15] and its authenticity has been challenged.[16]
The document was recorded in an appendix of an 1816 parliamentary committee report. The committee had convened to examine a request by Elgin asking the British government to purchase the marbles. The report claimed that the document[17] in the appendix was an accurate translation in English of an Ottoman firman dated in July 1801. In Elgin’s view it amounted to an Ottoman authorization to remove the marbles. The committee was told that the original document was given to Ottoman officials in Athens in 1801, but researchers have so far failed to locate any traces of it despite the fact that the Ottoman archives still hold an outstanding number of similar documents dating from the same period.[16] Moreover the parliamentary record shows that the Italian copy of the firman was not presented to the committee by Elgin himself but by one of his associates, the clergyman Rev. Philip Hunt. Hunt, who at the time resided in Bedford, was the last witness to appear before the committee and claimed that he had in his possession an Italian translation of the Ottoman original. He went on to explain that he had not brought the document, because, upon leaving Bedford, he was not aware that he was to testify as a witness. The English document in the parliamentary report was filed by Hunt, but the committee was not presented with the Italian translation purportedly in his possession. William St. Clair, a contemporary biographer of Lord Elgin, claimed to possess Hunt’s Italian document and "vouches for the accuracy of the English translation". In addition, the committee report states on page 69 "(Signed with a signet.) Seged Abdullah Kaimacan". But the document presented to the committee was "an English translation of this purported translation into Italian of the original firman",[18] and had neither signet nor signature on it, a fact corroborated by St. Clair.[16] The lines pertaining to the removal of the marbles allowed Elgin and his team to fix scaffolding, make drawings, make mouldings in chalk or gypsum, measure the remains of the ruined buildings and excavate the foundations which may have become covered in the [ghiaja]; and "…that when they wish to take away [qualche] pieces of stone with old inscriptions or figures thereon, that no opposition be made thereto". The interpretation of these lines has been questioned even by non-restitutionalists,[19] particularly the word qualche, which in modern language is translated as some. According to non-restitutionalists, further evidence that the removal of the sculptures by Elgin was approved by the Ottoman authorities is shown by a second firman which was required for the shipping of the marbles from the Piraeus.[20]
Despite the controversial firman, many have questioned the legality of Elgin’s actions. A study by Professor David Rudenstine of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law concluded that the premise that Elgin obtained legal title to the marbles, which he then transferred to the British government, "is certainly not established and may well be false".[21] Rudenstine’s argumentation is partly based on a translation discrepancy he noticed between the surviving Italian document and the English text submitted by Hunt to the parliamentary committee. The text from the committee report reads "We therefore have written this Letter to you, and expedited it by Mr. Philip Hunt, an English Gentleman, Secretary of the aforesaid Ambassador" but according to the St. Clair Italian document the actual wording is "We therefore have written this letter to you and expedited it by N.N.". In Rudenstine’s, view this substitution of "Mr. Philip Hunt" with the initials "N.N." can hardly be a simple mistake. He further argues that the document was presented after the committee’s insistence that some form of Ottoman written authorization for the removal of the marbles was provided, a fact known to Hunt by the time he testified. Thus, according to Rudenstine, "Hunt put himself in a position in which he could simultaneously vouch for the authenticity of the document and explain why he alone had a copy of it fifteen years after he surrendered the original to Ottoman officials in Athens". On two earlier occasions, Elgin stated that the Ottomans gave him written permissions more than once, but that he had "retained none of them." Hunt testified on March 13, and one of the questions asked was "Did you ever see any of the written permissions which were granted to [Lord Elgin] for removing the Marbles from the Temple of Minerva?" to which Hunt answered "yes", adding that he possessed an Italian translation of the original firman. Nonetheless, he did not explain why he had retained the translation for 15 years, whereas Elgin, who had testified two weeks earlier, knew nothing about the existence of any such document.[16]
In contrast, Professor John Merryman, Sweitzer Professor of Law and also Professor of Art at Stanford University, putting aside the discrepancy presented by Rudenstine, argues that since the Ottomans had controlled Athens since 1460, their claims to the artifacts were legal and recognizable. The Ottoman sultan was grateful to the British for repelling Napoleonic expansion, and the Parthenon marbles had no sentimental value to him.[12] Further, that written permission exists in the form of the firman, which is the most formal kind of permission available from that government, and that Elgin had further permission to export the marbles, legalizes his (and therefore the British Museum’s) claim to the Marbles.[20][citation needed] He does note, though, that the clause concerning the extent of Ottoman authorization to remove the marbles "is at best ambiguous", adding that the document "provides slender authority for the massive removals from the Parthenon… The reference to ‘taking away any pieces of stone’ seems incidental, intended to apply to objects found while excavating. That was certainly the interpretation privately placed on the firman by several of the Elgin party, including Lady Elgin. Publicly, however, a different attitude was taken, and the work of dismantling the sculptures on the Parthenon and packing them for shipment to England began in earnest. In the process, Elgin’s party damaged the structure, leaving the Parthenon not only denuded of its sculptures but further ruined by the process of removal. It is certainly arguable that Elgin exceeded the authority granted in the firman in both respects".[19]
Contemporary reaction
When the marbles were shipped to England, they were "an instant success among many"[5] who admired the sculptures and supported their arrival, but both the sculptures and Elgin also received criticism from detractors. Lord Elgin began negotiations for the sale of the collection to the British Museum in 1811, but negotiations failed despite the support of British artists[5] after the government showed little interest. Many Britons opposed the statues because they were in bad condition and therefore did not display the "ideal beauty" found in other sculpture collections.[5] The following years marked an increased interest in classical Greece, and in June 1816, after parliamentary hearings, the House of Commons offered £35,000 in exchange for the sculptures. Even at the time the acquisition inspired much debate, although it was supported by "many persuasive calls" for the purchase.[5]
Lord Byron didn’t care for the sculptures, calling them "misshapen monuments".[22] He strongly objected to their removal from Greece, denouncing Elgin as a vandal.[6] His view of the removal of the Marbles from Athens is also reflected in his poem "Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage":[23]
Dull is the eye that will not weep to see
Thy walls defaced, thy mouldering shrines removed
By British hands, which it had best behoved
To guard those relics ne’er to be restored.
Curst be the hour when from their isle they roved,
And once again thy hapless bosom gored,
And snatch’d thy shrinking gods to northern climes abhorred!
Byron was not the only one to protest against the removal at the time:
"The Honourable Lord has taken advantage of the most unjustifiable means and has committed the most flagrant pillages. It was, it seems, fatal that a representative of our country loot those objects that the Turks and other barbarians had considered sacred," said Sir John Newport.[13]
A parliamentary committee investigating the situation concluded that the monuments were best given "asylum" under a "free government" such as the British one.[5] In 1810, Elgin published a defence of his actions which silenced most of his detractors,[4] although the subject remained controversial.[citation needed] John Keats was one of those who saw them privately exhibited in London, hence his two sonnets about the marbles. Notable supporters of Elgin included the painter Benjamin Robert Haydon.[5]
A public debate in Parliament followed Elgin’s publication, and Elgin’s actions were again exonerated. Parliament purchased the marbles for the nation in 1816 by a vote of 82-30 for £35,000.[6] They were deposited in the British Museum, where they were displayed in the Elgin Saloon (constructed in 1832), until the Duveen Gallery was completed in 1939. Crowds packed the British Museum to view the sculptures, setting attendance records for the museum.[5] William Wordsworth viewed the marbles at the museum and commented favorably on their aesthetics.[24]
Damage
Some of the Marbles were damaged prior to Lord Elgin’s obtaining them.
Use as a Christian church
After the conversion of the Greek people to Christianity the Parthenon was eventually converted from a temple of the Virgin (Parthenos) Athena to a holy temple (hieros naos) of the Virgin Mary.[25] The church of the Parthenon and Athens in general was considered the fourth most important pilgrimage in the Eastern Roman Empire, after Constantinople, Ephesos and Thessalonica.[26] The temple’s use as a Christian church constitutes the single longest period of its history (ca. 500–1450 AD) and its importance as a church and Christian pilgrimage was greater than that it enjoyed in Ancient Greece.[27] During this period, frescoes and inscriptions were added to the marble walls and columns as it was a custom of the era’s pilgrim to mark their visit.[25] Altogether some 220 funerary inscriptions survive for the years 600-1200, though many more were probably lost due to structural damage to the building and erosion of the surface.[25] Similar inscriptions were found in the Propylaia as well as on the church of St. George in the Keramykos, which in antiquity was a temple of Hephaistos and is today called the Theseion.[28] From 1205 to 1456 Athens was ruled by Western Crusaders and the church was converted into a Latin cathedral, although the stream of pilgrims continued.[29]
Morosini
Another example of prior damage is that sustained during wars. It is during these periods that the Parthenon and its artwork have sustained by far the most extensive damage. In particular, an explosion ignited by Venetian gun and cannon fire bombardment in 1687, whilst the Parthenon was used as a munitions store during the Ottoman rule, destroyed or damaged many pieces of Parthenon art including some of those later taken by Lord Elgin.[30] In particular this explosion sent the marble roof, most of the cella walls, 14 columns from the north and south peristyles and carved metopes and frieze blocks flying and crashing to the ground and thus destroyed much of the artwork.Further damage was made to the art of the Parthenon by the Venetian general Francesco Morosini when he subsequently looted the site of its larger sculptures. His tackle was faulty and snapped, dropping an over life-sized Poseidon and the horses of Athena’s chariot from the west pediment to the rock of the Acropolis forty feet below.[31]
War of Independence
The Erechtheum was used as a munitions store by the Ottomans during the Greek War of Independence[32] (1821–1833) which ended the 350-year Ottoman rule of Athens.
The Acropolis was besieged twice during the Greek War of Independence, once by the Greek and once by the Ottoman forces. During the siege the Greeks were aware of the dilemma and chose to offer the besieged Ottoman forces, who were attempting to melt the lead in the columns to cast bullets, bullets of their own if they would leave the Parthenon undamaged.[33]
Elgin
Elgin consulted with sculptor Antonio Canova in 1803 about how best to restore the marbles. Canova was considered by some to be the world’s best sculptural restorer of the time; Elgin wrote that Canova declined to work on the marbles for fear of damaging them further.[5]
To facilitate transport by Elgin, the column capital of the Parthenon and many metopes and slabs were either hacked off the main structure or sawn and sliced into smaller sections causing irreparable damage to the Parthenon itself to which these Marbles were connected.[34] One shipload of marbles on board the British brig Mentor was caught in a storm off Cape Matapan and sank near Kythera, but was salvaged at the Earl’s personal expense;[35] it took two years to bring them to the surface.
British Museum
The artifacts held in London suffered from 19th century pollution—which persisted until the mid-20th century[37] — and they have been irrevocably damaged[38] by previous cleaning methods employed by British Museum staff.
As early as 1838, scientist Michael Faraday was asked to provide a solution to the problem of the deteriorating surface of the marbles. The outcome is described in the following excerpt from the letter he sent to Henry Milman, a commissioner for the National Gallery.[39][40]
The marbles generally were very dirty … from a deposit of dust and soot. … I found the body of the marble beneath the surface white. … The application of water, applied by a sponge or soft cloth, removed the coarsest dirt. … The use of fine, gritty powder, with the water and rubbing, though it more quickly removed the upper dirt, left much imbedded in the cellular surface of the marble. I then applied alkalis, both carbonated and caustic; these quickened the loosening of the surface dirt … but they fell far short of restoring the marble surface to its proper hue and state of cleanliness. I finally used dilute nitric acid, and even this failed. … The examination has made me despair of the possibility of presenting the marbles in the British Museum in that state of purity and whiteness which they originally possessed.
A further effort to clean the marbles ensued in 1858. Richard Westmacott, who was appointed superintendent of the "moving and cleaning the sculptures" in 1857, in a letter approved by the British Museum Standing Committee on 13 March 1858 concluded[41]
‘I think it my duty to say that some of the works are much damaged by ignorant or careless moulding — with oil and lard — and by restorations in wax, and wax and resin. These mistakes have caused discolouration. I shall endeavour to remedy this without, however, having recourse to any composition that can injure the surface of the marble
Yet another effort to clean the marbles occurred in the years 1937–38. This time the incentive was provided by the construction of a new Gallery to house the collection. The Pentelic marble, from which the sculptures are made, naturally acquires a tan colour similar to honey when exposed to air; this colouring is often known as the marble’s "patina"[42] but Lord Duveen, who financed the whole undertaking, acting under the misconception that the marbles were originally white[43] probably arranged for the team of masons working in the project to remove discoloration from some of the sculptures. The tools used were seven scrapers, one chisel and a piece of carborundum stone. They are now deposited in the British Museum’s Department of Preservation.[43][44] The cleaning process scraped away some of the detailed tone of many carvings.[45] According to Harold Plenderleith, the surface removed in some places may have been as much as one-tenth of an inch (2.5 mm).[43]
The British Museum has responded to these allegations with the statement that "mistakes were made at that time."[38] On another occasion it was said that "the damage had been exaggerated for political reasons" and that "the Greeks were guilty of excessive cleaning of the marbles before they were brought to Britain."[44] During the international symposium on the cleaning of the marbles, organised by the British Museum, Dr Ian Jenkins, deputy keeper of Greek and Roman antiquities, remarked that "The British Museum is not infallible, it is not the Pope. Its history has been a series of good intentions marred by the occasional cock-up, and the 1930s cleaning was such a cock-up". Nonetheless, he pointed out that the prime cause for the damage inflicted upon the marbles was the 2000 year long weathering on the Acropolis[46]
Dorothy King, in a newspaper article, claimed that techniques similar to the ones used in 1937-1938 were applied by Greeks as well in more recent decades than the British, and maintained that Italians still find them acceptable.[12] Attention has been drawn by the British Museum to a purportedly similar cleaning of the temple of Hephaistos in the Athenian Agora carried out by the conservation team of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens[47] with steel chisels and brass wire in 1953.[35] According to the Greek ministry of Culture, the cleaning was carefully limited to surface salt crusts.[46] The 1953 American report concluded that the techniques applied were aimed at removing the black deposit formed by rain-water and "brought out the high technical quality of the carving" revealing at the same time "a few surviving particles of colour".[47]
According to documents released by the British Museum under the Freedom of Information Act, a series of minor accidents, thefts and acts of vandalism by visitors have inflicted further damage to the sculptures.[48] This includes an incident in 1961 when two schoolboys knocked off a part of a centaur‘s leg. In June 1981, a west pediment figure was slightly chipped by a falling glass skylight, and in 1966 four shallow lines were scratched on the back of one of the figures by vandals. During a similar mishap in 1970, letters were scratched on to the upper right thigh of another figure. Four years later, the dowel hole in a centaur’s hoof was damaged by thieves trying to extract pieces of lead.[48]
Athens
While the levels of nitrogen oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter pollution in Athens are average compared to other European cites,[49] air pollution and acid rain have caused damage to marble and stonework at the Parthenon.[50] The last remaining slabs from the western section of the Parthenon frieze were removed from the monument in 1993 for fear of further damage.[51] They have now been transported to the New Acropolis Museum.[50]
Until cleaning of the remaining marbles was completed in 2005,[52] black crusts and coatings were present on the marble surface.[53] The laser technique applied on the 14 slabs that Elgin did not remove revealed a surprising array of original details such as the original chisel marks and the veins on the horses’ bellies. Similar features in the British Museum collection have been scraped and scrubbed with chisels to make the marbles look white.[54] Between January 20 and the end of March 2008, 4200 items (sculptures, inscriptions small terracotta objects), including some 80 artifacts dismantled from the monuments in recent years, were removed from the old museum on the Acropolis to the new Parthenon Museum.[55][56] Natural disasters have also affected the Parthenon. In 1981, an earthquake caused damage to the east facade.[57]
Since 1975, Greece has been restoring the Acropolis. This restoration has included replacing the thousands of rusting iron clamps and supports that had previously been used, with non-corrosive titanium rods;[58] removing surviving artwork from the building into storage and subsequently into a new museum built specifically for the display of the Parthenon art; and replacing the artwork with high-quality replicas. This process has come under fire from some groups as some buildings have been completely dismantled, including the dismantling of the Temple of Athena Nike and for the unsightly nature of the site due to the necessary cranes and scaffolding.[58] But the hope is to restore the site to some of its former glory, which may take another 20 years and 70 million euros, though the prospect of the Acropolis being "able to withstand the most extreme weather conditions — earthquakes" is "little consolation to the tourists visiting the Acropolis" according to The Guardian.[58] Directors of the British Museum have not ruled out temporarily loaning the marbles to the new museum, but state that it would be under the condition of Greece acknowledging British ownership.[13]
Ownership debate
Rationale for returning to Athens
Defenders of the request for the Marble’s return claim that the marbles should be returned to Athens on moral and artistic grounds. The arguments include:
• The main stated aim of the Greek campaign is to reunite the Parthenon sculptures around the world in order to restore "organic elements" which "at present remain without cohesion, homogeneity and historicity of the monument to which they belong" and allow visitors to better appreciate them as a whole;[59][60]
• Presenting all the extant Parthenon Marbles in their original historical and cultural environment would permit their "fuller understanding and interpretation";[60]
• Precedents have been set with the return of fragments of the monument by Sweden,[61] the University of Heidelberg, Germany,[62] the Getty Museum in Los Angeles.[62] and the Vatican[63];
• That the marbles may have been obtained illegally and hence should be returned to their rightful owner;[64]
• Returning the Elgin Marbles would not set a precedent for other restitution claims because of the distinctively "universal value" of the Parthenon.[65]
• Safekeeping of the marbles would be ensured at the New Acropolis Museum, situated to the south of the Acropolis hill. It was built to hold the Parthenon sculpture in natural sunlight that characterises the Athenian climate, arranged in the same way as they would have been on the Parthenon. The museum’s facilities have been equipped with state-of-the-art technology for the protection and preservation of exhibits [66]
Rationale for retaining in London
A range of different arguments have been presented by scholars[13], political-leaders and British Museum spokespersons over the years in defence of retention of the Elgin Marbles within the British Museum. The main points include:
• the maintenance of a single worldwide-oriented cultural collection, all viewable in one location, thereby serving as a world heritage centre. The British Museum is a creative and living achievement of the Enlightenment, while the Parthenon, on the other hand, is a ruin that can never now be restored.[48]
• the assertion that fulfilling all restitution claims would empty most of the world’s great museums – this has also caused concerns among other European and American museums, with one potential target being the famous bust of Nefertiti in Berlin‘s Altes Museum;[13] in addition, portions of Parthenon marbles are kept by many other European museums, so the Greeks would then establish a precedent to claim these other artworks;[12]
• scholars agree that the marbles were saved from what would have been severe damage from pollution and other factors, which could have perhaps destroyed the marbles,[12] if they had been located in Athens the past few hundred years;[13]
• experts agree that Greece could mount no court case because Elgin was granted permission by what was then Greece’s ruling government and a legal principle of limitation would apply, i.e. the ability to pursue claims expires after a period of time prescribed by law;[13]
• More than half the original marbles are lost and therefore the return of the Elgin Marbles could never complete the collection in Greece. In addition, many of the marbles are too fragile to travel from London to Athens;[13]
• display in the British museum puts the sculptures in a European artistic context, alongside the work of art which both influenced and was influenced by Greek sculpture. This allows parallels to be drawn with the art of other cultures;[67]
• the notion that the Parthenon sculptures are an item of global rather than solely Greek significance strengthens the argument that they should remain in a museum which is both free to visit, and located in Europe’s most visited and largest city. The government of Greece intends to charge visitors of the New Acropolis Museum, where they can view the marbles (as of 2010 the price is five Euros),
• a legal position that the museum is banned by charter from returning any part of its collection.[68]
The latter was tested in the British High Court in May 2005 in relation to Nazi-looted Old Master artworks held at the museum; it was ruled that these could not be returned.[69] The judge, Sir Andrew Morritt, ruled that the British Museum Act – which protects the collections for posterity – cannot be overridden by a "moral obligation" to return works known to have been plundered. It has been argued, however, that connections between the legal ruling and the Elgin Marbles were more tenuous than implied by the Attorney General.[70] However, despite the British Museum’s charter preventing the repatriation of items within its collection, a 2005 bill concerning the repatriation of ancestral remains allowed for the return of Aboriginal human remains to Tasmania after a 20-year battle with Australia.[71]
Another argument for maintaining their location within the UK has been made by J. H. Merryman, Sweitzer Professor of Law at Stanford University and co-operating professor in the Stanford Art Department. He argued that if the Parthenon were actually being restored, there would be a moral argument for returning the Marbles to the temple whence they came, and thus restoring its integrity. The Guardian has written that many repatrionists imply that the marbles would be displayed in their original position on the Parthenon.[12] However, the Greek plan is to transfer them from a museum in London to one in Athens. The sculptures which Elgin spared have been taken down and put in the New Acropolis Museum. "Is it more spiritually satisfying to see the Marbles in an Athenian museum gallery than one in London?"[50] Other voices, this time in the House of Lords, have raised more acute concerns about the fate of the Elgin Marbles if they were to be returned to Greece. In an exchange on 19 May 1997, Lord Wyatt, stated:
My Lords, is the Minister aware that it would be dangerous to return the marbles to Athens because they were under attack by Turkish and Greek fire in the Parthenon when they were rescued and the volatile Greeks might easily start hurling bombs around again?[72]
Public perception of the issue
Neologisms
The practice of plundering artifacts from their original setting is sometimes referred to as ‘elginism’,[73][74][75][76] while the claim, sometimes used by looters and collectors, that they are trying to rescue the artifacts they recover has become known as the "Elgin Excuse".[77]
Opinion polls
Despite the British Museum’s position on its ownership of the marbles, in 1998, a poll carried out by Ipsos MORI asking "If there were a referendum on whether or not the Elgin Marbles should be returned to Greece, how would you vote?" returned these values from the general adult population:[78]
• 40% in favour of returning the marbles to Greece
• 15% in favour of keeping them at the British Museum
• 18% would not vote
• 27% had no opinion
A more recent opinion poll in 2002 (again carried out by MORI) showed similar results, with 40% in favour of returning the marbles to Greece, 16% in favour of keeping them within Britain and the remainder either having no opinion or would not vote.[79] When asked how they would vote if a number of conditions were met (including, but not limited to, a long-term loan where by the British maintained ownership and joint control over maintenance) the number responding in favour of return increased to 56% and those in favour of keeping them dropped to 7%.
Both MORI poll results have been characterised by proponents of the return of the Marbles to Greece as representing a groundswell of public opinion supporting return, since the proportion explicitly supporting return to Greece significantly exceeds the number who are explicitly in favour of keeping the Marbles at the British Museum.[78][80]
Popular support for restitution
An internet campaign site [81], in part sponsored by Metaxa aims to consolidate support for the return of the Elgin Marbles to the New Acropolis Museum in Athens.
Other displaced Parthenon art
The remainder of the surviving sculptures that are not in museums or storerooms in Athens are held in museums in various locations across Europe. The British Museum also holds additional fragments from the Parthenon sculptures acquired from various collections that have no connection with Lord Elgin.
The collection held in the British Museum includes the following material from the Acropolis:
• Parthenon: 247 ft (75 m) of the original 524 ft (160 m) of frieze
•• 15 of the 92 metopes
•• 17 pedimental figures; various pieces of architecture
• Erechtheion: a Caryatid, a column and other architectural members
• Propylaia: Architectural members
• Temple of Athena Nike: 4 slabs of the frieze and architectural members
Further reading
• Mary Beard, The Parthenon (Profile Books, 2004) ISBN 978-1-86197-301-6
• Marc Fehlmann, "Casts and Connoisseurs. The Early Reception of the Elgin Marbles" (Apollo, June 2007, pp. 44–51)[82]
• Jeanette Greenfield ‘The Return of Cultural Treasures'(Cambridge University Press 2007)
• Christopher Hitchens, Imperial Spoils: The Curious Case of the Elgin Marbles (with essays by Robert Browning and Graham Binns) (Verso, March 1998)
• Ian Jenkins, The Parthenon Frieze (British Museum Press, 2002)
• Dorothy King, The Elgin Marbles (Hutchinson, January 2006)
• François Queyrel, Le Parthénon, Un monument dans l’Histoire (Bartillat, 2008) ISBN 978-2-84100-435-5.
• William St Clair, Lord Elgin and the Marbles (Oxford University Press, 1998)
See also
• Acropolis Museum
• Greece – United Kingdom relations
References
• ^ "What are the ‘Elgin Marbles’?". britishmuseum.org. http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/article_index/w/what_are_the_elgin_marbles.aspx. Retrieved 2009-05-12.
• ^ "Elgin Marbles — Greek sculpture". Encyclopædia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-184554/Elgin-Marbles. Retrieved 2009-05-12.
• ^ www.athensguide.com/elginmarbles. http://www.athensguide.com/elginmarbles.
• ^ a b Encycolopedia Britannica, Elgin Marbles, 2008, O.Ed.
• ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Casey, Christopher (October 30, 2008). ""Grecian Grandeurs and the Rude Wasting of Old Time": Britain, the Elgin Marbles, and Post-Revolutionary Hellenism". Foundations. Volume III, Number 1. http://ww2.jhu.edu/foundations/?p=8. Retrieved 2009-06-25.
• ^ a b c Encyclopedia Britannica, The Acropolis, p.6/20, 2008, O.Ed.
• ^ Linda Theodorou; Facaros, Dana (2003). Greece (Cadogan Country Guides). Cadogan Guides. p. 55. ISBN 1-86011-898-4.
• ^ Dyson, Stephen L. (2004). Eugenie Sellers Strong: portrait of an archaeologist. London: Duckworth. ISBN 0-7156-3219-1.
• ^ Mark Ellingham, Tim Salmon, Marc Dubin, Natania Jansz, John Fisher, Greece: The Rough Guide,Rough Guides, 1992,ISBN 1-85828-020-6, p.39
• ^ Chester Charlton McCown, The Ladder of Progress in Palestine: A Story of Archaeologic
Comments are closed.