Years ago, back in 2009, we were already arguing here many of the same points that the Italian archaeologist correctly and well documented in his article today. But he should not complain. This place is called ‘Hellenistan.’ Here, the voice of reason is drowned out by the screams of the nationalist mob, by the guild that keeps stirring the sewage and refuse of the cesspool of Goebbels-style propaganda and populist patriotic demagogues, such as the late Melina Mercouri, who throughout her life delighted in spectacle, commotion, and theatrical uproar.
We ourselves have endured the same things — and worse — and we continue with patience and understanding, knowing that it is impossible to defeat the fool, the hothead, and especially the nationalist. You only waste your brainpower trying. That is why you either ignore them and continue your work, or you lose your temper and start kicking against the system itself.
Τhe Proof:
1. Summary in English — Mario Trabucco della Torretta on the Parthenon Marbles
Italian archaeologist Mario Trabucco della Torretta argues that the campaign for the return of the Parthenon Marbles is driven more by nationalism and political symbolism than by historical or legal reality. Writing in The Telegraph, he claims that the sculptures were not “stolen” by Lord Elgin, but were removed legally with authorization from the Ottoman authorities who ruled Athens in the early nineteenth century. According to him, the common Greek narrative ignores the historical context of Ottoman sovereignty and simplifies a much more complicated story into a moral tale of theft and victimhood. He also criticizes what he describes as emotional and ideological approaches to cultural repatriation, arguing that artifacts acquire historical significance not only through their creation, but also through the journeys and histories they experience afterward. For this reason, he believes the marbles’ long presence in Britain is now part of their identity and historical meaning.
Trabucco further contends that the modern symbolism of the Parthenon itself is partly a nineteenth-century nationalist construction shaped by European philhellenism and the creation of the modern Greek state. He argues that the campaign intensified after Melina Mercouri became Greece’s Minister of Culture in 1981 and transformed the issue into an international political crusade. In his view, institutions such as the Acropolis Museum present a politically motivated narrative that portrays Elgin and Britain unfairly while encouraging international pressure for repatriation. He presents himself as a defender of historical complexity and academic freedom, claiming that he has been “cancelled” in Greece because he rejects the dominant national position on the marbles.
2. English Summary — “On the Sculptures” (Letter of 2009) authored by Dr. Nikos Adamopoulos, PhD in History
The second text is a long polemical response defending the legality of Lord Elgin’s removal of the Parthenon sculptures and criticizing Greek nationalist rhetoric surrounding the issue. The author argues that many Greek commentators, journalists, and politicians falsely describe the event as a “theft,” despite the existence of an Ottoman permit (firman) authorizing Elgin to remove pieces from the monument. According to the writer, Ottoman authorities were the legitimate rulers of Athens at the time, and therefore Elgin acted within the legal framework of the era. The text strongly rejects what it sees as emotional, nationalist exaggeration promoted especially by Melina Mercouri, accusing her of turning a complicated historical matter into political theater rather than a serious legal and scholarly debate.
The author also claims that the British Museum preserved and protected the marbles at a time when many ancient Greek monuments were neglected, damaged, or dismantled in Ottoman and post-Byzantine Greece. He argues that without Elgin’s intervention, many sculptures might have been destroyed entirely. More broadly, the letter insists that ancient Greek cultural heritage belongs to humanity as a whole rather than exclusively to modern Greece. It criticizes nationalism, emotionalism, and what it considers amateur historical reasoning, while calling for discussions about cultural artifacts to be conducted by historians, archaeologists, and legal experts rather than politicians or media figures. In conclusion, the author proposes that debates over the return of antiquities should become part of a wider international and scholarly conversation about cultural heritage, instead of being framed primarily as patriotic or symbolic national claims.