Mario Trabucco della Torretta, a classical archaeologist who last year organised a campaign against the sculptures’ return and helped coordinate a letter to British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, has now challenged the legality of the transfer of the Fagan Fragment from Sicily to Athens in 2022.
His complaint to Italy’s Court of Audit, revealed exclusively by TO VIMA for the first time, raises the prospect of fresh legal scrutiny of the celebrated agreement – and potentially even demands for the fragment’s return to Italy.
In an exclusive interview with TO VIMA, Trabucco della Torretta explains why he believes the reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures should not take precedence over the preservation of their subsequent history, challenges the Greek government’s interpretation of Lord Elgin’s removal of the antiquities and questions the legal foundations of the agreement that brought the Fagan Fragment to Athens.
He also criticises Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis’s description of the sculptures as stolen, warns that their return could trigger a wider wave of restitution claims against museums around the world, and argues that even a long-term loan to Greece would undermine fundamental principles governing museum collections.
NEWSLETTER TABLE TALK
Never miss a story.
Subscribe now.
The most important news & topics every week in your inbox.
In perhaps his most provocative statement, the archaeologist says he would support relocating the sculptures from Britain only if their physical survival were threatened – offering the hypothetical example of Britain becoming an Islamic theocracy that no longer valued their cultural significance.
His remarks come amid signs that discussions between the British Museum and Greek representatives over a possible agreement on the Parthenon Sculptures have stalled, highlighting the deep divisions that continue to surround one of the world’s longest-running cultural disputes.
For Trabucco della Torretta, however, the controversy is about much more than where the ancient masterpieces should be displayed. It is a fundamental battle over historical interpretation, cultural ownership and whether the passage of time can itself establish a new reality that should not be reversed.
The Fagan Fragment and the legal complaint
You have filed a formal complaint with the prosecutors of Italy’s Court of Audit over the 2022 transfer of the Fagan Fragment from Sicily to Athens. What, in your view, are the fundamental legal questions that this transfer raises?
Experts and scholars of heritage law have spent the last two hundred years perfecting it with one goal in mind: keeping what’s deemed important inside museums. This is what we call inalienability. As UNESCO recognised in 1970, every country has the indefeasible right to designate important cultural assets as inalienable, and many heritage laws, including Italian ones, also deem these assets not permanently exportable. Now the restitution movement seeks to force open this protective framework to take selected items out. It is only natural that the operation is not seamless and that a tension arises between a long-established principle and the new fashion. I believe that that’s the moment to discuss changes in legislation, instead of trying to adapt the existing law to something it was never designed for.
You have stressed that your complaint is not a criminal accusation and does not imply any finding against anyone. What would you like the prosecutors to establish, and what outcome are you hoping for?
You are correct; it is not my place to apportion blame, and the court will decide whether it finds any wrongdoing. What I have asked them to do is stress-test the “Palermo solution”, as it has been called (“Λύση τύπου Παλέρμο”), and see whether it is consistent not just with the letter, but also with the spirit, of the whole heritage protection framework. If they find that there is a problem, either the one I see or even another one I have not seen, then I expect them to kickstart a process that could eventually even roll back what has been done and send people back to the drawing board.
The Fagan Fragment was returned to Greece following an agreement between the Sicilian authorities and the Acropolis Museum. Why do you believe the transfer may not have complied with Italian heritage law?
I cannot go into specifics right now because of the confidentiality of the court investigation, but every art law scholar knows that certain classes of publicly owned cultural heritage, including museum collections, are inalienable in Italy. And publicly owned cultural heritage, inalienable or not, cannot be permanently exported in Italian law. Viewed in this light, the Fagan Fragment “restitution” immediately raises a problem. A decree, whose text is in the public domain, has been issued that removes the fragment from the collection, but without changing its public ownership. This raises more problems than it solves.
What do you mean by “public ownership”? Who owns these objects?
When the fragment arrived in January 2022, the Greek government itself called it a long-term deposit. In June 2022, the Acropolis Museum described the transfer as a cession forever, expressly “without terms such as donation, loan or purchase”, while Italy’s report to UNESCO calls it a donation. Yet I know of no public act that carried out that donation, and whether one could lawfully have done so is exactly what I have asked the competent authorities to examine. The two sides do not even agree on what kind of act took place. Meanwhile, the only published Italian decree, the document everyone points at, by its own terms transferred the fragment to no one; it just moved the fragment from the Region’s inalienable cultural estate into the Region’s ordinary disposable property.
You have argued that the fragment’s history in Sicily should not be overlooked in the pursuit of reuniting the Parthenon Sculptures. What, specifically, do you believe that history tells us that the Greek public has not been told?
We keep these objects around because they tell us a story, our story. And this story includes both the moment when we gave no particular importance to the relics of the past, which led to the destruction and dispersion of what we now call heritage, and the phase when people across Europe started collecting fragments of the past, trying to piece together the puzzle. Elgin, Fagan, and the Royal University Museum in Palermo are all chapters of that story, deserving of the same respect and conservation we give to the moment of the Parthenon’s creation. To say you don’t care about that later history because you care so much for the object’s earlier history is contradictory and antihistorical.
Greece has presented the Fagan Fragment’s return as an important step towards reuniting the Parthenon Sculptures. From your perspective, what is the strongest argument against describing the transfer as a restitution?
If you want Bellerophon, you must make sure there is a Chimaera. As soon as you say “restitution”, you evoke corrective justice, which imposes a duty to redress a wrong by actions aimed at repairing the damage it caused or providing relief from its consequences. But there was no wrong here, nor is there a damaged party. Elgin removed the Sculptures (including most probably also the Fagan Fragment) with the authorisation of the legitimate and internationally recognised authority over Athens, at a time when the people of Athens considered those items building material at best, and pagan talismans at worst.
If the Court of Audit were to conclude that the transfer was unlawful or had caused damage to Sicily’s public assets, what legal or practical consequences could follow? Could the fragment’s return to Italy become a realistic possibility?
That is for the court to decide. But, in the abstract, I imagine that any grave irregularity found could trigger action by the competent authorities to re-establish the status quo ante.
Does this mean that there is a possibility that the fragment will return to Italy if there’s court decision?
Not directly, and I want to be precise here. Any question of recovery belongs to other authorities: the Ministry of Culture, the Region and the Carabinieri’s heritage unit. That is why I asked the Court to send the file to them once they evaluate the facts. In the abstract, if they conclude that Sicilian cultural property left Italy without a valid title, those other authorities would decide whether to seek its return, and that could happen only through cooperation between the two states and with Greece’s agreement. Whether they do so, and when, is entirely their decision. I can make no prediction about it.
You have asked for the file to be sent to Italy’s Ministry of Culture and the Carabinieri heritage protection unit. Without discussing the confidential contents of your complaint, what powers do these authorities have in relation to an object that has already been transferred to another country?
Italian authorities have, of course, no direct powers on foreign soil, but Italy and Greece have long been close partners in protecting each other’s cultural heritage. Cooperation instruments can be leveraged at both the EU level (like the directive on the restitution of objects of cultural heritage) and the bilateral level, all under the general umbrella of the 1970 UNESCO Convention. This has worked very well in the past, and I don’t see why it couldn’t work just as well in the future.
Critics may argue that your legal challenge risks undermining a cultural agreement that has been widely celebrated in Greece. How would you respond to the suggestion that the dispute is now more political than archaeological?
The political dimension of this is inescapable. We are talking about laws voted on in parliaments by people in political parties, each with their own views on what is worthy of protection and how strong that protection should be. The whole discussion about restitution is political, not just cultural or academic. What I would say here is that this agreement seems to sidestep that political discussion, avoiding a conversation that could potentially lead to a change in the law if that is what people want. I think this approach should be challenged, and I make no apology for raising the issue.
The Parthenon Sculptures: restitution or preservation of history?
In our previous interview, you said that you were campaigning to prevent the return of the Parthenon Sculptures to Greece. You have also acknowledged that, as an archaeologist, you appreciate the argument for reuniting an ancient monument. Why do you believe the arguments against returning the sculptures ultimately carry greater weight?
Of course, as an archaeologist, I see the value of restoring ancient monuments. But this is not an absolute value, overriding everything else. We are not architects; for us, the original shape of the building is just one of many considerations. I know this will shock you, but archaeologists don’t really care about objects; we care about people. If a monument is dismembered by a natural phenomenon and all the pieces are there, you may be able to just put the objects back together with little controversy. But as soon as there are people involved, picking monuments apart, reusing materials, transferring objects from one corner of the world to the next, this becomes also history and we start thinking about how to preserve that one as well.
You have argued that every chapter of history matters equally. But is there not a distinction between preserving the history of an object and determining where it should be displayed? Why should the historical journey of the sculptures outweigh the argument that they were created for the Parthenon?
The object’s history determines its present location; the two go together as a package. You cannot accept one and refuse the other. You will notice that all heritage legislation is founded on the principle of where the object legally sits now, not on where it was created. The act of placing stones from a quarry in the order that makes a temple has as much dignity as a historical fact as collecting other stones and putting them in a museum. If the latter legally comes after the former, and a new location results, that is just how history went. Greek people should appreciate this more than anyone else. Wasn’t it Agathon who wrote that “this alone is lacking even to God, to make undone things that have once been done”?
The Parthenon was conceived as a single architectural and sculptural ensemble. How can its meaning be fully understood when significant parts remain thousands of miles away from the monument for which they were created? Supporters of reunification argue that returning the sculptures would allow the public to appreciate them in their original architectural and historical context, particularly alongside the surviving sculptures in the Acropolis Museum. What, in your view, is missing from that argument?
Conservation strategy is always a balancing act between competing priorities, while trying to minimise damage. There can be no doubt that breaking apart a museum collection is damage, or we would not have rules preventing it. So the question is: does the modest gain in understanding of the Parthenon offered by having all the surviving fragments in one place outweigh the damage done to the new context represented by the bicentennial history of a share of those fragments being in the British Museum? To me, you can only honestly answer this in the negative. We are comparing a marginal increment with a cataclysmic damage. The juice is not worth the squeeze, as they say.
Do you believe that the Parthenon Sculptures should remain permanently in the British Museum, or would you support an arrangement that allowed them to be reunited physically with the sculptures in Athens while preserving the British Museum’s legal claims?
I believe that history only goes one way. Even if you believe, and I don’t, that the removal was unlawful, the time for litigation is long past. The fact that you must contest a removal as close to the act as possible is precisely because Time doesn’t wait for anyone; while you wait, other things happen, a new reality gets settled, and it starts producing consequences. The more time passes, the more difficult it becomes to follow every one of those consequences and roll it back. There comes a time you just have to say “stop, it is what it is”, and accept the new state of affairs.
If a long-term loan could reunite the sculptures in Athens without requiring the British Museum to surrender its legal position, would you oppose that arrangement too? If so, on what grounds?
Yes, I would still oppose that on the basis that it would be a legal fiction. If the principle is that objects that enter museums don’t leave except for relatively short-term loans, a generation-long loan or even a longer one would only defy that principle. What’s the point of a principle if you start going around it? Let’s have the discussion instead, and if the principle is no longer fit for purpose, we will find another one. I am totally against this idea of fudging solutions.
You have warned against treating the reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures as an overriding objective. Is there any circumstance in which you would support their return to Greece?
Yes. If Britain were to become an Islamic theocracy and the physical survival of the sculptures was endangered in a cultural context that doesn’t value them anymore, then yes, I would be the first one to propose their relocation. If you think about it, these are the same conditions that caused their removal to London in the first place. The question is: would Greece, at that point in this highly hypothetical scenario, be the best place to protect that legacy? I hope never to have to ask myself that question.
The historical and legal arguments
In your criticism of the Greek government’s position, you have referred to the events of 1687, when Venetian forces bombarded the Acropolis and the Parthenon suffered catastrophic damage. How relevant do you believe that episode is to the modern dispute over the sculptures?
I think 1687 is the veritable birthdate of the whole controversy. It was one of those pivotal moments in history where you realise there’s really no going back. After the explosion, the Parthenon stopped being an old building and started being a ruin. I remember reading on one of the interpretation boards around the Parthenon on the Acropolis that Elgin’s removals were “the most severe damage to the monument”. This is just ridiculous. The explosion is what changed the essence of the Parthenon forever. It also pulverised one third of the temple’s sculptural decoration, a fact that, combined with the previous mutilations, denied once and for all any possibility of making the building whole again. From that moment on, you can only have more fragments or fewer fragments.
This is why any talk of reunification is disingenuous at best, and fraudulent at worst. I love that Prime Minister Mitsotakis prefers the word reunification; but this means “to make one again”. Putting two-thirds of the decoration together away from the building is not reunification; it’s a joke.
Lord David Frost recently told TO VIMA that the sculptures are a special case because they were designed for a specific location in Greece, and that their return would allow them to be seen much as they were originally intended. What is the strongest historical or legal argument against his position?
Lord Frost is not alone in calling the Parthenon “a special case”. Kyriakos Mitsotakis did just the same this month at the VIMA conference. But the Parthenon is not the only dismembered monument. It is not even the only UNESCO-listed dismembered monument. The Luxor Temple in Egypt is missing one obelisk, which is now in Place de la Concorde in Paris. The reliefs of the Apadana in Persepolis (another UNESCO site) are scattered around the world, and the monument is hugely significant for Iranians, so much so that they even have it on their banknotes. I’d say this is pretty special too. Also, look at the claim from a global perspective: does claiming a special status for the Parthenon not reek of Western cultural supremacy?
The legal debate often centres on the circumstances in which Lord Elgin removed the sculptures from the Parthenon in the early nineteenth century. What do you consider the most important documentary evidence in determining whether that removal was lawful?
Well, the most important piece of evidence is that, contrary to the “theft” hypothesis, there actually is evidence supporting the lawfulness of the removal. We have the Italian translation of the so-called firman; we have Byron, Dodwell, and Galt (just to quote Elgin’s enemies) who say there was an authorisation; and we have the Ottoman archives supporting this with their own documents published in 2011 by Edhem Eldem. What do we have on the other side of the scale? A total absence of evidence of this alleged “theft”. It’s brutal, I know, but it’s true.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis and the Greek government
You recently described statements by Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis at a BHMA conference as extraordinary and said they contradicted the historical documentation. Which specific claims do you believe are inaccurate, and what evidence do you believe contradicts them?
Prime Minister Mitsotakis noticeably moved from characterising the sculptures as “essentially stolen” to Laura Kuenssberg in 2023 to saying they were “clearly stolen” now. I would love to respectfully ask him which new historical document has made him change his mind. If anything, the studies on this topic now support Elgin’s version of events more than ever. The government’s whole position is far from consistent: the PM said he won’t borrow what he considers Greek by right, yet he did precisely that, asking Paris for a loan of demonstrably stolen Parthenon sculptures and accepting one from Sicily, even if the piece likely came from Elgin’s removals. And it’s like this across the board: on one side, his officials keep asking UNESCO to support Melina Mercouri’s original 1984 claim for all the sculptures from the Acropolis, whose file I have personally consulted in Paris, but then his culture minister says in the press that all they want back are the pieces from the Parthenon and nothing else. By the way, it is a metropolitan legend that “the Parthenon appears on the UNESCO logo”.
You have expressed astonishment that Greek historians have not publicly challenged what you regard as historical inaccuracies. Do you believe this reflects a lack of academic scrutiny, political pressure, or a broader reluctance to challenge the national consensus on the Parthenon Sculptures?
Look, I know it is difficult to speak against the return of the Parthenon Sculptures in Greece. And I know very well that it is difficult to be in the 1% or even the 0.1% that goes against the tide. But academics have a duty to speak truth to power. It is the whole reason for protecting academic freedom in the first place. Where are the historians who look at the evidence and say to the government, at the very least, “look, don’t say ‘theft’; it is more complicated than that”? Instead, what I see from outside is a scandal because a textbook did not spell “theft” hard enough. I have surveyed virtually the entire publication landscape on the topic, and one could be justified in thinking that the question is at least debatable, with a 50/50 split one way or another. Why is the split 99 to 1 in Greece?
You have also criticised the Greek government’s characterisation of the sculptures’ transfer to Britain as a ‘theft’. What do you consider to be the most serious historical or legal weakness in that characterisation?
We know very well that Lord Elgin had some form of authorisation. Byron says as much; Edward Dodwell says the same; John Galt even claims to have seen the original. We have no reason to doubt those witnesses, and they are not the only ones, if you include Elgin’s party. We even have the text of the permission itself. This permission was clearly enough for the authorities of Athens at the time, or nothing would have left the Acropolis. And international law offers no reason to question Ottoman sovereignty over Athens in 1801, or the authority of the officials there or in Constantinople who granted the permit. Even if you criticise how Elgin obtained this permission, or question its extent, you would already have to qualify your assertion and limit the claim to only a share of the Elgin Marbles. I have already published a study debunking the idea that Elgin may have obtained his permission through bribes, and have also just submitted another study for peer review which tackles the question of extent based on analysis of the Italian text.
Take all this in, and tell me now: how can anyone speak about theft while keeping a straight face? When the PM says: “there is no doubt about that”, I think he’s massively overplaying his hand.
The Greek government maintains that the sculptures were removed under circumstances that cannot be regarded as legitimate and that their reunification is a matter of cultural justice. Do you believe the Greek government has misrepresented the historical record, or do you accept that its position has a legitimate basis even if you disagree with its conclusions?
This is another inconsistency of the Greek position. On one hand, they say the legal status of the sculptures doesn’t matter, yet on the other, they talk about justice. If they keep maintaining that returning the sculptures is a matter of righting a historical wrong, all they have to do is demonstrate the wrong first. We have courts for this, yet they decided to drop any prospect of mounting a legal case in 2015, even after consulting three of the most respected legal minds around, Geoffrey Robertson, Norman Palmer, and Amal Alamuddin Clooney, who recommended going for it, warning that it was “now or never”. Instead, we are constantly pulled into this game of shadows, where they say “justice”, but this has no relation to either “law” or “truth”.
The British Museum and the future of the dispute
You organised a campaign opposing the potential return of the Parthenon Sculptures and helped bring together signatories of a letter to the British Prime Minister. What practical effect do you believe that campaign has had on the negotiations?
I think the biggest impact my campaign had was making it clear to the trustees of the British Museum and the political operators in this space that they don’t act in a vacuum where nobody notices or cares about what they do. We are here, we care, and we watch. I only wish there had been such a campaign in Sicily before the transfer of the Fagan Fragment. Then, of course, I have no visibility on the internal discussions among the trustees of the British Museum, so I cannot estimate the impact of my campaign more precisely. But watch this space: I have also filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner about some denied FOI requests to the Museum, and my assessment may change if I get the documents I have requested. I’m told I may get a decision from the ICO later this month.
Lord Frost told TO VIMA that British politicians sometimes express openness to an agreement while in opposition but become less willing to act once they enter government. Do you share his assessment, and do you believe the current British government is likely to reach an agreement with Greece?
I completely agree. People often comment on this topic without a real grasp of the details, and as a result, they make very naive statements. This is why I have stated numerous times that the first step toward maybe not a resolution, but meaningful progress on this notoriously intractable matter, is for Greece and Britain to work together to establish a shared narrative of the events. Without this, no agreement is possible, and the two parties will keep shouting their version of the truth at each other. This is another reason why
I lament the lack of meaningful participation of Greek historians in this debate. And I know a few Greek historians have ventured into the discussion, like Angelos Chaniotis or Yannis Hamilakis, but we are still in that 99-to-1 space. I think there is a lot of untapped potential there.
The British Museum has faced sustained criticism over its retention of the sculptures, while the Greek government has continued to pursue their return. Do you believe the museum has made a convincing public case for keeping them in London?
I believe part of the messiness of this debate is the British Museum’s own fault. They should be making the case for retention, based on the documents, way more powerfully than they have done so far. Museums have a duty to make history accessible and understandable. Why isn’t the original Italian translation of the permission behind bulletproof glass in the middle of the Duveen Gallery? At the very least, it would serve as a springboard for further historical enquiry for visitors who are too sure of what they think they know. Some say it would be a provocation; why would the Greek government feel threatened by a historical document?
More broadly, should major museums retain objects acquired under historical circumstances that would be unacceptable today, or should modern ethical standards take precedence even when the law at the time permitted their acquisition?
If they want to be real knowledge institutions, “retain and explain” is the only way. The history that brought those objects there happened; this is a fact. It is the duty of those curators to change those objects from a reason to be ashamed to a reason to know more about history and the constantly variable relationship between humans and the objects they create. And if there is also some shame to be felt, so be it. You are not serving anyone by just throwing the hot potato away and pretending it didn’t happen. What are we to learn from this? Should we get rid of a guillotine in a museum because it is a barbaric way to kill people? Should we raze to the ground the camp at Auschwitz and its museum because it is a stain on human dignity? No, shame is a learning opportunity. If you think the British Museum must be ashamed, then let it be ashamed.
If the Parthenon Sculptures were returned to Greece, what consequences do you believe this would have for other international disputes involving cultural heritage? Is the fear of a wider wave of restitution justified, or is the Parthenon genuinely an exceptional case?
I don’t believe the Parthenon case is exceptional. And I would find it entirely justified if, should the Elgin Marbles be returned, other claims started raining down on museums worldwide. Again, it is a matter of principle, and the Elgin Marbles are a test case of that principle. If they go back, the principle falls, and at that point a widespread wave of returns is not only predictable but expected. This is why I recommend tackling the discussion of restitution holistically, involving historians, archaeologists, law experts, philosophers, and even the wider public. The whole principle of location-based conservation duty is at stake.
Personal motivations and the wider cultural debate
You trained as a classical archaeologist and spent four years in Athens. Did your time in Greece influence your views on the Parthenon Sculptures, and has your position evolved since you began campaigning in 2022?
I first saw the Elgin Marbles in London when I was fourteen. It was thrilling, and at the time it felt perfectly natural to find them there. Then, as an archaeology student, I saw the remaining sculptures of the Parthenon in Athens, still at the old Acropolis Museum, in the arrangement designed by Meliades. The separation of the sculptures never troubled me, probably because we are used to consuming antiquity in a fragmentary state, and my experience of them was scholarly rather than aesthetic. What changed my perspective during my later years at the Italian Archaeological School in Odos Parthenonos (!) was the Greek attitude towards them, the attachment, the obsession even. Then the construction of the new Museum, just round the corner, with its total disdain for any other consideration, made me more certain that this debate has nothing to do with history and much to do with ideology. Have you read The Parthenon Bomber by Chrysopoulos? It captures a lot of what I felt about it.
Your campaign began after the Fagan Fragment was transferred from Sicily to Athens. Was it primarily the legal circumstances of that transfer that prompted you to act, or did it lead you to reconsider the wider principles governing the return of cultural heritage?
The transfer of the Fagan Fragment transformed me from an academic observer into an activist. This is what turned my knowledge into an instrument. If you know that something is wrong, the next thing you feel is the urge to do something about it. And I knew. I knew that the Italian heritage legislation does not allow items from the public collections to be given away or permanently exported. I knew about the importance of the Fragment as a witness to the history of Sicilian antiquarian collectionism, and even of Anglo-Sicilian relations. I knew that Sicily stood to lose part of its cultural heritage without the question even being asked. So yes, I picked up my pen and started writing my first comment piece.
You have said that you want the Greek public to hear more than one side of the debate. What do you believe is the most important argument that is routinely excluded from Greek media coverage?
What I think is missing from Greek reporting is the challenge to the dominant narrative. Too often, I read media reports in the Greek sphere that content themselves with repeating the Government line and calling the Marbles in London “stolen” without even asking themselves: “Were they, really?” Journalists, like academics, also have a duty to “speak truth to power”.