Culture and conflict often coexist in an uneasy and paradoxical manner; culture being an essential part of conflict and conflict resolution. Culture makes people understand each other better. Conflict resolution acts as a healing balm providing interaction between the concerned parties and the hope to overcome barriers.

Taking away and damaging the cultural heritage of a society is tampering with its identity. The history of art looting is lengthy and continuous. It begins possibly with Jason and the Argonauts looting the Golden Fleece. It continues with the habit of the Romans of looting art from conquered cities in order to parade it through the streets of Rome, before putting it on display in the forum. In Byzantium, the Hippodrome was adorned with looted art, and during the Fourth Crusade in 1204 the Crusaders looted the city itself. Cultural spoils were taken back to Venice to adorn the cathedral of St Mark, among them, the four gilded horses of the Apocalypse that remain in the city to this day.

In the ancient world, cultural pillage was an act of state planned to demonstrate the supremacy of the conqueror and underline the humiliation of the defeated. By the nineteenth century, however, such actions had been joined by the claim of the acquiring country to be the true heir of Classical civilization. Thus, Napoleon’s victorious armies began concluding a series of treaties with conquered states across Europe that allowed them to usurp artworks to stock the Louvre Museum.

From the colonial era to the Second World War, wars have provided opportunities for art looting on a massive scale, and the restitution of stolen cultural artefacts remains a dispute around the world. The trafficking of stolen art has become as widespread as drugs and firearms.

Private looting has always occurred alongside with state sponsored plundering, although it has evoked more disapprobation. The vandalism of the Parthenon sculptures by Thomas Bruce, seventh earl of Elgin, British Ambassador to the Ottoman court is the most notorious one and remains the archetypal case of looted artworks repatriation demand for more than 200 years.

Since the second half of the 20th century, states have adopted legislative instruments to regulate the illicit trafficking and the return of improperly removed cultural objects as part of a wider effort to enhance the protection of cultural heritage.

Restitution of cultural objects unethically removed from their countries of origin is a today’s global question. Cases concerning the circulation of cultural property are increasingly settled through diplomatic relationships. Museums are institutions representing reconciliation and as such, they have the duty to act ethically.

Antiquities of particular importance to humanity that were removed from the territory of a State in a questionable manner in terms of legality, as well as in an onerous way, need to be returned on the basis of fundamental principles enclosed in international conventions irrespective of time limits or other restrictions. They also need to be returned on the basis of legal principles, customary rules, and ethics. This need is also dictated by increased ecumenical interest for the integrity of the monument to be restored in its historic, cultural, and natural environment. Nobody may fully appreciate these antiquities outside their context. A characteristic example in this respect is the Parthenon Sculptures.

Lord Elgin was a fatal figure in the history of the looting of Greek antiquities. In 1799, he was appointed British Ambassador to the Sublime Porte at Constantinople. A year earlier, Napoleon had invaded Ottoman Egypt, and Britain hoped to become the sultan’s main ally in reversing the French conquest. The dispatch from London of a well-connected diplomat descended from the kings of Scotland who had previously served as a British envoy in Brussels and Berlin was itself a gesture of friendship toward the Turks.

As well as competing in geopolitics, the British were rivalling French for access to whatever remained of the great civilizations of antiquity. Elgin seizes the opportunity for personal gain to acquire a huge collection of antiquities. His attention was focused primarily on the monuments on the Acropolis (the Parthenon topmost) which were very difficult of access and from which no one ever had been granted permission to remove sculptures.

His marriage to a wealthy heiress, Mary Nisbet, had given him the financial means to sponsor ambitious cultural projects. While traveling through Europe en route to Constantinople, he recruited a team of mostly Italian artists led by the Neapolitan painter Giovanni-Battista Lusieri.

Their initial task was to draw, document and mould antiquities in the Ottoman-controlled territory of Greece. The initially cloudy mission of Elgin’s artistic team culminated in a massive campaign to dismantle artworks from the temples on the Acropolis and transport them to Britain. By using methods of bribery and fraud, Elgin persuaded the Turkish dignitaries in Athens to turn a blind eye while his team removed those parts of the Parthenon, they particularly liked.

Elgin never acquired the permission to remove the sculptural and architectural decoration of the monument by the authority of the Sultan himself, who alone could have issued such a permit. He simply made use of a friendly letter from the Kaimakam, a Turkish officer, who at the time was replacing the Grand Vizier in Constantinople. This letter, handed out unofficially as a favour, could only urge the Turkish authorities in Athens to allow Elgin's men to make drawings, take casts and conduct excavations around the foundations of the Parthenon, with the condition that no harm be caused to the monuments.

On 31 July 1801, the first of the high-standing sculptures was hauled down. Between 1801 and 1804, Elgin's team was active on the Acropolis, stripping, hacking off causing considerable damage to the sculptures and the monument. Eventually Elgin’s team detached half of the remaining sculpted decoration of the Parthenon, together with certain architectural members such as a capital, a column drum and one of the six caryatids that adorned the Erechtheion temple, as they could not found an available ship to take all six away! “I have been obliged to be a little barbarous,” Lusieri once wrote to Elgin.

London and Athens now hold dismembered pieces of many of the sculptures. Large sections of the Parthenon frieze, an extraordinary series of relief sculptures depicting the procession of Greater Panathenaia, the most important festival held in honour of the city’s divine patroness Athena, numbered among the loot.

Of the 97 surviving blocks of the Parthenon frieze, 56 have been removed to Britain and 40 are in Athens. Of the 64 surviving metopes, 48 are in Athens and 15 have been taken to London. Of the 28 preserved figures of the pediments, 19 have been removed to London and 9 are in Athens.

The shipping of these precious antiquities to Britain was fraught with difficulties. One ship sank and the sculptures, after prolonged exposure to the damp in various harbours, eventually arrived in England three years later. In London, they were shifted from sheds to warehouses, because Elgin had been reduced to such penury by the enormous costs of wages, transportation, gifts and bribes to the Turks, that he was unable to accommodate them in his own house. So, after the mortgaging of the collection by the British state, he was obliged to sell the Parthenon Sculptures to the government, for £35,000—less than half of what Elgin claimed to have spent. Finally, the British Government transferred the Sculptures to the British Museum in 1817. In 1962, they were placed at the Duveen Gallery. Even after they arrived at the British Museum, the sculptures received imperfect care. In 1938, for example, they were “cleaned” with an acid solution.

Prior to the transaction a Committee was appointed to consider the purchase and the evidence, it gathered was placed before Parliament. A debate took place, where many voices expressed their scepticism and disapproval. Even thoughts about the return of the Marbles were expressed for the very first time. Hugh Hammersley, a Member of Parliament, first raised the question in the House of Commons. Strenuous objections were heard outside Parliament as well, the most impassioned being that of Lord Byron, a poet and fellow member of the Anglo-Scottish aristocracy. Elgin was denounced as a vandal in sonorous verses by Lord Byron.

Contrary to Elgin’s stated fears, the sculptures that remained in Athens did not vanish. After 1833, when the Ottomans left the Acropolis and handed it to the new nation of Greece, the great citadel and its monuments became a focus of national pride. Protecting, restoring and showcasing the legacy of the Athenian golden age has been the highest priority for Greeks since then.

The removal of the so-called Elgin Marbles has long been described as an egregious act of imperial plunder.

Not surprisingly, the British Museum has so far refused all requests to give up one of its most popular exhibits. The Parthenon sculptures have become the most visible, and notorious, collection of Acropolis artifacts still housed in museums across Europe, often with the justification that such objects are emblematic of European civilization, not just of Greek heritage.

The British Museum relies on the supposed legality of an Act of Parliament. The Trustees shelter behind the argument that it is the law – that they are entrusted with these artefacts and cannot divest themselves of them. In reality, as the late Eddie O’Hara, former MP and Chairman of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles (BCRPM) stated, “the government simply needs to legislate to say ‘yes, this is possible.’ – as they did with Nazi loot.”

Even this most difficult of disputes can be resolved with the support of both Museum of Trustees and the UK Government by amending the 1963 Act or by enacting separate legislation. An Act of Parliament could be an Act of Conscience! As Janet Suzman, Chair for the BCRPM declared, the Trustees of the British Museum must get their heads together and break the shackles preventing the just return of Greece’s precious heritage to Athens.

Today, the defenders of keeping the Parthenon Sculptures in the U.K. are looking increasingly lonely. A particularly important development in the long-running request marks both the transformation of British public opinion and the changing trend of museums for the repatriation of cultural treasures, together with the eloquent request for reunification by Greek Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, submitted to his counterpart, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, during his visit in London last November.

Even, The Times, the flagship newspaper of the British establishment, made a historic turn to support the reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures: "Τhey belong to Athens, they must be returned”. The main article of The Times, in an unprecedented fashion, stating that it is like taking Hamlet out of the First Sheet of Shakespeare’s works and saying that both can still exist separately, recognizes the uniqueness of the Parthenon Sculptures!

This support for Greece's request is welcomed by all those that have reinforced the diplomatic route for the reunification of the sculptures, applying constant and methodical pressure and garnering assistance from the international community. It was preceded by the unanimous decision of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Commission for the Return of Cultural Property to Countries of Origin (ICPRCP), which at its 22nd Session on 29th September 2021, adopted for the first time, in addition to the usual recommendation, a text focusing exclusively on the return of Parthenon sculptures. This new text, acknowledging the intergovernmental nature of the subject, was in direct contrast to the British side, which has consistently argued that the case concerns the British Museum. The Commission calls on the United Kingdom to reconsider its position and hold talks with Greece.*

*quotation of the text presented by the Greek delegation to UNESCO's ICPRCP.

Last week, the Μuseum’s chairman George Osborne said: "I think there is a deal to be done – whereby the marbles could be shown in both Athens and London, and as long as there weren’t “a load of preconditions” or a “load of red lines”. Since then, a number of British Lawmakers have also voiced their support for the return of the marbles, and a group of scholars and advocates of the sculptures ‘demonstrated', at the British Museum on the occasion of the 13th birthday of the Acropolis Museum.

The Acropolis Museum’s director general, Professor Nikos Stampolidis, responded with a statement, in which he described the Parthenon Sculptures as representing a procession that symbolized Athenian democracy. “The violent removal of half of the frieze from the Parthenon can be conceived, in reality, as setting apart, dividing and uprooting half of the participants in an actual procession, and holding them captive in a foreign land,” Prof. Stampolidis said. “It consists of the depredation, the interruption, the division and dereliction of the idea of democracy. The question arises: Who owns the ‘captives?’ “The museum where they are imprisoned, or the place where they were born?”

A precursor to the return is the agreement between Italy and Greece. The “Fagan fragment” of the Goddess Artemis, became the first permanently repatriated marble fragment of the sculptures to be restored on the Parthenon frieze, from the Antonino Salinas Regional Archaeology Museum in Palermo, on June 4. It was taken at the same time as the forceful removal of the Parthenon Sculptures by Lord Elgin, and later sold to the University of Palermo.

Meanwhile European governments are rushing to announce policies to return cultural goods to their countries of origin. France returned 26 items, 16th and 17th century bronze art pieces, of unparalleled art to Benin last October, and Germany announced that it would return to Nigeria, the spoils of Benin. In April, Glasgow city council voted to return 17 Benin bronze artefacts looted in West Africa in the 19th century. The Belgian government as well, has agreed to transfer ownership of stolen items from its museums to African countries of origin. Lately, the Plenary Session of the 76th UN General Assembly adopted the decision promoted by Greece for the return of cultural goods to their countries of origin.

Since regaining independence in 1832, successive Greek governments have petitioned for the return of the Parthenon Sculptures. Melina Mercouri, Greek minister of Culture, reenergized the repatriation campaign, by making a request in 1982 for the Greek government to return the Parthenon Sculptures to the UNESCO General Conference on Cultural Policy in Mexico.

The new Acropolis Museum of Athens, which opened in 2009, was built within sight of the actual Parthenon with the goal of eventually housing all the surviving elements of the Parthenon frieze. The Museum’s magnificent glass gallery, bathed in Greek sunlight and offering a clear view of the Parthenon, is the perfect place to reintegrate the frieze and allow visitors to ponder its meaning.

Greece's constant demand for the reunification of the stolen Parthenon Sculptures with the mutilated ecumenical monument is a unique case based on respect for cultural identity and the principle of preserving the integrity of world heritage sites.

As Professor Paul Cartledge, Vice President of BCRPM rightfully said: ‘The key word is ‘Acropolis’. The Parthenon, a UNESCO World Heritage site, derives its significance ultimately from its physical context. A good deal of the original building has miraculously been preserved and in recent times expertly curated. The gap between the Acropolis Museum’s Parthenon display and that in the Duveen Gallery of the British Museum is simply immeasurable. Over and against the alleged claim of legality, there is on our side the overriding claim of ethical probity. Times change, and mores with them.”

The United Kingdom can only benefit from the long-awaited gesture, not of generosity, but of justice. The reunification will finally be given its time.

*The article above formed part of a presentation thatSophia Hiniadou Cambanis gave at the Thessaloniki International Conference : “Art communicating conflict resolution: An intercultural dialogue” co-organized by the Municipality of Thessaloniki and the UNESCO Chair “Intercultural Policy for an Active Citizenship and Solidarity” of the University of Macedonia, on June 30th 2022.

**Sophia Hiniadou Cambanis is Attorney at Law and Cultural Policy & Management Advisor at the Hellenic Parliament

The statement by then Culture minister for Greece, Melina Mercouri that the road to reunification will be wide open when the Times is in favour followed by last week’s Times article begs the question: is the return of the sculptures prophetic?

Sophia Hiniadou Cambanis, wrote in  Protagon.gr, 13 January 2022

 Change of landscape.

The Times, the flagship newspaper of the British establishment, made a historic turn to support the reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures to Greece: "they belong to Athens, they must be returned", writes the leader article!

The defenders of keeping the Parthenon Sculptures in the U.K. are looking increasingly lonely. A particularly important development in the long-running request marks both the transformation of British public opinion and the changing trend of museums for the repatriation of cultural treasures, together with the eloquent request for reunification  by Greek Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, during his visit to London mid November. The state visit included relevant proposal submitted to his counterpart, British Prime MinisterBoris Johnson.

This most recent support for Greece's request is welcomed by those that have reinforced the diplomatic route for the reunification of the sculptures, applying constant and methodical pressure and garnerning support from the international community. It was preceeded by the unanimous decision of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Commission for the Return of Cultural Property to Countries of Origin (ICPRCP), which at its 22nd Session (27-29 September 2021), adopted for the first time, in addition to the usual recommendation, a text focusing exclusively on the return of Parthenon sculptures. This new text, acknowledging the intergovernmental nature of the subject, was in direct contrast to the British side, which has consistently argued that the case concerns the British Museum. The Commission calls on the United Kingdom to reconsider its position and hold talks with Greece.

A precursor to the return, according to the British newspaper, is the agreement between Italy and Greece for the delivery, in the form of a deposit for eight years, the Parthenon marble fragment of the Goddess Artemis, a fragment of the VI stone of the eastern frieze of the Parthenon. This has been returned to the Acropolis Museum from the Antonino Salinas Museum in Palermo, Sicily. The fragment was taken at the same time as the forceful removal of the Parthenon Sculptures by Lord Elgin, from the Ottoman controlled Athens in the early 19th century and later sold to the University of Palermo. In return, Sicily will receive a statue of the goddess Athena of the late 5th century BC and a geometric amphora from the first half of the 8th century BC.

So the original Greek proposal to send Greek antiquities in return for exhibition at the British Museum is now considered tempting by the author of The Times leader article. As the newspaper explains, the dispute over the ownership of the Sculptures led to the failure of the agreement. The proposed solution, to resell the Sculptures at a symbolic price, is simple according to the article but contrary to the established Greek position, since they were removed illegally. However, the phrase " let Parliament now approve their return" paves the way for an amendment to the 1963 British Museums Act, which precludes the return of cultural heritage objects from the British Museum to their countries of origin. The law, in short, that also prevents the return of the Sculptures to Greece.

The New York Times in an article last December, entitled "While Europe returns artifacts, Britain remains silent"  singles out London's attitude towards Athens over one of the most high-profile and controversial museum exhibits in the world, the Sculptures of the Parthenon, still on display in the British Museum. Contrary to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who has repeatedly stated that the Sculptures are an integral part of the British Museum's collection, which presents the history of the world under one roof. Meanwhile European governments are rushing to announce policies to return cultural goods to their countries of origin.

France returned 26 items, 16th and 17th century bronze art pieces of unparalleled art to Benin in October, and Germany announced earlier this year that it would return to Nigeria the spoils of Benin. The Belgian government has agreed to transfer ownership of stolen items from its museums to African countries of origin. Already the recent Plenary Session of the 76th UN General Assemblyadopted the decision promoted by Greece for the return of cultural goods to their countries of origin, a decision considered to be a Greek diplomatic success.

Greece's constant demand for the reunification of the stolen Parthenon Sculptures with the mutilated ecumenical monument is a unique case based on respect for cultural identity and the principle of preserving the integrity of world heritage sites. This particular uniqueness of the Parthenon Sculptures is recognized by the main article of The Times in an unprecedented fashion, stating that it is like taking Hamlet out of the First Sheet of Shakespeare's works and saying that both of them can still exist separately!

The UK can only benefit from the long-awaited gesture, not of generosity, as the British publication describes it, but of justice. The statement by Melina Mercouri, who first made a request in 1982 for the Greek government to return the Parthenon Sculptures to the UNESCO General Conference on Cultural Policy in Mexico, combined with The Times favouring the return, is prophetic. The reunification will finally be given it's time. 

Sophia Hiniadou Cambanis, legal and cultural management advisor to the Hellenic Parliament

‘Scaped from the ravage of the Turk and Goth,

Thy country sends a spoiler worse than both’

In 1809, the young Lord Byron, one of the prominent figures of the Romantic Movement and the most liberal voice of the time, during his first trip to Greece, visited the Parthenon. The mutilation of the monument by Lord Elgin was still fresh and the magnitude of the crime shocked the young philhellene. In the poem-complaint "The Curse of Minerva", which he wrote in Athens on March 17, 1811, he asks the goddess Athena (Minerva) to punish the perpetrator, who took advantage of his position against an enslaved people.

The vandalized Temple of the Athena Parthenos was rendered by foreign traveler painters, such as the Irish painter and antiquarian E. Dodwell, sparking an international outcry, along with the "Curse of Minerva" and the " Childe Harold's Pilgrimage " written by Lord Byron a year later.

On March 10, 1812, John Murrey, publisher and friend of Byron, published Childe Harold's Pilgrimage. In this long poem, the hero wanders in countries and places, records his impressions, making bitter thoughts about the looting of monuments by Elgin. Five hundred copies, priced at 30 shillings each, sold out in three days. Over the next two days, another 3,000 copies of a 12-pound version was released, causing Byron to exclaim, "I awoke one morning and found myself famous!"

The enormous success of Childe Harold's Songs, and its translations into European languages, meant that Byron's thoughts and references to Greece were read by more readers than all travel books combined.

From 1812 onwards, Greece entered the consciousness of Western Europeans and Americans as a place inhabited by modern people, whose political future began to be recognized as a problem that should be addressed, contributing to the strengthening of philhellenism.

Ironically, the depredations to the Acropolis of Athens by Elgin and the acquisition, in 1817, of the "Elgin Marbles" by the British Museum were a decisive factor in Britain in the ascendancy of classical Greece. (St Clair 1998; King 2006). In Germany, the process had begun earlier, around 1750, through the writings of the scholar art historian Johann Winckelmann, father of classical archeology and founder of the movement of neoclassicism.

The condemnation of Elgin's activities in his country by prominent personalities contributed to the Parthenon Sculptures being evidence of the living conscience of the Greeks, who, as descendants of the Ancients, acted as custodians of their ancestral heritage.

The presence of the Sculptures in London and the discussion they provoked significantly influenced the aesthetic perception in British society and beyond. At a time when classicism - still a dominant trend - was heavily attacked by proponents of Romanticism, the Sculptures helped to reshape artistic taste as they represented a model different from abstract Roman art, being the leading example of the new naturalistic Grecian Gusto (Y. Hamilakis, 1999).

The admiration of European travelers for classical Greece often led to attempts to appropriate it, with the formation of private collections and the sale of antiquities culminating in the 19th century. As early as the end of the 18th century, the territories of the Ottoman Empire and the Italian peninsula were part of the Grand Tour, a monthslong journey of spiritual and aesthetic culture made by European nobles after completing their studies.

The French philhellene writer, politician and traveler, viscount François-René de Chateaubriand, who had already visited Greece in 1806, took a leading role in the Philhellenic Committee of Paris, publishing in 1825 his “An appeal for the sacred cause of the Greeks” (  Appel en faveur de la cause sacrée des Grecs) and the "Note on Greece”.  Although in his Itinerary from Paris to Jerusalem, just three years after the looting of the monument, he comments caustically on the theft of the Sculptures by Elgin, he mentions:

Descending from the Acropolis, I took with me a piece of marble from the Parthenon, as I had collected a piece of stone from the tomb of Agamemnon. And since then, I remove something from the monuments I visit, as a souvenir. Of course, they are not as nice as the ones snatched by Mr. de Choiseul and Lord Elgin, but they are enough for me.

Meanwhile, radical changes are taking place in Greece. The emerging new social class with European education and links with the western elites, discovered the heritage of their ancestors, cultivating self-awareness and participating in the creation of the community of the Greek Nation, a process that took on the dimensions of national rebirth. The looting of antiquities contributed to the awareness of the historical past. The establishment of the Greek state led to the systematic care, collection and study of antiquities, since they represented the visible material  proof of the national continuity and were deeply integrated in the newly constructed national memory (Y. Hamilakis, 1999).

The Nobel Prize awarded poet George Seferis records it masterfully. The weight of the marbles hurts, but it is impossible to let it down:

I woke up with this marble head in my hands

that exhausts my elbows and I do not know where to put it down.

In his essay "A Greek - Makriyannis" (1981), G. Seferis highlights the famous saying of General Makriyannis in his Memoirs, which we often mention in public speech:

"I had two wonderful statues, a woman and a prince, intact - the veins were visible, they were so perfect. When they destroyed Poros, some soldiers had taken them, and in Argos they would sell it to some Europeans; they were looking for a thousand thalers... I gathered the soldiers, I told them: ‘Even if they give you ten thousand thalers, never accept for them to leave our homeland. That's what we fought for ".

"You understand, says Seferis. It’s not Lord Byron speaking, neither the most learned, nor the archaeologist; a son of a shepherd of Roumeli speaks with a body full of wounds. ‘That's what we fought for’. Fifteen gilded academies are not worth the value of this man’s words. Because only in such feelings can the education of the Nation take root and flourish. In real feelings and not in abstract notions about the beauty of our ancient ancestors or in dried hearts that have become obfuscated by the fear of the mass mob".

Panagiotis Kanellopoulos in the History of the European Spirit, points out that the Sicilian historian Xavier Scrofani, who visited Greece in 1794-95, fifteen years before Lord Byron, observed, like the latter, the continuity of the language with that of the ancients.

Reşid Pasha, also known as Kütahı, in 1826, besieged the Acropolis, where Greek fighters were holding cover. From his reference to the Sublime Porte, it is clear that he had realized the connection of Greek antiquities with the birth of national consciousness in the enslaved Greeks and their great contribution to the creation of the philhellenic movement in Europe, which will play such a decisive role in the course and final outcome of the Struggle for Independence (Th. Veremis, 2020).

The Bonapartist colonel, Olivier Voutier, narrates that in 1822, many fighters besieging the Acropolis of Athens chose to retreat, in order to stop the besieged Turks from demolishing the surviving parts of the walls and breaking the columns of the Parthenon to grab the lead of ancient binders, which was useful for casting bullets. With the mediation of Kyriakos Pittakis, later curator of Antiquities of the newly formed Greek state, Odysseas Androutsos stopped the destruction of the monument by supplying the Turks with bullets.

The first poetic response to the outbreak of the Greek Revolution did not come from Byron but from his younger contemporary and friend and one of the most important English romantic poets, Percy Bysshe Shelley. Shelley's enthusiasm for the flame of independence that prevailed in Greece prompted him to write in 1822, the lyrical drama Hellas, which he dedicated to Prince Mavrokordato. In the preface he states: "We are all Greeks. Our laws, our literature, our religion, our arts have their roots in Greece".

John Keats, one of the most beloved romantic poets, with a permanent presence in the British textbooks, a close friend of Byron and Shelley, inspired by the myths of classical antiquity in his widely read poem Ode on a Grecian Urn, written in 1819, reaffirms his belief in ancient Greek art as an autonomous body of humanitarian values, through an exemplary expression for the aesthetics of the 19th century.

The British Hellenist Jennifer Wallace points out that two events at the beginning of 19th century heralded the institutionalisation of Hellenism in the British establishment and the supremacy of Greece over Rome as a cultural and aesthetic model. First, when between 1801 and 1806 Lord Elgin removed all the sculptures from the Parthenon and shipped them to England to improve British taste, and second, in 1807, when Oxford introduced classical degree examinations. Greece and its culture were now considered essential elements for the moral education of  the young and the touchstone for artists.

The reduction of classical antiquity as the cosmological cornerstone of Western European civilization had fundamental consequences in the recovery of national identity. The Sculptures of the Parthenon, being one of the most powerful landmarks of Hellenism, were to contribute decisively to the struggle of “paliggenesia” (regeneration).

Sophia Hiniadou Cambanis, is a lawyer specialized in public law and cultural management, Hellenic Parliament

* The text was based on the speech presented at the Conference "Political Patriotism and the Constitutions of the Greek Revolution", Theocharakis Foundation, 13-14.10.2021 and the article was also published in Ta Nea 15 November 2021.