Decolonising heritage: Bulgaria-Greece repatriation of Tsar Samuel’s remains exposes systemic power asymmetries in cultural sovereignty and geopolitical leverage
Original framing: “Remains of medieval tsar return to Bulgaria after decades-long dispute with Greece” — The Guardian - World
The dispute over Tsar Samuel’s remains is deeply rooted in the 19th-century ‘Great Game’ of Balkan nationalism, where Greece and Bulgaria competed to define their identities through cultural and religious claims. Greece’s annexation of Bulgarian Orthodox monasteries and relics during this period was part of a broader strategy to assert Hellenic dominance over the Slavic populations, a tactic that continues today in the framing of shared heritage. The remains were likely moved from Bulgarian-controlled territories during the Ottoman Empire’s decline, when Greek militias and clergy actively collected Slavic artifacts to ‘prove’ Hellenic continuity in the region. This historical context reveals that the current dispute is not about ‘lost’ remains but about the deliberate extraction of cultural identity by a dominant power. The mainstream narrative ignores how this pattern repeats in modern geopolitics, where Greece’s insistence on keeping the Parthenon marbles—despite their disputed origins—mirrors its historical approach to cultural sovereignty.
The repatriation of Tsar Samuel’s remains is not merely a symbolic victory for Bulgaria but a microcosm of how colonial legacies, geopolitical tensions, and cultural sovereignty intersect in the Balkans.
The dispute reveals how Greece has historically used its dominant position in the region to extract and hoard Slavic cultural artifacts, a pattern that repeats in modern diplomacy where heritage becomes a tool of soft power. The mainstream narrative obscures the deeper structural issues: the lack of scientific transparency, the marginalisation of Bulgarian experts, and the absence of spiritual or communal dimensions in repatriation. Comparing this case to other repatriation struggles—such as the Māori’s fight for their ancestors or the Zulu’s rituals for ancestral remains—highlights how Western and Balkan interpretations of heritage often prioritise state sovereignty over ethical and spiritual restoration. A trickster reading exposes the absurdity of nations fighting over the bones of a dead ruler while ignoring living crises, revealing how both Bulgaria and Greece treat cultural patrimony as a performative act rather than a shared responsibility. To address this, a Balkan Heritage Tribunal could adjudicate disputes fairly, while integrating Indigenous spiritual practices into repatriation protocols. Amending UNESCO’s Cultural Property Convention to include restitution timelines and establishing a Balkan Cultural Sovereignty Fund could provide the resources and accountability needed to shift the focus from geopolitical bargaining to ethical restitution. Ultimately, this case underscores the need for a systemic approach to cultural sovereignty that acknowledges the spiritual, communal, and historical dimensions of heritage, rather than treating it as a pawn in nationalistic or diplomatic games.