Greece will not agree to the return of the Parthenon sculptures in the form of a “lease” if this means recognizing the ownership of the British Museum, it has reiterated Kyriakos Mitsotakis.
Briefly about the main thing
- Mitsotakis stated that Greece does not recognize foreign ownership on the Parthenon sculptures.
- Athens rejects a formula in which the British Museum would give the sculptures to Greece as a long-term loan.
- The main argument of Greece: we are not talking about individual museum exhibits, but about parts single monumentwhich remains divided between Athens and London.
- Negotiations with the British Museum are ongoing, but the issue of ownership remains one of the main obstacles.
- In September, the head of the British Museum suggested considering the transfer of the Bayeux Tapestry to London as a possible model for the Parthenon. Athens rejected this analogy.
- This story is special for Athens News: ten years ago, together with the writer Vladimir Sidiropoulos, we made a film “Tear of the Caryatid” on the return of stolen Greek cultural heritage.
“Let us not borrow our own treasures”
Prime Minister of Greece Kyriakos Mitsotakis On October 3, he again publicly formulated the fundamental condition of Athens in the long-standing dispute with Great Britain over the Parthenon sculptures.
Speaking at the Museum of Byzantine Culture in Thessaloniki, he emphasized that monuments and historical values cannot be considered as war trophies or museum objects that accidentally ended up in different collections.
According to the head of government, Greece applies the same logic to the Parthenon sculptures.
“My country will not accept agreements that would recognize foreign ownership, and will not allegedly borrow its own treasures.”
It is the question of property rightsand not just the timing of the possible return of the sculptures, remains one of the main problems in the negotiations between Athens and the British Museum.
For Athens, this is not a dispute about the museum collection
Mitsotakis again emphasized the fundamental difference between the Parthenon sculptures and the usual demand for the return of an individual archaeological site.
The Parthenon was created as a single architectural and sculptural ensemble. A significant part of the surviving sculptural decoration is today in Athens, another in the British Museum.
Therefore, the Greek side is talking not so much about the “return of museum exhibits”, but about reunification of parts of one monument.
“The Parthenon represents a unique and distinct case,” Mitsotakis said.
According to him, the issue cannot be confined solely to the framework of a legal dispute: we are talking about restoring the aesthetic and semantic integrity of a universal monument that remains divided.
The Greek position is that surviving sculptures should be exhibited together in Acropolis Museummaintaining a visual connection with the rock and the Parthenon itself for which they were created.
Why the “rent” formula is unacceptable for Greece
At first glance, the compromise seems simple: the British Museum could transfer the sculptures in London to Athens for a long period of time.
But this is where the legal trap comes into play.
A typical museum loan requires that the recipient acknowledges that the item belongs to another party and must be returned to the owner after a specified period.
Greece does not recognize the British Museum as the legal owner of the sculptures.
Therefore, the agreement in which Athens formally receives them “on lease” or “on loan” can be interpreted as recognition of British ownership.
For the Greek side this is a fundamental red line.
Main obstacle: The debate today is no longer so much about whether the sculptures can physically end up in Athens. The main question is on what legal basis will they return there and will Greece be obliged to recognize the British Museum as their owner.
What the British Museum says
The British side takes a different legal position.
The British Museum says Lord Elgin received the sculptures in the early 19th century with permission from the Ottoman Empire, which controlled Athens at the time.
In 1816, the British Parliament approved the acquisition of the Elgin collection, after which it was transferred to the British Museum.
The Greek side disputes the legality of the export and does not recognize the ownership of the museum.
Thus, after more than two centuries, the parties disagree even on a fundamental issue: who legally owns the sculptures.
Bayeux Tapestry as a model? Athens answered: no
A new round of discussion arose after the historic transfer of France to Great Britain Bayeux Tapestry.
In September 2026, the famous 11th-century work came to the UK for the first time and is now on display at the British Museum.
Museum director Nicholas Callinan admitted that the Anglo-French agreement could become a kind of model for resolving the issue of the Parthenon sculptures.
Mitsotakis rejected this analogy.
France handed over to Great Britain a single work in its entiretyafter which it must return to France. No one would think of cutting a tapestry in half and claiming that in this way it can be fully perceived.
This is exactly what, according to the Greek prime minister, actually happened to the Parthenon: parts of one work have been in different countries for more than two centuries.
Negotiations continue, but impasse remains
Just a few days ago, Athens News reported in detail on the current state of negotiations in the article “The Caryatids continue to cry”: negotiations on the return of the Parthenon sculptures have stalled.
Despite many years of contacts between Athens and the management of the British Museum, a formula for a final agreement has not yet been found.
However, the Greek government does not consider the negotiations completed.
Mitsotakis previously emphasized that a solution is still possible if there is sufficient political will and political courage.
But the statement on October 3 simultaneously shows the limit of a possible compromise: Athens is ready to discuss cultural cooperation, exchange of exhibitions and other forms of partnership, but is not ready to sign a document that can be interpreted as recognition of British ownership of parts of the Parthenon.
“Tear of the Caryatid”: ten years later
For the editors of Athens News, this story has special significance.
September 12, 2016 our short documentary was released “Tear of the Caryatid”based on the writer’s essay of the same name Vladimir Sidiropoulos.
The original text was written and read by Vladimir Sidiropoulos. The director, cameraman and editor of the film was Pavel Onoiko.
The film centers on the fate of one of the six Caryatids of the Erechtheion, taken by Lord Elgin from Athens at the beginning of the 19th century and today located in the British Museum.
But the film was conceived more broadly – as a story about memory, cultural heritage and whether a work of art can remain full-fledged when it was forcibly separated from the place and ensemble for which it was created.
In September of this year, on the tenth anniversary of the film, we returned to this story again:
10 years of “Tear of the Caryatid”: a film whose story has not yet ended.
Today, Mitsotakis’s words about the impossibility of “borrowing one’s own treasures” surprisingly return us to the same question that the filmmakers asked ten years ago.
“Tear of the Caryatid” – ΤΟ ΔΑΚΡΥ ΤΗΣ ΚΑΡΥΑΤΙΔΑΣ. Short film based on an essay by Vladimir Sidiropoulos. Director, cameraman and editor – Pavel Onoiko. Version with Greek subtitles.
The film was subsequently shown at cultural events in Greece and received diploma and medal of the Greek branch of UNESCO.
The story really goes on
A lot has changed in ten years. Negotiations between Athens and London have become much more serious, the issue of the return of the sculptures is regularly discussed at the highest political level, and the very idea of their reunification in Athens has received noticeable international support.
The main thing hasn’t changed: The Caryatid is still in London and the Parthenon is still divided between the two countries.
That is why the final thought of our film sounds as relevant today as it did in 2016:
The film is over. The story continues.
Editorial commentary from the Athens News. A compromise between Athens and London will only be possible when the parties find a formula that allows the remaining parts of the Parthenon to be physically reunited without forcing either side to first abandon its principled position on the issue of ownership. Today’s statement by Mitsotakis shows that for Greece, the return of sculptures solely in the status of a British “loan” is not such a formula.
Sources and materials of Athens News
- Prime Minister of Greece – speech by Kyriakos Mitsotakis October 3, 2026;
- “The Caryatids continue to cry”: negotiations on the return of the Parthenon sculptures have stalled;
- 10 years of “Tear of the Caryatid”: a film whose story has not yet ended;
- Premiere screening of the short film “Tear of the Caryatid”.
More Stories
Karvelas vs. Vissi: a dispute over money and OAKA went to court
Stavroula Gquvusi: the story of the first woman executed in Greece for a criminal offense
Athens, 1974: when just running around the city could get you seven months in prison