In the campaign for the return of the Parthenon sculptures from the British Museum to Athens, which is gaining momentum, the British culture minister, in an interview with the BBC radio, has spoken the clearest word yet from an official mouth.
Michelle Donnelan combined her categorical declaration that these works of art are British property, which London is making available to the world, with a warning of further claims that would be released if this Pandora's box was opened.
A meeting between George Osborne, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the British Museum, and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, which was probably arranged unilaterally, recently gave the impression that a solution to the long-standing dispute was imminent.
Rumors are circulating of a long-term loan and some sort of hostage deal, whereby Greece would send important Hellenistic cultural objects to London in exchange for guaranteeing that the Parthenon sculptures would come back to London.
Some pro-return proponents who have come out as insiders, such as the head of the Institute for Digital Archeology, which claims to be able to use robots to create perfect copies of antiquities from the same marble as the originals, have even boasted of knowing that the Parthenon sculptures would be reunited at the Acropolis Museum ahead of the Greek elections this summer.
The quality of the test copy of Selene's horse head from the east pediment of the Parthenon, which was recently exhibited in the Freud Museum between house plants in the stairwell in London, makes it hardly surprising that the Greeks rejected digitally created copies.
But that's just by the way.
The real bone of contention is Greece's refusal to recognize the British Museum's ownership.
Mitsotakis, who recently spoke of a "win-win" solution, this week dampened his compatriots' hopes that the sculptures would return anytime soon, when he said that a loan was out of the question because of the recognition tantamount to British ownership.
The British Museum continues to speak vaguely of “constructive talks” and let others take the lead in heated arguments for and against.
Neither the director Hartwig Fischer nor the board members reportedly divided on the issue, including the prominent ancient historian Mary Beard, who claims to be neutral, seem to consider it necessary to use the criteria for a decision about them to define art treasures held in trust for the nation.
This omission almost seems like a dereliction of duty.