Should all artefacts taken by colonial powers from around the world be returned to their countries of origin?
On Politics, History and International Relations
In an exposé against the dark practices of museums, British Comedian John Oliver jokes about the loss of artefacts: “... it's like being unable to find the last puzzle piece and learning that you didn't actually misplace it, a British Earl snuck into your house, stole it, and then sold it to a museum over a thousand miles away.” (Youtube, 2023) While a satirical oversimplification, many countries around the world suffer from similar predicaments, where its artefacts, objects transformed through their collective creativity and imagination to fulfil a certain purpose, are appropriated by colonial or conquering powers, with no prospect of return.
Consequently within the process of post-colonialism in creating modern national states and global equality, the idea of restitution, the return of property to its rightful owner, has become quite common amongst former colonial subjects, on whether artefacts should be repatriated to their “rightful” area of origin, or restituted to their “rightful” owners. While it could be argued that all artefacts taken by colonial powers from their colonies should not be returned, given many were acquired legitimately, or are at risk of mistreatment if repatriated as seen in the case of bug damage to Ethiopia’s museums. Most of the evidence from research suggested that all artefacts should be returned to their countries of origin due to the manner in which they were often taken being violent and morally wrong, their importance in culture and religion of their areas of origin and the ability to rejuvenate political relations.
One interpretation for why all artefacts taken by colonial powers from around the world should be returned to their countries of origin is that artefacts are important to the cultural and religious identity of indigenous groups. An example of this is Magdala, a mountainous fortress in Ethiopia (a country with a Christian tradition dating to 330 A.D.) built by Emperor Tewodros II as his base by which to secure his rule. Within the fortress was a palace and church filled with different artefacts produced by the Ethiopian people. A conflict between the Emperor and British forces led to the looting of Magdala, including the looting of the ceremonial crown, a communal chalice and replicas of the Ark of the Covenant (The British Museum, n.d.). These artefacts, among others, formed a key part of the Ethiopian Christian tradition dating back to the origins of Christianity itself, but now rest within museums and private collections within Europe. Due to their significance to ceremonies, rituals and other cultural/religious traditions of their country of origin, these artefacts should be restituted to their areas of origin.
It is also key to consider the manner by which the artefacts were taken by the colonial powers, especially those taken under the threat of violence or harm. Along with the case study of Magdala (sacked in a British punitive expedition), another representation of this is Captain Cook’s voyage to Australia. Here, Cook’s crew would loot a shield from aborigines at Botany Bay after frightening them by firing weapons from the ship off the coast (The British Museum, n.d.). In this case, it is clear that the original owner of the artefact did not consent to the transfer of the artefact to Cook’s party, but instead gave it up while fleeing the threat of harm. Such manners of acquisition were common during the colonial age of discovery, and as such should arguably be constituted as theft, furthering the call for return.
Additionally, artefacts are being stolen to be sold in the black market, due to demand from museums. Such demand arguably facilitates illegal and unethical activity. One key aspect of this is an artefact’s provenance. Archaeologists and curators identify that provenance is a record of an artefact’s journey through time, including how it was produced and the history of its ownership (umfa.utah.edu, n.d.). While artefacts such as that of Magdala may have a clear provenance, it is a norm within the antiquities market that artefacts sold have unclear origins as to how they reached a museum or collection. Take the statue of Duryodhana from Cambodia, which was almost sold by Sotheby’s, an auction house, despite the knowledge that this statue was looted from the Khmer temples (with its feet still standing at the temple) (Davis, n.d.). While the statue was repatriated, for many other artefacts this is not the case. The demand from museums and collectors provides incentives for further looting and illegal trading, due to the steep profit margins of this trade. Hence, these artefacts should be returned to their original areas, so the market value of artefacts is no longer lucrative for trade, reducing the amount of illegal activity tied to the trade of artefacts around the world.
All artefacts should also be returned from colonial powers to their countries of origin as not all artefacts are properly preserved and displayed for their proper purpose in furthering study and education. While museums within the former colonial nations enjoy greater levels of funding, it is evident that not all artefacts are well cared for. For instance, the British museum has had reports of moisture and other detrimental conditions which affects the preservation of their artefacts (The Art Newspaper - International art news and events, 2024). Moreover, many museums do not display all of the artefacts in their possession, and instead keep much of it in storage, such as in the USA, where many Navajo artefacts are kept within the storage of the museum without being displayed and used for display and educational purposes (PBS, 2017). Artefacts which do not serve any educational purpose, nor benefit from being cared for within the former colonial powers’ museums, should be returned to their original owners to serve these purposes elsewhere.
The most significant reason for the return of artefacts is for the rejuvenation of political relations. Despite the independence of former colonial subjects for decades during the aftermath of WW2, national attitudes within these states are often resentful, as a result of exploitation for labour, resources or general actions or atrocities committed while under colonial rule. This includes the first-nation Canadians, who were forced into schools aimed to “assimilate” them into the British-Canadian culture (Bentley, 2016), or even the effects of Japanese colonialism on Taiwan and Korea which brought much starvation during WW2. Artefacts, while at the fringe of many of these resentments, could, if returned, represent a gesture of goodwill by the former colonial powers towards their former subjects, and move towards a mending of cultural and political conflicts as a result of past actions during the colonial era. From a geopolitical perspective, former colonial power nations stand to gain from return of artefacts. Given China’s key role in advocating for a return of artefacts to form alliances across the world, NATO-leaning western countries would benefit from initially returning the artefacts before international pressure can alienate them from their former colonies, many of which hold key strategic positions (Herman, 2021).
On the other hand, museums holding these artefacts argue that not all artefacts should be returned, given that many artefacts could have been obtained legally. For instance, research has shown the British Museum, which contains one of the largest collections of Chinese artefacts in the world, obtained many of its artefacts with the approval of Chinese officials at the time they were acquired in an effort to better improve relations between China and the West (Alberge, 2024). For many artefacts around the world, this is the case, whether that be artefacts given as gifts to colonial overlords for better relations, or those purchased by travellers and sold to the museum collection. While many case studies illustrate that artefacts may have been looted or obtained in unethical or illegal ways, it is important to distinguish between those taken with permission and those taken without permission when considering repatriation and restitution of artefacts (Sommerlad, 2023) and the importance of the artefact’s provenance in showing the artefact’s journey, and therefore whether it should be repatriated, especially with the consideration of the motivations for giving up the artefacts.
It could also be shown that these countries of origin can be unstable, and the artefacts are safer within the host countries. Ethiopia (formerly occupied by Italy) today still recovers from the impacts of the disastrous Tigray War, which leaves its Oromia and Amhara regions unstable, and finds itself facing conflict with Egypt (a former British Protectorate) over the damming of the Nile River (carnegieendowment.org, n.d.). Afghanistan is yet another case study of this, including the Taliban’s destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, or other calls for artefact destruction by radical organisations (O’Donnell, 2022).
As a result, it could be argued that preserving the artefacts within their host countries, often European countries which enjoy a greater standard of living than the countries of origin, may be safer than repatriation which places the artefact at risk of damage and destruction. Furthermore, case studies have shown that upon repatriation, these artefacts may find themselves in private collections, as opposed to the safety of museums, which deprives members of the public from enjoying and learning the significance of these artefacts. In tandem to the aforementioned instability of countries of origin, it has also been shown that many artefacts can be mistreated upon repatriation. Repatriated artefacts are at risk of theft, rampant in museums with low security. In addition, artefacts have a risk of being left uncared for, such as in Ethiopia, where artefacts of the church were destroyed by insect activity, or in Nigeria where the Benin walls were illegally excavated for construction use. Artefacts further risk being sold to private collections upon return, given the financial need (and corruption) within many countries who are receiving repatriated artefacts (Weiss, 2022). In this case, there is an ethical question on whether these colonial powers have the right to determine the fate of artefacts upon repatriation.
The looting of artefacts for displays was a common occurrence carried out by political and military leaders across the world, long before the age of colonialism by “right of conquest”. The theft of artefacts by armies waging war has always existed since the beginning of recorded history, from the Romans hauling Egyptian obelisks back to Italy, to the age of colonialism, where the British justified looting through “punitive expeditions” against other states, such as the looting of the Benin Bronzes (Counterfire, n.d.), up until the modern day (AUSTRIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE BLUE SHIELD, n.d.). While the onset of colonialism arguably allowed for the creation of large empires, and thus the flow of artefacts to only select few areas, at a much larger scale than previously, the nature of looting has remained unchanged. Soldiers and commanders alike seek to loot to gain additional income (especially in the early age of colonialism where armies were “raised” and often not paid aside from spoils from conflict) from selling artefacts, or to enrich their collections and consequently many artefacts have been looted sometime throughout their lifetime. Morality plays a part in analysing this issue. While perhaps the manner by which these artefacts were taken are seen as illegal (the Geneva convention considers looting a war crime) or unethical today, by the standards of the times by which they were acquired, looting artefacts, in the general consensus, was still an acceptable and expected action taken out by combatting forces. Hence, when considering whether repatriation is necessary, the timeframe and its context should also be taken into account.
When assessing whether restitution of artefacts should occur, it is also important to consider the concept of ownership. Colonialism, while still in recent memory, has not occurred for decades, and the original owners of these artefacts are now deceased. Hence, there is much controversy over whether the artefact belonged collectively to the country of origin, or to the descendants of the original owners. It is also key to understand that differing countries may interpret differently on whether a rightful owner still exists, and as such formulate the decisions on whether restitution should occur based on these interpretations, often prone to biases and a desire to see the return/maintaining possession of the artefact.
From the perspective of international law, there is no legal framework which can realistically pressure colonial powers to return their artefacts. Instead, there is a great deal of ambiguity and uncertainty on the status of restitution, especially given the lack of jurisdiction international courts have. Effectively, pressure on these countries can only be enforced from a moral point of view, and the choice for restitution ultimately rests upon the choice of these host countries and their museums. While it could be argued that morally, artefacts should be returned as a result of the nature of their acquisition, legally, the museums are within their right to possess and display the artefacts within their grounds.
It is essential to consider the prospect of creative solutions and compromises as the role of cultural diplomacy becomes more prevalent in international relations, moving away from either returning or withholding artefacts. For instance, creating “bundle of rights agreements” distinguishing between legal and practical ownership where each party possesses different rights to an artefact. Legal “de-jure” ownership, for example could return communities or countries of origin, emotional rifts between countries could slowly be mended with the return of significant artefacts. Concurrently, an agreement could be reached regarding the beneficial use of the artefact, including the right to display education and learning, and ensuring that it can continue to be preserved during periods of instability, or rotating artefacts between several museums. Technological solutions, such as The Virtual Museums for Digital Repatriation are also becoming more prevalent, using photogrammetry in parallel to virtual reality, allowing for artefacts to be displayed at multiple “locations” and accessed by anyone across the world (Miigwan, n.d.). By reaching an agreement, both parties ensure that all are able to enjoy the benefits of possessing the artefact, facilitating future collaboration within these projects.
Ultimately, the burden of proof of ownership for facilitating this return remains with those claiming original legal ownership of the artefact. Long-term compromises such as a bundle of rights must be reached and creative solutions worked out to benefit both countries of origin and colonial powers, as opposed to reactionary recourse through outright demands shaped by personal biases which instead deteriorate international relations. To many, artefacts within museums are a painful reminder of conquest, and both sides benefit from possession of the artefact. Yet, at present, artefacts taken during the colonial age fulfil the criteria of being taken directly or indirectly through the political, economic or military threats are at moral obligation to be returned to their rightful homeland to better improve the relationship between colonial powers and their former subjects showing the world the importance of cultural diplomacy in resolving future disputes. As John Oliver’s quote stated, artefacts were like puzzle pieces, their return allows not only the appreciation and restoration of a nation’s collective heritage and legacy but a rightful step towards a post-colonial process of creating equality among nations.
Reference / Bibliography
Alberge, D. (2024). Chinese artefacts in repatriation row were ‘given willingly’ to British Museum. The Observer. [online] 20 Jul. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/article/2024/jul/20/chinese-artefacts-in-repatriation-row-were-given-willingly-to-british-museum [Accessed 26 Jul. 2024].
AUSTRIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE BLUE SHIELD. (n.d.). Looting and Pillage. [online] Available at: https://www.blueshield.at/looting-and-pillage.html [Accessed 26 Jul. 2024].
Bentley, T. (2016). Should a nation apologise for the crimes of its past? [online] The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/should-a-nation-apologise-for-the-crimes-of-its-past-66525 [Accessed 25 Jul. 2024].
carnegieendowment.org. (n.d.). Ethiopia’s Fragile Stability Remains at Risk. [online] Available at: https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2023/11/ethiopias-fragile-stability-remains-at-risk?lang=en [Accessed 25 Jul. 2024].
Counterfire. (n.d.). The Brutish Museums: The Benin Bronzes, Colonial Violence and Cultural Restitution – book review. [online] Available at: https://www.counterfire.org/article/the-brutish-museums-the-benin-bronzes-colonial-violence-and-cultural-restitution-book-review/ [Accessed 26 Jul. 2024].
Davis, T. (n.d.). Returning Duryodhana. [online] Bostonia. Available at: https://www.bu.edu/bostonia/summer14/cambodia/ [Accessed 25 Jul. 2024].
Herman, A. (2021). Restitution: The return of cultural artefacts. [online] Lund Humphries. Available at: https://books.google.co.th/books?id=-pStzgEACAAJ.
Miigwan, F. (n.d.). Virtual Museums for Digital Repatriation. [online] MIT SOLVE. Available at: https://solve.mit.edu/challenges/2024-indigenous-communities/solutions/83733#:~:text=Virtual%20Reality%20Repatriation%3A%20We%20develop [Accessed 25 Jul. 2024].
O’Donnell, L. (2022). The Taliban Take Aim at Buddhist Heritage. [online] Foreign Policy. Available at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/06/07/taliban-target-buddhist-heritage-afghanistan/ [Accessed 26 Jul. 2024].
PBS (2017). INDEPENDENT LENS | What Was Ours | Wind River Artifacts at Chicago’s Field Museum | PBS. [online] YouTube. Available at:
[Accessed 26 Jul. 2024].
Pes, J. (2020). Leading Australian activist accuses British Museum of downgrading provenance of Aboriginal shield to prevent restitution. [online] The Art Newspaper - International art news and events. Available at: https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2020/09/30/leading-australian-activist-accuses-british-museum-of-downgrading-provenance-of-aboriginal-shield-to-prevent-restitution [Accessed 14 Jan. 2025].
Sommerlad, J. (2023). Elgin marbles to Moai heads - the artefacts British Museum has been urged to return. [online] The Independent. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-museum-contested-artefacts-benin-bronzes-b2394754.html [Accessed 26 Jul. 2024].
The Art Newspaper - International art news and events. (2024). British Museum suffering from leaking roofs as wait for huge redevelopment project goes on. [online] Available at: https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2024/02/22/british-museum-suffering-from-leaking-roofs-as-wait-for-huge-redevelopment-project-goes-on [Accessed 26 Jul. 2024].
The British Museum. (n.d.). Early shield from Australia. [online] Available at: https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/british-museum-story/contested-objects-collection/early-shield-australia [Accessed 26 Jul. 2024].
The British Museum. (n.d.). Maqdala collection. [online] Available at: https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/british-museum-story/contested-objects-collection/maqdala-collection [Accessed 26 Jul. 2024].
umfa.utah.edu. (n.d.). What Is Provenance—and Why Does It Matter? | The Utah Museum of Fine Arts. [online] Available at: https://umfa.utah.edu/what-is-provenance#:~:text=Provenance%20essentially%20is%20the%20recorded [Accessed 25 Jul. 2024].
Weiss, E. (2022). Repatriation of Artefacts: A Recipe for Disaster - History Reclaimed. [online] History Reclaimed. Available at: https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/repatriation-of-artefacts-a-recipe-for-disaster/ [Accessed 26 Jul. 2024].
Wikipedia Contributors (2019). Elgin Marbles. [online] Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles [Accessed 14 Jan. 2025].
Youtube (2023). Museums: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO). [online] Available at:
[Accessed 28 Jul. 2024].