It is one of the crucial questions that has come out of the 21st century cultural debate. Is it right for Western museums to retain artefacts that were often stolen using force and duress in brutal wars against other countries, especially in the colonial era of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries? The question shouldnât be âis it rightâ for them to remain in the institutions like the British Museum, but rather âis it wrong to send them back?â If we reframe the issue in this way, it is clear that there can be no reasonable argument for keeping these artefacts, when the alternative is to give back a country or people their heritage. Should we as the UK really rather keep items in our museums for the prestige when we know there would be so much more cultural opportunities in giving them back?
A common counterargument for repatriation is that having them in these established and world-renowned museums means the artefacts can be used for educational purposes, but this is rather a moot point. People can still be educated about Greek, Nigerian, Australian and Senegalese history without physically seeing them. In fact, repatriation would most likely bring more opportunity for education about other cultures, rather than less. History and collaboration go hand in hand; we should not just be spoon fed our home countryâs version, which despite recent efforts in academic circles and wider societal initiatives, has not been massively overhauled.
When we look at the Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art (established in 1998), which aims to address ways in which Nazi-confiscated art during the Holocaust could be returned to its rightful owners, most of the time descendants of Jewish families who had owned the art originally. They not only encouraged governments to return the looted art, but also created a central database of information and advocated for the establishment of official commissions and processes. In 2023, Christieâs Auction House held a global programme of events and initiatives titled Reflecting on Restitution to honour the impact of the Conference. It included in-person conversations, stories of significant restitutions and virtual tours of historic sites near Berlin. Since its inception, the Commission has restituted over 3,500 objects to their rightful owners, an undeniably amazing thing. However, this only emphasises the appalling failures of most other initiatives with other cultures. The success of the Washington Principles shows that restitution and repatriation work, so why is it seemingly so hard for Museums in Europe and the United States to do the same with their colonial artefacts?
Most likely it is because relinquishing ownership and returning artefacts like the Parthenon Marbles to Greece or the Amaravati Marbles to India (taken from one of the countryâs largest Buddhist shrines) means having to acknowledge not only the colonial atrocities that took place in history, but also the fact that these institutions have made a mistake in keeping them all this time, and that in doing this they have effectively continued these atrocities into the twenty-first century. Nothing is more moving than the tearful words spoken by the governor of Easter Island who when addressing the continued residence of the Hoa Hakananaiâa statue in the British Museum, exclaimed that âYou, the British people, have our soul.â The statue was stolen from its home and presented to Queen Victoria â its name can even be translated as âlostâ or âstolen friendâ, which is undeniably apt. It is remarkable and disturbing that museums can deny people the right to own their own cultural items, many of them like Hoa Hakananaiâa with incredible spiritual significance and displays a much darker side of historical curation. Although there have been many calls to return the statue, nothing has been carried out. If the British Museum was serious about amending the cultural atrocities it has been part of, surely it would not hesitate to grant the people of Easter Island their right?
Despite all the discourse around repatriation, it does not seem like it is being taken seriously by some of these Western Institutions. Arguments about the practical difficulties are valid, but they are difficulties that have to be overcome, not excuses to carry on as if nothing needs changing, like many of these institutions are currently doing.