Should we repatriate museum artefacts?: Ethics and Concerns

In 2007, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples asserted the prerogative rights of indigenous groups to control their own intellectual property as well as the responsibility of states restore items taken from them. This sparked the debate of repatriating items on display in museums to their country of origin which is underpinned by the belief that these items were taken without the consent and in violation of the traditional customs and beliefs of indigenous groups.

From the Koh-i-Noor to the Parthenon Marbles various famous historical artefacts have been the subject of decolonial activist efforts over the last few decades to return these items. These relics are material embodiments of the heritage and culture of the source community and are imbued with historical, social and spiritual meaning. Pillaged and seized in the midst of violent conflict, these artefacts have experienced a tumultuous history. A 2018 report on the ethics of colonial African relics in European museums concluded that nearly 90% of African material culture is dispersed around the world, having been looted from African countries during the colonial wars. Described as the ‘largest receiver of stolen property,’ British Museum in London, in particular has received attention from various countries demanding the return of their cultural artefacts. Governor Tarita Alarcón Rapu of Easter Island, for example, begged the museum to return the Hoa Hakanannai’a statue after 150 years. The ‘moai’ is spiritually symbolic and represents distinguished ancestors and tribal leaders and has been described as the ‘soul’ of the nation. Similarly, the Benin Bronzes, looted during a punitive expedition to retaliate against Oba Ovonramwen, ruler of the west African Kingdom of Benin, and establish their imperial power, have been the subject of various repatriation demands from Nigeria.

Museums themselves have been criticised as colonial relics, designed to exoticise the primitive Other. As post-colonial theorists have highlighted, power can be exercised through knowledge and is embedded in the control of information about people and the ways in which they are represented. Therefore, museums have served as a way to establish knowledge about the ‘natives’ and has highlighted their cultural backwardness to emphasise the developed and civilised nature of the West. In extreme cases, museums also constituted human zoos such as those in Belgium where nearly 600 Congolese men, women and children  were brought from Africa to be exhibited. As part of the Expo ’58, ‘traditional’ villages were recreated and Congolese people were forced to live out their daily lives for the entertainment of Belgian spectators. This serves to fuel the repatriation debate as it highlights the injustices inflicted on former colonies by museums. By retaining control of these artefacts, Western museums maintain colonial hierarchies of power and can dictate understandings of and knowledge about others. Furthermore, denying the autonomy and control of the source communities from which these artefacts originate is perceived as ‘vestigial colonialism.’ These countries have therefore been striving to establish their own museums to house their own items and present their own narratives.

President Emmanuel Macron of France criticised the ‘crimes of European colonialism’ for stealing African cultural heritage and holding it ‘prisoner’ for centuries. As a result, he has pledged to amend French inheritance laws so African artwork showcased in national museums can be returned to their countries of origin and has announced the return of 26 artefacts to Benin. This framework would have immense implications for French museums, necessitating over half of African works currently on display in the Musee du quai Branly alone to be returned, for example. In a similar vein, Manchester Museum agreed to return 43 ceremonial sacred artefacts, from headdresses to clapsticks, to the Indigenous Australian Aboriginal community. Much like President Macron’s repatriation plans, these actions have significant value when attempting to make amends for colonial actions and supporting the ‘healing and reconciliation process,’ allowing former colonies to recover from the trauma inflicted on them.

However, there are also several issues associated with returning museum artefacts to their country of origin. Critics of repatriation debate have cited is the security risks associated with returning colonial artefacts. Many source communities demanding their artefacts are not adequately equipped to preserve and maintain these items. Iheanyi Onwuegbucha, a curator at Lagos’ Centre for Contemporary Art, for example, has argued that Nigeria’s ‘rundown, leaking museums and insect-infested storage facilities’ cannot facilitate or care for relics which would be at risk if returned to the country. Due to the fragile nature of some artefacts, transporting them is unadvisable as they can break. Furthermore, the destruction of historical cultural sites by terrorist organisation Islamic State (ISIS) has called into question the safety of returning artefacts to the certain countries. ISIS forces bulldozed the archaeological remains of the ancient Assyrian city of Nimrud in Iraq, denouncing them as idolatrous. While many of the artefacts from the site are housed safely away in the British Museum, several statues and a reconstruction of the Palace of Ashurnasirpal, King of Assyria, remained at their original location and are now at risk of looting and pillaging. ISIS forces also seized control of the ancient Semitic city of Palmyra during the Syrian Civil War, destroying ruins dating back to the Roman era and selling illicitly selling artefacts on the black market. This demonstrates the risks involved with returning museums artefacts to certain countries where they will be unprotected and vulnerable to attack and theft. Similarly, it has been argued by museums that various artefacts did not receive proper preservative care and were instead disregarded or handled recklessly. For example, when Lord Elgin acquired stones from the Parthenon, the site had been neglected for several years and its pieces were scavenged as building materials. Similarly, images captured from 1875 also depict mummies being sold along the streets of Egyptian cities where they were bought as decorative items for social ‘Mummy Unwrapping Parties,’ ground into powder for medicinal purposes, gifted as souvenirs, pulverised as fertiliser or burned as fuel. This can be used to explain the valuable contribution of Western museums which have preserved and maintained these valuable relics of human history and invested money, time and expertise in doing so.

The repatriation debate has also been criticised for the ‘politicisation of culture’ which detracts from the purpose of museums to educate society and instead makes cultural artefacts the subject of interstate politics and conflict. Museums are academic institutions which preserve the history and heritage of communities for support the understanding of the wider public. Critics of the repatriation debate have vehemently argued that material culture should be considered common property, rather than belonging to individual countries where they can be exploited as the focus of identity politics. Even the association of artefacts with concepts such as ‘property’ and ‘ownership’ imposes capitalistic connotations, commodifying culture. Entangled in what has been described as ‘nationalistic muscle-flexing’ these artefacts should not be considered the property of a nation state as the cultures they represent are not dictated or confined by ‘the boundaries on maps.’ As modern states such as modern Greece are vastly different to the ancient civilisations that preceded them, it begs the question whether these states have the right to artefacts such as the Parthenon Marbles simply because they occupy the same physical land. These modern contexts are barely recognisable from the communities from which these artefacts originate and they now fulfil different purposes than their intended functions. Furthermore, these artefacts have passed various hands via trade and war and tracing their original source community is a challenge. Similarly, Tiffany Jenkins, a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics’ Department of Law, has argued that ‘culture is not fixed’ and while the Parthenon once served as a temple, it was later used as a mosque. This highlights how museums transcend culture or ethnic boundaries. By displaying artefacts from all over the world across different eras, Western museums allows visitors to compare and contrast human history to demonstrate how cultures and people across the world are interconnected through ‘trade, migration, conquest or peaceful exchange.’ The very presence of foreign artefacts in Western institutions depicts Western relations with the rest of the world and European colonialism which allowed them to gain access to these artefacts. This offers a holistic understanding and explanation of human history which takes into consideration the heterogeneity and hybridity of human cultures.

A more productive and effective resolution that takes into consideration these various concerns and elements would be to revitalise and adjust current museum practices so that they involve source communities at each stage, from the handling to exhibition of artefacts. This would work to addressing the power imbalances and inequalities perpetuated by museums while also maintaining their valuable educative function.