By: SARAH MUZAMMIL
An artifact is “An object made by a human being, typically one of cultural or historical interest” (Oxford Languages Dictionary). When it comes to the issue of ancient artifacts being displaced from their countries of origin, there are many differing perspectives regarding their return. The lenses through which the issue can be viewed include historical, cultural, political and legal. Ancient artifacts are reserves of rich history and culture, with their displacement often tied to colonial injustice and presenting a historical dilemma. However, the political and social environment of the country of origin as well as legalities should be considered when discussing the return of these artefacts. For many years, countries have debated over the ethics and obligations of returning artifacts to their countries of origin. This paper aims to address and analyse both sides of the argument to reach a supported conclusion.
Firstly, looking through the historical lens, according to an Advisory Report for Dutch National Policy Framework for Colonial Collections (2020), ancient artefacts taken during colonial rule should be returned to their countries of origin in order to correct the historical imbalance. In fact, the report states that “an injustice was done to the local populations of former colonial territories when cultural objects were taken against their will.” (ibid) Under colonial rule, objects were often taken without the permission or acknowledgement of their countries of origin due to the power imbalance. Therefore, such artifacts are still considered as belonging to their countries of origin. The “involuntary loss of possession” must be corrected by the “readiness to return unconditionally” the artifacts (ibid) . This argument is further corroborated by the American Journal of Community Psychology, which states that “Institutions such as the British Museum, who have been historically praised for their expansive collections, need to account for possessing and displaying stolen artifacts.” (Palmer, G. L. 2023). Palmer claims that such artifacts are stolen, which reflects the statement in the Advisory Report regarding the taking of artifacts against their will. Therefore, both sources agree that the colonial possession of historical artifacts was not a right, rather a theft or an imbalance of power. Furthermore, both sources agree on the matter of accountability and readiness to return the objects in colonial possession. This furthers the idea of colonial nations addressing the issue of stolen artifacts in their possession and answering the call to return them to their home countries. Both sources argue that it is important to return ancient artifacts in order to right the injustices caused by decades of colonial rule
The committee forming the advisory report for the Dutch national Policy Framework for Colonial Collections is headed by Lilian Goncalves and presents a strong and reliable argument. Goncalves, being originally from Suriname and holding a legal background in the country as the prime minister’s lawyer, considers her home country’s history when crafting this report. As she has first hand experience in a country affected by the colonial possession of its artifacts, she provides a direct insight into the issue. The report is also fairly recent, published in 2020, ensuring its relevance to the current time period. However, there is potential for bias, as Goncalves supports the Surinamese decision to return artifacts, which is used to further the argument to encourage return of ancient artifacts to their home countries. The source is straightforward and concisely displays steps that must be taken in numerous different circumstances in order to ensure the rightful placement of various historical artifacts. Moreover, the corroborating source, Geraldine Palmer has a PHD in clinical psychology and specializes in Community Psychology and human services, making her an accurate and knowledgeable source for assessing the communal impact of colonial seizure of artifacts.
Secondly, considering a cultural view, Ancient Artifacts possess deep cultural ties to their origin communities. According to the article Understanding Artifact Repatriation Through the Lens of Intellectual Property, “Artifacts are endowed with profound cultural import” and “Their value is derived not only from their physicality, but also from their historical and cultural legacy” (Feigenbaum, E. 2024). Feigenbaum argues that Ancient artifacts should be returned due to their cultural significance. Such artifacts are vessels of knowledge for many communities, and to remove the artifacts is to deprive them of this knowledge. Therefore, Faugenbaum states the example of the repatriation of artifacts from Belgium to the Dominican Republic of Congo, and the bases of cultural significance. Moreover, Feigenbaum’s point is supported by the Journal of Student Research, which states that “the looting of cultural artifacts representing an entire community can have a grave effect on the culture; it is a form of erasure in history” (Ramirez-Trelles, I., Vivoni, M., Lopez Figueroa, J., Looted artifacts: Historical Heists and their Impact 2024).
The sources used to support the above point are both student written. Being students, both sources may lack expertise regarding the issues due to a lack of academic experience in the topic. Students, while knowledgeable, may lack the understanding that follows multiple years of study and experience. However, both sources provide a cohesive global perspective. Emily Feigenbaum is a staff editor at the NYU Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law, while Ramirez-Trelles, Vivoni and Lopez write for the Journal of Student Research in Puerto Rico. Both sources offer supporting perspectives from two different cultural landscapes and identities, and are recent publications, making them valuable sources. The Journal of Student research provides a view from Puerto Rico, a country that has faced colonisation at the hands of Spain and can therefore directly relate to the loss of culture that is detailed in both provided articles. Feigenbaum, of American origin, agrees with the views presented in the Journal of Student Research regarding the importance of historical artifacts in a cultural view. Feigenbaum writes for the NYU Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law, which adds a point of qualification to her view, as one’s own culture can be considered intellectual property, which is stolen alongside historical artifacts.
However, it is important to note the political view, that many home countries cannot be trusted to maintain the integrity of their artifacts due to turbulent socio-political climate or lack of funding. In The Case Against Repatriation, Jajodia argues that “Most of the monuments we do have are in ruins. Scant little remains of the Coronation Durbar and the massive construction exercises undertaken for the visit of the Emperor to Lutyens Delhi” (Jajodia, I. H., 2018) , proving that his country, India, has a poor record of looking after culturally significant monuments and structures. Following this example, he argues that “If we cannot be trusted to preserve monuments just over a hundred years old, then, how can we be trusted with our cultural treasures?” (ibid) Jajodia cements the problem of host countries being unable to preserve their artifacts with the necessary care. Furthermore, Jajodia is supported by the author of Should We Repatriate Museum Artifacts?: Ethics and Concern, which further mentions the “security risks associated with returning colonial artifacts” (Ali, S., 2020) and references Nigeria’s inadequate facilities when it comes to housing returned artifacts. Ali supports Jajodias view of unstable socio-political climates providing risks to the historical artifacts by mentioning the issue of security. Both sources address that if countries do not possess the ability and devotion to ensure the protection of these artifacts, the risks of damage outweigh the potential benefits of repatriation.
Jajodia proves to be a reliable source, as an Art History Major graduated from Dartmouth University. He provides an educated view while drawing on his personal connection to India, his home country, providing valuable insight. His major allows him to reference learned concepts to real-life situations in India and navigate the complexities of the issue. However, Jajodias article was published in 2018 and therefore its relevance to the current time period could be questioned. Siobhan Ali is a member of the Roosevelt Group, a Scottish Student-Led thinktank that addresses a variety of global issues and is therefore a credible source. However, Siobhan Ali does not hold an established writing background, with limited internet and academic presence, and could therefore not be presented as a strong source. Both Jajodia and Ali agree on the potential dangers and therefore support each other’s claims.
Additionally, the legal view presents an argument that ancient artifacts should not be returned to their home countries, as they were legally signed over to the current host countries. The article Culture war: The Case Against Repatriating Museum Artifacts references the debate of the marbles removed from the Greek Parthenon. The author states that the marbles were removed with “the permission of the reigning Ottoman authorities” by Britain in 1817 and “Greece didn’t pass a law governing antiquities and ancient objects until 1834” (Cuno, J., 2014). Therefore, Britain did not participate in an illegal trade and has no legal obligation to return the marbles. Moreover, the author references the UNESCO convention of 1970, which does not have a legal standing and cannot override agreements pe-dating 1970 (ibid). The convention thus has no concrete backing with which to support the repatriation of such artifacts. Cuno is further supported by Hartmut Dorgerloh, who further states that it would be difficult to trace the legal ownership of ancient artifacts, and making it near impossible to process the legalities of repatriation. He says “How far back will you go? Until Roman times? Because many items in Rome were robbed somewhere in Greece or in ancient Egypt” (Nayeri, F., 2018). Cuno references the first prong of the legal issue, which is the lack of legal obligation, while Dorgerloh expands on the second prong, which is the difficulty in tracing legal possession and the ambiguity this issue presents. The two sources address separate aspects of the legal problem, and together create one cohesive argument.
Cuno proves to be a reliable source, as he is an Art Historian and Curator, and is therefore knowledgeable in the topic. He was the professor of History of Art and Architecture as well as the director of the Harvard Art Museum from 1991-2003, showing experience in the field. However, the article used was published in 2014, and might lose relevance to the current time period. Hartmut Dorgerloh is an Art Historian as well as the general director of the Humboldt Forum, an art museum in Berlin and is therefore a credible source. Both authors present similarities in their experience and skillset, making their judgements on the topic reliable. The importance of culture and history is offset by the contradictory arguments of risks to the preservation of these artifacts as well as legal complications that deepen the issue. The argument of culture and history is nullified when the potential destruction of the very artifacts possessing the cultural importance is taken into account. Moreover, the complex legal process makes it infinitely more difficult to follow through with repatriation. However, There is an undeniable historical imbalance caused by the dominating powers of colonial nations, which is only emphasized by the ancient artifacts they hold in their possession through questionable means. These artifacts are not just objects, but relics of culture, knowledge and history, and should therefore be accessible by their home communities. As someone from Pakistan, a country that was a victim of colonisation, I am compelled to side with the idea that ancient artifacts should be returned to their home countries. While I understand the opposing side, my own personal standing is not easily swayed, and is only strengthened by my research. To further my research, I hope to learn more about ancient artifacts associated with my own cultural heritage by visiting local museums and delving deeper into the colonial injustices that plague my own country’s history. When dealing with further research on a wider scale, I believe that there should be more research into the views of colonised countries, as many in-depth and popular articles I came across were from the view of countries that were colonial powers or the ones that are in charge of repatriating objects. A look into the opinions of authorities from affected countries could provide valuable insight.
Bibliography
- Advisory Report for Dutch National Policy Framework for Colonial Collections
(2020). Accessed February 3, 2025 Summary of report Advisory Committee on
the National Policy … - Ali, S. (2020) ‘Should We Repatriate Museum Artifacts?: Ethics and Concern’
The Roosevelt Group. Accessed February 4, 2025 https://www.rooseveltgroup.org/quick-takes/should-we-repatriate-museum-artefacts-ethics-andconcerns - Cuno, J. (2014) ‘Culture war: The Case Against Repatriating Museum Artifacts’
Foreign Affairs Magazine. Accessed February 4, 2025
https://www.kooriweb.org/foley/museums/fa_december2014.pdf - Feigenbaum, E. (2020) ‘Understanding Artifact Repatriation Through the Lens of
Intellectual Property’ NYU Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment
Law. Accessed February 3, 2025 https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/understandingartifact-repatriation-through-the-lens-of-intellectual-property/ - Jajodia, I. H. (2018) ‘The Case Against Repatriation’ Medium. Web. Accessed
February 4, 2025 https://medium.com/@ishaanj/the-case-against-repatriationc0ff34fab504 - Nayeri, F. (2018). ‘Return of African artifacts sets a tricky precedent for Europe’s
museums’ The New York Times. Web. Accessed April 19, 2025.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/arts/design/macron-report-restitutionprecedent.html - Oxford Languages Dictionary, Artefacts Definition. Accessed April 19, 2025
https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/ - Palmer, G. L. (2023) ‘Colonial Ideologies are Embedded in Unreturned Cultural
Artefacts’ Community Psychology. Accessed February 3, 2025
https://www.communitypsychology.com/colonial-ideologies-are-embedded-inunreturned-cultural-artifacts/ - Ramirez-Trelles, I., Vivoni, M., Lopez Figueroa, J., (2024) ‘Looted artifacts:
Historical Heists and their Impact’ Journal of Student Research. Accessed
February 4, 2025
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383045381_Looted_Artifacts_Histor
ical_Heists_and_Their_Impact_on_Cultural_Heritage