I’d like to divert your attention from news of war and geopolitical instability for just a moment to an equally pressing issue: the decades-long debate concerning repatriation.
The repatriation of artefacts concerns the return of cultural objects to their country of origin, such as the Nigerian bronze artworks that were stolen during the Benin Expedition of 1897 by the British Empire and held in museums across the world. Thankfully, ‘military plunder actually represents a very small amount of materials that you see in museums,’ according to historian Justin Jacobs. However, with repatriation discourse reigniting in 2025, it is impossible to deny that colonial loot has ended up in Western hands. So it’s only fair to ask: should these items be returned?
The Case for Repatriation
Often, the case for reparation is a moral one. Considering that the British, Germans, Spanish, Portuguese, Italians, Dutch and French all took precious artefacts from the countries they occupied, returning these items is seen as a necessary gesture of goodwill; an attempt to reconcile with the darkest parts of our history and right historic wrongs. Even when considering artefacts that were not acquired by immoral means, empathy should arguably be shown to those asking for a piece of their history to be returned. Surely these items more properly belong in their homeland, particularly if they are of great cultural significance, than in foreign museums thousands of miles away?
Two of Easter Island’s Moai statues were taken by the British in 1868 as a gift for Queen Victoria. One of these artefacts, which is said to be imbued with the spirits of Rapa Nui’s citizens’ ancestors, is on display at the British Museum. Repeated requests for the return of these sacred objects have been refused. The Moai are said to be the protectors of Easter Island, guarding over its Indigenous population. What is more important: for the statues to be gawked at by tourists or returned to their rightful place where they can fulfil their ancient mission?
With that in mind, let’s turn our attention to a successful repatriation scheme. In 2023, Manchester Museum, which has been returning artefacts to their country of origin for over two decades, handed over 174 cultural heritage items to the Aboriginal Anindilyakwa community, an Indigenous group who live in an archipelago off the coast of northern Australia. Repatriated artefacts included mundane tools such as baskets and fishing spears, but also dolls, known as Dadikwakwa-kwa, that parents had lovingly constructed for their daughters. Being comprised of wood and seashells, Westerners would see little monetary value in these items, but their cultural value to the Anindilyakwa community is immeasurable.
Whilst these artefacts were not looted — they were bought by a PhD student studying Indigenous Australians in the 1950s and subsequently donated to the museum — they were still returned to their native land to help new generations of the Anindilyakwa people understand their cultural identity. With a population of only 1,600, keeping Anindilyakwa history alive is a challenge. But this repatriation project means ‘young people can follow in the footsteps of [their] ancestors,’ and learn to appreciate their unique heritage. It has even inspired a contemporary art programme in which Indigenous peoples can contribute their unique interpretations of Dadikwakwa-kwa.
‘We are just starting to appreciate how valuable the repatriation of [this] collection will be in the future,’ said Thomas Amagula, Deputy Chair of the Anindilyakwa Land Council, at the handover ceremony.
This is a clear example of how the repatriation of historical artefacts can strengthen the ties between nations. In addition to the cultural value of repatriation, there are also financial benefits. The return of the Benin Bronzes to Nigeria encouraged the formation of the Museum of West African Art, a secure location which simultaneously houses repatriated artefacts while boosting the local economy. And when the V&A and the British Museum recently loaned 32 pieces of looted Asante gold to the Manhyia Palace Museum in Ghana, tourism flourished. Between 2023 and 2024, visitor numbers doubled. Meanwhile, the V&A and British Museum are no worse off financially for having returned the pieces. In the case of the British Museum, which is home to eight million artefacts, it has remained the UK’s most popular attraction and one of the most-visited museums globally.
A ‘Recipe for Disaster’?
Not everyone is convinced about the benefits of repatriation. Elizabeth Weiss, Professor of Anthropology at San José State University, is a critic, calling it a ‘recipe for disaster.’ She believes that once returned to their country of origin, artefacts will ‘likely encounter theft, neglect or destruction.’ In Africa, there are numerous instances where items have been stolen from museums across the continent, including major thefts in Somalia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenya, South Africa, Mali, and a heist worth £3.7 million in the Ivory Coast, which ‘erased’ a part of the nation’s history. Conflict in the Middle East has also led to the destruction of priceless historical artefacts, such as the ransacking of Iraq’s Museum of National Antiquity during the Gulf War and the destruction of Afghanistan’s Bamiyan Buddhas in 2001. It is highly unlikely that those responsible will ever face prosecution or that the lost items will ever be recovered. Many Western museums are facing a dilemma: is returning artefacts to their country of origin worth the risk when they could potentially be lost forever?
Some argue that until developing nations improve their ability to protect their museums and the precious items housed within them, they have no right to demand that artefacts be repatriated. Others, like Ore Ogunbiyi, do not see this as an obstacle to repatriation efforts. Between 2015 and 2018, Ogunbiyi was part of a group of students who campaigned for Jesus College to return a Benin Bronze cockerel to its homeland. According to her account, the college’s Ethical Affairs Committee allegedly employed a similar argument to the one used by Weiss; namely, can we guarantee that Nigeria will look after it properly? However, Ore has never understood this line of thinking:
‘A stolen car is no less stolen because you think you can look after it better than the car’s original owner,’ she says. ‘It was always too complex, apparently, but to us it seemed rather simple: give it back.’
Besides, Western museums are hardly impenetrable. In 2003, a pest controller working at the Australian Museum was found guilty of pinching thousands of zoological specimens for his home collection. And just two years ago, the British Museum made headlines after one of its senior curators allegedly stole 2,000 artefacts over a decade to sell online. The museum’s repeated refusal to return certain items to their country of origin, coupled with this egregious oversight when it came to looking after its collection, seemed, to many, hypocritical.
Too often, the loaning or repatriation of artefacts is portrayed as an impossible debate. But it needn’t be, says Esme Ward, director of Manchester Museum: ‘We have framed it as a gain, not a loss. Once you understand that it is about building relationships, it changes everything.’
Despite some red tape, evidence shows that with willpower and collaboration, repatriation efforts can become a success for all parties involved.
DISCLAIMER: The articles on our website are not endorsed by, or the opinions of Shout Out UK (SOUK), but exclusively the views of the author.
