Katie Barr
The British Museum is like a treasure chest of human history, packed with over 8 million artefacts from all corners of the world. From the Rosetta Stone to the Parthenon Marbles, their collection is legendary. But here’s the catch – many of these priceless pieces were taken under highly questionable circumstances, often as spoils of Britain’s colonial past. Today, countries are demanding their stolen heritage back, and the pressure on the Museum to return these artefacts is stronger than ever. So, should they do it? Let’s break it down.
These artefacts aren’t just cool relics; they’re deeply tied to national identity and cultural history.
A huge chunk of the British Museum’s collection wasn’t gifted, bought fairly, or found lying around – it was taken. The Benin Bronzes? Seized in a violent raid by British troops in 1897. The Parthenon Marbles? Stripped from the Acropolis under extremely shady circumstances. Imagine someone walking into your house, taking your most prized possessions, and then displaying them in their living room for the world to admire. Sounds wrong right? That’s exactly how many countries feel.
These artefacts aren’t just cool relics; they’re deeply tied to national identity and cultural history. They belong to the people whose ancestors created them, not in a museum thousands of miles away. Egypt, among many others, have begun to demand their treasures back. Keeping them against their will doesn’t just hurt international relations – it continues a legacy of colonial control.
For years, the UK’s 1963 British Museum Act has prevented the institution from giving artefacts back. But laws can change. Other European countries, like France and Germany, have already started repatriating looted objects, setting an example that Britain may not be able to ignore for much longer. The tide is turning, and the question isn’t if repatriation will happen, but when.
Should one institution have the power to decide what belongs to “the world” versus what belongs to the people who made it?
A concern surrounding repatriation is whether returning artefacts would actually put them at risk. The British Museum prides itself on cutting edge conservation techniques, and some argue that not all countries have the infrastructure to provide the same level of care. Would some of these treasures be lost or damaged if returned? It’s a tricky question – one that assumes these nations wouldn’t prioritise their own history just as much as the UK does.
The Museum claims that it isn’t hoarding history but rather preserving it for everyone. The idea is that these artefacts belong to a global history, not just to one nation. Millions of visitors from all over the world can walk in and learn about ancient civilisations in one place. But does that argument hold up when the countries these artefacts were taken from are asking for them back? And should one institution have the power to decide what belongs to “the world” versus what belongs to the people who made it?
Some museums are exploring creative compromises
But if the museum starts returning artefacts, where does it stop? Many museums around the world house pieces from other cultures, often acquired under questionable circumstances. If repatriation takes off, would museums be left with empty halls? Or is that just a scare tactic to justify keeping things as they are? The reality is, history is messy – ownership is complicated, and many artefacts have changed hands multiple times over centuries. But does that mean we should do nothing? That is the question museums – and the world – is grappling with right now.
It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Some museums are exploring creative compromises, like long term loans that allow countries to display their artefacts while keeping them in top condition. However, the idea of a “loan” can feel like a slap in the face – especially in cases like the Parthenon Marbles, which are Greek in Origin. How can you loan something back to its rightful owner as if it wasn’t theirs to begin with? To many, this approach feels less like a step toward reconciliation and more like a reluctant attempt to maintain control.
Another option? Digital repatriation – where high-quality replicas and virtual reality experiences make artefacts accessible worldwide, even if the originals remain in the museums. These solutions don’t erase history but acknowledge that it’s time to rethink how cultural heritage is shared.
Museums shouldn’t be relics of colonialism; they should be evolving institutions of education, culture, and fairness.
As a history student living in an era of increasing awareness about colonial history, it’s tough to justify keeping looted artefacts locked in British institutions. The argument that other countries can’t take care of their own history feels outdated and patronising. Many nations now have world-class museums and preservation programs, fully capable of safeguarding their own heritage. Returning these artefacts wouldn’t erase British history – it would rewrite it in a way that acknowledges past mistakes and moves towards a more ethical future. Museums shouldn’t be relics of colonialism; they should be evolving institutions of education, culture, and fairness.
The British Museum, like many institutions, is at a crossroads. Will it continue holding onto artefacts obtained under dubious circumstances, or will it embrace the 21st century shift toward cultural justice? The world is watching, and the answer will shape how museums function for generations to come.
At the end of the day, returning stolen artefacts isn’t about erasing history – it’s about making it right.
Katie Barr
Featured image courtesy of Tamara Menzi via Unsplash. Image license found here. No changes were made to this image.
For more content including uni news, reviews, entertainment, lifestyle, features and so much more, follow us on Twitter and Instagram, and like our Facebook page for more articles and information on how to get involved.
If you just can’t get enough of Lifestyle, like our Facebook as a reader or contributor.
