Repatriation of Artistic Artefacts: Back to the Origins

The repatriation of artistic artefacts to their places of origin is a topic that has become increasingly significant in cultural and political discourse worldwide. This process restores historically and spiritually valuable objects to the communities that created them, recognising their right to preserve and reinterpret their heritage. 

The debate extends beyond legal ownership; it encompasses the symbolic and ethical dimensions. For many non-Western cultures, certain artefacts are not only museum pieces that can be exposed behind glass but also carry profound spiritual or ancestral significance, making their public exhibition inappropriate. 

Repatriation is not only about returning physical objects to their community of origin, but also about respecting the cultural autonomy of communities to decide how or whether these artefacts should be displayed, preserved, or kept private according to their own traditions. 

In recent years, several important restitutions of artistic artefacts have taken place. For example, the Tupinambá Indigenous Cloak was returned to Brazil from Denmark, where it had been exhibited as an exotic artefact stripped of its sacred and ceremonial original context. Another example of successful repatriation was that of the Netherlands returning objects to Indonesia that were acquired during the colonial empire as well as all the Benin Bronzes that the United States, the United Kingdom, or Germany have returned to Nigeria and can now be exhibited at the Edo Museum of West African Art (EMOWAA). 

However, there are other examples where repatriations are still debated, and many cases remain highly contested regarding the return of cultural artefacts. A common and contested practice that many museums started to implement is a loan system where they don’t give up the ownership of the object; instead, they loan it to a new institution for a determined period of time. For example, the British Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum are returning a collection of gold and silver artefacts to Ghana, but under the condition of giving it back as a loan. 

Therefore, this collection, which involves a total of 17 items, including 13 pieces of Asante Royal regalia, is being framed as an important cultural collaboration that circumvents UK laws preventing the permanent return of cultural treasures. While museums acknowledge the cultural, historical, and spiritual significances of their objects, in parallel, these loan systems are seen as insufficient and only as a ‘starting point’.  

But what are the government’s positions and arguments against repatriation?

Governments and museums that hold these artefacts often put forward various arguments against their restitution. They believe that their museums provide optimal conditions for preserving artefacts and ensure their accessibility to a global audience. This reasoning suggests that repatriation could endanger the physical integrity of objects or restrict their appreciation by the wider public. Indeed, in cases where acquisitions took place centuries ago, some institutions claim that it can be challenging to establish original ownership or the exact circumstances of their acquisition, complicating restitution claims.

In response to this, UNESCO emphasises the vital role of the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in the Event of Illicit Appropriation (ICPRCP), established in 1978. The ICPRCP is a platform for bilateral negotiations between countries, offering mediation and conciliation services when the 1970 UNESCO Convention doesn’t apply. The Committee acts as an advisory and facilitative body without legal power to impose decisions. It has developed practical tools, including awareness campaigns, rules for mediation, model export certificates, and databases, to protect cultural heritage. 

In conclusion, repatriation is not only about historical justice, but also restoring cultural identity and dignity to indigenous and formerly colonised peoples. It challenges colonial narratives and fosters equitable dialogue between nations and cultures by addressing the lasting impacts of colonialism and exploitation. While legal and logistical challenges exist, prioritising respect for indigenous communities and their right to preserve, interpret, and engage with their heritage is essential. Decolonising museums and restating cultural artefacts are crucial steps towards a more inclusive and just understanding of shared global history. 

About the Author

Marina Sirvent Sánchez is pursuing a Master’s in Arts and Heritage specialising in Management, Public Policy and Education at Maastricht University. My research explores the inner workings of museums through an ethnographic and comparative exploration of the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) and the Hermitage Museum. This study aims to bridge the gap between Organisational Anthropology and Museum Studies to understand museums beyond their public-facing roles.

References 

Gabriela Pmeroy, “Denmark returns Tupinambá feather cloak to Brazil”, BBC, SEPTEMBER 13, 2024.  https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce818y325d2o.  

Caio Ruvenal, “Camila Opazo, chilean arqueologist: For non-Western cultures, some objects should not be exhibited as they have their own symbolism”, El País, December 2, 2024. https://elpais.com/planeta-futuro/2024-12-02/camila-opazo-arqueologa-chilena-para-las-culturas-no-occidentales-hay-piezas-no-deben-exhibirse-porque-tienen-su-propio-simbolismo.html. 

International Council of Museums. (2024). Ethical guidelines on restitution and repatriation. http://umac.icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/UMAC-Guidance-Restitution-2022.pdf. 

Emmaline English, “Protecting Indigenous Cultural Heritage”, The Environmental Law Center Society, March 15, 2023. https://elc.uvic.ca/protecting-indigenous-cultural-heritage/. 

Nora McGreevy, “Germany returns Benin Bronzes to Nigeria in historic agreement”, Smithsonian Magazine, April 30, 2021. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/major-push-museums-around-world-make-plans-repatriate-benin-bronzes-nigeria-180977519/. 

The Guardian, “Netherlands returns looted artefacts to Indonesia”, The Guardian, March 30, 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/06/netherlands-to-return-treasures-looted-from-indonesia-and-sri-lanka-in-colonial-era. 

Danica Kirka, “A pair of UK museums return gold and silver artifacts to Ghana under a long-term loan arrangement”, The Independent, January 25, 2024. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ap-ghana-london-west-africa-victoria-b2484695.html. 

UNESCO (2025) “UNESCO meeting gathers all African Member States for the first time to discuss return and restitution of cultural property”. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-meeting-gathers-all-african-member-states-first-time-discuss-return-and-restitution-cultural. 

UNESCO (2024) “”Return & Restitution” Intergovernmental Committee”. https://www.unesco.org/en/fight-illicit-trafficking/return-and-restitution. 

EBSCO (2021) “Repatriation of Cultural Artifacts””. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/anthropology/repatriation-cultural-artifacts-overview. 

Figures

Lula Official. “File:12.09.2024 – Cerimônia de celebração do retorno do Manto Tupinambá ao Brasil (53990692081).jpg.” Wikimedia Commons, 12 September 2024. CC BY-SA 2.0. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:12.09.2024_-Cerim%C3%B4nia_de_celebra%C3%A7%C3%A3o_do_retorno_do_Manto_Tupinamb%C3%A1_ao_Brasil(53990692081).jpg.