ADS
The Global South has been vocal in its disapproval, and as a result, repatriations have been picking up steam as of late. In its efforts to boost its image in the area, the European Union (EU) may benefit from exerting pressure on museums, according to some observers.
A statue of a Buddhist monk from Cambodia encircled by serpents
Cambodian art on display in Paris’s Guimet museum: “Everything possible” will be done to repatriate cultural artifacts that France took from other nations during colonial times, according to French President Emmanuel Macron.
The repatriation of historical relics from the Khmer, the country’s primary ethnic group, and the expansion of the National Museum of Cambodia were both pledged by President Emmanuel Macron during Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet’s January visit to France.
It is said that Macron was the first European politician to endorse the demand of Asian nations seeking the return of their artifacts. His 2017 pledge to do “everything possible” to restore artifacts stolen during French colonization was already in the works.
Not long ago, in 2016, the French national museum for Asian art, Guimet, had consented to restore to Cambodia a statue of a Khmer king from the seventh century that had been borrowed from the kingdom in the 1880s for a period of five years.
Two former Dutch colonies, Sri Lanka and Indonesia, received a large number of artifacts from two Dutch museums—the world-renowned Rijksmuseum among them—in July 2023.
The golden cannons that Sri Lanka received from the NetherlandsThe golden cannons that Sri Lanka received from the Netherlands
Cannon was sent back to Sri Lanka by the Dutch.
The Dutch government has issued a formal declaration claiming that the artifacts were obtained unjustly during the colonial era via either theft or force.
Returned from an archaeological site in northern Malaysia around the end of the 19th century are the prehistoric remains of 41 persons. The natural history museum “Naturalis” in Leiden, which is also Dutch, was involved in this recovery. The bones were discovered in a settlement that is thought to be 5,000 to 6,000 years old.
The history of an object’s origins is becoming more important to museums.
Some have speculated that a same effort would be launched for Asian artifacts after Germany and France announced the donation of 2.1 million euros (R$11.3 million) to a research fund with the express purpose of determining the precise origin of African pieces kept in public museum collections that date back to the colonial period.
Following the announcement that 14 sculptures will be returned to Cambodia and 2 to Thailand by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, a fresh surge of demands for the restoration of stolen antiques surfaced. Douglas Latchford, a British art dealer who was charged with antiquities trafficking in 2019, was the previous owner of the items.
One of the people engaged in last year’s repatriation, legal adviser Brad Gordon, is in touch with museums in Paris and the UK to negotiate the return of Cambodian antiquities. Gordon is also connected with the Cambodian Ministry of Culture. He claims that there has been interest in the subject from institutions in Berlin, as well as a “important museum” in Austria.
According to Gordon, his group is investigating the history of Cambodian antiquities held in private collections throughout Europe, as well as in Scandinavia, France, Italy, and Germany. “We are currently conducting research and would be delighted to respond to any inquiries from museums and collectors,” he said.
Museums were not contacted for comment by DW when the news outlet reached out to them.
When it comes to returning artifacts, what is the legal basis?
The 1970 UNESCO Convention on Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Cultural Property provides the primary legal underpinning for a country’s efforts to reclaim its cultural riches.
One of the convention’s shortcomings, as pointed out by the German non-governmental organization Lost Arts Foundation, is that it does not apply retrospectively, thereby ignoring the colonial era.
The foundation stresses that several nations would have to be engaged for this kind of agreement to be successful, as “almost every region of the world has been involved in colonial structures since the 15th century, at least for some time.” This implies that cultural items in Europe might come from all over the place and have been acquired in all kinds of diverse ways.
In an effort to determine what happens to museum objects, some European governments have introduced national legislation; however, few of these proposals have gained political traction and hence have not been implemented.
Later this year, the Austrian government plans to introduce a bill that would control the return of colonial-era artifacts held by national institutions.
Many of the 200,000 artifacts housed in Vienna’s Weltmuseum, including Southeast Asian antiques, may meet this description.
Europeans see item returns as a “valuable opportunity”
A number of European museums’ priceless artifacts have remained in their possession.
The earliest Homo Erectus fossil found during colonial times, “Java Man,” remains in Dutch museums. Despite returning hundreds of items to Indonesia last year, the institutions still refused to part with them.
In spite of this, experts agree that European nations stand to gain a lot by reclaiming these antiquities, particularly if they want to increase their sway in Southeast Asian countries.
Cameron Cheam Shapiro argues that returning antiquities is a great way to improve one’s reputation as it demonstrates a desire to comply with international law and “recognize and correct past wrongs” while simultaneously fostering positive relations with other countries.
A system of restorative justice in Europe?
A resolution that was suggested to the development committee of the European Parliament in December brought attention to the fact that the EU has failed to make “coordinated efforts to recognize, address and redress the lasting impacts of European colonialism on social and international inequalities.”
A permanent European Union organization devoted to restorative justice—an approach that aims to correct past wrongs and foster reconciliation—was also proposed in the text.
The repatriation of stolen antiquities has been firmly associated by certain European countries with acknowledging and apologizing for colonialism in the past.
Indeed, this holds true in the Netherlands. A official apology for the occupation of Indonesia was issued by Prime Minister Mark Rutte last year. Recovered treasures from Jakarta’s two museums were returned a month after they were taken.
The homecoming marked the beginning of “a period of closer cooperation with Indonesia” in research and academic exchanges, according to Gunay Uslu, the Dutch Secretary of State for Culture and Media at the time. “It is a time to look to the future,” as Uslu put it.
Shapiro claims that further object returns from European museums would constitute “a monumental step towards a larger soft power strategy in the region, especially where anti-colonial sentiment still appears to linger.”
His point, though, is valid: Europeans will need to “make a more public demonstration of their efforts and be willing to cooperate” with regional governments in their investigations if they want to receive the same level of praise in Southeast Asia as the United States did for the return of artifacts.
