The Long Road Home: Should Western Museums Repatriate Artifacts?

Should the thousands of artifacts looted from their countries of origin during colonial times be returned home?

Almost 900 of the Benin Bronzes, a collection of ancient Nigerian artifacts widely considered stolen, are now on display at the British Museum. Lauren Fleishman. CC BY-SA 2.0.

While archaeologists must abide by a number of strict ethical guidelines when conducting research in foreign countries, museums are seldom held to the same level of scrutiny when acquiring artifacts. Many world class museums house relics of significant historical and cultural importance, undoubtedly attracting both hordes of curious visitors and a great deal of commercial benefit. The question is, however, should these museums really be benefitting from objects that they have effectively stolen from other countries? The question of repatriating many of these looted artifacts has been the center of great controversy in recent years, as many ex-colonial countries who are victims of such theft are beginning to contest the legal ownership of these objects.

The Elgin Marbles are original parts of the Parthenon and were taken from Athens in the early 1800s to the British Museum. Wally Gobetz. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

On the prolific collection of artifacts on display at the British Museum in London, which currently have contested ownership, Professor Chika Okeke-Agulu, a renowned art historian and professor of Nigerian heritage now teaching at Princeton University commented, “You cannot claim to be an encyclopedic collector of stolen objects.” His view makes reference to the historically familiar colonial behavior that many have begun to recognize in the attitudes of the British Museum and many other similar Western institutions towards the repatriation of artifacts. Giving back the artifacts, however, may not be as simple as flying them back home. In the specific case of the British Museum and other museums in England, the British Museum Act of 1963 legally limits any desire to return the Benin Bronzes from Nigeria, the Amarvati Marbles from India and even the world famous Rosetta Stone originally from Egypt among thousands of other objects.

King Philippe of Belgium (right) returning a historical Kakuungu mask to Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi (left) during a state month in June, 2022. Cabinet of Prime Minister Alexander De Croo. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

There have been a few stories in recent news highlighting the successful repatriation of artifacts to the ex-colonies they were taken from. June of this year marked the beginning of Belgium’s pledge to return more than 80,000 artifacts looted from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) over the 75-year period during which they ruled over the colony. King Philippe of Belgium expressed his “deepest regrets” over his country’s treatment of the DRC in a letter to the Congolese president Félix Tshisekedi back in 2020, the 60th anniversary of the country’s independence. The King handed a “Kakuungu” mask handmade by the Suku people native to the southwest region of the DRC to President Tshisekedi during his state visit to Kinshasa last month. This particular artifact had been housed in the Royal Museum for Central Africa located near the Belgian capital of Brussels, a site used as a “human zoo” towards the end of the 19th century, where hundreds of captured Congolese villagers were put on display in abysmal conditions.

Turkey’s Culture Ministry claims that tiles in the Ottoman Wall display at the Louvre Museum’s in Paris were stolen from Turkey in the 19th century. Ömer Erbil. CC BY-NC 2.0. 

To the many in favor of artifact repatriation, getting the objects home is more than just about the claims of ownerships over these pieces. Many, if not all, of these artifacts is incredibly significant to the cultural and historical identities of countries that suffered under colonial rule, and this inability to access vital parts of their own histories are simply a continuation of that hardship. The popular claim among Western museums that they are simply housing the objects so that they remain accessible to all is also a contentious one. In an interview with CBC, Professor Okeke-Agulu called the argument “stupid” due to its implicit understanding that the museums are only thinking about access to visitors from other Western countries, rather than those from the African continent for whom it is extremely difficult to travel across the world to enjoy these artifacts. He and many others believe that the return of these objects is long overdue -- that these institutions need to get “on the right side of history”.

Tanaya Vohra

Tanaya is an undergraduate student pursuing a major in Public Health at the University of Chicago. She's lived in Asia, Europe and North America and wants to share her love of travel and exploring new cultures through her writing.

International Human Rights Court Rules in Favor of Trans Rights

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled that the government of Honduras was responsible for the 2009 murder of a transgender woman. Today, Honduras is one of the largest contributors to anti-trans violence in Latin America. 

Transgender pride flags. Ted Eytan. CC BY-SA 2.0 

On June 26, the Costa Rica-based Inter-American Court of Human Rights delivered a landmark ruling in a transgender rights case. The court held that the government of Honduras was responsible for the 2009 murder of trans woman and trans rights activist Vicky Hernández, stating that the government had violated Hernández’s rights to life and fair trial. 

Hernández was 26 years old when she was killed by a single gunshot to the head. No one was ever charged for the crime. 

The Court’s ruling stated that Honduran authorities did not sufficiently investigate Hernández’s death. Her murder was dismissed quickly as a “crime of passion,” and police failed to interview anyone from the scene or examine the bullet casing. It is unclear whether a postmortem examination was performed. 

Lawyers acting on behalf of Cattrachas, the LGBTQ+ rights organization that brought forward the case, argued that this incomplete investigation was a result of Hernández’s gender identity. Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights reports that during the investigation, authorities continuously identified Hernández as male and referred to her on documents and records by her birth name, which she did not use. In 2009, shortly before Hernández’s killing, Human Rights Watch published a report which found that police in Honduras routinely failed to investigate reports filed by trans people. The report also detailed the harassment and beatings that trans people had endured at the hands of the police. 

Hernández’s murder occurred on June 28, 2009, the first night of a military coup against then-President Manuel Zelaya. Zelaya was taken into custody, and the military imposed a 48-hour curfew, leaving the streets closed to everyone but military and police forces. Hernández was a sex worker, and was still on the street after curfew arrived, along with two other trans women. The three women saw a police car approaching and scattered, fearing violence. The next morning, Hernández’s body was found in the street. 

Due to the circumstances surrounding her death, lawyers for Hernández’s case posited that she was the victim of an extrajudicial killing, meaning that state agents were responsible for her death. Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights points to the execution-style way in which Hernández was shot and the fact that the streets were closed to everyone but police and military forces, as well as the lack of effort put into the criminal investigation. 

In its ruling, the Court found evidence that state agents had participated in Hernández’s death. 

Hernández’s murder was the first in a wave of anti-trans violence that followed the 2009 coup. Cattrachas documented 20 deaths of LGBTQ+ people in the 15 years before the coup, and 31 deaths in the eight months directly afterward. 15 of these 31 people were trans women, like Hernández.

Today, Latin America is still a deadly area for LGBTQ+ people. Research released in 2019 showed that four LGBTQ+ people are murdered every day in Latin America and the Caribbean, with Honduras, Columbia and Mexico accounting for nearly 90 percent of these deaths. In 2020, Human Rights Watch published a follow-up to their 2009 report, which found that LGBTQ+ Hondurans still face rampant discrimination and violence from police and other authorities, as well as from non-state actors. 

Twelve years after Hernández’s murder, Honduras is finally being held accountable for its anti-LGBTQ+ violence and being made to implement reforms. Activists hope that the ruling will encourage other Latin American countries to address their own issues with violence against the LGBTQ+ community. 

The Court’s ruling included orders for the Honduran government to pay reparations to Hernández’s family, restart its investigation into her murder and publicly acknowledge its own role in the event, train security forces on cases involving LGBTQ+ violence, and keep a better record of cases motivated by anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment. The Court also ordered the Honduran government to allow people to change their gender identity in documents and public records, which is a major step forward. The next step is ensuring that Honduras’ new LGBTQ+ legislation is actually enforced. 

Rachel Lynch

Rachel is a student at Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, NY currently taking a semester off. She plans to study Writing and Child Development. Rachel loves to travel and is inspired by the places she’s been and everywhere she wants to go. She hopes to educate people on social justice issues and the history and culture of travel destinations through her writing.