European museums confronted over 'looted' items from Asia

Repatriations have been gaining momentum in recent years, amid an outcry from countries in the Global South. For some analysts, pressure on museums could be beneficial for the EU, which is trying to improve its image in the region. In January, during Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet's visit to France, President Emmanuel Macron promised to support the return of historical artifacts from the Khmer – the country's main ethnic group – and help expand the National Museum of Cambodia.

Macron is often cited as the first European leader to support the demand of Asian countries who want their antiquities back. In 2017, he had already promised to do “everything possible” to recover cultural heritage looted during French colonialism.

A few months earlier, in 2016, Guimet, the French national museum for Asian art, had agreed to return to Cambodia a 7th-century Khmer statue that had been taken from the country in the 1880s under a five-year loan agreement.

In July 2023, two Dutch museums, including the renowned Rijksmuseum, returned an extensive collection of artifacts to Indonesia and Sri Lanka, two former Dutch colonies.

In an official statement, the Dutch government states that the objects were brought unfairly during the colonial period, having been acquired through coercion or looting.

Also Dutch, the natural history museum “Naturalis”, in Leiden, returned prehistoric human remains of 41 individuals that had been removed from an archaeological site in northern Malaysia at the end of the 19th century. The bones were found in a village with estimated age between 5 thousand and 6 thousand years.

Museums have shown greater interest in the provenance of items

Recently, Germany and France announced the allocation of 2.1 million euros (R$11.3 million) to a research fund to trace the exact provenance of colonial-era African objects held in public museum collections, which sparked speculation about a similar initiative for Asian items.

A new wave of calls for the restitution of looted antiquities emerged after New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art announced it would return 14 sculptures to Cambodia and two to Thailand. The pieces had been acquired from British art dealer Douglas Latchford, accused of antiquities trafficking in 2019.

Brad Gordon, legal advisor to the Cambodian Ministry of Culture and one of the actors involved in the return of the artifacts last year, says he is in contact with museums in the United Kingdom and Paris to discuss the return of Cambodian antiquities. According to him, museums in Austria and an “important museum” in Berlin also showed interest in the topic.

Gordon says his team is currently researching the provenance of Cambodian artifacts in Germany, France, Italy and Scandinavia, as well as in private collections in Europe. “We are in research mode at the moment, and we welcome any inquiries made by museums and collectors,” he says.

DW reached out to several museums for comment on the matter, but received no response.

What is the legal basis for returning artifacts?

When a country tries to recover its cultural treasures, the main legal basis is the 1970 UNESCO Convention on Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property.

However, according to the NGO German's Lost Arts Foundation, this convention has limitations, such as the fact that it does not act retroactively, leaving out the colonial period.

The foundation emphasizes that any such agreement would require the participation of many countries, as “virtually every region of the world has been involved in colonial structures since the 15th century, at least for some time.” This means that cultural artifacts in Europe can have different origins, with different contexts of acquisition.

Some European governments have proposed national laws to decide the fate of artifacts in their museums, although many of them have not come to fruition due to a lack of political support.

The Austrian government wants to present legislation later this year to regulate the restitution of objects in national museums acquired during the colonial period.

The Weltmuseum in Vienna has recognized that many of its 200,000 objects may fit this criteria, including antiquities from Southeast Asia.

Returning items is a “valuable opportunity” for Europeans

European museums have resisted returning some of their most valuable collections.

Although Dutch museums returned hundreds of artifacts to Indonesia last year, they refused to hand over the remains of “Java Man,” the first known fossil of the Homo Erectus species discovered during the colonial era.

Experts, however, consider that the return of these artifacts could bring significant benefits to European countries, especially as they seek to expand their influence in regions such as Southeast Asia.

According to researcher Cameron Cheam Shapiro, the repatriation of artifacts is a valuable opportunity for image change: in addition to signaling commitment to international law and willingness to “recognize and correct past mistakes,” it also helps build good international relations.

A European restorative justice body?

In December, a draft resolution was presented to the European Parliament's development committee, highlighting that the European Union has not made “coordinated efforts to recognize, address and redress the lasting impacts of European colonialism on social and international inequalities.”

The text also suggested the creation of a permanent EU body dedicated to restorative justice, an approach that seeks to redress historical injustices and promote reconciliation.

Some European governments have sought to explicitly link the return of stolen artifacts to recognition of and repentance for historical colonialism.

This is the case in the Netherlands. Last year, Prime Minister Mark Rutte formally apologized for the occupation of Indonesia. A month later, two museums returned looted artifacts from Jakarta.

“It is a time to look to the future”, declared Gunay Uslu, Dutch Secretary of State for Culture and Media at the time, stating that the return ushered in “a period of closer cooperation with Indonesia” in research and academic exchanges.

According to Shapiro, if European museums returned more items, it would be “a monumental step towards a larger soft power strategy in the region, especially where anti-colonial sentiment still appears to linger.”

But he makes a point: if Europeans are after the same praise that the United States received in Southeast Asia for the return of artifacts, then they will have to “make a more public demonstration of their efforts and be willing to cooperate” with the governments of the region in their investigations.