The Problem with the British Museum

Samantha Siedu- A Ghanaian Perspective

On 24th January 2024, it was announced that the UK would be sending 32 golden artefacts back to Ghana under a long-term loan deal. The gold artefacts in question held significant cultural and spiritual importance to the Asante people and the Asante Kingdom and were subsequently stolen by the British as they colonised Ghana. This deal can be seen to some as a landmark moment in Britain acknowledging its colonial past, however as a Ghanaian, I don’t personally see this as enough.

The key word we have to remember is ‘loan’. The gold artefacts that were stolen by the British are only being given to the Asantehene (the monarch of the Asante people and the rightful owner of these artefacts) temporarily before they are to be returned to Britain. Whilst of course, this can be seen as a small step in the right direction, this deal to me is quite laughable.

To simplify the situation so this can be better understood, imagine you have an item of great value or significance to you. One day, a thief breaks into your house and steals this valuable item much to your horror. You then spend the next few years trying to get your valuable item back to no avail. After several years have passed and no hope of getting this item back, the thief says that they will give you your item back but only for three years then they will have to take it away again. Now imagine all of this on a bigger scale with culturally significant gold from Ghana, or the equivalent of the British Crown Jewels.

For this reason, I cannot truly be happy about these artefacts being returned to Ghana. I cannot accept or be happy that the British government have decided after 150 years that they would like to lend the Asantehene his relics for a few years and bring them back to Britain where they do not belong. The only way this situation can truly be rectified, is if all stolen artefacts, from Ghana to India, are returned to their respective and rightful owners. This to me, is the only way Britain can start to right the wrongs of British colonialism and the atrocities of the British Empire.

Anna Nix

If you are chronically online as much as me then you too have noticed a picture circling the internet of the five Caryatid statues in the Acropolis Museum in Athens. If you haven’t seen that picture, then you might be confused as to why this is interesting at all. The pun is that there used to be six statues and there is an empty pedestal reserved for the statue that is resigning in the British Museum.

That particular statue has been stolen in the nineteenth century and has not seen its five sisters since. There have been many disputes over who the rightful owner of the statue is and as much as Greece does not recognize the British Museum as its rightful owner, the museum in London believes they have legal right to own the statue. However, this statue is not the only stolen piece on display that has been demanded to be returned to its home.

Recently, the British Museum and the V&A have agreed to loan 32 Asante gold pieces back to its rightful owner – Ghana. An agreement reached between Ghana’s king Otumfuo Osei Tutu II and King Charles III, is set to last only three years with the possibility to extend the loan for another three years.

This loan once again brings forward the topic of permanently returning artefacts in British museums to their original owners. And the loan would seem as an acceptable solution if, however, it is intended as a first step towards fully returning the artefacts. On the other hand, if the British museums are only looking to taunt a solution in front of the whole world, and do not actually intend on solving the problem of stolen goods, then it seems rather disrespectful.

Even though the notion of returning the artefacts seems pretty straightforward – after all stealing is a crime, so why should the British nation be exempt from that rule? – the act of returning such artefacts is a bit more complicated. No trustees of major UK museums can permanently return artefacts in their collection because of two acts (the British Museum Act 1963 and National Heritage Act 1983), which prevent them from doing so. Nevertheless, the museums in Britain should finally own up to the crimes they’ve committed and find a legal way to return the artefacts back to their home.

As much as giving the artefacts back is the right thing to do, it is understandable why the museums in the UK are hesitant about returning stolen pieces, after all, what would they have left to put on display?

Grace Scott

The museum’s argument for their refusal to return artefacts resides solely on the 1963 British Museum Act, arguing in defence of the maintained legality of their ownership of the artefacts within its collection as determined by Parliament. However, the real question is, is this decision really Parliament’s to make?

Free entrance to the museum and the vast collections inside create an accessible and encouraging nature for exploration and enrichment. It continues to be a typical spot for school trips and its encouragement of higher academic level research alike, accommodating for varying levels of study.

Sounds great, doesn’t it? And yet whilst most of their collection is under-appreciated, as the eager child searches for the mummy coffins of Egypt, and the retired teacher searches for the Greek statues and writings, each artefact represents a fragment of history of another culture stolen away, leaving the memories of their past broken and unfulfilled.

It seems that whilst displaying a surface-level appreciation and celebration of other cultures, we simultaneously starve them of the satisfaction of a re-joined history. These artefacts aren't just pretty ornaments or historical treasures, they represent the histories of countries worldwide, some of whom have been asking for the fragments of their history back.

Equally, regardless of its quantifiable status, the obtaining of artefacts continues to act as a continued reminder of the British Militia’s thefts of artefacts as part of domination of the colonised areas. The returning of artefacts may allow this gashing wound to attempt to heal in the wake of post-colonial existence, as the British museum’s continued ownership of artefacts from the very areas it previously colonised serves to act as continued reminder of the suffering of the past.

The position of the British Museum is evidently worsened by the recent thefts, in which the sanctity of the British Musuem’s right to ownership and protection of the artefacts is brought into question by the quantity of 2,000 artefacts stolen. Ultimately, this begs the question of whether finders really deserve to be keepers, and whether the British Museum is entitled to continued domineering the history of others as its own?