Aboriginals in Australia have seized bark etchings while on loan from two British museums. The Dja Dja Wurrung tribe have accused the British museums of 'colonial arrogance'.
But the British Museum and Royal Botanical Gardens have said they are committed to preserve collections for the benefit of the worldwide public and for future generations.
The latest spat over ownership of historic artefacts comes nearly two hundred years since the Elgin Marbles case, when Lord Elgin removed 56 sculpted friezes from the Parthenon in Athens and housed them in the British Museum.
Many other countries claim to have suffered losses of artefacts including China, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ethiopia and Egypt.
Were the Aboriginals were right to seize the bark etchings? How should ownership of historic artefacts be decided? Should they be returned to their country of origin? Send us your views.
This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.
The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received so far:
 |  I am often horrified at the poor conditions of some museums in the developing world  |
Although not a resident of London I am a contributing 'friend' to the British Museum. It's service of curatorial scholarship to the world cultural community is essential in preserving historical artefacts. Most developing countries do not have the capacity for scientific research or collection care. As a curator myself I am often horrified at the poor conditions of some museums in the developing world. It may be better for those places to show reproductions, which most people can't tell from originals leaving the museums without the worry of either decay or security. It really puzzles me to hear constant complaints against the BM but few seem to talk about the loot in the Louvre, Vatican or other important heritage collections.
Linda, Toronto, Canada A more appropriate name for the British Museum would be the British Museum of Stolen Artefacts. No doubt the Australian aboriginals will be pressured or forced to give up the seized bark etchings, further tarnishing the British Museum's reputation.
Steve, Toronto Canada
| Objects have proscribed life cycles within a particular culture |
As someone who works in museums with objects from other cultures it greatly saddens me when members of the public or museum professionals claim that the objects must not be returned because they will not be cared for. Often objects have proscribed life cycles within a particular culture, this can include letting objects rot or destroying them. To indefinitely preserve such objects is as abhorrent to these cultures as destroying the crown jewels would be to us in the UK. If we truly respect other cultures then we must accept that they sometimes have different ideas about what should be done with objects. With regard to many other objects, they were often collected under conditions of colonial arrogance and brutality, this includes robbing recent graves, stealing clothing from massacred women and children (check out Wounded Knee and Antelope Creek artefacts in UK museums) and coercing people into giving up objects. Such practices were all too common and in these cases we are continuing to harm communities by holding onto objects, when instead we could return some (not all as very few objects have ever been asked for) objects and help to regenerate communities and repair the harm our grandparents and ancestors did.
Anon, UK
I am really thankful to UK government for preserving Historical artefacts from various countries which might have been lost in the world. But now its the time to give back those artefacts as they belong to Individual country, its there history, culture and dignity. UK govt. should understand this. They have taken so many things from India, the list is huge. There is no need for me to specify what are the things taken by them. I am really happy to see that Aboriginal Artefacts are back to Australia, where they originally belongs.
Rajesh Chinnawar, Yavatmal, India In my opinion, the rightful owner would be the aborigines over the simple logic that the artefacts were made by them; and that the British did not make a purchase over those artefacts. While I agree that the British Museum intends to preserve the collections for the benefit of the future generation, it does not mean that they have the right to keep it. Besides, the tribe may also have their own way of preserving their own properties.
Valentine Kristanto, Singapore
If the English gave back everything they stole the English museums would be empty!
Christos, Adelaide Australia
| Let's keep that history alive |
Although at first I was disturbed by the idea of the British Museum housing artefacts from all over the world, my standpoint quickly changed after I visited the museum. Had such artefacts remained in their home country, where resources simply do not exist to preserve them, future generations would have been deprived of these treasures. Just compare the state of Egyptian artefacts in London with those in Cairo. These are all items of history, let's keep that history alive.
Ali, Dallas, TX, USA I don't understand what makes the British think they are the only ones that can "preserve collections for the benefit of the worldwide public and for future generations." This policy is flawed.
George, US
The Aboriginals were faced with British guns, bombs, biological warfare (small pox was intentionally introduced for population eradication) and when this did not wipe them out their children were forcibly removed. When a stone age people are faced with this, do you think that they have time to save historical artefacts?
Christos, Adelaide, Australia
How would you feel if a foreign power scrounged around your country picking up historical or artistic artefacts? Would you tolerate outsiders taking the crown jewels essentially by force and putting them on display in a foreign capitol?
Dave Woods, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| Why not create a world museum |
Why not create a world museum which travels to various countries of the world. Entrance fees are charged based on the disposable income of country in which the road show is held. This would allow all nations the opportunity of viewing not only a few. The old colonial powers were thieves. It would appear that they still believe they have the right over others.
Mahomed, Toronto Canada If countries are allowed to reclaim their artefacts should we be allowed to reclaim our artefacts and art that now reside abroad? �12.5m of National Lottery money had to be spent to prevent the Churchill Papers from leaving the country. Why not just sell them and then ask for them back?
Paul, Hastings
Elgin Marbles, a solution: In this day and age, it will be perfectly possible to make exact copies of the Marbles to keep in the BM. The originals can then be returned to Greece. As a thank you for the stewardship of the BM, English passport holders could then be allowed in to see the Parthenon for free: after all, if Lord Elgin had not removed the Marbles when he did, they would not now exist, having been destroyed in the explosion that damaged so much of the Parthenon in the past.
Peter Stroud, Andover
The British Museum should be grateful for the opportunity to display the Marbles for so long. It is about time these artefacts be returned where they belong.
Kalliope, Thessaloniki, Greece
Historical artefacts, as a matter of fact and a sad reality of life belong to the last party to steal them.
Christian, London, UK
Without a doubt, historical artefacts should be returned to their country of origin. In the event that there is a reasonable likelihood of such artefacts coming to harm in their country of origin (e.g., through a lack of suitable museums, war, etc) these items should, officially, be held in trust for such rightful owners, until the conditions preventing their return no longer exist. There is no use demonising countries such as the UK, which stole many such items during the days of the Empire, as that was standard practice in those days. There is, however, no excuse whatsoever that would justify continued retention of these items if the rightful owners want them back. The desire to see them in museums is not as important as the right of the owners to receive them back and museums such as the British Museum would do well to act less arrogantly in these matters. The UK (and other appropriating countries like it) is not, and has not for some time been, the centre of the world anymore and the UK would be well advised to foster some goodwill with the countries from which it has stolen so many items. We, in India, would like to see the return of a number of items that the Empire stole from us and hopefully the Indian government will exert as much pressure as possible in that regard.
Rustam Roy, England (ex-India) On a trip to Egypt to see the magnificent Sphinx I was horrified to learn that part of it's beard is in the British Museum and will not be returned. If this should be true surely it is better to restore and protect rather than display just a small piece in the corner of a museum.
Zo� Dawson, Potton, Bedfordshire
Regardless of what might have become of them had they not been taken, the fact remains that the Parthenon marbles were removed from Greece while it was occupied by a foreign power. The Greek people want this part of their heritage back and have constructed a facility to preserve these sculptures, so there is no morally justifiable reason for the British Museum to keep them. Where historical artefacts have been obtained in dubious circumstances, and if their country of origin can demonstrate the ability to preserve them, they should be returned. It's that simple.
John Kearney, Malvern
| No earlier works exist which shows how little regard the Aboriginals had in preserving their own culture |
These charred bark etchings date from around 1850. The fact that no earlier works exist shows quite clearly how little regard the Aboriginals had in preserving their own culture. It's thanks to British Museums that these artefacts are still around today so they should remain in the possession of British Museums.
Paul, London, UK Once again the Elgin Marbles debate starts and the usual things are said. Yes, it would be nice to see them on the Parthenon, their legitimate place, but if they are given back to Greece, they will be put into a museum, not on the monument. The levels of smog in Athens are horrendous, so they cannot be in the open. If they are to be kept in a museum, let it be the British Museum, that has looked after them, it bought them through Lord Elgin, the museum was built for these sculptures to be kept, and it is a free museum for everybody. The Louvre has many things from all over the world, but there seems to be nothing against them, and it's a very expensive museum to visit. Double standards?
Vanessa Howson, UK
I wonder if all the UK people saying here that artefacts should stay where they are would feel the same way if the crown jewels, say, had been looted by Chinese gentleman archaeologists in the 19th century. No doubt we'd all be perfectly happy for our history to be sitting in Beijing Museum?
Katherine, London, UK
| Who made the British Museum World Historical Artefact watch dog? |
Does one take a child's toy away on the grounds they could possibly break it? Does one take a car from a driver on the grounds they could possibly crash it? Does one take away something from a nation on the grounds that they may destroy it? Tell me, who made the British Museum World Historical Artefact watch dog? Just give it all back. It will all fade and decay in the end. No matter who is holding these things.
A. Booyse, Stevenage 'Colonial arrogance' indeed! It's a particular form of arrogance that assumes these artefacts weren't paid or honestly traded for at the time. These items are only rare because the Dja Dja Wurrung couldn't look after similar items.
Pete, Yate, England
If previously plundered countries are anxious for us to draw a line under our imperialist/expansionist past in respect of artefacts, would it not also be logical and reasonable for us to expect such countries to take responsibility for their own destinies in other issues and for the UK to be freed from endless demands for hand-outs and compensation from failed third world regimes purely because our forefathers may have once passed through?
Andy D, Oxford UK
The artefacts are from the Aboriginals, therefore they must stay in their possession, not in a British Museum! The only thing British at British museums is the name, the entire contents is made up of items taken from different countries!
Tony, Derbyshire, UK
I saw the Parthenon carvings on a recent visit to the British Museum and they are truly magnificent. However they would look even better back on the Parthenon from where they were 'stolen'. I fully realise that the world was a different place when Lord Elgin 'brought the carvings home', but things have changed and they, plus other treasures important to their countries of origin, should be returned. Replicas could be made to display in museums in Britain, together with photographs of the originals in their rightful place. It is wonderful to see these international treasures, but I did feel that the Parthenon carvings looked a little incongruous in their 'home' in the British Museum - they are clearly shaped to fit a different building! We should consider how we would feel if someone came from a foreign country and whipped the dome off St Paul's.
Jill Cockerham, Leeds, UK Whatever the controversy now, in fairness if countries like the UK did not take these artefacts they would have been destroyed by neglect in their countries of origin, so I think the current owner should keep them. Otherwise too many ancient monuments would be ruined beyond repair propping up some farmers wall.
Paolo, St Albans
The Aboriginals were wrong in doing this, historic artefacts are only significant in the historical context therefore there ownership should reflect the historic dominance that prevailed during there discovery / seizure.
Paul Mc, Ealing London
The least we can do is give them back what belongs to them. We stole their land and tried to destroy their culture, we should at least give them their historic artefacts back.
Ian, UK
| Artefacts should stay where they can be best cared for |
Would those artefacts still exist today if the British Museum hadn't preserved them? I doubt it. The Elgin Marbles certainly wouldn't exist, they would have been stolen by Hitler or dissolved by Athens's smog. Artefacts should stay where they can be best cared for.
Peter, Nottingham UK
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
