The Future of Archaeology: Who Owns the Past?
Aquila Bergstrom
Archaeology, the science of uncovering and interpreting the material remains of our ancestors, faces an urgent question today: who owns the past? This question has sparked heated debates worldwide as nations and communities seek the return of cultural artefacts, many of which were taken during colonial times. At its core, the issue transcends legality - it’s about ethics, identity, and how we choose to honour the heritage of those who came before us.
The world’s leading museums, from the British Museum to the Louvre and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, are filled with treasures from ancient civilisations that tell stories of human history. However, many of these artefacts were acquired under questionable circumstances, often taken during times of colonial rule or without the consent of the communities from which they came. International treaties, such as the UNESCO Convention of 1970 and the UNIDROIT Convention of 1995, aim to curb the illegal trade in cultural property, though these laws only apply to recent acquisitions. This leaves unresolved cases where artefacts were taken long before these conventions existed.
For Indigenous peoples and historically marginalised communities, repatriation goes far beyond the return of physical objects. These artefacts hold profound spiritual, cultural, and religious significance, serving as living links to their ancestors, traditions, and beliefs. Rather than mere relics of the past, they embody a deep connection to identity and heritage. It significantly violates these communities' rights when displayed in foreign museums without consent. Repatriation, therefore, becomes a powerful act of restorative justice, helping to heal the cultural damage inflicted by colonialism.
One recent example of repatriation is the diplomatic negotiations between the United Kingdom and Greece over the Parthenon Marbles. Despite decades of discussion, no agreement has yet been reached, underscoring the complexity of cultural ownership and restitution claims. Another recent case is Cambodia’s success in recovering looted statues from the United States, which highlights the countries' determination to reclaim cultural heritage and the diplomatic challenges involved.
The path to returning artefacts, however, is fraught with challenges. While a universal law mandating the return of all cultural items to their countries of origin might sound fair, the reality is far more complex. Some artefacts come from civilisations that no longer exist, while others are from regions with contested borders, like the Parthenon Marbles, claimed by Greece and the UK.
Even when rightful ownership is undisputed, a host of logistical challenges remain. Repatriation of artefacts requires specialised expertise, climate-controlled environments, advanced conservation techniques, and adequate display facilities– essential for preserving and restoring artefacts while educating the public. In many cases, however, countries may lack these resources, leaving artefacts susceptible to deterioration, loss of historical integrity, or even irreversible damage without proper care. Failure to implement such measures could inadvertently jeopardise their preservation, potentially leading to greater cultural loss and undermining the very purpose of repatriation.
There’s also a diplomatic element to consider. Western museums argue that they act as custodians of global heritage, providing a space for a broad, international audience to appreciate humanity’s shared history. They claim their collections transcend borders, allowing people worldwide to experience these treasures. Conversely, countries seeking to return their cultural property argue that it’s about reclaiming what was taken and restoring a sense of cultural pride and identity.
One promising approach is priortising the repatriation of sacred artefacts, such as those taken from burial sites or religious contexts. Enforcing a ban on displaying these items without the rightful communities’ consent would respect Indigenous rights and religious freedoms. Such a ban could be overseen by a neutral body like the United Nations, fostering international cooperation and trust.
As the debate over repatriation continues, the future of archaeology will likely hinge on balancing ethical imperatives with practical realities. While a sweeping law to return all artefacts may not be realistic, targeted solutions could pave the way forward, particularly for sacred and culturally sensitive items. Meanwhile, emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and blockchain could help track the movement of artefacts and prevent their illicit sale, bringing greater transparency to the often-murky world of art auctions.
The road ahead is complicated, but one thing is certain: the question of who owns the past is not just about objects in glass cases - it’s about how we choose to honour and protect the cultures that created them.
Aquila Bergstrom is an archaeologist, anthropologist, and TV presenter specialising in cultural heritage, Egyptology, antiquities repatriation, and historical storytelling. She has conducted archaeological expeditions across multiple continents, from the Pacific to Africa, and is passionate about integrating technology with heritage conservation. Aquila has contributed extensively to discussions on artifact provenance, indigenous history, and cross-cultural exchange. In addition to her academic and media work, she is developing a nonprofit focused on tracking and returning stolen artifacts.
留言