Among the extortions of colonialism, the loss of ancient artifacts had perhaps the greatest long-term effect. For colonial powers, these relics were no more than objects of plunder, and the recognition of indigenous people as their rightful owners was swiftly set aside. For indigenous people, however, these artifacts reify their culture and history. Today, as we seek to look back and learn from the major events in recent world history, this issue becomes even more pressing as it tests our collective will to remedy past mistakes. The successor states to the colonial empires have kept the vast majority of these historic artifacts locked up in their museums — to commemorate their past superiority and to continue to capitalize on them — and in most cases have outright rejected proposals of their repatriation.

The issue of returning these antiques to their rightful owners is not at all new. There were plenty of objections during the time these relics were stolen, as well as later when the newly independent countries asked for them to be returned. However, these calls for return have almost entirely been ignored. Those benefiting from the status quo have spun quite a few tales around normalizing and justifying their unrightful ownership.

The most commonly repeated claim is that the new owners should keep the relics for their own protection and preservation. Ironically, these countries were the ones that jeopardized these objects by taking them away from where they had been safe for centuries. It must be understood that these artifacts are central to the history of the indigenous people, and that those people alone have the right to determine their place and status and commit to their preservation. It is downright patronizing and condescending to claim that other people are not capable of preserving remnants of their own history, and it bears a grotesque resemblance to colonial narratives.

Calls for repatriation of the Rosetta Stone were met with the typical counters — that repatriation of these relics is insensitive to the values of the past and undermines the place of museums in modern society. These “values” are doubtless a reference to the narrative that justified colonial conquest and extortion, and there is no good reason for any of us to respect and conform to them. Indeed, in today’s interconnected world, there is a strong need to actively detest and oppose such supremacist and exploitative schemes. Moreover, relocating these relics to museums in their home territories will in no way diminish the importance of museums in our world. Rather, it will greatly aid the aim of museums by presenting these antiques in their original historic and cultural context. If replicas, such as the fibreglass model offered to Egypt in place of the Rosetta Stone, really are a replacement for the original relics, perhaps the Western museums could house those instead and return the genuine artifacts.

Yet another argument is that returning these artifacts is too complicated a matter, because some of the rightful owner countries do not exist anymore and there are too many claimant states. A possible solution could be establishing neutral bodies to hold joint ownership of the objects on behalf of the successor states. Those states will almost certainly prefer this arrangement over having them left to the former colonizers. 

It is obvious that a major aim of the arguments and excuses against repatriation is to justify gaining profit through showcasing the artifacts. If they were kept in Western museums truly for safeguarding and not for monetary reasons, the earnings should have been sent back to the original territories. Not only do those people rightfully deserve it, the earnings — a rather large sum — can improve the economic situation of those countries and enable them to support their own museums. 

The matter of repatriation of historic artifacts is one of great and undiminishing importance, as their continued presence in Western museums reflects an exploitative and supremacist mindset on part of the colonizers and a sense of loss of heritage on the side of the former colonies. The only right decision here is to concede that these objects were wrongfully appropriated and to return them. Doing so is necessary in healing the divides caused by colonial ventures and in restoring a sense of cultural and historic ownership to the affected people.