By Panggah Ardiyansyah and Seng Sonetra
In early November 2023, an object-handling activity was conceived as part of the Festival of Social Science, a UK-wide festival led and funded by the Economic and Social Research Council of UK Research and Innovation. SOAS took part in the festival with the theme of Migration and Marginalisation. The SOAS-specific activities aimed at students aged 13-18 learning English as an Additional Language. These students migrated to London from different parts of the world, including the Middle East, South Asia, Eastern Africa, Eastern Europe, East and Southeast Asia.
The authors managed this object-handling activity titled “Objects on the Move”. It aimed to explain how objects function differently in diverse contexts and why objects were moved and collected. Four objects used in this activity came from the SOAS Handling and Teaching Collection, including a food bowl from Kenya, a blue and white sherd from Turkey, a female nat (local deity) statue and a lacquer plaque from Myanmar. The students were asked to wear gloves and hold the objects carefully with two hands to minimize the risk of damage. Informal feedback from one of the teachers revealed that “Objects on the Move” was one of the more popular activities, especially among the younger students.
A discussion followed on the il/legal means of collection of some of the objects and encouraged the audience to consider whether the museums need to return looted objects. This discussion was initiated by introducing the circumstances of the Benin bronzes’ removal from the royal palace of the Kingdom of Benin in 1897 and their recent display at the British Museum.
“[The object] represents other countries, and I’m happy to see unique things like this.”
The above comment summed up the general impression of the students conducting the object-handling activity. The most exciting bit of the activity was when we asked the students to describe objects’ functions and subsequently guess their origins by placing the objects on the world map. The comment also betrays the primary challenge in talking about restitution to young audience groups. While we avoided using specific scholarly jargon, the language used to speak to students still proved heavy for them. It is compounded by the fact that the students have different levels of English proficiency.
Nonetheless, some of the intended messages did come through, mainly when we talked to older students and accompanying teachers. When we asked whether museum visitors should consider the legality of displayed objects, some voiced concerns if this is the only pertinent question to be asked of them. The comment below argued for the museum being a vital contact point where people (in the UK) can learn about their diverse community.
“We must learn from the history. Dissecting it to legal or illegal sources might come bitterness. I see that history brings us together as we get influenced by one another.”
In addition, there was a student from Afghanistan who showed us a picture of giant Buddha statue destroyed in 2001, implying that it might be safe if moved elsewhere. Considering these comments together, objects might be retained for protection, conservation, and knowledge production.
Others, meanwhile, have spoken about the moral and cultural obligation to return looted objects to their origins. The most standout comments are below.
“The British should give historical pieces and pots back because it’s like stealing a part of someone’s heritage and identity and the British kind of stole it to keep in their museum.”
“I believe artefacts should be given back to the country of origin because native people will have a better knowledge, understanding and respect for the items they are talking about.”
“I feel that objects should be returned to the country of origin but that does not mean that they should not be loaned out to promote the study of other cultures and generate increasing awareness of other cultures.”
“The objects should be kept in the original countries for the sake of local people, if foreigners want to study about it they should travel there just like they travel to see them in the UK at present.”
Though advocating for return, they talked about different motivations. One mentions correcting historical injustice in the form of object theft, while another expresses the lived experience of origin communities. The last two comments are interesting as they discuss the notion of ownership while opening doors for objects to still move around the world or advocating for people to see objects in their places of origin.