Should the British Museum be broken up?

[Howtoaccept]

Is it time to return all treasures and other objects to the countries that they came from. Some were looted and some were bought or genuinely donated but do they belong in London? The ones that are on loan return to the families that have donated and they can be in private collections or go back to the country of origin.

Ive heard the argument that it means visitors can see things from all over the world in one place. I presume that could be achieved by some of them becoming part of travelling exhibitions. Some are very fragile so will need to be moved carefully, but ultimately they are not from the UK.

Well because the British Museum is British, ain't nothing the UK can do about the Louvre

I don't think it needs to be broken up, but key finds, if looted, ought to be returned if requested and they can be looked after properly in their countries of origin.

I suspect it most cases the BM and similar museums could negotiate to keep some items.in return for giving back key pieces, so it would still be a world collection under one roof, which does have great value.

No need to return items donated or gifted.

There are now incredible museums in India maintained by the Aga Khan Foundation, so not subject to government corruption or apathy.
Mughal artefacts could be returned to them.

In theory nice. But a lot of, um, developing countries cannot or will not properly steward them.

Look what happened to the Benin bronzes.

It’s not ‘theirs’ to have, because in many cases, there is no cultural or even genetic continuity. They never cared for nor even bothered to research anything about these cultures that only occupied the same space many hundreds or even thousands of years apart

The Rosetta Stone maybe should be given back to France though!!!

I think some originals are not loaned because the country of origin may not return them.

it was a stupid idea - the donations was just practical of not having a museum.
sorry I started it

No. The British Museum has free admissions and its collections are seen by more people from more countries than they would be if split. It is also a centre of excellence for conservation and research, which means these collections will exist in the future and we will understand more about them. Breaking it up would be politically motivated vandalism.

Sure. Except I have listed many ' developing country' museums which I have personally visited.

Sure sure

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/king-tuts-beard-fell-and-was-glued-back-epoxy-180953992/

Germans had to ultimately repair it

You are not dumb OP, it’s a highly recognised and academically studied controversy to museum collections and is something that is discussed and studied as part of the training to become a museum curator.

You are not wrong, it is a valid opinion to have, many very well educated academics hold similar (and opposing) opinions. No explicit right or wrong answer here.

If you’re interested in this topic Google the Jewish manuscripts found in Afghanistan and the fall out from that.

They are seen by people with privileged passports and wealth. The average Indian or Egyptian or person from a smaller African country will never be able to afford to see them.

Difficult one.

There are obvious cases like the Elgin Marbles where they should just go back. It's also true that, even with the recent thefts, some of the items would be getting returned to places where they're much less likely to be kept safely for a multitude of reasons. It's a hard truth that if, say, the Buddhas of Bamiyan had (somehow) been transported to a field in Oxfordshire, they'd still exist now.

But just because somebody/an organisation might be able to arguably make much more of something than the rightful owner, that doesn't justify then appropriating it.

Supposing you had a fancy all-singing-all-dancing oven that you only ever used to reheat beige freezer food - maybe one that you didn't buy yourself but which you inherited from your grandmother - and your neighbour was a skilled chef who could use it to make all kinds of amazing and varied culinary sensations that all of their dinner party guests would rave about in perpetuity... thaf doesn't justify them demanding that you hand it over to them, or them breaking in when you're out and just taking it.

However frustrating it may be for others when somebody has something that many see as precious, but the owner doesn't look after, that doesn't stop them being the owner.

Supposing a celebrity had a personal diary that revealed a lot of salacious and upsetting family details (nothing that a law court could legitimately be interested in) - or even just spoke of their very painful, deeply embarrassing struggles in their modest earlier life that they had managed to shake off and wanted to put behind them forever... if their family wanted to burn it after their death - maybe the deceased had even requested this - would fans have a 'right' to demand that the diary be given to them instead (or just to take it) because they believed they knew what 'should' happen to it?

We could go back and forth on this all day.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/nov/12/helenasmith

I think it being called "the British museum" doesn't help people's thoughts about this. Most museums around the world have treasures that don't come from their country.

Abolish museums
Abolish the monarchy
Abolish borders
Abolish nuclear weapons

Can’t believe some of the barbaric practices we are still engaging in as a society in 2025.

Many of these countries have no cultural or even genetic ties to these cultures. They didn’t care about them at all, never bothered to research them.

There are a few controversial ones like the Benin Bronzes, Elgin Marbles and Old Summer Palace objects, which should be dealt on a case by case basis.

But as a principle? No. Most countries never cared about this heritage. Let’s not forget that the Rosetta Stone was being used as a foundation stone for an Ottoman fort, no local recognized nor cared about its significance. Took a Frenchman to see it. Many such cases, unfortunately

Well if we only had treasures that came from our country, we wouldn’t exactly have very much to show would we? British culture is very much predicated on stealing other people’s culture and making it our own. 😂

Anyway OP, your question is not stupid. Similar issues now continue to be debated in museums The BM's new India exhibition was partly curated by community members, for instance, because in previous exhibits Jain idols were displayed wrongly.

Similarly the Petrie Museum now lists the names of the Egyptian diggers who actually helped excavate treasures.

Indeed.

Its a terrible idea not because we should "keep it" but because the institution is a trusted and proven guardian of incredible artefacts who we know can be entrusted to continue to preserve them with them being "lost" into private collection or mishandled / misstored and destroyed or damaged.

There may be a case of returning artefacts. When my ds asked a polite and related question during a BM tour, the guide looked very much less than happy 😂

That happened in the 1930s.

The damage to Tut’s mask was like a few years ago.

The Greeks have a case for the return of the marbles. But in the 1930s, they certainly did not care or even know much about this history.

Yes but genuinely, if it was called "the World History Museum" do you think people would have such a problem with it?

There's a pretty good article on the farce of Germany's Benin Bronzes, and why, despite being repatriated, they still aren't available for Nigerians to see and appreciate.
If you don't want to read the whole article, internal politics and fighting over who they rightly belong to.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2025/oct/12/restitution-row-how-nigerias-new-home-for-the-benin-bronzes-ended-up-with-clay-replicas

I absolutely agree that we should give back items that were looted. However I don’t agree that we should hand back items that were donated or on loan, that’s just bonkers - the owners have passed on the responsibility of these items being looked after to the museum for good reason, plus they want them to be seen rather than hidden away in a vault.

This ⬆️.
I think it's such a simplistic view to have it "broken up". Pointless as well, it's not going to reverse colonialism, nor any events of the past.

Yes the idea of giving back donations was stupid