The British Museum does contain thousands of artefacts, both big and small, that were stolen/ taken without consent. The museum did not always personally aquire the items, for example when items have been donated or purchased after being looted. This is true of most, if not all, major museums across Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand (and others). The British Museum has major pieces that are clearly divisive: Elgin Marbles, The Rosetta Stone, The Benin bronzes, The easter island statues, to name but a few. But other major collecting institutions have equally divisive collections (Queen Nerfititis bust in Berlin is one example). Historically, museum collecting and collections is heavily tied with colonialist attitudes, superiority and entitlement.

There are various attitude within museums and acadeamia about these objects that were stolen. From my experience working in various museums across the world, attitudes are based around: the type of object; the country of origin; the country of the museum; understanding about connection to community; whether the object holds valuable scientific information; the draw card factor and; an overall sense of entitlement. The personal views held by more senior staff set the tone of the museum environment. My experience with some curators at the British Museum was one of entitlement to stolen ethnographic objects and dismissal as to their importance to the original community. The British Museum generally does not repatriate stolen items.

There is a push in legal, academic and from source communties to return objects. For example QC Geoffery Robertson recently wrote Who Owns History? Elgin’s Loot and the Case for Returning Plundered Treasure which discusses repatriation of objects. Robertson is involved with making a legal case for the return of the Elgin Marbles.

Conversley I have worked at other museums where repatriation of stolen objects was seen as incredibly important by curators who worked tirelessly to return objects to their source communities. This ties in with your question about whether objects are safer in the museum than the source community or country. In Australia and NZ, some museums give source communities access to objects or collections where provenance is known. This allows for cultural continuty and is a valuable learning tool for museums. Sometimes a museum will hold onto a disputed objects where the provenance is unknown but multiple communities put claim to it.

A lack of specific object provenance, for example unknown source community for ethnographic objects, is one arguement for keeping objects in museums. Scientific analysis is another (particularly in regards to human remains).

The British Museum holds a very fine and extensive collection of archaeological finds across England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. For example Sutton Hoo or the Lindow Man. I think it is an excellent exercise to imagine these objects on permanent display in Athens, Washington, Iraq, Sydney or someplace you might have to travel far to see the collections. I hope that perspective might give you an appreciation of how intriniscly valuable some objects are.