Heritage Held Hostage

Colonial Histories

How did museums in Britain and Ireland acquire looted cultural material from far flung reaches of the British Empire?
Each looted object or being has their own provenance story, but it is useful to consider the broader histories of colonisation throughout the world. 

Ireland

Colonial policy in Ireland in many ways served as a dress rehearsal for later exploits of the Empire, providing a step-by-step manual for colonisation of other Indigenous people (Rahman, Clarke and Byrne 2017, 15). This early imperialism was largely based in resource extraction, and capitalist ideals which originated in the English countryside and were transported to British colonies, the first of which being Ireland (Jones 189). The capitalist aim of extracting resources from colonies paved the way for the extraction of cultural material as well. Ireland was no stranger to removal of cultural wealth by the passing of the British Museum Act in 1753. As part of the ‘United Kingdom’ for much of Britain’s colonial era, Ireland too was under the jurisdiction of Treasure Trove Common Law. As such, Irish ‘treasure’’ was determined to be rightfully owned by the British crown, and the Royal Irish Academy (RIA) was granted acquisition of Treasure Trove objects in Ireland from 1860 (Costello 1997, 157). One such case in which this legislation was put into practice was that of the Broighter Hoard.

Discovered near Derry by farmers in 1896, the hoard of fine gold object was taken from the site and sold to the British Museum by the antiquarian collector dealer Robert Day for £600 (Warner 1999, 69). Day had neglected to go through the proper channels for reporting finds of treasure to the government, which would have allowed the Royal Irish Academy, under the jurisdiction of the British monarchy, to acquire the objects. As the hoard had been acquired by the British Museum, deaccessioning of the material was prohibited except by Act of Parliament (Warner 1999, 71). Irish Solicitor-General Edward Carson argued that the hoard was Treasure Trove and therefore belonged to the British crown (Warner 1999, 72). The British Museum’s counterargument consisted of broad generalisations with the ultimate point that the objects were of too fine a quality to have been created by Indigenous Irish craftspeople, and therefore did not belong on Irish soil. Ultimately the hoard was deemed to fall under the jurisdiction of Treasure Trove Common Law, though the process of the British Museum returning the objects was not so simple (Ireland 2014, 86–87). A Bill was presented to Parliament ‘to enable the transfer of certain Irish Antiquities from the British Museum to the National Museum, Dublin’ in 1898 which would have allowed for the returns as a special consideration for Irish material in the British Museum, however the Bill was not subsequently passed due to direct intervention by the ‘friends of the British Museum’ (Ireland 2014, 87). What followed was a court case which saw the British Museum and the RIA attempting assert claims over the finds (Ireland 2014, 95). The conclusion to the case came when the finds were found to be Treasure Trove and Edward VII ordered the objects returned to Ireland (Warner 1999, 74; Ireland 2014, 103). While the decision in this case benefitted Irish national cultural collections, this was certainly not the norm.

Many Irish antiquities were removed from Irish soil and taken to Britain. Often it seems to have been a lack of legislation which allowed for such removal. Antiquarians such as Thomas Lalor Cooke collected invaluable Irish antiquities such as the Bearnán Chúláin bell-shrine  which was part of a large private collection later removed from Ireland and sold to the British Museum in 1854 (Murray 2016, 25). Anglo-Irish antiquarian and dean of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin, Henry Richard Dawson, also amassed a large collection of antiquities including a portion of the Late Bronze Age Dowris Hoard which was later purchased by the British Museum (Dawson 2023, 101, 123). Legislation did not set out restrictions on such removals. Other collectors such as Pitt Rivers and Thomas Tobin also acquired antiquities though private sales that were not regulated by Treasure Trove Legislation. Many of these antiquities were ultimately removed from Ireland and donated or sold to museums in Britain, such as the South Kensington Museum, which is now the V&A, the British Museum, or Oxford University, at what is now the Pitt Rivers Museum (The British Museum 2023c, 2023b; Pitt Rivers Museum 2023). Despite the Treasure Trove legislation that saved the Broighter hoard for Ireland, many antiquities were looted or otherwise removed from their contexts.

South America

Exportation of cultural material also went largely unregulated in British colonies in South America. As early as 1595 Sir Walter Ralegh wrote to Elizabeth I of the riches of ‘Ingan’ empires in the West Indies, which with the sovereign’s consent, were ripe for the taking (Heaney 2016, 609–610). Following in the footsteps of the Spanish, English forces soon began to exploit gravesites for riches, under the guise of understanding Native cultures (Heaney 2016, 615). This intelligence gathering was intended to provide information on religious beliefs as well as sources of wealth, providing colonising English forces with an abundance of ‘treasure’ as well as an understanding of belief systems in their newly acquired territory (Heaney 2016, 623).

The nature of British colonisation in South America is unique in that land was primarily acquired for use as plantation land rather than settlement. With this came the forced movement of enslaved Africans as a labour force, and the displacement and genocide of Indigenous peoples. Thus the removal of cultural material is complicated not only by the migration of non-white enslaved populations, but also a lack of continuity in settled populations. The removal of cultural material certainly did still occur, and imposed legislation did either allow for it or make provision for it, however it is notable that this cultural material comes not only from Indigenous peoples, but also from non-Indigenous enslaved populations.

Official colonial legislation in the West Indies is in many cases not well documented, if in existence at all, until the 18^th century. Courts were commonly presided over by English officials with no understanding of native law, customs, or society (Bernard 2014, 20). Jamaica began to be colonised by English forces in 1655, and quickly gained the reputation of being the wealthiest colony in the British Empire (Zahedieh 1986, 205–206). The island served as port of call for all English ships in the region (Hunt 2013, para.6). Colonising forces took advantage of the geography of the Caribbean, looting around the region, and exporting wealth as contraband on slave ships. While much of the exported wealth came from looted mines, there are documented incidents of the exportation of valuable objects, including ‘a sword garnished with diamonds’ (Hunt 2013, para.7). In the case of Trinidad and Tobago legislation is better documented from 1888. Britain colonised Trinidad and Tobago beginning in 1797, and until 1888 legislation in the region was separate from British legislation, being a holdover from earlier Spanish rule (Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 1897, 291–292). It does not appear than any provisions were made for the protection of cultural material, nor against looting and it is clear that cultural material was exported to Britain, as the British Museum currently houses at least 530 items from Trinidad and Tobago, many of which were removed during the colonial occupation (The British Museum 2023a).

Law in British Guyana appears to have been more directly applied by members of an aristocratic class, who treated the colony as a fiefdom, with Indigenous, enslaved African, and indentured East Indian populations paying homage to European settlers (Mars 2002, 50). There was a strict social order which kept enslaved Africans and indentured Indians in a consistently oppressed state without the possibility of freedom, and kept Indigenous nations firmly on the outskirts of society (Mars 2002, 51; 60). While there was no law prohibiting or allowing for the removal of cultural material back to Britain, the strict social order and monopolised industry in the region would have ensured European invaders the ability to rob the land of what goods and resources were available, including cultural heritage. Later on, in the twentieth century with the Civil Law of Guyana Act, English common law was being applied to ‘immovable and movable property’ in British Guyana, however there is nothing in the Act specifically governing the removal of property, or the sale of cultural heritage (British Parliament 1916).

North America

Early North American colonial legislation differs from that of South American colonies: where wealth extraction was the primary agent of legislation in South America, permanent European settlement and expansion was that agent in North America. Early legislation sought to secure colonies like Jamestown as English holdings, and to protect settlements there. In that effort, martial laws were set out in the colony of Jamestown outlawing any interference with Native churches, temples, or dwelling houses for fear of upsetting the Native nations which were so crucial to the survival of early colonial America (Heaney 2016, 637). As with South American colonies, grave-opening was a common treasure-hunting method, which provided information on Indigenous cultures in North America as it had further south (Heaney 2016, 623). However unlike in colonies like Jamaica and British Guyana, there were specific declarations attempting to protect Indigenous cultural material, possibly due to ongoing difficulties securing food to keep the settlement alive during the ‘Starving Time’ (Heaney 2016, 637). While this may have staved off looting at the colonies earliest stages, the legislative protection of cultural material did not last forever.

Quickly, law became a means by which colonising forces could control new colonies, and organise them into an easily governed society (Tomlins 2010a, 69). Legislation effectively became a weapon of colonisation against which the colonised often had no defence.  As with Ireland and South American colonies, the concept of common law in North American colonies also existed, as it was English subjects, loyal to the English Crown who controlled legislative protocol in the early colonies (Walters 2010, 94). It was not only common law, but Roman law too which laid the groundwork for colonisation (Tomlins 2010a, 188). The concept of terra nullius or ‘no man’s land’, the idea that land is uninhabited by civilised societies, served as justification for colonisation in North American colonies, as well as in other regions around the globe (Bachmann and Frost 2012, 312). While terra nullius was not officially codified into law, it was an assumed basis for colonial action in British colonies. Relatedly, the Roman concept of res nullius or ‘goods without an owner’ was not applied to found treasure or cultural material, as it was deemed to have an owner, though who that owner was might be disputed (Dawson 2023, 5). In the sixteenth century a law scholar at Oxford, Alberico Gentili, argued through terra nullius, that colonisation was a law of nature, and should justly be carried out by ‘civilised’ societies (Tomlins 2010b, 56). From this same line of thinking came a policy stating ‘property taken from enemy is forthwith the property of the taker’ (Tomlins 2010a, 118). Under Roman law ‘the first taker’ was permitted to acquire all manner of objects, from ‘gems, stones, and pearls’ to ‘things captured in war’ (Tomlins 2010b, 56). Such a statement wholly encompasses any loot that may have come into the possession of colonising forces in the process of invasion.

Property acquisition by means of Roman law imposed by invading British forces unsurprisingly conflicted with pre-existing Indigenous legal standards. The legal assumptions dealing with land and inanimate objects are inherently Western, and were not shared by those who had occupied the land for millennia prior to colonisation. This is the case not only in the Americas, but across many British colonies. A belief in a natural superiority by the British formalised terra nullius as justification for colonisation (Ferris 2003, 156). It was a law of nature that allowed, and indeed obligated, the invading force to take possession of land and objects. As Indigenous people in North America were thought to have neglected the land by not cultivating it, British settlers had a moral obligation to seize that land (Tomlins 2010b, 60). Despite the claim of terra nullius, the British crown formed many treaties with Indigenous nations, creating a legal precedence for Indigenous sovereignty (Ferris 2003, 157). The Royal Proclamation of 1763 established treaty lands under British Law, ensuring that colonial settlers would not infringe on the established lands of Indigenous nations (George III 1763). The minimal effort to halt migration of settlers was futile. While the outcome of such legislation prior to the Independence of the thirteen colonies which formed the United States can be speculated on, it is unlikely that such proclamations would have kept expansion from occurring, as they did not in Canada (Ferris 2003, 157). While this proclamation speaks primarily on land rights and acquisition, it is applicable to the legislation of ownership in general, and provide an understanding of the context in which acquisition of cultural material took place. This is not to say, however, that legislation protecting cultural material did not exist in this period. In a 1797 proclamation by Peter Russel, a British administrator in Canada, subjects of the British crown were ordered to stop the looting of Mississauga burial grounds under threat of prosecution (Ferris 2003, 158). While Russel did intend to mitigate cultural losses by the Mississauga, the proclamation was likely primarily made to protect British-Ojibwe relations.

It is important to note that in many regions including those in North America law differed between colonies, with laws set out by the Virginia company differing for instance from the laws set out by the governor of Massachusetts. In seventeenth century Virginia ‘Indians’ were granted a natural right to ownership of some land, but not a right to obscure European settlement (Tomlins 2010b, 62–63). Such obstructions would be cause for warfare and looting (Tomlins 2010b, 64). Land acquisition in New England colonies differed slightly in that Indigenous nations were forced to purchase land from the settlers. One instance recorded in Massachusetts Bay colony in 1658 shows a twelve acre field being purchased by the Nolwotogg nation in exchange for ‘220 fathoms of wampum, a coat, and other consideration’ (Springer 1986, 39). It was through such ‘purchases’ as these that early British settlers acquired Indigenous cultural material. Indigenous-made goods were also exchanged at later stages in Canada, when nations were forced to negotiate treaties under duress (Dempsey 2015, 95). In these cases it was legal measures which directly aided in the removal of cultural material from its original custodians.

Asia

The earliest heritage legislation in British colonies in Asia focused on the protection of monuments, with the Bengal Regulation XIX of 1810 and the Madras Regulation VII of 1817 (British Parliament 1810, 1917). The regulations provided the British East India Company with control over monuments in the region. Similarly, Act XX of 1863 gave the government further control over religious buildings, providing the government with the ability to preserve historic buildings as they (the colonising force) see fit (British Parliament 1863). Later on in British controlled India the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act (1904) further provided for the protection of national monuments in India due to their cultural value (Rao 1980, 108). Yet the legislation also allowed for the legal purchasing of monuments and antiquities, permitting the removal of cultural material from India, and its transportation to Britain (Imperial Legislative Council of India 1904, sec.4.1). Rather than outlawing the removal of monuments and antiquities, this legislation, and other statutes like it in other regions provided avenues for antiquarians to legally grow their collections and transport priceless artefacts to Europe. While it is unclear whether these acts expressly prohibited interference with cultural material within historic buildings, looting still did occur.

On the Indian subcontinent a British uniform not only permitted looting, but was expressly used for that purpose (Finn 2018, sec.2.8). During many conflicts in the region, loot was seen as a form of tax paid to the British East India Company, until 1858 and the British colonial government thereafter (Ohlmeyer 2018, 84). Theft was so rampant in the region that even the word ‘loot’ came into the English language in the nineteenth century from the Hindi ‘lut’ meaning ‘the spoils of war’ (Finn 2018, sec.4.1). This is not to say that these regions were completely without antiquities legislation. Rather that despite antiquities legislation, looting did still occur.

The first piece of legislation dealing directly with cultural material is the Indian Treasure Trove Act of 1878. The Act differs from Treasure Trove common law in a British context as it provides the finder with more rights to ownership, rather than the British crown (British Parliament 1878). This law may have made it easier for finders, or the antiquarians who purchased the finds, to remove objects from the state, as there was no innate ownership by the crown or government.

Looting was not only confined to the Indian subcontinent. It also took place in British-controlled Hong Kong. Similar to the situation in India, a British military uniform in Hong Kong provided a license to loot. During invasions by British forces looting by colonial officers was widespread (Gallagher 2017, 480). No law protecting cultural heritage was passed in Hong Kong until 1976 with the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (British Parliament 1976). A lack of legislation in this case may have contributed to an ease of export of cultural material back to museums in Britain. There are currently over 1500 objects originating in Hong Kong within the collection of the British Museum, and while certainly not all of them were looted, it is likely that some of them were (The British Museum 2023a).

Oceania

The legislative history of British-controlled Oceania most closely parallels the legislative history of British North America due to a reliance on the concept of terra nullius. While the concept was not codified in law, it was the foundation for colonial law (Bachmann and Frost 2012, 312). Unlike in North America, the concept of res nullius or ‘property of no one’ did apply to ownership over objects in Oceania (Ruddy 1968, 274). Through this, the takings of cultural material was justified, as Australia was deemed to be ‘a land empty of peoples, laws, and systems of governance, and thus ripe for colonisation’ (Plata 2022, 168–169). Relatedly, the Doctrine of Discovery was used as a justification for colonisation and through that, the removal of cultural material for the purposes of discovery was permitted. It is the Doctrine of Discovery and res nullius that likely led to the removal of cultural material such as the Gweagal Shield. Either the shield could have been taken as it was seen as abandoned, or because Indigenous Australians were not seen as fit to own property.

As with the case of North American colonial legislation, English common law was never directly legislated in British colonies in Oceania. There was however an assumption that colonial settlers, being subjects of the British crown, were also subject to common law (Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 1897, 279). In certain parts of colonised Oceania, such as New South Wales, English law was directly imposed by governing forces, as the colonies were an extension of Britain, directly under parliamentary governance (Castles 1963, 3). With the 1828 Australian Courts Act, colonies in Oceania were solidified as being under the direct control of much of English Law (British Parliament 1828). Under this act, New South Wales, Tasmania, and Victoria were officially subject to common law, including Treasure Trove common law. Later on in the nineteenth century, laws in Australia and other colonies in Oceania were more distinct from British parliamentary law (Castles 1963, 10). By 1856 legislative councils were developed in individual colonies, which were able to pass laws only applicable to that state (Castles 1963, 22–23).

British law in the region was in direct contradiction to Indigenous laws and customs, and often was intended to be genocidal towards Indigenous groups (Bachmann and Frost 2012, 313). Through this process of ethnic and cultural genocide, Aboriginal people were disavowed of property rights, as well as many other rights that were available to white settler populations. It is no surprise that Indigenous cultural heritage was not protected by legislation until later. The earliest Act doing such in the region was the Māori Antiquities Act of 1901. This law primarily protected against the export of material culture, without lawful purchase and permission by the government. (New Zealand Parliament 1901). It sets out the meaning of Māori antiquities as ‘relics, articles manufactured with ancient Māori tools and according to Māori methods, and all other articles or things of historical or scientific value or interest and relating to New Zealand, but does not include any private collection not intended for sale, nor botanical or mineral collections or specimens’ (New Zealand Parliament 1901, sec.2). The Māori Antiquities Act of 1908 further limits any exportation of antiquities, allowing for direct halting of non-approved exportation by the police, as well as instituting a fine for the illegal removal of Māori cultural heritage (New Zealand Parliament 1901, secs5–6). Critically, this does not cover antiquities exported through private sale.

Australian legislation protecting Indigenous cultural heritage did not occur until later. Archaeologists lobbied for protections of archaeological sites and Indigenous material culture in the 1930s, though at that point much looting had already taken place (Smith 2000, 110). It was not until the 1960s however, that formal legislation protecting material culture was passed with the Native and Historical Objects and Areas Preservation Act of 1955-60 (Eze-Uzomaka 2014, 136). By that stage countless pieces of cultural heritage had been stolen from its original custodians.

Africa

British colonisation in Africa began on different footing than it had in the Americas and Oceania. Unlike in other regions, trade between Europe and Africa existed well before European colonisation and invasion began with commercial endeavours (Mann and Roberts 1991, 10). It was not until the anti-slavery movement that British military forces were provided with the justification for expansion into Africa, and for the Westernisation of legal norms having to do with property (Mann and Roberts 1991, 28). Early legislation in British colonial Africa focused primarily on creating ‘rule of law’ in a supposedly savage continent (Joireman 2001, 572). British colonisation brought with it British rule of law, including common law and a dependence on lawyers and administrators (Joireman 2001, 575). Local Indigenous legislative systems did exist, and continued to exist throughout the early stages of British colonisation (Joireman 2001, 578). Regardless of these pre-existing legal systems, English common law was imposes, and it was this application of common law, and the acquisition of land for colonising purposes that allowed for looting to take place (Hicks 2020, 113).

In some parts of British governed West Africa, loot was an expected part of violent colonisation. Even as recently as the mid-nineteenth century British forces in West Africa were not prohibited by law from destroying cultural material (Spitra 2020, 337). Alongside destruction, was, unavoidably, theft. As with the situation in British colonies in Asia, a British uniform worn by coloniser and colonised alike in Africa was often seen as a ‘licence to loot’ (Killingray 1986, 423). The removal of the Benin Bronzes by British soldiers as a part of a punitive expedition in supposed retribution for an ambush illustrates this licence well (Hicks 2020, 142). Like many British colonies in Africa, Southern Rhodesia, or what is now Zimbabwe, was invaded and exploited primarily for its resources, including objects of cultural patrimony (Basu and Damodaran 2015, 262). Similarly to the justification given for removing antiquities for Ireland, the British forces of the British South Africa Company (BSAC) justified the destruction and removal of Zimbabwean antiquities with the argument that the monuments and antiquities were of too fine a quality to have been created by Indigenous people, and therefore did not rightfully belong to that land (Basu and Damodaran 2015, 246). Under the control of Cecil Rhodes, the BSAC directly granted permits for the removal of cultural material (Basu and Damodaran 2015, 247). As a response to such exploitation, the Ancient Monuments Protection Ordinance of 1902 was passed by British parliament, marking a change in how African monuments were viewed (Basu and Damodaran 2015, 245–246). Whereas previously places of cultural heritage in Southern Rhodesia had been viewed as storehouses of riches to be plundered at will by invading European forces, this Act demonstrated a change in that thinking, protecting such monuments and the relics inside from damage and ruin at the hands of British military forces and prospectors. Notably, the Act only protected monuments fating prior to 1800, omitting a wide array of more recent sites and ethnographic material from the protection ordinance (Ndoro 2005, 12).

Protection of cultural sites and material in other regions did not come until later. Legislation protecting Kenyan antiquities and monuments first began with Kenya’s 1927 Ordinance (Basu and Damodaran 2015, 253). It was based on the Indian Ancient Monuments Preservation Act of 1904 and was instituted following a series of important paleoanthropological discoveries, deemed to be important to the understanding of human origins, as a measure of safeguarding heritage. Similar ordinances were passed elsewhere in British colonial holdings, such as Tanganyika, now Tanzania, and Uganda in the same period (Basu and Damodaran 2015, 254). Prior to this ordinance, Uganda had no legislation governing antiquities whatsoever. Protective legislation did not exist in British West Africa until slightly later, with the passing of the 1939 Antiquities Ordinance 17 in Nigeria, prohibiting the export of ‘antique sculptural works of art’ (Basu and Damodaran 2015, 258). A response to the discovery of cast Bronze heads in Nigeria, the ordinance not only protected against unregulated export, but also established museums in which Indigenous cultural material could be held (Eze-Uzomaka 2014, 140). The ordinance was not easily enforced, and while it did lead to the creation of museums, it did not eliminate looting. The issue of difficulty of enforcement is common in these ordinances, leading to continual removal of cultural material even after legislation was in place. It was not until the establishment of an Antiquities Commissions post in 1953 that the legislation began to carry significant weight (Basu and Damodaran 2015, 261).

Middle East

The backdrop of antiquities legislation in the Middle East is centuries of interest in ancient monuments by imperialist European forces. Prior to direct British control in the Middle East, legislation was put in place by authorities of the Ottoman Empire to protect the region from growing foreign interests in antiquities and to ensure any removal from the region would directly benefit the occupying force monetarily (Kersel 2010, 85). In 1874 the Ottoman Law on Antiquities primarily vested antiquities ownership in the empire, though ownership of some cultural material was granted to landowners and archaeologists, which ultimately allowed artefacts to be sold off to the highest bidder (Kersel 2010, 87). A decade later in 1884, another act was passed, explicitly prohibiting the removal of artefacts, stating ‘All types of antiquities extant or found, or appearing in the course of excavation automatically belong to the occupying force and their removal or destruction is illegal’, thereby nationalising cultural heritage within the Ottoman Empire (Kersel 2010, 86). Identifying ancient, as well as more recent cultural material with a nationalistic ‘Ottoman’ identity proved to be problematic for the protection of cultural material. As Ottoman heritage does not necessarily include Persian heritage for example, governing powers did not see fit to protect the cultural heritage of those cultures, and allowed artefacts to be removed as they did not fit into a solid ‘Ottoman’ identity (Kersel 2010, 86).

Later, as the British Empire took control of some of the regions, the removal of antiquities from British colonies back to Britain began to be governed by British law. As early as the mid-nineteenth century, Britain began to have a colonialist impact on Iran, with the country serving as the meeting point between British and Russian forces (Abdi 2001, 53). Iranian cultural material became a target in the midst of international conflict. From at least the 1770s foreign antiquarians were permitted to excavate Persian sites with the approval of the Shah (Abdi 2001, 54). In 1907 Iran was divided between Britain and Russia with the Anglo-Russian Agreement, and the Anglo-Persian Treaty of 1919 made Iran a semi-Protectorate of Britain, further providing British antiquarians with access to antiquities (Abdi 2001, 55–56). With the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of the First World War British rule in Palestine began (Kersel 2010, 88). Unlike under the previous Ottoman regime, antiquities legislation vested ownership of antiquities in the state, rather than the occupying force. This did not prevent excavation and looting by British forces, however. Article 21 of the Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations in 1922 provided foreigners, often British antiquarians, with the right to excavate in the name of archaeological research (Kersel 2010, 89). In British Iraq in 1924, an antiquities law formulated by British diplomat Gertrude Bell, allowed for division of antiquities between the Iraq museum and excavators at the discretion of the museum director (Kersel 2010, 89). The law created explicit provision for exportation of antiquities as a reward for excavation, and while Iraqi archaeologists argued for vested ownership in the state, British authorities like Bell helped to pass legislation that would allow Britain to maintain some control over antiquities exports (Kersel 2010, 89). Legislation in the Middle East differed by region, yet the end result was systematic removals of cultural material back to Britain.

Europe

As a whole, legislation imposed by Britain over the empire’s European colonies was formed with a respect for the heritage in the region, which is not present in colonies elsewhere. Where antiquities in Africa and the Americas were often not viewed as achievements of humankind, antiquities in Europe were admired and adopted as justification of the superiority of European culture (Basu and Damodaran 2015, 246). As with the Middle East, Greece was governed by Ottoman legislation until the nation came under British rule. Undoubtedly, the most infamous case of looting in Greece occurred under Ottoman rule. The removal of the Parthenon Marbles by Lord Elgin, the British Ambassador at the time, occurred in 1801, supposedly with the permission of the Ottoman government (Sayre 1985, 855). Soon after, Elgin’s actions came under legal scrutiny. In 1816 Elgin sold the antiquities to the British government, however the sale was not without its difficulties. Elgin maintained that he had obtained permission from Ottoman officials for the removal of the Marbles, and members of the House of Commons criticised the weak legal basis for the removal. They argued that he should not have used his position as ambassador to remove national heritage from its place of origin (Sayre 1985, 856). There was however, no legal framework preventing such removal at the time. It was not until Greece was under British rule that the 1834 national antiquities law was passed (Kersel 2010, 87). The law prohibited export without direct approval from the Greek government, and while this did not halt exports altogether, it allowed Greece to maintain a national collection.

Cyprus too had been under Ottoman occupation prior to British control. Ottoman authorities instituted several antiquities protection ordinances, in 1869 and 1874, prohibiting the exportation of antiquities and excavation of sites without the permission from the Minister of Public Instruction (Stanley-Price 2001, 2). The 1874 statute guarantees one third of found antiquities as property of the government, one third to the landowner, and one third to the excavator (Stanley-Price 2001, 4; Basu and Damodaran 2015, 249). As such the government collected a great deal of material (Stanley-Price 2001, 11). Following British occupation these laws were kept in force, and further legislation was passed. The 1891 Famagusta Stones Law protected a specific site from destruction, yet did nothing to halt exportation back to Britain (Stanley-Price 2001, 2). As these laws were enforced by occupying British forces, it was at their discretion who may excavate, what may be excavated, and what may be removed. In 1891 the Cyprus Museum was opened, providing an avenue for retention of cultural material within Cyprus (Stanley-Price 2001, 11). Despite this, legislation preventing the removal of cultural material was discouraged in favour of removal for acquisition to the British Museum (Basu and Damodaran 2015, 246). In 1896, laws preventing the exportation of antiquities were effectively overturned at the request of the British Museum, opening the floodgates for legalised looting (Basu and Damodaran 2015, 250). It was not until the 1905 Antiquities Law that legislation was put in place preventing the unregulated export of antiquities from the colony (Basu and Damodaran 2015, 246). Export certainly did not stop there, as even when the Cyprus museum was a well-established repository of Cyprian material heritage, antiquities continued to be exported to Britain. The 1935 Antiquities Law, which was authored by the former director of the British Museum included a clause providing the British Museum with first refusal for anything not immediately acquisitioned by the Cyprus Museum (Basu and Damodaran 2015, 252).

Egypt

Egypt was semi-autonomous under the rule of the Ottoman Empire and Napoleon’s occupation, allowing the state and people within it to freely export antiquities for much of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Kersel 2010, 87). European authorities took advantage of the open access to Egyptian antiquities and facilitated the removal of objects and human remains in order to profit off of the West’s fascination with Egyptian material. Notably, artefacts were also used as political capital by Egyptian politicians, creating a direct pipeline of objects from excavation to exportation for the benefit of European and Ottoman administrators.

As with Greece and much of the Middle East, Legislation imposed by Ottoman authorities played a role in early antiquities legislation in Egypt. As a response to the increasing influence of European powers in the region, the 1874 Ottoman Law on Antiquities vested ownership of Egyptian antiquities in the occupying Ottoman Empire (Kersel 2010, 86). In 1882 British forces invaded Egypt as a means of protecting their investments in the region (Kersel 2010, 87). Two years after British forces took control of Egypt, further legislation was passed, replacing the 1874 law. The 1884 law, which has been discussed previously in this section in relation to the Middle East, vested ownership of antiquities in the state rather than the colonising administration. This legislation effectively nationalised cultural heritage in Egypt as a method of protection against looting by European antiquarians. In the early twentieth century further legal mandates were passed restricting the movement of antiquities however they provided for the sale of antiquities to buyers outside of Egypt, continuing to facilitate the exportation of Egyptian cultural heritage.