Repatriating Sacred Heritage: Smithsonian’s Return of Three Indian Bronze

Why in News ?

Earlier this month, the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Asian Art (NMAA) announced it will return three historic bronze sculptures to the Government of India, acknowledging they were illegally removed from temple settings.

The artefacts include:

• Shiva Nataraja (Chola period, ca. 990)
• Somaskanda (Chola period, 12th century)
• Saint Sundarar with Paravai (Vijayanagar period, 16th century)

The decision aligns with a global push for restitution of looted or illicitly trafficked cultural property to Asian countries such as Cambodia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. As part of this broader effort, the United States returned 297 Indian antiquities in 2024 alone.

Of the three bronzes, two will be physically repatriated to India, while the Shiva Nataraja will remain at the Smithsonian on a long-term loan. The return follows detailed provenance research that traced their unlawful removal, underscoring growing institutional accountability in global museum practices.

Background and Context: Global Repatriation and Cultural Justice

• For much of the 19th and 20th centuries, artefacts from colonised and developing regions were removed—often illegally or unethically—and housed in Western museums and private collections. Weak export controls, unequal power relations, and lax acquisition standards facilitated this large-scale displacement of cultural heritage.
• In recent decades, there has been a growing international movement for restitution and repatriation, grounded in ethical museum practices, international conventions, and post-colonial justice. The UNESCO 1970 Convention marked a turning point by establishing norms against illicit trafficking and encouraging the return of stolen cultural property.
• India, with its vast and living religious heritage, has increasingly pursued the recovery of stolen antiquities, particularly temple bronzes and sculptures removed during the mid-20th century. The Smithsonian’s decision reflects this global shift toward accountability, transparency, and respect for the cultural and spiritual rights of source communities.

The Three Bronzes: Sacred Origins and Iconography

All three sculptures were sacred processional bronzes, traditionally carried during temple rituals, reflecting the refined bronze-casting traditions of South India. These were not decorative objects but living icons central to worship and ceremonial life.

Shiva Nataraja: Lord of the Dance

The Shiva Nataraja bronze originated from the Sri Bhava Aushadesvara Temple in Tamil Nadu’s undivided Thanjavur district.
It portrays Shiva as “Lord of the Dance,” performing the ananda tandava (dance of bliss), symbolising cosmic creation, preservation, and destruction.

Somaskanda: The Divine Family

The Somaskanda bronze traces its provenance to the Visvanatha Temple in Mannargudi, Tamil Nadu.
It depicts:

• Shiva seated with Parvati (Uma)
• Their son Skanda, who may sit between or dance around them

Notably, the NMAA sculpture is missing Skanda. According to experts, Skanda was often cast separately and was typically the first figure to be lost or separated. Archival photographs show Skanda was already missing by 1959.

Crucially, provenance research revealed that buried or damaged bronzes could later be reinstalled in temples, challenging earlier scholarly assumptions that burial meant permanent removal from ritual use.

Saint Sundarar with Paravai: Devotion in Bronze

The third sculpture depicts Saint Sundarar and his wife Paravai, originally from a Shiva temple in Veerasolapuram village, Tamil Nadu.

The couple were influential Shaivite saints, credited with spreading Shiva worship in eighth-century southern India, and are deeply revered in Tamil religious tradition.

Living Icons, Not Museum Objects

According to the NMAA, such images were:

• Housed in dedicated shrines for most of the year
• Once annually subjected to elaborate ritual bathing (abhisheka) using water, milk, yogurt, honey, sandalwood paste, and sacred ash
• Then dressed in ceremonial robes

This underscores their spiritual centrality, distinguishing them from secular museum artefacts.

How the Three Bronzes Entered the Smithsonian’s Collection

• The three bronzes had been part of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Asian Art collections for decades.
• They came under scrutiny during a systematic provenance review, which revealed gaps and inconsistencies in their documentation. The bronzes were acquired during a period when museum collecting standards were less stringent.
• Today, NMAA requires documentary proof of legal export, assessed against the UNESCO 1970 Convention, alongside export permits, seller consent, and a complete ownership trail, factoring in colonial and geopolitical contexts.
• A 2023 collaboration with the French Institute of Pondicherry photo archives confirmed that the bronzes were photographed in situ in Tamil Nadu temples between 1956 and 1959.
• The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) subsequently reviewed the findings and confirmed the sculptures were removed in violation of Indian law.
• While the exact circumstances of removal remain unclear, the museum established that the bronzes appeared in US markets or collections after the 1950s and passed through dealers linked to illicit antiquities. There is no evidence of lawful export from India.

Why the Smithsonian Is Returning the Bronzes

• The Smithsonian’s National Museum of Asian Art stated that the decision reflects its commitment to responsible stewardship of cultural heritage and greater institutional transparency.
• NMAA began its restitution efforts as early as 2002, making it one of the earlier US museums to address issues of illicitly acquired cultural property.
• The institution acknowledges that many artefacts were transferred over the past two centuries without the consent of local communities, and that ethical museum practice now requires redress of historical injustices.

What Restitution Means for India

1. Restoring Legal and Cultural Ownership :  Restitution ensures that India regains legal title over artefacts that rightfully belong to it. While ownership returns to the Government of India, objects may remain on long-term loan, allowing them to be displayed internationally while acknowledging their true origin.
2. Ethics and International Goodwill :  The provenance research and return process reflect ethical museum practice and foster diplomatic goodwill. Restitution signals recognition of historical wrongs and builds trust between source nations and global institutions.
3. Opportunities for Cultural Collaboration :  Repatriation can open doors to long-term cultural partnerships.
   For example, after returning three sculptures to Cambodia—one remaining on loan—the museum collaborated on a five-year exhibition project in 2023.
4. Such arrangements allow source countries to showcase their heritage globally through structured cooperation.
5. Expanding Global Cultural Presence :  For India, restitution does not necessarily mean withdrawal from global spaces. Instead, it can:

• • Strengthen India’s cultural diplomacy
  • Promote curated international exhibitions
  • Ensure wider global engagement with Indian heritage

Significance of the Smithsonian’s Decision

1. Affirming India’s Cultural Sovereignty :  The return reinforces India’s sovereign rights over its cultural and religious heritage, correcting historical injustices.
2. Strengthening Global Norms Against Illicit Trafficking :  It sends a strong message to collectors, dealers, and institutions that artefacts without clear provenance will not be legitimised.
3. Revitalising Living Traditions : Repatriated bronzes can return to ritual contexts or community spaces, restoring their original religious and cultural functions.
4. Advancing Ethical Museum Practices : The case exemplifies a shift from possession-based to stewardship-based museum ethics.
5. Enhancing India’s Soft Power and Cultural Diplomacy :  Restitution strengthens India’s global cultural standing and supports its broader diplomatic engagement through heritage diplomacy.

Challenges and Way Forward

Challenges

• Tracing Provenance: Many artefacts lack complete documentation, making legal and historical verification complex.
• Logistical and Conservation Issues: Transporting and reintegrating fragile artefacts require specialised expertise and resources.
• Balancing Access and Ownership: Ensuring global public access while restoring rightful ownership remains a delicate balance.

Way Forward

• Strengthen International Cooperation: Enhance collaboration between museums, governments, and cultural institutions on restitution frameworks.
• Invest in Provenance Research: Expand archival digitisation and interdisciplinary research to trace artefact histories.
• Enhance Domestic  museum Infrastructure: Upgrade museum and conservation facilities in India to safely house repatriated artefacts.
• Promote Cultural Exchange Agreements: Use long-term loans and joint exhibitions to combine restitution with global cultural engagement.
• Tighten Anti-Trafficking Mechanisms: Strengthen border controls, customs enforcement, and public awareness to prevent future illicit removals.