The Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford, England, has agreed to return the remains of 39 Naga ancestors to India.

The Pitt Rivers Museum of the University of Oxford has agreed to return the remains of 39 Naga ancestors to Nagaland, India, according to a press release issued by the museum. This repatriation has come about as a result of dialogues between the museum and the Forum for Naga Reconciliation, an umbrella organisation representing the rights of the Naga people in Nagaland and neighbouring Indian states, as well as northern Myanmar. 

The Pitt Rivers Museum holds the world's largest collection of Naga material, much of it collected by John Henry Hutton and James Philip Mills, two British colonial officials, ethnographers, and anthropologists who worked in the area during the first half of the twentieth century. Both men amassed large collections of ethnographic materials during their time in India, much of it seized during punitive military exhibitions.

During these expeditions preserved skulls kept by the peoples of Nagaland were particularly sought after. Naga communities typically had a house, cave or rockshelter in which many such skulls were stored. The British colonial authorities interpreted these as trophies associated with headhunting, something which demonstrated the superiority of British culture, and therefore the importance of the British imperial project in bringing civilisation to the world.

While there may have been some headhunting in Nagaland, the origin of the majority of these skulls derives from the traditional burial practices of the Naga people. These varied from community to community, although the most common form appears to have been a form of platform burial, in which the body was wrapped in cloth and placed on a raised Bamboo platform called a machang at the edge of the village, where it was typically consumed by Animals. The skull of the deceased was removed and cleaned before placing it in a sacred cave, called a Khulo Apshang (or if this was not available, a specially built house called a Lochem), along with those of other ancestors. Notably, not everyone could have their skull placed in a sacred place; persons who died as a result of violence, accidents, or diseases perceived as unclean (such as leprosy) were denied such funerary rights and had separate burial customs. 

Human skulls in a rock shelter in Nagaland. Sumi (2024).

It is also possible that some skulls were taken directly by British soldiers or adventurers; 'native' skulls were highly sought after by both museums and private collectors in Europe, seen as natural history specimens which could be used to demonstrate theories about evolution and European superiority fashionable at the time (this would have required a degree of creativity, as modern archaeologists cannot reliably differentiate European from non-European skulls based upon morphological examination).

Today the Pitt Rivers Museum holds approximately 6500 items identified as being of Naga origin. Of these 219 are listed as being Human remains; 39 identifiable body parts, predominantly skulls but also including a finger and a piece of skin with hair, and 178 artefacts which may contain Human hair. It is the 39 body elements which the museum is currently planning to return to Nagaland.

Until 2020, many skulls from the Nagaland collection were on display in the Pitt Rivers Museum, but in that year the decision was taken to remove them from public viewing. The publicity raised by this event attracted the attention of Dolly Kikon, a member of the Lotha-Naga community, and professor of anthropology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and a member of the Forum for Naga Reconciliation. Kikon then contacted  Laura Van Broekhoven, the director of the Pitt Rivers Museum, beginning the dialogue which has led to the planned return of the items.

Professor Dolly Kikon of the University of California Santa Cruz. Dolly Kikon.

During the Covid 19 pandemic, the Forum for Naga Reconciliation formed a Recover, Restore, and Decolonise team, under the leadership of Dolly Kikon and Arkotong Longkumer, who comes from Kohima in Nagaland and is a professor of anthropology at the University of Edinburgh. This group arranged for a visit to the Pitt Rivers Museum by a Naga delegation including leaders and elders of several Naga tribe Hohos (councils), together with members of the Forum for Naga Reconciliation and Forum for Naga Reconciliation, in June 2025.

Dolly Kikon with Phyobemo Ngully, a member Forum for Naga Reconciliation and other guests at the closing reception on 13 June 2025 at the Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford. A Naga Delegation comprising of leaders from several Naga Tribe Hohos, members of the Forum for Naga Reconciliation and the Recover Restore and Decolonise team were hosted by Pitt Rivers Museum from 8 June-14 June 2025 to explore a pathway for the return and future care of Naga ancestral Human remains. Sanen Kichu/Recover Restore and Decolonise.

As a result of this visit, the Pitt Rivers Museum proposed the return of the 39 identifiable body parts in its Naga collection, one of which was rejected due to uncertainty about its provenance (i.e. it was uncertain whether it actually came from Nagaland), and the Naga delegation produced the Naga-Oxford Declaration on Repatriation, which reads:

• We are grateful to our ancestors for being a testament and silently proclaiming the stories of our people.
• We are sorry that it has taken us several decades but we are here now to reclaim and return you to the homelands from where you were taken.
• We are committed to the process of your return from museums.
• We acknowledge that this Repatriation process is towards the healing and wholeness of the Naga people.
• As Nagas, we do so in a united voice, with mutual respect and consensus and to offer you a dignified rest, establishing a Naga monument of healing and peace for all generations, symbolising the oneness of the Nagas.
• We extend our solidarity to fellow Indigenous Peoples across the world who seek to undertake a similar journey of repatriation in the hope of bringing decolonisation, justice and peace, not just for ourselves but for humanity.

Members of the Naga delegation view the relics on display at the Pitt Rivers Museum. Pitt Rivers Museum.

Because it is uncertain where about in Nagaland many of the remains come from, the Recover, Restore, and Decolonise team plan to construct a joint memorial resting place for the ancestors, intended as a place of healing and peace for all generations and as a symbol of the oneness of the Naga. Once this has been done, the plan is for the Naga delegation to return to the Pitt Rivers Museum for a handover ceremony, after which they will accompany the ancestors on their journey home.

See also...

Killed on this day 794, Æthelberht II of East Anglia.

On 20 May 794, Æthelberht II, King of East Anglia was beheaded on the orders of Offa, King of Mercia, of possibly his queen, Cynethryth, having been captured when he visited King Offa's court at Sutton in modern Hertfordshire. Subsequently, his head is reputed to have fallen from the cart in which it was being transported, and to have cured a blind man who accidentally touched it, leading to Æthelberht's canonisation as Saint Ethelbert. Versions of the story vary in medieval chronicles, none of which were written down until centuries after Æthelberht's death. 

Depiction of a brass plate from Hereford Cathedral showing the martyred Anglo-Saxon king Æthelberht II of East Anglia. GC Haddon in Havergal (1869).

All of the stories agree that Æthelberht, who was born around 774, probably a son of Æthelred I of East Anglia and his queen Leofrana of Mercia. He came to the throne around 779, as a boy-king, and was reputed to have been a good and pious monarch. In 794 he travelled to the court of King Offa of Mercia, to meet Ælfthryth, daughter of Offa, who he was due to wed, something which would have made a powerful dynastic marriage. Some versions of the story record that Æthelberht's mother was against this, as the events had been preceded by a number of ill omens, including earthquakes and an eclipse.

Tales of the actual murder vary. Some depict Offa as a weak but pious king, manipulated into murdering Æthelberht by Queen Cynethryth. Other versions exclude Offa from the plot altogether, alleging that Æthelberht was murdered by a man called Grimbert, or a group of assassins, acting directly on the Queen's orders. Some versions have this happening at the nearby village of Marden, before reaching Offa's court at Sutton. Other versions have him arriving at the court and being welcomed by Offa, before being murdered by Cynethryth's man or men. One version has an elaborate pit trap hidden beneath the bed chamber he is given. 

The events after the murder are more agreed upon. The head of Æthelberht may-or-may-not have fallen from a cart and cured a blind man, but he is certainly credited with healing miracles after his death, and accepted as a saint and martyr by the church. Offa's daughter, Ælfthryth, was apparently so horrified by these events that she retired to a nunnery at Crowland, where she lived for the remaining 40 years of her life, also being made a saint after her death.

Unravelling these the truth behind these stories requires an understanding of the medieval concept of kingship, particularly as it was understood in Norman England where they were eventually written down. At this time, kings were not seen as simply gaining their status by accident of birth, they were placed their by the hand of god. As such, all kings were, by default, good and pious, and anything bad going on at their court had to be down to somebody else. A queen, who was there by marriage rather than birthright, was potentially a good target, particularly one such as Cynethryth, who was not clearly from a royal background. 

Thus, Æthelberht was good and pious, because he was a king. Offa, of course, was also good and pious, because he was also a king. Cynethryth, as a woman and possible commoner, was absolutely able to be a murderess to fit the narrative, while, Ælfthryth, a woman of clear royal descent, could go on to be a saint. As a murdered king, Æthelberht was automatically a martyr, even though he died as a result of political intrigue rather than for his faith.

In Æthelberht's time things may have been seen somewhat differently, if not by the naïve Æthelberht, then certainly by the Mercian king. Offa had come to power in 757, following the assassination of the previous king, Æthelbald, and following a civil conflict against rival Beornred, who was also killed. He then went on to assert his authority over the kingdoms of Kent and Sussex, who were essentially turned into vassal states. He formed an alliance with Wessex, the other major power in England at the time by marrying his daughter Eadburh to King Beorhtric of Wessex. Little that we know about Offa suggests that he would have hesitated to kill a fellow king if such a deed expanded his political power. 

A depiction of King Offa of Mercia. From The Chantry Priest of Barnet, A Tale of Two Roses by Alfred J Church (Seeley, 1885).

For a long time, the only known coins associated with Æthelberht were of a design known as 'Wolf and Twins' pennies, and these were very rare, with two specimens known since the eighteenth century, and a third discovered in Italy in the early twentieth century. These had a motive on one side with a she-wolf suckling a pair of human infants, a reference to the Roman story of Romulus and Remus. This has been seen as a reference to the Wuffingas dynasty of East Anglia, of which Æthelberht was a part, but is also a very potent royal motif, invoking the might of Rome.

A 'Wolf and Twins' coin issued by Æthelberht II of East Anglia. Naismith (2014).

This led to speculation that Offa might have seen Æthelberht as a sub-king, with East Anglia being a subordinate kingdom to Mercia, as Kent and Sussex were. Minting his own coins, and in particular a coin with a Romulus and Remus motif, and thereby comparing the King of East Anglia to the Emperor of Rome, would be a powerful assertion of independence, which might have angered the Mercian king sufficiently to have murdered his East Anglian rival. Because the murder happened the year after the sack of Lindisfarne by Viking raiders, it was suggested that this might have led Æthelberht to realise that his kingdom was at risk, seeking an alliance with the more powerful Offa, but falling into a trap instead.

There are, however, some problems with this story too. The 'Wolf and Twins' of Æthelberht bear the mark of the same moneyer (coin-maker), Lul, as many coins issued by Offa, which seems unlikely if the two were rivals and the coin was offensive to Offa. Then in 2014 a fourth coin from the reign of Æthelberht was discovered by a metal detectorist near Pevensey in East Sussex, with this coin having a different motif, the king's name written around the outside, with a cross in the middle, a design typical of Anglo Saxon pennies. 

This suggests that Æthelberht had a longer history of issuing coins, with more than one design being used during his reign. As such he is much less likely to have been seen as a subordinate king, and the use of the same moneyer as Offa suggests that this was not a contentious issue for him. 

A typical Anglo Saxon silver penny with the inscription Æthelberht Rex around the outside. Naismith (2014).

This makes Offa's motive in killing Æthelberht all the more sinister. There appears to have been no prior claim to East Anglia by the Mercian king, nor any direct insult offered to him by Æthelberht. Seen in this light, the killing was a straightforward power grab; Offa killed Æthelberht, and incorporated East Anglia into his own kingdom, apparently a better arrangement than a dynastic marriage that would have left a son-in-law on the throne.

A map of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of East Anglia, using modern maps to locate key East Anglian placenames and the coastline in Saxon times. Wikipedia.

Today, Æthelberht is commemorated as a saint by both the Catholic and Anglican churches (under the modernised name of Saint Ethelbert. He is one of the patron saints of Hereford Cathedral (along with the Blessed Virgin Mary), and one of the two main entrances to the precinct of Norwich Cathedral is called St Ethelbert's Gate. There are churches dedicated to him in Norfolk, Suffolk, and London.

See also...

United States returns looted antiquities to India.

The United States has returned 657 antiquities with a total value exceeding US$14 million to India, according to a press release issued by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office on 28 April 2026. Many of the items are alleged to have been smuggled into the US by a trafficking ring led by Subhash Kapoor, an art dealer who formerly ran a gallery in Manhattan, as well as an import/export business specialising in antiquities from India and Southeast Asia. Kapoor is currently serving a seven year prison sentence in India for crimes relating to theft and smuggling. The artefacts were returned to Indian Consul to New York, Rajlakshmi Kadam, in a ceremony in Manhattan.

The returned items include a bronze figure of the Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara, seated on an inscribed double-lotus base over a lion-flanked throne, with an inscription identifying it has having been made by the master craftsman Dronaditya of Sipur. This was part of a collection of bronze statues unearthed near the Lakshamana Temple in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh, in 1939, and placed in the collection of the Mahant Ghasidas Memorial Museum in Raipur. The statue was stolen and smuggled to the US some time before 1982, entering a private collection in New York before 2014, from where it was seized by the US authorities in 2025. The statue has an estimated value of about US$2 million.

A bronze statue of the Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara returned to India after being stolen and smuggled into the US. Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

Another item returned was a red sandstone figure of a Buddha standing with his right hand raised in an abhaya-mudra gesture, signifying protection. This item is believed to have been looted somewhere in northern India, and to have been damaged in the process; the statue's feet are broken off, as is most of a halo which would once have sat behind the Buddha's head. It was recovered from a storage unit in New York belonging to Subhash Kapoor by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Antiquities Trafficking Unit, and is believed to have been smuggled into the US by him. The statue has been valued at about US$7.5 million.

A sandstone statue of the Buddha believed to have been looted from northern India. Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

Another notable item returned is a sandstone statue of the Hindu God Ganesha in a dancing pose. This statue is alleged to have been stolen from a temple in Madhya Pradesh, India in 2000, by Ranjeet 'Shantoo' Kanwar, a convicted trafficker and co-conspirator of Subhash Kapoor, and smuggled into the US by Vaman Ghiya, another notorious trafficker from Jaipur in Rajasthan, where it was sold to the New York art dealer Doris Wiener. When Wiener died in 2012, the item passed to her daughter, Nancy Wiener, who has admitted to knowingly falsifying provenance records for looted items, and sold at Christie's Auction House in New York to a private collector, who surrendered it to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office earlier this year. 

A sandstone statue of Ganesha alleged to have been stolen from a temple in Madhya Pradesh. Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

See also...

South Africa returns Chapungu Bird and Human remains to Zimbabwe.

Iziko Museums of South Africa have returned a Chapungu Bird taken from the Great Zimbabwe site in Zimbabwe and eight sets of Human remains to representatives of the Government of Zimbabwe at a ceremony held in Cape Town on 14 April 2026. All were removed from sites within Zimbabwe during the nineteenth century and found their way into the collection of the museums. The timing of the restoration follows a directive from South African President Cyril Ramaphosa that the items should be returned before the Zimbabwean Independence Day Celebrations on 18 April, part of a broader program by South African museums which aims to return objects and remains removed during the colonial era to the countries and communities from which they were taken.

The Chapungu Bird in the collection of the Iziko South African Museum in Cape Town on 13 April 2026, before its repatriation to Zimbabwe. ZimLive.

The Chapungu Bird is one of eight such statues removed from the site by British adventurers in the nineteenth century. Each is made from a dark grey/green soapstone (a soft metamorphic rock) and stands 33 cm high. The statues formerly stood on pedestals about a metre high at the Great Zimbabwe site, and have been taken as a national symbol by the modern state of Zimbabwe, appearing on the national flag as well as coins and banknotes. The statue from Cape Town is the last to be returned to Zimbabwe, which has been seeking their restitution since independence in 1980.

As well as the Chapungu Bird, Iziko South African Museums has returned eight sets of Human remains which were removed from sites in Zimbabwe during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The remains are thought to have come from different communities around Zimbabwe, although full details have not been made available. One set of remains is thought to have belonged to a chief, and to have been exhumed and taken to South Africa in 1910. Another has been reported as a man murdered following accusations of witchcraft. All are known to have been taken from graves without the permission of their families of communities, and to have been retained at the museum as scientific specimens.

The remains of eight individuals taken from Zimbabwe during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and returned by Iziko Museums South Africa on 14 April 2026. ZimLive.

See also...

France returns historic Djidji Ayôkwé drum to Côte d’Ivoire.

France has returned a historic ceremonial drum, known as the Djidji Ayôkwé ('Panther-Lion'), to Côte d’Ivoire. The drum had been held in the collection of the Musée du quai Branly - Jacques Chirac in Paris since 2006, and has been returned to its home country as the fulfilment of a commitment made by French President Emmanuel Macron in 2021.

The Djidji Ayôkwé is a 3.3 m long, 430 kg slit drum with a Lion or Panther figurine at one end, carved from a single piece of iroko wood. It originally belonged to the Achan (or Tchaman) people who live around modern Abidjan, who used it for communicating over long distances (the large size of the drum meant that it could be heard over a distance of about 20 km).

The Djidji Ayôkwé drum with representatives of the Achan people and the Government of Côte d’Ivoire during a ceremony at the Musée du quai Branly - Jacques Chirac on 23 February 2026. Lisa Villy/RFI.

The ability of the Achan people to communicate over long distances was deemed a threat by the French colonial administration in Côte d’Ivoire, leading to it being seized during a punitive expedition by the French Army in 2016. Following this, it sat in the official residence of the French governor of Côte d’Ivoire in Abidjan until 1929, when it was sent to France and placed in the collection of the Trocadéro Museum (now the Musée de l’Homme). It was moved to the Musée du quai Branly - Jacques Chirac in 2006.

Following a ceremony at the Musée du quai Branly - Jacques Chirac on 23 February, the drum was flown to Abidjan on 13 March, where it was formerly handed over in a second ceremony at Félix-Houphouët-Boigny Airport. The drum will remain inside a packing crate until April 2026, in order to allow it to acclimatise to the local climate (sudden changes in temperature and humidity can cause old wooden objects to crack and split). It will then be placed on display in the new Musée des Civilisations de Côte d’Ivoire, as part of an exhibition funded via a US$100 000 donation from UNESCO.

A ceremony in Abidjan on 13 March 2026 to welcome the Djidji Ayôkwé back to Côte d’Ivoire. Issouf Sanago.

The Djidji Ayôkwé is the first artefact to have been returned to Côte d’Ivoire by France, one of 148 objects the African nation has requested. Despite pledges by French politicians, France has to date only returned 27 objects to its former African colonies, mostly to Senegal and Benin.

See also...