JURNAL KAJIAN BALI
Hlm. 01­—

Journal of Bali Studies

...

p-ISSN 2088-4443 # e-ISSN 2580-0698 Volume 14, Number 02, October 2024

Reclaiming Klungkung’s Cultural Heritage:
Navigating the Complexities of Repatriation in
Post-Colonial Bali
Rodney Westerlaken*
NHL Stenden University, The Netherlands.
Westerlaken foundation, The Netherlands / Indonesia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24843/JKB.2024.v14.i02.p01

Abstract: This article examines the complexities of repatriating objects from Bali’s
Klungkung Court seized by Dutch forces in 1908. It argues that repatriation, often
conducted as restitution between nations, fails to fully consider local communities’
needs. Through a case study of five artefacts, the article explores historical, cultural,
and ethical dimensions, highlighting repatriation challenges. It emphasizes engaging
local stakeholders for an equitable process. Returning these artefacts can rectify
historical injustices, uphold cultural sovereignty, and foster reconciliation between
the Netherlands and Indonesia, despite challenges like provenance research and
ownership disputes. Repatriation remains vital for addressing colonial legacies and
promoting cultural justice by acknowledging wrongs, aiding healing, empowering
descendants, and sustaining cultural practices. The study concludes that repatriation
is a continual, complex process requiring commitment to justice, reconciliation, and
cultural autonomy, focusing on the perspectives of communities from which objects
were taken.
Keywords: repatriation; cultural heritage; contemporary colonial legacy; Klungkung
Court; Bali

1. Introduction
n recent years, the issue of repatriating cultural artefacts acquired during
colonial times has gained significant attention, particularly as formerly
colonised nations seek to reclaim their cultural heritage (van Beurden, 2017). For
example, the debate surrounding the repatriation of the Benin Bronzes and the
Elgin Marbles exemplifies this complex issue. The Benin Bronzes, a collection
of over 3,000 brass plaques and sculptures, were looted by British forces during
the punitive expedition of 1897 (Kim, 2024; Uzuegbu et al., 2024). Similarly, the

I
*

Corresponding author’s email: rodney.westerlaken@nhlstenden.com
Submitted: 18 April 2024; Accepted: 10 August 2024; Published: October 2024
Copyright © 2024 by the author (s). This article is published by Jurnal Kajian Bali (Journal of Bali Studies),
University of Udayana, Bali, Indonesia, under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

http://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/kajianbali

299

Rodney Westerlaken

Pp. 299—323

Elgin Marbles, a set of classical Greek marble sculptures, were removed from
the Parthenon by Lord Elgin in the early 19th century and have been housed in
the British Museum since 1816 (Titi, 2023; Elizondo, 2023).
Repatriation is often carried out as part of restitution between nations, but
without fully considering the needs and perspectives of the local communities
or families from which the repatriated objects originated. Within this context,
the Netherlands, with its historical ties to Indonesia, faces a pressing challenge.
Recent advisory statements, policy discussions, and repatriation efforts
highlight the complexity of this issue, as they must navigate the delicate balance
between international relations and the specific needs of the communities from
which the artefacts were taken.
Critiques have been raised regarding the adequacy of addressing specific
injustices faced by communities affected by colonial appropriation. It is argued
that the historical government of the Dutch East Indies and contemporary ties
to the Republic of Indonesia did not simply acquire artefacts. However, objects
were often seized as spoils of war or taken under coercive circumstances.
Moreover, the focus on intergovernmental repatriation may overlook the
unique circumstances of certain collections, where direct engagement with
affected communities might be more appropriate. Challenging the classification
of artefacts as mere museum pieces, this article suggests that these items
hold deep significance within living cultures. Upon repatriation, they could
potentially resume their integral roles in religious rituals and cultural practices.
Decisions regarding the cultural status and use of artefacts should involve
consultation with the communities from which they were taken. This approach
contrasts with viewing the matter of restitution solely as an issue between
states concerned, especially considering that one of these states had not yet
declared its independence at the time of the looting. Recent events, such as the
formal return of 472 historical artefacts to Indonesia by the Dutch government
in 2023 (Direktorat Jenderal Kebudayaan RI, 2023), including symbolic items
seized during colonial interventions, mark significant steps toward addressing
historical grievances. However, these developments underscore the multifaceted
nature of the repatriation discourse, encompassing legal, ethical, and cultural
considerations (UNESCO, 2009).
In summary, there is a growing recognition of the importance of
contextualising colonial-era appropriations within historical and cultural
frameworks. Advocates emphasise the need for direct community involvement
in the restitution process to ensure a comprehensive, equitable, and culturally
sensitive approach to the repatriation of colonial cultural heritage.

300

JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

Pp. 299—323

Reclaiming Klungkung’s Cultural Heritage: Navigating the Complexities of ...

2. Literature Review
Klungkung’s historical significance in Bali is rooted in its status as the
heir to the powerful Gelgel kingdom, which dominated the island from the 15th
to mid-17th centuries. The Babad Dalem, a chronicle of Klungkung, traces its
royal lineage back to the Javanese kingdom of Majapahit, emphasising its claim
to paramount status. After internal strife led to Gelgel’s decline, Dewa Agung
Jambe I established Klungkung in 1686, setting up his new court in Klungkung.
Although Klungkung did not wield the same level of authority as Gelgel, it
maintained significant prestige and symbolic precedence on the politically
fragmented island. This unique position made Klungkung a focal point for
Dutch diplomatic efforts in the 1840s, as the colonial power sought to extend its
influence over Bali (Agung, 1991; Wiener, 1995; Robinson, 1995; Pringle, 2004).
The complexity of Klungkung’s political landscape is evident in the events
surrounding the Dutch military expeditions of 1846-1849. These campaigns,
led by General Andreas Victor Michiels, initially focused on northern Bali but
eventually extended to Klungkung. Michiels faced unexpected resistance in
Klungkung. The expedition culminated in a night offensive led by Dewa Agung
Istri Kanya at Kusamba, resulting in heavy Dutch casualties and the death of
General Michiels himself. This remarkable resistance forced the Dutch to retreat,
leading to a treaty that temporarily halted their expansion. Throughout the 19th
century, Klungkung’s rulers, particularly Dewa Agung Putra III (r. 1851-1903),
continued to play an active and often interventionist role in South Balinese
politics. This included imprisoning the Raja of Gianyar in 1885 and contributing
to the destruction of the Mengwi kingdom in 1891, actions that demonstrated
Klungkung’s continued influence despite the growing Dutch presence (Agung,
1991; Wiener, 1995; Robinson, 1995; Pringle, 2004).
Klungkung’s influence as the paramount Balinese kingdom ended in 1908
with the Dutch intervention, culminating in a puputan - a mass act of fearless
steadfastness (pageh) in the face of inevitable defeat, carried out by the Balinese
Royal Family of Klungkung (also see Figure 1) amidst the Dutch colonial incursion.
While often characterised as a ritualistic mass suicide by Euro-American scholars,
this interpretation obscures Balinese intentionalities. For the Balinese, puputan
differed significantly from suicide in terms of the inner state it entailed and the
afterlife consequences it promised. Rather than an act of despair or impotence,
puputan was seen as a brave and resolute action undertaken by Balinese lords to
demonstrate their unwavering power and courage. Those who participated in
puputan believed they would ascend to the highest levels of the invisible world,
living like gods and receiving offerings and homage from the living, in stark
contrast to the fate of those who committed suicide. Puputan, as such, should be
seen as ‘finishing’ or ‘ending’ (Ardhana, 2013; Wiener, 1995, p. 314; pp. 325-326).
JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

301

Rodney Westerlaken

Pp. 299—323

According to Vickers (2013), an Australian scholar, a puputan is a
traditional Balinese way to signal the ending of a kingdom and to achieve
spiritual liberation through death in battle, serving as a sign to other kings that
the realm has come to an end (p. 48). Geertz (1980, p. 112, 141) described the
puputan ritual as a desperate act of symbolic kingship. The Klungkung puputan,
as Wiener (1995) observed, should be understood within the context of national
dominance and political marginalisation. This framework also applies to the
recent ceremony elevating the Dewa Agung to national hero status.
The aftermath of the Klungkung pupatan included the Dutch plundering
of numerous culturally significant artefacts, subsequently housed in the
Koninklijk Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen (Royal Batavian
Society of Arts and Sciences) in Batavia (now Jakarta) and various museums in
the Netherlands (Bloembergen & Eickhoff, 2020; Brinkgreve in Ter Keurs, 2006).
Recent recommendations put forth by the Dutch Council for Culture delineate
a structured framework for the restitution of such items procured during the
colonial period (Gonçalves-Ho Kang You, 2021).
The Dutch annexation of Bali was a gradual process spanning from 1846
to 1908, with Klungkung being the last independent Balinese kingdom to fall
under colonial rule (Wiener, 1995). A pivotal moment in this period was the fall
of the Buleleng kingdom in 1849, which heralded significant changes in Balinese
knowledge systems and power structures (Wijaya, 2023). The annexation process
was marked by several violent confrontations, notably the Puputan Badung in
1906 and the Puputan Klungkung in 1908. These events, known as “Puputan”
or “ending,” represented the Balinese rulers’ final stand against foreign powers
(Ardhana, 2013). The Puputan Badung alone resulted in substantial loss of life,
with casualty estimates ranging from 1000-1500 according to Van Kol, while
local sources such as the Gaguritan Bhuwana Winasa suggest figures as high as
3600 (Parimartha, 2011).
The Dutch, motivated by ambitions to consolidate authority over the port
in Klungkung to expand their opium trade monopoly, encountered intense
opposition from the Balinese population, precipitating anti-Dutch uprisings
(Agung, 1991; Wiener, 1995; Pringle, 2004). In April 1908, Dutch military forces,
led by Assistant Resident Schwartz and Resident De Bruyn Kops, penetrated the
royal precincts of Klungkung (Agung, 1991, pp. 255-260; Brinkgreve in Ter Keurs,
2006, pp. 134-141, Wiener, 1995). Confronted with inevitable defeat, Raja Dewa
Agung Jambe, accompanied by hundreds of adherents and kin clad in white
attire, orchestrated a puputan, signifying a resolute “fight to the death” against the
Dutch, resulting in substantial casualties (Agung, 1991, pp. 255-260; Pringle, 2004;
Wiener, 1995). The impacts of these events persist within Balinese and Indonesian
collective consciousness, which is characteristic of intense anti-colonial defiance.
302

JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

Pp. 299—323

Reclaiming Klungkung’s Cultural Heritage: Navigating the Complexities of ...

Figure 1. [from l. to r.]: The crown prince of Klungkung Dewa Agung Gede
Agung adorned with the pendant (see case study 5), Cokorda Raka
Jodog, Dewa Agung Jambé, the ruler of Klungkung; and Cokorda
Putu Plodot holding a sirih set. Source: Puri Klungkung photo
collection, circa 1908.
Subsequent to these events, the Dutch seized numerous culturally
significant artefacts from the Court and dispatched them to Batavia. The artefacts
underwent an inspection before a selection was shipped to the Netherlands
JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

303

Rodney Westerlaken

Pp. 299—323

(Bloembergen & Eickhoff, 2020). The acquisitions comprised gold-hilted
keris daggers, jewellery, musical instruments, and other valuables deemed as
treasures by the Dutch (Bloembergen & Eickhoff, 2020). A correspondent for the
daily newspaper De Locomotief, who visited the ruler’s residence the day after
the puputan, described the scene as “a miserable view of fallen greatness” with
“everything lay tumbled together in chaotic disorder” (Brinkgreve in Ter Keurs,
2006, p. 137). The report detailed the destruction wrought by the Dutch removal
of the outer wall and the disarray of the Court’s contents, including “huge
mirrors partly cracked, wayang puppets, etc. etc.” and “piles of European-made
perfumery, chests full of kepengs, sarongs, carpets, etc. etc.” in the women’s
quarters (Brinkgreve in Ter Keurs, 2006, p. 146).
The Dutch-appointed Resident and Assistant Resident busied themselves
with searching for valuable kerisses worn by the Dewa Agung and other chiefs
during the puputan or found in the Court, some of which were worth up to
10,000 florins. The Balinese believed these kerisses to possess magical powers,
such as the ability to cause earthquakes, kill someone immediately, or freeze
people motionless. Wiener (1995) argues that objects were viewed not simply as
physical items but as artefacts imbued with ideological significance related to
warfare, prosperity, and societal gender roles (p. 14).
The earlier mentioned correspondent of De Locomotief noted that some
of the kerisses were “still blood-stained” and destined for museums, with some
having been “stolen by the Dewa Agung during the war with neighbouring small
states”. The Balinese belief in the magical powers of these kerisses was expected
to have “suffered a blow” given the outcome of the puputan (Brinkgreve in Ter
Keurs, 2006, pp. 134-141; Wiener, 1995).
After the looting, the objects were packed into nine crates and handed
over to the National Treasury in Batavia for safekeeping, along with two crates
containing Balinese manuscripts (Brinkgreve in Ter Keurs, 2006). The 1908
minutes of the Bataviaasch Genootschap document a total of 71 groups of
objects. This collection included pairs of items, diverse objects such as holy water
containers, plates, musical instruments and a gun, and two chests containing
lontars (palm leaf manuscripts). Notably, the inventory lists 16 krisses, some
of which were described as particularly valuable (Bataviaasch Genootschap,
1908). This detailed record provides insight into the range and significance of
the artefacts looted during this period.
In a letter from the Resident to Governor General Van Heutsz dated
19 May 1908, the approximately five hundred objects were valued at sixty
thousand guilders (Brinkgreve in Ter Keurs, 2006). The Resident argued that no
distinction was made between the personal possessions of the ruler and those of
the state, and thus, the plunder was considered legal (Brinkgreve in Ter Keurs,
304

JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

Pp. 299—323

Reclaiming Klungkung’s Cultural Heritage: Navigating the Complexities of ...

2006). Despite the exile of all the ruler’s heirs to Lombok, which prompted
the sale of items lacking ethnographic, antiquarian, or artistic significance to
support maintenance, efforts were still made to repatriate heirloom kerisses to
Klungkung. These attempts occurred in 1908 under Resident de Bruyn Kops
and again in 1938 under Resident Moll, highlighting the enduring cultural
importance of these artefacts (Wiener, 1995).
The division of the objects was handled by the Koninklijk Bataviaasch
Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen, with four crates holding approximately
225 objects shipped to the Netherlands and registered under series number 1684.
The ethnological museum in Leiden shared some of these objects with museums
in Rotterdam and Breda, and the latter’s share returned to Leiden in 1959. The
Koninklijk Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen took 157 objects
into storage, largely of the same kind as those sent to Leiden, but also including
unique items such as gilded instruments and an unusual tobacco box.
One particularly notable item was a gold, heart-shaped pectoral jewel
inlaid with rubies and diamonds, which was worn by the young crown
prince, Dewa Agung Gedé Agung, shortly before his death in the puputan (see
Brinkgreve in Ter Keurs, 2006; Wiener, 1995 and also case study 5 in this article).
According to anthropologist Margaret Wiener, who interviewed Balinese in
the 1980s who were eyewitnesses to the 1908 puputan, this twelve-year-old boy
was one of the most courageous fighters against Dutch power. A third group
of 123 less valuable objects, largely silver instead of gold, were sold publicly
in Batavia, with the proceeds going to the Dutch treasury (Brinkgreve in Ter
Keurs, 2006, pp. 134-141).
Wiener (1995 p. 325) presents a compelling anthropological analysis of the
puputan, unveiling the disparate cultural interpretations of the event between
the Dutch and the Balinese. Whereas the Dutch construed the puputan as an
act of fanatical mass suicide, the Balinese perceived it as an acknowledgement
that their tangible realm (sekala) had reached its terminus, with the underlying
source of royal authority and the catalyst of defeat rooted in the intangible realm
(niskala). Wiener (1995, p. 58) interprets the Balinese conceptualisation of power
(kesaktian) as intrinsically linked to one’s communion with unseen forces and
deities, with monarchs entrusted with the mediation of these forces on behalf
of their subjects. The puputan, from this perspective, represented a ritualistic
transition from the visible to the invisible realm, a cosmological event rather
than a mere military defeat (Wiener, 1995).
Research conducted by Antara et al. (2019) on the 1906 puputan of Badung,
two years preceding the events in Klungkung, similarly identifies pivotal
ideological motifs, encompassing heroism, honour, and self-respect, framing
the battlefield as a realm of ritualistic self-sacrifice (rana yadnya), underpinned
JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

305

Rodney Westerlaken

Pp. 299—323

by conservatism in the face of colonial invasion. These ideological precepts
were disseminated through mediums such as wayang puppetry, literary
compositions, familial ties, and governmental edicts (Antara et al., 2019, p. 28).
The study highlights the role of the Badung Royal Family in instilling these
values, particularly through the figure of Gusti Ngurah Denpasar, who led
his troops in a defiant march against the Dutch while dressed in white as a
symbol of purity and readiness for death (Antara et al., 2019, p.29). The parallels
with the puputan Klungkung are evident, suggesting a shared cultural ethos of
resistance and sacrifice in the face of colonial aggression.
Thirty years after the military campaigns, the question of possibly
returning several of the looted kerisses was raised in 1938 (Brinkgreve in Ter
Keurs, 2006, pp. 134-141; Wiener, 1995) during preparations for the institution
of the small Balinese states. Resident Moll considered whether it would be
desirable to loan several kerisses to the new administrators, heirs to the former
rulers, as a symbol of their greater independence (Brinkgreve in Ter Keurs,
2006; Wiener, 1995). Bali-based anthropologist and archaeologist Roelof Goris
was consulted for advice, and prominent Balinese from the Royal Families of
Badung, Klungkung, Tabanan, and Gianyar were invited to the museum in
Batavia to identify their ancestors’ heirlooms, convey their origins, describe
associated rituals, and discuss the legendary powers of the objects (Brinkgreve
in Ter Keurs, 2006, pp. 134-141; Wiener, 1995, p. 345).
An emissary (Cokorda Anom) from Klungkung recognised an important
keris called Durga Dingkul. The Dewa Agung requested the return of the Durga
Dingkul, but with the sheat and hilt of the Ardawalika, as well as two tombak (Si
Baru Ngit (Gnat) and Si Baru Gudug). However, none of the kerisses was ultimately
returned. Goris argued that while they were sacred heirlooms (pusaka) of the
relevant families, they were not genuine state jewels or objects without which
a prince would have been unable to rule (Brinkgreve in Ter Keurs, 2006, pp.
134-141, Wiener 1995, p. 345-346). Wiener (1995, p. 348) is of the opinion that
the Durga Dingkul was chosen rather than Bangawan Canggu because it was a
gift from Bali’s conqueror Gajah Mada, making it fitting for the new conquerors
in whose name the Dewa Agung reigned, and it was closer to ancestral origins.
Recent investigations by Mooren et al. (2022) are important for the
future of cultural artefacts seized from Klungkung in 1908. They spotlighted
a ceremonial keris (dagger) catalogued in the National Museum of World
Cultures collection as RV-3600-193. The provenance detailing the specific
Balinese individual to whom it pertained prior to confiscation remains absent.
Conversely, the Keris Ardawalika, acknowledged as the personal possession of
Klungkung’s monarch, was granted separate treatment, remaining in Batavia
by virtue of its association with its esteemed owner (Mooren et al., 2022). In
306

JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

Pp. 299—323

Reclaiming Klungkung’s Cultural Heritage: Navigating the Complexities of ...

2008, the keris were temporarily repatriated to Klungkung for the anniversary
commemoration of the puputan (Mooren et al., 2022).
The fate of these artefacts raises pertinent questions about the ethical
dimensions of colonial collections and the ongoing impact of historical
injustices. The violent circumstances of the heirlooms’ acquisition, the cultural
and spiritual significance the heirlooms held for the Balinese people, and the
symbolic role the heirlooms played in the puputan all point to the complex
entanglements of power, resistance, and identity that characterise the colonial
encounter. The fact that many of these objects remain in Dutch museums and in
Jakarta, far from their original context, is a testament to the enduring legacies of
colonialism and the challenges of reconciling the past with the present.
Van Beurden, a Dutch researcher and activist in favour of repatriation,
describes an increasing global discourse advocating for the repatriation of
colonial-era acquisitions in his book “Treasures in Trusted Hands: Negotiating
the Future of Colonial Cultural Objects” (2017). He argues that objects stored in
foreign museums and private collections should be returned to their respective
countries of origin. This discourse is rooted in a growing recognition of the
ethical and moral implications of holding onto objects that were often acquired
through dubious or outright violent means and the need to redress historical
wrongs and promote cultural sovereignty. The debate around repatriation
is complex, involving issues of legal ownership, cultural heritage, national
identity, and the role of museums in a postcolonial world (van Beurden, 2017).
In the Dutch context, the issue of repatriation has gained significant
traction in recent years. In 2020, the Dutch Minister of Education, Culture,
and Science solicited guidance from the Council for Culture to formulate a
national policy framework (see Gonçalves-Ho Kang You, 2021, pp. 1-138). The
Dutch advisory committee report in October 2021 delineates directives for
addressing repatriation appeals, encompassing the recognition of historical
injustices stemming from colonial looting, the unconditional return of objects
demonstrably acquired involuntarily from former colonies upon request,
consideration of requests for culturally significant objects despite ambiguous
provenance of theft, engagement of an independent advisory commission,
facilitation of provenance research, and promotion of collaboration with source
nations (Gonçalves-Ho Kang You, 2021, pp. 1-138). This framework, which the
Dutch government has adopted, advances a viable avenue for the repatriation
of artefacts from Klungkung and comparable places.
The implementation of a framework, however, is not without its
challenges. Provenance research, the process of tracing an object’s country or area
of origin and ownership history, is often complicated by incomplete or missing
documentation (Mooren et al., 2022). The passage of time, the destruction of
JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

307

Rodney Westerlaken

Pp. 299—323

records, and the complex trajectories of objects through different institutions and
collections can make it difficult to establish clear lines of provenance (Mooren et
al., 2022). Moreover, the question of who has the authority to claim ownership
and initiate repatriation requests is not always straightforward, particularly in
cases where the original owners or their descendants are not easily identifiable
(van Beurden, 2017).
Despite these challenges, the importance of repatriation to address
colonial legacies and promote cultural justice cannot be overstated. By returning
artefacts to their communities of origin, museums and governments can
acknowledge the historical wrongs that led to their acquisition and contribute
to the healing of colonial trauma (van Beurden, 2017). Repatriation can also
serve to empower source communities, restore cultural pride, and promote the
continuity of cultural practices and knowledge systems that were disrupted by
colonialism (see van Beurden, 2017; Direktorat Jenderal Kebudayaan RI, 2023).
In the case of the puputan Klungkung artefacts, repatriation would hold
particular significance given the context of their acquisition and the role the
heirlooms played in the Balinese resistance against Dutch colonialism. The
kerisses, jewellery, and other objects looted from the Court were not mere
spoils of war but embodiments of Balinese cultural identity, spiritual power,
and political authority (Brinkgreve in Ter Keurs, 2006; Wiener, 1995). Their
return would not only restore a measure of cultural sovereignty to the Balinese
people but also serve as a powerful symbol of reconciliation and respect for the
sacrifices made by those who fought and died in the puputan.
By revealing the cultural and ideological discourse underpinning events
like the puputan Klungkung, works by scholars such as Wiener (1995), Ter Keurs
(2006), Antara et al. (2019), and Mooren et al. (2022) provide indispensable
context for deliberations concerning repatriation. These and other scholars
underscore the permanent significance of the appropriated artefacts to Balinese
identity, history, and collective memory and the ways in which the absence of
these objects continues to resonate in the present. Sustained scholarly inquiry,
conversation, and collaboration among Dutch and Indonesian stakeholders,
inclusive of Balinese community perspectives, constitute imperative
fundamentals as the repatriation endeavour progresses.
While the Dutch Council for Culture’s framework constitutes a pivotal stride,
substantial endeavours are needed to address this multifaceted colonial legacy
judiciously. The process of repatriation is not merely a bureaucratic or legal matter
but a deeply human one, involving the recognition of past injustices, the healing
of intergenerational trauma, and the restoration of cultural dignity. It requires a
willingness to confront uncomfortable truths, engage in difficult conversations, and
imagine new forms of relationship and solidarity across borders and histories.
308

JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

Pp. 299—323

Reclaiming Klungkung’s Cultural Heritage: Navigating the Complexities of ...

In this light, the repatriation of the puputan Klungkung artefacts represents
not only an opportunity to redress a specific historical wrong but also a chance
to set a precedent for a more equitable and ethical approach to cultural heritage
in the postcolonial era. By returning these objects to their rightful owners,
the Netherlands and Indonesia can demonstrate a commitment to justice,
reconciliation, and mutual respect and pave the way for a new chapter in
their shared history. The challenges are significant, but so too are the potential
rewards - not only for the Balinese people but for all those who believe in the
power of cultural heritage to unite, heal, and transform.
The current state of Klungkung reflects a complex negotiation between
historical legacy and modern realities. Since 2011, the Royal Family’s position
has been marked by a significant stance regarding their historical lineage. Ida
Dalem Semara Putra, the current Panglingsir of Puri Klungkung, has emphasised
that all courts throughout Bali have rejected and do not recognise any claims of
direct Majapahit royal descent (pers. comm., 2021). This position underscores
a more nuanced understanding of Balinese royal history, with the Klungkung
royalty tracing their lineage to Dalem Sri Aji Kresna Kepakisan, who ruled Bali
under Majapahit influence rather than claiming direct Majapahit ancestry.
Klungkung maintains a solid connection to its royal past by preserving
symbolic titles and traditions. The ‘Dalem’ title, which signifies “the most
respected and glorified insider” (Laksemi, 2009, p. 46), is an essential marker
of royal lineage. This title carries deep cultural and religious significance,
symbolising the divine nature of royal authority in Balinese Hindu tradition.
The persistence of these titles and associated symbols in modern Klungkung
suggests a more conservative approach to cultural heritage than in other parts
of Bali and a pragmatic approach to historical interpretation in the modern
era, highlighting Klungkung’s distinct identity within Balinese royal history.
However, as Laksemi notes, the meaning and function of these royal symbols
are continuously reinterpreted in contemporary Balinese society, balancing
traditional reverence with the realities of a democratic Indonesia (Laksemi,
2009, pp. 55-56).
3. Methodology
This study employed a qualitative research design, utilising a case
study approach to investigate the complexities surrounding the repatriation of
cultural artefacts from Klungkung. The case study method allows for an indepth exploration of the historical, cultural, and ethical dimensions (Yin, 2018).
Five specific artefacts were selected, providing a comprehensive understanding
of the challenges and considerations involved in the repatriation process.
The five artefacts—a golden bokor, a ceremonial keris, an ivory offering box,
JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

309

Rodney Westerlaken

Pp. 299—323

a dance bodice, and a pendant belonging to the Crown Prince Dewa Agung
Gede Agung—were selected based on their cultural significance, their current
storage in Dutch and Indonesian museums, and their relevance to the broader
discourse on repatriation and contemporary colonial legacy. These artefacts
serve as representative cases, illuminating the diverse issues and perspectives
that shape the repatriation debate.
Data collection for this study involved a combination of ongoing archival
research, literature review, and ongoing stakeholder dialogues regarding
repatriation. Archival sources, including historical documents and governmental
reports, were consulted to establish the provenance and contextual background
of the selected artefacts. A literature review was conducted to situate the study
within the existing scholarship on colonial history, cultural heritage, and
repatriation ethics.
Data analysis followed an iterative, thematic approach, allowing for the
identification of key patterns, themes, and relationships within the collected
data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The analysis was guided by the research objectives
and theoretical framework, which emphasise the importance of cultural heritage
preservation, restitution ethics, and stakeholder engagement. Comparative
analysis was employed to examine the similarities and differences across the
five case studies, contributing to a holistic understanding of the repatriation
landscape.
The methodology adopted in this study aligns with the principles
of decolonial and participatory research, which prioritise the voices,
knowledge, and agency of communities affected by colonial legacies (Smith,
2012). By centring the perspectives of Balinese stakeholders and engaging
in collaborative knowledge production, this research aimed to contribute
to a more equitable and culturally sensitive approach to repatriation.
4. Case Studies
This chapter presents five cultural artefacts originating from Klungkung
Court that are currently held in, or until recently were part of, museum
collections in the Netherlands and Indonesia. The historical and cultural
significance of these objects - a golden bokor (offering bowl), a ceremonial keris
(dagger), an ivory offering box, a dance bodice, and a piece of royal chest
jewellery - are described using information sourced from the online catalogues
of the respective museums. By relying on the museums’ own descriptions and
further context, the chapter aims to provide insight into how these institutions
understand and present the provenance, craftsmanship, and meaning of these
Klungkung artefacts to the public.
310

JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

Pp. 299—323

Reclaiming Klungkung’s Cultural Heritage: Navigating the Complexities of ...

Artefact 1: Bokor RV-1684-1

Figure. 2. Bokor RV-1684-1. Source: Stichting Nationaal Museum voor Wereld
Culturen, (n.d.).
This bokor originates from Klungkung and is in the collection of Stichting
Nationaal Museum voor Wereld Culturen. It dates back to the period between
1850 and 1900 and measures 4.5 x 22 cm (Figure 2). Traditionally, bokors
were made of silver, although golden examples were not uncommon in royal
courts. Nowadays, they are mostly made of cheaper aluminium. Bokors serve
various purposes within religious and cultural practices. They often function
as presentation platforms for towers of fruit and pastries called banten gebogan,
which are offered to the gods and deified ancestors at temples. Additionally,
they are used to transport smaller offerings and gifts to ritual sites. Sometimes,
they serve as trays for betel or sirih sets.
The bokor in question is made of gold and features decorative borders. It
was part of the inventory of the Klungkung Court until Dutch troops seized it
after the puputan Klungkung on April 28, 1908 (Stichting Nationaal Museum
voor Wereld Culturen, 2024). It is classified as an offering vessel and belongs
to the offering bowls subcategory within the object collection. In total, twentythree silver and golden bokors (RV1684 1,3,64-76, RV3600-91-95, 98, and TM-H38, 41 (Stichting Nationaal Museum voor Wereld Culturen, 2024) originate from
the puputan Klungkung collection.

JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

311

Rodney Westerlaken

Pp. 299—323

Artefact 2: Keris RV-1684-193

Figure 3. Keris RV-3600-193. Source: Stichting Nationaal Museum voor Wereld
Culturen, (n.d.).
The Staatsiekeris, or Ceremonial keris, with inventory number RV-3600193 (Stichting Nationaal Museum voor Wereld Culturen, 2024), has a rich and
contentious history originating from the puputan in Klungkung (Figure 3).
The Staatsiekeris is a ceremonial weapon characterised by distinctive features,
including a wavy blade with pamor patterns, a gold ring adorned with precious
stones connecting the blade to the hilt, and an intricately carved hilt depicting
a malignant demon. Crafted from ivory and speckled wood, the sheath further
emphasises its Balinese provenance. Recent provenance investigation traces the
journey of the Staatsiekeris from its acquisition by the KNIL during the puputan
in Klungkung to its possession by the Dutch State.
The keris was among the spoils of war transported to the Netherlands in
1908, where it was allocated to various museums, eventually becoming part of
the collection of Museum Volkenkunde in 1956 (Quist, 2022). Despite confirming
the Staatsiekeris’s connection to the puputan in Klungkung, several uncertainties
remain regarding its specific origin and ownership (Quist, 2022). This ceremonial
keris, along with other cultural artefacts, was repatriated to Indonesia in July
2023 after years of diplomatic negotiations. Its return symbolised the restoration
of Indonesia’s cultural heritage and sovereignty, celebrated through public
exhibition and recognition. Wiener (1995) highlights, based on the babad dalam,
how royal authority is symbolised through the ownership of powerful keris,
which play a crucial role in Klungkung royal traditions.
The babad ksatria mentions the regalia kerisses as a major token of power.
This insight raises questions about the current status of returned keris and
heirloom keris in the Museum Nasional’s collection. In total, six other kerisses
312

JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

Pp. 299—323

Reclaiming Klungkung’s Cultural Heritage: Navigating the Complexities of ...

(RV1684 56, 58a, 59-62) from the puputan Klungkung are in the collection of the
Stichting Nationaal Museum voor Wereld Culturen. RV-3600-193 was permanently
displayed in the Stichting Nationaal Museum voor Wereld Culturen in Leiden. After
repatriation in 2023, this keris was displayed at the Galeri Nasional in Jakarta in
the Repatriasi: Kembalinya Saksi Bisu Peradaban Nusantara exhibition (Historia.id.
2023).
The exact identity of the keris repatriated to Indonesia remains uncertain.
It is likely not the Bangawan Canggu, as no nagapasa (a distinctive symbol
associated with that particular keris, as described by Wiener, 1995, p. 120) can
be observed. Quist (2022) notes that the Ministry of Colonies archives consulted
during his investigation provided no further details regarding the specific
keris that came into the possession of the KNIL (Royal Netherlands East Indies
Army) during the puputan in Klungkung. While newspapers in the Dutch East
Indies reported on the expedition and mentioned some looted krisses with gold
figurative hilts set with precious stones, these descriptions lack sufficient detail
to identify the keris catalogued as RV-3600-193 conclusively. This ambiguity
surrounding the keris’s provenance and identity underscores the complexities
involved in tracing and authenticating historical artefacts, particularly those
acquired during colonial conflicts.
Artefact 3: Offering Box AK-MAK-280

Figure 4. Offering Box AK-MAK-280. Source: Vereniging van Vrienden der
Aziatische Kunst, (n.d.).
The Asian Art collection of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam holdings
includes an offering box in the form of a winged lion on loan from the Society
JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

313

Rodney Westerlaken

Pp. 299—323

of Friends of Asian Art (Vereniging van Vrienden der Aziatische Kunst) (Figure 4).
The box, measuring 12 cm high, 17.5 cm wide and 7.3 cm deep, is carved from
a single piece of hollowed-out ivory and exquisitely decorated. It stands on a
wooden base. A small square lid is cut out on the back amidst the lion’s flowing
manes. The craftsmanship is of the highest quality, likely dating the piece to the
19th century (Rijksmuseum, n.d.).
This rare offering box was collected in Bali in 1925 by the renowned
Dutch artist and art collector W.O.J. Nieuwenkamp. According to the seller, it
belonged to the former ruler of Klungkung, the Dewa Agung, who used it to
carry golden coins as offerings to the main temple (Brinkgreve, 2006). While
this provenance is difficult to confirm, the precious ivory material and refined
carving certainly make it a worthy possession for a Court. Nieuwenkamp
kept the lion box in his private collection for almost a decade before selling
it to the Society of Friends of Asian Art in November 1934 for 300 guilders. In
the intervening years, he published about the box and exhibited it as part of
displays of Indonesian art (Brinkgreve, 2006). As such, Nieuwenkamp played
an important role in bringing this exquisite example of Balinese ritual art to
the attention of art lovers and scholars. AK-MAK-280 was recently showcased
at the Grote Indonesië Tentoonstelling (Grand Indonesia Exhibition) in the
Nieuwe Kerk in Amsterdam (2023/24).
Artefact 4: Dance Bodice RV-1684-30

Figure 5. Dance Bodice RV-1684-30. Source: Stichting Nationaal Museum voor
Wereld Culturen, (n.d.).

314

JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

Pp. 299—323

Reclaiming Klungkung’s Cultural Heritage: Navigating the Complexities of ...

The Stichting Nationaal Museum voor Wereld Culturen in the Netherlands
holds a bodice, or sesimping, from Klungkung in Bali (Figure 5). Measuring 16.8
cm high, 39 cm wide, and 3 cm deep, this sleeveless garment is made of velvet
and adorned with intricate floral and leaf motifs embroidered in gold thread.
It showcases the exceptional skill of the decorative artists employed at the
Klungkung court (National Museum of World Cultures, 2024). Young female
dancers wore such bodices over a long-sleeved blouse as part of the costume for
the classical Balinese legong dance (National Museum of World Cultures, n.d.).
The Klungkung sesimping in the museum’s collection is a spoil of war
from the Dutch conquest of the kingdom in 1908. This remaining sesimping
is regarded as an irreplaceable testament to the rich dance tradition and
craftsmanship of the Klungkung court. RV-1684-30 was recently showcased at
the Grote Indonesië Tentoonstelling (Grand Indonesia Exhibition) in the Nieuwe
Kerk in Amsterdam (2023/24) and on the Bali, Welcome to Paradise exhibition
in 2019/20 in Leiden and Amsterdam. The Klungkung collection includes four
suling, a rebab, and gelungan for gambuh.
Some scholars have suggested that the sesimping in this collection was used
for gambuh rather than legong. This interpretation is reflected in the Juynboll
catalogue of 1912, which also identifies the object as a sesimping for gambuh.
However, Balinese scholar Ni Made Ruastiti, in personal communication (2024),
confirms that this is indeed a sesimping for legong. This view is corroborated
by Reichle (2010), who also identifies the sesimping as being used for legong
performances.
Artefact 5: Chest Jewellery 14891 (E.821)

Figure 6. Pendant 14891 (E.821), Source: Museum Nasional Indonesia, (n.d.).
The National Museum of Indonesia (former Koninklijk Bataviaasch
Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen, Batavia) in Jakarta holds a piece of
chest jewellery that once belonged to Crown Prince Dewa Agung Gede Agung,
JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

315

Rodney Westerlaken

Pp. 299—323

one of the most brave warriors in the battle of Klungkung in 1908 (National
Museum of Indonesia, n.d.) (Fig. 6). The pendant, with a length of 12.8 cm,
is decorated with floral and leaf patterns, inset with diamonds and rubies
(Brinkgreve in Ter Keurs, 2006). Belonging to Crown Prince Dewa Agung Gede
Agung, it stands as a silent testament to his courage and the heroic resolve of
the Klungkung Royal Family and their people in the face of insurmountable
odds. The pendant serves as a tangible reminder of the Balinese people’s rich
cultural heritage and indomitable spirit, as they would sacrifice everything to
defend their honour and way of life. The pendant is on permanent display in
Museum Nasional, Jakarta (also see Figure 1).
5. Results and Discussion
The five case studies presented in this article provide valuable insights
into the complexities surrounding the repatriation of cultural artefacts acquired
by Dutch forces in Klungkung in 1908. Each case study raises unique questions
and considerations that contribute to the broader discourse on decolonisation,
cultural heritage, and restitution ethics.
Case Study 1: Bokor RV-1684-1
The golden bokor, currently held by the Stichting Nationaal Museum voor
Wereld Culturen, prompts a re-evaluation of its classification as a museum object.
With 23 silver and golden bokor noted in the collection catalogue, it is essential
to consider the cultural significance of these objects beyond their display value.
Balinese culture is rooted in living traditions, and bokor continues to play a vital
role in religious and cultural practices, serving as a presentation platform for
offerings and gifts to deities and ancestors.
The sheer number of bokor in the collection raises questions about the
appropriateness of retaining such a large quantity of these culturally significant
objects in a museum setting, especially when some, if not all, of these bokor could
be reintegrated into the daily ceremonies and rituals of the Balinese people.
Case Study 2: Keris RV-1684-193
The repatriation of the ceremonial keris to Indonesia in July 2023 highlights
the complexities of national-level restitution efforts. While the return of Keris
to Indonesia is a significant step towards reconciliation, it is crucial to consider
whether this action truly serves justice for the local stakeholders in Klungkung.
Wiener (1995) repeatedly states that without the regalia, the heirloom keris is
incapacitated to act as a ‘protector of the realm’ (p. 344). As Gonçalves (pers.
comm., 2023.) conveyed to this author, “Law does not always bring justice.”
316

JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

Pp. 299—323

Reclaiming Klungkung’s Cultural Heritage: Navigating the Complexities of ...

The Dutch advisory committee must grapple with this reality when
making decisions about repatriation. The fact that the Dutch fought against the
sovereign Kingdom of Klungkung in 1908, before the Indonesian Declaration
of Independence in 1945, underscores the importance of considering the voices
of the original possessors in the restitution process. Engaging directly with the
Royal Family of Klungkung and the local community would ensure a more
equitable and culturally sensitive approach to repatriation.
Ida Dalem Semeraputra, the current King of Klungkung, believes the
keris should be returned to Klungkung rather than remain in Jakarta’s museums
(pers. comm., 2021). This position contrasts with historical events: in 1908, the
Dewa Agung’s brothers, exiled in Lombok, refused to accept a keris that had
belonged to the Dewa Agung when offered by Resident de Bruyn Kops (Wiener,
1995, p. 345). Paradoxically, in a letter to the Governor General on 29 June 1908,
the same Resident de Bruyn Kops argued that many Klungkung keris were
sacred and that returning them to Balinese lords would be indefensible.
Case Study 3: Offering Box AK-MAK-280
The ivory offering box, collected by W.O.J. Nieuwenkamp in 1925 and
currently held by the Society of Friends of Asian Art in Amsterdam, presents
a unique opportunity for the direct return of heritage. As the object is not part
of the Dutch state collection, the earlier mentioned Dutch advisory committee
lacks the authority to make decisions regarding its repatriation.
A request for its return to Klungkung was made in 2023 by the Westerlaken
foundation [not publicly published]. Case study 3 highlights the need for a
more comprehensive approach to restitution that extends beyond state-level
collections and engages with a broader range of individuals who are involved,
including private collectors and cultural institutions.
Case Study 4: Dance Bodice RV-1684-30
The dance bodice, or sesimping, from Klungkung demonstrates the value
of certain objects for display and study in a museum context. While the bodice
holds significant ethnological, antiquarian, and artistic value, it may no longer
hold special cultural or ancestral meaning to the Royal Family of Klungkung.
Moreover, its fragility may preclude its use in contemporary ceremonies. In
such cases, should a positive response emerge from local community-based
negotiations, retaining the object in a Dutch museum setting could serve to
preserve and showcase the rich craftsmanship and cultural heritage of the
Klungkung court, providing opportunities for transnational education and
appreciation of Balinese art and dance traditions.
JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

317

Rodney Westerlaken

Pp. 299—323

Case Study 5: Chest Jewellery 14891 (E.821)
The pendant of Crown Prince Dewa Agung Gede Agung, currently held
by the National Museum of Indonesia in Jakarta, underscores the need for a more
comprehensive approach to decolonisation and restitution. While much attention
has been focused on the return of objects from Dutch collections to Indonesia, it is
equally important to consider the redistribution of culturally significant artefacts
within Indonesia itself. The case of the keris Ardawalika, the Durga Dingkul keris,
this pendant, and other valuable objects from the Klungkung Court highlights
the potential for these items to be returned to their original context in Klungkung,
where these heirlooms can be reintegrated into ceremonial customs and serve as
powerful symbols of cultural identity and resilience.
Taken together, these case studies demonstrate the multifaceted nature
of the repatriation process and the need for a nuanced, culturally sensitive,
and inclusive approach to addressing colonial legacies. By engaging with
local stakeholders, considering the cultural significance of objects beyond
their museum value, and recognising the importance of intergovernmental
restitution efforts, all parties involved can work towards a more equitable and
just resolution to the complex issue of cultural heritage repatriation.
The research also highlights the importance of ongoing dialogue,
collaboration, and research in navigating the challenges of restitution. By bringing
together diverse perspectives from scholars, cultural institutions, government
bodies, and local communities, a more comprehensive understanding of the
historical, cultural, and ethical dimensions of these artefacts can be developed.
This approach will enable stakeholders to find solutions that prioritise the needs,
rights, and aspirations of the communities from which these objects originated.
Ultimately, the repatriation of cultural artefacts to the Klungkung
represents an opportunity to acknowledge and address historical injustices,
promote cultural sovereignty, and foster a spirit of reconciliation and mutual
respect between the Netherlands and Indonesia. By engaging in this process
with sensitivity, transparency, and a commitment to justice, a foundation can
be laid for a more equitable and collaborative approach to cultural heritage
management in the postcolonial era.
6. Conclusion
The repatriation of cultural artefacts obtained during the colonial era
is a complex and multifaceted issue that demands careful consideration and
a commitment to justice, reconciliation, and cultural sovereignty. The case
studies of objects from the Klungkung Court, seized by Dutch forces during
the puputan Klungkung in 1908, provide valuable insights into the historical,
cultural, and ethical dimensions of this issue. These case studies highlight the
318

JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

Pp. 299—323

Reclaiming Klungkung’s Cultural Heritage: Navigating the Complexities of ...

argument that repatriation is often carried out as part of restitution between
nations but without fully taking into account the needs and perspectives of the
local communities or families from which the repatriated objects originated.
Engaging with the specific communities affected by the colonial acquisition of
these artefacts is crucial to ensure that the repatriation process addresses their
concerns and contributes to a genuine sense of justice and reconciliation.
The examination of the golden bokor, ceremonial keris, ivory offering box,
dance bodice, and pendant of Crown Prince Dewa Agung Gede Agung reveals the
diverse challenges and considerations involved in the repatriation process. These
include the need to re-evaluate the classification of culturally significant objects
as museum pieces, the complexities of national-level restitution efforts, the role of
foreign and local private collectors and cultural institutions, the value of certain
objects for display and study, and the importance of intra-national restitution.
The findings underscore the necessity of engaging with local stakeholders,
such as the Royal Family of Klungkung and the Balinese community, to ensure
a more equitable and culturally sensitive approach to repatriation. It also
highlights the importance of ongoing dialogue, collaboration, and research
among scholars, cultural institutions, government bodies, and local communities
to navigate the challenges of restitution and develop solutions that prioritise the
needs and aspirations of the communities from which the artefacts originated.
The repatriation of the Klungkung artefacts represents an opportunity to
address historical injustices, promote cultural sovereignty, and foster a spirit
of reconciliation and mutual respect between the Netherlands and Indonesia.
By engaging in this process with sensitivity, transparency, and a commitment
to justice, an appropriate foundation can be laid for a more equitable and
collaborative approach to cultural heritage management in the postcolonial era.
However, the repatriation process is not without its challenges. Provenance
research can be complicated by incomplete or missing documentation, and the
question of who has the authority to claim ownership and initiate repatriation
requests is not always straightforward. Moreover, the repatriation of objects
to national institutions, such as the keris to the National Museum of Indonesia
in Jakarta, may not always serve the interests of local stakeholders, such as
the Royal Family of Klungkung and the Balinese community. Despite these
challenges, the importance of repatriation to address colonial legacies and
promote cultural justice cannot be overstated.
By returning artefacts to their communities of origin, museums and
governments can acknowledge the historical wrongs that led to their acquisition
and contribute to healing colonial trauma. Repatriation can also empower
source communities, restore cultural pride, and promote the continuity of
cultural practices and knowledge systems disrupted by colonialism.
JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

319

Rodney Westerlaken

Pp. 299—323

Repatriation processes have revealed a broader community interest in
Klungkung’s royal cultural artefacts, extending beyond the Royal Family itself.
This was particularly evident in successfully repatriating objects from private
collections originating from Klungkung, now displayed in the Semarajaya
Museum. The comprehensive media coverage and substantial public attendance
at the ceremonies in which ownership was transferred to the Royal Family
underscore the community’s engagement with their cultural heritage. Notably,
the Royal Family’s interest (pers. comm. 2022) encompasses not only heirloom
artefacts (pusaka) but also objects that play roles in daily court life, reflecting a
holistic approach to cultural reclamation. The Royal Family focuses primarily
on artefacts remaining in Dutch collections, indicating ongoing challenges and
opportunities in repatriation. This multifaceted interest from both the Royal
Family and the wider Klungkung community highlights the complex interplay
between historical legacy, cultural identity, and contemporary relevance in the
context of repatriation efforts.
This study is limited by its focus on a specific set of artefacts originating
from the Klungkung Court, and the findings may not be generalisable to other
contexts or repatriation efforts. Additionally, while the stakeholder dialogues
provide valuable insights, the perspectives of some key persons may not be
fully represented. Future research should explore the repatriation of artefacts to
other Indonesian regions or colonial contexts, employ a more extensive range
of data collection methods, such as surveys or focus groups, and investigate the
long-term impacts and outcomes of repatriation efforts on source communities
and cultural heritage preservation.
In conclusion, the repatriation of cultural artefacts from the Klungkung
Court is a complex process that requires a commitment to justice, reconciliation,
and cultural sovereignty. By engaging with local stakeholders, considering the
cultural significance of objects beyond their museum value, and recognising
the importance of intergovernmental restitution efforts, progress can be made
towards a more equitable and just resolution to the complex issue of cultural
heritage repatriation. The case studies presented in this article provide valuable
insights and lessons for navigating this process and serve as a call to action for
all those committed to addressing the legacies of contemporary colonialism and
promoting a more just and equitable future.
Bibliography
Agung, I. A. A. G. (1991). Bali in the 19th century. Yayasan Obor Indonesia.
Antara, A. A. K. A., Gelgel, I. P., & Utama, I. W. B. (2019). Ideology behind the
war of Puputan Badung. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and
320

JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

Pp. 299—323

Reclaiming Klungkung’s Cultural Heritage: Navigating the Complexities of ...

Culture, 5(6), 28-35. https://doi.org/10.21744/ijllc.v5n6.749
Ardhana, I. K. (2013). Pandangan Lokal Versus Barat Tentang Puputan Badung:
Ekspansi Imperialisme Modern Belanda dalam Konteks Bali. Jurnal Kajian Bali,
3(1), 65-86.
Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen. (1908). Notulen van
de Algemeene en Directievergaderingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap
van Kunsten en Wetenschappen (Vol. XLVI). Batavia.
Beurden, J. (2017). Treasures in trusted hands: Negotiating the future of colonial
cultural objects. Sidestone Press.
Bloembergen, M., & Eickhoff, M. (2020). The politics of heritage in Indonesia: A
cultural history. Cambridge University Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Brinkgreve, F. (2006). W.O.J. Nieuwenkamp en zijn vorstelijke leeuwendoosje.
Aziatische Kunst, 36(3), 2-15. https://doi.org/10.1163/25431749-90000082
Direktorat Jenderal Kebudayaan RI (2023). Siaran Pers: Serah Terima Koleksi
Benda Seni Bersejarah Indonesia dari Pemerintah Belanda. 10 Juli. https://
kebudayaan.kemdikbud.go.id/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Siaran-Pers.pdf
Elizondo, E. (2023). The history of the Elgin marbles and the ethics of repatriation
in the 21st century.
Geertz, C. (1980). The Theatre-State in Nineteeth-Century Bali. Princeton: Princeton
University Press
Gonçalves-Ho Kang You, L. (2021). Advies koloniale collecties en erkenning van onrecht.
https://www.raadvoorcultuur.nl/documenten/adviezen/2020/10/07/
advies-koloniale-collecties-en-erkenning-van-onrecht
Historia.id. 2023. Katalog Pameran Repatriasi: Kembalinya Saksi Bisu Peradaban
Nusantara. https://historia.id/microsite/katalog-pameran-repatriasi
Kim, E. (2024). Returning the Benin bronzes: An analysis under international
and U.S. law. Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law,
14(2), Article 5. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjicl/vol14/iss2/5
Laksemi, S. (2009). Makna Simbol Gelar Raja Dalam Masyarakat Adat Bali. ITB
Journal of Visual Art and Design. 3. 43-56. 10.5614/itbj.vad.2009.3.1.4.
Maslan, M. R. (2023, July 14). Ketika keris Puputan Klungkung pulang kampung.
Detik News. https://news.detik.com/x/detail/intermeso/20230714/KetikaKeris-Puputan-Klungkung-Pulang-Kampung/
Mooren, J., Stutje, K., & Vree, van, F. (2022). Sporen: Onderzoek naar
herkomstgeschiedenis en betekenisgeving van culturele projecten en collecties
verworven in koloniale situaties.
JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

321

Rodney Westerlaken

Pp. 299—323

National Museum of Indonesia. (n.d.). Chest pendant [Exhibition label]. Jakarta,
Indonesia.
National Museum of World Cultures. (n.d.) https://collectie.wereldmuseum.nl/
Parimartha, I. G. (2011). Aktualisasi Nilai-nilai ‘Puputan’ dalam Pembangunan
Karakter Bangsa. Jurnal Kajian Bali, 1(2), 130-139.
Pringle, R. (2004). A short history of Bali, Indonesia’s Hindu realm. Allen & Unwin.
Quist, T. (2022). Provenance report regarding Staatsiekeris - keris (Ceremonial Keris).
(PPROCE provenance reports; No. 31).
Reichle, N. (Ed.). (2010). Bali: Art, ritual, performance. Asian Art Museum.
Rijksmuseum. (n.d.). Ivoren doos in de vorm van een gevleugelde leeuw. https://
www.kvvak.nl/collectie/AK-MAK-280/
Robinson, G. (1995). The dark side of paradise: Political violence in Bali. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Ter Keurs, P. (2006). Indonesia: The Discovery of the Past. In E. S. Hardiati & P.
ter Keurs (Eds.), Leiden: KIT Publishers.
Titi, C. (2023). Elgin and the marbles. In The Parthenon marbles and international
law (pp. 63-95). Springer International Publishing.
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (2nd
ed.). Zed Books.
Stichting Nationaal Museum voor Wereld Culturen. (2024). NMVW-collectie.
Retrieved [29-05-2024], from https://collectie2.wereldculturen.nl/
UNESCO. 2009. Return of cultural objects: the Athens conference. Museum
International, Vol. 61, Issue 1-2. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/
pf0000182992.locale=en
Uzuegbu, J. O., Halilu, A., & Tella, A. O. (2024). Community museums as
holding centres for returned Nigerian cultural heritage.
Vickers, A. (2013). Bali: A paradise created. Tuttle Publishing.
Wiener, M. J. (1995). Visible and invisible realms: Power, magic, and colonial conquest
in Bali. University of Chicago Press.
Wijaya, I. N. (2023). Diskontinyuitas Sejarah Bali Abad XIX: Alternatif
Mempelajari Masa Lampau melalui Pendekatan Postmodern. Jurnal
Kajian Bali, 13(2), 692-716. https://doi.org/10.24843/JKB.2023.v13.i02.p15
Wirayudha, R. (2023, December 8). Pulangnya keris pusaka warisan Puputan
Klungkung. Historia. https://historia.id/kultur/articles/pulangnya-kerispusaka-warisan-Puputan-klungkung-vZ11x
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.).
SAGE Publications.

322

JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

Pp. 299—323

Reclaiming Klungkung’s Cultural Heritage: Navigating the Complexities of ...

Author Profile
Rodney Westerlaken is a Dutch senior lecturer and researcher at NHL
Stenden University and founder of Westerlaken Foundation, operating in the
Netherlands and Indonesia. An alumnus of Udayana University’s Cultural
Studies PhD program, his research focuses, among others, on the repatriation
of colonial-era artefacts and ethical considerations in museum collections.
Westerlaken advocates for human rights and has been appointed by the King of
Klungkung to assist in returning cultural heritage to the palace. Email: rodney.
westerlaken@nhlstenden.com

JURNAL KAJIAN BALI Vol. 14, No. 02, October 2024

323