When The New York Times describes an ancient Asian artefact as having been “discovered” by a British explorer in 1887, or when BBC documentaries portray colonial-era photographs as the first “documentation” of indigenous communities, they perpetuate a subtle but powerful form of epistemic violence. 

The language we use to describe heritage, particularly non-Western heritage, carries within it the residue of colonial power structures that continue to shape how societies understand their own pasts.

In Sri Lanka and across Asia, despite decades of political independence, the media frameworks through which cultural heritage is communicated remain deeply influenced by Eurocentric paradigms established during the colonial period. 

This dependency is not merely a matter of linguistic choices or editorial preferences; it reflects fundamental assumptions about whose knowledge counts, whose history matters, and who has the authority to interpret the past. 

As Asian nations increasingly assert their cultural sovereignty and demand the repatriation of looted artefacts, examining and challenging these media frames becomes essential to genuine decolonisation.

The colonial gaze in contemporary media

The problem begins with perspective. Western media and Asian media outlets that emulate Western journalistic conventions often frame Asian heritage through what postcolonial theorists call ‘the colonial gaze’: a way of seeing that positions Europe as the knowing subject and Asia as the object to be known, studied, and interpreted.

Consider how major international news outlets typically cover Asian cultural heritage. When reporting on archaeological discoveries, they frequently emphasise the role of Western institutions, researchers, or funding bodies whilst minimising local expertise. 

A temple complex studied by Sri Lankan archaeologists for decades becomes newsworthy only when a European university conducts a survey using new technology. The implicit message: Asian heritage requires Western validation to be considered significant.

This pattern is particularly evident in coverage of repatriation debates. When Asian nations request the return of looted artefacts, Western media often frame these demands as “controversial claims” or “disputes,” suggesting equivalence between the colonial theft and the request for return. 

The British Museum’s retention of the Amaravati Marbles, Buddhist sculptures looted from Andhra Pradesh, is described as “preservation,” whilst calls for their return are characterised as “nationalist politics”. The framing itself predetermines whose position appears reasonable.

Sri Lankan media, having inherited colonial-era journalistic structures, often reproduces these frames even when covering its own heritage. Newspapers, in particular, frequently cite Western archaeologists as primary authorities on Sri Lankan sites, relegating local scholars to secondary sources. 

Sinhala and Tamil-language electronic media fare somewhat better but still often defer to international validation, reflecting the deep psychological imprint of colonial education systems that taught generations to view indigenous knowledge as inferior to Western expertise.

Language as a site of colonial dependency

The terminology used in heritage discourse reveals persistent colonial assumptions. Words matter because they shape how we conceptualise reality. When examining media coverage of Asian heritage, several problematic patterns emerge.

First, the language of ‘discovery’ persists. Asian archaeological sites, monuments, and cultural practices are routinely described as having been “discovered” by European explorers, as though they did not exist or did not matter until Western eyes beheld them. 

Sigiriya was not ‘discovered’ by British cartographers in the 19th century; it had been known, documented, and venerated by Sri Lankan communities for over a millennium. Yet colonial-era language continues to position Europeans as the agents of revelation.

Second, the dichotomy between ‘history’ and ‘legend’ or ‘folklore’ encodes epistemic hierarchies. Western-documented accounts are presented as factual history, whilst Asian oral traditions, chronicle literature, and indigenous knowledge systems are relegated to the realm of myth or legend implicitly less reliable, less valuable. 

The ‘Mahavamsa,’ Sri Lanka’s ancient chronicle, is often described in Western media as “legendary history,” whilst far less rigorously documented European medieval chronicles are treated as straightforward historical sources.

Third, aesthetic vocabulary reflects colonial taste hierarchies. Asian art is frequently described using terms that mark it as exotic, mysterious, or decorative rather than intellectually sophisticated. Local architecture is “ornate” whilst European cathedrals are “masterpieces of engineering”. These subtle linguistic choices accumulate into a comprehensive framework that positions European culture as the norm against which all others are measured.

The dominance of English as the primary language of international heritage discourse exacerbates these problems. Concepts embedded in Asian languages, the Sinhala notion of ‘pinkama,’ the Tamil concept of ‘orumaipādu,’ or the Buddhist understanding of ‘anattā’ lose their nuance when translated into English frameworks. Media coverage that relies exclusively on English-language sources thus inevitably flattens indigenous meaning-making systems.

Museum-media complexes and narrative control

Museums and media outlets function as mutually reinforcing systems of knowledge production. Major Western museums – the British Museum, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Louvre – have sophisticated communications departments that actively shape media narratives about their collections. 

When these institutions produce press releases about Asian artefacts, they frame the objects according to their own institutional interests, emphasising aesthetic value, scholarly research conducted by their curators, and the museum’s role as guardian of “world heritage”.

These institutional narratives are then amplified by media outlets, creating what might be called a ‘museum-media complex’ that naturalises Western custodianship of Asian heritage. 

A 2019 study examining coverage of repatriation debates in major English-language newspapers found that Western museum directors were quoted as primary sources three times more frequently than representatives from origin communities. 

The structural bias of news production, relying on institutional spokespeople, favouring English-language sources, and prioritising Western expertise, systematically marginalises Asian voices even in stories about Asian heritage.

Social media has somewhat disrupted this monopoly, allowing Asian scholars, activists, and communities to articulate counter-narratives. Sri Lankan archaeologists now use platforms like X and ResearchGate to challenge misrepresentations in international media. 

Tamil diaspora communities have created digital archives documenting heritage destruction during the civil war, offering alternatives to official narratives. Yet these interventions remain marginal compared to the resources and reach of established Western media institutions.

Economic structures and narrative production

The political economy of heritage media reinforces Eurocentric frames. International tourism, a crucial revenue source for Sri Lanka and other Asian nations, is marketed through narratives that emphasise aspects of heritage most legible to Western tourists. This creates economic incentives for media outlets to reproduce familiar colonial-era frames rather than developing culturally rooted alternatives.

Travel journalism exemplifies this dynamic. Articles in Western lifestyle magazines about Sri Lanka’s Cultural Triangle inevitably reference British colonial explorers, quote extensively from Victorian-era travel accounts, and frame ancient hydraulic civilisations as “surprisingly sophisticated,” the surprise revealing underlying assumptions about Asian capabilities. 

These narratives are then picked up by Sri Lankan tourism authorities and reproduced in promotional materials, creating a feedback loop where colonial perspectives become self-perpetuating.

Documentary filmmaking faces similar pressures. International broadcasters commissioning heritage documentaries typically require English-language narration, Western presenters, or ‘relatable’ framing for their audiences. 

A documentary about Anuradhapura’s ancient dagobas might be commissioned only if it includes a British presenter ‘discovering’ the site or if it frames the civilisation through comparison with Rome. Local documentary makers, dependent on international funding and distribution, often accept these constraints, further entrenching Eurocentric frameworks.

Media, memory and the path forward

The decolonisation of media frames is not merely an academic exercise or a matter of political correctness. It is fundamental to cultural sovereignty, the right of communities to define themselves, interpret their histories, and transmit their knowledge on their own terms. 

As long as Asian heritage is predominantly communicated through Eurocentric frameworks, intellectual colonisation persists regardless of political independence.

Media shapes collective memory. The stories told about heritage, whose voices are amplified, whose knowledge is validated, and whose perspectives are centred, determine how communities understand their relationship to the past and envision their futures. 

When Sri Lankan children learn about their heritage primarily through frameworks that privilege Western expertise and validation, they internalise a sense of cultural inferiority that undermines genuine decolonisation.

The path forward requires us to recognise that objectivity itself is not neutral. The conventions of Western journalism – the claim to detached observation, the hierarchy of sources, the privileging of documentary evidence over oral testimony – encode particular cultural assumptions that are not universal. 

Developing authentically decolonised media practices means not simply adding diverse voices to existing structures but fundamentally reimagining what counts as authoritative knowledge and how heritage narratives should be constructed.

This transformation begins with conscious choices in our daily practice. Journalists must question the language of ‘discovery’ and replace it with ‘documentation’ or ‘Western encounter.’ We must describe objects as ‘removed during colonial period’ rather than euphemistically ‘acquired.’ 

Media coverage should prioritise Asian scholars, particularly those working in local languages and employing indigenous methodologies. When covering sacred sites, we should quote religious custodians, ritual specialists, and local communities whose lived relationships with heritage are often more intimate than scholars’ analytical knowledge.

Heritage journalism should move beyond English-language dominance. Publishing substantive heritage coverage in Sinhala and Tamil, with English as translation rather than primary language, would fundamentally shift whose knowledge is centred. 

When covering museum collections, journalists should routinely investigate and report acquisition histories, specifying when and how objects were acquired. Visual narratives must also change, showing artefacts in ritual use, community settings, or original architectural contexts rather than isolated against neutral backgrounds.

Regional collaboration offers structural possibilities for change. The Asian News Network, connecting major newspapers across Asia, could develop shared guidelines for heritage coverage that centre Asian perspectives. 

Pan-Asian documentary collectives could produce heritage content that circulates regionally before seeking Western distribution, bypassing the gatekeeping that enforces Eurocentric frames.

Sri Lanka’s media institutions have particular responsibility and opportunity in this context. As a nation with continuous civilisational heritage, sophisticated indigenous knowledge systems, and ongoing repatriation efforts, Sri Lanka could model decolonised heritage journalism. University journalism programmes should integrate decolonial media theory into curricula, training the next generation of heritage communicators.

The task is urgent. As digital media transforms information flows and Asian nations increasingly assert cultural sovereignty, this moment offers unprecedented possibilities for change. 

Whether Sri Lankan and Asian media will seize this opportunity, or continue reproducing colonial dependencies, will shape not only how heritage is communicated but how future generations understand their place in the world. The stories we tell about the past are always, ultimately, stories about power in the present. It is time to reclaim those stories.

(The writer is an ethnographer and art historian specialising in material culture, critical museum studies, and participatory research methodologies. As a member of Provenance Research on Objects of the Colonial Era (PPROCE), the Netherlands and Dutch Research Council (NWO) committees, she engages with repatriation and decolonisation debates. She currently holds a NIAS-NIOD-KITLV Research Fellowship in the Netherlands)

(The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the official position of this publication)