lewis_2

New online tool will help museums assess a moral claim for restitution

Thu, 19 Mar 2026 21:46:16 GMT

“Modern morality,” wrote Oscar Wilde, “consists in accepting the standard of one’s age.” But how can museums define the moral standard of our age when constrained by historic rules of stewardship and the absence of a modern ethical framework?

A new free online tool designed to help museum trustees resolve these moral decision-making dilemmas has been launched by practical ethicists at Oxford’s Uehiro Institute, working closely with the UK’s Institute of Art and Law.

At an official launch in Oxford this month, members of the working group who’ve spent the past two years designing DARCA (The Decision Aid for the Restitution of Cultural Artefacts) explained how the introduction of a new shared framework and ethical vocabulary can help museums engage more effectively with communities seeking the return of artefacts.

“There’s not one right answer,” explained Erica Crump, Managing Partner at London-based lawyers Bates Wells speaking at the launch. “But DARCA helps make decisions within the range of what is reasonable.” The new tool “brings back a nuance to the debate.”

After the new Charities Act 2022 introduced a provision that allows charities to return lower value items where a moral obligation can be demonstrated, trustees discovered there were no shared ethical tools to help them evaluate a case for restitution. With the introduction of DARCA this may change.

DARCA introduces “moral philosophy to resolve these ethical problems”, explained Alexander Herman, Director of the Institute of Art and Law, adding that philosophy was the one voice missing when the Charities Act was enacted. By combining philosophy and new museum ethics, DARCA can play a role, “even when there are reasons to question a moral decision.”

Operating the tool takes the user through a series of questions that probe whether an object was removed in a morally illegitimate manner . It does this by considering both the claimant’s relationship to the artefact and the nature of the relationship between the claimant and the events surrounding the object’s illegitimate removal. The tool also takes into consideration any legitimate expectation of retention by the present owner.

Isn’t this something museums already do when they engage with source communities? Not according to Frezer Haile, who served as a senior advisor and negotiator for Ethiopia’s government on matters of cultural restitution. Speaking at the launch, Haile explained that linguistic issues still lie at the heart of the problem. “Institutions do not speak the same language,” insisted Haile. “The lack of tools in Ethiopia’s negotiations was a drawback.... they simply didn’t understand what we were talking about.” However, drawing on this new structured framework and language, Haile believes DARCA’s new tools can help alleviate this problem.

The tool’s outcomes do not constitute legal advice, nor do they help assess the strength of a particular legal claim. Trustees in England’s national collections will continue to be constrained by their current exclusion from provisions that permit the transfer of charity property. So, they cannot benefit from application of the tool right now. But Britain's Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) could affect a much needed change.

The tool is free for anyone to use, so we decided to test it on an object in the V&A’s collection. Most people would agree the moral case for permanent return of this particular object is beyond dispute. What would DARCA conclude?

The object we selected is a silver and embossed monstrance ( No. M.367-1956 ), commissioned in 1538 by the Collegiate Church of Santa Maria la Mayor in Toro, northern Spain. The monstrance was stolen from the Church in 1890. After passing through several private collections it was bequeathed to the V&A in 1955. However, its identity and history only came to the Museum’s attention in the 1980s, leading to a formal petition for its return in 2004. Unable to deaccession the monstrance owing to restrictions in the 1983 National Heritage Act, the V&A have returned the monstrance to Toro, but only on the basis of a long-term renewable loan.

DARCA’s evaluation, based on the submissions we inputted, confirmed the ’strong general basis for a moral obligation to return’. It also concluded ‘the institution (i.e. the V&A) does not have a moral claim to the item based on a legitimate expectation of retention’.

We have a suspicion the V&A might agree with this evaluation. But will the DCMS acknowledge the benefits this new tool can offer the entire museum sector while they set about their review of the Charities Act 2022? Will DARCA's introduction of a new shared framework encourage them to reverse the present exclusion of national collections from a moral obligation to return an object? The Collegiate Church of Santa Maria la Mayor in Toro certainly hopes it will.

Photo: Courtesy of The Uehiro Oxford Institute

Cambridge University’s transfer of legal title of Benin artefacts to Nigeria may lead others to do the same

Sat, 14 Feb 2026 13:47:30 GMT

This week’s announcement that Cambridge University has transferred legal ownership of its collection of 116 Benin artefacts to Nigeria could be hugely significant.

It suggests the hesitation of some western collections that has prevented them returning Benin artefacts before Nigerian stakeholders agree operational and exhibition responsibilities could be receding. Might this encourage others to do the same?

Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments (NCMM) made their repatriation request to Cambridge’s Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (MAA) in January 2022. Like other major UK and European museums, Cambridge’s collection was formed after the violent British sacking of Benin City in February 1897. Nigeria is keen to see the return of these much-valued looted artefacts.

The request was part of a wide-ranging engagement the Museum has had with the NCMM, state and federal governments, members of the Royal Court of the Oba (king) of Benin, and other Nigerian scholars and stakeholders over the last ten years. Their engagement has involved dialogue, research and liaison visits to Benin City.

“Over the period, support has mounted, nationally and internationally, for the repatriation of artefacts that were appropriated in the context of colonial violence,” explained Director of the MAA Professor Nicholas Thomas. “This return has been keenly supported across the University community.”

Securing the authorisations required to return the Museum’s 116 Benin artefacts took less than twelve months. The University’s Council supported Nigeria’s claim in July 2022 and the UK’s Charity Commission granted their permission in December the same year. But arrangements for the physical return of the artefacts have been stalled while political wrangling continued in Nigeria over who should manage the return, conservation, storage and exhibition of the artefacts. It's understandable why Cambridge, like other western institutions, decided to wait out this process until arrangements are finalised.

Prince Aghatise Erediauwa and Professor Nicholas Thomas, pictured at the MAA in 2021 as part of the Benin Dialogue Group Courtesy of the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology

Operational responsibility for the return of the artefacts was finally settled in February last year when the Oba of Benin Ewuare II signed a management agreement for the NCMM to continue in this important role. But although an exhibition of returning Benin artefacts is currently taking place at the less than state-of-the-art Benin City National Museum, longer-term arrangements remain contentious.

As widely reported, the Oba has spoken of a desire to see his ancestors’ artefacts exhibited in a new (unfunded) Benin Royal Museum. At the same time, he has attacked the motives and aspirations (since watered down) to display these artefacts at the new Museum of West African Art (MOWAA), where many western institutions understood their Benin artefacts would be exhibited.

Opinions and tempers are still running high. This was all too apparent last November when protests erupted during an international preview of the recently completed MOWAA. Demonstrators at the event made it clear they wished to see the new museum placed under the direct control of the Oba. Some were calling for it to be renamed as the Benin Royal Museum.

We can’t help feeling within those protests may lie the seeds of a compromise. A permanent exhibition of Benin bronzes at the MOWAA would meet with approval of those western institutions who’ve not only engaged in a lengthy dialogue about exhibition opportunities at MOWAA but may also have made a financial contribution to its construction and resources. To these institutions at least, the politics between the different stakeholders are possibly less important than the security and standards of museum resources and facilities.

Why Cambridge has decided now to transfer legal title of their Benin artefacts to the NCMM, three years after they received authorisation, is therefore significant. Could it be they feel the time has arrived to relax their earlier hesitation? A statement from NCMM’s Director-General, Olugbile Holloway, makes it clear that both parties have arrived at “a pivotal point in our dialogue”. He adds, “it is our hope that this will spur other museums to head in a similar direction.”

According to the MAA, a formal handover ceremony is expected within months rather than years. In the meantime, in the same spirit of collaboration the NCMM has forged with other museums holding Benin artefacts, including the Horniman Museum and Gardens in London and the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African Art in Washington DC, a small number of Benin artefacts will be allowed to remain on loan at the MAA in Cambridge.

This is another sign of a growing confidence that continued dialogue can lead to opportunities for collaboration. It may also encourage others to consider transferring legal title of their Benin artefacts to Nigeria.

Photo: Commemorative Head of the Oba, or King, in brass

Courtesy of Fred Lewsey

DCMS will review its exclusion of national collections from returning cultural objects on moral grounds

Wed, 04 Feb 2026 17:37:19 GMT

Britain’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has confirmed it will review the exclusion it imposed on national collections that prevents them from returning cultural objects on moral grounds. The review provides an opportunity to reverse an unwelcome inconsistency in the UK Charities Act 2022.

Implementation of the Act, delayed until November 2025, now permits charities to make small ex gratia disposals of charity property on moral grounds - without the oversight of the Charity Commission or the Attorney General.

But in an unusual step, sixteen statutory national museums and galleries, all registered charities, were told these new rules contained in provisions 15 and 16 of the Act would not apply to them. This was an unexpected and disturbing development as exclusion impacts on their potential to engage in any kind of discussions that may lead to full restitution, even for objects of the lowest financial value.

DCMS parliamentary under-secretary Stephanie Peacock explained in a statement made in November that government does not want these new powers to override existing restrictive clauses that prevent the disposal of objects by national collections. The Minister also added the full implications of the Act had not been “debated in Parliament”.

Legal experts have cried foul. In a recent blog, the law firm BatesWells maintains “this argument is incorrect: the impact on statutory charities was clearly explained in the material before Parliament.” The blog also points out it is “constitutionally beside the point, because it is not for government to render a law nugatory because it did not think that Parliamentarians focussed on the ‘right’ issues.”

Further criticism has come from within Parliament itself. A report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI), a cross-part committee of MPs and peers that scrutinises secondary legislation, says that “if the government disagrees with legislation that Parliament has passed, the correct approach is to pass new legislation rather than seeking to undercut it by simply not commencing it.”

The JCSI report did not rule the action unlawful because DCMS has confirmed the exclusion was meant to be temporary and not permanent. The Department has also committed to undertake a review of the Charities Act 2002 within five years of it receiving Royal Assent. In other words, by latest February 2027.

By agreeing to this review, DCMS does not guarantee a change in direction. It could still lead to new legislation that maintains the status quo. However, it is encouraging the Department believes the issue should be subject to further Parliamentary debate, as well as to consultation with the sector and the public. We hope DCMS and the government will use the next twelve months to undertake a serious review of how other non-statutory museums and collections are responding to legitimate claims for restitution.

Why should government not fear the alignment of an ex gratia policy for national collections with other non-statutory museums? When we first reported these developments in 2022, we drew attention to the new qualifying rule that restricts a charity's disposals only to those objects of 'lower value' and where a moral obligation can be demonstrated. According to the Act, the value of a qualifying object should not exceed the relevant threshold as defined in subsection 6 of provision 15. For objects that exceed this threshold, authorisation would still be required by the Charity Commission, the Attorney General or a court.

Assuming no change is made to this qualifying rule, we still anticipate government can agree an alignment without any risk of widespread disposals of high profile objects. Where trustees may feel there is a moral obligation to consider restitution, the value of the object must be taken into account. Trophy objects are unlikely to fall under the required threshold and the number of disposals by national collections, as predicted by Alexander Herman, Director, Institute of Art and Law in 2022, will continue to be few in number.

University of Edinburgh returns six Native American skulls to Muscogee Nation

Fri, 30 Jan 2026 15:31:44 GMT

Six Native American skulls, acquired to advance the pseudoscience of phrenology, have been returned by the University of Edinburgh to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, a self-governed Native American Tribal Nation.

The tribe is now based in Oklahoma after being forcibly displaced in the event known as the ‘Trail of Tears’ following the Indian Removal Act in 1830. The Muscogee Nation was the dominant culture and people of the Southeastern territory before European contact in 1539.

Sometime before 1858, these six skulls were donated to the City’s Phrenological Society, a separate entity to the University of Edinburgh, by Professor W. Byrd Powell (1799-1867), an American disciple of phrenology.

Phrenology was a vile but popular theory during the 19 ^th and early 20 ^th centuries that espoused racist theories of inferiority based on the contours and dimensions of a skull. Powell was a strong believer in these theories, embarking on the study of Native American skulls because he hoped to establish links between their measurements, intellect and character traits.

For several years, the University has been seeking ways to address this uncomfortable legacy and maintains it has carried out ‘one of the most ambitious and wide-ranging academically-led examinations of history and race undertaken in the UK’. The Race Review it commissioned is understood to be driving sustained and meaningful change at the University, including the creation of a response group to further consider and consult on its recommendations.

The formal ceremony held this month (23 January) to hand over the six Muscogee skulls to the Nation’s Department of Culture and Humanities is a result of this process. The University believes it is the first ever international repatriation of ancestral remains to mainland United States. Following the ceremony, the skulls will be repatriated to the tribe’s original homelands in the Southeastern United States.

“What makes this occasion even more special and meaningful for us,” said David Hill, Principal Chief of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, “is that we had to travel over 4,000 miles and cross an ocean to receive the kind of dignity and decency that we still cannot find here at home.”

“There are ancestors still not whole that are kept by institutions here in America,” he added. “We can only hope that this incredible gesture by the University of Edinburgh will inspire these institutions to do the same.”

Although phrenology theories have long since been discredited, the University of Edinburgh’s Anatomical Museum is just one of many western collections that still retain large numbers of remains once collected for phrenological study.

“Caring for and addressing the history of our collections is a key responsibility for the University and repatriations play a central role in this work,” said Professor Tom Gillingwater, Chair of Anatomy at the University of Edinburgh. “They also offer incredibly meaningful opportunities for us to work with communities around the world to build relationships and gain a better understanding of our shared past.”

Altogether, the Museum holds a collection of about one thousand items, including human and zoological skulls, plaster casts and artworks. All were transferred from the City’s Phrenological Society when it closed in 1886.

Photo: Muscogee Repatriation Ceremony, January 2026

Courtesy of Neil Hanna

Africa Hub invites visitors to share their knowledge of unidentified objects in the Manchester Museum

Mon, 05 Jan 2026 16:34:27 GMT

Can museum visitors throw light on objects that lack a reliable history, description or provenance? Manchester Museum hopes they can.

Part of Manchester University, the Museum has launched an innovative project space called Africa Hub where visitors are invited to share any knowledge or perspectives they have on a selection of objects drawn from the Museum’s African collections. Some of these objects have sat in storage for years.

The Museum holds more than 40,000 objects from across Africa, some of which were collected, confiscated or looted during the period of Empire. But like other regional and national collections, key details for some of these objects are missing. The name of the donor or source institution may be known, but museum records are worryingly silent about the object’s community of origin, date or cultural meaning. That’s where the organisers hope the visiting public can help. Manchester calls it taking ‘an honest approach’ to filling gaps in the Museum’s knowledge.

Take, for example, a carved and painted wooden figure of an ibis sitting on a horse included in the exhibition. Curators know it was donated to the Museum in 1976 by Mrs M A Bellhouse. But nothing is known about its maker, what the carving represents and even where it comes from.

Curators hope that visitors willing to share their knowledge and life experience of objects such as this carving of a horse will help kick-start a process enabling the Museum to better understand it’s African collections. This may lead to further requests for restitution; it will certainly result in more positive engagements with diaspora communities. This way, the Museum can develop new ways of sharing and celebrating the cultural heritage of these objects with wider communities.

“Unlike most galleries or exhibitions, which represent the culmination of years of research and collaboration, Africa Hub is the beginning,” said Lucy Edematie, the Museum’s Curator–African Collections from Colonial Contexts. “It builds on work the Museum has already been doing to engage with both diasporic communities and communities in Africa but provides an opportunity to extend this even further. It is a chance to do our thinking in public, with honesty and transparency, and to involve people in that process from the start.”

The Museum hopes visitors will share their feedback and knowledge on any of the objects in the Africa Hub space either directly with Museum staff or by providing written feedback.

Africa Hub draws on the Museum's already impressive experience of co-curation, seen recently with the development of its South Asia Gallery, created in partnership with the British Museum.

In its new African Hub space, the Museum illustrates exactly how greater collaboration with a community of origin can serve to enrich the visitor’s experience and help connect them to the objects on display. So, alongside the unidentified African artefacts in the space, the Museum is also displaying items connected to the Igbo heritage of southeastern Nigeria, items that have been co-curated with Igbo Community Greater Manchester (ICM).

“This collaboration reflects a shared vision rooted in ICM’s dedication to preserving, promoting and sharing the rich cultural heritage of the Igbo people through meaningful cooperation and inclusive engagement,” said Mr Anene Chiegboka, Chairman of ICM.

Manchester’s Africa Hub follows the latest initiative, announced last October, of the Powell-Cotton Museum’s recruitment of new members for its Community Advisory Group. In this second instalment of a museum-wide reinterpretation project, the Powell-Cotton Museum in Birchington, Kent is also seeking out community knowledge and perspectives to create new presentations of Zulu art and artefacts collected by Percy Powell-Cotton in 1935.

Advisory Group members work alongside the Museum’s own team to refresh how Zulu objects in the collection are interpreted, displayed and shared with the public. Njabulo Chipangura, assistant professor of African Anthropology at the National University of Ireland, Maynooth is one of the specialists attending their Advisory Group sessions.

Like the curators in Manchester, the Powell-Cotton Museum describes their initiative as just the beginning, with other reinterpretation projects firmly in their sights. Also like Manchester, they are committed to ensuring that community voices continue to shape their Museum’s work. Both initiatives demonstrate the wider benefits of greater collaboration with diasporic and source communities.

Photo: Wooden horse with ibis on its back. Origin, maker and date unknown.

Courtesy of Manchester Museum

Imperial Gold Hairpin to return to Ethiopia

Fri, 05 Dec 2025 17:28:00 GMT

A rare and important 19 ^th century gold hairpin once owned by Empress Tiruwork, wife of the Abyssinian Emperor Tewodros II, will be returning to Ethiopia following negotiations led by the Royal Ethiopian Trust with the Rome auction house Bertolami Fine Art.

The hairpin is one of several personal items belonging to Tiruwork that ended up in the hands of the British army after the defeat of her husband Tewodros at Maqdala in 1868.

Empress Tiruwork, also known as Tirunesh, was the emperor’s second wife who lived with their only son Alamayu in the mountain fortress of Maqdala. After the defeat of his army, Tewodros took his own life and Tiruwork, along with Alamayu , became the responsibility of the British forces, led by Lieutenant-General Sir Robert Napier. En route to a transport ship where both were to be transported to England, Empress Tiruwork died. Her possessions, including books, clothes and jewellery, were either boxed up along with the rest of the expedition’s baggage as the property of Britain to end up in London’s South Kensington Museum (now the V&A), or removed by soldiers and brought home in their personal baggage.

An inscription on the hairpin’s original velvet-lined presentation box indicates this very precious and personal item of the Empress was acquired by a soldier serving on the Maqdala Expedition named James Sinclair, Surgeon General of the British 33 ^rd Regiment. Archival sources suggest that Sinclair may have been present during the Empress Tiruwork’s final days.

The hairpin, a rare surviving example of 19th century Ethiopian Imperial craftsmanship, has remained in private collections for more than 150 years, before it resurfaced this year at an auction held by Bertolami Fine Art in Rome. The Royal Ethiopian Trust (RET), a non-profit organisation, established by the grandson of Emperor Haile-Selassie I, Prince Ermias Sahle-Selassie Haile-Selassie, negotiated donor support to acquire and repatriate the hairpin to Ethiopia. They plan for it to be housed permanently at the National Museum of Ethiopia in Addis Ababa, where it can be exhibited alongside the Maqdala Shield , another culturally significant Ethiopian artefact recovered by RET earlier this year.

“This repatriation demonstrates what can be accomplished when we choose to build bridges,” said Prince Ermias Sahle-Selassie. “Through collaboration grounded in trust and mutual respect, we can continue to ensure that significant Ethiopian cultural treasures are accessible for all Ethiopians – and for the world – to study, appreciate, and learn from.”

It is hoped the repatriation of the hairpin, planned for 2026, will contribute to broader scholarship surrounding the Maqdala Expedition, Tewodros’s Imperial court, and the displacement of Ethiopian treasures during that period.

At the same time, Prince Ermias has also extended his “deep gratitude to Professor Weiss and the Weiss family for their extraordinary generosity in donating to Ethiopia a dozen cultural artefacts that had been gifted to and collected by the family.” The items comprising shields, crowns and paintings were originally collected in the 1920s by Germany’s then envoy to Ethiopia Franz Weiss and his wife Hedwig. They were handed over last month to the Institute of Ethiopian Studies at Addis Ababa University.

Photos: Empress Tiruwork’s Hairpin, 19th cent.

Courtesy of Bertolami Fine Art

Protests in favour of a Benin Royal Museum frustrate ambitions of Nigeria’s Museum of West African Art

Tue, 25 Nov 2025 22:16:44 GMT

In 2022 several western collections made a decision to transfer ownership of their Benin Bronzes to Nigeria. Reassured by progress on the construction of a major new facility in Benin City, they understood their artefacts would be exhibited in a new museum to be called the Edo Museum of West African Art.

Now they must wonder if their artefacts will ever be displayed at the now completed Museum of West African Art (it has since dropped the prefix 'Edo') or at a Benin Royal Museum, still not off the drawing board. Meanwhile, we question if it's possible that both museum ventures may end up one and the same?

Control over the Kingdom of Benin’s cultural heritage continues to lie at the heart of what has escalated into an embarrassing local dispute. On Sunday 9 November, more than 200 invited guests expecting to witness an international preview at the Museum of West African Art (MOWAA) in Benin City, southern Nigeria faced 30 noisy protestors, all supporters of the Oba of Benin, demanding the museum is re-named the Benin Royal Museum.

Such was the scale of the protest that the preview had to be abandoned and the Museum's guests were escorted away under a police escort. MOWAA has since been keen to emphasise the event was a private preview for partners and stakeholders, not an official opening. Some are calling for Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to appoint a presidential committee to resolve the dispute.

It all began over who should take responsibility for Benin artefacts returning to Nigeria, whether on loan or permanently. Initially, that responsibility lay with Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments (NCMM), the organisation that played a major role in persuading European governments, institutions including the British Museum, plus the Getty, Ford and Mellon Foundations, and the Edo State government itself to stump up more than $26m of funding for MOWAA. It’s clear the Commission’s reassurance that Benin items were returning into a secure, state-of-the-art museum did much to encourage major collections to start returning looted artefacts.

In August 2022, for instance, following a consultation with its local community and the approval of the Charity Commissioners, the Horniman Museum and Gardens in South London became one of the first UK institutions to return ownership of their 72 Benin items. Six were physically returned to Nigeria; an agreement made with the NCMM enabled the 66 other items to remain on loan at the Horniman. Twenty-four currently feature in the Horniman’s Great Kingdom of Benin display.

Later that same year, in the first-ever return under its new ethical returns policy , the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African Art transferred to Nigeria the ownership of 29 of its Benin Bronzes looted during the 1897 raid. Like the Horniman, the Smithsonian also secured a loan arrangement with the NCMM enabling nine of their items to remain on display in Washington, D.C. The 20 repatriated to Nigeria are still being held in a new secure storage facility in Benin City called the ' Oba Ovonramwen '.

But the NCMM found itself sidelined the following year. In March 2023, just before he left office, President Muhammad Buhari announced in the federal government's official gazette that the Oba of Benin, Ewuare II, is to be custodian and rightful owner of returning Benin artefacts. Furthermore, until the Oba decides otherwise, these artefacts would be held in his private residence. Competition for ownership was not what British, European, US and other museums expected when they negotiated their return of Benin collections with the NCMM. But with the decision over ownership now clear-cut, the second phase of this dispute has begun to accelerate.

For years, the Oba has held an alternative vision from MOWAA’s, one that involves creating his own Benin Royal Museum for displaying the returning Benin artefacts. Denouncing the MOWAA initiative as an attempt to "re-loot" the Bronzes from his family, he believes “attempts to divert the destination or the right of custody of the artefacts is not in the interest of the people of Benin Kingdom.”

It's a vision that has gathered significant local momentum with competing politics shifting the dispute in the Oba’s favour. Protestors at this month’s event were in no doubt what they wished to see: MOWAA placed under the direct control of the Oba and the building renamed as the Benin Royal Museum.

MOWAA’s original mission had been to include “the most comprehensive display in the world of Benin Bronzes”. But this ambition disappeared early in the building project. In a statement published on its website designed to “clarify recent misconceptions’”about its mission, holdings and role within Benin City’s cultural landscape, MOWAA states: “Since our inception in 2020, the Museum has consistently affirmed that it has no claims to these artefacts.” It goes on to confirm, “There are no Benin Bronzes on display at the Museum, nor have there ever been.” Instead, the museum is keen to emphasise its broader focus on exhibiting West African contemporary and modern art, historical works from Nigeria, research, education and conservation.

Protestors at the preview event were also noisily critical of the role played by Edo State’s previous governor, Godwin Obaseki, who they claim diverted funds and attention away from the Oba’s proposed museum. Accused of misrepresenting itself as the Benin Royal Museum to attract funding, the Museum’s statement insists that MOWAA has never claimed nor presented itself as the Benin Royal Museum to secure funding. The Museum also insists that Obaseki has no financial or other interests in MOWAA.

Phillip Ihenacho, executive director at MOWAA and his executive team can no longer rely on Edo State’s current governor, Monday Okpebholo, for the same level of support it received from Obaseki. In another extraordinary development the day after the protest, Okpebholo announced plans to revoke the Certificate of Occupancy for the land on which the MOWAA has been built. Citing “overriding public interest” and doubts about the museum’s name, ownership and governance, it seems the entire raison d’être for an independent MOWAA is being challenged.

There are no reports the Oba has secured funding for his separate Benin Royal Museum. So, there's an intriguing possibility that pressure might be mounting on MOWAA to become the Oba’s Royal Museum.

MOWAA says it aims to complement not compete with other cultural institutions. “We hope this moment can lead to renewed dialogue, engagement and understanding, so that together we can realise the full potential of what MOWAA can represent for Nigeria and Africa at large.”

Those governments and institutions that helped finance the building of the Museum, the storage of returned artefacts and the development of projects set up to create a centre of excellence for archaeology in West Africa must feel the same. What is less certain is the next move by the Edo State government and the Oba and whether it might put future returns of Benin artefacts at risk.

Photo: Museum of West African Art (MOWAA)

Courtesy of MOWAA

Why the Rosetta Stone will not be returning to Egypt ... just yet

Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:36:41 GMT

After years of delay and political distraction, the official opening of the new Grand Egyptian Museum finally took place in the shadow of the pyramids on the evening of November 1 ^st attended by monarchs, world leaders, heads of state and government.

The scale and ambition of the new Museum, said to be the largest collection in the world dedicated to a single civilisation, already comprises exhibition space for some 100,000 objects. But Egypt’s appetite doesn’t stop there.

The opening has triggered fresh calls for the return of three further iconic ancient artefacts, removed from Egypt when controls on the export of antiquities either didn’t exist or were poorly implemented. The resolve of prominent Egyptologists has been strengthened to recover all three of these artefacts: the Dendera Zodiac in the Louvre, the Nefertiti bust in the Neues Museum, Berlin and the Rosetta Stone at the British Museum in London.

“We need the three objects to come as a good feeling from these three countries, as a gift, as Egypt gave the world many gifts,” said the former Minister of Antiquities Dr Zahi Hawass. Other reports on Instagram that all Egyptian artefacts abroad are to be repatriated ‘with UNESCO’s assistance’ are without foundation. Dr Hawass has always insisted it is only these three objects that Egypt is pressing to recover.

It's a campaign that Dr Hawass has been leading for more than thirty years, with the return of the Rosetta Stone from the British Museum a high priority. Fellow Egyptologists agree. “The British Museum’s holding of the Stone is a symbol of Western cultural violence against Egypt,” according to another leading Egyptologist and restitution campaigner Monica Hanna. She argues that Egypt should ask for its return officially as it was “taken under a colonialist pretext.”

But of course, the Rosetta Stone is an object of far greater significance than other contested items. Its trilingual text presented scholars with their first genuine opportunity to start to decipher hieroglyphs and to unlock the history, society and culture of this ancient civilisation. Other decrees with trilingual texts from the same Ptolemaic period of Egyptian history have come to light since the Rosetta Stone was discovered. But this decree, carved on black basalt, was the first. Hieroglyphs would have been deciphered without the Rosetta Stone, but it would have taken longer.

Which is why it’s understandable that Dr Hawass and other Egyptologists are so keen to have the Rosetta Stone repatriated and showcased in the new Grand Egyptian Museum.

The Rosetta Stone (Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum)

However, we don’t believe Egypt is any closer to seeing it returned than before the opening of the new Museum... at least not until Britain’s government discovers a new strain of benevolence.

The question of ownership remains at the heart of the issue. If Egypt doesn’t own it, who does? Right now, ownership resides with the British Museum, confirmed by an Act of Parliament and reinforced in the 1963 British Museum Act. But was it colonial loot, the spoils of war or simply a lucky find?

Collecting in Egypt at the end of the 18th century was something of a free for all. There were no restrictions on exporting antiquities from Egypt when the Stone was discovered and no laws in place to prevent it.

At the time of its discovery (1799) Egypt was de facto a French-occupied territory. Discovered while preparing foundations for an extension to a French fort, the officer of Engineers and his companions who unearthed the Stone correctly observed that it likely bore three versions of the same text. Recognising this importance, it was dispatched to Cairo where it could be studied and copies of it made for wider distribution.

Following the capitulation of Napoleon’s army in Egypt almost two years later, the scholars ( savants ) accompanying the French expedition took the Stone to Alexandria so it could be shipped to France for permanent exhibition. However, under the terms of the French surrender, the French army and savants were compelled under Article XVI of the Treaty of Alexandria to surrender the Stone along with their other important discoveries into the hands of the British army. This hand-over to the British as a ‘spoil of war’ took place eventually, but only after committed French resistance.

Ironically, had the Rosetta Stone remained in Cairo, it might have escaped the terms of capitulation altogether and might now be a prize exhibit in the Louvre, owned by the French nation.

But that was not to be. After securing its ownership, the Rosetta Stone was placed on exhibition at the British Museum in 1802 and has remained on exhibition there ever since, protected by an Act of Parliament.

Only a change in this law, unforeseeable at the present time, could challenge the British Museum’s right of ownership – regardless of the circumstances of its acquisition. As readers of Returning Heritage will know, there are a limited number of exemptions in the British Museum Act 1963 that might permit the legal return of an object to another party. But these exemptions would not apply to the Rosetta Stone, whose exhibition and educational value to the Museum are inestimable.

The Museum acknowledges its enormous significance. But it also points out the Rosetta Stone is one of four known copies of this same decree of Ptolemy V, of which two already exist in Egypt (there may be more still undiscovered). The copy known for two centuries as the Rosetta Stone dates to 196 B.C.

Significantly, the Museum also claims it has received “no formal requests for either the return or the loan of the Rosetta Stone from the Egyptian Government”.

Were changes to the Act to happen in the future, we believe it’s hard to see why the Museum’s trustees would agree to return one of its most important and iconic assets.... at least, for the time being. The institution is currently involved in a major fundraising programme that involves raising an estimated £1 billion for rebuilding and improving the Museum’s tired and leaky Western gallery spaces. The Rosetta Stone is a huge gallery draw - apparently, a postcard of the Rosetta Stone used to be the best-selling item in the Museum Shop. So, removing such a valued asset while expending every effort to raise a mind-boggling sum of public and private money just doesn’t make sense.

At least for the present. But there is always the future and we suspect Dr Hawass and his colleagues are unlikely to weaken their resolve to campaign for the Rosetta Stone taking pride of place in the new Grand Egyptian Museum.

Photo: The Grand Egyptian Museum, Giza

Courtesy of Egyptescapes.com

V&A unveils new sculpture in latest cultural partnership with Ghana’s Manhyia Palace Museum

Tue, 04 Nov 2025 18:22:56 GMT

A new commissioned sculpture marking the latest stage in the Renewable Cultural Partnership between the V&A and the Manhyia Palace Museum in Kumasi has gone on display in the Museum’s Silver Galleries at South Kensington.

Titled Unity , the sculpture is a collaboration between the Asante Royal Goldsmith Nana Poku Amponsah Dwumfour and British-Ghanaian designer Emefa Cole. It depicts a tree crowned by two leaves within a gold disc and reflects the Asante people’s belief in gold as the essence of the sun and the material manifestation of life’s force. Cast in bronze, the sculpture fuses historic Asante with contemporary metalworking techniques

The commission marks the latest development in what has become a significant cultural partnership between the V&A and Ghana’s Manhyia Palace Museum. It’s a partnership that acknowledges the conflict that took place when British forces plundered the court of the Asante king in 1874. These events are referenced in the design and composition of the new commissioned sculpture. At its base, for example, Nana Poku has added small porcupines, a symbol of the nation’s independence by the first Asante king in 1701 and the people’s readiness to protect themselves. There is also a single gold porcupine added to represent the Asante king.

The news follows last year’s agreement by the V&A to lend seventeen items of Asante gold regalia to the Asantehene (King of Asante) for an exhibition at the Manhyia Palace Museum in Kumasi. The exhibition, titled Homecoming , was designed to celebrate the 2024 Silver Jubilee of the current Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, but it also coincides with the 150th anniversary of the 1873-74 Anglo-Asante War.

For the Asante, the return of this regalia has enormous significance, as they believe the regalia contains the spirits of former kings and carries meaning deeply embedded in Asante identity.

Along with sixteen other Asante items from the British Museum, the V&A’s objects have all been returned to Ghana on the basis of a three-year renewable loan, an act described at the time by V&A Director Dr Tristram Hunt as offering a new paradigm for a broader sharing of contested colonial heritage.

This loan of the V&A’s small but significant Asante collection - the first opportunity in 150 years to display the Museum’s collection in Ghana – initiated the potential for a longer-term cultural partnership. The sculpture commission evidences the V&A’s commitment to supporting this partnership model into the future. Rich in symbolism, Hunt said the new sculpture “reflects on our shared history and Britain’s colonial past, while also looking towards a brighter future of friendship and cooperation.”

Although Hunt remains insistent this cultural partnership model should not be seen as "restitution by the back door", he remains an advocate for a review of the National Heritage Act 1983. It is his view that museum trustees should have the responsibility for making the case what objects should or should not be in their collections.

Photos: ‘Unity’ (2025) – A collaboration between the Asante Royal Goldsmith Nana Poku Amponsah Dwumfour and British-Ghanian Emefa Cole

Courtesy of Victoria and Albert Museum, London

No clear agreement from Shuar community on future of tsantsas in UK collections

Sat, 18 Oct 2025 15:46:29 GMT

A delegation of Shuar representatives from Ecuador visited the UK this month on a week-long programme to exchange knowledge, strengthen collaboration and learn how different museums in England are “looking after our ancestors”.

The delegation of leaders, elders, students and professors from Ecuador visited the British Museum, Science Museum and Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford, before concluding with a public event held on 11 October and hosted by the Pitt Rivers at Oxford’s Museum of Natural History.

Launched eight years ago (2017) and originally titled ‘ Rethinking Shuar Objects in (Inter)national Museums ’, the project has brought Shuar communities and British curatorial teams together for the first time to discuss the on-going management of hundreds of Shuar objects in UK collections. Inevitably, the most sensitive area for investigation has involved the future care of tsantsas , known more widely as shrunken heads.

The first five years of the project involved trying to establish exactly what the different Shuar federations wanted for the future care of these remains. The care of other Shuar objects was also on the agenda. Following a visit by English museum representatives to Ecuador in 2022, all parties agreed to advance the project further, re-naming it ‘ Proyecto Tsantsa ’. Since then, the verification of tsantsas in UK collections has become one of the project's major priorities.

It appears, the more tsantsas are studied, the more questions are raised and the more tsantsas have come to light. Delegates explained there were lots of different ways of making tsantsas , as well as different reasons for making them. The principal reason was ceremonial, another involved commercial trading - one gun in exchange for one head! But while many were sold to western collectors, not all of them were human. In the Pitt Rivers collection, for instance, tomography has revealed that two of the heads in Oxford are monkeys and two are sloths. Only six are human.

It was during these investigations that the Pitt Rivers decided to remove their entire collection of tsantsas from public exhibition and place them in storage. It had become clear the Shuar communities did not want them on display. Laura van Broekhoven, Director of the Pitt Rivers, added she felt that public exhibition of these remains was not helpful in explaining what tsantsas are all about.

Curators at London’s Science Museum (48 tsantsas ) and British Museum (17 tsantsas) share the same concerns.

Speaking through an interpreter, Shuar representatives described why it's so important their customs and traditions are respected. While many Shuar communities continue to live in the jungle and face many challenges "adjusting to the new world", they are keen to dispel past notions of their communities as savages and killers. Tsantsas can be viewed as a "blessing or a curse", but they are still of enormous cultural and ancestral value. Now an important part of Ecuador's national heritage, the Shuar want the world to know they remain sacred to the Shuar community. They don't wish to see their traditions and spirits removed.

Does this mean the UK’s different collections of tsantsas are heading for repatriation? Right now, various options have been suggested without agreement reached on any single option. There’s certainly no clear agreement whether all or just some of these remains will be returned.

“The Shuar delegation expressed a wish for the repatriation of the ceremonial tsantsas to their territory,” Laura van Broekhoven explained to Returning Heritage , “and the wish for display of Shuar culture in UK museums through the lens of self-representation and Shuar co-curation of exhibitions.”

The delegation confirmed the majority of remains have been well looked after while in UK collections. They also confirmed at present there’s no agenda in Ecuador to recover their nation’s cultural heritage (“we are not here to take away everything”). But they are seeking greater collaboration and an agreement with museum directors over how we are looking after their ancestors.

“Given the particular cultural contexts of tsantsas (both making and taking),” added van Broekhoven, “the need for further research and analysis have been agreed, including local cultural contextual research and procedural requirements on a regional, national and international level.”

No repatriation requests have been made to date and given the number of different groups involved, any future process is likely to be extremely complicated.

Photo: Shuar delegates at the Pitt Rivers Museum conference event, October 2025

Denver Art Museum marks 50-year partnership in repatriation and collaboration

Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:21:52 GMT

While some museums continue to wrestle over their ‘Benin dilemma’ (to whom should we return our Benin Bronzes?), the Denver Art Museum is celebrating a cultural collaboration with Nigeria that has lasted over five decades.

The Museum's collaboration with Nigeria's government, the Oba of Benin and the National Commission for Museums and Monuments (NCMM) began in 1973 when two carved Yoruba verandah posts were acquired for Denver Art Museum's (DAM) Arts of Africa collection. When it purchased the carvings, the Museum was unaware the items were part of a larger hoard comprising 16 verandah posts stolen earlier that year from the Institute of African Studies at the University of Ibadan in Oyo, Nigeria. Shortly after the International Council of Museums reported their theft, former DAM director Otto Bach initiated discussions with Nigeria to repatriate the two Yoruba carvings. Their return was completed in February 1975.

Since then, the Museum maintains it has been dedicated to “the respectful identification and repatriation” of other cultural artefacts in its collection of around 800 objects from the 19th and 20th centuries. In 2022, in a further act of respect “for the Kingdom of Benin and the government and people of Nigeria”, the Museum removed its entire collection of Benin Bronzes from its Arts of Africa gallery and returned it to Nigeria.

Denver’s partnership has not all been one way. In April this year, DAM signed a 5-year loan agreement with the NCMM, acting on behalf of the Oba of Benin, for the return and public exhibition in Denver of a Benin Bronze plaque (dated 1550-1650). According to a museum statement, the loan underscores the important role the Benin Bronze plaque can play as a “cultural ambassador”, celebrating the rich beauty of Benin’s artistic heritage.

“To be entrusted with the temporary display of a Benin Bronze plaque on loan from the Nigerian government,” said Christoph Heinrich, director of the DAM, “is a testament to the mutual respect and partnership we’ve built.”

However, not all western collections contemplating a legal transfer of their Benin Bronzes have achieved this same level of collaboration. After Nigeria’s former President, Muhammad Buhari signed a decree in May 2023 charging the Oba of Benin, Oba Ewuare II, as the rightful owner of returning Benin artefacts and with responsibility for their future placement, there’s been consternation among western collections. It was not what they signed up to when they negotiated to return their Benin artefacts.

Their agreements, negotiated with the NCMM either for long-term loans or full repatriation, involved the transfer of artefacts into the new Edo Museum of West African Art (MOWAA), the first stage of which is due to open in November this year. Several of these institutions have also committed a significant financial investment into MOWAA’s development and, understandably, are concerned over plans to divert Benin artefacts into the Oba’s own proposed Benin Royal Museum. That is a museum still in the very earliest stages of planning.

Whether Denver’s approach to repatriation is followed by any of the 38 other US collections that currently hold looted objects from Benin City is unclear. But nobody can question DAM’s dedication to reparative and thoughtful representation of diasporic African identities.

Director General of the NCMM Olugbile Holloway will be joining Arts of Africa fellow Syokau Mutonga and members of DAM’s Provenance Department for a public discussion on the significance of repatriation and the importance of fostering international relationships at a public discussion at the Denver Art Museum on 21 April 2026.

Photo: Benin Plaque, 1550-1650. Work loaned out by the National Commission for Museums and Monuments of Nigeria

Courtesy of Denver Art Museum

Should Egyptian mummies be removed from public exhibition?

Mon, 04 Aug 2025 18:58:03 GMT

It’s no easy matter resolving the current ethical debate over the retention and exhibition of human remains. But one public collection is asking visitors to cast their vote.

For the past two months, the Manchester Museum has encouraged visitors to share their views on whether one of the Egyptian mummies in their collection should be removed or retained on public exhibition. How will they vote and is it possible these conversations may start to shift the dial in a new direction?

In March this year, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Afrikan Reparations (APPG-AR) joined others campaigning for an overhaul in UK museum practice. Its report, Laying Ancestors to Rest , recommends the end of the sale, public display and non-consensual uses of African ancestral remains, as well as their full repatriation from UK institutions.

The display of Egyptian mummified persons, argues this report, is unethical ‘due to the consistent disregard of the potential wishes of the ancestors and the intention of the communities that originally laid them to rest’. It goes on to criticise their modern evolution into ‘the popularised, haunted ‘mummy’ figure, which reduces Egyptian heritage to exoticised mystique for the Western audience’.

Who can doubt that today’s popular culture has succeeded in exploiting the public's fascination with the physical remains of individuals from a civilization thousands of years in the past? And whose appetite to learn more about this civilization was not kick-started by the sight of their first Egyptian mummy? As a result, the case in favour of removing Egyptian mummies from public display is more nuanced than clear cut.

The Manchester consultation invites visitors to share their views on whether the unwrapped body of a woman named Asru, one of the Museum’s impressive collection of Egyptian mummies, should remain on public display.

Asru’s mummified body, donated in 1825 by Robert and William Garnett, the sons of a Manchester cotton merchant and slave trader, arrived in the city lying within two decorated body coffins. Inscriptions on these coffins indicate Asru was a temple musician who died probably around 650 BCE (around 2,700 years ago during Egypt’s 25 ^th Dynasty). On arrival, her body was unwrapped at the Manchester Natural History Society, the forerunner to the Manchester Museum. She has been kept on public display in some form for much of the last two hundred years, although as the Museum explains, in a manner that hasn't always offered a contextualised view of ancient Egyptian funerary practices.

Asru was also the subject of an intensive medical examination in 1980, when Dr Rosalie David, who founded the pioneering Manchester Mummy Project, used her examination to show the viability of endoscopy as a technique for the medical investigation of ancient Egyptian remains.

With clearer knowledge of Asru’s medical condition and to mark two hundred years since the mummy’s original unwrapping, the Museum says it is now keen to rethink “how we care for those who have been entrusted to us and how we share their stories with respect and sensitivity.”

The case in favour of removing human remains from public exhibition is based on a deep-rooted belief in and respect for the dignity of the dead. It is one of the reasons why the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford decided to remove their collection of tsantsa (‘shrunken’) heads and other human remains from public display in 2020 and is one of the reasons why the Manchester Museum launched the Asru consultation in June this year.

Preserving the body in the most lifelike manner as possible was believed by ancient Egyptians to improve their chances of a form of rebirth, helping them to complete their journey into the afterlife. Could the public exhibition of their remains jeopardize this spiritual journey? Manchester is also aware of the distress that some visitors and members of staff experience at the sight of an unwrapped body. It is hoped that bringing a wider range of voices into the conversation might help address both these sensitivities.

Mummies in the Egyptian Galleries at the British Museum

The case for retaining Egyptian mummies on public exhibition appears just as strong, albeit equally complex. I doubt museums will take lightly the visible excitement, fascination and curiosity that many visitors experience in the presence of an Egyptian mummy. Those I spoke to in the Egyptian Galleries at the British Museum last week enthused about the educational value of a mummy's physical presence, together with the connection it provides to a better understanding of the rich history and customs of ancient Egypt. It’s the very survival and visibility of mummies that help command our respect.

Full repatriation lies a lot further down the road. Compared with the number of appeals to return human bodies wrenched from Indigenous communities during the 19th and early 20th centuries by supporters of racist pseudosciences, there are no descendants or surviving communities appealing for the return of Egyptian mummies.

Mummies are popular museum exhibits and popular opinion may not always align with ethical developments. So the results of this Manchester survey will be followed closely. As the Museum looks beyond its colonial background, making changes to reflect new society requirements, the Asru conversation may help the Museum navigate the future of other ancestral remains in its collections. Taking this approach is considered “critical... and one we feel must be addressed with transparency, taking into account the perspectives of communities and visitors.”

By the beginning of this month, the Museum had received 862 responses to their consultation. However, it remains open until the end of August. and the Museum is encouraging as many people as possible to go online and share their views on Asru’s future.

Whatever the results - and we'll let you know how the public vote - don’t expect dramatic and immediate changes. But it could end up as another small step that drives a gradual shift in museum policy. Alternatively, it could just point to ‘no change’ please.

After this was written....

Following the development of a new human remains policy, National Museums Northern Ireland (NMNI) initiated their own consultation into the public display of the mummified body of an Egyptian woman named Takabuti. 83% of visitors agreed the mummy should remain on public exhibition if "done in a sensitive and respectful way". A similar number felt that viewing such remains could help them to better understand and interact with the past. 30% of visitors felt the display of such remains was "offensive and unnecessary". Meanwhile, just over half of visitors (51%) believe museums should try to return human remains to their country of origin.

Photo: Outer coffin of the temple musician, Asru (circa. 650 BCE)

Courtesy of Manchester Museum

Birmingham Museum helps shrink ‘The Elephant in the Room’

Thu, 03 Jul 2025 16:53:30 GMT

“Would be nice to have a more frank discussion about how objects are collected for the Museum. Saying ‘Donated’ is not enough."

Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery has listened. The result is the launch of a new exhibition space that has set out to tackle ‘The Elephant in the Room’: something that’s too big to hide but ignored because it seems too complicated or uncomfortable to deal with.

They are referring, of course, to the objects the Birmingham Museum collected during an era of empire and conflict.

The back stories brought into perspective by this engaging and instructive exhibition expose the lurid, greedy and sometimes violent collecting histories of objects donated by Birmingham city luminaries, politicians, wealthy industrialists and missionaries in the 19th century. Of course, Birmingham is not alone. This same pattern of collecting was repeated across other civic collections in the United Kingdom and would not be tolerated today.

But during what was a complex period of empire, questions about acquisition were not always a consideration. Founded in 1885, the Museum played its role in collecting objects to help the City’s industrial workers learn new skills and to inspire them to craft works of even finer quality. And in turn, those Birmingham citizens who travelled around the Empire were encouraged to donate objects collected from the countries and communities they visited.

Perhaps understandably, metalwork from Southern Asia was especially valued. A skilfully made shield from Lahore, made around 1830, illustrates the quality of object the Museum sought to acquire to inspire the City’s metalworkers. At the Colonial and Indian Exhibition in South Kensington in 1886 the Museum acquired over 400 pieces of Southern Asian art.

Lahore Shield. circa 1830. Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery

But in this rush to collect, we learn that objects became disconnected from their meaning and significance; accurate information about their community and location was lost or never sought; objects exchanged between collections lost all their identity.

One of the exhibition (and Museum) highlights is the Sultanganj Buddha, one of the largest and most highly skilled metal sculptures in the world. The Buddha was uncovered during railway construction work in north-east India, near to Sultanganj and close to where the Buddha lived and taught. A former Mayor of Birmingham, Samuel Thornton, had the statue shipped back to Birmingham, “to be placed in the Art Museum now being erected.” But the exhibition reveals that no one from the region was ever consulted about its removal; the statue has been disconnected both from its origins and from its community.

Other objects in the exhibition sourced from Fiji and Australia reveal the same torrid legacies. Particularly poignant is a vacant display mount for a widow’s necklace from Sydney, Australia. Only after receiving guidance from the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) did the Museum learn the necklace was made from fatty tissue of an Aboriginal woman’s deceased husband. Men are forbidden to look at necklaces of this type and Birmingham Museum includes the empty mount to make a point it's the kind of object that should never be displayed in a museum.

Across the entire museum sector, the former language of colonialism is gradually being eliminated. Examples in this exhibition make it obvious why it’s necessary. A 19th century charm collar from Natal, South Africa originally bore a label that described the object as ‘Part of paraphernalia of a Witch Doctor (or Doctors) from Natal.’ How more offensive or dismissive could a label be?

“By confronting these questions,” said Zak Mensah and Sara Wajid, co-Chief Executives of Birmingham Museum Trust, “this display aims to ‘shrink the elephant’ by acknowledging the impact of the British Empire on Birmingham’s museums, facing complex topics with curiosity, treating these stories with sensitivity and respect and having an open and ongoing conversation with audiences about how we should care for and display these objects in the future.”

Photo: The Sultanganj Buddha. 6th to 7th Century. Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery

Naga ancestral remains to be returned to their homeland

Tue, 17 Jun 2025 10:03:47 GMT

Last week, a delegation of Naga people signed a declaration that will lead to the return of 41 Naga ancestral remains currently held in the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford. We are here, declared nine tribal leaders, “to reclaim and return you to the homelands where you were taken.”

The ceremony marks the first phase of a repatriation process and follows what Dr Ellen Konyak Jamir of Recover, Restore and Decolonise Group described at the ceremony as “a powerful and transforming week.”

A large delegation from Nagaland, a small state in the north-eastern region of India that was colonised by the British in the 19 ^th century, spent a week at the Museum in June reconnecting with their ancestors. The delegation was given exclusive access to the remains on which traditional Naga shawls were laid by delegates in homage to their ancestors.

In addition to leaders and elders of several Naga tribe hohos, the delegation included members of the Forum for Naga Reconciliation and members of Recover, Restore and Decolonise Group ( rradnagaland.org ).

There are more than six thousand Naga objects in the Pitt Rivers, representing about 1% of the Museum’s entire collection. We understand it to be the largest collection of Naga material anywhere in the world. The first Naga ancestral remains were donated to the Museum in the 19th century by an English-born anthropologist and administrator in the Indian Civil Service called John Henry Hutton. However, the focus of this delegation involved the return to Nagaland of 41 ancestral human remains. There are a further 178 Naga objects in the collection that contain or may contain human hair, but a discussion over this material will be explored in the future.

Discussions with the Naga have been ongoing since September 2020. After reading in the press of the Museum’s decision to remove all human remains from public exhibition, it was Prof Dolly Kikon of UC Santa Cruz, who reached out to the director of the Pitt Rivers Museum and started a process that led to five years of dialogue.

“Our ancestral remains, including the material artefacts at this museum, must move beyond institutional understandings of property and conservation. It is through such partnerships grounded on mutual trust and respect to listen and dialogue between museums and Indigenous communities that we can work towards healing and restoring the task of redress, care, custodianship.”

Prof Dolly Kikon, University of California, Santa Cruz

This latest Naga delegation was praised by Prof Dr Laura van Broekhoven, for their leadership and organisation. But in turn, the Museum was praised by Dr Jamir for its commitment to ethical stewardship and a willingness to confront difficult histories.

Establishing ‘transformational and regenerative partnerships’ with source communities has become a watchword under van Broekhoven’s directorship, as she places cultural care at the heart of the Pitt Rivers Museum. Whether it is with the Maasai, Shuar, Evenki or Naga people, the Museum looks forward to reconciliation and healing in the future. “I hope we can support and hold each other throughout this process,” said van Broekhoven.

The Museum now awaits a formal claim from the Naga for the return of their ancestral remains. That claim must first go before the Museum’s Board of Visitors and ultimately to the University’s Council for final approval. But van Broekhoven hopes the process of repatriation already underway means the Museum can respond in a timely manner. It may even beat its fastest time of 18 months!

Photo: Naga Delegates at the Pitt Rivers Museum, June 2025

Courtesy of Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford

Campaign to repatriate Maya artefacts to Belize escalates

Sat, 24 May 2025 16:15:05 GMT

Village leaders at San Benito Poité in southern Belize, formerly British Honduras, are claiming that an important collection of artefacts removed from the ancient city of Pusilha is not the lawful property of the British Museum.

This follows research at the Belize Archives and Records Service which failed to uncover any record the British Museum secured the permit, required under colonial law, to embark on the six expeditions it mounted in British Honduras between 1926 and 1931.

In a Resolution submitted to the Museum last month (April), two village leaders from San Benito Poité, the site of the ancient city of Pusilha, requested the return of all human remains, carved monumental stelae and altars, together with a representative sample of the lithic and ceramic objects museum excavators removed from Pusilha after those expeditions. Village leaders also requested the Museum provides a repatriation grant to the village of $1million BZD for the construction and first-year operation of a new Visitor Centre, plus a ten-year reparation scholarship fund ‘not to exceed $50,000 BZD per year’. The Resolution maintains the objects were removed ‘by armed expeditions of the British Museum... without the valid consent of the Maya people.’

The six British Museum expeditions were led by British anthropologist Thomas Athol Joyce (1878-1942). But other Pusilha objects in the Museum’s collection were acquired in an altogether different fashion by Dr Thomas Gann (1867-1938), a former medical officer for the colonial government of British Honduras who became an obsessive and notorious collector of Mayan artefacts.

Securing accurate information about the source of finds made by Gann as well as the Museum’s various expeditions has proved problematic. Poor record-keeping has led many of these artefacts to be catalogued simply as ‘Meso-America’ or ‘Belize’.

It was over a period of more than 40 years, either as part of a legitimate expedition or on his own prospecting trips to uncover the contents of Maya burial mounds, that Gann built his large private collection of Mayan artefacts. Much of this collection was later sold, loaned or gifted to the British Museum. But the collection offers little archaeological value as Gann kept scant details of provenance. “Keeping good records was not part of the plan,” according to Michael Richardson, the author of Richardson Reports , which has exposed the coercive and threatening tactics that Gann used to build his collection - as well as his abysmal record-keeping.

One of 905 objects collected by Gann and now in the British Museum is a carved and incised stone altar of the Maya god of death. Gann wrote about the recovery of this altar, discovered at the Xuanantunich ruins in 1924, in his book Mystery Cities where he describes how it was cut from its base and trimmed down with a stone saw. The altar entered the Museum's collection in 1938 but was only registered in 1991. Neither on public exhibition nor illustrated online, the information published by the Museum refers only to its style ('Classic Maya') and findspot as 'Xunantunich'.

Gann himself had been granted an official license in 1924 ‘to search for and explore ancient monuments and mounds on an area of Crown Land in the Toledo District and to remove relics therefrom,’ along with Lady Lian Brown and Frederick Mitchell-Hedges. But two years later, Gann sought to cancel this license in favour of the British Museum. However, there is no record in the Belize Archives this reassignment was ever completed, only the evidence of Gann’s attempts to reassign it.

With over eight million objects in its collection, this is not the first time that major gaps in the British Museum’s history of record-keeping have been identified. However, Richardson’s campaign to return the ‘looted’ cultural heritage of Pushila to Belize puts these gaps sharply into focus.

Using a Freedom of Information Request (FOIR) earlier this year to access the acquisition records of all the objects identified from Pusilha now held in Bloomsbury, Richardson believes the Museum has “taken a very narrow view of what is an acquisition record.”

The Museum has responded by identifying 566 objects and an additional 52 exhibits of human remains from Pusilha. But Richardson believes there are many more surviving unrecorded in the Museum’s storerooms. This, he says, includes an “immense quantity” of ceramics removed from the site and three zoomorphic stone altars that are absent from the Museum’s catalogue.

The Museum acknowledges the difficult history of some of its collections and in its response to Richardson’s Freedom of Information Request has confirmed that ‘documentation for this case does not contain a comprehensive inventory of every find, and no such inventory was compiled at the site of the expeditions’. In April, an internal review of the Museum’s original response to Richardson’s request was upheld. Apparently, there’s no more information to share.

Which is why Richardson is now exploring the legal case for invoking section 5(1)(c) of the British Museum Act 1963 (‘Disposal of Objects’), which allows objects to be repatriated if the Trustees consider the objects are ‘unfit to be retained’ and can be removed ‘without detriment to the interests of students’.

The British Museum does not like handing objects back. Despite strong evidence of unethical collecting practices by Gann, together with inadequate historic record-keeping by the Museum’s own excavators, it's still hard to envisage the trustees will agree to invoke section 5 and return their Pusilha collection to the village of San Benito Poité - at least for the time being. For one thing, the lack of detailed excavation records providing hard evidence where, when and how each artefact was collected makes it more not less difficult for the trustees to consider the objects are fit to be returned . Remember also, this is the same Museum that still refuses to explain why it won’t return eleven sacred Ethiopian Tabots to the Orthodox Church in Ethiopia - despite four Freedom of Information Requests made by Returning Heritage and despite clear evidence that demonstrates why the Tabots are unfit to be locked away in Bloomsbury, out of sight and study by all, including the public, curators and even the Museum's own trustees. Evidently, agreeing what 'unfit to be retained' means in practice is proving something of a legal rabbit hole.

We are not aware of any formal appeal by the National Institute of Culture and History in Belize for the return of these Pusilha artefacts. Nevertheless, the village leaders of San Benito Poité await a decision from the British Museum expected in July. We shall follow the outcome closely. However, we suspect that any progress is unlikely until a more far-reaching review of the British Museum Act 1963 is conducted and heritage legislation is amended so that colonial collections in national museums are managed in a manner more fitting to the 21st century.

After this was written....

In a 'Statement of Unfitness' submitted on 1st June to the British Museum's Legal Counsel, Michael Richardson maintains the Pusilha artefacts, including the human remains still held by the Museum, are unique from other appeals for repatriation on the grounds 'their provenance implicates the Museum itself in unfitness.' This assertion is based on the Museum's acknowledgement it lacks title to the artefacts, together with the absence of any evidence of legal consent to remove the objects to the British Museum.

Richardson's investigations, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, confirm the Museum's four collecting expeditions to Pushila took place without the required licence and while knowing such a licence was required. It appears Gann's request to transfer his licence to the British Museum was never confirmed. As a result, Richardson maintains the objects now in the Museum were removed in violation of the British Honduras Ancient Monuments Ordinance of 1924. 'The unfitness of the Pusilha holdings is further compromised,' he adds, 'by deprivations of the Museum staff in acquiring the relics which include damage to monuments, lack of proper archaeological protocols, and lack of an inventory.'

As the Village's authorised representative, Richardson nevertheless goes on to state the Village is agreeable to allowing the Museum to retain selected samples for research 'to satisfy the needs of students'.

Photo: Splitting part of a stela 'to lighten the weight'. Pusilha

Courtesy of The Trustees of the British Museum

Placing ownership of museum collections under a spotlight

Wed, 02 Apr 2025 15:49:18 GMT

Explaining why a looted artefact should be returned to its country or community of origin can sometimes be straightforward. But explaining how is altogether different.

Which is why last weekend’s programme at the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford, Who Owns Museum Collections And What Should We Do With Them *, proved such a draw. With the deaccession policies of Britain’s national museums so diametrically different from Britain’s larger number of regional and university collections, learning how museums unencumbered by national legislation are dealing successfully with the same legacies of inequality and trauma was revealing. Also rewarding.

“What can we do until we know what’s in our museum collections?” was the question posed by Neil Curtis, Head of Museums and Special Collections at the University of Aberdeen, emphasising the role of provenance research as the starting point for understanding both the meaning and the ownership of a museum object.

Once the curating team at Aberdeen began untangling the stories behind some of the objects in their collection, the infinite complexity every museum faces when establishing ownership became glaringly apparent. Each case is different, according to Curtis, and while getting rid of the dominant power that claims to be the norm is important, “listening with humility” is essential.

It was by following these principles that made Aberdeen’s decision to return a Benin Bronze head to Edo State in 2021 more a process of natural justice, than an act of climbing onto the restitution bandwagon. Following the University’s own repatriation policy guidelines, Curtis explained how the Benin head met their strict criteria for return: a compelling train of ownership confirming the object had been removed during the widespread looting at Benin City in 1897; clear evidence of its connection to the proposed recipient (Edo State); its continuing significance to the recipient, as well as to the University; and finally, a full understanding of the consequences of its return, both to the University and the recipient, including the responsibility for costs.

Put quite simply, “All we were doing is returning stolen property,” explained Curtis.

Representing Oxford’s Ashmolean Museum, director Dr Alexander Sturgis, repeated this mantra by reaffirming “stolen objects should not be in our collections.” However, attempts at repatriation by the Ashmolean have not always progressed so smoothly. Do source countries always want their objects back?

Sturgis recounted the continuing saga over their initiative to return a bronze statue depicting the Hindu deity Tirumankai Alvar, looted from a temple site in southern India in the late ‘50s or early ‘60s (see Returning Heritage ). Presented with “anxious-making facts about its provenance”, Sturgis explained the Museum had raised concern itself about its illicit removal with the Indian High Commissioner in 2019, who in turn submitted a formal request for its repatriation in March 2020. The council of the University of Oxford supported India’s claim in March 2024. But six years after the object was first identified as stolen and despite approval given by the Charity Commission for the statue's repatriation, it remains in Oxford, awaiting instructions from the Indian High Commission on how to effect its return.

In her presentation on the theme of 'Owning Belongings' the director of the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford, Prof Dr Laura van Broekhoven, reminded everyone that “return of the objects themselves is not always the only outcome.”

After referencing a number of successful repatriations (or rematriations of human remains) completed by the Museum since 1990, van Broekhoven drew attention to the discussions the Museum is having with communities like the Evenki in North Asia and the Maasai in Kenya and Tanzania. In their discussions with the Maasai, a decision was made by the Maasai, following four years of intense discussions and joint research with the Museum's curatorial team, to retain five ancestral objects in Oxford instead of returning them to their families of origin.

Van Broekhoven said that just as important as repatriation is the responsibility of museums to set about forging “regenerative partnerships”, a process she defined as reaching out to communities “beyond institutional confines.” As the team at Pitt Rivers have demonstrated in their relations with the Maasai, these partnerships are not so much about repatriation, more about healing, reconciliation and self-determination. More of what Curtis described as ‘listening with humility’.

Whether Britain’s national collections will respond with the same humility remains to be seen. It was encouraging to see new director of the British Museum, Dr Nicholas Cullinan, in conversation at the event, answering probing questions on how the British Museum plans to address their legacies of inequality and trauma under his new leadership.

Cullinan's ideas for sharing the collection, more international exchange, more collaboration by Britain’s largest and most visited museum are the guarded statements of a well-versed diplomat. But it’s still early days and Cullinan’s track record at the National Portrait Gallery, plus his assertion of the useful role of technology in breaking down binary problems (“it will change things”) must be welcomed. Also welcome was his insistence he is “impatient to make changes now”. We shall be watching developments closely.

For everyone else on the panel, priorities appear to involve introducing a decent morality into the restitution debate, focussing attention on those objects incontrovertibly stolen and developing partnerships that can help do more to connect museums with source communities. As Neil Curtis observed, it’s time for museum to make their own case why they should retain a contested object.

* The annual Kenneth Kirkwood Memorial Lecture Day is organised by the Members of the Pitt Rivers Museum. This year's programme included Dr Errol Francis (Culture&), Neil Curtis (University of Aberdeen), Dr Alexander Sturgis (Ashmolean Museum), Dr Nicholas Cullinan (British Museum) and Prof Laura van Broekhoven (Pitt Rivers Museum).

Photo: Who Owns Museum Collections speaker panel, 29 March 2025

Courtesy of Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford

Rare Aboriginal shell necklace is returned to Tasmanian homeland

Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:19:46 GMT

A unique shell necklace believed to originate from the Bass Strait islands has been returned by The Hunterian collection, the oldest public museum in Scotland, to representatives from the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (TAC) who travelled to Glasgow to carry it home.

The Centre has been campaigning for the necklace’s return since 1994, when its repatriation was first refused by the University’s Museums and Galleries Committee. Following a visit from a Tasmanian Aboriginal delegation in 2002, a second request was also rejected on the grounds “there was no evidence that the acquisition of the Bass Straits necklace was unethical in any way.”

But thirty years later, attitudes to repatriation by the institution have changed. The Hunterian, part of the University of Glasgow, now aims to be an ethical and accessible museum organisation, claiming it welcomes repatriation requests to living communities, prioritising the return of non-British human remains and culturally significant heritage items.

Necklace making is the oldest continual cultural practice in Tasmania, which has continued uninterrupted for thousands of years. Each shell necklace is unique with its pattern and shell types indicating the maker and place of origin. Although the shells on The Hunterian necklace, which dates to the 1800s and measures 148cm, feature elenchus or maireener shells ( Phasianotrochus irisodontes ), found off the coast of Tasmania, the maker is unrecorded. On its return to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community, it will be accessible for research, learning and inspiration and it is hoped further examination of the shells, stringing method and pattern may lead to an identification of its maker and a reconnection with its community of origin.

“The physical presence of original objects is critical in projects aimed at recovering traditional knowledge to continue practices and rebuild and extend traditional skills.”

Jeanette James, an Elder and shell necklace stringer in her community

Shell necklaces were popular among collectors in the 19 ^th century as cultural and ‘first contact’ aesthetic items. Although originally created for personal adornment, sales of necklaces became one of the few commercial enterprises available to Aboriginal people on the Bass Strait islands, located between Tasmania and mainland Australia. Post-colonisation, they became a valuable commodity exchanged for essential supplies.

The sourcing, collecting and stringing of shells is a closely guarded tradition, passed down through generations of women makers associated with the Bass Strait islands. Now acknowledged as a highly skilled and unique Aboriginal art form, early shell necklaces such as this example are considered an important learning resource for today’s necklace makers, providing an essential link to the community’s cultural heritage Regrettably though, there is now genuine concern the art of necklace making may be dying out, due to a decline in the number of shells attributed to climate change.

Tasmanian Aboriginal delegates Jeanette James and Andry Sculthorpe with Hunterian Director Professor Steph Scholten. Jeanette holds the shell necklace that will return home to Tasmania.

Courtesy The Hunterian, University of Glasgow

The Hunterian shell necklace was acquired following a donation by Mrs Margaret Miller of Launceston on her visit to Scotland in 1877. It is understood that at least sixteen other examples of shell necklaces are held in UK collections, including the British Museum, the V&A and National Museum of Scotland.

The Hunterian claims its repatriation processes ‘are developed at a mutually agreeable and appropriate pace, determined by the claimant and The Hunterian’. The collection’s most recent repatriation involved a partnership with the University of the West Indies on the return of a Giant Jamaican Galliwasp specimen to the Natural History Museum of Jamaica.

The TAC has been actively seeking the return of ancestral remains and cultural materials on behalf of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community since 1976. Since then, it has recovered ancestral remains from over twenty international institutions, as well as from collections within Australia. This month (March 2025) the TAC also secured the recovery from the University of Aberdeen of the human remains of a young man murdered and decapitated at the Shannon River.

A statement from the TAC said: “It is heartening to see that The Aberdeen University has acted with integrity and good faith in their proactive dealings directly with the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre to ensure the repatriation of this man is undertaken unconditionally and directly to the community of origin.”

Other UK institutions in TAC’s sights for future repatriations include the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford, the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge, and National Museum of Scotland.

Photo: Tasmanian Aboriginal shell necklace featuring maireener shells. Phasianotrochus irisodontes . c. 1877

Courtesy of The Hunterian, University of Glasgow

Report demands an end to the display of African ancestral remains in UK collections

Fri, 14 Mar 2025 14:07:56 GMT

Laying Ancestors to Rest pulls no punches. The recommendations made in a new policy brief published by the All Party-Parliamentary Group on Afrikan-Reparations (APPG-AR) include making the sale of human remains illegal and putting an end to the public display of all ancestral remains.

A 'respectful repatriation' to their countries and communities of origin should follow, says the report.

A total of fourteen recommendations were presented to the UK Parliament this week, following research conducted by the African Foundation for Development (AFFORD) into the ethical and legal challenges surrounding the sale and exhibition of African ancestral remains. The research envisages the establishment of a national, independent Human Remains Advisory Panel, modelled on the lines of the UK Spoliation Advisory Panel, which was created to resolve claims to recover cultural items lost during the Nazi era.

But whether it’s even possible to repatriate all of the thousands of human remains held in UK collections is a complex matter. AFFORD recognises this and acknowledges not all communities are demanding returns. They also appreciate that different cultures hold different beliefs about how human remains should be treated. But as the Labour chair of APPG-AR Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP points out, “the continued presence of these remains in British institutions causes profound distress to diaspora communities and countries of origin, particularly when they are displayed or sold at auction”.

Were all human remains to be removed from exhibition, some museums would look very different. Think, no Egyptian mummies at the British Museum! But pressure from both the public and the media to speed up the repatriation of human remains is mounting; museum guidelines on the retention and display of human remains - including those at the British Museum - are coming under scrutiny.

So, will this research help in accelerating the pace of repatriations? And will Parliament accept its share of responsibility to correct what the Group describes as a ‘legislative vacuum’ by introducing amendments to the Human Tissue Act 2004?

Thousands of human remains have been repatriated by UK institutions since the 1990s, primarily when reliable identification has made it possible to repatriate those remains to source communities. It's also becoming common practice when reviewing collections to consider their complete removal from public exhibition. A notable example was the decision taken by the Pitt Rivers Museum , Oxford in 2020, involving the removal of an extensive collection of tsantsa (‘shrunken’ heads) and other human remains from public display. Instead of helping visitors to reach a deeper understanding of each other’s ways of being, the museum was concerned the display of these tsantsa only served to reinforce racist and stereotypical thinking.

‘The existence of African ancestral remains collections in UK museums and other cultural institutions should be understood as continuous acts of displacement and objectification of human beings.’

Laying Ancestors to Rest , Policy Brief

Meanwhile, records of identification and provenance in museum collections are often poor or even non-existent. Such was the pseudo-scientific rush to acquire human specimens during the colonial era that accurate record-keeping was often overlooked!

For the last 30 years, Zimbabwe has been trying to recover the skull of Mbuya Nehanda, one of the heroes of that country’s first revolutionary struggle against British colonial rule. Hanged and then beheaded, it’s believed her head, along with the remains of other resistance fighters, were shipped to Great Britain as trophies of war. Enquiries Returning Heritage made to London’s Natural History Museum in 2022 (the place it is thought the remains are held) failed to yield any evidence the remains had ever been there.

The Natural History Museum holds a huge collection of 20,000 human remains and when we asked specifically about the location of Mbuya Nehanda’s skull we were told, “The information available does not provide names or precise identities for these people.”

One abhorrent practice where, hopefully, the Group’s research will lead to more immediate regulatory change is the banning from sale of human remains via auction houses and social media platforms such as Instagram and Facebook. It’s hard to understand how this practice can still be permitted.

Otherwise, the Group's campaign success will depend critically on whether Parliament can be persuaded to amend the Human Tissue Act 2004. This will be problematic. The definition in the Act of what constitutes human remains is not straightforward and although the Human Tissue Authority, established in 2005, introduced regulations covering some elements of human tissue (but not nails or hair), section 14 of the Act still specifically excludes the human remains of people who died more than 100 years before the Act came into force.

Understandably, the Group is demanding the Act should now be amended to regulate all human remains – without exceptions. Their public exhibition, except where appropriate consent is obtained or for religious or funerary purposes, should be made an offence; museums and any other UK institution holding ancestral remains will be required to obtain a licence from the Human Tissue Authority for their storage.

APPG-AR hope that greater engagement on this issue by wider civil society, combined with increasing public support for the repatriation of human remains will encourage government, museums and other institutions to implement their recommendations. Over the longer term, there's little doubt that progress towards these goals is inevitable. But patience will be essential. A re-engineering of collections will be required before all human remains can be removed from exhibition. That will take time and resources that museums currently don't have.

Laying Ancestors to Rest , Policy Brief by APPG-AR, March 2025

After this was written....

At a debate held in the House of Lords following publication, Fiona Twycross, a junior minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, said that incomplete databases and collections make it hard to know where human remains are being kept, but said the report's recommendations "will inform the government's consideration" of the issues. Contributing to the same debate, Lord Boateng described the trade in human body parts as an "abomination" and criticised the British Museum for refusing to return several preserved Maori tattooed heads, as well as the skulls of two named individuals from the Torres Strait Islands.

Who decides when an object is ‘unfit to be retained’?

Thu, 30 Jan 2025 12:00:05 GMT

What will it take to break the British Museum’s determination not to explain when an object is ‘unfit to be retained’? Last May, reaching what some have described as a crisis point in its 270-year history, the Museum took a small but intriguing step that might suggest this determination could be softening.

In its previous deaccession policy, the Museum made it clear that trustees have the powers to sell, exchange, give away or dispose of objects in the collection they consider are ‘unfit to be retained’. Meaning that no change in legislation is necessary to repatriate an object that can be disposed of ‘without detriment to the interests of the public and scholars’ . But whose definition of unsuitable for the Museum’s purpose were trustees prepared to accept? In a move towards greater precision, the new policy wording, signed off by the trustees in May last year, clearly places that responsibility on the relevant department’s head (Keeper) or the Deputy Director, Collection & Public Engagement.

3.5 Objects that are "unfit": Before considering whether any object was unfit to be retained in the Collection, the Trustees would require there to be a written statement submitted by the relevant Keeper or Deputy Director, Collection & Public Engagement of a) the reasons why it was unfit for retention in the Collection, and b) why it might be disposed of without detriment to the interests of students.

Prior to this change, the policy referred only to the requirement for a written statement, but with no explanation whose written statement the Museum was prepared to accept. Evidently, statements submitted in the past by governments, communities, churches and individuals drawing on this legal exemption did not carry sufficient weight for the trustees to take seriously.

Now the Museum has clarified whose statements they are prepared to accept, might the Museum begin to look more favourably on proposals for repatriation if they're presented by their own curators?

Each department’s Keeper will be more familiar than the Museum's trustees with the background and sensitivities of the objects in their collection. They may also be in direct contact with the communities appealing for repatriation of contested objects.

So why, for example, would the Keeper responsible for the care and management of the eleven sacred Ethiopian Tabots hidden away in the Museum’s collection – permanently unavailable for exhibition or even for study by the public or scholars – not wish to see the Tabots returned into the care of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church where they can continue to function as sacred objects?

The British Museum refused to explain why it still retains these sacred items after Returning Heritage made four Freedom of Information (FOI) requests between 2023 and 2024 seeking clarification. Disappointingly, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) upheld the Museum’s right to withhold information, primarily under Section 27(1)(a) of the FOI Act. This states that disclosure would be likely to prejudice international relations between the United Kingdom and any other state. As it is the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church that is leading appeals for the return of the Tabots (including personal appeals made by the Patriarch Abune Mathias to the Director of the British Museum in 2002 and 2021) the use of Section 27 is genuinely perplexing.

The ICO also decided that releasing the clarification we are seeking is not in the public interest “at this time”. So, when is the right time?

Perhaps that time has finally arrived. The British Museum has just appointed a new Director of Collections (Xerxes Mazda) whose brief includes engaging with source communities on contested objects. Add in the curator’s own perspective on the future of the Museum’s collection of Ethiopian Tabots and we hope the trustees may feel the time has arrived at last to adopt a more sensitive and pragmatic approach to the return of these sacred items into the care of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Photo: The British Museum

Could Britain and Greece be edging closer towards a Parthenon loan agreement?

Sun, 01 Dec 2024 18:55:45 GMT

There are several reasons why Britain’s new Labour administration may be closer to agreeing a loan of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece than the previous Conservative government, even though a full transfer of ownership remains firmly off the agenda.

This week, Britain’s prime minister Sir Keir Starmer will meet with Greece’s prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis. But the reception awaiting Mitsotakis is bound to be more welcoming than the last time he met with Britain’s premier. That was in November last year when a petulant Rishi Sunak cancelled a face to face meeting with Mitsotakis at the last minute.

Apparently, Sunak didn’t take kindly to the case made by Greece’s premier on BBC TV for transferring the Marbles to Athens on reunification grounds.

By contrast, Starmer is focussed on Britain's post-Brexit relations with Greece, which means resolving a number of pressing trade and diplomatic issues. Discussions are likely to focus on current UK-EU relations, Greece’s non-permanent membership of the UN Security Council and trade arrangements between the two countries. But this time, officials also believe a discussion about a loan of some of the Parthenon sculptures or reliefs is bound to come up. Significantly, Downing Street officials were briefing last week that Starmer is open to a possible loan deal.

“We are open to whatever is agreed,” said one official close to Starmer. “It’s right to say there is no strong view on what should happen.”

As we’ve reported before, the shape of a potential loan arrangement has been under discussion for some time. It’s understood George Osborne, the chair of the British Museum who has held discussions with Mitsotakis about the Marbles, has already spoken of these arrangements to Labour’s new Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lisa Nandy. These arrangements involve a loan of sculptures or reliefs in exchange for a series of rotating loan exhibitions of major Greek ‘trophy’ objects.

There is also talk of a softening of attitude towards this arrangement by some of the Museum’s trustees. Not before time, we say.

But while there is still no talk of amending the legislation to effect a full transfer of ownership (British Museum Act 1963) - something the Greeks have always maintained is a priority for discussions to succeed - there are other reasons why both sides may wish to park the ‘ownership’ issue and focus attention on the terms of a loan arrangement. At least, for now.

The first stage of the British Museum's long overdue plans to repair, restore and renovate the Museum’s gallery spaces might be starting as early as next year with work commencing on the "Western Range". Despite the eye-watering price attached to this vast project (rumoured to be costing around £1 billion), the Museum’s new Director, Nicholas Cullinan, speaking on a recent podcast for The Art Newspaper , has not shied away from expressing his intention to meet this challenge. And he has form, having already completed a major museum renovation at London’s National Portrait Gallery while formally serving there as Museum Director.

This first stage of renovation includes the Duveen Gallery, which houses the Museum’s collection of sculptures from the Parthenon and the Acropolis. It leaks profusely.

So, where should the collection be stored while the gallery spaces are being rebuilt? The government maintain the British Museum is responsible for decisions regarding the Marbles, so will the Museum's trustees step up and agree a temporary loan of sculptures or reliefs to the Acropolis Museum in Athens? As the majority of the Museum's trustees are appointed by government, it's quite likely that any expression of willingness to loan the Marbles by Starmer might well trickle down to a positive decision by trustees in Bloomsbury.

However, could this preface any longer term arrangement between the two countries? The next few weeks might provide a clue how the world’s longest running restitution dispute is evolving.

After this was written.....

Following the Prime Minister's meeting with Mitsotakis, Conservative MP Alberto Costa asked the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the 17 December 2024 what recent discussions she has had with relevant stakeholders on the future status of the Parthenon Marbles. In his role as Minister of State, Chris Bryant answered on the 20 December saying he and the Secretary of State have met with the British Museum's director and chair on separate occasions when the position of the Marbles was discussed at both meetings, along with other issues. Bryant also confirmed he met with Greece's Minister of Tourism, Olga Kefalogianni, on the 4 November when she raised the Parthenon issue briefly. So far, the Government's position remains unchanged: 'Decisions relating to the care and management of the Parthenon Sculptures are a matter for the British Museum Trustees, acting within the law'.

Photo: The Duveen Gallery at the British Museum

New website records thousands of looted antiquities returned to countries of origin

Sat, 30 Nov 2024 13:58:43 GMT

Investigations into the collecting patterns of major US museums resulted in two immensely readable and influential books covering today’s illegal trade in trafficking antiquities: Chasing Aphrodite: The Hunt for Looted Antiquities at the World’s Richest Museum and The Medici Conspiracy .

The co-author of the former, Jason Felch, once an investigative reporter on the Los Angeles Times, has built on this research and created a new and accessible online database within a ‘virtual’ museum environment. Called the Museum of Looted Antiquities (MOLA), it sets out to record and display the thousands of looted antiquities that have been returned successfully to their countries of origin.

The website ( mola.omeka.net ), not to be confused with the Museum of London Archaeology (mola.org.uk), has been launched with the source details for 118 cases. Together, these cases involve thousands of artefacts trafficked since 1950. As well as individual items repatriated, there are useful references to larger collections formed by illegal traffickers. Such as the Costa Rican antiquities dealer Leonardo Patterson, found guilty by a Bavarian court of possession and illegal export of over 200 cultural assets in 2015. And the US collector and hedge fund pioneer Michael Steinhardt, who accepted a lifetime ban on collecting antiquities in lieu of prosecution after investigators revealed Steinhardt’s ties to multiple art trafficking networks.

“The project is really a culmination of some efforts that I’ve been making over the last 20 years to build a unique data set on the illicit antiquities trade,” he explained during an interview with the US Center for Art Law.

The data published so far underlines the critical importance of collecting provenance data on looted objects. It will become even more useful as a research tool once the preliminary information Felch and his team have collected on a further 700 cases is added to the website. This information involves nearly 1 million additional artefacts.

By systematically collecting information and anecdotes about each case, Felch believes the resulting data will provide a much broader analysis of the antiquities trafficking problem. “Broader statements about the scope of the market, about the trends, about whether there are more or fewer repatriations every year, and about who’s behind these trafficking cases,” he explains.

He is especially hopeful that curators, people with specialist knowledge, or just people interested in returning looted artefacts will contribute their research and knowledge. There’s an extremely useful section on the MOLA website that enables anyone to provide source information on a physical object.

Click here for more information.

Photo courtesy of Museum of Looted Antiquities

Sunhat looted by British ‘White Rajahs’ returned to Kenyah Badeng community in Sarawak

Fri, 08 Nov 2024 11:12:38 GMT

In a handover ceremony at the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford this week, a cherished cultural object – a sunhat taken violently by British colonisers at the end of the 19 ^th century during punitive expeditions to Sarawak, now part of Malaysia - was returned to the Kenyah Badeng community.

The sunhat was described by Badeng representatives at the ceremony as an integral part of Sarawak’s survival and crucial to the Badeng’s cultural heritage.

The event was equally significant for the Pitt Rivers Museum, marking the Museum’s first repatriation of a cultural object. Previous repatriations have been restricted to ancestral remains. It follows hard on the heels of a decision made last September by Maasai representatives from Kenya and Tanzania to retain rather than repatriate five Maasai ancestral objects also in the Pitt Rivers collection.

The sunhat is made of woven bamboo and is decorated with a design of human figures. It was one of six Sarawak artefacts originally donated to the Sarawak Museum in 1903 by British government administrator, Charles Agar Bampfylde. The sunhat still bears the Museum’s original inventory number ‘1234’.

Two years later, it entered the collection of the Second Rajah of Sarawak, Charles Brooke, and was housed at the Chesterton House Museum. The Pitt Rivers acquired the sunhat after the Chesterton Museum closed in 1923, along with nearly seven hundred other Sarawak items and archival photographs.

Detailed provenance research, including evidence gathered from Badeng oral history, confirmed the sunhat had been looted. When the Sarawak made a formal request in May 2023 for the return of the sunhat, the Museum’s curators felt able to recommend its repatriation as a way of correcting the violence of its removal.

“This work of redress is a crucial part of the work we want and need to do as it helps to restore trust and understanding, and builds hope for a future of peace through partnership.”

Prof Dr Laura van Broekhoven, Director of the Pitt Rivers Museum

The British-led attacks on the Kenyah Badeng people were commissioned by members of the Brooke family, an independent monarchy known as the ‘White Rajahs’. The Brooke family ruled the sovereign state of Sarawak, located on the northwest coast of Borneo, for 105 years until it became a British colony in 1946.

The attacks in 1895 and 1896 on the Kenyah Badeng and other indigenous groups were intended to overcome resistance to Charles Brooke’s programme for expanding the Rajahs' geographical influence – increasing tax revenues in the process.

Thousands of indigenous people lost their lives during these attacks; many others were permanently displaced. Women and children - who remained in the villages largely undefended - were massacred, longhouses were burnt, and the looting of objects was widespread.

To the Kenyah Badeng people, the sunhat plays a hugely significant role in their culture. Not any woman could weave it and not any woman could wear it. Its role was to provide both physical and spiritual protection for a mother and her child and its survival is important for highlighting the overlooked roles of women and children during a period of violence and cruel oppression.

Since entering the Pitt Rivers, the sunhat has never been on display. However, following this week’s ceremony transferring ownership to the Kenyah Badeng Association (Kebana), it will go on exhibition at the Borneo Cultures Museum in Sarawak, alongside the five other looted Badeng objects gifted by Charles Bampfylde.

Van Broekhoven said she hopes this new partnership marks the beginning of a long-lasting relationship. “I am especially grateful for the work that has been done to streamline the process,” said Dr van Broekhoven, “enabling us to act faster than we have been able to do in the past. This helps build practice and understanding, making us even more confident that museums and communities, supported by their governments, can work alongside each other towards reconciliation and healing.”

“Reconciliation and healing is at the heart of what we do,” she added.

Photo: Badeng woven bamboo sunhat, late 19 ^th cent

Courtesy of the Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford

MADAGASCAR

Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:43:57 GMT

MADAGASCAR

Updated October 2024

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made to Madagascar, together

with other restitution news. Entries are updated regularly

October 2024

In the first review of its kind, France has agreed to review Madagascar's request to return the skull of King Toera, beheaded under French colonial rule

Lemonde.fr

ETHIOPIA

Tue, 08 Oct 2024 14:52:22 GMT

ETHIOPIA

Updated October 2024

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made to Ethiopia, together

with other restitution news. Entries are updated regularly

October 2024

The newly created Royal Ethiopian Trust has negotiated the return to Ethiopia of a 19th century shield looted from from Maqdala and withdrawn from a UK auction in February 2024

prnewswire.com

Maasai delegation decide ancestral objects can remain at Pitt Rivers Museum

Mon, 07 Oct 2024 16:37:17 GMT

Discussions held at the end of last month between a delegation of Maasai community leaders from Kenya and Tanzania and the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford prove that repatriation is not the only solution for the care of culturally sensitive objects.

It took seven years of collaboration and one week of deliberations before a group of Maasai family delegates decided that five objects whose ancestral lineage had been traced back to their families should remain in the care of the Pitt Rivers. Delegates felt these objects were being well cared for by the Museum.

The Pitt Rivers holds a collection of 188 Maasai objects, only a small fraction of its total collection of over 95,000 items sourced from Africa. Most of their Maasai collection was removed from Kenya and Tanzania during the colonial era.

The catalyst that triggered this decision to retain the five objects in Oxford started with the launch in 2017 of the Museum’s Living Cultures Project, described by the Museum as a new way to create equitable partnerships with Indigenous peoples. The project involves handing these peoples the power to decide on the future of their artefacts.

Maasai community representatives had approached the Pitt Rivers keen to change the way their living culture is represented - beyond the framework of the imperial past. The seven-year collaboration that followed has involved representatives from PALCA (the Pan-African Living Culture Alliance) and Oltoilo le Maa (a Tanzanian community-based video group, formed to document and protect Maasai culture). The project has been funded by The Staples Trust.

Concern about these five items - hereditary jewellery and personal ornaments - was raised formally during the first Maasai delegation to explore objects in the Pitt Rivers collection in 2018. A second delegation in 2020 set out to identify (using Maasai systems of knowledge) how these objects had entered the Museum’s collection, which families were affected by their absence and possible routes for reconciliation.

Four years of discussions, joint research and ceremonies then followed, leading up to the meeting held at the Museum in September 2024. This time, the delegation of Maasai family representatives (selected as cultural knowledge keepers by their respective families), together with representatives from PALCA, Oltoilo le Maa and the Orkiaama (the Maasai’s traditional leadership structure) all met up in Oxford, “to reconnect with the objects and decide on the next steps,” according to a statement from the Museum.

Maasai tradition dictates that hereditary ornaments such as these would never have been given away or sold. They could only be lent to family members and only for a very short time. As a result, each item must have been taken by force, after killing its owner and removing it from their body on the battlefield.

None of the delegation had seen the objects in person, so coming face to face with these objects for the first time in Oxford understandably led to much emotion, shock and sadness. Specially selected herbal teas were applied to the objects (in small quantities) and distributed to the delegates, staff and participants at reconciliation and healing ceremonies held at the Museum. Delegates said these herbal medicines helped them withstand the hurt of being reconnected with their objects.

Massai delegation examining ancestral objects

Courtesy of Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford

The decision by the family delegates to leave the items in the future care of the Pitt Rivers was made only after intense discussions and after taking advice from Mokompo, the group’s spiritual leader. It's another tradition of the Maasai community that when a warrior is killed on the battlefield, the body should be buried there, instead of returned to his home. As the objects are considered warriors themselves, this encouraged the delegates to decide the ornaments should remain in Oxford.

This decision is considered the final step in a process of reconciliation and healing with the five families from whom these objects were violently removed.

The Museum has undertaken to preserve each ornament in a separate box bearing the name of its original owner. The Maasai nation, families and individuals will be given lifetime access, which can also be facilitated online; the stories behind each object will be documented and made available in both English and Maa.

The Museum has said it plans to build on its relationship with the Maasai community by working together on future collaborations, “to decide how the outcomes of this unique process and Maasai cultural traditions can be best represented in the permanent galleries of the Museum, so that as many visitors as possible will learn from this process.”

* Further details of Living Cultures 2024 can be found here

Photo: Maasai delegates visiting the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford

Courtesy of Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford

How Britain’s new culture secretary can deliver a consistent approach to repatriation

Mon, 30 Sep 2024 17:07:30 GMT

Britain’s new culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, wants government to adopt a more consistent approach to repatriation. Could she go further and amend legislation allowing national museums to start repatriating contested objects?

If that is in her thinking, what advice can we share with the new minister to help deliver this greater consistency?

Sticking around in office would be a good place to start. Under the previous fourteen-year Conservative administration, five prime ministers appointed no fewer than thirteen culture secretaries. Just as soon as one minister had mastered the arts and culture brief, they were packed off and replaced by another fresh face at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (‘DCMS’).

The new prime minister’s record of shadow cabinet appointments was remarkably stable while Labour was in opposition. Let’s hope that record of stability remains a cornerstone of Sir Keir Starmer’s approach now he’s in government. Nandy was always an impressive opposition spokesperson. So, now she’s in charge at the DCMS, we hope she’ll be given sufficient time to implement her new agenda: for the arts in general and for repatriation in particular.

Interviewed by The Guardian, Nandy said she has already been approached by George Osborne, chair of the British Museum, about the repatriation of precious objects from their collection. But we believe the subject of restitution is far bigger than those issues of any one institution and, in her interview, Nandy admitted that different views are being expressed across the entire museum sector.

That is exactly why the culture secretary needs to look beyond the too-often distracting debate over whether or not to return or loan the Parthenon Marbles and consult more widely on the issues of repatriation that all Britain’s museums face in today’s multi-racial, muti-cultural society.

So much has changed - in society and in museology - since the British Museum Act 1963 and the National Heritage Act 1983 were enacted, yet both pieces of legislation remain in place, largely unchanged. It's very clear that legislation is lagging the visible developments that are taking place, not just among museum visitors and local communities, but also among a museum's own employees. All are now more culturally diverse and sensitive to past appropriation practices.

Take a harder look, Minister, across the sector. You’ll notice the repatriation appeals now being fielded by Britain’s national collections are no different to those faced by Britain’s larger number of regional and university collections. But while the latter are able to draw on modern governing powers to help them respond sensitively to legitimate appeals for repatriation, England’s national collections have no other choice than to turn away legitimate appeals due to a long-running and uninformed resistance by Parliament to the act of deaccessioning.

Ironically, certain deaccessioning powers (albeit with tight conditions) already exist at National Galleries Scotland, in Wales and in National Museums NI (Northern Ireland). The fact only national museums in England are prevented from exercising these powers demonstrates just how inconsistent, illogical and absurd is the current arrangement. So, yes, let’s introduce more consistency across the entire United Kingdom!

Exactly how can the new minister deliver this process? Instead of holding discussions with one or two national institutions, we urge Nandy to go further. Set up an independent commission tasked to recommend to Parliament a national policy on repatriation, along with an appropriate set of guidelines.

Look across the Channel where other former colonial powers are tackling (with growing success) exactly the same ethical challenges and legislative obstacles that have prevented the UK's progress in the past. Follow the example of governments in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, which have drawn on the input and experience of a much wider number of disciplines. Deliberately set up to be independent of government, museum and heritage professionals sit alongside experts in legal affairs, ethics, economics and civil society. And while representatives from former colonies have all played a key role on these committees, removing politicians at this stage of research has helped to move the process forward.

It's possible we'll end up with a very different set of guidelines from those introduced in other European countries. But agreeing to research and consult using this form of European model would be an appropriate initial action for this new government to take - especially if the minister is really serious about delivering the effective, consistent approach to repatriation she seeks for Britain's museum sector.

And what sort of outcome could we expect from this process? Tristram Hunt , Director of the V&A, has made it very clear he would like any review of heritage legislation to shift the power to deaccession away from Westminster and to place it firmly in the hands of the museum’s own trustees.

We agree with Hunt. Museum professionals are better placed to decide if and when an object should be returned to its source community, rather than a disinterested group in Westminster, uninvested in the collection of a national institution. It’s time for Nandy to grab the nettle, instruct an independent commission to recommend a national policy on restitution and ensure her plan for consistency doesn’t end up another false dawn.

Photo: Lisa Nandy

Courtesy of The Daily Sceptic

Getty Museum returns an ancient bronze couch to Türkiye

Wed, 25 Sep 2024 17:03:40 GMT

Hard on the heels of an agreement last May to return a looted Greek bronze head to the Republic of Türkiye, the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles has announced plans to return another looted artefact to that country. This time, the object is an ancient bronze funerary couch, known as a kline .

Used as a day bed for banqueting, the couch is described by the Museum as a rare surviving example of ancient luxury furniture, known largely otherwise from depictions on wall paintings and pottery. With legs and rails of cast bronze over an iron framework, the couch bears decorative details that suggest Lydian or East Greek manufacture and a date of around 530 BCE.

Acquired by the Museum in 1982, research conducted by the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism working closely with the Getty determined that provenance information provided by the Swiss dealer to the Museum was false. The couch had not been, as described to the Getty, held in European collections since the 1920s. Instead, it had been illegally excavated in the early 1980s from an ancient tomb in the region of modern-day Manisa.

“The bronze couch is a rare archaeological artifact that was unlawfully taken from its home. Thanks to the renewed dialogue between Türkiye and the Getty Museum, it will now be preserved where it belongs.”

Gokhan Yazgi, Deputy Minister of Culture and Tourism

The couch’s provenance was determined after detailed analysis of surviving fragments of linen attached to the object. “With this return, we are pleased to bring to a conclusion a long-running investigation of the couch’s origins by Turkish and American scholars,” said Timothy Potts, Maria Hummer-Tuttle and Robert Tuttle, Director of the Getty Museum. “Their research helped recover the archaeological and historical context for this exceptional object, while Getty conservators analyzed its materials and manufacturing technique.”

While contentious objects in the Getty collection remain in dispute (in particular, a long-running restitution saga over the Getty’s Greek bronze statue known as ' Victorious Youth '), there’s no doubting that steps are being taken by the Museum to return those contested objects where evidence of looting is overwhelming.

“Türkiye and the Getty Museum may hold differing positions on the matter of return and restitution,” said Gokhan Yazgi. “However, the announcement today can be seen as a sign of closer cooperation in the future toward the shared goal of combating the illicit trafficking of antiquities. I believe both sides are now much closer to understanding each other’s perspectives.”

Photo: Funerary couch. Lydian or East Greek, about 530 BCE. Inventory No. 82.AC.94

Courtesy of J. Paul Getty Museum

Petition urges the return of the bust of Queen Nefertiti to Egypt

Wed, 11 Sep 2024 14:14:37 GMT

Last week the archaeologist and former Secretary General of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities Dr Zahi Hawass launched a new petition urging Germany to repatriate the life-sized painted bust of Queen Nefertiti.

This exceptional and most beautiful of all Egyptian sculptures is the leading attraction in Berlin’s Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung. It is also one of three objects that Dr Hawass believes must be returned to Egypt as each represents unparalleled significance to Egyptian history. His other targets are the Rosetta Stone in the British Museum, London and the Dendera Zodiac in the Louvre, Paris.

It is Hawass’s claim that all three objects were taken out of Egypt illegally. To demonstrate the strength of public opinion in favour of repatriation, he has set out to secure one million signatures via an online petition (hawasszahi.com). After then he hopes the Egyptian state will approach the German, British and French governments to recover all three objects. The petition is not currently supported by Egypt’s government.

“I ask for you to sign this and share it with everyone you know. I would like to get one million signatures so we can formally petition for the return of these artifacts. We need your help.”

Zahi Hawass

What is the evidence this iconic limestone bust of Nefertiti, wife of the 18th dynasty Pharaoh Akhenaten, was removed from Egypt illegally? And what chance will he succeed in returning the bust to Egypt?

The sculpture was discovered by a German team of archaeologists, led by Ludwig Borchardt, while excavating at Tell el-Amarna in 1912/13. Tell el-Amarna in Upper Egypt was the location of the city built by the so-called ‘heretic’ king Akhenaten in the 14th century BCE. Along with another unfinished quartzite bust and other sculptural fragments, the sculpture was found abandoned in the ruins of the workshop of Tuthmose, the Chief Sculptor of Akhenaten.

It's exceptional qualities and identity were apparent immediately. Understandably, the excavators would have been anxious to secure this prize discovery in their share of the finds. But securing it for a German collection was not guaranteed. The Egyptian state at that time retained a veto over all objects they felt were too important to leave the country.

Nevertheless, it would be another ten years and the discovery of Tutankhamun’s tomb in 1922 before Egyptian authorities became so concerned about the loss of their ancient heritage they began removing this right given to foreign excavators to take home major discoveries.

So, the question whether the removal of the Nefertiti bust to Germany in 1913 was legal or not rests on the credibility of the case that Borchardt made to ensure the bust was granted to Germany's share of expedition finds. Hawass is certain its removal was illegal.

“The Bust of Nefertiti was brazenly stolen from Egypt by the Germans in 1913 when it was concealed and smuggled out of the country despite laws that declared it illegal to remove ‘exceptional’ archaeological finds from Egypt,” insists Hawass writing on his website.

It’s quite possible that Borchardt did misrepresent the importance of the Nefertiti bust in order to secure its removal to Germany. Allegedly, Gustave Lefebvre who was Egypt’s Inspector of Antiquities at the time with responsibility for allocating excavation finds, was shown only a substandard photo image of the sculpture, which was described to him as a gypsum bust. Had he inspected the sculpture in person, it’s hard to believe he would have agreed to gift away such an exceptional and significant work of Egyptian art.

All this gives credence to Hawass’s claim its removal was illegal. But so far, every attempt made by Egyptian authorities since 1924 to repatriate the bust from Germany has failed, including an appeal made to UNESCO to arbitrate Egypt’s case in 2005.

Dr Hawass is a tireless campaigner for restitution and his petition has already attracted over 223,000 signatures. But without fresh evidence that Borchardt deliberately set out to deceive the Egyptian authorities, it’s hard to see the Staatliche Museen conceding Egypt’s ownership, especially given the importance of Nefertiti’s bust as a cultural symbol of the city of Berlin. But that won’t stop Dr Hawass from continuing his relentless campaign for returning the bust.

Photo: Ludwig Borchardt and the discovery of the bust of Nefertiti

Courtesy of Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

Swiss Museum gives Nigerian diaspora a voice

Mon, 26 Aug 2024 17:13:19 GMT

A growing willingness by museums to reach out and canvas local communities and stakeholders for help resolving the future of contentious objects provides a voice for diaspora communities in the restitution debate.

Consultation with South London’s Nigerian diaspora played an important role in the decision by trustees of the Horniman Museum and Gardens to agree the return of 72 Benin objects to Nigeria in 2022.

This month, the Ethnographic Museum at the University of Zurich (UZH), launched an exhibition, Benin Dues , which creates the same opportunity for Switzerland’s Afro-Swiss community to engage in a debate over the future of that Museum’s collection of objects looted from the Kingdom of Benin.

Acquired by UZH in 1940 from the then Swiss Volksbank, the sculptures, relief plaques and other objects from Benin City were part of the collection of Zurich art collector Han Coray, who had filed for bankruptcy in 1931. According to research by the Swiss Benin Initiative, 14 of the Museum’s 18 Benin objects were very likely looted during the 1897 British raid on Benin City

Kept off public display for the past twenty years, Benin Dues will display the objects alongside ‘information on their problematic, and not fully clarified provenance’, according to a statement from the Museum.

Meanwhile, the exhibition features the voices of those with a more personal link to Benin’s cultural heritage, raising questions over the future of how these looted objects should be treated in the Museum’s collection.

“In the exhibition, we ask the communities whose opinion matters to us: Nigerian experts and members of the Nigerian diaspora in Switzerland,” explains curator Alexis Malefakis.

Salim Umar from the African Students Association of Zurich and Andra Omokaro from the Edo United Club of Switzerland holding a pendant mask from the Kingdom of Benin (Image: Kathrin Leuenberger)

Among those consulted in the development of the exhibition were the African Students Association of Zurich and members of the Edo United Club of Switzerland . In video projections, two representatives of the EUCS explain what the objects mean to them and how they envisage the future handling of their cultural heritage.

“The opening of the exhibition is a first important step,” said curator and provenance researcher Alice Hertzog. “We hope that while the exhibition is running, there’ll be further opportunities to engage with and discuss the topic.”

The Ethnographic Museum at the University of Zurich co-drafted the Joint Declaration of the Swiss Benin Initiative, which has researched the provenance of all Benin objects in Swiss collections, in collaboration with Nigerian institutions. The Initiative supports calls for the restitution of these objects.

Along with the cantonal authorities, the Museum is now examining its next steps. According to Museum Director Mareile Flitsch, there is talk of a paradigm shift: “Ethnographic museums now need to reconsider past world views and attitudes. Our collections offer unique opportunities to engage with their creators and their descendants. This collaborative process is changing the way the objects are collected, researched and presented.”

Photo: Andra Omokaro from the Edo United Club of Switzerland with a pendant mask from the Kingdom of Benin

Courtesy of Kathrin Leuenberger, 2024

AIATSIS helps Warumungu Community recover 10 cultural objects from Horniman Museum

Fri, 09 Aug 2024 12:55:10 GMT

Hard on the heels of the UCLA Fowler Museum’s return of 20 objects to the Warumungu community of Northern Territory, Australia in July, comes news this month of an agreement by London’s Horniman Museum and Gardens to transfer ownership of 10 further Warumungu objects.

Both restitutions highlight the slow but relentless progress of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS), a government agency that trawls collections worldwide for relevant objects and is notching up an impressive record for securing returns.

On behalf of the Warumungu community, AIATSIS made a formal request for the return of nine objects held at the Horniman on 3 May 2023. During the discussions with community representatives that followed, it became clear the community could show both a prior and a continuing relationship with these objects, meeting the claim procedures set out in the Museum’s Restitution and Repatriation Policy . This enabled the full board of trustees to support their request for restitution, which was then endorsed by the Museum’s regulator, the Charity Commission (7 February 2024), noting the trustees’ “moral obligations”.

The Warumungu objects, considered of cultural and spiritual significance, will be handed over to an Australian delegation later this year. They include a stone axe (ngurrulumuru), two boomerangs (wartilykirri), a knife (marttan) and a sheath (murkutu). One of the boomerangs has been part of the Museum’s Handling Collection and is additional to the nine objects requested by AIATSIS. Returning this item did not require Charity Commission approval.

“I want to thank them [Horniman Museum] for sending those things back to us. They’ve made a choice to send them back to where they belong. It wasn’t them who collected it, it was their ancestors, so I want to thank them.”

Mr Michael Jones Jampijinpa, Senior Warumungu Man

The Chair of Trustees at the Horniman, Michael Salter-Church, was equally unequivocal why these objects should be returned to their Aboriginal source: “These objects are of the utmost significance for the Warumungu people, and were lost to them in circumstances where they were compelled to sell or give them away. We are pleased to be able to return them to the care of their original community.”

Following their transfer, all ten Warumungu objects will be housed at the Nyinkka Nyunyu Art and Culture Centre, a regional museum in Tennant Creek, Northern Australia, which is currently undergoing a major A$7m expansion project. The Centre is dedicated to presenting and preserving the Warumungu culture.

Last year, AIATSIS were involved in two other restitution events in the UK. In July, we reported that an agreement was finally reached to return four Aboriginal spears, collected on Lieutenant James Cook’s first landing at Botany Bay in April 1770, from Cambridge’s Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. The spears were handed over to the La Perouse Aboriginal Community on 23 April this year.

Then in September, Manchester Museum returned 174 personal and domestic cultural objects to the Aboriginal Anindilyakwa community, also in Australia’s Northern Territory. This was the second restitution resulting from a three-year partnership AIATSIS has established with the Manchester Museum.

Like the return of 20 Warumungu objects by the Fowler Museum at the University of California, Los Angeles, these restitutions are the result of the initiative set up by AIATSIS six years ago called ‘Return of Cultural Heritage Programme’. This has involved the agency establishing contact with around 380 institutions worldwide and the return of over 2,200 culturally significant artefacts.

After this was written.....

A handover ceremony of the 10 artefacts to the Warumungu Community took place in September 2024 at the Horniman Museum & Gardens in south-east London The ceremony was attended by Warumungu elders Cliff Plummer Jabarula and William (Bill) Ah Kit Jakamarra. Representatives of AIATSIS were also present. The objects will be held temporarily at AIATSIS in Canberra until the Community is ready to receive them on Country (an Aboriginal term to describe the land, seas and waterways to which the artefacts are connected).

Photo: Mr Michael Jones Jampijinpa, Senior Warumungu Man

Courtesy of AIATSIS

Germany takes further steps to return Nazi-looted artworks

Sun, 04 Aug 2024 10:01:11 GMT

Struggling to make progress in the restitution of artworks stolen by the Nazis, last month the German government put forward new draft legislation designed to make it easier to enforce claims for the return of stolen artworks.

Germany is not the only signatory of the landmark 1998 Washington Principles frustrated by excessive procedural hurdles standing in the way of returning looted artworks to their rightful owners or legal successors. However, this new draft legislation adds to other reforming measures taken by Germany this year to accelerate progress.

The legislation would create a new ‘right to information’. Once enacted, a seller wishing to sell an artwork would be required to provide the names and addresses of previous sellers, purchasers and clients, as well as provide all available information on the item’s provenance.

German Justice Minister Marco Buschmann said despite previous initiatives to enforce the return of cultural artefacts looted by the Nazis looted between 1933 and 1945, “the law makes it too difficult to enforce existing claims for return”. This right to information would help determine whether claimants were “still entitled to the property”.

Under the proposals, restitution cases would be heard in regional courts, where the statute of limitations (30 years in most cases), would be suspended - unless the defendant was unaware of the item’s origin and can demonstrate it had purchased the item “in good faith”. A “special court” in Frankfurt would be set up to address claims from outside Germany.

The initiative follows reforms approved in March this year by the German government and its 16 states to replace the current national advisory commission (set up in 2003). This commission required disputes by heirs of Jewish collectors seeking to recover looted artworks to be submitted by both parties before a resolution could be agreed. But the commission has fallen short of expectations because it lacked the legal clout to enforce its recommendations. By contrast, the new reforms introduce binding and unilateral access to arbitration, meaning that evaluation of restitution claims can proceed without a requirement for both parties in the dispute to agree. Germany’s 16 states, especially Bavaria, had previously resisted this change.

In a statement released in March '24 after the meeting of government and state culture officials, German culture minister Claudia Roth said: “The joint decision today is a big and important step forward to considerable improvements in the return of Nazi-looted art.” She added, “We have agreed a very ambitious timetable.” Germany aims to implement these reforms before the end of 2024.

Both initiatives follow hard on the heels of a report released on Tuesday 5 March '24 by the World Jewish Restitution Organisation (WJRO) that indicated more than half of the 47 nations that signed onto a declaration endorsing the Washington Principles – the original set of standards to assist with the return of Nazi-looted art – have made minimal to no progress in the 25 years since the Principles were drafted.

The seven countries identified by WJRO as having made “major progress” are Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and the USA. Ratings were based on several criteria, in particular: the extent of historical research undertaken into restitution; the provenance of its own collections; the status of determination for managing claims; or whether a significant number of restitutions have been made.

After this was written....

In October 2024 the German Federal government, the 16 States and Local Governments announced an agreement has been reached over the Arbitration Rules. Starting in 2025, claims can be heard by the new Arbitration Court for Nazi Looted Property. Unlike previously, it also means the Court's awards will be binding and enforceable. Museums will be forced to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court. The German Lost Art Foundation ( Deutsches Zentrum Kulturgutverluste ) will serve as the secretariat of the Arbitration Court with responsibility for administration issues. Access will be free of charge both for claimants and for public museums, although each party will be liable for their own legal costs. Germany's government approved the tribunal in January 2025.

"We are making the restitution of Nazi-looted art easier, particularly by introducing unilateral access to arbitration," said Claudia Roth, Germany's culture minister. "We are also creating more legal security and a more binding system."

The process will be reviewed after three years or after the tenth arbitral award. A spokesperson for the German culture ministry could not confirm when the tribunal would start operating.

Not everyone is content with this reform. Some have argued it will increase the burden of proof for heirs and exclude victim groups whose claims were recognised under the current system. Meanwhile, lobbying continues to amend Germany's statute of limitation, which remains a significant obstacle to restitution claims succeeding.

Photo: Marco Buschmann

Courtesy of dts news agency

Exeter museum returns further sacred object to Siksika Nation

Tue, 02 Jul 2024 16:43:42 GMT

Following their successful repatriation in May 2022 of Chief Crowfoot’s regalia to the Siksika Nation in Canada, Exeter’s Royal Albert Memorial Museum & Art Gallery (RAMM) has taken another welcome step to protect the continuity of Siksika culture by returning a further sacred object two years later.

The sacred ceremonial headdress returned at a handover ceremony at the RAMM last month (June 2024) was traditionally worn by a holy woman of the Blackfoot Holy Buffalo Woman Society, known as Motokiks . Its repatriation to the Blackfoot tribe of Siksika Nation will ensure it is returned to use by today's holy women of the Motokiks .

Exactly how it was acquired is undocumented, but it was gifted to the Museum in 1920 by Edgar Dewdney, a former Lieutenant Governor of the Northwest Territories in Canada. It’s likely he acquired the headdress while enforcing the harsh assimilation policies of Treaty 7 and the Indian Act, colonial acts that after the mid-19 ^th century prescribed methods of forced assimilation and displacement of Canada’s Indigenous Peoples.

The repatriation of Chief Crowfoot’s regalia together with other personal belongings came about after five years of sensitive negotiation. However, during these negotiations the RAMM and the Siksika Nation succeeded in cultivating what the Museum now describes as a ‘meaningful partnership’. It also established a precedent for the return of other Siksika items.

Joset Melting Tallow prepares the bundle during the ceremony. Photo: Jim Wileman

Last month’s repatriation of the ceremonial bird bundle in the form of a Buffalo Woman’s Headdress is another result of this burgeoning partnership. Crafted with buffalo horns, sacred bird feathers, porcupine quills and adorned with red cloth and brass bells, the formal request for its repatriation was made by the Blackfoot (Siksika) Nation in September 2022, just four months after the return of the Crowfoot regalia.

According to Joset Melting Tallow, one of several Siksika delegates who travelled to Exeter for the handover event, the headdress holds immense sacred significance for the Blackfoot people:

“Its return to Siksika Nation symbolizes not only the preservation of our cultural heritage, but also the recognition of our history and traditions, and is a profound testament to our ancestors’ spiritual and cultural practices.”

Julien Parsons, RAMM’s Collections & Content Manager, expressed the RAMM’s pleasure that the headdress will once again be used for its original purpose. The handover event, “was a moving experience for all of us lucky enough to be present,” he explained. “The elders performed a short ceremony and then painstakingly bundled and wrapped the headdress in coloured cloth. It will travel back to Canada where it will return to its sacred use by the Siksika people.”

Today, the Siksika Nation population in southern Alberta numbers approximately 8,000+ members and is part of the Siksikaitsitapi-Blackfoot Confederacy. The Siksikaitsitapi refers to four Indigenous Nations which make up the Blackfoot people: the Siksika (Blackfoot), the Kainai (Many Chiefs), the Apatohsipiikani (Northern Peigan) and Amsskapipiikani (Southern Peigan).

Photo: Joset Melting Tallow with the sacred bundle at RAMM

Courtesy of Siksika Nation and Royal Albert Memorial Museum & Art Gallery 2024. Photo: Jim Wileman

CHINA

Fri, 28 Jun 2024 13:08:16 GMT

China

Updated February 2026

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made to China, together with other restitution news.

Entries are updated regularly

February 2026

Japan is being urged to return the Chinese Tang Honglu Well Stele of the Tang Dynasty and its pavilion looted by Japan during the Russo-Japanese War in 1908

globaltimes.cn

June 2024

China launches the Qingdao Recommendations for the protection and return of cultural objects removed from colonial contexts, part of the China-proposed Global Civilization Initiative

globaltimes.cn

Ashmolean Museum agrees to repatriate a 500-year-old Hindu statue to India

Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:16:07 GMT

Four years after the Museum was first approached, the Ashmolean in Oxford has agreed to support a formal claim from the Indian High Commission to return a looted bronze statue depicting the Hindu deity Tirumankai Alvar.

Purchased by the Museum in good faith at auction in 1967, suspicions over how this 60cm-tall bronze statue left India were raised in November 2019 by an independent scholar who was researching in the photo archives of the IFP-EFEO ( Institut Français de Pondichery and the Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient ). The statue appeared to match an identical bronze statue of Saint Tirumankai Alvar, which ten years earlier (1957) had been photographed in situ within the temple of Shri Soundarrajaperumal Kovil in Tamil Nadu.

This statue, along with three others, was looted from this temple site in southern India in the late '50s or early '60s. All four statues ended up for sale in the USA. From here, the Ashmolean's statue of Saint Tirumankai Alvar entered the collection of Dr J R Belmont, who amassed a large number of Indian sculptures and miniature paintings. We don't know where or from whom Belmont acquired the sculpture, but it was sold again at auction at Sotheby's in 1967.

Following its identification in 2019, the Indian High Commissioner submitted a claim to the Ashmolean for its repatriation in March 2020. As part of its research into the provenance of the statue, the Museum agreed a request from the Archaeological Survey of India to undertake a metal analysis of the statue. Although the Ashmolean has provided no further details of this technical analysis, the fact the Museum is now willing to support its repatriation suggests the Museum is satisfied the statue is indeed the one looted from the Tamil Nadu temple site.

Last week the Ashmolean produced a statement saying: ‘On 11 March 2024 the council of the University of Oxford supported a claim from the Indian High Commission for the return of a 16th century bronze sculpture of Saint Tirumankai Alvar from the Ashmolean Museum. This decision will now be submitted to the Charity Commission for approval.’

Oxford University Museums has published its procedures for the return of cultural objects, which were last approved by the Museums Council in July 2020.

As a charity, the Museum is required to submit the University Council’s support for repatriation to the Charity Commission. Only after the Commission has given approval can the statue be returned to India.

Photo: A 16 ^th century bronze statue of Saint Tirumankai Alvar

Courtesy of Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford

ALGERIA

Wed, 05 Jun 2024 11:47:36 GMT

ALGERIA

Updated June 2024

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made to Algeria, together

with other restitution news. Entries are updated regularly

June 2024

Algeria has requested the return from France of objects that belonged to Emir Abdelkader, the 19th century resistance fighter defeated in 1847.

Francetvinfo.fr

June 2024

Algeria has submitted a list of historical artefacts currently held in France seeking their restitution

dzair-tube.dz

Getty Museum to return a looted bronze head to Türkiye

Fri, 03 May 2024 10:16:11 GMT

A Roman bronze head from a statue of a young man, acquired by the Getty Museum in Los Angeles in 1971, is returning to Türkiye after evidence emerged it was excavated illegally.

The Museum said they agreed the object needed to be returned to Türkiye after receiving new information from Matthew Bogdanos and the Antiquities Trafficking Unit of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office indicating the excavation of this bronze head had been illegal.

Cast separately as part of a bronze life-size figure and dating to the 1 ^st cent BCE to the 1 ^st cent AD, it was probably modelled by a Greek artist. This is indicated by an inscribed late-form alpha (A) visible on the interior of the neck. The style suggests either a highly idealised Roman portrait in an earlier Greek manner or a Roman copy after a Greek original. The thin casting is of especially fine quality, which also supports a date around the 1 ^st cent AD.

The location of the body and the identity of the head remain unknown. However, the bronze has been associated with the archaeological site of Bubon, in the Burdur province of southwestern Türkiye. We know that illicit excavations took place at Bubon in the late 1960s and that several other ancient bronzes were trafficked abroad following these illegal excavations.

The bronze head was sold to the Museum in 1971 by Nicolas Koutoulakis (1910-96), a now deceased Geneva-based art dealer for the sum of $90,000. Koutoulakis has been identified with other looted artefacts, including others sold to the Getty. In 2011 the Getty arranged the return of a carved object sold to the Museum by Koutoulakis for $20,000 after investigations revealed it was part of a funerary wreath stolen from a Greek museum.

According to a post on the Chasing Aphrodite website, the bronze head now returning to Türkiye has been on a list of ten looted objects that Türkiye has been attempting to recover since at least 2012. Another striking Roman portrait Head of a Man in the Getty collection (Ref. 73.AB.8) was also acquired from Koutoulakis for $125,326 in 1973. The origin of this second head is loosely attributed to 'Asia Minor'. It's not clear whether this head may also be the subject of a repatriation appeal.

Officials have removed the head returning to Türkiye from display at the Getty Villa Museum. They have also confirmed its repatriation is in accordance with Getty’s policy to return objects when reliable information indicates they were stolen or illegally excavated.

In a press statement, Robert Tuttle Director of the Getty Museum said, “We seek to continue building a constructive relationship with the Turkish Ministry of Culture and with our archaeological, conservation, curatorial, and other scholarly colleagues working in Türkiye, with whom we share a mission to advance the preservation of ancient cultural heritage.”

The Museum has returned other major exhibits to Italy investigated by Matthew Bogdanos. In 2007 it returned the so-called ‘ Getty Aphrodite ’ and in 2022 it returned a nearly life-size sculptural group of a Seated Poet and two Sirens after Bogdanos discovered the figures had been excavated illegally from the Greek colony of Tarentum in southeast Italy.

Meanwhile, a decision on Thursday 02 May 2024 made by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg has upheld Italy's right to seize the Getty's Greek bronze statue known as ‘ Victorious Youth ’. Purchased for $3.98 million in 1977, for decades the Museum has consistently defended its legal right to retain this iconic Greek statue, one of the greatest treasures in the Getty Museum.

Discovered by Italian fishermen in 1964, understood to be fishing at the time in international waters, the statue was sold to a group of Italian art traffickers, eventually finding its way to Great Britain where it was brought to the attention of J. Paul Getty. Italy considers the statue a vital part of its cultural heritage, but the Getty took its case to the ECHR claiming its rights were protected under European human rights protocols on property protection. In support of Italy's claim, the ECHR has ruled that country's efforts to reclaim the statue were not disproportionate and that the Getty were at best negligent in acquiring it without proper verification of its provenance,

The Getty rejects this assertion. In a statement, the Museum stated the "Getty's nearly 50-year public possession of an artwork that was neither created by an Italian artist nor found within the Italian territory is appropriate, ethical and consistent with American and international law."

Exactly what will happen next is unclear. Italy's culture minister, Gennaro Sangiuliano, said his government will contact U.S. authorities "for assistance in the implementation of the confiscation order." However, enforcement of the order is certain to be problematic, not least because the U.S.A. is not a party to the ECHR.

After this was written....

A recent analysis of the ECHR's decision describes it as 'ground-breaking, progressive and utterly surprising'. However, confusing elements in the decision means it's also 'rather problematic'. In particular, the analysis draws attention to the brushing aside of some of the more problematic aspects of the 2007 confiscation order (Source: The 'Getty Bronze' at the European Court of Human Rights by Alexander Herman, Director of the Institute of Art and Law, May 21, 2024).

Photo: Head from a Statue of a Youth, Roman, 1st cent BCE-1st cent AD

Courtesy of J. Paul Getty Museum

National Museums Scotland identifies an Ethiopian Tabot

Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:01:14 GMT

An official from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has confirmed an object held at National Museums Scotland (NMS) is a sacred Ethiopian Tabot.

The Church official visited the Museum in Edinburgh last month after curators made a preliminary identification of the object held in its collection stores. A spokesperson for NMS told Returning Heritage that following identification, the official provided the Museum with guidance how the sacred object should be stored and kept out of sight.

The Tabot has since been moved to a special locked cabinet with restricted access, the only exception being to priests of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Its museum record has been updated to ensure no photographs of it are taken or ever published.

The Edinburgh Tabot has never been on public exhibition. It was donated to the Royal Scottish Museum in June 1936 by Emily Sarah Lucy Fitzroy. According to Andrew Heavens' Directory of Maqdala objects, NMS holds other Ethiopian objects, including a cross and goblet, three manuscripts and a scroll, plus three armlets/bracelets that might have been collected from Maqdala in 1868. The Museum is currently undertaking research to understand more about this Tabot’s provenance.

Another Tabot was discovered in the back of a cupboard in a Scottish Episcopal church in Edinburgh in 2001. That Tabot had been gifted to the church by Captain William Arbuthnot (1838-1892) who acquired it while serving on the 1867/68 Abyssinian expedition. It was returned to Ethiopia just a few months after its discovery.

So far, no request for the repatriation of this newly discovered Tabot has been received either from the Ethiopian government or from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. However, NMS has confirmed that should such a request be made, it will be considered in line with procedures introduced in 2021 for the transfer of objects to claimants outside the United Kingdom.

Although National Museum Scotland’s Collections Policy includes a presumption against deaccession and disposal, when objects meet the criteria detailed in procedures for considering requests for the permanent transfer of collection objects, and when the request is supported by the Board of Trustees, NMS will consider repatriation. However, the final decision still requires agreement by the Secretary of State (or the Scottish Minister to whom the power has been devolved) before permanent transfer can take place.

Meanwhile, the investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) into the British Museum’s failure to disclose information regarding its collection of sacred Tabots is attracting significant public interest. It follows the complaint Returning Heritage and the leading human rights law firm Leigh Day made to the ICO.

Global media coverage of this investigation has mushroomed following an article published in The Guardian .

Photo: National Museums Scotland, Edinburgh

Courtesy of National Museums Scotland

British Museum faces investigation by Information watchdog over sacred Tabots

Sun, 31 Mar 2024 09:42:17 GMT

The British Museum has shown itself adept at refusing to provide information to questions they’d prefer not to answer. We hope our initiative to escalate concerns about the Museum’s collection of Ethiopian Tabots to the Information Commissioner’s Office will encourage greater transparency.

Returning Heritage believes the exemptions the British Museum is using to retain eleven sacred Tabots that can be returned to Ethiopia without breaching the Museum’s existing governing Act have been wrongly applied. As a result, together with Leigh Day, a leading firm of lawyers established to combat injustice, we have submitted a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

The ICO has confirmed our complaint is eligible for investigation and a caseworker has been assigned to oversee the investigation.

In August 2023, Returning Heritage made its fourth Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the British Museum, inviting the Museum to provide information on key meetings of its Board of Trustees where the issue of the Ethiopian Tabots had been discussed. These meetings were held between 2004 and 2022. Our aim is to understand why the Trustees appear to believe (falsely) they cannot lawfully remove the Tabots from the Museum’s collection.

The ICO's investigation into the Museum's failure to provide answers has attracted significant, global media attention, including an interview on BBC News.

Ever since our first FOI request made to the Museum in September 2022, we have reminded the Trustees of a legal opinion , commissioned by the Scheherazade Foundation in 2021 and circulated to all members of the board that year, which confirms the Tabots can be lawfully repatriated to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church on the grounds they are ‘unfit to be retained’.

As we’ve written many times before, the Tabots are so sacred they can never be exhibited, studied, copied or photographed. Since 1868, when eight of the Museum’s eleven Tabots entered the Museum’s collection, they’ve been kept permanently out of sight - unavailable to the public, the Museum’s curators and even the Museum’s Director and Trustees. Retaining them is shameful for an institution whose published aim is to ensure the collection is housed in safety, conserved, curated, researched and exhibited. *

Section 5 in the British Museum Act 1963 (‘Disposal of Objects’) allows for objects to be repatriated if, in the opinion of the Trustees, the objects are “unfit to be retained” and can be removed “without detriment to the interests of students”.

It’s hard to imagine another group of objects that so evidently meet these criteria. However, following our latest FOI request, the Museum will not even confirm whether it has sought external legal advice that it can return the Tabots to Ethiopia under this Act.

The other information and documents we’ve requested are either still being withheld or have been sent to us heavily redacted. We’re especially interested to learn about the proposals for the management of the Tabots made by former Director Hartwig Fischer in a paper he presented to the Trustees on 8 December 2022. In a covering note, Jonathan Williams, then Deputy Director, described the Tabots, together with one other unidentified object(s), as “two of the most controversial restitution issues currently being faced by the Museum”.

The Museum has forwarded other redacted documents to us in the past, but the extent of redactions on this document from Hartwig Fischer is beyond reasonable. Disclosure of this information is hardly a risk to state security.

Redactions made to Hartwig Fischer's proposals for the management of Ethiopian Tabots in

the British Museum. November 2022

As it has to each of our four FOI requests, the Museum continues to apply the section 27 exemption, meaning the disclosure of the information we’ve requested would prejudice the UK’s relations with another State. As the Ethiopian Orthodox Church does not constitute either the government or an organ of Ethiopia’s government, this argument is clearly untenable. It's equally true that UK relations with Ethiopia can only benefit from the return of the Tabots.

We’re also concerned the Museum continues to underestimate the significant public interest in favour of disclosure of information about the Tabots. “The information sought concerns decision-making by a major public institution on a matter of very significant public interest,” said Tom Short, a solicitor at Leigh Day. “That the Museum should attempt to withhold such information from public scrutiny is surprising, not least at a time when recent events have shown a clear need for light to be shone on how the Museum conducts its business.”

It's a mystery to us why the British Museum clings on to a group of objects so clearly unsuitable for anywhere other than the sanctity and protection of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Full disclosure can only benefit the Museum, whose decision-making process and reputation is still being questioned. We hope the new Director, Nicholas Cullinan, will bring fresh energy and long overdue transparency to operations at the British Museum. They may have no alternative if the Information watchdog rules in favour of our complaint.

* www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/governance

Photo: Priests carrying covered Tabots on their heads during the Timkat Epiphany Festival, Lalibela, Ethiopia

Courtesy of Eric Lafforgue Photography

It's time for a nationwide restitution strategy

Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:12:25 GMT

The emergent gap between Britain’s national and non-state collections is about to get wider, as prospects for a UK nationwide restitution strategy appear as far away as ever.

In a significant announcement, the UK government has confirmed it will exclude national collections from new provisions in the Charities Act 2022 that would otherwise allow all charities to return objects on moral grounds.

Later this year, most charity trustees will be able to make ‘transfers’ of objects where they feel compelled by a moral obligation. Defined as ex gratia payments , these include transfers of museum artefacts. But trustees of Britain’s national collections will be denied this right.

Writing in January this year to the Charity Commission chairman Orlando Fraser, Britain’s arts and heritage minister Lord Parkinson explained that national museums and galleries will remain bound by their existing governing legislation, “precluding them from resolving to restitute objects from their collections other than in the limited and specific circumstances expressly provided for in legislation.”

It's not clear how these transfer provisions, contained in sections 15 and 16 of the new Charities Act, were initially overlooked. The Act gained Royal Assent in February 2022, but seemingly was passed without detailed parliamentary scrutiny or debate. Sections 15 and 16 were of special interest to the museum sector because they gave trustees of national collections the right to override those restrictive clauses that currently prevent them from returning artefacts. Had these new provisions come into law unchanged, they would have brought national museums closer in line with other collections that have used moral grounds to secure Charity Commission approval for returning artefacts (like the Horniman Museum and Jesus College, Cambridge with their return of Benin artefacts to Nigeria).

At the time, Alexander Herman, Director of the Institute of Art and Law, described this development as “remarkable”.

However, before these provisions could be implemented, government intervened and suspended them. Other provisions have come into force in tranches, the latest in March 2024. But implementation of section 15 and 16 will not take place until later this year. At that point, they’ll be introduced with two important government changes: the exclusion of national collections from the right to make ex gratia payments and a requirement for the Charity Commission’s approval before any transfer is made outside the UK.

This government intervention is disappointing. Had they made no changes, there was still no risk of an exodus of ‘trophy’ items leaking out the doors of Britain’s national collections. Only 'lower value' items qualified.

Instead, this latest intervention joins a growing list of other actions taken by government to avoid any change in heritage legislation.

In addition to their constant mantra that heritage legislation forbids most restitutions, other examples include government shunning the advice of senior museum officials, like V&A director Tristram Hunt, who’ve recommended giving greater responsibility to trustees to decide what should and should not be in their collections. They’ve also dug their heels in against co-operation with George Osborne at the British Museum over a potential agreement with Greece on the Parthenon Marbles and they’ve vetoed trustee appointments (or reappointments) where candidates hold different views from their own, especially over the issue of decolonisation.

As national collections in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland already have greater scope (with conditions) to repatriate cultural items to source communities, national museums in England are looking dangerously isolated, turning their backs on a global-wide sentiment that is moving inextricably in favour of returning stolen artefacts.

Government will say it’s unwilling to change tack without clear evidence of a change in sentiment. It’s true the most recent opinion poll in the UK relates only to the Parthenon Marbles (64% of those Britain’s polled were in favour of returning these sculptures, according to a YouGov poll published in July 2023*). But although this Parthenon poll doesn't reflect a broader sentiment in favour of restitution, it does suggest there's growing momentum in favour of reviewing and debating the status of contested items in our national collections.

Government can also learn much from experience across the Channel, where other former colonial nations face the same legal, legislative and ethical challenges to state collections. They seem much less afraid to confront these challenges.

Instead of hiding behind the status quo, European countries are establishing independent advisory committees, enabling policy to be determined after the widest possible consultation. Parliaments in Austria, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands have all responded positively to new policy frameworks, guidelines and procedures recommended by advisory committees. And in a growing number of countries, this includes new legal frameworks to overturn the legislative obstacles that have prevented restitution in the past. Belgium claims to be "at the forefront of international restitutions of colonial collections", becoming the first country in the world with a legislative framework allowing large-scale returns of colonial artefacts. Others are heading in the same direction.

How widespread is this movement? Ireland and Switzerland, two countries with no history of colonialism, are both in the process of setting up advisory committees; Spain announced a ‘review process’ of state collections in January this year; France, which kick-started this new era of restitution with President Macron's speech at Burkina Faso in 2017, is debating the third of its so-called ‘framework’ laws to overcome the French principle of inalienability that prevents restitution of colonial items.

These committees have involved input from museum and heritage professionals, experts in legal affairs, ethics, economics and civil society, as well as representatives from former colonies. Considerable time has been invested, sometimes stretching over more than a year, holding intensive consultation and discussions between the different stakeholders. Tellingly, politicians have played little or no role in this investigation and consultation process.

What can the UK learn from this European experience? Independent advisory committees do not guarantee the delivery of a uniform approach to restitution. Nor are their policy guidelines and procedures always consistent. Their scope is sometimes quite narrow and political priorities tend to water down some of the recommendations when legislation is introduced into parliament.

But there are also remarkable similarities in the building blocks that underpin emerging policy frameworks: a need for government to acknowledge and address the historical injustices that led to the acquisition of cultural artefacts; a need to better understand the interests of the different parties; and the importance of de-politicising the debate - allowing those in the vanguard of the heritage and restitution debate to propose solutions and practical accommodations.

Is it conceivable the British government would consider the formation of an independent advisory committee to direct future heritage policy? Possibly not under the present government and certainly not without pressure from the public, underpinned by an independent and authoritative review.

So, faced with a government determined to avoid change, we've no alternative but to de-politicise the debate and to press ourselves for an independent committee that can recommend to parliament a modern framework for a nationwide restitution strategy. Pressure from all others informed and concerned is essential. Here at Returning Heritage we intend to play our part in ensuring this pressure succeeds.

* YouGov poll commissioned by the Parthenon Project and published by the BBC, 21 July 2023

Looted shield from Maqdala may be heading back to Ethiopia

Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:49:44 GMT

The sale of an Ethiopian shield, believed looted by British forces at Maqdala in 1868 and sent to auction at Anderson & Garland in Newcastle upon Tyne, has been withdrawn from sale.

The auctioneers' decision follows lobbying by the Ethiopian Heritage Authority, the legally mandated organisation responsible for the preservation, protection and promotion of Ethiopia's cultural heritage. In a statement, the auctioneers said they would be referring the matter back to the vendor for their consideration. The Authority has said it “appreciates Anderson & Garland and the present custodians of the shield for their wise decision to withdraw the shield from the auction and start negotiations for its repatriation.”

The shield is typical of other Abyssinian (Ethiopian) shields of the 19 ^th century, circular in shape with a central boss, made from hide with white metal strapwork and floral appliquets. It’s engraved with an inscription that reads “Magdala 13 ^th April 1868”. This is the date that a British expeditionary force of 13,000 troops, led by General Sir Robert Napier, captured Emperor Tewodros’s mountain fortress at Maqdala, leading the emperor to take his own life.

Offered for sale at auction on the 29th February with a modest estimate of £800-£1,200, we've seen no other information about its history of ownership to confirm this provenance. However, it’s certainly Abyssinian in origin and not unlike another Abyssinian shield repatriated to Ethiopia in 2021. It was very likely acquired by a soldier or another member of Napier’s Abyssinian expedition (1867-68) when the mountain fortress at Maqdala was overpowered on the 13th April 1868.

It turns out, this shield is one three Abyssinian shields offered for sale this month. Two further 19th century shields are being offered online from Sarzana in Italy (live auction 21-22 March): a circular shield , made of leather with mounts made of silver foil and studs, and another, a dome leather shield , covered with velvet and gilt silver mounts, the property of a member of Emperor Menelik II's court.

The repatriation of the Newcastle shield is not yet guaranteed, but the Ethiopian Heritage Authority says it’s “eager to initiate a constructive dialogue aimed at securing an outcome that will see this treasured item return to its homeland and its legitimate owners, the people and Government of Ethiopia.”

There’s a growing momentum behind the return of artefacts looted during the Maqdala campaign. This month, the Dean of Westminster Abbey announced the Abbey has agreed “in principle” to return their sacred Tabot, which is currently sealed into the back of its Lady Chapel altar. Another Tabot, also believed to have been looted during the Maqdala campaign, was returned last September to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, along with other Abyssinian artefacts, at a ceremony held by the private, non-profit Scheherazade Foundation.

Returning Heritage’s own campaign to secure the repatriation of eleven Tabots in the British Museum’s collection is also gathering momentum and news of developments in this campaign will be published here shortly.

Background to the Battle of Maqdala

For many years, the Ethiopian Government has lobbied for the return of hundreds of looted religious, cultural and historical items held in British collections - royal and religious regalia, Tabots (sacred plaques believed by Ethiopian Christians to symbolise the Ark of the Covenant), illuminated manuscripts and ‘human remains’ - seized by troops during a punitive expedition by the British to Abyssinia (modern day Ethiopia).

The episode is a little known and inglorious chapter in British imperial history, also one of its most ambitious and expensive campaigns.

In 1867, an overwhelming army of 13,000 British troops under General Sir Robert Napier was despatched from India to rescue a handful of Europeans (including the British Consul), held hostage for several years by the Abyssinian Emperor Tewodros II. The campaign involved an impressive logistical operation, including the construction of roads and a railway across 400 miles of mountainous terrain. It took over three months for Napier's expedition to reach Tewodros's mountain fortress at Maqdala (now known as Amba Mariam). The tragedy which then unfolded involved the crushing defeat of the Emperor’s army, followed by the seizure of Maqdala on the 13th April 1868 and the suicide of the Emperor using a gun presented to him by Queen Victoria.

Widespread looting by soldiers at Maqdala and at the Christian church at Medhane Alem followed the battle. A clear act of sacrilege, this looting has been largely ignored in military narratives about the campaign. Newspaper journalists who were present, including the Anglo-American journalist Henry M. Stanley, witnessed British soldiers tearing strips off the Emperor’s clothing and a soldier cutting locks of hair from the dead Emperor’s body.

Collecting trophies of war and their distribution as ‘prize money’ was common among armies during the colonial era. But the unedifying involvement of the British Museum's trustees by supporting the expedition with the aim of acquiring items for British national collections was described by its former Director, David Wilson, as ‘one of the less glorious episodes in the history of the Museum’. *

On the orders of General Napier, the British military authorities organised a two-day auction of plundered items just days after the looting had finished. It is said that fifteen elephants and nearly two hundred mules were deployed to transport the plunder to the site of the auction. The proceeds, totalling £5,000, were then shared among the troops, according to rank, as ‘prize money’ - a reward payment for a successful campaign.

Among those present throughout this auction was Richard (later Sir Richard) Holmes, an Assistant in the British Museum’s Manuscript Department who’d been appointed as ‘competent archaeologist’ to the expedition. Holmes aggressively bid and secured over 300 manuscripts on behalf of the Museum, as well as other royal artefacts removed from the Emperor’s treasury. He was later awarded both an ex gratia payment by the Museum’s trustees and a campaign medal.

Even the British Prime Minister, William Gladstone, criticised the scale of this looting. Gladstone and Napier both felt the looted items should be held in Britain only until they could be returned safely to Ethiopia. Apparently, that time has never arrived.

Of the many hundreds of items known to have been seized following the battle, only a few have been returned to Ethiopia. The earliest restitutions include a Kebra Nagast (Book of Kings), returned following a request from Emperor Yohannes in 1872 and a silver crown, presented to Ras Teferi in 1924 by King George V. Other returns have been made by private individuals. Meanwhile, about a dozen UK institutions plus several private collections hold many other major items of sacred, historic or cultural importance to Ethiopia, acquired through purchase, bequest or gift following the auction. These institutions include the British Museum, British Library, Victoria & Albert Museum, Royal Library at Windsor Castle, Bodleian Library, Edinburgh University Library, John Rylands University Library, Manchester, Westminster Abbey and several regimental museums.

* David M Wilson, The British Museum: A History (British Museum Press, 2002), p. 173-4

Photo: Abyssinian Shield, 19 ^th century

Courtesy of Anderson & Garland

Mongolia has cultural restitution in its sights

Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:28:31 GMT

Mongolia’s Minister of Culture, Nomin Chinbat, visited Britain last November on a mission to strengthen UK-Mongolian cultural relations. On her agenda were plans for a 2027 exhibition at London’s Royal Academy to be called Arts of the Mongol World . But research and restitution were also in her sights.

Nomin hopes that a wider understanding of the events and historical context that led to the dispersal of thousands of Mongol-crafted artefacts over the centuries will help them identify and recover their nation’s lost cultural heritage. Research first, restitution to follow.

“Mongolia’s cultural artefacts,” she explained to Returning Heritage , “some of them many centuries old, provide both a window on our country’s history and demonstrate the vibrancy and captivating nature of our nomadic culture.”

The country faces a delicate task. During its earliest history of nomadic empires and occupation, foreign visitors to this vast territory stretching east and west purchased, traded or received Mongol artefacts as gifts…… then took them home.

Although this pattern of dispersal was halted during a 300-year period when the country closed its doors to foreign travellers, Mongolia opened its doors again to foreigners in the middle of the 19 ^th century. For the next 100 years, many of the scientific expeditions that crossed through Central Asia, paused in Mongolia to excavate the major historical sites they discovered: like Karakorum, the capital city of the first Mongol Empire founded in the 13 ^th century; the ancient town of Khara-Khoto in the southern Gobi; and the Xiongnu burial mounds in the Noyon-Uul mountains.

Excavations like these opened the world’s eyes to Mongolia’s rich and diverse heritage, establishing their reputation as a highly cultured people. But many of the artefacts uncovered were removed by foreign excavators and have never been returned.

After Mongolia declared independence from China in 1921, the country spent the next seven decades closely aligned with the Soviet Union, enabling the Soviets to exercise significant influence over Mongolia’s political and ideological development. The Soviet Union’s scientific community made important archaeological, geographic and ethnographic discoveries during this period but, at the same time, much of Mongolia’s religious and cultural heritage was being destroyed.

Today, the country’s geopolitics remain sensitive, especially while Mongolia doggedly resists pressure to align with Russia and China in an anti-western alliance. But culture minister Nomin believes now is the correct time to put research and recovery of artefacts firmly on her country’s agenda.

Interior of the new Chinggis Khaan Museum in Ulaanbaatar

In October 2022, the brand new Chinggis Khaan National Museum in Ulaanbaatar opened its doors to the public after the Mongolian Government agreed to allocate its first budget in 48 years for the construction of a world-class museum. Many of the more important exhibits in this Museum are replicas - the originals are still held either in the State Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg or in the National Palace Museum in Taiwan. This has led Mongolians to become more outspoken in demands to see the repatriation of what legally belongs to them. Diimaajav Erdenebaatar, archaeologist and professor at Ulaanbaatar State University, put it this way:

“Time has begun to demand that we should become masters of our history.”

What are the chances culture minister Nomin will succeed with her research and restitution campaign?

The recovery of objects held in Russia is a key priority. Commitments made to share discoveries between Mongolia and the Soviet Union on some of these Soviet-led expeditions have been blatantly ignored by Russia. Take, for example, Mongolia’s appeals for the return of archaeological finds made on Peter (Pyotr) Kozlov’s Mongolian-Tibetan expedition in 1923-26. The fate of items collected on this expedition illustrates the scale of challenge that lies ahead for Nomin.

Kozlov was a pioneering Russian explorer of Central Asia who between 1883 and 1926 made six large expeditions into Inner Asia and whose discoveries earned him worldwide fame. In 1902 the Russian Geographical Society awarded him the Golden Constantine Medal, its highest award; London’s Royal Geographical Society and the Italian Geographical Society both awarded Kozlov gold medals.

Peter (Pyotr) Kozlov (1863-1935). Courtesy of Wikipedia

Although the expedition never reached Tibet, Kozlov’s three-year Mongolian-Tibetan expedition is celebrated for the amazing archaeological discoveries he made at the burial mounds in the Noyon-Uul mountains in the north of Mongolia. The objects Kozlov and his Mongolian assistant Jamsrano Tseveen uncovered were over two thousand years-old and belonged to the Xiongnu Empire, Mongolia’s first empire (1st cent AD). Finds included carpets decorated in the so-called ‘animal style’, gold, silver and wooden objects, fragments of silk and woolen tissues and fine Chinese lacquer cups. All once belonged to members of the Hun high nobility.

Mongolian officials extended an invitation for Kozlov to exhibit these discoveries at a special exhibition held in Urga (now Mongolia’s capital Ulaanbaatar) in November 1924. It was an exhibition that attracted wide attention both within and beyond Mongolia. But at its conclusion, the entire collection was returned to the Soviet Union. The majority of these finds remain in the collection of the State Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg (1904 catalogued items). Just 267 items were returned to Mongolia in 1926, most of which are on exhibition at the National History Museum of Ulaanbaatar.

Mongolia refutes Russia’s claim of ownership over the finds Kozlov made at Noyon-Uul. At the core of this dispute is an agreement understood to have been signed between Kozlov and Mongolia’s Institute of Sutras and Scriptures on 11 September 1926. It defined a procedure for the return of manuscripts and other objects discovered at the Noyon-Uul burial mounds. But Mongolia disputes both the document’s legal status and its authority.

Article 2 of this agreement states: In recognition of the great achievements of the traveller, Kozlov, the Institute of Sutras and Scriptures of the Republic of Mongolia irrevocably transfers half of all materials specified in Article 1 to the direct control of Kozlov. After conducting the necessary studies, the other half shall be returned to the Institute of Sutras and Scriptures of Mongolia no later than 1 June 1929.

Article 3 goes on to state: The right to determine the part that does not belong to the Institute of Sutras and Scriptures shall be granted to the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.*

While Russia continues to maintain this agreement confirms its right to resist the return of any further items from the Noyon-Uul collection, Mongolia maintains the document is vague and highly questionable. Above all, Mongolia questions its legal enforceability, claiming the Institute of Sutras and Scriptures was a powerless academic institution with no authority to enter into such an agreement. Only the Prime Minister himself could provide this authority.

A resolution of the Noyon-Uul collection is just one of several restitution negotiations that culture minister Nomin is holding with Russian authorities. But landlocked between two immensely powerful neighbours – Russia and China – Mongolia will be treading carefully. Pursuing their case through the courts will likely lead them nowhere. They know all too well the only way to deal with Russia is through personal relationships or face-to-face meetings.

In the meantime, the country has drawn up a list of Mongolian objects held by museums and university collections in 34 other countries, including objects held in UK institutions. Further research may lead to formal requests from Mongolia for some of these objects to be repatriated. But until that time, Nomin is content that Mongolian objects remain on display in institutions like the British Museum and British Library, giving people an opportunity to learn more about Mongolia’s heritage.

“As Culture Minister,” she told us, “one of my top priorities is ensuring that these artefacts are properly preserved and on display for future generations to enjoy for decades to come, whether that’s in the country where they are currently located or in Mongolia.”

Nomin has already received a strong pledge of support from UNESCO’s General-Director Ms Audrey Azoulay. As knowledge of Mongolia’s lost heritage becomes more widely known, over time we suspect a growing number of western institutions will react positively to the pragmatic and diplomatic approach the minister is adopting to recover her nation's lost heritage. While it’s hard to see objects from Noyon-Uul and other Russian-led excavations returning to Mongolia anytime soon, there will be opportunities for other western countries to take a lead and follow research with restitution.

* Source: Tatyana Yusupova, 2010. Yusupova is with the Russian Academy of Sciences

Photo: The Chinggis Khaan Museum, Ulaanbaatar

Courtesy of Darima Tumur

Is a 3-year renewable loan of Asante gold the beginning or end of Ghana’s restitution campaign?

Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:27:44 GMT

Later this year, thirty-two Asante treasures are returning to Ghana from London for an exhibition at the Manhyia Palace Museum in Kumasi, exactly one hundred and fifty years after British forces plundered the court of the Asante king in 1874.

Each of the two agreements made by the Palace Museum with London’s V&A and British Museum involve renewable three-year loans and were negotiated directly by the current Asantehene (King of Asante), Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, not by the Ghanaian government.

These magnificent gold and silver ornaments are all associated with the Asante royal court. They are of enormous cultural, historical and spiritual significance to the Asante people who believe they carry a meaning far beyond their material value. The ornaments will form part of an important exhibition planned to celebrate the 2024 Silver Jubilee of the Asantehene. They will also commemorate the 150 ^th anniversary of the 1873-4 Anglo-Asante war.

So, where could this new collaboration lead: to a new era where more 'disputed' artefacts are returned by UK national collections on long-term loan, or the first step on a path to full restitution?

Large quantities of gold objects and regalia were collected by British forces during the Anglo-Asante wars in the 19 ^th century. Many of these thirty-two objects returning to Ghana were looted on a punitive raid that took place on the Asante capital of Kumasi in February 1874. Some of these treasures arrived in Britain as part of a British indemnity payment, forcibly extracted from the Asantehene at the time, others were sold either at a Prize Auction convened hurriedly at Cape Castle, a site on the Gold Coast, or two months later (April) at another sale held at the crown jewellers Garrard’s. Asante objects were dispersed widely after these auctions and are now held in numerous collections around the world, including the British Museum, the V&A and the Wallace Collection, London.

The V&A is lending seventeen gold or silver items from its collection, including thirteen pieces of Asante royal regalia acquired by the Museum at the 1874 Prize Auction. The British Museum is loaning fifteen items, including a small gold ornament in the form of a lute-harp (sankuo), presented to the British diplomat Thomas Bowdich in 1817 but intended by the Asantehene as a gift for the British Museum.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4, Nana Oforiatta Ayim, a special adviser to Ghana’s culture minister, who described the objects as part of the soul of their nation, said the collaboration is a “good starting point”, but not the end of the story. Both UK museums describe it as an important cultural collaboration; V&A director Tristram Hunt says it "offers a new paradigm for a broader sharing of contested colonial heritage," but insists that it's “not restitution by the back door”.

This form of cultural partnership model is not unprecedented. Both UK museums have negotiated similar agreements. In July 2022, the V&A announced the return of a 3 ^rd century AD marble head to the Istanbul Archaeology Museum, an arrangement that will be reviewed after the first six years; the British Museum’s loan of a Potlatch mask to Canadian First Nation people in British Columbia has been active since 2005 and is renewable after each three-year period.

But this form of loan arrangement is new for Ghana. Although they've been on the restitution trail for fifty years, this is the first time Ghanaians have succeeded in negotiating a major loan agreement. The country made its first appeal for the return of Asante treasures in the collection of the British Museum in 1974, an event that became the subject of the UK’s first-ever debate on African restitution. However, it's the Asantehene who's pulled off this new arrangement, not the Ghanaian Government. Over several years, the Asantahene's negotiating team, led by the Ghanaian historian Ivor Agyeman-Duah and Malcolm McLeod, the British professor of African and Asante history and former Keeper of Ethnography at the British Museum, has spent decades navigating a delicate path through the UK’s unflinching heritage legislation.

How has this been possible? While the government of Ghana continues to argue for full restitution, the Asantehene's team has agreed to acknowledge the V&A and British Museum's legal title over the treasures. If other parties are comfortable exploiting this model that allows their contested heritage to be shared, the loan can be extended. Full restitution can await the future.

No doubt there are other communities appealing for the return of contested objects that can build on this model, so long as they also agree to put the contentious issue of ‘ownership’ to one side - at least while existing heritage legislation remains in place. The makes the opportunity for further long-term renewable loans not just feasible, but also inevitable.

But will it ever lead to full repatriation?

V&A director Tristram Hunt may be a significant player in future developments. His full-hearted support to the ‘cultural partnership’ model is not in question. After a visit to Ghana in February 2021, he wrote in his foreword to the Museum’s 2021-22 Annual Review : “We are optimistic that a new partnership model can forge a potential pathway for these important artefacts to be on display in Ghana in the coming years”.

Band or fillet of gold embossed with foliage and scrolls for fastening to leather or other material. Asante.

Probably 19th century. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London

Could this optimism ever lead to another level involving full repatriation? It's well-known the V&A, like the British Museum, is in no position to negotiate full repatriation. Hence the insistence by Hunt this latest cultural partnership is not "restitution by the back door". Nevertheless, he hasn't been shy about the prospects for repatriating artefacts sometime in the future. Speaking on BBC Radio 4 in June 2022, he expressed a preference to see the National Heritage Act 1983 reviewed, then added:

"It should be the responsibility of trustees to make the case for what should and should not be in their collections, and at the moment they don't have that right because the 1983 Act means they are legally unable to do so".

The British Museum has been too distracted on a slew of other issues to share their views on whether or not a review of heritage legislation is timely. But new management might lead to more transparency and a new willingness to move with changes in society. We certainly hope so.

In the meantime, we're still a very long way from that review. When we approached the major political parties in England for their position on heritage legislation, only the Liberal Democrats confirmed the desirability of a debate.

"Of course, it wouldn't be right for all artefacts to be returned to their place of origin," a Liberal Democrat spokesperson told us. "But it is time that this country took a broader look at the issue. It is right that there is a proper public debate about artefacts and especially those with 'contested heritage'".

So, on balance, we don't believe this is the end of Ghana's campaign to repatriate the Asante treasures held in UK collections, although a great deal more patience and political goodwill would be required before the next chapter in Ghana's restitution saga can be written. The pace may be slow, but campaign progress is nevertheless encouraging.

Photo: Oblong repousse gold ornament with three bands of decoration. Asante, Ghana, 19th century

© Victoria and Albert Museum, London

Return of memorial pole honours the rights of the Nisga’a Nation

Tue, 02 Jan 2024 16:36:51 GMT

One of the National Museum of Scotland’s largest exhibits, an 11-metre memorial totem pole, has been repatriated to the Nisga’a Museum in the village of Laxgalts’ap in British Columbia after the Museum in Edinburgh recognised it was sold “without the cultural, spiritual or political authority” of its owners.

Known as the Ni’isjoohl memorial pole, it is the first totem pole to be returned to a First Nations community by a UK national museum and the second to be returned by any European institution (the Haisla G’psgolox pole was returned by Sweden’s Museum of Ethnography in 2006).

Hand carved largely from a single piece of red cedar, the Ni’isjoohl memorial pole was erected in Ank’idaa village on the banks of the Nass River in 1855. Decorated with carvings of animals, humans, ravens and family crests, the pole tells the story of a Nisga’a warrior who was due to succeed as Nisga’a chief before being killed in battle with a neighbouring Nation.

“We know that a carver breathes life into a pole when it is first carved,” explained Dr Amy Parent, who has the Nisga’a cultural name Noxs Ts’aawit (Mother of the Raven Warrior Chief named Ts'awit) and who tracked down the pole to Scotland in 2019. “And so, after that point we consider that totem pole to have a living spirit in it and to be a relative…. it’s like bringing a family member home after being gone for almost 100 years.”

The Museum acquired the pole in good faith believing it had been “sold” by a member of the Nisga’a community to the Canadian anthropologist Marius Barbeau. Affiliated with the National Museum of Canada, Barbeau was undertaking fieldwork in the area during the 1910s. He sold it to the National Museum of Scotland in 1929. However, Dr Amy Parent, who is the Canadian research chair in indigenous education and governance at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, says the pole was in fact stolen while members of the community were away for the annual hunting, fishing and harvesting season. The pole had been removed from a sacred “house group” known as House of Ni’isjoohl.

The Museum in Edinburgh has accepted it was removed illegally and after meeting with Nisga’a representatives in August 2022 the Museum’s board of trustees agreed in December 2022 to return the pole to the Nass Valley where its spiritual, cultural and historical significance is still keenly felt.

Chief Earl Stephens of the Nisga’a Nation, who led the committee that met with the Museum last year, reinforced the significance of its return:

“It means so much [because] we can connect our family, nation and our future generations with our living history.”

In a statement from the Museum in Edinburgh, director Chris Breward said their landmark gesture aims to “promote understanding and dialogue with respect to those parts of the Museum’s collection associated with our nation’s colonial history.”

The pole’s repatriation conforms with the UK’s responsibilities as a signatory of the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People , which requires signatories to maintain minimum standards for the survival and well-being of Indigenous peoples. It also conforms to other provisions for repatriation embedded in the Nisga’a Treaty, which came into effect in 2000.

Instead of “repatriation” the Nisga’a Nation describes the process as a “rematriation” because their's is a matrilineal community (i.e. based on kinship with the mother’s line).

The removal of such a huge exhibit from the Museum’s display and its transportation 4,200 miles to the west coast of Canada presented major logistical challenges. These included clearing galleries on the ground floor of the Museum, the removal of a window, the construction of a specially commissioned steel frame to protect the pole and the closure of a street before it could be air transported to the west coast of Canada in a Canadian military aircraft in August 2023.

It was also a hugely expensive enterprise. At first, the Scottish Government reneged on their commitment to fund the £710,000 cost of returning the pole, putting the entire process of repatriation at risk. But in September 2023 the Scottish Government agreed to honour their ‘political willingness to pay’. Around half of this cost involves creating a replica of the pole that will be kept on display at the National Museum of Scotland.

Photo: Nisga’a Chief Earl Stephens and Dr May Parent with the Ni’isjoohl memorial pole

Courtesy of National Museums of Scotland-Neil Hanna

EUROPEAN UNION

Sat, 23 Dec 2023 18:00:25 GMT

EUROPEAN UNION

Updated December 2023

Below is a schedule of restitution news from the European Union.

Entries are updated regularly.

December 2023

In a report submitted to the European Parliament, practical steps are recommended to resolve cross-border claims to looted art and to prevent illicit trafficking in cultural objects

Miragenews.com

Has Sunak overlooked a significant Greek concession?

Thu, 30 Nov 2023 11:01:28 GMT

After a petulant Rishi Sunak cancelled a meeting with Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, potentially souring relations with an important European neighbour, we ask whether Prime Minister Sunak might have overlooked an important concession by Greece to resolve the Parthenon Marbles dispute.

Not for the first time, political grandstanding has frustrated another attempt at resolving this long-running dispute. Ever since the 1980s when Greece made its first claim to recover the sculptures, removed from the Parthenon and ending up at the British Museum in London, both sides have been unwavering in claiming their right to legal ownership. But interviewed last weekend on BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Mitsotakis began veering off the usual script.

It wasn’t Mitsotakis who raised the Parthenon issue, neither was it Kuenssberg’s primary line of questioning. That was focussed on the Greek approach to immigration. However, with time allocated for a broader discussion, surely it was inevitable that Kuenssberg would raise the status of the Marbles. Perhaps less inevitable was Mitsotakis’s response.

“This is not in my mind an ownership question,” he said. “This is a reunification argument. Where can you best appreciate what is essentially one monument?”

Forget his colourful analogy to cutting the Mona Lisa in half. Could this indicate a shift in strategy by the Greek Prime Minister who was indicating that Greece, finally, might be prepared to put the legal ownership of the Marbles to one side?

In light of the mega political drama that followed, including Sunak’s rebuff and Mitsotakis’ early exit from the UK, we can’t be certain. However, if this was the Greek Prime Minister’s intention, he was leaving space for the two institutions with direct responsibility for the Marbles - the British Museum and the Acropolis Museum in Athens - to negotiate a loan or sharing arrangement of the kind hinted in discussions for a new Parthenon Partnership.

All those who follow the Marbles dispute will know that negotiating a loan arrangement is entirely feasible under the British Museum’s existing governing Act. Conservative tub-thumpers shouldn’t get exercised if the Museum’s trustees decide to conform with this Act – unless, that is, they choose to continue politicising what should be a decision left to trustees.

Labour have already said they won’t stand in the way of a loan deal that is mutually acceptable to the British Museum and the Greek government.

Which is why Mitsotakis’ prioritisation of reunification ahead of ownership in his BBC interview may not be incidental. With legal opinion on ownership deadlocked, possibly insoluble, the strongest case for displaying the British Museum’s collection of Marbles in Athens rests on the virtues of reunification. British public opinion, now in favour of returning the Marbles, supports this case.

In his new book covering possible areas for resolving the Marbles dispute ( The Parthenon Marbles Dispute ), Alexander Herman draws attention to the fact both Great Britain and Greece are signatories to UNESCO’s 1972 World Heritage Convention. This requires both countries to co-operate and conform with their universal responsibilities to identify, protect and conserve the unity and integrity of monuments on the World Heritage List. The Acropolis has been on this List since 1987. Clearly to date, Great Britain has felt its obligations under this Convention do not apply to the reunification of the Parthenon sculptures. Nor its obligations as a signatory to other international charters that exist to ensure the same protection to listed archaeological and historical monuments.

Responding to a question without fear the British Prime Minister would exorcise him from key geopolitical discussions, Mitsotakis may have been granting his concession on ownership, while reminding the British government that reunification is consistent with their responsibilities as a signatory to the World Heritage Convention.

Photo: Prime Minister Mitsotakis and Laura Kuenssberg

Courtesy of The National Herald

A fresh perspective on the world’s longest running restitution dispute

Sat, 04 Nov 2023 17:05:30 GMT

BOOK REVIEW

The Parthenon Marbles Dispute

By Alexander Herman (Hart Publishing, 2023)

Over the years, a resolution of the world’s longest running restitution dispute has been blighted by an unseemly excess of nationalism and emotion. The arguments for and against the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles have remained largely unchanged.

It seems that for as long as Britain and Greece each regards the Marbles as a potent symbol of their own cultural heritage, this impasse will continue - a curious position for the UK to hold as the Marbles are certainly not part of the UK’s cultural heritage.

Which is why a new publication that brings a fresh perspective on the wider history of the Marbles and which argues that the conditions may now exist to reach some form of agreement is to be welcomed.

As director of the UK’s Institute of Art and Law, Alexander Herman has more experience than most of legal disputes concerning cultural heritage. His achievements in this new study, The Parthenon Marbles Dispute , lie in contextualising the different elements of the dispute and probing possible areas for a resolution.

This book is not an all-encompassing history of the 5th cent sculptures and reliefs decorating the temple structures on the Acropolis. Instead, it's about the conditions that existed at the time of their removal and the legal status of the Marbles in today's legal environment. This removes attention from one of the debate’s biggest distractions: Lord Elgin, ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, who wasn’t even in Athens when the sculptures were hacked off the temple walls or collected from the huge amount of rubble that surrounded the temple site.

In case there's any doubt, the chapter title, A Firman By Any Other Name, makes it clear where Herman stands on the issue whether Elgin's agents had the legal authority to remove the Marbles, or whether they were, as many still contend, looted or removed unlawfully. Although no official licence to remove the stones, signed by the Grand Vizier, has ever been recovered (called a firman ), Herman believes there’s no reason to dispute the legality of the permission Elgin's men did receive. They must have acted on an order issued by the Ottoman Court (a buyurulda ), an order that carried sufficient authority it had to be obeyed. They would have acted differently had it meant anything less.

Although still conjecture, on the balance of probabilities Herman concludes the removal of the stones was legal and permitted, “at least according to the Ottoman legal system.”

This allows Herman to move on and review the position of the Marbles in the context of today's legal environment, identifying areas where scope for compromise might exist and where the much-heralded 'Parthenon Partnership' might lead to some form of future agreement.

Two centuries after the Marbles were transported to London, the issue of title remains the most contentious area of this dispute. It's an issue that takes the debate into slippery territory. How credible is Greece’s claim for ownership of the Marbles compared with the UK’s entrenched claim to title?

Herman reminds us the British Museum’s right to enforce its claim exists because of the British Museum Act of 1 ^st July 1816 and not because of any title granted by the Ottomans. But because title, by its nature, is only nationally derived, the British Museum’s title can only extend within the boundaries of Britain’s shores. For this reason, Herman questions whether Greece could be persuaded to acknowledge this element of the British Museum’s title – at least as far as it extends under English or UK law. What follows could be greater potential for co-operation.

Another area for possible compromise involves a resolution to what could be the British Museum’s greatest fear and anxiety: if sculptures are loaned to Greece, might they just refuse to give them back?

Herman believes the use of reciprocal loans could help shift the Museum’s attitude in favour of a loan agreement. This idea has been put forward by Greece in the past and, more recently, in discussions held between BM chairman George Osborne and Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis. The significant loans Greece has offered in return for the Marbles could act as a form of collateral, providing reassurance each party would see the return of their significant treasures. However, Herman notes an even more powerful instrument already exists through the principle of sovereign immunity from seizure. The UK already has one of the best immunity laws for protecting cultural objects on loan, according to Herman.

With the British Museum so stubbornly adrift of UK public opinion (which in recent years has moved decisively in favour of returning the Marbles), at first sight, new provisions in the Charities Act 2022 might lead to a re-think by the Museum of their moral and ethical stance. But grounds for optimism are limited, according to Herman. The new provisions allowing trustees to consider returning artefacts on ‘moral’ grounds have still not been implemented. What’s more, if they are ever implemented, it’s highly unlikely the Marbles would meet the test of ‘lower value’ demanded by the new Act.

Nevertheless, the principle has been proposed and is being widely debated. Therefore, it might still encourage the British Museum to “re-examine and put forward a morally defensible position”, according to Herman, instead of relying on legislation enacted 60 years ago.

Those discussions initiated in 2022 between Osborne and Mitsotakis (which curiously never involved British Museum director Hartwig Fischer) are said to herald a new ‘Parthenon Partnership’. We still don’t know the direction of this Partnership, but Herman suggests the Museum’s new willingness to engage could represent a “watershed” in this long-running dispute, laying the groundwork, in his view, for a “very real possibility for change.” To demonstrate this apparent softening of stance, he cites the withdrawal of the British Museum's former requirement to acknowledge their title as a precondition of any loan. This precondition apparently disappeared from the Museum’s website in early 2022.

Herman also reports signs of change in the Greek camp, including a narrowing of Greece's demands in recent years. Greece is no longer demanding the return of all the sculptures removed by Elgin's men from the Acropolis site, just those removed from the Parthenon.

So, what continues to stand in the way of achieving a resolution? The conversations held with Greek colleagues and friends have left Herman with the impression ordinary Greek citizens would be happy with a sharing arrangement involving long-term renewable loans. I suspect most Britons would be happy with that as well. But it’s the grandstanding of politicians that remains the biggest obstacle to change. Shift the decision-making onto the two museums in London and Athens that will support these collections in the future, according to Herman, and a resolution may finally be within our reach.

This simple, elegant solution epitomises Herman’s clear, even-handed and refreshing approach to this immensely complex dispute. I don't share his confidence that British politicians might be prepared to listen to the legal elements of this dispute - at least, not in the current administration. But as a non-lawyer, I was left feeling an important contribution has been made to identify areas of compromise that might help resolve this long-running dispute.

Photo: Centaur and Lapith. Marble metope from the Parthenon, 5th cent BC. South metope XXX.

Private benefactors ensure precious artefacts are returned to Ethiopia

Fri, 22 Sep 2023 11:11:18 GMT

To date, the efforts that private benefactors are making to return looted objects to Ethiopia far exceed the willingness of Britain’s national collections to do the same.

Last night, more precious artefacts were returned to Ethiopia's Ambassador Teferi Melesse Desta at a reception organised by the private, non-profit Scheherazade Foundation. All the artefacts were gifted or secured by private benefactors and included a sacred Tabot, believed to have been looted at Maqdala in 1868, as well as a lock of hair from Prince Alamayu, son of the Abyssinian Emperor Tewodros II.

Tabots are hard to recognise as only ordained priests in Ethiopia’s Orthodox Tewahedo Church are permitted to view them. So, it’s highly likely that several of these holy objects, central to Ethiopian religion, may have passed through dealers and salerooms unnoticed. But Dr Jacopo Gnisci, a scholar in Ethiopian studies and lecturer at London’s UCL, had sufficient knowledge to source the Tabot returned yesterday to clergy of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. “All I did was to encourage dialogue,” Gnisci told us modestly.

The Tabot itself, described as a square wooden tablet with inscriptions and artworks on both sides, was handed over to a delegation of clergy prior to the evening’s reception. It had been agreed that public recognition of its transfer back to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was important, but its return during the course of the evening event was much less appropriate.

Another highly symbolic repatriation involved a lock of hair removed from Prince Alamayu, son of Emperor Tewodros, by his one-time guardian Captain Tristram Speedy. Four members of the Turner family, descendants of Capt. Speedy, travelled all the way from New Zealand to arrange last night’s transfer. “It felt like Prince Alamayu’s lock of hair was a long way from home,” said Leonie Turner speaking of their precious family heirloom.

After the young prince was torn away from his Abyssinian homeland in 1868, Alamayu spent the next eleven remaining years of his life in England and during this period, several locks of his hair were gifted to friends as mementos. He died in 1879, aged just 18, and his body was interred in an underground burial chamber outside St. George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle. The return of this lock of hair is an especially emotional moment for those in Ethiopia who are campaigning for the return of his remains.

Ethiopian Horn Cups looted from Maqdala

Other items returned last night included a silver-mounted horn cup bearing the inscription “ Taken at Magdala ”. Its owners said it was the right time to pass its guardianship back to Ethiopia. Another returning horn cup had been identified and purchased by Tahir Shah, founder and CEO of the Scheherazade Foundation, at an auction in Canterbury last April.

The ceremonial shield gifted by a European collector was once in the possession of a gentleman whose ancestor is understood to have served at Maqdala. There is no clear evidence to confirm this provenance, but the shield is undoubtedly similar in style to others collected after the battle.

“These are not merely objects,” said Ambassador Teferi Melesse. “They are the embodiment of our Church, our culture and our history.”

What is evident is that all those private benefactors who gave up their precious Ethiopian artefacts last night hold the same conviction: these sacred and historic objects have no business in this place.

Photo: Tahir Shah (Founder, The Scheherazade Foundation), Ethiopian Orthodox clergy, Dr Jacopo Gnisci, Alula Pankhurst

Courtesy of Alula Pankhurst

Historic agreement between the V&A and the Republic of Yemen to research and care for four ancient Yemeni artefacts

Wed, 13 Sep 2023 16:52:31 GMT

The V&A Museum has entered into an historic agreement with the Republic of Yemen for the Museum to temporarily care, research and conserve four ancient carved funerary stelae.

The objects were identified by a member of the public who discovered them in an interior design shop in east London. In the near term, they'll form part of a new Culture in Crisis display at V&A East Storehouse from 2025. However, at a time when the Republic of Yemen considers it safe for them to be returned, all four stelae will be repatriated to their country of origin.

The Museum describes this arrangement as unique. Unlike similar cases where the discovery of looted artefacts leads to their prompt return, this latest ‘partnership’ provides time for the Museum to undertake further research and conservation, as well as more time for the public to enjoy them while they remain on display in the UK.

The objects were discovered by an archaeology enthusiast. He alerted The Metropolitan Police’s Art and Antiques Unit, whose role is to investigate art theft, illegal trafficking and fraud. The police investigation established the carved stelae were most likely illegally excavated from necropoli in Yemen in the last few years and probably date from the second half of the first millennium BC. Objects such as these appear on The International Council of Museum’s ‘Emergency Red List of Cultural Objects at Risk’.

“When the seller was given this information,” explained Commander Clayman of the Metropolitan Police, “they made the generous decision to disclaim them, and asked for them to be returned to Yemen.”

The V&A’s Culture in Crisis programme, established in 2015, has been designed to bring together all those involved in protecting cultural heritage. The programme works closely to support the Metropolitan Police, as well as other law enforcement agencies, in order to combat the illicit trade in cultural artefacts. Clayman says he hopes the display of these objects in London will help people consider antiquities from a legal perspective as well as an aesthetic one. “By establishing an artefact’s provenance before purchase they may avoid inadvertently fuelling the demand for stolen cultural goods.”

Photo: Group of four ancient funerary stelae which were likely illegally looted from the Republic of Yemen

India looks forward to the return of the ‘wagh nakh’ from London’s V&A

Tue, 12 Sep 2023 10:46:57 GMT

Later this month, the Cultural Affairs Minister for the Indian state of Maharashtra, Sudhir Mungantiwar, is expected to visit London’s Victoria and Albert Museum to sign a memorandum of understanding for the return of a deadly tiger claw weapon known as the ‘wagh nakh’.

There is great excitement about its return as India believes it to be the actual weapon the Maratha leader Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj used in 1659 to kill the Moghul General Afzal Khan. However, the terms of its return - whether permanent or temporary - are still to be finalised.

History records that after agreeing a truce in their protracted rivalry, the two military commanders arranged to meet in a tented enclosure. Here they fought, hand to hand, before Shivaji, concealing this tiger claw weapon in the palm of his left hand, disembowelled Afzal Khan.

The weapon was gifted to the V&A by a descendant of James Grant Duff (1789-1858), an officer of the East India Company who was appointed Resident (political agent) of the Satara State in 1818. There is an inscription on the presentation box (which almost certainly post-dates its transfer to Grant Duff ) that reads: ‘ The Wagnuck of Sivajee With Which He Killed the Moghul General. This Relic was given to Mr. James Grant-Duff of Eden When he was Resident at Satara By the Prime Minister of the Peshwa of the Marathas. ’

The V&A’s website states the Museum has not been able to verify whether it is the actual tiger claw weapon used by Shivaji. However, this hasn’t dampened India’s enthusiasm to recover the weapon, which they believe symbolises a pivotal moment in India’s history and whose return is therefore a matter of huge significance.

“Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj’s wagh nakh is a priceless treasure of history and the sentiments of state are associated with them.”

Sudhir Mungantiwar

A spokesperson from the V&A said: 'We are delighted that the Tiger Claws will return to India as part of the 350th anniversary events where they can be enjoyed as part of the celebrations." However, it also told us that discussions are still at an early stage, so the Museum is unable to say what kind of arrangement the two parties will agree.

Despite director Tristram Hunt’s stated aspirations for reviewing and possibly modernising the Museum’s governing act (1983 National Heritage Act), the V&A remains severely restricted on what objects it can deaccession. The condition of this tiger claw weapon suggests it is not an object that would qualify for deaccessioning. Instead, it’s possible the Museum might propose the same kind of ‘partnership model’ it used last year to return a small collection of Asante r egalia to Ghana. This arrangement involves a renewable long-term loan.

Mungantiwar has said he is confident of its return to India: "We have received confirmation from the UK authorities saying they have agreed to give us back Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj's wagh nakh." He also hopes it might be returned in time for the anniversary of the day when Shivaji defeated Afzal Khan, based on the Hindu calendar.

There are efforts underway to secure the return of other historically important items in time for the 350th anniversary of the Maratha king’s coronation next year. These include Shivaji’s ceremonial Jagdamba sword, held in the Royal Collection Trust since 1876 and understood to be kept at St James’s Palace. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has been approached to assist with the loan of this historic sword.

Photo: Tiger claws, steel, Deccan, 17 ^th century

Courtesy of Victoria and Albert Museum, London

Manchester’s latest repatriation of Aboriginal objects will help unlock a community’s rich cultural history

Fri, 08 Sep 2023 10:51:51 GMT

This week’s ceremony at the Manchester Museum marking the return of 174 cultural artefacts to a delegation from the Aboriginal Anindilyakwa community is the second major restitution event led by the Museum in collaboration with AIATSIS.

The return of these treasured objects involved a three-year partnership with both AIATSIS, the organisation that leads the Australian Government's 'Return of Cultural Heritage' programme, and the Anindilyakwa Land Council of Groote Eylandt in Australia's Northern Territory.

The repatriation also marked an important development in the Museum's approach to restitution. What’s especially interesting is not just the size of this repatriation (it’s possibly the largest single repatriation made by any UK institution to a community of origin), but also the nature of the objects that are being returned.

Four years ago (2019) the Museum returned 43 Aboriginal sacred or ceremonial objects collected by four different collectors, including Baldwin Spencer and Emile Clement. For a long time, these objects had been kept off display out of respect for their cultural sensitivity . This latest repatriation comprises personal and domestic objects, collected directly from members of the Anindilyakwa community. But they are no less important to the traditions and memories of that community.

As well as stringy-bark baskets ( ajamurnda ) and spear throwers ( yimangala ), the collection includes a large group of dolls (70) made from shells ( Dadikwakwa-kwa ). These distinctive shell dolls were intricately decorated by parents for use by their daughters.

Dadikwakwa-kwa (Doll Shells). Courtesy of Michael Pollard/Manchester Museum, The University of Manchester

The entire collection was purchased, traded and acquired (in good faith) by Professor Peter Worsley, a former professor of sociology at the University of Manchester who died in 2013. It was while Worsley was undertaking research for his PhD that he was able to build strong connections with the Anindilyakwa community . Returning these objects, according to the Anindilyakwa Land Council, will help unlock this community’s rich cultural history.

“We have only just begun to appreciate how valuable the repatriation of the Worsley Collection will be in the future.”

Thomas Amagula, Deputy Chair of the Anindilyakwa Land Council

This repatriation represents another successful collaboration between the curatorial team at Manchester Museum and the AIATSIS (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies). This latest collaboration working alongside the Anindilyakwa Land Council involved exploring the connections and stories held in the archives of AIATSIS and Manchester Museum with the memories and cultural knowledge of Anindilyakwa Elders. This way, collectively, they could determine where the collection should live and how it could best be deployed to inspire future generations.

In what AIATSIS described as a first, Manchester Museum staff were invited by the Anindilyakwa community to visit Groote Eylandt. In 2022, along with members of AIATSIS, a museum team was able to participate in discussions about the future of these objects.

“Sitting with Elders and hearing them discuss this collection on their land in their terms has enabled me to understand and care in ways not possible in a store room in Manchester, and brought us to a place of understanding together.”

Georgina Young, Head of Exhibitions and Collections, Manchester Museum

Manchester Museum appears to be viewing restitution through a different lens than the perspective adopted by Britain's national collections. For Manchester, the unconditional return of collections and belongings to communities of origin is considered an important means of building a more equitable and hopeful future for museums. They also recognise the importance of complying with the UK's obligations as a signatory to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by returning objects important to the traditions and memories of the communities that made them.

For the Anindilyakwa Community, the repatriation is described as an act that supports their cultural strengthening and revitalisation, an act that will enable future generations to connect with their precious heritage.

"Returning cultural heritage material is not merely about the physical artefacts," explained Leonard Hill, interim CEO at AIATSIS, it's about "fostering relationships, understanding, and mutual respecty. The impact of this return is already sending ripples across the world by sharing powerful Anindilyakwa stories."

After this was written.....

The return of these 174 treasured objects was celebrated at a special ceremony in November 2023 held at Umbakumba on Groote Eylandt, the location where the objects were originally collected.

In April 2025, in a further collaboration with the Warnindilyakwa community, Manchester Museum opened a new permanent exhibition space exploring the cultural heritage of the Groote Archipelago. Called Anindilyakwa Arts: Stories from Our Country, the exhibition was created in close collaboration with the Warnindilyakwa (who also refer to themselves as the Anindilyakwa people) and was supported by the Australian Government's Return of Cultural Heritage programme. At the exhibition, families are invited to participate in Dadikwakwa-kwa Come Out to Play sessions. Speaking about the initiative, Esme Ward, director of Manchester Museum, said: "These events reflect everything we stand for - collaboration, care, and the power of cultural belongings to connect people across generations and continents."

Photo: Ceremony at Manchester Museum with delegation from Anindilyakwa community

Courtesy of Manchester Museum, The University of Manchester

The British Museum: Where else are we not getting the full story?

Mon, 04 Sep 2023 16:08:35 GMT

The recent damage to the British Museum’s reputation as a secure custodian of global treasures cannot be overstated. But is the delay in reporting these widespread thefts an isolated event, or is the Museum knowingly withholding information on other sensitive issues?

Failures in the Museum’s internal security and holes in the Museum’s cataloguing will add further fuel to this chaotic fire, making identification and tracking down the reported two thousand stolen objects far more difficult than chairman George Osborne is claiming.

But as the sequence of events begins to unravel, another concern is emerging of a national institution seemingly going out of its way to avoid giving comprehensive responses to questions they’d prefer not to answer.

In his resignation statement, the Museum’s director Hartwig Fischer confirmed the Museum “did not respond as comprehensively as it should have in response to the warnings in 2021.”

The investigation now underway by the Metropolitan Police, as well as the independent review commissioned by the Museum itself, may reveal whether this failure to address warnings in 2021 amounts to a ‘cover-up’. In the meantime, where else might the Museum be less than willing to give us the full and complete story?

It's been exactly twelve months since Returning Heritage , represented by the legal firm Leigh Day, made the first of four Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the British Museum about its collection of eleven Ethiopian Tabots. However, almost every one of these requests for information has been rebuffed. So, could this be a another issue where the Museum may be keen to stifle full disclosure?

We don’t believe any of the information we’ve requested is contentious. We've asked: How many restitution requests has the Museum received for the Tabots since 1990? When did Trustees meet to discuss these requests? What advice did they receive and what actions did they agree? If they have agreed to retain the Tabots, on what grounds do Trustees consider these objects are fit to be retained?

The Museum has been forthright and uncompromising explaining why it retains full ownership of the Parthenon sculptures, the Benin Bronzes and other contested artefacts. And we understand why the Museum’s governing Act currently prevents it from returning these highly visible, trophy exhibits. But why is the Museum so unwilling to engage on the issue of the Tabots?

This small group of eleven extremely sacred objects, nine of which were looted at Maqdala by a British expedition in 1868, remains sealed away, out of sight from museum staff, scholars and the general public. Quite possibly, they are unique within the Museum’s entire collection: unlike almost all the Museum's other contested objects, Trustees can decide to return these Tabots by drawing on powers that already exist within the British Museum Act 1963. A legal opinion prepared in 2021 by Samantha Knights KC of Matrix Chambers and circulated to all Trustees that year confirmed the Tabots do meet the criteria for legal deaccessioning under section 5(1)(c) of this Act.

As they can never be exhibited, photographed or studied, it's clear they are 'unfit to be retained' by an institution that exists for educational purposes. Nobody will ever miss them as nobody is ever allowed to see them. And following an undertaking given by the British Museum, nobody but priests of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church ever will.

We want to understand why the Museum’s Trustees are either unaware of their role in deciding the future custody of these Tabots or may have chosen deliberately not to deaccession them - despite the powers they possess under the existing Act.

Greater transparency over their decision process and giving answers to our Freedom of Information requests would be a good place to start. Since September 2022 we’ve made four FOIA requests to understand the Museum's decision process regarding the Tabots, plus we’ve made two additional requests for an internal review of their decisions not to share this information. But the Museum remains stubbornly unwilling to provide answers.

We might have given up all hope of ever getting the full picture, except that two of the papers we've extracted during this information gathering process confirm that Trustees have received a briefing about the Tabots on at least two occasions. However, the Museum is still unwilling to share the detail of what these briefings comprised.

We've learnt, for example, that almost twenty years ago (March 2004) Jonathan Williams, Fischer’s deputy who is standing down during the investigation of the current debacle, presented a paper on the Tabots to a meeting of the Trustees. The copy we recovered is heavily redacted (see below), so it’s impossible to know what ‘various options’ were actually put before the Trustees and what decisions they reached. Williams presented another briefing note to the Trustees prior to a board meeting in December 2019. This second note is also alarmingly redacted. Clearly, there are things the Museum does not wish the public to see.

Redacted pages from a paper about the Tabots presented to British Museum Trustees in March 2004

The public is entitled to request information from public authorities about their activities and, in turn, those organisations may refuse to provide that information if they believe the information is exempt. In this case, the Museum is relying on two principal exemptions, maintaining that the public's interest lies more in favour of withholding information than disclosing the information we’ve requested. We consider both exemptions are being applied improperly.

The first relates to section 27 of the Act (International relations), where the Museum maintains that disclosure of the information “ would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and the government of Ethiopia .” No supporting evidence to this argument has been given and as both the Ethiopian government and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church have made it clear in public they wish to see the Tabots repatriated, the Museum’s refusal to share information is more likely to prejudice Anglo-Ethiopian relations than move them forward.

Full disclosure presents neither a threat to the UK’s national collection nor to diplomatic relations with Ethiopia. Instead, it would help the Ethiopian nation and the wider public understand the reasons why the Tabots have not been returned. Trust and confidence between the Museum and Ethiopia can only be enhanced by greater transparency.

The Museum has also deployed the exemption in section 36 of the Act (Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), arguing if they were to release the information we’ve requested, “ it would be likely to inhibit the ability of the Museum to engage freely and openly in constructive dialogue with Ethiopian representatives ,” and would be “ detrimental to the quality of its decision making .”

The Museum has confirmed to us that it does recognise the public interest in the issue of repatriation: “ Disclosure of information revealing the substance of discussions with the Ethiopian church and government on the Ethiopian Tabots would be relevant to that debate by demonstrating how the Museum is reacting to individual repatriation requests ”. So, why all the secrecy? And what value is there in the Museum’s current process, which they say is based on a free and open dialogue, if it takes twenty years of dialogue and has still reached no decision?

Public scrutiny of this decision-making process does matter. As highlighted, the Tabots are possibly unique within the Museum’s entire collection. It is precisely because Trustees can elect to return these objects that there's a legitimate public interest in understanding why it seems they believe the opposite.

The Trustees themselves have remained silent, despite the fact it's the Board and not the Museum’s executive that decides whether or not to return the Tabots. Indeed, as the Museum has so far failed to disclose almost any of the information we've requested, we cannot be entirely sure the Trustees are even aware that section 5(1)(c) of the Act (‘unfit to be retained’) allows them to return the Tabots legally.

This absence of transparency in the Museum’s decision-making process presents just as great a risk to the Museum's reputation and integrity as news of the widespread thefts has damaged the Museum’s claim for secure stewardship. Greater transparency would demonstrate the Museum’s commitment to the gravity of Ethiopia’s case for recovering the Tabots. It would also improve the quality of their dialogue and improve the scope for a free and frank engagement with Ethiopia’s government and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

The British Museum has rarely been in more urgent need of better public relations. George Osborne says the current incident only reinforces the case for the “reimagination of the Museum”. We totally agree. However, this reimagination should not be confined to the building and exhibition space alone.

It will fall to the recently announced interim director and deputy director to handle the immediate fall-out from the Museum's present crisis. Security and cataloguing will, of course, be high on their agenda. But a new permanent management team must prioritise a root and branch review of how the Museum engages with the wider public.

From their silence to date, it seems the British Museum's enthusiasm to exploit exemptions suggests they have no interest in providing answers to questions that are in the public interest. The new team should waste no time initiating a more honest and open dialogue with stakeholders, communities of origin and the general public. Restorative justice demands transparency. The Museum should start by giving us the full story about the Ethiopian Tabots.

Photo: The Great Court, British Museum

Courtesy of The British Museum

Repatriations to Indonesia and Sri Lanka follow Dutch National Policy Framework

Mon, 31 Jul 2023 12:12:38 GMT

You should no longer question the effectiveness of advisory committees to recommend policy frameworks for the repatriation of colonial artefacts. This month there’s tangible evidence the process is working.

A repatriation in July of almost 500 cultural objects to the governments of Indonesia and Sri Lanka marks the first time the Netherlands has followed the recommendations of an Advisory Committee it set up in 2020 to consider the return of colonial objects from Dutch museums. It also offers a viable, if not perfect blueprint for other national collections wrestling with the return of contested objects.

At the heart of the Committee’s recommendations, published nearly three years ago, is a need to recognise the historical injustices committed under Dutch colonial rule, plus a willingness to rectify them. The Netherlands must be willing, the report stated, ‘to return unconditionally any cultural objects looted in former Dutch colonies if the source country so requests.’

The robustness of this Committee's stance, accepted by the Dutch government, resulted from their proactive engagement with representatives of countries formerly under Dutch colonial rule - in particular, Indonesia, Suriname and the Caribbean islands. Keeping these countries at arm’s length was never a Dutch option.

Sharing provenance information and data on some 2,500 objects from Indonesia has been taking place over several years. But progress required prioritisation. The 472 objects of cultural significance returned to Indonesia this month involved detailed research before a final selection was made from objects held in the collections of the National Museum of World Cultures and the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. An official request for repatriation was received from Jakarta in 2022.

A highlight of the objects returning to Indonesia is the famous ‘Lombok treasure’, a collection of 335 precious stones, gold and silver jewellery items, looted by troops of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) from Lombok in 1894 when hundreds of people were killed in a massacre.

“The objects were wrongfully brought to the Netherlands during the colonial period,” said a government statement, “acquired under duress or by looting”.

Other objects include four stone statues from the ancient Javanese kingdom of Singasari, a traditional keris dagger from the Klungkung kingdom and 132 works of modern art from Bali, known as the Pita Maha collection.

Sri Lanka had been requesting the return of several objects from Dutch collections before the new National Policy Framework was put in place. In 2017 the Rijksmuseum participated in a pilot project to establish a methodology for conducting provenance research with countries of origin. Progress was stepped up after the Committee began its engagement with Sri Lankan diplomatic and museum professionals and the process concluded with this month's agreement to return six objects of cultural significance. Among these objects is the Cannon of Kandy, a richly decorated, bronze-cast cannon looted by the VOC in 1765, which ended up in the collection of the Rijksmuseum. The cannon's return to Sri Lanka represents the Museum's first-ever repatriation of a colonial-era object.

Descendants of the royal family of Kandy have been lobbying the Sri Lankan government to recover this cannon for many years and according to the National Museum of Sri Lanka’s director, Mrs Sanuja Kasthuriarachchi, it’s an “exciting and recognisable object”, providing a valuable insight into both coloniser and Sri Lanka. “The cannon is European in shape,” commented Alicia Schrikker, associate professor of history at Leiden University, “but the decorations gave it a Sri Lankan layer…. There are so many stories to tell about it.”

Two wall guns ( gingals ), two ceremonial swords with silver, gold, diamonds and rubies, and a Singhalese knife ( pihiya ) are also returning to Sri Lanka.

The political will of all three countries to seek a fair resolution to objects brought illegally into the Netherlands during colonial times reflects a broader set of agreements. However, just as important is a new level of trust that has developed among the different museum experts. Kasthuriarachchi has spoken warmly of her confidence in the Dutch process: “The fact that things went well now – between the authorities, between historians, who can also often differ in opinion about the importance of objects or the context – is typical of our relationship. I think that’s because we’ve been taken seriously now.”

As the National Policy Framework for Colonial Collections, devised by the Dutch Advisory Committee, applies to all future repatriations by the Netherlands, not just to Indonesia and Sri Lanka, it's worth highlighting three of its key components.

The evaluation of each request to repatriate an object is made by a central independent assessment committee. When this committee was finally established in January this year, Gunay Uslu, State Secretary of Culture and Media, made it clear it is their intention the committee will operate “independently, expertly and transparently.”

Especially important is that all returns to former Dutch colonies are to be made ‘unconditionally’. This reflects the Committee’s view that it’s important to respect a source countries’ own views and wishes, ‘because that is the only way to achieve an outcome satisfactory to all parties’. But intriguingly, this approach will not apply to looted objects collected from the colony of another country. In these cases, the assessment committee may consider a request for repatriation, but it will not be ‘honoured unconditionally’.

Finally, the Dutch approach will only take place on a state-to-state basis. Direct requests for repatriation made, for instance, by local ethnic communities will not be considered by the assessment committee. This policy is hard to understand with so may geographic borders shifting over time. It's possibly politically motivated. However, in the case of Indonesia and Sri Lanka this condition never presented an obstacle as their negotiations were led by national governments.

Photo: Cannon of Kandy, Sri Lanka

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

New museum in Benin City reinvigorates its agenda for culture and heritage

Thu, 20 Jul 2023 13:41:52 GMT

The Museum of West African Art in Benin City, Edo State, lies at the heart of the Benin Bronzes debate. Not only was it widely understood this is where Benin objects would be returned, but western institutions have contributed financially to its development.

Now those same western institutions are watching some of their well-laid plans unravel before them.

In November 2020 the Museum captured the world’s attention – and considerable institutional support - when the organisers behind the proposed new Edo Museum of West African Art (EMOWAA) announced eye-catching plans to spark a renaissance of African culture. From the outset, exhibiting contemporary art from West Africa, as well as offering support and collaboration opportunities for young creatives, was always part of EMOWAA's agenda. "It will be a world-class arts, culture and heritage complex that will celebrate, research and conserve west African and diaspora art from antiquity up to the present day," said Aindrea Emelife, curator of modern and contemporary art.

But it was other collaborative projects that attracted wider global attention. EMOWAA also announced ambitious plans for a 5-year archaeological programme to be undertaken around the proposed new museum’s site. This, the organisers explained, would be a way of connecting the new complex into the architectural remains of the original Benin City, sacked by the British in 1897. This programme is being funded by a partnership between Nigeria’s Legacy Restoration Trust and the British Museum and involves $4 million of funding (EMOWAA Archaeology Project).

At the same time, the Museum announced it expected to play a significant role as a repository for returning Benin artefacts. Officials spoke of their ambition to create new opportunities to address “the painful history of the invasion and destruction of Benin City by British forces”. They spoke with confidence of EMOWAA’s intention to include “the most comprehensive display in the world of Benin Bronzes.”

As the agency tasked with leading the nation’s repatriation efforts, Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments (NCMM) contributed to this growing sense of optimism by persuading several western institutions to start returning their looted Benin trophies to the new museum. Not just UK institutions like the University of Cambridge’s Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology and Oxford’s Pitt Rivers Museum, whose transfer arrangements were almost complete, but other institutions holding Benin artefacts across Europe and the United States.

Most of these arrangements involved an agreement that objects returned, whether on long-term loan or legally repatriated, would be exhibited in a brand new, secure state-of-the-art Pavilion at the EMOWAA. To reinforce this confidence, members of the Benin Dialogue Group pledged financial assistance to ensure safe storage of returning artefacts, before their eventual installation in the completed Pavilion.

All well and good. But this arrangement was turned on its head just a few months ago. Before stepping down as President, Muhammad Buhari signed a decree in May 2023 charging the Oba (king) of Benin with future responsibility for all returning Benin objects. Unfortunately for the NCMM and for those western institutions supporting the EMOWAA, the Oba appears to hold an alternative vision of where returning Benin objects should be located: in his own Benin Royal Museum project and not in the EMOWAA.

The scale of this volte face is hard to fathom. As the decree has not yet entered into force, the NCMM’s director general Prof Abba Tijani has been lobbying Nigeria's government to better understand this government change in direction. When we approached Tijani for an update, he could only tell us that the NCMM is still “awaiting formal directions from the Ministry of Justice.”

This was not the arrangement western institutions had signed up to and, not surprisingly, it may have left some of them feeling rather blindsided. For example, where does this leave their financial and educational investment in EMOWAA? Could this lead to withdrawing commitments made to repatriate Benin objects altogether? It's now apparent why some hand-over dates across the UK are currently being postponed.

To counter this uncertainty and to emphasise its impartiality, the Museum has re-branded itself with a less Edo-centric brief as the Museum of West African Art (MOWAA). It seems they are not to be set back by these changes in events. At an Open Day and press briefing held last month, Phillip Ihenacho, director of MOWAA Trust explained “we have decided to update our brand identity to emphasise our focus.” This new focus is about upgrading and promoting the Museum's research and conservation ambitions, along with delivering creative hubs, research labs, galleries, education and performance spaces. The Museum also hopes to serve as a model for responsible heritage management; collaboration and global partnerships, they insist, will continue to be a priority. Ore Disu, director of the MOWAA Pavilion, explained the organisation has already begun “delivering programmes… in partnership with the NCMM, the German Archaeological Institute, the British Museum, Cambridge Archaeological Unit, Wessex Archaeology and the Open Society Foundation.”

But there was no notice of any future role for the Museum as an exhibition destination for returning Benin artefacts.

Also, the Museum must have been dismayed to learn this month that it’s designer and global ambassador, the Ghanaian-British architect Sir David Adjaye, is facing a number of serious allegations involving sexual misconduct. With a trophy list of global museums, foundations and arts facilities to his name, Adjaye has developed a close, personal connection to the MOWAA project, championing its future identity as “the keeper and re-imaginer of a new relationship with patrimonial artefacts.”

“My interest in this project is that I believe it has the power to transform - it will become a reteaching tool that will encourage the urgent reclamation of a culture that has been nearly lost due to colonial and post-colonial forces.”

David Adjaye

In the longer term and if funding channels continue to be productive, it seems unlikely that Adjaye’s personal problems will hijack progress on the Museum’s new agenda. But in the short term, they can hardly be useful as the MOWAA seeks to recover ground.

Adjaye has rejected all these allegations, although some clients have already taken steps to distance themselves from his practice. Work on London’s proposed new Holocaust memorial, for instance, has been suspended. Our attempts to invite Adjaye Associates to explain their current relationship with the MOWAA have so far met with silence.

Of course, where Nigeria decides to exhibit their returning Benin artefacts should not be a decision for western collections or governments. We must acknowledge the strong personal claim the Oba of Benin has for the recovery of his ancestor’s artefacts, a factor which presumably explains why Nigeria's federal government is prepared to leave the future ownership of these artefacts in the Oba's hands. Defending their decision to repatriate Benin Bronzes unconditionally, Germany's culture minister put it succinctly: “what happens to the Bronzes now is for the current owner to decide.”

We can only wait to see whether Nigeria’s new president, Bola Tinubu, and his Ministry of Justice decide to make changes to the Buhari decree that might return responsibility to the NCMM and the MOWAA. In the meantime, we should be encouraged the Museum is forging ahead with a re-invigorated cultural, scientific and educational agenda, with ambitions and scope that extend beyond the Benin Bronzes.

After this was written....

With a certainty that Nigeria's Federal Government's Notice No.25 in the official Gazette No.57, dated 23 March 2023, has laid to rest the controversy over where returning Benin Bronzes will be exhibited, two Dukes (Enigie) from Benin Kingdom have expressed thank s to the Federal Government and the Oba of Benin 'for their determination and unwavering support for approving the Benin Royal Museum'. They pledged their loyalty to the Oba for being steadfast and are praying for continuous unity in Benin Kingdom.

Meanwhile, in August 2023 the University of Oxford confirmed their plans to work with the MOWAA in order to create a centre of excellence for archaeology in West Africa. The research institute, based in the Adjaye-designed Pavilion scheduled for completion in 2024, is intended to support skills development and world-leading research, as well as the analysis of material and biological remains. Irrespective of other distractions, clearly the MOWAA is determined to press ahead with its agenda for African-centred scholarship. According to Pavilion director Ore Disu, this partnership with the University of Oxford "sets us out firmly on an ambitious path to establish a world-class collections facility and a centre of excellence for archaeological science, conservation and museum practice in West Africa."

Photo: Proposed Museum of West African Art, Edo State, Nigeria

Courtesy of Adjaye Associates

Monthly News Digest May/June 2023

Sun, 16 Jul 2023 16:27:42 GMT

Finland returns two fragments of sacred stones to Namibia

01 May 2023

Two fragments of sacred stones taken by Finnish missionaries from Ondonga, a traditional kingdom of the Ovambo people in northern Namibia, were handed over to Namibia’s Education, Arts and Culture Minister, Anna Nghipondoka, at an official handover ceremony last April. Before being returned to the Ondonga traditional community, the sacred artefacts will be transferred to the National Museum of Namibia. On a state visit to Namibia, Finnish President Sauli Niinistö acknowledged the importance of the ‘Ondonga Power Stone’ to the Ondonga community, describing it as an essential part of their identity and heritage.

The Heritage Times

New attempts are being made to recover Zimbabwean human remains

01 May 2023

A Zimbabwean campaign group called Bring Back our Bones (BBOB) is petitioning the British Government to recover the missing remains of the heroes of an uprising against British colonial rule during the 1890s. Many Zimbabwean skulls from this period were transported to the UK as trophies of conquest, including the skull of revolutionary leader Mbuya Nehanda, who was captured by the British in 1897, hanged and then beheaded. Zimbabwe’s Government has offered to return the body of Cecil Rhodes in exchange for these skulls. BBOB wants to see British institutions such as London’s Natural History Museum, the V&A and the British Museum open their archives and produce documentation for the period when the bones were taken. The Natural History Museum has acknowledged it holds Zimbabwean skulls in its collection and has agreed to return 11 skulls of uncertain provenance. It has also said it will continue to cooperate with Zimbabwe. However, the investigations we’ve undertaken suggest it is most unlikely that conclusive evidence still exists to identity the skull of Nehanda or any other of her revolutionary colleagues.

New Zimbabwe

A Nepali statue stolen in 1995 has been tracked down by Lost Arts of Nepal and returned voluntarily

10 May 2023

A 16th century gilded statue of Vajradhara, stolen from Dolakha in Nepal in 1995 (a period when Nepal suffered from extensive looting) has been tracked down by the citizen activist group Lost Arts of Nepal. The group identified the statue when it was offered for sale online by a Hong Kong dealer. There were sufficient reports, publications and photographic evidence to confirm the statue had been stolen. Even so, this still may not have guaranteed its recovery. However, once news of its illicit removal was confirmed, the owner withdrew the statue from the dealer, who requested mediation between the different stakeholders. The owner was willing to return the statue to Nepal voluntarily on condition they remain anonymous. The Nepal Heritage Recovery Campaign says, in light of a growing public awareness of extensive looting, this is just one of many recent examples of private collectors voluntarily returning cultural objects to their countries of origin. The Vajradhara case also shows that some repatriation cases are better handled with discretion and through behind the scenes mediation, rather than through high profile social media campaigns.

Hyperallergic

A critical review of the Martinez report on France’s Shared Heritage suggests it will prevent African repatriation

14 May 2023

Former Louvre director Jean-Luc Martinez delivered his 85-page report Shared Heritage: Universality, Restitutions and Circulation of Works of Art last month (23 April) following a commission from President Macron in October 2021. This long-awaited report recommends guidelines for returning objects looted during the colonial era, as well as objects looted by the Nazis. Defining his framework policy for restitutions, Martinez’s report recommends adopting a pragmatic approach, using two principal criteria as the basis for restitutions: illegality and illegitimacy. In his detailed and critical review of this Martinez report, the Ghanaian restitution expert Dr Kwame Opoku weighs up its key elements and concludes the report proposes conditions for restitution that would prevent any quick return of looted African artefacts. He also maintains it ‘seems to symbolize the awakening of groups against returning, believing the Sarr-Savoy went too far.’

Modern Ghana

The ruler of Ghana’s Asante people meets director of the British Museum to request return of Asante items

16 May 2023

British Museum director Dr Hartwig Fischer has met with the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, ruler of Ghana’s Asante people who was in London to attend the coronation of King Charles III. The Museum holds more than 200 Asante items, many of which were taken by British troops during the Anglo-Asante wars and the looting that followed the burning of the Asante Palace at Kumasi in 1874. Ghana recently set up a Restitution Committee to explore the return of these Asante treasures. At this first meeting with the director of the British Museum, the Asantehene requested a loan of objects including regalia and sacred items, acknowledging the positive collaboration between Ghana’s Manhyia Palace Museum and the British Museum.

BBC News

Mexico recovers a collection of cultural artefacts from two collectors in San Diego

17 May 2023

This month, two collectors of Mexican cultural artefacts based in San Diego, California voluntarily handed over 65 objects to the Mexican Consulate. The objects come from different geographic regions and cover a range of periods from the Preclassic through to the Postclassic periods. It is unknown how the two collectors acquired these objects, which will be repatriated to the National Institute of Anthropology and History in Mexico City. Under the administration of its current president, Andrés Manuel Lópes Obrador, Mexico has been especially active in the recovery of its cultural heritage. A social media campaign launched by the government #MiPatrimoniaNoSeVende (‘My Heritage is Not for Sale) is understood to have led to the return of some 9,000 illegally traded artefacts.

The Art Newspaper

After a long legal battle, Greece announces hundreds of stolen artefacts recovered from Robin Symes are to be returned

23 May 2023

Efforts by Greece to repatriate stolen antiquities continue to bear fruit. Following a 17-year legal battle, Greece has finally recovered a large hoard of stolen antiquities, which were hidden in a cache belonging to the disgraced British dealer Robin Symes. Possibly part of the same hoard recovered from a Geneva Freeport in 2016, the legal battle to recover these objects started in 2005 after Symes’ extensive trading in stolen artefacts was exposed and he was jailed for his part in a network of art traffickers, connected to the infamous Italian smuggler, Giacomo Medici. The 351 objects that Greek Culture Minister Lina Mendoni announced are being returned include a 2nd century bronze statue of Alexander the Great, a Neolithic period statuette possibly dated to 4000 B.C. and various marbles fragments from Greece’s Archaic period (700-500 B.C.). Symes is understood to have hidden away crates of stolen antiquities in order to conceal them from the executors and family of his partner, Christo Michaelides, who died in 1999.

Artnet News

Buckingham Palace likely to receive more repatriation requests from former colonial countries

23 May 2023

The arrival of King Charles III on the British throne is likely to be accompanied by a fresh wave of appeals to return items to former British colonies and theatres of war. Ethiopia has already approached Buckingham Palace with a request to return the remains of Prince Alamayu, buried in catacombs outside St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle. However, a Palace spokesperson has given the much-repeated excuse that it would not be possible to exhume his remains, “without disturbing the resting place of a substantial number of others in the vicinity.” [Read Objects can help tell the story of Prince Alamayu ] As the Royal Collection is not prevented by legislation from returning artefacts to countries of source, there are also questions whether demands from Nigeria and Ghana to return looted objects may be stepped up. Although such decisions would be a matter for the trustees of the Royal Collection Trust, the King is known to have a strong interest in world customs and religions.

Sky News

The Art Newspaper

National Trust chairman confirms work is underway on a policy for the return of stolen objects

30 May 2023

Speaking at this year’s Hay Literary Festival, National Trust chairman René Olivieri confirmed the charity is working on a policy for the return of stolen objects in its properties. Olivieri was responding to a question whether Indian artefacts in Powis Castle, Wales, collected by Robert Clive (Robert Clive of India) and his son Edward while India was under British rule, should be returned to India. Describing it as a “question for the future,” he said the National Trust was “in the process of creating our own policy” and that it would follow advice given by the Museums Association and Arts Council England. Arts Council England guidance recommends that museums should publish their policy on restitution and repatriation on their websites. The National Trust does not have such a policy but a spokesperson said it is their intention to publish their policy when completed.

The Guardian

A delegation from New Zealand visits Germany to repatriate more than 100 human remains

08 June 2023

A delegation from New Zealand arrived in Germany last month with the aim of recovering Māori and Moriori remains from collections in six German cities. Led by Herekiekie Herein, head of repatriation at the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, the delegation collected 64 ancestral remains at their first stop, the Grassi Museum in Leipzig. The delegation then travelled to the University of Göttingen, which houses thousands of human remains, including ancestral remains from Oceania. In Stuttgart, Prof Lars Frogman, director of the City’s Natural History Museum, explained that unlike other remains that were used for race research or exhibition, their Oceania remains were treated as “scientific objects”, stored for more than 150 years with other bones in boxes within the “mammal collection”. A powhiri, or welcome ceremony, will be held on the return of these remains to New Zealand before they are taken to their final resting place.

abc.net.au

Austria plans to introduce legislation for handling restitution claims

20 June 2023

Although Austria’s own colonial activities were limited, Austrian individuals and organisations profited from trade, political upheaval and acquisition in the colonial territories of other nations. Following recommendations made by a government-appointed advisory committee, Culture Secretary Andrea Mayer announced at a press conference that Austria’s Government plans to introduce legislation by March 2024 providing a framework for the restitution of objects in state museums acquired in a colonial context. Chairman of the advisory committee, Jonathan Fine, the scientific director of the Weltmuseum in Vienna, said there is limited knowledge exactly how many objects in Austrian state collections might be eligible for restitution. But he understands “very many” of the 200,000 objects in the Weltmuseum collection were taken in a colonial context. Objects that may be eligible for restitution, according to the advisory committee, include those whose owners “did not wish to part with them at the time they were collected” and include those lost “under conditions of violence, looting, theft, coercion or by deceptive means.” The committee has recommended that repatriations are made on a state-by-state basis, using an “orderly, consistent and comprehensive” process.

Bundesministerium

Founder’s links to slavery explored in forthcoming exhibition at Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge

20 June 2023

Richard, seventh Viscount Fitzwilliam’s bequest of his extensive collection of works of art and library to the University of Cambridge in 1816 led to the founding of the Fitzwilliam Museum. However, a significant part of the museum’s funding came from his grandfather, Matthew Decker, a Dutch-born British merchant and financier. Decker’s wealth came from the profits of the transatlantic slave trade. Black Atlantic: Power, People, Resistance, a new exhibition that opens at the Fitzwilliam Museum in the autumn (18 Sept 2023 to 7 Jan 2024), will explore this overlooked legacy. Decker helped establish the South Seas Company in 1700, a trading enterprise that obtained exclusive rights to traffic African people to the Spanish colonial Americas. Works in the exhibition from West Africa, the Caribbean, South America and Europe will reveal histories of exploitation, resilience and liberation. Fitzwilliam director, Luke Syson, said: “the exhibition situates us within an enormous transatlantic story of exploitation and enslavement, one whose legacy is in many ways as pervasive and insidious today as it was in the 17th, 18th or 19th century.”

Ireland announces new advisory committee on the restitution and repatriation of cultural heritage

20 June 2023

Catherine Martin, Ireland’s Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, has announced the establishment of a new expert committee to advise Government on the restitution and repatriation of culturally sensitive objects. The committee will undertake research into international best practice and will engage with key stakeholders to assess the scope of relevant cultural heritage collections in Ireland. Its objective is to provide policy advice and prepare national guidelines to support Irish cultural institutions when dealing with objects of unknown provenance in their collections. Announcing the new committee, Minister Martin said: “The restitution and repatriation of cultural heritage is a complex and sensitive issue, and one that is increasingly coming to the fore for museums worldwide. That makes it all the more important that we provide structures and guidance to support our cultural institutions in navigating this terrain.”

gov.ie

Germany returns two 15 ^th century Kogi masks to Colombia

23 June 2023

Two wooden masks sacred to the Kogi people, the Indigenous group that lives in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta mountains of northern Colombia, were returned to Colombian President Gustavo Petro at a ceremony in Berlin this month. Both masks were purchased legally in 1915 from the son of a Kogi priest by German ethnologist Konrad Theodor Preuss and date back to the mid-15 ^th century. The Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation now acknowledges that because the masks are so sacred, they should never have been purchased in the first place. “The Kalguakala [masks] are of total importance to us as they are sacred,” said Arregocés Conchacala Zalabata, a representative of the Kogi. “They are not a historical artefact, they are alive.” Germany’s President Frank-Walter Steinmeier described the initiative as “part of a rethink of the way in which we treat our colonial past.” However, a concern has been raised about their contamination with chemicals while held in Germany. Both masks were cleaned and ‘detoxified’ earlier in the year. “We still have some doubt over whether they can be directly worn in front of the face,” according to Rudolf Parzinger, president of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation.

The Guardian

Douglas Latchford’s daughter hands over a Vietnamese statue plus $12m of her father’s money

23 June 2023

In a settlement finalised this month with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, the daughter of antiquities smuggler Douglas Latchford has returned a 7 ^th century Vietnamese Durga statue and yielded up $12 million from her father’s estate. The agreement is thought to be the largest forfeiture of looted antiquity profits to date. Indicted in 2019 after spending decades of trafficking Southeast Asian antiquities that have ended up in museum and private collections around the world, Latchford died in 2020. The following year, his daughter Julia Copleton agreed to return 125 objects from her father’s collection, valued at more than $50 million. The Durga statue was acquired by Latchford in Vietnam in 2008. His restorer reported it was corroded and displayed iron deposits, suggesting it had only recently been excavated. Latchford attempted to sell the statue to an American collector in 2011, giving Cambodia as the statue’s provenance. After the collector failed to buy the statue, it remained in Latchford’s personal collection. The US Attorney’s Office has confirmed this settlement does not mean their investigation into Latchford’s affairs are completed.

Hyperallergic

SRI LANKA

Mon, 03 Jul 2023 12:45:29 GMT

Sri Lanka

Updated June 2024

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made to Sri Lanka, together

with other restitution news. Entries are updated regularly.

June 2024

Many of the artefacts Sri Lanka is seeking to repatriate from the UK are held in private collections and therefore present significant legal barriers

Economynext

July 2023

Sri Lanka's cabinet of Ministers has approved a proposal to appoint a committee to prepare an action plan for repatriating Sri Lankan artefacts in various countries

Colombo Gazette

Trinity College, Cambridge set to return four Aboriginal spears to the La Perouse community in Australia

Sat, 01 Jul 2023 14:03:05 GMT

Lieutenant James Cook's sailing of HMS Endeavour into a well-sheltered bay now known as Botany Bay (Kamay) in April 1770 marked the first-ever contact by British mariners with the Indigenous people of eastern Australia.

Writing about the encounters that followed, Professor Nicholas Thomas, a leading authority on Cook’s historic discoveries, describes the attitude of the Indigenous people as wanting 'absolutely nothing to do with these intruders and would have none of their gifts’. Cook himself acknowledged, ‘we could know but very little of their customs as we never were able to form any connections with them’.*

But that didn’t prevent Cook from collecting 40 Aboriginal hunting and pronged fishing spears, taken without the consent of the people living around Botany Bay. Four of these spears were presented by Lord Sandwich of the British Admiralty to Trinity College, Cambridge in 1771, which placed them ‘on deposit’ at the city’s Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (MAA) in 1914. A wooden shield, now on exhibition at the British Museum, was collected at the same time (the 'Gweagal' Shield).

Just over a century later, an agreement has finally been reached to return these spears to the Gweagal people. Repatriation has been agreed after decades of discussions with Gweagal representatives, the broader Dharawal Nation, as well as other leading community organisations, including an unsuccessful application for repatriation made in 2016 (rejected in 2017). Throughout these discussions, all parties developed what Cambridge described as a 'respectful and robust relationship'. In May 2021 we reported on a premature announcement that Gweagal spears were returning to Australia, but Trinity College didn't receive this latest formal request for repatriation of the four spears until December 2022. The formal legal transfer of title to the La Perouse Aboriginal community was agreed by Trinity College in March 2023. Cambridge University colleges and museums then sought the approval of the UK Charity Commission to deaccession the objects on the basis of a 'morally-compelling' claim for restitution.

The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) are involved in arranging their physical return, which will take place once all parties conclude these arrangements.

“Our elders have worked for many years to see their ownership transferred to the traditional owners of Botany Bay,” said Noeleen Timbery, La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council chairperson. She added:

“Many of the families within the La Peruse Aboriginal community are descended from those who were present during the eight days The Endeavour was anchored in Kamay.”

Noeleen Timbery

MAA was one of the first museums in the UK to return artefacts to nations of origin, having returned artefacts to Uganda as far back as 1961. The museum can boast a clearly delineated and transparent process for considering appeals for restitution and will consider each request on a case by case basis. The museum claims to be consistently committed to cultural exchange and collaborative scholarship.

Professor Thomas, Director of MAA, has never doubted the immense significance of this particular group of spears:

“They are the first artefacts collected by any European from any part of Australia, that remain extant and documented. They reflect the beginnings of a history of misunderstanding and conflict. Their significance will be powerfully enhanced through return to Country”.

Professor Nicholas Thomas

Trinity College is also convinced that repatriation was the ‘right decision’, one that will help the College better understand and address what they describe as the complex legacy of the British empire in their collections. MAA is equally confident the new partnership it has forged with the La Perouse community will lead to further opportunities for future research.

The spears had been loaned to the National Museum of Australia for special exhibitions in 2015 and 2020. Now, following approval given by Britain's Charity Commission to transfer their legal ownership, La Perouse Aboriginal community plan to display the four spears at a new visitor centre being built at Kurnell, Botany Bay. Until this new centre is ready to receive them, the spears are likely to return once again to the National Museum in Canberra.

Of the 40 spears removed by Cook and his men, these are the only four known to have survived.

* Discoveries: The Voyages of Captain Cook by Nicholas Thomas (Penguin, 2018)

After this was written.....

The four spears were returned to the La Perouse Aboriginal Community at a ceremony held in the Wren Library at Trinity College Cambridge on 23 April 2024. The repatriation follows support from the Australian Government's AIATSIS-led Return of Cultural Heritage Program and the national Museum of Australia (NMA).

Trinity College Cambridge

Photo: Four spears taken by James Cook from Botany Bay, April 1770

Courtesy of Trinity College, University of Cambridge

NEW ZEALAND

Mon, 12 Jun 2023 09:50:10 GMT

NEW ZEALAND

Updated April 2025

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made to New Zealand, together with other restitution news.

Entries are updated regularly

April 2025

A precious taonga, made between 1900 & 1908 and collected by an American Mormon missionary in the early 1900s, has been returned from a private collection in Los Angeles to New Zealand

Tepapa.govt.nz

September 2024

Fourteen ancient bronze and stone sculptures are being returned by a private collection in New Zealand to the Republic of Yemen after study and cataloguing by New York's Metropolitan Museum

The Art Newspaper

June 2023

A delegation from New Zealand arrived in Germany last month tasked with repatriating around 100 Maori and Moriori remains across six cities

abc.net.au

July 2022

London's Natural History Museum participates in the largest ever repatriation of human remains by returning the skeletal remains of more than 100 ancestors of the Rekohu tribe to New Zealand

The Guardian

Is India really serious about recovering its looted heritage?

Mon, 05 Jun 2023 12:53:16 GMT

An article that appeared in The Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago was no ordinary article about India’s plans for restitution. More unbelievable than ordinary.

It claimed that India is preparing to launch a diplomatic campaign to recover thousands of colonial treasures now in UK collections. One source described the campaign as a reckoning with the past and suggested it will be larger in scale than Greece’s efforts to recover the Marbles.

We find it hard to make sense of this claim and we’re not surprised that official government sources in India are busy denying the story, insisting its message is “unfortunately misleading”. But it does raise the question whether India is really serious about recovering hundreds of years of looted heritage.

As far as we can gauge, the Indian state has shown precious little interest lobbying for the return of high profile and treasured Indian artefacts, lost under British rule and now held in UK public collections. That’s not to say they've been entirely passive. India's Government continues to lend official support to the determined efforts of citizen groups who set out to recover stolen objects they discover on exhibition in western collections. However, credit for these successes belongs not to official delegations from government, but instead to the extensive research and commitment of activist groups such as India Pride Project . Drawing on the support of enthusiastic nationals and Indian diaspora, IPP has spent a decade researching and chasing the whereabouts of looted objects, communicating via social media, and presenting western museums with the irrefutable evidence that makes formal repatriation to India inevitable.

However, proving an object was stolen within the last fifty years or so is one thing, chasing the thousands of objects removed while India was under British rule is a lot more challenging - both for the state and for citizen activists.

We know that India’s government is familiar with the legal obstacles than confront any restitution strategy and, in particular, the near impossible legal dilemma of overcoming UK legislation designed specifically to prevent the repatriation of Britain’s imperial plunder. But whatever inchoate restitution plans Prime Minister Narendra Modi may have in mind, there’s a steep hill ahead for India to climb. Recovering any Indian artefacts from London's V&A Museum or the British Museum is only possible if current legislation is amended. From our perspective, we don’t see any chance of this happening under the present government, worn down by other more pressing priorities.

Instead, India might care to watch for future developments at Powis Castle in Wales. Now under the stewardship of the National Trust, the Clive Museum at Powis Castle contains one of the largest private collection of trophies collected during British rule in India and was amassed by two generations of the Clive family. Robert Clive, ‘Clive of India’, is the man responsible for establishing British rule in India, amassing a huge fortune in the process. His son Edward was just as successful harvesting the wealth of southern India for personal gain. He is best known for defeating the legendary Tipu Sultan, the ‘Tiger of Mysore’, at his stronghold of Seringapatam in 1799.

Try to find perfection in Indian craftsmanship and you will find yourself in the court of Tipu Sultan (1750-99). His cultural legacy is enormous with Indian craftsmanship reaching new heights of creativity and sophistication. So, it’s not surprising that the weapons and royal regalia garnered by Edward Clive after Tipu’s defeat are the most prized of all in the Trust's collection.

We asked the National Trust whether India has ever asked for the return of these treasures, but were told India has never made such a request. Would the National Trust agree if they were to request repatriation? It's possible that India might take some confidence from a remark made by Rene Olivieri, chairman of the National Trust, at this year’s Hay Literary Festival. Asked whether the National Trust would consider returning stolen objects to India, Olivieri confirmed the Trust is already working on devising such a policy. So, there might be something positive here for India to build on.

The Clive Museum Collection at Powis Castle

Then there’s the question of whether India could do more to recover objects that appear for sale in the open market. Without committing to a major financial investment, rising demand and escalating values for fine Indian jewellery, arms and metalwork suggests this route is bound to prove just as challenging.

Unfortunately, unlike the Chinese for whom recovering their cultural heritage is a constitutional obligation, wealthy Indians have shown little enthusiasm to purchase important artefacts for the benefit of the state. It’s a shame because they’ve had plenty of opportunities.

The Clive family didn’t have it all its own way. Objects from Tipu’s palace were widely disseminated after the looting and several of his personal treasures have appeared for sale in recent years.

Last June, we wrote about an important tiger head gold finial , one of eight plundered from Tipu's octagonal-shaped throne by British troops following his defeat. It was granted an export licence only after no UK buyer stepped forward to match the funds needed to keep it in the UK.

India had its first chance to acquire the finial in April 2009 when it sold to a private collector at auction for £389,600. It came up again for sale in 2019, but this time was withdrawn from the auction. Two years later (May 2021), an application to allow its export was made to Britain’s Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art. The Committee recommended it should remain in the UK because of its outstanding aesthetic importance and because it was so closely connected with our history and national life . Apparently, the circumstances of its collection and the permanent damage inflicted on Tipu’s throne were both conveniently overlooked. Now valued at £1.5m, no UK institution could afford to come forward with an offer, which meant the vendor was free to export this important Tipu artefact to a collector overseas.

We understand neither the state nor any Indian citizen has made an offer to purchase the finial on behalf of the nation. As a result, not one of these magnificent eight finials or any other part of Tipu’s throne is represented in a museum in India.

In the meantime, just in the last few weeks two further personal artefacts of Tipu Sultan have come to light. The Reviewing Committee announced another export bar, this time on a flintlock sporting gun, dated 1793-94. It's been described as the finest and most elaborately decorated of all the personal firearms made for Tipu. Following his death, many of these firearms were given to leading military figures. This particular gun was given to General the Earl Cornwallis. After passing through several hands, it was acquired by the present owner at a Bonhams auction in April 2015 and is now valued at £2m. If a UK institution fails to match this figure, like Tipu’s gold finial, the gun will be granted an export licence. Will India grab this unexpected opportunity to secure it?

It’s a steep price, but if India is unwilling to make this level of financial commitment, then it’s understandable why there was never a chance of recovering another of Tipu’s personal weapons that appeared at a Bonhams auction last May.

The object was a one-metre-long sword with an ornate hilt, inlaid with gold calligraphy, which sold for the staggering record price of £14.1m. Known as the Bedchamber Sword, it was presented by the army to Major General David Baird, “as a token of their high esteem of his courage and conduct in the assault which he commanded and in which Tipu Sultan was slain”.

India’s previous opportunity to acquire this sword was in 2003 when the Baird family sold it at auction for just £150,000.

The Clive Museum at Powis Castle holds three comparable swords bearing Tipu’s distinctive tiger head decoration. These are three more reasons, we suggest, why India should be closely monitoring policy developments at the National Trust. The chance to secure at least one of these swords would add enormously to India’s depleted collection of Tipu artefacts.

In the meantime, the onus continues to fall on private Indian citizens to move the restitution dial. Such as the noteworthy campaign to recover Sikh rebellion leader Diwan Mulraj Chopra’s sword (‘talwar’) from the collection of the Royal Artillery Museum, a campaign launched after years of research by descendants of Chopra’s own family. In the absence of a credible and serious restitution strategy, the Indian state could do worse than encourage and lend support to exactly this kind of private initiative. The alternative is yet more lost opportunities.

Photo: The Bedchamber Sword of Tipu Sultan

Courtesy of Bonhams

UK collections pushing ahead with return of Benin Bronzes

Wed, 26 Apr 2023 16:11:54 GMT

Is it taking too long for the UK to return its Benin Bronzes? Will legal roadblocks and lingering concerns over their upkeep and security overshadow UK commitments to repatriate Benin objects to Nigeria?

The significant steps Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands are taking to address their colonial legacies follow lengthy reports and commissions examining needs for reparation and terms for returning looted cultural objects.

But recent progress has been patchy. Take Germany. After announcements that German state collections are preparing to transfer ownership of more than 1100 Benin Bronzes to Nigeria (“We are here to right a wrong”, said Germany’s foreign minister Annalena Baerbock returning 20 Benin artefacts last December), concerns about further repatriations have begun to trickle into the German press.

“It’s unclear whether the Nigerian people will benefit from the returns,” exclaimed Die Welt (14 March). And in a stinging criticism of the German federal government and state museums for their lack of attention to the preservation, security and accessibility of the Benin objects Germany plans to return, retired anthropologist Brigitta Hauser-Schaublin wrote: “Nobody seems to care where this overwhelming collection actually goes. The return takes place, as stipulated in the contract, without any conditions, just as if it were gold bars, convertible into cash or jewellery at any time and replaceable.”

Uncertainty about the future location and preservation of objects returned, fear of legal precedents that may bring political and financial consequences, even questions over the moral rights of Nigeria to recover Benin objects funded by the profits of slavery, have all been cited as reasons for stalling repatriation.

But will these concerns frustrate British institutions committed to returning Benin artefacts? Is restitution progress in the UK likely to stall?

So far, there’s been no comparable report commissioned into how Britain should acknowledge its moral responsibilities to former colonial territories. But that omission hasn’t stopped several of Britain's leading university and regional collections from pushing ahead with plans to return their Benin artefacts to Nigeria. The UK’s national collections continue to remain on the sidelines.

Britain's first Benin returns from public collections were predicated on strong moral grounds. But bureaucracy still had to be satisfied. A UK export licence was required by Jesus College, Cambridge before it could return its bronze statue of a Cockerel (known as an ‘Okukor’) and by the University of Aberdeen before returning their 18th century Head of an Oba . Both objects were physically returned to Nigeria in February 2022.

When it comes to the physical act of export back to Nigeria, museums were reminded by arts minister Lord Parkinson that a Benin artefact cannot be returned without following the same procedures required for exporting any other work of art. But in the case of most Benin objects, this shouldn’t be onerous. Most Benin artefacts are unlikely to qualify for deferral owing to the large number of similar items in British public and private collections. There’s also a problem establishing a valuation in a marketplace haunted by fakes and restitution.

The second wave of repatriations is going to be much larger than the first and the speed of response to the latest appeals for returning Benin artefacts may have taken Nigeria by surprise.

Since January 2022 when Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments (NCMM) launched their latest round of restitution appeals, four UK institutions have announced Benin repatriation programmes - The Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford, The University of Cambridge’s Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (MAA), Glasgow Life Museums and Horniman Museum and Gardens.

Up to now, only four of around 200 Benin artefacts earmarked for transfer in this second wave of repatriations have actually been returned. But this doesn’t imply a lack of progress. Fast-tracking returns by UK institutions is not usual museum practice.

The Horniman and MAA Cambridge have now both completed the legal arrangements required for transferring ownership to Nigeria and securing the endorsement of the UK’s Charity Commission has been a critical step in the completion of these arrangements. Put bluntly, ownership of objects transferred from a UK collection with charitable status (a status that applies to most UK museums) is only possible if the Commission is satisfied there’s a legitimate case for transfer.

It took just seven months after the NCMM formally requested the return of the Horniman’s collection of 72 Benin artefacts before the Charity Commission endorsed their submission (August 2022). Among terms agreed with the NCMM was the immediate return of six selected Benin objects. However, at the agreed date of handover (November 2022), only the four objects that didn't require export licences could be physically transferred. Because the other two objects are made of ivory, CITES licences are still required. I’ve been told these licences are now in place and arrangements to return these two items to Nigeria can now proceed.

The submission by MAA Cambridge to transfer 116 Benin objects they've connected to the raid on Benin City has also been endorsed by the Charity Commission and the University reports that it’s now working with the NCMM “to finalise next steps”. Recent NCMM developments (see below) may frustrate the date of handover, but we understand this is still due for sometime in 2023.

Meanwhile, Oxford’s Pitt Rivers Museum and Ashmolean Museum have more work ahead of them. Their application to transfer legal title of 97 Benin objects was submitted at the same time as the Horniman's (August 2022), but the Commission reported they need more information. This delay has been welcomed by supporters of the Restitution Study Group , a group campaigning for slavery reparations, which is seeking to use this delay to scrap Oxford's plans for repatriation altogether. The group's class-action lawsuit filed in October 2022 failed to halt the legal transfer of Benin artefacts from the Smithsonian Institution. It seems likely their protest against Oxford's transfer of legal title will also fail. Meanwhile, the Museum has told me they plan to resubmit their case, “following a further meeting of the University Council to be held in due course.” But they didn’t say what further information the Commission has requested.

A wider strategic approach by Glasgow Life to returning artefacts reflects their view that objects unsuitable to be held in a museum collection should be returned without any requirement to set conditions.

In April 2022 Glasgow City Council met to agree the transfer of 19 objects connected to the 1897 raid. But unlike the other three collections, the status of Glasgow Life Museums means they are not required to seek Charity Commission endorsement before transferring legal title. A single meeting with a delegation from NCMM was held last June, but more detailed discussions are still required before logistical arrangements and a date for handover can be agreed.

Bronze crocodile or lizard from Owo, Nigeria, possibly from Benin City.

Courtesy of Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, Glasgow

A spokesperson from Glasgow Life Museums believes their ivory objects will be exempt from an export ban because they “pre-date 1918 and are of outstanding cultural and historical value”. The sacred wooden items from Glasgow’s Benin collection (which have never been on exhibition) also await evaluation in case they require a CITES licence.

In common with the agreement the NCMM has reached with German state museums, the opportunity exists for British collections to retain some of their Benin items on the basis of extended loans. In the case of the Horniman, this is expected to number as many as 66 Benin objects. Cambridge and Oxford have yet to announce how many objects they may end up retaining; Glasgow will continue to display objects that post-date the 1897 raid, but I understand that loans of the 19 other objects are still central to future discussions with the NCMM.

These extended loan arrangements may not last forever, and probably only until new museum building initiatives underway in Benin City have been completed.

It's a convenient arrangement for Nigeria. But there are reasons why some Western institutions considering repatriation still believe that present museum standards in Nigeria continue to be a major stumbling block to returning further Bronzes. Memories of the multiple thefts that plagued Nigerian museums between 1980 and 2000 have tainted recent negotiations and, if views in the German media are anything to go by, still colour objections about repatriation today. If Nigeria is serious about recovering its cultural heritage, attracting and engaging with global audiences, it simply cannot afford the embarrassment of a new cycle of thefts and poor administration.

But a recent development may put at risk Nigeria's plans to engage and recover the nation's cultural heritage as quickly as it might wish. Just weeks before he was due to leave office, Nigeria's President Muhammadu Buhari issued a declaration that on the face of it delivers a solution to the long-running dispute over who should have future custody of the nation's Benin artefacts. However, it could have a more damaging effect, derailing current and future plans for repatriation.

The decree of 23 March* orders that “ownership of artefacts looted from the ancient Palace of the Oba and other parts of Benin Kingdom be and is vested in the Oba.” As well as transferring custody rights to Oba Ewuare II, it also gives him future responsibility to engage with national and international institutions about these artefacts, as well as - crucially - selecting where they will be held: either in his own Royal Palace, in some other museum within Benin City, or in any other place he and the Federal Government may consider secure.

The decree might have been intended to resolve divisions between the Oba and Edo State Governor, Godwin Obaseki. But handing over such a large measure of control to the Oba will unsettle many Western institutions. In particular, it will confuse members of the Benin Dialogue Group, whose members have already committed significant amounts of money to help construct the new Edo Museum of West African Art (EMOWAA). That is where they were told all future loans would be exhibited. Up to recently, the Museum's website claimed it was going to become "the home of the largest collection of Benin Bronzes in the world." But that statement has now been removed because the Oba has other plans. He's been trumpeting a vision that involves upgrading the rival Benin Royal Museum as his preferred destination for returning Benin artefacts.

Will this development affect UK plans in train to repatriate Benin Bronzes? The declaration has still not entered into force and we understand that NCMM is in negotiations with Nigeria's Ministry of Justice to revise aspects of the declaration. The outcome of these negotiations will be critical because all four UK institutions have agreed terms that make NCMM responsible for deciding where returning objects will be exhibited. Up to now, NCMM has always supported the EMOWAA initiative. With President Buhari heading out the door, future negotiations will depend on the views of his successor, President-elect Bola Tinubu. But it's unlikely NCMM will be happy to cede control over the nation's cultural policy and direction quite so easily.

None of these developments will shift the dial at the British Museum where, despite the size of their enormous Benin collection, trustees remain unable to transfer ownership of any Benin objects under the terms of the British Museum Act. However, were all Nigerian parties, especially the NCMM, to get behind this new declaration, it's possible it may start to nudge more Western collections to see their way through the other roadblocks.

Pushing ahead with the return of more Benin Bronzes by UK institutions this year still looks inevitable. Though, ironically, it lies in Nigeria's hands at what pace objects can be physically returned. Perhaps overwhelmed by the positive response their campaign has attracted and frustrated by the latest custody development, it may welcome a slower pace - at least until it has the agreement, capacity and resources to secure and preserve their returning Benin heritage.

* Notice of Presidential Declaration on the Recognition of Ownership and an Order Vesting Custody and Management of Repatriated Looted Benin Artefacts in the Oba of Benin (Government Notice No.25, dated March 28th, 2023)

After this was written....

We prepared this review of UK plans to return Benin Bronzes before the wider dissemination of the President's declaration on the 23 March. Since then, concerns about its implications have escalated dramatically. Well laid plans by western museums and the NCMM have been thrown into confusion; the NCMM is recommending that western museums wait and see what evolves before reacting. Meanwhile, German opposition parties - the Christian Democrats and the extreme right Alternative for Germany - have both criticised their government, calling their approach to restitution a "failure" as a result of failing to impose any conditions. In the meantime, other voices are equally insistent that Nigeria, not western governments, should decide the future stewardship of returning artefacts. Defending their approach, Germany's coalition government reminded the opposition that meddling in the decisions of another country might be considered another form of colonialism.

Photo: Benin Copper Alloy Plaque, No. 99.229

Courtesy of Horniman Museum and Gardens

INDIA

Tue, 18 Apr 2023 12:23:46 GMT

INDIA

Updated July 2025

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made to India, together with other restitution news.

Entries are updated regularly.

July 2025

A Mumbai-based Indian conglomerate has stepped up to purchase from Sotheby's the jewel collection linked to the Buddha's remains known as the Piprahwa gems

The Art Newspaper

May 2025

Sotheby's in Hong Kong have postponed an auction of jewels associated with Buddha's remains following demands from India's government to halt the sale

Euronews.com

September 2023

The Indian press reports the iconic 'wagh nakh', the tiger claw-shaped daggar used to kill Afzal Khan in 1659, is to be repatriated by the Victoria & Albert Museum

The Times of India

May 2023

Demands by India for the return of thousands of objects in UK collections have been "significantly overstated" according to Indian sources

The Hindu.com

May 2023

In claims that have been discredited, The Daily Telegraph reported that India is set to demand the return of a large number of colonial treasures, including the Koh-I-Noor diamond

The Daily Telegraph

April 2023

After losing so much of its heritage, two sleuths are bringing back India's stolen treasures

BBC Culture

April 2023

Steps India should take to preserve and ensure the return of its looted cultural treasures include the creation of its own 'Digital Benin' project

The Telegraph India

April 2023

Failures in the safety and conservation of looted antiques returned to South-Indian state Tamil Nadu, home to some 48,000 temples, raises questions about restitution

Frontline.thehindu.com

VATICAN CITY

Tue, 04 Apr 2023 13:15:45 GMT

VATICAN CITY

Updated November 2025

Below is a schedule of restitutions made to or from Vatican City.

Entries are updated regularly.

November 2025

Pope Leo XIV has returned 62 artefacts to Indigenous peoples in Canada, expected to arrive in Montreal on 6 December to be reunited with their originating communities

apnews.com

November 2025

The Vatican Museums are to return a rare Indigenous kayak to Canada held since the world exhibition at the Vatican in 1925

The Art Newspaper

April 2025

Pope Francis remembered for supporting the return of stolen artefacts, including three fragments from the Parthenon, but also for his failure to return artefacts to Indigenous groups in Canada

ArtNews.com

May 2023

Pope Francis confirms talks are underway to return colonial-era artefacts in the Vatican Museum's collection to Indigenous peoples in Canada, as well as other objects on a 'case by case' basis

AP News

April 2023

Responding to decades of Indigenous demands, the Vatican has formally repudiated the "Doctrine of Discovery" that legitimised the colonial-era seizure of Native lands

AP News

March 2023

In a special Vatican ceremony, the restitution of three stone fragments from the Parthenon was signed off prior to their transfer to Athens on 24 March 2023

The Art Newspaper

December 2022

Pope Francis has ordered the Vatican Museums to return three sculptural fragments removed from the Parthenon in the form of a 'donation' to Greece

AP News

March 2022

Curator of the Ethnological Museum in the Vatican tells leader of an Inuit delegation that the Vatican is open to returning precious cultural items to Canada

CBC News

TANZANIA

Tue, 04 Apr 2023 09:50:33 GMT

TANZANIA

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made to Tanzania, together with other restitution news.

Entries are updated regularly.

October 2025

A former Tanzanian MP and environmental activist is demanding the repatriation of the Tendeguru fossils removed by German colonial explorers in the 19th century

dailynews.co.tz

April 2023

East African families are seeking to recover the remains of their ancestors, removed at the beginning of the 20th century and now held in German colonial collections

The Dial

March 2023

Hermann Parzinger is recommending the return of hundreds of skulls removed by German scientists from Tanzania during the colonial period

Table.Berlin

Objects can help tell the story of Prince Alamayu in a moving new account of his life

Mon, 03 Apr 2023 11:29:59 GMT

If the story of the Abyssinian Emperor Tewodros II is considered a little-known episode in British imperial history, then the story of his son Alamayu merits little more than a footnote. But a new book by Andrew Heavens, The Prince and the Plunder , is about to change all that.

Let’s remind ourselves of the events that took place in Abyssinia in 1868. A British expeditionary force sent to recover hostages from Emperor Tewodros’ mountain fortress at Maqdala, defeated the Emperor’s army and ended with Tewodros taking his own life. The future of Tewodros’ son, the 7-year-old prince Alamayu, became the responsibility of the leader of the British expedition, Lieutenant-General Sir Robert Napier. En route to a transport ship headed for England, Alemayu then suffered the loss of his mother, Queen Tirunesh, who died of a disease of the lungs, probably tuberculosis.

Without father or mother, a separated and traumatised young boy watched his homeland disappear over the horizon from the deck of an Indian steamship. He would never see his homeland again.

On arriving in England, he became something of a colonial celebrity, with Queen Victoria taking a special interest in his welfare and leading photographers falling over themselves to take his portrait. However, despite this celebrity status, all was not too well under the surface: dark moods and a lack of direction; unhappy years within an unforgiving Victorian school system; a mishmash of tutors and guardians; and an unsuccessful spell at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst. Alamayu would die aged 18, eleven years after arriving in England, from a cause nobody could quite agree on. Pneumonia or perhaps another victim of tuberculosis.

It’s clear from this all too short life that Alamayu never fulfilled his royal destiny or achieved the full potential that might have been. His own impressions of a short life in Victorian England were never consigned to paper; his voice remains almost completely silent. As a result, narratives have over-relied on crafted impressions, consigned to letters and memoirs by those who met or thought they knew the young prince.

But they often conflict. Take, for instance, these two conflicting impressions, just two of many relayed by Heavens to illustrate the problem of reaching inside Alamayu’s state of mind. Writing to the Treasury in 1872, the Rev. Thomas William Jex-Blake, one of several of the young prince’s government-appointed guardians, reported on his “considerable social tact, and instinctive good breeding”. He described Alamayu “in excellent health and spirits, and enjoying life thoroughly”. But four years later, we learn of a boy out of his depth and seriously in despair. Writing in her diary, the artist Dorothy Tennant believed “the boy is depressed and unhappy”.

In his attempt to untangle the truth behind Alamayu’s silence, Heavens has produced an exceptionally fascinating, evenly balanced and moving account of Alamayu’s life. While there are scores of books recounting the story of Tewodros and the events at Maqdala, there are precious few biographies of this young prince… and none of them more rewarding to read than this one.

Heavens set out to follow the evidence. But it's a sticky path that takes the reader on a journey through multiple, contradictory accounts, missing official records and what Heavens calls ‘walls of establishment silence’. As a result, and despite heroic efforts, we can't be entirely sure we'll ever know what Alamayu thought about his stay in England, or whether he still held out hope for a return to his homeland. So, despite all the new information that Heavens has juggled to throw light on the young prince’s life in England, Alamayu's voice remains silent.

However, this is a book of two halves and there's another reason why it delivers value to our knowledge of this little-known Abyssinian campaign. Heavens devotes the second part of this book to identifying the whereabouts of plunder removed by Napier’s forces now in storage or sometimes on display in public, military, church and private collections. These comprehensive lists, comprising at least 830 of known looted objects, include those he's identified in present collections, objects already returned to Ethiopia, as well as objects still missing. Heavens continues to update these lists for historians and biographers and further details are available at www.theprinceandtheplunder.com . They represent an invaluable resource for the Ethiopian government's attempts to recover the loot plundered from Maqdala.

Speaking recently at a launch of The Prince and the Plunder , Heavens insisted “It’s not a campaigning book. I’ve used the objects to tell the story. It’s a way of saying even though we’ve forgotten the story, if we look around us it’s everywhere”.

And what of the young Prince himself? Queen Victoria wanted his funeral to be held at St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle. She also asked that personal trinkets she’d given him were to be buried in his labelled coffin. This coffin still lies in catacombs outside St George’s Chapel.

There have been numerous requests from church and state to repatriate Alamayu’s remains to Ethiopia, including a direct appeal made to the late Queen Elizabeth II in 2007 by the then President of Ethiopia. But the reply is always the same: the coffin lies alongside forty others, they couldn’t move it without disturbing these other remains. This, Heavens points out, is "an odd, shifting position" as other remains have been moved, most recently those of Princess Alice of Battenberg whose remains were transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church in Jerusalem in 1988. With the arrival of a new monarch, exceptionally well-versed in world religions, there are some who hope for a change in policy. St George's Chapel is after all a Royal Peculiar, which means it falls under the direct jurisdiction of the monarch.

In the meantime, that is where Alamayu will continue to rest. A foreign prince buried in a foreign land. “So much had gone unsaid through his life; so few had spoken out for him,” writes Heavens. “And his death when it came was abrupt and absurd”. It's the objects remaining that help tell his story.

The Prince and the Plunder by Andrew Heavens. Published by The History Press, Feb 2023

Photo: Detail of a portrait of Prince Alamayu by Julia Margaret Cameron, 1868

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Monthly News Digest February/March 2023

Sun, 02 Apr 2023 11:16:48 GMT

Egypt recovers a stolen sarcophagus lid known as the ‘green sarcophagus’ from a U.S. museum

01 February 2023

Stolen from an Egyptian necropolis south of Cairo in 2008, the lid of a 2,700-year-old sarcophagus, believed to have belonged to a priest named Ankhenmaat, has been returned to Egyptian authorities by the Houston Museum of Natural Science in Houston, Texas. It was looted from the Abusir necropolis south of Cairo, before being smuggled into the U.S. via Germany. “This stunning coffin was trafficked by a well-organised network that has looted countless antiquities from the region,” said Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg. Weighing nearly half a ton, it is made out of a green-coloured wood lined with golden motifs and hieroglyphs. After an extensive international investigation, the U.S. announced they would be handing back the coffin lid last September. At this press conference announcing its return, Egypt’s Tourism Ministry said it will be sent to the Grand Egyptian Museum in Cairo where it will be examined thoroughly before restoration.

dw.com

Geneva’s Museum of Ethnography returns two sacred objects to the Haudenosaunee Confederation

07 February 2023

In the presence of a delegation from the Haudenosaunee Confederation, a sacred mask and a rattle, acquired nearly 200 years ago, were officially returned in a ceremony held at the Museum of Ethnography in Geneva. Museum officials said the cultural value of these objects to their owners, the Haudenosaunee, a First Nations people who live on both sides of the US/Canadian border, means they are unsuitable for exhibition. The City of Geneva had received a formal request for their return in August 2022.

swissinfo.ch

Colombia’s government requests the return of 35 sculptures currently in Berlin’s Humboldt Forum

13 February 2023

In December 2022, the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced they’ve requested the return of 35 statues from the San Agustin culture, currently in the collections of Berlin’s Humboldt Forum. The statues had been removed in 1913 by German ethnologist Konrad Theodor Preuss while conducting fieldwork in San Agustin and surrounding areas in southern Colombia. The statues arrived in Berlin in 1923 and have never been returned. There were some concerns expressed at the time about their removal, but more than fifty years passed before more serious attempts to recover the statues got underway. A failure by Colombia’s government to press for their return led Hermann Parzinger, current president of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, to write in 2013 that “a basis for downright repatriation does scarcely exist, given the lapse of time and the fact that the Columbian [sic] government has obviously known about the sculptures’ whereabouts in Berlin without having submitted any concrete claim for repatriation to the German government.” However, recent initiatives by Germany’s federal government to return looted artefacts suggest the Humboldt may be prepared to respond more favourably this time. All the same, there remain serious concerns among Colombian civil society activists about local authority and national government commitment towards restitution and where the statues would be returned.
Hyperallergic

New report reveals the extent of looted Benin artefacts in Swiss museum collections

15 February 2023

This month the Swiss Benin Initiative (SBI) published a major report that connects twenty-one works in eight Swiss museum collections to the 1897 British raid on Benin City. Launched in June 2021, the SBI has issued a statement describing their primary focus on “the collaboration and exchange of information with Nigeria for the purpose of investigating the provenances of the collections from the Kingdom of Benin”. Between a network of eight Swiss museums, they hold a total of 96 Benin items. For the 21 items identified as Category One, “records in writing or circumstantial evidence such as burn marks provide a direct link to the fateful events of 1897”. Category Two items, which number 32 objects, are described as “probably looted”, but no written evidence links them to the 1897 raid. The report says the museums concerned “express their openness to a transfer of ownership of the looted and probably looted objects.” The report goes on to say, “this could involve a repatriation of the works, a circulation or loans to Swiss museums.” In addition to research based on Western records and archives, the SBI team also worked closely with anthropologist Dr Alice Hertzog and Nigerian historian Dr Enibokun Uzebu-Imarghiagbe.

Swissinfo.ch

Canadian museums return important Indigenous artefacts to their rightful owners

22 February 2023

The Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) and the Royal British Columbia Museum both repatriated important artefacts belonging to First Nation families this month. A saddle and ceremonial pipe owned by Chief Poundmaker, an influential leader of the 19th century, have been returned to his descendants after being held for 99 years by the ROM. The return of these two items is due to the lobbying efforts of Pauline, Brown Bear Woman, who has been working tirelessly to repatriate all Chief Poundmaker's former belongings from museums around the world. Poundmaker, or pitikwahanapiwiyin, is now remembered as a peacekeeper during the North-West Resistance of 1885. His conviction for treason was exonerated by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2019.

In another development, the Royal British Columbia Museum has repatriated a long-lost Snow family totem pole to Nuxalk territory, four years after the Nuxalk Nation’s initial request. The totem pole was carved between the late 1800s and early 1900s by Louie Snow and stood outside the family longhouse in Talyu (South Bentinck). It was lost in the early 1900s when members of the Nuxalk Nation moved from Talyu to Bella Cool to escape the 1862 Pacific Northwest smallpox epidemic. It was purchased in 1913 by an English researcher Charles F. Newcombe on behalf of the Museum’s ethnographic collections. However, hereditary Chief Snuxyaltwa wasn’t aware of its existence until a few years ago. After filing a complaint with the BC Supreme Court in early 2022 that the Museum were taking no steps to return the totem pole, the Museum finally agreed its repatriation. Chief Snuxyaltwa told the Canadian media his great-grandfather’s spirit, remaining inside the totem pole, can now rest upon its return to the Nuxalk nation.
Saskatoon.ctvnews

Hyperallergic

Cambodia celebrates the return of 77 looted gold relics from the collection of Douglas J Latchford

February 2023

The return of a hoard of 77 gold relics from the collection of disgraced antiquities dealer Douglas J Latchford was celebrated in Cambodia’s capital, Phnom Penh this month. The hoard includes jewel-encrusted diadems worn by Angkor royalty, belts and necklaces woven from fine gold filaments, and body ornaments shaped into rosettes and scrolling vines. The return of these items amounts to “getting back the crown jewels of the Angkor Empire”, according to Had Touch, secretary of state with Cambodia’s Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts. The gold appears to have been looted from ancient temples and burial grounds; it’s also believed that some of this gold adorned the earliest Angkorian kings who founded the Khmer Empire (802 to 1431). "We did not know these items existed,” said Touch. “This is much more than what is in our museum.” Each of the items came from Latchford’s own large collection of Cambodian antiquities. Research indicates that he bought many of them directly from the leaders of organised looting gangs, or from dealers in Thailand who bought from the same gangs. Latchford was indicted by the U.S. Justice Department on charges of illegally trading in Cambodian cultural artefacts in November 2019 but died before standing trial. His daughter and heir, Nawapan Kriangsak, agreed to return his collection. This hoard of gold formed part of that agreement, but its return to Cambodia was delayed by security and customs issues.
ArtDaily

The Smithsonian will return 77 looted objects to the Republic of Yemen, but only once the situation in Yemen improves

February 2023

Seized from a New York art dealer more than a decade ago and held in storage ever since, it’s been announced that a collection of 77 looted artefacts will be returned to the government of the Republic of Yemen. But not yet. Yemen is still to emerge from an humanitarian crisis and an 8-year civil war. “It is not the right time to bring the objects back into the country,” said Mohammed Al-Hadhrami, Yemen’s ambassador to the U.S. For the next two years at least, the objects will be housed at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Asian Art in Washington D.C. The objects include 65 funerary stelae from Northwest Yemen, dating to the first half of the first millennium B.C., a bronze bowl and 11 folios from early Qurans. The initial two-year agreement, which Yemen can request to extend, enables the Smithsonian to store, document and care for the objects. They will be able to exhibit the collection, “to foster a greater understanding of ancient Yemeni art,” according to a museum statement. The objects had been smuggled into the U.S. via the United Arab Emirates sometime between 2008 and 2009 by Mousa Khouli, also known as Morris Khouli. Khouli operated from the now defunct Windsor Antiquities Gallery. He pleaded guilty to smuggling in 2012.
ArtDaily

Vatican City signs agreement to return three fragments of sculpture from the Parthenon

08 March 2023

At a special ceremony held at the Vatican, an agreement was signed to return three 2,500-year-old sculpture fragments removed from the Parthenon - the heads of a horse, a bearded man and a boy. The sculptures have been in the Vatican Museums’ collection for the last 200 years. Pope Francis announced plans to return these sculptures last December. At this ceremony in March, it was confirmed the transfer to the Acropolis Museum in Athens will take place on 24 March 2023. This latest repatriation of a fragment of sculpture from the Parthenon follows an agreement made by the Antonino Salinas Regional Archaeological Museum in Palermo, Sicily, in January 2022 to return their marble fragment from the Parthenon (the foot of a goddess). Papamikroulis Emmanouil, attending the ceremony on behalf of the head of the Greek Orthodox Church, said the restitution marked “a historic event”, adding that he hoped Pope Francis’ gesture would “be imitated by others”.
The Art Newspaper

The remains of nine Indigenous people are being returned by the Netherlands to the Dutch Caribbean island of Sint Eustatius

16 March 2023

Between 1984 and 1989, while excavating a site at the airport on the small Dutch Caribbean island of Sint Eustatius (also known as Statia), the archaeologist Aad Versteeg uncovered bone fragments belonging to nine Indigenous people. Some of the objects his team excavated dated back to the 5th century. Versteeg was excavating on behalf of the Archaeological Centre of the Leiden State University in the Netherlands and the Archaeological-Anthropological Institute of the Netherlands Antilles on Curacao. All the materials his team uncovered were shipped back to the Netherlands for further study. Since then, a restitution project for the Statia government and community has been identifying objects that should be returned to the island. The remains of the nine Indigenous people were returned to Statia in March. Other artefacts, including boxes of ceramics and coral, will be returned later in 2023. The government is also planning to recover a collection of Statian artefacts at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia.
The Art Newspaper

Turkey loses its attempt to recover an ancient marble idol known as the ‘Stargazer’ but succeeds in recovering objects from New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art

March 2023

The Republic of Turkey is having mixed fortunes in its attempts to recover its cultural heritage. A New York court ruled this month against Turkey’s latest attempt to recover a nine-inch marble idol known as the ‘Stargazer’. For the time being, the idol remains in the collection of hedge fund billionaire Michael Steinhardt. Turkey’s government has been trying to recover this 6,000-year-old idol for several years. Their first attempt failed when they tried to sue the auction house Christie’s and Steinhardt when the idol was offered for sale in 2017. They were thwarted again in 2021 when Alison J. Nathan of Manhattan’s District Court ruled they couldn’t recover the object. Nathan claimed that Turkey had “slept on its rights” in its wait to make a claim. In their latest attempt this March, Judge Raymond Lohier in a New York court denied their appeal on grounds the country had not sufficiently proven ownership of the object.

Meanwhile, Turkey has had greater success recovering twelve objects looted from their country, some of which were held by New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art. Investigations by Manhattan District Attorney’s Office traced some of these objects to the looting activities that took place in 1967 at two archaeological sites in Turkey - Perge and Bubon. Recovering objects looted from Bubon has been a major goal of the Turkish government. The Met subsequently acquired two items linked to these illicit excavations at Bubon: a bronze head of Emperor Caracalla c. 211 A.D.) and a 7-foot bronze headless statue of Septimius Severus (c. 225 A.D.). The statue of Severus has been a major exhibit in the Met’s Greek and Roman galleries.
The Art Newspaper

ArtDaily

Hyperallergic

Glasgow: a leader in repatriations since 1998

Tue, 28 Mar 2023 09:40:12 GMT

Facing a growing number of claims for repatriation, Glasgow took the crucial but unusual decision for a City Council in 1998 to set up a cross-party working group to help the city develop a more strategic approach to returning contested artefacts. Since then, Glasgow has claimed leadership in the UK's repatriation of stolen or sacred items.

The city made Scotland’s first ever recorded repatriation in 1990, when the City Council agreed to return a collection of human skulls removed from North Queensland, Australia. After this event, claims on Glasgow to return artefacts from other communities in different parts of the world began to mount up.

The most prominent were appeals made over several years to return a sacred Lakota Ghost Dance shirt, thought to have been worn at the Battle of Wounded Knee in 1890 (see here for more details). The historical significance of this shirt, which had been on exhibition at Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum since 1960, was first identified by a visitor to the museum in 1992. Six years after the first appeal was launched to return this shirt, the Council’s Arts and Culture Committee decided it was time to initiate a formal process to resolve this along with other restitution claims.

After extensive consultations and based on the advice of the newly formed working group, the Council approved the working group’s recommendation to return the sacred Ghost Dance shirt to the Lakota Sioux Indians of South Dakota. In 1999, the shirt was handed back at the site of the Wounded Knee massacre.

Although the working group lost its momentum after 2007, it was reinstated with a new vigour in August 2021 after Nigeria approached the city to repatriate several Benin artefacts held in Glasgow collections. Explaining the Council’s reason for re-establishing the Working Group for Repatriation and Spoliation, Cllr David McDonald said the initiative would again provide the city’s collections with “an informed civic forum” through which recommendations for repatriation can be channelled.

A total of 29 Benin artefacts are held in Glasgow collections, of which 17 are understood to be directly connected to the looting that took place at Benin City in 1897. The provenance of the other Benin items is less clear (see here for more details).

Once again, in April 2022 the Council’s City Administration Committee agreed to accept the recommendation of the working group to repatriate 17 of these Benin objects, suggesting the cost to Glasgow of returning them would be around £30,000. However, there’s still no confirmation when these objects are likely to be heading home. A delegation from Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments (NCMM) visited Glasgow in June 2022 to discuss the transfer of ownership. However, it later became clear the objects will remain in Glasgow as "loans" or “until such time as transit is requested by NCMM or becomes practicable”.

At the same April 2022 Committee meeting, approval was also given for the repatriation of seven antiquities to India, together with 25 further objects to the Cheyenne River Sioux and Oglala Sioux tribes of South Dakota.

The seven Indian items - the first ever repatriation by a UK museums service to India - include an 11th century carved stone door jamb forcibly removed from a Hindu temple in Kanpur and a ceremonial Indo-Persian tulwar (sword) which may date back to the 14th century. All seven objects had been donated to Glasgow’s civic museum collections. A transfer of ownership ceremony took place at the Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum in August 2022 and their formal transfer into the hands of the Archaeological Survey of India was completed in January 2023. This time, the Indian government agreed to meet the full costs of repatriation.

There are several key elements to Glasgow’s ongoing restitution process. The first is the importance given to the need for wider consultation, instead of relying exclusively on their own museum boards and executives. This has involved reaching out and being open to the views of other museum officials, arts bodies and independent experts. The decisions of the working group have also been encouraged by the support they’ve received following media coverage of the major restitution claims. The support from the general public following media coverage of the Ghost Dance shirt played a key part in their decision to repatriate.

A commitment to maintain relationships with communities or origin is a second key element in Glasgow’s chosen process. The city’s ongoing relationship with the South Dakota Heritage Center, to which the Ghost Dance shirt had been returned 23 years earlier, was a factor in Glasgow’s willingness to repatriate a further 25 Lakota and Octet Sakowin ancestor and cultural items in 2022, items which Glasgow City museums had held in their collections since 1892. The cost of these repatriations is estimated at around £40,000.

Photo: A carved stele representing Surya, the Hindu deity of the sun

Courtesy of Glasgow Museums Collection

This party’s not for turning

Sat, 18 Mar 2023 15:06:25 GMT

Now Rishi Sunak has fallen into line with other Conservative prime ministers by dismissing any prospect the United Kingdom is about to return ownership of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece.

Speaking to reporters en route to this week’s major summit on defence and security in San Diego, California, Sunak was unequivocal in stressing their importance as “a huge asset to this country.”

Cared for by the British Museum, Sunak insisted: “We share their treasures with the world, and the world comes to the UK to see them. The collection of the British Museum is protected by law and we have no plans to change it.”

According to The Guardian , the Prime Minister went on to say that a long-term loan would not be in the spirit of the government’s position. This is despite secret talks about a new long-term cultural partnership agreement held last year between British Museum chairman George Osborne and senior Greek officials, including Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis.

Osborne himself played a key role as Chancellor in the premiership of David Cameron (2010-2016), who faced a call in 2011 to put right a 200-year wrong by returning the sculptures. “I’m afraid I don’t agree,” replied Cameron answering a question in the Commons from Liberal Democrat MP, Andrew George. “The short answer is that we’re not going to lose them.”

Seven years later, Cameron’s successor Theresa May (2016-2019) batted away a fresh attempt to return the Marbles from newly-appointed Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras. She referred Greece’s premier to the role of the British Museum’s trustees as guardians of the Museum’s interconnected world collection. The Parthenon Marbles are “a part of the world’s shared heritage and transcend political boundaries,” according to the trustees in a statement they published on the Museum’s website.

The premiership of the philhellene Boris Johnson, an ardent classicist who potentially was more likely than any other Conservative prime minister to sympathise with the Greek appeal for restitution, proved how often political expediency can overtake personal persuasions. Johnson’s student rhetoric in favour of returning the Marbles quickly swung into a reverse gear when he became Mayor of London:

“Much as I sympathise with the case for restitution to Athens, I feel that on balance I must defend the interests of London.”

Boris Johnson

Johnson went on to spend his three-year tenure as prime minister (2019-2022) insisting it is the British Museum’s trustees and not the UK government who are responsible for deciding if the Parthenon Marbles are ever returned to Greece. “The British Museum operates independently of the government,” repeated Lord Parkinson, Britain’s Minister for the Arts, “meaning that decisions relating to the care and management of its collections are a matter for its trustees.” However, this position conveniently ignored the requirement of government to overturn the existing legislation that legally prevents the trustees from returning the Marbles. Parliament’s role remains critical.

You’d imagine there was barely enough time in her 45 days as prime minister for Liz Truss to express her support for retaining the Marbles. But she still found time during an interview she gave on GB News in October 2022 when she said she doesn’t share the views of George Osborne there’s a “deal to be done” over a possible loan agreement with Greece.

Which brings us to Rishi Sunak’s latest intervention. As the UK's fifth prime minister in the last thirteen years, it would seem that nothing has changed at the very top of the Conservative party. A refusal to budge on ownership remains absolute; even a loan of the sculptures is looking unlikely. So, why is this rant important? Without the emphatic support of the party leadership and without the time allocated in parliament to debate the rights or wrongs of restoring the sculptures to Athens, the best travails of Greek officials under this present government are likely to lead nowhere. Ultimately, the Marbles will be returned to Greece. Right now though, this Conservative party is not for turning.

Photo: Marble figures from the East pediment of the Parthenon. British Museum

COLOMBIA

lewismcnaught@hotmail.com (Lewis McNaught) — Sun, 19 Feb 2023 13:32:54 GMT

COLOMBIA

Updated February 2023

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made to Colombia, together with other restitution news.

Entries are updated regularly.

February 2023

After many years of inaction, the Colombian government is demanding the return of 35 sculptures from the San Agustin culture, currently in the collections of Berlin's Humboldt Forum.

Hyperallergic

Monthly News Digest January 2023

Sat, 11 Feb 2023 18:30:58 GMT

Much ado about the Parthenon Marbles

January 2023

Not a week went by in January without feverish speculation on the fate of the Parthenon Marbles. And it shows no sign of letting up in February. We've expressed our own concern that much of this speculation is unwarranted . But this didn’t stop one article after another speculating on different outcomes. Adopting a cautious approach, The Guardian’s report on secret talks referenced chairman George Osborne’s “willingness to strike a deal to break the deadlock over the highly contested sculptures.” But a few weeks later Artnet News was reporting that Greece had rejected outright the prospect of a “long-term loan”. Instead, senior Greek ministers were repeating their belief the British Museum has no right to speak of loans as they are not the legitimate owners of the sculptures. At the end of the month, a more thoughtful and nuanced approach emerged in an op-ed by Charlotte Higgins in The Guardian. Dispelling the narrow thinking of UK politicians, the article asked us to consider whether an act of restitution can be regarded “not as a loss, but as a gain”. Higgins concludes with a personal observation on the shifting ground: “what I do know is that to break the impasse, the usual ways of thinking, and the usual ways of framing ideas about cultural restitution, are going to have to change”.

The Guardian

Artnet News

The Guardian

Emma Bunker’s role in the smuggling and falsification of Cambodian artefacts has been exposed

05 January 2023

Further investigations into the notorious art trafficker Douglas Latchford have thrown light on the role played by Emma Bunker, who died in 2021 aged 90. A 'low profile' expert on Chinese and central Asian art, Bunker nevertheless collaborated with Latchford on the falsification of records and provenance information that he used to achieve high prices for looted sculptures and artefacts. Bunker travelled to Cambodia and Thailand with Latchford and together they published three books that are now used to track down missing objects. At the time Bunker was thanked by officials in Phnom Penh for her work on behalf of Cambodian culture.

The Art Newspaper

Glasgow Life Museums return seven objects to India in the first-ever repatriation by a UK museum service to India

11 January 2023

Following the agreement forged during a visit by dignitaries from the High Commission of India in London to Glasgow Life in August 2022, seven objects from the Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum have been transferred into the hands of the Archaeological Survey of India (see Glasgow: Determined to expose and address colonial injustice ). Six of these objects were stolen from shrines and temples across India in the 19th century. Among the objects returning are a ceremonial Indo-Persian ‘tulwar’ (sword) dating to the 14th century and an 11th century carved stone door jamb removed from a Hindu temple in Kanpur. All seven objects had been gifted to Glasgow’s civic museum collections.

Glasgow Life Museums and the High Commission of India have been negotiating the return of these seven objects since January 2021. “The physical return of these Indian items marks a milestone for Glasgow,” said Bailie Annette Christie, Chair of Glasgow Life. “Glasgow has led international repatriation efforts since 1998, when an agreement was reached to return the Lakota Sacred Ghost Dance shirt to the Wounded Knee Survivor’s Association.” The Indian government has agreed to meet the full costs of repatriation.

Museums+Heritage Advisor

London’s Hunterian Museum has decided to retain the skeleton of Irish ‘giant’ Charles Byrne, taken from Ireland in 1783, despite appeals for its return

13 January 2023

On public display for more than 200 years, the skeleton of Charles Byrne, an Irish ‘giant’ who grew to 7ft 6in will be removed from public view when the Hunterian Museum in London reopens in March this year. But the Museum continues to resist calls for its repatriation to Ireland where it could be buried, according to some, in compliance with his documented wishes. Acquired by John Hunter following Byrne’s death aged 22 in 1783, the skeleton is the best-known anatomical specimen in Hunter’s collection. The Museum maintains that further research on the skeleton could throw further light on our understanding of Byrne’s medical conditions. Others disagree. In a statement to the Daily Mail , Len Doyal, emeritus professor of medical ethics at London’s Queen Mary University and Thomas Muinzer, a lawyer at the University of Aberdeen said: “We can see no justification for the Hunterian to retain the skeleton for ‘further research’; there is no obvious justification for this since DNA from the skeleton has been obtained and it is entirely unclear what further research the Hunterian has in mind.”

Museums Association

The return of a 2,700 year-old ‘cosmetic spoon’ to representatives of the Palestinian Authority is the first repatriation by the US to a Palestinian government

13 January 2023

The return by US officials of a looted Assyrian ivory ‘cosmetic spoon dating to between 800 and 700 B.C. was described by the chief of the US Office of Palestinian Affairs, George Noll, as “a historic moment between the American and Palestinian people and a demonstration of our belief in the power of cultural exchanges in building mutual understanding, respect and partnership.”

Probably originating from Hebron in the West Bank, the spoon first surfaced on the international art market in January 2003 when it was purchased from an Israeli antiquities dealer by Michael H. Steinhardt, a major collector in antiquities. The Israeli dealer, who sold at least 28 ancient artefacts to Steinhardt, is now known to have dealt in hundreds of stolen Israeli and Middle Eastern objects. Steinhardt’s own collection has been the subject of a lengthy investigation by Matthew Bogdanos, chief of New York district attorney’s Antiquities Trafficking Unit. Investigators seized 180 stolen artefacts valued at $70 million from Steinhardt who has agreed to a lifetime ban on acquiring antiquities.

ArtDaily

France’s Ministry of Culture is pushing forward with three new framework laws designed to return contested objects and human remains

18 January 2023

Ever since 2017 when President Emmanuel Macron trumpeted his famous pledge to return African objects taken by force, we’ve been waiting for French acts of restitution. However, despite the report published in 2018 by Sarr and Savoy recommending the permanent return of any object taken by force or presumed to be acquired through inequitable conditions and despite France’s return of 27 objects to Benin and Senegal in 2019, there’s been conspicuously little progress….that is, until now.

This week, France’s ministry of culture announced the introduction of three new laws that will set in place the frameworks needed to kickstart the process of returning other contested objects and human remains held in France’s national collections. Although able to vote on returning objects on a case-by-case basis, the ability of the French parliament to agree large-scale returns has been impeded by domestic legislation which ensures that objects entering French national collections are deemed inalienable by law. If approved by parliament later this year, French culture minister Rima Abdul-Malak believes the three new laws will accelerate France’s restitution process, enabling cultural objects and human remains to be returned without the need to revert each time to parliament. Instead, the case for returning objects will be considered by a committee, comprising French officials and representatives of the source country making the appeal. The three laws include one aimed at returning human remains, a second to address artworks removed from Jewish families during the Nazi era, and a third to consider the restitution of art objects, including those from France’s colonial period. “I hope 2023 will be a year of decisive progress for restitutions,” said Abdul-Malak in her annual New Year speech on 16 January 2022.

Artnet News

A Guatemalan heritage group demands the return of an ancient Maya throne on loan to New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art

18 January 2023

The Guatemalan Collective for the Defence of Heritage has written a public letter to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York demanding they return an eighth-century Maya throne. The throne was sent to New York by the Guatemalan government for restoration and for display in a loan exhibition. But this heritage group, along with other Indigenous communities, say that Guatemalan law prohibits the export of artefacts for exhibition. They claim the Guatemalan government broke its own law when it negotiated a rare temporary export license as part of an arrangement for the conservation and exhibition of Maya works. Throne I , together with a panel dated to the same period, are on exhibition in Lives of the Gods: Divinity in Maya Art and will be returned to Guatemala when the exhibition closes on 2 April 2023.

The Art Newspaper

Berlin officials deny there are plans to return the bust of Nefertiti and the Pergamon Altar to their countries of origin

20 January 2023

Berlin officials have been forced to deny there are plans to return the bust of Nefertiti to Egypt and the Pergamon Altar to Turkey, two of the most popular attractions in Berlin’s museums. Interviewed last month by the German publication Tagesspiegel , Saraya Gomis, deputy to Berlin’s senator for justice, diversity and anti-discrimination, said “All the cultural assets from other regions of the world do not belong to us, they are here illegally.” While she acknowledged that returning the Nefertiti bust or the Pergamon Altar was not her decision to make, a spokesperson for Berlin’s Ministry of Justice clarified responsibilities with The Art Newspaper, confirming “such questions, as well as possible future dealings between Egypt and Germany, lie in the responsibility of the federal German Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”

The Art Newspaper

A ceremonial spear is the fifth cultural artefact returned by a Dutch non-profit foundation to the palace of Klungkung in Bali, Indonesia

26 January 2023

Yayasan Bali Bersih/Westerlaken Foundation, a Dutch non-profit organisation, has returned a fifth cultural artefact to Puri Klungkung (the palace of Klungkung) in the Indonesian island of Bali. The ‘tombak’ (a ceremonial spear) is the fourth tombak identified and returned by the Westerlaken Foundation. Two others were returned in 2019 and another in 2020. A fifth cultural object, another distinctive form of Indonesian dagger known as a ‘kris’, was also returned to Puri Klungkung in 2020. This latest tombak was identified when offered for auction in Germany. Yayasan Bali Bersih acquired the spear at the auction before returning it to Puri Klungkung.

Westerlaken Foundation

A gold tooth belonging to the pan-African nationalist Patrice Lumumba is returned by Belgium to the Democratic Republic of Congo

27 January 2023

A news story published by the London Financial Times in January reports that a single gold-capped molar belonging to the mutilated body of Patrice Lumumba, the pan-African nationalist and first democratically elected prime minister of the Democratic Republic of Congo, was returned to the DRC by Belgium in June 2022. Lumumba was prime minister for less than three months before being deposed in a coup supported by the former colonial power and the US. He was shot to death by firing squad on January 17, 1961 in the presence of Belgian officials. The body of Lumumba, along with two of his colleagues, is understood to have been cut into pieces before being dissolved in vats of sulphuric acid. However, the Belgian police commissioner responsible for disposing of Lumumba’s body removed two of his teeth. One came to light in 2015 when the commissioner’s daughter revealed one during the visit of a Belgian sociologist researching a book on the murder. It took four years before a Belgian court finally gave permission for the tooth to be returned to the DRC where it will be buried. It’s believed the burial of a single body part allows the soul to rest in peace.

The Financial Times

INDONESIA

Mon, 06 Feb 2023 11:06:41 GMT

REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA

Updated January 2025

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made to Indonesia, together with other

restitution news. Entries are updated regularly.

January 2025

Six month project,'Representing Papua: Portrayal of Culture from Local, National and Global Perspectives', fosters an international dialogue on the representation and repatriation of Papuan culture

Tracingpatterns.org

August 2023

Experts query the readiness and safety of returning artefacts from The Netherlands amid fears of heists and lax museum security

South China Morning Post

January 2022

A Dutch non-profit foundation has returned a fifth cultural artefact, a tombak (spear), to Puri Klungkung (the palace of Klungkung) in Bali

Westerlaken Foundation

MAA Cambridge repositions its relationship with Ugandan artefacts

Tue, 20 Dec 2022 11:38:42 GMT

The University of Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (MAA) became one of the first museums in the UK to return artefacts to a source country when it returned a group of sacred relics to Uganda in 1961.

The relics were associated with Kibuuka, a deity in the religion of the Baganda people that reside in present-day Uganda. After the Ugandan government requested their repatriation, the relics were transferred to the Uganda Museum in Kampala, the oldest museum in East Africa.

Since then, relations between the MMA and Uganda have remained strong, although Professor Nicholas Thomas, Director of the MMA, has acknowledged the Museum was slow to follow up on this important 1961 initiative. But relations were re-energised in 2021 when a project called ‘Repositioning the Uganda Museum’ was launched on the back of a grant of $100,000 from the arts and humanities organisation The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

With University of Michigan Professor Derek Peterson serving as principal investigator, the project has become an important step in undoing the legacy of collecting during Uganda’s colonial era, allowing for a renewed academic dialogue and the return of items of exceptional significance. Professor Thomas hopes this carefully conceived programme may also provide a model for similar initiatives elsewhere in Africa, “and indeed elsewhere in the world.”

The process for researching and selecting objects from Cambridge collections began in 2022 and included a visit to the MAA in November by Uganda’s Commissioner for Monuments and Museums, Rose Mwanja Nkaale, Uganda Museum’s Curator, Nelson Abiti, and Professor Peterson.

“We want to put these objects back into the hands of people who made them meaningful,” said Peterson. “We want them to live again, not only as museum pieces but as part of Uganda’s public culture.”

The objects were acquired by British colonial administrators, missionaries, anthropologists and soldiers in a variety of ways during the 1890s and early 1900s, including confiscation, theft, gift and purchase. Several items were donated to the Museum by Apolo Kaggwa, Katikiro (Prime Minister) of the Kingdom of Buganda. Other donors include British colonial officials Sir Harry Hamilton Johnston, Ernest Balfour Haddon, Frank Rogers, John Gilbert Rubie and the Anglian Missionary Arthur Bryan Fisher. However, most of the items likely to be transferred were collected and donated to the MAA by Rev. John Roscoe (1861-1932), an Anglican missionary who spent twenty-five years travelling in East Africa conducting anthropological research, partly under the direction of the MAA. Highlights of the objects he subsequently donated to the Museum, but not kept on exhibition, include a Bugandan royal drum and a musical instrument.

Musical Instrument. Bagesu people. Courtesy of Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology

The MAA says it is fully aware of the significance of the Roscoe collection as well as other material to the Uganda Museum and fully support this repatriation initiative. Meanwhile, explaining the significance of this grant, the first of its kind towards restitution, commissioner Rose Mwanja Nkaale said: “Bringing these items back - and attracting those from around the diaspora to see them on the continent - will also help people come to terms with their own collective memory, celebrate their rich histories and identities, and be able to pass this on to future generations.”

The transfer of ownership of the selected objects and their repatriation for community liaison, study and exhibition at the Uganda Museum is scheduled for completion in 2023.

After this was written...

The team from MAA with 39 artefacts chosen by colleagues from the Uganda Museum finally arrived at Entebbe airport on Saturday 8 June 2024. The artefacts were those selected during the research visit made to Cambridge in November 2022 and were chosen to represent the heritage, history and beliefs of diverse Kingdoms and communities in Uganda, including Acholi, Ankole, Baganda, Bahima, Bakedi, Banyoro and Teso.

The artefacts selected include a Lubaale vessel from Buganda (acquired 1907), decorated pots from Ankole (acquired in the 1920s) and a headdress made of human hair from Lango (acquired 1937).

According to a spokesperson from the MAA, the artefacts returning "are part of a long-term loan to the Uganda Museum to support a programme of research into the history and significance of the artefacts. This in turn will help to inform any decisions about their future care and interpretation." The loan is for an initial three-year period, meaning all the items will remain part of the MAA collection. However, we understand the loan is renewable and may lead to a permanent transfer of ownership.

The MAA has also expressed its pride "working with our partners in the country to explore their provenance and reconnect them with the Ugandan people." Curators in Cambridge expect to continue to visit Uganda to support the development of their research programme and to assist with a major exhibition of the artefacts in 2025.

The President of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni, was on hand to receive the returning artefacts. Other Ugandan officials have expressed their hope this repatriation will encourage other museums to appreciate the value of returning artefacts from Uganda in their collections. Uganda is especially keen to repatriate the unique terracotta head of woman or man, known as the Luzira head, a sculpture possibly from Baganda, thought to be 1,000 years old and discovered in 1929 on the outskirts of Kampala. It was acquired by the British Museum in 1931.

Photo: Uganda Museum, Kampala

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Returning the Parthenon Marbles… Really?

Thu, 08 Dec 2022 11:58:36 GMT

Last week, newspaper headlines claimed that progress is being made in talks to return the Parthenon Marbles. But I’m not convinced that confidence in their complete recovery by Greece is warranted.

A new ‘cultural partnership’ between Greece and the British Museum is certainly a possibility; a rotation of the Marbles may also be on the agenda. But a full transfer of title of the British Museum’s greatest asset - whether you agree such a transfer must take place or not – is surely a risk too far for the Museum’s trustees. It can only intensify pressure on the Museum to return other treasured assets. And there’s no sign of the Government or the Museum prepared to do that.

So, what do we think is really happening? Putting aside the moral, nationalistic and ethical arguments in favour of repatriation, can we be certain both parties are engaging seriously enough to deliver a lasting solution, or is the British Museum engaging in a diplomatic quick step?

Last week, in an exclusive report the Greek newspaper Ta Nea confirmed that serious discussions are moving forward, claiming significant progress has been made in a series of “behind-the-scenes” meetings between senior Greek and British Museum officials. Apparently, meetings have been taking place in secret over the past twelve months. Some of them at Greece's embassy in London; the most recent was held just weeks ago at the five-star Berkeley Hotel in Knightsbridge, where George Osborne chair of the British Museum’s trustees met for private talks with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis.

“The return of Phidias’s masterpieces to Greece was the only topic on the agenda of these meetings”

Ta Nea official source

While a Greek official cautioned “we cannot rule out that talks might hit a stalemate at the eleventh hour”, Greek officials believe the discussion went well. “We’ve come a long way,” the official said. “However, some matters remain pending. We agree on a lot, but there are also points of disagreement.”

One of the major points of disagreement must involve the issue of who really owns the Marbles. A political and legal solution to this two hundred-year dispute has so far proven out of reach. Therefore, unless the British Museum and the Government are prepared to relinquish complete ownership of all or some of these ancient sculptures, any future accord must involve Greece agreeing some form of renewable loan agreement without a transfer of legal title. Greece has always insisted that nothing less than full ownership is acceptable. Relaxing this condition would represent a major concession by Greece.

The British Museum says it has always been prepared to loan sculptures from their Parthenon collection. They support this claim by pointing to at least one loan arrangement of a Parthenon sculpture made in 2014. That year they loaned a statue of the river goddess Ilissos to an exhibition in the State Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg. The arrangement provoked outrage at the time with the then Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaris, who pointed out the loan effectively ended the Museum’s argument that the sculptures were immovable.

Mitsotakis, Greece’s current Prime Minister, has shown the same determination to complete a deal and has stated publicly he will use “every means” possible to achieve his country’s long-held ambition for the complete recovery of the Marbles. Meeting with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in November 2021, Mitsotakis introduced the idea of providing the British Museum with rotating loan exhibitions of major Greek antiquities in exchange for transferring title of the Marbles.

Offering to swap treasures is a Greek strategy that appears to be working. Greece continues to maintain that a loan of the Marbles is not sufficient, but earlier this year, Greece recovered a marble fragment of a foot removed from the Parthenon, held by a museum in Palermo, Sicily. Negotiations started on the basis of a four-year loan agreement and an exchange of the foot for other Greek antiquities. But within five months, the Greeks had secured legal title and the foot has now been reattached to the figure of a goddess in the Acropolis Museum.

Greek officials were probably hoping to follow the same Palermo loan model with the British Museum. But they weren’t so lucky negotiating with Johnson, who side-stepped Mitsotakis’ proposal, insisting “this matter is one for the trustees of the British Museum.”

That argument continues to be spurious. Of course, the trustees can agree some form of loan, but even if they did feel compelled to return the Marbles on a permanent basis, the Museum’s governing Act prevents them from doing so. The very few exemptions in the British Museum Act 1963 that permit disposals do not apply to the Marbles. So, as only Parliament can amend this Act, the ability of the Museum’s trustees to decide the Marbles' future is well and truly neutered. The decision continues to rest in the hands of members of both houses of parliament. It's hard to discern which way each house would vote, even harder knowing that former culture ministers do one thing while in office and say a completely different thing after leaving office.

Nevertheless, after more than twelve months of secret discussions, the mood does appear to have changed and if the Ta Nea report is accurate that secret discussions are continuing, then some form of new Parthenon partnership may still be on the agenda.

Certainly hopes were raised among pro-return campaigners when George Osborne took over the chair of the Museum’s trustees in June 2021 and adopted a marked change in tone. Interviewed on LBC Radio one year after his appointment, Osborne suggested “there is a deal to be done” over the Marbles if “we both approach this without a load of preconditions, without a load of red lines.”

However, he was careful not to specify what those preconditions and red lines might be.

But there's further evidence the British Museum is prepared, using their own words, to “change the temperature of the debate”. Museum rhetoric began to shift after a British delegation to a UNESCO meeting in September 2021 came under attack from other countries for the UK’s failure to sit down and negotiate with Greece. The UK was recommended “to reconsider its stand and proceed to a bona fide dialogue with Greece on the matter [of the Parthenon Marbles]”.

Directly after that meeting, the British Museum’s deputy director Jonathan Williams introduced a more conciliatory approach, confirming “There is space for a really dynamic and positive conversation.”

Where exactly that dynamic and positive conversation is leading is still unclear. Could it perhaps lead to a solution that side-steps the ownership issue and involves a series of renewable loans? Recent events have not been encouraging for Greece.

While the Museum’s immediate post-UNESCO rhetoric may suggested some form of partnership is still a possibility, any optimism was dashed last month when Osborne gave a speech at the Museum’s annual trustee dinner. There he made it clear that complete repatriation and transfer of ownership is not on the table. Dismantling the collection, said Osborne, “must not become the careless act of a single generation.”

At a stroke, Osborne appears to have retreated into the spirit and letter of the British Museum’s governing Act and its historic intransigence against all repatriations - even those few permitted under the existing Act. Osborne has also retreated into the policy position of present ministers of state, who on multiple occasions this year have spoken out against returning artefacts and remain against any revision of heritage legislation.

I’m not surprised by Osborne’s apparent volte face . After all, one of the priorities he was given when appointed as chairman is to raise money for the Museum’s ambitious and radical “Rosetta Project”, a major development programme to overhaul the Museum’s ageing fabric and infrastructure. The Bloomsbury gallery spaces are badly in need of repair and one of the reasons why the Museum has struggled to defend its stewardship of the Marbles is the visibly decrepit condition of the galleries where the sculptures are displayed. A leaking roof has led to frequent closures of the galleries where the Parthenon sculptures and other treasures are displayed.

Among its other objectives, the Rosetta Project, forecast to cost around £1 billion, could help strengthen the Museum’s hold over the Marbles, as well as its other great treasures, by improving their display. At the same time, the Museum also aims to “pioneer new ways of working in partnership with our networks, nationally and internationally,” according to Osborne’s predecessor as chair, Richard Lambert.

So, this doesn’t seem the right moment for Osborne to negotiate away one of the Museum’s greatest assets, just as he sets out to raise the money to improve their access and display.

Put simply, the Museum has too much else to lose if it yields up ownership of any object from the Parthenon collection. In particular, they risk a deluge of demands from other nations like Nigeria and Ethiopia who will leap on this precedent to demand the return of items where claims for repatriation are even stronger.

So what form of partnership arrangement might the Museum consider?

Perhaps Lambert’s words provide a clue. There’s undoubtedly a “partnership opportunity” for a long-term sharing arrangement for a selection of sculptures with the Acropolis Museum and, in particular, while British Museum spaces are undergoing refurbishment. Rotating loans of Greek antiquities, such as the gold funerary mask of King Agamemnon offered by Prime Minister Mitsotakis in exchange for loans of metopes and statues to fill the voids in the Acropolis Museum, is also an attractive proposition for the British Museum.

If the concept of a "loan" is a sticking point for Greece, then an arrangement could be dressed up as a "cultural partnership". Last July, London's V&A completed just such a partnership when they returned an ancient head to the Istanbul Archaeology Museum on the basis of a long-term renewable loan.

But it's still hard to believe the question of title can be removed altogether from these negotiations - hard to ignore and hard to eliminate for either nation. Discussions may well have “come a long way” and renewable loans may still be on the cards if the issue of ownership can be eliminated from a final agreement. Otherwise, don’t be surprised if this single issue continues to thwart Greece’s ambition to recover full title over the Marbles and scupper this present round of negotiations.

After this was written.....

Press speculation about returning the Marbles continued into January 2023, when The Daily Telegraph reported George Osborne "is understood to have drawn up an agreement in which the antiquities would be repatriated as part of a 'cultural exchange'" (04 Jan 2023). The paper suggests the arrangement "may start with a small token loan", but also recognises this "gesture" is unlikely to end the long-running dispute.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's 'The Media Show', Culture Minister Michelle Donelan was clear that reports Osborne was preparing to return some of the Marbles was "not his intention" - the Parthenon Marbles "belong here in the UK". Returning the sculptures would "open the gateway to the question of the entire contents of our museums," she added.

Photo: The Parthenon, Acropolis, Athens

Courtesy of Anna Oikonomou

STATE OF PALESTINE

Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:12:37 GMT

STATE OF PALESTINE

Updated November 2022

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made to Palestine, together with other restitution news. Entries are updated regularly.

November 2022

Palestine calls for return of the Shellal Mosaic, removed by Australian and New Zealand soldiers in 1917, which Israel claims should be returned to them

ABCnews

ZIMBABWE

Mon, 14 Nov 2022 12:25:56 GMT

ZIMBABWE

Updated May 2023

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made to Zimbabwe, together with other restitution news. Entries are updated regularly.

May 2023

Bring Back Our Bones, a campaigning group that aims to recover the missing remains of heroes of the Zimbabwean uprising in the 1890s, has appealed for the return of Mbuya Nehanda's skull

New Zimbabwe

November 2022

President of Zimbabwe has offered to swap the remains of Cecil Rhodes, who is buried in Zimbabwe, for the skulls of resistance fighters held in UK museums

The Voice

An “inventive collaboration” or a stitch up?

Tue, 08 Nov 2022 14:42:14 GMT

When is a restitution not a restitution? When an object's ownership is transferred, but not its possession?

Last week, an important group of fifteen Cycladic antiquities from the collection of New York businessman Leonard Stern was placed on temporary exhibition at the private Cycladic-Goulandris Museum in Athens (also known as the Museum of Cycladic Art). The exhibition is part of an elaborate new arrangement, concocted by multiple parties but with the endorsement of the Greek Government. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York will be able to exhibit the collection for at least the next 25 years. The New York Times described the arrangement as “an inventive collaboration”.

But the archaeological and heritage communities that gathered outside the Museum’s gates last week took a different view. They believe the deal violates several aspects of Greek archaeological law and will undermine future restitution claims put forward by Greece.

The fifteen antiquities chosen for exhibition in Athens, mostly Cycladic figurines and vessels, are part of a collection of 161 significant antiquities acquired over 40 years by Stern and dating from the third millennium BC. All were donated by Stern to a Delaware-based, not for profit organisation called the Hellenic Ancient Culture Institute. The Institute has been given responsibility for safeguarding the collection and organising future exhibitions.

Following three years of negotiations, an unusual agreement has been reached that nominally places Stern’s collection under the ownership of the Greek state. However, in reality, responsibility for its possession will remain with the Hellenic Ancient Culture Institute. It's the Institute that in turn has agreed to loan the collection to the Met for the next 25 years, and the Institute that will decide whether a further extending loan of 25 years may be negotiated. After 10 years, some of the collection at the Met will travel back to Greece for exhibition at the Cycladic-Goulandris - or other museums suggested by that museum. In return, the Met will receive items on loan from other Greek collections, plus an endowment to promote the Stern collection.

The one-year loan of fifteen items that opened in Athens last week appears like a goodwill gesture to launch the agreement. Speaking to the New York Times , Stern said the agreement provides a blueprint for other collectors to exhibit their ancient artworks in American museums “while avoiding acrimony with foreign governments”.

Others are more concerned. The New York Post has described the arrangement as “a very controversial deal”, while Yannis Hamilakis, the Joukowsky Family Professor of Archaeology and Professor of Modern Greek Studies at Brown University, has called it a “sorry affair”, pointing out that no member of the Greek archaeological and museum community has stepped forward to support or defend it.

So, is this a genuine restitution, avoiding potential disputes over who owns or controls antiquities held in foreign collections? Or is it just a stitch up?

Hamilakis believes the Delaware-based Institute was set up with the express purpose of securing this deal. Certainly, the composition of its Board gives an indication of its likely direction of policy. Its directors include the president of the Cycladic-Goulandris Museum, two other members of the Goulandris family, Stern’s own son and the president of the Leonard Stern Family Foundation. On the face of it, Stern certainly hasn't surrendered total control of his collection to the Greek state.

The protection of Greece’s cultural heritage is of course a state responsibility and in the deal reached between all four signatories to the final arrangement – the Greek Ministry of Culture, the Met, the Cycladic-Goulandris Museum and the Hellenic Ancient Culture Institute – it was essential to emphasise that the Greek state remains the sole owner of this collection. Stern had no other choice. Speaking to the New York Post Stern maintained “My professionals worked with their professionals and that is how they structured it. It is what I was advised to do.”

But it’s clear that possession and control remain firmly with the Delaware Institute, whose leanings towards Stern family interests are still all too apparent. It's important to note this arrangement is entirely different from the transfer of legal title and control negotiated in July 2022 between the Nigerian and German governments over the Benin Bronzes in German state collections. In that case, the opportunity for German museums to continue to exhibit a number of Benin Bronzes on a loan basis, serving as ambassadors for Nigerian culture, formed a key part of the agreement signed by both nation states. There were no other outside or private interests influencing the arrangement and Nigeria may demand the return of loaned Bronzes at any future time. The same can not be said with Stern's collection.

The Greek Government has been pivotal to this deal. Not only did their parliament ratify the deal, but the prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, was himself involved in its negotiation. Defending the agreement, the Government insists that all the collection will be returned to Greece in 50 years’ time.

But its critics remain concerned the Greek Government has condoned a formula that places their nation’s interests behind those of a private Greek museum and a US entity created specifically to preserve the interests of the original collector/donor.

If this formula is to be used as a model for ‘repatriating’ other private collections with “complex provenances”, what price must a country pay for losing control? Will it even work?

After this was written.....

In January 2024, the Metropolitan Museum of Art unveiled its new display of Cycladic works from the Stern collection. The works are displayed under the terms of a five-decade partnership agreed with the Greek state. The agreement recognises that Greece retains ownership of the objects and selected works will travel between New York and Greece. But a new non-profit organisation based in Delaware, the Hellenic Ancient Cultural Institute, will "safeguard" the collection in the US - at least for fifty years. The agreement is described as "an exciting new model for repatriation".

Photo: Leonard Stern at the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Courtesy of The New York Times

Monthly News Digest September/October 2022

Mon, 07 Nov 2022 14:34:50 GMT

Netherlands sends more than 300 artefacts to Panama in “largest return” in Central American history

06 September 2022

A collection of 343 pre-Hispanic ceramics, originating from the Gran Coclé region and dating to the first millennium AD, has been returned by Leiden University to Panama City. The collection will be displayed at the Museo Antrpológico Reina Torres de Araúz. Panamanian Foreign Minister Erika Mouynes has described the collection as “the largest return of archaeological pieces in the history of Central America.” The objects, including grave goods and utilitarian items, are understood to have been excavated in the early 1900s, at the time when Panama declared independence from Colombia. A Dutch businessman acquired the objects quite legally at local markets in Panama while working there in the 1960s and 1970s. During this period, Panama’s tourist industry was growing and there was a plentiful supply of archaeological items on sale in the markets. After retiring, he donated them to the National Museum of Ethnology in Leiden, where they have since been held in storage. The Reina Torres museum in Panama City holds more than 16,000 objects but is closed to the public, awaiting an opening in 2023 following renovations.

Hyperallergic

Five Swiss museums receive funding to help identify the rightful owners of cultural assets

15 September 2022

Starting next year, the Basel City cantonal government is setting aside CHF250,000 for provenance research into art and other cultural objects held in cantonal museums. According to cantonal president Beat Jans, the aim is “to gain clarity about the origin of our collections step by step and to communicate the research results transparently.” Their focus will be on a dialogue in search of fair solutions, while also taking into account the canton’s interests. The Museum of Antiquities has set up a partnership project with other Swiss institutions and museums in Nigeria and Benin to determine the provenance of objects in their collections. The Basel government has also agreed the Natural History Museum should return twelve skulls and a hair sample that belong to Aboriginal communities in Australia.

Swissinfo.ch

New Zealand museum returns six cultural objects of Warumungu origin to Australia

18 September 2022

Six cultural objects of Warumungu origin, originally collected by James Field and the British-born anthropologist Baldwin Spencer around the late 19 ^th or early 20 ^th century, have been returned by the Tūhura Otago Museum in Dunedin to Australia. Since 1868 the museum has accumulated one of the finest and most diverse collections of taoka (treasures) in Aotearoa New Zealand. This collection, acquired by the Museum through various exchanges between 1910 and 1937, includes a kalpunta (boomerang), palya/kupija (adze) and a selection of marttan (stone knives). Warumungu people are the traditional custodians of land in and around the township of Tennant Creek, Northern Territory. “The return of cultural heritage material after more than a century is a significant moment for the Warumungu people and fundamental to the processes of truth-telling and reconciliation,” said the Hon Linda Burney MP, the Minister for Indigenous Australians. “Repatriations like these are critical for the transfer of knowledge and cultural maintenance and revitalisation for future generations.” The repatriation follows two years of consultation and research by the AIATSIS Return of Cultural Heritage team (RoCH), along with discussions between the Warumungu community of the Tennant Creek region and the Tūhura Otago Museum. In June 2022 the Museum’s Trust Board endorsed the repatriation request and the research report submitted by AIATSIS and the Warumungu men. The RoCH team will travel to New Zealand later this year with a delegation of Warumungu representatives to collect the six objects. A selection of them will later be displayed at the Nyinkka Nyunyu Art and Culture Centre in Tennant Creek.

Will the establishment of a restitution committee lead to the return of Ugandan artefacts?

23 September 2022

The Ugandan Tourism Association has asked its government to establish a committee to lead the return of Ugandan artefacts from foreign museums. Inspired by the attempts of other African countries to recover their cultural heritage, the Ugandans have set their sights on recovering objects seized during the British invasion of the Bunyoro Kingdom in 1894. But while Uganda can certainly increase the pressure on foreign governments, it needs to confront the same long-standing obstacles that other claimants face, namely, the lack of appropriate facilities and standards in their national museums. In an uncompromising assessment, Uganda’s Independent reports, “In Uganda, there is no museum of art worth mentioning, save the Uganda Museum which again doesn’t have a reputable Museum director and curator.” The paper goes on to describe Uganda’s challenges as the same “tight rope” that many other African countries must walk. Firstly, there are no proper or adequate infrastructures to accommodate the return of their stolen artefacts. Secondly, lengthy provenance research is still required to prove the objects were in fact stolen. The article concludes: “the absence of a unified voice to negotiate the unconditional terms of the return of the artworks highlights the little preparedness African governments have undertaken to house their art permanently”.

The Independent

Further Warumungu cultural objects set to return from Auckland museum

26 September 2022

AIATSIS has announced that four more cultural objects originating from the Warumungu community of the Northern Territory are to be returned by the Tāmaki Paenga Hira Auckland War Memorial Museum. These objects were also collected by the British-born anthropologist Baldwin Spencer, who worked with Warumungu people alongside Francis Gillen in the early 1900s, and James Field, the telegraph operator at Tennant Creek. Together Spencer and Gillen amassed a significant collection of over 6000 ethnographic items from Central Australia, now dispersed around numerous institutions across the globe. The four objects are a palya/kupija (adze), a ngurrulumuru (axe/pick) and two wartilykirri (hooked boomerangs). The repatriation follows two years of research by the AIATSIS Return of Cultural Heritage team. In June 2022 the Museum’s Trust Board endorsed a repatriation request and research report submitted by AIATSIS and the Warumungu men. “Auckland Museum seeks to reconnect descendants with their taonga,” said CEO Dr David Gaimster. “Repatriation is key to ensuring these taonga can be reunited with the Warumungu community.”

A ceremony formally returning the four artefacts to the Warumungu community was held in Auckland on Monday 14 November 2022.

Austria to return stolen Māori and Moriori ancestral remains

27 September 2022

The ancestral remains of about 64 Māori and Moriori are returning to Aotearoa, New Zealand 77 years after the first request to repatriate them was made in 1945. Forty-nine sets of the remains were collected by the notorious Austrian grave-robber and taxidermist Andreas Reischek. Reischek spent 12 years in New Zealand between 1877 and 1889 looting tapu (sacred) places and exhuming and stealing human remains. The identity and home of many of these remains may never be known. “There is a lot of pressure internally as well as externally [on museums] to decolonise their practices and take a more considered approach to their collections,” said Te Papa’s acting head of repatriation Te Arikirangi Mamaku-Ironside. Dr Sabine Eggers, head of international collections at Vienna’s Natural History Museum, will accompany the remains on their transportation back to Aotearoa, using indigenous cultural customs and protocol. Mamaku-Ironside said it was important for descendants and communities to be able to speak to Dr Eggers about what happened to these remains as an expression of humility from Austria. Dr Eggers had personally written a report to Austrian authorities previously explaining how the value of the remains was significantly higher for Māori and Moriori than could ever be for reasons related to science. It was an honour to help heal an “open wound” she added. New Zealand’s repatriation programme is tasked with locating, identifying, negotiating and physically returning kōiwi tangata (Māori skeletal remains) and kōimi tangata (Moriori skeletal remains) to New Zealand. Since its launch in 2003, the programme has repatriated almost 800 ancestral remains.

Stuff

Canadian Museums Association calls for more repatriation of Indigenous objects

02 October 2022

The Canadian Museums Association (CMA) has published a major new report, Moved to Action: Activating UNDRIP in Canadian Museums , calling for greater support and funding for Indigenous organisations and museums as they pursue Indigenous “self-determination” at all levels of governance. The report finds that few Canadian museums have formal repatriation policies and even fewer of them are publicly accessible. Currently only one province, Alberta, has repatriation legislation. The report, which has taken over three years to prepare, was commissioned as part of Canada’s response to Call to Action 67, one of 95 calls to action issued in 2015 by the country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The CMA estimates that 6.7 million Indigenous objects and human remains are held in Canadian museums, with approximately 94% of them held in eight institutions. Unlike the United States, Canada does not have legislation in place to return Native cultural items to Indigenous tribes and organisations. However, passing new legislation mandating and funding repatriation efforts is one of the report’s 10 recommendations. The report also recommends hiring more Indigenous professionals into permanent roles and consulting Indigenous rights holders for the care of repatriated objects.

Hyperallergic

Three US museums return 31 Benin Bronzes to Nigeria

11 October 2022

Following the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents decision to deaccession its collection of Benin Bronzes last June, the Smithsonian National Museum of African Art transferred ownership of 29 looted Benin Bronzes to Nigeria during a ceremony today at the National Museum of African Art. Washington DC’s National Gallery of Art and the Rhode Island School of Design Museum also each returned a looted Benin Bronze. The ceremony was witnessed by Nigeria’s Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, and Prof. Abba Tijjani, Director General of the National Commission for Museums and Monuments. The Oba of Benin was represented by his brother, Aghatise Erediauwa. The Minister made it clear that Nigerian museums will sustain the tradition of exchanges and collaborations with museums in the United States and other parts of the world. “Nigeria looks forward to working with these institutions on joint exhibitions and other educational exchanges.” This is the first return made under the Smithsonian’s new ethical returns policy. Another 20 Benin Bronzes are currently held in the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. Provenance research on these works has been undertaken and is expected to lead to their return.

Vanguard

UK museums willing to return human remains to Zimbabwe

30 October 2022

Following talks with a delegation from Zimbabwe, London’s Natural History Museum and Cambridge University have said they are willing to return human remains removed during the colonial era now in their collections. Zimbabwe has long suspected that British collections hold the remains of some of the leaders of the First Chimurenga – an uprising against British rule in the 1890s. In particular, Zimbabweans have been searching for the skull of Mbuya Nehanda, the hero of Zimbabwe’s first revolutionary struggle who, after accused of murdering a British official, was hanged and then beheaded. Nehanda is now lauded as a national heroine, a potent symbol for those fighting against white-minority rule. There’s a popular legend that says following her execution her head was transported to England and placed in a museum collection. All attempts to trace this head have failed and no identification has been possible from the human remains in the London and Cambridge collections. It is quite possible Nehanda’s head never left her country, however, that won’t stop the search continuing. The Zimbabwe delegation also held talks with the British Museum, Oxford’s Pitt Rivers Museum, the University of Manchester Museum and the UK’s National Archives. But no details of these discussions have been released.

BBC.co.uk

For further restitution news in September & October visit our 'Restitutions by Country' section

Rosetta Stone: No priority for restitution

Tue, 01 Nov 2022 15:34:27 GMT

It’s no coincidence the opening of the British Museum’s new exhibition Hieroglyphs: unlocking ancient Egypt has encouraged fresh appeals for the return of the Rosetta Stone to Egypt. But do these appeals stand any greater chance of success than other restitution campaigns?

A petition signed by as many as 2,500 archaeologists has called on the British Museum, home to the Rosetta Stone since it arrived in England in 1802, to repatriate this famous slab of black basalt to Egypt in time for the opening of the new Grand Egyptian Museum, now scheduled for 2023.

Co-founder of this latest campaign, Monica Hanna, an Associate Professor of Archaeology & Cultural Heritage, has set out Egypt's case for repatriation in the latest edition of The Inquiry (BBC World Service), which asks whether it’s time Britain returns the Stone to Egypt. Hanna is convinced the Stone “represents cultural violence for Egypt.”

“Claiming back our past represents for us moving towards healing from past crimes and moving towards giving a different future for Egyptians,” Hanna says.

As part of what she describes as her country's process of modern nation building, Hanna says that with diplomacy and advocacy, Egypt can “gain back what was taken from us by violence," adding "this would empower normal Egyptians to believe there are methods to correct past crimes.”

Returning Heritage was invited to comment on the obstacles that prevent the Stone's repatriation. Although we drew attention to the principal obstacle to its return, namely the provisions in the British Museum Act that prevent deaccessioning, the programme omitted two other reasons why this petition is going to fail.

For a start, the petition doesn’t come with the full authority of the Egyptian Government. Instead, it's an appeal to the current administration to add their official support to public efforts to return the Stone. In truth, without government support, this campaign will never be considered credible.

The Museum has a good track record fending off other petitions for restitution, in particular those by the indefatigable Egyptologist Dr Zahi Hawass, whether made while in office at Egypt’s Ministry of Antiquities Affairs or in his subsequent roles as an Egyptian archaeologist. Dr Hawass has campaigned almost continuously for thirty years to return three iconic items of Egyptian identity: not just the Rosetta Stone, but also the Dendera Zodiac in the Louvre and the bust of Nefertiti in Berlin.

Speaking at the launch of the Tutankhamun exhibition in London in November 2019, Dr Hawass announced he is now leading “a committee of intellectual Egyptians and foreigners” to ask for the return of all three items. “I believe they are unique and their home should be Egypt," he said.

We await further news of this initiative. In the meantime, the British Museum maintains they have still not received any official request from the Egyptian Government for the Stone’s repatriation.

The second reason for the petition's likely failure is the claim made by Egypt that the Rosetta Stone was removed under conditions of violence. This simply don’t hold up to scrutiny.

Unlike other high profile contested items in the Museum’s collection - in particular, the Benin Bronzes and the loot plundered from Maqdala, Ethiopia - the Rosetta Stone was not forcibly plundered. French engineers discovered the irregularly-shaped slab of basalt in July 1799, reportedly found either lying on the ground or, more likely, discovered embedded into one of the walls of the medieval fortress of Fort Julien in the Nile Delta, not far from the Egyptian town of Rashid (known to Europeans as Rosetta). Recognising the significance of the three different scripts, the Stone was transported immediately to the new Institut d'Egypte in Cairo, where copies were made by the French and circulated to scholars across Europe.

When British forces began threatening the French expedition, the Stone was despatched to Alexandria where it awaited shipment to Paris. But after the surrender of Napoleon’s forces in 1801 and the subsequent treaty of capitulation, the Rosetta Stone, along with other important Egyptian antiquities, was ceded to the British and the Stone eventually arrived in London in 1802. It became one of the first Egyptian antiquities acquired by the British Museum.

It took another twenty years after its arrival in London before the decipherment of the hieroglyphics on the Stone was completed by Jean François Champollion. The role of the British scientist and polymath Thomas Young in the academic tussle that led towards its decipherment is a key element in the narrative of the British Museum's exhibition, Hieroglyphs: Unlocking Ancient Egypt .

The Rosetta Stone is undoubtedly a trophy of war, transferred from the hands of its discoverer to the clutches of the victor. Some over-enthusiastic museum curator has even written on the Stone: 'Captured in Egypt by the British Army in 1801'. But it was never wrenched from the hands of Egypt by force. There are no compelling legal grounds why the British Museum should return the Stone, neither is there an overwhelming moral case for its repatriation. Several other stones bearing the same inscription are already held in Egyptian collections.

We understand why Egypt wishes to see this iconic emblem of its national identity returned. As the introduction to the British Museum's exhibition catalogue points out, the Stone's fascination "comes not from its visual form or even its content, but from what it represents". However, what it represents to the British Museum is of equal fascination and importance. The Museum has even named its grandiose new £1 billion refurbishment plan after it: 'The Rosetta Project'. Unfortunately for Egypt, there are many other objects in the Museum's collection where the moral case for restitution is far more pressing. The Rosetta Stone will have to take its place in the queue.

After this was written....

Since writing this article, the British Museum has dropped the title 'Rosetta Project' from its plan to upgrade the Museum's ageing gallery spaces. The project is now to be known simply as 'Masterplan'. No official reason has been given for this change, although it's possible that identifying the project with such a high profile contested object might have caused trustees to think again.

Photo courtesy of Getty Images

Lord Vaizey seeks a “win win” deal as chair of the new Parthenon Project

Sat, 15 Oct 2022 16:44:42 GMT

Can a non-governmental advisory group really overturn 200 years of legislation and government resistance? According to the chair of the Parthenon Project, a new lobbying group whose goal is to return the Parthenon Marbles to Greece, they aim to do exactly that.

The Parthenon Project is the brainchild of Greek businessman and chemical magnate John Lefas. So far, Lefas is reported to have committed £1.1million of his own money to flying British peers and MPs to Athens, then wining and dining them to secure their support for a new “Elgin Marbles Act”.

Lefas has appointed Ed (Lord) Vaizey, former minister in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, to chair this new group. Vaizey brings a deep and genuine interest in the arts, having served as a culture minister in the UK government between 2010 and 2016 - a term longer than any other culture minister in the last 12 years of Conservative government. Other confirmed supporters include the Conservative peers Lord Dobbs and Baroness Meyer, together with the journalist Sarah Baxter and the author and actor Stephen Fry, already a committed supporter of the cause.

But if this long-standing Greek saga of repatriation has taught us anything, it’s taught us to be wary of false dawns. The Parthenon Project is, after all, only an advisory group and official government resistance to returning the Parthenon Marbles – resistance enforced by Ed Vaizey himself while serving as culture minister – has been unwavering.

The challenge they face remains formidable, although there's every chance the initiative might help shift the dial of public opinion, which is already moving in favour of repatriation. A YouGov poll conducted in 2021 showed that 56% of the British public surveyed are now in favour of returning the Marbles, an impressive increase on the 37% in favour only seven years earlier (2014).

Vaizey’s public conversion to repatriating the Marbles began after he left the House of Commons. Speaking on the Hope and Dread podcast last December, he said, “It is so obvious to me that the Marbles are really woven into Greek identity that it would be a wonderful thing if they could be returned.”

Strange he didn’t wield those sentiments while serving as culture minister. But it seems after entering public office, ministers become immediately constrained by political expediency and bend under pressure to preserve the status quo. Take Boris Johnson, for example. He was a dedicated philhellene before serving as Mayor of London, after which London’s interests had to be defended. As Prime Minister his resistance to their return became absolute .

Vaizey’s change of heart wasn’t entirely due to his recent promotional sortie with Lefas to Athens, but it seems to have hardened his conviction that a “win win” deal is achievable.

“Seeing the Acropolis Museum and understanding more about the other unique artefacts that could come to London as part of the cultural exchange has already strengthened my view that a deal is within reach.”

Lord Vaizey

Inevitably, the present Government doesn’t agree. While the DCMS continues to insist there are no plans to introduce amending legislation to alter the no-returns policy enshrined in the British Museum Act, Britain’s latest Prime Minister, Liz Truss, speaking to GB News, said she doesn’t share the views of British Museum Chairman George Osborne. Osborne believes there’s a “deal to be done” with Greece if “we both approach this without a load of preconditions, without a load of red lines”.

Vaizey is interpreting this as a green light to start a “meaningful engagement” on the Parthenon issue with both the British Museum and the UK Government. Given the historic intransigence of both institutions, this looks an unlikely prospect.

Meanwhile, if amending legislation is not brought forward by the Government itself, Lefas hopes that his growing band of parliamentary supporters will return his lavish hospitality by introducing a private members’ bill - an "Elgin Marbles Act". A debate over changes to the 1983 National Heritage Act this month may give a better indication of the Government's direction. But to us, it doesn't seem likely the Government is ready to concede major changes - if any at all. Hardly surprising at a time when the UK government is and should remain focussed on averting recession and overcoming the UK's crippling cost of living crisis. It hardly seems the right moment to debate selling off the nation’s favourite treasures.

At least for now. But if Mr Lefas does continue to invest his time and money in lobbying members of government and if popular demand for returning the Marbles does continue to increase, who knows where all this wining and dining will end.

After this was written.....

A debate about changes to the National Heritage Act, initiated by Lord Vaizey and held on 13 October in the House of Lords, received the government response we anticipated. Lord Parkinson, former arts minister in Boris Johnson's administration, expressed his concern that evolving political and moral attitudes might actually threaten UK museums. While Liz Truss' recently appointed heritage minister, Syed (Lord) Kamall, gave no ground for change: "The [1983] law exists to protect the objects in our national museums," he said. "I am afraid that for these reasons the Government have no current plans to amend this Act." Further debates about amendments to the 1983 National Heritage Act are likely as we grow nearer to the 40th anniversary of passing this Act. V&A Director Tristram Hunt has expressed a desire to see more discretion in the hands of trustees. But another former culture secretary, Oliver Dowden, has recommended more time to debate this legislation - but only so MPs can express their support for it. "I can assure you that if we let this Pandora's box to open" he said, "we will regret it for generations to come as we see those artefacts being removed to countries where they may be less safe." Clearly, Dowden has never visited the Acropolis Museum in Athens.

Photo: Lord Vaizey

Courtesy of Accesspartnership.com

Moral pressure on trustees increases with new Charities Act

Mon, 03 Oct 2022 07:44:35 GMT

For many museum trustees, there’s little they can do but turn their backs on restitution appeals - even when there are strong moral grounds for returning an object. Put simply, their own governing document may legally prevent them from returning any museum property.

But forthcoming changes in the Charities Act 2022 - changes that may have escaped the attention of these same trustees - will make it harder for them to ignore appeals where they feel a moral obligation to take action.

In his unravelling of this new Act, Alexander Herman, director at the Institute of Art & Law, points out when implemented, all trustees, including those in English and Welsh museums governed by statute, will no longer be able to apply restrictive provisions in their own governing documents to supersede these new charity powers. Herman describes this development as “remarkable”.

The new Act, designed to simplify several areas of charity regulation, follows recommendations made in 2017 by a Law Commission report. The Act was passed by Parliament in February and is expected to be implemented this autumn after Charity Commission guidance has been updated.

The Act affects museums because most museums are also charities. In fact, as charities, trustees can already apply to the Charity Commission to return objects under the existing Charities Act 2011 where they feel a strong moral obligation to do so. This is due to a provision that allows trustees to make what are called ex gratia payments . These payments don’t just refer to financial transactions, they also include transfers of charity property more generally.

But ex gratia transfers of cultural property have always been infrequent, primarily because trustees can invoke the restriction clauses in their governing documents. Up to now, these clauses have had primacy over the Charities Act.

However the new Act introduces two significant changes to the principle of transfer. Firstly, it allows trustees to make transfers of ‘lower value’ items where a moral obligation can be demonstrated - without requiring the approval of the Charity Commission. The value threshold will be dependent on the gross income of the charity (details are set out in section 331A of the new Act). Meanwhile, for the return of items that exceed this threshold, the Charity Commission, the Attorney General or a Court would still need to authorise the transfer.

But secondly and perhaps more surprisingly, the new Act also allows trustees, including the trustees of national museums governed by statute, to override restrictive clauses in their own governing document preventing the return of an object. This turns on its head a decision made by the High Court in 2005 ( Attorney General v. Trustees of the British Museum ). In this case, the Court was asked to consider whether trustees can circumvent the restriction on disposals in the British Museum Act 1963 using the ex gratia payment principle to return property where they perceived they had a moral obligation. The High Court was categorical they could not.

The 2017 Law Commission report reviewed this case and concluded the High Court’s decision created a false distinction between statutory charities (like national museums) and all other charities when making ex gratia payments. The Commission’s report was widely supported and, as a result, the new Act makes it clear that authorisation to transfer an object on moral grounds can be sought by statutory charities going forward.

In no way do these changes undermine the authority of trustees to make decisions about the objects in their own collections. Any decision to transfer will always remain at the discretion of trustees. But they may have the effect of placing greater responsibility on trustees to consider the importance of the moral case when reviewing whether or not to return an object to an individual or source community. How will they do this? In the past, it’s always involved a subjective judgement. Going forward, trustees will be required to make a more objective assessment, in other words, an assessment based on a ‘reasonably held belief’ that sufficient moral grounds exist to authorise an object’s return.

So, how will this turn the dial in the restitution debate? While some have suggested the new Act will give museums unprecedented power to deaccession art and repatriate objects, Herman warns it will not lead to the return of vast amounts of contested objects. He expects it will be used only rarely. However, which view will prove correct and what sort of items could benefit from the new legislation?

Trophy items in national collections such as the Parthenon sculptures, Asante gold treasures or Benin Bronzes in the British Museum are of such enormous significance to the Museum's reputation they will never meet the new test of ‘lower value’. Trustees are as unlikely to apply to the Charity Commission to return these objects under this new Charities Act as they are now.

At the same time, it's clear that an object’s financial value may have little meaning in the context of a museum’s wider brief to tell the story of civilisation. The majority of ‘lower value’ items in a museum’s collection therefore may also have an important role to play in telling the full story and, as a result, trustees may be just as unwilling to return these objects as well.

But there will always be other objects where trustees may feel a stronger moral obligation to take action, in particular where the object’s value does not exceed the new financial threshold and where its return will not damage the integrity of the museum’s collection or harm its reputation. Don't be surprised if appeals mount up once the new legislation is enacted to return objects still sacred to a living church or community, or personal objects of significance to descendants. In particular, we suspect the Act's implementation will further weaken the British Museum’s insistence on retaining its collection of eleven Ethiopian Tabots and increase pressure on them to return the Tabots to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church - where they belong. The moral case for their repatriation remains overwhelming. Expect fresh appeals for returning other objects as well when the new Act is implemented.

After this was written.....

The UK Government and the British Museum will not be conceding their right to prevent deaccessioning on moral grounds without a fight. Speaking in the House of Lords last week, Syed (Lord) Kamall, a minister in the DCMS, confirmed the Government has decided to review the introduction of these proposed legal provisions that would permit national museums in England and Wales to deaccession on moral grounds. He said "no such intent was considered, nor agreed on" when the Bill was debated in the Commons. As a result, the Government will be deferring Sections 15 and 16 in the new Charities Act, giving them time to consider the full legal implications and impact on museum collections. He added the Government had "no plans to amend" the laws that prevent restitutions from national museums.

UGANDA

Thu, 29 Sep 2022 21:25:55 GMT

PORTUGAL

Updated September 2022

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made by Uganda, together with other restitution news. Entries are updated regularly.

September 2022

The Uganda Tourism Association has asked for the establishment of a committee to lead the return of Ugandan artefacts from foreign museums

The Independent

V&A Asante loans: A prelude to full restitution?

Sat, 24 Sep 2022 13:48:58 GMT

Over at the V&A, the director Tristram Hunt has announced a new ‘partnership model’. If it succeeds, the Museum will return a small but important collection of Asante treasures for exhibition in Ghana.

This might not be the groundbreaking event that smashes Britain’s state museum resistance to repatriating looted artefacts, but it could mark an important step in that direction.

Writing in the V&A’s 2021-2022 annual review, Hunt reports of a visit he made in February to Ghana, “to begin conversations about a renewable cultural partnership centred around the V&A collection of Asante court regalia”. Hunt’s visit comes nearly 50 years after Ghana first initiated discussions in the UK about returning its looted Asante heritage. So, are we getting any closer to a resolution?

There were multiple reasons why the British fought five different Anglo-Asante wars between 1823 and 1901 in the West African Kingdom that now lies within present-day Ghana. But the attraction of acquiring large hauls of Asante gold from Africa’s Gold Coast remained a constant motivator. The punitive raid on the Asante capital at Kumasi in 1874 during the Third Anglo-Asante War was to prove especially rewarding for British forces, yielding masses of gold objects and regalia (‘Asante regalia’ is a collective term frequently used for all Asante objects and ornaments).

After burning the royal palace of the Asante king, Kofi-Karikari, the commander of these forces, Brigadier General Sir Garnet Wolseley, took the unusual decision not to auction off his army’s plunder at the site of the battle, but instead transport it all to London. This way he hoped to achieve a greater financial return to offset the expedition’s expenses.

The crown jeweller Garrard & Co acquired many of the most important Asante items from the Prize Auction that followed. Garrard was the source of the greater part of the V&A’s Asante collection, including the 13 items of court regalia which are currently the subject of Hunt’s ‘partnership’ discussions with Ghana. Another client of Garrard was Sir Richard Wallace. He purchased the stand-out gold trophy head looted from Kofi-Karikari’s royal palace, now a jewel in London’s Wallace Collection. The British Museum, which holds more Asante items than any other UK collection, also purchased objects from Garrrad, although most of its collection was acquired directly from the Crown Agents.

The British Museum’s Asante regalia was the subject of the first-ever public debate about African restitution in the UK. The then head of the Asante people, Otumfuo Opoku, made the first appeal for repatriation in early 1974. After months of lively debate in the national press, the matter was put to rest in a House of Lords debate in December 1974 when Ghana’s plea for repatriation was roundly rejected.

Forty-eight years later, how confident can we be this latest initiative by the V&A will be more successful?

Hunt has held discussions at the highest level: with the current Asante king, Osei Tutu II, as well as with officials from the Ghanaian ministry of tourism, arts and culture. But no matter how committed the V&A might be to full repatriation, they remain restricted by the terms of the 1983 National Heritage Act . This prevents them from negotiating a full legal transfer of ownership. So right now, the ‘partnership model’ is based on a renewable long-term loan. A similar cultural partnership arrangement was made by the V&A in July when the Museum returned a marble head of the Greek god Eros on loan as to the Istanbul Archaeology Museum. That arrangement will be revisited after the first six years.

Discussions about lending the Asante regalia involved not just the terms and duration of the proposed loan, but also where returning treasures would be exhibited. Just like Nigeria, where a significant debate has focussed on which location returning Benin Bronzes should be exhibited, there’s been a similar discussion in Ghana over where returning Asante treasures should be displayed: in the nation’s capital, Accra, or in the Asante capital, Kumasi. Significant work is already underway to modernise and update facilities at the Manhyia Palace Museum in Kumasi, originally the royal residence but converted into a museum in 1970.

Meanwhile, Hunt has expressed the view we should use the impending 40 ^th anniversary of the 1983 National Heritage Act as an opportunity to review and update this legislation. In particular, he believes that trustees in national collections should be given the legal authority to decide whether an object remains in their collection or whether it can be deaccessioned. Ghana’s long-held wish to see full repatriation depends on Hunt convincing Government it’s time to modernise this Act.

We don’t know what the Government’s attitude to such a development will be, although their current anti-woke stance doesn’t suggest a huge enthusiasm to undertake reform. But if Hunt does succeed in extending trustee powers, what does that mean for other Asante objects that are restricted by similar national museum legislation?

Objects in the Wallace Collection are subject to the restrictions enshrined in the Museums and Galleries Act 1992 . These terms reinforce Lady Wallace’s original 1897 bequest, which states the collection ‘shall remain together and unmixed with other objects’. So, repatriating the Asante gold trophy head in the Wallace Collection to Ghana would require amendments to the Museums and Galleries Act plus a new interpretation of Lady Wallace’s bequest.

Since his arrival as director, Xavier Bray has energised the Wallace Collection by introducing a new policy on loans. But deaccessioning objects might just be a bridge too far. What’s more, Bray has confirmed to Returning Heritage they've received no request in the recent past from Ghana to return their prized gold trophy head.

It won't come as a surprise that there’s precious little appetite for reform or change over at the British Museum. Almost 60 years after the British Museum Act was introduced, the Museum can claim it already operates successful partnerships with source communities, arranging long-term loans of Museum artefacts. A good example is the long-term loan by the Museum of a Potlatch mask to Canadian First Nations people. What's more, the British Museum too has confirmed they’ve received no approach from Ghana to return Asante treasures since the original request was made in 1974.

We expect to hear more details about the V&A's new partnership model before the end of this year. In the meantime, Government has its hands full with many more pressing economic issues, all of which suggests parliamentary reform of museum legislation will have to wait its turn.

Photo: Cast gold pectoral disc worn by the Asantehene’s ‘soul washer’ as a badge of office. Asante, Ghana, before 1874

Courtesy of V&A Museum, London

British Museum is pressed to explain its refusal to return sacred Tabots to Ethiopia

Sun, 04 Sep 2022 18:33:48 GMT

If the British Museum ever does return its collection of Tabots to Ethiopia, nobody here will ever miss them.

You’ve probably never heard of them; you’ve certainly never seen them. Neither has any other visitor to the Museum, nor even its own curators. In fact, if you were a trustee of the British Museum and ask to see what all the fuss is about, you wouldn’t be allowed to see them either.

Since they entered the Museum, these eleven sacred plaques have been sealed away at a secret location ‘specially set aside for the purpose’, out of sight and never made available for exhibition or study in 150 years.

Their significance to worshippers in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and their unsuitability to be held in the British Museum – any museum - is the reason why we've been campaigning for their return. It’s also why we decided last week to press the Museum to give answers to the questions they've refused to answer for more than 30 years.

The Museum must reply to our Freedom of Information request (FOI) within the next 20 working days. We’ve asked them to provide details of all the appeals made to return the Tabots since 1990, details of their responses and details of when trustees met to discuss these different appeals, what decisions they made and why.

In the event they refuse to provide this information, or give an inadequate response, our legal team at Leigh Day will advise us on the merits of launching proceedings against the British Museum in the Information Tribunal, or otherwise by making a formal complaint to the Charity Commission.

Complete silence by the Museum’s trustees to explain why they're so reluctant to return a group of sacred objects that serve no educational purpose and why they are ignoring the legal grounds that already exist for their return to Ethiopia is concerning. It begs the question whether the Museum's trustees are entirely conversant with the issue of the Tabots.

Tabots are sacred plaques, representations of the Ark of the Covenant which are of huge significance to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Indeed, a church cannot fully function as a place of worship when deprived of its Tabot. Although only ordained priests are allowed to view them, Tabots are paraded in the streets on Church holy days, concealed under a cloth, revered by the faithful. Ironically, it’s precisely because the Museum is aware of this religious rule of concealment that it has agreed never to make the Tabots available for exhibition or study in the future.

“The issue is very much one of faith,” said former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey underscoring the religious grounds for their return. “It is cruel to deprive believers of access to faith and Tabots are essential to Ethiopian worship”.

Nine of the Museum’s eleven Tabots are connected to the looting that took place in 1868, when an army of 13,000 British soldiers overthrew the spear-wielding forces of Emperor Tewodros II (1855-68) at his mountain fortress at Maqdala, Abyssinia (now Ethiopia). Looting was a legitimised practice across Africa throughout the colonial era, when the proceeds from ‘Prize Auctions’ were used to offset the expenses of a military campaign. Attending the auction that followed the battle at Maqdala was resident archaeologist Richard Holmes from the British Museum. Holmes had been sent with the army to snap up objects for the Museum’s collection, the only time a British Museum official was ever despatched to collect objects with an army expedition. In his 2002 history of the Museum, former director David Wilson described the British Museum’s trustees involvement as “one of the less glorious episodes in the history of the Museum”*.

The evidence is clear these nine Tabots were looted in a naked act of sacrilege. This should be a good enough reason to return their ownership to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. But of course, objects plundered during the colonial era do not qualify for repatriation from Britain's national collections. Almost without exception, the British Museum's governing legislation was drafted as a way of keeping its collections together. However, the case for returning the Tabots is different: there are legal grounds that enable these unsuitable objects to be returned under existing legislation. The Museum’s trustees neither need the permission of Parliament nor an amendment to the Museum’s governing Act. An exemption – it shouldn't be described as a loophole – exists within the British Museum Act 1963, approved by Parliament almost 60 years ago, which enables trustees to dispose of objects they consider are ‘unfit to be retained’.

In September 2021 a legal opinion by Samantha Knights QC of Matrix Chambers, commissioned by legal firm Leigh Day on behalf of The Scheherazade Foundation, confirmed the Tabots can be returned to their country of origin. Trustees were sent a copy of this opinion, but they've provided no response.

The exemption in Section 5(1)(c) of the Act may be little known, but it’s still hard to understand why the Museum’s trustees are stubbornly refusing to exercise it. After all, how much more ‘unfit to be retained’ does a sacred object need to be if the Museum itself has agreed it will never be exhibited or made available for study and especially when, according to the Museum’s governing Act, it can be disposed of without detriment to the interests of students .

The Museum has suggested the Tabots might be placed on loan to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church in London. But Ethiopia wants full ownership of these Tabots to be transferred to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. In which case, it's not the place of the British Museum to determine where the Tabots should be held.

Our objective for submitting this FOI request is simple. To date, the Museum’s trustees have provided no explanation why they refuse to apply the exemption. We want to understand why they are ignoring it when grounds for returning the Tabots are overwhelming. If trustees believe the opposite, let’s understand their reasons why.

* David M. Wilson, The British Museum: A History (British Museum Press, 2002), p. 173-4

After this was written.....

On the expiry of the 20 working day period to respond, the British Museum wrote to us requesting further time to consider the public interest test for two qualified exemptions to disclosure. The FOIA permits the Museum to extend the time to respond beyond the 20 working days to a "reasonable time". We have asked the Museum when they intend to provide their response.

Photo: Priests carrying sacred Tabots, Timkat Festival

Courtesy of Flickr

Monthly News Digest August 2022

Fri, 02 Sep 2022 13:02:42 GMT

China reports more than 1,800 sets of cultural items have been returned over past decade

24 August 2022

Returning China’s cultural heritage is a constitutional obligation for Chinese citizens. The newly opened Hong Kong Palace Museum aims to support these efforts to repatriate the nation's cultural heritage and in the last ten years more than 1,800 sets of cultural artefacts , previously lost overseas, have been returned to China. According to Huo Zhengxin, a law professor at the China University of Political Science and Law, these cultural artefacts are being returned in one of four ways: through law enforcement agencies, diplomatic negotiations, acquisitions or donations. Among their achievements, the country’s National Cultural Heritage Administration reports that the return of the head of a bronze Chinese zodiac horse statue, stolen by British and French troops 160 years ago, to its home at the Yuanmingyuan (Old Summer Palace) in Beijing is seen as a crucial step in repatriating important cultural relics stolen by invaders. The head was donated to the National Museum of China in November 2019 by the late Macao casino tycoon Stanley Ho. He bought the head for HK$69.1m ($8.84m) at an auction in September 2007. Many Chinese netizens view its return as a symbol of “washing away national humiliation”.

Glasgow Life Museums becomes the first UK museums service to repatriate stolen artefacts to India

19 August 2022

Following Glasgow City Council’s groundbreaking approval in April to return important cultural artefacts to source communities, this week Glasgow Life, the charity that operates the city’s museum collections, signed an historic agreement to repatriate seven objects to India. It’s understood the transfer of ownership ceremony, which took place at Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum and included dignitaries from the High Commission of India, marks the first UK museums service to repatriate artefacts to India. Officials from Glasgow Life Museums and the High Commission of India in London have been working towards the return of these seven objects since January 2021. The objects include a ceremonial Indo-Persian tulwar (sword), believed to date to the 14 ^th century, and a carved stone door jamb, removed from a Hindu temple in Kanpur dating to the 11 ^th century. Six of the objects were removed from temples and shrines in different states in Northern India during the 19 ^th century; the seventh was purchased following a theft from the owner. All seven objects were gifted to Glasgow’s collections. Since the return of a Ghost Dance Shirt to South Dakota in 1998, Glasgow has led the way in returning important cultural artefacts. They will be returning 25 further items to South Dakota later this year, together with 19 Benin Bronzes to Nigeria.

Renowned Egyptologist Dr Zahi Hawass announces plans to recover the Rosetta Stone and other iconic Egyptian artefacts

19 August 2022

Almost three years after announcing he is leading a “committee of intellectual Egyptians and foreigners” to ask for the return of the Rosetta Stone in London, the Nefertiti bust in Berlin and the Zodiac ceiling in Paris, Dr Zahi Hawass now says he is launching a petition that he will send to the three European museums holding these items in October. Ever since 2003 when, as head of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, he informed Neil MacGregor, then Director of the British Museum, that he would go into battle with the Museum if they didn’t return the Rosetta Stone to Egypt, Hawass has maintained this hugely important artefact, the key to unlocking the mystery of hieroglyphics, left the country illegally and has campaigned for its return. “The Rosetta Stone is the icon of Egyptian identity,” he says. “The British Museum has no right to show this artefact to the public.” Inspired by other recent restitution developments and without holding any official position in the current administration, he is re-energising his public campaign to see the three objects installed on permanent exhibition in Cairo’s new Grand Egyptian Museum. “If I did not succeed,” at least people after me will continue,” he insists. “This is a cause that you cannot stop.”

US Restitution Study Group lobbies the Charity Commission to reject plans to return Benin Bronzes to Nigeria

16 August 2022

A New York-based non-profit organisation that campaigns on behalf of descendants of enslaved people living in the USA, the Caribbean and Great Britain, has sent an open letter to the UK Charity Commission urging them to reject plans by leading UK museums to repatriate Benin objects to Nigeria. Claiming a “co-ownership interest” in these artefacts, the Restitution Study Group instead proposes the Horniman Museum and the Oxford and Cambridge university museums continue to hold them in trust. “They are the wealth and legacy of slave descendants, not the slave traders,” claims the letter. “We want our children and the world to see these treasures and to learn their slave trade origin.” The Group believes Nigeria would be “unjustly enriched” by repatriation of these artefacts, which were made from the manilla currency the Kingdom of Benin was paid “to raid villages with illegal guns and other weapons, steal women, children and men, sell them into the Transatlantic slave trade, and sometimes kill them in ritual sacrifices.” The museums require authorisation from the Charity Commission before legal ownership of their Benin Bronzes can be transferred.

Progress in the return of looted artefacts to former Dutch colonies is slower than anticipated

13 August 2022

In March 2021 we reported on progress in the Netherlands towards the introduction of groundbreaking proposals for returning objects stolen from former Dutch colonies. At its core is a recognition of historical injustice and a requirement for government to put in place a mechanism for evaluating restitution requests. But progress is proving much slower than anticipated. Algemeen Dagblad reports that 18 months after the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science proposed an independent assessment committee, it has still not been established. This confirms the fears expressed by some that it will take a very long time before Dutch colonial looted artefacts are returned. A government spokesperson expects the committee will start “sometime this autumn”.

Delegation from British Columbia aims to recover totem pole stolen in 1929

12 August 2022

A delegation from the Nisga’a Lisims Government of British Columbia, Canada is heading to Scotland to ask officials at National Museums Scotland for the return of a carved Ni’isjoohl totem pole , taken without consent in 1929 by the ethnographer Marius Barbeau. “The pole holds significant knowledge within its carvings,” according to a statement released by the Nisga’a Lisims Government (NLG), “and can serve as a form of curriculum for the next generation to learn a Nisga’a way of life”. Removed during a period when it was common in Canada for settlers and anthropologists to collect Indigenous belongings, Barbeau took the pole, erected in the 1860s, from the House of Ni’isjoohl while members were away for the annual food harvesting season. NLG delegates claim that repatriation of the pole is subject to Article 12 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Its repatriation would be an important step the National Museums of Scotland could take towards reconciliation through concrete action. The Museum has released its own statement that says it is looking forward to hosting the delegation, sharing information and sharing their procedure for restitution requests. If the NLG appeal succeeds, it would be the second pole ever to be repatriated back to Canada from a European museum.

New law requires New York museums to label art stolen by the Nazis

10 August 2022

As part of a series of measures to honour and support Holocaust survivors in educational, cultural and financial institutions, Governor Kathy Hochul today signed a new legislative package into New York state law requiring museums to acknowledge art stolen by the Nazi regime. “During the Holocaust, some 600,000 paintings were stolen from Jewish people not only for their value, but to wipe our culture and identity off the face of the Earth,” said State Senator Anna M. Kaplan who introduced the bill. “Today, artwork previously stolen by the Nazis can be found hanging in museums around New York with no recognition of the dark paths they travelled there. With the history of the Holocaust being so important to pass on to the next generation, it’s vital that we be transparent and ensure that anyone viewing artwork stolen by the Nazis understands where it came from and its role in history.” Legislation A.3719A/S.117A requires museums to place prominent signage alongside any work of art stolen from Europeans during the Nazi era, primarily from Jewish families, in order to acknowledge and disclose information about its history.

Arts Council England publishes new guidelines for restitution and repatriation

05 August 2022

For more than twenty years, UK museums have had to rely on guidance produced by the now defunct Museums and Galleries Commission for advice on returning objects from their collections. However, this month Arts Council England (ACE) published new guidelines which update and clarify the process. Restitution and Repatriation: A Practical Guide for Museums in England provides guidance on how to interpret existing policy rather than introducing new policy. “The guidance is underpinned by existing policy and legislative framework,” an ACE statement insists, while supporting “museums in making decisions and managing cases in a legally appropriate and ethically responsible manner”. Offering guidelines, best practice and case studies for the museum sector, the new guidance introduces much greater clarity about how museums should respond to claims, according to Alexander Herman, director of the Institute of Art and Law (IAL). Herman assisted in preparing this new guidance and ensured it reflects recent developments in the restitution debate. The guidelines also stress the “rich opportunities” that repatriation can present for enhancing a greater understanding for all the parties involved, including the opportunity for museums to develop their collections knowledge and research. The Museums Association reports the publication of this document was held back on several occasions due to its “increased political sensitivity”. The hiatus between British prime ministers provided an opportunity for the document’s publication.

Getty Museum returns important Roman statues illegally excavated from Italy

Fri, 12 Aug 2022 13:08:48 GMT

The J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles is returning a nearly life-size sculptural group of a Seated Poet and two Sirens to Italy after research revealed the figures were excavated illegally.

At the same time, the Museum is working alongside Italy’s Ministry of Culture and will return four additional objects in the Getty collection, some of which are also understood to have been trafficked.

The figures of a Seated Poet and two Sirens with unjoined fragmentary curls and shells, also known as Orpheus and the Sirens , are made of terracotta and surviving traces of paint confirm were originally brightly painted. They came from the Greek colony of Tarentum, located on the Apulian coast in southeast Italy, and were made about 350-300 BCE. Mr Getty acquired the figures himself in March 1976, just months before his death on June 6. He paid 550,000 US dollars to the now-defunct Bank Leu in Zurich for the three figures on the recommendation of Czech American archaeologist Jiri Frel, Getty's antiquities curator from 1973 to 1986.

The group is considered to be the depiction of a deceased mortal as a musician surrounded by two mythical Sirens, part bird and part woman, and would have decorated a tomb.

The first discussions over their illegal export took place between the Museum and Italy's Ministry of Culture in February this year. However, the evidence of their illegal excavation became more persuasive after the Museum was contacted by Matthew Bogdanos of the Antiquities Trafficking Unit at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Bogdanos has been conducting an investigation into the operations of Gianfranco Becchina, an accused Italian antiquities smuggler. As a result, the decision was made that now is an "appropriate to return them in accordance with Getty policy," according to a Museum spokesperson. The figures were removed immediately from public view and the Museum is currently preparing the extremely fragile figures for their return to Rome next month (September).

Their return will be a great loss to the Getty, which regards them as a signature work in the Museum's classical collection. "I'd even say one of the most important in the collection," Museum Director Timothy Potts said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times . "So it will be a loss as to what we can represent about the art of the ancient classical world, in this case southern Italy in the late fourth century BCE."

Colossal Head of a Divinity, 2nd cent A.D. Roman

Working alongside a number of independent scholars, the Getty has also decided to return three further objects acquired by J. Paul Getty and the Getty Museum in the 1970s: a 2nd cent A.D. colossal marble head of a divinity, a 2nd cent A.D. stone mould for casting pendants and an oil painting of the Oracle at Delphi by the Neapolitan artist Camillo Miola (1840-1919). A fourth object scheduled to be returned is a 4th cent BCE. Etruscan bronze thymiaterion , acquired by the Museum in 1996. None of these four objects have been exhibited in recent years.

“We value our strong and fruitful relationship with the Italian Ministry of Culture,” explained Museum Director Robert Tuttle, “and with our many archaeological, conservation, curatorial, and other scholarly colleagues throughout Italy, with whom we share a mission to advance the preservation of ancient cultural heritage.”

This initiative is welcome news for Italy as the Getty hasn't always responded so positively to every request for restitution. Although it returned in 2007 a 5th cent BCE. marble statue of a deity known as the Getty Aphrodite , a statue excavated illegally from Italy in 1977 or 1978, there grew fears the Getty’s continuing refusal to return their Greek bronze statue Victorious Youth to Italy would lead the Museum to become much less co-operative over future repatriation claims. However, returning such an important work from the Museum's classical collection suggests a greater willingness by the Getty to return trafficked objects when evidence of trafficking is overwhelmingly persuasive.

Photo: Sculptural Group of a Seated Poet and Sirens ( Orpheus and the Sirens ) , Greek, Tarentum, southern Italy, 350-300 BCE.

Both images courtesy of J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles

Horniman decision to return 72 Benin Bronzes marks a watershed moment in the restitution debate

Tue, 09 Aug 2022 11:00:24 GMT

South London’s Horniman Museum and Gardens is the latest institution to agree returning ownership of its Benin Bronzes to Nigeria. A consultation the Museum held in autumn 2020 with members of the Nigerian diaspora community over the future of 72 objects looted from Benin City played a key role in the unanimous decision of the trustees to return the Bronzes.

The consultation, part of a wider project called ‘Rethinking Relationships and Building Trust around African Collections’, led the Museum to introduce a new policy on restitution and repatriation. The new policy requires that each request for repatriation is dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

In January this year, Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments (NCMM) submitted a request for the Horniman to return ownership of its entire collection of Benin artefacts. These include 12 brass plaques, a brass cockerel altar piece, ivory and brass ceremonial objects, brass bells and everyday items such as fans and baskets. Following six months of provenance research conducted by independent experts, the Museum’s trustees decided the objects should be returned to Benin City in Edo State, Nigeria. Their decision was endorsed by UK Charity Commission, the regulator of the charity sector, last week (August 5).

“The evidence is very clear that these objects were acquired through force, and external consultation supported our view that it is both moral and appropriate to return their ownership to Nigeria.”

Eve Salomon, Chair of the Trustees of the Horniman Museum and Gardens

The Horniman initiative marks a watershed moment in the restitution debate as it becomes the first UK museum funded by government to agree the return of Benin artefacts. As a charity, authorisation is required from the UK Charity Commission before deaccessioning can take place.

The collection’s roots lie in British Empire and colonialism and was formed by tea trader and Liberal MP Frederick Horniman. The Benin artefacts were purchased by Horniman between 1897 and 1899. For several years, the Museum has been determined to shake off long-standing issues of racism and discrimination associated with the Museum’s history and collections and has now agreed what it calls a ‘Reset Agenda’. This is a coordinated programme aimed at acknowledging their colonial history, attracting a more inclusive audience and workforce and addressing the environmental and social issues that all museums now face.

Within this new environment, it’s possible that a number of Benin objects will remain on display. Like other agreements the NCMM is forging with collections across Europe and the UK, opportunities for further collaboration might involve the Horniman retaining a number of Benin items for display, research and education. However, this still won’t prevent the formal transfer of ownership of all their Benin objects to Nigeria.

The willingness of the Museum to engage in a wider consultation about its Benin artefacts - with diaspora communities, visitors, school children, heritage professionals and artists based in Nigeria - distinguishes the Horniman’s approach from other collections grappling with ownership of looted Bronzes. In the case of the Horniman, the architect of this approach was Director Nick Merriman who was committed to building long-term relationships between collections and source communities.

As Merriman told Returning Heritage , “Usually the debate around restitution and all things that go with it has been between one country or one institution and another in the UK. But we felt there was an important voice missing in all of this, which is the opinions of those diaspora communities living in the UK.”

The Horniman’s route on its path to repatriating its collection of Benin Bronzes looks an attractive model that other collections with strong roots in their local communities might wish to follow.

After this was written......

A New York-based Restitution Study Group, which campaigns on behalf of the descendants of enslaved people to secure repatriations, has intervened claiming a "co-ownership interest" in the Horniman's collection of Benin Bronzes. The Executive Director of the Group has sent an open letter to the UK Charity Commission urging them to reject the Horniman's and other UK museum plans to repatriate their Benin objects to Nigeria ( History Reclaimed ). Instead, they propose the museums should hold them in trust: "they are the wealth and legacy of slave descendants, not the slave traders". The Group argues the Kingdom of Benin, through Nigeria, would be unjustly enriched by their repatriation. "Nigeria and the Kingdom of Benin have never apologized for enslaving our ancestors," explains the letter. "We ask that you do not approve the transfer of these relics." Slavery was a significant source of wealth for the Kingdom of Benin and many of the 'Bronzes' looted from Benin City were made from melted-down currency earned from the trade in African slaves.

Photo: Benin plaque of Chief Uwangue and Portuguese traders

Courtesy of Horniman Museum and Gardens

A bold, selfless initiative leads the way in returning Benin Bronzes

Wed, 03 Aug 2022 11:42:53 GMT

When retired doctor Mark Warner travelled to the Oba’s palace in Benin City on 20 June 2014 to present the elderly Oba Erediauwa with a pair of Benin Bronzes from his grandfather’s collection, he never envisaged how this one event would resonate across the entire museum community.

The two Bronzes, a traditional offering bell and an Oro bird broken from its staff, were acquired by his grandfather, Capt. Herbert Walker CBE, during the 1897 sacking of Benin City. They were just two objects from a larger number of fine Benin Bronzes and pieces of ivory collected by Walker following the raid.

Coveted by his family for years, his grandson had decided to reassess the ownership of these two looted objects. The ethical case for their return was strong. If the ethical consensus was in favour of returning Nazi looted art, why shouldn’t the same apply for the Benin Bronzes? An even more powerful motivation, however, was Walker's personal belief that it’s better they are owned by people who have a long term interest in their future*. That meant returning them to Benin City and the Edo people.

The federal government offered to fly him to Nigeria’s capital, Abuja, where he would hand them over to Nigeria’s Minister of Arts and Culture. But Warner wasn’t convinced this would guarantee their return to the Edo people. It looked as if his plan to return the Bronzes was about to unravel. However, at this point the Oba himself stepped forward and paid for Warner to come directly to Benin City, avoiding Abuja altogether.

117 years after the two items were looted, the grandson of the British officer who took the Bronzes finally returned them to the great-grandson of the Oba from whom they were looted.

Despite the challenges he faced from officialdom and the mounting evidence of Nigeria’s disunity about where the Bronzes should be returned, Warner still felt it was his personal responsibility to return the Bronzes to their source.

“For me, the most important thing is that the descendants of one of the soldiers who was responsible for the sacking of Benin are making a gesture of respect for that people and its culture.”

Mark Warner

Walker’s very bold and personal campaign continued five years later (December 2019) when he arranged a temporary loan of two wooden ceremonial paddles to the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford. Walker hadn’t realised the paddles in his grandfather’s collection formed part of the plunder from Benin City until he saw similar paddles on the website of South London's Horniman Museum and Gardens. After their display in Oxford, he has requested the paddles are returned to Benin City.

Assisting private individuals with their wish to return looted artefacts represented a new model for restitution, according to Dan Hicks, professor of contemporary archaeology and a curator at the Pitt Rivers Museum. “What we’re learning is that restitution can take many forms,” he said. “This seems to be something new that we’re doing, in that we are able to support the wishes of a private individual to restitute their own objects.”

The success of Warner’s bold 2014 initiative to take upon himself responsibility for returning his grandfather’s looted Benin Bronzes has encouraged other public collections to reassess their ownership of Benin artefacts. Warner's desire to correct an historic injustice has resonated throughout the museum sector. Perhaps more than any other group of objects torn away in circumstances of extreme violence, the ethical case for returning the Benin Bronzes has forced museums and nation states into re-thinking their entire approach to the communities from where their collections were sourced.

* See Barnaby Phillips, Loot . Published by Oneworld (2021) for an excellent account of Mark Walker’s 2014 initiative

Photo: Benin Bronzes in the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford

Monthly News Digest July 2022

Mon, 01 Aug 2022 08:34:17 GMT

British Museum wants to "change the temperature of the debate"

31 July 2022

Over a month after George Osborne declared on LBC Radio there’s a “deal to be done” by sharing the Marbles , a Sunday Times article reports the British Museum “has opened the door to returning the Elgin Marbles to Greece”. This latest call for a “Parthenon partnership” is based on an interview with Jonathan Williams, the BM’s deputy director. Williams claims the Museum wants "to change the temperature of the debate,” and went on to say, “we want to do something qualitatively different”. It's curious that only last May, while attending a UNESCO meeting in Paris of the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property, Williams spoke dismissively of Greece’s right to recover the sculptures removed by Lord Elgin’s agents from the Acropolis. Three months ago he was defending the BM’s rights of ownership by claiming he “firmly believes” that most of the sculptures in the Museum’s collection were recovered from the ancient rubble around the temple site and were not hacked off the temple’s walls. It’s hard to understand how this latest interview indicates a genuine shift in the Museum’s position – unless the new Chairman of the Trustees really is pointing the Museum’s executive in a new direction.

British Geologist freed from Iraqi Jail

29 July 2022

Jim Fitton, the retired British geologist sentenced to 15 years in an Iraqi jail for attempting to smuggle antiquities out of the country, has been freed following a successful appeal. In May we reported that Fitton, along with German tourist Volker Waldmann, another member of an archaeological tour group visiting the ancient Sumerian city of Eridu in southern Iraq, collected a small number of waste pottery and stone fragments from the site. The items were discovered in the baggage of both men by customs officials at Baghdad airport in March. Both were kept in custody at the airport for the next three months. At a second hearing in June where Waldmann was acquitted, Fitton was convicted under a 2002 law introduced in the Saddam era of smuggling antiquities and was immediately transferred to a Baghdad jail. At an appeal hearing, Fitton’s defence lawyer convinced the court the shards he collected were valueless and were collected without knowledge of any illegality. He also showed there was no intention to profit from his actions (a crime which bears a penalty of 15 years in jail and, in extreme cases, the death sentence). Fitton was released on 29 July and has returned to his family. His ordeal illustrates the danger tourists face today when removing objects - no matter how insignificant - from Iraqi archaeological sites.

Canadian Indigenous groups call on Vatican to return their cultural heritage

21 July 2022

Before Pope Francis’s arrived in Canada for a Papal visit on 24 July, First Nations and Indigenous leaders were calling for the return of their cultural heritage held in the Vatican’s Anima Mundi Museum. Many of these objects were collected for Pope Pius XI’s vast 1925 Pontifical Missionary Exposition and were never returned. Starting from the late 19 ^th century, Indigenous people in Canada had a tortured history with the Catholic Church. This includes the forcible assimilation of Indigenous children and communities into White culture at Catholic-run residential schools. One of the objects Indigenous leaders are seeking to recover is a wood and sealskin kayak from the Inuvialuit people of norther Canada, sent to the Vatican in 1924 but never returned.

Manhattan District Attorney returns further looted antiquities to Italy

20 July 2022

Another large haul of looted antiquities has been returned by Manhattan District Attorney’s office, this time to Rome’s new Museo dell’Arte Salvata (Museum of Rescued Art). 142 Italian antiquities, including a fresco formerly buried under volcanic ash at Herculaneum, were handed over to Italy’s consul general in New York, Fabrizio Di Michele, at a repatriation ceremony in the New York on 13 July. All items had been seized by Manhattan investigators. The fresco, known as the Ercolano Fresco, was one of 48 recovered from the collection of hedge fund millionaire Michael H. Steinhardt who had bought the fresco from the antiquities dealer Robert Hecht. Hecht has been accused of illicit trafficking. Another 60 items returned to Italy were recovered from the leading dealer in Greco-Roman artefacts Royal-Athena Galleries. Italian and Manhattan investigators determined that all 142 items had been stolen and placed illegally on the art market.

Yale University relinquishes artefacts smuggled by Subhash Kapoor

July 2022

Yale University Art Gallery has handed over twelve South Asian antiquities, believed to be smuggled, following an investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. The DA’s office received assistance from India Pride Project , the volunteer group of activists that makes use of social media to track down stolen Indian artefacts. Nine of the twelve objects had been sold to the non-profit Rubin-Ladd Foundation by Subhash Kapoor, the Manhattan-based dealer in South Asian art who faces charges for theft and smuggling in both India and the USA. Kapoor is presently awaiting trial in India, before extradition to the USA to face further smuggling charges. All nine objects were donated to the Yale University Art Gallery by the Rubin-Ladd Foundation. Two other Yale objects investigated by the DA’s office and relinquished by Yale were sold to them by Doris and Nancy Wiener, New York-based antiquities dealers with close ties to Kapoor. After Doris Wiener died in 2011, her daughter Nancy pleaded guilty in 2021 to charges of conspiracy and possessing stolen property.

London’s Natural History Museum repatriates Moriori ancestral remains

08 July 2022

Te Papa, New Zealand’s national museum celebrating the country’s culturally diverse society, welcomed the return of 111 Koimi T’chakat Moriori (Moriori skeletal remains) and 2 Maori ancestral remains from London’s Natural History Museum. Described as the “first” of its kind from the Natural History Museum, the repatriation includes human skulls, mandibles, other parts of the body and a small number of complete skeletons, all had been removed by the British for collection, trade or research purposes from Rekohu (Chatham Islands). Te Papa’s co-leader Dr Arapata Hakiwai went out of his way to acknowledge the team at the Natural History Museum, “who have been assisting with this repatriation for many years and treated our discussions with sensitivity and care.” At the same time, further Moriori ancestral remains were transferred from other New Zealand institutions.

Charity Commission is set to decide whether 213 Benin Bronzes return to Nigeria

Sat, 30 Jul 2022 15:44:54 GMT

Nigeria’s mission to recover Benin Bronzes, looted during the British raid on Benin City in 1897 and now held in the university collections of Oxford and Cambridge, could result in the largest ever repatriation of Benin artefacts from the United Kingdom.

Although both universities are supporting repatriation, the charitable status of their museum collections means authorisation by the UK Charity Commission is required before legal ownership can be transferred and the 213 Benin artefacts returned to Nigeria.

News of this latest repatriation follows other commitments made by US and European museums to return Benin artefacts. It also follows hard on the heels of Germany’s announcement made earlier month to return more than 1100 artefacts presently in German public collections. Overriding legal constraints, Germany has said it recognises these objects were removed illegally from Nigeria. Describing the transfer as a "significant step", Hermann Parzinger, the head of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, added the return is "a milestone in the process of reappraising colonial injustice in the field of museum collections".

This latest initiative from Oxford and Cambridge means that Germany is not alone in highlighting 'theft' as grounds for returning looted colonial artefacts. Reinforcing this change in approach to restitution, Professor Nicholas Thomas, director of Cambridge’s Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (MAA), which has identified 116 objects in their collection confirmed or presumed looted, has drawn attention to a growing recognition within the global museum sector “that illegitimately acquired artefacts should be returned to their countries of origin.”

Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments (NCMM) approached Oxford’s Pitt Rivers and Ashmolean Museums, and Cambridge’s MAA on January 7 this year, presenting each museum with a formal claim to recover their looted Benin artefacts.

Five months after Nigeria’s claim was made, the Council of the University of Oxford “considered and supported” the claim for the return of their collection of 97 Benin objects at a meeting on 22 June.

“The University is now submitting the case to the Charity Commission, recommending transfer of legal title to the objects to the NCMM,” said a statement.

As we anticipated in March, Cambridge University recommended the same at a meeting of their University Council on 18 July. Professor Thomas points out that Cambridge has played an active role engaging with Nigerian stakeholders since it first hosted the Benin Dialogue Group in 2017. It also has a proven, well-defined and research-oriented process for restitution. The University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor Professor Kamal Munir welcomed representatives of the Royal Court of Benin, the NCMM and other Benin Dialogue Group delegates to the MAA in October 2021.

It’s understood the Charity Commission will authorise both requests by autumn 2022. However, authorisation will not lead to an immediate transfer of artefacts. In the long term, all 213 objects are expected to be transferred to the new Edo Museum of West African Art , but this museum is still several years away from completion. In the meantime, all 213 objects are likely to remain in situ.

The NCMM has also indicated it welcomes proposals for future loan arrangements, a plan they’ve already agreed with Germany. This would enable some of the Benin artefacts to remain on loan in Cambridge and Oxford, even though official legal ownership will have transferred to Nigeria.

After this was written.....

A New York-based Restitution Study Group, which campaigns on behalf of the descendants of enslaved people to secure repatriations, has intervened claiming a "co-ownership interest" in Benin objects being transferred by UK museums to Nigeria. The Executive Director of the Group has sent an open letter to the UK Charity Commission urging them to reject these and other plans to repatriate the objects to Nigeria ( History Reclaimed ). Instead, they propose the museums should hold them in trust: "they are the wealth and legacy of slave descendants, not the slave traders". The Group argues the Kingdom of Benin, through Nigeria, would be unjustly enriched by their repatriation. "Nigeria and the Kingdom of Benin have never apologized for enslaving our ancestors," explains the letter. "We ask that you do not approve the transfer of these relics." Slavery was a significant source of wealth for the Kingdom of Benin and many of the 'Bronzes' looted from Benin City were made from melted-down currency earned from the trade in African slaves.

Photo: Lost-wax cast commemorative head of an Oba, Benin City (MAA ID No. E1902.95)

Courtesy of Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge

UKRAINE

Thu, 28 Jul 2022 09:48:03 GMT

UKRAINE

Updated January 2024

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made by Ukraine, together with other restitution news. Entries are updated regularly.

January 2024

Looted artefacts from excavations in eastern and southern Ukraine, discovered by Estonian customs officials in a truck entering Estonia from Russia, are being returned to Ukraine

The Baltic Times

July 2023

The Dutch Supreme Court upholds an earlier ruling that 1,000 cultural objects, loaned to the Allard Pierson Museum in the Netherlands in 2014, must be returned to the State of Ukraine and not to Russian-held Crimea

Cultural Property News

July 2022

Ukrainian authorities uncover a trove of ancient Scythian weapons believed to have been looted from museums in occupied Crimea

OCCRP

Glasgow and Germany grip the debate over legal ownership

Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:21:52 GMT

Resolving the long term issue of legal ownership remains central to the restitution debate. But while it's rare a single solution is acceptable to all, sometimes it can be delivered with a confident leap of faith.

In the last few weeks, several major initiatives suggest the debate over legal ownership has taken several steps forward.

Last month a delegation from Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments (NCMM) travelled to Glasgow to hold talks about the legal transfer to Nigeria of the city’s collection of Benin artefacts.

Abba Isa Tijani, director general of the NCMM and the organisation’s legal advisor Babatunde Adebiyi met with officials from Glasgow Life, the organisation tasked to oversee Glasgow’s museums. at Kelvingrove Art Gallery & Museum, where they discussed arrangements for transferring ownership of the Benin artefacts currently held in Glasgow museums.

This follows a decision made last April by Glasgow City Council’s Administration Committee to approve the recommendation of the City’s Working Group for Repatriation and Spoliation to return a group of important cultural items to source communities. The collection includes at least 17 Benin artefacts.

Once it was agreed the moral and ethical case for repatriation overrides any other curatorial considerations, Glasgow saw the return of these objects as an opportunity for the city to build on the international relationships that negotiations to return these objects have helped to establish.

“By addressing past wrongs, we believe the returns will help to strengthen existing relations with these descendant communities”

Duncan Dornan, head of museums and collections at Glasgow Life

As Returning Heritage reported last April , the city’s current plan is to transfer legal ownership of 51 items to Nigeria, India and to the Cheyenne River and Oglala Sioux Tribes in South Dakota, an event marking the largest ever repatriation of objects from Scottish collections.

Glasgow’s willingness to transfer legal ownership matches the direction of a landmark agreement announced by Germany last week to return ownership of two Benin Bronzes, together with more than 1130 other looted Nigerian artefacts now held in multiple German collections. On the signing of this Joint Declaration on the Return of Benin Bronzes, we expect that a representative collection of Benin artefacts will remain on display in German collections on the basis of long-term loans.

Speaking at the signing, Lai Mohammed, Nigeria's Minister for Information and Culture, expressed a hope their agreement with Germany "will be the harbinger of further returns". Hermann Parzinger, head of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, the authority overseeing many of Berlin’s museums, reinforced this message, adding: “The return is a milestone in the process of reappraising colonial injustice in the field of museum collections”.

Germany's agreement with Nigeria is no 'one-off'. It follows another agreement last month to return looted artefacts to German former colonies in Namibia and Tanzania, as well as returning the figure of Ngonnso to Cameroon.

Meanwhile, last week London’s V&A Museum announced they have returned an ancient sculpture to the Istanbul Archaeology Museum, but this time on the basis of a long-term renewable loan. Under this agreed arrangement, legal title of a 3rd century AD marble head of the Greek god Eros, discovered detached from the Sidamara Sarcophagus, will remain with the V&A, but the head will be reattached to the sarcophagus in Istanbul. The V&A’s governing Act (National Heritage Act 1983) currently prohibits a transfer of legal ownership, so instead, the two organisations have forged what they describe as a “cultural partnership” between the V&A and the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism. The arrangement will be revisited after the first six years.

The sarcophagus was discovered by Sir Charles Wilson in 1882 at or near the site of the ancient settlement of Sidamaria in Lycaonia, central Turkey. Wilson took the life-size head of Eros, which had already become detached, and gave it to the South Kensington Museum (now the V&A) in the following year. He left the sarcophagus in situ, hoping to recover it at a future date, but that never happened. Instead, it was transferred to Istanbul’s Archaeology Museum in 1900.

Almost a century ago, a visitor to the V&A in 1933 recognised the head corresponded in style to the Sidamara Sarcophagus. As a result, the V&A contacted Istanbul and a plaster cast of the head was made by the Museum for attachment to the sarcophagus. The cast remained in place until last month.

Negotiations for the return of the original head were renewed in 2010, by which time the V&A had relegated the head into storage. After both teams undertook conservation work on the marbles head, the original was finally reattached to the sarcophagus last month.

The Sidamara Sarcophagus is one of the jewels in the collection of the Istanbul Archaeological Museum. By itself, the head added little to the V&A Museum’s collection, but following its transfer to Istanbul, it completes the decoration of this elaborate sarcophagus. They belong together, so it made perfect sense for these institutions to find a solution that reunites both elements. It also makes sense for the renewable loan to continue into the foreseeable future - at least until Britain’s national collections start to follow the example of other responsible collections and reappraise their approach to legal ownership.

Photos: Conservators from the V&A working at the Istanbul Archaeological Museum to reattach the Head of Eros to the Sidamara Sarcophagus

Courtesy of Victoria & Albert Museum

Kluge-Ruhe Collection in USA returns seven sacred objects to Warlpiri community in central Australia

Tue, 21 Jun 2022 13:30:17 GMT

Seven sacred objects from the Warlpiri community, located on remote lands in the Northern Territory in central Australia, are on their way home from the Kluge-Ruhe Aboriginal Art Collection of the University of Virginia.

This is the latest in a series of orderly repatriations resulting from a successful research partnership between the Kluge-Ruhe collection in the USA and the AIATSIS Return of Cultural Heritage programme.

AIATSIS (The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies) was founded about 60 years ago as a place to record cultures that were perceived as dying out. The Institute already holds a vast amount of of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural materials, stored for safekeeping and/or digitisation with the approval of the originating communities. Facilitating returns from other countries and collections is a relatively recent addition to the Institute's function.

Some First Nations people, once advised, have been happy for their cultural materials to remain on display in museum collections on the other side of the world - as long as they can determine how these materials are presented. One of the key aims of the Return of Cultural Heritage programme is to enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander custodians to makes decisions about their cultural heritage.

In mid-2020 AIATSIS and the Kluge-Ruhe Collection at the University of Virginia formed a partnership, initially to research and identify the provenance of sacred objects sourced from Australia held by the Kluge-Ruhe, but also with a view to possible repatriation. Holding around 2200 items, the Kluge-Ruhe's collection of First Nations artefacts is considered the most significant such collection outside of Australia. After confirming their sacred significance for Warlpiri men, this latest group of seven objects were returned for storage to the South Australian Museum in Adelaide. In the last few days, a delegation of Warlpiri men travelled to Adelaide to collect and return them to Yuendumu, one of the largest Aboriginal remote communities in Central Australia. A private ceremony to mark their return will be held once they have arrived.

In a statement, the senior Warlpiri men who travelled to Adelaide said:

“We are glad to see this material come back to Australia from America, but we need more help for all our material to come back. We need help make a keeping place for all our material coming home.”

AIATSIS Chief Executive Craig Ritchie praised the Kluge-Ruhe Collection staff for responding very positively to the AIATSIS Return of Cultural Heritage programme.

“Discussions with staff at Kluge-Ruhe is ongoing regarding material from the other Central Australian language groups.” He added, “We are impressed with the commitment shown by the staff at the museum to giving priority to the wishes of the communities from which those materials were sourced.”

The majority of objects in the Kluge-Ruhe Collection were acquired by two American enthusiasts for Australian Indigenous art: US media mogul and philanthropist John W. Kluge and the academic Edward Ruhe, who collected objects during fieldwork in Australia in the 1960s.

Photo: Warlpiri men with their cultural heritage material at Alice Springs Airport

Courtesy of Shaun Angeles Penangke, AIATSIS

Iraq: New drone technology advances work in the field but won't reduce the risks of looting

Mon, 20 Jun 2022 09:07:16 GMT

A new approach to discover, identify and preserve ancient buildings using pioneering drone technology is being used for the first time at cultural heritage sites in southern Iraq.

The use of high resolution drone imagery represents a major advance in fieldwork research, enabling archaeologists to identify buildings that would otherwise remain hidden under the surface.

But at the same time, it creates further headaches for the policing of southern Iraq’s cultural heritage, an archaeological jewel that continues to suffer from organised looting.

The new technology is being deployed by the Girsu Project team, an initiative launched in autumn 2021 involving experts from the British Museum and Iraqi archaeologists. The Project is focussed on modern Tello, the site of the ancient Sumerian city of Girsu, where the world’s oldest bridge and a significant temple complex have already been uncovered. Remote sensing technology has been deployed to uncover an extremely large complex dating from over 4,000 years ago. This complex has already yielded an impressive number of finds. Around 1,000 artefacts were discovered in the autumn 2021 season alone, including inscribed votive objects, clay tables, a rare foundation figure, beautifully carved cylinder seals and a unique stone statuette in the shape of a worshipping braided figure, dated to the early 3 ^rd millennium. All these finds have been transferred to the Iraq Museum in Baghdad.

The Girsu Project has developed another ground-breaking technique whereby the mud-bricks discovered at the site of an ancient building are excavated and conserved simultaneously – a new way of ensuring that conservation runs in tandem with excavation and research.

It is hoped both these fieldwork developments will provide new and important insights, both into the sites themselves and into objects now held in the British Museum and Iraqi museums.

However, uncovering further archaeological sites in Iraq may also expose the country to further risks of organised and random looting. It’s been estimated there are more than 25,000 archaeological sites in Iraq, ancient Mesopotamia in antiquity, but there's precious little surveillance or security at most of these sites.

Imposing harsh penalties to prevent any form of looting is probably why the sentence passed earlier this month on retired geologist, 66 year-old Jim Fitton from Bath was so severe. Visiting the ancient Sumerian site of Eridu on an organised archaeological tour of Iraq, Fitton collected twelve pottery shards and stone fragments, which had been dispersed from the spoil heaps of earlier excavations. Although the artefacts are of no financial or historical value, he was arrested at Baghdad airport and convicted this month under a 2002 law of smuggling antiquities out of the country, a crime which carries a sentence of seven to fifteen years in prison. Fitton is expected to appeal.

Speaking to The New York Times , Iraq’s culture minister, Hassan Nadhem, said his ministry had no input into the sentencing, although he did add: “We support any kind of legal action against those who try to steal and smuggle artefacts”.

Looting from archaeological sites has been a perennial problem for Iraq, although Nadhem said he didn’t know of any Iraqis who, in the past two years since he has been minister, have been convicted on similar charges as Fitton.

This all confirms our worst fear that Fitton’s case is being exploited to send a wider message to the global community: remove anything from an historical site in Iraq and you’ll end up in jail – you may even face execution.

Photo: Girsu Project team with drone

Courtesy of Trustees of the British Museum

Leaders of the British Museum and the V&A Museum hint at policy changes

Fri, 17 Jun 2022 10:31:54 GMT

No British Museum chairman has ever declared there’s a “deal to be done” by sharing the Parthenon Marbles. Neither has the V&A’s Director ever suggested the time may have come to review Britain's National Heritage Act. But this week, both museum leaders did just that.

Could we really be witnessing the first signs of a seismic shift in national museums policy towards restitution, or will statements made in the media this week by George Osborne and Tristram Hunt prove another false dawn?

Since he become Chairman of the British Museum’s board of trustees in June 2021, George Osborne, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, has kept his Parthenon cards close to his chest. By tradition, the Chairman and trustees prefer to let the Director do the talking. Just like other British Museum Directors, Hartwig Fischer, has consistently rejected the idea that Greece could be the legitimate owner of the Marbles. In a ludicrous defence of the Museum’s position in 2019, Fischer even said their removal to London could be seen as “a creative act”.

While never closing the door to a loan, Fischer has always insisted that Greek recognition of the British Museum’s ownership must be a prerequisite for any future loan. This is one condition that has never been acceptable to Greece.

But Osborne’s statement in an intervie w with Andrew Marr for LBC radio this week hints he might be prepared to cut through the traditional BM stance and consider a sharing arrangement of the sculptures between Athens and London. That is, he emphasised, if "we both approach this without a load of preconditions, without a load of red lines”.

“Sensible people could arrange something that makes the most of the Parthenon Marbles, but if either side says there’s no give at all, then there won’t be a deal.”

George Osborne, British Museum Chairman

So, is recognising the British Museum's ownership still a red line that cannot be crossed? After all, Osborne's statement comes just weeks after British officials at UNESCO talks in May dismissed the significance of planned talks between Ministers from Greece and the UK about returning the Marbles. If both parties were to agree to remove this contentious precondition over legal ownership of the sculptures, could the more pragmatic arrangement involving rotating loans that we've recommended at Returning Heritage break this long-running impasse? We believe it can.

But let's not run ahead of ourselves. Osborne also added that he cannot “talk for all of the trustees” and we have no idea what the other trustees might think of sharing one of the Museum’s greatest cultural attractions. Was Osborne speaking out of turn or can he really bring the other trustees around to his point of view?

Throughout Boris Johnson's period in office, the government has been insisting it’s the trustees not the government who are responsible for deciding the future of the Marbles. This is a curious deception, as everyone knows - including the government itself - that any change in the Marbles' ownership would involve amending the British Museum Act. And this is something only Parliament can deliver. However, Osborne's idea to share the Marbles - an alternative to transferring the rights of ownership - could be delivered without changing the Act. Loan arrangements are permitted within the Act and if this precondition that Greece must recognise British Museum ownership is waived altogether, an agreement to share can then be packaged as a loan. This lets government off the hook for taking responsibility for the future of the Marbles and is consistent with their vocal transfer of responsibility to the trustees. All the trustees have to do is agree to remove the precondition from the Museum’s own Collections Policy.

With supporters of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles planning a protest at the British Museum this weekend (18 June), the Museum's trustees should look closely at this opportunity to formalise a viable solution to this long-running saga, where both parties and the global exhibition public are the winners.

Meanwhile, over at South Kensington the V&A’s Director, Tristram Hunt, has made his own surprising U-turn. Questioned briefly on BBC Radio 4 this week about his views on repatriation, Hunt shifted the ground by saying maybe it’s time to review the National Heritage Act. Introduced in 1983, the Act prevents the V&A’s trustees (together with those of the other museums and collections governed by this Act) from de-accessioning objects, unless they are replicas or damaged beyond repair.

"My view is that we are coming up to the 40th anniversary of [the National Heritage Act] and it might be time for parliamentarians to think about how the Act works in the current era," he said.

"It should be the responsibility of trustees to make the case for what should and should not be in their collections and at the moment they don't have that right because the 1983 Act means they are legally unable to do so."

Tristram Hunt, Director V&A Museum

The V&A has come under sustained pressure in recent years from countries such as Ethiopia that have been requesting the return of objects looted by British forces from Maqdala in 1868. The then prime minister William Gladstone urged these objects should “be held only until they could be restored”.

In previous statements, Hunt has made his opposition to returning such objects and to the very concept of decolonisation abundantly clear: “For a museum like the V&A, to decolonise is to decontextualize”. Once describing the process towards restitution as merely "identity politics", he has also said the "cultural left" should stop regarding "museums as reactionary vestiges of the colonial past with looted collections".

So, will Hunt's apparent new-found optimism for trustee autonomy really lead to a genuine push for change in current legislation that prohibits disposals and repatriation? Or will it flounder, worn down by governmental procrastination, just as it has in France, five years after President Macron declared "African heritage can't just be in European private collections and museums"? Precisely what Osborne and Hunt deliver will be watched very closely.

After this was written......

Members of the group known as the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles went ahead with their protest at the British Museum on 18 June alongside members of the Houses of Lords and Commons. Read more here . Meanwhile, speaking to The Daily Telegraph , Prof Paul Cartledge of the British Committee accused George Osborne of "misdirection and disinformation", insisting that nothing less than full repatriation would be acceptable to Greece.

Photo: Tristram Hunt, Director V&A

Courtesy of Getty Images

Tipu Sultan’s gold finial: a lost opportunity for India?

Thu, 09 Jun 2022 16:30:19 GMT

Britain has granted an export licence for a gold finial plundered by British troops from the throne of Tipu Sultan, the 18 ^th century Indian ruler of Mysore. This means it can now be sold to a collection outside the United Kingdom. But it’s unlikely to return to India.

Despite a growing number of Indian citizen activists who believe all Tipu Sultan’s looted treasures should be returned, so far India has made no effort to exploit this opportunity and negotiate an alternate sale. Unlike China, where wealthy individuals are willing to step in and purchase looted treasures on behalf of the state (in China, restitution is a constitutional obligation), there is no force of wealth ready to buy back India's cultural heritage.

Speaking to Returning Heritage , Anuraag Saxena, a founder of India Pride Project, the global network of volunteers pressing foreign governments to return India's cultural heritage, explained the Indian approach is premised on conversation. “I’d be delighted if there are certain wealthy Indians that consider it their responsibility to buy these stolen objects and bring them back,” he said. “But I think a more sustainable equilibrium is one based on conversation, on morality, on decency, on shaking hands and agreements”.

There can be no doubt of the national importance this gold finial has to both countries: to the history of British imperialism and to the cultural legacy of Tipu Sultan (1750-99), who built a sophisticated court around his palace at Seringapatam in the Southern Indian state of Mysore. Tipu’s court attracted the finest artists in metalwork and jewellery and this finial is one of only a few fully documented examples of goldsmiths’ work from Southern Indian workshops.

The finial is one of eight that originally adorned Tipu’s gold-covered octagonal throne. The head is set with rubies and emeralds with kundan-set diamonds and is mounted on a black marble pedestal. No finial recovered from this throne was decorated in the same fashion – each one is unique. It’s importance lies not only for the study of Indian royal propaganda, but also for illustrating the vibrancy of culture at Tipu’s 18th century court. Known as the ‘Tiger of Mysore’, Tipu adopted the tiger as his own personal emblem, featuring it prominently on all his regalia (“better to live a single day as a tiger than a thousand years as a sheep,” he once declared). Decorating his palace walls and armour with images of a tiger, he employed it imaginatively on every possible surface, including on other elements of his gold octagonal throne.

Gold Tiger Head Finial from Tipu Sultan's Throne

Regarded as the greatest threat to the rival interests of the British East India Company, Tipu was defeated by British troops at Seringapatam in 1799. Afterwards, his golden throne was “barbarously knocked to pieces with a sledge hammer,” according to eyewitness Pulteney Mein.

The governor of Seringapatam, Arthur Wellesley, expressed his desire to reassemble it and present it to King George III, “but the indiscreet zeal of the Prize Agents of the army had broken that proud moment of the Sultan’s arrogance into fragments before I had been appraised even of the existence of such a trophy” (Source: A. Buddle, The Tiger and the Thistle . Edinburgh 1999).

Following an episode of unprecedented looting, Tipu’s treasures were widely dispersed. The components of his throne were either sold off by the Prize Committee, which used the proceeds to offset the expenses of the war, or were held by the East India Company. Of the eight finials that decorated the throne, this is one of only five whose existence is known. One finial is at Powis Castle (which owns several other items of Tipu, including his royal tent), three others are in private collections, although the whereabouts of two of these is currently unknown. This finial, which has now been granted an export licence, was acquired by Thomas Wallace who was on the Board of Control of the East India Company (but who never went to India) and found its way to Featherstone Castle in Northumberland. It then disappeared before resurfacing at a Bonhams auction in April 2009 when it was sold for £389,600 to a private collector. It was exhibited in the 'Treasures from India' exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York in 2014, before coming up for sale again at Christie’s in New York in June 2019 with an estimate of £350-500,000. This time it was withdrawn from the auction.

Tipu Sultan's Gold Octagonal Throne. Anna Tonelli

The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art met in May 2021 to consider this latest application for its export. They unanimously agreed that it met two of the three Waverley criteria, namely that its export from the UK would be a “misfortune” on the grounds (1) it was so closely connected with Britain's history and national life and (2) it was of outstanding significance for the study of royal propaganda and 18th century Anglo-Indian history. The Committee agreed a higher valuation than originally included with the application (£1,500,000 instead of £1,160,000), which almost certainly placed this object beyond the financial reach of any British public collection struggling with the legacy of Covid. However, after no offer or serious intent was demonstrated to purchase the finial, the Committee decided in February 2022 to issue the licence. Its future destination is unknown.

India’s claim this finial is “closely connected” with their country’s own history and national life is almost certainly as strong as the British claim - if not stronger, given the circumstances of its forcible removal. The absence of any other evidence of Tipu's golden throne surviving in India makes it especially unfortunate that negotiating a return to India has not been possible.

Saxena is an advocate that history belongs to its geography. In the case of this rare and important artefact, India's failure to step forward may prove an important opportunity lost.

Photo: Tipu Sultan, The Tiger of Mysore

Courtesy of ndtv.com

Greek attempts to recover the Marbles continue to meet resistance

Thu, 02 Jun 2022 14:16:15 GMT

Although Greece was at first encouraged by the invitation from Lord Parkinson, Britain’s Minister for the Arts, to meet and discuss the future of the Parthenon Marbles, subsequent events have shown this confidence was misplaced.

Not only is the British government in no mood to compromise, but the British Museum has resorted to spinning disputed facts as a device for clinging on to its most valued cultural asset.

Lord Parkinson’s invitation to his Greek counterpart Lina Mendoni on 29 April can best be described as a cynical diplomatic device. It enables the United Kingdom to confirm it has met a UNESCO recommendation to convene talks about reaching a mutually acceptable solution, but it doesn’t commit the United Kingdom to returning the Marbles to Greece.

Since 1984, UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin (ICPRCP) has made numerous recommendations to the United Kingdom and Greece to resolve this long-running, increasingly heated dispute. But there’s plenty of evidence to show the British government is still not serious about repatriation.

The ICPRCP session held in September 2021 called upon the United Kingdom “to reconsider its stand and proceed to a bona fide dialogue with Greece on the matter [of the Parthenon Marbles]”. By inviting Mendoni to talks, which are due to be arranged “in due course”, Lord Parkinson can demonstrate that the United Kingdom has complied with this UNESCO recommendation.

However, the British government’s true position, nicknamed the “Bloomsbury Defence”, was laid bare at the latest ICPRCP session held in Paris last month (18-20 May). While Greece was reporting they have accepted Britain’s invitation to hold talks, the British delegation was dismissing the meeting's significance. Helen Whitehouse, deputy director of museums and cultural property at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) was spinning the familiar mantra: "It is not for the UK government to enter into discussions on the future of the Parthenon sculptures with the Greek government".

From Britain’s point of view, the official line confirms that nothing has changed - the Marbles are legally owned by the trustees of the British Museum. No new negotiating position has emerged to suggest Lord Parkinson, the British minister charged to sit down with Mendoni to discuss the fate of the Marbles, will do anything more than repeat the same message he gave to Parliament last February:

“Our prime minister emphasised the UK’s longstanding position that this is a matter for the trustees of the British Museum, who legally own the sculptures. The British Museum operates independently of the government, meaning that decisions relating to the care and management of its collections are a matter for its trustees.”

But this position deftly avoids realities. Numerous delegates at the ICPRCP session pointed out that only the British government can introduce the legislation necessary to amend the Act that would enable repatriation. Arms-length independence doesn't give the Museum’s trustees the right to exercise their powers beyond those within the existing the British Museum Act 1963. Significantly, this governing Act prevents trustees from disposing of objects in the Museum’s collection. There are only a few exceptions to this disposals policy, one of which relates to objects the trustees consider are "unfit to be retained". But it's very unlikely the trustees would ever consider the Marbles "unfit to be retained" - they remain one of the British Museum's greatest assets and tourist attractions.

It would be brave indeed for the trustees, fifteen of which are appointed by the Prime Minister, to vote to dispose of one of the British Museum’s major attractions. However, were they ever so minded to recommend the Marbles are returned to Greece, perhaps after reflecting on the superiority of the moral case over present legal constraints, they would still need Parliament to amend the existing Act. Equally, if Parliament made its own decision to amend the Act, the Museum’s trustees would be forced to comply.

In other words, irrespective of whatever view the trustees take, the role of Parliament remains at the core of whether the Marbles remain in London or return to Greece.

What are the chances of Parliament amending the existing Act? Right now, there are so many greater priorities on the government’s agenda it seems improbable. It also seems unlikely that a government so committed to leveraging the spirit of Britain’s imperial age in their quest to inspire a new era of global trade would voluntarily give up one of its greatest imperial trophies.

In the meantime, with the British Museum's trustees sidelined from talks between Lord Parkinson and Lina Mendoni, the Museum has thrown a new spanner into the debate. Deputy Director Jonathan Williams, attending the ICPRCP session in Paris, said the British Museum “firmly believes” that most of the sculptures in the Museum’s collection were recovered from the ancient rubble around the temple site and were not hacked off the temple’s walls. This claim was swiftly rejected by Greek authorities and flies in the face of authoritative studies on the history of the Marbles.

The original of the document that may have authorised agents of Lord Elgin to remove items from the Acropolis temple site has not survived, only a Turkish copy translated into Italian. As a result, neither Greece nor the United Kingdom can prove beyond all doubt the extent of 'official' permissions Lord Elgin may or may not have received from the ruling Ottoman authorities. But we do know that over a period of eight years, Elgin's workmen removed 274 feet of the marble frieze blocks from within the Parthenon's main inner chamber, 15 of the 92 metopes and 17 figures from the triangular pediments. Several authoritative studies provide evidence to refute the British Museum's claim these objects were found among the building's rubble. For example, William St. Clair’s Lord Elgin &The Marbles (first published 1967), which draws heavily on original correspondence, provides clear evidence that Elgin instructed his workmen not only to copy and to dig, but also to take architectural elements from all the surviving ruins.

“I should wish to have examples in the actual object, of each thing, and architectural ornament – of each cornice, each frieze, each capital – of the decorated ceilings, of the fluted columns – specimens of the different architectural orders and of the variant forms of the orders – of metopes and the like, as much as possible.”

Letter from Lord Elgin to Giovanni Battista Lusieri, 8 August 1802

The British Museum's latest apologia for retaining the Marbles in London is disappointing coming from an institution of such enormous academic stature. Perhaps it’s a desperate tactic to compensate for a government which refuses to accept responsibility. Certainly it gives little confidence that any progress will be made when the two Ministers for Culture finally get to meet.

Photo: Horseman from the North Frieze, Parthenon (British Museum)

Handover ceremony completes the return of Chief Crowfoot’s regalia

Wed, 18 May 2022 12:33:11 GMT

At a handover ceremony in Exeter this week, the Royal Albert Memorial Museum & Art Gallery returned Chief Crowfoot’s sacred regalia to the Siksika Nation, a repatriation event agreed by the RAMM in April 2020 but delayed by Covid.

The regalia and other personal belongings of Chief Crowfoot, an important Blackfoot leader in the 19 ^th century, includes a buckskin shirt, a pair of leggings, a knife with a feather bundle, two beaded bags and a horsewhip. All were acquired directly from Chief Crowfoot by Cecil Denny around the time of the signing of the Blackfoot Treaty, also known as Treaty 7, in September 1877 in Alberta, Canada. Crowfoot played a key role in the treaty signing, which he believed would help protect Blackfoot lands and their traditional ways of life.

But the terms of the Treaty were broken by Canada’s administration and, as a result, Blackfoot people and the Siksika Nation, today comprising a population of around 8,000, have suffered economically and socially.

The regalia was loaned to the RAMM in Exeter by Denny’s sister in 1878, then purchased by the Museum in 1904.

“Bringing these items back home to Siksika is a historic event,” said Chief Ouray Crowfoot, the current Chief at Siksika Nation, one of four Indigenous Nations that make up the Siksikaitsitapi (Blackfoot Confederacy).

“Many items left Siksika and other Nations and were scattered across the globe. Now the tides are turning and these items are finding their way back home. Crowfoot’s entire essence is in and around Blackfoot territory and this is where his belongings should be housed.”

Chief Ouray Crowfoot

It took five years of sensitive negotiation before Exeter City Councillors voted unanimously to return the Crowfoot regali a in April 2020. However, repatriation was delayed due to Covid travel restrictions.

Chief Crowfoot's Regalia

Following this handover event, the regalia will be packed and returned to Canada, where the Siksika Tribal Council will take future responsibility for their long term care and ownership. The Tribal Council has agreed to lend Chief Blackfoot’s belongings to the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park, a museum that focusses on Siksika cultural heritage and the preservation of their way of life. The Historical Park is built on the site of the signing of the Blackfoot Treaty and is also the place where Crowfoot died.

This historic action, which Exeter City Council hopes will mark the start of an ongoing relationship between Exeter and the Siksika people, could set a precedent for the return of other Siksika items to their homeland.

“There are many more Blackfoot items still in need of being claimed and repatriated,” said Chief Ouray Crowfoot. “To me, it is not as important how these items left Siksika, but what is important is how we bring them back home.”

Photo: Siksika Nation representatives at the RAMM, Exeter

Courtesy of Royal Albert Memorial Museum, Exeter

A British and German tourist could face the death penalty for removing ancient fragments

Tue, 17 May 2022 11:02:48 GMT

Should the removal of broken pottery shards and stone fragments found by tourists lying on the surface of a major archaeological site constitute a crime punishable by death? In Iraq, apparently it does.

This week, two members of an organised archaeological tour group, retired British geologist from Bath, Jim Fitton, 66, and Volker Waldmann, a German tourist, appeared in a Baghdad court charged with the intention to export cultural items stolen from an Iraqi heritage site – a crime punishable by imprisonment and, in extreme cases, by execution. The pottery shards and stone fragments were collected during a visit to the ancient city of Eridu in southern Iraq. They were discovered by customs officials at Baghdad airport when the tour party’s baggage was searched on 20 March. Both men were arrested and have spent the last two months in a customs cell at Baghdad airport. Both deny they have committed any crime.

Established around 5400 BC, Eridu is a major Sumerian archaeological site located in the former marshlands of southern Mesopotamia, an area known locally as the Ahwar. Eridu is described by Sumerian texts as the first city, ‘the holy city, the dwelling of their [the other gods] delight’. Excavating beneath a large mound, archaeologists have unearthed eighteen different layers of settlements, spanning some 3,000 years of occupation. Eridu’s well-preserved temples (ziggurats) have always been a popular attraction for tourists and the entire Ahwar region of southern Iraq, which includes Eridu, was added to the World Heritage List in 2016.

At their next hearing, Fitton and Waldmann will need to convince the Court they were not acting with criminal intent and were not seeking to profit by collecting these fragments.

No matter how small or insignificant these fragments might have seemed to both men, it was insensitive of them to remove any item from such an important, sprawling temple complex. But it's even more outrageous that Iraq is seeking to impose a penalty of execution for such a minor infringement. Britain’s ambassador has raised the case with Iraqi officials four times and exercising this extreme penalty is thought to be unlikely. Nevertheless, it does appear that Iraq is set on a course to use this threat as an example to deter others.

It’s not uncommon for tourists visiting large archaeological complexes, especially those in in Egypt, North Africa and the Middle East, to encounter broken pottery shards and other minor ancient fragments lying on the surface of the ground. These are usually waste fragments dispersed from the spoil heaps of earlier excavations and are of little if any historical value. Notices warning against their removal and the presence of security guards usually deter casual looting. On this occasion, there are reports that a representative from Iraq's ministry for tourism and antiquities was present when Fitton's group visited the site, as well as guards from the ministry of the interior. However, it appears no steps were taken to prevent the collection of these shards and stones.

It was three weeks after they were arrested when the National Museum of Iraq announced these artefacts are of historical significance and because Fitton and Waldmann were caught taking them out of the country, the Iraqis are accusing them of trafficking: a crime punishable by execution.

We believe the adventure travel operator, Hinterland Travel, cannot escape their share of responsibility. Tour guides are responsible for enforcing correct protocols when leading clients onto important archaeological sites, ensuring their clients do not engage in theft or vandalism. The British tour director, 85 year-old Geoff Hann , had led many trips to Iraq over several years. But he suffered a stroke while leading this tour and died in a Baghdad hospital on 12 April. It's been suggested the medical evacuation he required was denied because he was wanted for questioning in the case.

After so much looting of their country’s national patrimony, first during the Gulf War in the 1990s then again during the Iraq War in 2003, it’s not surprising Iraq is keen to protect itself against random acts of theft, as well as to crack down on organised gangs of looters and art traffickers. This new vigilance has to be applauded.

But penalties must always be proportionate and the collection of scraps of discarded pottery or stone hardly represents a threat to the integrity of an archaeological site or Iraq's cultural heritage. We hope proportionality and a sense of fair justice is applied by the Iraqi court later this month to secure an early release for Messrs Fitton and Waldmann.

After this was written.....

A second hearing was held on Monday 6 June when Jim Fitton was sentenced to 15 years in jail after being convicted under a 2002 law of smuggling the ancient shards and fragments of stone he collected at Eridu. The German tourist, Volker Waldmann, was acquitted. Thair Soud, Mr Fitton's lawyer, attempted to argue this Saddam-era law should not have applied to this case. He also maintained the shards and stone fragments were too small to be significant and were of no archaeological value. However, both pleas were dismissed by the Court. His family have been left "stunned", saying a 15-year jail sentence for Mr Fitton is tantamount to a death sentence. They plan to appeal against the verdict on the grounds this law has been applied wrongly to Fitton's case. The law was intended to safeguard wilful theft of archaeological items of real value and shouldn't apply to abandoned items of no monetary or archaeological value.

Latest Developments.....

Iraq's Court of Cassation met in July '22 and overturned the wrongful conviction of Jim Fitton and his 15-year jail sentence for smuggling antiquities.

Photo: Fitton and Waldmann arriving at a courtroom in Baghdad, Iraq

Courtesy of Hadi Mizban/AP

Smithsonian prepares for transformative change with new ethical returns policy

Fri, 13 May 2022 12:35:46 GMT

The Smithsonian Institution has adopted a groundbreaking ethical returns policy, clearing the way for the Institution’s museums to return items based on ethical considerations.

With approximately 155 million artefacts and specimens held across twenty museum collections, this Smithsonian-wide policy sets a new standard for museum stewardship, one that reflects both the manner in which the collections were originally acquired and the context of their acquisition. It provides a blueprint for other global cultural institutions wrestling with the legal and ethical issues of returning contested objects.

The new policy is the result of research undertaken by the Institutions’ Ethical Returns Working Group, a team comprising around 20 curators and specialists commissioned by Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III in April 2021 to consider issues relating to ethical and current best practices, shared stewardship and the ethical return of Smithsonian collections.

Defining the circumstances of an ‘unethical acquisition’ was a priority for this new ethical approach, which aims to throw a spotlight on items stolen, taken under duress or removed without the consent of the owner. Whereas before the Smithsonian’s legal title and Collections Policy prevented returning objects to communities of origin, the Institution now understands this approach caused harm to those communities in a way they now regard is ‘fundamentally inconsistent’ with their new ethical standards and institutional values. The new policy is more respectful of these communities, enabling Smithsonian museums either to return items or enter into arrangements of shared stewardship - even when no legal obligation to return or share an object exists.

“As the national museum, the Smithsonian seeks to set a standard for ethical collection practices that reflects an emphasis on shared stewardship or partnership,” a Smithsonian spokesperson told Returning Heritage . “A museum is not the sole interpreter of the cultural artefacts in its collections.” The spokesperson went on to add:

“This is a moment of self-reflection for museums as we look at artefacts that are legally in our possession and ask, ‘Should we own these?’ knowing the circumstances under which they were collected.”

It’s a bold move for a global cultural institution of the size and importance of the Smithsonian to recognise that ethical norms and best practices in the museum profession have changed. It’s even bolder for them to question what this means for their existing collections, not just for future acquisitions. As an example of this change in priorities, their new Values and Principles Statement cites the future of an object that may have been acquired legally, but whose continued control by the Smithsonian may no longer be consistent with current ethical practice and principles.

In a press statement, Lonnie Bunch reinforced this importance the Smithsonian is now placing on their ethical obligations to the places and people where the museum’s collections originated. “Among these obligations is to consider, using our contemporary moral norms, what should be in our collections and what should not,” he said. “This new policy on ethical returns is an expression of our commitment to meet these obligations.”

In March, the Smithsonian began delivering on their Working Group’s recommendations when they announced an agreement with Nigeria to repatriate the majority of the Institution’s 39 Benin artefacts. But this latest policy announcement, formally adopted as part of the Smithsonian’s Collections Management Policy on April 29, goes much further. It commits all Smithsonian museums and its collections to the new ethical returns policy.

However, there'll be no immediate torrent of repatriations. Smithsonian collections are broad and diverse – from spacecraft to fine art – and each of their collections will need to establish their own criteria and procedures before deaccessioning and returning objects on ethical grounds can begin. Also, there are occasions when the Smithsonian’s governing Board of Regents may need to step in to approve the return of objects considered of particular monetary or historical value, or when a deaccession generates significant public interest.

The pace of future repatriations may be slow, but the values, ethics and principles of the Smithsonian’s new ethical policy will be transformative - a major advance by a leading global cultural institution towards greater collaboration, understanding and knowledge-sharing.

After this was written....

A lawsuit brought by the New York-based African American organisation, Restitution Study Group, to stop the return to Nigeria of the museum's collection of Benin Bronzes was dismissed by a US district court judge in August 2023. The Smithsonian was set to return 29 Benin artefacts, leaving a further 10 Benin artefacts at the Smithsonian on long-term loan.

Photo: Smithsonian Castle exterior

Courtesy of Ken Rahaim, Smithsonian Institution

Glasgow: Determined to expose and address colonial injustice

Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:59:19 GMT

Look north for a city determined to expose and address colonial injustice. Whether its voting to return looted cultural artefacts, commissioning an audit of historic connections to slavery or selecting a Barbadian-born, Glasgow-resident artist to represent Scotland at this year’s Venice Biennale, the City of Glasgow is setting an impressive pace.

A cross-party Working Group for Repatriation and Spoliation, reinstated by the City Council last August, met in March this year and recommended the return of important cultural artefacts to communities in India, Nigeria and North America - the largest ever repatriation from a Scottish museum. Their recommendation was approved by the Council’s City Administration Committee at a meeting held earlier this month (7 April).

Major repatriations will include the return of seven Indian antiquities - the first repatriation of its kind from any UK museum. Six of these objects were stolen by their donors from Hindu temples and shrines during the 19 ^th century; a seventh was purchased illegally, before being sold and smuggled out of India. All seven objects were donated to the City’s museums collection.

The Indian government has agreed to meet the full costs of these repatriations and is meeting with Glasgow officials later this month to consider export and logistical issues.

As Returning Heritage reported last August , much of this Working Group’s attention has been focussed on returning the City’s collection of Benin Bronzes. The Council has now agreed that 17 of about 29 Benin artefacts held across the City’s collections should be returned to Nigeria, as these items are all associated with the looting of Benin City by the British expedition in 1897. The provenance of Glasgow’s other Benin items remains uncertain.

The Minutes of the Committee’s meeting suggest the cost of their return to Nigeria will be around £30,000. However, the Minutes also confirm the artefacts may remain in the City for the time being as loans, ‘until such time as transit is requested by NCMM or becomes practicable’.

Twenty-three years after Glasgow City Council handed back a Ghost Dance Shir t to the South Dakota Cultural Heritage Center, the Council also confirmed they are now ready to repatriate a further 25 Lakota cultural items, all of which, like the Dance Shirt, were sold or donated to the City’s museums by George Crager in 1892. Some of these are personal items removed at the massacre following the Battle of Wounded Knee in 1890 and belong to named ancestors of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Oglala Sioux Tribe. The cost of these repatriations is estimated at around £40,000.

“The return of these objects from Glasgow Life Museums’ collection to their rightful owners represents the largest-ever repatriation of cultural artefacts from a Scottish museum and is a significant moment for our city.”
Duncan Dornan, head of Museums and Collections at Glasgow Life

“By addressing past wrongs," Dornan added, "we believe these returns will, in a small way, help these descendant communities to heal some of the wounds represented by the wrongful removal of their cultural artefacts, and lead to the development of positive and constructive relationships between Glasgow and communities around the world.”

This commitment to understand more about the City’s uncomfortable legacies and, in particular, to its historic connections with slavery, is reinforced by a new report published this month into Glasgow’s links with the transatlantic slave trade.

Glasgow, Slavery and Atlantic Commerce: An Audit of Historic Connections and Modern Legacies , authored by Stephen Mullen, doesn’t make recommendations on what to do next. Instead, it uses the research the City commissioned into residents with slavery connections between 1603 and 1838 as a platform for public consultation. It’s the same process the City Council followed in 1998, when media coverage and public hearings helped inform the Council’s decision to return the Lakota Dance Shirt.

Major findings of the Audit include donations received by the City from individuals connected to Atlantic slavery, as well as the identification of 11 major buildings in Glasgow connected to these individuals and 62 Glasgow streets and locations that have a “direct” or “associational” connection to slavery. The report also notes that eight of these individuals are commemorated across multiple monuments across the City.

“Whilst there is now a manufactured controversy around the few statues included in the audit,” the report states, “the overall findings confirm what is generally accepted amongst historians of imperial Scotland: the direct and multiplier effects of Caribbean slavery and its commerce run deep into Scottish society, and had a transformative effect on national development overall.”

The decolonisation theme also forms a central part of the work of Alberta Whittle, an artist born in Bridgetown, Barbados who's been a resident of Glasgow for many years. Selected to represent Scotland in this year’s Venice Biennale, Whittle’s often site-specific installation work draws on the same kind of research into the African diaspora and the legacies of colonisation the City’s own report covers in its Audit on slavery and Atlantic commerce.

All three initiatives demonstrate a striking willingness by the City of Glasgow to confront uncomfortable legacies and a determination to address its past wrongs.

Photo: Gallery of Modern Art, Royal Exchange Square, Glasgow

Courtesy of Lost Glasgow

Government urged to “do the right thing” with Ethiopian Tabots

Sat, 02 Apr 2022 14:00:10 GMT

The campaign to repatriate 11 sacred Ethiopian Tabots, held out of sight in a locked British Museum vault, was escalated to the House of Lords this week. Members repeatedly urged Government to encourage the Museum’s trustees “to do the right thing” and return the looted Tabots to Ethiopia.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey reminded the Minister that most of the Museum's Tabots were looted following the Battle of Maqdala in 1868, before asking whether the Minister accepted that Government must bear some basic moral responsibility to encourage their return. Their enduring spiritual significance was reinforced by the Bishop of Worcester who added, “What sets these artefacts apart is that they are sacred. As such, they relate to a living faith – the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.”

As the Tabots are kept permanently out of sight from the Museum's visitors, curatorial team and executive, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the DCMS Lord Parkinson was asked repeatedly if he would indicate to the trustees the Government’s support for the return of the Tabots to Ethiopia.

“Given the fact that they are not able to be seen, venerated or studied by anybody,” asked Lord Boateng in a forceful intervention, “would it not be the right thing to do – the moral thing to do – and would it not enhance the moral position of the trustees and the British Government in their discussions with the Ethiopian Government about human rights, if they were to be returned without delay?”

Responding with the Government’s now familiar mantra (“the British Museum operates independently of government”), the Minister said the Government would not engage in the governance of British Museum affairs, insisting it remains a matter for the trustees alone.

However, the trustees don’t seem willing or able to make a decision. Either they prefer to ignore the matter altogether, or they remain unaware how strong the legal and moral case is for returning the Tabots. Whatever reasons trustees have for inaction, Government has a responsibility to ensure the trustees comply with the Museum’s governing Act. Notionally independent, the trustees are accountable to Parliament for the governance of the Museum’s collection. When they fail to comply, Government has a responsibility to step forward to ensure the operational requirements of the Act are enforced.

It wasn’t raised during this week's House of Lords debat e , but a legal solution to resolve the repatriation of the Tabots already exists. What’s more, the Museum’s trustees have the authority right now to agree their repatriation - without a change in the law and without any further approval from Government. All the Museum's trustees have been sent a legal opinion, commissioned by the Scheherazade Foundation and prepared by leading human rights lawyer Samantha Knights QC of Matrix Chambers, which confirms the Tabots are unique and physically they have no particular use or purpose for the Museum. They can be returned legally under section 5(1)(c) of the British Museum Act 1963 as they are 'unfit to be retained'.

The Museum doesn’t provide a definition of ‘unfit to be retained’. But the Museum’s website does confirm the Museum's aim is is to ensure ‘the collection is housed in safety, conserved, curated, researched and exhibited’. Based on this objective, it's hard for the Museum to argue that a group of objects that will never be curated, researched or exhibited can ever be justified as fit for purpose or retention by the Museum – indeed, by any museum.

Complete silence on this issue from the British Museum’s boardroom is probably due to a fear of setting an uncomfortable precedent. Trustees are frightened that returning the Tabots will open the floodgates to further appeals, leading to even greater pressure on them to return more contested objects. But that fear is unfounded. The Tabots are in a unique category all of their own. It’s unlikely any other group of contested objects in the Museum’s collection so perfectly meets the criteria for ‘unfit to be retained’. Even the other Maqdala objects in the Museum's collection would fail to meet these criteria, as the Museum can argue their display does serve a legitimate educational purpose.

So, by agreeing to repatriate these sacred Tabots to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and its 36 million worshippers, the trustees can demonstrate they really do have a moral compass and can empathise with the legitimate needs of a living faith. Nobody in the UK will miss the Tabots. Ironically, not even the trustees as they too are forbidden to view them.

Photo: House of Lords

Courtesy of House of Lords Library

GREECE

Mon, 21 Mar 2022 11:12:11 GMT

GREECE

Updated May 2023

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made by Greece, together with other restitution news. Entries are updated regularly.

May 2023

Hundreds of stolen artefacts are recovered from disgraced dealer Robin Symes after a 17-year legal battle

Artnet News

December 2022

Greek paper Ta Nea reports on progress in 'preliminary' discussions with the British Museum over the return of the Marbles

The Guardian

July 2022

Letters written while an undergraduate at Oxford reveal Boris Johnson denounced the British Government for not returning the Parthenon sculptures

Ta Nea

June 2022

Chairman of the British Museum, George Osborne, says there's a 'deal to be done' over sharing the Parthenon Marbles with Greece

The Art Newspaper

May 2022

The Ministers of Culture for Greece and Great Britain have agreed to convene formal talks about the possible return of the Parthenon Marbles

Hyperallergic

March 2022

Greece hopes new cutting-edge science which can recreate an exact replica of the Parthenon sculptures using 3D printing technology may help lead to their return

Greek City Times

Smithsonian set to become the largest cultural organisation to repatriate Benin artefacts

Sat, 12 Mar 2022 17:01:31 GMT

Global isolation for the British Museum over its stand against returning Benin Bronzes grows nearer following news the Smithsonian Institution is set to become the world’s largest cultural organisation to repatriate Benin artefacts.

Last year, the Smithsonian’s Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III convened a group of around 20 curators and historians from within the Smithsonian’s own collection of museums and gave them a directive to develop an institution-wide policy for objects determined to have been sourced unethically. Bunch recommended any new policy should extend beyond legal title to ethical ownership.

The Institution’s Ethical Returns Working Group reinforced this message when they submitted their recommendations last December, calling on the Smithsonian's museum leaders to consider the moral circumstances surrounding the ownership of the 155 million objects, artworks and natural history specimens held across the Institution’s various collections.

The result is a major initiative announced this week concerning an agreement between the Smithsonian Institution and Nigeria to repatriate the majority of the Institution’s 39 Benin artefacts, an agreement that could be signed with Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments as early as next month.

Sweeping aside the current legal title the museums hold over these objects, the Smithsonian’s museums will prioritise those objects that were violently removed from Benin City as a result of the British raid in 1897 in order to conform with the Institution’s new ethical returns policy. The exact number of objects for return is still being finalised. However, we understand the Smithsonian National Museum of African Art presently holds 43 Benin objects, including plaques, brass bracelets and ivory tusks, around 16 of which have been directly linked to the 1897 raid.

Last autumn, just days into starting her new role, National Museum of African Art Director Ngaire Blankenberg removed ten Benin Bronzes from public display in a move she described as “respectful”. Blankenberg is keen the Museum forges a new model for global audiences and begins to shed its Eurocentric past.

“This is about a new possibility.I don’t believe it ends there. We have to stop the harm and imagine a new way of working, of how we can do this differently together.”

Ngaire Blankenberg

In addition to transferring ownership, the agreement also sets out arrangements for future long-term loans. This could lead to a number of Benin objects remaining on display at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African Art , alongside displays of archival material, photographs and oral histories. “This is part of a thorough process of reimagining the African art experience,” said Blackenberg, “and what a regenerative, decolonised African art museum can be.”

Such a fundamental shift in museum deaccessioning policy ultimately rests with the Smithsonian Board of Regents. They’re expected to convene in April after the agreement has been finalised.

Following hard on the heels of news last year that New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art , the Denver Art Museum , Washington DC’s National Gallery of Art and Boston’s Museum of Fine Arts are all planning or have agreed Benin repatriations, it’s not expected they will overturn this major initiative of national and global significance.

In the meantime, their approval is likely to draw even more attention to the British Museum's refusal to negotiate the transfer of ownership of even some of the Museum's collection of 900 Benin artefacts and to further increase its isolation within the global museum community.

Photo: National Museum of African Art, Smithsonian Institution

Courtesy of Smithsonian Institution

Where is the skull of Zimbabwe hero Mbuya Nehanda?

Thu, 10 Mar 2022 13:57:16 GMT

Legend has it the hero of Zimbabwe’s first revolutionary struggle against colonial rule, Mbuya Nehanda, was captured by the British in 1897, hanged and then beheaded. Her skull, together with other remains and spiritual items, were shipped in a sack to England as trophies of conquest.

For over 30 years Zimbabwe has been trying to recover these remains, believing her skull remains on display in a British museum. "We cannot have other people keep the remains of our ancestors in a cardboard box elsewhere," said Dr Godfrey Mahachi, Director of the National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe.

If this is true, which English museum holds the skull of the most well-known, popular symbol of resistance to colonial rule in modern Zimbabwe?

Nehanda’s name has always had a special potency for Zimbabwe’s nationalist movement. A powerful spirit medium of the Shona people, Nehanda was one of the leaders of the First Chimurenga revolt in 1896/97 against the administration of Cecil Rhodes’ British South African Company. Tried and sentenced to death in March 1898 at a hearing Zimbabweans describe as unlawful and hastily scrambled, her struggle against colonial rule continued right up to the moment she was hanged.

British diplomats in Harare are understood to support Zimbabwe's efforts to see the repatriation of her remains. However, tracing these remains is proving problematic.

London’s Natural History Museum is the most likely candidate. But the Museum insists there is no evidence to confirm whether Nehanda’s skull is held within their huge collection of 20,000 human remains. The Museum says it is committed to working with the Government of Zimbabwe by sharing all the information on the remains of eleven individuals from Zimbabwe held in the Museum's collection. But after carrying out archival research, they told Returning Heritage there is no evidence to suggest these remains include either the skull of Nehanda or the remains of other leaders from the Chimurenga revolt.

"The information available does not provide names or precise identities for these people", a spokesperson told us.

"None of the information provided makes any links to the First Chimurenga. The remains were found in multiple locations and donated to the Museum across the 19 ^th and 20 ^th centuries ."

Natural History Museum, London

The Museum has shown its readiness in the past to follow the UK Government's guidelines for the treatment of human remains and has repatriated human remains to Tasmania and Torres Strait Islands communities. It continues to co-operate with the Government of Zimbabwe and right now is preparing to discuss the repatriation of the Zimbabwean human remains in their collection. The Museum had expected to host a delegation from Zimbabwe in 2020, but the pandemic delayed this meeting. The Museum now expects to host a delegation, led by the Zimbabwean High Commissioner to the UK Christian Katsande and Dr Godfrey Mahachi, early in 2022.

Several Zimbabwean press reports indicating the skull could be held by the V&A Museum appear widely off the mark.

After this was written.....

Bring Back our Bones (BBOB), a Zimbabwean activist group, is campaigning to recover the remains of the heroes of the 1890s uprising against British rule, including the remains of Mbuya Nehanda. They are asking British museums to open archives and produce documentation for bones in their collections. They are also considering legal action. According to activist Vusi Nyamazana, Zimbabweans are angry. "It's a moral and a spiritual issue," he says in the New Zimbabwe (May 2023). "They belong to us and they need proper funerals."

(See New Zimbabwe )

Photo: Mbuya Nehanda

Courtesy of Forbes Africa

Will Cambridge museum be next to return looted Benin artefacts?

Wed, 02 Mar 2022 12:32:03 GMT

It’s no surprise the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Cambridge (MAA) has received a formal claim for the return of its looted Benin artefacts. It’s only a surprise it’s taken this long.

The MAA is a member of the Benin Dialogue Group and has contributed to discussions with representatives of the Government of Nigeria and the Royal Court of Benin over the future of Benin artefacts now in western collections. The University of Cambridge hosted a meeting of the Group in 2017 and Museum staff have visited Benin City in recent years.

But it wasn’t until January this year that Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments (NCMM) finally submitted a formal request for the MAA to return looted Benin objects in the Museum’s collection. We understand this request is now under consideration by the University.

In the wake of return s made last year by Jesus College, Cambridge and the University of Aberdeen, we believe it very likely that MAA will support Nigeria’s claim. This would lead to the return of most if not all the looted Benin artefacts in the Museum’s collection, which comprises 136 Benin items, including seven Benin plaques known to have been looted in the 1897 raid. Nigeria’s request does not extend to other Benin objects unconnected to this raid.

Why are repatriations likely? Well, MAA has a well-defined, research-oriented process for restitution, as well as a track record delivering on this process. In 1961 it became one of the first UK museums to repatriate artefacts to their country of origin when it returned sacred artefacts to the Uganda Museum in Kampala. Last year, the Museum announced it is setting out to return several dozen more artefacts to the Uganda Museum, East Africa’s oldest museum, as part of a project called Repositioning the Uganda Museum . Once selected, the items are expected to go on display in Kampala in late 2023.

MAA’s commitment to a critical, question-raising approach to its collections was reinforced in 2019 when the Museum, along with the University of Cambridge Museums consortium, introduced a major new policy framework for returning stolen artefacts. This will encourage Nigeria as it gives particular consideration to whether an object was ‘appropriated in the aftermath of violence, for example in the context of a colonial intrusion or war’.

‘Some museum objects were acquired in a manner that was not considered legitimate or appropriate at the time, or would not be considered legitimate or appropriate today. The UCM is supportive of research into the histories of the collections, and will engage with claimants and potential claimants in an open and respectful way.’

University of Cambridge Museums, ‘Our approach to the return of museum objects’, 2019

Perhaps no other group of objects meets these criteria for repatriation more closely than the objects stolen from Benin City in 1897. So, if the Museum does decide to return their looted Benin objects and does agree to transfer legal title to Nigeria, how will this square with the Museum’s membership of the Benin Dialogue Group?

The Group’s official approach to repatriation is to assist in setting up ‘permanent displays’ of rotating long-term loans with Nigeria, loans that may or may not lead to permanent restitutions. However, a decision by MAA to repatriate its Benin collection could stretch this current policy in favour of loans to breaking point.

For some time, members of the Group have used the wrangling within Nigeria over who should negotiate Benin returns and where the objects should be displayed as an excuse for refusing full restitution. However, after President Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria made clear in a press statement last month that it will be the NCMM responsible going forward for all negotiations on behalf of the Federal Government and that ‘restituted treasures will be returned to the places where they were taken’, these obstacles have now been removed. There are now even more reasons why MAA and other members of the Group should engage with Nigeria and plan for future repatriations.

Photo: Lost-wax cast commemorative head of an Oba, used to support a tusk on an ancestral altar. Edo State, Benin City (MAA ID No. E1902.95)

Courtesy of Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge

PORTUGAL

Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:53:16 GMT

PORTUGAL

Updated February 2026

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made by Portugal, together with other restitution news. Entries are updated regularly

February 2026

Portugal has made its first-ever restitution of pre-Columbian artefacts to Mexico as both countries commit to combat illegal trafficking of cultural property

Mexiconewsdaily.com

February 2024

Portuguese politicians and museum curators cannot agree whether or not to return the Kwer'ata Re'esu icon painting, looted by the British at Maqdala in 1868

The Art Newspaper

September 2023

An early 16th century icon of the suffering Christ, looted from Ethiopia by Richard Holmes, the British Museum representative at the seige at Maqdala, has been traced to Portugal

The Art Newspaper

November 2022

Following a recent inaccurate report on Portugal's plans for the restitution of objects and human remains, the country's Minister of Culture has recommended reflection, discretion and some reserve

Observador

February 2022

Angolan Minister of Culture is seeking to negotiate the return of Angola's cultural heritage held in Portuguese museums

DW.com

Rotating loans may be the only solution to the Marbles dilemma

Wed, 19 Jan 2022 18:56:14 GMT

Recent newspaper headlines suggest the case for returning the Parthenon Marbles is now compelling. But is there another route more likely to resolve this 200-year old dilemma?

It's hard not to see these emblematic sculptures as a fundamental part of modern Greece’s cultural identity. Even the Times , a newspaper that's given unwavering support to retaining the Marbles, has finally swung it’s opinion behind repatriation: “times and circumstances change,” its editorial on January 11th thundered. “The sculptures belong in Athens. They should now return."

But the biggest brake on progress has been the stance adopted by each nation's politicians. Ever since the early 1980s, when Melina Mercouri, Greece's dynamic former Minister for Culture, launched her country's modern-day campaign for returning the sculptures to Athens, politicians have focussed on pursuing their own national agendas. As a result, British politicians remain stubborn retentionists, insisting on their rights from legal acquisition, while Greek politicians remain fixated on transferring legal title, linking the Marbles to their painful experience under Ottoman rule.

But all the time it's the public's interests that are being ignored. That’s why Returning Heritage believes the time has come for a fairer, more pragmatic approach to this 200-year-old debate, a solution that will serve universal interests, instead of national politics. The big question is, will both sets of politicians have the stomach to accept an alternative solution?

Press excitement was fuelled this month by the announcement that a regional museum in Palermo is loaning a marble fragment, stripped from the Parthenon in the early 19 ^th century by Lord Elgin and gifted to Robert Fagan, Britain’s consul in Sicily, to the Acropolis Museum in Athens. It's only a small fragment depicting a foot of the goddess Artemis, hardly comparable to the massive scale of the British Museum's collection of sculptures from the Acropolis. But the arrangement hints at the wider opportunities that exist for the public, students and scholars when museum collections agree to share important artefacts. The fragment will be loaned to the Acropolis Museum for a period of eight-years and, in exchange, the Antonino Salinas Museum in Palermo will receive a 5th century BC statue of Athena and an 8th century BC amphora. It's likely the loan period will be extended. It may even be made permanent.

So, if others are sharing treasures from the Parthenon, could this formula work for the British Museum's sculptures?

Although we can be confident the Museum's trustees are well aware of the growing tide of public feeling in favour of returning the Marbles, we can be equally confident they know just how important the Marbles are to the Museum's global standing and reputation. The Marbles remain one of the British Museum’s pivotal attractions and their departure would create a major hole in the nation’s patrimony. That's why the trustees are so reluctant to take responsibility for overseeing this entire collection of sculptures vanish out the door, never to appear again.

Trustee stewardship of the Museum's collection is one thing, but delivering an action outside the remit of the British Museum Act is quite another. Responding to Greece's appea l last November to recover the Marbles, Prime Minister Johnson, quite possibly as a device to shift responsibility for a decision he knows would have consequences on his own premiership, said the “matter is one for the trustees”. But this reaction displays either ignorance or dishonesty on the part of No.10. The Museum's trustees can only recommend a course of action that lies within the existing Act. Returning the Marbles would require either an amendment to this Act or the introduction of new primary legislation - neither of which is under the trustees' control. Only politicians can approve such a fundamental change, but they've no appetite to pursue it. Like other governments before them, it's easier to admit that resolving the Marbles dilemma is too far down their list of priorities.

That leaves the Museum’s trustees stuck between a rock and a hard place: return the Marbles and witness one of the Museum’s greatest treasures disappearing out of reach, or dig deep, resist repatriation and confirm everyone’s worst fears of an increasingly isolated museum, unsympathetic to change and clinging on to unsettling imperial narratives.

Both Government and Museum appear to find it easier to keep their heads stuck in the sand. This hasn't been difficult. The British Museum Act clearly legislates against almost any act of repatriation; doing nothing is the 'official' line when challenged to return the Marbles. In a set of recently declassified government papers, the former British ambassador David Miers reported to a Conservative minister of arts on a visit to Athens in 1991:

“This is an issue on which we can never win: the best we can do is to keep our heads down as far as possible and avoid using defensive arguments here in Greece which will sound hollow in Greek ears”.

Official advice received thirty years ago sounds all too familiar today.

We believe keeping the issue of title (who really 'owns' the Marbles?) at the forefront of this debate is the principal reason why the issue has never been resolved. It's the sheer scale, multitude and complexity of legal arguments, both for and against the return of the Marbles, that has proved too overwhelming for lawyers or politicians to resolve*. Which means, if the debate continues to focus on title, the debate will remain insoluble.... and the wider public will continue to be the losers.

So, if the current British Museum Act prevents the Museum from returning the Marbles, if the Government has no appetite to introduce a new Act of Parliament and if no international legal case exists to force the British Government to cede its ownership, what steps can be taken to address the growing universal clamour for their repatriation?

The wider public's interests have been ignored for too long. We believe both museums should now work towards introducing a programme of rotating long-term loans of sculptures between London and Athens. If, as the British Museum maintains, the sculptures from the Parthenon really are of universal significance, why should they not be shared between the two collections?

The British Museum already accepts the principle of long-term loans. Their website makes it clear they are “wholeheartedly committed to respectful collaboration worldwide, to sharing and lending the collection, and working in partnership for the benefit of the widest possible audience”. The loan of a Potlatch mas k to the Canadian west coast nation of the Kwakwaka'wakw people, for example, is just one initiative confirming the Museum's willingness to enter into long-term loan arrangements. There’s even a precedent for the British Museum loaning one of its sculptures from the Parthenon. In 2014 a statue of the river god Ilissos was loaned to the Hermitage Museu m in St Petersburg. To the Greek authorities, this gave truth to their belief the British Museum's collection of Marbles is not immovable.

Original sculptures from the West Pediment of the Parthenon, British Museum

However, if loaning objects is an accepted practice for the Museum, why hasn’t Greece made a request to borrow the Parthenon Marbles before (the Museum’s website explains that no formal loan request has been received from Greece)?

The answer lies in section 2.4 of the British Museum's Loan Polic y . This requires the borrower to guarantee that objects loaned will be returned to the Museum at the end of the loan period. The borrower is also required to provide an assurance of immunity from judicial seizure. Greece continues to maintain that nothing less than a complete transfer of ownership will satisfy their requirements - which effectively means this condition could never be met. And for its part, the British Museum would never take the risk of loaning the sculptures if they face the prospect they'll never be returned. The two sides will remain at permanent loggerheads..... unless the British Museum is prepared to remove these contentious loan conditions and the Greek Government is prepared to set aside its demand for complete ownership.

Instead, we believe the two museums should talk about developing a mutual strategy for sharing the Marbles - a programme based on long-term, rotating loans. This is a fair and equitable solution, but how would it work?

The Acropolis Museum would be loaned a selection of original works from the British Museum's collection in temporary place of the casts they now have on display. Loans would be rotated between the two venues after an agreed period of time, so visitors to Athens can enjoy an ever-changing and expanded display of sculptures from the original temple site. The agreement must also include loans of major works from Greece to the British Museum, an idea propose d at last November's visit to Boris Johnson by Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis. This would provide visitors to the British Museum with an incentive to keep returning and enjoy rotating treasures from major Greek collections. The solution makes particular sense for the British Museum in the shorter-term as major work is needed to water-proof its major gallery spaces. The Classical galleries displaying the Parthenon Marbles were closed throughout 2021 due to a leaking roof!

Another important element of this solution is that it does not require any amendment to the British Museum Act, only changes to the Museum’s Loan Policy. These can be agreed by the trustees without formal approval from Government.

Our solution does require Greek and British politicians to take a deep breath and agree to waive their 200-year old battle over title. Could politicians on both sides stomach this? For objects of such universal importance, we need to encourage them to do just that. Once and for all, it's time for politicians to step back and for common sense, fairness and the public's interests to supplant national politics.

* Katerina Ampela has written a good summary of the legal stand-off in her recent article The Parthenon Marbles and Greek Cultural Heritage Law (www.culturalheritagelaw.org)

After this was written......

An article that appeared in the Greek newspaper Ta Nea on 12 February 2022 suggests the British Museum has made a "massive shift" in policy regarding loaning the Parthenon Marbles. They base this view on a statement from a Museum spokesperson replacing the word 'precondition' before any loan could be agreed with the word 'normally'. This apparent softening of the Museum's stance has encouraged Ta Nea to suggest the question of loans might be within sight. However, before we can be certain of a shift in Museum policy, we need to be clear whether the Museum's trustees share this view. That is certainly not clear from the article published by Ta Nea .

Photo: Sculpture casts from the West Pediment, Parthenon (Acropolis Museum, Athens)

Courtesy of Anna Oikonomou

Newcastle museum aims to return a Benin Bronze artefact to Nigeria

Sat, 15 Jan 2022 12:18:38 GMT

Hard on the heels of last year’s Benin Bronze repatriations by Jesus College, Cambridge and the University of Aberdeen is news that the Great North Museum: Hancock is seeking to repatriate a Benin brass stave to Nigeria.

Acquired along with other items from London’s Wellcome Historical Medical Museum in 1951, a period when the Wellcome disposed of many non-medical items that no longer fitted its collections policy, the Museum's brass stave with bird finial is most likely to have been part of a ceremonial musical instrument, played by striking with a metal rod.

Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums (TWAM) satisfied themselves the stave was one of thousands of objects forcibly removed by British troops from Benin City in 1897 and advised the Museum’s stakeholders, Newcastle University and the Natural History Society of Northumbria, to consider its “proactive repatriation” to Nigeria. Approval was unanimous.

“We have been researching the unclear history of the brass stave in the Great North Museum: Hancock and now know for certain that it was taken violently during the Punitive Expedition of 1897,” said Keith Merrin, Director of TWAM.

Professor Vee Pollock, Dean of Culture and the Creative Arts at Newcastle University, has said the stave is not only an object of cultural importance for the people of Benin, it’s also “a symbol of historic injustice and extreme violence”. She has thanked her colleagues at Aberdeen University for their advice which "informed our proactive approach”.

Detail of bird finial, Benin City

The Benin stave is one of several objects in the collections of the Great North Museum: Hancock that the Museum acknowledges are inextricably linked with Britain’s colonial past and systemic racism. In line with the Museums Association's recently published new guidelines for decolonising museum collections, the Museum explained that it's working towards using its collections in "an equitable and just way" and will be ensuring that all proposals it receives for repatriation are acknowledged publicly.

Like Jesus College, Cambridge and Aberdeen University, the Great North Museum is negotiating the stave's return with representatives of Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments (NCMM). The NCMM is recommending the return of all recovered Benin artefacts to the proposed new Edo Museum of West African Art and not to another conflicting museum project masterminded by the current Oba, Ewuare II.

“A museum, through what it displays, how it relates to its audiences and what it does, should be a place of learning, and we hope that through this process we can work with partners in Nigeria and the National Commission for Museums and Monuments to facilitate better understanding and enhanced cooperation,” explained Professor Pollock.

The Great North Museum: Hancock is included in Dan Hicks’ provisional list of 45 museum collections in the UK that currently hold objects looted from Benin City ( The Brutish Museums by Dan Hicks, Pluto Press, 2020. Appendix 5).

Photos: Benin brass ceremonial stave

Courtesy of Tyne and Wear Museums and Archives

NIGERIA

Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:34:38 GMT

NIGERIA

Updated January 2025

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made to Nigeria, together with other restitution news. Entries are updated regularly

February 2025

The small Nigerian port town of Koko, invaded three years before Benin City, hopes they can recover artefacts looted during an overlooked British expedition in 1894

The Guardian

January 2025

Nigeria's Federal Government has vowed to take all necessary measures, including legal action in international courts, to recover stolen artefacts

Independent.ng

February 2024

The Benin royal household claims that Cambridge University has "duped" them by stalling the return of 116 Benin artefacts

Yahoo News

August 2023

Leading barrister and human rights activist Hannatu Musawa, appointed this week to the new role of Minister of Arts, Culture and the Creative Economy, vows to completely change the narrative of Nigeria

Daily Post

August 2023

Two Dukes (Enigie) from Benin Kingdom have thanked Nigeria's Federal Government and the Oba of Benin 'for their determination and unwavering support' for the Benin Royal Museum project

The Sun

April 2023

The Oba of Benin notifies Wouter Pomp, Ambassador of the Netherlands to Nigeria, of the responsibilities vested in him by the recent order for the ownership, custody and management of returning Benin Bronzes

Leadership

April 2023

The Federal Government of Nigeria has issued an order recognising ownership and vesting custody and management of repatriated Benin artefacts in the Oba of Benin

This Day

March 2023

At the latest meeting of the Benin Dialogue Group held in March funding was secured for a storage facility to house returning Benin Bronzes

Museums Association

February 2023

Following the expected return of 1,130 Benin artefacts from Germany, the Federal Government of Nigeria has announced plans to build a royal museum in Benin, Edo State

The Sun

November 2022

"Digital Benin" has launched providing an online database of more than 5000 objects looted from Benin City and now held in over 100 collections worldwide

The Art Newspaper

February 2022

President Muhammadu Buhari clarifies the division of roles between Nigeria's Federal Government and Benin Kingdom

The Guardian

January 2022

Nigeria has made a formal request to Glasgow Life for the return of looted Benin artefacts held in the City's collections

Glasgow Live

January 2022

Nigeria and the United States sign a cultural property agreement to protect and preserve Nigeria's cultural patrimony

The Art Newspaper

January 2022

Nigeria expects to receive at least 1,030 Benin artefacts from Germany in 2022

Punch

January 2022

Nigeria's National Commission for Museums and Monuments is taking control of returning Benin objects following the current Oba's opposition to Nigeria's Legacy Restoration Trust

The Art Newspaper

2021: A breakthrough year for cultural restitution?

Sat, 08 Jan 2022 14:57:47 GMT

Was 2021 the year when ethical considerations began to overtake legal objections? For Returning Heritage, three major highlights suggest ethics and a shift in consciousness are forging new agendas.

Leading the way were ground-breaking initiatives by three former colonial powers: Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. All three countries took initial steps to create a new legal framework for returning stolen artefacts. The significance of these initiatives cannot be overestimated. These new ‘ethical’ models could shatter the inviolability of the ‘Colonial’ museum model driving other nations to re-evaluate their restitution policies.

There may be important differences between each of the three models, as well as significant policy issues still to be resolved. But they all share crucial features that are helping clear a path through the restitution fog.

Perhaps the most significant is their common reliance on solutions recommended by panels of experts. Facing growing public demands for reparation and reconciliation with their former colonies (not just pressure to return looted artefacts), each of the three nations has reached out beyond their own parliament, turning to the advice of respected independent experts who were tasked to deliver new practical solutions.

In the case of Belgium , the government took advice from an independent group of heritage professionals, which met for two years before recommending new policy guidelines for Belgian state collections. The Dutch sought advice from a committee of experts appointed by government; Germany’s commitment to prioritise moral responsibilities ahead of national interests followed years of soul searching by advisors and museum experts convening both at Federal and state levels.

Last year, all this work came to a head. Two of the most important outcomes were a commitment shared by all three nations to step up their dialogue with representatives of former colonies. There was also an undertaking to introduce some form of mechanism by which each nation can evaluate and approve requests to return stolen objects.

Of course, different speeds of implementation are inevitable. For example, Belgium is already on the brink of passing legislation that paves the way for a bilateral agreement with the Democratic Republic of the Congo. While Dutch proposals still await the legislation conceived in 2021 but delayed by last year’s elections.

Nevertheless, it's hard to escape the fact that underpinning all these initiatives is a visible shift in the consciousness of all three nations. Each is committed to placing justice and fairness at the core of their new legal models – at least for objects stolen or removed violently from their own former colonies. Wholesale restitution is still not on the table.

“There is no place in the Dutch State Collection for cultural heritage objects that were acquired through theft,” insisted Ingrid van Engelshoven, Dutch Minister of Education, Culture & Science.

Each nation has proposed some form of new central mechanism or quasi-independent commission as a means of processing future requests for repatriation. The Belgian commission will determine which of the thousands of Congolese objects in Belgian state collections should be returned to the DRC. They’ve also suggested in the future this brief will cover cultural property from other former Belgian colonies, including Rwanda and Burundi. Meanwhile, Germany’s Federal government appointed the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation , the body that oversees 27 museums and cultural organisations in and around Berlin, to lead the negotiations for returning Benin Bronzes in German state collections, “regardless of the circumstances in which they were required”. We’re still awaiting details of the Dutch central mechanism.

Regrettably, France made slower progress than we all anticipated. Despite the heavily publicised repatriation of 26 objects to the Republic of Benin in November (objects that had been looted by the French army in 1892 from the Royal Treasury of Abomey), any new restitution policy remains hampered by the country's restrictive code of ‘inalienability’. At the end of last year, we reported there were moves underway to introduce a new bill that might circumvent this code, but there’s still much uncertainty whether the proposed bill will succeed.

Another highlight of 2021 came to the fore last April when Monika Grütters, Germany’s Minister of State for Culture and the Media, spoke of her country’s “willingness in principle to make substantial returns of Benin Bronzes”. This was followed in October by the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding with Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments. All this suggests 2021 was the year when Germany showed a genuine determination to tackle one of the highest profile of all restitution issues - the return of the Benin Bronzes. The return of a significant number of Benin artefacts from Germany now looks inevitable.

The impact on their state collections will be considerable. Berlin’s Ethnologisches Museu m alone holds some 520 objects looted during the seizure of Benin City by the British in 1897 - the second largest collection of Benin artefacts in Europe after the British Museum. So important are these Benin artefacts to German state collections that retaining some of them as long-term loans has become an important element in their negotiations with Nigerian authorities.

Germany's determination to position itself at the heart of provenance research into looted objects from Africa deserves credit, not least because it's encouraging other nations to fall into line behind them.

One of it's highest-profile research initiatives launched in 2021 was the international project known as Digital Benin: Reconnecting Royal Art Treasure s . Based in Hamburg and with financial backing from the Ernst von Siemens Kunststiftung, the project is pushing forward with its goal of documenting some 3,000 to 5,000 objects plundered during the sacking of Benin City. As a result of this initiative, the pressure on other countries to examine the provenance and legitimacy of their Benin artefacts will inevitably gather greater momentum.

Although the actual number of Benin objects returned to Nigeria last year was small, commitments to consider future returns leapt in number. Even those who report they’ve received no formal requests for repatriation (including Cambridge’s Museum of Archaeology & Anthropology and Oxford’s Pitt Rivers Museum) are now indicating they're likely to make returns in the future.

There remain barriers to overcome. Among them was a concern last year about the level of funding and support for the proposed new Edo Museum of West African Art (EMOWAA). Details of this new museum, where the majority of Benin Bronzes are likely to be returned, were announced at the end of 2020. However, some western museums expressed concern whether EMOWAA will provide the appropriate environmental conditions and security that western museums regard as essential before agreeing their returns.

View of main entrance and courtyard garden, Edo Museum of West African Art

Courtesy of Adjaye Associates

Last year, several members of the Benin Dialogue Group, including the British Museum, pledged new partnership arrangements with Nigeria’s Legacy Restoration Trust to enable these conditions to be met. But there are still obstacles to overcome, in particular, over whether members of this Group are prepared to transfer ‘ownership’ of their Benin objects to Nigeria. While others in the wider museum community have demonstrated a willingness to enter into honest talks about transferring ownership, Benin Dialogue Group members still talk only of long term loans. Until EMOWAA’s future is guaranteed, some members of this Group will remain unconvinced.

A third highlight for us during 2021 has been the increasing power and influence wielded by groups of citizen activists in Southeast Asia, working hand in hand with government to recover recent stolen heritage.

Trawling the internet to identify artefacts stolen from known archaeological and religious sites, organised networks of enthusiasts called ‘netizens’ (internet citizen activists) in Thailand, India, Nepal, Vietnam and Cambodia were busy exploiting every avenue of social media to identify, share knowledge and campaign for returning illegally trafficked artefacts. Once a stolen item has been located, a characteristic of their process is to stand aside and leave government to control the formal process of repatriation. As these governments typically allocate limited funds to research restitution claims themselves, they're enthusiastic to take advantage of this arrangement.

Citizen activists played a key role last year in the search for Cambodian antiquities that passed through the hands of Douglas J Latchford , a major trafficker in Southeast Asian art and antiquities. As more information on his illegal activities came to light, activists helped the Cambodian and Thai governments track down scores of Latchford-looted artefacts now held in prominent public collections around the world. The information they've shared is now being used to pressure museums such as the Denver Art Museum and New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art to return their Latchford-linked collections of artefacts.

Other citizen activist groups to report successes last year included ‘India Pride Project’ , which continued to play a major role in tracking down India’s looted cultural heritage, and ‘Lost Arts of Nepal’, the activist organisation that helped prevent the sale of five Nepalese figures from a Bonhams auction in June.

Big Nataraja, The British Museum

Unfortunately, Great Britain’s appetite to engage with its colonial legacies has been mixed. It seems the shift in consciousness that played such a key role in re-defining policies elsewhere in Europe failed to move trustees in Britain’s national collections. As many of these museums were established as archives of empire, their trustees have either been unwilling or have found it too difficult to disengage from these legacies. The British government’s strident view on retaining and respecting every aspect of Britain's former empire hasn’t made their task any easier.

Outside the country’s national collections, the picture is very different and certainly more encouraging. Tangible steps have been taken to put right the wrongs of the past. The Museums Association received praise last November for introducing fresh guidanc e to support decolonising the nation’s museums, and several important repatriations, in particular Benin Bronzes , were made by collections outside London, reflecting a new respect for fair and just solutions.

But the continued inertia of Britain’s national collections and their unwillingness to consider new policies for reparation and restitution is furthering their isolation from the global museum community and, in particular, from the new policies implemented by regional and university collections across the UK. Failure to recognise this changing shift in consciousness threatens the very reputation of Britain's national collections.

It’s too early to know whether the British Museum’s new chairman, George Osborne, will seek to implement or resist changes to national museum policies. This week, another chapter in the long-running Elgin Marbles saga attracted headlines when a provincial museum in Palermo, Sicily agreed to return a fragmen t of the Parthenon to Athens on the basis of a long-term loan. Some of the media became excited that a return of the Marbles is growing inevitable. But we are far from this conclusion. If the Museum's trustees refuse to repatriate items, such as Ethiopia's Tabot s , which they are able to dispose of legally under the terms of the British Museum Act, it doesn't seem likely they’ll agree to return the Elgin Marbles, which the same British Museum Act legally obliges them to retain.

Overall, global progress towards a new approach to restitution may have been mixed. But it's clear the pandemic in 2021 failed to set the restitution lobby off course. Like it or not, a consequence of the breakthroughs we've highlighted, plus the many other initiatives that brought museums and communities closer together, is to pile pressure on collections such as the British Museum to review the legitimacy and future of their 'colonial' collections. The outlook for 2022 is encouraging.

Photo: Jesus College hands back their Benin Cockerel to Nigerian authorities

Courtesy of bbc.com

Political posturing directs the fate of the Parthenon Marbles

Wed, 22 Dec 2021 15:43:50 GMT

Evidence of another Prime Ministerial U-turn was unearthed last weekend by the Greek newspaper Ta Nea. In a 1986 article the youthful Boris Johnson argued the “Elgin Marbles should leave this northern whisky-drinking guilt-culture and be displayed where they belong: in a country of bright sunshine and the landscape of Achilles.”

Originally published in Debate , once the official magazine of the Oxford Union, Johnson, aged 21, wrote these words when President of the Union.

He used them to argue in support of Greece’s claim to recover the Parthenon sculptures held in the British Museum and to help win a debate at the Oxford Union. Publication was deliberately planned to precede this debate, where Johnson’s role was to support the principal speaker, Melina Mercouri, then Greece’s culture minister and their country’s leading advocate for returning the Marbles.

In stark contrast to his current policy, which is to resist Greece's attempts to recover the Marbles, the scale of Johnson’s retreat is quite remarkable. Student rhetoric can easily be dismissed as a debating tactic, but Johnson’s commitment as a true philhellene cannot be dismissed so lightly. It seems political expediency overtakes personal persuasions once politicians enter public office. It doesn’t suggest a compromise is due anytime soon.

Johnson was crafting his current position on the Marbles while serving as Mayor of London. By 2012, although continuing to express sympathy towards Greece’s position, his political compass had turned. Responding to an appeal for their restitution from George Hinos, head of Greece’s New Democracy Party in Ilia, he adopted the new line that returning the Marbles would amount to a “grievous and irremediable loss”.

“Much as I sympathise with the case for restitution to Athens, I feel that on balance I must defend the interests of London,” he wrote as Mayor.

Since joining the House of Commons and rising to become leader of the Government, his views have hardened still further, insisting earlier this year that the Marbles were “legally acquired” and must remain in London, reminding Greece that legal ownership resides with the British Museum’s trustees.

Johnson’s latest hardline position doesn’t appear to have deterred Greece’s Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, from stepping up pressure on the British Government. His visit to the Prime Minister in Downing Street last November may have failed to reach a new agreement, but he’ll have taken encouragement from British public opinion, which continues to move in favour of returning the Marbles. A YouGov poll, published last month showed that 56% of respondents in the UK believe the Marbles belong back in Athens. Only 20% believe they should remain in the British Museum.

Mitsotakis will also have taken confidence from the resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly earlier in December. Proposed by Greece, the resolutio n titled ‘Return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin’ was co-sponsored by 110 other countries, a number described by Greece’s Foreign Ministry as “unprecedented”. Primarily it reflects the UN’s deep concern about the current extent of illicit trafficking in cultural property. But it also calls on Member States to do more to address the return or restitution of other cultural property to their countries of origin – a clear reference to the Parthenon Marbles.

As encouraging as all this may be to Greece, are these events any more likely to persuade Britain to part with these iconic classical masterpieces?

Writing in The Times this month, the British Museum’s new chairman, former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, is confident the Museum’s role remains unchanged: to “educate, inform and engage”. Suggesting the Museum could be open to a loan of the Marbles, he nevertheless reminded Greece that a loan could only be for a limited time.

“We are open to lending our artefacts to anywhere [sic] who can take good care of them and ensure their safe return – which we do every year, including to Greece.”

This condition is unlikely to satisfy Prime Minister Mitsotakis’s demands for full repatriation. Furthermore, as Returning Heritage has highlighted in several earlier posts, Greece would have to acknowledge the British Museum’s legal ownership of the Marbles before any loan can be agreed. Over the last 40 years, Greece may have failed to win the legal case for recovering the Marbles, but climbing down now would involve a massive loss of political face. The situation would be irrecoverable.

No, the fate of the Marbles lies elsewhere. With Greek political efforts continually rebuffed, it’s down to Britain’s politicians to write the next chapter in this long-running Parthenon saga. Only they can determine whether scope for change or compromise exists and only British public opinion can force their hand to act.

Meanwhile, Boris Johnson’s U-turn provides unquestionable evidence that persistent political posturing continues to drive government policy when it comes to the Marbles. Does this do more harm than good? Alexander Herman, author of a new study on Restitution , agrees with us that political grandstanding is counterproductive:

“If a 40-year stalemate has taught us anything, it is that political positioning does not count for much in restitution claims", he writes. "In fact, it tends to make things worse.”

* Alexander Herman, Restitution: The Return of Cultural Artefacts

After this was written....

Evidently, it's easier for former ministers and ex-politicians to support Greece's claim over the Marbles when they're not in public office. This week (22 Dec '21), the former Conservative culture minister Ed Vaizey, speaking on the podcast series Hope and Dread , said he now supports their return: "It is so obvious to me that the Marbles are really woven into Greek identity that it would be a wonderful thing if they could be returned." A shame it wasn't so obvious to Vaizey while serving as culture minister between 2010 and 2016.

Photo: Detail of the Temple of Athena, Acropolis, Athens

Courtesy of Anna Oikonomou

George Osborne urged to provide go-ahead for return of Tabots to Ethiopia

Thu, 16 Dec 2021 16:44:11 GMT

Three months after trustees at the British Museum were sent a letter requesting the return of the Museum’s collection of sacred Tabots to Ethiopia, the signatories of this letter have still to receive a reply.

Today, a follow up letter sent to George Osborne, presses the Museum’s new Chairman to make use of this season of goodwill and reach a formal decision by the end of January 2022 to restore the Tabots to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Unlike other appeals to repatriate looted objects from the Museum’s collection, the return of these eleven sacred altar tablets known as Tabots will comply rather than breach the British Museum’s governing Act. Acting for The Scheherazade Foundation, organiser of both letters, a legal opinion written by Samantha Knights QC of Matrix Chambers made clear that Section 5 of the British Museum Act allows for the return of objects deemed by the trustees to be ‘unfit to be retained’ and no longer relevant to the Museum’s purpose.

Perhaps no other group of objects in the British Museum meets these stringent requirements.

Section 3 of the same governing Act makes it a duty of the trustees to make objects in the collection available for inspection. However, since entering the Museum (eight of the Tabots were acquired in 1868, directly after the looting that took place at the Battle of Maqdala), the Tabots have never been placed on public display – and never will. No student, curator or even trustee is ever permitted to view them and they cannot be photographed.

Never has a group of objects been so irrelevant to the Museum’s purpose, yet appeals for their return continue to meet with silence.

The Museum readily acknowledges the sanctity of these objects to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, where they are used to sanctify and consecrate a church building. This is why the Museum can never claim that conditions for their future display and study will ever change. But it's also why appeals for their return cannot be so lightly dismissed.

The Foundation’s first letter was sent to trustees in September this year and was signed by former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, together with other leading members of the House of Lords, the former British Ambassador to Ethiopia Sir Harold Walker and other high profile British supporters of the campaign. It coincided with the appointment of George Osborne as the new Chairman of the Board.

In the absence of any response by the Museum’s trustees, the second letter appeals to Osborne to use this time to comply with the Act and return the Tabots to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

“What better time of year and what better way to signal the beginning of his role as Chairman of the British Museum could there be for George Osborne than to ask the trustees to authorise the return of these precious religious objects,” says Tahir Shah, CEO of the Scheherazade Foundation.

“We hope that in the spirit of the season and, as our letter says, in the spirit of building bridges between Britain and Ethiopia, that Mr Osborne will agree to the restoration of the Tabots to the country where they belong.”

Photo: George Osborne

Courtesy of Flickr

Two major digital initiatives throw light on colonial collections

Fri, 03 Dec 2021 14:14:05 GMT

Two major digital initiatives are set to play important roles in disseminating information on objects looted during the colonial era. Nigeria’s Edo State, home to the former Kingdom of Benin, will be a significant beneficiary of both initiatives.

Project work on Digital Benin: Reconnecting Royal Art Treasures started last Autumn. It aims to consolidate the huge amount of data that already exists on thousands of Benin artefacts held in the databases of around 160 national and international museums.

It’s a challenging and complex task as each museum has its own strategies and methods for collecting and providing information. This means there’s no uniform data structure to describe, illustrate or to provide accessible provenance information on each artefact. Nevertheless, over the next two years the team still hope that consolidation will deliver the long-requested overview of Benin Kingdom artefacts, their history, cultural significance and provenance, offering the potential to create “an unparalleled forum of knowledge”.

“For decades we have asked to receive an overview over the scattered Benin holdings worldwide,” said Prince Gregory, Enogie of Evbobanosa, “Finally this is going to happen.”

An estimated 3000 to 5000 objects were looted by British forces, traders and administrators when Benin City was sacked in 1897. Objects from the Royal Palace and other ceremonial sites, collectively known as ‘Benin Bronzes’, ended up being widely dispersed across collections in the UK, Europe and the United States. Recently, Benin artefacts have become a major focal point in the growing public debate about returning cultural heritage.

The Digital Benin team understand the role that restitution plays as a way to help mitigate the loss of local knowledge and cultural values, felt so keenly by Benin City’s descendants today. But they also know the importance of making existing knowledge resources more accessible, especially to those who've felt disadvantaged because of the inaccessibility of material held in European and American collections.

That is why Digital Benin has set out to collect information on all Benin holdings worldwide, capturing all relevant historical photographs, archive documentation, eyewitness accounts and oral traditions and making it accessible to everyone via a single online platform. In the future, the proposed new Royal Museum in Benin City will become the main provider of this online platform.

Digital Benin is being developed with core funding of more than €1.2m from the Ernst von Siemens Art Foundation and is a cooperation between members of the Benin Dialogue Group, as well as the Royal Court of Benin, the Edo State Government and Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments. Members of the Benin Dialogue Group have a key role to play by contributing data on all their Benin holdings. Representing around 2000 objects, their participation will provide what’s described as a “solid foundation for the further expansion of the platform.”

Speaking on behalf of the British Museum, which holds the lion's share of Benin artefacts in collections around the world, Director Hartwig Fischer explained: “This collaboration will not only enable us all to learn more about these important collections but will also provide an important forum for further dialogue and exchange around these collections.”

Collections from Colonial Contexts is yet a further major online initiative, launched this week by Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek (German Digital Library). This project has also set out to provide a comprehensive database of colonial artefacts through a single online platform, but its project goal is wider. Although targeting only data collected from cultural and academic institutions across Germany, Collections from Colonial Contexts will include all colonial-sourced artefacts, not just Benin artefacts.

At last year’s 13 ^th Cultural Policy Summit (14 October 2020) Germany agreed a “3-road strategy” that set out to cover how all objects from colonial contexts should be handled in the future. Attending this Summit were the Federal Government’s Commissioner for Culture and the Media, Prof. Monika Grütters, the Länder (16 German states) and representatives from Germany’s municipal umbrella organisations.

It was agreed one of their primary objectives should be to establish maximum transparency about their country’s colonial collections. Another was to agree a policy for repatriations.

“The portal will significantly promote transparency in regard to collection holdings across Germany,” said Dr Klaus Lederer, Senator of Culture and Europe in Berlin and Chair of the Conference of Cultural Ministers. “The restitution of looted cultural objects remains an important component of our engagement with our colonial legacy.”

The German Digital Library already provides online information collected from 25 pilot institutions. This comprises over 8200 records of collections from colonial contexts. However, most of these descriptions are currently only available in German. Going forward, the plan is to expand this preliminary prototype into a central, comprehensive publishing platform. This will expand to different languages and increase the amount of data available from a wider number of cultural and knowledge institutions.

For Digital Benin: https://digital-benin.org/

For German Digital Library: https://ccc.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/?lang=en

Great Britain and France set to debate the future of African reparations

Fri, 26 Nov 2021 17:07:18 GMT

Committees in Great Britain and France will consider how each country should deal with requests for returning cultural property. But France starts ahead of Britain in attempts to reach a legal solution.

France’s Committee on Culture, Education and Communication will meet on December 15 to examine a bill, tabled by Catherine Morin-Desailly along with Max Brisson, Pierre Ouzoulias and 23 other members of the French Senate, to define a lasting legal framework for dealing with the circulation and return of cultural property now in French public collections.

Despite the French President’s much-heralded announcements on cultural co-operation with Africa and the eventual return this month of 27 looted objects to Senegal and the Republic of Benin , France has lagged other European countries in devising and implementing a policy for cultural restitution.

The proposed bill envisages the setting up of an independent scientific commission ("Conseil national de reflexion sur la circulation et le retour des biens extra-europeens"), which would comprise twelve members, including "at least" one historian, one art historian, one ethnologist and one legal expert appointed by the culture and research ministers. Their biggest challenge will be to supplant the French principle of inalienability with a new law that ensures scientific, ethical and legal considerations replacing arbitrary acts of parliament. Without a way to circumvent or remove the principle of inalienability, every artefact that a French public collection might wish to repatriate still requires the passage of a separate law. Clearly, this is an impractical and unsustainable option if returning cultural property really is a priority for the President of France.

Catherine Morin-Desailly, a member of the French Senate, set out to learn from the legal process adopted when the Senate approved the bill to repatriate the 27 looted artefacts to Senegal and Benin in November 2020. The new bill she and other members of the Senate have tabled is understood to build on that experience and will seek to remove the need for separate legislation each time a future request is made for an artefact’s repatriation.

Whether the bill can succeed will be clearer after the Committee has met and scrutinised the bill on December 15. It's chances of success are not great in the near term (further time for reflection may improve its chances). Either way, it's unlikely the bill will be presented to the full Senate before next spring's legislative elections.

At least the French have taken their first steps towards finding a legal solution. Britain’s new all-party parliamentary group (APPG), isn't expected to hold their initial planning meeting until later this year. Appointed to “start a discussion” on the whole issue of African reparations, the group is chaired by the Labour Member of Parliament for Streatham, Bell Ribeiro-Addy. Ribeiro-Addy entered Parliament in 2019 and called for some form of reparations to former colonial subjects in her maiden speech. However, her committee faces the problem of a government hostile to the merits of cultural restitution.

Ribeiro-Addy is not optimistic about receiving government support: only one Conservative MP will serve on her committee. Instead, she believes this is about “starting a discussion and educating people,” Ribeiro-Addy told The Art Newspaper . “We’d hope to get to the stage of proposing legislation.”

The parliamentary group is expected to draw on the services of the African Foundation for Development (AFFORD) for information on restitution, along with interviews with those already in the front line for returning cultural property. Neil Curtis, Head of Museums and Special Collections at Aberdeen University, is one of those likely to be called to discuss the reasons why Aberdeen decided to return their Head of an Oba to Benin City last month.

One important aspect of the group’s work will be to explore whether there’s any appetite for a legal amendment to the British Museum Act 1963, which currently prevents the British Museum from deaccessioning most of the objects in its collection.

With the newly appointed Culture Secretary, Nadine Dorries, still to share her views on the restitution issue and strong feelings in government against repatriation – any repatriation – Ribeiro-Addy’s all-party parliamentary group faces an uphill climb. There is some good news though: the work of this group can outlast the term of a single parliament. To achieve a lasting result, it may need to.

Photo: Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP

Courtesy of Labour List

Bristol Museum returns caribou coat with spiritual powers to Northern Quebec

Fri, 26 Nov 2021 11:39:03 GMT

The caribou coat tradition was widespread with hunters and in ceremonies among Indigenous groups in northern Quebec, in particular among the Cree, Innu, Naskapi and Montagnais.

These coats are very special. Between 1700 and the 1830s it was believed they held spiritual powers and that wearing them could help deliver a good harvest. They are also elaborately decorated and the different designs, each unique to the different nation, help museums today identify the origins of a coat.

Research is being undertaken to establish whether the spiritual powers and significance in these coats waned after a hunting season or whether their properties continued to be active. Whatever the results of this research, it's clear such coats are immensely important in helping people learn about the history and traditions of these Indigenous groups.

Bristol Museum & Art Gallery has held three caribou coats in its collection, part of the city's world cultures collection since the 1830s-1840s. A request to loan two of these coats, along with a James Bay beaded hood, was made to the Museum in 2014. It was followed up by a request in 2019 by the Aanischaaukamikw Cree Cultural Institute (ACCI), Quebec to transfer one of these caribou coats into their collection on a permanent basis. ACCI is the museum, cultural institution and showcase of the history of the James Bay Crees.

No documentation survives about the provenance of this particular coat, although its design suggests it belonged to a hunter from the Naskapi nation, probably acquired or traded by a visiting merchant or traveller. It was acquired by the Museum from a private collector. Lisa Graves, world cultures and archaeology curator at the Bristol Museum and Art Gallery explained the Museum was happy to be involved in the transfer of artefacts back to Canada’s Indigenous groups.

“The power of these objects, that have been away from their homes for so long, [and what it] means to communities…. To be part of that process and to continue that healing…. I was very proud to be able to do that.”

Lisa Graves

The transfer was completed in October 2021, almost four years after discussions about repatriation began in 2017/19. ACCI aims to continue research into this and one other caribou coat in its collection, believing it will yield vital information about their use and significance. The Institute is also excited about the coat’s potential as a teaching tool.

Photo: Decorated caribou coat, Naskapi nation

Courtesy of Stephen Umpleby/Bristol Museum & Art Gallery

Who decides if the Marbles go home?

Sat, 20 Nov 2021 13:58:37 GMT

After the prime minister of Greece met with Boris Johnson at Downing Street this week, a statement released by No.10 insists the British Museum’s trustees not the UK government will decide if the Parthenon Marbles are ever returned to Greece.

Boris Johnson is said to understand “the strength of feeling of the Greek people", according to this statement, but at his meeting with Kyriakos Mitsotakis he reiterated the UK’s longstanding position that "this matter is one for the trustees of the British Museum.”

Really? This statement appears to completely ignore the true legal position that a new Act of Parliament is required before the Museum can relinquish ownership of these magnificent ancient sculptures, irrespective of any recommendation made by the Museum's trustees. So, is this a diplomatic U-turn or just the British government side-stepping their responsibility?

The British Museum Act 1963 is clear that ‘ Objects vested in the Trustees as part of the collections of the Museum shall not be disposed of by them ’. There are a few minor exceptions to this rule (such as those objects deemed by the trustees to be ‘ unfit to be retained ’), otherwise the purpose of this Act is to ensure the entire collection remains preserved in the Museum for the benefit of future generations. By agreeing to return the Marbles, the trustees would not only be removing one of the Museum’s most significant attractions, it would also be undermining one of the reasons why the Act was set up in the first place.

Could the trustees decide to make an exception for the Marbles? In one sense they don’t need to. It’s already within their powers to return one or more of the sculptures to Greece on the basis of a long-term loan, although loans are only made when the British Museum's ownership is formally acknowledged. Greece has always maintained such an option is unacceptable, as ownership of the sculptures would continue to remain with the British Museum. A rolling programme of loans is another option. But this would also fail to meet Greece’s insistence on the transfer of ownership. As a result, without a major climb down by the Greek government, this option is also closed.

The idea of loans has never sat comfortably with successive Greek governments. One of Mitsotakis’s predecessors, Antonis Samaras, was critical of the British Museum when they loaned a statue of the river god Ilissos, removed by Elgin’s agents from the Parthenon, to the Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg in 2014. "The loan effectively ended the British Museum's argument that the Greek antiquities were immovable," maintained Samaras.

In theory, it’s possible the Museum’s trustees could at some point feel an overwhelming sense of responsibility to agree to Greece's claim. Yielding to public pressure, they could recommend to Parliament that all the Parthenon sculptures and friezes are reunited with the remaining collection held at the Acropolis Museum in Athens (the museum built specifically so that one day all the sculptures from the Parthenon could be preserved and displayed together).

Speaking to the Greek newspaper, Ta Nea last March, the Museum’s Director, Hartwig Fischer, again made it clear that ultimate responsibility rests with Parliament: “If the British Parliament wants to legislate on this, then it is sovereign in doing so.”

Mitsotakis appears determined to use “every means” possible to achieve Greece’s long-term ambition to recover the Marbles. His resolve is greater because 2021 marks the bicentennial of the start of Greece's War of Independence. One new tactic he might deploy involves launching a campaign to win over British public opinion. He hopes this could then be used to pressurise the British government into ceding ownership of the sculptures.

The gold funerary mask of King Agamemnon

A number of incentives have also been put forward. The Times reported that Mitsotakis proposed a deal at his meeting with Johnson that involves rotating loan exhibitions of Greek treasures, including the Artemision Bronze figure representing Zeus or Poseidon and the gold funerary mask of the Mycenaean king Agamemnon (1550-1500 BC), in exchange for returning the Marbles.

Although remarkable objects whose exhibition would be guaranteed to draw large crowds, they don't compare to the coveted sculptural masterpieces collected by agents of Lord Elgin and sold to the British nation in 1816. The trustees know this, so Mitsotakis' offer is unlikely to force a change in view.

Which brings us back to the government’s own position. A spokesperson for No. 10 told The Guardian "The British Museum operates independently of the government," adding, "any decisions relating to the collections are taken by the Museum's trustees, and any question about the location for the Parthenon sculptures is a matter for them."

However, if this is not another massive government U-turn then it’s a deceit to suggest this matter can be resolved by the Museum's trustees alone and the government know that. Ultimately, only Parliament can change the legal basis on which the Museum can retain such a major part of its collection. British governments have continually resisted the return of the Marbles, including the Prime Minister himself, who in March this year insisted they were "legally acquired" and "have been legally owned by the British Museum's trustees since their acquisition."

It seems all but impossible to imagine that Johnson and his present anti-woke, pro-buccaneering political regime would put the issue to the test by carrying out a major reverse and calling on Parliament to vote on their future. They wouldn't wish to be remembered as ‘The party that lost the Marbles’.

After this was written.......

The Guardian has released a letter from Boris Johnson, written during his term as Mayor of London, and addressed to a Greek official in which he sympathises with Greece's case for recovering the Marbles. It demonstrates how his position has hardened against their repatriation since he became Prime Minister. Responding to an appeal for the return of the Marbles from George Hinos in March 2012, ahead of Britain's hosting of the Olympic Games, Johnson wrote: "In an ideal world it is of course true that the Parthenon marbles would never have been removed from the Acropolis and it would now be possible to view them in situ." However, he went on to say, "since they form the centre piece of the collections of the greatest museum in this city, it would be grievous and irremediable loss if they went elsewhere.... I feel that on balance I must defend the interests of London."

Photo: British Prime Minister Boris Johnson

Both images courtesy of commons.wikimedia.org

Decolonising: Doing nothing is no longer an option

Tue, 16 Nov 2021 17:38:40 GMT

Britain’s colonial past occupies a pivotal role in today’s culture wars. So the way museums engage with colonial legacies shows how willing they are to face up to centuries of racism and exclusion - and their readiness to put right the wrongs of the past.

Important guidance was launched at the Museums Association's annual conference in November that could be a game changer. Can it really transform the purpose of museums and change the way they present imperial narratives?

Supporting decolonisation in museums provides guidance for museums setting out to decolonise their collections. The MA call it just a starting point, created over the last two years by a working group of museum professionals whose task it was to help museums become more equitable, inclusive and diverse. But in reality, the guidance is more far-reaching, warranting the attention of both those who’ve yet to start as well as those already on the journey.

Decolonising is a concept that invokes different responses. To some it's an unsettling ideology that aims to overturn the nature and traditions of a revered institution; a naked attempt to reverse history by re-writing labels and returning plundered artefacts. But while it's true to be successful it must be allowed to permeate every area of museum practice, it's also about much more.

Decolonising aims to tackle issues of equality and diversity, honesty and accountability, both in the way museums tell the story of empire and colonialism through their collections and in the treatment of the museum's own workforce. Once implemented, it can lead to major structural change and, potentially, will affect the whole way a museum works. But outcomes will vary according to each museum’s own role and objectives.

Up and down this country, museums used their period of lockdown to scrutinise their colonial-era collections. Long-established, grand museums like the Pitt Rivers, Oxford and smaller museums like the David Livingstone Birthplace Museum, Glasgo w are just two of many others that took important steps to reappraise and challenge the traditional colonial narratives that lie behind their collections.

But how will Britain’s national collections react? Will they begin to take decolonising more seriously or will they ignore this Guidance altogether?

Most of Britain’s national collections are archives of empire, cataloging the triumphs of an imperial history and presenting their stories through a colonial lens. It won’t be easy to disengage from these legacies. But as institutions that exist for all the nation, our national collections cannot survive outside a framework that fails to meet the realities of today’s multicultural society. Isolating themselves from that society would be a disaster; doing nothing is no longer be an option.

Today's multi-racial society is less convinced than ever that our national museums are exercising an appropriate level of transparency, equality and fairness in the stewardship of these collections. What’s more, there's growing agitation about the continued failure of state-run museums to address historic wrongs or to correct on-going harm. By contrast, developing a new, more ethical and moral stance to post-colonial restitution has become a more pressing priority for state collections across the Channel.

For Britain’s national collections, isolationism from these global trends is likely to be just as disastrous as ignoring the values and interests of Britain’s multicultural society.

Throughout 2021, we’ve reported on a series of European initiatives that place a new ethical framework at the heart of their museum practice. Belgiu m , Germany and the Netherland s have all announced major plans to correct past colonial wrongs, which include the repatriation of state-owned objects of looted cultural heritage. France will examine whether to introduce their own new framework for returning cultural property in December. And lets not forget there are non-state museums on this side of the Channel that have already taken decisive action, with more regional collections lining up to follow their lead.

Restitution is not the primary goal of decolonisation. Nevertheless, restoring a stolen object to its original community – something a museum would have no hesitation doing if that object was looted post-1970 – is described in the Guidance as a powerful, spiritual and symbolic act that recognises past wrongs.

How much longer will the British Museum and other national collections hold out against this global trend to recognise past wrongs? How much longer before they start to return looted objects? It mustn't be about making grand gestures, like returning the 'Elgin Marbles', which no longer represent the epicentre of the restitution debate. It's about acting to correct clear abuses of justice. For European and other UK collections, the focus has shifted to returning those objects known to have been stolen in the aftermath of violence. Objects that would never have entered UK collections without the shedding of blood. Under this definition, objects looted from Benin City and Maqdala are more immediate candidates for justice. After all, there’s no blood on the Elgin Marbles.

Of course, our national collections are entitled to insist they're legally prevented from starting such a programme of reconciliation without rescinding the British Museum Act and other legislation designed to protect the nation's heritage. These actions would all require new acts of Parliament. But it does lie directly in their hands to recommend this change in legislation.

For Britain's national collections, ignoring this new Guidance carries a reputational risk. As the gap between their response and the rest of the museums sector grows wider, so the eyes of the world will be turning upon them. To lead the sector, they must lead by example. This means embracing the new Guidance and acting towards the nation they serve and the workforce they employ with more transparency, fairness and equality. Sticking their heads in the sand is no longer a viable option.

Photo: Members of the Maasai tribe visit the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford

Courtesy of John Cairns

Court’s decision to return Scythian gold to Ukraine raises wider issues for future museum loans

Tue, 02 Nov 2021 14:17:18 GMT

Despite last week’s verdict by the Dutch Court of Appeal to return the Crimean treasures known as the Scythian gold to Ukraine and not to the Crimea, don’t expect the treasures to return to Kiev any time soon and don't expect there not to be wider consequences.

Loaned by four Crimean museums to Amsterdam’s Allard Pierson Museum in 2014 for an exhibition The Crimea: Gold and Secrets of the Black Sea , the Scythian gold artefacts were already on display in the Netherlands when Russia annexed Crimea in February/March 2014. After the exhibition ended, there've been years of legal wrangling, all focussed on where the loans should be returned.

Seven years ago, the four lending museums launched a legal campaign to have them returned to Crimea, now under Russian control. However, Ukraine has been fighting their own campaign, insisting instead they belong to the cultural heritage of the Ukrainian state.

After several previous appeals, a final judgement last week by Judge Pauline Hofmeijer-Rutten ruled that the artefacts should be returned to Ukraine, “pending stabilization of the situation in Crimea.”

The Court made this decision on the grounds that Ukraine’s own 1995 Law of Museums and Museum Affairs , introduced to protect Ukraine’s national heritage after gaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, places a greater responsibility on the state for conserving museum objects than any other legal arrangement. The strengths of the state’s case to preserve these objects “outweigh the interests of Crimean museums,” according to the Court.

“Although the museum pieces originate from Crimea and to that extent may be considered a part of Crimean heritage,” said the judges, “they are part of the cultural heritage of the Ukrainian State as it has existed as an independent state since 1991.”

As a result, they directed the artefacts should be returned to the National Museum of History of Ukraine in Kiev.

Ukrainian’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky tweeted his delight with this “long-awaited victory”. After the Scythian gold “we’ll return Crimea”, he insisted.

But the directors of the Crimean museums who loaned the artefacts were less than happy, fearing they may never see these golden treasures again. Speaking outside the courthouse, the lawyer representing the four museums said: “The goods are considered to be of Ukrainian heritage and are to be given back. But there is no ‘back’ because it never belonged to Kiev’s museums.”

And the Russians? They’ve denounced the verdict, calling it a “biased decision”, politically motivated and setting “a dangerous precedent.” They’re preparing to open a criminal probe into the case. While the gold itself remains in storage at the Allard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam, the Crimean museums are likely to launch a further appeal, which in turn is likely to be supported by Russia.

Although wider geopolitics have been a significant factor in this long-running dispute, it does raise questions for other museum loans.

The Dutch Court of Appeal avoided wading into the question of who really ‘owns’ these artefacts, focussing their judgement instead on the question to whom they should be returned. But in the process, it’s highlighted the issue of how far the responsibilities of a sovereign state override the legal rights of a regional collection that believes their rights of ownership are inviolate. When future loan agreements are negotiated, a museum may have to consider whether there’s a risk their loan may be returned to an alternative collection.

As Crimean (and Russian) lawyers ponder the launch of a fresh appeal, they might also be asking the question: at what point can the situation in Crimea ever be considered ‘stabilized’?

After this was written....

Nearly two years after the Dutch Court of Appeal's verdict, on 9 June 2023 the Dutch Supreme Court reinforced their decision, ruling that more than 1,000 of these gold objects on loan from four different museums in Crimea and one museum in Kiev should be returned to Ukraine. The Supreme Court said the Allard Pierson Museum "must return these artistic treasures to the State of Ukraine and not to the museums in Crimea." Since the Allard Pierson exhibition, The Crimea: Gold and Secrets from the Black Sea , closed in 2014, both the Ukrainian and Russian governments have declared themselves the rightful owners of these cultural treasures. However, the original loan agreements between the lending museums and the two Dutch museums that hosted the exhibition, describe the objects as part of the "Museum Fund of Ukraine". The agreement also says the receiving museums "realize that the exhibits of the exhibition are the property of Ukraine and world civilization and shall take all possible measures to avoid their loss and damage."

Photo: Judge Pauline Hofmeijer-Rutten at the Dutch Court of Appeal preparing to read the Court's verdict on the Scythian gold treasures

Courtesy of Peter Dejong/AP/TASS

Gilbert Trust's decision to return a 4,250 year-old gold ewer to Turkey shows effectiveness of provenance research

Thu, 28 Oct 2021 12:42:24 GMT

An outstanding ancient beak-spouted gold ewer, created 4,250 years ago by the Hatti Civilisation of Anatolia, has been returned from the V&A Museum in London to the Republic of Turkey.

The ewer was part of the magnificent Gilbert Collection of gold and silver treasures, on long-term loan to the V&A.

Arthur and Rosalinde Gilbert were British citizens of Jewish ancestry who left the UK in 1949 to set up home in Los Angeles. Together they amassed a collection of almost 1200 exquisite objects of gold and silver, transferred to the V&A in 2008. An emotive exhibition of 80 of these objects was held at the V&A in 2019. The gold ewer was not included in this exhibition and, in fact, as the lone antiquity in the Gilbert collection, was never placed on display by the V&A.

Sir Arthur Gilbert had purchased the ewer in good faith from a dealer in Los Angeles in 1989. Provenance information was often lacking at that time, so an absence of a detailed provenance would not have been unusual. There's no suggestion that Gilbert was ever aware the ewer might have been illicitly trafficked out of Turkey.

In 2018 the V&A appointed Dr Jacques Schuhmacher as the Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Provenance and Spoliation Curator, Britain's first-ever provenance curator. Schuhmacher is an expert on the restitution of Jewish-owned looted works of art and was co-curator of the V&A's 2019 exhibitio n . The extensive research he conducted into the ewer's provenance revealed it might have been removed illegally from Anatolia, not least because the Los Angeles dealer who sold the ewer to the Gilberts is known to have dealt in illicit antiquities. Turkey prohibits unregulated excavations and the export of national treasures.

Schuhmacher's concern was confirmed when the Gilbert Trust shared their research, including a chemical analysis of the ewer's metal components, with experts at Turkey’s Ministry of Culture and Tourism. The Ministry's own analysis of the metal and style of ewer pointed to archaeological excavations at Alacahöyük and Mahmatlar as the most likely origin of the vessel. The ewer, probably illegally excavated around the mid to late 20th century, would have been used by the ruling elite for libations during sacred ceremonies.

When they first approached the Ministry, the Gilbert Trust for the Arts, a charitable company set up as guardians of the Gilbert’s extensive collection, emphasised that if the Ministry's own scientific research confirmed the Trust's research into the origins of the gold ewer, they'd be prepared to return it to Turkey. The ethical case for its restitution appears to have been a powerful motivator in the Gilbert Trust's willingness to make this decision. That wish has now been fulfilled.

The success of this collaboration between the Gilbert Trust and Turkey’s Ministry of Culture and Tourism demonstrates the huge value and importance of investment into provenance research. It also demonstrates what can happen when the ethical case for restitution is overwhelming. Once the trail of evidence made it clear the ewer had been illegally excavated and trafficked, there was no way either the V&A or the Gilbert Trust could hold onto the vessel. Both the V&A and the Gilbert Trust were also aware of its value to Turkey as a major work of their ancient past. This unity of mind has led the ewer to be reunited with other important examples of metalwork from these two archaeological sites, now all on display at the Anatolian Civilizations Museum in Ankara.

Photo: Gold ewer, unknown maker, c.2500 – 2000 BC, Anatolia

© The Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Collection

After this was written.....

Research undertaken by The Art Newspaper identifies the Los Angeles antiquities dealer who sold the ewer to the Gilberts as Bruce McNall, who claimed he acquired it from the Zurich restorer Fritz Burki. Burki has been linked with the Italian antiquities trafficker Giacomo Medici.

Jesus College returns their Benin Bronze cockerel to Nigeria expressing heartfelt apologies for an historic wrong

Wed, 27 Oct 2021 18:00:21 GMT

Today, at a handover ceremony in Cambridge, Jesus College became the first institution in the world to return a looted Benin Bronze to the authorities in Nigeria.

Further UK institutions are set to follow their lead, with the University of Aberdeen due to hand over their superb Benin Head of an Oba at another ceremony tomorrow.

“We are all thrilled at seeing this day arrive, when the Bronze is finally returning home,” said Dr Véronique Mottier, who chaired the College’s Legacy of Slavery Working Party (LSWP), set up to explore the historical, legal and moral status of the College’s ownership of a Benin Bronze statue of a cockerel, known as an ‘Okukor’ .

“But we are also painfully aware of having deprived its rightful owners for so long of its presence and offer our heartfelt apologies for this historic wrong,” Mottier added.

The cockerel, dating to the 16th or 17th century, was donated to the College in 1905 by George William Neville, a banker and shipping agent who lived in West Africa. Neville had travelled to Benin City just days after the British raid on the City and grabbed whatever he wanted - including this proud figure of a cockerel.

Also attending today's ceremony, hosted by Sonita Alleyne OBE, Master of Jesus College, was the immediate younger brother of the current Oba of Benin, Prince Aghatise Erediauwa. Thanking the student body, the LSWP and Sonia Alleyne in particular for her prompt decision to recognise the Okukor as a “royal ancestral heirloom”, Prince Erediauwa praised the College for “challenging the erroneous argument that stolen art cannot be returned.”

The cockerel was presented to Professor Abba Isa Tijani, Director-General of the National Commission for Museums and Monuments, who said, “we would like other museums and institutions across the world to take this opportunity and follow suit.”

It’s very likely that other non-State museums and institutions in the UK will follow suit. Glasgow City Council , Bristol City Museum and the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford are just three of 45 institutions in the UK known to have Benin artefacts in their collections, all of whom are considering their repatriation. Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands have already announced their state collections will be repatriating colonial artefacts that were looted as spoils of war.

But Britain’s State collections are likely to remain unmoved. The restrictions on returning stolen artefacts, as set out within the British Museum Act, means the largest collection of Benin Bronzes in the world - some 900 - will remain in London. At least for the time being.

There are reports of a 'high level' delegation and a formal letter from Nigeria to the British Museum demanding the return of the Bronzes. However, only a major change in heart by the present government (unlikely) or among the Museum’s trustees (still to be tested), or if an amendment to the 1963 Act is approved by Parliament, would the Museum be legally entitled to return some or all of its collection of Benin Bronzes. Until then, the British Museum’s collection of Bronzes is likely to stay firmly put.

Photo: Sonita Alleyne OBE, Master of Jesus College, and Professor Abba Isa Tijani, Director-General of Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments with the Okukor

After this was written.....

A further handover ceremony of a looted Benin Bronze head of an Oba was held at the University of Aberdee n the following day (Thursday 28 October 2021). "Although the University had legal title," explained Neil Curtis, Head of Museums and Special Collections, "it did not have moral title." He expressed hope that the Aberdeen and Cambridge repatriations "are a first step in the return of other looted Benin Bronzes in Scotland and elsewhere." Addressing the issue of where returned artefacts will be displayed, Prince Aghatise Erediauwa, the current Oba's younger brother, added: "In conjunction with the National Commission for Museums and Monuments, the Palace of the Oba of Benin and the government of Edo States where Benin is now located have agreed on plans for a Benin royal museum, which will be open to the public and will house the majority of these bronze works that are coming back home." References then made by the Prince to the level of support they are receiving from other governments and museums suggest the majority of returned artefacts are heading to the proposed new Edo Museum of West African Art, not to the Oba's own proposed Benin Royal Museum.

The official ceremony marking the return of both Benin objects finally took place on Saturday 19 February 2022 at the Oba's Palace in Benin.

‘Trailblazing’ Cambridge College and the German government both set timetables for returning Benin Bronzes

Tue, 19 Oct 2021 21:51:16 GMT

Jesus College, Cambridge has announced a date for the return of their Benin Bronze statue of a cockerel, known as an ‘Okukor’. At the same time, the German government has signed a memorandum of understanding with Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments, setting out a timetable for repatriating their Benin artefacts in German state collections.

Objects returned as a result of both these initiatives are likely to end up in the proposed new Edo Museum of West African Art (EMOWAA), rather than another museum option favoured by the present Oba of Benin, Ewuare II.

The campaign to return the bronze cockere l , an object which has sat on a wooden plinth at one end of Jesus College’s dining hall since 1905, was launched by two university students in 2015. Their efforts garnered support for repatriation from the student community as a corrective for the past wrongs committed against the Benin kingdom.

The College’s Legacy of Slavery Working Party (LSWP), set up to examine how the College may have profited from the slave trade, arrived at the same conclusion in 2019 when Sonita Alleyne OBE, the College’s new Master, declared ‘It is not, and never has been, owned by the College’.

Nigerian delegates attending next week’s handover ceremony at Jesus College on 27 October are hopeful it could set in train further restitutions from UK collections.

“We thank Jesus College for being a trailblazer,” said Alhaji Lai Mohammed, Nigeria’s Minister of Information and Culture, “and we look forward to a similar return of our artefacts by other institutions”.

Jesus College’s return of the cockerel would be the first repatriation of a Benin Bronze by a UK institution since the British Museum’s deaccessioning of several bronzes in the 1950s.

Professor Abba Isa Tijani, the Director-General of the National Commission for Museums and Monuments is equally optimistic about future returns: “We hope that it will set a precedent for others around the world who are still doubtful of this new evolving approach whereby nations and institutions agree with source nations on return without rancour”.

Meanwhile, in Abuja this week Andreas Görgen, culture head at Germany’s Foreign Ministry announced the memorandum of understanding he has signed with Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments will take Germany one step nearer “shaping the future of cultural policy relations with Nigeria.”

Like the agreement announced by the British Museum in November 2020, Germany will provide support for joint projects in archaeological fieldwork and education. It will also provide financial assistance for the development of the new EMOWAA , which is to be located adjacent to the original Oba’s Palace.

Germany’s previous statement about their willingness ‘in principle’ to transfer actual ownership of their Benin artefacts to Nigeria rather than long-term loans, was made earlier this year – but it lacked a timetable. This new agreement envisages that returns to Nigeria will start in the second quarter of 2022.

There are around 1,100 Benin artefacts across 25 different German state collections. The Ethnological Museum of Berlin holds the second largest collection of Benin artefacts in the world (around 520); the British Museum holds the largest (around 900). However, the Nigerian government has stipulated in this week’s memorandum, which will be followed up by a formal contract later this year, that some of the bronzes can remain on display in German museums.

Prof Hermann Parzinger, Director of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, has said he hopes this cooperation “will be a pioneering model for handling colonial looted art.”

Recently, a growing dispute has arisen over where the returned bronzes should be exhibited. In the short term, it’s understood they’ll be housed in a pavilion designed by Tanzanian-born British architect Sir David Adjaye. In the longer term, the fact both Germany and Jesus College are publicly recognising the roles played by the Nigerian government and the National Commission for Museums and Monuments for securing these agreements suggest they support their permanent exhibition at the new EMOWAA.

The present Oba of Benin indicated in July this year that he wanted all these objects to be housed in his own Benin Royal Museum and not in the EMOWAA. But speaking about the recovery of the Jesus College cockerel, he appears to have thrown his support behind the contribution of Nigeria’s President Buhari and the National Commission for Museums and Monuments, “for their renewed efforts in securing the release of our artefacts on our behalf.”

Perhaps the momentum and financial support from major collections of Benin material building up behind the new EMOWAA is now too great for him to ignore.

Photo: A Benin Bronze statue of a cockerel

Courtesy of Chris Loades

British Museum releases a Potlatch mask on renewable loan to Canadian First Nations people

Fri, 15 Oct 2021 17:00:19 GMT

Can a series of long-term, renewable loans ever provide a viable solution to the restitution debate, especially within the seemingly inflexible UK state museum sector?

The British Museum’s loan of a ‘Namgis mask representing K’umugwe', Chief of the Undersea Kingdom, to the Canadian west coast nation of the Kwakwaka’wakw people suggests for some it probably can.

Since 2005, an object that symbolises the essence of Kwakwaka’wakw culture has been restored to the community from where it was forcibly removed. Its ownership has never changed – it still remains the legal property of the British Museum – however, if neither party had stepped up to agree this solution, the Museum’s statutory policy against repatriation would have made its return for exhibition in Canada impossible.

Made about 1910, the British Museum's mask is an especially fine example of a mechanical ‘transformation’ dance mask representing K’umugwe’. His name means ‘wealthy one’ and by tradition he is responsible for the riches of the sea. Made from local red cedar wood and leather, the mask ‘transforms’ from one traditional Kwakwaka’wakw character to another by means of a simple mechanical folding device.

Dance masks such as this one were used in the ceremony known as the Potlatch, a dance and gift-giving celebration dating back to the late 19 ^th century and practised by indigenous peoples of the Northwest coastal regions of Canada and the United States. A potlatch was held to celebrate major events in the community, such as births, name giving, marriages, divorces, standing up a new chief and deaths. The people invited to a potlatch received gifts in return for witnessing the event.

The 'Namgis Mask of K'umugwe'. Kwakwaka'wakw people. c. 1910

Officials in the Canadian administration opposed this tradition, regarding it as a wasteful, immoral and heathen practice, an impediment in their progress towards the assimilation of First Nations people. In 1884 legislation was introduced which amended the Indian Act and made engaging in potlatches an offence. The practice was largely driven underground, but on Christmas Day in 1921 Chief Pal’nakwala (also known as Dan Cranmer) held a a potlatch ceremony to mark the dissolution of his marriage. It resulted in the arrest of 45 participants, 22 of whom ended up serving two months in jail for refusing to engage in future potlatch ceremonies.

The British Museum's mask was one of several traditional masks, costumes and other items confiscated that day by a local agent of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who placed all these items on exhibition at a nearby Anglican church. As a result of the exhibition, thirty-five of these items were sold to George Heye, a major US collector of native American artefacts, who put them on display in his Museum of the American Indian. Heye then went on to sell the K’umugwe’ mask in 1938 to the well-known English anthropologist and collector Harry Geoffrey Beasley (1881-1939), whose widow donated the mask to the British Museum in 1944.

This provenance suggests there are no legal grounds why the British Museum should relinquish ownership of the K'umugwe' mask.

The British Museum’s mask is one of over 750 potlatch objects believed to have been confiscated by Canadian authorities. Most ended up in the National Museum of Canada in Ottawa, the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) in Toronto, George Heye’s National Museum of the American Indian or in different private collections. All have been targeted for return by ancestors of the different communities of Northern Vancouver Island.

Efforts for their return began in earnest in the late 1950s. Progress was slow because the burden of proof fell on the communities themselves to prove the objects had been obtained illegally. It was also made clear that a museum facility was required to ensure their future long-term care and security. Extensive lobbying and community engagement finally resulted in the release of federal funds to enable the U’mista Cultural Society to construct two cultural centres on Northern Vancouver Island, one at Alert Bay the other at Cape Mudge. In 1988 the ROM agreed to return their collection of potlatch artefacts; George Heye’s collection was returned in 2002 after his National Museum of the American Indian was merged with the Smithsonian Institution.

But the K’umugwe’ mask remained missing. Eventually, it’s location was identified at the British Museum by Gloria Cranmer Webster, the noted anthropologist and daughter of Chief Pal’nakwala, basing her identification on photographs from the original 1922 exhibition at the Anglican church. Requests for its return began in the 1990s and continued when Andrea Sanborn took over appeals for its restitution. It was Sanborn's tenacious perseverance that resulted in the crucial meeting that took place in 2003 with Jonathan King, Keeper of Africa, Oceania and the Americas at the British Museum, organised with the assistance of the Canadian High Commission.

With no prospect of any transfer in legal ownership, the Museum proposed and Sanborn agreed the mask could be returned instead on the basis of a loan, renewable every three years. King travelled himself with the mask to the U’mista Cultural Centre at Alert Bay, British Columbia in 2005, where the mask is now on exhibition to remind visitors of the violence committed against Kwakwaka’wakw history and culture. The most recent of the mask's three-year renewal agreements was completed in 2020.

Does this solution qualify as a genuine restitution? Not strictly in legal terms. But the Kwakwaka’wakw people are certainly richer for the return of their treasured mask and Sanborn’s relentless pressure on the British Museum ended with an agreement that met the interests of both parties. The mask continues to be shared across both sides of the Atlantic in exhibitions that convey the rich character and traditions of the Kwakwaka’wakw people.

“Through all of this correspondence and meetings I feel we mutually came to a better understanding of each others’ responsibilities to the repatriation process we were looking to undertake. Although the wheels of discussions moved slowly, we were at least going in the right direction…..”

(Andrea Sanborn)

Photo: ‘Namgis mask representing K’umugwe', Pacific Northwest coast of Canada, c.1910

Courtesy of ©The Trustees of the British Museum

British Museum seeks more time to consider the return of Ethiopia’s Tabots

Mon, 11 Oct 2021 18:07:05 GMT

Hidden away in a secure vault, out of sight from visitors, academics and students, the British Museum’s collection of sacred Tabots awaits a resolution by trustees that could lead to their return to Ethiopia.

It was hoped the issue might be placed on the agenda at the trustees meeting earlier this month. However, the Minutes of that meeting have still not been released and we don't even know whether trustees discussed the issue at this meeting or not. We know only what a Museum spokesperson told us that more time is required before the latest appeal for their repatriation can be formally considered by trustees.

While this may not point to any decision likely to go in Ethiopia’s favour, the growing pressure on the Museum's trustees to make a decision about the Ethiopian Tabots in their collection suggests this latest appeal will not be so easy to brush aside as others have been in the past.

Just before the meeting on 4 October, each trustee was sent a letter signed by a number of leading UK supporters requesting the return of the eleven sacred Tabots held in the Museum’s collection. Signatories included former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, leading human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC, eight other members of the House of Lords and former British Ambassador to Ethiopia Sir Harold Walker. Along with this letter, the trustees also received a legal opinion prepared by Samantha Knights QC of Matrix Chambers, commissioned by The Scheherazade Foundation. This opinion is unequivocal that the Museum’s eleven Tabots do meet the criteria for ‘unfit to be retained’ and can be returned to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, ‘without detriment to the interests of students’.

We’re not surprised the Museum requires more time to consider and respond. Not only was the focus of October's trustees meeting on the formal appointment of George Osborne as the British Museum’s new chairman, it was also the first time the Museum’s trustees have been approached directly and individually to resolve this long-running impasse.

Previous requests were always made to the Museum’s director. However, the Museum’s governing Act is clear it is the trustees responsibility and not the Director’s to determine when an object may be considered ‘unfit to be retained’.

The importance that trustees make this decision was underlined this week in the House of Lords when, answering a question about Government plans to de-accession the Tabots, Lord Parkinson confirmed "The British Museum operates at arm's length and independently of HM Government. Decisions relating to the care and management of the objects in their collections are therefore a matter for its trustees'.

The statement given to us by the Museum confirms the documents “are being reviewed and addressed with full consideration”. This could suggest the Museum is willing to commission their own legal review of section 5(1)(c) of the British Museum Act 1963, before considering whether or not these objects are, as we have written in the past, unfit to be retaine d . Were the Museum's legal opinion to concur with the opinion of Samantha Knights QC, repatriation would represent an action that complies with, not breaches the Act.

The British Museum has already acknowledged these sacred plaques, believed by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church to be the dwelling place of God on earth and which are used to sanctify and consecrate a church building, are of huge spiritual significance. They also recognise they should never be placed on public view.

Ethiopia is not appealing for the return of every artefact looted by British forces after the defeat of Emperor Tewodros at the Battle of Maqdala. That would require the Museum's trustees to agree either an amendment or a breach of the British Museum Act. Only the Tabots. They are in a special category all of their own. So attention now turns to the Museum's trustees, who must now consider how eleven objects that have never been placed on exhibition, never been photographed and never been available for study by anyone, not even by their own curators, meet the educational objectives of the British Museum.

The absence of any more feedback from the meeting means it’s hard to know when a discussion by the trustees may lead to a decision. Until then, Ethiopians and their UK supporters will await the outcome of this process of “full consideration” and what it may lead to.

“If the British Museum is now saying we want to take our time and actually look at this issue to the point where they can make a decision”, a spokesperson for the Ethiopian authorities told us, “that would be something that would be welcomed”.

Photo: An Ethiopian Orthodox Priest holding a Tabot in a Timket (Epiphany) ceremony at Gondar, Ethiopia

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

‘Pandora papers’ provide new revelations linking art trafficker Douglas Latchford with secret offshore trusts

Fri, 08 Oct 2021 10:53:35 GMT

Among the vast cache of leaked papers published this week by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) lies evidence of the extraordinary lengths taken by antiquities dealer Douglas J Latchford to conceal items he acquired during decades of looting and trafficking in Cambodian artefacts.

Previously undisclosed documents reveal that Latchford and his family controlled secret trusts in offshore tax havens. According to Latchford’s family, these were set up for tax and estate planning purposes. But an extensive report published in The Washington Post suggests the first of two Jersey-domiciled trusts controlled by Latchford and his family was set up in June 2011 - just three months after U.S. authorities began investigating his links to looted artefacts.

Offshore companies and trusts based in tax havens can provide a high degree of protection from prosecutors seeking to recover assets.

Named after the Hindu god Skanda, the Skanda Trust held substantial financial assets, as well as a London property and Latchford’s collection of antiquities, including scores of bronzes and other religious figures worth millions of pounds. At a later date, the family’s assets in Skanda Trust were transferred into another Jersey-based trust named after the Hindu god Siva.

Unravelling and repatriating any looted objects that may lie sheltered within these trusts will be complicated as the trustee for both entities is a British Virgin Islands-registered ‘private trust company’ – another layer of protection added by Latchford.

For many years Douglas Latchford, a dual citizen of Thailand and the UK, enjoyed a reputation as a prominent dealer and collector in Southeast Asian art and antiquities. His obsession for collecting Khmer treasures, mostly Hindu and Buddhist sculptures, began in the 1970s. For the next forty years he sold, donated or brokered Khmer objects to leading collectors and museums around the world. He was also a major supplier of Cambodian merchandise for auction houses and dealers, including the British dealer Spink & Son. As the author of three books on Khmer antiquities, he was often called upon to identify and authenticate Khmer works of art.

However, these activities masked a very different pattern of fraud and illicit art trafficking. Latchford was a key player in the systematic looting of ancient Cambodian antiquities, sourcing legitimate treasures from unauthorised excavations, looters and smuggling networks. During the period from the mid-1960s to the 1990s when Cambodia was blighted by civil war and the genocide of the Khmer Rouge regime, the country’s temple complexes suffered from widespread, organised looting. Artefacts could be picked up by looters and smugglers for a fraction of their value in the West and Latchford, according to prosecutors, was at the heart of this illicit trade.

To conceal the true origins of his merchandise, he misrepresented the provenance of objects that he sold, falsifying their invoices and shipping documents. The books he wrote were used to legitimise looted objects, before selling them on to major collectors.

Investigations into Latchford’s trading activities continued for eight years before he was finally indicted by the U.S. Justice Department in November 2019. Prosecutors demanded the return of “any and all property” derived from his illicit trafficking, including all financial proceeds from his sales. But before standing trial and before his assets could be traced, Latchford died.

His daughter, Julia Latchford, who is a beneficiary of the Jersey trusts along with her husband Simon Copleston, announced in January this year that she would repatriate 125 antiquities to Cambodia, a collection valued at around $50 million. This donation doesn’t draw on any of the Latchford-linked objects now in public or private collections. Described as the biggest repatriation of relics in the region’s history, a New York Times article announced the gift “honours, if not absolves her father”.

However, this week’s leaked papers tell a different story. They appear to confirm that Latchford had proposed this donation in 2018 to the U.S. ambassador in Cambodia in return for helping him and his family gain protection from criminal prosecution.

In a statement to the ICIJ, Julia Latchford’s attorneys explained she was only made aware of her father’s illegal activities after his death. She also maintains the Jersey trusts “included multiple family assets”; they were not set up to conceal the origin of Latchford’s collection nor the proceeds from his sales. According to her statement, the private trust company “was not designed to obscure the trust structure or what it held, nor to increase secrecy in any way”.

Latchford’s daughter and her husband are not being accused of any wrongdoing. Nevertheless, the disclosure of these two Jersey trusts raises questions about the legitimacy of all objects traded or still held within Latchford’s collection and, in particular, over the provenance of Latchford-linked Khmer objects now held in public collections around the world.

'Skanda and a Peacock', Cambodia, 10th century. Courtesy of Offices of the United States Attorneys

U.S. investigators are continuing to pursue the repatriation of looted objects from Latchford’s collection and several museums and collectors have already started repatriating artefacts to Cambodia. In July this year, a 10th century sandstone statue of Skanda astride a peacock , stolen from the Prasat Krachap temple in Cambodia around 1997, was recovered in New York. The statue had been acquired by Latchford from a broker on the border with Thailand. Latchford went on to sell this ‘Skanda on a Peacock’ to a corporate collection for $1.5 million, stating falsely that its country of origin was Thailand.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post reports that at least 27 Latchford-linked Khmer items still remain in prominent public collections. These include twelve objects in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, six in the Denver Art Museum, five in the British Museum, three in the Cleveland Museum of Art and one in the National Gallery of Australia. A further 16 artefacts were sold to museums by a Latchford associate, who prosecutors believe dealt in stolen artefacts. None of those museums approached by The Washington Post were able to provide documents confirming they'd been exported with the approval of Cambodia’s government.

Of course, the absence of export documentation or provenance information doesn’t prove that an object has been looted. But it does place a greater responsibility on the museum to research an object’s history. Where it can be proved an object has been removed illegally, there's a greater responsibility to return it to where it was stolen.

Asked about Latchford-linked objects in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, a spokesperson said they were reviewing the indictment against him that references a Hari-Hara in their collection. But the spokesperson added: “It is unknown whether the Hari-Hara, a relatively common depiction of Vishnu and Shiva, are one and the same”. Meanwhile, the National Gallery of Australia said their object was now “the subject of a significant live investigation”. The Denver Art Museum said it is “in ongoing discussions with both U.S. and Cambodian governments” about its Latchford-linked items.

Every museum contacted reiterated that it takes provenance research very seriously; only the Los Angeles County Museum of Art declined to answer reporters’ questions about their Latchford-linked holdings.

Further revelations about trafficking antiquities and offshore trusts are expected in the months ahead. In the meantime, pressure continues to mount on museums holding Latchford-linked objects to investigate their places of origin. Opening Pandora’s box is likely to lead to many more surprises.

After this was written

Following these disclosures in the 'Pandora papers', the Denver Art Museum has agreed to return to Cambodia four artefacts, described of "extraordinary cultural significance", which were acquired by the Museum through Douglas Latchford.

The Washington Post

Photo: Head of a Buddha (c. 920-50). Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY. Gifted by Donald J Latchford

Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art

British Museum’s trustees are facing renewed appeals to return Ethiopia’s sacred Tabots

Sun, 19 Sep 2021 13:31:30 GMT

The British Museum has an opportunity to enhance its global reputation and demonstrate it’s alive to changing public perceptions. But to grasp it, the trustees need to comply with the Museum's own governing rules and acknowledge their collection of sacred Tabots is ‘unfit to be retained’ and should be returned to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Following last Thursday’s meeting between Hartwig Fischer, Director of the British Museum, and Ethiopia’s Ambassador, Teferi Melesse Desta, it appears unlikely the pendulum has moved any closer towards a resolution. But this meeting was just one element in a two-pronged strategy. A second, potentially even more significant initiative, involves a written appeal made directly to the Museum’s trustees last week by a group of influential British supporters of Ethiopia’s claim to the Tabots.

Over the next few weeks, in the build-up to the next meeting of the trustees on October 4 ^th when George Osborne is appointed the British Museum’s new chairman, a trustee commitment to honour both the spirit and the letter of the Museum’s governing Act will be put to the test.

There’s a great deal at stake - for Ethiopia and for the integrity of the Museum’s trustees.

Tabots are sacred plaques of deep religious significance to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. A church deprived of its Tabot cannot function as a place of worship. The British Museum holds eleven Tabots, nine of which are directly linked to the looting that took place by British forces after the defeat of the Abyssinian Emperor, Tewodros II, at his mountain fortress at Maqdala in 1868. Since entering the collection, they’ve all remained out of sight, stored away under lock and key - never exhibited, never photographed and never available for study.

The Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church appealed for their return in 2002, but his appeal was left unresolved by the then Director Neil MacGregor. Two years ago, a new Ethiopian team picked up where the previous team left off. However, we understand their requests received exactly the same treatment as those of the Patriarch almost twenty years earlier. At the meeting with the British Museum last week, Ambassador Teferi Melesse Desta handed Fischer two separate letters – one from the Ethiopian Minister of Culture, the other from the current Patriarch – renewing the requests made two years ago but still to receive attention by the Museum’s board of trustees.

Ethiopia is not making a general call for the return of every looted object, but both parties do acknowledge that the Tabots are in a special category of their own. They don’t fall within the scope of the Museum’s purposes, will always be treated very differently to the rest of the collection and can be disposed of without detriment to the interests of students. In other words, as we’ve highlighted before in Returning Heritage , they meet the conditions of section 5(1)(c) within the British Museum’s governing Act. This gives trustees discretion to dispose of objects they consider ‘unfit to be retained’.

This is why the Ethiopian team believes progress should be possible in their discussions with the Museum and why the Ambassador, writing in his latest twitter post, believes returning the Tabots offers benefits to both parties:

“It remains my firm belief that the return of the Tabots would be a credit to the British Museum and a milestone in the longstanding, friendly and amicable relations between the governments and peoples of our two nations.”

However, we’ve learnt that throughout last week’s meeting the Director continued to be vague about future commitments, including whether he’s prepared to raise the issue with the Museum’s board of trustees.

That is why the second initiative may hold the key to moving this issue forward. A letter prepared by the not-for-profit private charity, The Scheherazade Foundation, and signed by over twenty high profile supporters, including former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, eight other members of the House of Lords, diplomats, literary figures and actors Stephen Fry and Rupert Everett, was sent to every British Museum trustee last week.

“You, as a museum trustee, have a clear opportunity to show sensitivity as regards these very sacred objects,” it reads, “which are entirely unique in the Museum’s collection given their accepted religious significance and the fact that they can never be exhibited”.

This is no attempt to circumvent the Director. It’s clear both from the Act and from the decision reached by the original Parliamentary committee that met to debate the Act that it is for the Museum’s trustees, not the Museum’s executive, to determine whether an object is ‘unfit’ within the context of the British Museum Act 1963.

In addition to the letter, trustees were also provided with a legal opinion for the return of the Tabots, commissioned by the Foundation and prepared by Samantha Knights QC, a leading human rights barrister at Matrix Chambers. After considering the legal framework and case law, her conclusion is unequivocal:

“In my view the Trustees of the Museum can, pursuant to s 5(1)(c) BMA 1963, quite properly decide to dispose of the Tabots. The circumstances of the Tabots are unique and physically they have no particular use or purpose for the Museum as they cannot be viewed, displayed, photographed, copied or made available for research or educational purposes.”

This is possibly the first time the Museum’s trustees will have seen a legal basis for returning the Tabots. So, when the trustees gather for their next meeting in October, the Ethiopian team and the British signatories to this letter hope their two-pronged efforts will lead the trustees to agree the trustees have no choice but to comply with their own Act. Otherwise, in the face of so much overwhelming evidence for returning the Tabots, the onus must fall on the trustees to show why they believe the Tabots are still fit to be retained.

We hope the trustees will rise to this opportunity and see the greater benefits to the Museum and both our nations. “Not only would the resulting bonds of friendship between Britain and Ethiopia be unbreakable,” states the trustee letter, “but the international reputation of the British Museum would be greatly enhanced – purely by complying with its own rules and regulations”.

Photo: Ethiopian Orthodox Priests carrying Tabots

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Return of looted artefacts is single most important restitution in Ethiopia’s history

Sat, 11 Sep 2021 13:54:20 GMT

A collaboration between The Scheherazade Foundation and the Ethiopian Embassy in London has resulted in the single most significant restitution in Ethiopia’s history, a “treasure trove” almost equivalent to all the returns made from private collections since the battle of Maqdala in 1868, said a member of Ethiopia’s National Heritage Restitution Committee.

The results of this collaboration were handed over to Ethiopia’s Ambassador, Teferi Melesse Desta, at a ceremony organised by The Scheherazade Foundation and held at the Athenaeum Club in London last Wednesday. The event was attended by numerous supporters of Ethiopian restitution.

The Foundation, led by its CEO the author Tahir Shah, is a UK not-for-profit private charity that has set out to track down and acquire culturally significant objects for return to Ethiopia. After the Embassy was alerted last June to the sale at a Bridport auctioneers of a set of three inscribed horn beaker s , a leather-bound Coptic bible and an Ethiopian cross, collected by Major-General William Arbuthnot during the British Army’s Abyssinian campaign of 1867/68, the Embassy arranged for the sale of these items to be halted. At this point, Tahir Shah stepped in to purchase the objects. The inscription on one of these beakers ( This Horn Taken at Magdala ) provides a direct link with the Battle of Maqdala, the concluding event of this little-known and inglorious British campaign that sealed the fate of Emperor Tewodros II and led British troops on a rampage of looting.

Not all the 16 Ethiopian artefacts handed over at the ceremony, including handwritten religious texts, crosses, a magical scroll, a crown and an Imperial shield, can be firmly linked to Maqdala. But all date to the same era and most were likely acquired during the same 1867/68 British expedition. Similar looted artefacts originating from Maqdala are now being identified in collections all around the world. The Foundation's aim is to recover as many of these objects as possible, using a crowdfunding campaign to finance their acquisition. Thirteen of the objects handed over at last week's London ceremony were acquired by the Foundation from the UK, the other objects came from the Netherlands and a private collector in Belgium.

Thanking the Foundation for their work in acquiring these artefacts, Ambassador Teferi Melesse Desta added his country still mourns the artefacts they’ve lost as a result of Britain's Abyssinian campaign, but believes their return can serve to strengthen relations between the UK and Ethiopia.

“It is my hope that in the Maqdala returns to come, the relations between our two nations and people can deepen and grow from strength to strength.”

Ethiopia believes these returns will lead to further restitution initiatives, “especially at a time when retaining artefacts, notably human remains such as those of Prince Alemayehu in Windsor Chapel or sacred objects such as the holy Tabot Arks of the Covenant in the British Museum is becoming increasingly anachronistic, irrelevant and embarrassing”, added Dr Alula Pankhurst, a member of Ethiopia's National Heritage Restitution Committee.

Ethiopia's prospects for the return of these items do seem brighter than other contested objects. Prince Alemayehu was the son of Emperor Tewodros. At the age of seven he was taken by the British Army immediately following his father's death at Maqdala and sent to Britain where he was presented to Queen Victoria. After his death eleven years later, the Queen wrote in her diary: 'It is too sad! All alone in a strange country, without a single person or relative belonging to him..... His was no happy life'. He is buried in the crypt of St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle, a 'Royal Peculiar' where the authority of the monarch can supersede the authority of the diocese.

The case for returning the eleven sacred Tabots, concealed within the vaults of the British Museum, is equally strong. It requires nothing more than the Museum's trustees to acknowledge that items acquired as a result of a violent act of sacrilege that never have or ever will be exhibited or be made available for study, meet the Museum's own criteria for 'unfit to be retained'. As ReturningHeritag e has highlighted in the past, returning the Museum's collection of Tabots requires trustees merely to comply with the Act. It does not involve a breach of the Act.

After this was written

Thirteen artefacts handed over to Ethiopia's Ambassador in London arrived at the Addis Ababa Bole International Airport on 20 November 2021, where they were received by government officials, including the new Minister of Tourism Nansi Challe.

Photo: A collection of Ethiopian artefacts from the Maqdala era on display in London before their return to Ethiopia

Reinstatement of Glasgow’s Working Group for Repatriation may lead to further returns of Benin artefacts

Thu, 26 Aug 2021 16:19:30 GMT

After a fourteen-year interval, Glasgow City Council has agreed to reinstate a Working Group for Repatriation. They’ve also agreed to convene talks with the relevant Nigerian organisations about the possible repatriation of eight Benin artefacts now held in Glasgow collections.

The initiative is being spearheaded by Cllr David McDonald, deputy leader of the council and chairman of Glasgow Life, the organisation whose brief involves running the city’s museums. The agreement he secured last Thursday to re-establish a cross-party Working Group for Repatriation and Spoliation will once again provide the city's collections with an “informed civic forum” through which recommendations for repatriation can be channelled.

Eight of the Benin artefacts under the city’s spotlight are all directly connected with the looting that took place at Benin City in 1897. The provenance of another 21 items is less clear, with some of them provisionally attributed to the 19 ^th century. Nevertheless, the Council’s report suggests all these items could be the subject for potential repatriation, “should the Benin Royal Family so wish”.

The initiative also includes uploading photographs of all these objects onto Digital Benin, the digital platform that provides museums and academics with an online global resource for sharing Benin artefacts.

Glasgow’s leadership in establishing a formal process for handling restitution requests goes back to 1990 when the City Council agreed to return a collection of human skulls collected from North Queensland, Australia. The event became the first recorded repatriation in Scotland.

After this repatriation, the city began receiving further claims for returning artefacts, leading the Council’s Arts and Culture Committee to set up Glasgow’s first cross-party Working Group in 1998. This Group's brief was to consider the wider ethical issues of restitution and how the Council should respond to this potentially complex issue. The carefully structured process they devised concluded in a Public Hearing in November 1998 when the Council agreed to return a sacred Ghost Dance shirt , believed to have been worn at the Battle of Wounded Knee in 1890 and still considered sacred by the Lakota Sioux Indian community of South Dakota. Glasgow believes this was the first artefact to be returned from a European museum to an indigenous community.

Since 1990 the Council has approved six of the nine requests made for repatriation. An appeal was made in 1996 by the late Bernie Grant MP to repatriate the city’s collection of Benin Bronzes, but it was unsuccessful, probably because the city still lacked a formal process for repatriation.

Glasgow’s first Working Group last met in 2007. But since then much has changed and “the arguments against repatriation are getting weaker and weaker”, explained Cllr McDonald. However, this second Working Group will adopt the same structured approach, with clear terms of reference, a channel for the escalation of enquiries to the Council and a transparent governance process. Once again, all recommendations for repatriation will be signed off by the City’s Administration Committee.

“Glasgow will continue to build on its established approach to restitution,” explained Cllr McDonald, “founded on constructive engagement, with the people of Glasgow and the descendent communities or nations making the request, to support each individual situation”.

With Aberdeen University along with other UK and European collections already committed to returning looted Benin artefacts, it seems very likely the reinstatement of the new Working Group will lead to the return of Glasgow’s Benin Bronzes. They expect the entire process will take one to two years.

But to where should the Bronzes be returned? Glasgow Life says it has already established a “pathway of communication” with the Royal Family of Benin, which enables them to begin a formal dialogue with the Oba of Benin. However, they also expect to draw on the support of the consortium known as the Benin Dialogue Group, a grouping of western museums that favours negotiating with representatives of the proposed new Edo Museum of West African Art. As we reported earlier, the current Oba of Benin and the Governor of Edo State, Governor Obaseki, are presently supporting different initiatives. Until their wrangling is resolved and a single destination agreed, it's hard to see Glasgow returning the Bronzes to either.

There's still much for the new Working Group to resolve. But their ambition and process should be applauded.

Photo: Lost wax cast bronze head of an Oba of Benin. 19th cent.

All photos courtesy of Glasgow Museums

After this was written....

In January 2022 Glasgow Life received a formal request from Nigeria to repatriate the 29 Benin objects presently in Glasgow museum collections. The request will be passed to Glasgow City Council's cross-party Working Group for Repatriation and Spoliation for their consideration. The Group will consult with the Oba of Benin, Nigeria's National Commission for Museum and Monuments, as well as local diaspora groups, a process they expect will take two years.

The British Museum’s “ambitious redisplay” of its collections cannot come soon enough

Sun, 22 Aug 2021 17:51:40 GMT

Fresh reports of a leaking roof above the British Museum’s collection of Greek sculpture and antiquities underline the scale of challenge the Museum faces to modernise and improve the display of some of its most important artefacts.

The heavy rain that fell in London at the end of July caused water to leak into the galleries where the Parthenon sculptures are displayed and has pushed back their re-opening to an unspecified date. A spokesperson for the Museum told us the essential repairs now underway “are part of a programme of building maintenance and conservation which will help enable future works on the Museum estate”.

But this is not the first time a leaking roof has raised alarm. Evidence of water seeping into the Museum’s Duveen Gallery was broadcast on Greek television in 2018, leading Greece to renew its demand to have the sculptures transferred to the Acropolis Museum in Athens. These latest reports of leaks suggest any repairs the Museum may have undertaken have so far failed to fix the problem.

Unfortunately, there are other contested items in the Museum’s collection whose display also falls below modern standards and places the Museum’s reputation for global leadership at risk.

Today’s visitors in search of the so-called ‘Gweagal Shield’, an object that represents a tangible symbol of the West’s first encounter with indigenous aborigines, will struggle to locate it. Instead of playing a leading role in the Museum’s noteworthy display of Oceanic artefacts, it will be found almost inconspicuous at one end of the Museum’s Enlightenment Gallery, squeezed behind glass into a wall cabinet that was designed instead to house King George III’s Library and is lit only by natural light (making it almost impossible to photograph).

One label in the cabinet states the shield was collected by Captain Cook on his first landing at Botany Bay on April 29, 1770. After a shot was fired at two men who advanced on Cook’s party with spears, one of their shields dropped to the ground before they ran away. ‘ It has been suggested, but not confirmed, that this is that shield ’, according to the first label. Confusingly, a second label throws doubt on this provenance and suggests ‘ it may have been obtained from its owner between about 1790 and 1815 ’.

Whether or not this is the actual shield collected by Cook on that historic encounter in 1770, the shield still represents a critical part of Australian history. It’s very disappointing the Museum continues to conceal the shield’s wider significance by suppressing it in such an unenlightened manner. By doing so, it strengthens Australia’s resolve to see it returned to Australia, where it’s true significance would undoubtedly be acknowledged in a superior exhibition display.

Elsewhere in the African galleries there’s another group of contested objects badly in need of improved lighting and attention.

The Museum’s hanging display of decorative cast plaques, collectively known as Benin Bronzes, is undoubtedly one of the highlights of the Museum’s displays. But unfortunately many of the other Benin items on display, also looted from Benin City and currently subject to repatriation requests from Edo State in Nigeria, are left sadly in their shadow.

Some of these incredibly beautiful Benin heads and animal figures displayed in glass cabinets around the same room are so poorly lit it’s almost impossible to appreciate their dignity and quality. Take for example the image above of the commemorative head of an Oba (king), made of cast bronze in Benin City c.1550-1650. Yes, it's an awful photograph, but the way this Oba's head is displayed means it’s near impossible to get close and study its finer detail - either with a camera or by the human eye.

The lighting within one of these glass cabinets holding Benin artefacts had failed altogether when I visited last week, leaving the objects in even gloomier light.

The Museum insist that alongside essential repairs, the Director is developing “a strategic masterplan to transform the British Museum for the future”. This involves not just renovation, but “an ambitious redisplay of the collection in the years to come”, according to their spokesperson.

However, with post-pandemic pressure on the Museum's budgets, completion may lie many years in the future. In the meantime, the Museum should place a greater priority on improving the display of more of its contested objects. Otherwise, they'll find others queuing up to do it for them.

Photos: Duveen Gallery, British Museum

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

POLAND

Mon, 16 Aug 2021 17:00:04 GMT

POLAND

Updated September 2021

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made by Poland, together with other restitution news

September 2022

Poland is demanding the return of seven paintings now in the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow looted during WWII by Soviet forces

The Art Newspaper

August 2021

A new law setting a 30-year limit on any claims to property and approved by Poland's President will curb all restitution claims, including those made by Holocaust survivors

The Art Newspaper

Louvre becomes first museum in France to showcase trafficked cultural artefacts

Sat, 31 Jul 2021 14:02:43 GMT

The British Museum regularly holds exhibitions of illegally trafficked artefacts before returning them to their country of origin. But this kind of temporary exhibition has only been possible under French law since 2016 - and then only with the express agreement of a judge.

In a move designed to raise public awareness of the damage inflicted by looting on a nation’s cultural heritage, the Louvre in Paris has become the first museum in France to showcase sculptures and reliefs, seized in France after being illegally trafficked out of Libya and Syria. All await the completion of legal investigations, after which they’ll be returned to their country of origin.

Cyrene in eastern Libya is one of North Africa’s archaeological jewels, the region’s largest ancient city founded in 631 BC. But since the 1980s it has suffered from a poisonous combination of events: instability due to the Arab Spring, widespread land grabbing, which has led to an uncontrolled construction free-for-all, an influx of refugees, plus an upsurge in looting among the thousands of ancient tombs scattered for miles around the ancient city. Professional criminal networks and all manner of other thieves have swept through the necropolises of Cyrenaica to steal valuable funerary sculptures for the lucrative western market.

The four half-statues of funerary deities in the Louvre exhibition, female figures that each represent a goddess of the dead, are all typical of the statues archaeologists have discovered in the masonry and rock tombs within this region. Their identification made it easier for French authorities to seize them and prepare for their repatriation to Libya.

While some have drawn attention to the Louvre’s role as a 'violent graveyard ' of colonial-era cultural trophies, one of the exhibition’s co-curators, Ludovic Laugier, believes it’s better for these objects to be exhibited temporarily at the Louvre instead of being locked away in a police station or court vault.

Two of the stone reliefs also on display in the exhibition are carved with a Byzantine style of decoration and are likely to have been looted from Palmyra in Syria.

Photo: Four half-statues of funerary deities from Cyrene, Libya

Photo by Patrice Pontié, courtesy of French Customs

New Senate resolution increases Italian pressure on the Getty Museum to return ‘Victorious Youth’

Mon, 26 Jul 2021 12:29:08 GMT

Will this month’s resolution approved by the Italian Senate’s Culture Commission resolve Italy's long-running struggle to repatriate the Greek bronze statue of ‘Victorious Youth’ now in the Getty Museum?

The primary objective of Italy's new legal instrument is to streamline and strengthen efforts to recover Italy's own cultural heritage. In combination with the announcement of a press campaign to recover the Greek bronze statue of 'Victorious Youth' now in the Getty Museum, the new resolution contains several interesting initiatives designed to give greater prominence to cultural heritage law.

Foremost among these initiatives is the creation of a small pool of specialist district magistrates, all of whom will be specially trained in matters of cultural heritage law. The resolution also aims to encourage more universities to teach legal archaeology in relevant courses and it commits the government to ‘collaborate with the Rai public broadcasting service to raise general awareness among citizens about restitution through programming.’

There are questions whether the unanimous approval given to this month's resolution means the courts and universities can look forward to extra funding. Cultural heritage experts are also curious how it will align with the country’s other legal obligations towards restitution. For example, how will it impact on Italy's compliance with existing conventions such as the 1970 UNESCO Convention, as well as other bilateral agreements already in place?

However, Massimo Seri, the mayor of Fano, has wasted no time in supporting the resolution, insisting that it gives Italy the right to recover the bronze statue known as the ‘Victorious Youth’ ('Getty Bronze' or ‘Atleta di Fano’), an extremely rare, full-size Greek statue made in the 2 ^nd or 3 ^rd century BC, recovered in international waters by Italian fishermen operating out of Fano on the Adriatic coast.

Lost at sea during ancient times, its journey to the Getty Museum in Malibu confirms its status as a prized trophy of illicit smuggling. Discovered in international waters in 1964, the Italian fishermen sold the Greek statue to a group of Italian art traffickers. After smuggling it to Brazil, the traffickers sent the statue to Germany and then onwards to Great Britain, where it was restored to its present condition. It was a member of the European art consortium, Artemis S.A., who brought the statue to J. Paul Getty's attention in 1972. For a time, Getty expressed an interest in purchasing the statue. However, negotiations over its legal title and future ownership ground to a halt. Getty is understood to have requested confirmation in writing from the Italian Minister of Culture that the statue had received permission to leave their country. But before any such guarantee was provided, Getty died. Only months after his death, the Museum’s trustees went ahead in 1977 and purchased the bronze for the sum of $3.98 million. The purchase was made "after extensive review of the relevant facts and law over the course of many years," according to a statement from the Getty Museum. Trustees voted to name the statue the 'Getty Bronze'.

The illicit provenance of the bronze continues to be questioned, so can the Getty continue to hold on to it?

The Museum has consistently defended its legal right to retain the statue, now one of the greatest treasures in the Museum’s collection. Despite several violations of Italian law since the bronze was discovered at sea (including illegal export, failure to notify relevant authorities and the violation of importation rules when the object was first brought ashore), Italy's different legal actions to recover the bronze have all failed. Defending their legal title over the statue, the Getty point to the acquittal of the Italians who purchased the statue from the fishermen and the ruling in 1968 by the Court of Cassation, Italy's highest court, which ruled there was no evidence the statue belonged to the Italian state.

However, in June 2018 a domestic court in Italy, the Tribunal of Pesaro, upheld a long-disputed order of forfeiture, affirming Italy’s legal right of ownership. Unsurprisingly, the Getty has refused to accept this Pesaro ruling on the grounds the statue is not Italian and was not found in Italian waters. "Accidental discovery by Italian citizens does not make the statue an Italian object,” maintains the Museum.

The Pesaro action did succeed in moving the wider restitution debate in a new direction: it underlined the potential for using a source nation’s own domestic laws to repatriate objects smuggled, looted or removed without the permission of that source nation. But it's less clear whether other nations are willing to enforce these judgements. U.S. law does not provide for the return of illegally exported property. As a result, legal experts believe it's unlikely the 'Victorious Youth' dispute could be resolved in Italy's favour without a compatible decision enforceable in the American courts. This would involve the intervention of federal authorities and a forfeiture action brought by the U.S. Attorney.

The effect of this dispute on other collaborative initiatives is worrying. In addition to Italy stalling plans for sharing exhibitions with the Getty, there are now real fears the dispute could lead the Getty to become much less co-operative over future claims for restitution. In past years, the Museum has shown a willingness to co-operate with repatriation claims by Italy, including returning the so-called 'Getty Aphrodite ' to Italy in 2007. However, this co-operation may be stretched if Italy uses their new Senate resolution to apply even more pressure on the Getty over the 'Victorious Youth'.

After this was written....

An order from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) made on 02 May 2024 upheld Italy's right to seize the statue, upholding a lower court's confiscation order (see: Returning Heritage ).

Photo: Bronze statue of ‘Victorious Youth’, Greek, 2nd/3rd cent BC

Courtesy of commons.wikimedia.org

Prospects for returning Benin Bronzes jeopardised by Nigerian wrangling

Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:58:55 GMT

Wrangling within Nigeria’s Edo State government is putting the immediate prospects of western museums returning looted Benin Bronzes at risk.

The role of the Legacy Restoration Trust (LRT), an independent, not-for-profit Nigerian organisation, whose flagship project is the creation of a new Edo Museum of West African Art ( EMOWA A ), has been denounced by the present head of the Benin royal family. Speaking at an emergency meeting convened earlier this month in the Edo capital Benin City, Oba Ewuare II reasserted Benin Kingdom’s right of ownership over the Bronzes, emphasising that “attempts to divert the destination or the right of custody of the artefacts is not in the interest of the people of Benin Kingdom”.

Thousands of metal and ivory objects, collectively known as Benin Bronzes, were plundered from the West African kingdom of Benin City by a British military force in February 1897. “They are not the property of the state government or any private corporate entity that is not a creation of the Benin Kingdom,” insists the Oba, the great-great grandson of the king removed from power when Benin City was sacked. In his address to the meeting, Oba Ewuare gave western museums cause for alarm by claiming that any group, organisation or government, national or international, dealing with the return of looted artefacts with any “artificial group” other than Benin Kingdom would be doing so “at their own risk and against the will of the people of the Benin Kingdom”.

The Oba, together with hundreds of his supporters who attended the meeting, want the Bronzes returned to the Oba’s own Benin Royal Museum, not to the EMOWAA. To enable him to finance the creation of a secure, modern museum within his Palace grounds and to administer the return of the Bronzes, a foundation has been registered in his name, Oba Ewuare II Foundation. He is claiming the Governor of Edo State, Godwin Obaseki, plus other leading stakeholders, including the Benin Dialogue Group, have all supported this initiative. However, now they've transferred their support to the project masterminded by the LRT, the Oba has asked Nigeria’s Federal Government to take custody of all Benin artefacts due to return - until such time as the Benin Royal Museum is ready to receive them.

This dispute couldn’t have come at a worse time. With a growing number of European, North American and British regional collections announcing their willingness to start returning stolen Benin artefacts, where should they be returned? If Nigeria cannot agree where the Bronzes should be exhibited, will their future security be jeopardised? During the 1980s and 1990s, thefts of artefacts from Nigeria’s museums were widespread and a repetition of those events would be a catastrophic indictment of Nigerian ability to secure its own national heritage. Opponents of restitution have always been quick to highlight 'inadequate security' as a reason why looted objects should not be returned to their country of origin. If this wrangling continues, there's every chance it may confirm such fears.

However, there’s also a possibility that the Oba’s intervention has come too late. The critical support of Governor Obaseki has been put behind the work of the Legacy Restoration Trust. They in turn have already secured financial and bilateral support from individual members of the Benin Dialogue Group, including the British Museum. This support alone is worth many millions of pounds.

Experienced West African commentators have drawn attention to the rivalry being played out between the Oba and Governor Obaseki, where a clash of egos and the chase for money, whether for construction or for personal gain, could be fuelling this dispute. It's also difficult to understand why the Oba has reacted so negatively to the LRT initiative, just as it begins to garner significant international support and is more likely than his own initiative to deliver the return of the Bronzes.

One thing is clear. For as long as these divisions remain unresolved, the possibility of unconditional returns of Benin Bronzes by western museums appears unlikely. Even those collections that have committed to return looted artefacts will be concerned about the future stability of where their objects are returned. Interviewed for the BBC, Aberdeen University's Head of Museums and Special Collections, Neil Curtis, said he would be "very uncomfortable" if their "unconditional" return of a Benin Bronze hea d took place without the agreement of all parties in Nigeria. Confidence in the role played by the Legacy Restoration Trust is also at risk of becoming seriously dented. Edo State needs to act decisively to ensure this problem doesn't spiral out of control.

Photo: Oba Ewuare II and Governor Obaseki

Courtesy of the nationonlineng.net

Asian communities in the UK hold key to India’s long term plans for restitution

Tue, 13 Jul 2021 12:12:06 GMT

A crowd-sourced, global network of volunteers is pressing foreign governments to return India’s cultural heritage. Unusually, their UK strategy is not to push for the return of individual objects. At least, not yet. Instead, they’re relying on Southeast Asian communities in Britain to apply pressure on the UK government, leading to restitutions in the future.

Why do they have such confidence that community pressure will be effective? Because “Indian votes matter in the UK”, said Anuraag Saxena, co-founder of the volunteer group called India Pride Project ('IPP') in a first UK interview with ReturningHeritage.com .

Saxena is a Singapore-based business leader and activist who’s been campaigning since 2013 to return India’s heritage. His movement has been gathering critical momentum among Indians and within their own government, with Saxena insisting “You haven’t really decolonized a nation, unless you’ve given back what’s theirs”.

But there’s a huge task ahead of them. Despite the enormous number of temple statues, jewels and other works of art looted by the British, Dutch and French while staking a claim over India during the colonial period, there have been few serious attempts to recover the country's plundered heritage. India still has limited heritage protection laws (a fact Saxena attributes to “bureaucratic apathy”), no official record of antiquities trafficked out of the country, and no solution in the public domain to recover looted artefacts. The only Antiquities Bill presently in force is severely outdated, while work on introducing a new law is yet to materialise. Saxena is keen to point out that throughout all the recent years of economic development, it was only ten years ago when India’s government started to take cultural restitution issues seriously.

Boasting “zero funds, zero employees and zero authority”, IPP has built its restitution campaign on the three building blocks of analysis, advocacy and awareness-building. It operates with about 280 volunteers, individuals and non-resident Indians all “frustrated that India’s heritage doesn’t get respect” and uses social media widely to identify and communicate the location of potential looted artefacts. Social media is then deployed again to galvanise support for the repatriation campaigns that follow.

With porous borders, India still remains in the front line of antiquities trafficking. The problem was highlighted dramatically two years ago when the law enforcement operation known as ‘Hidden Idol’ exposed a $100m trans-national smuggling ring operated by Subhash Kapoor , a Manhattan-based dealer of Indian origin. Kapoor is known routinely to have sold or donated stolen Indian artefacts to at least a dozen American museums.

“We’re not losing our heritage to either terrorists or to conquerors,” explains Saxena, “we’re losing it to our own people who are doing it for plain, simple greed”.

These recent assaults on India's cultural heritage explain why most of IPP’s repatriation successes to date have involved the recovery of objects stolen after 1947, the year of India’s independence. “It’s easier to have the conversation about post-1947 restitutions,” Saxena explains, "because it’s an easier door to open”. Nevertheless, IPP's efforts have so far contributed to the return of 28 major looted objects, mostly statues of Indian deities and all stolen from Indian temples since independence. The objects were discovered in Australian, Canadian, US and German collections by IPP volunteers, then the government of India applied pressure on those governments to return the objects to India.

But objects plundered during the colonial period pose a different set of untrodden challenges. Tens of thousands of objects were carried away between the 17th and 19th centuries by employees of Britain’s East India Company, whose conquest of India "remains the supreme act of corporate violence in world history", according to William Dalrymple. The scale of looting by Company officers and officials was unprecedented, even raising concern among British people while it was taking place. Speaking at the impeachment of Warren Hastings in 1788, Edmund Burke protested the Company did "nothing for India except asset-strip it".

India's plundered heritage disappeared into multiple public and private collections across the UK and after the Company’s own India Museum was dissolved, many were transferred either to the British Museum or to the South Kensington Museum (now the V&A). They remain some of this nation's greatest museum treasures and include Tipu's Tige r , an 18th century semi-automaton model of a tiger savaging an English soldier, removed from Tipu Sultan's palace in 1799 and now a major attraction in the V&A.

Looting and excavation for Indian treasures continued under British rule after control of Company activities passed to the British Crown. Major items removed from India during this period include the Amaravati Collectio n , the single most important group of Indian relief sculptures outside the subcontinent. These were removed from the Great Shrine of Amaravati, Guntur in the state of Andhra Pradesh by Sir Walter Elliot in the 1840s and were deposited in the British Museum in 1880.

Previous attempts by IPP to draw attention to looted Indian artefacts in UK public collections have been controversial. In 2018 they launched a social media campaign with images of Indian objects in the British Museum containing speech bubbles with statements like “How did I get here?” and “I’m a deity, not a showpiece”. However, that approach has been replaced with a different, more measured approach, which IPP now believes holds the key to future restitutions.

Unlike other countries contesting ownership of their looted heritage, IPP is in no hurry to request the return of individual objects or entire collections of objects. “The UK always expects requests rather than a conversation about rights ”, Saxena told us. He would much rather the conversation focusses on the cause of why so many Indian objects were plundered from their country and why it’s morally right for them to be returned.

“The current generation of Britons is far more moral than their fathers were,” he explains. “If you continue to be proud of what your grandfather stole from mine, we must address that issue”.

Reframing morality takes time. Saxena told us that IPP has kick-started this conversation by launching a novel strategy reaching out to local Asian communities in the UK and engaging their support for future restitutions. He expects these conversations to come from “unlikely quarters” and to continue for at least the next three to five-years.

So, India is in it for the long game. They have no expectations of early results, especially from Britain's national collections as India's government has still made no formal requests to return any plundered colonial objects. But if Saxena is correct that the influence of the Indian voice in British politics is growing, we shouldn’t be surprised if Asian community pressure doesn’t convert into a shift in restitution policy over the longer term. This could well result in more Indian gods returning to their temples.

Photo: Detail from a limestone relief showing an image of the Great Shrine at Amaravati and the Buddha in bodily form. c. 250

Courtesy of © Trustees of the British Museum 2017

While German museums edge closer to repatriation of Benin Bronzes, UK national collections continue to head in the opposite direction

Fri, 02 Jul 2021 17:42:45 GMT

In the same week the Prussian Cultural Foundation agreed to relinquish Benin Bronzes, “regardless of the circumstances in which they were acquired”, a request made under the Freedom of Information Act reveals the V&A and the British Museum have each written to Britain’s culture secretary confirming they won’t be returning contested objects.

This latest announcement from Germany comes as no surprise. It follows a previous announcement made last April that confirmed Germany’s “willingness in principle to make substantial returns of Benin Bronzes”.

Nevertheless, it still raises the stakes in an increasingly heated debate over whether legal ownership of the Benin Bronzes should be transferred to Nigeria or whether a policy of long-term loans, advocated by the Benin Dialogue Group, should prevail. It will certainly make a major dent in Germany’s ethnological collections. In addition to Berlin’s Ethnologisches Museum, which holds about 520 objects from Benin (the second largest collection of Benin Bronzes in Europe after the British Museum), a further 24 German collections are likely to be impacted. Responsibility for negotiating the legal and logistical arrangements for returning these objects was given to the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, the federal government body that oversees Berlin's state museums. Now that formal support from the Foundation has been confirmed, Germany can move forward and prepare a detailed timetable with the Nigerian authorities. Already the Foundation has indicated the first returns are expected to take place within the next twelve months.

Germany’s initiative reaffirms their commitment to prioritise their country's moral responsibility to return stolen objects ahead of national interests. By contrast, Britain’s approach couldn't be more different.

A Freedom of Information request made by The Guardia n shows that two of Britain’s largest national collections are sticking to their usual uncompromising approach to claims for restitution. Responding to culture secretary Oliver Dowden’s letter to arts organisations warning against “actions motivated by activism or politics”, the British Museum’s outgoing chairman Sir Richard Lambert “agreed that we have no intention of removing controversial objects from public display”. While over at the Victoria and Albert Museum, director Tristram Hunt also wrote to Dowden adding “that it is both impossible and ahistorical to seek to ‘decolonise’ a museum like the V&A given its foundational connection to the history of imperialism”. Hunt went on to explain the V&A had not removed any items of contested heritage as a result of pressures.

Both museums are known to be engaged in active negotiations with Nigeria and Ethiopia (together with various other countries) about returning looted objects. There's even been recent cause for optimism that restitutions may be climbing up their agendas. So why this hard-line, inflexible stance?

One possible reason is because both institutions, like every other museum worldwide, have witnessed huge falls in revenue as a result of closures during the pandemic. With visitor numbers climbing only slowly, both may feel this isn’t the best time to fall out with their paymasters. Their need for government aid remains acute.

With the chairmanship of the British Museum passing to George Osborne, architect of Britain’s austerity programme, the BM’s director is now facing a dilemma. UK regional and university museums are generally heading in the same direction as German, Dutch and Belgian state museums by agreeing the principle of returning plundered artefacts. But national collections are far more dependent on government funding so, however willing the BM's director may be to reverse the Museum's direction, this could be the wrong time to propose change or flexibility to a government whose instructions are to "retain and explain". In current conditions, a sympathetic ear from government would seem unlikely…. at least while the present regime remains in office.

Meanwhile, casting a shadow over all these developments is what some commentators have been warning about for some time: that Nigerians themselves are conflicted about the return of the Bronzes. Who should decide where and how their return is managed. Is Nigeria and Edo State ready to administer the return of their stolen heritage?

Those in charge at the Legacy Restoration Trust and the proposed new Edo Museum of West African Art (EMOWAA) are convinced they are. However, while Edo State Governor Godwin Obaseki unveiled early-phase plans for a 'museum pavilion' to be constructed on the EMOWAA site, there were reports this week that a coalition of Benin youth groups are objecting to Obaseki's plan to house the returned Benin Bronzes in the David Adjaye-designed EMOWAA. A report in the Nigerian Tribun e says these groups reject the role played by the Legacy Restoration Trust in determining the future of the Oba's Bronzes. They have vowed to resist the state government’s attempt to decide where the Bronzes should be housed, insisting instead that the current Oba should be the sole recipient of the Bronzes and that the museum should be set up directly opposite the Oba’s Palace.

Commenting on the political vicissitudes of Nigerian politics, Barnaby Phillips, author of the excellent book Loot: Britain and the Benin Bronzes , has cautioned that recent Nigerian history is “full of disappointments and squandered opportunities”. He still believes this chance for Nigerians to play a crucial role in their own future looks encouraging . But he also feels that Nigerian business leaders, politicians and contemporary artists all need to get behind the plans of the Legacy Restoration Trust if this latest initiative to return the Bronzes to Nigeria isn't to be derailed.

With German, Belgian, Dutch and now many UK regional and university collections going in one direction and Britain's national museums in the opposite, the case for returning the Benin Bronzes has never been more polarised.

Photo: Edo figure of a Leopard, with hinged lid in its head. 16th - 19th cent. Collected in 1897 from Benin City. (British Museum)

More Ethiopian historical objects are withdrawn from auction and are set to return to Ethiopia

Fri, 02 Jul 2021 11:17:55 GMT

Just one week after historical Ethiopian objects looted from Maqdala were withdrawn from an auction in Dorset, five more Ethiopian objects have been withdrawn from auction in the Netherlands. Both actions demonstrate Ethiopia’s unyielding commitment to securing the return of its looted heritage.

These latest five objects, including three medieval hand-coloured Ethiopic manuscripts, dating from the 15 ^th century, on vellum in their original wooden bindings, and two Coptic textile fragments, believed to be 6th/7 ^th century or later, were being offered for sale at the Venduehuis der Notarissen in The Hague last week (25 ^th June).

Once brought to the attention of Ethiopia’s Embassy in The Hague, a request was made by the Embassy to halt their sale, until the legality of their export from Ethiopia had been confirmed. Just four days later, the Embassy were informed by the auctioneers that the vendor had agreed to withdraw the objects and present them to the Embassy instead. Unlike the objects withdrawn from the auction in Bridport last week, the provenance of these objects remains unclear. However, the Embassy is now free to make arrangements to return them back to their rightful home in Ethiopia.

“In securing the return of these items to the people and culture that produced them,” said Ethiopian Ambassador Million Samuel, “we send a clear message that all illegally obtained cultural heritage must find its way home”.

In 2020 the Ethiopian Embassy in The Hague was also involved in arranging the return of an 18 ^th century religious crown , stolen from the Holy Trinity Church in the village of Cheleqot in 1993. The crown had found its way to Rotterdam, but since returning to Ethiopia has been on display at the National Museum in Addis Ababa. In the future, the crown will be returned to its original home in Cheleqot.

Photo: Members of the religious community on Dek Island in Lake Tana display an ancient Ethiopian manuscript

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Belgium moves swiftly to approve return of looted artefacts to Democratic Republic of Congo

Wed, 23 Jun 2021 18:45:30 GMT

Earlier this month, new guidelines were presented to Belgium's government for the management and restitution of their colonial collections. Just weeks later, the Belgian government has adopted these guidelines, at the same time agreeing to return all items illegally acquired from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

This decision follows similar initiatives in Germany and the Netherland s , but it’s the speed of the Belgian government’s response, as well as their approach to the implementation of the new policy, that has been welcomed.

Last week Thomas Dermine, the country’s State Secretary for Scientific Policy, received government approval for an official bilateral accord with the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Belgium controlled vast swathes of territory in this former colony, where between 1885 and 1960 thousands of works of art and objects were stolen or removed by collectors, missionaries and soldiers. King Leopold II regarded the DRC as his personal fiefdom, exploited for his own personal advantage. The Belgian model proposed by Dermine involves “a coordinated and shared approach to the question of objects acquired in an illegitimate manner”. His statement has left people in no doubt that objects must be returned to their rightful owners.

“These things are not ours, full stop”, Dermine insisted in an interview with De Standaard . “Whether or not there are opportunities to preserve the heritage in Congo has no impact on ownership”.

The agreement Belgium has reached will involve projects to conserve, research and create an inventory of objects whose provenance and ownership history is in question. Belgium has offered to assist in providing interim storage facilities and where a transfer of ownership remains unresolved, they say they are prepared to consider either repatriation or retaining the object in Belgium in return for a “rental fee”. As usual, the biggest challenge to provenance research is securing the funding. So far, the government has been quiet on the source of this funding. Dermine, however, is determined to overcome these and other obstacles while, at the same time, to explore the further potential of this preferred repatriation model.

“If necessary, we will also broaden the concept of illicitly obtained,” he insists, referring to those objects acquired under force or purchased below the market price. “We can then extend this blueprint to other collections, or pieces from Rwanda and Burundi”.

The agreement to return objects slowly and not in haste will honour a request the DRC’s President Felix Tshisekedi made in 2019, a strategy he proposed to help guarantee the future preservation and storage of repatriated objects. Display and storage facilities in the recently opened national museum in Kinshasa are limited and further expansion and financial investment is required to accommodate a potentially large influx of new objects. Few if any returns are likely over the next twelve months, with the majority taking place over several years.

Nevertheless, the decision is likely to have far-reaching implications for AfricaMuseum (the Royal Museum for Central Africa) in Tervuren, Belgium, a museum that has recently undergone a £64m revamp and decolonisation process. Although the majority of items in this state-owned collection were acquired legally, the origin of about 35% of its collection (around 40,000 objects) is understood to be less certain. The Brussels Times reports that 883 items, about 1% of its entire collection, have been identified already as “illegally obtained”, although Dermine has suggested a smaller number of around 280 objects or 0.3% of the Museum’s collection. The Museum has transferred items to the Congo on an ad-hoc basis in the past, including 114 ethnographic artefacts to the Institut des Musées Nationaux du Zaïre in Kinshasa between 1976 and 1982. But this latest initiative will dig much deeper into the Museum’s collection.

AfricaMuseum confirms that provenance research is one of its priorities. However, because so much of its collection of 120,000 items was obtained during the colonial period, source information for many of those items from the Congo remains unclear. Considerable funding assistance from the government will be required to complete the enormous task ahead of them.

All returns are subject to Belgium's government receiving formal requests for restitution by the DRC. To date, no such requests have been made. But speaking to Artnet New s AfricaMuseum director Guido Gryseels said: “Things that have been stolen or acquired by violence should be returned”. He added the Belgian model is "very innovative", describing the approach as the "first" to separate the legal ownership of the material from physical transfer. However, he also hopes the Congolese authorities will co-operate with the museum by agreeing to keep some of the objects in Belgium via loan agreements.

All this is likely to pile further pressure on other countries facing challenges to looted objects. Although currently France's resolve to return looted objects from former French colonies appears to have stalled, Belgium has now joined the same path as Germany, the United States and the Netherlands. Where does this leave the UK? It seems clear the stance of our national collections (though not our regional museums) is leaving the UK increasingly isolated. By continuing to ignore the morality of clinging on to stolen objects and dismissing legitimate claims for their return, the UK is turning its back on a growing international trend towards correcting acts of theft - even those acts committed two hundred years ago. This intransigence leaves the UK in a precarious position: it's reputation for the highest standards of museum stewardship squeezed and it's reputation for museum leadership on the wane. None of this is good for the reputation of 'Global Britain'.

Photo: Idimu Mask, 2nd quarter of 19th cent. Democratic Republic of Congo

Courtesy of AfricaMuseum

Ethiopia succeeds in recovering ‘illegally obtained objects’ offered for sale in a Dorset saleroom

Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:55:06 GMT

They may appear like insignificant mementos of a little-known British military campaign in Abyssinia. But to Ethiopians they represent an important piece of their country’s history.

The withdrawal of five Ethiopian objects from a sale at Busby Auctioneers in Bridport, Dorset this week (17 June) illustrates the growing success Ethiopia is having persuading private collectors to return objects violently looted from their country during a military campaign in the 19th century.

All five objects - three inscribed horn beakers and a leather-bound Coptic bible and cross - were collected by Major-General William Arbuthnot CB (1838-1893) who, while serving as Captain during the Abyssinian campaign of 1867/68, was Aide de Camp and Military Secretary to the British Commander, General Robert Napier.

The five items were all offered for sale by Arbuthnot’s direct descendants, lending them a significant provenance and historical value. Their monetary value, however, was estimated at little more than £700. Each of the three horn beakers bears an inscription on their silver mount (hallmarked Wright & Davies London 1875), however, one bears the added the inscription ‘W.A. Arbuthnot to G.G. Arbuthnot, This Horn Taken at Magdala’.

So widespread and indiscriminate was the looting that took place after Emperor Tewodros II‘s defeat at Maqdala, that very few objects of cultural, spiritual or historical value from this period still remain in Ethiopia. Instead, they’ve been scattered across public museums around the globe or remain, possible unrecognised, in numerous UK private collections.

After learning these items relate directly to the battle at Maqdala, the Ethiopian Embassy in London was determined not to lose this chance of recovering objects they maintain were 'illegally obtained'. Appealing in a letter to the auctioneers, the Ethiopian Embassy said their return would bring closure to generations of Ethiopians, 'dispossessed of their heritage and aggrieved by this painful chapter in our shared history'.

With the co-operation of Busby Auctioneers, the Embassy came to an agreement with the vendor, enabling both lots to be returned to Ethiopia. A spokesman for the Embassy described their repatriation as "a small, albeit important step in Ethiopia's continuing campaign to right the injustice of Maqdala".

"The items will rightly find their way home to the people and culture that produced them, where they will be preserved for current and future generations of Ethiopians".

Arbuthnot’s decision to hang on to these five objects contrasts with his decision made immediately after returning from the Abyssinian campaign to gift a sacred Ethiopian tabot to the Scottish Episcopal church of St John the Evangelist in Edinburgh. This tabot was discovered, hidden in the back of the church’s cupboard, in 2001 and returned to Addis Ababa within months of its discovery.

Ethiopia is keen to encourage all current holders of Maqdala items to investigate the history of these objects and to engage with Ethiopia to facilitate their repatriation. "Private collectors and public institutions across the country have a moral duty to return all products of loot," said the spokesman, "lest they be associated with the unjust circumstances that brought them to the UK."

Appeals to private collectors have so far resulted in more than twenty repatriations to Ethiopia. However, this contrasts sharply with the stance adopted by Britain’s national collections that continue to resist all attempts at repatriation.

Photo: Three inscribed horn beakers looted from Maqdala

Courtesy of twitter.com

Trustees should resolve the impasse and return the British Museum’s collection of Tabots to Ethiopia

Sat, 12 Jun 2021 09:20:16 GMT

So far, every attempt by Ethiopia to recover objects looted during the British Army’s campaign in Abyssinia now in the British Museum has met with a brick wall. Protected by legal statute, the British Museum continues to maintain objects cannot be deaccessioned from its collection.

But that isn't the whole truth. Provisions do exist within the British Museum Act permitting the Museum’s trustees to sell, exchange or dispose of certain categories of objects – and the Museum’s ‘hidden’ collection of sacred Ethiopian Tabots, perhaps more than any other contested set of objects in the British Museum's collection, falls clearly within one of these categories.

The Museum’s resolve to hang on to these Tabots is once again about to be tested. Returning Heritage has learnt that Ethiopia is preparing to announce new plans for a more concerted effort to pursue their claim for restitution at national level. This time, success may depend on whether the British Museum’s trustees agree to exercise their right to apply flexibility and discretion.

Tabots, religious plaques considered by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church as the dwelling place of God on earth and the representation of the Ark of the Covenant, are used to sanctify and consecrate a church building. Nine of the British Museum’s Tabots are known to have been looted by British forces during their 1867/8 expedition to overthrow the Abyssinian Emperor Tewodros II at his mountain fortress at Maqdala. Their forcible removal was an act of sacrilege. Although always protected by a veil from public sight, Tabots are potent symbols to the faithful, brought out for veneration on festival days.

This makes the Tabot a special, almost unique category of object in the British Museum’s collection, as neither the Museum nor the public are ever likely to view, study or even miss them.

Permanently out of public sight since entering the collection, the Museum’s eleven Tabots are housed in a location ‘specially set aside for the purpose, created and maintained in close consultation with the Ethiopian Orthodox Church’, according to a Museum statement. They remain unavailable to the public, to the Museum’s own staff and curators, for study by the Ethiopian Church or by anyone else; they serve no display or educational function and they are not illustrated in the Museum’s online catalogue. This makes it hard to understand why trustees have failed in the past to exercise their legal powers under the 1963 Act to deaccession these Tabots when, self-evidently, they don’t meet the Museum’s own criteria for retention within the Museum's collection.

Ethiopian requests to return them have gathered pace since September 2018, when delegates from the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church met with BM director Dr Hartwig Fischer. The following March, Dr Hirut Kassaw, Ethiopia’s Minister of Culture and Tourism, visited Dr Fischer to convey the Ethiopian Government’s interest in seeing their return, at the same time, lodging an official request in writing from His Holiness Abba Mathias I, Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.

The Museum’s official response to the Patriarch’s request confirmed the matter would be raised with the board of trustees during the autumn. In October 2019, a further meeting with Ethiopian officials revealed that a number of conversations about the Tabots had taken place between trustees and museum staff, but nothing definitive had been decided. Meanwhile, Ethiopian officials were informed, once again, the matter might be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of trustees scheduled for December 2019.

Clearly the Museum has been willing to invest actively in discussions, but it’s drawn a veil of secrecy over what has grown into a restitution impasse.

We know from the published minutes of that board meeting on 5 ^th December the trustees were briefed on a ‘recent restitution request’ (item 9.3), after which the board officially ‘endorsed the proposed response’. However, the Museum has been unwilling to confirm whether it was Ethiopia’s request discussed at this meeting.

If it was, why has Ethiopia been kept waiting eighteen months for details of the Museum’s response? If it wasn’t, why not?

“The time-frame for next steps is still open and under discussion,” a British Museum spokesperson told us. However, if the Museum genuinely wishes to “further develop and build relationships to work together in the future”, giving answers to these questions would be a good place to start.

It’s no secret that a clear presumption exists within the British Museum Act against all disposals, even though a number of precedents already exist, including several Benin Bronzes sold during the 1950s and 70s and the return of a copy of the Kebra Nagast (Glory of Kings) to Ethiopia in 1872 . Disputes over contested objects habitually get bogged down over issues of title. Other stumbling blocks include whether prevailing laws relating to stolen property should apply to colonial looted objects, and even whether an object acquired in contravention of British law and vested in the trustees can ever be considered part of the British Museum’s collection. That’s why the fate of the majority of Maqdala objects in the Museum’s collection (about 80 objects altogether), together with others in the V&A and the British Library, still relies either on a change in the legislation or on the goodwill of trustees to make voluntary returns. The other option of long-term loans to Ethiopia has been raised by the V&A, which they describe as a possible initial step towards full restitution.

But none of these options need apply to the British Museum's Tabots, because exceptions are already permitted within the statutory framework. Under the section ‘Disposal of objects’, a number of categories are listed where the Museum's trustees have the flexibility to deaccession. One of these categories is when an object ‘ is unfit to be retained ’ (Section 5, (1)(c)) and ‘ can be disposed of without detriment to the interests of students ’.

So, when is an object unfit to be retained? Parliament couldn’t agree a definition of ‘unfit’ when the 1963 Act was debated, so no statutory definition was written into the Act. Instead, the Government recognised that in some limited circumstances sufficient flexibility in the statutory framework exists to enable transfers and disposals. According to minutes prepared by the Museum Secretary, Government took the view ‘the question could safely be left to the Trustees’.

In other words, it’s entirely at the discretion of the Museum’s trustees to decide whether an object is ‘unfit to be retained’. On this matter, Government cannot enforce its point of view on the trustees and neither do the trustees need legislative change to make this decision, they just need common sense.

The Museum’s current deaccession policy is unambiguous and suggests the Tabots meet the appropriate criteria for deaccessioning. It defines an object as unfit if it is ‘ no longer useful or relevant to the Museum’s purpose and if its retention would not be of benefit either to scholars or the general public, whether for display or research or any other purpose for which the Museum is established ’.

Many of the contested objects in the Museum’s collection might struggle to meet this test, including the majority of objects that are kept in storage or left off display for extended periods of time. But a group of objects that never has or ever will be exhibited, and never will be made available for study by anyone because of their consecrated nature, do meet this test as it’s more obvious they fall outside any of those purposes for which the Museum was established.

Objects of this nature have no place in a museum - any museum – and their return to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church could never be a source of loss or regret to this country, the trustees, the public or students of Ethiopian religion.

In the approaches we expect Ethiopia to make in the months ahead, the Museum’s trustees must stand up to their responsibilities and be prepared to break this long-running impasse. In particular, they must remember that exercising their discretionary powers to deaccession the Tabots will not constitute a breach of the Act and will not create the precedent they fear might open the floodgates to further returns.

For this group of sacred objects, repatriation is not a matter of dispute over title or ownership. It’s about returning the Tabots to where they belong and respecting the role for which they were intended: as spiritual anchors for the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Photo: Dr Hirut Kassaw, Ethiopia’s Minister of Culture, Tourism and Sport, on a visit to the National Army Museum, London in March 2019

Courtesy of Embassy of Ethiopia

NEPAL

Mon, 07 Jun 2021 10:02:39 GMT

NEPAL

Updated November 2024

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions, together with other restitution news. Entries are updated regularly

November 2024

The Museum of Stolen Art is on a mission to secure the return of Nepal's stolen cultural heritage scattered across museums and collections around the world

BBC.co.uk

June 2023

Nepal's Department of Archaeology announced the recovery of 96 archaeological objects stolen by foreigners over a period of 38 years

my Republica

May 2023

A gilded statue of Vajradhara, stolen from Dolakha in Nepal in 1995, has been tracked down by Lost Arts of Nepal and voluntarily returned following mediation

Hyperallergic

January 2022

Citizen activist groups in Nepal are asking foreign museums, collectors and art galleries to help return looted objects

Cultural Property News

June 2021

Five 18th cent gilded sculptures, torn from a frieze above the golden gateway of Taleju Bhawani Temple at Patan Durbar Square in the Kathmandu Valley, have been withdrawn from a Bonhams auction in Paris

The Art Newspaper

Proposed new guidelines for managing Belgium’s colonial collections advance the case for wider restitutions

Fri, 04 Jun 2021 19:55:20 GMT

Frustrated by the failure of Belgium’s state museums and government to engage in a serious debate about the management and restitution of its colonial collections, an independent group of Belgian heritage professionals has published its own set of ethical guidelines.

Two years in the making, the group’s lengthy report doesn’t pretend to be anything more than a starting point. However, they still hope their recommendations will help shape the federal restitutions policy of a Special Parliamentary Commission, set up in July 2020 by the government to investigate the country’s colonial past.

New financing for provenance research, an independent commission to evaluate restitution requests and a new legal framework for the return of colonial heritage are all key recommendations of the group’s report.

These Belgian recommendations are still at an earlier stage of development than the policy framework put forward this year by a Dutch Advisory Committee . While the Dutch recommendations already have government endorsement, Belgium still has no official policy on decolonising museums or returning looted colonial artefacts.

But the Belgian and Dutch approaches share many things in common.

Like the Dutch, the Belgian report aims to ensure new ethical policies reflect the demands for ‘equity, reparation and reconciliation with the past that are increasingly resonating within society’. According to the report, this involves placing ‘the individual and human values at the heart of a broad and transversal concept of cultural heritage’.

Just as the Dutch plan to enter into a dialogue with representatives of their former colonies, so the Belgian report also recommends the same inclusive approach, involving engagement with stakeholders from all their former colonies, including the Congo, Rwanda and Burundi. Co-operation with participants from the African diaspora is also recommended.

‘Equitable, honest, and real solutions in this debate cannot be achieved without such a process’, says the report.

Both models recognise that colonial injustice cannot be undone by acts of restitution alone. Restitution must be part of a wider reconciliation and reparation process and should apply to all colonial collections, not just to state collections. The routes they recommend to make this possible are also similar, including the setting up of an independent provenance research institute and the formation of an independent advisory commission to manage all future restitution and provenance requests.

But there are also important differences. Dr Jos van Beurden, a Dutch restitution expert who was involved in preparing this report, has suggested the Belgian group’s guidelines are ahead of the Dutch in two important respects.

Both reports make the case for returning looted objects, but van Beurden points out the Belgian government also wants their Special Commission to consider the role played by the monarchy, Belgium companies operating in former colonies and even missionaries. This goes further than approaches proposed by the Dutch, French or Germans.

The Belgian report also goes further in legal terms. Identifying the opportunities for changes in legislation, the report underlines the country's moral duty to return their colonial heritage and invites government to ‘go beyond the limitations of the existing legal framework in order to make an ethical responsibility heard in law’. In what is a major difference from other approaches, Belgium's proposed draft legislation would be generic. This contrasts significantly, for example, with France where new laws are required for each and every object that becomes the subject of a restitution claim.

We’ve also identified another advantage. While the Dutch believe restitution is a state-to-state matter, proposing to review only claimants from other nation states, the proposed Belgian model would consider all types of claimants: from regional and cultural groups, as well as individual or cultural descendants of makers or owners. Such an approach is more inclusive than other European initiatives and mirrors the experience of several UK institutions, which have been willing to recognise the rights of smaller communities.

The federal government is understood to be interested in this report and while it may take time to forge agreements between the Federal State and the different federated entities, the omens for new legislation are positive.

Photo: AfricaMuseum, Tervuren, Belgium

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

The lessons Europe didn’t learn from Napoleon’s plundering

Wed, 02 Jun 2021 13:18:14 GMT

Napoleon Bonaparte is known as one of history’s most accomplished plunderers. After his defeat and exile to Saint Helena in 1815, the Allied nations set about restoring territorial frontiers and recovering looted works of art. But their failure to agree protocols to protect against future plundering would have dire and lasting consequences.

The Allies were certainly anxious not to repeat further damage to each other’s cultural heritage, but this protection was never written into either version of the two Treaties of Paris, signed by France and the Allied nations in 1814 and 1815. This failure would give licence to another eighty years of untrammelled looting.

It's a legacy highlighted in Cynthia Saltzman’s Napoleon’s Plunder and the Theft of Veronese's Feast, which is not a book about restitution, more about plundering. It traces the complicated history of one of the most magnificent of Italian works of art looted to order by Napoleon: Paolo Veronese’s huge painting of the Wedding Feast at Cana . But our interest lies in the details she provides of the wrangling immediately following Napoleon’s exile to Saint Helena, when Allied powers failed to agree a consensus for protecting cultural heritage.

Unlike the majority of history’s looters, Napoleon Bonaparte set out to plunder art as a way of serving his political aims. Not for him a programme of random, chaotic looting. Instead, Europe’s finest collections of art were targeted for their works of greatest artistic significance. Relocating them to France was part of a deliberate strategy by Napoleon to assert the new French Republic’s political power and Imperial destiny.

And for a time, it worked. As the French army drove a bloody path through Belgium, Italy, Spain, Germany and Austria, agents compiled lists of these countries’ greatest cultural treasures, then boxed them up and sent them to the Louvre in Paris. The Louvre, according to Saltzman, would be Napoleon’s collaborator, ‘distracting eyes from the bloodshed and casualty counts, disguising his ruthlessness with the brilliance of its collections and transmuting that ruthlessness into glory’.

Napoleon’s looting was second only to Adolf Hitler’s. But unlike Hitler, Napoleon’s approach to plundering was far more systematic and orderly. Forcing treaties onto the defeated, not only did he make sure that millions of francs were paid into the French government’s coffers, he also secured his own right to pick from each subjugated nation’s choicest works of art. “The Pope will deliver to the French Republic one hundred paintings, busts, vases or statues, at the choice of the commissioners,” read the treaty that sealed the fate of the Vatican’s collection of art in June 1796.

Unpicking those treaties, signed under duress, would prove a problem when Allied nations began the process of dismantling Napoleon’s empire. Should the terms of these treaties remain legally binding? Could the Louvre continue to retain ownership?

Early attempts to repatriate were mixed and despite a shared resolve to recover stolen treasures, repatriation for the Allied nations proved anything but simple.

Negotiations by individual states with the newly installed French government of Louis XVIII met with gestures and only modest returns of works of art. While over at the Louvre, officials stood resolute against returning any of the looted paintings and sculptures in their collection.

Why did the Allies allow the French to resist returning what was so clearly not their own property? The initial view taken by the Allies, and especially the British foreign secretary Lord Castlereagh, was they didn't want to discredit the new French Government. They wanted France to maintain its place among the European powers. As a result, they were reluctant to impose formal steps to enforce repatriation. Saltzman describes how an attempt by the Prussian minister of state, Wilhelm von Humboldt, to recover works Napoleon had seized in Potsdam and Berlin, initially met with the Prussian minister backing down, agreeing to take French pictures in exchange for France keeping most of their looted works.

But even Castlereagh’s patience soon began to wane. In August 1815 he brought the issue of restitution before the other European powers. “We were all of the opinion that something must be done,” he told Lord Liverpool. They discussed whether art “ceded by treaty” should be treated differently from other art seized by conquest. But Castlereagh came to the view that all Napoleon’s acquisitions were plunder and therefore all should be treated the same.

After Waterloo and Napoleon's second defeat at the hands of the Allies, which led to the the second Treaty of Paris (November 1815), they finally decided it was time for individual countries to take possession of their own plundered works - anyway they could. The Austrian foreign minister, Klemens von Metternich, was among the first to take unilateral action, removing the four Horses of Saint Mark’s, looted by the Venetians from Constantinople in 1204 and pulled down from Saint Mark’s Basilica by Napoleon’s chief of staff, General Berthier in 1797. Winched down from the top of the Arc de Triomphe, the four Horses would be returned to Saint Mark’s in Venice where they remain today.

From a heritage perspective, t he second Treaty of Paris was a wasted opportunity. It attempted to bring 'order and tranquillity’ to the process of rebuilding Europe, but it failed to seize the opportunity to impose protocols for protecting and returning cultural assets. Allied nations may have felt they'd done enough to protect themselves against future plundering. But they couldn't or wouldn't agree to a set of multilateral protocols. Selfish, economic interests were allowed to prevail. Evidently, the prospect of growing trade and wealth by exploitation of their colonies was a greater priority than the protection of another nations' cultural heritage Those protocols could wait.

It wasn't until 1899, when the Hague Convention became one of the first multilateral treaties to address the conduct of warfare, that pillaging and confiscation of private property was finally prohibited by law. Learning from the failures of the 1815 Treaty, it ensured that no distinction was made between ‘civilised’ and ‘uncivilised’ nations, a situation the 1815 Treaty had failed to address. As a result of this failure, eighty years of empire building followed, allowing colonial powers complete freedom to continue their plundering in every other part of the globe.

And what became of Veronese's majestic masterpiece, Wedding Feast at Cana ? She remains in the Louvre, the victim of a plan hatched by Napoleon's director general of the Louvre, Dominique-Vivant Denon, who arranged for the Austrian Emperor, on behalf of Venice, to exchange a lesser painting by French artist Charles Le Brun in return for the Louvre holding on to the Veronese, a work of incalculably greater monetary and artistic value. Another painful lesson of Napoleon's plundering.

Cynthia Saltzman, Napoleon’s Plunder and the Theft of Veronese’s Feast. Published by Thames & Hudson (2021)

Photo: Four Horses of Saint Mark’s Basilica, Venice

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Diplomatic collaboration leads to return of ancient Greek statue of Persephone to Libya

Thu, 13 May 2021 16:17:29 GMT

This week’s British Museum announcement that a 2,000-year-old marble statue identified as Persephone, Greek goddess of the underworld and looted from the UNESCO protected site of Cyrene, was handed over to the Libyan Embassy in London after eight years of legal and diplomatic negotiation.

Its return has been described as another success for the efforts of the Museum and other British authorities, working collaboratively alongside those countries in the front line of looting which still face major threats to their cultural heritage.

Seized from the baggage of a dealer in 2013 by customs officials at Heathrow, the statue was handed to the British Museum for identification. Its distinctive style confirmed it must have been illegally excavated from the city of Cyrene (Cyrenaica) in north eastern Libya, an area now blighted by looting and property speculation.

Dating from the 2 ^nd century BC, the statue is carved in the form of a three-quarter length figure that finishes at the hips. It’s considered among the rarest of all Cyrenaican funerary statues. Only about a hundred have survived, but half of those survive as heads only. The form derives from only a few regions of the Mediterranean and mostly from Cyrenaican cemeteries, where the Museum is confident this statue was illicitly removed. From its fresh surface finish, they also believe the statue must have been removed from the ground only recently.

After entering discussions with the Libyan Embassy in London, a ruling at Westminster Magistrates Court in 2015 confirmed the statue belonged to the State of Libya. Since then, the British Museum has been advising on the most appropriate way of returning it to that country. The Museum retains close ties with colleagues in Libyan museums and is hosting four Libyan specialists. The statue has never been a part of the Museum’s permanent collection.

The Museum is keen to point out this event is just one in a long line of successful repatriations, involving different agencies and government departments. Since 2009 the Museum has helped to repatriate over 2,300 antiquities, to Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Iraq. The list of successes includes:

· Feb 2009 : 1500 illicitly trafficked antiquities sent to Kabul

· July 2012 : Begram Ivories stolen from the National Museum in the 1990s sent to Kabul

· July 2012 : Gandharan sculpture stolen from the National Museum in the 1990s sent to Kabul

· July 2012 : 821 illicitly trafficked antiquities sent to Kabul

· May 2016 : Inscribed Safavid bowl stolen from the National Museum in the 1990s sent to Kabul

· July 2017 : Inscribed glazed tile stolen from Chashma-I Ayub in Vabkent in c.2014 sent to Tashkent

· Aug 2018 : Inscribed cones of Gudea stolen in 2003 sent to Baghdad

· Oct 2018 : Bronze Age silver flask sent to Kabul

· Mar 2019 : Mesopotamian kudurru, probably stolen from Nippur in 2003, sent to Baghdad

· Aug 2019 : 156 Mesopotamian cuneiform tablets, looted from southern Iraq, sent to Baghdad

· May 2020 : Two metal trunks of fake tablets and figurines, seized at Heathrow are publicised

Photo: Marble funerary statue of 'Persephone', 2nd cent BC, from Cyrene, north eastern Libya

Courtesy of © Trustees of the British Museum 2021

German agreement to make “substantial returns” will challenge other members of the Benin Dialogue Group to do the same

Mon, 10 May 2021 15:55:20 GMT

With Benin Bronzes firmly centre stage in the restitution debate, another museum has joined the growing list of European institutions announcing the return of Benin objects to Nigeria. Meanwhile in Germany, museums have agreed a formal process they say will lead to “substantial returns” of Benin objects.

The National Museum of Ireland is the latest museum to announce preparations for the “restitution in full” of the Museum’s collection of twenty-one Benin objects. It follows an inventory they carried out between 2003 and 2007 of about 15,000 ethnographic objects in their collection and a recognition of the need for further in-depth research. Recently, the Museum set up a Collections Provenance Working Group, whose task is to establish the means by which the twenty-one Benin objects, including armlets, wooden paddles, figures and a staff, will be returned. All these Benin objects entered the Museum’s collection between 1898 and 1907.

The NMI has made previous permanent restitutions, including two toi moko (tattooed Maori heads) repatriated to the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa in 1990.

Elsewhere, attention has been focussed on the meeting that took place at the end of last month between the German Minister of State for Culture and the Media, Monika Grütters, and the Cultural Affairs Ministers of the Länder, the directors of the German museum members of the Benin Dialogue Group, Cologne’s Rautenstrauch-Joest Museum and the Federal Foreign Office. With conflicting reports about Germany’s commitment to Benin restitutions flying around, it was hoped this meeting would reveal their direction of travel.

A statement produced by the Federal Foreign Office did reaffirm their “willingness in principle to make substantial returns of Benin Bronzes”. But reports that returns would begin later this summer appear way off the mark.

Instead, what we may see later this summer is a concrete set of actions and a timetable for returning certain Benin objects now in German public collections. In the meantime, participants have agreed to engage in a three-stage process involving greater transparency about Benin objects in their collections, areas of future cooperation with Nigeria and uniform arrangements for making returns.

By next month (15 June) participants have agreed to publish a list of their Benin objects on their own websites, as well as on the website of the ‘Contact Point for Collections from Colonial Contexts in Germany’ at www.cp3c.de . By the end of this year, “comprehensive documentation of the provenance of these objects” will also be made publicly accessible on the Contact Point website.

Talks about return processes and future cooperation arrangements between museums and Nigeria will be “intensified”, with the aim of sounding out the possibilities of developing a uniform German and Benin Dialogue Group approach to discussions taking place with Nigeria’s Legacy Restoration Trust (LRT), responsible for developing the new Edo Museum of West African Art (EMOWAA). Significantly, they envisage these discussions will cover not only returns to and cooperation projects with Nigeria, but also whether and how Benin Bronzes can continue to be exhibited in Germany.

Further talks about procedures with the LRT, including the legal and organisational conditions for returns, will be coordinated by the Director of MARKK Hamburg, Prof Barbara Plankensteiner, and the Director of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, Prof Hermann Parzinger.

Committed to taking the “next steps with the necessary urgency, sensitivity and determination to attain results”, the Federal Foreign Office’s statement says that participants aim to make the first returns “in the course of 2022”.

Other members of the Benin Dialogue Group will be briefed on Germany’s progress at their next meeting on 27 May 2021. After then, we may discover which members of the Group are prepared to work with officials at the new EMOWAA and realise a timely return of Benin Bronzes and which are not.

Photo: Benin Bronze plaque, Ethnological Museum of Berlin

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Reports of Gweagal spears returning to first landing site of James Cook in Australia are premature

Wed, 05 May 2021 10:06:46 GMT

News last week that Aboriginal spears will be returning to their source community at La Perouse, the landing site on Coastal Sydney of James Cook’s first voyage to the Pacific, suggests media emotions are running ahead of due diligence.

NITV, National Indigenous Television in Australia, reports that La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council, the main representative body for Aboriginal people with a cultural connection to Coastal Sydney, has announced repatriation plans for three Gweagal spears, now in the collection of the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge. However, the report is clearly premature.

Cambridge loaned the spears to the National Museum of Australia’s Endeavour Voyage exhibition in Canberra which ended on 26 April. Following this exhibition, NITV says the spears will transfer to Sydney in time for the opening of a temporary exhibition to coincide with Reconciliation Week, “with the aim to eventually be displayed at a purpose-built Museum in Sydney’s Sutherland Shire”.

However, in reality, the destination of these spears is still being resolved by ongoing discussions between the La Perouse Local Area Land Council, the National Museum of Australia, the University of Sydney and the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge, MAA’s Director Prof Nicholas Thomas told Returning Heritage .

Thomas also confirmed MAA has been working to make the spears, gifted to Trinity College, Cambridge by the Earl of Sandwich in 1771, accessible in the Chau Chak Wing Museum at the University of Sydney while discussions concerning their ongoing exhibition in Australia continue.

Ownership of the spears, shields and other artefacts collected by Cook on his first landing at Kamay Botany Bay in 1770 continues to fuel emotions - at both ends of the globe.

Describing himself as a descendant of Cooman, a Gweagal man present at Cook’s landing on April 29, 1770, Rodney Kelly has been campaigning for the return of four Gweagal spears in Cambridge, plus the so-called Gweagal Shield in the British Museum, for several years. However, despite receiving support from the Parliament of New South Wales, his formal application to the MAA in 2016 was rejected. The Museum’s management committee was concerned by the absence of a clear proposal for their future housing and conservation, as well as the lack of any commitment by a “competent Australian institution” to care for the spears on their return.

Kelly, who’s been hosted at MAA a number of times and is described by Thomas as "thoughtful and sincere”, continues to campaign for their return.

However, the MAA’s report also highlights Kelly’s lack of consultation with accredited representatives of the Gweagal people. According to Noeleen Timbery, Deputy Chairperson of the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council, “no one who decided to throw their support behind the campaign bothered to check whether the Gweagal Clan or any other Aboriginal person with a continuous connection to Botany Bay agreed with this approach”.

Kelly has neither represented the La Perouse community nor has that community ever supported his campaign. Timbery also suggests that Kelly’s assumption it might have been Cooman that met Cook on that day, “is nothing more than an assumption at best”.

Timbery is just as committed as Kelly to seeing the objects stolen from their ancestors back on Gweagal territory. But she believes making public protests is not always the best approach. The MAA also believe that engagement in constructive dialogue is a more appropriate model for negotiating repatriations, an approach reflected in their current statement supporting the return of Benin Bronzes in the Museum's collection.

If nothing else, NITV’s news report suggests the Australian media and others who’ve supported Kelly’s campaign should invest more in their due diligence, establishing the views of those community representatives who continue to live and work where Cook first landed.

After this was written.....

The three Gweagal spears from the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge were exhibited at the Chau Chak Wing Museum in May 2022, the first time they had returned home since they were removed more than 250 years ago.

Photo: After a drawing by Sydney Parkinson, who sailed with Cook on The Endeavour

Courtesy of ABC

Government veto on trustee’s reappointment marks aggressive tactic in ‘cultural cleansing’ campaign

Sun, 02 May 2021 18:10:45 GMT

It’s time this Government listens to the British public’s views on cultural heritage, instead of pushing forward its own agenda of 'cultural cleansing'.

This weekend’s Financial Times confirms the government is now adopting a more aggressive approach to board appointments at Britain's national collections. The newspaper has broken news that a second term for Dr Aminul Hoque, a trustee at the Royal Museums Greenwich, described by colleagues as “devoted and conscientious”, has been vetoed by culture secretary Oliver Dowden. After an appeal by Sir Charles Dunstone, chairman of the Royal Museums, failed to persuade Dowden to abandon his veto, Dunstone resigned from the board last February in protest.

There were also reports the entire Museum’s board was prepared to resign unless Hoque was reappointed for a second term. However, Dunstone’s departure appears to have prevented any further resignations.

Hoque is a Bangladeshi-born British academic whose work in the Educational Studies Department at Goldsmiths College, London has focused on issues of multicultural Britain. He led the Royal Museum’s response to the Black Lives Matter movement last year and was awarded an MBE for his services to youth justice in east London.

The Financial Times reports that several people familiar with these events believe it was Hoque's academic work that advocates decolonising the curriculum, as well as comments made on social media, which played a part in Dowden’s refusal to lift the veto. Hoque told the newspaper he was “shocked, disappointed and baffled” by the decision.

Further interventions by Dowden, said to be enthusiastically supported by Downing Street, are reported to have blocked other high level cultural and media appointments. These include initially opposing the appointment of the classicist Dame Mary Beard to the British Museum’s board of trustees.

Why does all this matter? After all, government is responsible for approving the appointment (and reappointment) of all trustees to our national collections. It's entitled to exercise its right to ensure the nation's collections are safe in their hands.

However, there's an unsettling divergence emerging. Britain's regional and university museums are in listening mode. They are reacting to what local communities expect from their museums and are starting to change their role and policies in line with broader changes in society. It was one of Hoque's responsibilities as a trustee at Greenwich to increase interest in their collections among the local community. Isn't it important these voices are heard?

But Downing Street either doesn't like or just chooses to ignore these shifting patterns within the museums sector. They've already made it clear they don't approve of decolonisation, now, apparently, they don't care to listen to museum boards or local communities. Instead, they expect the country's national collections to adopt the same approach to cultural cleansing that its own ministers are now enforcing.

So, while regional and university collections are responding to the need for change, taking gradual steps towards decolonisation, government will stop at nothing to halt this progress, including removing trustees who don't share their cleansing vision.

The gap between an unhearing government, enforcing its doctrine on the boards of national collections, and a progressive, listening museums sector is just getting wider.

Photo: National Maritime Museum, Greenwich

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

After this was written......
If you're still not convinced the government is ready to remove trustees who don't share their view about contested objects, then news that another trustee has resigned in protest at government interference must concern you. Sarah Dry, a trustee at the Science Museum Group, decided to withdraw her nomination to serve a second term at SMG in March this year. Dry objected to new government guidance that requires new and reappointed trustees of national collections to "individually and explicitly express their support" for its retain and explain policy. "Today it is contested heritage," explained Dry. "Tomorrow it may be another issue. This has several damaging effects". In a letter to the Group's board and chair, Dame Mary Archer, Dry, an author on the history of science, expressed her concern that allowing the government to dictate specific policies violates the long-established principle of arm's length bodies, risks harming SMG's reputation and "betrays the trust of the public". The government's response? "There is no automatic presumption of reappointment", said a spokesman to the Museums Journal, adding, trustees should "act to deliver the outcomes expected by sponsor departments, ministers, and, ultimately, the public." The view of the museums sector? It's a device to identify and remove trustees with dissenting views.

Art & Antiquities dealers fear persecution of their legitimate business

Sat, 01 May 2021 12:27:23 GMT

CINOA isn’t the first global organisation to challenge 'bogus' claims about trafficking in cultural property. But dealers are rattled and a new report shows they’re worried that false data is leading to the persecution of their legitimate business.

CINOA is an umbrella organisation of 30 art and antique dealer associations worldwide, including BADA, LAPADA and SLAD in the UK. Their latest report unpicks the areas where bogus data or the misrepresentation of data is causing members greatest concern.

Top of their agenda is the need to address inaccurate claims about the exact scale of trafficking in cultural property - not least because CINOA maintain that governmental bodies and international organisations are continuing to base new legislation on what they believe is false and unverified data.

“This report shows how bogus figures cited are either entirely made up or do not accurately reflect the claims about the international art market with which they are associated”, claims the report.

Why are they so convinced the figures are wrong? CINOA’s report, Fighting Bogus Information about the Art Market – 2021 , points to a number of different studies, commissioned by governments, NGOs and international organisations, which have all struggled to find reliable evidence about the exact size of trafficking in art and antiquities. Instead of confirming governments’ worst fears, these studies suggest the market is much smaller and less transparent than governments are claiming. This ought to drive policies towards a less harsh regime, according to CINOA. However, this report claims the repetition of inaccurate data is driving legislators in the opposite direction, encouraging them to introduce trading regulations that are more restrictive than necessary, in particular against money laundering.

One of the difficulties they say in trying to understand the scale of this problem is the widespread misuse of the term ‘cultural property’. What exactly does this term mean?

CINOA point to the confusion caused when the same figures used in official reports to indicate the total size of trafficking in cultural property are mistakenly used to indicate the size of trafficking in antiquities. They worry this creates an entirely “false picture” of the scale of antiquities trafficking and is against the public interest, potentially leading to what they fear most: a “great fall-off in the number of people collecting”.

They are also concerned that the words ‘art trafficking’ and ‘financing terrorism’ appear frequently together as an excuse to introduce new legislation - but without any justification. CINOA repeats the research-based conclusions of several other recent studies, either independent or commissioned by the European Union, which suggest that no evidence exists to prove that terrorist financing activities in cultural goods are taking place within the EU. As a source, they draw on last year’s RAND Corporation report claiming market channels that can be monitored are too small to act as conduits for a thriving illicit trade in antiquities.

“One thing we can be sure of: if an instance arose where it could be proved that art crime led directly to terrorism financing, it would be heavily publicised in the media”, insists CINOA’s report.

It’s understandable that an organisation representing the art and antiquities trade should demand only accurate data is used to influence legislation covering their trade. But it stretches our understanding to agree they are justified claiming that without this evidence they should be exempt from enforcement of the same worldwide legislation covering every other form of illicit trafficking.

It’s equally remarkable that an organisation of dealer associations, a few of whose members have been prosecuted for antiquities trafficking, should remain silent on those genuine risks arising from known trafficking channels that may impact on the integrity of their members.

Make up your own mind by reading the full report .

Photo: TEFAF Art Fair, Maastricht

Courtesy of commons.wikimedia.org

FINLAND

Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:39:10 GMT

FINLAND

Updated May 2025

May 2025

A three-legged royal stool from the West African kingdom of Dahomey has been returned from the National Museum of Finland to Benin

rfi.fr/en/africa

November 2024

Following an official request from the Republic of Benin, the National Museum of Finland is preparing to return a katakle, a ceremonial royal stool acquired in 1939

sttinfo.fi

May 2023

Finland returns two fragments of sacred stones, stolen by Finnish missionaries from Ondonga in northern Namibia, a traditional kingdom of the Ovambo people

The Heritage Times

November 2021

The Sami Museum Siida in Inari, northern Lapland has received 2,200 objects from the National Museum of Finland

Museum Next

April 2021

The National Museum of Finland is to repatriate 2,200 artefacts, amassed between 1830 and 1998, to the indigenous Sami people in northern Lapland

The Art Newspaper

IRELAND

Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:15:42 GMT

IRELAND

Updated September 2024

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made by Ireland, together with other Irish restitution news. Entries are updated regularly

September 2024

Sinn Fein's new arts policy will prioritise the repatriation of artefacts 'stolen' from Ireland and will require its museums to cooperate with restitution requests from other countries

Thejournal.ie

January 2024

The discovery of a sacred warrior's stick in Dublin, seized from Chief Maqoma of the Xhosa nation during the South African wars of the 19th century, has led to calls for its repatriation

Irish Examiner

December 2023

First meeting of a new expert committee has been held to advise the Government on the restitution of historically and culturally sensitive objects held in Irish collections

gov.ie

November 2023

Isabella Walsh from Limerick has been inspired to repatriate a collection of 19th cent African and Aboriginal objects, collected by her father Larry Walsh

The Guardian

June 2023

Ireland's arts minister Catherine Martin announces establishment of a new expert committee to advise Government on issues relating to the restitution of culturally sensitive objects in Irish collections

gov.ie

December 2022

University College Cork has agreed to return a number of ancient items to Egypt, including a sarcophagus and mummified human remains

The Irish Times

December 2022

Trinity College Dublin has set up a Legacies Review Working Group to examine legacy issues, including the return of thirteen ancient skulls

The Herald Series

April 2021

The National Museum of Ireland announces they are ready to make full restitution of twenty-one Benin Bronzes in their collection

ARTFORUM

April 2021

The Hunt Museum in Limerick considers the return of a Benin artefact, on loan to its collection

Irish Examiner

Will UK museums follow German lead and start returning Benin Bronzes?

Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:08:44 GMT

Following a tsunami of news reports that Germany has kick-started a process to return looted Benin Bronzes from German public collections, UK institutions are facing a dilemma.

Do they follow the German model, recognise the injustice of holding on to Nigeria’s stolen heritage and take their own steps towards the unconditional return of Benin material? Or do they continue to cling on desperately to a model that favours long-term rotating loans rather than full repatriation?

After decades of agitation, the moral ground is shifting. The clear enormity of the crime tainting the Benin Bronzes appears to be forcing change.

We know that at least 45 UK institutions presently hold Benin artefacts. The British Museum’s unwavering public stance to resist all restitutions comes as no surprise. What is less certain is how Britain’s other institutions will react and what kind of spotlight it throws on the growing divide in collections policy between Britain’s national museums and a larger number of regional and university collections.

But first of all, is Germany really committed to full repatriation? The scale of this policy reversal is large enough for some to be sceptical.

Although no final agreement has yet been sealed, the direction of travel does suggest they are. After the Head of Germany’s Foreign Ministry culture department, Andreas Görgen, visited Benin City last month for discussions with Edo State Governor, Godwin Obaseki, approval for the full restitution of looted Benin objects was described in an official statement as “not excluded”, while Germany’s Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, described his government’s volte face as an “honest approach to colonial history”. There have even been reports that objects from the Humboldt Forum may be returned by summer 2021. But this is all speculation. The final decision will be made by the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation (SPK), whose board issued a statement confirming they’ve “agreed in the case of the Benin bronzes to find a solution that also comprises the return of objects as an option.”

We shouldn’t expect rapid progress. Not least because Nigeria itself has much to organise if the artefacts are to be returned to the new EMOWAA - which is still many years away from completion. But it does fit an emerging European pattern that is prioritising the return of objects known to have been stolen. This is where the moral case for restitution is greatest.

The Dutch have already designed a mechanism that enables their state collections to return objects stolen from Dutch former colonies, although the recent Dutch elections has delayed parliamentary approval. And since March 2019, the Germans and its 16 federal states have been working towards the same goal, targeting objects removed “in ways that are legally or morally unjustifiable today”.

But right now, the British government appears unwilling to make the same commitment to returning objects removed in ways also morally unjustifiable today.

With 928 Benin objects in their collection (the largest in the UK), commentators have naturally looked closely at the British Museum for their response. Of course, the British Museum Act ensures their trustees are unable to change the Museum’s stance without a change in the law, even though they appear to recognise the cruel injustice of their removal.

“The devastation and plunder wreaked upon Benin City during the British military expedition in 1897 is fully acknowledged by the Museum,” said a British Museum spokesperson.

But faced with this new momentum for repatriation, is there any chance of a shift in policy?

In public, the Museum continues to argue for the bilateral model promoted by other members of the Benin Dialogue Group: each country engaging directly with colleagues in Nigeria, while offering to share their collections on the basis of long-term loans rather than full repatriation. However, it’s not completely impossible this ground may shift. Speaking at an online symposium last week, organised by Columbia University’s Italian Academy, Phillip Ihenacho speaking on behalf of the Legacy Restoration Trust, intriguingly suggested the Trust wouldn’t be partnering with the British Museum unless they saw a willingness by the Museum to return “at least some” of their Benin Bronzes.

The Museum remains tight-lipped about these negotiations. The 1963 Act continues to be an impenetrable barrier for breaking the deadlock. However, by continuing to swim against the growing momentum in favour of long-term repatriation, the Museum risks damaging its integrity and reputation on the international stage. Does the Museum have the strength and willpower to take on the Government and overturn the Act?

Fortunately, the same legal restrictions don’t apply to the majority of other UK institutions holding Benin objects, merely their own governing powers. What follows will be a test of how those powers are exercised.

Since Germany’s initiative, there’s been a flurry of restitution activity. The University of Aberdeen announced they will repatriate their Benin Bronze head of an Oba (King) to Edo State. “It would not have been right to have retained an item of such great cultural importance that was acquired in such reprehensible circumstances,” maintained Professor George Boyne, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University. “We therefore decided than an unconditional return is the most appropriate action we can take”.

The University believes it is the first institution to agree to the full repatriation from a museum of a Benin Bronze.

Aberdeen’s announcement was quickly followed by another from the Church of England , who are in discussions with Nigeria to return two Benin Bronzes given as gifts to then Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, almost 40 years ago. How many other items does the Church of England hold that could be repatriated? Perhaps the Ethiopian tabot that lies sealed in Westminster Abbey?

Museums have reached a pivotal moment. Trustees will take their time weighing up whether the Aberdeen solution is the appropriate action for them to take. In the meantime, some, like the Manchester Museum are putting more resource into identifying contested objects – before requests to return them are received.

One candidate that might consider following Aberdeen’s lead is the Bristol Museum and Art Gallery , whose Benin head of an Oba entered their collection in 1935. Asked whether repatriation is now an option, a spokesperson for Bristol City Council explained they’re still negotiating as part of the Benin Dialogue Group and are are awaiting information on next steps from the stakeholders in Nigeria. “Once we have been able to establish the level of agreement for their plans for a new museum, we will be able to progress towards establishing an action plan”.

With plans for the new Edo Museum of West African Art underway and others striking out to make unconditional returns to Nigeria, this seems a very appropriate time for Bristol Council to consider full repatriation.

Like several others, the World Museum in Liverpool, whose collection of seventy Benin objects includes a 16th century Queen Mother head, donated by a British steamship engineer in November 1899, and the 'Swainson Horseman' , one of very few Benin Bronzes to have left the country before 1897, says it has never been approached about repatriating their Benin objects. Although they have been discussing how to represent and interpret these objects in their displays: “The changes we make are being done in consultation with the public, our communities and important stakeholders,” said a spokesperson. “For our Benin display in particular, we are re-thinking Benin’s history and culture as part of a wider global story to make it more relevant and responsive to contemporary audiences in Liverpool and beyond”.

Cambridge’s Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology has made a decisive shift in the direction of full restitution. In 2019 they developed a new framework for handling requests for returning artefacts “appropriated in the aftermath of violence, for example in the context of a colonial intrusion or war”. Although no claim has yet been made to return the 415 Benin artefacts in their collection (many of which were not looted from the 1897 expedition), they expect to receive a claim from Nigeria “in due course” and their website now states “it is anticipated that the claim would be supported and steps taken to return the artefacts”.

There’s been no immediate reaction from the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford, another member of the Benin Dialogue Group, although internal and external pressures on the Pitt Rivers to return their looted Benin artefacts are likely to be intense (the Museum holds the second largest hoard of Benin objects in the UK). Now that Cambridge seems to be breaking away from the model of the Benin Dialogue Group, the Pitt Rivers, which has done so much to engage and develop relationships with other communities of origin, may become more willing to consider repatriation.

Up to now, they’ve expected change to come about slowly. In a statement last year, Laura Van Broekhoven, director of the Pitt Rivers, said any review of Benin objects will be part of a long-term programme that “will engage many stakeholders and stretch out over years, probably decades to come”. But this timescale may now be revised, especially as the Pitt Rivers adopted a new procedure for handling claims for unconditional returns in August 2020.

The new Edo Museum of West African Art is still at least five years away from completion and there is much for Nigeria to complete before the country is ready to welcome back so many works of enormous cultural significance. However if, as we expect, Germany completes a timetable for returning their collection of looted Benin objects and if, as we also expect, the Netherlands passes the bill to return stolen objects from their former colonies, the pressure on UK museums to follow their lead over time will overwhelm the remaining resistance.

Photo: Benin Bronzes on display at the British Museum

University of Aberdeen repatriates a Benin bronze head to Nigeria

Tue, 06 Apr 2021 16:46:35 GMT

While some members of the Benin Dialogue Group continue to resist the full repatriation of thousands of looted objects now in western collections, others are behaving more decisively.

In March 2021, the University of Aberdeen’s governing board met to support the repatriation of a superb Benin bronze head of an Oba (king) to Nigeria. The University has become the first UK institution to agree to an unconditional return of a Benin artefact.

The head entered the United Kingdom after being seized during the widespread looting that took place at Benin City in 1897. Research indicated it had passed through several private hands before it was purchased by the University at a Sotheby's auction in 1957 for the sum of £750.

Instead of years of haggling and tortured negotiation, the whole process was achieved with remarkable speed amid the Covid-19 pandemic. Having a well-established, transparent process for managing requests for restitution was clearly a big advantage. Previous experience of returning sacred items and ancestral remains to Canada, Australia and New Zealand also gave them confidence their process worked.

However, this time it was concern within the University itself that encouraged the conversation that led to the head’s repatriation. The head has not been on display in the University's museum since 1979.

“An ongoing review of the collections identified the Head of an Oba as having been acquired in a way that we now consider to have been extremely immoral,” explained Neil Curtis, Head of Museums and Special Collections, “so we took a proactive approach to identify the appropriate people to discuss what to do”.

In 2020, instead of turning for advice to the Benin Dialogue Group, which has focused its energies on loans rather than returns, the University opted to consider whether an outright return would be possible. So, it instigated direct discussions with representatives of Nigeria’s federal government, national museums, Edo State government and the royal court of the Oba. The discussions were facilitated by Professor Bankole Sodipo, a Nigerian lawyer and Professor of Law at Babcock University, with good connections in Nigeria. On behalf of the University, Professor Sodipo made contact with the relevant people in the federal and state governments, the Edo Royal Court and the national museums.

The University had already decided that an unconditional and permanent return was the correct course of action for the institution.

“It would not have been right to have retained an item of such great cultural importance that was acquired in such reprehensible circumstances,” said Professor George Boyne, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University. “We therefore decided that an unconditional return is the most appropriate action we can take”.

Pressure on western museums to return stolen Benin bronzes has increased despite the pandemic. Aberdeen’s action coincides with other repatriation initiatives in Germany and the Netherlands, which recognise the historical injustices committed during the colonial era. These initiatives are all heading towards the inevitable and unconditional restitution of other Benin artefacts. And there a great many of them.

Thousands of metal sculptures, plaques, ivories and carvings, collectively known as the ‘Benin Bronzes’, were widely dispersed following the looting of the Oba’s palace by British forces and administrators. New research indicates that at least 45 collections in the United Kingdom have looted Benin material; 928 Benin objects are in the collection of the British Museum alone.

A Benin statue of a cockerel was returned to Nigeria by Jesus College, Cambridge in 2019; other returns from private collections include two ceremonial paddles, returned in 2019 by the grandson of Capt. Herbert Walker who played a major role in the 1897 expedition. However, the University of Aberdeen believes they are the first institution to agree the full repatriation from a museum of a Benin bronze.

Today, the British Museum’s uncompromising stance to loan rather than repatriate its Benin material, despite acknowledging the circumstances of its acquisition, is well-known. However, their readiness to sell a number of bronzes in the 1950s, described curiously by the Museum as “duplicates”, together with further “swaps” that took place in 1972, undermine the integrity of this stance.

The University of Aberdeen is now discussing practical arrangements for the head’s return with their partners in Nigeria and says it will be guided by their wishes. It may eventually be displayed in the future Museum of West African Art (MOWAA) in Benin City.

Photo: Neil Curtis with the Benin bronze head

Courtesy of the University of Aberdeen

Dutch recognise colonial injustice and aim to return stolen objects from state collections

Mon, 22 Mar 2021 11:31:49 GMT

While political parties jostle for control of the new Dutch coalition government, optimism grows that groundbreaking proposals to return items stolen from former Dutch colonies may yet be set in law.

Could this new model for Dutch state collections nudge the UK government into re-visiting Britain’s stance on restitution?

Shortly after the last Dutch coalition government resigned but before the recent general election, Ingrid van Engelshoven, Minister for Education, Culture and Science, announced government support for proposals leading to the return of looted objects from state-owned collections. It followed recommendations made by a government-appointed Advisory Committee set up in 2019 to establish a national policy framework for colonial collections.

If taken forward and approved by the incoming coalition government, this legislation would make the Netherlands the first country in Europe to approve a central mechanism for returning stolen artefacts from its former colonies.

At its core is a recognition of injustice and a requirement for government to put in place a mechanism for returning looted objects to their countries of origin.

“There is no place in the Dutch State Collection for cultural heritage objects that were acquired through theft,” said Ingrid van Engelshoven in a statement. “If a country wants them back, we will give them back”.

This apparent shift towards an ethical rather than a legal solution to the restitution dilemma is ground-breaking for the state museums sector. It follows discussions held by the Advisory Committee with representatives of former Dutch colonial countries, who impressed on the Committee the need to acknowledge historical injustices. But just as important have been the changes in ethics within the Dutch museums sector itself. Curators directly in touch with colleagues in former Dutch colonies were feeling uncomfortable about the stolen objects in their collections and felt it was time to do something about it.

The same ethical considerations are already bread and butter to many in Britain’s regional and university collections. Restitution has attracted strong vocal support from those who’ve attended recent Museums Association conferences. While, over at the Pitt Rivers , Horniman and Manchester Museums they’ve been busy making it happen. The engagements these and other museums have initiated with source communities and local diaspora, have brought them a deeper understanding of individual and shared interests, and led to the return of cultural artefacts.

If there is to be a policy change that brings the UK’s national collections in line with the rest of the museums sector, they’ll need to accept the same ethical priorities now proposed for the Netherlands.

Like there, it’s legislation that determines what Britain’s national collections can and cannot do. However, the Dutch plan to replace these legal constraints by appointing a central independent assessment committee. Their role is to evaluate each request for repatriation ‘independently, expertly and transparently’. Such a move would be a hard pill for UK national museums to swallow. But in this post-colonial era, it would also help redefine the role of our national collections, many of which were built to display the spoils of British imperialism.

Recent outbursts from government ministers about how we should restrain from change ( “retain and explain” ) and, in the words of the DCMS “defend our culture and history from the noisy minority of activists constantly trying to do Britain down”, suggest there are still bridges to cross before the British government accepts the ethical case for restitution. However, this position is becoming less tenable.

Later this year, the Institute of Art & Law will present their recommendations for new museum protocols on handling restitution claims. They’ll be looking closely at the Dutch and other initiatives underway across the Channel.

The Dutch are prioritising only those objects stolen from former Dutch colonies and now in state collections. These objects will be returned unconditionally. But if the object was stolen from a colony of another country or if it is of particular cultural, historic or religious significance to another country, members of the assessment committee will decide its future, weighing up the interests of the different parties. Their decision criteria are uncertain.

This distinction between objects stolen from Dutch colonies and those stolen from elsewhere is perplexing, though probably politically-motivated. Alexander Herman, Assistant Director at the Institute of Art & Law, believes they’ve taken this route because the country is “seeking reconciliation with its former colonies”. Though it will still be hard for claimants to understand the logic.

Dutch restitution expert and author of Treasures in Trusted Hands , Dr Jos van Beurden, is concerned about two further unresolved issues in the new proposals.

“For the Dutch government, restitution is a state-to-state matter,” says van Beurden. “This neglects the interests of minorities, or royal courts and of religious groups in those former colonies”.

He voices a legitimate concern. Most successful restitutions made by UK museums were made directly to the descendants of those indigenous communities from where they'd been removed. Not to the state capital, nor to the state’s national museum. Boundary and political changes will further complicate the opportunity for smaller communities to meet this test.

Regional and university museums in the UK have shown much greater willingness to recognise the rights of smaller communities to claim back their own cultural heritage. In fact, it’s very often the continuing strength of this relationship that survives between the indigenous community and the object they’re claiming back that is the main reason why repatriation is agreed. The state itself plays little if any role in a decision to repatriate.

Provenance research is a further issue that remains unresolved, according to Dr van Beurden. “Everybody is emphasising the need for more provenance research and I fully endorse it,” he explains. But he’s concerned it also has its limitations. “We have to face the issue that the present rhythm of provenance research is too slow for the large number of dubiously acquired museum objects”.

Researchers at the Museum of World Cultures (a collaboration between four museums in Leiden, Amsterdam and Rotterdam) took more than two years to determine that at least 114 Benin objects in Dutch collections arrived shortly after the looting of Benin City in 1897. However, research commissioned in 2017 into the ceremonial canon of the king of Kandy (Sri Lanka), captured in 1765 by soldiers of the Dutch East Indies and now in the Rijksmuseum, has already taken four years and the report is still pending. What about the tens of thousands of other objects awaiting provenance investigation?

“We have to find a solution for handling so many objects for which it’s obvious they are stolen”, van Beurden says.

Germany supports this view, focussing their country’s efforts on returning war booty from punitive expeditions because they know these objects were stolen. Just this month, Germany rejected the policy of long-term loans, agreed by participating museums in the Benin Dialogue Group, and have announced they are on a path to return looted Benin sculptures and artefacts held in German state collections to Nigeria. For Benin objects, apparently the evidence of theft is compelling enough for them to agree full restitution - without conducting further lengthy provenance research.

Those who oppose provenance research altogether believe the process is little more than a device to frustrate the return of objects. However, this view ignores those cases where there’s a legitimate need to explore the circumstances of their removal.

“The Dutch approach focussing on ‘involuntary loss’ is less obvious because it can include apparent transactions, gifts and discoveries,” explains Herman. “This will inevitably require a good deal of research to determine the relevant details of the removal”.

Another country stepping up the restitution pace in Europe is Belgium. Their committee of experts has been given an even wider brief and involves examining the role of the monarchy, missionaries and commercial enterprises in the exploitation of Belgium’s former colonies. They too may end up with a generic law on restitution.

Which leaves Britain’s policy for its national collections increasingly out of step with the nation’s regional and university museums, as well as policies being developed by a growing number of other European countries. How much longer can the British government resist these ethical changes sweeping across the global museums sector?

Photo: Museum Volkenkunde, Leiden

Courtesy of Peter Hilz

THAILAND

nik@mailcal.net (nik barrow) — Wed, 24 Feb 2021 14:03:49 GMT

Thailand

Updated 23 February 2021

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made to Thailand, together with other restitution news.

Entries are updated regularly

February 2021

San Francisco's Asian Art Museum agrees to return two ancient lintels from the Khao Lon and Nong Hong Temples, both legally protected sites since 1935

The Art Newspaper

Aesthetics not provenance still drives market for classic African art

Tue, 23 Feb 2021 12:53:18 GMT

Each year’s 'State of the African Art Market' survey throws a spotlight on collecting patterns for ‘classic’ African art.

The survey conducted for the online magazine ÌMÒ DÁRA is based on 230 responses received from collectors, dealers and academics in 26 different countries. It was set up to review the marketplace for 'classic' figures, masks, sacred and other utilitarian objects associated with specific African tribal cultures. However, in recent years, it has shown an increasing trend towards collecting contemporary African art.

I read it to understand whether collectors are more or less concerned about the origins of the objects they’ve added to their collections in the past twelve months. I’m curious to know whether an object's aesthetic value is more important than its provenance; I particularly want to know whether trafficking in Africa’s cultural heritage is a larger or smaller problem than in previous years?

However, this year's findings reveal precious little new information and don’t merit too much attention – unless you’re a dealer.

It won’t come as a surprise that the Covid-19 pandemic affected all the sector's regular channels and patterns of business. As a result, much of this year’s survey focusses on the experience of collectors who, willingly or not, were very largely forced online. Many found it a chastening experience, as 34% of those who said they bought online last year without seeing the object first regretted it when they took delivery.

What do collectors in this sector look for when they make a purchase? Well the overwhelming number (69%) place the aesthetic qualities of the object ahead of any other selection criteria. Apparently, proof of authenticity seems much less important to these collectors. Only 38% of them said they prioritise authenticity; even fewer (30%) said that provenance is their priority. All this is bad news for reputable dealers, but good news for unscrupulous others and especially those who conduct their sales online.

Collectors across the tribal art marketplace have always wrestled with the concept of ‘authenticity’. Does an ‘original’ object have to be used? Does it even have to be old? A collectible object could be 200 years old, or it could be just 20 years old. What matters to collectors in this sector of the art market is more about whether it looks the part than its intrinsic cultural value: 81% of those surveyed gave aesthetic value as their top reason for collecting African art, compared with just 57% of collectors who cited the object’s cultural value as their top reason for collecting.

Passion clearly overrides financial speculation when collecting classic African art – a very different experience from other areas of fine art collecting, where financial performance is tracked like a stock exchange index and investment by the novice is encouraged. For example, only 3% of the collectors surveyed said they were looking to make a quick profit. A few more, but not many (6%), said they bought for investment diversification.

Collectors are fairly evenly divided about the future availability of top quality works once post-pandemic business resumes. Many of the more significant tribal objects that have appeared at auction in recent years left Africa before the 1970 UNESCO Convention. Almost none have been subject to restitution claims. This leaves the way clear for experienced collectors with deeper pockets to upscale their collections without risk of having to return objects to source communities.

Photo: Yoruba hen, Nigeria

Courtesy of Private Collection, Paris

Is 'continuity' driving government policy on restitution?

Tue, 16 Feb 2021 15:23:55 GMT

Are there wider policy implications to the current lively debate to “retain and explain” controversial statues? Is it possible the same approach will apply to museum objects subject to claims for restitution?

Next Tuesday (23 February) culture secretary, Oliver Dowden, will sit down at a meeting with leaders of some of the UK’s top heritage bodies to "discuss contested heritage" and to spell out why they “must defend our culture and history from the noisy minority of activists constantly trying to do Britain down”.

We can safely assume he’s going to tell leaders from the National Trust, the British Museum, Historic England, Arts Council England and the National Heritage Lottery Fund that he won’t tolerate any deviation from a policy of explaining and contextualising problematic statues. He'll insist they “continue to act impartially, in line with your publicly funded status”.

The government has already made it clear they’re ready to ignore any public consultation or trustee review that deviates from their own view on how to celebrate our nation’s history.

It follows another controversial statement made by the minister last summer that government funding may be removed from organisations that don’t comply.

This is no isolated event. It could be interpreted as further evidence of an emerging government policy that prioritises continuity ahead of sensitivity, a policy that to many people reinforces the notions and legacies of an imperial past, rather than moving towards a fresh, more constructive approach to relations with our former colonies.

The same message was reinforced last month when Robert Jenrick, community and local government secretary, announce d that full planning consent will be required to remove any of the UK’s 12,000 historical statues, plaques or memorials, on a temporary or permanent basis. Last week he wrote to the City of London Corporation warning their decision to re-site the Guildhall statues of William Beckford and Sir John Cass, both figures with links to slavery, puts the City’s “rich history” at risk. Really?

The Corporation’s decision was made after an extensive City-wide consultation that ended in favour of re-siting. Isn’t that exactly the kind of consultation the minister himself is recommending?

Communities may still be divided about the statue debate, but the government is not. Is it possible the government will extend the same policy of continuity to returning a former colony's cultural heritage?

Right now, the government has no overarching policy on restitution and we don't yet know what new guidelines the Institute of Art and Law will recommend to Arts Council England, due to be published later in spring. But if the government was to step in and impose the same policy of continuity, there'd be far-reaching curatorial implications. It would erode the long-held principle that government should operate at arm's length from national collections and it would seriously undermine the governance and fiduciary responsibilities of museum trustees. The wider responsibilities and objectivity of these trustees would be placed at risk.

Is there an alternative model that isn’t blind to the true history of colonial objects and builds on instead of turning its back on international relations and communities of source?

The answer may lie in the Netherlands.

In January, the Dutch government announced an altogether different approach, agreeing to adopt the recommendations of a government-appointed advisory committee tasked to look at restitution. This committee demanded “recognition that an injustice was done to the local populations of former colonial territories when cultural objects were taken against their will”.

Not only is the Dutch government prepared to commit funding for provenance research and to establish an independent committee to adjudicate claims, they're also prepared to return objects looted from Dutch colonies “unconditionally”. Furthermore, they’ve agreed to weigh up the claims of parties requesting the return of other objects of “cultural, historical, or religious importance”, whether or not there is evidence of looting.

Announcing the adoption of this report on 29 January, Ingrid van Engelshoven, the Dutch minister of education, culture and science, said “We must treat colonial collections with great sensitivity. There is no place in the Dutch State Collection for cultural heritage objects that were acquired through theft.”

This initiative puts the Netherlands much further ahead of other European countries making slower progress with their policies for restitution.

It’s a model the British government should evaluate seriously, not least for its introduction of sensitivity into international relations. Any other policy that dismisses the value of these relations and relies on 'continuity' risks UK progress on restitution grinding to a halt. .

Photo: Houses of Parliament

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

After this was written....

We understand the meeting that took place between the DCMS and England's national museums and heritage bodies was "polite but managed". There was no broad discussion when culture secretary Oliver Dowden reminded attendees they should remain impartial and not be beholden to a "vocal minority". But neither was there time allowed for questions. It was agreed that a working group would be formed to develop national guidelines on how culture and heritage bodies can put the government's policy of "retain and explain" into practice.

Some of those who attended this virtual meeting said afterwards they were satisfied that the importance of independence was underlined and not undermined. But others remain concerned, in particular, about government perceived interference into the arm's length principle and Code of Ethics. "It is not for ministers to impose what constitutes a legitimate subject for investigation or what the outcome of that research might be," said Sharon Heal, director of the Museums Association.

It's not clear how much of this work by the proposed new working group will overlap with the work already well-advanced by the sector-wide Decolonisation Guidance Working Group, convened by the Museums Association.

Mexico urges Christie’s Paris to halt sale of pre-Hispanic artefacts

Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:32:25 GMT

Mexico is taking further steps to recover their nation's cultural heritage, demanding that a Paris auction house halts the sale of thirty pre-Hispanic objects planned for next week.

They’ve also questioned the authenticity of three other items in the sale, including the auction’s star lot, a Teotihuacán stone mask, expected to sell for between €350,000 and €550,000.

Last week, Mexico’s National Institute for Anthropology and History (Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia) filed a complaint with the Mexican attorney general’s office, requesting state support to recover 30 objects of Aztec, Mayan, Mixtec and Toltec origins from an auction of 40 lots taking place at Christie’s, Paris next Tuesday (9 February).

All thirty objects “do seem to meet conditions to prove their belonging to the original peoples of our territory that flourished before the arrival of European cultures”, claimed Diego Prieto, director of the Institute.

“The archaeological assets of our country are the property of the nation,” continued Prieto. “They are beyond any act of commerce”.

Raising most concern, however, is Prieto’s claim that three other objects in the auction, all from the same European private collection, are fake. These include a mask and carved stone bowl from Xochipala and the Teotihuacán serpentine mask of rich green colour, circa 450-650 AD, once owned by the New York art dealer Pierre Matisse (Lot 23). The youngest son of artist Henri Matisse, Pierre had inherited his father’s love of African, Oceanic and pre-Columbian art and had purchased this stone mask in 1938, holding on to it until his death in 1954.

Stone masks produced between 150 BC and 700 AD at the pre-Columbian city of Teotihuacán have been prized by collectors since the 19th century for their abstract, stylised features. They've also been widely faked.

Speaking at an online news conference, Prieto dismissed the mask’s authenticity saying, “We would never ask this work to be returned, because we know it is not of ancient manufacture. It is likely the work of an expert Mexican hand, but dates from not too long ago”.

A Christie’s spokesperson said the auction house has “not been provided with any evidence that would challenge the lawfulness of the sale”. They have no plans to withdraw the mask or any of the other items that Mexico would like to see returned.

Mexico has had only limited success recovering items of national patrimony. In September 2019, we reported their failure to stop the sale of 120 religious and cultural pre-Columbian objects sold at another Paris auction house, Millon at Drouot.

Photo: Teotihuacán stone mask, circa 450-650 AD

Courtesy of Christies Images Ltd 2021

After this was written......

In the end, concerns from Mexico that 30 objects in this auction had been removed illegally didn't seem to put off buyers. No lots were withdrawn before the auction and many sold within or above estimate to collectors on the telephone from Asia, the USA and Europe. Questions about the authenticity of the Teotihuacán mask from the Pierre Matisse collection may have dampened some enthusiasm, though it still sold at the low end of the auctioneer's estimate for €437,500 (incl. premium). The other featured lot, a statue of the 'Divine Woman' known as a Cihuateotl from Veracruz, Mexico sold for €500,000 (incl. premium) against an estimate of €600-900,000.

EGYPT

Thu, 04 Feb 2021 13:45:20 GMT

Egypt

Updated September 2023

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made by Egypt, together with other Egyptian restitution news. Entries are updated regularly

September 2023

Zahi Hawass has announced plans to convene a further international meeting for countries affected by the smuggling of antiquities, adding the current Minister of Antiquities is ready to take action

see.news

September 2023

Egypt's Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, Mostafa Waziri, confirmed that communications with the British Museum over the return of stolen artefacts is continuing

Egypt Independent

October 2022

More than 2,500 archaeologists sign a petition calling the British Museum to return the Rosetta Stone to Egypt

ARTnews

August 2022

Dr Zahi Hawass announces a fresh initiative to return the Rosetta Stone in the British Museum to Egypt

Thenationalnews.com

February 2021

Former Italian honorary consul in Luxor, now living in Rome, sentenced in absentia to a 15-year Egyptian jail sentence in January 2021 for smuggling antiquities

Cultural Property News

More repatriations by the Museum of the Bible highlight failures in collecting policies

Fri, 29 Jan 2021 16:42:32 GMT

Major repatriations this week by Washington D.C.’s Museum of the Bible highlight scandalous failures in the Museum’s acquisition procedures. But has the Museum learnt from past mistakes?

Egypt is celebrating the return of thousands of artefacts from the Museum of the Bible, following successful negotiations with Egyptian and U.S. authorities which started in 2016. The collection, which has been held in a third-party fine art storage facility since June 2020, includes nearly 5,000 manuscripts and fragments of papyrus, with texts written in hieratic and demotic scripts, as well as manuscripts written in Coptic, Greek and Arabic languages.

Also returned are several cartonnage funerary masks, parts of coffins, heads of stone statues and painted portraits. In total, these items are understand to represent the entirety of the Museum's Egyptian collection.

Egyptian authorities believe all these artefacts were illegally excavated and smuggled out of their country. They’ve now been handed over to the Coptic Museum in Cairo.

At the same time, the Museum has returned to the Iraq Museum in Bagdad of a collection of over 8,000 clay objects, also believed to have been looted. This is part of a larger number of ancient clay tablets and seals held in the Bible Museum's collection whose authenticity and legal importation into the U.S. has been the subject of fines and federal investigations.

Responsibility for these collecting failures must rest largely with the Museum’s founder and chairman, Steve Green, the craft store billionaire of U.S. family-owned firm Hobby Lobby. Green started collecting manuscripts and artefacts for what would ultimately become the Museum of the Bible in 2009. However, since the Museum opened in 2017, scandal has blighted the collection. A mountain of evidence has exposed an acquisition history of fakes, looted objects and artefacts acquired with no reliable provenance.

In a statement made to the press in March last year, Green admitted “I knew little about the world of collecting. It is well known that I trusted the wrong people to guide me, and unwittingly dealt with unscrupulous dealers in those early years”.

These two latest repatriations to Egypt and Iraq follow a personal commitment he's made that curators in the future will undertake greater research into the provenance of thousands of items in the Museum’s collection. He also commits them to more engagement with officials in countries such as Egypt and Iraq, “regarding items that likely originated from those countries at some point, but for which there was insufficient reliable provenance information.”

Intentions are one thing. But authorities will be looking closely at the Museum's ability to deliver on these commitments in the future.

Photo: Museum of the Bible, Washington D.C.

REPUBLIC OF GHANA

Thu, 21 Jan 2021 13:11:06 GMT

Republic of Ghana

Updated November 2025

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made to Ghana, together with other restitution news.

Entries are updated regularly

November 2025

Ghana's Asante King has welcomed the return of 130 gold and bronze artefacts, twenty-five donated by a British art historian, the balance from the South African mining company AngloGold Ashanti

BBC News

May 2024

Asante items loaned by the British Museum and the V&A Museum are placed on display in Kumasi, the capital of the Asante region in Ghana

BBC News

May 2023

An article insists Asante/Ghana should reject any proposal by the British Museum to loan Asante treasures on the basis a loan is "simply anachronistic" in our times

Modern Ghana

May 2023

The ruler of Ghana's Asante people, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, met with the director of the British Museum to ask for the return of gold items in the Museum's collection

BBC News

October 2020

Ghana appoints a 13-person committee to advise on cultural initiatives and to research Ghanaian objects held in international collections

The Art Newspaper

An ominous and unwelcome intervention: new planning rules for statues and memorials

Wed, 20 Jan 2021 15:29:18 GMT

First it was Oliver Dowden, arts minister, threatening last summer to cut off funding to arts organisations. This week it’s Robert Jenrick, communities and local government minister, announcing heavy-handed plans to protect England's 12,000 historic statues from what he sees as criminal acts and mob rule.

"We cannot, and should not, now try to edit or censor our past", he said in statement to the Commons. "That's why I am changing the law to protect historic monuments and ensure we don't repeat the errors of previous generations".

Or does he mean, protect the government's own view on preserving historical falsehoods?

His solution? In future, the removal of any historic statue, plaque, memorial or monument, even on a temporary basis, requires full planning consent. All unlisted as well as listed heritage assets are wrapped up in this new legislation, which becomes law in the Spring. Even smaller memorial items like plaques, which don’t meet the current size threshold, will be included.

So determined is this government to hang on to their own singular vision of Britain's past, the Minister insists he will override the advice of any local authority applying to remove a contentious statue - even after a full, public consultation elects it should be retained.

Not surprisingly, many in the heritage and planning communities are enraged.

To me, both statements seem ominous and unwelcome interventions by central government. Are Whitehall ministers really better placed than local officials to 'retain and explain' if a statue or monument should remain on its plinth? Are they more informed and experienced in local and national heritage affairs they can dictate ethics and curatorial integrity to town halls, college governing bodies and local communities?

Some have accused the government of inciting this culture war to deflect attention from its own mis-handling of the Covid pandemic. Focus on the pandemic, they argue, and leave the administration of local heritage assets to the professionals.

When it comes to handling legacies of colonialism and slavery, Parliament is clearly failing to keep pace with this country’s changing mood. Despite plenty of good examples of emerging best practice up and down the country, it seems unwilling to listen and learn from decolonising initiatives already underway.

Take the Black Lives Matter movement, which is making such a seismic impact on museums and doing so much to expose structural racism. Aware of the public’s agitation with racist memorials and a discernible shift in public sentiment, the movement has motivated councillors, museum trustees and colleges to reverse years of inaction and indifference. At last they are starting to consult on race, diversity and decolonisation.

Whitehall ministers should recognise and welcome this momentum, not seek to ignore and legislate against it. Local consultation is critical, as Jenrick espouses in his new regulations, but so is being prepared to act on the results of that consultation.

Will he veto, for example, the City of London Corporation's consultation on removing or re-labelling every monument in the Square Mile with links to slavery? It attracted over 1,500 public responses. Or ignore the long-mooted review of the Cecil Rhodes legacy at Oriel College, Oxford, which is expected to recommend the removal of his controversial statu e from outside the college entrance. Will the Minister once again ignore it’s findings as well as public opinion?

Before introducing impractical legislation, the minister should push aside his feelings about the uncomfortable felling of the slaver Edward Colston’s statue into Bristol harbour and test the nation’s wider appetite for new, corrective histories…. as they’re about to do in Scotland.

In September, Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, stole a lead on England by committing the Scottish government to sponsor an independent group that will recommend how to recognise and represent their colonial and slavery history. As planning is a devolved issue, Scotland are able to ignore Jenrick’s new regulations and implement whatever future policy they see as more appropriate.

This announcement followed news that Glasgow City Council has commissioned a detailed audit of all historical bequests to their City. Their aim is to identify every statue with an historical link to slavery, as well as every monument, plaque, street name and building with slavery connections.

Jenrick might also reflect on the work completed by the National Trust, an organisation not exactly known for leading from the front or charting new directions.

Recognising a need to explain the complex histories of those who built, owned and lived in properties under their stewardship, last summer the Trust published their own report into colonialism and slavery. It was no knee-jerk reaction to BLM (it took over 12 years to research). Instead, it mapped out future plans to start removing (or returning) statues and other items visitors consider are racially sensitive – and, perhaps, keeping visitors away. Is the Minister prepared to overrule the National Trust, an independent charity with its own governance arrangements?

Both Dowden and Jenrick are running dangerously close to ignoring the changing tide of public opinion. They are also at risk of compromising the duty of curators, charity trustees and other independent governing bodies who must listen and act on the views of their communities.

Decolonisation is not about rewriting history. It's a continuous process to uncover and better understand the full and complex stories that are often left untold. It is these stories and not a government directive that should inform whether it’s right that a statue commemorating a shameful history should remain in place or not.

Photo: Edward Colston statue toppled

Courtesy of The Telegraph

After this was written.....

Three days after Jenrick made his statement, the City of London Corporation announced the re-siting of two statues of prominent City figures with links to slavery: William Beckford and Sir John Cass. Both statues currently stand in the Corporation's Grade One-listed Guildhall headquarters. The recommendation to remove the statues was made by the Corporation's Tackling Racism Taskforce, whose co-Chair, Caroline Addy, said, "The slave trade is a stain on our history and putting those who profited from it literally on a pedestal is something that has no place in a modern, diverse City". In the light of Jenrick's statement, the Corporation has said they'll look closely at the new legislation to ensure they comply.

A powerful case for museums to wash their hands of colonial blood

Wed, 09 Dec 2020 17:04:47 GMT

Not only does Dan Hicks' new book provide fresh evidence about the looting that took place at Benin City, it's also an uncompromising polemic against the inertia of western museums that resist the return of Africa's cultural heritage.

There are some who'll find The Brutish Museums uncomfortable reading. Hicks makes a vigorous case why the looted Benin Bronzes should be returned to Nigeria - without fear or apology. But he won't be alarmed by any dissent. Shaking the museum community out of its inertia is one of his principal goals, the other is to replace the existing 'failed' museum model with a brand new one.

They're both unsettling objectives, but he doesn't hold back on providing the ammunition.

The story of the Benin Bronzes is a familiar one: a British expedition launched to retaliate for the massacre of a small delegation of traders in January 1897, followed by the sacking and looting of Benin City and the wide dispersal of thousands of objects of enormous cultural, spiritual and artistic significance, now lost to the Nigerian nation. The expedition has always been considered an isolated event, but his new research points otherwise.

Hicks argues that the raid on Benin City, which took place just one month after the January massacre, had been one of Britain's priorities for many years, part of a larger, more sustained campaign of warfare extending across all of Britain’s interests in East and West Africa between 1887 and 1900.

‘Not a year passed without a war,’ according to Hicks, ‘in fact, not a month passed without some kind of violent incident or act of repression’.

But while the traditional narrative maintains that expeditions like this were launched to settle local ‘troubles’, ‘disturbances’ or ‘uprisings’, Hicks denies this applies to the Benin expedition. This action, he insists, was always intended to support the commercial interests of the Niger Coast Protectorate and the Royal Niger Company in their extraction of the region’s rich resources (palm oil, gum and rubber in particular), not the prosecution of war for military expansion. This kind of enterprise Hicks defines as ‘militarist colonialism’.

Far from being a knee-jerk reaction to the violence inflicted against the January 'trade' delegation, Hicks provides evidence that demands to overthrow the Oba by commercial interests stretched back as far as 1892 – five years before the massacre took place.

He quotes a chilling opinion piece from the Edinburgh Evening News (15 Feb 1896) repeating demands from Liverpool’s Chamber of Commerce to launch a military expedition against the Oba one year before the massacre:

‘It is impossible to develop the resources of the district because of the destructive tactics of the potentate …….. The government is in effect asked to ship out men and Maxims, mow down as need be a few hundreds, or a few thousands of the natives, all for their ultimate good, of course, and by way of introducing them to the grandeur of civilisation’.

One of the reasons why Hicks concludes the assault was no ‘punitive expedition’.

The scale of looting at Benin City that followed the military expedition was considerable but difficult to quantify, with thousands of ivory objects, bronzes, tusks, religious and ceremonial objects, now collectively known as the Benin Bronzes, removed by a British force of 1200 sailors, marines, administrators and traders. The looting was indiscriminate and chaotic, according to Hicks, with the plunder now so widely scattered around the world that Nigeria has been left with a minority holding in its own cultural heritage.

As a Professor of Contemporary Archaeology at Oxford , Hicks has devoted much of his time to identifying and recording objects looted from the Royal Palace and City (the nature of the looting makes it impossible to know just how many objects were looted). And the inventories included in his book represent a useful resource, identifying all the worldwide institutions he believes currently hold looted Benin objects - 161 counted to date, including 45 in the United Kingdom alone.

While Hicks draws on the violence of these events to protest against the refusal of western collections to return stolen Benin artefacts, another new book, Loot: Britain and the Benin Bronzes by Barnaby Phillips, adopts a more nuanced approach to the same tortuous dilemma. Of course, there's overlap with the historical narrative. But by drawing on his wide experience as a journalist covering Africa for the BBC, Phillips brings first-hand knowledge of wider Nigerian priorities, the state of its institutions and the threats and challenges the country would face were it to agree the sort of widespread repatriation that Hicks proposes. Brutal or not, Phillips knows that Nigeria is simply not ready to accommodate large-scale returns.

While Phillips explores the experience and pressures within the Nigerian museums sector to illustrate the hazards of immediate repatriation, Hicks is seemingly not discouraged.

Despite all the other financial and human challenges facing museums, Hicks he even maintains "there is no more important question for western museums today than restitution". Following the global pandemic, it's tough to agree with that conclusion. But despite the lack of action by national collections, his call for western museums "to wash their hands of colonial blood" is resonating with UK regional collections and with museums across the Channel.

Of course, there'll be many in the UK who'll interpret Hicks' strident and polemic language as political posturing against the World museum model. But other museum professionals, especially those already engaged in dialogue with source communities, will be more sympathetic. For them, restitution and reconciliation is the next and logical step in the decolonisation process and the return of Africa's cultural heritage.

While Hicks lays out a vision in his book for a new museum model, dismantling the 'white infrastructure of world culture museums', Phillips focusses instead on Nigerian priorities: how the rampant thefts that took place during the '80s and '90s can be avoided in the future; how long before the country is ready to accept the return of its own cultural patrimony.

Hicks avoids identifying specific objects because he wants everything returned. An unrealistic objective, not least because some Benin objects remaining in western collections are cultural ambassadors for Edo State and Nigeria, a point Phillips is keener to emphasise. And no museums are targeted for their failure to initiate returns (unless you regard the font and styling chosen for the title of this book as an indirect assault on The British Museum). Another failing is the absence of any proposal from Hicks how to overcome the complex judicial and legislative obstacles that continue to prevent returns from national institutions.

While Hicks' arguments may be too vociferous for some, Phillips' are cautious - restitution is a long haul, not a quick fix. However, both studies take us one step further by piling greater pressure on western museums to wash their hands of 'colonial blood' and to help Nigeria on its path to recover more of its stolen heritage.

Dan Hicks, The Brutish Museums: The Benin Bronzes, Colonial Violence and Cultural Restitution . Published by Pluto Press (2020)

Barnaby Phillips, Loot: Britain and the Benin Bronzes. Published by Oneworld (2021)

Photo: Interior of the Royal palace at Benin City during looting

Courtesy of Pitt Rivers Museum

Benin City museum offers a new renaissance of African culture and prospects for return of Benin Bronzes

Wed, 18 Nov 2020 14:01:42 GMT

Construction plans for the eagerly-awaited new museum in Benin City in Edo State, Nigeria are about to take an important step forward.

The first phase of work involving an archaeological project directly linked to the construction of the new museum, was announced at an Edo summit held in Nigeria last Friday (13 November). The museum is to be named Edo Museum of West African Art (EMOWAA) and project work will commence in 2021.

Speaking to Artdaily , the museum’s Ghanaian-British architect Sir David Adjaye, designer of Washington, DC’s National Museum of African American History and Culture , hopes the project may spark a 'renaissance of African culture'. But he also expects that further restitutions of Benin objects will follow. Only the timing of these returns and how they’ll be returned to the new museum remains in doubt.

The excavations (called the EMOWAA Archaeology Project) will involve fieldwork conducted around the proposed museum site, which is adjacent to the original Oba’s Palace and its wider surrounding area. It will be the first excavation project in this ancient city, the centre of a major precolonial kingdom, since the 1950’s/60’s and easily the most ambitious. The work will be undertaken by a joint Nigerian and British team, and is a partnership between Nigeria’s Legacy Restoration Trust and the British Museum, which has provided $4 million of funding.

The excavations will be used as a way of connecting the new museum into the surrounding landscape, enabling Adjaye to incorporate the surviving walls, moats and gates of the historic city into his finished architectural design.

All the artefacts discovered during the excavation, together with other "objects, photographs, oral histories and other documentation associated with the Kingdom of Benin from collections worldwide" will be published on a single digital platform, 'Digital Benin', according to Governor Godwin Obaseki.

Adjaye also believes there’s an opportunity to recontextualize the museum’s artefacts, which will include contemporary art as well as West African art and artefacts and important Benin objects from the ‘Royal Collection’. He explains the new museum can perform as “a reteaching tool – a place for recalling lost collective memories of the past to instil an understanding of the magnitude and importance of these civilizations and cultures.”

The museum has made no secret it would like to reunite more of the Benin objects currently held in international collections.

For almost a decade, members of the Benin Royal Court, representatives of the Edo State government and the National Commission for Museums and Monuments, Nigeria (NCMM) have been working with a multilateral consortium of western museums to help facilitate this new museum. Called the Benin Dialogue Group, the consortium includes museums in the UK, US, Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands. Last Friday’s announcement in part reflects the contribution made by this Group towards the new museum’s construction. It also reflects their growing confidence that returning artefacts may be possible.

However, discussions within the Group about which significant Benin works held in western collections will be returned and whether full restitution rather than long-term loans is feasible remain unresolved. Deaccessioning from western museums throws up seemingly impenetrable legal problems, while Nigeria itself has made it clear that a solution based on loans is inadequate.

Given Nigeria's poor record in museum management during the '80s and '90s, there are major roadblocks still to overcome, including future risks of political instability, the status of museum security and a financing requirement understood to be as much as $150 million. The vicissitudes of Nigerian politics, in particular, have been known to throw other initiatives off course. But this time there are grounds for optimism. Edo State insists this new museum will be independent of any government organisation, operating with its own autonomous management and implementing modern security and environmental standards. They hope this will reassure western museums concerned that EMOWAA would otherwise fall under the control of the federal government, whose track record in museum management has been questioned.

The widespread looting of the city’s shrines, royal chambers and storerooms that followed the capture of Benin City by British troops in February 1897, led to a wide geographical dispersal of thousands of highly important objects, including plaques, sculptures and items of great ceremonial and sacred value, collectively known as the Benin Bronzes.

In his latest book about the looting of the Benin Bronzes, The Brutish Museums , Prof Dan Hicks explains the sacking was an act of 'corporate militarist colonialism', the plundering a chaotic free-for-all.

For more than a decade, the British had been expanding their economic interests in the Niger territory, determined to erode the monopoly of trade held by the King of Benin and his influential middleman, chief Nana. A series of military actions were launched to advance these commercial objectives. However, rather than repeating the popular myth the sacking of Benin City was an isolated act of military retaliation for the killing of a trade delegation in January 1897 (an action that became known as the 'Phillips Massacre'), Hicks draws on contemporary papers to confirm the action was in fact part of a longer-held strategic plan, conceived by the British as far back as 1892 - five years before the sacking took place.

This places the scale of plundering that followed the killing at Benin City in an altogether different light. It was not an isolated military action, followed by an auction of looted objects to finance a punitive expedition. It was a deliberate attempt to obliterate the Edo people and their cultural heritage, an 'act of extreme iconoclasm', according to Hicks.

So far, the huge legal obstacles that prevent national collections returning the objects looted from the 1897 expedition have proved largely insurmountable. Those artefacts that have been returned have come mainly from smaller regional museums, dealers, auction houses and private collections .

Following the rampant thefts that took place in the 1950s, the collections holding Benin artefacts outside Nigeria say they need reassurance that objects returned will be secure. Whether it is fair to make security a condition for repatriation of looted objects or not, it would certainly oil the wheels of progress and give Adjaye's chances of completing construction greater impetus. However, completion in five years still looks ambitious - it took nine years to complete Washington’s National Museum of African American History and Culture.

Photos: View of main entrance and courtyard garden, Edo Museum of West African Art

Gates and Portals, Edo Museum of West African Art

Both courtesy of © Adjaye Associates

Border Force officers at Heathrow discover rare Uzbekistan tiles

Tue, 13 Oct 2020 11:04:39 GMT

If you were ever in doubt that a search of personal baggage by a UK Border Force officer at Heathrow would uncover important looted artefacts, think again.

On January 24 ^th this year, while searching the baggage of a passenger arriving at Heathrow on a flight from Dubai, a Border Force officer became suspicious about the date and origins of six large epigraphic glazed tiles. The accompanying paperwork and sales receipt declared the tiles were decorative replicas, ‘made to look old’ and purchased the previous day in Sharjah for 315 DH (the equivalent of about £70). But the officer was not convinced.

The tiles were detained in order that further investigations could identify their true age and provenance. Enquiries soon confirmed the tiles had originally come from Transoxiana, a region centred in present-day Uzbekistan, where there are many important ancient tiled monuments.

In May, the British Museum was alerted and the Museum called on the assistance of colleagues from seven different national museums across the region (which also includes part of Tajikistan, southern Kyrgyzstan and southwest Kazakhstan). As a result, they were able to furnish the Border Force with a full report on the importance of these rare glazed tiles – despite the conditions prevailing during the Covid-19 lockdown.

The passenger refused to make a claim on them, so the tiles were forfeited and the Museum was given responsibility for their repatriation to the Republic of Uzbekistan.

The combination of three coloured glazes – white, turquoise and cobalt blue – dates these tiles to between the end of 13th and the middle of the 14th centuries, a period which began with the establishment of a khanate under Chagatai Khan, a second son of Chinggis (commonly known as Genghis) Khan. All of the tiles are inscribed with Qur’anic inscriptions, but only one is complete.

Uzbek specialists believe that some of these tiles come from the Shah-i Zinda memorial complex located near Samarkand, now listed on the UNESCO list of World Heritage Monuments. Excavated in 1996 and 2000, a number of the glazed artefacts from this site remain unaccounted for and it’s possible these glazed tiles were stolen from the Shah-i Zinda excavations.

The British Museum's engagement with both law enforcement agencies and national governments continues to pay dividends. It has recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Art and Culture Development Foundation under the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Uzbekistan to continue their collaboration, identifying and advising on stolen or trafficked items of Uzbek origin. In the meantime, before their return to the Republic of Uzbekistan, the tiles will go on display at the British Museum in December 2020 for a short period.

Photo: Rare glazed tile, Probably from Shah-i Zinda, Uzbekistan, 13th/14th cent

Courtesy of © Trustees of the British Museum 2020

REPUBLIC OF TURKEY

Mon, 12 Oct 2020 10:00:53 GMT

Republic of Turkey

Updated October 2020

Below is a schedule of restitutions made by the Republic of Turkey and/or news relating to restitutions.

Entries are updated regularly

November 2019

Two looted artefacts, including a Tang mural from a Buddhist grotto and a pottery figurine from the Sui Dynasty, have been returned in first successful restitution by Turkey to China

China Daily

SAUDI ARABIA

nik@mailcal.net (nik barrow) — Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:42:44 GMT

Saudi Arabia

Updated October 2020

Below is a schedule of restitutions made by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and/or news relating to restitutions.

Entries are updated regularly

November 2019

250 stolen documents, smuggled into Saudi Arabia, have been returned to Iraq's House of Books and Documents

Saudi Gazette

JORDAN

nik@mailcal.net (nik barrow) — Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:21:02 GMT

Jordan

Updated October 2020

Below is a schedule of restitutions made by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and/or news relating to restitutions.

Entries are updated regularly

February 2019

1,300 artefacts looted from the National Museum of Iraq in Baghdad are returned to Iraq by Jordan

Mail Online

Hard evidence debunks theory that cultural heritage crime is major smuggling risk

Fri, 09 Oct 2020 11:16:49 GMT

How rampant is the trafficking of cultural heritage? You're not alone if you're confused about the scale of this problem.

However, a new report published by the World Customs Organisation provides hard data which appears to debunk the widely-held view that art and heritage trafficking has grown into a major transnational crime, perhaps even the third largest black market crime after drugs and the arms trade.

WCO does recognise the complexity of smuggling cultural artefacts and warns that trends and patterns in their analysis 'serve for indicative purposes only'. Its findings, they add, cannot ‘represent all the efforts of the law enforcement or the real volumes of illicit trade of cultural objects’. Nevertheless, the incidents they do record barely register on the scale of other risk categories the Organization monitors each year.

Leading our views on the scale of art trafficking are the numerous press reports and other research which suggesting it's grown into a huge industry, large enough to finance organised crime networks and terrorism. Reports such as the one published in June 2020 by ATHAR, the Antiquities Trafficking and Heritage Anthropology Research Project is just one example. ATHAR claim to have identified over 120 groups and nearly two million members using Facebook and other social media channels for online trafficking of looted artefacts. The pressure they applied led Facebook to remove all historical artefacts for sale or exchange from their platforms.

However, WCO’s Illicit Trade Report 2019, reveals a picture of only modest illicit activity, with cultural property accounting for just 0.2% of all the investigations and seizures carried out by WCO last year.

* Of the 102,214 cases they investigated globally, just 227 cases (0.22%) involved cultural heritage

* There were only 271 seizures of cultural items (0.20%) from a total of 133,453

* Despite an increase in the number of countries that report on cultural heritage (23 to 34) there was a fall in the number of cultural cases investigated (from 260 to 227)

* Customs officers identified and recovered 9,399 artefacts in 2019 - a 59.5% decline from the 22,462 artefacts recovered in 2018

* As in 2018, a handful of cases contributed to the majority of items recovered.

The number of seizures relating to ancient artefacts (which appear in the category ‘archaeological excavations/discoveries’) remain surprisingly small, declining in number from around 250 to around 130. However, these figures won't include the spoils of widespread looting we know took place in Iraq and Syria over recent years and will likely be recorded in future editions of WCO's reporting. It is coins, banknotes and medals that remain the largest category of all cultural items WCO seized last year (5,141 from a total of 9,399).

The report triumphs some of their successes, including seizures by Customs officers at Kabul Airport, the discovery of very rare pre-Columbian objects at Barajas Airport and the seizure of 2,500 ancient coins by the Argentinian Federal Police Force from an online sale. WCO's successes in helping to identify faked antiquities entering the western market are also highlighted, including the hoard of faked Iraqi ‘cuneiform’ tablets, figurines and cylinder seals that were identified by a UK Border Force officer at Heathrow Airport in July 2019.

Apparently, about half of all successful cultural heritage cases (47.5%) were the result of routine control procedures.

WCO’s involvement with larger enforcement operations is also recorded. In the autumn of 2019 their co-operation with INTERPOL and Europol on Operations Athena II and Pandora IV helped dismantle a number of large-scale international networks of art traffickers, leading to the recovery of more than 25,000 art and archaeological artefacts, as well as 101 arrests.

The Russian Federation reported the greatest number of cases - their 133 reported cases represented over half (58.5%) the global total. Other cases were mainly centred on Eastern and Central Europe, South America and the Caribbean, with Western Europe, apparently, no longer viewed as the centre for cultural heritage crime.

But there are genuine problems with WCO’s reporting. These mostly reflect the ‘complexity’ and politics of trafficking art and antiquities across borders.

WCO recognises there's often a high degree of secrecy, as well as a reluctance to share information among enforcement agencies, particularly with ongoing cases. In some countries, for example, customs seizure data will be shared only after restitution has taken place to the source country. All this means it can take many years before cases are resolved and before reliable data can be analysed and published.

Even after taking these factors into account, WCO’s report does suggest that trafficking of cultural heritage doesn’t come close to the scale of illicit trading in drugs, counterfeit goods, arms and other illegal cross-border activities.

It also adds further weight to the findings of the US-based RAND Corporation’s report , which suggested last May that the size and structure of the market in trafficking cultural heritage is smaller than previously understood. Drawing on publicly available information, the RAND report also concluded that art trafficking networks are neither as sophisticated nor as well-organised as many had thought.

But none of this suggests we can afford to relax our attention in the fight against art traffickers, or that the WCO analysis is correct in all respects. There’s still too much at stake; still too much anecdotal and hard evidence of recent looting and smuggling activities. For one thing, it will take some further time before items stolen in the last few years emerge for sale in the open market, either online or in our salerooms. For another, we should bear in mind not every smuggled or faked artefact always reaches the attention of Customs.

Photo: Fake cuneiform tablets in their wrapping

Courtesy of © Trustees of the British Museum 2020

National Trust report on connections with colonialism and slavery merits serious attention

Fri, 02 Oct 2020 10:45:47 GMT

Is the National Trust set on teetering towards a precipice? A new report on the legacies of colonialism and slavery within its portfolio of historic houses promises a more sensitive approach to difficult histories.

A previous report entitled Towards a 10-Year Vision for Places and Experiences , suggested the National Trust was about to do great harm to it's reputation for stewardship of this country's great historic houses. Certainly it caused widespread alarm about the Trust’s future direction. “Truly alarming for built heritage,” exclaimed Bendor Grosvenor. “One of the most damaging assaults ever seen on the UK’s art historical expertise,” headlined The Art Newspaper .

All of which makes the contents of this latest report that sets out to research connections between the legacies of colonialism and slavery within their portfolio of historic properties even harder to sell to the public*. But don't make the mistake of dismissing the issues this report is addressing. It merits serious attention.

As well as reinforcing the Trust's reputation and great fortune to have talented curatorial staff (who authored the majority of this report), the report shows a new willingness to reach out beyond their traditional and, let’s face it, tired country house narratives.

Finally, the Trust has realised they need to do more to explain the complex histories of those who built, owned, lived and worked within their properties. Yes, even if this does disclose some uncomfortable truths.

Also, this report is no knee-jerk reaction to the current de-colonisation debate. In fact, the Trust started their research at least as far back as 2007, the year of the bicentenary of The Slave Act in 1807. Since then, the Trust claims to have been ‘re-connecting’ with colonial legacies and slavery through a series of long-running research projects, case-studies and exhibitions. This interim report reflects on the work they’ve undertaken to date – and it’s fascinating.

We’re all familiar with the story how the UK developed its global trade between the 17 ^th and 19 ^th centuries, amassing great wealth and an empire in the process. This wealth fuelled a massive building frenzy and an accumulation of fine and decorative arts, much of whose preservation falls within the remit of the National Trust. As the UK took steps towards the ‘formal’ abolition of slavery, even more spending on buildings and the arts followed Parliament's agreement to recompense the owners of ‘slave property’ with financial compensation.

The connections between this influx of wealth from colonialism and slavery and the Trust’s portfolio of historic properties is all too evident from the report:

* About a third of all National Trust properties can be directly connected to colonial histories

* 29 of their properties have links to successful compensation claims for slave-ownership

* At least 50 of their properties have a connection to the East India Company in a large or smaller way

Why should this uncomfortable truth be concerning the National Trust now? Should they have a role in re-interpreting our nation's history?

The story which is absent from the Trust's traditional narratives is, of course, the extent to which so much of this country's wealth was reliant on colonialism and slavery. Concealment of these difficult histories is no longer an option. Every day we hear demands for greater transparency, question marks over the relevance of historical statues, and concern that many institutions are clinging on to outdated interpretations.

However, it isn't the existing membership demanding greater transparency and change. Rather, it's those visitors who the Trust needs to attract in the future, but is failing to attract due to a lack of wider relevance.

To achieve this relevance, the Trust accepts they need to introduce narratives that explore the lives of those other stakeholders who occupied these grand historic houses and sustained their legacies, namely the staff and servants, as well as any history of black presence.

The potential to expand this research is enormous and the Trust plans to set up an independent external advisory group to help them explore these difficult histories. But does the report suggest any willingness to go further and consider reparation?

The Trust's future policy on either reparation or de-colonisation is not made clear within the report. Without a universally agreed definition on what ‘de-colonisation’ actually entails, it's not surprising the report is silent on this issue. But evidence of small steps being taken by the Trust to recognise cultural sensitivities and their responsibility for fresh dialogues does appear in the report.

At Clandon Park , Surrey, for example, the Trust has agreed in principle (subject to statutory consents) to return a series of Maori carvings, from a meeting house known as Hinemihi o te Ao Tawhito, purchased in 1892 by the 4th Earl of Onslow. These carvings have deep spiritual significance for Maori and wider New Zealand communities. In exchange, Clandon will receive a number of contemporary carvings.

Steps are also in hand to remove statues that are racially sensitive to visitors, especially those which were formerly described as ‘manufactured in support of colonial representations of the people and places of the British Empire’. For example, the report states that an 18th cent statue of a kneeling black male figure supporting a sundial, formerly sited at the main entrance at Dunham Massey , Cheshire, has been 're-sited' and will be the ‘subject of future collaborative interpretation’.

These are all very modest steps. But it gives ground for hope these significant re-interpretations the National Trust is promising may lead to a more sensitive approach to their displays and a more complete and honest approach to their narratives – assuming whatever 10-year vision the Trust concludes hasn’t removed their long-term viability altogether.

* Interim Report on the Connections between Colonialism and Properties now in the Care of the National Trust, Including Links with Historic Slavery (September, 2020)

Photos: Charlecote Park, Warwickshire

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Statue of a black man holding a sundial at Dunham Massey Hall, Cheshire

After this was written.......

An instruction delivered at the end of September '20 by Oliver Dowden, Secretary of State at the DCMS, for national museums and other publicly funded bodies to align with the Government's stance on contested heritage is causing outrage. It advises against taking actions 'motivated by activism or politics', requires arm's lengths bodies to complete a questionnaire on actions they are presently undertaking or are considering undertaking in this area, and implies that government funding may be withheld if museums do not comply.

In November '20 the National Trust also came under attack from Tory MP Andrew Murrison at a Westminster Hall debate where he accused the Trust of a "dramatic change of direction", claiming it has put the organisation at odds with its members, volunteers and workforce. He described this report on slavery as "flimsy and tendentious", describing the report's conflation of slavery and colonialism as evidence of its political motivations. Murrison also claimed the Trust had come to the attention of the Charity Commission for straying too far from its core objectives.

As a charity reporting to its own independent board of trustees, Dowden's instruction to conform with the Government's own stance on contested heritage does not apply directly to the National Trust. Neither do we believe the Trust is presently under investigation by the Charity Commission.

Nevertheless, any Government intervention into matters of ethics and curatorial integrity is ominous, A government which is not prepared to accept the 'arm's length' principle enshrined within the widely-respected Code of Ethics for Museums cannot be trusted to prescribe what is right or wrong for the sector. The National Trust, like all other cultural institutions, mustn't be bullied into following a political agenda. It's the views of the public at large that counts - and those views are changing.

COMMENT

Judi Newman (03/10/2020)

A really interesting reminder that collectively - as a civil society - we need to acknowledge the full story of our country's heritage, and not just cherry pick the bits that are palatable for period dramas. It is not about demolishing or removing history - it is understanding the full narrative, context and hidden stories. The full story may not always be comfortable reading but it will result in a far deeper understanding of how this very small island ended up being GMT+0 at the centre of our maps, warts and all. I am not interested in the Laura Ashley version of British history so I would be much more likely to engage with NT properties if I could piece together a richer tapestry of how the wealth was created, with honesty and integrity. I learnt more about the UK's role in the slave industry (and contribution towards its abolition) in DC's Smithsonian National Museum of African History and Culture than any museum or stately home in the UK - these are important stories and we ought to be telling them with candour.

British Museum to return rare Sumerian plaque to Iraq

Mon, 28 Sep 2020 13:59:37 GMT

How can we beat the art traffickers if we don't all work together? When co-operation does happen, the fight against the looting of stolen antiquities takes on a new momentum.

This week, that momentum involved a limestone tablet, spotted for sale at an online auction in May last year. The tablet is actually an extremely rare, but unpublished Sumerian votive wall plaque, which the British Museum concluded had been illicitly removed from a temple in southern Iraq. Before its repatriation to Iraq, the plaque will be exhibited at the British Museum until later next year.

Described inaccurately by the online auction platform Timeline Auctions as a ‘Western Asiatic Akkadian tablet’, the plaque was said to come from a private collection formed in the 1990s. But as too frequently happens, no other provenance information was supplied by the auction house, who claim the searches they undertook failed to confirm the plaque was stolen. This is hardly surprising as most objects looted directly from archaeological sites do not appear on registers of stolen objects.

After the Metropolitan Police Service (Art and Antiques Unit) was alerted, the object was taken to the British Museum for identification and analysis. They immediately recognised its importance as a Sumerian temple plaque of great rarity (only about 50 are known to exist), dating to around 2400 BC.

Part of a larger, square limestone plaque depicting a ritual banquet scene, the Museum believe the style of this unpublished plaque locates it to the Sumerian heartland of southern Iraq. They also identified traces of burning, which is a feature of similar plaques excavated from the site of Tello/Girsu. It’s quite possible this plaque therefore comes from the same location, which was extensively excavated and looted in the late 19 ^th and early 20 ^th centuries. Further looting took place in the 1990s during the Gulf War and, once again, in 2003 during the Iraq War.

A survey of looting at this site, which the British Museum helped facilitate through its participation in the UK Government-funded Iraq Emergency Heritage Management Training Scheme, suggests the plaque may have come from an area known to have been a temple to the Sumerian god Ningirsu. Future excavations may confirm this temple as its source. It may also reveal some, or all, of the missing parts.

The return of this important votive plaque to Iraq was agreed following liaison with museum colleagues at the State Board of Antiquities and Heritage in Baghdad.

The British Museum's fight against the trafficking of illegal antiquities is "an important part of the Museum’s work on cultural heritage," says Director, Hartwig Fischer.

However, there are other voices more critical . These voices believe it's a public relations ploy which divert attention from the Museum's larger failure to address how it acquired much of its own collection.

But addressing the historical legacy of the Museum is an altogether different matter from the contribution the Museum is making today to addressing the new threats to cultural heritage. One requires a change in the law, the other requires action.

Over the last twelve months, we've reported other British Museum successes in identifying and repatriating other important looted antiquities offered for sale by Timeline Auctions, including the return of a stolen Kushan sculpture to the National Museum of Afghanistan earlier this year. This latest recovery of a Sumerian plaque demonstrates exactly where the Museum can add value, over and above its display to a wide audience. It also shows what can be achieved when museums, government departments and law enforcement agencies work closer together to combat the immediate threat of looting and protecting cultural heritage.

P hoto: A Sumerian votive plaque c. 2400BC

Pitt Rivers makes real progress towards decolonisation

Thu, 17 Sep 2020 11:18:53 GMT

Museums have been listening. Now, the Pitt Rivers is leading the way and is beginning to act.

Over the last few months, there’s been mounting evidence of important breakthroughs in the move to decolonise museum and public collections.

The Black Lives Matter movement has been a major catalyst for some of these developments. Scores of protests have triggered multiple local initiatives to re-label or remove statues of figures connected to slavery. This month, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon committed the Scottish government to sponsor an independent expert group that will recommend how Scotland’s existing and future museum collections can better recognise and represent a more accurate portrayal of their colonial and slavery history.

“The Black Lives Matter movement has highlighted the critical need to understand and act on the racial injustice and colonialism that is still prevalent today,” says Lucy Casot, CEO of Museums Galleries Scotland.

But other initiatives are the result of longer-term strategic reviews, kicked off several years ago and now beginning to bear fruit.

In April we featured The Horniman Museum’s project, Rethinking Relationships and Building Trust around African Collections , an initiative involving engagement with the Museum’s local Nigerian diaspora that will help decide the future of, among other things, the Museum’s collection of Benin artefacts.

This week, the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford, one of the leading museums of anthropology, ethnography and archaeology in the world and a partner in the Horniman project, announced they’ve used the lockdown to make significant changes to how they display some of their more contentious objects, in particular, their extensive collection of tsantsas (‘shrunken’) heads and other human remains.

The Pitt Rivers initiative is not a result of recent protests, even though the Museum has been a site of protest. Instead, it’s the result of a wider ethical and strategic review of their displays and programming, launched in 2017 to enable the Museum to engage more deeply with their colonial legacy.

“With the Museum’s complicated colonial history, it was important for us to lead this Ethical review and to ensure we did not shy away from difficult conversations", explains Pitt Rivers Director, Laura Van Broekhoven.

The review identified and prioritised those displays requiring the most urgent attention. Grabbing headlines are their decisions to re-model displays involving human remains and to remove their collection of tsantsa into storage.

“Our research has shown that visitors often saw the Museum’s displays of human remains as a testament to other cultures being ‘savage’, ‘primitive’ or ‘gruesome’", says Van Broekhoven. “Rather than enabling our visitors to reach a deeper understanding of each other’s ways of being, the displays reinforced racist and stereotypical thinking that goes against the Museum’s values today”.

Their removal brings the Museum into line with wider museum guidelines on the treatment of human remains.

For the Pitt Rivers though, decolonisation was always going to be a huge challenge. Formed during a period of British Imperial expansion, the Museum’s interpretation of thousands of objects with difficult histories using outmoded labels has remained largely unchanged; their presentation in a quirky labyrinth of wooden display cases is endearing but crowded and hard to navigate.

Given the scale of the task ahead of them, changes won’t come quickly. They’ll be “part of a long-term programme of curatorial work that will engage many stakeholders and stretch out over years, probably decades to come,” says Van Broekhoven.

Neither is the Museum under-estimating the far-reaching implications of its review. Resolving restitution issues involves a great deal of collaboration with different communities over a long period of time. Nevertheless, they seem committed to resolving the future of the 2,800 human remains in their collection. This may lead to some human remains being returned, others cared for differently and others re-displayed.

They also hope that ’new voices’ involving local community and youth delegates, as well as country stakeholders from different parts of the world, will bring new insights and life to their displays. New labels, films and podcasts will offer new interpretations, replacing historical labels, which the Museum recognises have obscured a deeper understanding of other cultures and provided a limited insight into complex historical processes.

“What we are trying to show is that we aren’t losing anything but creating space for more expansive stories,” explains Research Associate Marenka Thompson-Odlum. “That is at the heart of decolonisation. We are allowing new avenues of story-telling and ways of being to be highlighted”.

The Pitt Rivers claims their programme is one of the most pioneering approaches in decolonisation at any UK museum. It certainly underlines the importance of adopting an ethical perspective to a sensitive problem. Until the Decolonisation Guidance Working Group, set up by the Museums Association, completes their work (due next year), Pitt Rivers has set a new standard for others to follow.

Photo: Original case featuring human remains

Courtesy of Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford

Photo: Dr Laura Von Broekhoven

Courtesy of John Cairns

Why it’s important we get ‘The Whole Picture’

Wed, 09 Sep 2020 17:46:07 GMT

Another new book about museums clinging on to contested objects is hardly a newsworthy event. But the publication of Alice Procter’s latest book The Whole Picture arrives at a significant moment.

Events, outside their control, are forcing museums to re-appraise their role in a world where the Black Lives Matter movement and pressure for decolonisation involves telling the 'whole truth'.

Is the evidence in this new book just another emotional rant, a clarion call to repatriate objects, sometimes violently removed during a past colonial era? Or does it inject a strain of sensibility into a complex ideological debate?

It's all about the latter.

As organiser of the Uncomfortable Art Tours, Procter leads ‘unofficial’ museum tours that throw a spotlight on the full story behind colonial-sourced objects in our national collections. Some consider her an iconoclast, rejecting the role of encyclopedic museums as ‘positive examples of intercultural relationships’ (which, incidentally, she does reject).

But critics may be surprised to learn she doesn’t use this book to make an emotional rant. Nor does she use it to make demands for summary restitution. Instead, she turns out to be a rational and lucid advocate for a more balanced approach to a complex debate, concentrating her fire-power on emphasising the unspoken narrative behind some of the more contentious objects.

This doesn’t mean museums escape criticism altogether. Setting out her case, she bemoans museums that knowingly gloss over uncomfortable events (contrasting this with the approach taken, for example, by the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, D.C.). Also, museums that show bias while presenting themselves as apolitical and educational (naming and shaming the V&A), as well as those continuing to justify the retention and display of mummified heads ( mokomokai ), on the false grounds they are ‘sources of information about human history’ (source: The British Museum).

But Procter is realistic enough to know it won’t be easy to persuade long-established institutions to change the way they present their stories. She also admits that for some disputed objects, there’s no such thing as a “perfect home”. But she still insists there’s “much to be explored in those tense and violent moments”.

Clearly, this is a message beginning to resonate. When the British Museum opened its doors to visitors again last month, it was clear they've set out to contextualise more of the contentious objects in their collection by using new ‘Collecting and Empire’ labels. Demands by Procter and others for museums to present narratives that explain not just where an object was made, but also how it was collected, from whom and under what circumstances, are beginning to bear fruit. In a limited way.

But does re-labelling do enough to address broader issues around decolonisation and the growing clamour for removing monuments connected with slavery? Procter believes the Black Lives Matter movement helps introduce a “new layer of interpretation” to overcome the invisibility of slavery in British history, something she believes is both the most discussed and least visible element of British imperialism. She has a good point.

Here she seems to have captured the zeitgeist of a wider, growing movement. Reactions by museums and local authorities may still be too confused to consolidate behind a single strategy, but the evidence of anxiety about slavery and monuments commemorating its protagonists is all around us.

On its re-opening, the British Museum moved a bust of Sir Hans Sloane to the security of a display cabinet (to prevent vandalism), the City of London Corporation announced a public consultation about removing or re-labelling all the monuments in the Square Mile linked to slavery and the Natural History Museum said it's considering re-naming or even removing objects in its collection that could be seen as racially offensive.

These are all important steps, but Procter is clear that museums cannot be decolonised without being completely re-invented. Social art – art created mostly by contemporary artists beyond the gallery space – has a role to play in realising this reinvention. It can help fill gaps in our knowledge. But audiences can be very different inside and beyond the traditional gallery or museum space, so the impact of social art on older gallery visitors will likely be more limited than she suggests.

Still, it’s a further signal that change in our museums may involve a generational shift in thinking.

Procter is right to draw attention to the growing schism emerging within the museum community. This could be the biggest catalyst for change of all: curators and trustees with many years of front-line experience being replaced by younger curators, willing to accept de-accessioning as a necessary evolution in their responsibilities.

Alice Procter, The Whole Picture: The colonial story of the art in our museums & why we need to talk about it

Published by Cassell (2020)

Photo: Portrait of an African, probably Ignatius Sancho, attributed to Allan Ramsay
Courtesy of The Royal Albert Memorial Museum & Art Gallery, Exeter

Spanish seafood restaurant serves up Roman amphorae of ”great heritage value”

Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:32:25 GMT

The coronavirus may have deterred many of us from venturing into restaurants, but it didn’t deter officers of the Spanish Guardia Civil from conducting their routine inspections.

Together with their other responsibilities, the SEPRONA is also charged with leading the fight against looted antiquities. Their persistence seems to have paid off.

During a recent inspection in the Spanish city of Santa Pola, Alicante, a collection of thirteen Roman amphorae, believed to date from the 1 ^st century AD, were discovered decorating a frozen seafood store.

Local media report the artefacts, which also include an 18 ^th century anchor and a limestone plaque with the inscription ‘este’ (the word 'east' in Spanish), were found by the storeowner’s son while out fishing. However, the Guardia Civil suspect something even more fishy!

They suggest the items were probably looted from one or more of the ‘protected’ wrecks found around the Mediterranean.

Storage amphorae of this type were used to ship olive-growers oil from Andalusia to Rome via the Portus Ilicitanus, now known as Santa Pola. They were also used to transport wine and garum, a kind of fish sauce.

While mostly of a common shape and form, and found in different states of preservation, officials at the Santa Pola Sea Museum have nevertheless determined this collection is of ‘great historical value’ and one amphora could be of especially important due to its ‘exclusivity’.

The Guardia Civil is considering whether to charge the store owner and his son with a crime against ‘historical heritage’ and another for acquiring and/or possessing objects knowing their doubtful or illegal origin. In Spain, all archaeological heritage, including items recovered from underwater sites, are protected by the Spanish Historical Heritage Law (SHHL), which ensures the discoverer never has ownership over their discoveries.

A cautionary tale for every local seafood restaurant and a concern for the Mediterranean's cultural heritage.

Photos: Roman amphorae discovered in Santa Pola

Courtesy of Guardia Civil

SPAIN

Wed, 29 Jul 2020 10:45:59 GMT

Spain

Updated March 2025

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made by Spain, together with other Spanish restitution news. Entries are updated regularly

March 2025

The remains of Fernando Tupac Amaru, the last direct Inca descendant executed in 1781, are to be repatriated by Spain to Cuzco, Peru

andina.pe

June 2024

Spain publishes a list of more than 5,000 items plundered by the Franco regime during the civil war

The Guardian

January 2024

Spain's Minister of Culture has announced a 'review process' of their collections, generating the inevitable heated debate

El Pais

January 2024

Plans to decolonise Spain's 17 state-run museums has led to accusations of "wokery" and has received a mixed reception from both Socialist and right-wing politicians

The Times

January 2024

An expert in heritage studies during the Spanish Civil War is investigating works of art confiscated during the Franco regime, which he compares to looting by the Nazis during WWII

Alaska Commons

December 2023

Six years after being pulled from sale at auction, a fragment of the Tlaquiltenango Codex, discovered in 1909, has been returned by Spain to Mexico

Mexico News Daily

July 2020

Thirteen 1st cent Roman Amphorae and an 18th cent anchor were discovered during a routine food inspection at a frozen seafood shop in the Spanish city of Santa Pola in the province of Alicante

Hyperallergic

YEMEN

nik@mailcal.net (nik barrow) — Sun, 26 Jul 2020 17:33:18 GMT

Republic of Yemen

Updated July 2020

Below is a schedule of restitutions made by Yemen and /or news relating to restitutions.

Entries are updated regularly

July 2020

After five years of bloody conflict Yemen seeks to recover articles smuggled out of the country

ArtDaily

French restitution bill unlikely to lead to large-scale returns to Africa

Sun, 26 Jul 2020 12:41:58 GMT

A draft bill to kick start the return of 27 objects to Africa, now owned by the French nation, may receive approval by France’s two assemblies later this year. But don’t expect it to lead to wider restitutions by the French nation, cautions the Institute of Art and Law.

It’s been twenty months since art historian Bénédicte Savoy and economist Felwine Sarr produced their report, commissioned by French President Macron, recommending the permanent return of any object ‘taken by force or presumed to be acquired through inequitable conditions’ from sub-Saharan Africa. Since then, although the French government has spoken frequently of a new policy of cultural co-operation with Africa, it’s been strikingly silent on implementation.

Which is why news that a review of constitutional issues raised by the bill, conducted by the government’s expert advisory body the Conseil d’état , which clears the way for a bill to return the 27 looted objects to Benin and Senegal, might suggest the scene is set for further restitutions.

But future claimants will be disappointed.

The draft legislation, examined by government this month (15 July), would commit France to transferring ownership of the 27 objects out of French public collections and into the state's 'private' domain, a legal manoeuvre so the items can be considered for permanent return to their places of origin.

For a country where the principle of ‘inalienability’ has always been a major barrier to the deaccessioning of objects in public museum collections, this appears like a significant step forward in delivering on the government’s new policy of cultural co-operation and a viable alternative to long-term loans.

However, on the assumption the bill passes into law (not guaranteed while the French government faces other more pressing domestic issues), IAL’s own expert analysis of the bill's constitutional issues suggests prospects for large-scale African restitutions are still no nearer than before.

The legislation relates only to the transfer of a specified group of objects, ‘within a circumscribed part of a collection’. In this case, 26 objects looted by French troops from the palace of Abomey in 1892, now in the Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac in Paris, and the sabre of El Hadj Omar Tall, currently on long-term loan to Senegal’s Museum of Black Civilisations.

Claimants for the return of other African objects in French public collections (estimated at more than 90,000) will discover the bill does not grant them identical rights. Future restitution claims would need to follow the same legislative process, requiring each object to be individually identified within a new and subsequent law.

“This means the process will be piecemeal and, inevitably, very slow,” explains Alexander Herman, IAL Assistant Director. “There would necessarily need to be the political will on the French side in each case and bilateral arrangements made at the international level.”

As removing any requirement for special laws lies at the heart of the Sarr-Savoy report, IAL’s analysis suggests the Conseil d’état are advising the French government to sideline one of the report's key recommendations. Instead of basing future procedures for restitution on ‘bilateral agreements of cultural cooperation’, they are advising the government dismiss the idea of joint commissions altogether.

“The idea that a series of international panels could effectively order restitutions without the requirement of a special law passed in each case is now seriously undermined,” explains Herman.

The question whether or not the Sarr-Savoy proposals were ever constitutionally sound under French law has concerned Herman for some time. “I think this latest review demonstrates that anything broader and less precise than the current bill would have serious constitutional problems”.

Whether the current bill passes or not, the French government is evidently not in a hurry to countenance further restitutions and appears content to bypass Sarr-Savoy's procedures.

Photo: Statues from the Royal Palace of Abomey, Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Paris,

Courtesy of flickr.com

After this was written.....

Two years after President Macron's landmark speech, the National Assembly of France accelerated their procedure to approve a draft Benin and Senegal bill in October 2020. The Senate voted unanimously to approve the bill on 4 November 2020, an act that will lead to the formal repatriation of the 27 objects to Benin and Senegal within one year.

Although welcomed, there's still nothing in this legislation that moves France closer to introducing a more general law covering other looted African objects in French national collections. While Culture Minister Roselyne Bachelot commented this "is not an act of repentance, but an act of friendship and trust", she also warned the bill in no way challenges the French principle of inalienability.

Meanwhile, Senators have called for the creation of a 'national council' to reflect on the circulation and return of non-European cultural objects, an initiative likely to meet further resistance from the Government's opposition.

COMMENT

Dr Kwame Opoku (05 August 2020)

See article in modernghana.com on this issue. France will have to pass a more generalized exception to the rule of inalienability if it does not want to spend the next years passing a new law for each African country for the 70,000 looted artefacts that are still in Musee du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac.

https://www.modernghana.com/news/1019889/france-moves-closer-to-restitution-of-artefacts.html

Historic repatriation of Oregon arts centre to Native Arts and Cultures Foundation

Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:34:00 GMT

In an unprecedented move to enact social change, Yale Union , a non-profit contemporary arts centre in Portland, Oregon, has announced that ownership of its building and the land it sits on will be transferred to the Native Arts and Cultures Foundation (NACF).

The initiative represents an historic act of repatriation to First Peoples of the United States of America.

“Having been able to fulfil our mission through the unearned privilege of property ownership,” explained Flint Jamison, Board President of Yale Union, “it’s now time that we hand over the keys!”

Yale Union building was constructed on a plot of land which is the traditional homeland of several Native American tribes and other Indigenous peoples. Discussions to repatriate the building began in mid-2018 when Yale Union’s then Executive Director, Yoko Ott, met with Flint Jamison to review the potential for an arts organisation to propose ‘models of restorative social change’.

Following a feasibility study conducted by the NACF , it was agreed the transfer of the land and the Yale Union building to the NACF would take place in 2021. At the same time, Yale Union will dissolve its non-profit.

“Together, the NACF board and staff believe that this free land and building transfer will set an example for recognizing the value of Native ownership of property in urban areas across the nation,” said NACF President/CEO Lulani Arquette.

NACF is a U.S. Native-led national organisation, committed to mobilising Native artists, culture bearers, communities, and leaders to influence positive social, cultural, and environmental change.

“The potential for local community and national partnerships around shared interests through Indigenous arts and cultures is wide open,” said Arquette. “We stand united with all to reclaim Native truth, engage anti-racism and address important issues we face today”.

The property will become the new national headquarters for NACF and will be called the Center for Native Arts and Cultures (CNAC). It will continue to be a site of contemporary artistic and cultural production for Indigenous artists and local partnerships within the city of Oregon.

Photo: Yale Union Building at 800 SE 10 ^th Avenue, Portland, Oregon

Courtesy of Native Arts and Cultures Foundation

New Restitution Guidelines - regional museums navigate a way forward

Tue, 07 Jul 2020 10:22:40 GMT

Although right now museums have more pressing issues than restitution, the cosy relationship between UK museums and their contested historic collections could be about to change.

Last February, the Institute of Art & Law (‘IAL’) was commissioned by Arts Council England to produce new guidelines ‘to support them in dealing confidently and proactively with all aspects of restitution’.

Museums in Britain currently follow the advice of the Museums & Galleries Commission, published some twenty years ago ( Restitution and Repatriation: Guidelines for good practice ) . Since then, funding for research and restitution guidelines developed elsewhere in Europe, especially those in France, Germany and the Netherlands, have accelerated the urgency of the debate and are nearer to capturing the zeitgeist of today’s museums sector.

Creating a new framework for returning contentious items won’t be easy. The clamour for museums to ‘decolonise’, compounded by public agitation with racist memorials and demands for returning colonial-era artefacts, are all bound to influence the shaping of IAL’s new framework.

But plenty of hazards lie ahead. The narrow window IAL have been given to complete their recommendations (due this autumn) - frustrated by the lockdown of museums and galleries - means there's been little time for wider consultation or lobbying within the museum community. There's been even less time to overcome the enormous legal complexities of restitution and to recommend a new legal pathway which meets the interests of different nations. So, in the absence of a legal solution, IAL will need to focus on guidelines that will help museums navigate their way through the inevitable moral and ethical hazards.

After studying the approaches adopted by some of the UK's regional and university (non-national) collections, I suggest they represent a useful starting point. Several have already shown an ability to negotiate a successful restitution with a national government or source community. During the lockdown, I reviewed the Collection Development Policies ('CDPs') of twenty-five of the UK's leading regional and national museums*. It revealed important lessons for IAL to recommend across the wider museums sector - including for our national collections.

Most UK museums follow a nationally agreed set of standards for deaccessioning and disposal, as well as for repatriation and restitution (Spectrum standards). Compliance with these standards is necessary to achieve Arts Council England Accreditation. Museums also comply with the advice of the Museums Association Code of Ethics and the Statutes of the International Council of Museums (ICOM).

However, on closer inspection of what museums publish in their Collection Development Policies, important departures do emerge. These departures project an approach that is altogether more constructive and respectful to requests received for restitution.

1. Greater transparency about the outcomes of strategic reviews

Some collections are more transparent than others about the likely or actual outcomes of strategic reviews. Every museum recognises the importance of adopting a 'strategic' approach to their collections (typically to ensure their long-term sustainability). However, a number of regional museums go further by acknowledging that restitution requests can lead to rationalisation and disposal. Publishing specific outcomes, undertaken in the past or in the future, go a long way to help claimants better understand the direction of a museum’s collection.

For example, the Horniman Museum & Gardens highlights a current review of its African collections ( ‘Rethinking Relationships and Building Trust around African Collections’ ), which in part involves an innovative dialogue with the local Nigerian diaspora. This review may lead in the future to the return or long-term loan of Benin objects from its collection of world cultures.

The Royal Albert Memorial Museum, Exeter CDP draws attention to a major ‘root and branch’ review it undertook between 2011 and 2013. This resulted in the Museum targeting several areas in their collections to prioritise, including:

'Items which are identified as being sacred by source communities and those which were acquired unethically during the time of British colonialism. Such items will be considered for repatriation to support the needs of the originating community where a return offers significant healing and reconciliation’.

The Museum’s success in 1995 managing the return of a Tasmanian necklace and bracelet that once belonged to Truganini, ‘the last full blood Aboriginal Tasmanian’, plus their return in April this year of Chief Crowfoot’s regalia to the Siksika Nation, must have played a major role in the fashioning of their future approach to restitution. Their willingness to entertain future repatriation requests from source communities is clear within their CDP.

2. Convening discussions in a respectful and sensitive manner

I detected a correlation between a museum’s willingness to convene restitution discussions in a respectful and sensitive manner and the claimant’s likely success in securing a positive outcome. National Museums, Liverpool, for example, commit to treat any requests for conceding title in objects or specimens with ‘respect and sensitivity’:

‘Every effort will be made to develop a positive relationship with the requesting party, allaying as far as possible any concerns about the future care of the material.’

The Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge (‘MAA’), goes further than other museum by volunteering a written commitment to encourage ‘collaborative scholarship and cultural exchange’:

‘In this context, the Museum advocates debate concerning contentious and complex issues; is committed to an open and responsive approach to questions around the future care, circulation and destinations of cultural property.’

MAA also acknowledges:

‘that some artefacts, in common with those in similar museums, were acquired in a manner that was not considered legitimate or appropriate at the time, or would not be considered legitimate or appropriate today. The Museum is supportive of research into the histories of the collections, and will engage with claimants and potential claimants in an open and respectful way.’

Reading through twenty-five CDPs, it became clear some of our regional museums consider it important enough to confirm in writing they are willing to adopt a respectful approach to restitution requests within their CDPs. Our national museums remain silent.

3. Defining the procedures and processes for restitution claims

A number of museums, including the RAMM, Exeter and the Birmingham Museums Trust, publish clear and transparent guidance about the procedures and processes they expect claimants to follow in cases of spoliation, return or repatriation. The RAMM even provides an indication how long this process might take before reaching a decision ( ‘Claimants should expect complex cases to take on average a year to process ’). The value of this approach to claimants is obvious.

Perhaps the most detailed guidance for claimants (which includes an appeals process) is provided by MAA, Cambridge. They address the important question of who should make the claim in the first place, recommending that claims for artefacts and specimens closely associated with communities of living descendants should only be made by:

‘recognised organisations, representing the descendants of the customary owners of the artefacts in question.’

The absence of institutional or community support to a restitution claim made to MAA in June 2017 for the return of a collection of four Gweagal spears from the Museum’s Cook-Sandwich Collection was a major reason why this claim failed.

To support future applications, the Museum's CDP advises that claimants should provide:

• Evidence of formal support from the relevant representative community organisations, or

• The support of government authorities, or an explicit statement why such support is inapplicable. Relevant national government are advised they may still make a claim for items ‘not closely associated with communities of living descendants’ if explicitly stating why community support is inapplicable

The Museum's CDP is also clear on the grounds it will consider a restitution request. In addition to taking account of the history of an object’s acquisition, they will also consider the secret and/or sacred nature of the object, its educational and public benefit, and any other relevant grounds. They state a readiness to determine whether the acquisition was legitimate; whether the objects were imported/exported illegally; if they were or may have been appropriated ‘in the aftermath of violence’; and if they were or may have been acquired:

‘under circumstances whereby owners were compelled to sell them, or from people who were demonstrably not legitimate owners’ .

Where a secure provenance is lacking, MAA states they will take advice from local or indigenous communities in order to consider the academic, cultural and public benefits of returning artefacts to a community or nation of origin. The Museum will not discount the possibility of recommending alternatives to permanent return, including:

‘in the case of collections, the return of a proportion of material alongside retention of sufficient numbers of artefacts to maintain displays dealing with the culture or region in question.’

These are all constructive, forward-thinking protocols. They are already being used by regional museums to negotiate restitution within a proactive, sensitive and respectful environment and they offer potential for rolling out to the wider museums sector. I hope they are taken on board when IAL deliver their recommendations to Arts Council England.

* Collections Reviewed

Horniman Museum & Gardens

Museum of Archaeology & Anthropology, Cambridge

Ashmolean Museum of Art & Archaeology

Pitt Rivers Museum

World Museum/National Museums, Liverpool

Amgueddfa Cymru National Museum Wales

Birmingham Museums & Art Gallery

Bolton Museum

Manchester Museum

Royal Albert Memorial Museum & Art Gallery, Exeter

National Army Museum

Natural History Museum, London

National Museums, Scotland

V&A

Royal Museums Greenwich

Science Museum Group

Bristol Museum & Art Gallery

National Museums Northern Ireland

British Museum

Royal Armouries Museum

Wallace Collection

Imperial War Museum

Leeds Museums & Galleries

Glasgow Museums

Museum of London

Photo: Seizing the Italian Relics, by George Cruikshank, 1815

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Social media giant announces policy shift to remove sale of cultural artefacts

Thu, 25 Jun 2020 12:21:27 GMT

Facebook and Instagram have finally yielded to pressure to remove all content on their platforms involving the exchange, sale or purchase of historical artefacts and looted antiquities.

This significant rule change follows determined advocacy by the Antiquities Trafficking and Heritage Anthropology Research (ATHAR) Project, together with two other internet crime watchdog organisations: CINTOC (Centre in Illicit Network and Organized Crime) and ACCO (Alliance to Counter Crime Online).

All three organisations have been monitoring the criminal trafficking activity in antiquities on Facebook for several years.

Facebook claim they've always had rules to prevent the sale of stolen artefacts. But Greg Mandel, public policy manager at Facebook, this week announced plans to go further. “We’ve been working to expand our rules, and starting today, we now prohibit the exchange, sale or purchase of all historical artefacts on Facebook and Instagram.”

The initiative has been welcomed by ATHAR , which must take most of the credit for drawing attention to the huge amount of criminal trafficking which has been growing on Facebook in recent years. In June 2019 ATHAR produced an extensive report which pointed to the presence of large-scale antiquities trafficking groups on Facebook. They gave specific recommendations how Facebook and other social media channels could stem antiquities trafficking on their platforms.

Katie Paul, co-director of the project said, “For years, Facebook has served as a massive outlet for antiquities looters and traffickers as they seek to feed material into a widening global network”. This week’s initiative, she believes, “demonstrates that they recognise this is an illegal and harmful activity that is occurring on their platform”.

So far, ATHAR claims it has identified over 120 Facebook groups and nearly two million members engaging on these platforms. Using coded language and encrypted apps to complete their transactions, both Facebook and Instagram are said to be used to locate buyers for thousands of stolen artefacts offered online each year. These include sculptures, burial artefacts, coins, mosaics and entire sarcophagi from Syria, Egypt and North Africa. Usually they're accompanied by images, sometimes even video footage showing the objects in the process of being unearthed by the looters.

Illustrating Facebook's historic ineffectiveness in monitoring the activities of looters and traffickers, groups have also been able to participate in tutorials about looting – real-time instructions on how to ‘excavate’ and distribute the looted artefacts.

Preventing the use of algorithms and micro-advertising on Facebook’s platforms to sell illicit antiquities won’t go all the way to remove this trade altogether. “A policy is only as good as its enforcement," added Katie Paul. But while other measures may still be necessary, it’s a step in the right direction and shows that organisations like ATHAR can be effective in the war against illicit trading of antiquities.

After this was written.....

In July 2020, a report published by the US non-profit RAND Corporation, which set out to explore the true scale of the illicit antiquities market and the network structure of its participants, concluded its size and structure is 'at odds with the conventional wisdom espoused by some journalists and researchers'. The RAND research suggests the market for looted antiquities is smaller, is more geographically dispersed and has more-fragmented supply chains than media accounts have typically indicated. The RAND report directly contradicts the evidence provided by ATHAR and suggests Facebook's change in policy may have been driven by inaccurate data.

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Christie’s removes looted antiquities from online auction

Mon, 15 Jun 2020 15:53:55 GMT

Christie’s is under a spotlight once again for attempting to sell four looted Greek and Roman antiquities in an online auction due to finish tomorrow. All four works have now been removed from sale.

The four antiquities were identified by Prof Christos Tsirogiannis, the same forensic archaeologist who alerted Christie’s to the tarnished history of a 1st cent A.D. Roman marble figure of Eros , centrepiece of an Antiquities sale held by Christie’s last December.

The Eros statue had passed through the hands of disgraced British antiquities dealer Robin Symes, who probably acquired it from two convicted Italian art traffickers, Giacomo Medici and Gianfranco Becchina. Tsirogiannis believes the Sicilian dealer Becchina is once again behind the illegal trafficking of the four objects offered in this latest Christie’s auction.

With official access to thousands of seized documents and images belonging to art traffickers provided to him during the early 2000s by Greek and Italian authorities, Tsirogiannis has been able to trace these four objects to Becchina’s archive of stolen antiquities.

Speaking to The Guardian , Tsirogiannis has said the Roman marble hare (Lot 49), dated to the 2nd-3rd century AD, was bought for 13,000 Italian lira from a looter called ‘Tullio’ in 1987. He’s also confident that a 2nd/3rd century AD bronze eagle (Lot 25) and an Attic red-figured amphora jar (pelike) dated to 430-420 BC (Lot 121) are also from the Becchina archive. A fourth item, an Attic black-figured band cup dated c.540-530 BC (Lot 113) resembles an image in the same archive and is likely to have been sourced from another convicted Italian trafficker in stolen antiquities, Raffaele Monticelli.

Tsirogiannis has an impressive track record tracking down looted artefacts, having identified over 1,000 stolen objects since 2007. He claims that Christie’s, along with other dealers and auction houses, are not doing enough research before putting items such as these up for sale. He insists sending images of these works to the Italian authorities would have revealed their history of trafficking.

Could this really work for all antiquities presented to auction houses for sale?

Given the growing number of antiquities passing through major global auction houses each year, the Italian authorities would be hard-stretched to keep pace with the volume. Which is why there’d be a greater chance of identifying looted artefacts if documentation now held by the authorities is made more widely available. In which case, there’d be no excuse if looted works were then offered for sale.

Meanwhile, there’s been alarming news of a steep rise in the number of illicit antiquities made available on the internet during the present coronavirus crisis.

ATHAR, the Antiquities Trafficking and Heritage Anthropology Research Project, which investigates and documents the trafficking of looted antiquities appearing online, has reported an uplift in the number of posts among Facebook groups that buy and sell looted antiquities. ATHAR’s team is currently monitoring more than 120 Facebook groups, mostly middlemen sharing information on sites in North Africa and the Middle East that have already been looted or are about to be looted. Looters are aware that archaeological sites are extremely vulnerable during a period of lock-down. They also know the internet provides them with a high level of anonymity for trafficking recently unearthed objects.

Acting on information provided by the BBC and ATHAR, Facebook removed 49 groups linked to the illicit antiquities trade last May.

The case for closer co-operation and sharing of information between police authorities, academics and the antiquities trade has never been greater.

Photo: Example of a 5 ^th cent Attic red-figured Pelike (detail) in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Uffizi director suggests religious art should be returned to churches

Thu, 04 Jun 2020 18:30:46 GMT

Eike Schmidt, director of Florence's Uffizi Gallery, is proposing an astonishing departure from accepted museum practice - returning religious works of art now held in museums and storerooms across Italy back to their original churches. Many have been held in museums since the end of World War II.

And he's not just talking about lesser works. He cites the specific case of the ‘Rucellai Madonna’ as the kind of work that should be returned.

The 'Rucellai Madonna' is a seminal 13th century gold-ground painting by the Sienese artist Duccio di Buoninsegna and is one of the major attractions in the Uffizi’s collection. Commissioned for the Laudesi Confraternity Chapel in the Florentine church of Santa Maria Novella in 1285, it was transferred to the Uffizi in 1948.

Speaking to The Art Newspaper , Schmidt said removing the painting from its original context takes away an essential part of its history and meaning. Viewing it in the context for which it was created is not just appropriate from an historical perspective, it can also connect the viewer with its spiritual significance.

His suggestion has been prompted, in part, by a reaction to the coronavirus crisis, but it's also part of a wider discussion underway at the Uffizi Gallery about returning more religious art to churches as a way of reaching out to wider audiences.

Well, there's an engaging idea! I suspect it will also resonate amongst the growing lobby who question the merits of de-contextualising cultural objects and who advocate selective repatriation.

After all, if it’s the right thing to return a medieval work of art to its original religious setting, why should other spiritually-significant items not be repatriated to the communities from where they were removed? And why should it not also apply to other culturally-significant objects stripped from their original buildings or location?

While it's noticeable that our smaller regional museums are leading the way by returning items to their original ‘context’, it's a great shame our larger museums continue to extol the merits of de-contextualising the heritage of objects in their collections. Their defence is to point out the advantages of offering new and different ways to engage with a particular heritage. A provocative argument that inflames rather than assuages the issues about context.

Interviewed in March 2019 for the Greek newspaper Ta Nea about the British Museum’s refusal to return sculptures removed from the Parthenon, the museum’s director Hartwig Fischer was completely unapologetic. “When you move cultural heritage into a museum, you move it out of context,” he said. “Yet that displacement is also a creative act”.

Few would agree with Fischer that stripping the Parthenon of its sculptures was a creative act, even though restoring them to their original location is equally unrealistic.

Fortunately for Schmidt, the Uffizi would face none of the legal constraints that prevent our national collections from returning contested items. As most of Italy’s churches are owned and maintained by the Fondo edifici di culto , a branch of the ministry of the interior, transferring any of the thousand or so religious works of art presently held in the storerooms of Italy’s state-owned Soprintendenze to another state body would be relatively straightforward.

But if Schmidt's idea does succeed, advocates for returning items to their original context will be hugely encouraged, our national museums will become more anxious.

Photo: Uffizi Gallery, Florence

Courtesy of publicdomainpictures.net

SWEDEN

nik@mailcal.net (nik barrow) — Mon, 18 May 2020 16:11:24 GMT

Sweden

Updated May 2024

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made by Sweden, together with other Swedish restitution news. Entries are updated regularly.

May 2024

Sweden's Ambassador to Nigeria has announced her government's intention to return thirty-nine Benin artefacts to Nigeria's National Commission for Museums and Monuments

The Guardian

June 2022

Nineteen years after making the initial request, a Maaso Kova ceremonial deer's head and 23 other artefacts from the Yaqui Nation in northern Mexico have been returned by Sweden's Museum of Ethnography

ArtDaily

June 2020

Nationalmuseum Sweden has recommended the return of a stolen painting by the School of Lucas Cranach the Elder to Muzeum Narodowe we Wroclawiu in Poland

Art Daily

February 2008

Lund University in southern Sweden returned the remains of two Aboriginals after the Swedish Government ordered the repatriation of all Aboriginal remains

Sydney Morning Herald

September 2004

Sweden's National Museum of Ethnography returns the remains of 15 Aboriginals to Australia after public opinion was infuriated after confirmation Swedish explorers had stolen them

NBC News

Faked artefacts: Exposing a damaging trend

Wed, 06 May 2020 16:39:54 GMT

Rarely do faked objects attract the same attention as genuine artefacts. But this week’s announcement by the British Museum of a large hoard of faked Middle Eastern antiquities, discovered by UK Border Force at Heathrow airport, confirms why it’s so important we expose this damaging trend in antiquities trafficking.

As greater numbers of new buyers with an appetite for genuine artefacts enter what is still a largely unregulated market, organised gangs and enterprising traders have been quick to exploit this growing demand with reproductions, duplicates and fakes.

The consignment which arrived at Heathrow in July 2019, on route from Bahrain to a private address in the UK, aroused the suspicions of a sharp-eyed Border Force officer. When two metal trunks were opened, a huge collection of ‘Mesopotamian’ clay tablets, figurines, cylinder seals and several ‘unusual’ animal-shaped pots was revealed, all carefully and individually packaged.

The British Museum was approached to examine photographs of some of these items, which they recognised were forgeries of no financial value.

The ‘cuneiform’ tablets appeared to represent almost a complete range of basic types known from ancient Mesopotamia: school texts, building inscriptions, administrative texts, a mathematical tablet and an inscribed amulet of a unique type excavated at the Assyrian capital of Nimrud. Although some of the inscriptions contained real signs and looked convincing, the rest comprised a jumble of signs, some invented, others upside-down, a complete mish-mash which made no sense when read.

‘It was as if the whole genre of ancient Mesopotamian writing was represented in one shipment,’ according to the Museum. ‘An entire collection ready for a single uninformed buyer’.

Experience of handling genuine artefacts provided the Museum’s curators with important clues to their authenticity, in particular, when they were manufactured. The size and thickness of the fake tablets failed to match originals in the Museum’s collection, a common error among forgers reproducing solely from photographs. Furthermore, the clay used for the fake objects was all of a similar type – impossible for objects that are meant to cover such a wide range of dates and functions. The clay had also been fired to a relatively high temperature, another sign the objects had been manufactured under controlled conditions in a modern workshop.

There’s nothing new about faking antiquities. As the Museum points out, the faking of tablets has been going on for over 200 years, even before cuneiform had been deciphered.

And neither is the problem unique to the Middle East. When a collection of Greek vases and sculptures was seized by the Carabinieri, Italy’s military police, in May 2018, on the grounds they’d been illegally excavated, other experts queried the authenticity of the objects and questioned their €900,000 valuation.

The greatest danger for both novice and experienced collector are sales made through online channels. These provide ideal shelter and anonymity for traders in fake antiquities. Without any provenance (a history which itself can be faked) or the opportunity for physical examination, it’s simply not possible to check whether or not an object is authentic. And unscrupulous traders know this.

With countries like Iraq clamping down more heavily on illicit excavation, looters are being outnumbered by modern-day forgers.

According to a Wall Street Journal investigation in 2017, the vast majority of antiquities now offered for sale on sites including WhatsApp, eBay, Amazon and Facebook, are either looted or fake. Other analysts have suggested this figure could be higher. In 2016, Syria's antiquities chief, Maamoun Abdulkarim said the percentage of faked antiquities recovered by anti-smuggling operations in Syria and Lebanon had risen from 30% in 2013 to closer to 70% three years later.

The Border Force’s recent vigilance ensures the British Museum’s hoard of faked Middle Eastern antiquities will never reach their intended destination. They’ll be used instead for teaching and training of Museum staff. But a lot more policing and vigilance will be necessary, online as well as on our borders, to ensure this damaging trade is halted - and before further collectors are duped.

Banner Photo: A selection of fake figurines

Researching provenance is key to British Museum’s battle against looters and traffickers

Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:38:59 GMT

It’s no surprise the British Museum’s Circulating Artefacts project has been greeted with such enthusiasm. It represents a major advance in the battle against the looting and sale of illicit antiquities.

Even before the service went ‘live’ online this month, some 47,000 Egyptian and Sudanese artefacts had been documented by the BM's team, about 10% of which have been identified as ‘problematic’ – in other words, illegally excavated or stolen.

The benefits when a dealer or collector signs up to the platform and submits an artefact for an appraisal (never a valuation) are self-evident. It helps ethical individuals to steer clear of tainted artefacts and law enforcement agencies to crack down harder on the trafficking of cultural property.

Documenting artefacts outside public collections lies at the core of the project’s mission. But the Museum’s academic team, led by Marcel Marée, Assistant Keeper in the Department of Egypt and Sudan, is aiming much higher.

Their principal goal, Marée told Returningheritage.com , is to research and reconstruct the provenances of artefacts submitted for their expert advice - whether by dealers, collectors, heritage professionals, law enforcement officers or members of the public. Not just their modern provenance, but also where and when the objects were found.

“There’s a lot of internal evidence contained in artefacts, in terms of style, inscriptions and so forth,” says Marée. And it’s precisely because so many Egyptian and Sudanese objects can, in principle, be attributed to specific archaeological sites, that this research is so important. Almost no objects in the trade have a documented archaeological provenance. That’s why Marée maintains there’s such a pressing need to recover and preserve this information before it’s lost forever.

“The longer an artefact has been in circulation," he says, "the less retrievable is any possible knowledge about the contexts from which the object has been torn".

Aren’t the existing art registers providing sufficient protection to sellers and collectors anxious to avoid trading in illicit artefacts? Marée suggests they’re not.

“Getting a certificate such as those supplied by the Art Loss Register only means that an object doesn’t appear in a database of objects that have been reported stolen,” he says. “Their value is limited in a marketplace where most illicit antiquities were looted straight from the ground”.

“We think in the 21st century it’s time collectors and sellers should have access to a tool that enables a much higher level of due diligence”. After all, as Marée points out, “most of them don’t have the knowledge or indeed the objectivity to assess whether an artefact may be unfit for purchase or sale”.

As well as providing essential expert advice, free of charge, the CircArt platform also aims to help make the antiquities market a fairer and safer place. They aren't against the trade, but they do want to do more to address the problems of looting and trafficking, which they feel the trade has failed to tackle to any significant extent.

For this to happen, they're implementing a ‘multi-pronged’ approach. This entails greater monitoring of the trade, equal involvement of all relevant parties, and training and support to key organisations within the countries affected by looting.

Vast numbers of illicit artefacts are presently freely circulating in the marketplace and Marée and his team believe there’s a widespread denial and ignorance about the scale of this problem. Some dealers will avoid illicit material when they become aware of it, others will choose to turn a blind eye and pretend they’re acting in good faith. A small number are prepared to go even further, knowingly trading in artefacts with forged documentation. Last October, for example, we reported the return by New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art of the Ptolemaic-period coffin of Nedjemankh , after they discovered it had been smuggled out of Egypt in 2011, despite holding documents that appeared to confirm its legal export.

“This platform can rally together everyone who recognises that by sharing knowledge and data, rather than just demonising each other, we can achieve a safer situation,” insists Marée. “Not just to relevant stakeholders, but also in preserving our shared cultural heritage”.

Marée says he' s encouraged by the number of dealers and collectors already supporting the initiative. However, he expects that many others who’ve yet to engage with the platform will also come to recognise its benefits. As well as raising awareness about the financial and reputational risks attached to objects, sellers who consult regularly with CircArt will be listed by the team on its website, a move they hope will encourage peer pressure among sellers. Objects checked will also be assigned a CircArt number.

Drawing on powerful software to help research complex data, the team has already begun to identify suspicious patterns in the types of objects that appear in the trade - in the journeys they make and in their purported provenances. More often than not, suspicious objects can be traced to archaeological sites where looting is endemic.

The platform’s data can also show when certain individuals are repeatedly linked to objects from the same site. That’s the point where serious cases are reported to the relevant law enforcement agencies, as well as to the local heritage professionals charged with safeguarding ancient sites.

Over the two years since the project was launched, the number of sources from which the team gathers its data has grown considerably. Initially, their focus rested on sales published online and in print. But this year, the team is widening its attention to illegal activities on social media. Many looters and traffickers advertise freshly excavated objects; they are also prepared to advertise the monuments they are willing to loot ‘to order’. CircArt has discovered several videos featuring objects that have since appeared in art galleries and museums.

“The project is still young and the amount of material that’s out there may seem overwhelming,” a confident Marée tells us. “But the success we’ve had already – making reliable determinations, based on a thorough analysis of data – is considerable. This is only the tip of the iceberg. It will get better all the time”.

Circulating Artefacts is a British Museum project funded by a grant from the British Council’s ‘Cultural Protection Fund’. Visit here for more information.

After this was written.....

Amid accusations from one member of the art trade that CircArt "died at birth through a mixture of naivety, tunnel vision and breach of trust", the Circulating Artefacts project came to an end in February 2021. A spokesperson for the British Museum confirmed no formal agreement between the Museum and representatives of the art trade had ever been reached. However, they insist many dealers are continuing to reach out and share information about items in confidence with the Museum. "We keep working to establish a higher benchmark," the spokesperson told ReturningHeritage , "we want to keep building our knowledge-based system".

Banner Photo: Relief of King Seti I, on the London art market in 2014, shortly after illegal excavation at Asyut in Middle Egypt. It has now been returned to Egypt.

Exeter City Council agrees the return of Chief Crowfoot’s regalia to the Siksika Nation

Wed, 08 Apr 2020 14:52:27 GMT

After assurances from the Siksika Tribal Council about the future ownership and long-term preservation of regalia that once belonged to Chief Crowfoot, an important late 19th century Blackfoot leader, Exeter City Council finally voted yesterday to repatriate this regalia to the Siksika Nation in southern Alberta.

Repatriation discussions are often multifaceted. But Exeter’s Royal Albert Memorial Museum (RAMM) and City Council have shown an exemplary skill in due diligence and judgement while navigating a sensitive appeal for repatriation.

There were some earlier this year who felt the Museum was dragging its feet and were resisting the regalia’s return. But this concern has proven to be unwarranted.

The entire process has taken five years. It was 2015 when the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park made their first request for the repatriation of the ‘Crowfoot regalia’. But matters accelerated in January this year after the Exeter Museum decided to act on concerns they had about returning the regalia to the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park, a museum that's never been accredited with the Canadian Museums Association.

The RAMM switched their focus onto Chief Ouray Crowfoot, the current Chief at Siksika Nation. The Exeter Museum felt the Siksika Nation could provide the clarification necessary about the regalia's longer-term care and preservation before agreeing its future ownership and destination.

Those conditions have now been met. As a result, Chief Crowfoot confirmed to the RAMM that the Siksika Tribal Council will take future ownership of the regalia, while the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park will become ‘care takers’, displaying the objects on the basis of a long-term loan.

The success of this initiative by the RAMM has cleared the way for Exeter City Council’s Executive Committee to address the issue of repatriation three months earlier than expected.

“When considering the claim for repatriation, the council recognised that the original injustices still reverberate today with First Nation Canadians,” explained Cllr Rachel Sutton, Exeter Council’s Portfolio Holder for Climate and Culture. “Giving back Crowfoot’s regalia returns control to the Siksika Nation over their cultural identity, dignity and authority and is the right thing to do.”

The ‘Crowfoot regalia’, comprising Chief Crowfoot’s buckskin shirt, a pair of leggings, a knife with feather bundle, two beaded bags and a horsewhip, was acquired directly from Chief Crowfoot by Cecil Denny. Denny was a signatory to the signing of Treaty 7 in Alberta (September 1877), an act which all parties believed would help protect Blackfoot lands and their traditional ways of life.

The regalia was first loaned to the RAMM by Denny’s sister in 1878, before being purchased by the Museum in 1904.

As a result of a persistent failure by Canadian administrations to honour the terms of Treaty 7, the Blackfoot people have suffered both economically and socially. It is hoped that repatriation of the Crowfoot regalia to its true owners will help educate a wider number of people about their significance in terms of global history.

“The returning of this regalia will contribute to healing and reconciliation,” added Chief Crowfoot. “The Great Chief’s spirit can rest easy once all his belongings are gathered from the four corners of Mother Earth and returned back to his home".

An official ceremony to hand over the regalia will take place in Exeter after COVID-19 restrictions have been lifted.

Photo: The Royal Albert Memorial Museum, Exeter

COMMENT
Julia Dover (08 August 2020)

The wealth of knowledge, detail and sheer storytelling power of your website amazes. As global awareness of the issues around restitution and decolonisation arises, you offer a singularly important platform. I would also suggest your timing is brilliant.

I learned of your website through your article on the return of Chief Crowfoot's belongings.

Events surrounding the return have been covered differently in the British and Canadian press. In addition, I see the (delayed) handover of Crowfoot's belongings, with its rituals and symbolic potency (indeed, such ceremonies in general) as an opportunity in itself to balance the nature of the relationships, as well as to seed positive, creative new conversations in Britain about her own identity. Restitution of objects is not just about making amends with formerly colonised peoples; it's also about addressing shadows closer to home that call for their own healing.

Horniman Museum rethinks its African relationships through a social lens

Thu, 02 Apr 2020 09:20:27 GMT

A fresh set of eyes has brought an exciting new perspective and way of thinking about restitution to London’s Horniman Museum and Gardens.

When Nick Merriman arrived as Director at the Horniman in May 2018 he wanted to create a project which moved thinking beyond a focus on returning objects and more towards building long-term relationships between collections and source communities.

“This is a project about re-thinking relationships,” he explained during a telephone interview with Returningheritage.com , “after which the question about returning objects will become easier to answer”.

Residing alongside the Museum’s ‘colonial’ collection, one of international significance that includes 50 objects believed looted during the military invasion of Benin City in 1897, is a large Nigerian diaspora living close to the Museum in Forest Hill. Merriman decided their voice should help determine the future of the Museum’s Benin collection.

“Usually, the debate around restitution and all things that go with it has been between one country or one institution and another in the UK. But we felt there was an important voice missing in all of this, which is the opinions of those diaspora communities living in the UK.”

The Museum's readiness to consult with local communities on contested objects is in marked contrast to the stance adopted by the larger national collections, whose ability to listen and respond to the voice of source communities is restricted by legal constraints.

If consultation with the Nigerian diaspora ultimately leads to a decision to return some or all of the Museum's Benin objects, there remains an intriguing prospect of similar conversations with diaspora communities around the UK helping other ‘regional’ collections chart their own path through the restitution maze.

Africa and, in particular, the different colonial histories of Kenya and Nigeria, is centre stage in the Horniman’s review, which follows growing public interest in looted Benin items outside Nigeria*. Pressure on museums to return items looted following the sacking of Benin City in February 1897, has been relentless. For Merriman, recent announcements such as Jesus College, Cambridge's decision to return a Bronze Cockerel to the Court of Benin, confirm his view that a groundswell of opinion is now ready to look at the issue of restitution through a “social lens”.

The local community was last consulted about these objects more than twenty years ago, when it was felt the Museum’s Benin material should remain on display in London. This new project will check whether that view is still valid or whether local views have changed.

Discussions with the local diaspora were being organised before the Coronavirus overtook all the Museum's activities, leading to the temporary closure of its collections and the suspension of all scheduled project conversations.

Meanwhile, members of the Benin Dialogue Group, the consortium of western museums holding Benin material which is helping to establish a permanent display of Benin artefacts in Benin City, will be keeping a close eye on developments as they unfold. Officially, the Horniman only has ‘observer’ status on this Group.

Any decision by the Museum's trustees to return their Benin objects to Nigeria on a permanent basis would contrast strongly with the Benin Dialogue Group’s current position, which involves a rolling programme of loans.

“I don’t think there’s any necessary incompatibility between what they’re doing and what we’re doing,” insists Merriman. “We haven’t decided to do anything yet. It could be the answer is simply that we would participate in the rolling programme of loans”.

Nevertheless, the Museum’s trustees are keeping an open mind. “Absolutely nothing is ruled out at the moment”, says Merriman.

“Our trustees are mindful they are independent of other bodies and will take their own view, taking into account what I think the implications are for other organisations if a large-scale restitution did happen.”

* ‘Rethinking Relationships and Building Trust around African Collections’ is a partnership project with The Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford, The Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge and The World Museum, Liverpool

Photo: World Gallery at the Horniman Museum and Gardens

Courtesy of The Horniman Museum and Gardens

COMMENT

Richard Fitzwilliams (02 April '20)

This is a fascinating post and the Museum's outlook is very much in tune with the times. To consult the local Nigerian diaspora about the future of these objects is an extremely imaginative example of how sensitive issues linked to restitution can be handled.

German museum refuses to address restitution claims

Tue, 24 Mar 2020 12:19:33 GMT

Can restrictions on disposals from a private foundation override best restitution practice adopted by the state? In Germany, apparently the answer is ‘yes’.

The Georg Schäfer Museum in Schweinfurt, northern Bavaria, which opened in 2000 to display the private collection of German industrialist Georg Schäfer (1896-1975), insists they are not subject to the internationally endorsed 1998 Washington Principles for returning looted art.

The provenance researcher recruited three years ago to examine the history of works in the Schäfer collection and who left the Museum in January believes they are wrong.

Speaking to the NYT News Service , Sibylle Ehringhaus says she left because the Museum is refusing to address appeals by the heirs of Jewish collectors on 20 or so looted paintings, whose appeals she believes are justified. Denied access to several historical documents she considered essential to her research, she has also been forbidden to contact other museums with research enquiries.

“They needed me for appearances,” she says. “I felt as though I was being used as a fig leaf”.

The Museum, which maintains the collection was acquired legally and in good faith, insists the German Government and not the Museum is responsible for resolving appeals and for compensating works restituted from private collections.

Schäfer amassed almost one thousand, mainly 19th century paintings by German-speaking artists, from Munich-based dealers during the 1950s. Munich was then a hotbed of dealers who'd profited from commercial relations with the Nazi regime.

The ownership structure of the collection is unusual. The paintings themselves are owned by a private foundation (The Georg Schäfer Foundation), which has strict rules banning the sale of assets. To deaccession any work from the collection, the Foundation argues, would be a breach of their legal responsibilities.

The works are on loan to the Museum, which itself is located in a building owned by the state of Bavaria and run by the city of Schweinfurt.

Under this form of structure neither the federal government nor the state of Bavaria has any power to force the Museum to deaccession or settle claims for restitution.

The German Government, criticised over many years for its failure to assist the heirs of Jewish collectors seeking to recover works looted by the Nazis, is beginning to make up for lost time. Only recently, the state-funded German Lost Art Foundation established a Help Desk to help claimants recover their family’s looted assets.

Monika Grütters, Germany’s culture minister, made it clear at a conference in 2018 that responsibility for compensating the heirs of victims of Nazi looting should not rest with the state alone. “We can and should expect much more engagement by private art collectors and the art trade".

However, her statement continues to carry little weight with the Georg Schäfer Museum. Neither is she receiving any support from the state of Bavaria, whose own culture minister confirmed “there are no legal means to exert influence over The Georg Schäfer Foundation in terms of implementing the Washington Principles”.

In a further indication that a long road lies ahead, the mayor of Schweinfurt came out with a robust criticism of Ehringhaus and her role as provenance researcher, saying “Political moralizing is not her job. Her job was to research the history of the artworks”.

Photo: The Georg Schäfer Museum, Schweinfurt, northern Bavaria

Courtesy of commons.wikimedia.org

Metal detectorists ensure Treasure finds in 2019 hit another record level

Wed, 18 Mar 2020 18:21:44 GMT

Just days before the British Museum closed its doors for an indefinite period of time, the Museum announced a further record year of Treasure finds.

Members of the public using metal-detectors were responsible for discovering almost 90% of the 81,600 archaeological items recorded in 2019 with the British Museum’s Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS). The county of Norfolk yielded up the largest number of finds, followed by Suffolk and Hampshire.

Of this number 1,311 were classified as ‘Treasure finds’. Treasure is generally defined as gold and silver objects that are over 300 years old, or groups of coins and prehistoric metalwork.

If the experience of recent years continues, it’s very likely that almost half of these finds will end up enriching UK national or local museum collections. According to PAS's 2017 Annual Report more than 30% of the 1,266 Treasure finds made in 2017 ended up in local museums. A further 10% were acquired through donations.

Stand out finds from the 2019 discoveries include a pure gold Bronze Age arm ring from St Bees, Cumbria, of a type found in County Donegal and Buckinghamshire (below). Weighing a substantial 300g of pure gold, the arm ring is decorated with shallow punched dots around most of the outer ring. Right now, it’s unclear whether this well-worn ring is of the Irish or British type, but it hints at the wealth and long-distance connections of its 8th century owner.

Another extraordinary object, one of several of recent Treasure finds that will go on display when the British Museum re-opens, is a wooden bucket with two unusual handle fittings. The 2,000-year-old bucket was discovered in a large grave hoard discovered at Lenham in Kent. Part of a drinking set, the bucket came from a high-status cremation grave dating to the mid-1st century BC.

The bucket’s two handle fittings are engagingly humanoid, different in detail but each with distinctive eyes, prominent nose, pronounced chins and swept back hair.

Responsibility for recording these two objects, together with the thousands of other archaeological objects discovered in the UK each year, falls to the 100 or so Finds Liaison Officers who work for the PAS and who are managed by the British Museum and Amgueddfa Cymru (National Museum Wales).

Finders of potential Treasure are obliged under the Treasure Act 1996 to report their finds to the district’s local coroner. A national or local museum is then entitled to acquire these Treasure finds and the finder is entitled to a reward. PAS administration is undertaken at the British Museum.

It’s this extraordinary level of collaboration between members of the public and PAS heritage officers that extends our understanding and appreciation of the UK’s cultural heritage.

Photos:

Header: A copper alloy fitting from a bucket, from Lenham Kent. Iron Age c. 50 BC

Featured: A gold arm ring from Cumbria, Bronze Age c. 900-700 BC

Restitution looms heavy on collectors’ minds

Mon, 02 Mar 2020 17:46:34 GMT

Growing calls for looted African art to be returned are making an impact on private collecting patterns, according to the latest ‘State of the African Art’ collector survey.

Conducted for the online magazine ÌMÒ DÁRA, which connects African art collectors with dealers and academics, the survey is based on feedback from 250 collectors, 19% of whom said they've paused their collecting of historical African art because of the current restitution debate. An even greater number - 35% - consider the potential impact of restitution each time they make a purchasing decision.

“I plan to continue collecting,” said one respondent, “although restitution looms heavy on my mind”.

The third edition of this annual survey, designed to shine a light on collecting patterns for historical and contemporary African art, covers a much wider ground than just historical items from the colonial era. Contemporary African art has become a major growth sector for galleries and art collectors in the last few years and prices for some contemporary artists have been sky rocketing. As a result, buying patterns in the contemporary sector form a large part of this survey.

But in the historical sector, the feedback from collectors, gathered from 31 different countries, reveals a market in a state of flux - certainly with potential for further growth, but also with plenty of reasons why buyers of historical works are growing cautious.

Even though most collectors don't feel their works are ever likely to be the subject of a future restitution claim, collecting any item tainted with a colonial past is attracting caution, There are other pressing concerns as well, including a question mark about the extent of real knowledge of African artefacts among dealers, the excessive number of copies now circulating in the marketplace and the declining importance collectors attach to an item's provenance before making a purchase.

The survey also reveals that the overall number of collectors in the historical, as opposed to the contemporary African art sector, is declining. Fewer young people than before appear to be interested in collecting African ethnographic art. The survey suggests this is because the older generation “has sold out and is dying out” Younger buyers are more engaged with contemporary African art and the communities from where their art is made.

The survey doesn’t make happy reading for dealers.

Immediately after the Sarr-Savoy report was published recommending the repatriation of large swathes of France's African legacy (November 2018), dealers were optimistic about future trends in collecting African art. However, the views of collectors don't appear to align with this optimism.

Although 70% of private collectors said they continue to rely on dealers and galleries for making purchases - most believe buying from a dealer is still safer than buying from an auction house - 76% of respondents believe dealer prices have grown too high. Their shortage of real expertise is also criticised, leading to a wider circulation of copies and fakes. Manipulation and changing the appearance of objects before resale is another concern among collectors, along with a frustration at dealers who impugn the authenticity of items held by other dealers.

Such behaviour is not considered good for a healthy trading market in African art. But then neither is it new.

As in other sectors, online auctions and social media are grabbing a growing share of sales (61%), although online sales of African art, like antiquities, are especially prone to shady provenances.

Why do people still collect historical African art? Aesthetics appear to override context. The survey reveals that most collectors prioritise artwork quality (74%) ahead of authenticity (33%). And only 28% of all survey respondents cited provenance as the most important factor before making a purchase, although it seems the importance of provenance is still greater among older collectors and those with deeper pockets.

Explaining why he believes provenance is the “illness of the art market”, a Swiss private collector added, “because most so-called ‘experts’ have no clue at all about the subject”.

As the subject of restitution preys on the minds of a growing number of private collectors, we shall continue to monitor where a market, already cautious about provenance and authenticity, is heading in the future.

2020 State of the African Art Market: Voice of the Collector

Published February 2020

Photo: A Baule statue, 20th cent

Courtesy of Private Collection

MEXICO

nik@mailcal.net (nik barrow) — Mon, 02 Mar 2020 15:40:05 GMT

Mexico

Updated April 2026

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made by Mexico to a country or community of source, together with other restitution news.

Entries are updated regularly

April 2026

Mexico's Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Foreign Affairs have overseen the return of 160 artefacts to the National Institute of Anthropology and History

ArtDaily

January 2025

Through collaborative efforts, Mexico's diplomatic representations have secured the repatriation of 399 cultural artefacts from France and North America

gob.mx

January 2025

An indigenous Mexican nation, the Nahnu people of Hidalgo, has written to France's National Assembly seeking the return of a centuries-old codex

lemonde.fr

September 2024

Mexico's culture minister reported the country recovered 14,048 objects of Mexico's cultural heritage during President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's six-year term in office

Mexico News

March 2023

Mexican authorities claim 83 artefacts scheduled for sale in Paris on 3 April are protected under Mexico's cultural heritage laws and must be withdrawn from sale

The Art Newspaper

November 2022

Mexico's office of the Association for the Reparation of Colonialism calls for the definitive return of objects looted during the Colonial period in Mexico and other countries

Plenglish.com

September 2022

At MONDIACULT 2022, one hundred and fifty states adopt an ambitious Declaration for Culture at a UNESCO conference in Mexico City affirming culture is a "global public good"

UNESCO

March 2022

While 'Moctezuma's headdress' may be too fragile to move, Mexico warns Austria they seek the return of other cultural artefacts removed during the colonial period

Courthouse News Service

February 2022

Mexico is ramping up its efforts to repatriate its lost Pre-Columbian heritage and to halt auction sales of these objects altogether

Artnet News

October 2021

Mexico's heritage is 'not for sale' insists Mexico's Culture Minister

ArtDaily

October 2021

Mexico's embassy in Paris asks two auction houses planning sales of Aztec, Mixteca, Colima and Olmec antiquities to cancel sales planned for November

ArtDaily

September 2021

Mexico's President announces the country is to form special crime unit to locate and repatriate looted artworks and antiquities

The Art Newspaper

September 2021

The Mexican government has recovered from the USA historic manuscripts, including documents stolen from the national archives during a period of "wholesale pillaging"

The Art Newspaper

April 2021

The Mexican government returns a stolen Ile-Ife statue to Nigeria

Legit

March 2020

'Looted' Nigerian bronze Yoruba sculpture, returned to Nigeria after being seized at Mexico City airport, is a fake of the 'worst quality'

The Art Newspaper

Restitution should start at home?

Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:35:13 GMT

If the United Kingdom is really serious about 'levelling up', it’s time we started returning Britain’s own home-grown treasures to the regional museums nearer to where they were discovered. That's what author and Middle East historian James Barr argues in today’s edition of UnHerd, the online platform for new and bold thinking,

That means relocating King Raedwald’s Anglo-Saxon warrior helmet, now the centrepiece of the British Museum’s exhibition about the Sutton Hoo discovery, to Tranmer House, next to the King’s original royal burial site in Suffolk.

Or returning the Lindisfarne and St Cuthbert Gospels back to Northumbria, where they could be displayed together at the Bede Museum in Jarrow.

The tide may be turning, according to Barr in his uncompromising article, Forget the Marbles – give the North East its treasures back . He points to the successful crowd-funder campaign launched by the Birmingham Museum and the Potteries Museum, Stoke, which enabled two regional collections to step ahead of the British Museum and acquire the incomparable Staffordshire Hoard, the largest hoard of Anglo-Saxon gold ever found in Britain.

Of course, the British Museum can find plenty of valid reasons not to return the treasures in its collection, representing different epochs across Britain’s regions. For example, Mrs Edith Pretty, the estate owner where the Sutton Hoo ship burial was discovered, chose to donate the entire find to the British Museum. Why shouldn’t the Museum continue to honour her wishes? There’ll be security considerations, environmental and conservation factors as well. And of course, there’s the British Museum Act, which prevents deaccessioning from the nation’s collection.

But the Act doesn’t prevent loans. Neither does it prevent the establishment of regional outposts. Just think of the economic and cultural benefits to our regions if the trustees of the British Museum were to follow the example of trustees at the Tate, who’ve successfully diversified their permanent collection outside London to Liverpool and St Ives.

Regional museums are not without their challenges and financial sustainability is probably their greatest challenge.

But James Barr makes a powerful case. If Britain is intent on de-centralising resources and powers out of London, then reversing Britain’s 200-year-old policy of concentrating all our national treasures within a few square miles of London makes perfect sense.

It will certainly give those living outside London more reasons to visit their local collections and may help drive more overseas tourists to a wider number of destinations, stimulating more local economies.

Photo: Reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo helmet, circa. 625 AD

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

COMMENT

Richard Fitzwilliams (18 April '20)

In theory this sounds excellent. In practice it begs the questions, where would they be placed as you say but also who would see them? Short loans, perhaps periodic loans but certainly not permanent loans surely?

Ashmolean is open to the repatriation of an Indian statue believed stolen

Sun, 23 Feb 2020 17:54:50 GMT

Once alerted to the news that a 16th century Indian bronze statue in their collection may have been looted, the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford has wasted no time investigating the statue’s true provenance.

If the statue is found to have been looted, a spokeswoman for the Museum has confirmed they are open to convening discussions with the Indian High Commission about possible repatriation to India.

In November 2019, an independent scholar researching in the photo archives of the IFP-EFEO ( Institut Français de Pondichery and the Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient ) discovered an image of what they understand to be the exact same bronze statue of Saint Tirumankai Alvar in situ within the temple of Shri Soundarrajaperumal Kovil in Tamil Nadu. The image apparently dates to 1957.

The Ashmolean acquired this 16th century bronze statue, about 60cm in height, in good faith ten years later at an auction held in 1967 by Sotheby’s of Indian and Southeast Asian art. The catalogue states it came from the collection of Dr J R Belmont (1886-1981), described by Sotheby’s as a ‘visionary European collector’ who amassed one of the pre-eminent collections of Indian sculpture and miniature paintings in Europe in the 1950s. There is no indication how the bronze statue entered his collection. Works of art from the Belmont collection continue to turn up in major auctions of Indian and Southeast Asian works of art.

It now seems there are grounds for undertaking a closer investigation of how this bronze, along with other Indian sculptures sold in Europe and the Unites States since the 1960s, came to leave India. The same independent scholar who is querying the Ashmolean’s statue has identified several other Indian bronzes in the IFP-EFEO photo archive now held in major collections across Europe and the United States. How many of these may also have been looted?

Although there was no claim against the object, the Museum contacted the Indian High Commission on 16 December 2019 asking for India's co-operation in researching any police records of temple looting in order to establish the statue’s true provenance. The Commission replied a few days later saying they had forwarded the matter to the Indian authorities. They also expressed their appreciation for the Museum's proactive approach.

We understand the Indian High Commission is convinced the Ashmolean’s statue is the 16th century original, looted from the temple at Tamil Nadu in the late '50s or early '60s and replaced with a fake. A formal claim for restitution may not be long in coming.

After this was written.....

A formal claim from the Indian High Commissioner for the bronze's repatriation was received by the Museum on 3 March 2020. A visit to India to complete 'due-diligence' on the statue by a member of the Ashmolean's team was delayed by the pandemic. However, in July 2022 the Museum's Curator of Indian Art finally met with police officers from the Idol Wing, as well as senior officials of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and other parties. ASI officials asked the Museum to carry out a metal analysis of the bronze, which after submitted to the ASI, will in turn enable the ASI to complete a final report on the statue and its known provenance. The Ashmolean has completed their metal analysis and is currently awaiting this final report, after which the claim will be submitted to the Museum's Board of Visitors (trustees). Under the University's 'Procedures for the Return of Cultural Objects', the final decision on the repatriation of any object resides with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford.

Photo: A 16th century bronze statue of Saint Tirumankai Alvar

Courtesy of Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford

No place for politics in restitution

Thu, 20 Feb 2020 21:54:09 GMT

There’s a mischievous story going around claiming the EU is about to demand the return of the Parthenon Marbles as a condition for a UK trade agreement.

A single line in a draft negotiating mandate from the EU regarding Great Britain's relationship to the EU post-Brexit calls for both sides to ‘address issues relating to the return or restitution of unlawfully removed cultural objects to their countries of origin’.

That means returning the Marbles, goes the story; more like throwing a “dead cat” on the table, according to an unnamed senior EU source.

The British Museum’s Director, Hartwig Fischer, was drafted in by Radio 4 to defend the BM’s unbending position on the nation’s ownership of the Marbles. He repeated the familiar mantra: the 'Elgin' Marbles were acquired legally; a loan to Greece is impossible because only their permanent return will satisfy the Greek government; the Marbles held by the BM represent a huge public benefit as part of the Museum’s worldwide collection.

The truth behind this story is in danger of getting buried by political posturing.

Both the British and Greek Governments are officially denying that ownership of the Marbles is linked to Brexit negotiations. But it's not unlikely the EU is using this document to remind the UK, before it goes forth on its new global agenda, to honour its obligations to participate with EU-wide initiatives designed to halt the alarming increase in trafficking of cultural artefacts, in particular from countries torn apart by war.

Last June, the European Parliament introduced their Regulation on the Introduction and the Import of Cultural Goods (Regulation (EU) 2019/880), an important set of new measures - not without controversy - designed to control the import into member states of certain items of cultural property from outside the EU (it doesn’t apply to cultural property made inside the EU). Applying across all 28 EU member states, the Regulation came into force when the UK was still a full member of the EU. It therefore automatically became part of the UK legal system. Its obligations continue - regardless of Brexit and the UK’s departure from the EU at the end of this year.

Why is it so important the UK continues to comply with this EU Regulation? Because if it doesn't, there's a real danger traffickers could exploit the UK as a haven for trading illicit art and artefacts brought in from outside the EU’s boundaries.

Politics and restitution do not make comfortable bedfellows. Linking a demand for restitution to a political cause is fraught with danger. It opens the door to political abuse and damages the cause of legitimate claims; it would create a dangerous precedent with unimaginable consequences for nation states and other European museums.

The EU and Greece in particular know better than to stir up the politics of returning the Marbles. Other EU members states may feel they too have much to lose if they press their case with the United Kingdom.

Under the British Museum Act 1963, the Marbles belong to the British nation. Their ownership cannot change unless an amendment to that effect is passed in the British Parliament or the Act is revoked altogether. At present, neither seems likely and the EU and Greece know that only too well.

Perhaps only a brand new international law, covering cultural goods removed illicitly or looted in circumstances of war before 1970, is likely to lead to any change in the ownership of the Marbles - unless the British Museum has a change of heart regarding loaning the sculptures to Athens.

However, there’s no sign of any new international law on the horizon and the EU would know that better than anyone in Downing Street.

Photo: The Parthenon, Athens

Courtesy of Anna Oikonomou

Devon museum is correct to prioritise issues of ownership and future preservation

Mon, 03 Feb 2020 14:47:26 GMT

Is a Devon museum’s refusal to repatriate Native American regalia an unnecessary procrastination or a responsible act to ensure the longer-term care and preservation of the regalia?

The first formal request made to Exeter's Royal Albert Memorial Museum (‘RAMM’) to return a number of items once owned by Chief Crowfoot of the Blackfoot Nations was made five years ago (2015) by the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park (‘BCHP’), a Blackfoot-run cultural heritage and visitor centre in southern Alberta. The site marks the location where Treaty No.7, an historic agreement signed between the government of Canada and the Plains First Nations, was made in 1877.

The Museum is being criticised for dragging its feet. However, the BCHP has so far failed to satisfy the RAMM about the environmental and structural conditions required by the RAMM before agreeing any restitution. As a result, the Museum is currently resisting their return to Canada.

But the Museum is not rejecting the appeal altogether.

Along with the University of Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, the RAMM has been researching Blackfoot collections in the UK since 2013 and has been advancing our understanding and interpretation of these Native American cultural artefacts. The Museum purchased their items in 1904 from Cecil Denny, who'd been a signatory to the Treaty No. 7.

The RAMM is not against repatriation. Unlike other collections, they already operate a clear and responsible restitution policy. Before considering the return of any item from their collection, they must receive assurances from the claimant about future ownership and the environmental conditions for long-term care and preservation.

The Museum's commitment to stand by this policy led to the successful restitution in 1995 of a necklace and bracelet belonging to the Aboriginal Tasmanian, Truganini.

So far, the Museum do not feel they’ve been given these assurances and, as a result, they don't feel able to recommend to Exeter City Council’s Executive Committee the return of Crowfoot’s regalia - yet.

A major sticking point is future ownership. The Museum says they are keen to ‘minimise the risk of competing or conflicting claims for the same material’, so they’ve written to the Siksika Tribal Council, elected representatives of the Siksika nation, for clarification who exactly will take ownership of the items in the future. Will it rest with the BCHP, which has not been accredited with the Canadian Museums Association, or with the Siksika Tribal Council?

Another sticking point is conditions for their longer-term preservation and care. It’s hard for many indigenous communities to satisfy the environmental standards set by many western collections. New curatorial programmes are going a long way to overcome these obstacles, but for many smaller communities these obstacles still lie beyond their reach.

Other restitution appeals have floundered on the same grounds. In June 2017 the University of Cambridge rejected a request to return four spears from the Cook-Sandwich Collection to the Gweagal People. Inadequate conditions for the housing and care of these spears, along with uncertain community support for their repatriation were two of the principal reasons the University gave for rejecting the appeal.

The RAMM has written to the Siksika Council to make clear they will put this request to return the 'Crowfoot regalia' before the ECC Executive Committee in June this year and to the Council the following month - but only if these issues of future ownership and care are addressed.

Presently, not all this information requested has been received.

The RAMM has already shown they accept the principle of the rights of indigenous people to regain control of their cultural heritage. But they are correct to place equal importance on addressing issues of ownership and future preservation before any of the items are returned.

After this was written......

Exeter City Council's Executive Committee met in April 2020, three months earlier than expected, when they voted to approve the repatriation of the 'Crowfoot regalia'. Read more

Photo: A Blackfoot buckskin shirt that once belonged to Chief Crowfoot

Stolen Kushan sculpture discovered for sale at online auction will return to National Museum of Afghanistan

Sat, 25 Jan 2020 18:23:16 GMT

A routine check by the Art Loss Register of an online auction house TimeLine Auctions in late 2019 led to the discovery of an important Kushan sculpture, probably stolen from the National Museum of Afghanistan during the Afghan civil war (1992-1994).

The 2nd century A.D. carved limestone corner block was brought to the attention of the British Museum, who identified it as part of a frieze depicting human figures and bulls engaged in some kind of ceremony. The sculpture had been excavated by a French archaeological team (Delegation Archeologique Française en Afghanistan) during the 1950s at the important site of Surkh Kotal (Ancient Bactria). The site is one of the most important known from the Kushan Empire that ruled from the 1st to 4th centuries A.D.

Working closely with officials at the National Museum of Afghanistan and the Metropolitan Police’s Art and Antiques Unit, the British Museum has been safeguarding the block, which will be placed on public display at the Museum for a few months before being returned to Kabul, where other recovered blocks stolen at the same time are already on exhibition.

The discovery represents another success for the Art Loss Register (ALR), which held details of the stolen block on its database and recognised the sculpture in an online sale held by UK auction house, TimeLine Auctions. Hundreds of other archaeological objects from Afghanistan are registered on this database, including objects either still in situ on heritage sites or held in museum collections. The database is part of ALR’s international efforts to fight the illicit trade in cultural property.

It also provides more evidence of the important role the British Museum is playing in helping to reconstruct the rich cultural heritage of Afghanistan after decades of conflict, destruction and loss.

In July 2019 we reported the Museum was returning a collection of Taliban-looted 4th century Gandharan sculptures to Kabul. This year the Museum is also setting out to highlight the destruction by Daesh (the so-called Islamic State) of another ancient Middle Eastern culture, this time in Iraq. This is the subject of a special touring exhibition, Ancient Iraq: new discoveries , which will visit Newcastle and Nottingham during 2020.

Since 2009, the Museum also says it had identified and returned over 2,300 antiquities of all periods, illegally excavated at sites across Afghanistan and trafficked abroad, but seized and investigated by the UK Border Force, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Metropolitan Police Service.

“The Museum works extensively with law enforcement agencies and a wide range of other partners to try to combat the trafficking of illicit material from countries which have suffered so much from conflict in recent years,” said Hartwig Fischer, Director of the British Museum.

Fahim Rahimi, Director of the National Museum of Afghanistan, has thanked the British Museum for their co-operation and hopes that “not only customs, but also museums and other private collections, will continue to help us return objects from Afghanistan in this way”.

Photo: A 2nd cent A.D. Kushan carved limestone sculpture from the temple site of Surkh Kotal in northern Afghanistan

JAPAN

nik@mailcal.net (nik barrow) — Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:06:56 GMT

Japan

Updated June 2025

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made by Japan to a country or community of source. Entries are updated regularly.

June 2025

In the first ever return of human ancestors from Japan, three Japanese collecting institutions have returned ten First Nations ancestors to Australia

minister.infrastructure.gov.au

October 2023

A South Korean Supreme Court ruling means a stolen Buddhist statue must be returned to a temple in Japan, ending a decades-old dispute

ArtDaily

September 2022

Japan agrees to return to South Korea more than 1,200 royal books removed during its 1910 to 1945 colonial rule in a move to improve diplomatic relations

The Korea Times

December 2011

Important historical archive of 1,200 Korean documents, looted during Japan's annexation of the peninsula, returned to Seoul

Daily Telegraph

An intriguing initiative by the V&A throws a spotlight on Nazi looting

Sun, 19 Jan 2020 16:28:02 GMT

Blog Post 17 January 2020

The pace of provenance research into objects ruthlessly seized by the Nazis is accelerating. Not before time.

Last week, Germany announced the opening of a ‘Help Desk’ , established by the state-funded German Lost Art Foundation, to help claimants recover family assets stolen by the Nazis. This week, a French art historian, Emmanuelle Polack, an expert in the French art market during the period of German occupation, joined the Musée du Louvre to investigate acquisitions they made during that period.

Here in the UK, museums have been slower than other countries to recruit full-time provenance curators. The Museums Association told me there’s a possibility of further money for funding collections research, but up to now it’s been a low priority for both government and museums. Money to address infrastructure issues for most UK museums has been a much higher priority.

Which is why the V&A’s initiative in 2018 to recruit Dr Jacques Schuhmacher, an expert on restitution of Jewish-owned looted works of art, as a full-time Provenance and Spoliation Curator is welcomed. He’s the first dedicated provenance curator to be appointed by a UK museum.

The V&A is ahead of other UK national collections by debating, if not always resolving, the difficult issues of restitution. Throughout last year Schuhmacher led a fascinating programme of talks on different aspects of restitution (called the Gilbert Provenance and Spoliation Research Seminars, which continue into 2020) and last December the Museum launched their Culture in Crisis portal, an online database of cultural heritage preservation projects.

The Museum’s latest initiative, Concealed Histories: Uncovering the Story of Nazi Looting , co-curated by Schuhmacker and fellow V&A curator Alice Minter, throws an emotive spotlight on the systematic theft of Jewish-owned art.

It’s a small but intriguing display drawing on Schuhmacher’s research into 80 or so objects from the dazzling collection of works of art formed by Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert.

The Gilbert’s were British citizens of Jewish ancestry who left the UK in 1949 to set up home in Los Angeles. Their vast collection, transferred to the V&A in 2008, features almost 1200 exquisite objects of gold and silver, enamel miniatures, boxes and mosaics.

Alongside the eight objects featured in this display, including the 18th century Dresden jewelled and gold-mounted amethystine quartz snuffbox illustrated below, are narratives recording a painful, tragic history, together with a series of missing years in each object’s chain of ownership.

Before the Gilbert’s acquired these items, each had been owned by a different European Jewish collector. However, all were forcibly wrenched away by the Nazis, the objects ‘disappearing’ for several years, before re-emerging on the art market during the ‘60s and ‘70s.

What happened to these objects during those twenty or so missing years, before purchased by the Gilberts, is a mystery. But it’s a fate shared by tens of thousands of other Nazi-looted objects, which this display has set out to highlight.

Restitution issues were not a priority for museums or collectors during the ‘60s and ‘70s. Very few stopped to ask questions about provenance. The art market was booming; pension fund managers on both sides of the Atlantic were blinded by the financial 'value' inherent in fine art assets; US collections were scrambling to make up for lost time. There were too few reasons and no hard motives to question how an object had arrived on the market.

The Gilberts were no different from other passionate, generous collectors, later benefactors, by failing to query those missing years. But priorities have changed and time is running out to recover first-hand information on the location and post-war history of thousands of other works of art looted by the Nazis.

The V&A hopes this display will raise awareness of the human value of investigating the missing years in an object’s chain of ownership, perhaps revealing new information about these objects. In the meantime, it’s hard not to be affected by the personal tragedies they conceal and hard to forget there are thousands more Nazi-looted objects lying unrecognised in public and private collections. Unlike these eight objects, many are still considered 'heirless' - recovered from Germany and placed on exhibition, but without hard evidence of ownership. They sit there waiting for the families of their original owners to re-discover them.

Concealed Histories: Uncovering the Story of Nazi Looting is at the V&A Museum, London until 10 January 2021.

Photo: A jewelled, gold-mounted amethystine quartz snuffbox, likely made in Dresden, c.1755

Courtesy of Victoria & Albert Museum, London

After this was written.......

Less than a month into her new role, the Nazi looting expert Emmanuelle Polack has identified 10 paintings in the Louvre they purchased at the auction of works confiscated from the French-Jewish lawyer Armand Dorville. The works are now the subject of an official restitution claim. Read more here .

Modelling the Marbles: Flattering Lord Elgin's contribution to the ancient past?

Fri, 13 Dec 2019 14:17:42 GMT

Emma Payne’s analysis of the plaster casts of sculptures from the Parthenon, commissioned by Lord Elgin at the beginning of the 19th century, demonstrates why they remain important today as an accurate record of the originals when first moulded.

But does her article, 3D Imaging of the Parthenon Sculptures , published in December’s Antiquity journal and reported widely in the national press this week, lessen the controversy about Elgin’s role in the long-running Parthenon Marbles debate?

Does it flatter him by demonstrating a greater reverence for the ancient past than many give him credit?

To answer this, lets first draw a distinction between the work he commissioned on the Acropolis that did fall within some kind of ‘authorised’ remit (in other words, making drawings and plaster copies) and other more controversial work he undertook (including the removal of sculptures, friezes and metopes from the Temple), which almost certainly pushed the boundaries of an 'authorised' remit.

Let's give Lord Elgin the credit where credit is due. Payne’s work has proven the value of Elgin's plaster casts as an enduring archaeological and art historical resource.

Elgin always intended to commission the modelling of the various sculptures lying within the walls of the Citadel. As one of the pioneers in this practice, his original plan followed the practice of other early excavators who used the modelling of casts as a means of recording the original state of the sculptures as discovered.

Elgin employed two casters to undertake the casting work (called foratori ), Bernardino Ledus and Vincenzo Rosati. And it seems they did a very good job. By analysing the 3D models of the British Museum’s Parthenon casts, Payne’s work confirms just how accurate these copies of the original in situ friezes were at the time of moulding in 1802. Her evidence of subsequent deterioration between the casts and the originals is mostly explained by other climatic and human interventions that took place in the years following the moulding.

But does the success of Elgin’s modelling exonerate him from his other more controversial actions?

None of us can be certain exactly what kind of licence (firman) was issued to Elgin. We cannot, for example, be certain who issued it, or on what terms and scope it comprised. All we can be certain of is the British Museum and the Government's select committee convened to consider the purchase of the Marbles on behalf of the Nation, put their faith in its existence – but without ever having sight of the original letter or licence that Elgin claimed authorised his work.

Its existence is now hotly disputed, most recently by Geoffrey Robertson in his latest book, Who Owns History? Robertson suggests Elgin’s authority was based purely on a letter signed by a middle-ranking official.

Based on the verbal evidence presented to the British Museum and Parliament at the time, Elgin’s authority to create plaster casts is generally accepted as legitimate. Payne’s work suggests we can be grateful for this part of Elgin’s contribution to research, as we can learn much from the original state of the sculptures from the casts before human damage and climate caused later deterioration.

But it doesn’t take us any further towards resolving whether Elgin had legitimate authority to remove so many sculptures from the site.

Making casts of the sculptures on the Temple was always part of Lord Elgin’s plan – and he did it well. But his reputation will always be determined by his act of removing sculptures from the temple site.

Without the original documentation, we can never be absolutely certain whether he acted within his authority or not.

Photo: Frieze from the Parthenon of two horsemen, Acropolis Museum, Athens

Courtesy of Anna Oikonomou

SOUTH AFRICA

nik@mailcal.net (nik barrow) — Sat, 07 Dec 2019 14:05:45 GMT

South Africa

Updated February 2025

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made by South Africa, together with other South African restitution news, to a country or community of source. Entries are updated regularly.

February 2025

South Africa's authorities aim to repatriate human remains in the collections of the Horniman and Hunterian Museums, as well as in other European and US collections

Sundayworld.co.za

November 2024

28 Asante gold ornaments and regalia from the collection of AngloGold Ashanti in South Africa are returned to the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II

modernghana.com

March 2020

Following the return of most of Zimbabwe's prized soapstone birds, looted by colonialists from Great Zimbabwe during the 19th century, only one remains - in the house of Cecil Rhodes in South Africa

ArtDaily

1981

One year after Zimbabwe's independence, the South African government returns four carved bird sculptures, looted from the ruined city of Great Zimbabwe

IOL News

DENMARK

nik@mailcal.net (nik barrow) — Thu, 05 Dec 2019 11:33:15 GMT

Denmark

Updated September 2024

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made by Denmark to a country or community of source. Entries are updated regularly.

September 2024

A sacred cloak, constructed of 4,000 scarlet ibis feathers and taken from the Tupinamba people during Portugese colonial rule more than 300 years ago, has been returned by the National Museum of Denmark to Indigenous leaders in Brazil

Artnews.com

August 2023

One of Brazil's main ethnographic artefacts, the well-preserved tupinamba mantle, made in the 17th century with feathers from the red coloured ibis, will be returned to the Museu Nacional do Rio by the Nationalmuseet in Copenhagen

Piaui.folha.uol.com.br

March 2022

A sacred Sami rune drum, confiscated by the Danes in 1691 and held at the National Museum of Denmark, has been returned to the Sami Museum in Karasjok

The Guardian

1971 - 1997

Following an agreement between Iceland and Denmark, the largest part of a highly significant collection of historic manuscripts, written in Iceland and covering the history of Nordic countries, is returned by Denmark

Forbes

ITALY

nik@mailcal.net (nik barrow) — Wed, 04 Dec 2019 17:57:49 GMT

Italy

Updated July 2025

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made to or from Italy, together with other restitution news.

Entries are updated regularly

July 2025

A Roman mosaic panel depicting an erotic theme has been returned to the Archaeological Park of Pompeii following its theft by a Nazi captain during WWII

apnews.com

January 2025

Italy has returned to Iraqi authorities five stolen ancient artefacts, each dated before 2000 BC, after being identified for sale at auction

Euronews

July 2023

Italy seeks the return of seven antiquities from the Louvre, some of which may be connected to convicted art traffickers Giacomo Medici and Gianfranco Becchina

The Art Newspaper

June 2023

A 2,800-year-old Babylonian stone tablet, inscribed with cuneiform text and handed over by Italy to Iraq's President in June, has gone on display in the Iraq Museum in Baghdad

Arab News

May 2023

Italy is coming to terms with Fascist-era colonial artefacts by conducting a 'census' of what's in the collections of Italy's 498 state museums

ABCNews

February 2022

A Buddha statue stolen from the Devisthan Kundalpur Temple in Bihar has been surrendered by an Italian collector to the Consulate General of India in Milan

Art Daily

January 2022

Archaeological Museum in Palermo, Sicily has agreed to return a fragment from the Parthenon to the Acropolis Museum, Athens as part of a four-year loan arrangement

The Art Newspaper

August 2021

Has Italy's Carabinieri TPC extended their remit by attempting to retrieve objects allegedly illegally exported decades earlier?

Cultural Property News

May 2021

Italian authorities say they've recovered over 500,000 stolen or counterfeit works of art in 2020

Art Daily

December 2020

Plans to open Mussolini's colonial museum, in storage for over half a century and comprising a collection of 12,000 items, has alarmed post-colonial researchers

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/amid-reckoning-on-race-italy-exhumes-colonial-history

February 2020

A Nazi-looted Renaissance sculpture by Andrea della Robbia, acquired by Hermann Goring in 1941, is returned by Italy to German Culture Minister Monika Grutters

The Art Newspaper

March 2019

Italian Culture Ministry agrees to oversee return of 800 illegally exported cultural artefacts to the People's Republic of China

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/china-italy-repatriation-1497034

December 2017

A shrunken warrior head, presented to the Vatican by a missionary in 1925, is returned to the Pumapungo ethnographic museum in Cuenca, Ecuador

https://www.thelocal.it/20171217/vatican-returns-shrunken-warrior-head-to-ecuador

February 2017

Two 2nd or 3rd cent A.D. sculpted busts, damaged by insurgents at Palmyra, are returned to the National Museum of Damascus following restoration in Italy

https://www.iccrom.org/press-release/palmyra-sculptures-restored-italy-now-returned-syria

April 2007

Italian court rules the 'Venus of Cyrene', looted in 1912, was not part of Italy's cultural heritage and should be returned to Libya

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-libya-venus-idUSL2350261120070423

April 2005

First piece of ancient Axum obelisk, an important national symbol in Ethiopia and looted in 1937 on the orders of Benito Mussolini, is returned by Italy

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/apr/20/italy.ethiopia

AUSTRIA

nik@mailcal.net (nik barrow) — Sun, 01 Dec 2019 20:04:55 GMT

Austria

Updated October 2023

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made by Austria to a country or community of source, together with other restitution news. Entries are updated regularly

October 2023

The Austrian Academy of Sciences will repatriate the remains of six Aboriginal ancestors, collected by ethnologist and anthropologist Rudolf Poch in 1905, to Australia

abc.net.au

June 2023

A stone yoke, perhaps worn by players of ancient Mesoamerican ball games, has been withdrawn from an auction sale in Austria and returned to Mexico

The Art Newspaper

June 2023

Austria's culture secretary announces plans to introduce a draft law for handling colonial restitution claims for objects in Federal collections following recommendations of expert committee

Bundesministerium

May 2023

Austria's Labour Minister Martin Kocher attended a hui at the Waitangi Treaty grounds where returning artefacts looted in the late 1800s by Andreas Reischek was discussed

nzherald.co.nz

May 2023

Vienna's Kunsthistorisches Museum is in negotiations with the Acropolis Museum to loan two stone fragments from the Parthenon

The Art Newspaper

September 2022

The ancestral remains of about 64 Maori and Moriori will be returned by Austria to Aotearoa in the biggest repatriation of remains by that country

Stuff.co.nz

February 2022

The Natural History Museum in Vienna is returning to Hawaii two skulls stolen by an English adventurer in the 19th century

Wien.ORF.at

January 2022

Austria announces plans to set up a panel of experts to develop guidelines for restitution claims, with results expected to be published in spring 2023

OTS

August 2021

Austria is being being pressed by Mexico to return a Mexica quetzal feather headdress that may have belonged to the last Mexica Emperor Moctezuma II

Hyperallergic

July 2020

Vienna's Kunsthistorisches Museum has called for the return of four 26th Dynasty Egyptian Canopic Jars offered for sale by Munich auction house Gorny & Mosch

The Art Newspaper

July 2019

Austria promises to return to Russia ancient artefacts, some from the Hellenistic period, taken as war trophies during WWII

The Art Newspaper

BELGIUM

nik@mailcal.net (nik barrow) — Sun, 01 Dec 2019 20:04:53 GMT

Belgium

Updated July 2024

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made by Belgium to a country or community of source, together with other restitution news. Entries are updated regularly.

July 2024

Director of Belgium's AfricaMuseum believes it inevitable "in the long term" that objects removed from the Democratic Republic of the Congo while a Belgian colony will be returned

The Guardian

August 2023

A private Belgian citizen has returned 20 pre-Columbian artefacts that had been in her family's possession for more than 70 years to Mexican officials in Belgium

Mexico News Daily

April 2023

Belgium's Bioethics Advisory Committee and the multi-disciplinary group "Home" advise repatriating the remains of at least 30,000 of human individuals collected on Congolese and Rwandan territories is essential

Paris Match

January 2023

Gold tooth belonging to the pan-African nationalist Patrice Lumumba, assassinated in 1961, is returned by Belgium to the Democratic Republic of Congo

Financial Times

May 2022

Belgian government department sells off valuable bronze sculpture of a head, stolen from the National Museum of Nigeria in 1987, in auction blunder

Cultural Property News

February 2022

The AfricaMuseum has handed over a list of 84,000 artefacts to the Democratic Republic of Congo to investigate provenances that may lead to restitution

Artnet News

January 2022

Belgium's Council of Ministers has adopted a draft law recognising the alienability of property linked to the Belgian State's colonial past and determining a legal framework for their restitution

News.Belgium

August 2021

Belgium agrees to the systematic return of looted artefacts to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to involve a commission of Belgian and Congolese specialists

The Guardian

June 2021

Largest ever hoard of 800 stolen artefacts from Puglia region is discovered in home of Belgian art dealer and returned to Italy

The Art Newspaper

June 2021

Belgian's government has entered into an agreement to return, in a phased manner, artefacts looted from the Democratic Republic of Congo during the Colonial era

The Art Newspaper

June 2021

Belgium returns human remains of Patrice Lumumba to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, sixty years after assassinating him

TRTWorld

December 2019

Belgian museums continue to struggle with a flurry of restitution claims

Artnet.com

September 2019

An inscribed Cypriot tombstone, dated to end of 4th cent/beginning of 3rd cent BC, has been returned to Cyprus at a ceremony in Brussels

https://www.financialmirror.com/2019/09/13/heritage-ancient-tombstone-returned-to-cyprus-in-brussels/

June 2016

Stolen marble head of the Emperor Augustus, purchased by the Cinquantenaire Museum in Brussels from a private collector, returns to Italy

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-art-augustus/stolen-marble-head-of-romes-first-emperor-returns-to-italy-idUSKCN0Z01OO

November 1997

Belgian police return a Nalinde mask stolen from the National Museum in Livingstone, Zambia to the Zambian authorities

CANADA

nik@mailcal.net (nik barrow) — Sun, 01 Dec 2019 20:04:52 GMT

Canada

Updated April 2026

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made by Canada to a country or community of source, together with other Canadian restitution news. Entries are updated regularly.

April 2026

Eleven Ottoman-era manuscripts have been repatriated to Turkiye marking the first official repatriation of cultural property from Canada to Turkiye

dailysabah.com

July 2025

The Hudson's Bay Company plans to auction its massive collection of First Nations artefacts, including many important items of Canada's colonial heritage

The Art Newspaper

May 2025

Canada's Indigenous Peoples hope new Pope Leo XIV will continue the reconciliation work started by Pope Francis and return colonial-era artefacts in the Vatican Museum

Globalnews.ca

June 2024

Following a meeting with Pope Francis, prime minister Justin Trudeau has urged the Vatican to follow through on promises to return cultural objects to First Nations communities in Canada

The Art Newspaper

October 2023

The return of a memorial totem pole from Edinburgh to its ancestral Nisga'a Nation village home is described as an act of reconciliation that can open other doors

National Post

February 2023

A pipe and saddlebag belonging to Chief Poundmaker, the great 19th century Cree leader, has been returned by Toronto's Royal Ontario Museum to his descendants at a ceremony of repatriation

Saskatoon.ctvnews

February 2023

The Royal British Columbia Museum has repatriated a sacred Nuxalk Nation Totem Pole removed from a burial site more than a century ago

Hyperallergic

October 2022

Major new report by the Canadian Museums Association estimates that 6.7 million Indigenous objects and human remains are held in Canadian museums, with approx. 94% in eight institutions

Hyperallergic

September 2022

The Royal Alberta Museum has returned seven artefacts to the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation

Edmonton News

August 2022

A Nisga'a delegation from British Columbia will meet officials from the National Museum of Scotland about returning an 1860s Nisga'a memorial pole, taken by Marius Barbeau in 1929

Burnslakelakesdistrictnews.com

July 2022

First Nations and Indigenous leaders are calling on the Vatican to return Indigenous works ahead of Pope Francis's visit to Canada in July

Hyperallergic

June 2022

A BC First Nation is urging the Royal British Columbia Museum to earmark part of the Museum's new C$789m building budget for repatriation of Indigenous artefacts

The Art Newspaper

May 2022

Staff belonging to Plains Cree leader Chief Poundmaker, stolen following the Northwest Resistance in 1885, has been returned by Parks Canada to his family

CBC News

January 2022

The remote First Nation on the Central Coast is calling on the Royal British Columbia Museum to return a totem pole and other sacred artefacts lost by its people more than a century ago

Times Colonist

December 2021

The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation has asked for a Kayak and other indigenous items on display in the Vatican Museums in Rome to be returned

CBC

November 2021

Royal British Columbia Museum begins the process of decolonisation by closing its Indigenous galleries

The Art Newspaper

July 2021

Following the award of a repatriation grant, the Huu-ay-aht First Nations are beginning the process of reclaiming artefacts from the Royal B.C. Museum

CBC News

June 2021

A rare 170-year-old Indigenous Cree beaded hood is being returned to Eeyou Istchee, James Bay Cree territory in northern Quebec by the Lachine Museum in Montreal

Maclean's

October 2019

Syria retrieves from Canada an ancient mosaic painting, dating to the 5th cent, plundered from a church or monastery in the 1990s

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-10/07/c_138454115.htm

November 2018

Canada returns 58 antiquities, including pottery, glass vials, sculptures and oil lamps, detained in 2015, to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan – Canada’s first return of cultural property to Jordan

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2018/11/canada-returns-heritage-objects-to-the-hashemite-kingdom-of-jordan.html

April 2017

Canada returns the head of a ceramic figurine, originating from the western region of Mexico, to the Government of the United Mexican States

January 2017

Canada returns two fossils and a pair of 19th cent wooden architectural carvings to the People’s Republic of China

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-returns-two-200-million-year-old-marine-fossils-smuggled-from-china

January 2016

Canada returns a 19th century yatagan sword and a Cretan-style dagger to the Government of Bulgaria, after interception by Canada’s customs officials

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-property/recent-restitution-cases-of-cultural-objects-using-the-1970-convention/

July 2015

Canada returns a Phoenician glass pendant dating to the 6th cent B.C., seized by customs officers in Montreal in 2006, to the Republic of Lebanon

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/phoenician-artifact-to-lebanon-glass-pendant-1.3213339

April 2015

Prime Minister of Canada returns a 12th cent sculpture of a parrot lady, believed to have been stolen, to the Indian Prime Minister

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/phoenician-artifact-to-lebanon-glass-pendant-1.3213339

September 2013

Canada returns three fossils to the People’s Republic of China, originating from the Cambrian fossil shale in the Chengjiang region

See: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/import-cultural-property/returns.html#Bulgaria2

June 2011

Canada returns to the Government of Bulgaria 21,000 stolen archaeological artefacts together with 18,000 coins, some Hellenistic and Roman, illegally excavated in Bulgaria and shipped to an importer in Montreal

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-returns-bulgarian-stolen-artifacts-1.1021731

November 2010

Canada returns 35 fish, plant, insect and reptile fossils, between 125-150 million years old, originating from the Liaoning region of China, to the People’s Republic of China – Canada’s first return of cultural property to China

http://en.people.cn/90001/90782/7194876.html

October 2010

Canada returns more than 300 ancient coins, jewellery and metal artefacts from Roman and Byzantine times to the Republic of Bulgaria

See: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/import-cultural-property/returns.html#Bulgaria2

August 2010

Canada returns a sculpted head of a woman, carved in marble, dating to the 1st or 2nd century B.C., to the Arab Republic of Egypt

See: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/import-cultural-property/returns.html#Bulgaria2

January 2009

Canada returns three bronze bracelets, archaeological in origin, to the Republic of Mali

See: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/import-cultural-property/returns.html#Bulgaria2

January 2009

Canada returns a terracotta figure, similar to a Nok clay figure, together with a seated terracotta figure and a wooden ceremonial statue, to the Federal Republic of Nigeria

See: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/import-cultural-property/returns.html#Bulgaria2

February 2006

Canada returns an ancient anthropomorphic figurine, usually associated with tombs in the Rio Magdalena Region, and a pre-Columbian stone carving with a human face to the Republic of Colombia

See: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/import-cultural-property/returns.html#Bulgaria2

May 2005

Canada returns a pre-Columbian copper figurine to the Republic of Peru

See: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/import-cultural-property/returns.html#Bulgaria2

December 2004

Canada returns a clay funerary figurine to the Arab republic of Egypt

See: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/import-cultural-property/returns.html#Bulgaria2

August 2002

Canada returns 571 pre-Columbian textiles to the Plurinational State of Bolivia

See: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/import-cultural-property/returns.html#Bolivia1

August 2002

Canada returns approximately 140 pre-Columbian textiles and other objects to the Republic of Peru

See: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/import-cultural-property/returns.html#Bulgaria2

April 2000

Canada returns pre-Columbian ceramic vessels to the Republic of Peru

See: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/import-cultural-property/returns.html#Bulgaria2

April 1999

Canada returns a second group of 39 ancient Byzantine mosaics to the Syrian Arab Republic, seized when attempts were made to smuggle them into Canada and the U.S.

https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/34621/Canada-Returns-Smuggled-Ancient-Mosaics-to-Syria

November 1997

Canada returns a collection of pre-Columbian gold jewellery, dating to 1000-1500 C.E., and two ceramic figures to the Republic of Columbia

See: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/import-cultural-property/returns.html#Bulgaria2

November 1997

Canada returns pre-Columbian artefacts, including painted ceramics, textiles and feathered articles, to the Republic of Peru

See: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/import-cultural-property/returns.html#Bulgaria2

November 1997

Canada returns 20 pre-Columbian ceramic pots and figures from Mexico’s Pacific coast, dating from 200 B.C. to 250 A.D., to the Government of Mexico

See: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/import-cultural-property/returns.html#Bulgaria2

May 1997

Canada returns 32 Byzantine mosaics dating to the 5th and 6th cent A.D. to the Syrian Arab Republic

See: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/import-cultural-property/returns.html#Bulgaria2

AUSTRALIA

nik@mailcal.net (nik barrow) — Sun, 01 Dec 2019 20:04:50 GMT

Australia

Updated January 2026

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made by Australia to a country or community of source. Entries are updated regularly.

January 2026

Australian museums can't keep pace with the number of stolen bodies of Indigenous Australians being returned by overseas collections

The Guardian

June 2025

Thirty-seven ancestral items gifted by the Lardil people of Mornington Island, Queensland to Victoria's Baw Baw Shire are to return home

abc.net.au

May 2025

Eleven objects of deep cultural significance to the Larrakia Community of the Northern Territory of Australia have been returned by the Fowler Museum in California

aiatsis.gov.au

March 2025

Sydney University's Chau Chak Wing Museum has returned sixteen human skulls to the inhabitants of six villages in Papua New Guinea

The Art Newspaper

August 2024

Human remains held in a New Zealand museum have been returned to a Kimberley traditional owner group from the coast north of Derby

Facebook.com

August 2024

The Laiagam Stone, a 3,500-year-old ritual figurative stone discovered in the Papua New Guinea Highlands in the 1960s, will be offered for sale at Parcours des Mondes by Australian dealer Chris Boylan Oceanic Art

The Art Newspaper

April 2024

London's Natural History Museum is refusing efforts to restore the remains of a Woppaburra ancestor of Dr Harry Van Issum to his community on the Keppel Islands

NITV

October 2023

The Queensland Museum is under pressure to identify and repatriate hundreds of ancestral remains belonging to Pacific Island nations

Brisbane Times

August 2023

A fact-finding mission by the National Gallery of Australia has found more than 100 antiquities in the Museum's collection are looted from Cambodia

OCCRP

August 2023

A Cambodian gilt bronze Buddhist sculpture, dating to the 9th/10th century and trafficked by Douglas J Latchford, will be returned along with two other statues by the National Gallery of Australia

ArtDaily

August 2023

A strut, or tunala , stolen from the pagoda of Ratneswar Mahadev in the city of Patan in Nepal's Kathmandu Valley, has been returned by The Art Gallery of New South Wales, Sydney

Nepali Times

October 2022

Stolen Tasmanian Aboriginal cultural artefacts are returned to Hobart for an exhibition - but only on loan

The Guardian

August 2022

Hundreds of items from the Tek Sing, an historic Asian shipwreck that sank in the South China Sea in 1822, have been returned by Australia to the Indonesian Government

afp.gov.au

April 2022

Ancient rock art site known as the Mount Yarrowyck Nature Reserve in northern New South Wales has been returned to the custody of its Aboriginal owners

ABC News

January 2022

Objections raised by some of Canberra's Aboriginal elders to Government and AIATSIS plans for Ngurra precinct claiming that have not been consulted

The Canberra Times

January 2022

4,000 year old petroglyphs are returned to Tasmania's Aboriginal community after being removed by museum staff in the 1960s

The Art Newspaper

July 2021

14 looted artefacts connected to alleged antiquities trafficker Subhash Kapoor are to be returned to India by the National Gallery of Australia, Canberra

ArtDaily

December 2019

Sacred Aboriginal rock art (petroglyphs), removed from a Tasmanian rock face and placed in the collection of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, to be returned to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-12/tasmania-aboriginal-petroglyphs-to-be-returned-by-tmag/11793568

April 2019

Macquarie University in Sydney is praised by Egyptian authorities for returning the fragment of an ancient Egyptian stela, dating from the 13th Dynasty, stolen 25 years ago

https://lighthouse.mq.edu.au/article/april-2019/Mystery-of-stolen-Egyptian-artefact-cracked-by-hieroglyphs

November 2018

Thousands of antiquities taken from Papua New Guinea are being returned by Australia as part of a decades-long project, with thousands more to go

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-s-largest-return-of-artefacts-to-png-sign-of-closer-ties

September 2016

The National Gallery of Australia returns three sculptures stolen from Indian temples or archaeological sites, purchased by the Museum from Subhash Kapoor and Nancy Wiener

https://chasingaphrodite.com/2016/09/18/the-end-of-the-beginning-nga-returns-kushan-buddha-and-two-kapoor-objects/

March 2015

The National Gallery of Australia's prized 2nd cent Seated Buddha will be returned to India after striking a deal with the New York gallery owner who sold them the statue in 2007

https://chasingaphrodite.com/2015/03/05/breaking-the-seated-buddha-goes-home-nancy-wiener-and-national-gallery-of-australia-will-return-sculpture-to-india/

September 2014

Australia's Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, will return two looted Indian figures, a Dancing Shiva and an Ardhanarishvara, to India's Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, as a "gesture of goodwill"

https://chasingaphrodite.com/2014/09/04/shiva-goes-home-australias-prime-minister-returns-looted-kapoor-idols-to-india/

April 1976

Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart returns the remains of Truganini to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community

https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2016/07/22/fortieth-anniversary-returning-truganini-land-and-water

FRANCE

nik@mailcal.net (nik barrow) — Sun, 01 Dec 2019 20:04:48 GMT

FRANCE

Updated April 2026

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made by France to a country or community of source, together with other restitution news. Entries are updated regularly.

April 2026

The National Assembly in France has voted unanimously to adopt a framework legislation for the return of artefacts looted between 1815 and 1972

assemblee-nationale.fr

April 2026

The French government has agreed to support legislation for the return of Kali'na ancestral remains to French Guiana following appeals made since 2024

la1ere.franceinfo.fr

April 2026

France's National Assembly will debate on 13 April the bill amending the heritage code for looted objects held in national collections approved on 8 April 2026 by their Cultural Affairs Committee

lemonde.fr

February 2026

Musee du Quai Branly has returned the wood sculpted "talking drum" or Djidji Ayokwe, looted by French colonial officers in 1916, to the Ivory Coast

lemonde.fr

January 2026

A draft bill has been adopted by the French Senate aimed at simplifying the process of returning artefacts looted during the Colonial era

france24.com

January 2026

The agreement by France to loan two colonial-era codices to Mexico is part of a wider cultural programme bringing new momentum to a restitution campaign

The Art Newspaper

August 2025

France has returned three skulls to Madagascar, including one believed to belong to King Toera, beheaded by French troops in 1897 and taken as a trophy to France

france24.com

July 2025

The French government has introduced a bill which, if passed by the senate in September, would accelerate the repatriation of looted cultural artefacts

france24.com

July 2025

The Djidji Ayokwe "talking drum" that French colonial troops took from the Ebrie tribe in 1916 is being returned to the Ivory Coast

france24.com

July 2025

A new law to be presented to the Council of Ministers on July 30 could waive the principle of inalienability of public collections

Le Figaro

April 2025

In the first repatriation under a new French law governing human remains, the skulls of King Toera and two warriors will be returned to Madagascar

The Art Newspaper

December 2024

The return of three ancient artefacts to Ethiopia by the French embassy in Addis Ababa is described as a diplomatic handover not an act of restitution

rfi.fr

November 2024

While legal authority to repatriate the Ayokwe djidji (known as the 'Talking drum') to Cote d'Ivoire remains out of reach, the French government has signed an agreement to loan the drum to Cote d'Ivoire

Unesco.org

April 2024

France faces a "titanic and exhilarating" task trying to identify which of the c. 90,000 African artworks in French museums were plundered during colonial rule

France24

March 2024

Madagascar is asking for the return of three human skulls belonging to the Sakalaves, including the skull of King Toera, plundered at the end of the 19th cent during French colonial rule

rfi.fr

February 2024

A commission of French and Algerian historians, set up in August 2022, has agreed proposals for the exchange of archives, remains and artefacts to help turn the page on a shared and painful past

rfi.fr

February 2024

French-Senegalese film-maker launching her film Dahomey at the Berlin film festival describes the restitution of 26 works out of 7,000 as an insult

The Guardian

December 2023

France agrees to return human remains less than 500 years old from public collections following years of wrangling - but not cases involving remains of people from French territories around the world

The Art Newspaper

October 2023

France's culture minister has signed an agreement with her counterpart in Germany to set up a joint provenance research fund focussing on museum objects from sub-Saharan Africa

The Art Newspaper

May 2023

A critical review of the Martinez report on France's Shared Heritage suggests it is clearly aimed at restraining African artefacts from leaving French museums

Modern Ghana

May 2023

The Republic of Benin prepares for the return of 26 royal treasures from France, expected to arrive in Abomey, former seat of the Dahomey Kingdom, in about five years time

France24

April 2023

France's long-awaited report on restitution policy recommends a pragmatic approach using illegality and illegitimacy as the basis for restitutions

The Art Newspaper

February 2023

The Paris appeals court has upheld charges of complicity in fraud and money laundering against ex-president and director of the Louvre Jean-Luc Martinez

ArtDaily

January 2023

France's Ministry of Culture is pushing forward with three framework laws, one of which will enable the return of larger numbers of looted colonial objects

Artnet News

December 2022

The legendary "talking drum", seized by French colonial settlers in 1916, is ready to be returned to Cote d'Ivoire under a restitution plan promised by President Emmanuel Macron

rfi.fr

November 2022

Five years after French President Emmanuel Macron pledged to return works looted from Africa during the Colonial period, why have only a few objects been returned?

Middle East Monitor

September 2022

A French prosecutor has demanded a suspended sentence and a fine for French art dealer Didier Wormser who is accused of trafficking stolen Egyptian antiquities

The Art Newspaper

May 2022

Former director of the Louvre, Jean-Luc Martinez, charged with 'complicity of gang fraud and laundering' of antiquities

The Art Newspaper

March 2022

A rare wooden 'Ngil' mask, used by the Fang people of Gabon, sold at auction for $4.6m (excl. fees) amid Gabonese protesters calling for its restitution

TRT World

February 2022

The French government is resisting a new draft restitution bill, further delaying President Macron's calls in 2017 for the return of Africa's heritage

The Art Newspaper

January 2022

Sotheby's and the Louvre in Paris are to research objects acquired by the Museum between 1933 and 1945 that "may lead to restitutions"

The Art Newspaper

November 2021

On 15 December a France's Culture Committee will discuss whether to establish a legal framework for the return of cultural property to their country of origin

Senat

November 2021

President Patrice Talon of Benin describes return of 26 objects 'only one step in the ambitious process of equity and restitution of heritage memorials'

Presidence De La Republique Du Benin

November 2021

France returns 26 works looted from the Royal Treasury of Abomey to Benin at a signing ceremony on 9 November 2021 held at the Elysee Palace, Paris

Art Daily

October 2021

Republic of Benin demands more restitutions of objects looted from Abomey's royal palace in 1892 now in the Musee du quai Branly - Jacques Chirac

The Art Newspaper

October 2021

French President Macron announces the return of the Djidji Ayokwe, the "talking drum" of the Ebrie people, to the Ivory Coast

ArtDaily

December 2020

French National Assembly gives final unanimous approval for return of 27 plundered artefacts from Benin and Senegal

The Art Newspaper

November 2020

France agrees the long-term loan of the crown of Queen Ranavalona III from the Museum of the French Armies in Paris to Madagascar

https://www.zinfos974.com/La-France-restitue-a-Madagascar-la-couronne-de-la-reine-Ranavalona-III_a162271.html

October 2020

France's National Assembly approves a groundbreaking bill to return 27 looted African objects to Benin and Senegal

artnet.com

September 2020

Parisian gallery, Cybele, is seeking reimbursement for an Egyptian stele of the Late Period, claiming a false provenance was knowingly provided by Christophe Kunicki, currently facing charges for fraud and money laundering

theartnewspaper.com

July 2020

France takes first steps towards new legislation that commits them to return items known to have been looted to their country of origin

artnet.com

July 2020

The remains of 24 Algerian resistance fighters, taken as 'war trophies' in the 19th cent, are returned to Algiers by the Musee de l'Homme

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/algeria-france-anti-colonial-fighters-remains-repatriated

January 2020

A collective of Parisian antiquarian collectors return 27 Benin objects, looted from the Kingdom of Dahomey in the 19th cent, to the Petit Musee de la Recade in Benin

https://hyperallergic.com/538048/objects-returned-to-benin-by-french-collectors-had-been-removed-from-a-contested-auction/

December 2019

French Culture Minister confirms France intends to return 26 royal artefacts to Benin by 2021, subject to the adoption of a specific new law

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/france-benin-objects?utm_source=The+Art+Newspaper+Newsletters&utm_campaign=f894a690fd-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_12_16_03_39&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c459f924d0-f894a690fd-61273417

November 2019

French Prime Minister returns a historic 19th cent sword to President of Senegal as a symbol of France’s commitment to repatriating African heritage

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/france-returns-a-historic-sword-to-senegal?utm_source=The+Art+Newspaper+Newsletters&utm_campaign=66d0d20084-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_11_18_05_16&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c459f924d0-66d0d20084-61273417

June 2019

Two Chancay statuettes and a Chimu carved stick, looted from a pre-Columbian tomb and intercepted by French customs in 2007 at Roissy airport in France, returned to Peru

http://www.leparisien.fr/seine-saint-denis-93/roissy-le-tresor-deniche-par-les-douanes-retourne-au-perou-06-06-2019-8087601.php

June 2018

Nine illegally smuggled Egyptian artefacts, including statuary and coffins, repatriated to Egypt after seizure at a railways station in Paris in 2012

https://apnews.com/b5bbe7d882124925b33b8e859d18dee6/Egypt-repatriates-stolen-ancient-artifacts-from-France

October 2017

France returns eight Egyptian archaeological items, seized by the French customs in 2010, to Egyptian authorities

https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/dossiers-pays/egypte/evenements/article/egypte-restitution-aux-autorites-egyptiennes-de-huit-pieces-archeologiques

September 2015

An Olmec bas-relief column dated to 900 BC stolen from a site in Chiapas between 1968 and 1972 has been returned to Mexico

http://ancientamericas.org/forum/france-returns-important-900-bce-olmec-mural-stolen-mexico#:~:text=An%20important%20Olmec%20bas%2Drelief,they%20found%20the%20stolen%20piece.

December 2014

Two hundred and fifty ancient Egyptian artefacts, seized at Charles de Gaulle airport, in November and March 2010, returned by the French government to the Egyptian embassy in Paris

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/france-returns-250-smuggled-ancient-artifacts-to-egypt-184913

June 2013

Francois-Henri Pinault returns two bronzes from the collection of Yves Saint Laurent, looted in 1860 from the Old Summer Palace, to the National Museum in China

https://uk.phaidon.com/agenda/art/articles/2013/april/29/christies-head-give-bronzes-back-to-china/

January 2013

France has returned to Nigeria five ancient terracotta sculptures of Nok origin, smuggled out of the country in 2010 and discovered in luggage at a Paris airport

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21246767

January 2012

France returns twenty mummified heads of Maori warriors, acquired by European sailors in the 18th and 19th centuries, to New Zealand

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16695330

November 2010

French President Nicolas Sarkozy announces the return to Korea of the Uigwe books, looted from a Korean island in 1866, on a five-year renewable lease

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/11/12/France-will-return-Korean-kings-books/45141289573649/?ur3=1

January 2010

French Government handed over two artefacts illegally removed from Nigeria during the colonial period

https://www.modernghana.com/news/261494/france-returns-looted-artefacts-to-nigeria-beginn.html

December 2009

As a "testament to France's desire to fight against the illegal trafficking of cultural goods", five fragments of an Egyptian wall painting are returned to Egypt from the Louvre

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/14/france-louvre-returns-egypt-relics

February 2002

The human remains of Saartjie Baartman, the 'Hottentot Venus', are returned by France to her homeland in South Africa

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/feb/21/internationaleducationnews.highereducation

January 2002

Nigeria agrees France can retain three 1,500-year-old Nok statues for exhibition at the Louvre on a 25-year renewable lease on condition they accept Nigeria's ownership

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1790882.stm

January 1998

A 'Thial' animal figurine discovered in France returned to the National Museum of Bamako in Mali

October 1997

An African 'Lwena' statuette, identified at a public auction in Saint Germain-en-Laye in 1996, has been returned to the National Museum of Anthropology of Angola

May 1996

French police return three stolen terracotta heads stolen in 1994 from the National Museum Gallery, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

April 1996

A Bété statuette returns for exhibition at the Musée des Civilizations du Côte d'Ivoire in Abidjan after its disappearance in the 1970s

GERMANY

nik@mailcal.net (nik barrow) — Sun, 01 Dec 2019 20:04:47 GMT

Germany

Updated January 2026

Below is a schedule of successful restitutions made by Germany to a country or community of source together with other restitution news. Entries are updated regularly.

January 2026

Three important collections in Germany's closed, missionary Werl Ethnological Museum, "Forum of Peoples", may be the result of colonial looting and require further research

soester-anzeiger.de

December 2025

Berlin's Ethnological Museum will return spiritual objects and human remains to Ghana, as well as initiate discussions for the return of three spiritual items to Australia

preussischer-kulturbesitz.de

November 2025

Twelve Ethiopian artefacts, collected in the 1920s by Germany's then envoy to Ethiopia, have been handed over to the Institute of Ethiopian Studies in Addis Ababa

bbc.co.uk

July 2025

Cameroon's official Restitution Committee agrees its "first restitution wave" with state governments in Munich, Stuttgart, Bremen and Berlin

dekolonial-erinnern.de

March 2025

The SPK has agreed the return to Colombia of three unique Kogi ritual objects that have been on loan in Bogota since October 2024

preussischer-kulturbesitz.de

October 2024

Following an official handover ceremony In Lubeck, the remains of a man from the indigenous Selk'nam community in Tierra del Fuego (Chile) was buried in a Lubeck cemetery

German Lost Art Foundation

October 2024

Egyptian archaeologist Monica Hanna calls for the return of the Nefertiti bust, questioning its role as Egypt's ambassador to the city of Berlin

dw.com

July 2024

The Ubersee-Museum in Germany has returned to Samoa the prow of a taumualua, or war canoe, stolen by a German naval officer during the Samoan civil war in 1888

Samoa Observer

June 2024

Germany's culture minister returns 25 antiquities from Berlin's Altes Museum to her Italian counterpart, all believed to have been illegally trafficked

The Art Newspaper

May 2024

Two royal ancestral stools, looted from Benin City in 1897 and returned to Nigeria by the German government, were handed over to the Oba of Benin at a ceremony at the Oba's Palace

The Guardian

May 2024

Four significant cultural items, returned to Australia by the Grassi Museum in Leipzig in August 2023, were officially handed over to the Kaurna people at a ceremony in North Adelaide

InDaily

March 2024

'Measina' or cultural artefacts taken during German colonial rule in Samoa between 1900 and 1914 and now held in the Uebersee Museum in Bremen will be returned to Samoa in June

Samoa Observer

November 2023

Mexico has recovered 75 Huasteca archaeological items from German authorities, including 74 items from the Museum Schloss Salder in Salzgitter

Gob.mx

October 2023

Germany's culture minister has signed an agreement with her counterpart in France to set up a joint provenance research fund focussing on museum objects from sub-Saharan Africa

The Art Newspaper

August 2023

At a ceremony in Sydney, Australia, Dresden's museum of world cultures returns to the Kaurna Aboriginal community four objects collected by Protestant missionaries in 1838-39

skd.museum

August 2023

Four Aboriginal artefacts taken by German missionaries almost two hundred years ago from the Kaurna community of Australia have been returned by Dresden's museum of world cultures

The Art Newspaper

August 2023

A near life-size statue of Ngonnso, the queen mother of the Nso people that lies at the heart of a campaign to return artefacts to Cameroon, will be returned by the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation

TRTWORLD

June 2023

Germany has returned two 15th century Kogi masks to Colombian President Gustavo Petro at a ceremony in Berlin after years of back-and-forth between the two governments

The Guardian

June 2023

As part of an international research project entitled 'Sensible Provenances' the University of Gottingen has returned the human remains of 32 people stolen in colonial times from New Zealand

Forschung & Lehre

June 2023

A study reports German museums of world cultures hold 40,000 objects from Cameroon, exceeding the 6,000 objects in Cameroon's capital Yaounde

The Art Newspaper

May 2023

Human remains from the Staatliche Ethnographische Sammlungen Sachsen were returned to representatives of their Maori (New Zealand) and Moriori (Chatham Islands) communities of origin

skd.museum

April 2023

Germany is taking steps towards clarifying and returning to Tanzania the human remains of countless colonial war victims held in German museums

January 2023

Berlin officials have denied there are plans to return the bust of Nefertiti to Egypt or the Pergamon Altar to Turkey, following comments made last month in favour of their return

The Art Newspaper

December 2022

Linden Museum, Stuttgart has returned a 16th cent Queen Mother Idia mask to Nigeria. The Idia mask, one of only five known looted from Benin City, is one of 78 Benin items to be returned by the Linden Museum.

Businesspost.ng

December 2022

Germany's foreign minister hands over 21 Benin Bronzes looted by the British to Nigeria's culture minister amid Nigerian frustration at British Museum's failure to repatriate any of its Benin Bronzes

The Guardian

December 2022

The Rautenstrauch-Joest-Museum in Cologne has officially transferred ownership of 92 looted Benin Bronzes to Nigeria

GNA

September 2022

Arrest warrants against four German dealers throw light on widespread trafficking of Middle Eastern antiquities in German public museums and universities

The Art Newspaper

July 2022

Germany returns two Benin Bronzes and agrees to repatriate more than 1000 other items to Nigeria, an action described as "the single largest known repatriation of artefacts in the world"

The Guardian

June 2022

The Prussian Cultural Foundation agrees to return looted objects to Cameroon and Namibia, and agrees to begin talks with Tanzania over objects stolen during the Maji Maji Uprising

Artnet News

June 2022

Berlin's Humboldt Forum is considering the return of the only known statue of Ngonnso, the queen mother of the Nso kingdom, removed by a German colonial commander from Cameroon in 1902

AtlasObscura

May 2022

Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation is returning 23 objects to Namibia as a long-term loan in a move to address its colonial past

February 2022

In a collaboration between the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 32 skulls in a Berlin collection are returned to a Native Hawaiian group

The Art Newspaper

February 2022

The City of Cologne's Council is in discussions to return 96 Benin artefacts to Nigeria, in line with the new political framework agreement between the two countries expected in spring 2022

The Cable

January 2022

Seven German museums are to research their collections that may contain thousands of objects looted during the Boxer Rebellion

The Art Newspaper

January 2022

Five Continents Museum, Munich has identified around 50 colonial objects from the Max von Stettens collection, suspected of being looted from Cameroon at the end of the 19th century

Monopol

January 2022

New Minister of State for Culture, Claudia Roth, believes there is a determination to come to terms with Germany's colonial heritage that must be driven forward

NDR

December 2021

The Lubeck Museums offer to repatriate 26 ethnographic objects that arrived in 'dubious circumstances' to the national museums of Namibia and Equatorial Guinea

NDR kulter

November 2021

Without prompting, the Lubeck Volkerkundesammlung has decided to return looted art in its ethnological collection to Africa

Der Nordschleswiger

September 2021

Appeals from ambassadors from the Group of Latin America and the Caribbean have been made to stop an auction of pre-Hispanic artefacts in Munich

DW.com

June 2021

The board of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation has given the green light for Berlin's museums to return looted Benin artefacts to Nigeria, "regardless of the circumstances in which they were acquired"

The Art Newspaper

May 2021

Luf boat, said to be looted from Papua New Guinea and due to be exhibited at the Humboldt Forum, is set to become the latest restitution battleground

Deutsche Welle (DW)

March 2021

In an historic move, Germany has entered into discussions to return looted Benin Bronzes to Nigeria

The Art Newspaper

November 2020

Humboldt Forum plans joint exhibitions and repatriations to Dar es Salaam

https://culturalpropertynews.org/humboldt-forum-collaboration-with-tanzania/

September 2020

Berlin's Ethnological Museum is to return the mummified remains of two Aboriginal children held in the museum since 1880 and human bones in a wooden coffin to Australia

https://artdaily.cc/news/128181/Berlin-museum-to-return-Aboriginal-remains-#.X2Hm8GdKit8

September 2020

Berlin to return two mummified tattooed heads (Toi moko), which entered the city's collections in 1879 and 1905, to the Te Papa Tongarewa museum in Wellington, New Zealand

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/berlin-returns-tattooed-maori-heads-to-new-zealand?utm_source=The+Art+Newspaper+Newsletters&utm_campaign=6e8de55119-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_08_28_06_07_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c459f924d0-6e8de55119-61273417

November 2019

The German state of Saxony returns the human remains of 45 indigenous ancestors, acquired in the 19th century, to communities of origin in Australia

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/germany-returns-indigenous-remains-of-45-ancestors-to-australia-in-long-overdue-step?utm_source=The+Art+Newspaper+Newsletters&utm_campaign=d975b76ca6-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_11_27_04_52&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c459f924d0-d975b76ca6-61273417

October 2019

The Museum fur Kunst und Gewerbe Hamburg returns a 12th century marble panel, stolen from the Rawza Museum of Islamic Art, Ghazni in the late 1970s, to Afghanistan

https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2019/10/mkg-hamburg-returns-12th-century-marble.html

June 2019

Germany returns a 2nd cent A.D. marble bust of a Roman youth, discovered in the city of Fondi and smuggled out of Italy over 50 years ago

https://www.thelocal.it/20190620/germany-returns-ancient-roman-bust-to-italy

May 2019

Deutsches Historisches Museum in Berlin to return the Stone Cross of Cape Cross to Namibia, placed on Namibia’s coast by Portuguese explorers in 1486

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-returning-stone-cross-artifact-to-namibia/a-48768706

May 2019

Reliquary looted from the church of Saint Mamas in Turkish occupied town of Morphou saved by Dusseldorf auctioneers and returned to Cyprus

https://in-cyprus.com/looted-cyprus-reliquary-saved-from-auction-returns-home/

April 2019

Five German institutions return the human remains of 53 Aboriginal ancestors to Australia, one of the largest repatriations of Aboriginal remains

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47934971

March 2019

The personal Bible of Nama-leader Hendrik Witbooi, together with his whip, both looted by German colonial soldiers in 1893, were returned to Namibia after six years of negotiations and a change in law by the parliament of Baden-Wurttemberg

https://www.gondwana-collection.com/news/article/2019/03/06/witbooi-bible-returned-to-namibia/

August 2018

Germany returns to Namibia the human remains of the Herero and Nama indigenous groups killed during the colonial era genocide

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-returns-human-remains-from-namibia-genocide/a-45268717

June 2018

The Rautenstrauch Joest Museum of world cultures in Cologne returned a tattooed Maori skull, purchased over 110 years ago from a London dealer, to a delegation representing the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa in Wellington

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/german-museum-returns-maori-skull

May 2018

Berlin's Ethnographic Museum returns nine artefacts, stolen from a burial site in the 1880s to indigenous communities in Alaska

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/arts/design/berlin-museum-artifacts-chugach-alaska.html

March 2018

After 10 years of diplomatic and judicial efforts, two 3,200-year-old Olmec culture archaeological pieces are returned by Germany to Mexico

http://www.unesco.org/new/es/media-services/single-view/news/mexico_recupera_dos_piezas_arqueologicas_de_tres_mil_anos/

January 2016

Germany returns to the Republic of Iraq a Sumerian clay cuneiform tablet dating from 2049 B.C. and offered for sale in an online auction

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-property/other-cases-of-return-or-restitution-of-cultural-objects/germany-to-iraq/

July 2014

The Charite, Berlin, the first German science institution to sign a repatriation agreement with Australia, has made its fifth return of 14 ancestral remains to Australia

https://www.charite.de/en/service/press_reports/artikel/detail/menschliche_gebeine_kehren_nach_australien_zurueck/

November 2012

Golden brooch in shape of a winged seahorse, part of the 'Lydian Hoard' illegally excavated in the mid-1960s, is to return to Turkey

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/25/king-croesus-treasure-returning-turkey

May 2003

Fragment of a carved soapstone sculpture of a bird, plundered almost 100 years ago from the Great Zimbabwe ruins, are returned by the Ethnological Museum in Berlin to Zimbabwe

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3028589.stm

lewis_2

New online tool will help museums assess a moral claim for restitution

“Modern morality,” wrote Oscar Wilde, “consists in accepting the standard of one’s age.” But how can museums define the moral standard of our age when constrained by historic rules of stewardship and the absence of a modern ethical framework?

Photo: Courtesy of The Uehiro Oxford Institute

Cambridge University’s transfer of legal title of Benin artefacts to Nigeria may lead others to do the same

This week’s announcement that Cambridge University has transferred legal ownership of its collection of 116 Benin artefacts to Nigeria could be hugely significant.

Photo: Commemorative Head of the Oba, or King, in brass

Courtesy of Fred Lewsey

DCMS will review its exclusion of national collections from returning cultural objects on moral grounds

University of Edinburgh returns six Native American skulls to Muscogee Nation

Six Native American skulls, acquired to advance the pseudoscience of phrenology, have been returned by the University of Edinburgh to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, a self-governed Native American Tribal Nation.

“There are ancestors still not whole that are kept by institutions here in America,” he added. “We can only hope that this incredible gesture by the University of Edinburgh will inspire these institutions to do the same.”

Photo: Muscogee Repatriation Ceremony, January 2026

Courtesy of Neil Hanna

Africa Hub invites visitors to share their knowledge of unidentified objects in the Manchester Museum

Can museum visitors throw light on objects that lack a reliable history, description or provenance? Manchester Museum hopes they can.

Photo: Wooden horse with ibis on its back. Origin, maker and date unknown.

Courtesy of Manchester Museum

Imperial Gold Hairpin to return to Ethiopia

A rare and important 19 th century gold hairpin once owned by Empress Tiruwork, wife of the Abyssinian Emperor Tewodros II, will be returning to Ethiopia following negotiations led by the Royal Ethiopian Trust with the Rome auction house Bertolami Fine Art.

Photos: Empress Tiruwork’s Hairpin, 19th cent.

Courtesy of Bertolami Fine Art

Protests in favour of a Benin Royal Museum frustrate ambitions of Nigeria’s Museum of West African Art

Photo: Museum of West African Art (MOWAA)

Courtesy of MOWAA

Why the Rosetta Stone will not be returning to Egypt ... just yet

After years of delay and political distraction, the official opening of the new Grand Egyptian Museum finally took place in the shadow of the pyramids on the evening of November 1 st attended by monarchs, world leaders, heads of state and government.

Photo: The Grand Egyptian Museum, Giza

Courtesy of Egyptescapes.com

V&A unveils new sculpture in latest cultural partnership with Ghana’s Manhyia Palace Museum

A new commissioned sculpture marking the latest stage in the Renewable Cultural Partnership between the V&A and the Manhyia Palace Museum in Kumasi has gone on display in the Museum’s Silver Galleries at South Kensington.

Photos: ‘Unity’ (2025) – A collaboration between the Asante Royal Goldsmith Nana Poku Amponsah Dwumfour and British-Ghanian Emefa Cole

Courtesy of Victoria and Albert Museum, London

No clear agreement from Shuar community on future of tsantsas in UK collections

A delegation of Shuar representatives from Ecuador visited the UK this month on a week-long programme to exchange knowledge, strengthen collaboration and learn how different museums in England are “looking after our ancestors”.

Photo: Shuar delegates at the Pitt Rivers Museum conference event, October 2025

Denver Art Museum marks 50-year partnership in repatriation and collaboration

While some museums continue to wrestle over their ‘Benin dilemma’ (to whom should we return our Benin Bronzes?), the Denver Art Museum is celebrating a cultural collaboration with Nigeria that has lasted over five decades.

“To be entrusted with the temporary display of a Benin Bronze plaque on loan from the Nigerian government,” said Christoph Heinrich, director of the DAM, “is a testament to the mutual respect and partnership we’ve built.”

Photo: Benin Plaque, 1550-1650. Work loaned out by the National Commission for Museums and Monuments of Nigeria

Courtesy of Denver Art Museum

Should Egyptian mummies be removed from public exhibition?

It’s no easy matter resolving the current ethical debate over the retention and exhibition of human remains. But one public collection is asking visitors to cast their vote.

Photo: Outer coffin of the temple musician, Asru (circa. 650 BCE)

Courtesy of Manchester Museum

Birmingham Museum helps shrink ‘The Elephant in the Room’

“Would be nice to have a more frank discussion about how objects are collected for the Museum. Saying ‘Donated’ is not enough."

Photo: The Sultanganj Buddha. 6th to 7th Century. Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery

Naga ancestral remains to be returned to their homeland

Last week, a delegation of Naga people signed a declaration that will lead to the return of 41 Naga ancestral remains currently held in the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford. We are here, declared nine tribal leaders, “to reclaim and return you to the homelands where you were taken.”

Photo: Naga Delegates at the Pitt Rivers Museum, June 2025

Courtesy of Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford

Campaign to repatriate Maya artefacts to Belize escalates

Village leaders at San Benito Poité in southern Belize, formerly British Honduras, are claiming that an important collection of artefacts removed from the ancient city of Pusilha is not the lawful property of the British Museum.

Photo: Splitting part of a stela 'to lighten the weight'. Pusilha

Courtesy of The Trustees of the British Museum

Placing ownership of museum collections under a spotlight

Explaining why a looted artefact should be returned to its country or community of origin can sometimes be straightforward. But explaining how is altogether different.

Put quite simply, “All we were doing is returning stolen property,” explained Curtis.

Photo: Who Owns Museum Collections speaker panel, 29 March 2025

Courtesy of Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford

Rare Aboriginal shell necklace is returned to Tasmanian homeland

A unique shell necklace believed to originate from the Bass Strait islands has been returned by The Hunterian collection, the oldest public museum in Scotland, to representatives from the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (TAC) who travelled to Glasgow to carry it home.

“The physical presence of original objects is critical in projects aimed at recovering traditional knowledge to continue practices and rebuild and extend traditional skills.”

Photo: Tasmanian Aboriginal shell necklace featuring maireener shells. Phasianotrochus irisodontes . c. 1877

Courtesy of The Hunterian, University of Glasgow

Report demands an end to the display of African ancestral remains in UK collections

Laying Ancestors to Rest pulls no punches. The recommendations made in a new policy brief published by the All Party-Parliamentary Group on Afrikan-Reparations (APPG-AR) include making the sale of human remains illegal and putting an end to the public display of all ancestral remains.

‘The existence of African ancestral remains collections in UK museums and other cultural institutions should be understood as continuous acts of displacement and objectification of human beings.’

Laying Ancestors to Rest , Policy Brief

Who decides when an object is ‘unfit to be retained’?

Photo: The British Museum

Could Britain and Greece be edging closer towards a Parthenon loan agreement?

There are several reasons why Britain’s new Labour administration may be closer to agreeing a loan of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece than the previous Conservative government, even though a full transfer of ownership remains firmly off the agenda.

“We are open to whatever is agreed,” said one official close to Starmer. “It’s right to say there is no strong view on what should happen.”

Photo: The Duveen Gallery at the British Museum

New website records thousands of looted antiquities returned to countries of origin

Investigations into the collecting patterns of major US museums resulted in two immensely readable and influential books covering today’s illegal trade in trafficking antiquities: Chasing Aphrodite: The Hunt for Looted Antiquities at the World’s Richest Museum and The Medici Conspiracy .

Photo courtesy of Museum of Looted Antiquities

Sunhat looted by British ‘White Rajahs’ returned to Kenyah Badeng community in Sarawak

A rare and important 19 ^th century gold hairpin once owned by Empress Tiruwork, wife of the Abyssinian Emperor Tewodros II, will be returning to Ethiopia following negotiations led by the Royal Ethiopian Trust with the Rome auction house Bertolami Fine Art.

After years of delay and political distraction, the official opening of the new Grand Egyptian Museum finally took place in the shadow of the pyramids on the evening of November 1 ^st attended by monarchs, world leaders, heads of state and government.

In a handover ceremony at the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford this week, a cherished cultural object – a sunhat taken violently by British colonisers at the end of the 19 ^th century during punitive expeditions to Sarawak, now part of Malaysia - was returned to the Kenyah Badeng community.

Photo: Badeng woven bamboo sunhat, late 19 ^th cent

Photo: A 16 ^th century bronze statue of Saint Tirumankai Alvar