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