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