# data[].attributes.body
July 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Heiltsuk Nation celebrates ‘powerful, emotional’ return of historic chief’s seat | Watch News Videos Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Watch Heiltsuk Nation celebrates ‘powerful, emotional’ return of historic chief’s seat Video Online, on GlobalNews.ca

# data[].attributes.body
July 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Heng Sinith / Associated Press)

The return to Cambodia of 14 sculptures that had been looted from the country during war and unrest is like welcoming home the souls of ancestors, Cambodia's culture minister said Thursday.

The items repatriated from New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art arrived Wednesday and were displayed to journalists and others on Thursday at the National Museum in the Cambodian capital Phnom Penh.

The artworks "were made between the 9th and 14th centuries in the Angkorian period and reflect the Hindu and Buddhist religious systems prevailing at that time," the museum said in a statement this week.

Cambodia's Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts said the "historic homecoming of national treasures" followed years of negotiations between Cambodia's art restitution team, U.S. federal prosecutors in New York, investigators from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Met.

Cambodian Culture Minister Phoeurng Sackona said the return of the artifacts was very important for the Cambodian people. The works recall the heritage of their ancestors through good times and bad.

"The pieces were staying a long, long time abroad, but today they returned to Cambodia, like a blessing for our people for peace, stability in our country now," she said.

To Cambodians, the returned artworks carry with them the souls of their ancestors, she said. Bringing back the souls of ancestors also includes bringing history, admiration and knowledge, Phoeurng Sackona said.

She said without elaborating that Cambodia hopes to receive very soon another 50 artifacts from the United States. Cambodia claims that other items illegally trafficked from the country are still at the Met and at other museums, as well as in the hands of private collectors.

"These returns contribute to the reconciliation and healing of the Cambodian people, who endured decades of civil war and suffered tremendously from the tragedy of the Khmer Rouge regime," Phoeurng Sackona said. "They also demonstrate the truly positive partnership we have developed with the United States."

For the art world, their return is the fruit of a reckoning in recent years over art and archaeological treasures taken from their homelands. These include not only ancient Asian artworks but also pieces lost or stolen in turmoil in other places, such as Syria, Iraq and Nazi-occupied Europe.

The pieces returned to Cambodia from the Met were looted during a long period of civil war and instability in Cambodia, which was ruled by the brutal communist Khmer Rouge regime in the 1970s.

They were bought and trafficked by well-known art dealer Douglas Latchford, who was indicted in 2019 for allegedly orchestrating a multiyear scheme to sell looted Cambodian antiquities on the international art market. Latchford, who died the following year, had denied any involvement in smuggling.

Cambodia's Culture Ministry highlighted two works among those returned that are expected to be restored by reuniting them with other parts already in its possession

The repatriation includes the "extraordinary" stone sculpture from the 10th century of the female goddess Uma from the ancient royal capital of Koh Ker, it said, adding that the sculpture's foot had already been retrieved from its original site.

"At last, the Uma can be reunified to achieve its full magnificence as one complete statue," it said.

"Moreover, a significant returned artifact is a 10th century bronze head of the deity Avalokiteshvara, which the Ministry highly anticipates finally being reunited with its matching torso, currently on display at the National Museum of Cambodia," it said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cambodia celebrates 'historic homecoming' of centuries-old looted statues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cambodia's culture minister says the Metropolitan Museum of Art's return of 14 looted sculptures is like welcoming home the souls of ancestors.

# data[].attributes.body
June 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Uganda welcomes return of 39 artefacts from Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology - Museums Association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Headdress and pots among colonial-era objects sent back in ‘landmark’ loan agreement

# data[].attributes.body
May 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Looted Asante artefacts returned on loan from the British Musuem and the Victoria and Albert Museum on display at the Manhyia Palace Museum in Kumasi, Ghana on May 12, 2024. Getty Images

Repatriation ceremonies tend to be bureaucratic affairs done for show-the deal to return a looted artwork is conducted long before the object is actually handed over to its rightful owner. But earlier this month, when objects related to Asante culture made their way back to Ghana after about a century and half abroad, many were deeply affected.

Ivor Agyeman-Duah, the lead negotiator for Asantehene Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, the monarch of the Asante Kingdom, described the historic occasion as "very touching."

"The emotions that came out of the Asantehene when he first saw these objects weeks ago underlined the whole history of the 19th century," Agyeman-Duah told ARTnews, speaking after the opening of an exhibition of the returned objects at the revamped Manhyia Palace Museum in Kumasi, the capital of the Ashanti Region. "It was very emotional negotiating for them, but it was even more so when we first listed the objects and identified the ones that will come here."

Some of these objects come from two London museums, the British Museum and the Victoria & Albert Museum, and one in Los Angeles, UCLA's Fowler Museum. Agyeman-Duah, who is also the director of the Manhyia Palace Museum, said there are ongoing discussions with individuals, corporate organizations, and galleries in South Africa and the United Kingdom to return more regalia. He teased a meeting in England in about two months to start new negotiations.

Among the objects in the show are a 300-year-old sword of state (Mponponso), a gold peace pipe, sika mena (elephant tail whisk), royal stool ornaments, an Asante royal gold necklace, and ceremonial gold bangles. The objects have not been seen in Ghana in about 150 years.

Some of the returns will last forever while others are temporary. The Fowler Museum, for example, permanently gave back seven items in early February. The British Museum and the V&A, meanwhile, have only lent their objects for three years, with the possibility to extend the loan. (England's National Heritage Act of 1963 prohibits British museums from permanently removing items from their collections.) Whether the objects are here to stay or not, the show is an important one because of the spiritual and ceremonial significance of the objects to the Asante Kingdom.

While repatriation has only recently received wider attention in the West, requests for the return of looted objects have been common in Ghana and other countries for the past century. The request for the return of the Asante regalia, for example, started in the 1920s during the reign of Prempeh I.

The regalia was looted by British soldiers from the Manhyia Palace of Asantehene Kofi Karikari in 1874 during the Sagrenti War, also referred to as the Third Anglo-Ashanti War. The war was fought between the Ashanti Empire and the British Empire, and during the conflict, Kumasi and the palace were burnt and plundered.

The opening of the show at the Manhyia Palace Museum on May 1 also marked the 150th anniversary of the British invasion of Kumasi; the 100th anniversary of the return of Nana Agyeman Prempeh I, an Asantehene who was sent into exile by the British to Seychelles; and the silver jubilee of His Royal Majesty, the Asantehene as the leader of the Asante Kingdom.

Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, Ghana's Asante king, received artifacts returned by the Fowler Museum of UCLA at the Manhyia Palace in Kumasi, Ghana, on February 8, 2024. Photo Nipah Dennis/AFP

The Manhyia Palace Museum was initially the home of Asantehene Nana Agyeman Prempeh I following his return from decades of British-imposed exile in the Seychelles. The British built it as a replacement for the destruction of the earlier palace, but the king only moved in after the Ashanti Kingdom had fully paid for it. Prempeh lived in the palace from 1925 to 1931; the building later became a museum, opening to the public in 1995.

"We all accept that there are universal values of culture which attract people from all ethnic groups, nationalities, and beliefs," Otumfuo Osei Tutu II said during a speech at the opening. "The reactions to these objects coming home are ample evidence of this."

He called the returned regalia "the soul of the people of Asante," adding that these objects "embody the soul of Asante. And I believe that during the period that they are being displayed everybody will make the effort to come and see it for themselves, to believe that these were created by our own artisans."

The Asantehene said he has asked the Manhyia Palace Museum to design an initiative to support traditional art in Ghana in collaboration with the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology art school. Partners in this project include the British Museum, the V&A, and British Airways.

Starting in 2025, he continued, the initiative will award three prizes yearly; finalists' works will be purchased locally for upcoming contemporary art museums, the goal being to keep these works within Ghana. When he travels to London in July to deliver a public lecture at the British Museum, he also plans to meet artists and goldsmiths in the Ghanaian diaspora in the country.

Among those on hand to witness the opening of the exhibition were V&A director Tristram Hunt, British Museum trustee Chris Gosden, and Edmond Moukala, UNESCO's Ghana head. The international cast of onlookers is a sign that something has shifted in the UK, a country whose museums have been largely resistant to returning art to nations abroad.

"I think it's a thickening of the relationship between Ghana and the UK, which is longstanding and deep," remarked Hunt to ARTnews. "I think what is important here is the strength of the partnership between museums in London, the British Museum, the Victoria & Albert Museum, and Manhyia Palace. And so, it's more than the objects landing here. It's about how we share knowledge, it's about how we share conservation skills, how we share education, so it's a richer partnership over time, hopefully."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Emotional Show in Ghana Marks the Return of Looted Asante Culture from the UK

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At the Manhyia Palace Museum in Kumasi, Ghana, newly returned Asante artifacts are on view from the British Museum and other Western institutions.

# data[].attributes.body
April 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In March last year, two men in tracksuits, wearing hockey masks and carrying matching laundry bags, headed for the British Museum. Just outside, patrolling police asked the two strange-looking men where they were going. "We're going to the British Museum to loot back stolen goods," one of them said. "Well, we'll see you in there then!" the policewoman answered.

But no arrests were made, as nothing incriminating happened. What did take place was a "digital heist" of one of the most famous objects in the British Museum, an artefact that is, according to Egyptologist Monica Hanna, "a symbol of western cultural power" and "of British imperialism": the Rosetta Stone.

The heist involved the pair, plus Hanna, whom they had invited along, going to the vitrine where the stela is displayed and making detailed 3D scans of it on an iPad. This effectively provided the "looters" with a digital copy of the artefact from 196BC totally legally. But their goal wasn't merely to digitise the Rosetta Stone, but to return it to its place of origin, Rashid (or Rosetta), Egypt, using location-based augmented reality technology (or Geo AR), for local people to view the object from their smartphones.

They don't really care about the artefacts, they care more about the fact that they have them

The two men behind the masks were London-based Chidi Nwaubani and Ahmed Abokor, a product designer and a creative consultant, respectively. Together they make up Looty, a radical "artivist" collective and tech company founded in 2021 that aims to "loot back" stolen cultural artefacts from museums. First by 3D scanning them, then by sharing them as revamped digital artworks through non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

As NFTs provide public proof of the ownership of digital files, Looty's method of "stealing" and redistributing artworks aims to challenge the lack of transparency and the fading relevance often associated with institutions founded in the colonial era. After the British Museum's scandal last August, in which about 2,000 artefacts were reportedly stolen due to poor record-keeping, revealing that about half of its collection of around 8m objects was never fully catalogued, the 18th-century-founded museum is again facing a public reckoning.

"They don't really care about the artefacts, they care more about the fact that they have them," Abokor says. "It's all about power again."

From organising one of the main interactive exhibitions at last year's Venice Architecture Biennale to mounting an installation at NFT Paris in February this year, Looty is taking the art and tech worlds by storm. In November, they were selected in the Special Projects category at the 1-54 Contemporary African Art Fair. Continuing their Rosetta stone heist project, Abokor had made a replica of it with fabric and rope wrapped round it. Visitors could scan the stone using a QR code included in the artwork's description, triggering an animation on their phones and an augmented reality (AR) experience that showcased the Rosetta Stone in its original size and glory.

Nwaubani and Abokor's partnership goes back about 20 years when they met at university in London, bonding over their creative spirits and shared African heritage. Nwaubani was raised mostly around Guildford and developed an early interest in tech by "coding computer games on floppy disks". But he experienced intense racism at school, leading his father, a university professor originally from Nigeria, to change his school.

"You can't be a black person living in Europe and not have some level of political affiliation. You're already politicised by what happens to you growing up," Nwaubani says.

Chidi Nwaubani scanning the Benin brass plaques at the British Museum. Photograph: Keleenna Onyeaka

Born in Somalia, Abokor was only 12 months old when his family moved to Sweden and ended up living in a refugee camp. "Coming from war, it's ingrained in us to understand politics and know what's happening around us," he says.

The two recall that when they were young, their parents would offer "alternative" history lessons of European museums, explaining where objects "really" come from. This helped develop their curiosity about Africa's rich and often misrepresented history, and taught them that power and politics are ingrained in art.

It was around Christmas 2020 when Nwaubani first got the idea for Looty; the collective's name refers to a Pekingese dog owned by Queen Victoria that British soldiers looted from China's Summer Palace in 1860. He read a report that revealed that 90 to 95% of Africa's cultural heritage is held by major museums outside Africa. Inspired by the boom in NFTs, Nwaubani thought of a project "around the idea of: 'Can you steal back something that's already stolen?'"

The technology that would help bring this concept of digital looting and restitution to life is Lidar, a form of 3D scanning that stands for "light detection and ranging" and uses eye-safe laser beams to "see" the world in 3D. Lidar allows Looty to digitally record artefacts and render them in 3D. They then make them available on the blockchain as NFTs and "counter reimaginations of the originals" according to Nwaubani - bypassing bureaucratic processes that prevent people from developing countries from seeing these artworks face to face.

When the British stormed the Benin kingdom in the 1800s there were no laws against that. Now there are no laws against what we do

Before the Rosetta, their first project was with the Benin bronzes, another heavily disputed colonial artefact scattered across western museums. Looty released a limited collection of 25 NFTs of the bronzes based on a looted Oba (king) head from the British Museum. Each sale contributes 20% into the Looty Fund, which gives out grants to young African artists, especially from Nigeria.

skip past newsletter promotion

Sign up to Inside Saturday

The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend.
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion

What they discovered was that the museum world is still adapting to the era of mass digitisation. On its website, the British Museum says it allows 3D photographs and printing of objects for non-commercial use, and asks visitors "to be mindful and respectful" of objects that are "culturally sensitive".

"When the British stormed the Benin kingdom [in 1897] there were no laws against that, or they would create a law around it to make it legal," says Nwaubani. "Now we're in an era where there are no laws against what we do."

"And tech moves faster than law as well," Abokor adds.

It is a dilemma facing cultural institutions in the digital era: while many artists wish to use technology to make culture more accessible and, in the case of Looty, less western-centric, museums are trying to adapt without losing their ability to draw audiences.

For Berlin-based artist Oliver Laric, who has digitised the collections of a dozen museums across Europe, museums must realise that "there is an urgent need for alternatives" to centralised cultural heritage institutions. "There are many fears based on false legal assumptions, but also fears of some kind of loss as a result of accessibility", he says. "When talking to museums I often brought up a very simplistic example: no amount of replicas or merchandise will keep people from wanting to see the Mona Lisa in person, rather the opposite".

Although the restitution work in Europe may seem remote from the preoccupations of people on the ground in formerly colonised nations, heritage experts say that these issues are significant for many in the global south.

"People are already thinking of how the repatriation will fit into the local economy, and how restitution and repatriation can create job opportunities," Monica Hanna says about the city of Rashid, Egypt, where the Rosetta Stone can now be viewed in an augmented reality installation using a QR code through apps such as Snapchat.

With a calm yet trailblazing energy,Nwaubani invokes the vision of Steve Jobs with the Pan-Africanism of Chinua Achebe. Looty's motto is "the future awaits your return" - to evoke "a constant dialogue between the past and the future", and establish Looty as a "counter-imagination" of the museum.

These days, we're less likely to find the pair "looting" the British Museum. Instead they're busy preparing their next interactive exhibition somewhere between Europe and Africa. Although they feel they've achieved a lot these past three years, they say there's still a long road ahead. Like technology, culture is always changing, and the two "looters" are not only embracing innovations but also dreaming of the ones still to come.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Can you steal back something that's already stolen?': how radical art duo Looty repatriated the Rosetta Stone

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tired of colonial artefacts being hoarded, Chidi Nwaubani and Ahmed Abokor use tech to redistribute them from museums in audacious digital heists

# data[].attributes.headline
Are Museums Entering a New Era of Repatriation of Human Remains?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are Museums Entering a New Era of Repatriation of Human Remains?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
[ Marie-Sophie de Clippele is Assistant Professor in Law at UC Louvain Saint-Louis - Bruxelles]

The centrality of the human body as site of colonial violence, and its implication for contemporary restitution policies, are discussed in Chapter 5 of Confronting Colonial Objects. The book shows that human remains and natural history objects are more than objects or human biological material. It draws on the interplay between human rights, transitional justice, heritage law and soft law to develop relational cultural justice principles regarding entangled objects. In this post, I wish to expand on the discussion, by inquiring to what extent museums are entering a new era of repatriation relating to human remains, in a transnational context. I draw partly on findings of my work on human remains and cultural heritage, published in a recent book, to argue in favour of an inclusive heritage justice model. That research was conducted under the auspices of the collective and interdisciplinary HOME project financed by the Belgian Science Policy Office (Belspo).

The presence of human remains in museums originates from various sources: they may have been preserved immediately after death, excavated during archaeological digs, or collected in foreign countries, the latter often under contentious circumstances during colonial periods. Most of these colonial takings occurred via military appropriation of trophies, scientific expeditions grounded in racial theories, or medical research operations, the violence of which underscores also their ' particular category' in the realm of colonial acquisitions.

What justifies the presence of these human remains in collections? Do they not rightfully belong to their place of origin? The concept of belonging is especially delicate when it concerns human remains, as it opens toward the wider question of how the living interact with the deceased. Belonging and repatriation then go hand in hand, as human remains should go back to where they belong, back to their patria, fatherland. The word repatriation is often used specifically for human remains, as to insist on their distinctiveness compared to cultural objects and the special bond with families and communities. But some sacred objects, not human remains, may deserve equal special attention, making the distinction sometimes questionable. Nonetheless, given the use of the term 'repatriation' in soft law instruments, I will use it here too, even if the notion of restitution or even return, may also be valid.

Even if repatriation of human remains is sometimes regulated, such as in humanitarian law on the repatriation of soldiers' bodies from battlefields or in some domestic criminal law on the recovery of the remains by family members, there is currently no (international) right to repatriate human remains preserved in collections located in a country other than their country of origin. Despite these legal shortcomings some recent developments are interesting to note. The recent changes seem to welcome a new era of repatriations, based on an inclusive heritage justice model.
1. Beyond Legal Shortcomings, a New Era of Repatriation
International law does not offer a satisfying solution to the issue of repatriating human remains. Few international conventions address the issue, as they are not retroactive. The majority of acquisitions of human remains took place mainly during colonial times, i.e. before the entry into force of these international treaties in most continental laws. The former colonial powers did not rush to enact specific provisions to address this gap, taking refuge behind the principle of the intertemporality of law. Since colonial acquisitions were legal at the time - but not necessarily so - the property title could not be questioned. Even if some actions were already forbidden, such as mutilation of corpses, it did not preclude special scientific exemptions, illustrating one of the complex " entangled legalities" surrounding colonial acquisitions. From a purely European continental law perspective, common civil law applies, which tends to reinforce the rights of the possessor.

Although there is no overarching framework for the repatriation of human remains at the international level, most repatriation efforts now operate within a more rigorous legal framework at the national and subnational level, which includes national laws and guidelines from public authorities.

At the national level, certain countries like the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada have enacted specific legislation primarily focused on the internal repatriation of human remains belonging to their indigenous populations. Beyond the settler-colony context, a new wave of legislations has been adopted, mostly focused on colonial heritage and sometimes also on human remains. France has for instance recently enacted a general repatriation law for human remains in public collections. Belgium has adopted a general law for the restitution of colonial collections in its federal museums, a pioneering framework which however explicitly excludes human remains, even if a draft bill on forbidding the sale of human remains is currently being discussed. On the other side of the spectrum, notably in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a Decree has been adopted to create a national commission on the restitution and reconstitution of cultural objects, human remains and archives.

In contrast, other countries, such as Germany, The Netherlands or Switzerland, adhere to museum-related policies at the national or local level, encompassing recommendations from museums and academia rather than parliamentary bills, which can however equally be effective in guiding repatriation efforts.

To get back at the international level, the landscape has also evolved significantly in recent decades, paving the way toward a new era of repatriations. Indigenous peoples' fundamental rights, such as the right to self-determination and the repatriation of their cultural heritage and ancestral remains, recognized in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (2007), are now partly considered customary law. Additionally, their basic right to cultural heritage has gained acknowledgment from bodies like the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, and to some extent, the International Court of Justice. This collective right to cultural heritage, also laid down in the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (2005), is progressively extended to all people, according to the former UN special rapporteur on cultural rights, Farida Shaheed (Shaheed, 2011), and according to scholars. Furthermore, discussions surrounding the legality of acquiring human remains in the context of colonial history present arguments supporting repatriation. Lastly, the collective impact of non-binding international legal instruments contributes to the development of a global ethical framework for repatriation, such as the recent Dakar Declaration or the G20 Culture Meeting.
2. Toward a Model of Inclusive Heritage Justice?
When examining current practices of repatriations in various countries, it is also interesting to note that diplomatic channels are primarily favoured over judicial avenues. Demanding repatriation before a judge remains fraught with risks (burden of proof, time lapse, black and white solutions...), even if recently happened with the tooth of Lumumba, albeit not in a representative way. The diplomatic approach offers multiple avenues for achieving repatriation without the need for binding judicial decisions, effectively sidestepping the inherent challenges of court proceedings. However, the diplomatic route often has a more political dimension, especially when initiated by state authorities, and can be instrumentalized within the context of cultural diplomacy with objectives that extend beyond restitution.

When it comes to human remains, a diplomatic, state-to-state approach is probably not enough. The involvement of non-state actors is critical, even more than for cultural objects. There is some higher " moral burden " because of the connection between the living and the deceased. Repatriating human remains or ancestral remains, along with related sacred objects, should be viewed as a restoration of this connection. Families and communities should be central to the process, ensuring that repatriation holds meaning and contributes to inclusive heritage justice.

In this regard, transitional justice mechanisms may help, especially for addressing repatriation procedures involving human remains acquired within a colonial context. Recently a UN report included colonial violence in transitional justice, widening its application in countries who juggle with colonial history. If the four pillars of transitional justice were to be applied to human remains, it would mean:

(1) in terms of seeking the truth, acknowledging the circumstances and context that led to the illegitimate acquisition of human remains and the connected crimes;

(2) concerning the right to justice, fostering a dialogue between the descendants of deceased individuals whose bodies were exhumed or taken as trophies and the institutions that received these remains from those responsible for such actions;

(3) in relation to reparations, planning for the physical return of the remains and other forms of symbolic compensation;

(4) with regard to non-recurrence and reconciliation, bringing about reconciliation between the involved parties through dialogue, apologies, and forgiveness, thereby enabling the descendants of victims to move forward and attain a sense of closure.

These mechanisms were also at the heart of the truth and reconciliation commission on the colonial past in the Belgian Parliament. But the Commission failed to adopt common recommendations, painfully displaying the lack of political will to acknowledge the hurtful truth and to reconcile with Belgium's colonial past in Congo, Rwanda and Burundi. There seems to be still a long way to go in terms of justice with that past.

If we are to enter a new era of repatriations, I argue it might follow a model of inclusive heritage justice, based on the interaction of the following aspects (also shown in the figure below):

International legal standards (heritage conventions, if applicable despite their non-retroactive nature) or national-level standards (laws addressing the repatriation of human remains, either in a general sense or through ad hoc legislation).

Human rights, particularly the collective and individual right to cultural heritage, cultural rights, and the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples.

Ethical principles, including the principle of dignity and the sacredness of human remains, as addressed in soft law guidelines concerning human remains, along with considerations regarding the legitimacy of their acquisition.

Institutional practices that promote the repatriation of human remains, encompassing manuals, museum and academic recommendations, and case-specific practices.

Transitional justice mechanisms designed to comprehensively support repatriation processes, ensuring that they hold significance, especially for the originating community.

All put together, these rights, standards, principles and practices could develop in a transitional justice dimension. The model would build further on the premise of the principles of dignity, respect and decency, as contained in the French Civil Code and advised by the Belgian Committee on Bio-ethics, but it would also recognise the memorial complex behind the dead, as most human remains collected in the colonial context carry a heavy history of racial violence to be reconciled with. Regarding human remains as (missing) persons also insists on the human dimension.

But how far back in time should the human dimension go? Does it include human fossils from prehistoric times? The Dutch case of the Java Man is quite revealing. Even though the humanoid fossil - a homo erectus - cannot be identified to any living community, the context of acquisition plays a predominant role here: these Java bone remains were excavated during colonial rule by Western powers, including the Dutch. Therefore, the Java Man could also be up for repatriation according to the Dutch Minister of Culture's policy.

The importance of the context of acquisition also makes the case for provenance research, at the core of any sensible repatriation and restitution endeavour. As indicated in ethical guidelines for Belgian colonial collections, drafted by an independent group of researchers, provenance should mean diversifying the sources consulted, including oral sources and testimonies, consulting communities of origin and using digital tools to increase access to information. Starting from provenance research principles, some ethical international guidelines could be drafted at the international level, for instance by transposing the Washington principles to colonial heritage, and bring together multiple transnational stakeholder as was the case for the Benin Dialogue Group, seen by some as a potential game changer for a more inclusive restitution model.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Symposium on Confronting Colonial Objects: Are Museums Entering a New Era of Repatriation of Human Remains?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Marie-Sophie de Clippele is Assistant Professor in Law at UC Louvain Saint-Louis - Bruxelles] The centrality of the human body as site of colonial violence, and its implication for contemporary restitution policies, are discussed in Chapter 5 of Confronting Colonial Objects. The book shows that human remains and natural history objects are more than objects or human biological material.

# data[].attributes.body
March 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Smithsonian moves towards ‘informed consent’ principle for human remains - Museums Association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Institution acknowledges ‘morally abhorrent’ historic practices and commits to repatriating majority of remains

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In two separate expeditions 150 years ago, soldiers, scientists and mineral prospectors entered the lands of Lakotan people. This was just six years after the United States had formally recognized Lakotan sovereignty in the region.

In July 1874 - in the better known of the two expeditions - an ambitious young lieutenant colonel named George Armstrong Custer led more than 1,000 heavily armed troops into the Black Hills, a mountain range in what is now western South Dakota and eastern Wyoming. The official aim of the expedition was to map the area and find a suitable location to build a military fort, "to take the hostile backbone out of these unruly savages", according to a high-ranking army commander. But Custer had also recruited a team of geologists, mineral prospectors and journalists to accompany his soldiers, in the hope of precipitating a gold rush.

The second expedition was led by Othniel Charles Marsh, a pre-eminent palaeontologist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. In November that year, Marsh unearthed two tonnes of prehistoric fossils and shipped them to the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History.

Custer's expedition is often used to demonstrate the ruthless tactics deployed by the United States to colonize Native American lands. Marsh's venture is generally seen in a more benign light, as an effort to further humanity's understanding of Earth's history. But a closer look at what happened in 1874, and in the years that followed, reveals that Marsh also contributed to the dispossession of Native American people. He extracted countless specimens from Lakotan lands without permission. When he shipped the fossils to Connecticut, most of the Lakotan meanings and stories tied to them were stripped away. Perhaps most egregiously, Marsh's specimens were subsequently used to support an erroneous, racist theory of evolutionary progress that was deployed to justify the imperial expansion of the United States.

Around the world, archaeologists and anthropologists have taken steps to confront the darker side of their disciplines' histories. In the United States, as of this January, federal law mandates that museums obtain "free, prior, and informed consent" from lineal descendants, American Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations before they exhibit human remains or cultural items (see go.nature.com/3wcvcvh). A similar reckoning for the Earth sciences - including a rethink of where and how natural history collections are curated - could help to rebuild Indigenous communities' trust in science globally. It could also promote a greater diversity of perspectives on the natural world.

Material motives

According to Lakotan people (the Native American Nation now has more than 115,000 citizens), they have always lived in Paha Sapa, as they call the Black Hills. When strangers first started entering their hunting grounds - often in search of material wealth - Lakotans exchanged animal pelts with them for weapons and other goods. But over time, the flow of migrants led to rising tensions, particularly around the hunting of buffalo ( Bison bison).

Lakotan people were not just dependent on the buffalo for their livelihoods; they also viewed them as relatives. Whereas the region's Indigenous people agreed not to hunt animals beyond what was needed, migrants began slaughtering buffalo on a massive scale, in part to limit the power and mobility of the Indigenous groups.

Hoping to curb the influx of migrants, a leader named Mahpiya Luta (Red Cloud), the head of a group of Lakotan people called the Oglala, forged a powerful alliance with the Cheyenne and Arapaho peoples, two other Native American Nations. When it became clear that the United States was failing to prevail on the battlefield, the federal government sued for peace and convened a treaty council in 1868 at Fort Laramie, in present-day Wyoming. After this meeting, the United States agreed to recognize Lakotan sovereignty in a swathe of territory about the size of Spain. This region, covering portions of what is now South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and Nebraska, includes the Black Hills and the White River Badlands, a geological formation that is rich in vertebrate fossils, which range from 27 million to 37 million years old.

Custer's expedition six years later almost immediately attracted countless migrants to the treaty lands. In August 1874, before Custer's scientists had even finished their work, expedition journalists dispatched several reports to newspapers across the United States touting the region's rich mineral resources. As well as making front-page headlines in newspapers such as the New York Tribune, Custer's exploits were publicized in books, pamphlets, maps and advertisements. Some of the most sensational reports were printed by the US Land Office, as well as by railroad companies that sought to profit from westward migration.

For Marsh, it wasn't rumours of the Black Hills' rich mineral deposits that drew him to the region, but reports from military surveyors of a "vast deposit of fossil remains" in northern Nebraska.

Custer had actually invited Marsh to join his July expedition. But Marsh had declined, sending his most promising student, George Bird Grinnell, instead. Later that year, however, Marsh set out for the treaty lands. When he arrived at the Red Cloud Agency, a military post where the US government distributed money and supplies to Indigenous people, Marsh found that the assembled Indigenous groups were highly suspicious of his interest in fossils. According to a 22 December 1874 article in the New York Tribune, a meeting was convened during which White Tail, one of the Lakotan leaders, "sprang at once to his feet", declaring "that the proposed bone-seeking was merely a ruse to begin digging for gold and invading the Black Hills".

After a tense and protracted negotiation, Red Cloud agreed to let Marsh enter the Badlands as long as he was escorted by Lakotan guides, and as long as he promised to tell federal officials in Washington DC that a government officer in charge of the Red Cloud Agency was distributing poor-quality supplies and embezzling funds. According to the Tribune article, Marsh accepted, but when it became clear that the Lakotans were growing increasingly suspicious of his true motives, he resolved to leave for the White River Badlands without his guides, under the cover of darkness.

Over the next few days, Marsh and his military escort excavated cartloads of fossils - including the massive remains of extinct ungulates that Marsh named Brontotheriidae - all under the watchful eye of Lakotan warriors who had quickly realized what he was up to. Writing in the 17 November 1874 edition of the New York Tribune, a newspaper journalist even joked that "the search for fossils instead of that for gold may unlock the gates of the Black Hills".

Marsh was not the only scientist to extract knowledge and research materials from Lakotan treaty lands. Many fossils have been taken from the region over the years, often without permission. After the initial discoveries of 1874, Marsh sent his assistant John Bell Hatcher to find more specimens for the Peabody Museum. Over the next several decades, scientists from the American Museum of Natural History in New York City also collected specimens in the treaty lands, resulting in the publication in 1929 of a massive treatise on the region's extinct ungulates by the museum's president, Henry Fairfield Osborn. But Marsh's findings helped to support the imperial expansion of the United States in a more insidious way, too.

According to Marsh and his colleagues, extinction had a role in evolutionary advancement by creating ecological space for new and more advanced lineages. This idea - that certain less-evolved races are doomed to extinction, known as 'racial senescence' - was widely embraced by intellectual elites at the time. And it was used to support claims that North America's Indigenous nations were naturally destined to disappear. In other words, a speculative theory about evolution bolstered by fossils extracted - illegally - from treaty lands was invoked to justify the dispossession of those same lands by portraying their original inhabitants as naturally doomed to extinction.

Genuine collaborations

Today, the involvement of scientists such as Marsh in the colonization of North America is rarely discussed. A recently renovated exhibition about vertebrate fossils at the Peabody Museum, for instance, acknowledges the historical tensions between scientists and Native American people. But it also suggests that a more collaborative relationship existed between Marsh and Lakotan people than the evidence indicates. For example, one sign explains that Marsh was inspired by Lakotan stories about thunder beings ( Wakiŋyaŋ) when he decided to use the Greek word for thunder beast to name the extinct ungulates he had excavated 'brontotheres'. Wakiŋyaŋ are bird-like spirits whose conflict with ancient monsters called uŋhcegila is often used by Lakotan people to explain the abundance of fossils in the White River Badlands.

In our view, Earth scientists and natural history museums should foster further conversations about the ways in which their disciplines and institutions are entangled with the violent history of colonialism. Some have already begun to take important steps in this direction. The Natural History Museum in Berlin, for example, has created an interdisciplinary research centre, involving historians, anthropologists and natural scientists, to explore the provenance of its collections.

We encourage more interdisciplinary research of this kind. More museums and universities should create scholarships to make their collections easily accessible to students and researchers from the lands from which they were extracted. Furthermore, scientists could do much more to forge reciprocal relationships with people on whose lands they wish to work - for instance, by discussing potential collaborations with local partners before submitting a funding proposal. Finally, we think that where and how natural history collections are curated should be re-evaluated.

There are clear legal arguments for repatriating fossils extracted from the White River Badlands. The 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie - which, according to a 1980 ruling by the US Supreme Court, remains in effect - explicitly sets aside the lands around the Black Hills for the "absolute and undisturbed use and occupation" of Lakotan people (see go.nature.com/4ar2cat). Why should this language not cover the extraction of specimens?

Implicitly or explicitly, it is often assumed that because Earth sciences deal with rocks and fossils, rather than with artefacts or human remains, they should not be held to the same ethical standards as anthropology and archaeology. In 1999, for example, under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon asked for the return of a sacred meteorite called Tomanowos, or 'sky person'. Describing the specimen as "a feature of the landscape", the American Museum of Natural History denied the tribe's claim and filed a federal lawsuit in 2000 to clarify that "NAGPRA does not cover this type of object". In support, an editorial in The New York Times stated that the meteorite "is a celestial object" that "belongs to us all, and is best left in the custody of the museum". Similar arguments are often made for fossils that pre-date the evolution of humans.

This line of reasoning overlooks the very different relationships between nature and culture, prehistory and the present that characterize the cosmology of Lakotans and many other Indigenous cultures worldwide.

The Lakotan creation story - the narrative of how Lakotan people came to be, passed down through generations - begins with Iŋyaŋ (stone). Iŋyaŋ existed before there was anything else, but he wanted something over which he could exercise his power. So he opened his veins and spread his blood in a great disk all around himself to create Maka (Earth). Because Iŋyaŋ was unable to staunch the flow of blood, his body became brittle and dry, and he was scattered all over Maka. From this initial sacrifice, everything else followed, including the sky, the Sun, the Moon, the plants and the animals.

According to Luther Standing Bear, who worked to uphold Lakotan culture and sovereignty in the late nineteenth century, the creation story reminds Lakotans that they came from Maka, which in turn provides "the foundation for the love they bore for earth and all the things of the earth". These teachings are reinforced by ceremonies, such as the sweat lodge, a ritual that involves pouring water over hot stones while offering prayers to Tuŋkasila (grandfather or creator). As Albert White Hat, a respected teacher of Lakotan language and culture, explains: "Whether it's the spirit of the eagle, or the coyote, or the spider, whatever spirit comes in the lodge, I address them as Tuŋkasila ... because they represent the beginning of time until today. And they are my relatives, they are dear to me."

The Lakotan saying Mitakuye Oyasiŋ, or 'We are all related', extends beyond humans to encompass everything in the treaty lands - including plants and animals, stones, the sky, fossils, thunderstorms and Earth itself. All are part of a complex network of relationships forged out of mutual dependence and reciprocity. In our view, museums have an ethical duty to return fossils extracted from the White River Badlands, not just because of the 1868 agreement, but because fossils are an integral part of the system of relationships that brings order to all life in the treaty lands.

Diverse world views

The realization that extractive capitalism is unsustainable is leading to a growing interest in how Lakotans and other Indigenous people relate to Earth. By partnering with Native American Nations to build museums on tribal lands, institutions such as the Peabody Museum could help to develop exhibits that present a much richer picture of the stories, meanings and interpretations tied to fossils than is currently possible.

Visitors could learn, for example, how a series of uplifts followed by erosion, which extend as far back as the Precambrian period (more than 500 million years ago), helped to create the Black Hills. But they could learn about the Lakotan narrative of how the Black Hills came to be, too.

"Far back in the first sunrise of time," Lakotan storyteller James LaPointe explains in his 1976 book, Legends of the Lakota, the treaty lands were disordered and chaotic. After much deliberation, humanity held a great race to decide who could eat whom. As the seething mass of animals raced round and round, Earth began to quiver and, with "a thunderous roar, it burst open". As flames rose all around them, the animals "lay dead in their tracks, covered with smoldering ashes and lava". As a result of all this, "there are many large bones still lying along the historic track", including the "huge bones of Unkche Ghila, which, once upon a time, roamed these prairie lands" and "can be found in the badlands to the east and south of the Black Hills".

As well as being repositories for repatriated specimens, museums on Indigenous lands could employ local researchers, provide educational resources for local students and develop innovative exhibitions by involving Indigenous poets and artists - ultimately providing an inclusive and informative resource for everyone.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02027-y

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The legacy of a palaeontology expedition into Native American lands 150 years ago should prompt a rethink of where and how fossil collections are curated. The legacy of a palaeontology expedition into Native American lands 150 years ago should prompt a rethink of where and how fossil collections are curated.

# data[].attributes.body
May 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The British Museum could repatriate more contested artefacts despite legal restrictions that hamper a permanent deal for the Elgin Marbles.

Treasures were returned last week to Otomfuo Osei Tutu II, the king of the Asante in Ghana, in a joint project with the V&A, which marked the first time high-profile British institutions had sent artefacts back to Africa.

Bosses at the British Museum have said that more repatriation deals could be done and legal constraints, which have frustrated any arrangement for the Elgin Marbles, could be worked around.

The British Museum Act 1963 currently bars the institution from handing over legal ownership of its artefacts, a red line for Greece that will not accept a loan deal.

Representatives of the museum believe that this constraint is not the "be all and end all" and more objects could be legally returned if nations involved in repatriation rows are willing to accept favourable loan deals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
British Museum explores repatriation of more contested artefacts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Deals that work around legal constraints hampering the Elgin Marbles could be made with other countries

# data[].attributes.headline
A Beginners Guide to the Repatriation of Stolen or Looted Art and Cultural Material

# data[].attributes.subject
A Beginners Guide to the Repatriation of Stolen or Looted Art and Cultural Material

# data[].attributes.body
Resource relating to international repatriation from Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Colonisation, war crimes and international organised crime have resulted in the unlawful movement of cultural materials and artworks from one country to another. Whilst there has been a long-held belief that "looting cultural heritage is wrong and stolen objects should be returned to their rightful owner", the inclination to organise the return of stolen objects only emerged in the 1950s. Today, repatriation has received a renewed surge of public interest as famous artefacts such as the Benin Bronzes and Parthenon Marbles have been the subject of repatriation efforts and significant media scrutiny. Museums are also starting to show a greater interest in repatriating objects of significance to communities from which they originate. Earlier this year the Manchester Museum handed over 174 cultural heritage items to a delegation of women from the Anindilyakwa community of Groote Eylandt, an island in the Northern Territory. There have also been discussions around returning the Parthenon Marbles to Greece in exchange for ancient artefacts that have never been seen in the United Kingdom before.

Repatriation refers to the return of "stolen or looted cultural material to their countries of origin". In this context, 'cultural materials' refers to art and objects of cultural significance, including the remains of ancestors. Current discourse around repatriation typically refers to the return of stolen works from museum, universities, and private collections.

Repatriation is distinct from restitution, although the terms are often conflated. 'Repatriation' refers to returning cultural material to its country of origin. 'Restitution' refers to returning cultural material to an individual or community group.

There are several challenges which arise in the repatriation of cultural material. Some key difficulties include:

Determining the 'rightful' owner - this can be especially difficult if the cultural material was obtained during times of conflict or, in the case of some ancient artefacts, if the source country no longer exists, such as Mesopotamia. Whilst there may be a new country on similar land, changes to borders can lead to a contest over the rightful owner of the artefact;

The perception that provenant countries do not have sufficient facilities or resources to preserve the cultural material - this perception can be fuelled by the idea that the museum or institution that currently houses the cultural material has 'protected' it so far and to move it may cause it irreparable damage;

The argument that some cultural materials were obtained legally at the time of their acquisition - whilst our attitudes towards property ownership have changed, and we may now perceive some historical acquisition laws as 'unjust', some argue that this does not justify repatriation;

Repatriating some stolen or looted property may open the floodgates to a number of theoretical claims by various countries for the restitution of their artefacts; and

If museums or cultural institutions repatriate all stolen or looted property, they may have little to no objects left in their collections - the balance between returning stolen cultural material and maintaining cultural institutions is perceived to be a significant obstacle in repatriating cultural material.

This article provides a brief overview of the international and domestic law that guides repatriation efforts in Australia.

International Repatriation and Law

Before exploring repatriation in Australia, it is important to consider the international legal context which has informed repatriation efforts internationally and in Australia. There are three key instruments to consider. These instruments have identified that cultural materials are often looted as a consequence of conflict, guide the way in which cultural materials should be returned and how the conduct of those who have stolen or destroyed cultural materials should be addressed.

The Hague Convention: At the end of the Second World War, UNESCO produced the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (the Hague Convention) which Australia ratified. This Convention was supplemented by the First and Second Protocols to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict which were adopted in 1954 and 1999, respectively, however Australia is not a party to either of these protocols.

Article 4 of the Hague Convention requires that contracting parties "respect cultural property situated within their own territory as well as within the territory of other High Contracting Parties by refraining from any use of the property and its immediate surroundings or of the appliances in use for its protection for purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage"

The Rome Statute: The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (the Rome Statute) classifies the intentional destruction of cultural property as a war crime under Article 8. Australia is a party to the Rome Statute and has stated its commitment to the objectives contained therein.
The International Criminal Court has prosecuted this war crime on several occasions, one of the most recent cases of note being the prosecution of Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi who plead guilty to directing the destruction of ten religious sites in Timbuktu Mali.

The UNIDROIT Convention: The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (the UNIDROIT Convention) calls for the return of illegally excavated and exported property to be returned. Australia is not a party to this convention.

The UNIDROIT Convention defines cultural objects as "those which, on religious or secular ground, are of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science and belong to one of the categories listed in the Annex to this Convention". The annexure to the UNIDROIT Convention contains a broad list of cultural materials, including antiquities and written materials. The UNIDROIT Convention outlines the steps for resolving a claim of restitution and is underpinned by the principle that "the possessor of a cultural object which has been stolen shall return it".

These instruments have informed significant repatriation efforts overseas. Australia has however, taken a more policy-driven, rather than legalistic, approach to repatriation.

Repatriation in Australia

Importantly, " within Australia, despite a growing number of policies and principles put in place by governments and museums, there is actually little legislation, or even case law, to compel repatriation ". There is some state-specific legislation which can also be applied to questions of repatriation, however, the legislation that is typically referred to in a repatriation context is Commonwealth legislation, being:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (ATSIHP Act): this Act requires the return of First Nations' objects of cultural heritage upon notification to the Minister for the Environment and Water.

Environment Protection Biodiversity and Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act): this legislation is the main legislation for the protection of "nationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places". It generally has limited application in matters concerning the repatriation of cultural materials, but has been used in the reburial of Aboriginal Ancestors Remains, once these remains were repatriated.

Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 (PMCH Act): this Act is aimed at ensuring that objects of cultural significance remain in Australia. It also provides for the return of foreign cultural property which has been illegally exported from other countries and imported into Australia.

There have been a small number of matters which have litigated the repatriation of foreign cultural property imported into Australia, most recently the decision ofBC Galleries (Vic) Pty Ltd v Commonwealth, which concerned the return of some 7 objects which were seized from BC Galleries and were said to be rightfully owned by the People's Republic of China and the Philippines. These objects were obtained by federal officers after raiding BC Galleries and seizing 43 items they believed to be of dubious providence. The case was brought by BC Galleries under section 34 of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 (Cth) seeking forfeiture of the objects that the Commonwealth had confiscated. The Court found that the Commonwealth did not establish on the balance of probabilities that the items were liable to be forfeited pursuant to the test in section 14 of the PMCH Act and consequently ordered the Commonwealth to forfeit these objects back to the Applicant gallery.

The repatriation movement in Australia, whilst somewhat supported by the above legislation, is largely driven by Federal Government policy and supported by the private museum and gallery sector. The Australian Federal Government is currently focusing its repatriation efforts on the return of First Nations artefacts to Australia.

As discussed in our earlier article, the Federal Advisory Committee for Indigenous Repatriation ( Committee) was established to provide advice to the Australian Government on repatriation matters. The work of the Committee is supported by the private museum and gallery sector, with some institutions developing their own advisory bodies or guidance notes on the process of repatriating Indigenous cultural materials.

This is not to say that the Federal Government and private institutions do not have an appetite for repatriating stolen art which is in our galleries. The National Gallery has recently returned several key paintings which it obtained from Subhash Kapoor, after concluding that many of them were likely stolen or looted from India.

Next Steps

Whilst one option to encourage repatriation may be to pass specific legislation, this may not be the simplest or most effective way to encourage repatriation by private institutions. Alternative methods that can encourage repatriation include:

Private Agreements between art institutions for the return of key artefacts in exchange for other cultural materials to be loaned. This strategy is currently a proposed arrangement in the case of the Parthenon marbles.

Creating an accessible cross-border resource documenting works and the gaps in their provenance to support academic institutions and private organisations in the closing of information 'gaps'and facilitating the return of objects. This is needed as there is often a significant deficit in evidence determining the provenance of an artwork when it has been obtained through crime or from a location where there is armed conflict.

Increased publicity surrounding repatriation efforts can also create ongoing reputational incentives for private institutions to consider their collections and possible repatriation efforts that may appease public concern.

Conclusion

There is a growing swell of public interest in repatriation, which is encouraging lawmakers and private museums, galleries and collectors to return stolen or looted art to its rightful place. It is a needed, albeit significantly delayed step towards restorative justice, that encourages cross-border communication, reconciliation and just practices in the arts and culture industry. Whilst ongoing resistance to repatriation is inevitable in the international context, the Australian Federal Government has made significant advances in its First Nations and international repatriation efforts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Beginners Guide to the Repatriation of Stolen or Looted Art and Cultural Material

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Colonisation, war crimes and international organised crime have resulted in the unlawful movement of cultural materials and artworks from one country to another.

# data[].attributes.body
June 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The museum said although the exact means of acquisition of the headdress was undocumented, it was likely acquired through the enforcement of colonial assimilation policy.

Joset Melting Tallow, of the Siksika Nation said: "The ceremonial Buffalo Woman's Headdress holds immense sacred significance to the Blackfoot people.

"Its return to Siksika Nation symbolises 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.

"We are grateful to the Royal Albert Memorial Museum for their commitment to honouring and respecting the sacredness of this headdress by facilitating its repatriation."

Julien Parsons, RAMM's collections and content manager, said: "The return of the ceremonial bird bundle represents a significant moment in the museum's history and our relationship with the Siksika.

"Over a century after the headdress came to RAMM, we are pleased that it will be used once more for its original purpose."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sacred headdress handed over to Siksika Nation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It follows the repatriation from the museum of Chief Crowfoot's regalia in 2022.

# data[].attributes.body
February 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A necklace, an ornamental chair and an elephant tail whisk are among seven royal objects the Fowler Museum at UCLA today permanently and voluntarily returned to the Asante kingdom in the Asante region of Ghana, where they originated.

In all, the returned objects include the elephant tail whisk, or sika mena; two royal stool ornaments; a gorget (royal necklace) or stool ornament; two strands of beads used as bracelets or anklets; and an ornamental chair known as an asipim. The items, donated to the Fowler by the Wellcome Trust, have been part of the museum's collections since 1965.

"We are globally shifting away from the idea of museums as unquestionable repositories of art, as collecting institutions entitled to own and interpret art based primarily on scholarly expertise, to the idea of museums as custodians with ethical responsibility for the collection and towards the communities of origin of these collections," Forni said.

The Fowler, which recently celebrated its 60th anniversary, has been a leader in repatriation to Native American tribal communities; the museum has returned nearly its entire collection of Native remains and archeological artifacts to tribes in California, Arizona, Hawaii and Utah.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fowler Museum at UCLA permanently returns objects to Asante kingdom in Ghana

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The items from the museum's collections were personally handed over to Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, the Asante king, in Ghana on Feb. 5.

# data[].attributes.body
February 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The U.K. government has announced changes to laws it planned to introduce this year that would grant national museums in England and Wales more power to repatriate cultural objects within their collections.

In a letter dated January 31 to Charity Commission Chairman Orlando Fraser, the government noted that national museums and galleries would be excluded from key sections of the Charities Act 2022.

The act, introduced in September 2022, allows charities-including national museums-to dispose of objects where there is a compelling moral obligation to do so. Museums had previously been limited by the National Heritage Act 1983, which had restricted the trustees of major U.K. institutions like Tate and the Victoria & Albert from deaccessioning objects from their collections except under certain circumstances, such as if they are a duplicate or beyond repair.

The application of the Charities Act to museums meant that low-value items could be deaccessioned without seeking authorization. Meanwhile, higher-value objects could be deaccessioned with permission from the Charity Commission, attorney general, or a court.

While most provisions of the 2022 legislation have already been rolled out, the implementation of laws that could affect charities transferring legal ownership of an object to its country of origin were previously delayed to allow "further consideration."

At the time, the government was concerned that the changes would remove the commission's oversight of trustees' decisions to restitute an object by way of an ex gratia payment. The former charities minister Lord Kamall referenced the return of six Benin bronzes by the Horniman Museum -which were handed over to the Nigerian government in November 2022 after receiving prior approval to do so by the Charities Commission-as a successful example of the provision in play.

Now the government has confirmed in the letter it will exclude international transfers of property from sections 15 and 16 of the act, meaning charities will still need to seek the commission's approval. National museums and galleries are expressly noted.

"The policy of HM Government is that national museums and galleries should continue to be bound by their 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," wrote the minister of arts and heritage Lord Parkinson in the letter. "Charity Commission oversight of these cases provides an important assurance that the charity's trustees have undertaken proper due process in reaching their decision. Removing this oversight would not be appropriate in restitution cases."

National institutions have long cited legal restrictions as a cause for their inability to return collection objects. This has been raised for many years by the British Museum, for example, in response to Greece's petitions for the return of the Parthenon Marbles, which were recently renewed.

Just last week, the British Museum's interim director, Mark Jones, told the Times that he would support a loan arrangement between the U.K. and Greece over the Parthenon Marbles should he still be in the director position. Jones replaced Hartwig Fischer, who stepped down in August following the revelations that 2,000 items had been stolen from the collection.

The introduction of the 2022 Charities Act had fostered hope that less bureaucratic oversight would empower museum trustees to restitute objects if and when needed. However, as art law expert Alexander Herman, explained, the act "will not lead to the restitution of vast amounts of museum material, since the ex gratia power can be used only in rare cases."

The latest update to the act does not deter museums and galleries from seeking the Charity Commission's approval to return collection objects overseas, but it does mean that the commission's approval is still required for even relatively small amounts or low-value items. The instance of the Horniman Museum's successful restitution of the Benin Bronzes may even indicate an openness on the part of the Charity Commission to consider such applications in relation to restitution, according to Herman.

Retaining oversight of all ex gratia payments outside of the U.K. will allow the commission "to focus our resources more efficiently on larger and more complex cases," according to Fraser's response to the minister's letter.

Enforcement of sections 15 and 16 of the Charities Act will begin later this year.

Want to stay ahead of the art world? Subscribe to our newsletter to get the breaking news, eye-opening interviews, and incisive critical takes that drive the conversation forward.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The U.K. Amends Law for Museums That Wish to Repatriate Objects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An update to the Charities Act 2022 excludes museums and galleries from key sections that would allow institutions to return objects overseas.

# data[].attributes.body
February 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Return the Stolen Artifact, But Keep the Museum Label

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Naming the wrongs of the past is hard, especially when the wrongs have not yet been entirely righted, but it's crucial.

# data[].attributes.body
February 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Westminster Abbey has agreed "in principle" to returning a sacred tablet to the Ethiopian Orthodox church, igniting a debate around restitution claims made by the East African nation.

The tabot - a blackened flat piece of wood featuring a carved inscription that symbolically represents the Ark of the Covenant and the Ten Commandments - has been at the Abbey since British forces returned with it from the Battle of Maqdala, where it was looted in 1868.

As first reported in the Art Newspaper, the tabot could now begin its journey back to the country it was taken from 156 years ago. "The Dean and Chapter has decided in principle that it would be appropriate to return the Ethiopian tabot to the Ethiopian church," a spokesperson for Westminster Abbey said.

"We are currently considering the best way to achieve this, and we are in ongoing discussions with representatives of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church. This is a complex matter, and it may take some time."

Westminster Abbey is directly under the monarch's jurisdiction, which means that King Charles (the supreme governor of the Church of England) may have to give the tabot's return his blessing.

Westminster Abbey did not confirm what triggered the change of position, but there has been growing pressure on all European institutions that hold items taken during the colonial era. Several of the Benin bronzes, which were looted by British forces in 1897 from what is now Nigeria, have been returned by British institutions after decades of campaigning.

The move by Westminster Abbey will put pressure on the British Museum, which has 11 tabots in its collection that are not on display and are available to be visited by Ethiopian Orthodox priests.

A British Museum spokesperson said: "The British Museum's collection tells the story of human cultural achievement over 2 million years. The presence of the tabots in the collection, together with other objects from Ethiopia, demonstrate the breadth and diversity of religious traditions in Ethiopia, including Christianity, Islam and Judaism as well as other faiths."

skip past newsletter promotion
Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion

The museum's long-held position on the items is to eventually lend them to an Ethiopian Orthodox church in the UK "where they can be cared for by the clergy within their traditions".

But that ambition has been questioned by Ethiopian clergy who say lending the items to British churches is highly unlikely because of the high cost of insuring ancient artefacts.

Rev Gebre Georgis Dimtsu, of the Debre Bisrat St Gabriel church in east London, told the Guardian there was no way his church could afford to host a tabot and he believed they should return - permanently - to Ethiopia. "They should go back to where they belong and to where people have been worshipping for a long time," said Dimtsu.

There have been successful returns of tabots held in British institutions. One was sent back to Ethiopia soon after it was discovered in a church cupboard in Edinburgh 23 years ago.

When the artefact landed back in the country, which has been petitioning for the return of its tabots for decades, a public holiday was declared and thousands of people lined the streets of Addis Ababa to witness its return.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Westminster Abbey agrees 'in principle' to return sacred tablet to Ethiopia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Carved wooden tabot has been at Abbey since British forces looted it at Battle of Maqdala in 1868

# data[].attributes.body
February 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The ‘Art Crime Professor’ on the Rise in Private Sector Action on Repatriation, and the Line Between Activism and Academia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The lawyer and art historian recently spoke to ARTnews about her unusual career and her thoughts on repatriation efforts at museums.

# data[].attributes.body
February 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Museum conservator Stephanie De Roemer holds a ceremonial Indo-Persian sword during a transfer of ownership ceremony at Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum in Glasgow on August 19, 2022 as Scotland prepares to repatriate Indian artifacts. PHOTO ANDY BUCHANAN/AFP

Editor's Note: Elizabeth Marlowe is a professor of art and art history at Colgate University. Marlowe's research spans antiquities looting and repatriation, the art market, and the decolonization of museums.

The harms of looting-whether colonial plunder or tomb-robbing for cash-have, by this point, been well established. Religious rites go neglected and communal ties fade when sacred statues are stolen from rural shrines. The spirits of ancestors attain no peace when their physical remains and the belongings buried with them are dug up. Out of context (and with traffickers often deliberately erasing information about their origins), ancient artworks become little more than pretty things, unable to teach us anything new about the culture that produced them.

Conversely, as the general public's understanding of these issues grows, the potential reputational harm to museums that acquire such looted objects also increases.

For these reasons, the Association of Art Museum Directors and the American Alliance of Museums, the two leading professional museum organizations in the United States, issued guidelines in 2008 urging member institutions not to acquire items of cultural heritage (whether through purchase or donation) that lack proof of legal export from their country of origin, or that weren't already outside their country of origin prior to 1970 (the year of a major UNESCO Convention devoted to these issues). Although there are loopholes and exceptions, defenders of cultural heritage are encouraged that most US museums today adhere to these guidelines.

The hope is that collectors, denied both the tax breaks and the social capital that spur museum donations, will think twice before acquiring artifacts that can't be donated due to missing provenance. Absent collector demand for such objects, the incidence of looting will diminish.

But one consequence of this well-intentioned policy is that, today, tens-maybe hundreds-of thousands of antiquities already in private hands before 2008 face an uncertain future. Unable to donate them to a museum, what options do collectors have to ensure the long-term care of their holdings? Some are returning to market; I have also heard stories of flummoxed heirs simply stashing an unwanted family collection in the attic or even taking it out with the trash. The recent Waystation Initiative at UCLA helps collectors (or their heirs) repatriate objects to their country of origin. This may be appropriate in many cases, but equally often, the physical damage and/or loss of knowledge entailed in trafficking leaves the source country unidentifiable or the decontextualized objects themselves undesirable to source country officials or community descendants.

Is there any way to ensure the long-term care of these objects without (re)normalizing poorly provenanced, potentially looted artifacts in museums today? I believe there is.

University Museums Are the Best Equipped for Provenance Research

The best stewards for these privately held collections, I believe, are university museums openly committed to provenance research, repatriation, and public education about cultural heritage and museum ethics. As part of donation agreements with private collectors, such museums could agree to make the objects the focus of courses centered on provenance research and related issues. A key goal of the research would be to trace as complete an ownership history as possible and identify the most likely country of origin for all the objects. Once that is established, the institution would initiate contact with appropriate cultural officials, rather than wait for source countries to make a claim, as is more commonly the case. The university museum would make the first move, and the conversation would begin with, " this is probably yours; what would you like us to do with it? Would you like it back?"

If the source country wants the objects to be repatriated, back they would go. . If not, models are now emerging in the field for co-stewardship, in which title transfers to the probable source country, but the museum retains possession through a long-term or indefinite loan agreement.

There may be cases where identified source countries do not want or are unable to participate in such arrangements. Letters from campus provenance researchers offering repatriation may go unanswered; or the source country may find the evidence is too slim for them to take responsibility for the objects. In such cases, the material would not be returned to the collector, so as to prevent use of the new research to increase its market value. Instead, the university museum would accession the object(s), with the understanding that, should future research yield more information, the conversation with the source country can be reopened.

University museums are particularly well-equipped and -positioned to do this work, and to use unprovenanced artifacts to educate students and the public about the history and harms of looting. Courses and exhibitions addressing difficult, unflattering, or sordid histories are protected by the principle of academic freedom. These topics potentially connect a number of academic disciplines, including anthropology, religion, chemistry, history, art history, geography, sociology, and law, and would present opportunities for innovative, collaborative teaching. Students can train in the methods of provenance research (including oral history, with collectors), a field certain to grow in the coming years. The repatriation process would foster ties between the university and cultural officials, scholars, and curators in the source country, possibly leading to student and/or faculty exchanges and continuing research collaborations.

A Path Forward for Private Collectors

What would private collectors donating their collections get out of this? If the provenance research undertaken by the university museum results in the objects being repatriated (whether physically or through transfer of title), the collector would get no tax credit for the "donation," since foreign countries are not 501(c)(3)s. But they would get other benefits, chiefly, the guaranteed safety and preservation of their collection, without saddling their heirs with the burden of its care.

Their collecting activity and understanding of their collection would be the focus of oral history interviews about how, when, and why the pieces were acquired, how they were displayed over time, and other dimensions of their " object biographies" or " itineraries." The fact that the collector acquired them during a period when the rules and attitudes around the collecting of antiquities was shifting would be part of the narrative, but the goal would be to understand, not to judge or shame. The collector could relay the story of the acquisitions with candor, without risking legal jeopardy or unflattering media attention. They would be contributing meaningfully to knowledge and the public good.

Some independent professional entity, perhaps a subcommittee of the Association of Academic Museums and Galleries, would be needed to manage this as a program, matching up collectors and university museums with appropriate expertise, and ensuring that it doesn't simply become a way for them to ignore the 2008 guidelines and acquire new goodies for their museum. For ethical reasons, the program should exclude collectors who also deal on the side, as well as university museums that ignored the 2008 guidelines.

The university museum would have to demonstrate the capacity and desire to teach, research, and/or display topics related to the history of collecting, heritage management, and museum ethics, as well as a commitment to repatriation. A clear deaccessioning policy must be in place to ensure that the pieces never return to the market. To maximize the educational benefits of this program, the university museum must also commit to sharing the fruits of the research online, including a complete database of the artifacts and all the documents associated with them.

I have presented this idea in a handful of scholarly articles and public talks. Every time, I hear from frustrated university museum directors who have had to turn away offers of collections from alumni because of the 2008 guidelines, who tell me their institution would be happy to use the objects for the kind of anti-looting teaching I am proposing. But some cultural heritage advocates have expressed concern to me that this program would weaken the impact of the 2008 guidelines, while also normalizing and even justifying the activities of collectors who should have curbed their acquisitive impulses after the 1970 Convention. Their collections, they suggest, are best simply ignored. In my view, however, education is a more powerful tool than shame or neglect.

The goal should be to teach students, the general public, and potential future collectors why they shouldn't want to own objects that have been wrenched out of their physical, cultural, or historical context. In addition to repatriation, I believe that courses and exhibitions that educate the public about the harms of looting are the best way to achieve this broader goal, and are the best possible use of already-looted artifacts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
University Museums May Be the Best Repository for Private Antiquities Collections Lacking Provenance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today, tens of thousands of antiquities in private hands face an uncertain future. University museums may be the solution to their plight.

# data[].attributes.body
March 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Otto Lowe's 3D restoration technique preserves ancient heritage sites by producing startlingly accurate copies of cultural treasures

In a Madrid suburb, behind the doors of an anonymous warehouse, lies what looks like a dismembered classical statue's enormous head. Its skull is smashed open, its gaze fixed imperiously on the floor. Scattered among the workbenches, palettes and the din of machinery are more outsized body parts: a curled right hand, its index finger half-raised; a left foot with implausibly long toes.

This surreal assortment (the head is roughly the size of a small car) is a series of resin tests for an ambitious heritage project: a reconstruction of the Colossus of Constantine statue, on display at the Musei Capitolini in Rome since last month.

'That's the head, the arm... whatever that piece is,' says Otto Lowe, one of a team of specialists who led the reconstruction. He waves in the direction of items lying about the workshop of Factum Foundation, the non-profit organisation behind the museum's facsimile of the ancient, 42ft-tall portrait of the fourth-century Roman emperor.

The original statue, probably commissioned by Constantine himself, once adorned the Basilica of Maxentius in the Roman Forum. In the 16th century its surviving stone fragments - including the head, arm, hand, knee and feet - were moved to a courtyard in what is now the Musei Capitolini and arranged, possibly by Michelangelo, into a sculptural collage, where they remain today.

What makes Constantine's facsimile achievable now is ultra-high-resolution technology combined with expert research, which is where Otto Lowe and Factum come in.

Despite being politically neutral, the organisation's work goes straight to the heart of fraught debates about authenticity, demands for the restitution of objects by major museums to their countries of origin, and which institutions are best equipped to care for them. It also raises questions about what our leading museums might do with their vast stores of unexhibited objects.

Madrid-based Factum specialises in startlingly accurate copies of cultural artefacts from thousands of years of human civilisation - everything from the interiors of ancient Egyptian tombs (both 3D-printed and virtual) to sacred Amazonian caves to African stone carvings to Italian Renaissance treasures. Its experts take precise digital measurements using cutting-edge scanning techniques, then build replicas using accurate colour-matching and 3D-printing technology. Conservationists have long made facsimiles with casts and samples. The difference today is that, with advanced techniques, equipment and human hands need never touch fragile originals. 'Everything we do is non-invasive,' says Lowe.

Lowe, 34, is almost supernaturally calm and speaks with an English accent so plummy that it is hard to reconcile with his outsized hoodie, tattooed arms and silver thumb rings.

His father, the British artist and art historian Adam Lowe, co-founded Factum Arte - which produces large-scale installations for contemporary artists including Marina Abramović - in 2001, and Factum Foundation for Digital Technology in Preservation eight years later. Otto's mother is Japanese and he grew up between the UK and Spain.

Otto recalls his father's work being an integral part of his childhood. School holidays were spent 'watching a laser progress very slowly across the wall of an Egyptian tomb while everyone else was on a beach', he says.

After studying international relations at the University of Leeds and working for Lib Dem MP Simon Hughes, he joined the family business, unable to resist the combination of adventure and 'the recording of vital parts of culture' that shaped his early life.

Lowe selects words carefully, always choosing the least inflammatory adjective, always assuming good intentions. He seems like a man well-suited to risky situations.

The artefacts that Factum is asked to document and replicate are often under threat of destruction, from natural disasters, encroaching development, war, terrorism and - increasingly - extreme weather and tourism. Others are for exhibition: to reassemble Constantine for a special display, the foundation worked with the Musei Capitolini and the Fondazione Prada.

'We're incredibly obsessed with detail,' says Lowe. 'There's a lag between what computers are capable of creating and what our data could do. So we always keep a raw, unprocessed data set on our servers for future historians.'

Facsimiles could even play a role in resolving stand-offs between countries and institutions. Factum has already been involved in the returning to Nigeria of a 500-year-old Bakor monolith from the collection of the Chrysler Museum in Virginia last year.

Originally, there were about 300 carved-stone portraits of important ancestors. Dr Ferdinand Saumarez Smith, Factum Foundation's director in London, estimates that roughly a third were stolen, possibly looted in the 20th century during and after the Biafran War, ending up in public and private collections in Europe and America.

When the Chrysler Museum returned its carving, it received a Factum replica. 'The original is very hard, made of granite. This [replica] is resin, and 3D-printed,' Lowe explains. The process of creating a replica is surprisingly short: 'A couple of hours... and just a couple of tests, mostly to test various finishes,' says Lowe.

'Ultimately the data set is measurements; you're creating millions and millions of points. And then you create vertices between any two given points in order to create a triangulated mesh, a 3D model.'

On the day we meet in Madrid, a test model sits on a filing cabinet in the workshop. It looks uncannily like solid rock, until I tap it and realise it is hollow.

I pick up a miniature column. It looks like marble but my grasp falters as it turns out to be almost weightless - an exact replica of a stone column in the 11th-century chapel at Durham Castle, where Factum has recorded the colour and surfaces to provide information for restoration.

Lowe is part of a team of 60 people across Factum Foundation and Factum Arte, but his job is to travel the world, high-tech scanners in tow, to record artefacts - work that is typically commissioned by governments, museums, universities and other institutions. Home is Helsinki, where the foundation has an office (Lowe's wife is a Finnish painter), but he spends up to a third of the year on location. Some projects can take a decade, he says, with multiple return trips. He describes scanning the news constantly, preparing mentally for future projects.

Last year Lowe spent time in Istanbul recording in meticulous detail the intricate bronze Serpent Column placed at Delphi in 479BC, to celebrate the victory of the Greeks over Persia, and later moved to the Hippodrome of Constantinople.

'The data we record is also cultural heritage and the Turkish cultural authorities have thought about that,' he says. Here, and on every Factum project, collected data is given over to the custodians of the original artefact. 'Turkey is rightly very protective of its cultural heritage.'

The foundation is funded by a mix of donations and by its sister organisation, Factum Arte. Lowe's work gathering information about precious and fragile heritage demands diplomacy, patience, tenacity, technical expertise, a steady temperament and an iron nerve.

As he shows me around a warren of rooms piled high with replicas, Lowe describes descending cliff faces and trekking for days in the Middle East; on another occasion, being escorted under armed guard in Somaliland, while recording the 5,000-year-old painted chambers of Laas Geel. 'I've never particularly felt unsafe,' he says. 'Danger can be a bit overplayed. As long as you're not an idiot. Nothing bad has happened so far.'

Once, in Saudi Arabia, he found himself followed by secret police. He was working on remote, sacred monuments, for a project in partnership with the government: 'I'm not sure if they were looking after me, or if it was another government. It happens quite often and you learn to know them when you see them. You're kind of meant to spot them.

'You just take it in your stride,' he says of the risks of travelling in remote or unstable parts of the world. 'I've never been in a situation where I've felt the need to panic.'

The fastest-growing demand for the foundation's work, says Lowe, comes from the Gulf peninsula, and in particular Saudi Arabia as the kingdom attempts to diversify its economy from oil towards heritage and tourism, as part of its so-called Vision 2030 plan.

Lowe descended cliffs at the Nabataean archaeological site at Al-Hijr, formerly known as Hegra ('They just threw a rope around me and said, "Off you go"'), where several years ago he was capturing scans of the monumental sandstone tombs and rock art, recording their condition before the arrival of the hoped-for streams of tourists.

Factum has also advised on the kingdom's wildly ambitious Neom project, a $500 billion plan for a 'giga-city' roughly the size of Belgium. The earmarked region includes undocumented ancient monuments which are vulnerable, says Lowe, though he stresses that the state is keen to act responsibly.

'These things are safe when they're not known,' says Lowe. 'The second they become known a value gets ascribed and that's when they are the most at risk from overtourism: that point when they are discovered but they haven't yet sent guards to sit there all day.'

Sometimes his team arrives at a new site with no information from the authorities. 'They don't always know what they have... sometimes I have to say very clearly, "There is a neolithic carving HERE."' He jabs his finger at an imaginary map.

One of Lowe's favourite projects has been recording fragments of the Tomb of Seti I in Egypt's Valley of the Kings, which are scattered all over the world. Since the tomb was found in 1817 by Giovanni Battista Belzoni, an Italian explorer and former circus showman, some wall decorations and treasures have been removed, looted, damaged and destroyed. Much of the original paint is scarred and defaced. 'They even handed out plaster-cast-making sets to tourists up until the early 20th century,' says Lowe.

Fragments of artefacts ended up in museums worldwide, including a pair of decorated gate panels: one in the Louvre in Paris, the other in the Museo Archeologico in Florence. Seti's massive sarcophagus is in Sir John Soane's Museum in London - Belzoni scratched his name into the rim. Other fragments are in the US and elsewhere in Europe.

'One of the difficulties is trying to find all the missing pieces,' says Lowe. 'A lot are in people's houses in the Home Counties. They're not catalogued anywhere, they're just family heirlooms. Others are just listed as "an Egyptian piece" at auction, because it's not known where it came from.'

Big museums tend to keep more accurate records. Factum has scanned both the French- and Italian-kept gate panels in their respective museums, then printed ultra-precise replicas. They rest against a wall in the Madrid warehouse (not far from an exact replica in resin of Seti's sarcophagus).

Both panels were carved and painted more than 3,000 years ago, probably by the same artists at the same time. Both had been marked by graffiti and soot and scorching caused by intruders' torches when they were in situ. Today, they look radically different from one another.

Displaying the highly precise replicas side by side has highlighted what happened to each panel in the decades after they were separated, and how they have been treated by their respective custodians. The differences are arresting. The French replica is suspiciously vibrant and perfect; the Italian reveals much of the scarring and damage. Their colour palettes are entirely different.

'Culturally, Italian restoration takes time as part of the story of the object,' says Lowe. 'If the object shows the effects of time, they leave it. The French approach is to take it back to how it was when it was created.'

The contrast is a reminder of how rapidly humans can damage ancient monuments beyond recovery, intentionally or not. The panels' original colouration is lost for ever. 'Even some restoration techniques of 20 years ago are now considered bad practice,' says Lowe.

Another example of the value of facsimiles is the Tomb of Tutenkhamun, whose real curse might be overtourism (Factum has worked on a recreation). The tomb was uncovered by the British colonial archaeologist Howard Carter in 1922 after lying hidden for more than 3,000 years. Some wall paintings have recently been restored.

'The biggest impact,' says Lowe, 'has been tourism... You have millions of people visiting each year. It's hot, they sweat and they breathe. They change the local atmosphere...

'It lasted perfectly well for 3,000 years. Tombs were not meant to be opened. Since its discovery, it's deteriorated very quickly.' What, if anything, does Lowe think should be done? 'Short of cutting people off from the site there's nothing much you can do to stop that kind of thing,' he says.

Will restrictions on tourism be inevitable in the future? 'We never take a political stance,' says Lowe. 'Speaking as a private citizen, I don't want to not be able to see these things. But since Covid, market forces have been doing the job for us. Flights are more expensive, people aren't travelling so much. It's given heritage a bit of breathing space. But I don't think there's any way you can prohibit people's access to culture.'

The wider question of the restitution of objects and the role that facsimiles might play in that is, he says, fraught with complexity. 'Culture is something people get very possessive about, so we always try to find a solution where someone doesn't need to lose in order for someone to win.'

Current disputes include the fate of the 16th-century Benin Bronzes, exquisite artefacts looted and scattered across the globe after British troops sacked the west African kingdom in 1897. They are vital evidence of the Benin people's spiritual beliefs before the introduction of Christianity, and many are in the British Museum.

Also heavily contested is another British Museum centrepiece, the Parthenon sculptures. 'With the Parthenon, were we to be invited into that conversation, we would love to be a part of that, absolutely,' says Lowe.

Ultra-detailed facsimiles - like Factum's copy of the Bakor monolith in Virginia - could form part of a temporary solution to some restitution claims, perhaps via loans and temporary exhibitions. 'Our goal is never to stop people seeing the original,' says Lowe. 'It's partly to let them know what effect they are having. And to make people aware of what humans' presence does over time.'

But copies are not always appropriate, says Professor Dan Hicks of the School of Archaeology at the University of Oxford, author of The Brutish Museums, a book about the cultural restitution debate. The British Museum has been paralysed by the Parthenon issue. Were faithful facsimiles of the Parthenon sculptures to be installed in the Acropolis Museum in Athens, for example, it would miss the point.

'It's not a silver bullet,' says Hicks. 'Most museum-goers value not just patina. There is something about being present in the room with an object of such significance.'

In other words, an object's aura is unrepeatable. And it is that intangible sense that is valuable when it comes to visitor numbers.

In any case, says Hicks, museums' storage rooms are bursting with objects that are never displayed or catalogued (as highlighted last year, when a longstanding British Museum curator was sacked after stolen items were offered for sale on eBay; missing objects dated as far back as the 15th century BC).

'Let's imagine the Parthenon marbles are returned in the coming years,' says Hicks. 'What should the British Museum do? Should it make 3D prints and reproduce that space again? Or should it start to understand its vast array of objects from antiquity to tell new stories? Are we going to nostalgically copy what we've given back? Or are we going to do something else? Because we're not going to run out of stuff.'

Lowe agrees. 'Each case is different, and it's not for us to make those decisions,' he says. 'Factum's place is to create a dialogue and show options for where the debate might go next, as with the Bakor monoliths.'

In the meantime, Constantine has taken up his new position at the Musei Capitolini in Rome.

His body and clothes have been digitally reconstructed. The original Constantine is thought to have been a recarving of an existing statue of Jupiter, the Roman sky god. 'The museum has all kinds of theories [about what the original looked like], so we asked them, "What would have been the language?"' says Lowe. 'We looked at others in collections and tried to recreate the same language, for example the cloak, and the orb he would have been carrying as a symbol of Roman divinity.'

In other words, Constantine is partly guesswork. But then, isn't that what we are applying when we gaze at ancient ruins, or artefacts in museums and galleries, with their layers of residues, patinas and scars?

'Objects have a biography, just like people,' says Lowe. 'And it's not necessarily a good thing to try to stop that process. But we can record it, and that helps us imagine.'

License this content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The man who found a solution to the museum restitution row... using a 3D scanner

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Otto Lowe's 3D restoration technique preserves ancient heritage sites by producing startlingly accurate copies of cultural treasures

# data[].attributes.body
March 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Met Museum Hires Its First Head of Provenance Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lucian Simmons is leaving Sotheby's to lead the museum's increased efforts to review its collection, which has recently returned looted artifacts, including dozens last year.

# data[].attributes.body
April 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Looted art: the woman tackling Switzerland’s historical burden - SWI swissinfo.ch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As Switzerland steps up efforts to address looted art in public collections, Nikola Doll is set to play a central coordinating role.

# data[].attributes.body
April 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Four spears taken from an Aboriginal community by James Cook and Joseph Banks during their first contact with Australia are being repatriated.

They will be handed over at a ceremony at Trinity College, Cambridge, to representatives from the La Perouse and Gweagal Aboriginal communities.

Ray Ingrey, Gujaga Foundation director, said their return to "the rightful people" was a "momentous occasion".

The spears were taken in 1770 and given to Trinity College the following year.

Direct descendants of the Gweagal people who crafted the spears more than 250 years ago will be present at the ceremony in Trinity's Wren Library.

Mr Ingrey, a Dharawal person from the La Perouse Aboriginal community, said: "The spears were pretty much the first point of European contact, particularly British contact with Aboriginal Australia.

"I think for us, it's a momentous occasion that where Australia's history began, in 1770 on the shores of Botany Bay at Kurnell, the spears that were undoubtedly taken without permission are returned to the rightful people."

Noeleen Timbery, from the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council, said: "They are an important connection to our past, our traditions, and cultural practices, and to our ancestors.

"Our Elders have worked for many years to see their ownership transferred to the traditional owners of Botany Bay."

Lt Cook was the captain of HMB Endeavour and Joseph Banks the leader of its scientists when the ship arrived at the eastern part of Australia on 29 April.

The lieutenant, who was promoted to captain in 1772, recorded that 40 spears were taken from the villages of the Gweagal people living at Kamay, the Aboriginal name for Botany Bay.

Lord Sandwich, First Lord of the Admiralty, donated four of the spears with other materials from Cook's voyage to Trinity, his former college.

The University of Cambridge college decided to repatriate them after discussions between the museum and the La Perouse Aboriginal Community, representatives of the Gweagal people, the broader Dharawal Nation, and leading community organisations.

They had previously been lent to museums in Australia in 2015 and 2020.

Prof Nicholas Thomas, director of the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology and Trinity Fellow, said "the spears are exceptionally significant".

"They are the first artefacts collected by the British from any part of Australia, that remain extant and documented," he said.

"They reflect the beginnings of a history of misunderstanding and conflict. Their significance will be powerfully enhanced through return to Country."

The repatriation has been supported by the Australian government's AIATSIS-led Return of Cultural Heritage Program, and the National Museum of Australia.

A new visitor centre will be built at Kurnell, Kamay, so they can be displayed.

Linda Burney, Australia's Minister for Indigenous Australians, said: "The return of the Gweagal Spears is a significant step forward on the journey towards reconciliation and truth-telling."

Follow East of England news on Facebook, Instagram and X. Got a story? Email eastofenglandnews@bbc.co.uk or WhatsApp 0800 169 1830

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cambridge college returns 18th Century Aboriginal spears

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The four spears were taken by Captain Cook's crew during their first contact with Australia in 1770.

# data[].attributes.body
April 2024

# data[].attributes.body
April 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
British Museum in private talks with unnamed governments over returning artefacts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Repatriation requests came through ‘confidential diplomatic channels’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CREATe, The Hunterian and the Institute of Art and Law are delighted to announce the programme for their jointly convened conference: From Scotland to the World: Repatriation and Museums, to take place on Friday 19 th April 2024, 9am-5pm, at Kelvin Hall, Glasgow.

In recent years, a number of UK museums have repatriated artefacts and ancestral remains to a range of countries and communities. Returns to India, Nigeria, Australia, Taiwan and Native American communities, raise the question of current best practice on museum repatriation, a hotly debated and current issue globally. Drawing on diverse international case studies - including presentations from those directly involved in returns of Aboriginal material to Australia, the Ni'isjoohl Totem Pole to Canada and a natural history specimen to Jamaica - this conference will involve leading professionals, scholars and practitioners in the fields of museums, heritage and repatriation, addressing diverse questions around legal and ethical frameworks, community engagement, intellectual property, museum practice and more.

This event is funded by a GBP 1 million Arts and Humanities Research Council grant awarded to CREATe as UK research infrastructure, between 2024 - 2028. For booking and further details, please see our previous blog.
PROGRAMME 'From Scotland to the World: Repatriation and Museums'
Thursday 19 th April 2024, Kelvin Hall, Glasgow

Master of Ceremonies: Elena Cooper, Senior Research Fellow, CREATe
8.45am-9.10am: Coffee/registration
9.10am-9.20am: Welcome
Martin Kretschmer, Professor of Intellectual Property Law and Director of CREATe
Rachel Sandison, Deputy Vice Chancellor, External Engagement and Vice Principal, University of Glasgow

9.20am - 10.10am: Panel 1: The Scottish practice of engagement and repatriation
Moderator: Emiline Smith Lecturer in Criminology, University of Glasgow
Speakers: Neil Curtis Head of Museums and Special Collections, University of Aberdeen, Duncan Dornan Head of Museums and Collections, Glasgow Life and Steph Scholten Director, The Hunterian.

10.10am to 11.00am: Panel 2: Returns to country: the work of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Islander Studies ('AIATSIS') in securing overseas returns to Aboriginal groups
Moderator: Steph Scholten (Director, The Hunterian).
Speakers: Iain Johnston, Senior Researcher, AIATSIS, (in person or online), Jason Lyons, Director, Return of Cultural Heritage, AIATSIS, and Georgina Young, Head of Exhibitions and Collections, Manchester Museum.
11.00am-11.20am: Coffee break
11.20am - 12.10pm: Panel 3: The legal framework for repatriation: In the UK and beyond
Moderator: Emily Gould, Assistant Director, Institute of Art and Law
Speakers: Andreas Giorgallis, PhD student, CREATe, Alexander Herman, Director, Institute of Art and Law) and Christa Roodt, Senior Lecturer, History of Art, University of Glasgow
12.10pm to 1.10pm: Lunch
1.10pm-2.00pm: Panel 4: Transcending material return: considerations from intellectual property and beyond
Moderator: Elena Cooper, Senior Research Fellow, CREATe
Speakers: Kristin Hausler, Dorset Senior Research Fellow in Public International Law and Director, Centre for International Law, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Pinar Oruç, CREATe Fellow and Lecturer in Commercial law, University of Manchester, and Andrea Wallace, CREATe Fellow and Associate Professor, University of Exeter.

2pm-2.50pm: Panel 5: Returning of the Galliwasp from The Hunterian
Moderator: Giovanna Vitelli, Head of Collections & Curatorial, The Hunterian
Speakers: Churnjeet Mahn, Deputy Associate Principal, Professor of English, University of Strathclyde, Elizabeth Morrison, Zoologist, Natural History Museum of Jamaica, Institute of Jamaica, Shani Roper Museum Curator, Museum of the University of the West Indies, and Mike Rutherford, Curator of Zoology and Anatomy, The Hunterian.
2.50pm- 3.10pm: Coffee break
3.10pm-4pm Panel 6: A 'rematriation': returning the Ni'isjoohl Totem Pole from National Museums of Scotland
Moderator: Geoffrey Bennett, Senior Fellow, Institute of Art and Law
Speakers: John Giblin, Keeper, Department of Global Arts, Culture and Design, National Museums of Scotland, Amy Parent, Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, (online speaker), and Chanté St Clair Inglis, Director of Heritage, Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh; formerly Head of Collections Services, National Museums of Scotland.

4pm-4.40pm Panel 7: Final reflections on ethics and policy
Moderator: Emiline Smith, Lecturer in Criminology, University of Glasgow
Speakers: Neil Curtis, Head of Museums and Special Collections, University of Aberdeen, Duncan Dornan, Head of Museums and Collections, Glasgow Life, and Steph Scholten, Director, The Hunterian.
5pm - Close Should you have any questions about this event, please contact Elena Cooper Those interested in attending the conference on Friday 19th April, may also be interested in attending 'From Scotland to the World: Donor Restrictions on Galleries and Museums' (which must be booked separately) to be held in The Hunterian Art Gallery, Glasgow, on Thursday 18th April, 5.30pm to 6.30pm. on behalf of the conference organising committee: Elena Cooper and Andreas Giorgallis (CREATe), Steph Scholten (The Hunterian) and Alexander Herman (Institute of Art and Law).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Programme announcement - From Scotland to the World: Repatriation and Museums

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CREATe, The Hunterian and the Institute of Art and Law are delighted to announce the programme for their jointly convened conference: From Scotland to the World: Repatriation and Museums, to take place on Friday 19 th April 2024, 9am-5pm, at Kelvin Hall, Glasgow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
INTERDISCIPLINARY SYMPOSIUM - CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS

Date

Thursday 23 May 2024 - Friday 24 May 2024

Location

Wereldmuseum and Leiden University

The working language of the symposium will be English. Submissions should include an abstract of no more than 300 words and a brief bio. The deadline for submissions is 31 March 2024. Submissions will be considered on a rolling basis. Accepted submissions may be considered for publication. Please send your proposals by email to:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Changing Approaches Towards Restitution and Return of Colonial Heritage: Tracing Experiences and Identifying Shared Decolonial Practices

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On 23-34 May 2024, the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies and the Research Group 'Museums, Collections and Society' will hold an interdisciplinary symposium on 'Changing Approaches Towards Restitution and Return of Colonial Heritage'. One of the shortcomings of existing approaches is that...

# data[].attributes.body
February 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The UK Government is to exclude national museums and galleries from legislation that would have enabled them to restitute objects on moral grounds.

Under provisions in sections 15 and 16 of the Charities Act 2022, the trustees of national museums and galleries would have been allowed to seek authorisation from the Charity Commission if they felt compelled by moral obligation to make a transfer of charity property - a voluntary gesture of goodwill known as an ex gratia payment.

This would have provided them with a route to restitution, undermining existing statutes that prevent most national museums and galleries in England from deaccessioning items in all but limited circumstances.

The government says the implications of the legislation were not made clear when the bill passed through parliament. The relevant sections of the bill were suspended in 2022 to give the government more time to consider the provisions.

In January this year, the arts and heritage minister, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, wrote to the Charity Commission to set out the government's position on the bill.

The letter said: "The potential consequences of these provisions were not made clear by the Law Commission when the bill was introduced, and were not the subject of parliamentary scrutiny or debate during the passage of the bill."

Lord Parkinson made clear that national museums would be specifically excluded from the provisions.

He said: "The policy of HM Government is that national museums and galleries should continue to be bound by their 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.

"To that end, we will specifically exclude those national museums and galleries from the commencement of sections 15 and 16 of the act."

Beyond national institutions, the Charities Act enables other charities to make smaller ex gratia payments without having to seek permission from the Charity Commission. Lord Parkinson clarified in his letter that all ex gratia payments where the recipient is located outside of the UK will now be excluded from this provision.

He said: "Charity Commission oversight of these cases provides an important assurance that the charity's trustees have undertaken proper due process in reaching their decision. Removing this oversight would not be appropriate in restitution cases.

"We are therefore looking to exclude from the commencement of sections 15 and 16 any ex gratia payment where the recipient (i.e. the person to whom legal title for the property would be transferred) is located outside the UK."

Lord Parkinson said officials in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport would continue to work closely with the Charity Commission on the commencement of the provisions and on communicating their plan to the sector.

The government is looking to bring sections 15 and 16 of the act into force later this year.

Some sector leaders have made clear that they would like national institutions to be given more leeway to return objects. Tristram Hunt, director of London's Victoria & Albert Museum, recently described legislation preventing nationals from deaccessioning objects as "infantilising" and has called for trustees to be given more autonomy in their decision-making around collections.

The V&A and the British Museum announced a cultural partnership last month that will see items of Asante regalia, which were looted from Ghana by British forces in the 1870s, return to the country on long-term loan.
An analysis of the issues around repatriation and restitution in national museums will be published in the March/April issue of Museums Journal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
National museums to be excluded from law enabling restitution on moral grounds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
UK Government says consequences of Charities Act 2022 were not made clear when it was introduced

# data[].attributes.body
March 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The British Museum's latest exhibition, Rediscovering Gems, displays a range of prized ancient Roman and Greek artefacts. The exhibition stemmed from an announcement last year that numerous pieces from the museum's collection were missing, stolen or damaged. Some of the gems exhibited are among those previously classified as missing.

Hartwig Fischer, the former director of the British Museum who resigned days after the announcement, stated that the museum had tightened its security arrangements and begun working alongside "outside experts" in order to "throw our efforts into the recovery of objects".

The museum's uncompromising programme of recovery, begun in August 2023, has involved the Metropolitan Police, international experts, taking legal action and dismissing staff.

On hearing about the stolen artefacts, and subsequent recovery programme, I sensed a whiff of irony that was echoed by others on social media. While the British Museum celebrates recovered items in its new exhibition, it has continuously refused to return historically looted items in its own collection back to countries of origin.

From irony to hypocrisy

Over the past year the British Museum, under increasing pressure, has ratified a new loan agreement which essentially functions as "short-term" restitution.

The first new case of this short-term restitution agreement was announced in January - 15 historical Asante objects are due to be returned to the Asante Kingdom in Ghana in May. The objects will remain with the Asante for three to six years before having to be legally returned to the British Museum. Since then, discussions surrounding another loan agreement have circulated relating to the long-contested Parthenon marbles.

Read more: V&A's decision to loan looted Asante gold back to Ghana has implications for other British museums

And herein lies the hypocrisy of Rediscovering gems. Since August 2023, the British Museum has been relentless in its efforts to permanently recover and then exhibit stolen artefacts from its collection. But when it comes to historically looted items in its collection, the museum has only agreed to "loans". The opening of Rediscovering gems displays an open embrace of institutional hypocrisy.

British Museum trustees tend to fall back on two arguments when interrogated about looted artefacts. First, that the museum's collection is safely and uniquely placed to tell the story of humanity. Or second, that UK law prohibits the return of artefacts to countries of origin.

The first argument has fallen to pieces in the past year, as the stolen artefacts question the museum's supposedly "safe" environment. The latter legal question seemingly presents a more robust barrier, yet in 2009 UK laws were altered to give previously prohibited museums the power to return cultural objects relating to Nazi-era looting. There is no legal barrier preventing the amendment of laws enabling the permanent restitution of historically looted objects.

Beyond the British Museum

So where to go from here? As well as continuing to pile pressure on the British Museum and UK lawmakers, I would argue that community stakeholders and national leaders should look beyond most national museums which are prohibited by law from returning objects to countries of origin. This includes the Science Museum Group, Kew Gardens and Wallace Collection.

These museums make up a very small percentage of the roughly 2,500 museums found across UK. Not all 2,500 hold looted material, but many certainly do.

As well as striking the loan agreement with the British Museum and Victoria and Albert Museum, Asante representatives also struck a deal with the Fowler Museum at the University of California in Los Angeles. This resulted in the permanent restitution of seven objects in February. This is precisely how I think community stakeholders and national leaders should proceed with negotiating object returns - pressurising more prominent law-bound institutions while also working with less prominent alternatives.

In November 2022 the Horniman Museum permanently returned six objects to Nigeria. A year later the Manchester Museum permanently returned 174 items to the Aboriginal Anindilyakwa community.

The Wellcome Trust currently holds historical Asante objects in its collection. I have been working alongside Asante and Wellcome representatives since last year to facilitate discussions regarding the future of these objects.

These examples indicate that there remains a large untapped selection of museums which may be more willing to engage in conversations about permanent returns.

The British Museum declined a request from The Conversation to comment on this story.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rediscovering Gems: British Museum exhibition exposes hypocrisy of new loan agreements for looted objects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The British Museum is celebrating recovered items in its new exhibition, but it continues to refuse to return historically looted items in its own collection to countries of origin.

# data[].attributes.body
March 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Smithsonian moves towards ‘informed consent’ principle for human remains - Museums Association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Institution acknowledges ‘morally abhorrent’ historic practices and commits to repatriating majority of remains

# data[].attributes.body
January 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The €2.1 million fund will finance research over three years investigating whether African artefacts in French and German national museums were justly obtained.

ADVERTISEMENT

As the movement to "decolonise" museums gains ground in Europe, France and Germany have launched a €2.1 million research fund to investigate the provenance of African cultural artefacts in their national institutions.

The new fund aims to finance research projects focused on cultural objects from anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa. Former French and German colonies like Cameroon and Togo (each of which were colonised by both France and Germany) will be given priority.

Each country will contribute €360,000 per year to the three-year fund, which will operate based on a demand for projects.

The initiative was announced by France and Germany's culture ministries earlier this month. Submission forms for eligible projects are being made available online this week until 30 April.

The Centre Marc Bloch, a Franco-German research centre for social sciences and humanities in Berlin, will manage the disbursement of funds.

"The first year will be experimental," said Dr Julie Sissia, scientific project head of the fund and researcher at the Centre Marc Bloch. "We gave as few budgetary and thematic constraints as possible for eligibility criteria to keep it as open as possible."

To qualify for funding, projects need to have a German-French institutional team, they must have a close relationship with a partner in Africa and their scope must include both museum and academic research, Sissia said.

"We want to see how, from a German-French perspective, there can be new teams, new methods emerging from that format." Sissia told Euronews Culture.

Sissia says this is the first fund devoted to international cooperation in provenance research, a huge step towards a Europe-wide collaboration on the hot-button issue.

"This initiative shows a good, functioning German-French collaboration in the cultural field today, and there's also this aspect of a pilot project because both the German and French culture ministries have been thinking of opening this collaboration on a European level after the three-year experimental phase is done," Sissia said.

A growing commitment to restitution across Europe

Museums across Europe and North America are facing increasing calls to revisit their approaches to indigenous and colonial-era cultural artefacts in their possession.

Most recently, the American Museum of Natural History in the US announced the closing of two major wings exhibiting Native American objects, after new federal regulations required museums to get consent from tribes before displaying or researching their cultural items.

Both France and Germany have been working on finding a framework for the restitution of African artefacts, an issue that's become a new priority for national policymakers.

In France, the push came after a 2017 speech by President Emmanuel Macron, in which he promised to rebuild strained relationships with France's former colonies in sub-Saharan Africa.

He said returning or loaning African artefacts held in French cultural institutions would be a "top priority" for his administration.

"African heritage cannot be a prisoner of European museums," Macron said in a Tweet after his trip to Burkina Faso, Ghana and Ivory Coast.

France returned 26 artefacts to Benin in 2021, but restitution efforts have stalled in recent years as a law to establish a framework for the return of African artefacts hit a roadblock in parliament late last year.

Germany has also made headway on the issue, signing a deal to return hundreds of artefacts known as the Benin bronzes, which were first looted by a British colonial expedition.

ADVERTISEMENT

So far, Berlin has returned around 20 bronzes to Nigeria, which were previously exhibited in German national museums. Its national collection has one of the greatest number of African artefacts in the world.

Sissia said the new Franco-German fund will also allow for new research on the circulation of cultural objects from Africa, shedding light on how objects crossed borders through international art dealers and cultural institutions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
France and Germany to investigate provenance of African cultural items

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The €2.1 million fund will finance research over three years investigating whether African artefacts in French and German national museums were justly obtained.

# data[].attributes.body
Association on American Indian Affairs Restoring Ancestral Connections Website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Restoring Ancestral Connections is a project building collaborations between American Indians and European Museums.

# data[].attributes.body
January 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Asante Gold: UK to loan back Ghana’s looted ‘crown jewels’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Treasures taken 150 years ago will go back, the BBC can reveal, in a possible model for other disputes.

# data[].attributes.body
January 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Good morning.

More than 150 years after they were "stolen in violent circumstances" by British soldiers, two top UK museums are returning some of Ghana's "crown jewels".

The items, which have been described as part of the "national soul" of Ghana, are being loaned - rather than given back - because a UK law bans national museums from "deaccessioning" items in their collections.

However, experts hope that the three-year loan of the 32 pieces of Asante gold by the British Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum, will spark national and international debate about the rightful return of artefacts with cultural and religious significance to their countries of origin.

The Asante gold agreement, reached after the current Asante king Otumfuo Osei Tutu II met King Charles, will be watched closely in Athens, which is seeking the return of the Parthenon marbles, and Nigeria, which has long campaigned for the Benin bronzes to be given back.

Dan Hicks, a professor of contemporary archaeology at Oxford University, said the deal over the Asante gold is the "very welcome beginning of a process that will hopefully lead to the rightful return of important items to their rightful owners". But, it's unlikely to be a quick or simple process. More from Hicks, after the headlines.

Five big stories

Middle East | Israeli officials are bracing for an expected interim ruling from the international court of justice on South Africa's allegation that the war in Gaza amounts to genocide against Palestinians, an emergency measure that could expose Israel to international sanctions.

Immigration | The UK would break international law if it ignored emergency orders from the European court of human rights to stop asylum seekers being flown to Rwanda, the head of the court has said.

UK news | The mother of one of three Nottingham stabbing victims has said "true justice has not been served" after killer Valdo Calocane was sentenced to indefinite detention in a high-security hospital.

US news | Alabama has carried out the first execution of a death row inmate in the US using nitrogen gas, an untested procedure which the prisoner's lawyers had argued amounted to a form of cruel and unusual punishment banned under the US constitution.

Politics | David Cameron breached "proper process" when he appointed Michelle Mone to the House of Lords in 2015, David Mundell, who was the Scotland secretary at the time, has said.

In depth: 'They are doing everything they can to give the items back while technically staying within the law'

"They're not just objects," Nana Oforiatta Ayim, a special adviser to Ghana's culture minister, said of the artefacts, which include a sword of state and gold Akrafokonmu badges worn by officials charged with cleansing the soul of the king. "They have spiritual importance as well. They are part of the soul of the nation. It's pieces of ourselves returning."

Ayim said loan of the items to Ghana was a "good starting point" and a "sign of some kind of healing and commemoration for the violence that happened". They will go on display at Manhyia Palace Museum in Kumasi, the capital of the Asante region, in time for Osei Tutu II's silver jubilee celebrations in April 2024.

The items - 15 from the British Museum and 17 from the V&A - will only be on display in Manhyia Palace for three years (with an option to be extended for a further three years). This is because the British Museum Act 1963 and the National Heritage Act 1983 prevent the trustees of major UK museums from permanently handing back contested treasures in their collections.

"Everyone in the museum community obviously welcomes that there is finally movement in returning these items," Hicks says. But this doesn't mean that in other cases - like the Parthenon marbles and the Benin bronzes - loans will prove to be the answer, rather than permanently and unconditionally giving back stolen goods.

It's not enough for many people in Ghana, who have taken to social media and local radio to complain that the deal is akin to a thief agreeing to loan back stolen goods.

"A burglar raids your home and steals your valuables. You managed to track down the burglar and they grudgingly agree to 'loan' them back to you. That sounds crazy doesn't it?" Lorraine King, a presenter on Colourful Radio in the UK posted on X (formerly Twitter). "Well the UK will loan Ghana the crown jewels they stole from them 150 years ago."

Ayim acknowledges that people are angry at the idea of a loan, but said it was hoped that it would be the first step in a journey that would lead to their permanent return. "We know the objects were stolen in violent circumstances, we know the items belong to the Asante people."
The British Museum or the Brutish Museum?
Hicks says his reading of the deal is the that "they [the British Museum and the V&A] are doing everything they can to give the items back whilst technically staying within the law."

"We [the UK] are out of step with other countries who are giving back artefacts looted by colonialists, France and Germany have joined forces to look into how to return items from their national museums, and the Smithsonian in Washington has given back 29 Benin bronzes to Nigeria."

While national museums are prevented from returning artefacts, Benin bronzes held in private UK museums, including those of the University of Cambridge, have been returned.

Hicks, who recently published The Brutish Museums: The Benin bronzes, Colonial Violence and Cultural Restitution, says the government's refusal to change the law to allow national museums to return looted artefacts is out of step with the views of most of the UK public and the directors of the museums. (The Labour party has not expressed interest in changing the law, but Keir Starmer has indicated that he would support loaning the Parthenon marbles to Athens.)

"There will be some in government who view this loan agreement as a stopgap that will resolve the debate for now," Hicks says. "But I sense it will do the opposite, it will draw attention to the issue and have the public asking what is ethically right?

"The next logical questions are: When will the law be changed, and when will these important items be properly returned to their rightful owners?"

What else we've been reading

Rokhaya Diallo pays tribute to Angela Davis, the veteran American philosopher, writer, activist, feminist icon and symbol of Black liberation struggles, after a French school named after her was renamed. Clare Longrigg, acting head of newsletters

Sport

Tennis | Aryna Sabalenka held her nerve throughout a tense Australian Open semi-final, outplaying fourth seed Coco Gauff 7-6 (2), 6-4 to set up a final match against Zheng Qinwen of China.

Cricket | An England team imbued with sunny optimism these past two years will need it an abundance over the next seven weeks, after India took control in the first test in Hyderabad. England's 246 all out from 64.3 overs after winning the toss - salvaged by a defiant 70 from Ben Stokes - did at least put them in the contest.

skip past newsletter promotion
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion

Football | Luis Rubiales should stand trial over the kiss he planted on the footballer Jenni Hermoso, a judge with Spain's top criminal court has said, after a preliminary investigation in which he concluded that the former football chief's gesture "was not consensual and was a unilateral and unexpected move".

The front pages

The Guardian leads with "EU plan to stockpile drugs 'will worsen UK shortages'". The FT has "Court freezes Mone assets as crime agency investigates PPE fraud claims". The i says "Labour's tax trap: Starmer warned he must reverse Tory tax cuts or squeeze UK public services".

The Times reports "Police chief has 'blood on his hands' over stabbings", while the Telegraph follows the same story, quoting families of the victims of Nottingham killer Valdo Calocane on its front page: "'He has got away with murder'". The Mirror looks at the same issue with the headline "They were failed".

Finally, the Sun carries a story about Bill Roache, with the headline "Corrie Bill, 91 facing bankruptcy".

Something for the weekend
Our critics' roundup of the best things to watch, read and listen to right now
The team behind Narcos, which told Pablo Escobar's story, has seized the opportunity and run with it in the new six-part Netflix miniseries Griselda. It stars Sofía Vergara (above, who also executive produces) as the woman who would become a terrifying drug lord known as the Cocaine godmother. There isn't a weak performance in it ... a pulpy, stylish ride. It's almost too entertaining, given the real-life suffering she caused. Lucy Mangan

Music
Future Islands: People Who Aren't There The synth-pop quartet's heart-on-sleeve frontman, Samuel T Herring, is by turns lovelorn and lovestruck in the Baltimore band's disorientating but affecting seventh LP. The band have opted to refine rather than radically overhaul their sound, and it's tempting to say that if you've heard any of their seven albums, you'll know what to expect here: metronomic rhythms, surging quiet-loud dynamics, a high bass sound indebted to Peter Hook, alternately glacial and shimmering synthesisers rooted in the band's love of early 80s OMD that turn a little stadium rock towards the chorus, Herring's distinctive vocals. Alexis Petridis

Film
All of Us Strangers (cinemas nationwide)Andrew Scott, Paul Mescal and Claire Foy shine in the drama about a screenwriter who visits his childhood home to find his parents, who were killed in a car crash, still living there. Andrew Haigh's has created a mysterious, beautiful and sentimental film- a fantasy-supernatural romance about loneliness and love. It concerns the climacteric of middle age when you realise you are probably nearer to death than birth. Peter Bradshaw

Podcast
Offstage: Inside The X Factor
BBC Sounds, all episodes out nowThe heady days of early reality TV are always rich pickings, and as the 20th anniversary of The X Factor dawns, Chi Chi Izundu examines it through a distinctly 2024 lens. There's solid access to show insiders and contestants who reveal the price they paid for a shot at fame - and, in some cases, how it was worth that risk. Hannah Verdier

Today in Focus
Michelle Mone and the PPE Medpro investigation
After the peer admitted to lying about her involvement in lucrative government PPE deals during the Covid crisis, the fate of her high-profile lingerie company raises further questions. reports.

Cartoon of the day | Ben Jennings

The Upside
A bit of good news to remind you that the world's not all bad
A new "shoot-up" centre in Porto, where people can take drugs in a safe and clean environment, offers a rare ray of hope in the scourge of drug addiction. Three decades ago, heroin addiction in Portugal affected an estimated one in every 100 adults, and death by overdose or drug-related disease was commonplace.

In 1999, Portuguese lawmakers, motivated by a widespread belief that the "war on drugs" was failing, passed a radical piece of legislation decriminalising the acquisition, possession and private use of small amounts of drugs. Today, Portugal's liberal stance on drug possession is saving lives, and has much to teach the rest of Europe.
Sign up here for a weekly roundup of The Upside, sent to you every Sunday
Bored at work?

And finally, the Guardian's puzzles are here to keep you entertained throughout the day - with plenty more on the Guardian's Puzzles app for iOS and Android. Until Monday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Friday briefing: Why Britain is returning plundered artefacts back to Ghana - sort of

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In today's newsletter: 32 pieces of Asante gold are to return home from the British Museum and V&A ... but only on loan

# data[].attributes.body
November 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Professor Tom Gillingwater, Chair of Anatomy at the University of Edinburgh, said: "We are committed to addressing our colonial legacy and this repatriation is the latest action we have taken in line with our longstanding policy of returning items to appropriate representatives of the cultures from which they were taken."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tribal warrior skulls repatriated to Taiwan by University of Edinburgh

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The University of Edinburgh acquired the skulls in 1907 and held them at their Anatomical museum.

# data[].attributes.body
December 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plans to provide advice on the restitution of cultural heritage held in Irish institutions moved forward this week with the first meeting of an advisory committee.

The group was created in June to develop guidelines on artefacts in Ireland that may have been illegally or unethically elicited or traded.

The committee has also been asked to advise the government on issues related to the restitution of historically and culturally sensitive objects and will develop guidance on provenance research as well.

There have been a number of recent cases in which Irish cultural institutions have become involved in repatriation projects.

These include Trinity College Dublin working with the residents of Inishbofin, an island off Ireland's north-west coast, to determine what should be done with 13 skulls stolen from the island by a British anthropologist in 1890. The remains were brought back to the island earlier this year and reburied following a funeral mass.

And the National Museum of Ireland (NMI), Dublin, has taken steps to repatriate the Benin Bronzes in its collection. The cultural treasures were looted by the British army from Benin City, in present-day Nigeria, in 1897 and were then scattered across the world.

"The establishment of this committee is a significant step toward establishing best practices in Ireland regarding the restitution of cultural objects," said Catherine Martin, the minister for tourism, culture, arts, Gaeltacht, sport and media.

"Both the chair and the committee members possess great expertise in this matter and I expect that their work will deepen our understanding of these complex and sensitive issues. I know that our cultural institutions will welcome this guidance."

Committee members include and Chanté St. Clair Inglis, who is the head of collections at the National Museum of Scotland and a member of the Museums Association's Ethics Committee.

Other members include Lynn Scarff, the director of the NMI, and Audrey Whitty, chair of the Irish Museums Association and director of the National Library of Ireland.

The committee is chaired by Donnell Deeny, the chairman of the UK Government's Spoliation Advisory Panel and member of the Court of Arbitration for Art in The Hague.

Deeny said: "I was glad to accept the invitation of the minister to chair this committee, which will draw up guidelines and advise on delicate and complex issues relating to the restitution and repatriation of historic and cultural objects now in Ireland obtained in illegal or unethical circumstances in the past which call out for a remedy in the Ireland of today."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Irish repatriation committee holds first meeting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Group set up to create guidelines on artefacts that may have been illegally or unethically elicited or traded

# data[].attributes.body
November 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Greeks broke promise not to raise Parthenon Sculptures, No 10 says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Downing Street cancels Rishi Sunak's meeting with the Greek PM at the last minute amid a diplomatic spat.

# data[].attributes.body
November 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The press photos show a hall or forecourt within a museum or university. Standing in a row, often participating in a ritual, are people of colour wearing ceremonial and traditional dress; they are joined by white officials in business suits, smiling determinedly.

An object - a sword, some clothing, a totem pole - is at the centre of the business. And sometimes, there are human heads.

Last week, the remains of four Paiwan tribal warriors, their skulls taken as trophies by Japanese soldiers invading Taiwan in 1874, were repatriated in a ceremony at Edinburgh University.

They were gifted to the university's principal in 1907, and have since resided in the archives of the School of Anatomy - a residue of the heights (meaning depths) of imperial science, where the cranial distinction between races was of high importance.

In the handover ceremonies, the emphasis seems to be on kindliness and reconciliation. Taiwan News (TN) reports that the shaman (or "pulingaw") conducting the Edinburgh ceremony, Civur Malili, provoked "tears and laughter" in the audience.

READ MORE: Taiwanese warrior remains returned to homeland by Edinburgh University

"During her communications with the deity and ancestral spirits, the four warriors were initially reserved about returning to Taiwan, because they had died in unnatural circumstances and could therefore bring their descendants bad luck", the TN report continues.

"The spirits eventually agreed to return home after they were reassured that it would help to pass historic memories to future generations".

A certain Malcolm MacCallum, curator of Edinburgh's anatomical museum, was even "welcomed into the spiritual circle" by the pulingaw, in gratitude for preserving the skulls.

This is hardly fashionable "wokery", by the way. Edinburgh University has been repatriating human remains for 30 years to Sri Lanka, Australia and New Zealand. Indeed, Scottish museums are decidedly at the forefront of the movement in Western museums to empty themselves of imperial booty.

This August, Glasgow Museums signed the first deal in the UK to return items to India, including a (very beautiful) 14th-century Tulwar ceremonial sword. Glasgow's repatriative reputation began with their return of the Lakota Sioux Ghost Dance shirt in 1999. Edinburgh's Galleries returned the House of Ni'isjoohl Memorial totem pole to British Columbia's Nisga'a Nation just this September.

Most provocatively, Aberdeen University became the first European institution to agree to return their Benin bronze (a bust of an "Oba", or king) to the Nigerian authorities.

In 1897, deploying rocket launchers and machine guns, the British Army levelled the city of Benin. Unknown numbers were killed, with soldiers raiding its royal palace, seizing around 10,000 artefacts (their original function was to record history and guide ceremonies).

Some went straight to European museums, some were simply sold on the market. But the Benin bronzes have become a distinct point of difference between many regional museums and the British Museum.

The British Museum possesses more than 900 Benin objects and has more than 100 on regular display in its galleries. The museum is sheltering behind the British Museum Act of 1963, which stops them from permanently returning objects (extended loans are permitted.) Parliament has the sole power to change this law.

Meanwhile, the UK Government's official advice is to "retain and explain" - meaning keep all the objects, but properly contextualise them. That's not satisfying the descendants of those robbed.

"The issue is that these are stolen artefacts", said the director for Nigeria's National Commission for Museums and Monuments, Abba Isa Tijani, this August. "They should be returned to Nigeria, to the communities that they belong to."

As the chorus for decolonising Western behaviours and institutions swells globally, these are times for reflecting critically on familiar old habits. I take myself back to some of my earliest pleasures as a developing, eagerly-learning youth.

Once I'd cowered past the giant stuffed elephant, I'd often wander indulgently through the Kelvingrove Museum in Glasgow. Peering through the glass cases at tableaux of African, Indian or American artefacts, I was often struck by the sheer difference of the idea of humanity they embodied.

READ MORE: Police Scotland releases statement ahead of pro-Palestinian rallies

Was I enacting the "imperial gaze", delighting in the cartoonish exaggerations, feeling my own white superiority in the process? No doubt the curation that brought them to that great Victorian pile of Kelvingrove drank from that fetid well.

I don't recall any sense of racial supremacy. What I do remember (and this would come from being a space cadet) is thinking these artefacts looked like aliens or model spaceships. I was reading Erich Von Daneken's Chariot of the Gods - subtitle: "Was God an Astronaut?" - so perhaps everything appeared that way then.

There was a press shot from the Edinburgh-Taiwan exchange, where a university official is pointing to the four Paiwan warriors' heads. They're surrounded by shelves and shelves of other skulls. I don't know their status - perhaps they're all medical donations, perhaps not. But it was a queasy image, one that easily evokes the general charnel-house of imperial behaviour in the last few centuries.

In short, and to be blunt: how can any Western museum justify the holding of material gained from the era of imperial plunder, supremacy and exploitation? One of the more bureaucratic pushbacks is that these artefacts are being sent back into less-than-perfect conditions for their continued preservation.

Returnee countries may be poorly constructing their own museums, with deficient controls for the effect of climate on artefacts.

Do you hear a resounding echo of old prejudices here?

As many experts retort, perhaps this is as much about reparations as repatriations. If the legacy of empire means the general impoverishment of these countries, isn't there a responsibility for Western institutions to subsidise and support their museum infrastructure?

And what if the objects' preservation is not defined by the values of Western museumry, as their ancestors decide to use them? On the Fleming Collection website, Queen Margaret University's Anthony Schrag related the fate of a funeral garment from Tonga.

Made from straw and designed to decay, it's preserved in a Scottish museum - and is now one of the last such items left on the planet.

"If it were to be returned, should it be allowed to decay, as its maker originally intended?" asks Schrag. "There is a sense of different value systems competing."

Thorny. But we still need to create another stratum in the public discussion around all this. The Scottish Government is currently supporting an initiative titled Empire, Slavery & Scotland's Museums (ESSM). This aims to progress museum practice - both about how to narrate, and how to repatriate, their collections.

I'm not surprised that the Scottish Government is directly involved.

One crucial part of any independence strategy will be the story Scotland tells, to a watching and trading world, about the country's response to its colonial legacy. You could call this Scottish soft power. However, it's well known that the best soft power strategies are the ones that back up their virtuous claims with verifiable actions.

ESSM member Abeer Eladany concludes a recent interview this way: "There will be more exhibitions, repatriations and documentation projects that will reveal some painful truths about the past, but I am sure there will also be healing - and connections forged with communities within Scotland and globally."

Maybe that's already happening.

Arts journalist Susan Mansfield reports on the fate of a sacred headdress from Aberdeen University's museums, returned in 2003 to the Kainai Nation of western Canada.

There's an annual sun dance undertaken by the headdress's keeper - who has obtained a Bonnie Prince Charlie jacket to wear during the performance. Curator Neil Curtis is quoted: "He wanted to acknowledge its time in Scotland, which is now part of its history."

As we are part of these communities' histories - first terrible, now restorative.

More business suits and vibrant garments, in more shyly-conducted ceremonies, please.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scottish museums are at the forefront of efforts to return the plunder of empire

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
THESE are gentle, polite scenes, belying the violence and disruption that stretch behind them.

# data[].attributes.body
November 2023

# data[].attributes.body
October 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A handover ceremony has taken place in Oxford this week to mark the repatriation of ancestral remains to Aboriginal communities in Australia.

The Pitt Rivers Museum and Oxford University Museum of Natural History (OUMNH) are returning the remains of 11 Aboriginal ancestors.

Five of these have been returned to the custodianship of their respective communities and six are now under the stewardship of the Australian government ahead of their return to Country [the term used by Aboriginal people to describe the land, seas and waterways to which they are connected].

Six of the human remains came from the OUMNH and were acquired by the museum in the 19th century, either via the acquisition of larger medical and anthropological collections or from individual donors.

The other five came from the Pitt Rivers Museum's collection and were acquired between 1887 and 1917, mostly from private donors.

The return is part of an agreement between the museums and the Australian Government to repatriate 30 ancestors in total.

A statement announcing the repatriation described the acquiring of ancestral remains as being "part of the problematic history of archaeology and anthropology that caused much hurt and needs redress".

Representatives from the Bathurst Local Aboriginal Land Council and the Wiradjuri Community, the Far West Coast Aboriginal Corporation, the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and Gadigal communities, the Ngarrindjeri Community, the Wadawurrung Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation, and the Wadawurrung Community, attended the ceremony.

The Australian high commissioner to the UK, Stephen Francis Smith, was also in attendance, along with Paul Smith, director of the OUMNH, and Laura Van Broekhoven, director of the Pitt Rivers Museum.

"Returning ancestors to Country is critical to promote healing and justice for First Nations peoples - and is a vital step towards reconciliation and truth-telling," said the minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney.

"It honours the deep cultural and emotional significance of returning ancestors to their traditional lands and allows communities to carry out their cultural obligations and customs."

Van Broekhoven said: "For the Pitt Rivers Museum, ceremonies like these introduce new chapters in our history as a museum. We want to thank Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders for their leadership in this process; we are pleased that the ancestors are finally able to return home. We are grateful to join this Indigenous-led process that works towards healing."

The return means more than 1,209 ancestors have now been returned from the UK to Australia, according to the National Indigenous Times.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Oxford museums return ancestral remains to Aboriginal communities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Remains were acquired as part of archaeological and anthropological practices that 'caused much hurt'

# data[].attributes.body
September 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
London museums lag behind regional peers in returning disputed objects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Museums from Glasgow to Cambridge proactively repatriating objects while national institutions ‘forced into position of inertia’

# data[].attributes.body
September 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Website helps nations seeking artefacts back

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Greeks have George Osborne’s number. When they want their marbles back they can call him but, as the wave of repatriation swells, many indigenous communitie

# data[].attributes.body
Routes to Return - Resource about the European Museum Repatriation Landscape

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Working Towards International Repatriation

This site aims to open up global networks, share information, and enable international repatriation
Approaches to international repatriation are rapidly changing. This website is a work in progress, ever-growing resource.

For nations and communities looking to make a claim

This resource is aimed at giving an overview of the European museum repatriation landscape - the laws, policies, and potential approaches that can be useful to know before beginning your repatriation efforts in Europe.

For museums wishing to enable return

This area of the site is aimed at giving practical advice to museum professionals who want to initiate a potential repatriation effort.

Looking to make a claim from a European museum?

It can be helpful to understand the European laws, policies, and approaches that govern museums' approaches to repatriation

About the creator of this website

Amy Shakespeare is a PhD Student at the University of Exeter, England. Her research aims to enable more European museums to undertake repatriation.

'States shall seek to enable the access and/or repatriation of ceremonial objects and human remains in their possession through fair, transparent and effective mechanisms developed in conjunction with the indigenous peoples concerned.'
Article 12, United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2008
With thanks to the following funders who have supported my research and enabled me to do this work.

© Amy Shakespeare 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This site aims to open up global networks, share information, and enable international repatriation

# data[].attributes.body
September 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over the last few days, a new dialogue has opened up in light of the theft of 1200 to 2000 objects by a senior Curator at the British Museum. Peter John Higgs, 56, was dismissed this summer, pending a police investigation, after several items were either "missing, stolen or damaged". Many of the items turned up on the eBay auction website selling for a fraction of their value. The objects were taken over a "significant period".
Who is Peter John Higgs? Higgs has been a senior curator in the Greek and Roman departments of the BM for over 30 years. He is one of Britain's top experts on Greek and Roman ancient artefacts. Higgs was Born in Stevenage, Hertfordshire, and now lives in Hastings, East Sussex. He studied archaeology at the University of Liverpool before joining the British Museum. Up until his sacking, he was a popular and trusted member of staff. The British Museum tops London's attractions list and is the number two most visited museum in the world after the Louvre in Paris. The theft has prompted the resignation of the Museum's Director, Hartwig Fischer, who is ultimately responsible for the collection under his stewardship. It also raises questions of trust on a whole array of objects in the BM collection, which includes the controversial Elgin/Parthenon Marbles.

Whether the British Museum can be trusted to keep the Parthenon Marbles is a complex consideration of cultural heritage, ethics, and the roles of museums in a global context. Critics suggest that perspectives on heritage have evolved since the Marbles were acquired in 1812-1816, warranting a reevaluation of their ownership and display location.

Talks have been taking place in London since November 2021 between Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis of Greece and George Osborne, the former chancellor under David Cameron, who is now the chairman of the British Museum.

The British Museum has stated that it has taken great care to preserve the Marbles and provide a safe and controlled environment for their display. They claim that returning the Marbles to Greece could jeopardise their conservation due to environmental factors and potential changes in display conditions.

The debate surrounding the repatriation of the Parthenon Marbles, also known as the Elgin Marbles, from the British Museum to Greece is a complex and contentious issue. While there are differing opinions on this matter, proponents of returning the Marbles often make the following arguments:

The Parthenon Marbles are a collection of ancient Greek sculptures that originally adorned the Parthenon temple on the Acropolis of Athens. They are considered a significant part of Greece's cultural and historical heritage. Returning the Marbles to Greece would contribute to reuniting this cultural treasure with its place of origin, allowing Greeks to understand their history and identity better.

The Marbles are integral to the architectural and artistic integrity of the Parthenon, which is an iconic symbol of Athenian democracy and ancient Greek civilisation. Placing the Marbles back in its original context would provide a more authentic experience for visitors to the Acropolis and enhance the site's educational value.

The removal of the marbles by Lord Elgin in the early 19th century has been criticised as an act of cultural imperialism and colonial appropriation. Returning the Marbles to Greece could be seen as a step toward rectifying historical injustices and acknowledging the impact of colonialism on cultural heritage.

The repatriation of cultural artefacts to their countries of origin is supported by international agreements and ethical standards. The 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property encourages the return of stolen or illegally exported cultural objects.

Returning the Marbles could foster cultural goodwill and strengthen diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Greece. It could be seen as a gesture of mutual respect and cooperation between the two countries.

The Marbles' return to Greece might lead to increased tourism to the Acropolis and other cultural sites, benefiting the Greek economy and cultural institutions. Some argue that museums must respect the cultural context of their artefacts and consider repatriation when it is reasonable and ethical.

It's important to note that the debate over repatriation involves complex legal, cultural, and historical factors. Opponents of returning the Marbles may argue that the British Museum provides a global context for cultural artefacts and that the Marbles have been preserved and displayed in a manner that allows people worldwide to appreciate them.

The British Museum says that it cannot repatriate the marbles even if it wanted to; under British law, the museum cannot remove items from its collection unless they are "unfit to be retained," though it is free to loan objects to other institutions.

Ultimately, the decision to return the Parthenon Marbles involves balancing historical claims, ethical considerations, and the practicalities of cultural heritage preservation.

Words: PCR Photos PCR © Artlyst 2023

Tags

British Museum Thefts, Hartwig Fischer, Parthenon Marbles, Peter John Higgs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
British Museum Thefts: Parthenon Marbles Must Now Be Returned To Greece

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the last few days, a new dialogue has opened up in light of the theft of 1200 to 2000 objects by a senior Curator at the British Museum.

# data[].attributes.body
September 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nigerian and Greek officials have demanded the return of treasures after thousands of items were stolen from the British Museum.

More than 900 Benin Bronze pieces and the Parthenon Marbles - also known as Elgin Marbles - are now the centre of renewed calls for repatriation amid accusations the British Museum's security cannot be trusted.

"It's shocking to hear that the countries and museums that have been telling us that the Benin Bronzes would not be secure in Nigeria, have thefts happening there," said Abba Isa Tijani, Director of Nigeria's National Commission for Museums and Monuments, speaking to Sky News.

The artefacts, which date back as far as the 16th century, were removed from Benin City after British forces invaded the Kingdom in modern day Nigeria in 1897.

"They are the subject of loot. They were illegally taken out of the country," Mr Tijani said, before demanding the British Museum hands back the treasures.

"It is irrespective whether they are safe there. That is not an issue. The issue is that these are stolen artefacts, and they should be returned to Nigeria to the communities that they belong to."

Mr Tijani said the country's newly appointed minister of Arts, Culture and Creative Economy, Hannatu Musawa, will write to the British Museum and the British government within weeks to demand the immediate repatriation of the Benin Bronzes.
Artefacts sold on eBay
The call is echoed by Greek archaeologists who told Sky News they too are revamping efforts to have treasures returned.

The Parthenon or Elgin Marbles, on display at the British Museum since the 19th Century, have been the centre of a longstanding international dispute.

Despina Koutsoumba, head of the Greek Association of Archaeologists, said there is shock among colleagues now at how items can be stolen from such a renowned institution.

"We read that these artefacts were sold on eBay. This is new, artefacts from museums being sold on eBay.

"What we're also worried about is that the British Museum knew (about the thefts) since 2021, and didn't announce what they did. What are the procedures?"
Read more:
Staff member sacked after treasures vanished named as senior curator
Staff member sacked after items 'missing, stolen or damaged'
Elgin Marbles: What are they and how did they end up in British Museum? 'They're trying to shoot the messenger'
The British Museum says it conducted an immediate investigation after concerns were raised in 2021. In a statement Hartwig Fischer, director of the British Museum, said: "Concerns were only raised about a small number of items, and our investigation concluded that those items were all accounted for.

"We now have reason to believe that the individual who raised concerns had many more items in his possession, and it's frustrating that that was not revealed to us as it would have aided our investigations."

But the whistleblower, antiques dealer Ittai Gradel, said his concerns were ignored.

"I told them about the few items where I had absolute proof that they came from the British Museum. I said, 'I have all the information you would require me, all the assistance, I'm entirely at your disposal'. They never contacted and now they're trying to shoot the messenger," he said.

The museum says it called the police after an audit last year revealed a bigger problem. Treasures dating back 3,400 years have gone missing, and the thefts are thought to have taken place over several years.

Museum investigations led to a disciplinary process after which a member of staff was sacked. No arrests have been made.

0:31
'Blatantly opportunistic'
Tim Loughton, chair of the British Museum All-Party Parliamentary Group says focus should be on getting the missing items back.

"The Greek authorities and others are being rather blatantly opportunistic and, rather than being helpful and saying, 'Right, what can we do amongst the archaeological world to help the British Museum retrieve these objects', they're coming up with claims about 'Oh well that just shows that the Elgin Marbles are not safe in the British Museum'. It's complete nonsense," he said.

The British Museum's collection has grown since it was founded in 1753. Items have been acquired in a variety of ways and many are now subject to questions about, or requests for, return to other countries, including the Maqdala Collection to Ethiopia, the Rosetta Stone to Egypt and two large stone moai from Rapa Nui (Easter Island).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nigeria demands return of Benin bronzes after thefts from British Museum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There have been increasing calls for artefacts held in the UK to be returned to their countries of origin, even before the British Museum theft scandal came to light.

# data[].attributes.body
September 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The Art Newspaper - International art news and events

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
First there was Greece, then Nigeria and China-now Wales is demanding that artefacts housed at the British Museum be returned home in the wake of the recent thefts controversy at the beleaguered London institution.

Politicians are calling for Welsh items housed at the museum, such as the 4,000-year-old Mold Gold Cape, to be repatriated across the border. "The cape [found in Mold, Flintshire, in 1833] is one of the finest examples of prehistoric sheet-gold working and is quite unique in form and design," says the British Museum website.

Liz Saville Roberts, the Westminster leader of the Plaid Cymru party who represents the Dwyfor Meirionnydd constituency, told the : "The Moel Hebog Shield [another Welsh artefact] is not even on display despite the treasure being over 3,000 years old. The argument used by the British Museum is that it is the most secure location for them." The shield is a "splendid example, representative of the rise of large sheet-bronze work in later Bronze Age Europe", adds the museum website.

Saville Roberts says: "For Wales, for Greece and for many countries that were under the control of the British Empire, that argument has been severely undermined by this saga. It is high time we faced that the British Museum does not hold the right to these treasures and a grown-up discussion is required about their repatriation." She proposes that the items be transferred to Amgueddfa Cymru-National Museum Wales in Cardiff.

Meanwhile, Heledd Fychan, also a Plaid Cymru member and a member of the Welsh Senedd (parliament), told The Art Newspaper: "I would like to see the British Museum proactively engage with national museums across the world about repatriation of key collections and perhaps display the replicas there instead. That means key collections could still be showcased in London, but that the objects themselves could be in their rightful nations, should that be the will of the people and those national museums."

A British Museum spokesperson told Sky News: "The Mold Gold cape has been on loan to both Wrexham Museum and National Museum Wales in Cardiff in the past ten years, and it has been loaned internationally, as recently as 2021 to Halle in Germany. Six million people visit the museum each year to experience this world-class collection, and the Mold Gold cape is on display to them all, for free, where it is a star piece in our Europe and Middle East Gallery."

Peter Higgs, a senior curator of Greek and Roman art who was employed at the British Museum for 30 years, was identified in UK press reports, as responsible for stealing priceless artefacts from the museum's collection. Higgs's family has denied the allegations against him. The British Museum's director, Hartwig Fischer, stepped down on 25 August.

Earlier this week a state-run Chinese newspaper demanded that the British Museum "returns all Chinese cultural relics acquired through improper channels to China free of charge" following the theft scandal. The 1963 British Museum Act currently prohibits a full return of the museum's artefacts though it is unclear how this applies to Welsh objects.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
British Museum thefts: Welsh politicians join the queue in calling for objects to be repatriated

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The treasures singled out so far include the Mold Gold Cape and Moel Hebog shield

# data[].attributes.body
September 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sir Mark Jones has been named interim director of the British Museum, temporarily stepping in to replace Hartwig Fischer. The former director resigned on August 25, shortly after a major theft at the museum came to light, spiralling the historic museum into the storm of an international scandal.

The museum expert's appointment is still subject to the approval the U.K.'s prime minister Rishi Sunak.

"Mark is one of the most experienced and respected museum leaders in the world, and he will offer the leadership and grip the museum needs right now," said George Osborne, chair of museum trustees, in a statement to the press.

Jones has extensive experience as a museum director, having led the Victoria and Albert Museum in London from 2001 to 2011. He was previously the inaugural director of National Museums Scotland, and worked at the British Museum as assistant keeper of Coins and Medals from 1974 to 1990.

Since the news of the thefts surfaced in August, several nations, including Greece and China, have called for the repatriation of their cultural heritage. Wales has also come forward, with politicians demanding the return of items like the Mold Gold Cape and the Moel Hebog Shield, according to The Art Newspaper.

If Jones is approved by the prime minister, while trying to repair the museum's damaged reputation while the investigation into the theft is ongoing, he will also have to address these restitution requests. According to , in 2002, Jones came out in support for the British Museum sharing the long-contested Parthenon marbles with Greece. "It is not necessarily a case of transferred ownership or of giving the marbles back for good," he said at the time, "but when people believe things are really important, as the Greeks and the British Museum do in this case, that is actually a good thing. Apathy is our great enemy."

Greece has repeatedly rejected offers of a long-term loan deal since its government does not recognize the museum's ownership of the sculptures nor its right to loan them out.

Over the summer, a scandal erupted at the preeminent institution when news of a theft of gems, gold, and other precious objects came to light. The British Museum announced that it had fired an employee in the connection to the theft on August 16. Just a day later, The Telegraph revealed that the suspected thief was senior curator for Greek and Roman art Peter Higgs, who had worked at the museum for 30 years. Higgs's family spoke on behalf of the curator saying he denied any wrongdoing.

In a follow-up report, the British paper also cited an anonymous source who claimed that the number of missing items was over 1,500 and "closer to 2,000."

Fischer announced his resignation in the days that followed. "I sincerely believe it will come through this moment and emerge stronger, but sadly I have come to the conclusion that my presence is proving a distraction," Fischer said in his resignation statement. "That is the last thing I would want."

His deputy director Jonathan Williams also voluntarily stepped back from his role until the independent review into the thefts is completed. He has been temporarily replaced by the archaeologist Dr Carl Heron, who has worked at the British Museum since 2016.

Liz Saville Roberts, of the left-wing Welsh nationalist political party Plaid Cymru, pointed out that some of Wales' culturally valuable objects were not even on display and could be rehoused at the National Museum Wales in Cardiff. "It is high time we faced that the British Museum does not hold the right to these treasures," she told the

"The Mold Gold cape has been on loan to both Wrexham Museum and National Museum Wales in Cardiff in the past ten years, and it has been loaned internationally, as recently as 2021 to Halle in Germany," a spokesperson for the museum told Sky News.

The renowned Egyptologist Zahi Hawass has also renewed a call initially made last year for the British Museum to return the Rosetta Stone and other historic artefacts to Egypt. He has asked for help from UNESCO in calling an international conference to discuss next steps, according to ahramonline.
More Trending Stories:

Want to stay ahead of the art world? Subscribe to our newsletter to get the breaking news, eye-opening interviews, and incisive critical takes that drive the conversation forward.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Embattled British Museum Has Named an Interim Director as More Countries Ramp Up Calls for Repatriation of National Treasures | Artnet News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mark Jones has been named as the interim director of the British Museum, replacing Hartwig Fischer amid ongoing theft scandal.

# data[].attributes.body
September 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Chinese social media mini-series is casting the British Museum into the limelight and increasing international calls for the repatriation of artefacts. Named "Escape from the British Museum", the viral three-part series has captured the imagination of millions by humanising a jade teapot, a relatively recent addition to the museum's collection, on a quest to return to China.

The series arrives at a critical time for the iconic institution, as it reels from last month's revelation that 2,000 of its items are "missing, stolen or damaged". This news has further fuelled international demands, including from China, for historical treasures to be repatriated.

A Teapot's Journey Back Home

Crafted in 2011 by a Chinese artist with a flair for intricate jade carvings, the teapot may not qualify as an ancient relic but embodies a craft unique to China. The teapot's mission to return home begins when she takes human form and encounters a Chinese journalist in London, offering a fantastical yet poignant narrative that has captivated Chinese audiences.

Initially launched on Douyin, China's version of TikTok, the series has been viewed a staggering 270 million times. Its creators, who assert their independence as content creators, gained more than five million followers on Chinese social media platforms within a week of the series' debut.

State Media & Public Sentiment

Chinese state broadcaster CCTV endorsed the series, commending the enthusiasm of young Chinese for their own history and culture. "We are also looking forward to the early return of Chinese artefacts that have been displaced overseas," they added.

The project has inspired a spate of imitations, with influencers adopting personas from ancient Chinese art. While the mainstream media grapples to understand the series' unprecedented appeal, social media chatter suggests it resonates with a collective yearning for "homecoming".

One top-rated comment on Douyin captured this sentiment: "Maybe the Chinese cultural relics in the British Museum are also missing home right now... Will they be thinking 'Bring me home' when they see Chinese faces there?"

Rising Nationalism & Cultural Ownership

As China grapples with burgeoning nationalism and its ever-complicated relationship with the West, cultural heritage has become a charged issue. Last year, Dior faced allegations of "cultural appropriation" over a skirt pattern, causing uproar and protests.

Chinese President Xi Jinping continues to champion a strong national identity, particularly at a time when tensions with the West are escalating.

International Pressure on the British Museum

Adding fuel to the fire, the Chinese nationalist newspaper The Global Times has demanded the British Museum return its entire Chinese collection. "We formally request the British Museum to return all Chinese cultural relics acquired through improper channels to China free of charge," read an editorial in the publication, widely considered a mouthpiece for Beijing.

Such calls are not unique to China. Other nations, including Sudan, Nigeria, Greece, and Egypt, have previously petitioned for the return of artefacts, challenging the British Museum's long-standing assertion that it can best protect these global treasures.

Recent events, however, have seriously undermined this claim. With only about 1% of its eight-million-strong collection on display, critics argue that the latest controversies show that the institution may not be the sanctuary it purports to be.

Whether or not the jade teapot will find its way back to China remains to be seen, but the viral series has certainly intensified a global debate about who should be the custodians of cultural heritage in the modern world.

About the author - Manuel Charr

Manuel Charr is a journalist working in the arts and cultural sectors. With a background in marketing, Manuel is drawn to arts organizations which are prepared to try inventive ways to reach new audiences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Viral TikTok series calls for repatriation of Chinese collections from the British Museum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Chinese social media mini-series is casting the British Museum into the limelight and increasing international calls for the repatriation of artefacts. Named "Escape from...

# data[].attributes.body
Sep 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A UK museum is returning more than 174 objects to an Indigenous Australian community in what is a being hailed as a landmark example of cultural repatriation.

Manchester Museum 's return of the objects is significant because repatriation projects normally revolve around sacred or ceremonial items. Often the objects are considered stolen or were taken in shocking circumstances.

In this case, Manchester is returning everyday objects with a more mundane backstory. They include dolls made from shells, baskets, fishing spears, boomerangs, armbands and a map made from turtle shells, all being sent back to the Anindilyakwa community, who live on an archipelago in the Gulf of Carpentaria, off the northern coast of Australia.

The expectation is that the objects will be used strengthen and revitalise Anindilyakwa culture, to help teach new generations the cultural history of their people.

"We believe this is the future of museums," said Esme Ward, the director of Manchester Museum. "This is how we should be."

She emphasised that she was not telling other museums what they should do with their collections, "but if people are inspired by our commitment to build relationships, that would be great."

Many organisations, including Unesco, hope the project will be a model for other museums to follow. Krista Pikkat, Unesco's director for culture and emergencies, was in Manchester on Tuesday for the formal handing over of the objects.

"It is a truly historic and moving moment," she said. "This is a case we have shared with our member states because we felt it was exemplary in many ways." The return of the objects was not a transaction, she said, but "a collaboration, a dialogue", a project fuelled by "empathy, trust and love".

She added: "It is so much more than repatriation and I remember how moved I was when I heard a presentation. This is not a loss, it is not giving away something."

The objects were all bought or traded for in the 1950s by Peter Worsley, an anthropology PhD student researching the lives of Indigenous Australians who later became a professor at the university.

Dadikwakwa-kwa (shell dolls) are among the items returned to the Anindilyakwa people. Photograph: Manchester Museum

Ward said: "My understanding is that he [Worsley] was building relationships with the Anindilyakwa people and I like to think he would view this as an extension of the work he started."

Worsley's daughter Deborah, who was at the ceremony, agreed. "He would be so thrilled. I feel so, so proud today."

Islanders have been directly involved in deciding what should be returned, and what should stay in Manchester.

Georgina Young, the museum's head of collections, spent time on Groote Eylandt, in the Gulf of Carpentaria, which made the return feel "momentous" in a different way to other object returns, she said.

"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 storeroom in Manchester."

The objects being returned have not been on display or used for teaching for many years.

Repatriation of museum objects is often raised as a controversial subject but it does not need to be, Ward said.

"We've worked on repatriation in this museum since the 1990s and since I've been director we have framed it as a gain, not a loss. Once you understand that it is about building relationships, it changes everything. I think this project is an incredible gift to the people of Manchester."

The Anindilyakwa community is about 1,600 people and consists of 14 clans, who are the traditional owners of the land and seas of the Groote Archipelago.

Three representatives of the community travelled to Manchester for the handover. They expressed hope that other museums would follow Manchester's example.

Noeleen Lalara, a senior elder, said the people who traded or sold the objects in the 1950s did not fully understand the transaction and thought the objects were being borrowed. Asked how she was feeling, she said: "I am emotional. I am happy and I'm proud for our people."

Her sentiments were echoed by Amethea Mamarika, an emerging leader, who said: "We are happy that the objects are going back to our homeland, where they belong so young people can follow in the footsteps of our ancestors. Thanks for keeping them safe."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Manchester Museum hands back 174 objects to Indigenous Australian islanders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Return of items to Anindilyakwa community hailed as landmark example of cultural repatriation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sign of the times hires from the Metropolitan Museum of Art: the New York institution will soon be looking to fill the newly created position of manager of provenance research, who will lead a team of three additional provenance researchers.

Their job will be to scour the 1.5 million objects - which span 17 curatorial areas and five thousand years of history - to ensure that the purchase history of each was legal and fair.

The Met has been embroiled in various issues regarding its collection recently, some dealt with amicably, others involving law enforcement. The Cambodian government made a claim last year that dozens of artefacts, all of which had a history involving the late British-Thai collector Douglas A.J. Latchford, were stolen at some point, citing the evidence of a Cambodian reformed looter turned informer.

Earlier this year an investigation led by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists alleged that 1,109 objects in the museum collection had been owned at some point by individuals or galleries indicted or convicted for antiquities crimes. The Manhattan prosecutor office has also entered the institution to confiscate items from Turkey, Egypt and Italy.

At other points, the museum has given up items from the collection voluntarily, with 45 objects leaving its Manhattan galleries and storage units to return to a variety of countries.

As well as the additional staff members, a new committee featuring 18 curators, conservators and others will convene to advice on collecting policy going forward.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Met will appoint investigators to prove provenance of its collection

# data[].attributes.body
July 2023 summary of everything returned so far this year

# data[].attributes.body
July 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dutch museums repatriate looted artifacts to Indonesia, Sri Lanka

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two Dutch museums have made the decision to return hundreds of cultural artifacts to Indonesia and Sri Lanka. These valuable items, including beautifully…

# data[].attributes.body
March 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The restitution of Parthenon artefacts from the Vatican increases pressure on the British Museum to react to a campaign launched by Athens 40 years ago.

Bishop Brian Farrell, a Vatican secretary for promoting Christian unity, headed the visiting delegation to Athens [Petros Giannakouris/AP]

Greece has welcomed the Vatican's return of ancient artefacts from the Acropolis, furthering a campaign to press the British Museum to hand back a collection of sculptures taken from the ancient site in Athens more than 200 years ago.

Greek Culture Minister Lina Mendoni on Friday led a ceremony for the repatriation of three sculpture fragments that had been kept at the Vatican Museums.

Keep reading

The artefacts, representing a horse and two male heads, will be added to the collection at the Acropolis Museum, which opened in 2009 at the foot of the ancient site in the centre of the Greek capital Athens.

Bishop Brian Farrell, a Vatican secretary for promoting Christian unity, headed the visiting delegation and said the return of the three fragments had been discussed during a visit to Athens by Pope Francis in 2021.

"The gifting of the fragments of the Parthenon, which had been held in the Vatican Museums for more than two centuries, shows itself as cultural and social gesture of friendship and solidarity with the people of Greece," Farrell said.

"We assure you of our intimate joy at the realisation of your legitimate wish to have the ... fragments at home in their place of origin," he added.

The gesture added pressure on the British Museum to reach a settlement with Greece following a campaign launched by Athens 40 years ago.

"Initiatives like these show the way, how the pieces of the Parthenon can be reunited, healing the wounds caused by barbaric hands so many years ago," Mendoni said.

"This takes us to the just and moral demand of the entire Greek people, and of this government and its prime minister, for the final return of all the sculptures of the Parthenon."

Mendoni said Greece would be willing to lend the British Museum ancient Greek artefacts for exhibition to "fill the gap" if the marbles were returned.

"Greece cannot recognise possession and ownership by the British Museum because it considers the sculptures to be there as a product of theft," she said.

The leader of Greece's Orthodox Church, Archbishop Ieronymos II, said the "act by Pope Francis is of historical significance and has a positive impact on all levels. We hope it sets an example for others".

Greek Culture Ministry officials played down remarks made last month by British Museum Chair George Osborne who said the United Kingdom was working with Greece on an arrangement to display the Parthenon marbles in both London and Athens.

Last year, another marble sculptural fragment from the Parthenon temple - depicting a foot of the ancient Greek goddess Artemis - was returned to Athens from a museum in Palermo, Sicily.

Greece argues that the Parthenon sculptures are at the core of its ancient heritage, while supporters of the British Museum maintain that their return could undermine museum collections and cultural diversity globally.

Carved in the 5th century BC, the sculptures from the Parthenon were taken in the early 19th century by British diplomat Lord Elgin before Greece won independence from the Ottoman Empire.

Source: Al Jazeera and news agencies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Greece welcomes back ancient art amid pressure on British Museum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The restitution of Parthenon artefacts from the Vatican increases pressure on the British Museum to return marbles.

# data[].attributes.body
August 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We had reached the top of a sandstone mesa when Theresa Pasqual set down her hiking pole and scanned the storied canyon before us.

We could see the centuries-old buildings of Chaco Canyon, a site in northwest New Mexico that her tribe's ancestors, the Ancestral Puebloans, had occupied before eventually establishing other communities in the region. Pueblo Bonito, the canyon's largest structure, sprawled from near the base of the bluff where we stood, its walls arcing around hundreds of hollowed rooms.

Two colleagues and I had traveled to the canyon with Pasqual as part of our reporting on how the nation's most prestigious museums and universities had excavated Native American cultural sites like this and how they continued to keep what they took.

Pasqual, who is from the Pueblo of Acoma, roughly 100 miles to the south, has visited this remote canyon countless times, starting some four decades ago as a child on trips with her father. Now, she is the director of the Acoma Historic Preservation Office.

She describes Chaco Canyon as a place to which Acoma people make pilgrimages. It is a sacred site, and multiple tribes trace their ancestry to it. It is also incomplete, void of the thousands of items and hundreds of ancestral remains that museums took during excavations that began in the late 1800s, she said.

"It's like a looted palace somewhere in some other country," said Pasqual. "What we see in Chaco now is really only the shell of what was once here."

I first met Pasqual several months earlier as my colleagues and I began investigating why many museums have been slow to return human remains, burial items and sacred objects to tribes.

I had struggled to decide whether to report on the topic. As an Apsáalooke, or member of the Crow Tribe in Montana, I know how sensitive discussions of museum holdings and matters of repatriation can be for a tribal community. Where I grew up, museums had collected ancestors and precious objects, sometimes through exploitative purchases and sometimes through outright grave robbing. Contemplating this history as an Indigenous person can feel disturbing and dehumanizing.

How could I write about this issue, I often asked myself. But how could I not, given that it has lingered far longer than Congress intended when it passed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in 1990.

NAGPRA called for institutions to inventory their collections and publicly report the human remains and items that had come from Native American graves and then return them to Indigenous communities. But Pasqual notes that tribal communities have shouldered the burden of this work - both the financial cost and the emotional distress. Her tribe, like others, had to draw on existing ceremonies to establish a new process for reburials that did not exist before the looting.

"We as a community have to carry that burden," she told me. "Part of the cost is that emotional toll, the cultural, spiritual cost that is carried by the community."

Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, former director of the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office in Arizona, shared a similar sentiment when I interviewed him. During his 30-year career, he reburied more than 8,000 ancestors for the Hopi Tribe. The number of belongings he buried with the deceased surpassed 15,000. Now retired, he has a sense of fulfillment, knowing he helped his tribe. But he also has had to cope with trauma, even anger, from confronting how institutions and government agencies have mistreated ancestral remains, he said.

"It's not well documented what people like me have to go through," said Kuwanwisiwma, who speaks with a soft and measured voice. "But it's now part of our current historical trauma."

Even after ProPublica has published multiple stories on repatriation over the past eight months, it is still unsettling to ponder the sheer scale at which museums stored away the bodies of so many Indigenous ancestors. Six thousand at Harvard University. Nine thousand at the University of California, Berkeley. (Both institutions have pledged to prioritize repatriation.)

In total, museums across the country hold the remains of 104,539 Native Americans, according to the most recent figures we have reported from the National Park Service, which administers NAGPRA.

Historical accounts show that tribal leaders from California to Maine opposed the plundering by outsiders and many tried to block archaeologists from desecrating burials on their lands.

On my reservation, Chief Medicine Crow, one of my ancestors, was so troubled by the looting that he donated some of his land so tribal members could have a cemetery in Lodge Grass, Montana, said Timothy McCleary, an anthropology professor at Little Big Horn College. Until then, the final resting place for many had been in the open, unpopulated countryside of our tribe's homelands.

I think a lot about how this issue has persisted from Medicine Crow's lifetime to mine.

In the Southwest, where I live now, there was such an intense interest in the ancient dwellings of Ancestral Puebloans that major museums competed with each other to be the first to seize sites.

Richard Wetherill, a rancher-turned-amateur-archaeologist from Colorado, helped steer the American Museum of Natural History to Chaco Canyon. From the canyon, the museum collected the remains of some 150 Native American ancestors during a methodical yet aggressive expedition around the turn of the 20th century that was funded by two heirs to a soap fortune.

The museum's archaeologists directed the excavations while Wetherill served as their guide. He established a homestead in the canyon during the expedition and managed to keep it after Chaco Canyon became a national park.

Ever since, researchers have been fixated on Pueblo Bonito. Called a "great house," it once stood four stories tall, according to the National Park Service, and has 40 kivas, ceremonial and social spaces with brick-lined walls.

Our reporting at ProPublica has focused, in part, on how museums have kept many ancestors by saying that, based on their records, they cannot determine which tribe these human remains belong to. Sometimes institutions make these decisions even when tribes have documented ancestral ties to the place that was excavated and have presented that information to the museum or made it publicly known.

The American Museum of Natural History holds the largest collection from Chaco Canyon that has been publicly reported under NAGPRA rules. In a statement, the museum said it recognizes Pueblo peoples' ties to the canyon. However, the museum said there are gaps in the archaeological record after the Ancestral Puebloans migrated from the canyon eight centuries ago, which makes it difficult to affiliate human remains and items to specific tribes.

For Pasqual, Chaco Canyon, known in her tribal language as Wa'asrp'ashak'a, emerges often in the telling of her ancestors' migration, she said. She had heard the term often enough in her youth that by the time her father first took her to the site around age 9, she already felt profoundly familiar with and connected to the place, she said.

Others from Zuni Pueblo in New Mexico and the Hopi Tribe in Arizona also shared with me how they see evidence of their cultural ties to Chaco Canyon all around them.

Clark Tenakhongva, a former vice president of the Hopi Tribe, understands his cultural link to Chaco Canyon through his tribe's oral histories, he said. The Hopi believe they had great engineers, astronomers and doctors among their ancestors. At Chaco Canyon, where a southern wall of Pueblo Bonito aligns with the sunrise on the equinox, his tribe refined that knowledge and maintained it after migrating to the mesas in Arizona where many live now, he said.

"All the education and knowledge that we have - we have within our homes, within our kivas, within our plazas - came from here," said Tenakhongva, who once helped lead efforts to protect cultural landscapes like Chaco Canyon and Bears Ears National Monument in Utah.

Edward Wemytewa, a councilman from the Pueblo of Zuni, simply calls Chaco Canyon a home.

"We're descendants of Chaco. That's very clear," he said. "We are still a living culture. We still practice our ceremonies."

This year, the Interior Department is considering changes to regulations under NAGPRA that would speed up the repatriation process. But even if change comes, repatriation will take time, likely years.

Yet even though much time has passed, repatriation work that's just beginning now should not be rushed, Pasqual said. When museums work with tribes to return ancestral remains and items, tribal representatives meet with museum staff in person to discuss what was taken and stored for decades, and the tribes have seen the institutions become better as a result of these consultations, she said.

One expert we interviewed said that if the institutions continue repatriating at their current pace they would need another seven decades to consult with tribes and return what they have.

As we stood on the mesa, I asked Pasqual what she hoped would come of the repatriation work she and others have done. I was considering a similar question as our reporting team thought about the potential impact of our investigation.

"I would hope that for future generations, like my family's grandchildren, that there will come a time when they will know that this place is complete," Pasqual responded.

It was late afternoon as we descended onto a trail that threads between massive boulders and cliff ledges before reaching the canyon floor. Soon, we were walking down a wide dirt path past a cemetery named for Wetherill, the rancher. Wetherill is buried just off the trail; his grave lies undisturbed not far from the burial sites and rooms he helped excavate.

But Pasqual hardly acknowledged this point on the trail. Instead, we made a final stop near a sign on the north side of Pueblo Bonito that details the ways tribes remember their ancestors' time at Chaco Canyon: "songs, stories, languages, ceremonies, pottery, art, corn, shells, architecture and sun-watching."

She had read the sign countless times on her visits. People may have moved away, but they did not forget Chaco Canyon, it says.

She climbed into her truck and began her drive back to Acoma Pueblo.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We Carry the Burden of Repatriating Our Ancestors. Here's What It's Like to Report on the Process as an Indigenous Journalist.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mary Hudetz describes the financial cost and emotional distress that tribal communities face as they continue to wait for the return of the remains of their ancestors, thousands of which are held in museums across the country.

# data[].attributes.body
August 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A US court has dismissed a case challenging the repatriation of 29 Benin Bronzes to Nigeria.

A court order signed by a US district judge, Christopher Cooper, and obtained by PREMIUM TIMES on Wednesday offered more insight.

The Benin Bronzes have long been the centre of restitution debates.

The Benin Bronze comprises artefacts and artworks plundered during the British raid on the Kingdom of Benin in 1897.

The royal palace was burned and looted during the raid, and the Oba went into exile. At the same time, an estimated 3,000 Benin Bronzes eventually made their way into museums and private collections worldwide.

Over the past few years, the Nigerian government has engaged their foreign counterparts in returning cultural artefacts, most of which they stole during the colonial era.

About five countries - The Netherlands, Mexico, Scotland, The UK, and Germany - have returned or agreed to return the artworks domiciled in their country.

The repatriation is part of a worldwide movement by cultural institutions to return artefacts stolen during colonial wars.

Anti-repatriation case

In October 2022, the Smithsonian Institution, an American museum, one of the world's largest museums and cultural organisations, in the custody of 39 Benin Bronzes, was set to return 29 pieces of the renowned artefacts to Nigeria.

Ten items were to remain on long-term loan at the Smithsonian Museum.

On its website, the latter claims the Benin bronzes entered its collection through purchase, transfer, donation and bequest.

''We transferred twenty pieces from the Smithsonian's Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. The donor, Joseph H. Hirshhorn, had acquired the works through private dealers and auctions,'' it stated.

However, this decision was rejected.

A New York-based African American organisation, Restitution Study Group (RSG), filed a lawsuit against the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C., to stop the return of the museum's 29 Benin bronzes to Nigeria.

The group argues that returning the bronzes denies the descendants of enslaved people in America the chance to experience their heritage.

Also, the Restitution Study Group (RSG) alleged that transferring 29 of the 39 Benin Bronzes in the Smithsonian's collection would exceed its authority, breach the Smithsonian's trust relationships with the people of the United States and US citizens of West African descent, and unjustly enrich the receiving museum.

Court's Decision

On 5 July 2023, the US District Court of Columbia denied a restraining order requested by RSG, stating that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in their claims because they lacked legal standing.

The court also noted that the RSG failed to assert any valid cause of action and had not alleged that irreparable harm would occur if the Bronzes were transferred to Nigeria.

The court also added that the plaintiffs' claims are 'moot' because the title to the bronzes has already been transferred to Nigeria since 17 October 2022.

Meanwhile, some of the bronzes have been returned to Nigeria, including most recently ones that previously belonged to London's Horniman Museum and Gardens and Glasgow in Scotland.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US court dismisses case challenging repatriation of 29 Benin Bronzes to Nigeria

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Benin Bronzes have long been the centre of restitution debates.

# data[].attributes.body
August 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Aerial view of Itumbaha 11th-century monastery in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Courtesy The Rubin Museum of Art.

In Kathmandu, a region of Central Nepal located in the nation's Bagmati Province, a local Buddhist monastery dating back to the 11th century is now publicly displaying previously undocumented artifacts from the region that it has long held. It now serves as a museum, and the first of its kind in the area.

The monastery project, which officially opened July 29, was funded by the Rubin Museum of Art in New York after the repatriation of two artifacts to Nepal. In January 2022, leadership at the Rubin announced that the museum-founded by private collectors in 2004 and focusing on art of the Himalayas-returned two ancient wooden sculptures to Nepal after researchers found that the pieces had been taken illegally from religious sites. Items returned from the Rubin and the Metropolitan Museum of Art are on display in the Itumbaha monastery's collection.

The opening of the museum drew attention from Nepali activists. A group of local repatriation advocates scrutinized the museum's involvement in the project, viewing it as a means of diverting attention from other repatriation claims. During the 1970s and 1980s, Nepalese religious sites were the subject of looting; recent campaigns led by repatriation advocacy groups have sought to rectify this by bringing restitution claims for items with ties to vulnerable sites against museums in the United States.

In an interview with ARTnews, Rubin Museum executive director Jorrit Britschgi said that the initiative had come out of discussions with researchers on the ground in Nepal after the 2022 repatriation. Britschgi said initial talks centered around how the museum could lend support to the local context in Nepal. He posed questions to the museum's board overseeing funding of what could come out of the repatriation. "What is important is for us not to assume this is what people need," Britschgi said.

The museum was able to step in as a financial backer, and took on an "advisory role" in inventorying the monastery's collection, he added, clarifying that the project was always envisioned as being community-led.

Members of the Itumbaha Conservation Society and the museology program of Lumbini Buddhist University documented the monastery's collection, which spans 500 years, as part of the project with the idea to actualize a museum oriented to locals that would make the objects viewable year-round. Researchers involved in the project, among them Swosti Rajbhandari Kayastha, a scholar of Nepalese art and culture, had been eyeing the idea for the last decade.

During the 2022 repatriation claim, Britschgi said that the museum started to engage with conservationists and students "on the ground" to conduct research after the claim was filed, and worked with Nepali government officials overseeing cultural heritage projects to fill in provenance gaps. Talks with conservationists centered around the handling of an artifact collection that was meant to display and document objects with ritual purposes. Britschgi said he believes the documentation process of the monastery's collection now being completed is "a huge gain" locally.

Challenges to Western concepts of presenting art, Britschghi added, also arose during the inventory of the collection. "We also learned from this project, about the sheer concept of a museum in the context of having a monastery that is an active part of lived culture. Those are interesting tensions and discussions around the needs also."

Britschgi said the idea was to allocate some of the Rubin's resources toward local research in a "mutual exchange" between researchers and not conceived to export the Rubin's footprint internationally. In response to activists claims, the director said the museum is "accelerating efforts by bringing on outside experts," on current restitution claims. "We are sensitive to the issues raised by those who have objected to the Rubin's support of the Itumbaha Museum."

The museum has supported Nepal's art initiatives in the past. In 2022, the museum funded Nepal's national pavilion at the Venice Biennale. It was first time the country had exhibited in the Italian exhibition. Tsherin Sherpa, a trustee serving on the Rubin's board who was involved in the Biennale project, defended the Itumbaha partnership. "This type of collaboration as a result of a restitution is meaningful, and helps the community raise awareness around their site."

In a statement, Kayastha said the documentation process resulted in "discoveries" and emphasized the project was led in part by students aimed at "advancing" Nepal's cultural sector. Another conservationist involved in the Itumbaha project, Pragya Ratna Shakya, said it should serve as a "model" for other museums involved in rectifying repatriation issues.

In a statement addressed to Britschgi, the Nepal Heritage Recovery Campaign called on the museum to disclose details of its investigations into current repatriation claims of objects in its collection. The group was critical of the role of private collecting in trafficking Nepali artifacts and of the project's optics saying, "it cannot be a way to generate misplaced goodwill nor to divert attention from the responsibility of foreign collectors and museums on the matter of stolen heritage items from Kathmandu Valley."

The museum said it has handed over research to Manhattan authorities concerning a current claim for a Nepali mask in its collection that is still awaiting repatriation. Provenance research is ongoing, the Rubin's director told ARTnews, but still has its challenges. He sees approaching local researchers familiar with religious sites that were historically the subject of looting is a potential way forward. "We may not always have access to local knowledge. Not all the work can be done from a desk."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Monastery Project Backed by the Rubin Museum Is Realized, Drawing Activist Scrutiny

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The inauguration of the Itumbaha collection was funded by the Rubin Museum following a repatriation in 2022.

# data[].attributes.body
French Shared Heritage Report April 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Catherine Colonna, ministre de l'Europe et des Affaires étrangères, et Rima Abdul Malak, ministre de la Culture, ont reçu mardi 25 avril 2023 Jean-Luc Martinez, ambassadeur pour la coopération internationale dans le domaine du patrimoine et Président-directeur honoraire du Louvre, qui leur a remis le rapport intitulé Patrimoine partagé : universalité, restitutions et circulation des œuvres d'art.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Remise du rapport Patrimoine partagé : universalité, restitutions et circulation des œuvres d'art de Jean-Luc Martinez

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Catherine Colonna, ministre de l'Europe et des Affaires étrangères, et Rima Abdul Malak, ministre de la Culture, ont reçu mardi 25 avril 2023 Jean-Luc Martinez, ambassadeur pour la coopération internationale dans le domaine du patrimoine et Président-directeur honoraire du Louvre, qui leur a

# data[].attributes.body
1983

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Museum am Rothenbaum - World Cultures and Arts (MARKK) was founded in the late 19th century in an era marked by colonial power asymmetries. It takes its responsibility for collections from colonial contexts very seriously and will handle restitution requests by descendants from the descendant societies in a respectful and transparent manner. We support the return of illegally appropriated objects in our collections that are subject to a request for restitution. We are also open to consider objects with a central cultural or religious significance for descendants of the societies of origin. The MARKK strives to contribute to reconciliation in view of the injustices occurred.

Every request for restitution will beassessed carefully and timely - if necessary with the help of external experts. All information available to the MARKK about the context of acquisition of the object(s) in question and the knowledge gained about them is shared with the claimants. If the restitution request concerns a group of objects, the works to be returned will be jointly selected.

Once the review is completed, the museum, in whose fiduciary responsibility the collections are held, makes a recommendation to the Governing Board of the Museum am Rothenbaum, foundation under public law. The authority to decide on the return of collection items lies with the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg. The collections of the MARKK are state property and, as such, all restitution decisions require the consent of the Hamburg City Parliament.

In answering claims for restitution, we refer to the guidelines of the German Museum Association (Deutscher Museumsbund) on how to address collections from colonial contexts. The MARKK endeavours to proactively conduct provenance research on the collections within the framework of its ongoing academic research and is currently the recipient of a one-year grant from the German Foundation for Lost Art (Deutsches Zentrum für Kulturgutverluste) for the project Hamburg's trade network as procurer of collections for the Museum of Ethnography, Hamburg (1860-1920) and as agent of the colonial transferal of ethnographic objects. Furthermore, the museum is working on the subsequent online presence of its collections for transparency and easier access to its holdings.

Since 2017, the MARKK is critically revisiting its own colonial entanglements and has initiated a comprehensive repositioning process. Close cooperation and a trustful exchange with the creator societies of the collections are of great importance. In addition to potential restitutions, the MARKK engages in conversations about alternative solutions such as the exchange of digitized material, the circulation of objects and long-term collaboration.
For questions please contact

Dr. Johanna Wild
fon +49 40 42 88 79 - 635
mail johanna.wild@markk.hamburg.de

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Das Museum am Rothenbaum - Kulturen und Künste der Welt, kurz: MARKK wurde 1879 in Hamburg gegründet und zählt heute zu den größten ethnographischen Museen in Europa.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Colchester and Ipswich museums to review ‘problematic’ displays

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some displays are “problematic, with certain artefacts of questionable provenance”, a report states.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2017, the University of Cambridge hosted a meeting of the Benin Dialogue Group (BDG), which brings together European museums and representatives of the Government of Nigeria and the Royal Court of Benin. Since then, the University's Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (MAA) has supported the BDG commitment to returning work to a major new museum in development in Benin City.

In 2019, MAA, and the University of Cambridge Museums consortium, developed a new framework for the return of artefacts. The policy notes that consideration will be given to whether artefacts were 'appropriated in the aftermath of violence, for example in the context of a colonial intrusion or war'.

Over recent years, MAA staff have visited Benin City, and Benin representatives have visited Cambridge. A planned visit by Benin representative, Enotie Ogbebor, to study MAA collections was deferred following the Coronavirus lockdown. The MAA has since received a formal claim for the return of Benin works from Nigeria's National Commission for Museums and Monuments, which is now under consideration using the process set out in the policy. Given the published criteria, it is anticipated that the claim will be supported and steps taken to return the artefacts.

Professor Nicholas Thomas, Director of the MAA, said: "The dialogue over the last few years between MAA curators and colleagues in Nigeria has been extraordinarily rewarding. We welcome the claim from Nigeria's National Commission for Museums and Monuments, the opportunities this process presents, as a university museum committed to working internationally, in partnership."

In January 2022, MAA received a formal request from the National Commission of Museums and Monuments in Nigeria for the return of items taken by British-led forces from Benin City in February 1897. Staff at MAA have identified 116 objects with a connection to the so-called Benin Expedition. The return was subsequently approved by the Museum's Management Committee, University Council and the UK Charity Commission, and the University is now planning for the transfer of ownership of these artefacts of enormous cultural and historical significance to the NCMM in 2023. Some artefacts will remain at MAA, on loan, for the purposes of research and exhibition. The Museum and its Governing Body is delighted to be embarking on this new phase of collaboration, built upon an acknowledgement of ownership.

Benin Dialogue Group Statement: October 2021

The latest statement from the Benin Dialogue Group is as follows:

"The Benin Dialogue Group met at the British Museum, London on 25 October 2021.

The members confirmed as Co-Chairs, Abba Tijani - Director General of the Nigerian National Commission for Museums and Monuments, HRH Prince Aghatise Erediauwa, and Dr. Barbara Plankensteiner.

Members included representatives from museums and institutions in Nigeria, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Sweden. The Group heard presentations from the Director General of the National Commission for Museums and Monuments (Nigeria), from Governor Godwin Obaseki of Edo State, from representatives of the Benin Royal Court on behalf of His Royal Majesty Oma N'Oba N'Edo, Uku Akpolokpolo, Ewuare II, Oba of Benin, and from the Executive Director of Legacy Restoration Trust - all of whom are actively collaborating to inform the direction and outcomes of current initiatives in Benin City. The members shared information on current activity, including national and institutional developments regarding the return and restitution of Benin works to Nigeria, and to discuss future initiatives focused on Benin City.

In addition, the Group recieved an update on the progress of the Digital Benin project that aims to globally unite dispersed objects from the Kingdom of Benin on a single digital platform. All museums represented in the Benin Dialogue Group are participating in this project thus achieving one of the long-standing goals of the BDG in providing access to information on collections from the Kingdom of Benin around the world. The group discussed intiatives working towards the development of the museum landscape in Benin City.

The BDG intends to meet in late 2022/2023 either in benin City, Nigeria or Hamburg, Germany."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Our approach to the return of Benin bronzes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2017, the University of Cambridge hosted a meeting of the Benin Dialogue Group (BDG), which brings together European museums and representatives of the Government of Nigeria and the Royal Court of Benin.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Legislation dictates that objects in national collections must be retained for the public and not arbitrarily given away, with under-fire museum leaders handling calls for repatriation often claiming Parliament must change the law in order for artefacts to be returned.

But barristers have argued that the British Museum Act of 1963 would allow the British Museum's hierarchy to dispose of objects deemed useless to the institution.

The tabots are deemed by believers to be so holy they cannot be handled or viewed except by a priest, yet campaigners have now called for Mr Fischer to brand them as "unfit" for British Museum, thereby allowing them to be removed from its collection and repatriated.

The British Museum has not commented on the potential use of such a loophole, which has been backed by seven peers including former deputy chief whip Baron Foster of Bath, along with former British Ambassador to Ethiopia Sir Harold Walker.

While the use of such a loophole may not be limited to the Ethiopian tabots, which have been at the centre of recent calls to decolonise collections, campaigners have said that they are not making a "general call for cultural repatriation".

The 11 tablets at the British Museum are hidden from public view and from curators due to their sacred significance for the Ethiopian church, and as they have never displayed or studied the objects which are kept in storage, campaigners believe they could easily be deemed officially "unfit" for the institution.

A letter pleading directly with trustees states: "By returning the tabots to the Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, you .. have a clear opportunity to show sensitivity as regards these very sacred objects."

It adds that they are: "Entirely unique in the Museum's collection given their accepted religious significance and the fact that they can never be exhibited."

Tabots' provenance

Nine of the tablets were seized along with other treasures in 1868 when British forces raided the Abyssinian (modern-day Ethiopian) mountain fortress of Magdala.

Items known as the "Magdala Treasures" have been at the centre of renewed calls for repatriation following Black Lives Matter protests, with 80 such objects held by the British Museum.

Such is the significance of the tabots in particular to the Ethiopian Orthdos church, that a national holiday was declared in 2002 when the Scottish Episcopalian Church returned a single tablet that was in its possession.

Hartwig Fischer, Director of the British Museum, welcomed an Ethiopian delegation to the Museum on Thursday.

"They enjoyed a tour of the collection and held cordial discussions on future possibilities for collaboration in the area of museums and on the tabots in the Museum's collection,' a spokeswoman said.

"The Museum has long-standing and friendly relations with the National Museum in Addis Ababa and with the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church in London and in Ethiopia. Following today's meeting, the British Museum will continue these discussions with the relevant parties."

But the restitution non-profit the Scheherazade Foundation, which works with Ethiopian authorities, said: "the British Museum has a unique opportunity to build a lasting and meaningful bridge of friendship between Britain and Ethiopia by handing the tabots back to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
British Museum could return sacred Ethiopian artefacts by exploiting decolonisation loophole

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Stephen Fry is among those who say that discretionary powers will allow the return of artefacts acquired during the British Empire

# data[].attributes.body
December 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An update on decolonisation and repatriation | Bristol Museums

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An update on the repatriation of the Cree Coat and the Benin Bronze. And relection on decolonising the museum so far by curator Lisa Graves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This project explored major ethnographic collections that entered European museums during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and have remained largely unstudied since. Focussing on materials from the Pacific that are now in museums in Russia, Germany, the Netherlands, France and the United Kingdom, it used innovative cross-disciplinary methods to advance understandings of materiality, cross-cultural history, and museum policy and practice in Europe today. A team of researchers based in Cambridge investigated Oceanic collections across a range of European museums, including those at MAA, in unprecedented depth. The project worked with a network of collaborators, including elders and community members in the Pacific Islands, and contemporary artists, providing a range of expert, customary, and experimental perspectives upon art works and genres, and upon the questions raised by collection histories and museum environments. The project aims were to:

theorise collections as complex, relational assemblages, never simple samples of local material cultures

use comparative methods to understand both the arts of Oceania and the making of European collections and museums. We will analyse and compare British, Dutch, French, German and Russian collecting histories and ask how and why these enterprises resulted in distinctive collections and museums;

propose new, powerfully historicised approaches to presentations of Oceanic art, and world cultures generally, appropriate to the European museums of the twenty-first century.

A new permanent display which opened in 2018, Pacific Currents showcases MAA's exceptional and wide ranging Oceanic collections, which originate from throughout the Pacific and date from the late 18th Century to the present day. Unlike previous displays which were organized according to country of origin, this re-display highlights the dynamic nature of communities, while acknowledging people's close attachment to and knowledge of local environments.

The displays draw on extensive collaborative research for over a decade, supported by major grants from the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the European Research Council, including 'Artefacts of Encounter' (2010 - 2013) and 'Pacific Presences' (2013 - 2018) led by Nicholas Thomas, and the 'Fijian Art Project' (2011-2014) led by Steven Hooper in collaboration with Anita Herle at MAA. Museum staff and project researchers have worked with communities in the Pacific and numerous Pacific Islanders and specialists have come to MAA to study the collections. The re-display of the Pacific collections is part of a larger 'Pacific Currents in Cambridge' Outreach Project.

At the Private View for the new displays on 5 July 2018 MAA was honoured by a powerful ceremonial welcome and blessing by Otene Hopa, Ray Wen and David Jones, members of Ngāti Rānana(the London Maori Club). Guests were also treated to a performance of Kiribati dance with Krista Dixon and Chloe Karea.

Belonging by Alana Jelinek

Belonging is an artwork by Alana Jelinek. She is responsible for public engagement and is a senior researcher on the Pacific Presences project.

This is the first in a series of podcasts edited and conceived by Alana Jelinek. The podcasts together explore the question of ethnographic museums and whether we can understand the hundreds of thousands of objects from Oceania that are now in Europe as being in a diaspora. They also explore how meanings and sympathies shift depending on what is juxtaposed, or heard first.

With Rodney Kelly, Julie Adams, Maria Stanyukovich, Oliver Leub, Pala Molisa, Wayne Modest, Reina Sutton and Lilja Kupua Addeman.
Photo by Alana Jelinek

With Kat Szabo, Insos Ireeuw, Alisa Vavataga, Emelihter Kihleng, Sean Mallon and Pandora Fulimalo Pereira.
Photo by Mark Adams

With Sana Balai, Kaetaeta Watson, Liz Bonshek, Alisa Vavataga, Pandora Fulimalo Pereira, Pala Molisa, Maria Stanyukovich, Nina Tonga, and Imelda Miller.
Photo by Mark Adams

With Liz Bonshek, Maria Stanyukovich, Pala Molisa, Imelda Miller, Jackie Shown, and Rodney Kelly
Photo by Mark Adams

With Wonu Veys, Liz Bonshek, Maria Stanyukovich, Sean Mallon, Ole Maiava, Kolokesa Māhina-Tuai, and Oliver Lueb.
Photo by Alana Jelinek

With Emelihter Kihleng, Liz Bonshek, Insos Ireeuw, Lilja Kupua Addeman, Alisa Vavataga, Maria Wronska Friend, Kat Szabo, Julie Adams, Reina Sutton, Ole Maiava, Wonu Veys, Rick Pa, and Wayne Modest.
Photo by Mark Adams

This is the first time the podcast is edited so that no one identifies who they are. It is compiled using recordings of Rodney Kelly, Liz Bonshek, Julie Adams, Oliver Lueb, Maria Stanyukovich, Fuli Pereira, Wayne Modest, Kat Szabo, Ole Maiava, Maria Wronska Friend, Reina Sutton, and Nina Tonga.
Photo by Mark Adams

This is the most experimental edit so far and the second time the podcast has been edited so that no one identifies who they are. It is compiled using recordings of Rodney Kelly, Imelda Miller, Julie Adams, Oliver Lueb, Maria Stanyukovich, Kat Szabo, Maria Wronska Friend, Lilja Kupua Addeman, Insos Ireeuw, Jackie Shown, Kaetaeta Watson, Ole Maiava, Sana Balai, Rick Pa, Fuli Pereira, and Liz Bonshek.
Photo by Mark Adams

This is the third time the podcast is edited so that no one identifies who they are. If you have listened to the other 8, you may be able to identify each speaker. This edit questions whether it is important to know who is speaking and from what institution they speak. The next podcast, Belonging009(2), will include people's names to test whether naming the person speaking, authorship, is important in how we understand. The podcast is compiled using recordings of Julie Adams, Lilja Kupua Addeman, Reina Sutton, Kaetaeta Watson, Kolokesa Māhina-Tuai, Liz Bonshek, Fuli Pereira, Maria Stanyukovich, Wayne Modest and Pala Molisa.
Photo by Mark Adams (and reversed below)

With Reina Sutton, Fuli Pereira, Rodney Kelly, Wayne Modest, Liz Bonshek, Pala Molisa, Sana Balai, Maria Wronska Friend, Imelda Miller, Nina Tonga and Jackie Shown.
Photo by Mark Adams

The final podcast in the series was made using recordings by Julie Adams, Lilja Kapua Addeman, Susanna Rianna Balai, Liz Bonshek, Insos Ireeuw, Rodney Kelly, Emelihter Kihleng, Oliver Lueb, Kolokesa Māhina-Tuai, Ole Maiava, Sean Mallon, Imelda Miller, Wayne Modest, Pala Molisa, Rick Pa, Pandora Fulimalo Pereira, Jackie Shown, Maria Stanyukovich, Reina Sutton, Kat Szabo, Nina Tonga, Alisa Vavataga, Wonu Veys, Kaetaeta Watson, and Maria Wronska Friend
Photo by Mark Adams

And for further information about Alana Jelinek's previous and ongoing work with ethnographic museums and collections, please see http://www.alanajelinek.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
pacificpresences_logo.jpg Oceanic art and European museums European Research Council 2013-2018 This project explored major ethnographic collections that entered European museums during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and have remained largely unstudied since.

# data[].attributes.body
November 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The remains of 18 Indigenous people have been returned to Australia by two British museums, part of the laborious and painstaking effort to recover thousands of ancestors stolen from their traditional lands who now lie in more than 20 countries around the world.

At midnight Australia time on Wednesday, the Oxford University Museum of Natural History and the Pitt Rivers Museum returned 17 ancestors to the custodianship of the federal government, which will hold them while further research is undertaken "to determine the traditional custodians". Another was given to the custodianship of the south-east First Nations people of South Australia, who were represented by Robyn Campbell.

Campbell said First Nations people "continued to suffer from the atrocities and impact of colonisation".

"The theft of our ancestors taken from country is a particular injustice. As First Nations people we never ceded our sovereignty nor gave consent to the removal of our old peoples' remains," she said.

"We have been made sick and worried about what happened to our old people, always knowing our relationship and connection to country is the foundation of our culture and ways of living.

"Our ways determine the importance of always remaining connected to country, so the fact of our ancestors' removal to an alien museum environment has been a source of great distress and shame."

After the colonisation of Australia, anthropologists, doctors, scientists and others took both ancestors and sacred objects from communities. They were put in museums both in Australia and overseas. They were traded, sold, experimented on, displayed as "curiosities", and sometimes stored or forgotten.

Their descendants want them back.

More than 1,660 ancestors have been returned to Australia since 1990. More than 1,280 of those have been from the UK, where the government has been working with private holders and collecting institutions for more than 30 years.

So far, other returns have come from the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in the US, and from institutions in Europe, including in Germany and Sweden.

The Australian federal government says the total number of ancestors held overseas is unknown, but that it is aware there may be "over 1,500 ancestors held by collecting institutions and private holders in more than 20 countries".

Uncle Moogy Sumner is a Ngarrindjeri and Kaurna elder from South Australia, who has been trying for years to bring ancestral remains home along with Bob Weatherall, a Kamilaroi man from southern Queensland. They have travelled around the world searching museums and scientific institutions, and negotiating with officials.

Sumner and Weatherall think there could be many more to be recovered than the official government figure suggests.

"We can't wait any longer," Sumner said.

"We have to stand up for our rights, talk to these people and say ... we want to take them home. Take them home, on country.

"Some of them have spent well over 100 years down there in basements."

The removal of the remains has been called the " first stolen generation ", and their absence continues to inflict emotional and spiritual trauma.

"There will be no spiritual peace until Aboriginal people have been returned," Weatherall said.

At the Purrumpa conference, held on Kaurna land in South Australia in the first week of November, Sumner said First Nations people wanted truth telling, and for the ancestors' return. He wanted to train up more people to find them.

skip past newsletter promotion

Sign up to Guardian Australia's Afternoon Update

Our Australian afternoon update email breaks down the key national and international stories of the day and why they matter
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion

In SA, ancestral remains that were kept in museums are being buried in stages at a specially developed memorial park. There are other repatriation plans afoot around the country.

Weatherall is not happy with the proposed " resting place " in Canberra. He wants them home to their traditional lands, and he describes the theft of the ancestors as "cultural terrorism and cultural genocide".

He wants First Nations people in full control of cultural property, and a national inquiry into where and who they are.

He says the rights of the dead include the right to the return of their remains and sacred objects to their communities, the right to receive their customary last rites, and their right to have their remains left in peace, as dictated by customs.

"The history of European colonisation in Australia includes the violation of these rights," he said.

The federal government runs a repatriation program, which comes under the arts minister, Tony Burke, because he is in charge of cultural institutions.

Burke said bringing ancestors home was "some of the most important and respectful work a government can do", and conceded there was still "so much to do".

"It recognises the spiritual connection between the past and present, as well as an ongoing connection to country," he said. "Returning First Nation ancestors to their traditional homelands is an important step towards healing and reconciliation.

"This government is committed to securing the return of all ancestors held in public and private collections overseas."

The Indigenous Australians minister, Linda Burney, said the government continued to advocate for "the unconditional return of ancestors and cultural heritage material held in overseas collections".

"This is some of the most important work we can undertake as part of the reconciliation and truth-telling process," she said.

Campbell said this week's handover was a first step. Returning someone to the right burial place was symbolic of the restoration of country, she said.

"The return of our old people is to fulfil our cultural obligations and we hope will contribute to our recovery as First Nations peoples."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Remains of 18 Indigenous people held by UK museums return to Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Return is part of painstaking effort to recover thousands of ancestors stolen from traditional lands who now lie in more than 20 countries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Repatriating the Benin Bronzes is an unforgivable act of vandalism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Charity Commission has allowed Cambridge' s anthropology museum to 'return' artefacts, probably to a slave-trading king's heirs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These museums are bound by law to keep their collections intact, potentially putting India at odds with Westminster, which has refused to countenance changing legislation to facilitate similar claims, such as the case of the Elgin Marbles.

It is understood charities will be approached first as they are able to repatriate objects, and the National Trust could legally hand over Indian artefacts many of which are held at Clive of India's old country seat of Powis Castle, in Wales.

The long work of repatriation will begin with what are considered the easiest targets, small museums and private collectors, who may be more willing to voluntarily hand over Indian artefacts, and then efforts will turn to larger institutions and Royal collections.

Indians seeking to 'write their own history'

Poet Rabindranath Tagore lamented in 1903 that in the history of India "written by foreigners", Indians themselves featured as no more than "dust and storm".

More than 100 years after this anguished essay, Narendra Modi, India's prime minister, quoted those words as he reopened a string of restored buildings dedicated to the preservation of his nation's history and exhorted his nation to "show our country's heritage and culture before the world".

It is a pillar of his policy-making and a personal commitment, according to officials in New Delhi, but they also said there was a fundamental difficulty in being able to show off national heritage if it was no longer in the nation.

To resolve this, Modi's government is launching a diplomatic campaign to reclaim the artefacts from Britain, with the Koh-i-Noor diamond - one of the largest cut diamonds in the world - understood to be his goal in this effort.

Those close to this process and his vision for India's cultural policy have suggested he wants to replace one national identity with one more rooted in India's 4,000-year history than the 90 years it spent under the Raj.

Plucking a diamond from the Crown Jewels of a former ruler is understood in New Delhi to have huge symbolic power, and stepping out from under a colonial shadow - and embracing Indian nationalism - has been central to Modi's leadership.

He has given new monikers to roads named for King George V, and encouraged classes to be taught in Hindi and other mother tongues, rather than English

Drive to reclaim artefacts has accelerated

With the UK set aside until now, Modi has been busy reclaiming artefacts from around the world. Between independence in 1947 and 2014, 13 objects taken from India were repatriated. Since Modi became prime minster in 2014, as leader of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, more than 300 have been returned, many of them depictions of Hindu deities.

His commitment was made clear when he said in a speech this year: "We have a wonderful history of about 2,000 and 5,000 years. This cut-off (colonial rule) has done a lot of damage to us.

"After independence we should have come out of this mentality but unfortunately it had gripped the nation like anything. They consider our historical pride to be a slave. I believe that unless we feel proud of our heritage and culture, we will not feel the urge to preserve it. "

Senior officials in New Delhi believe that such historical artefacts can reinforce a strong national cultural identify

Lily Pandeya, joint secretary of the Ministry of Culture, said: "Antiquities have both physical and intangible value, they are part of the continuity of cultural heritage, of community and national identity. By robbing these artefacts, you are robbing this value, and breaking the continuity of knowledge and community."

'Bronze-Age culture'

One expert who works for the diplomatic service said that India was a " Bronze-Age culture ", in the sense that it retained sacred idols that cultures elsewhere - such as Ancient Greece - worshipped during the Bronze Age. The sanctity of these idols makes especially important to return the huge number of Hindu sculptures in the UK, including the carving of Vishnu and Shiva's shared form, Lord Harihara, which is held in the British museum.

Scores of other Hindu pieces are held in the museum. However, officials have made clear that there is no sectarian angle to their calls for reparation, which do not focus on solely Hindu objects.

India is also seeking the treasures of Tipu Sultan, a Muslim foe of the East India Company who was killed and his palace looted in a 1799 siege. A horde of his treasures rests in Powis Castle in Wales, a national Trust property, while his mechanical tiger - shown biting into a mechanical British soldier - is in the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. The throne of Rajit Singh, a Sikh emperor, in the same museum, is also expected to become the subject of a repatriation claim.

The Koh-i-Noor itself topped the Peacock throne of the Muslim Mughal emperors, and was worn by the Sikh dynasty of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, before it was surrendered in a treaty with the East India Company.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
India to force Britain into colonial 'reckoning' with treasure demands

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Narendra Modi targets crown jewels and museum artefacts in repatriation campaign that dwarfs Greece's attempt to reclaim Elgin marbles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The process to repatriate the human remains of Nagas from a museum in the United Kingdom is underway, with a collective at the helm of the initiative.

The Pitt Rivers Museum (PRM) in Oxford, which houses 213 human remains of Nagas among other artefacts from across the globe, had in 2020 announced it would remove the human remains and other "insensitive exhibits" from the display.

Coming to know of it, an Australia-based Naga anthropologist, Dolly Konyak, roped in a fellow Naga social scientist, Dr Arkotong Longkumer, who is based in Edinburgh in Scotland, and approached PRM director Laura Van Broekhoven, who in turn urged Forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR) to be the facilitator in the repatriation process.

FNR has been playing an active role in reconciliation among various Naga factions that have been holding peace talks with the Centre.

These human remains were taken from Nagaland and other Naga-inhabited areas in the region by the British more than a century ago for exhibition of the colonised people and the repatriation is part of the "decolonisation" process.

FNR convenor Wati Aier said the organisation is working as a facilitator in the process, which is in the initial stage.

Ellen Konyak Jamir, a member of FNR, said the forum, along with Dolly Kikon and Arkatong Longkumer and some other members of the Naga society, formed a Recover, Restore and Decolonise (RRaD) team in 2020 for the repatriation process.

"We have learnt that the human remains were taken under duress and not given due ritual of burial or treated with dignity. They were taken for infotainment or research purposes which are against our values and belief," Jamir told PTI.

"The actual repatriation process has not yet begun but the process has been initiated and it may take some time as it is an international issue. We have a lot of work to do," she said.

Jamir said the RRaD team has conducted interviews with scholars, elders and tribal organisations and generated awareness on the issue. She said that mixed reactions were received during their interaction with the Naga people.

"Youths attended morung lectures in Kohima and Dimapur in large numbers. They were very curious. But some elderly people felt that the remains must not be brought back as those will bring back bad memories and the pain associated with it but most of the people wanted the remains to be repatriated," she said.

Jamir said more consciousness needs to be created on the issue.

She said Arkatong Longkumer and Meren Imchen have brought out a graphic novel on the remains titled 'A Path Home' to engage with the people.

"We feel it is an important work... the repatriation of our ancestors' remains is an important initiative and Naga people must be made aware of the issue," Jamir said.

The museum also houses around 6,000 Naga artefacts but the forum is working on the repatriation of only the human remains, which include parts of skulls, fingers and limbs.

Asked if the remains have been individually identified or the descendants are known, she said the museum has some names of regions and tribes they belong to but a lot of work remains to be done with the help of anthropologists and researchers.

"It is going to be a huge task and will involve a lot of research work," she said.

Asked whether any specific time frame has been given by the museum, Jamir replied in negative but said that the museum is "very serious" about repatriation.

Broekhoven had herself visited Nagaland during the Hornbill festival last year to learn more about Naga culture and engage with various tribes, she added. PTI NBS ACD ACD

Featured Video Of The Day

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Process To Repatriate Human Remains Of Nagas From UK Museum Underway

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The process to repatriate the human remains of Nagas from a museum in the United Kingdom is underway, with a collective at the helm of the initiative.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ms Farmer-Paellmann and the RSG have argued that as the kingdom traded in slaves and used the wealth to produce the Bronzes, sending them back would effectively reward Benin society for its historical involvement with slavery.

Oxford and Cambridge universities both pledged in July last year to return the hundreds of artefacts held in their museums to fulfil a "moral obligation", a decision that required approval from the Charity Commission.

Approval was given to Cambridge in December, but Oxford's plans to send back 97 objects from its Pitt Rivers and Ashmolean Museum collections have been delayed. It is understood the commission is waiting for the university to re-submit its justifications for repatriation.

The commission considers whether such plans have a detrimental impact on a charity, in this case a university, and the regulator requires information proving that there will be no negative effects on the organisation in question.

'Doubling-down' of wrongs

The RSG, which previously filed a lawsuit aimed at preventing the Smithsonian from returning Benin artefacts, has enlisted the services of London law firm Payne Hicks Beach to push for the scrapping of similar repatriation plans in the UK.

Partner Till Vere-Hodge told The Telegraph that "a repatriation of the Bronzes to Nigeria would amount to a 'doubling-down' of the wrongs committed in the context of slavery ", and "a second instalment of the reward paid to those who profiteered from slavery in the past".

He said the return of objects on "moral grounds" in such circumstances would amount to an "inversion of ethical standards" that museums should be following, recently set down in Arts Council England's guidance.

The guidance states that institutions should weigh up repatriation claims against the wishes of "the people for whom they may have a special meaning today". Mr Vere-Hodge argued that this should include the descendants of slaves whose ancestors were exploited to create the artefacts now being reclaimed by Nigeria.

The RSG believes that it would benefit the descendants of slaves to have these historical artefacts on display in British museums for the purposes of education rather than their countries of origin.

'No legal or moral case for their return'

Prof Nigel Biggar, Oxford's Regius professor of moral theology, added his voice to calls for the Bronzes to remain, saying: "Fashioned from material used as currency in slave-trading, the Benin Bronzes adorned a society that practised human sacrifice.

"In 1897, the British invaded Benin in retaliation for the slaughter of an unarmed embassy and, when victorious, emancipated slaves. The Bronzes were neither stolen nor looted but taken as legitimate spoils of war to defray the costs of the expedition and to support the wounded and widows.

"There is no legal or moral case for their return. Indeed, there is a moral case for their retention by Western institutions, where the descendants of slaves exported from West Africa can access them. For the Bronzes are as much their heritage as that of the descendants of the enslavers-arguably, more so."

Oxford University has been contacted for comment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Oxford University 'rewarding slavery twice' by repatriating Benin Bronzes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Returning the artefacts to Nigeria is 'morally indefensible', campaigners warn

# data[].attributes.body
November 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Horniman Museum and Gardens in southeast London has restituted its collection of Benin bronzes to Nigeria, becoming the first public U.K. institution of note to do so.

At a ceremony held yesterday, November 28, the anthropological museum transferred ownership of 72 objects to officials from Nigeria's National Commission for Museums and Monuments (NCMM). Each of the artifacts was looted by British soldiers in an infamous raid of Benin City (present-day Nigeria) in 1897.

Six items, including a pair of bronze plaques from Benin's royal palace, will immediately return to Nigeria, while the remaining 68 pieces will remain on loan at the museum until a later date, per an agreement between the Horniman and the NCMM.

The Horniman's Trustees voted in July to return the unethically-sourced objects, calling the move a "moral and appropriate" response to a formal request from the African country that came in January of this year.

"The decision of the Horniman trustees to return the objects looted from Benin City in 1897 culminates today in the signing over of ownership to Nigeria. However, it does not represent the end of the process," said Michael Salter-Church, the chair of the institution's trustees, in a statement. "We hope that actually, it marks the beginning of a long-term and mutually beneficial relationship between the Horniman and colleagues in Nigeria."

Praising the museum's gesture, Abba Tijani, the NCMM's director-general, called on other U.K. museums to "emulate...the Horniman's example."

The British Museum, in particular, owns 900 Benin objects-the largest collection of its kind in the world. However, it has repeatedly rejected calls for returning the items, citing the British Museum Act of 1963, which forbids the institution from disposing of its holdings.

"I think the British Museum is watching," Tijani said at Monday's event, according to the . "I believe they are now taking it deeply to see that they do something, because every museum across the world is saying it is not right for them to hang on to these objects."

The Horniman's chief executive, Nick Merriman, told reporters at the ceremony that the museum trustees' vote to return the Benin bronzes came after consulting with London's Nigerian diaspora community and local schoolchildren.

"The overwhelming consensus was that the objects had been looted," he said, per the Guardian . "They should be returned on the grounds that ... they were acquired with force and under duress."

The objects will likely end up at the Edo Museum of West African Art in Benin City, a new venue designed by British-Ghanaian architect David Adjaye to hold all returned Benin bronzes. It's slated to open in 2026.
More Trending Stories: The Class of 2022: Meet 6 Fast-Rising Artists Having Star Turns at This Year's Art Basel Miami Beach Scientists Discover the Existence of a Previously Unknown Roman Emperor During an Analysis of Ancient Gold Coins Meet Sunday Nobody, the Meme Artist Who Entombed a Bag of Flamin' Hot Cheetos in a 3,000-Pound Sarcophagus Time Capsule The Discovery of the Oldest Human Footprints in North America Thrilled Researchers. It Turns Out They May Not Be So Old Three Decades Ago, Klaus Biesenbach Revolutionized Berlin's Art Scene. Now He's Back to Steer Its Most Prestigious Museums-and He Has Big Plans Click Here to See Our Latest Artnet Auctions, Live Now

Want to stay ahead of the art world? Subscribe to our newsletter to get the breaking news, eye-opening interviews, and incisive critical takes that drive the conversation forward.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national commission for museums and monuments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In a First for the U.K., a Public Museum Has Repatriated Its Collection of Benin Bronzes to Nigeria | Artnet News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Officials from the African country hope the move by London's Horniman Museum opens the door for other institutions-particularly the British Museum-to do the same.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
UK prime minister Rishi Sunak on March 13 told reporters that the British government has "no plans" to return the Parthenon marbles to Greece, despite recent reports to the contrary. "The UK has cared for the Elgin marbles for generations," said Sunak, as first reported in The Guardian. "Our galleries and museums are funded by taxpayers because they are a huge asset to this country," Sunak continued. "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."

Sunak's comments echo those of his disgraced predecessors Liz Truss and, more distantly, Boris Johnson, both of whom spoke out strongly against repatriation of the objects, also known as the Elgin marbles. The antiquities at issue include a number of metopes and seventeen pedimental figures, as well as a nearly 250-foot section of a frieze portraying a festival procession celebrating the birthday of the Greek goddess Athena. All were taken from Acropolis in 1801 by Thomas Bruce, the seventh Earl of Elgin, at the time the British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, which allegedly gave him permission to do so. Elgin shepherded the marbles out of the country and sold them to trustees of the British Museum, in whose possession they have remained since 1816.

Greece has actively lobbied for the marbles' return since 1983, arguing that consent offered by officials of a no-longer-extent regime is meaningless and that the objects were taken without the permission of the Greek people. Their campaign has gained ground in recent years as museums have moved to restore looted objects to their rightful home nations. British Museum chair George Osborne has consistently resisted repatriation; instead, the institution offered up the marbles to Greece as a long-term loan. That offer was rejected earlier this year by Greek prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis. Additionally complicating matters is the 1963 British Museum Act, which imposes strict rules regarding sales, exchanges, and disposals of items in the care of the country's institutions. In order for the marbles to be permanently repatriated, British ministers would have to amend the act. The Guardian reports that this is unlikely at present.
ALL IMAGES

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rishi Sunak Says UK Has "No Plans" to Repatriate Parthenon Marbles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
UK prime minister Rishi Sunak on March 13 told reporters that the British government has "no plans" to return the Parthenon marbles to Greece, despite recent reports to the contrary. "The UK has cared for the Elgin marbles for generations," said Sunak, as first reported in The Guardian.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ghanaian ruler pushes British Museum to return gold

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Asante king uses Coronation visit to press British Museum to return gold to Ghana.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
London's Natural History Museum and Cambridge University have said that they are ready to co-operate with Zimbabwe to return human remains that were taken in the colonial era.

The fresh statements come after a delegation from Zimbabwe held talks with officials from both institutions.

The Zimbabweans are looking for the skulls of late-19th Century anti-colonial heroes, which they believe could be in the UK.

But these have not yet been found.

The authorities in Zimbabwe have long suspected that the remains of some of the leaders of an uprising against British rule in the 1890s - known as the First Chimurenga - were taken to the UK as trophies.

The most significant among them was a woman who became known as Mbuya Nehanda. She was executed in what is now the capital, Harare and is revered as a national heroine.

In doing a search of its archive, the Natural History Museum did uncover 11 remains "that appear to be originally from Zimbabwe" - but its records do not connect them with Nehanda. These include three skulls taken in 1893, thought to be from Zimbabwe's second city, Bulawayo, as well as remains uncovered in mineshafts and archaeological digs and later donated.

Cambridge University's Duckworth Laboratory has not been so specific, simply saying it has "a small number of human remains from Zimbabwe", but in a statement sent to the BBC it said it had not identified any of these as belonging to First Chimurenga figures.

The Natural History Museum, with 25,000 human remains, and the Duckworth Laboratory, with 18,000, have some of the largest such archives in the world.

These have come from a variety of sources including archaeological excavations of ancient sites, but for many the exact origins have been obscured by time.

During the colonial era, body parts were sometimes removed from battlefields or dug up from graves either as trophies or for research into a now-discredited scientific field.

In the 19th Century, phrenology, which investigated the idea that human characteristics could be determined by the shape of the skull, was very popular in the UK and other parts of Europe. Phrenological societies would collect skulls to help develop the theory, which for some extended to racial classification.

Some researchers set out to show that skull shape indicated that people from different parts of the world were inherently inferior.

Some of the archives that now exist in the UK are amalgamations of what had been amassed by defunct phrenological societies as well as private collectors.

Zimbabwe's government believes that somehow the skulls of the country's heroes ended up in the archives of a British museum.

Chief among them were spiritual leaders, including Charwe Nyakasikana, who became known as Mbuya (Grandmother) Nehanda as she was the medium of the revered ancestral spirit Nehanda. She was arrested after being accused of murdering a British official.

Nehanda was then hanged and her body decapitated, it is believed. What happened next is not clear, but in recent years, Zimbabwean officials have made several public statements saying it ended up in the Natural History Museum.

With a death cry of "my bones will surely rise", Nehanda became an increasingly potent symbol for those fighting against white-minority rule in what was then known as Rhodesia from the late 1960s.

Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980.

A three-metre statue of Nehanda now stands over a major road in the centre of Harare. At its unveiling in 2021, President Emmerson Mnangagwa pledged to continue to call for the return of her skull and others from the Natural History Museum.

For Zimbabweans, the removal of the head "means that you have literally punished the person beyond the grave", Godfrey Mahachi, who led the delegation to the UK, told the BBC in 2020 when the visit was being planned.

"If the head is separated, that means that the spirit of that person will forever linger and never settle."

Despite not finding what the Zimbabwean delegation was looking for, both the Natural History Museum and Cambridge University say they are committed to working with the Zimbabwean government to repatriate what was found.

As part of its policy of repatriation, earlier this year, the Natural History Museum returned ancestral Moriori and Maori remains.

In a press statement following a recent cabinet meeting, Zimbabwe's government said that the delegation that went to the UK was satisfied that "there are indeed human remains of Zimbabwean origin in the UK".

"Government will spare no effort to ensure the repatriation of our ancestors," it added.

The Zimbabwean delegation also held talks with the British Museum, Oxford University's Pitt Rivers Museum, the University of Manchester Museum and the UK's National Archives. But no details are given about what was discussed.

Despite the lack of success in this trip to the UK, the historical significance to Zimbabwe of the remains of Nehanda and others means that the search will continue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UK museums willing to return skulls to Zimbabwe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Several Zimbabwean skulls were found in archives but none belong to Zimbabwe's anti-colonial heroes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new law in England and Wales will give national museums significantly more power to deaccession works and make progress on restitution cases.

The Charities Act 2022, which is expected to come into force this fall, allows charities-including national museums-to dispose of objects where there is a compelling moral obligation to do so. Museums had previously been limited by the National Heritage Act 1983.

For low-value items, museums will now be able to deaccession them without seeking authorization, while higher value objects can be deaccessioned with permission from the Charity Commission, attorney general, or a court.

The National Heritage Act had restricted the trustees of major U.K. museums like the Tate and the Victoria & Albert from deaccessioning objects from the collection except under certain circumstances, such as if they are a duplicate or beyond repair.

"Given the growing increase in moral and political pressure on museums and their trustees to "do the right thing", this legislation provides new avenues for trustees to explore," said art lawyer Petra Warrington of Charles Russell Speechlys to Artnet News, "helping them to find solutions where originally the law had not provided a legal framework for restitution. It is a very positive development."

Tristram Hunt, director of the V&A museum in London, had recently called for the law to be revisited while appearing on the BBC Radio 4 " Today" program in July. He described a stand-off between lawmakers and museum officials as each blamed the other for failing to resolve the situation, adding "we're coming up to the 40th anniversary of the act; prior to that the [V&A], which was then part of government, could make these kinds of decisions."

As well as returning looted art and human remains, the new law could extend museum's capacity to repatriate cultural objects.

Earlier this year, a head of Eros from the 3rd century was sent to Turkey after it had been detached from a sarcophagus in the 19th century and brought to the U.K. by a British official. This transfer, known as a "renewable cultural partnership," is effectively a long-term loan of V&A property since returning the object would have been prohibited by the National Heritage Act.

"The V&A is following this story with interest," said a spokesperson for the museum in a statement to Artnet News. "As an exempt charity, regulated by [the U.K. Department of Culture, Media, and Sport] rather than the Charity Commission, we await guidance as to how these changes may impact the museum sector."

In a report bringing to light the act's possible implications, art law expert Alexander Herman explained that national museums had not been adequately catered to by the previous Charities Act 2011.

The new legislation will override Attorney General v. Trustees of the British Museum , a 2005 decision from the High Court that blocked trustees of the British Museum from returning objects based on a moral obligation in accordance with the Charities Act 2011. This effectively created a false distinction between statutory charities like museums and other charities. The 2022 act instead emphasizes that the "stand-alone statutory power" can be exercised by "any charity."

In addition, Herman cautioned that "ex gratia payments remain at the discretion of trustees and so cannot be forced by a third party, such as a claimant seeking restitution." As such, he has predicted that "returns of this nature will remain relatively exceptional. They will nevertheless be possible in a way not heretofore countenanced."

Want to stay ahead of the art world? Subscribe to our newsletter to get the breaking news, eye-opening interviews, and incisive critical takes that drive the conversation forward.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A New U.K. Law Gives Museums Unprecedented Power to Deaccession Art and Repatriate Objects in Their Collections | Artnet News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new law in England and Wales will give national museums significantly more power to deaccession works and make progress on restitution cases. The Charities Act 2022, which is expected to come into force this fall, allows charities-including national museums-to dispose of objects where there is a compelling moral obligation to do so.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Bronzes were historically kept in the royal palace of Oba of the Kingdom of Benin, until the site was ransacked by British forces in 1897, and the collection of artworks taken away and ultimately sold off into collections around the world.

The willingness of British museums to repatriate to the modern-day Oba has caused concern among advocates for slavery reparations, who argue that Benin was a slave-trading power which created its Bronzes with the wealth, and the metal currency from the slave economy, which some historians argue lasted until the late 19th century.

Slave-descendant Esther Stanford-Xosei, with the campaigning Restitution Study Group in the UK, said: "Some of these bronzes now being returned are 'blood bronzes', paid for with our lives. The case of personal ownership by the Oba is therefore morally unjust and illegitimate."

Ms Stanford-Xosei has argued that the Bronzes should not be consigned to the personal property of one individual, but be held for the descendants of slaves "trafficked into the diaspora, and their progeny".

The Oba has expressed a wish to build a museum to house the Bronzes in Benin City, Nigeria, but funding for the idea remains in question.

It is understood that the University of Oxford, which has sought to return 97 Bronzes from the Pitt Rivers and Ashmolean museum collections pending approval from the Charity Commission, is now "monitoring the situation" with regard to the official change to the Oba decreed by the Nigerian president.

The University of Cambridge, which agreed to return 116 artefacts at its Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, decided to pause the repatriation process after learning that the Nigerian president declared the Oba to be their owner.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Benin king to keep bronzes returned by UK

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Decree from the country's president would see artefacts from the UK's museums repatriated to the Oba of Benin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The Art Newspaper - International art news and events

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A report claiming that the Indian government is preparing to launch "the largest repatriation claim faced by the UK, on a scale that would dwarf Greece's demands for the Elgin [Parthenon] Marbles," is being challenged by official sources.

According to the Daily Telegraph, India hopes to repatriate thousands of objects held in UK institutions, such as the British Museum and the Victoria & Albert Museum (V&A) in London, which were removed from India over the centuries. Items seized during British colonial rule, lasting from 1858 to 1947, will be a focus of the government campaign. Indian officials, the Telegraph report continues, say that artefacts taken during British rule of the Empire were "unethically" removed.

However, Indian government sources tell the Indian daily newspaper the that the Telegraph's report is "unfortunately misleading" and a "significant overstatement" in terms of how it portrays the [Indian] government and its approach to the UK. Nonetheless, they do say that India is actively seeking the restitution of certain objects from the UK. Another Indian news source, , also reports that "informed sources have denied reports in the British media that India has mobilised diplomatic resources to bring back the Kohinoor diamond and other artefacts including idols and sculptures from museums in Britain".

Institutions on India's hit list, according to the Telegraph, include the British Museum, which holds a collection of Hindu statues and the Amaravati Marbles taken from a Buddhist stupa by civil servant Sir Walter Elliot, and the V&A which has Tipu Sultan's mechanical tiger.

A spokesperson for the British Museum says the museum "understands and recognises the significance of the issues surrounding the return of objects and we work with communities, colleagues and museums across the globe to share the collection as widely as possible". The V&A did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

Tippoo's Tiger was made for Tipu Sultan, ruler of Mysore in South India from 1782 to 1799. According to the V&A website, the "British East India Company... fought three wars against [the South Indian state of] Mysore before making the final assault on Tipu's capital, Seringapatam, in 1799. The ruler was killed as the army swept into the city and looted the houses of its inhabitants... Tipu's treasury was divided on the spot between the soldiers according to rank, but the wooden tiger was shipped to London."

Powis castle in South Wales, which houses treasures that once belonged to the Clive family, could also face a restitution claim. "Amassed during the British colonisation of India, these objects arrived in Wales and came to Powis Castle during the early 19th century. The museum houses more than 1,000 items from South and East Asia, dating from about 1600 to the 1830s," says the website.

A spokesperson for the National Trust, which runs the castle, says: "Like any museum, the National Trust would follow the Museums Association code of ethics and the Arts Council guidance on restitution and repatriation around any requests made of its collection."

Govind Mohan, secretary for the Indian ministry of culture, told the Daily Telegraph that returning antiquities would be a key policy, saying: "It is of huge importance to the government. The thrust of this effort to repatriate India's artefacts comes from the personal commitment of prime minister Narendra Modi who has made it a major priority." Items removed from India post independence (after 1947) will also reportedly be sought. The High Commission of India in London did not respond to a request for comment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Indian government challenges British newspaper report that it is making 'largest repatriation claim' against UK

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sources state that demands made for thousands of objects in British collections have been "significantly overstated", and that the report is "misleading"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
London's British Museum is at the heart of growing calls for repatriation of artwork, with repeated requests from various countries, such as Greece and Nigeria, to return items from its vast collection.

Up until now, the museum and the British government has been able to stave of those calls by citing the British Museum Act of 1963, a national statute which prohibits the institution from returning works. But as public pressure continues to grow, the future of the British Museum's repatriation policy may be in jeopardy.

Under the act, the British Museum's board of trustees is barred from returning any object in the collection unless it is a duplicate, physically damaged or "unfit to be retained the collection" and no longer of public interest, according to the museum's deaccessioning policy. Other national museums in the U.K., such as London's Victoria and Albert Museum, are also prevented from repatriating works under the National Heritage Act of 1983.

The British Museum's act wasn't controversial when it was first passed, according to Tatiana Flessas, an associate law professor specializing in cultural property at the London School of Economics. "No one was really thinking about repatriation at that time," she said. It was an administrative measure aiming to prioritize safekeeping of the museum's collection, said Flessas, who added that this has long been a priority for the British Museum, which calls its curators "keepers."

Its intention was to protect works from short-term political decisions, such as repatriating works for diplomatic purposes, said Barnaby Phillips, author of Loot: Britain and the Benin Bronzes. "The idea was of a public collection that was somehow above the concerns of the government of the day."

But throughout the past few decades, the law has been used by museum trustees and government officials as a reason to deny any repatriation requests. Greece has asked for the return of its Parthenon Marbles since 1983, and in 2009 built the Acropolis Museum in Athens in order to house them. "We operate within the law and we're not going to dismantle our great collection as it tells a unique story of our common humanity," said the British Museum of the Parthenon Marbles in a December press release.

Meanwhile, the British Museum has also not acted on requests from Nigeria to return its collection of 900 items from the Benin Kingdom, including its Benin Bronzes, which were looted in 1897 by British forces. Between 2015 and 2019, the museum also received at least six other formal requests for repatriation, according to WhatDoTheyKnow, a site which publishes responses to U.K. Freedom of Information requests.

"A lot of this is just smoke and mirrors," said Flessa, who believes the British government could easily make an exception to or change the British Museum Act 1963 if they actually wanted to repatriate a work. This has occurred in the past, with a 2004 act allowing for museum trustees to return human remains, while a 2009 ruling opened up repatriations for artwork looted during the Nazi era.

It's most likely that a change to the act would consist of some iteration of these previous amendments, instead of a complete overhaul, said Flessa, as the British Museum wouldn't want to "open the flood gates" and apply the possibility of repatriation to its entire collection.

"Possibly it will be amended in some ways, but repatriation will always be dealt with on a case-by-case basis," said Flessa.

However, a more substantial change may occur if there's a significant change in the government in the near future, according to Phillips. While the U.K. has been governed by the Conservative Party since 2010, the next general election is scheduled to take place before January 2025. A win for the Labour Party could see actions taken on the British Museum Act as the party has expressed more interest in making changes, said Phillips, with former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn pledging to return the Parthenon marbles, while Labour politicians Shami Chakrabarti and Alf Dubs have also publicly stated their support for its repatriation.

This wouldn't be surprising, said Phillips, given "the way things have moved on this in the past two years or so."

A potential loophole

Another avenue to amend the museum's repatriation policy is through the Charities Act 2022, which would enforce amendments to a previous act passed in 2011. A provision of the act would allow for charities, including national museums like the British Museum, to return objects if trustees feel a moral obligation to do so and gain approval from either the U.K. courts, Charity Commission or Attorney General.

"That was quite a big excitement last year," said Petra Warrington, a London-based attorney specializing in art and cultural property law. "It wasn't ever going to mean that trustees just handed objects over easily, but it was going to possibly open a route where there were very strong moral considerations."

However, while the act's provision was supposed to take effect in October, the British government has since delayed the bill to further consider its implications. "It's possible they hold it back indefinitely because they don't like the consequences of the change," said Alexander Herman, director of the U.K. Institute of Art and Law, which focuses on education around cultural heritage law. But the Charities Act 2022 is the most likely opportunity for an amendment to the museum's repatriation policy in the foreseeable future, unless there's a sudden drastic change in government or policy, he said. "I couldn't image, in the current environment, any other proposed change to the British Museum Act."

The British Museum did not respond to requests for comment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The UK Has a 60-Year Old Law Prohibiting Repatriation of Art. Is That About to Change?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The British Museum has long been barred from repatriation under a national statute. But as public pressure mounts, is it possible to overturn the 60-year old act?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Return of Truganini’s Necklace and Bracelet by Exeter City Council

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The repatriation of a necklace and bracelet by the Royal Albert Memorial Museum, Exeter in 1995 to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community owed much to the high level of goodwill and respect shown towards each other.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Intergovernmental Committee on Return and Restitution (ICPRCP) seeks ways and means of facilitating bilateral negotiations, promoting multilateral and bilateral cooperation for the restitution and return of cultural property, encouraging public information campaigns on this issue, and promoting exchanges of cultural property.

This intergovernmental body has an advisory role and its recommendations concern disputes between States, but are not legally binding.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Intergovernmental Committee on Return and Restitution (ICPRCP) seeks ways and means of facilitating bilateral negotiations, promoting multilateral and bilateral cooperation for the restitution and return of cultural property, encouraging public information campaigns on this issue, and promoting exchanges of cultural property.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This appeal by Mr Amadou-Mahtar M'Bow, former Director-General of UNESCO, is the impetus for the debate "A Plea for the return of an irreplaceable cultural heritage to those who created it".

A State regardless whether they are party to the Convention or not, which has lost cultural property of fundamental importance and which requests its restitution or return, in cases not covered by international conventions, may appeal to the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation.

The Committee is responsible for:

1. Pursing the appropriate means of facilitating bilateral negotiations for the restitution or return of cultural property to the countries of origin. In this regard, the Committee may also submit proposals to the Member States concerned for mediation or conciliation;

2. The promotion of multilateral and bilateral cooperation for the restitution and return of cultural property to its countries of origin;

3. The encouragement of research and studies for the establishment of coherent programs for the constitution of representative collections in countries whose cultural heritage has been dispersed;

4. The stimulation of a public information campaign on the real nature, extent, and scope of the problem of the restitution or return of cultural property to its countries of origin;

5. To guide the design and implementation of UNESCO's programme of activities in the field of the restitution or return of cultural property to its countries of origin;

6. To encourage the establishment or strengthening of museums or other institutions for the conservation of cultural property and the training of the necessary scientific and technical personnel;

7. To promote exchanges of cultural property in accordance with the Recommendation on the International Exchange of Cultural property;

8. To report on its activities to the General Conference of UNESCO at each ordinary session.

It acts as an advisory body and a body responsible for facilitating bilateral negotiations; it has no legal power to decide on the cases involved . But it is the initiator of several practical tools to better protect the heritage:

Awareness campaigns: film, videos and publications

Rules of mediation and conciliation on conflicts related to cultural property

Model export certificate for cultural objects

Database of national cultural heritage legislations

Restitution cases database project

Measures to fight trafficking on the internet

Code of ethics for traders of cultural property

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This appeal by Mr Amadou-Mahtar M'Bow, former Director-General of UNESCO, is the impetus for the debate "A Plea for the return of an irreplaceable cultural heritage to those who created it".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi Alleged member of Ansar Eddine, a movement associated with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, head of the “Hisbah” until September 2012, and associated with the work of the Islamic Court of Timbuktu. Arrest warrant: 28 September 2015.…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Benin Bronzes held in British museums will be repatriated as Nigeria has set out ground rules that means the artefacts will find a new home with a traditional ruler.

Museums and universities say they are pressing ahead with repatriation plans after Nigeria decided they would be returned to the Oba of Benin.

The Oba was the region's ruler when it became a part of Nigeria and the bronzes left the country.

The Horniman museum in London, having already returned the first of its bronzes, said it is pressing on with the repatriation.

Glasgow's Kelvingrove Gallery, which has 19 Benin Bronzes, said it will return them "to their legitimate owners".

"The return of artefacts is a complex and lengthy process. Glasgow's position remains unchanged: we will work with the appropriate representatives to continue Glasgow's positive repatriation history," a spokesman for Glasgow Life said.

Nigeria's former president Muhammadu Buhari signed a gazette handing ownership of all returned artefacts to the Oba in May.

The move appeared to take western countries by surprise and raised questions about the return of the Benin Bronzes, the name for thousands of looted items in European collections.

There has been talk that the repatriated artefacts will be housed in a yet-to-be-built museum.

The items were seized by British forces during the sacking of Benin City in 1897.

Many British and European institutions are looking at when to keep and when to return artefacts such as the Benin Bronzes.

Separately, the Elgin, or Parthenon, marbles now housed in the British Museum have been the subject of a decades-long campaign for their return.

National Museums Scotland is also considering a request from Nigeria to repatriate its 59 Benin artefacts.

Oxford University, which has sought to return 97 Bronzes, said it was "monitoring the situation".

Cambridge University, which had agreed to return 116 artefacts, paused the repatriation process in May after learning that the Nigerian president had declared the Oba to be their owner.

The British Museum alone has more than 700 objects from the historic kingdom in its collection.

The Ethnological Museum of Berlin has the second largest collection of Benin Bronzes, with more than 1,100 objects.

Germany said last month it was seeking clarity on whether the bronzes would be displayed in a new museum, but that the plan to give them to Nigeria had not changed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Repatriation of Benin Bronzes confirmed by British museums

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Artefacts to be returned despite concerns over private ownership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Glasgow Life becomes first UK museum to repatriate objects to India - Museums Association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seven artefacts have been returned as part of a wider repatriation programme

# data[].attributes.headline
Project tracking the delayed implementation of NAGPRA

# data[].attributes.subject
Project tracking the delayed implementation of NAGPRA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Logan Jaffe, Mary Hudetz and Ash Ngu, ProPublica, and Graham Lee Brewer, NBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
America’s institutions maintain control of the remains of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans as well as sacred items. A federal law, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, was meant to help return them, but decades after its 1990 passage, many tribes are still waiting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Egyptian priest Nehemsumut at the National Museum of Scotland. Photography by Jane Barlow/Getty Images.

In the Metropolitan Museum of Art-one of the most trafficked institutions in the world-a sweeping gallery bordering 5th Avenue is home to the 2,000-year-old Mummy of Nesmin. Excavated from an Egyptian tomb in the late 19th century and acquired by the Museum shortly after, the mummy now lies behind glass, one of the institution's most prized and popular artifacts for over a century. Though the mummy may be one of the Met's more iconic artifacts, the ethics of displaying human remains has been a thorn in the sides of museum curators for decades. Now, artifacts much like the Mummy of Nesmin-thousands of which are held in the collections of renowned institutions across the country-are at the heart of renewed controversy over the question of repatriation.

In recent years, activist organizations and international watchdogs have called for increased scrutiny of the world's leading cultural institutions, insisting on the restitution of illegally traded artifacts and looted antiquities. While the repatriation movement traces back to a 1970 UNESCO treaty halting the illicit trade of cultural property, revered museums, including the Louvre and the Getty, continue to make headlines for their failure to return pilfered holdings-from Assyrian gypsum statues to Nepalese shrines-to their communities of origin. In 2017, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office formed the United States's first Antiquities Trafficking Unit, which seized 27 artifacts from the Met (valued at more than $13 million) this past September.

As the fervor around repatriation grows, activist organizations have turned their focus to the subject of indigenous artifacts and human remains. A ProPublica investigation published last month revealed that more than 600 federally funded institutions have failed to comply with a 33-year-old federal human rights law-the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)-mandating that they make more than 110,000 Native American remains available for return to affiliated tribes. The American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, the Brooklyn Children's Museum, and Yale and Harvard Universities are among the major institutions that have identified a loophole in the law, maintaining ownership of Native remains without facing legal repercussions.

Orpheus and the Sirens confiscated from the Getty Villa Museum. Image courtesy of the Associated Press.

The report's unsettling findings highlight the entrenchment of certain colonial narratives in museum collecting practices-and the extent to which public faith in cultural institutions endures, despite the persistence of activist movements (like Nan Goldin's P.A.I.N.) working to dismantle the generations-old myth of museum neutrality. Chip Colwell, a repatriation scholar, anthropologist, and former curator, believes that an institution's commitment to prioritizing repatriation should be used as a measuring tool for the amount of trust the public places in it. While some of the country's smallest museums have repatriated all of the indigenous remains in their collections, he notes, "some museums with multibillion-dollar endowments have barely returned anything."

In the eyes of tribal groups across the country, complying with repatriation laws presents museums with a golden opportunity to transform their relationship with indigenous peoples-and depart from the ideology that historically categorized them as objects of study. Shannon O'Loughlin, Chief Executive and Attorney of the Association on American Indian Affairs, sees noncompliant museums as "purveyors of stereotypes...because they've never included the primary experts of these items [in their research]." Through the process of repatriation, institutional transparency grows, as does community trust. For Anne Amadi, founder of the NAGPRA Community of Practice, embracing tribal nations as thought partners allows "relationships to grow over the years," and is one of the many ways museums can help indigenous communities heal from centuries of harmful and exclusionary narratives surrounding the nation's founding.

In recent months, the Biden administration has indicated its commitment to updating NAGPRA regulations and hastening the process of repatriation. Soon, museums and universities may have no choice but to comply with the law's mandates-but for repatriation experts like Colwell, Amadi, and O'Loughlin, the chance for institutions to proactively rectify harm, rather than backtrack in response to public pressure, has already been missed. As museums contend with larger questions of access and inclusivity, the need to reaffirm their relevance as unbiased stewards of cultural heritage and educational resources may be more pressing than ever.
Sign Up for the Cultured Newsletter
Sure, we can be close friends. Unfiltered access awaits.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Do the World's Top Museums Still Resist Repatriation?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the Metropolitan Museum of Art-one of the most trafficked institutions in the world-a sweeping gallery bordering 5th Avenue is home to the 2,000-year-old Mummy of Nesmin. Excavated from an Egyptian tomb in the late 19th century and acquired by the Museum shortly after, the mummy now lies behind glass, one of the institution's most prized and popular artifacts for over a century.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
For U.S. Museums With Looted Art, the Indiana Jones Era Is Over

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Prodded by law enforcement, and pushed by foreign governments, American museums are increasingly returning artifacts to countries of origin, but critics wonder at what cost.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The Art Newspaper - International art news and events

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The rate of artefact repatriation-objects being returned to their country of origin, often from museums-has been accelerating in recent years. These objects may have been housed in foreign collections for centuries and, increasingly, have likely been added to museums' digital inventories and detailed on websites for the world to see.

While the digitisation of museums' collections may enable the public greater accessibility to artefacts, it raises questions about the possibilities of digital repatriation: returning digital images, research data, and 2D and 3D digital models along with the physical objects themselves. When items are returned to their source communities or institutions, is the associated digital data being repatriated along with them? Where do museums currently stand on digital repatriation?

Not every returned object has a publicly accessible webpage or associated digital data, but institutions are increasingly moving to digitise their collections, spurred on further during the Covid-related lockdowns when no one could access museums in person. As well as internal databases and public platforms, websites such as and host thousands of 2D and 3D object models, including digital object data created by private and public cultural heritage institutions. Where does this information belong?

Many happy returns?

Currently, many museums choose to remove the information of repatriated objects from their public platforms. Such is the case for the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC when it returned a Benin bronze cockerel belonging to Nigeria in October 2022. The Cleveland Museum of Art (CMA), on the other hand, documenting all the art it has deaccessioned since 1998, showing works' former titles, accession numbers and creation dates.

But which strategy is better? Retaining a publicly accessible deaccessioning record promotes accountability but, on the other hand, such records may be inconsistent with those of an object's new owner, and maintaining them may promote an understanding that a museum still considers itself an owner of the object. Some institutions have piloted a model of returning objects to their source community but keeping a 3D digital model-replica at the institution for researchers, which raises further questions about ownership and access.

Recent research has explored how collections' information systems and databases present a number of issues for communities whose cultural heritage and traditional knowledge was acquired and held unethically. The US project supports Indigenous communities in such situations to "manage their intellectual and cultural property, cultural heritage, environmental data and genetic resources within digital environments", according to its website. It creates "Traditional Knowledge Labels", including those related to provenance, noting community-specific regulations regarding access and use of knowledge. However, their use in digital object collections focuses mostly on audio, video and paper materials, and its integration into object databases has revealed some user experience design problems.

If policies are not created for digital data and legacies of repatriated artefacts, institutions could be setting themselves up for further requests down the line

Policy gap

While some museums consider the content that they have produced relating to an object to be part of its intellectual property, many are willing to repatriate digital data. "Assets such as imagery, photogrammetry or research is shared with the party to whom the object is transferred, when it is transferred," says a spokesperson for the CMA. The Brooklyn Museum explains that "since the object data is part of the intellectual property and cultural heritage of source communities", an object's associated digital materials may be returned as well, if requested. A spokesperson for the Getty Museum in Los Angeles also says that the museum will return digital files on request.

But because the concept of digital repatriation remains relatively new, few source communities and institutions realise that they can request object data, and even fewer museums have incorporated digital repatriation into their collections management policies. Helen Robbins, the repatriation director at the Field Museum in Chicago, highlights a widespread issue: "While, of course, the museum's collections management policy and our procedures address the repatriation of tangible items and ancestral remains, they do not specifically address digital repatriation." Similarly, a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York notes that "the museum is happy to share images and object data, but it is not a formal part of the transfer process".

Navigating the return of physical objects is a challenge for both source communities and museums-but if policies are not created for digital data and legacies of repatriated artefacts, institutions could be setting themselves up for further requests down the line.
* Emma Cieslik is a collections contractor at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of the American Indian. The views in this article are the writer's own

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Digital shadows: what happens to an artefact's data after it is restituted?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The rate of artefact repatriation-objects being returned to their country of origin, often from museums-has been accelerating in recent years. These objects may have been housed in foreign collections for centuries and, increasingly, have likely been added to museums' digital inventories and detailed on websites for the world to see.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
London's British Museum is at the heart of growing calls for repatriation of artwork, with repeated requests from various countries, such as Greece and Nigeria, to return items from its vast collection.

Up until now, the museum and the British government has been able to stave of those calls by citing the British Museum Act of 1963, a national statute which prohibits the institution from returning works. But as public pressure continues to grow, the future of the British Museum's repatriation policy may be in jeopardy.

Under the act, the British Museum's board of trustees is barred from returning any object in the collection unless it is a duplicate, physically damaged or "unfit to be retained the collection" and no longer of public interest, according to the museum's deaccessioning policy. Other national museums in the U.K., such as London's Victoria and Albert Museum, are also prevented from repatriating works under the National Heritage Act of 1983.

The British Museum's act wasn't controversial when it was first passed, according to Tatiana Flessas, an associate law professor specializing in cultural property at the London School of Economics. "No one was really thinking about repatriation at that time," she said. It was an administrative measure aiming to prioritize safekeeping of the museum's collection, said Flessas, who added that this has long been a priority for the British Museum, which calls its curators "keepers."

Its intention was to protect works from short-term political decisions, such as repatriating works for diplomatic purposes, said Barnaby Phillips, author of Loot: Britain and the Benin Bronzes. "The idea was of a public collection that was somehow above the concerns of the government of the day."

But throughout the past few decades, the law has been used by museum trustees and government officials as a reason to deny any repatriation requests. Greece has asked for the return of its Parthenon Marbles since 1983, and in 2009 built the Acropolis Museum in Athens in order to house them. "We operate within the law and we're not going to dismantle our great collection as it tells a unique story of our common humanity," said the British Museum of the Parthenon Marbles in a December press release.

Meanwhile, the British Museum has also not acted on requests from Nigeria to return its collection of 900 items from the Benin Kingdom, including its Benin Bronzes, which were looted in 1897 by British forces. Between 2015 and 2019, the museum also received at least six other formal requests for repatriation, according to WhatDoTheyKnow, a site which publishes responses to U.K. Freedom of Information requests.

"A lot of this is just smoke and mirrors," said Flessa, who believes the British government could easily make an exception to or change the British Museum Act 1963 if they actually wanted to repatriate a work. This has occurred in the past, with a 2004 act allowing for museum trustees to return human remains, while a 2009 ruling opened up repatriations for artwork looted during the Nazi era.

It's most likely that a change to the act would consist of some iteration of these previous amendments, instead of a complete overhaul, said Flessa, as the British Museum wouldn't want to "open the flood gates" and apply the possibility of repatriation to its entire collection.

"Possibly it will be amended in some ways, but repatriation will always be dealt with on a case-by-case basis," said Flessa.

However, a more substantial change may occur if there's a significant change in the government in the near future, according to Phillips. While the U.K. has been governed by the Conservative Party since 2010, the next general election is scheduled to take place before January 2025. A win for the Labour Party could see actions taken on the British Museum Act as the party has expressed more interest in making changes, said Phillips, with former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn pledging to return the Parthenon marbles, while Labour politicians Shami Chakrabarti and Alf Dubs have also publicly stated their support for its repatriation.

This wouldn't be surprising, said Phillips, given "the way things have moved on this in the past two years or so."

A potential loophole

Another avenue to amend the museum's repatriation policy is through the Charities Act 2022, which would enforce amendments to a previous act passed in 2011. A provision of the act would allow for charities, including national museums like the British Museum, to return objects if trustees feel a moral obligation to do so and gain approval from either the U.K. courts, Charity Commission or Attorney General.

"That was quite a big excitement last year," said Petra Warrington, a London-based attorney specializing in art and cultural property law. "It wasn't ever going to mean that trustees just handed objects over easily, but it was going to possibly open a route where there were very strong moral considerations."

However, while the act's provision was supposed to take effect in October, the British government has since delayed the bill to further consider its implications. "It's possible they hold it back indefinitely because they don't like the consequences of the change," said Alexander Herman, director of the U.K. Institute of Art and Law, which focuses on education around cultural heritage law. But the Charities Act 2022 is the most likely opportunity for an amendment to the museum's repatriation policy in the foreseeable future, unless there's a sudden drastic change in government or policy, he said. "I couldn't image, in the current environment, any other proposed change to the British Museum Act."

The British Museum did not respond to requests for comment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The UK Has a 60-Year Old Law Prohibiting Repatriation of Art. Is That About to Change?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The British Museum has long been barred from repatriation under a national statute. But as public pressure mounts, is it possible to overturn the 60-year old act?

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Reclaiming Restitution Report | Open Restitution Africa

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The restitution of African heritage - artefacts and human remains - is one of the vital social justice issues of our times. It is about recognising centuries of devastation of the African continent, and taking a step towards social, historical and cultural repair for Africans themselves. Its therefore
without question that Africans should be - and have historically been - at the forefront of narratives on restitution of African heritage. And yet, this report, which tracks the presence of Africans in the global narrative, indicates an intolerable erasure of Africans across academia, online media and social networks. Two hundred years of records indicate that Africans have driven multifaceted strategies for their return; over this time, they have built a corpus of knowledge and narratives around heritage restitution. There are many reasons for the lack of African representation on the platforms available to the world for narrative creation and knowledge generation. However, it remains important to understand the impact of this lack, and to seek strategies to address it.

The push for the return of African heritage to the African continent has been driven
by Africans. As a result, the development of how we speak about return, its ethics
and global implications has been spearheaded by Africans. This report discusses in some detail the range and political influence of African narratives over many decades as the leading impetus behind heritage restitution. It tracks the fact that demands for return were already being made at the point of initial theft, but that this call was never heeded, up until the present. We see a heightened narrative drive by African heritage professionals and by independence leaders such as Mobutu Seseko, who argued for the role of restitution in enabling newly independent countries to define their identities and build their societies anew. We also see the defence by Africans to their rightful heritage and their frustration at the petty and often racist denials made by those outside of the continent, who were (and are) in possession of African heritage. This report also tracks some of the current academic research and narrative construction by African thinkers.

"The push for the return of African heritage to the African continent has been driven by Africans"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reclaiming Restitution Report | Open Restitution Africa

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The restitution of African heritage - artefacts and human remains - is one of the vital social justice issues of our times. It is about recognising centuries of devastation of the African continent, and taking a step towards social, historical and cultural repair for Africans themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
Keyword: 'Museum Repatriation' Google Scholar listings

# data[].attributes.body
Examining restitution and repatriation options for cultural artefacts: an empirical enquiry in South Africa

# data[].attributes.body
Repatriation as a Catalyst for Building Community-Engaged Curriculum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Replanting Cultures provides a theoretical and practical guide to community-engaged scholarship with Indigenous communities in the United States and Canada. Chapters on the work of collaborative, respectful, and reciprocal research between Indigenous nations and colleges and universities, museums, archives, and research centers are designed to offer models of scholarship that build capacity in Indigenous communities.

# data[].attributes.body
The Denver Museum of Nature & Science Repatriation Initiative

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The book Profiles of Anthropological Praxis is something of a sequel to Anthropological Praxis: Translating Knowledge into Action, published in 1987 (Westview Press). As a casebook of anthropological projects, the new version shares a fascinating breadth of award-winning projects undertaken by appl…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Decolonization is fraught and unchartered territory for museums, and its implications for both society and museums are only now emerging. Decolonization must also allow the colonized to reclaim their traditional cultures and identities, including control over land. Decolonization is now being discussed and dealt with in various museums. Decolonization for museums must begin with an examination of the meaning and intent of repatriation, replete with its many complexities and uncertainties, and including both sacred and everyday belongings. This chapter examines the role and responsibilities of museums in decolonization, with a focus on repatriation. It explores the various flawed assumptions that are inhibiting many museums from taking more forthright action, with the intent of humanizing this most complex and challenging issue for museum practitioners. The chapter presents a personal story of life in northern Canada as the context for considering Indigenous rights and repatriation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Humanizing museum repatriation | 13 | Museum Innovation | Robert R. Ja

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Decolonization is fraught and unchartered territory for museums, and its implications for both society and museums are only now emerging. Decolonization must also allow the colonized to reclaim their traditional cultures and identities, including control over land.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

The particular composition of university collections, too, is unique among cultural institutions. University acquisitions often favor collections of known provenience and clear provenance. This preference for objects with rich documentation is, in part, due to universities' intentions to prioritize collections for research and teaching, often over that of exhibition. These relatively informed collecting narratives support research efforts surrounding repatriation. The more discernible an object's past lives, the more comprehensive any evaluation of repatriation as its potential disposition. The legality and ethics of an object's acquisition, for example, can better be appraised when those circumstances were thoroughly documented. A meticulous record of an object's source community will more easily identify a recipient for its potential return. Descriptions of an object's deduced or observed use, in situ, can better support its classification and return on ethical or legal grounds.

Our experiences in carrying out these cases lead us to propose that repatriation be regarded as a "normal" - rather than an extraordinary - responsibility of museums, much like other institutional activities that bring about the movement of objects (for example, exhibition loans) and that it should be presented to public audiences as such. Importantly, we also argue that it is the sharing of actionable information with potential recipients, not the physical transfer of collections, that should drive a museum's repatriation efforts and be used to gauge its success. As the cases below well demonstrate, not all of our suggested repatriations resulted in transfer; nevertheless, stakeholders were provided with all available information with which they could make their decisions according to their own needs and priorities and on their own timelines.

Background

The two-person division's close working relationship with the museum director's office was strengthened with the arrival of Benjamin Porter as director, whose prior research in heritage, tourism, and museum anthropology, and experience leading archaeological field projects in the Middle East with substantial community-based components brought an applied understanding of cultural policy issues. The CPR division also drew on the expertise of the Hearst Museum's wider staff and curators as well as the Berkeley campus and system-wide University of California administrators.

Addressing known legacy issues

Human skeletal remains from Saipan and Japan

In 1974, former US Naval Reserve medical corpsman Max E. Childress donated to the museum the human remains of a minimum of four individuals he had collected in 1945 from Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands. The associated catalog record described these remains as those of "Japanese who committed suicide during the American invasion." The same accession also included skeletal elements collected by Childress while serving in Japanese hospitals in 1945. This collection and its provenance were known to some, but not all, museum staff, and then-director Judson King later described the case as having "jumped out of the box with no warning." Press reports and King's 2013 oral history indicate that in 2008 one or more museum staff members wrote letters bearing King's forged signatures to both the US Department of Defense and the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo presenting a fabricated plan to return the remains to Japan. Later that year, King was surprised to receive a letter from Masao Nakayama of the Yasukuni Shrine, explaining that war dead recovery efforts were the purview of Japan's Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, which was copied on the response. Tipped off, King later surmised, by the same museum staff, the San Francisco Chronicle 's Jim Doyle reported on the matter in August 2009, stating that the collection represented a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Official condemnation was swift and significant, including censure and criticism from the California State Legislature and Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives.

Japan, however, was not ready to pursue a transfer. Japanese law then in force forbade the import of non-cremated human remains and, as documented in Doyle's 29 August 2009 San Francisco Chronicle article, required positive identification of remains as "Japanese" before pursuing their repatriation. Accordingly, in September 2009, the Hearst Museum sent the remains to the Joint Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Accounting Command Central Identification Laboratory (CIL) in Hawaii. The CIL's subsequent report determined that the bones represented the remains of male individuals. The CIL assigned racial identifications to the various remains, using a methodology that the authors of this article do not endorse and using terms that we do not reproduce here. The CIL identified most of the bones either as likely of Asian ancestry or as indeterminately of either Asian or European ancestry. However, one bone - a human mandible - was identified as that of an individual of African ancestry and an embedded metal fragment indicated perimortem impact by a projectile. The CIL recommended that only more detailed analysis, such as DNA testing, would positively identify the Japanese origin of any of the remains. The human remains were returned to the Hearst Museum, and the matter was suspended due to the Japanese law.

In 2014, new Japanese legislation declared the repatriation of World War II dead as a state priority and allocated funds both for recovery efforts outside Japan and for repatriation, including remains that had not been cremated. In February 2014, officials from Japan's San Francisco consulate resumed contact with Berkeley administrators, forecasting these changes to policy. Correspondence continued intermittently until August 2015, and, each time, the university indicated its eagerness to proceed. When communication dropped off, however, campus administrators advised the museum that it need not pursue any further action unless contacted again by Japanese officials.

Included in the initial transfer were the human remains identified by the CIL as being of African or indeterminate ancestry. The authors' skepticism about the prior racial determinations had led to the decision that the written documentation in this case - that the human remains were those of Japanese individuals - outweighed the CIL's analysis. Though this decision and its reasoning were explained to consulate staff at the time of the transfer, Japanese officials subsequently determined that these remains could not be positively considered to be Japanese "war dead." After consulting with campus administrators, the Hearst Museum accepted these three sets of human remains back from consular staff in June 2017.

Human skeletal remains of Aboriginal Australian individuals

The skulls of two individuals - from Lower Murray River and the junction of Loddon and Murray Rivers in Victoria, Australia - were received by the Hearst Museum (then the Lowie Museum) from A. S. Kenyon of Melbourne in 1928, upon Lowie Curator Edward Gifford's request for "some aboriginal Australian skulls." Precisely how Kenyon had acquired the human remains is unclear. In a separate accession, Sidney Sutherland of the University of Melbourne's Anatomy Department donated the crania and mandibles of two Aboriginal individuals in 1964.

The Hearst Museum had been among several institutions to receive official expression of interest from the Australian government concerning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander human remains and other holdings in its care. A letter in the accession file dated 24 June 1993 to then Hearst Museum Director Burton Benedict, Christopher Sweeney, counselor for public affairs of the Embassy of Australia in Washington, conveyed Australia's intent to work with "institutions in the United States which are believed to be legally holding collections or items of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander skeletal remains ... with a view to having them repatriated to Australia" for the subsequent return of "all such material to the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community from which it came." In May 2019, the museum wrote to Australian Ambassador Joe Hockey, proposing the repatriation of all four sets of human remains. The embassy's Cultural and Public Affairs Office responded, requesting all documentation associated with both accessions, which the museum then provided. At the time that the authors ended their respective positions at the museum, embassy staff were awaiting instruction from Canberra.

Proactive provenance research opens potential for repatriation

The reactive efforts described above aimed not only to mitigate the museum's legal and reputational risk but also to adopt practices keeping with the museum's current mission. Many of the same processes and protocols applied to the museum's concurrent efforts to identify collections proactively for return. To this end, and given the sensitivities surrounding human remains, in March 2019, the CPR division conducted a survey of human remains in the museum's care that were not subject to NAGPRA. The division used sequenced database queries to identify a noncomprehensive listing of human remains that came to the museum through means divergent from modern standards and that were potentially problematic - ethically and optically - and should be considered for possible repatriation.

Presented below are some cases proposed for repatriation as a part of this effort. The museum's primary goal in each instance was transparency - namely, not to compel a transfer if such a course did not align with the identified recipient's current desires or priorities.

Human skeletal remains of Black individuals from South Carolina

Mummified human remains of an individual from "Congo"

The survey effort also found information related to a mummified human head, identified in the catalog as being from "Congo Africa." Received as a gift from San Francisco Chronicle journalist George R. Hyde in 1931, the remains had been a theatrical prop at San Francisco's Alcazar Theatre and had passed to Hyde through an intermediary, an artist for the San Francisco Examiner. After inspecting the head at Hyde's San Francisco apartment and declaring it genuine, Edward Gifford brought it back to the museum where it was accessioned and catalogued. Prior to the survey, these remains were already well known to museum staff, in part because of the feelings of horror and revulsion they produced. The well-preserved head of a young woman - with intact soft tissue, teeth, and hair, the neck wrapped with cloth - was mounted in the small glass case that accompanied its transfer to the museum. A handwritten ink label affixed to the glass surface refers to its contents as a "[m]ummified head ... from Congo Africa" and includes a word meant to describe a Black female, which we have decided not to reproduce here.

The CPR division was unable to locate any information pertaining to the Alcazar Theatre's acquisition of the remains in question, the identity of the San Francisco Examiner's artist intermediary, or performances involving the use of a human head that could have provided a clear ante quem date for collection and the date of the individual's death. While several "Alcazar" theaters have existed in San Francisco, museum staff determined that the Alcazar Theatre at issue was likely the one built at 260 O'Farrell Street in 1911, which became a movie theater in 1932. Dissolution of the props department may have occurred in the lead up to this transition.

The sole documentation for the remains' original collection is the aforementioned label. Whether "Congo Africa" refers to what was then the Belgian Congo, to the neighboring and much smaller French Congo (later Republic of the Congo and Congo-Brazzaville), to the geographical region abutting the 3,000 mile long Congo River, or to the entire Central African Congo drainage is uncertain. Further, the issuance of cultural property laws of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which was formerly Zaire, in 1971; the Republic of the Congo in 1956; and the Republic of Angola, which borders the Congo River, in 1976 all postdate the remains' collection and accession. Still, given the region's specific and brutal European colonial history, and the practices of decapitation and dismemberment during the period of Belgian rule, the museum offered repatriation to the DRC's Washington Embassy in June 2019.

The embassy responded in November 2019, asking how the museum had determined that the remains were from the DRC, how they had come to be in the United States, and from where in the DRC they had originated. In its response, the museum was forthcoming in its lack of certitude. Embassy staff wrote back, stating that the remains could not be requested for repatriation using the "Congo Africa" label alone but that they remained open to discussions. The museum received no response to its subsequent invitations to a telephone meeting, but it did not press the issue. While the DRC's ultimate determination was pending at the end of the authors' respective tenures, the museum's primary aim in the matter - transparency - had been achieved, and communication channels opened, if and when the DRC should choose to proceed. In this matter, as in the Childress case, the museum had identified the affiliation of the human remains and their appropriate disposition based on the preponderance of the available evidence - namely, the scant geographical information in the associated documentation. In both cases, however, the museum's comfort level with the resulting uncertainty was greater than that of the identified recipients.

Human skeletal remains of named First Nations individual from Canada

As part of the survey effort, the CPR division's staff linked information on one of several handwritten display labels in a 1903 accession file to a single human skull, described in the museum catalog only as "Calavarium, deformed." The particular accession grouped several skulls acquired by the museum prior to 1901. According to the label located in the accession file, this was the "[s]kull of Yasall (Longhead) Chief of the Cape Cook Indians. Vancouver Island, BC. Yasall was killed and beheaded by the Kyuquot Indians in retaliation for a murderous night attack he made upon them. Presented by M. Braverman Esq, Visalia CA." The acquisition is also mentioned in the 1882 annual report of the secretary to the Board of Regents of the University of California, which notes a donation from "Braverman, M., Visalia, California - The skull of Yasalt, Chief of the Cape Cook Indians." Physical examination of the remains noted cranial modification consistent with the "longhead" descriptor.

The identity and collection methods of "M. Braverman" could not be ascertained. Anecdotal reports of European settlers described their removal of decapitated heads from sand pits on Vancouver Island, but the association of the decedent's name suggested that Braverman had employed a different collection method. Further information on "Yasall" or "Yasalt," too, could not be located. Research suggested that Yasall likely led the Klaskino people, a Kwakwaka'wakw group. The Kunquot or Kyuquot people - identified in museum records as Yasall's beheaders - were the Klaskino's southern neighbors and belonged to the Nuu-chah-nulth (formerly "Nootka") group. Kwakwaka'wakw living by Quatsino Sound were popularly known as the "longheads" due to their custom of flattening the skull during childhood, a practice that continued through the end of the nineteenth century. Retaliation and revenge were motivators for warfare between the neighboring Kwakwaka'wakw and Nuu-chah-nulth, and removing heads as trophies was an important part of these encounters.

The Klaskino suffered a steep decline in population beginning in the mid-nineteenth century due to disease and war, which included conflict with the neighboring Kyuquot. By 1885, the Klaskino numbered only 14 individuals and had largely intermarried with the Koskimo. Reportedly, the last person of Klaskino ancestry died about 1920. However, the Klaskino belonged to the same dialect and ethnic group as the Quatsino people, a more inclusive Kwakwaka'wakw group living on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Today, the Quatsino First Nation "represents five tribes from the Quatsino Sound area who speak or once spoke the same dialect of the Kwakwala language," including both the Klaskino and Koskimo.

Identifying the Quatsino First Nation as the most closely affiliated descendant community of Yasalt - and noting increased repatriation activities within British Columbia - the museum initiated contact with the Canadian embassy in Washington, DC, and its San Francisco consulate in May 2019 to propose repatriation. Consular staff responded, and, in subsequent communication, the museum provided copies of all known documentation as well as the museum's own assessment of cultural affiliation. Concurrently, the museum contacted the Quatsino First Nation to inform them of the skull's existence, the known collection history, and the museum's desire to effect repatriation. While neither the First Nation nor the Canadian government further engaged on the matter, the museum aimed to provide enough information so that repatriation could proceed at a time of the Quatsino First Nation's choosing.

Human skeletal remains from Vanuatu

The legal status of American presence on the island was unclear to museum staff. According to the terms of an 1887 condominium, the islands were jointly administered during World War II by Britain and a Gaullist faction of then occupied France. American troops arrived in May 1942 to establish a bulwark against Japanese expansion, with the largest proportion of soldiers stationed on Espiritu Santo until American withdrawal in 1945. While the age of the remains was not established, the museum felt that they were unlikely to be those of a war casualty, given that there were no military engagements in Vanuatu during World War II, and, therefore, probably not subject to specific international law concerning the spoliation of war dead. However, while it was not clear whether American presence on the island in this period constituted a military occupation, several international legal instruments and the professional codes of ethics of various international and national professional organizations related to collection during wartime suggest that repatriation was the most appropriate action. On 26 June 2019, the museum contacted the Republic of Vanuatu's embassy, proposing repatriation. On the ambassador's positive response and recommendation, the museum initiated contact with the Vanuatu Cultural Centre in Port Vila, but it received no direction from the Cultural Centre's staff during the authors' respective tenures.

Collections reconciliation projects

Additional repatriation work was driven by a collections move in 2012-16 to upgraded storage facilities. This effort brought attention to several unaccessioned or "orphaned" collections, some of which had been awaiting processing for decades. While common in a collecting institution of the Hearst Museum's size and, in many instances, justifiable, it was obvious that the museum needed a clearer view of what, exactly, was in its care and to determine appropriate ultimate disposition. Porter organized the already standing Loans and Acquisitions Committee to begin a review of these collections so that disposition determinations could be made. The CPR division played a key role in this process, conducting object-by-object due diligence concerning the known and unknown collecting histories and chains of custody; the cultural property laws and other export legislation of the relevant source country; and a literature review for commentary on specific ethical concerns related to the object types at issue or the relevant sensitivities and expressed needs of the related source and descendant communities. The CPR division and the director also sought guidance from the museum's Council of Faculty Curators and other campus experts and administrators and drew on resources from neighboring collecting institutions (for example, the Bancroft Library, which maintains the archives of several Hearst Museum-related collectors and faculty members) in determining appropriate actions.

Finally, in cases where the objects in the museum's care had never been processed fully into the museum's collection, the CPR division and the director reexamined the circumstances under which they came to the museum, so as not to put a contemporary stamp of approval on unjustifiable past practices. This approach reflected the relationship that the museum wished to have with source countries and descendant communities, appreciated the discipline of anthropology's reliance on context, and sought to protect the museum and university from controversy.

Cuneiform tablets from Iraq

Perhaps the most significant case to be resolved as part of the reconciliation effort pertained to a collection of cuneiform tablets. With their detailed accounts of ancient governance and daily activities on such small portable objects, cuneiform tablets in recent decades have been especially vulnerable to looting and were identified in the International Council of Museums's 2008 Red List as an artifact type "most favored by the illegal antiquities market." In late 2006, the Hearst Museum accessioned, but did not catalog, a donation of 18 cuneiform tablets from San Francisco Bay Area collector Elizabeth Warrick. While no documentation exists regarding the tablets' archaeological provenience, epigraphic analysis indicated that they originated from southern Iraq and date to between 2050 and 300 bce. When museum staff encountered the unprocessed collection in 2013, the CPR division began correspondence with Warrick and her family regarding the tablets' provenance.

The conflicting narratives that resulted raised new concerns. The museum had been told in 2006 that Warrick's grandfather had purchased the collection at auction in London between 1925 and 1945, but subsequent correspondence from Warrick family members - conveying the assessment of Cornell University's David Owen - stated that, on the basis of these tablets' description and the boxes in which they were housed, they were among the 11,000 tablets sold by Edgar Banks in the United States during the early twentieth century. It is important to note that the museum located no positive information suggesting that the cuneiform tablets were illicitly excavated, stolen, or unlawfully exported, nor any evidence suggesting wrongdoing on the part of the donor or her grandfather. Still, the tablets' origin in Iraq, their lack of established provenance, and possible relevance of - and standards suggested by - Iraq's National Antiquities Law no. 59 of 1936, the 1970 UNESCO Convention, the 1995 Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, and the UN Security Council's Resolution 1483 of 2003 put the museum in a precarious position. The museum decided that it could not shoulder the burden of proof of the collection's licit origins and that it would instead aim to return them to Iraq.

For guidance, the CPR division wrote to UNESCO's 1970 office, and on that office's suggestion, provided photographs of the tablets to the Iraq Museum in Baghdad in April 2014 to ensure that they did not match any of those known to have been looted from its collection in 2003. No matches were subsequently reported. Still, the museum's own standards and concerns - elevated by considerations that Iraq's own 1936 antiquities law could serve as a basis for a potential Iraqi lawsuit to recover the tablets and that the "Banks Collection" provenance (for which no catalog exists) would not hold up to scrutiny in court - led the museum to contact officials of the Iraqi embassy in Washington, DC, in a letter dated May 2017, describing the collection and requesting an opinion on how to proceed. On 20 July 2017, embassy staff supplied a formal request for repatriation.

A potential complicating factor, and the cause of some delay, was language in the museum's 2006 gift acceptance form, which included the museum's then-standard clause that, as a condition of the gift, the objects were to become the "permanent property of the Regents [of the University of California]." However, the apparent conflict between this language and other legal frameworks did not need to be tested since the Warrick family consented to repatriation on learning of Iraq's request. After ensuring that all the cuneiform tablets had been photographed to a professional standard, the transfer occurred at the museum on 19 September 2017, with officials from Iraq's embassy in Washington, DC, and its consulate in Los Angeles in attendance. A subsequent meeting took place at the Washington embassy in April 2018, in which Ambassador Fareed Yasseen acknowledged the museum's proactive, good faith effort.

Archaeological material, reproductions, and fakes from Peru

Similar considerations framed the museum's 2019 repatriation of archaeological objects - some of questionable authenticity - to the Republic of Peru. More than 200 objects had been identified in 2018 as part of the larger reconciliation effort and had entered the museum's care through three donations: from Charles Eby in 1988, from Arthur and Evelyn Beynon in 1993, and from Sonoma State University in 1986. The Eby Collection consisted of textile fragments with no associated documentation and ceramic vessels - the latter described in Eby's correspondence as having been collected during construction of a fishmeal plant near Ilo at an unknown date and offered to Eby by the construction foreperson. The Beynon Collection - made up of ceramics, metal, wooden, gold and silver objects, textiles, and other materials - had been assembled by the Beynons from unknown sources between 1959 and 1976, when Beynon worked in Peru as a mining engineer. Some of the objects had been catalogued on receipt, while others were noted as possible fakes or reproductions and set aside "for loan and study." The textile, a "mummy wrapping" received from Sonoma State University, had been a gift to that university from a Mimi Orr at an unknown date. Associated documentation noted that the object had been collected from "Pacho Conae," a locale that the museum could not identify.

The CPR division's review identified several applicable Peruvian cultural property laws supporting restitution of these objects to Peru. Dating to the early twentieth century, and strengthened in 1958, relevant legislation forbids the permanent export of archaeological material in most cases, and a 1997 United States/Peru bilateral agreement - extended in 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017 - enshrines similar restrictions in US law. While documentation suggested that field collection, export from Peru, and import into the United States of some of the objects predated the more stringent of these legal instruments, the museum would not be able to demonstrate the collection's legitimacy and shoulder the burden of proof.

The museum wrote to Peru's San Francisco consulate in May and September 2018, proposing the restitution not only of the non-accessioned material identified in reconciliation but also the accessioned and catalogued objects acquired through the same donations. The museum informed the consulate that some of the objects were of questionable authenticity. Using photographs provided by the museum, Ministry of Culture staff in Lima identified the majority as modern forgeries or as objects that could not be positively distinguished as having been collected in Peru. The ministry claimed for repatriation 48 of the proffered objects as Peruvian cultural heritage. Transfer took place by diplomatic pouch across two shipments in May 2019 and February 2020.

Archaeological material, reproductions, and fakes from Mexico

The museum first sought guidance from Berkeley staff with subject area expertise, hoping that additional information could be ascertained through a visual inspection. This review identified 20 of the 30 objects as modern reproductions, but it confirmed many identifications noted in the archive, assigned likely modern dates for some of the surface-collected material and revealed other objects that had seemingly been made to deceive - such as the Colima dog figurine typical of fakes that pervade the art market. The remaining 10 objects were identified as likely authentic, like a sixteenth-century "seal/stamp fragment from Tulum Ruins. Found by E. Friedenthal 1950," a partial ceramic headdress from a Mayan figurine, and the fragmentary foot of a tripod carved in the shape of an animal's head. Donor-provided information and expert analysis suggested geographical associations with locales throughout Mexico, including Chichen Itza, Tulum, Oaxaca, and other locations.

Other cases

The museum proactively offered repatriation of other cultural material identified in its reconciliation and survey projects, which - due to space limitations - are only summarized below. Physical transfer occurred where indicated, but, in each case, the museum achieved its primary aims of transparency and open communication:

* In November 2016, the museum offered Guatemala's Washington embassy to repatriate unaccessioned archaeological material collected in 1976 from the site of Tak'alik Ab'aj, Retalhuleu, in recognition of Guatemalan cultural property laws dating to 1947.

* The same month, the museum offered Venezuela's Washington embassy to repatriate archaeological material collected in the 1960s from Margarita Island, Nueva Esparta, Venezuela. An associated 1964 letter from Venezuelan officials authorized only temporary export of the materials for study, in accordance with Venezuela's cultural property legislation of 1945.

* In September 2017, the museum offered to repatriate to Panama both unaccessioned and associated accessioned archaeological material collected at an unknown date from a rice plantation in Cocle Province, in accordance with standards described in Panama's Ley no. 67 of 1941 and Ley no. 14 of 1985. These objects were transferred to officials of Panama's Los Angeles consulate in November 2019.

* In May 2019, the museum proposed repatriation to Senegal's Washington embassy of both unaccessioned and associated accessioned archaeological material collected from Diallowali in 1976. Senegal's 1971 cultural property legislation prohibits the export of cultural materials except where authorized, and the CPR division could not locate documentation of such authorization.

* In June 2019, the museum proposed repatriation to Angola's Washington embassy of human remains donated to the museum in 1964, prior to Angola's independence from Portugal in 1975. While both countries' cultural property legislation - Angola's of 1976 and Portugal's of 1985 - postdated the skull's export from Angola, the remains were flagged in the survey effort because of their "Negro" racial assignment, a possible indication of their recent age.

Discussion

Repatriation has seized the public imagination in recent years and no wonder, paired as it is with emergent campaigns to redress colonial legacies, mitigate cultural trauma, and combat racial supremacy. This flood of interest has reinvigorated what largely had become an insular, industry conversation. Discussions of repatriation and related strategies are now laid open to public scrutiny, and decisions are increasingly made in the public eye. While the resulting transparency has been profoundly beneficial, the associated shedding of rigor decidedly has not. Nuance has escaped the zeitgeist, led as it is by groups and individuals that privilege organic, collective action and who demonstrate distrust and impatience toward institutions and the laws and policies they follow. In his book The Brutish Museums, for instance, meant for a public audience, Dan Hicks includes the Hearst Museum in a "Provisional List of Museums ... that may Currently Hold Objects Removed from Benin City in 1897." The museum's only bronze objects from Benin are two nineteenth-century bells purchased in 1963 from a market in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire. This documented provenance would suggest an extraordinary chain of custody for materials looted in the 1897 raid, and Hicks's specific, improbable charge deserves at least the same degree of scrutiny as the cases described above.

Lobbyists, government officials, popular articles, and student-led university newspapers speciously present repatriation as a one-size-fits-all process with the predetermined goal of liquidating problematic collections and decry museums' pace in reaching absolution. Such oversimplification subverts not only the intent of relevant legislation and the delicate balance of legitimate interests it aims to achieve but also the varied wishes and priorities of source and descendant communities. On whose timeline should repatriation be undertaken? Who are such actions meant to serve? More often than not, these questions go unasked when repatriation enters the public square. As our case studies demonstrate, repatriation is not a process with a universal beginning or end point or with uniform milestones along the way. We contend that, just as tired arguments against repatriation weaponize racist tropes and colonial condescension, so do blanket calls for repatriation do disservice to it as a practice.

Museum professionals are well aware of the regular movement of collections around the planet - not only for repatriation but also for exhibition loans, research, or specialized analysis. Yet, of these circumstances, repatriation stands apart in its susceptibility to politicization and sensationalism in media reports written to castigate legacy institutions as bad actors. The history of the Hearst Museum's CPR division, and the case studies detailed herein, demonstrate that repatriation work is best achieved not in damaging, ad hoc scrambles to address claims or scandal but, rather, by "normalizing" it as part of institutional practice. For university-based museums, structured, defined processes fill gaps in campus policies and enable proactive approaches from a position of strength. Such a stance meshes well with the needs of university administrators, who are often receptive to strategies that mitigate risk.

Museums can prioritize cases effectively through a staged approach. Just as the Sarr/Savoy report recommends - and NAGPRA mandates - successive processes, the Hearst Museum's approach was a sort of triage: seeking first to resolve known legacy claims; next, to identify human remains whose specific collection histories demanded priority in redressing; and then, to propose repatriation as a means to reconcile historic, unprocessed collections that do not meet contemporary standards for accession. Transparency and the restoration of agency, not physical transfer, should frame a museum's repatriation goals. As the above case studies demonstrate, repatriation may not be the identified recipient's desired, immediate outcome. While the circumstances of every museum will vary, we believe this approach represents a reasonable and replicable best practice. To this end, we propose a higher standard in due diligence than the bright line of the 1970 UNESCO Convention or the 1983 US implementing legislation would require. Instead, we argue that 1970 be used only when it predates relevant source country legislation that is unambiguous and clear in purpose and effect. If collection histories are linked to a particular trauma in the source country's past, repatriation should be proposed regardless of the date of collection. This latter standard is especially important when a particularly egregious collection event was technically legal, due to colonialist structures, but violates contemporary ethical standards.

The preemptive provision of all available information - including, but not limited to, accession documentation, condition reports, authentication assessments, photographs, and any internal analysis that led to the repatriation proposal - avoids unnecessary iteration and allows the source country to make informed decisions and arrangements. Once this information is shared, and in hoping to maintain a sense of purpose, it can be difficult to determine how much communication is appropriate and respectful and what form that communication should take. In our experience, written outreach yields fewer responses than do telephone communications but creates a useful paper record, while phone calls sometimes lead to initial planning that does not then take shape. Our efforts favored a written approach, with occasional phone calls to prompt and remind. Once a physical repatriation is agreed to, transfer via "diplomatic pouch" helps to avoid some complexities inherent in the international shipping of cultural or biological material.

Admittedly, cultural practitioners bring their own perspectives to their work. We might not have prioritized repatriation of the mummified head to the DRC, for instance, had we not been aware of the specific horrors of Belgium's colonial enterprise and moved viscerally by the remains in question. Many other human remains, or objects, may have escaped our attention, because we missed clues in the documentation that others would have caught. We therefore advocate an iterative approach and increased transparency to allow for outside claims. Data-rich collection portals, in the model of the Hearst Museum's, allow countries and communities to identify objects of interest and submit evidence-supported claims on their own initiative.

Conclusion

The projects described above were intended as preliminary steps in a multi-year program in which the museum's entire collection would be reviewed for objects most suitable for repatriation, while, at the same time, establishing a process by which new external claims could be assessed. However, in 2019 and 2020, respectively, this article's authors departed their roles as the museum's director and head of the CPR division for other positions on the Berkeley campus, and - with NAGPRA efforts now overseen by non-museum staff - the CPR division was disbanded in early 2021. We urge the museum's current and future leadership to continue this important work with all the rigor and nuance it deserves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Repatriation in university museum collections: Case studies from the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology | International Journal of Cultural Property | Cambridge Core

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The particular composition of university collections, too, is unique among cultural institutions. University acquisitions often favor collections of known provenience and clear provenance. This preference for objects with rich documentation is, in part, due to universities' intentions to prioritize collections for research and teaching, often over that of exhibition.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Repatriating cultural artefacts and rebuilding relationships | Letters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Letters: Dr Ellen McAdam recalls how, in 1998, Glasgow returned the Lakota Ghost Dance shirt to the Lakota community after years of negotiation, while Mike Pitts sheds light on what’s happening behind the scenes at museums

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A First Nation in B.C. has written an open letter to the province suggesting a different approach to planned upgrades for the Royal B.C. Museum.

Rather than spending hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild and redesign that building, they want to see the museum focus on repatriation of Indigenous cultural items.

In May the province announced it would spend $789 million over the next seven years to build a new museum, dealing with seismic issues and making it more accessible.

The plan received backlash right away, forcing Tourism Minister Melanie Mark to defend the decision, saying the current building is seismically unsafe, filled with hazardous materials like asbestos and lead, inaccessible to people with disabilities and structurally insufficient to maintain its current collection or host major exhibits.

Tseshaht Elected Chief Councillor Ken Watts said while he understands those issues, he wants to see some of that money diverted toward returning artifacts to First Nations, and helping them build their own museums or cultural centres to house those artifacts.

"I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't get up and speak on behalf of not just our people, but the people who made those items that they have in the museum, you know, ancestors who aren't here anymore," he told All Points West guest host Kathryn Marlow.

He said the first step would be for the province to engage with each First Nation about what they'd like to see happen with their items. In the case of the Tseshaht, Watts said they'd like their items to be returned to their community.

"That alone is empowering our people to know that those once sacred items are returning back to where they belong," he said.

The Tseshaht First Nation has an array of cultural items in the museum, including carvings and harpoon points.

"That harpoon point isn't just a harpoon point," he said.

"It was maybe carved by one of our current community members' great-grandfather."

Watts said Friday he had not yet heard back from the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture about his suggestion.

In an emailed statement to CBC, the ministry agreed that returning ancestral remains and cultural items is important for reconciliation, and said the Royal B.C. Museum has been repatriating Indigenous collections for "decades."

"Indigenous belongings and ancestral remains will continue to be available throughout the project for the purpose of repatriation," the ministry said.
LISTEN | Tseshaht First Nation propose different approach to museum upgrade funds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tseshaht First Nation calls on B.C. to allocate part of $789M museum upgrade funds to repatriating artifacts | CBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A First Nation in B.C. has written an open letter to the province suggesting a different approach to planned upgrades for the Royal B.C. Museum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The institution's leaders hope other cultural centers will follow its lead. It has already announced plans to return most of its collection of Benin Bronzes to Nigeria under the new policy.

The Smithsonian Instititution has adopted a policy that makes clear its committment to return items from its collection that it determines were looted or had been otherwise acquired unethically. Credit... Ken Rahaim, Smithsonian Institution

The Smithsonian Institution announced Tuesday that is has adopted a policy that will formally authorize its constituent museums to return items from their collections that were looted or were otherwise once acquired unethically.

The institution's leaders said the policy, which took effect Friday, represents a shift away from the stance long taken by it and other museums, who had held the view that the legal right to own an item was sufficient justification to keep it.

"My goal was very simple: Smithsonian will be the place people point to, to say 'This is how we should share our collections and think about ethical returns,'" Lonnie G. Bunch III, the secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, said in an interview. "The Smithsonian is this amazing wonder - this gift not just to the country but to the world. It's really important that we provide leadership."

In recent years, as conversations about racism and the legacy of colonialism have proliferated, the discussion about the repatriation of the artworks that were stolen, taken under duress or removed without the consent of their owners has intensified at cultural centers across the globe.

Where museums once argued they lacked the authority to return works given by donors or that the retention of artifacts promoted the widest appreciation of ancient cultures, the pendulum has swung toward restitution and repatriation.

With its new policy, the Smithsonian - which includes 21 museums and the National Zoo - is attempting to make a blunt acknowledgment that norms and best practices in the collecting world have changed, and that it is time for museums to catch up.

Last year, Smithsonian officials returned a gold disc featuring the shield of the city of Cusco to the Ministry of Culture in Peru. A collector had bought it from someone working in the country in 1912, officials said.

In March, the Smithsonian said it would return most of its 39 Benin Bronzes to Nigeria - more than a century after they were stolen during the British Army's 1897 raid on the ancient Kingdom of Benin. Museum officials have said they consider the return of the Bronzes, a name that is used to cover a variety of artifacts, a clear example of a situation in which repatriation was appropriate. Nigeria's National Commission for Museums and Monuments and the Smithsonian will share exhibitions and work together on education programs as part of a broad agreement that includes the repatriation of the artworks, officials have said.

The secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, Lonnie G. Bunch III, said that he hopes the policy on ethical returns will lead other museums to review their own procedures. Credit... Jared Soares for The New York Times

"No one ever expects everything to be taken away," Bunch said.

"But I think it's important to recognize that museums need to share authority," he continued. "As you're looking at returning materials, part of the conversation might be that the best place for materials might be in the museum."

The policy grew out of discussions last year by a group of Smithsonian curators and collections specialists who were asked to consider whether the institution should develop a policy like the one it has now adopted.

The move falls under broader "collections management" rules that apply to all Smithsonian museums, officials said. But the institution's collections are so diverse, the ethics policy's implementation will need to be specifically tailored to each museum.

Officials made clear that although they have adopted the policy, they will not embark on a full inventory of the Smithsonian's 157 million objects.

"The notion is to say, when we're doing exhibitions, when we're bringing in new collections, let us look at it through an ethical lens," Bunch said. "Or, of course, if we hear from nations or communities about things, that will also trigger the kinds of research that will really allow us to make decisions about where is the best place for those collections."

There are some items that have already caught curators' attention.

The Smithsonian has a photo of a Black jazz musician in archives at the National Museum of American History that it got from a collector. But provenance researchers "do not like the history of the photo going back further" than that acquisition, said Linda St. Thomas, a spokeswoman for the institution.

In another instance, the National Museum of Natural History has pottery from an expedition site in Turkey that comes from the ancient city of Troy, she said. It is possible that Turkey will want to locate items like the pottery and eventually ask that they be returned, St. Thomas said.

In a publicly released Values and Principles Statement, the Smithsonian said: "We affirm the Smithsonian's commitment to implement policies that respond in a transparent and timely manner to requests for return or shared stewardship."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In a Nod to Changing Norms, Smithsonian Adopts Policy on Ethical Returns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The institution's leaders hope other cultural centers will follow its lead. It has already announced plans to return most of its collection of Benin Bronzes to Nigeria under the new policy. The Smithsonian Institution announced Tuesday that is has adopted a policy that will formally authorize its constituent museums to return items from their collections that were looted or were otherwise once acquired unethically.