Lisa Nandy, the UK’s culture secretary, is under increasing pressure to reconsider laws that restrict museums from returning or deaccessioning artifacts. She is currently engaging in discussions with museum directors to address the issue. The National Heritage Act of 1983 imposes strict limitations on certain national museums, such as the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) and the Science Museum group, preventing them from removing items from their collections unless the objects are duplicates or severely damaged.
Similarly, the British Museum, which has faced persistent demands to return the Parthenon Marbles to Greece, cites the British Museum Act of 1963 as a legal barrier. This legislation explicitly prohibits the museum from disposing of any part of its collection, regardless of public or international pressure.
“I sense there is a growing recognition the status quo cannot last.”
Tristram hunt, director, V&A
Tristram Hunt, director of the V&A, has voiced optimism about potential changes. “I sense there is a growing appreciation the status quo cannot last,” he remarked. “The new government seems to be showing interest in revising the legislation to allow trustees of national museums greater autonomy over their collections.”
While national museums grapple with legal constraints,other UK institutions have taken proactive steps to return artifacts to their countries of origin. Universities such as Aberdeen and Cambridge have led the way, pledging to repatriate Benin bronzes to Nigeria. These efforts highlight a growing recognition of the need to address historical injustices tied to colonial-era acquisitions.
However,the UK government has yet to implement any formal policies to encourage restitution. This stands in stark contrast to countries like France, Germany, and Austria, which have established legal frameworks to facilitate the return of colonial-era artifacts in recent years.
France, in particular, has been a trailblazer in this arena. In 2017, President Emmanuel Macron ignited a global conversation on restitution during a speech in Burkina faso, declaring, “African heritage can’t just be in European private collections and museums.” Despite this bold stance, France’s journey toward restitution has been fraught with challenges, including political instability and bureaucratic hurdles.
In January 2022, France’s senate approved a bill aimed at streamlining the restitution process. Proposed by senators Catherine Morin-Desailly,Max brisson,and Pierre O,the legislation sought to create a more structured approach to returning cultural artifacts. However, progress has been slow, underscoring the complexities of addressing historical wrongs in a contemporary context.
The Global Movement to Restitute Colonial Artifacts: Progress and Challenges
In recent years,the restitution of colonial-era artifacts has become a pressing global issue,sparking debates about justice,heritage,and the ethics of cultural ownership. From France to Germany and Austria, nations are grappling with how to address the legacy of colonialism by returning artifacts to their countries of origin. While progress has been made, the journey is far from straightforward, with political, legal, and logistical hurdles slowing the process.
France’s Legislative Efforts and Delays
France has been at the forefront of the restitution movement, with important legislative steps taken in recent years. In December 2023, the French government adopted a law facilitating the return of human remains held in public collections.Earlier that year, in June, the National Assembly unanimously passed a law allowing public institutions to return Nazi-looted objects. Tho, the third pillar of this legislative effort—addressing colonial-era artifacts—remains in limbo.
“The third framework law on the restitution of colonial spoliations was to be submitted to parliament in the spring of 2024,” a source familiar with the matter revealed. Though, the process was derailed by President Macron’s decision to call snap parliamentary elections in June 2023. “The dissolution of the government and election interrupted this schedule,” the source added, leaving the future of the bill uncertain.
Case Study: The Djidji Ayôkwé Drum
Despite these delays, some progress has been made on individual restitution cases.A notable example is the Djidji Ayôkwé drum, a culturally significant artifact from the Ivory Coast housed at the Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac in Paris. in November 2023, the drum was transferred to the Ivorian government as a long-term loan.However, full ownership transfer requires additional legislation, which is expected to pass in early 2024.
The drum, used by the Ébrié community to warn against danger, symbolizes the broader struggle for cultural reclamation. Its return, even as a loan, marks a step forward in the restitution movement, though it underscores the complexities involved in such transfers.
Germany’s Mixed Progress
Germany has also been active in the restitution debate, particularly concerning the Benin bronzes. In 2019, the country’s culture ministers pledged to create conditions for repatriating artifacts acquired under morally or legally questionable circumstances. This commitment culminated in a high-profile agreement in 2022 to return 1,100 Benin bronzes to Nigeria.
Though, the process has as slowed to a trickle. The ceremonial handover of the frist 22 bronzes sparked controversy when the outgoing Nigerian president designated the oba (king) of Benin as the owner of the artifacts. This decision raised concerns in Germany that the bronzes might disappear into private collections rather than being displayed publicly. German media outlets labeled the returns a “fiasco” and a “scandal,” highlighting the challenges of balancing restitution with public access.
Austria’s Political Stalemate
Austria’s restitution efforts have also hit a roadblock. In June 2023, then-Culture Secretary Andrea Mayer promised to propose legislation governing the return of colonial-era artifacts by March 2024. However, the proposal was not approved before the September 2023 election, which saw the far-right Freedom Party gain significant influence.Coalition negotiations are ongoing,leaving the proposed law in limbo.
“The proposal is on hold until we get a new government,” said Jonathan Fine, director general of the Kunsthistorisches Museumsverband.“It still needs some fine-tuning, and we will have to wait for the political landscape to stabilize.”
Looking Ahead
While the restitution of colonial artifacts is gaining momentum globally, the path forward is fraught with challenges. Political instability, legal complexities, and debates over ownership and public access continue to slow progress. Nevertheless, each step—whether the return of the Djidji Ayôkwé drum or the Benin bronzes—represents a move toward rectifying historical injustices and fostering a more equitable cultural landscape.
As nations navigate these complexities, the restitution movement serves as a reminder of the enduring power of cultural heritage and the importance of addressing the legacies of colonialism with both sensitivity and resolve.
The UK Takes a Progressive Stance on Artifact Repatriation
While many European nations grapple with the complexities of returning colonial-era artifacts, the United Kingdom is making notable strides in addressing this contentious issue. Lisa Nandy, a prominent UK minister, has revealed that the government is actively engaging with institutions like the British Museum to develop a cohesive approach to repatriation. This comes after George Osborne, the museum’s chair and former chancellor, initiated discussions with her.
Unlike the Netherlands, where budget cuts threaten to derail provenance research efforts, the UK appears committed to advancing the conversation. Jos van Beurden, an expert on colonial loot, highlights the precarious situation in the Netherlands, where funding for critical projects like Pressing Matter is set to expire by the end of 2025. “will thay secure the necessary resources to continue?” Van beurden asks, underscoring the urgency of the matter.
A Unified Approach to Repatriation
Nandy’s public acknowledgment of these discussions has been met with enthusiasm from experts and advocates. Amy Shakespeare, an academic at Exeter University and founder of the organization Routes to Return, remarked, “It’s exciting that Nandy has publicly spoken about it.” Shakespeare’s organization focuses on facilitating the return of cultural artifacts to their countries of origin, a mission that aligns closely with the UK’s evolving stance.
despite varying opinions within the museum sector, Nandy emphasizes the need for a consistent government strategy. This approach aims to balance the preservation of cultural heritage with the ethical imperative to return artifacts acquired under colonial rule. The British Museum, home to countless contested items, remains at the center of this debate, with its leadership signaling a willingness to engage in meaningful dialog.
Challenges and Opportunities Ahead
As the UK moves forward, it faces both challenges and opportunities. The Dutch experience serves as a cautionary tale, illustrating how financial constraints can hinder progress. However, the UK’s proactive engagement with institutions and experts suggests a commitment to addressing historical injustices. By fostering collaboration and clarity, the government hopes to set a precedent for other nations grappling with similar issues.
The return of artifacts is not merely a legal or logistical challenge; it is indeed a moral imperative.For communities whose cultural heritage was stripped away, these objects hold profound importance. As the UK navigates this complex terrain, its actions could inspire a broader reckoning with the legacies of colonialism, paving the way for a more equitable future.
The debate over the restitution of cultural artifacts has gained momentum in the UK, with recent developments highlighting the complexities of returning items to their countries of origin. Last year, the former Conservative government excluded national museums and galleries from Sections 15 and 16 of the 2022 Charities Act, which would have allowed them to repatriate items on moral grounds. Though, with a new government in place, there is growing discussion about updating the legislation to facilitate such returns.
According to experts, the Charities Act could be revised to enable museums to act independently in matters of restitution. “Ministers rightly want an open and public debate about such a change,” says one advocate, emphasizing the need for transparency in this evolving process.
A notable example of restitution under the current framework is the horniman Museum and Gardens in south London.In November 2022, the museum formally transferred ownership of 72 Benin objects to Nigeria. While six of these artifacts were physically returned, the remainder are on loan to the Horniman under a temporary agreement. A new exhibition at the museum now showcases some of these returned items, marking a significant step in the ongoing dialogue about cultural heritage.
Nick Merriman, former chief executive and director of content at the Horniman, sheds light on the legal challenges faced by national museums. “The national museums are all covered by primary legislation, which usually says words to the effect: ‘You can’t give stuff away,’” he explains in the forthcoming book, Towards the Ethical Art Museum. “We, like most other museums, were covered just by charity law.”
The Charity Commission’s current guidelines require trustees to provide “clear and impartial” evidence of a “moral obligation” to transfer ownership of property. This includes documenting the decision-making process, such as meeting minutes. “The arguments that the Charity Commission seem to be accepting are these moral ones,” Merriman notes, underscoring the ethical considerations driving these decisions.
As the UK navigates this complex issue, there is a growing call for the government to support provenance research and training programs. Advocates argue that empowering national museums to repatriate cultural items on moral grounds could position the UK as a leader in ethical museum practices globally. The next steps, they say, will require prioritizing this issue and fostering a collaborative, transparent approach to restitution.
