Memorandum submitted by the Museums Standing
Advisory Group on Repatriation and Related Cultural Property Issues
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This submission is on behalf of the Museums
Standing Advisory Committee on Repatriation. The main points it
raises can be summarised as follows:
Requests for the return of cultural property
and the circumstances in which they are received are very wide
ranging and there are no simple formulae for addressing these
issues.
It is vital that museums have a clear framework
for dealing, effectively and respectfully with requests for return.
We commend the guidelines recently published by the Museums and
Galleries Commission, entitled: Restitution and Repatriation:
Guidelines for Good Practice which provide a framework for good
practice and encourage museums to explore thoroughly the options
open to them.
We would strongly recommend that a source of
advice and information be established to help museum professionals
dealing with repatriation and related cultural property issues.
We believe that it is vital that the UK has
a clear regime to restrict the illicit trade and recommend that
the Government should give serious consideration to acceding to
the UNIDROIT and UNESCO Conventions, or else consider what other
equivalent measures they might put in place.
INTRODUCTION
The Museums Standing Advisory Group on Repatriation
and Related Cultural Property Issues is pleased to have the opportunity
of submitting written evidence to the Committee in advance of
the hearing on the return of cultural property and the illicit
trade in art and antiquities. As we have already indicated to
the Clerk of the Committee the Chairman of the Group would be
willing to give oral evidence if required.
This submission focuses on the key issues which
the Group have discussed and represents our collective position.
Individual members will, in some instances, have made their own
submissions. Our comments focus principally on questions relating
to the return of cultural property, since this is the main subject
we are concerned with, but we have also addressed briefly the
subject of illegal traffic.
MEMBERSHIP, BACKGROUND
AND PURPOSE
OF THE
GROUP
The Group was established following discussions
between the Museums Association, the Museums and Galleries Commission
and the National Museum Directors' Conference in June 1998 on
the recommendation in the report commissioned from Moira Simpson
by the Museums Association in 1996.
The three organisations were concerned that
few museums had any policies or procedures for addressing these
issues, or anywhere to turn for advice. The question of return
of cultural property is an issue that can affect all museums from
a large national institution to the smallest volunteer-run museum.
Many of the UK's2,000 or so museums are small institutions without
any expertise in legal or cultural property issues.
It was agreed that it would be helpful to set
up an advisory group including a wide range of representatives
and experts from across the museum sector and beyond it. It was
also agreed that it would be helpful for the Museums and Galleries
Commission to develop a set of non-prescriptive guidelines to
help museums faced with requests for the return of objects, and
that the first task of the Advisory Group members should be to
contribute to and advise on the development of this guidance.
The Group, which is chaired by Dr Neil Chalmers,
Director of the Natural History Museum, has now met twice. A full
set of the Terms of Reference for the Committee and details of
its membership is appended to this submission.
1. ISSUES RELATING
TO THE
RETURN OF
CULTURAL PROPERTY
1.1 Diversity and complexity of issues
The Group believes that it is vital to recognise
the diversity and the complexity of the issues at stake. Too often
discussions of the return of cultural property do not take account
of this breadth and diversity. For example:
— Types of material that are subject
to a claim may also vary widely, from human remains, to art objects,
domestic and religious objects;
— Reasons for requests range from reasons
relating to cultural identity to cases of theft or wrongful taking,
or reasons relating to the care and spiritual well-being of material.
Some requests may fall into more than one of these categories.
For example, the Ghost Dance Shirt from Kelvingrove Museum in
Glasgow was an object of cultural and religious significance which
was reputedly looted from the site of the massacre at Wounded
Knee;
— Requests may come from very different
sources—governments, museums, community groups or, in the
recent cases concerning Nazi spoliation, individuals and families
seeking to recover their own personal property. Sometimes, establishing
the precise identity of those making a request can be one of the
most important and difficult aspects of dealing with a given request;
— Just as varied as the nature of requests
is the status and role of the object within a museum's collection.
Both in cases where a decision has been made to return, and where
a decision has been made against returning an object, the use
and role of that object in a collection has played an important
part. (For example Devizes Museum returned an object to Crete
which had no relevance whatsoever to the collections);
— The circumstances of the museums
themselves can vary enormously from one instance to another. Some
museums have quite wide-ranging powers to dispose of their collections;
others have very limited powers of disposal for all or part of
their collections, whether because of their statutory constitution,
deeds of trust, or simply the terms of a particular gift or bequest.
We would strongly urge the Committee to give
careful consideration to the evidence presented to them by individual
institutions concerning both the range of requests, and issues
at stake, and their own responsibilities and obligations.
1.2 MGC Guidelines: Importance of a consistent
framework for handling requests
The variations in the combined circumstances
of claimants and recipients or potential recipients of claims
are almost infinite and present museum professionals and trustees
with difficult and complex decisions. The Standing Advisory Group
does not aim to find prescriptive or "wholesale" solutions
to these issues, but hope that the MGC Guidelines will provide
a consistent framework for the process of handling requests.
The Advisory Group commends the MGC's Guidelines
as a framework, in particular the need for all requests to be
treated with respect and careful consideration, for the institution
to follow clear, well documented steps in handling the request
and reaching a decision, and to be accountable for their decisions,
and the processes by which they were reached. The Guidelines also
set out very clearly the arguments that can be made variously
in favour of return and retention, together with the background
against which the institution should consider these. We would
encourage the Committee to examine carefully the examples provided
by individual institutions to illustrate how these arguments have
been applied in different cases and circumstances.
The examples given at Appendix 1 illustrate
very clearly the importance of having a clear and well-thought
out procedure for dealing with requests, as well as the very wide
range of considerations that may need to be taken into account.
1.3 The need to see requests for repatriation
in the context of wider relationships
It is vital in examining questions relating
to past acquisitions not to overlook the importance of building
on existing relationships in order to facilitate fruitful partnerships
in the future. Today, many museums are developing programmes and
displays in consultation and co-operation with colleagues in the
relevant countries.
Building a new relationship can be an important
outcome of a request whatever the decision is on the question
of return. Equally, developing strong partnerships and responsible
collecting policies will reduce the likelihood of such requests
being received in the future.
It is also important to recognise the existence
of different concepts of ownership: in some cases it may be able
to resolve a question of ownership in a cultural context, even
if not in a legal context.
Examples given at Appendix 1 highlight the importance
of developing fruitful ongoing relationships with partners in
other countries both in cases where there have been, requests
for return and where there have not.
1.4 The importance of recognising the full
range of options available to museums and those making the request
It is vital to recognise the full range of options
open to museums and to those making the request. There is a wide
range of options lying in between a simple decision to return
or retain. Depending on the nature of the request and the circumstances
of the institution these may include:
— Opportunities for fixed-term or long
term loan to the requesting party or an appropriate third party
such as a museum;
— Opportunities for the exchange of
material;
— Shared ownership between the museums
and the requesting party;
— Access still available to the requesting
party if retained by the museum, or vice versa;
— Opportunities for data repatriation,
collaborative surveys, development of supporting information in
local language and collaborative agreements;
— Where an object is retained, opportunities
for the requesting party to determine culturally appropriate care
within the museum and to share in the management and use of the
material, possibly under conditions of restricted access;
— Opportunities for participation in
the interpretation of the material within the museum.
2. ILLICIT TRADE
We are strongly in favour of measures to curb
illicit traffic in antiquities and art and would encourage the
Government to accede to the UNIDROIT and UNESCO Conventions, or
at the very least to consider what equivalent measures might be
put in place.
3. GENERAL—THE
NEED FOR
A SOURCE
OF INFORMATION
AND EXPERTISE
FOR MUSEUM
PROFESSIONALS
In view of the complexity of the issues at stake,
many museums would greatly benefit from a single point for disseminating
information, and providing specialist advice on repatriation,
restitution, illegal traffic and other related cultural property
issues.
The sort of information a museum may seek may
range from information about similar requests already received
to questions about the legal status of collections, or international
law. The recently published MLAC consultation document made no
mention of these issues, and so, with the demise of the MGC in
March 2000, it remains unclear how such a source of advice and
information might be provided.
4. APPENDIX 1
TO SUBMISSION
FROM MUSEUMS
STANDING ADVISORY
GROUP ON
REPATRIATION
Case Study—Extract from Restitution and
Repatriation: Guidelines for Good Practice. Mokomokai—Ancestral
Homecoming
In 1998 some mokomokai (Maori tattooed heads)
were returned to New Zealand. They formed part of an Eighteenth
Century collection which had been in the physical anthropology
museum of Edinburgh University. The University agreed to return
them to their ancestors' homeland. Following extensive negotiations
they were accompanied to Aotearoa New Zealand by the Minister
of Maori Affairs and greeted on their arrival with a formal Maori
welcome at the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa in Wellington.
They are now held at the national museum in
a special area set aside for koiwi (ancestral human remains).
This room is recognised as a wahi tapu (sacred place) and tohunga
(revered specialists in traditional Maori culture practices) have
performed the prayers and rituals which ensure the spiritual well-being
of the human remains placed there. Maori collection managers have
responsibility for their physical care, control the access to
them and ensure the cultural safety of any authorised visitors.
If subsequent research, for instance from the study of the tattoo
designs or DNA testing, can confidently associate these with a
known individual, iwi (tribe), hapu (sub-tribe) or whanau (extended
family), the descendants may seek their return to their ancestral
urupa (burial sites) for customary funerary rituals.
Extract from Restitution and Repatriation: Guidelines
for Good Practice. Starting Point for an On-going Relationship—Truganini's
Necklace and Bracelet
In 1994 the Royal Albert Memorial Museum (RAMM),
Exeter, sought more information about a bracelet and necklace
acquired in 1905. It was said to have belonged to Truganini, a
determined survivor of the harsh treatment endured by Tasmania's
Aboriginal communities in the Nineteenth Century. The Museum had
been aware of her tragic life and of the rarity of such material,
and had been considering whether these items might be returned
to Tasmania.
A letter to the local Tasmanian paper brought
the Museum into contact with the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre Inc.
(TAC) and negotiations for the return of Truganini's necklace
and bracelet followed immediately. The Tasmanian Museum and Art
Gallery supported the TAC's case that the management of Tasmanian
material culture should be informed and guided by the wishes of
the Tasmanian Aboriginal community, and endorsed the assurances
given by the TAC concerning standards of care, conservation and
security in their Cultural Centre.
The Exeter City Council as the governing body
of the RAMM decided in 1995 to return the material to the care
of the TAC. It was only in 1997 that TAC representatives were
able to collect the material in person from Exeter. Truganini's
necklace and bracelet are now held at the TAC in Hobart, where
they are regarded as valuable reference points for connecting
the present-day Aboriginal community with one of their principal
cultural heroes as well as for elder necklace makers. The RAMM
has a continuing relationship with the TAC, built on respect for
the professional approach taken by the RAMM in TAC's on-going
efforts to seek the return of material from Australian and overseas
museums.
Case Study from Restitution and Repatriation:
Guidelines for Good Practice Involving the Museum's Community—The
Wounded Knee Ghost Dance Shirt
Glasgow City Council decided to seek the views
of city taxpayers and the museum community at a public hearing,
following research by museum staff which demonstrated that the
museum had good title to the Wounded Knee Ghost Dance Shirt, but
which also confirmed its great significance to the contemporary
Lakota people of South Dakota, USA. The Shirt is thought to have
been taken from the body of one of the victims of the Massacre
of Wounded Knee, 1890. Glasgow Museums had made a feature display
of the Ghost Dance Shirt, in order to give Glaswegians the opportunity
to inform themselves about the issues and the debate.
At the public meeting in 1998, representatives
of the Wounded Knee Survivors Association gave an account of its
history and importance from the Lakota perspective. They also
described the proposal to loan the Ghost Dance Shirt to the Pierre
Heritage Centre, until the plans for a dedicated museum interpreting
the history of the Lakota people and commemorating the Ghost Dance
movement had materialised. The Museums' head of curatorial services
presented the history of the Ghost Dance Shirt, outlining its
acquisition by the city museums in 1892, and how it had been displayed
and cared for since then.
Following public discussion, the feeling of
the meeting was strongly in favour of returning the Shirt. The
City Council's Arts and Leisure Committee then voted to return
it. This process of return took almost a year from the decision,
while international export and import licences were applied for
and approved, and arrangements were made for the transport, couriers
and associated ceremonies. Overall, it had taken seven years from
the first contact between the Lakota people and the Glasgow Museums.
There is now an ongoing relationship, and Glasgow has been given
a replica of the Ghost Dance Shirt made by one of the Lakota descendants.
The wider context: collaboration and cooperation
in developing displays. The Mexican Gallery at the British Museum
In 1991 the Museum of Mankind held an extensive
exhibition entitled Skeleton at the Feast which explored
the contemporary festivities surrounding the Day of the Dead celebrations
in Mexico. An elaborate programme involving Mexican artists and
performers was organised. The President of Mexico visited the
exhibition during an official visit to Britain. From these contacts
the idea was born of creating a Mexican Gallery heralding the
return of the Museum of Mankind to Bloomsbury once the British
Library departed. The idea of the Gallery received official support
from Mexico through the Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las
Artes (a body comprising the functions of our own DCMS and the
Arts Council) and the British Museum began working closely with
colleagues in Mexico towards the creation of the gallery. It was
designed by a Mexican architect and the Museum's own curatorial
team was expanded to include colleagues from the Instituto Nacional
de Anthropologia e Historia. There were calls for repatriation
within some circles in Mexico itself and a careful examination
of the legal status of the collection formed an essential backdrop
to the development of the working relationships. The Gallery opened
in 1994 and was followed by a major exhibition of Assyrian reliefs
from the British Museum which went to Mexico at the end of the
same year. This collaboration is continuing. Although this example
does not derive from any repatriation claim, it is an instance
where collections that are formally in different institutions
internationally have been considered together and exhibitions
created to mutual benefit which exceed the resources available
in any single institution.
Collaborative projects: exchange of information
and repatriation of data, plant information and technology transfer
for Nepal
The Natural History Museum and Tribhuvan University,
Kathmandu, are collaborating on a project to repatriate plant
information and technology for Nepal. This is supported with funding
from the UK Government's Darwin Initiative.
Nepal wishes to document the great diversity
of its flora, an undertaking that is of fundamental importance
in conserving biological diversity and ensuring sustainable development
with appropriate use of natural resources. Around 60,000 Nepalese
specimens, including many type specimens, are held in the UK in
the collections of the NHM, the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, and
the Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh, with the result that the
most important resources for information on Nepalese plants reside
in the UK. The collaborative project is repatriating floristic
information on type and other important specimens through the
development of a specimen database, a CD-ROM of a high resolution
image reference collection, a bibliographic database, and other
information resources. These resources will provide unhindered
access to information in Nepal itself. Furthermore, the project
has enabled collaborative research and training for five Nepalese
Botanists in the NHM.
This collaboration is planned to continue beyond
this specific project on a more comprehensive flora of Nepal,
bringing further benefits to Nepal, and enabling the NHM to continue
research and information resource development through international
collaboration on its collections.
TERMS OF
REFERENCE FOR
JOINT ADVISORY
GROUPTITLE: MUSEUMS
STANDING ADVISORY
GROUP ON
REPATRIATION, AND
RELATED CULTURAL
PROPERTY ISSUES.
The Advisory Group will include representatives
of:
National Museum Directors' Conference (NMDC);
Museums and Galleries Commission (MGC);
Museums Association (MA).
Purpose:
The purpose of the group shall be to
(a) act as a forum for the exchange of information
and views on the subject of repatriation restitution and related
issues as they affect museums in the UK;
(b) provide advice on and review guidelines
on repatriation, restitution and related issues commissioned by
the MGC;
(c) make proposals for the implementation
of the recommendations in Moira Simpson's report on repatriation
with regard to:
the setting up of a central set of reference
material;
the development of a list of experts on specific
issues relating to repatriation; and
(d) to offer general advice to museums, government
and others on repatriation, restitution and related issues, but
not to make recommendations on specific cases.
Steering Group for MGC Guidelines of Repatriation
and Restitution
A smaller group, including representatives nominated
by the MA and NMDC, is currently advising on and assisting with
the preparation of the MGC's proposed guidelines.
March 2000
| 
