ARTS COUNCIL ENGLAND: RESTITUTION AND REPATRIATION: A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR MUSEUMS IN ENGLAND.
INTRODUCTION
This guidance is intended to provide advice and best practice for museums in England on responding to restitution and repatriation cases. It sets out recommendations on all aspects of museum operations affected
by these issues, guiding and empowering museums to take proactive action in a spirit of transparency, collaboration and fairness, qualities that sit at the heart of this guidance.
When it comes to responding to restitution and repatriation cases, every situation is different. Objects in museums will have been acquired at different times, in varying circumstances, and by institutions with differing structures, sizes, priorities and collection types. Objects can also include scientific and natural history specimens.
There may be many people, groups and organisations with different connections to, and interests in, these items. While cases can therefore be complex and time- consuming, they often present rich opportunities for enhancing understanding for all involved.
Considering a claim for restitution can offer the opportunity for museums to develop their collections knowledge and research, to build relationships with originating communities, to open up dialogue around contested items and to create opportunities for discourse and discussion around cultural heritage.
While this guidance is aimed at English museums, the principles behind it may be applicable for museums across the UK and internationally.
RESTITUTION AND REPATRIATION EXPLAINED
The terms 'restitution' and 'repatriation' do not have any strict legal definition as far as museum practice is concerned. They tend to be used rather loosely, but in essence, they have traditionally described the process of returning cultural material to its original owners (restitution) or its place of origin (repatriation). Considered more broadly, however, responding to a claim for restitution and repatriation can encompass much more than this, and enable museum practice to develop and adapt.
There is no such thing as a single, uniform process or set of procedures which constitute a 'restitution blueprint'. Nor is there a single, defined goal or endpoint. Rather, responding to a restitution case requires you, the museum, to (re)consider your relationship with objects in your collection, their history, origins and acquisition--and most importantly, the people for whom they may have a special meaning today.
Receiving a claim for restitution or repatriation can therefore be seen as an opportunity to learn and reflect, and to connect with people and the collection in new ways. Generally, the experience need not be defensive and adversarial, but can be collaborative and enriching. Sometimes, stripping back the complexities to think about issues on a human level can be helpful in overcoming the fear of difficult conversations, or of 'making mistakes' which can otherwise hinder progress towards resolution. It is important to be alert to the possible sensitivities of claimants, and to the deep sense of hurt and alienation which some of them may feel. It is also worth remembering that the cost to a claimant of bringing a claim--both financially and emotionally--can often be very significant. Equally it is important to establish whether the claimant has standing to make the claim, and whether they are entitled or authorised to do so.
HOW TO USE THIS GUIDANCE
This guidance recognises that those who read and use it will vary in many ways. They might range from small independent museums to large, multi-site museum and cultural services. They may have different governance structures, collecting interests, expertise and resources. They may have no history or experience with issues relating to restitution, or they may have a significant record of dealing with such matters. Some museums may be seeking guidance about how to better understand items in their collection, while others will require support because they have received a claim seeking the return of an object.
Owing to the public interest in the debate about restitution, this guidance may be read and consulted by members of the public who have a general interest in the matter. It may also be consulted by those interested in seeking the return of items in a museum's collection. It is therefore written in a way that can be accessible to everyone, whether or not they have any previous experience of the English museum sector.
While each situation is different, and a case-by-case approach is required, there are common issues which apply to all museums and for which broad, best-practice principles are recommended. These relate to matters of process: for example, how to engage in provenance research into controversial items; how best to respond if a claim is received; and how to explore the various ways to progress the dialogue. They also relate to the ethical considerations involved in assessing claims and implementing the appropriate outcome.
Some museums, including national museums in England, are bound by legislation that describes the limited circumstances in which they are able to deaccession objects from their collections. This means that some of the processes outlined in this guidance might not apply to them. However, it is expected that they will receive and handle restitution and repatriation claims in line with the guidance (and as set out within their individual policies), following an approach of transparency, collaboration and fairness while working within the constraints of their legal framework.
UNDERSTANDING THE ETHICAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND
This guidance should be read against the relevant ethical and legal backdrop. From an ethical perspective, English museums are supported by a framework laid out in both the ICOM Code of Ethics and the Museums Association Code of Ethics (and its Additional Guidance). Both Codes state that museums should partner and co-operate with communities of origin. The guidance in this document is also underpinned by a national and international legal framework which seeks to protect cultural heritage generally and which, in certain situations, specifically addresses the restitution and repatriation of cultural property. The broad parameters of the principal international and national instruments are set out in Appendix 2.
EXISTING GUIDANCE
This guidance replaces the previous guidance on the topic issued by the Museums and Galleries Commission (now defunct) in 2000 ('Restitution and Repatriation: Guidelines for good practice').
For guidance on the disposal process more broadly, see the Museums Association's Disposal Toolkit.
In respect of the particular museum objects or material set out below, museums should follow the guidance already in place in the UK as follows:
Human Remains
For cases or situations involving human remains, museums in England should refer to the DCMS Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums (2005).
Nazi Spoliation
For matters involving items wrongfully taken during the Nazi/Third Reich period (1933-45), national and certain other museums (which form part of the National Museum Directors' Council (NMDC)) should refer to Spoliation of Works of Art During the Holocaust and World War II Period: Statement of Principles and Proposed Actions (NMDC 1998, updated in 2016), in particular Section 6. A comparable statement, issued by the now defunct Museums and Galleries Commission in 1999, provides equivalent guidance for museums not covered by the NMDC document. Claims regarding such items in a public collection can be referred to the Spoliation Advisory Panel, which has existed since 2000. This can result in the return of the item to the claimant, along with other possible outcomes.
SECTION 1: GETTING STARTED
1.1 1.1 Better Understanding Collection Items: Provenance Research
All English museums, whether or not they have received a claim for restitution or repatriation, should be managing their collections and be aware that a claim for restitution may be a possibility. How to respond to a restitution case should be explained in a museum's Collections Development Policy, which should be kept up to date, and reviewed on a regular basis.
A fundamental part of collection management is provenance research. This means learning more about the history of an object, including the object's movements and how it was acquired by the museum. These details, together with an understanding of the object's meaning to past owners or their descendants, (1) inform how a museum interacts with the object and how it seeks to engage others with it, ultimately setting the stage for the assessment of any potential restitution or repatriation claims that may come.
Provenance research is an ongoing process, which different museums will need to approach in different ways, dependent on resources and structures. The methodology employed will also differ according to numerous factors, including the nature of the object, and when and how it was acquired. A museum will need to consider its own approach carefully. This section highlights best practice suggestions which can be adopted and refined according to a museum's particular circumstances.
Successful planning of research can help a museum to identify the ways in which that research may be used to resolve a claim, and to develop a restitution and repatriation policy which can help to underpin the ways in which a museum responds to a claim in the future (further information on developing a repatriation and restitution policy may be found in section 1.3).
Managing your research: Research into collections should be managed according to organisational need and museums should demonstrate due diligence in the prioritisation of research around collections which may have contested histories. Museums should engage with communities of origin (2) in this process where possible, as this can provide significant opportunities to better understand the cultural origins of an object and its associated histories.
An interesting example of a...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
