A major history of how African nations, starting in the 1960s, sought to reclaim artefacts stolen by Western colonial powers, by one of the world’s foremost experts on restitution and cultural heritage.
Shortly after 1960, when eighteen former colonies in Africa gained independence, a movement to pursue repatriation of artefacts stolen by former colonial powers was spearheaded by African intellectual and political classes. Savoy looks at pivotal events, including the watershed speech delivered at the United Nations General Assembly by Zaire’s president, which started the debate regarding restitution of colonial-era assets and resulted in the first UN resolution on the subject. She examines how German museums tried to withhold information about their inventory and how the British Museum Act, which protected British collections, came under fire in the House of Lords, but a proposed amendment to the act did not prevail. Savoy concludes in the mid-1980s, when African nations enacted the first laws focusing on the protection of their cultural heritage.
This book offers a detailed case study of the transfer of ownership to Nigeria in November 2022 of the 72 artworks in the Horniman’s collections looted by the British from Benin City in 1897, as an occasion to explore the current state of the issue of restitution of cultural objects. It argues that we are at a tipping point, where decades of debate but little action about restitution is now changing to a period when at least the most egregious examples of colonial looting are being addressed. It summarises the key issues involved in these returns, outlines the processes and procedures undertaken by the Horniman, and offers recommendations and reflections for the future.
Few artifacts embody this history of rapacious and extractive colonialism better than the Benin Bronzes--a collection of thousands of metal plaques and sculptures depicting the history of the Royal Court of the Obas of Benin City, Nigeria. Pillaged during a British naval attack in 1897, the loot was passed on to Queen Victoria, the British Museum, and countless private collections.
The Brutish Museums sits at the heart of a heated debate about cultural restitution, repatriation, and the decolonization of museums. Since its first publication, museums across the western world have begun to return their Bronzes to Nigeria, heralding a new era in the way we understand the objects of empire we once took for granted.
Charting the one-way traffic of cultural and historical objects during five centuries of European colonialism, this book presents examples of disappeared colonial objects and systematises these into war booty, confiscations by missionaries and contestable acquisitions by private persons and other categories. Former colonies consider this as a historical injustice that has not been undone.
As there is no consensus on how to deal with colonial objects, disputes about other categories of contestable objects are analysed. For Nazi-looted art-works, the 1998 Washington Conference Principles have been widely accepted. Although non-binding, they promote fair and just solutions and help people to reclaim art works that they lost involuntarily.
To promote solutions for colonial objects, Principles for Dealing with Colonial Cultural and Historical Objects are presented, based on the 1998 Washington Conference Principles.
In recent years controversial cases such as the so-called Elgin Marbles have prompted public debate on the return of cultural treasures to their homelands. In this fully revised and expanded third edition of her seminal work, first published in 2007, Jeanette Greenfield analyzes and discusses the historical, legal and political issues surrounding a wide cross-section of similar cases. This edition includes new chapters on wartime plunders, deliberately destroyed art and the return of ethnic art such as Australian aboriginal and Native American art. It also explores the palaeontological and marine archaeology issues at play and examines new approaches taken by museums when dealing with cultural objects and their return.
Debates about the restitution of cultural objects have been ongoing for many decades but have acquired a new urgency recently with the intensification of scrutiny of European museum collections acquired in the colonial period. This is a book about the return of cultural treasures: why it is demanded, how it is negotiated and where it might lead. The uneven relationships of the past have meant that some of the greatest treasures of the world currently reside in places far removed from where they were initially created and used.
This debate forces us to confront an often dark history, and the difficult application of our contemporary conceptions of justice to instances from the past. Should we allow plundered artefacts to rest where they lie – often residing there by the imbalances of history? This book asks whether we are entering a new 'restitution paradigm', one that could have an indelible impact on the cultural sector - and the rest of the world - for many years to come.
Heritage Justice explores how far past wrongs can be remedied through compensatory mechanisms involving material culture. The Element goes beyond a critique of global heritage brokers such as UNESCO, the ICC and museums as redundant, Eurocentric and elitist to explore why these institutions have become the focus for debates about global heritage justice. Three broad modes of compensatory mechanisms are identified: recognition, economic reparation and return. Arguing against Jenkins (2016) that museums should not be the site for difficult conversations about the past, Heritage Justice proposes that it is exactly the space around objects and sites created by museums and global institutions that allows for conversations about future dignity. The challenge for cultural practitioners is to broaden out ideas of material identity beyond source communities, private property and economic value to encompass dynamic global shifts in mobility and connectivity.
Cultural Objects and Reparative Justice provides a comprehensive legal and historical analysis surrounding a highly debated current question: Where should cultural objects that were removed without consent be located? This book follows an innovative, interdisciplinary approach based in law, history, art history, anthropology, and archaeology and proposes a paradigm for reparations.
Tracing the historical foundations of the current legal framework, the work closely examines three factors that heavily informed the cultural heritage debate since the late eighteenth century: the rise of the encyclopaedic museum, the development of archaeology as a science, and the appropriation of objects in the context of armed conflict and colonialism. Cultural Objects and Reparative Justice outlines how current cultural heritage laws and ethical guidelines with respect to cultural heritage derive from a background of imperialism and colonialism. The book advocates for a new structure based on reparation, restitution, repatriation, compensation, and market regulation to cease perpetuating past harms and to disincentivize new ones.
Authored by leading scholars and practitioners from around the world, this Commentary is the first to cover the two leading multilateral treaties on movable cultural heritage in one volume: the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property adopted by UNESCO in 1970 and the Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Property adopted by UNIDROIT in 1995.
This Commentary is designed to be the authoritative text for academics, lawyers, policymakers, and diplomats on the protection and regulation of cultural objects. Encompassing both public and private international law rules on the trade in cultural objects, it provides a detailed historical and thematic overview. Drawing on the travaux preparatoires and intergovernmental and state practice over the last half century, the Commentary provides an article-by-article analysis of the interpretation and application of these treaties. The 1970 UNESCO and 1995 UNIDROIT Conventions are examined in the working context of other culture conventions including the World Heritage Convention and the Intangible Heritage Convention, as well as related fields of international law, such as international humanitarian law, international criminal law, human rights law, and international economic law. The volume also offers a critical examination of current trends and future directions which are informing the field.
In 1978, UNESCO Secretary General Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow compared cultural colonial objects to ‘witnesses to history’. Their treatment is one of the most debated questions of our time. Calls for a novel international cultural order go back to decolonization. However, for decades, the issue has been treated as a matter of comity or been reduced to a Shakespearean dilemma: to return or not to return. This book seeks to go beyond these classic dichotomies. It argues that contemporary practices are at a tipping point. It shows that cultural takings were material to the colonial project throughout different periods (early takings, birth of modern nation state, nineteenth-century scramble for objects) and went far beyond looting. Drawing on the interplay between justice, ethics, and human rights, it develops a theory of entanglement to rethink contemporary approaches. It shows that future engagement requires a reinvention of knowledge systems and relations towards objects, including new forms of consent, provenance research, partnership and a rethinking of the role of museums themselves. It proposes principles of relational cultural justice to confront ongoing historic, legal, and economic entanglements and enable normative transformation.
A cutting edge study of the fast developing field of international law on the protection of cultural heritage by taking stock of the recent developments and of the core concepts and current challenges. The legal protection of cultural heritage has come under renewed focus from the international community and states since the 1990s. This is evidenced by the adoption of a range of international instruments. Countries are also enacting cultural heritage legislation or overhauling existing laws within their own national territory.
The majority of African countries that could benefit by becoming States Parties to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property are not States Parties. Since the Convention came into force on 24 April 1972, there have been only twenty African States Parties. Similarly, the majority of African States were absent from the full diplomatic Conference which, in Rome, adopted the text of the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects in June 1995. Thirteen African countries sent representatives and one sent an observer. The Convention entered into force on 1 July 1998 between China, Ecuador, Lithuania, Paraguay and Romania. Seven other nations including Italy have joined the Convention. Not a single African country is a State Party, although Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea, Senegal and Zambia are signatories to the Convention.
This article offers a critical appraisal of the evolution of Italian cultural heritage law with respect to issues of colonial and war restitution and of control over the import of potentially trafficked cultural property. As Italy is usually considered a "source country" and a victim of historical depredations, a form of "selective blindness" to its colonial past and to its role at the receiving end of both past and current misappropriations of cultural objects is discussed.
Litigation of any kind is expensive and all the more so in respect of claims to recover cultural property which has been stolen or illegally trafficked. Almost invariably the claimant will be litigating in a foreign country and possibly a different legal system from her own to recover her property. The expenses of litigation are likely to be prohibitive. A country or an individual may therefore be prevented or reluctant to pursue the claim. This is because these cases involve complex questions of both private and public international law. A huge obstacle to success is the rule in many jurisdictions that foreign public law rules do not have extraterritorial application [..] Hence the rise of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures to settle restitution, return or repatriation of cultural property disputes in the last three decades or so.
The British Museum has been the target of criticism around the world for its failure to repatriate controversial cultural property to their respective countries of origin. In 1753, a private collector left his collection to Great Britain if it agreed to build a public museum and designate a Board of Trustees whose duty was to protect the collection for the public. Statutorily incorporating the collector’s intent, Parliament passed legislation binding the Board of Trustees to abide by certain principles, including preserving the collection and prohibiting disposal of objects, except in very few circumstances. As such, the Museum is administrated through trust and fiduciary duty law, legally binding the Trustees to preserve the Museum’s collection. This paper argues that, despite pressing demands for the Museum to repatriate cultural property, the Board of Trustees is prohibited from repatriation.
This article analyzes the role played by the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to Its Countries of Origin or Its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation (ICPRCP) in promoting the settlement of disputes barred by the non-retroactivity of the 1970 UNESCO Convention through an assessment of its impact on the dispute between Greece and the United Kingdom over the Parthenon Sculptures.
Colonial discovery, plundering, and exploitation of native people’s cultural artifacts are some of the most notable injustices indigenous peoples have suffered from the current era. And the aftermath of these pervasive practices has resulted in legal challenges for native peoples to reclaim their rightful property. Although certain countries’ legislative and executive efforts, as well as international standards and guidelines, have attempted to address these issues over the last twenty years, wrongfully obtained native cultural artifacts remain in museums and public collections. Recent contentions between the Rapa Nui and the British Museum over possession of the moai Hoa Hakananai’a highlight many of these legal issues and provide an opportunity for international law to allow recourse for affected native groups.
Recent global interest in preserving cultural identity and heritage for the future of previously colonized Indigenous groups has prompted the resuscitation of local and Indigenous cultures from the brink of extinction. The pertinence of protecting and managing cultural heritage as an endowment that transcends generations of people and serves as a ligature between their past, present, and future cannot be overstated. In this respect, the repatriation or restitution of sacred ceremonial objects (SCOs) and cultural artifacts constitutes an integral aspect of reviving Indigenous people’s cultural and living heritage, which has been eroded by colonialism and other forms of occupation.
The market for indigenous works tends to favor older items that were taken from indigenous owners in the distant past and then preserved by collectors. Indigenous peoples attempting to reclaim culturally significant works in overseas art collections may therefore face a variety of challenges when navigating foreign legal systems, including various levels of compliance with international repatriation mechanisms, differing ownership laws and statutes of limitations, and even the recognition of indigenous legal personality. This article proposes that the United Nations General Assembly promulgate a resolution that allows indigenous peoples to bring a claim in foreign courts independently of their home State by explicitly affirming that indigenous peoples (1) collectively own their moveable cultural property; (2) have universal jus standi for the purpose of reclaiming their cultural property; and (3) may bring a claim when the current owner transfers the property, regardless of national statutes of limitations.
This article is written in recognition of the repatriation movement, which is going through a renaissance in relation to the cultural heritage of African peoples. The collecting of African cultural heritage without free, prior and informed consent was a feature of colonialism. This article highlights the vulnerability of past and present African heritage in the light of the ‘imperialist narrative’. The imperialistic narrative accompanied the act of colonialism in Africa and enabled the taking of African heritage to public and private collections in Europe and America where many remain.
The debate over the restitution of cultural property is usually framed as the dispute between what John Henry Merryman defined as 'cultural nationalism' and 'cultural internationalism': the opposite viewpoints that argue whether cultural heritage objects should be returned to their countries of origin or spread around the world as determined by other principles. [The author] argues that the concepts are problematic both in their definition and their perception as two dialectically opposed sides of a dispute.
The status of colonial objects in European museums touches upon a matrix of legal and historical issues. This article engages with some of them, while referring to the case of a Sri Lankan object in the possession of the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam (RMA) in the Netherlands: a ceremonial cannon looted by the Dutch from the King of Kandy in 1765. The article [...] analyses Sri Lanka's legal title to the cannon, and the discrepancy between the international and mostly Euro-centric legal regime and Sri Lanka's own legal framework.
Using 3D scanning and printing technology for cultural heritage creates a new group of opportunities for preservation and access, while also causing a shift in how we view the ownership of this heritage. This article examines this issue from four angles: how 3D technology plays a role for heritage in danger; how it allows having multiple copies at once in such a way that affects repatriation dynamics; how it creates further copyright questions; and finally how it causes a new layer of ownership over the scans.
The article offers information on the use of morality in determining a claimant's entitlement to restitution of cultural property looted during 1933-45. Topics include the application of moral standards for restitution claims under the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, which call for fair and just solutions.
International consultations for the repatriation of the looted ancient Benin bronzes to Nigeria recently gained momentum with the Joint Declaration executed by the Governments of Germany and Nigeria in July 2022. Before this, in October 2021, Jesus College of the University of Cambridge, UK, returned one of the bronzes to representatives of the Nigerian government. The University of Aberdeen in the UK also concluded an agreement in late 2021 with representatives of the Nigerian government and those of the Benin Royal Palace for the repatriation of a bronze head depicting an Oba of Benin. Copyright issues fuelled by the digitization of the ancient Benin bronzes by the museums in Germany and universities in the UK are being considered as an important part of the international consultation, even though the stakeholders from Nigeria did not initially avert their minds to it despite the protection of the Benin bronzes as expressions of folklore under the Copyright Act in Nigeria.
