Tarnished Treasures: Provenance and the UK’s Waverley Criteria (original) (raw)
2019, Santander Art and Culture Law Review
The United Kingdom (UK), like other countries, has made strong commitments to tackling the illicit trade in objects and those that were taken during the Nazi Era. Yet, admitting objects with such questionable provenance into the category of UK national treasures and attempting to keep them in the UK by seeking institutional support to make them available to the public would be at odds with these worthy policies. The main analysis in this paper is focused on the issues raised by the 2017 decision in the UK to designate as a national treasure a Meissen figure that was formerly owned by Emma Budge, whose heirs lost possession of her collection during the Nazi Era in a forced sale. Using the trope of "tarnished treasures" this paper argues that admitting objects with tainted provenance into the category of national treasures tarnishes the entire category of national treasures. Recognizing the need to retain the integrity of this special GENERAL ARTICLES * Charlotte Woodhead is an assistant professor and is a non-practising barrister. Charlotte researches in the field of cultural heritage law. Her current project focuses on the ways in which the UK cares for cultural heritage, analysing the way in which notions of heritage are translated into, and out of, law. The other aspect to her work focuses on the restitution and repatriation of objects from museum collections, in particular claims made to the UK's Spoliation Advisory Panel for Nazi Era cultural objects and claims made against museums for the repatriation of human remains and other contentious objects. Between 2013 and 2019 she served as a member of the UK Museums Association Ethics Committee. ** Thanks are due to my anonymous reviewers and to Alessandro Chechi for his comments, in particular highlighting the relevance of colonial era dispossessions in this context. This paper has been translated into a policy brief by Research Retold and as part of that process, the discussions during which I explained my work also helped me to crystallize some of the more tangible recommendations that I put forward here. As ever, any errors or omissions are the author's own.
Sign up to get access to over 50M papers
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
Related papers
Colonial-Looted Cultural Objects in England
Santander Art and Culture Law Review
This article provides an overview of the state of legislation and the efforts toward the repatriation of colonial-looted cultural objects in England. It discusses the National Heritage Act, Charities Act, and general trust rules which make it challenging to deaccession any objects from museums in the United Kingdom, including and especially colonial-looted objects. It highlights how the UK’s former period of colonization resulted in vast holdings from these territories, but that the UK has yet to create a comprehensive policy on repatriation, despite numerous calls for return of several famous heritage objects, including the Maqdala treasures and the Benin Bronzes. This article sketches the powers of the current possessors – namely national, regional, and university museums. Finally, the article considers the many updates in the conversation surrounding colonial repatriation in 2022, from the debate at the House of Lords to potential changes to the National Heritage Act to the new C...
Voelkerrechtblog, 2018
The return of treasures taken during the era of European imperialism is a controversial issue. A common response is ‘it was legal at the time’ and, therefore, not a legal issue. Is that indeed so? In this contribution, I argue that it is not a lack of legal norms that explains this belated discussion, but the asymmetrical application of norms. A human rights law approach, focussing on the heritage aspect of cultural objects and their importance for (groups of) people today, offers useful tools to address the intangible interests at stake in such disputes.
Imprisoned African Heritage: Repatriation & Restitution During the Epoch of Decolonisation
2018
When someone dies, what remains? And how are the objects and the people that make them handled, treated, and cared for? Are these remains truly dead, or does something live on, if only the cultural meaning and significance? For many hundreds of years, the control and authority that determined what happened to "spoils of war" was within the purview of the imperial power legislatures and academia. The final say was within the context of an authoritarian overlord still influenced by the legacy of colonialism and white supremacy. What is interesting is that often remains of someone deceased is often handled with care and sensitivity, albeit quickly. Social norms and values along with the legal complexities of the dead and their belongings to be analyzed, assessed, and redistributed. If it does not appear to be a crime scene, the person is then given to the next of kin and culturally specific funerary rites are begun. Special items may be placed within the burial, distributed to family members, and items without nostalgic meaning are then sold at auction. I can see how artefacts and remains are treated archaeologically similar, and it too is not without familial disagreement and in-fighting.
The conference aims to bring together the rich yet fragmented research on art looting in twentieth century Europe and to develop a framework for understanding the processes of restitution in a transnational and global perspective. Over the past decade the subject of looted art and the restitution of cultural property have captured the attention of the media and the public alike through a range of popular recollections that included novels, exhibitions, documentaries and more recently even a blockbuster movie, Monuments Men. In these narratives, the historical complexities that characterized wartime looting or under duress sales and the ensuing efforts to restore cultural artefacts to their pre-war conditions have often been put aside in favour of vivid literary accounts that occasionally present a tale of heroic sacrifice and the fulfilment of justice. Alongside, a diverse and wide-ranging academic literature has developed, providing insights from legal, historical and art historical perspectives. The field remains, however, highly compartmentalized along institutional, disciplinary and national boundaries. The geographical and chronological spread of studies also still proves rather uneven. This conference aims to overcome these fragmentations by establishing connections between the public and private responses to art looting across institutional and national borders over the course of the twentieth century. It will bring together speakers from a variety of national contexts in and beyond Europe to investigating the nexus between private individuals, national governments and international organizations in order to question the impact on notions of national, international and regional identity in European nation-states and gain a deeper understanding of the processes of restitution of cultural property as a political and cultural practice in transnational and global perspective. This conference has been generously supported by Newnham College, University of Cambridge, The Journal of Contemporary History & The George Macaulay Trevelyan Fund, Faculty of History University of Cambridge. CONVENERS Bianca Gaudenzi (University of Cambridge) Astrid Swenson (Brunel University) Mary-Ann Middelkoop (University of Cambridge)
Colonial Art: Restitution Is Not Enough
Zeit Online, 2019
"The type of restitution recommended by Felwine Sarr and Benedict Savoy – and avoided by the Deutscher Museumsbund – would be an important start for German museums, but it is not enough to correct the historical injustices of the country’s collections. The problem with our museums is not only that they have some things they shouldn’t. The problem is also that they failed to acquire many works they should have. This demands a different kind of restitution – a restitution of meaning, restoring forgotten or ignored artworks to their place in art history. Such an act can be just as emotionally and ethically fraught, as making space for new voices and visions means calling into question a beloved and trusted canon of art. And when museums’ budgets and wall space are all too limited, difficult decisions must be made."
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.