Museums Use Long-Term Loans to Avoid Repatriation Demands, Analysis Shows
To tackle repatriation requests, major museums are increasingly opting for long-term loans, which enable them to keep control over disputed artifacts while giving an impression of cooperation. The British Museum, for instance, circulates items without relinquishing ownership, presenting this as a middle ground. In the United States, institutions take advantage of legal gaps in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which does not mandate the return of loaned artifacts. The Metropolitan Museum of Art retains Indigenous items as loans to sidestep due diligence. While UK laws limit deaccessioning, the Charities Act 2022 provides moral exceptions. Critics contend this approach sustains colonial legacies, as younger audiences call for ethical standards, jeopardizing museums’ relevance and funding.
Key facts
- Long-term loans are used by museums to avoid repatriation demands while maintaining ownership.
- The British Museum employs loans as a compromise between restitution and refusal.
- NAGPRA in the US does not require repatriation for loaned artworks, exploited by museums like the Met.
- The Met's Diker collection includes Indigenous items with incomplete provenance records.
- UK laws like the British Museum Act 1963 restrict deaccessioning, though the Charities Act 2022 allows moral exceptions.
- The V&A made an exception for Nazi-era items under the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009.
- Manchester Museum repatriated 43 Aboriginal objects in 2019, resulting in a collaborative Memorandum of Understanding.
- Museums frame resistance through diversity initiatives and legal arguments without altering ownership structures.
Entities
Institutions
- British Museum
- Metropolitan Museum of Art
- Victoria and Albert Museum
- Horniman Museum
- Manchester Museum
- ArtReview
Locations
- London
- United Kingdom
- New York
- United States
- Europe
- North America
- Cambridge