European landscape overview

The physical act of repatriation is still a developing process in Europe. Some countries have laws that pave the way for national repatriation efforts, some have policies, some have guidelines, and some have nothing at all. The following offers an overview of some commonalities and nuances to take into consideration as you begin your journey.

Policies, not laws

First and foremost, if you are based in the US, it is important to note that the two US repatriation laws that govern the return of ancestral remains and certain cultural items, do not apply outside of the US (National Museum of the American Indian Act and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act). While many European museums are savvy to understanding the intention of these laws, they are not legally compelled to act by them. There are a few museums that reference NAGPRA in terms of categories of claim in their policies, but this is not the norm.

Restitution or repatriation

In Europe, the terms restitution and repatriation are used fairly interchangeably. however, their intentions and definitions may be important for some to consider. Restitution is defined by some countries as the process by which ancestors and belongings are returned to an individual or community, and in this instance would likely be applied to an Indigenous nation. Repatriation is defined as the process by which they are returned to a nation or state. As will be explained, there are some countries that will only recognise a claim request from a nation state and not from a federally recognised tribe, Indigenous nation, or community.

Initial informal approach

It is highly recommended that potential claimants make an initial informal enquiry with the relevant curator ahead of making a formal claim. This cannot be underscored enough. Not only does this help to establish a foundation for a trusting relationship, but curators will have a better grasp of the collection and will be able to create a fuller inventory query. They may also be in the best position to support and advocate for your claim.

Lack of recognition of sovereignty

In Europe, there’s often a lack of awareness of the importance of recognising sovereignty. For example, the federal recognition process is unique to US tribes, and as such it is not a sovereign level of recognition observed by many European countries. Regardless, the feedback from European colleagues is to assume a museum has no knowledge. A US tribe approaching a US museum wouldn’t necessarily think to overtly include their status as a federally recognised tribe in their claim, but with a European museum making that declaration upfront can be helpful.

Lack of experience

It is important to note that though there may be policies and procedures in place at some museums, the concept of repatriation is still a relatively new practice in many countries across Europe. Some will have more experience than others, but persistent patience can be a virtue and form of diplomacy.

Case-by-case basis

Many policies and procedures, use the phrase ‘case-by-case basis’. It’s not always clear what this means in practice, but it may be a catch-all for saying that the policy may apply differently depending on the collections, who’s making a claim, or who is evaluating the claim, etc.

Uncertainty around the role of the embassy

Some countries have clearly outlined when it is a necessary requirement to work through the nation state, and some countries have opened the door for nations and communities to assert their own claims. This information is identified for each European country.

Focus on Africa

At present, there appears to be a priority focus of repatriation efforts to African countries – particularly from the UK, Germany, and France. Macron’s 2018 statement regarding the Benin Bronzes and the influential Sarr Savoy Report of the same year, helped propel this global effort in repatriation.

However, some European colleagues mentioned that there is a place for other Indigenous Nations to put pressure on these countries to turn their attention – lobbying for more prioritisation by reaching out and making claims.

The same fears

Founded or unfounded, there are common concerns that museums and museum professionals in Europe have around repatriation. Many of these are the same fears that US museums went through around the passage of NAGPRA and the NMAI Act, so they are not unique and perhaps indicate change ahead. They are included here as another piece of ‘hidden’ information that it might be useful for you to know if you are working with a museum to pursue repatriation, with some tips on how to mitigate those concerns:

1. Receiving competing claims – Museums are concerned that they will receive competing claims during or after the repatriation process. This has a reputation in Europe as being an issue due to the inexperience of some museums – with them potentially not knowing who else to consult with when dealing with a claim.
   The more information you can provide will help alleviate this concern and assist with the provenience and provenance research. Meeting the museum halfway by clearly outlining why you or your nation are the appropriate claimants, or identifying that your nation is a part of an organised culturally affiliated effort along with others (also included in the claim request) who have standing to bring forth a claim.
2. Returning an ancestor or belonging to the wrong person or people – There are a couple of historic examples where museums in Europe returned ancestors or belongings to the wrong person and these now mean that museums are worried about repeating these mistakes and the reputational damage that this could cause.
   Your first introduction to a museum should also be accompanied by a letter of authorisation from the head of your nation’s tribal or ancestral government, authorising your role to act in an official repatriation capacity on behalf of your nation.
3. Causing offence – Some museum professionals have little experience working with Indigenous Peoples and therefore are worried about saying or doing the wrong thing, and causing offence in the process. Others can be worried about approaching Indigenous Nations about repatriation, knowing that it is such an emotive and important issue.
   They may not know what questions to ask, but tell museum teams what you need. Be open and upfront about if you need a space for conducting ceremonies, if some items shouldn’t be stored together, or seen by certain people, and how you prefer to be communicated with.
4. Lack of capacity to deal with claims – Many museums in Europe are underfunded and as repatriation is not necessarily seen as a priority in many countries, there is an overall lack of capacity to deal with repatriation claims. This means that responses, consultations, and processes may be slow.
   Persistence and patience are key.