What will it take to break the British Museum’s determination not to explain when an object is ‘unfit to be retained’? Last May, reaching what some have described as a crisis point in its 270-year history, the Museum took a small but intriguing step that might suggest this determination could be softening.

In its previous deaccession policy, the Museum made it clear that trustees have the powers to sell, exchange, give away or dispose of objects in the collection they consider are ‘unfit to be retained’. Meaning that no change in legislation is necessary to repatriate an object that can be disposed of ‘without detriment to the interests of the public and scholars’. But whose definition of unsuitable for the Museum’s purpose were trustees prepared to accept? In a move towards greater precision, the new policy wording, signed off by the board in May last year, clearly places that responsibility on the relevant department’s head (Keeper) or the Deputy Director, Collection & Public Engagement.

3.5 Objects that are "unfit": Before considering whether any object was unfit to be retained in the Collection, the Trustees would require there to be a written statement submitted by the relevant Keeper or Deputy Director, Collection & Public Engagement of a) the reasons why it was unfit for retention in the Collection, and b) why it might be disposed of without detriment to the interests of students.

Prior to this change, the policy referred only to the requirement for a written statement, but with no explanation whose written statement the Museum was prepared to accept. Evidently, statements submitted in the past by governments, communities, churches and individuals drawing on this legal exemption did not carry sufficient weight for the trustees to take seriously.

Now the Museum has clarified whose statements they are prepared to accept, might the Museum begin to look more favourably on proposals for repatriation if they're presented by their own curators? 

Each department’s Keeper will be more familiar than the Museum's trustees with the background and sensitivities of the objects in their collection. They may also be in direct contact with the communities appealing for repatriation of contested objects. 

So why, for example, would the Keeper responsible for the care and management of the eleven sacred Ethiopian Tabots hidden away in the Museum’s collection – permanently unavailable for exhibition or even for study by the public or scholars – not wish to see the Tabots returned into the care of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church where they can continue to function as sacred objects?

The British Museum refused to explain why it still retains these sacred items after Returning Heritage made four Freedom of Information (FOI) requests between 2023 and 2024 seeking clarification. Disappointingly, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) upheld the Museum’s right to withhold information, primarily under Section 27(1)(a) of the FOI Act. This states that disclosure would be likely to prejudice international relations between the United Kingdom and any other state. As it is the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church that is leading appeals for the return of the Tabots (including personal appeals made by the Patriarch Abune Mathias to the Director of the British Museum in 2002 and 2021) the use of Section 27 is genuinely perplexing.

The ICO also decided that releasing the clarification we are seeking is not in the public interest “at this time”. So, when is the right time?

Perhaps that time has finally arrived. The British Museum has just appointed a new Director of Collections (Xerxes Mazda) whose brief includes engaging with source communities on contested objects. Add in the curator’s own perspective on the future of the Museum’s collection of Ethiopian Tabots and we hope the trustees may feel the time has arrived at last to adopt a more sensitive and pragmatic approach to the return of these sacred items into the care of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Photo: The British Museum