British Museum hides sacred tabots
British Museum Under Investigation for Hidden Ethiopian Artefacts
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has launched an investigation into the British Museum amid allegations of undue secrecy surrounding a collection of sacred Ethiopian altar tablets. These tablets, held out of public view for over a century and a half, are the focus of mounting pressure for their return to Ethiopia.
The 11 tabots, meticulously crafted from wood and stone, represent a contentious legacy of the 1868 Battle of Maqdala. Their presence in the museum is a direct consequence of looting by British forces, a fact the museum itself acknowledges. Yet, due to their profound religious significance, the tabots have never been displayed, with access restricted even for the museum's own curatorial and trustee staff.
The demand for the tabots' return to Ethiopia is not new. For years, voices have urged their repatriation, with those calls reaching a peak in 2019 when Ethiopia's culture minister formally requested their return during a visit to the museum.
Now, campaigners are escalating the issue by submitting a formal complaint to the ICO. They argue that the museum has not been fully transparent in its response to a previous freedom of information (FoI) request pertaining to the tabots.
Returning Heritage, a non-profit organization dedicated to cultural restitution, filed the FoI request in August 2023. They claim that the museum's reply was incomplete, omitting crucial details and heavily redacting other information. An internal museum review, requested by Returning Heritage, ultimately reinforced the museum's original stance.
Legal Arguments and Recent Developments in the Repatriation Debate
A key argument raised by the organization is that while the British Museum Act 1963 generally prohibits the disposal of objects, the tabots could potentially be returned without violating the law.
"The Act offers little room for returning objects," explained Lewis McNaught, Returning Heritage's managing editor. "However, specific legal exemptions do exist. One allows trustees to return items they consider 'unfit to be retained'."
Since the tabots are permanently inaccessible for exhibition or research, Returning Heritage believes this exemption offers a legitimate path for their repatriation. The organization seeks to gain insight into the museum's rationale for withholding their return by accessing records of trustee discussions where the tabots were the subject.
"The museum's reluctance to justify its position on objects with a clear avenue for return is puzzling," McNaught stated, emphasizing the strong public interest in understanding the institution's stance regarding a collection with unique repatriation potential.
Image Credit - Wall Street Journal
Recent Developments and the Ongoing Investigation
Recent developments add to the urgency of the debate. Westminster Abbey made a historic decision last month, agreeing in principle to repatriate a tabot that had been sealed within a cathedral altar. Additionally, the swift return of another tabot, discovered in an Edinburgh church cupboard 23 years ago, sparked joyous celebrations in Ethiopia.
Tom Short, from the law firm Leigh Day, submitted the ICO complaint on behalf of Returning Heritage. He believes the museum has incorrectly used certain FoI exemptions to withhold information. Leigh Day has previously compiled a legal opinion that demonstrates a lawful framework exists for the artefact's return.
"Our client is seeking information from the museum that many would argue belongs in the public domain," stated Short. "This is an issue of significant public importance, as it concerns decision-making by a prominent public institution."
The British Museum has declined to comment. Past statements have indicated a desire to loan the tabots to an Ethiopian Orthodox church within the UK on a long-term basis. However, clerics have raised doubts about the feasibility of this due to potentially prohibitive insurance costs.
The ICO has confirmed its receipt of the complaint and an investigation is in process.
A Legal Framework for Return?
While the British Museum Act 1963 is often seen as a formidable barrier to repatriation, legal experts point to potential avenues for overcoming this hurdle. Returning Heritage and its legal team at Leigh Day maintain that specific provisions within the Act itself provide the necessary framework for the tabots' return.
"The Act may seem restrictive, but closer examination reveals that trustees retain some flexibility," explained Tom Short, of Leigh Day. "If they determine that objects are genuinely 'unfit to be retained', the path to return becomes clearer."
This legal opinion, however, does not automatically ensure the tabots' repatriation. The final decision rests with the museum's trustees, whose deliberations on the matter remain shrouded in secrecy. Accessing records of their discussions could potentially shed light on whether they have considered the legal arguments advanced by advocates for repatriation.
"The museum's reluctance to disclose these records raises questions about their process," added Short. "If there exists a sound legal basis for return, it's perplexing that they wouldn't be more open about exploring this option."
A Shifting Landscape of Restitution
The debate surrounding the Ethiopian tabots unfolds against a backdrop of growing momentum for cultural restitution around the world. Recent years have witnessed significant returns of looted or contested artefacts, particularly from Western institutions to their countries of origin.
In 2022, for example, the Horniman Museum and Gardens in London initiated the return of its Benin Bronze collection to Nigeria, a landmark development in a long-standing restitution campaign. Furthermore, German institutions have taken proactive steps to repatriate artefacts from various African nations, often working in close collaboration with origin communities.
While each case possesses unique complexities, these returns signal a broadening acceptance of the principle that objects acquired through colonial violence and plunder hold deep ethical implications for current institutions.
The British Museum itself is no stranger to restitution controversies. Perhaps the most well-known is the ongoing dispute with Greece over the Parthenon Marbles, which Greece contends were unlawfully removed by Lord Elgin in the early 19th century.
"The tabots are certainly not an isolated issue," remarked Dr. Alice Stevenson, a cultural historian specializing in restitution. "They are part of a much larger conversation around the legacies of empire and the responsibility of museums to address historical injustices."
Beyond Repatriation: Reframing Museum Relationships
As the call for the return of the tabots intensifies, it also opens up broader questions about the future of museum relationships in a post-colonial world. Some argue that traditional models of ownership, focused solely on physical possession of objects, are no longer tenable.
"It's time to move beyond a zero-sum game where restitution is seen as simply a loss for Western museums," suggests Dr. Stevenson. "Opportunities exist for collaborative partnerships, loans, and innovative means of sharing cultural heritage that transcend the limitations of outdated ownership structures."
Whether the British Museum will ultimately embrace such a transformative approach in the case of the tabots remains to be seen. For now, the ICO investigation offers a glimmer of hope to those seeking greater transparency and a potential shift in the museum's stance. The outcome is likely to have significant implications not only for the specific artefacts but for the way in which museums navigate the complex legacies of their collections.
The Tabots' Significance: More Than Just Objects
Understanding the intense focus on the return of the tabots requires delving beyond their material value as historical artefacts. To the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, they possess profound spiritual significance that cannot be reduced to museum display or academic study.
"A tabot isn't merely an object; it embodies the very presence of God," explains Abba Tesfamariam, a priest within the Ethiopian Orthodox community in London. "Within our churches, the holiest of spaces is reserved for the tabot, where only ordained clergy can enter. It represents the sacred covenant and is inseparable from our faith."
This reverence permeates Ethiopian culture, with tabots holding central importance in religious rituals and community life. They are not simply museum relics but living symbols, deeply intertwined with the practice of faith.
"When a tabot is taken from its rightful place, it creates a deep wound within the community," Abba Tesfamariam emphasizes. "Its absence disrupts the spiritual rhythms that have been observed for generations. Repatriation means more than correcting a historic wrong; it's about restoring wholeness and acknowledging the sacred."
The argument for the tabots' return extends beyond their religious significance. For many Ethiopians, they are potent symbols of national identity and a source of pride in their rich cultural heritage.
"These tabots were seized during a time of invasion and violence," notes Dr. Fekadu Bekele, an Ethiopian historian based in Addis Ababa. "Their continued presence in London feels like a perpetuation of that historical injustice, a wound that has never fully healed for Ethiopians."
He points to the successful return of a tabot discovered in Edinburgh in 2000 as evidence of the profound impact repatriation can have. Upon its arrival in Ethiopia, it was greeted with widespread jubilation and national celebrations, underscoring the powerful symbolism embodied in these objects.
The Voices of the Ethiopian Diaspora
Members of the Ethiopian diaspora in the UK play a pivotal role in the campaign for the tabots' return. Many maintain strong connections to their homeland and feel a deep sense of responsibility to advocate for the restitution of cultural treasures.
"Living in London, so near these tabots, yet knowing they are inaccessible to their rightful community is a source of ongoing pain," says Selamawit Gebre, a member of the Ethiopian community in London active in the repatriation campaign. "We are determined to raise our voices and work alongside allies to ensure that this injustice is rectified."
The diaspora's efforts encompass organizing community events, petition drives, and engaging in dialogue with museum stakeholders. They view the ICO investigation as a positive step, believing that public scrutiny can be a powerful catalyst for change.
"Repatriation is not just about the physical return of objects," Selamawit insists. "It's about acknowledging past wrongs, fostering healing, and building respectful relationships between institutions in the West and the communities from which these treasures were taken."
The Museum's Response: A Complex Position
The British Museum's position on the tabots is multifaceted and marked by a certain ambivalence. While acknowledging the objects' sacred status and the distress their removal has caused, the museum has consistently stopped short of committing to their full repatriation.
Previous statements have alluded to the complexity of the issue and the challenges posed by the British Museum Act 1963. The museum asserts a responsibility to preserve the tabots and ensure their accessibility to a global audience, albeit in limited form.
One alternative the museum has proposed is a long-term loan of the tabots to an Ethiopian Orthodox church in the UK. "We recognize the deep spiritual significance of these objects and wish to find a way for them to be venerated appropriately within their religious context," a museum spokesperson has stated in the past.
Counterarguments from the Ethiopian Orthodox Community
However, there are significant counterarguments to this approach. Clerics within the Ethiopian Orthodox community have highlighted the logistical and financial hurdles associated with such a loan. They emphasize that true veneration of tabots requires their presence within a consecrated Ethiopian church on Ethiopian soil.
"A loan scheme simply displaces the problem rather than resolves it," contends Abba Tesfamariam. "The sacred covenant dictates that these tabots belong in Ethiopia. Anything less fails to address the core of the issue."
Some observers express a degree of skepticism about the museum's willingness to explore avenues beyond the long-term loan concept. They see a pattern of reluctance to relinquish control over objects within its vast collection, even when a compelling case can be made for restitution.
"There's a sense that the British Museum views itself as the ultimate arbiter of where cultural heritage belongs," remarks Dr. Alice Stevenson, the cultural historian. "This stance often seems out of step with the evolving ethical considerations and the growing recognition that many objects were acquired through dubious means."
Public Opinion and the Path Forward
The outcome of the ICO investigation could have significant influence on public opinion regarding the tabots. If the watchdog's findings support the claim that the museum has been overly secretive, it could further galvanize calls for repatriation.
"Shining a light on the decision-making process is crucial," believes Lewis McNaught, of Returning Heritage. "The public has a right to know the basis on which the museum is justifying its retention of objects that carry such profound meaning for another nation."
The debate surrounding the tabots serves as a reminder that the concept of a museum, particularly one with a vast global collection like the British Museum, is never static. It reflects shifting values, changing power dynamics, and ongoing dialogues about the legacies of colonialism and the ethics of cultural ownership.
"Museums cannot be frozen in time," stresses Dr. Fekadu Bekele, the Ethiopian historian. "They must be responsive to the legitimate claims of origin communities and open to reimaging the relationships with the objects in their care."
The Future of Restitution: A Broader Debate
The case of the Ethiopian tabots highlights the complex and often contentious nature of cultural restitution debates. It raises questions that extend far beyond this specific collection, forcing a broader reckoning with the historical circumstances under which many museum artifacts were acquired.
"This isn't just about Ethiopia or the British Museum," Dr. Alice Stevenson observes. "It forces us to confront the legacies of empire and the systemic inequalities woven into the history of collecting practices."
As awareness of these inequalities grows, museums worldwide are facing increasing pressure to re-examine their collections and engage in open dialogue with communities of origin. While each case presents unique challenges, there is a growing recognition that the status quo is unsustainable.
"Museums must evolve from being institutions that simply possess objects to ones that actively engage with the histories and cultures those objects represent," argues Dr. Stevenson. "This will require a shift away from a mindset of exclusive ownership towards models of shared stewardship, collaboration, and respect for diverse cultural perspectives."
New Models and Future Directions for Cultural Repatriation
The tools for implementing these changes are still evolving. Some museums are exploring digital repatriation, creating high-quality copies of contested objects for return while retaining the originals for research and limited display. Others are embracing long-term loans and rotating exhibitions as ways to share cultural heritage more equitably.
Innovative partnerships are also emerging, with museums working in tandem with origin communities to co-curate exhibitions and develop contextual narratives that go beyond the Western perspective. These initiatives demonstrate a willingness to acknowledge past harms and to forge a different kind of relationship between institutions and the communities whose heritage they hold.
While challenges and complexities remain, the momentum for change within the museum world is undeniable. The British Museum, as one of the world's most prominent and influential institutions, will be under particular scrutiny as it navigates the ethical dilemmas surrounding its collection.
The outcome of the ICO investigation regarding the Ethiopian tabots could prove to be a turning point. If the museum is found to have withheld information unjustifiably, it will intensify pressure for both transparency and action on the specific issue of the tabots.
Beyond the fate of these tabots, the case has the potential to reverberate through the museum world, accelerating a much-needed shift towards a more collaborative, equitable, and ultimately, more meaningful approach to understanding and sharing the cultural heritage of humankind.
