Tarnished Treasures: Provenance and the UK’s Waverley Criteria

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. Santander Art and Culture Law Review 2/2019 (5): 109-134 DOI: 10.4467/2450050XSNR.19.016.11564