MEG’s Approach to Repatriations
Repatriation Guidelines
In 1994, MEG published guidelines on the care and repatriation of human remains and sacred objects in global cultures collections. These guidelines recommended that each request be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with an emphasis on cultural sensitivity and appropriate procedure.
There is a long history of repatriation between museums and between museums and communities. From national institutions to local organisations, museums have returned material to originating communities and previous owners, contributing to a growing body of knowledge and experience among collections staff involved in these processes.
MEG aims to bring this expertise together, offering support, advice, and a network of contacts that includes museum practitioners, communities of origin, and relevant specialists. We are committed to helping museums navigate claims for the return of world cultures material.
The UK government’s recent announcement of a blanket ban on the repatriation of objects from national collections is deeply concerning—particularly at a time when museums are facing increasing scrutiny, both internally and externally, as part of wider decolonisation efforts.
This policy stands in stark contrast to recent decisions like that of Manchester Museum, which returned 43 sacred items to Indigenous Australian communities through the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. In doing so, the museum acknowledged repatriation as a vital step toward healing and reconciliation.
Collaboration, Sensitivity, and Building Relationships
Both MEG and the Museum Association advocate collaborative partnerships with originating communities and thoughtful, case-sensitive responses to repatriation claims. The Collections Trust also provides practical tools, including checklists for researching, recording, and processing claims.
Repatriation can take many forms – not only outright return, but also exchange, digital repatriation, or shared stewardship. In some cases, the process and outcomes – such as renewed relationships, deeper understanding, and collaborative interpretation – may hold greater value than the object itself.
MEG supports approaches grounded in relationship-building and community-led decision-making. If the culturally appropriate outcome is for an object to be buried or destroyed, then we believe that must be respected—particularly if it contributes to healing and the restoration of trust.
Repatriation Resource
MEG has created a free, open-access resource for museum professionals, originating communities, research institutions, and anyone interested in museums and repatriation.
As a long-standing supporter of repatriation and ethical collaborative practice, this resource reflects MEG’s commitment to advocacy and support across the sector. Our membership includes individuals with substantial experience in supporting repatriation claims to UK museums.
In addition to the open-access resource, we are developing a members-only support network. This will provide a confidential space for sharing information about new and ongoing requests, as well as offering guidance and peer-to-peer support throughout the repatriation process.
We are currently updating the online resource and will provide a link here once the new version is available.
