Alexander Herman is the director of the Institute of Art and Law and the author of Restitution: The Return of Cultural Artefacts and The Parthenon Marbles Dispute: Heritage, Law, Politics.
Kevin Haywahe of the Nakoda Nation of Saskatchewan performs in St. Peter's Square, at the Vatican, on April 1, 2022.Fabrizio Troccoli/The Globe and Mail
When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with Pope Francis last month, he raised the issue of reconciliation with First Nations, and urged the Pontiff to return Indigenous cultural artifacts from the Vatican collections to communities in Canada. This request came at a tense time. If the Vatican has traditional and ceremonial belongings from Indigenous peoples in its collections, then repatriating them could indeed accord with the aims of reconciliation, coming from an institution that ran most of the residential schools in Canada.
But estimates of the magnitude of the collections held in the Vatican Museums and Libraries run to more than two million objects; no comprehensive catalogue is publicly available. So how exactly can repatriation be achieved?
Let us consider a past example to highlight the challenge. In the 1980s, information began to surface about more than 800 medieval Hebrew manuscripts that were apparently being secretly held at the Vatican. This was especially troubling in the context of the state-to-state negotiations taking place between the Holy See and Israel at the time. Eventually, the sides agreed to work together to facilitate access to these great works, which led to the publication of a complete catalogue and the digitization of many manuscripts. But the manuscripts themselves stayed in Rome.
So what steps should be taken with First Nations belongings? It would be important to understand the material itself and the specific ways in which it was originally taken. Initial research on the 1925 Pontifical Missionary Exhibition at the Vatican, for instance, has drawn attention to how the contents of the exhibition were acquired by Pope Pius XI. According to McGill University professor Gloria Bell, certain objects may not have been obtained with the full consent of the originating communities. But more research is required to understand the manner of these acquisitions.
Returns from the Vatican could certainly help Indigenous communities to better understand past practices and traditions. However, in some cases, the Vatican holdings pale in comparison with what already exists in Canada. During a 2022 visit of a First Nations delegation to Rome, commentators singled out a kayak of the Inuvialuit from the early 20th century for repatriation. But similar artifacts are held in Canadian institutions. The Canadian Museum of History, for example, has an enormous storage space known as the “boat room,” with holdings of Indigenous vessels that far exceed the Vatican’s.
But of course, repatriation has meaning that goes well beyond the specific artifacts considered. It could be part of a process of redressing past injustices, taking into account the cultural value invested in objects by a particular people. The manner in which those objects were taken becomes important, as much as the meaning these belongings hold for communities today.
It is no surprise that the Vatican collections are opaque. But institutional conservatism is colliding with the transformative figure of Pope Francis, who has said he is in favour of repatriation. And it’s not empty rhetoric: In 2023, he returned three important fragments of Parthenon sculptures to Athens that had been in the Vatican collections for centuries, framing it as an “ecumenical donation” to the Archbishop of Athens. The legal basis for the gift was at first unclear, so Francis amended Vatican law in early 2023 to allow ecclesiastical powers to override the civil law that safeguards the Vatican collection.
As Chiara Gallo and I write in a forthcoming article in Art Antiquity and Law, although the Pope has great ecclesiastical powers allowing him to repatriate, returns should be handled transparently and be ethically grounded. For instance, repatriation would be justified in situations where an object had been obtained through violence, threats or an involuntary transaction. This is important for any repatriation of First Nations material.
It might be easy to seek “reconciliation” through symbolic agreements made by those at the top, but more is required. If the repatriation urged by Mr. Trudeau is to have real meaning, it must relate to material that has been properly studied and for which ethical arguments favour return. The Pope has good intentions, but the Vatican as an institution will need to introduce a clear policy and procedure on repatriation in order to ensure consistency across decisions that extend beyond the pontifical prerogative. And, much like it did with the Hebrew manuscripts, it must invest in greater research in collaboration with communities.
Fully pursuing these initiatives would put the Vatican in line with global trends in repatriation. But if it doesn’t, promises of return may look more like an empty gesture – and exacerbate an already fraught relationship.