This ends a dispute that the British Museum and Kew said threatened the legal framework that allowed them to loan items overseas.
A British Museum statement said it 'remained committed to its extensive loans programme', but called for 'a legal framework to be created covering the whole of Australia that would facilitate loans and guarantee their return'.
The two bark etchings and a carved emu figure, which date from the 1850s, were sent to Australia in 2004 for Museum Victoria's Etched on Bark exhibition at the Melbourne Museum.
Towards the end of the exhibition in June 2004, the Dja Dja Wurrung and Jupagalk communities secured the first in a series of emergency declarations that prevented Museum Victoria honouring its contractual agreements to return the items to the British Museum and Kew (Museums Journal September 2004, p10).
Museum Victoria took legal action after negotiations with the Dja Dja Wurrung and Jupagalk communities failed to find a resolution. On 20 May this year, the Federal Court of Australia ruled that the successive emergency declarations were not valid because they were designed to give 30 days' protection for Aboriginal sites in imminent threat of damage or destruction.
With the emergency declarations invalid, the responsibility fell to Gavin Jennings, the minister for Aboriginal affairs in the Victorian government.
On 25 May, Jennings said he would not use legislative powers under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 to prevent the return of the artefacts. The objects arrived back at the British Museum and Kew on 30 May.
Jennings argued that if the campaign to keep the barks in Victoria were successful, it would threaten the return of other Aboriginal artefacts. He was guided by Dawn Casey, a former director of the National Museum of Australia.
'Dr Casey has advised that by preventing the return of the artefacts to the British Museum, the government would put at risk the prospect of accessing the 40,000 other Aboriginal artefacts held in overseas institutions,' Jennings said.
Patrick Greene, the chief executive officer of Museum Victoria, said: 'At the heart of the museum's case was the concern that should the attempt to keep the barks in Victoria prove successful it would close the door on any further loans of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artefacts to Australia.'
Greene believes better dialogue with indigenous communities is the way forward, and that a legal framework would be useful.
Simon Stephens
Patrick Greene writes about repatriation and sacred objects in the September issue of Museums Journal
A British Museum statement said it 'remained committed to its extensive loans programme', but called for 'a legal framework to be created covering the whole of Australia that would facilitate loans and guarantee their return'.
The two bark etchings and a carved emu figure, which date from the 1850s, were sent to Australia in 2004 for Museum Victoria's Etched on Bark exhibition at the Melbourne Museum.
Towards the end of the exhibition in June 2004, the Dja Dja Wurrung and Jupagalk communities secured the first in a series of emergency declarations that prevented Museum Victoria honouring its contractual agreements to return the items to the British Museum and Kew (Museums Journal September 2004, p10).
Museum Victoria took legal action after negotiations with the Dja Dja Wurrung and Jupagalk communities failed to find a resolution. On 20 May this year, the Federal Court of Australia ruled that the successive emergency declarations were not valid because they were designed to give 30 days' protection for Aboriginal sites in imminent threat of damage or destruction.
With the emergency declarations invalid, the responsibility fell to Gavin Jennings, the minister for Aboriginal affairs in the Victorian government.
On 25 May, Jennings said he would not use legislative powers under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 to prevent the return of the artefacts. The objects arrived back at the British Museum and Kew on 30 May.
Jennings argued that if the campaign to keep the barks in Victoria were successful, it would threaten the return of other Aboriginal artefacts. He was guided by Dawn Casey, a former director of the National Museum of Australia.
'Dr Casey has advised that by preventing the return of the artefacts to the British Museum, the government would put at risk the prospect of accessing the 40,000 other Aboriginal artefacts held in overseas institutions,' Jennings said.
Patrick Greene, the chief executive officer of Museum Victoria, said: 'At the heart of the museum's case was the concern that should the attempt to keep the barks in Victoria prove successful it would close the door on any further loans of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artefacts to Australia.'
Greene believes better dialogue with indigenous communities is the way forward, and that a legal framework would be useful.
Simon Stephens
Patrick Greene writes about repatriation and sacred objects in the September issue of Museums Journal
