Colonial review of state museums: an assessment

On 22 January 2024, in his first appearance before the Culture Commission of Congress, the Minister of Culture, Ernest Urtasun, announced a review of the collections of the state museums. According to the session records, the stated purpose was to overcome colonial, gender, or ethnocentric frameworks and to recognise the perspective of the communities and peoples from whom the goods originate.

The announcement triggered a discussion broader than the known programme: whether describing part of those collections as colonial was historically accurate, whether the review would lead to returns, and whether a debate originating in other European countries was being transposed to Spain. Almost three years later, the verifiable question is more concrete: what actions can be linked to the announcement and what public infrastructure exists to evaluate them.

Four distinct operations

“Reviewing a collection” may mean several operations that should not be confused:

Investigating provenance. Reconstructing owners, custodians, transfers, excavations, exports, and circumstances of acquisition.
Reviewing cataloguing and narrative. Correcting terms, completing contexts, explaining violence, coercion, or asymmetries, and making the sources used visible.
Incorporating other voices. Working with researchers, countries, peoples, or communities linked to the objects, without presenting the consultation as if it were a single or incontestable voice.
Resolving claims. Examining ownership, illicit export, limitation periods, applicable legislation, and potential solutions, including restitution where appropriate.

Restitution may be the consequence of an investigation, but reviewing is not equivalent to returning. Nor does changing a label replace the study of provenance. Each operation requires its own criteria, specialists, and results. The guide Provenance of a work of art explains how that chain is reconstructed; Restitution and responsible acquisition distinguishes legal obligation from other ethical or negotiated solutions.

What actions I have found

The National Museum of Anthropology and the Museum of the Americas appeared from the beginning as the centres most directly linked to the debate. Their programmes have incorporated exhibitions, meetings, and publications on coloniality, provenance, representation, and restitution. In July 2024, the meeting "When restitution means something more than returning pieces" was held, with professionals who discussed changes in narrative, research, and dialogue with communities of origin.

These actions are real and relevant. They allow for the review of language, the circulation of research, and the opening up of decisions that previously remained within the museums. They are also heterogeneous. A temporary exhibition, a panel discussion, and a stable provenance research programme do not produce the same type of result.

The Ministry directly manages 16 state museums, although there are other museums attached to the department with different management regimes. I have not located a page that brings together, for all 16, the actions derived from the 2024 announcement, those responsible, and their results. The absence of such a public synthesis makes it difficult to distinguish a common policy from the ordinary evolution of each centre's programming.

What information I have not found

As of 20 October 2026, I have not found, in the public sources consulted:

An approved state plan defining scope, objectives, and a common method.
A schedule, specific budget, or distribution of responsibilities.
An inventory of pieces, collections, or prioritised provenance lines.
Public criteria for initiating, documenting, and concluding a review.
Periodic reports quantifying open case files, concluded investigations, and agreed changes.
A public register of restitution claims received and their status, with the necessary confidentiality safeguards.
A restitution officially identified as a result of this specific initiative.

This formulation is deliberately limited. It does not prove that internal instructions, ongoing investigations, confidential case files, or actions published under another name do not exist. It proves that I have not found a public architecture that allows the announcement to be followed as an evaluable state policy.

Disclosure, protected data and real limits

Not everything can be made public. Case files may contain personal data, sensitive locations, security information, contracts, legal reports, or diplomatic conversations. A transparent policy does not require publishing every document in its entirety.

It can, however, publish aggregated data, methodology, priorities, responsible bodies, the number of investigations, the status of claims, and anonymised decisions when necessary. It can also explain what information it reserves and why. Justified confidentiality is compatible with accountability; the absence of a visible framework does not allow one to know where one begins and the other ends.

Restitution is not a single legal operation

A return may respond to different causes: lack of title, illicit export, agreement between institutions, ethical decision, diplomatic channel, or special regulation. The material result may appear the same, but the legal basis and its effects change.

For this reason, a serious policy should avoid two shortcuts. The first is to presume that every piece arriving in a colonial context was acquired illicitly. The second is to treat the lack of conclusive proof as sufficient reason not to investigate. A documentary gap does not demonstrate spoliation, but it can increase risk and justify further enquiries.

It must also distinguish between the State of origin, the community of origin, the previous owner, and the subject entitled to claim. They do not always coincide. Dialogue is necessary, but it does not replace the identification of who can decide, consent, or receive.

A legal limit: every return needs a legal route

Public ownership does not mean that every object in every state museum is subject to exactly the same legal regime. The owner, the museum’s management arrangements, the asset’s public-domain or patrimonial status, and any protection under the Spanish Historical Heritage Act must be identified. Public-domain assets are inalienable while they retain that status. In addition, Article 28(2) of Law 16/1985 provides that movable assets forming part of the Spanish Historical Heritage and owned by public authorities may not be disposed of, except for transfers between public authorities and the exceptions laid down in Articles 29 and 34.

A museum cannot, on its own, hand over a piece because a historical investigation recommends its return. Restitution requires determining who is competent and which instrument allows for the declassification, transfer, assignment, or return of the asset. Depending on the case, that channel could come from heritage legislation, a specific regulation, an international agreement, or a resolution issued in an applicable procedure. Not every restitution necessarily requires a new law.

France approved in 2020 a unique law that separated twenty-six works destined for Benin and a sabre destined for Senegal from its public collections, as an exception to the principle of inalienability. In Spain, I have not located an equivalent general rule or a single, published, and specific procedure for claims regarding colonial goods from state collections.

The absence of a general channel does not prevent investigating provenance, correcting catalogues, engaging in dialogue, or studying a claim. It necessitates explaining, alongside the historical or ethical conclusion, which legal avenue is available to execute each decision.

The European comparison, without turning it into an automatic model

France published the Sarr-Savoy report on African heritage and restitution in 2018. Germany and Nigeria signed a joint declaration on the Benin Bronzes in 2022, followed by transfers of ownership and returns. Both processes have been discussed and do not offer a recipe that can be transferred to Spain without further consideration.

The useful comparison is procedural. There were documents, criteria, responsible parties, and decisions that could be read and criticised. The existence of a public procedure does not guarantee a correct decision, but it allows one to know what was decided and on what grounds.

What an evaluable plan should contain

At a minimum:

A written mandate identifying the museums and collections affected.
An initial map of provenance risks and priorities.
Criteria for distinguishing between research, reinterpretation, and claims.
Teams with historical, legal, archival, linguistic, and conservation expertise.
Rules for community participation and the management of internal disagreements.
A protocol for receiving claims and determining standing, applicable law, and evidence.
A register of decisions and a review mechanism.
Public indicators that do not reduce success to the number of returns.
Budget, schedule, and periodic reports.

The quality of a review is not measured by how many objects leave the museum. It is also measured by how many provenances are documented, how many catalogues are corrected, which archives are opened, which gaps are acknowledged, and how decisions to return or conserve are reasoned.

From announcement to infrastructure

My reading is that since 2024 there has been museographic work, research, and public conversation, but a common state programme cannot yet be reconstructed from accessible documents. It is possible that the policy is advancing within each museum. Precisely for this reason, what has been done should be gathered and the previous projects, ordinary initiatives, and measures born from the announcement should be separated.

In "What returns" I proposed that a restitution also transforms the public identity of the object. Here the question is prior: before deciding what returns, an institution must be able to explain what it knows, what it ignores, who participates, and who decides.

How to follow it

Anyone may request from the Ministry of Culture, via the transparency law, the information that this article has not found published: whether an approved plan exists, which museums are participating, what research has been opened, and how many restitution claims have been received. The general rule is that the Ministry must resolve the request within one month, extendable by another when the volume or complexity justifies it. The limits, grounds for inadmissibility, and possible partial access remain applicable. The response, the reasoned refusal, or the silence also form part of the assessment.

With a general election called for 29 November, the continuity of the review will also depend on the next Government. That is why it makes sense to ask now: what has been done, what is documented, and what will remain when the person who promoted it changes.

About the open conversation

This text distinguishes between localised actions, documentary absences, and interpretation. The lack of a document in this search does not prove its non-existence. If you work in one of the museums, in provenance research, or in restitution and can point to a plan, inventory, report, or public decision that completes the assessment, write to me.

The author's relationship to the cases

There is no financial, professional or collection relationship with the individuals, companies and institutions mentioned.

Colonial review of state museums: what has been done since the 2024 announcement