Who owns Benin artefacts?

The question to really ask is who owns those antiquities looted from Benin and the other victim-nations? First, we must try to go back in history and see how Benin artefacts became scattered objects and of multiple ownership claims. The British in their colonial quest unjustifiably rode roughshod over other nations. This is revealed in […]

The question to really ask is who owns those antiquities looted from Benin and the other victim-nations? First, we must try to go back in history and see how Benin artefacts became scattered objects and of multiple ownership claims.

The British in their colonial quest unjustifiably rode roughshod over other nations. This is revealed in the gory tales of plunder and looting contained in the annals of Magdalla in Ethiopia, Ashanti in Ghana and Benin in Nigeria. Most of the Benin artefacts in Europe left Benin as a result of the looting incidence of 1897.  Prior to this incidence, Benin was a highly successful sovereign nation. After the incidence, Benin became a shadow of its old self. All the aplomb and panache associated with the millennia old king’s court and the cultural objects by which it recorded its history deserted it.

Some of the loots were kept as souvenirs by some of the soldiers while about 2500 pieces were taken to England from where they were sent to France and sold at auction in Paris by the British Admiralty to offset the cost of the invasion of Benin. The British Museum bought 289 pieces, German museums bought 1,085 and the rest were bought by private collectors.

Peter-Klaus Schuster, the Director-General of the State Museums in Berlin, asserts that all the objects in his museums were legally acquired. In his words:

“The collections in Berlin were acquired through the art market or private commerce. No deal was in fact possible without a contract of sale or permission to export. This does not mean that nothing was sold or exported. But it does mean that all objects came legally into the collections.”

In this wise, he was referring in part to instances such as the German purchase in 1897 in France of more than 1000 pieces at the auction of Benin objects by the British.

Austria too has a lot of Nigerian Benin bronzes and the possession is similarly based on legal acquisition by purchase. But when the narration of how these items left Benin is considered, I believe that all will agree with me that no rule of law can confer such rights on any Nation or museum.

Dr. Andreas Lüderwaldt of the Übersee-Museum Bremen had this to say:

“When I now look at the source and history of individual collections and objects in the Übersee-Museum Bremen which I represent here and try to trace back, then I must say that abysses will be opened up; not that the objects were appropriated with violence as in Benin. There are other possibilities of illegal acquisition; there is gentle “force”. I therefore appeal to all museum officials to research the history of their collections; we would then show more understanding for the demands for restitution.”

Now to the question “Who owns ….that is who owns those antiquities looted from Benin and the other victim-nations?  Can we truly say that cultural objects acquired in the manner described above legally belong to the looters of these objects? Or to those they sold them to? The answer is no! You cannot give away what is not yours.

This workshop affords us the opportunity to acknowledge these facts and seek for ways of building long term friendship and relationship between those who are in possession of these priceless objects and the dispossessed.

As much as we desire friendship with the possessors, certain questions beg for answers. One of the questions will be “what is the future relationship between the possessors and the dispossessed going to be like?” Are these artefacts better left with the current possessors who have good facilities to house them?

There seem to be an entrenched view among the possessors of these cultural objects. It is encapsulated in the joint release of 2002 titled “Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums” which posited that though the circumstances which led to the acquisition of these artefacts might be fraught with non-adherence to the rule of law and might reek of injustice, it was done in the spirit of that era and we the owner must take things as they are. We must not only overlook the manner in which these artefacts got to their present locations, but also overlook our rights to them.

In the minds of the possessors, cultural objects have a “universal” dimension. This is the so called Cultural Internationalism concept as against the Cultural Nationalism concept which sees cultural objects in relation to the country to which it belongs. It is said that “an object which has a ‘national’ value to the descendants of its creator may also be valued by other peoples who respond to its broader human components, and its invocation of a common human enterprise.’

On the basis of this view, James Cuno, the Director of the Art Institute of Chicago in his book Who Owns Antiquity? says “What’s at stake is the world’s right to broad and general access to its ancient heritage.” Cuno and others that share his view believes that it is their lot to protect this right and to protect it in their Museums that is “The Encyclopaedic Museums” where everyone regardless of race could go and have a nice enlightening repose. But how many citizens of the source-nations are in sure enough financial stead to abandon their daily grind and seek for such repast?

The views contained in the Declaration of 2002 was corroborated here in Vienna at the 2007 exhibition of Benin objects tagged “Benin-Kings and Rituals, Courts Arts from Nigeria”. At this exhibition Nigerian officials and royals expressed the desire to have some of the artefacts returned. However, the directors of the Museum für Völkerkunde, Vienna, Musée du quai Branly, Ethnologisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin and the Art Institute of Chicago, the host museums of the exhibition, had a different take on this. Their view, though expressed with subtlety and decorum, was to the effect that they would prefer that the artefacts be retained in the museums where they are presently lodged. This can be seen in the opinion jointly expressed in the preface to the catalogue to the exhibition.

It is clear that this position appears to be hinged on the points that the source nations do not have the facilities and expertise to care for these artefacts.  Similarly the porous nature of their borders coupled with corruption will almost certainly ensure that the artefacts will easily find themselves back to the Europe no sooner are they returned.  Our response to this is as follows:

That we do not have the requisite expertise for conservation, protection and other management fields is now a thing of the past in view of the existing training arrangement with Ford Foundation that is facilitated by the British Museum.  Meanwhile the Institute of Archaeology and Museum Studies in Jos has been strengthened with an affiliation to the University of Nigeria Nsukka; that there is not enough storage facility to keep the objects – Here too the Ford Foundation has come to the rescue with its arrangement to build a modern Storage Facility including conservation laboratory in Lagos Museum.

Similarly Benin Museum has benefitted from a Presidential Intervention fund for the rehabilitation and restoration of museums and Archives.  The Museum’s facilities were upgraded last year; security is of no more concern here than in the metropolitan countries.  It is a challenge that is constantly being addressed by all.  The National Commission for Museums and Monuments has just obtained approval to employ 300 security personnels whose training is being negotiated with the British Museum.  National security outfits including customs, police, immigration etc are being sensitized.

In this year alone, two of such sensitization workshops have been organized in Kaduna and Abuja; corruption – The charge of corruption is serious. Doubtless corruption is a huge impediment to progress in all human endevour.  In this regard it is pertinent to draw attention to the return of democracy since 1999 and the new management in NCMM which has embarked on developing MOU with various organizations in a very transparent manner. It has also developed a framework for the establishment of repatriation desk as well as a Committee on illicit trafficking.  Government has also approved a new salary structure/minimum wage which is expected to encourage honesty and sincerity while corruption fighting institutions such as EFFCC, ICPC have been empowered to operate effectively

Apart from the pecuniary interests derivable from antiquity, culture as represented in cultural properties is a veritable rallying point for a nation that hopes to foster stronger national pride, unity and sense of direction. For a race that has been maligned, ridiculed and labelled as never-do-well, our past, the glorious era when our kingdoms stood at par with others of that period is needed to build a new identity. While we consider dialogue and await its effect.  The point of departure is for the world to accept that Benin Bronzes are exclusively Benin and it pertains to that region occupied by the Edos or Binis of South-South Nigeria.

Austria should lead the pack in recognising that Benin bronzes are intrinsically Nigerian objects and must accord Nigeria that respect and even seek ways by which Nigeria can enjoy pecuniary and proprietary benefits from them.

However, we share with Cuno and others that Museums as institutions for the promotion of understanding, tolerance and the dissipation of ignorance and superstition should be able to display artefacts of one time and one culture next to those of other time and other culture without prejudice.  We therefore accept the idea of international museums on two conditions – one, such museum should also be established in source countries/developing countries for example encyclopaedic museum of Abuja and two, collections are gathered and obtained freely from source countries on loan or other acceptable agreements.

Sharing

The best way to preserve archaeological record is to encourage scientific excavation; protect  archaeological sites and develop ways of broadening access to funds; the big museum should help in stopping the auction of illicitly  acquired artefacts; strengthen existing international museums; establish new ones with branches in key source countries; nations should make laws that will protect other nations artefacts; and develop programmes for sharing and exchanging collections such as international exhibitions and long term loans etc

The great museums should change from being holders of other people’s objects to institutions that help in conserving and displaying objects in their natural environment.  This can be done much in the same way zoos have been transformed by the activities of animal rights activities and other environmentalists.  As a result of these activities most zoos in Europe and America have now moved from being institutions that go to a foreign place, capture an animal and bring it back to display in a totally false setting to serving as fund raising shop windows for conservation programmes in natural habitats.

Usman, Director-General, National Commission for Museums And Monuments, presented this paper at a conference on New Cultures Of Collaboration, Sharing Of Collections And Quest For Restitution: The Benin Case held at the Museum Fur Volker Kunde Vienna Austria from December 2 -3 2010