I was once asked by
someone, who was aware of my view that African art objects in European museums
should in principle be returned to Africa, which of the African queens in
European museums, Nefertiti or Ida was the most beautiful. My answer, not surprising
for him, was that I could only really appreciate the full beauty of the ladies
now kept in European captivity when they are released and freely return to
their home countries; that for me beauty was more than the physical appearance.
I need to see these persons in their social and cultural environment and to
appreciate the respect and the veneration their people bring to them. Surely,
their charisma can only be understood when they are with people who regard them
as part of themselves and their history. I need to hear the songs of praise
that the existence and the activities of these persons have generated. I know
this is perhaps difficult for many Europeans who attach great importance to
physical appearance and have no use for the spiritual attributes of such
persons.
Europeans are very
likely to measure the nose and other parts of the body as they do with
prisoners. The ethnologists, especially the Germans were famous for that.
African art objects are not simply objects to be admired but objects with a
function and raison d’être. We are what we are not because of the length of our
noses and the size of our heads but because of the circumstances of our birth,
our function in society and our own achievements.
But the famous African
queens are not the only African cultural objects illegally held in European
collections. There are all the Benin bronzes, Akan gold, Nok terra cotta,
various kotas from Central Africa, stools, statutes and various sculptures from
the Akan, Baule, Chokwe, Dan, Dogon, Fang, Guro, Hamba, Senufu, various
religious and other cultural objects, including precious artistic manuscripts
from Magdala, Ethiopia. The Louvre, Quai Branly Museum, the Ethnology Museum,
Berlin, the British Museum, the Ethnology Museum, Vienna and a whole lot of
museums in the USA, Germany, Britain, France, Portugal, Holland and Spain have
stolen African objects in their inventories. But how did these objects come all
the way to Europe and why have they not been returned?
I. HOW DID THESE
OBJECTS COME TO EUROPE?
Most of the African art
objects now in European and American museums came there as a result of some
illegality or some dubious means during slavery, the colonialism and our
present neo-colonial times. Most of them have been seized either through the
use of massive force or threat of use of force, bribery and intimidation or
stealth.
DECEIT
EGYPT: So much cultural
objects have been stolen or illegally transported from Egypt that one cannot
hope to do justice to the issue here. We have chosen to consider very briefly
the best known case of unjust possession by European museums of cultural
objects from Africa: Nefertiti, the Egyptian Queen, whose famous bust is
everywhere presented and for some, the very essence of beauty. The Germans, who
have been illegally detaining the African queen in the Altes Museum, Berlin for
almost hundred years, now claim that she is a German, a “Berlinerin.” But how
did this Egyptian queen end up in a German museum?
On 6 December 1912,
when Egypt was still under Turkish domination (1) a group of German
archaeologists and Egyptian assistants, under the leadership of the German
archaeologist, Professor Ludwig Borchardt, dug out what turned out to be the
bust of the Egyptian queen, Nefertiti. The practice at that time was that when
such findings were made, they were presented to a committee that decided what
part was to remain Egypt and what part would go to the country of the
archaeologist who made the discovery. The committee at this time was always
presided over by a European; in this case a Frenchman and many of the members
were Europeans. In this particular case, Borchardt, was also a member of the
committee. According to Gert v. Pacezensky and Herbert Ganslmayr, Nofretete
will nach Hause; Europa - Schatzhaus der “Dritten Welt”, (2) Borchardt covered
the find with a layer of grime, in such a way that the member of the committee
who made the evaluation of the found did not see properly the whole lot and
thus was not aware of the importance of the find. It was decided to leave the socle
on which the bust stood in Egypt and let Borchardt have the bust. From
documents later available, it was clear that the professor realized how
important the found was and was planning to take it to German. When the bust
came to Germany in August 1913 it was kept secret for some ten years and not
exhibited so as to avoid the Egyptians getting to know about it. Finally, in
1923, after a decade, the bust of Nefertiti was shown in a book by Borchardt
“Porträts der Königin Nofretete”. After this publication, the Egyptians started
demanding that the bust be sent back. But the Germans have refused to return
the bust.
PUNITIVE EXPEDITIONS
A. BENIN: The best
known example is the case of the Benin bronzes. The British attacked Benin in
1897, under the pretext that some British officials had been ambushed by
persons from Benin whilst they were on their way to hold discussions with the
Oba of Benin. The king had told the British official who had requested to visit
Benin that the time chosen was inappropriate since there would be a traditional
festival - yam festival - and during that period no foreigner was allowed to
visit Benin City and therefore was dangerous for a foreigner. The British
invaded Benin City with a massive force, captured the City, stole the art works
that were in the king’s palace including door panels. They executed many Benin
leaders and burnt the city. They terrorized the area for some six months in
search of the king, Obi Ovomramwen and when they caught him, they sent into
exile where he died. The truth of the matter is that the British were
determined to get rid of the Oba who refused to submit to British rule and who
controlled the trade in the area. The British kept many of the Benin art works
and sold the rest to finance the so-called Punitive Expedition of 1897. The
Austrians, Germans and Americans bought these Benin art works. Thus we have in
many museums all over the world these illegally obtained art works. Anja
Laukötter, gives the following distribution, following Luschan: of the 2400
objects that left Benin: 580 in Berlin, 280 in British Museum, 227 in Rushmore,
the Pitt Rivers Collection, 196 in Hamburg, 182 in Dresden,167 in Vienna, 98 in
Leiden, 87 in Leipzig, 80 in Stuttgart, 76 in Cologne, and 51 in Frankfurt am
Main.(3) The current Benin exhibition, Benin Kings and Rituals Court Arts from
Nigeria, now in Berlin until May 25, 2008, gives a good idea of what was stolen
and who the present illegal holders are.
B. ASANTE: Less
well-known than the British Punitive Expedition to Benin in 1897, was the
British Punitive Expedition of 1874 to Kumasi, Ghana. The British had been
trying to gain control over the lucrative trade in gold, slaves in the then
Gold Coast but had found in the Asantehene, Kofi Karkari, the king of the
Asantes from the interior of the Gold Coast, a formidable competitor who
controlled effectively trade along the coast. The Asantes were known for their
gold and the Golden Stool which was said to embody the spirit of the Asante
nation and not even the Asantehene was allowed to sit on.
With such deliberate
provocations and other acts of challenge by the British to the political
authority of the Asantehene, wars inevitably ensued and gave the British the
pretext they had been seeking to attack. The Asantes had besieged the British
Fort at Kumasi and kept the British there surrounded for some time in 1867. In
1874 a British Punitive Expedition Army, under Sir Garnet Wolseley entered
Kumasi. The Asantehene had left Kumasi, the capital but the town and the palace
were taken by Wolseley and his troops who ransacked all the valuable objects
they could find including, the king’s sword, hammered gold masks in the shape
of a ram’s head, massive breast plates, coral ornaments, silver plates, swords,
ammunition belts, caps mounted in solid gold, knives set in gold and silver,
bags of gold and gold nuggets, carved stools mounted in silver, and other
treasures including a 20-centimetre-high golden head, the largest gold work
from anywhere in Africa outside Egypt. The town of Kumasi and the palace were
destroyed by burning.
The British attacked
Asante again in 1894 after Asante had refused an offer in 1891 from the British
to be made a British protectorate. This time the pretext was that the
indemnities levied after the 1874 had not been paid. The British expedition
force entered Kumasi in January 1896 without meeting any resistance. The King
and the Queen mother made their submission to the British authority by signing
a treaty of protection. After the submission of Prempeh, the British soldiers
collected all the gold-hilted swords, trinkets and other treasures from the
palace. The Asantehene, Agyeman Prempeh was deposed, arrested and sent to exile
in the Seychelles with his chiefs and their families. Britain annexed Asante
and Fanti areas in 1896.
The last resistance of
the Asantes to British domination came in 1900 when the remaining Asante
chiefs, under the leadership of the Queen Mother of Edwisu, Yaa Asantewaaa,
with an army lay siege to the British fort in Kumasi from March 28 to end
September 1900 in what became known as the War of the Golden Stool or Sargranti
War. Yaa Asantewaa and the other chiefs were also sent to exile in Seychelles
to join Prempeh I in January 1902. Yaa Asantewaa died in exile some twenty
years later. Prempeh was allowed to return in 1924 as a private person, later
became Kumasihene. The title of Asantehene was only resumed by his successor,
Agyeman Prempeh II in 1935. Many of the stolen Asante items found their way to
the Museum of Mankind in London and are in the Wallace Collection. There are
also some Asante cultural objects in Pitt-Rivers Museum in Oxford and in the
Glasgow Museum and Art Gallery. Many Asante gold objects are also in the
Victoria and Albert Museum, London.
C. ETHIOPIA: The
Ethiopians have been demanding for years from Britain the return of the various
precious imperial, cultural and religious treasures stolen by British troops in
1868. These objects include a golden crown owned by the Ethiopian Orthodox
Church which is now at the Royal and Albert Museum and precious bibles, a
chalice, silver processional crosses, gold and brass crosses as well as 350
illustrated manuscripts at the British Library. Six fine manuscripts are at the
Royal Library at the Windsor Castle. Two manuscripts were presented by the
commander of the British Expedition to the Royal Library in Vienna, two were
sent to the German Emperor and another two to the Bibliothèque Nationale in
Paris. Some further 200 volumes are at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge,
Manchester, and Edinburgh and other collections. Sacred documents and items of
religious importance to the Ethiopian Church, some of them 400 years old, are
being held by British institutions. Some altar slabs or tabots of the Ethiopian
Church are also in Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Two embroided tents of
the Emperor are in the Museum of Mankind. Pieces of the hair of the Emperor are
also to be seen in National Army Museum in London! The list of Ethiopian
treasures stolen by the British is simply too long to list here.
The acquisition tactics
here were similar to those employed in Asante and Benin. The British sent an
army expedition, under command of Sir Robert Napier, later on Lord Napier of
Magdala, to release two British envoys and a group of European artisans and
missionaries held by the Ethiopian Emperor Tewedros in Magdala, the then
capital of the Empire apparently because the British Queen Victoria, had failed
to respond to his letter. In the massacre, some 700 Ethiopians were killed, 2
British died and 18 were wounded. The Emperor released the captives but the
British nevertheless stormed the capital. The Emperor recognizing his hopeless
situation shot himself with a gun given to him as a gift by Queen Victoria. The
treasures of the palace and the Church of Madhane Alam (The Saviour of the
World) were looted and the city was destroyed. The fire was so intense that it
could be seen miles away and thousands of houses were destroyed. A leading
British historian of the Expedition reported to have seen the soldiers swarming
around the body of the dead Emperor, pulling and tearing his clothes until he
was almost naked. The Expedition’s archaeologist, from the British Museum’s
Department of Manuscripts, reported to have seen a British soldier carrying the
crown of the Abun, Head of the Ethiopian Church, said to be “solid gold chalice
weighing at least 6 lbs”. A few items have been returned to Ethiopia but the
bulk of the looted items remain in Britain and there is no sign that they are
about to be returned. It is interesting to note that in the cases where the
British have returned an item and where there were two versions, they always
sent the inferior version to Ethiopia.
Prof Richard Pankhurst
states in his article, “Magdala and its loot”, (5) that when the British
Museum, examined the request of the Emperor Yohannes IV for the restoration of
a manuscript, “Kebra Nagast” or “Glory of Kings”, the museum authorities found
out that they had two copies, they agreed to return the less interesting one.
Again, when Ras Tafari Makonnen, the future Emperor Haile Sellassie went to
Britain in 1924, the British decided to send the reigning ruler, Empress
Zawditu, one of the two crowns of Tewodros. They selected the silver-gilt one
and left the more valuable gold crown with the Victoria and Albert Museum. The
arguments of the British for not returning the items are the untenable familiar
ones, including the insult about the Ethiopians not being in a position to
guarantee the safety and security of the items. The thief requests from the
owner of the stolen items a guarantee of their safety and security as a
precondition for their return!
ITALY ATTACKS ETHIOPIA
Some African countries
experienced not only an attack from one colonialist power but from several.
Ethiopia had in addition from the British invasion also an Italian invasion.
Italy, under the fascist Benito Mussolini, attacked Ethiopia on 3 October 1935
at Wal Wal, next to the border of Italian Somaliland under the pretext that
Ethiopia was threatening Italian citizens. This has never been established but
it is clear that fascist Italy wanted to extend its control of North East
Africa by annexing Ethiopia which was between Eritrea, already under Italian
control and Italian Somaliland. Despite protest by Haile Sellassie to the
League of Nations, nothing happened to Italy. The Italians had long been
seeking revenge since the Ethiopians had defeated them in previous wars. On May
2, 1936 Haile Selassie left Addis Ababa for exile in French Somaliland before
the Italians reached his capital and he did not return until 1941. Emboldened
by its first attack, on 5 May 1936 Italian troops reached in Addis Abeba with
500,000 Italian troops. The poorly armed Ethiopian troops were no match for the
Italians who used chemical gas and planes. Italy annexed Ethiopia after six
months of war.
The invasion resulted
in the loss of the precious library of Haile Selassie, the Negus, works of art,
archives and objects of religious and cultural value belonging to the Emperor
or o Ethiopian citizens. Also stolen was a plane belonging to a daughter of the
Emperor. Among the cultural items stolen by the Italians was a huge 180 tons
obelisk which the Italians took and brought to Rome, erecting it on Porta
Capena square, in front of the headquarters of the FAO (United Nations Food and
Agricultural Organization). Even though at the end of the last World War a
defeated had signed a treaty to return all cultural objects to Ethiopia within eighteen
months from the signing of the treaty, it took more than half a century for
Italy to return the obelisk this to Axum. (6) The obelisk was hit by a
lightening and Italy returned the huge and heavy structure finally only in
2007.
D. DAHOMEY (Republic of
Dahomey): (Not to be confused with the Kingdom of Benin in Nigeria) Dahomey is
usually recalled for its strong fighting female force, the Amazons, some 5000
strong all female army. If you go to the Musée du Quai Branly, Paris you will
see the throne and other regalia of King Behanzin, Dahomey. How did these
symbols of kingly authority reach Paris?
Around the 1850’s, the
French wanted to control the port of Cotonu in order to protect their interest
in the palm oil business. By the time Behanzin became king in 1889, the French
had proclaimed a protectorate over Porto Novo. When Dahomean soldiers entered
in 1890 areas that the French considered to be part of their protectorate,
allegedly established on basis of treaty with Glele, father of Behanzin, they
felt they had good grounds to make war on Dahomey. Again in 1892 the French
sent an army of 200 French officers and thousands of African soldiers into
Dahomean territory, on their way to Abomey.
Following the usual
colonialist propaganda, the French accused Dahomey of slavery, human sacrifice
etc. After a series of battles and unsuccessful negotiations for peace,
Behanzin burned his palace and retreated to the north. Behanzin gave himself up
later on in 1894 and the French made his brother, King. Behanzin died on
December 10, 1906 in Bilda, Algeria where he had been in exile. On the
centenary of Behanzin’s death, the Musée du Quai Branly,lent 30 major works,
including the king’s throne to Foundation Zinsou for an exhibition in Cotonou.
The items were: regalia - throne and sceptre, bracelets, hat and staff.
SCIENTIFIC EXPEDITIONS
Another way the African
art objects came to Europe was to organize an expedition to an area and then
take, steal as many objects as possible. Leo Frobenius, German ethnologist was on
such an expedition between 1904 and 1935 which brought thousands of objects to
Germany. He was also accused of stealing some objects. A very good example was
the French mission, Dakar-Djibouti Expedition 1931-33 led by the French
ethnologist, Marcel Griaule which brought some 3000 objects to the Trocadero
Museum in Paris. Marcel Griaule, had by authority of a French law, Loi Griaule
to take from the colonies whatever he thought was necessary for scientific
research! A good testimony on this expedition was given by one of the
participants, Michel Leiris in his book, Afrique Fantôme (7). We must thank
Michel Leiris for leaving us detailed information about the methods used by the
French to acquire cultural objects from Africa and elsewhere. When we read his
accounts we start wondering whether the ethnologists were also trained in
criminal methods. It seems clear the ethnologists considered that the
inhabitants of many areas in Africa would not voluntarily give away their
religious and cultural objects and a way had to be found to secure the objects.
In the Dakar- Djibouti Expedition, as in all such expeditions by Europeans, all
the methods of criminals were employed: intimidation, coercion, blackmailing,
carrying of weapons and straightforward stealing and robbing. Religious objects
were treated without any reverence or respect and just carried away, sometimes
before the very eyes of the local inhabitants who were unable to prevent
sacrilege, were crying at their own powerlessness. These stolen objects as well
as other objects stolen in other expeditions are now in the new Musée du Quai
Branly, Paris, opened on 23 June 2006. The building of the museum is new but
the objects there, some 350,000, are almost all stolen items from the Musée de
l’Homme and the Musée des arts africains et océaniens.
RELIGIOUS AND
MISSIONARY ACTIVITIES
As you know, one of the
great changes brought about by slavery and colonization in most parts in
Africa, was the conversion of the Africans from their traditional religious
beliefs to European beliefs. It should be mentioned though that Ethiopia was
already Christian in 4th Century BC following the conversion of their King
Ezana, at a time when many European countries had not heard of Christianity.
The Christian missionaries, with varying degrees of success, convinced many
Africans to abandon their African beliefs which were disqualified as heathen.
All African sculptures were declared to be works of the devil and incompatible
with the Christian religion; they were therefore to be burned in fire. But in
many cases, the missionaries sent people to collect them or ordered these
objects, called fetish by the colonialists (from the Portuguese, feitiçio).
Miraculously enough, many of these Africa cultural objects which were supposed
to have been consigned to fire, found their way to museums and private
collections in Europe and America. Dr. Greenfield, in her excellent book, The
Return of Cultural Treasures states that the Vatican also has its own museum
with African objects:
“In 1925 Pope Pius XI
organized a missionary exhibition extolling missionary work all over the
non-western world. About 100,000 items were sent and after the exhibition only
about half were returned. The Pope proclaimed the formation of a new museum,
the Pontifico Museu Missionario-Etnologico, so that the ‘dawn of faith among
the infidel of today can be compared to the dawn of faith which… illuminated
pagan Rome”. (8)
I would have thought
that if African cultural objects were pagan, the Vatican would have kept them
away and not stored them in the holy Christian palace for fear of
contamination. There are also in many European cities, small Christian museums
with African collections.
II. WHAT ARE THE
ARGUMENTS FOR NOT RETURNING AFRICAN CULTURAL OBJECTS?
A. LEGALITY OF
ACQUISITION
Every European State,
museum or individual alleged to have acquired illegally acultural object from
Africa or Asia, immediately responds that their acquisition was perfectly
legal. Yet, often a simple look at the object suffices to convince one that the
object in question could not have been legally acquired. One look at the
massive or precious objects in Louvre, Musée du Quai Branly, Musée Guimet,
British Museum, Ethnology Museum, Berlin, Ethnology Museum, Vienna and one is
sure they could not have been given away without some violence or massive
force. Many of these objects have a spiritual or religious function.
Ever since Nefertiti
was exposed to the public in 1923, the Egyptians have made all sorts of
efforts, suggested different compromises but the Germans have consistently
refused to return or even lend Nefertiti to the Egyptians, arguing that the
bust of the Egyptian Queen was acquired legally through partage. But as we
know, through deceit the relevant partage committee was not aware of what the
German professor Borchardt was taking with him. All appeals from the Egyptians
and German groups have failed to convince the Berlin authorities to let the
Egyptian Queen go to Egypt even for a short period. Even the plea of the man
who donated the bust of Nefertiti to the Berlin Museum, Dr. James Simon, that
the bust should be returned to Egypt had no effect on the German authorities
who remained steadfast and have refused to consider any request for restitution
or loan. At one point, it seemed the Germans were ready to return Nefertiti to
the Egyptians. All concerned, the museum directors and even Herman Göring had
agreed until Adolf Hitler said “nein”. Are the present German leaders not
worried at all by the fact that they are holding the same position as that evil
man, Adolf Hitler? The fascination of Adolph Hitler by the bust of Nefertiti
and his plans to build a gigantic museum in which the Egyptian Queen will be
the centre piece should make one think. Hitler is credited with the following:
"I know this
famous bust," the fuehrer wrote. "I have viewed it and marvelled at
it many times. Nefertiti continually delights me. The bust is a unique
masterpiece, an ornament, a true treasure!" Hitler said Nefertiti had a
place in his dreams of rebuilding Berlin and renaming it Germania. "Do you
know what I'm going to do one day? I'm going to build a new Egyptian museum in
Berlin", Hitler went on. "I dream of it. Inside I will build a
chamber, crowned by a large dome. In the middle, this wonder, Nefertiti, will
be enthroned. I will never relinquish the head of the Queen." http://www.ioltravel.co.za/article/view/3551832
Nefertiti no doubt in the twisted mind of the German dictator symbolized Aryan
beauty even though she was an Egyptian from the African continent.
When one considers the
amount of Egyptian cultural objects that the Germans have, for example, in the
Egyptian Museum in Berlin and the other artefacts in their depots, it seems
really shameful that the Germans should quarrel with the Egyptians over
Nefertiti. Even if the bust of the Egyptian queen were legitimately acquired (and
there are serious doubts and evidence to question this) surely, the most decent
thing would be for the Germans to hand over the Egyptian queen to her people.
But it appears the Germans are keen to continue the excessive commercialization
of the image of the Egyptian queen, much of which is of very doubtful taste.
The Germans have also
said that the bust is fragile to travel although the bust has been moved many
times within Germany. Surely, modern technology and means of transport can
safely send the famous bust to the desired destination. Incidentally, the
Germans allowed an artist to attach the bust to a bronze statute of a naked
woman and only put an end to this distasteful action when the Egyptians
protested. After Cleopatra, Nefertiti is the second Egyptian Queen who seems to
have caught the imagination of Western Europeans. Even mature European men who
should know better seem to be unable to escape the charm of the Egyptian queen
and are apparently entranced by the mere glance at her face. Those of us who
are not under her spell feel that whether she is the icon of beauty in the West
or not, this does not justify the illegal holding of her bust in Berlin. With
all due respect for the German fans, we think they could also visit her when
she returns to Cairo. Indeed this might be a better test of their loyalty than
simply taken a tram to the museum and ignoring the illegitimacy of her presence
on the Museum Island.
The Germans have
invested a lot of energy in persuading themselves and others that the Nefertiti
is the epitome of beauty and it seems they cannot bear the thought that this
beauty is anywhere else than in Germany and preferably in Berlin, the capital.
Those of us who do not accept the attempts to impose certain canons of beauty
are at a loss at the insistence of the Germans to keep a foreign lady at all
costs. We understand they have turned her into a German! This is interesting in
view of the fact that the Nigerian Queens from Benin have been in Germany since
1897, before Nefertiti was abducted in 1912, are not yet Germans. Maybe the
colour or race of the Nigerians prevents a certain basic racism from making
them icons of beauty in a country like Germany. Whatever it is, one should urge
the Germans to settle this unseemly dispute with Egypt.
Egypt under Ottoman
dominion was regarded as some sort of archaeological self-service supermarket
in which the British, French, Americans and Germans took whatever
archaeological or cultural object they fancied. In independent Egypt, with the
reorganization of cultural services under the Supreme Council of Antiquities
especially under the powerful and competent leadership of its
Secretary-General, Zahi Hawass, a cultural pharaoh, nobody dares to take
archaeological objects with impunity. Hawass, an archaeologist himself and the
most famous Egyptologist, has asked the British Museum for the return of the
Rosetta Stone, the Louvre for the Zodiac and is determined to recover all the
important archaeological objects stolen from Egypt and given his determination
and approach, he is bound to succeed. Will the rest of the African countries
and the Asians take a lesson from Egypt and start vigorously pursuing their
demands for the recovery of their stolen objects?
Sometimes, the defence
is that the object was a gift from the people concerned or their king or that
it was purchased. True there were some occasions when gifts were made or items
sold but most of the time it was massive force or pressure that enabled the
gift or purchase to be effected. We have account of Michel Leiris on situations
when he and members of the French Expedition Dakar-Djibouti went to African
villages and took whatever they fancied and told the chief of village the price
they were willing to pay. It was either you accept the price or face problems
from the colonial administration. Similarly, in the German colonies of
Cameroon, Namibia, Tanganyika (Tanzania) where every white man could whip any
black man, many such purchases or gifts could not be said to have been genuine
or on valid legal basis. (9)
Another legal argument
that we often hear is that the international conventions on this matter - The
UNESCO Convention of 1970 (Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and
Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural
Propert, Paris) and the UNIDROIT Convention of 1995 (Convention on the
Restitution of Stolen and Illegally Exported Works of Art and Culture, Rome) -
do not affect transactions made before 1970 and the impression is left that
those conventions somehow legalize or approve all acquisitions before that
date; that there is no other law apart from the conventions. The impression is
then created that since the Conventions do not operate retroactively, there is
no legal basis for acquisitions made before 1970. How convenient! Most colonial
acquisitions were before 1960. With all due respect, the fact that the 1970
convention does not apply retroactively does not mean that the convention
approves of all acquisitions made before 1970. Before the convention, there were
rules of law in every legal system which prohibited illegal handling of the
property of others.
“Law" in this
context is understood by many to mean legislation, one element of law. There
are also general principles of law such as unjust enrichment, lack of good
faith "bona fides" and customary law. Many forget that the Statute of
the International Court of Justice in its Article 38 (1) provides that the
Court shall apply “international conventions, whether general or particular,
international custom, as evidenced of a general practice accepted as law, the
general principles of law recognized by civilized nations and judicial
decisions and teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various
nations…” Many opponents of restitution argue that in the absence of a specific
legislation on a particular case or type of case, for example, restitution of
property seized by the Nazis, there is no way of obtaining restitution. With
all respect to those opponents, the need for specific legislation in Germany
and Austria was largely due to the fact that a large part of the population and
almost all the judges were on the side of the Nazis hence the need for specific
laws. The laws of both countries contained sufficient elements and principles
for the judges to rule in favour of restitution if they were so minded. It was
never the law in Germany and Austria before the Nazis came into power that you
could take the property of others without their consent and without
compensation.
There have been enough
general principles in almost all legal systems in Europe and in Africa since
the 15th Century to justify restitution of illegally acquired property. Much of
the transfer of cultural items from Africa to Europe and to America violated
laws and principles regarding property, individual and collective rights. So
why did the Africans not claim their objects back? This raises fundamental
questions regarding the nature of the colonial enterprise. When a European
Government, with army and navy took control of a country in Africa and in the
process killed thousands of children, women and men, who will dare to think of
and ask for a small bronze mask? And whom will you dare to ask, and thereby
risk imprisonment and other forms of punishment? Recall that kings who resisted
colonial rule were sent to exiles, thousands of miles from their home. The king
of the Asantes (Ghana), Prempeh I was sent to exile in the Seychelles. In a
colonial enterprise, a criminal enterprise, all laws were put aside so far as
they could affect the interests of the colonizers.
UNESCO also has a body,
The Intergovernmental Committee on Return of Cultural Property which offers its
good offices to help countries in bilateral negotiations to solve questions of
restitution between States. But some of the exchanges heard in bilateral
meetings organized by the committee to help the contesting parties are not very
encouraging. For example, Germany offered to provide Turkey with a replica of
the Bogazkoy Sphinx whilst keeping the original and Turkey suggested that
Germany keep the replica and return the original to Turkey. The United Nations
Assembly has passed several Resolutions urging States to return cultural
objects to their countries of origin and requested to enter negotiations for
that purpose. Western writers stress that the Assembly’s resolutions have no
legally binding force. However, the Assembly represents the majority of States
and hence the world public opinion in these matters; that these resolutions
require good faith on the part of Member States. The States that usually oppose
the General Assembly on these issues are, not unexpectedly, the Western
countries and their allies.
The international
instruments have served to underline the complicated issues involved in these
disputes over restitution of cultural objects but they have not been used
effectively to resolve disputes. This is due primarily to the basic hostility
of the Western States to any discussion of the question. They wish to regard
the matter as a question of good will and not moral or legal right. But it
should also be added that the African States have not, to put it mildly, been
active enough to make use of the possibilities offered by the Conventions. Many
African countries have not even bothered to ratify or accede to these
instruments.
B. WAR BOOTY
Some have argued that
these objects were seized as war booty and that at the time they were seized it
was legal to do so. No specific laws are mentioned which allowed States to take
over in times of war and to keep after war the cultural objects of the enemy.
First of all, African States were never considered as part of the European
concert of nations. When the Europeans met at various conferences, for example,
the Berlin Conference of 1885 and divided Africa among themselves, no African
States were invited to the conference. How far the Europeans understanding of
International Law can be said to be binding on the Africans is a debated issue.
In any case, it has never been accepted or practised in Africa that in a war
you are entitled to take the enemies cultural and religious objects and keep
them. It is clear that most African societies were proud of their own cultural
and religious objects and would have had no need or indeed use, for the objects
of the other. This argument is not often advanced these days but it takes
another form, namely, that all these events relate to the past.
C. PAST HISTORY
We hear often that all
the accounts of illegal seizure and stealing relate to history and that we
cannot remake or rewrite history. You will find this explanation in the
foreword to the catalogue of the current exhibition, Benin: Kings and Rituals -
Court Arts from Nigeria “History, whether tragic or glorious, lies forever
behind us. We stand on its shoulders and direct our gaze to what lies ahead. We
trust that this exhibition contributes to an ongoing dialogue between the past
and the present, and between Africa and Europe and North America, and thus to
the collective shaping of the future against the backdrop of the lessons
offered by the past.” (10)
This is a very
interesting exhortation to forget the past coming from a group of important
museum directors in whose countries tremendous importance is attached to
history. The functions of the museums directors are primarily to preserve
evidence of history in the form of objects or documents. Here we have these
scholars telling the people of Benin (and by implication all Africans) to
forget history. They should forget the past and accept the present situation whereby
their most precious cultural objects, taken by violence or stealth, are kept by
western museums and private persons in the West. This is surely another
confirmation of my theory that when it comes to discussing Africa, some western
intellectuals and their governments often request us to suspend our common
sense and our ability to think. How else can we explain such an extraordinary
declaration? Can we imagine the writers of this statement making a similar
declaration to the British, French, Germans, Austrians, Italians or US
Americans?
As I have often said,
we Africans are definitely less obsessed with the past than the Europeans.
Indeed, it may well be the Europeans’ unlimited fascination with the past that
prompts them even to steal the past of others. What concerns Africans and the
peoples of the world are primarily the present effects of the acts of the past.
We realize that because of acts of slavers and colonialists many of our
cultural and religious objects are in museums in the West. We are not seeking
to rewrite history, even if that were possible. We seek to correct the present
and to prevent such acts in the future. Are we asking for too much?
D. ADVANTAGES OF
STAYING IN EUROPE - VALUE ADDED AND SPREAD OF FAME.
Another explanation for
keeping African art objects in Europe, which is not always clearly articulated
presumably because even the Europeans are shocked by its boldness and
arrogance, is that these objects have benefited by their removal from Africa!
Some of this explanation and its arrogance are clearly visible in the foreword
to the catalogue of the Benin exhibition:
“In 1897 a British
punitive expedition seized outstanding works of art and ivory from the Benin
royal palace. These subsequently entered museums across Europe, the United
States, and Nigeria. From our 21stcentury perspective the military action taken
seems unjustifiable; however, we must recognize the role it played in bringing
these works of art to far broader attention. They are now forever on the map of
world art and we are uplifted by the extraordinary aesthetic and cultural
achievement they present……The present consideration of these works within
multi-layered discourses on the past - and on identity in the competing
contexts and claims of local tradition, the nation state, and globalization -
is part and parcel of the continuation of shifts in meaning and the persistent
viability of the material documents of the past. Rather than catering only to
western notions of other cultures, museums strive to explain the general causes
and specific articulations of the past and present cultural diversity of the
world. This approach enhances the pleasure of aesthetic enjoyment, while
providing the necessary basis for the understanding of the cultural content
behind the visible forms.” (11)
What this argument
states is that, no matter the initial mode of acquisition, because of the stay
of these stolen objects in Europe, they have become better known and have
gained universal reputation as work of art. They have also acquired another
value in that they are not only a manifestation of a religious and political
power of a civilization but are now admired for their own aesthetic value and
craftsmanship. What an insulting argument. On this line of reasoning, one could
also argue that how ever bad slavery may have been, it has enabled the rich
variety and wealth of African culture to be known all over the world; that
African music and dance are no longer confined to the Continent but are
appreciated all over the world. When the museums argue that African sculptures
and other art works are seen by more persons in the museums in Europe, they
ignore certain facts:
Africans are excluded
from seeing these objects since they cannot secure visas in order to enter
European and US American towns; FRONTEXT, a special armed force has been set up
specifically to prevent Africans from entering Europe.
How many Africans can
afford to travel to Europe in order to see these objects and pay the entrance
fees of 10 Euros which exceed the daily earning of the average African?
The stolen African
objects are not always on display in the European museums for lack of space.
They are usually in some depots and sometimes still in the original packing!
COPYRIGHT ISSUES
In the discussion on
restitution, one issue that is almost always not mentioned is that of
copyright. Copyright law is basically intended to protect our intellectual or
artistic productions so that they are not used without our consent or that
somebody makes profit out of our intellectual or artistic efforts without our
getting any benefits. How does that stand with regard to the thousands of
stolen artistic and intellectual productions of Africans that are in the
various European and American museums? Do any of the African artists or their
successors/ countries benefit from the profits the museums make from the
entrance fees to the museums? Are the artists or their countries involved in
the copyright decisions that the European museums make and payments that they
make for granting rights of usage to others?
Should the copyrights
in the stolen cultural objects not be transferred to the societies that
originally produced these objects? After all, the Europeans made no
intellectual input to the various cultural objects that were seized by European
armies or thieves. Is force being substituted for intellect? As things now
stand, most of the books on African art are published by European and American
museums or other publishers. Copyright of the materials, including the photos
of the stolen objects are said to be with the museum or some American, French,
British or German author or photographer.
A Nigerian who wants to
use any of the material on Benin art, other than a citation, is obliged to ask
for permission from the European museum or the writer or photographer. A person
from a society whose art works have been stolen by the British is obliged to
ask the British for permission so that he can inform his people about their own
beautiful art works which the British have stolen and are showing in the
British Museum. Where then is the argument that these African art works in
Europe are given wider publicity in Europe? One should also recall that most
museums forbid the filming or photographing of any of the objects displayed in
the exhibitions. The rational for this ban is not always evident. Obviously,
some paintings should be protected from camera flashes but does this also apply
to bronze, wood, gold and other metals? Objects that in Africa stayed exposed
to the sun are now protected from the flashes of small digital cameras. We can
only speculate that the ban is often more for economic reasons than for
conservation purposes. Here again the economic benefit goes to those who stole
the goods and not to the owners of the art objects. Should one not at least
arrange that some of the benefits go to the original owners and their
successors?
E. MAINTENANCE,
SECURITY AND CONSERVATION
This last argument
seems to appeal to many persons, including even some Africans. The argument is
that Africans are unable to look after their cultural objects and it always
comes up when the question of restitution is raised. When my property has been
stolen and I ask the person who stole it to bring it back to me, he replies
that I am unable to look after my property and cites examples of thefts
occurring in my house by other persons (to whom he or she is directly related)
as a ground for not returning my property. Must we then offer proof or
guarantee to those who have stolen or are in possession of stolen goods that we
are now capable of protecting our property before they return them? Must we
then include the ability to protect one's property against thieves as a
necessary element for becoming a property owner? Who looked after African cultural
objects for thousands of years before the Europeans came to plunder the
continent? Some lost European tribe?
Would any court accept
the argument of a thief that the owner of the property cannot look after it
properly and therefore he is not going to return it? Should this principle be
accepted, no one can be sure of his property for the fact that a thief is able
to steal property will itself become his solid defence for refusing to return
it. Another related argument that we often hear is that Africans are not in a
position to conserve or preserve the precious African cultural objects for
which the Europeans believe the have a duty to preserve. An answer from the
University of Edinburgh to a request for the return of Ethiopian manuscripts is
typical of the position of many European museums. “It is the considered view of
the University that conservation of the documents is of primary concern. Since
acquiring these documents, the University Library has exercised good curatorial
management over the manuscripts in accordance with current best practice. It
has a responsibility to ensure that they are properly conserved in the future.
Regardless of the outcome of any further consideration of this matter, the
Court has agreed that the University should work in partnership with AFROMET
and University of Addis Ababa, to ensure that the manuscripts are accessible to
the Ethiopian people and to scholars through appropriate copies, such as
microfilms and digital scans, and that these should be made available to the Institute
of Ethiopian Studies at the University of Addis Ababa.
The manuscripts form a
part of the overall richness and depth of the University's Collections. The
University of Edinburgh plays a significant role as one of the world's leading
research universities hosting scholars from all over the world and, through the
use of leading edge technology, providing scholarly works to researchers. These
manuscripts should be viewed within the context of an active research
collection where the interaction of these items is important for scholarship
both now and in the future.”(12) The patent arrogance of such answers has been
so often repeated that many Europeans and Americans do not see what is wrong
with it. Since Africans have been generally painted as inefficient and
irresponsible, the Europeans and Americans think they are doing us and mankind
a great favour in preserving such stolen cultural objects.
It is also said that it
is no use to return a cultural object to an African country since it will soon
turn up in the open market. Surely those who are concerned about Africans
ability to safeguard their cultural objects should be addressing themselves to
those who support and encourage the thieves rather than use this inability as
ground for refusal to return undoubtedly stolen property. The Europeans and
Americans could ensure that their museums do not possess or buy stolen art
objects and that those caught in this game will be severely punished. They
could make their laws stricter. But all this is perhaps wishful thinking, for
Europeans and Americans are those who dominate and manipulate the art market.
The museums are not exempt from this illegality in so far as they purchase such
objects. Those who have stolen our cultural objects could do us a favour by not
adding insult to an injury.
It should be added that
in view of the recent spate of art thefts in Europe, especially Switzerland and
the daily occurrence of art thefts from museums, this argument sounds extremely
hollow. However, the American authorities have now begun to check seriously art
smugglers and the museums involved. The Europeans have not followed the
Americans in this and dubious art dealers can work in full tranquillity in
Europe.
F. DIGITALIZATION MAKES
IRRELEVANT THE LOCALIZATION OF CULTURAL OBJECTS.
This is one of the most
perverse arguments I have heard in connection with repatriation. Some have even
coined the phrase “Digital repatriation”. It has been argued in all seriousness
that in view of the possibilities of digitalization, there is no longer any
real need for physical repatriation. This extraordinary line of thought is
exemplified by this excerpt from the report on the Conference on Repatriation
of Cultural Heritage at the Greenland National Museum and Archives, Nuuk, 12-15
February, 2007. “Jonathan King (Keeper of Africa, Oceania and the Americas at
the British Museum, UK and responsible for some collections including 350,000
ethnographic and archaeological objects from the Americas and Oceania and
Africa) stated in his paper 'A View from the British Museum' that we breathe
the idea of repatriation everyday, but that it is the old paradigm.
Repatriation leaves contemporary difficulties unresolved, and we need to find
new solutions based on cultural diplomacy and interaction.
As an alternative to
physical repatriation, the British Museum advocates for other solutions,
virtual and visual return as well as long term loans, co-curated museum
exhibitions and other forms of cultural interaction. King made the point that
not only do museums create collections and so assist in the construction of
identity, but without museums there wouldn't be collections from the past.
While museums in Ghana and Kenya serve nation building purposes, the British
Museum has a universal scope. Consequently the Museum has an obligation towards
all of humanity, not least in reminding us all of the tragic history of past
and present phenomena such as slavery. (13) No less remarkable is the opinion
expressed by John Friede, a collector and specialist on Oceanic art, during a
colloquium held at the Musée du Quai Branly a day after the opening of the
museum. Friede who was a member of the acquisition commission for the museum
declared; “I do not believe that the art works from New Guinea belong to the
people of New Guinea. I am of the view that every work of man belongs to the
whole humanity”.(14) He went on to criticise those countries which prevent
their art works from being transported abroad and burry them at the back of a
museum where no one can see them as failing in their responsibility to
humanity. He also stated that his collection and the collections of most
American museums will soon be accessible through the internet. John Friede has
a collection of considerable number of art works from New Guinea.
If those keeping
illegal or stolen African art works do not want to return them, this is a
matter for them and their conscience, taking into account what their reaction
would be if Africans were to keep European stolen art works. But must they add
insults to our deep-felt injuries by underestimating our intelligence? Is the
venerable British Museum fulfilling an obligation towards humanity when it
refuses to return the Benin art works which were seized by military force in
1897? What kind of humanity would that be that does not care for the rule of
law and believes in the use of force for achieving its purposes, however
illegal and immoral?
What is meant by
“virtual and visual return which is offered as alternative to physical
repatriation”? That we can see these objects via internet and also in the form
of photos? What about the cultural objects we require for religious and ritual
practices? Is the British Museum seriously suggesting that we introduce
internet into our cultural and religious practices, including our dances and
masquerades, instead of the physical objects which are kept in European museums
and are not being used for any religious or cultural activities, except for
visualization by museum visitors? Can someone tell me how we can dance with a
digitally repatriated mask? So the Ghanaians who are involved in building
national identity would have digitalized versions of golden sandals, regalia,
earrings, masks, pots and statutes. The British who have no need for these
objects will keep the originals for the visualization and aesthetic pleasure of
visitors to the British Museum. How does one secure from my grandfathers,
uncles, aunts and others, who cannot read nor write, respect for the Asante
kingship and authority as well as veneration for our ancestors through the use
of digital versions of cultural and religious artefacts? Will they not think
there was something wrong with me if I turned up in Kumasi with my
digitalization versions at a festival where others came with their kente
cloths, Asante stools, fans, swords, spokesperson’s staff, gold jewellery and
huge drums?
Should there not be a
minimum of respect for the religious and ritual practices of others? Or has the
British Museum and its management not yet understood the nature and the role of
most of our art works which they have been keeping for ages? Do they not read
what the British anthropologists say about African art works and their
functions in African society? Have they asked themselves seriously why
Ghanaians should have digitalized versions of Ghanaian artefacts whilst the
British keep the Ghanaian originals? Do they not sense immediately that there
is something wrong here?
Maybe the British
Museum and the Musée du Quai Branly could explain to the people of Benin the
great advantages of the “virtual and visual repatriation” as opposed to
“physical repatriation” and “long term loans”. How does one lend a stolen item
to its original and rightful owner? But why do the Western museums not use the
“virtual and visual” versions of these art objects and return the physical
objects to Benin, Cameroun, Ghana, Mali, Nigeria etc? Could someone explain to
the people of Benin how the virtual versions of plaques, the commemorative
heads, brass shrines and other bronze works could function in their society?
The British Museum
could perhaps explain this to all those Europeans who have fallen in love with
the two famous African ladies, Nefertiti, Egypt, now kept in Berlin against her
will and the queen mother Idia, Benin, Nigeria, abducted with military force by
the British in 1897 and still kept against her will in the British Museum. What
about the British Museum keeping the “virtual and visual” version of the
Parthenon marbles and returning the physical version to Greece? That could be a
great step forward in this question which will not die soon.
It is obvious that
those who speak of “digital repatriation “ as alternative to “physical
repatriation” have no idea about the conditions in which the average African
lives, thanks to 500 years slavery and imperialism and 50 years of
Independence. They probably do not realize that one cannot have electricity in
every African village. What does this leave us with digitalization? They surely
have not thought about the costs in securing computers and electricity, even if
available. None of the supporters of digitalization has asked any questions
about the language in which all this will happen. They think we are all English
or French speakers. The majority of Africans are not.
How can museum
directors from countries where a high premium is put on having original objects
suggest to African countries digital versions of African artefacts? This is
only possible on the assumption that Africans and their countries should always
be second class. Their museums should also be second class. Even in the area of
African art, the originals should be in Europe and the second class museums in
Africa should have only second class copies of their own original art works.
What a world we have! Thus we are being condemned to standards lower than those
of our forefathers and foremothers who at least had first class African
sculptures and artefacts. And this drastic lowering of standards has been
brought about by the very people who took over our countries on the pretext of
bringing us civilization. Are we moving forwards or backwards?
G. WORLD CULTURE, UNIVERSAL
CULTURE, AFRICAN CULTURE PART OF EUROPEAN CULTURE
We have a large variety
of explanations which tend to argue that there is no longer any need for the
Africans to press for the restitution of their cultural objects. One of them is
that we now have a world culture and so there is no need for any particular
country to seek the return of its cultural objects. We find this in the
infamous Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums. In
December 2002, a group of the world’s largest museums, including The Art
Institute of Chicago. J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, Solomon R. Guggenheim
Museum, New York, Louvre Museum, Paris, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York, the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, The Museum of Modern Art, New York, Prado
Museum, Madrid, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg,
signed a declaration instigated by the British Museum which did not sign it,
with the aim of securing for themselves immunity against future claims for
restitution. Among the arguments which were advanced was a statement that
cultural objects which have been in these museums for a long time have in the
meanwhile become part of the culture of those countries:
“Over time, objects so
acquired — whether by purchase, gift, or partage — have become part of the
museums that have cared for them, and by extension part of the heritage of the
nations which house them. Today we are especially sensitive to the subject of a
work’s original context, but we should not lose sight of the fact that museums
too provide a valid and valuable context for objects that were long ago
displaced from their original source.”(15)
Thus on this line of
reasoning the African objects in the British Museum, London, Ethnology Museum
Berlin, Ethnology Museum, Vienna have become part of the culture of those
countries. So are the Austrians and the British now believers in ancestor
worship or veneration? A similar argument is used by the Germans to defend
their illegal detention of Nefertiti. They say she has become a Prussian or
Berliner and can no longer be regarded only as an Egyptian. She has been in
Berlin for some 95 years. And how long was she in Egypt? It is also said she is
too fragile to travel! She did not seem to have been too fragile to travel to
Berlin. Besides, modern transportation and technology are far more advanced
than they were when she travelled to Berlin in 1912. A similar argument was
also used by the British when they refused to lend a Benin hip mask to the
Nigerians. They also added climatic change as a ground. A variety of this
argument is that we all now have a world culture and so there is no need to
think that African cultural objects should be in Africa alone. A slight
variation of this is to say that there are Africans in London and Paris who
also deserve to have access to the objects from the culture of their parents.
So the African Diaspora is brought in to establish an argument against African
demands.
III. AFRICAN ART IN THE
HISTORY OF MODERN ART?
If the Europeans are
doing all they can to retain our art objects, there must be some reasons for
this. When Europeans first came into contact with African art, they had a
fairly negative attitude. The grounds for this attitude had long been prepared
by European philosophers such as Hegel, Vorlesungen über Philosophie der
Geschichte, Kant, Beobachtungen über das Gefühl des Schönen und Erhabenen,
Hume, Essays. (16) These erudite philosophers had poisoned the minds of
Europeans instead of enlightening them by asserting that Africans had no history
and had made no contribution to the development of mankind. We know today of
course that the first human beings lived in Africa and if they had made no
development, mankind should have become extinct. The false theories of the
philosophers were generally developed to justify slavery and colonialism. There
was a need to establish that the objects of slavery and colonialism were not as
good as Europeans and were indeed, inferior. These same theories have been used
to justify all sorts of cruel treatment of Africans, including apartheid which
was supported by all European countries.
The myth of the
inferiority of the Africans therefore coloured the views of the Europeans when
they looked at African culture, including our religion, culture, music and
dance. Thus their perspectives were deformed ab initio. African arts, including
sculptures, masks and paintings were considered by Europeans as “primitive” and
not deserving the same consideration as European arts. In the meanwhile the
colonialists and their agents were busy, as they are today, combing the whole
continent, for masks, sculptures and other art works to decorate their houses
and to put them in their ethnological museums and in art galleries selling the
so-called “primitive arts”. But why “primitive”?
Having concluded that
Africans were inferior beings, the Europeans had also to conclude logically
that they could not produce works of art which could be considered as civilized
and representative of the most beautiful and finest realizations of human taste
as defined by Europeans. Europeans defined what was beautiful without bothering
to find out if the Africans had their own conceptions of beauty. The Europeans
were victims of their own pre-conceptions and propaganda. When they found
African art which they considered beautiful, such as the Benin bronzes, they
said it must be a work of classical Greece or some lost European tribe but
definitely not a work of primitive Africa. Up to this day, there is still a
dispute as to whether the art works of Africa should be placed in ethnological
museums which deal with so-called primitive peoples or in the art galleries
where we find art works from Europe and US America. Prejudices have a long
life! Nevertheless, the debt of all the great modern artists to African art is
now generally admitted, Pablo Picasso, Braque, Modigliani, Brancusi, Matisse
have all been heavily influenced by African art, especially, African masks.
Colin Rhodes in his book, Primitivism and Modern Art, declares: “In Picasso’s
work, for example, between around 1907 and the beginning of 1909, we witness
the artist working through his encounter with tribal sculpture towards a point
at which its forms are fully assimilated in his painterly style. Consequently,
direct borrowings from African art are clearly evident in the large oil sketch,
Three Figures under a Tree (1907), but by 1908-9 when he had reached a
definitive statement of this composition in Three Women this was no longer the
case.” (17)
The author also
declares: “Picassos’s introduction to African sculpture around 1907 coincided
with a radical change in the appearance of his paintings, which might be seen
to threaten the claims often made for his originality.”(18) Rhodes underlines
the influence of African masks in Paris:
“African masks and
figures, mainly from the Ivory Coast, Gabon, and the Congo, are probably the
most common influences in Parisian artistic circles in the years before 1918.
In sculpture, especially, there are many instances of the important role played
by such works. Brancusi’s Little French Girl (1914-1918) is a case in point.
Formal similarities can be drawn between this work and much West African figure
sculpture if we compare, for example, the stiff, frontal pose of Little French
Girl with a Kulango figure from the Ivory Coast”(19) Another author, William
Rubin, in his excellent book, Primitivism in 20th Century: Affinity of the
Tribal and the Modern, demonstrates amply the incontestable influence of
African art on various modern European artists: Picasso, Juan Gris, Arman,
Braque, Matisse, Vlaminck, Kandinsky, Kirchner, Modigliani, Paul Klee, Moore
and Giacometti. According to Rubin, when Picasso saw for the first time an
African sculpture at the Museum of Ethnology at the Trocadero, Paris, he
declared “It was in this moment that I understood what art was”. (20) When one
reflects on all these matters, one cannot escape the conclusion that
imperialist domination and colonialist brutality have made many Europeans less
sensitive to the feelings of others and reduced considerably the level of shame
normally existent in most persons. How otherwise is one to explain the frantic
efforts to offer justifications and explanations for the retention of art
objects forcibly taken away by Europeans? Moreover, these obviously
self-serving justifications are offered by scholars and other learned persons
from whom one would normally expect better answers.
It is certainly not the
business of this writer to advise the opponents of restitution on what
arguments or how their case should be presented but in the interest of fair and
fruitful debate it would be agreed by all that such arguments, like those in
the infamous “Declaration on Importance and Value of Universal Museums”, are
more likely to exacerbate the discussion than to contribute to solutions
acceptable to all.
None of the arguments
in support of non-restitution seem to contain any real substance. On the
contrary, most of them are really not worthy of the persons who make them nor
of the countries they represent. I happen to have studied or lived in many of
these countries - Great Britain, France, United States, Germany and Austria -
and I often wonder what my old professors would have said if somebody presented
them similar arguments. Take the argument that Nefertiti has become a
“Berlinerin” and cannot travel or that African religious objects have become
part of the culture of a predominantly Catholic country such as Austria. What
would the late Professor Max Rheinstein, University of Chicago think of the
pronouncements of James Cuno, Director of the Art Institute of Chicago?
But above all, what is
remarkable is the absolute lack of shame on the part of Europeans to argue that
African stolen goods belong to them. Take the Benin bronzes for example. We all
know they were stolen or looted by British soldiers in 1897 and that the
British sold some to the Germans and Austrians who knew they were stolen goods.
How can anyone with good conscience not be worried by being linked with such
stolen goods? Yet we have respectable professors and museum directors proudly
proclaiming the ownership by their countries and museums of such stolen goods?
Is there no more morality in our world? Is there no ethos?
At this point, you may
think I am preaching. Yes I am preaching. I am preaching to Americans and the
Europeans who are used to preaching to Africans but are not used to hear
Africans preach to them. I am urging them not to confess and convert but to
recognize and adopt. They must finally recognize that slavery and colonialism were
not a blessing and that too many atrocious crimes were committed in the past.
When it comes to dealing with cultural objects, it seems that many Europeans
abandon all considerations of justice and morals. They must adopt an ethic
which states that “Thou shall not steal” also applies to cultural objects.
There is no reason why the poor and hungry man who steals a piece of bread
should be condemned to prison but those who steal cultural objects are regarded
as heroes. What kind of morality permits James Cuno, Director of the Art
Institute of Chicago to lambast and condemn States for trying to control
archaeological excavations and illegal exportation and at the same time praise
robbers for their hard work and for risking their lives?
The assertion and assumption
by Europeans that there is no civilization outside their own cultural area
seems to lead them to seize control of any land where there is evidence of
civilization and to steal cultural artefacts and symbols of others to confirm
that indeed civilization can only prosper under their control. Hence stealing
and plundering become acceptable means of acquiring cultural artefacts. They
may even go so far as to declare that there is no link between present day
peoples and their ancestors: “It is a stretch of the imagination,” says Cuno,
“to link modern Egypt to ancient Egypt, modern Greece to ancient Greece, modern
Rome to ancient Rome, communist China to ancient China. Nonetheless, countries
like Italy, Greece, Turkey, China, and many others have laws that make any
antiquity found on their soil automatically the property of the state.” (21)
Cuno and others seek
with such absurd assertions to create the impression that certain European
countries have even more connections with ancient civilizations than the peoples
presently living in those countries! When I read articles and books on stolen
cultural objects, I sometimes wonder whether the Europeans and the Americans
realize what damage they do to their image in the rest of the world. The
vestiges of colonialism and imperialism have to be eradicated before we can
think of a just world. Seldom do we see with such clarity and transparency, the
marriage of illegality, illegitimacy and sheer hypocrisy in those who are
always preaching the respect for the rule of law and human rights. The
Europeans and Americans who are united in large scale robbery and illegal
detention of stolen cultural property of poor and weaker countries should be
ashamed to find themselves in such debates with African and Asian countries.
Finally, Europeans
should stop expecting us to suspend common sense when they try to defend their
unjustifiable possession of stolen cultural objects. We would then not have to
listen to arguments such as one attributed to the Director of the Altes Museum,
Berlin; that Nefertiti makes a better impression in the Berlin Museum whereas
in the Cairo Museum, in the midst of all the many other figures, her presence
would not be so outstanding. In this way, the Americans and the Europeans will
rejoin the rest of the world in the approach to restitution of stolen cultural
objects. We are driven to use somewhat drastic language in view of the fact
that some Europeans and Americans use the moral bankruptcy of their position as
if it were a badge of honour.
Kwame Opoku, 24 March,
2008
NOTES
* Revised text of a
lecture delivered on 22 February 2008 during the Black History Week at the City
Hall, Vienna, Austria
Britain declared Egypt
a British Protectorate, gave Egypt in 1922 some Independence with many
restrictions and right of intervention; 1936 Egypt gained more self government.
Real independence came after the Second World War and British troops left the
Suez Canal Zone only in 1956
C.Bertelsmann, München,
1984, pp.260-307; see also, Culture and Development, www.nofretete-geht-auf-reisen.de/echronol.htm
Anja Laukötter, Von der
“Kultur” zur “Rasse” - vom Objekt zum Körper, transcript Verlag, Bielefeld,
2007, p.160
Barbara Plankensteiner
(Ed), Benin Kings and Rituals: Court Arts from Nigeria, Snoeck, 2007
Richard Pankhurst,
“Maqdala and its loot”, http://www.afromet.org/history/; see also,Pankhurst,
The Ethiopians, Blackwell, London, 1998. The author has in this book very
interesting comments on the duplicity of the French and the British and the
despicable role they played in encouraging fascist Mussolini to invade
Ethiopia. Ironically, it appears only Nazi Germany was willing to supply
Ethiopia with arms in order to resist Mussolini. Pankhurst also relates
Nkrumah’s reaction on hearing of the fascist invasion of Ethiopia
See also Angelo Del
Boca, “The Myths, Suppressions, Denials, and Defaults of Italian Colonialism”,
in Patrizia Palimbo, (Ed), A Place in the Sun, University of California
Press.London, 2003, pp.17-35
Gallimard, Paris, 1951;
see Annex I below
Jeannette Greenfield,
The Return of Cultural Treasures, 3rd Edition, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2007, p.100
See, K. Opoku, Benin to
Berlin Ethnologisches Museum: Are Benin Bronzes made in Berlin?
www.afrikanet.info/
Barbara Plankensteiner,
op. cit. p.17
B.Plankensteiner,
ibid.p.17
University of Edinburgh
press release 28 February.2005 http://www.afromet.org/history/
Conference on
Repatriation of Cultural Heritage at the Greenland National Museum and
Archives, Nuuk, February 12th-15th, 2007 www.natmus.gl/con2007
Le dialogue des
cultures, Musée du Quai Branly, Paris, 2007, p.114
Declaration on the
Importance and Value of Universal Museums.
http://cool-palimpsest.stanford.edu/icom/pdf/E_news2004/ See also, Tom Flynn,
“The Universal Museum- A valid model for the 21 Century?” www.tomflynn.co.uk/
Mark O’Neil,
“Enlightenment museums: universal or merely global?
http://www.le.ac.uk/ms/m&s/Issue%206/ONeill
Hegel, Vorlesungen über
Philosophie der Geschichte, Reclam, 1961, p.163, (Lectures on the Philosophy of
History)
Kant, Beobachtungen
über das Gefühl des Schönen und Erhaben, Fischer Verlag, 1991, p.102.
(Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and the Sublime) Hume, Essays,
Routeledge, pp.152-153
Colin Rhodes,
Primitivism and Modern Art, 1994 Thames and Hudson, London, p.110; see also,
Peter Stepan, Picasso’s Collection of African and Oceanic Art, Prestel, Munich,
Berlin, London, New York, 2006
Colin Rhodes,
ibid.p.116
Colin Rhodes,
ibid.p.117
Museum of Modern Art,
New York, 1984 pp; see also, Die Expressive Geste: Deutsche Expressionisten und
afrikanische Kunst, Hatje Cantz,2007
www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/02/10/finders_keepers/
ANNEX I
EXTRACTS FROM AFRIQUE
FANTÔME, MICHEL LEIRIS Gallimard, 1951. Translations from French are by
K.Opoku.
28 August 1931
“After the journey.
Dinner at Sido (128 km). Raid, as in the other village, of all that we can find
by way of dance costumes, utensils, children’s toys, etc.” (Ibid. p.96)
6 September
“On the left, hanging
from the ceiling in the midst of a crowd of calabashes, an indefinable packet
covered with feathers of different birds and in which Griaule feels that there
is a mask. Irritated by the equivocations of the people our decision is quickly
made: Griaule takes two flutes and slips them into his boots, we place the
other things in place and we leave.” (Ibid. p.103)
“Griaule decrees then
and through Mamadou Vad, informs the chief that since they are obviously
mocking us, they must, as reprisals deliver to us a Kono (a religious object)
in exchange for 10 francs, on pain of the police, said to be hiding in our
vehicle, coming to take the chief and the important persons of the village to
San where they will have to explain themselves to the Administration. What a
terrible blackmail!
With a theatral gesture,
I gave the chicken to the chief and as Makan has arrived with the canvas sheet,
Griaule and I ordered the men to bring us the “Kono” (religious object). With
everybody refusing, we went there ourselves, enveloped the holy object in the
canvas sheet and went out like thieves whilst the panic-stricken chief fled and
at some distance, drove his wife and children to their home with a baton. We
crossed the village, which had become completely deserted, in a deadly silence,
we reached our vehicles… The ten francs are given to the chief and we leave in
a hurry, in the midst of general astonishment and crowned with the aura of
particularly powerful and daring demons or rascals.”(Ibid. pp.103-104)
7 September
“Before leaving
Dyabougou, visit to the village and the taking of the second “Kono”, which
Griaule had spotted by entering into the reserved hut surreptitiously? This
time it is Lutten and myself who have the responsibility for the operation. My
heart beats very strongly for since the scandal of yesterday, I realize with
more clarity the enormity of what we are committing.” (Ibid. p.105)
“In the next village, I
recognised a hut for a “Kono” with a door in ruins, I point it out to Griaule
and the action is decided. As in the previous case, Mamadou Vad announces
suddenly to the village chief whom we have brought before the hut in question,
that the commander of the mission has given us the order to seize the Kono and
that we are ready to pay an indemnity of 20 francs. This time, I alone take
care of the operation and penetrate into the sacred small place, with the
hunting knife of Lutten in my hand in order to cut the links to the mask. When
I realise that two men - in no way at all menacing, have entered behind me, I
realise with an astonishment which after a very short time turns into disgust,
that one feels all the same very sure of one’s self when one is a white man and
has a knife in his hand.” (Ibid. p.105)
“Towards the evening,
the French teacher informed us that the mosque was the work of a European, the
former administrator. In order to implement his plans, he destroyed the old
mosque. The natives were so disgusted by the new building that they had to be punished
with imprisonment before they would agree to sweep the building.” (Ibid. p.115)
“Departure to the
Habés. From the first village visited problems. The Habés are nice peoples who
stand firm on their feet and do not seem to be ready to let others disturb
them. Attempts to buy a few locks, even a purchase, they will protest and
denounce a completed bargain; in a gesture of anger, Griaule breaks a “waamba”
(a music instrument for the circumcised) which he had paid for and let it be
said that he curses the village.” (Ibid. p.120)
12 November
“Yesterday, we were
refused with shock several statuettes which were used to cause rainfall, as
well as a statuette with raised arms, found in a sanctuary. Taking away these
objects would have been like taking away the life of the country, said a young
man who, even though had been in the army, had remained faithful to his
customs, almost crying at the thought of the disasters that our impious gesture
would have provoked, and opposing our evil design with all his strength, had
alerted the old men. Feeling like pirates: saying good-bye this morning to
these affectionate old men, happy that we had spared them a disaster, we kept
an eye on the huge green umbrella which was normally used to protect us but was
today carefully bound. There was a strange bulge looking like the beak of a
pelican: it contained the famous statuette with raised arms which I had myself
stolen at the foot of the earth mound which served as its altar. I first hid it
in my shirt… and then I put it in the umbrella… pretending to urinate in order
to divert attention.
This evening, at
Touyogou, where we are camping at a public place, my chest is full of earth: my
shirt served again as a hiding place for a kind of double edged blade, as we
left the cave of masks of this village.” (Ibid. p.156)
14 November
“In addition, the
abductions continue and the information. Sanctuaries and holes in which one
throws old masks are systematically explored.” (Ibid. p.157)
15 November
“Our friends, Apama and
Ambara brought us secretly costumes of fibres for masques which we had asked
them. They requested us, above all, to hide them well. Today, I am preparing
with them cards on these objects. Apama and Ambara are very attentive to the
slightest noise. A child who wanted to enter was scolded. No doubt; our methods
have set an example and the two nice boys went to take the costumes of fibres
in the cave of masks where they were hidden. The influence of the European...”
(Ibid. pp.157-158)
18 November
“In another cave, we
were authorised to take one of these objects (objects destined for causing
lightning to fall on the heads of thieves). But when we put our hands on it,
the people turned away from us, for fear of seeing us terribly punished for our
sacrilege… To the right of the cave, in a small sanctuary, a beautiful wooden
sculpture. We did not look at it too much in order not to draw too much
attention; but it was agreed that this night, Schaeffner and I, we were going
to seize it.” (Ibid. p159)
ANNEX II NEFERTITI
1.) Bitter battle over
bust's true home, by Catherine Field
Queen Nerfertiti
PARIS - More than 3000
years after her reign as queen to a mysterious pharaoh, Nefertiti has sparked a
row between Egypt, which wants her bust returned for an exhibition, and
Germany, which is refusing to let it leave Berlin, where it is the city's
greatest treasure. The painted limestone sculpture of the great queen is one of
the most famous depictions of beauty and female power, showing a woman with
exquisite features in the prime of life.
After lying in sand on
the banks of the Nile for more than three millennia, the life-size bust was
brought back into daylight in 1912 by a German archaeologist, Ludwig
Borchardt.How Borchardt got his find home remains a controversy. One version is
that he talked Ottoman Empire officials into letting him keep the bust. Another
is that he smuggled it out of the country, falsifying an inventory.
In 1933, Egypt began
what would be a long campaign to bring her home, but its request was quashed by
Hitler. "Nefertiti continually delights me. The bust is a unique
masterpiece, an ornament, a true treasure ... I will never relinquish the head
of the queen," the Fuehrer wrote. Under a grandiose scheme conceived by
Hitler to rebuild Berlin and rename it Germania, Nefertiti was to have been
placed on a throne under a large dome, the centrepiece of a new Egyptian
museum.
The quarrel has now
stirred anew, for Egypt wants the bust to be lent for the opening exhibition in
2011 of a Grand Egyptian Museum, being built near the Great Pyramids.
"I really want it
back," Egyptian chief archaeologist Zahi Hawass told the Egyptian
Parliament last week."If Germany refuses the loan request, we will never
again organise exhibitions of antiquities in Germany ... it will be a scientific
war."
Hawass said the Germans
were afraid the bust would never be allowed to return to Berlin. "They
think we will be like the Raiders of the Lost Ark, that we will take it and not
return it. "Germany's response is similar to the British Museum's rebuttal
of Greece's demand for the Elgin Marbles, the frieze that once adorned the
Parthenon. Dietrich Wildung, head of the Egyptian Museum in Berlin, said he was
unfazed by the threat of an antiquities boycott, as Egypt had not lent anything
since 1985 and there was already a rich collection in Germany. He added that
the bust was too delicate to be sent abroad: "Nefertiti is not a pop star
that can simply go on tour." But Wilfried Rogasch, a German historian and
museum curator, said political will was what was keeping Nefertiti in Berlin.
"People are opposed to the loan, saying the bust might not return, but
that's nonsense. "He described the real problem as grandstanding, in which
culture officials seized on certain artefacts, elevating them to the status of
national treasures, to boost their political stature.
Work of beauty
Queen Nefertiti was the
co-ruler of Egypt in the 14th century BC.
Her name means "a
beautiful woman has arrived"..
It is believed the bust
of Nefertiti was made around 1350BC.
The bust was unearthed
at Amarnain, Egypt, by a German archaeologist, Ludwig Borchardt, in December
1912.
Nefertiti's bust was
taken to Germany in 1913 and has been on public display in Berlin since
1923.The New Zealand Herald:nzherald.co.nz
No comments:
Post a Comment