FOLARIN SHYLLON
Professor of Law, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State.
AFRICOM Secretariat
secretariat at africom.museum
May 30 2007
* Being text of a Lecture delivered to mark the International Museum Day at the Women Development Centre, Abuja on 18 May 2007.
INTRODUCTION
I am indeed delighted to give this lecture to mark the year 2007 International Museum Day. I thank the National Commission for Museums and Monuments (NCMM) for its kind invitation. It was in the spring of 1977 that the 12th General Assembly of the International Council of Museums (ICOM) founded the day of appreciation of museums the world over, and the first International Museum Day was held one year later on 18 May 1978. A museum according to ICOM Statutes is a "permanent institution in the service of society and of its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits, for purposes of study, education, enjoyment, the tangible and intangible evidence of people and their environment." In establishing the day, ICOM recognised the perpetually increasing role of museums as purveyors of shared cultural education and awareness.
There are very many types of museums, from very large collections in major cities (such as the British Museum in London and the Louvre in Paris) covering many of the categories mentioned below, to very small museums covering either a particular location in a general way, or a particular subject. Museum categories include: fine arts, applied arts, craft, archaeology, anthropology and ethnology, history, cultural history, military history, science, technology, children's museums, natural history, numismatics, botanical and zoological gardens and philately. Early museums began as the private collections of monarchs, wealthy individuals, families or institutions of art. The first public museums in the world opened in Europe during the 18th century Age of Enlightenment. The first truly public museum was the Louvre Museum in Paris, opened in 1793 during the French Revolution, which enabled free access to the former French royal collections for people of all stations and status for the first time in history. As a former palace transformed into a public institution and opened to all French citizens, the Louvre became a symbolic monument to the new republican state.
MUSEUMS IN PRE-COLONIAL AFRICA
Although in pre-colonial Africa there were no formal museums in the modern sense, the palaces of Kings and the shrines of priests functioned as museums. Indeed, the geographer, Professor Afolabi Ojo in his book Yoruba Palaces (1966) pointed out that "the [Yoruba] palace is for all practical purposes the embodiment of the arts and crafts of the people. It was the repository of the treasures of both the town and its outlying district. It was a museum of the kingdom." In 1874 before the sacking of Kumasi and blowing up of the palace of the Ashanteehene, Sir Garnet Wolseley allowed European and American journalists to wander through it. The British Daily Telegraph described it as "the museum, for museum it should be called, where the art treasures of the monarchy were stored." The London Times said that each of the rooms "was a perfect Old Curiosity Shop." "Books in many languages," the account continued, "Bohemian glass, clocks, silver plate, old furniture, Persian rugs, Kidderminster carpets, pictures and engravings, numberless chests and coffers .With these were many specimens of Moorish and Ashantee handicraft." The New York Herald augmented the list: "yataghans and scimitars of Arabic make, Damask bed-curtains and counterpanes, English engravings, an oil painting of a gentleman, an old uniform of a West Indian soldier, brass blunderbusses, prints from illustrated newspapers, and, among much else, copies of the London Times . for 17 October 1843." [ Ivor Wilks, Asante in the Nineteenth Century: the Structure and Evolution of a Political Order: Cambridge University Press, 1975, 200-201]. For his exploits in Ashantee, Wolseley received the thanks of both Houses of Parliament and a grant of 25,000 pounds sterling. He was promoted to be major general for distinguished service in the field and was made GCMG and KCB. The freedom of the city of London was conferred upon him with a sword of honour, and he was made honourary DCL of Oxford and LLD of Cambridge universities.
MUSEUMS IN COLONIAL AFRICA
In colonial Africa the establishment of museums could have prevented or reduced the wholesale removal of cultural objects from the colonies to the metropolis. The attitude of colonial officials however could at best be described as indifferent. Consequently museums sprang up either as a result of the sustained effort and enthusiasm of a few colonial officials or they came into being in order to cater for the past-times of settlers and colonial officials. The museum as an institution had however been formalised in Europe well before the scramble for Africa: Ashmolean Museum (Oxford, England)1683, Dresden Museum (Germany) 1744, British Museum 1753, Vatican Museum 1756, the Uffizi Gallery in Florence 1765, the Louvre 1793 and the Prado (Spain)1819. In Kenya what is now the National Museums of Kenya started in 1910 by colonial settlers and naturalists who needed a place to keep and preserve their collections. In Nigeria the National Museum started in Jos in 1952 but it was not until 1957 that the National Museum in Lagos was opened. Both Kenneth Murray and E. H. Duckworth who worked tirelessly for the establishment of a museum in Nigeria drew attention to the fact that due to the absence of a museum in the country many priceless objects like the Ife bronze heads unearthed in 1938 had left the country. What was true of the Nigerian experience was probably true of many other African countries. A typical example is the Royal Museum for Central Africa (RMCA) in Tervuren, Belgium.
The RMCA was founded in 1897 by King Leopold II of Belgium as a "window on Central Africa" for the Belgian people. It boasts on its homepage that the "Museum is home to some truly remarkable collections. Its collection of ethnographic objects from Central Africa is in fact the only one of its kind in the world" It owns over 500,000 African objects. [250,000 rock samples, 180,000 ethnographic objects, 56,000 wood samples, 8000 musical instruments and 350 archives]. The largest African museums have an average of 5,000 objects.
The appropriation of a nation's art treasures has always been regarded as a trophy of war which adds to the glory of the victor and the humiliation of the vanquished. The story is well known how Mussolini's army in 1935-36 invaded Ethiopia and carried off truck loads of booty to display in Rome including the statue of the Lion of Judah as a sign of submission. The Italians also took the 2000 year-old Aksum Obelisk, from the centre of Ethiopian Christianity and placed it as a trophy on the Circus Maximus. Although the Treaty of Peace with Italy of 1947 at the end of the Second World War specified that Italy should return "within eighteen months" all cultural property looted from Ethiopia, it was only in April 2005 and after much pressure from Ethiopia that the Obelisk of Axum was returned to Ethiopia.
The appropriation of a nation's art treasures has often been condemned in history. In 1812, Sir Alexander Croke had a collection of prints and paintings returned to the Philadelphia Academy of Arts on the grounds that the arts and sciences are recognised by all civilised countries as forming an exception to the strict laws of war. To return them would therefore be in conformity with the law of nations, as practised by all civilised countries. During the wars at the time of the French Revolution, as Napoleon I conquered the great cities of Europe; he confiscated art objects as he went. After Napoleon was defeated in 1815, many of the treasures he had amassed were gradually returned to their owners (many were not). The Duke of Wellington justified the restitutions on the ground that the annexations had been contrary to the practice of war between civilised nations.
UNESCO INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE
In 1999, while a visiting fellow at UNIDROIT (International Institute for the Unification of Private Law) in Rome, I wrote a paper titled "The Recovery of Cultural Objects by African States through the UNESCO and UNIDROIT Conventions and the Role of Arbitration." (Uniform Law Review, 2000-2, 219-241). The topic you have given me is therefore of utmost importance to me and to all those who are interested in the return of African cultural objects expropriated or looted in colonial times. I have also argued for the return of the Benin Bronzes both on the pages of the London Times [7 December 2001], and on the domestic and world service radio programmes of the BBC [8 December 2001 and 9 December 2001].
In the flush of independence African states agitated for the return of their expropriated cultural objects. This explains why the twelve states that sponsored the first United Nations General Assembly resolution on the subject of cultural property - "Restitution of works of art to countries victims of expropriation" (Resolution 3187 of 1973) - were all African. The resolution in its preamble deplored "the wholesale removal, virtually without payment, of objects d'art from one country to another, frequently as a result of colonial or foreign occupation"; it went on to maintain in the first substantive paragraph that "the prompt restitution to a country of its works of art, monuments, museum pieces and manuscripts and documents by another country without charge" will constitute "just reparation for damage done." In 1978, there followed "A Plea for the Return of an Irreplaceable Cultural Heritage to those who Created It", issued by the then Director-General of UNESCO, Amadou Mahtar M'Bow, himself an African. He lamented that "the vicissitudes of history" had robbed many peoples' "priceless portion" and "irreplaceable masterpieces" of their inheritance. Reaction within UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) to UNGA Resolution 3187 of 1973 led to the establishment of the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or Its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation (the Intergovernmental Committee) in 1978. The Committee held its first session at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris in 1980 and since then has met thirteen times. The fourteenth session is scheduled to hold in the spring of 2007.
The body, composed of 22 UNESCO Member States, is primarily a negotiating forum aimed at facilitating bilateral negotiations and agreements for the return or restitution of cultural property; particularly that resulting from colonization and military occupation to its country of origin either when all the legal means have failed or where bilateral negotiations have proved unsuccessful. Surprisingly, African countries whose agitation at the United Nations General Assembly led to the establishment of the Intergovernmental Committee have made little use of the Committee's good offices in the recovery of their expropriated cultural property. At the fifth session of the Committee in April 1987, "a member of the Committee remarked that few complaints were received from Africa." One explanation for the African inertia might be the difficulty of completing its Standard Form concerning Requests for Return or Restitution. But UNESCO assistance is always available to member States in this regard. It has been suggested by Lyndel Prott and Patrick O"Keefe, in their multi-volume work Law and the Cultural Heritage, that the lack of initiative is not due to lack of interest. "It is far more likely to be lack of resources, or a certain scepticism as to the likely effect of such initiatives in relation to the amount of work required." African countries can point to the fact that Greece's request for the return of the Parthenon (Elgin) marbles, which goes back to 1984, remains unfulfilled. But Greece offers African countries an object lesson in determination and persistence, for it has never failed to raise the return of the marbles at all subsequent meetings of the Committee in spite of the regular negative British response. Indeed, the fourth Committee session convened in Athens and Delphi and the seventh in Athens, in 1985 and 1991 respectively, at the invitation of the Greek government. This leads us to say that the African inaction is due to lack of stamina for the necessary follow-up.
OBSTACLES TO RETURN
From the beginning of the agitation for the return of cultural property expropriated during colonial period one major obstacle is the lack of adequate infrastructure in the former colonies to enable them to properly look after a returned cultural object. As early as the Committee's second session in 1981 it stressed the necessity of strengthening museum infrastructure in Member States who might make requests for the return of cultural property. It said that the authorities concerned must give priority and assign increased resources to: the creation or strengthening of conservation facilities and museum development in general. At the fourth session of the Committee in 1985 "one member spoke of the need of requesting countries to set their own houses in order." In his view they were plagued with "grave inadequacies" in terms of well trained museum specialists and conservation experts. An observer spoke of the specific problem of the training of guards for museums and archaeological sites in order to prevent illicit trafficking.
It is true that many countries in Africa are lacking in the minimum requirements for the conservation and preservation of cultural property whose return has been requested, or of existing collections. This argument has been, and is still used as a reason for refusing to return important objects to their countries of origin. The Benin ivory mask chosen as the emblem of the Second World Festival for Black and African Arts and Civilisation in 1977 (FESTAC 77) and taken in 1897 is an apparent case in point. While inadequate infrastructure of museums is one of the deplorable consequences of the underdevelopment of Africa by the very countries that now reproach them for it, the argument in nonetheless true. However, even where the argument of inadequate infrastructure cannot be seriously maintained as in the case of Greece, the return of the cultural property is still rejected. Even when Greece had built the Acropolis Museum where the Parthenon marbles could best be situated the United Kingdom still declined to return them. The complaint about inadequate infrastructure would therefore appear to be a red herring. I therefore agree with the declaration of African members and observers at the second session of the Intergovernmental Committee in 1981 that while the establishment and development of adequate facilities (museums, libraries, archives, etc.) is essential in each African country, it should not be "a prerequisite for the return of cultural property." [Emphasis supplied] As Abranches commented in his report for the Committee on the Situation in Africa in 1983 it seems unreasonable that conditions for conservation should ever be used as an argument for the non-return of expatriated cultural heritage to its country of origin. On the contrary, the creation of such conditions should be one aspect of the return process.
Another argument often used is the corruption of museum officials in Africa. Professor Frank Willet, a specialist in Benin art, was reported in the London Times of 7 December 2001 as saying "the bronzes could not go back to Nigeria while there were allegations of corruption and museum staff selling items." Professor Ade Obayemi, Director-General of the NCMM from March 1987 to August 1991, in his Handing Over Notes to his successor made the following troubling remarks concerning the matter: "The Chief Executive of the Commission will be shocked to find that the records show that officials of the Commission at very senior levels, were, or had been indicted as security risks and or agents of traffickers in antiquities . I will only quote the standing warning of Prof. Ekpo Eyo in his own Handing Over Notes that '. it has to be remembered that the greater risk could come from inside and this is what needs to be carefully watched' " One can site the case of State and another v. Takuh (Charge No. PLD/316C/91) tried in the Jos High Court in the 1990s to highlight the problem the Director-General was hinting at. Two officers (archaeologists) of the NCCM were charged for the offence of criminal conspiracy and criminal breach of trust under sections 96 and 313 of the Penal Code of Northern Nigeria. In this case a Nok Janus head was handed over to the first accused person to keep in the stores. Later when he was asked by the head of station of the Jos museum to fetch it, he could not produce it. He was convicted and given six months imprisonment with the option of 10,000 naira fine. The second accused was discharged and acquitted. The assertion of corruption is therefore not unwarranted. It is incumbent on the NCMM to ensure that game keepers do not become poachers.
UNIVERSAL HERITAGE AND UNIVERSAL MUSEUMS
Many major works of art have ended up in museums far from their place of origin, and disputes over ownership or return surface periodically. There are other unresolved restitution cases besides the Benin Bronzes and the Parthenon marbles, including Pergamon Altar, claimed by Turkey, and now at the Pergamon museum of the State Museums, Berlin. They are usually housed or sheltered in universal museums like the British Museum and the Louvre who always claim that they are holding and keeping them as custodians and trustees of our universal heritage.
The idea of universal heritage was first amplified in international law in the preamble to the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954. The third paragraph of the preamble states that: "the preservation of the cultural heritage is of great importance for all peoples of the world and that it is important that this heritage should receive international protection ." The Convention coming as it did after the despoliation of cultural property during the Second World War, was quite assertive on the issue of protection of cultural property and hoisted the banner of the internationalism of cultural heritage. It is asserted in another paragraph of the preamble that "damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind ." In subsequent standard setting instruments adopted by UNESCO the theme of the universality of cultural heritage was again and again reaffirmed. Thus the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, maintains that "the interchange of cultural property among nations . enriches the cultural life of all peoples." Two years later in the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 1972, the second paragraph of the preamble maintains that "deterioration or disappearance of any item of the cultural or natural heritage constitutes a harmful impoverishment of the heritage of all the nations of the world." In the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage 2001, the first paragraph of the preamble acknowledges "the importance of underwater cultural heritage as an integral part of the cultural heritage of humanity." Likewise the preamble to the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage 2003 states that it was being adopted because Member States of UNESCO were "aware of the universal will and the common concern to safeguard the intangible cultural heritage of humanity."
From this persistent and consistent UNESCO declarations that cultural property belongs to all humanity it was a small step to arguing that as a matter of human right cultural objects expropriated in the colonial period should be returned. Indeed, in 1981 a member of the committee from Panama who was unable to attend the second session of the Intergovernmental Committee in a telex message read to the session concluded it by asserting : "The right [of dispossessed countries] to the cultural heritage is one of human rights, let us defend it." M'Bow in his 1978 Plea had argued that: "The men and women of these countries have the right to recover these cultural assets which are part of their being." On 7 December 1999, Theo-Ben Gurirab, Foreign Minister of Namibia and also at the time President of the United Nations General Assembly in a discussion in the General Assembly on the issue of return of cultural objects maintained that "the lapse of time did not diminish ownership or the need for restitution." Increased calls for the return of cultural artefacts that were removed decades or centuries ago, such as the Benin Bronzes and the Parthenon (Elgin) Marbles, both of which are in the British Museum, finally forced in 2003 eighteen of the world's leading museums in the United States and Europe [including Art Institute of Chicago, State Museums, Berlin, J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, Louvre Museum, Paris, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Prado Museum, Madrid and State Hermitage Museum, St. Pertersburg] to declare that they will not hand back ancient artefacts to their countries of origin. In Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums, directors of eighteen institutions, from St. Petersburg to New York signed a declaration that their collections act as "universal museums" for the good of the world. They reminded us that "The universal admiration for ancient civilisations would not be so deeply established today were it not for the influence exercised by the artefacts of these cultures, widely available to an international public in major museums." In an internationalist stand somewhat reminiscent of the UNESCO Conventions preambles they assert that "museums serve not just the citizens of one nation but the people of every nation." They however flatly contradicted themselves when in another breath - obviously in an attempt to thwart for good the claim for return of artefacts - they maintain almost with religious fervour that objects and monumental works that were installed decades and even centuries ago in museums throughout Europe and America should remain there. "Over time, objects so acquired . have become part of the museums that have cared for them, and by extension part of the heritage of the nations which house them."
The Declaration grew out of the very strong campaign mounted by Greece in the run up to the Athens Summer Olympic Games of 2004 to have the Parthenon marbles back for the Games. According to one account, one of the signatories on condition of anonymity said that the Declaration began as a "call for help" from Neil MacGregor, the Director of the British Museum. However it is quite fascinating that neither the British Museum nor any other museum in Britain was listed among the signatories. It was nonetheless posted on the homepage of the British Museum with enthusiasm and MacGregor was quoted as supporting the statement. He said: "This declaration is an unprecedented statement of common value and purpose issued by the directors of some of the world's leading museums and galleries. The diminishing of collections such as these would be a great loss to the world's cultural heritage." With regard to Greece's request the BBC quoted MacGregor saying: "They must remain here if the museum is to continue to achieve its aim, which is to show the world to the world." As we shall see shortly Robert Anderson, MacGregor's predecessor as director of the British Museum made a similar statement with regard to the Benin Bronzes.
THE BENIN BRONZES
It is often said that the Nigerian government over the years made several requests to Britain for the return of the Benin Bronzes. For example, in a letter dated 10 December 1996 sent by the late Member of Parliament, Bernie Grant to the Director of Art Gallery and Museum, Glasgow, Scotland, he said: "Formal requests for their return have been made in the past by the Nigerian Government, and by the Obas of Benin themselves." In actual fact the documentation of these requests is hard to come by. There is of course the well known request of Nigeria for the loan of the beautifully crafted ivory pendant mask chosen by Nigeria as the emblem for FESTAC 77. The British Museum initially requested an insurance bond of 2 million pounds sterling, for the mask's safety, but then argued that it was too delicate to be moved from its carefully controlled environment. In the event the mask was not lent. Twenty four years later in 2001 Robert Anderson, then Director of the British Museum in an interview in the London Times of 7 December 2001, came clean and justified the refusal on two grounds. He said there was never a chance of a loan, as visitors "expect to see these things on display in the British Museum." History could not be unravelled, he added.
In the run up to the centenary of the plunder of the Benin art works, the weekly magazine West Africa of 11-17 November 1991, in a story titled "Treasure Hunt" reported that the Oba of Benin had launched a strong campaign for the recovery of thousands of art treasures taken to Britain in 1897. The Oba was collecting as many as one million signatures worldwide. The account noted that previous efforts to recover the treasures had failed. Posters were printed and widely circulated both within and outside Nigeria depicting some of the plundered bronzes with the inscription "We Want Our Treasures Back."
From 18-23 February 1997, activities were held in Benin to mark the centenary of the events of 1897. The Oba of Benin in his opening address alluded to the threat of some Bini to take the British government to the International Court of Justice over the events of 1897 in order to get a judgement to require the British government to repatriate the looted works of art. While appreciating the good intention of such patriotic Bini he cautioned that this is not a matter to be taken to the International Court of Justice or any other court of law, even if those contemplating it would be able to finance such actions. Pointing out that success has been achieved in many international issues through what is known as quiet diplomacy, the Oba added: "At this very moment, I am happy to say, I am in contact with some eminent people in London who are supportive to our cause and seriously helping."
The late Bernie Grant, one of Britain's first black Member of Parliament was certainly supportive of the effort to regain the bronzes. In December 1996, as Chair of the Africa Reparations Movement (UK), (ARM UK) Bernie Grant wrote to the Director of Art Gallery and Museum in Glasgow on behalf of the Oba of Benin asking for the return of the Benin Bronzes holding of the gallery. In his reply turning down the request, Julian Spalding the director of the gallery stated that "virtually all our 22 Benin items are on permanent view to the public . and their withdrawal from these displays would limit, in our opinion, our visitors' understanding of the world." He noted that even if the request were granted it would not be "a transfer from one public museum to another, but a request on behalf of the Oba of Benin, himself." The fact that the request if granted would end up in "private" collection was fatal his concluding sentence appears to be saying. "We believe . that these artefacts have an important role to play in the public sector by informing over 3 million visitors here about the culture of Benin and, it has to be said, the history of British Imperialism." We can contrast Spalding response with the disclaimer beside the Benin bronzes at the Pitt-Rivers museum in the University of Oxford that the museum has not received a request for the return of the bronzes.
Although from the beginning of its work the Intergovernmental Committee made it clear that it was not interested in emptying universal museums of their acquired masterpieces the tension has always been there between universal museums and countries victims of colonial expropriation. The Committee during deliberation at its first session had said that "it had a duty first and foremost to deal with requests for restitution or return from countries which had been deprived of their cultural property and which need it for assembling a representative collection of their cultural heritage." [Emphasis supplied] Consequently, in the return and restitution controversy, it is important to bear in mind that a very considerable number of objects will not be returned to their countries of origin because they are not among those to be chosen in accordance with the criteria established by the Intergovernmental Committee.
It is a matter of surprise indeed that to date Nigeria which at various times served on the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation (she was in fact a foundation member of the Committee) has never sought the good offices of the Committee on the matter. Requests for return or restitution must be submitted not less than six months prior to the session of the Committee at which they are to be examined. The Committee meets every two years, although it may meet in extraordinary session. As indicated earlier, the Committee has drawn up a standard form with guidelines to facilitate the requests for return and restitution. During the third session of the Intergovernmental Committee held in Istanbul, Turkey, 9-12 May 1983, it was reported that "the representative of Nigeria also mentioned the results of various bilateral negotiations launched by her country (as well as outright purchase of objects so as to obtain their return to Nigeria) and indicated the hopes it placed in the work of the Committee." Evidently, nothing has come of the bilateral negotiations. I would have thought that Nigeria should then have proceeded to file a formal request, at least, in respect of the Benin Bronzes.
If not then, at least something ought to have been done since 2002 when the Nigerian Parliament through the House of Representatives demanded the return of the Benin Bronzes. On 23 January 2002, the lower house of parliament in a motion sponsored by 57 legislators and passed unanimously called on the President to request the repatriation of the Benin Bronzes. The motion also asked the NCMM to provide a list of all Nigerian artefacts at the British Museum - and list their value.
In discussions on the return of Benin Bronzes sight is often lost of the fact that Germany has a larger share of the artefacts than Britain. Yet as far as I know no pressure has been exerted on Germany. The focus on the British is probably due to the fact they were the perpetrators of the plunder. In my article in Art Antiquity and Law (Vol. 3 No. 3, 1998) captioned "One Hundred Years of Looting of Nigerian Art Treasures 1897-1996" I highlighted the fact that the Germans have more of the bronzes than the British. The British had auctioned the artefacts to defray the expenses of the expedition. I quoted the statement of Kenneth Murray, the father of the museum movement in Nigeria from the Nigeria Magazine issue of 1938 that "it was really owing to the initiative of the Germans, who secured the majority of the work for their own museums, that Benin became famous." In an earlier article "Cultural Heritage Legislation and Management in Nigeria" in the 1996 issue of the International Journal of Cultural Property, I quoted a statement of Professor Saburi Biobaku: "Whereas the Dahlem in West Berlin can boast of 4,000 Benin pieces, and the British Museum, 2500 and Pitt Rivers [Museum, University of Oxford] 393 objects, the Nigerian museums possess only about 100 pieces." Following the acquisition of the Perls collection by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, it now has about 200 objects. The round figures given by Biobaku for Berlin and the British Museum have not been verified. Various accounts I have seen of the British Museum's total is from 700 to 900. I do not doubt however that the State Museums in Berlin do have more than the British Museum. I suppose a fine distinction can be drawn between the British who plundered and the Germans who bought the objects!
RIGHT OF RETURN AND RIGHT OF ACCESS
The NCMM in its invitation asked me to talk on Museums and Universal Heritage: Right of Ownership. I have however modified the title to Museums and Universal Heritage: Right of Return and Right of Access. I have done so advisedly. An examination of the reports of the Intergovernmental Committee spanning twenty seven years shows that only three cases have been formally brought to the Committee. The first in 1984 was the request by Greece for the return of the Parthenon (Elgin) marbles. The other requests in 1987 were by Turkey for the return of 7400 cuneiform tablets and the Boguzkoy Sphinx then located in the German Democratic Republic (GDR). Of the three requests only the 7400 cuneiform tablets were returned by the then GDR. The major two requests, that is, the Parthenon (Elgin) marbles and the Boguzkoy Sphnix remain un-honoured. The related International Fund for the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation created in 1999 and which relies on voluntary contributions by member States, remains unfunded apart from 29,342 euros (converted from 10,000,000 drachmas) donated by Greece in 2002. This is not surprising. The idea of an international fund to assist in effecting the return of cultural property was first mooted by the secretariat to the Committee at the inaugural session in 1980 following an earlier suggestion by ICOM. A number of delegates and observers however expressed reservations as to the appropriateness of creating a fund of this kind. Reasons of a psychological nature, among others, were put forward, such as the reactions of certain countries, which would be called upon, at one and the same times, to return cultural property and to finance the costs incurred, directly or indirectly, by such restitution. Earlier I mentioned the remark of the director of the British Museum that there was never a chance that the FESTAC emblem would be lent to Nigeria. I have also discussed the Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums which firmly rejected the idea of a return. Indeed BBC Online captioned its report of the statement "Museums Thwart Artefact Claim". In view of the overwhelming reluctance to return cultural objects by museums that have them, I consider it also necessary to consider an alternative to return.
UNIVERSAL MUSEUMS IN AFRICA
Although in the context of bilateral negotiations some outstanding examples of restitution have taken place since decolonisation including the return of objects by Belgium to the Democratic Republic of Congo, by the Netherlands to Indonesia, there is extreme reluctance to undertake the return of what M'Bow referred to as "irreplaceable masterpieces" and "irreplaceable cultural heritage". Given this fact I have suggested on two previous occasions a midway solution. And this is the establishment of branches of Universal Museums in Africa. I think it may be possible to split possession and ownership of cultural objects expropriated in the colonial period. We are accustomed to the idea of a "British Institute" in Rome, a German "Archaeological Institute" in Rome or "American School" in Athens, and so on. Why not a branch of the British Museum in Abuja, a branch of Tervuren in Kinshasa, and a branch of the State Museums, Berlin in Benin City, and so on? In this way the former colonised countries would have possession and former colonisers would retain ownership and control. The adoption of this suggestion will introduce a new vocabulary into the discourse, namely "relocation". Return, repatriation and restitution have now acquired emotive connotation that we can usefully focus on relocation so that as Professor Thurstan Shaw observed, original works of art could be studied and understood in the milieu that gave them birth. We can venture to say that the majority of African countries are better represented in the museums of Europe and America than in their own countries.
The suggestion for branches of universal museums like the British Museum and the Louvre in Africa was first made at a conference organized by the Institute of Art and Law, Leicester, England and sponsored by UNESCO at University College London on the theme of Caring and Sharing: Moral and Legal Imperatives for the Return of Cultural Property in December 2001. It was amplified five years later at the conference on Cultural Heritage Issues: The Legacy of Conquest, Colonization and Commerce hosted by Willamette University College of Law, Oregon, United States in October 2006. Something not too dissimilar to what I proposed is now going on at the High Museum of Art, Atlanta, Georgia, United States where the Louvre Atlanta exhibition opened in December 2006. The series of exhibitions lasting three years make available for viewing on American soil revered and priceless treasures from the Louvre. Of course it is far much easier to conclude the Louvre Atlanta project than what is being proposed. But daunting as the idea is, it is not impossible to achieve. I may mention in parenthesis the case of the three Nok objects looted from Nigeria and acquired from the illicit market for display in the Louvre and ultimately in the Musee du Quai Branly. In the end the French government recognised Nigeria's ownership of the three artefacts and in exchange Nigeria agreed to deposit them in the Musee du Quai Branly, to be exhibited with the museum's permanent collection for the exceptionally long period of 25 years (renewable).
At the third session of the Intergovernmental Committee which was held in Istanbul, Turkey in 1983, a member of the French delegation cited several examples of bilateral cooperation launched by the French authorities concerning the protection of the cultural heritage in various African countries: the construction of a National Museum at Bamako and the organisation of a campaign to collect cultural property in Mali; the creation of the Historical Museum at Quida and the Ethnographical Museum at Porto Novo and the restoration of the Royal Palace of Omnes at Porto Novo, Benin Republic. Also at the Istanbul session the observer from the United Kingdom made a very interesting intervention. In his statement he stated that "the fact that the United Kingdom does not accept the principle of the return of cultural property except in cases of illegal acquisition does not mean that we are opposed in principle to the return of objects. Each institution is free to act as it wished within the confines of its statutes." He added that the return of objects "is only one of a possible range of options which can be explored bilaterally." I wish to suggest that the opening of a branch of the British Museum in Nigeria is a good option worth pursuing in Nigeria's bilateral engagement with the United Kingdom.
In addition to making available on African soil renowned African masterpieces in foreign museums, it would open the way for the most constructive exchanges of foreign cultural objects in African museums. As far back as 1983 Henrique Abranches in his report on the situation in Africa (CLT-83/CONF.216/3) to the Intergovernmental Committee observed that one of the biggest problems besetting the cultural life of the African continent is its conspicuous backwardness in exchanges of cultural heritage. In the whole of Black Africa, for instance, it is impossible to find a single museum of Oriental art, or a good gallery of modern impressionist or other art. Greek sculpture, Aztec pottery and Slav silverware, to name a few, are completely unknown to the African peoples. In addition, whereas, for example, the Smithsonian Institution in the United States has the National Museum of African Art, most African countries do not possess good representations of the art and history of other African countries. Thus this is not a one dimensional project. Two other alternatives to return may be mentioned quickly. The first is travelling exhibitions in African countries of African art objects in universal museums. The second is long-term or permanent loans of important and significant African cultural property to their countries of origin since most universal museums would plead that permanent de-accession of the cultural objects they own is not allowed. There is no doubt that the adoption and implementation of any or all of these creative alternatives to return will vastly improve cultural heritage well-being of African countries.
Another recent development worth mentioning and also designed to encourage Africa's cultural heritage well-being is the endeavour spearheaded by a Finnish author Juha Vakkuri to set up in Grand-Popo in Benin Republic, the Museum of Returned African Art to house returned African art exported in colonial times. The first goal of African Art Returns is to acquire 500 works of African art by 2008, which would be stored in Finland until returned and displayed in Africa. According to an AFP report of 9 February 2006, Vakkuri speaking at an interview in Paris revealed that private sponsors and the Finnish government would finance the 100,000 euros operating cost for 2006. In future years, the annual budget rises to 300,000-400,000 euros, half coming from Nordic governments and half from private sources. The scheme also counts on an acquisition budget of about 100,000 euros.
One other option to return which I would merely mention is making a copy or replica of the cultural object for the requesting country. Being given a copy of an "irreplaceable cultural heritage" is a very poor substitute. The connection that people feel to cultural objects that define their being is so powerful and a duplicate cannot satisfy what Anthony Appiah ("Whose Culture Is it, Anyway?") referred to as "the connection to art through identity". Besides among nations the option has always been universally spurned. Thus in the report of the twelfth Intergovernmental Committee session (25-28 March 2003) it was reported that on 19 November 2002 a bilateral meeting was held between Turkish and German authorities in Berlin with little result over Turkey's request for the return of the Boguzkoy Sphinx. "Germany proposed keeping the original Sphinx and having a replica made to give to Turkey. Turkey proposed the return of the Sphinx to Turkey and giving a replica to Germany. Neither proposal was accepted." The truth is that even in this technologically advanced age when you could not tell the copy from the original, only the original has the aura or magic that attaches to an original work of art.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Nigeria should commence bilateral negotiations with the governments of the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany for the return of the Benin bronzes and if negotiations fail Nigeria must seek the good offices of the Intergovernmental Committee by submitting requests for the return of the bronzes to the governments of the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany. In addition a request for the return of the Benin bronzes at the Pitt Rivers museum should also be made.
2. There should be a national audit of cultural property and heritage collections of Nigeria. This should be done in collaboration with ICOM and AFRICOM (International Council of African Museums - ICOM's programme for Africa) and possible financial and technical assistance of the developed countries.
3. There should be an inventory of all Nigerian cultural objects outside the country on the basis of information published in museum and auction catalogues and art books. [At the seventh session of the Intergovernmental Committee held in Athens, Greece in April 1991, Madagascar announced that it had recently drawn up the inventory of objects of her cultural heritage held overseas in cooperation with Norway. Madagascar was seeking copies of these objects or their repatriation.]
4. Nigeria through the Ministry of Culture and National Commission for Museums and Monuments should commence discussion for the establishment of a branch of the British Museum in Nigeria so that the Benin Bronzes can be viewed on Nigerian soil. There should be a similar effort for a branch in Nigeria of the State Museums, Berlin.
5. A museum and an art gallery should be built in the Federal Capital Territory.
6. The government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria should offer to host a session of the Intergovernmental Committee which has never been hosted by an African country.
http://list.africom.museum/pipermail/africom-l/2007-May/000614.html