Na de zelfmoordduikvlucht door een Duitse copiloot werd gesuggereerd te verplichten dat altijd twee personen in de cockpit van een vliegtuig aanwezig zijn.

Dus, zodra een van de twee piloten voor toiletbezoek de cockpit verlaat, moet zijn plaats worden ingenomen door een van de cabinepersoneelsleden om te voorkomen dat de achterblijvende piloot de cockpitdeur blokkeert en terugkeer van zijn collega belemmert.

Is dat De oplossing om suïcidale piloten te weerhouden van een moordsuïcide? Nee, want DE oplossing bestaat niet bij beveiligingsproblemen.

Na de suggestie voortaan altijd met twee personen in de cockpit te zijn, haalden Duitse piloten dit alleszins redelijke voorstel onderuit met commentaar als: “Wanneer een piloot de fout in wil, kan dat altijd en kan hij het toestel zo snel laten dalen dat tijdelijk in de cockpit aanwezig cabinepersoneel tegen het plafond gedrukt wordt (De Volkskrant 30 maart 2015).

De piloten die het voorstel over de tijdelijke bezetting van de cockpit van tafel veegden, kwamen naar mijn weten niet met voorstellen hoe een herhaling van een zelfmoordvlucht zoals met de Airbus 320 te voorkomen.

Ondanks maatregelen ter verhoging van de beveiliging en veiligheid kan het altijd nog fout gaan. Het gaat er echter om of deze maatregelen, vaak een opeenstapeling van maatregelen, de kans dat het fout gaat verminderen.

Tijdens mijn ruim 30-jarige carrière als museumbeveiliger werd ik maar al te vaak geconfronteerd met dergelijke “ja, maar…” discussies. Het is verbijsterend hoe groot de creativiteit van dwarsliggers kan zijn wanneer je beveiligingsvoorstellen doet. Die creativiteit wordt vrijwel nooit gebruikt om proactief beveiligingsproblemen te benaderen en met voorstellen te komen.

Ik herinner mij nog helder de bizarre discussie waarin ik verzeild raakte tijdens een themabijeenkomst op de Reinwardt Academie (onderdeel van de Amsterdamse Hogeschool voor de kunsten, waar onder andere toekomstige museumwerkers worden opgeleid) naar aanleiding van een interne diefstal in het Amsterdams Stadsarchief.

Binnen de museumwereld is interne diefstal een wezenlijk probleem. Statistieken over de Nederlandse situatie zijn mij niet bekend. In de USA blijkt bij circa 50% van alle diefstallen uit musea die opgelost worden sprake te zijn van interne betrokkenheid. Een statistiek om van te schrikken. Er is geen reden aan te nemen dat de Nederlandse situatie rooskleuriger is. Er deden zich de afgelopen decennia ernstige incidenten voor waar sprake was van interne betrokkenheid bij diefstal. Vandaar die themabijeenkomst in de Reinwardt Academie.

Mijn suggestie dat maatregelen mogelijk zijn om de kans op verduistering – de juridische term voor interne diefstal – tegen te gaan werd botweg weggehoond. Ik noemde onder andere steekproefsgewijze controle van medewerkers die het gebouw verlaten – in diverse Europese landen en de USA gebruikelijk – installatie van camera’s,  toegangscontrolesystemen voor de depots, verplicht gebruik van de dienstingang en screening van medewerkers.  Een naast mij gezeten discussiedeelnemer riep luidkeels uit: “Dan stop ik desnoods een archiefstuk in mijn schoen en loop ermee naar buiten”. Pijnlijk was dat deze kreet bijval kreeg van de toenmalige directrice van de Erfgoedinspectie, een afdeling van het Ministerie van OCW die onder andere tot taak heeft toe te zien op de beveiliging van rijkscollecties.

Mocht het zo zijn dat mijn voorstellen tot resultaat hebben dat het voor museum- en archiefmedewerkers alleen nog mogelijk is collectie te stelen in de schoenen, dan is veel bereikt.

Helaas is het zo dat de mogelijkheid die resteert om in je schoenen gestolen spullen mee te nemen er toe geleid heeft dat bij geen van de geslachtofferde organisaties personeel bij vertrek gecontroleerd wordt of de verplichting alleen gebruik te maken van dienstingangen gehandhaafd wordt.

Ik kan de reactie bij een volgende verduistering en beveiligingsvoorstellen voorspellen: “ja, maar…”

Ton Cremers

 

 

March 31st, 2015

Posted In: algemeen, Columns Ton Cremers, database gestolen kunst, diefstal uit museum, Erfgoedinspectie, interne diefstal, Rijksdienst Cultureel Erfgoed

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND BRITISH MUSEUM REJECT GREEK REQUEST FOR UNESCO MEDIATION ON THE PARTHENON MARBLES.

Very few readers will be surprised by the negative response of the British Museum and the British Government to the Greek request for UNESCO mediation over the Parthenon Marbles in the British Museum.(1) The real surprise is that it took such  a long time, from 9 August 2913 to 26 March 2015 to send the British response. We used to think that a prompt reply or a response within a reasonable period was the hallmark of politeness.

The negative response consists of two separate letters to UNESCO, one from the British Government and the other from the British Museum. Though both letters conveyed a negative reply, it appears better, for clarity to discuss them separately. We will also see clearly the division of labour between the two British institutions that are united in the final objective but adopt different paths and style.

BRITISH MUSEUM ANSWER

The response of the British Museum bears all the hallmarks we have come to associate with this institution in the matter of the Parthenon Marbles: arrogance, defiance and provocation.

In a letter dated 26 March to the UNESCO Assistant Director-General for Culture, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the British Museum states in the opening paragraph:

After full and careful consideration, we have decided respectfully to decline this request. We believe that the more constructive way forward, on which we have already embarked, is to collaborate directly with other museums and cultural institutions, not just in Greece but across the world”.

The request of Greece for mediation on the Parthenon Marbles in London is drowned in the area of collaboration with “other museums and cultural institutions, not just in Greece but across the world”. The specific question of the Greek sculptures, their ownership and location is not the object of attention and concentration.

The letter expresses admiration for the work of UNESCO in the area of “preservation and safeguarding the world’s endangered cultural heritage.”

The Chairman of the Board of Trustees immediately points out that the Parthenon Sculptures do not fall within this category. The method used here is fairly simple. You narrow the competence of UNESCO to the preservation and safeguarding the world’s endangered cultural heritage and declare UNESCO’s involvement in other areas as undesirable:

“the Trustees would want to develop existing good relations with colleagues and institutions in Greece, and to explore collaborative ventures, not on a government-to-government basis but directly between institutions. This is why we believe that UNESCO involvement is not the best way forward”

The Board of Trustees of the British Museum seem to have forgotten that UNESCO has a broad mandate that covers most areas of culture as well as disputes relating to cultural artefacts. Indeed the Organization has specifically, through its Intergovernmental Committee, (Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation) the duty to assist States in settling disputes such as those relating to the Parthenon Sculptures. This dispute has been before UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for a long time. The mediation procedure is one of several procedures available for dispute settlement. (2)

As we are now used to,, the British Museum’s letter contains the usual claim that the museum is there for the whole world and works on behalf of audiences from the whole world, forgetting that the majority of the world would have no visa to London and would also not be able to afford the costs involved in a visit to London.

The museum’s letter, as we could expect, is full of references to the alleged international role of the museum for the benefit of humanity:

“The British Museum, as you know, is not a government body, and the collections do not belong to the British Government. The Trustees of the British Museum hold them not only for the British people, but for the benefit of the world public, present and future. The Trustees have a legal and moral responsibility to preserve and maintain all the collections in their care, to treat them as inalienable and to make them accessible to world audiences”

“Museums holding Greek works, whether in Greece, the UK or elsewhere in the world, are naturally united in a shared endeavour to show the importance of the legacy of ancient Greece. The British Museum is committed to playing its full part in sharing the value of that legacy for all humanity.”

Most readers would be used to this standard propaganda of the British Museum in its role as self-appointed saviour of humanity’s cultural heritage. But what would come to many as a surprise is that the venerable museum advances its own wrong-doing as a demonstration of its commitment to humanity’s culture’

The letter of the museum refers to the notorious and controversial loan of Ilissos to Russia as an example of sharing the legacy of ancient Greece;

“In this same spirit, the Trustees recently lent one of the Parthenon Sculptures to the State Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg, and were pleased to learn that in only six weeks some 140,000 Russian visitors had the chance to see it there. This was a new audience for this extraordinary work of ancient Greek art, most of whom could not have visited either Athens or London.”

The loan of one of the contested Parthenon Marbles to Russia was condemned by many as wrong and was described by Peter Aspden, Financial Times critic  as “ill-conceived trip to Russia”(3)

It requires a great amount of arrogance, self-confidence and provocation to advance an action condemned by most people as evidence of international co-operation. (4)

The British Museum also refers to what it calls”the historic distribution of the surviving Parthenon Sculptures:

“Views on the historic distribution of the surviving Parthenon Sculptures naturally differ, though there is unanimous recognition that the original totality of the sculptural decoration cannot now be reassembled as so much has been lost, and that the surviving sculptures can never again take their place on the building.”

The use of the word “distribution” is in many ways misleading. It creates the impression that there had been a conscious and deliberate decision to divide the Parthenon Sculptures among the nations that hold them at present. This, as we all know, was never the case but it helps to divert attention from asking how the sculptures came to London. The statement that the sculptures cannot be all replaced in the ancient Acropolis is undoubtedly aimed, at the arguments for reunification of the sculptures in Athens. As far as I am aware, no one has ever suggested the Parthenon Sculptures could be put back at their old location. What has been suggested is that they should be reunited in the new Acropolis Museum where there is enough place for them.

LETTER FROM BRITISH GOVERNMENT

The British Minister of State for Culture and Digital Economy sent a letter dated 26 March 2015 to the UNESCO Assistant Director-General for Culture in response to the UNESCO letter of 9 August 2013.

The Minister’s letter acknowledges the important role of UNESCO in the settlement of international disputes through the Intergovernmental Committee. The letter adds that officials of Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the British Museum have attended regularly meetings of the Committee even though Britain is not a member of the Committee.

Contrary to the British Museum letter which seems to be contesting the competence of UNESCO to be involved in such disputes, the Minister’s letter acknowledges UNESCO role in such disputes:

“We would first like to express how much we value the role that UNESCO plays in helping to safeguard cultural heritage and in providing a forum for the resolution of international disputes through the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation (ICPRCP”.

Are these differences of approach accidental? We can be sure that officials of both the Government and the British Museum worked together on both letters and that if there are any differences of approach or nuances, these are not accidental but intentional. You say nice things about them and we tell them where to get off.

The letter from Government declares that the sculptures in the British Museum were acquired legally by Lord Elgin under the laws then prevailing. The request for mediation was to seek the transfer of the sculptures to Athens and deny the British Museum’s right of ownership. The positions of the British and the Greeks are clear and mediation would not carry the debate forward:

“Given our equally clear position, this leads us to conclude that mediation would not carry this debate substantially forward.”

The global nature of the collections in the British Museum as well as legal restrictions on de-accession are thrown in for good measure.

Readers will no doubt have noticed the not so subtle attempts to relegate the dispute on the Parthenon Marbles to a dispute between museums and not States. As dispute between States, the British Government is under pressure from other States in the United Nations and UNESCO to settle the matter. As dispute between institutions there will be less pressure and the Greek museum will not be able to exert much pressure on the British Museum In their letters of rejection, the British Museum tells UNESCO to stay away from this dispute and concern itself with preservation and destruction of culture and not with the Parthenon Marbles that are very well kept. The British Government also agrees that the matter should be left to the museums that have excellent relations

The British Museum continues in its attempt to take hold of the narrative of Greek culture and history, presenting itself as major player in the dissemination of Greek culture by bringing the Greek legacy to Russia and elsewhere. The current exhibition, Defining Beauty, the Body in Ancient Greek Art is given as an example of the museum’s approach. Is it by sheer coincidence that the exhibition opens on the same date as the rejection of the Greek proposal was sent?

It is remarkable that the British Museum and the British Government continue to advance the museum’s propaganda that it holds the Parthenon Marbles on behalf of humanity. Does this humanity include the British people who have in countless opinion polls overwhelmingly and consistently decided that the Parthenon Marbles be returned to Greece. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, the majority of States through their representatives in the United Nations and UNESCO have in countless resolutions decided that the sculptures should be returned to Athens. So for which humanity is the British Museum working?

The British Government and the British Museum appear never to have seriously considered the possibility of resolving the Parthenon dispute. One can understand that when a party has no real chance of winning a fair game that it is not interested in entering the game. But is this attitude to be expected from States that are often telling others to follow the law and emphasize the need for democracy? Can there be democracy without a willingness to submit disputes with other States to the rule of Law and other peaceful methods of dispute settlement?

The double refusal by the British Government and the British Museum is surely not the last word on the question of the Parthenon Marbles which they both admit are Greek. Praising the grandeur and the legacy of Greek civilization but at the same time refusing to let the Greeks have their cultural artefacts so that they could also celebrate that legacy can surely not be right.

Kwame Opoku, 30 March 2015

 

NOTES

  1. Elginism, http://www.elginism.com/elgin-marbles/uk-government-rejects-parthenon-marbles-unesco-mediation/20150327/7859/

www.newsingreece.com/…/british-museum-rejects-request-for-unesco-m

www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03…/greecebritishmediation…/6356390

  1. UNESCO Mediation and conciliation www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/…/mediation-and-conciliation
  2. Financial Times 28/29 March 2015, p.16.
  3. Kwame Opoku, Arrogance, Duplicity and Defiance with no End: British Museum Loans Parthenon Marble to Russia£.

http://www.museum-security.org/2014/12/arrogance-duplicity-and-defiance-with-no-end-british-museum-loans-parthenon-marble-to-russia/

March 31st, 2015

Posted In: Dr. Kwame Opoku writings about looted cultural objects

THE MAN OF CONSCIENCE WHO RETURNED HIS GRANDFATHER’S LOOTED BENIN BRONZES

 MAN WITH CONSCIENCE RETURNED HIS GRANDFATHER’S LOOTED BENIN BRONZES

 “These objects are part of the cultural heritage of another people… to the people of Benin City, these objects are priceless

.”

Dr. Mark Walker.

Mark Walker.

Bird of Prophecy, looted by the British in 1897 and returned by Dr.Mark Walker in 2014.

BBC NEWS has published an article under the title of “The man who returned his grandfather’s looted art”, recounting the recent return of two Benin Bronzes by Dr. Mark Walker, a medical surgeon and a descendant of one of the British soldiers who invaded Benin City in 1897 and plundered the precious artefacts from the palace of the Oba of Benin. (1).

No doubt many readers would have already heard-about Mark Walker but the story by Ellen Otzen is worth reading for there are not many persons in the Western world who, plagued by their conscience for holding looted art of other peoples, are in a hurry to return the objects to the legitimate owners. Since Walker returned two Benin Bronzes last year, there has not been a similar gesture in the whole of the Western world. This is a sad commentary on the prevailing morality. But this should not come as a surprise since in this 21st Century we have powerful institutions and leading academics that seriously argue that artefacts that have been wrenched from former colonies with violence and other illegitimate methods should be kept by the holders in the West. This position provides evidence and confirmation that not everyone has rejected colonialism and its effects despite the various United Nations resolutions. Many Western scholars seem to have banned morality from discussions on restitution.

Walker who inherited two Benin Bronzes from his grandfather felt it would be the right thing to return the objects to the descendants of Oba Ovonramwen from whose palace the objects were looted. He felt the people of Benin needed those objects more than the people at home in Britain. When Walker arrived with the two objects in Benin City, he was overwhelmed by the warm and enthusiastic reception he received from the 92 years old Oba, a great grandson of Oba Ovonramwen and from the people of Benin:

“It was very humbling to be greeted with such enthusiasm and gratitude, for nothing really. I was just returning some art objects to a place where I feel they will be properly looked after.”

As we have always maintained, African artefacts mean more to the African peoples than to the Westerners who hold these objects mostly for aesthetic contemplation and economic gain. (2)

Mark Walker

Ancestors Bell. Looted by the British in 1897 and returned by Dr, Mark Walker in 2014.

 

Prince Edun Akenzua, great-grandson of Oba Owonramwen with Dr. Mark Walker in Benin City, 2014.

The BBC News report contains certain statements which we must comment on for the better understanding of the invasion of Benin and its aftermath.

“But in January 1897, seven British officials who were on their way to see the Oba of Benin – the king – were killed in an ambush”.

The history of this unwelcome visit which proved fatal should be clarified. Captain Philips had requested a visit to the Oba who replied he could not receive him because he would be involved in sacred ceremonies during which time no foreigners were permitted to see the Oba. Philips and his group were equally warned by chiefs who were well disposed to the British to refrain from the journey. Despite all warnings, Philip and his group proceeded with the visit as planned Philips and his group with some 120-200 personnel disguised as carriers but having arms in their boxes, had as undeclared objective: to depose Oba Ovonramvem who was considered by the Acting Consul- General Philips as the main obstacle to Britain gaining control over trade in that part of Nigeria. Instead of the surprise attack the British group intended to launch, they were themselves surprised by an ambush on their way. Readers must ask themselves since when can one visit another person who says clearly that the tine proposed is inconvenient? Since when does one vist a monarch who states he is not prepared to receive such a visit?

The attack on Philips and his group provided a welcome pretext for invasion which the British had been weighing for a long time, including discussing the possible sale of Benin artworks to defray the costs of the intended campaign. British troops were sent to Benin on what they called Punitive Expedition. (3). Benin City was captured and burnt. The Oba sent into exile in Calabar, in Nigeria. The destruction in Benin must have been awful. R.

H. Bacon,

Intelligence Officer to the expedition wrote in his book, Benin: the City of Blood:  “There was a dim grandeur about it all, and also these seemed to a fate. Here was this head centre of iniquity, spared by us from its suitable end of burning for the sake of holding the new seat of justice where barbarism had held away, given into our hands with the brand of Blood soaked into every corner and …….. fire only could purge it, and here on our lassa day we were to see its legitimate fate overtake it.” (4)

“After the killing came the looting – the British seized more than 2,000 artworks and religious artefacts, most of them hundreds of years old, which were sent back to England.”

The figure of 2000 mentioned as the number of the looted artefacts seems to us an underestimate. Prof. Felix von Luschan who was instrumental in procuring a large number of the Benin artefacts for the Ethnologische Museum, Berlin, puts the figure at 2400. We prefer to use the figure of 3000 used by Edun Akenzua, the brother of the Oba in his plea to the British Parliament. But there is no officially agreed figure. The Oba did not keep a list of his artefacts nor are the Western museums willing to give us exact figures of the number of Benin artefacts they are holding. The Germans have officially stated 507 as the number they have. Field Museum, Chicago once indicated holding 404 Benin artefacts but nobody now knows where those artefacts are. The British Museum does not give any official information at all on its number of Benin artefacts some of which the venerable museum has in the meanwhile sold for cash. (5)

The BBC News report contains a classic response from the British Museum on why it is not willing to return any of the many looted Benin Bronzes it is holding

The British Museum says it has not recently received any new official requests for the return of the Benin Bronzes to Nigeria. 

“As a museum of the world for the world the British Museum presents the Benin Bronzes in a global context alongside the stories of other cultures and makes these objects as available as possible to a global audience,” it says in a statement.

As usual, the British Museum presents first a denial that there has been a request and then advances a reason why it is justified in holding looted artefacts. We should note that the museum has made a modification to the usual denial of the existence of a request. For a long time, the museum simply denied that there had ever been a request at all for the Benin Bronzes even though the evidence for the demand was overwhelming. The Oba of Benin and the Nigerian Government and Parliament have for decades requested the return of the looted artefacts.

Various groups within and outside Nigeria have also made such request. The United Nations and UNESCO have since 1972 annually passed a resolution entitled “Return Cultural Property to country of Origin urging holding countries to return the objects.(6)The International Council of Museums has requested holding museums to take initiative in returning cultural objects. Several writers have also made such a request. The Oba of Benin sent his brother in 2000 to make an appeal to the British Parliament which is on the records of the British Parliament, known as Appendix 21. Still the British Museum denied there had been any request. (7)

The reported defence of the Bloomsbury museum is that “it has not recently received any new official requests for the return of the Benin Bronzes to Nigeria.” We are dealing here with objects looted in 1897. How recent must the request for return be? Is the request in 2000 before the British Parliament not recent enough? Must the Oba of Benin and his people renew the request every year or month? What about the requests made by the Oba at the opening of the various Benin exhibitions, 

Benin

-Kings and Rituals: Court Arts from Nigeria

? The exhibition was in Vienna from 9thMay to 3rd September, 2007, in Paris from 2nd October to 6th January 2008, in Berlin from 7th February to 25th May, 2008 and in Chicago from 27th June to 21st September 2008.Do the annual United Nations/UNESCO resolutions then not matter at all? (8) We should note however the progress made by the museum from a blatant denial of the existence of a demand for return to absence of recent demand.

The claim that the British Museum is “a museum of the world for the world” is simply not true and people at Bloomsbury know this very well. The museum has not been created by any world authority with participation by other States such as those in the United Nations and other international organizations. The British Museum is a British museum created by the British Parliament through an Act of the British Parliament,

British Museum Act 1753 as subsequently modified by

British Museum Act 1963.

 The Board of Trustees of the museum are appointed by the British Monarch and the British Government. No doubt the museum has high or world standards but that does not make it a world museum. There are several museums in the world with such standards but none will make such claims.(9) The big difference between the museum in Bloomsbury and other important museums is that the British Museum has looted/stolen artefacts from several parts of the world. In that sense, one may consider it a museum of the world but could one claim such a distinction on the basis of illegality?

Even if the British Museum were a “museum of the world for the world”, it would not be entitled, by this fact, to hold onto artefacts of other peoples, obtained through violence and the use of force who now request their return. The acquisition of” world status” cannot be advanced to deny the basic human right to cultural development.

But who requested the British Museum to present “the Benin Bronzes in a global context alongside the stories of other cultures”and “make these objects as available as possible to a global audience” whilst denying to the people of Benin access to their own artefacts?

We can see from the argument of the British Museum the urgent need to tell the story of Dr, Mark Walker as often as possible so that all may finally understand that every people creates its artefacts for its own use and should not through violence and other oppressive means be deprived of the basic human right to cultural development and self-determination of the location of cultural artefacts.

By his noble gesture, Mark Walker has restored our confidence in the ability of humankind to distinguish between right and wrong, justice and injustice; he has positioned himself beyond petty economics and the parochial nationalism that presents itself in the disguise of universalism, using arrogance and mendacity as its favourite tools.

 

Queen-Mother Idea, Benin, Nigeria, now in British Museum, London, United Kingdom. Can MacGregor tell her story better than the Oba of Benin?

Culture is the soul of a nation. The illicit removal or destruction of cultural property deprives peoples of their history and tradition. Restitution is the only means that can restore damage and reinstate a sense of dignity”.

Anastassis Mitsialis,

Permanent Representative of Greece to the United Nations on the Presentation of

 the Resolution titled, Return or restitution of cultural property to the country of origin GA/RES/67/80, 12 Dec. 2012.

Kwame Opoku, 27 March, 2015.

 

NOTES

1. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine See also K. Opoku, “Return of Two Looted Benin Bronzes by a Briton: History in the Making”,

 

http://www.modernghana.com/news/552043/1/return-of-two-looted-benin-bronzes-by-a-briton-his.html

 

Peju Layiwola, “Walker and the Restitution of Two Benin Bronzes”,

 

www.modernghana.com/…/walker-and-the-restitution-of-two-benin-bro

 

2. K. Opoku,” Africans need their cultural objects more than Europeans and Americans” …www.afrikanet.info/…/africans-need-african-cultural-objects-more-than-e.

 

3.

Benin Expedition of 1897 – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spoils of war: the art of Benin | Culture | The Guardian

www.theguardian.com/culture/2003/sep/11/2

 Benin1897.com : art and the restitution question by Peju Layiwola.

 

4.

pp.107-108 cited by the great Ekpo Eyo in “,Benin:the Sack that was”

 www.dawodu.net/eyo.htm

5. Anja Laukötter, in her excellent book, Von der ‘Kultur’ zur ‘Rasse’ – vom Objekt zum Körper : Völkerkundemuseen und ihre Wissenschaft zu Beginn des 20.Jahhunderts (Transcript Verlag, Bielefeld, 2007, P160), cites Luschan as follows:

‘Im ganzen sind rund 2400 Benin Stűcke zu meiner Kenntnis gelangt: davon sind 580 in Berlin, 280 im Brit.Museum, 227 in Rushmore (die von Pitt Rivers hinterlassene Sammlung), 196 in Hamburg,182 in Dresden, 167 in Wien, 98 in Leiden, 87 in Leipzig, 80 in Stuttgart, 76 in Cőln und 51 in Frankfurt a .M

Barbara Plankensteiner, a leading authority on Benin and Deputy Director, Volkerkunde Museum, Vienna, now World Museum, states as follows in her excellent book, Benin, 2010,Five Continents, p. 7;

“The quantity of historic works is impressive, estimated at between 2,400 and 4000 objects, including 900 relief plaques nearly 300 bronze heads, beads and roughly 130 elephant tusks covered with relief carvings.”

 

6.

Germans Debate Legitimacy And Legality Of Looted …

 

https://www.modernghana.com/…/germansdebate-legitimacy-and-legalit

UN General Assembly,

www.un.org/en/ga/67/resolutions.shtml

A/RES/67/80 Return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origins, adopted by the General Assembly on 12 December,2012 

www.un.org/en/ga/67/resolutions.shtml

7Appendis 21. The Case of Benin. Memorandum submitted by Prince Edun Akenzua www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ …/371ap27.htm‎. March 2000

8.

K. Opoku, ‘Is the Absence of a Formal Demand for Restitution a Ground for Non-Restitution?

 

www.modernghana.com/…/is-the-

 absence-of-a-formaldemand-for-restit

 

9. See K. Opoku,”When Will Everybody Finally Accept that the British Museum is a British Institution? Comments on a Lecture by Neil MacGregor.

www.modernghana.com/news/203507/1/when-will-everybody-finally

 

ANNEX I

Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX 21

The Case of Benin

Memorandum submitted by Prince Edun Akenzua

 I am Edun Akenzua Enogie (Duke) of Obazuwa-Iko, brother of His Majesty, Omo, n’Oba n’Edo, Oba (King) Erediauwa of Benin, great grandson of His Majesty Omo n’Oba n’Edo, Oba Ovonramwen, in whose reign the cultural property was removed in 1897. I am also the Chairman of the Benin Centenary Committee established in 1996 to commemorate 100 years of Britain’s invasion of Benin, the action which led to the removal of the cultural property.

 

HISTORY

  “On 26 March 1892 the Deputy Commissioner and Vice-Consul, Benin District of the Oil River Protectorate, Captain H L Gallwey, manoeuvred Oba Ovonramwen and his chiefs into agreeing to terms of a treaty with the British Government. That treaty, in all its implications, marked the beginning of the end of the independence of Benin not only on account of its theoretical claims, which bordered on the fictitious, but also in providing the British with the pretext, if not the legal basis, for subsequently holding the Oba accountable for his future actions.”

The text quoted above was taken from the paper presented at the Benin Centenary Lectures by Professor P A Igbafe of the Department of History, University of Benin on 17 February 1997.

Four years later in 1896 the British Acting Consul in the Niger-Delta, Captain James R Philip wrote a letter to the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Salisbury, requesting approval for his proposal to invade Benin and depose its King. As a post-script to the letter, Captain Philip wrote: “I would add that I have reason to hope that sufficient ivory would be found in the King’s house to pay the expenses incurred in removing the King from his stool.”

These two extracts sum up succinctly the intention of the British, or, at least, of Captain Philip, to take over Benin and its natural and cultural wealth for the British.

British troops invaded Benin on 10 February1897. After a fierce battle, they captured the city, on February 18. Three days later, on 21 February precisely, they torched the city and burnt down practically every house. Pitching their tent on the Palace grounds, the soldiers gathered all the bronzes, ivory-works, carved tusks and oak chests that escaped the fire. Thus, some 3,000 pieces of cultural artwork were taken away from Benin. The bulk of it was taken from the burnt down Palace.

 

NUMBER OF ITEMS REMOVED

  It is not possible for us to say exactly how many items were removed. They were not catalogued at inception. We are informed that the soldiers who looted the palace did the cataloguing. It is from their accounts and those of some European and American sources that we have come to know that the British carried away more than 3,000 pieces of Benin cultural property. They are now scattered in museums and galleries all over the world, especially in London, Scotland, Europe and the United States. A good number of them are in private hands.

 

WHAT THE WORKS MEAN TO THE PEOPLE OF BENIN

  The works have been referred to as primitive art, or simply, artifacts of African origin. But Benin did not produce their works only for aesthetics or for galleries and museums. At the time Europeans were keeping their records in long-hand and in hieroglyphics, the people of Benin cast theirs in bronze, carved on ivory or wood. The Obas commissioned them when an important event took place which they wished to record. Some of them of course, were ornamental to adorn altars and places of worship. But many of them were actually reference points, the library or the archive. To illustrate this, one may cite an event which took place during the coronation of Oba Erediauwa in 1979. There was an argument as to where to place an item of the coronation paraphernalia. Fortunately a bronze-cast of a past Oba wearing the same regalia had escaped the eyes of the soldiers and so it is still with us. Reference was made to it and the matter was resolved. Taking away those items is taking away our records, or our Soul.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

  In view of the fore-going, the following reliefs are sought on behalf of the Oba and people of Benin who have been impoverished, materially and psychologically, by the wanton looting of their historically and cultural property.

 

(i)  The official record of the property removed from the Palace of Benin in 1897 be made available to the owner, the Oba of Benin.

 

(ii)  All the cultural property belonging to the Oba of Benin illegally taken away by the British in 1897, should be returned to the rightful owner, the Oba of Benin.

 

(iii)  As an alternative, to (ii) above, the British should pay monetary compensation, based on the current market value, to the rightful owner, the Oba of Benin.

 

(iv)  Britain, being the principal looters of the Benin Palace, should take full responsibility for retrieving the cultural property or the monetary compensation from all those to whom the British sold them.

 

March 2000

 

ANNEX II

 LIST OF HOLDERS OF THE BENIN BRONZES

Almost every Western museum has some Benin objects. Here is a short list of museums where some of the Benin Bronzes are to be found and their numbers. Various catalogues of exhibitions on Benin art or African art also list the private collections of the Benin Bronzes. The museums refuse to inform the public about the number of Benin artefacts they have and do not display permanently the Benin artefacts in their possession since they do not have enough space. A museum such as Völkerkunde Museum, Vienna (Now World Museum) has closed since 12 years and is not likely to re-open soon. The looted Benin artefacts are in the African Section.

German authorities still have to explain the disparity between 507 objects they now admit and the figure of 580 given by Prof. Felix van Luschan who was instrumental in procuring the Benin for the Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin. Has the German museum, like the British Museum also sold some of the Benin artefacts? See K, Opoku, Did Germans Never Hear Directly or Indirectly Nigeria’s Demand for Return of Looted Artefacts? http://www.modernghana.com

See also, Felix von Luschan, Die Altertümer von Benin, hrsg. mit Untertstützung des Reichs-Kolonialministeriums, der Rudolf Virchow- und der Arthur Baessler-Stiftung, 1919.

Berlin – Ethnologisches Museum 507.
Boston, – Museum of Fine Arts 28.
Chicago – Art Institute of Chicago 20, Field Museum 400

Cologne – Rautenstrauch-Joest-Museum 73.

Glasgow _ Kelvingrove and St. Mungo’s Museum of Religious Life 22

Hamburg – Museum für Völkerkunde, Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe 196.

Dresden – Staatliches Museum für Völkerkunde 182.

Leipzig – Museum für Völkerkunde 87.
Leiden – Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde 98.

London – British Museum 900.
New York – Metropolitan Museum of Fine Art 163.
Oxford – Pitt-Rivers Museum/ Pitt-Rivers country residence, Rushmore in Farnham/Dorset 327.

 Stuttgart – Linden Museum-Staatliches Museum für Völkerkunde 80.

Vienna – Museum für Völkerkunde (World Museum) 167.

 THE MAN OF CONSCIENCE WHO RETURNED HIS GRANDFATHER’S LOOTED BENIN BRONZES.

March 29th, 2015

Posted In: Dr. Kwame Opoku writings about looted cultural objects

Vervolgverhaal De Kunsthal – wel goed beveiligd, niet goed beveiligd

17/03/2013 – 14:30

Zaterdag 16 maart 2013 viel mij de eer ten deel gast te zijn in de TROS Nieuwsshow bij Mieke van der Weij en Peter de Bie. Onderwerp: recente ontwikkelingen rondom de inbraak in en diefstal uit De Kunsthal. De geïnteresseerden kunnen het hele interview via uitzendinggemist beluisteren.

Een enkel onderdeel uit het interview wil ik belichten omdat ik via Twitter daarop een reactie kreeg. Tom van der Meer tweette: “Ton Cremers zei dag na kunstroof overal dat beveiliging top was, terwijl ie wist dat t niet was. Want het was al zo zielig.” Een begrijpelijke en terechte reactie, ook al is ‘zo zielig’ niet mijn formulering. Het is Tom vergeven; Twitter geeft nu eenmaal niet de ruimte volledig te citeren. Wat mij betreft dus zeker geen bezwaar tegen deze beperkte weergave van mijn exacte statement in het interview.

Na de inbraak in De Kunsthal weigerde ik wat ik altijd weiger: ik ga niet staan dansen op het geslachtofferde museum dat geblesseerd op de grond ligt te spartelen.

Echter, wanneer de museumdirecteur nonsens uitkraamt over de beveiliging, kan ik geen kant uit. Die nonsens ondersteunen zou mij maken tot de ‘laughing stock’ in de beveiligingswereld omdat iedereen begrijpt, daar hoef je zelfs geen deskundige voor te zijn, dat de beveiliging van De Kunsthal alles behalve state of the art was.

Ik moest op gerichte vragen van journalisten over dat nonsensicale state of the art wel in eerste instantie beantwoorden als beveiliger en niet als lid van de (soms te) hechte museumgemeenschap. Tot die keuze werd ik een keer eerder gedwongen na de uitgebreide diefstal uit het Westfries Museum toen de toenmalige directeur jokkebrokte over de beveiliging. Daar is inmiddels meer dan genoeg over gezegd.

Ik heb mij destijds toen de diefstal uit het Westfries Museum plaatsvond – de dief had uren de tijd om zijn buit te verzamelen – en ook recent na de inbraak in De Kunsthal aanvankelijk beperkt tot milde algemeenheden over de beveiliging en verklaard dat er blijkbaar verbeterpunten zijn. Sterker nog: ik verklaarde tegen beter weten in dat de beveiliging in orde was. Terugkijkend had ik dat niet moeten doen. Een mens is nooit te oud om te leren (met excuus voor dit cliché).

Hoe groot en verwijtbaar die verbeterpunten zijn, verklaarde ik pas nadat de falende directies mij in een spagaat dwongen tussen milde afscherming van de feiten en het achterste van mijn tong laten zien. Misschien is het beter voortaan meteen het achterste van mijn tong te laten zien en daardoor de museumwereld de gelegenheid te geven noodzakelijke stappen te nemen om de beveiliging te verbeteren.

Ton Cremers

 

March 17th, 2015

Posted In: Geen categorie

Tags: , ,

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

March 16th, 2015

Posted In: diefstal, diefstal uit museum

DOES DR.CUNO REALLY BELIEVE WHAT HE WRITES ?

 

After my last article, I swore not to comment anymore on Dr.Cuno’s statements in order to avoid any impression that I was unduly concentrating on the opinions of one scholar. (1) However, it seems the U.S. American scholar is never tired of presenting views that most critics would consider patently wrong. Could we just keep quiet when a most influential scholar expresses an opinion that is obviously wrong? In his latest letter to the editor of the New York Times, 11 March,2015,James Cuno, President and Chief Executive of the J. Paul Getty trust, Los Angeles declares

The recent attacks on the ancient cities of Nimrud and Hatra in Iraq underscore a tragic reality. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization encourages — and provides an institutional instrument for — the retention of antiquities within the borders of the modern state that claims them. That state, very sadly, also has the authority to sell them on the illegal market, damage them or destroy them.

Until Unesco changes its basic position on this issue, antiquities will remain at risk. The world can only be grateful for the earlier regime of “partage,” which allowed for the sharing of Assyrian antiquities with museums worldwide that could preserve them. This unconscionable destruction is an argument for why portable works of art should be distributed throughout the world and not concentrated in one place. ISIS will destroy everything in its path.” (2)

What an astonishing declaration. UNESCO is here made to be responsible, at least partially or indirectly, for massive destruction of cultural artefacts. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970 (3) or UNESCO, directly or indirectly encourages the destruction of cultural property. UNESCO is charged with the preservation of culture and cultural artefacts. If anyone has credible evidence that the organization, its organs or officials are involved in destruction or encouraging others in this direction, it would be their duty to bring this evidence to the attention of UNESCO and its organs for appropriate action.

Most readers would have read the statements from the UNESCO. Director- General and other senior officials on recent events concerning the destruction of cultural artefacts. (4)

We do not know how Dr. Cuno reads the UNESCO Convention. There is not a single word in the Convention to support the view that the Convention vests States with a proprietary right or authority to destroy artefacts. The duty to protect artefacts does not include the right to destroy them. Think of the various cultural artefacts that belong to various communities within some States. No one ever suggested that the State could sell those artefacts or destroy them by virtue of the provisions of the Convention. The State is not necessarily the owner of the artefacts it protects or should protect. Think for instance about the Benin Bronzes  or the Nok sculptures in the State of Nigeria. No one has suggested that the Convention as such vests proprietary rights in the famous artefacts in the State of Nigeria so that the Nigerian Government could simply destroy them…

As for the suggestion that the world should be grateful for the partage system which existed previously, this is what Dr. Cuno himself has written about the system which he wishes to revive, a system that allowed imperialist powers to take as much materials as they wanted from non-Western countries.

. “For many decades in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, archaeological finds were shared between the excavating party and the local, host country through partage. This is how the great Ghandaran collection got to the Musée Guimet in Paris (shared with Afghanistan), the Assyrian collection got to the British Museum in London (shared with Iraq, before the formation of the modern, independent government of Iraq), the Lydian materials from Sardis got to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (shared with the Ottoman Empire, now Turkey), the Egyptian collection got to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, a number of collections got to the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, and of course how the great collections were formed at the university archaeological museums, like the Peabody Museums at Harvard and Yale, the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago, and the University Museum at the University of Pennsylvania. But this principle is no longer in practice. With the surge in nationalism in the middle decades of the twentieth century, it has become almost impossible to share archaeological finds. All such finds belong to the host nation and are its property. Only the state can authorize the removal of an archaeological artifact to another country, and it almost never does. Even when one lends antiquities abroad, it is for severely restricted periods of time. Antiquities are cultural property, and cultural property is defined and controlled by the state for the benefit of the state.” (5)

After reading the extract above and others from Cuno’s book, one wonders how he can suggest a return to a clearly unfair system. (6) The partage system allowed the rich countries which financed many of the exploration and excavation of archaeological sites to regard the countries of these sites, so called “source countries” as some sort of archaeological supermarket The partage system left us disputes such as the one between Egypt and Germany concerning Nefertiti’s bust.The partage system, in conjunction with looting and stealing,, enabled stronger and aggressive countries to build up the so-called “universal museums”.

Where does Cuno derive the notion that the State may legally participate in the illegal market? By definition, the State cannot participate in the illegal market unless we abandon all distinctions between “legality” and “illegality”. The State as source of legality cannot participate in illegality and continue to proclaim laws, issue regulations and provide penalties.

The statement by Cuno that recent destructions offer a further argument for “why portable works of art should be distributed throughout the world and not concentrated in one place”, is surely more appropriately addressed to the “universal museums” than to “source countries”. Nowhere do we find a massive accumulation of artefacts as in the so-called universal museums in London, Paris, Berlin, New York, Madrid and elsewhere in the Western world. These museums have “collected” uncountable objects from non-western countries and are refusing to return any. The British Museum alone has some 9 million objects. Could Cuno’s advice de directed to the venerable museum in Bloomsbury?

There are aspects of the 1970 UNESCO Convention that may be criticised but the suggestion that the Convention and the UNESCO are somehow responsible or have contributed to destruction of cultural artefacts is, with all due respect, clearly not based on any tenable evidence and is a dangerous suggestion

Verily, this is not the time to launch attacks on the United Nations body for culture; support for this body could be expected of all those interested in the preservation of cultures and cultural artefacts whether they are in favour of more freedom of action for the so-called “universal museums” or not.

 

Kwame Opoku, 14 March, 2015.

 

NOTES

 

  1. Kwame Opoku,”Dr. Cuno Again Reviving Discredited Arguments to Prevent Future Repatriation of Museum Artefact”,

http://www.modernghana.com/news/578495/1/dr-cuno-again-reviving-discredited-arguments-to-pr.html

  1. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/opinion/deploring-isis-destroyer-of-a-civilizations-art.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1

See Paul Barford, James Cuno, President and Chief Executive of the J. Paul Getty Trust, Los Angeles, writes to the Editor of the NYT (Deploring ISIS, Destroyer of a Civilization’s Art

  1. Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970

www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit…of…/1970convention/

  1. “Destruction of Hatra marks a turning point in the cultural cleansing underway in iraq” say heads of UNESCO and ISESCO Saturday, March 7, 2015

UNESCO calls for mobilization to stop “cultural cleansing” in Iraq Friday, February 27, 2015

UNESCO Director-General welcomes UN Security Council Resolution to step up protection of cultural heritage in Syria and Iraq Thursday, February 12, 2015

“UNESCO Director General condemns destruction of Nimrud in Iraq”, 6 February 2015. http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1244

UNESCO Conference calls for protected cultural zones to be established Syria and Iraq Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Emergency plan to safeguard Iraq’s cultural heritage Thursday, November 6, 2014

Emergency Response Action Plan to safeguard Iraqi heritage Thursday, July 17, 2014

  1. James Cuno, Who owns Antiquity?’ Princeton University Press, 2008, p.14.

6 .Cuno, ibid, pp.55 and 154.

 “Under the British Mandate, from 1921 to 1932, archaeology in Iraq was dominated by British teams – including the British Museum working with the University of Pennsylvania at Ur, the fabled home not only of Sumerian kings but also the Biblical Abraham – regulated by British authorities. The Oxford-educated, English woman Gertrude Bell, who had worked for the British Intelligence in the Arab Bureau in Cairo, was appointed honorary Director of Antiquities in Iraq by the British-installed King Faysal in 1922. A most able administrator, having served as the Oriental secretary to the High Commission in Iraq after the war, Bell was responsible for approving applications for archaeologists, and thus for determining where in Iraq excavators would work. She was also a major force behind the wording and passage of the 1924 law regulating excavations in Iraq, a result of which was the founding of the Iraq Museum and the legitimization of partage:”p. 55

“Archaeologists should question their support of nationalist retentionist cultural property laws, especially those who benefit today from working among the finds in the collections of their host university museums, collections which could not now be formed, ever since the implementation of foreign cultural property laws. And they should join museums in pressing for the return to partage, the principle and practice by which so many local and encyclopedic museum collections were built in the past.”p.154

March 14th, 2015

Posted In: Dr. Kwame Opoku writings about looted cultural objects

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

March 3rd, 2015

Posted In: fakes and forgeries

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

March 3rd, 2015

Posted In: fakes and forgeries

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

March 3rd, 2015

Posted In: fakes and forgeries

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

March 2nd, 2015

Posted In: fakes and forgeries

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

March 2nd, 2015

Posted In: fakes and forgeries

WHO NEEDS AGAIN ANOTHER POLL ON THE PARTHENON MARBLES?

Anyone who has been following discussions on the Parthenon Marbles would be surprised to read about a new opinion poll on the same subject. She would ask herself if we have not had enough polls on the perennial question whether these Greek sculptures, torn away from their original location in Akropolis, should be returned to Athens or remain in London, in the British Museum.

As is well known, all such public opinion polls in the United Kingdom have consistently and overwhelmingly been in support of returning the famous sculptures to Athens.

So who is now interested in another opinion poll? We can only surmise and speculate since whoever commissioned this new poll has not found it necessary to have their identity revealed. We have here indeed a very curious situation. Whoever it is must have an interest in securing an opinion poll different from all those in the last fifteen years or so. To secure this, you do not go again to the British people for their answer will be the same as what they have consistently said: send the Marbles back. So what do you do?

You create a group that is fairly diverse including persons in the UK and some from outside the British Isles and present them as representing the art industry:

Of the 70 respondents, 50 (74%) were UK based, while the rest 20 (26%) were equally split between the Middle East and Asia. What respondents told us can be found on the following pages.

For the purposes of this survey we have classified respondents into five groups: Galleries and museums (18/26%) Advisors (17/24%) • Including fine art dealers, valuers, restorers, archivists, wealth managers, insurers, legal experts, sponsorship brokers and event organisers Arts media (14/20%) Other (14/20%) • Including auction houses, collectors, artists, performing arts, art schools and universities Political (7/10%) • Including those in the political world who advise on the arts or who have specific interests in art” – See more at: http://www.elginism.com/elgin-marbles/questioned-bell-pottinger-parthenon-marbles-poll/20150219/7774/#more-7774

With this imprecise classification, with respondents from London, Asia and the Middle East, you extract an agreeable opinion. Which Asia are we dealing with here? Does this include China, Cambodia and India? How come London is put on the same level as a continent like Asia?

We should not bother too much with such polls. But what purpose could such a poll serve? It could serve as a factor of confusion and uncertainty and thereby fulfil the function of diversionary tactic.

After the large outcry against the controversial loan of the Ilissios Parthenon sculpture to Russia, those unable or unwilling to hear the voice of the British people realized that there is a need to have people talk about something else than the recent condemned loan. Instead of reporting on what the terms of the loan were and whether these were scrupulously fulfilled, we are given a poll that could confuse people through its vagueness and indirect pretention to represent the opinion of part of the British public.

The British public and the lovers of art deserve better than this.

Kwame Opoku. 2 March, 2015.

 

 

March 2nd, 2015

Posted In: Dr. Kwame Opoku writings about looted cultural objects