REFLECTIONS ON
THE CAIRO CONFERENCE ON RESTITUTION: ENCOURAGING BEGINNING
“The
problem of the repatriation of cultural heritage to its country of origin is an
old one, based on a 19th century doctrine enshrined in the Treaty of
Vienna that scientific and artistic collections cannot be expatriated because
they are destined to meet the permanent intellectual needs of the country of
origin”. Ekpo Eyo (1)
Queen- Mother Idia, Benin, Nigeria, now in
the British Museum, London, United Kingdom.
The Conference on
International Cooperation for the Protection and Repatriation of Cultural
Heritage, 7-8 April 2010, Cairo, Egypt, ended with demands for the return of certain
cultural artefacts which had been looted or stolen by colonial powers in the
past. (2)
The conference called by Zahi
Hawass, the energetic and dynamic Secretary-General of the Egypt’s Supreme
Council of Antiquities, was attended by several States including, Austria,
Bolivia, Chile, China, Cyprus, Ecuador, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Italy,
Libya, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, Poland, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka,
Syria and the United States. Britain, France and Germany, countries holding
most of the contested artefacts did not attend. One can understand that there was not much interest in inviting the countries
holding the contested artefacts since their attitudes over many decades have
not been generally positive or sympathetic to the idea of restitution. However,
in the last few years France and Britain have returned objects to Egypt. My own
position would be to invite them to attend as observers, ensuring however that
they do not come to disrupt or sabotage the conference or even try to dominate
proceedings as they are wont to since eventually, we would need their
co-operation to achieve lasting solutions to the questions of restitution. Besides, the USA which is a big market
for stolen/looted artefacts attended as observer and we have not heard that
this presence hindered the participants from achieving their aims.
Information on the number of
participating States seems to vary according to the report that one reads. From
the list of participating States, we note the absence of Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali,
Sudan etc. Did these countries not have any demands for restitution? Ethiopia
in particular, has still claims against Italy which returned the Axum Obelisk
in 2008. Ethiopia has even more claims against Britain which is keeping
thousands of Ethiopian national treasures looted during the infamous attack on
Maqdala in 1868. What about Ghana? Has Ghana given up all attempts to recover
the numerous gold and silver objects, including the 20 centimetre-high golden
head, regalia and other treasures looted by the British in the infamous 1874
Punitive Expedition to Kumasi? Many
of the stolen Asante items found their way to the Museum of Mankind in London
and are in the Wallace Collection, London. There are also some Asante cultural
objects in Pitt-Rivers Museum in Oxford and in the Glasgow Museum and Art
Gallery. Many Asante gold objects are also in the Victoria and Albert Museum,
London.
Nefertiti, Egypt, now in Neues Museum,
Berlin, Germany
One significant outcome of
the deliberations in Cairo was the drawing up of a list of items the
participant States wanted returned: Greece: Parthenon/Elgin Marbles torn
away from the Parthenon by Lord Elgin in 1801 and now in the British Museum.
Egypt: Rosetta Stone that the
British took away after the defeat of Napoleon’s army in Egypt in 1801 and now
in the British Museum. Egypt also seeks the return of the bust of Nefertiti
which the German archaeologist, Ludwig Borchart spirited away to Berlin in 1913
and is now in the Neues Museum, Berlin, Germany. Egypt seeks from France the
return of the Zodiac of Dendara Temple, now in the Louvre, Paris. Egypt also
seeks the bust of the noble Ankhaf now in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, United States, the statue of
Hemiunu
now in Roemer-Pelizaeus Museum in Hildesheim, Germany and the statute of Ramses
II now in Turin, Italy.
China seeks Summer Palace bronzes that were looted by the invading
Franco-British troops in 1860 and are now with private owners in France. (3)
Nigeria: Nigeria seeks restitution of
the Benin bronzes, seized by invading British troops in 1897, including the ivory hip mask of Queen-Mother
Idia, that are now in the British
Museum, Ethnology Museum, Berlin, Germany and other Western museums. Nigeria
also seeks from Germany the bronze crowned head called “Olokun” (Ife), suspected
to be in Frankfurt which was seen by Leo Frobenius in 1910 and mysteriously
disappeared after the German ethnologist had left Nigeria. (4)
Peru made it clear that it was
claiming the collections from the Inca city, Machu Piccchu that were displayed
in Yale University, USA and the return of textiles pieces and the ceramic of Paracas
culture now displayed in Ethnology Museum Göteborg,
Sweden.
Syria claimed five artefacts
displayed in the Hermitage, Saint-Petersburg, the Louvre and the National
Museum in Copenhagen.
Guatemala put in claims for artefacts
in Switzerland and in several American museums.
Libya is claiming restitutions from
Louvre and the British Museum.
Mexico is requesting the feather
headdress of the Aztec ruler, Montezuma which is now in the Ethnology Museum,
Vienna, Austria.
This long list of
claims for restitution is surely an indication that a lot more work needs to be
done in the area of cultural relations which has not been seriously pursued in
previous decades. There is hardly any African, Asian or Latin -American country
that does not have restitution claims against some Western country for the
unbridled Western greed for wealth and power did not spare any of the countries
in those areas the scourge of colonialism and imperialism.
Those States that did
not have their lists ready will submit them later. In this connection, it would
be useful if the whole list of claimed artefacts could be published for general
public information.
During the Cairo Conference, Zahi Hawass declared that: "Museums are the main source for stolen
artefacts. If they stop (buying stolen artefacts) the
theft will be less." (5)
Larry Rothfield has expressed the view that the
amount of antiquities that museums buy represents a small percentage of the
volume of objects bought in the antiquities market:
” Museums make up only a small percentage of the buyers on the
antiquities market worldwide. And most museums in the West have now already
stopped buying illicit or even just dodgy antiquities. That is not going to put
an end to collecting of illicit antiquities. Hawass is certainly correct to say
that if museums stop buying illicit artifacts, the theft will be less, but by
only a slight amount.” (6)
These sculptures of a rat head and a rabbit head were
among the objects looted in 1860 when French and British soldiers under the
command of Lord Elgin sacked the imperial palace at Beijing. The eighth Lord
Elgin was the son of the seventh Lord Elgin, who removed the Parthenon Marbles
from Athens.
We would like to believe that
the museums have stopped purchasing artefacts of dubious origin. But the recent
history of acquisitions by the museum is not very
encouraging. Several American
Museums and Universities -The Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, Museum of Fine
Arts, Boston, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York and Princeton
University's Art Museum - had to return looted objects to Italy in 2007. A senior curator of the Getty Museum, Marion True, is
still on trail in Italy for offences in connection with her acquisition of
looted objects from Italy for her museum.
(7)
The new rules of acquisition that the US Museums
adopted were only made under pressure. Besides, these rules are not legally binding and are
guidelines that are recommended to the museums. The Metropolitan Museum adopted
very quickly new rules of acquisition when Lord Renfrew was about to visit the
United States and it was known that this was the subject he would be
addressing, with particular reference to the museum. (8) Mistrust of the acquisition practices of
Western museums is fairly widespread both in the West and in the non-Western
world. Commenting on the spectacular success of the Italians in securing the
return from the United States of Italian artefacts, Lord Renfrew wrote recently
as follows:
“The
remarkable and conspicuous success of the Italian authorities in effecting the
return to Italy of major antiquities from a number of museums in the United
States has rightly been widely acclaimed (…) It is not only a formidable
achievement in itself in terms of the antiquities recovered, but it should also
have a deterrent effect against the continuing looting of archaeological sites.
The concern, however, must be that the museums in question, and the world of
collectors internationally, should themselves draw what seems the obvious
ethical conclusion: that the ongoing looting of antiquities should cease and
that they should therefore desist from purchasing antiquities without secure
provenance. But can we be confident that this will be the outcome?”(9)
David Gill, who has pursued
the issue longer than most of us, assessed the situation regarding acquisition
policies as follows:
“Forty years have passed
since the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the
Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. In spite
of this there have been major scandals relating to the acquisition of
recently-surfaced antiquities by public museums and private individuals. The
Italian government has obtained the return of over 100 antiquities from North
American collections and these have been displayed in a series of high profile
exhibitions. Greece and Egypt have made successful claims on other material.
Some dealers appear to be willing to handle material that
surfaced along similar
routes in spite of this increased awareness of the problem of looting. North
American museums have now adjusted their acquisition policies to align them
with the 1970 Convention.” (10)
Have the voracious museums,
or if you prefer, the “great museums” now acquired enough artefacts that they
feel they can act within laws, regulations and guidelines concerning
acquisition of objects? Reading statements of some Western museum directors, an
innocent reader might be forgiven for thinking that these museums have been so
starved by those Cuno describes as ”nationalist retentionists” that they are
about to be depleted if not already empty and therefore need to acquire new
objects, whatever may be their provenance.
Golden mask, removed by the British from
Kumasi, Ghana, in 1874 and now in the Wallace Collection, London.
It would take many years and
lots of evidence to convince many, particularly in the demanding countries that
the museums have turned a new leaf. This task is made all the more difficult
when we have museum directors and others
defending the right of the
museums to acquire objects of dubious provenance.(11) Some directors are desperately trying to defend past dubious
acquisitions by inventing new roles for their museums in order to justify their
holding on to objects such as the Benin bronzes. They are busy preaching that
these objects are part of the heritage of mankind that they are keeping for
all, at a time when most Western countries have made it almost impossible for
Africans and Asians to enter their territories. It makes one wonder whether the
museum directors know the implications of what they are preaching. Or are they
simply living in another world, far from the realities of racial politics in
international relations? There is
hardly anybody in the non-Western world who does not view the so-called great
museums as fortresses for looted artefacts of others.
Some critics suggested that
the two days conference would be too short for finding a solution to the complicated issues involved
in discussing a revision of the UNESCO Convention
on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and
Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970. (12) They were right. But
the aim of the conference was not to find immediate solutions to these
difficult questions but to commence a process which would eventually bring us
closer to solutions. Follow-up conferences will no doubt deal with the question
of international law and regulations.
The very fact that so many
countries with divergent demands and interests met to coordinate their efforts
in this matter is in itself an achievement. Some of the countries attending the
conference, such as Italy have not only demands of objects from others but are
themselves requested to return objects taken away in the imperialist period, e.g.
from Ethiopia. Moreover, countries like the United States and Austria which
house some of the contested objects attended, albeit in observer capacity.
It is good that the conference
did not get bogged down with discussions on the revision of the 1970 UNESCO Convention.
The representative for Greek Ministry of Culture, Elena Korka, agreed, that the
conference demonstrated the importance to many countries of joining forces.
This is not a question of legality but rather one of political good-will and
this cannot be summed up in paragraphs of a legal document. Besides, the
question of restitution should be primarily addressed to the States concerned
rather than their museums which received the objects from the States. We should
not forget, for example, that it was not the British Museum that invaded Benin
in 1897 but the British Army, on the instructions of the Government. In the
first catalogue on the Benin bronzes published in 1899 by the British Museum,
Charles Hercules Read stated in a preface:” The
present publication contains a selection of the principal objects obtained by
the recent successful expedition sent to Benin to punish the natives of that
city for a treacherous massacre of a peaceful English mission… The whole of the
panels shown in the plates have been given to the Museum by her Majesty’s
Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. They formed two-thirds of the
whole series sent home by Sir Ralph Moor.”
(13)
It is also important to note
that, contrary to what some would like us to believe, the question of the
restitution of looted/stolen artefacts in Western museums is not primarily a
legal question but a political matter. No doubt the question has legal aspects
but to pretend that it is a legal matter is to misunderstand or ignore the role
of law in society. Law is one of the important instruments to assist society in
solving social, economic and political issues. Law is itself not a problem but
a means to dealing with problems. To turn the law into a problem is to obscure
the eminently political nature of colonialism which basically provided the
framework for large-scale looting and illegitimate acquisition of the cultural
artefacts of others. In any case, none of the holders of the artefacts of
others can honestly argue that they are willing to return looted items but are
prevented by law from doing so. International Law requires from States that
they organize themselves in a way that enables them to fulfil their
international obligations. They cannot advance the limitations of their own
municipal law as grounds for failure to fulfil obligations. Moreover, those who
advance limitations of law as obstacles to restitution are often playing a hide
and seek game or ping-pong.
Some writers give the
impression that the 1970 UNESCO convention forbids parties from seeking to
recover objects looted or stolen before 1970, namely those artefacts stolen in
the colonial days. What the convention provides for is that its provisions,
like those of most conventions, are not applicable to events occurring before
its entry into force. In other words, the convention is not retroactive. Most
lawyers and indeed, the general public does not like retroactive legislation
since it tends to disturb settled legal relations. The convention expressly
leaves open the possibility of seeking restitution of objects taken before 1970
on basis other than those of the convention. It does not exhaust the sources and rules of International
Law and Municipal Law.
The Statute of the
International Court of Justice makes it clear that in addition to international
conventions, there are other sources of law such as international custom,
general principles of law and judicial decisions which may provide grounds for
legal action. We are therefore not obliged to limit claims for restitution to
the framework of the 1970 convention.
Some writers also evoke statutes
of limitation as obstacle to succeeding in legal actions to recover objects
taken before 1970. But the question which has not been sufficiently addressed
is whether statutes of limitations apply at all to objects looted, stolen or
confiscated in the colonial days. The underlying principle of the statute of
limitations is to encourage parties to act promptly as soon as their rights are
violated and they are aware of the relevant facts and can pursue their rights.
But does this apply to colonial loot? Would anybody have dared to bring such
actions against a colonial power whilst it still controlled the colony? We must
remember that most lootings in the colonial period were organized by the
colonial governments and their armies. Often owners of looted objects have no idea about their
whereabouts. Many African
artefacts have disappeared without the owners having any idea where they could
be.
Another good reason for not
seeking a revision of the 1970 Convention is that this approach would cause a
long delay in negotiations with countries using all sorts of delaying tactics.
Besides, even if we obtained a revision, it will take decades before many
States ratify the convention, adding all sorts of reservations. It took certain
States 30 or more years before they ratified the 1970 Convention. Some African States have not ratified the convention in
the mistaken belief that it is of little use.
Montezuma’s Crown, Mexico, now in Völkerkunde Museum,
Vienna, Austria
The Cairo Conference is an
important historic event in so far as it constitutes a first clear attempt in
recent years by States with restitution demands to organize themselves and
fight collectively for the return of their cultural artefacts. The Conference is thus a direct
challenge and answer to the notorious Declaration
on the Value and Importance of Universal Museum. (14) Whereas the
signatories of the Declaration proclaimed that artefacts kept over a long
period in those museums become part of the culture of the States where they are
located, the Cairo Conference boldly demanded that these objects be returned to
the countries of origin. The artefacts requested are mostly icons that have
been over decades in the “universal museums”- Rosetta Stone (since 1802 in the
British Museum), bust of Nefertiti (in Germany since 1913 and after various
locations now in Neues Museum, Berlin), Parthenon/Elgin Marbles (in Britain since
1801 and in the British Museum since 1816), the Benin bronzes (since 1897 in
the British Museum and other Western museums). In other words, this is a
serious direct challenge to positions many in the West have considered for long
to be unassailable. The success or failure of the Cairo requests will have
consequences on future demands for restitution of cultural objects.
Marble Statue Apollo, Cyrene, Libya, now in British Museum,
London, United Kingdom.
What the Conference needs to
do rapidly, is to establish a Secretariat or some other body that would have, inter
alia, the following functions:
1.
Follow up implementation of decisions of the Conference;
2.
Collect materials relevant to restitution, such as UNESCO, UN and ICOM
resolutions, decisions and other documents and bring to the attention of States
concerned;
3.
Assist members of the Conference in the formulation of restitution demands; This
is to avoid giving opportunity to holders of looted artefacts saying there has
been no demand for restitution. Incredible as it may sound, we still find
officials of the British Museum saying there has been no demand for the return
of the Rosetta Stone by Egypt. Germans are also saying there has been no demand
by Egypt for the return of the bust of Nefertiti even though a German
delegation, including the Director of the Neues Museum, Berlin, went recently
to Cairo to present what they consider as proof that the bust of Nefertiti was
legally removed from Egypt. No doubt much of this is propaganda for internal
consumption. The British Museum also pretends there has been no demand for the
return of the Benin Bronzes even though a petition was presented by a member of
the Benin Royal in the British House of Parliament as shown by the records of
the House;
4.
Maintain an internet site where issues of restitution and relevant materials
can be made available to the public;
5.
Publish articles and other materials relevant to the objectives of the
Conference;
6.
Publish the complete records of the Conference proceedings. No where can one
find a complete record of this first conference, not even at the homepage of
Zahi Hawass, a consummate master of the mass media. Moreover, the homepage of
Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities seems not to have been updated for a
long time.
The mood in the world as
regards restitution of cultural objects has changed considerably in recent
decades. As Le Monde in an article entitled, Les reclamations d’oeuvres d’art sont-elles legitimes? (Are the demands for restitution of cultural works
legitimate?) noted, the many recent restitutions and demands for restitution
draw a new world order of cultural patrimony. What would have been unthinkable
forty years ago no longer surpises anyone. For example, South Korea is
demanding from France the restitution of some 297 manuscripts stolen in 1866 in
Seoul and are now in the French National Library in Paris. (15) Britain has returned some 25,000 pieces to Egypt;
France has also returned artefacts to Egypt and Nigeria.
Examples of recent
restitutions abound in the internet sites devoted to the question. Even if the
Cunos and MacGregors are not exactly on retreat, they know their position is
now under constant serious attacks and that their usual spin is no longer unchallenged.
They are defending a colonialist and imperialist position based on 19th
century assumptions of racial superiority which should have disappeared with
end of colonialism, condemned several times by the United Nations and other
international organizations. They cannot stop the movement of history for more
equality and respect among nations and peoples which requires the restitution
of looted/stolen cultural artefacts to the countries of origin.
In a way the Cairo demand for
the return of cultural artefacts to their countries of origin is a repetition
of a demand made in countless UNESCO and United Nations resolutions. It was
also reiterated at the Athens
International Conference on the "Return of Cultural Property to its
Country of Origin" in 2008. (16) Whether there will be a better
response from the holding States will depend largely on the determination of
the demanding States to put concrete political as well as other pressures
behind the demands. Experience has demonstrated that many of the holding States
have developed a morality which seems to consider the stealing of the cultural
artefacts of others as quite proper. Indeed, many react as if they were doing a
great favour to the countries of origin by keeping their artefacts.
This conference is the first
of its kind and will be convened annually.
Next year's meeting is scheduled for April 2011 and will possibly be held in
Greece. "We hope that we will be 60 countries next year," Hawass
concluded in his closing remarks. Will there be more States at the next conference?
Many States are organizing themselves seriously for the recovery of their
cultural artefacts now in the museums of other States. There are lively debates
everywhere. The Nigerians, for example, have been very busy in the last few
weeks on this matter. At a
colloquium at the University of Lagos where a new book, Benin 1897.com : Art and the Restitution Question, edited by Peju Layiwola and Sola Olorunyomi, was launched, the
majority of participants, including the elite of Nigerian culture world, agreed
that it was time the Benin Bronzes and other Nigerian artefacts looted or
unlawfully taken abroad were returned. In this they agreed with the Oba of
Benin, Omo N’Oba N’Edo, Uku Akpolokpolo Erediauwa who in a foreword to Benin 1897.com expressed the hope that
the papers to be presented at the colloquium would bring again into focus: “our
demand for the return of our looted artefacts”. (17)
Recovering these objects
would not be easy but as Hawass quite rightly stated, we may succeed or not but
we have made the point that these cultural objects must return home.
We hope that those States
that have distinguished themselves by massive lootings and wholesale
illegitimate acquisition of cultural objects of others will finally recognize
and admit that the deprivation of others of their cultural objects cannot be
justified on any ground, not even that of acquiring knowledge. Western States
cannot ignore the resolutions of the United Nations on restitution of cultural
artefacts and insist that others comply with UN resolutions in other matters. Selective implementation of resolutions
is a conduct easily duplicated by others.
“Cultural
heritage constitutes an inalienable part of a people’s sense of self and of
community, functioning as a link between the past, the present and the future;
It is essential to sensitize the public about
this issue and especially the younger generation. An information campaign may
prove very effective toward that end;
Certain categories of cultural property are irrevocably
identified by reference to the cultural context in which they were created
(unique and exceptional artworks and monuments, ritual objects, national
symbols, ancestral remains, dismembered pieces of outstanding works of art). It
is their original context that gives them their authenticity and unique value;” (18)
Kwame Opoku, 7 May 2010
Statue of a young Ramesses II, Egypt, now in the
Egyptian Museum of Turin.
NOTES
1. Ekpo Eyo, “Repatriation of
Cultural Heritage; The African Experience”, in
Flora E.S.Kaplan (Ed.) Museums and the Making of “Ourselves”, Leicester
University Press, London and New York, 1994, pp. 330-350.
Daily News Egypt http://www.thedailynewsegypt.com
Reuters India Egypt urges states to
cooperate on artifact return
Teamwork needed to recover looted antiquities:
Hawass http://www.cbc.ca
Paul Barford International
Cooperation for the Protection and Repatriation of Cultural Heritage
Heritage Key http://heritage-key.com
Zahi Hawass at conference http://www.youtube.com
British Museum under pressure to give up leading
treasures http://www.telegraph.co.uk
Damien McElroy,
Dakar Times, http://www.dakartimes.com
Homepage of Dr.Zahi Hawass, http://drhawass.com
http://www.youtube.com
Hawass on wish list.
Archaeologists: Stolen Antiquities Conference - Fighting for our Heritage http://www.english.globalarabnetwork.com
“Egypt on a mission to get back artefacts,” Chicago-Sun-Times, http://www.suntimes.com
3. K.Opoku, “Is it not time
to fulfil Victor Hugo’s wish? Comments on Chinese claim to looted Chinese
artefacts on sale at Christie’s”, http://www.modernghana.com
4. K. Opoku, “Ile-Ife triumphs in the British
Museum, London: Who said Nigerians were incapable of looking after their
cultural artefacts? “http://www.modernghana.com
We have no information about efforts to trace the whereabouts of the alleged original
“Olokun”. In the meanwhile, there are suggestions that the alleged replica
which the Nigerian Commission on Monuments and Museums holds may be the
original. “Is
the Olokun Head the real thing?” The Art
Newspaper,
http://www.theartnewspaper.com
5. http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com Global Antiquities Conference: Illegal Trade Should
Stop
NTDTV - Apr 8, 2010
6. “Memo to Zahi Hawass: Museums are not the main
source for buying stolen
antiquities“ http://larryrothfield.blogspot.com
7 .K. Opoku, “New AAM Standards for the Acquisition of
Archaeological Material and Ancient Art: A Minor American Revolution?” http://www.afrikanet.info
8. “This
coming January, Prof. Renfrew will receive the 2009 SAFE Beacon Award in a rare
visit to the United States. He will give a lecture "Combating the Illicit Antiquities Trade:
the 1970 Rule as a Turning Point (or How the Metropolitan Museum lags behind
the Getty)" and also discuss the ethics of excavating and collecting, and the merits
of the once popular but now rare "partage" system in the SAFE Tour
"Collecting the Right Way" at the University of Pennsylvania Museum”. See also David Gill, Is the AAMD policy having an impact on
private collectors? http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com
9. Renfrew, “Combating the Illicit Antiquities Trade: Progress and Problems, “http://www.ufficiostudi.beniculturali.
10. http://2.bp.blogspot.com
11 James Cuno, Ed, Whose
Culture? The Promise of Museums and the Debate over Antiquities, Princeton
University Press, 2009; Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle over Our
Ancient Heritage Princeton University Press, 2008.
12. See dates of ratification of 1970 Convention http://portal.unesco.org.
13. H .Read and O .M. Dalton, Antiquities from the City of Benin and other parts of West Africa in
the British Museum ,British Museum, London, 1899, p. iv.
14. Declaration on the Importance and Value of
Universal Museums http://icom.museum/universal
15. Le
Monde, 8 April, 2010
16.
http://portal.unesco.org
17. Peju Layiwola and Sola Olorunyomi, (Eds.) Benin 1897. com Art and the Restitution Question, 2010, Wy Art Editions, Ibadan, Nigeria. It is one of the ironies of the
illegitimate detention of the cultural objects of others that when a descendant
of Oba Ovonramwen writes a book about the 1897 looting of the Benin bronzes,
she is unable to use the image of Queen-Idia on the hip-mask without the
permission of the British Museum and she may have to pay fees. However, the
British Museum, now holding the mask uses it on its publication. Has the
British Museum more connection to this symbol than the descendant of the king
from whom the mask was taken on defeat and surrender? Has the British Museum
now become a Nigerian or Pan-African organization that can legitimately use Pan
African symbols? Do the people at the museum who
pretended to be friends of Africa feel no shame or pangs of conscience in using
a symbol that the museum refused return to Nigeria for the Pan African
festival, FESTAC (1977)? Do they have any remaining sympathy or respect for Africans at all?
They seem to have no inhibition in using the
cherished symbols of others whom they prevent from doing the same through
charging. fees for the use of the images of the looted/stolen objects in the
British Museum. It is true though that Westerners have no great respect for the
symbols of other cultures. By this use by others with no spiritual connection
to the objects, such symbols are gradually emptied of any spiritual
significance and value.
The British Museum sets conditions and fees for the
use of the images of the looted/stolen objects in the museum. We believe they
have no exclusive right to the use of images of the stolen/looted images in the
museum. Such pretence has been successfully challenged in at least one case. Crown
Fraud: Stolen Benin Bronzes & British Museum http://www.youtube.com
See on the Benin invasion Monday Midnite, 1897, http://www.youtube.com
18. Conclusions
of the Athens International Conference
on the Return of Cultural
Objects to their Countries of Origin
Athens, 17-18 March 2008. http://portal.unnesco.org
