compromise on restitution of benin bronzes

8/6/2019 Compromise on Restitution of Benin Bronzes

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compromise-on-restitution-of-benin-bronzes 1/18

COMPROMISE ON THE RESTITUTION OF BENIN

BRONZES? COMMENTS ON ARTICLE BY PROF.

JOHN PICTON ON RESTITUTION OF BENIN

ARTEFACTS

Queen-Mother Idia, Benin, Nigeria. Hip-mask that Galway’s descendantsattempted to auction at Sotheby’s but had to be withdrawn because of protests

by Nigerians.

I read with interest and sometimes, with astonishment the article by Professor

John Picton, Emeritus Professor, School of Oriental and African Studies,

London, in the Art Newspaper of 24 January 2011, entitled

“Compromise, negotiate, support”. (1)

To start with, I was surprised that Picton describes the British military force, the

so-called Benin Pre-emptive Strike Force that went to Benin on 4 January 1897

and was almost annihilated as “British personnel”. “Personnel“evokes in the

average English-speaking person, a group of employees other than a militaryforce. One thinks of the personnel of Shell or other British firms in Nigeria or

elsewhere. Perhaps the Professor did not reflect on this but he, as a specialist on

African art must surely know that this military force consisted of 9 British

military officers and some 250 African mercenaries disguised as carriers. The

mission of this army was to launch a surprise attack on Benin City, overthrowOba Ovonramwen and put in his place an Oba amenable to British imperialism.

Frank Willet, in writing about this military force, said they had their guns at the



2

bottom of their boxes. (2) What Picton does not mention but would have painted

a more accurate picture of the situation is that the Oba had stated clearly, when

informed of the intention of the British to send a group to visit him, that he

could not receive them at the time proposed because he would be involved in

some traditional rituals and during that period no foreigners were allowed tocome into contact with the Oba. Thus the group went to Benin despite the

warning from Benin not to come. Since when do we visit monarchs when they

expressly state their inability or unwillingness to receive us?

But why did the military force visit Benin despite warnings not to come? It

would appear, from messages sent to the British Foreign Office by Captain

Phillips, acting Consul-General that a decision had been taken long ago,

reflecting the view of Captain Phillips that Oba Ovomramwen constituted themain obstacle to British imperialist expansionist designs in that part of West

Africa and that his removal was imperative if the British were to achieve their

aims. So the military force Picton calls British personnel was not an innocent

group killed by “rebel chiefs in the area”. It was an army that intended tosurprise the Oba but were themselves surprised. (3)

Picton states that Eweka II set about to rebuilt Benin City when he was made

Oba: “Eweka set about the wholesale reinvention of Benin City, reviving its

ritual and ceremonial culture, making the best of such political authority as the

colonial overlords would allow within their policy of government by indirect

rule, and commissioning the writing of an authorised history of the city,kingdom and empire, by a local chief. Eweka also commissioned new works of

art, setting up altars dedicated to his father and grandfather, and their

predecessors: the artists, after all had not been exiled nor their skills somehow

taken away from them. It was altogether the greatest and most successful of all

anti-colonial projects in sub-Saharan Africa.”

I have serious difficulty in understanding Picton’s characterization of the

renewal projects by Eweka as “anti-colonial”. The Oba must have believed in

the need to set up “altars dedicated to his father and grandfather, and their predecessors” Why must the performance of such a filial duty that Africans

expect of their rulers be considered as “anti- colonial”? Most of us will

understand by “anti-colonial” activities directed against the colonial authority

and intended to bring about the downfall of that regime or at least to hasten its

demise. From where did Picton get this idea that rebuilding Benin City, after the

wanton destruction by the British in 1897 was an “anti-colonial project”?

It should be noted that to this day the British have not paid any compensation for

the killing of thousands of innocent children, women and men as well as for the

destruction of property in that city.



3

We leave uncommented the objectionable habit of describing many areas of

Africa as “sub-Saharan”, even though many parts of Africa are by means near

the Sahara Desert in any sense. (4)

My great surprise was to see that Professor Picton also subscribes to the idea propagated by many supporters of the detention of the cultural artefacts of others

that the original owners have not asked for their return even though all the

records show that there have been constant reclamations for these objects.

Picton states “Yet there has been no formal request by a competent authority for

the repatriation and no attempt at diplomatic negotiation, or even litigation”.

The people of Benin have been asking for the restitution of their artefacts which

constitute an essential part of their culture for a very long time without success.

Picton himself states that “The prestige of kingship and the ownership of works

of art are indeed so intertwined that it should come as no surprise that there is

hunger in Benin City for the return of the material looted in 1897 ”

It is rather disappointing that Professor Picton who has written extensively on

African art, including African textiles, should also echo the worn-out argumentthat there has not been any formal demand for the Benin artefacts by a

competent authority. (5)

For the benefit of all, we would like to draw attention to the following facts

which provide a background against which one may evaluate the tendentious

statements often made by Westerners regarding the absence of a formal demandfor the restitution of the Benin artefacts.

a) There is no requirement in Municipal or International Law that an owner must

first make a formal request to a person who has looted, stolen or illegally taken

his property before the wrongdoer can return the object. It is enough that the

wrongdoer is informed whereupon he has to act. (6)

b) The United Nations, UNESCO, the Athens Conference on Restitution (2008)

as well as the ICOM (International Council of Museums) Code of Ethics require

the holder of the cultural property of others to initiate discussions for eventual

return of the objects to their countries of origin. (7)

c) The late Bernie Grant, Member of the British Parliament, always reminded

the British Parliament and the British public that the people of Benin requested

the return of these objects. He also wrote to museums such as the GlasgowMuseum. (8)

d) Prof. Tunde Babawale, Director/Chief Executive, Centre for Black and

African Arts and Civilization (CBAAC) which was established to perpetuate thegains of FESTAC’77 wrote in 2007 to Neil MacGregor, Director of British



4

Museum, London, asking on behalf of Nigeria and Africa, for the return of the

Queen-Idia hip mask in the British Museum. MacGregor responded to the

Nigerian professor by a letter which did not even refer to the request and left the

demand unaddressed. I am yet to see an explanation or apology for this

singularly discourteous behaviour towards Nigeria and Africa. Besides Westerncommentators, as usually happens when Africans are insulted, do not seem to

have noticed this behaviour . (9)

e) Numerous Nigerian governments and Parliament have expressed the wish to

have the looted objects returned. These requests were reported by severalBritish media such as the BBC NEWS of 27 March 2002. (10)

Members of the British Punitive Expedition of 1897 against Benin with looted

Benin ivories and bronze objects

f) Prof. Eyo, first Director-General of Nigeria’s Commission on Museums and

Monuments, has written about the efforts made to obtain the return of a few

Benin artefacts at the time of opening the Museum in Benin City and mentions

in that context that discussions were held in UNESCO on a resolution to thateffect. The Nigerians were persuaded to withdraw the resolution and instead sent

letters to all the embassies in Lagos. None of the States thus contacted through

their embassies even bothered to reply and consequently sent no artefacts.

Photos of the Benin bronzes had to be used at the opening of the museum in

Benin City. (11)

g) The Oba of Benin mandated his brother to submit a petition to the British

Parliament in 2000. The petition, known as Appendix 21 and the discussion

thereon are published in the Parliamentary reports of the British Parliament. (12)



5

h) Emmanuel N. Arinze, Chairman, West African Museums Programme, also

wrote to Julian Spalding, Director, Glasgow Art Gallery and Museum for the

return of the Benin bronzes. (13)

i) After the Benin exhibition in Chicago a letter was sent on behalf of the Oba tothe Directors of the Art Institute of Chicago and the Field Museum in Chicago

requesting the return of some of the Benin bronzes. Up to today, the venerable

museum directors have not even bothered to acknowledge receipt of the request.

(14)

j) During the recent protests by Nigerians and other Africans against the

attempted auction of a Queen-Idia hip mask, the Nigerian authorities reported

being in contact with the British authorities to find a solution to the issue of restitution of the looted Benin artefacts. (15)

In view of the above, it becomes difficult to understand the assertion made that

there has not been any formal demand by a competent authority for therestitution. One cannot go on forever repeating that there has been no formal

demand for the return of the Benin bronzes primarily because such a formal

demand is not required by any law and secondly, there have been more than

enough formal demands, including letters to the holders of the artefacts and tothe British parliament. None of those denying that there have been formal

demands has said that they are only waiting for such a demand in order to return

the looted objects. Moreover, they are very careful not to say exactly how thisformal demand should look like. In other words, this argument is a ploy to wave

off all possible demands. If a demand to the British Museum and to Parliament

is not enough, what else remains for the holders to do? The pity though is that

many intelligent persons do not seem to realize that the argument of there being

no formal demand is simply a refusal to come to grips with the issue and a

determination to continue the illegitimate detention of the cultural artefacts of

others. (16)

I do not know how familiar Picton is with litigation but to suggest somehow thatthe absence of litigation with regard to the Benin artefacts is surprising, is to

ignore the particular nature of the case and the particular circumstances leading

to the loss of the artefacts. This is not a kind of situation envisaged for the

normal legal system. A European government going all the way from Europe to

Africa to cause wanton destruction and steal/loot the artefacts of the Africans is

clearly a matter beyond the courts for true justice. Insofar as the artefacts are

objects of property rights, there may be situations where it would be necessary

to institute legal proceedings but for the solution of the general question of

restitution, litigation is not the best solution. As Picton knows, there have beenrecently many restitutions to Egypt. Ethiopia, Italy and Peru without resort to

litigation. Why must Benin restitution involve litigation?



6

Picton throws in the idea that the Benin bronzes are in so many museums in

America and Europe and that this creates a complex situation for litigation. He

seems to forget that only one entity was responsible for the looting of the Benin

artefacts: Government of Great Britain that sent armed forces to attack Beninand later sold the artefacts to others. Those who bought the artefacts from the

British, such as the Germans, Austrians and Americans could of course be

considered as accessories for they all knew that the artefacts were stolen objects

recently looted from Benin. Indeed, the auctioneers always mentioned this fact

to potential buyers who were invited 5 months or so after the invasion to

purchase.

I was happy to read the following from John Picton:

“The moral argument in favour of Benin City remains nevertheless, not least

because the looting of its art is not in dispute, which suggests that some kind of

compromise ought to be possible. Here are some suggestions: the recognition by

the museums of Europe and America that they do not have unproblematic

ownership rights to this material—some recognition, indeed, that the king of

Benin might have a case; the loan of material from reserve collections for

display in Benin City, whether of a temporary or permanent basis; travelling

exhibitions in which some of the great museums—the British Museum, The

Museum of Ethnography at Berlin’s Dahlem complex, New York’s Metropolitan

Museum of Art, for example—might collaborate so that Nigerians get to see thismaterial in Nigeria”.

It is encouraging that Picton has adopted the idea of a compromise. Many have

been thinking along these lines even though they have avoided the word

“compromise” since it has unacceptable connotations. All who have argued for

restitution of the Benin bronzes, including the present writer, have suggested

that a solution ought to be possible given that the basic facts of the case are not

disputed by anyone or as Picton puts it, “the looting of the art is not in dispute”.

The real question is what kind of solution or compromise? Picton has madesome suggestions which differ from our own. He refers to “the recognition by

the museums of Europe and America that they do not have unproblematic

ownership rights to this material.” In view of the undisputed historical facts and

the violence involved in the looting, we would rather suggest that there should

be recognition by the governments and museums of Europe and America that

their privileges of possession are tainted with illegitimacy ab initio.

What kind of objects ought to be transferred to Benin? Picton is thinking of “the

loan of material from reserve collections for display in Benin City”. We think that the objects to be returned to Benin should not be on loan but a

straightforward return to the original owners. Either we agree on the historical



7

facts of the situation or we do not. Picton should not state that the facts are not in

dispute and turn round and write as if Benin were a beggar. Benin is not seeking

a loan, permanent or temporary but the restoration of its rights. Furthermore

Picton writes that the objects should come “from reserve collections“of the

museums. We do not accept this. First of all, for a proper compromise, themuseums, especially the British Museum, should stop playing cat and mouse

games and tell us how many of the Benin bronzes they have had at the

beginning and how many remain, after those they have sold or exchanged with

others. We still do not have exact figures of the Benin bronzes the British

Museum has in its possession nor do we know what is in its reserve. A

compromise that should bind future generation must be based on full disclosure

of the facts. Picton knows that the most coveted Benin pieces such as the Queen-

Idia hip mask are on display and not among the reserve collection. Thus hissuggestion to give to Benin objects from reserve collection would ensure that the

best pieces remain with Western museums.

A few weeks ago, when writing about the abortive auction of the Queen Mother-Idia mask, Picton criticised Prof. Peju Layiwola, (a descendant of the legendary

Oba Ovonramwen from whose palace the Benin bronzes were looted) who had

suggested that we need exact figures about the Benin artefacts that were looted.

Picton stated:”The location of almost all works of art from Benin City is

published public knowledge. The argument in favour of repatriation is not

helped by rhetorical questions and inaccurate data”. With all respect to the

emeritus professor, hardly anybody knows exactly how many of the Benin bronzes are in the possession of the British Museum. Philip J.C. Dark's An

Illustrated Catalogue of Benin Art (1982) published almost thirty years ago is

out of print and not easily available to those working in non-Western countries.

Besides, can a book published thirty years ago on such matters as the locations

of the Benin artefacts be still up to date? What about sales and exchanges of the

objects by the museums? Clearly, accurate figures, even though not absolutely

necessary for commencing the restitution process if there is goodwill, will be

immensely useful for a just distribution of the objects. Surely, science gains

from accurate information. (17)

Once we have full and exact figures of the Benin bronzes, a Committee should

be set up including 2 representatives from Britain and 2 representatives from

Benin, a representative from United Nations, UNESCO and ICOM. This

Committee should do the selection of objects that should go to Benin and those

that should remain in the British Museum. The Committee should also work out

a formula for division of the objects. Our own formula would be two thirds for

Benin and a third of the total for the British Museum. Thus if the museum is

now holding 150 objects, 100 would go to Benin and 50 would remain inLondon. This is suggested on the basis of the historical facts that are not in

dispute. Whatever formula is adopted must reflect the historical facts.



8

Picton, to my surprise again resorts to the worn out argument about the absence

of secure facilities for the artefacts that are to be returned to Nigeria.

“The problem here, of course, is that adequate facilities of international standard do not exist in Nigeria. But suppose that a secure display facility were

to be built in Benin City that conformed to modern international standards of

conservation and climatic control: the moral case would then be very hard to

ignore.”

This is a mendacious argument in the arsenal of the retentionists of other

people’s cultural artefacts and Picton should know that this is no argument

against returning artefacts to their countries of origin. And please, let us not talk about climate control with respect to Benin objects. They had been in our West

African climate for ages before they were stolen by the British and now people

wonder whether there is a right climate in Benin.

For several decades, the British Museum which is detaining the Elgin/ParthenonMarbles had argued that there were no adequate facilities in Athens to house the

Marbles. The Greeks built a super modern museum, New Acropolis Museum at

Athens only to hear the British Museum Director declare that the question of the

location of the Marbles is no longer relevant. What mattered now, according to

MacGregor, was how the British and Greeks could show the Marbles to the

Chinese and Africans:

“ The real question is about how the Greek and British governments can work together so that the sculptures can be seen in China and Africa”. (18)

With regard to this repeated argument about lack of secure facilities in Nigeria

and elsewhere, we should bear the following in mind:

a) We are all in favour of secure museums and nobody contests the fact that

Nigeria could, and must, improve the conditions of its museums.

b) Stealing from museums is, unfortunately, a practice which occurs everywhere

in the world, including the so-called developed countries of the West. Museum

Security Network and other internet sites report daily and often hourly, of

numerous art thefts in Britain, France, Netherlands and Germany. There are

other reports showing that American museums are not secured against fire and

water damages.

c) Those Nigerian artefacts that have not been looted by the British or stolen bythose encouraged by the Western market, are well cared for as demonstrated in

the recent Ife exhibition.



9

d) All stolen/looted African and other artefacts end up in Western museums or

private collections in the West. Is there a link here? Added to this is the

preaching of false prophets who argue that the West has a right, if not a duty, to

purchase artefacts irrespective of their provenance.

e) The argument on security and facilities could be used to keep forever the

looted artefacts of others. Since when is it acceptable that those who have looted

artefacts of others can set themselves up as judges and decide that the original

owners are not worthy of the objects because they do not have adequate and

secure facilities?

f) Does the absence of security and adequate facilities mean then that Nigeriansand others are not to continue their cultural development and practices since

whatever they have created or create could be detained in the West with the

security and facilities argument?

g) When the people of Benin and elsewhere request the return of their looted

artefacts, they do so, not on the basis of the facilities they have but simply by

virtue of their rights of ownership which even the opponents of restitution do not

deny.

h) The questions of ownership must be strictly separated from any other

question such as that of security which may be related but cannot be used tonegate ownership rights.

i) We have not heard a single Western State or museum declare that they are

willing to return Benin objects if Nigeria/Benin had adequate facilities.The issue

of facilities is brought up as a supplementary argument to support the

determination not to return the artefacts.

j) No system of justice could function correctly by allowing wrongdoers to

negate its fundamental principles and rights by virtue of their wrongdoing.

The persistent debate on restitution continues basically because of greed and the

desire to control others.

Greed appears to be the driving motor of the so-called “universal museum” such

as the British Museum, London, Louvre, Paris, Musée du Quai Branly, Paris,

Ethnology Museum, Berlin, and Ethnology Museum, Vienna. These are

museums that never have enough of artefacts. Despite the fact that they are

constantly complaining about lack of space and resources and have no

possibility to display most of the objects in their depots, they still want moreartefacts. They do not want to return any of the looted artefacts. The British

Museum is reported by the BBC to have some 8 millions of artefacts, some in



10

depots spread across London but the venerable museum is not willing to return

one artefact, the Queen-Idia hip mask, at the cost of insulting Nigeria and all

other African States. According to the BBC, what is on public show amounts to

just 1% of the institution's eight million artefacts. (19)

Coupled with greed is the arrogance of the Western States and their museums

acting in the belief that they have a right and duty to control the artefacts of

others, especially, the Africans. This belief which is an expression of cultural

superiority and a manifestation of cultural imperialism makes it very difficult for

Westerners, even if they appear to be friends of Africa, to accept that Africans

alone, without Western supervision can determine the use and future of their

artefacts. This feeling takes the form of worrying about what will happen to

looted artefacts when returned to Nigeria. Westerners are so used to consideringthemselves entitled to participate in deciding the disposition of African

resources, including cultural artefacts, that not a single person asks the question,

what right do we have to concern ourselves with what Africans will do with

their artefacts and where they will house them. Some even go so far as to ask for guaranties that looted artefacts returned will not find their way back on the open

market which is managed by the West.

Picton ends his article by saying that the recent withdrawal of a Queen-Mother Idia from auction because of protests has resulted in the loss of the mask to

public view and concludes; “This is surely an outcome to no-one’s advantage”.

What is regarded by the emeritus professor as loss needs not be accepted by all.

We should however recognize that this is a loss only to Western scholars who

have access to museums and private collections where the bronzes are being

held. Nigerian and African scholars have had no access to our stolen artefacts.

They need to be in London or some other Western city to view the products of

their forefathers and this assumes they have the financial means to pay their

travel costs and other expenses, assuming they receive a visa to visit a Western

city. Prof. Picton is fully aware of this and I assume he is also aware that about

one fifth, if not more, of Nigerian masterpieces is in Western museum. (20)

What is viewed as a loss could also be viewed as a gain in so far as we have

seen for the first time that a group of Africans have been able to stop the auction

of a looted artefact. Building on this experience, other actions may be expected

in future. It is clear that concerted actions by Africans, especially if supported by

their governments, could change a lot of traditions with regard to dealing in

looted African art objects. We have seen in the recent case that the Nigerian

government also lent its support and has promised to set up a body whose sole

function would be to ensure the return of the looted/stolen objects; thegovernment would also contact the British Authorities about the issue.



11

One would expect Western scholars and intellectuals to support those who seek

the return of their stolen/looted art objects. Arguments of retentionists sound

hollow in the context of colonial oppression and robbery and contemporary

scholars must abandon all colonialist ideas and assumptions if they are to make

a useful contribution to the question of restitution. They should use their knowledge and influence to assist those who have been deprived of their cultural

and human rights with violence and disdain. They should not be seen as

supporting the oppressors or their successors in maintaining an obviously

inequitable system that attributes to the West the best icons of African art.

Kwame Opoku, 6 February, 2011.

Alter group honouring Oba Akenzua I, Benin, Nigeria, now in the EthnologyMuseum, Berlin, Germany. This piece is not in the reserve collection of the

museum.

NOTES

1. http://www.theartnewspaper.com



13

body is scared and not allowed to come in contact with foreign elements. Igue

ritual is the highest ritual among the Edo and is performed not only for the well-being of the king but of his entire subjects and the land. But Phillips showed nosympathy. He replied the king that he was in a hurry and could not wait because

he has so much work to do elsewhere in the Protectorate. Defiantly, theexpedition set out as it proposed in January, 1897 and when it arrived atUGHOTON , three royal Emmissaries met it with a request that it should tarry

for two days so that they could "send up and let the King know in time for himto make his preparation for receiving us" (Boisrangon, p.84). Again Phillipsregretted that he could not wait because he has so much work to do and that hewould start early the next morning. And, on the next morning, he set out for Benin City. By the afternoon of that day, January 4, 1897 the inevitablehappened: Seven out of nine white members of the Expedition includingPhillips

himself were ambused and killed. The only white survivors were Boisragon andLocke. The story of this ill-fated Expedition is set out in Boisragon’s book: TheBenin Massacr ” http://www.dawodu.net

See also, Richard Gott, The Looting of Benin, http://www.arm.arc.co.uk

4. Hebert Ekwe-Ekwe, What exactly does "sub-Sahara Africa" mean?

http://re-thinkingafrica.blogspot.com

5. K.Opoku, “Formal Demand for the Return of Benin Bronzes: Will WesternMuseums now Return some of the Looted/Stolen Benin artefacts?”

http://www.modernghana.com

6. K.Opoku, “Is the Absence of a Formal demand for Restitution a Ground for

Non-Restitution? http://www.modernghana.com”

7. Conclusions of Athens Conference on Restitution

http://icom.museum

8. Letter of the late Bernie Grant, Member of the British Parliament to Director of Glasgow Museum and the Reply thereto. http://www.elginism.com

9. K. Opoku,”Reflections on the Abortive Queen-Mother Idia Mask Auction”.

http://www.museum-security.org

10. http://news.bbc.co.uk

BBC NEWS 24 January 2002, Nigeria demands treasures back

http://news.bbc.co.uk



14

Guardian, UK, “British Museum sold precious bronzes Revelation adds pressure

to return disputed treasures”

http://www.guardian.co.uk

The Independent,UK, “In demand: the African art pillaged by Britain”http://www.indeppendent.co.uk/news 11. Museum , Vol. XXL, no 1, 1979, Return and Restitution of cultural

Property, pp.18-21, at p.21, Nigeria

Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow Director-General of UNESCO,

“ Plea for the Return of an Irreplaceable Cultural Heritage to those who

Created It”

http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/pdf/PealforReturn_DG_1978.pdf

12. See Annex below. APPENDIX 21

http://www.publications.parliament.uk

13. http://www.elginism.com

14. K. Opoku. “Formal Demand for the Return of Benin Bronzes: Will Western

Museums now Return some of the Looted/Stolen Benin artefacts?”

http://www.modernghana.com

15. Nigerian Tribune, http://tribune.com.ng

16. K. Opoku, “Nefertiti in Absurdity: How often must Egyptians ask Germans

for the Return of the Egyptian Queen?” www.museum-security.org

17. http://h-net.msu.edu

18. K. Opoku, “The Amazing Director of the British Museum: Gratuitous

Insults as Currency of Cultural Diplomacy?” http://www.modernghana.come

19. BBC NEWS The 99% of the British Museum not on show http://news.bbc.co.uk

20. K. Opoku , “Excellence and Erudition: Ekpo Eyo’s Masterpieces of Nigerian

Art” http://www.museum-security.org

ANNEX

The Case of Benin



15

Memorandum submitted by Prince Edun Akenzua to the British Parliament

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 HisMajesty 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 Districtof the Oil River Protectorate, Captain H L Gallway, manoeuvred Obal

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 burntdown Palace.



16

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 someEuropean 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 ivoryor 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 thesoldiers 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 Obaof Benin.



17

(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

http://www.publications.parliament.uk

ANNEX II

Nigeria demands treasures back

(Thursday, 24 January, 2002, 08:08 GMT http://news.bbc.co.uk )

Many works were acquired when Britain was an imperial power

The Nigerian parliament has called for the return of Nigerian works of art in theBritish Museum.

The country's lower house of parliament has called on its president, Olusegun

Obasanjo, to request the repatriation of the artifacts, taken away during British

colonial rule in the 19th Century. British forces seized a remarkable collection

of sculptures from the city of Benin, including the so-called Benin Bronzes, now

a highlight of the British Museum's collection in London.

Other Nigerian artefacts have found their way to European museums through the

connivance of corrupt officials, who helped collectors smuggle them out of the

country.

Unanimous

Wednesday's motion urged the government to safeguard Nigerian museums

from being "burgled" by hired agents.

It also ordered the Nigerian National Commission for Museums and Monuments

to provide a list of all Nigerian artefacts at the British Museum - and list their value.

The motion, sponsored by 57 legislators, was passed unanimously.

Time magazine reported Omotoso Eluyemi, head of Nigeria's National

Commission for Museums and Monuments, as saying: "These objects of art are

the relics of our history - why must we lose them to Europe?"



18

"If you go to the British Museum, half the things there are from Africa. It should

be called the Museum of Africa."

Recently, British Museum director Robert Anderson refused renewed calls for

the "Elgin marbles" from the Parthenon to be returned to Greece.

Writing in The Times, Mr Anderson called the Parthenon sculptures "one of thegreatest treasures of the British Museum".

Commemorative head of an Oba, Benin, Nigeria, now in Ethnology Museum,

Vienna, Austria.

This head is not in the reserve collection of the museum

compromise on restitution of benin bronzes

Documents