Should the West return cultural artefacts to former colonial territories?
“I cannot accept that a large part of cultural heritage from several African countries is in France … In the next five years, I want the conditions to be created for the temporary or permanent restitution of African patrimony to Africa.” Emmanuel Macron announced to a crowded lecture theatre at Ouagadougou University, in November 2017. The French president’s speech made it clear that African heritage should not be locked up in European museums. However, to this very day, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of cultural artefacts from former colonial territories are currently located in museum collections all over the Western world.
The Marvel blockbuster Blank Panther nodded to this issue in a heist scene set in a fictional "Museum of Great Britain". The antagonist Eric Killmonger corrects the curator about the provenance of an axe: “It was taken by British soldiers in Benin, but it’s from Wakanda. Don’t trip – I’m gonna take it off your hands for you.” When the curator replies that the axe is not for sale, Killmonger says: “How do you think your ancestors got these? Do you think they paid a fair price? Or did they take it, like they took everything else?” This compelling scene from the Marvel cinematic universe highlighted the current controversies over the repatriation of stolen artefacts in museum collections. Should museums hand back colonial plunder to their countries of origin? In this essay, I aim to address both the ethical and historical aspects of this highly controversial debate —Should the West return cultural artefacts to their former colonial territories?
In the wake of European colonial explorations from the 16th century onwards, objects from all over the globe started to fill up museum collections. Though many of these objects were purchased or traded and obtained with consent, many items were also procured with the threat of violence or simply stolen. Colonial plundering arose with the rise of European colonialism; when the British empire took precious resources and wealth from countries all over the world, including cultural artefacts and historical antiquities, many of which ended in major cultural institutions such as the British Museum.
Cultural artefacts that have been stolen during colonial regimes perpetuate colonialist ideologies, dispossessing people of their own heritage, identity and culture. The Benin Bronzes, for example, were looted by the British in 1897 and are now located in a variety of museums and collections, with substantial shares in the British Museum. These magnificent brass plaques and statues were made between the 13th and 18th centuries and once decorated the royal palace of the Kingdom of Benin, present-day Nigeria. The Benin Bronzes were made with great craftsmanship and knowledge of advanced metallurgy, making them cultural evidence of the wealthy and sophisticated society that once was the Kingdom of Benin. The importance of these cultural antiquities is evident in the preservation of the Nigerian cultural identity and for the sustainability of history for future generations, therefore they should be repatriated to their country of origin. Though Nigeria has been asking for the return of the Benin Bronzes for the opening of their new national museum in Lagos set to open in 2021, the British Museum was reluctant and says it is only loaning the sculptures and expects Nigeria to return the goods that Britain stole. Today, the Benin bronzes are not among the people whose ancestors made them, but instead thousands of miles away, in foreign lands. Nigerians would have to travel to a western museum to encounter these beautiful artefacts— and the truth is, most Nigerians will never see the Benin Bronzes in their lifetime. The financial and emotional burden to learn about one’s cultural history should not fall upon those who were victimised by the regimes that now profit from their colonial plunder.
Moreover, in some cases, cultural artefacts are not just objects that give us information about the culture of their creators or users, but also possess a spiritual significance and are seen as a vital part of a community. The Hoa Hakananai'a statue from Easter Island translates to "stolen friend" and it is believed to contain the spirits of the Rapa Nui people's deified relatives. The statue was plundered by a British Naval ship in 1868 and is currently one of the "must-see" highlights for tourists in London's British Museum, along with the Benin Bronzes. “We want the museum to understand that the moai are our family, not just rocks. For us [Hoa Hakananai’a] is a brother; but for them it is a souvenir or an attraction,” a member of the Rapa Nui development commission explained. To place the Hoa Hakananai'a in a Museum for tourists and museum-goers to look at decontextualises the statue from its original location and the Rapa Nui community, consequently distorting its function for the tourists' gaze. During a visit to the British Museum, the governor of Easter Island tearfully said, “You, the British people, have our soul”. Such artefacts are a vital part of a community's identity and depriving them of this identity would be a human rights issue. Thus, it is only ethical that these artefacts be returned to the indigenous groups it rightfully belongs to.
On the other hand, many large Western museums still firmly hold on to their collections with grand claims of the universal or encyclopedic museum. Their defence against repatriation is that they are custodians and conservers of humanity’s cultural and natural treasures at the time of their acquisition, which were legally obtained. In 2002, 18 museums published a declaration saying that the objects taken from other cultures essentially belong to the “universal museums". This declaration states that "[the artefacts] have become part of the museums that housed them, and preserved them, and by extension the heritage of the country that housed them" and to reduce the museum’s “diverse and multifaceted” collection would “be a disservice to all visitors”. These universal museums enable large groups of people to learn from a wide range of cultures, hence these artefacts should be kept in Western museums. However, this essentially means that non-Western nations are incapable of preserving their own cultural heritage. Furthermore, the British Museum claims to have the proper technological tools to preserve these artefacts for many generations and some countries do not have adequate facilities to keep these treasured artefacts safe. However, it could also be argued that relevant technology should be shared with other nations alongside the return of the artefacts to indeed conserve what is proclaimed to be universal heritage.
It is important to keep in mind that history is constantly evolving hence we need to keep an open mind when tackling this controversial topic. Tiffany Jenkins, author of Keeping Their Marbles: How the Treasures of the Past Ended up in Museums, and Why They Should Stay There, has challenged the idea that removed objects should be repatriated. She argues that even if the cultural artefacts were to be repatriated to their land of origin, the landscape of that place hardly resembles what it was like when that artefact was created. For example, the court of Benin is nothing like contemporary Nigeria, hence it would not be possible to return them to their place of origin, even if we wanted to. Moreover, almost all the ancient kingdoms where many of these objects came from no longer exist, making it unclear where exactly these objects should be repatriated. She states that "all of the artefacts we gaze upon today were made for someone else and for some other purpose: to celebrate the powerful; for worship; or for ordinary household use. Regardless of intent, soon after any object is made, it passes out of the hands of the creator into those of others – patrons, family, friends, thieves – new owners, crossing continents and centuries and changing use as it does.” Therefore, we have to accept the reality that these objects will never go back to the society and the creators who poured their blood, sweat and souls into these pieces. Even if these objects are repatriated, do the people whose great-great-great-grandparents created them have more ownership than the museums who have been taking care and housing these artefacts throughout turbulent times in history?
In our increasingly globalised world today, we should strive to live in a world where artefacts from different times and places are shared and learnt from and are not fully owned by a single organisation or institution. Cultural institutions and museums should use their vast collections to bring light to different cultures with the intent of eliminating stereotypes and biases while spreading knowledge and understanding and work with both major and small museums all over the world to best reflect their shared histories. It is only when we truly acknowledge the colonial past — even though it may be difficult — we are able to learn from our mistakes. That being said, I still believe that stolen artefacts should be repatriated to the countries where people have been robbed of their cultural identity and the artefacts that are of great significance and are vital to their culture. At the crux of this issue lies a seemingly simple question: who gets to own history? Ultimately, I believe that history should not be fought over, but embraced and shared by people and non-Western cultural artefacts that are in Western museums deserve careful, case-by-case consideration to whether they should be repatriated.
Image:
References:
