Analysis: The culture bandits of europe
Submitted By: Kwame Opoku
Date: Thu 3 April 2008
Ligali | Equality for African People

In this edited version of this powerful article. Dr Kwame Opoku asks whether the stealing of cultural objects of others is a specific culture belonging to europe?

After reading a lot of books and articles on the question of restitution of cultural objects stolen or illegally exported, I was gradually coming to the conclusion that the taking of cultural objects of others was mainly practised by european nations or nations of mainly european descendants. I was rather uncomfortable with this conclusion since it goes against my general position that all human beings or at least all nations have the potential to behave along fairly similar lines. I was therefore extremely happy to read in the third edition of Dr Jeanette Greenfield’s excellent book, The Return of Cultural Treasures (Third Edition Cambridge University Press, 2007) that “Sometimes objects have also been peacefully and uncontroversially collected and bought. Such movements are a fascinating reflector of human history. Hardly a nation or tribe has remained untouched by this experience.”(p.xiii)

Greenfield starts with the fascinating history of the Icelandic manuscripts which relates to the return of manuscripts from Denmark to Iceland which had been removed to the later when Iceland was its colony. Iceland had been asking for the return of these manuscripts as far back as the 1830s but it was only in 1945 when Iceland became independent that the demand intensified. The final decision to return the manuscript was made in 1971 after some legal battles including the challenge of the constitutionality of a Danish parliamentary Act in 1961 regarding restitution.

From Iceland, Greenfield turns her attention to what has become the cause célèbre of restitution cases, the Parthenon Marbles/Elgin Marbles. The persistent refusal of the British to return the Parthenon Marbles has surprised most people who have looked at the matter. Greenfield gives us a detailed examination of the arguments on both the Greek and the British sides regarding their rights to the marbles since they were removed some 190 years ago by Lord Elgin from the Parthenon, The Temple of the Greek goddess, Athena, on the Acropolis in Athens.

Some of the arguments and statements made for not return the Parthenon Marbles reminds one of those often heard in connection with African art objects in European and American museums:
A British report noted that it would be “in Greece’s best interests to leave the marbles here - though in all probability Greece would not take that view”. According to the author a memorandum from the British Museum dated 31 December 1940 declared: “The principle of tying works of art to their places of origin is not recognized by Western Nations, and the frequent claims that such as have got out shall be returned has never been admitted and seems to be preposterous”.(p.62)

Many international bodies have called on the British to return the Parthenon Marbles. The UNESCO World Conference on Cultural Policies, Mexico,1982, recommended that the Parthenon Marbles be returned for reincorporation into the architectural structure of which they formed a part. The International Council of Museums (ICOM) in its General Assembly in London 1983 passed a resolution on the “Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin”, pointing out the “moral rights of people to recover significant elements of their heritage dispersed as a consequence of colonial or foreign occupation”. The General Assembly of the United Nations has also passed several resolutions emphasising the rights of people to recover such artefacts but the British refuse to comply.

Instead the British Museum, arranged for a group of directors of the worlds leading museums to issued a Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums in December 2002. The aim of the Declaration was to establish immunity against all future claims that may be made against those museums holding illegally cultural objects from others. Although the British Museum was the guiding spirit behind the move it cunningly refrained from being a signatory to the Declaration, contrary to their inclusion in the list of signatories by Greenfield. The Declaration was met with a lot of criticism by museum specialists. Moreover, three of the major American museums that signed the Declaration, the Paul Getty Museum, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston have all recently returned stolen cultural objects and thus gone against the main objective of the Declaration, namely, not to return any stolen object.

Greenfield examined the British and other european practice in the question of restitution. The United Kingdom was not the only colonial nation that collected massive number of artefacts from its colonies. France, Belgium, Germany, Holland, Italy, Denmark and Spain did the same. Greenfield seems to have forgotten Portugal. It was the first to establish colonies and the last to liberate its colonies. The colonial exploitation left many countries in a parlous situation and Greenfield is surely right when she declares:

“In Africa, South-East Asia and South Asia, the pattern of exploration, colonization, tribute, and then the punitive removal of treasures was repeated, with the result that many African and Asian nations were deprived often of the central core of their own art, as in the case of Benin, or of invaluable documentary records, as in the case of Sri Lanka”. (p.99)

It seems also that the Catholic Church was not averse to following the colonialist practice. According to the author:

“In 1925 Pope Pius XI organized a missionary exhibition extolling missionary work all over the non-western world. About 100,000 items were sent and after the exhibition only about half were returned. The Pope proclaimed the formation of a new museum, the Pontifico Museu Missionario-Etnologico, so that the ‘dawn of faith among the infidel of today can be compared to the dawn of faith which… illuminated pagan Rome”. (p.100)

The British Museum steadfastly refuses to consider any question of restitution. Sometimes the museum bases its refusal on its alleged universal role and sometimes on grounds that its governing law does not allow it to dispose of objects it holds in trust. Britain became party to the principal convention on the return of cultural property, the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property only in 2002. France became party in 1997 and the United States in 1983. The French also refuse on grounds similar to those of the British Museum.

Opinion in the United Kingdom on the issue of restitution seems to be divided along professional lines; academics seem to favour restitution whereas museum directors and officials reject any thought of restitution. Greenfield summarizes some of these views which are interesting.

The director of the City Museums of Bristol, Nicholas Thomas has said:
“It would be disastrous at the present time if the West were to consider returning such material on mainly political grounds; without the guarantee of stability, such return of objects could very likely result in their destruction or use for political purposes...”

The former director of the Science Museum, London, Dr. Neil Cossons has said:
“If the question of restitution becomes a political one then the particular issue of the Sri Lankan treasures was a dangerous one, since it represented the tip of the iceberg. (p110).”

The late Professor Glyn Daniel, Professor of Archaeology at Cambridge has said: “the focus of archaeology is already shifting to the Third World, and new national museums will be developed throughout the Third World; there is no good reason why some of the objects in Western National museums should not be returned to their place of origin, such as the Benin bronzes to Africa or the Rosetta Stone to Cairo.”

Professor Thurstan Shaw, Emeritus Professor of Archaeology, University of Ibadan, Nigeria, has extensive knowledge of matters that relate to West Africa and has listed some of the main points: