reflections on the cancellation of the queen - Afrikanet.info

REFLECTIONS ON THE ABORTIVE QUEEN-MOTHER IDIA MASK
AUCTION: TACTICAL WITHDRAWAL OR DECISION OF
PRINCIPLE
“The men and women of these countries have the right to
recover these cultural assets which are part of their being”.
.
Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow, Former Director-General of UNESCO.
(1)
Mask of Queen-Mother Idia that was to be auctioned by Sotheby’s
but withdrawn by the Galway family after protests by Africans.
The cancellation notice of the auction of Queen-Mother Idia mask on 4
December by Sotheby’s could not have been shorter:
“The Benin Ivory Pendant Mask and other items consigned by the descendants
of Lionel Galway which Sotheby’s had announced for auction in February 2011
have been withdrawn from sale at the request of the consignors (2).
This short notice is a great contrast to the enthusiastic announcement of the
proposed auction where the excellent artistry of the hip mask was underlined.
“All of the ivory masks are widely recognized for the quality of their
craftsmanship, for the enormous scale of Benin’s artistic achievement and for
their importance in the field of African art “.

But what more does the cancellation tell us Very little except that the proposed
auction will not take place as announced. Will the auction take place sometime
in the future and somewhere else other than at Sotheby’s Will the mask be
silently passed on to one of the so-called “universal museums” without our
knowing
It is stated that the Benin objects “have been withdrawn from sale at the request
of the consignors” Did the “owners” withdraw because of the protests from
Nigeria Liberty Forum and others, and hope to present them at a future date or
have they arrived at the conclusion that it is wrong to sell the cultural property
of others, especially in a case like this where the object has been acquired by an
ancestor in a violent attack of the owners Are they prepared to renounce their
alleged rights to these blood artefacts Did the consignors realize that the sale of
such blood artefacts can only revive wounds that may still be felt by the
successors of those killed in the process of invasion Do the Galways intend to
return the Queen-Idia mask and the other artefacts to the people of Benin or
simply keep them out of public sight as they have done twice after exhibitions
in 1947 - “Ancient Benin” and 1951 - “Traditional Sculpture from the Colonies”
Sotheby’s and the Galways may have been amazed by the massive public outcry
at the announcement of the proposed auction. The timing of the proposed
auction may have been arbitrarily chosen but it is noteworthy that a week or so
before, Sotheby’s had auctioned an African artefact, a Luba female caryatid
stool, for $7.1 million without any problem. This may have encouraged them to
think it was the right time to make a huge profit on African artefacts. The history
of that piece is different from that of the Benin pieces that are heavily charged
with sentiments and emotions. Moreover, the Queen-Mother Idia hip mask has
become a Pan-African symbol and thus invested with a symbolism and
significance that extend far beyond the boundaries of Benin and Nigeria.
But Sotheby’s and the Galway successors need not have been surprised since
protest at the possession of Benin Bronzes by Western museums and private
collections has a long history.
Various Nigerian governments and parliaments have called for the return of
these objects. When a museum was to be opened in Benin City, Ekpo Eyo, on
behalf of Nigeria made several requests to all the museums holding Benin
objects to return a few of them. Not a single object was returned and the
museum was opened with photographs of some of the Benin Bronzes:
“By the end of the 1960s, the price of Benin works had soared so high that the
Federal Government of Nigeria was in no mood to contemplate buying them.
When, therefore a National Museum was planned for Benin City in 1968, we
were faced with the problem of finding exhibits that would be shown to reflect
2

the position that Benin holds in the world of art history. A few unimportant
objects which were kept in the old local authority museum in Benin were
transferred to the new museum and a few more objects were brought in from
Lagos. Still the museum was “empty”. We tried using casts and photographs to
fill gaps but the desired effect was unachievable. We therefore thought of
making an appeal to the world for loans or return of some works so that Benin
might also be to show its own works at least to its own people. We tabled a draft
resolution at the General Assembly of the International Council of Museums
(ICOM) which met in France in 1968, appealing for donations of one or two
pieces from those museums which have large stocks of Benin works. The
resolution was modified to make it read like a general appeal for restitution or
return and then adopted.
When we returned to Nigeria, we circulated the adopted resolution to the
embassies and high commissions of countries we know to have large Benin
holdings but up till now we have received no reaction from any quarters and the
Benin Museum stays “empty”. (3)
In 2000 the Benin Royal Family sent a petition to the British Parliament for the
restitution of the Benin artefacts (4)
In addition to protests from Benin Royal Family over the ages, the late Bernie
Grant, Member of the British Parliament and Chair of the African Reparations
Movement (UK), regularly protested against the continued illegal detention of
the Benin Bronzes. (5)
During the 2007 travelling exhibition, - BENIN - KINGS AND RITUALS,
COURT ARTS FROM NIGERIA, the present Oba, His Majesty Oba Erediauwa
of Benin, great grandson of Oba Ovonramwen, in whose reign the Benin
bronzes were looted by the British in 1897, made again in the foreword to the
catalogue of the exhibition a plea for the return of some of the Benin Bronzes:
“We are pleased to participate in this exhibition. It links us, nostalgically, with
our past. As you put this past on show today, it is our prayer that the people and
government of Austria will show humaneness and magnanimity and return to us
some of these objects which found their way to your country”. (6) Few pages
later in the same catalogue, followed the response of four museum directors of
Western countries in a preface which in its eurocentricism, arrogance,
immorality and cynicism is only surpassed perhaps by the infamous Declaration
on the Value and Importance of Universal Museums. (2002.(7) They rejected the
demand for return of the Benin Bronzes and advised that the Nigerian should
forget the past and look onto the future.
Again in 2007, Professor Tunde Babawale, Director of the CBACC, Lagos,
wrote to Neil MacGregor, Director of the British Museum, stating that
3

“The essence of this letter is to request that the British Museum, safely
return/hand over the original 16 th century Ivory Mask which was last worn by
King Ovoramwen Nogbasi of the ancient Benin Empire before he was exiled by
Britain.
The Ivory Mask is the official Emblem for FESTAC AND A UNIFICATION
SYMBOL FOR Nigerians and Black people worldwide. The mask is also of great
significance to us as Africans.”
MacGregor’s reply to Babawale does not address the main issue of the return of
the mask which was said to be the essence of his letter. Instead, he writes:
“Let me assure you that the British Museum appreciates the significance of the
Benin material in the collections for Nigeria, Africa and the world, and wishes
to make it better understood and more accessible in Africa and worldwide. To
this end, we are currently engaged in a new dialogue with the National
Commission on Museums and Monuments in Nigeria”.
Both letters of Babawale and MacGregor are reproduced in Annex V below. It is
remarkable that the British Museum denies to Nigeria and Africa the
stolen/looted Benin mask in order “to make it better understood and made
accessible in Africa and worldwide.” The reader must judge for himself or
herself the value of such reasoning which flies in the face of truth and common
sense,
In 2008, a formal request was sent on behalf of the Benin Royal Family to the
Art Institute of Chicago and the Field Museum, Chicago for the return of some
of the Benin Bronzes but to no avail. Not even a letter of acknowledgement was
sent by the venerable institutions to the Benin Royal Family. There are people
who praise the artistry of Benin but do not even feel obliged to extend the most
elementary courtesy to the Benin Monarchy the presence of which generated the
looted artefacts they are detaining.
The United Nations, UNESCO and ICOM (International Council of Museums)
as well as several international conferences have urged the holders of artefacts
such as the Benin Bronzes to return some to their countries of origin but with no
success.
It is thus clear that there is a long history of protest and opposition to the holding
of “blood artefacts” which were obtained at the cost of loss of several lives.
Sotheby’s and the consignors could therefore not have been totally surprised at
the protest. However, they might have been overwhelmed by the extent of the
world-wide protests. Westerners have been misled by many false prophets
proclaiming the right and duty of the West to hold on to the blood artefacts. This
has led to turning a deaf ear to requests for restitution and to non-consideration
4

of such demands. This has removed any moral inhibitions people may have had
with respect to dealing with looted/stolen artefacts of others. But times have
changed and so must potential sellers and auction houses also change.
Members of the nefarious Punitive Expedition of 1897 posing proudly with their
looted Benin artefacts.
The wind is now blowing in favour of restitution. France has recently restored
Korean manuscripts looted in 1866; Yale University has returned Peruvian
artefacts than had been in the USA since 1912; and Egypt has recovered over
the last decade some 5000 artefacts wrongfully taken from the country. Several
American museums and universities have returned looted artefacts to Italy. The
Brooklyn Museum is about to return some 4,500 pre-Columbian artifacts taken
from Costa Rica a century ago even though Costa Rica has not asked for them
and the possession by the museum appears to be legal. China, Egypt, Greece,
Peru, Nigeria and other States have established a conference to press for cases of
restitution and submitted lists of objects to be returned to their countries of
origin. Henceforth, all are aware of the demand of certain countries for the
return of their looted artefacts and one cannot continue to argue, as some in
Western capitals are wont to, that there have been no requests for restitution.
The way forward to resolving cultural property disputes, as we have continued
to argue, is to recognize that there is something wrong in the present situation
where the Ethnology Museum of Berlin, or the British Museum or the
Ethnology Museum, Vienna have more Benin Bronzes than Benin itself. Berlin,
for example has 580 Benin artefacts. What are the Germans doing with so many
Benin artefacts when the Benin people (Edo) have pleading in vain for years to
get some of them back
Recognition of the present imbalance in possessions of African cultural objects
should lead to negotiations for returning some of them. We should, in principle,
5

proceed first by dialogue and failing that, judicial process. However, Western
museums and their governments have not shown themselves to be very keen on
dialogue, despite all pretence to the contrary. Indeed, leading museum directors
in London, Chicago, New York and Vienna have shown reluctance to discuss
and resentment at the very mention of the idea of discussing restitution of looted
cultural artefacts. Those calling for their return are considered unreasonable but
not those refusing to discuss even the possibility of restitution. It seems to me
that it is the lack of pressure to bear on Western museums and their governments
that allows them to get away with arguments and defences that no student would
dare to present to professors without the risk of being thrown out of the
university.
Instead of seeking ways to accommodate the demands of Africans for the return
of their artefacts, leading Western museum directors have been busy inventing
theories and stories which end up by supporting their retention of looted African
artefacts. They argue that our looted artefacts belong to the heritage of human
kind and thus their location in Western museums is justifiable in the interest of
humankind. But the “universalism” preached by the Westerners is a “European
Universalism” as opposed to true “universal Universalism” which would include
all humankind and work against the domination of one group by another.
Western museum directors and their supporters have shown that they are not yet
ready for such a world: they have hijacked the cultural artefacts of others and
refuse to return any. Hence we have situations such as the proposed sale by
successors of some of those who invaded Benin in 1897, killing many women
and children, deposing the king, Oba Ovonramwen and setting Benin City on
fire, just as they had done in Asante (Ghana) in 1874. Similar actions had also
been carried on in Magdala, (Ethiopia) and in Beijing, (China). None of those
involved in such actions seems to have any bad conscience. Indeed, they think
they are doing us a great favour by keeping our artefacts with them.
Unfortunately, some Africans who should know better seem to buy this
dishonest argument.
But in all the discussions on the abortive auction of the Queen-Mother Idia mask
as well as in the restitution debates, one major actor is conspicuously absent or
ignored by some participants, namely, the British Government. There is no
doubt that the main responsibility for the invasion of Benin, the looting of the
Benin Bronzes and the burning of Benin City lie with the British Government
which planned, financed, organized and implemented the invasion. Indeed, the
British Government has not sought to deny its responsibility; what it has tried to
do directly or through interposed agents, is to offer justifications for the invasion
and looting, none of which is convincing. The most absurd explanation for the
looting and selling of the Benin Bronzes has been that the British needed to
finance the costs of the invasion and to provide for widows and children of the
notorious punitive expedition. One commits an outrageous crime and defends
6

that action by the need to finance that action and to assist those carrying out the
action for damages they may have received in carrying out the action.
Another ploy of the British Government has been to divert all claims for
restitution of looted objects to the British Museum which it turn declares its
inability to respond positively to demands for restitution because of a governing
parliamentary act. Demands for restitution should de directed in the first place to
the British Government which is primarily responsible for the initial looting and
to the British Museum for handling goods it knows or ought to have known were
looted and illegally transferred from the country of origin.
The British Parliament has passed a law, Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects)
Act 2009 (8) that enables owners of Nazi looted artworks now in public British
museums and galleries not only to obtain compensation for the loss but to
receive the looted object. Some have wondered whether this act would not be
sufficient for recovering the Benin bronzes... It is suggested that the loss of the
Benin bronzes could be compared to loss due to Nazi actions. I do not want to
enter into comparisons here for injustice is injustice and both situations show
humankind at its lowest level. However, we should recall that in one case, the
offenders were German official whereas in the second case, the perpetrators
were British. A British government is not very likely to pass a law that would
enable recovery actions in situations where the Government itself had planned
and executed the notorious actions in question. But even more important, the act
makes it very clear that it only applies to actions relating to Nazi seizures within
a specific period. Article 3 of the Act defines Nazi era thus: “Nazi era” means
the period—(a) Beginning with 1 January 1933, and (b) Ending with 31
December 1945. “
Therefore the canons of judicial interpretation would not permit the extension of
the Holocaust Act to looting by British soldiers in Benin in 1897. Indeed, the
fear of claims by Benin and by Greece was a point which had to be clarified
during debates preceding the passing of the act. A different law would have to
be made. We should caution over confidence in the judicial system helping to
solve issues arising from the loot of 1897. The matter should be dealt with in
other arenas.
An entity that was also conspicuously silent and absent in the discussions on the
projected auction of the Queen-Mother Idia mask was the Nigerian Government.
Most people, especially, young Nigerians, had sought in vain for indications of
the policy of their government on this and related issues. Fortunately, a group of
young Nigerians took the initiative to start actions that led to the eventual
cancellation of the proposed auction. We have now received reports of
statements by the Nigerian government.
7

According to reports to the Nigerian Tribune, “the Federal Government is
seeking diplomatic option to end the controversy surrounding the reported
planned sale of the prized art objects.”(9) The Tribune reports further that “The
source disclosed that President Jonathan had given instructions to the effect that
no effort should be spared to get the Benin arts, as well as other such artefacts
that symbolised the pride of Nigerians and their rich cultural heritage.
The president also ordered that machinery should be set in motion to get the
artefacts repatriated into the country.
On the nature of the president’s intervention, the source said appropriate
officials that would handle the matter had been contacted and were expected to
take the matter to the highest level of authority in Britain, adding that “we are
ready to pursue the matter to the highest level.”
We have no detailed explanation about the “diplomatic option” that the Nigerian
Government is said to be seeking. However, if this is the same as the so-called
“quiet diplomacy” which Nigerian authorities have been pursuing in the last 50
years or so without any tangible results, then one may be sceptical. We would
rather have an open and loud diplomacy in which the general public is well
informed at every step about what is happening. We do not recommend an
approach that keeps everything secret and when you inquire about progress you
are told that diplomacy takes time or that one cannot, for diplomatic reasons,
reveal anything. At the end one will be informed about the negative response
based on one of the lame excuses in the arsenal of the British such as the
Government cannot intervene in a matter of private law or that one should
address oneself directly to the British Museum.
Nigerian authorities may wish to look at the position and methods of another
African country which, unlike Nigeria, has been extremely successful in
obtaining the return of its looted/stolen artefacts. Egypt, under the leadership of
Zahi Hawass, has been able to secure the return of more than 5000 looted/stolen
Egyptian artefacts from Western museum. The methods employed by Hawass
are the opposite of “quiet diplomacy”. He lets the general public know what
Egypt wants and reports on his homepage the responses of the museum to his
requests. He gets the Egyptian public and the world at large to see and realize
what is going on. He treats public matters publicly and so there is no doubt who
is doing or not doing what. The transparency often proclaimed but hardly
practised is seen here at work. Writing about the success of Peru in getting back
thousands of its objects from the University of Yale in the USA, Hawass states
“One of the key components in my campaign to return stolen artifacts to Egypt
is the media. I have been insistent on bringing this unacceptable behavior to
light through press releases, print media and television appearances.”(10)
8

We are encouraged to read that “The president also ordered that machinery
should be set in motion to get the artefacts repatriated into the country.”
This new body should recommend sending a team from Nigeria to establish a
list of looted/stolen Nigerian artefacts, including the Benin Bronzes, in Western
museums. We have provided (Annex I) here a list of such institutions that could
be used as a starting point. If the Government does not already have such a list.
The experience of the Chinese government could be extremely useful. The aim
of the visit of Chinese museum experts to Western museums was “to build a
complete database of the Old Summer Palace's lost relics so we can have a
clearer view of the historical royal garden...before it was looted and burned
down in 1860 by invading British and French armies. We have clarified that this
is an attempt to document rather than to seek a return of those relics, even
though we do hope some previously unknown relics might surface and some
might be returned to our country during our tracing effort.” (11)
Maybe the Nigerian authorities are not aware that regarding the restitution of the
Benin Bronzes and other Nigerian artefacts, there is great support for Nigeria in
this matter. Apart from Museum officials and those who have built their careers
on blood artefacts, most Westerners are in favour of the restitution of the
bonzes. Many are of course not aware of the existence of these objects in their
towns and countries but once properly briefed, they are shocked that their
governments could tolerate such a scandalous situation that deprives Africans of
their cultural artefacts which have no role in European culture. But this support
and sympathy have to be cultivated, canalized and utilized effectively. This
implies contact with the public in all these through the media, e.g. press releases,
adverts and articles. We are yet to see a Nigerian diplomat or official presenting
Nigeria’s views and position on this matter in Western media. Could Nigerian
embassies that have public relations and public information sections not assist in
this matter Above all, there should be a definite place in the internet where the
public could look for information on Nigeria’s policies.
The abortive auction of the Queen-Mother Idia mask offers opportunity to
Nigeria to make up for lost time and opportunities. Following are a few points
that come to my mind:
- Issue a detailed Government policy on this case and on restitution generally;
- Create a website where all such issues can be discussed and government’s
policy explained;
- Name one person or body that speaks for Nigeria on restitution and related
matters;
- Request Nigerian diplomats to attend exhibitions on Nigerian culture and
related matters that are held at their duty stations;
- Publish and publicize Nigeria’s activities on restitution and related issues;
9

- Review relevant Nigerian laws on cultural artefacts, their preservation and
offences related thereto.
Nigeria, in alliance with Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Greece, Italy, Peru as well as
other States with interest in restitution matters must bring enough pressure on
Western States so that it is finally accepted by all that stealing and looting the
cultural property of others is against the fundamental principles of international
co-operation as enshrined in the principles of the United Nations and UNESCO;
The moral principle and commandment that “Thou shalt not steal” must be
accepted as extending to all objects and property.
Nigeria must finally indicate to the rest of the world that it intends to preserve
and keep its cultural artefacts for future generations who will not need to go to
London, Paris, Berlin, New York, Chicago and other Western cities in order to
see what their forefathers have achieved in this area. Nigeria has a lot to be
proud of but unless serious measures are taken, to discourage plundering and to
recover the looted objects future generations will have very little to see and will
curse earlier generations.
Kwame Opoku 1 January, 2011
10

Alter group honouring Oba Akenzua I, Benin, Nigeria, now in the Ethnology
Museum, Berlin, Germany.
NOTES
1. Museum, Vol. XXL, no 1, 1979, Return and Restitution of cultural
Property, pp. 18-21, at p.2, Nigeria. See also
http://www.youtube.com/watchv=Nh2Tac1gNPU&feature=share
http://www.modernghana.com/news/241980/1/youtube-crown-fraud-stolenbenin-bronzes-british-m.html
http://www.youtube.com
2. Sotheby’s http://investor.shareholder.com
The Independent, http://www.independent.co.uk
3. Museum, Vol. XXL, no 1, 1979, at p.21, Nigeria. See Annex I for list of the
holders of the Benin Bronzes.
11

4. Annex II,
5. Annex III.
6. Barbara Plankensteiner (Ed), Benin Kings and Rituals: Court Arts from
Nigeria, Snoeck, 2007.
7. Declaration on the Value and Importance of Universal Museums. (2002).
http://www.clevelandart.org/museum/info/CMA206_Mar7_03.pdf The Declaration was
signed in December 2002 by 18 major museums that declared their intention not
to return the cultural artefacts from Greece ,African and Asian States that have
been in Western museum over a long period.
K.Opoku, “Is the Declaration on the value and Importance of the“universal
museums” now worthless Comments on imperialist Museology.
http://www.modernghana.com
8. Readers may wish to consult a very useful note on the Holocaust Restitution
Bill by Philip Ward.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snha-
05090.pdf
The Art Newspaper wrote:
“The government’s major concern about Mr Dismore’s Private Members’ Bill is
that amendments may be put to extend its scope. In particular, it will inevitably
be seized upon by parliamentarians who are campaigning for the return of the
Parthenon Marbles to Athens. Similar moves might be made by those calling for
the return of the Benin Bronzes to Nigeria, the Rosetta Stone to Egypt or the
Lewis Chessmen to Scotland. The DCMS is therefore expected to press for a
clear wording that would preclude deaccessioning being extended beyond the
1933-45 period.”
UK parliament closer to passing bill allowing museums to deaccession Nazilooted
art Legislation expected to be limited to 1933-1945 only
http://www.theartnewspaper
Andrew Dismore, the Labour MP for Hendon who introduced the Bill stated
during debate in the Second Reading of the Holocaust (Stolen Art) Restitution
Bill:
“Above all, the Bill is strictly limited as to time, place and perpetrator of the
original deprivation of the object from its lawful owner. It is not a Trojan horse
for the Parthenon sculptures—that is my next Bill—or for any other artworks or
12

cultural items. It is a discreet, modest measure, limited in scope and time to
rectify decades of injustice, and I commend it to the House.”
http://services.parliament.un
See also, Elginism “Nazi looted artefacts in the UK can now return home “
http://www.elginism.com
K. Opoku, “Will Britain join other Nations in Returning Stolen/Looted Artworks
to rhe Rightful Owners”
http://www.modernghana.com
“Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009” http://www.lootedart.com
9. Nigerian Tribune, http://tribune.com.ng
10. “Peru succeeds in getting 4,000 objects back home!”
http://www.drhawass.com
Kwame Opoku,” Egyptian Season of Artefacts Returns: Hopeful Sign to be
followed by Others http://www.elginism.com
11. China to Research Foreign Museum Archives for Chinese Artifacts
http://illicit-cultural-property, http://www.artsjournal.com
Elginism,”British Museum holds highest number of looted Chinese relics,”
http://www.elginism.com
Elginism,”China wants to catalogue its artefacts in Museums abroad.”
http://www.elginism.com
Elginism.” China’s worldwide hunt for artefacts looted from Beijing’s
Summer Palace”, http://www.elginism.com
K. Opoku, “Chinese Research Artefacts Looted in Anglo-French Attack on
the Summer Palace in 1860”, http://www.modernghana.com
K. Opoku, “Is it not time to fulfil Victor Hugo’s wish Comments on Chinese
Claim to Looted Artefacts on Sale at Christie’s”, http://www.modernghana.com
13

ANNEXES
These historic documents which are also found in Peju Layiwola, Benin
1897.com, Art and the Restitution Question, 2010,( Wy Art Editions, P.O. Box
19324, University Post Office, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. www.benin
1897.com ) enable the reader to follow closely the reasoning behind the
positions of the parties involved in the debate on the restitution of the Benin
Bronzes.
ANNEX I
LIST OF HOLDERS OF THE BENIN BRONZES
Almost every Western museum has some Benin objects. Here is a short list of
where 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. Some museums have their
section on Benin or African artefacts closed for years for repair works or other
reason.
Berlin – Ethnologisches Museum 580.
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
14

Hamburg – Museum für Völkerkunde, Museum fur 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 167.
ANNEX II
The Case of Benin
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 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 Gallway, manoeuvred Obal
15

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
16

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
APPENDIX 21 http://www.publications.parliament.uk
ANNEX III
17

LETTER OF THE LATE BERNIE GRANT, MEMBER OF
PARLIAMENT, TO DIRECTOR OF GLASGOW MUSEUM AND THE
REPLY THERETO.
Mr Julian Spalding
Director
Art Gallery and Museum
Kelvingrove Glasgow
G3 6AG
10 December 1996
Dear Mr Spalding,
African Religious and Cultural Objects
Thank you very much indeed for your recent
correspondence about the above matter.
I write on behalf of the Oba of Benin, Oma
n'Oba, Uku Akpolokpolo, Oba Erediauwa, and
on behalf of the Africa Reparations Movement
(UK) of which I am the Chair. The subject of
this letter is the Benin Bronzes, Ivories and
other cultural and religious objects contained in
the Glasgow Art Gallery and Museum, about
which I understand you have recently spoken to
Mr Edward Wood of the House of Commons
Library.
As you are aware, most of the Benin religious
and cultural objects currently in British
museums and other institutions were looted in
February 1897 from Benin City. The context of
this was the battle for trade in the carve up of
Africa, into "spheres of influence", by the
European powers, and the launching of a
military expedition by the British in 1897, to
18

depose the King of Benin who insisted on
preserving the independence and sovereignty of
his kingdom.
The Benin religious and cultural objects belong
to a living culture and have deep historic and
social value, which go far beyond the aesthetic
and monetary value which they hold in exile. I
was recently informed by Prince Akenzua, the
Oba's brother, who was in the UK on a quest to
speak to MP's regarding the return of the
Bronzes etc., that those officiating at the Oba's
coronation ceremonies had forgotten the rituals.
They had had to consult some of the Bronzes
that are still in Benin, in order for them to wear
the correct vestments and have the appropriate
officials present.
Prince Akenzua explained that the previous
coronation had been well over 50 years
previously and because the ceremony is not
written down, the officials had forgotten, and
their only recourse to the proper rituals were
the Bronzes which were made for that specific
purpose. He went on to say that many of their
ceremonies have not been performed
satisfactorily because most of the Bronzes are
missing. This situation is very distressing for
the Benin people of today. Moreover, the
objects have come to symbolise the intense
sense of injustice widely felt in Africa, and
indeed amongst many people of African origin
in Britain, about the mis-appropriation of
African art, cultural and religious objects,
arising from the period of European
colonisation.
There has for many years now, been a demand
for these religious and cultural objects to be
returned to Benin, and as the centenary of their
looting approaches in February 1997, the
strength of feeling around this has intensified.
Formal requests for their return have been
made in the past by the Nigerian Government,
19

and by the Obas of Benin themselves, but have
been met with refusal. A request for the mere
loan of an ivory mask for the purposes of a
major World African Arts Festival was denied
in 1977, and this affair led to the cooling of
relations between Britain and Nigeria at that
time.
As Chair of the Africa Reparations Movement
(UK), (ARM UK), at the recent meeting with
Prince Akenzua, I discussed the plans for the
centenary commemoration next year. The
demand for the return of the Benin religious
and cultural objects is clearly central to this
occasion, and the Prince has formally
authorised me to investigate the possibility of
returning at least some of the objects at this
time. However, as you will no doubt be aware,
the legal position as regards returning artifacts
lodged in English museums and institutions is
complex, although a challenge to the current
legislation features firmly on the agenda of
ARM (UK). I understand though that the
position in Scottish Law is different, and it is
within the powers of individual local
authorities to make decisions on the restitution
of items from collections which they hold. I
also understand that there are precedents for
restitution where a formal request has been
made.
The Royal Family of Benin has therefore
authorised me to make such a formal request,
and has asked me to draw an analogy with the
recent return to Scotland of the Stone of
Destiny. Just as the Stone is of such great
significance to the people of Scotland, so the
Benin treasures are signficant to the people of
Benin. Theirs was a rich, sophisticated, and
advanced civilisation, which was in many ways
far more developed than contemporary
European societies. The denial and destruction
of the history of the Benin people were acts of
appalling racism, which need urgently to be
20

ectified. These are indeed some of the most
distasteful and abiding injustices arising out of
the period of European colonisation of Africa.
Whilst I am aware that the collection held in
the Glasgow Art Gallery and Museum is a
relatively minor one, its symbolic value is
immense. The Oba himself would be more than
pleased to visit Glasgow to receive the
religious and cultural objects, and to express
his appreciation if restitution can be arranged.
I would be grateful if you could look into this
matter and let me have your views as soon as
possible.
I remain,
Yours sincerely,
BERNIE GRANT M.P.
Art Gallery and Museum
Kelvingrove, Glasgow G3 BAG
Tel: 0141-287 2600 Fax: 0141-287 2608
Director of Glasgow Museums: Julian Spalding
Mr Bernie Grant MP
House of Commons
London SW1A OAA
10 January 1997
Dear Mr Grant
AFRICAN RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL OBJECTS
We have now had a chance to consider your request for the return of the Benin
bronzes, ivories and other cultural and religious objects contained in our
collection. We have considered the whole complex position and have reached
the following conclusion.
21

Though it is possible for our museum service to restitute items from its
collection and we have done this recently in the case of some Aboriginal human
remains, we cannot advise the City Council that this should happen in this case.
Our reasons are entirely professional. Museums have a collective responsibility,
both nationally and internationally to preserve the past so that people can enjoy
it and learn from it. In the case of the Benin collection in Glasgow though it is
small and not of the highest quality, -it does play an important role in
introducing our visitors to the culture, and religious beliefs of Benin, whose
artistic achievements rank with the finest not just in Africa but in the whole
world. Virtually all our 22 Benin items are on permanent view to the public in
Kelvingrove and in St Mungo's Museum of Religious Life and their withdrawal
from these displays would limit, in our opinion, our visitors' understanding of
the world.
We have taken into account, too, the fact that the museums in Nigeria, including
the one in Benin itself, do now have one of the world's finest representations of
this great culture and our collections would not add significantly to this, even if
the request for restitution had come from them. However, in this case, we are
not considering a transfer from one public museum to another, but a request on
behalf of the Oba of Benin, himself, for future religious use. We believe,
however, that these artifacts have an important role to play in the public sector
by informing over 3 million visitors here about the culture of Benin and, it has to
be said, the history of British Imperialism.
Kind regards.
Juilan Spalding Director
cc Councillor F McAveety, Glasgow City Council
http://www.arm.arc.co.uk
Annex IV
Letter to Director, Glasgow Art Gallery And Museum - from Emmanuel N.
Arinze - Chairman, West African Museums Programme
22

WAMP West African Museums Programme
Programme des Musées de l'Afrique de l'Ouset
B.P. 357. Dakar. Sénégal. Tel: (221) 22 50 57 Fax: (221) 22 12 33
P.O. Box 71041
Victoria Island
Lagos, Nigeria
Tel: 01-2622917, 09-2341722, 09-5234757
Fax: 01-2694642, 09-2341722
Dear Mr. Spalding
Return of Benin Objects to The Oba of Benin
I have just heard of the effort being made by Mr. Bernie Grant, MP to convince
your Museum to return some Benin artefacts to the Oba of Benin as a gesture of
historic reconciliation and positive response to the age long yearnings and
aspirations of an aggrieved People. This gesture would not have come at a more
appropriate time in the history of Benin and indeed Nigeria, as we prepare to
celebrate the centenary of the great Benin Expedition of 1897.
The return of any single Benin artefact is of great significance as the object
returns to the altar of our ancestors where they religiously, culturally and
historically belong. Each object on the ancestral altar has a meaning and
performs a function that is paramount and necessary to the life of the Edo. In a
different context, environment and situation, the same object becomes sterile,.
empty and just a work of art.
Having worked in Museums foreclose to twenty-five years, I do understand and
appreciate that humanity should have access to the creative works of different
peoples and different cultures. However this universal idea should not deprive
people of their natural right to hold and to keep that which they have made and
which is part of their very existence and humanity.
The sacred and unique religious ceremonies that are performed in the Palace of
the Oba of Benin and which affect the life of every Edo citizen draw a huge
crowd to the Palace grounds and it is significant that these ceremonies centre
around the artefacts one finds on the ancestral altars.
In this regard, and in my capacity as the Chairman of the West African
Museums Programme and President of the Commonwealth Association of
Museums, I join my voice with those of eminent citizens like Rt, Hon. Bernie
Grant, MP in appealing to you, your Museum and your Council to be gracious
23

enough and agree to return the Benin artefacts in your Museum collection to the
Oba of Benin who today is the personification of the Edo nation in all its
ramifications.
This singular act of your Museum will encourage many others in our great
profession to take the path of honour and join in the historic quest for restitution.
I wish you well
Best wishes
Emmanuel N, Arinze
Chairman
22-01-97
ANNEX V
LETTER FROM PROF.T.BABAWALE, CBAAC TO NEIL
MACGREGOR, DIRECTOR, BRITISH MUSEUM.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
C/CBAAC183/114
16 th February, 2007
Director of British Museum
Russell Square, London
EC1
Dear Sir,
COMMEMORATION OF THE 10 th ANNIVERSARY OF FESTAC ’77
REQUEST FOR SPONSORSHIP
24

IN 1977, Nigeria hosted the Second World Black and African Festival of Arts
and Culture (FESTAC’77). The festival covered dance, exhibition, colloquium,
durbar and a boat regatta. From all conceivable parameters FESTAC’77 was an
unqualified story. It brought Africans from all over the world in a celebration of
the rich cultural heritage of the African race. More importantly, it brought to the
fore the invaluable contributions of Africans to the funds of universal
knowledge.
The success of FESTAC’77 made it imperative that the gains of the festival
should be sustained. The Centre for Black and African Arts and Civilization
(CBACC) was established to perpetuate the gains of FESTAC’77.
Thirty years after the hosting of the momentous festival, CBAAC has considered
it necessary to commemorate the epoch-making event. Thus a number of events
have been lined up for the commemoration (Please see document attached).
Proudly Nigerian Project has been commissioned by CBAAC to act on its behalf
in sourcing for sponsorship and co-ordination of events.
The essence of this letter is to request that the British Museum, safely
return/hand over the original 16 th century ivory mask which was last worn by
King Ovonramwen Nogbasi of the ancient Benin Empire in 1897 before he was
exiled by Britain.
The ivory mask is the official emblem for FESTAC and a unification symbol for
Nigerians and Black and African peoples worldwide. The mask is also of great
significance to us as Africans.
Attempts were made to recover the mask for the 1977 FESTAC event but to no
avail.
Nigeria and Britain have enjoyed a mutually warm and cordial relationship over
the years. We are thefore optimistic that the British Museum would not object to
this humble but historically significant request.
We await your reply in writing and look foreward to your positive response.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation and assistance
Yours sincerely,
Prof. Tunde Babawale,
Director/Chief Executive.
25

REPLY OF DIRECTOR, BRITISH MUSEUM TO DIRECTOR CBAAC
THE BRITISH MUSEUM
FROM THE DIRECTOR
Prof.Tunde Babawale,
Director/Chief Executive.
CBAAC
National Theatre
Inganmu
Lagos
Nigeria
Dear Professor Babawale,
BENIN IVORY MASK
Thank you for the letter dated 23 February 2007, (which was delivered to the
British Museum on 19 th March 2007) concerning the Benin ivory mask, and the
history of CBAAC’s interest in it since FESTAC’77.
Let me assure you that the British Museum appreciates the significance of the
Benin material in the collections for Nigeria, Africa and the world, and wishes
to make it better understood and more accessible in Africa and worldwide. To
this end, we are currently engaged in a new dialogue with the National
Commission on Museums and Monuments in Nigeria. We have been invited by
NCMM to offer our assistance and advice on the development of the Lagos
Museum through a programme of museum development, training, professional
exchanges, and capacity building for which we are seeking international
backing. We are currently also involved with NCMM in a project together with
the University of Frankfurt, Germany, on the material culture of Ife.
26

It is through programmes such as these, undertaken in partnership with our
colleagues in Nigeria and at their instigation that we will best be able to further
relations between British and Nigerian museums and, most importantly, promote
public understanding of Nigeria’s culture and history worldwide.
Yours sincerely,
Neil MacGregor.
27