recovering nigeria`s terracotta

RECOVERING NIGERIA’S TERRACOTTA
Janus Head, Katsina, Nigeria, now at the Barbier Mueller Museum, Geneva,
Switzerland
It is now five months since the issue of looted African terracotta was raised in
connection with the exhibition entitled “African Terra Cotta: a Millenary
Heritage”, at the Barbier-Mueller Museum, Geneva and brought to the attention
of all concerned. (1) A group of renowned scholars alleged that many of the
objects on display had been looted from Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mali, Niger and
Nigeria. It appeared at that time that some consideration would be given to the
matter by those responsible for the preservation and protection of Nigerian
cultural heritage. To this day, there has not been any public information, directly
or indirectly, that action has been taken or is contemplated. It could well be that
one has missed relevant information in the mass media.
This is a matter on which silence is not an available option: either the terracotta
on exhibition is looted or it is not. One way or other, the public must be
informed about Nigeria’s position. Information from the Nigerian authorities
would be helpful in assisting the public to understand the underlying issues and
the interests of African States in combating illicit traffic in cultural objects.
In the meanwhile, an article on Nigerian terracotta in the popular German
magazine Der Spiegel, gives the impression that Nigerians are not interested in
their terracotta which has been left to German and Austrian scholars who,
through good relations with a local chief, have access to an area where even
Nigerian police authorities dare not venture. (2) However, we know from
reliable Nigerian sources that this is not the case and that the Spiegel article is
misleading. But so far the report has not been rejected or corrected. The
impression created that Nigeria is not properly organized to protect its cultural
artefacts from predatory Westerners and their helpers thus still remains.
Is this a case where one language is used when dealing with African
collaborators but for the general public, an entirely different language is used
which creates different, often misleading, impressions? If we look at the Spiegel
article, we could think only the Germans and Austrians were interested in Nok
culture and the puzzles it presents. Nigerians are totally absent from the article.
Not even a mention of the National Commission for Museums and Monuments
can be found. Moreover, the Nigerian Police is presented as not having the right
or ability to visit the area which is described as being under the tight control of a
local potentate on friendly terms with the Europeans.
Do we have here the familiar pattern where Africans lead Europeans to the
source of the river or the mountain and are perhaps materially compensated for
their efforts? But who turns out to be the discoverer of the river or the
mountain? Whose name is forever linked to the discovery? Recognition in
scientific publications is not enough. How many people read such publications?
Unless Africans insist energetically, loudly and openly for equal general public
recognition in such enterprises, this game will go on forever. Even if such
projects were financed by European entities this should not lead to their
complete control over the projects and the dissemination of information thereon.
In the context of the present dispute over looted Nigerian terracotta, we recall
the 2002 case of the Nigerian Nok terracotta which were looted and eventually
turned up at the Musée de Quai Branly, Paris. The French had bought the three
Nok and Sokoto terracotta knowing fully well that they must have been looted
and illegally exported from Nigeria since the objects were on the Red List of
International Council of Museums (ICOM).(3) The intervention of ICOM was
necessary to preserve Nigeria’s ownership of the terracotta. The arrangement
between Nigeria and France to loan the artefacts for a renewable period of 25
years raised doubts and scepticism about the will to enforce the observance of
laws prohibiting illicit traffic in artefacts. (4) Moreover, the text of the curious
agreement does not appear to have been published.
2
Spirit vessel Mbirhlen’nda, Ga’anda, Nigeria, now in Barbier-Mueller Museum,
Geneva, Switzerland.
How would the lack of vigorous public reaction by Nigerian authorities to the
display of alleged looted Nigerian terra cotta be interpreted?
The scholars who protested against the exhibition of looted objects in Geneva
would probably feel that their identification of the stolen artefacts is not very
important for the Nigerian authorities who do not intend to act on their research
and information. They may thus feel discouraged from pursuing in future such
active identification of stolen/looted artefacts.
Looters of the artefacts could understand that they may continue with their
activities so long as they are not caught red-handed with the objects since the
Nigerian authorities will not pursue investigations on the basis of the objects
successfully deposited in Switzerland and other Western countries. Museums in
those States may well be reinforced in their mendacious and self-serving
propaganda that they are rendering a service to art and humankind by purchasing
those objects. They persistently refuse to acknowledge that by offering a
lucrative market for looted objects they maintain and sustain, directly or
indirectly, illegal traffic in cultural objects. (5)
The Nigerian public could well understand that even though Nigeria has laws
against looting of cultural artefacts, there is no intention on the part of the
authorities to deprive anyone of earnings acquired from the illicit trade. (6)
Members of the United Nations, UNESCO and ICOM may gain the impression
that despite all statements and declarations to the contrary, Nigeria’s
commitment to the fight against illicit traffic in artefacts is only lip-service with
no serious intention to achieve effective implementation of the various laws and
3
regulations. Some may argue that actions speak louder than words. Professor
Shyllon has written that:
“It is a matter of surprise indeed that to date Nigeria which at various
times served on the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of
Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of
Illicit Appropriation (she was in fact a foundation member of the Committee)
has never sought the good offices of the Committee on the matter.”(7)
The general public in the rest of the world may well conclude that the Nigerian
authorities are not very keen to seek the return of looted artefacts. Usually, it is
very difficult to know where looted objects are and who is in possession. It is
seldom that we have many such objects displayed in an exhibition and in its
catalogue. A lack of interest or passivity must necessarily discourage those
interested in assisting in more complicated situations. As has been amply
demonstrated in public opinions polls, for example in Great Britain, the general
public is in favour of returning looted objects or objects acquired under dubious
circumstances. (8) Interested States must encourage or at least, not discourage
this sympathetic public.
In his excellent article on the Benin invasion by Britain, Prof. Akin Oyebode
mentioned Zik’s reference to the “manifest destiny” of Nigeria. (9) This was a
phrase used often in the days preceding and following Independence. In those
days, the average school pupil understood that given its size, resources, both
human and natural, that great country was destined to play an important role on
our continent and thus contribute to shaping the world and the future of the
African peoples. But this manifest destiny would not be fulfilled if those in
charge of the administration and governance of the country do not create the
conditions propitious for the fulfilment of this potential. ‘Manifest destiny’ is a
potentiality and not inevitability. It is a potentiality that must be cultivated and
nurtured. How is Nigeria to play its role, manifest or otherwise, if its rich
cultural heritage is seen to be open to pray by all and no attempts are made to
convey the message that its cultural heritage is not up for grabs by predators? A
great nation with a rich and old cultural heritage that does not care about
protection and preservation? Failure to demonstrate a resolve to preserve
cultural heritage has wider implications. Not only does such a position lead to an
enormous loss of prestige but also to great financial losses in so far as these
objects are worth millions. It is also likely that failure or unwillingness to protect
cultural heritage may be considered a symptom of general failure to protect
national interests in other areas.
The will and resolve to protect Nigerian cultural heritage in particular and
Nigerian interests generally, must be emphasized and demonstrated in all cases
in order to imprint the message on the minds of all: Nigeria’s cultural heritage
belongs to Nigeria and it is intended to keep it that way.
4
Kwame Opoku. 1 October, 2009.
Nok Terra Cotta Acquired Illegally by France. Seated person, 500 BC - 500 AD.
Quai Branly, depot of Louvre, inv. No. 70. 1998. 11. One of the three looted
items from Nigeria now in Paris.
NOTES
1. Eric Huysecom, « Le pillage de l’histoire africaine » http://www.letemps.
http://groups.google.com K. Opoku, “Let others loot for you”,
http://www.modernghana http://www.barbier-mueller.ch, http://www.swissinfo.ch
Kwame Opoku “Is Africa closer to Oceania than to Europe?”
http://www.modernghana.com See also Patrick J. Darling, “The Rape of Nok
and
Kwatakwashi:
the
crisis
in
Nigerian
Antiquities”,
http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk
2. “German Archaeologists Labor to Solve Mystery of the Nok”
http://www.spiegel The article has also been reprinted in the Nigerian paper,
Guardian, Tuesday, September 01, 2009“German archaeologists revisit the
mystery of Nok”, http://www.ngrguardiannews.com
3. K. Opoku, “Would Western Museums Return Looted Objects if Nigeria and
other African States were governed by Angels? http://www.modernghana.com
4. Folarin Shyllon, “Negotiations for the Return of Nok Sculptures from Nigeria
- An unrighteous Conclusion.”
5
This presentation recounted the controversy over the three illegally exported
Nok and Sokoto objects originating from Nigeria which landed in an exhibition
at the Louvre organized in anticipation of the new Quai Branly Museum.
Despite the fact that these objects were on the Red List posted on ICOM’s
website, the French government negotiated their acquisition from a Belgian art
dealer with the proviso that an agreement from the Nigerian government would
be required before the actual purchase. President Chirac is reported to have
personally sought and obtained the approval for the purchase of the Noks from
President Obasanjo of Nigeria despite the strong opposition of the top echelon
of Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments on the grounds
that the objects were illegally exported from Nigeria and therefore remained the
legal cultural property of Nigeria. In the end a wholly unsatisfactory and
unrighteous arrangement was entered into between Nigeria and France which
consisted of France’s recognition of Nigeria’s ownership of the three Nok and
Sokoto objects deposited with the Musée du Quai Branly, to be exhibited with
the museum’s permanent collection for the exceptionally long period of twentyfive years (renewable).
UNESCO Regional Workshop on the Fight against Illicit Trafficking of Cultural
Property, Cape Town, South Africa 27-30 September 2004
http://portal.unesco.org
5. Colin Renfrew, a leading British archaeologist, has this to say on the role of
Western
museums
in
the
illicit
trade
in
artefacts:
“The world's archaeological resource, which through the practice of
archaeology is our principal source of knowledge about the early human past, is
being destroyed at a formidable and increasing rate. It is destroyed by looters in
order to serve the lucrative market in illicit artefacts through which private
collectors and alas, some of the major museums of the world, fulfil their desire
to accumulate antiquities. Such unprovenanced antiquities, ripped from their
archaeological context without record (and without any hope of publication),
can tell us little that is new. The opportunity is thereby lost for them to add to
our understanding of the past history and prehistory of the regions from which
they come, or to our perception of the early development of human society.”
Colin Renfrew, Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership: The Ethical Crisis in
Archaeology, Duckworth, London, 2006, p.9.
6. National Commission For Museums and Monuments Act, Chapter 242, Laws
of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 http://www.nigeria-law
7. Folarin Shyllon, “Museums and Universal Heritage: Right of Return and
Right of Access”, text of a Lecture delivered to mark the International Museum
6
Day at the Women Development Centre, Abuja on 18 May
2007.http://list.africom.museum
African States have indeed not made great use of the UNESCO
Intergovernmental Committee (Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the
Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case
of Illicit Appropriation). The Committee was set up in 1978 at the 20th Session
of the UNESCO General Conference largely at their instigation. The committee
provides a framework for negotiating the return of the cultural objects stolen
during the colonial days as well as those looted in post-colonial times. The
current
report
of
the
committee
at its 15th session contains very interesting information on restitution. Tanzania
is the only African State having presently a case before the Committee. The
Republic of Tanzania has submitted a request to the Committee in 2006, for the
return of a ritual Makonde mask stolen from the National Museum and now held
in the territory of the Swiss Confederation at the Barbier-Mueller Museum. The
Swiss authorities are in regular contact with the owner of the museum where the
mask is held. http://portal.unesco.org/culture
8. Aida Edemariam, “How G2's Parthenon marbles poll went global”,
http://www.elginism.com )
9. Akin Oyebode: “It is self-evident that Nigeria is a most important actor on
the African continent if not, in fact, the world. I am on record as having stated
that as Nigeria goes, so does the rest of Africa. Indeed, Nigeria possesses
tremendous hope and promise which must not continue to be betrayed but must
be fulfilled in the interest of the Black race. What Azikiwe had called our
manifest destiny must be realized soonest in order to ensure that we remain a
beacon to the African and Black worlds. Since foreign policy is, to a large
extent, a continuation of domestic policies, Nigeria must endeavour to put its
house in order and get its act together if it wishes to be taken seriously by the
rest of the world.” “The 1892 British-Benin Treaty: Legal and Diplomatic
Implications for Contemporary Nigeria.”, http://www.edo-nation.net/
7