Skye (Rugby School, Year 13)

The debate on repatriation

Rugby School seems to have a close connection to the British punitive expedition to Benin conducted in February 1897. The February 1900 edition of the Meteor, a school publication, tells us that on the 31 January 1900, Captain Boisragon lectured the Rugby boys on ‘The Benin Massacre of 1897’. In January 1897, Boisragon was one of only two survivors of a small British expedition to Benin, which was attacked and defeated, prompting the Benin punitive expedition the following month. His published account of the Benin massacre is one of few such books. While he was not an Old Rugbeian, he was clearly a figure of interest for the School since he came to give a talk to Rugby’s boys.

Another key figure, Captain Herbert Sutherland Walker, was educated at Rugby and went on to be a member of the punitive expedition. There, he looted a number of objects, many of which are now in the British Museum. We do not know the specific number of objects he took, but he photographed and wrote about a variety in his diary. His grandson, Mark Walker, when he came into possession of much of his grandfather’s collection in 2013, considered that they ought to be repatriated, given their importance to the people of Benin City. He returned two Benin bronzes to the Oba, the king, in 2014. In November 2021, two Itsekiri wooden ceremonial paddles brought back by Captain Walker from the 1897 expedition were on loan to the Pitt Rivers Museum, before they return to Nigeria. The idea of repatriation sparks debates among historians and museum curators. Mark Walker suggests that the British Museum could use modern technology to make perfect casts of its whole collection and send it all back and, he said, we wouldn’t know the difference. The question that remains, therefore, is what Rugby should do with objects like those discussed in podcasts featured on the Schools of Empire Project website, a divination bowl and a ceremonial mask respectively, from the Yoruba people.

Photograph from the "1902 album" in Rugby School Archive with the label "Statue of Diana and trophies from Benin In Art Museum". The Art Museum was housed on the first floor of the Temple Reading Room. Rugby School is no longer in possession of these artefacts; no information about the break-up of the collection or their current whereabouts is preserved.

Restitution is giving back something lost or stolen to its original owner. As discussions around these issues have grown in recent years and have even begun appearing in popular culture such as the opening scenes of Hollywood blockbuster Black Panther, we have heard many emerging voices of individuals, organisations, and governments. While such debates date back at least to the mid-twentieth century, modern movements like Rhodes Must Fall and Black Lives Matter have brought the conversations to greater prominence. Some institutions have already begun the process of returning some artefacts to the countries from which they were taken. One key example of this is in Germany. In July 2022, the German government reached an agreement with the Nigerian government to return permanently 1,100 Benin Bronzes that they had in museums (Harris, 2022). However, such agreements remain uncommon. Many are yet to release statements about their position on restitution. This is still uncharted territory, and the debates will perhaps reach no conclusion soon.

Head of a king oba, Nigeria, Benin kingdom; brass; 19th century; Ethnological Museum, Berlin. Image credit: Wikipedia.

According to a report from 2018, France alone has around 90,000 African artworks. The British Museum houses more than 8 million artefacts in total, with only 1% on display at any time. A significant proportion of these were taken from their original contexts during looting and collecting under the British Empire. The British Museum is the ‘world’s largest receiver of stolen loot’, according to Geoffrey Robertson KC (The Guardian, 2019). These debates, therefore, are of importance to all those who have ever visited museums in almost any European country. Under a 1963 Act of Parliament the British Museum is not allowed to give objects or return ownership to other institutions permanently. In 2010, an Amendment to the Act was brought before the House of Commons. It wanted to make exceptions for objects where they would be better enjoyed elsewhere or had a provenance which indicated a need for them to be returned. It reached the second reading in the Commons but went no further.

Benin Bronzes; British Museum. Image credit: Wikipedia.

Before exploring the debate’s key arguments further, it is interesting to consider what British people currently think. YouGov reports that around 62% of British people would support returning artefacts from museums around the country to the places they originate from. This significant proportion indicates a general understanding that the history of the objects is not rooted in Britain but in that of a country of origin. Many would argue that these objects, which are currently housed in museums, archives, and private collections mainly in Europe, would be best enjoyed in their original cultural context. This stance is particularly applicable to objects of religious or traditional significance to a particular group; it is grounded in the reasoning that individuals not immersed in that culture or who do not understand the importance of the object might not easily comprehend its deeper meaning. Many objects currently in the museums, archives, and private collections of European countries are key elements of the histories of groups of people in the former colonies.

In April 2022, the Ghanaian Ministry for Tourism, Arts, and Culture released an update on the return of stolen cultural artefacts. Hon. Mark Okraku-Mantey, the Deputy Minister, reiterated the importance of the return of such objects, the exact locations of which are still unknown. Ghana is not the first country to have requested the return of artefacts to their area of origin, however these requests are very often ignored or denied. Why is this the case? It is sometimes suggested that if Britain’s museums gave back all their stolen artefacts, then their galleries would be near-empty. This is a sentiment often held by those who oppose the idea of restitution. However, this likely would not be the case. The Nazis’ stolen loot has been returned to families and institutions by curators on a case-by-case basis, since the 1990s. These efforts have not led to a collapse in museum numbers and popularity, rather it has allowed these organisations that may often seem dated to keep pace with the sentiment of wider society. Furthermore, technological developments in recent years now allow us to create perfect replicas of the objects that might return to their countries of origin, meaning that the public visiting museums in Europe would still be able to see the objects – not the original, but an almost perfect copy. Nonetheless, those who oppose repatriation of artifacts would say that we could send the models to the countries of origin and keep the originals in the European museums. This could be a reasonable conclusion to a complex and challenging debate. But a more progressive approach is surely to engage in fair and balanced dialogue with cultural and heritage institutions in former colonies, to agree upon the transfer of ownership and redirection of loans, such that some objects remain on display in current settings, some are repatriated, but all are subject to rightful ownership claims.

In this sense, another significant argument is that these museums acquired their objects legally. The Museum of Ethnology in Vienna made this case in response to a request submitted by Nigerian scholars. Even then, we should recognise that the context of the acquisition was often one of a power imbalance that did not mean that those in the former colonies were in a position justly to negotiate the sale or gifting of an artefact. Furthermore, there is little evidence to support the idea that they came into the collections legally. In fact, the Archaeological Institute of America, a non-profit group which represents archaeologists in the US, estimates that around 85–90% of ‘classical and certain other types of artifacts on the market’ do not have any documented provenance. A large part of the remainder of those artifacts has a provenance which has not been fully proven: a grey area which could be interpreted to indicate illegal acquisition, but not detailed enough to prove it. This is likely a reasonable interpretation for a number of these objects, however, it would be unfair to say that this is the case for all. Often, objects can be undocumented because their past is simply unknown, be that because they went missing from the documentary record at some point in their histories, or because many of these artifacts were considered by institutions such as museums, galleries and private collections (like Rugby’s) to be curiosities at the time of acquisition and so they did not keep any record of provenance. Without this, we cannot determine whether they were gifted, sold entirely legally, or stolen. This makes the discussion of repatriation incredibly challenging. While it might be an option to look at artifacts on a case-by-case basis, it then becomes a great logistical challenge of sorting through the thousands of items that exist in European collections. What to do with the majority of these items that have no recorded provenance? Ultimately it seems unlikely that a case-by-case analysis of each object considered for repatriation would be feasible. As such, the practicalities of restitution and repatriation seem daunting.

Many scholars emphasise the importance of listening to the voices of those whose heritage connects directly to the origins of these objects. Professor Hicks, from the University of Oxford, for example, in the Pitt Rivers Museum’s interim report on their Benin Collections, says that in his view ‘these decisions need to be led by Nigerian-based actors, with Euro-American museums removing themselves from the process rather than acting as arbiter, judge or jury’ (Hicks, 2021). This is an important consideration because the conversations, when they take place predominantly in Europe, are too easily dominated by white European voices, risking neglect of the heritage of those who are, arguably, the most important party: the people in the colonies from which these objects were taken. Victor Ehikhamenor is a writer and visual artist from the part of Nigeria that was formerly the Kingdom of Benin. He argues that despite there not being any armed conflict currently taking place, there is a war that persists. He says that ‘Britain is still fighting with the Benin Kingdom till tomorrow. Because if they are saying that they are not going to return the objects that were looted from the kingdom, that means the children and the grandchildren and the great great grandchildren of those that attacked my empire before, are still very much in business of attacking the empire’ (Unfiltered History Tour). His perspective is an interesting one. The idea that, despite the direct imperial powers no longer being present, the oppression continues if these objects are not returned, and the wrongdoings rectified. The issues of colonial violence and restitution are not two separate questions, one of the past and one of the present; rather they are intimately connected.

While many discussing repatriation refer to the notion of sending these objects ‘home’, this really emphasises the idea that repatriation is returning the artifacts to where they belong. Yet some people of African heritage oppose the idea of repatriation. Speaking to the BBC about the Benin Bronzes, Mrs Farmer-Paellmann, executive director of the New York-based Restitution Study Group, said: ‘What we are saying is that the descendants of the people traded for these manillas have a right to see the bronzes where they live … There is no reason why we should be obligated to travel to Nigeria to see them.’ (BBC, 2022). This is an important consideration as well. Given that large numbers with African heritage live in Europe, ready access to items of great significance to their ancestry and history offers a locus for study and identity within a culturally diverse setting. Another point against the restitution of these objects that is commonly posed is that they would not even exist anymore had they not been housed in these European museums. Had this not been the case, they might have been destroyed. Examples of this could be Persian figurative art in the Victoria & Albert Museum in London, which would likely have been destroyed during the Islamic Revolution. Some people see the V&A as a safe haven for these objects. Thus, in these instances, the collections held in European institutions are the only surviving cultural trace of the heritage and history of certain groups – a fact that cannot be ignored.

Returning artifacts would surely be a logistical challenge and ensuring that countries find safe places for these items to be stored would be vital, but, on balance, I think the work must be done. As museums, governments, and private individuals have started doing across the world, key players must collaborate and ensure a collective goal of maintaining an accurate historical narrative and preserving cultures and their pasts.

A website that launched in November 2022, Digital Benin, is an online collection of artifacts from the Kingdom of Benin. As of 9 November, the website has 5246 objects available to the public as images or 3D scans. Of that total, 1376 are explicitly documented as ‘British Colonial Military Campaign on Benin, February 1897’. 944 objects are in the British Museum – this is the largest number in any single institution on the website (Digital Benin). Two of the objects on the website are those taken by Captain Herbert Sutherland Walker, further highlighting Rugby School’s historical connection to this debate. However, for the first time since their translocation from their original settings to European and American museums, the Digital Benin site allows the objects to be displayed digitally in one space, accompanied by a growing base of information to allow people’s understandings of the situation to develop. Perhaps this is a model for progressing the debate, providing an important interim process, opening access, encouraging engagement, and building trust.

Heritage matters. This is undeniable. Throughout history people have fought and struggled for the protection of their culture, passed down to them from their ancestors. Many institutions have not yet clarified their stance on the debates around restitution, but as the debates continue and pressure on organisations continues to rise, we might expect more of them to follow a slowly growing trend of repatriation. Culture and heritage are treasures, they are invaluable to the communities that best understand them.

References:

‘British Museum is world’s largest receiver of stolen goods, says QC’, The Guardian, 4 November 2019, found at

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/04/british-museum-is-worlds-largest-receiver-of-stolen-goods-says-qc, on 23/11/22

Hicks, Dan, ‘The Brutish Museum’, (2020), p. 199

Hicks, Dan, ‘Pitt Rivers Museum: Interim Report’, (2021), found at https://www.prm.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/prm/documents/media/benin_collections_interim_report_dan_hicks-2.pdf , on 11/10/22

BBC, ‘Why slave descendants want the Benin Bronzes to stay in US’, (2022), found at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-63504438.amp on 15/11/22

Harris, Gareth, ‘‘The Benin Bronzes are returning home’: Germany and Nigeria sign historic restitution agreement’, (4th July 2022), found at https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2022/07/04/the-benin-bronzes-are-returning-home-germany-and-nigeria-sign-historic-restitution-agreement, on 10/11/22