Colonial Looted Art
The Restitution of the Benin Bronzes

The German government returned some of the Benin Bronzes to Nigeria– 125 years after they were stolen by the British troops in 1897. Cultural historian, art and heritage specialist Dr. Oluwatoyin Zainab Sogbesan and Digital heritage specialist Olorunfemi Johnson talk about questions of ownership, historical contexts and the demands of the so-called Restitution Study Group.
 

What is your opinion on the restitution of looted art from colonial contexts, on the issues of ownership, the legal framework, and the moral, ethical, and social background?

Olorunfemi: As a person who values both justice and art, I believe that the restitution of looted art from colonial contexts is a complex issue, and I think it requires a multifaceted approach. On the one hand, it is important to recognize that much of the art was taken from colonized countries through force, coercion, or theft. As a result, the current owners of such art do not have a legitimate claim to it. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that these artworks have now become a significant part of world history and have inspired scholars, artists, and people all over the world alike. Given these interests, I find that the conversation regarding restitution can and should be used as a catalyst for more conversations. I believe the best approach to this issue is one that seeks to balance the interest of everyone involved. And this might involve returning certain pieces of art as well as establishing legal frameworks that protect the rights of all.

Oluwatoyin: I kind of agree with Olorunfemi, but I also look at it from a different perspective. My own opinion on the restitution of looted art from colonial contexts is simple: the debate about restitution is a debate on ownership and return, and I'll say these artworks should be returned to the original people. In this case, we're looking at Benin art, which wasn’t considered art at the time. They are plaques that recorded events. They are plaques that showcased the ingenuity of society, they are plaques that were spiritual symbols of an era, and they were plaques that celebrated the monarchy of the region, and should be returned to, in this case, the legal owners. If the restitution would use the Benin legal framework, or what we could consider a legal framework of the time, it would be one that honours the first child. In the context of the Igiogbe, the first child inherits his father. However in the African context, inheritance law could be patrilineal or matrilineal but in the case of Nigeria, it's patrilineal –takes into account the house and the spiritual context of the family. And in this case, the reigning Oba is to inherit his father. When it came to their way of living within the community, the Oba had the final say. And because of this, they respected him as an authority over his people as well as a gatekeeper over their culture. So, if we look at it from that perspective, the determination of ownership should be based on the customary law that the people were used to before the colonial period, resulting in the return of the objects to the original owners.

You kind of answered the second question too, which is great, because I will now pose the second question to you, Olorunfemi : What do you think is the best way to proceed with the Benin Bronzes? Who should get them, what should happen to them?

Olorunfemi: I know recent global debates have centered on ownership and the questionable morality of hosting African art abroad. Concerning those that have been returned to Nigeria and the NCMM (National Commission for Museums & Monuments), I am aware that there are also discussions regarding ownership between NCMM and the palace.

As an artist and researcher who is looking forward to the birth of a new Nigeria my headspace has been a little different in terms of focus: I think more towards when these objects actually arrive. How can we integrate the stories and the values into public consciousness, how can there be a change? The return and housing of the bronzes shouldn’t just end at making a statement or in vanity. The very power of the artefact lies in the ability of its story to affect the public subconsciously.
What factors have contributed to the fact that the discussion about the return of the Benin bronzes has intensified in recent years and that some countries in the global North are now willing to return them?
Olorunfemi : I think there are four factors that contribute to that. First, increasing awareness and activism. In recent years, there has been a growing awareness of the issue of looted cultural heritage and increasing activism by communities and organizations demanding the return of the stolen objects. This has put pressure on governments and museums to address the issue of restitution. Secondly, there is a change in museum policies. Many museums have revised their policies and ethical frameworks to address the issue of looted cultural heritage and to consider requests for restitution. Some museums have even returned objects to the countries of origin, setting a precedent for the return of the Benin bronzes. The third is political will. There has been a shift in political will in some countries towards addressing the issue of looted cultural heritage and promoting restorative justice. This has led to greater openness towards discussion of restitution. Finally, legal developments. Some countries, including Nigeria, have introduced new laws and policies aiming at facilitating the return of looted cultural heritage. These legal developments have made it easier for countries to make claims for the return of objects such as the Benin bronzes. I think those are the four things, in my opinion, that have influenced the conversations in recent years.

Oluwatoyin: Well, Olorunfemi said this nicely and I know he's talking from the perspective of very many people, but I see it from a different perspective. The statement of President Emmanuel Macron in 2017 about a possible return of African heritage to Africa, coupled with the follow up effect of the Black Lives Matter movement, and opposition to public monuments celebrating colonial figures involved in the enslavement or dehumanization of African people have supported these fresh demands and requests for stolen cultural object to be returned. There's always been an ongoing quest for people, for communities as well as nations, to ask for their artifacts to be returned. But it hadn't gained that momentum until now. The Black Lives Matter movement of 2021 contributed a lot to this movement. People felt empowered to raise their voices and ask that stolen objects be returned to their original owners. And I also think that consciousness of identity contributed to it. People were proud to be known as Africans and these objects have contributed to that definition of who they are and who they want to be. Being a Black person and not being able to associate it with anything that can help with defining your identity is becoming a thing of the past. Or looking at oneself as a second-class citizen is becoming a thing of the past because we now know that our forefathers had technology that contributed to the creation of some of these artifacts. These artifacts speak volumes. They speak in terms of materiality of the people. They talk about the ingenuity of the technology at the time, they talked about the art they used to record their own events. And now people want these facts to come to the fore. People then had technical know-how and cultures that are part of their history and which help in emphasising their identity.

What do you think of the Restitution Study Group's statements that the descendants of the slaves whose sales funded the bronzes should also have a claim, or at least a say, regarding the bronzes?

Olorunfemi: The group argues that the trade in enslaved people was directly linked to the trade in African cultural heritage objects, including the Benin bronzes, and that the descendants of those who were enslaved and exploited should have a voice in the restitution process. This statement raises important questions about the ethical and moral considerations involved in the restitution of cultural heritage objects, particularly those that were acquired through colonialism and exploitation. It highlights the need to recognize the complex historical and cultural context in which these objects were taken and to consider the perspectives of all those affected by their removal and displacement. I think it's a rather complex and dicey issue. Toyin, what do you think about that?

Oluwatoyin: I appreciate that there are two sides to a coin and there are always at least two sides to a story. And they bring a rich context to this issue of restitution. It's also interesting to note that people in the diaspora are interested in this, especially the Restitution Study Group who feel that they are part owners. Yes, they are welcome to be part owners, but I see it from this perspective: first, we need to understand that this art came to be because of a guild system that was initiated in the first century during the reign of Ogiso kings. Ogiso kings were the first kings in the Benin dynasty and the guilds were artisan organized, which would initiate a series of royal creations for various festivals and cultural events in the Benin Kingdom. The bronze caster guild became the most popular. They only came to be simply because the monarchy, the king, commissioned them to do these things that recorded their history. Truth be told, the objects should be returned. The Restitution Study Group can thus also be considered co-owners because they belong to the same group of people who are in today's Nigeria. They are part of that bigger family, and they bring about a new discourse to this matter of restitution.

Twenty artworks are being returned to Nigeria, nine are still in the Smithsonian National Museum of African Art. They're there on long-term loan, which means the Restitution Study Group can still see them and learn about them. The truth is that, it's easier to study about Africa from outside Africa. And now there is an awareness that these artworks exist, Africans should be able to see these things within their own geographical location without buying tickets to go to museums abroad to see what belongs to them. So, I salute the courage of the Restitution Study Group to be able to identify as African descendants, to be able to be recognised as descendants of people of the slave trade era. It's really an honorable thing. And, like Olorunfemi mentioned, the bronzes have now obtained a kind of international identity. And we have different people who could lay claims one way or the another to the bronzes. But the point is, they started out from a place called Benin Kingdom. Benin Kingdom has now become part of Nigeria and that must be respected. And we, Benin people and people of Africa, are happy to see that descendants who don’t reside in Nigeria are happy to be associated with this culture that the bronzes represent. But in my own opinion, the artworks should first and foremost be returned to the community of origin. And then we can have this discussion of how we can go about having them seen by many more people all over the world. Though I think the long-term loan has already taken care of that.

Olorunfemi: Yeah, I’d like to add a small thing, actually: When I go into museums and view artifacts, a lot of times they are stripped of their contexts when they're just hanging on the walls. A lot of times in art exhibitions, I walk in and I walk out because it's not engaging with me. I think artifacts, generally speaking, need to have this sort of contextual feel to them. A sort of a contextual feedback to be able to give people even more research opportunities, contextual backgrounds that give some depth to research, to learn, to engage with these artifacts in a way that we couldn’t have before. So, yes, I agree with what you said, Oluwatoyin.