Negotiating History: The Process of Bringing Africa’s Cultural Heritage Home

By Cameron Greig 

If you visited the Piazza di Porta Capena in Rome 20 years ago, you would have seen a 24-metre-tall stone obelisk weighing 160-tonnes reaching into the sky. It would be a curious fixture with its masterfully carved windows and doors, making it look rather like a beautiful tower of apartments. If you travelled across the Mediterranean, past Egypt and Sudan, beyond the Simien Mountains of Northern Ethiopia, you might arrive in the ancient city of Aksum (Axum). Gazing through the heat-induced haze, ancient stelae (hawlet), just like the one in Rome, sway in the deep blue sky, some reaching a terrific height of 33 metres. They have probably dominated the city’s North-Western skyline for over 1,700 years. 

 Except, for almost 70 years, there had been a gap – one obelisk was missing. The stelae are thought to mark the burial sites of ancient Axumite monarchs, and until the deposition of Emperor Haile Selassie in 1975, there was a long tradition of Ethiopian monarchs being anointed at the site. To mark 15 years of Mussolini’s rule, in 1937, during the Italian imperial occupation of Ethiopia, the fascist dictatorship looted the Axum Obelisk from the area that would eventually be recognised as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Led by a UNESCO team, the Axum Obelisk was officially inaugurated and reinstalled on the original site in April of 2008. When the Ethiopian flag that veiled the obelisk was finally dropped, it was met with jubilation from the crowds who danced, applauded, and blared their car horns.

The return of the Axum Obelisk was a story of cultural artefact restitution. There was a United Nations agreement in 1947 to return the Axum Obelisk to Ethiopia, but it had been repeatedly delayed – apparently for logistical reasons. It is only in recent years that discussions surrounding restitution from Western nations to African nations have become commonplace, largely related to cultural treasures looted during colonial raids. Restitution is not purely a legal or scientific term, but rather a politically charged concept. Herman (2021) defined it as “the return of cultural material to an individual, group or nation with the overall aim of doing justice for a past or ongoing wrong”. The term restitution is not to be confused with the return of human bodies (repatriation), or with financial compensation for wrongdoings (reparations). 

To complicate things, restitution is an example of a ‘culture war’ issue. While some in the Global North attempt to use restitution as an ‘amendment’ for colonial looting, others argue that such artefacts would not be kept safely if returned to their native lands. National museums in Africa are preparing for the return of artefacts, with much criticism towards these institutions from all sides. The argument that the return of these artefacts is an opportunity to attract Westerners has prompted some people to think that tourism is more of a priority than rejuvenating national culture. Furthermore, debates have also emerged regarding the question of commercialisation and post-restitution ownership.  

When the collections of national museums in Africa rarely exceed 3,000 artefacts, it is no wonder such concerns are being raised. Some Western European museums have recently returned artefacts to West Africa, notably the Benin Bronzes. Germany began returning 1,130 looted artefacts in 2022, with other returns from the Netherlands, Mexico, France, the USA, and small institutions in the UK, including Cambridge, Aberdeen, and Glasgow's Kelvingrove Art Gallery.  

In contrast, many scholars have noted that the British Museum continues to hold upwards of 60,000 African artefacts – they are yet to make any such changes of ownership. Professor Tijani, head of Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments, sent a formal letter to the British Museum requesting restitution of the Benin Bronzes in 2021. However, significant controversy exists over the British Museum’s ‘deaccessioning laws’, governed by the British Museum Act (1963), which prevents the British Museum relinquishing ownership of items – loaning is used instead. For example, in April 2024, the Asante ‘Crown Jewels’ were returned to Ghana from the British Museum under a loan of three years, renewable for up to another three years with the possibility of further extension, according to Chief Negotiator Ivor Agyemang Duah. 

 

This raises critical questions about the process of colonial restitution: who makes the decisions, and what challenges are involved in returning these artefacts? A Freedom of Information (FOI) request obtained by the St Andrews Investigative Journalism Group from Glasgow Life, the body overseeing Glasgow Museums’ collections, provides valuable insights. As suggested by Open Restitution Africa, a key advocacy group, we contacted several African figures for their perspectives; however, we received no response. To continue prioritising African voices, we have had to rely on insights from key African commentators and public opinions to capture these perspectives. 

From at least 2018, there has been a significant and concerted movement within Western museums to reflect on the ethical dimensions of their historical acquisitions. The International Council of Museums (ICOM) argues that museums should deaccession (permanently remove) an artefact if “the museum’s possession of the subject is inconsistent with applicable law or ethical principle, e.g., the object was, or may have been, stolen illegally exported or imported”. However, Chief Charles Taku, an international lawyer from Cameroon, suggests that too few institutions have embraced this, “resistance towards African Heritage artefacts…is premised on the supposed legality of the crimes under the General Act of the Berlin Conference,” signed by European powers on the 26th of February 1885. What we consider today as looting, cultural theft, or destruction was – during colonialism – viewed as a ‘righteous civilising mission’. 

A ‘reset’ of relations would be too generous a word, but perhaps a recalibration of relations has been set in motion between museums in the Global North and South. A 2018 report by Sarr and Savoy, supported by the French Government, formalised this newfound reflexivity. The authors call for definitive national laws to brighten a “path toward restitution,” replacing the set of outdated colonial laws to “establish a new context of cultural relations between France and each of the African countries”. Meanwhile in Africa, a re-emerging cultural intelligentsia theorises how to “reverse the European dehumanisation”, such were the words of Historian Dr Ciraj Rassool at a Transnational Restitution Movement meeting in 2022. The Honourable Dr Kwame Tua Opoku, who has written for many years on the subject, emphasised in his Margaret Herz Demant African Art Award ceremony that it is specifically “those objects taken under the colonial regime which were taken by force, or without the consent of the owners, [that] have to be returned”. 

This indicates how it is not just museums in the Global North experiencing internal recalibration, but also their counterparts in the South. While public reaction to the ‘loan’ of the Ghanian Crown Jewels sparked universal outrage, one commentor posted that the artefacts are “not items for Ghana, but for the Asantehene. Don’t create any confusion, so that other Chiefs will come and fight over it”. Another said that “the majority of the tribes in Ghana collaborated with the British to fight and ransack these crown jewels, today they are doing the same thing”.  

A similarly dynamic picture is being painted in Nigeria where there is a mismatch in rhetoric between the different levels of government. The Oba of Benin’s Palace Chief has stated that Benin artefacts are “not just art, but they are things that underline the significance of our spirituality” and that such artefacts “speak to who we are…speak to our history, our religion, our values and ethics”. Elsewhere, Oba Ewuare II said to President Buhari that “we look forward to a future where these returned antiquities and our arts and culture shall be deployed in generating revenue for the nation” and that the return of the Benin Bronzes is good “not only for their cultural and economic benefits but more importantly towards the promotion of the tourism industry in Nigeria”. This highlights the complex politics behind ownership. Museum artefacts are not just for tourism; strategic decisions must be made about how the Nigerian government will use the returned bronzes and which claims to legitimacy they will support. Will they bolster a Fanonian ‘national culture’ (one cultivated to reject the imposition of Western norms and the stealing of African culture), try to attract Western money, or cede legitimacy to the nation’s leaders?  

Glasgow Life explained in their FOI response that they were “yet to hear” from the new Nigerian Director General of the National Commission for Museum and Monuments (NCMM), appointed in 2024. This can perhaps be explained by the internal crossroads faced by the institutions vying for ownership of the Benin Bronzes. Three competing institutions appear to be the Edo Museum of West African Art in Benin City, a regional initiative aiming to be a cultural ‘reteaching tool’, helping to make Benin City, in the words of state Governor Godwin Obaseki, “a cultural hub”. The NCMM made plans for a national collection of bronzes in the unfinished Museum of National Unity in Abuja. Finally, the Crown of Benin have kept their returned items in the Oba Palace. As such, it seems as though key decisions about ownership are yet to be made. 

Despite some progress, those in Africa fighting for the return of their history still face significant legal challenges. Just as the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property did not apply retroactively to the Axum Obelisk, this too is the case for items looted during the colonial era. This is because the act states it is applicable only to artefacts “illegally exported after entry into force of this Convention”. The 2021 UN Resolution on the Restitution of Cultural Property encouraged member-states to develop specialised police units to protect cultural heritage, create a database of cultural property, and encourage a ‘code of ethics’ for art dealers. There did not appear to be a focus on colonial-era looting or specific guidance on how to challenge this except a Responsibility to Come Forward to claim their cultural property and a suggestion to avoid courts. Indeed, the only mention of colonialism was in a General Assembly Meeting on the 6th of December 2021 where the Iranian delegation criticised the 1970 Convention because it excluded “removals [that] took place during a period of international relations when most of the countries of origin were under colonial domination and the political influence of foreign Powers”. 

Indeed, the complete lack of litigation and formal court proceedings on restitution are striking. According to Walde (2006), non-litigative methods for settling transnational disputes predate the development of formal law. Deffains (2001) argues that non-litigative measures such as conciliation, mediation, or arbitration become more likely when parties prioritise privacy. As such, it is no surprise that we rarely hear the ins-and-outs of how restitution decisions are made. In a more transparent fashion, Glasgow Life responded, when asked about the nature of meetings held with a Nigerian delegation in June 2022, by rejecting the idea that they were negotiations, mediation, or arbitration sessions, instead calling it a “general meeting” consisting of an “informal discussion” on the transfer of ownership of bronzes and future return dates. The transfer of ownership was agreed by the NCMM and Glasgow Museums on the 13th of October 2023 in an online meeting where they also discussed a “formal transfer of ownership” ceremony.  

Glasgow Life and Glasgow Museums appear to be subject to different rules than the British Museum. The British Museum Act (1963) and National Heritage Act (1983) are frequently cited as the main barriers to returning artefacts such as the Benin Bronzes. Deaccessioning, the formal process of removing items from museum collections, can only happen under circumstances unfriendly with the idea of colonial restitution. For example, under the British Museum’s deaccessioning policy, items must be a duplicate, be damaged to the point of uselessness or deemed by trustees as “unfit to be in the collection and can be disposed of without detriment to the interests of the public or scholars”. Consequently, the solution has been to loan items that have been unscrupulously acquired. For the purposes of simplicity, the National Heritage Act (1983) has quite identical deaccessioning conditions. 

Glasgow Life confirmed that their transfer of ownership was neither subject to the British Museum Act (1963) nor the National Heritage Act (1983) and thus were not subject to the same deaccessioning regulations. They stated in the FOI response that “the ownership of the artefacts will be fully transferred to the official representatives of the Oba of Benin”.  

As Britain, and the West at-large, reckons with itself, the relations between the Global North and South will undeniably change. It is hoped that discussions will prompt active efforts to decolonise museum collections and facilitate the repatriation of artefacts that encapsulate a nation’s heritage, culture and history. While the return of these objects is a step forward in addressing colonial violence, it does not excuse the past and the repercussions that exist today.  

 

Image Usage: 

Salt and Havell (1809), https://picryl.com/media/salt-and-havell-1809-the-obelisk-at-axum-112431. Representation of stelae. 

Son of Gorucho (2012), Modification: Cropped by about 1/3rd, License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/, Available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sonofgroucho/6971790113/in/photostream/. Benin Bronzes pictured at the British Museum. 

Kelechukwu Ajoku (2018), License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en, Available at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Palace_of_the_Oba_of_Benin.jpg. The Royal Palace of Oba of Benin. 

 

Author: 

Cameron Greig 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/cameron-greig-technology/