Stolen History: Should Restitution Come with Conditions?

By Mila Knoche

There seems to be a general sentiment that it’s the morally right thing to give back artifacts that were stolen by Western nations during their colonial advancements, mostly in Africa, to the countries they originally belonged to. Yet, can the restitution of such culturally significant artifacts still be justified if they end up in private ownership—hidden away from the public they rightfully belong to—due to the often prevalent corruption in the receiving countries, rather than being displayed in European museums where they were accessible to a wider and diverse audience?

As many, especially European nations like Belgium, the Netherlands, or France, among others, are still in possession of stolen colonial artifacts, it is important to act upon the notion that restitutions should include legally binding conditions to ensure public accessibility and prevent artifacts from falling into private ownership, thereby safeguarding their cultural and historical significance for the communities to which they rightfully belong.

The failed return of the Benin Bronzes

Back in 2022, Germany committed to returning approximately 1,100 stolen Benin Bronzes that were looted during an 1897 expedition to the Kingdom of Benin, today Nigeria (The story of Nigeria’s stolen Benin Bronzes, and the London museum returning them, 2022). Prior to their return to Nigeria, the statues had been openly displayed to the public in several museums across Germany.

The decision to return the bronze statues was driven by the commitment to increase public access to these cultural artifacts, especially for the people of Nigeria. Germany’s culture commissioner, Claudia Roth, even stated that the restitution marked “a turning point in international cultural policy.”

However, the Benin bronzes were not displayed in a museum open to the Nigerian public but were transferred into the private ownership of the son of the traditional ruler of the Kingdom of Benin.

This outcome contradicted the initial expectation that the Benin bronzes would be displayed publicly in the Edo Museum of West African Art in the Nigerian Capital (Sevillano, 2023). The ethnologist Brigitta Hauser-Schäublin remarked that the reinstitution was supposed to “heal the wounds of the past” but turned into “a gift to a royal house” (Sevillano, 2023).

In response, the German foreign minister stated that she had not anticipated this result despite the fact that their public accessibility was not explicitly outlined in the formal agreement between Germany and Nigeria regarding their return.

What went wrong?

In the agreement signed between Germany and Nigeria, there had been no legally binding terms included that guaranteed the statues to be displayed, as this was simply assumed by Germany to be the logical outcome of such restitution (Sevillano, 2023). This case sparked a debate about the complexities of cultural heritage restitutions and how these artifacts, like the Benin bronzes, can be ensured to serve the public interest. This article explicitly does not argue for the return of looted artifacts to stop, as I believe it to be the morally right thing to do to rectify past historical injustices.

Returning stolen artifacts supports decolonial attempts by restoring a disrupted cultural legacy and, thus, is an effective way of addressing historical injustices and reconciling international relations between former colonies and colonizers. Due to the importance of these decolonial efforts, this paper aims to argue that while the returns are essential to decolonialism, conditions must be attached to restitutions that ensure a safe return of the artifacts and public access to them. In those formal agreements between two countries that regulate the return, legally binding conditions need to be added that ensure that the returns are not detrimental to the very goal they aim to fulfill. This is necessary so that no second Benin bronze case occurs in which the nation returning artifacts simply assumes that the artifacts will be displayed in a museum.

While the restitution of stolen artifacts is a necessary step toward rectifying historical injustices and supporting decolonial efforts, the case of the Benin Bronzes demonstrates that unregulated returns can undermine their intended purpose. Until legally binding conditions are included in the agreements and are feasible, the conduction of restitutions should be carefully considered against the background of whether they actually fulfill their decolonial aim or create more injustices.

References

Sevillano, E. G. (2023, May 19). Legitimate concerns, or neocolonialism? Germany expresses worry about the fateof the Benin Bronzes, following their restitution to Nigeria. EL PAÍS English. https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-05-19/legitimate-concerns-or-neocolonialism-germany-expresses-worry-about-the-fate-of-the-benin-bronzes-following-their-restitution-to-nigeria.html

The story of Nigeria’s stolen Benin Bronzes, and the London museum returning them. (2022, September 17).

Travel. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/nigeria-stolen-benin-bronzes-london-museum