One cannot purport to condemn colonialism while enjoying the benefits of
colonialism. Germany’s keeping of the looted Benin artefacts despite
demands for return is the surest sign of lack of respect and an obvious
demonstration of continuing centuries-old contempt of westerners for
Africa and its peoples.
 |
British soldiers of the infamous Punitive Expedition of 1897 proudly posing with
looted Benin artifacts. |
By Kwame Opoku
“It is our prayer that the people and the government of Austria will
show humaneness and magnanimity and return to us some of these objects
which found their way to your country.” -The Oba of Benin, Omo N’Oba
Erediauwa. [1]
After the publication of my article entitled “Looted /stolen cultural
articles declared shared heritage” [2], a friend sent me from Germany a
magazine with the title, “Ein Berliner Schloss fur die Welt” (A Berlin
Palace for the World) issued by the Humboldt-Forum. [3] Apart from the
very misleading title, creating the impression that the future museum
had been built specifically for the world and not for Germany, as
evident from all available information, the publication follows the
style of the British Museum which argues that the British Museum is not a
British museum but a museum for the world. [4] The magazine contains
many tendentious statements and articles that assume, apparently, that
the German public cannot distinguish between facts and fiction.
Under the heading, ‘Humboldt Lab Dahlem’, we are informed that the
African and Asian artefacts in the museums in Dahlem (a suburb of
Berlin) will not only travel to the middle of the city to the
Humboldt-Forum but will also be transformed in the process (“sie
verwandeln sich dabei auch”) for the narratives concerning them will be
different. How are the objects when they arrive in the museum (and why
not other objects)?. How has the viewing perspective on these objects
changed and what do they still have to tell us? After these questions
the author declares:
“Objects have no meaning in themselves. They always play another
role-for human beings. And whoever begins to think over this changing
process, will not be able to finish with the questions posed thereby”.
[5]
What the author is telling us is that objects such as the African
sculptures in the Ethnologisches Museum have no fixed meaning since
meaning or importance depends on their location and viewer. The Benin
cultural artefacts, for example, would be transformed in the process of
their transfer from Dahlem to Berlin Mitte, a journey of a few
kilometres. What an extraordinary statement. Most of us will agree that
the symbolism and the meaning attached to a particular object may differ
from society to society and that what may be seen as a sign of good
luck in one culture may not have the same significance in another
context. In other words, the function and meaning of an object may vary
from culture to culture. To extend this fact to imply the transformation
of objects from a short journey in Berlin, within the same city, is a
view that cannot be easily accepted without further evidence.
 |
| A priest with a gong, Benin, Nigeria, now in Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin, Germany. |
Do the Benin artefacts cease to possess the meaning and importance they
had in Benin through the travel to the Humboldt-Forum via London and
Dahlem? This seems to be a very easy transformation. Did this also occur
when the objects were transported from Africa to Europe? If so, why do
museums still attach African labels to these objects and assign their
origins to Africa?
The author may be reflecting here the spurious theory of shifting values
that the organizers of the 2007 exhibition, ‘Benin: Kings and
Rituals-Court Arts from Nigeria’ [6] tried to advance as justification
for holding on to the looted Benin Bronzes. The argument, put simply, is
that by being in Europe, those artefacts had gained additional values
and had changed their significance.
Whilst in their original context, the Benin objects expressed values
determined by religious belief and dynastic interests. But through their
enforced sojourn in the West, they had acquired new values based on the
"technical brilliance, formal elegance and iconographic complexity of
their execution." This shift in attribution of values should at present
be seen within the "competing contexts and claims of local tradition,
the nation state, and globalization". [7] This self-serving theory has
not been mentioned for a long while since the 2007 exhibition and one is
surprised that it is now being revived, however indirectly. [8]
Even if artefacts were to change their nature and function and to be
transformed during their journeys, this self-serving theory does not sit
well with most of us when a holder of looted artefact asserts that the
object that was looted is not the same as what he is now holding.
Imagine the result that would flow from accepting such an unfounded
theory. All that would be needed would be to proclaim that the objects
have changed their nature and therefore the deprived owners have no
case. Is this seriously meant by our colleagues at the Humboldt-Forum?
Someone must inform our German colleagues that the requests for
restitution of cultural artefacts is not about their display, exhibition
or interpretation. These demands are linked with questions of
location, possession, ownership and above all, cultural identity. Are
the Benin artefacts German or constitutive elements of Nigerian cultural
identity?
More surprising statements are to be found in the section entitled ‘Der
Afrika-Flügel’, (The African Section) where an attempt is made to
explain what will be found and done in the African Section of the museum
and related issues, in a form of discussion between Paola Ivanov,
Italian ethnologist, and a US-American, Jonathan Fine, who are
curators of the African Section. The discussion is in the form of
question and answer. The questions were presumably set by the authors
who provided the answers themselves. In response to the question how do
you generally treat colonialism, the authors answer, inter alia, as
follows:
“Colonialism will be a theme in each module. We do not want to hide
anything or minimize anything. Take Benin for example. All the very
precious bronzes, very beautiful bronzes came to Europe as a result of
the destruction of the Benin capital by British troops. How the bronzes
then landed in Berlin- this will be discussed in the exhibition curated
by Peter Junge”. [9]
 |
Oba Ovonramwen, from whose palace the British looted the
Benin Bronzes
in 1897, with foot chains, guarded by soldiers
on board a British ship
to exile. |
This is a very curious answer. The authors are willing to explain how
the Benin Bronzes came to Europe and correctly explain it was the result
of the British invasion of Benin. But how these looted precious
objects came specifically to Berlin and Germany is to be explained in
another exhibition by another curator. Why can the authors not explain
in a few words that the Germans bought the looted objects, a few months
after the invasion in 1874, some of the objects presumably still with
Benin blood stains on them? Should the public not know that the Germans
were fully aware that the Benin Bronzes were looted objects and indeed,
the auctioneers were proud to inform potential buyers that these were
fresh goods? The complicity of the Germans in this matter, as
accomplices after the fact, may have embarrassed the writers. The German
public is presumably more interested to know how the Benin bronzes came
to Germany and Berlin, where there is now said to be a Berliner Schloss
fur die Welt, than in the British invasion. Were the authors trying to
avoid the obvious questions that spring to the mind on seeing a cultural
artefact :“Where did it come from and how did it get here?”
The next heading reads as follows: “The legal aspect is one issue: Was
something legally acquired or stolen? Besides, there is a big moral grey
area: Were the circumstances of occupation, under which the objects
were acquired perhaps so, that one is obliged to return the objects?”
[10]
The curators state that in all cases the circumstances and the
perspectives of all persons and institutions concerned will be
researched and taken into account in making the decision. (A decision to
return the object?) It is remarkable that the authors believe there is
still need to do more research into Benin history in order to determine
whether any of the looted objects should be returned. What have the
museums been doing in all the hundred years they have illegally been
holding the looted artefacts? How much time do they still need for
further research?
It seems to us that as far as the circumstances of the looting of the
artefacts and their auction are concerned we have already a considerable
mass of knowledge on which to base decisions to return artefacts if the
will is there. The basic facts are not in dispute: these precious
artefacts belong to the Oba of Benin and the Benin people; they have to
be returned without further delay.
As for the moral grey area the authors mentioned, we should state that
this grey area exists only for holders of the looted objects. The rest
of the world, United Nations, UNESCO and ICOM have no such hazy views.
They have all declared in innumerable resolutions and statements that
these artefacts should be returned to the original owners. The moral
problem here is more a question for States and institutions that pride
themselves of respecting morality and the law but insist on holding onto
looted artefacts of others and not being embarrassed by the whole
issue. They sometimes even feel they can lecture others on respect for
law but the law has moral aspects that can only be understood by those
willing to subject their own conduct, past and present to rules.
 |
| Bell, Benin, Nigeria now in Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin, Germany |
Regarding criticism that the transfer of the objects, mostly acquired in
the colonial period, to the Humboldt-Forum, is a neo-colonial gesture
and an act of restoration, the author answers as follows: “Such
evaluation is, in my opinion, based on a misunderstanding. There are
museums that present objects from the colonial period in an uncritical
way so that in a certain way the colonial view point continues still-
that is exactly what we do not want to continue. And to say that all
must be packed and sent back is also no solution. For me this will mean
erasing history, a very dangerous gesture. We want instead to use the
opportunity for critical and self-critical exhibition”. [11]
Is returning a looted Benin object to its deprived owners “rewriting
history? To re-write the history of the relations between Benin and the
European powers would surely require a little more than this.
The writers repeat the unfounded argument that some want to return all
African artefacts found in their museum. There is, of course, no truth
in this and the authors know this. The Oba of Benin, who is cited at the
beginning of this article and was mentioned by the authors, asked for
some of the looted Benin artefacts to be returned. Nobody has asked for
all the looted artefacts to be returned. We have suggested that the
Berlin museum could return some of the 508 Benin bronzes it is holding
illegally. Instead of discussing concrete suggestions regarding
restitution, many Western writers prefer to repeat arguments they
themselves have made up. They thus avoid examining the validity or
otherwise of the demands for restitution. A good example is Philippe de
Montebello, former director of the Metropolitan Museum, New York, who
mischievously stated that Dr. Opoku wanted all Nok, Ife and Benin pieces
to be returned to Nigeria. [12]
In answer to the question whether the King of Benin is requesting the
return of the bronze reliefs, the authors give a very misleading and
frankly unsatisfactory answer:
“There was in 2007/8 a large international exhibition on Benin and the
King of Benin had written in a contribution to the catalogue of the
exhibition that he would very much like to have a few of the objects
back. But there was no official demand for restitution. Also the
Nigerian State did not make any restitution claim.” [13]
This is a remarkable statement. The Oba of Benin, His Royal Majesty Omo
n'Oba n'Edo Uku Akpolokpolo Erediauwa I, is not mentioned by name. The
title of the exhibition, ‘Benin—Kings and Rituals: Court Arts from
Nigeria’ (2006/2007) and the catalogue with the same title, edited by
Barbara Plankensteiner, curator of the exhibition and Deputy-Director of
the World Museum, Vienna,(until July 2015, now at Yale University) are
also not mentioned by name. [14] Could we imagine, if a Western monarch
had written anything in a catalogue of an exhibition that their name
would not be mentioned? Incidentally, what Oba Erediauwa wrote was an
Introductory Note, more like a Foreword than anything else. Oba
Erediauwa was writing as the King of a people whose cultural artefacts
have been brutally and violently looted by a foreign army, British Army,
sent by the British Government because Benin refused to submit to
British imperialist rule. The king was also writing as a grandson, a
descendant of the king, Oba Ovonramwen, the Oba in whose reign the Benin
artefacts were violently stolen from the Palace. It was therefore not
to be considered as contribution in the sense of texts submitted by
specialists on the subject. It was a plea by a king for the return of
royal artefacts stolen from his palace.
How is the duty to educate the public fulfilled when titles of books and
names of authors are not even mentioned? How can a German who reads
only the pamphlet, ‘Ein Berliner Schloss fur die Welt’, pursue further
the issue?
How can the writers of the pamphlet say there has been no official
request for restitution? Is the request by the Benin monarch not
official enough? If a Western monarch had made such a request, would
anyone dare to say there had been no official request? What about the
negative response of the museum directors to the king’s plea, also in
the catalogue? The suggestion that there has been no request by the
Nigerian State for the return of the Benin Bronzes is, of course,
contrary to the facts. Practically, every Nigerian Government since
independence has urged holders of the Benin bronzes to return them. A
Nigerian Minister of Tourism, Culture and National Orientation, Prince
Adetokumbo Kayode, went to Berlin to request the return of the Benin
bronzes.[15] There have been meetings between Nigerian representatives
and German representatives on the return of these same objects. How can
Humboldt-Forum support assertions with no basis except the wishful
thinking of some persons?
We will spare the reader the need to go through all the useless
arguments advanced to support the baseless argument that there has been
no request, official or otherwise, for the return of the Benin bronzes
and other Nigerian artefacts, now illegitimately in Western museums and
in private collections. Readers interested in pursuing further this
issue may look at some of the articles by this writer. [16]
As far as African artefacts are concerned, the publication from the
Humboldt-Forum does not manifest any will or intention to deal seriously
with the question of restitution. It seems some people in Berlin
believe all that is required to silent the growing demands for
restitution is to display the objects in a new environment, appoint some
African and Asian scholars and experts to various committees and invite
other Africans to the grand opening of the Humboldt-Forum. They are
mistaken.
In not being able to understand the profound attachment of Africans and
Asians to their cultural artefacts, our Western colleagues have failed
to understand some of our basic requirements after decades of Western
domination and discrimination: the need for respect and self-respect.
Keeping our looted cultural artefacts despite demands for return is the
surest sign of lack of respect and an obvious demonstration of
continuing contempt for non-Europeans. The Independence of our countries
appears in this light not to have affected the centuries-old contempt
of westerners for our continent and its peoples.
We thought the Humboldt-Forum, despite all internal German criticisms,
was going to be an institution of the 21st century, building on the
positive achievements of previous decades and avoiding the disgraceful
characteristics of decades of racial discrimination, domination and
oppression of previous centuries. What we have read so far, as regards
the looted artefacts in Berlin seems to be repetitions of theories and
ideologies of previous centuries. The images of colonialism spring to
mind when we read the explanations offered for holding on to looted
artefacts. They throw us back to the period of the Berlin Conference of
1885 and German colonial rule. [17] The insensitivity of some scholars
saves them from seeing the similarities between their explanations and
those of previous decades. The arrogance and assumption permeating their
writings, obvious to others, are not perceptible to our learned
scholars.
As we have often stated, one cannot condemn colonialism and insist on
keeping all the benefits of colonialism, without making the slightest
gesture, not even symbolic, to return at least some of the looted
artefacts. No amount of critical approach to explaining the looted
artefacts will compensate for the losses by the original owners, their
pains and sufferings, especially when coupled with the explanations and
justifications such as those we have been examining.
Berlin laid the framework that made possible and easy the looting and
stealing of African artefacts. Berlin could also be the beginning of the
movement to return at least some of the artefacts. After all, in the
German Reich Berlin had pre-eminence in such matters. There was a decree
in 1889 that all artefacts brought from the colonies had to be
submitted to the Völkerkunde Museum in Berlin that had first choice and
then sent the rest to other institutions. [18] But do we have in Berlin
persons who understand the historical dimensions and importance of the
artefacts and are courageous enough to tackle the injustice against
African and Asian peoples?
* Dr Kwame Opoku is an independent scholar and commentator on African cultural affairs.
_________________________
END NOTES
1. "The exhibition is showcasing some of the works that made Benin
(Nigeria) famous. It once again, reminds the world of a civilization
truncated by the imperial forces of the colonialist. The works on show
at this exhibition are some of the 3000 odd pieces of bronze and ivory
works forcibly removed from my great grandfather's palace by some
Britons who invaded Benin in 1897. The British kept some of the loot for
themselves and sold the rest to European and American buyers. These
works now adorn public museums and private collector's galleries, all
over the world."
'We are pleased to participate in this exhibition. It links us,
nostalgically, with our past. As you put this past on show today, it is
our prayer that the people and government of Austria will show
humaneness and magnanimity and return to us some of these objects which
found their way to your country.”
OmoN'Oba Erediauwa CFR, Oba of Benin, in Introductory Note to the
catalogue of the exhibition Barbara Plankensteiner (ed.) Benin Kings and
Rituals, Court Arts from Nigeria, Snoeck Publishers, 2007, p. 13.
2. K. Opoku, “Looted/Stolen Cultural Artefacts Declared “Shared Legacy”, http://www.modernghana.com/news/638044/1/lootedstolen-cultural-artefacts-declared-shared-he.html,
3. Ein Berliner Schloss für die Welt, 2015, Ein Magazin der Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz-Humboldt Forum, Berlin.
4. K. Opoku,” When will everybody finally accept that the British Museum
is a British Institution? Comments on a Lecture by Neil MacGregor.” www.modernghana.com/.../when-will-everybody-finally-accept-that-the-..
5. Ein Berliner Schloss, p.18.
6.“Es gab2007/8 eine große internationale Ausstellung zu Benin, und im Katalog dazu hatte der König von Benin in einem Beitrag
Geschrieben, dass er einige Objekte gern zurückhaben würde. Aber es gab
keine offizielle Rückforderung. Auch der nigerianische Staat hat keine
gestellt.“
Ibid, p. 23.
7. Barbara Plankensteiner, Benin Kings and Rituals, op. cit. p.17.
8. K. Opoku, “Opening of the exhibition” Benin-Kings and Rituals: Court Arts from Nigeria”, http://www.elginism.com/20070520/744/
9.“ Der Kolonialismus wird in jedem Modul thematisiert. Wir wollen nichts vertuschen oder verharmlosen.
Benin zum Beispiel. Alle sehr schonen, sehr wertvollen Bronzen kamen in Zuge
der Zerstörung der Hauptstadt Benins durch die britischen Truppen nach
Europa. Wie die Bronzen dann in Berlin gelandet sind-das wird in der von Peter
Junge kuratierten Ausstellung auch erzähl.“ Ein Berliner Schloss für die Welt. p. 23.
10.“Der juristische, Aspekt ist das eine: Wurde etwas rechtmassig
erworben, wurde es gestohlen? Aber daneben existiert eine große
moralische Grauzone: Waren die Besatzungsumstande, unter denen das
Objekt erworben wurde, vielleicht so, dass sie zu einer Rückgabe
verpflichten?“ Ibid.
11.“ Eine solche Einschätzung beruht meiner Meinung nach auf einem
Missverständnis. Es gibt tatsächlich Museen, die Objekte aus der
Kolonialzeit unkritisch präsentieren, sodass sich auf gewisse Weise der
kolonialistische Blick bis heute fortsetzt – genau das wollen und werden
wir nicht tun. Und zu sagen, alles soll geräumt und zurückgegeben
werden, ist auch keine Lösung. Denn das hieße, die Geschichte
wegzuwischen. Für mich wäre dieses Wegwischen eine sehr gefährliche
Geste. Wir wollen stattdessen die Chance für eine kritische und auch
selbstkritische Ausstellung nutzen. PI Uns ist wichtig, dass die
Sammlungen in die Stadtmitte kommen, wo sie eine breitere Rezeption
erfahren können, die ihrem sehr, sehr hohen Wert entspricht. Was die
Provenienz angeht: Wir erforschen die Herkunft aller Objekte, die im
Humboldt-Forum ausgestellt werden. Das ist manchmal sehr schwierig, aber
es wird nichts verschleiert. Wir wollen einen Perspektivenwechsel
betreiben, weg von der eurozentrischen Perspektive. Nun, falls einige
das Schloss noch mit der alten Vorstellung vom Westen und den „anderen“,
von the west and the rest verbinden, dann dekonstruieren wir diese
Vorstellung. Wir hoffen, dieses Bild auflösen zu können, um stattdessen
die Vorstellung von einer einzigen Welt wiederherzustellen. Denn das
ist, worum es uns geht“. Ibid. p. 24.
12. See the unsuccessful and mischievous attempt of Phillipe de
Montebello, former director of the Metropolitan Museum, New York, to
misrepresent our position on restitution.
Elginism, Kwame Opoku responds to Philippe de Montebello
http://www.elginism.com/similar-cases/kwame-opoku-responds-to-philippe-de-montebello/20080422/1147/
Africavenir, Comments on a letter from Philippe de Montebello, Director, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
Ex Africa semper aliquid novi (Tom Flynn's contribution to the Kwame Opoku versus Philippe de Montebello discussion)
K. Opoku, “Does
the demand for the restitution of stolen African cultural objects
constitute an obstacle to the dissemination of knowledge about African
art?” Comments on a letter from Philippe de Montebello, Director, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York”.
13.“ Es gab 2007/8 eine große internationale Ausstellung zu Benin, und
im Katalog dazu hatte der König von Benin in einem Beitrag geschrieben,
das er einige Objekte gern zurückhaben wurde. Aber es gab keine
offizielle Rückforderung. Auch der nigerianische Staat hat keine
gestellt.“ Ein Berliner Schloss, p. 23.
14. See note 1 above.
15. K. Opoku, “Berlin Plea for the Return of Nigeria’s Cultural Objects:
How often must Nigeria ask for the Return of its Stolen Cultural
Objects?” http://www.modernghana.com/news/182279/1/berlin-plea-for-the-return-of-nigerias-cultural-ob.html
16. “Benin Plan of Action: Will this miserable Document be the last word on the looted word on the Looted Benin Artefacts?”
“Compromise on the Restitution of Benin Bronzes? Comments on an article
by Prof. John Picton on Restitution of Benin Artefacts”.
www.modernghana.com/news/315254/1/compromise-on-the-restitution-of..
“Berlin Plea for the Return of Nigeria’s Cultural Objects: How often
must Nigeria ask for the Return of its Stolen Cultural Objects?”
www.modernghana.com/news/182279/1/berlin-plea-for-the-return-of..
“Reflections on the Abortive Queen-Mother Idia Mask Auction: Tactical Withdrawal or Decision of Principle?” www.modernghana.com/news/310582/1/reflections-on-the-abortive..
“Did Germans Never Hear directly or indirectly Nigeria’s Demand for Return of Looted Artefacts?”
www.modernghana.com/news/488075/1/did-germans-never-hear-directly..
www.museum-security.org/Kwame_Opoku_Germany_Nigeria_Benin.htm
www.no-humboldt21.de/information/nigeria
Is he Absence of a Formal Demand for Restitution a Ground for Non Restitution?
www.museum-security.org/2008/04/is-the-absence-of-a-formal-demand..
www.africavenir.org/.../content_uploads/Opoku_OfficialDemand_03.pdf · PDF file
“Benin Exhibition in Chicago: Cuno agrees to consider Request for Restitution of Benin Bronzes”. www.modernghana.com/news/174311/1/benin-exhibition-in-chicago-cuno..
“Nigeria Reacts to Donation of Looted Benin Artefacts to Museum of Fine Arts, Boston” www.modernghana.com/news/406884/1/nigeria-reacts-to-donation-of..
17. Some authors write as if they were not aware of the colonial rule of
the German Reich, a storehouse for Nazi ideas and practices which
facilitated the use of violence against Africans and the robbery of
their wealth. Namibians have not forgotten the massacres of the Herero
and Dama. An awareness of the German colonial rule would serve well all
those who write about looted artefacts in Berlin. See K .Opoku, Benin to
Berlin Ethnologisches Museum: Are Benin Bronzes made in Berlin? http://www.modernghana.com/news/157501/1/benin-to-berlin-ethnologisches-museum-are-benin-br.html
Cornelia Essner has written:
“That the acquisition of ethnografica in the colonial time was on the basis of
more or less “structural violence” will not be pursued in detail in this context.
Some individual contemporaries were perfectly aware of this fact. Thus one
Africa-traveller and resident of the German Empire in Ruanda, Richard Kandt,
wrote in 1897 to Felix von Luschan, Deputy Director of the Ethnology Museum,
Berlin, as follows: “It is especially difficult to procure an object without at least
employing some force. I believe that half of your museum consists of stolen
objects.”
(“Dass der Erwerb von Ethnographica in der Kolonialzeit auf der
Grundlage mehr oder minder “struktureller Gewalt” erfolgte, soll hier in
diesem Rahmen nicht näher verfolgt werden. Einzelnen Zeitgenossen war diese
Tatsache im Übrigen durchaus bewußt. So schrieb der Afrikareisende und
Resident des Deutschen Reiches in Ruanda, Richard Kandt, 1897 an Felix von
Luschan, den stellvertretenden Direktor des Berliner Völkerkunde-Museums:
Überhaupt ist es schwer, einen Gegenstand zu erhalten, ohne zum mindesten
etwas Gewalt anzuwenden. Ich glaube, daß die Hälfte Ihres Museums gestohlen
ist“. )
Cornelia Essner, Berlins Völkerkunde-Museum in der Kolonialära:
Anmerkungen zum Verhältnis von Ethnologie und Kolonialismus in Deutschland
in: Berlin in Geschichte und Gegenwart – Jahrbuch des Landesarchivs Berlin,
(Ed.) Hans J. Reichhardt, Siedler Verlag, 1986. p.77
18. “In the acquisition of art objects and artefacts from the German
colonies, the Ethnologisches Museum Berlin enjoyed a position of great
significance. A decision of the Bundesrat (“Bundesratsbeschluss - Decree
of the Federal Council”) of 21 February 1889 gave the Berlin Museum fűr
Völkerkunde priority in the purchase of all ethnographic objects
acquired from the German colonies. This meant that any ethnographical
object from the German colonies acquired through the resources of the
Reich had first to be sent to the Berlin Völkerkunde Museum which then
determined whether it wanted to keep it or, in case of duplication, send
it on to the other ethnographical museums in Germany. It appears there
was very little fair distribution and the other museums complained. This
gave the Berlin Museum an unchallengeable pre-eminence among Ethnology
Museums. The 1889 decision was in effect an authorization to loot and
plunder the colonies. Unlike the Loi Griaule, given to Marcel Griaule,
the French ethnologist and leader of the Dakar- Djibouti expedition, to
take whatever he wanted in the French colonies, the German law in effect
encouraged all German travellers to the colonies to plunder and loot.”
K .Opoku, “Benin to Berlin Ethnologisches Museum: Are Benin Bronzes made in Berlin?
www.modernghana.com/news/157501/1/benin-to-berlin-ethnologisches..
Reprinted with permission from Pambazuka News.
