By
Tajudeen Sowole
The recent step taken by
Turkey stopping collaborative exhibitions with museums in U.S. and the U.K. as
part of efforts to retrieve her cultural objects illegally acquired by these
countries may have drawn Nigeria’s attention to the limitation of relying
solely on diplomacy to accomplish similar objective.
TURKEY’s
Ministry of Culture had intercepted the agreement by the country’s museums to
loan some artefacts to British Museum for the ongoing exhibition, Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam.
This action, it was gathered, forced the British Museum to make a last minute
alternative for the exhibition.
Turkey further insisted that it would not loan works to the Victoria and
Albert Museum, London, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, for the
same reason.
Among countries agitating for return of looted cultural
objects, Nigeria is one of the few that have been in collaborative exhibitions
with custodians of such stolen artefacts.
This ‘unwholesome’ partnership has, however, resulted in some gains such
as manpower and capacity development for Nigeria’s museum officials.
These
benefits have become factors driving Nigeria’s disposition towards efforts to
retrieve the stolen artistic and cultural treasures.
Pendant mask of Iyoba, 16th Century, Benin, Nigeria, Met Museum, N.Y., U.S. |
Responding to a question on whether Nigeria could adopt Turkey’s
approach, Director-General of NCMM, Mallam Abdallah Yusuf Usman, noted that
“each country has its own method and strategy; not all cases are similar.”
Between 2007 and a few months ago, the NCMM has had collaborative tour
exhibitions of loaned artefacts, involving countries such as the U.K., U.S.,
Germany and Spain. About 109 works of Ife artefacts, sourced from Nigeria were
exhibited in Madrid (Spain), and Houston, Richmond, Indianapolis, (U.S.) from
2009 to 2010.
Under
the title, Dynasty and Divinity: Ife Art
in Ancient Nigeria, it was jointly organised by Museum of African Art, New
York, U.S., NCMM, the British Museum and Fundacion Marcelino Botin of Spain. In
2010, the show moved to the British Museum, London, as Kingdom of Ife: Sculptures From West Africa.
At
the second Conference on International
Cooperation for the Protection and Repatriation of Cultural Heritage held in
Lima, Peru, July, last year, Turkey joined countries such as Greece, Bolivia, Italy,
China, India, Peru, Libya, Syria and Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador Guatemala, India, Israel, Jordan, Korea that have
resolved to suspend cooperation with holders of looted or stolen artefacts.
According to the communiqué, the
gathering noted that “the capacity to effect positive change can be
strengthened if each country, within the provisions of its own legislation, and
with respect to the possibilities available to it, resolves to review its
scientific and academic relations with those institutions and individuals who
have conducted illegal excavations, and/or who hold pieces stolen or looted
from their country of origin.”
The gathering did not rule out what it
advised as “possibility of suspending scientific and academic cooperation,”
with the recalcitrant countries. And Turkey just appeared to have been the
first country to suspend cooperation with the holders of her cultural objects.
Although, Nigeria was present at
the first conference held in Cairo, it however
missed the Lima gathering. The Cairo event was organised by Egypt's Supreme
Council of Antiquities (SCA). At the end of the summit, the participating
countries declared: “We resolve to work together as a
group of states to improve substantially the current international system of
heritage protection.”
Observers are divided on the merits and demerits of joint exhibitions —
between holders and country of origins — as part of efforts to solicit
restitution of stolen or disputed cultural objects. Collaboration would
strengthen relationship with holder countries and perhaps lead to future
reparation of these artefacts, some have argued.
Others noted that such collaborations might offer leverage for the
holders of the works to maintain the current situation otherwise known as
‘universal museum.’
GHANAIAN
critic and commentator on restitution, Kwame Opoku is one of those that have
commended Turkey and argued that the decision “has the merit of concentrating the
mind on the basic issues of restitution.” He noted that governments and
institutions from countries with restitution claims are not consistent with
their agitations.
Opoku doubted the sincerity of such
agitations, wondering if they are genuine desire or just “simply propaganda,”
to pretend that the governments are truly working towards restitution, hence
keeping critics at distance.
Revisiting the Cairo gathering, Usman recalled that the conference urged
each country to pursue its demand or wish list, which is about top priority
works. Nigeria’s demand list, he explained, is large. “For us in Nigeria, our
demand list includes virtually all our objects outside the country. This is why
our approach will be different from Turkey’s or other countries, so there can’t
be a uniform approach by the countries.” Usman noted that the gathering was
meant to exchange ideas. He, however, disclosed that the NCMM has been in
fruitful discussions with holders such as British Museum, Germany and Austria
on the return of Nigeria’s looted artefacts.
Although collaboration through loaning of
non-disputed artefacts for exhibition appears to be giving the holders a
psychological warfare edge, it’s not a total loss to the original owners,
particularly developing countries like Nigeria.
However,
the capacity building-benefit of the collaboration, may, in the future, empower
the NCMM to carry out proper restoration and management of the collections
without depending on foreign expertise.
For example, after the Ife… exhibition
tour, Usman disclosed that the partnership has afforded NCMM an opportunity to
share experience and also acquire new skills and expertise in conserving and
presenting cultural heritage.”
In finding solution to restitution
issue, the Cairo gathering also agreed that “the focus of the third conference
will be on contributing to the process of updating and improvement that UNESCO
has initiated with regard to the Convention of 1970.”
No comments:
Post a Comment