Labels

Ill-Gotten Gains: Repatriation & Decolonising Museums

Museums are not neutral. Many collections are rooted in racism; the cultural result of colonial enterprise. As such, it is a common misconception that museums are not 'political'. Ongoing practices in museums also continue to exclude marginalised people. This has been known for many years, yet there are still only tokenistic changes to address these issues. In this post I discuss repatriation of material culture and decolonising our museums.

The Benin Plaques, British Museum

The Benin Bronzes

Wandering around the British Museum, surrounded by some of the most exquisite objects from around the world, I do not feel at ease. Could this statue be stolen? Has someone requested its return? 

Not everyone is aware of the colonial legacies within our museums. Many museum collections in the UK grew as the British Empire expanded, as such it is impossible to separate these objects from our colonial past. But denying the full 'story' skews history.

I turn a corner and there they are, the ‘Benin Plaques’, probably the most high-profile of objects related to this debate. The ‘Benin Bronzes’, an umbrella term for a huge collection of artefacts, were looted by British troops from Benin City (situated in Nigeria). The label states:
‘In March 1897, retaliating for the killing of British representatives, a punitive expedition conquered the capital. Thousands of treasures were taken as booty, including around 1000 brass plaques from the palace.
The Foreign Office auctioned the official booty to cover the cost of the expedition. Large numbers of ivories, brass and wood works were retained and sold by the officers. 
Benin treasures caused an enormous sensation, fuelling an appreciation for African art which profoundly influenced 20th century Western art. 
About 16 museums, mostly in Britain and Germany, purchased the works, notably the British Museum and Berlin Museum. In the 1970s, interest in Benin grew. Now, around 85 museums in 18 countries have Benin collections the largest being in Britain, Germany, the US and Nigeria. 
Between the 1950s and the 1970s the British Museum sold around 30 objects to Nigeria.’ 
The BM website says that it is ‘engaged in dialogue with museum colleagues in Benin City and Nigeria regarding these objects’. This institution, like many others, is famous for the lack of discussion over restitution.

Since the 1960s, Nigeria has repeatedly called for the repatriation of these important objects. Recently, major museums across Europe have agreed to loan artefacts back to Nigeria for a new museum planned to open in 2021. Many argue that this does not go far enough.

The Benin Plaques, British Museum

Who owns culture?

Below is a list some of the arguments used against object repatriation, I'm not sure how many of these stand up:
  • Legislative barriers - e.g. the British Museum Act 1963 allows for the disposal of collection items only in limited circumstances
  • Challenges concerning to whom the object ‘belongs’, particularly when the continuity of cultural groups changes over time
  • Returning the object would be to the detriment of the ‘world community’
  • Repatriation limits displaying objects in their country of origin, thus preventing people from learning about different cultures
  • Inadequate conditions to house the objects to prevent their deterioration
  • Unstable political situations 
  • Lack of object history - sometimes museums do not know the conditions under which objects were acquired.
Firstly, this 1963 Act - perhaps an update? In 2009-10 an amendment to the Act was proposed to broaden the circumstances for object disposal (transferring ownership) but the bill did not progress (I've sent a FOI Request). 

Source communities surely have a stronger ‘claim’, and there is something brutish in the ‘my museum is best placed for the world to see this object’ attitude. 

Is anyone actually saying that all objects should only be shown in their country of origin? The notion that our galleries will be empty if all repatriation requests are accepted is ludicrous. A huge problem for museums is storing an ever-expanding collection; there is plenty to go around. 

Even when a museum has been specially built to house a requested object, as seen with the Acropolis Museum that still awaits the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles, repatriation requests continue to be refused.

If acquisition history is unknown and an object is requested by the community of origin, perhaps it should be returned just in case? 

To be clear, not all objects in museums were taken in morally-dubious circumstances, for example exchange of gifts between different countries has been a means of diplomacy for many years. However, the fact is that some objects were looted or taken coercively and a lack of transparency about collection history means that the viewer is denied the full picture. 

Decolonising Our Museums

At the BM, 'compensatory' measures to address the colonial histories are shown in some objects that have been singled out with labels detailing their acquisition information. However, museums must strive for permanent, wholesale change. That is not to say they should paint over the unsavoury aspects of history, but challenge narratives that contribute to 'othering' and add context that has been deliberately ignored over generations. This is 'decolonising museums'. 

Museums have contributed to wider social processes of 'othering' (treating a group of people as intrinsically different from oneself) in the following ways:
  • Hierarchical arrangement - ever noticed how in some museums 'other' cultures occupy the lower levels, while European artefacts are situated on the upper floors?*
  • Presentation of partial, biased or absent histories 
  • These objects are often within 'world culture' museums as opposed to an art gallery, meaning that they are viewed from an ethnographic (the study of human cultures) perspective
  • Not consulting with the communities whose culture is on display**
While many have altered their displays, we must challenge museums to rethink excluding narratives that remain. An important part of decolonising our museums is also being open to repatriating objects. This is about power. 

The British Museum

Relinquishing Power

Cambridge University handed back a Benin bronze cockerel to Nigeria following student pressure to repatriate the plundered object, and the University of Manchester returned Aboriginal artefacts. I can't help but wonder, what would be the ripple effect if the British Museum relinquished their power over the Benin Bronzes? If students could harness the return of a Benin cockerel to Nigeria, could a public outcry induce the BM to take the necessary actions to return these objects? 

This post does not even scratch the surface. I mention one collection of objects, one museum and do not even begin to discuss the lack of diversity across the museum workforce.

We cannot cut the tie between our museums and colonial pasts; many were born out of the imperial moment. Yet museums have the potential to be socially-engaged spaces in our communities, acting as agents of positive change. To be this, there is simply no room for ambiguity towards object repatriation or how objects with colonial histories are displayed. Too much emphasis is placed on what is lost, and not enough on what can be gained.




All images are my own. 

* I. Kart snd C. Kranz, 'Reflections of the fate of Tippoo's Tiger: defining cultures through public display', in E. Hallam and B. V.  Street (eds), Cultural Encounters: Representing 'Otherness', London and New York: Routledge, 2000.

** From Richard Sandell, 'Constructing and Communicating Equality', in Reshaping Museum Space: Architecture, Design, Exhibitions, edited by Suzanne Macleod, Oxon and New York: Routledge 2005.

Object information is from the British Museum.



Art Stuff Matters (creators of #MuseumsAreNotNeutral):https://artstuffmatters.wordpress.com/ 


Labels: