Feature Article : "The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of Modernghana.com."

The striding and perhaps, growling, lion is surely an appropriate symbol for the power and influence of the three countries, France, Great Britain and Germany at the time that most of the valuable cultural objects were removed from Mesopotamia and other parts of the world.
Processional Way, Detail: Striding lion, Babylon, Irak, 6th century BC, clay tiles, baked and glazed in various colours © Vorderasiatisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Photo: Maximilian Meisse.

The objective of the current exhibition (26 June - 5 October 2008) in the Pergamon Museum, Berlin, entitled “Babylon: Myth and Truth”, is, according to the official website, “to explore the myth of Babel and the true facts surrounding the ancient city of Babylon: two worlds - one exhibition”. (1) A related Babylon exhibition has already been held in Paris (14 March - 2 June 2008) and another one will be held in London (13 November 2008 - 15 March 2009). The legends and symbolism arising from the myths of Babylon - Sodom and Gomorrah, myths of unrestrained hedonism, Tower of Babel - linguistic multiplicity and confusion, imprisonment and racial oppression, are no doubt very interesting and important and will be discussed by many commentators on the exhibition.(2) Not all visitors to the exhibition may be aware that Bob Marley and the Wailers, echoing Rastafarian beliefs and reflecting the views of many Africans and people of African descent, designated as Babylon the oppressive economic system and political hegemony of the West:

“Yeah, we've been trodding on
The winepress much too long
Rebel, Rebel
We've been trodding on the
Winepress much too long, Rebel” (3)


Bob Marley and the Wailers, Babylon by Bus,1978

Our interest is in what, for lack of a better expression, may be called the cultural property relations arising from the retention of objects that have been admittedly removed from Mesopotamia/Iraq and neighbouring States. These States are paradoxically, now under enormous pressure from those very States that are keeping their cultural objects. The one is occupied and the other is under threats of invasion. The Babylon exhibition, like the Benin exhibition, will undoubtedly give further impulse to the discussions on the restitution of cultural property, irrespective of the intentions or wishes of the organizers. (4) It is to this discussion that we would like to contribute, leaving the other issues for the specialists.

Already, all those who have seriously commented on the Berlin exhibition have alluded to the fact that most of the objects displayed, insofar as they are not replicas, are of contestable legitimacy and legality. Many of the objects derived from the early 19th century when much of the area of Mesopotamia and neighbouring regions were not independent and the so-called partage system, much beloved by supporters of the “universal museum”, was applied. It enabled European and American States and their archaeologists to stow away much of the cultural property of Asia, African and Latin America to Europe.(5)

A remarkable aspect of this exhibition is the fact that it has been organized by the National Museums in Berlin, jointly with the Musée du Louvre in Paris and the British Museum in London, three of the major museums in Europe that have benefited tremendously from the partage system of the past and are now facing demands from several Asian and African countries for restitution of their cultural objects that have been illegally or illegitimately taken away. Egypt is requesting the bust of Nefertiti, now in the Altes Museum, Berlin and the Rosetta Stone, now in the British Museum, London and the zodiac ceiling painting from the Dendera Temple, now in the Louvre, Paris. Also on the Egyptian list are the bust of Ankhhaf, the architect of the Chephren Pyramid in Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, and the statue of Hemiunu, nephew of the Pharaoh Khufu and builder of the largest pyramid, in Pelizius Museum, Hildesheim, Germany.

It should be recalled that the Musée du Louvre and the State Museums in
Berlin, were signatories of the infamous Declaration on the Value and Importance of Universal Museums (2002) initiated by the British Museum but not signed by the venerable museum. (6) By this Declaration, the major museums declared their intention of not returning to the so-called “source countries” their cultural objects which had been removed in the past and are now in American and European museums.

Bernhard Schulz wrote in an article “Wem gehört die Antike?” that in the present exhibition, the original of the Hammurabi Code which is in Louvre was not sent to Berlin.(7) Instead, a replica was exhibited, indicating that the original is in Louvre. The commentator raises the question whether the average visitor to the exhibition would have noticed that this was a replica if he or she had not been informed. He also wonders whether this would have reduced the value of the knowledge or the experience gained through the exhibition. This of course raises the fundamental question whether European and American museums really need the originals of all the stolen cultural objects in the museums. They have had enough time to make good replicas of the objects. If the aim of the museums were only educational, surely the replicas would be enough. There is, in retaining the stolen cultural objects of other peoples, an element of domination, a demonstration of power and might which cannot be ignored. The mighty ones are saying, we have your most cherished cultural and religious objects and we are not giving them back to you. If you are strong enough, come and get them. It is no accident that the countries retaining foreign cultural objects have also been the most powerful in the past and are still powerful. Did anyone ever hear of a weak African or Asian country retaining a cultural object of the French, British, Germans or the Americans and refusing to return them despite repeated requests?

Bernhard Schulz mentions in his article that the Hammurabi Codex was brought to Paris in 1901 as “excavation piece” (“Ausgrabungsstück”). It had been discovered in the old Persian town of Susa, now in Iran and asks whether it should be returned there. His answer is no. According to him, 600 years after the Codex had been established, the Alamites had robbed the codex from Babylon and brought it to their capital Susa. The Hammurabi Codex is, according to Schulz, the oldest known example of looted art, which, “incidentally is in history the most frequent practised form of acquisition and at the same time the appreciation (“Wertschätzung”) of foreign culture.”


Wikipedia = Ishtar Gate and façade of the Throne Room. Babylon, Irak, 6th century BC.
Clay tiles, baked and glazed in various colours, now in Pergamon Museum, Berlin,(8)

Schulz's statement is truly remarkable. The Hammurabi Code should not be returned from Paris to Susa because it had been taken previously from Babylon. To start with, taking a cultural object from Babylon to Susa is surely not the same as taking the object from Susa to Paris. The circumstances of the removal from Babylon to Susa surely cannot be compared to those surrounding the removal from that area far away to a foreign culture and land. In any case, to argue that one should not return a stolen item because the dispossessed holder had himself stolen it in the first place is a morally objectionable argument. How would European courts react if Africans, Asians and Latin American started removing objects from European and American museums on the ground that the items had been stolen in the first place? Stealing from a thief is still stealing. Once again the supporters of the retention of stolen cultural items in European museums display their moral bankruptcy by such arguments. We may recall the case of the Tonalamad Aubin where a Mexican journalist José Luis Castaneda de Valle removed in 1982 an ancient 18 page Aztec codex from the Bibliothèque National in Paris and took it back to Mexico where it was handed over to the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia. The French requested the return of the codex. The defence of Mr Castenada was that he had recovered part of Mexico's cultural heritage which had been taken away from the country a century ago by the Spanish conquerors. A wave of nationalism emerged from this case and the French still have not got it back. (9) Do we want to encourage such actions?

With time of course, these stolen cultural objects have become magnets of attraction for millions of tourists to the countries holding them and despite the rhetoric on these objects belonging to the “heritage of mankind”, there is no sign that the holders are prepared to relinquish this profitable source of income. On the contrary, the rich countries are continuing to steal more cultural objects from wherever they can. The looting of Iraqi cultural objects is too recent to forget even in this era of short memory. Important European and American museum directors and others are still insisting on a right to retain these cultural objects as part of the heritage of mankind. James Cuno, Director of the Art Institute of Chicago, continues to defend this line of thinking even though many intellectuals have objected to this policy. Cuno has in his recent book, Who owns Antiquity? defended this position and has been massively criticised. (10)

Another argument which has been presented by some commentators on the Babylon exhibition, including Bernhard Schulz, is that an object of research such as the Ischtar Gate is the achievement of German archaeology as well as part of the German identity. This is a very interesting argument. Will the Germans claim some of the buildings by German architects in Beijing as part of the German cultural identity? Will they claim some of the innovations by Karl Lagerfeld in the Parisian haute couture as part of the German cultural identity? Will the various constructions in the rich Arab countries become part of the German identity? Will the Americans claim some of the achievements of their scientists as part of their cultural identity? What about the non-American scientists and scholars who may have been involved in researches that enabled the final breakthroughs? It is evident that those supporting the retention of the cultural objects of others will use every argument, tenable or not, to support their retention. The absurdity of claiming as part of German cultural identity the discovery or excavation of the cultural objects of others is too obvious to require further elaboration. The Germans have an expression: “sich mit fremden Federn schmücken” meaning to take credit for the efforts of somebody else. There is no doubt that these artecrafts and objects were by the Babylonians and not Germans.

It may be recalled in this connection that the Germans are demanding from the Poles some precious documents, including hundreds of scores and music manuscripts of Mozart, Beethoven and Bach that the German brought to Poland to protect them from the air-raids over Berlin in late 1943 and early 1944. The Nazi regime was occupying Poland at this time. Since the end of the war, the Germans have requested restitution but with little success. The Poles are expecting payment for damages caused by the German occupation, including the destruction and looting of Polish cultural objects. Would the Germans accept that the objects they claim have become part of Polish identity? Would the objects not qualify as part of Polish culture under the prescription of the Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums? Given the extremely complicated and involved nature of Germano-Polish relations and the fact that both Germany and Poland are members of the European Union, could one not envisage a European Museum in Poland where all such objects could be placed? (11)

In any case, whilst the German are asking for restitution from the Poles, they may wish to consider restitution of the Benin bronzes to the Nigerians. Bernhard Schulz has stated that among claims for restitution, that for the Benin bronzes is not as popular as that for the bust of Nefertiti or the Pergamon Altar. The reasons are not far to find. Until the recent Benin exhibition in Vienna, Paris, Berlin and Chicago most of the Benin bronzes had not been displayed by the holders. There are still a lot of these objects which were stolen by the British in the 1897 invasion which have not been shown to the public. Like the majority of African artefacts in the European and American museums, they are spending their lonely, sad and foreign sojourn in the dark corners of the cold depots of European and American museums. They were not created for this existence. They were destined for a much brighter and hopeful future in the societies where they first saw the light of the day. This uncared for existence gives the lie to the claim of the infamous Declaration on the Importance and Value of the Universal Museums that:

“Over time, objects so acquired—whether by purchase, gift, or partage—have
become part of the museums that have cared for them, and by extension part of the heritage of the nations which house them.”

It is possible that the use of a replica of the Hammurabi Code in the present exhibition may be explained on the ground that it is not allowed by rules of the Louvre for such objects to travel because of the weight or other technical problems involved. It could also well be that the strategists at the Louvre, with the agreement of their colleagues from the British Museum and the State Museums in Berlin, have come to the conclusion that in view of the requests by Egypt for Nefertiti, Zodiac ceiling panting and the Rosetta Stone, it would be wise not to let this code travel so that a future argument based on technical or conservatory reasons is not weakened. However, it seems odd that objects that were able to travel in the olden days when transport methods and packing facilities were not very advanced, cannot travel in our days despite all the enormous progress made in transportation.


Wikipedia = Hammurabi Code, back side, Babylon, Irak, now in Louvre Paris.

However Western museums and their supporters present the issue of the looted/stolen cultural objects, it cannot be denied that the justifications they might have had in the days when Western imperialism reigned supreme, are no longer acceptable. There is no doubt that from a moral point of view, the retention of the cultural objects of other peoples against their will is not conducive to better and friendly relations between peoples. Most of these stolen objects are lying in the dark depots of Western Museums which have more objects than they can display. Most persons in Europe and America are not aware of the stolen treasures in their towns and the argument that these African, Asian and Oceanian artefacts have become part of the culture of Europeans and Americans, as the infamous Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums tries to make us believe, is simply not true.  Continued    Source: Kwame Opoku, Dr.

"The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of Modernghana.com." To have your articles publish, please submit them to editor@modernghana.com.

Other Articles by Kwame Opoku, Dr.