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

In his review of Cuno's Who owns Antiquities?, (www.savingantiquities.org) Lord Renfrew sees as a weakness in Cuno's argument a confusion between antiquities looted in recent times and plunder by imperial powers and declares:

“But the issues in the two cases – modern, clandestine looting, versus colonial or imperial appropriation, mainly during the nineteenth century and by the leading world powers of the day – are not the same”.

Lord Renfrew also agrees with the underlying assumption of Cuno's book despite his criticism of specific points: “Most of us would share the aspiration underlying Cuno's question 'Who owns art?' that the past is the inheritance of us all”.

When I read these statements, I had a feeling and suspicion that the noble archaeologist, for whom I have the greatest respect like many of those concerned with restitution and the fight against illicit traffic in cultural objects, was going to defend colonial plunder and loot. Fortunately, he stopped short of explicit endorsement and did not elaborate further on the distinction between colonial plunder and modern loot. I pondered over these statements and concluded that suspicion is not evidence and we should leave the matter as it stood. However, I read a few days ago in the Financial Times (www.ft.com) and at Looting Matters further statements from Lord Renfrew which caused me some worries and revived my early suspicions:

“I'm much in favour of collecting, so long as it doesn't involve objects recently taken from the ground. In my opinion all too many collections are scandalous for this very reason. I don't mind so much people buying antiquities looted a century ago, but not if the items in question entered the market post-1970 when the convention on the illegal trade in antiquities was signed.”

What this statement means is that plunder and loot of some hundred years ago is fine with the noble lord. He reinforces this position with reference to 1970, the date of the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

To hear from a leading archaeologist that a period of hundred years is sufficient for us to forget looting and plunder of cultural objects came to me as a shock. I have always argued and still argue that hundred years may be a long time in the life of a person but for a people or a community, hundred years are like yesterday. Injustices of the past hundred years are felt by the victims and their successors as if they were committed only yesterday. I need not furnish here the examples of felt injustices of the past which are still causing eruptions of violence and disorder in the world. Lord Renfrew surely knows that such injustices are still intensely felt today and will continue to be so until attempts are made to resolve the issues or assuage the pains and anger of the victims and their successors. Do archaeologists who deal with issues and objects of thousands of years ago view hundred years as a longer period than we the ordinary average persons?

If we were to accept the time limit of a century stated by Lord Renfrew, we would not need to worry about Nefertiti, the Rosetta Stone, the Parthenon/Elgin Marbles, the Benin Bronzes and a whole lot of cultural artefacts which were looted/stolen in the colonial and imperialist period.

Lord Renfrew calls in support of his closure of century old plunder and loot, the

1970 UNESCO Convention and implicitly leaves the impression that the Convention forecloses looting and stealing before 1970. This is a usage of the Convention which is wide-spread in western art circles; the impression that unlawful and illegitimate acquisition of cultural objects before 1970 need not or cannot be raised or discussed. This position is not supported by the Convention.

Article 15 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, which has been conveniently forgotten or overlooked by many commentators, provides as follows:

”Nothing in this Convention shall prevent States Parties thereto from concluding special agreements among themselves or from continuing to implement agreements already concluded regarding the restitution of cultural property removed, whatever the reason, from its territory of origin, before the entry into force of this Convention for the States concerned.”

In his Commentary on the 1970 UNESCO Convention (Second Ed. 2007, p.89). Patrick J.O'Keefe states: “During the drafting process one delegation pointed out that Article 15 does not restrict the rights of States to conclude bilateral agreements for the restitution of cultural property removed from the territory of another State before or after the entry into force of the Convention.”

The non-retroactivity of the 1970 Convention does not imply approval or disapproval of transactions made before the entry into force of the Convention. Nor does this Convention solve the moral and other questions regarding the legitimacy of colonialist and imperialist plunders. Those issues are still pending.

Can scholars and other intellectuals honestly hide behind the 1970 Convention and refuse to enter discussions on the moral issues involved in colonial plunder and loot? Can any honest person seek to justify the retention of looted cultural objects by simply refusing to discuss the issue?

It is also remarkable that many western commentators write as if the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen and Illegally Exported Cultural Objects did not exist. Article 10 (3) of this Convention provides that:

“This Convention does not in any way legitimise any illegal transaction of whatever nature which has taken place before the entry into force of this Convention or which is excluded under paragraphs (1) or (2) of this article, nor limit any right of a State or other person to make claim under remedies available outside the framework of this Convention for the restitution or return of a cultural object stolen or illegally exported before the entry into force of this Convention.”

Thus a State can claim the return of stolen or looted cultural objects, in private law, by bilateral negotiations and agreement or through the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation.

It should also be noticed that the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention provides in its Article 9(1) that: “Nothing in this Convention shall prevent a Contracting State from applying any rules more favourable to restitution or the return of stolen or illegally exported cultural objects than provided by this Convention.”

Lord Renfrew is surely aware that the new rules of the American Association of Museums (AAM) issued on 11 August, 2008, , Standards Regarding Archaeological Material and Ancient Art go beyond the 1970 cut-off date and provide that “Beyond the requirements of U.S. law, museums should not acquire any object that, to the knowledge of the museum, has been illegally exported from its country of modern discovery or the country where it was last legally owned”. No limitation by date is included in this rule so that acquisitions before 1970 are also covered and not explicitly excluded. The AAM rules are aimed at breaking the automatic reflex of many westerners to become legalistic and hang on to some rule that helps to avoid examining the complex moral and ethical considerations that are involved in questions of the provenance of cultural artefacts prior to acquisition. Is Professor Renfrew going to step back from the new rules and encourage an adherence to 1970 that would exclude examination of old acquisitions which continue to raise doubts in the museum world? 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.