Cambridge Museum Loans Ugandan Artefacts To Uganda. Will Loans Be The Future Status Of African Artefacts In Western Museums?

“Humanity's moral conscience progresses, slowly yet surely...” - Cheikh Anta Diop, Civilization or Barbarism

We read with interest recent reports that the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge, had returned 39 Ugandan artefacts to Uganda. (1) These items range from regalia to pottery. According to the report ‘The items remain the property of the collection of the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology at Cambridge, which is loaning them to Uganda for an initial period of three years.’

The report further reveals that the thirty-nine items ‘are a small fraction of about 1,500 ethnographic objects from Uganda that Cambridge has owned for a century. Most of these were acquired as donations from private collections, including those from an Anglican missionary active in Uganda in the 1890s and early 20th century, adding a significant historical context to these artefacts.

"It's about putting these objects back in the hands of the Ugandan people,"

Mark Elliott, the museum's senior curator in anthropology said. "These objects have been away from home for so long. The next step is to "research their contemporary significance and to help make decisions about their future."

Jackline Nyiracyiza, Ugandan Commissioner for Museums and Monuments, is reported to have said that the agreement with Cambridge, being renewable, allows for the possibility of a permanent loan and perhaps local ownership.

Some newspapers hailed the arrangement between Uganda and Cambridge as an important act of restitution. "This is the biggest single movement of objects returned to the African continent" in recent years" (2).

'The University of Cambridge returns 39 traditional artefacts to Uganda in a major act of restitution,' was the title of one report. (3)

Many of the items returned to the Uganda Museum were said to have been donated by a missionary anthropologist, John Roscoe (1861-1932), from the Anglican Missionary Society to East Africa. (4)

We would like to comment on some of these statements to avoid confusion about the nature and value of the returns from the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

Most of us will agree that a loan of an object should not be confused with restitution. Whereas restitution vests ownership in the recipient, the original African owner, in a loan, the Western Museum that has kept the artefact for over a hundred years remains the owner and expects the African borrower to return the item at the end of the term stipulated in the agreement.

The loan term for the Cambridge Museum and the Uganda Museum agreement is three years. We note that when African institutions loan objects to Western museums, they are usually for a longer term. For example, when Nigeria loaned Nok terracotta sculptures to France, the terms agreed upon for the loan were twenty years renewable. (5) When Nigeria recently loaned Benin artefacts to Germany, the agreed term was ten years renewable. (6) Nigeria's loan of Benin artefacts to the Smithsonian and the Horniman Museum

was also renewable for ten years. (7) However, when the British Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum loaned to Asante, Ghana, Asante gold objects stolen by the British army in 1874 during the invasion and burning of Kumase, the agreed term was three years renewable. (8)

A drum taken from Bunyoro, Uganda in 1920 and now returned.

Why do African institutions grant Western institutions longer-term loans while Western institutions grant only very short-term loans to African museums after the Europeans who stole the objects, mostly with violence and arson, have kept the objects for a hundred years? Is there any rational explanation for this different treatment except the reflection of the power differentials between African countries and Western powers?

The idea of the three-year loan started when the Benin Dialogue Group (BDG)formally rejected any idea of restitution of looted artefacts but presented a scheme of Western museums loaning Benin artefacts to Nigeria for a display in Benin City while these museums kept ownership. We criticized the group's formal rejection of restitution and earned criticism. (9)

A senior member of the Uganda National Commission on Museums and Monuments seems to entertain the illusion, encouraged by the Cambridge Museum, that the short-term loan may be converted into a permanent loan. Ugandan lawyers will no doubt explain that a loan is a loan, no matter how long the loan term may be. The jurists will also clarify that there is no such thing as local ownership. The Cambridge Museum remains owner of the loaned objects and any attempt by the Uganda institution to assert ownership will trigger a reminder of the terms of the original loan.

Readers no doubt know the dubious role Western missionaries played in the colonies; their collections of artefacts were no less objectionable than that of other colonialist agents. They insisted that all who converted to Christianism must do away with African artefacts that, in their opinion, represented African gods and fetishes that were incompatible with Christianity. New converts to Christianity had to surrender all such ‘pagan’ objects. Some artefacts were burnt in the presence of the new believers, but a lot more were transferred to the Western world, where they were donated to museums. Many western museums owe their foundation to donations by Christian missionaries. Jos van Beurden,

a Dutch restitution expert, has written about missionaries in his recent book, Inconvenient Heritage:

Colonial objects are not only to be found in the large ethnographic, art, and history museums or in municipal and university museums but also in museums of Roman Catholic and Protestant missionary congregations. Although some missionaries criticized the rough side of colonialism, most carried out their civilizing mission meticulously, and they destroyed and removed much cultural heritage, To house what they shipped to Europe they set up museums in their native countries, which have small collections and often also small numbers of visitors. But where, in this case. should their collections go? Do they consider return an option? (10)

We should point out that returning on loan thirty-nine artefacts out of the 1500 Ugandan objects that the Cambridge museum has been holding for over one hundred years despite requests from Uganda does not seem very impressive. We should add that the miserly London Museums, British Museum, and Victoria and Albert Museum, returned thirty-two artefacts on a three-year loan to Asante, Ghana. Germany, on the other hand, directly transferred full legal rights in 1300 Benin artefacts to Nigeria. (11)

Human hair head dress, Uganda.

The Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge, and Pitts-Rivers Museum, Oxford, were to sign agreements with Nigeria in 2023, transferring several Benin artefacts from the Pitts Rivers Museum, Oxford that holds 148 Benin pieces, and the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Cambridge, which holds 350 Benin objects. The museums took as a pretext for not proceeding with the arrangement a Nigerian government decree reiterating that restituted Benin bronzes go to the ownership and guardianship of the Oba of Benin. The ownership of the Oba of Benin has been known at least since 1897. The Cambridge Museum and Pitt-Rivers Museum and other Western institutions had hoped that the returned artefacts would go to a museum they intended to establish with a private consortium. These museums clearly never intended to return Benin artefacts to the Oba of Benin, from whose palace the treasures were brutally looted in 1897. (12) It is shameful when leading British university institutions pretend, they have no idea who the owner of the Benin artefacts was or that the artefacts belonged to the Oba. Have researchers on Benin culture written in vain over the years they produced learned books and articles on Benin at the various universities?

The British Museum, which has the largest number of Benin artefacts, nine hundred, and forty-four pieces under its control, is not prepared to return any Benin artefacts but is willing to grant a loan with a term of three years. Nigeria has rejected this insulting offer. Asante has accepted loans and so has Uganda. Are loans the future of looted African artefacts? It is perhaps too early to decide whether most Western museums and institutions, despite the recent moral revulsion at the implications of colonial loot, are finally willing or unwilling to return the treasures they have kept for over one hundred years. For every example of acceptance to restitute, like Germany, there is an example of determination not to return, such as the British Museum and Victoria and Albert Museum. The two opposing tendencies may co-exist in the same country.

Thus, while the major museums in Britain oppose restitution, other institutions, such as Horniman Museum, Jesus College, Cambridge, and Aberdeen University, have returned objects to Nigeria. In the United States, some institutions, such as the Smithsonian Institution and Fowler Museum, have restituted while others are still waiting. Some institutions that have returned objects, have made what can only be seen as token acts, such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, which returned three Benin artefacts to Nigeria but said nothing about the remaining 154 Benin artefacts it still holds In previous years, the Metropolitan Museum had 163 Benin items. Field Museum which holds 411 Benin items has not indicated whether it will return Benin treasures.

But Africans do not have to be idle while Western museums ponder what to do. Increased pressure, by all means, should be exercised on recalcitrant institutions. Above all, we should make clear that we are not deceived by attempts to present loans as some form of restitution or preliminary step to restitution. Loans are shameless efforts to avoid having to face the full implications of restitution: admission of colonial crimes, the need to apologize for the crimes of preceding generations, and the possibility of demands for compensation for the wanton destruction of villages, towns and properties, and loss of human lives and loss of use of artefacts.

If we make it easy for holders of looted artefacts by accepting excuses, such as that the internal law of the holding state does not allow for restitution or that they need time for provenance research, we should not be surprised that nobody takes seriously our demands for restitution.

As usual, the colonialists and imperialists want to have everything cheap, as they have done for centuries. They show, in all this, their profound lack of respect for Africans. Every step in the restitution debate presents an opportunity to invent new excuses. Consider, for example, the decision of the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge, and others not to finalize agreements with Nigeria as a reaction to the Nigerian government decree reiterating that Benin artefacts returned to Nigeria will be sent to the Oba of Benin. This elementary fact has been known for decades to all who dealt with issues relating to Benin artefacts.

So far, most discussions on restitution and the return of artefacts have been on Benin bronzes. Asante artefacts, as well as Ugandan artefacts, are recent additions. There is still, a need for more discussions on artefacts of other peoples and areas: Bambara, Baoule, Dan, Dogon, Fang, Fante, Gorou, Igbo, Nok, Yaouré. and Yoruba. The Western world must return these looted objects. The African struggle to recover looted colonial artefacts is not confined to Benin artefacts, even though these may be the most prominent because of the notorious violent British invasion of Benin City in 1897.

As we know, there is an enormous amount of looted African artefacts in Western museums:

70,000 in Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Paris,

69,000 British Museum, London,
180,000 in the Africa Museum, Tervuren, Belgium,

75,000 in the Humboldt Forum, Berlin, Germany,

37,000 in the Welt Museum, Vienna, Austria.
We have not included looted African treasures in the Vatican museums, the Catholic and Protestant missionary museums, in Belgium, Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Sweden.

The artefacts so far returned, as restitution or loan, are very few. Macron's promise in 2017 to restitute African artefacts in French museums resulted in twenty-six artefacts to the Benin Republic and one to Senegal. The actual number of returned objects by Western museums so far does not exceed 150. (13)

If we compare the number of returned objects to the number of looted African objects in European museums, we realise that only a tiny fraction of objects has been returned despite all the discussions and recent debates. It becomes evident that the Western powers are not yet ready to return African artefacts looted with violence and force in the colonial period and that Western museums have not completely abandoned the colonialist ideology that provided them with thousands of looted artefacts they cannot display, for lack of space and therefore keep in their depots.

Whatever Western States and their museums may finally decide to do with the thousands of looted African artefacts they now control, the direction of history is clear: restitution. There is no other alternative but to return the looted treasures of former colonies as requested by the United Nations/UNESCO since several decades. These artefacts lying in museum depots and serve no useful purpose except to affirm the military and economic superiority of Western States. That the former colonies have been unable to recover their artefacts after 60 years of Independence is a frightening testimony to the enduring power of neo-colonialism and cultural imperialism. That Western hegemony is partly ensured by ruling African elites, demonstrates the extent of colonial destruction of African culture and the alienation of the elites from African culture. We now even have some leading African intellectuals advocating for further re-enforcement and implantation of Western culture. They argue about Francophone and Anglophone Africa and ignore African languages such as Hausa, Swahili, and Yoruba, and sometimes even fight for French or English dominance.

Those who should be helping Africans to escape enslavement into Western culture seem more preoccupied with explaining the advantages being part of an Anglophone, Francophone or Lusophone or world instead of developing an Afriphone world. (14) Some African leaders and intellectuals are perfecting the destruction of African religion and culture. There is little evidence on the part of this elite of a strong determination to pursue an independent path of development away from the colonial and neo-colonial course. For them, African artefacts in Western museums are at home.

Kwame Opoku.
NOTES.

1. University of Cambridge returns 39 traditional artefacts to Uganda (voanews.com)

The University of Cambridge returns 39 traditional artefacts to Uganda in a major act of restitution https://apnews.com/article/uganda-cambridge-university-artefacts-return-b5e2eb50e56477872fd2afff8c0a3055#

Cambridge returns 39 artefacts to Uganda on loan https://www.africanews.com/2024/06/13/cambridge-returns-39-ugandan-artefacts-on-loan/Uganda reclaims 39 artefacts from Cambridge University https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/news/national/uganda-reclaims-39-artefacts-from-cambridge-university-4651974

2. https://apnews.com/article/uganda-cambridge-university-artefacts-returnb5e2eb50e56477872fd2afff8c0a3055
3. Missionary collections of African artefacts John Roscoe. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/John_Roscoe
4. John roscoe, https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG127740 https://www.nature.com/articles/130917a0

5. Folarin Shyllon, Negotiations for the Return of Nok Sculptures from France to Nigeria – An Unrighteous Conclusion https://ial.uk.com/product/negotiations-for-the-return-of-nok-sculptures-from-france-to-nigeria-an-unrighteous-conclusion-%EF%BC%88folarin-shyllon%EF%BC%89/

K. Opoku, Revisiting Looted Nigerian Nok Terracotta Sculptures in Louvre/Musée du Quai Branly, Paris, https://www.africavenir.org/en/revisiting-looted-nigerian-nok-terracotta-sculptures-in-louvre-musee-du-quai-branly-paris/

6. Smithsonian Returns 29 Benin Bronzes to the National Commission for Museums and Monuments in Nigeria https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/smithsonian-returns-29-benin-bronzes-national-commission-museums-and-monuments

7. Return of Benin Bronzes from the Ethnologisches Museum: Artefacts Now in Nigerian Hands https://www.smb.museum/en/whats-new/detail/return-of-benin-bronzes-from-the-ethnologisches-museum-artefacts-now-in-nigerian-hands/

8. K. Opoku, British Museum And Victoria And Albert Museum Loan Looted Asante Artefacts To Asante /Ghana: Where Is The Morality? https://www.modernghana.com/news/1295729/british-museum-and-victoria-and-albert-museum-loan.html

9. K. Opoku Benin Dialogue Group Removes Restitution Of Benin Artefacts From Its Agenda https://www.modernghana.com/news/924239/benin-dialogue-group-removes-restitution-of-benin-artefacts.html

10. Jos van Beurden, Inconvenient Heritage, p.177, Amsterdam University Press, 2021. Readers who want to study the question may also look at

Annie E. Coombes, Reinventing Africa, Yale University Press,1997.

Jeanette Greenfield, The Return of Cultural Treasures, Cambridge University Press, 2007. Carsten Stahn, Confronting Colonial Objects, Oxford University Press, 2023.

Laurick Zerbini, L’objet africain dans les expositions et les musée missionnaires (XIX_XXI), Maisonneuve & Larose, Nouvelles Editions, 2021.

Richard Hölz, Gläubige Imperialisten. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt,2021.

Kwame Opoku, Could the Catholic Church's Ethnology Museum be holding artefacts with doubtful histories? https://www.africaspeaks.com/reasoning/index.php?topic=10059.0;wap2

Kentey Pini-Pini Nassay, Croisade de l’Europe christianisée contre l’Afrique ancestrale, Tome I, Pour comprendre l’effroyable, interminable et cruelle mise à mort du peuple Kongo-Katiopa, 2017.RDC.

Croisade de l’Europe christianisée contre l’Afrique ancestrale, Tome II, La guerre permanente en Afrique, Editions AfricAvenir, 2018, Doula-Berlin-Vienna.

11. Joint Declaration on the Return of Benin Bronzes and Bilateral Museum Cooperation, between Germany and Nigeria,1 July 2022, https://www.auswaertigesamt.de/blob/2540404/8a42afe8f5d79683391f8188ee9ee016/220701-benin-bronzen-polerkl-data.pdf

Reuters, Germany signs deal to give ownership of Benin Bronzes to Nigeria https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-signs-deal-give-ownership-benin-bronzes-nigeria-2022-08-25/

Benin Bronzes: Germany returns looted artefacts to Nigeria https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-64038626

UNESCO welcomes the signing of a historic agreement between Germany and Nigeria for the return of Benin bronzes https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-welcomes-signing-historic-agreement-between-germany-and-nigeria-return-1130-benin-bronzes

K. Opoku, Germany Transfers Legal Rights in Benin Artefacts to Nigeria https://www.modernghana.com/news/1168634/germany-transfers-legal-rights-in-benin-artefacts.html

12. K. Opoku, Benin Bronzes Belong to Oba of Benin

https://www.modernghana.com/news/1105713/benin-bronzes-belong-to-oba-of-benin.html

13. The figure of 150 includes only the artefacts that have been physically returned to Africa since Macron’s famous speech in 2017. Thus, we do not include all the 1300 Benin artefacts that Germany legally transferred to Nigeria by agreement dated 25 August 2022, (Agreement on the Return of Benin Bronzes between the Stiftung Preussicher Kulturbesitz and the Federal Republic of Nigeria). This agreement referred to two appendices, Appendix 1(Objects to be returned to Nigeria in the short term) and Appendix 2 (Objects which will remain on loan). These appendices have not been published and according to reliable sources will not be made available to the public. Thus, one does not know which of the artefacts in Germany will in due course be transferred to Nigeria and which objects are on ten years automatically renewable loan. We understand that each of the German museums with Benin artefacts will keep a third of what it holds at the time of the signing of the agreement.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/20/germany-returns-21-benin-bronzes-to-nigeria-amid-frustration-at-britain

At the time of signing the agreement we had the following figures for Benin bronzes in German museums:

Ethnologisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin/Humboldt Forum, Berlin-518,

Staatliche Ethnographische Sammlungen Sachsen und Staatliche Kunstsammlung Dresden, 283,

MARKK, Museum am Rothenbaum Kulturen und Künste der Welt Hamburg 179,

Rautenstrauch -Joest,- Museum, Cologne 92,
Linden Museum, Stuttgart, Staatliches Museum für Völkerkunde 69.

14. Adams Bodomo, Afriphone Literature as a Prototypical form of African Literature: Insights from Prototype Theory https://www.academia.edu/29066499/Afriphone_Literature_as_a_Prototypical_form_of_African_Literature_Insights_from_Prototype_Theory