Loans: Musée Du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac ‘lends’ Looted African Artefacts

Crowned head of an Ooni, Yoruba, Nigerian National Commission for Museums and Monuments, Abuja, Nigeria.

'Europe would have done better to tolerate the non-European civilizations at its side, leaving them alive, dynamic, and prosperous, whole and not mutilated; that it would have been better to let them develop and fulfil themselves than to present for our admiration, duly labelled, their dead and scattered parts; that anyway, the museum by itself is nothing; that it means nothing; vanity can say nothing, when smug self-satisfaction rots the eyes, when a secret contempt for others withers the heart, when racism, admitted or not, dries up sympathy; that it means nothing if its only purpose is to feed the delights of vanity.'

Aimé Césaire, Discourse on Colonialism (1955)

The Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Paris, has loaned looted African artefacts to the Louvre Abu-Dhabi for an exhibition entitled 'Kings and Queens of Africa: Forms and Figures of Power, which runs from 29 January to 25 May 2025. (1)

The exhibition displays sculptures, royal portraits, ceremonial objects, and textiles that show the apparent connections between art and royal power in Africa. Most people know that royal attire, stools, and sculptures depict the lasting relations between royal power and artistic legacy. Asante art and Benin art abundantly demonstrate the spirituality and sophistication of African culture before and after the savage colonial devastation.

African peoples and States have been requesting for several decades the restitution of their precious artefacts that were looted with violence during the colonial period by Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, Holland, Italy, Portugal, and other former colonial powers. (2)

After decades of stubborn refusal to discuss the question of restitution and after uncountable resolutions of the UNESCO and United Nations urging the return of artefacts to their countries of origin, the former colonial powers gradually began to show a willingness to discuss the issue.

President Macron of France declared in 2017 in a speech at the University of Ouagadougou that African artworks must be displayed not only in Paris but also in Dakar, Lagos, and Cotonou. The president declared that within 5 years, conditions must be established for the restitution of looted African artefacts in French museums. A report commissioned by Macron and submitted by Felwine Sarr and Bénédicte Savoy, The Restitution of African Cultural Heritage.

Toward a New Relational Ethics(2018) established that there were 90,000

looted African artefacts in France and recommended that they be returned to their countries of origin. (3)

Following Macron's historic declaration, France returned in 2021 to the Republic of Benin twenty-six out of five thousand artefacts that a French invasion army under Amédée Dodds had looted from the Royal Palace of Abomey in 1892. A sword was also returned to Senegal.

The French have often justified their reluctance or inability to restitute looted African artefacts with arguments that:

• The objects were subject to the rule of inalienability of State property under French law, and specific legislation was required to authorize their restitution.
• The artworks were legally acquired.
• African countries lack facilities for preserving the objects.
• It is unclear to whom these objects should be returned since the people who created them no longer exist or are now found in two different States.

It is clear that Western countries and museums do not intend to return many of the looted African artefacts. Germany has returned about twenty-two Benin artefacts to Nigeria and has signed agreements with Nigeria regarding many of the Benin bronzes that have been loaned to Germany after it had returned legal rights in some thousand and thirty artefacts to Nigeria. British institutions such as the Horniman Museum in London, Aberdeen University, and Jesus College, Cambridge, have returned a few Benin bronzes to Nigeria, whilst the British Museum, which holds 900 Benin pieces, refuses to contemplate the eventual possibility of restitution of looted African artefacts, hiding behind the argument that the British Museum Act of 1963 prevents restitution. The British Museum continues to respond to questions about the restitution of Benin artefacts by giving vague and irrelevant answers. “The British Museum takes its commitment to being a world museum seriously.’’ Statement by a British Museum spokeswoman in response to demand by Pokomo(Kenya) for the return of their looted ancestral drum. https://www.modernghana.com/news/968851/some- have-waited-for-100-years-others-are-tired.html

The Victoria and Albert Museum in London, which is holding illegally thousands of looted Ethiopian artefacts the British looted from Magdala in 1868, is also not in a hurry for restitution (4)

The British Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum have recently returned to Asante on' loan' a few golden Asante artefacts the British Army stole in their notorious invasion of Kumase in 1874.

Pitt-Rivers Museum and the Archaeological and Anthropological Museum, Cambridge, used the pretext that the Nigerian Government had recognized the ownership of the Oba of Benin in the Benin artefacts as a ground for refusal to sign an agreement with the Nigerian Commission On Museums and Monuments. The two leading UK museums alleged the artefacts were going to a private person when the Government recognized the fact of the ownership of the Benin artefacts by the Oba from whose Palace the objects were stolen in 1897 by the British invasion army. Now that the National Commission has signed a management agreement with the Oba, entrusting the Commission with repatriating, managing, displaying, and conserving the Benin artefacts, we hope those museums will return looted Benin and other African artefacts.

American institutions such as the Smithsonian, Stanley Museum, Iowa, and Fowler Museum, UCLA, Los Angeles, have restituted artefacts to African countries. After raising hopes for a long time, The Netherlands finally resolved to return 119 Benin artefacts to Nigeria. It would be interesting to know whether the Dutch, like the Smithsonian, the Horniman Museum, and Germany would seek to secure a loan of artefacts from Nigeria before any transfer of artefacts and whether, like the case of Germany, many of the Benin treasures would stay in Holland and not physically be moved to Nigeria. The Dutch restitution concerns only those Benin artefacts that were proved to be linked to the 1897 invasion by the British. Thus, several Benin and other African artefacts remain in Dutch institutions.

An important question regarding the loans by Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac to Louvre Abu Dhabi is whether such loans can be considered legal and legitimate. Can a former colonial power loan to other States or museums artefacts stolen under the colonial regime? The answer is no. The old Roman law principle Nemo dat quod non-habit, a person cannot transfer what he does not legally own. Or do the museums function as agents of the owners?

The Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac shamelessly tries to minimize

the illegitimacy, illegality, and immorality of lending looted African artefacts to third parties by suggesting that some of the stolen artefacts were legally acquired and that there are still doubts about their status, which have to be clarified by provenance research. In a note found on the page of Louvre Abu Dhabi announcing the exhibition Kings and Queens of Africa, Forms and Figures of Power, we read as follows:

Some of the African objects that are now preserved in Musée du Quai Branly – Jacques Chirac ended up in Europe during that time, having been brought back to Europe by soldiers, missionaries or colonial officials. Some of these items – where it has been established that they were obtained illegally – are now being restored to their African countries of origin by the Western museums.

However, the history of the collections from Africa is ancient and diverse. Many objects entered French collections prior to colonisation, as a result of exploratory expeditions organised from the 15th century onwards, or as diplomatic gifts. Or they may have been produced specifically for elite European buyers – as was the case of certain ivory pieces. In the 19th century, many objects entered the museums following universal exhibitions or world fairs. Others were brought back by scientists or adventurers who had explored the interior of the African continent, which at the time was still largely unknown to Westerners. Throughout the 20th century, many pieces were acquired by artists and intellectuals in search of different art forms for their private collections. Tracing the detailed history of the objects is often difficult due to the lack of available information. Musée du Quai Branly – Jacques Chirac, in collaboration with the communities and countries of origin of the collections it houses, researches the various stages in each object's history, from its place of creation to its entry into the museum. The museum has a team focused solely on this task; the results of their work can be consulted in part on the museum's website using the QR code shown below.' (5)

Contrary to the impression that the Musée du Quai Branly seeks to create here, the Sarr-Savoy report established that the majority of African artefacts

in French museums and specifically, those in the Musée du Quai Branly, have been illegally acquired, mainly by the use of military force and were not

voluntarily surrendered by their African owners. The authors of the report stated authoritatively because of the manner in which African artefacts were obtained and the length of time that has passed :

'Restitution in a swift and thorough manner without any supplementary research regarding their provenance or origins, of any objects taken by force or presumed to be acquired through inequitable conditions: a. through military aggressions (spoils, trophies), whether these pieces went on directly to France or whether passed through the international art market before then finding their way to being integrated into collections. b. by way of military personnel or active administrators on the continent during the colonial period (1885-1960) or by their descendants. c. through scientific expeditions prior to 1960. d. certain museums continue to house pieces of African origin which were initially loaned out to them by African institutions for exhibits or campaigns of restoration, but which were never given back. These objects should be swiftly returned to their institutions of origin.' (6)

So where did the Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac obtain the idea that there is a need for further provenance research on the looted artefacts in its collections? If there are any such objects, they must be few and must be specified by name and description. Readers know that provenance research

regarding looted African artefacts is a recent invention that is convenient for delaying restitution. The museum, a citadel of looted African artefacts, could start preparing for the restitution of many of them, as Sarr and Savoy suggested. The museum that inherited most of the French loot from Africa as described by Michel Leiris in Afrique fantôme (1934) cannot pretend to be ignorant about the sources of its artefacts.

Loans of looted African artefacts by Western museums provide another justification for delaying restitution. One can always argue that the stolen objects are not presently in the collections and would have to be collected from elsewhere, and in any case, not before the expiration of the illegal loan. Logistic difficulties are always a 'good excuse' for delaying the restitution of looted artefacts.

It is noted that Nigeria has lent some of its precious artefacts for the exhibition Kings and Queens of Africa: Forms and Figures of Power. African museums have always been ready to cooperate with other museums and lend their precious artefacts. Questions arise, though, where lending Nigerian artefacts would involve their being shown in the same exhibition where looted Nigerian or other looted African artefacts would also be displayed. Can we, in principle, urge Western museums to return looted African artefacts but look the other way when looted Nigerian/African artefacts are displayed in exhibitions in which Nigeria/African museums participate? Do we make ourselves complicit to the initial wrongdoing of the colonialists? Should we not at least demand an explicit statement from the hosting museum that no looted Nigerian/African artefact will be shown in the same exhibition or an assurance from the organizers that they support the restitution of looted African artefacts? Should we not insist on the visible display of a statement to the effect that our participation does not imply any recognition or acceptance of any rights of the illegal holders of looted artefacts? Or are Africans not concerned by the display of looted treasures loaned by illegal holders to other museums?

We may never know what amounts the Musée du Quai Branly received for the loans of looted African artefacts. Does the museum intend to transfer a share of the loan price to the African owners? Has any Western Museum ever paid anything to an African State for the illegal holding of looted artefacts for a century and for loaning them to other institutions? Justice would seem to demand this, but as we know, justice is the least concern of Western museums that appear in their reluctance to restitute, more determined to follow old colonialist traditions rather than quickly end colonialist/neo-colonialist methods and institute just and fair practices in their relations with institutions of former colonies.

We can agree with Nigeria making its vast treasures available to museums in other countries for exhibition, but have many Nigerians seen many of these artefacts? Should the dissemination of knowledge about Nigerian cultural productions not start first in Nigeria itself rather than outside? Like most African countries, Nigeria must be more active in serving its large population. In a period where strong forces are trying to undo achievements in human rights, respect for gender equality, and non-discrimination on the basis of race or religion, museums could make valuable contributions. They could demonstrably complete the process of decolonization of museums, which involves the restitution of looted treasures of African, Asian, and Latin American countries. Britain, France, and Germany, which have been preaching respect for human rights, could lead by example. But would these countries and their museums understand that hijacking and holding looted treasures of other peoples is contradictory to any progress in this area and that an outlaw attitude towards UNESCO and United Nations resolutions on the return of cultural property to their countries of origin does not favour a world of freedom and free cultural development? Europeans have not grasped the depth of resentment against persistent colonial and neocolonial practices nor the urgency for complete decolonization of institutions, including museums.

When President Macron recently announced the renovation of the Louvre, the question of free entrance arose. A proposal was made that non-EU visitors pay a special fee to contribute to the renovation costs. How insensitive! Those from Africa, Asia, and Latin America, whose cultural artefacts fill French museums, are to pay special fees for seeing their looted treasures. The imposition of extra fees on non-Europeans falls in line with the thinking of the new anti-democratic forces that would want to expel non-Whites from Western countries and, indeed, have done so in leading States which have also announced plans for forcible acquisition of the territories of others.

It is indeed praiseworthy to display African artefacts of Kings and Queens that held African societies together until colonialist military onslaughts and the destruction of centuries-old socio-economic structures that had to make place for colonialist structures and institutions. Some African countries and museums may cooperate in such exhibitions, but should they not use this occasion to press the decolonization agenda, including restitution of artefacts, before Africa is recolonized again?

Westerners have difficulties in admitting that the looting of African artefacts under the colonial regime was wrong and that the artefacts should be returned unconditionally to their owners. Western institutions find almost invariably a way to retain some of the looted objects. These institutions and their managers feel somehow entitled to participate in the control of the objects. Thus, even

when they return objects, they consider they have some rights that must be preserved.

The Smithsonian, which returned legal ownership in 29 Benin bronzes to Nigeria and retained nine objects by agreement with Nigeria, describes

the Benin artefacts as 'ambassadors' and speaks of 'shared stewardship.' Who entrusted Benin/African artefacts to the Smithsonian and other Western museums that have been holding them illegally for decades and until recently refused even to discuss the possibility of restitution? Can those illegally holding stolen items be seen as having some mandate for shared stewardship or guardianship with the African owners? A pamphlet issued by the Smithsonian is entitled Benin Bronzes, Ambassadors of the Oba, Towards Shared Stewardship and Ethical Returns. (7) If the Benin artefacts can be seen as Ambassadors of the Oba, where are the ambassadors of The Smithsonian or the USA to the Oba? Reciprocity seems to be an unknown word in Afro-Western cultural relations.

Ambassadors were previously detained but whose presence was not even acknowledged. The idea of shared heritage or shared stewardship only arises when there is a question of restitution of looted African artefacts. Western museums and States still follow the policy: mine is mine, yours is ours. The notion of the 'universal museum' has not entirely disappeared from the ideological arsenal of Western museums that inherited the megalomania and voracious appetite of the imperialist powers.

Germany, which returned legal ownership of 1300 Benin artefacts to Nigeria but physically returned only twenty-two objects to Nigeria, signed an agreement with Nigeria that loaned Benin artefacts to Germany for 10 years, renewable.

The agreement specified annexes attached; Annex 1 lists the loan artefacts, whilst Annex 2 lists those artefacts that are to go back to Nigeria but, because of delays in logistics, stay in Germany. On inquiry, we were informed that the annexes were unavailable to the public. Thus, there is no way of knowing which of the Benin artefacts in Germany are on loan and which will be returned to Nigeria. For example, we cannot tell whether the bust of the queen mother, Iyoba Idia, shown in the exhibition catalogue, is on loan to the Humboldt Forum/Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin, or will soon return to Nigeria.

The Humboldt Forum organized a seminar entitled' Exhibiting Difficult Histories: Benin Objects and their Potential for New Forms of Representation.'

(8) The organizers' objective was to determine whether there could be new forms of representation given new displays of the Benin artefacts: 'Together with our guests, we investigate museum strategies of exhibiting: Which forms of representation do they adopt to historicize the collections? How do they aim to incorporate a polyphony of voices in their exhibitions?

What else could Benin artefacts represent besides the culture created by the Oba of Benin and his court? Behind such interrogation is a desire to read imperialist interpretations into the history of Benin and to reduce or suppress references to the British invasion of 1897 or to obscure the participation in the crime by those who bought the looted treasures, knowing they were stolen goods. Did we ever hear of any symposium trying to find out whether NAZI looted art represented any culture other than what the artists of the looted works intended? Has anyone ever doubted that looted Ming treasures represented Ming and no other culture? Attempts to look for other interpretations of looted African art are a desire to obscure the role of Western states and museums in the wholesale robbery of valuable treasures of a continent and to build a theory of shared heritage or ownership that is immanent in European hegemonic thought and also justifies the delay in restitution by advancing the need for provenance research and other defences.

These defences result in what we may term tactical restitution. A transfer becomes necessary when all justifications for non-restitution fail. Such transfer is required to avoid more pressure for restitution. Many recent restitutions from Western states and museums to African institutions may fall into this category. The reluctance by Western museums to effect more restitution is evidence that the paltry transfers that have been made are not based on any conviction that the injustice of colonial robbery must be corrected. We should notice the difficulties the French had after the restitution of twenty-six treasures to Benin. The Martinez report, which we have described as a pre-announced burial of African artefacts in France, was to counter the fundamental effects of the Sarr-Savoy report. (9) We should not be distracted by the argument that a law in France prohibits the transfer of State property without specific legislation. That law can and should be changed. The French have had enough time since the Independence of the African countries in 1960. Why have they not changed that law?

We should also notice the existence of fake loans that are not restitutions. Fake loans are made by countries unwilling or unable to envisage restitution. These countries have not abandoned their beliefs in imperial hegemony. Thus, the British Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum made fake loans to Asante to return the golden treasures the British stole from Asante in 1874. Robbers return to owners on loan the objects they stole from the owner. The confusion in values and concepts is evident. Loans where the illegal holder transfers to the owner from whom the objects were stolen in the first place are not loans in the usual legal sense in which owners or their agents transfer possession of an object. Could the robber transfer an object to its owner? Fake loans are fake because neither the lender nor the recipient expects strict compliance with the terms of the agreement. For example, as stated in the agreement, the British

Museum does not expect Asante to return the looted treasures at the end of the three-year term. And the Asante do not expect the British Museum to demand the return of artefacts. Fake loans are embedded in a web of understandings, an art in which the British Museum is undoubtedly an expert.

The illegal holder usually imposes fake loans. This imposition allows the illegal holder to avoid the consequences of restitution, such as apology and reparation. Many Westerners still find it difficult to apologize to Africans.

The Anthropological Museum, Cambridge, returned on loan to Uganda 39 objects from the 390,000 African objects in Cambridge institutions. (10)

The loan of looted African treasures by Western museums to exhibitions such as Kings and Queens of Africa: Forms and Figures of Power at Louvre Abu-Dahbi adds a new excuse for not returning African treasures soon and illustrates the urgency of returning looted African artefacts.

Piecemeal restitutions, offers of fake loans, coupled with irrelevant arguments about the capacity of Africans to guard their artefacts, will not be enough. Nor should Western institutions assume that the restitution of one or two Benin artefacts will be the end of the demands for restitution. There are more cases. Adouma, Asante, Baga, Bamana, Bambara, Bamileke, Baule, Bembe, Boma, Chokwe, Dan, Dogon, Fang, Fon, Hembe, Idoma, Igbo, Kuba, Lobi, Lumbo, Makonde, Mamuye, Mangbetu, Mossi, Nupe, Pende, Senufo, Songye, Yaka, Yombe, Yoruba, Zulu, and many other African artefacts are still to be returned.

The African Union (AU) has designated the 2025 African Union theme, 'Justice for Africans and People of African Descent Through Reparations' during the recent 38th AU summit (12-16 February) (11)

Restitution of looted African artefacts is an inherent part of the struggle to correct colonial injustices and repair the destruction of African culture through violent looting of cultural objects.

The looting of African cultural artefacts, like slavery and colonialism, involved a massive transfer of wealth from Africa to Europe and a colossal destruction of African property, infrastructure and cities. Kumase, Benin City, Maqdala were all victims of the vandalism and wanton destruction of imperialist invading armies. Restitution therefore has to consider the loss of human lives, the damages sustained through the loss of the artefacts, the loss of use of the objects and the costs of the material used in producing objects. That the works looted were by highly skilled specialists cannot be ignored. For example, the loss of the Asante gold artefacts or the Benin treasures must imply loss of precious and expensive materials produced by highly skilful craftsman and artists. Asante gold objects are still in the British Museum, and in Victoria and Albert Museum. What about the boxes of gold and money the British troops were alleged to have taken away in the invasion and burning of Kumase in 1874? (12)

The few restitutions of Western countries to African countries so far do not allow us to know whether there has been any compensation at all since most of the agreements, such as those between Germany and Nigeria, with regard to decisive annexes, are not available to the public. Is this how to serve the interests of the African peoples?

Will Western museums and States hear the call for reparation and restitution articulated by African States and scholars or will former colonial powers that have in recent years turned to racist and anti-human rights forces ignore calls for reparative justice? Demands for restitution of looted cultural artefacts must put into serious doubt the legality and legitimacy of the loaning practice of Western museums of the cultural artefacts of the African peoples.

‘Having Reparations for Africans and the People of African Descent offers the AU the opportunity to take leadership on the Africa Reparations Agenda, as well as bring together the African citizenry and the African diaspora to build a common and united front for the cause of justice and payment of reparations to Africans for historical crimes and mass atrocities committed against Africans and people of African Descent, including colonization, apartheid, and genocide. Additionally, reparations as the theme of the year will further drive momentum generated by the different initiatives and activities over the years.’ (13)

NOTES

1. Louvre Abu Dhabi, https://www.louvreabudhabi.ae/-/media/2025/kqa-press- release/29012025--kings-and-queens-of-africa-exhibition-opening-press- release-en--final.pdf?rev=08f6464f586b41b48ba20

The Gulf Time Newspaper, Louvre Abu Dhabi Unveils Kings and Queens of Africa: Forms and Figures of Power Exhibition Celebrating African Art and Majesty https://gulftime.ae/louvre-abu-dhabi-unveils-kings-and-queens-of- africa-forms-and-figures-of-power-exhibition-celebrating-african-art-and- majesty/

Art Daily, Louvre Abu Dhabi presents Kings and Queens of Africa: Forms and Figures of Power https://artdaily.cc/news/178192/Louvre-Abu-Dhabi-presents- Kings-and-Queens-of-Africa--Forms-and-Figures-of-Power

We do not examine here the question whether Western museums and institutions also lend looted African ancestral remains but, given the existing market for human remains in the Western world, it would not surprise us that all kinds of transfers of looted African ancestral remains do take place. We know for sure that the widow of Prof Felix von Luschan, a German anthropologist and ethnologist at the Museum for Ethnology in Berlin from 1885-1910, sold part of his collection to the American Natural History Museum (AMNH), New York. https://neweralive.na/namibian-human-remains-discovered-at-american- museum Luschan Sammlung https://www.preussischer- kulturbesitz.de/newsroom/dossiers-und-nachrichten/dossiers/dossier- provenienzforschung/luschan-sammlung/

We know that the human remains of Sister Saartijie Baartman were transferred from institution to institution before Nelson Mandela rescued her from European desecration and racist ridicule. Irma Novljanin Gringnard, Les musées et leurs restes humains : différents regards et nouveaux enjeux- https://www.persee.fr/doc/mhnly_2114-978x_2012_num_3_1_1569

Musées : que faire des restes humains ? France Culture https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/le-temps-du-debat/musees- que-faire-des-restes-humains-7894545

See also Afford, Laying Ancestors to Rest-Policy Brief https://afford- uk.org/return-of-the-icons/all-party-parliamentary-group-afrikan-reparations- appg-ar/laying-ancestors-to-rest/

AFRIMUHERE, DIGNIFIED REPARATORY REPATRIATION AND REST https://afford-uk.org/return-of-the-icons/all-party-parliamentary-group-afrikan-reparations-appg- ar/laying-ancestors-to-rest/

2. The use of violence in the European colonies in Africa is well documented. The methods used by the French have been described in Michel Leiris, Afrique fantôme, 1934, See also Felwine Sarr and Bénédicte Savoy, Rapport sur la restitution du patrimoine culturel africain. Vers une nouvelle éthique relationnelle, Novembre 2018. ttps://bj.ambafrance.org/IMG/pdf/rapport_sarr- savoy_-_restitution_du_patrimoine_africain.pdf?4112/61a8e5934856356743dae6c8a94 80a4b00060ef2 Report on the restitution of African cultural heritage: Towards a New Relational Ethics, 2018, pp. 47-61. Toyin Falola, Colonialism and Violence in Nigeria, 2009, Indiana University Press. Dierk Walter, Colonial Violence: European Empires and the Use of Force, 2016.

The extreme violence of French colonial rule has recently been emphasised again by a group of 14 French and Cameroonian scholars in the report of a commission announced by President Macron. The group found that France used excessive violence in the period leading to the independence of Cameroon in the late 1950 . The 1035 pages report makes for awful reading. Um Nyobe, the UPC leader who preached non-violence was killed by the French who dragged his body around for everybody to see and was put in a block of cement and buried without coffin. https://www.vie-publique.fr/files/rapport/pdf/297054_0.pdf Le Monde, France responsible for 'extreme violence' in Cameroon independence war, report finds https://www.lemonde.fr/en/le-monde- africa/article/2025/01/28/france-responsible-for-extreme-violence-in-cameroon- independence-war-report-finds_6737523_124.html

France 24, Survivors tell of France's 'dirty war' in Cameroon independence https://www.france24.com/en/20191228-survivors-tell-of-france-s-dirty-war-in- cameroon-independence

3. Felwine Sarr and Bénédicte Savoy, The Restitution of African Cultural Heritage. Toward a New Relational Ethic https://web.archive.org/web/20190328181703/http:/restitutionreport2018.com/s arr_savoy_en.pdf

4. The view of the director of the Victoria and Albert Museum on restitution seems to be evolving. In a recent comment entitled, How to give back looted objects, Tristram Hunt pleads for changing UK legislation and giving museums autonomy over their collections and the power to decide on restitution.

Hunt tries to give the UK Museums a slightly progressive and favourable image: ‘In a scholarly and professional manner, UK museums are leading much European practice when it comes to repatriation’

‘Even those museums unable to deaccession are finding innovative ways to share collections more equitably. At the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A), we have pursued renewable cultural partnerships with museums across source nations, allowing for the long-term loan of materials.’

How to give back looted objects | Apollo Magazine

See also, K. Opoku, To Decolonize Is To Decontextualize, Tristram Hunt. Should We Stop Asking For Restitution Of mOur Looted Artefacts? https://www.modernghana.com/news/943364/to-decolonize-is-to-decontextualize-tristram- hunt-should-w.html

With all due respect to the Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, we all know that the restitution of a few Benin artefacts by Jesus College, Cambridge, Horniman Museum, and Aberdeen University, will not alter the bad image of the United Kingdom in restitution matters unless, and until the British Museum and his own museum, Victoria and Albert Museum, that hold large numbers of

looted African artefacts, do something positive and remarkable. The British Museum that holds nine hundred Benin Bronzes could, for example, return a few hundred objects in response to the request for restitution made by Prof. Abba Isa Tijani of the Nigerian Commission on Museums and Monuments in October 2021. The Victoria and Albert Museum could return many of the looted Magdala treasures unconditionally to Ethiopia. ‘Loans’ and other arrangements will not suffice, given the long history of British looting and firm resistance to restitution.

To claim that ’UK museums are leading much European practice when it comes to repatriation’ is an exaggeration of the actual situation. Germany has transferred to Nigeria legal rights in 1300 Benin artefacts, the Netherlands has restituted 119 Benin artefacts. Where is Great Britain leading in the issue of restitution? To present the ‘loans’ of looted Asante artefacts to the Asante who have been fighting for more than one hundred years for the restitution of their looted golden artefacts, seized with violence, as ’innovative ways to share collections more equitably,’ requires no comment.

It is noteworthy that Hunt now calls for political intervention: ‘But now is the time for political leadership: the international community expects it, the legal tools are available, and a decision needs to be made.’ Hunt argued in 2023 that politics should be kept out of the restitution question: ‘Decisions on repatriating museum artefacts should be about objects-not politics’.

Decisions on repatriating museum artefacts should be about ... thenationalnews.com

The Pitt-Rivers Museum, Oxford, could at least forward to Benin the two Benin paddles that Dr. Mark Walker was trying to send to Benin in 2019 but was persuaded to let the Pitt-Rivers Museum first exhibit them and then forward them later to Nigeria. K. Opoku, Mark Walker’s Second Attempt to Return Looted Benin Artefacts: Innovative Approach by Pitt Rivers Museum? https://www.modernghana.com/news/975208/mark-walkers-second-attempt-to- return-looted-beni.html

5. https://www.louvreabudhabi.ae/en/exhibitions/kings-and-queens-of-africa- exhibition

6. Sarr -Savoy, op. cit. p.61.
7. ​Benin Bronzes: Ambassadors of the Oba https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Benin+Bronzes%2C+Ambassadors+of+the+Oba%2C+Towards+Shared+Stewardship+and+Ethical+Returns&atb=v314-1&ia=web

8. https://networks.h-net.org/group/announcements/20028304/exhibiting- difficult-histories-benin-objects-and-their-potential-new

https://www.humboldtforum.org/en/programm/termin/conference- symposium/exhibitin….

9. Jean-Luc Martinez, Patrimoine partagé : universalité, restitutions et circulation des œuvres d’art, Remise du rapport Patrimoine partagé :universalité, restitutions et circulation des œuvres d’art de Jean-Luc Martinez (calameo.com)

universalité, restitutions circulation des œuvres d art rapport martinez | vie- publique.fr

https://www.culture.gouv.fr/presse/communiques-de-presse/Remise-du-rapport- Patrimoine-partage-universalite-restitutions-et-circulation-des-aeuvres-d-art-de- Jean-Luc-Martinez

K. Opoku, Does the Martinez Report constitue a pre-announced burial of African cultural artefacts in French museums ? https://www.modernghana.com/news/1230672/does-the-martinez-report- constitute-a-pre-announce.html

10. Africanews. Cambridge returns 39 artefacts to Uganda on loan https://www.africanews.com/2024/06/13/cambridge-returns-39-ugandan- artefacts-on-loan/ B.B.C. News, Uni finds 350,000 African artefacts in storage

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzk6q715lo https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/african-collections-futures The reaction of Professor Kamal Munir, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for University Community and Engagement t the report on African artefacts in Cambridge institutions was as follows:

“This report is very welcome. It highlights not only the importance of Africa- related objects in Cambridge’s collections, but also the need for us to learn more about them and engage with relevant communities. We are determined to make the University’s invaluable collections more accessible.

“Building on our existing relationships, including through the Cambridge- Africa programme and our Centre of African Studies, we are also committed to work closely with colleagues in Africa and the African diaspora to share knowledge and foster understanding.”

11. Concept Note on the African Union Theme of the Year for 2025 https://au.int/sites/default/files/newsevents/conceptnotes/44462-CN- CN_2025_Theme_of_the_Year.pdf

African Parliamentary News
38th African Union Summit to Focus on Reparatory Justice and Racial Healing https://www.africanparliamentarynews.com/2025/02/38th-african-union- summit-to-focus-on.html

12. ‘Prof McCaskie said aside from the royal ornaments that were stolen from the palace, the British soldiers also looted gold and gold dust kept by the then Asantehene Otumfuo Kofi Karikari. He explained that the value of the gold stolen by the British army could be worth more than £2billion.’ Graphic online, British Professor Tom McCaskie narrates how Sagrenti War looted Asanteman artefacts and gold [VIDEO]https://www.graphic.com.gh/news/politics/british- professor-tom-mccaskie-narrates-how-sagrenti-war-looted-asanteman-artefacts- and-gold-video.html

13. 44462-CN-CN_2025_Theme_of_the_Year.pdf

IMAGES

Androgynous figure with raised hand, Djennenke Pre-Dogon style, Mali, now in Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.

Crowned head of an Ooni, Yoruba, Nigerian National Commission for Museums and Monuments, Abuja, Nigeria.

Ife head, Ile-Ife, Nigeria, now in Musée du quai Branly Jacques Chirac, Paris France.

Ooni figure, Yoruba, Nigeria, Nigerian Commission for Museums and Monuments, Abuja, Nigeria.

Commemorative head of an Oba, Benin, Nigeria, first looted by the British Army in 1897, now in Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.

Plaque with two Portuguese warriors, Benin, Nigeria, stolen in 1897 by the British and now in Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Paris,

France.

Headrest, Luba Shankaji,
Democratic Republic of Congo, now in Musée du Quai Branly Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.

Rhinoceros, Mapungubwe, Pretoria, University of Pretoria Museums.

Female statue Attié, Abo
uré/Akan, Côte d’Ivoire, now in Musée du Quai Branly—Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.

Akatahounto, cylindrical drum, Fon, Benin, Abomey, Republic of Benin, now in Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.

Moulu ngulu reliquary guardian, Kota, Ondoumbo, Gabon, now in Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.

Chair, Akan /Baule, Côte d’Ivoire, now in Musée du quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.

Plaque depicting Oba Ohen, Benin, Nigeria, now in Musée du Quai Branly- Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.

Srane’dwa, Queen mother’s stool, Asante, Ghana, now in Louvre Abu Dhabi.

Stool, Mangbetu, Democratic Republic of Congo, now in Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.

N’kak drum, Bamileke, Cameroon, now in Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.

.

Chief ’s sceptre, Chokwe, Angola, now in Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.

Equestrian figurine, Bamana, Mali, now in Musée du Quai Branly-Jaques- Chirac, Paris, France.

Asante Kente, Kumase, now in Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.

Seatedt female figure, Bamana, Mali, now in Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.

Statute of queen bearing a bowl, Bamiliké, Cameroon, now in Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.