Nov

25

Citizens Of The World.

Posted by Christopher Waldrop

November 25, 2009 |

I am neither an Athenian nor a Greek, but a citizen of the world.
-Socrates

The question of who owns a work of art can get pretty complicated. In A Case in Antiquities for ‘Finders Keepers’, John Tierney reports that Zahi Hawass, the secretary general of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities, considers the Rosetta Stone, as well as other Egyptian antiquities, to be stolen property. And he’s gotten some museums–including the Louvre–to hand over some pieces.

The Rosetta Stone–discovered by French soldiers in 1799 and acquired by the British after the defeat of Napoleon–is also not the only disputed piece of art in the British Museum. There are also the famous Elgin Marbles, removed from the Parthenon and other Greek sites in the early 19th Century. I’m sure there are others that I don’t know about, but the whole thing just raises really big questions that I have a hard time wrapping my head around. Who owns certain works of art–particularly ancient works that predate the existence of any modern country?

I think the argument that’s made for keeping certain works in their place of origin is so they can be understood in context. Where a work of art was created helps us understand why it was created, and how the people who created it and for whom it was created viewed it. And there’s also the financial benefit. Another controversial piece, a bust of Nefertiti, is in the Neues Museum in Berlin, but Dr. Hawass is also demanding that it be returned to Egypt. Would people still flock to the Neues Museum if it were to lose its prize exhibit? Although I don’t know if he’s said so, Dr. Hawass’s argument is probably more about economics than it is about national pride. Not that there’s anything wrong with a museum benefiting financially, but is it right that a country should claim ownership of a work because it was produced there?

Even though it meant taking them out of their original cultural context, taking works of art from one part of the world to another meant people could see and enjoy them. They became shared property in a very broad sense, especially when they were made accessible to the public. Works from the bust of Nefertiti to the Rosetta Stone to the travelling Tutankhamen exhibit have inspired archaeologists but, more importantly, they’ve inspired cross-cultural understanding. National identity isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it’s easily misused. Tierney mentions that numerous politicians have used antiquities to bolster their own power, including Saddam Hussein, who turned “Iraqi archeology museums into propaganda for himself as the modern Nebuchadnezzar.” It was both a gross distortion of history and an attempt to own a cultural heritage so ancient it really belongs to all of us. The bust of Nefertiti and similar antiquities have become, in a real sense, citizens of the world. Dr. James Cuno, in his book Who Owns Antiquity?, says,

It is in the nature of our species to connect and exchange…And the result is a common culture in which we all have a stake. It is not, and can never be, the property of one modern nation or another.

Works of art, particularly the oldest works of art, speak to a shared cultural heritage, and I’d like there to be a happy medium, a sharing. Tierney says that,

Dr. Cuno advocates the revival of partage, the traditional system in which archeologists digging in foreign countries would give some of their discoveries to the host country and take others home. That way both sides benefit, and both sides have incentives to recover antiquities before looters beat them to it.

It’s a good idea, although deciding what stays and what gets taken home is going to be tricky. And if some politician in the country of origin decides to stake a claim to antiquities that an archaeologist was allowed to take to another country, what then? I don’t know. There are a million arguments and counter-arguments, but I keep coming back to the idea of sharing. The whole idea of sharing requires giving up something but also getting something. Sharing also requires trust, and even though that’s always in short supply I can’t think of a better way to create trust than by the cultural exchanges that show how much we have in common.

Another important thing to consider–perhaps the most important thing–is that the life of even the most well-made antiquities is finite. The surviving monuments of the ancient world have an austere beauty, but many of them were originally as bright and gaudy as the Vegas strip. Marble wears down, paint disintegrates, clay crumbles. Preservation is a worthy occupation, but only so much restoration is possible. We have to enjoy great works of art while we can, and there’s no better way to honor the people who made them than by sharing them with as many people as possible.


Comments

2 Comments so far

  1. DR.kWAME OPOKU on November 25, 2009 12:03 pm

    The intensive and extensive publicity surrounding the re-opening of the Neues Museum in Berlin and the renewed demands by Zahi Hawass made it inevitable that all those interested in restitution of looted/stolen cultural objects would pay attention to the recent celebration of the renovated museum on the Museums Island in Berlin.(2)

    We were prepared to see a large number of persons at the opening of the museum but we did not expect the massive crowd we met on our arrival. Tickets for the museum were sold out and one had to buy tickets for the next day and to come at a definite time. The interest of the public, both German and foreign, was evident. Most of the crowd came essentially to see Nefertiti in her new surroundings.

    Readers know the story of the bust of the Egyptian Queen that was surreptitiously taken away in 1912 from Egypt by the German archaeologist Ludwig Borchardt under circumstances not fully clarified and which has been a subject of contention between the Germans and the Egyptians for decades.(3)

    When we finally managed to see Nefertiti, we were shocked to see her in a semi- dark room where she appeared lonelier than ever. In perhaps, a typical African reaction, I asked myself where her husband, her relatives and servants were. A queen without company or servants? Later on we realized that members of her family, her husband Akhenaten, her mother-in-law, the impressive and beautiful Tiye (4) were in an ante-chamber leading to the dark location of Nefertiti. In her previous location, in the Alte Museum, Nefertiti was in a well-lighted hall with her relatives.

    Our greatest surprise was to realize that Nefertiti was not alone in the small hall despite press information that she was returning to a palace of her own. Lurking in the semi-darkness was a figure, obviously non-Egyptian and in modern European attire. On close examination, we realized that this was the bust of James Simon, the great benefactor of the museum who financed the
    excavations of Ludwig Borchardt in Amarna that resulted in Nefertiti being
    sneaked to Germany. One can understand the desire of the German museum officials to honour their great benefactor. However, it is legitimate to question whether he has more rights to be presented with Nefertiti in a separate room, to the exclusion of her husband Akhenaten and her mother-in-law, Tiye. Is Simon more related to the Egyptian Queen than the Egyptian pharaoh who made her queen and hence important for Egyptian history? Many non-Europeans will be surprised by the presentation of Nefertiti in semi-obscurity with a man who is neither her husband nor relative. It is true though that Europeans and European museum directors are not overly concerned with the sensitivities of non-Europeans whose cultures they display in the museums. They expect all of us to possess European sensitivities, tolerance or lack thereof in such matters even
    though a little reflection would demonstrate the absurdity of such expectations.

    If the proverbial arrogance and stubbornness of the museum directors would permit, here is a case where they should make immediate correction and move the bust of Simon to a more appropriate place. There is clearly a lapse here. The importance and significance of James Simon for the Museums Island cannot be signalled by putting their great benefactor in the shadow of Nefertiti, however important she may be. (5) Simon, unlike some of the museum directors, was not a worshipper of Nefertiti.

    Or are we dealing here with another history? The kind of history or story which Neil MacGregor, director of the British Museum, proposed to write for the looted/stolen objects in the British Museum? (6) Perhaps this is an implementation of the assertion of the Declaration on the Value and Importance of Universal Museums (1982) that the looted foreign objects in European museums have become part of the history and culture of those countries where they are located. (7) An assertion unsupported by an evidence of the culture of those countries. A similar assertion was made by the organisers of the recent Benin exhibition when they asserted that the looted Benin objects have acquired additional value in Europe and shifting meanings and therefore did not belong exclusively to the history of Benin.(8) Whatever may be the scientific value of such self-interested theories, Africans and Asians cannot accept that their cultural objects looted or transferred under dubious circumstances are no longer part of their history and subject to interpretations by those responsible for the disappearance of the objects from their original locations.

    It is also interesting to note that the excavations at Amarna, financed by Simon, brought to Germany many more other objects in addition to the bust of Nefertiti. So why concentrate on one object rather than the whole lot? Recognition to the museums benefactor should surely be linked to the whole collection rather than to one object. It is also ironical that Simon who gave the bust to the museum was willing to return it to the Egyptians in exchange for artefacts that Egypt was offering in accordance with German requirements. Simon published an open letter in the “Berliner Tageblatt” of 28th June 1930, in favour of an exchange of Nefertiti for other sculptures. He referred to other Egyptian artefacts which were, from the artistic point of view, more accomplished than the bust of the Egyptian Queen.(9) In a contribution entitled, “Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection”, Dietrich Wildung, Director, State Museums of Berlin, wrote:
    “In 1930 Egypt suggested an exchange of the Nefertiti for superior quality objects from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. James Simon was in favour of the suggestion, as he hoped that it would enable Germany to resume excavations in Egypt that had been interrupted in 1914 and thus place the country back on the international stage of Middle East archaeology.”(10)

    If it is desired to acknowledge the immense contribution that James Simon made to German culture and specifically to the museums, his bust should be removed from obscurity, from the shadow of Nefertiti, and placed openly at a visible position in the museum. One could suggest to the Germans: if you really want to honour the great benefactor, return Nefertiti to the Egyptians as Simon had wanted in his open letter of 28 June 1930 in the Berliner Tageblatt. The present representation of Simon in the museums smacks of half-heartedness and reluctance. The obvious inconsistencies here seem to indicate profound difficulties in recognizing or denying the undoubted contributions of James Simon. It should be mentioned that in the Master plan for the Museums Island 2015, it is projected to build a James Simon Gallery which will surely be a more fitting recognition than placing his bust in the shadow of Nefertiti. (11)

    Germany has not yet officially reacted to the latest demand of Zahi Hawass for the return of the bust of Nofreteti. However considering the number of Egyptian artefacts that the Germans have, it seems rather shameful that they should continue such a dispute with Egypt. (12) How many German artefacts do the Egyptians have? Have the Germans considered the possibility of sending some of their important historical objects and documents to Egypt? Does international cooperation only work one way? Westerners should reflect on the number of Egyptian and other African artefacts they have accumulated in their museums before they argue with Africans about restitution.

    Germans should also consider the fact that in retaining the bust of Nefertiti, they are confirming the decision of their notorious murderous leader Adolf Hitler. They are not fulfilling the wishes of James Simon who paid for the excavations that eventually brought Nefertiti to Germany.

    Berlin has not only the bust of the Egyptian queen Nefertiti but also other icons of African art such as the bust of Queen-Mother Idia, Benin, Nigeria. These other objects from the rest of Africa, following Hegelian prejudice and European discrimination, are kept far away from the centre of Berlin, from the Museums Island where European art icons are to be found. Idia and other African icons are found in the Ethnologisches Museum, in Dahlem, a suburb of Berlin.

    On entering the museum, one sees immediately an image of Idia, hanging over the staircase leading to the Africa Section as well as to the Museum for Asian Art. Throughout our visit we did not see a designation such as “Museum für Afrikanische Kunst” although we saw titles such as “Museum für Asiatische Kunst”. There are also in Berlin a “Museum für Islamische Kunst“ and a “Museum für Europäische Kulturen“. It seems some people still have difficulties in accepting the concept of African art. They are prepared to emancipate Asian art from the area of the ethnologists but will not go so far as to free also African art from the gaze of the ethnologists. African art seems forever condemned to remain in the domain of the ethnologists who developed their discipline as specialists of those peoples Europeans regarded as “primitive”.

    In the Africa Section, all the objects are thrown into semi-darkness with spot lights directed to particular objects. This seems to be a way of presentation the ethnologies and museum directors like but I see it mostly applied to displays of African objects. It seems many Europeans cannot give up the false association of Africa with darkness even though we have more sunlight than most parts of the world. Once we passed the semi obscurity of the sculptures and other African objects, we were surprised to see a poster for a Benin exhibition.

    We did not expect to see any exhibition on Benin after the successful Benin Kings and Rituals - Court Arts from Nigeria, 2007-2008, which attracted great attention and gave renewed impulse to discussions on the restitution of the Benin bronzes looted in 1897 by the invading British army. In its folder for the public, the Ethnologisches Museum states that the present exhibition comprises of some 300 Benin objects from its collection which are being shown for the first time in the history of the museum to this extent; in addition to well-known objects, the museum was displaying objects that had never been shown to the public. (13)

    The statement by the museum that many of the Benin artefacts in its possession since 1897 are being displayed for the first time is an admission that the museum has not been displaying them in public, at least in their totality. How is this admission compatible with the argument that the museums need these objects for the enlightenment of their public? How do you teach or inform people about objects that are not shown to them? This admission is a confirmation of our argument that most Western museums have far more objects than they can usefully display. In view of this situation, how can they justify their refusal to consider returning or lending to their original owners any of the many looted/stolen African cultural artefacts they hold?.

    The current Benin exhibition also offers ample evidence that the museum has many Benin bronzes that it cannot possibly need, such as the many commemorative heads and the gongs. So why do they not send a few back to the original owners as the Oba of Benin has been requesting now for decades? They refuse even to acknowledge receipt of demands for restitution in order to continue pretending that there has been no demand for restitution. (14)
    Do keepers of cultural objects of others who make a living and reputation by displaying and writing about them have to be so contemptuous of the original owners? Do Germans need the commemorative heads more than the people of Benin who use these heads to mark important dates and personalities in their history and culture? Has Germany ever written its history with such foreign cultural objects? Do these objects constitute part of the archives of German history?

    In the Ethnologisches Museum was another exhibition entitled, Bamum: Tradition and Innovation in Cameroon. A folder of the exhibition indicates that among the best known objects in the museum is the throne from Bamum which is said to have been a gift from King Njoya to Kaiser Wilhelm II.
    Readers will recall that Cameroon was the site of one of the most brutal colonial regimes. (15) The exhibition shows how the King tried to innovate his kingdom despite the oppressive presence of the German colonial regime.

    In addition to Benin and Cameroon, there was also an exhibition entitled Afrika in Berlin which showed an impressive Ijele mask from Ibo culture, made by the artist, Chief Anayo Nwobodo and presented by the Nigerian association in Berlin, Ikuku Berlin.

    We were pleasantly surprised to see this beautiful mask which indicated that the Ethnologisches Museum was not ignoring the Nigerian community in Berlin. It showed that African cultures are living and not dead or static. We were however irritated to realize that even though in one of the exhibition pamphlets, Chief Nwobodo is mentioned by name, in some other printed materials distributed at the museums the, artist was simply described, as “a Nigerian artist” (“nigerianischer Künstler”) without mentioning his name. Information on the exhibition on sites of the museums also refers to a “Nigerian artist.”(16) This may appear to some as a small matter but would anyone, seeing a work of this size describe the artist, without mentioning his name as, ”a German artist”? This refusal or inability to mention the names of African artists follows the tradition of Europeans to present African works of art as somehow made by anonymous artists in a community. It also translates a belief that there is one style for every ethnic group. This lack of respect for the individual African artists can be seen for example, in a case where the director of the British Museum, London, refers to an important piece of art work, La Bouche du Roi, by Romuald Hazoumé, Republic of Benin, which the museum has bought but fails to mention the artist by name and refers to him as “West African artist”. (17) This shows that the prejudices concerning African culture die hard even among those who should know better. No doubt such lapses are not always intentional but it is precisely this lack of sensitivity, displayed uniquely where Africans are concerned, that renders the matter extremely irritating.

    We gained the impression that the Ethnologisches Museum is making some efforts to address some of the concerns expressed in the past regarding the presentation of African arts by ethnologists. However, there seems to be some reluctance to accept African arts and artists as the equals of their European counterparts.

    On the main issue of restitution of stolen/looted African cultural artefacts, one can see all the expositions in Berlin without a hint that Egypt is requesting the return of Nefertiti and that Nigeria has been demanding the return of some of the Benin bronzes. There is no where mention of this issue in the presentations. Is this scientifically acceptable? Is this not a partial and partisan rendition of the reality of cultural relations between Europe and Africa when major demands of Africans are ignored through silence or omission? Even in an area where morality appears to have been banned by Europeans, should scholars not tell the full story? Are the demands by Egypt, Ethiopia and Nigeria not part of cultural relations and the reality of our times?

    Germany and other Western States may build as many museums and palaces for artefacts such as Nefertiti, Rosetta Stone and the Benin Bronzes but so long as the legitimacy of their possessions, mostly looted with violence, threat of violence or transferred under dubious circumstances, has not been clarified, so long will they face questions and criticisms. The issue will not go away by refusing dialogue with the original owners. New generations of successors will persevere in demands which cannot be abandoned without denial of one‘s self-respect and identity in the face of constant denigration and arrogance from the Western States that are not willing to admit the commission of wrongful acts in an earlier period in their history. Whilst it may be possible to pardon former imperialists and colonialists who acted according to the beliefs and circumstances of their times, it is very difficult to see any valid grounds for the conduct of their successors. Some pretend to abjure the practices and beliefs of the past but are not prepared to part with any of the fruits of the illegitimate and cruel activities of their predecessors.

    It is only on the assumption that fairness, morality, harmonious international relations, resolutions of UNESCO and the United Nations are irrelevant to issues of restitution that States such as Germany, France, Great Britain, United States, Belgium and the Netherlands can afford to argue with Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria and other States about the restitution of looted/stolen cultural objects.

    “On the other hand, even after giving away the colourful bust of Nefertiti, the Berlin Museum would still be far superior to all other collections, including that in Cairo, as regards the number and artistic value of the artworks from the Amarna period. And among our stock are many pieces that are of higher artistic rank than the elegant bust of the colourful queen”.
    James Simon, 28 June 1930 (18)

    Kwame Opoku

  2. Baino on November 26, 2009 1:58 pm

    Tough questions particularly in relation to ‘plundered’ art. The British Museum is one of the finest in terms of antiquities from the Lions of Assur Benipal right through to the Rosetta stone and a floor almost entirely dedicated to Egyptology. I often wonder though, if the Elgin Marbles for instance, had been left in situ what they’d look like today given the degradation of the Parthenon. Then the result of being one of the most plunderous modern Empires is also a plethora of ‘gifts’ presented to particularly the Royals over the years, they too are nothing short of spectacular. I don’t have an answer but it’s an interesting issue to say the least.
    The Brits did give all the Tutenhkamun treasures back and now they regularly go on tour.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind

<< Post Navigation >>

« « Word Of The Week: November 21st, 2009 | Word Of The Week: November 28th, 2009. » »