If I was the
Boston Museum of Fine Arts, which just received a gift of 34 rare Kingdom of Benin objects from the Robert Owen Lehman Collection, I would not have
responded to the official request by Nigeria to have 32 of these artifacts repatriated with the veiled and tired excuse that they will reach a wider, more diverse audience in Boston than in Nigeria. I would not have tried to pacify
them by describing how the collection will be installed in an exhibition that
will discuss both the history of the individual objects as well as the history
and culture of the Benin Kingdom. And I wouldn’t have capped it all off by
throwing in the bonus of presenting the objects on the museum website and the
hope that keeping the objects will “further opportunities for cultural
exchange”.
Once again, the
MFA is being, let’s just be frank, a tightfisted little bitch about the
obviously looted objects in their collection. Let me break it down for you: In
1897, Rear-Admiral Harry Rawson was appointed by the British Admiralty to lead
an expedition to capture the Benin king and destroy Benin City. Field
commanders were instructed to burn down all Benin kingdom’s towns and villages
and hang the king whenever and wherever he was captured. After the British
secured the city, looting began in the monuments and palaces of high-ranking
chiefs, as well as homes and religious buildings. 2,500 religious artifacts,
Benin visual history, and artworks were exported to England. These objects were
later auctioned off in Paris and held by the British Museum in London. The
objects now in the possession of the Boston MFA were privately owned by Mr.
Robert Owen Lehman. This donation is a big deal for the museum because until
this acquisition, it had only one Benin object in its 20-year-old African collection.
There are now plans to build a permanent gallery for the Lehman Collection.
That is, if the
Nigerian government fails in its effort to have the artifacts repatriated. The MFA
refusing to repatriate these Benin artifacts is disappointing for a number of reasons: 1) refusing Nigeria their cultural property that was
so heartlessly taken in the midst of the death and destruction of their people,
even if it was over 100 years ago, is not great for post-colonial PR; 2) you’d
think that after problems like the Weary Herakles debacle, the MFA would have
learned; and 3) every time a museum gets so tightfisted, it puts us
all two steps back from the ideal many hope to see one day: that instead of
these catty repatriation lawsuits, we will instead enjoy the generous and
willful exchange of collections between countries and museums, and spend less
time being concerned with ownership and economic value and more time educating,
preserving, and respecting. This ideal has been described by many in the
museum, archaeological, and cultural heritage communities, but it has been
frustratingly slow to manifest in real life. Conflicts such as the one between
Nigeria and the MFA only keep us in the mud of the mid-20th century
encyclopedic museum dream.
If the MFA was
at all interested in joining the rest of us here in the 21st
century, it might begin by repatriating the objects to Nigeria and hammering
out a deal for exchanges between our countries. Then it might consider taking
the initiative and acknowledging fishy or limited provenance in the history of
all its objects, not just the ones on trial, and make a whole-hearted effort to
discover their true origins. Then it might acknowledge that many of the objects
in their collection may still hold significance for living cultures and be less
stingy when those cultures come forward and ask for repatriations. Then it
might do a much better job of educating its public about art crime, the modern
commercial exploitation of archaeological sites, and the past and present war
time looting that scatters artifacts and attempts to destroy cultures and
ideologies. But instead, it will continue to drag its feet and deny a formerly
occupied country the right it has to its stolen heritage.
Don’t be that
guy, MFA. Be brave.