TF — If the original acquisition involved
intense violence or things were taken as a part of the subjugation of another
culture — as was the case with Benin in 1897 — is that not a justification for
thinking again about those objects?
GA — The Benin question is very
complex. The first thing we need to
accept about the museums that own those Benin collections is to come out and
say: ‘Yes, we know these things were taken under those circumstances; we know
the Benin kingdom, the Benin royal family, they still exist even if they are
not as powerful as they were; we know there are contestations, we know there
are claims’. How are we going to satisfy this after all the changes that have
taken place? Even if you took it back, who are you going to give it to? Are you
going to give it back to the kings? Are you going to give it back to the
Nigerian government? Who are you going to return it to? These are issues that
need to be discussed. They have been through so many hands, how are we going to
trace them back? But these questions do not give you immunity against
discussion. You cannot even talk about compensation because these things were
done in the late nineteenth century. It was an attack, it was looting, it has
ended up in some of these museums. If you measure them even in terms of
financial economic benefits to the Benin people, how much is it? In some
instances it may not apply because, as others argue, even if it were
compensation, who would it go back to? Will it go back to the community, for
who are the community? Will it go back to the royalty, for who are the royalty?
Will it go back to the government and how will it trickle down there? So the
issue is that we must engage in this. We cannot run away by claiming that we
are a superior status or that we don’t want to talk. If we can start to engage
in a discussion we will probably come to an understanding whereby source
communities will be saying, ‘Now we understand. This case is so complex, that
this heritage is better preserved where it is’. But if we do not engage and
discuss with the [source communities], this problem will continue to be there,
because there are people also who are making money out of this. There are NGOs
who are paying so that they are in business, there are community members for
whom it is a business to continue to agitate for return. There are also people
who are genuine, who feel they have a genuine case that they need to be able to
discuss and agree on. So at the end of the day I think sitting down, talking,
negotiating, compromising and agreeing — ‘Ok, time has passed, you have had
this. We are transferring it in good will, on a permanent loan. Have them
because you have recognised that ideally these should have belonged to us.’
That is very simple because mentally and psychologically it also helps the
community. They know you have reached a compromise, that their ownership has
been accepted, symbolically, but physically things remain in the custody of the
institution that now owns it on behalf of the world. But you see this is what
we have never reached because most of the big institutions think that once they
accept that, there will be another big legal challenge, you know, ‘OK, now you
have accepted it, now we want it back.’ But if it is in good faith and negotiated
properly, this issue of the flood of returns will disappear. I don’t think this
is something that will last forever, but it is energized by the fact that big
institutions refuse to negotiate and refuse to accept responsibility even where
they have been wrong. You cannot win without dialogue, especially in terms of
heritage because people feel very attached to it at times and emotional about
it.
TF — Where do you stand on partage? As an
archaeologist, is it not a way of enabling archaeology to continue to take
place, for countries to collaborate on unearthing things and sharing them when
they’ve found them? Or do you think anything that is dug up in a country should
stay in that country?
GA — That is a very difficult question
because we have had some very bad experiences. For years I personally have
resisted the issue of sharing when it comes to commercial activities and this
applies much more to underwater archaeology which has been misused because you
have private companies with suspect archaeologists, you know, so-called
archaeologists, who go and negotiate with governments who don’t understand the
Convention and then you have officials who are corrupted for a few hundred
dollars and they give permits and people go into the sea within the territories
and get this material. In Africa there is a lot of problems with that. And they
say ‘Fifty percent’. But the fifty percent in the first place on what basis?
These are cultural materials. Their fifty percent is going to be sold
somewhere. And so you are turning archaeological material into a sellable
material. The second things is that the people who are digging here are people
from outside so when they say fifty percent, how do you know that is really
fifty percent? In most cases when you are told fifty percent, it is actually
one hundredth of what is found. I was educated at Cambridge and so I grew up in
a culture of cooperation; to me cooperation in the archaeological field is very
important. But that sharing was always in the sharing of the knowledge, not in
the sharing of the material, unless there was a request from an institution for
a particular object or set of objects where there were more and you did not
need all of them. In that case it should not be a problem. But I think the idea
of people ganging together to go the field to exploit it and then share it; to
me that has a risk, the risk that it becomes more of an occupation than the
pursuit of knowledge and the representation of humanity’s heritage. It becomes
like treasure hunting and if we can do away with the treasure hunting out of it
then I have no problem with governments or institutions sharing knowledge and information and sharing
material as long as it is clear and documented and everything is clean. But I’m
saying there must be clear policies and regulations and arguments as to how
this can be done. It must not be based on bureaucratic decisions taken at
government levels with people who could be compromised by giving them a hundred
dollars and then the fifty percent comes in.
The conclusion of this interview will be posted tomorrow.
American Journal of Archaeology,Archaeological Institute of America,Archaeology,Sheila Dillon
No comments
American Journal of Archaeology,Archaeological Institute of America,Archaeology,Sheila Dillon
No comments
