[MSN] A BLANK CHEQUE TO PLUNDER NOK TERRA COTTA? (Kwame Opoku)

[MSN]

A BLANK CHEQUE TO PLUNDER NOK TERRA COTTA?

In his interview of January 27, 2008 with Richard Lacayo, "A Talk With:
James Cuno" http://www.elginism.com/20080201/976/, Cuno, Director of the Art
Institute of Chicago, makes many controversial statements but I will like to
comment only on a few. 

"Anthony Appiah said something wonderful in his book Cosmopolitanism. He
says, Look we don't know who made these Nok sculptures, these ancient
sculptures that are found today in Nigeria. We don't know if they were made
for royalty or for one's ancestors or on speculation. But what we know for
sure is that they weren't made for Nigeria. Because at the  time there was
no Nigeria."

 Does Cuno realize the implications of such a statement if it were to be
taken seriously? Is he suggesting that the modern State of Nigeria has no
right to the 
archaeological findings on its own territory? Who then has rights over the
Nok findings in Nigeria? Is he aware that there were Nigerians before the
present State of Nigeria was born at Independence in 1960? Or does he have
another date of birth in mind?
   If the date of birth of present modern States were to be related to
acquisition of rights to archaeological findings, how many States would have
any rights since most of these findings relate to objects created thousands
of years ago?
    What will happen to control over activities in the areas where
excavations take place? Who will keep order in such areas or will it be a
free for all, leaving it to the strong to grab whatever they can? One can
imagine easily what chaos will ensue if modern governments did not assert
their authority and control over archaeological excavations. Is Cuno
pleading for anarchical excavations?
   Is Cuno aware that under the  1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of
Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of
Ownership of Cultural Property, a State such as Nigeria has  the duty " to
protect the cultural property existing within its territory against the
dangers of theft,clandestine excavation,and illicit export?"  Moreover,
Article 4 of this Covention provides that : "The States Parties to this
Convention recognize that for the purpose of the Convention property which
belongs to the following categories forms part of the cultural heritage of
each State:
a.	Cultural property created by the individual or collective genius of
nationals of the State concerned, and cultural property of importance to the
State concerned created within the territory of that State by foreign
nationals or stateless persons resident within such territory; 
b.	cultural property found within the national territory; 
c.	cultural property acquired by archaeological, ethnological or
natural science missions, with the consent of the competent authorities of
the country of origin of such property; 
d.	cultural property which has been the subject of a freely agreed
exchange; 
e.	cultural property received as a gift or purchased legally with the
consent of the competent authorities of the country of origin of such
property."
In view of the provisions of Article 4 how can anybody dare to suggest that
archaeological findings made in Nigeria do not belong to the modern State of
Nigeria?
   Cuno states that if certain objects are crucial to the identity of Italy,
then those objects should be everywhere: ". if [these objects] are indeed
crucial to the identity of Italy, then as cultural diplomacy you would want
that material everywhere. You would want Italy to be represented everywhere
as an important modern nation by virtue of its claimed legacy from ancient
Rome. You would want that appreciated in Beijing, in Shanghai, in Mexico
City."
 How does this argument square with the usual argument presented by the
supporters of the so-called universal museums that we must have these
cultural objects in one place, preferably in London, Paris or New York?
Cuno goes so far as to say that Italians live not only in Italy but also in
New York and around the world and therefore Italian cultural objects should
be made available to them too. Is there no limit to these absurd arguments
presented by respected museum directors? Nobody ever suggested that Britain,
France or the USA should make their cultural objects available everywhere in
the world where their citizens live.

    Cuno exceeds himself in his last statement in the interview with Richard
Lacy:  "Looting is a not a casual past time. It's desperate people in
desperate circumstances who loot. They risk their lives. Museums recognize
that there is a relationship between the marketplace and looting, and we
want to distance ourselves from it as much as we can and still preserve
these things that will otherwise be lost. How do you behave responsibly in
this realm? There has to be a package of responses. One part of the package
is partage. And another part has to do with allowing museums to reasonably
acquire."
   Is this a song of praise for looters? It sounds almost like a unionist
urging higher wages for workers who risk their lives in the mines. When are
the western museum directors going to stop issuing such statements which do
not contribute to solving the issue of restitution but only increase anger
and disputes?


 
Kwame Opoku.

 
23 February 2008.