Artition – social network of arts

Just about every right-thinking person agrees that the looting of Benin’s cultural heritage by a British Punitive Expedition in 1897 was an indefensible act of colonial violence.

The retention of the Benin treasures by European and North American museums and the subsequent refusal to even discuss their return adds insult to that injury. But now, seemingly oblivious to the controversy surrounding the Benin objects, the descendants of Lieutenant Colonel Sir Henry Lionel Galway (1859-1949), one of the British officials directly involved with the Punitive Expedition, have chosen to consign to Sotheby’s some of the stolen objects that Galway retained for his own collection. The sale will take place in February.

Unsurprisingly, Nigerian groups are seething with anger at the family’s attempt to profit from their ancestor’s cultural aggression, condemning the decision to sell as “reprehensible and unconscionable”.

As everyone knows, the treasures seized from Benin in 1897 are of unparalleled beauty and matchless craftsmanship. Sadly, this also equates to a very high market value (the mask of Queen Idia is estimated at £3.5-4.5 million), which explains the family’s decision to sell. Will the sale go ahead?

The respected art market reporter Souren Melikian recently pointed out in an article in The New York Times that antiquities auctions are increasingly affected by the imperatives of the Unidroit convention. “Many [collectors] suspect that objects that cannot be proved to have been acquired before 1970 — the cutoff date set by the Unidroit convention — will become financially worthless or exceedingly difficult to negotiate.”

It is not only Unidroit that constrains the market, however, as the Benin objects may be about to demonstrate.

There is no doubt that the Benin objects were acquired before 1970, and yet they remain just as controversial — indeed arguably more so — than many other problematic objects on the open market, chiefly on account of the circumstances of their acquisition. One might wonder at the avarice of the Galway family in seeking to profit from the sale of these objects, but spare some of your disbelief for Sotheby’s who are clearly willing to brave the blizzard of negative media coverage that the February sale is already attracting.

Christie’s auction in Paris in February 2009 of the Qing Dynasty rat and rabbit heads from the Yves Saint Laurent/Pierre Bergé collection illustrated a significant shift in the terms of engagement when previously looted cultural objects come up for sale on the open market.

On that occasion, Cai Mingchao, the general manager of China-based Xiamen Harmony Art International Auction Co., bought the contentious bronzes at Christie’s sale, but afterwards refused to pay for them. I pondered here whether the nationalist fervour driving cultural heritage disputes might be ushering in a new era of guerilla activism at public auctions.

Sotheby’s usually disperse ethnographic material and ‘tribal’ art such as the Benin masks through their Paris salerooms, but it seems that Galway’s descendants requested that Sotheby’s sell them in London instead. Did they fear a similar campaign to that which greeted the Chinese Zodiac bronzes?

One Nigerian cultural group has already written to Sotheby’s department head, Helen Collier, requesting that she withdraw the items from the February sale. My guess is that such requests will fall on deaf ears. The major auction houses have consistently shown themselves to be indifferent to the nuances of cultural heritage disputes, placing ‘shareholder value’ above such ethical considerations.

Part of me feels glad that the Galway family has elected to consign these objects for sale, but only because this has the potential to raise global awareness of the Benin cultural heritage cause and put more pressure on museums holding those objects. One thing must happen first, however. Just as the British Museum continues to resist pressure over the Parthenon Marbles by arguing that the Greeks have thus far failed to make an official high-level request for their return, so too they will claim that Benin has also failed to stake an official claim for its treasures.

Finally, let us not forget that not everyone in Benin pines for the return of these objects. Eighteen months ago, I interviewed (here) the internationally renowned contemporary artist Romuald Hazoumé (left), a citizen of the French-speaking Republic of Benin (as opposed to the Kingdom of Benin). Hazoumé, who continues to collaborate happily with the British Museum, believes that until high-level corruption has been banished from Benin there is nowhere safe in which to house these cultural treasures, even if they were returned:

“It is better that they are in the British Museum right now,” he said. “If they were sent back to Benin they would be immediately sold to the Japanese and copies would be put in the Benin museum in their place. In Benin they need the money, you see, to buy votes. There is still too much corruption.” I ask if this is a view shared by many of his compatriots. “Of course! Everyone believes this!”

That kind of utterance is music to the ears of Western markets, auction houses and museums. And doubtless to the ancestors of Lieutenant Galway too.

Sign the petition to stop the sale of the Benin mask from going ahead:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/benin_mask/signatures

The Open University has produced a helpful little film (below) narrating the story of how the Benin treasures were looted by the British in 1897.

Dr. Tom Flynn

(Dr. Tom Flynn is a London-based writer and Art historian and is frequently blogging about interesting issues in the Art business. He has published books and  written journalism at numerous magazines including The Art Newspaper, Art & Auction, ARTnews, Art Review, Art Quarterly, Apollo, The Spectator, Museums Journal, The Sculpture Journal, etc.)

Visit his blog