By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Netherlands will return over 100 Benin Bronzes, looted from Nigeria in 1897, to their country of origin. This repatriation, the largest of its kind, involves artifacts from the Wereldmuseum and represents a significant step towards rectifying a historical injustice. The returned items, including sculptures and carvings dating from the 15th to 19th centuries, hold immense cultural and spiritual value for the people of Edo State. This action is expected to pressure other institutions, particularly the British Museum, to follow suit and return their own collections of Benin Bronzes.
Read the original article here
The Netherlands’ decision to return the stolen Benin Bronzes to Nigeria marks a significant step towards rectifying historical injustices and acknowledging the profound cultural significance of these artifacts. This repatriation is not merely the return of bronze sculptures; it’s a recognition of a complex history intertwined with colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade. The bronzes, crafted with bronze manillas – a currency often obtained through the horrific trade in enslaved people – represent a painful chapter, and their return begins a process of healing.
The narrative surrounding the Benin Bronzes is far more nuanced than a simple transaction of goods for money. While bronze manillas were indeed a form of payment, the scale and impact of the slave trade cannot be overlooked. The wealth generated fueled the creation of these magnificent works, but it was wealth built upon unimaginable suffering. The return of these artifacts thus carries weighty symbolic meaning, acknowledging the exploitative nature of the historical context of their acquisition.
Arguments against repatriation often center on the pre-colonial history of the Benin Kingdom and its established trade networks. It’s undeniable that the Kingdom of Benin existed long before European contact, with intricate systems of trade involving copper and brass—sometimes referred to as “red gold”—via trans-Saharan routes and interactions with neighboring states like Ife. The kingdom’s sophisticated artistry and rich culture predate the arrival of the Portuguese in the 15th and 16th centuries. Early trade focused on textiles, pepper, and ivory, reflecting the pre-existing economic structures.
However, the narrative of the Benin Bronzes is inextricably linked to the later period of intensified European exploitation. The shift towards a greater reliance on slave trade in the 17th century, despite attempts by the Oba to curb it later, cannot be dismissed. It’s crucial to understand that even with a pre-existing trade infrastructure, the scale and brutality of the slave trade imposed by Europeans profoundly impacted the kingdom. Repatriation is less about solely questioning the initial exchange of materials and more about acknowledging the broader context of colonial violence and the theft of cultural heritage.
The 1897 punitive expedition that led to the sacking of Benin City stands as a stark example of colonial aggression. The events were portrayed in a way that justified the looting, and the ensuing seizure of thousands of artifacts represents a profound act of cultural theft. The Benin Kingdom, with its rich oral tradition and lack of a written language, relied heavily on its art to preserve its history and transmit its cultural values. The theft of these bronzes amounts to the erasure of a significant part of Benin’s history.
The Netherlands’ action prompts a critical question: will other nations follow suit? The British Museum, in particular, faces intense pressure to return its collection of Benin Bronzes. The argument that returning stolen artifacts would somehow destabilize museums is countered by the ethical imperative to rectify past wrongs. The suggestion that the returned artifacts could be misused or sold off is a serious concern, but it shouldn’t overshadow the moral responsibility to repatriate stolen cultural property. The focus should instead be on establishing robust mechanisms in Nigeria to safeguard and display the returned artifacts, ensuring their preservation and accessibility to the public.
The experiences of other countries, like Iraq, attempting to manage returned artifacts after periods of conflict, provide valuable lessons. While the distribution of artifacts amongst citizens might seem appealing at first glance, it raises concerns about the protection and preservation of these irreplaceable pieces of history. The challenge lies in finding a balance between ensuring access for the general public and preventing the loss or damage of historically significant pieces. Ultimately, the return of the Benin Bronzes serves as a powerful symbol of restorative justice, and hopefully, a catalyst for other institutions to follow the path of ethical repatriation.