This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

July 29th, 2014

Posted In: fakes and forgeries

Ancient Egyptian mask likely to stay at St. Louis Art Museum after feds give up legal fight

By Robert Patrick > 314-621-5154

ST. LOUIS • The Department of Justice is giving up its fight to reclaim for Egypt a 3,200-year-old mummy mask that disappeared from that country decades ago and later found its way into the collection of the St. Louis Art Museum.

“The Department of Justice will take no further legal action with respect to the mask of Ka-Nefer-Nefer,” U.S. Attorney Richard Callahan said in response to questions from the Post-Dispatch on Monday, the deadline for the Department of Justice if it wished to prolong the court battle.

Museum officials couldn’t be reached immediately for comment. According to court filings, both sides are still discussing payment of the museum’s legal fees.

The mask was excavated in 1952 from a storage room near the step pyramid of Saqqara and was one of the items found with the mummified body of Ka-Nefer-Nefer, a noblewoman at the court of Ramses II.

The mask disappeared from storage in Egypt sometime between 1966 and 1973. The museum bought the mask in 1998 from a New York art dealer for $499,000.

When Egyptian authorities learned in 2006 that the museum had the mask, they began trying to get it back.

After negotiations failed, the federal government threatened to sue, but lawyers for the museum beat them to the courthouse, filing their own suit in January of 2011.

On March 31, 2012, U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey dismissed the government’s forfeiture lawsuit, saying that the Department of Justice failed to claim or prove that the mask was actually stolen.

“The Government cannot simply rest on its laurels and believe that it can initiate a civil forfeiture proceeding on the basis of one bold assertion that because something went missing from one party in 1973 and turned up with another party in 1998, it was therefore stolen and/or imported or exported illegally,” he wrote. He also said that lawyers failed to identify the law that had supposedly been broken when it was “illegally” imported into the U.S.

Government lawyers appealed.

On June 12, a three-judge panel of 8th U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with Autrey. The panel also said that the government “elected to ‘stand or fall’ on its untested legal theory” rather than add to the lawsuit, and missed a deadline to amend or appeal the suit.

Appeals Judge Diana E. Murphy said in a concurring opinion that the government could have cured the lawsuit’s deficiencies by listing other statutes that were violated by the mask’s importation, and by claiming that art dealers and the St. Louis Art Museum “knew or were willfully blind’ to facts including the mask’s ownership by Egypt, ineligibility for private ownership, and lack of a proper license.”

“While this case turns on a procedural issue,” Murphy wrote, “courts are bound to recognize that the illicit sale of antiquities poses a continuing threat to the preservation of the world’s international cultural heritage. Museums and other participants in the international market for art and antiquities need to exercise caution and care in their dealings in order to protect this heritage and to understand that the United States might ultimately be able to recover such purchases.”

On Monday, Callahan acknowledged that his office only had “a lack of record showing a lawful transfer,” not proof the mask was stolen.

“The evidence that we had showed that the mask was in the lawful possession of the Egyptian authorities for several years, and then there was a period with no activity,” he said. After that, “the mask was not in the possession of the Egyptian authorities anymore and there was no paperwork to support the theory that it lawfully left.”

The museum has said that the mask was part of a private collection in the 1960s, and was purchased in Switzerland by a Croatian collector, Zuzi Jelinek. Jelinek sold the mask to Phoenix Ancient Art in New York in 1995, the museum said.

The museum has said that it researched the mask’s ownership history before buying it, reaching out to Interpol, the Art Loss Register and others.

But critics continue to question whether the museum has a moral and ethical obligation to return the mask.

Monday was the deadline for the department to ask for a rehearing of the June 12 decision by the 8th U.S. Court of Appeals.

Robert Patrick covers federal courts and federal law enforcement for the Post-Dispatch. Follow him on Twitter: @rxpatrick.

Ancient Egyptian mask likely to stay at St. Louis Art Museum after feds give up legal fight : News.

July 29th, 2014

Posted In: Saint Louis Art Museum

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

July 23rd, 2014

Posted In: diefstal uit museum

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

July 18th, 2014

Posted In: fakes and forgeries

Walker and the Restitution of Two Benin Bronzes.

June 20, 2014 would go down in history as a memorable day for the people of Benin and advocates for the return of looted Benin artefacts taken during the infamous 1897 British expedition to Benin. About 4,000 objects were reportedly stolen from Benin by the British while some were destroyed during the imbroglio that occurred in 1897. The King of Benin, Oba Ovoranmwen was exiled to Calabar where he later died in 1914.  This important return comes on the centennial commemoration of his passing.

I arrived at the Benin Palace at about 10am, two hours before the presentation ceremony was to begin on that fateful day. As I alighted from the car, I could hear Christian choruses blaring from the direction of the harem. It was difficult to reconcile the choruses and the shrines I just saw as I came onto the palace grounds.  There was a huge tree tied with red and white cloth with chalk configurations at the entrance to the palace. I later found out that the music was emanating from a music shop located along right behind the palace.  I had wondered- in a postmodern and postcolonial society, there could be many possibilities.  The possibility that came to my mind was stretching the imagination too far.  As is usual of large events, the palace grounds were filled with several canopies and chairs.  From the quality of chairs under a particular canopy, it was obvious where the distinguished visitors were to sit.  From afar, Segun Alile, a popular Edo musician and his band were setting up for the day. Cars were beginning to arrive. All of a sudden a black jeep arrived with armed policemen literally flying out from the doors. The car stopped close to the shelter under which the several wall plaques and cement statuary made by an Edo artist, Ovia Idah were mounted.  Very gently, a tall slim ‘Oyinbo’ man, suave and impeccably dressed in a suit alighted from the car accompanied by two other men. This was the man everyone had been waiting to see in Benin, Dr Adrian Mark Walker.

In the past two weeks television stations had been announcing the event of the return.  Posters of the event were pasted in front of the palace and around the central part of the city. The last time such an event had occurred in Benin was seventy eight years ago when the British returned the regalia of Oba Ovoranmwen to Oba Akenzua II in 1936.  There were armed police men everywhere- understandably so.  Two priceless works of art were about to be unveiled to the pubic.  It was difficult to tell if anyone had a different plan.  It was safer to have these fierce looking officers around and about to scare away kidnappers or thieves in a city where the duo gangsters, Lawrence Anini and Osunbor had held sway in the mid 1980s.

History was about to be made again with the return of two looted Benin bronze works looted.  Amidst fanfare and emotionally-laden speeches by government functionaries, Edo personalities, the Oba and members of the Benin royal family the guest was heartily welcomed Dr Adrian Mark Walker is a grandson of Captain Herbert Sutherland Walker.  His grandfather was not primarily a fighter but was a Special Forces agent, otherwise known as a spy attached to the British Expeditionary forces that conquered Benin. On seeing the mammoth crowd that had gathered in the Benin palace he remarked to the King ‘I would like to stress how very honoured I feel to be invited here by you and how very humbled I am by the warmth and enthusiasm that my colleagues and I have been given.  It makes me feel that this is a very special occasion and not just for me… I was very aware of the importance of this myself but I had no idea that it would cause so much excitement.  Seeing all these proves to me that this is the right thing to do’.  He presented the king with two bronze works – a bird (Ahianmwen Oro) and a bell (Egogo) looted by his grandfather.  The works had been in the possession of the Walker family since 1897. He also donated a copy of Captain Walker’s war dairy to the king. I would be discussing Adrian Mark Walker’s return in the context of contemporary Benin history as it relates to the restitution of looted Benin artifacts objects.  Restitution being the willful return of artifacts that have been looted, or taken by force and had been in possession of an institution, museum or  Individual to the rightful owners.

Adrian Mark Walker is the son of Richard Sutherland Walker. Captain Walker, his grandfather, was a specialist in discovering potential enemy strains and had spent many years in East Africa.  After the Benin expedition he went off to Ghana to continue with his profession as a spy. As a young boy, Captain Walker was born and had lived in India for thirty-five years.  This perhaps gave him the opportunity of living with people of different classes and appreciating them for whom they were.  His own father had been a surgeon attached to the Indian army. On his return from his sojourn in Africa, Captain Walker rose to the rank of a Lieutenant Colonel and later became the Chief Constable of Worcestershire until he retired in 1902.  He died in 1934 and was buried in a churchyard at Powick, Worcestershire, UK.

Adrian Mark Walker is a retired medical doctor.  He spent a sizeable part of his childhood in South Africa, having done his primary education in Johannesburg. After the Sharpeville Massacre, he moved over to England where he studied at Leighton Park, Quaker School in Reading and Cambridge University. He later studied medicine at the Middlesex Hospital in London after obtaining a degree in natural sciences from Cambridge.  Inspired by the earlier donation of a carved Benin 6 foot tall Benin Ivory tusk his grandmother, Josephine Walker, to the Jos museum, in 1957, Mark Walker believes that the two works should be returned to Benin where they are likely to be of the greatest cultural and historical significance.

He narrates a long personal history of how he came to return the Benin objects.

‘These objects have come on a rather long journey.  These objects only came into my formal possession recently with the death of my mother.  I remember seeing them in my grandmother’s house fifty-five years ago and really coveting them.  I thought I would really be proud to own such beautiful objects.  However, as soon as they came into my possession, I realized that if they meant a lot to me because of their connection with my grandfather, they must mean a lot more to the people of the place from where they had come.  Before my mother died I took the precaution of asking her if I could take care of them… I knew that she would not consent to my returning them at that stage because she is one from a very materialist generation.  My children, on the other hand, had no such materialist ambition.  I was very pleased to be in possession of them because they reminded me of my grandparents.  But when I heard from my children that they were not interested in the stuff (Objects), I knew that I had to do something to protect their future’.

I have quoted Walker in extenso to understand and appreciate the commitment Walker has to correct the ills of the past.  Paraphrasing would lose the strength of his conviction. It becomes obvious that his urge to make peace overrode his desire to keep the Benin objects for their artistry and links to his family ties.  Furthermore,  Mark is convinced that neither his children nor himself would be adversely judged by posterity since he had done the right thing by coming to Benin to return works that were stolen one hundred and seventeen years ago.  He remarked ‘I will not be condemned as the grandson of a racist’. He went an extra mile to prove this by extracting excerpts from his grandfather’s diary.  Walker remarked that his grandfather was far ahead of his time in the civil manner he referred toBenin natives. Although accounts by ‘white men’ at that time used derogatory words in describing the natives, he on the contrary, had described them as gentlemen as much as his own countrymen and women and showed them milk of human kindness particularly natives at his mercy.  In welcoming Mark Walker to Benin, the Iyase of Benin, Chief Sam Igbe, remarked that by this kind gesture, he has become a friend of the city and would be welcome anytime. More importantly, he added that he was free of age-long curses the Edo people had placed on the looters.  The Oba remarked: ‘Walker would now have peace having done what is expected of him’.

The unending debates over Benin looted treasures have thrown up obnoxious theories emanating from the west. Kwame Opoku, a lawyer, known as one of the most vocal advocates for the return of stolen objects to countries of origin has consistently responded to some of these theories.  The proponents of a shared and universal heritage, acquiesce to the keeping of illegally acquired works in foreign so-called ‘encyclopedic’ or ‘universal’ museums.  Their claim is to keep the art of the world in trust for mankind- a view popular amongst directors and curators of these universal museums.  It is important to note that these Universal museums are all located in the Western world. Benson Osadolor, a History lecturer at the University of Benin describes them as the  ‘Museums of Loot’ following the ‘Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums’ signed in 2002.   This concept has become very popular amongst curators of western museums and help propagate and legitimize the continued keeping of looted works. To better appreciate the brazenness of this argument, it is important to quote excerpts from the declaration.

‘Whether (acquired) by purchase, gift or partage- (the artifacts) have become pat of the museums that have cared for them, and by extension part of the heritage of the nations which house them’

In other words, since the Benin objects were first looted and then sold to collectors, the buyers of these looted objects now have the right to own them because they have so ‘graciously’ cared for them.  Being able to pay for them gives a buyer of stolen objects the right to own them.  Additionally, the nations who have acquired these objects or house buyers or museums with illegally acquired objects are now by this declaration free to assimilate the objects as part of their national heritage.  It has been noted that almost all the signatory museums to this preposterous declaration belong to the nation states that signed the final document of the 1884/1885 Berlin Africa Conference.  On the other hand, there are those who argue for works to be retained within their national jurisdictions. They are often referred to as nationalist retentionists. The British government has been constantly reminded of its need to return looted objects.  Nigeria and Greece have been consistently demanding for the return of their objects housed in the British Museum. The Greek’s demand for the Elgin marbles has gone on for a long time, the same way the Benin monarchy have been on the case for the return of their heirloom.

In support of the nationalist retentionist’s position, Walker clearly states

‘I believe the international community is guilty of double standards with regards to such artifacts.  When for example at the end of Second World War came, looted works of art where discovered in Nazi home, we went through a great deal of trouble to return them to the families from which they had come. I cannot understand what the difference is between Nazi and looted objects of Benin… If you ask the British Museum they would say ‘well, they are only custodians’.  If you ask (British) politicians they say ‘it is the business of the British Museum’. So, we go round in a circle. We need to persuade not just the British public, but the international community that it is unethical and immoral to be holding on to items which were not legally acquired.  To this end I think, this event is important particularly if it achieves publicity not just here but also in Britain. I am confident that within another generation we should see a lot more of these objects returned to Benin.

While this return has come out of a private collection in the UK, it is pertinent to add that several thousands of looted Benin works still remain in public museums in the UK, Germany and the US.  Soon after the invasion of Benin, the works were first collected in the courtyard of the king from where they were later shipped to Britain.   On arrival in London, the Admiralty auctioned them.  Later in 1897, the British Museum exhibited well over three hundred bronze plaques loaned from the Foreign Office. Charles Read the curator of the British Museum at the time facilitated the auction of the pieces, which got into several British, and other foreign private and public collections.   Today, a large number of looted Benin works can be seen in the galleries of the British Museum as well as many other museums across Europe and America.   Ever since, there has been no return made to Nigeria from the British Museum despite several requests from Nigeria for the objects in their kitty.  In 1977, the British government turned down the request made by the Nigerian Government to loan the popular Queen Idia mask stolen from the bedchamber of the king which later became the symbol of the Second World Black and African Festival of Arts and Culture (FESTAC ‘77) in Lagos. This mask along with four other similar pectoral masks can be found in the Linden Museum, Stuttgart, The Metropolitan and Seattle Museums in the US and the most popular one at the British Museum. The fifth mask in a private collection surfaced at the Sotheby auction in 2010.  After the 1977 request came another, this time on the occasion of the 30th anniversary commemoration of FESTAC.  In February, 2007 Professor Tunde Babawale, Director of the Centre for Black and African Arts and Civilization (CBAAC) made a fresh request to the British Museum for the mask.  The Director of the British Museum, Neil Mcgregor, glossed over his request replying that the British Museum had been invited by the NCMM to offer assistance and advice on the development of the Lagos Museum.  In the 1950s the British Museum sold a number of Benin art objects to Nigeria.  These were purchased to beef up the collection in the newly founded museums.

Several attempts at retrieving Nigeria’s stolen art objects have been carried out over the years. Bernie Grant an MP in the British House of Commons made a request to the Director of the Art Gallery and Museums in Glasgow in 1997. As a follow up to this letter, Emmaneul Arinze, Chairman West African Museums also wrote letters of request for Benin objects. By 2000, Prince Edun Akenzua, the Enogie (Duke) of Obazuwa and brother of the Oba (king) of Benin gave testimony before the British House of Commons. In 2008, I hand delivered a requet letter from Prince Edun Akenzua to the Art Institute of Chicago. In all of these cases, there has been no response to mails. The lack of response has however not dissuaded people from reacting to this historical injustice. Fresh requests and responses occur as often as the issues of the looted artifacts resurface. One of such was the sale of Benin artifacts by Sotheby in 2001. A 16th century Benin ‘Oba’ mask was to be auctioned for about 4.5 million pounds sterling.  The consignee was a descendant of Lieutenant Colonel Sir Henry Gallwey, Deputy Commissioner and Vice Consul in the Oil Rivers Protectorate in 1891 who took part in the infamous British Expedition. Protests organized by civil society groups and Nigerian intellectuals against this sale spread from the streets of London to social network sites.  The consignee was forced to pull down the work from the auction. It is no longer business as usual to profiteer from the loot – a loot which was forcibly removed during a very bloody contest between British soldiers and Benin defenders. At another occasion, Nigerians living in Chicago protested in 2007 when news came that the Art Institute was selected as a venue of the travelling exhibition of Benin art titled Benin Kings and Rituals: Court Art from Nigeria.  In 2013, the controversial donation of 32 Benin objects by the Lehman Brothers to the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, USA and the Museum’s search for legitimacy from the Benin Royal family caused another stir.

It is important to mention here that the British expeditionary soldiers had a field day picking some of these Benin objects as mementoes for themselves.  Captain Egerton took for himself about half a dozen objects. Admiral Harry Rawson, the commander of the expedition and Sir Ralph Moor, the Consul General of the Niger Coast protectorate, sent to Queen Victoria a pair of exquisitely carved leopards as well as two carved ivory tusks as gifts from the troupe.  It was in this context that Captain Walker acquired his own pieces. While descendants of Sir Henry Gallwey have resorted to making money from the loot of their grandfather, Walker has decided to return to the original owners what his father himself described as ’loot’ in at least three entries in his diary.  This act of honour is the reason Edo people came out in large numbers to show immense gratitude to a man who has followed the path of nobility and conscience.  He has resisted the temptation of profiteering from works that were taken forcibly from a people who defended their kingdom with their lives. One can only hope that other individuals and descendants of British soldiers and particularly, foreign museums and institutions keeping Benin works would return them and in good time too.

Peju Layiwola is Associate Professor of Art History and currently Head of Department of Creative Arts, University of Lagos


July 16th, 2014

Posted In: Mailing list reports

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

July 7th, 2014

Posted In: looting and illegal art traffickers, Saint Louis Art Museum


“It is indeed unfortunate that so much Nok material has been looted over time to supply the international market. Properly excavated, such pieces might have shed valuable light on the Nok culture.” Ekpo Eyo(1)

When I read the news that the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, was returning 8 looted antiquities to Nigeria, I could not believe my eyes or the title of the article until I read the full report and was convinced that it was genuine.(2) 

I asked myself whether it was the same museum that had been trying to convince us a few months ago that it was better for Benin bronzes to be in the Boston museum where more people would see them. The curators of the museum had also tried to convince us that they had a duty to tell the history of Benin. It seemed then that the museum would never return any object once it had entered its records. (3)

Have the museum officials who a few months ago seemed to be convinced of their right to hold other peoples cultural artefacts experienced a conversion? Whatever may be the cause of the change of position and attitude regarding restitution of looted cultural artefacts, the Museum of Fine Arts must be congratulated for this change of policy or practice which seems to be on the right path. Gone from the museum’s policy then are lengthy legal process and interminable arguments and counterarguments between the museum and artefact owners.

Coming a few days after the return of Benin artefacts by Mark Walker, the return of 8 artefacts by the Boston museum may incline us to think a season of “miracles” is at hand. This is not the first time that the museum has been involved in restitution of looted artefacts. The museum has returned artefacts to France, Greece and Italy but this was done, especially in the case of Italy, under pressure of legal action and threats of other measures (4). In the case of the Nigerian artefacts, the return appears to have been voluntary and under no pressure as far as we can tell.

If we understand correctly this change, the Boston Museum of Fine Arts does not wait for an owner to claim ownership before it acts. The museum has a designated official who undertakes the examination of provenance. If the official has sufficient doubts about the legitimacy of the acquisition of an object, she makes her own enquires and informs the museum accordingly. The burden of proof is no longer on a claimant to establish ownership but for the museum to establish the legitimacy of acquisition of the artefacts.

The policy of the museum seems fairly reasonable to us but why does the museum not employ more provenance officers, considering the large amount of artefacts, 500.000, the museum holds? Although not explicitly stated in the report, it seems the museum’s policy as far as African artefacts are concerned, deals only with objects that have been looted or stolen since 1970 (year of the UNESCO Convention).are to be considered. We read from the homepage of the museum, under its Acquisitions and Provenance Policy. (5)


Following the AAMD Report on the Acquisition of Archaeological Materials and Ancient Art (dated June 4, 2008), the Museum recognizes the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (dated Nov. 17, 1970) as providing the most pertinent threshold for the application of more rigorous standards to the acquisition of archaeological materials and ancient art. The Museum will therefore not normally acquire archaeological materials and ancient art unless research substantiates that the work was outside its country of probable modern discovery before Nov. 17, 1970, or was legally exported from its country of probable modern discovery on or after Nov. 17.”


The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, is here following the line of defence much beloved by Western museums when confronted with African claims of restitution: They advance the 1970 UNESCO Convention as an obstacle to restitution. They set 1970 as a cut-off date for restitution claims and will not consider claims of looting or stealing of artefacts occurring before 1970 even though the convention itself does not contain any such barrier. True, the Convention, like most legal instruments, does not have a retrospective effect but it does not approve or disapprove of previous lootings nor does it prevent claimants from seeking restitution on grounds other than those provided in the convention.

So what appears at first sight to be a “miracle”, due to the unexpected return of looted artefacts from a museum that has not been very sympathetic to the idea, is in reality nothing more than a happy coincidence of many factors or a clever presentation of results that are in accordance with the declared policy of the museum and which happens to coincide with African expectations on different grounds.

The museum has not agreed to return the Benin artefacts that form the Lehman collection though the museum itself has admitted that all those artefacts were looted from Benin in the notorious invasion of 1897. (6)

Whilst congratulating the Museum of Fine Arts on returning 8 looted artefacts to Nigeria, we must remind ourselves and others that the museum follows the same line as many other western museums: they refuse to consider the issue of the return of artefacts looted in the colonial epoch. They have provided themselves with a cut off date of 1970 which conveniently happens to be a date when most African artefacts had already been looted and were lying quietly in Western museums. This factor of date must be brought to the attention of the African peoples, especially as some African officials entertain consciously or not, the illusion that Western museums are willing to discuss the restitution of artefacts looted at an earlier period.(7)

Western museums have repeatedly stated they are not willing to envisage the return of the Benin bronzes but African officials continue to act as if these artefacts were on their way home.(8)

Some have even said that Nigeria has received more than 100 artefacts back. What is not explained is that these returns, mostly looted objects intercepted by customs and police, are to be distinguished from the famous artefacts in the British Museum and other Western museums.

There is no shame in being unable to recover cultural objects looted by a powerful foreign State a century ago. But it is a dangerous tactic to entertain the illusion amongst people that we are succeeding in recovering those objects when we cannot concretely demonstrate that these looted objects have left Western museums and have now been returned to Nigeria. We do not know of a single instance where any of the famous Nigerian artefacts has left a Western museum and gone back to Nigeria. (9)

The return of the eight looted Nigerian artefacts by the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston is undoubtedly a very important step in the right direction. However, our enthusiasm for an action which a few months ago would have been considered improbable, if not impossible, should not blind us to the fact that this return involves a very, very tiny part of the thousands  of looted Nigerian artefacts in the museum and in other American museums.

The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, must return the Benin artefacts in the Lehman Collection which it received by way of donation. The museum itself has admitted that the artefacts in the collection were all looted in the nefarious British invasion of Benin in 1897. What else does one need to know that these are stolen and looted artefacts of others?  Both the National Commission on Museums and Monuments and the Benin Monarchy have requested the return of these items.

.More of such returns would be expected not only from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston but also from Western museums that have until now acted as if there were nothing wrong in holding well-known looted artefacts of others. Western museums must also contribute to the respect for the rule of law and ordinary morality. That attitude of exempting artefacts looting from the moral the commandment “Thou shall not steal.” may not be unconnected to the increase in robberies in religious places, museums, art galleries and other institutions in the West.(10)

A museum in a city that is associated with the struggle for American Independence surely would have no difficulty in understanding the desire of other peoples to keep and hold freely their own cultural artefacts without hindrance or interference by foreign museums and other institutions.

The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, has described in a current exhibition, Magna Carta as“the foundation for many liberties that Americans enjoy”. This principle of liberty must also apply to Africans and peoples of African descent even though; racism, slavery, colonialism and imperialism have obscured the perception of many. Liberty surely includes the right to develop our culture as we wish and with instruments and materials of our civilization.



                                                                Kwame Opoku, 4 July, 2014.






1. Ekpo Eyo, From Shrines to Showcases: Masterpieces of Nigerian Art, 2010, Federal Ministry of Information and Communication, Abuja. p.23.

2. Martin Bailey, “Boston museum returns works to Nigeria”

Museum of Fine Arts returns artifacts to Nigeria

Boston’s Museum of Fine Arts Returns Nigerian artifacts

The Boston MFA Returns 8 Looted Antiquities to Nigeria

The MFA Returns Stolen Art to Native Nigeria

3. K. Opoku, “Blood Antiquities in Respectable Havens: Looted Benin Artefacts Donated to American Museum”.

4. K.Opoku, “Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums:  Singular Failure of an Arrogant Imperialist Project”,


6. K. Opoku, “Blood Antiquities in Respectable Havens”…/blood-antiquities-in-resp

7. K Opoku, “What we understand by “Restitution”, “

8. K. Opoku, “Benin Plan of Action(2): Will this Miserable Project be the Last Word on the Looted Benin Artefacts?

(9). See attached annex  “Locations of Nigerian Masterpieces in USA and Europe”.

10. “South Bend parishioners grasping for understanding following theft of statues of saints”–Stolen-Saints

“Vicar describes theft of 400-year-old Bible from Datchet church as sacrilege’

“Stolen Objects from Greek Churches Exhibited Abroad

2 antique ivory images in Pampanga church stolen”,





Those interested in knowing where Nigerian masterpieces are may consult the following list compiled from indications in the last book by the greatEkpo EyoShrines to Showcases: Masterpieces of Nigerian Art, 2010, Federal Ministry of Information and Communication, Abuja, We mention here only those locations mentioned in Eyo’s book.

There are many more locations of Nigerian art in Western museums which are not mentioned here.

Musée du quai Branly, Paris, France.
Musée Barbier-Müller, GenevaSwitzerland.
Dept. of Art History and Archaeology, University of Maryland, US British Museum, London, United Kingdom.
Detroit Institute of Art, Detroit, USA.
National Museum of African Art, Smithsonian Institutions, Washington, USA.

Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo, USA 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, USA.
Museum Rietberg, Zürich, Switzerland.
Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin, Germany.
Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco, USA.
Volkerkunde Museum, Vienna, Austria.
Royal Collection, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, London, United Kingdom.New Orleans Museum of Arts, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, USA.
Yale University Art Gallery, Connecticut, New Haven, USA.

Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond, Virginia, USA.

Indiana University Art Museum, Bloomington, Idiana, USA.




Returned- Nok terracotta male figure 500 BC- AD 200.


Returned artefact – Oron ancestral wood figure (Ekpu)



A late 19th century memorial screen (duen fubara) made of wood, pigments and fibers from the Ijaw Kalabari peoples in Nigeria. Gift of William E. and Bertha L. Teel. (Courtesy Museum of Fine Arts)


Returned artefact – Memorial screen from late 19th century

Returned – Brass altar Benin figure stolen from the Oba’s Palace in the 1970s



Returned artefact – Terra-cotta head from Nigeria dating to 500 B.C. to 200 AD



July 5th, 2014

Posted In: Dr. Kwame Opoku writings about looted cultural objects