Benin Bronzes Highlight Complexity of Repatriation Decisions

The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (MFA) recently announced the closure of its Benin Kingdom Gallery and the return of two bronzes from its collection to the emperor of Benin, the Oba, in Nigeria. This decision underscores the complexity of considerations confronted by museums assessing repatriation of valuable collection items. On the one hand, the repatriation decision serves as a model of how museums can use thorough provenance research to inform a consistent policy of returning collection items that are clearly determined to have been looted or stolen. On the other hand, the decision to close the gallery and return the remaining bronzes to the private collector who loaned them to the museum highlights the difficulty of reaching a mutually agreeable resolution unless all parties view repatriation as a flexible concept that may be best accomplished through collaborative solutions.

Over the past two decades, attitudes on this subject have evolved. Until recently, cultural objects that had been legally acquired, consistent with the moral considerations of the time and place of the taking, did not raise widespread concern about their inclusion in both public and private collections. Increasingly, however, museums have moved towards making “ethical returns,” reexamining the associated history of collection items and exploring repatriation when such items were obtained in a way that would be deemed unethical today, even when the law does not compel a return. The Benin Bronzes, which were acquired through British imperialism, are a prime example of this move towards ethical returns. Yet, repatriation is not as simple as a reflexive determination to return wrongfully removed cultural objects.

The question of where or to whom repatriated bronzes will go in Nigeria has raised numerous concerns and illustrates the complexity of these deliberations. Until recently, a three-way power struggle existed within Nigeria as to whether repatriated Benin artworks would be put on display and, if so, where. The governor of the Nigerian State of Edo (in which the old Kingdom of Benin was located) initiated plans to build a state-of-the-art museum to house repatriated bronzes. The Royal Court of Benin, led by the Oba, meanwhile, objected to the idea of returning bronzes to the State of Edo and announced plans to construct its own museum that would be built on or near the palace grounds in Benin City, the capital of the State of Edo. Finally, the Nigerian national government maintained that it held exclusive authority in matters relating to monuments, museums and artifacts through Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments.  

The question of control was resolved in May 2023 when the Nigerian president issued a decree recognizing the Oba as the owner of any Benin Bronzes returned to Nigeria. Yet, while the decree made clear the recipient of returned bronzes, it left many questions unanswered. The decree explicitly allowed the Oba to keep returned artworks in his palace compound with no obligation to show them to anybody. Further, it said nothing about the Nigerian national government providing the funds necessary to construct a museum at the Royal Court, and contained no proscriptions on what the Oba may do with the bronzes, including selling them for profit. On a practical level, the Oba does not currently have the infrastructure to display or preserve the bronzes. As a result, the Oba has granted Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments permission to keep returning bronzes in a storage facility at the National Museum in Benin City pending completion of the Benin Royal Museum that is to eventually house some of the bronzes.

Museums contemplating repatriation of Benin Bronzes therefore remain uncertain as to the fate of these artworks after they are returned. Whether or not Western museums are entitled to question what will become of objects acquired through colonial conquest after their return, additional considerations complicate the decision. After all, repatriated bronzes are now going to one person—the Oba—not the entire Nigerian people, and even if repatriating the bronzes to the Oba results in greater access to Nigerians in Nigeria, it overlooks the interests of the Nigerian diaspora in the United States and other parts of the world. More broadly, those who view wider distribution as essential to building diversity and interconnectivity across cultures assert that returning all objects to their original owner or place of origin is not necessary or even beneficial. Still others argue the Oba is not a rightful recipient because Benin artworks were a product of the wealth gained by the Benin Kingdom from selling slaves, and the current Oba should not now profit from the past participation in slave trade.  

With these complex considerations in mind, the closure of the MFA’s Benin Kingdom Gallery entailed three very different outcomes for the bronzes comprising the gallery. Of the five bronzes that had been donated to the museum, the MFA returned the two that could be traced to the looting of Benin by the British Empire and retained the three with inconclusive provenance unless and until additional research yields more definitive information. This decision, though not compelled by law, was consistent with the museum’s policy of returning collection items that are later found to have been wrongfully taken from their original owner or place of origin. The museum returned the remainder of the Benin collection to the private owner who loaned the bronzes to the MFA with the intention of donating them over time. What will happen next with the privately held collection remains to be seen, but it seems unlikely it will go on display at another museum only to confront the same difficult considerations faced by the MFA. Thus, for the time being, those bronzes will not be widely accessible.

What is noteworthy about this outcome is that it seems to benefit only the private collector. Put differently, none of the motivations for seeking repatriation are achieved. The bronzes are not going to their original owner or place of origin, nor are they remaining in a museum “repatriated in place” as a means of building cultural connections and educating visitors about their history. Unlike museums that hold their collection items in trust for the benefit of the public, private collectors are not subject to all the same obligations and considerations. While museums adhere to professional policy standards and must be responsive to public opinion as to where cultural property items should reside, a private collector is not subject to these same concerns.  

Increasingly, Western institutions have begun exploring practical solutions and collaborations. Central to achieving this type of resolution is not only understanding the law and policy controlling cultural property generally, but also recognition that navigating complex repatriation matters ultimately requires moving away from a singular focus on ownership. Rather, a thoughtful approach to the relevant ethical considerations and an openness to cooperation that allows sharing cultural history and knowledge yields the most satisfying and beneficial outcome for all involved. While reaching a mutually agreeable resolution regarding the Benin Kingdom Gallery at the MFA was complicated by the fact that most of the bronzes on display were still held by a private collector, the Smithsonian Institution offers a different resolution, retaining nine of the “repatriated” Benin Bronzes from its collection in loan status. Indeed, the Oba has spoken publicly in support of Benin Bronzes serving as “cultural ambassadors” on loan throughout the world after repatriation. Ideally, museums may successfully pursue shared stewardship of cultural objects or returns that are accompanied by loans of other like objects in the future.