A Blank Cheque to Plunder Nok Terra Cotta?


                    In his interview of January 27, 2008 with Richard
                    Lacayo, “A Talk With: James Cuno”, Cuno, Director of
                    the Art Institute of Chicago, makes many
                    controversial statements. In the following, Kwame
                    Opoku comments on a few of these points.


                    “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.