Earlier this year, the British and Victoria and Albert Museums granted a loan to the Asante people of Ghana, regarding some artifacts stolen in a 19th-century colonial war.
Who are the Asante?
The Asante are the most populous and arguably most known of the Akan peoples of Ghana. Collectively, the Akans are the largest ethnic group in the country, totalling nearly 50% of the population.
The Asante themselves were once an independent kingdom, formed in the late 17th century by the great king and first Asantehene (king of Asante) Osei Tutu I. He was notedly supported in this endeavour by his spiritual advisor, Ofomko Anokye. The Asante at this time was a combination of various Akan-speaking peoples in the vicinity of Kumasi, and over the next decades, its power expanded and grew.
At its height in the late 18th/early 19th centuries, the Asante ruled much of what is now southern and central Ghana. Via a mixture of direct conquest and vassalage, it ensured rule by tribute and secured a singular administrative and military base.
This was mixed, however, by its role in the slave trade, and thus via its conquests it often secured captives that could be sold to Europeans as slaves. The Akan cultural and linguistic influence can be noted in the Americas in consequence, including the Jamaican Maroons who exhibit several cultural similarities to the current-day Akans.
By 1807, the British had established themselves as the major European force on the Gold Coast, which was the colonial name of current-day Ghana. In this year, the British Parliament abolished the slave trade, though slavery itself as an institution persisted until 1838. Whilst trading in gold and other commodities was a staple of the Asante economy at that time, the abolition of trading slaves was a major blow to their power. Slaves were often traded for guns and similar goods, and thus the Asante needed to re-think their economic structure.
What’s more,is that neighbouring Akan peoples such as the Fante began to ally with the British. This complicated trading arrangements, and this with additional tensions led to a series of Anglo-Asante wars throughout the 19th century.
Two of the said wars resulted in a stalemate. However, in the 1870s, the British were wary of French expansion in what are now Cote d’Ivoire and Burkina Faso. Moreover, the newly united Germans under Kaiser Wilhelm I were colonising what is now Togo. Ghana was once named the Gold Coast due to its extensive gold deposits. Thus, by the 1870s, it was felt necessary to secure this and further resources, amidst the immense colonial competition of the time.
The Third Anglo-Asante War saw a British victory, largely due to the use of superior arms. The capital, Kumasi, was burnt, and in-kind various artifacts were stolen, with the pretext being they were spoils of war.
The famed Golden Stool, a prime symbol of the Asante people, was nearly stolen in the Fourth War, in the early 20th century. However, clever subterfuge by the Asante prevented this, to the chagrin of the British army officers attempting to seize it.
Whilst Ghana today is an independent republic and part of the Commonwealth of Nations, the Asantehene is still a figure of renown in the Asante region, and represents an unofficial cultural ambassador for Ghana at large. The current Asantehene, HM King Osei Tutu II, remains a highly respected figure in Ghana, and along with other sovereigns representing once-independent kingdoms, embodies a key link to the past and deeply-held cultural underpinnings.
The Loan
The item in question was some items stolen by the British in the 19th-century Anglo-Asante wars.
In this era, British influence in the region was growing, especially in the Scramble for Africa period. European powers sought African resources, mainly to help boost their industrialisation. Moreover, specifically to what was then the Gold Coast, the slave trade had been abolished by Britain in 1807. As the Asante kingdom had grown powerful in part from the supply of slaves to Europeans in exchange for items such as firearms and textiles, the relative power of Asante had fallen. And with Britain’s desire to secure the known large gold deposits of the region, war between them was inevitable.
In total, there were four such conflicts. The First and Second wars were stalemates, however the Third war in the 1870s saw British troops enter the Asante capital, Kumase, and burn it. They also looted various items from the Asante royal palace, including the aforementioned pieces which still reside in British museums.
This is similar to the Benin Bronzes, which were taken from Benin City in modern-day Nigeria in roughly the same period.
Asante was annexed into the British Gold Coast in the early 20th century and became independent as Ghana in 1957. It was the first sub-Saharan African former European colony to attain this status, being led by noted pan-Africanist leader Kwame Nkrumah.
The loan itself has granted Ghana the right to host the artefact, which is expected to be returned after several years.
After six years, the items are due to be returned, back to the British and Victoria and Albert Museums.
There are numerous points here that are problematic:
Loaning back items one truly owns
It is the Asante king, and Asante people at large, who own the items. Yes, they were lost as spoils of war, but they still were made by the Asante.
Thus, it is a bitter pill to loan something that one truly owns.
Ownership of foreign artefacts
This also raises the question as to why British museums should even house items that were made by foreign cultures. Below is a photo depicting Indian sculptures from the British Museum, taken in the 18th century.
Some argue that there is a duty to safeguard the heritage of humanity, wherever it is from. Where does this duty lie exactly? People create art for a variety of reasons, and heritage is just one of them. It’s just in our nature to express ourselves in some manner. This can be via stories, pictures, music, etc. We are innately imaginative, and abstract thinking and reasoning are core to beings as humans.
Artefacts are not made to benefit humanity at large. They are often made to celebrate a culture or a given practice. It’s arrogant to assume that any one country can or should be the global cultural guardian.
Hypocrisy
An argument in favour of this cultural protection is the destruction of Buddhist statues by the Taliban in Afghanistan, and also of Assyrian structures in Syria and Iraq by ISIS.
Yes, these rightly are wrong and should be condemned. But they’re the exceptions and not the rule. Most UNESCO sites are in developing countries. There are numerous states in the third world that actively upkeep or promote their cultural sites. Egypt and the Pyramids, Cambodia and Angkor Wat, and China and the Terracotta Warriors are examples. Ghana has former slave forts such as Elmina and Cape Coast castles which are protected as prime historical sites, and are UNESCO locations. Iran has been Islamic for many centuries, though Persepolis - the capital of the ancient Persian empires - is a prized cultural asset upheld by the ruling Islamic state. Certainly, the ancient Persians were not Muslims. Many supposed hardline regimes often see themselves as the contemporary inheritors of past powerful states. Even Hitler labelled his state as the Third Reich, as a continuation of the First (Holy Roman Empire) and Second (German Empire) Reichs as powerful manifestations of the German people.
In Britain, the Houses of Parliament need urgent renovation. They are a world-known cultural depiction of Britain, and many know of Elizabeth Tower that houses Big Ben. But the British government is hesitant to upgrade it, mainly due to the cost. Notre Dame suffered a fire a few years ago, and the investigation said that negligence in maintenance was the cause. If rich Western countries cannot care for their own cultural treasures properly, then can they lecture other countries about the actual or potential destruction of such?
Some may argue that there is a difference between wanton destruction and neglect. I disagree. They both stem from the same place - a rejection of cultural legacy. One may be more extreme than the other, absolutely. But it can be argued that if a given artefact is significant, then it shouldn’t be permitted to degrade. Cathedrals in Britain and Europe generally, for instance, are continually maintained. Bridges such as the Forth rail bridge are continuously painted to protect it.
Returning others’ cultural objects
It should be time to return all artefacts taken from other cultures.
The arguments for their retention in British and wider Western museums are thin and fallacious.
It would mean some economic damage to Western museums. Though to offset this, maybe they can be retained there, but with the express permission from other cultures or foreign governments.
In short, perhaps it would be Western museums that would be loaning the items from foreign states and/or cultures. This could come via a fee to retain this hosting privilege, perhaps paid annually. And also, nationals of the said country could see the item for free (perhaps with proof of identity such as a passport) or at a heavily discounted price.
We all know that the taking of these items was a spoil of war from colonial times.
And these associated arguments for global cultural preservation can be seen as pretexts designed to justify their continued retention. If developing countries “cannot be trusted” to stop cultural items being destroyed or defiled, then it’s hypocritical when European countries do the same. Rome is central to all of European culture, yet this report showed that Italy was not ensuring the protection of prized Roman sites.
If we’re seeking to move towards a more inclusive world, and wish to correct past wrongs, then it’s best to return items taken from a different time.