Peking University, August 21, 2020: In Beijing lies one of China’s most historic sites – the Yuanmingyuan Park (also known as the Old Summer Palace). Home of the Qing Dynasty, this site simultaneously fans the embers of national humiliation and patriotism. It is a steady reminder of the devastating events China suffered in what is termed the Century of Humiliation. It is alleged that over 800,000 Chinese relics plundered from the Old Summer Palace by the Anglo-French forces during the Second Opium War (1856-1860) are in museums across the world.
The theft of cultural artefacts is not peculiar to China. Africa is also a victim of the appropriation of cultural relics owing to its history of colonialism. From Egypt’s Rosetta Stone and the Nefertiti, Nigeria’s Nok Terracotta and Benin Bronzes, to Benin Republic’s anthropomorphic (half human-half animal) statues, the cases are numerous. In a report calling for the restitution of Africa’s stolen artefacts, Felwine Sarr and Bénédicte Savoy stated that up to 90% of Sub-Saharan Africa’s material cultural legacy is outside of the continent.
Over the years, China and African nations adopted several approaches to reclaiming their national heritages. These include using international convention, bilateral cooperation, civil litigation, negotiations, etc to facilitate the return of illegally appropriated relics and protect inventoried and yet-to-be excavated artefacts from illegal exportation across borders. 193 nations including China and others in Africa are signatories to the 1970 UNESCO Convention and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention. Likewise, China signed several Memoranda of Understanding with over 28 countries like the United States, Egypt, Vietnam, Italy, Russia, Ethiopia, Japan, and Chile, among others. The need for collaborative efforts to check the illegal art dealing market further materialized in 2010 in the Conference on International Cooperation for the Protection and Repatriation of Cultural Heritage in Cairo, Egypt. Different aggrieved nations including India, Spain, China, Greece, Nigeria, Bolivia, Ecuador, USA, Libya, etc. demanded the repatriation of their artefacts.
These approaches yielded some successful repatriation cases. For instance, in 2019, the US returned 361 controversial collections to China, and Nigeria received 8 artefacts held by the Museum of Fine Art Boston in 2014. Also, China recovered 156 cultural relics from Denmark following a local court ruling in 2008. Likewise, China successfully negotiated with France in 2015 for the return of a collection of 56 golden ornaments dated to the Spring and Autumn Period (770–476 BC).
However, as China experienced an economic boom so too did its ranks of billionaires grow. The recovery of China’s cultural artefacts took a new look – gifts and purchases. This approach is facilitated by Chinese institutions and patriotic entrepreneurs sometimes referred to as White Knights because they are benevolent sponsors who do not seem to officially represent China’s State Administration of Cultural Heritage (SACH) policies. These individuals and institutions have become private art collectors, buying Chinese artefacts housed abroad and donating them to Chinese museums. For instance, Stanley Ho bought 2 of the 12 missing zodiac heads (boar and horse) in 2003 and 2007 and donated each to Poly Art Museum and National Museum of China, respectively. China Poly Group Corporation Limited bought 3 of the 12 missing zodiac heads (monkey, ox and tiger) in 2000. Likewise, after a failed auction at Christie’s in Paris in 2009, French billionaire, François-Henri Pinault, returned the rabbit and rat bronze zodiac heads to China in 2013.
This largely successful approach can impact on the nature of the united front formed between China and other States since the 2010 Cairo Conference. Many African institutions cannot utilize this approach because of existing economic dilemmas. Will nations like Libya and Angola, with infrastructure deficit, allocate funds for the purchase of their cultural relics?
So, there exist opportunities to strengthen China-Africa cultural relations. One step can be the establishment of an international institution capable of coordinating the efforts of China, African nations and other interested nation-states to recover their looted artefacts. Instead of a unilateral approach by distinct nations, this body can boost knowledge, technology and resources exchanges between countries that share common cultural heritage repatriation challenges.
More so, tapping into China’s technological prowess and using 3D printing technology can help people interact with the ancient histories of China and African nations. Aside from the easy access to replicas of Chinese and African artefacts, sharing resources and technical know-how can facilitate the creation of an available online inventory of all member-states’ movable and immovable cultural artefact collections conserved in museums at home and abroad.
Another step is the redirection of funds to support public programs, business enterprises and organizations capable of improving China-Africa cultural exchanges. This will improve people-to-people relations and peaceful co-existence; essential ingredients for successful partnerships in trade, investment and education.
Cultural partnerships between China and Africa are ideal to boost people-to-people engagements and the repatriation of looted cultural artefacts presents opportunities to strengthen these links. Being an unprecedented and the most important development event of the 21st century, China-Africa relationship especially its cultural aspect, epitomises the establishment of a mutually shared history, heritage and legacy of brotherhood.
About the author
Dickson David Agbaji is Nigerian and scholar of the 5th cohort of the Yenching Academy of Peking University. He enjoys writing and researching, and he has co-authored several published journal articles. As a Yenching Scholar, Dickson is learning Mandarin and majors in Politics and International Relations, researching the Sino-African partnership, China's soft power and the impacts of Chinese investments on the human development index of African nations.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Peking University.
Written by: Dickson David Agbaji
