Freakonomics Radio - 543. How to Return Stolen Art

Episode Date: May 18, 2023

Museums are purging their collections of looted treasures. Can they also get something in return? And what does it mean to be a museum in the 21st century? (Part 3 of “Stealing Art Is Easy. Giving It Back Is Hard.”)

I mean, I'm quite famous for not doing what I'm told. Well, it's very convenient for our purposes, I have to say. You think we're 100% safe here? Well, we can just keep a weather eye on those three. Especially the man with the big fuzzy microphone. That is me with Patricia Allen in the Kelvin Grove Museum in Glasgow, Scotland. Allen is the curator of world cultures for the 11 institutions that make up the Glasgow Museums. This makes her responsible for all non-European objects

in their collections. We have come to the Kelvin Grove to see a group of objects known as Benin bronzes, artworks and artifacts looted by Britain from the historic Kingdom of Benin in what is now Nigeria. The last time I tried to see some Benin bronzes in a museum, at the British Museum in London, our microphones were confiscated and then, as it turned out, all the Africa galleries

were closed that day. Today, in Glasgow, we're having better luck. This is the head of an oba. So all of these heads were made by ancestors. An Oba is a Benin king. A newly crowned Oba would make the head of the preceding Oba. They're placed on altars along with other offerings, including things like a bell. There's an Ebon sword, maybe some of the ivory.

What is that? That's a ceremonial sword carried by the Oba. I see. So we have two of these heads, this head and another one that used to be on display at St. Mungo Museum of Religion. Glasgow Museums bought them in auction in 1898. So that was a year afterwards. A year afterwards, meaning after the bloody 1897 expedition in which British soldiers burned Benin City, killed much of the population, expelled the Oba, and took home everything from the palace that wasn't bolted down. Actually, as we heard in our previous episode, they took some of the bolted down stuff too. They even took the bolts from the doors,

these ivory bolts. The Western colonizers were kleptomaniacs. They stole hairpins. They stole keys to the doors in the palace. The British shipped thousands of objects from everyday tools to religious and historical objects back to England. Many of the best pieces went straight into the British Museum. Others were auctioned off to museums throughout Europe.

For the British Empire, plunder was an important economic activity. In recent decades, Nigeria has repeatedly asked for the return of the stolen artifacts from Benin, the British Museum has thus far refused. But many other institutions, including the Glasgow Museums, have begun to repatriate their Benin pieces. Today on Freakonomics Radio, the third and final episode in our series on the economics, politics, and ethics of returning stolen art. We have already learned how easily stolen art can still get into even the most prominent museums. Let's talk about the gold coffin, the $4 million gold coffin.

We've learned how quickly public sentiment has changed. If they will tell the truth, it would be so disgusting that it would be the end of the British Museum. And today on the show, what does it mean to be a museum in the 21st century? Well, I always think that people go to the worst case scenario. Reporting from museums in Glasgow, London, Washington, D.C., and more, beginning right now. This is Freakonomics Radio, the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything

with your host, Stephen Dubner. Okay, let's get back to Patricia Allen, Curator of World Cultures at the Glasgow Museums. My role isn't so much front of house curating exhibitions at the moment. At the time of lockdown, I took it upon myself to focus quite heavily on repatriation and restitution. I feel like I've read in your biography that you came

to curation via perhaps archaeology and maybe even biology. Is that true? That is absolutely true. I started as a microbiologist and then I moved into archaeology and then ultimately into museum curation. So my amateur, unscientific brain, if it's looking for the most obvious connection between what you did perhaps as an archaeologist and what you do now as a museum curator of world culture, the linchpin that my brain puts in the middle is looting. Am I wrong there? I have not made that connection before, but looting is big in both professions. I have been on archaeological sites in South America where you go off for the night and then

come back and find that people have got in to the site and have dug everything out. Wow. And so that is depressing. But also the reason I felt that this was important is that I'm not myself British. And when I got the job as curator, I was surrounded by my own heritage. And I wondered how it got there and whether actually the British had a right to be storing it and hoarding it. So I was like a mole. A mole, not in the animal sense, in the spy sense. A mole in the animal sense is more like an archaeologist, but this is a mole in the sense that I sort of got in there as one

of the colonized. And I was really the only one at the time. I've been doing this for 20 years now, and everybody else is very much British or European, if you're lucky. Where's your family from? Well, I was born in Brazil, so that's where part, if you're lucky. Where's your family from? Well, I was born in Brazil. So that's where part of my family's from. My mother is Singapore, Eurasian. And my father, I suppose he was French. But, you know, he was raised in colonial Africa.

And so, yeah, from lots of non-British places. It's interesting. You got involved in a field where most of the curators and people on the museum side, it sounds like, were to be brutally reductive on the colonizing side. And you're coming from the colonized side. What was that like for you? As people often say, I passed. So nobody really knew. I just had that sensibility. And I just, from the very beginning, the previous curator was showing some individuals, some Chinese dolls. They were like dolls I'd had as a child. And so she was telling the others what the dolls were for. And I was standing there as a recent recruit, and I thought, actually, that's wrong. Everything she said was wrong. And I tried to interrupt, but all I could say was, no, it's wrong. I had dolls like that. And everybody looked at me

and there was silence. That must have made you very popular. But it immediately made me question, you know, what on earth was going on. Because very little of this collection is appreciated or it's not given the same status as European art, a very small amount is on display, very small percentage. And there are big diaspora communities here now, and they don't get to see their own culture. But yet we were keeping it. If you don't like it, just give it back, is my feeling.

When someone like me, an American, comes to Scotland, where we are now, or England, where we were just previous, and we go to your wonderful and beautiful old museums. I have to say, the more I've learned about this topic, the more those museums feel less like, you know, curated collections of the world's great treasures, and the more they feel like trophy cases, I guess. Is that too reductive? No, I think you've got part of the story there. They were trophy cases. Now they're sort of harbingers of doom, particularly as we slide down the economic scale. I think of them as big sort of

almost like warehouses of loot. They are part of the history. And for a long time in my early years as a curator here, I could only display this material in terms of the British sensibility. It was another way of interpreting Britain's place in the world. And now we are back in the gallery at the Kelvingrove Museum, where Alan was showing us around earlier. She leads me to the display case we came here to see of the Benin bronzes. So the Benin palaces were decorated with these bronze plaques,

and we have a fragment of a plaque. The British Museum in London is thought to possess nearly 200 of the Benin plaques, which portray centuries worth of Benin history. The Glasgow Museum's one fragment shows a man standing, his head in profile, with long straight hair and finely patterned sleeves. It was made by a known artist, the master of the circle cross. It would represent a Portuguese soldier or sailor who traded with Benin and Western Africa extensively from the 14th century onwards.

And a lot of the copper that was the basis of these pieces came from Europe. There's a huge amount of trade from maybe the 10th century on with West Africa, the Malian Empire, you know, highly sophisticated travel, great trade routes and networks throughout Africa. So when someone says that these African countries wouldn't have been able to care for and preserve their art were it not for the British, they'd done it for hundreds of years already. Absolutely, thousands of years. I mean, the earliest record of iron smelting is within Sub-Saharan Africa.

In the spring of 2022, Glasgow Museums publicly committed to returning the Benin objects from its collection to the federal government of Nigeria. Glasgow Museums is currently holding 19 pieces that we have identified as coming from Benin, probably taken during the punitive expedition of 1897 by Britain. But the ownership has effectively been transferred to

Nigeria. The Glasgow museums have also announced the return of seven antiquities to India and more than two dozen artifacts to the Lakota tribe of Native Americans. What led to the decision to repatriate all these pieces? Well, I was approached to discuss this and I had already earmarked various pieces that I felt we should not have because I feel that as a museum service, we really shouldn't be fencing stolen goods. I'd identified them through research because most of them had come with quite extensive notes. And one was a confession of theft that ran for four pages. Wow. Why would one put down in writing a confession of theft?

Because they thought it was more of a confession of entitlement. A confession of entitlement. Consider this yet another reminder that many artifacts in the world's great museums were plundered during an era when plunder was the norm. I would say that the standards of excavation have been completely reversed. That is Andrea Bayer, Deputy Director for Collections and Administration at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. We also heard from her in the first episode of this series, describing how only recently the Met paid $4 million for a gold coffin that turned out to have been looted from Egypt about a decade ago. Bayer admitted the Met's failure. We asked a certain number of questions, but we did not ask nearly enough questions about it.

The Met was founded toward the end of the 19th century. Its first director was an Italian- di Ciasnola, would have followed, in which he was able to excavate and remove thousands of objects from Cyprus, which he then was able to sell. That is a paradigm that no one would follow now. Still, the Met has recently had dozens of looted artifacts seized from its collections and returned to their countries of origin. Just last week, the Met announced a new research unit to help weed out looted or stolen acquisitions.

But even when a museum does uncover an ill-gotten object, repatriation is not a foregone conclusion. The Glasgow Museums, for instance, repatriated their first Lakota object in 1998. Around the same time, they received a request from Nigeria to repatriate a Benin object. Patricia Allen again. They turned that down straight away. Why was that one turned down?

They felt that there were issues with Nigeria, where the objects would go, where they'd end up. There was a certain amount of judgment. What do you mean by there were certain judgments or issues there with Nigeria? Well, I found a letter once from our then director saying that, you know, would they be so quick to refuse a similar request if it had been from Native Americans? There was a certain level of sympathy towards, because the Scottish love

a bit of the Wild West. But Nigeria, not so much? It would seem that way. And I'd found this letter when I was researching and writing a paper, but it was from our then director and posing that question and thinking that maybe they should have something more objective. To be fair, the repatriation of the Benin objects is complicated by the fact that there are several potential claimants, including the Nigerian government and the current Benin Oba. He is a direct descendant of the Oba who was exiled by the British in the 19th century. Just recently, things got even more complicated. The outgoing Nigerian president declared that any repatriated Benin artifacts must be handed over to the Oba.

On the one hand, this makes sense. He is a descendant of the man from whom the objects were stolen in the first place. But from the perspective of a European museum, this means the repatriated Benin bronzes are less likely to remain accessible to the public. Still, the issue of repatriating art is much broader than this one set of artifacts. To that end, the Glasgow museums have created a set of criteria to help guide the process, something more objective in Patricia Allen's words. There used to be five criteria on this list. Now there are four. The current criteria are, one, the status of those making the request, which is their right to represent the descendants of the community to whom the artifact originally belonged.

The second one is the continuity between the community that created the objects and the current community on whose behalf the request is being made so there has to be a connection a continuity there the third one is the cultural historical and or religious importance of the objects to the descendant community and the fourth which is not necessarily that important anymore is how the objects were acquired by the museum. But that's really to put the onus on the museum to prove that these objects are genuine. And what is the old fifth criteria? The fifth was the fate of the object if returned. In that case, you're supposed to have a museum or return the objects to another museum.

It made it very difficult for indigenous communities in particular to put in a claim because many don't have those facilities and those resources. By taking that criterion away and acknowledging that what you're returning is ill-gotten gains, if you like, loot and material, that we are effectively either facilitating robbery by sort of laundering this material or actually directly doing it ourselves, that as thieves, we don't really have a right, perhaps, to set conditions on the return of stolen property. At this point, you may find yourself wondering

if museums are full of objects that were essentially stolen, and if museums are starting to return those objects, will they have anything left to show? You know, I never go to the extreme because that's not an answer. So what is the answer? I'm Stephen Dubner. This is Freakonomics Radio. We'll be right back. In early 2022, Nigeria put in a formal request on behalf of the Oba of Benin to repatriate the stolen Benin objects that are in the collection of the Glasgow museums. The request was made

to the Glasgow City Administration Committee, which controls the museums, and the city agreed to the return. Does this mean the Benin objects will be leaving Scotland and heading to Nigeria? Not necessarily. Here again is curator Patricia Allen.

We haven't established the full details, but it's possible that we'll hold them for a while. We'll either transfer their ownership officially on paper so that they become theirs that we have on loan. They're quite keen on that approach because they have had so many offers from across the world. Germany is giving everything back, and that's hundreds of objects. The Smithsonian? The Germany is giving everything back, and that's hundreds of objects. The Smithsonian?

The Smithsonian is giving back. Also the Pitt Rivers, Oxford, Cambridge, the Horniman Museum. Aberdeen gave their sole oba's head back last year. So you're saying that there's a glut of Benin bronzes returning to Nigeria now? Well, I don't think they describe it as a glut. It's just they haven't quite got the infrastructure in place.

And so in the case of the Glasgow museums, it sounds as though the Nigerian government or the parties that represent the government there that you're dealing with would prefer that you keep them here on loan and on display, perhaps? Yes, I think that is certainly one option because the museum in Edo State, it doesn't have storage.

So they're building something within Lagos where the security is better. They had to change the indemnity because the cultural sector did not have sufficient indemnity. So it's now government indemnity. Indemnity, we mean insurance, yes? This is art. This is high art. Gradually, their storage facilities will be developed and then gradually take everything else back. The Glasgow Museum's plan may be complicated by the recent announcement that the Nigerian government will hand over repatriated pieces to the Oba himself. But remember, Nigeria has been asking for the Benin bronzes for decades.

I asked Alan why the Glasgow Museums finally acquiesced. As a result of Black Lives Matter, what sparked an interest, a revisiting of the whole subject of cultural repatriation and restitution of objects is, you know, an awareness that maybe we did sort of bad things. And it came out of Black Lives Matter, the connection with that and atonement for transatlantic slavery. And so Benin was first in line, really. Well, the murder of George Floyd and all the challenges that brought with it really were crucially important and meaningful to me. As a historian of Black America, as a historian of violence in America,

those moments really transformed me. That is Lonnie G. Bunch III. But also part of my job as a historian was to contextualize this, to say that this is not new, unfortunately. This will happen again in the future. And the challenge really is to understand that the struggle for fairness in America is a perpetual struggle and that you never get to the promised land of equality. You only aspire to get there. And so it was really important for me to see that museums, especially

the Smithsonian, play a role when a nation was in crisis. Bunch is the secretary of the Smithsonian based in Washington, D.C., sometimes called the nation's attic. The Smithsonian is a collection of 21 museums, 21 libraries, a variety of research and education centers, and the National Zoo. Bunch has worked on and off at the Smithsonian since 1978. He became secretary in 2019. Before that, he was founding director of the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture. We started with no staff, no collections, no site, and no money. And how do you build a museum collection from scratch? And then what we did is we went around the country in an antique roadshow way and asked people to bring out their stuff.

It was really to preserve, to help them preserve Grandma's old shawl, that 90s-century photograph. And then if people wanted to give things to us, the first thing we did was say, give it to local museums. We wanted people to benefit in local museums from the Smithsonian's coming to town. But if it was extremely significant, obviously it came back to Washington. In the end, they collected a lot. 40,000 artifacts, of which 70% came out of the basements, trunks, and attics of people's homes. This was an entirely different approach than how the first director of the Metropolitan Museum looted artifacts from archaeological sites? Or how

the British Museum stocked itself with plunder from Britain's empire building? The British Museum, in some ways, is a colonial creation. That so much of what it collected initially were things that would help them celebrate British identity. Some from internal, others from, you know, India, Africa, other places where the British colonized. The difference with the African American Museum is, first of all, this was going to be a museum that shared authority and was shaped by community. Not only did we collect material, but in essence, we collected people's stories. The goal was that the artifacts were really the way to give people a sense of ownership. By doing artifacts that sometimes seem common, like an old 19th century

iron or a wash pot, suddenly people could see that they were shaped by this history and they could tell the stories of their own parents or grandparents. This experience of creating a museum from scratch led Lonnie Bunch to think more broadly about how any museum builds its collection. And this led to a new institution-wide collections policy at the Smithsonian. I asked a group of curators in 2021 to think about an ethical returns policy, to really think about what should we do with material that is problematic. But I didn't want it simply to be, how do you deal with a problem? What I wanted it to be is to say that as important as scholarship, as provenance, as resources to acquire these collections, equally important is the ethical considerations of how we got them. And so what I wanted to do

was to basically add that equation into the mix so that therefore, no matter what we did, ethical considerations could in some ways trump scholarship and other issues. I just wanted to make sure that ethical considerations were as important as anything else in determining what you acquire and what you maintain. Based on this new policy, the Smithsonian might deaccession a piece from its collection and return it to the rightful owner, or it might enter into a shared stewardship arrangement with communities or descendants who have made claims to the rightful owner, or it might enter into a shared stewardship arrangement with communities or descendants who have made claims to the objects. For example, there are several Native communities who, instead of saying they want material repatriated, they said,

you're better at preserving it than we are, let you keep it as long as we know it's there. So, I think it really was a process that would allow us to either return to negotiate and work effectively with community or with the owners. And then if the choice is made, these materials can stay with us. Among the museums that Bunch oversees, in addition to the new Museum of African American History, is the Museum of African Art. This museum had over the years accumulated many artifacts that had been looted from Benin by the British in their 1897 punitive expedition. Brass plaques, ceremonial heads, jewelry, and more. They had come to the Smithsonian primarily by donation from wealthy collectors like Joseph Hirshhorn and from institutions

like the Walt Disney Company, which had bought Benin art from the collectors Paul and Ruth Tishman. Under the Smithsonian's new collections policy, Lonnie Bunch committed to repatriating these pieces to Nigeria. For some guidance, he turned to an institution that had much larger holdings of Benin bronzes. I would say a year ago, I had conversations with the British Museum just to understand where they were with this whole process. The British Museum, remember, has thus far decided against repatriating their Benin bronzes, although that could change at any moment. And then I had conversations with people from the Nigerian museum community to understand their thinking. In essence, it was a period of negotiations because I wanted to make sure that ultimately we were going to return ownership, no doubt about that. But I also wanted to see if there were a way at least the percentage of this could remain in the country for the people to see.

Here's what the negotiation led to. The Smithsonian sent 20 of their Benin objects back to Nigeria, while nine more will stay at the Smithsonian on a long-term loan. where representatives of the Nigerian government and I signed a transfer document that gave ownership back, and then ultimately a document that would agree to the long-term loans. We liked the idea of being able to have some material on long-term loan that would allow us to both talk about the beauty and creativity of the Benin Bronzes, but also about the process. So what do we think about this kind of arrangement, where a museum returns a portion of its contested collection and works out a long-term loan for the rest? I'm kind of excited about this. It actually is a place where really efficient outcomes are going on. That is Tom Wilkening. As you can probably tell by his praise of efficient outcomes, Wilkening is an economist at the University of Melbourne. His specialty is called market design.

And market design is the branch of economics that's interested in designing the rules for markets, auctions, and economic institutions. Wilkening, along with the University of Chicago economist Michael Kramer, analyzed the market for antiquities. The antiquities project started with discussions with Suzanne Blier and Michael Kramer about 15 years ago. Suzanne is a professor of African and African-American studies at Harvard University, and she was really interested in whether economics could offer ways to reduce the size of the black market in antiquities and help protect African art in general. Most countries already have laws to protect the export of their cultural antiquities.

I would say export bans are partially effective in the sense that they make it more difficult for people to illicitly dig up objects and move them abroad. But they're obviously imperfect. Wilkening and Kramer eventually wrote a paper called Protecting Antiquities, a Role for Long-Term Leases. So the main argument of our paper is that we're asking whether we can complement export bans with fixed-duration long-term leases. Our view is that they can strengthen incentives for maintaining and identifying antiquities and antiquity sites. But because we're going to be restricting things to leases, our view is that that's going to allow countries to preserve their cultural patrimony for the future or in the long run. Let's say 10 years from now, Nigeria is able to recover all the Benin bronzes that were looted in 1897. They're going to have the same issue that museums have all over the world,

which is that they'll have more objects than they can actually put in their museum at one time. Now, there are two ways to deal with that. One, you can create giant storage, and you can store everything and keep it at home. And the issue there is that's still costly. You still have to maintain and protect that storage system. An alternative would be to allow at least a subset of those things to be leased abroad

as a way of basically generating either revenue or in-kind transfers for protecting museums or sites. This is essentially the arrangement that the Smithsonian has worked out with Nigeria. This idea is not new, by the way. I would view the King Tut exhibit as a very good template for how to do traveling exhibits. The tomb of King Tut, or Tutankhamun, the boy king, was excavated in Egypt by the British archaeologist Howard Carter in 1922. It included a stunning gold funerary mask and a variety of other objects. If you look at Egypt, their King Tut exhibit that has gone all over the U.S.,

that's essentially a lease system where they've leased off parts of King Tut objects to a third party. That third party has shown that all around the world, and the revenues have gone back to the Cairo Museum. That sort of thing is a way for governments to turn something that right now is something of a cost into something that would be a resource. And it also solves a little bit of this problem of, you know, there is a value for keeping things at home. There's also a value for people and the rest of the world being able to see them. So that's one established method of leasing antiquities. Wilkening and Kramer have some

other ideas. One is for objects that haven't yet been excavated. In these cases, the right to lease could be granted in exchange for performing the excavation. The British Museum, for instance, could fund and operate an excavation in Syria. The museum would have the rights to exhibit the objects that are found while the objects would officially still belong to Syria. The researchers have a third idea, too. So the third scenario is probably the most controversial one, which would be offering leases to individuals who reveal objects that are already out of the country. In other words, amnesty, essentially, to individuals or institutions

who possess objects that were originally looted. In this case, the country of origin would say, yes, those things belong to us. But if you, the illegitimate owner, acknowledge that we are the legitimate owner, you can hang on to them under the terms of a lease. So is this third path of repatriation the best way forward? We'll find out in a minute. I'm Stephen Dubner. This is Freakonomics Radio. We'll be right back. Last year, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York announced an agreement with Greece regarding a large collection of antiquities that had been acquired over the years by the American billionaire Leonard Stern. Here again is Andrea Bayer, Deputy Director of Administration and Collections at the Met.

Mr. Stern owned approximately 160 important Cycladic objects. He got us into a discussion with the Greek government and with the Cycladic Museum in Athens about this somewhat complicated but logical path forward. The Cycladic objects are primarily marble figures and vessels carved thousands of years ago in the Cyclades, a group of islands off the Greek coast. The complicated but logical agreement that Bayer mentioned will put Leonard Stern's personal collection on display at the Met for 25 years, starting in early 2024, but the objects will ultimately belong to Greece.

And then at the end of 25 years, there will be a further discussion to see whether some or all of them remain for an additional 25 years, and then they will go back to Greece. At the same time, we're also in an agreement with the Greek museums to do some fundamental research projects with them to publish these objects. Even before the Met exhibition opens, some of these pieces will be put on display in Greece. And after 10 years at the Met, some of the collection will travel to Greece in exchange for other Cycladic works to be displayed at the Met. Why such a complicated arrangement? Because we are convinced that given the complexity of the world we find ourselves in,

these kind of situations are going to arise and we want to help find solutions that are satisfying to all partners. It's worth noting that Leonard Stern did not donate his collection directly to Greece. He donated it to a Delaware-based nonprofit called the Hellenic Ancient Culture Institute, whose board members have close ties to the Greek culture ministry. Here is the legal scholar Patti Gerstenblith, whose specialty is cultural heritage. It has gotten a lot of disapproval amongst Greek heritage professionals. I find it very problematic because what we have is an agreement between a private museum and a U.S. corporation

in which the collector gets his tax benefit, the objects, most of them or many of them, stay in the United States, and this museum in Greece gets a benefit. Gerstenblith is concerned that Greece doesn't have control over the collection, even though they have been given ownership on paper. She thinks the Smithsonian's arrangement with Nigeria over the Benin bronzes is a better model. But the economist Tom Wilkening is more sympathetic toward the Greek arrangement. It's not a place where I'm an expert, but most

of that collection looks like it has very strong provenance. What Wilkening means is that the Leonard Stern collection isn't obviously full of looted or stolen objects. And so it wouldn't have been something that Greece would have gotten back without some sort of an agreement. And it's something where all parties essentially have won, right? In the short run, those things are shown at the Met. That was the place where Leonard Stern wanted to donate his collection in the first place. In the long run, Greece gets all of its objects back and can control its cultural patrimony. And so that looks like maybe a nice blueprint for a number of these cases of trying to either return objects or get collections back into the hands of the country of origin.

So this approach of pairing repatriation with a lease agreement has helped resolve some of the thorniest disputes around contested artifacts. Maybe it will eventually provide a solution for one of the longest running and most controversial disputes of this type, the British Museum's ownership of the Parthenon marbles, that's the set of sculptures removed from the Parthenon in Athens by the British diplomat Lord Elgin in the early 1800s. Greece has long argued that they were taken illegally and should be returned. A few months ago, it was reported that the chair of the British Museum was in secret negotiations with the Greek prime minister over some kind of settlement,

Andrea Bayer again from the Met. The only thing I can mention about the Parthenon Marbles is that every time I read one thing, I almost immediately read its opposite the following day. So I know that they're in deep, deep and difficult discussions

back and forth, but I don't have the crystal ball that tells you how it comes out. The British Museum is famous for not saying much publicly about their various controversial holdings, including their Benin bronzes. We discovered this firsthand during our months of reporting for this series, when we couldn't even get a museum spokesperson to engage with us, to say nothing of a more senior official. And then, as I mentioned earlier, we went to London to see the Benin Bronzes for ourselves, accompanied by the Oxford professor and author Dan Hicks. But the Africa galleries happened to be closed that day. And even before we got into the museum, security guards asked us to surrender our recording equipment.

Anything like this is an absolute flat no. What happens is we get a lot of trouble with protesters with a view to discredit the museum. So this is why we took such a hard line on it. In case you missed that, the guards said the museum takes a hard line because they get in a lot of trouble with protesters. Not long ago, for instance, there was a large demonstration against one of the museum's big sponsors, BP, the giant oil and gas company that's headquartered in London. The sun is setting on BP. Make BP history. The museum is essentially displaying stolen artifacts that are ironically taken from spaces where Indigenous people are affected by BP's extraction. After our visit to Glasgow, where the curator Patricia Allen showed us the Benin bronzes

that the Kelvin Grove Museum plans to return to Nigeria, we went back to London and I tried once more to see the much larger collection of Benin bronzes at the British Museum. No professional recording equipment, just an iPhone, so you'll have to excuse the audio quality. Okay, proceeding in. Front door, I've been through security Heading toward the Sainsbury Gallery Which means going through the big rotunda Okay, here we go Toward Africa

I think it's open, there it is Okay And the sign says there is indeed a tour, and I think I see her coming, perhaps. Hello. How do you do? Would love to go to Africa with you. Thank you. I'm Stephen. What's your name? Anne. Nice to meet you. Anne is a volunteer who's been giving tours at the British Museum for years. She's originally from southern Germany. Several German museums, by the way, have been repatriating their Benin bronzes to Nigeria. Anne leads us downstairs into the underground Africa galleries. It's a small tour group, just me and a family from Ireland.

Nearby, some school groups are also touring, so it's pretty noisy. Anne notes that some of the objects we'll see were acquired by bloodshed. Some objects have come into the museum as a direct result of military intervention, and many relate to the European colonization of large parts of Africa. She shows us some contemporary works, some ceramic pots, and finally we make our way to the Benin bronzes. The main attraction is a grid of the famous wall plaques that had been stripped from the Benin palace, some of them 500 years old, each plaque representing a key moment

in the history of the kingdom. The Nigerian artist Victor I. Hamanor told us earlier what it was like for him to first see how these plaques are displayed at the British Museum. They are disjointed because it's like taking William Shakespeare's Macbeth or Hamlet. You go to first act, you tear the page off. Then you go to the last act and you tear it off. Then you paste it on the wall and call it William Shakespeare. I mean, the sentences are nice. The phrases are great.

You can quote from them, but it's not the entire story. There are many other Benin objects here besides the wall plaques. There is a large cast head of an oba or a Benin king. As we learned earlier, each new oba would commission a sculpture of his predecessor to be mounted on an altar. There is an impressive sword with a cross motif made of iron and brass. A large and beautiful cockerel cast in brass. The wall labels describe not just the objects themselves, but who gave them to the British Museum. The most frequent donor, from what I can tell, is the UK Foreign Office, the British equivalent of the US State Department. In most museums, this might stand out, but here, where many of

the treasures are the physical emblem of conquest, of empire building, of punitive expeditions like the one that happened in Benin in 1897, I guess it makes sense that the Foreign Office is such a major donor. And our tour tour guide, does mention the punitive expedition that brought the Benin bronzes to the museum. And then a woman in our tour group speaks up. It was a bit of a massacre, wasn't it? Yes, Anne agrees. It was a bit of a massacre. She says the British Museum acknowledges this, and she adds that there have been talks lately with the Nigerian government. I think there's a lot of compassion involved. I think other museums have handed theirs back. Germany has handed theirs back, haven't they? I forget which one.

But I can only say for myself, maybe that is possibly not the right course just now, but this is personal. There's such a lot of controversy about it, of course. It's a little hard to hear Anne, but she says, I can only say for myself that repatriating the bronzes is possibly not the right course just now. When the tour was over and Anne had gone back upstairs, I asked the woman from our tour group, her name was Nuala, what she thought about the British Museum's position on the Benin bronzes. The British Museum is holding out, regardless of what they're talking about. Now, she may have a point, maybe if this museum isn't ready. I don't know. I hadn't heard that part of it. There is a big campaign going on.

But it's also like that they have loads of these pieces, half of which aren't even being exhibited. That's the other thing. Like, they're all in the archives. So that's the other part of it that seems a bit off. Like, you know,

it's not like they're displaying them all here anyway. Were you surprised by her opinion? It's what I'd expect. Well, just in the sense that, you know, she's working here. But I thought from a volunteer it might be a little different. She probably gets the museum perspective on it, is what she hears.

So I don't know. That's why I just, you know, given that she was German, I was wondering what she'd say about Germany, having a different take on it. My visit to the British Museum made me want to go back to, I wonder if one of the challenges is that the museum to some degree does represent the empire that is essentially gone. But in addition to that, their current democracy is fragile. And in a way, the museum itself represents a fragile national psyche. Do you think that is perhaps complicating this issue for them? It's crucially important to recognize that cultural institutions like the Smithsonian, like the British Museum,

are part of the glue that holds a country together through the way it shapes our identity. One of the things that you see in the UK, really even going back to the commemoration of the bicentennial, the end of the slave trade, is you begin to see this grappling with what does it mean to be British? And how does there room for everybody not to just be part of the empire, but to show how that has shaped profoundly who the UK is? And I just think that's a fascinating dilemma and challenge. I'd like you to talk about the role of a museum in the modern era, especially older museums. And, you know, when people object to the return of works that are in museums, one argument is that if you pull this

thread, the whole thing comes undone. Well, I always think that people go to the worst case scenario. When we began to do repatriation of native materials, the notion was everything would be gone. That's not true. But what is true is that museums can no longer simply be what they once were. They can no longer simply be collections of material that really tells old stories, not new stories. Museums have to recognize that they have an obligation to make their community better, whether that is raising issues of social justice, whether it's raising environmental issues. Now, when I walk in one of the entrances to the Natural History Museum of the Smithsonian, I'm greeted by this lovely Maui stone figure from Easter Island. I'm just curious about a fellow like him. How was he acquired? Is something like

that potentially liable to reclamation? It could be. I don't know the specifics of that at all. The goal is to basically recognize that if these issues get raised, you've got a process to move forward to handle them, rather than either being ad hoc or rather to be under the whim of a particular director or curator. Let me ask you about a potentially different objection for a modern museum audience. At the main entrance of the Natural History Museum at the Smithsonian, there's this amazing wild African elephant that we are told by the tag was killed by a big game hunter in Angola in 1955. Would the museum accept that elephant today?

You know, I don't know. I think that we would really look at it from different points of view, that's for sure. And then, you know, depending upon the educational value, depending upon how we received it, there would be questions to be asked. What I love about it is we get to ask those questions. You have a hard job, I have to say. I don't mean just you, it's not just you, but these are hard questions, aren't they? You know, I think that the job of good scholars, the job of the Smithsonian, is to tackle the hard questions, not the easy ones. And that, yeah, there are days I'd love to have an easy month. But the reality is museums matter.

They matter because they have to have a contemporary resonance. This is something you need to grapple with. And I think the question really is, are you institutions that look back or institutions that look ahead? Thanks to Lonnie G. Bunch III and all the museum curators and directors who spoke with us for this series. Thanks to the scholars and researchers and prosecutors. A huge thanks to producer Morgan Levy. And thanks especially to you for listening. Coming up next time on the show.

Really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really. That's not happening on this podcast. Oh, it's happening. A one-on-one with Ari Emanuel, the most prominent talent agent in the world. And that's not even half of what he does. Trying to buy a company is about how you can last through the brutality of it. Emanuel talks about the companies he's bought and wants to buy, talks about his famous brothers, Rahm and Zeke, and he tells us the secret to his success.

I am not afraid to call people. I'm not afraid to ask a lot of questions. I'm not afraid to get a lot of information. That's next time on the show. Until then, take care of yourself. And if you can, someone else too. Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Renbud Radio. You can find our entire archive on any podcast app or at Freakonomics.com, where we also publish transcripts and show notes. This series was produced with great skill and care by Morgan Levy. It was mixed by Greg Rippin with help from Jeremy Johnston. We had additional help in London and Glasgow from Zach Lipinski, also in London from Rob Double in London Broadcast Studios, and in Glasgow from Josh Nixon in Upload Studios. Our

staff also includes Julie Canfor, Ryan Kelly, Catherine Moncure, Alina Kullman, Rebecca Lee Douglas, Sarah Lilly, Eleanor Osborne, Jasmine Klinger, Daria Klenert, Emma Terrell, Lyric Bowditch, and Elsa Hernandez. The Freakonomics Radio Network's executive team is Neil Carruth, Gabriel Roth, and me, Stephen Dubner. Our theme song is Mr. Fortune by The Hitchhikers. The rest of our music is composed by Luis Guerra.

As always, thank you for listening. Ah! I don't know what that was. Whoops, were you done? Yeah, I think that was my ankle, but it's fine. I don't need that. Oh, no, I'm sorry about that. That's okay. I'm just a limp. The Freakonomics Radio Network.

The hidden side of everything.