You are on page 1of 36

NIGERIAN ARCHAEOLOGY: THE

ETHICAL CHALLENGE.
By
Zacharys Anger Gundu. PhD.
&
Abigail Ebenmosi Assa
Department of Archaeology
Ahmadu Bello University
Zaria.
Paper Presented at the
12th Biennial Conference of the West African Archaeological
Association (WAA), Jos. Nigeria.
26th October, 2009.
© Zacharys Anger Gundu & Abigail Ebenmosi
Assa. 2009.
OBJECTIVES.
• Discuss current trends in Nigerian archaeology.
• Explore basic ethical questions relevant in the
study of the Nigerian past.
• Argue the need for Nigerian archaeologists to
assert their voices in the study of the past and
champion the formal integration of ethics in
archaeological research.
• Identify good ethical practices that can be used
to benchmark archaeological training and
practice in Nigeria.
INTRODUCTION.
• Ethics in archaeology (and elsewhere) are a
series of contracts.
• They clarify what should be done, what is right
and justified in contrast to what is actually done.
(Wylie 2003).
• Archaeological ethics are predicated on three
accountabilities:
– Responsibility to the archaeological record.
– Responsibility to other stakeholders and
– Responsibility to other archaeologists.
INTRODUCTION (Cont) .
• The ethical question in archaeology is
underscored by other questions and
issues including:
– The ownership of the past.
– The conflicting perspectives about the past,
what it means and why it means different
things to different people.
– The scale at which commercial, industrial and
agricultural development is threatening
archaeological resources.
INTRODUCTION (Cont) .
• Other questions and issues include:
– Gender.
– Copyright and intellectual property.
– Fieldwork and teaching.
– Archaeological curation.
– Museum collections.
– The commodification of culture.
– War and conflict.
– Politics, identity and ideology.
INTRODUCTION (Cont) .
• Interest in the past is not just for reasons of
knowledge and scientific curiosity.
• It is also for reasons of:
– Religion and culture.
– Politics, identity and ideology.
– Money
• Tourism.
• Art auctions.
• Subsistence digging.
• Looting.
INTRODUCTION (Cont) .
– Prestige.
– Tax rebates.
• These and other reasons have produced
different stakeholders with competing and
conflicting claims on the archaeological record.
• This has made archaeological ethics complex,
conflicted and confusing.
• Archaeological ethics differ from place to place.
• They sometimes pitch archaeologists against
other stakeholders.
INTRODUCTION (Cont) .
• In many countries archaeological ethics are
structured and driven by archaeological bodies.
• Each code is limited by its focus (and enabling
antiquities laws).
• The American Anthropological Association
(AAA) has skewed its code to align with
ethnographic encounters.
• It is however silent on archaeological practice
(Pallock 2008).
INTRODUCTION (Cont) .

• The World Archaeological Congress (WAC) has an


ethical code focusing on the relationship of
archaeologists to indigenous peoples.
• It acknowledges the importance of indigenous
patrimony to the survival of indigenous people. (Smith
and Burke 2003).
• The codes of the Canadian Archaeological
Association and the Australian Archaeological
Association are similar to that of WAC.
INTRODUCTION (Cont) .
• The Archaeological Institute of America in its
code focuses on promoting greater
understanding of archaeology through culturally
appropriate behavior.
• While the New Zealand Archaeological
Association and the Society for American
Archaeology (SAA) emphasize stewardship of
cultural resources .
• Archaeological ethics must be seen and
engaged at the level of the interface between
archaeological theory and practice within each
nation state.
NIGERIAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND
THE ETHICAL QUESTION.
• Nigerian archaeology goes back to the colonial period.
• It is normally conceived in three phases.
i. The period prior to 1939.
ii. 1939 -1960
iii. 1960- present: Highlights of the third phase include-
• The development of university archaeology.
• Replacement of foreign archaeologists in the NCMM and
universities with Nigerians.
• Proliferation of museums.
NIGERIAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND
THE ETHICAL QUESTION (Cont).
• Prior to 1960 with the exception of Liman
Ciroma, all archaeologists working in Nigeria
were foreigners.
• Three types of archaeologists work in Nigeria
today.
– Those employed by the NCMM and state cultural
agencies.
– Those employed in Nigerian Universities.
– Those based in foreign institutions (especially
European and North American Institutions).
NIGERIAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND
THE ETHICAL QUESTION (Cont).
• Nigerian archaeology is devoid of ethical standards.
• Unlike other countries, the Archaeological Association
of Nigeria (AAN) is yet to evolve an ethical code and
hold its members and those who do archaeology in
the country accountable.
• Non of the three universities in the country who teach
archaeology at the undergraduate and graduate
levels, offer archaeological ethics as a distinct course.
NIGERIAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE
ETHICAL QUESTION (Cont).
• Ethical Questions in Nigerian Archaeology are
related to:
i. Ownership and Control of archaeological resources.
ii. The Conservation, Preservation and Protection
challenge.
iii. The training Challenge.
iv. Foreign based archaeologists.
v. The Legal environment.
vi. Interfacing with the people.
OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
• Much of Nigeria’s prime patrimony is outside the
country illegally.
• About 3,173 looted Benin pieces are held
between 14 European and US museums.
• 6,500 Nigerian antiquities are held illegally
outside Nigeria with a conservative monetary
value of N 313 b.
• Other looted resources:
– Nok and Kwatakwashi terracotta.
– Stolen items from our museums, shrines, plundered
sites and monuments.
OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
(Cont)
• The multi billion dollar illicit art market has implication
for archaeological ethics in Nigeria at four levels.
• It heightens plunder and subsistence digging.
• It has led to increased commodification of
archaeological resources.
• It has the potential to compromise archaeologists and
other professionals.
• It promotes the concept of universal museums at the
expense of third world national patrimonies.
THE CONSERVATION,
PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION
CHALLENGE.
• Nigerian archaeology has no capacity to contain
the destruction to archaeological resources in the
country.
• No adequate conservation and storage facilities.
• No single repository to hold and keep excavated
materials including their supporting documentation.
• Where are the materials we have been excavating
over the years?
• Can future researchers access them for study?
THE TRAINING CHALLENGE.
• Three Nigerian universities offer archaeology.
• None of them teaches archaeological ethics as a stand
alone course.
• None of the Departments has a repository or a functional
conservation laboratory.
• Their archaeological practice is largely outside the
regulation of the NCMM.
• Not clear where they keep their excavated materials and
supporting documentation.
• Their field schools are largely ‘destructive’.
• No developed safety ethics.
• University archaeology has also not answered the
question of ‘who is an archaeologist?’.
THE TRAINING CHALLENGE (Cont).
• How much ethical issues regarding field work,
copyright and intellectual property are impacted
to students through training?
• How are university lecturers coping with the
dearth of teaching/training materials especially
books and field equipment?
• Why are lecturers not publishing and
disseminating results of their work?
• How are they dealing with issues of plagiarism?
FOREIGN ARCHAEOLOGISTS IN
NIGERIA.
• ‘Western scholars are very much in control of
African archaeology as they control all other
fields of African studies’ (Andah 1995:151).
• They set the research agenda without
consultation and control major dissemination
channels in African archaeology.
• They use the African field for the breeding of
PhDs and the production of ‘specialists’ on
Africa.
• The most active foreigners on the Nigerian field
are Germans led by Prof. Peter Breunig of the
University of Frankfurt am Main.
FOREIGN ARCHAEOLOGISTS IN
NIGERIA (Cont).
• Prof. Breunig’s work is funded by the German
Research Foundation.
• After years of work in NE Nigeria reportedly in
collaboration with the NCMM and the University
of Maiduguri, they have since moved to the
‘NOK area’ where they are reportedly working in
collaboration with the NCMM and the University
of Jos and according to Prof Breunig, they are
‘unearthing a magnificent part of the history of
sub Saharan Africa’.
FOREIGN ARCHAEOLOGISTS IN
NIGERIA (Cont).
• Are the Germans ACTUALLY working in collaboration with
anybody in Nigeria?
• Which Nigerian stakeholder (s) did they discuss their research
agenda and grant proposals with prior to working in either NE
Nigeria or the NOK area?
• What are the details of the MOU with their Nigerian
collaborators?
• Why do they keep on carting away tons of excavated materials
to Germany including potsherds?
• Where are their recovery records ?
• Why do they insist on taking human remains back to Germany
for conservation?
FOREIGN ARCHAEOLOGISTS IN
NIGERIA (Cont).
• Why is it impossible for the Germans to analyze and curate
locally taking only small amounts of materials essential for
destructive analysis?
• If there is room for the return of materials taken out, have they
returned the NE materials?
• Does the NCMM have the capacity to monitor what they take
out of the country?
• Do the Germans have an ethical responsibility to engage and
empower other Nigerian archaeologists?
• What was the ethical basis for the sponsorship of traditional
rulers and the Governor of Kaduna state to the last SAFA
meeting in Frankfurt when there were Nigerian archaeologists
who applied for support and were refused?
FOREIGN ARCHAEOLOGISTS IN
NIGERIA (Cont).
• What is the motive for studying Nigerian past by
excluding Nigerian archaeologists?
• Can Nigerian (African) archaeologists no matter
their training and the funds available to them be
given access to study European sites the way
Europeans have continued to have unfettered
access here?
• How can we have a more equitable partnership
with others in the study of Nigerian archaeology?
• What really is the problem?.
• Are we clear as to the issues at stake?
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT.
• Archaeological resources/antiquities are on the concurrent
list in the Nigerian Constitution.
• Decree No. 77 of 1979 establishing the NCMM is the latest
law on antiquities in Nigeria.
• Many states in the country do not have any particular laws
relating to archaeological resources.
• Nigeria ratified the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the
means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit, Export and
Transfer of Cultural Property in 1972.
• Nigeria also became a state party to the 1995 UNIDROIT
Convention on Stolen and Illegally Exported Cultural Objects
in 2006.
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT (Cont).
• Continued looting and sale of Nigerian antiquities on the
international market means that these laws are ineffective.
• The laws do not support a robust archaeological practice
nor do they cover the interface between mining and
looting.
• The 1979 decree is obsolete and at variance with the
federal nature of the Nigerian State.
• The law does not provide for the insurance of
archaeological resources nor the salvaging of sites
threatened during industrial development.
• The legal environment cannot effectively support the
growth of archaeological ethics in Nigeria.
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT
(Cont).
• Though the law vests the responsibility of regulating archaeological
practice in the country on the NCMM, this institution is ill prepared
and in the perception of many, a stumbling block.
• The Nigerian Government has also not demonstrated a good
understanding of the issues at stake.
• Frank Willet who left the Nigerian Antiquities Commission in 1963
before his death, accused officials of the NCMM of complicity in
the looting of the country’s antiquities.
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT
(Cont).
• Patrick Darling claims he was threatened by a
report he submitted in August 1995 to the NCMM
on ‘The rape of Nok and Kwatakwashi’.
• Professor Ekpo Eyo in his hand over notes had
warned of the fact that the ‘greater risk’ of looting
could come inside the NCMM.
THE GAME KEEPER BECOMES A
POACHER.
• ‘The Chief Executive of the Commission
will be shocked to find that the records
show that officials of the Commission at
very senior levels were, or had been
indicted as security risks and/or agents of
traffickers in antiquities’. Prof. Ade
Obayemi’s handover notes.
THE GAME KEEPER BECOMES A
POACHER (Cont).
• Gert Chesi owner of the ‘House of the
people’ a private Museum in Schwaz,
Austria, housing the most splendid
collection of Nok terracotta in the world
maintains that each of his 50 Nok pieces
‘has an export license issued by
Omotosho Eluyemi, the Manager of the
National Museum’.
THE GAME KEEPER BECOMES A
POACHER (Cont).
• In 1999,the French purchased 2 Nok pieces from a
Belgian dealer for about $400,000 even though the pieces
are on ICOM’S red list.
• President Chirac personally requested General
Abdulsalami to okay the sale but he refused on advise
from NCMM.
• President Olusegun Obasanjo later okayed this
transaction and symbolically handed over the terracotta to
the French during a state visit.
INTERFACING WITH THE PEOPLE.
• In many ways, the archaeologist in Nigeria is still the lone
specialist working amongst people who do not ‘know’ and
‘care’ about the past.
• Little or no attempts are made to deliberately involve the local
people whose past is being studied.
• ‘Knowledge’ and ‘information’ sharing is not deliberate.
• Who is the archaeologist actually working for?
• Is he (she) producing ‘archaeological knowledge alone or
together with the local people.
• What does it mean to acknowledge them and involve them in
his (her) work?
WAY FORWARD.
• Nigerian archaeologists must reclaim the
study of the country’s past by asserting their
voices and engaging with others who have
interest in their past.
• They must explore ways of formally
integrating ethics in archaeological practice.
• The AAN MUST champion this initiative and
learn from good practices including:
WAY FORWARD.
• Wide consultations with stakeholders including
local communities.
• Inclusive archaeological inquiry.
• Research into grey areas affecting archaeological
ethics like:
– The psychology of collection and looting.
– Friendly and unfriendly attitudes to archeological
resources.
– Researching and inventorying looted antiquities.
– Cultural property ownership and repatriation.
CONCLUSION.
• Nigerian archaeology must develop a formal code of
ethics focusing on collective stewardship of
archaeological resources as well as standards of
archaeological conduct.
• The role of foreign scholars must be properly articulated
and the code must have a structured way of holding
practitioners accountable.
• The AAN must also work for the urgent review of laws at
both the Federal and State levels making it mandatory
for researchers to deposit excavated materials and their
supporting documentation in repositories within the
country .
• Nigerian archaeologists must also reconsider their
relationship with scholars from other countries who have
continued to acquire through illicit means antiquities from
the country.
CONCLUSION.
• A full paper and a complete bibliography
is being prepared.
Thanks
&
Bless you.

You might also like