You are on page 1of 11

By: Syed Zia Husain Shah

The Magdala campaign

Magdala, a fortress in the hilly areas of Ethiopia was ruled by the great King Theodore

and in 1868, a British army campaign led by Commander Naiper reached Magdala to free the

European hostages kept by the King. However, while the expedition was indeed successful and

hostages were rescued unharmed, the Queen's army plundered the fortress and took whatever

valuable they could get their hands on. These looted items were then auctioned and most of

them were bought by Mr. Holmes who was a representative of the British Museum and the rest

were out bided by other individuals(Bates 1979 : 204).The money raised from the auction was

divided amongst the soldiers and the amount that each soldier received was around 25

shillings(Bates 1979 204). This loot of the Ethiopian cultural treasures is very controversial in

nature and it is still debated. Ethiopia is demanding the return of its artifacts while British

institutions refuse to return the artifacts and continue to hold them in their museums and

libraries. The institutions in Britain believe that the Campaign was justified because it was a

hard earned war booty and if they had not taken the artifacts, the native Ethiopians who were

also active in looting would have looted all the items. They also argue Britain is better able to

take care of the artifacts and it exposes the artifacts to a larger, more eclectic audience than

Ethiopia would be able to. However, in my opinion the artifacts were removed unjustly from

Magdala and the looted artifacts must be returned to Ethiopia not only because it is Britain's

moral obligation to return illegally acquired artifacts which hold cultural, historical and religious

significance for the people of modern day Ethiopia but also because Ethiopia now possesses
libraries and museums to properly keep the artifacts, display them to a population which has

more relevance to the artifacts and improve their economic situation by attracting tourists.

let us first consider the history of the campaign in order to establish the historical base

which will aid us to decide on how justified the looting was. when Emperor Theodor, the ruler

of Ethiopia at the time, heard about the advancing British forces he decided to move to

Magdala, where he took refuge. His relation with the Queen of England and the other European

powers was gradually built through exchange of presents and arrival of Englishmen to Ethiopia

which was for them an unknown territory and in many ways fascinating. Overtime, Theodore's

attitude oscillated between kindness and austerity for the Europeans and in 1864 he demanded

that the Queen of England must help him in fighting against the Egyptians and defeating the

Muslims in Egypt(Bates 1979: 44) Theodor in order to force Britain to fulfill his wish kept

hostage the British missionaries, British counsel and Rasaam who was sent by Britain to get the

hostages(Bates 1979: 51). On arrival of British forces Theodore committed suicide when he

became aware that the British army was going to overpower him. As the 13000 British and

26000 Indian soldiers entered Magdala, with the Emperor already dead, they freed the

hostages and plundered the fortress , taking anything that they deemed of any value to

them(Bates 1979: 203). All the looted items were then collected and auctioned, the revenue

generated from the auction was then divided equally between the soldiers(Bates 1979: 204).

Another important incident that took place at Magdala was the destroying of Theodore's

ammunition and the burning down of the all the major building including the huts and the

churches. Only one church was left standing while all the other building were burnt down(Bates

1979: 209). The main aim of the expedition to Magdala was to rescue the hostages and
Although Theodore was a tyrant ruler but this does not justify the plundering and burning of

the Ethiopian cultural treasures which included treasures from the palace and the religious

manuscripts from the churches(Elginism.com). Countless items were looted by the foreign

forces and according to the records it required 15 elephants and 200 mules to carry the

artifacts(Morris 2010 : n.p). "The loot from Magdala in fact constituted the largest amount of

Ethiopian cultural property ever shipped out of the country"(Pankhurst 2009: n.p).

In 1868, taking war booty after a successful campaign was the trend , however this act

was becoming less popular among Englishmen and a few years after the plundering, the Prime

Minister of Britain, William Gladstone conceded that he "deeply regretted that those articles

were ever brought from Abyssinia , and could not conceive why they were so brought. They

[the British] were never at war with the people or the churches of Abyssinia . They were at war

with Theodore, who personally had inflicted on them an outrage(Pankhurst 2009: n.p). What

made the looting more disagreeable was the fact that not even the churches were spared and

most of the manuscripts that were looted were from the National church. On this Ras Seymor

Mclean, an active supporter of the repatriation of Ethiopian artifacts says that "The manuscripts

contain the spiritual and cultural history of black people of Africa all over the world and they

should be returned( Morris 2010 : n.p) . Moreover, the looted items include Tabots, that can

only be viewed by the priests and therefore causes two main concerns. First, there is no utility

of these manuscripts for the Museums in Britain since the general public is prohibited from

viewing these manuscripts, and second, these are sacred religious texts which indeed are of

great sentimental value for the Ethiopian priests therefore there is no justification of, looting

them in the first place, and then keeping them in Britain where they are of no use. regarding
the crown and the chalice of the king Theodore, it was lord Robart Napier who was first to

suggest that these should be returned to Ethiopia as soon as a stable government was

established in Ethiopia, and till that time items should be handed to the British museum

(Pankhurst 1980: 321). This suggestion was made in 1868 which points to the idea that even at

the time of the campaign the act of looting considered unacceptable by the commander of the

British army. hence, making clear the idea that the loot was unjustifiable. To sum up this

argument, The looting of Magdala is unjustifiable since it is an act of straight forward looting

which even at the time of looting did not convince Britain's general public and political

authorities. The looting was uncalled for and was never the aim of this expedition, however it

was a consequence that is still being debated without much success.

Even though the Englishmen have realized how precious these artifacts are to the

religious community and the whole Ethiopian population at large yet the refusal of Britain to

return these artifacts raises questions of morality. As already established that bringing back of

the Ethiopian artifacts was highly criticized by the British Government and the public therefore

it was not an act of pride for the army. Keeping the artifacts in Britain is equivalent to endorsing

an act of theft that was committed two and a half century ago. Many of the individuals who

acquired the artifacts have returned them to Ethiopia and it is time for the British institutions

hoarding the Ethiopian culture to return the artifacts too.

What is important is to consider is the fact that Ethiopia as a nation in terms of religion

and culture has not changed substantially since the time of the looting and it has strong

connections to its cultural heritage that has been lost because of transfer of artifacts from

Ethiopia to other regions of the world, especially England. Ethiopia is the oldest independent
nation in Africa with its traditional lineage going back to King Solomon and dates to around

1000BC(Ren Brus 1975, 8). Ethiopian youth and its new generation has been alienated from a

huge chunk of its rich cultural past because of lack of access to the artifacts and manuscripts

that have contributed to the formation of its prevailing culture. Britain argues that the British

institutions are more universal in nature and they expose artifacts to a larger and more eclectic

audience which help popularize the Ethiopian culture however what they fail to understand is

the notion of cultural relevance. The people who come to see the artifacts have no sentimental

attachments or cultural association to the artifacts. Whatever they see, has played no role in

forming the culture of their social and religious norms. However, on the contrary, these

artifacts, manuscripts and cultural treasures have played an important role in Ethiopian history

and have helped to form the modern day Ethiopian culture. If these artifacts are moved to

Ethiopia, it will allow the people there to relate more to their past and understand the

formation of their society. Ethiopia since the 4th century AD has been an independent nation

and has only been dominated by two major groups: the Tigreans and Amhara. Therefore

'Ethiopia is a political expression of cultural nationalism of these two closely related

groups'(Lewis, Jewell:1976, 8). Hence it would not be foolish to argue that Ethiopian culture

today is directly related to the culture that prevailed during Theodore's time and therefore the

artifacts play a major role in the understanding of modern Ethiopian cultural. Moreover, it was

evident that the looted items were of hardly any importance for the British soldiers at that time

as commander Naiper estimated the value of the loot to not exceed 3000 pounds and said that

'No booty was found at Magdala' goes on to show the indifference of Englishmen to the

Ethiopian cultural treasures(Pankhurst 1973, 19). Assessing the looting from the context of
cultural relevance and the relative importance of the looted items for the westerners and

Ethiopians, leaves no reasonable justification for the loot of Magdala, which was not only

looting of precious gold and silver items but it damaged the Ethiopian cultural and historical

collections which hold immense importance for Ethiopians and belong to their forefathers.

British institutions further argue that the Ethiopians have bigger problems to focus on

such as its political and social stability and therefore it will not be able to take care of its cultural

treasures as good as Britain is taking care of them. However, in response to such a claim it

should be brought to notice that for the case of Ethiopian artifacts this argument is not strong

enough to keep hold of the artifacts because Ethiopia has over time developed good museums

and libraries and unlike other African countries Ethiopia is capable of taking care of its artifacts

and manuscripts just as well as Britain. Not only that, but unlike the British institutions which

have failed to have any exhibition or conduct any promotion of the Ethiopian artifacts,

Ethiopia's Hills museum and manuscript library is dedicated to producing microfilms of ancient

Ethiopian artifacts and has worked to preserve the manuscripts since the past 35 years (Hills

Museum and manuscript Library 2013 : n.p). Moreover, Ethiopia has several museums such as

the Ethiopian National museum, the Ethiopian museums support association, Addis Ababa

Museum and the Ethnological museum which are carrying out extensive research on their

ancient artifacts. The Ethnological museum has manuscripts, gold silver crosses, religious texts

and various other Ethiopian treasures, it is also associated to a university which allows research

to be carried on these artifacts (Ethiopian museum support association 2013: n.p).

In 1999 AFROMET( Association for the Return if Magdala Ethiopian Treasures) was

formed to urge the return of the looted artifacts . AFROMET argues that the looting was unjust
and it is against the international law since there is no legality attached to the loot. AFROMET

presses that the primary reason why some of the artifacts were returned was that the loot was

unjustified which led several individuals in possession of the artifacts to return them to

Ethiopia. Since 2001, 10 artifacts have been returned which include a 16th century soldier

helmet, sacred Tabot (or holy altar slab) by an Scottish priest, Tabot from the Rev John

McLuckie, St John`s Episcopal Church, Edinburgh; Manuscript from anonymous donor in

Edinburgh inspired by Tabot return and Emperor Tewodros` amulet by an anonymous

donor(Luanda 2005: n.p). British Government have also occasionally arranged for return of

artifacts however now AFROMET demands the return of artifacts in entirety. In 1872 a

manuscript demanded by the successor of Theodore, Emperor Yohannes IV, was returned to

Ethiopia. It was called Kabra Nagast and on returning the artifact the British government

informed it to be a 'gracious and friendly act'(Mclean 2010: n.p). In 1924 when the Ethiopian

ruler, Empress Zawditu, visited Britain one of the two crowns was presented to her and it was

returned to Ethiopia. Then in 1965 when Queen Victoria visited Ethiopia, a royal cap and a seal

was returned to Ethiopia by British government(Mclean 2010: n.p). The British government

however has been uncooperative otherwise in making possible the return of artifacts looted

from Magdala. The recent acts of returning the artifacts by the individuals however, may

cumulatively encourage the British Museum, the Victoria and Albert Museum and the British

library to ease their stance on hoarding the Ethiopian artifacts and thus pave the way for the

return of the entire Ethiopian artifact collection that consists of an 18 carat gold crown, 9

tabots and around 400 manuscripts(Johnson 2008: n.p).

Britain argues that given the underdeveloped economy of Ethiopia, the artifacts will not
be given proper attention and will not be take care of sufficiently however, the refutation

presented by Ethiopia is one of reverse causality and it insists that Ethiopia has the capacity to

keep safe their artifacts in their museums and libraries and arrival of artifacts to Ethiopia will

immensely benefit the underdeveloped economy since it will be able to attract increased

number of tourists and therefore generate revenue from tourism. It will add to the economic

development of Ethiopia and help the country to boost it economic growth. Ethiopia unlike

Britain has always been an underdeveloped country and even today it is an agriculture based

economy with 85% of its work force in agriculture ( CIA fact book). However according to a

report by The African development bank Ethiopia's economic growth has been remarkable

compared to other African countries over the past 10 years (Mwanakatwe, Barrow : 2010, 2).

The reason for bringing up the economic condition of Ethiopia is to emphasize that although

historically Ethiopia has faced economic challenges however, in the recent times the situation

has improved therefore Ethiopia is capable of making sure that the artifacts are given due

attention. The economic situation of Ethiopia also highlights the fact that Ethiopia compared to

Britain was a weak country in 1868 and there was no such organization as the UN to prevent

the unjust looting, therefore Britain got away with the looting of Magdala due to lack of

prevailing international laws(Hoffman 138). However since the 1970 UNESCO convention, the it

has become extremely difficult to remove the cultural heritage of any country illegally.

Furthermore, the return of the 'illegally removed or stolen artifacts' could be made possible if

both the states are signatories of the UNESCO 1970 convention(Hoffman 139).

To sum up the argument, In my opinion the looting of Magdala by the British forces was

unjustified because historically the British forces were supposed to only free the hostages; who
were freed unharmed, the plundering of the palace and specially the looting of the churches

was a demeaning act since the Ethiopians were a religious community. Moreover, the artifacts

have no relevance to Britain and there was absolutely no reason other than British army's

selfishness and its personal gains to loot Magdala. The looting has divorced a huge chunk of

history from the cultural understanding of the people of Ethiopia of their past and Ethiopia

from its cultural heritage. The artifacts therefore, must be repatriated in entirety to the

Ethiopian Government and British government has a lesson to learn from the individual owners

of the artifacts who have returned majority of the artifacts. Ethiopia is well equipped with

libraries and museums to cater for the returned artifacts and not only that but, the repatriation

will also help the economy of Ethiopia to improve through promotion of tourism. Richard

Pankhurst, who is an expert on Ethiopian studies supports that These treasures belong in

Africa, as thats where they were looted from and strongly believes that the "People of those

countries should be able to see the treasures their ancestors created( Morris 2010 : n.p).
Works Cited

Bates, D. 1979 The Abyssinian Difficulty. Oxford.


Brus, Ren. "Ethiopian Crowns." Jstore. N.p., 1975. Web. 26 Apr. 2013.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/3335077>.
"Central Intelligence Agency." CIA. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2013.
<https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/et.html>.
"Ethiopian Museums Support Association." Ethiopian Museums Support Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 26
Apr. 2013. <http://ethiomuseums.org/ETHNOLOGICAL MUSEUM.html>.
"Hill Museum & Manuscript Library." Hill Museum & Manuscript Library. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2013.
<http://www.hmml.org/centers/ethiopia10/Index.html>.
Hoffman, Barbara T. Art And Cultural Heritage: Law, Policy And Practice. London: Cambridge UP, 2006.
Print.
Johnson, Andrew. "Ethiopia Demands Stolen Crown Back." The Independent. Independent Digital News
and Media, 23 Nov. 2008. Web. 26 Apr. 2013. < http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-
britain/ethiopia-demands-stolen-crown-back-1031229.html >
Lewis, I. M., and P. A. Jewell. "The Peoples and Cultures of Ethiopia [and Discussion]." Jstore. N.p., 27
Aug. 1976. Web. 26 Apr. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/77087>.
Luanda. "Elginism." Elginism. N.p., 28 Oct. 2005. Web. 26 Apr. 2013.
<http://www.elginism.com/similar-cases/ethiopia-recovers-more-looted-
artefacts/20051028/248/>.
Mclean, Seymour. "(AFROMET) Memorandum on the Loot from Maqdala
(Ethiopia)."Modernghana.com. N.p., 25 June 2010. Web. 26 Apr. 2013. <
http://www.modernghana.com/news/281969/1/afromet-memorandum-on-the-loot-from-
maqdala-ethiop.html >
Morris, Davina. "Voice Online : Should Britain Return Africas Stolen Treasures?" Voice Online RSS. N.p.,
21 Feb. 2010. Web. 26 Apr. 2013. < http://archive.voice-
online.co.uk/content.php?show=17110>
Mwanakatwe, Peter, and Lamin Barrow. "Ethiopias Economic Growth Performance: Current Situation
and Challenges." The African Development Bank. The African Development Bank Group Chief
Economist Complex, 17 Sept. 2010. Web. 26 Apr. 2013.
<http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/ECON%20Brief_Ethiop
ias%20Economic%20growth.pdf>.
Pankhurst, Richard. "Review of The Abyssinian Difficulty: The Emperor Theodorus and the Magdala
Campaign 1867-1868." Rev. of The Abyssinian Difficulty: The Emperor Theodorus and the
Magdala Campaign 1867-1868. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute 1980: 321.
Print.
Pankhurst, Richard. "TIGRAI Online." The Loot from Maqdala, 1868: Some Historical Ideas of
Repatriation. N.p., 11 May 2009. Web. 26 Apr. 2013.
<http://www.tigraionline.com/loot_from_maqdala.html>.

You might also like