Niveditha Ajay
The Museum fur Indische Kunst (The Museum for Indian Art) falls under the West Berlin public museums- and is one of the few museums for Indian art outside India, if not the only. Housing artefacts from much of Asia, the complete collection in Berlin consists of statues from as long back as the 2nd and 3rd centuries, to paintings and artefacts from the 17th century. The collection of artefacts from India, Central and East Asia began as far back as in the 18th century, with several Indologists, ethnographers and travelers having contributed significantly to its accumulation from the 19th century onwards. Amassing to over 20,000 pieces today, the artefacts now stand amidst a debate- does collection really mean ownership? And who owns the artefacts lifted from native soil- even if there was no direct colonialism involved?
Initially directed by the Museum für Völkerkunde (Museum for Ethnology), much of the truly spectacular artwork in the museum was acquired in the 1900s.
Indologist Albert Grünwedel and the Turkologist Albert von LeCoq, are largely credited for much of the acquisitions for the “Silk Road” exhibit, with four expeditions to the northern Silk Road between 1902 -1914. While the First World War caused an end to these expeditions to the Silk Road, the Second World War ended with physical damage- with over 2100 of the Indian artifacts being listed as lost in the war even today. Attempts to safeguard artefacts led to seizing and were only returned from British and American holdings in 1956 and 1957. It took longer for artefacts confiscated by the Soviet Union to be returned- reaching a Leipzig museum in 1978 and back in the Berlin Museum only in 1990. About 20% of the artefacts, according to the museum, is still housed in St. Petersburg, open to view in 2002.
In 1963, the Indian artefacts became part of a separate department with several new departments being opened in recognition of Asian art and its significance in world art history and culture. The new Museum for Asian Art now has three distinct sections- The Museum of Indian Art, the Museum of Islamic Art and the Museum of Far Eastern Art. The departments opened in the 1970s were then relocated to the new museum building in Dahlem, West Germany in 2019, with renovations and new complexes opening as recently as in 2022. Today, the museum estimates 400 artefacts in its permanent exhibition alone.
The art housed in the Museum of Indian Art, that was opened on 7 October 1971, are from India, China, Indo-China and Indonesia, with further distinctions being
Courtesy- The art of Eastern India in the collection of the Museum für Indische Kunst by Claudine Bautze-Picron
made in later years. Artefacts from India are primarily of religious nature- featuring pieces from the ancient religions of Jainism, Buddhism and later Hinduism, indigenous to the subcontinent. Of the art collected, a heavy portion has been acquired from the East of India, with present day states of Bihar and Odisha being primary source with well recorded artefact histories. The oldest image in the collection, as noted by Picron, is a stela of a Jain tutelary couple from the 11th century- given or acquired in 1846. Picron further identifies several key collectors and contributors who had a great role to play in ensuring the transfer of ownership of these artefacts. Rajendra Lal Mitra, Vice President of the Asiatic Society of Calcutta and the author of several works that dealt with art produced in the East of India, specifically Odisha and Bodh Gaya, acted as a “go-between” between the Berlin Museum (under A.F. Jagor) and the Bengal government. A.F. Jagor himself, travelled extensively in India and South East Asia between 1874 and 1875, collecting over 5000 pieces. Several other contributors, such as Adolf Bastian- the founder of the Museum, businessmen and merchants played a role in the completion of the collection. Sculptures excavated in Bihar (both Jaina and primarily Buddhist) were important additions of the period. Mitra also provided four Buddhapadas to the Berlin museums, votive caityas and sculptural fragments of the Vedika of Bodh Gaya (Picron).
A collection sold in 1908 had sculptures of Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara teaching and seated in the European manner and a collection of Tibetan manuscripts. Between 1907- 1909 the museum further acquired almost a complete set of votive caityas, Jain images from south-east Bihar and numerous low-reliefs from Gandhara. A Siva sculpture in unique form and several decorative pieces were added in 1911, and a final large addition being made in 1913- a large collection of Buddhist artefacts, which contains an iconic Siva and Parvati depiction, and a bust of Buddha from Bodh Gaya. Large Hindu collections were acquired in 1963. Nalanda, Bodh Gaya, Lakhi-Sarai and Kurkihar are primary sites of origin for most of the artefacts. Several Hindu artefacts trace their origin to the Chotanagpur region of Bihar, with a distinct texture of stone- chlorite schists being considered the cause. Worship of Dancing Siva, Parvati/Uma, Bust of Goddess Chamunda and Four-armed Agni are some of the other important pieces in the collection. The Museum contains both large stelae and fragments of the diverse art produced in the east of India.
Courtesy- Times of India
In 2022, with the inauguration of the East Wing of the museum, the focus has widened to include art from the north-eastern part of India. A significant part of this was the collaboration with artist Mo Naga by the museum- exhibiting his effort to revive the traditional hand – tapped tattooing of Nagaland, now on the brink of extinction. The Nagaland exhibition also featured Senti Toy Threadgill’s sound installation- “I will not weep” that reflects the political situation and colonial history of Nagaland.
The above opening happened in the midst of a raging debate surrounding the need to return artefacts procured from colonised nations. An entire collection titled “Benin Bronzes” from present day Nigeria, was procured from the British looting of the country. While a deal was struck with the Nigerian government following protests, the question of accessing history still remains. Why do people of colonised nations have virtually little access to artefacts that are of cultural significance to them? Who owns the art of a civilisation- its successors or procurers? On the other hand, the Museum has made efforts at ensuring diversity, providing platforms for artists to preserve their art in least exploitative ways and helped gain recognition for the artists that they deserve. However, does it truly justify possessing pieces that have a history elsewhere, when acquiring them comes with long histories of eurocentrism?
References
Härtel, Herbert. “State museums of the Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin.” Museums, Vol 25, 1973, pp 222- 224.
Bautze-Picron, Claudine. “The art of Eastern India in the collection of the Museum für Indische Kunst”.
