Paper short abstract:

This paper argues that it is not possible to ‘decolonize’ heritage regimes without questioning the hegemony of capitalist property law, and that any attempt to restitute 'objects' must take stock of the epistemic violence that an imposition of capitalist property conceptions present.

Paper long abstract:

Ethnographic museums throughout Europe are engulfed in controversies over the coloniality of their collections. The frame of contestation is most often capitalist property law: Who should ‘own’ the ethnographic objects – the colonizers or the colonized? However, if one takes a normative pluralism perspective, it becomes visible that the pieces of ethnographic collections in European museums originate in Indigenous cultural systems whose normative orders are based on sometimes radically different conceptions of what persons are, what things are, and how they interrelate. Imposing the frame of capitalist property onto these constellations can amount to a form of epistemic violence. Drawing from legal ethnography in a Maasai community in northern Tanzania, this paper shows how capitalist property conceptions are challenged when what counts as objects in capitalist property regimes are seen as persons and body parts in a Maasai legal framework. It is argued that it is not possible to ‘decolonize’ heritage regimes without questioning the hegemony of capitalist property law, and that any attempt to restitute 'objects' must take stock of the epistemic violence that an imposition of capitalist property conceptions present.

Paper short abstract:

Addressing the issue of restitution of colonial cultural goods and ancestral remains from the perspective of the formerly colonised Togolese community, with a view to revitalising a fading identity and addressing the shared history of colonialism in terms of reconciliation with its past.

Paper long abstract:

In Togo, the gradual discussion of the issue within both academic and social communities is arousing growing interest and curiosity about colonial objects and the remains of ancestors. The reluctance to take a clear position on the issue of restitution, and questions about German colonialism seen from a different angle, particularly in terms of the plundering of cultural property and the humiliation of ancestral remains, reveal the astonishment at the immoral colonial dimension, and the frustrations and resentments that affect communities in the regions of Togo. Investigations carried out in the regions of Togo that were the scenes of punitive expeditions and/or Christian mission fields, on the one hand, and the expectations of communities with regard to the return of their cultural property and their ancestors, on the other, lead us to raise the question of the importance of the identity of colonised peoples around the current value of colonial objects and the importance of tradition in the treatment of ancestors who will be repatriated. The Togolese community today finds itself at a crossroads between a new perception of its identity, long abused by the coloniser, and reconciliation with its past and its oppressor in a context of intercultural dialogue. The aim of this study is to address the issue of restitution of colonial cultural property and ancestral remains from the perspective of the formerly colonised Togolese community, with a view to revitalising a fading identity and addressing the shared history of colonialism in terms of reconciliation with its past.

Paper short abstract:

The main question of the paper is how a restituted object was dealt with after its return. After 1925 the Mafue became a museum object but in recent years, representatives of the Gola demand its return. We ask how different groups ascribe meaning to the stone and how this has changed over time.

Paper long abstract:

In 1924, a German traveller acquired the Mafue Stone in the Gola region of Liberia. After a struggle, the stone was returned to Liberia in 1925. It is one of the first cultural artefacts given back from Germany to an African country. We focus on the history of the stone after its return and on the question of how different groups ascribe meaning to the stone and how this has changed over the decades.

In the first part, we address the post-restitution trajectory of the stone: After its return to Monrovia, Gola representatives declined to reclaim it. It became a museum object, serving in a dual role: as an example of Gola culture and as national cultural heritage. Despite indications that the stone was missed in the Gola region, there was no active discourse on its return until recently.

In the second part, we look the current situation: After a research project in 2022, research findings were shared. During another research trip in 2023, demands for the return of the stone were made, unravelling the complexity of the demands connecting diverse actors in Germany and Liberia. These actors ascribe different meanings to the stone. We argue that even after long periods of neglect, the issues can resurface – in this sense the return of an object is not the end of restitution processes. We argue that in order to understand the relevance of objects in contemporary dialogues, it is necessary to understand the history of the objects.

Paper short abstract:

The paper will suggest that restitution is a necessary process to building new relationships between Africans and Europeans and to addressing damages colonial encounters caused Africans and Europeans alike. Thus, the return of colonial objects to Africa is only part of the restitution process.

Paper long abstract:

The collection and transfer of African cultural materials to European museums in colonial times have deprived Africans of information relevant to their production and sharing knowledge about their past and present life ways. Popular European-centred information persons who have had access to some of these materials present have influenced to a large extent how Africans know and understand themselves and how they live. It has also influenced how some Europeans perceive Africans and position themselves in relation to them. The situation has engendered misconceptions among African and Europeans about each other, and has placed Africans at a disadvantage in their bid to define themselves and build on their heritages to make their world a better place to live. My paper will discuss restitution as a process that will engender the building of new relationships between Africans and Europeans and the production of new knowledge that will help to address damages colonial encounters caused Africans and Europeans alike. It will define aspects of the damages caused and suggest that the return of colonial cultural materials to Africa from Europe is only part of the restitution process. While African must embrace the process to restitute themselves and their world, the process also offers Europeans the opportunity to deal with some of the detrimental effects the expropriation of African objects have had on them. The paper will ultimately conceptualize restitution as a necessary vehicle for promoting appreciations of cultural diversity, social cohesion and relative peace among peoples of the world.

Paper short abstract:

As loud as the agitations are for the return of cultural relics stolen from Nigeria during the early days of colonialism, a nuanced reparation in form of restitutions for local improprieties, remain obscure. Charity must begin at home with local reparations before it can be demanded from abroad.

Paper long abstract:

Over half a century after Nigeria’s political independence from Britain, there have been several campaigns for the reparation of her priceless cultural relics, looted by European expeditionists at the dawn of her colonialisation. These campaigns for the return of those cultural assets to their ancestral homes, and for the commensurate compensations to their original custodians, are considered by many Afrocentric literature as well conceived and valid. In a nuanced context however, this study draws attention to the hypocritic dissipation of energy and resources on the reparation narrative of Nigeria’s stolen cultural assets by foreigners, at the expense of focussing critical attention on the huge local pilfering of the nation’s economic and cultural wealth, by local actors since independence, and without recompenses. The dimensions of these indigenous looting have left damning humanitarian consequences in their tracks. This study submits that all manifest acts of misconduct on the part of local actors in positions of public responsibility, which led to negative outcomes on the larger Nigerian society, should have reparations demanded of them in the spirit and letters of the rule of law. This is because, until Nigeria puts her house in order, through a surgical process of self-cleansing and purgation of internal pilfering, illegalities, and institutionalised corruption, the international community, from whom she demands reparations for material and cultural injustices, may not take her seriously. Charity must begin at home. The Nigerian homestead must be tidied up to house the recovered relics being demanded from foreign lands.

Paper short abstract:

This paper interrogates the restitution of the head of Badu Bonso II after its confiscation in the Netherlands for more than 170 years. We particularly explore the process and implications of the restitution from the perspectives of Ahantas in Ghana.

Paper long abstract:

In recent years, the concept of restitution has pervaded international discourse, with an emphasis on the need for the return of looted objects. In view of this, a good number of looted objects have been returned to Africa. Although the debate and ethical dimensions of restitution have been explored, little is about the restitution of anatomic remains in Ghana. One of such is the return of the head of Badu Bonso II to Ghana after its confiscation in the Netherlands for 170 years. In this paper, we interrogate the restitution of the head of King Badu Bonso II through the perspectives of the indigenous Ahanta people. Specifically, in-depth interviews were conducted with 13 traditional rulers in the Ahanta kingdom to understand how the local people view the restitution process and their experiences regarding the return of the king’s head. We find that, Ahantas have a strong affinity with the king’s head and this is tied to their identity as a people. Therefore, the confiscation of the Head of Badu Bonso II meant a loss of identity, power, heritage and spirituality, making the restitution highly significant to their being. To Ahantas, restitution means agency, voice, dignity and respect for traditions and customs in the restitution process as well as a holistic restoration and compensation for the harm caused. The restitution of the head by the Dutch government was however a flawed one and this has complicated the existing plight of the Ahanta people.

Paper short abstract:

The simple call for restitution often obscures the complex contexts and practicalities of returning cultural entities from museum collections to their rightful owners. This paper presents the range of questions associated with restitution processes and some practical approaches.

Paper long abstract:

The simple term restitution, if understood literally as a process of restoring, returning or recovering something, entails a complex range of legal, political, cultural, spiritual, epistemological, economic and material meanings and implications. What exactly is being restituted with/in/beyond an “object”? How is it restituted? Who is the rightful owner? What knowledge, belief and cultural practices are needed, enabled or missing in the process, and what impact does this have on the significance of a restitution for the parties involved? Who tends to be excluded from such processes, why, and how is this addressed? This paper presents key questions and challenges observed and experienced in a German ethnographic museum context and proposes a set of approaches that open up the notion of restitution from a curatorial point of view. The focus thereby lies on the relational potential: Relational approaches that consider conversation, exchange, co-creation and un-learning part of restitution address important aspects mostly ignored in the political and public debates on restitution.

Paper short abstract:

Cultural relations between Switzerland and Africa are close. In this 21st century, they give an important place to museum cooperation. It is in this dynamic that the debate on the repatriation of art objects of African origin present in Swiss museums intervenes.

Paper long abstract:

Africa and Switzerland share a distant history. The first contacts between these two entities date back to the slave trade, developed during colonization and expanded after decolonization. The passage of the Swiss to the African continent through missionaries, mercenaries and businessmen favored the acquisition by the latter of a set of heritage goods. In truth, if certain objects of art are freely offered, others have been sold or looted. In the era of museum cooperation between Switzerland and several African countries, the question of the repatriation of art objects to African museums arises. Indeed, in a context where the decolonization of museums is an acute issue in Switzerland, several African states have stepped up to claim their goods exhibited in Swiss museums. This reflection questions the necessity of such an approach. Is the repatriation of these art objects the best option? Could it contribute optimally to the development of the African countries concerned? Using both a diachronic and synchronic approach based on primary and secondary sources, this communication aims to provide answers to this string of questions.