Introduction

In November 2017, French President Emmanuel Macron promised in a speech in Ouagadougou to return in the coming years the African heritage from colonial contexts present in French national museums. The Senegalese economist Felwine Sarr and the French art historian Bénédicte Savoy were then appointed to work on the modalities of this restitution. They published a report in November 2018 in which they underlined, among other things, the need for the restitution of this heritage (Sarr / Savoy, 2018). Macron's announcement and the report by Sarr and Savoy were echoed throughout Europe and beyond. In Germany, debates about the objects looted by German colonists have intensified since then. In Africa, although there is evidence of a growing general interest in the subject, there seems to be little interest in the restitution debate in the specific case of Germany. Indeed, very few scholars have addressed the subject in relation to African objects and German colonization. Politicians, too, seem to be generally uninterested in the debate. Felwine Sarr captures this lack of interest by stating that eight months after the publication of the report on restitution, the social and cultural department of the African Union was still unaware of its existence (Sarr, 2019). At a time when the debate seems to be at its height in Germany, how can it be that there is so little apparent 'interest' on the part of Africans?

This paper aims to analyse the challenges for African scholars in addressing the issues surrounding African cultural heritage from colonial contexts in German museums. We will first give an overview of the general history of these controversial objects, their significance in social-political debates over time, followed by an analysis of the restitution debate. In addition to language barriers, the analysis of challenges will focus on the confidentiality and data management policies of German museums, which generally make it difficult for African researchers to access sources. Finally, we will reflect on an approach to better address these issues. This paper argues for the demonopolisation of research on colonial heritage, which has so far been carried out mainly by European researchers.

Looted and exhibited objects: German colonisation and ethnographic collections

By "African heritage" we mean objects of cultural value that were acquired under controversial conditions and are now in German museums. In addition to forced labour, bloody expeditions for the acquisition of land and the subjugation of indigenous peoples, the European colonisation of Africa consisted, among other things, of cultural domination through the abolition of cultural practices, the spread of Christianity and the massive transfer of the cultural heritage of the colonised peoples to the metropolis. In this "race for territories" of the XIX^ème Between 1884 and 1914, Germany, eager to find its "place in the sun", colonised several territories in Africa and the Pacific. It is precisely this period that constitutes the golden age of the great German ethnographic museums in terms of collecting non-European art objects.

Even though the first German ethnographic museums were founded before the official start of colonisation, the latter was a catalyst for the enrichment of these museums with ethnographic objects. The colonial order offered many advantages to "collectors" of African art objects who could acquire them more easily in the colonies. Thus, the practice of collecting objects intensified and became more methodical with colonisation. During this period, eight manuals were published as a guide for collectors who went on an 'object hunt' outside Germany (Sarreiter, 2012: 44). Numerous so-called scientific expeditions to the German colonies resulted in the collection of thousands of African objects.

In general, the practice of collecting objects during the colonial period remains controversial. The various methods of acquisition include purchases, donations or simply spoliations, which were then described as spoils of war. In addition to the so-called scientific expeditions, whose aim was to conduct studies in the colonies, "punitive expeditions" were undertaken. The mission of these expeditions was to enslave the local population. Standing up to the colonial order could lead to the destruction of entire villages and the confiscation of material goods. The 'genocide' perpetrated by German settlers on the Herero people in the German colony of South West Africa (today's Namibia) (Häussler, 2018) is just one example. During such expeditions, art objects were confiscated and sent to Germany. They represented golden opportunities to expand museum collections, thus giving great satisfaction to museum directors. In a letter from 1897 about a punitive expedition, Felix von Luschan, director of the Berlin Ethnographic Museum, states: "One can expect very brilliant things. Mr von Arnim is well informed about what we need and will try to do something very neat. The costs will probably be zero." (Sarr/Savoy, 2018:8). Among the 'collectors' were missionaries, ethnologists, linguists, but also officials of the colonial administration directly involved in the management of the colonies. Networks for the sharing of objects arose all over Europe, whether between museums or private individuals. The duration of German colonial rule was relatively short (30 years) compared to other colonial powers. Nevertheless, the German colonial power was able to secure an immense amount of priceless African art and cultural objects. Hundreds of thousands of African heritage objects are kept in German museums, while dispossessed communities are still missing a part of their cultural identity that resides there. For example, the Humboldt Forum alone has over 75,000 African objects. Yet in Africa it is difficult to find a national museum with inventories exceeding 3,000 objects (Sarr/Savoy, 2018:12). 

These looted objects had a very specific role in Europe. They were exhibited in museums and served to feed the curiosity of visitors and to produce colonial knowledge. The knowledge produced, or better still constructed, about the colonised peoples through research on their objects, allowed for a more "rational" exploitation of the colonies and influenced in one way or another the management of the colonies (colonial laws, colonial education system, relations between the colonial administration, evangelisation missions and the colonised peoples, representations etc.). Because of the asymmetrical power relations during colonial exchanges, objects from colonial contexts are considered today as "sensitive objects" because of the controversial circumstances from which they originate (Lange, 2011). Despite these controversial acquisition methods, they are still exhibited today by museums and are still a source of scientific research - not only on the provenance of the objects, but also on the culture of the formerly colonised people. For years, "decolonial" initiatives in Germany and Africa, as well as African states, have been demanding the return of this cultural heritage, which is still "trapped" in European museums.

From Mobutu to Macron: on the restitution of African heritage

The issue of restitution is not new. It has just been reintensified by Emmanuel Macron's promises in 2017. Indeed, since the proclamation of their independence, some former colonies have not ceased to claim the restitution of their cultural heritage looted during colonisation. One of the key moments of these claims was 1973. On 18 December 1973, on the initiative of Mobutu Sese Seko, head of state of Zaire (now the DRC), the UN adopted Resolution 3187, the title of which is unequivocal: "Restitution of works of art to countries that have suffered expropriation". The signatories of this resolution underline, among other things, the ability of the cultural heritage of peoples to condition artistic values in the present and in the future. Highlighting the role of a people's national culture in its relations with other peoples and deploring the massive movement of works of art during colonisation, they call for the strengthening of international relations through the prompt and free restitution of these works. They consider that this would constitute a just reparation for the serious prejudice suffered by the victims (UN, 1973). Signed by 113 states, this resolution caused concern and "general panic" in the museum field in Germany. Under the aegis of the Foreign Office, directors of ethnographic museums took a stand in 1974. A recent article by the German historian Anna Valeska Strugalla, who works on the restitution claims of the 1970s and 1980s, shows that in the state of Baden-Württemberg four museum directors categorically rejected this resolution. Rightly pointing out that such a resolution should have consequences for all ethnographic museums, they presented the museum collections of the colonial period as just less valuable objects bought or offered by the Africans themselves (Strugalla, 2020: 106-107).

Mobutu's initiative had a lot of resonance in the world and was accompanied by some positive repercussions. Between 1976 and 1981, the Belgian government returned to Zaire a total of 1,042 objects acquired during the Belgian colonisation of the Congo (Strugalla, 2020: 112). However, this was only an exception. It did not have a similar effect in other countries, least of all Germany. Nevertheless, the conditions for restitution were in place. Until the beginning of the 1980s, several German museum directors - who were more in favour of Resolution 3187 - argued for the restitution of this heritage (Strugalla, 2020: 113-114). In the same vein, in the Federal Republic of Germany, political figures, such as Hildegard Hamm-Brücher in an official speech, envisaged a possible restitution (Sarr/Savoy, 2018:16).

Bénédicte Savoy's research shows that already in the late 1970s, Pierre Quoniam, a former director of the Louvre Museum, directed a report on restitution for the French state similar to the one of 2018. Quonam's report was also in favour of restitution (Savoy, 2019). Nevertheless, everything faded away towards the end of the 1980s. However, the requests did not stop. In 2016, Benin was refused the restitution of its heritage by France for the umpteenth time, the latter citing the inalienable nature of its public collections (Sarr/Savoy, 2018:17).  

Macron's promise to make restitution one of his priorities has thus only allowed the already existing debate to resurface. The question arises: what went wrong in the 1970s/1980s, the previous intensive phase of the debate? For Savoy, in the case of Germany, the answer to this question is unambiguous: the museums are lying. They explicitly hide the truth about the provenance of their collections. By mutual agreement, the major museums decided not to publish their inventories in response to Resolution 3187, thus avoiding the coveting of objects by formerly colonised peoples (Savoy, 2019). This is a key point of the present contribution.

Inaccessible inventories and language barriers: challenges for African researchers in the restitution debate

In Germany, reactions to the report on restitution are diverse. Some actors in the museum field, such as the historian Hermann Parzinger, cite legal issues as a reason not to recognise the legitimacy of restitution. According to the advocates of this position, restitution would require an international legal commission to decide on the status of the objects. It advocates cooperation and circulation (in the form of loans) of works of art instead of restitution (Oswald, 2019). Alongside this unfavourable trend, there are generally many efforts to continue the debate: conferences and workshops by museums, archives and universities, scientific debates on art objects, radio broadcasts, etc. In Africa, the debate does not seem to be going well. In Africa, the debate does not seem to have intensified further in the case of the former German colonies, especially on a political level. The Tanzanian ambassador in Berlin, Abdallah Possi, vehemently demanded in February 2020 on behalf of his country that all Tanzanian artefacts and human bones in German museums be inventoried, but this is an isolated action if it is seen as a reaction to the restitution report.

In October 2019, a petition launched by researchers, artists and museum directors for the opening of the inventories of German museums and addressed to the German state received more than 300 signatures from all over the world (Oeffnetdieinventare, 2019). An analysis of the petition shows that African academics seem to be underrepresented among the signatories - if one looks at the signatures with precision of the profession. Felwine Sarr, Kuma N'Dumbe, Soulémane Bachir Diagne, Malick N'Dyage, Albert Gouaffo, Achille Mbembe, Ciraj Hassoul and many others are certainly involved in the debate on all fronts, and thus also in Germany. Nevertheless, from our observations of media coverage, scientific events and different reactions to objects from colonial contexts in Germany, we see that the focus is on France and that there is little interest on the part of African researchers in the case of Germany. But why is this so?

There are two main reasons for this question. The first has already been mentioned. The looted objects are still either kept in museum repositories or exhibited. However, in the latter case, their exact provenance and identity remain unclear, doubtful or kept secret in a direct or indirect manner. Only a few ethnographic museums have put the catalogues of their collections online. Most of them do not make these inventories accessible to outsiders without a special request; the search filters on the websites do not allow to find an exact list of inventories by country (former colony) and year of acquisition. This is the case, for example, of the Rautenstrauch-Joest-Museum in Cologne, which states on its website that it has a precise inventory of the objects in its possession, but which is not accessible online. There is therefore no transparency, and restitution under these conditions remains an almost impossible task, as the report on restitution points out:

"Without an inventory and without easy access to it, restitution requests can only be made in a deleterious blur. The inventory work [?] constitutes for the African side a first step in (re)contacting collections whose existence (for lack of easily accessible inventories) is often ignored by the African professionals themselves, and a fortiori by societies." (Sarr/Savoy, 2018: 58)

This policy of concealment dating back to the 1970s/1980s has remained a tradition. Besides the voluntary concealment of inventories by museums, the German state remains generally reticent or silent on the issue of restitution, fearing that the restitution of art objects is the first step in a long list of demands for reparations for colonial crimes. For example, Chancellor Angela Merkel did not react to the debate in 2017 despite the call from the African diaspora to do so (Sarr/Savoy, 2018: 12).

The second answer relates to language barriers. As German is not the official language of any African country, it is not easy for researchers to follow and participate in the debate in Germany. Language barriers make African researchers dependent on the work of the countries holding the objects. By living and working in a country that holds this heritage, European researchers have a virtual monopoly on researching African heritage in Europe despite the fact that they are less able to understand the meaning of these objects in their cultural context.

In summary, the problem of the engagement of African scientists with the issue of restitution in Germany remains linked to two overriding factors: the lack of transparency on the part of museums and language barriers. Research on the subject is almost centralised in Europe, with access to data being difficult both for the African population in general and for African researchers and specialists. Often, one has to travel to Germany before discovering the existence of these collections.

Some proposals and final remarks

In the light of the above, an approach should be considered for a better understanding of the theme of restitution in the scientific field.

Several African scholars are very much involved in the debate on the restitution of African heritage in the case of Germany. But, generally, many of them have a knowledge of the German language, if they do not come from an English-speaking country. Albert Gouaffo and Prince N?Dumbe, for example, have studied Germanic culture. Most of the work of these researchers, who work directly with the original German-language sources, focuses on the Provenienzforschung (research into the provenance of objects). In Germany, for years, the Provenienzforschung tries to clarify the legal and ethical circumstances under which objects from foreign collections were acquired. Although provenance research is promising, this work is nevertheless very time-consuming. Taking into account the number of objects to be examined and the time spent on each of them, the task seems endless. It therefore seems that the Provenienzforschung is not a good first step.

Under the legal regulations, the objects do not in principle belong to the museums but are public property, a national heritage for Germany. This is an aspect that is used by the opponents of restitution. Furthermore, restitution requests are generally only possible when they come directly from a state. These are negotiations between states and not between museums and looted communities. However, as in the example given in the introduction, we assume that many African political actors do not feel involved in the debate. It is therefore important that the looted communities put pressure on these political actors. This is another important task of the colonial heritage researcher: to inform the population. Instead of the ProvenienzforschungWe propose systematic work on inventories and education on history. The first step of restitution would be to fight for the opening of inventories and archives. It would be necessary to work on detection, which should lead to the establishment of a precise cartography of African heritage in Germany, Europe and the rest of the world. Without this transparency, it would be difficult to make enquiries. Free access to the inventories would allow a greater interest from the African scientific community for these sensitive objects in German museums. This would facilitate the dialogue between research and dispossessed communities. Informed of the presence of this heritage, the communities of origin could put pressure on their governments, which in turn would file claims for its restitution. To this end, the International Inventory Programme (IIP, 2020), which aims to inventory collections of Kenyan artefacts worldwide, is to be encouraged and should be extended throughout Africa. In France, the project "Vestiges, indices, paradigms: lieux et temps des objets d'Afrique (XIVe ? XIXe siècle)" (IHNA, 2020), which aims to gather in a digital documentation the sources of African art objects, should also inspire other projects in Africa and the rest of the world.

Also, the results of the work of historians on this issue as well as on the history of colonisation in general should not just remain in libraries. In Togo and Cameroon, for example, there are many publications by Germanists on the history of German colonisation. But most of these publications are in German, a language not accessible to all. We propose to write in the language that is most accessible to the greatest number of people. In addition, the problem of language barriers should be addressed in the long term. The learning of foreign languages (German, English, Portuguese) would be essential for the study of the history of colonisation and the colonial heritage. We do not want to raise a controversy about privileging the languages of the former colonists over local African languages. Of course, it is important to learn Duala, Ewe, Swahili, Twi etc., but colonial languages are still important languages. But the colonial languages remain working languages. It is not, for example, a matter of a historian learning German in order to be able to express himself like Goethe. However, the colonial language is an inevitability of the history of former colonies: archives, catalogues on cultural heritage, museum websites, inventories, are generally in these languages. Studying the history of colonisation, and with it the language in which the potential sources of research are to be found, would make it possible to relocate knowledge about the colonial past to Africa, to write its share of shared history better, with primary sources, to improve the practice and consumption of history by the formerly colonised populations. History studies should be generally interdisciplinary. And if the conditions oblige to write in the language of the former settler, which is not easily accessible to the communities for which one is writing, one should find channels of information adapted to the situation in Africa: for example through regular media broadcasts in local African languages, information campaigns on cultural heritage, etc. For the transparency and reliability of history, it would be up to scientists to launch these kinds of initiatives. African researchers have a great role to play in effective restitution.

Bibliography

Häussler, Matthias (2018), Der Genozid an den Herero. Krieg, Emotion und extreme Gewalt in Deutsch-Südwestafrika, Weilerswist, Velbrück.

IIP (2020), International Inventories Programme, https://www.inventoriesprogramme.org/ (visited on 24/07/2020).

INHA (2020), Vestiges, indices, paradigms: places and times of African objects (14th to 19th century), https://www.inha.fr/fr/recherche/le-departement-des-etudes-et-de-la-recherche/domaines-de-recherche/histoire-de-l-art-du-xive-au-xixe-siecle/vestiges-indices-paradigmes-lieux-et-temps-des-objets-d-afrique-xive-xixe-s.html (visited on 24/07/2020).

Lange, Britta (2011), "Sensible Sammlungen", in: Margit Berner, Annette Hoffmann, Britta lange, Sensible Sammlungen. Aus dem anthropologischen Depot, Hamburg, Philo Fine Arts, p. 15-40.

Oeffnetdieinventare (2019), We demand free access to museum inventories of African objects held in Germany!   https://oeffnetdieinventare.com/ (visited on 13/07/2020).

UN (1973), Resolution 3187of 18 December 1973,  https://undocs.org/fr/A/RES/3187(XXVIII)&Lang=F&Area=RESOLUTION (visited on 13/07/2020).

Oswald, Margareta von (2019), The . First Reactions in Academia, Museums, and Politics,  https://blog.uni-koeln.de/gssc-humboldt/the-restitution-report/ (visited on 13/07/2020).

Sarr, Felwine (2019), The Restitution of African Cultural Heritage. Toward a New Relational EthicsPaper presented at the conference "Museum Collections in Motion" 16/07/2019, Cologne.

Sarr, Felwine / Savoy, Bénédicte (2018), Report on the restitution of African cultural heritage. Towards a new relational ethic, http://restitutionreport2018.com/sarr_savoy_fr.pdf (visited on 13/07/2020).

Sarreiter, Regina (2012), "Ich glaube, dass die Hälfte Ihres Museums gestohlen ist", in: Anette Hoffmann, Britta Lange, Regina Sarreiter, Was wir sehen. Bilder, Stimmen, Rauschen. Zur Kritik anthropometrischen SammelnsBasel, Basler Afrika Biografien, p. 43-58.

Savoy, Bénédicte (2019), Der Savoy/Sarr Restitutions-Report zur kolonialen Raubkunst. Ein Jahr danach, https://www.kolonialismus.uni-hamburg.de/2020/01/20/video-prof-dr-benedicte-savoy-der-savoy-sarr-restitutions-report-zur-kolonialen-raubkunst-ein-jahr-danach/ (visited on 13/07/2020).

Strugalla, Anna Valeska (2020), "Museumsdirektoren nehmen Stellung. Argumentationen, Intentionen und Geschichtsbilder in der Restitutionsdebatte der frühen 1970er Jahre", in: WerkstattGeschichte Nr. 81Bielefeld, Transcript p. 101-118.