Repatriation claims in postcolonial discourse: the restitution policy of ethnological museums since 1970

Project management: Prof. Dr. Karl-Heinz Kohl

Although restitution of looted cultural property already took place on a large scale in Europe after the Napoleonic Wars, it was almost a century before the Hague Convention of 1907 internationally outlawed the confiscation of art objects in the event of war. However, it was not until after the Second World War that the view of the illegality of such acts and the necessity of restitution of looted cultural property actually became established in international and private law. With the onset of decolonization, the Hague Convention of 1954 expanded the set of norms for the protection of cultural heritage and was also applied to corresponding processes in the former European colonies in Africa, Asia and Oceania. Since then, post-colonial states have asserted claims relating not only to the restitution of material cultural assets looted and taken out of the country during the colonial era, but also to all objects of cultural and historical significance held in European collections. The restitution claims were generally linked to a revalidation of the objects in question. They now became symbolic carriers of ethnic and national identity (just as they had been in the individual European nation states a good century earlier).

The aim of the project is to investigate how ethnological and archaeological museums in German-speaking countries reacted to repatriation demands from non-European states, which objects they actually returned, the reasons they gave for refusing restitution and the change in meaning of the artifacts in the course of their transfer and the debate surrounding them.

Concrete normative political and cultural conflicts between Western and post-colonial societies can be demonstrated on the basis of the restitution discourse and restitution practice. In the codification of restitution claims under international law, the development of a transnational normative set of rules can be observed in statu nascendi, so to speak. A further conflict of normative orders arises in the practice of restitution, in which the legitimacy of restitution and the concern for the preservation of cultural heritage and artifacts are weighed up.

Following a literature survey, 18 interviews were conducted with senior museum staff and officials. A 50-page results report documents the evaluation. The central research questions of the project have been incorporated into university teaching, events at the Frobenius Institute, academic theses and two dissertation projects. Prof. Justin Richland (Chicago) was invited to report on restitution policy in the USA as part of the Jensen Memorial Lectures.

Although the legitimacy of restitution claims for cultural objects is generally recognized by the relevant decision-makers, there have only been a small number of restitutions in Germany to date (with the exception of human remains). There are doubts as to whether the claims are made exclusively by individuals acting as legitimate representatives of their respective groups, especially as artifacts have reappeared on the international art market shortly after their restitution. More important than the restitutions themselves are the public discussions triggered by the claims, as they draw public attention to the injustice inflicted on the indigenous peoples.

The most important publications in this project:

Kohl, Karl-Heinz: “The ‘native’ returns. With the help of European clichés about ‘natives’, indigenous people have fought for special rights”, in: World Views. Magazine for global development and ecumenical cooperation , 3/2017, S. 12-18.

Fründt, Sarah: “Return logistics – repatriation business. Managing the return of ancestral remains to New Zealand”, in: L.V. Prott, B. Hauser-Schäublin (eds.): Cultural Property and Contested Ownership: The Trafficking of Artefacts and the Quest for Restitution, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2016.

Kohl, Karl-Heinz: “Malanggan: Abbild und doppelter Tod”, in: V. Lepper/P. Deuflhard/C. Markschies (eds.): Räume – Bilder – Kulturen (Forschungsberichte der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 36), Berlin/Boston: Walter De Gruyter, 2015, pp. 169-188.

*Kohl, Karl-Heinz: “The Future of Anthropology Lies in its Past”, in: Social Research. An international Quarterly 81 (3), 2014, S. 555-570.

Kohl, Karl-Heinz: “Should ethnology be ashamed? Demands are being made in Berlin that artifacts from indigenous cultures should be omitted from the design of the Humboldt Forum”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, September 17, 2014, p. N3.

people in this project:

Project management / contact person

Kohl, Karl-Heinz, Prof. Dr.

Project staff

Fründt, Sarah, M.A.

Bird, Vanessa