Introduction
On April 14th, 2021 the Manuscript Migration Lab held its second public event, Preservation, Restitution, and the Idea of “Cultural Heritage,” featuring speakers Dr. Felwine Sarr (Duke University) and Dr. Astrid Swenson (Bath Spa University). This online workshop discussed the development of cultural heritage as an idea, the evolving nature of culture, and some possible ways to move beyond a euro-centric, colonialist view of mankind’s “universal history.”
Felwine Sarr
In preparation for Dr. Sarr’s discussion of cultural heritage restitution in Africa, the graduate affiliates read Dr. Sarr’s most recent publication, Afrotopia, and the report, The Restitution of African Cultural Heritage: Toward a New Relational Ethics, which Dr. Sarr co-authored with Dr. Bénédicte Savoy for the French Government.
In Afrotopia, Dr. Sarr discusses the necessity of Africa, and the rest of the world, to reimagine its place in a global community. In fact, Sarr argues that “the continent became a sort of wonderland, an outlet for so-called civilized nations to unleash their deepest expressions of repressed barbarism” (Afrotopia, p. x). For Sarr, it is necessary to recognize the ways in which colonialism has incurred generational trauma, disrupted memory making, and removed traces of entire histories of certain communities.
In his report, The Restitution of African Cultural Heritage: Toward a New Relational Ethics, Dr. Sarr defines restitution as a “means to return an item to its legitimate owner. This term serves to remind us that the appropriation and enjoyment of an item that one restitutes rest on a morally reprehensible act (rape, pillaging, spoliation, ruse, force consent, etc.) In this case, to restitute aims to re-institute the cultural item to the legitimate owner for his legal use and enjoyment, as well as all the other prerogatives that the item confers” (Sarr-Savory Report, 29). For Sarr, in order to develop a “new relational ethics,” we must first discuss the depth of the trauma (rape, pillage, etc) that has occurred because of “morally reprehensible” restitution. After discovering the causes of this trauma, then we can move toward developing a new code of ethics surrounding cultural heritage restitution.
Dr. Sarr began his presentation by discussing the “long standing” history of the demand for African cultural heritage restitution. He argued that as African countries became free from colonialism, they demanded the return of looted objects. In fact, in 1978, UNESCO called for the restitution of African objects so that African memories and identities might be restored. In addition, this would allow others to understand the reformation of African memories and identities. Most African countries’ requests for restitution were ignored.
In 2017, Professor Joseph Ki-Zerbo from the University of Ouagadougou declared that he wanted to see the “temporary or definitive restitution of African cultural heritage to Africa” (Sarr-Savoy Report, 1). In 2018, Dr. Sarr was commissioned alongside Dr. Bénédicte Savoy to investigate and determine which items qualified as African heritage forcibly removed from Africa and how these items should be returned. In November of that year, the report was released and the authors called for the return of around 90,000 objects, two-thirds of which were acquired from 1865-1960.
Sarr then discussed the numerous lessons which he learned while creating this report. First, provenance is not just about an object’s origin or physical journey, but it also involves the conditions under which an entity was moved (looting, sold, found on ethnographic missions, etc).
Second, restitution itself has an entangled heritage. It involves numerous political, philosophical, and relational implications. Restitution also includes the reconstruction of memory and history while confronting colonialism. A larger question surrounding restitution is how this act affects young Africans and the development of the African continent. How does it form or destroy creative outlets and affect the process of meaning making? For example, the acquisition of African objects led to the development of avant garde art in Europe. Answering these questions, for Sarr, is a part of reimagining Africa’s role in the world and the global community’s relationship to Africa.
Third, the truth is fragile. Objects work to create an interchangeability of memory, history, and cultural heritage. Memory work is the reconstruction of identity in communities. Cultural objects aid in this process, especially after trauma. For example, history is transmitted from generation to generation, particularly issues ignored by political institutions (i.e. colonial violence). Objects from Africa currently in European museums represent the missing traces of African societies.
In addition, Sarr presented several different considerations for moving beyond colonialism, imperialism, and pillage. One way to approach this restitution is by determining an object’s appropriate function (social, ritual, historical, creative, etc) and then reintegrating into a community that has consented to its re-socialization. This is hard to do because many people have evolved after experiencing the trauma of colonialism. It is then necessary to incorporate the original function of an object with its new purpose in an ever changing community. We can only return objects when communities uphold a multi-faceted relationship with objects and consent to their return.
Sometimes communities completely forget about the object and its history. This is a two-fold death: the death of that heritage (i.e. the original story associated with the object) and the reconstruction of that heritage (i.e. the new story or function). Communities need to define their own vision of heritage and determine how to reinsert these objects. If the items are erased from their memories because of their occupancy in European museums then this process is less likely to happen. In addition, the museum model presents only one possible solution for reinventing African cultural heritage. There are also social, memorial, creative, and ritual spaces.
What is African art/heritage? African communities have consistently created art that connects with the spirituality of people. This art is living and has active forces that connect with its audience. The goal of protecting art is to increase participation in the world, create a symbolic and philosophic discourse, and provide greater evidence of life. It is important to note that these objects are not eternal. Their functions are constantly changing and they have a lifespan. They are created, live, die, break, and are reincarnated. Once we understand this, we can deal with the idea of cultural heritage.
The material trace of objects is about a collective history and the creative genius of people. Objects represent the universal force of reality. What do we do with this materiality? Objects fall apart, are stolen, changed, and broken. Objects, however, are expressions of “know-how” which is how these objects have survived this long. The material traces of these objects are strong (written records, etc). “Othered” objects (i.e. African art) have flimsy and fragile traces. For example, we know more about plantations than we do about slaves’ objects. We only know the history of “winners.” Material traces are open, they can be reinvented like culture.
Going forward, according to Sarr, we need to confront colonial history without promoting the violence of colonialists. This is only a small part of Africa’s history and we need to better incorporate the wants and needs of the community into history. We should not promote violence in public spaces, but amplify African voices.
Astrid Swenson
In preparation for Dr. Swenson’s discussion of cultural heritage restitution, the graduate affiliates read Swenson’s “Crusader Heritages and Imperial Preservation” and The Rise of Heritage: Preserving the Past in France, Germany and England, 1789–1914.
In “Crusader Heritages and Imperial Preservation” Dr. Swenson argues that the development of the idea of cultural heritage occurred after the French Revolution. It was a global phenomenon created from actions and reactions. In fact, she writes, “These ‘Crusader heritages’ are an informative case study for comparative imperial histories, as they were not only a significant chapter in French heritage history but were also representative of a broader European interest in the Crusades, which manifested itself in explorations, restorations, and acquisitions by individuals and government and a thriving presence in popular culture” (“Crusader Heritages,” 29). For Swenson, cultural heritage developed as local and national groups grappled with an emerging global community.
In The Rise of Heritage: Preserving the Past in France, Germany and England, 1789–1914 also argues that cultural heritage is a global phenomenon. However, she expands on this concept by claiming that cultural heritage as an idea and the global community as an entity is always evolving. She writes, “Heritage-makers increasingly used the transnational space not only to exchange ideas about their national situation, but also debated the creation of international institutions and the protection of a common heritage of humanity” (The Rise of Heritage, 4). For Swenson, a “universal” history of mankind is firmly rooted in the idea of cultural heritage that arose after the French Revolution. The universal history of mankind is a eurocentric vision rooted in imperialist and colonialist ideologies.
Swenson began her presentation by discussing the necessity of expanding the conversation on cultural heritage to include stationary objects such as monuments. When defining heritage, Swenson first quotes the 2008 UNESCO World Heritage Kit, which determines heritage to be a “legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations.” Heritage, according to Dr. Swenson, is also a product of the French Revolution and colonialism. This is particularly evident in the “museum model.” Museums, as we understand them today, are a product of colonialism, exhibit colonial superiority (i.e. “winners” story), and act as a measure of cultural attainment. Historically, heritage has been a collection of western ideas, but it is now evolving to include non-western ideas.
What do we do with a definition and conception of cultural heritage rooted in the western world? How do we include the vast diversity present in the world? We need to tell the stories of monuments in different ways, especially in ways that highlight the trauma associated with colonial violence rather than the views of colonialism.
The current values we hold about cultural objects were determined by the values in-tact when the objects were created or produced. Therefore, these ideas are deeply entangled with colonialism and did not evolve with objects. Crusader heritages have long been left uncategorized and uncatalogued. However, wars in Syria have renewed interest in this project. These sites have been celebrated as encounters of cultural exchange. However, we need to grapple with the fact that violence once created these heritages and violence has also renewed interest in them.
Example #1: Cologne Cathedral
- The Cologne Cathedral is one of the first examples of a “national monument”
- This is a direct product of colonialism
- UNESCO defined this structure as a testament to the “enduring strength of European Christianity”
- After WWII, it was reinvented as a purely European site
- Ignored its Franco German origins
- Traces of objects and monuments are intertwined with the creation of heritage and colonialism
- This is a direct product of colonialism
Example #2: City of Bath
- The City of Bath was declared a UNESCO Heritage site in 1987
- The city of Bath was originally founded by the Romans as a thermal spa, an empire which was built on slavery.
- In the 18th century, George III transformed Bath into a town with Palladian buildings that blend in with the Roman Baths.
- However, after the Black Lives Matter movement, the city’s status as a heritage site was questioned because of its ties to slavery
- I.e. led to a rethinking and rediscovery of slave history, once again rooted in violence
Dr. Swenson concluded by claiming that we need new solutions to new situations and perspectives on cultural heritage. We must confront inequality, disparate access, and lack of inclusion. We have to trace colonial violence in order to utilize monuments to tell different stories. We can’t come to terms with the past until the causes of trauma no longer exist.
Drs. Sarr and Swenson concluded in the final Q&A that we need to tell collective stories about the uses and meanings of objects. Each object has different meanings which can coexist and come into dialogue with one another. The long-standing “universal” history of mankind, one entrenched in colonialism has been consistently utilized as a way to delegitimize repatriation. This universal history has protected the motivations of museums and kept cultural objects away from their places of origin. To undo this, we must train younger generations how to reimagine the world, history, and global communion.
Bibliography
Sarr, Felwine, Bénédicte Savoy. The Restitution of African Cultural Heritage: Toward a New Relational Ethics. Paris, France: Philippe Rey, Seuil, Paris, 2018.
Sarr, Felwine, Drew Burk, and Sarah Jones-Boardman. Afrotopia. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2020.
Swenson, Astrid. “Crusader Heritages and Imperial Preservation.” Past & Present 226, no. suppl 10 (2015): 27–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtu024.
Swenson, Astrid. The Rise of Heritage: Preserving the Past in France, Germany and England, 1789-1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.