Bozsa, Isabella

Campfens, Evelien

English

<intR>²Dok

1/6A Matter of Morality or Justice?verfassungsblog.de/provenance-research-and-claims-to-bangwa-collections/Evelien CampfensIsabella BozsaThis article belongs to the debate » Restitution, Colonialism and the Courts05 Dezember 2022Provenance Research and Claims to Bangwa CollectionsUsing the lens of a case concerning the Bangwa collection in the Municipal Museum ofBrunswick, this contribution proposes that a human rights law approach and cooperativeprovenance research are key in dealing with collections from colonial context.Fifty years after the UN General Assembly urged  the return of colonial cultural takings tovictims of expropriation and twenty years after the Declaration on the Value andImportance of Universal Museums – through which museums justified their continuedpossession of such artefacts – return ceremonies have gained widespread attention.They are a testament to the fact that times have changed. European museums andgovernments generally present these returns as voluntary gestures. However, is such an‘ethical model’– whereby high-profile cases are settled by ad-hoc agreements on avoluntary basis, depending on the moral standards of the current possessor – asustainable way to achieve justice in the long run? Sooner or later standards need to beset: Which objects are eligible for return, exactly? And who are ‘right-holders’ to theseobjects?This contribution proposes that a human rights approach, focusing on the intangible(heritage) value of objects, offers tools to address these questions. A human rightsapproach is based in the right to culture in Article 15, para 1 (a) of the InternationalCovenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) that has come to includethe right of access to cultural objects, implicating certain rights of indigenous communitiesregarding their (lost) cultural objects. The legal status of an artefact, in that sense, is notsolely defined by the ownership status of an object according to national law in a holdingstate but also by the cultural rights of communities of origin. Since participation of thesecommunities in the governance and care of their cultural heritage is essential to such arights-based approach, this has to be considered also by museums and provenanceresearchers (i.e. during investigations into an object’s ownership history). A case example2/6concerning objects in the ethnographic collection at the Municipal Museum of Brunswick(MMB) attributed to the Bangwa – a people indigenous to today’s Southwest region ofCameroon – may illustrate these points.Colonial context and cooperative provenance researchThe appropriation of the Bangwa collection that is currently in the MMB took place duringGerman colonial expansion to the interior of Cameroon. The first contact between theBangwa and a German was not directly accompanied by military force but set out withinthe context of colonial economic exploitation. In 1898, the powerful Bangwa ruler FontemAsunganyi (approx. 1870-1951) received Gustav Conrau (1865-1899), a trader, hunterand colonial agent who acted on behalf of a German trading company to recruit workersfor their plantations at the coast. He himself described his first encounter with FontemAsunganyi as diplomatic and cooperative (Conrau 1899: 205). Asunganyi had interest inestablishing a German trading “factory” in his kingdom and allowed seventy Bangwa mento accompany Conrau as workers to the coast. On that occasion, Conrau also obtainedsome cultural objects which he sent to the “Königliches Museum für Völkerkunde” (today:Ethnologisches Museum) in Berlin. Among these was a commemorative figure todayknown as the “Bangwa Queen”.When Conrau returned to the kingdom of Lebang to recruit more labourers, withouthonoring his promise to bring back the Bangwa men who had come with him on his firsttrip, conflicts arose. Asunganyi arrested Conrau, who escaped and probably shot himselfout of fear what would come. This triggered several military operations by Germancolonial troops against the Bangwa from 1900 onwards. After the first brutal militaryattack, marking the beginning of the “Lebang-German war” (Atem 2000: 79), KurtStrümpell (1872-1947), a lieutenant in the German colonial army, headed the militarycampaign to enforce “war retribution payments” (Deutsches Kolonialblatt 1901: 314) fromthe Lebang kingdom. In addition to forced labourers, a large number of ivory tusks andother resources, Strümpell mentions cultural objects taken by the German administration.Some of these resemble the ones in the collection at the MMB. Strümpell also mentionsin this regard two ceremonial staffs, decorated with colourful glass beads, in his report tothe colonial government. These were allegedly not seized, but gifted by FontemAsunganyi himself. Strümpell described how Asunganyi sent a messenger to him, whoasked Strümpell to carry one of them as “a sign […] to make peace” (BArch R 1001/3348,Strümpell 14.12.1900, translation IB). Two years after this military campaign, Strümpellhanded around 60 objects from the Bangwa region to the MMB, a museum in hishometown, including two staffs with bead decoration.During provenance research in the framework of the project PAESE at the MMB, IsabellaBozsa, a co-author of this piece, established contact with the Bangwa community androyal family of Fontem with the help of Evelien Campfens, another co-author. IsabellaBozsa consulted Chief Taku and George Atem (1953-2021), both descendants of FontemAsunganyi and Bangwa title holders, about the Bangwa collection at the MMB. Bothobjects mentioned above are included in this collection. Both doubt that Fontem3/6Asunganyi gifted the two ceremonial staffs; the king would not have given away hissymbols of royal power and authority voluntarily. Royal and spiritually important objectslike commemorative figures in particular, such as the “Bangwa Queen”, would not havebeen gifted (Campfens 2019: 80).  Instead, they qualify these as spoils taken during theinvasion of the palace by German colonial troops. This demonstrates that includingmembers of communities of origin in the process of provenance research is necessary togain new insights into colonial history that may well challenge prevalent narratives.Decolonial knowledge production in provenance research, in sum, requires cooperationwith communities of origin.Collections as ancestral linksThis type of collaborative research may raise questions about the ontological status ofmuseum collections that were taken for the sake of scientific knowledge about non-European cultures. Bangwa representatives revealed that the artefacts had culturalmeaning beyond their conception as “ethnographic objects”. In July 2022, a visit of theking Asabaton Fontem Njifua and a delegation of eight Bangwa-title holders at theMunicipal Museum of Brunswick  took place. HRM Asabaton Fontem Njifua is thesuccessor of Fontem Asunganyi and today’s ruler of Lebang. The king and his delegationemphasized the spiritual meaning of the Bangwa objects. The moment when they sawand touched the objects for the first time was an emotional one. They sang and prayed totheir ancestors, including Fontem Asunganyi. In Bangwa culture, ancestors guarantee thewellbeing of the kingdom and its people. The presence of the historical objects presentedthe Bangwa with an opportunity to connect to their ancestors. According to Chief Taku,this truly was a historical moment. Since German colonisation, the kingdom of Lebangfaced a number of catastrophes and misfortune. Most recent of those is the war in theanglophone North- and upper Southwest region of Cameroon. The king of Fontem, HisRoyal Majesty Asabaton Fontem Njifua, described the encounter at the museum inBrunswick a moment of hope: “To see them today and touching them means a lot of joy, alot of relief and it gives us great hope for a better future” (HRM Asabaton Fontem Njifua,12.07.2022).What about the law?That cultural objects are not merely commodities is a notion acknowledged in legalsystems throughout history. Roman law considered certain cultural objects inalienable (asres sacrae or res extra commercium), and in most jurisdictions similar rules can be found.The first multilateral conventions echoed such special legal status and provided forprotection of monuments and works of art. Destruction or pillage of cultural objects, evenin times of war, is prohibited and today this rule is firmly established in international law.In that respect objects sacred to (indigenous) communities enjoy an even stronger status,as may follow for example from Article 5(3) of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention.4/6Although present-day treaties do not apply directly to earlier takings, the principle that thesocial context and intangible (heritage) value of cultural objects to specific people is keyin determining for whom and where cultural heritage should be preserved is gainingground in an expanding legal framework. UN Security Council resolutions, for example,highlight that destruction and pillage is a threat to peace and security and that protectionof cultural heritage is essential for the sustainable development of societies. In that samevein, a series of resolutions by the UN Human Rights Council approach these issues as amatter of fundamental human rights.A human rights approachIn the context of the debate on restitution of colonial takings, the 2007 UN Declaration onthe Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) best exemplifies a human rights lawapproach. Article 11 (2) provides for a right of ‘redress through effective mechanisms,which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples’ withrespect to cultural objects taken without ‘free, prior and informed consent or in violation oftheir laws, traditions and customs.’ Depending on the cultural importance of the specificobject (think of sacred and/or spiritual objects) such redress may vary from a right to‘access and control’ to a straightforward right to repatriation. Today, these provisions areconsidered the implementation of the (binding) right to culture in Article 15 para 1 (a)ICESCR in as far as it concerns indigenous peoples. That this comes with legalobligations may be highlighted by the acknowledgement that the provisions on culturalrights of indigenous peoples in UNDRIP reflect evolving customary international law.An interesting roadmap for the operationalisation of these rights is given in a Columbianruling concerning the so-called ‘Quimbaya Treasure.’ In that ruling, the Court ordered theColombian government to pursue, on behalf of the Quimbaya people, restitution by Spainof a golden treasure lost at the close of the nineteenth century. The court relied in thisruling on the argument that under today’s standards of international law, indigenouscommunities are entitled to their lost cultural objects. A recent Swedish decision to returncultural objects that were taken during scientific fieldwork in the 1930s to the Yaqui inMexico, taking the provisions on cultural rights in UNDRIP as legal basis, bolsters thisinterpretation.What we can see here is the development of a right of access and control, oftenimplicating restitution, with regard to cultural objects that people identify with on accountof their intangible ‘heritage’ value. A key element of this model that it may constitute acontinuing human rights violation to remain separated from certain cultural objects. This,as opposed to a focus on the unlawfulness of the acquisition at the time in a traditional(property focused) approach. Another noteworthy element is that communities – notnational states – should be considered right-holders. This obviously does not negate therole governments may have in these procedures as custodians of the interests of theircitizens, but does point at the importance of participation of heritage communities in thegovernance and decisions over their cultural heritage.5/6It also means that national courts may be key in the further development of this field.Access to justice, obviously, is of special importance for dispossessed communities that—for whatever reason—are not actively supported by their governments. National courtscan weigh the different interests at stake, and adjudicate individual claims, either byreliance on applicable human rights norms, or—depending on the specific jurisdiction—bya ‘heritage sensitive’ interpretation of open norms that exist in all jurisdictions.ConclusionGiven the limitations of reconstructing facts in the distant past, we suggest shiftingattention to the values and meanings attributed by communities to the objects at staketoday. The Bangwa community representatives highlighted that museums may haveobjects of spiritual value that are utterly unknown to them in their collections, such as theroyal staffs at Brunswick. These objects may continue to have present value as spiritualobjects, functioning as links to their ancestors. In the Bangwa case, the objects atBrunswick have a stake in the current wellbeing of the Bangwa community. With thisargument, the Bangwa delegation in Brunswick argued in favour of the return of theobjects to the representatives of the Bangwa Kingdom of Lebang beyond the context ofcolonial crimes.In terms of a legal claim and from a human rights perspective, not to grant indigenouscommunities such as the Bangwa access and control over their spiritual objectsconstitutes a continuing violation of their cultural rights. In other words, even if theunlawfulness of takings may be difficult to prove and revindication claims under privatelaw may be stale, this still does not justify an assertion that this field is merely a matter ofmorality. Grave injustices of the past deserve justice—and access to justice—today.ReferencesReferences↑1 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 21(2009), UN Doc E/C.12/GC/21, under ‘Normative content’, paras 7, 49(d), 50.↑2 Fontem is the name of the ruling dynasty of the Bangwa-kingdom called Lebang.Under German colonial rule the name Fontem was taken as an administrative unitfor Lebang, the largest of the nine Bangwa kingdoms of the region (cf.Ndobegang; Bowie 2009: 96). Today, Fontem is still the capital of Lebang and anadministrative subdivision of Lebialem in the Southwest Region in Cameroon.↑3 Today 46 objects can be traced in the storage of the museum. The missing objectswere probably destroyed during the Second World War or entered other museumcollections through exchange transactions, f.e. the Rautenstrauch-Joest-MuseumKöln.↑4 Judgment SU-649/17 (2017) (Republic of Colombia, Constitutional Court).6/6LICENSED UNDER CC BY SASUGGESTED CITATION  Campfens, Evelien; Bozsa, Isabella: Provenance Researchand Claims to Bangwa Collections: A Matter of Morality or Justice?, VerfBlog, 2022/12/05,https://verfassungsblog.de/provenance-research-and-claims-to-bangwa-collections/, DOI:10.17176/20221206-001555-0.LICENSED UNDER CC BY SA

Provenance Research and Claims to Bangwa Collections

https://intr2dok.vifa-recht.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/mir_derivate_00014789/Morality_or_Justice.pdf

Provenance Research and Claims to Bangwa Collections

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

<intR>²Dok