Belgium

The desire to found a colonial empire quickly arose when Belgium became independent from the Netherlands in 1830 (Raad voor Cultuur, 2020, 51). After several failed attempts under King Leopold I in Africa and the Americas, King Leopold II managed to conquer the Belgian Congo from the end of the nineteenth century, initially as his own Congo Free State (1885 – 1908). His successors later conquered several other areas, including

Rwanda-Burundi. Important cultural objects from all these areas were stolen and shipped to Belgium, as did other European colonizing countries (Raad voor Cultuur, 2020, 51). King Leopold II, for example, ordered the systematic collection of cultural objects in the Congo Free State, which was accompanied by a lot of violence against the local population. The objects were sent to Belgium for a new Museum in Tervuren, where a large part of these objects can still be seen (Raad voor Cultuur, 2020, 51).

3.1.1 How does Belgium deal with contested heritage?

After the reopening of the AfricaMuseum in Tervuren (see fig. 12) in 2018, the debate about colonial cultural goods received a major boost in Belgium, because of the commotion

surrounding the renewed museum. The museum was closed for a while due to renovations, during which the building and the museum would also be decolonized. Despite these renovations, the planned reopening evoked reactions from scientists, researchers and activists and from the African diaspora for the immediate return of stolen cultural objects

group criticized the museum and the presence of the racist images that remained after the renovation (Raad voor Cultuur, 2020, 51). In September 2018 as a political response to this commotion, during the conference 'Sharing Past and Future: Strengthening

African-European Connections', the then Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs Didier Reynders called for dialogue with the diaspora and cooperation in dealing with restitution issues. And the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Development Cooperation, Digital Agenda, Telecommunications and Post, Alexander Decroo, emphasized the importance of open-mindedness regarding restitution at the reopening of the museum. After this a number of initiatives were launched to give concrete form to these declarations of intent, including an initiative by the Belgian Senate, but these did not lead to any results (Busselen, 2019, 369-373). At the end of April 2019, a new and broader revival of the debate on the colonial past in Belgium led to a resolution of the Brussels Parliament 'on African cultural and patrimonial property and the return of human remains located on Brussels territory (Raad voor Cultuur, 2020, 51).

On 17 July 2020, a Special Commission of the Belgian Chamber of Representatives was installed with the task of establishing the facts about the Congo- Vrijstaat (1885 – 1908) and the Belgian colonial past in Congo (1908 – 1960), Rwanda and Burundi (1919 – 1962) to be able to draw lessons for the future (Belgische Kamer van Volksvertegenwoordigers, 2020, 3). This Commission has also been asked to formulate proposals for reconciliation and to

Fig. 12 Renewed part of the AfricaMuseum in Tervuren. Source:

https://www.architec tura.be/nl/nieuws/20 960/vernieuwd- afrikamuseum-in-tervuren-onthuld

make recommendations on how to deal with the colonial past. Belgium has little or no national cultural policy: both Flanders and Wallonia each pursue their own cultural policy and many museum policies are determined locally by the large cities. That is an important reason why restitution is a complicated matter in Belgium. Also, according to Belgian law, public cultural goods cannot be alienated (Raad voor Cultuur, 2020, 51-52).

3.1.2 AfricaMuseum

As was the case in many other colonizing nations (Bouquet, 2013, 242), both soldiers and missionaries were important sources for the acquisition of ethnographic objects for the Congo Museum (now AfricaMuseum). Objects confiscated as trophies by Belgian officers during military campaigns went straight to the museum or entered the museum collection through donations from private collectors, such as the one donated by the widow of General Emile Storms (Bouquet, 2013, 242). Missionary work to convert the Congolese to Christianity often involved confiscation and destruction of indigenous ritual objects. These could be kept in a mission collection in the colony or in the homeland; objects were also donated or sold to museums such as the one in Tervuren or to private collectors. The Congo collections in Tervuren initially served as a means of propaganda. Assuming that artistic styles were typical of the ethnic groups from which they came they were carefully classified and inventoried (Bouquet, 2013, 242).

The collections were organized as in a natural history museum: the objects were used to illustrate themes in African culture and not for their artistic value. The Congo Museum was not intended to be an art museum, it was about science. Despite the intentions to focus on the scientific part of the objects, such as the social science behind it, the artistic side of the objects could still be remarked from the start. The enormous amount of ethnographic objects that were shipped from the colony to Belgium became involved in the art trade. In the twentieth century, Brussels became an important centre for the African art market (Bouquet, 2013, 244).

In the 1940’s, a trend started in Tervuren to aestheticize the exhibitions; also the publicity and traveling exhibitions that surrounded them focused the spotlight on certain pieces and thus increased their fame (Bouquet, 2013, 244). The museum played an

important role in elevating certain objects in the collections to the status of ‘masterpiece’.

‘object of art’ to ‘masterpiece’ was a process that had effects far beyond their own

collections (Bouquet, 2013, 244-245). This classification work took place within the broader social and political context of nineteenth-century nation states. Where the citizens of the industrializing powers were divided by socio-economic class antagonisms, their colonial possessions constituted a kind of compensation for the social divisions (Bouquet, 2013, 247).

In January 2020, the AfricaMuseum presented its views on the return of cultural goods. The museum recognizes that it has African cultural heritage of which the countries of origin are the moral owners. This is why the museum will advise the competent minister concerning the feasibility of physical restitution of objects. Therefore, the museum is also investing in provenance research and is striving to make an inventory of its collections available online as soon as possible. A formal restitution request from a recognized authority and accurate provenance research, executed by ad hoc working groups with representatives from Africa, African diaspora in Belgium and scientists. Pieces of great symbolic value for the countries concerned will receive special attention (AfricaMuseum, 2020 & Raad voor

Cultuur, 2020, 52).

3.1.3 Analysis of the AfricaMuseum

If we analyse the AfricaMuseum by the application of the most important aspects from the first and second chapter, the discussion about contested objects becomes more clear.

Aspects that can be linked to the AfricaMuseum from the first chapter are the reasons why objects in the museum are possibly disputed. In the first chapter I discussed five reasons:

colonialism, illegal art trade, national importance, change of ethics and war heritage.

Examples from the museum show that most objects are disputed because they are colonial objects or objects obtained through war. Because there are so many objects in the

collection, for this thesis, I chose to discuss the objects and documents that officer Émile Storms brought to Belgium and that ended up in the AfricaMuseum (AfricaMuseum, 2021).

The museum itself did research on some of the ‘war trophies’, ethnographic objects and political documents brought to Belgium by Storms (AfricaMuseum, 2021). Storms resided more than two years in Congo. During his occupation he wanted to gain control over the area west of the Tanganyikalake. To do this he beheaded a native Congolese opponent named Lusinga (AfricaMuseum, 2021). This initiated a war that enabled Storms to establish his hegemony over the region. Together with this war he and his men plundered the area

and stole goods among which small statues. The statues were named ‘ancestorstatues’ (see fig. 13), meaning they represented the ancestors of the people who made them

(AfricaMuseum, 2021). This shows us that the objects can be seen as war heritage but also as colonial heritage because they were acquired in the framework of unequal power relations created by a colonial situation.

In the second chapter I discussed the five myths by Elia (2009). If we analyse the AfricaMuseum based on these five myths, it becomes clear how ideas about contested objects in the museum have developed over time and how these objects found their way into the museum. Many objects in the museum have an uncertain background and/or acquisition date, often because of the first myth: the myth of the old collection. The Storms collections and others, such as that from captain Léon-Auguste Théophile Rom were

donated or sold to the museum after their death (AfricaMuseum, 2021). Both collections ended up in the museum before 1970, but it confirms the view of how the antiquities market operated in the past.

Fig. 13 Ancestor statues. “Twee

voorouderbeelden van Tabwa-chef Kansabala Kisuyu (Kansawara, Cansawara, Kassabala) (EO.0.0.31663 & EO.0.0.31664). Foto R.

Asselberghs, KMMA Tervuren”. Source:

https://www.africamuseum.be/nl/learn/prove nance/storms