Museums, Provenance and Theft:
Violent provenance and Cultural Heritage Display in the Royal Museum for Central
Africa and the British Museum.
Holly Joscelyne | 12123404
Master’s Thesis Museum Studies
University of Amsterdam 2019/2020
Supervisor: Prof. Dr Ihab Saloul
Second Reader: Dr Dos Elshout
.
Acknowledgements
This thesis would not have been written without the love and support of my friends and family, I would not have got here without you all. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic the writing and planning process for this thesis did not go as expected, but thankfully I had endless support along the way.
Thanks to Ihab Saloul for supervising me through the thesis process and for your guidance throughout this Masters.
I would like to thank my partner Maarten for his love and patience.
Natalie, Pacha and Esme, thanks for being the best friends a girl can ask for, we grew together and individually throughout this process, and the world best be ready for us!
Desiree you are an endless inspiration to me, you work hard and play harder.
Thanks to the entire team at the Migration Museum, Adelaide, especially Nikki Sullivan thank you for supervising me and for all the early morning discussions. Corinne, Mandy, Madelena, Craig and Amy thank you so much for showing me the ropes.
Thanks also to staff at the South Australian Museum, for taking time to meet with me and inviting me to work in the collections. Jacinta and Jade, I am so thankful we met and were able to spend time together whilst I was interning you are both so inspiring and the museum world is an exciting one with both of you in it.
Finally, Mirjam Hoijtink and Myrthe, thank you, your challenging counterarguments taught me to argue smarter and harder.
Cover Photo: Mwazulu Diyabanza with the Nkisi Nkondi at Museum Aan der Stroom, featured in Mondiaal
Abstract:
This thesis focuses on the use of provenance research as an approach to decolonisation and its use in the display of cultural heritage that was collected through colonial violence. The main case studies consider the display of the Nkondi statue at the Royal Museum for Central Africa, and the Gweagal shield at the British Museum, these are examples of cultural heritage with violent provenance that have undergone provenance research as part of curators attempting to engage with decolonisation. The results of the provenance research performed on them reflect the ongoing issue of national museums facing difficulties in engaging with decolonisation in a way that validates and acknowledges the colonial violence faced by source communities. By analysing the outcomes of the research, and the effect this has had on the rise of activism towards museums, this thesis builds a case for a transitional process of decolonisation in which cultural heritage with problematic provenance is displayed with full provenance whilst the museum facilitates restitution with the source community.
Contents
Introduction ……….5
Chapter 1: Altered Provenance, Altered Perspectives……….11
1.1.Decolonisation via Renovation………...11
1.2.The Nkondi: Provenance and Power Dynamics………..17
1.3.Towards Transparency: The Nkondi at the Museum aan de Stroom………..24
Chapter 2: Overdue Diligence: The Case of the Gweagal Shield………...31
2.1.The ‘Gweagal’ Shield: A Brief History of an Identity Crisis……….31
2.2.First Nations Cultural Heritage, Intergenerational Trauma and the Museum Context……….………...36
2.3.The British Museum, Decolonisation and the Public………...42
2.4. The British Museum and Repatriation………...45
Chapter 3: Taking Matters into their Own Hands………..50
3.1 Decolonising Museums: An Issue from Top to Bottom……….51
3.2 Activists and Decolonisation: Protests, Tours and Recovery Missions……….55
3.3 Drastic Times, Drastic Measures………...60
Conclusion:……….65
Bibliography:………..68
Introduction: The role of Provenance research in Decolonisation.
In an article for The Guardian entitled “Should museums return their colonial artefacts?” Tristram Hunt,
Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, argues that “to decolonize is to decontextualise,” and suggests
that the aim of decolonisation removes historical significance from cultural heritage, by recontextualising
early collection methods and acknowledging colonial violence (Hunt: 2019). This negative interpretation of
decolonisation, a term that previously referred to the historical event of colonies gaining independence from
colonial powers but now also refers to a process of acknowledging colonial bias in museums, reflects an
unwillingness to change institutional narratives surrounding the display of cultural heritage.
Through decolonisation, a process with no clear end, museums with ethnographic collections would have to
acknowledge and address the violent colonial histories and the power imbalance between European collectors
and source communities. Since collecting began in the early 18th century, the cultural heritage of Indigenous communities from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Australia have been removed from their cultural
context and displayed within museum exhibitions with Eurocentric narratives and representations. Public
awareness of decolonisation as a methodology for addressing colonial histories within museums, art galleries,
libraries and archives has been steadily rising since its beginnings in academia in the 1980s. As a result, the
cultural sector has felt growing pressure to respond publicly to the calls to acknowledge colonial histories,
especially in terms of addressing colonial violence and theft of cultural heritage. The need to engage with
decolonisation has become critical due to the Black Lives Matter movement which has brought systematic
racism, as well as colonial violence to the forefront of critical discussions surrounding museums.
The current political climate demonstrates an urgency for museums to present an earnest approach to
decolonisation, and as a result the process is ongoing throughout the museum industry, with new
developments occurring all the time. Therefore, it is important to recognise at the time of writing this thesis,
that decolonisation within the museum context has no set methodology, and the current practices which are
considered effective include but are not limited to collaboration with source communities, provenance
research, and restitution, which indicates that whilst a methodology has not been created a framework is
certainly being developed. In cases where museums have actively engaged with decolonisation there is usually
have included a combination of provenance research and interaction/ collaboration with source communities.
At the focus of this thesis is the use of provenance research and how the outcomes of the research reflect an
ongoing struggle to change institutional narratives surrounding violent provenance and decolonisation, which
is complicated further through interactions with source communities.
Provenance refers to the history of ownership of an artefact or artwork, however the latest incarnation related
to decolonisation refers to the identity of its source community and cultural significance in pre-colonial
history. Although it is assumed that museums have already performed provenance research once an object
becomes an acquisition, as suggested by Feest at the “Provenienzforschung in ethnologischen Sammlungen
der Kolonialzeit” Conference (Provenance research on ethnographic collections from the colonial era) held in
Munich in 2017, museums are now aiming to address colonial histories by researching the provenance of
contested objects (Feest 2018: 124-126). By analysing provenance, it is thought that curators can alter
museum narratives to reflect the cultural significance and collection method of the cultural heritage on display
and thus introduce decolonisation by making the visitor aware of the dark histories of collecting, and in other
cases could be used to facilitate repatriation by identifying the source community. The use of provenance
research is not new with regards to addressing violent histories and restitution, as it has also been used to
resolve the issue of Nazi-confiscated art during the Second World War, in which museums may have gained
artworks stolen from Jewish families and resulted in the creation of the Washington Principles in 1998. The
principles provided a framework for provenance research and restitution in the post-war period, in which any
artworks found to have dubious provenance and entering the museum collection between the 1940s and 1950s
were listed and these lists are publicly available for survivors to make a claim for restitution, national
museums such as the British Museum and Rijksmuseum have such lists on their website. The participation of
the British Museum is remarkable, as the museum that has resisted restitution of its colonially acquired
cultural heritage, whilst other ethnographic museums such as the Rautenstrauch-Joest Museum in Cologne
have extended provenance research to include cultural heritage collected through colonial violence, which was
announced through a press statement, and demonstrates a recognition of the importance of provenance
research as part of the framework for decolonisation (RJM 2017). The ways in which provenance research is
and to critically reflect on the colonial past of museums such as in the case of the Rautenstrauch-Joest
Museum and the Museum aan der Stroom. However, in other museums, such as the Royal Museum for
Central Africa and the British Museum, the use of provenance research in not used in a way that reflects
engagement with decolonisation and instead continues to perpetuate colonial dynamics between curators and
source communities and the focus of this thesis will be on the latter examples and the wider implications of
such outcomes.
By investigating the use of provenance research as an approach to decolonisation in the Royal Museum for
Central Africa and the British Museum, the aim of this thesis is to consider: what is the motivation behind the
use of provenance research for decolonisation? The issues that arise once provenance research has been
performed is that it highlights the issue between museum ownership of cultural heritage and the recognition of
cultural significance by source communities, which demonstrates the complexity of decolonisation as it
challenges the ethical and historical role of the museum as caretakers of cultural heritage. The approach taken
in this thesis is to analyse the use of provenance research and the role of source communities in the
undertaking of said research, to evaluate to what extent, the RMCA and the British Museum use the cultural
knowledge gained through the research to either further or stagnate the process of decolonisation. The
implications of such use will be measured by analysing how the information is used in the display of cultural
heritage, with known or suspected violent provenance including theft, which reveals the issues of using
provenance research under the pretence of decolonisation but in practice translates as a deflection from
acknowledging the role of colonial violence in museum collections. Furthermore, the work of the RMCA and
the British Museum will be briefly compared against museums such as the Rautenstrauch-Joest, Cologne, the
Museum Aan der Stroom, and the Manchester Museum that provide examples of engaging with process of
decolonisation that has led to a change in institutional narratives and the pursuit of restitutions. The results of
the comparative analysis indicate that national museums, like the RMCA and the British Museum, are
struggling to engage with decolonisation in a way that reflects a willingness to change and evolve as other
museums are doing. The growing amount of museum policy dedicated to addressing colonial histories and
approaching restitution suggests that unlike the RMCA and the British Museum, ethnographic museums are
museum collections and have thought to be unable to be applied retroactively. As a result, the more the British
Museum and the RMCA deflect the various facets of decolonisation to preserve themselves, the more they
present themselves as a target for activists and criticism. The ensuing cycle of defensive reactions by the
RMCA and British Museum to calls for decolonisation and repatriation by source communities and activists
alike, present an impasse where museums accuse activists of wanting to empty museums through the return of
cultural heritage, whilst the activists are continuing to highlight the prevalence of theft as a method of
collection and are continuing to campaign for transparency and restorative justice in the form of repatriation.
The issue of deflection versus transparency with regards to colonial theft will be explored in the first chapter,
Altered Provenance, Altered Perspectives where the provenance research undertaken by Maarten Couttenier
on the Nkondi statue in 2016 will be critically analysed to determine to what extent the disconnect between
how provenance is presented to the public through museum narratives and public programmes, compared to
discussions of provenance in academic journals, affects visitor understanding of violent provenance.
Furthermore, the recent displays of the Nkondi at both the RMCA in the Unrivalled Art exhibition, curated by
Julian Volper, a critic of decolonisation, as well as its loan to the Museum aan der Stroom where it appears in
the 100 x Congo exhibition, which was co-curated by Nadia Nsayi Madjedjo, a curator who wishes to
facilitate discussions about decolonisation through exhibitions, will be critically compared in order to show
how curators influence the level of transparency surrounding violent provenance and how this aids or stalls
the process of decolonisation by not presenting it as an issue to visitors.
Furthermore, the implications of curators interacting with source communities will be explored in both the
analysis of the Royal Museum of Central Africa in the first chapter, wherein Couttenier’s apathy towards the
demonstration of cultural knowledge by descendants of the Nkondi’s original owner Chief Ne Kuko. This
theme overlaps into the second chapter Overdue Diligence: The Case of the ‘Gweagal’ shield which focuses
on the British Museum’s use of provenance research, which explores the provenance investigation into the
identity of the Gweagal shield after its loan to the National Museum of Australia led to a repatriation request
made on behalf of the Gweagal people by Rodney Kelly. The outcome of the investigation which suggested
that the provenance of the shield was unsound, represents the implications of retroactively applying
disconnect between the western standard of provenance which relies on documentation versus the recognition
of cultural knowledge is analysed to determine whether this complicates the process of decolonisation by
using provenance research in ways that undermine source communities. Furthermore, the ongoing campaign
for repatriation by Rodney Kelly, who was labelled an activist by British Museum curator Gaye Sculthorpe, as
well as the museum’s response to activist-led decolonisation themed tours, will be explored to consider how museums continue to deflect the need to recognise violent histories by instead focussing on provenances that
support the role of the museum as conservator of cultural heritage.
The final chapter will expand upon the role of activists in the process of decolonisation, by analysing how the
rise of activism focused on restitution may cause museums to respond more defensively. By reviewing the
trajectory of activism related to decolonisation in museums from the resignation of board members to activists
creating alternative-narrative tours and recent attempts of retribution. Although some museums, at both
university and national level have engaged in repatriation through collaborative projects, the limitations of the
new policies will be considered in comparison with those museums whose reliance on laws that preserve the
museum ownership. Due to the complicated nature of decolonisation, the differences in stance from museum
to museum suggests that progress will continue to be slow unless the initiative is taken by individual
institutions to engage with the process in a way that values cultural connection of source communities.
Furthermore, the recent publication of policies regarding restitution and provenance research will be analysed
to determine to what extent it presents a collaborative approach which focuses on the inclusivity of source
communities as opposed to focussing on source countries, as although this suggests necessary caution by
museums on determining who can request repatriation, it suggests that museums are continuing to deter
source communities from recognising and launching legal action for the restitution of their cultural heritage.
The outcome of analysing the implications of activism and new policy on decolonisation will be evaluated to
propose a method for a transitionary period in the process of decolonising museum collections. Using the
example of the Museum aan der Stroom’s 100 x Congo wherein the display cultural heritage alongside full
provenance to stimulate discussions around decolonisation with museums was met with a positive response
from activist Mwazulu Diyabanza, will be built upon to suggest that whilst this is a progressive first step in
working to identify source communities and facilitate restitutions. Thus, this will enable museums to work on
restitutions on a case-by-case basis and build upon repatriation projects which have been successful in
creating inventories of cultural heritage and resulting in successful returns. Over time the process should
become normalized as part of museums acknowledging colonial violence through the display of cultural
heritage, as well as granting source community’s sovereignty over their cultural heritage, which in turn allows
institutional narratives to change over time as the process continues to
Ultimately this thesis focuses on the ongoing negative implications of the divisiveness of decolonisation and
how the use of provenance research may be subverted to benefit curatorial and collections staff within the
museums at the expense of source communities. The continued development of museum policy directed as
changing this suggests that eventually the cycle of self-preservation some museums find themselves in may be
broken in time, but the damage that abusing practices such as provenance research has already been done, and
Chapter 1 – Altered provenance, Altered Perspectives.
The reluctance of the Royal Museum for Central Africa (RMCA) to present full provenance alongside cultural
heritage displays, such as that of the Nkondi, illustrates a lack of transparency that is needed to engage with
decolonising institutional narratives, and furthermore represents how some museums use provenance research
in a way that exploits source communities by maintaining the colonial dynamic between museum
professionals and community members. Yet the recent loan of the Nkondi to the Museum aan Stroom, where it
appears displayed with full provenance raises questions of how decolonisation methods such as provenance
research may fall into the same issue, how can discussions of repatriation take place in a purposeful way
within the museum context?
The focus of this chapter is the Nkisi Nkondi, a sacred statue that was stolen from Chief Ne Koko by
Alexander Delcommune in 1878 which has been the focus of four repatriation requests, the first being after its
theft in 1878, and most recently in 2020 by Congolese activist Mwazulu Diyabanza (Fig 1). The provenance
of the statue is well documented with the most recent provenance research taking place in 2016 by Maarten
Couttenier, an anthropologist and curator at the RMCA, who spoke with descendants of Chief Ne Koko, who
asked for its return. Yet when the statue was displayed in Julien Volper’s Unrivalled Art exhibition the
existence of the source community was unacknowledged, except in a footnote in the companion book
Unrivalled Art: Spellbinding Artefacts at the Royal Museum for Central Africa, which is sold in the museum
giftshop (Volper 2018). Now on loan to the Museum aan Stroom in Antwerp as part of the Congo x 100
exhibition, the Nkondi is displayed alongside its full provenance as a focal point of the discussion around
decolonisation and repatriation. By analysing the techniques used by the Royal Museum for Central Africa
and the Museum aan Stroom (MAS) in their respective displays of the statue, the aim of this chapter is to
determine the extent the provenance of the Nkondi was discussed within the context of decolonisation. To
illustrate how, despite the growing awareness in decolonisation and movements to repatriate African cultural
heritage in Europe, the RMCA is continuing to deflect confrontation rather than confronting the past of its
collection.
Despite the Royal Museum for Central Africa (RMCA) undergoing five name changes throughout its lifetime,
the one label it wished to shed was that of its reputation as ‘the last colonial museum in the world’ as
announced in a statement written by the Director Guido Gryssels in 2005 (Gryssels et al 2005, De Block 2019:
272). The history of the RMCA from its conception through to its renovation, like most European
ethnographic museums, is entrenched in colonial history. According to the current Director, Guido Gryssels,
the reputation of the museum was caused by the stagnation of the permanent galleries, which had remained
static and racist in their representations of Central Africa due to budget cuts and being overlooked by
government funding in favour of Belgium’s other research institutions (2005: 638-639). The case of the Royal Museum for Central Africa highlights the complexities of approaching decolonisation when funding bodies
are reluctant to be associated with institutions associated with Belgium’s colonial project, as analysed by Hoenig in “Visualizing Trauma: the Belgian Museum of Central Africa and its discontents” which explored the museum’s struggle to engage with the process of decolonisation from 2005 until its closure in 2013 (Hoenig 2014: 349). Additionally, once funding was secured for the project, more difficulties emerged in what
was evidently the museum’s attempt to please the multiple parties involved in the renovation such as the Belgian government and members of the diaspora. In terms of approaching decolonisation, the Royal Museum
for Central Africa presents itself as an interesting case study, as the idea of a museum undergoing such an
overhaul has long been considered one of many major obstacles for decolonising museums, particularly with
regards to collections research. In recent years museums have committed to smaller measures such as
organising temporary exhibitions with anticolonial narratives, for example the Past is Now at the Birmingham
Museum and Art Gallery, UK (Miller 2018). Therefore, the entire renovation of a museum’s permanent galleries was a somewhat innovative approach within the museum industry.
Prior to the renovation of the Royal Museum for Central Africa, the stagnant representations of
Belgian colonialism and Congolese cultures had been well documented by Rahier’s article “The Ghost
of Leopold II: The Belgian Royal Museum of Central Africa and its dusty colonialist exhibition” in the 1990s, an academic of Congolese and Belgian heritage who observed that the museum was an alienating
statues which were displayed throughout the museum (2003: 60-61). This analysis was followed by
Hoenig’s article “Visualizing Trauma: The Belgian Museum for Central Africa and its discontents” in
the early 2000s, who analysed the museum’s attempts at approaching decolonisation before committing to the full renovation. Throughout both analyses the emphasis on the museum’s display of cultural
heritage fell into question, with both noticing the juxtaposition between the placement of Belgian
colonial art that aimed to represent colonial impressions of Congolese, and the display of Congolese
cultural heritage that was often displayed with little to no provenance or cultural context (Rahier 2003:
61-65, Hoenig 2014: 344-346). The dichotomy between these two aspects of the museum being
obvious, and even more pronounced as Hoenig observed during the Hidden Treasures exhibition, the
content of which was supposed to be on cultural heritage that had not been displayed before and had
been brought up from the collections especially for the exhibit. However, the finished exhibition
included some objects already displayed in the permanent galleries, a choice that one of the organisers
defended by claiming that those objects had, in a way, been hidden due to the poor lighting in the
permanent galleries (2014: 349). This incident illustrates the selective approach the museum took with
regards to showcasing previously un-displayed cultural heritage, one that preserved the hierarchy of
cultural heritage displayed at the Royal Museum for Central Africa and reflects the treatment of the
Nkondi statue prior to the renovation.
In an article entitled “EO.0.0.7943” written by Maarten Couttenier an anthropologist and curator at the RMCA, the extensive provenance of the Nkondi is documented and reflected upon considering
Couttenier’s recent interaction with a descendant of the statue’s original owner (2018: 88). For instance, the Nkondi was featured in international exhibitions in Europe during the late 1950s
including one in Norway just two weeks after the Congo gained independence, and its later
appearance in a touring exhibition in the United States in the late 1960s, led to Mobutu giving a
speech requesting its return and the response of the Royal Museum for Central Africa was to
withdraw the Nkondi from display as it began to symbolise the complexities of political and cultural
decolonisation (Ibid: 80-88). The defensive response of the RMCA represents the inherent conflict at
the heart of European institutions approaching decolonisation, which is the need to address the fact
that despite colonialism claiming to provide an infrastructure of (so-called) civilisation, when
colonised countries reject and gain independence from that system the coloniser country is quick to
declare the former colony unfit to care for cultural heritage. The usual reasoning for this, which was
invoked by Couttenier regarding the Nkondi, is the lack of museum in which to keep cultural heritage
and adequately conserve it (2018: 81). This argument relies on European standards of conservation
practices, which may not reflect memory practices of Congolese as the descendants of Chief Ne Koko
explained a need for the statue to be reactivated to play an active role in spiritual practices. This
discrepancy between the RMCA viewing the Nkondi as an artefact versus the source
community recognising the statue as an active part of spirituality, supposedly justifies the coloniser
maintaining ownership of cultural heritage. What this argument and the actions of the RMCA in
removing the Nkondi from the display reveals, as Rahier argued is an unwillingness “to acknowledge
the fact that they have been wrong for so long, that the history of Belgian colonialism must now be
looked at from a critical perspective, and that above and beyond the whole Belgian colonial
enterprise, that is the museum's founder, Leopold II (whom they continue to venerate), has to be
illustrates the wider issue of museums approaching decolonisation, the need for museums to address
their role in colonisation as well as their part in constructing national narratives that glorified
colonialism through the display of stolen objects and misrepresenting cultural heritage. The aim of
museums who engage with decolonisation should be to reverse the view of cultural heritage as an
inactive museum object and explain the purpose of the cultural heritage outside of the museum
context, and one way this could be done would to be display the object with its full provenance
to educate the European public on the colonial violence involved in the collection of cultural heritage,
with eventual repatriation as the end point of the transition.
The early history of the RMCA collection may provide insight as to why curators at the RMCA are not
forthcoming with acknowledging the dark past of its objects, this may be because initially some departments,
particularly the Moral, Political, and Historical Sciences Section, struggled to convince Belgian officers to
donate the collections they had assembled whilst in the Congo, as analysed by Couttenier in the article “No
Documents, No History” (Couttenier 2010: 127). Documentation from the time reveal that those Belgian Officers who were approached were suspicious of the museum requesting access and ownership of the
collections, these collections were mainly concerned with the production of colonial propaganda. The
defensiveness over ownership of collections reflects the emphasis Belgians placed on colonisation as a matter
of prestige, as described by Adam Hochschild in King Leopold’s Ghost, the colonisation of the Congo was the
personal project of King Leopold II, unlike other European countries that had engaged in colonisation, the aim
of colonising the Congo was a matter of establishing himself as a player on the colonial stage (Hochschild
2019: 36-39). Conversely, the ethnography department did not suffer the same struggle, as collecting had
World Fair in Antwerp, where the Nkondi made its first appearance in Belgium, which is discussed in the 100
x Congo guidebook where the statue is currently on loan at the Museum aan der Stroom (MAS 2020: 22).
Furthermore, Couttenier acknowledges that during the early days of colonisation no record was kept of
Congolese oral history and as such a rule was made that ‘no documents meant no recorded history’, and thus Congolese cultural knowledge was not recorded by Belgians and this was reflected in the presentation of
Congolese cultural heritage in the galleries of the RMCA (2010: 147). Over the years the need for the RMCA
to address its colonial past grew, as the permanent galleries continued to misrepresent Congolese culture
through racist European artist impressions and cultural heritage displays which provided little to no cultural
context for the visitor to properly understand the significance of these objects in Congolese culture.
Throughout the renovation the RMCA engaged in various forms of research, including convening an advisory
board, COMRAF, who represented the diaspora in Belgium, the leader of which Billy Kalonji, had his mother
visit the museum who told him the cultural significance of objects she recognised as he discussed in an
interview with Jasmijn Post for Bruzz (Post 2018). In addition to provenance research carried about curators,
in 2016 Maarten Couttenier visited Boma to discuss early colonial interactions between Belgian colonisers
and the Chiefs of Boma, the descendants of Ne Koko recognised the Nkondi when shown a photograph and
explained its continuing cultural significance (2018: 81). However, in Couttenier’s article “EO.0.0.7943” regarding the research, he asks ‘what is more important owning the object or the encounter?’ This question represents the inherent flaw in the RMCA’s approach to decolonisation, as curator, Couttenier should recognise that asking such a question is indicative of the unfair power dynamic held by museums, not only
does the RMCA continue to own the Nkondi due to repatriation requests not being legally pursued and has
previously removed it from display due to repatriation requests, but as the display of the statue within the
Unrivalled Art exhibition shows, the RMCA also owns how much of its provenance is presented for the
The Nkondi: Provenance and Power dynamics
When the Royal Museum for Central Africa closed for renovation in 2013, the nkondi underwent extensive
provenance research by Couttenier. One of the significant factors of the Nkondi’s provenance is that it was
acquired as the result of a conflict between the Force Publique and Chiefs of the Boma region due to the
continued exploitative taxation by the Belgians during a drought (2018: 84). Recognising the Nkondi as a
powerful statue within Boma communities due to its spiritual powers, Delcommune took the statue hostage
using it as a tool to coerce Congolese into cooperating with him, which led to Chief Ne Koko pleading for its
return shortly after it was stolen. However, this request was rejected as Delcommune had claimed it as ‘booty’ and the nkondi was later sent to Belgium and held by various Belgian institutions before arriving at the
RMCA in 1911 (Coutennier 2018: 83). The Nkondi’s journey to the Royal Museum for Central Africa is
well-documented, and whilst some may argue that it may not be the museum’s place to acknowledge the history of the nkondi prior to its becoming part of the RMCA collection, the availability of this information provides the
RMCA with an ability to present the complexities of decolonisation through an object, which arguably is an
effective vehicle to demonstrate the process of decolonisation to the public.
Furthermore, the cultural significance of the Nkondi is recognised by a descendent of chief Ne Kuko, whom
Couttenier visited in 2016, and who demonstrated cultural knowledge of the nkondi including the needs and
powers of the statue by showing that it is more than a statue in the western sense, in fact it retains its spiritual
power (Ibid: 81):
“According to Chief Baku Kapita Alphonse…. He explained that the statue can talk, although only inaugurated chiefs are able to communicate with the kitumba (statue). They feed it kola nuts every morning and evening. In addition to human traits, greater powers are attributed to the kitumba: it offers protection from bullets during warfare, for example, and has powers to turn a murderer deaf.”
The wealth of cultural knowledge associated with the nkondi represents the significance the statue continues
to hold with its source community today, and poignantly the chief explained that these powers could be
restored through restitution (Ibid: 81). Yet despite having such a sound biography, which encapsulates the
issue of colonial violence and its role in collection, as well as the relevance of sacred objects today, the nkondi
was displayed in the temporary exhibition Unrivalled Art after the RMCA’s renovation without any of this
Unrivalled Art is due in part to Volper’s opposition to decolonisation, which he denounced in an article
written for Le Figaro in which he argued that anti-racist ideologies such as decolonisation would turn
European museums into graveyards if repatriation became common practice (Volper 2018). This choice of
display as de Block argues in the article “The Africa Museum of Tervuren, Belgium: The Reopening of the
‘Last Colonial Museum in the World’, Issues on Decolonisation and Repatriation”, leaves the visitor with ‘no knowledge of its painful history and the continuing conflict over its ownership’ of the nkondi, which as
Couttenier observed ‘remains hungry, thirsty and powerless’ (2019: 278, 2018:90). As is clear from
Couttenier’s research the nkondi showcases all three of the main processes recognised as central to decolonisation: provenance, source community and restitution, with the most profound aspect being the
contemporary source community which recognises its cultural relevance.
As a result, this discovery puts the RMCA in the awkward position of addressing the museum’s ownership of the object (Couttenier 2018: 81, 87-89). In fact, in Couttenier’s account he dismissively refers to the
repatriation request as having ‘little or no power to reach the museum’, despite being a museum professional
affiliated with the RMCA and the person who had interacted with the source community. Despite this
connection, Couttenier claims to present a neutral stance within the article concerning the nkondi, but it is
clear that Couttenier is opposed to the idea of returning the statue, by suggesting his article be read as neither
being ‘for or against’ restitution his response to the source community of documenting the cultural
significance and spiritual powers of the Nkondi whilst rejecting the question of whether it belongs within the
museum or with the community illustrates his stance on the matter (2016: 83,79). Additionally, Couttenier’s
stance fails to take into consideration the intergenerational trauma which would have been experienced
because of the interaction between the curator and the descendants of Chief Ne Koko, as the original aim of
Couttenier’s research was to discuss early colonisation and the violence that occurred between Le Force
Publique and the Chiefs of Boma (ibid: 81). The aim of Couttenier’s visit was to research one of the most
violent and painful moments in Boma and Belgium’s shared history, and yet the tangibility of grief through
discovering the Nkondi is kept at the RMCA garners no sympathy, and any ongoing emotional fallout of both
the historical encounter itself and Couttenier’s visit is dismissed at best or largely ignored at worst. The lack of consideration shown towards the source community illustrates is an ongoing colonial dynamic between
curators performing provenance research and participating community members, that is the curator interviews
participants gains information regarding historical events or cultural practices, which aids their research but
provides minimal benefit to the participating community, and is kept away from the public knowledge at large
due to the research only being discussed in academic journals and museum collection files.
To add insult to injury, Couttenier makes a small reference to the monetary value of the nkondi, something
that is of concern for the museum industry regarding theft (although ironic, given the provenance of the
Nkondi is documented as being collected via theft) (2018: 88). However, throughout the analysis the only
value attributed to the Nkondi, by the source community is that of its cultural value. This is an important
distinction which is not highlighted by Couttenier after the source community recognised the cultural value
and significance, as well as the validity of that value, instead Couttenier makes the reference to monetary
value, as well as the lack of museum in Boma as a way of illustrating the importance of the UNESCO 1970 on
the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural
Property which is presented as being non-retroactive, thus preserving the museum’s ownership. Regarding the
museum’s ownership and the ethics behind protecting that position, the reference to monetary value of the object, as well as the lack of museum to keep the museum in, is used to undermine that of the cultural value
recognised by the source community (2018: 89).
However, Couttenier and Volper implicate the museum in the continued exploitation of source communities
and cultural knowledge, as the existence of the source community is presented in a footnote in the exhibition
companion book Unrivalled Art: Spellbinding Artefacts at the Royal Museum for Central Africa available in
the museum giftshop. In this way, Volper and Couttenier not only avoid discussing the entire provenance of
the nkondi and presenting it within the framework of decolonisation which would prompt critical reflection on
the acquisition and interaction with the source community but subvert the Royal Museum for Central Africa’s
engagement with decolonisation by exploiting these practices in a way that solely benefits the museum, by
capitalizing off cultural knowledge.
Therefore, it is unsurprising that the combination of Couttenier’s indifference to the restitution requests made by the source community, as well as Julien Volper’s opposition to decolonisation collided to create an archaic display of the nkondi within Unrivalled Art. Volper, a curator who has publicly spoken against restitution and
decolonisation as ‘anti-racist ideologies’ by claiming that these processes turn visitors into ‘enemies who wish to empty European museums and turn them into tombs’ and has reflected this stance in the display style used in the exhibition, as it perpetuated a cabinet of curiosities image, an approach seemingly at odds with the
RMCA’s claim of engaging with decolonisation. The nkondi appeared alongside many other Congolese statues in a cluster setting, with the emphasis placed on viewing the cultural heritage on display as art as
opposed to any cultural purpose it may have. This approach to displaying cultural heritage is seen as
problematic, as Svetlana Alpers argues in “Ways of Seeing” that ‘turning cultural objects into art objects’
removes cultural heritage from cultural context, as is illustrated through Volper’s display of the Nkondi with limited information available on the panels accompanying the display cases and instead provided in a
guidebook at the exhibition entrance (Alpers 1990: 31, de Block 2018: 278).
Within the guidebook the ownership of the statue is attributed to Delcommune as collector who recognised
the significance of the statue, and although its cultural significance and sacred powers are discussed there is
no reference to the source community which exists today (Volper 2018: 50). The focus on Delcommune
within the object description, who is mentioned six times to Ne Cuco who is mentioned twice, represents how
problematic the conduct of provenance research can be when the curator chooses not to provide complete
contextual information for the public to digest. By displaying the nkondi in a way that focusses on the conflict
between the Belgian collector and the Congolese original owner, Volper allows the museum to preserve its
ownership of such objects by selectively choosing what information is available to visitors, and only those
with exposure to the academic realm of the museum industry that can discover the entire provenance.
Furthermore, if one compares the display of the nkondi to the display of sacred African objects at the
Rautenstrauch-Joest Museum (RJM), one can see similarities in the way the museum preserves its role as
owner and caretaker. The RJM museum displays several sacred African objects within its Art gallery, here the
objects are displayed in individual showcases and at first glance appear to be displayed as artworks, which is
supported by the interpretation made on the wall panel (Fig 2). However, on the RJM’s website, the gallery is
called Perspectives and explains how the visitor can choose to the objects displayed either as art or as cultural
heritage which is contextualised by information revealed at the back of the showcase. To activate the cultural
this mimics the same effect the use of guidebooks in Unrivalled Art, learning more about the identity and
provenance of the cultural heritage on display depends on whether the visitor picks up a guidebook, which
compared to the RJM’s interactive display cases presents itself as an antiquated approach to visitor
engagement. Although at first this feature seems innovative in getting visitors to engage with the concept of
gaze and how the identity of an object can be lost through display choices, when compared to the display
techniques used by Volper, the contextual information provided with the African objects reveal that not only
are they sacred, but secret sacred objects, meaning they should not be displayed in public or viewed by the
uninitiated (Fig 3). Instead of leading the visitor to consider why the objects might not be allowed to be
viewed by publicly, the cultural heritage is displayed regardless of what their contextual information dictates,
therefore the museum suggests the value of the statues lies more in its context as a museum object than as
cultural heritage.
In this way, the display technique perpetuates the colonial gaze, and this is the same in Volper’s Unrivalled
Art exhibition, as it suggests that the primary function of the object is as a curiosity or artwork, thus
preserving the European interpretation of cultural heritage (Alpers 1990: 31). The objects are displayed as
such that instead of encouraging the visitor to consider the problematic issues surrounding museums
displaying cultural heritage, as in both cases the visitor is the colonizer gazing upon the colonised as discussed
by Patrizia Violi when considering the museum as a site of trauma, because the object is culturally significant
to its source community but is presented out of its cultural context (Violi 2012:50). By not contextualising the
nkondi, the RMCA avoids taking a stance in the debate surrounding decolonisation, unlike the
Rautenstrauch-Joest Museum which discusses the role of the anthropological museum within framework of decolonisation,
so much so that in her analysis of the renovated galleries of the RJM in 2014, Lidchi suggests that the museum
comes close to ‘debunking’ the museum but saves itself by reiterating the importance of its role as ‘cultural archive’ (2014: 236). For context the RJM underwent renovation in 2010 and presents a discussion of decolonisation in the Museum: World in Showcase gallery, where it discusses the issues of museums owning
cultural heritage and defends itself as being a ‘cultural archive’ and presents the argument that had the museum’s founder, Willem Joest, not began collecting cultural heritage it may have been lost (Fig 4). Despite the problematic nature of these arguments defending the role of the anthropological museum, as discussions
around decolonisation in museums has progressed since 2010 the RJM has continued to engage with the
process of decolonisation recently engaging in a repatriation of Maori ancestral remains and releasing a
statement on provenance research for collections acquired because of colonialism (Hickley 2018, RJM 2017).
Furthermore, the RJM has endeavoured to address the colonial history of its collection with the recent launch
of the exhibition “Die Schatten der Dinge” (The Shadow of Things) and aims to educate visitors on the contentious histories of collecting and cultural heritage that is held by the museum (RJM 2020). The objects
are displayed with information explaining their provenance, with lighting that casts a shadow behind onto
panels which discuss provenance and the question of restitution, the RJM is continuing to work through the
process of decolonisation by presenting it in a way that communicates both the history of the cultural heritage
and the ethical issues surrounding its collection and continued ownership by the RJM. Although the continued
display of cultural heritage with questionable provenance does not improve on the issue of presenting cultural
heritage alongside cultural information in a way that does not lead visitors to question the ethics of displaying
sacred objects. The fact that the RJM has participated in repatriation and recognise the process as a valid
option for museums to engage with decolonisation, suggests that the RJM curatorial and collections staff feel
confident in demonstrating the process of decolonisation both behind the scenes and on the gallery walls. This
approach means that visitors become more aware that some of the cultural heritage included in the Shadow of
Things exhibition may be in a transitional phase between being displayed at the RJM and being repatriated in
the future, and thus familiarise visitors with the processes that are considered part of decolonisation.
Whereas the RMCA began its decolonisation process as early as 2005, before closing for renovation in 2013,
and yet on reopening in 2018 the presentation of the Nkondi suggests that the RMCA’s process is still in its
infancy. The only instance of the Royal Museum for Central Africa attempting to position itself within the
process of decolonisation occurs in the panel text at the beginning and end of the Colonial History and
Independence gallery, the use of the panel instead of showcasing the Nkondi as a case study for visitors in
order to critically reflect on the various aspects of decolonisation, by using an object to illustrate the
complexities of the process, presents decolonisation as a broader issue which is outside the current capabilities
“Today, historians fundamentally agree about the reconstruction and interpretation of the colonial past, but in terms of public debate, it remains a very controversial period. The collections of the Royal Museum for Central Africa have been composed by Europeans; it remains a challenge, therefore, to tell the colonial history from an African perspective. The RMCA wants to stimulate interest in this period and to be a forum for lively debate.”
The claim that it is difficult to present colonial history from the African perspective is not only problematic,
but contradictory. The Royal Museum for Central Africa has access to African communities and professionals
who can share their thoughts with the museum, as the research performed by Couttenier shows, curators were
able to track down source communities for an object taken in 1878 (Couttenier 2018). Additionally, the
Advisory Board for the RMCA, the African Associations (COMRAF), led by Billy Kalonji was formed in
2005 and worked with the museum until communications broke down in 2018 (De Block 2019: 273). The
development of an advisory committee, COMRAF, created for museum staff to work with members of the
diaspora, was initially seen as a positive step towards critically reflecting on Belgian colonial history. The
deterioration of the relationship occurred when COMRAF members felt they were consulted only after
decisions had been made by museum professionals, and even more so when Gryssels refused to make a
permanent place for the group to work within the museum to continue the process of decolonisation which
leader of COMRAF, Billy Kalonji discussed in an interview with Jasmijn Post for Bruzz (Post and
Tylzanowski 2018, van Bockhaven 2019: 1085). The breakdown of this relationship is indicative of the
museum staff of erring on the side of caution regarding critically reflecting on Belgian colonialism, and
reflects the reluctance as suggested by Rahier, that it would be hard for the museum staff to ‘admit they had been wrong the whole time’ (2003:76). This view is supported by Hassett who argued that the limitations of the RMCA’s ability to engage with decolonisation was apparent from the start, in the article “Acknowledging or Occluding “The System of Violence”?: The Representation of Colonial Pasts and Presents in Belgium’s AfricaMuseum’, concluding that the renovation was “the transformation of the museum from a palace of imperialism to a paragon of impartiality” (Hassett 2020:30). Therefore, this claim reads more like a deflection by suggesting that the museum is merely a ‘forum’ for the public to come together and discuss the
complexities of colonial history from both European and African perspectives and avoids addressing the role
of the museum in the presentation of colonial history, which was supposedly what the renovation was
reluctance of the museum to change its institutional narrative in a way that presents decolonisation as a
process to the public.
Towards Transparency: the Nkondi at the Museum aan Stroom
The presentation of the provenance of the Nkondi in Unrivalled Art at the RMCA left a lot to be desired with
regards to exploring how the process of decolonisation could be presented through displays of cultural
heritage. However, the recent loan of the Nkondi to the Museum aan Stroom (MAS) allows room for
consideration of the benefits of presenting cultural heritage with full provenance to stimulate discussions
around decolonisation, as well as issues that may arise from such a presentation. Additionally, Mwazulu
Diyabanza, a Congolese restitution activist, whose recent visit to the 100 X Congo exhibition where the
Nkondi is currently displayed resulted in its most recent repatriation request and represents the intersection
between the approach of museum professionals to decolonisation versus the growing public frustration with
the varying ways in which museums are addressing colonial injustice within collections.
The premise of 100 x Congo as presented in the exhibition guidebook is that it has two aims the first being to
consider the pre-colonial history of the cultural heritage on display and the early colonial interactions their
collections represent, and the second being to consider the display of 100 artefacts on display which
commemorates a century since the beginning of collecting Congolese art (MAS 2020: 1). By introducing the
aim of the exhibition as two-fold, the curatorial team at MAS present aspects of decolonisation in a way that is
familiar to the visitor, and in this way represents the method that may have worked in the display of the
Nkondi in the Unrivalled Art exhibition at the RMCA. However, although the twofold presentation is
progressive in terms of incorporating decolonisation into the narrative and display, there is still no departure
from the display of spiritual statues as art as opposed to recognising their cultural context prior to Belgian
collection. For instance, the Nkondi is displayed in its own vitrine (Fig 6), with the guidebook explaining its
problematic provenance, display history and multiple repatriation requests (Ibid: 22):
“This highlight of the World Fair of 1885 belonged to Chief Ne Kuko, a Kongo chief. Following activation by a ritual specialist (nganga) it protected its community and the village of Kikuku against calamity. The Belgian Alexandre Delcommune robbed the statue in 1878 and appropriated its power in order to protect his trading post. Ne Kuko was willing to pay a ransom in vain. The statue ended up in the Museum of the Belgian Congo in 1912. In 1973 President Joseph Mobutu requested to have it returned in the context of his ‘recours á l’authenticité’. The Chief of Kikuku repeated this request in
2016. The statue plays an important role in the debate on the restitution of stolen Congolese patrimony.”
This presentation is a markedly different one from the information provided by Volper, where although the
early conflict which led to the nkondi being stolen from Chief Ne Kuko is discussed, the emphasis is placed
on Delcommune’s recognition of the cultural value and power of the statue. Furthermore, the framing of the
Nkondi, its cultural purpose and its recognised cultural significance forms the focus of the description as
opposed to placing this recognition on its collector (Volper 2018: 50):
“The Nkisi Nkondi was initially the property of Ne Cuco – one of the major chiefs of the city of Boma, and a man with whom the Belgian trading-post manager Alexandre Delcommune had a conflict. This nkisi was of great importance. When Delcommune’s men confiscated the statue, it was practically treated as a hostage-taking by Kongo leaders. Ne Cuco was even prepared to pay a ransom to get the statue back.
Delcommune was well acquainted with this fetish, famous throughout the region – indeed, he had used it himself in the past. On that occasion, an expensive ‘rental’ of the statue from Ne Cuco had been arranged on the advice of a local official. The young Delcommune wanted to use the statue to track down deserters who had fled from him, Delcommune played on the fear the nkisi aroused in order to pressure the population into handing over deserters .... The nkisi had to be activated by a
nganga (soothsayer, traditional healer), who obviously had to be compensated for this. The nganga
ceremonially hit a nail into Ne Cuco’s nkisi. If the nail stayed put, according to Delcommune’s report, the ‘client’s’ request was accepted. If the nail fell out, however, it was decided that the nkisi had rejected the request.”
The contrast between the framing of the statue’s provenance, in the respective guidebooks is striking, although the brief the description provided by the MAS presents the nkondi’s spiritual powers and its so-called
collection is presented as a crime, whereas Volper uses subtle nuances to create an ambiguity over the statue’s theft and Delcommune’s use of the statue as coercive. The use of the past tense throughout the description
suggests that its cultural significance is no longer recognised, which reflects the tone used by Volper to
present the premise of Unrivalled Art. The guidebook for Unrivalled Art written by Volper, explains that the
exhibition aimed to show case various examples of both Congolese cultural heritage as well as European
produced imitations. However, although there is some consideration of the fact that the cultural heritage on
display is ‘isolated from costume and context, these faces on display have lost a huge part of their identity’ the cultural heritage is displayed in a way that does not address the ethical questions this rises and despite
referring to their active roles in the culture to which they belong, Volper does little to encourage the visitor to
cultural knowledge learned through Delcommune’s journals in the guidebook description of the Nkondi includes the reference to the statue rejecting a community member’s request is eerily similar to the nature of Maarten Couttenier’s response to the descendants of Ne Kuko’s restitution request (Volper 2018: 51, Couttenier 2018: 81).
In fact, Volper goes as far as to indicate the loss of culture by claiming that the ‘specimens here belong to the past. They no longer dance.’ which is contradicted by Couttenier’s experience with the descendants of Chief Ne Kuko who demonstrated ongoing cultural knowledge and desire to continue spiritual practices with the
Nkondi (Couttenier 2018: 81). Whereas the description written by the curators at MAS, although beginning
with reference to the World Fair held in Antwerp in 1885 to establish its place in Belgian colonial history,
establishes its collection as a crime and presents the continuing recognition of its cultural significance and
desire to be returned by its source community.
The emphasis on repeated restitution requests made for the Nkondi is a focus that might have been expected
by the RMCA considering its public declaration of engaging with decolonisation, although the emphasis on
‘distancing from its colonial past’ as opposed to addressing that past indicates why the Nkondi was not
presented in the way it has been in 100 x Congo (Gryssels 2018: 9). The implications of the presentation of the
Nkondi at the MAS are that it is presented in the way that visualizes the discussions around restitution for the
visitor, viewing the Nkondi as a statue with a purpose and a place of belonging outside of the museum gallery.
Furthermore, the framing overturns the usual style of presentation of provenance, the formula in the MAS
description is to briefly contextualise its collection within the colonial period and then to explain its violent
theft and then explore the ongoing requests for its return to its country of origin and to resume its place within
its source community. Presenting its collector as a criminal, unlike the formula followed by Volper which is to
briefly introduce its original owner, discuss its violent collection and recognised cultural value by the collector
and finally finishing with a reference to its cultural significance which is attributed to its collector.
However, by displaying the Nkondi in this way may lead to the RMCA repeating its defensive response
towards questions of restitution as happened in the 1980s. Although progress has been made in the way that
museums approach discussions of restitution with many European museum associations such as those of
although the display at the MAS suggests that Couttenier’s claim that the conversation surrounding restitution are not happening in a prominent way is incorrect, there appears to be no promise that display will cause the
restitution to be pursued once the Nkondi returns to the RMCA. The danger of a defensive response by the
RMCA after the nkondi’s loan comes to an end may be increased by the invitation of Mwazulu Diyabanza to
visit the 100 x Congo exhibition by the Belgian media, where he was interviewed alongside co-curator of the
exhibition Nadia Nsayi-Madjedo by Elien Spillebeen (Spillebeen 2020). The role of activists within the
process of decolonisation has become a necessary topic for museums to address, as public awareness has
grown through movements such as Black Lives Matter the need for memory institutions to address their
colonial pasts has become a critical issue. During Diyabanza’s visit to the exhibition, co-curator of 100xCongo
Nadia Nsayi Madjedjo met with him and discussed the necessity for transparency in discussing violent
acquisitions, as well as discussions of restitution within an exhibition setting (Spillebeen 2020). An ideal
outcome of the 100 x Congo exhibition would be for the RMCA to learn from the MAS in its handling of
displaying cultural heritage acquired as a result of colonial violence, and to re-evaluate Couttenier’s
interaction with the source community in 2016 in a way that leads to a repatriation. However, it seems that the
division between curatorial staff within the RMCA and their personal stances regarding decolonisation stand
in the way of any progress being made as is clear from the varying levels of engagement in critical discussions
throughout the renovated RMCA.
Additionally, there is a potential problem with techniques such as displaying the Nkondi with full provenance
normalizing the viewing of cultural heritage with museums acknowledging the problematic history of the
collection, whilst using such violent history to justify the ongoing ownership of cultural heritage. For instance,
although the guidebook for 100 x Congo discusses restitution towards the end of the exhibition, it puts the
onus on Congolese authorities to request repatriation, and not as Mwazulu remarked the local chiefs, surviving
community or activists (MAS 2020: 64, Spillebeen 2020). The decision to put the responsibility on Congolese
authorities is because it would appear ‘paternalistic’ for Belgium to offer to return cultural heritage, however
what with Couttenier’s meeting with the current Chief of Kikuku, a descendant of Ne Kuko, it seems counterintuitive to not encourage Belgian museums to engage with local communities in reconnecting with
surrounding restitution and the lack of legal council available to the Chief is what led to him outright
dismissing the claim as ‘informal with little to no chance of reaching the museum’, despite his presence
representing a relationship between the source community and the museum (2018: 81). Couttenier’s response was paternalistic, and representative of the inequality and frustration felt by activists like Mwazulu
Diyabanza, and no doubt the source community. Additionally, Nsayi recognised a need for Belgian
institutions to reconsider the conditions of return, as a recent visit to the museum in Kinshasha suggested that
not many locals visited the museum and reflects the Western control exerted over the conservation of cultural
heritage, which is where the need for activists to remind museums that what they consider to be objects need
to be reconsidered and reidentified as cultural heritage which play an active part in community life and
spirituality (Spillebeen 2020).
Furthermore, in terms of accessibility with regards to discussing decolonisation within the museum the MAS
provides guided tours of the 100xCongo with Belgo-Congolese guides who are able to conduct tours in French
and Lingala, which is a stark difference to the recent controversy over an RMCA tour guide who was fired in
2019 for speaking against decolonisation and downplaying the severity of Belgian atrocities, such as soldiers
cutting off the hands of Congolese in order to gain more ammunition, during his tours (AFP 2019). The visit
of Diyabanza to the 100 x Congo exhibition resulted in frank discussions regarding restitution between curator
Nadia Nsayi Madjedjo and activist Mwazulu Diyabanza, with each recognising the need for the other, and to
some extent Diyabanza seemed satisfied with the exhibition (Spillebeen 2020): “‘We have never heard an explanation like this in a museum before.’ …. ‘It’s as if we’ve ended up in a museum of decolonisation, where people talk about the origin of pieces and the crimes that were committed.’ The openness with which,
according to him, the exhibition quotes names and elaborates on the origin of pieces is a step towards some
restoration of the past.” By creating an exhibition in which visitors are confronted by the dark provenance of
the cultural heritage on display the MAS have created an active approach to presenting the complexities of
decolonisation, which in comparison to the RMCA’s approach to decolonisation reflect why the lack of
engagement with critical discussion within the RMCA galleries has led to dissatisfaction with the diaspora,
and raised questions such as who is the renovated RMCA for? (DeBlock 2019: 277).
Although the RMCA has come a long way since Rahier’s analysis in the early 2000s, where the curatorial staff were reluctant to engage in conferences surrounding decolonisation in museums, the dissociative display
of the Nkondi in Unrivalled Art curated by a museum professional who is opposed to the process of
decolonisation, as well as the dismissive response of Couttenier towards the source community in Kikuku
reflects a museum whose Belgian staff are not ready to tackle the major implications of decolonisation (2003:
78). The way in which the MAS created 100 x Congo to stimulate discussions around decolonisation, by
presenting the Nkondi with its full provenance shows just how simple the transition from viewing cultural
heritage as a museum object removed from its cultural context into an example of cultural heritage taken as a
result of colonial violence with an ongoing cultural significance to a source community could be. The issue is
that the Nkondi does not belong to the MAS, it is held by the RMCA whose combination of uninvested
curators and history of defensive responses in reaction to the Nkondi becoming a focus of repatriation requests
suggest that when the statue returns to the RMCA it will be taken back into the collections and only return
when the discussions have quietened again.
However, with the rising public awareness regarding decolonisation, the work of Mwazulu Diyabanza and
European museums becoming more vocal on the issue within their exhibitions, the RMCA will have to engage
or become stagnant again in its approach to decolonisation. The five years it took to renovate the RMCA, as
well as its collaboration with COMRAF could have produced an exhibition of the standard presented in 100 x
Congo, but instead reflects the issues that arise from the divisiveness of decolonisation and the question of
restitution, clearly Couttenier and Volper do not support repatriation and this is reflected in their work and
treatment of cultural heritage. However, the display of the Nkondi at the MAS presents an example of how
cultural heritage with problematic provenance can be presented in a way that both acknowledges the colonial
violence and the survival of the source community and ongoing cultural connection. The implications of the
RMCA’s treatment of the source community and that of the Nkondi is that now that the provenance of the
Nkondi is becoming more widely known to a new generation of the diaspora, museum staff and activists it
would be for the best if the RMCA followed the MAS example and worked with its connections to facilitate a
restitution. Instead of presenting the Nkondi out of context and profiteering from the cultural knowledge
