Faculty of Law
Universiteit Gent
Academic year 2019-2020THE POSITION OF BELGIUM IN THE
DEBATE AROUND THE RETURN OF
CULTURAL HERITAGE ALIENATED DURING
THE COLONIAL PERIOD
Master thesis in the master of laws
Claire SIMÉONS
Student number: 01812364
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Georges MARTYN
Deze pagina is niet beschikbaar omdat ze persoonsgegevens bevat.
Universiteitsbibliotheek Gent, 2021.
This page is not available because it contains personal information.
Ghent University, Library, 2021.
“The return of a work of art or record to the country which created it
enables people to recover part of its memory and identity, and proves that the long dialogue between civilizations which shapes the history of the world, is still continuing in an atmosphere of mutual respect between nations.”1
- A.-M. M’BOW
1 A.-M. M’BOW, A Plea for the Return of an Irreplaceable Cultural Heritage to those Who Created It,
ABSTRACT
“D’ici cinq ans, je veux que les conditions soient réunies pour un retour du patrimoine africain à l’Afrique.”2 These are the words that French President Emmanuel Macron used during a visit in Burkina Faso in 2017. The promise that France, former colonial power, would be returning the cultural heritage alienated during the colonial period, to former colonies has quickly become a present debate in European countries. The debate concerning the return to the former colonies, is current in Belgium as well. The present master thesis will research how Belgium could approach the return to the Democratic Republic of Congo of cultural heritage alienated during the its colonial regime. This research is built in eight chapters. The first three chapters give the necessary background, while the following five chapters focus on the actual research. Chapter 1 clarifies the used terminology. Terms as ‘restitution’, ‘return’ and ‘cultural heritage’ will be defined. Chapter 2 zooms briefly on some relevant historical facts. Chapter 3 looks at the current state of affairs, both in Belgium as in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Chapter 4 analyzes the international legal framework around the return of cultural heritage as well as at national legislation. The ‘UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property’ and the ‘1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally exported Cultural Objects’ will be looked at, and the important Belgian principles of ‘imprescription’ and ‘inalienability’ of public property goods will be introduced. Chapter 5 focuses on the legitimacy of the issue: the moral aspect. Chapter 6 researches what ways of return are possible. Chapter 7 researches if the approach suggested in the French Report Savoy-Sarr could apply to Belgium-DR Congo case, and if so, to what degree. Chapter 8 researches the different dispute settlements available for current matter. The conclusion holds my general recommendations in developing an approach for the Belgium-DR Congo case.
2 E. MACRON, «Le discours de Ouagadougou d’Emmanuel Macron», Le Monde, 29 November 2019,
https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2017/11/29/le-discours-de-ouagadougou-d-emmanuel-macron_5222245_3212.html
LIST
OF
ABBREVIATIONS
AAAI Association des Amis de l’Art Indigène ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution
CAfA Court of Arbitration for Art
COPAMI Commission pour la Protection des Arts et Métiers Indigènes
DMB Deutsche Museumsbund
DR Congo Democratic Republic of Congo
JORF Journal Officiel de la République française
IAA International African Association IAC International Association of the Congo ICD Institute for Cultural Diplomacy ICOM International Council of Museums
ICPRCP Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property
INMZ Institut des Musées Nationaux du Zaire MET Metropolitan Museum of New York MIVL Musée de la Vie Indigène Léopoldville
UNDRIP United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization RMCA Royal Museum of Central Africa
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In 2015 I started, impulsively and without knowing what to expect, my law studies in Brussels at the ‘Université Saint-Louis’. These three years in Brussels have forged me, have shaped me, and have led to excellent memories. Three years after arriving at Saint-Louis, I had already grown much more than I expected. I then chose to leave my familiar cocoon to continue my studies at Ghent University. Ghent University and the Université Saint-Louis are nothing alike; both have educated me in their own way, academically and personally.
Today, five years have passed since I arrived in my first university auditorium. This master thesis is the final piece of my student years. When writing this thesis, I often reflected on the fact that at the age of 18, I would never have thought of writing a thesis in the field of law. Unexpectedly, as I am writing this thesis at the age of 22, I experienced that, what previously seemed impossible, now seems achievable. Education is not something that is done overnight, it is a never-ending journey.
By choosing the topic of this research, I have combined my passion for history, art, culture, and my law studies. I therefore hope that everyone can find its own piece of interest in this contribution. The research can hopefully serve as a guideline for a constructive debate on what is still today a taboo; but a taboo, which is on the verge of being broken.
At this time, I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the people that have helped and supported me during this long journey.
Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to my mentor Prof. Dr. Georges MARTYN. I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Georges MARTYN for his constructive input, for sharing his suggestions and for having been an excellent mentor during the writing of my thesis.
Secondly, I would also like to thank all the experts, whose inputs have been of great value. I hereby thank Prof. Dr. Nathalie TOUSIGNANT for helping me with the
construction of a first approach on the issue and for her many invitations to numerous colloquiums. I also thank Dr. Marie-Sophie DE CLIPPELE for sharing important information regarding important legal techniques. I am also grateful for the help of the Royal Museum of Central Africa in Tervuren. I hereby would like to express my special thanks to Guido GRYSEELS, director of the museum, for having taken the time of explaining his point of view as well as clarifying vague concepts. I furthermore would like to thank Julien VOLPER, curator at the museum, who provided me with his viewings on the debate.
Thirdly, I would like to thank both my parents for offering me the greatest education I could wish for. I thank my father for his support and my exceptional mother who has been next to me since the beginning. Thank you for your encouragements, for your support, for helping me out when everything seemed to be going wrong, as well as for your positive energy that has made writing this thesis much more pleasant.
Finally, I would like to thank my friends. Thanks to my friends I keep excellent memories of my student life and will be keeping these memories forever with me.
This master thesis marks the end of beautiful years. Thanks to this excellent education, I feel now ready to discover new horizons, take on new challenges and embark on new experiences.
TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT ... 4 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... 6 TABLE OF CONTENT ... 8 INTRODUCTION ... 11 A.RELEVANCE ... 12 B.RESEARCH QUESTION ... 13 C.LIMITATIONS ... 14 D.METHODOLOGY ... 15E.PLAN OF PRESENT CONTRIBUTION ... 16
1 DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY ... 17
1.1RETURN VERSUS RESTITUTION ... 17
Partial restitution ... 19
1.2CULTURAL HERITAGE ... 19
Looted ‘colonial’ cultural heritage ... 22
Donations ... 22
Purchases & Exchanges ... 23
Missionary activities ... 23
Military missions and spoliations ... 24
2 HISTORY ... 27
2.1FROM THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AFRICA TO THE BELGIAN CONGO (1876-1960) ... 27
2.2THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK DURING THE COLONIZATION ... 28
2.3PRESERVATION OF ‘COLONIAL’ CULTURAL HERITAGE DURING THE COLONIAL PERIOD 30 2.4PRESERVATION OF ‘COLONIAL’ CULTURAL HERITAGE AFTER 1960 ... 33
3 CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS ... 35
3.1SITUATION BEFORE 2018 ... 36
3.2SITUATION AS OF 2018 ... 36
4 LEGAL FRAMEWORK ... 40
4.1INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK ... 40
The 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property ... 40
1978 UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural
Property to its countries of origin or its restitution in case of illicit appropriation ... 43
1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally exported Cultural Objects ... 46
International Council of Museums ... 47
4.2EUROPEAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK ... 50
4.3BELGIAN NATIONAL LEGISLATION ... 51
Belgian Civil Code - article 2279 ... 51
Belgian Civil Code - Principle of Prescription ... 52
Extinctive prescription ... 52
Acquisitive prescription ... 53
Protection of the public domain ... 54
Imprescriptibility of the public domain ... 55
Inalienability of cultural objects ... 55
5 MORAL ASPECT ... 57
5.1CULTURAL RIGHTS ... 57
5.2HUMAN RIGHTS ... 59
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (hereafter: UNDRIP) ... 59
The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention ... 60
5.3ECONOMIC INTEREST ... 61
5.4EDUCATIONAL INTEREST: RECONSTRUCTING HISTORY ... 62
5.5SOCIETAL INTERESTS ... 64
5.6DECOLONIZATION ... 66
5.7CULTURAL DIPLOMACY ... 67
5.8STAKEHOLDERS’ POINT OF VIEW ... 68
Experts in the art world and in the cultural world ... 69
Politics ... 69
Associations representing the African people ... 70
Museums ... 71
6 DIFFERENT WAYS OF RETURN ... 72
6.1PHYSICAL PERMANENT RETURN ... 72
6.2DIGITIZATION ... 74
6.3LONG-TERM LOANS ... 75
6.4ROTATING EXHIBITIONS ... 77
6.5REPLICAS ... 77
7 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN FRANCE AND BELGIUM ... 81
7.1.MEANING OF THE TERM 'RESTITUTION' ... 82
7.2REVERSAL OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF ... 83
7.3CONTEXT AND TIMING OF ACQUISITION ... 84
7.4MODUS OPERANDI OF THE RESTITUTION ... 85
7.5LEGAL OBSTACLES AND LEGAL OPPORTUNITIES ... 87
Principle of inalienability ... 87
Laws of exception ... 89
Status of non-belonging ... 91
Decommissioning of the public domain ... 91
Annulment of entry into public collections ... 93
7.6AD HOC PROCEDURE ... 94
7.7ELIGIBILITY FOR A REQUEST FOR RESTITUTION ... 95
8 DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ... 97
8.1.COURT RULINGS ... 97
8.2ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ... 98
Arbitration ... 98 Mediation ... 99 Unilateral Agreement ... 100 Bilateral Agreement ... 101 CONCLUSION ... 103 INDEXES ... 108 BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 109
Introduction
1. Belgium and the Democratic Republic of Congo (hereafter: DR Congo) share important history. The DR Congo has been a colony for 75 years (1885-1960). In the beginning these Congolese grounds were the private property of Belgian King Leopold II (1885-1906) and were known under the name ‘Congo Free State’. Later on, the Congo became a Belgian colony (1906-1960) and was known as the ‘Belgian-Congo’. Decolonization regarding the DR Congo is considered by many as incomplete. Today some argue that 90 to 95% of the African cultural heritage objects can be found outside the African continent3. Most of these objects can be found in European museums such as the Royal Museum of Central Africa4 (hereafter: RMCA). With its 120 000 ethnographic objects5, the RMCA houses the most Central-African objects worldwide6. In most cases, these African objects were removed during the European colonial period. Precisely the fact that today a vast collection of ‘colonial’ cultural heritage7 can be found in Belgium, is one of the diverse reasons that many consider that decolonization is not completed.
2. Belgium is not the only country with a colonial past. France is facing its colonial past without any detours. At a conference in 2017 in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso), French President Emmanuel MACRON announced that France would return the cultural heritage that once belonged to the African people. Following this statement, the French president commissioned two academics, Felwinne SARR and Bénédicte SAVOY, to write a report on how that mission could be accomplished. The “Rapport
sur la restitution du patrimoine culturel africain. Vers une nouvelle éthique rationnelle” was published in November 20188. So far, Belgium does not share the
3 This number was taken from an allocution from Alain GODONOU during the «UNESCO Forum on
Memory and Universality», 5 February 2007, and was adopted as such in the ‘Savoy-Sarr Report’, p. 11. Nevertheless, these statistics have been conducted a long time ago. This explains why one should be precautious when mentioning these numbers. I could not find the original research to affirm these numbers.
4 The RMCA is often referred to as ‘Tervuren’ after the Belgian suburb where it is located. 5 Africa Museum, Annual report 2018, Tervuren, 2018, p. 39.
6 https://www.synthesys.info/tafs/be-taf/royal-museum-central-africa.html
7 This paper will use the term ‘colonial’ cultural heritage to denote the cultural objects that were
alienated during the colonial period.
8 F. SARR and B. SAVOY, Rapport sur la restitution du patrimoine culturel africain. Vers une nouvelle
French position concerning its colonial past. Belgium has made no official statement whatsoever on the restitution of ‘colonial’ cultural heritage, neither has Belgium proposed complete and official apologies to the DR Congo for its colonial past9. Nevertheless, the debate, initiated by France, is now very present all over Europe and is a heated topic.
3. The debate is delicate and complex because legality and legitimacy are both at stake. This complexity is increased by: (1) legal uncertainty, (2) timing of the facts: removal from the country of origin started already at the end of the 19th century, (3) information on forms of acquisition is not available for many objects, (4) the variety of stakeholders involved, each with their own interests and opinions, and (5) the public opinion with regard to (de)colonization.
4. Belgium will eventually also be confronted with the controversy regarding the return of ‘colonial’ cultural heritage. This master thesis will therefore research the current Belgian position in the debate and will analyze how the debate could be addressed in Belgium for the Belgium-DR Congo case. I hope that this research can serve, in the most objective way, as an inspirational guideline for the future.
a. Relevance
5. A first reason why this research is conducted is to confront the (law) uncertainty situation. At the Belgian side - especially regarding museums and private collectors – and at the side of the former colonies (i.e. the DR Congo), a situation of uncertainty exists. It has been almost 60 years since the DR Congo has gained its independence. Nevertheless, some issues still need closure. As the debate on the future of ‘colonial’ cultural heritage collections in Western museums has become very current, Belgium can seize the opportunity to show its goodwill to initiate the debate.
9 Emmanuel MACRON has called the colonial period a “crime against humanity”. (in X, «French
presidential hopeful Macron calls colonization a ‘crime against humanity’», France24.com, 16 February 2017, https://www.france24.com/en/20170216-france-presidential-hopeful-macron-describes-colonisation-algeria-crime-against-humanity)
6. A second reason relies on the fact that other European countries started addressing the taboo. Belgium often gets inspiration from its neighboring countries when it comes to shaping legal decisions and policy-making. The French speaking part of Belgium is certainly known to look at how France resolves similar issues. In the present case, a certain influence from France on Belgium can already be noted. The ‘Parlement francophone bruxellois’ has issued in 2019 a resolution on the future of ‘colonial’ cultural heritage10 (infra). This resolution quotes the French report. In this light, the research will analyze if and how the Report could serve as an inspiration for the case Belgium-DR Congo.
7. A third reason why present research is conducted, relates to the fact that the voice of the public opinion with regard to this matter, grows louder. The public opinion can play an important role in shaping legal decisions as it exercises significant pressure on politics. The public opinion keeps gaining importance. The reopening of the RMCA in 2018 (infra) has generated a debate amongst the Belgian population, including the Afro-descendants11. Along the public opinion other stakeholders are involved: experts12, the politicians, Afro-descendants, and the public museums. The complexity of the issue can partially be explained by this multitude of stakeholders as they all have different opinions, strategies, and interests to defend. Today, the question concerning the ‘return’ of ‘colonial’ cultural heritage is no longer reserved for the artistic and political circles. It is not up to one party only to decide the outcome. It is therefore essential that all of these interests are taken into account to find a solution that suits all parties.
b. Research question
8. The idea is not to exhaust the RMCA of its collections. This research intents to analyze which could be Belgium’s position in the current matter and which approach is recommended. Several sub-questions need to be addressed to be able to formulate an answer to the research question.
10 Proposition de resolution concernant la restitution des restes humains et des biens culturels issus de
la période colonial du 8 février 2019, Ass. COCOF, 2018-2019.
11 https://www.bamko.org/
9. A first sub-question will concentrate on the existing legal framework and how, and/or if, these instruments could be used in the matter Belgium-DR Congo. International instruments as well as the national Belgian legal framework will be analyzed. (Chapter 4)
10. A second sub-question concerns the legitimacy rather than the legality of the matter and will, therefore, analyze the moral aspect of the matter. (Chapter 5)
11. A third sub-question concerns the different options with regard to a potential return. This part of the research will be centered on the question if permanent physical return is the only way of repatriation to be considered. (Chapter 6)
12. A fourth sub-question researches if, and to what degree, the French Report could serve as an inspiration for the case Belgium-DR Congo. (Chapter 7)
13. A fifth and final sub-question researches the different dispute settlement options. (Chapter 8)
c. Limitations
14. The research will focus only on ‘colonial’ cultural heritage that includes tangible cultural objects and excludes human remains such as the skull of Lusinga – currently housed at the Museum of Natural Sciences in Brussels. The research will only focus on objects that were alienated during the colonial period (1885-1960) and that are today part of Belgium’s public domain. The majority of these objects can today be found at the RMCA in Tervuren. At last, Belgium shares history with other African countries such as Rwanda and Burundi, but research will only concentrate on the Belgium-DR Congo case.
d. Methodology
15. The research is interdisciplinary based and twofold: it is a debate of both legal and moral matter. Several legal obstacles, that will contribute to the, at this stage, impossible return of the ‘colonial’ cultural heritage exist. The legal instruments in place relating to preservation, protection, and the return of cultural heritage, will be studied. Both the international and the national legal instruments will be analyzed. The debate must not only be looked at from a legal point of view. Moral matters are important in the debate and could serve as a catalyst to open dialogue around the issue. Moral matters will be looked at in various forms: social, cultural, educational, and economic interests will all be analyzed. Different stakeholders are furthermore tangled in the debate: museums, art and historical experts, scientists, the Afro-descendants, and the politicians. That is why I have conducted personal meetings with some of these stakeholders: the director of the RMCA Guido GRYSEELS and curator and history expert of the RMCA Julien VOLPER have taken the time to express their views on the debate. Furthermore, I have taken contact with the Afro-descendant Bamko-Cran association (infra), despite several attempts, I have not received any response.
16. As the ‘taboo’ is only on the verge of being broken, only few sources exist. The research has therefore been conducted with personal interviews with stakeholders, with discussions (e.g. with legal expert Dr. Marie-Sophie DE CLIPPELE) and with the participation of several colloquiums. I have attended in December 2019 the colloquium on restitution of colonial cultural heritage held at Ghent University and organized by ‘Thinking about the Past’. Furthermore, I have attended the conference ‘Le regard de juriste sur la restitution de biens culturels en Afrique’ held
at the Université-Saint-Louis in April 2019 and organized by the ‘Centre de
recherches en histoire du droit et des institutions de l'Université Saint-Louis’. I have
also attended the colloquium ‘Journée d’étude sur la question de la restitution des
biens culturels: le Rapport Savoy-Sarr, un modèle pour la Belgique?’ organized in
January 2020 by the International Council of Museums Belgium Wallonia-Brussels. Furthermore, I have chosen to work with illustrations, as they could be a source of inspiration for the Belgian approach. No Belgian case-law exists on the matter.
17. The conclusion of the present research is a number of guidelines on how Belgium could approach the matter. They are my personal recommendations, based on my findings in the limited context described above.
e. Plan of present contribution
18. This research is built in eight chapters. The first three chapters provide the necessary background, while the following five chapters focus on the actual research. Chapter 1 clarifies the used terminology. Chapter 2 zooms briefly in on some relevant historical facts. Chapter 3 looks at the current state of affairs Chapter 4 looks at the international legal framework around the return of cultural heritage as well as at national legislation. Chapter 5 focuses on the legitimacy of the issue: the moral aspect. Chapter 6 researches what ways of return are possible. Chapter 7 researches if the approach suggested in the French Report Savoy-Sarr could apply to Belgium-DR Congo case, and if so, to what degree. Chapter 8 researches the different dispute settlements available for current matter. The conclusion holds my general recommendations in developing an approach for the Belgium-DR Congo case.
1 Definitions and Terminology
19. Before diving into the matter, it is necessary to clarify the specific wording concerning the topic of research. The core of the debate is the return or restitution of cultural heritage from the former colony, the DR Congo. It is therefore necessary that ‘return’, ‘restitution’, and ‘colonial heritage’ are defined correctly.
1.1 Return versus restitution
20. The public opinion, scholars, and different stakeholders all use different terms to designate the procedure of repatriation of the claimed objects: repatriation13, recovery, restitution, and return. Although the use of each term has evolved over the years and ‘restitution’ is nowadays more commonly accepted, there still is controversy about the use of ‘return’ versus ‘restitution'’. Especially Western museums are reluctant to use the term restitution as it implies that objects were taken unlawfully, i.e. that museums obtained their collections unrightfully while the museums feel that the presence of these objects in the Western museums should not be questioned.
21. To ‘restitute’ literally means to return an item to its legitimate owner14. This term reminds us that objects were removed with a morally reprehensive act (violence, forced consent, spoliations etc.). Today, as very well explained in the Savoy-Sarr report, to restitute aims “à ré-instituer le propriétaire légitime du bien dans son droit
d’usage et de jouissance, ainsi que dans toutes les prérogatives que confère la propriété (usus, fructus et abusus).”15 The simple act of restitution might recognize the illegitimacy of the previous owner - in this case, the Belgian State. It is by all means an instrument to repair one’s mistakes.
22. To ‘return’ has a much more neutral meaning and is the act of handing back
13 Repatriation indicates that an object or collection has a Patria or fatherland - a state or an indigenous
people or another actor inside a state (in J. VAN BEURDEN, Treasures in Trusted Hands - Negotiating the future of colonial cultural objects, Leiden, Sidestone Press Dissertations, 2017, p. 24)
14 F. SARR and B. SAVOY, op.cit., p. 29. 15 Ibidem.
property to its original place (no specification whatsoever on legitimacy)16. The act of return would, through the international lingua, not recognize that an illegitimate owner kept the object.
23. The question with regard to legitimacy lies at the very center of this debate. The fact that colonial laws approved the massive removals of the Congolese cultural heritage only adds to the complexity.
24. Besides the definitions in the dictionary, international law also defines both terms. UNESCO17 makes a distinction regarding the nature of how these objects were removed from their country of origin18. ‘Return’ indicates that ‘colonial’ objects have been removed due to a colonial or foreign occupation19. The removal of the object did not violate any legal obligation. ‘Restitution’ however, means that objects have been illegally removed. Restitution will undo a wrongful act of disputable acquisition20.
25. The fact that today, in the current debate, the term ‘restitution’ is more commonly accepted lies in the fact that it has deviated from its traditional legal definition. Traditionally ‘restitution’ was used in its pure legal definition, i.e. to claim objects that were removed unlawfully. Today, the term has evolved21 due to the existing ambiguity around the acquisition of ‘colonial’ objects. The removal of objects frequently happened in a legal context, as former laws approved the removals22. This contributes to the thin line between legality and legitimacy. As this research is not historical, it will not determine which collections or items were legally removed and which were illegally removed. It is up to a group of experts to determine and to draw up detailed inventories. To keep a completely neutral and objective position, this research will prefer to use the term return.
16 C. FORREST, International Law and the Protection of Cultural heritage, London, Routledge, 2010, p.
140-143.
17 UNESCO stands for ‘United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’.
18 L.V. PROTT, Witnesses to History: A Compendium of Documents and Writings on the Return of
cultural objects, Paris, UNESCO Publishing, 2009.Collection of texts that deal on the question regarding restitution. A panel of the different terms is presented in this collection of texts.
19 J. VAN BEURDEN, op.cit., p. 24. 20 Ibidem.
21 E. CAMPFENS, «Restitution of Looted art:What about Access to Justice? ?», Santander Art and
Culture Law Review, Vol. 2(4), 2018, p. 213-214, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.18.024.10378
22 The term ‘restitution’ that is used in the Savoy-Sarr report was deliberately chosen by the authors to
Partial restitution
26. French President Emmanuel MACRON used the terms ‘definitive restitution’ and ‘temporary restitution’ during his speech in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso23. The term ‘temporary restitution’, however, to a jurist, is a contradictio in terminis as restitution is always definitive and therefore cannot be temporary. However, partial restitution is a possibility. Partial restitution could mean that a certain percentage of the overall collection or a certain complete specific collection, or even some chosen pieces return to their country of origin. It is to be noted that ex-President MOBUTU SESE SEKO stated during the sixties that is was not in his intention to request the return of all ‘colonial’ cultural heritage (infra).
1.2 Cultural heritage
27. UNESCO, which can be considered as a reference when it comes down to preservation of cultural heritage, recalls in its ‘1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property’ that cultural heritage “is among the priceless and irreplaceable inheritance, not only for each nation, but also for humanity as a whole”24. They define cultural property in article 2 of the above Convention as follows:
‘Cultural property' means property which, on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each State as being of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science and which belongs to the following categories:
(a) Rare collections and specimens of fauna, flora, minerals and anatomy, and objects of paleontological interest;
(b) property relating to history, including the history of science and technology and military and social history, to the life of national leaders, thinkers, scientists and artist and to events of national importance;
(c) products of archaeological excavations (including regular and clandestine) or of archaeological discoveries ;
23 During a visit to Africa in 2017, Emmanuel MACRON announced to set conditions for the restitution
of African artifacts held in French public collections. (in E. MACRON, «Le discours de Ouagadougou
d’Emmanuel Macron», Le Monde, 29 November 2019,
https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2017/11/29/le-discours-de-ouagadougou-d-emmanuel-macron_5222245_3212.html)
(d) elements of artistic or historical monuments or archaeological sites which have been dismembered;
(e) antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals;
(f) objects of ethnological interest; (g) property of artistic interest, such as:
(i) pictures, paintings and drawings produced entirely by hand on any support and in any material (excluding industrial designs and manufactured articles decorated by hand); (ii) original works of statuary art and sculpture in any material;
(iii) original engravings, prints and lithographs ;
(iv) original artistic assemblages and montages in any material;
(h) rare manuscripts and incunabula, old books, documents and publications of special interest (historical, artistic, scientific, literary, etc.) singly or in collections ;
(i) postage, revenue and similar stamps, singly or in collections;
(j) archives, including sound, photographic and cinematographic archives;
(k) articles of furniture more than one hundred years old and old musical instruments.
28. While UNESCO pleads for a common definition of cultural heritage, the organization does not use one common definition in its own guidelines. In the ‘1968 UNESCO Recommendation Concerning the Preservation of Cultural Property Endangered by Public or Private Works’ cultural heritage is defined as follows: “the product and witness of the different traditions and of the spiritual achievements of the past and thus is an essential element in the personality of the peoples of the world”25.
29. African cultural heritage is not to be confused with ‘African art’. Many authors have tried to define the term ‘art’. French authors have defined the term ‘art’ as “something that is the expression of the human activity, sometimes with religious aspects”26. Artists moreover often look for notoriety and they aspire to be exposed on the art market. Cultural heritage, on the other hand, is not created to gain economic benefits, neither to be exposed. Cultural heritage is part of one’s cultural identity and is therefore a part of society: it expresses beliefs, ideologies and can be expressed in scriptures, architectures, objects, and lyrics. Cultural heritage is worth preserving as it has greater value for society. Today though, art can be a component of cultural heritage.
25 Preamble to the 1968 UNESCO Recommandation Concerning the Preservation of Cultural Property
Endangered by Public or Private Works.
Illustration: Minkisi - Nkisi Nkonde Ne Cuco27 (index 1)
30. 'Minkisi' is the plural of the word ‘nkisi’ which translates as ‘spirit’28. Minkisi figures are also known as power figures. Sacred medicine and divine protection were central in the Congolese and African beliefs during the colonial period. These beliefs are reflected in the minkisi figures and are represented in the form of a ‘kitumba’ (statue). The Nkisi Nkonde is such a figurine to which magical powers are attributed. The kitumba has both human as magical traits. The kitumba can communicate, but only chiefs can dialogue with the kitumba. The kitumba is also fed every day. More importantly are the magical powers that are characteristic of the kitumba. For example, it has the power to turn a murderer deaf and to offer protection from bullets during battles. Furthermore, the term ‘nkonde’ reflects the ability of the nkisi to hunt down and punish a wrongdoer29. The former community of Boma found specific use in the object and it is therefore undoubtedly part of their community’s identity. The special characteristics of the Nkisi Nkonde distinguish the kitumba from being just a piece of art and is therefore considered as cultural heritage. Although today all these minkisi figures are among the ubiquitous genres that identify as African art, they all are in the first place undoubtedly part of the cultural heritage of the DR Congo.
31. Conclusive is that cultural heritage has a social character. They can invoke memories and can bring people together. The value of these objects can be practical, magical, spiritual, aesthetical, symbolic, commercial, or a mix of these. This paper will use the term ‘colonial cultural heritage’ to denote objects that express cultural identity and that were alienated during the colonial period. As these objects, that constitute cultural heritage, have a certain economic value besides their intellectual and aesthetic values, they can be found across the globe, from private dealers and collectors to public spaces in museums. This paper will only focus on cultural heritage in the public area, that is to say: ‘colonial’ cultural heritage that is being kept in public museums, such as the RMCA.
27 https://www.metmuseum.org/en/art/collection/search/320053;
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-art-history/africa-ap/a/nkisi-nkondi; M. COUTTENIER, EO.0.0.7943, BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review, Vol. 133(2), 2018, p.91–104.
DOI: http://doi.org/10.18352/bmgn-lchr.10553.
28 https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-art-history/africa-ap/a/nkisi-nkondi 29 https://www.artic.edu/artworks/151358/male-figure-nkisi-nkondi
Looted ‘colonial’ cultural heritage
32. Press articles that invoke current debate often use headlines with the words ‘looted’ cultural heritage. The use of the word ‘looted’ is a very direct term and is fully based on the assumption that objects have been removed unlawfully. This assumption is radical and often too general. Not all ‘colonial’ cultural objects have been stolen from the indigenous people. Different forms of acquisition exist and all of them must be considered in order to shape an objective point of view on the issue. The conditions of acquisition of these collections are numerous: donations, exchanges, purchases, missionary missions, and spoliations (which could include physical violence). The most fundamental question with regard to the use of the term ‘looted’ clearly lies within the manner of acquisition. In 1979, the Journal of the Museum of UNESCO stated that all objects that originated from the DR Congo and that could be found at the RMCA “were procured through the regular channels” and that none of these “were obtained through extortion, spoliation or theft”30. Although this statement is questionable, its veracity will not be discussed here. However, the following paragraphs will describe different forms of acquisition.
Donations
33. In the diplomatic world it is not uncommon that political leaders donate local objects to other political leaders. This political strategy aims to keep friendly relationships between different States, as good relationships between States are key to successful politics. Donations can also be a gesture of goodwill and an intention for friendly relationships. The Belgian Civil Code issues that a donation is irrevocable31. No return request will be admitted for objects that were donated. A donation also implies that the donator consented in giving the goods to the receiver. A donated object is therefore not obtained unlawfully and is therefore not to be seen as a ‘looted’ object.
30 H. VAN GELUWE, «Belgium’s contribution to the Zairian cultural heritage», Museum International,
Vol. 31(1), Paris, 1979, p. 32-37, DOI: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0033.1979.tb01871.x
31 Art. 894 Civ. Code issues: “La donation entre-vifs est un acte par lequel le donateur se dépouille
Purchases & Exchanges
34. Both purchases and exchanges are subject to a mutual obligation between the original owner and the receiver. Both forms of acquisition imply the consent of the original owner32. It is of common sense that no objects are to be seen as ‘looted’ as long as free consent was given in the act of handing over the object.
Missionary activities
35. The 19th century is known as a period where missionary activities were booming. Many European missionaries began then their journey to Central-Africa to spread the Christian belief. The Congo Free State was at the center of these missionary activities. A lot of missionaries came back to Europe with local objects that served as ‘souvenirs’ or served for scientific purposes. Well-known missionaries that came back to Belgium with Congolese cultural heritage objects were the Jesuits. The relationship between the Jesuits and the Congolese finds its roots already back in the 16th century. At that time, the first Jesuits arrived on the Congolese territories. However, in the present research, it is their later activities that are relevant. The Conference of Berlin33 (1893) was a starting point for an important mission to the Congo Free State. These missions went beyond spreading the word of God as their activities included a scientific purpose as well. These Jesuits were known as
‘jésuites-chercheurs’. The jésuites-chercheurs were in close relationship with the RMCA34. They collected around 4 000 ethnographic objects between 1910 and 195035. These objects were eventually sent to the RMCA. A famous collection from these Jesuits missions, are the ‘Masques Géants du Congo’ (read: Giant Masks of the Congo). This collection was exposed in 2015 in the BELvue Museum in Brussels. This paper will
32 T. VANSWEEVELT and B. WEYTS, «Hoofstuk III: De overeenkomst: definitie en soorten», in T.
VANSWEEVELT and B. WEYTS (eds.), Handboek Verbintenissenrecht (gebonden), Mortsel, Intersentia, p. 117, n°189.
33 The Berlin Conference (1884-1885) regulated the European colonization of Africa. The Berlin
Conference formalized the so-called ‘Scramble for Africa’. (in J.-J. ALCANDRE , «La Conférence de Berlin 15 novembre 1884 - 26 février 1885», Allemagne d'aujourd'hui, Vol. 217(3), 2016, p. 90-97, DOI: 10.3917/all.217.0090.
34 A. TASIAUX, «Des collections jésuites sous les projecteurs», CathoBel.be, 26 October 2015,
https://www.cathobel.be/2015/10/26/des-collections-jesuites-sous-les-projecteurs/
35 G. DUPLAT, «Ces masques géants qui nous regardent», La Libre, 18 May 2015,
https://www.lalibre.be/culture/arts/ces-masques-geants-qui-nous-regardent-555a02933570fde9b34bd783
not research how the objects, collected during these missionary activities, were acquired. This is within the field of historians.
Military missions and spoliations
36. The last category relates to cultural heritage that was acquired during military missions and spoliations. Military missions and spoliations have in common that the concerned objects were acquired through violence. The reign of King Leopold II is known to be a remarkably bloody regime as far as Africa is concerned. Many Congolese tribes were victim of the violent military actions. During the colonial period many military missions were ordered from Belgium. The objects that were collected during these missions and punitive actions are called ‘war booty’. This war booty was partially sent to Belgium but also often ended up in the hands of soldiers or Western merchants. As is the case with the Nkisi Nkonde Ne Cuco (supra) taken by Alexandre DELCOMMUNE (infra). The removal of the Nkisi Nkonde Ne Cuco by Alexandre DELCOMMUNE is only one illustration out of the so many. Numerous objects that today can be found in the RMCA, find their origin in the so-called ‘war booty’. Alexandre DELCOMMUNE, Léon ROM36, Émile STORMS (infra), and many more, constituted a private collection by means of violence. The RMCA often purchased or was gifted the collections of these men after their death, as it was the case with the collections of Léon ROM, Emile STORMS, and Alexandre DELCOMMUNE37.
Illustration 1: collection of Emile STORMS38
37. Emile-Pierre STORMS (1846 - 1918) was a notorious Belgian general during the Leopoldian colonial period. He led the fourth expedition of the Association
Internationale Africaine (read: International African Association) (hereafter: AIA).
STORMS had great interest in ethnographic and anthropological objects. During his
36 M. BOUFFIOUX, «Musée royal de l’Afrique centrale: Les non-dits de la collection ‘Rom’», Paris
Match, 21 December 2019, https://parismatch.be/actualites/351212/musee-royal-de-lafrique-centrale-les-non-dits-de-la-collection-rom; Léon ROM organized numerous punitive expeditions where he collected human skulls.
37 M. COUTTENIER, Congo tentoongesteld: een geschiedenis van de Belgische antropologie en het
museum van Tervuren (1882-1925), Leuven, Acco, 2005, p. 265.
38 T. MORREN, Inventaire des archives d’Emile Storms, HA.01.017, Tervuren, Royal Museum for
military missions he compiled a collection of ‘colonial’ objects that also included human skulls (cf. ‘Le crane de Lusinga’) (read: Lusinga’s skull39) and he kept very detailed archives. Numerous of these archives have been destroyed by fire and by the African climate circumstances. Consequently, the provenance and acquisition of many objects is vague. The collections of STORMS were considered his private property and were mostly acquired during military missions and were not initially sent to Belgium. Today his ‘colonial’ collection can be found in the Belgian public domain: Lusinga's skull at the Museum of Natural Sciences in Brussels and the colonial archives and objects at the RMCA in Tervuren. Twelve years after STORMS’ death, the RMCA contacted Henriette DESSAINT, the widow of STORMS, hoping to transfer the STORMS’ ‘colonial archives’ to the RMCA. Eventually, Mrs. DESSAINT,
donated the colonial archives and her late husband's collection to the RMCA. The
‘Emile Storms Fund’ conserved at the RMCA, is the reflection of STORMS’ activities as leader of the fourth mission of the AIA.
38. The cruel missions led by Emile STORMS evoke questions regarding the legitimacy of the collection housed at the RMCA. It is the main reason why the Bamko-Cran Association40 desires the return of Emile STORMS’ collection41 as an absolute priority.
Illustration 2: the Nkisi Nkondé Ne Cuco42 (index 1)
39. The Nkisi Nkondé Ne Cuco is a power figurine now housed at the RMCA. Belgian trader Alexandre DELCOMMUNE took this figurine out of Boma, former capital of the Congo Free State, in 1878. The figurine initially was the property of one of the nine kings of Boma, a king named ‘NE CUCO’43. Alexandre DELCOMMUNE was
39 Lusinga's skull, being human remains, and no cultural heritage, will not be further discussed in this
research.
40 The Bamko-Cran Association is a Belgian women association that is antiracist, active in the political
mediatic pleadings, formates social workers, initiates public debate, and defends the rights of victims of racism. (in https://www.bamko.org/)
41 X, Restitution des tresors coloniaux: la Belgique est à la traine!, 30 September 2018,
https://6274c06d-5149-4618-88b2ac2fdc6ef62d.filesusr.com/ugd/3d95e3_ebf1ce40b4534d5383b4ae254e1d9014.pfd
42 M. BOUFFIOUX, Musée Royal de l’Afrique centrale : L’histoire refoulée d’une statuette, 19 March
2019, https://parismatch.be/actualites/societe/250012/musee-royal-de-lafrique-centrale-lhistoire-refoulee-dune-statuette
a man known to be very presumptuous with regard to the African indigenous people. In 1878, an economic issue regarding toll emerged between the men of DELCOMMUNE and the nine kings of Boma. The conflict escalated and DELCOMMUNE attacked the village of Boma. Due to the violence of the attack, the people of Boma had to flee and had to abandon the Nkisi Nkondé. That is when DELCOMMUNE appropriated himself the Nkisi Nkondé. The removal happened very likely in a violent context and without the consent of the owner. This figurine was part of the exhibition “Art Sans Pareil” (2018) at the RMCA.
40. Conclusive is that the term ‘looted cultural heritage’ is not to be generalized. The manner of acquisition may vary. This in itself is a complex given, as it probably will not always be possible to define the way the objects were acquired. The fact that the RMCA purchased or was gifted some collections, which initially were obtained unlawfully, makes the situation even more complex as the museum itself lawfully acquired the collections.
2 History
41. To understand the delicate debate on the return of ‘colonial’ cultural heritage, a brief look at the colonial history of Belgium is necessary. Only the facts that are relevant in the current debate will be mentioned.
42. Colonization is an important and non-negligible chapter in the European and Belgian history. Congo brought a lot of economic prosperity to Belgium. Nevertheless, Belgium’s economic glory at the beginning of the 20th century is built on a dark and cruel period.
2.1 From The International Association of Africa to the Belgian
Congo (1876-1960)
43. Mid-sixties of the 19th century, King Leopold II, ‘King of the Belgians’, desired a colony for Belgium. He built on his father’s (King Leopold I, the first king of Belgium) dream. Leopold I never succeeded to obtain a colony. Initially Leopold II failed as well. When he realized that ‘buying’ a colony was not a viable option any longer (the European colony market was a true chessboard), he changed plans. In 1876, King Leopold II organized the ‘Brussels Geographic Conference’ and invited guests from all over Europe. At that conference the guests established the ‘International Association of Africa’44 (AIA) (1876-1885) under the motto of realizing humanitarian projects in Central-Africa. The Belgian king himself would preside this association. This area would later become Leopold’s colony. In 1879 King Leopold II then created the International Association of the Congo45 (IAC) (1879-1885) to pursue his interests. This IAC would later on be dissolved to become the Congo Free State in 188546. King Leopold II was assigned as a constitutional
44 The AIA wanted to open Africa to international trade, to bring ‘civilization’ to Africa, and to abolish
slavery (in https://archives.africamuseum.be/agents/corporate_entities/16)
45 The IAC is born out of the “Comité d’Etudes du Haut-Congo”.
46 King Leopold II signed agreements with the indigenous peoples in Congo. He used these
‘international treaties’ to legitimize his ownership on Congo before the international community; On May 29, 1885 a decree modified the name ‘International Association of Congo’ to ‘Congo Free State’.
monarch over the Congo Free State and had very little delegation. To maintain strict order in the colony, he assigned a governor-general and a police chief.
44. The Congo Free State would stay private property of King Leopold II until 1908. It had always been Leopold's intention to hand over the Congo Free State to Belgium after his death. This transfer implied that certain administrative and institutional changes had to be made. Most importantly, the Belgian Constitution had to be modified. Already in 1893, for the sake of a planned transfer after Leopold's death, article 1 of the Constitution was modified. The new constitution read as follow:
« La Belgique est divisée en provinces.
Ces provinces sont : Anvers, le Brabant, la Flandre occidentale, la Flandre orientale, le Hainaut, Liège, le Limbourg, le Luxembourg, Namur.
Il appartient à la loi de diviser, s'il y a lieu, le territoire en un plus grand nombre de provinces.
Les colonies, possessions d'outre-mer ou protectorats que la Belgique peut acquérir sont régis par des lois particulières. Les troupes belges destinées à leur défense ne peuvent être recrutées que par des engagements volontaires. »
— Article premier de la Constitution belge (version de 1893)47
45. However, Leopold II was ‘forced’ to operate that transfer earlier than planned because of international dissatisfaction around the king’s horror policy in the colony. In 1908, the Belgian government took over the reigns and the Congo Free State became the ‘Belgian Congo’.
2.2 The Institutional framework during the colonization
46. Article 1 of the Belgian Constitution of 1893 provided that specific laws would regulate the organization of the colonies. This article justifies that the colony would experience a different organizational structure than Belgium. The Belgian
Congo would be governed by the outlines of the ‘Colonial Charter’48 of October 18th 1908. The Belgian Parliament, by simple majority, adopted the Colonial Charter as an ordinary law49. As it was not adopted according to the constitutional norms required by Belgian law, the law of 18 October 1908 that would govern the colony was commonly known under the name of the ‘Colonial Charter’50. It was therefore a regular law and had no constitutional value. This Charter would rule the colony until the end, in 1960, and would serve as the basis of the colonial structure. The colony had a distinct legal personality from the metropolis51. The Charter additionally mentioned that governor-generals would represent the King in the colony52.
47. The Colonial Charter emphasized in its first article that only specific laws would rule the colony53. The most important legal institution during the colonial period was the Ministry of Colonies. Alongside the Ministry of Colonies, a Council of Colonies54 was established. The Ministry of Colonies and the King of Belgium are the two key figures concerning the national legal framework.
48. A relevant decree with regard to ‘colonial’ objects, is the decree of 6 March 1891, known as the ‘Arrêté du 6 mars 1891 sur les objects confisqués’55. This decree serves as the first legal instrument to collect local African objects. The ‘arrêté du 6
mars 1891 sur les objects confisqués’ allowed colonists to collect local objects.
Furthermore, this decree made it possible for colonists to select themselves what they would keep for themselves and what would be sent to Belgium. The objects that were
48 Loi du 18 octobre 1908 sur le gouvernement du Congo, M.B., 19-20 octobre 1908, p. 5887-5894. 49 A. STENMANS, «Le statut international et les lois fondamentales du Congo» in E. LAMY and L. DE
CLERCK (eds.), L’ordre juridique colonial belge en Afrique Central, Bruxelles, Académie Royale des Sciences d’Outre-Mer, 2004, p. 30.
50 A. STENMANS, op.cit., p. 30.
51 Art. 1 of the loi du 18 octobre 1908 sur le gouvernement du Congo, M.B., 19-20 octobre 1908, p.
5887-5894.
52 Art. 21 of the loi du 18 octobre 1908 sur le gouvernement du Congo, M.B., 19-20 octobre 1908, p.
5887-5894.
53 Art. 1 of the loi du 18 octobre 1908 sur le gouvernement du Congo, M.B., 19-20 octobre 1908, p.
5887-5894 issues: “Le Congo belge a une personnalité distincte de celle de la métropole. Il est régi par des lois particulières. (…)”.
54 Art. 24 of the loi du 18 octobre 1908 sur le gouvernement du Congo, M.B., 19-20 octobre 1908, p.
5887-5894.
55 N. JACOMIJN SNOEP, «La production et la transformation d’un objet ethnographique africain» in M.
collected based on this decree were exposed during the Universal Exposition of Antwerp (1894)56.
49. To explore the legal framework during the colonial period, archive research is needed. Due to the COVID-19 situation, this is currently impossible. What follows is how I would have pursued these researches. Today, the archives relating to the history shared between the DR Congo and Belgium are located in the State Archives in Brussels. I would have started my research there, with the research on the ‘Arrêté du 6
mars 1891 sur les objects confisqués’. The archives relevant in present research relate
to the situation starting from 1885 (starting point of the Congo Free State). I would also have researched the archives of the Ministry of Colonies57, as this Ministry issued many laws during the colonial period.
2.3 Preservation of ‘colonial’ cultural heritage during the colonial
period
50. The regime during the Leopoldian period was known to be very distant and the colonists considered the local people as primitive people. King Leopold II organized several exploratory missions where ethnographical and scientific objects were collected. These objects were taken back to Belgium and an exhibition was organized in the ‘Musée du Congo’ in Tervuren (today: RMCA). This led to the creation of the ‘colonial’ museum of Belgium. Thousands of objects were removed from the Congo Free State to supply the Musée du Congo. The objects were exposed but were also used for scientific purposes. This period58 of exploratory missions (1885-1908), characterized by mass removal, is in the literary world also known as the plundering of the Congo59.
51. Initially, archives of all these objects were carefully being set up during the colonial period and were complete60. These archives would mention the origin and
56 J.-M. JADOT, «Arts et Métiers», Livre Blanc, Bruxelles, Académie Royale des Sciences
d’Outres-Mer, 1962, p. 72.
57 The archives of the Ministry of Colonies are located in the State Archives in Brussels. 58 Congo Free State under the reign of King Leopold II.
59 A. HOCHSCHILD, King Leopold’s Ghost, Boston, Mariner Books, 1998, 402 p. 60 J.-M. JADOT, op.cit., p. 69-89.
the acquisition of the objects, which would constitute significant criteria in the research around return. Unfortunately, many archives have been burned on demand of Leopold II61. When the Congo Free State was still the private property of the King, Leopold II could freely order their destruction.
52. Gaston-Denys PÉRIER (1879-1962), a politician and art lover, exercised different political mandates during the colonial period. He was a committed figure, concerned with the art and cultural heritage in Central Africa. This engagement was formalized with the creation of the ‘Commission pour la Protection des Arts et
Métiers Indigènes’ (hereafter: COPAMI) (1935-1960). The COPAMI was established
by Royal Decree on 23 January 193562 and was founded in the margin of the Ministry of Colonies by the Colonial Office with both the efforts of Gaston-Denys PÉRIER and Joseph-Marie JADOT (1861-1967)63. PÉRIER became the general secretary of the commission. The COPAMI had a double mission64. First of all, the commission had to study and do research to find ways to preserve, conserve, and to renovate all the indigenous artifacts. On the other hand, the COPAMI had a consultative voice to all the Ministry’s propositions related to the matter of indigenous artifacts. The COPAMI issued a first important decree in 1939: the decree of 16 August 193965. This decree granted protection not only to the African artifacts but also that monuments and sites would henceforward reside under the protection of the COPAMI. This decree is the first move of the COPAMI to preserve the ‘colonial’ cultural heritage. This also included landscapes. For example, STANLEY’s sanctuary camp in Bodo was part of the cultural heritage and thus protected by the decree66.
53. Although the first Belgian colonists were not interested in the local African objects, this changed in the beginning of the 20th century67. This led in 1935, at the same time as the COPAMI was established, to the creation of the ‘Association des
61 E. VAN GRIEKEN and M. VAN GRIEKEN-TAVERNIERS, Les Archives inventoriées au Ministère des
Colonies, 21 May 1957, p. 6.
62 J.-M. JADOT, op.cit., p. 69.
63 J. RAYMAEKERS, Musée de la Vie Indigène in Léopoldsville, Brussels, 21 March 2017, p. 2;
https://archives.africamuseum.be/agents/corporate_entities/14
64 https://archives.africamuseum.be/agents/corporate_entities/14;
65 Décret du 16 août 1939 portant sur la Protection des sites, monuments et productions de l’art
indigene (in http://www.african-archaeology.net/heritage_laws/congo_rdc_decret_1939.html)
66 Henry Morton STANLEY is an important figure in the colonial period. He was a journalist and
explorer. STANLEY helped to realize the colonial ambitions of Leopold II. (in A. HOCHSCHILD, op.cit.)
Amis de l’Art Indigène’ (hereafter: AAAI). Several passionate colonists created this
association in Léopoldville. The aim of this new association was “to protect and favor the local arts and crafts through their artists and craftsmen and their genuine ethnographic and folkloric creations”68. To achieve these goals, Congolese museums were founded for the Congolese ethnographical and cultural heritage. This is how the ‘Musée de la Vie Indigene’ (hereafter: MVIL) in Léopoldville has seen the light in 1938. In 1958, the museum was one of the main attractions in the capital of the colony69. The initiators of the MIVL established this museum to “collect and preserve for the black race the increasingly scarce remains of an art that was being over-assiduously preyed upon by foreign museums and collectors”70. This is a first indicator of recognition of plunders that happened in the past. The MIVL was opened with a speech of Pierre RYCKMANS, governor-general of Belgian Congo (1934-1946) and honorary president of the AAAI. Pierre RYCKMANS addressed the gathering with the following quote: “Tervuren has served science; let Leopoldville guard the treasures for the black race”71. Back in 1935, during the colonial period, some expressed already the wish that the cultural heritage belongs to its country of origin and should be safeguarded locally.
54. Today, the collections that once were stored inside the MIVL can be found in both private and public collections all over the world. During the sixties, the country was at the center of several civil war scenes. The collections of the MIVL were dispersed and the empty museum closed its doors on 7 December 1965, a few days after MOBUTU’s second coup d’état72.
68 J. RAYMAEKERS, op.cit., p. 2. 69 Ibidem, p. 4. 70 ibidem, p.1. 71 Ibidem, p. 5. 72 Ibidem, p. 28.
