Returning the objects to Gandhara?

The future of museum collections from colonial times

Already having written about the history of missionary museums, it is also important to investigate theim today critically, especially how they should handle their collections and responsibilities of owing those objects in the future.

Therefore the question emerges, if those museums, and also the museum in Werl with missionary objects and the Gandharan objects, should return those objects from the colonial period back to their country of origin, and generally how the future of such museums and collections ideally should look like.

The following chapters serve to dive deeper into this topic, both regarding mission and colonial museum collections generally, but also the museum in Werl especially.

The problem with colonial objects

Before discussing the return of objects, it’s crucial to understand why handling these objects is challenging, as previously mentioned. Museums often acquired objects through suspect and not always legal interactions.

While not every object was stolen or obtained through violence, war, or blackmailing, the majority of items in colonial, ethnographic, or missionary museums were acquired within colonial power relations, where the original owners were disadvantaged in terms of power and the choice to freely decide over their belongings.

Even in the case of Gandharan objects, it remains unclear if the trade for whiskey was a legal transaction. Therefore, most objects in these collections are proof of how objects were collected, or, in the case of pictures hanging throughout the collection, even produced to showcase people from colonial areas and their cultures, which were seen as inferior to Western culture.

Another significant issue faced by museums today is the lack of documentation for these objects, which can be seen as a lack of respect towards those cultures. This issue arises because not only ethnologists but also missionaries, travelers, colonial officers, and those seeking profit collected and donated objects to the museums without placing emphasis on documenting information about the purchase and the object generally. The Forum der Völker with mainly missionaries collecting and with Ernst Majonica, a politician who purchased the Gandharan objects, serves as the best example of this problem. The further struggle with this has been discussed before in the chapter about provenance research.

Another important topic is the lack of understanding from the Western culture about the culture of origin. For example, museums owning human remains only pay attention to European laws about dealing with the dead, while it’s sometimes completely different in the cultures the bodies and remains were taken from, leading to disrespecting the beliefs of those cultures.

While, in Germany, for example, it’s totally acceptable (after a certain time has passed) to use skeletons and human remains either donated or taken from graves for scientific research or educational purposes to be portrayed in museums and exhibitions. In other cultures, however, it is seen as disrespectful towards the deceased person to use them for commercial purposes, and the same even applies to ritual and holy objects. Therefore, the museums and collections don’t respect the values of the non-Western cultures.

In conclusion, the museums have to face the problem if their objects were being stolen, if their purchase has been a result of oppression and violence, the fact that most of them are a result of colonial oppression, and that they were serving to degrade those cultures and present the West as superior. Additionally, holy or ritual objects are disrespected for their value, which they might hold for the rightful owners, and there is also a lack of documentation as a result of the listed factors above. (Wonisch, 2018, p. 15f)

Restitution

How should museums address the challenges outlined above?

The issue of restitution for colonial objects has been under discussion for several years. While Germany has undertaken provenance research for stolen objects from the Third Reich, the goal of researching colonial objects differs for various reasons, leading to differing scholarly opinions.

Some argue that every object acquired under colonial conditions with asymmetrical power relations should be returned to its country of origin. Others propose that only objects proven to be acquired illegally should be subject to critical discussion for possible return. Many scholars suggest that everyday objects may not be as crucial to return as ritual or holy objects, which may still hold cultural or ancestral significance.

Returning human remains, particularly skeletons or bones taken from graves, is considered highly important, as discussed in the previous chapter. However, why is it more challenging to potentially return these colonial objects compared to objects from the Third Reich?

Firstly, many objects lack proper documentation, making it unclear where they originated. Research on this matter is more challenging now due to the significant time that has passed. Some argue that restitution may not be necessary today, given that the damage caused by taking these objects, legally or by force, is no longer present after generations have passed. However, others contend that the damage to the affected cultures persists today.

The moral perspective is not universally agreed upon, and the legal perspective is also unclear. While some countries have defined laws on how museums should handle their objects, Germany is yet to establish clear regulations. In Germany, an object must meet specific conditions for restitution. Firstly, its origin must be precisely defined with supporting evidence. Secondly, the rightful owner must provide proof of ownership. However, how are owners supposed to prove ownership for objects taken so long ago, especially in cases involving robbery or blackmail? If proof is not feasible, the museum has the final say over the decision, deviating from national guidelines, as seen in other countries with established laws or local offices dedicated to such matters. This aspect appears to be an area in Germany that requires reconsideration. (Wonisch, 2018, p. 43-47)

Future of post-colonial museums

Given the challenges discussed earlier, the question arises: How should colonial, ethnographic, and mission museums navigate their future course?

Primarily, it is clear that these museums must abandon their prior practice of depicting non-Western cultures in an inferior light. There is a need for a reevaluation and repositioning of the exhibition’s objective if this hasn’t been initiated already. The very relevance of these museums in contemporary times becomes a subject for consideration. If they are deemed relevant, it is suggested that they portray their objects in a neutral manner, avoiding the perpetuation of stereotypes that brand them as exotic or untamed.

A promising avenue for improvement involves actively engaging indigenous people in the reconstruction of exhibitions. This not only serves to decolonize the portrayal of objects but also transforms the fundamental structure of these museums. In this context, decision-making power about the fate of museum objects should not be solely vested in Westerners. Establishing contact with the “Herkunftsgesellschaften” is crucial, even though it may pose challenges, particularly when the provenance of objects is unclear. It is important to avoid reverting to the old colonial power structures, where only Western museums wielded authority.

In conclusion, post-colonial museums have the opportunity to transition from being mere repositories that represent cultures through self-chosen colonial objects to becoming dynamic spaces that lead to interaction and engagement. This transformation necessitates breaking away from preconceived notions imposed by Western curators. While this process may be time-consuming, especially for institutions like the Forum der Völker, which currently lacks the capacity for change, it remains a necessary and worthwhile endeavor.(Wonisch, 2018, p. 60-65)