Across Africa, calls for the restitution of cultural belongings and ancestors taken, sold or traded under colonial conditions are growing louder. Inventories—lists of what was taken and where it is now—have become key tools in this work. But they are also sources of tension: how do we track loss when colonialism shattered memory? And how do we do so ethically, without exposing sacred knowledge or community histories to further harm – especially when sacred or sensitive knowledge is made public without consent?
This is a conversation among ourselves, for ourselves to reflect on these questions. It considers whether inventories are the right starting point, and if they are, what kind of knowledge management systems are right for our contexts?
Key Findings
Inventories don’t guarantee returns. Our research found no direct link between publishing inventories and the actual return of heritage items. Instead, most successful restitution efforts are driven by communities who discover their belongings through chance encounters or grassroots mobilisation.
The costs are enormous. Digital Benin cost €3.9 million to document just 5,246 items from a single kingdom. The Atlas of Absence identified over 40,000 Cameroonian items in German museums alone—a scale that makes comprehensive inventories financially unrealistic for most African countries.
Colonial distortions persist. Museum records created during colonial rule use labels like “fetish” or “amulet” that obscure true meaning, while most Western institutions still tightly control access to their collections.
A Different Approach
The evidence points towards community-driven, demands-based inventories that start with what communities have lost, rather than what museums hold. This approach:
- Supports existing community mobilisations rather than creating comprehensive catalogues
- Respects cultural protocols around sacred knowledge
- Works within varying levels of digital access across Africa
- Prioritises sustainability and local ownership
Why This Research Matters
When pursued, inventories are most effective when anchored in national institutions, tied to public programming, and used to reconnect communities with the histories—and futures—of their stolen heritage.
But visibility alone is not justice.
Restitution is not only about return—it’s about repair. African governments must choose where to invest for long-term cultural renewal and social cohesion. Western institutions must do more than open databases—they must share the burden of restitution and help rebuild what was broken.
Download the full report (available in French and English) to access detailed case studies, strategic recommendations and practical frameworks for community-centred restitution efforts.
