 I procedeixo a la presentació del nostre pronent i donem pas a la conferència inaugural titulada Col·leccions Colonials i Restitucions Progreso Bastancament, fa aquesta pregunta. És a càrrec de Jos van Verden, que és especialista en col·leccions colonials i en processos de restitució. Està vinculat a la Free Amsterdam University, a la Universitat on va obtenir també el seu grau de doctor. És autodal llibre Trasurs in Trusted Hands, que es va publicar l'any 2017 i que a mes està en open access, pudeu accedir. I també és fundador del canal de Restitution Mothers, un canal molt interessant que és una servei de notícies sobre restitucions, però que en Jos ara ens explicarà què és Restitution Mothers. Està molt nerviós, perquè no sé si estic capaç d'obligar la capa entre el que coneixem en l'Àfrica i en l'Òrgan d'Europa i el que coneixem. I potser em repeteixo molt i just començo a dir-me si estic parlant molt. Per exemple, primer, sobre Restitution Mothers. M'ha començat a fer 4 anys i tenim 1.600 persones. Màxima de les persones a l'Àfrica global i l'altra a l'Àfrica global. I cada dia, hi ha un número de newsitems. És global. És sobre l'Ethiòpia, sobre l'Àfrica i Espanya. És sobre les desenvolupacions a Alemanya, etcètera, etcètera. Estic nerviós, perquè em repeteixo molt. Per exemple, quan dic que a l'octubre 12, dues hores, Madrid va celebrar el dia de l'Espanyol, recordant la descobertat de 530 anys d'anys de Columbus de l'Àfrica, i el començament de l'Espanya, l'adventura colonial de l'Àfrica. I abans de l'any de febrer 13, el Prado ha acabat l'exhibició Tornaviague, i ho he pronunciat bé, sobre l'art de l'Àfrica en Espanya, amb unes artesques que van venir de l'art americà a les col·leccions d'Àfrica. Un visitor de l'exhibició ha dit que en només 5 de les portes de l'Àfrica, les persones d'Àfrica eren visibles. A Prado, es posen desgràcia, però molt gratuï, no molt fàcil. I com a dia de l'Espanyol, recordo que el d'enhorabona de Barcelona, Ado Colou, si n'he pronunciat bé, ha tuitat uns anys abans que anem a celebrar genocid. I com anem a parlar de la proclamació progressiva en la discussió sobre la decolonització de col·leccions col·leccions. I el que vull fer és... vull fer una overview global, una overview global de què el col·leccionisme ha dit per la hèritat cultural de les persones indignes, què ha dit per les col·leccions formes, i què fem? Perquè ara, en molts llocs... No, perquè el debat de la recetució és a Europa, a totes les places. A Catalunya, Bèlgica, Catalunya, UK, França, i so on, i so on. I, a vegades, estic en una discussió amb les persones de la ciutadania global, com en Indonesia, i les persones del Escobaratzis, i són molt bo en...,roadia, i les moments que es va reinquanyar, feia. Teníem aquestes xarxes Pleicate, i jo crec que, si anem a la ciutadania globala, com pensen en això? O pensen també que estem fent progressos? O pensen en això diferent? Now, answering these questions, I will do by discussing three objects, one ceremonial object, a power figure in the middle, and some ancestral remains. And the ceremonial object is coming from Sri Lanka. The power figure is from the Congo, and the ancestral remains are tattooed Maori heads from New Zealand. I will use them to explain my story. But first the general story. Colonialism was immense, it was immense. And I've written here, it's five centuries, it starts with Portugal, Spain came, and all the other countries I don't have to repeat it because probably most of this you know it, but I'm just writing it down to explain to myself how big it was, and how world and compassing it was. And not only this, but if you... Can you go to the next, because... Oh, I'm... No, no, it's not working. Okay. You know, there were also... Denmark had colonies. They had cold colonies, Iceland, Greenland. But they also had colonies in India, for instance. Sweden had colonies, also in Europe, but also in the global south. Italy had big, you know, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Libya, etc. It's big, and then there's another thing that many countries they had colonial ambitions, but they had no colonies. And I remember being in Poland that they would have loved to have some colonies, but they didn't get them. But in the meantime, there were many Polish priests, also from the former Yugoslavia, from other places, and they worked in the colonies of other European powers. And they also collected. They also collected in these colonial contexts, and with or without the consent of the local people and without compensation. And you see these collections coming back in museums and private collections in the global north. So it's quite a big thing what happened. And I've always been wondering what has been the impact. Now, I think if you look through diaries of missionaries, of colonial administrators and others, of discoverers, and you really read them, then you find quite a number of remarks that indicate that people were very upset about it and that people, that they felt hurt, that they got angry. I remember there was a British missionary and he was working in the Pacific, somewhere on a group of islands, and he described in his diary how people, especially women, women were very outspoken about it. You know, were crabbing, beating themselves, shouting, angry slogans to missionaries who were burning their ritual statues. They were very much upset about it. The same, I don't have to say that about Nigeria, about Ethiopia, I'll come back to that. But they really, they felt very bad. I'm going too fast, I always do that. It doesn't matter. I go to the nature of the objects. I'll follow this, it's better, because I'm... Yeah, that's very interesting. You know, first of all, I distinguish three types. It's objects, ancestral remains, and archives, and they are all important. Now, in objects, I like to distinguish between, say, the ceremonial, the ritual, et cetera, objects, and the everyday type of utensils. And it's relevant for the discussion about restitution, because I, for instance, there was recently a request from a museum in Indonesia and they said, you know, we want some of these utensils back. But we don't need the originals. If you make real copies, which nowadays it's quite possible, with 3D printing and so, you know, that's for us enough, because it's easier to store them for us. But the ceremonial and the religious and the historical objects, they wanted to have the originals back. That's the difference, so you see how it develops. Now, I've written ancestral and human remains. Well, the Spanish and Catalan among you, they all, you all know about El Negro, the Banyoles. I don't have to explain that, but my country has similar examples, no necessarily. Then I call ancestral remains, because it's from a known ancestor. We know something about it. And at the same time, if I go to, for instance, if I walk through the medical faculty of the University of Amsterdam, you see rows of boxes with bones and skulls and other stuff. And nobody knows where it comes from. It says, for instance, this comes from Papua. But then if you go to Papua and you ask, you know, would you like to have them back? They say yes, but only if you can say from which ethnic group it came. Because we cannot do that. The one ethnic group is going to bury the bones from another ethnic group that does not belong to them. They refuse that. So, and those I call human remains, but this whole, it's a bit of a linguistic thing. But I remember that last two years ago, there was a meeting in Dar es Salaam of archaeologists and anthropologists, African both and European. And then the African said, you know, these are our ancestors. Don't talk too simple about it. And sometimes I hear Western academics and museum directors, they are talking about these bones as if these are things, as if these are objects. And these Africans I said, no, they are from our ancestors. And be careful with them, respect them. That's important. And then there are the archives of colonial administration or captured. These archives, they are quite important. I remember that in the 1960s, after the Democratic Republic of Congo had become independent, the Belgium and Congo were discussing new relations. And Congo wanted to have the archives. Because the archives, they contained a lot of economic information about resources, you know, what was in the soil. And also political military information, you know, what had the Belgian troops been doing all those years. And they were quite worried. And Belgium refused to do it. And they never gave it back. And this has really upset Congo very much. It's changing now. But archives, they are strategic. And who controls the archives controls a lot. And do not underestimate it. Now, the nature of these losses, I also, I would like to distinguish also in free, there's involuntary loss of possession. So I like to use, often in the discussion, we are talking about war booty. I like to use a broader concept of involuntary loss of possession. And part of it is war booty. It's also smuggling by local administrators and military and scientists. And it's smuggling, or indestruct by missionaries, for instance. And then you have a wider concept. Now, the interesting thing is that in Spanish colonialism, if I understood it well, there was talk in the 16th century of looting communities. Are you familiar with this concept? I don't know, yeah? Shall I explain it? OK, good. Very good. Thank you. Looting communities, that was that, in general, my impression is that soldiers who were fighting in South America, they were not well paid. And part of their income was looting. And there was a whole system of laws regulating this looting and the division of loot. And sometimes some of these examples, they have been elaborated. And then the leader, he got half of it. And then the poorest soldier, 137 part or something, very little. But it was very strict. And there even were claims to the king of Spain if, for instance, a soldier thought he had not received the part which he had been entitled to. So it's a very detailed system. And it creates the impression of justice, because it's really, but it's looted. It's stolen. And nothing is said about the people from whom it was looted. Nothing. And looting was self-evident. There were the missionaries. And I've written, I could have written down a thousand names. But this is a Belgian missionary, Pedro de Gante. He was employed by Emperor Charles V. And he worked among the Aztecs. And the interesting thing is, that's always confusing me when discussing about missionary organizations and missionaries, that on the one hand, he was a really socially-minded person. He was really doing the best for the local people. But as to religion, no way. He was very strict. And he had all the indigenous temples and objects and so destructed and removed, and preferably, on top of these old temples, he had churches built to show which new religion was the boss, was dominant in that. And that's not exceptional. Many of these missionaries, they had good intentions. But they were part of a colonial triangle together with the colonial and military people and the entrepreneurs and the missionaries. And they were to do the civilizing job. And the civilizing job was rather crude. So that's the involuntary loss of possession. Then the second is the voluntary object on demand. And for instance, there on the left side, you see it's a salt seller made of ivory. And it was ordered by Europeans from craftsmen in West Africa. And they were paid a good price. And the Europeans, they were happy to take it home. So it was made, I think this one is from the 16th or 17th century. So it was also long before the pillage of the Benin Kingdom in 1897, of which you also have some copies, some objects in the museum here. So, you know, it's win-win, why not? There's nothing wrong with it. Now, the big problem is going to be that there are so many objects about which we do not know where they come from. And you see there's some mysterious figures. This is from, these are figures from the big African Museum near Brussels in Belgium. They have about 80,000 objects from Congo. And the Belgian government has decided recently that if you can prove that an object was appropriated in a disputable manner, it automatically becomes property of the democratically public of Congo. That means that there is a transfer of the property title to the country of origin. That is a revolutionary law. But now the problem comes. So far, they have been able only to say that 883 of these 80,000 objects are proven to have been looted. And they say that from 35,000, they do not know it. Now, I don't know who of you has been involved in provenance research of objects. But I later on I will give you some examples that it can take four years, one object. And I was discussing it with the director of the African Museum. And he said, in the best case, we need two weeks to put things together if it is clear. So that means that this 35,000 objects, it's a merabar and it's extremely difficult to solve this. And then there's this figure of 45,000. And they say these were properly acquired. But I wonder how could they know that without investigating it? How can they be so sure about it? So, you know, this law is fantastic in that it is some sort of a generic law, you know, making a general rule. But it's the problem is at least the gray area of the 35,000. And maybe for the legal experts among you, maybe we have to think about what is called legally a reversed burden of proof. That means that the Belgian Museum has to prove that it was acquired properly in a number of years, within a number of years. And if not, in principle, the property title should go back to the country of origin. It doesn't mean that such objects also go physically back. But, you know, the property title goes back. And that means that if Belgium wants to keep it, they will have to ask permission from Congo, you know, to give it on loan to them. And they might have to pay a fee for it. That's a very interesting development. Let's go to the next. Yeah, I was talking earlier about this impact on former colonies. And yeah, there's so much to say about it. You know, I was touched very much by Wallachianca. It's the 1986 Nobel Prize winner from Nigeria. And he was so upset, and he said they burned and destroyed precious wood carvings, arguing that there were many manifestations of idolatry or satanism. And Achille Mbembe, the political philosopher from Cameroon, he said, especially missionaries, attempted at erasing every separate distinct identity. And that's what happened. And that's also the pain which was organized, which was caused. And I hear so often stories like this and that last week, I was in Munich. I'm not traveling that much, but by accident this month, twice. I was in Munich and I saw a photograph of an Arab woman. And the maker of the photograph, she was criticizing also de west for Orientalism, you've heard about Orientalism. And she said it's not only that the western powers took away our identity and gave us a new identity, but also that we as Arabs started to think in it, started to think along those lines. So we were also, you know, damaging our own interests. Let's go on. I want to go to the first, oh no, we have still, can I see the next sign? You know, there was a movement in the 1970s that some objects went back. And I remember there was, UNESCO had a magazine museum and the issue of 1979 published a number of examples of, in their views, positive restitution. And one of them was from Australia to Papua New Guinea. And this was, I think this was the most generous one, as far as I see. And the interesting thing was that in Papua New Guinea, there had been British officials, they had been collectors. They had exported all their collections because Papua New Guinea was not able to collect, to preserve them themselves. And they were stationed in North Queensland. But that condition was, it has to go back as soon as Papua New Guinea is able to preserve it themselves. Now in 1975, when the country became independent, it put immediately a claim to the Australian authorities. And about half of this collection went back to Papua New Guinea and is now in the National Museum of Port Mugaspi. That was quite good. Then the Netherlands to Indonesia. The Indonesians had a wish list of about 5,000 objects. And the Netherlands gave back a few hundred. Now why did they do it? You know, there was war booty among it. There were some statues. There were some objects, you know, which had belonged to national heroes, et cetera. Why did they do it? The Dutch, they had a very bad, poor international reputation because they had been refusing to give back or to let Papua go to Indonesia. And they really, they had a big problem internationally. The Americans, they were condemning them for it. And so they had to make something good. So then you see that restitution is meant to oil diplomacy. It serves a higher, whatever, a higher purpose instead of that you really think, you know, we have to restore something. Belgium did the same with Congo. You know, in 1960, Belgian army people, they were involved in a revolt in Catanga. And Catanga was full of minerals. And Belgium wanted to keep that. And Belgium had cheated Congo. You know, a few days before the independence, all the headquarters of mining companies, they had replaced their headquarters to Brussels, which meant that they were not supposed to pay any taxes anymore, any more, in Congo. And they were going to pay taxes in Belgium, you know, which was quite profitable. And also it was much harder to control them, to do something with them. And Belgium, all the time, when the Congolese were difficult and at a certain moment Mobutu says to say, oh, he came to power and we know Mobutu as a dictator. But if you think about cultural heritage, he was one of the champions, you know, for the restitution of cultural heritage to Africa. And every time they had to do a concession, they gave something backward. They did a concession in the cultural heritage field. Here also, you know, it was to oil the economic relations restitution. And then Denmark to Iceland and Greenland. That's amazing. But these cold colonies, they were important. And the people from Iceland, did you know that Iceland was the first country with a second chamber with a parliament in Europe? It's amazing. They had a written culture, they had manuscripts, fascinating, decorated, well-written, et cetera. But the Danish occupiers, they had taken most of these manuscripts back to Denmark. And it was a long fight, it took a long time. And when they went back, you know, people were queuing, the schools were free in Iceland, and people were extremely happy. They were applauding, they were waiting that when the transport arrived. And the same with Greenland. Greenland has quite some archaeological objects. And I think out of 100,000 objects and think of small things also. 30,000 were sent back to Greenland in agreement. And it was also very much celebrated. Now, so in general I would say that the returns were incidental in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. And there was a policy, and that's interesting, that in the 90s, 70s, especially Belgium and the United Kingdom, they put pressure on the other European countries not to give in to big claims. I remember that one of the reasons for the Netherlands to give little, not so much back to Indonesia, was pressure by Belgium and the United Kingdom. Because they said, you know, if we start doing that, then we will lose the traditional argument, our museums will be empty, which we now think is a bit of bullshit. But at that time they were thinking about it. So that was in general. Now, how is it now? Now we go to Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka was Portuguese, Dutch, and British. Sri Lanka had cinnamon. There was always a fight between the Sri Lankan kings and the foreign powers. And in the 70s, 60s, the Dutch military, the Dutch East India Company, their military, they were fighting wars with the king of Gandhi, about cinnamon, not enough, not cheap enough, quality to poor, that was the complaint. And at a certain moment, the Dutch, they defeated the king of Gandhi and his army, and they took a number of arms from them. And one of these arms was this ceremonial object. It's in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, for those of you who have been there. It's about as high as this, until here. It's mostly blue, with some gold-like and silver-like objects on it, et cetera. Now, this object, and in the Rijksmuseum, the caption says it's war booty, it's war booty. Now what happened? In the 1960s, there were already non-formal claims from Sri Lanka for the restitution of the cannon. Nothing happened. Then in 1975, the director general of museums in the country, Hematiri de Silva, he traveled around, and I think he visited 27 countries, 140 institutions, among them in the Netherlands, and he noted down 5,000 objects. And those 5,000 objects he wrote, he put down in that book, a red book, with notes with it, and he didn't say that all these objects were looted, but he said part of it was looted, and part of it were very important for Sri Lanka to have them there. And in 1980, Sri Lanka wrote history. You know, you've heard probably about the UNESCO 1970 Convention, you know, to limit the illicit trade. That convention did not help former colonies at all to claim their former collections. So, you know, as some sort of a compensation, in 1978, the Intergovernmental Committee on the Return and Restitution of Cultural Property was set up, and former colonies could submit claims. Sri Lanka was the first country to submit a major claim. They did it in 1980, and out of those 5,000 objects, they asked for about 300 objects, and the canon was one of them. I've checked again, but I don't think there were any objects from Spain, nor from Portugal. I checked it before I left home. And so the canon was on the list. But the claim was rejected in 1983, because the UNESCO said, first try bilateral negotiations, and if they fail, then we can come to help. And the Northern countries who were financing UNESCO said, we haven't had any bilateral approach, you know, we haven't done anything, which was a lie. Because in the archives, I have found letters and exchanges between Sri Lanka and the Netherlands, where there was really bilateral contact, and I'm sure it must have been with the United Kingdom, certainly, and with other countries as well. So the claim was rejected, but it was a very serious sign that Sri Lanka wanted to have, for instance, that ceremonial canon back. And then what happened in, you know, it was silent, and then after 2000, the discussion about restitution started, and in 2017, the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam set up a pilot project to develop a methodology for provenance research of colonial objects. And it was about 10 objects, and the canon was one of them. But to the outside world, in the media, and also in Sri Lanka, the museum created the impression that this project was also related to restitution. And even the caption in the Rijksmuseum said it was war booty. As the book of Hematiri de Silva, which I showed you, said it was war booty, Sri Lanka thought, well, we're going to talk about restitution. So they came there, first of all they did two years of in-house research. Then they went to Sri Lanka. They contacted a number of experts. And they said they were also confusing in their story. You know, is it about restitution? Is it about developing a methodology? And the canon, it's a clear case. Why do we have to do that? And they were taking along, they were talking along with many experts and officials, but also creating irritation and confusion there. And finally nothing came out of it. And then in 2019, there was a new team, Dutch team of experts, but still the initiative was with us. And they went again, contacted their colleagues in Sri Lanka for new people to do the research. And they had all, I've seen the list, but the lists were decided upon by the Rijksmuseum of Amsterdam about materials, about history, where was it made, et cetera, et cetera. And then finally last year, the final report came and the conclusion no one had expected it was it war booty. So in Sri Lanka they say, you know, the next week a colleague of mine from Sri Lanka is coming to speak about this in Netherlands. We did together research about this. Nazima Kamadéin from Columbia University. And Nazima said, why do I have to waste my time? You know, we have so limited means, we have so little time, and we have so few experts. And why do we have to find out about an object and we know the outcome already? It's waste of time. So they were quite upset about it. And can I have the next one? So you could say that during this first phase, you know, this in-house research, in fact the inequality and the distrust, they increased. And during the second phase, this worsening of the situation, they try to improve it a bit. And the difficult questions which were avoided at the time, I formulated here someone. You know, the first one is, I mean, we were just talking here, the ladies who are yawning now here. You know, for equatorial guinea, you'll have the same problem. You know, see that in-house investigation, outweigh collaboration with the country of origin. It's a very crucial question. And also, who decides which objects or collections are hard to be investigated? I mean, the Sri Lankans would never have chosen the canon. They would have said, well, we have other things. And they're much more important for us. And they will say, who decides who is going to work on it and how many people on each side will work on it. So you can use such a provenance research process also as a mean to diminish inequality and to increase the number of researchers on the other side and be convinced that both sides have very good information. I mean, I don't have to say that, but on our side, in the global north, the sources are more formal. You know, they are very formal. But there are many oral resources on the other side, and I will come to that in the next example. But it's worthwhile to do together. And just frankly, it's much more joy. It's more joy. It's more open. And very important, how are the available funds divided? You know, and sometimes, I mean, the Netherlands, my own country, has always been very active in the terms of international development cooperation. And at a certain moment, a number of these recipient countries, they started to complain, well, you know, you are not helping us. You're helping your own people to get well-paid jobs. And why are you not channeling more of the money to other, to our countries? No, that's a very principled question. And I think we should discuss that also openly. And in the Netherlands, we see some indications of a start of a better division, more equal division of funds also. It's quite crucial. So my main question for this case is how can provenance research be used to diminish inequality? How can we use that? And it should be part of the process. You know, it's always said, a key task of museum is provenance research. A key task of museum is provenance research and diminishing inequality, if you talk about colonial collections. Now we go to the next. That's a, it's one object. It's a Nail Statue. In 2016, I was talking with a colleague of mine from the museum, the big Africa Museum in Travure in Belgium. He had been to Congo with a photograph. And the photograph showed this statue, which you see there on the right, on the Nail Statue. And he had gone to the village of origin of this statue. And when he arrived there, the people said, this is ours. It should be here, not in terms of property, but, you know, it belongs here. And can you give it back? And he said, no, it's not up to me to do that. But he said, and then the villagers said, will you take care of it very well? Because it's a power figure. And if it would come back, it has still some power. And if it would come back, we could repower it again. We energize it again. And it would help us. And such a power statue is meant both for punishing and rewarding, for healing and punishing. And my colleague also found out that it was not the first very informal request for the restitution of the object. Because when it was taken in 1878 by a Belgian businessman, Alexandre Del Comune, the villagers protested immediately. He said, you should leave it here. It should be from us. And it should not go back. But he refused it. He was more powerful. He had the military behind him. And then in the 1960s, when Belgium and Congo were discussing about restitution, Congo asked again, please give it back to us. And Belgium, you know, did it clever. They did not do it. So they have been free expressions of wishes of the local population to get it back. And when the Africa Museum was reopened in 2018, a statue, it's one of the top pieces of the museum. But it was standing in a hall without any context story. You know, without this pain of the people there, without them missing it, without these free requests. And that's amazing me. And only after pressure from the media in Belgium, it got a new place and a new story. Now, as I said, since 2021, Belgium has this new law, you know, for if you can prove it has been looted and this was looted, the country of origin is entitled to the property title. So this statue of chief Nekuko will go back if Congo asked for it. But then there is another question which is lagging behind it. And many of you will recognize it, is that should it go back to Kinshasa, to the National Museum, and then it remains an art object, or should it go back to the place of origin. I think, you know, in quite a number of western countries, we are slowly moving and accepting that restitution will be the way to go for the next coming years. But the next problem will be in the countries of origin because many of these countries, they are colonial constructs. You know, Congo didn't exist, Indonesia didn't exist, the Philippines didn't exist, Ethiopia didn't exist, Ethiopia was never colonized. And so they all have this problem, you know, to whom should it go back? You know, just to one quick example, the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, they have a big, big diamond and it was taken from the Sultan from Banja Marcin, you know, which is a Sultanate in Indonesia. And his descendants have said, don't give it back to Indonesia because if it is in international government, in the National Museum, we will never see it back. And as long as it is in the Netherlands, we feel more chance that we have more chance that it will come back to us. So this problem is a very big one. The third is the repatriation of Maori tattooed head. I don't think Spain has ever had one. I've checked it, also in the list. You know, the story of the Maori head, it's a very unpleasant story, it's from all sides. You know, in James Cook, 70, 70 or something, he came there and there was Joseph Banks, there was a doctor on his ship and he was the second or third person who was able to obtain such a Maori tattooed head. And these Maori heads, they became business. Sometimes people were killed, you know, and their heads were cut off and tattooed were made on their heads and they were sold, you know, one head for two weapons. And it's a horrible story if you read about it. So there was often objection and for a long time the Maori in New Zealand, they had a very poor reputation, no education, unemployment, criminality, et cetera. But in 2003, and in fact already in the 1990s, they began to have their own repatriation campaign for Maori tattooed heads. And it has been quite successful. And in 2003 they had a case in which they were forced by a country in Europe that was willing to return a Maori head and they said, but to whom do we have to return it? Do we have to return it to the National Museum, which had asked for it, or to the community of origin from where it had come. And in New Zealand then, the three parties, so the local, the Maori communities, the National Museum and the National Government, they began to discuss amongst themselves, you know, who is doing what. And finally they got some sort of a division of labor which solved this to whom to return question, which I was referring to with the previous example. And they said that the local Maori communities, they are entitled to have the heads and to bring them home. The National Museum is doing research and is using its international network and the government is funding. That was basically, that was the division of labor. And it has been quite successful because I think they have brought back 420 heads, have been returned and from a large number of museums and heritage institutions in the global north. It's quite successful. And the good thing about this is that these Maori communities, they are getting up from being considered criminal and useless people and they are being empowered and they get back some of their old power. It's quite good. But I want to go to another question with this, which I was also discussing in the beginning. You know, these Maori heads, they can often be traced back to a certain Maori community. Some are not. But many of these heads of skulls in general, I call them les sans papier, the undocumented. And nobody knows, as I said in the beginning, what to do with them. Because the countries of origin say, as I said, you know, we don't want them back. And the countries here, I know, one of the museums in the Netherlands, they have a large collection of Papua bonds. They would love to give them back. But Papua says that we don't want it. As long as you don't know from where they came, it's useless. Now, what do you do with that? I would like to get suggestions from your side if you think about it. So, we go to the next slide here. Now, I'll say a few words. How long have I been talking, no? Too long already? I don't think I have an hour. An hour? No. No, I don't think so, no. Not yet. Can I go on? OK. No, I was just thinking, you know, I can... I've said already a few things about Belgium. In the beginning I said some nasty things about Spain. Is there anyone who would like one country that I go into one country? Is there any preference? Just call it, and I'll do it. OK, Germany, good. You said it? Who said it, Germany? No, you did. The interesting thing about Germany is that Germany had to face its own past during the Second World War and to come to terms with the Holocaust and also with all the cultural properties it had appropriated at that time, you know, by the Nazi regime, the burning of books, etc. So, in a way, if I discuss with Germans they are also very much willing to go into depth. You know, they really like to see the reality as it was, which for other countries can be more difficult. Now, in 2002, a number of European museums they accepted what is called the Declaration of Universal Museums. Have you heard about this? OK. In the Declaration, you know, it was signed by a number of museums in Germany, in England, in France, in the Netherlands, and some other places. And they said that, you know, we put an end to all the discussions about the restitution of colonial objects. And from now on, we will acquire objects in a proper way, 2002. In that year 2002, the decision was made to build a new museum in Berlin, the Humboldt Forum. Have you heard about the Humboldt Forum? Yes. And that was made in that sphere. And, you know, and you feel that when you enter the Humboldt Forum now, you feel this very much mixed sphere on the one hand that the decision was made in 2002 and then the Humboldt Forum was still thinking we are the best one to show all these objects much better equipped than countries of origin. And now in 2022, where they have become much more modest, and in certain ways, for instance, in relation to Namibia, to Nigeria, to Tanzania, they have become much more modest. Now, the most remarkable development in Germany is that in, I think in 2020, the federal government made a decision that Benin Objects, you know, which was stolen in 1879 by British soldiers and were dispersed all over Europe, but many of them in Germany, German museums, they were very active in appropriating them. And the federal government, in cooperation with a number of museums, the Humboldt Forum, Leipzig, Stuttgart, Cologne, I think, they made a decision that the property titles of over 500 objects, they will be transferred to Nigeria. That means that Nigeria becomes the owner of these Benin Objects. And that's a very radical measure. It's a very positive measure. My only worry is that the focus is too much on Benin Objects and other collections are forgotten. And if you look from the perspective of people in Africa, for instance, you know, I was discussing it last week with people from Malawi, and they just say, we do not know what our heritage is. We do not know where it is. So please, one day they was calling, please send us information if you know where Malawi and collections are. And maybe we were just discussing about Equatorial Guinea and maybe it's something similar there. So for me, the one thing is that, you know, we should not focus only on Benin Objects. And one of the reasons is that the Nigerians, they have made a very, very, very concerted effort. And to a certain extent they have also solved the issue of whom to return, because it's the same problem as in New Zealand. And the agreement that has been concluded now is that the federal government, and in charge, you know, on behalf of the federal government, it's the National Commission for Museums and Monuments, that they will send the claims to countries, to European countries, North American countries, and that, you know, when objects come back, they will channel them to the Benin Kingdom. So in this sense it's a solution. And there are still some disagreements, but I will not go into that now. So Germany did a very good thing, a very radical thing, because it was at government level. But I'm also scared, you know, what about all the other collections? And there are so many other ones. I mean, Germany has an enormous collection from the Pacific, and I can't believe it. They were so active. They have from other places in Africa. You can't believe it. It's so much from Peru, you know. So Germany is doing well, but still progress is possible. Any other country? Sorry? The UK, okay, good. Yeah, UK is also relevant, because, you know, the image of this happening in the UK is determined by what the British Museum is doing. And the British Museum usually is doing is the most conservative if it is about restitution matters. So I always say, do not focus on the British Museum because you will get frustrated and you might stop what you're doing. And have a look at what other museums are doing. Now, what are other museums doing? Quite a number, you know, is the British Museum and the Victorian Albert in London. They are covered by the national law. And they have to, they need permission, there are all sorts of restrictions in returning issues, in returning objects. But other museums, like university museums or municipal museums, they have much more liberty to act as they want. And they are doing quite a number of nice things. You know, for instance, museums in Scotland, British, Brighton, other places, London also, they are returning Benin objects now to Nigeria. You know, quite a number of museums, they have started to return ancestral remains from Aboriginal peoples to Australia. And do you know more examples? Are you British by any chance? Do you know better examples than I do? I think we have to stop because there's no microphone. Sorry. Sorry. I mean, she was in a more intelligent way repeating what I said. Yeah. Okay. So I'm quite positive about England, but focus on these other examples. And it's quite broad, you know, quite a lot is happening. Yeah. Any other beaches? Portugal. Yeah, Portugal. Yeah, you know, what strikes me in Portugal is that first of all, when I started to investigate whether they have any colonial collection, they say, no, we have got nothing. And that happens quite often. Also in other countries, also in the Netherlands. And then, you know, we go into the collection and say, and I say, what's that? And then all at once, you know, colonial objects, they pop up and they are there. And I remember that in 2021, Icom Portugal, they published a survey of Portuguese museums. And I think, I don't know what I've written here. No. I think that some 56, they said they have colonial collections. And most of them have not done any provenance research. The tradition of provenance research in Portugal is still very weak. But my impression from Portugal is that there is much more knowledge than they realize themselves. And that sounds maybe stupid and a bit arrogant. But a lot of research has been done, but it has not been put together. And people have not been brought together to exchange. And that's why, I mean, this sort of meetings is so important. You know, you just can tell each other what you're doing and what is difficult and what is easy and how you can help each other, et cetera. And that I'm missing in Portugal. And, you know, for me, it could have happened much more. There's a claim for Mongola. It has been there since 2018 for dolls and other objects. But they haven't done anything as far as I know. And a few other things are running as well. But, you know, I think that you need a concerted effort to make restitution really an issue. Otherwise, it's difficult. Any more wishes? Otherwise, I continue. I'll tell about the Netherlands. Good. Nice. But the Netherlands. I have to be a bit critical. Well, the Netherlands made a good move recently. You know, a couple of years ago, a report, an advisory report was published to the Minister of Culture, which said objects that have been stolen should be returned. If the country of origins asks for it. And in reaction to it, of course, our major colony was Indonesia. In reaction to it, Indonesia set up a repatriation committee. And they started that work. And the good thing about this committee is that, you know, in the past, I remember that Indonesians still had the attitude of trying to please us. You know, it's a remnant of colonialism. And it's also the Asian culture, you know, of being polite, not to disturbus. But there's a new generation coming in Jakarta. And they are running this business. And the good thing, the very, very good news is that a few weeks ago, they came out with a list with eight collections and objects. And one fossil collection, which they want to be returned to Indonesia, by the Netherlands. And for the time, I know that, and that's also interesting, our National Museum of World Cultures, they reacted very positively about it. I said, we will cooperate with it. And, you know, we will do what we can. And we are even waiting for the next claims, because it's not the last claim. Whereas the National Museum of Natural History, they were trying to withdraw. And that's a general pattern between, say, the more ethnographic and the more natural history museums that the latter one are quite reluctant to work. They say, they argue, we need it for scientific research, et cetera, et cetera. And, but this is changing now. So the good news is that Indonesia has a strong committee and is defining the claims itself, so it's not that we are saying, shall we give this back or that back? They say, we want that, that's what we want. And that's a good thing. And the good thing is that the Dutch are willing to do it. I should go to the end slowly. Spain. No, I leave that to you. No, I leave that to you. So we have been discussing this Canon of Gandhi, the Neil Statue and the Maurita with the heads. But I go back to my question at the beginning. How do we know whether we are really making progress? How do we know that? And before I say that, I want to say that what the essence is of return or institutional repatriation, I think during colonialism relations have been heavily violated and the main aim of restitution is the healing of these violated relations. We should always keep that in mind, I think, and not, you know, economic interests, but just think about what we did to people in those countries, to communities, to governments, how we insulted them, how we humiliated them and do something with it. So that's one thing. Now we go to the, I think that's the last page. You know, having listened to people in Indonesia, Ethiopia, to many other places where I have been, I have come to a number of benchmarks and to see, you know, how we can, in a bit, in an objective way, but especially in a dialogue way, you know, that you can talk about it together north and south about what progress is being made. And I've come to three benchmarks, trust, equality and justice. And for trust, in fact, it's, I mean, it's very idealistic. It was one of the criticisms I got, I said, are you a naive trust? How can you talk about trust, you know, after so much damage that has been done? So I've changed that into reducing distrust and similarly reducing inequality and undoing a little bit of the injustice committed in the past. And it helps to have a sound look and also to have a common ground with your counterparts in the south to see, you know, are we really making progress or are we not? Thank you very much. How to say? Yes, I would love to tell it. Well, you know, if western journalists, academics, museum directors, describe the restitution debate in Europe. They often start with the speech of Emmanuel Macron in November 2017 in Ouagadougou. And that has to do, I object to that. And it has to do with equality. And I will explain you that. How did Macron, he was reacting to a claim of the Republic de Benin in West Africa of the year before that. So the start was in Benin, was in Africa and not in Europe. And that's, you know, that's why I'm warning against some sort of a celebratory atmosphere, you know, a self-pleasing atmosphere, how good are we? Macron, you know, so it's the Republic de Benin and together also with the Nigerians, because they were this Benin dialogue, this dialogue group started in 2010, you know, and it also has changed the atmosphere in Europe and we were slowly getting ready for it. And then the good thing was that Macron, he appointed this double committee, the Sars-Savoie committee. Do you know about this committee, the advisory group? Yes, okay, good. Now, the good thing about the report by Sars-Savoie was a very radical, progressive report. But for me, the main thing was, again, linked to equality. You felt a common breath in their advice. You know, you felt an African-European approach in it. And that's what we need. And, for instance, there were similar reports in Germany, which I didn't mention it, but I could have mentioned it in 2017 or 2018, they came out already, and they were written by German scholars. Brilliant people, committed people, but white, brilliant, mostly men. And you feel the difference. They are much more complicated. You know, a former colony needs a bunch of lawyers to study these proposals. And the Sars-Savoie report was just clear. It was a clean cut. That was the good thing. But then, France returned 26 objects to the Republic de Belia. They were very much welcomed in Cotonou. They returned an object, but I think unknown to Senegal, and I think one to Madagascar, if I remember well. But since then, it has been silent. And maybe, are you French? Swiss? You know, it has been silent, and I don't know what is happening. And I don't know whether it was a political thing, you know, to gain sympathy. You don't know. And it was also, because Hollande, his predecessor, President Hollande, he had rejected the claim of the Republic de Belia. But that's what I have to say. Hola, bona tarda. Agrair-li l'intervenció que ha estat molt interessant i aprofitant la seva bona disposició. Li volia fer una pregunta que estic segur que és molt difícil, però potser ens pot aclarir alguna qüestió al voltant del Bàtica i de les col·leccions que formen pàrders lesia catòlica que estan allotjades a la ciutat del Bàtica per sense alguna cosa, en qualsevol cas. Si d'alguna manera el Bàtica ha volgut participar o no en aquesta sèrie d'organitzacions internacionals, que d'una forma o altra estan tractant de gestionar la qüestió del retorn o de repatriació, o s'hi van per lliure. Gràcies. T'ho esperem. thank you so much. Secretary. We expect that the present pope coming from the south from Argentina would understand better this issue than many of its predecessors. Does that answer your question? No, it's enough. Okay, good. There was another question there? No. ha estat lluitat o il·legitimitllament acompanyat per dir que era legitimat per acompanyar-ho. Com ho proveu? En un museu colonial, en una institució que ha estat construït en aquestes relacions violents. Com ho proveu? Que un objectiu ha estat legitimitllament acompanyat. És extremament difícil de proveir-ho. Però també és extremament difícil per la col·lífina former per proveir que era, you know, quiet in a disputable manner. Per què serà més difícil per la col·lífina former que per el possessor current? Però hi ha una altra cosa a això i és que en la línia europea i entre les nacions europees, aquest revertiment de proveu és molt normal, no és una excepció. Aleshores, vam fer servir-ho. I per què distingueixem-ho? Vam fer-ho amb dues mesures. Per què distingueixem-ho? Per què fem-ho aquí? I no internacionalment. I això també ha de fer amb l'equalitat. I hem de re-thinkar moltes coses i fer-ho d'una altra manera. I re-definir-ho. És que anuncia? Sí, i link a això. D'això, és a dir, sabem on començar, i podem començar amb algun objecte per intentar i veure i per researchar l'origen i altres altres altres. Però on anem? Ok, anem al centre. Jo prefereixo per la qüestió on anem, perquè no sé on anem. Perquè crec que volem molt més dialogar. I, com que l'exemple d'Indonésia era clar, han decidit on anem. Però és molt excepcional. Vull veure en les negociacions entre Kinshasa i Brussel, que molt clarament Brussel és intentant, el museu és intentant xifre la balançació contra Kinshasa, perquè s'hi pot decidir. I ara, Kinshasa ha indicat, que hi ha molt pocs objectes d'un particular lloc, en Congo, i diuen que és el nostre preferent que startin investigant objectes d'aquest lloc. I això és el primer cop, que... I crec que al començament hem de començar. I per què s'està despertant? Perdona, és difícil d'imaginar com reparar materialment les relacions colònies. És un projecte enorme. Sí. Sí, reconeixem el que hem fet malament i apunten la flora. I diuen que... El meu lloc sempre ha estat un lloc d'objet amb objectes al top. Fins i tot, amb altres stakeholders. I també sé que he vist curatres llocs, perquè s'ha de... Recordo que jo era en Gothenburg, en Suïdan, i d'aquí, hi havia d'haver textes d'aquest Paracas, que és un peninsula, en Perú, si estic d'acord. I eren molt bonic. S'havien d'ajudar d'aquí, però el govern municipal de Gothenburg ha decidit que s'havien d'anar al Perú. I aquests curatres, eren llocs quan van anar, i en el mateix temps, deia que s'ha d'anar. És allò que va. I això vol dir que les relacions estiguin més humes, i no hi ha res a veure amb això. Bona tarda. Gràcies molt. És un plaer.