The database is a core element of the International Inventories Programme. The idea of Kenyan objects abroad becomes very real when the numbers—32,321 objects from thirty institutions in seven countries—become publicly accessible data. Putting this scattered information into one document mirrors the physical aim of restitution movements: to gather them and bring those that need to be returned, home.

For us as the Nest, a Kenyan collective, this is data about objects presumably subtracted from us as a people. The effect of this subtraction on our cultural, societal and personal histories affects how we enter these processes as arguably aggrieved parties. Because IIP is a partnership exercise, the ways in which feelings differ remain on the table for discussion—from the National Museums of Kenya as a state institution to European partners who perhaps relate to the data as descendants of oppressive parties.

The process of acquiring this data involved digital negotiations and friendly engagements that belie the darker history it represents. As IIP, we made a group decision to ask for relatively benign data about Kenyan collections, thinking this would increase participation. Critical provenance data was framed as optional—a costly compromise in retrospect.

The database reveals troubling inconsistencies. We encountered museums that resisted sharing any data and one that shared records with crude deletion of provenance information. If there is no shame in institutional ownership of these objects, why conceal their previous benefactors?

Perhaps most telling are the data errors throughout these “celebrated halls of posterity.” The remarkably poor quality of data—from basic spelling errors to derogatory ethnic terms—severely undermines the oft-repeated defense against returning objects: that African museums lack “capacity” to preserve them professionally.

For the exhibition, we created visualizations focusing on several aspects: the sheer number of documented objects, collector biographies, the question of object values, objects of national importance, material compositions, and lost communities whose artifacts remain categorized under colonial misrepresentations.

As Njoki Ngumi reflects: “The existence of this database and its eventual sharing with the public is a form of metaphysical repatriation; we have access to knowledge that was previously only for the institutions that possessed the objects. If the knowledge can move, it is perhaps more likely that the object will also eventually move, when the politics and context become ripe.”

These excerpts offer just a glimpse into the in-depth discussions, research findings, and critical reflections contained in the full ‘Invisible Inventories’ zine. This limited-edition publication features additional articles, object biographies, visual documentation of the exhibitions, and further perspectives on museum politics and restitution debates.

The complete zine is available in both print and digital editions through Soma Nami Books (Kenya) and Iwalewa Books (Germany).
Support this groundbreaking work and deepen your understanding of these complex issues by exploring the complete publication.