A Collective Outlook: Examining Kenya's Cultural Heritage Abroad
By the Nest Collective
Executive Summary
The International Inventories Programme (IIP) has created the first comprehensive database of Kenyan cultural objects held in institutions abroad. This groundbreaking digital archive documents 32,321 objects across thirty institutions in seven countries, representing one of the largest efforts to track displaced cultural heritage. Beyond just numbers, this database represents a shift in power dynamics and an unprecedented level of access to knowledge about museum collections in the Global North.
The Database as a Digital Archive
One of the stated aims of the IIP project is to "generate a comprehensive inventory of Kenyan artefacts and cultural objects held in public institutions abroad."
The database is a core element of the project. The idea of Kenyan objects abroad becomes very real when the numbers of these objects, alongside attendant details, become publicly accessible data. Putting all of this currently scattered and disaggregated information into one document is an ongoing digital effort that mirrors the physical aim of restitution and reparation movements: to gather them and bring those that need to be returned, back home.
The database is a core element of the project. The idea of Kenyan objects abroad becomes very real when the numbers of these objects, alongside attendant details, become publicly accessible data. Putting all of this currently scattered and disaggregated information into one document is an ongoing digital effort that mirrors the physical aim of restitution and reparation movements: to gather them and bring those that need to be returned, back home.
"The creation of this database is a catalyst for the activation of true and honest knowledge exchanges about these objects and their real-life contexts."
The creation of this database is also a catalyst for the activation of true and honest knowledge exchanges about these objects and their real-life contexts—without connection to their peoples and countries of origin, the objects remain potentially mis-named, misrepresented and problematically baptised as wrongful ambassadors of the untrue.
In addition to the necessary cultural dialogue regarding the morals and ethics of their contentious possession, the database is also an opportunity for the museum and cultural space to correct the inaccurate narratives that spill over into history classes, racist rhetoric and the imbalanced power dynamics of daily life.
In addition to the necessary cultural dialogue regarding the morals and ethics of their contentious possession, the database is also an opportunity for the museum and cultural space to correct the inaccurate narratives that spill over into history classes, racist rhetoric and the imbalanced power dynamics of daily life.
Engaging with the Database
A Digital Portrait of Heritage
One of the stated aims of the IIP project is to "generate a comprehensive inventory of Kenyan artefacts and cultural objects held in public institutions abroad."
The database is a core element of the project. The idea of Kenyan objects abroad becomes very real when the numbers of these objects, alongside attendant details, become publicly accessible data. Putting all of this currently scattered and disaggregated information into one document is an ongoing digital effort that mirrors the physical aim of restitution and reparation movements: to gather them and bring those that need to be returned, back home.
The database is a core element of the project. The idea of Kenyan objects abroad becomes very real when the numbers of these objects, alongside attendant details, become publicly accessible data. Putting all of this currently scattered and disaggregated information into one document is an ongoing digital effort that mirrors the physical aim of restitution and reparation movements: to gather them and bring those that need to be returned, back home.
The database is a digital artefact listing 32,321 objects from thirty institutions in seven countries (as at September 29, 2020). The file's size—a paltry 84MB—brings together a complex mix of datasets from very different organisations with a multitude of diverse internal data practices, histories, documentation values and commitments to preservation.
It is worth considering the fact that this data has never sat together before, in much the same way that digital existence diffuses the physical realities of the nation-state border into the ephemeral. The evolving technological developments of the world as it is now, and the ease with which information can be requested and shared, has allowed these datasets to be aggregated.
It is worth considering the fact that this data has never sat together before, in much the same way that digital existence diffuses the physical realities of the nation-state border into the ephemeral. The evolving technological developments of the world as it is now, and the ease with which information can be requested and shared, has allowed these datasets to be aggregated.
As Africans, as Kenyans, as Artists
For us as the Nest, a Kenyan collective with Kenyan members, this is data about objects that were presumably subtracted from us as a people, even as we also consider the violent definition of our ancestors as 'Kenyans' via the drawing of arbitrary lines by a gang of colonialists.
The effect of this subtraction on our cultural, societal and personal histories understandably affects how we enter these processes as arguably aggrieved parties. Because IIP is a partnership exercise, the ways in which the feelings of the individual partners differ remain on the table for discussion.
This inevitably gives rise to some unavoidable tension. One partner, the National Museums of Kenya, is a Kenyan state institution (a state that is often framed as the objective, unchanging eternal, devoid of emotion). The other partners are European, and they perhaps relate to the data as the descendants of oppressive parties. The feelings that come from these challenging positions are also key, such as possible guilt, or a desire to find a way to 'fix' this long broiling situation.
The effect of this subtraction on our cultural, societal and personal histories understandably affects how we enter these processes as arguably aggrieved parties. Because IIP is a partnership exercise, the ways in which the feelings of the individual partners differ remain on the table for discussion.
This inevitably gives rise to some unavoidable tension. One partner, the National Museums of Kenya, is a Kenyan state institution (a state that is often framed as the objective, unchanging eternal, devoid of emotion). The other partners are European, and they perhaps relate to the data as the descendants of oppressive parties. The feelings that come from these challenging positions are also key, such as possible guilt, or a desire to find a way to 'fix' this long broiling situation.
The Process
1. Data Collection and Compromises
The process of acquiring this data was a set of digital negotiations, emails and relatively friendly engagements. These belie the darker history that the data represents. We were quite bemused by the faulty idea of the neutrality of this data, which stood as a record of historical violence, imperialism, racism, and a Eurocentric obsession with the ownership and classification of things as a way to dominate them.
As IIP, we made a group decision, after much deliberation, to ask for relatively benign data about the Kenyan collections of the museums we contacted. We thought that this would increase the chances of them participating in our endeavour and sharing this data with us. We didn't want the museums to feel we were making a legal demand on their stores in this first letter from complete strangers. As a result, critical provenance data was framed as extraneous and optional.
As IIP, we made a group decision, after much deliberation, to ask for relatively benign data about the Kenyan collections of the museums we contacted. We thought that this would increase the chances of them participating in our endeavour and sharing this data with us. We didn't want the museums to feel we were making a legal demand on their stores in this first letter from complete strangers. As a result, critical provenance data was framed as extraneous and optional.
2. Navigating Legal and Institutional Barriers
For EU institutions, the enactment of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), which came into force on May 25, 2018, has made sharing data on living collectors and donors unlawful. In addition, we have encountered museums that have resisted granting access to any of their data and—in one sordid case—have shared records that exhibited a crude deletion of provenance data from their object records.
3. The Question of Value
Another evolving data need is that of the financial value of the objects listed in the database—which is a data point the IIP team regret not requesting in our initial partnership inquiries. The tiptoeing around the question of financial value of objects is very much a standard practice within museum circles.
"There's a bit of unwillingness to discuss the financial value of objects." - Museum Curator
Museums have various ways of avoiding this discussion:
In practice, financial value only comes into play in specific circumstances; when acquiring new material, when deaccessioning material, and for insurance valuations during exhibitions and loans
The cost of moving an object—which includes careful packing, climate-controlled transport, proper storage, and prescribed exhibition conditions—often exceeds its insurance value. This creates a practical barrier: the high cost of movement, even for simple museum exchanges, is a key factor preventing the movement of Kenyan objects held by German museum partners to Nairobi for exhibitions.
This financial reality puts African and Global South museums at a distinct disadvantage. Without access to substantial state and philanthropic financing, they cannot easily curate exhibitions featuring their own cultural heritage, facilitate object movement on demand, or participate equally in cultural exchange.
- Claims that "all museum collections should be treated with the same respect and value"
- Arguments that objects are valuable only as "evidence of phenomena"
- Concerns about security risks from publicizing values
- Worries about governing bodies selling valuable objects to fix budget gaps
In practice, financial value only comes into play in specific circumstances; when acquiring new material, when deaccessioning material, and for insurance valuations during exhibitions and loans
The cost of moving an object—which includes careful packing, climate-controlled transport, proper storage, and prescribed exhibition conditions—often exceeds its insurance value. This creates a practical barrier: the high cost of movement, even for simple museum exchanges, is a key factor preventing the movement of Kenyan objects held by German museum partners to Nairobi for exhibitions.
This financial reality puts African and Global South museums at a distinct disadvantage. Without access to substantial state and philanthropic financing, they cannot easily curate exhibitions featuring their own cultural heritage, facilitate object movement on demand, or participate equally in cultural exchange.
"An exchange arrangement mediated by cost of object movement immediately puts African and Global South museums at a disadvantage."
Documentation Challenges
Errors and Misattribution
The IIP project attempts to address data errors, misrepresentation and misattribution to create some order in the chaos of datasets that reveal differing levels of attention, care and capacity within the museums. The data sets sent in contained formatting errors and incorrectly translated words, which are perhaps natural by-products that arise from the movement and conversion of data.
More problematic was the presence of spelling errors (Maasai? Massai? Masai?) and anthropological and misattribution errors (generally around ethnicities introduced by anthropologists; for instance, the continued use of derogatory terms to refer to the Luhya and Luo people of Kenya).
More problematic was the presence of spelling errors (Maasai? Massai? Masai?) and anthropological and misattribution errors (generally around ethnicities introduced by anthropologists; for instance, the continued use of derogatory terms to refer to the Luhya and Luo people of Kenya).
"What does it mean for these institutions—these celebrated halls of posterity, these vaunted archives of cultural artefacts on behalf of humanity—to harbour erroneous information within their archives, particularly around collections from other societies?"
Visual Stories
Global distribution: this map reveals the extent of Kenyan cultural object distribution across seven countries, with the United Kingdom holding the largest share at 28,890 objects, followed by significant collections in the United States (5,397) and Germany (5,390).
A Timeline of Movement: this visualization tracks the movement of objects from 1845 to the present, showing significant spikes in acquisition during the colonial period, particularly in the 1900s and 1930s. The period around Kenya's independence in 1963 marks a notable shift in acquisition patterns.
Collector Networks: a bubble chart illustrating the scale of individual collectors' contributions, with Dr. Louis Seymour Bazett Leakey's collection of 6,679 objects being the largest, followed by other significant contributors like Ms. Jean Brown (1,011 objects) and Heiko Lengnik (514 objects).
Looking Forward
The IIP database is technically administered by the Nest Collective in their role as partners in the programme, while the datasets included in the database have been requested, negotiated for, and collected by individuals within the IIP grouping. At the end of the project, the database will be handed over to the National Museums of Kenya, to be held in trust for the people of Kenya.
Two years of negotiating with this data, for a group of such diverse origins and interests, begets a process where old knowledges build on and contend with new ones, and where multiple experiences sit amongst and have discourse with each other. In a situation like this, positions and opinions are bound to change.
Two years of negotiating with this data, for a group of such diverse origins and interests, begets a process where old knowledges build on and contend with new ones, and where multiple experiences sit amongst and have discourse with each other. In a situation like this, positions and opinions are bound to change.
Previous
Back: the Invisible Inventories Zine
Next
How Can We Trust When Everything is a Mess?
A frank discussion on power, trust and collaboration