3566906 vigango mijikenda

The Transatlantic Trade in African Ancestors: Mijikenda Memorial Statues (Vigango) and theEthics of Collecting and Curating Non-Western Cultural PropertyAuthor(s): Monica L. Udvardy, Linda L. Giles, John B. MitsanzeReviewed work(s):Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 105, No. 3 (Sep., 2003), pp. 566-580Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3566906 .Accessed: 16/04/2012 09:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthro

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3566906?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Ni Ethics Forum MONICA L. UDVARDY

LINDA L. GILES JOHN B. MITSANZE

The Transatlantic Trade in African Ancestors: Mijikenda Memorial Statues (Vigango) and the Ethics of Collecting and Curating Non-Western Cultural Property

ABSTRACT This article details obstacles to deterrence of the global trade in non-Western cultural properties and examines the ethics of Western collecting and curating of such property. We focus on the theft and global marketing of memorial statues (vigango) erected

by the Mijikenda peoples of East Africa, relating an unusually well-documented case study, tracing two statues from their theft to their

appearance in U.S. museums. We describe the large-scale extraction of such statues from Kenya and its impact on the Mijikenda, their

quantity and distribution in U.S. museums, and local deterrence efforts. We call for greater activism by Western museum staffs, anthro-

pologists, and other scholars to curb the trade in non-Western cultural properties. We recommend (1) tightening legal loopholes, (2) strengthening observance of international agreements and the U.S. and international museums' codes of ethics, (3) stepping up field efforts to deter theft, and (4) educating the public about this growing trade. [Keywords: East Africa, Mijikenda peoples, international trade in African cultural property, museum ethics]

Art was invented simultaneously with collecting, and the two are inconceivable without each other.

-Shelley Errington

T HIS ARTICLE RAISES ISSUES concerning the global trade in non-Western cultural properties and the

ethics of Western collecting and curating of such objects.1 It does so by focusing on the theft and global marketing of vigango (sing. kigango), memorial statues erected by the Mi- jikenda peoples of the East African coast and hinterland. We recount an unusually well-documented, firsthand case study of the theft, probable sale and resale, and subse- quent donation to U.S. museums of two of these statues, stolen from Katana (a pseudonym), a Kenyan Giriama man, in 1985, when Monica Udvardy was conducting anthropological field research in the region. The case is con- textualized through our research on the large-scale extraction of these memorial statues, primarily by a single collector/dealer; their considerable quantity and distribution in U.S. museums and private collections; and the local level impacts of their widespread theft on the Giriama and other Mijikenda.

Our account coincides with increasing distress in scholarly circles about the global trade in non-Western material culture. Simon Robinson and Aisha Labi (2001) cite an Interpol-based figure of US$4.5 billion per year-a figure that has more than quadrupled over the past decade-as the estimated value of the worldwide, illicit trade in cultural properties. They also note that interest in Afri- can objects appears to be at an all-time high. Recently, prominent Kenyan officials, such as former directors of the National Museums of Kenya (NMK), Richard Leakey (Kariuki 1999) and George Abungu (Robinson and Labi 2001),2 have called for a halt to the widespread theft of vigango for ultimate sale to Western collectors, but the steps required to do so are complex. Through this article, we contribute concrete recommendations concerning these efforts, but we believe that close examination of the current, lively trade in these statues has broader applicability. It raises at least three ethical issues concerning the rela- tionships between parties involved with objects from the non-Western world.

First, global traffic in Mijikenda memorial statues, like trade in other forms of African "art," is a form of Western

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST 105(3):566-580. COPYRIGHT ? 2003, AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Udvardy, Giles, and Mitsanze * Transatlantic Trade in African Ancestors 567

economic and cultural imperialism. The continued gross economic disparity between the West and the rest is the foundation on which the Western collector/dealer is provided economic gain through the cheap purchase of objects in Africa and their sale at markups of several hundred fold in the West (cf. Steiner 1994:8-9; Eluyemi in Robin- son and Labi 2001). In conducting their business, collectors/dealers turn a blind eye to the devastating impact that theft and sale of cultural property have on non-Western individuals and communities. Dealers must be aware of at least some of these effects because it is the artifacts' very authenticity-their meaning and use in the context of the culture in which they are produced-that makes them desirable to the collector/dealer. For the Mijikenda, the global trade in the tangible representations of their ancestors has wrought irreparable harm to their cultural integrity.

Our case illustrates that, more often than not, non- Western artifacts are eventually donated to museums by private individuals who buy them from collector/dealers. Hence, a second ethical concern arises about the nature of the sometimes amicable relationship of museum personnel to private collectors/dealers in non-Western objects, even in the face of the tacit knowledge that most museum personnel hold about the unscrupulous conditions under which most African objects are originally acquired.

The third ethical issue concerns the repercussions aris- ing from the definition of "art," for it is ultimately because they are regarded as "art" in the West that such cultural objects as vigango are stolen, sold, and exported. While by no means in consensus, it is the dynamic interplay between three categories of interested parties in the West-artists; collectors, dealers, and philanthropists; and museum personnel and related academics-who define which cultural media may hold the privileged status of "art." Like Pi- casso's attraction to the nonrepresentational style in Afri- can art in the early 20th century (Danto 1988:18-19), high-profile Western artists may be drawn to particular qualities of non-Western cultural media. These, in turn, may attract the attention of Western collectors, dealers, and philanthropists, whose collecting forays may be driven by these fashions, by personal interest, or, as in the case of dealers, by profit motive (Wade 1985). Where Western collectors are also wealthy, their collections and collecting tastes become influential when they donate collections to museums and then fund whole wings in which to house them (Clifford 1988). Finally, the critical dialogues about artistic attributes, and the exhibits created by museum personnel and related academics, reflect, express, and push the extant viewpoints of the artists, collectors, dealers, and philanthropists, with respect to these objects.

Hence, because museum professionals and academics legitimize contemporary conceptualizations of art, and if art is invented through collecting (as is suggested by Er- rington's quotation at the beginning of this article), then museum professionals and academics are inextricably intertwined with collectors of all kinds-be they dealers, private collectors, or philanthropists. We feel, therefore, that

museum personnel have an ethical responsibility to be more proactive in deterring the destructive effects of dealers and collectors of non-Western objects.

Most museum personnel are privy to horror stories de- tailing the ways in which non-Western cultural properties are acquired. They remain silent because they cannot provide needed evidence specific to objects in their collections that would convict thieves and dealers. The following account is unique because almost all the events in the trafficking of Katana's vigango are known and can be documented. It serves not only as an example of the tra- jectory of events that are triggered when vigango are stolen, but as an example of the widespread repercussions involved when a category of non-Western cultural property becomes targeted for marketing to Western art collectors.

THE CULTURAL CONTEXT OF MIJIKENDA MEMORIAL STATUES (VIGANGO) The Mijikenda consist of nine related peoples-the Giriama, Kauma, Jibana, Chonyi, Kambe, Ribe, Rabai, Duruma, and Digo-who reside along the Kenyan and northern Tanza- nian coast and hinterland (see Figure 1). They subsist through farming, animal husbandry, and cash-earning occupations. Although many profess to Islam and others practice Christianity, ancestral spirits continue to play an important role for most Mijikenda and are believed to in- fluence the activities of the living. Descendents offer them libations routinely and sacrifices on special occasions. The earthly manifestations of ancestral spirits (koma) are several kinds of wooden posts; clay pots signify female ancestors (see Udvardy 1990a, 1990b, 1992).

Among the northern Mijikenda, markers of the ordinary deceased are short, unelaborated statuettes erected in family compounds. The northernmost Mijikenda also erect tall (approximately three to nine feet high) memorial statues called "vigango." Carved from certain species of hardwoods, vigango resemble human males in abstract form. The body is decorated with elaborate chip carving and is often painted. Vigango are carved and installed ex- clusively by and for members of the Gohu society, a semi- secret, fraternal organization with branches in local neigh- borhoods. Members are male elders who have been elected by other Gohu for their outstanding qualities of wisdom and experience, and who are able to pay the substantial membership fees (see Udvardy 1990a).

Ideally, shortly following the death of a Gohu member, his family should commission the local Gohu society to carve a kigango in his honor and host a feast to accom- pany its permanent installation. Most Mijikenda erect vigango on graves within their respective kaya (the symbolic politico-ritual center of each subgroup), but the Giriama also raise vigango in the patrilineal, extended family compound, where they are often erected with other ancestral markers, or at the edge of the compound, rather than on the grave itself (Giles and Mitsanze 2001; Parkin 1991; Udvardy 1990a).

568 American Anthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 3 * September 2003

I

:-S /S o/E~

FIGURE 1. The nine Mijkenda subgroups and their respective ritual centers (makaya; sing. kaya) at the end of the 19th century (adapted from Spear 1978:87; map formatted by Illinois State Uni- versity Graphics for Giles and Mitsanze 2001).

In 2001, the estimated cost of erecting a kigango was 15,000-16,000 Kenyan shillings (US$187.50), a considerable outlay for most Mijikenda. Because of the expense, kigango erection usually does not occur until the homestead begins to experience misfortune. An installed kigango is interpreted as the incarnation of the deceased, is spoken to directly, and propitiated with palm wine libations (Parkin 1991; Udvardy 1990a).

Vigango differ from ordinary koma statuettes not only in size and elaboration but also by a strict prohibition against their removal. If a household moves, the kigango should be left behind, undisturbed, and a special kind of substitute post (kibao) should be erected at the new home site in its stead. Because homesteads may move several times over the course of its members' lives, old vigango are often left in unoccu- pied areas where they can easily be taken by the unscrupulous or uninformed (Figure 2). As long as the spirit plays a signficant role in the household, occasional visits should be made to the kigango for propitiation. After two to three gen- erations, when firsthand memory of the individual fades, the site will be neglected,3 but the prohibition on disturbing the kigango remains.4 Such acts incur the curse of the koma, who inflict continual misfortune upon the culprit(s) and on the descendents of the offended ancestor.

Perhaps universally, markers of the deceased fall into the category of "singular objects" (Kopytoff 1986; Udvardy

FIGURE 2. An abandoned kigango left behind when homestead members moved. The strict Mijikenda prohibition on moving vigango signifies the sacredness with which they are imbued. (Photo: Monica Udvardy, 1985)

2001)-specifically, those imbued with a sacred status that sets them apart from all others-however, the explicit pro- scription on moving vigango marks them as especially inalienable. To uproot a kigango for the purpose of profit is a particularly flagrant affront to the ancestral spirits, likely to result in such serious supernatural sanctions as infliction of insanity (cf. Beckerleg 1994). Removing the kigango of one's own ancestors for this purpose may bring death to the offender and other family members, and many vigango thieves perform rituals to counter these curses. The collection of vigango as works of art or as ethnological artifacts thus clearly violates Mijikenda tradition, and therefore their increasing appearance in private and museum collections over the last three decades is highly disturbing.

FROM KENYA TO AMERICA'S HEARTLAND: VIGANGO IN THE WEST

On February 19, 1985, during anthropological fieldwork, Udvardy interviewed an elderly Giriama man at his residence


in the remote Kenyan coastal hinterland. Katana showed her a matching pair of vigango that commemorated his two deceased brothers. Weeks later, when Udvardy returned with photographs of them, Katana became visibly upset. Tearfully, he related that shortly after her visit, the two vigango had been stolen, and he appealed to her for help in locating them.

Udvardy searched coastal tourist shops and hotels where vigango were routinely sold or displayed. While she failed to find Katana's statues, she learned that vigango were stolen from homesteads by unemployed, male Giriama youths who sold them to coastal shopkeepers for about US$50. Udvardy was told that an art dealer from the United States, henceforth referred to as "John" (a pseudonym), periodically conducted expeditions to the Kenyan coast to purchase vigango, which shop owners sold to him for between US$100-$300. Udvardy later learned that John was widely known to Africanist scholars, and that vigango were fetching as much as US$4,000 in Western art markets (David Parkin, personal communication with Ud- vardy, August 1987).

In 1992, as a faculty member at Illinois State Univer- sity (ISU), Linda Giles was amazed to discover a large number of vigango in ISU's museum, which had been per- manently closed in August 1991. Giles remembered hav- ing been told during prior fieldwork with the Giriama that vigango should never be moved from their site of installation. Hence, to conduct more research on vigango, the circumstances of their removal, and their entry into the international art market, she enlisted the aid of her Kenyan Giriama research assistant, John Baya Mitsanze, who had long been interested in preserving Giriama cultural heritage. Mitsanze carried out more fieldwork on these topics, primarily with the Giriama, but also including other Mi- jikenda. With Giles's assistance, he designed a question- naire that he then used in Mijikenda homesteads to gather more systematic information, and during September of 2001 Giles returned to Kenya to help with this research.

In 1999, Giles organized a panel on aspects of Mi- jikenda culture for the annual meeting of the African Stud- ies Association. Udvardy presented a paper on the Gohu society, including slides of Katana at his homestead beside the two vigango that were later stolen. Giles discussed the vigango in the ISU collection, with illustrative slides, and the problem that such collections pose for the Mijikenda. During Giles's presentation, Udvardy recognized among the ISU vigango one of the vigango stolen from Katana 15 years earlier. Udvardy then visited ISU to positively iden- tify the memorial statues by comparing distinctive physi- cal characteristicss of the actual ISU kigango with the slides she had of those in situ in Katana's homestead. While perusing numerous museum exhibit catalogues, Giles and Udvardy discovered Katana's other stolen kigango in the collection of Hampton University in Virginia (Vogel 1988:147-148, see Figure 3). We are currently pursuing repatriation of both vigango to Katana's family.6

Katana's kigango in ISU's museum was one of 38 in their collection.' Donated by a variety of individuals, their transfers were made over the years 1979-86 through a single company, International Business Management (IBM) of Culver City, California,8 and their appraisals range from US$2,200-$5,000.9 Their recorded collection sites include a wide swath of coastal and inland northern Mijikenda locations (Illinois State University Museum n.d.); four are even recorded as originating at Kaya Fungo, the sacred center of the Giriama people (Parkin 1991).

Katana's other stolen kigango is one of 99 vigango acquired by Hampton University between 1979-87. All but five were obtained in Kenya by John, although they were donated by various individuals (Mary Hultgren, personal communication with Giles, July 8, 2002).

The collection date for both of Katana's vigango is 1985, the same year that Udvardy recorded their theft. Their collection site, however, is listed as the coastal town of Mambrui, far from Katana's inland homestead. Presum- ably, thieves transported the statues to the coast in order to sell them. Although the ISU accession record contains no information about the collector, the Hampton Univer- sity Museum identifies him as John. John, therefore, pre- sumably purchased both of Katana's vigango in Mambrui. The following year, 1986, both were accessioned by the respective universities. Ironically, the appraiser's note for Katana's kigango in the ISU collection calls attention to its fresh paint, and the survival of the plasterwork and cloth ties "which attests to the continuing and recent use of the work in a ritual context" (Illinois State University Museum n.d., appraisal note by Alfred Scheinberg, Inc.).

Table 1 lists the museums that contain the 294 vigango we have verified in U.S. collections to date.10 Vi- gango donors include such celebrities as Shelly Hack, Dirk Benedict, Linda Evans, Gene Hackman, and Powers Boothe.

TABLE 1. Mijikenda memorial statues (Vigango) in U.S. museums (verified).

Quantity Birmingham Museum of Art (ca. 50 originally) ca. 20-30 Brooklyn Museum of Art 1 Daytona Museum of Art and Sciences ca. 12 Denver Museum of Nature and Science 28 Detroit Institute of Arts at least 1 Hampton University Museum 99 Harn Museum at University of Florida 1 Illinois State Museum (formerly at Illinois State University 38

Museum of Fine Arts, Houston 5 Indianapolis Museum of Fine Arts 18 Lowe Art Museum, University of Miami 3 Milwaukee Public Museum 2 Minneapolis Museum of Art 2 San Diego Mesa College 28 Smithsonian National Museum of African Art 1 St. Louis Museum of Art 1 Stanley Collection, University of Iowa 1 Sweeney Art Gallery, University of California at Riverside 28

Texas Southern University in Houston 5 Minimum total: 294


FIGURE 3. Two memorial statues, seen here (left) in situ before their theft from Udvardy's informant in 1985. They are now located in two U.S. museum collections: The Illinois State Museum (middle) and the Hampton University Museum, Virginia (right). (Photo left by Monica Udvardy 1985. Photo middle by Illinois State University Graphics. Photo right by Center for African Arts)

The latter donated eight to ISU in 1986, including Katana's kigango (ISU museum n.d.; Melissa Falkner, personal communication with Giles, April 10, 2000). The late pop artist Andy Warhol is also reported to have purchased vigango from John (Ivan Karp, personal communication with Giles, March 25, 2001; David Parkin, personal communication

with Giles, March 2, 1999). Indeed, three vigango appear in the Sotheby's catalogue of Warhol's art collection auc- tioned after his death (Sotheby's 1988, lot numbers 2322- 2324).

The source for all these vigango is almost invariably John, who appears to have collected approximately ninety


percent of the vigango now in U.S. museums. Well known to North American museum personnel of African cultural materials, John maintains a website advertising his African art gallery and features vigango as among the objects available. He has collected vigango that have been fea- tured in such major venues as the Smithsonian Institute's National Museum of African Art, the African Studies Asso- ciation meetings (see Figure 4), and New York's Center for African Art. This collector/dealer is aware of the cultural context of vigango because he has conversed with Gohu elders (David Parkin, personal communication with Giles, March 2, 1999) and written a book about vigango that features essays by a prominent art historian and an anthropologist. Ironically, in this volume, the anthropologist finds the acquisition of vigango to be troubling.

LOCAL VIGANGO TRAFFIC AND EFFORTS TO COMBAT IT

Mitsanze recorded thefts of vigango in every Mijikenda location"1 where he interviewed.12 Of the 40 interviews with victims of theft conducted so far, 11 had vigango stolen within the last decade, including one case where the same kigango was actually stolen on two different occasions.

Afr can Stud es

Assoc ation Africa and the

African Diaspora: Past, Present, Future

44th Annual Meeting November 13-8. 2001 HOt. Texa

FIGURE 4. Vigango are once again being given prominence at African Studies Association meetings: This kigango from the Hous- ton Museum of Fine Arts served as the artistic logo for the 2001 meeting in Houston. With the collaboration of museum and other professional staff, such statues have appeared in United States' displays and museum exhibits since the late 1970s.

Thieves steal vigango not only from deserted areas but also from the midst of occupied homesteads. Their illicit removal is so commonplace today that the Kenyan Coastal Forest Conservation Unit reports that Mijikenda elders will no longer divulge the locations of vigango for fear of their theft (Tengeza 2000:183).

While theft remains a significant problem, trade in the statues is less blatant today. In September 2001, many Kenyan merchants reported to Giles that they no longer openly display vigango. Nonetheless, on request, Nairobi market traders brought them to her surreptitiously, and some told her that special orders for vigango could be placed. A few were for sale in a Mombasa shop, and a Malindi shopkeeper told her that some, kept in locked storage, could be viewed by appointment.

The Mijikenda regard vigango thieves as social out- casts; one 35-year-old assistant location chief described them as "a curse to our culture. They have put money as a priority over our cultural values. They need to be seriously punished" (Gede-Mkenge, respondent 5, conversation with Mitsanze, Jan. 3, 2001). One kaya elder suggested they be fined the equivalent assessed for killing a human being (kore), because a kigango represents a person. Most wanted convicted thieves to repay the costs of erecting the kigango and to be jailed, some adding that they should also pay a fine to the Gohu or kaya elders. Older Giriama believe that illicit removal of vigango has caused such recent calamities as drought, flooding, or crop loss, as well as family catastrophes. In the words of one elderly Gohu member, "Vigango thieves have deprived us of our bless- ings, our health, and desecrated our customs" (Gede- Mabuani, respondent 1, conversation with Mitsanze, January 1, 2001).

In 1986, Parkin (1986:19) suggested that removal of abandoned vigango would be less strongly resisted than theft of newly installed ones. Our research reveals a different picture. Asked about this, elders reply that they would be upset in either case and that the same sorts of troubles would result. They explain that, for years after relocating, former residents return to abandoned homesteads to pro- pitiate the ancestors. Elders are able to enumerate various family catastrophes attributed to theft of vigango in former homesteads.

During the fall of 2001, Giles and Mitsanze located Gohu members acquainted with John. Told about his global marketing of vigango, they responded, "Of all the occupations in the world, why did he choose to trade in our ancestors?" (Marereni Gohu elders, conversation with Mitsanze, October 25, 2001). Everywhere we discussed his activities, elders agreed that he had badly betrayed them. One exclaimed: "He wants us to die! He is the main cause of the problems the Mijikenda face today!" (Kaya Fungo, respondent 5, conversation with Giles and Mitsanze, Sep- tember 20, 2001).

Innovative local-level approaches to combat vigango theft are beginning to emerge spontaneously. Some Giriama now set the base of newly erected vigango posts in concrete.


FIGURE 5. The aftermath of one incident of Mijikenda memorial statue theft. Unfortunately, such occurrences are common. (Photo: John Mitsanze)

Even this precaution, however, does not always prevent theft. In one case, a kigango was stolen, located, retrieved, and then reinstalled in concrete, only to be sawed off and stolen again during the night!

One elderly Gohu initiate and kigango carver has begun to implement other strategies to reduce theft. Thieves recently stole a kigango that represented his grandfather but left intact others located nearby (Figure 5). The latter, he explained, had purposely been crudely carved in order to make them less attractive to thieves. Following the theft, this carver began making vigango for commercial sale in order to prevent the theft of real ones. Carving vigango for nonritual purposes is believed to be punishable by death, usually the death of a member of the carver's family. However, after petitioning the elders, this carver was permitted to perform a sacrifice in order to circum- vent this curse. In carving substitute vigango, he neither followed the proper rituals nor selected the proper tree species nor paid close attention to coloration. We know of only one other vigango carver who has adopted this strategy. While their efforts represent proactive ways to combat

theft, they are creating a new, indigenous, conceptual dis- tinction between authentic and inauthentic vigango.

Most informants stated that recovered vigango cannot be reinstalled, but they insist that they be returned. Em- phasizing that vigango incarnate family members, elders explain that if a family member dies in the forest, the corpse is brought home, and a libation made to the spirit while welcoming it home. For a returned kigango, in place of burial, a Gohu member should lay it under ritually appropriate trees (Gede-Mabuani, group interview with Giles and Mitsanze, September 2, 2001). To date, only two of our 40 respondents considered it unimportant to have recovered vigango returned to them, and of these, one was a coastal area museum worker who suggested donating them to the museum instead.

The best remedy for theft is, of course, prevention. Hence, we are gathering descriptions of stolen vigango, and, whenever possible, photographing vigango in situ in order to construct a database for future cases of theft.

CURBING THE GLOBAL TRAFFIC IN NON-WESTERN CULTURAL PROPERTY

The intent of this article goes beyond bringing the trade in vigango to a halt. It is also a concerted call to action to all those concerned with culture-be they cultural anthropologists, archaeologists, art historians, museologists, or interested laypersons-to become more proactive in halt- ing all illicit trade in cultural property. If we are not, then we will indeed, through our passivity, be complicit with those dealers whose continued success in trading in these objects will soon destroy the past and present cultural patrimony of the non-Western world. Except for the analogy drawn to the efforts of contemporary zoological parks, many of the following observations and recommendations are not new (see, e.g., Schmidt and McIntosh 1996) but they are all important.

Legal Loopholes: Vigango and International Agreements In 1970, UNESCO addressed the international community's concern regarding the erosion of cultural heritage through the worldwide loss of material cultural by drafting and adopting the Convention on the Means of Prohib- iting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (the UNESCO Conven- tion). Parties signing the convention "undertake to oppose such practices . . . particularly by removing their causes, putting a stop to current practices, and by helping to make the necessary reparations" (Article 2). Signing parties must set up national services to draft laws to protect cultural property; develop a list of public and private cultural property that should not be exported; develop institutions required to ensure the preservation of cultural property; establish rules for curators, collectors, antique dealers, etc; take educational measures to "develop respect for the


cultural heritage of all States"; and publicize the disap- pearance of any cultural property (Article 5).

The UNESCO Convention provides important measures, but it applies only to parties who voluntarily sign it, and this is its most fundamental limitation. In her 1996 article, Maria Kouroupas notes that the United States was the only major art-importing nation to sign it. Since then, the United Kingdom and France have done so, but others, such as Germany, Switzerland, and Belgium, have not. Whereas some African states signed, a number of them, including Kenya, have not yet done so, perhaps because implementation seemed too costly or complex (cf. Prott 1996:33-34). Hence, a major loophole exists in the protection and return of vigango because legal means cannot be used until Kenya-as well as more of the major European art-importing nations-signs and implements the convention.

The convention is also limited with respect to its definition of cultural property. "Cultural property" must officially have been designated as inalienable by the originating state, which it does based on the scholarly judgment of the academic community. Lists of inalienable cultural property may include, inter alia: rare collections, property relating to history or national figures, archaeological property, and objects of ethnological or artistic interest. How- ever, if they have not been acknowledged and sanctioned as sufficiently culturally significant-and hence inalienable-by recognized scholarly experts or by authorized officials, the list may potentially exclude items identified as nonremovable by indigenous communities.

This has been the case with vigango. Although considered inalienable by the Mijikenda, they have not been recognized as such by Kenyan government officials until the past few years. For example, when a personal collection of vigango was exhibited at the Museum of African Art at the Smithsonian Institution in the late 1970s, the Kenyan am- bassador remarked, "It is gratifying to see such works being exhibited in the national capital of the United States" (Wolfe 1979:1). His comment demonstrates government pride in the statues, but a lack of awareness about the circumstances of their collection and a lack of concern for their removal from Kenya. For at least the next decade, vigango were exported by dealers for sale abroad and promi- nently displayed and sold in Kenyan hotels, galleries, and tourist shops, not only on the coast but also in the national capital of Nairobi, without government interfer- ence.

Importantly, Kenyan officials today are increasingly outspoken about the theft and traffic in vigango. But, to our knowledge, they are still not officially listed as inalienable cultural property. Thus, the considerable global traffic in vigango has been able to proceed unabated.

Another limitation of the UNESCO convention is that items acquired "with the consent of the competent authorities of the country of origin" are considered to be the rightful property of current owners, and cannot, therefore, be reclaimed (Article 4c). This is a significant loophole

because it is not uncommon in African nations for customs agents to permit-actively or passively--important cultural materials to leave the country, including those originally stolen from their indigenous contexts of creation. Once they have left their nation of origin, such objects- whether originally stolen, exported through the payment of bribes, or lawfully acquired-are subsequently considered to have been acquired "with the consent of authorities" and no legal recourse exists for their repatriation.

The UNESCO convention is also not retroactive, and, hence, items that were taken in the past, like the many vigango already in U.S. and European collections, are not covered by its provisions.

For objects marked for repatriation (specifically, those for which no "consent of competent authorities" can be established), UNESCO requires that the requesting state pay compensation to the "innocent purchaser" or person who holds valid title to the object(s), as well as the cost of returning the object(s) to its country of origin. In the best of all possible worlds, this is a valid requirement, but given the high cost of transport, and especially the soaring values of African art and artifacts on the Western market, most African governments are in no financial position to fulfill this stipulation.

Another limitation, not only of the UNESCO Conven- tion but also of most other international agreements, is that because the parties concerned are defined as nation- states, neither indigenous, ethnic, nor other local communities can be directly involved in international deterrence or repatriation efforts. Instead, the state must be per- suaded to accept the Convention and then to enact claims on behalf of a local community. But the state is seldom a reliable agent for cultural protection (Schmidt 1996:23). It may not be very concerned about the matter, especially when it pertains to the needs of internal groups or communities who do not have powerful advocates within the government. Moreover, when the state does press a request for return of important cultural property, it is often interested in claiming the object(s) for itself rather than returning such property to the community or group of origin. Thus the artifact may be appropriated as an aspect of national heritage, but it may still be alienated from its indigenous owners and cultural context. For example, in the case of Katana's stolen vigango, Giles had contacted the NMK to request assistance in repatriating them. The NMK first proposed adding these to a new coastal museum being planned; fortunately, however, when Giles and Ud- vardy reminded them that efforts should first be made to return the vigango to Katana's family, they agreed.

The UNESCO convention requires that state parties set up adequate services to protect their cultural heritage. While this is both desirable and badly needed, many Afri- can nations do not have the means, or sometimes the will, to do so. Hence, many requests for the return of cultural property to their indigenous owners may continue to be ignored.


Implementation of the UNESCO Convention was hin- dered by aspects of private law, as are found in many legal systems that protect bona fide purchasers. Because UNESCO had no jurisdiction over private law, they re- quested that the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) address the problem of illicit trade in cultural property and set up minimum rules for restitution and return (Prott 1996:35). Chapter 2 of the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects was adopted in 1995. It states that any- one possessing illicitly acquired property must return it and will receive compensation only if a high degree of dili- gent inquiry has been conducted into the provenance of the artifact. Lyndel Prott points out that this stipulation set out to change "the widely accepted common practice among collectors and dealers of not rigorously checking provenance" (1996:35). To determine "due diligence," the UNIDROIT convention states that

regard shall be had to all the circumstances of acquisition, including the character of the parties, the price paid, whether the possessor consulted any reasonably accessible register of stolen cultural objects, and any other rele- vant information and documentation which could have been reasonably obtained, and whether the possessor consulted accessible agencies or took any other step that a reasonable person would have taken in the circumstances. [Article 4, 4]

Although this definition shows considerable thought and admirable intent, its interpretation leaves much to individual judgment. More importantly, most objects do not come with such complete provenance that the initial removal of the object and its various transferals are documented. Objects stolen from their local community set- ting are almost never inventoried or described sufficiently to allow them legally to be claimed under this provision. It is also difficult to define what other types of information should be considered reasonably obtainable. We believe the purchaser should be required to investigate ethnological information about the role the object plays in its indigenous culture, especially with regard to its removal or sale. Such ethnological information should never be solic- ited from dealers, because of their actual or potential con- flict of interest. The case described in this article of the traffic in vigango amply demonstrates that while John, the major collector/dealer in vigango, has considerable ethnological knowledge about them, the Mijikenda prohibition on their removal has in no way deterred his business transactions in these objects.

Inquiries should instead be put to an anthropologist or reputable member of the object's community of origin who is knowledgeable about indigenous beliefs and practices. If it is learned that objects are considered by indigenous communities to be inalienable, their appearance on the global market should be regarded with suspicion and efforts should be made to stop their purchase and sale.

UNIDROIT has many of the same constraints as the UNESCO Convention regarding the signature of state

parties, its application only to cultural objects that can be documented to have been stolen and to cases where state laws make export illegal. In addition, for making a claim, UNIDROIT stipulates a rather narrow time limitation of three years from the moment the requesting state party learns the whereabouts of an object.

Although UNIDROIT, like the UNESCO Convention, is more easily applied to state-owned antiquities and objects in institutional collections, its enhanced language makes it more applicable to all objects, even those found outside such organizations, which have been illicitly acquired. First, it specifically mentions concern for damages caused, not only to the cultural heritage of nation-states but also to that of tribal, indigenous, or other communities. Second, it includes "objects used in living culture" (Prott 1996:35). Third, it notes in particular that a state party can request the return of an object if its removal im- pairs "the traditional or ritual use of the object by a tribal or indigenous community" (Article 5, 3d).

The UNIDROIT convention acknowledges that it "will not in itself provide a solution to the problems raised by illicit trade," but it does make needed steps in this direction. Unfortunately, these steps apply neither to the United States nor to Kenya because neither nation-state has signed it. And if, as Prott observes, "it is clear that the dealer community in the United States will fight hard against U.S. participation" (1996:36), it is unlikely to be accepted by the United States anytime soon, unless, as Prott also em- phasizes, U.S. anthropologists are willing and able to lobby as effectively as dealers are doing today.

Various codes that address ethical problems in the acquisition of cultural property have been established. One of the most important is the International Council of Mu- seums (ICOM) Code of Ethics, adopted in 1986. The ICOM Code states in section 3.2 "that it is highly unethical to support the illicit market in any way, directly or indirectly" (1986:3.2, emphasis added). It goes on to say that every ef- fort must be made to ensure that an object, acquired through purchase, gift, or loan, has not been illicitly acquired in or exported from its country of origin, and that "due diligence in this regard should establish the full history of the item from discovery or production, before acquisition is considered" (1986:3.2). Once again, however, in most cases, the full history of the item is very difficult to ascertain. Moreover, as Prott points out, codes do not have the same enforceability as international law, although they can be used to shame offenders (1966:37).

The numerous loopholes in international legislation and codes of ethics noted above passively allow for the continued traffic in vigango. In 1990, the United States adopted the Native American Graves Protection Act (NAGPRA), which, if used as a model for creating more stringent international legislation, has the potential to provide greater protection for such cultural objects as vigango. For example, in addition to human remains and associated funerary objects, NAGPRA specifies as repatriable artifacts those considered sacred (defined as ceremonial objects needed


for present-day Native American traditional practices), objects of cultural patrimony (defined as any object that is of such importance to the indigenous group that it is considered inalienable), and nonassociated funerary objects (i.e., those that do not contain human remains). If the UNESCO and UNIDROIT Conventions used this language, then vigango would be protected as sacred objects, items of cultural patrimony, and nonassociated funerary objects.

NAGPRA also states that a museum does not have the right of possession unless it has obtained an object with the voluntary consent of "an individual who has the right to alienate that object" (San Francisco State University 1998). Moreover, under NAGPRA, museums never hold the rights of possession in objects of cultural patrimony nor to human remains or associated funerary objects. Both these provisions are stronger than what is stipulated in either the UNESCO or the UNIDROIT conventions.

Finally, NAGPRA requires that museums and other possessors of Native American objects provide lists of the contents of their collections in order to initiate consult- ation with federal agencies and culturally affiliated tribal (i.e., indigenous) groups. Incorporation of this requirement into the UNESCO and UNIDROIT conventions would shift the burden of providing evidence of the location and provenance of objects from those communities interested in making claims for repatriation, to museums and other institutions that house collections.

Kenyan National Responses Since the mid-1970s, the Giriama have become increasingly vocal about the theft of vigango, however, their efforts are to little effect. During one incident from about 1990, local police intercepted a notorious vigango thief as he tried to board a south-coast ferry with a sack of vigango. But because no law was ever passed in Kenya against the trade or exportation of vigango, they could neither arrest him nor appropriate the vigango (Kaloleni, informant 1, conversation with Mitsanze, April 8, 2000).13 Furthermore, because Kenya has signed neither the UNESCO Conven- tion nor UNIDROIT, it is difficult to initiate even the most basic efforts, such as apprehending this individual, to deter the international trade in Mijikenda vigango or other cultural artifacts.

The governmental institution directly responsible for preserving all aspects of the national heritage of Kenya is the National Museums of Kenya, which is composed of the Nairobi Museum and various regional museums. Although one of the oldest and most respected African museum institutions with a high degree of professionalism, many obstacles within the economic and political climate of Kenya impede the proper implementation of its mission (Chapu- rukha Kusimba, personal communication with Udvardy, March 10, 2003).

First, while the NMK is becoming increasingly vocal about the need to preserve Kenya's cultural heritage, including vigango, periodic accusations implicating museum

staff in the illicit trade in artifacts damages the trust between the NMK and the Kenyan public and its counter- parts abroad. Allegations concerning museum staff involve- ment in the illicit trade in vigango have been reported in the weekly news magazine The East African (Kariuki 1999) and the widely read Museum Security Mailinglist Report (Schipepechero 2002). NMK's trust with the Mijikenda has also been compromised locally. Giriama elders told us that they believe some staff at the coastal Gede Museum linked prospective buyers of vigango with thieves (Gede-Mabuani, group interview with Giles and Mitsanze, September 2, 2001).

In 1996, Chapurukha M. Kusimba pointed out that the NMK has failed to protect many of the invaluable Swa- hili historical and archaeological sites along the Kenyan coast, as well as the Mijikenda sites in the coastal hinterland. These failures, he notes, are because of a combina- tion of lack of personnel, inadequate technical and educational infrastructure, and an almost exclusive focus on those high-profile projects that attract foreign funds to the detriment of more modest conservation projects. The NMK eventually did become interested in preserving the sacred Mijikenda forests and ritual centers (kaya, pl. makaya) but as Kusimba (1996:217) notes, this was after they had already largely been destroyed. To this end, the NMK Coastal Forest Conservation Unit (CFCU) was created in 1992, and five years of international funding were obtained in 1995.14 The NMK-CFCU's primary objective appears to be an ecological mission to preserve remnants of the endemic forest surrounding the ritual centers them- selves. Hence, the central CFCU project has been to ga- zette the kaya forests as national monuments and to support the role of the kaya elders as forest protectors (Nyemweru 1996, 1998).

Although they have focused less on the preservation of the cultural and historical heritage of the kaya, CFCU's mission does encompass such conservation, making them an organization that could play a major role in protecting vigango (CFCU Coordinator Anthony Githotho, personal communication with Giles, March 17, 2003; CFCU Educa- tion Officer John Mitsanze, personal communication with Giles, April 22, 2000). However, as we found to be the case in the primary Giriama kaya, Kaya Fungo, we suspect that most of the vigango in the Mijikenda kaya have already been stolen. Moreover, as noted above, Giriama vigango are mostly located outside the kaya. Hence, preservation of the Giriama kaya and surrounding forests would be in- sufficient to safeguard Mijikenda vigango.5is

Formed through the arbitrary boundaries drawn by the European colonial powers, many African nation-states maintain policies designed to deepen the awareness of nationhood among their citizens, but sometimes do so at the expense of sufficient sensitivity to the rights and voices of indigenous ethnic groups and local communities. In this climate, smaller or otherwise marginalized groups (such as the Mijikenda, who are located far from the capital city and national political center) may be ignored or


overlooked if they do not have powerful advocates in the national government (cf. Kusimba 1996). Our discussion above regarding the need to include local community rep- resentation in determining endangered cultural properties continues to apply to the trade in vigango. Despite the recent and sporadic efforts of the various branches of the NMK, Giriama elders complained to us as recently as 2001 about the futility of their attempts to call attention to the widespread theft of vigango, exclaiming "We have no voice!" (Gede-Mabuani, group interview with Giles and Mitsanze, September 2, 2001).

During the last decade, the NMK has become increasingly aware of the need to prevent Kenya's cultural property, including vigango, from leaving its borders. George Abungu, Director General of the NMK from 1999-2002, is heavily engaged in international efforts to address the illicit trade in African cultural properties. While Director of the NMK, he "assisted in drafting a bill that for the first time will address the issue of illicit traffic and destruction of heritage and provides for stiff penalties for offenders," although the bill has not yet been brought before Parlia- ment (George Abungu, personal communication with Giles and Udvardy, March 21, 2003, and March 24, 2003).

During a visit to Kenya in September of 2001, Giles discussed the traffic in vigango with Mzalendo Kibunjia, NMK's Assistant Director for Sites and Monuments. Kibunjia reported that the NMK was encouraging the Ken- yan government to join UNESCO and to sign the 1970 Convention. He stated that the NMK also proposed work- ing closely with Customs to prevent export of important cultural materials and that their Heritage Officers should be attached to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Interna- tional Cooperation and posted to Kenyan embassies in Washington, D.C., Berlin, Paris, and Tokyo. These officers would coordinate negotiations for the return of Kenya's cultural material, articulate Kenya's policy on illicitly obtained cultural materials, and explore collaborative projects. Giles and Kibunjia also discussed plans to use public media to educate Kenyans about the cultural context of vigango and the inappropriateness of their removal and trade (Mzalendo Kibunjia, personal communication with Giles, September 25, 2001).

Because international communications technology such as e-mail and internet access is sporadic and costly in Kenya, and because directorial positions in national government organizations including the NMK are political appointments filled and removed at the directive of current government administrations, it is difficult to ascertain de- tailed information about how many of these aims have been accomplished to date. We have learned that Kenya has joined UNESCO and intends to sign the UNESCO Convention (Abungu, personal communication with Giles and Udvardy, March 24, 2003), although we have been unable to learn with certainty whether or not Kenya has done so to date. Part of the difficulty in obtaining defini- tive responses is turnover: Abungu was removed by the former Kenyan government in fall of 2002, and no new

NMK director has yet been appointed. Currently, an ad- ministrator from the prisons section of the ministry, with no background in museums, is acting director (Kenyan museum personnel in Kenya, personal communication with Udvardy, March 2003). Such mechanical and logisti- cal problems, as well as politically sensitive appointments as these, also limit the ability of an international community of concerned scholars to combat the global traffic in illicit cultural properties, as it continues to do for many other issues of worldwide concern.

Once Kenya has signed the UNESCO Convention, we recommend that the NMK create a Red List of contemporary, historical, and archaeological cultural properties, such as the one that exists under the auspices of the Inter- national Council of Museums (ICOM) for archaeological objects at risk of being looted. Vigango should be included on this list, and the list should prohibit all categories of objects on it from leaving the country.

Efforts along the Kenyan Coast At the grassroots level, Mijikenda are already creating their own deterrents, such as those elders who are refusing to divulge the locations of vigango until assured of the sin- cerity of inquiring persons, and Gohu elders who are beginning to create different kinds of statues. The carver who is making simpler and unconsecrated vigango to prevent the theft of real vigango is marking the beginning of an entrepreneurial industry of vigango specifically created for sale to an outside market. To this end, we recommend that such vigango be made sufficiently distinct so that they cannot be confused with consecrated ones. Statues made for sale could, for example, be made at least two feet shorter than authentic vigango in order to fit into a tourist's suitcase. The original intent of carving and raising Mi- jikenda statues to commemorate deceased Gohu elders would be preserved, while tourist interest in the objects would be satisfied through purchase of the smaller and nonconsecrated version. Unfortunately, collectors and dealers will still desire and seek to purchase authentic vigango.

The NMK-through its museums at Fort Jesus in Mombasa and Gede at the coast, and at Rabai in the coastal hinterland-could engage in the following prevention and education efforts:

* Document vigango in situ, as we have begun to do. * Create didactic labels that inform about the singularity

of vigango and the endangerment that their theft and sale pose to the integrity of Mijikenda culture. Giriama elders expressed concern that the display of three very old vigango at the Fort Jesus Museum in Mom- basa encourages theft by creating demand for vigango by tourists and other artifact collectors (Gede-Mabuani, group interview with Giles and Mitsanze, September 2, 2001). Indeed, the museum has posted very little information about vigango,


and no mention is made of the Mijikenda prohibition on vigango removal.16

* Train museum guides about the above issues and incor- porate such issues into their narratives.

* Through the NMK's Coastal Forest Conservation Unit, which already conducts local-level education about environmental issues and other cultural conservation issues, create simple modules for primary and secondary schoolteachers that educate youths about the importance of their cultural heritage and the value objects such as vigango add to their heritage.

* Convene local elders' groups in order to heighten awareness among all Mijikenda regarding the issue of vigango theft and facilitate any coordinated action they may determine is necessary. This may include encouraging local Gohu carvers and important elders to meet with museum and other government authorities in order to establish policy, make recommendations, and to formulate a plan of action.

* Use public media, such as radio and local theater, to creatively inform the public at large about vigango and other aspects of their cultural heritage.

Recommendations for Museums and Anthropologists in the West

Responding to suggestions that collectors may be unaware of the prohibition against removing vigango, one Mi- jikenda elder stated, "Both the buyer and the thief are at fault, because the buyer encourages the thief to steal the kigango" (Kaya Fungo, respondent 5, conversation with Giles and Mitsanze, September 20, 2001). The relationship of museum personnel to collectors and dealers of non- Western art and artifacts will remain similarly intertwined unless changes are implemented. In researching this case, we encountered numerous contexts in which we felt these disparate parties to be strange bedfellows indeed. For example, we found that most museum personnel and academics with whom we communicated know John well, are aware of the scale of his marketing of vigango, and, in some cases, have collaborated with him on exhibits and in publications. Yet, to our knowledge, no one has attempted to deter him.

We encountered other troubling situations as well. For example, although the appraiser of one of Katana's vigango noted "signs of recent ritual use," neither he, nor the receiving curator, recorded any reservations about the circumstances of collection. Similarly, the essay on the Hampton University Museum African collection speaks with pride about how the vigango and other Kenyan artifacts collected by John demonstrate the museum's dual mission of "investigating meaning and use as well as aes- thetic value" (Zeidler and Hultgren 1988:110). Yet the museum seems unaware of the breach of indigenous custom constituted by removal of vigango and by their appearance in a Western museum collection (cf. Steiner 1994:122). Fi- nally, we question the scientific or public educational

need for Hampton University Museum's acquisition of 99 vigango. Even 38, the number obtained by the ISU museum, seems excessive. 17

These examples illustrate some of the problematic re- lationships of museums to collectors, dealers, and donors. To begin to remedy these, we recommend the following policies:

* Museum personnel and academics should not collabo- rate with art dealers and collectors by contributing essays to their publications or by publishing in journals that receive funding from the latter, if there is any risk that by doing so, any of the following may ensue: (1) an increase in the looting of the objects in question; (2) that they may lend the professionalism of their public status as scholars and thereby enhance the image of those who traffic in these objects as legitimate "experts" on non-Western art/artifacts; or (3) an increase in the value of such objects on the global art market.

* Museum personnel must enforce or adhere to their own codes of ethics more rigorously. The UNESCO Conven- tion, and the codes of ethics of the International Council of Museums (ICOM) and the International Council of African Museums (AFRICOM), all contain statements requiring museum personnel to be vigilant and proactive in exposing illicitly acquired donations.

So, too, does the code of ethics of the American Asso- ciation of Museums, which states that "the museum en- sures that acquisition, disposal, and loan activities are conducted in a manner that respects the protection and preservation of natural and cultural resources and discour- ages illicit trade in such materials" (American Association of Museums 2000). Although many U.S. curators are well acquainted with John and, from first-hand knowledge of how other African objects are looted, are therefore not sur- prised to hear about the widespread theft of vigango, we have yet to encounter curators involved in or able to cite any proactive efforts to discourage international trade in vigango.

It is laudable that since the time that Katana's vigango were accessioned in the mid-1980s, policies such as NAG- PRA in the United States are being tailored to address the human rights of indigenous groups to their cultural heritage. However, more vigorous efforts must also be made concerning the rights of non-Western communities to those of their tangible cultural patrimonies that have been expropriated to the West, and to protecting what is left in their local communities.

Therefore, perhaps using NAGPRA as a model, ICOM, AFRICOM, and the AAM must draft an additional, stronger statement that specifically requires museum personnel to question donors and other source persons for museum acqui- sitions about the provenance of objects and about how they were originally acquired. This statement should also spell out clearly which kinds of provenance are unacceptable,


and the specific recourse triggered by each kind of re- sponse.

* Museums must establish standards for what is considered an appropriate number of items for all categories of objects necessary for educational and display purposes and should not supersede this number. Reasonable standards would not only eliminate such collection sizes as 99 vigango, but would also deter the ease with which firms, such as the now defunct IBM, can facilitate the use of African cultural properties as tax deductions for the wealthy.

In addition to the above, a central part of any policy addressing the loss of cultural heritage should be to raise awareness among the general public. The upsurge in plundering of non-Western cultural properties and the under- lying ignorance in the West of the local impacts effected through the purchasing and collecting of such objects re- minds us of similar attitudes, held in the first half of the 20th century, toward the hunting of large African mammals with rifles and the wearing of their hides for the frivolous impetus of fashion.18 In that example, zoological parks and natural resource personnel were able to combat deleterious attitudes and practices by educating and in- forming the public about the endangerment and environmental perils to animals wrought by human activities. Consequently, today, the average Western citizen is at least minimally aware that endangered animal species ex- ist. It is no longer generally acceptable to shoot large Afri- can mammals with anything more invasive than a camera, and most fashion followers are content with imitation fur.

The example of changing public perception and attitudes toward wildlife is instructive. Museum personnel must exert similar efforts to stop the theft of cultural properties from the non-Western world. The following recommendations are designed to begin to curb the traffic in vigango, but we believe they have applicability to other forms of cultural property as well. These public education efforts must concentrate on at least three areas:

1. Educating the public about the value and meaning of objects in their cultural context. By raising public awareness about the holistic context in which cultural objects are created and used, the public will come to appreciate the integral part played by objects in other lifeways.

2. Educating the public about the value to scholars of objects in situ. Closely related to conveying the cultural context of objects described above, this knowledge also supplies information about the methods and techniques used to research cultures holistically, and the value to researchers of keeping objects in their places of origin.

3. Educating the public about the scale of the illicit traffic in cultural property and the devastating effects of West- ern desires to collect non-Western "art" and artifacts on local communities. Eventually, such knowledge will

erode the popularity and prestige value of main- taining private collections of non-Western objects.

To convey information on these three topics, the following venues should be used:

* As didactic labels do in zoological theme parks, every museum label should include information about the cultural context and risk from theft of particular objects. Similarly, if an object is used as a logo (See Figure 4), it should be accompanied by a short description which includes such information as well.

* Special exhibits should be designed to inform the public about the above three topics.

* Teaching modules can be prepared for classroom use by primary and secondary schoolteachers. These may include traveling exhibits, information made available for downloading free of charge through museum websites, or museum volunteers who offer classroom lectures.

* For college and university use, especially in large lecture introductory courses in Anthropology or on Africa-related topics, more films concerning all aspects of the international illicit trafficking in non-Western cultural objects should be produced and distributed. A notable example is Walter Van Beek's video, "The African King" (1990), which successfully brought Dutch public attention to and raised awareness concerning the complicity of art collectors and dealers in this trade (McIntosh 1996).

* Museums need to place exhibits in international airports. This venue will capture the attention of the traveling public and exhibits there can educate not only about all three topics but also about the value of supporting tourist art for its local income-generating potential. Such exhibits should also clarify the dis- tinction between supporting local art created for tourists and purchasing authentic objects that should not be disturbed.

Finally, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) as a collective body can craft an explicit policy lend- ing its support for the efforts of such extant organizations as ICOM, AFRICOM, and others. The role of anthropologists in these efforts is crucial, as educators, advocates, and whistle-blowers. The AAA as a collective body, and anthropologists as individuals, must be more vigorous in voicing objections and pursuing remedies when discoveries are made of the violation of the rights of local communities. We must actively assist local communities as well as nation-states to document their cultural property effectively, enact protective measures, report cases of cultural loss, and pursue claims for return. And we must become more involved in creating effective international laws and policies to stop the loss of cultural property.


CONCLUSION The case of stolen vigango is representative of the whole- sale looting of non-Western cultural materials and it un- derscores the urgency for enhanced prevention efforts. Be they vigango, secular objects, or ancient materials, we call on museum personnel, interested scholars, and members of the AAA to be more proactive. Such efforts are particularly urgent for the Mijikenda because vigango are especially inalienable. The current trade in them must be halted before more damage is done. Like so much cultural property that has already been disturbed, vigango should be left, as they were intended, for the ancestors.

MONICA L. UDVARDY Department of Anthropology, Univer-

sity of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0024 LINDA L. GILES Independent scholar JOHN B. MITSANZE Coastal Forest Conservation Unit, Na- tional Museums of Kenya

NOTES Acknowledgments. We thank the Mijikenda who generously shared information with us, Mitsanze Mramba for unflagging assistance, N. Thomas Hakansson, Sidney Kasfir, and the anonymous review- ers of American Anthropologist. We are grateful to the following for their assistance: Lorna Abungu, George Crothers, Chap Kusimba, Wille Ostberg, Paul Sinclair, Robert S. Tannenbaum, M. Andrew Udvardy, and Susan Vogel. Monica Udvardy's 1984-86 fieldwork was sponsored by the Swedish Research Council in the Humanities and Social Sciences, the Swedish Institute, and the African Studies Program, Uppsala University. Richard Wahlgren's activities were especially inspirational for Udvardy in preparing this piece. 1. Portions of this manuscript were presented at the 1999 and 2001 African Studies Association meetings, the 2001 Triennial Symposium on African Art (ACASA), and at the 2002 American An- thropological Association (AAA) meetings. We thank listeners for their excellent comments and encouragement. Field research in Kenya was conducted in 1982, 1984-86, 1993, and 2000-01. 2. Although vigango are mistakenly called "Swahili posts" in the article. 3. Vigango and other koma in the main kaya, however, should continue to be carefully attended by the kaya elders. Sadly, when Giles and Mitsanze visited the main Giriama kaya, Kaya Fungo, in 2001, kaya elders told them that the vigango had been stolen from the kaya long ago. 4. This point is often misunderstood, or conveniently overlooked, by collectors, dealers, and art scholars providing written commen- tary about vigango. 5. Facial features, color patterns, and the location of unintended dark streaks on the wood. 6. Approximately seventy-five years old in 1985, Katana is now probably deceased. Nonetheless, his descendents should have these vigango returned to them. We have contacted the curator of collections at Hampton University, and the director of the former ISU museum at the time that Katana's kigango was acquired, for more information and comment. We are waiting for information from the former and the latter claims no knowledge about Katana's kigango. 7. During fall, 2001, ISU relinquished the entire African collection to Illinois State Museum in Springfield. 8. IBM is no longer in business. 9. Appraisals by Alfred Scheinberg, Inc., of New York City. 10. Personal communication between Linda Giles and Barbara Blackmun (3/29/01), Ted Celenko (3/18/03), Melissa Falkner (4/10/01), Anita Heggli (12/5/00), Joyce Herold (3/6/03), Mary Lou

Hultgren (7/8/02), Manuel Jordan (3/28-30/01), Christine Kreamer (12/03/01), Gregory Maddox (3/27/01), Charles Meyer (3/29/01), John Nunley (4/11/01), Robin Poynor (3/27/01), Allyson Purpura (3/16/01), Christopher Roy (6/26/01), Anne-Louise Schaffer (8/13/01), Kara Schneiderman (3/6/03), Roy Sieber (11/18/00), Wil- liam Siegmann (2/19/02), Kyan Thornton (4/2/01), George Ulrich (3/30/01), and Katherine V. Warren (3/6/03). Also see Sieber and Walker 1988:143. 11. A Location is the second smallest governmental administra- tive unit. 12. Kaya Fungo, Ganze, and Jila remain high theft areas. Kate Par- sons also reports that vigango "are still stolen on demand" (Kate Parsons, personal communication with Giles, July 4, 2001). The problem of vigango theft is longstanding, with early collectors being Christian missionaries, colonial government administrators, and researchers. Theft increased after independence with the growth of the tourist industry. The problematical nature of the vigango trade was noted in a brief report by Susan Beckerleg, which was reprinted in a 1994 ACASA newsletter (no. 41, December 1994) and, more recently, by Wilson and Omar (1996:236-237). 13. They did, however, block his passage on the ferry, and thus may have been Mijikenda police officers. 14. Funding was provided by the British Overseas Development Authority and the World Wide Fund for Nature, UK. 15. Giles and Mitsanze have hoped to get CFCU more directly involved with vigango protection, but the loss of CFCU's international funding makes this unlikely at this time. 16. In September of 2001, Mitsanze and Giles met with the director of Fort Jesus and suggested that labels with such information should be added to the exhibit. 17. Roslyn Walker, Director of the ISU museum when the first two vigango were acquisitioned, who later became Director of the Na- tional Museum of African Art, remarked, on hearing that the ISU museum had acquired 36 more vigango, that she could not under- stand why a museum would need that many (Roslyn Walker, personal communication with Giles, March 8, 2003). 18. Indeed, a recent New York Times article about an African art dealer portrayed him as among the last of the great American "he- men" in the mold of Ernest Hemingway, hunting wild animals as well as African artifacts (Spindler 2001:44).

REFERENCES CITED American Association of Museums

2000 Code of Ethics for Museums. Electronic document, http://www.aam-us.org/aamcoe.cfm, accessed April 16, 2003.

Beckerleg, Susan 1994 Grave Robbery: Stolen Posts Fetch High Prices, New Interna-

tionalist (September 1994):30. Reprinted in ACASA Newsletter 41(December):18.

Clifford, James 1988 The Predicament of Culture. Twentieth Century Ethnogra- phy, Literature, and Art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Danto, Arthur C. 1988 Artifact and Art. In ART/artifact. African Art in Anthropology

Collections, with essays by Arthur Danto et al. Susan Vogel, ed. Pp. 18-32. New York: Center for African Art.

Giles, Linda, and John B. Mitsanze 2001[1996] For the Ancestors: Mijikenda Vigango. In The African

Collection: Art and Artifacts at Illinois State University. CD-ROM. Steve Meckstroth and Linda Giles, eds. Normal: Instructional Technology Services, Illinois State University.

Illinois State University Museum N.d. Collection files of artifact donors, collection sites, and ap-

praisals. Kariuki, John

1999 Museum Staff Implicated in Antiquities Scam. The East Afri- can. November 17-23. Electronic document, http://www. nationalaudio.com/New/EastAfrican/15 1 199/regional/4.html, accessed June 25, 2001.


Kopytoff, Igor 1986 The Cultural Biography of Things. Commoditization as Pro-

cess. In The Social Life of Things. Arjun Appadurai, ed. Pp. 64-91. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kouroupas, Maria Papageorge 1996 Efforts in the Protection of Cultural Property. Implementa-

tion of the 1970 UNESCO Convention. In Plundering Africa's Past. Peter Schmidt and RoderickJ. McIntosh, eds. Pp. 87-93. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Kusimba, Chapurukha M. 1996 Kenya's Destruction of the Swahili Cultural Heritage. In Plun-

dering Africa's Past. Peter Schmidt and RoderickJ. McIntosh, eds. Pp. 201-224. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

McIntosh, Rodney 1996 Just Say Shame: Excising the Rot of Cultural Genocide. In

Plundering Africa's Past. Peter Schmidt and RoderickJ. McIntosh, eds. Pp. 45-62. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Nyamweru, Celia 1996 Sacred Groves Threatened by Development: The Kaya For-

ests of Kenya. Cultural Survival Quarterly (fall): 19-21. 1998 Environment and Civil Society in Kenya. Africa Notes

(March):8-10. Parkin, David

1986 Society and Culture of the Mijikenda. In Vigango: Com- memorative Sculpture of the Mijikenda of Kenya. Ernie Wolfe, au. Williamstown, MA: Williams College Museum of Art.

1991 Sacred Void: Spatial Images of Work and Ritual among the Giriama of Kenya. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prott, Lyndel V. 1996 Saving the Heritage. UNESCO's Action Against Illicit Traffic

in Africa. In Plundering Africa's Past. Peter Schmidt and Roderick J. McIntosh, eds. Pp. 29-44. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Robinson, Simon, and Aisha Labi 2001 Endangered Art. Time (European edition) June 29. Electronic

document, http://www.time.com/time/europe/ta/magazine/ 0,9868,130100-1,00.html, accessedJune 29.

San Francisco State University, Department of Anthropology 1998 NAGPRA Compliance Project, ABCs of NAGPRA. Electronic

document, http://www.sfsu.edu-nagpra/def/html., accessed March 16, 2003.

Schipepechero, Pedro 2002 Loss of Artefacts May Diminish Role of Museums. Museum

Security Mailinglist Reports, October 7. Electronic document, http://www.museum-security.org/02/124.html#3, accessed March 19, 2003.

Schmidt, Peter 1996 The Human Right to a Cultural Heritage. African Applica-

tions. In Plundering Africa's Past. Peter Schmidt and RoderickJ. McIntosh, eds. Pp. 18-29. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Schmidt, Peter, and Rodney McIntosh, eds. 1996 Plundering Africa's Past. Bloomington: Indiana University

Press. Sieber, Roy, and Roslyn Walker

1988 African Art in the Cycle of Life. Washington, DC: Smith- sonian Institution Press.

Sotheby's 1988 Andy Warhol Collection. Vol. 4. Lots 2322-2324. New York:

Sotheby's. Spear, Thomas

1978 The Kaya Complex. Nairobi: Kenya Literature Bureau. Spindler, Amy M.

2001 The Importance of Being Ernie. New York Times Magazine, January 6: 38-46.

Steiner, Christopher B. 1994 African Art in Transit. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. Tengeza, Amini

2000 The Mijikenda Gravemarkers. In Links between Cultures and Biodiversity: Proceedings of the Cultures and Biodiversity Con- gress 2000, July 20-30, Yunnan, P. R. China. Xu Jianchu, ed. Pp. 174-188. Yunnan: Yunnan Science and Technology Press.

Udvardy, Monica 1990a Gender and the Culture of Fertility among the Giriama of

Kenya. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Uppsala University, Sweden.

1990b Kifudu: A Female Fertility Cult among the Giriama of Kenya. In The Creative Communion. African Folk Models of Fer- tility and the Regeneration of Life. AnitaJacobson-Widding and Walter van Beek, eds. Pp. 137-152. Uppsala: Uppsala Studies in Cultural Anthropology 15. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell In- ternational.

1992 The Fertility of the Post-Fertile. Concepts of Gender, Aging and Reproductive Health among the Giriama of Kenya. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 7(4):289-307.

2001 The Involuntary Voyage of Katana's Vigango (Part 1): Ken- yan Giriama Memorial Statues and the Global Market in African Art. Paper presented at the Triennial Symposium on African Art, ACASA, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.

van Beek, Walter 1990 The African King. London: Pilgrim Pictures.

Vogel, Susan, ed. 1988 ART/artifact. African Art in Anthropology Collections, with

essays by Arthur Danto et al. New York: Center for African Art. Wade, Edwin L.

1985 The Ethnic Art Market in the American Southwest, 1880-1980. In Objects and Others. Essays on Museums and Mate- rial Culture. History of Anthropology. Volume 3. George Stock- ingJr., ed. Pp. 167-192. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Wilson, Thomas H., and Athman Lali Omar 1996 Preservation of the Cultural Heritage on the East African

Coast. In Plundering Africa's Past. Peter Schmidt and RoderickJ. McIntosh, eds. Pp. 225-249. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Wolfe, Ernie, III 1979 An Introduction to the Arts of Kenya. Washington, DC: Mu-

seum of African Art. Zeidler, Jeanne, and Mary Lou Hultgren

1988 "Things African Prove to be the Favorite Theme": The Afri- can Collection at Hampton University. In ART/artifact. African Art in Anthropology Collections, with essays by Arthur Danto et al. Susan Vogel, ed. Pp. 97-152. New York: Center for African Art.

3566906 vigango mijikenda

Documents