Provenance research blog #4
In the blog series of the Consortium Colonial Collections, we present a historical object or collection from a former colonial context or situation, currently (or until recently) stored in a museum in the Netherlands that has been the focus of provenance research. Each blog explains the steps taken by the respective museum or external provenance researcher to carry out the research. Which stories lie behind the object and what can they tell us about the Dutch colonial past?
In focus this time: the Dubois collection.
About the collection
The Dubois collection was until recently part of the Dutch state collection and managed by Naturalis Biodiversity Center in Leiden. It consists of approximately 28,000 fossil specimens gathered by Dutch scientist Eugène Dubois (1858-1940) in the former Dutch East Indies (present day Indonesia). Most of the fossils were excavated on the instruction of Dubois in Java and Sumatra between 1888 and 1900. They play an important role in the knowledge of and scientific debate on the evolution of humans and early hominins. Dubois wanted to prove Darwin’s theory of evolution by seeking the ‘missing link’ between apes and humans (Homo sapiens). The key pieces in the Dubois collection are fossils of Pithecanthropus erectus (popularly known as Java man, and later reclassified scientifically as Homo erectus), namely a femur, a skullcap and a molar.
Over time, the fossils – and especially the Java Man – acquired cultural and political significance, both for Indonesia and the Netherlands, and have been at the centre of restitution debates for several decades. Unlike the items addressed in previous blogs, the collection addressed here consists of a natural history collection, rather than cultural objects or belongings. However, the research carried out shows that this division is not always accurate nor constructive. As we will see in this blog, the nature of the collection, the layered meanings it has acquired throughout the years and the decades-long discussions about its rightful ownership made the provenance research particularly complex and multidisciplinary.
The restitution request
Ever since the fossils were excavated, there has been disagreement about the Dubois collection, both regarding its scientific value and its ownership. In 2022, the Republic of Indonesia submitted an official application for the collection’s restitution after which the Dutch State Secretary for Culture requested the Colonial Collections Committee to provide advice on this request. A central question was whether a natural history collection was eligible for return under the Dutch restitution policy that focusses primally on cultural objects and, if so, on which grounds. Here, the Colonial Collections Committee followed the Explanatory Memorandum (2014) of the Dutch Heritage Law (Erfgoedwet) that makes explicit that “geological and biological specimens are also included in the definition [of cultural objects]” (‘Ook geologische en biologische specimina tot het begrip [cultuurgoed] behoren’) (see Kamerstuk II 2014/15, 34109, nr. 3, page 60).
To be able to advise to the State Secretary, and following the restitution procedure, the Colonial Collections Committee requested the institution then managing the collection – Naturalis – to carry out provenance research, which resulted in a report in 2023. However, the Committee required further historical information about the context in which the excavations took place, about the legal and cultural aspects surrounding questions of ownership (of the collection itself as well as the ground from which it was excavated), and about the removal of the materials to the Netherlands. A multidisciplinary team of researchers – with cultural-historical and legal expertise – was approached to carry out this additional research.
Due to time constraints, the scale of the research and the required expertise, the extra provenance research was carried out by four researchers of the Expert Centre for Restitution of the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies (Maarten van der Bent, Rosalie Hans, Wiebe Reints and Klaas Stutje), who focused mainly on historical research in the Netherlands. Indonesian researcher Yuanita Wahyu Pratiwi conducted archival research in Indonesian archives, which was integrated into the report prepared by the NIOD. Legal experts Tristam Moeliono from Indonesia and Jelle Jansen from the Netherlands focused on the questions of a legal nature.
Het provenance research
Provenance research usually focuses on the moment of loss of ownership of an item or collection and when it came into Dutch hands during colonial times. The research into the Dubois collection, on the other hand, covers a history of more than 150 years. It examined the period when the fossils were excavated (and under which conditions), the scientific context and cultural values attached to fossils in the Dutch East Indies at the time, official agreements regarding the collection’s ownership and storage in the first half of the twentieth century, and the political and cultural interest in the collection by the independent Indonesian state since the 1950s. It involved researching an extensive collection of archival materials, including Dutch governmental correspondence and other documents held at the National Archives, historical correspondence held at Leiden University, as well as historical correspondence held at the National Archives of Indonesia.
The research conducted by the team at the NIOD revealed, among other things, that the fossil collection excavated in Indonesia under Dubois’s supervision has always held not only scientific value but also political and cultural significance – first from a local Javanese perspective, later from an Indisch or Eurasian perspective and, following independence, from an Indonesian perspective. Furthermore, it shows that the collection and its history need to be viewed as entangled with a colonial system characterized by unequal power relations. The colonial state and army facilitated Dubois to conduct excavations at several locations, for instance by providing numerous convict laborers who were forced to work in the excavations. The research also revealed that the sites where fossils were found were of spiritual and economic significance to the local population, and at times local populations and traders did not want to reveal their location. The circumstances under which the fossils were obtained make it plausible that they were removed against the will of the local population.
The research focused on the legal aspects was determining to the advice of the Colonial Collections Committee. It showed that based on agreements made between Dutch colonial and state officials, the Dubois collection never became the property of the Dutch state. Of particular importance was the stipulation in the Governor General’s decree of 1889 that allowed Dubois to work in Java and Sumatra that stated that Dubois was obligated to place the excavated fossils at the disposal of the Dutch East Indies government. Moreover, when the collection was transferred to the Netherlands in the 1890s to be described and studied by Dubois, this was on the condition that it remained property of the colonial government. In 1933, Minister of Colonies Colijn decided that the collection would be transferred to the then National Museum of Geology and Mineralogyin Leiden, but only after Dubois finished his work. In 1940, Dubois died without having finished processing of the collection, and the suspensive condition was not met. Based on this information, the Committee concluded that the Republic of Indonesia, as the legal successor of the Dutch East Indies government, is the legitimate owner of the collection. This was further underscored by the finding that the excavations were conducted on land owned by the Dutch East Indies government.
In a process that took three years and based on the extensive research carried out over five months, the Colonial Collections Committee advised in favour of the unconditional return of the Dubois collection to Indonesia. On 26 September 2025, the Dutch Minister for Education, Culture and Science announced that the collection of 28,000 fossils would be returned to Indonesia. The fossils known as the Java Man were returned to Indonesia on 17 December 2025, and the rest of the collection will follow in the coming months.
Reflection
The importance of the Dubois collection cannot be separated from the colonial past of the Netherlands and Indonesia. By placing the cultural history of the collection at the centre of the provenance research (alongside its scientific value), a narrative emerged in which all facets of the (post)colonial past become visible: from the oppression of the local Indonesian population, to the development of contemporary scientific disciplines in the Netherlands, the Dutch East Indies, and Indonesia, as well the ambiguous postcolonial relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia in the second half of the twentieth century.
The case addressed in this blog shows that – although often seen as purely scientific and therefore “neutral” – natural history collections cannot be viewed as separate from cultural and political developments nor do they hold solely scientific value. Furthermore, it raises important questions regarding the traditional division made between culture-historical (or ethnographic) and scientific (or natural history) collections. For this reason, the current restitution debates on items collected or looted in colonial times should expand to include not only cultural items but also other types of collections.
Final words
To better understand the historic and current meanings of objects, and how to ethically care for them, information about their origin and acquisition histories are essential. Provenance research is an ongoing process for museums. The Colonial Collections Consortium supports institutions that manage collections with this work by sharing knowledge and information, and by offering stakeholders a network. Would you like to know more or share information with us? Please contact us!
References and further reading
The information presented in this blog derives from the provenance research reports that are part of the recommendation of the independent Colonial Collections Committee, on an article written by provenance researcher Wiebe Reints and published on the NIOD website, as well as a telephone conversation with provenance researcher Klaas Stutje. More information about the return of the Dubois collection can be found on the website of the Dutch government. For more information about the Dutch policy for dealing with collections from a colonial context, please see the website of the Colonial Collections Consortium.
Provenance research blog #3
In the blog series of the Colonial Collections Consortium, we present a historical object or collection from a former colonial context or situation, currently (or until recently) stored in a museum in the Netherlands that has been the focus of provenance research. With these blogs, we want to give an insight into the importance of provenance research and show the different ways of approaching this type of research. Therefore, each blog explains the steps taken by the respective museum or provenance researcher to carry out the research. Which stories lie behind the object and what can they tell us about the Dutch colonial past?
In focus this time: a beaded headdress from Mozambique in the collection of Wereldmuseum Rotterdam.
An “invisible empire”: brief historical background
Cultural objects in Western museums which were collected or looted in a colonial context contain many – sometimes little-known – stories about this period. Provenance research is a valuable tool that helps bring these stories to light. However, it can’t provide all the answers and often raises new questions. Making knowledge about collections available is important, as it allows for a better understanding of museum collections and makes it possible for countries and communities of origin to locate their cultural heritage.
This is particularly relevant when dealing with collections that one might not expect to find in Dutch museums, such as the many objects from the African continent. The beaded headdress looted in Mozambique in 1884 and addressed in this blog is a good example. By the late nineteenth century, the Netherlands no longer possessed colonies in Africa, yet it still participated in and profited from European exploitation of African labour and natural resources. At this time there were hundreds of Dutch trading posts across the continent, around 10 of which were in Mozambique, then a Portuguese colony. Provenance researcher François Janse van Rensburg refers to this as an “invisible empire” of Dutch trade in Africa.
Today, the Wereldmuseum contains thousands of objects from Africa, sent to the Netherlands by employees of Dutch trading companies, such as the Nieuwe Afrikaansche Handels-Vennootschap (NAHV), the Oost-Afrikaansche Compagnie (OAC), and Hendrik Muller & Co. Many of these objects – including the headdress – were brought by the directors and employees of these companies. One such collector was Hendrik Muller (1859-1941). The Muller family was deeply involved in commercial activities in Central and Southern Africa, including these companies. Hendrik Muller also participated in the Berlin conference in 1884-1885, where the African continent was divided amongst European powers. Alongside trade, Muller’s father was one of the co-founders of the Wereldmuseum Rotterdam. Muller himself, during his time as co-director of the OAC, became interested in anthropology during a visit to Mozambique where he acquired many objects for the museum.
The provenance research
Provenance research is sometimes carried out in the context of requests for restitution, as shown in blog #2. In other cases, such as the flag in blog #1 or the Mozambican headdress, it is driven by research questions. The research presented here and carried out by Janse van Rensburg started with a book, ‘Industrie…du sud-est de l’Afrique’. Written at the end of the nineteenth century by Hendrik Muller and anthropologist Johannes Snelleman, it contains ethnographic descriptions mainly of Mozambique and features illustrations of objects, including the headdress. It describes the headdress and the materials it is made of (such as cotton, beads, cowries, the tail of a wild animal). A footnote clarifies that it would have been worn by a Massingire priest and that it was taken during a war. Janse van Rensburg aimed to understand what the Dutch were doing in Mozambique at the time and how this object ended up in the Netherlands.
The research followed the usual steps. First, consulting the information available in the museum. This included the inventory card, which indicated that it was donated in 1885 by M.H. Maas, a Dutch consul in Quelimane in Mozambique, and employee of the OAC. Janse van Rensburg searched the museum’s archive and found a letter that was connected to this donation. Written by Hendrik Muller and addressed to the then director of the recently founded Museum for Land and Ethnology in Rotterdam (later Wereldmuseum), the letter claimed that it had been worn by a spiritual leader during a ritual that preceded a revolt of the Massingire people in 1884 in the Zambezi River region in Mozambique.
The Massingire War of 1884 was one of the first anti-colonial rebellions against Portuguese colonialism in Mozambique. It took place in the context of intensifying colonialism by European powers around the time of the Berlin conference. This intensification involved annexation of territory, exploitative taxes, and a ban on Massingire religious practices leading to the 1884 revolt. The revolt soon turned into a general uprising, with rebels targeting Dutch, French, and Portuguese commercial enterprises (such as trading posts and opium plantations) which made their incomes through exploiting the local peoples.
While many items acquired by Muller and other collectors were bought from local populations in what today would be seen as tourist markets, others were obtained through theft and looting. Considering the archival materials available, it was possible to conclude that it was most likely looted in the context of this conflict.
Reflection: an unfinished process
Because all archival sources used for the research were European, many questions remain to be answered: who were the Massingire? Who wore the headdress and for what purpose? Might the headdress still hold meaning for people today? What does this looted object say about other objects which were not looted, but collected in the same context of colonial exploitation (such as this tablecloth from Mozambique)? This reveals the limits of archival-based research. To answer these questions, more time and (financial) resources would be required to seek collaborations with researchers in Mozambique and carry out fieldwork. With so many objects to be studied, provenance researchers often need to limit their focus to understanding how an object was appropriated and ended up in the museum.
For this reason, provenance research can often be seen as an unfinished process. Hence it is important to make the existing knowledge publicly available, for instance, through publications, presentations or exhibitions. The research carried out by Janse van Rensburg has been published and is currently shown in the exhibition “Unfinished past: return, keep, or…?” at Wereldmuseum Amsterdam, which is part of the Pressing Matter project. This exhibition dives into the current debate on restitution and critically explores the ways in which objects from colonial contexts entered the collections of European museums (and this one in particular), including through trade, scientific expeditions, diplomatic gifts, missionary work or colonial conquest.
The headdress is used there as an example of an object acquired through Dutch colonial trade, as well as to show the connections between trade and conflict. Furthermore, the results of the provenance research are presented on a touchscreen, amongst other provenance histories. Through photographs, letters and other archival materials consulted for the research, the headdress sheds light on the histories of the Dutch “invisible empire” in Africa.
The exhibition also raises questions about possible next steps – what to do with an object that is known to be looted, yet where knowledge – and potential interests – of the community of origin are missing? Hopefully sharing this knowledge will lead others to pick up where this research ended, to dig deeper into the histories and meanings contained in this and many other cultural objects and belongings in Dutch museums.
Final words
To better understand the historic and current meanings of objects, and how to ethically care for them, information about their origin and acquisition histories are essential. Provenance research is an ongoing process for museums. The Colonial Collections Consortium supports institutions that manage collections with this work by sharing knowledge and information, and by offering stakeholders a network. Would you like to know more or share information with us? Please contact us!
References and further reading
The provenance research presented here was carried out by François Janse van Rensburg of Wereldmuseum in the context of the Pressing Matter project. This research is currently presented in the exhibition Unfinished Pasts at Wereldmuseum Amsterdam and was published in REALMag #10 (2025). A more in-depth article about the headdress and its provenance will soon be published in an upcoming publication of Pressing Matter.
Provenance research blog #2
In the blog series of the Colonial Collections Consortium, we present a historical object or collection from a former colonial context or situation, currently (or until recently) stored in a museum in the Netherlands that has been the focus of provenance research. With these blogs, we want to give an insight into the importance of provenance research and show the different ways of approaching this type of research. Therefore, each blog explains the steps taken by the respective museum or provenance researcher to carry out the research. Which stories lie behind the object and what can they tell us about the Dutch colonial past?
In focus this time: seven Tigua sacred ‘objects’ of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo community, United States.
Brief historical background
The Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (or YDSP) is a federally recognized Native American tribe in El Paso, Texas. The Tigua people (pronounced Tiwa) of YDSP were deeply impacted by Spanish and later US colonialism. In 1680, following a revolt against Spanish rule, they were forcibly relocated from New Mexico to Texas. In the nineteenth century, they, like many other Native American tribes, were driven to extreme poverty due to the appropriation of their land and resources by both the US and state governments. It was in this context of duress that the objects were bought in 1882 by the Dutch anthropologist Herman Frederik Carel Ten Kate jr., during an expedition to study Native Americans. This acquisition was done at the request of Lindor Serrurier, the then director of the National Ethnographic Museum (a precursor of Wereldmuseum Leiden), using Dutch government funding.
In 2024, the YDSP Pueblo, with the support of the US government, submitted a restitution request to the Dutch government. In question were five (and ultimately seven) objects managed by Wereldmuseum Leiden. This request argued that since these are ceremonial and spiritually important representations of the culture and faith of the Pueblo, they should be returned. Following this request, Wereldmuseum carried out provenance research about the objects, leading to the conclusion that their transfer to the Netherlands and this museum in 1883 represented a case of involuntary loss.
About the Tigua ceremonial ‘objects’
The seven objects – the fragment of a headdress, two drums and respective drumsticks, three rattles, a shield, and moccasins – constitute sacred, communally owned belongings of the Tigua people of YDSP. Of particular importance are the double-headed drum and drumstick, which is believed to be the twin of the Pueblo’s remaining ceremonial drum. According to tradition, both were made from the same tree 350 years ago in New Mexico, before the Tigua’s exile to El Paso. The restitution claim of 2024 noted the drum’s importance to the ceremonial cycle and its connection to the Winter clan (now the Pumpkin and Corn villages), while the remaining drum belonged to the Summer clan. Without the Winter clan’s drum, the Summer clan’s drum is used for both summer and winter dances.
The current “restitutionary conjuncture”
The Tigua’s first official request for repatriation was made by the Tribal Council of Ysleta del Sur Pueblo in 2014, although the Tribal Council claims there were earlier requests, dating back to 1967. This request was rejected by Wereldmuseum on the basis that the objects had been legally sold. While several meetings and negotiations between the Tribal Council and the museum followed this decision, effective change only took place in 2024.
In recent years, important steps have been taken in the Netherlands and beyond towards the development of restitution policies, making it possible to speak of the current moment as a “restitutionary conjuncture”, to quote provenance researcher Klaas Stutje (2025). More specifically, in 2021, the Dutch government published its policy vision on collections from a colonial context, followed in 2022 by a Letter to Parliament on its implementation. Since then, a few hundred historical objects have been returned, mainly to Indonesia and Sri Lanka.
The provenance research
Following the 2024 restitution request, the Wereldmuseum conducted provenance research on the Tigua’s sacred artefacts. The research and resulting report focused on 1) the history of the YDSP to better understand the context during which the objects had been collected; 2) Ten Kate’s expedition to North America in 1882-83, to understand the role played by the Dutch government and museum in this expedition, as well as the anthropologist’s collecting practices; 3) Ten Kate’s visit to YDSP and the seven objects; and 4) the history of the relationship between Wereldmuseum and Pueblo.
The first point was answered mainly using secondary resources. The second and third points involved analysing the correspondence related to the financing by the Dutch government of the purchase of objects by Ten Kate and his donation of those objects to the museum in 1883. The museum’s inventory cards and a travel report by Ten Kate included important information that detailed Ten Kate’s use of unethical acquisition methods, involving coercion, threats and bribery. His travel report mentioned the objects and suggested that the sale by War Captain Bernardo Holguin had not been entirely voluntary, since on the following day, Holguin expressed remorse about this sale and tried to reverse the transaction.
Information shared by representatives of YDSP in the context of recent dialogues with Wereldmuseum and the 2024 restitution claim also offered vital information about the acquisition context, leading to a more critical and context-sensitive understanding of the conditions in which the objects were taken. Of particular importance were the arguments that Holguin had been coerced by Ten Kate to sell the objects, that his willingness to sell sacred communal artefacts was due to the extreme poverty experienced in YDSP at the time, and that Holguin was in fact not authorized to sell these since he didn’t own then but rather managed them for the community. This information was central to the final decision regarding the restitution claim.
Reflection
The provenance research showed that the acquisition of the objects in 1882 was against the wishes of YDSP, even if it resulted from the sale of the items by a member of the community. Dialogue with the community in more recent years – and mainly in the context of the restitution requests – reiterated this fact and emphasized the ongoing importance of these objects to the Tigua’s ceremonies and rituals. This reexamination of the historical context in which the objects were acquired offers an important example of how complex it is to accurately assess the conditions and power (dis)balances in place when objects are collected or seized, without disregarding the agency of the original owners. Crucially, it shows that provenance research and a critical understanding of historical and cultural circumstances should, as much as possible, result from an open and reciprocal dialogue between museums and the communities of origin.
Final words
In response to the restitution request by the US and YDSP, and on the advice of the independent Colonial Collections Committee (in line with the Dutch Policy vision on collections from a colonial context), the Dutch Minister of Education, Culture and Science Eppo Bruins decided in early 2025 to return the seven objects unconditionally. A ceremony to mark this return took place on 20 March 2025 at Wereldmuseum Leiden (see photograph).
To better understand the historic and current meanings of objects, and how to ethically care for them, information about their origin and acquisition histories are essential. Provenance research is an ongoing process for museums. The Colonial Collections Consortium supports institutions that manage collections with this work by sharing knowledge and information, and by offering stakeholders a network. Would you like to know more or share information with us? Please contact us!
References and further reading
The provenance research presented here was carried out by provenance researcher François Janse van Rensburg (Wereldmuseum). The report and the advice of the independent Colonial Collections Committee can be found here. The information presented in this blog derives from this report, as well as email communication with François Janse van Rensburg. More information about the return of the seven objects can be found on the websites of the Dutch government and of Wereldmuseum. For more information about the Dutch policy for dealing with collections from a colonial context, please see the website of the Colonial Collections Consortium.
Provenance research blog #1
In the blog series of the Colonial Collections Consortium, we present a historical object or collection from a former colonial context or situation, currently (or until recently) stored in a museum in the Netherlands that has been the focus of provenance research. With these blogs, we want to give an insight into the importance of provenance research and show the different ways of approaching this type of research. Therefore, each blog explains the steps taken by the respective museum or provenance researcher to carry out the research. Which stories lie behind the object and what can they tell us about the Dutch colonial past?
In focus this time: a flag from Indonesia (formerly known as Dutch East Indies), currently managed by Museum Bronbeek and on loan to the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam between 1977 and 2023.
Brief historical background
The flag and its presence in the Netherlands are connected to the Banjarmasin War (1859-1863), which was both a war of succession in the Banjarmasin Sultanate on the island of Borneo and a colonial war for the imposition of Dutch authority. It can be traced back to a military raid on benteng (fortress) Ramonia in South Kalimantan, on 28 September 1861. This was only possible to determine after in-depth provenance research, as existing information was contradictory.
The use of flags in maritime trade, ceremonies and warfare was common in the Indonesian archipelago at that time. Different rulers often carried their own flag with specific meanings, often referencing religious or dynastic allegiances. During battles, they could be spiritually endowed and used to inspire troops. It was often seen as a sign of misfortune when these were damaged or captured. The Dutch were aware of this significance, as shown in attempts at creating inventories of flags in the region. They were often taken from battlefields as symbols of victory. Hence a few dozen flags ended up in the Netherlands and can today be found in Dutch museums.
About the flag
This cotton flag (275 x 122 cm) is part of a collection of 27 (fragments of) flags and 25 flagpoles and pikes from the Indonesian archipelago (its inventory number is 1870/10-1-4). Its colours have faded through time; today it is brown-green, decorated with a crescent, an eight-pointed star and a ribbon. In the mid-nineteenth century, the crescent combined with a five- or eight-pointed star was a common symbol in the Islamic world, related to the Ottoman Caliphate. The meaning of the red ribbon is less self-evident. It probably represents a stylised combination of the Arabic letters lam and alif, referring to the first word of the Islamic confession of faith (shahada) or to the name of Allah himself (lam jalalah).
The provenance research
In 2022, research was carried out in the context of the Pilot project Provenance Research on Objects of the Colonial Era (PPROCE) to establish its provenance, including the situation during which it was seized by the Dutch. The choice to focus on this and other Indonesian objects stemmed from a decision made together with the National Museum in Indonesia. This involved carrying out archival research and object analysis, using different materials and consulting with Indonesian historian Mansyur Sammy. The starting point was the museum’s information system and existing archival documentation. It sometimes happens that objects are renumbered and reregistered, leading to mistakes and hence, a longer research time. This was the case of the flag presented here.
The museum documentation indicated that the flag was donated to Museum Bronbeek in 1870 by Lieutenant Colonel C.F. Koch, and that it had been seized from Pangeran Hijdajat (or Prince Hidayatullah), following the conquest of “Fort Romanio” on 28 September 1861. This donation was confirmed in an internal report and mentioned in a newspaper article. However, there were doubts regarding the exact provenance since an 1881 memorial volume about Bronbeek had attributed this flag to the conquest of Lambadak, Aceh, in 1877. Hence it was necessary to carry out additional research about the military context at the time. This required consulting many government archives, including those of the Ministry of the Colonies and the Ministry of War. These showed that the conquest of Ramonia was part of a larger expedition against the Banjarese Prince Antarasi, rather than Prince Hidayatullah, the main contender to the Sultan’s throne. Within the Banjarmasin Sultanate, Antasari, who was of different royal lineage, had supported the first attacks on the Dutch in 1859. Today, he is seen as a National Hero in Indonesia.
On 28 September 1861, Ramonia was attacked by the Dutch. According to this expedition’s report, three yellow flags decorated with a crescent, star and koranic verses waved on the palisades of fortress. These were taken and, although Koch was probably not present, it is very likely that one of them ended up in his possession, since he was the highest in command in the region. Based on the Dutch military sources consulted, it was possible to refute the claim that the flag belonged to Prince Hidayatullah. This erroneous attribution may have been Koch’s mistake, when he donated the flag to Bronbeek, or derived from the fact that the flag was renumbered several times.
Another factor that led to doubts of attribution had to do with the flag itself and was further investigated through object analysis. Through historic descriptions and depictions of the flag (for example, the lithographs in Bronbeek’s 1881 memorial volume), it could be concluded that the current green colour was the result of discolouration of the organic dyes of the flag, and that this was, in fact, one of the three yellow flags captured in 1861. This was further confirmed by historian Mansyur Sammy, who recognized the ribbon on the flag as a common symbol of Prince Antasari.
Reflection
Research about this flag reflects some of the challenges of investigating the provenance of objects in museum collections – for instance, objects might change over time (in this case, the colour), making it difficult to match specific objects with archival information. Furthermore, attributions are sometimes incorrect, due to museum work, such as conservation or relocations, or mythmaking by donators and curators. This blog shows that existing information should not be taken at face value, for in-depth archival research can reveal additional/diverging information. Provenance research is often carried out in the context of debates about and claims for restitution of objects taken in colonial times. Furthermore, and as Hilmar Farid (former director-general of the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture) stated in 2021, it is a valuable tool to produce knowledge about history and past injustices. According to Farid, it is essential that joint decisions are made regarding what is to be researched, since the process of dealing with colonial collections is also about building relationships between people of different countries (in this case, Indonesia and the Netherlands) and a common understanding of the past. He referred then to the flag presented here as an important object not for its aesthetic value, but for what it signified to people in the past.
Final words
To better understand the historic and current meanings of objects, and how to ethically care for them, information about their origin and acquisition histories are essential. Provenance research is an ongoing process for museums. The Colonial Collections Consortium supports institutions that manage collections with this work by sharing knowledge and information, and by offering stakeholders a network. Would you like to know more or share information with us? Please contact us!
References and further reading
The provenance research presented in this blog was carried out by Klaas Stutje of the NIOD (Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies) and the report can be found here (see number 26). The information presented in this blog derives from this report, as well as the PPROCE report and email communication with Klaas Stutje. Hilmar Farid’s comments were derived from the recording of “The Politics of Restitution”, an online event organised by the SOAS University of London in 2021.