Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros52-1Introduction: Decolonizing academ...

Introduction: Decolonizing academic disciplines and collections

Tanja Pommerening, Susanne Rodemeier, Rainer Brömer, Edith Franke, Ernst Halbmayer, Dagmar Schweitzer de Palacios, Katja Triplett et Benedikt Stuchtey
p. 7-16
Traduction(s) :
Introducción: Descolonización de disciplinas académicas y colecciones [es]
Introduction : Décolonisation des disciplines académiques et des collections [fr]

Texte intégral

Internationalizing the debate

1Decolonizing academic disciplines and collections has been a topic of intense international and interdisciplinary discussion for some time now. It is also a highly political topic and one of public discourse. We approach it from different perspectives and want to underline how important it is that university collections also face up to their colonial heritage.

2In the end, what finally counts as an object of colonial provenance is a matter of definition. Today, it is broadly acknowledged that any such definition has to go far beyond formal colonialism. If colonialism “is a relationship of domination between collectives in which the fundamental decisions about the lifestyle of the colonized are made and actually enforced by a culturally different minority of colonial masters ... who are hardly willing to adapt … associated with ... doctrines of justification based on the colonizers’ conviction of their own cultural superiority” (Osterhammel, 2009, p. 20), then the term colonial refers “to the actual exercise of rule, as well as to the ideologies, discourses (also racial discourses), knowledge systems, aesthetics, and perspectives which preceded formal or actual rule and which supported and safeguarded it for colonization and can have an impact beyond it” (DMB, 2021, p. 24). It includes the subaltern relations of Indigenous groups toward nation states, sometimes called internal colonialism, as well as colonial ideologies “reflected in objects and portrayals of European origin” (DMB, 2021, p. 25).

3Universities and academic disciplines in general benefited from colonialism and imperialism, differently from, but not necessarily less than, politics, economics and culture. With the “discovery” of New Worlds, from the perspective of the “Old,” the idea of “Possessing Nature” (Findlen, 1994) acquired new urgency. In this context, we are asking: How is the European understanding of scholarship and science reflected in the collections and in the self-image of the academic disciplines? To what extent did scholars from universities and academies serve the colonial states, providing important information? The Scientific Revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries, not least that of the natural sciences, included a revolution in the classification and categorization of knowledge, and thus the collections became also the archive of objects and knowledge of the newly encountered worlds (Delbourgo, 2008). Epistemic power on the one hand, economic and political on the other, drove progressive thinking in Europe under colonial conditions.

4Clarifying the provenances of objects in conversation between the curating institutions and the communities of origin helps approach a (newly demanded) central task of the university, namely rethinking its disciplinary histories and thus coming to terms with its past. This process has to include a variety of voices and epistemic approaches as a step towards not merely musealizing science but overcoming Eurocentrism.

5Academic disciplines are facing increasing scrutiny over the extent to which their collections include possibly looted artifacts, thus reviewing holdings and policies as well as studying problematic histories is closely connected. Setting up guidelines, agreeing on not to acquire artifacts without clear, documented evidence, placing emphasis on social justice, all in all to ensure that objects were not obtained by exploiting societies weakened by poverty, war, colonialism, political instability – there is, obviously, much work to be done for curators and conservators, as the landscape, be it scientific, political, or cultural, is constantly changing. Staying in constant dialogue may be a challenge but probably the only option, particularly in a cosmopolitan society in which we can understand artifacts and objects as ambassadors of their time.

6Since 2021, a group of academics at the University of Marburg has come together to initiate projects addressing the colonial contexts of parts of this university’s collections. In order to confront the responsibility constituted by confirmed or suspected contexts of injustice, directors and curators of some of the potentially more “problematic” collections (ethnography, study of religions, anatomy, pharmacognosy, zoology, botany) have embarked on a number of joint activities to clarify both the ethical framework in general and the provenance of specific groups of objects in collaboration with colleagues from communities living in the regions where those objects originated. This group, some of whose members are responsible for collections at our university, includes the authors of this contribution: Tanja Pommerening and Rainer Brömer (History of Pharmacy and Medicine, Medico-Historical Anatomical Collection, Pharmacognostic Collection), Edith Franke, Susanne Rodemeier and Katja Triplett (Study of Religions, Museum of Religion), Ernst Halbmayer and Dagmar Schweitzer de Palacios (Social and Cultural Anthropology, Ethnographic Collection) and Benedikt Stuchtey (Modern History, without an academic collection) as well as Martin Brändle (Zoological Collection) and Karl-Heinz Rexer (Herbarium Marburgense).

  • 1 The workshop was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG, project number 527030496), supporti (...)

7As part of these initiatives, members of the group put together a workshop program under the same title as this special issue: “Decolonizing academic disciplines and collections”.1 This event took place from 7-9 June 2023 at the University of Marburg, with the scope of broadening the debate about sensitive objects and colonial provenance in Germany in discussion with international approaches and to examine the dynamics between and within different world regions. A network for future collaboration emerged in a joint effort to produce sustainable solutions for dealing with objects of scientific interest and to further the critical inquiry into the meanings of objects with an (often but not always violent) colonial provenance.

8The concept of decolonization is very complex and should be conceptualized as a continuous effort and process. Everything is under scrutiny. Therefore, aims of the workshop and the proceedings are

  • linking the debate about sensitive objects and colonial provenance prevalent in Germany with concepts of decolonization developed in other former colonial and colonized countries;

  • bringing together scholars and practitioners from contexts in the Global North and the Global South, examining dynamics of decolonizing collections and disciplines between and within different states and societies;

  • investigating the ambivalent role of the colonial legacy in the formation of academic disciplines;

  • creating a lasting network for future collaboration to produce sustainable solutions for the treatment of objects in academic collections and the critical examination of the meanings of objects with colonial provenance which, even though their acquisition may have been presumed to be legal at the time, were appropriated on the basis of power differentials between colonized and colonizer.

9In recent years, the vivid debate over the appropriate treatment of items from former colonies held in Western collections has taken significant new turns. This discussion has also created an awareness that many academic disciplines in their formation and later development have relied heavily on collections of material objects, often sourced without the consent or even against the will of their producers and original owners, or in ignorance of the significance of these items in the region of origin, notably in colonial contexts. Increasingly, societies in the successor states demand the restitution of objects that hold particular significance for the descendants and their communities or their nations, even accepting potential conflicts that may arise as a result. Consequently, questions about the intricacies of possible repatriation have emerged with regard to the agency of communities of origin or their descendants.

10During the workshop, local hosts and international visitors examined selected groups of items (such as ancestor figures, pharmaceutical drugs and human remains) in order to discuss strategies in the light of current debates to ensure adequate treatment of sensitive objects. It is now quite clear that a simple solution of repatriation is not viable (and often not desired by the descendant communities). Accordingly, what is needed is finding new ways of taking seriously the agency of communities whose perspectives and preferences can help develop options of dealing with the objects in adequate ways. These may include, as an alternative to restitution, the transfer of ownership with an option of long-term loan to the institution that is currently curating the items in question, or the use in joint research and teaching projects. It is important to develop a multi-perspective analysis of different groups of actors involved in the processes of the emergence and formation of university collections and disciplines. This is intended to provide the prerequisites for a critical examination of collection concepts and academic taxonomies from a global perspective.

Starting the discussion

11An important aim of the workshop was to create an international framework for the long-standing debate in Marburg on how today’s academic disciplines and their practitioners deal with the colonial past of their endeavors, considering particularly the role of collecting and collections in the history of those disciplines. Alongside individual presentations, special emphasis was placed on direct communication with people from the countries of origin of parts of the Marburg collections, represented here by participants from Brazil, Tanzania and Indonesia. The discussions focused on individual collections that the visitors explored jointly with the local persons in charge: the Wigand Drug Collection, the Museum of Religions and the Ethnographic Collection (see contribution: “Colonial discourse in the history of Marburg University collections” in this issue).

12Among the invited participants were persons who, in their professional capacity, are dealing with questions of how to come to terms with the colonial provenance of scientific collections and their objects in the university or museum sector. These included, from the University of Iringa in Tanzania, Jimson Sanga (also affiliated with the Regional Museum of Iringa) and Jan Kuever (also working with the Cultural Organization fahari yetu); from Indonesia, Ajeng Ayu Arainikasih, lecturer at the Universitas Indonesia (at the same time, a PhD student at Leiden University) and Nusi Lisabilla Estudiantin, employee of the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture (previously a curator at the National Museum of Indonesia in Jakarta), and from Brazil, Claudia Leonor López Garcés from the Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi in Belém, a large museum focusing on natural history, ethnography, and archaeology. With her help, a delegation of three people from the Ka’apor ethnic group in Brazil, Valdemar Ka’apor, Irakadju Ka’apor and Rosilene Tembé, were able to attend the workshop after participating in an ERC-funded exchange project in Leiden. A similar number of contributions was delivered by European scholars: from the Netherlands, Jos van Beurden (Independent researcher, Utrecht) and Paul W. Mitchell (University of Amsterdam), from the United Kingdom, Bruno Brulon Soares (University of St. Andrews) and Miranda Lowe (principal curator at the Natural History Museum, London), from Switzerland, Caroline Widmer (curator of Indian paintings at the Rietberg Museum in Zurich), from Sweden, Michael Sappol (University of Uppsala), from Germany, Ina Heumann (Museum für Naturkunde - Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity in Berlin) and Mai Lin Tjoa-Bonatz (Museums Association Thuringia).

Introduction to the workshop contributions on “Decolonizing academic disciplines and collections”

13The conference was opened with a keynote lecture by Jos van Beurden (Utrecht) on “Colonial collections, restitution and issues of inequality.” As van Beurden further elaborated in his recently published book (van Beurden, 2024), he is concerned with three different forces in the context of colonial collections, which have to be understood in their political, cultural and social dimensions. Among these forces, provenance research in the North-South field of tension is just one element, complemented by the role of globally active art dealers and private collectors and finally, in the global South, a commonly observed controversy between official and unofficial representatives over their respective responsibilities in the process of the restitution of collections.

14Miranda Lowe offered her public keynote lecture “Reimagining collecting & collections using decolonial practice in Natural History Museums” in the City Hall; thus, she communicated the topic to a general public in Marburg, which responded with great interest. Her lecture surveyed a variety of colonialisms that can be encountered in a museum landscape, from the emergence of natural history collections at the time of the great colonial empires and the disregard for the role of Indigenous societies in the emergence of scientific disciplines to the continuing inequalities in today’s social structures, which must also be addressed by museum staff. Introducing case studies from the Natural History Museum London (NHM) and beyond, Lowe highlighted the contributions made by Indigenous individuals and populations by collecting natural objects and exchanging botanical and ethnomedical knowledge. The very common absence of non-European actors’ narratives in the Western History of Science is counteracted in an exemplary manner in the exhibitions and presentations of the NHM2, complemented by equal opportunity measures.3 While the lecture, for reasons beyond the editors’ control, could not be included in this issue, many aspects of Lowe’s work can be gleaned from the museum’s website, which includes short video clips where Lowe explains how a more inclusive, representative, and holistic interpretation can be worked out.4

Theoretical and critical views on decolonization

15The first panel of the workshop traced some baselines for the discussion of decolonization from a theoretical perspective.

16Based on the thesis that the New Museology only brings about a decolonization of the museum to a very limited extent, Bruno Brulon Soares argued for a reorganization of authorities and agencies in the museum sector and for a process of rehumanizing, according to which more justice and participation of all stakeholders could be guaranteed. In this sense – further elaborated in the publication in this issue – he argues that there is not only a decolonial but a genuinely anti-colonial approach to the legacies created by colonialism.

17Jan Kuever based his thoughts upon collaborative field research projects between the cultural heritage organization fahari yetu in Iringa and German universities and museums, where the partners had collected object stories and their connection to German colonial history in possible communities of origin in Tanzania. Provenance research needed in the process of a potential restitution requires the reconstruction and evocation of memory, meaning and all other forms of knowledge associated with them. However, as he pointed out, the goal of researching the provenance of individual objects should not only be to link them back to the communities of origin but to make them resources for their contemporary development. Rather than reproducing colonial knowledge, Kuever argued that scholarly and local communities should be involved in participatory research producing new knowledge about the collections under study.

Sensitive objects in museums and university collections: Case studies

18The following two panels examined approaches to sensitive objects in the areas of religious and ethnographic collections, respectively.

Interdisciplinary perspectives on sensitive cultural and religious objects

19In this panel, participants were asked to share their perspective on culturally and religiously sensitive artifacts in museums and university collections and thoughts about why they should be considered sensitive. The contributions of Nusi Estudiantin and Caroline Widmer focused on their perspectives as curators. Estudiantin was a curator at the Indonesian National Museum in Jakarta for about 20 years, until 2023. It was therefore a great asset that she was able to bring her perspective as an insider into the history and ongoing process of decolonization of a national museum in a former colony. Widmer is a specialist in Indian paintings and is responsible for the collection of Indian paintings at the Museum Rietberg in Zurich, Switzerland. She took a different point of view. She focused on miniature paintings that are labeled as Indian, despite the fact that some of them actually come from Pakistan. In her contribution, she particularly illustrates that “the times of power imbalances and colonial precarity or consequences” must be kept in mind in any conceivable way of discussing these images. This applies both in retrospect and in terms of research, publication, handling and exhibition practices in today’s museums. Mai Lin Tjoa-Bonatz reports on her experiences doing research in a mission museum in Germany, the “Forum der Völker” in Werl. In 2023, she was invited by the Franciscan order as a consultant requested to screen their impressively large collection for sensitive objects. This advice should also include considerations of restitution or repatriation. Her contribution provides insight into the many aspects that a researcher needs to know in advance when deciding on the future of objects in a museum that houses all kinds of objects from areas where missionaries were active before, during and after the colonial period. The fourth contribution in this round comes from Ajeng Ayu Arainikasih, also an expert from Indonesia. She teaches history at the National University (Universitas Indonesia) and conducts research on museology in museums throughout Indonesia. She analyzes the history and current changes in the provincial museums in Aceh (Sumatra), Makassar (Sulawesi) and Jakarta (Java), with a particular focus on how they deal with “their” national heroes: Teuku Umar from Aceh, Hasanudin from Sulawesi and Diponegoro from Java.

20The contributions to this panel made it possible to shed light on the problem of sensitive objects in museums from the perspective of museum experts and to gain insights into differences based on the respective location of the actors – be it in areas of the formerly colonized areas or in the territories of the colonial powers. Both the aspect of the subsequent colonization of museum objects and the diversity of views on which aspects can be expected in decolonization processes have enriched the reflection on this topic.

Decolonizing things, collections, and relations

21The following panel focused on the role of Indigenous knowledge in the management of ethnographic collections, bringing together local source communities with institutions in the countries of origin as well as collections in former colonial powers. Claudia Leonor López-Garcés and a delegation of three persons from the Ka’apor Indigenous people living in Maranhão in the Brazilian Amazon region embodied the programmatic approach that they advocate. López-Garcés, Valdemar Ka’apor, Irakadju Ka’apor and Rosilene Tembé joined the event in Marburg on their way back from a research visit to the National Museum of Ethnology and the University of Leiden (Netherlands), where they had been jointly studying a collection of Ka’apor objects, and in the year before, partners from Leiden had participated in a joint workshop in Belém, as part of the ERC project BRASILIAE, aimed at reexamining the role of Indigenous knowledge in the “making of science.” The core concept in this project was a collaboration on equal footing between originators and current custodians of the material sources of knowledge, exploring the meaning of the object and trying to retrieve and preserve traditional techniques of their production through the engagement with the elders in their communities. At the workshop, V. Ka’apor, I. Ka’apor and R. Tembé offered a short oral presentation in their own language on the role of naturalist knowledge in their communal lives. The published version assembles more first-hand references from a larger number of participants in the joint research project and broadens the spectrum of relevant types of knowledge from different communities.

  • 5 Unfortunately, written versions of every talk could not be included in this issue.

22In his presentation,5 Jimson Sanga presented the complex history of an ancestor of the Hehe in Iringa, Chief Mkwawa, from the perspective of collective memory among the living descendants. Chief Mkwawa died in 1898 after violent pursuit by the German colonial “protection force” (Schutztruppe), and the search for his skull continues to play a significant role for the identity of people in Iringa. Currently, members of the Hehe community are urging the return of other ancestral remains (such as the skeleton of Mkwawa’s father Munyigumba, possibly held in Berlin) and historical objects, including weapons and related materials, in view of strengthening the relationship between the living and their ancestors. According to Sanga, the reinforcement of kinship plays a greater role in this process than the commonly discussed aspects of self-determination and self-representation. To achieve these aims, researchers in Tanzania need to be involved in complementing and clarifying the personal identities of ancestors whose remains are to be tracked outside the country.

Sensitive objects in natural history and medicine

23Collections of objects from the natural sciences and medicine tend to be less involved in debates about repatriation and colonial structures than, for example, ethnographic collections. While this distinction may seem obvious, medicine and scientific disciplines have a strong basis in knowledge generated in colonial contexts. Accordingly, contributors from natural history (Miranda Lowe and Ina Heumann) aimed at discussing specific experiences with processes and discourses of decolonization. While Lowe’s keynote lecture presented the British example of the Natural History Museum and its collection (see above), Ina Heumann from the Museum für Naturkunde (Museum of Natural History) in Berlin delved into an episode of German colonial rule in what is now Tanzania. Heumann, who is the co-head of the museum’s department of “Humanities of Nature” (with Anita Hermannstädter) and also heading the research cluster “Open Heritage. Exploring Collections, Creating Futures” (together with Christiane Quaisser and Tahani Nadim), talked about “On being sensitive. Dinosaurs and national identities”. Her talk focused on the (in)famous German paleontological expedition, between 1909 and 1913, to the Tendaguru Formation in south-eastern Tanzania, where fossil bones of one of the tallest dinosaurs were found and prepared for transportation to Berlin (Heumann et al., 2018). These fossils are still on exhibition at the city’s Museum of Natural History, even though claims for repatriation have been raised from Tanzania. Heumann gave profound insights into the expedition and the actors involved, highlighting especially the contributions of the Tanzanian workers drafted into the project at the time. Many of these fossils are considered to be of worldwide significance, yet the question remains whether returning these pieces to the country where the local workforce had first prospected and excavated them should be considered as an equitable and practical solution.

24Her presentation was followed by an elaborate statement from Jimson Sanga who very clearly explained his own position, stressing that adequate compensation for the financial gains the museum made through the highly popular exhibition of the Tanzanian specimens would be more helpful to the country than the repatriation of the fossils. During the division of Germany, the Museum – at the time located in East Germany – used to offer positions for scientists from Tanzania to be involved in research on equal terms with their hosts, which is no longer taken for granted today.

  • 6 Under section 7 of the Act on the Protection of Cultural Property in the current version of 2016 (o (...)

25In any case, the participants agreed that the rights to the fossils, 10 of which were included in Germany’s official register of nationally significant cultural property in 2011,6 should include the assurance that the specimens are available unreservedly for any researcher from the international scientific community and that the museum feels responsible for providing the best possible storage while publishing the background of its history.

26Two contributions addressed the use of human bodies and their parts in medical education and research. Michael Sappol’s talk at the workshop was a strong plea for a confrontation with history through confronting historical objects, including specimens whose provenance is today deemed problematic or outright unacceptable. Following guidelines from national and international museums associations, many collections that include human bodies or their parts currently tend to restrict public access. By contrast, Sappol argued for the open presentation, with an adequate historical contextualization, of what he called “human biomaterials.” He fully endorsed the necessity of decolonization as an attempt to face up to historical crimes, stressing the importance of first knowing history’s different facets, not least through the objects attesting to these crimes. While emphasizing the importance of symbolic acts of reparation, Sappol argued that these gestures should not be allowed to obfuscate the losses of land, resources and political as well as economic power incurred through colonialism. During his talk, the extensive use of close-ups showing specimens from anatomical and pathological collections raised serious concerns.

27Paul Wolff Mitchell, researcher for the project “Pressing matter: Ownership, value and the question of colonial heritage in museums” in Amsterdam, focused on how practices and presumptions filling dissection halls with the bodies of socially marginalized people in Europe, and later North America, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries were extended into an expanding colonial-imperial network to amass the bones of racialized others for collection and study. He examined cases entangled in anthropology’s disciplinary formation, centered in present-day Germany, Indonesia, South Africa, Scotland, Australia, Liberia and the United States, tracing a “politics of dis-articulation”.

Roundtable discussion on “Decolonizing academic disciplines and collections”

28The international workshop ended with a two-hour roundtable discussion on the main topic: “Decolonizing academic disciplines and collections,” led by Katja Triplett. In preparation for the event, she wrote to all invited participants with encouragement to contribute to the concluding session. At the workshop, the discussants, Ajeng Ayu Arainikasih, Claudia López, Paul Mitchell, Michael Sappol and Jos van Beurden (in alphabetical order of last name), presented a short statement each addressing their personal approach to the topic. They outlined what to them was the most important “concrete question” that had arisen during their care for a collection or in their own work on sensitive objects. The discussants had been invited to also ponder the question of how they would suggest to adequately treat sensitive objects, considering their own work and experience. They were welcome to provide an example, preferably a particular object, to illustrate their statements.

29First, Ajeng Ayu Arainikasih related a concrete example connected to her work and her personal story: the painting of a slave. She outlined various responses to the painting in her personal context and how these inspired her to engage in museum work. She also discussed specific problems of such a “sensitive object” in the context of decolonization.

30Claudia López stated that in her case, the “person” and not the “object” is the center of her research and engagement. She emphasized the role of Indigenous knowledge and the emotional engagement with the subject matter. Dreams about an object are as much a matter of study as the material object itself.

31Paul Mitchell briefly discussed concrete cases reflecting on ethical and affective considerations around disclosing provenance information about human remains in collection spaces. He also related his personal journey towards his research topic to illustrate the positionality in research and the underlying emotional relationship with an object.

32Michael Sappol outlined his personal life experience and how he came to his core research. He elaborated on what Jos van Beurden mentioned at the conference: “talk not about us, talk with us,” pondering on the question of identity and personhood. Sappol stated that people are fundamentally anatomical beings.

33Jos van Beurden’s statement centered around a concrete example that illustrates his approach to the topic: a kris from Java that once belonged to a national hero and that had disappeared from view but appeared in the ethnographic museum in Leiden in 2019 and was returned to Indonesia two years later.

34After the round of individual statements, the audience was invited to join the discussion. The concluding session of the international workshop ended with contributions by Miranda Lowe, Claudia López and Valdemar Ka’apor, among others. Lowe urged the participants to make themselves more vulnerable, emphasizing that decolonial practices do tax people’s minds; one ought to engage in “emotional labor.” Van Beurden suggested “to color the staff,” creating greater diversity among the employees as a step towards decolonizing academic collections and disciplines in Marburg. Claudia López pleaded to truly integrate Indigenous knowledge without any academic separations; it should be accepted in the university. In this context, she introduced Guerrero's (2010) term corazonar, which means to simultaneously think and feel. According to López, the term includes the Spanish word for “heart” but can also be understood as “co(n)-razón,” meaning “with reason.” Valdemar Ka’apor supported her viewpoint to integrate Indigenous knowledge and epistemic science, adding further arguments.

35Thus, a wide range of topics opened up during the two-and-a-half days could barely be discussed. Subsequent communications, not least in the process of preparing the proceedings of this workshop, have helped sharpen several of the questions arising from the original debates. The contributions to this issue have benefited from these discussions as well as from the generous editorial support provided by the ICOFOM team. The issue editors’ most heartfelt thanks are going to Elizabeth Weiser, editor-in-chief of ICOFOM publications. Without her patient thoroughness, this issue might not have seen the light of day.

Haut de page


Delbourgo, J. (Ed.). (2008). Science and empire in the Atlantic world. Routledge.

DMB - German Museums Association. (2021). “Guidelines for German museums: Care of Collections from colonial contexts”. 3rd edition. Deutscher Museumsbund.

Findlen, P. (1994). Possessing nature. University of California Press.

Guerrero Arias, P. (2010). Corazonar: una antropología comprometida con la vida. Abya-Yala, UPS.

Heumann, I., Stoecker, H., Tamborini, M., & Vennen, M. (2018). Dinosaurierfragmente: Zur Geschichte der Tendaguru-Expedition und ihrer Objekte, 1906-2018. Wallstein.

Osterhammel, J. (2009). Kolonialismus. Geschichte - Formen - Folgen. Beck.

van Beurden, J. van. (2024). The empty showcase syndrome. Tough questions about cultural heritage from colonial regions. Amsterdam University Press.

Haut de page


1 The workshop was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG, project number 527030496), supporting invitations of scholars and practitioners from eight different countries worldwide.

2 This effort is also visible on the museum homepage, e.g.,



5 Unfortunately, written versions of every talk could not be included in this issue.

6 Under section 7 of the Act on the Protection of Cultural Property in the current version of 2016 (official translation:, database for the state of Berlin entries no. 3901-3910.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Tanja Pommerening, Susanne Rodemeier, Rainer Brömer, Edith Franke, Ernst Halbmayer, Dagmar Schweitzer de Palacios, Katja Triplett et Benedikt Stuchtey, « Introduction: Decolonizing academic disciplines and collections »ICOFOM Study Series, 52-1 | 2024, 7-16.

Référence électronique

Tanja Pommerening, Susanne Rodemeier, Rainer Brömer, Edith Franke, Ernst Halbmayer, Dagmar Schweitzer de Palacios, Katja Triplett et Benedikt Stuchtey, « Introduction: Decolonizing academic disciplines and collections »ICOFOM Study Series [En ligne], 52-1 | 2024, mis en ligne le 03 juillet 2024, consulté le 15 juillet 2024. URL : ; DOI :

Haut de page


Tanja Pommerening

Email: pommeren[at]

Articles du même auteur

Susanne Rodemeier

Articles du même auteur

Rainer Brömer

Articles du même auteur

Edith Franke

Articles du même auteur

Ernst Halbmayer

Articles du même auteur

Dagmar Schweitzer de Palacios

Articles du même auteur

Katja Triplett

Benedikt Stuchtey

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés), sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search