Restitutions: opening dialogue between history, memory and the future

How does the restitution of cultural property reshape our understanding of history and of relations between societies? And how does it go beyond the mere return of objects to raise broader questions of memory, justice, and international relations?

On the eve of the launch of the series of talks Restitutions. Another Definition of the World, Valérie Nivelon, journalist at Radio France Internationale, and Alexandra Duperray, Deputy Director for Research & International at the Fondation Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, bring together their perspectives to shed light on the historical, political, and contemporary stakes of a debate at the heart of our time.

The issue of restitution has been at the heart of political and cultural debates for decades. What prompted you to address it today, and in this form?

Valérie Nivelon. The question of restitution is indeed not new. Amadou Mahtar Mbow, the first African Director-General of UNESCO, already raised it in his speech on 7 June 1978. It was a foundational call addressed to all stakeholders: states, institutions, media, historians, and artists. But we can go back even further, to the 19th century, after Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo, when works appropriated by revolutionary France were returned to their countries of origin. A large number of artworks then made their way back. Since 2017 and President Macron’s speech in Ouagadougou, however, the debate on the restitution of cultural property to formerly colonized countries has clearly gained renewed momentum. From my perspective, what I have observed in the field is the importance of these restitutions for the societies concerned — especially in Africa, where communities remain deeply attached to their culture and history. The aim is therefore to decentralize the debate, to historicize it, and to initiate a meaningful dialogue that goes beyond the narrow issue of the restitution of African artworks.

Why has the FMSH chosen to engage with this topic? Can research in the humanities and social sciences influence such a political issue?

Alexandra Duperray. The 26 works from Abomey recently returned to Benin, as well as the saber of El Hadj Omar Tall returned to Senegal, have likely marked a political turning point and made concrete President Macron’s promise in Ouagadougou in 2017. The question of African heritage has gained visibility and become an important diplomatic and cultural issue. In recent years, the debate on restitution has become increasingly international. Standards and practices have evolved. It is therefore essential for the FMSH to shed light on these issues, which touch on memory, identity, cultural sovereignty, justice, diplomacy, and the ways in which different actors engage in dialogue. Restitution is a deeply contemporary societal issue. The FMSH seeks to foster interdisciplinary reflection and place the humanities and social sciences at the heart of these discussions. Analyzing the history and provenance of an object, and its subsequent trajectory, requires bringing together researchers, artists, cultural actors, diplomats, and policymakers, thereby fostering co-constructed, respectful, and sustainable approaches. The Arts program of the Foundation, which builds bridges between research, art, and culture at the international level, is the ideal platform to host experts on restitution and to share knowledge with a broader audience. These insights can then serve as tools for developing public policy and action.

For readers discovering the topic: what does “restitution” actually mean? What kinds of objects and histories are we talking about?

VN. What does restitution mean? This is the first question we will address, and I believe the range of answers will be surprisingly broad, since we are opening up a wide field of reflection and experience. What does it mean to restitute objects, but also archives or human remains? In this sense, the report The Restitution of African Cultural Heritage by Felwine Sarr and Bénédicte Savoy provides a foundation from which we can build a diversity of approaches. What is particularly important is its subtitle: “Towards a New Relational Ethics.” It is within this open questioning — which invites us to rethink our universalist perspective — that this series is situated. It is about bringing together diverse perspectives, including African ones, into a dialogue of cultures and viewpoints. Reading Mamadou Diouf’s Africa in the Time of the World inspired me with the idea that thinking about restitution can mean thinking about a different definition of the world.

The series is titled “A different definition of the world” — a powerful phrase. What does it say about your ambition?

AD. It is a powerful phrase that implies revisiting history. In his speech on 28 November 2017, Emmanuel Macron stated: “The history of Africa cannot be written solely by European specialists of Africa.” The first step is to ask: who tells history, and from which perspective? This leads us to another definition of the world, both past and present. It is not only about revisiting knowledge and memory, but also about thinking about the future. Restitution is not simply about returning objects; it involves reshaping relationships between communities, institutions, and states. The Sarr–Savoy report highlights that “heritage objects can redefine and redraw territorialities.” Redefining the world is therefore at once historical, cultural, geopolitical, and symbolic.

How did you design the editorial approach of this series? What perspectives did you prioritize?

VN. The exchange with Alexandra Duperray has been extremely rich, and the project has grown through our discussions over recent months. Her scientific rigor and international outlook have combined with my field experience, both internationally and in African countries, particularly those formerly colonized by European empires. I also wanted to bring in other perspectives, including Afro-descendant communities in Brazil and Jewish families whose property was looted during the Second World War. We have therefore proposed an editorial approach in which the format is as important as the content. In line with all FMSH events, we have chosen a conversational format, bringing together specialists (philosophers, art historians, legal experts) and field actors (museum professionals, activists, rights holders), while allowing the public to participate through questions. Each session will be recorded and broadcast on Canal-U, making it accessible to a broad Francophone audience.

Why did you involve Valérie Nivelon? What does a field journalist bring to a research-led series?

AD. Valérie Nivelon is deeply engaged on these issues, and we wanted her to moderate all conversations and subtopics related to restitution. Her background and field experience bring valuable insight for the FMSH, as they allow us to highlight lived experiences. Her work helps amplify voices that are not always those of experts or institutions, giving space to perspectives that are sometimes less heard. In a research-led series, the presence of a field journalist brings a grounded understanding of restitution, bridging analysis and investigation, long-term reflection and present realities.

And what does the FMSH bring to you in this collaboration?

VN. It offers the opportunity to co-develop a long-term series with guests whose work I know well, as well as others I am eager to discover. It allows us to give substance to these questions, which are anything but abstract, as they concern the heart and lived experience of families, communities, identities, and national constructions. By opening these questions to dialogue and exchange, restitution can be understood as recognizing the provenance of an object and the violence of its appropriation, but also as a decision — between two states — to return an object “home,” or to allow it to circulate, or even to be loaned by its rightful owner once recognized. It is, fundamentally, another way of thinking about our relationship to others. 

Seven sessions, from April 2026 to spring 2027: law, history, archives, ritual objects… How did you structure this progression?

AD. We conceived this series as a journey. It begins with an examination of the role of museums — as places of preservation, storytelling, and memory — before addressing legal tools for restitution and the decisive role of archives in reconstructing provenance. It then moves on to the diversity of objects involved, from artworks to human remains, showing that not all restitution cases raise the same symbolic, political, or ethical questions. We aim to adopt a decentered approach, highlighting different cultural contexts (African, Cambodian, Brazilian, among others). Finally, the series looks to the future, addressing the reconstruction of lost collections and the development of cooperation. The guiding thread is a shift: from historical conditions of appropriation to contemporary forms of justice, and toward new relationships enabled by restitution.

Which theme is closest to your heart?

VN. I do not wish to evade the question, but all the themes we will address form different facets of a single subject, and it is a real privilege to discuss them with such freedom and diversity. That said, the return of objects particularly moves me — such as the Djidji Ayôkwé, the “talking drum” stolen over a century ago from the village of Adjamé (now a district of Abidjan), and returned by France to Côte d’Ivoire in February 2026 during an official ceremony at the Quai Branly. But I am equally moved by less visible but equally essential claims, not for objects but for human remains — such as the struggle of Corinne Toka-Devilliers, founder of the Guyanese association Moliko Alet + Po, who seeks the restitution of six human remains identified as belonging to the Kali’na and Arawak peoples, currently held at the Musée de l’Homme in Paris. These issues speak to the very definition of our humanity.

Who is this series for? Do you need to be an expert?

AD. This series is intended for a wide audience. We aim to open discussions and enable the public to engage with the topic, to better understand the origins of the objects and heritage in question, what archives reveal, and what the mechanisms and challenges of restitution are.

The series creates a space for information, mediation, and dialogue through the sharing of knowledge and testimonies. It does not require prior expertise — on the contrary. One of the FMSH’s missions is to break down barriers between disciplines and foster dialogue between researchers, students, artists, journalists, civil society, diplomats, and the general public.

What do you hope participants will take away?

VN. Together with Alexandra, we are offering a series of conversations that aim to sustain a broader dialogue throughout 2026 and 2027. The audience will take part in and enrich this exchange — that is the goal. The aim is to debate, not to confront, by creating a space for expression and listening on a subject that is deeply political, sensitive, and sometimes passionate, while avoiding exclusion, hierarchy, or dogmatism. The diversity of voices and experiences promises constructive and meaningful sessions.

If you had to sum up what this series says about our time?

VN & AD. It is about putting the human being back at the center of the discussion. Restitution is not only about material heritage or ownership; it reflects a need to revisit narratives, to question our inheritances, and to bring greater transparency. This series will help us better understand the provenance of cultural objects, often considered artworks, but which may not always be such, and to examine the contexts — sometimes marked by violence — in which they were acquired. It highlights responsibilities and the evolving roles of different actors. Although restitution cannot repair the past, it can provide recognition. New actors are now involved, particularly local communities, who have the right to decide how their cultural heritage is shown and used. The challenge is to turn restitution into a tool for dialogue and cooperation between peoples, through the sharing of knowledge, the circulation of objects, and traveling exhibitions, while also making restitution procedures clearer. For philosopher Souleymane Bachir Diagne, restitution is not only about the return of objects, but an act of humanism grounded in relation, reciprocity, and a shared future. “The universal we must build together must emerge from the plurality of the world.”