The Vigango Affair - IA de Investigación especializada en el MIT

The Vigango Affair
The Enterprise of Repatriating Mijikenda Memorial
Figures to Kenya

Joseph Nevadomsky

On January 15, 2014 the California State

Universidad, Fullerton (CSUF), repatriated
twenty-seven Mijikenda vigango memo-
rial wood posts. Ten days later the vigango
figures were air-freighted to Kenya, su
place of origin. The success of this endeavor
depends on one’s point of view. University administrators and
Kenyan embassy officials in 2011 had signed the transfer doc-
uments with a no blame proviso. Bureaucratic procedures and
unanticipated hindrances delayed the repatriation and almost
thwarted it. Assisted by the US State Department, repatriation
went ahead, concluding a process begun in 2008. After nearly a
decade success at last! A job well done! Mission accomplished!
But where in Kenya? And where are the vigango?

Donated in 1991 to the Department of Anthropology at CSUF,
many people had a hand in the repatriation effort. Mitch Avila,
then associate dean of the College of Humanities and Social
Ciencias, noted, “… it took three deans, a couple of [CSUF] pres-
idents, several provosts, and lots of faculty and staff involvement
to pull this off.”1 Ultimately, it included the Kenyan ambassador
and a United States congressman.

My involvement began as a casual observer. My curiosity was
piqued, sin embargo, by discussions about the eventual placement
of this disused collection—keeping it, gifting it to a suitable
museum in the United States, or repatriation to Kenya—and by
in-house debates about repatriation, an issue that looms large
in museum epistemology. As discussions became heated, el
administration dropped a blanket over the vigango issue, entonces
renegotiated repatriation. After the vigango arrived in Kenya, I
became more curious because no one knew or cared where the
figures were located. Colleagues had lost interest, administradores

Joseph Nevadomsky is the California State University, Fullerton 2000
h&SS Distinguished Professor. He has also taught at the University of
Lagos, University of Benin, UCLA, USC, and the University of Zimba-
bwe. His focus is on Benin kingship rituals, brass-casting, prehistory,
and palace architecture. jnevadomsky@fullerton.edu

58 | african arts SUMMER 2018 VOL. 51, NO. 2

were diffident, and Kenyan consular officials had no clue. Experts
I contacted—American anthropologists Monica Udvardy and
Linda Giles and Kenyan ex-curator John Mitsanze—were as puz-
zled as I was.

This is the story of that repatriation, a project complicated by
law, bureaucracy, advocacy, international marketing, Kenyan
internal affairs, and the Mijikenda.2 Although vigango are
listed as “protected objects” by the NMK (National Museums
of Kenya) and recognized as the cultural patrimony of peo-
ples in the Republic of Kenya under the 1983 Antiquities and
Monuments Act of Kenya, Kenya until recently had not ratified
el 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and
Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership
of Cultural Property (Prott 1996: 29–44; Kouroupas 1996: 87–93).
No international laws prevent Westerners from owning
vigango and Kenyan law does not prevent their sale. They may
be purchased “with impunity,” anthropologist David Parkin tells
a nosotros (1986: 19). Available in Nairobi and Mombasa art galleries and
tourist craft shops, they are objects nobody initially made any
bones about. Joseph Murumbi, first vice-president of Kenya and
co-owner (with Alan Donovan) of African Heritage Gallery, a
popular shop in Nairobi for upscale tourists and collectors, dis-
played and sold them (Kasfir 1992: fig. 18). They appear in Nairobi
coffee shop window displays. In March 2009 Kenya gazetted
vigango as protected objects, but restrictions on exporting them
are weak. Wiped clean by legerdemain—cash transactions, fake
receipts—vigango reside in museums and private collections
outside Kenya (Udvardy 2013). Actors Gene Hackman, Powers
Boothe, Linda Evans, Dirk Benedict, and Shelly Hack are among
the Hollywood celebs who have owned them (Udvardy et al.
2003). Three vigango were in the Sotheby’s catalog for Andy
Warhol’s estate (Lacey 2006). They are a collectible cultural art.

VIGANGO MEMORIAL SPIRIT MARKERS
The Mijikenda live between Mombasa and Lamu just inland
from the Kenyan coastal plain. Known as the “nine tribes”
(Giriama, Rabai, Ribe, Kambe, Kauma, Jibana, Chonyi, Duruma,
and Digo, although the latter two, heavily Islamized, do not carve

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
a
a
r
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
2
5
8
1
8
1
4
7
1
1
a
a
r
_
a
_
0
0
4
0
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Vigango are Mijikenda commemorative spirit markers. Estos
representational effigies, four to six feet high (Higo. 2), are sacred
reminders of deceased ancestors (Marrón 1972: 20). Unlike the
identifying headstones of Western internment practices, vigango
honor the dead but are not grave markers. Solicited by mem-
bers of an elite group known as Gohu (lobo 1986: 54–55) ellos
memorialize powerful men of this society (Higo. 3). The posts are
placed near a Gohu member’s house in or near a thatched shelter
(Higo. 4). Linda Giles likens the Gohu to a fraternity not unlike the
socially responsive Rotary Club in the United States (Giles 2014:
78), while Nancy Ngowa likens them to clergy in the traditional
religion of the Mijikenda (2016: 2).

The posts form a visual link between the world of the living and
the memorable dead, and interfacing these worlds is important
to a family’s welfare. An unhappy spirit is blamed for crop failure,
enfermedad, even death. Spirits may appear in a dream; a healer may
suggest erecting a kigango (the singular of vigango) or—if for an
ordinary citizen—a koma, half the size, plain, little more than a
stick figure. Koma are generalized ancestral spirits more widely
distributed than vigango.5 As long as the ancestor is remembered,

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
a
a
r
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
2
5
8
1
8
1
4
7
1
1
a
a
r
_
a
_
0
0
4
0
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

1 Map of coastal Kenya from the CSUF exhibition,
showing names and locations where the vigango
originated.
Photo: Lisa Gonzalez

2 CSUF exhibition showing several vigango exhibit-
ed in buckets of sand. Caption adapted from Alfred
Scheinberg (Agosto 2, 1990), Courtesy Ernie Wolfe III.
Photo: Lisa Gonzalez

The foregrounded post is from Sokoke village (columna-
lected by Ernie Wolfe III (n.d.). The post has no facial
features other than the notched rectangle that depicts
the nose. Starting slightly above the waist, both sides
of the torso are edged with interconnected triangulated
chip work.

vigango), they are mostly Muslims or Christians, girdled by local
animist traditions.3 They share economic niches and a coalesced
identity derived from colonialism (willis 1993: 28–29). Ellos son
said to have migrated from what is now southern Ethiopia, find-
ing a safe haven in the rolling hills of southeastern Kenya, a lo largo de
the Indian Ocean, with sufficient rainfall for farming (lobo
1979: 4). The map in Figure 1 shows the original village locations
of CSUF’s repatriated vigango.4

VOL. 51, NO. 2 SUMMER 2018 african arts | 59

3 Kigango installation ceremony, Mijikenda Group,
Giriama People, Matembeni Village, Northern Kiliﬁ
distrito. Sacriﬁces mark the high and concluding
point of the ceremony. Agosto 1981.
Photo: courtesy Ernie Wolfe III

4 Mijikenda Group, Msumarini area, Giriama
People. The large ﬁgure to the right with typical
carved, incised, triangular designs is a kigango,
representing a Gohu member. The four smaller
round-headed and uncarved ﬁgures are vibao
representing Gohu members who have been
previously depicted by a kigango at another loca-
ción. The six smallest posts are koma, hermanos
or wives of the Gohu member. This arrangement
represents a visual kinship chart of a deceased
Gohu member. The thatched background
structure is a communal grain and cooking area.
Between it and the posts is a barely distinguish-
able grave marked by a large rock.
Photo: courtesy Ernie Wolfe III

WHAT ABOUT EXPATRIATED VIGANGO?
They are also subject to theft. Vigango are illicitly removed as
part of an inside job, by somebody in the household or a neighbor.
Posts are clumped, in haphazard fashion, not difficult to identify
and not easy to sneak up on. Vigango posts are now sometimes
embedded in concrete or protected by a wire cage (Udvardy et
Alabama. 2003).

Because the vigango have commercial value, family arguments
arise over selling their vigango or continuing to honor them as
ancestral markers. As a rule, elders care more about tradition,
while the young opt for sale. Nancy Ngowa is very clear on this
asunto: Youths collect the vigango, seeing these figures as a busi-
ness opportunity “in supplying tourists … and failed to take into

family and Gohu members make offerings to these figures.

Flat, two-dimensional, chip-carved boards, vigango follow a for-
mulaic simplicity but vary in detail. Some have faces with rounded
naturalistic heads (Higo. 5), or discs with highly schematized designs
(Higo. 6). Also common are oblong (Higo. 7) and rectangular heads
(Higo. 8), and ones with minimal facial features (Higo. 9). Ellos son
usually elaborated with incised triangular motifs (Higo. 10) that may
represent ribs or incisions that are indicative of other body fea-
turas. Many are notched to represent the waist (Higo. 11) or other
anatomical features (Higo. 12). Some are painted (Higo. 13) con
white pigment and red vegetation stains, charcoal or soot black,
even modern laundry bluing. Some are adorned with a twist of
cloth at the neck or waist (Higo. 14). Some have unusual architec-
tonic markings (Higo. 15) and show unusual
configuraciones (Higo. 16). Incision marks
and paint do not carry a load of meaning,
but identify an individual. (The absence
of markings indicates a leper.) Modern or
refurbished posts supplant the traditional
paint palette with foreign or imported oil-
based pigments (Sieber 1986: 25–34; lobo
1986: 56–58).

“Planted” near local homesteads, ellos
are left there when these seminomadic
agricultural landholders move. Udvardy
says that “They are nearly always in a
homestead, mostly at the edge … to pro-
tect them from the elements … [y]
if one is found outside the homestead
it has probably been left behind when
the homestead moved.”6 In a slash-and-
burn environment, they are sometimes
destroyed by fire or a tractor plow7 (Parkin
1986: 19). Made of hardwood from the
muhuhu tree, they are also subject to rot
and rain, but not termites.

60 | african arts SUMMER 2018 VOL. 51, NO. 2

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
a
a
r
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
2
5
8
1
8
1
4
7
1
1
a
a
r
_
a
_
0
0
4
0
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
a
a
r
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
2
5
8
1
8
1
4
7
1
1
a
a
r
_
a
_
0
0
4
0
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

5 Kigango memorial efﬁgy
Southeastern Kenya, Mijikenda Group, Giriama People,
Gohu Society (chama ya Gohu)
Hardwood (muhuhu tree); incised facial features; weathered
patina; erosion to bottom; carving on verso; h: 185 cm
Collected in Roka Tezo by Ernie Wolfe III (n.d.)
Caption adapted from Alfred Scheinberg (Agosto 2,1990),
courtesy Ernie Wolfe III
Photo: Justin Stewart

Geometric incised forms in asymmetrical patterns across
the disc-like head and torso, above a notched waist. El
head on its elongated neck is articulated with incised eye-
brows above circular eyes and notched mouth. Two arcs on
either side of the head refer to ears. The torso is carved with
incised triangles, alternately inward and outward directed.

6 Kigango memorial efﬁgy
Southeastern Kenya, Mijikenda Group, Giriama People,
Gohu Society (chama ya Gohu)
Hardwood (muhuhu tree); incised facial features; rojo, white,
and black polychrome; carved on verso; h: 168 cm
Collected in Marafa by Ernie Wolfe (n.d.). Caption adapted
from Alfred Scheinberg (Agosto 2, 1990), courtesy Ernie
Wolfe III
Photo: Justin Stewart

The polychrome is an element of design and emphasizes
the geometric work with the chip work painted in alternat-
ing areas of black and white in different schema in each of
the two torso areas. There is also a deeply notched, vertical
line in the center of the chest. The face is delicately carved;
the head is bordered with doubled, triangulated chip
work indicating hair. The face retains painted arced black
eyebrows over small, notched eyes, nose, and mouth. El
painted eyebrows relate the facial features to the general
shape of the head.

7 Kigango memorial efﬁgy
Southeastern Kenya, Mijikenda Group, Giriama People,
Gohu Society (chama ya Gohu)
Hardwood (muhuhu tree); incised facial features; weath-
ered patina; traces of polychrome; light erosion to bottom;
H168cm. Collected in Kibaokiche by Ernie Wolfe (n.d.).
Caption adapted from Alfred Scheinberg (Agosto 2, 1990),
courtesy Ernie Wolfe III
Photo: Justin Stewart

This ﬁgure has a rectilinear form that makes it look carpen-
tered. The ﬂat vertical rectangle of the head is incised with
eyebrows, ojos, nose, and mouth in a relatively detailed
moda. The post is bordered above the notched waist with
incised, interconnected triangles.

consideration the religious and cultural implications of their actions” (2016: 4).
She says there was “a booming trade … in the 1980s when tourists would buy
the carvings and take them abroad” (Ngowa 2016: 4). For some, the vigango
are a sacred patrimony; others see these figures as a negotiable commodity
(Brantley 1981: 151–53; willis 1993: 28–30).

Ernie Wolfe, an art dealer in Los Angeles, says that local Mijikenda are
nonchalant about their vigango, while Udvardy says their theft is a source of
consternation to Mijikenda elders. Generational differences and shifts in cul-
tural focus have created a cultural cleavage for much of the twentieth century
(willis 1993: 184–85), but is now more pronounced. Some Mijikenda have less
need to tap into the collective memory of their ancestors in times of stress.
Mijikenda are small-scale farmers and casual laborers, but those more receptive
to change work in hotels and for the coastal tourist trade (Kusimba 1996), y
are indifferent. Although it is considered “bad form” to uproot them, Parkin
says there is little adverse reaction (1986: 19).

Most of the art world’s information about vigango posts and the Mijikenda
came from Wolfe’s exhibition book on the Giriama Mijikenda, which has
extensive field photographs of vigango, Mijikenda initiations, meetings of
elders, and the setting up of a shrine. It includes his essay “Collector’s Note
and Acknowledgments” (1979: 11-dieciséis) and essays by Africanist art historian Roy
Sieber (1986: 25–34) and anthropologist Parkin (1986: 17–24). It includes an
endorsement from the Kenyan ambassador to the United States. A subsequent
version focuses on the sculptural tradition (lobo 1986).

Wolfe sees the vigango through a curator-collector’s eyes, which regards them
as “the wonderful cross-cultural ambassadors that they have become. Ellos son
truly pan-humanistic representations of the human form. They are human
abstractions and are the most beautifully common denominators.”8

Udvardy’s talking points focus on the social contexts of the vigango and pil-
laged cultural heritage. She and Giles urge their return to the Mijikenda owners.
Cultural ownership is paramount, as is their advocacy, although it may be hard
to find the original owners.

VOL. 51, NO. 2 SUMMER 2018 african arts | 61

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
a
a
r
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
2
5
8
1
8
1
4
7
1
1
a
a
r
_
a
_
0
0
4
0
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

8 Kigango memorial efﬁgy
Southeastern Kenya, Mijikenda Group, Giriama People,
Gohu Society (chama ya Gohu)
Hardwood (muhuhu tree); incised facial features; traces of
red polychrome; erosion to bottom; h: 185 cm
Collected in Marafa by Ernie Wolfe (n.d.). Caption adapted
from Alfred Scheinberg (Agosto 2, 1990), courtesy Ernie
Wolfe III
Photo: Justin Stewart

The head is an horizontally oriented rectangle. The face
is elaborated with horizontal pointed ovals as eyes and
mouth, and with arcs as eyebrows and nose. Above the
notched waist, torso sides are edged with large, intercon-
nected incised triangles.

9 Kigango memorial efﬁgy
Southeastern Kenya, Mijikenda Group, Giriama People,
Gohu Society (chama ya Gohu)
Hardwood (muhuhu tree); incised facial features; weath-
ered patina; erosion to bottom; aluminum repairs to head;
h: 173 cm
Collected in Bamaba by Ernie Wolfe III (n.d.). Caption
adapted from Alfred Scheinberg (Agosto 2, 1990), courtesy
Ernie Wolfe III
Photo: Justin Stewart

The grain shows effects of weathering, especially by
windblown sand. There is mottled discoloration from
lichen growth. The tab-shaped head with minimized neck
is articulated with incised notches for the eyes and mouth.
Aluminum repairs to the head suggest that the post has
been repaired.

10 Kigango memorial efﬁgy
Southeastern Kenya, Mijikenda Group, Giriama People,
Gohu Society (chama ya Gohu)
Hardwood (muhuhu tree); incised facial features; weath-
ered patina; erosion to bottom of post; ﬁssures in head;
h: 193 cm
Collected in Goshi by Ernie Wolfe (n.d.). Caption adapted
from Alfred Scheinberg (Agosto 2, 1990), courtesy Ernie
Wolfe III
Photo: Justin Stewart

An unusually tall kigango that follows the traditional form.
The disc-like head is articulated with incised, arced eyes
over a horizontally notched mouth. Above the notched
waist, the post is edged with deeply cut interconnected
double rows of isosceles triangles. Two rows of similar
chip work border the torso. Weathering has leached the
color from the surface.

62 | african arts SUMMER 2018 VOL. 51, NO. 2

DUELING POINTS OF VIEW
Vigango have become art collectible commodities because of their aesthetic min-
imalism and Wolfe’s pivotal efforts. From the late 1970s through the early 1990s,
the Los Angeles dealer created an international market for them. An enthusiastic
dealer and amateur anthropologist, Señor. Wolfe holds a degree in art history. Él es
what in the trade is called “a picker.” He can spot or create a trend (p.ej., Ghanaian
movie posters, lobo 2011).9 His writings on the vigango (lobo 1979, 1986) alto-
light the cultural art history of the Mijikenda (see Cole 1987: 74–75).

Wolfe was not the only dealer of note selling vigango. James Willis in San
Francisco and Reginald Groux in Paris handled sales of related types of objects.
Sin embargo, Señor. Wolfe was the most newsworthy. The Wall Street Journal (Keates
2009), The New York Times (Spindler 2002), and other major newspapers com-
mented on the divergent views of celebrity gallerist Wolfe and repatriation
champions Udvardy, Giles, and Mitsanze.

Udvardy, Giles, and Mitsanze say that the vigango Wolfe sold were illegally
removed by unemployed kids; in Udvardy’s words: “probably stolen or acquired
through ethically controversial means.”10 Wolfe says he bought most of them from
souvenir shops in Mombasa.11 Uprooted vigango are sold by runners contracted
by souvenir shops or sold by thieves directly to shop owners. Wolfe negotiated a
few with elders who, he says, approved the sale. Wolfe defends collecting, selling,
and exhibiting them. These vigango were “deactivated” with “limited tempo-
ral power” and “ritually obsolete” (Lacey 2006), their spiritual powers spent.
Anyway, they were abandoned, Wolfe says, y, at the times he visited Kenya,
hardly regarded as cultural icons.

Udvardy, Giles, and Mitsanze say the vigango are not throwaways. Buying them
from youths who uprooted them, elders who profited from the sale but do not
own them, or souvenir shops does not mean they had become socially defunct
or spiritually inactive. They claim that most were removed without authoriza-
tion and illegally bought by dealers and tourists. Udvardy says the Mijikenda
often move their homesteads in search of arable or grazing ground but may later
return. They disagree with Wolfe, who sees relocation as validation for reframing
the vigango as marketable “international art commodities” (Lacey 2006).

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
a
a
r
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
2
5
8
1
8
1
4
7
1
1
a
a
r
_
a
_
0
0
4
0
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

VIGANGO IN MUSEUMS
Some twenty institutions in the United States own about 400
vigango. En 1999 Udvardy,12 an anthropologist at the University
of Kentucky, discovered a kigongo in a collection at Illinois State
Universidad (ISU) at Normal that she had recorded as stolen while
conducting field research among the Giriama in 1985 (Giles et al.
2003; Udvardy et al. 2003, Udvardy 2013). En 1992 Giles, then a
faculty member at ISU, discovered a collection of vigango among
the artifacts rescued from the holdings of the ISU Museum after
the Museum shut down permanently the year before.

Udvardy and Giles teamed up, documented vigango in US
museum collections, and realized that some were illegally
acquired. Journalist Mark Pflanz in Kenya also raised the issue—
his Christian Science Monitor and Daily Telegraph articles (Pflanz
2006a, b) brought worldwide attention to vigango. Estos, together
with an almost full-page article about their theft in The New York
Times (Lacey 2006) and the later report by Udvardy et al. (2013)
in American Anthropologist, brought media fame for the vigango.
They uncovered a transatlantic trade in these memorial figures
(Giles, Udvardy, and Mitsanze 2003; Udvardy and Giles 2011).

A few museums surrendered a few figures. En 2006, the Illinois
State Museum and the Hampton University Museum in Virginia
(Lacey 2006, Udvardy and Giles 2011) surrendered one each from
their collections (the Illinois State Museum had thirty-eight, el
Hampton University Museum had ninety-nine) after the NMK
requested that they be returned to the Mijikenda families they had
been removed from, based on photographic evidence that Udvardy
supplied. En 2007 Boston University repatriated nine vigango in a
ceremony that was held at the United Nations (CBC 2007) and cre-
ated a museum exhibit for educating the public about repatriation.
Considerándolo todo, about a dozen vigango have been repatriated.

Recientemente, the Denver Museum of Nature and Science (DMNS)
opted to return thirty vigango gifted in 1990 by actor Gene
Hackman and movie producer Art Linson. Repatriation com-
menced in 2008. “It took the museum five years to negotiate”
the deal, “details of which remain under negotiation” (Mashberg
2014: C4–5). Approved for return to Kenya on February 25,
2014, the DMNS effort (Nash and Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2014)

11 Kigango memorial efﬁgy
Southeastern Kenya, Mijikenda Group, Giriama People, Gohu
Sociedad (chama ya Gohu)
Hardwood (muhuhu tree); incised facial features; weathered pati-
ya; traces of plaster; lightly eroded bottom; h: 145 cm
Collected in Kazingo by Ernie Wolfe (n.d.). Caption adapted from
Alfred Scheinberg (Agosto 2, 1990), courtesy Ernie Wolfe III
Photo: Justin Stewart

Beneath the neck, three outward facing incised arcs on either
side indicate pectoral muscles. Similar incised features above the
notched waist indicate the pelvic bones. Post is bordered with
triangular chip work, here retaining much of its plaster inlay.

12 Kigango memorial efﬁgy
Southeastern Kenya, Mijikenda Group, Giriama People, Gohu
Sociedad (chama ya Gohu)
Hardwood (muhuhu tree); incised facial features; remains of poly-
chrome; erosion to bottom; h: (total) 196 cm
Collected in Mariango by Ernie Wolfe (n.d.). Caption adapted from
Alfred Scheinberg (Agosto 2, 1990), courtesy Ernie Wolfe III
Photo: Justin Stewart

This large kigango appears massive because of the small scale of
the geometric incisions. Above the notched waist are doubled,
interconnected isosceles triangles, forming elevated zigzag lines.
Chip work trisects the torso.

13 Torso detail of kigango seen in Figure 6.

parallels that of CSUF in time and procedure, if not intention.
Packed and ready to go, the vigango never left Denver, however.13
The CSUF collection was not on Udvardy’s tally of US institu-
tions holding vigango. CSUF’s repatriation was never really about
returning the vigango to their rightful owners, the Mijikenda. Él
was about legal ownership and political liability. Administradores
feared creating a publicity scandal for the university that might
affect its federal funding. And so CSUF officials notified the
NMK and Kenyan consular officers that they wanted to repatriate
the university’s vigango.

VOL. 51, NO. 2 SUMMER 2018 african arts | 63

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
a
a
r
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
2
5
8
1
8
1
4
7
1
1
a
a
r
_
a
_
0
0
4
0
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

14 Kigango memorial efﬁgy
Southeastern Kenya, Mijikenda Group, Giriama
People, Gohu Society (chama ya Gohu)
Hardwood (muhuhu tree); incised facial features;
erosion to bottom; h: 188 cm
Collected in Kinago by Ernie Wolfe III (n.d.).
Caption adapted from Alfred Scheinberg (Agosto
2, 1990), courtesy Ernie Wolfe III
Photo: Justin Stewart

A disc-like head, narrow notched waist, and incised interior
details. The head is minimally articulated with horizontally
notched eyebrows and eyes above a similar incised mouth. El
chest area of the torso is edged halfway with an incised triangu-
lar line, a shortcut for chip work. An X of horizontally notched
smaller lines alludes to an illness. Trade cloth round the neck.

15 Kigango memorial efﬁgy
Southeastern Kenya, Mijikenda Group, Giriama People, Gohu
Sociedad (chama ya Gohu)
Hardwood (muhuhu tree); incised eye; losses to left side of
cabeza; highly eroded bottom; traces of kaolin; h: 201 cm
Collected in Ganza by Ernie Wolfe III (n.d.). Caption adapted
from Alfred Scheinberg (Agosto 2, 1990), courtesy Ernie Wolfe
III
Photo: Justin Stewart

Triangulated chip work forming sheins of guilloche patterns
horizontally and vertically. May relate to Swahili architectural
características, especially veranda posts, and may be associated with
estado. The torso is carved with these patterns above and below
the notched waist. The head is eroded at the top edge; en
the right a horizontal notch delineates the surviving eye. El
minimal facial features emphasize the architectonic features.
The surface has a mottled patina, with areas of surviving white
polychrome.

16 Kigango memorial efﬁgy
Southeastern Kenya, Mijikenda Group, Giriama People, Gohu
Sociedad (chama ya Gohu)
Hardwood (muhuhu tree); highly weathered patina; discolor-
ation from lichen growth; ﬁssures; central splitting to torso;
bottom highly attenuated; h: 140 cm
Collected in Bachoma by Ernie Wolfe III (n.d.). Caption adapted
from Alfred Scheinberg (Agosto 2, 1990), courtesy Ernie Wolfe
III
Photo: Justin Stewart

The weathering, prominent graining, ﬁssures in the wood, y
mottled gray patina imply an early post. The head is articulated
with two large, incised circular eyes; deeply incised triangulated
chip work lines both sides of the torso. There is no waist notch
and the post has an evident S curve.

64 | african arts SUMMER 2018 VOL. 51, NO. 2

THE CSUF DONATION
In December 1991, the CSUF Division of Anthropology
received a donation of 27 vigango, arranged by Los Angeles art
dealer/collector Ernie Wolfe III on behalf of Joseph and Laura
Ciaramella.14 Mr. Wolfe had field-collected the posts, and he
gave invaluable information on them and the Mijikenda. Acerca de
the same number of posts were donated to Mesa College in San
diego. Wolfe freely admits that he introduced a market for the
vigango after one of his many trips to Africa. By the 1980s the
posts had become trendy in Hollywood and Beverly Hills.

Records show that the Ciaramellas had the vigango appraised
para $200,000 (Scheinberg 1990) just before they donated them; a year earlier they had been appraised at $81,000. A decade
later they had assessed art market values of $4,000–5,000 each. Vigango sold at a 2012 Paris auction for $5,000 and at a 2013
Sotheby’s auction for $11,900. About $150,000–$250,000 is a rea- sonable present-day assessment of market value for these vigango. NAGPRA, THE NSF AWARD, AND CSUF The repatriation effort at CSUF fits in an atmosphere of other events. One was the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), enacted November 1990. En 2011 Museum Anthropology published a thematic issue commemo- rating the twentieth anniversary of NAGPRA that focused on remains stored as museum specimens (Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Nash 2011). Although NAGPRA focused on Native American historic artifacts and human remains, it resonated widely as a model for the return of objects and artworks illegally acquired from colonial times to the present. American natural history museums were alarmed for their holdings of human remains of Native American groups. In the early 2000s, the German Museums Association beefed up its ethical guidelines for the return of remains. The Economist A second event was the National Science Foundation (NSF) infrastructure award, a $1,000,000 matching grant to add lab
space for a new Department of Anthropology at CSUF. Este
arrangement fit nicely into the typical four-field approach for
the department’s BA and MA programs. The award funded a
museum and computer lab, as well as labs for archaeology, oste-
ology, and primatology. An NSF enhanced teaching award of
$100,000 allowed for a visual anthropology lab as a teaching and service unit. NAGPRA and the NSF awards spurred a rethinking of the anthropology department. Was the museum a collections facil- idad, or a teaching facility, o ambos? Department staff reconfigured the museum as a training and research facility in museum stud- es (Parman 2003). Citing Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (1998), Susan Parman, who developed the NSF grant, noted that It is not objects themselves in an exhibit that connotes class status but the role of curators who manipulate category relations when they generate inventories and arrangements … The [Department of Anthropology museum] is a training ground for experiments in representation and self-reflection. It is not so much composed of material objects that represent the culture of others, but explora- tions of acts of construction (2003: 61). THE CSUF EXHIBITION AND REPATRIATION The postmodern turn in the social sciences helped to recon- ceptualize an undergraduate university anthropology museum as “collectionless,” focused on virtual exhibitions and ideas about museum collections. The brochure for the anthropology’s vigango exhibition states: “Our mission is to teach students how to develop museum objects, rather than to collect ethnographic objects.” Because this would be a collectionless museum, there was no reason to keep the vigango. Repatriation efforts were com- bined with a museum science course in 2008 that focused on the vigango. The campus and community could see the vigango before their return to Kenya and be made aware of issues around repatriation and cultural patrimony.15 Titled Closer to Home: Repatriating Kenya’s Vigango, the exhibition brochure had these instructive headings: For Whom Are Vigango Made? • Who Are the Mijikenda? • Why Are Vigango Made? • • What Is Repatriation? • How Did These Vigango Get to CSUF? • Why Are the Vigango Going Back to Kenya? With a paltry $1,000, students placed vigango in covered buck-
ets of sand (Higo. 17); others were set in a sandbox with lighting
suggesting a dusky gray day, to symbolize ambivalence (Higo. 18).
Wall displays showed where the CSUF vigango came from, village
by village (with information provided by Ernie Wolfe), the his-
tory of Kenya, and the issue of repatriation. Simple but effective.
To facilitate repatriation, the department contacted archae-
ologist Chapurukha Kusimba. Then Curator of African
Anthropology at the Field Museum in Chicago and a Research
Associate at the NMK, he researches Swahili and Giriama peo-
ples on the Kenya Coast. Dr. Idle Farah, then Director General
of the NMK, also agreed to assist. Kusimba would meet the ship-
ment at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) in Nairobi,

VOL. 51, NO. 2 SUMMER 2018 african arts | 65

17 Vigango set in covered buckets of sand for the
CSUF student exhibition. The foregrounded ﬁgure
is also seen in Figure 5.
Photo: Lisa Gonzalez

(2014: 28) reported that a Berlin hospital returned the body parts
of thirty individuals to Australia and New Zealand. Trade in
human remains still occurs, sin embargo. The same magazine article
reported the arrest of an Italian in central Africa caught export-
ing forty human skulls from Burundi to Thailand. Other major
newspapers reported Native American artifacts like Hopi and
Apache ritual objects had appeared at a Paris auction, a pesar de
increasing publicity about tribal artifacts has given a fresh impe-
tus to restitution.

Following NAGPRA guidelines, CSUF archaeologists item-
ized their collections. Bones and ritual items were set aside for
return to legitimate descendants. Items for Hawaii and Southern
California Native American groups were decorously returned.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
a
a
r
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
2
5
8
1
8
1
4
7
1
1
a
a
r
_
a
_
0
0
4
0
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

mar. Entonces, suddenly, the vigango left CSUF for LAX to Kenya on
Enero 24, 2014. Associate dean Avila explains,

As it turns out, two serendipitous events occurred. Primero, como resultado
of the sequester [the Obama budget sequester of funds imposed
Enero 2013] the State Department had a fund of money that had
been set aside for returning cultural artifacts such as the vigango
and those funds need[ed] to be dispersed by Sept 30 [2013]. Segundo,
[Congressman] Ed Royce became the chair of the House Foreign
Relations Committee [in January 2013] and influence from his
office now commands respect even in the far corners of the globe.
Money for the return of the vigango was transferred to Kenyan
National Museum, and US Embassy personnel in Kenya have been
helpful in moving this process forward.17

Orange County Kenyans had a jaundiced view. The shipment
would disappear in Nairobi, they said, or be hijacked on the road
from Nairobi to Mombasa, and the vigango would be recycled
into the artifact commodity market. Udvardy and Giles (2011)
admit that the NMK is porous and attention to heritage sites lax,
a situation noted by others (Karoma 1996; Kusimba 1996; Mturi
1996; Wilson and Omar 1996).

VIGANGO: THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY
Heritage collection ethics is a thorny, grainy issue. Repatriation
is convoluted. It is “never straightforward” says Chip Colwell-
Chanthaphonh, the curator at the DMNS. “But,” he adds, “just
because a museum is not legally required to return cultural
property does not mean it lacks an ethical obligation to do so”
(Mashberg 2014).

Ethics or not, the vigango raise legal, political, and proprietary
asuntos. Immediately evident are the rights of those who acquired
the objects against those demanding repatriation or restitution,
equations that include national heritage and patrimony laws, el
sovereignty of specific objects, and the politicization of cultural
heritage.18

At issue are the concerns of art historians and the excavation
practices of archaeologists, the pedagogical goals of public and
university museums, the desire of the institution to protect its
collections and honor its promises to benefactors and to satisfy
the imperative claims on those objects. There are the proprietary
rights of those who lay claim to the objects. It is a contested arena,
from James Cuno’s (2008) pious assertion that the West protects
the heritage of the rest of the world to Kwame Okopu’s (2014)
persistent missives demanding return to origin.

Defenders of their collections see their domain as a “curato-
reum” that, like a crypt, preserves the dead; repatriation activists
see these depositories as a “curatorium” that destroys cultural
identity just as a crematorium destroys the dead. To complicate
matters, at around the same time the world of Southern California
museums was roiled by accusations of illegal acquisitions. El
Getty’s statue of Aphrodite illuminated the ethical pitfalls of
acquiring antiquities (Frammolino 2011; Felch and Frammolino
2011). The case resonated with CSUF because the then president
and CEO of the J. Paul Getty Trust, Barry Munitz, who oversaw
the Getty Center in Los Angeles, had earlier served as a contro-
versial chancellor of the twenty-three-campus California State
University system.

En 2008 an undercover investigation by federal agencies
focused on four southern California museums—the Los Angeles
County Museum of Art, the Pacific Asia Museum in Pasadena,

18 Student Curator Justin Stewart arranges a
Kinago Village kigango (also seen in Figure 14).
Photo: Lisa Gonzalez

clear it through customs, and the NMK would truck the vigango
to the Fort Jesus Museum at Mombasa. Working with colleagues
and village elders, they would identify the owners of the vigango.
A laudable if optimistic plan. Divergent schedules sank it, como
did departmental contention. The administration set up a com-
mittee that had its own tack and contacted US Congressman Ed
Royce and the State Department. In April 2011 Royce met with
the Kenyan ambassador, the Honorable Elkanah Odembo, en
Washington, corriente continua. On November 21, 2011, Royce, university offi-
cials, and Kenyan consular officers met on campus and signed the
transfer documents. The twenty-seven vigango were then crated.16
Negotiations dragged on for more than two years over ship-
ping and costs. Piracy off the Somali coast ruled out shipment by
66 | african arts SUMMER 2018 VOL. 51, NO. 2

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
a
a
r
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
2
5
8
1
8
1
4
7
1
1
a
a
r
_
a
_
0
0
4
0
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

19 Malindi District Cultural Association
Chairman Joseph Mwarandu is among those
campaigning for the release of the CSUF repa-
triated vigango held by Kenyan customs at JKIA.
Daily Nation, Septiembre 14, 2016.

the Mingei International Museum in San Diego, and the Bowers
Museum of Art in Santa Ana—and raided them as part of
the inquiry. The Bowers had ties to the CSUF Department of
Anthropology through internships and guest lectures, but had no
connection to the “so-called Bang Chiang culture” of Thailand,
the focus of the federal investigation. In the end, the Bowers was
determined not to have violated any laws.19

This murky atmosphere and series of morally ambiguous deals,
as well as a national swirl of federal investigations at other muse-
ums—the Metropolitan Museum in New York, the Museum of
Fine Arts, Bostón, the Cleveland Museum, etc.—plus interna-
tional demands for repatriation—the Elgin Marbles and Benin
bronzes from the British Museum, the Getty Aphrodite—pro-
vided ample cautionary notes about the pitfalls of acquiring
antiquities and other patrimony .

Udvardy et al. point to Shelley Errington’s revealing statement
that “Art was invented simultaneously with collecting, y el
two are inconceivable without each other” (Udvardy, Giles, y
Mitzanze 2003: 79; see Errington 1998, especially chapter 2).
The issues are not a simple conflict between avaricious deal-
ers and heritage crusaders. Roderick McIntosh (1996: 45–62)
and Michel Brent (1996: 63–78) describe the “web of networks
in which auction houses, art journals, laboratories, and muse-
ums contribute to service an obscure but scandalous form of
commerce” (Schmidt and McIntosh 1996: 5). Colin Renfrew’s
(2000) book on loot and legitimacy focuses on illicit archaeo-
logical digs. However these objects are acquired—pillaged from
excavations, chipped from shrine facades, lifted from temples,
purchased from locals, dynamited off facades—cultural objects
on the art market today have a murky provenance and are the
products of illicit traffic, fiduciary transactions, the collusion of
collectors and museums on a no-questions-asked basis.20 Barbara
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett’s Destination Culture: Turismo, Museums,
and Heritage (1998) implicates everyone from the museum visi-
tor and the casual tourist to the indigenous seller and the wealthy
collector, the museum curator and the scholar.

WHERE ARE THE VIGANGO?
Was the CSUF enterprise a successful repatriation? For the
CSUF administration, absolutely: They got rid of the vigango.
For the NMK, it was an unasked-for and dubious gift, mientras que la
Mijikenda still sit in the wings. Blowback about the vigango came
from Kevin Brown, a BBC reporter stationed in Nairobi.21 He
learned that Customs refused to release the crate of vigango until
a tariff of 5,000,000 Kenya shillings (= US$47,000) was paid.22 Nobody has paid the tariff, so the vigango languish in a JKIA cargo shed. The tariff was a big surprise! Import regulations now impose a tariff even on repatriated items, a policy shift that neither CSUF nor the Kenyan consulate in Los Angeles knew anything about. Vigango had got through before without duty, setting an easy precedent for future repatriations. (In the nick of time, the NMK sent a message to the DMNS not to ship their crated vigango.) The CSUF response was “Shame on Kenya.” CSUF officers were surprised by what they saw as a lack of transparency.23 The NMK expressed disinterest and said they had enough vigango on local display and in museum storage, and there were no funds to pre- serve more. The Department of Finance, through the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), refused to budge. Government agen- cies had more pressing priorities, like border security. Besides, the Mijikenda constitute only 5% of Kenya’s population. The Giriama, especially, have been relegated to the economic and political backwater throughout much of the twentieth century (Brantley 1981: 152). Purity Kiura, Director of Museums, Estados, and Monuments at the NMK, confirms that the CSUF shipment is stuck at the JKIA. The NMK cannot approach the KRA directly but must work through the Department of Culture. The two departments have exchanged letters but nothing has come of it.24 The new Director- General of the NMK, Mzalendo Kibunjia, is aware of the situation, having authorized previous repatriations. The governor of Kilifi County and other dignitaries from the coast visited the DMNS in August 2015. Freda Nkirote, the interim Director of Cultural VOL. 51, NO. 2 SUMMER 2018 african arts | 67 l D o w n o a d e desde h t t p : / / directo . mi t . / f e d u a a r / a r t i c e – pdlf / / / / / 5 1 2 5 8 1 8 1 4 7 1 1 a a r _ a _ 0 0 4 0 3 pdf . f por invitado 0 8 septiembre 2 0 2 3 Heritage at the NMK, suggests pressure on the district governor of Nairobi. The snarls of bureaucracy continue operating infallibly. Initial interest by the BBC has lapsed. Articles in the Standard of Kenya headlined Mijikenda cultural appeals for the posts and questioned the government’s rationale on imposing a tariff. “Kenya Elders Protest Taxation of Stolen Artifacts,” one head- line blared. Spearheaded by John Mitsanze, now a Mijikenda spokesman after leaving the NMK, the Mijikenda marched and petitioned.25 Mitsanze announced their demands at an August 2015 All Denominations Peace Conference in Nairobi.26 Mitsanze has sent the case to the Kenya Watch for Justice Implementation Committee. Más recientemente, Nancy Ngowa, a lecturer at Pwani University, Kilifi, wrote an extensive newspaper article (2016) that mentions the CSUF effort, the DMNS collection, and local efforts to retrieve the vigango, not only from overseas museums but also from collections in Kenyan museums, and return them to their rightful owners (Higo. 19). The vigango exist in the contexts of postmodern theory and global realities, conveying diverse meanings (see Kasfir 1992), from the CSUF administration’s equivocations, to Hollywood’s chic vision of them as conversation pieces, to tourists who bought them as decorative pieces for display, to Mijikenda care- takers, and Kenyan bureaucrats. Vigango are palimpsests, each figure initially incised with cultural meanings of the Gohu elite but now inscribed with external discourses, practicas, política, and economics. CSUF dreamed the vigango would be housed at Fort Jesus, Mombasa, a late sixteenth century Portuguese fort, now a heritage site and museum with a permanent exhibition on the Giriama group of the Mijikenda (willis 2009: 238). Fort Jesus is near the farming communities where the vigango were carved. But if and when the vigango will get to Fort Jesus, or to the Mijikenda, is anybody’s guess. Notas 11 Ernie Wolfe III, personal communication, March repatriation movement (Mashberg 2014). 1 Mitch Avila, email to CSUF staff, Enero 16, 2014. 2 I wrote this essay as a cautionary tale. I have used real names rather than pseudonyms in accordance with the wishes of the people in Kenya I contacted. Linda Giles, John Mitsanze, and Monica Udvardy stressed publication of this essay, in a form that would give it exposure. Udvardy has reread the essay and its revisions, offering information and encouragement. She is now writing an extensive report on the vigango and the Mijikenda. Material is culled from reports provided by the CSUF Department of Anthropology. Most is unattributed. I would like to thank the follow- ing whom I think contributed to these reports, from which I have drawn freely: Nancy Jenner, Julie Perlin Lee, Brenda Bowser, Lisa Gonzalez, Jack Bedell, Justin Stewart, Joan Miller, Stacy St. James, Tannise Colly- más, Debra Redsteer, and the students in the Fall Semester 2008 Museum Studies class taught by Julie Perlin. I have also drawn on the email correspondences of Mitch Avila, Associate Dean, Humanities and Social Sciences, California State University, Fullerton. Monica Udvardy replied to all my queries, as did Linda Giles. I am very grateful to John Mitsanze for his insights and biography. 3 Samson Ngwono, a chemistry lecturer at CSUF tells me that “Mijikenda specifically refers to the nine tribes native to the Kenyan coast. Miji means village and kenda means nine” in Swahili (personal communi- catión, Febrero 3, 2016). 4 Many of the twenty-seven vigango repatriated by CSUF have a different village of origin, some may no longer exist, or may be difficult to find in a slash-and burn/herding village economy. 5 Monica Udvardy, personal communication, Septiembre 25, 2016. 6 Monica Udvardy, personal communication, Septiembre 25, 2016. 7 Ernie Wolfe III, personal communication, Marzo 2, 2016. 8 Ernie Wolfe III, personal communication, Marzo 2, 2016. 9 For over a decade Ernie Wolfe III traveled Africa’s West Coast in search of hand-painted movie posters that originated in Ghana. His Extreme Canvas (2011) is a juxtaposition of traditional African art and modernity. 10 Monica Udvardy, personal communication, Agosto 18, 2015. 68 | african arts SUMMER 2018 VOL. 51, NO. 2 2, 2016. 12 Monica Udvardy has been interviewed on BBC World’s program Outlook, NPR’s All Things Considered, Kenya National Television, as well as about fifty news- documentos (Monica Udvardy, personal communication, Agosto 3, 2015). 13 The Government of Kenya currently regards vigango repatriation as a low priority item, often ignor- ing repatriation. Both the DMNS and CSUF shared some of the procedures that brought them success: (1) soliciting a politician (or celebrity such as an athlete or dignitary) for assistance; (2) paying for crating and / or shipping costs; (3) providing publicity with Kenyan officials in attendance; y (4) giving Kenya most of the public credit for the repatriation. 14 Art collectors Laura and Joseph Ciaramella were sued by the Santa Monica Rent Control Board with a court-appointed arbitrator awarding the tenants and the board nearly $40,000 for art the tenants said they
were forced to buy—memorial posts from Kenya as
reported—as an end run around rent control and in
exchange for lower rents (Los Angeles Times 1993).
15 Julie Perlin Lee, seconded from the Bowers

Museum in Santa Ana to the anthropology department
on a part-time basis, taught the course in museum
anthropology and curated the exhibit. Joseph Neva-
domsky photographed the vigango exhibit and the
individual figures. The background information on
provenance pieced together by Nancy Jenner, archae-
ology curation technician, would provide a record
because the CSUF collection was not on Udvardy’s list
(Udvardy, Giles, and Mitsanze 2003: 569).

16 The 1,217-pound wooden crate featured slide-
out drawers and special cushioning for each piece of
the collection, a work of real craftsmanship.
17 Mitch Avila, email, Enero 15, 2014.
18 Maxwell Anderson, director of the Dallas
Museum of Art and chairman of an Association of
Art Museum Directors task force on archaeological
and ancient artifacts, said institutions should evaluate
repatriation claims on a case by case basis, with an eye
toward returning objects even at the risk of alienating
donors (Mashberg 2014). Mesa College in San Diego,
the institution that received the other half of the Cia-
ramella donation and unaware of efforts made by the
CSUF and the DMNS, plans to auction off its vigango.
19 Increasing publicity about tribal objects with a
spiritual significance, including Native American arti-
facts like Hopi and Apache ceremonial items recently
auctioned in Paris, has given a fresh impetus to the

20 The chair of the anthropology department at the
DMNS, Stephen Nash, while willing to give up vigango
and offer guidance to other museums on ethics, agree-
ing that these posts are spiritual and cultural property,
felt stymied by institutional barriers to giving up objects
or proper return mechanics (Mashberg 2014).

21 Kelvin Brown is a photographer and producer
with twenty years of experience in journalism working
for the BBC based in Nairobi and responsible for
East and Southeast Africa news coverage. An email
from Kelvin Brown opened the way to investigating
what had happened to the vigango after they arrived
in Nairobi. The only information up to then was that
of the CSUF administration, which simply noted that
there had been a hitch at Jomo Kenyatta International
airport.

22 Kelvin Brown, personal communication, Sep-

tember 15, 2015.

23 One can understand the CSUF disillusionment.
From November 2012, after the final agreement between
CSUF, Congressman Ed Royce, and General Consul
Wenwa Akinyo Odinga Oranga was signed, to August
2013, nearly twenty pieces of correspondence were sent
by F. Owen Holmes, Jr., Associate Vice President (Público
Affairs and Government Relations) requesting action by
the consulate to pick up the crated vigango. No action
was taken and the correspondence virtually stopped
until CSUF agreed to bear all costs.

24 Dr. Purity Kiura said that the artifacts had no

commercial value and questioned the rationale of
imposing a tax. As she said, “Culture and heritage are
the basis of any nation and we do not understand why
tax should be imposed on such items.” She appealed to
governors in coastal counties “to intervene and secure
the vigango at the airport due to the huge tax placed on
them” (Beja 2015).

25 John Baya Mitsanze has worked hard to raise
public awareness in Kenya of the imposition of the
tariff on vigango, bringing attention to the fact that
the vigango from CSUF are in an airport warehouse.
Mitsanze’s efforts are the reason for the headlines in
Kenyan newspapers. As a Giriama (Mijikenda), Mit-
sanze worked with Linda Giles and Monica Udvardy
collecting data on the vigango and as a strong advocate
of cultural heritage escorted journalists into the field
and has been interviewed by them about missing
artifacts.

26 Mitsanze took part in a conference workshop on
bringing African Traditional Religion into the Kenyan
school curriculum.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
a
a
r
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
2
5
8
1
8
1
4
7
1
1
a
a
r
_
a
_
0
0
4
0
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Kouroupas, Maria Papageorge. 1996. “US Efforts in the
Protection of Cultural Property: Implementation of the
1970 UNESCO Convention.” In Peter R. Schmidt and
Roderick J. McIntosh (editores.), Plundering Africa’s Past,
páginas. 87–93. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Prott, Lyndel V. 1996. “Saving the Heritage: UNESCO’s
Action Against Illicit Traffic in Africa.” In Peter R.
Schmidt and Roderick J. McIntosh (editores.), Plundering
Africa’s Past, páginas. 29–44. Bloomington: Indiana Univer-
sity Press.

References cited

Beja, Patrick. 2015. “Community Forced to Pay Tax
to Reclaim Its Stolen Treasures.” Standard Digital
Noticias, Agosto 9. https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/
article/2000172246/community-forced-to-pay-tax-to-
reclaim-its-stolen-treasures

Brantley, Cynthia. 1981. The Giriama and Colonial
Resistance in Kenya, 1800–1920. berkeley: Universidad de
California Press.

Brent, Michel. 1996. “A View Inside the Illicit Trade in
African Antiquities.” In Peter R. Schmidt and Roderick
j. McIntosh (editores.), Plundering Africa’s Past, páginas. 63–78.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Marrón, Jean. 1972. “Traditional Sculpture in Kenya.”
African Arts 6 (1): 17–20, 58, 88.

CBC. 2007. “Memorial Carvings Returned to Ken-
yan Officials.” http://www.cbc.cza/arts/artdesign/
story/2007/06/26/kenya-vigango-return.html

Col, Herbert. 1987. “Vigango: Commemorative Sculp-
ture of the Mijikenda of Kenya by Ernie Wolfe” [Book
revisar]. African Arts 20 (4): 74–75.

Kusimba, C.M. 1996. “Kenya’s Destruction of the
Swahili Cultural Heritage.” In Peter R. Schmidt and
Roderick J. McIntosh (editores.), Plundering Africa’s Past,
páginas. 201–24. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Lacey, Bagazo. 2006. “The Case of the Stolen Statues:
Solving a Kenyan Mystery.” New York Times, Abril
16. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/world/
africa/16artifacts.html

Los Angeles Times. 1993. “Is This Just an Artful Way
Around Rent Control?" [Westside Watch]. Julio
4. http://articles.latimes.com/1993-07-04/news/
we-9821_1_rent-control-law

Mashberg, Tom. 2014. “Sending Artworks Home,
but to Whom? Denver Museum to Return Totems to
Kenyan Museum.” New York Times, Enero 3. https://
www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/arts/design/denver-mu-
seum-to-return-totems-to-kenyan-museum.html

Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip, and Stephen E.Nash,
eds. 2011. The Deafening Silence: NAGPRA, Repatria-
tion and the Papers of Museum Anthropology. Theme
issue, Museum Anthropology 33 (3).

MacIntosh, Roderick. j. 1996. “Just Say Shame: Excising
the Rot of Cultural Genocide.” In Peter R. Schmidt and
Roderick J. McIntosh (editores.), Plundering Africa’s Past,
páginas. 45–62. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,

Cuno, James. 2008. Who Owns Antiquity? Museums
and the Battle over Our Ancient Heritage. Princeton,
Nueva Jersey: Prensa de la Universidad de Princeton.

Errington, Shelly. 1998. The Death of Authentic
Primitive Art and Other Tales of Progress. berkeley:
University of California Press.

Felch, Joson, and Ralph Frammolino. 2011. Chasing
Aphrodite: The Hunt for Looted Antiquities at the
World’s Richest Museum. Nueva York: Hougthton Mifflin
Harcourt.

Frammolino, Ralph. 2011. “A Goddess Goes Home.”
Smithsonian 42 (7): 40–49.

Giles, Linda. 2014. “Complexities of Identity in Coastal
East Africa.” In Rebecca Gearhart and Linda Giles
(editores.), The Mijikenda and their Neighbors in Kenyan
Coastal Society. páginas. 55–72. Trenton, Nueva Jersey: Africa World
Prensa.

Giles, Linda, with Monica Udvardy and John Mitsanze.
2003. “Cultural Property as Global Commodities—The
Case of Mijikenda Memorial Statues.” Cultural Survival
Quarterly 27 (4): 78–82.

Karoma, NUEVA JERSEY.. 1996. “The Deterioration and Destruction
of Archaeological and Historical Sites in Tanzania.”
In Peter R. Schmidt and Roderick J. McIntosh (editores.),
Plundering Africa’s Past, páginas. 191–200. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.

Kasfir, Sidney L. 1992. “African Arts and Authenticity:
A Text with a Shadow.” African Arts 25 (2): 40–53,
96–97.

Keates, Nancy. 2009. “Out of Africa, in California.”
Wall Street Journal, Noviembre 20, pag. A10.

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara. 1998. Destination
Cultura: Turismo, Museums, and Heritage. berkeley:
University of California Press.

Mturi, Amini Aza. 1996. “Conflicts and Contradictions
in the Conservation of Historic Structures, Towns,
and Rock Art in Tanzania.” In Peter R. Schmidt and
Roderick J. McIntosh (editores.), Plundering Africa’s Past,
páginas. 170–90. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Nash, Stephen E., and Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh.
2014. “When Heritage Goes Home: Repatriation of
Vigango from the Denver Museum of Nature and
Science” [In Focus]. Anthropology News 55: e21–e61.
doi:10.1111/j.1556-3502.2014.55302.x

Ngowa, Nancy Jumwa. 2016. “Bring Back Vigango to
Their Rightful Locations.” Daily Nation, Septiembre 14.
http://www.nation.co.ke/lifestyle/dn2/We-want-our-
carvings-back/957860-3380422-3or9jl/index.html

Okopu, Kwame. 2014. “A Season of ‘Miracles?’ Boston
Museum Returns Looted Nigerian Artefacts” [Correo].
Museum Security, Julio 5. https://www.toncremers.nl/
kwame-opoku-a-season-of-miracles-boston-muse-
um-returns-looted-nigerian-artefacts/

Parkin, David. 1986. “The Society and Culture of the
Mijikenda.” In Ernie Wolfe III (ed.), Vigango: Com-
memorative Sculpture of the Mijikenda of Kenya, páginas.
17–24. Williamstown, MAMÁ: Williams College of Art.

Parman, Susan. 2003. “The Paradoxical Museum
at California State University, Fullerton.” Museum
Antropología 26 (2): 54–62.

Pflanz, Miguel. 2006a. “Theft of Sacred Vigango Angers
Kenyan Villagers.” Christian Science Monitor, Marzo 2.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0302/p05s01-woaf.
html

Pflanz, Miguel. 2006b. “Kenyans Welcome Home Sacred
Relics Stolen by British.” Daily Telegraph, Abril 15, pag. 12.

Pogrebin, Robin. 2007. “Nine Statues Uprooted from
Africa Head Home.” New York Times, Junio 26, pag. B1.

Renfrew, Colin. 2000. Loot, Legitimacy, and Own-
ership: The Ethical Crisis in Archaeology. Londres:
Duckworth.

Scheinberg, Alfred. 1990. “Group of Twenty Seven
Vigango.” Report, Agosto 2. Nueva York: Alfred
Scheinberg.

Schmidt, Peter R., and Roderick J. McIntosh. 1996.
“The African Past Endangered.” In Peter R. Schmidt
and Roderick J. McIntosh (editores.), Plundering Africa’s
Past, páginas. 1–17. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Sieber, roy. 1986. “A Note on History and Style.”
In Ernie Wolfe III (ed.), Vigango: Commemorative
Sculpture of the Mijikenda of Kenya, páginas. 25–34. Wil-
liamstown, MAMÁ: Williams College Museum of Art.

Spindler, Amy. 2002. “The Importance of Being Ernie.”
New York Times, Enero 2. http://www.nytimes.
com/2002/01/06/magazine/style-entertaining-the-im-
portance-of-being-ernie.html

Udvardy, Monica L., Linda L. Giles, and John B.
Mitsanze. 2003. “The Transatlantic Trade in African
Ancestors: Mijikenda Memorial Statues (Vigango) y
the Ethics of Collecting Non-Western Cultural Prop-
erty.” American Anthropologist 105 (3): 566–80.

Udvardy, Monica. 2013. “Memorial Statues, Art Mar-
kets, and Museums: The Morality Chain of the Global
Trade in African Cultural Property.” Paper presented at
the African Studies Association Conference, baltimore,
Maryland, November 20–24.

Udvardy, Monica, and Linda Giles. 2011. “Looted
Memorial Statues Returned to Kenyan Family.” Saving
Antiquities for Everyone, Junio 23. http://www.savingan-
tiquities.org/author/monica-udvardy-and-linda-Giles/

willis, Justin. 1993. Mombasa, the Swahili, y el
Making of the Mijikenda. Oxford Studies in African
Affairs. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

willis, Justin. 2009. “The King of the Mijikenda and
Other Stories about the Kaya.” In Derek R. Peterson
and Giacomo Macola (editores.), Recasting the Past: Historia
Writing and Political Work in Modern Africa, páginas.
233–50. Atenas: Ohio University Press.

wilson, Thomas H., and Athman Lali Omar. 1996.
“Preservation of Cultural Heritage on the East African
Coast.” In Peter R. Schmidt and Roderick J. McIntosh
(editores.), Plundering Africa’s Past, páginas. 225–49. Blooming-
tonelada: Indiana University Press.

lobo, Ernie, III. 1979. An Introduction to the Arts of
Kenya. Washington, corriente continua: Museum of African Arts,
Smithsonian Institution.

lobo, Ernie, III. 1986. Vigango: Commemorative Sculp-
ture of the Mijikenda of Kenya. Williamstown, MAMÁ:
Williams College Museum of Art.

lobo, Ernie, III, ed. 2011. Extreme Canvas: Hand-
Painted Movie Posters from Ghana. Los Angeles, California:
Dilettante Press.

VOL. 51, NO. 2 SUMMER 2018 african arts | 69

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.