TheMuseumsLab Alumni Contribution | Cultural Losses and Trauma
The loss of cultural property is a phenomenon that goes far beyond the material aspect. It affects historical, cultural, and social dimensions, and can be understood as a multi-layered intervention in the collective self-understanding of communities. Cultural property—defined as material objects of cultural, historical, or spiritual significance—is in many respects much more than physical artifacts. They contribute to the formation of identity, the transmission of tradition, and the preservation of cultural memory, and they can strengthen a sense of belonging within communities. Their loss through looting, theft, or expropriation—typically in contexts of injustice and oppression—leaves deep marks on affected individuals and communities going far beyond the material loss.
Therefore, analyzing the loss of cultural property and its impact on communities requires an interdisciplinary approach. While provenance research focuses on the historical and legal reconstruction of the origins of objects, other disciplines can help to understand their emotional consequences. The aim of this article is to build a bridge between these disciplines and to shed light on the interrelation of material dispossession and immaterial effects of collective trauma.
Cultural Property as Bearers of Identity and Cultural Memory
Cultural property embodies cultural, historical, and social values, making it central to a society’s cultural memory. Such objects symbolize traditions, worldviews, and collective knowledge, and often create links between the past, present, and future. A key aspect of their significance lies in their identity-forming character. They act as connecting elements within a community, enabling the transmission of values, memories, and stories to succeeding generations.
The loss of such property as a result of violent appropriation, collective expropriation, or systematic looting represents a rupture in the narrative and cultural continuities of the affected communities. This loss can be especially profound when cultural property is understood not only as historical artifacts, but also as spiritually or emotionally charged symbols that establish an emotional bond between the community and the object.
Trauma and the Loss of Cultural Property: A Psychological Perspective
In psychology, the term "trauma" refers to an injury to physical or psychological integrity that occurs as a result of an overwhelming experience. These are events that exceed ordinary coping capacities and place those affected in a state of inner helplessness and loss of control. In a collective context, events such as mass crimes or systematic exploitation have been described as collective trauma. The violent appropriation of cultural property often occurs in such contexts and is therefore interlinked with the experience of these events. Extending the concept of trauma to collectives has been criticized as we cannot infer individual level processes to operate at societal levels in similar ways. Nevertheless, the term has proven useful in describing the ongoing impact of violence on the social, cultural, and psychological structures of a society.
A significant aspect of collective trauma is its transgenerational transmission. Traumatic events leave traces that are not limited to the generation that experienced them. Subsequent generations can continue to be affected by narratives, symbols, and collectively shared memories, even though they did not experience the events themselves. This process has been described as “post-memory,” whereby transmission occurs not only through explicit storytelling but also through nonverbal communication patterns and implicit knowledge within the community.
Many postcolonial communities or Jewish people affected by the Shoah experience the loss of their cultural property as a lingering wound linking past and present on symbolic but also practical levels. Racism, discrimination and power asymmetries persist, and thus looted art, as an affective object, can symbolize both a historical event and its ongoing consequences in the present. On the perpetrator’s side, feelings of guilt and shame often block critical reflection and taking on responsibility, making engagement with the issue more difficult.
The Role of Provenance Research: Addressing and Revealing the Past
In this context, provenance research plays a central role. Its aim is to reconstruct the origins and ownership histories of cultural property, especially in cases where acquisitions occurred under unjust circumstances. From a historical perspective, provenance research serves not only to clarify legal questions of ownership but also to create a narrative context that reveals the meaning and past of an object.
The societal significance of provenance research emerges particularly from its ability to uncover and bring to light instances of wrongful appropriation. It provides a framework for critically reflecting on the historical power structures that led to the transfer of cultural property—such as colonial violence or mechanisms of Nazi persecution. The process of returning cultural objects, which often follows such research, supports not only the material restitution but also offers an opportunity to recognize and acknowledge injustice.
Limits and Potentials of Restitution
A central question in dealing with the loss of cultural property is the extent to which the return of museum objects—or artworks from private collections—can represent a productive form of engagement. Returning to the previous state is not possible; the damage suffered—material, emotional, and symbolic—inevitably remains part of the historical experience. Nevertheless, restitutions can play an important role by enabling the processing and renegotiation of identities. The concept of “repair,” which stands in contrast to “healing,” describes this process: it is about a reparative engagement that does not aim to restore a former state, but rather to contribute to changing narratives and symbolic foundations.
The restitution of cultural property is only effective if it is not understood as an isolated act. What is required is a dialogical approach that takes into account the perspectives of both the communities of origin and the receiving institutions. The process must contribute not only symbolically but also substantively to the cultural self-determination of those affected. A purely formal restitution, without reflection or change regarding the narrative and structural injustices that caused these losses, remains inadequate.
Museums and Institutions as Agents of Interdisciplinary Reflection
Museums and institutions play a decisive role in dealing with the loss of cultural property. They are not just places of storage and exhibition, but also spaces for the reflection and communication of artifacts and their histories, as well as history as such. Their responsibility is to make transparent
the origins and significance of the objects in their collections and to confront the circumstances of appropriation that often form the basis of these collections.
However, a sensitive, self-critical, and cooperative approach to cultural property requires an interdisciplinary perspective—one that integrates provenance research, trauma research, and cultural mediation. Particular attention must be paid to the perspectives of origin communities, whose voices are often marginalized. Museums must fulfill their role not only as educators but also as spaces where cultural losses, ruptures in identity, and possible forms of engagement can be made visible.
Museums as Digital and Participatory Knowledge Platforms
An urgent need to address the problematic history of cultural property is the digitization and online accessibility of collections. Digital archives and collections can be a means of democratizing access to cultural property, making it available to a wider public as well as to communities of origin – especially where restitution processes have not yet been completed or are not possible. Crucially, the digital space complements restitution; it can never replace it.
The use of digital technologies offers many opportunities to expand and modernize traditional museum work. For example, by making parts of collections available online in the form of high-resolution images, detailed descriptions, or interactive presentations, geographic and economic barriers that often limit access to physical objects in institutions can be overcome. This allows not only the interested public and researchers, but also members of the communities of origin to engage with the objects, conduct research, or revive their significance for their own culture.
Special opportunities also arise for forms of cultural exchange. Through digital databases and publicly accessible platforms, communities of origin can be invited to contribute previously little-known contexts, histories, or meanings of objects. These participatory approaches to expanding existing knowledge can help diversify the often Eurocentric perspectives of museum documentation. Similarly, digitization allows for greater public awareness of issues of provenance and the ethical challenges associated with the loss or theft of cultural objects.
However, digitization requires a sensitive and responsible approach on the part of institutions. It is important to ensure that communities of origin are actively involved in the collection, presentation, and framework for use of the data. Without their consent, digitization can represent a new form of appropriation, once again shifting control over one's cultural heritage. Transparency is crucial, as is the opportunity for communities of origin to help determine how the data will be used.
Another problematic aspect is the issue of culturally sensitive objects and human remains, where access through digital platforms may lead to inappropriate or disrespectful use. Clear ethical guidelines must be applied to ensure that data, such as digital texts and images, are treated with respect and care. This is particularly true for ritual or spiritually significant objects and human remains, where public access should be limited by technical means or mediated by context.
Questions of Narrative Responsibility in Exhibitions
The way history is presented in exhibitions also needs to be reconsidered. Narratives that have often been shaped by Western or institutional perspectives should be systematically expanded to include more complex representations that also reflect the contexts of appropriation and the perspectives of the communities of origin. Sensitivity toward these narratives can also be sharpened through interdisciplinary exchange—for example, with trauma researchers or historians.
Another important step lies in the active inclusion of communities of origin in decision-making processes. This not only concerns restitution procedures, but also the interpretation, presentation, and conservation of objects. The perspectives of these communities on their objects must be respected and taken seriously. Participatory approaches that place the expertise and cultural needs of those affected at the center foster dialogue between museums and communities and can help to question and overcome existing asymmetrical power relations. Only through such cooperation can museums fulfill their roles as mediators and build lasting trust.
Conclusion: Engaging With Loss as a Task
The multiple dimensions of the loss of cultural property require an interdisciplinary and dialogical approach. The loss of such objects affects not only the past, but is also part of the present and future in its cultural and socio-affective consequences. Dealing respectfully with these losses requires a combination of historical reconstruction, psychological sensitivity, and cultural responsibility.
Recognizing loss and collective trauma is not only a concern of the affected communities, but a societal task. It requires confronting narrative gaps, naming injuries, and working together to understand and productively process historical and cultural ruptures as part of our collective history. Since looted art is often held in museum archives, museums have a special responsibility in this regard.
Note
English translation of the article first published in German on February 17, 2025. Read the original at https://www.rem-mannheim.de/blog/kulturgutverluste-und-trauma/. The article is based on a panel discussion entitled "Cultural Property Losses and Trauma" that took place on January 14, 2025. The discussion took place at the Reiss-Engelhorn Museums and brought together perspectives from provenance research, psychology, and museum practice. The present article is not a direct transcript of the discussion, but rather reflects the key questions and themes that were raised. The aim is to deepen the discourse on the loss of cultural property and its far-reaching consequences, and to encourage reflection on interdisciplinary solutions.
Authors
Lina Krakau is a psychologist and research associate at the University Medical Hospital in Mainz. Her work focuses on clinical-psychological trauma research and interpersonal interaction, with a particular emphasis on social contexts. In addition, she is training in psychoanalytic psychotherapy.
Leslie Zimmermann is the Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Digital Strategy Manager at the Reiss-Engelhorn Museums in Mannheim, Germany, and a lecturer at the University of Mannheim. Previously, he worked as a digital strategy consultant at the State Office for Non-Governmental Museums in Bavaria in Munich and as a research associate at the Städel Museum in Frankfurt am Main. He studied art history at the Goethe University in Frankfurt and philosophy and sociology at the University of Kassel. His research focuses on the digital transformation of the cultural sector, critical engagement with technological developments, and the innovation and future of museums.
Jamie Dau has been Research Associate for Provenance and Archives at the Reiss-Engelhorn Museums since early 2024. He is an anthropologist and studied in Heidelberg, Mainz, Toulouse, and Vienna. In recent years, he has researched the provenance of collections from West Africa and Oceania at the MARKK in Hamburg.