More than a century after its violent appropriation, a central symbol of West African culture is returning to its place of origin. France has officially restituted the so-called “Talking Drum” to Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast). What may superficially appear as the return of a single museum object is in fact an expression of a profound change in European memory politics – and part of a reassessment of the relationships between former colonial powers and African states.
A Colonial Trophy
The history of the drum dates back to 1916. During the First World War, then French West Africa was under strict colonial control. During this period, there were repeated military punitive expeditions against local resistance groups who opposed forced conscriptions and tax collections. In the course of one such operation, the “Talking Drum” was confiscated and taken to France.
Such appropriations were not isolated cases but a systematic part of colonial exercise of power. Cultural objects were regarded as trophies, as evidence of imperial superiority, or as scientific collection pieces for ethnological museums. The Ivorian drum eventually became part of French state collections and was most recently kept in the Paris Musée du quai Branly – Jacques Chirac – an institution that houses tens of thousands of objects from Africa, Asia, Oceania, and America.
For decades, the instrument was presented in a museum-like manner, detached from its political and social context. Its original function as a means of communication faded into the background; what remained was an aestheticized exhibit in a display case.
The Talking Drum as a Political Instrument
The “Tambour parleur” is, however, much more than a musical instrument. In many West African societies, the talking drum serves as a medium of political communication. By varying the tension of the drumheads, different pitches can be produced that correspond to the tonal patterns of local languages. This allows complex messages to be transmitted over long distances – from calling a meeting to warning of dangers.
The now restituted specimen comes from the region around Abidjan and is attributed to the Ébrié (Atchan) ethnic group. In the precolonial order, it had a central function at official occasions. The drumbeat announced decisions of traditional authorities and symbolized political legitimacy. Its violent appropriation was thus not only a material loss but a targeted intervention in the symbolic order of the community.
The fact that the drum is now returning is understood in Abidjan as an act of historical recognition. The Ivorian government speaks of a restoration of cultural dignity. In a country that has repeatedly experienced political crises, military interventions, and civil wars since independence in 1960, such symbolic acts carry an identity-forming significance.
France’s Change of Course in Restitution Policy
The return of the drum is not an isolated event, but part of a broader reorientation in France’s cultural policy. A decisive impetus was given in 2017 by a speech from President Emmanuel Macron in Ouagadougou. There he declared that African cultural heritage should not remain permanently in European collections if it was acquired under colonial conditions. Within five years, the conditions for temporary or definitive restitutions should be created.
Subsequently, a fundamental report was produced, written by the art historian Bénédicte Savoy and the Senegalese economist Felwine Sarr. The so-called Sarr-Savoy report of 2018 recommended extensive returns, provided that objects were demonstrably taken under coercion or violence. The publication sparked an intense debate – not only in France, but throughout Europe.
The legal implementation, however, is complex. French state collections are traditionally considered “inaliénable,” meaning inalienable. Therefore, each return requires a special law. As early as 2021, the parliament passed a corresponding law for the restitution of 26 artworks to Benin. In the case of the Ivorian drum, a legislative step was also necessary.
Symbolism and Structural Questions
Critics complain that the French restitution practice has so far remained sporadic. Given around 70,000 objects from sub-Saharan Africa alone in the Musée du quai Branly, the return of individual pieces appears more symbolic than systemic. In fact, the administrative hurdles are considerable, as are the diplomatic agreements with countries of origin.
Proponents counter that each individual case sets a precedent. Restitution is not merely a logistical act but touches on questions of property rights, historical responsibility, and international cooperation. Moreover, it is not exclusively about physical returns but about a new form of collaboration: joint provenance research, training programs for curators, long-term loan agreements.
For Côte d’Ivoire, the “talking drum” could be a starting point. More objects with Ivorian context are held in French collections. Abidjan has indicated that systematic review is desired—a process that requires diplomatic skill and institutional capacities.
A New Institutional Framework in Abidjan
The question of the future location is not trivial. The plan is to exhibit the drum in the national museum in Abidjan, possibly in the Musée des Civilisations de Côte d’Ivoire. It is intended not to be presented merely as a historical artifact, but as part of a living culture of memory.
The challenge is to avoid another decontextualization. Some voices advocate involving traditional authorities and local communities more strongly in curatorial decisions. Restitution is not exhausted by the physical return; it also demands a discussion about to whom cultural heritage belongs and who may dispose of it.
In this sense, the “talking drum” becomes a touchstone for a collaborative cultural policy. It compels us to think beyond ownership to responsibility.
The symbolic significance of this return goes beyond bilateral relations. It touches the fundamental question of how European societies want to deal with their colonial heritage. The debate is by no means settled. It oscillates between legal details and moral fundamental considerations. But with every return, the normative framework shifts: What was long considered a legitimate part of national collections is being reassessed.
The drumbeat that once announced political decisions in an Ivorian village now echoes on the international stage. It serves as a reminder that historical violence does not disappear into the archives but continues to have an impact – in institutions, in legal systems, in cultural identities. The restitution of the “Tambour parleur” is not a final closure on the colonial past. Rather, it is a signal that history remains negotiable – and that political responsibility can still be effective more than a hundred years later.
P.T.