By Adieyatna Fajri, Martijn Eickhoff, Nanci Adler, Klaas Stutje, and Daan Raemaekers

WP 4A of the Pressing Matter program focusses on reconciliation and the legacies of violence. For that reason, from 26 and to 31 May 2024, Pressing Matter-researchers of WP4A engaged in a workshop in Indonesia, as a continuation of an earlier PM-workshop held in Amsterdam on March 31, 2023. In the first workshop in Amsterdam it was emphasized that cultural heritage is inherently political and that “heritage” is not a neutral term. Heritage is a social construction and a discursive practice in which some histories become dominant and institutionalized to the exclusion of others. The narratives around heritage are carefully selected expressions of an envisioned political agenda. At both national and local levels, these narratives give meaning to objects and landscapes, providing communities that relate to them with a sense of place and belonging. 

While the first workshop primarily focused on addressing the concept of colonial violence and cultural genocide through a historical and legal framework, the second workshop shifted its emphasis towards the lived experiences of local, once colonized, communities and governments today. This shift was proposed after deliberations between the Pressing Matter and NIOD team, with the Indonesian counterparts: Department of Archaeology, Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM) and Bantenologi Laboratory, Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin (UINSMH) in Banten. By focusing on the experiences of local communities, the workshop aimed to foster a dialogue that acknowledges the complexities of colonial history and the contentious issue of artifact restitution, while placing present day heritage practices in Indonesia center stage. 

By taking the term ‘dialogue’, this workshop aims to build an egalitarian approach to discussing sensitive topics for all parties involved. However, we are fully aware that hierarchical and dynamic relationships exist within Indonesian communities, particularly concerning heritage. As you will see throughout the texts, there are differing and sometimes contrasting opinions, especially regarding ownership, control, and potential threats from external parties.

A six day research trip 

From 26 to 31 May 2024 a group of experts, 25 participants from Indonesia and 5 participants from the Netherlands reflected on archaeological sites, cultural heritage, objects, and practices related to colonial violence through a combination of site visits, seminars, interviews and workshops. The workshop’s agenda was geographically diverse, spread across three different cities: Jakarta, Banten, and Yogyakarta. Each location provided a unique setting for the discussions, which ranged from official histories to academic debates and often-overlooked local histories. The in-class workshop featured 16 presentations from experts from Pressing Matter and NIOD team, Groningen Institute of Archaeology, Bantenologi laboratory, Cultural Preservation Unit of Banten region, and Archaeology Department of UGM. The entire workshop was also attended by students from UGM and UINSMH.

The group visited the ruins of the Banten’s palace demolished by the colonial forces in 1808

(Photo by Rizky Wibisono)

Besides the in-class workshop, three site visits were organized as follows. The first visit was to a Chinese temple in Jakarta, Vihara Buddhayana (Klenteng Wan Kiap Sie), which houses a collection of 9^th to 10^th century Javanese Hindu-Buddhist sculptures, collected in the 1640s by a VOC chief merchant, Frederick Coyett. The Dutch participants were hosted by Mr. Among, the head of the vihara, who demonstrated how the Javanese Hindu-Buddhist sculptures are still cherished and worshipped today, but who also told how the temple was under treat of local strongmen and real estate investors. He hopes that a recognition of the temple – a former VOC building – and its statues as national heritage can protect the site. In Banten, the group visited the Old Banten heritage sites (Situs Banten Lama), where the ruins of the royal palace, demolished by colonial forces in 1808, still stand at the center. The group also visited a Batik workshop where ancient Bantenese motives are included in the cloth designs and patterns. In Yogyakarta, the group visited the newly registered UNESCO World Heritage site, the Yogyakarta Axis of Philosophy, which is an example of the mobilization of ‘heritage’ in city branding and tourism, as well as a former compound where in 1825 Prince Diponegoro was almost captured but miraculously managed to escape by breaching a wall. The site is today maintained and mobilized by the Indonesian army. These site visits, while highlighting different characteristics of ‘colonial heritage,’ demonstrate the resilience and resourcefulness of Indonesian local communities in engaging with the violent colonial history. 

A visit to the Vihara Buddhayana temple in Jakarta, which houses a collection of 9th-10th century Hindu-Buddhist sculptures, collected by VOC merchant Frederick Coyett

(Photo by Klaas Stutje)

The in-class sessions of the workshop commenced at UINSMH Banten, with a formal opening by the university’s rector, Professor Wawan Wahyudin. In his opening remarks, Wahyudin emphasized the significance of the workshop in contributing to contemporary understandings of colonialism and violence, issues that remain relevant and pervasive in many parts of the world today, including Israel and Gaza. His address set the tone for the workshop, underscoring the importance of continued dialogue about the legacies of colonialism in Indonesia and the Netherlands. After Professor Martijn Eickhoff, the director of the NIOD Institute, expressed his appreciation for the warm hospitality and gifts were exchanged, the workshop began with contributions about Banten’s local archeological policies. 

Gift exchanges of Pressing Matter-NIOD team and UINSMH

(Photo by Rizky Wibisono)

Senior Bantenese archaeologist Moh. Ali Fadillah from Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Banten, who outlined the long history of archaeological research conducted in Banten, observed how the local and provincial government emphasized the city’s Islamic identity while also challenging its colonial past. He was critical about short-sighted heritage policies by the local governments. In this context, Lita Rahmiati, head of the Cultural Preservation Unit of Banten region, addressed the Indonesian state government’s policy to protect and preserve Banten’s heritage. In the discussion, questions arose about the extent to which the local government can control the appropriation and invocation of Islamic identity in a way that aligns with the principles of archaeological preservation. 

Judging from recent excavation and revitalization projects, archaeological services in Banten are not primarily concerned with the violent colonial history and strong Bantenese resistance against colonial oppression. By contrast, the presentations by professor in history at UINSMH Banten, Mufti Ali and junior researcher from Bantenologi Laboratory Aris Muzhiat, brought this issue to light from a historical perspective. Ali, drawing on archival materials, focused on the figure of a Bantenese cleric (ulama) named H. Moekri (1862-1963), who, while strongly rooted in Islamic beliefs, was also affiliated with Communism as part of a global resistance against Western imperialism. Muzhiat, on the other hand, provided a detailed account of the long history of Bantenese resistance against colonialism, emphasizing that this spirit of resistance has remained a defining characteristic of the Bantenese people to this day. 

Professor at Islamic anthropology of UINSMH Banten, Yanwar Pribadi and the director of  Bantenologi laboratory Rohman, combining both historical-anthropological analysis and material culture studies, argued that the current issue of the ‘re-creation’ of Bantenese cultural identity, as the result of the neglect of colonial regimes, has heavily drawn inspiration from the Banten Sultanate era. Although its glorious period is long gone, its historical and material legacy continues to provide endless inspiration for the creation of a new Bantenese identity that is both retrospective, looking to the past of traditional Islam in the Sultanate era, and forward looking, in shaping an Islamic culture today.  

It is intriguing that the forging of new meanings through the appropriation of material cultures, as seen in the case of Banten, led to animated debates about which meanings and authenticity principles are to be upheld. It resonated with the contribution of Dr. Eeva-Kristiina Nylander (University of Oulu, Finland) during the first workshop in Amsterdam, about Sámi headdresses in Northern Scandinavia. She argued that although original meanings may have been lost with the taking away of objects, new meanings could still be found. These new meanings, she maintained, are as important as the original ones. 

Taken together the presentations profoundly demonstrated that heritage preservation and (re-)creation is inherently political. Rather than perceiving cultural objects merely as ‘things,’ the workshop approaches heritage as a social and cultural practice enacted by communities and individuals, where histories are selectively preserved or forgotten. This idea was also emphasized by Martijn Eickhoff (NIOD) in his presentation. Departing from material evidence, particularly colonial paintings of Indonesian ancient monuments, he critically illustrated how colonial heritage production is deeply infused with political motives, reflecting biases and imbalances in power dynamics. Likewise, while archaeology as a discipline is arguably a colonial legacy, the local Indonesian actors involved in this process are often rendered invisible. 

This imbalance in power is particularly challenging for an attempt to trace back Banten objects that were taken during colonial times, which, once removed from their original context, have experienced changes in meaning under different regimes of interpretation. Klaas Stutje (NIOD) provided an introduction to Dutch restitution policies and recent projects in the Netherlands that attempt to provide access and transparency regarding objects from Banten and elsewhere. He highlighted strategies to re-trace objects from Banten that may still be located in Dutch museum collections, waiting to be ‘discovered.’ Attempts to reconstruct object histories, as Adieyatna Fajri (NIOD/Groningen Institute of Archaeology/Archaeology Dept. of UGM) demonstrated with his research to a Bantenese spear in the Netherlands, are not as easy as they seem. Museum collections in Europe are organized according to certain logic that still reflects colonial practices of registering and grouping objects  This means that an object from one place, for instance from Banten, could have different identifications, making research into its provenance challenging. 

Nanci Adler (NIOD), professor of transitional justice, concluded the discussion in Banten by noting that much of the vocabulary and approaches to decolonization processes come from transitional justice. The Age of Decolonization emerged on the heels, or wings, of the Age of Transitional Justice.  She advocated for the usefulness of the transitional justice lens to address the irreparable harms inflicted by colonial violence. By this, she meant that transitional justice can seek to repair such harms by focusing on cultural heritage, and recognition of its loss due to violence. As the presentations have shown, transitional justice goals can be achieved by paying attention to local customs, needs, and understandings with regard to repair, negotiating competing interests, and involving government and non-government agencies. According to Adler, archaeology also plays a critical role in this context, as it can help identify issues such as absence and silence, contributing valuable insights to the pursuit of transitional justice. 

Moving to Yogyakarta 

While in Banten the discussion focused on listening to experiences and modes of engagement with the legacy of colonial violence, the discussion in Yogyakarta addressed the broader issue of heritage injustice, or the connection between the politics of heritage, and the perpetuation of physical and epistemic violence in colonial and post-colonial times. Yogyakarta is particularly interesting, as it had in 2023 been designated a World Heritage City by UNESCO (see: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1671/). This proved significant during the workshop, where the discussion frequently referred to violent dimensions of Yogyakarta’s heritage nomination, which included forced displacements, the installation of dominant cultural narratives, and damaging ways of preservation. 

Discussion with the descendants of the second Sultan of Yogyakarta about the restoration of the northeastern fort of the Yogyakarta Palace. (Photo by Rizky Wibisono)

Daud Tanudirjo, the prominent archaeologist from UGM, laid the foundation of the ensuing discussion by showing the political dimension of archaeology both as a discipline and a practice. He critically reflected on the epistemic framework of archaeological knowledge production, that took shape in the course of the nineteenth century, when the professionalization of archaeology emerged in Indonesia. This knowledge production survived subsequent twentieth century changes in political regimes, and overall has remained remarkably stagnant since colonial times. Panggah Ardiansyah from SOAS, on the other hand, offered an alternative approach to uncovering ‘local’ knowledge production on heritage and archaeology through comparative studies and lexicon analysis of words in the Centhini book, written in the Surakarta court in the 18th century. 

UGM historian Farabi Fakih, dissatisfied with what he sees as a stagnant approach to studying heritage in Indonesia as elaborated by Tanudirjo, advocated for incorporating community voices and ‘unacademic’ historical practices into the debate. Tasked with creating a new MA program, he suggested that a heritage curriculum should avoid essentializing heritage by focusing solely on objects and their violent histories, without considering their local and popular embedding. He warned that objects from the Netherlands will have no-one to return to, when the original communities are ‘educated away’. This epistemic violence, as shown by Tular Sudarmadi (Archaeology Dept. of UGM), can lead to other forms of violence, including direct violence, as evidenced by the gentrification associated with Yogyakarta’s nomination as a World Heritage City. 

The North-East Yogyakarta Sultanate fortress, which was destroyed by British troops in 1812, was restored in 2020 by the Yogyakarta municipality as part of the city’s World Heritage nomination program. When visiting the restoration site and speaking with descendants of the second Sultan of Yogyakarta, it became evident that the restoration is contested. This family was concerned about the restoration of the damaged fortress and the ‘retouching’ of the breached wall, as they believed it implied that the fierce battle between the second Sultan and the British troops was forgotten. They preferred a pre-restoration condition, where the dilapidated forts would serve as a reminder of the heroic actions of their ancestor, while diorama’s could give additional historical information.  This conversation allowed us to rethink how different actors, among whom the local Yogyakarta government, local populations, and the descendants of the second Sultan, have different ways of engaging with legacies of colonial violence.

In-class workshop in UGM, Yogyakarta (Photo by Rizky Wibisono)

The study of violent histories has indeed been a challenging topic within archaeology and heritage disciplines, and this extends to archaeological practices as well. Daan Raemaekers, professor of archaeology from the Groningen Institute of Archaeology, illustrated this in the case of archaeological excavations at Moluccan settlements in the Netherlands, raising questions about the role of archaeologists and the ethical implications and responsibilities they face when dealing with sites associated with violent pasts. At the invitation of Mahirta, who is the head of Archaeology Dept. of UGM and also participated in the various site visits, Raemaekers also gave a guest lecture to bachelor students of the archaeology programme where he discussed the start of farming in the Netherlands. In the workshop itself, Satrio Dwicahyo (History Dept. UGM/Leiden University)highlighted how Orientalist views persist in the display of military museums. He critically questioned the perpetuation of a “Disarming History” narrative in Indonesian historiography of warfare, where Indonesian combatants are often depicted as under-armed yet victorious fighters, reflecting outdated and biased perspectives. 

From the discussion on the political dimension of archaeology and heritage-related disciplines, the workshop in Yogyakarta ended with an animated discussion about the current issue of artifact repatriation. Sektiadi (Archaeology Dept. of UGM), in his final thoughts on the repatriation of cultural artifacts from the Netherlands, described the divergent Indonesian public reactions since 2010. The issue of repatriation of objects has become politized in the current political climate in Indonesia. Sektiadi’s perspective was shared by the descendants of Prince Diponegoro, with whom the group had an opportunity to speak. Unintentionally, the restitution of artefacts may give rise to disputes over the ownership of the objects, not only between the Netherlands and Indonesia, or Indonesia and its regions, but also among the large and diverse number of descendants of a renowned historical figure like Prince Diponegoro. In general, the group preferred restitution to the state, which was considered logical, because Diponegoro is a national hero. The same sentiment we encountered under the descendants of the second Sultan, who is a candidate for becoming an official national hero.  

A conversation with the descendants of Prince Diponegoro about the issue of artifacts repatriation

(Photo by Alif Daffa)

Reflection 

The workshops in Banten and Yogyakarta and the various site visits were very diverse in nature and gave rise to conversations and discussions on a wide range of topics, during the sessions but also in the many moments in between. The term “heritage,” approached through different lenses, became ever more complex and multi-layered. 

The title of the workshop, Bouncing Forward, Looking Back: Cultural objects, archeological sites and Responses to Colonial Violence, suggested that violence would be a central theme. However, over the course of the six-day program — comprising 16 presentations and six site visits—it became apparent that the history of violence was not the most recurring topic. Even though all participants were very aware of the history of violence of many of the sites and artefacts, the discussions meandered towards heritage and identity formation in the present, from various analytical perspectives. This shift reveals differing concerns and priorities between the Dutch and Indonesian parties regarding the perception of historical injustices and colonial legacies. For the Dutch participants, acknowledging the violence of the past on the part of the Netherlands is seen as a crucial starting point, from which present-day and historical and heritage injustice can be recognized and addressed. Meanwhile, the Indonesian parties, in a variety of ways, exhibited a more assertive approach, using the opportunity to reclaim and mobilize colonial legacies for their own purposes. 

Looking back on the six-day workshop, Moh Ali Fadhillah, who has invested decades in the development of archaeology in Banten, considered this workshop very innovative. It attempted to build a friendly dialogue between Indonesian and Dutch parties on the sensitive topics of colonial violence and how we should engage with colonial legacy. According to him, it was a fruitful discussion that offered a new perspective on heritage, one that seems to have been approached differently by the Indonesian public in general. 

For Tular Sudarmadi, the main takeaway from this workshop was that heritage and the policy practices related to it are heavily imbued with violence. The workshop allowed us to consider that violence can manifest in subtle, epistemic ways, but can also lead to very harmful outcomes, as demonstrated by the cases discussed throughout the program. 

Martijn Eickhoff shared the impression that the discussion on heritage in Indonesia entered a new phase. This is not only the case because only recently restitution of colonial collections has become a reality (while two decades ago it was still unimaginable), but also because the intrinsic political and violent nature of the history of heritage formation in the Indonesian archipelago is less contested, while the disguising concept ‘shared heritage’ loses its power of persuasion.     

Abdilla, student from History department of UGM, who was born long after Indonesian independence, reflected that the idea and understanding of the colonial past could only be imagined through academic lessons, rather than personal experience. Indonesia in her time is very different from previous decades. The debates on cultural heritage, its political character, and oftentimes violent history made her aware that the colonial past is still influencing the relation between Indonesia and the Netherlands. Abdilla hopes that the repatriation agenda will help build true reconciliation between the Netherlands and Indonesia. 

For Adieyatna Fajri the discussions throughout the workshop will contribute to Chapters 5 and 6 of his dissertation, which explore the heritage formation of Old Banten, particularly the ruins of the royal palace. He plans to approach these ruins by examining the ways they are mobilized and engaged with. Rather than viewing them merely as ‘remnants’ or ‘traces’ of colonialism, the ruins are dynamic and reflect how contemporary society lives with and imagines the colonial past. This approach acknowledges that the legacy of colonialism might limit or obscure the understanding of the colonial history, where issues of violence may not always be the primary concern.  

In summary, the two workshops, in the Netherlands and Indonesia, as part of the Pressing Matter program, were efforts to explore potential reconciliation trajectories. For that reason, the workshop was built upon questions regarding what Indonesian and Dutch communities can learn from each other when addressing the material legacies of the colonial destruction of the former city of Banten, both on societal and legal levels. The two workshops have indeed shown, through discussions and dialogue, that researchers and communities on both sides can learn a lot from each other. The participants of Pressing Matter realize better that  different Indonesian local communities and academics in Banten and Yogyakarta reflect on, use and build on colonial histories in various ways, often using episodes of violence in creating new narratives towards the future. 

The workshop group (Photo by Archaeology Dept. of UGM)