#multiculturalreligion

By: Feaven Abera

What do you think a spell scroll might look like? We would imagine some obscure ancient characters and maybe a pointy hat. Old spell books and their myths supply the most vivid of imaginations and sometimes teach the most significant lessons.

Today’s Object of the Week is a handmade spell scroll from what is now present-day Ethiopia. Made of parchment containing incantations and charms written in Ge’ez — the ancient language known only by priests and monks — it is a cultural hybrid of Islamic and Christian traditions and is usually hung above a person's bed. Illustrations of angels holding swords are for protection from diseases and evil spirits, and notice how one of them is marked with the Star of David.

Images of the healing scrolls at the V&A South Kensington (courtesy of their online collections database)

This scroll was brought to England after the siege of Maqdala in 1868 when the British Army led an expedition into the Abyssinian Empire. In 1861 after a miscommunication between Emperor Tewedros and Queen Victoria. Tewedros held British patrons hostage as a result of feeling rejected by Europe. After a battle that left significant Abyssinian soldiers dead, Tewedros released the prisoners, whom the British realized were treated kindly. The Emperor also sent a peace offering, but with the British Army learning that they had spent 9 million pounds on a “hostage rescue,” General Napier decided to reject the offering and storm Maqdala to take the Emperor. The latter committed suicide before he could be taken, and Napier and his soldiers looted cultural materials — like this scroll — and brought them back to Britain.

V&A Blog Post of the artifacts from Maqdala

This scroll resides in the National Library at the V&A Museum South Kensington and is accessible to anyone. However, In November 2021, after years of negotiation, Ethiopia saw the most significant return of artifacts from the Battle of Maqdala, which didn’t include this scroll but another 13 artifacts that are now displayed in Ethiopian Museums.

Article on the 2021 repatriation of 13 Maqdala Artifacts to Ethiopia

But this doesn’t go without worry. With a current conflict happening since 2020 between the Ethiopian government and the Tigray Peoples, concern about the safety of the objects has been a popular topic of discussion. Yet when we look at the already violent and colonial nature of how these artifacts were procured in the first place, is it valid to deny the return of these objects regardless? 

Twitter thread of peoples thoughts on the Maqdala exhibit

Like any other place in the west, the UK is home to many migrants. Immigrants from Ethiopia have expressed the importance of being able to see themselves in this museum through these objects. Therefore, how do we solve this repatriation puzzle while still giving representation in a culturally diverse country? 

There have been broad topics about the idea of “loaning” objects. Where institutions of a source country will give their artifacts on “loan” to other museums abroad, this idea can prove a great solution in recognizing the sovereignty of cultural heritage from host countries and allowing people from around the world — migrants or not — to share in the knowledge of other cultural institutions. Communities can express these interests through petitions or even letters to their institutions and government leaders because this is not only the museum's responsibility, but we should also consider how our collective heritage is being negotiated through public policy.

So perhaps the next time you see this scroll — or any cultural artifact — try and think about where and how it might have been brought in front of you. And perhaps what you may be able to do about it.

Further Reading:

Reid, Panthea. “Virginia Woolf, Leslie Stephen, Julia Margaret Cameron, and the Prince of Abyssinia: An Inquiry into Certain Colonialist Representations.” Biography 22, no. 3 (1999): iv–355. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23540033.

Rodgers, Nini. “The Abyssinian Expedition of 1867-1868: Disraeli’s Imperialism or James Murray’s War?” The Historical Journal 27, no. 1 (1984): 129–49. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2639345.