Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

A Forgotten Fabric From German Colonial History in Kamerun: The Case of Hina Fabric

By Salomé Soloum

What insights can a simple piece of cloth offer into the mechanisms of colonial plunder? Among the numerous objects violently uprooted from their original contexts during the German colonization of Kamerun (present-day Cameroon), one artifact holds particular significance: a textile from Hina,[1] in the Far North region. Deceptively modest in appearance, woven from cotton and now faded with time, the cloth bears a crucial inscription: “C.V. Krogh” and the number “516.’’ These markings constitute tangible evidence of a contested appropriation, prompting critical questions about its removal.

While the displacement of this object to Germany is attributed to the Hamburg-based art dealer Julius Konietzko, the evidence suggests that Christian von Krogh, a captain in the colonial army stationed in Kamerun between 1905 and 1908, was the original agent of its acquisition.[2] The presence of his name on the object serves as the foundation for this hypothesis, opening a broader investigation into colonial collecting practices, informal acquisition networks, and the complicit silences within the archives. Thus, this piece of cloth transcends its materiality; it acts as a window into the informal economy of plunder and the systematic erasure of provenance.

This article argues that simple textile fragments, no less than iconic masks or regalia, offer a critical lens for analyzing the mechanisms of colonial plunder. Its methodology rests on the meticulous cross-examination of archival and contemporary sources. To retrace this history is, therefore, to undertake a work of restitution that is simultaneously historical and memorial.

A piece of striped fabric ona table in the Leipzig Museum.
Figure 1: Overall view of the cotton fabric, composed of four sewn strips, measuring 3.10 meters by 1.06 meters. Photo taken by the author at the Leipzig Museum on June 11, 2025.

A textile imbued with history, technique, and meaning

Measuring over three meters in length by one meter in width, the cloth is composed of four individually woven bands sewn together (Figure 1). The use of a thick warp against a finer weft creates a distinctive ribbed texture. The color palette dominated by faded brown, ochre, and pastel green is representative of local traditions, speaking to both the technical knowledge and aesthetic values of the Hina community. However, the deeper history of this fabric, its original name, and its function within the society that produced it remain unknown. Was it a ritual garment? A fabric for everyday use? A symbol of community belonging? These questions remain unanswered. Like countless artifacts removed during the colonial period, this textile was violently severed from its cultural and social context at the moment of its appropriation. The juxtaposition of a thick, coarsely spun warp with a much finer weft produces a striking visual pattern where texture and relief intertwine. This specific technique attests to a sophisticated traditional knowledge, transmitted across generations within the communities of northern Cameroon.

Close-up shot of the striped fabric.
Figure 2. Close-up view of the fabric, revealing its varied coloration. Photo taken by the author at the Leipzig Museum on June 11, 2025.

The dominant hues an earthy brown, a now-yellowed white, and a subdued pastel green are not merely decorative (Figure 2). They signal a local textile culture deeply rooted in the natural environment, utilizing region-specific dyes and materials. Each shade and woven band embodies a fragment of the cultural identity and collective memory of Hina’s inhabitants. Beyond its materiality, however, the textile is fraught with enigmas. What was its original name? What social or spiritual role did it fulfill? Was it reserved for funerary rites, perhaps to shroud the deceased? Did it solemnize marital alliances or other essential social exchanges? Or was it an object of daily use, a silent witness to the rhythms of life in Hina?

All these questions lack definitive answers. Stripped of its original function and context, the object now exists as a mere specimen in the reserves of Leipzig’s Grassi Museum, effectively emptied of its living, symbolic dimension. This disconnection prompts urgent, broader questions: how many similar objects have lost their histories and meanings? How many traditions and knowledge systems have been fractured by such acts of dispossession? The Hina textile, therefore, represents more than a fragment of material culture; it stands as a potent symbol of colonialism’s profound impact on African heritage and as a compelling call for restitution and the restoration of erased memories.

Christian von Krogh: A Colonial Officer, an Agent of Systematic Plunder, and a Silence in the Archives

Christian Ludwig August von Krogh, whose initials are inscribed on the textile central to this study, was a German colonial officer stationed in Kamerun between 1905 and 1908. Born in 1863 in Peine, into a family deeply embedded in the Prussian military tradition, he began his career in the regular army before being transferred in 1905 to the Schutztruppe, the German colonial force in Kamerun.[3] This move must be understood within the broader context of German colonial expansion in Central Africa. In Kamerun, von Krogh embodied the role of the military administrator tasked with “pacifying” conquered territories a euphemism for repressive and often brutal campaigns designed to crush local resistance and impose colonial order by force.

His command of the Mbo expedition, from December 1905 to March 1906, as head of the 6th Expeditionary Company, typifies the military character of these operations.[4] This campaign was among the most significant of his tenure. Beyond inflicting “heavy losses,” it resulted in the capture of nearly 450 men, who were taken as hostages or forced laborers and subsequently sent to the coast. This strategy of abduction aimed to weaken local societies by depleting their fighting forces and subjugating the populations left defenseless.[5] As historian Richard Fossi Tsogang notes, hostage-taking served multiple functions: it provided the colonizers with free labor and served as leverage over local chiefs during the negotiation of so-called “peace treaties.”

Another pivotal operation was the assault on the strategic locality of Hina in January 1908, led by von Krogh with support from Lieutenant Paul Nitschmann.[6] This operation was notable for its scale and devastating consequences, deploying German soldiers, local cavalry, and machine guns. Such “punitive expeditions” were military campaigns conducted in retaliation for a perceived affront to imperial authority, typically in territories already subjugated or targeted for domination. As Gesa Grimme point out, punitive expeditions were military campaigns to stamp out resistance.[7] Military theorist Charles Edward Callwell[8], cited by Yann Legall, categorizes:

There are three types of military expeditions: campaigns of conquest or annexation, campaigns for the suppression of insurrection or lawlessness […] and campaigns undertaken to wipe out an insult, to avenge a wrong, or to overthrow a dangerous enemy.[9]

In practice, these were organized raids characterized by the burning of villages, confiscation of ritual objects, and targeted killings. They also functioned as a systematic method for collecting cultural artifacts destined for European museums, thereby reinforcing the scientific and ideological legitimacy of colonization. In German Cameroon, these expeditions were demonstrations of military force, intended to consolidate Germany’s claim to power and to subjugate the population.[10] As scholar Eva Khünker has identified, these expeditions had three primary aims:

Strafexpeditionen had three aims: impressing local populations by means of demonstrative and often excessive violence, giving a lesson, and setting an example. […] The ‘punitive expedition’ thus functioned as an ‘actual colonial instrument of power’. While fortified stations in the interior of colonial territories were erected as ‘fixed bases of military power’, colonial powers used ‘punitive expeditions’ to enforce their claim to hegemony over a wider area. District administrators and heads of station operating in the so-called hinterland commissioned and led those expeditions, frequently for minor reasons and sometimes without formal autorisation.[11]

Figure 3. A note signed by Captain Krogh in Garua in January 1908. Source: Bundesarchiv, R_175F_120_84.

As commander of the 7th company in Garua and head of the Adamaua[12] residency in 1907 (Figure 3), von Krogh was a key agent in this system. His signature on the Hina textile directly implicates him in this process of dispossession (Figure 4). The accompanying number suggests a methodical cataloguing of spoils. The textile was likely acquired either as tribute from subordinate chiefs or, more plausibly, as direct plunder from the 1908 assault on Hina. The fact that von Krogh retained the object after his return to Germany in 1912, keeping it until his death, highlights a critical issue: the widespread disregard for imperial regulations. Indeed, regulations enforced between 1889 and 1896 stipulated that objects acquired from colonial territories, especially during Reich-funded expeditions, were to be transferred to national museums.[13] Yet, as von Krogh’s case and many others attest, this rule was routinely circumvented by colonial actors, officers, administrators, and scientists who built extensive private collections, effectively privatizing the spoils of conquest.[14]

Close-up of the fabric, reading "Cv Krogh 516".
Figure 4 : Fabric fragment bearing the inscription of Captain von Krogh’s name, documenting his presence on the ground and his role in its translocation. Photo taken by the author at the Leipzig Museum on June 11, 2025.

Promoted to major in 1908, von Krogh concluded his military career in Germany, where he died in 1924. His trajectory exemplifies the intimate connections between the colonial military apparatus and the formation of European ethnographic collections. Furthermore, it reveals the tensions between the German state’s official directives, which sought to centralize and control acquisitions, and the practices of colonial agents in the field, who were often driven by personal interest, a logic of domination, and illicit appropriation. Informal networks facilitated these private acquisitions, thereby contributing to the erasure of a reality that was, in fact, highly systematic.

The captain’s near-total absence from official museum acquisition records despite his active role in military expeditions (1905–1908) marked by systematic violence and cultural looting constitutes a significant archival anomaly. His trace in contemporary documentation is limited to sporadic mentions. How should these gaps be interpreted? Such documentary silence must not be mistaken for evidence of innocence or inactivity. On the contrary, it underscores both the structurally fragmentary and biased nature of colonial archives and the failure of mechanisms intended to take inventory and trace cultural property acquired through colonial violence.

The case of Captain von Krogh is emblematic in this regard. His name surfaces in the Grassi Museum für Völkerkunde in Leipzig’s database as the attributed former owner of only two artifacts. Both objects, originating from Hina, were sold by him to the Hamburg art dealer Julius Konietzko. One, a bracelet, was destroyed during the Second World War. The other is the textile that forms the core of the present study.

Systemic Cultural Looting: Uncovering Mechanisms of Archival Silence

The case of Captain von Krogh is not an isolated exception but a symptom of a structural phenomenon: the systematic omission of colonial officers from official acquisition records. Many key figures in military expeditions and field collections are conspicuously absent from the registers of Berlin’s Ethnologisches Museum. Although these officers were the primary agents of looting and confiscation, some are entirely missing from the archives;[15] for others, such as Bernhard von Besser or Emil Rausch, the documentation is so fragmentary that comprehensive provenance research is rendered impossible. This documentary opacity manifests in various ways. Hans Dominik, for instance, is reported to have acquired over six hundred artifacts from the northern territories, most of which are now untraceable a testament to a profound disconnect between collection and documentation. The case of Emil Rausch,[16] station chief in Tinto and Dschang for nearly twelve years, is even more revealing. Despite his prolonged tenure and active collecting, as documented in his own writings, his name appears only once in the Berlin museum’s database, for an ivory notebook from Fotabong I (inventory number III C 20218 [17]). However, alternative sources, such as his correspondence with Felix von Luschan, unveil a different reality: Rausch actively supplied not only the Berlin museum but also the museum in his hometown of Darmstadt, sending cultural goods as “gifts” or requesting that acquired objects be forwarded on. This practice of gifting and operating through parallel channels, circumventing official procedures, is highly significant.

These archival “absences” and “silences” are therefore not mere gaps; they reflect a deliberately informal and personalized system of acquisition. Within this system, cultural plunder simultaneously enriched national collections, regional museums, and private networks, inherently obscuring its true scale. This informal economy of pillage, a phenomenon also observed by Benoît Henriet[18] in the context of the Belgian Congo, underscores that the colonial museum project was built not only on physical and symbolic violence but also on an epistemic violence that systematically rendered the mechanisms of its own appropriation invisible.

A fabric that tells much more than a textile story

The Hina textile, far more than a mere artifact, stands as a material witness to a dark era in which cultural heritage was systematically plundered under the dual pretext of science and colonial power. Figures like Christian von Krogh, both officer and collector, epitomize the confluence of military conquest and cultural appropriation. Today, this object compels a critical engagement with colonial memory, the restitution of cultural property, and the rights of source communities.

The case of Hina demonstrates that restitution transcends the physical return of an object. Rather, it is an act of acknowledging historical injustices, a means of reinforcing the cultural identity of affected communities, and a step toward reclaiming sovereignty, unburdened by the colonial legacy. Understanding the history of such artifacts is a crucial step toward reparation and historical justice, as it reestablishes a tangible link to a looted heritage and helps mend fractured cultural foundations. Confronting this painful past is a necessary precondition for building a conscious and emancipated future. In the words of Aimé Césaire, “a people without a past is a people without a future.”[19] Thus, restitution serves as a vital act of intergenerational transmission, indispensable for forging a shared future.


Notes

[1] Hina can often refer either to the place itself or to its inhabitants. In this text, “Hina” refers to the geographical location; its inhabitants are specified as “the people of Hina” or “Hina’s inhabitants.”

[2] Yann Legall, 2023, « Nur mit Gewalt zu erlangen », Albert Gouaffo, Bénédicte Savoy, Mikaél Assilkinga et al, Atlas der Abwesenheit. Kameruns Kulturerbe in Deutschland, Heidelberg, Dietrich Reimed Verlag, p. 131.

[3] Florian Hoffman, 2007, Okkupation und Militärverwaltung in Kamerun. Etablierung und Institutionalisierung des kolonialen Gewaltmonopols 1891–1914, Band 1, Göttingen, Cuvillier Verlag, pp. 122–123.

[4] Christian von Krogh via Wikipedia, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_von_Krogh_(offizier), website consulted on July 15th 2025.

[5] Richard Fossi Tsogang, 2023, « Emil Rausch : note biographique critique », in Albert Gouaffo, Bénédicte Savoy Mikael Assilkinga et al, Atlas de l’absence. Le patrimoine culturel du Cameroun en Allemagne, Heidelberg, p. 440.

[6] Bericht des Hauptmanns von Krogh (Bezirksamtmann von Adamaua), 12. März 1908, Bundesarchiv Berlin, R 175-I/124, Bl. 142–153; Genehmigung der Hina-Expedition durch Gouverneur Seitz, 6. November 1908, ebd., Bl. 154–158, https://invenio.bundesarchiv.de/basys2-invenio/direktlink/eb980a91-e22e-443a-8b04-3cd9f2e459db/

[7] Gesa Grimme, 2018, “Auseinandersetzung mit einem schwierigen Erbe: Provenienzforschung zu Objekten aus kolonialen Kontexten im Linden-Museum Stuttgart”, in Tribus, n°67, pp. 95–129.

[8] Charles Edward Callwell, 1896, Small Wars: Their Principles and Practice, Nebraska,Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press.

[9] Yann Legall, 2024, « Punitive expeditions in German colonial contexts in Africa », in The Journal of the Historical Association, p. 315.

[10] Grimme Gesa. “Auseinandersetzung mit einem schwierigen Erbe: Provenienzforschung zu Objekten aus kolonialen Kontexten im Linden-Museum Stuttgart”, in Tribus, n° 67, p.122.

[11] Eva Künkler, 2022, Koloniale Gewalt und der Raub kultureller Objekte und menschlicher Überreste. Eine systematische Übersicht zu Militärgewalt und sogenannten Strafexpeditionen in deutschen Kolonialgebieten in Afrika (1884–1919), Magdeburg, Deutsches Zentrum Kulturgutverluste, p. 17.

[12] During the colonial period, a residency served as an intermediate administrative post between a district and a military station. In German Kamerun, residencies were strategically established in the Far North, particularly in the Adamaua region. This was not a fortuitous decision but a deliberate one, driven by the region’s political landscape and the Europeans’ perception of its inhabitants. The local populations, organized in powerful Lamidats, were experienced in warfare, making the area a focal point for military confrontation. Furthermore, the European approach was shaped by their perception of Islam. They viewed the religion as a source of religious fanaticism and considered the northern Muslim societies as more “advanced” and politically organized than those in the south. This combination of military necessity and ideological prejudice fundamentally shaped colonial strategy and administration in the region, justifying the implementation of a heavily militarized administrative structure.

[13] Awono Ndozo, 2021, Der deutsche koloniale Raub in Afrika: die Kamerun-Sammlung im Übersee-Museum Bremen im Fokus der Provenienzforschung, Hamburg, thèse de doctorat, p. 3.

[14] Bettina von Briskorn, 2000, Zur Sammlungsgeschichte afrikanischer Ethnographica im Übersee-Museum Bremen 18411945, Bremen, Übersee-Museum, p. 66; cité par Awono Ndozo, Op.cit, p. 4.

[15] Richard Fossi Tsogang, 2023, « Chronologie et acteurs de l’expropriation des biens culturels camerounais », in Albert Gouaffo Bénédicte Savoy, Mikaél Assilkinga et al, Atlas de l’absence. Le patrimoine culturel du Cameroun en Allemagne, Heidelberg, p. 81.

[16] The professional connection between the two officers was established early on, with Emil Rausch serving as adjutant to Christian von Krogh during the pivotal Mbo expedition of 1905.

[17] Richard Fossi Tsogang, 2023, « Emil Rausch: note biographique critique», in Albert Gouaffo, Bénédicte Savoy, Mikaél Assilkinga et al, Atlas de l’absence. Le patrimoine culturel du Cameroun en Allemagne, Heidelberg, p. 81.

[18] Henriet, B., 2021, « A Missing Museum. The Anticolonial Struggle and the Memory of the Congo Museum in Independent Congo ». Museum Worlds, 9(1), pp. 88–105.

[19] Historia Geographia, https://historia-geographia.jimdofree.com, visited the 26th September 2025.


References

Archival sources from the Federal Archives of Germany, Berlin-Lichterfelde:

Bericht des Residenten von Adamaua, Hauptmann von Krogh, 12. März 1908, Bundesarchiv R175-I/124, S. 142–153.

Bericht des Residenten von Adamaua, Hauptmann von Krogh, 12. März 1908, Bundesarchiv R175-I/124, S. 145–147.

Genehmigung der Übersendung von Hina durch Gouverneur Seitz, 6. November 1908, Bundesarchiv, R175-I/124, S. 154–158.

Books and Articles

Henriet Benoît, 2021, « A Missing Museum. The Anticolonial Struggle and the Memory of the Congo Museum in Independent Congo », in Museum Worlds, 9(1), pp. 88–105.

Edward Charles Callwell, 1896, Small Wars: Their Principles and Practice, Nebraska, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Gesa Grimme, 2018, “Auseinandersetzung mit einem schwierigen Erbe: Provenienzforschung zu Objekten aus kolonialen Kontexten im Linden-Museum Stuttgart”, in Tribus, n°67, pp. 95–129.

Albert Gouaffo, Bénédicte Savoy, Mikael Assilkinga et al, 2023, Atlas der Abwesenheit. Kameruns Kulturerbe in Deutschland, Heidelberg, Dietrich Reimed Verlag.

Dan Hicks, 2021, The Brutish Museums. The Benin Bronzes, Colonial Violence and Cultural Restitution, London, Pluto Press.

Florian Hoffman, 2007, Okkupation und Militärverwaltung in Kamerun. Etablierung und Institutionalisierung des kolonialen Gewaltmonopols 1891–1914, Teil I, Göttingen, Cuvillier Verlag.

Florian Hoffman, 2007, Okkupation und Militärverwaltung in Kamerun. Etablierung und Institutionalisierung des kolonialen Gewaltmonopols 1891–1914, Teil II, Göttingen, Cuvillier Verlag.

Eva Künkler, 2022, Koloniale Gewalt und der Raub kultureller Objekte und menschlicher Überreste. Eine systematische Übersicht zu Militärgewalt und sogenannten Strafexpeditionen in deutschen Kolonialgebieten in Afrika (1884–1919), Magdeburg, Deutsches Zentrum Kulturgutverluste.

Yann Legall, 2024, « Punitive expeditions in German colonial contexts in Africa », in The Journal of the Historical Association, pp. 308334.

Awono Ndozo, 2021, Der deutsche koloniale Raub in Afrika: die Kamerun-Sammlung im Übersee-Museum Bremen im Fokus der Provenienzforschung, Hamburg, Dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades des Doktors der Philosophie (Dr. phil) an der Fakultät für Geisteswissenschaften der Universität Hamburg im Promotionsfach Geschichte.

Christoph Zuschlag, 2022, « Provenance-restitution-culture de l’histoire », in Allemagne d’aujourd’hui: revue d’information et de recherche sur l’Allemagne, 242 (Okt-Dez), pp. 3851.


About the Author

Salomé Soloum is an independent researcher devoted to the social history of precolonial Africa. Her work opens a window into the daily life of Lower Benin’s communities from the 17th to the 19th century, viewed through the intimate lenses of clothing, sexuality, and social customs. With a keen eye for detail, she deciphers how sartorial choices and body adornments reflect deeper social structures and the collective imagination of the era. Her scholarly contributions include authoring and co-authoring several articles on the customs of southern Benin during the precolonial period. She has also co-written a document tiltled Calabash: A Study of an Elementary Objectin African Cultures, co-edited Arts, Customs and Culture of Southern Benin (17th–19th Centuries): Towards a Rewriting of African History, and authored a monograph on fashion, accessories, and body adornments from the same period. Beyond her historical research, Salomé is an active voice in contemporary debates on the restitution of African cultural heritage. She brings a critical focus to provenance research the meticulous detective work of tracing the often-turbulent journeys of cultural objects. She regularly shares her insights at international forums.


Citation: Salomé Soloum, A Forgotten Fabric From German Colonial History in Kamerun: The Case of Hina Fabric, in: TRAFO – Blog for Transregional Research, 30.10.2025, https://trafo.hypotheses.org/62306

 

 

 


OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Forum Transregionale Studien (October 30, 2025). A Forgotten Fabric From German Colonial History in Kamerun: The Case of Hina Fabric. TRAFO – Blog for Transregional Research. Retrieved November 11, 2025 from https://doi.org/10.58079/152ch


Forum Transregionale Studien

The Berlin-based Forum Transregionale Studien promotes the internationalization of research in the humanities and social sciences. It provides scope for collaboration among researchers with different regional and disciplinary perspectives and appoints researchers from all over the world as Fellows. More...

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.