From neglect to capture: the Lamu Museum and the political economy of heritage patronage on the East African Coast

Abstract

Abstract

This article argues that the political and institutional conditions underlying the destruction and marginalisation of coastal cultural heritage in Kenya, first identified in a 1996 critique, have not only persisted but have evolved into a more complex and urgent problem with significant implications for African archaeology and heritage policy. The core claim is that long-standing neglect, manifested in the chronic underfunding of East African state heritage institutions, the lack of trained Swahili-coast curators in senior roles and the persistence of colonial-era legislative frameworks, now coexists with a phenomenon of capture. In what is here termed curatorial capture, foreign state actors provide essential fiscal and institutional resources for heritage preservation but impose narrative and interpretive constraints that recipient institutions cannot refuse. These developments occur in the context of a scholarly consensus on the African origins of Swahili civilisation, which began to take shape in the 1970s and was consolidated from the 1990s onward, established through archaeological, linguistic, genetic and ethnographic research, that places a new curatorial responsibility on institutions to represent accurately coast-and-hinterland relationships as foundational to coastal society. The 2023 renovation of the Lamu Museum, funded by the Sultanate of Oman in collaboration with UNESCO and the Kenyan government, serves as a case study illustrating the tension between the curatorial obligation established by recent scholarship and the realities imposed by political and economic dependencies. The article situates the Lamu Museum case within a broader comparative analysis of state-sponsored heritage diplomacy initiatives by Oman, China, Turkey and India and contends that the Omani example is structurally distinct, presenting a particularly acute form of local narrative erasure with consequences for the integrity of African heritage representation. By foregrounding these issues, it aims to make a significant contribution to debates in African archaeology and heritage policy. Its conclusion identifies some of the practical measures needed to counteract the effects of capture and restore interpretive sovereignty to affected communities.