Smoke Shrouded: Reimagining Bamum Kii and the Troubled Legacies of the Cabinet of Curiosities in 21st Century Museums

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is lacking many features that should be included for this work to merit publication. The following are the lists of concerns:

1. There is no meaningful literature review. The subject of African material culture being displayed out of context has a long record in the discourse. These comparable examples need to be explored. The location of the object in the current display is described as a cabinet of curiosities. The cabinet of curiosities also has a long discussion in post-colonial writings. This too need to be considered and included.
2. The close reading of the object is confusing. This would be aided if the figures had been included, as from the textual description, much of the fine observation remains unclear. 
3. The reading of key elements of the object: its broken clasp, and the spiral, are poorly explained in terms what their significance is in the process of correct identification. 
4. Comparable objects from published literature should be included so that the reader can understand the process of identification and determination of usage and provenience. 
5. The language in paragraph starting at line 273 is entirely inappropriate for an academic article, both the paragraph length and the inclusion of contractions. 
6. The use of "I" does not fit with the language of such an article. Self-reference should be minimized, and when necessary, "the author" should be used. 
7. I believe Arts uses Harvard/APA style sourcing. This would need to be changed. 
8. The exhibition also requires images so that we can appreciate the new conception and curatorial solution. 
9. Overall, the tone and style of the paper seems to be a well-written BA or MA-level assignment. It needs to overall raise its general tone and breadth to achieve that of a peer-reviewed journal article. 
10. The most glaring problem is simply the shortage of citations and sources. As a simple rule-of-thumb journal articles ought to have a minimum of 60 citations. Adding a thorough literature review would improve this total. 

The quest to identify and re-locate this object withing a proper contextualization should be an exciting topic. The process of identification usage and provenience should almost have the energy of a detective story told with its proper citations and sources. If this and the other points listed above, are done correctly, then the article might merit publication. 

Author Response

Comment 1:
There is no meaningful literature review. The subject of African material culture
being displayed out of context has a long record in the discourse. These
comparable examples need to be explored. The location of the object in the
current display is described as a cabinet of curiosities. The cabinet of curiosities
also has a long discussion in post-colonial writings. This too need to be
considered and included.
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out and I agree with your stance. I have added a
short literary review to the introduction section of the paper, expressing the
constant discussion of ethical display and recontextualization of material culture.
This can be found in lines 91 through 106 of the paper.

Comment 2:
The close reading of the object is confusing. This would be aided if the figures
had been included, as from the textual description, much of the fine observation
remains unclear.
Response:
Thank you for making note of this issue of the missing figures, I have added the
supporting material of figures to the end of the document from pages 17-27. The
illustrations of what is being described will help aid the formal analysis.

Comment 3:
The reading of key elements of the object: its broken clasp, and the spiral, are
poorly explained in terms what their significance is in the process of correct
identification. 
Response:
Thank you for this concern, I corrected such with better explanation on how such
features lead to a full analysis and identification of the work. This is also aided
with figures added to the document.
Comment 4:
Comparable objects from published literature should be included so that the
reader can understand the process of identification and determination of usage
and provenience. 
Response:
I completely agree with this comment and thank you for mentioning this. I added
comparisons seen in lines 143- 163 and figures 3-5. I look to compare other
pipes in the neighboring regions to show differences and similarities to the

artisanal process. Then how those pipes help solidify the GWU pipe in its identity
as a kii.

Comment 5:
The language in paragraph starting at line 273 is entirely inappropriate for an
academic article, both the paragraph length and the inclusion of contractions
Response:
This issue has been altered and corrected. I accidently separated this section
from the previous paragraph, it was supposed to be a continuation of the
previous paragraph rather than a new separate one.
Comment 6:
The use of "I" does not fit with the language of such an article. Self-reference
should be minimized, and when necessary, "the author" should be used. 
Response:
The point made with this comment is acknowledged however I did not implement
the suggestion of removing the use of “I” throughout the paper. I found that the
change in terms made the writing awkward and removed author voice within the
paper. While I thank the reviewer for the suggestion, this was not altered in the
writing – the use of “I” or lack of it in current scholarly writing is often a personal
preference rather than a necessary standard.
Comment 7:
I believe Arts uses Harvard/APA style sourcing. This would need to be changed.
Response:
Thank you for this note, as the citation style of the paper was in Chicago manual
style. This has been corrected, with both the reference list as well as all intext
citations. Any footnote has been removed from the writing.
Comment 8:
The exhibition also requires images so that we can appreciate the new
conception and curatorial solution.
Response:
Thank you for the comment, this was corrected with the addition of all figures to
the document. The image of the exhibition display mentioned can be seen in
Figure 11.
Comment 9:
Overall, the tone and style of the paper seems to be a well-written BA or MA-
level assignment. It needs to overall raise its general tone and breadth to
achieve that of a peer-reviewed journal article. 
Response:
Thank you for this review and I agree with the concern brought up. I looked at
altering the tone of the paper to increase the level of writing and match that of a
more scholarly article. This was done through either altering certain words or

phrases or rewriting sections for better elevation of reading.
Comment 10:
The most glaring problem is simply the shortage of citations and sources. As a
simple rule-of-thumb journal articles ought to have a minimum of 60 citations.
Adding a thorough literature review would improve this total. 
Response:
I agree with the point made here. I corrected such with the addition of 12 more
sources, a literary review seen in lines 94-108, and 14 more in-text citations that
match APA formatting.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The cited references and the last reference format is not standardised, the references cited are less, can increase the participation in the literature of the last three or five years.

2.The basic layout of the whole article is not standardised enough, the first line of indentation between paragraphs is not uniform, and the layout of the main text is left-aligned, not aligned at both ends, which makes the overall perception poorer.

3.The current article introduces the ‘Heritage Context Retrieval Analysis (HeCRA)’ method, but lacks its specific application process, operational steps or case descriptions. It is suggested that the relevant paragraphs should be supplemented with details of how the method actually works in this study, so as to enhance the persuasiveness and transparency of the study.

4.Although anti-colonial and ethical demonstrations are emphasised, there are almost no quotations from local scholars, community members or guardians of traditional culture in Bamum. It is recommended that more sources from non-Western or local scholarship be introduced to enhance the pluralism and cultural sensitivity of the paper.

5.The introduction section (especially p.1-2) covers the background, problem statement, research objectives, methodology and research subjects, which is too dense, and it is recommended to split it into 2-3 natural paragraphs focusing on the background and problem, research objectives and methodology respectively.

6.The conclusion part is mainly a summary of the previous paper, lacking a discussion of the limitations of the study and an outlook on the direction of future research. It is suggested to add the theoretical contribution of the study, its practical significance, and its implications for the field of museology.

7.Although Bam Kii geometric patterns and spiral patterns are mentioned, systematic visual analyses and technical testing data are lacking. It is recommended to add scientific evidence such as analyses of material composition and detailed comparisons of production processes. and comparisons with other African pipe cultures, which would better highlight the uniqueness of the Bam Kii. Figures 1-6 mentioned in the article do not appear in the article.

Author Response

Comment 1:
The cited references and the last reference format is not standardised, the references
cited are less, can increase the participation in the literature of the last three or five
years.
Response:
Thank you for your comment and making me aware of this issue. I have edited the
formatting of the document to match APA standards as well as increased the sources to
have more current citations.

Comment 2:
The basic layout of the whole article is not standardised enough, the first line of
indentation between paragraphs is not uniform, and the layout of the main text is left-
aligned, not aligned at both ends, which makes the overall perception poorer.
Response:
I agree with the concern brought up with this comment and corrected the document
formatting to make everything standardized. All paragraphs and indentations should be
in line with each other as well as any other minor shifts were corrected.

Comment 3:
The current article introduces the ‘Heritage Context Retrieval Analysis (HeCRA)’
method, but lacks its specific application process, operational steps or case
descriptions. It is suggested that the relevant paragraphs should be supplemented with
details of how the method actually works in this study, so as to enhance the
persuasiveness and transparency of the study.
Response:
Thank you for your review and I agree with your stance. I added more information about
the methodology as well as how I applied it to my own research. This can be seen in
lines 76-84. This provides a better understanding of what the methodology is and how it
is pertinent to the topic at hand, especially with the issue of ethical display.

Comment 4:
Although anti-colonial and ethical demonstrations are emphasised, there are almost no
quotations from local scholars, community members or guardians of traditional culture in
Bamum. It is recommended that more sources from non-Western or local scholarship be
introduced to enhance the pluralism and cultural sensitivity of the paper.
Response:
Thank you for this review. I acknowledge the point made to increase non-western and
more local scholarship. I did add some sources, such as Fomine’s writing The Bamum
Dynasty and the Influence of Islam in Foumban, 1390 – Present, however there is a
lack of current scholarly writing on the traditions of Bamum that is applicable to this
research.

Comment 5:
The introduction section (especially p.1-2) covers the background, problem statement,
research objectives, methodology and research subjects, which is too dense, and it is
recommended to split it into 2-3 natural paragraphs focusing on the background and
problem, research objectives and methodology respectively.
Response:
Thank you for your comment. I have worked to correct this issue with the natural
division of works into more paragraphs. Such can be seen in pages 2 and 3 of the
document.

Comment 6:
The conclusion part is mainly a summary of the previous paper, lacking a discussion of
the limitations of the study and an outlook on the direction of future research. It is
suggested to add the theoretical contribution of the study, its practical significance, and
its implications for the field of museology.
Response:
I completely agree with the point made here and looked to correct such. I have included
the addition of a proper discussion to the conclusion. This can be seen in lines 505-511
and lines 518 -531.

Comment 7:
Although Bam Kii geometric patterns and spiral patterns are mentioned, systematic
visual analyses and technical testing data are lacking. It is recommended to add
scientific evidence such as analyses of material composition and detailed comparisons
of production processes. and comparisons with other African pipe cultures, which would

better highlight the uniqueness of the Bam Kii. Figures 1-6 mentioned in the article do
not appear in the article.
Response:
Thank you for making note of this issue of the missing figures, I have added the
supporting material of figures to the end of the document from pages 17-27. However, I
did not add the request of scientific evidence of material compositions as I did not
believe it to add meaningful points to the agreement. I did include better comparisons to
the object, seen with figures 3-5 and can be read in lines 143-162.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for this thoughtful and timely contribution. Your work brings a compelling voice to the ongoing conversation about the ethical exhibition of African material culture and the decolonization of museological practices. The analysis of the kii from the GWU collection is rich and culturally informed, and your curatorial experiment in the “ONCE KNOWN” exhibition is particularly convincing in its intent and execution.

I would like to clarify that I am not a specialist in African art history or Bamum/Tikar material culture. I approached this review from a heritage and museum studies perspective. From this standpoint, I greatly appreciated the ethical and curatorial framework of your paper. However, I also found that the article provides few references or comparative sources that would help non-specialists engage with the reattribution of the object and the cultural context.

I encourage you to consider the following points:

1. Methodology – The paper refers to the “Heritage Context Retrieval Analysis (HeCRA)” as a guiding approach, but offers little theoretical or bibliographic framing. From the way it is introduced, it appears that this may be a methodology in development or even created by the author. If this is the case, this originality should be better highlighted and explained, particularly in terms of how HeCRA was applied to the study of this specific object.

2. Cultural Attribution of the kii – The decision to reject the Tikar attribution and propose a Bamum origin is plausible, but not supported by concrete comparisons with other documented objects. Since I am not a specialist in this field, I cannot assess the validity of the reassignment itself, but I would strongly recommend the inclusion of visual or typological comparisons with objects in recognized museum collections, if they exist, to support your analysis more clearly.

3. Use of Sources – The article would benefit from a more extensive engagement with literature on the Tikar and the broader artistic traditions of the Cameroon Grassfields. If such sources or studies exist, their inclusion would greatly enrich the paper and increase its scholarly robustness.

Overall, your paper offers a valuable ethical and curatorial reflection. With additional clarity on methodology and deeper engagement with comparative material and scholarship, it could become a significant contribution to current debates on restitution and exhibition practices.

Author Response

Comment 1:
Methodology – The paper refers to the “Heritage Context Retrieval Analysis (HeCRA)”
as a guiding approach, but offers little theoretical or bibliographic framing. From the way
it is introduced, it appears that this may be a methodology in development or even
created by the author. If this is the case, this originality should be better highlighted and
explained, particularly in terms of how HeCRA was applied to the study of this specific
object.
Response:
Thank you for your review and I agree with your stance. I added more information about
the methodology as well as how I applied it to my own research. This can be seen in
lines 76-84.

Comment 2:
Cultural Attribution of the kii – The decision to reject the Tikar attribution and propose
a Bamum origin is plausible, but not supported by concrete comparisons with other
documented objects. Since I am not a specialist in this field, I cannot assess the validity
of the reassignment itself, but I would strongly recommend the inclusion of visual or
typological comparisons with objects in recognized museum collections, if they exist, to
support your analysis more clearly.
Response:
I completely agree with this comment and thank you for mentioning this. I added
comparisons seen in lines 143- 163 and figures 3-5. I looked towards other tobacco
pipes from nearby regions to compare against the GWU object in order to solidify its
claim to a kii from Bamum. I also looked to their displays in museums and the effects it
can have on the visual understanding of the work to the viewer.

Comment 3:
Use of Sources – The article would benefit from a more extensive engagement with
literature on the Tikar and the broader artistic traditions of the Cameroon Grassfields. If
such sources or studies exist, their inclusion would greatly enrich the paper and
increase its scholarly robustness.
Response:
Thank you for this comment and suggestion. I delved deeper into the identity of the
Tikar and its links to the arts in Northwest Cameroon. I weaved such information with
the comparison of other cast pipes and what the legacy of the Tikar means in an artistic
sense. This can be fully seen between lines 150 – 169.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The use of "I" predominantly throughout the article is still troubling, and detracts from the work's value as an academic article. The Figures are a good start, but they are not clearly labelled, and I had difficulty knowing which was the one in the GWU collection and the primary object under discussion. The paragraph beginning at 314 is not sourced, and sounds like the author spouting un-sourced opinions. The sourcing is inconsistent in its use of "p." or "pg." 

Author Response

Comment 1: The use of "I" predominantly throughout the article is still troubling, and detracts from the work's value as an academic article. The Figures are a good start, but they are not clearly labelled, and I had difficulty knowing which was the one in the GWU collection and the primary object under discussion. The paragraph beginning at 314 is not sourced, and sounds like the author spouting un-sourced opinions. The sourcing is inconsistent in its use of "p." or "pg." 

Response 1: Thank you for your review and your comments. I have gone back and edited the paper to remove the use of "I" throughout the writing. I have also gone back and provided a clearer label to the figures and placed emphasis on the figure that is the center of this research. Edits to the citations have been made to ensure consistency throughout, now all should appear as "pg.". All edits that have been made to this manuscript this round have been made written in a blue font, so to differentiate between this round of edits and the previous.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is ready for publication.

Author Response

Comment 1: This manuscript is ready for publication.

Response 1: Thank you for your previous comments and recommendations for edits to this manuscript. I greatly appreciate the assistance as it allowed for a better end product.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for their careful and thorough revision of the manuscript. The revised version successfully addresses all of the issues that were raised during the initial review. The text is now clear, coherent, and well contextualised. The arguments are compelling, and the manuscript has been substantially improved overall. In my opinion, it is now ready for publication.

Author Response

Comment 1: I would like to thank the authors for their careful and thorough revision of the manuscript. The revised version successfully addresses all of the issues that were raised during the initial review. The text is now clear, coherent, and well contextualised. The arguments are compelling, and the manuscript has been substantially improved overall. In my opinion, it is now ready for publication.

Response 1: Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments and recommendations from the first review of the manuscript. It allowed me to look at my work critically and create a better product in the end.