The intention behind this topic/presentation is to seek an ethically plausible process of preserving a disappearing cultural practice and further provoke scholarly debates. This fading practice is known as (facial) tribal marks.
The inscription of facial marks, which are drawn vertically and/or horizontally on the cheek, is one of the ancient cultural practices linked to a number of communities in sub-Saharan Africa notably Nigeria, Togo, and the Benin Republic. Other communities in West Africa where tribal marks are traditionally worn include Hausa, Fulani (or Fula), Gobir, Mossi (Ghana/Burkina Faso), Dagomba/Dagbanba (Ghana), Sisala (Ghana), Bobo (Burkina Faso) and Kagoro (Soninke/Mali). They are traditional facial markings or scarification that were historically used for multiple purposes, which include identification, social stratification, and beauty enhancement, a piece of art. Tribal marks are traditionally made by cutting or scarring the skin with sharp instruments, partly with the belief that these marks would distinguish members of one family or community from another. The actual marks varied from one town, family and lineage to another, then worn like badges of honour with pride.
Although it dates back to as early as the 14th century, the donning of tribal marks became popular during the period 16th to 19th century where families were forcefully separated due to colonial activities such as transatlantic slave trade. It became a means of identification of the tribe or lineage individuals belonged to, especially when searching for a lost relation. It was also a powerful means of identification during inter-tribal wars. In addition, certain versions of the marks were also seen as facial beautification although many would nowadays argue against this.
With modernisation however, the purposes and benefits appear to be no more relevant. Indeed, modernisation has resulted into stigmatisation and discrimination of people with tribal marks. Its accompanying potential health risks has also been debated (Adisa et.al 2024; Afolabi 2023). In addition, the country’s Child Rights Act (CRA) of 2003 has banned all forms of child mutilation. All of this explains why the practice is fast disappearing.
Digitisation, a methodological provision often used in Digital Humanities, offers the opportunity to reactivate dying cultures through digitisation. Digitising such disappearing cultural practices can undoubtedly document the practice and widen access to archives and initiatives aimed at promoting decolonisation. While digitisation tools (e.g. Tropy, GIMP, Universal Viewer) can come handy for managing the images, a lot of challenges would need to be overcome. Although digitisation efforts of African cultural heritage resources are already in place, McGregor et.al (2025) have reported that the progress of edited archives and ethnographic collections that focused on Africa published in 2014 has been lopsided.
How can lived experiences support or substantiate the narratives around tribal marks? Emerging issues that require extensive exploration and appropriate methodological strategy are digital divide (lack of access to the right technology in many indigenous communities), colonial legacy, emotional connections of the locals and data privacy and ethics particularly with regards to intellectual property and controls of the digital outputs.