Throughout human history, war has been known to bring out many tragedies. For instance, the victor inevitably pillages the cultural identity of the conquered territory. In doing so, they strip its inhabitants of their heritage through the theft of precious artefacts and artworks. There are countless examples of this occurring from ancient to modern times. This has resulted in the gross disparity evidenced in national museums and archives across the globe that still exhibit stolen pieces. This article seeks to highlight a few prominent examples of such deprivations, particularly those that are linked to European colonisation in Africa. This article particularly focuses on some of the legislative developments aimed at seeking restitution for artwork that has been acquired through wartime looting. Additionally, there will be consideration of the practical effectiveness of different approaches adopted by various stakeholders interested in finding equitable solutions to this complex issue.
Since the 1970s the United Nations Economic, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) has been trying to implement certain treaties. These include the World Heritage Convention and the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property on signatory states. This was aimed at encouraging compliance with the framework for the restitution of artwork looted in times of war. Regrettably, although well-intentioned, these treaties have been largely ineffective in giving rise to meaningful change. Progress on the matter has been largely stagnated due to an inability to reconcile opposing views. Nonetheless, there has been some national legislation adopted by individual European states to proactively tackle the colonial legacy in their archives. In 2022, Belgium put forward a landmark Bill that set a pioneering precedent for the restitution of looted goods (de Clippele & Demarsin, 2022:277-279). This Bill (Recognizing the Alienability of Goods Linked to the Belgian State’s Colonial Past and Determining a Legal Framework for Their Restitution and Return) was deemed the first of its kind to address the return of colonial collections to their places of origin on a large scale. Whilst the Bill has its own limitations regarding the involvement of indigenous communities within the former colonies, it is undoubtedly a step in the right direction for cultural decolonisation.
Former colonial states across Europe have had a difficult time defining and accounting for the extent of pieces that constitute 'looted art' to be returned to the ex-colonies. For instance, France follows a narrow interpretation of the term when classifying artefacts eligible for restitution, whilst the Netherlands have broadened their interpretation to include all art acquired through the 'involuntary loss of possession' (van Beurden, 2024:128). Moreover, several European museum authorities have caused controversy by calling into question the ability of the heirs to safely store and exhibit the property that is to be returned to them. This has sparked outrage among decolonial scholars and activists, who view the apprehension surrounding restitution as patronising and irrelevant to the ultimate legal issue of rightful entitlement to the art (van Beurden, 2024:125). The debate famously arose from the negotiations between Nigeria and Germany for the restitution of artefacts stolen from Benin, including the Benin Bronzes, 'the Benin objects'. It was agreed that the Nigerian state should be permitted the ability to determine for themselves what should be done with the artefacts rightfully belonging to them to avoid perpetuating a neocolonial relationship of paternalism with their former oppressors. These artefacts were then bestowed personally on the Oba of Benin by Nigeria’s president at the time, much to the indignation of anthropologists who would have preferred that the items remain in a public collection (van Beurden, 2024:132).
This article has illustrated that there can be no quick fix to an issue deeply rooted in centuries of underlying colonial injustices. Yet, whilst progress on the matter of restitution has been slow, it is progress nonetheless. It is important to the general movement towards a paying of penance for the crimes of generations past. Hopefully, the increased resources that have been reserved for the funding of restitution research will lead to a greater influx of repatriated artwork into the African continent. This is in the way of healing the scars left by the colonial period that ruptured African cultural heritage.
Bibliography:
UNESCO World Heritage Convention.
UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.
The Belgian Bill Recognizing the Alienability of Goods Linked to the Belgian State’s Colonial Past and Determining a Legal Framework for Their Restitution and Return of 2022.
de Clippele MS & Demarsin B, Pioneering Belgium: Parliamentary Legislation on the Restitution of Colonial Collections, Santander Art and Culture Law Review 2/2022 (8):277-29.
van Beurden J, The Empty Showcase Syndrome: Tough Questions about Cultural Heritage from Colonial Regions - Chapter 8: Is Giving Back the New Normal? (p128) Amsterdam University Press (2024).
Edited by Vikisha Ranchod
Comments