EJIL: The Podcast! Episode 13: Loot!

Written by and

This podcast, the second in the series, ‘Reckonings with Europe: Past and Present’ by Surabhi Ranganathan and Megan Donaldson, reflects on calls for return of cultural artefacts looted under European empire.

Experts estimate that over 90% of African cultural heritage is outside Africa, and often in the major world museums. This figure reflects the staggering scale of looting under empire (and even the Anglo-Indian word ‘loot’ testifies to the imperial dimension of this form of pillage). While calls for the return of cultural artefacts are today gathering force, responses have been mixed. Curatorial embrace of these calls in some cases is outmatched by defences of the role of Western museums as ‘universal‘ repositories in many others.

The hosts are joined by Evelien Campfens (Leiden University, former lawyer at the Dutch Restitutions Committee for Nazi looted art, and member of the Ethics Committee of the Dutch Museum Association); Chika Okeke-Agulu (Professor of African and African Diaspora Art at Princeton University); and Dan Hicks (Professor of Contemporary Archaeology at Oxford University, Curator of World Archaeology at the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford, and author of The Brutish Museums. The Benin Bronzes, Colonial Violence and Cultural Restitution) to reflect on the role of (international) law in response to these calls for return.

The episode begins with a discussion of how international law frames the act(s) of appropriation of cultural artefacts. Traditionally, these have been analysed through the lens of the intertemporal rule, which focuses on the legality of the initial taking, judged by the (predominantly European) law of the time. The guests discuss whether emerging new norms are displacing the intertemporal rule. They call into question the focus on the initial moment of taking, arguing that the possession and display of cultural artefacts by European institutions might represent ongoing violence. They also explore suggestions to reach beyond law, for new ethical foundations, as Felwine Sarr and Benedicte Savoy have argued in a major report.

The episode then turns to the arguments used to resist calls for return, including that Western museums serve as ‘universal’ repositories. After the guests make short work of such arguments, the episode examines what the notion of return actually involves. The guests explain the legal forms that return might take, and the work that this requires of museum curators and other holders of cultural artefacts. They also reflect on what return might mean in contexts where objects have been irreparably torn out of their original matrices of meanings, or where the communities from which they were originally taken have been erased or scattered or subsumed within one or multiple postcolonial states.

Along the way, the guests remind us of the role that lawyers might play in shaping arguments for return, of the fundamental importance of amplifying and listening to the voices of those asking for returns, and of the dissatisfactions of a discourse in which notions of safeguarding objects by keeping them in Europe crowds out acknowledgement of the continuing violence of imperialism.

Please subscribe to the podcast on Apple PodcastsSpotifyGoogle Podcasts, or TuneIn. It is also available on several other platforms as well, and through aggregator apps on your phone or tablet. We would appreciate listeners leaving a rating or review on the platform of their choice, as this will help promote the podcast

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Categories

Leave a Comment

Your comment will be revised by the site if needed.

Comments

Emmanuel Abegunrin says

December 21, 2021

I found the argument that there was no law in Africa when the British, U.S., French, Dutch et al. not took but stolen various African countries artifacts and prized possessions aside from lacking in logic, it is ludicrous and insensitive. In addition, that they the Western and U.S. States were better protectors of those African States stolen undermined the intelligence of Africa and Africans. I wonder if it were the African countries who stole Western and U.S. States artifacts and claim that they are better protectors of those artifacts how they would feel? In addition, why is the same argument not made for the Jewish arts stolen during the WWII? This is a topic that is best heard live. The idea that ‘not all stolen objects by the Western States are worthy of return to their original owners’ or ‘don’t who to return them to’ such propositions can only come from the benefiting party in the object that no reasonable ethical person will concede.