Comparison

also expanded with other large collections, mostly through exchanges, donations and purchases (Website Tropenmuseum, 2021). Unfortunately, by who and when these exchanges, donations and purchases took place cannot be found trough the sources available. But because the collection was enlarged through actions such as donations and purchases, it is expected that more myths can be connected to the museum such as the myth of the old collection and the myth of the chance find.

between the two museums lies in the artistic value of the objects that were brought to Belgium around 1900 (Bouquet, 2013, 242). If we compare this to the colonial museum in Amsterdam, we can determine that the objects retrieved from the Dutch colonies were not seen as works of art or ‘masterpieces’, they were seen as booty or loot from the expeditions (Raad voor Cultuur, 2020, 20). The Zeitgeist of the seventeenth century and the powerful institution of the VOC that was focused on trading in textile, spices, coffee, and other exotics but also in slaves, made that the objects were seen very differently than the objects in the Congo Museum.

A big difference between the Dutch colonial period and the Belgian colonial period is that the Belgian expeditions were state-led, under the authority of King Leopold II. The Dutch colonial period was not under the authority of any king or state, it was because of the VOC and WIC that the colonies were established. With the colonization of Congo by Belgium, the “white man’s burden” or the duty asserted by white people to manage the affairs of non-white people whom they believed to be less developed, also followed. Belgian missionaries were sent to Congo to re-educate the people there and to turn them into Christians. This was not the goal of the Dutch colonizers, they simply wanted to make use of the profits of their colonies had to offer such as spices and gold. Also the fact that the Dutch colonial period started in the 17^th century and the Belgian colonial period in the 19^th century, provides an explanation for the different goals of the colonizers.

3.3.1 Discussion on why objects are disputed

After having given more information on how both the Netherlands and Belgium handle their contested colonial and archaeological heritage, it is also important to discuss why these objects are disputed as mentioned before. In the first chapter I made clear that there are five reasons why objects can possibly be disputed: colonialism, illegal art trade, national importance, change of ethics and war heritage. The objects from Belgian museums such as the AfricaMuseum and also The Royal Museums of Art and History (KMKG), the former Jubelparkmuseum) are mostly disputed because of a colonial background and illegal trade.

The objects in Dutch museums such as the Tropenmuseum and the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden mostly have the same reasons for being disputed. Jos van Beurden, Dutch expert and advisor in the field of looted art and restitution issues, thinks that Belgium is ahead of the pack in a few areas. “The Congo Parliamentary Commission, established in 2020, is

investigating not only restitution, but also the role of the monarchy, business life and the mission during colonialism. No other European country does that. It is difficult to screen large old companies such as Shell or Union Minière in Belgium. The struggle with your

monarchy in Congo seems more complex to me than with ours in the Dutch East Indies. Then I think it’s brave that they argue for that” (van Beurden, 2021).

In the second chapter, I made clear that the UNESCO 1970 Convention had an important impact on the antiquities market. After this I explained the ‘five myths’ based on the research of Elia. If we look at Belgium and the Netherlands and the antiquities market in both countries after the 1970 we must keep in mind that both had not yet signed the

convention in 1995. In that same year, statues stolen from Angkor in Cambodia and Ayutthaya Thailand, two world heritage sites, were seized in the port of Rotterdam, the Netherlands (van Beurden, 2021). In Belgium, a gold-plated cross from Lalibela in Ethiopia was seized. If Belgium and Ethiopia had both acceded to the Convention, the buyer from Brussels would had to prove that he really did not know that the cross was not allowed to leave Ethiopia (van Beurden, 2021). With the introduction of the 1970 Convention, not all illegal transactions immediately disappeared. Both Belgium and the Netherlands only acceded to this treaty in 2009, almost four decades later than the introduction.

In 2002, the director of the Museum Volkenkunde in Leiden was informed that its museum had a number of Toi Moko’s (see fig. 16) in its collection, tattooed and mummified heads that the Maoris no longer wanted to see in the display cases. The Netherlands

returned the human remains without a lot of trouble (van Beurden, 2021). In 2018 New Zealand also requested the two Toi Moko’s back from the Royal Museums in the

Cinquantenaire Park, but is still awaiting an answer. So many countries have returned their Toi Moko’s, why doesn’t Belgium or the museum do this? I think this example gives an answer to the following question that was posed at the beginning of this chapter: What is

the difference between the theory and practice when it comes to policy on disputed archaeological and colonial heritage in both countries?

Illegal art trade is also very much still a reason why objects are disputed. A good example is the newspaper article from Theo Toebosch. He uses the example of a Greek vase in the Allard Pierson in Amsterdam. The vase can now be found in renewed museum in the exhibition ‘Van Nijl tot Amstel’, without any information about the origin of the object. The vase is actually discovered in illegal excavations and later sold by Sotheby’s in London in the 1980’s (Toebosch, 2021). To Toebosch it is no surprise that the collection of the Allard Pierson includes an illegally excavated and sold Greek vase. As early as 2009, NRC reported that the collection contains even more antiquities that are likely to have been illegally

excavated and sold between the 1960s and 2000s (Toebosch, 2021). Even though at the time this was acknowledged by the museum, apparently insufficient action was taken in the twelve years since.

To conclude this chapter, I believe that the dawn of the 21^st century has brought a refreshing opinion to the invariable refusal of requests for looted property to be voluntarily returned by international museums. Where the 20^th century embodied a sense of ineffectiveness,

hopeless loss of property and irritation, the earliest decades of the 21^st century seem to empower museums and nation-states to regain their looted objects and amend the crimes of the past. The long thought beliefs of individuals and nation-states that they are incapable to challenge the museum’s ownership of these objects, has changed to a more

Fig. 16 Example of a Toi Moko head.

Source:

https://www.dw.com/en/germany- returns-tattooed-maori-skull-to-new-zealand/a-44399522

confrontational and courageous attitude whereupon they now trust that they can legally convince the museums to return their looted objects.

One can observe the obvious changes in the world opinion by analysing numerous recent events on this subject. As I have shown in this research paper. Questions such as

“Who can own the past?” and “Who has the right to keep the booty of war?”, were in the past mainly asked by academics and scholars. Now, these questions and variations of these questions have become more and more popular in the general press and are being asked by the general public. A lot of authors have analysed this topic and in many cases the return of looted objects is demanded on the basis of moral, political and/or legal, historical and ethical grounds (Reppas, 2007, p. 94).

In theory, today’s society has become more and more intolerant of these lootings and urge that the international museums return them because they have no moral right to display and own such objects. In practice however, the art market is blossoming as never before. But the fact that our society is taking this approach and is revolting against museums being the owners or guarders of these looted objects, is an indication that a swing in the general attitude, in favour of the return of these objects has occurred.