CHAPTER 3 – How do Belgian and Dutch museums deal with contested archaeological heritage?
4. Conclusion and a personal view to the future
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.
Tervuren. The Cannon of Kandy (see fig. 17) was the subject for an episode of the TV series broadcasted in 2021 in the Netherlands called ‘Roofkunst’ (looted art). The Cannon of Kandy is a highly decorated cannon that during a war in Sri Lanka was captured by the Dutch state.
Although the cannon was taken under dubious circumstances, it was soon declared an original Dutch heirloom. In the TV series Martine Gosselink from the Rijksmuseum and Erik Dijkstra the tv presenter travelled to Sri Lanka to research if the cannon belongs there (bnnvara, 2021). Eventually a decision was not really made whether the object belongs in Sri Lanka or not. At this moment the Rijksmuseum does not acknowledge Sri Lanka as the owner of the cannon, and it is still to be found in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam.
If we compare this to the AfricaMuseum in Belgium and all the objects from Congo, a very different story appears. The museum has been a colonial museum in the past, as mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. After the reopening of the museum in 2018 a lot of discussions and debates about looted art have been taking place. In the same TV series
‘roofkunst’ there is also an episode on the Lubamask (see fig. 18). This mask was brutally looted during the Belgian colonial period from the village of Lulu. The mask is currently in Belgium, in the AfricaMuseum, something the residents of Lulu are well aware of. In their eyes, the absence of the mask causes drought, disease and poverty. Only when the mask is returned, prosperity and growth can return. Erik Dijkstra investigates in this episode whether it is time to return the mask to Congo. In the episode, the director of the AfricaMuseum,
Fig. 17 The Cannon of Kandy in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. Source:
https://historiek.net/het-kanon-van-de-koning-van-kandy-10/18808/
colonial objects in their museum (bnnvara, 2021). Only very recently did the Belgian
government announce a radical step in this international debate about looted art: all objects in the collection from the AfricaMuseum that were demonstrably stolen from the former Belgian colony of Congo, become now the property of that country. It is up to Congo to determine the pace of return. The objects remain in Belgium as long as Congo does not request them back (Brassem, 2021). “We have to get away from symbolic politics”, State Secretary Thomas Dermine told De Standaard on the 19th on june. “It’s not ours, period.
Whether or not there are opportunities to preserve the heritage in Congo has no impact on the ownership” (Brassem, 2021).
These are two very different outcomes, even though the objects from both countries were looted from their country of origin. I share the opinion of Belgian State Secretary Thomas Dermine. The big difference between the objects is the context of the looting. It is known from the Congolese objects that they were acquired via a brutal way. With the Cannon of Kandy it is not sure if the object was a gift or not. Because of this uncertainty the Dutch government and the Rijksmuseum do not decide yet on giving the object back.
The context of the colonial past and how both countries now handle their colonial past thus plays an important role in these cases. In Belgium it is very clear that the short but very extreme and far-reaching colonial past of Congo is seen as a bad page in the history of Belgium. That is why the AfricaMuseum rightly recognizes that the objects looted during the colonial period do not belong to Belgium, but to Congo. The Netherlands and therefore its museums deal with their colonial past differently. The colonial past of the Netherlands
Fig. 18 Luba Mask in the
AfricaMuseum in Tervuren. Source:
https://www.bruzz.be/samenleving/v erkoop-van-manuscript-over- gestolen-luba-masker-geannuleerd-2019-10-04
lasted a much longer period of time and some events and persons involved in the colonial past are still viewed with an implicit sympathy. Therefore museums such as the
Tropenmuseum have a different way of thinking about dealing with colonial and
archaeological heritage. For example, research on the origin of objects is carried out to know for sure whether they belong to this particular area. The Netherlands wants to be sure that the objects belong to the countries of origin and that this country of origin also has sufficient evidence for this. Apart from implicit sympathy, the Dutch colonial past is also much more unclear than the Belgian colonial past. It is not certain whether various colonial objects in the Netherlands were donated or came to the Netherlands through exploitation. As a result, museums now deal with the objects and the return of these objects in a different way in the Netherlands than they do in Belgium. In the Netherlands people still hold on to the idea that the collections are of great value and that their colonial past also brought about many good things. In Belgium it is recognized that this is not the case, their colonial past was a terrible period in time.
Bibliography
AfricaMuseum (2020) Restitutiebeleid Koninklijk Museum voor Midden-Afrika, Available at:
https://www.africamuseum.be/nl/about_us/restitution (Accessed: 8 july 2021)
AfricaMuseum. (2021) Oorlogstrofeeën, etnografische objecten en politieke documenten, meegebracht door officier Émile Storms (online), 6 july. Available at:
https://www.africamuseum.be/nl/learn/provenance/storms
Ali I. & Coningham R. (1998) Recording and preserving Gandhara’s cultural heritage. Cult.
With- out Context 3, 10–16.
Archaeological Institute of America. (1990) Code of Ethics (online). Available at:
https://www.archaeological.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Code-of-Ethics.pdf (Accessed: 23 july 2021)
Archaeological Institute of America. (2003) Antiquities Dealer Frederick Schultz Case (online).
Available at: https://www.archaeological.org/antiquities-dealer-frederick-schultz-case/
(Accessed: 4 july 2021)
Atwood R. (2006) Stealing history: tomb raiders, smugglers, and the looting of the ancient world, St. Martin’s Griffin.
Balk, L., Van Dijk, F., Kortlang, D., Gaastra, F. Niemeijer, H., Koenders, P. (2007) The Archives of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and the Local Institutions in Batavia (Jakarta), 14.
Baykal Hakan, (2020) ‘Türkische Politiker wollen Pergamonaltar zurückfordern’. Spektrum. 17 august.
https://www.spektrum.de/news/tuerkische-politiker-wollen-pergamonaltar-zurueckfordern/1759738
Bedaux RMA & Rowlands M. (2001) The future of Mali’s past. Antiquity 75, 872- 876.
Belgische Kamer van Volksvertegenwoordigers. (2020) ‘Bijzondere commissie belast met het onderzoek over Congo-Vrijstaat (1885 – 1908) en het Belgisch koloniaal verleden in Congo
(1908 – 1960), Rwanda en Burundi (1919 – 1962), de impact hiervan en de gevolgen die hieraan dienen gegeven te worden’, Tweede Zitting van de 55e zittingsperiode, doc. 55 1462/001 (17 juli 2020), Available at:
https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/55/1462/55K1462001.pdf
Bloembergen M. & Eickhoff M. (2020) The Politics of Heritage in Indonesia. A Cultural History Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 94.
Bosman Joost. (2019) ‘Van wie is het Krim-goud in het Allard Pierson Museum?’, Het Parool, 11 march. https://www.parool.nl/nieuws/van-wie-is-het-krim-goud-in-het-allard-pierson-museum~bfe7f58f3/
Bouquet, Mary. (2013) ‘Het negentiende -eeuwse openbare etnografische museum’ , in:
Bergvelt, E. et al. Kabinetten, galerijen en musea: het verzamelen en presenteren van naturalia en kunst van 1500 tot heden. Heerlen: Open Universiteit, 219 – 248.
Brakel & Legêne (eds.). (2008) Collecting at Cultural Crossroads. Collection policies and approaches of the Tropenmuseum (2008-2012). Bulletin 381. Amsterdam: KIT Publishers
Brassem (2021) ‘Radicale stap: Congo wordt eigenaar van alle kunst in AfricaMuseum die België ooit uit het land heeft gestolen’, Trouw, 19 June
https://www.trouw.nl/buitenland/radicale-stap-congo-wordt-eigenaar-van-alle-kunst-in-africamuseum-die-belgie-ooit-uit-het-land-heeft-gestolen~b5e6a37e/
Brodie, N., Doole, J. and Watson, P. (2000) Stealing History: the Illicit Trade in Cultural Material (Cambridge: McDonald Institute).
Brodie Neil & Renfrew Colin (2005) ‘Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage: The Inadequate Response’. Annual review of anthropology. 34 (1), 343–361.
Brodie, N. (2006) Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and the Antiquities Trade. Gainesville, Fla:
Busselen Lies. (2019) ‘De tijd haalt ons in – Hoe het restitutiedebat een lens biedt op een verschuiving in de ‘ontkenning van gelijktijdigheid’, Volkskunde. Tijdschrift over de cultuur van het dagelijks leven, jaargang 20, no. 3. 369-373.
Chechi A., Bandle A. L. , Renold M. A. (2021) ‘Case Lydian Hoard – Turkey and Metropolitan Museum of Art’. Platform Arthemis (http://unige.ch/art-adr), Art-Law Centre, University of Geneva.
Chippindale, C. & GIll, D. (2000) ‘Material Consequences of Contemporary Classical Collecting’. American journal of archaeology. 104 (3), 463–511.
Clément, E. (1995) ‘The UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (Paris, 1970)’, in: Leyten, H. M. et al. (1995) Illicit traffic in cultural property: museums against pillage. Amsterdam:
Royal Tropical Institute. 51
Cuno, J. (2008) Who owns antiquity? Museums and the battle over our ancient heritage.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Cuno, J. B. (2012) Whose culture? The promise of museums and the debate over antiquities.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
De Vries, M. (2018) ‘Hoe dekoloniseer je een koloniaal museum? “Het lukt niet met kleine ingrepen”’, Trouw, 8 december. https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/hoe-dekoloniseer-je-een-koloniaal-museum-het-lukt-niet-met-kleine-ingrepen~bb4bf87a/
Dijksterhuis, E. (2020) ‘Maar hoe doe je dat, roofkunst teruggeven?’. Het Parool.
https://www.parool.nl/nederland/maar-hoe-doe-je-dat-roofkunst-teruggeven~badf4530/
Ede J. (1998) Ethics, the Antiquities Trade, and Archaeology. International journal of cultural property. 7 (1), 128 -131.
Elia, R. J. (2009) ‘Mythology of The Antiquities Market’, in: Nafziger, J. A. R. & Nicgorski, A. M.
Cultural heritage issues: the legacy of conquest, colonization, and commerce, Leiden:
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 239 – 255.
Fernandez Cacho S. & Sanjua ́n LG. (2000) Site looting and illicit trade of archaeological objects in Andalusia, Spain. Cult. Without Context 7, 17–24.
Groot Hans. (2009), Van Batavia naar Weltevreden. Het Bataviaasch Genootschap voor Kunsten en Wetenschappen, 1778 – 1867. Leiden: BRILL.
Gutchen M. (1983) The destruction of archaeological resources in Belize, Central America. J.
Field Archaeol. 10, 217–227.
Harvard University. (2021) James Cuno (online). Available at:
https://haa.fas.harvard.edu/people/james-cuno. (Accessed: 21 juny 2021)
‘Het kanon van Kandy’ (2021) Roofkunst, Series 1, episode 1, bnnvara, https://www.bnnvara.nl/roofkunst/aflevering-1-het-kanon-van-kandy
‘Het Lubamasker’ (2021) Roofkunst, Series 1, episode 2, bnnvara, https://www.bnnvara.nl/roofkunst/aflevering-2-het-lubamasker
Hof Amsterdam, (2019). ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2019:2427. 16 July.
https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2019:2427
Hubert, Jane; Fforde, Cressida (2005). "Introduction: the reburial issue in the twenty-first century". In: Heritage, Museums and Galleries, London, Routledge, 116 – 132.
ICOM. (2004). Code of Ethics for Museums. Paris: ICOM.
‘Johan Maurits’ (2021) (online). Available at:
https://www.mauritshuis.nl/nl-J. Paul Getty Trust. (2021) Who We Are (online). Available at:
https://www.getty.edu/about/whoweare/ (Accessed: 21 of June, 2021)
Khaddari, R. & Wiegman, M. (2019) ‘Roofkunst kan terug, maar wel op bepaalde
voorwaarden’. Het Parool. 7 maart. https://www.parool.nl/nieuws/roofkunst-kan-terug-maar-wel-op-bepaalde-voorwaarden~baa9e977/
Krikhaar Fieke (1996) ‘Jacob Eilbracht 1738-1804. Een leven in dienst van deVerenigde Oostindische Compagnie’ .
Kruijt Michiel. (2020) ‘Nederlands teruggavebeleid voor roofkunst moet empathischer en minder formalistisch’, De Volkskrant. 7 December https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws- achtergrond/nederlands-teruggavebeleid-voor-roofkunst-moet-empathischer-en-minder-formalistisch~b31b111b/
Leyten, H. M. et al. (1995) Illicit traffic in cultural property: museums against pillage.
Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute.
Lulof Patricia S. (2009) ‘De verloren tempels van Caere en Caprifico. Conflicterende belangen bij de teruggave van geroofde archeolgica’. Tijdschrift voor Mediterrane Archeologie. 21, 45-53.
Mazur S. (2006) The return of the Euphronios Krater (online) Available at:
http://www.elginism.com/similar-cases/the-return-of-the-euphronios-krater/20060224/339/
Muller, E. & H. Schretlen (2002) Betwist bezit: de Stichting Nederlands Kunstbezit en de teruggave van roofkunst na 1945. Zwolle: Waanders.
Nationaal Museum van Wereldculturen. (2021) Collectie wereldculturen (online). available at: https://collectie.wereldculturen.nl/#/query/22b6b27d-d7ca-4afa-b44d-d79453890127 (Accessed 24 july 2021)
Raad voor Cultuur. (2020) Koloniale Collecties en Erkenning van Onrecht. Den Haag.
Renfrew, C. (1999) Loot, legitimacy and ownership: the ethical crisis in archaeology.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam Archeologisch Centrum AAC/IPP van de Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Renfrew. (2021) Statement on Museum Acquisitions and Loan of Antiquities (online), available at: https://worldarch.org/blog/statement-on-museum-acquisitions-and-loan-of-antiquities/
Reppas, M. J. (2007) ‘Empty ‘international’ museums’ trophy cases of their looted treasures and return stolen property to the countries of origin and the rightful heirs of those
wrongfully dispossessed’. Denver journal of international law and policy. 36 (1), 93 -123.
Ribbens Arjen. (2021), ‘Duitsland zegt toe kostbare bronzen uit Benin terug te geven’, NRC Handelsblad, 23 maart. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2021/03/23/duitsland-zegt-toe-kostbare-bronzen-uit-benin-terug-te-geven-a4036893
Ribbens Arjen. (2021), ‘Metropolitan Museum gaat Benin-brozen restitueren aan Nigeria’, NRC Handelsblad, 14 juni. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2021/06/14/metropolitan-museum-gaat-benin-bronzen-restitueren-aan-nigeria-a4047236
Scarre and Scarre. (2006) The ethics of archaeology: philosophical perspectives on archaeological practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 206 - 208.
Schelstraete Inge (2021), ‘Inteview Jos van Beurden’, De Standaard, 5 june
https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20210604_97723599?&articlehash=qzK31Mpzs6%2Fvd9
wWf%2BJV46%2B86qv4EIL9%2Bl5MKJXSCs%2F7HmJdVt%2BBopbiVxXMihqV%2B2W4%2FXb qGwVeqEYhxTLUDCA2uEK97LJ%2BQPWidyJFxfLd3UVKHAT8FKFhyQxeeu15iXLQDwrsoip%2B TAHkKhq%2B1RCl%2F8LVk5tkUb6zFNOt%2Bv5TT6yv0qUUf1NXF5ps%2FX%2FyQE%2F1o%2F xO8M3bpMkVn7pS4P3OgdJnUZOjQuBMFUe2L0A3sUu9Xv7%2Bpr6NgpDqePj7fBndGMmyAK 5%2B9udqwVA%3D%3D
The Met. (2006) ‘Statement by the Metropolitan Museum of art on its agreement with Italian ministry of culture’. New York. February 21.
https://www.metmuseum.org/press/news/2006/statement-by-the-metropolitan-museum-of-art-on-its-agreement-with-italian-ministry-of-culture
The New Arab Staff. (2020) ‘Egypt revives effort to retrieve Nefertiti bust ‘stolen’ by Germany’, The New Arab, 3 October. https://english.alaraby.co.uk/news/egypt-revives-effort-retrieve-nefertiti-bust-germany
Tijhuis, A. J. G. (2006) Transnational crime and the interface between legal and illegal actors:
the case of the illicit art and antiquities trade. Wolf Legal Publishers.
Tropenmuseum (2021) Geschiedenis Tropenmuseum (online) available at:
https://www.tropenmuseum.nl/nl/themas/geschiedenis-tropenmuseum (Accessed: 8 july 2021)
Trouw, (2020) ‘België wil buitenlandse menselijke resten uit musea teruggeven’, Trouw, 1 december. https://www.trouw.nl/cultuur-media/belgie-wil-buitenlandse-menselijke-resten-uit-musea-teruggeven~ba526bba/
True M. (1993) ‘The Getty Kouros: Background on the Problem’, the Getty kouros Colloquium. 13, 11-16.
Tsosie, R. (2009) ‘Who controls native cultural heritage? “Art”, “Artifacts”, and the right to cultural survival’, in: Nafziger, J. A. R. & Nicgorski, A. M. Cultural heritage issues: the legacy of conquest, colonization, and commerce, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 3- 36.