The Return of Looted Artefacts since 1945. Post-fascist and post-colonial restitution in comparative perspective

16.–18.5.2022

The Max Weber Foundation conference „The Return of Looted Artefacts since 1945. Post-fascist and post-colonial restitution in comparative perspective“ was organised by the German Historical Institute in Rome (DHI) and in particular by Bianca Gaudenzi (Rom/Konstanz/Cambridge). The conference gathered a diverse group of academics, provenance researchers, curators, and museums’ practitioners with the aim of inquiring into post-fascist and post-colonial restitution practices and discourses and how these have evolved over time. The conference adopted an innovative comparative approach that strove to understand whether similarities between fascist-era and colonial-era restitution cases exist – and if so, why. Inquiring further into those similarities as well as differences was used as a means to better assess the political relevance of heritage and its role in memory- and nation-building vis-à-vis the rise of human rights, but also the persistence of anti-Jewish and racist stereotypes in the post-1945 world order and the recurrence of restitution motives in present-day nationalist propaganda. Whilst the diversity of academic fields represented at the conference (historians, lawyers, archaeologists) allowed for an enriching interdisciplinary debate, the combined presence of both academics and practitioners meant that the reflection did not only tackle discursive aspects, but also encompassed practical considerations that could potentially contribute to an in-depth restructuration of the museum in the future.

The discussion was launched by Jason Lustig (Austin), who delved into the power dynamics embedded in the very definitions used to describe instances of looting and restitution. In his thought-provoking paper, Lustig challenged some of the assumptions commonly made in relation to terms such as looting and plunder. The use of culture as a justification for war, he argued, must force us to ponder on the intricate and complex nature of cultural looting. His focus was primarily on post-WW II US and the way in which Nazi-looted artworks fitted in the US narrative of justification for war, but he urged for a similar critical stance to be adopted in the context of colonialism.

James McSpadden’s (Reno, Nevada) paper closely tied in with Lustig’s, as his reference to the double confiscation of books – first by the Nazis and then by the US – and the lack of legal clearance from the US military for confiscation urged us to challenge the black and white narratives promoted in the last thirty years by Hollywood – and the grey zones of restitution reckoned with. The example of books is particularly telling, as the Nazi’s destruction of books was at the center of their scheme of cultural genocide. McSpadden’s contribution served also as a powerful illustration of how crucial the study of material culture is. The books that can still be easily found on the shelves of US libraries indeed remain the unique tokens of a story that might otherwise have been lost or forgotten.

Moving away from definitions but still looking at the question of perspectives, Lars Müller (Leipzig) raised two key methodological considerations. As inferred by his paper’s title „Historicising claims for the return of cultural heritage from colonial contexts“, Müller stressed the importance of the longue durée perspective to achieve a comprehensive understanding of restitution cases. He further argued that restitutions in the post-colonial contexts have so far often been explored from the perspective of the ‚looter‘ rather than the perspective of the ‚looted‘.

Müller, Lustig, and McSpadden helped framing the debate and eloquently raised questions that were later echoed in several other conference’s papers, in the post-fascist and post-colonial contexts alike. Who gets to tell the story of restitutions? What is the significance of restitution for the relationship between the countries owing the looted objects, and the countries claiming for their return? Should the return of the object be perceived as a conclusion, or rather as the start of a new kind of relationship between the ‚owing‘ and the ‚claiming‘ countries?

Those questions were at the heart of the contributions from Barbara Vodopivec (Ljubljana) and the analysis from Abena A. Yalley (Konstanz) and Daniel Kwofie (Accra). At first glance, the glaring geographical and chronological differences between the two papers did not seem to easily accommodate for comparisons. Studying the two papers side-by-side however revealed itself extremely valuable to understand the power structures between the different protagonists engaged in the restitution process. To what extent can the power imbalance between ‚looter‘ and ‚looted‘ be lessened through the process? Is the gesture of restitution sufficient as to restore a greater equilibrium between the two countries involved in the process? How are internal power struggles between the local and national level articulated? It is also helpful in underlining the complex role played by the state in the restitution process? In what ways is the process impacted by the state’s involvement? Is the state’s involvement beneficial, or should it on the contrary be considered as a hindrance to the successful unfolding of the restitution?

In her contribution, Vodopivec aimed at disentangling the reasons for the difficulties encountered during the restitution of Nazi-looted cultural artefacts from Austria to Yugoslavia post-1945. Among the reasons were the so called ‚double confiscations‘, caused by the nationalisation of property after 1945, and the inclusion of returned objects into public institutions – which meant works of arts were never returned to their rightful owners. Interestingly, Vodopivec also identified Yugoslavia’s prioritisation of the restitution of transport, factory equipment and raw materials as one of the key reasons for the modest restitution of cultural artefacts – revealing the discrepancy between the high symbolic value currently attributed to works of arts, and how they were considered by post-1945 Yugoslavia.

In their analysis, Yalley and Kwofie depicted the way in which native Ahantas of Ghana perceived the restitution process of the head of Badu Bonso II as being dominated by the Dutch government, without allowing for the performing of native customs, ceremonies, or rituals. Confronted with the Dutch government’s disregard for local beliefs, the Ahantas felt that their voice remained unheard throughout the process, in what they described as being a demonstration of extended post-colonial power. This seemed to further transpire in the Dutch (but also the Ghanian) governments’ unawareness of the centrality of the head for the community’s identity building. The Ahantas held the head as a symbol of authority and power, and its looting hence amounted to a severe loss of identity. Given the head’s connection with the Ahanta’s identity, their agency in the restitution process should have been strengthened. The Ghanaian state itself only had a partial knowledge of local Ahanta’s customs. This paper, along with Vodopivec’s contribution, reminded us that whilst the state’s involvement in the restitution process can deeply – and positively – influence the restitution’s outcome, an unwelcomed consequence might be the exclusion of the legitimate owners of the looted cultural artefact (an individual, a community, a local group, a family unit, etc.) to the margins of the restitution process.

The case of Badu Bonso II’s head also raises several questions on governmental and institutional approaches to post-colonial restitutions. What are the specific parameters that need to be accounted for in the case of the restitution of human remains – and what are the implications for the restitution process? Was the Dutch government’s understanding of the restitution process based on the sole notion of a change of ownership rather than on the symbolic meaning of restitution, and therefore too restrictive? What can be inferred from the non-return of Badu Bonso II’s golden ornaments, which were looted at the same time as the head? Did the Dutch government use the head’s restitution merely as an instrument to appease rising international and national pressures, but was not ready to proceed to a more thorough confrontation with its colonial past?

The ambivalence of the state’s role was further explored by Winani Thebele (Gaborone, Botswana). She advocated in favour of the state as a positive force that should be at the forefront of the restitution process but emphasised that the international museum sector must also start engaging with local communities on a more regular and intense basis. Museums, she argued, have the capacity to establish a direct connection at the community level, without needing the state as intermediary.

As epitomised in the five contributions so far mentioned, the conference served as an excellent platform on which to scrutinise the different forces at play during the process of restitution. In the vast majority of cases, a restitution is rooted in the work and efforts of a multitude of protagonists – active at the local, national, transnational, international level. Whilst states are at times at the centre of restitutions, they are often not the driving forces spurring the process forward.

Shauna Isaac (London) retraced the looting and restitution of Egon Schiele’s painting „Portrait of Wally“ to her family. Looted in 1939 by a Nazi art dealer, the painting was the property of Lea Bondi Jaray, a Jewish gallery owner living in Vienna at the time. Isaac explored the moment of the looting, and Bondi and her family’s attempts at recovering her painting, which eventually had a positive outcome in 2010. What transpires from her contribution is the impact individual stories of restitution can have. They can be used to showcase new legal pathways leading to restitution, but also – most importantly – they have the power of fostering a broader public attention and engagement for issues of restitution.

Shlomit Steinberg (Jerusalem) analysed the Gurlitt affair, and her personal involvement in the Gurlitt international Taskforce, set up in 2014. She exposed the frustration that emerged during her work on the Taskforce, as Israel and Germany were impatiently pushing for tangible results, quantified in the number of restituted artworks. The Taskforce attracted enhanced mediatic interest worldwide. Steinberg inferred that the mediatic interest surrounding the affair, along with the setting up of the Taskforce, led to an enhanced political interest in the place of provenance research for art museums in Israel.

Isaac and Steinberg both reveal the power of emotions in attracting popular and political attention and support. Borbála Klacsmann (Budapest) further stressed the importance of networks, the media and civil society when confronted with governments and institutions unamiable to the restitution of goods looted as a consequence of religious persecution. Klacsmann retraced the history of Jewish persecution in Hungary and the post-war Hungarian government’s approach to restitution. The anti-Jewish feelings expressed by a segment of the Hungarian population weakened any attempts at establishing a just restitution process. As discussed by Yalley and Kwofie, Klacsmann also exposed the violence that is sometimes embedded within the restitution process itself. In the Hungarian case, anti-Jewish discriminatory feelings were indeed directly transferred into the legal texts used as a basis for restitution, resulting into legislation which heavily favoured non-Jewish citizens and was restrictive to Jewish Hungarians.

What is the best approach to adopt when confronted with such institutional obstacles? How does one best reconcile the range of different – and often conflicting – interests championed by the various protagonists involved in the restitution process? The issue of competitive interests was at the heart of Tabitha Oost’s (Amsterdam) and Benno Nietzel’s (Bochum) respective papers, as they address the tensions between the individual and the public spheres. Oost drew some particularly interesting lessons from the Dutch approach to the restitution of Nazi-looted cultural goods and considered how to apply those lessons in the context of the return of colonial artefacts. She denounced the ad-hoc, „case by case“ approach currently used in countries such as France, the UK, or the Netherlands as being insufficient in the view of colonial wrongs. Instead, she argued in favour of a systematic, comprehensive approach rooted in a strong legal framework, which would provide the necessary stability to effectively remediate to historical injustices linked to the colonial period.

Oost’s contribution is especially noteworthy for the way she articulated the tensions between competing interests. Those were at the heart of the criticisms addressed against the Dutch approach to Nazi-looted art restitutions, as the interests of the victims and their heirs were weighed against Dutch public interests. Oost warned us against the risk of having similar attitudes extended to colonial restitutions. She directly questioned some of the main arguments that have been put forward by former colonial powers over the last years to prevent the return of looted objects. For example, the preservation of cultural heritage or the contention that some of Europe’s or the US’s conservation methods are more advanced.

Through his presentation, Benno Nietzel also distinguished collective from individual claims, and explored how the correlation between those two types of claims evolved over time. He identified three restitution „waves“ that have occurred since 1945. Whilst in the 1940s collective claims for the return of Nazi-looted goods prevailed, the 1990s witnessed a shift towards individual claims by Holocaust survivors or their heirs. Nietzel described the third wave as the latest increase in claims related to the post-colonial context – which are always collective in nature. His analysis is fundamental as it raises a number of considerations that one must ponder on when trying to grapple with the meaning of restitutions and what we are trying to achieve through them. Have post-colonial claims so far been given limited attention precisely because of their collective nature – which, as argued by Regula Ludi in the case of Holocaust-era restitution, would not resonate in a neoliberal narrative? How are the 1940s and 1990s debates connected to post-colonial claims?

Albeit in a very different manner, these issues were also at the heart of Leora Bilsky and Rachel Klagsbrun’s (Tel Aviv) contribution. In an extremely resonating paper, Bilsky and Klagsbrun drew comparisons between the early post-1945 Jewish restitution struggles on the one hand, and contemporary African efforts to decolonize European museums on the other. Their choice to compare the contemporary decolonization movement to early post-1945 restitutions, rather than to the 1990s Holocaust restitutions, is very compelling. Indeed, their focus on collective restitutions as a way to reconstruct one’s culture echoes particularly well with recent restitutions of post-colonial artefacts – as shown by the case of Badu Bonso II’s head. Through this comparison, Bilsky and Klagsbrun explored how the composing of lists have been used by victim groups as a bottom-up alternative to deal with the loss of their cultural treasures and works of art. Their analysis begs several additional questions. In what ways could the victims’ composition of lists be used to advance alternative concepts of restitution, especially when faced with absences or gaps in the historical narrative? How can the lists spur the restitution processes forward?

Nietzel, Oost, Bilsky and Klagsbrun endeavoured to suggest conceptual and legal frameworks that could be applied to both post-fascist and post-colonial restitution practices. Christine Howald (Berlin) and Mattes Lammert (Berlin/Paris) shifted the focus towards provenance researchers, and the role they can and should play in restitution processes. In her contribution, Howald investigated the ways in which provenance researchers in Germany should respond to an object that encompasses several layers of historical injustice and cultural looting: the Nazi period, the colonial time, and the era of the Soviet occupation and the GDR. Focusing on the example of Chinese cultural artefacts, Howald insisted on the need for current provenance projects to untangle the multiple deprivation contexts that might sometimes overlap in the same object. She argued that the uneven legal frameworks of the different contexts of injustice do not seem to offer a satisfactory response when dealing with successive instances of looting. The challenging reconstruction of the chain of provenance – due mainly to the long history of the objects, the lack of available sources, and the practice of duplication in East Asia – implies the proof of ownership cannot be used as the deciding factor when determining which context should prevail. In the absence of adequate regulations and of strong evidence of ownership, Howald argued that the colonial context has the greater weight when it comes to the moral-ethical aspect of ownership. Those were initial thoughts, and it would be interesting to delve deeper into her reasons for choosing the colonial context. Howald’s paper also begs the question of objects with more than three deprivation contexts. How to reckon with the overlapping of additional layers of injustice, even if these might be stemming from normal thefts rather than institutionalised looting? Is restitution necessarily the best answer when dealing with a lack, or limited ownership evidence?

Mattes Lammert’s paper, which explored the acquisitions by the Berlin museums during the German occupation of Paris, similarly highlighted the difficulties encountered by researchers when attempting to reconstruct the provenance and biography of certain objects such as antiquities – and most particularly the exact circumstances of their acquisition. As in the case of the Chinese cultural artefacts explored by Howald, the antiquities acquired by the Berlin museums are also likely to be linked with several translocation moments: the Nazi, the GDR and the colonial periods. As a response to those challenges, Lammert made two important methodological claims. First, that provenance research would gain from moving away from the object per se, and rather embrace a larger context-oriented approach. Second, that provenance research should not be reduced to the subject of restitution but should rather be conceptualised as a form of critical engagement with museums’ collections.

Dan Hicks (Oxford) also focused on the practice of provenance research. According to him, former colonial powers cannot repeat institutionally what was done in the context of Holocaust reparations, as they themselves have profited from the loot. Hicks advocated in favour of provenance work being carried out directly in Africa, according to a scheme where European or US museums would send the objects as temporary installation to claimant African countries, with provenance due diligence and restitutions taking place there directly.

Moving slightly away from practical considerations linked to provenance research, in his compelling paper Jonathan Bach (New York) encouraged us to reflect on what he called provenance-centered reckoning: a particular kind of memory work that emerged in the late 1990s and diverts from classic provenance research in that it takes a suspicion of injustice as its starting point. Through this notion, Bach explored the key reasons for the intricate connection between provenance research and colonial reckoning in Germany, as well as reflecting on the role of provenance researchers with regards to the memory landscape. His paper raised some important reflections. In what ways does provenance research on Nazi looted artefacts versus colonial differ? How is the fear of relativisation of the Holocaust shaping the way in which the German government approaches colonial reckoning? Bach revealed that whilst the tools elaborated in the case of Nazi-looted artefacts were adapted to post-colonial restitutions, the German government remains very cautious of clearly delimiting the two contexts.

As outlined by Lammert, the questions raised vis-à-vis the role played by provenance researchers are intimately linked to the ways in which the museum interacts and engages with its collections. In his paper, Achia Anzi (Amsterdam/New Delhi) compared and contrasted the restitution of post-fascist and post-colonial artefacts. Using an innovative approach based on methods from discourse analysis, Anzi strove to demonstrate that the restitution of post-colonial artefacts is much less ‚straightforward‘ than the restitution of post-fascist artefacts. He argued that the modern museum has indeed been conceived as a place to neutralise the original function and authority of the colonial objects. As the objects’ original meaning and traditional function are ‚deactivated‘, the control over the objects is transferred to the museum’s visitors – who are then enabled to dominate the objects and their narratives. According to Anzi, the museum’s foundational colonial logic means that it is not sufficient to return colonial artefacts to their original owners. Rather, the modern museum must engage in a radical transformation to break through its colonial foundations, and allow for a comprehensive restitution.

Staffan Lundén (Gothenburg) encouraged us to reflect on the ways in which museums choose to represent their collection, and most particularly how are difficult aspects of an object’s biography incorporated – and sometimes omitted – from the museums’ narratives. Lundén’s comparison of the Benin City Museum and the British Museum’s display of the Benin objects revealed that in both cases some aspects of the objects’ difficult heritage have been neutralised. The British Museum downplayed the 1897 looting of the objects by using euphemisms such as ‚collected‘ or ‚acquired‘, and it is only since 2020 that the displays explicitly acknowledge the ‚colonial conquest and military looting‘ associated with the objects. Such a neutralising approach is also adopted by the Benin City Museum when dealing with objects representing human sacrifices, as the Museum portrays them as objects rendering execution. Key questions stem from Lundén’s powerful comparison. Beyond the issue of restitution and ownership, how to address the challenges linked to the unavoidable partiality of representations – and the related exclusion of a range of perspectives? What role can museums endorse in the righting of past wrongs? How have museums’ displays influenced – and still influence – our perception of past wrongs? Should the museums’ efforts to include difficult legacies in the representation of their collections be considered as another endeavour to avoid restitution?

At the crossroads of Anzi’s and Lundén’s analysis, Veronika Rudorfer (Vienna) explored the way in which contemporary artists have addressed the question of looted property through their artistic work. Her insights steered a stimulating debate on the relationship between the artists and the institutions, and the extent to which museums have – and can – shift the responsibility of confronting the difficult legacies of some of their collection onto the artists’ shoulders. As she pointed out, the museum still retains a central agency, which echoed Lundén’s remarks on the issue of ownership. Whilst the artists’ external point of view balanced out the institutional appropriation over the objects, Rudorfer stressed that institutions were still responsible for the initial evaluation of their history.

The aforementioned arguments relating to museum’s practices and approaches to restitution were epitomized in Bénédicte Savoy’s (Berlin) keynote speech. She argued that knowledge of the collections could represent a tangible danger for the collections themselves, as there seems to be something deeply disturbing about having the looted history of an object side by side with the object itself. Confronted with the growing demand for historical transparency, museums responded by falling into the ‚factivism‘ movement, whose regrettable outcome – Savoy argued – is to hide the restitution claims away. Accordingly, Savoy wondered whether the only viable option might be to have museums without such display of information? Closely intertwined to this issue was the question of presence and absence in the ‚decolonial museum‘, as Savoy pondered on the best way in which museums could reckon with the empty space resulting from the return of the looted objects. As she highlighted, some museums prefer to avoid the absence altogether, as the returned objects are almost immediately replaced. Savoy’s speech shed light on some of the key issues museums must reflect on if – and when – deciding to openly discuss some of the darker sides of their collections. In particular, museums must be aware of the uneasiness that might arise when visitors are confronted with the history of the looted objects. The potential threat to their collection should not deter them from trying to tell the objects’ history in all its complexity and violence, however. The status quo of their collections might otherwise be temporarily preserved, but their educational role – and therefore their very raison d’être – would be seriously undermined.

Flaminia Bartolini’s (Rome) focus on the ex-Colonial Museum in Rome provided an exemplary case study of a museum’s attempt at confronting the difficult legacies of the objects in its collection. The change in management in 1995 marked the museum’s first attempt at critically reconsidering its problematic collection. The current approach, which has been in place since 2017, adopts a much more transparent approach, that Bartolini considered a positive step towards the decolonization of the museum.

The final panel of the conference comprised of Francesca Cavarocchi (Florence), Simona Troilo (L’Aquila) and Beatrice Falcucci (L’Aquila), and focused on the impact on Italy of different restitution claims originating from former Italian colonies. Their papers highlighted the obliteration process characteristic of the way in which Italy dealt with looted colonial artefacts for several decades. The fact that Italy’s refusal to answer positively to claims by former colonies developed in parallel to Italy’s claim for the return of cultural artefacts looted during the German occupation is particularly telling of Italy’s uneven approach to the issue of restitution. Falcucci’s study of the debate surrounding the return of Omar Al Mukthar’s glasses was extremely interesting for its analysis of the role of relics, and the idea that authenticity is in fact not secondary as the true glasses are also associated with „genuine power“. Troilo revealed how restitutions were used as a way to reinforce the myth of Italians as „brava gente“ and downplay the historical responsibility of Italy towards its former colonies. Finally, Cavarocchi insisted on the need to look more closely at networks of cultural institutions, national and local museums and their influence at the institutional and governmental level.

The conference concluded with a final roundtable on Italy’s post-fascist and post-colonial memory. Looking at the city of Trieste, Donata Levi (Udine) encouraged a reflection on new contemporary approaches to Holocaust remembrance. Would it be pertinent to build new monuments in Trieste in memory of the victims? Levi rather stressed the importance of finding new ways of representing the failed recognition of the Holocaust, in a city that has not yet fully confronted the difficult legacies of Italy’s fascist past. Igiaba Scego (Rome) presented her autobiographical novel „Figli dello stesso cielo“, and urged to address the absence of colonial history in the Italian school curriculum. Her book, which is a conversation between a young girl and her grandfather, also stressed the importance of transgenerational education. Emanuele Pellegrini (Lucca) emphasised the new phase of museology we are currently facing, as our understanding of „permanent“ collections is being radically challenged. Uoldelul Chelati Dirar (Macerata) focused on the complex interaction between Eritreans and the former Italian colonisers – for instance, by showing how some Italian habits as well as urban design have been appropriated and interiorised by the Eritrean population, particularly in the urban spaces.

The present report is a token to the diversity and wealth of the topics discussed during the conference. The papers encouraged to move away from clear-cut narratives and suggested some initial pathways by which academics in the field might wish to apprehend the restitution process in all its complexity: what are the power dynamics embedded in the very definition of restitution? Who are the protagonists (states, institutions, museums, civil society, lawyers, mediatic sphere) necessary for the successful completion of the restitution process? Is it possible to „complete“ the process? Should the restitution be understood as the restoration of a past condition or, as the majority of the papers suggested, should it be conceived as the launch of a new equilibrium all together – a new layer to the object’s history rather than the tearing down of past ones? The conference’s comparative approach helped gain some insights into the reasons for the – still – limited success of claims for the restitution of colonial artefacts. First, their collective nature, at odds with the contemporary neoliberal narrative rooted into individuals and the notion of private property. Second, the lack of understanding of the object’s significance for the community asking for its return – resulting in the community’s dissatisfaction with the unfolding of the restitution process.

Many practical questions were also raised, touching primarily on the issues of ownership, representation, and the notion of absence. How should museums and institutions represent and narrate the looted objects present in their collection? How should provenance researchers cope with the long biographies of looted objects, and the unavoidable uncertainties stemming from it? What does ‚restitution‘ mean in practice? Is the notion of legal ownership of the objects separate from physical possession, as maintained by Belgium in a 2022 draft on a legal restitution framework for post-colonial looted artefacts? In the near future, it will be paramount to offer compelling answers, as the only way to reassure EU and US institutions and states and encourage them to embrace restitution paths more heartily.

Through its efforts at establishing connections between post-authoritarian restitution instances across institutional and national borders since the end of World War II, the conference successfully overcame the compartmentalisation along national, disciplinary and thematic boundaries, which is often still characteristic of the field of restitution. The conference provided a dynamic platform of discussion, with its key lessons having the potential of profoundly impacting post-fascist and post-colonial restitution practices and discourses alike. Future research might wish to focus more closely on the issue of definitions (ICOM’s proposal for a new definition of museums, to be voted on in August 2022, serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of definitions for the field), as well as consider the impact of digitalisation for the study of material culture and the resulting enhanced transparency.