Emeline Smith writes that this was not only the Louvre’s first jewelry heist, and a symptom of systemic neglect but also that these jewelry is linked to colonial violence.
Some fear that rising gold prices motivated the theft. The Louvre robbery is the latest in a string of high-value jewelry and gold thefts from museums across Europe, including:
- the theft of gold samples from the Paris Natural History Museum in September
- the theft of an 18-karat gold toilet from Blenheim Palace in the UK in February
- golden Dacian treasures stolen from the Drents Museum in the Netherlands in January
- and the 2019 jewelry heist at the Green Vault of Dresden’s Royal Palace in Germany
If rising gold and gemstone prices motivated the theft, it is highly unlikely that the jewels will ever be recovered, as they will almost certainly be broken apart or melted down and sold piecemeal.
But where did this jewelry come from? Asia, Africa, and South America were systematically exploited for their cultural and natural resources to enrich European courts and empires.
For example, Empress Eugénie’s diadem is set with 3,007 diamonds and 212 pearls. Now largely depleted through centuries of overharvesting, these natural pearls would have come from the Persian Gulf or Indian Ocean.
Fueled by slavery, French colonial outposts and broader European networks funnelled such valuable resources to royal courts and elite collectors, where they were transformed into symbols of wealth and power.
Though still celebrated as emblems of national prestige today, these objects carry with them a history of exploitation, colonization, and violence.
Their display in the Louvre is inseparable from these broader legacies of empire. This heist is heartbreaking for France, just as generations of origin communities have long suffered the looting and exploitation of their cultural and natural heritage.
The Turkish Yeni Şafak comes with the same argument about the colonial origin of many jewels.
Discussion:
At RM*’s Facebook page, Charles Moreau reacted:
- When these jewels were made neither the Persian gulf (pearls) nor Golkonda (diamonds) were under colonial rule… These materials came to Europe through trade routes, multiple hands and were the main sources of income for the people who found them. The aristocracy who wore them in Europe had no idea whether they had been ethically sourced or not (and to be frank probably didn’t care anyway). Very different than the actual situation where we are perfectly informed of the source of the lithium that powers our economy and the forced labor that builds it…
- The materials for these jewels undeniably came from beyond France’s borders, and we know all too well that the trade routes behind them were anything but fair, enriching European empires at the expense of the local communities they extracted from. The essence of my argument is that neither repatriation requests nor the complex colonial histories entwined with these objects have ever received the kind of media attention this heist has garnered. This disparity underscores the persistence of Western hegemonic perspectives and imperialist logic: implying that because the stolen item is “French/royal,” it is somehow more worthy of attention than, for instance, a living god from Nepal/Senegal/Ethiopia/Guatemala/etc.
