France mourns its stolen crown jewels as their uncomfortable colonial past returns to view

PARIS (AP) 鈥� As French police race to track where the have gone, a growing chorus wants a brighter light on where they came from.

The were French, but the gems were not. Their exotic routes to Paris run through the shadows of empire 鈥� an uncomfortable history that France, like other Western nations with treasure-filled museums, has only begun to confront.

The attention sparked by the heist is an opportunity, experts say, to pressure the Louvre and Europe鈥檚 great museums to explain their collections’ origins more honestly, and it could trigger a broader reckoning over restitutions.

Within hours of the theft, researchers sketched a likely colonial-era map for the materials: sapphires from Ceylon (Sri Lanka), diamonds from India and Brazil, pearls from the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean and emeralds from Colombia.

That doesn鈥檛 make the Louvre robbery less criminal. It does complicate the public’s understanding of what was lost.

鈥淭here is obviously no excuse for theft,鈥� said Emiline C.H. Smith, a criminologist at the University of Glasgow who studies heritage crime. 鈥淏ut many of these objects are entangled with violent, exploitative, colonial histories.鈥�

While there鈥檚 no credible evidence these specific gems were stolen 鈥� experts say that doesn鈥檛 end the argument: What was legal in the imperial age could still mean plunder in today鈥檚 lights. In other words, the paperwork of empire doesn鈥檛 settle the ethics.

Meanwhile, the heist investigation grinds on. Police have charged suspects, but investigators fear the jewels could be broken up or melted down. They are too famous to sell as they are, but easy to monetize for metal and stones.

Colonial-era jewels 鈥榤ade in France鈥�

The Louvre provides scant information about how the gems in the French crown jewels 鈥� showcased in the Apollo Gallery until the theft 鈥� were originally extracted.

For example, the Louvre鈥檚 own catalog describes the stolen diadem of Queen Marie-Am茅lie as set with 鈥淐eylon sapphires鈥� in their natural, unheated state, bordered with diamonds in gold. It says nothing about who mined them, how they moved, or under what terms they were taken.

Provenance isn鈥檛 always a neutral ledger in Western museums. They sometimes 鈥渁void spotlighting uncomfortable acquisition histories,鈥� Smith said, adding that the lack of clarity about the gems鈥� origins is likely no accident.

The museum did not respond to requests for comment.

The stolen tiaras, necklaces and brooches were crafted in Paris by elite ateliers, and once belonged to 19th-century figures such as Marie-Am茅lie, Queen Hortense, and the wives of two Napoleons, Empress Marie-Louise of Austria and Empress Eug茅nie. Their raw materials, however, moved through imperial networks that converted global labor, resources 鈥� and even slavery 鈥� into European prestige, experts say.

Pascal Blanchard, a historian of France鈥檚 colonial past, draws a line between craftsmanship and supply. The jewels 鈥渨ere made in France by French artisans,鈥� he said, but many stones came via colonial circuits and were 鈥減roducts of colonial production.鈥� They were traded 鈥渦nder the legal conditions 鈥� of the time,鈥� ones shaped by empires that siphoned wealth from Africa, Asia and South America.

Some French critics press the point further. They argue that national outcry over loss should sit beside the history of how imperial France acquired the stones that court jewelers later set in gold.

India and the British crown’s Koh-i-Noor

India is waging the best-known battle over a single colonial-era treasure 鈥� the

India has repeatedly pressed the U.K. to return the mythologized 106-carat jewel, now set in the Queen Mother鈥檚 crown at the Tower of London. It likely originated in India’s Golconda diamond belt 鈥� much like the Louvre’s dazzling Regent diamond, one that was also legally acquired in imperial times and spared by the Oct. 19 robbers.

The Koh-i-Noor passed from court to court before landing in British hands, where it is hailed in London as a 鈥渓awful鈥� imperial gift and denounced in India as a prize taken under the shadow of conquest. A 2017 petition to India鈥檚 Supreme Court seeking its return was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, but the political and moral dispute endures.

France is not Britain, and the Koh-i-Noor is not the Louvre’s story. But it frames the questions increasingly applied to 19th-century acquisitions: not only 鈥渨as it bought?鈥� but 鈥渨ho had the power to sell?鈥� On that measure, experts say, even jewels made in France can be considered products of colonial extraction.

The Louvre case lands in a world already primed by other fights. Greece presses Britain to reunite the Parthenon Marbles. Egypt campaigns for the Rosetta Stone in London and the Nefertiti bust in Berlin.

France has acted haltingly on restitutions

France has moved 鈥� narrowly. President Emmanuel Macron鈥檚 pledge to return parts of Africa鈥檚 heritage produced a law enabling the return of 26 royal treasures to Benin and items to Senegal. Madagascar recovered the crown of Queen Ranavalona III through a specific process.

Critics say restitution is structurally blocked: French law forbids removing state-held objects unless Parliament makes a special exception, and risk-averse museums keep the rest behind glass.

They also say that under former Louvre chief Jean-Luc Martinez, the museum’s narrow definition of what counts as 鈥渓ooted鈥� 鈥� and its demand for near-legal levels of proof 鈥� created a chilling effect on restitution claims, even as the museum publicly praised transparency. (The Louvre says it follows the law and academic standards.)

Colonialism is a thorny issue for Western museums

Asking museum visitors to marvel at artifacts like the French crown jewels without understanding their social history is dishonest, says Erin L. Thompson, an art-crime scholar in New York. A decolonized approach, she and others argue, would name where such stones came from, how the trade worked, who profited and who paid 鈥� and share authorship with origin communities.

Egyptian archaeologist Monica Hanna calls the contradiction glaring.

鈥淵es, the irony is profound,鈥� she said of the outcry over last month’s Louvre theft, 鈥渁nd it鈥檚 central to the conversation about restitution.鈥� She expects the heist will trigger action on restitutions across Western museums and fuel debate about transparency.

At a minimum, Hanna and other experts say, what’s needed from museums are stronger words: plain-spoken labels and wall texts that acknowledge where objects came from, how they moved, and at whose expense. It would mean publishing what is known, admitting what isn鈥檛, and inviting contested histories into the gallery 鈥� even when they cloud the shine.

Some offer a practical path.

鈥淭ell the honest and complete story,鈥� said Dutch restitution specialist Jos van Beurden. 鈥淥pen the windows, not for thieves, but for fresh air.鈥�

___

Associated Press writer Danica Kirka in London contributed to this report

草莓传媒