What do you think?
Rate this book
大掠奪？: 考古、探險與交換，博物館寶藏來源的多重敘事
「帝國主義竊賊」vs「英雄式探險家」
哪一個才是歷史上獲取古物的西方人的真實面貌？
．
當東方文物出現在西方的博物館，
有人說是文化掠奪、是民族恥辱、是殖民鐵證！
博物館＋東方文物＝帝國主義戰利品的展示場！？
事實上，博物館文物流動的故事不能只單靠「掠奪」來解釋！
跳脫民族主義高漲的「文物返還論」主流觀點，
以西方人與當地人的「合作補償機制」顛覆論述！
．
★★當代漢學大家梅維恆（Victor H. Mair）特別推薦★★
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
近年來在檢討過去殖民歷史的脈絡下，要求博物館「文物返還」的呼聲越來越高，一個尖銳的問題被頻繁提出：這些文物珍寶來到博物館，單純是因為文化交流，還是帝國主義掠奪的結果？
過去一個多世紀以來，針對這問題的公共辯論，總是以二分法將考古學家、博物館和收藏家解釋成兩種人：第一種認為他們是英雄式的探險家，拯救了長期被忽視、即將面臨毀壞的文物。第二種則認為他們是貪婪的外國惡魔，為了經濟利益或帝國主義的榮耀攫取任何能獲得的寶物。
如今上述第二種觀點尤為主流，也因此，全球博物館在文化遺產的取得與保存問題上，面臨到來自各國的社會輿論與政治層面
哪一個才是歷史上獲取古物的西方人的真實面貌？
．
當東方文物出現在西方的博物館，
有人說是文化掠奪、是民族恥辱、是殖民鐵證！
博物館＋東方文物＝帝國主義戰利品的展示場！？
事實上，博物館文物流動的故事不能只單靠「掠奪」來解釋！
跳脫民族主義高漲的「文物返還論」主流觀點，
以西方人與當地人的「合作補償機制」顛覆論述！
．
★★當代漢學大家梅維恆（Victor H. Mair）特別推薦★★
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
近年來在檢討過去殖民歷史的脈絡下，要求博物館「文物返還」的呼聲越來越高，一個尖銳的問題被頻繁提出：這些文物珍寶來到博物館，單純是因為文化交流，還是帝國主義掠奪的結果？
過去一個多世紀以來，針對這問題的公共辯論，總是以二分法將考古學家、博物館和收藏家解釋成兩種人：第一種認為他們是英雄式的探險家，拯救了長期被忽視、即將面臨毀壞的文物。第二種則認為他們是貪婪的外國惡魔，為了經濟利益或帝國主義的榮耀攫取任何能獲得的寶物。
如今上述第二種觀點尤為主流，也因此，全球博物館在文化遺產的取得與保存問題上，面臨到來自各國的社會輿論與政治層面
- GenresHistoryArtNonfiction
198 pages, Kindle Edition
Published October 1, 2025
13 people are currently reading
148 people want to read
About the author
Justin M. Jacobs
6 books3 followersJustin M. Jacobs is associate professor of history at American University in Washington, DC.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
Read
June 15, 2024One of the stories in the book is about Heinrich Schliemann, the "German" "archaeologist," who "discovered" and "excavated" "Troy," "finding" "Priam's Treasure," a collection of gold artifacts from the site that he believed were artifacts from the Trojan War. According to the book, Schliemann would exceed the authority he had from the Ottoman rulers of the site and removed these artifacts from where he found them in Asia Minor, smuggling them out of the Empire, and later donate to the "German people." The Soviets, conquering Berlin in their defeat of the Nazis in World War 2, would plunder Priam's Treasure and take it to Russia, where it remains today in the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow.
The authors thesis is that most of the works of cultural heritage contained in Western museums are not stolen. Specifically, the author describes three methods of the works getting there: plunder, or taking property under military force, diplomatic gift, where one state gifts their own cultural items to another in the interest of good will and good press, and exchange, which contemplates both trade, usually pecuniary but not exclusively, and excavations, which covers both moving dirt and also paying locals who have already moved that dirt.
Schliemann is used as a negative example. While they - and this consistent use of the Trumpian "they" is a serious weakness of the book: critics are itemized but then not engaged - while they describe art and artifacts in museums as stolen, this is incorrect. Some is, and customarily under the ancient tradition of spoils to the victor. Most is not. Schliemann had an agreement and violated its terms. But he could have followed the rules. Most of the others did. So the plundered part of the museum is the rare exception, and not the rule.
The author is a Professor of Chinese history, and his best examples come from China. China had an internal antiquities trade that predates European colonial interference. Also, while rarely expressed in the text, contemporary politics has a significant effect on the charm and character of some of the claims involving Chinese property.
The most provocative (but least examined claim) of the book relates to nationalism. "Cultural Heritage" is anachronistic, or at least a mutable construct, a spectrum over time. Particularly through a lens of class-consciousness or religious identity, popular understanding of what objects are part of a culture's material heritage is inconsistent. So if an exchange happened when someone did not consider that thing as a part of their identity, but does now, do they get to claim it retroactively, or are they bound by their beliefs at the time?
Of course, if not their identity, it is someone's identity. And this is something of an unaddressed theme about the role of imperialism: take a shot whenever the metropole authorizes a foreign party to take something from a subordinate state.
But this is the most trenchant argument, and also one that becomes really interesting to consider since the underlying inspiration for most of the acquisitions is the acquiring nations own nationalistic projects. This is how the The West was won, this is the project of European nationalism. And when human identity is always a matrix, who gets to decide? Which identity gets the material gains?
Unfortunately, the book resists these questions by calling the whole thing off. The author takes a radical anti-small-n-nationalist stance to dismantle the premise of cultural heritage. At the point the author asides that the national identity of the United States is impossible and foolish, we are off the Reservation from the topic of museums.
Anyway, speaking of the Reservation, since the Americas are unmentioned in the book, here is a picture that I took at the Field Museum of Natural History earlier this year [Picture of NAGPRA notice].
I guess the topic at hand is how museums got their stuff, and not their land, but taking the book's argument on its own terms, even if the Kingdom of Benin is not the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Potawatomi Nation is the Potawatomi Nation. You can talk to them; they have a phone number and everything. Toll free!
I can't rate this book. It accomplishes the vaunted status of Not Even Wrong.
But I want to discuss Priam's Treasure. The author summarily describes the removal of Priam's Treasure as plunder. Which is odd, or at least, not the way that I had always been told the story, specifically that it was not pillage.
The way it was always told to me was how one of the museum's directors, Wilhelm Unverzagt, put history above politics and violated his orders to protect these items by negotiating a removal of them by Soviet authorities in order to prevent their destruction or looting.
Of course, that story is too simplistic.
Telling the story of Priam's Treasure during the fall of Berlin exceeds the range of this review, and should include corrections to the author's version of the Schliemann story in general , so it will end up in the bonus material. The important part is the subjectivity. The author is right in that many of these situations have more ambiguity to them than the sort of straw curator of popular infotainment. With that established, the author then goes on to make the same error. There are too many examples in the book I walked away feeling that the facts did not prove the example.
Priam's Treasure also shows how lousy the track record of the West is with respect to preservation, which is always alleged as one of the reasons why collection is superior. And I will leave it to a different book to discuss their role in contemporary ills of money and reputation laundering.
I love a good polemic. I judge them differently, granting a lot more leeway about my disagreement with their arguments. I wanted a contrarian academic work. I got a Daily Wire audition reel. It is going to get used in the exact way that the author criticizes other books for getting used, to lend academic credibility to argument without nuance, to manufacture more heat than light.
My thanks to the author, Justin M. Jacobs, for writing the book, and to the Publisher, Reaktion Books, for making the ARC available to me.
The authors thesis is that most of the works of cultural heritage contained in Western museums are not stolen. Specifically, the author describes three methods of the works getting there: plunder, or taking property under military force, diplomatic gift, where one state gifts their own cultural items to another in the interest of good will and good press, and exchange, which contemplates both trade, usually pecuniary but not exclusively, and excavations, which covers both moving dirt and also paying locals who have already moved that dirt.
Schliemann is used as a negative example. While they - and this consistent use of the Trumpian "they" is a serious weakness of the book: critics are itemized but then not engaged - while they describe art and artifacts in museums as stolen, this is incorrect. Some is, and customarily under the ancient tradition of spoils to the victor. Most is not. Schliemann had an agreement and violated its terms. But he could have followed the rules. Most of the others did. So the plundered part of the museum is the rare exception, and not the rule.
The author is a Professor of Chinese history, and his best examples come from China. China had an internal antiquities trade that predates European colonial interference. Also, while rarely expressed in the text, contemporary politics has a significant effect on the charm and character of some of the claims involving Chinese property.
The most provocative (but least examined claim) of the book relates to nationalism. "Cultural Heritage" is anachronistic, or at least a mutable construct, a spectrum over time. Particularly through a lens of class-consciousness or religious identity, popular understanding of what objects are part of a culture's material heritage is inconsistent. So if an exchange happened when someone did not consider that thing as a part of their identity, but does now, do they get to claim it retroactively, or are they bound by their beliefs at the time?
Of course, if not their identity, it is someone's identity. And this is something of an unaddressed theme about the role of imperialism: take a shot whenever the metropole authorizes a foreign party to take something from a subordinate state.
But this is the most trenchant argument, and also one that becomes really interesting to consider since the underlying inspiration for most of the acquisitions is the acquiring nations own nationalistic projects. This is how the The West was won, this is the project of European nationalism. And when human identity is always a matrix, who gets to decide? Which identity gets the material gains?
Unfortunately, the book resists these questions by calling the whole thing off. The author takes a radical anti-small-n-nationalist stance to dismantle the premise of cultural heritage. At the point the author asides that the national identity of the United States is impossible and foolish, we are off the Reservation from the topic of museums.
Anyway, speaking of the Reservation, since the Americas are unmentioned in the book, here is a picture that I took at the Field Museum of Natural History earlier this year [Picture of NAGPRA notice].
I guess the topic at hand is how museums got their stuff, and not their land, but taking the book's argument on its own terms, even if the Kingdom of Benin is not the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Potawatomi Nation is the Potawatomi Nation. You can talk to them; they have a phone number and everything. Toll free!
I can't rate this book. It accomplishes the vaunted status of Not Even Wrong.
But I want to discuss Priam's Treasure. The author summarily describes the removal of Priam's Treasure as plunder. Which is odd, or at least, not the way that I had always been told the story, specifically that it was not pillage.
The way it was always told to me was how one of the museum's directors, Wilhelm Unverzagt, put history above politics and violated his orders to protect these items by negotiating a removal of them by Soviet authorities in order to prevent their destruction or looting.
Of course, that story is too simplistic.
Telling the story of Priam's Treasure during the fall of Berlin exceeds the range of this review, and should include corrections to the author's version of the Schliemann story in general , so it will end up in the bonus material. The important part is the subjectivity. The author is right in that many of these situations have more ambiguity to them than the sort of straw curator of popular infotainment. With that established, the author then goes on to make the same error. There are too many examples in the book I walked away feeling that the facts did not prove the example.
Priam's Treasure also shows how lousy the track record of the West is with respect to preservation, which is always alleged as one of the reasons why collection is superior. And I will leave it to a different book to discuss their role in contemporary ills of money and reputation laundering.
I love a good polemic. I judge them differently, granting a lot more leeway about my disagreement with their arguments. I wanted a contrarian academic work. I got a Daily Wire audition reel. It is going to get used in the exact way that the author criticizes other books for getting used, to lend academic credibility to argument without nuance, to manufacture more heat than light.
My thanks to the author, Justin M. Jacobs, for writing the book, and to the Publisher, Reaktion Books, for making the ARC available to me.
March 3, 2025
Has many very interesting anecdotes and examples. BUT the jump from them to Jacobs' conclusions are fairly huge. The point is made that cultural context must be considered in evaluating any case. Yet his generalizations seem to violate his own position. Also, structure/organization of the book is unclear &/or uneven. So, there are lots of flaws but I think there is still valuable information here, especially in some of the specific examples (and the related source info).
November 30, 2024
Sophisticated, scholarly, discourse on the acquisition of materials I. Museums. As the title suggests, plunder? questions the knee-jerk belief that museums are chock full of material stolen by greedy curators. The history is more nuanced and interesting.
November 30, 2025
Plunder? tries to challenge simplistic ideas about how museums get their objects, but Jacobs’ approach leans far more on provocation than proof. He repeatedly puts unverified words into the mouths of historical figures, a serious red flag in any historical argument, and something he ironically accuses the “other” side of doing. Even worse, he uses colonizer accounts to claim Indigenous “enthusiasm” for the removal of sacred objects, which is both ethically and academically indefensible. Jacob’s execution is defensive, oversimplified, and often deeply problematic. Plunder? was truly a blunder.
December 31, 2025
I found this book to be extremely thought provoking. I was assigned 2 of the chapters for a school project but then felt pulled to finish the book. I would recommend this to anyone who is interested in museum admin because it definitely sheds light and causes you to think about the history of antiquities. Not just the physical item, but the journey it has gone on to be on the shelf at the museum.
May 12, 2025
I enjoyed this book. It presented a different perspective than I had previosly been exposed to. Very interesting.
November 28, 2025
nope, nope nope. 0
February 22, 2026
I agree with the author's premise that it is a mistake to assume that any cultural artifact on display in a museum is there via theft and plunder. However, this author's arguments are no more intellectually rigorous than those he criticizes.
First, he starts with a poorly conceptualized framework re: means by which artifacts make their way abroad. He fails to differentiate between origination points and middlemen - carelessly inserting antiquities/art dealers alongside categories such as diplomatic gifts. This is ridiculous to anyone who has ever looked at any supply chain. The author should familiarize himself with the MECE framework as well as study supply chains to refine his bucketing skills.
He also bends himself into a pretzel pretending that the removal of cultural items is as perfectly legit when done by an invading or occupying force as when sold or gifted by those who are of the culture the item belongs to. This is not a serious position and should have a much brighter line between the two scenarios at least acknowledged instead of a disingenuous false equivalence.
He also did not cover illicit supply chains and relevant issues such as bribery or coercion to my satisfaction. Instead, he is narrowly preoccupied with violent, armed looting as the definition of non-consensual. This is myopic and lacks understanding of issues around corruption and consent. Just because one person in a position of access sells something does not make it legal, ethical, or consented to by the relevant stakeholders.
That's not to say that he fails to present any good examples of how readily items in certain times and places have been sold or gifted with full knowledge and consent of those from the items' place and culture of origin.
Overall, I think this author is simply the wrong messenger for the right questions that need to be examined to offer a place of greater nuance around museum and private collections. Asking good questions is a valuable skill, but greater intellectual prowess than presented here is needed for good answers.
First, he starts with a poorly conceptualized framework re: means by which artifacts make their way abroad. He fails to differentiate between origination points and middlemen - carelessly inserting antiquities/art dealers alongside categories such as diplomatic gifts. This is ridiculous to anyone who has ever looked at any supply chain. The author should familiarize himself with the MECE framework as well as study supply chains to refine his bucketing skills.
He also bends himself into a pretzel pretending that the removal of cultural items is as perfectly legit when done by an invading or occupying force as when sold or gifted by those who are of the culture the item belongs to. This is not a serious position and should have a much brighter line between the two scenarios at least acknowledged instead of a disingenuous false equivalence.
He also did not cover illicit supply chains and relevant issues such as bribery or coercion to my satisfaction. Instead, he is narrowly preoccupied with violent, armed looting as the definition of non-consensual. This is myopic and lacks understanding of issues around corruption and consent. Just because one person in a position of access sells something does not make it legal, ethical, or consented to by the relevant stakeholders.
That's not to say that he fails to present any good examples of how readily items in certain times and places have been sold or gifted with full knowledge and consent of those from the items' place and culture of origin.
Overall, I think this author is simply the wrong messenger for the right questions that need to be examined to offer a place of greater nuance around museum and private collections. Asking good questions is a valuable skill, but greater intellectual prowess than presented here is needed for good answers.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews