While war is often defined by armed conflict and military violence, it should also be considered a destructive act targeting the identity structures and cultural heritage of societies. War targets cultural assets as representatives of collective social memory, symbols of sovereignty, and instruments of ideological power. This study examines the constantly evolving justifications and legitimacy of practices aimed at seizing cultural heritage as war spoils, focusing on the Napoleonic art looting that significantly influenced the transformation of these practices.
The central question of this study is how cultural artifacts, as constitutive elements of social identity, become targeted in times of war and armed conflict. The targeting of cultural heritage based on the values it represents has formed the basis of debates concerning legitimacy, ownership, and the return of cultural heritage to the societies to which it belongs. This targeting of cultural heritage on the grounds of its representation has formed the basis of ongoing debates regarding legitimacy, ownership, and the return of cultural heritage to the societies to which it belongs. Today, these debates tend to treat restitution claims as legal disputes, considered independently of the context of cultural heritage. One of the article's theses is that such debates are linked to historically continuous practices of cultural appropriation and symbolic domination.
This study aims to analyze the seizure of cultural heritage as war booty from a historical perspective, to reveal the changing meaning of cultural heritage as booty from antiquity to the modern age, and to critically examine the Napoleonic art looting that marks a significant turning point. This study aims to reveal how heritage has been systematically instrumentalized as part of military and political dominance strategies during wartime, and how these practices have shaped contemporary legal, political, and ethical debates about who owns culture.
The primary reason for focusing on the Napoleonic era in this study's analysis of how cultural heritage was handled in different historical conflicts is that during this period, cultural heritage ceased to be an accidental victim of war and became an integral part of military and political strategy. The main research materials of the study, including historical narratives, diplomatic records, museum histories, and legal texts, provide a multi-dimensional analysis of cultural plunder. This research utilizes historical narratives, diplomatic records, museum histories, and legal texts as research materials, enabling a multidimensional analysis of cultural plunder as both practice and discourse.
Within the framework discussed above, the plunder of works of art during the Napoleonic era is examined critically as a manifestation of the empire's cultural dominance. It analyzes how Napoleon Bonaparte incorporated the seizure of works of art into his military campaign strategies, treating it as a form of cultural plunder that strengthened France's political authority and imperial ideology. Through treaties, expert commissions, and institutionalized collection practices, works of art were transferred from conquered territories to France and exhibited in the Napoleonic Museum. At this stage, plunder was justified by narratives of cultural universality and civilizational superiority, presenting France as the legitimate guardian of Europe's artistic heritage. This process deprived communities of their cultural heritage while simultaneously redefining the ownership and meaning of cultural value within a hierarchical international order. These concepts of meaning and ownership are addressed in the study within the context of two theoretical frameworks. Cultural nationalism, which advocates for the return of cultural heritage to its homeland within the framework of historical justice and collective rights by highlighting the intrinsic relationship established between cultural heritage and the identity of the source society, and cultural internationalism, which supports the idea of universal heritage and global protection, largely legitimize the retention of cultural objects within the hands of dominant powers. This study, which evaluates Napoleon's acts of cultural plunder within this framework, reveals how claims of universality are used to mask historically constructed unequal power relations and legitimize cultural dispossession.
Furthermore, the study examines, through historical analysis, the development of international law concerning the protection of cultural heritage in the context of today's increasing demands for restitution. In this context, while international law assumes a regulatory role to prevent the appropriation of cultural heritage, the study argues that historical foundations and enduring power imbalances in international relations limit its effectiveness. The study demonstrates that hat during periods of war and armed conflict, the regulatory and preventive power of law sometimes becomes ineffective, and societies, with all their segments and elements, become more vulnerable to violations, thus making cultural heritage an inevitable primary target.
Savaş, askeri çatışmalarla somutlaşan bir olgu olmakla birlikte, toplumların kimliklerini ve onun ayrılmaz bir parçası olan kültürel mirası hedef alan bir yıkım pratiğidir. Bu bağlamda çalışma, savaş sürecinde kültürel mirasın ganimet olarak ele geçirilmesi olgusunu tarihsel süreklilik içerisinde, Napolyon dönemi yağmaları özelinde incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmanın temel problemi, kültürel varlıkların savaş ve silahlı çatışma hallerinde maddi nesneler olmanın ötesinde, içinde bulundukları toplumun kimlik ve kolektif hafıza gibi kurucu unsurları ve aynı zamanda egemenlik ve ideolojik güç simgeleri olarak nasıl hedef haline geldikleri ve bu durumun günümüzde süregelen meşruiyet ve iade tartışmalarına nasıl zemin hazırladığıdır. Araştırmada tarihsel analiz ve olay incelemesi yapılarak nitel araştırma yöntemi benimsenmiş, Antik Çağ’dan günümüze uzanan örnekler ele alınmıştır. Bu örnekler içerisinde savaş ganimeti pratiklerinde bir dönüşümü işaret eden nitelikleri nedeniyle Napolyon dönemi yağmaları ve sanat eserlerini egemenlik stratejilerinin bir parçası olarak nasıl yeniden bir kültür mirası oluşturmak için kullandığı eleştirel bir bakış açısıyla incelenmiş ve sanatın estetik bir ürün olmanın ötesinde bir hegemonya aracına dönüşümü tartışılmıştır. Çalışmada bu tartışma kültürel milliyetçilik ve kültürel uluslararasıcılık teorileri çerçevesinde yürütülmüş olup, uluslararası hukukun gelişimi ve iade taleplerinin artışı arasında nasıl bir ilişki olduğunu ortaya koymak amaçlanmıştır. Bu çerçevede çalışmanın beklenen sonucu, kültür mirasının savaş sırasında ganimet olarak ele geçirilmesi pratiklerinin süregelen niteliğini ortaya koyarak, bu pratiklerin etik, hukuki ve politik sorgulamaların giderek daha çok merkezinde yer aldığını göstermektir. Ayrıca araştırma, kültürel mirasın, evrensel değerler olarak benimsenmesiyle daha çok uluslararasılaşmış olmasının koruma politikalarına yansıması sonucu, küresel düzeyde ortak etik sorumluluğa dayanan kültürel mirası koruma ve iade politikalarının geliştirilmesine dikkat çekerek katkı sağlamayı hedeflemektedir
Beard, M. (2007). The Roman triumph. Harvard University Press.
Beard, M. (2015). SPQR: A history of ancient Rome. Liveright Publishing.
Beazley, J. D. (1997). The development of Greek art. Oxford University Press.
Bevan, R. (2016). The destruction of memory: Architecture at war. Reaktion Books.
Boardman, J. (1993). Greek sculpture: The classical period. Thames & Hudson.
Boztas, S. (2023). Dutch museum looted by Napoleon does not seek restitution. The Art Newspaper. https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/09/20/dutch-museum-looted-by-napoleon-does-not-seek-restitution
Çatalbaş, A. S., Tuğal, S. (2025). Sanat Müzelerinin Demokratikleşmesinde Çevrimiçi Araçların Rolü: Türkiye Örneği, Uluslararası İnsan ve Sanat Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt 10, Sayı 3, 396-420.
Coombes, A. E. (1994). Reinventing Africa: Museums, material culture and popular imagination. Yale University Press.
Galli, F. (2003). Donatello: Life and works. Scala Publishers.
Harris, W. V. (1979). War and imperialism in Republican Rome, 327–70 BC. Oxford University Press.
Hartt, F. (1997). History of Italian Renaissance art (6th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Feliciano, H. (1997). The lost museum: The Nazi conspiracy to steal the world’s greatest works of art. Basic Books.
Finestresullarte.info. (2025). Could Italy ask France to return the works requisitioned by Napoleon? https://www.finestresullarte.info/en/news-focus/but-could-italy-ask-france-to-return-the-works-requisitioned-by-napoleon
Friedländer, W. (1965). The sculpture of the Hellenistic period. Princeton University Press.
Foster, B., & Gerstenblith, P. (2004). Iraq: The loss of cultural heritage. American Journal of Archaeology, 108(3), 29-38.
Geary, P. (1986). Sacred commodities: The circulation of medieval relics. In P. Geary (Ed.), Living with the dead in the Middle Ages. Cornell University Press.
Gerstenblith, P. (2012). Art, cultural heritage, and the law: Cases and materials. Carolina Academic Press.
Gilks, D. (2013). Attitudes to the displacement of cultural property in the wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon. The Historical Journal, 56(1), 113–143 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/historical-journal/article/abs/attitudes-to-the-displacement-of-cultural-property-in-the-wars-of-the-french-revolution-and-napoleon/5C6779584A0B604E1739568C67FB734D
Hamilakis, Y. (2007). The nation and its ruins: Antiquity, archaeology, and national imagination in Greece. Oxford University Press.
Harvey, D. C. (2001). Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents: temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7(4), 319–338.
McClellan, A. (1994). Inventing the Louvre: Art, politics, and the origins of the modern museum in eighteenth-century Paris. Cambridge University Press.
Merryman, J. H. (1985). Thinking about the Elgin Marbles. American Journal of International Law, 83(2).
Merryman, J. H. (1986). Two Ways of Thinking About Cultural Property. The American Journal of International Law, 80(4), 831–853.
Merryman, J. H. (2025). Museums and the Spoils of Empire: From the Benin Bronzes to Those Marbles Again. Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/book/60751/chapter-abstract/528420286?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
Morrison, E. (2002). Venetian sculpture and the Quadriga. Yale University Press.
Napoleonic looting of art. (2021). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_looting_of_art
Nicholas, L. H. (1994). The rape of Europa: The fate of Europe’s treasures in the Third Reich and the Second World War. Alfred A. Knopf.
O’Keefe, R. (2006). The protection of cultural property in armed conflict. Cambridge University Press.
Peters, E. (Ed.). (1977). The just war: Theories and practice. NJ: Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Pliny the Elder. (1969). Natural history (çev.H. Rackham), Harvard University Press.
Pollitt, J. J. (1986). Art in the Hellenistic age. Cambridge University Press.
Radner, K. (2015). Ancient Assyria: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
Ridgway, B. S. (1981). Hellenistic sculpture. University of Wisconsin Press.
Sandholtz, W. (2007). Prohibiting plunder: How norms change. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Smarthistory (2025). Napoleon’s appropriation of Italian cultural treasures. https://smarthistory.org/napoleons-appropriation-of-italian-cultural-treasures/
West, S. (2004). Raphael: The complete works. Taschen.
UNESCO. (2003). Report on the damage to the Iraq National Museum. UNESCO Publishing.
Zuffi, S. (2007). Great paintings: From Giotto to Canaletto. Taschen.
