Let me add to Michael Afolayan’s encounter, and dilemma, my own different experience: participation in a “closed-Workshop”, in Johannesburg, a couple of years ago, or more, about this artifact-return issue. It was a conference of Africanists who study Germany’s
colonial history in Africa, and those who look at the connections between German colonialism in Africa, the Holocaust, and Nazi rule in Germany.
The Workshop was co-sponsored by a private group in Germany, the Johannesburg Holocaust and Genocide Center, with some support from the German foreign ministry. I was invited as a speaker-participant by the Johannesburg Holocaust and Genocide Center. There
were home-based African scholars from Togo, Cameroon, Namibia, and Tanzania (former German colonies), and officials from the German foreign ministry.
One of the issues we discussed was the return of artifacts taken to German museums from these former German colonies by German missionaries and colonial administrators, and the challenges (or the absence of any) of returning them from German museums. I
was quite intrigued to hear from my colleagues who came from Togo, Cameroon, Tanzania, and Namibia, that the complexity of the artifact return conversation transcends their safety in poorly-funded and poorly-maintained national museums. Their return also raise
questions about “ownership” since many of the artifacts were not “owned” by the post-colonial African nation-states and governments that are claiming them.
Perhaps like the kingdoms and other communities in Nigeria, these artifacts were owned by families, or artisans who made them, and gave them as “gifts” to local monarchs, and community shrines. There were no “museums” in the former German colonies where
these stolen artifacts were kept. They were owned by individuals, and the conversation about them must include the means by which German missionaries and other Germans in Germany’s colonies acquired these artifacts. So the question we had to wrestle with at
the conference was: to whom should these artifacts and sculptures be returned, and can we even trace their actual owners? And if they were privately-owned, as the historical facts suggest, then could their return not generate conflict over ownership between
the governments of Tanzania, Namibia, Togo, Cameroon (dare I add Nigeria), and citizens and communities who might sue to claim them. I was only an attentive listener to this fascinating conversation. It is not my field of expertise.
I and another colleague from SUNY-Binghamton proposed, at the end of this revealing workshop, that there should be another “Berlin Conference” to discuss this matter of ownership, mode of acquisition, and legitimacy of “new ownership” further. In a post-Workshop
private conversation with an official from the German foreign ministry, I was assured that what we have discussed, and our suggestion about another Berlin Conference over the return of artifacts, will be discussed at the ministry. I will report back if I hear
anything from Berlin, or from my African colleagues I met in Johannesburg.