By Dr Tony Monda

DISSATISFIED with almost two centuries of colonial plundering of Africa’s rich fields of cultural heritage, the West’s new colonisation of Africa is through the mind and academic instruments.
Instead of seeking reconciliation with African countries that were robbed of their national treasures, there is now strong opposition in many European countries for the return of looted cultural artifacts to their original indigenous owners, through a retention system devised by them.
Western countries have spent the last 60 years advancing dubious theories justifying looted artifacts as, ‘belonging to the whole of mankind’; and the self-serving concept of ‘universal museums’ which serves only to justify the presence of looted artifacts in Western museum.
Surely, African artifacts rightfully belong to Africa and Africans.
The Berlin Ethnology Museum has some of the best Benin art works as well as artifacts from other African countries, especially from former German colonies such as Namibia, Cameroon, Tanzania.
The artworks which are believed to number over 500 000 in their museum were brought there on illegitimate grounds, looted or forced from the African inhabitants of the German colonies.
The Benin Bronzes estimated between 3 000 and 5 000, representing centuries of historical and religious significance, were looted by the British in their notorious invasion of Benin in 1897.
The British Foreign Office sold considerable quantities of the bronzes to the Germans only three months after the invasion, to defray costs.
In 2008 it was proposed to transfer African looted artifacts (including the Benin Bronzes) to the centre of Berlin from the Ethnologisches Museum, Dahlem.
A group of Germans opposed this transfer and queried the legitimacy of the African cultural objects in their Ethnology Museum.
They considered the exhibition concept a violation of the dignity and the property rights of indigenous persons from other parts of the world.
The question raised was not whether the artifacts should be transferred to the centre of Berlin, but rather, the legitimacy of ownership, especially in light of the current knowledge of cultural restitution to their rightful owners.
A public hearing was held on December 2 2013 by the Cultural Committee of the Berlin Parliament to discuss the issues of the artifacts and their proposed transfer.
While the question of legitimacy was avoided, supporters of the transfer of the artifacts to the centre of Berlin argued that bringing the objects to the centre of Berlin ‘secures equality and respect for the African objects’ – ‘Moving the non-European collections from Dahlem to the centre of Berlin and displaying them in proximity to the Museum will reintegrate them into an ensemble in which they will be freed of the stigma of the exotic. This too is part of the equality of presentation and perception of world culture.’
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, archaeological finds were shared between the excavating party and the local host countries (under the West’s retention system); dominated namely by British, French and Germany, who also determined where excavated cultural objects should be stored.
Their argument was those, “who financed archaeological excavations were entitled to a share of the findings.”
Accordingly, this system enabled Western countries to build up their insatiable universal museums.
Countries such as France, Germany, Great Britain and others carted away masses of artifacts from Africa, Egypt, China, India, Iraq, Iran, Turkey and elsewhere.
The system also led to continual disagreements regarding the ownership of the artifacts.
An example being the bust of Egyptian Queen Nefertiti clandestinely carted out of Egypt in 1913 by the German archaeologist Ludwig Borchardt and sent to Berlin.
This resulted in a long-lasting dispute between Germany and Egypt regarding its ownership, now displayed in the Neues Museum in Berlin.
Reports may also be recalled regarding the notorious Leo Frobenius in Nigeria and the disappearance of the ‘Olokun Head’ after the German ethnologist had seen it.
The great Ekpo Eyo has been quoted saying: “The original Olokun Head described by Frobenius is now represented only by a copy.
“No one knows where the original is; it is not impossible that Frobenius arranged for its replacement with a copy?” 
German teams of archaeologists from the University of Frankfurt working in the Nok area of Nigeria, since 2005, were accused by the Nigerian Association of Archaeologists of stealing and transporting many ‘Nok’ pieces to Germany.
The Germans response to the accusation was that the pieces were taken to Germany for, “study and tests which cannot be done in Nigeria.”
Subsequently when Nigerian scholars saw the objects their original state had been modified to the extent that only German researchers would be familiar with the originals.
The Berlin government has denied having any communications with Nigerian authorities requesting the return of the artifacts.
The Bogazkoy Sphinx, along with other artifacts discovered by German archaeologists in Turkey were sent to Germany in 1917 for restoration.
All the artifacts were returned except the Sphinx which the Germans decided to keep in the Pergamon Museum, Berlin.
In 2011, only after years of pressure by Turkey and intervention by UNESCO, Germany agreed to return the Sphinx.
Collections in Western university museum were built on the collections of looted artifacts.
The directors and curators of these museums are the loudest advocates of national retentionist patrimony and cultural property laws.
As far as the restitution of looted artifacts is concerned, the debate will go on so long as the African peoples have not recovered their precious national treasures that were looted during the colonial era.
Yet no African government has been seen to agitate debate relating to the legitimate ownership of the artifacts in Western museums.
Colonialism did not come to an end with the end of colonisation any more than Nazism came to an end with the termination of Nazi domination in Europe.
Germany should consider Vergangenheitsbewltigung (coming to terms with the past) as relevant to their colonialist past.
Dr Tony Monda holds a PhD. in Art Theory and Philosophy and a DBA (Doctorate in Business Administration) and Post-Colonial Heritage Studies. He is a writer, musician, art critic, practising artist and Corporate Image Consultant. He is also a specialist Art Consultant, Post-Colonial Scholar, Zimbabwean Socio-Economic analyst and researcher.
E-mail: tonym.MONDA@gmail.com