Selective Memory and the Steindorff Case: What We Choose to Forget

The Georg Steindorff Collection, comprising 163 objects, is a central, yet complex, component of the Egyptian Museum-Georg Steindorff at Leipzig University. 

Steindorff was a prominent Egyptologist and head of the Egyptian Museum at the University of Leipzig from its inception, who actively expanded its holdings. The museum, founded in 1842 by Gustav Seyffarth, currently houses approximately 7,000 pieces. 

The collection itself is highly valued, with Jan Assmann, a distinguished  German professor of Egyptology describing it as “the most important Egyptological teaching collection in Germany.” It includes a diverse range of belongings such as a 4,000-year-old Nagada bowl, ancient clay figures, early Islamic ceramics, and Greek and Roman belongings.

Multiple sites in Egypt, including Giza, Qua and Aniba (Nubia)

The significance of the Georg Steindorff Collection extends beyond its archaeological value, encompassing the intricate historical, legal, and ethical dimensions of artefact acquisition and Nazi-era forced sales. This case vividly illustrates the concept of partial accountability of colonial history in contravention of Nazi-era accountability. This means that while direct and legally binding accountability was established for the Nazi-era injustice – which involved Steindorff selling his collection to the University of Leipzig under perceivably coercive and prejudicial circumstances at the height of antisemitism in Germany – the colonial legacy of the collection’s acquisition, though acknowledged, received less direct or formal redress within the framework of this specific restitution agreement.  

In addition, from the perspective of the Egyptian government, the Steindorff Collection is a vital part of its national heritage and identity. As Zahi Hawass underscored in his intervention into this restitution case, and publicly asserted about restitution in general, such belongings are “icons of Egyptian identity,” linking the Nation to its ancient civilization and reinforcing its cultural pride and historical continuity. 

The removal of the Egyptian belongings in Steindorff’s collection under colonial-era decrees like partage de fouilles [sharing of excavations], which was tabled by the then French-controlled Ministry of Antiquities, is seen by Egypt as a violation of cultural sovereignty. Demanding their return is framed as an act of justice and reclamation, a stance that underpinned Hawass’s threat to bring the case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) despite the legal focus on Nazi-era restitution in Germany.

The Georg Steindorff Collection is currently located at the Egyptian Museum-Georg Steindorff at Leipzig University in Leipzig, Germany. It has been housed in the Kroch Tower since June 2010.

The expansion of the Leipzig University’s collection of Egyptian belongings, especially under Georg Steindorff, occurred during the late 19th to early 20th centuries, a period when foreign archaeological expeditions in Egypt operated under the partage de fouilles [division of finds] system. Formalized from the late 1850s and regulated by the French-administered Egyptian Service des Antiquités, this system granted foreign, dominantly European, excavators a “generous share” of belongings and/or human ancestors while the remainder was allocated to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. Although common practice at the time, the system was deeply rooted in colonial power dynamics, often marginalizing native Egyptians from significant roles in Egyptology and, in some cases, enabling unauthorized excavations. 

During his expeditions to Egypt between 1903 and 1931, Georg Steindorff acquired and expanded the Leipzig University’s collection of Egyptian belongings through two primary avenues: direct purchases of domestic items, funerary belongings, and small artworks, and archaeological excavations at sites such as Giza, Qau, and Aniba (Nubia). These excavations were carried out with the approval of the French-administered Egyptian Antiquities Service, which oversaw foreign digs during this period.

The Georg Steindorff collection’s case is unique because the “loss” for Georg Steindorff’s family was placed at the forefront of this restitution, while the original, broader loss of heritage for the country of origin (Egypt) due to colonial practices was sidelined.

The loss for Egypt regarding collections like Steindorff’s stems from the original historical removal of belongings during colonial times, rather than this specific restitution case. The primary impact is the removal, and in turn dispossession, of a portion of Egypt’s tangible cultural heritage from its country of origin. This represents a historical loss of ownership and control over belongings that are integral to Egypt’s national identity and history. Secondly, when belongings are housed abroad, it complicates comprehensive research for Egyptian scholars and hinders the development of local scholarship. This removal also limits direct access for the Egyptian public to their own heritage. Lastly, the methods of acquisition, even if “legal” under colonial systems like partage de fouilles [division of finds], are now widely recognized as ethically problematic. The “loss” for Egypt is therefore also a loss of justice and recognition of past exploitation.

The dispute over Egyptologist Georg Steindorff’s 163-belongings collection at the Museum of Antiquities of the Leipzig University underscores the complex nature of restitution claims, intertwining historical, legal, and political factors. 

In 1995, the Claims Conference [also known as The Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany] sought to have the collection of Egyptian belongings returned to it, as the legal successor of Georg Steindorff. They argued that Steindorff had been forced to sell the collection to Leipzig University during Germany’s Nazi-era for 8,000 Reichsmarks, when he had in fact valued it at 10,260 Reichsmarks; deeming it a sale under duress.

Steindorff’s heir and grandson, Thomas Hemer emerged in 2007, asserting his grandfather’s explicit wish for the collection of 163 Egyptian belongings to remain at Leipzig University, where Steindorff had dedicated his career. In response, the Executive Vice President of the Claims Conference, Gregory Schneider, stated that “no Steindorff heirs have come to us” in the 1990s when the Claims Conference invited Jewish families to come forward to be assisted with recovering their assets that were either sold after 1933 under duress or confiscated by the Nazis.

Hemer actively campaigned to prevent the transfer of the collection to the Claims Conference. This was done in close coordination, and, with the support from The Egyptian Museum at the University of Leipzig. He wrote a letter to the Federal Office for Central Services and Unresolved Property Issues (BADV) expressing that he did not support the restitution and was only concerned with the preservation of his grandfather’s collection and protection of his legacy at Leipzig University. In 2008 he travelled from the Nevada, United States of America to Leipzig, Germany to attend the ceremonial renaming of the Egyptian Museum and Institute of the University of Leipzig after his late grandfather, Georg Steindorff. He was 85 at the time. 

The Claims Conference [CC] continued to pursue their claim as the legal successors of the collection, despite Steindorff’s actual heir and grandson, Thomas Hemer, expressly advocating for the collection of Egyptian belongings to remain at Leipzig University – a space he understood to be beloved to his grandfather. Hemer’s resistance was also rejected by the Federal Office for Central Services and Unresolved Property Issues (BADV) due to a missed deadline, and in 2009 the CC’s claim was approved.

Leipzig University appealed this decision to the Administrative Court of Berlin, arguing that Steindorff’s 1937 sale of the collection to it was voluntary, not forced. However, German law’s “presumption of persecution-related disposal” for sales during the Nazi era placed the burden of proof on the University to show the sale was “persecution-neutral.” 

In 2011, Hemer again travelled to Leipzig to testify in court and speak at events to advocate for his grandfather’s legacy and the collection to be permanently housed at the University. Dr. Dietrich Raue, the museum’s director, echoed Hemer’s sentiments, expressing sadness at the potential loss, given Steindorff’s dedication to the Institute. 

The court later ruled in favour of the Claims Conference, as Leipzig University failed to satisfy the burden of proof. Significant public and academic pressure, notably from prominent Egyptologist Jan Assmann and Steindorff’s grandson Thomas Hemer, mounted on the CC. Despite their mandate to claim heirless or un-claimed properties of Holocaust survivors, the CC agreed to enter negotiations with Leipzig University.

In May 2011, while intense discussions were being held between the CC and Leipzig University, then Egyptian Minister of State for Antiquities, Dr. Zahi Hawass, visited Berlin. The purpose of his visit was to negotiate the return of the Nefertiti Bust. During this visit he publicly intervened regarding the Georg Steindorff collection held at Leipzig University. At a press conference linked to Egypt’s wider campaign for the Nefertiti Bust, he declared the collection’s original acquisition as illegitimate and its current holding as lacking legal and ethical justification. Consequently, he sent a letter to the Claims Conference (CC), demanding the collection’s return to Egypt and threatening to initiate legal proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) if they did not comply. This action reflected Hawass’s long-standing campaign for the repatriation of Egyptian belongings from foreign institutions, challenging their provenance based on colonial-era removals. 

Hawass’s assertions were not considered further. On June 22, 2011, an amicable agreement was reached between the Claims Conference and Leipzig University. The resolution ensured the Georg Steindorff collection would remain at the university. In return, Leipzig University formally acknowledged the collection as a “loss of property due to Nazi persecution” and committed to creating comprehensive public documentation of Steindorff’s life and persecution and developing Holocaust education programs integrating this history with the collection’s display. Both parties, including the museum’s director, Dr. Dietrich Raue, viewed it as a “happy outcome” that balanced historical justice with academic preservation. Roman Haller of the Claims Conference emphasized the agreement’s role in reinforcing the responsibility of provenance research for all cultural institutions 

From April to July 2025, 14 years after this agreement had been reached, Mohamed Ahmed (Ezz) [ORA Case Study Researcher] revisited the dynamics of this restitution case, through a decolonial lens. At the beginning of his research journey, Ezz contacted the former custodians of the Egyptian Museum at the University of Leipzig to discuss the case from this particular angle. One of the former custodians, who had extensive knowledge of the case, refused to have his name mentioned in what he termed  “wrongful” research, while others who initially showed an interest later refrained after the discussion with the former custodian. Ezz also contacted Dr. Zahi Hawass, former Minister of State for Antiquities, to ensure the incorporation of the multi-layered narratives involved in the case. However, Hawass claimed not to recall the details of his intervention, despite his statements being recorded and referenced in two separate Egyptian publications – Al-Masry Al-Youm and Ahram Online – at the time. Ezz then conducted interviews with Filipa, a researcher on anti-colonial movements, and Gloria, a sociologist and “live speaker” at Leipzig’s Grassi Museum. These exchanges revealed shared concerns about the gap between public discussions on restitution and actual institutional change. Both noted that while museums increasingly host dialogues on these issues, such conversations often remain within structures set by museum leadership, limiting their transformative potential. 

The case of the Georg Steindorff Collection illustrates these tensions. The Claims Conference was afforded the opportunity to resolve their demand for return through a legal process, while Egypt’s then Minister of State for Antiquities, Zahi Hawass’s, appeal, which was grounded in political and ethical arguments, received little meaningful response. Although Leipzig University retained the collection, the University’s defence that the belongings were acquired “legally” during Germany’s Nazi-era -raised during the CC case – was ultimately dismissed, revealing the fragility of such defences. Yet the same logic is not applied for acquisitions made during the German colonial-era. For Filipa, this outcome underscores how German museums prioritize addressing Nazi-era injustices while sidelining colonial-era ones, resulting in restitution practices that feel partial or symbolic. Both interviewees argued that meaningful redress requires expanding these debates, giving communities of origin real decision-making power, and acknowledging the emotional and cultural harms tied to these collections.

Georg Steindorff’s collection of 163 Egyptian belongings is still housed in Leipzig University’s Egyptian Museum-Georg Steindorff at Leipzig University. No further progress has been made with regards to restituting these belongings to their country of origin, Egypt.