Dear Christopher Dill,

I agree with you that my original statement of

  "...the question of whether aboriginal (indigenous)
>     artefacts should or should not be returned to
>     their rightful owners..."

is quite presumptuous!  It somewhat suggests an already made conclusion.
However, the question of ownership is a very  complex one. Can ownership
be defined simply by purchase?  Or by having cultural ties to the
creators of such objects?

You gave the analogy of the purchase of a car.  However, one may
purchase a car of a person, or dealer,  who may still owes money on the
vehicle to a money-lending body.  Even though, i have paid money for the
car, the vehicle is not by law mine.

Cultural ownership is extremely difficult to gauge and interpret.   It
is definitely not straight-forward as one may presume at first glance.
The question of how, when, and where the indigenous objects were
obtained creates a mine-field of both legal and moral dimensions.  There
is no ready made fix for  disputes over indigenous cultural items.

The above statement would have been better phrased as such:

should aboriginal artefacts be returned to aboriginal people who may
have connections/affiliations with the items?

or

Does a non-indigenous cultural institution have the right to control and
'own' (keep) the sacred cultural property of the indigenous people of
that country without their consent.

how's that?

THANK YOU ALL FOR REPLYING TO MY QUESTION!

Kind regards


paul willis






______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com