2 ms·
> A lot of these pieces, including the Elgin Marbles, weren't part of an ancient theft. Many of them weren't stolen until the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries. I'
by JadeNB 7y ago
> A lot of these pieces, including the Elgin Marbles, weren't part of an ancient theft. Many of them weren't stolen until the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries.
I'll grant that it's getting into terminological quibbles, but I'd call the 18th century (or the early 19th, as for the Elgin marbles) probably about as ancient as a theft can be while still allowing us to have some reasonable idea of who the 'true' owners are. Farther back than that, I imagine one gets into the mists of increasingly inaccurate histories, not to mention of mutually conflicting but equally viable claims on who is the rightful owner and who the thief.
- kmlx 7y agoi present you with an 18th century australian shield being claimed: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/aboriginal-man-private-viewing-ancestral-shield-james-cook-australia-british-museum-a8896501.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/aboriginal-m... > An Aboriginal man demanding the return of an ancestral shield seized by James Cook in 1770 has become the first living member of his clan to hold it after being invited to a private viewing by the British Museum. > Mr Kelly said repatriation was important in light of “all the stuff that’s happened in the past” and it would be a “huge moment in time to have the British Museum and others actually return things to the Aboriginal people because it would be a great step towards the healing process.” > Mr Kelly’s claim to the artefacts has been backed by a motion passed in 2016 by New South Wales’ parliament, which acknowledged his clan as the shield’s rightful owners; Australia’s Senate followed suit two months later. I would love to read how they came to that conclusion.