Excerpt:

>Ngārimu Blair, deputy chair for Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei people, said the tribe had only a handful of significant artefacts left, after most were lost in successive waves of looting by early “treasure hunters”, urbanisation and displacement.

>“We have so very few of these taonga and treasures left in our possession,” he said. “When something like this comes up where we’re both excited, but also that sorrowful that we lost so much.”

>The Sotheby’s auctions, which close in a week, include a carved pounamu (greenstone) club, or “mere”. It was originally given by Ngāti Whātua chief Pāora Tūhaere to a British vice-admiral in 1886, on condition it remained in the man’s family, according to a newspaper report at the time.

>As the mere has now passed out of the family’s hands it should be returned, Blair said, and the tribe hoped a future buyer would consider repatriating it.

>“We hope those involved in this auction understand Tūhaere’s people are not extinct nor relics, and we are inextricably linked still to this taonga,” he said.

> 

>Other New Zealand artefacts being sold by Sotheby’s this week include a Tewhatewha staff, and the remains of extremely rare New Zealand birds – the leg bones of the now-extinct four-metre (12ft) tall moa, and a brooch made from the beak of a huia, a wattlebird believed to be extinct since 1907.

>Sotheby’s has sold a number of high-value Māori artefacts, including some of unknown provenance. In 2019, an Arawa tekoteko carving sold for US$740,000 (£‎608,000). The auction description noted that it was “a major Māori sculpture” but said it had “no remaining trace of its original provenance”.

>In 2014, the sale of a carving valued at NZ$3.1m caused controversy in New Zealand, with academics and tribal authorities calling for the government to work for its return.

>The auction comes as international museums, governments and private collectors wrestle with the question of ownership of Indigenous artefacts – particularly those obtained through colonisation, looting or war.

Tess McClure in Auckland, 12 Jan. 2023.

[removed]

I’d say they have a strong case and precedent has recently been set with other museums/organizations choosing to return artifacts to the nations they were plundered from, but knowing the greed inherent in human enterprises I’d sadly be surprised if they received them

[removed]

That was found to be untrue. Here. And here.

I had thought that genocide had happened hundreds of years before, but your comment made me look it up and it apparently happened in the 1830s, so that definitely brings a lot of skepticism rightfully into play.

But, a few things:

1. The main object discussed in the article is a war club; the Moriori were (sadly, for them) pacifists.

2. If it was made originally by a Maori, it doesn't matter what their ancestors did to whom. Does it matter that ancient Egyptians slaughtered Nubians when discussing Britain holding ancient Egyptian artifacts?

3. There are NZ provisions for returning lost artifacts to the remaining surviving Moriori people already, too. They're distributed differently.

The suckiest part is that the genocide was so recent, but people have been slaughtering each other since there have been people, so it really shouldn't invalidate ownership of all objects of any group's cultural history.

I was saying this aswell until about a year ago, then I attended a history lecture.

While there are truths here including a genocidal attack on the moriori in the mid 1800s. The people that first arrived in New Zealand were in actual fact the ancestors of the Maori people.

Sotheby is also fairly well known for trying to sell artifacts that they know have dubious origins, have fake provenance or no provenance until they're caught in hot water.

If this story doesn't gain attention, the sale will just go through and they can continue their money laundering.

The fact this one was gifted to someone and not plundered I don't think they really have a case at all.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

The article says that the gift was made on the condition that it would remain in the man's family. I don't know if that would hold up in a court of law, but that got to count for something.

So your telling me something gifted in 1886 that came with the condition that it stays in the family was told throughout generations to ensure that's the case... I think that's something that's been tacked on to try lay claim to something.

There is a great podcast called 'Stuff the British Stole'. Each episode focuses on a specific object but it also explores many different aspects of colonialism and how we deal with stolen artifacts. The episode titled 'The Abductions' is quite closely related to the article OP has linked to.

The article also says that this information is based on contemporary newspapers reports, so...

[removed]

[removed]

I'm pasting a comment I made on another post here with some links people can follow for some additional information that are less academic but still very useful.

Radio New Zealand (one of the most reputable news sources in New Zeand) report on the myth

Radio New Zealand informative video on the people and myth. Useful for a good overview

Wikipedia link on the Moriori

Wikipedia link on pre-colonial settlement theories of NZ

Guardian report on developments of moving beyond the myth

I have included this link on the Chatham Islands, which includes the invasion by two Taranaki based iwi

At least in Britain, a verbal contract is as good as a written one. Since the deed of gift specified the item must remain within the family, selling the taonga will restore ownership to Tūwhaere’s descendants

[removed]

[removed]

Sotheby’s stopped the sale of a Winslow Homer watercolour in 2011 on behalf of the Rountree/Blake family, despite them having no evidence that it had been stolen from them - no injunction, no police reports of a break in, no entry in the art loss register, basically just the assertion that it had once been in their family and now was not. Litigation is ongoing and as far as I know Sotheby’s still have possession.

Explain to me how this auction is going ahead. We know the Māori artifacts were stolen, we have precedent for the return of stolen artworks (ie nazi looting, war looting during Middle East unrest, ecc) and artefacts, we have numerous precedents for Sotheby’s seizing the assets until a legal judgement is made. Why is Sothebys doing the utmost to protect an artwork abandoned by a wealthy English family and then turning a blind eye to the wholesale cultural disenfranchisement of the Māori? Why is their disputed provenance worth halting a sale but the disputed provenance of the Māori artefacts means they can pass on good title? Bonkers.

Good story. So glad that guy gave them back. Sotheby's suxks!!!

He also begged that he take it. Beggers can't be choosers they say!

No rule against perpetuities?

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

Not plundered. Gifted as a prize after competition between two men.

[removed]

[deleted]

Is there such thing as a conditional gift, legally? Genuine question

At least one wasn't stolen. "It was originally given by Ngāti Whātua chief Pāora Tūhaere to a British vice-admiral in 1886, on condition it remained in the man’s family, according to a newspaper report at the time." So I don't see how they can stop it. Not a legally binding requirement to keep it in the family.

[removed]

Documented verbal contract?

[removed]

this is the fate of all history that isn't put into a public collection, it becomes private, and it becomes traded, commodity to be sold,

Did they document what should happen to it if it leaves the families possession?

[deleted]

Thanks! The less academic ones are much more accessible, in more ways than one, so I appreciate it.

To be honest, I wasn’t even thinking about the JSTOR one being behind a paywall, cause I was signed into my work email and I teach at a college, so it just let me in, hahah. So yeah, thank you!

[removed]

Yeah but once someone else has it they are not privy to that condition.

If you brought a heritage house from someone whose grandfather was gifted it on the verbal request it stays in the family, is it your duty as the purchaser to take the financial hit and pass it on to the gifters ancestors, having not known these conditions beforehand?

I get it's a nice thing to do but there's zero legal obligation in either UK or NZ law, or any law in any country that I am aware of.

A verbal request about a gift 150 years ago in another country isn't a legally binding contract.

Also selling a gift to someone else doesn't mean the new owners then have to then give it to the original owners based on a request, or that it needs to be confiscated from the descendants of the receivers of the gift as they go to sell it. It's just a ridiculous concept with so many elements that stretch logic.

The whole premise of giving it back should simply be it's a nice thing to do, any kind of discussion of legality is nonsense.

But this wasn't plundered and put in a museum it was a gift 150 years ago with a verbal request.

[removed]

This is very common amongst the art/artifact/etc trade. It's because they aren't white and are looked down upon. It's everywhere. It's disgusting and a large majority of museums and similar institutes are guilty of it and and they act like pretentious assholes about it.

Look at the British and the Smithsonian. Some of the worth for it.

It gets returned to Ngati Whatua

I think that's rather clear.

I think in this case your beef is with the people who sold you something knowing it was not able to be sold.

Not with the original gifting party

This particular item was a gift. It wasn't stolen.

150 years ago, New Zealand was British and “even after the creation of a New Zealand citizenship in 1948, New Zealand citizens also remained British subjects. The description ‘British subject’ did not appear on passports printed from 1974, and New Zealand citizens ceased legally to be British subjects on 1 January 1983.”

Breaching a condition of the contract would make the sale void and can be enforced by a court.

Limitations imposed on the initial transaction do carry over to third parties. For instance a factory consented by limiting the pollution emitted, can NOT emit more pollution just by being sold to a third party.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

God, this just reminds me of the Parthenon marbles. The English are the absolute worst when it comes to stolen culture.

[removed]

Impossible to say if these were looted or traded for surely?

So you can:

Return it to it's original culture who have been oppressed for years

or

Profit

Which seems fair to you?

Was still a gift. Not looted so your point is moot

[removed]

[removed]

Honestly not sure. I know there's such a thing as conditional inheritances, and an inheritance is... kind of a gift?

You can legally bestow property on someone for just a “named person’s” lifetime. Then it’s required to be given to either an owner, their heirs, or a designated individual. It’s not uncommon.

Additionally there are more and more laws being made internationally in support of repatriation of indigenous artifacts to still existing peoples.

Right but that's not what allegedly happened here. I don't know the laws here but I'm guessing either a statute of frauds equivalent or rule against perpetuities equivalent would make this request non-binding.