[Jedd]

> We never fail to find someone to defend colonization!

I think you are misrepresenting GP & parent's comments.

Yes, absolutely, totally, Brits have a well-deserved reputation of colonisation.

But as a hypothetical conundrum, who would you return the relics from a long expired society to -- the current (arguably quite distinct, religiously & culturally) administrations of those lands?

What moral right is exercised (or exercisable) of relics of, say, Atenism, crafted 3 to 4 thousand years ago -- locals with an orthogonal religion & culture, or foreigners with an orthogonal religion and culture?

(Personally I instinctively lean towards your take, albeit a little less abruptly - but I think it's all quite complicated - partly with the bizarre 'cultural birthright' thing, partly curator cred, less so the accessibility claims.)

[lentil_soup]

you could, even though I disagree, use that argument for some artifacts, but surely not for the massive collection of things from Greece and Egypt. Those are pretty obvious you can return to the modern countries that sit on those lands.

Event if culture and religion has changed those artifacts are part of those peoples heritage, if it weren't then why would the UK care about Stonehenge or Hadrian's Wall? Or Italians about the Coliseum?

Just a single anecdotal point but I'm from Latin America and while there's little indigenous blood in me I would still consider indigenous culture and artifacts as part of my culture and that's at the extreme end of colonisation as natives were pretty much wiped out.

[lostlogin]

> But as a hypothetical conundrum, who would you return the relics from a long expired society to -- the current (arguably quite distinct, religiously & culturally) administrations of those lands?

Has this ever been in doubt? With Egyptian artifacts, they’d go to Egypt, with looted Greek artifacts they’d go to Greece. With the heads of Māori warriors, New Zealand Maori.

Are there any real world situations where it’s confusing as to who they would be returned to?

[Jedd]

> Are there any real world situations where it’s confusing as to who they would be returned to?

Yes, many.

Artifacts whose creation predates the current dominant culture in a region (assuming nation state borders and names have morphed over the time), especially when that contemporary culture actively rejects those earlier cultures, are a prime example.

The Bamiyan Buddhas are a great example - or at least lead to a follow-up question to your question. If, say, the British Museum had transported artifacts of similar historical value (beauty, etc, whatever criteria you want to use) decades or centuries ago, but the ruling regime there now demanded their return, whilst making no secret of their intent to destroy those artifacts upon receipt -- what's would you advise the British Museum?

Beyond the dubious nature of geographical happenstance implying inarguable custodianship - another example of nuance to counter your 'everything is black and white' position would be around artifacts from pre-partition India (Pakistan), and who should own those, or more recently Yugoslav-era artifacts. There are myriad examples like these, of course.

Again, if you're happy to ignore the complexity and potential dubiousness of ancestry claims, or orthogonal religious / cultural values, etc - you're back to a geographical claim - 'there are people in roughly the same region as some different people, some time ago'.

[suddenlybananas]

Greek artifacts from Anatolia, should they go to Greece or Turkey?