>

X Ray!!!!
Ngārimu Blair, deputy chair for Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei people, said most of the artefacts belonging to the tribe were looted by early “treasure hunters”. This, along with urbanisation and displacement, has left the tribe with only a handful of significant artefacts. 
“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.” >


Blair cited the example of a carved pounamu (greenstone) club, or 'mere', which is part of the auction. According to a newspaper report, it was originally given by Ngāti Whātua chief Pāora Tūhaere to a British vice-admiral in 1886 on the condition that it remained in his family. Blair says now that the 'mere' has passed out of the family’s hands, it should be returned. 

Intergenerational takeback-sies probably isn't going to happen. Not the best example to focus on if they want people to support their case. 
The looted shit, however - more likely. >

If the old contract doesn't apply anymore, then they don't have any right to own it or transfer ownership anymore. >

At some point though you can’t expect informal deals to be enforced. Like, everyone involved in the deal is dead along with any existing family at the time. We often don’t enforce actual contracts after the people involved are dead. It happens with art occasionally. An artist will give a painting to a museum under the condition they never transfer it, but eventually the artist dies and the museum closes or relocates and time moves on. >

Almost all common law legal systems would recognize ownership towards the vice-admiral, giving it back to this Maori tribe would be charity, albeit probably done with moral conscience. You can't really claim something someone you don't know gave away 150 years ago without some sort of legal basis. >

I get wanting to throw out the legal bs but it's not like this is a domestic dispute, it's an international affair involving a large amount of money, you can't expect whomever purchased the item (likely in good faith) to simply give it up. If they do that's a huge accolade to them but what some group on the other side of the planet who had claim of it 150 years ago thinks of your sale currently might not come as a dealbreaker and I think that's fair. 
Family is a big deal in a lot of cultures, I know that if someone was selling my great great grandfather's heirlooms I'd definitely want them back but I wouldn't reasonably expect to receive them for no price paid either. >

..it's not theirs. >

You dont have to smash them with a hammer... jeez >

But then how will they enjoy the gooey centers?