Mask sells for 4.2 Million

[David]

Originally Posted by Bob A

The object has little value to those who created it, as they are no longer in existence. It had a notional value to the party that sold it, who were at the time satisfied with the price received.
People here who work to expand their knowledge deserve to reap the reward of their efforts. Those who fail to do so have no complaint, if their satisfaction in an exchange turns out to have been unfavorable.

As to you first point above, while i agree that the actual creator of the object is long gone and the mask is of no value to the dead, the fact remains that is is a cultural item and as such has great value to the culture and the particular secret society from which it came. Secret societies in Africa (and no doubt in other cultures) don't simply give away or even sell their ritual items. Such an item would outlive its creator and continue to be used ritually within the culture for generations. French colonial authorities banned the Ngil Society in the 1920s when this mask was supposedly acquired. That adds even more weight to the argument that this mask was more likely taken rather than gifted or bought. While the Fang people were mostly converted to Christianity during their colonial occupation many returned to their traditional religion called Biere upon their independence. I can't be sure that the Ngil Society still exists, but its people do and apparently that want this mask returned. Its value to them cannot be measured in dollars or euros. People here who work to expand their knowledge do not deserve to reap this stolen cultural artifact as their "reward".

[Lee]

The scale of the disparity is surely relevant, 33,871x versus 66x (at asking price), as is the absolute amount of money involved! When a typical collector buys from a dealer, remember that the dealer is a professional and part of their profession is knowing what the things they deal in are and what they are worth. When our typical collector has acquired superior knowledge and gets a really good deal, well then, yeah for the collector because it usually does not flow that way. I think though, in the position of being the professional, a dealer does have an obligation to be 'honest' with a "civilian" seller.

A very significant international antique arms dealer told me the story of his purchase of an item that I acquired (at a good markup) and the essence was that he knew that he could quickly place the object and made an offer at least an order of magnitude greater than other offers that had preceded it. He indicated that being willing to pay a fair price brought much more merchandise to him, and often first refusal. Of course, the dealer in the account above made so much there would be little need for future respect in the community, though he would not want me on a jury.

As to patrimony issues, decades or centuries later we cannot really know what the actual terms of a transfer were. But many of the diverse items that have found their ways into great museums and collections may not otherwise have survived if left in their place of origin and (hint, hint) we are not going to debate this contentious issue here.

[Bob A]

Originally Posted by David

People here who work to expand their knowledge do not deserve to reap this stolen cultural artifact as their "reward".

The excessive monetary "reward" was determined, not by the individual who hoped to earn compensation for his knowledge, his purchase and powers of observation, but by those who chose to competitively bid for the object in question.

It's difficult to determine ownership of an object created and used in secret; it's equally difficult to ascribe a value. As it's likely that anyone connected with the secret is dead, and the clandestine nature of the root organisation renders it obscure, it becomes impossible to ascertain ownership.

Insofar as admitting belonging to a secret organisation would either expose it to view, creating an existential problem, or would be a fraudulent claim by someone hoping to profit from knowledge obtained contrary to the tenets of the secret society, it would seem problematic regarding both ownership and violation of the intended rules of the originators of the object.

Throughout history, the pragmatism of the concept "to the victor belongs the spoils" has applied. Complaining about the implicit barbarism of the concept may feel uplifting, but a goodly portion of what folks here, as well as museums and cultural repositories study, collect, buy and sell might fall under question regarding ownership and cultural appropriation.

It somehow seems coupled with demonstrating virtue while ignoring reality. Of course, after seven decades of experience on this planet, the veneer of civilisation has probably been ground off of my essential barbarism.

Merely an alternative perspective, of course.