The 300,000 year old skull, found in the Broken Hill mine in what was once Northern Rhodesia, has been housed in London's Natural History Museum for a century.
At the time of its discovery, Zambia was a protectorate of the UK. I am unsure of the legal distinction between a protectorate and a colony, but if it had been a colony, then it was legally part of the UK, in which case it was a fossil found on British land. I do not endorse colonialism, but you cannot rewrite history. Morally, even if Zambia equalled the UK at the time, it would be gracious and appropriate to display the fossil near the findspot.
At the time of discovery, 1921, Northern Rhodesia was within a territory of the British South Africa Company. It became a Protectorate of the United Kingdom in 1924. I'm not entirely sure of the distinction between Protectorate and Colony either - I do, however, question the assertion that a colonial status would have made the area British land.
It wasn't founded by peoples from the British Isles. It was neither sold nor given to English natives in any way. It was taken by forces of a commercial company based in England. Even with the blessing of the UK crown and a royal charter to administer the African region, it's hard to see that as making the area legitimately UK land
To refute the notion of British property one would only require a rewrite to British History, and its history alone.
Like so many other regions worldwide, Northern Rhodesia was taken by force. Zambian history, African history in general and the greater part of the histories across the world would see that as a period of foreign occupation and not as a period of British ownership.
The decision to dispense with journalists was definitely a short-sighted call. I still get email notices on content from Sapiens and poke in on the zine now and then when some subject catches my fancy. The writing, fact-checking and overall choice of articles usually proves disappointing. Glad you picked up the Kabwe thread again!
At the time of its discovery, Zambia was a protectorate of the UK. I am unsure of the legal distinction between a protectorate and a colony, but if it had been a colony, then it was legally part of the UK, in which case it was a fossil found on British land. I do not endorse colonialism, but you cannot rewrite history. Morally, even if Zambia equalled the UK at the time, it would be gracious and appropriate to display the fossil near the findspot.
At the time of discovery, 1921, Northern Rhodesia was within a territory of the British South Africa Company. It became a Protectorate of the United Kingdom in 1924. I'm not entirely sure of the distinction between Protectorate and Colony either - I do, however, question the assertion that a colonial status would have made the area British land.
It wasn't founded by peoples from the British Isles. It was neither sold nor given to English natives in any way. It was taken by forces of a commercial company based in England. Even with the blessing of the UK crown and a royal charter to administer the African region, it's hard to see that as making the area legitimately UK land
To refute the notion of British property one would only require a rewrite to British History, and its history alone.
Like so many other regions worldwide, Northern Rhodesia was taken by force. Zambian history, African history in general and the greater part of the histories across the world would see that as a period of foreign occupation and not as a period of British ownership.
The decision to dispense with journalists was definitely a short-sighted call. I still get email notices on content from Sapiens and poke in on the zine now and then when some subject catches my fancy. The writing, fact-checking and overall choice of articles usually proves disappointing. Glad you picked up the Kabwe thread again!