Talk:Hoa Hakananai'a

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Rights of Ownership[edit]

Is there any word on whether Easter Island/Chile has requested that Britain return the moai? I know this has happened with Egyptian artifacts. Thanks Jimaginator (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I just finished watching a TV documentary "Easter Island: Mysteries of a Lost World" by BBC Four. When they were discussing this particular moai and its history, they indicated it was a gift from the islanders to the crew of the HMS Topaze. If this is true, then this article should be corrected as it makes it sound like the British sailors just stole the statue, when in fact it was a significant cultural exchange. It seems the islanders gifted this to the ship, who then gifted it to the British Admiralty, who then gifted it to Queen Victoria, who then gifted it to the Museum. If I can find a valid reference confirming this, I will change the article myself. Does anyone know of any? I just watched the BBC documentary on Netflix Instant, but it just expired and who knows when it will be available for viewing again. I can't find it for viewing in any of the usual internet places. 75.62.130.75 (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Location within the Museum[edit]

The Wiki article says that the statue was moved in 2000 from the Wellcome Trust Gallery to the Great Court, but I saw it myself in the Wellcome Trust Gallery in 2005, and again on several occasions throughout 2006-07. So, where is the statue located today? LordAmeth (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Age[edit]

Anyone know where the 1000-1200 date came from? Its awfully early for a moai. ϢereSpielChequers 17:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

it certainly contradicts the moai article which gives 1250 - 1500. Tigerboy1966  09:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect page numbers[edit]

Jm1706, the page numbers you gave for the article "Hoa Hakananai’a: A new study of an Easter Island statue in the British Museum" don't line up with those in the article itself. The article runs from page 291 to page 321, whereas all the page numbers you gave have only two digits. Any chance you could correct? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)