The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes...

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 176509

Mus wrote:
<snip>
> I'm afraid, Carol, that I don't understand what you mean by: 
> 
> > An artifact can't belong to a group. 
> 
> The group that bought the Damien Hirst skull might disagree. :-)  
> Whether something can belong to a group depends on how that group is 
> constituted, but it can't be true to say that group ownership is 
> impossible even in the Western Muggle world, can it?
>
Carol responds:
I meant that an object, whether it's a sword or a tiara, can only be
worn or wielded by one person--or goblin--at a time. Group ownership
of land is entirely different from group ownership of an object, in
which possession means everything.

Grindelwald and Dumbledore thought that they could own, and wield, the
three Hallows together. They would have found out differently. Such
objects cannot be shared. Even the Invisibility Cloak has one rightful
owner.

Possibly the term "master" is more applicable than "owner" here.
Nevertheless, I don't see how the goblins in general can "own" the
Sword of Gryffindor, nor what good it would do them to have it in
their collective possession. A sword is meant to be wielded, and I
doubt that any goblin, even a giant of a goblin who stood four feet
tall, could wield that sword. It was made for a specific wizard, and
its powers are specific to him and his legal heirs, whether they are
his descendants or the headmasters of Hogwarts.

Carol, who doubts that the Native Americans who sell their pottery and
necklaces at roadside stands believe that their works are cultural
artifacts that ought to be handed back to their makers on the death of
the purchasers