Evaluating Artifacts

742 Words2 Pages

Many historical artifacts have been lost or destroyed over time. Archaeologists should relocate artifacts from their ruins to museums to help keep these pieces of history alive. Relocating the artifacts would ensure they are salvaged and preserved and help guarantee these artifacts would be protected from those who wish to damage or vandalize them. Relocating the relics to a museum would allow the public to value and view ancient pieces of theirs along with other culture’s history.

Relocating lost artifacts could ensure they are preserved and restored for future generations. For example, removing artifacts from the RMS Titanic can preserve and help tell the story of the tragedy. According to Dik Barton, vice president of the RMS Titanic …show more content…

For example, ISIS has been ravaging ancient ruins and destroying artifacts. If the ruins were well-secured and the artifacts were relocated, ISIS would have a much harder time destroying them. According to a 2015 CBS article, “The video, which ISIS posted Saturday, shows militants attacking the more than 3,000-year-old archaeological site with sledgehammers and power tools before finally using explosives to blow it up” (“ISIS Raises Fears of Destroying Another Historical Site.” 25 May 2015.). Furthermore, ISIS has raised fears that they may destroy Nimrud, which was the first capital of ancient Assyria between 900 and 612 B.C. Mark Altaweel, who is a professor of archaeology at University College London, stated “Nimrud was a large site, the full potential of which had not been uncovered”(“ISIS Raises Fears of Destroying Another Historical Site.” 25 May 2015.). Sadly many other ancient places have also been obliterated, like the ancient city of Khorsabad, the Mosul Museum, Jonah's tomb, the ancient city of Hatra and many more. If artifacts from places similar to these are not relocated to a safer location, the possibility of them being destroyed and lost forever are very …show more content…

Dik Barton explained, "We currently have three exhibitions around the United States." (Handwerk, Brian. “Retrieval of Titanic Artifacts Stirs Controversy.” National Geographic, National Geographic Society,12Apr.2002,news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0408_020412_titanic_2.html.). These exhibitions allow thousands of people to view these artifacts in person, rather than look at pictures or pay hundreds of dollars to see the wreck at the bottom of the ocean. An article in the New York Times states "Only when a museum has been built to Yale’s specifications would even a portion of the materials return, allowing Peruvians to enjoy artifacts they have never seen."(Karp-Toledo, Eliane. “Opinion | The Lost Treasure of Machu Picchu.” The New York Times,TheNewYorkTimes,23Feb.2008,www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/opinion/23karp-toledo.html.). However, Yale went against the original agreement to keep the artifacts for 2.5 years and kept them for 106 years. They are now allowing the citizens of Peru to view past pieces of their culture. Likewise "And now, alongside the hundreds of thousands of tourists who pass through Cuzco each year to visit the terraced stone ruins of Machu Picchu, the citizens of Peru will be able to see the historic relics many have never seen before." (Orson, Diane. “Finders Not

Open Document