When the Spanish invaded Latin America in the early 1500s, they not only deployed multiple ways to kill opposing indigenous populations with violence, slavery, and disease, but they sought to devastate indigenous cultures by destroying and stealing artifacts, art, manuscripts and anything else that defied Spanish culture. Additionally, significant artifacts obtained through conquests, traversed the Atlantic Ocean to Europe for trade, examination, and exhibition. After the struggle and eventual success of gaining independence, Latin American countries, such as Mexico and Peru, seek to acquire their cultural heritage items that were taken centuries ago by European countries. Time, politics, legitimacy, preservation, and cost are the main challenges …show more content…
Repatriation is closely associated with art, history, and archaeology museums as previously stated. Museum professionals constantly debate repatriation, especially if their museum’s collection possesses foreign artifacts. Depending on proper recording keeping, a museum archive might not have an artifact’s entire provenance. Jack Green, the Deputy Director of Collections, Research, and Exhibitions at the Corning Museum of Glass and author of “Museum as Intermediaries in Repatriation, argued that:
Most repatriation claims relate to objects acquired from private collections or purchased on the antiquities market that are suspected to have been looted, stolen, or illegally exported from their country of origin. Repatriation claims involving museums have tended to focus on the larger and more prestigious institutions, in part because their acquisitions have been made possible due to the availability of considerable funds, or relationships with high-profile collectors and
…show more content…
There are museum professionals who believe that “restitution of iconic objects may impact a museum’s core collection, undermining its educational mission, and may potentially damage relations with supporters who assisted key acquisitions. Another argument is that repatriated objects may be put at risk or become inaccessible for research purposes.” Museum’s public reputation is important, but museums can repatriate objects and keep their community standing by being creative and making compromises. Green also believed
Other countries that are taking these artifacts that aren’t even theirs are way out of line. In the third
To collect is to bring things together. However there is an art to collecting, as it is not simply just bringing miscellaneous things together. There is a common theme for the objects and together they serve as a special meaning to their collector. In both texts “The Museum and the Public” by Stephen Weil and Walter Benjamin “Unpacking My Library” by Walter Benjamin, and in the film “Mardi Gras: Made in China”, the purpose of collecting is to tell a story and to showcase the significance of the objects in the collection.
...ons. New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Louvre in Paris, and all other western museums contain vast collections of work from other parts of the world. These marbles symbolize the cultural property in all of the world’s museums, and this debate affects them all.
Search for precious metals by the Spanish, in a sequential over exploitation fashion, pushed the Spanish inland, but not as fast as their diseases, plants, and animals (Grennes 2012) Classic American icons such as beef, pork, horses, and wheat were actually participants in the Columbian Exchange. Technologically, the New World suddenly acquired iron tools and wheels. (Grennes 2007) In the sense of biological diversity, the Americas were more fragile due to its 12,000 years of isolation (Sheridan)
In the article “Bring Them Home,” the author talks of how countries “are seeking the return of objects important to their culture and history.” Examples of countries such as these would be: China, Iran, India, and Turkey. Why would these countries want their artifacts back if they have not seemed to miss them? Well, most of the time this happens because another country is in control of them and do not care for the objects themself. They do not care because they are not from that country and do not realize what value they hold to the people of that country. That is why countries should hold their own historical artifacts. It is their history, their culture, and it matters to the people to have the treasures from their land that could quite possibly be from when the land was first
Duncan’s (1991) analysis of western museums is defined through the theme of “durable objects” as a criterion to judge the heritage of American and European art as a ritual of the modern state. In this manner western art museums are built like “temples” as a symbolic and figurative representation of greatness of western culture throughout the world: “[They] are more like the traditional ceremonial monuments that museum buildings often emulate—classical temples” (Duncan 90). This interpretation of American/European museums defines a dominant source of cultural heritage that ritualizes
Brice, Arthur & Shoichet, Catherine E., 2010, “Peru’s president: Yale agrees to return Incan artifacts”: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/11/20/peru.yale.artifacts/
Culture is a very precious resource that has been taken for granted many times over the course of history. Humanity will never truly understand the value of culture, and as a race, humans have destroyed multiple precious cultures. One of these societies whose culture has been destroyed is the Inca Empire. Like other societies untouched by outside influences, the Inca Empire had blossomed into its own unique culture. They had their own societal order that functioned in a fashion that was equal in efficiency to other cultures that, at the time, considered themselves more advanced. One of these empires that considered themselves superior was the Spanish Empire. The Spanish went through an era of expansionism. One of their main excursions during
When the Europeans first arrived in Latin America, they didn’t realize the immensity of their actions. As history has proven, the Europeans have imposed many things on the Latin American territory have had a long, devastating effect on the indigenous people. In the centuries after 1492, Europeans would control much of South America and impose a foreign culture upon the already established civilizations that existed before their arrival. These imposed ideas left the continent weak and resulted in the loss of culture, the dependence on European countries, and a long standing ethnic tension between natives and settlers which is evident even to this day. The indigenous people of South America, which included the Aztec, Olmec, and the Maya cultures of Central America and the Inca of South America, had developed complex civilizations, which made use of calendars, mathematics, writing, astronomy, the arts, and architecture. Unfortunately for them, the Europeans cared little about the culture they would be obliterating, and cared more about their own ulterior motives.
The current century has witnessed immense improvement and re-conceptualization of standards and sovereignty of human rights in Latin America. With the endemic repression and violations of human rights throughout Latin American in the mid to late 20th century, the International human rights regime, an amalgam of international and intergovernmental organizations and bodies, expanded exponentially. By conducting investigations within certain countries, or simply monitoring overt violations of human rights, the international human rights regime stimulated global awareness of violations of human rights in different countries; soon to follow was change in domestic policy in response to international policy. This also led to increased opposition by domestic NGOs against repressive governments or dictatorships largely responsible for human rights violations. Just as well, a number of organizations and groups aided domestic non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in their growing efforts to establish judicial practices that better protected human rights. Declarations, conventions, and charters, established a number of values that served as the credo for the organizations that constituted the international human rights regime. Over time, more and more countries were pressured and held accountable for these values, which developed into universal standards for human rights practices. Thus the International Human right regime and the pressure they imposed upon governments ultimately resulted in widespread positive changes in human rights.
In this essay I will tell how the Aztec and Inca empires ended, and also I will compare the fall of both empires, using for a point of departure the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors in the land of Mexico. Wherever the Spanish went always the same thing happened, from my point of view. Innocent people were killed for no good reason, cities were massacred, civilizations were destroyed or forced to convert to Christianity. And so, I think now is the time to reevaluate the actions of the European explorers who subjugated the native American peoples and their civilizations. Undoubtedly the most glorified and heroically portrayed of these figures of the European conquest of the New World were the conquistadors, the Spanish conquerors of Mexico and Peru in the 16-th century. These men, under leaders such as Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizzaro nearly eliminated the Aztec and Inca peoples. Surely many of these soldiers were extremely cruel and intolerant of the native populations. But it is important to consider, with the push of both sides toward territorial expansion, how these groups (European and American) could remain isolated from each other. Furthermore, with meeting of these two imperialist cultures, it must be considered whether it would be possible for the two to peacefully coexist.
A curator needs to be able to negotiate and be willing to compromise, as it is often the task at hand to borrow from museums or other locations. Teamwork and flexibility are also valued, as the job isn’t completely independent. Museums are designed for public enjoyment, so good communication a...
...troversy as all countries have lost, to a great or lesser extent, treasures of national renown and significance over time. Wars, theft, treasure seeking, changing boundaries and migration have all in some way contributed to this diaspora of art. There is clear evidence that the historic placing of objects in locations remote from their origin has on occasion afforded protection and preservation, The Elgin Marbles in The British Museum being a case in point. However, given the overarching principle of self determination it is difficult to argue that serendipitous historic placement is sufficient reason for items of true national heritage to be kept indefinitely. A world-wide system of touring exhibitions and cultural exchange, with context being provided by the originating society may provide the natural progression to the accessible widening of people’s experiences.
People claim that it would be better to keep the artifacts in their original location rather than transport them to museums. But is that really true? Once we’ve explored all the options, it is clear that it would be better to leave the artifacts in their original location. First, it is disrespectful to claim artifacts from locations as their own, even though it may have been a personal item for people who lived there. Second, organisations and countries are claiming artifacts and relics as their own, sparking fights and controversy between countries.
Our cultural heritage is shared and preserved through artifacts and archeological sites. Studying these allows us to deepen our understanding of the past. Archaeological looting has been and continues to be a serious global issue. Once theses sacred artifacts and sites are destroyed, or sold illegally into the market, they are gone and can never be replaced. A part of our story as a human race is lost.