Return Artifacts

On our trip to Washington D.C. in eighth grade, we were able to visit several of the Smithsonian museums where we saw artifacts from cultures all around the world. These artifacts, like many others, came with the controversial question, should artifacts be returned to their cultures of origin? Many people, such as myself, see the many issues with returning artifacts to their countries of origin. I believe that museums should not have to return artifacts to the original countries because the trades are legal, the artifacts are unprotected, and people are interested in learning about the artifacts and cultures.

In many cases, the artifacts were moved around through legal trades and purchases. As seen in recent arguments over custody of different

artifacts, the legal basis of the trade is a major determining factor. James Cuno , interviewed in passage 1, says he “ doesn’t support the return of legally acquired works.” In other words, if the artifacts are bought by legal means, then the country of origin has no claim over the object. Correspondingly, large museums such as the British Museum, agree that the property they purchased belongs to them. Even though there is question about the laws behind the purchase of the artifact, the safety of the item in question must be taken into account.
Some countries do not have extra expenses to spare on museums; furthermore, money for protection. According to John Tierney, author of passage two, even though it may make sense to keep artifacts in the place where they originated “it can also be risky to leave everything in one place, particularly if the country is in turmoil or can’t afford to excavate or guard all its treasures.” To rephrase, if you put all of the priceless treasure from one civilization in the same, low protection building, it will be a gold mine for thieves and other criminals looking to sell artifacts on the black-market. Similarly, Rachel Donadio, the author of the third passage, informs us that in museums all over the globe, budgets are being cut left and right, with “few resources for maintenance, guards, and publicity.” Much like these artifacts are often not given enough protection, they are also neglected and unseen by people truly interested in learning about them and their cultures.
People go to the museums to learn about cultures and civilizations through the artifacts they left behind;however, if these artifacts are moved halfway around the world, how is anyone going to get the full learning experience without traveling with it? Mortimer explains that people “enjoy seeing these relics of the ancient world as a way of understanding past cultures and sometimes connecting with their own heritage,” James Cuno, as well as other archeologist, agree that local museums are meant to provide relatively cheap education, along with getting you close to the real thing so you don’t have to travel more than a few miles. In conclusion, countries should not have to give back artifacts to their country of origin.
The first counterargument to be proposed would be one made by people such as Zahi Hawass, an archeologist mentioned in passage two.

He would argue that although some of these artifacts were stolen hundreds of years ago, they should be returned to their countries of origin. The mistake made by Hawass was this: back then there were no restrictions on buying stolen goods; therefore,since the trades were made on a legal basis, the deals are still valid today. The topic of thievery brings us to the next counterargument: protection. Some people may argue that it makes sense to keep artifacts together. These people often disregard the fact that keeping these priceless treasures in the same place with minimum protection from thieves is almost a guarantee of robbery; nevertheless, even with the top most protection, there is still the slightest possibility that an artifact might go missing every now and then. The third argument that comes with keeping the artifacts in their country of origin is the education of people around the world who have not learned about this culture. Professors such as Malcolm III, mentioned in passage one, say that taking these artifacts away from their home land takes away from the experience of learning about the culture. For instance, if someone in Colorado wanted to learn about ancient Egyptians, they may not be able to afford to travel all the way to Egypt. These artifacts are used to teach all different types of people about the past cultures of our world, not just the people who live in the general area of where it happened. These are the reasons why their counter arguments are

invalid.
Countries should not have to return artifacts to their countries of origin because of legal trades, unprotected conditions, and curious scholars. It is important for people of all different backgrounds to learn about past civilizations because without those cultures, our society would be completely different from what it is today. People are inspired everyday by the newfound knowledge of their culture and their heritage to go out and make a lasting difference in the world around us.