Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Should cultural artifacts be returned to their regions of origin
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Should cultural artifacts be returned to their original home?
Some believe that cultural artifacts should be returned to their origin and others believe that artifacts could help people learn about the world without traveling and could be safe from harmful thief's in museums. Even though people have different opinions on the topic of artifacts going to their original home, they should all know the other side of their believe. This is why I will give my opinion on cultural artifacts then I will give different counter arguments on my opinion.
I believe that cultural artifacts should not be returned because of all the different harms it could do to the actual artifacts. One example of this would be in the first passage "Returning Antiquities to Their Countries of Origin" in paragraph 7 were James Cano talks about how he "doesn't support the return of legally acquired works" and he says why in the next paragraph. He says why
…show more content…
One of the most important reasons in the second passage for returning an artifact would be in paragraph 15 were it says laws passed in recent years helped give the country who owns an artifact ownership if that artifact was found in their borders. These laws also helped protect artifacts by making sure they don’t get traded internationally.
The third and final reason for not returning artifacts to their homelands would be found in passage three "Vision of Home: Repatriated Works Back in Their Countries of Origin" in paragraph 25 were it says that since so many artifact are being sent back, the museum named Aidone museum is getting less and less resources for their publicity, maintenance and guards. This is a reason for not returning artifacts because if a museum doesn't have any artifacts for the public then they would have to shut down their museum and would cause many younger generations to be unknown to older
Imagine that one piece of history that is taken from a town. This piece of history tells l people how this town was built and all the important people that were apart of the community. “Returning Antiquities to Their Countries of Origin” by Joyce Mortimer can many people about how objects are getting taken from Museums. They should be returned immediately. There are so many artifacts out there that could be so important to people, and if someone can just imagine what it would feel to have one of the most important object taken from a museum and to be never returned again. Many people enjoy seeing these objects so why are they being taken?
The controversy began almost one hundred years ago. Between 1801 and 1812, Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin and British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, removed several sculptures from the Parthenon in Athens and shipped them to England, where he sold them to the British Museum in 1816. 167 years later, Melina Mercouri, Greek Minister of Culture, requested that the “Elgin” Marbles be returned. This request sparked one of the greatest debates the art world has ever known. For the past two decades, people have argued over who has the rights to these Marbles. The Greek position is certainly understandable from a cultural and emotional point of view. However, from the standpoint of legality and logic, it is hard to make a solid case against the Marbles’ continued presence in Britain.
Parts of the sculptures that used to belong to the Parthenon are now residing within Britain’s Museum, and Christopher Hitchens argues that they be returned to Greece through his work entitled “The Lovely Stones.” Hitchens builds his argument by utilizing a short history of the incident and rhetorical questions.
There is an ongoing debate on whether the Parthenon Marbles, now located in London, England, should be returned to their original homeland of Athens, Greece. The marbles were removed from the Parthenon by Lord Elgin from 1801-1812 and transported to England. They were sold to the British government in 1816 and put in the British Museum where they have been for the last 200 years. I believe that the marbles should now be returned to Greece, not only because of the method and circumstances surrounding their removal, but because they are original pieces of the oldest and most symbolic structure in Greek history that epitomizes the pinnacle of Ancient Classical Greece and the beginning of western democracy through artistic ingenuity.
The debate of the reburial of excavated Native American sites has been going on for quite some time now. I believe that the wealth of knowledge gained from these discovered artifacts and bones yield much more valuable information than simply placing them back into the ground, causing them to be lost forever. The remains of Pre-Columbian Native Americans should not be reburied and should be studied and documented for the sake of history and a better understanding of it.
For years on end, countries have been fighting with big museums from other countries for ancient artifacts that belong to the original countries. The argument of whether or not the museums should be able to keep them still remains. It is the right of the country to have their own artifacts. It is imperative for countries to be able showcase their historical artifacts, therefor museums should return them to their rightful owners.
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
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B., 2004, From ethnology to heritage: The role of the museum, In: B.M. Carbonell,, 2012. Museum Studies: An anthology of contexts. Oxford: Blackwell publishing. pp. 199-205
James Riding points out this issue in his article, "James Riding In Presents a Pawnee Perspective on Repatriation, 1996."When Riding reported, "consequently, orgies of grave looting occurred without remorse" (p. 491) it brought to mind having seen Indian artifacts for sell. This has been a common practice for many years. It is impossible for me to guess how much loot has been carried off from Indian burial sites over the years. The important point is to note that this has taken place, and Native Americans do want these artifacts
In “Whose Culture Is It, Anyway? ”, Kwame Anthony Appiah begins by pointing out that some of the museums of the world, particularly in the West, have large collections of artefacts and objects which were robbed from developing and poor countries. He then raises a question: who owns these cultural patrimony and properties? Our first answer may be that since they make up the cultural heritage of a people, they belong to the people and culture from whom they were taken. Appiah has doubt about this and argues that if some cultural artefacts are potentially valuable to all human beings, they should belong to all of humanity. He thinks that when they make contribution to world culture, they should be protected by being made available to those who would benefit from experiencing them and put into trusteeship of humanity.
The argument against the site can supported by saying that the site could have belonged to civilizations other than Troy. However, the lack of definitive answers on the historicity of Troy is reason the University should have purchased the collection. With such “a rare and valuable collection of Trojan, Greek, and Roman antiques,” the University would have been able to validate the historicity of the site as being or not being Troy (“Terrell to Walton” 4). Subsequently, this would have allowed scholars at the University to make progress in answering the age old question: did Homeric Troy exist? If the site was not Troy, the University would have still aided archaeologists by ruling this site out, narrowing the search window, and allowing the search for Troy to move
The author uses various forms of ethos in order to support his argument that the original Parthenon sculptures should be returned to Greece. In his first paragraph, the author uses a quote from A.W. Lawrence, a famous classicist. A.W. Lawrence states that the Parthenon is “the one building in the world which may be assessed as absolutely right.” Here, the author is using ethos because he is using the credentials and opinions of an expert to express to the reader the importance of this structure. Since the author
Finding out about antiques, relics, and customs through narrating has formed who I am. These three things have inhabited of all societies to realize who they are. Family customs demonstrate how individuals experience their lives and cooperate with others. They additionally indicate how individuals respond when a relative weds into a group of an alternate ethnic foundation. Relics are great cases of material things that can instruct about one 's family history. Antiquities show who individuals are. This is valid for every single ethnic foundation.
...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.
After reading the passage by Robert Ousterhout, it seems to be that holy sites classify as relics because of the meaning the sites possess. Hence, sites like the Holy Sepulcre are essential because of their historical and cultural impact they have in highlighting such pivotal religious events. Therefore, it can be inferred the importance there is for preserving such a site in a way that still pays homage to the original and where the original essence is still intact. In other words, when preserving a holy site, no reconstruction should be done in a matter that values aesthetics over the authenticity that stems from the meaning of the architectural site.