Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Importance Of History
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 …show more content…
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
“Skeletons in the Closet”, written by Clara Spotted Elk, is a well-built argument, but it can be enhanced to become immensely effective. Firstly, Elk’s position is effective in obtaining her purpose and connecting her audience to it, because she includes a broad scope and background of the problem in the first few paragraphs. She describes the amount of Indian skeletons preserved and contained by American museums, through the use of data and statistics. For instance, Elk states: “we found that 18,500 Indian remains…are unceremoniously stored in the Smithsonian’s nooks and crannies” (13-15). By using this data, the background of the argument is illustrated to assist the audience in understanding her argument. Now, by knowing this statistic, readers can connect with Elk and her assertion, since we realize that there are plenty of skeletons that
Separating the Lancer Company into a brand of authentic, exclusively sold artifacts, and a brand of quality, limited distribution products, keeps the perception of Lancer Gallery high in the mind of consumers. This is beneficial because for those who buy authentic artifacts do so to show their social class or prestige, or, because they are interested in that country’s culture. By buying their artifacts from Lancer they be assured that what they purchases is not an imposter or anything that can be bought by the average Joe.
...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.
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.
Hunt insists that returning the marbles to Greece would create a precedent for other restitution claims. This in turn would rob all museums of their ability to provide a multicultural presentation of history. He declares that “we need the sharing of cultures.” I assert diversity can be achieved with castings, similar to the Romans copying Greek
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.
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
What is an artifact? According to the dictionary, an artifact is “something made or given shape by man, such as a tool or a work of art, especially an object of archaeological interest” ("The Definition of Artifact"). In archaeology, the word “artifact” defines an object recovered by archaeological attempt, which might have a cultural attention. In the same way, the article “The Life of An Artifact” written by Michael Shanks mainly discusses some of the key points of interpretive archaeology and the relations between social sciences and material culture. The author believes that material culture plays an active role in society, and that the society is built upon the presence of artifacts. He emphasizes that “artifacts
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
...ueen Isabella and King Ferdinand II of Spain. Christopher Columbus was also quite interested in acquiring treasures from what he thought was Asia. However, some people thought what Christopher Columbus did was as glorious as the creation of the world. In the end, Christopher Columbus’s “reputation had its ups and downs over the centuries” said Milton Meltzer (174). To conclude, through the power of technology, the courage and bravery of individuals, and having the right mindset of other nations and their cultures, beliefs, and traditions, there is nothing wrong with two nations interacting with one another. However, if two nations are interacting with one another through crimes against humanity, genocide, and no emotions, then that’s not discovery. It’s invasion.
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.
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?
...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.
Of the many crimes that are present in this day and age, one that not only vandalizes the property, but as well as historical background is that of art theft. A crime that has taken away the sanctity of churches as well as many other religious and historical sites. Thefts have ranged from WWII (World War II) to the times of the Holocaust. Of the items that were taken from the churches, relics were items of great priority. These items not only had great value to the churches they were stolen from, but a great value to relic collectors. Most of the items taking during these times were either sold or placed in underground storage. Most of these items that were place in these secret places were never to be seen again. From the times of these so called “relic hunters” to now, art theft has become something that has taken some extreme changes. It has evolved from crime that started with minor relic thefts to something that has become a worldwide crime in need of better prevention.