Bring Them Home: Historic Treasures And Artifacts

Artifacts that are found in a country should stay in that country so it don’t get lost or broken. I think that if the artifact is in the museum then it needs to stay in one place so the object doesn't get tossed around and gets broken. If the artifact breaks then that is a part of history that is gone forever and it will not be here for us to learn about. I feel like if the artifact was found in a certain country then it needs to be stored in its own countries’ museums.

From what I learned from the past assigned readings and class discussions, one of the difficult decisions that museums have to make is do they return their objects/artifacts back to their original countries or cultural group. This issue is an ethical dilemma because, would it be the museum to legally keep the objects because of their belief that they can protect and use these items (Warren 1999: 1-20). Or, would it be ethical for the museum to return the items that were previously removed from their country or place of origin. Based on my lecture notes and discussion for this week’s class, one of the ways which many countries and cultural groups are able to acquire back their objects/artifacts legally is through the process of restitution and

Museums are filled with unique,historical artifacts that are precious to our history throughout the world. These “traveling exhibits” give people around the world an opportunity to see how our ancestors lived in many different regions of the world. Many artifacts are far away from their country of origin 7.In the articles “Bring Them Home”and “Museums Preserve the Cultures of the World,” people argue that museums should return certain artifacts to its original country, while others believes it’s only right to keep them considering the originating country rightfully sold those artifacts.In my opinion, countries should bring some artifacts back to their originating country.

Collecting objects from a specific culture is also unethical, not because objects are being stolen, but because people are being put on display as if they are not human. In Denver Museum of Nature and Science, Indian skulls and bones are “labeled like a library book with a tracking number, wrapped in coarse white muslin, and packed in a cardboard box” (1). People are viewing these exhibits and looking at the bones as if they are normal objects you see every day. These bones were once humans, and they are being shown off like animals. Labeling them like library books shows the dehumanization of these exhibits, which is ironic because institutions and collectors find their culture so interesting. In a way, this can be considered racist. While discussing this piece, a classmate said “Why are we [as in, Native Americans] so interesting to you [as in, mostly white historians]; why don’t we have exhibits

In the article, Conspicuous Consumption by Melanie Townsend, she talks about how, as a society, we have developed a compulsive need towards accumulating collections and material items without any regard for the repercussions of our actions. Museums are caught between keeping relevant in today’s changing global environment and the need to protect, preserve and be the keeper of public collections in a way that upholds their mandate. One of the points that I found most interesting was about the Glenbow Museum and Smithsonian actively linking their collections. However, it was also pointed out that even though the Glenbow has been a leader in beginning repatriation, they then turned around and hosted an exhibition that conflicts with the good things

Fe fie fo fum let cultural artifacts be returned to their home. In the passage,” Returning Antiquities to their Countries of Origin” by Joyce Mortimer, “A Case in Antiquities for “Finders Keepers” by John Tierney,” Vision of Home: Repatriated works in their Countries of Origin” by Rachel Donadio it talks about why or why not the artifacts should live in their regions of origin. There are many cultural artifacts, they should not be locked up in a museum. If they were not locked up more people would get to see the artifacts. Cultural artifacts should be allowed to live in their countries or origin.

On April 10, 2003, after we took out Hussein, a mob of looters attacked the Iraq National Museum. Iraq is considered the Cradle of Civilization and harbors priceless artifacts from Babylonian, Assyrian and Sumerian kingdoms. The National Museum of Iraq’s looting from April 9 to April 11, 2003 resulted in the loss of 15,000 artifacts despite our presence with a military tank unit and soldiers the looting went unchecked. More than15, 000 artifacts disappeared. Some have accused our occupying troops that they have themselves looted artifacts. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, at a press briefing,

In examining the famous figurines of the third millennium BCE, Richard Neer, David W. J. Gill and Christopher Chippindale conclude that there are both material and intellectual consequences that surround the looting of the 1,600 mysterious Cycladic antiquities. Through drifting, surfacing, illicit excavation and “sinking” the illusory ways in which these now precious artifacts were found is questioned in contemporary ethics. In summary, approximately 85 percent of the total figurines are said to be found through the breaking into of secure tombs and robberies. Although these may be corrupt, it is my contention that it is permissible in which the ways these findings were executed originally. For without these illicit and undocumented loots,

I agree with what you said about the importance of museums. These artifacts should be protected to continue to educate people and for people to keep learning about histories and cultures. When I first read these articles I had a similar reaction of not knowing how to feel about it. I think that Donald’s Rumsfeld did not take the situation as seriously as he could of. He just kind of acted like it is not a big deal, when in fact it is because many of these stolen artifacts will probably never be returned.

Ancient artifacts are the symbols of human civilization. All of them are priceless and cannot be measured by currency value. Repatriate is a controversial problem because of the various reasons. For instance, the aggressor took all of the captures back to their home countries and showed them to the public, during the war. Voyagers took other countries’ artifact to prove they had been in that place. Archeologists, anthropologists, and scientists took the antiquities back to their university for research. Politicians used the regulation to move away a relic as decrease the power of a competitor. Thieves had stolen someone’s important items or expensive objects in a tomb in order to sell to the private collectors. It can’t be right to steal the items that belong to other people. When the owner found out the items were stolen, and then they hoped they could get them back. That was how repatriated started. Some antiquities were transported to the country that they do not belong to. Thus, there are some people think those ancient artifacts should be returned to the original country because it involves moral issues. However, some people think they shouldn’t be returned because they are the spoils of the wars. Most antiquities were looted from other places, which are showed in the museum. So which countries do they belong to? However, In my opinion, museums don’t have to return the antiquities to the original

There are several agencies around the world working to curtail art theft and recover stolen works.

For centuries countries all over the world have been victims to stolen and destroyed artifacts. It’s an issue that has been encountered worldwide, especially during crises like natural disasters and wars. Many laws and acts have been placed to prevent this from happening but this might not be enough since these problems are still arising and are not few. The Republic of Costa Rica notices this as a problem towards the protection of cultural heritage and has placed laws to prevent this.

While reparation and restitution are similar, they vary in audience. Restitution is the act of giving art or cultural treasures back to their original owner. Repatriation, applying to a group of people rather than an individual, is the act returning of cultural treasures to their country of origin or culture (UNESCO). Sometimes restitution goes against repatriation. This occurs when the legal owners of cultural treasures desire to own, or have access to it, whereas the country of origin wants to keep the work. Repatriation is viewed on a case by case basis, whereas restitution is almost always a moral necessity. Often times the owners will win the art back, then display it in galleries. This allows for the public to continue to appreciate the art. Both of these aspects of the art world are important, as they affect international affairs.

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

The destruction of cultural heritage during armed conflict has become the forefront issue within the international discourse on its legal protection in the last several decades. Many scholars and professionals have contributed to the development of international legal instruments concerning cultural heritage protection. This thesis analyzes the existing international legal instruments to demonstrate their practical application, or lack there of, in recent armed conflict situations vis-à-vis the changing paradigm in the execution of war.