Cultural Artifact Research Paper

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.

Schein (as cited in Baumgartner, 2009) describes artifacts as follows: ‘At the surface we have the level of artifacts, which include all the phenomena that one sees, hears, and feels when one encounters a new group with an unfamiliar culture. Artifacts would include the visible products of the group such as the architecture of its physical environment, its language, its technology and products, its artistic creations, and its style as embodied in clothing, manners of address, emotional displays, myths and stories told about the organization, published lists of values, observable rituals and ceremonies, and so on’.

It seems logical the originating country is the rightful owner to its national treasures. To deny the request for the return of the treasures is cultural theft. The treasures reflect the heritage and foundation of the people in the originating nation. The request should be honored in most circumstances. From the article “Bring Them Home

Merriam-Webster defines the word artifact as something created by human usually for a practical purpose: an object remaining from a particular period. In my family, there aren’t a lot of artifacts, but we do have a special artifact that means a lot to my mom’s side of the family. Similar to the way Brazilians celebrate Brazilian Carnival, in New Orleans, we celebrate Mardi Gras. Celebrating Mardi Gras is my family tradition. But my mom and I haven’t been in years due to school complications and other commitments. Every year when my mom and I miss Mardi Gras we go to the basement and find different Mardi Gras beads, and where them all day.

An artifact is a man-made object used by humans. Humans would create things like pottery, arrowheads, coins, tools, toys, and jewlery. Artifacts help archaeologists uncover the past, by giving them an idea of what our ancestors used and created back then.

Just imagine, there is nothing left to look at. Scientists have taken every artifact to research, disturbed those who lost their lives, and destroyed our Earth. Is this how you want to find out more about history? That's why scientists should keep artifacts where they found them. Instances where Peru has felt incomplete without artifacts, destruction of the RMS Titanic, and places in Iraq are being ruined from archeological sites are just a few examples of the harmful effects archeologists have put on humankind.

Currently, there is a global debate about the competing claims to rightful ownership of many ancient artifacts and treasures. Many times, for a variety of reasons, such objects are housed in museums in countries other than the country where the treasures were discovered or made. If the country of origin decides that it wants a museum to return these treasures, does a museum ever have a right to refuse that request? Some people feel that refusing such a request is truly cultural theft. Others, however, arguethat there are cases when the museum, not the nation, has a stronger right to ownership. Museums should have to give the artifacts back.

I can return with a wealth of information, but I can also return with pictures, art, music, books, toys, games, and artifacts to incorporate in classroom instruction. Using artifacts in the classroom will support students experience with culture, expand their knowledge,

It is extremely hard and takes much time for authorities to locate where missing, stolen artifacts are. For example, in the article "National treasures," when all ten of Walt Whitman's poetry papers were stolen, it took four decades to recover only four out of ten papers. It is difficult to find stolen art and documents because the thieves who steal them will usually sell them for large amounts of currency. Then, the consumer who purchases the artifacts would sell them off and the cycle continues over and over again, so it is a very complicated process to locate them.

Cultural objects can practically be found anywhere. “A cultural object may be defined as shared significance embodied in form, [In other words] it is a socially meaningful expression that is audible, visible, or tangible or that can be articulated” (SOURCE). Cultural objects tell stories, and those stories could be interpreted in numerous different ways. The significances of cultural objects vary from individual to individual, as well as location and time. So, a cultural object valued in the United States, could have a totally different meaning and representation in another country. Lastly, cultural objects don’t have to be physical objects. They can be; an idea, songs, believes, videos, styles, pretty much anything as long as they could tell a story. With that being said, the meaning doesn’t have to be built into the actual object itself, but the representation of the object should be open for interpretation.

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.

Beside the invasion, cultural artifacts is also an aspect that is misjudged towards people’s genesis. Firstly, cultural artifacts are merely shown the adaptation to what is better, rather than expressions of one’s origin. For example, Pryor has a conversation with Sam Lucy, an archaeologist, about the change in burial rights in Britain during the end of The Roman period; Lucy mentions how people were buried with different objects: “a cross shaped branch, and this approach isn’t a continental import. It’s idea came ultimately from the continent, but it is a British product” (Sam Lucy). This reveals that the idea of the object comes from outside of Britain, but British people are the one who modify and execute that idea. The fact that British takes the ideas from continent to differ their style proves that artifacts are found to belong to Anglo-Saxon people could actually be made similarly by the British to improve their daily life. So this idea indicates that culture artifacts do not tell where people come from. Moreoever, cultural artifacts are found around the world might have been traded and transported there, and did not belong to local inhabitants. Particularly, Mark Cartwright, who has a Master of Arts in Greek philosophy, talks about trading goods in ancient times: “goods were not only exchanged across the Roman world, however, as bustling ports such as Gades, Ostia, Puteoli, Alexandria, and Antioch also imported goods from such far-flung places as Arabia,

This chapter is broken down into three main parts, culture and heritage, the law and war, and the international community and its legal instruments. The first part addresses the historical perspective of the ideas about culture by acknowledging the development of the term; starting from Edward Burnett Tylor’s definition of culture from the 19th century to the ideas suggested by Clifford Geertz concerning culture.1 These ideas are further explored through contemporary scholarship on the associations of culture and heritage, and how cultural heritage relates to the identities of human beings and thus becomes a target in conflict situations. The second part of the first chapter, on the law and war, outlines the development of International Humanitarian Law throughout history in order to communicate how the law is reactive and consequently created. The distinct difference in treatment of cultural objects throughout the history of war has demonstrated the value and ideas surrounding their importance and safeguarding. The last part of Chapter 1 is a legal analysis of primary sources of law, chiefly dealing with the Geneva Law and Hague Law, on the protection of cultural heritage and their practical application during armed conflict.

Beside the invasion, cultural artifacts is also an aspect that is misjudged towards people’s genesis. Firstly, cultural artifacts are merely shown the adaption to what is better, rather than expression of one’s origin. For example, Pryor has a conversation with Sam Lucy, an archaeologist, about the change in burial rights in Britain during the end of The Roman period; Lucy mentions how people were buried with different objects: “a cross shaped branch, and this approach isn’t a continental import. It’s idea came ultimately from the continent, but it is a British product” (Sam Lucy). This reveals that the idea of the object comes from outside of Britain, but British people are the one who modify and execute that idea. The fact that British takes the ideas from continent to differ their style proves that artifacts are found to belong to Anglo-Saxon people could actually be made similarly by the British to improve their daily life. So this idea indicates that culture artifacts do not tell where people come from. Moreoever, cultural artifacts are found around the world might have been traded and transported there, and did not belong to local inhibitants. Particularly, Mark Cartwright, who has a Master of Arts in Greek philosophy, talks about trading goods in ancient times: “goods were not only exchanged across the Roman world, however, as bustling ports such as Gades, Ostia, Puteoli, Alexandria, and Antioch also imported goods from such far-flung places as Arabia,