Pros And Cons Of Museum Repatriation Controversy

In December 2002, the directors of 18 museums located throughout Europe and the United States issued the Declaration of the Importance and Value of Universal Museums. The declaration is an attempt, by the directors of major Western museums, to defend against demands for restitution of museum objects by defining themselves as “universal museums” which are of value to all of humanity. This document fails as a convincing defence against restitution claims for several reasons. First, it dismisses circumstances of older acquisitions without considering the ethics or legality of surrounding the acquisition. Second, while it pronounces these museums “universal,” it approaches this from a distinctly Western perspective and perpetuates colonial and imperialist ideas. Finally, it ignores important debates that are occurring between and within scholarly, professional, and activist communities.

Many people visit museums to view antiquities. They enjoy seeing these relics of the ancient world as a way of understanding past cultures and sometimes connecting with their own heritage. This evidence was found in the passage, “Returning Antiquities to Their Countries of Origin” by Joyce Mortimer paragraph 1. Cultural artifacts should not be returned to their region of origin because some people don’t have enough money to travel to China or Brazil to go look at ancient artifacts from the past. So they should bring these ancient trinkets to places like America and Canada so people around the world can study different cultures to learn more about the life around use.

In the last decades, the repatriation of art and cultural heritage has become a controversial issue. This issue has received great attention from the public, international law and the press. Should cultural object taken by a country or nation remain with that country or should it repatriated? Art repatriation refers to the returning of cultural artifact to their original owners. (Roehrenbeck,2010). Cultural treasures represent the civilization of a nation or group of people which reflect the religions, values and ideologies. (Zhong,2014)

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.

These issues with museums and other institutions has led many tribes to not only protest these collections and demand the most sacred items back, but to also develop their own institution that not only tell the real story of their people from a non scientific point of view, but also show the proper resect for the sacred and religious artifacts. Religious sights and objects are a piece of many different groups culture, many of which require a certain level of respect. Within the United States Native American groups are reclaiming these objects for their own

Countless art has been sought-after throughout history. Explorers, scientists, art collectors, politicians, and entrepreneurs from Western nations have sought out and removed art from the lands of great civilizations, often with the assistance and participation of local people and governments. Even as cultural property faces immediate danger today in conflict zones like Syria and Mali, there is circumstantial evidence that some nations are awakening to the political and foreign policy benefits that can flow from the repatriation of cultural patrimony. While on a different scale from World War II, historic structures, religious monuments, and other priceless ancient times continue to suffer collateral damage and manipulation in armed conflict. Relics have been stolen, smuggled and sold in what is a reported multibillion dollar underground market. They have become the illicit prizes of private collectors and the subject of legal claims against museums. Of the countless museums subject to legal claims, The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City happens to be one of them. “The Metropolitan Museum has acquired thousands of works and objects of art from the antiquities”. “For the past several years, the government of Turkey has warned U.S. and foreign museums (including The Metropolitan Museum of Art), that unless ancient objects from Turkish soil are given up on demand, Turkey will stop lending artworks” (The Committee for Cultural Policy, 2015). Turkey continues to up the

Politics within nations and communities influences the finding of art artifacts and the eventual explanation of the art artifacts because they decide who has the right to claim it. If an archeologist finds an artifact that belongs to a nation or community and has significance, then the archaeologist can’t claim it. This can cause archaeologists and art historians to feel a certain pressure within their research projects because they can’t retaliate if a community claims the artifact they’ve been researching and studying. However, when the rightful community claims the artifact, they may be able to add insight into the meaning of the artifact because it belongs to them so they may know more about

In the Robyn Autry article, it mainly focuses on the national conflict of museums mainly focusing towards African American. The author travel to 15 museums around the United States that focuses towards African American. She mainly talks about how the African American were facing numerous hardships in the U.S and how the museum represents those issues to the general public. She believes the way to tell the hardship of African Americans is by exhibiting through a museum. When traveling through these museums she focused towards “centered on three traumatic episodes: capture and displacement from Africa, enslavement, and racial segregation” (Autry 64). The author of the articles wants to show that over time that museums meanings has changed over

Lubar states that “large museums have so much in storage; why not transfer some of those collections to smaller museums, where they would be eagerly put on display? Even more radical why not sell some and use the proceeds to fund the work that museums should be doing” (146). Initially, this idea does seem radical. Large metropolitan museums giving their collections away is not something that is often done. Lubar explains that “there are more than a billion objects in American museum collections” (4). This number is so vast that is impossible to reasonably conceive. Because of this, there can only so many artifacts that are on display at once thus leaving countless others stuck in storage never seeing the light of day. Smaller museums that do not have the budget to collect could potentially benefit from larger museums deaccessioning items.

Culture, being a ubiquitous concept, is not innately tied to a specific location and consequently, cultural artefacts cannot belong uniquely to any one nation. Greece cannot therefore hold the sole right to artefacts such as the Parthenon Marbles. In the interest of the preservation of an artefact of great global significance, the Marbles should remain in the British Museum; a place which documents world history in an open

The interpretation and appropriation of culture within museums came under attack starting in the 1960’s. Native American groups raised questions about the biases and agendas of curators and museums and demanded that their voices be heard in the political arena. Many Native American organizations argued that if Whites are the ones interpreting and appropriating other cultures, then it is actually their culture on exhibition.(King 1998: 96, Stocking Jr. 1985: 88, Patterson 2014: 52). Deidre Sklar, a researcher of Native American artifacts, stated that: “Time and space in a museum, are defined in terms of the confines of the collection, not of the context from which [the collection is] drawn. Visiting hours from ten to five and the glass exhibit case define EuroAmerican, not Native American time and space” (Weil 2004:3). In response to this outcry, the Museums of the American Indian Act was created and signed on November 28, 1989, enabling the creation of the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI). The NMAI is arguably the most famous native-run institution and acts as a living memorial to Native Americans and their traditions (King 1998: 106).

Antiques, they are hundreds, maybe thousands years old, but what if someone just took them from you. You would want them back, right? This valuable prized possession, someone just, stole. Well, imagine it a bit more extreme. That has been the major problem in Egypt for many years. Britain, France, and other surrounding countries have been stealing major antiquities from Egypt illegally for a long time. These countries should give back Egypt’s antiquities because, they deserve to be in their country of origin, these artifacts represent Egyptian culture, and Egyptian antiquities are not only limited to staying in the pyramids.

Throughout the experience, I learned the importance and care of working with an artifact along with operations within a museum. As I toured Heartland Museum, I witnessed all of the items that are stored behind the scenes because museums only keep a small percentage of the belongings on display. I also learned about the process of creating a display, which includes piecing together many details like attraction, relevance, and of course history. Museums must worry about the community’s interest in the displays. Lastly, I learned about the importance of an artifact by working with some of the items. It is important to handle artifacts with care because of the fragility of the item. After the information I learned at the museum, it was my turn to experience the public

However, artifacts should not be repatriated to the countries of their origin because museums are to educate people about different places, things, objects, cultures, and eras. If the artifact is donated then the museum’s highest priority is to honor the donor’s wishes. And if the museum found the artifact(s) in a foreign country, then it should stay with museum

To begin, one reason why the museums shouldn’t return the artifacts is because whoever found the artifact has the artifact in their history not the person who owns the land. “Such as when Ponce de León’s ships landed on Florida's east coast near present-day St. Augustine. He claimed this beautiful land for Spain, so Spain has now has Florida in their history” Further, another reason why the museums shouldn’t return the artifacts is because if the countries that want them back want them so bad then why don’t they just pay the countries