Should Objects Be Taken In The Distant Past, Be Returned To Their Places Of Origin?

Museums have long served a purpose as cultural staples. For every museum, big and small, careful consideration is used in selecting its contents. When securing new items for a museum, it is most important to consider public appeal, educational value, and cost-effectiveness.

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.

Archaeologists are now able to come together with natives and learn about the past as a team, getting more insight into ceremonials, traditions, sacred ritueals, everyday workings, and lifestyles of native peoples. Respecting the grounds and artifacts of these indigenous people is respecting their heritage- our universal heritage. The unfolding of information allows archaeologists to gain perspective on the people and land before the white

There is an ongoing art-ownership debate over paintings and other art stolen from European Jews during the Holocaust of World War II (1939-45). As Jews were sent to concentration camps, Nazi German soldiers looted valuable art from their homes. During the ensuing decades, some of that art landed in major museums on display, prompting Holocaust survivors and the families of Holocaust victims to ask that those works be returned to them.

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 repatriation of cultural artifacts and pieces of art refers to the return of these items to their country of origin. Although this seems to be an overwhelmingly positive action taken to reunite ancient artifacts with their culture, the process can also prevent intercultural blending and encourage cultural segregation. As James Cuno expressed in the supplemental article “To Repatriate or Not to Repatriate, That is the Question….James Cuno’s Case Against Repatriating Museum Artifacts”, returning cultural artifacts to their homeland first entails taking from the country in which they reside. While this seems rather harmless, preventing intercultural fusion could destroy the education of and respect for outside cultures. Because of this, in

“Many Egyptians believe the Rosetta Stone is significant to their national heritage, and its presence in a European museum is a monument to the days of colonialist looting and exploitation. Anything that left illegally, it should go back to Egypt. ”

In the past two decades, the interest in resolving the issues of Nazi looted art restitution reached new heights in the U.S., and there have been several federal actions and professional codes of ethics addressing the topic. Yet, they serve more as “soft laws” and sets forth no specific and binding rules regarding how to resolve the ownership dispute of such art. As illustrated below, U.S. art museums are urged to be self-regulatory based on these principles and guidelines, but failure to do so would result in no legal consequences.

Using an object centred approach this narrative will attempt to go beyond the subject’s simple classification of a ‘red-figured stamnos (The British Museum, n.d)’. The function, status and meaning of this piece* and how it has changed over time is addressed by examining the production, consumption and afterlife of the piece.

“The Restitution of Nazi-Looted Art and Other Cultural Property: Have We Gone Too Far or Not Far Enough?” written by Lawrence M. Kaye, is an academic journal found on Academic Search Premier: EBSCO. This journal was published by New German Critique on February 2017. The keywords led to finding this journal was “Nazi art”.

The example of Albrecht V collection in Munich, thus, provides an example of a collection functioning as a construct of political legitimacy. Transfused with humanistic approach towards collecting that focused on creation of the microcosm within one’s environment through objects spanning various disciplines, it reflects how cultural history can assist one in dissecting the ideology behind the collection. In addition, it highlights how various agents were of key importance in the process, not limited to the patron

The theft of cultural property, referred to as art, has occurred for thousands of years. An important question therefore arises: what makes something cultural property? John Henry Merryman, a notable figure in the field of cultural anthropology, defines cultural property as items that have “artistic, ethnographic, archeological, or historical value.” (Merryman). Moreover, nations around the world are looking for the return of cultural property in a process known as art repatriation. Due to the long history behind stolen cultural property, the international community is seeking out art repatriation more vehemently than ever, taking into account the ethical implications of art repatriation as well.

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.

Are most antiquities stolen pieces that are just covered up by all the people waiting in line to see them? Many countries have lost their beloved artworks due to dubious means but the robbers refuse to give them up due to all the attraction they get all around the world. Some people believe that artwork should not be returned because more people are able to see all the amazing artwork but the ironic part is the people that made the art, or those who are related to them never get to see it. In many cases, scientists and art lovers fight their way against popular demand to prove antiquities should be returned to their homeland if possible.

Throughout history, art has caused wars and forged alliances. In modern times, cultural treasures are being sorted into place after much misplacement. Restitution/repatriation, the act of returning cultural treasures to their rightful owners or nation of origin, often ensues difficult legal decisions, but remains a moral necessity. This act of returning cultural treasures, grows more common due to the media’s interest or publicized legal battles. The movie “The Woman in Gold,” involving Gustav Klimt’s painting of Adele Bloch-Bauer, is an example of the influence it has on media.