Summary: Returning Antiquities To Their Countries Of Origin

As I mentioned, this is an extremely controversial topic that has raised a lot of difference in opinions. Furthermore, I must admit that those arguing for the sculptures to remain in Britain do make some interesting points that plenty of people have taken into consideration. One of their arguments is that the sculptures were already in a damaged and fragile condition, and leaving them in Greece would have destroyed them completely (‘The Parthenon Marbles: Refuting the Arguments”, par 6). In the YouTube video, “Parthenon Marbles Debate ", one of Tristam Hunt’s arguments is if the Greeks are able to acquire their historic artwork, this may cause other countries to demand their historic artifacts as well, not just from the British Museum, but from museums all over the world as well. I can see the counter arguments that this controversy issue involves. However, regardless of whether they were in a horrible condition, the Greeks were never consulted, nor did they have a say regarding the selling of this artwork to Elgin. Now, when it comes to everyone claiming and demanding they receive their ancient artwork, like historian Hunt said; this is true. It can happen, but I don't believe that any other artifacts have the amount of significance that these sculptures do. The Greeks worked their hearts

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.

The controversy began almost one hundred years ago. Between 1801 and 1812, Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin and British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, removed several sculptures from the Parthenon in Athens and shipped them to England, where he sold them to the British Museum in 1816. 167 years later, Melina Mercouri, Greek Minister of Culture, requested that the “Elgin” Marbles be returned. This request sparked one of the greatest debates the art world has ever known. For the past two decades, people have argued over who has the rights to these Marbles. The Greek position is certainly understandable from a cultural and emotional point of view. However, from the standpoint of

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.

I think yes artifacts should be returned to their place of origin if the country can make sure that the artifacts are protected. Why i believe that the artifacts should be returned to their place orgen is because it will shown more background of the artifact to show where it was used but because once it was removed from its origin it lost some context and meaning for what it did.Also by returning some artifacts back to tribes or the groups of people that made to artifacts for special ceremonies, as they are said in paragraph 4 “Some museums have objects that were made for private Native American religious ceremonies and were never meant to be seen by the public.”

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

Ancient artifacts tell us much to all of what we know about our worlds past, these crucial remnants of past cultures allow us to physically see what was essential and valued by these ancient peoples. Artifacts tell us about suspicions, beliefs, everyday life and everything in between — without these crucial remnants of culture, we could not even begin to understand what was before us. Although these artifacts are useful for learning and understanding ancient civilizations, there is much debate about the morality of other countries buying and “owning” these historical pieces. Every civilization, past and present leaves behind a cultural trail everywhere it goes thus making exploration of different countries so very easy.

One danger of keeping large quantities of artifacts together, is that if there were a disaster, it would affect all of them instead of only a few. The Louvre in Paris alone contains over 35,000 objects. If there were to be a natural disaster, it would affect all of these artifacts. However, many preventative measures are taken.

Works of art are an amazing way to piece together the past and should be protected. In the passage “The Lovely Stones”, Christopher Hitchens argues that the parthenon sculptures be united in Greece. The Parthenon was created by the ancient Greeks and is an intricate and beautiful piece of art, however throughout the years it has been destroyed and pieces sent across the globe. Christopher Hitchens uses emotional appeal and reasoning to persuade his audience that the original Parthenon sculptures should be returned to Greece.

If a cultural artifact was returned to its region of origin, the people of that region would still see a high value in that artifact. The artifacts have more value when it is in its historical place. The historical place brings out the features of the artifact, and once it is moved those features are no longer as valuable as they once were. For example, the Elgin Marbles in Greece were transported to the UK. When this happened, Greece was still a part of the Ottoman Empire, but today, Greece wants their artifacts back (Returning Antiquities to Their Countries of Origin). Greece feels as if that artifact lost value, because it is no longer in its historical region of origin.

In the past few years, videos of ISIS, a terror group surfaced with them destroying ancient ruins. Of course, taking ancient artifacts from these sites is a less extreme matter than simply destroying matured landmarks. But on the other hand, taking artifacts from sites is a less dramatic way of saying that the site is being destroyed. Ancient ruins are for tourists and community members to marvel at while seeing them in their natural state, knowing thousands of years ago it was a community, or village rather. Taking the items away from the site for a museum is hypothetically taking the “wow-factor” away from the pyramids, sunken

The Elgin Marbles are known to be a collection of stone sculptures that were acquired by Lord Elgin (British) from the Parthenon in Athens between the years 1801 and 1805. During Greece’s Turkish occupation, they believe that these sculptures were taken illegally, and morally should be returned. The Greeks have demanded that the sculptures be returned back their homeland. Yet, the British believe that Lord Elgin purchased the statues legally from the Ottoman Empire before Greece had won its independence. They anticipated it setting a significant level of importance for major museums if the statues were ever returned. Unfortunately, proof doesn’t exist to show that Lord Elgin actually had permission to take all of the sculptures. Proof exists

A few institutions which have stolen artwork want to redress their wrongdoings. Institutions and individuals that have looted artwork should return everything they obtained illegally to their original location. A few prestigious institutions such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles “have agreed to return looted or stolen artwork or antiquities” (Roehrenbeck). Despite their desire to return looted artwork, there are complex issues that make it quite difficult. One of the issues consists of the debates about what approach should be taken regarding the country’s ownership of cultural property while another issue is how the process should be approached when it requires cooperation among government, museums, and even artifact dealers where holes exist in historical records.

Located on the Acropolis in Athens, Greece, the Parthenon is the most famous and most important piece of architecture in Greece. Standing in ruins as a former temple dedicated to the Greek Goddess of wisdom, Athena, the Parthenon has held the most important sculptures made by the Greeks. During the 1800s, when Greece was under the control of the Ottomans, sculptures from the Parthenon were sent to Britain by Lord Elgin for safe protection. The Parthenon Marbles have since then never been returned to the Greeks. The sculptures, currently housed in the British Museum in London, should be returned to their homeland because they are part of Greece’s culture, they have a safe home ready for them in the Acropolis Museum, they are not being cared for as they should, it would most likely boost the economy, and the English did not have the right to take them in the first place.

After reading your article about the Parthenon Marbles, I felt like I was reading my article, except that yours is put together more eloquently. I completely concur with you regarding how the British might have a “legal” claim on the marbles, but these marbles, as you put it, “belong where they came from”. Therefore, I also believe that they should be returned to Greece, no matter what the British claim regarding their “ownership”.