Why Artifacts Should Be Taken Away

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.

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

Archeologists all over the world work towards not only discovering the tracks left behind by societies millions of years ago, but also make an effort to save those footprints for future generations. However, conservation and preservation of archaeological sites can prove to be as arduous as discovering them, or may be more. As a historical site is discovered, it becomes the responsibility of the government and everybody who has to play a role, to secure that site and to not let it deteriorate. Doing so is now also made part of law in many countries and it comes as no surprise when preservation of historical sites is the prime goal of numerous international organizations. Pompeii is one of the most popular historical sites that have been a point of concern for not only Italy’s government but also UN itself. In this paper we try develop an insight of barriers that restrict the development of restoration. Pompeii is an ancient Roman town near the modern Naples, which was first discovered in the 18th century, after it had been destroyed by a volcanic eruption, courtesy of the close standing Mount Vesuvius during the first century. This area and the closer one of Herculaneum was covered in about 20 feet of ash when it was discovered but much of the objects had been able to survive, specifically the ones below the city, as there had been no exposure to air or moisture. This destination is of great importance for the present world as it provides a quality insight into the ‘Pax

In examining the article “Around the Mall and Beyond”, by Michael Kernan, the author seems to make an argument illustrating the existence of artifacts, practically everywhere. In this article, I concur with his position that there are likely artifacts and remains wherever one might go. This is because we are not the first inhabitants of this land, as such, remains of humans, animals, tools etc. could likely be found in any area if searched for in-depth enough. The author makes a specific reference to the National Historic Preservation Act, which I particularly agree with. The author goes on to use several instances in history where history were discovered on sites which were being considered for or in the process of being converted into

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.”

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

On March 19, 2003 Baghdad was under fire. Three weeks later, American tanks roll into the Iraq capital scenes of triumph replaced by chaos. The US Military wasn’t prepared for citywide civilian crisis and eventually everything went up for grabs—even the treasures of the Iraq museum. The Iraq Museum have object materials from about half a million years ago – carvings, statues, and pottery. All the archaeological data was housed

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.

Artifacts would be better kept in certain conditions, and some places are not suited to do so. The artifacts that have been here for centuries that are not put in the correct conditions have degraded and some have come to the point of no return, having been broken down and rendered unusable. This could have been prevented, had the artifacts been put in an environment where they could be cared for and enjoyed longer. Many people argue that they should be returned to their place of origin, but is that really worth risking the artifact? They can still be looked at, admired and inspected, just in a better environment.

After hundreds or thousands of years in the ground many materials succumb to degradation due to the acidic soil and erosion from multiple environmental factors. These materials are often brittle and without proper handling they would be destroyed by just taking them out of the ground. In an instance such as the Juniper bark armband that was found at Lizard Man village, a specialist in conservation needed to be called in order to remove the armband without damaging in. In sites like this, any attempts by looters to remove such delicate artifacts would completely destroy them. Archaeology is a delicate matter; there is a reason why we spend hundreds of hours delicately excavating a site with a hand trowel and brush instead of plowing through the dirt with a shovel and

If you found the Titanic would you take it out of the ocean and disrupt the peace or would you leave it. I beileve that the Titanic shouldn't be preserved. Many people's remains have been found and I wouldn't mess with it. The danger of messing with the ship on the way up could be detrimental. The cost would be great if the ship were to have broken in half.

“Edward Kamuda, president of the Titanic Historical Society, also thinks that retrieving artifacts from the site is inappropriate because of the wreck's significance as a memorial gravesite, especially to families of the deceased. “We know of three Titanic survivors who have died and had their ashes scattered on the site,” he said.” Next, “Frank Goldsmith, who was nine years old when he survived the sinking. “His father perished on the ship, so Frank had his ashes scattered on the site.” Finally, I think The RMS Titanic should not be touched, but they should take

Tourism can be one of the most destructive forces facing archaeological sites and their conservators. Tourists can cause damage by disregarding signs prohibiting touching or littering. Parts of sites may need to be manipulated or even destroyed to allow for visitor access. Striking a balance between allowing the public to interact with a site and preserving it is very difficult. Some sites, like Bet She’an in Israel, give tourists the freedom to touch monuments and even climb onto them to give the visitors authentic experiences, despite the damage it causes. Others, like Pompeii in Italy, keep tourists within certain bounds to protect the sites. This paper examines the advantages and disadvantages of replicating archaeological sites as

I think the titanic should be preserved because it's decayin right now. The titanic should be preserved because it's rusting away. The people that died on the ship, their family mite want it preserved. They might want a peice to remember, and that everybody will remember.

The archaeological sites that comprise of relics are managed in a similar way to other important items of environmental heritage. They ought to be treated in the similar way and with the same level of assessment and consideration like any other surviving past physical pieces of evidence such as precincts, works, buildings and landscapes. The archeological resources are faced with a wide array of challenges. According to Coningham and Gunawardhana (2013) the major challenges facing the archaeological resources include looting and a high level of destruction. The damages are mainly as a result of the expansion of fields for agricultural purposes and the quarrying the ancient pillars and stone slabs for the purpose of providing building material. The reasons as to why the majority of stupas and image houses have been targeted have been due to their Buddhists relics. Looting of the relics has become a major problem (Coningham and Gunawardhana, 2013). Lacking the necessary manpower and money, looters have managed to dig up Buddhists artifacts and the black market trades of the antiquities have posed major problems in the efforts of nations that want to preserve their national heritage and archeological resources.