Why Return Artifacts

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.

In museums today various pieces are displayed in such a way as to show people that these pieces are what they are and to explain their original uses etc. In Paris for example, a new museum was built in 2006 called Quai Branly and it displayed a collection of Benin pieces including

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

Collecting objects from a specific culture is also unethical, not because objects are being stolen, but because people are being put on display as if they are not human. In Denver Museum of Nature and Science, Indian skulls and bones are “labeled like a library book with a tracking number, wrapped in coarse white muslin, and packed in a cardboard box” (1). People are viewing these exhibits and looking at the bones as if they are normal objects you see every day. These bones were once humans, and they are being shown off like animals. Labeling them like library books shows the dehumanization of these exhibits, which is ironic because institutions and collectors find their culture so interesting. In a way, this can be considered racist. While discussing this piece, a classmate said “Why are we [as in, Native Americans] so interesting to you [as in, mostly white historians]; why don’t we have exhibits

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.

To Native Americans, some of the objects were “created by their makers with the intent that the objects would disintegrate naturally,” so it is wrong to try to preserve those objects (67). Moreover, Native Americans think that if the objects were to be return to them, then it is not right for museums to tell them how to take care of the objects (72). A successful protest, for example, is the protest against exhibits that were being set up in celebration of Columbus Quincentenary. While Columbus is view as “hero” in many American’s eyes, he left Native Americans with a painful memory of enslaving and the bad treatment from the Colonists. In protesting to stop the celebration, protestors also hoped to re-educate the public about Columbus’ arrival in the Natives’ point of view (109-113). Due to these protests, many exhibitions were canceled. The exhibition, Seed of Change at the National Museum of Natural History tried to avoid the discussion of Columbus by focusing on things rather than people (117).

There are events occurring because of the theft that should not be happening. It may be hard to imagine why anyone would do this terrible crime. If you are like me, I was wondering what was their reasoning behind it? Could it be for themselves, to sell, to keep others from experiencing it? Because of these occurrences where the theft happened, ISIS has been profiting off of the antiquities. This means that there has to be a market for it. Although it is uncertain as to how much money they make, it is estimated to be between $4 million and $7 billion. That is a huge range, but either way, they make loads of money in which they should not be making. This is an even bigger issue than just historical or economical, it goes beyond that. The people who are committing these crimes are dangerous and could cause harm to others. They are using it to their benefit to pay for their attacks. The process of how ISIS makes these profits is pretty simple and divided into three stages. “A dig permit is secured from ISIS authorities, unearthed artifacts are evaluated and artifacts are moved out of the Islamic State into the international market.” One may question as to how do these people not get caught? These people know they are in the wrong, keep quiet, and cheat the system. In a perfect world, they would get caught and they would get no profits, but unfortunately, that’s

Since the beginning of their establishment, ISIS has been known for another calling card; that is destroying antiquities all throughout the many countries and territories they have confiscated over the years. Imagine if you will thousands of years of history destroyed in minutes. Ancient artifacts, statues and even relics that document the history of human civilization have all been wiped out by the terrorist regime. Their reasoning for destroying and vandalizing these high-value and even priceless antiques of time was simplistic. They do it because they believe god said it should be done.

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

Artifacts from all over the world should be kept in museums. As we know, sites with artifacts are being looted, and all of the important items are being stolen. These sites should be preserved until archaeologists can remove all of the artifacts and bring them to a museum to be kept save in the right conditions.

On April 10, 2003, after we took out Hussein, a mob of looters attacked the Iraq National Museum. Iraq is considered the Cradle of Civilization and harbors priceless artifacts from Babylonian, Assyrian and Sumerian kingdoms. The National Museum of Iraq’s looting from April 9 to April 11, 2003 resulted in the loss of 15,000 artifacts despite our presence with a military tank unit and soldiers the looting went unchecked. More than15, 000 artifacts disappeared. Some have accused our occupying troops that they have themselves looted artifacts. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, at a press briefing,

I agree with what you said about the importance of museums. These artifacts should be protected to continue to educate people and for people to keep learning about histories and cultures. When I first read these articles I had a similar reaction of not knowing how to feel about it. I think that Donald’s Rumsfeld did not take the situation as seriously as he could of. He just kind of acted like it is not a big deal, when in fact it is because many of these stolen artifacts will probably never be returned.

The theft and trafficking of art and cultural artifacts has become an issue that concerns many countries. Certain countries like Greece and Egypt have been requesting repatriation of their ancient treasures that have been stolen by individuals or obtained illegally during wars such as the European wars and World War II. (ProQuest staff) Some museums do not want to return valuable artwork due to the fact that it will make other countries want to reclaim their antiquities and would also result in a loss of revenue. Museums should repatriate ancient artifacts if requested by their country of origin because the artifacts have great cultural value, they were often taken illegally from their original locations, and failure to do this encourages future

Of the many crimes that are present in this day and age, one that not only vandalizes the property, but as well as historical background is that of art theft. A crime that has taken away the sanctity of churches as well as many other religious and historical sites. Thefts have ranged from WWII (World War II) to the times of the Holocaust. Of the items that were taken from the churches, relics were items of great priority. These items not only had great value to the churches they were stolen from, but a great value to relic collectors. Most of the items taking during these times were either sold or placed in underground storage. Most of these items that were place in these secret places were never to be seen again. From the

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.