If you use a dishwasher do not use detergent. They should send a dozen to Greece and keep the Elgin marbles. As the treasure of mankind, artifacts should be protected and who can deny that western museums are the best place to keep them? The artifacts that are on Native land should stay on Native land. There has been a great deal of controversy surrounding the demands for the return of certain artefacts, most prominently the Elgin Marbles, to their country of origin. Therefore they ought to be exhibited in places which receive the most visitors and are most accessible to people of all nationalities. If they are in a museum of course anyone could, but if they are far from their origin then the present culture of the area would not be able to experience the transformation of their culture through those relics.
Christie, Manson and Woods, Ltd. But a good editor would probably discourage this use. Iraqi Jewish artifacts, Iraq Via: The scholar Harold Rhode found thousands of moldy artifacts of Iraq's ancient and mostly dispersed Jewish population in the flooded basement of Saddam Hussein's service headquarters in Baghdad with the U. This includes churches, holy vessels, vestments, books, etc. Theft is theft - their return ought to be offered along with a full apology and compensation for the blatant vandalism inflicted. Stolen artefacts have no connection with the country that stole them.
Those artifacts belong to their culture and their way of life. Ali, Toronto, Canada Countries that insist on holding on to looted treasure are only attempting to preserve and justify their past dominance. Hopi and Pueblo creation myths are based on them originating in North America rather than migrating from Asia, so they naturally claim that the Anaasází were their ancestors. The risk of damage to artefacts would be unavoidable, not to mention the possibility of theft or sabotage en route. Well, not quite, not at all, actually, because in that case the painting would have actual legal owners. Think of the Jacksonian era.
The Italians stole the obelisk; Lord Elgin bought the marbles from the Turkish governor of Athens and by doing so almost certainly saved them from destruction. I think it should stay in the museum because if it was still in the tomb, the artifacts could of gotten ruined. What happens to the artifacts is then up to the tribe. The artifacts that are less important should be shown in the museums for everyone else to see. Over 50,000 historical artifacts that have been seized over the last three years, have been kept in the sealed storages at the museum. The people of Egypt had strict beliefs about their final resting places and they held a lot of religious meaning to them. The suggestion that such artefacts have been well looked after, particularly where the country of origin became unstable, might have held water for a short time, but that stance is no longer tenable.
Jason, London It is about time the ancient obelisk returned to its home in Axum. Unless the collection is very obviously valuable to the museum, you may want to consider displaying … it at a gallery first. The boost in tourism would result in much needed economic benefits for the country and, eventually, part of this income could be used for the better preservation of their artifacts. It was the right thing to do, though they could have paid Egypt for the artifacts and the right to do what ever they want with them as long as they are safe and being taken care of. We are pursuing our artifacts abroad. Having preserved them long enough for other nations to 'catch up' these countries must now give the artefacts back to their original owners.
Besides, even if the other countries could guarantee their safety, many manuscripts are too delicate to be moved. Or are they better looked after where more people can see them? I also think that the British museum can recall it when it wants to have it showcased in their museum, perhaps a few months out of the year. That is where they belong and that is where they should be looked at. If the archaeologists have permission to dig, the artifacts are theirs. Read a selection of your comments below. Can the original country preserve the artefact as efficiently? You can only truly appreciate a historical artefact in its historical context i.
Elena Doganis, Athens Any property taken away without the consent of the owner: such an action amounts to theft. There they would be able to appreciate them fully in their correct context and enjoy a genuine cultural exchange with the place that created them. Returning artifacts has its pros and cons because no one knows what woukd happen to them if they were moved; however, we have to think about how people would see and know more about their history if their artifacts were returned. There are sponges available that are specifically designed for cleaning the inside of wine glasses. However politics and religious convictions are two different matters, and in Muslim civilisation there was looting and robbing, they looted the Vatican a number of times under Islamic banners. The countries of origin may not be clamouring for the return of every single one of their stolen artefacts, simply because the numbers of them are so great that they do not have the time or resources.
This international body has therefore stated that the appropriation of artefacts before this date is legal and permissible. I believe that some of the artifacts should stay in museums and some should be returned to Egypt. Well, I think I have an answer that most persons will find interesting. Evalyn Walsh McLean, of Washington D. The attitude that they are better looked after by the same people who broke them apart is colonial thinking at its worst. The Greenland Artifact is a so called unidentified object shown on google earth in the center of Greenland. But when I make this decision I also consider where they came from.
In 1962 it was exhibited for a month at the Louvre in Paris, France, as part of an exhibit entitled Ten Centuries of French Jewelry. It has many restrictions that dictate what the Native Americans can claim. John Powelson, Australia Ownership rights should have precedence over all other considerations, with one exception. If I claim that my house is the best place to conserve Britain's royal history, would you join me in taking arms to pillage the British Royal Palace and related institutions? Even though the artifacts may have been rightfully bought, Egypt is asking for them to be returned because of the belief that the artifacts belong back in the country they came from. Also, it shows that basically what we say doesn't matter to the electoral college. Unfortunately, the catalog does not reveal where or from whom Hope acquired the diamond or how much he paid for it.
Their value will be more appreciated since they will be back in their natural environment. Besides educating the ordinary people, museums also serve as research centers for historians, archeologists and other scholars. By putting them in a museum they will be able to teach other people in different countries about the past. Extracted from Keeping Their Marbles: how treasures ended up in museums — and why they should stay there, published by. We might as well start asking for reparations from the Danish because I'm sure the Vikings pinched lots of our national treasures. It sounds like a good idea in theory, but impossible to do. Often artefacts are either stolen or acquired from their rightful homes in 'dubious circumstances'.