Should cultural artifacts remain at their

Although the dividing line between the Lower and Middle stages is not so clearly defined as that separating the Middle and Upper subdivisions, this system is still used by most workers.

Should cultural artifacts remain at their

Morally it is the right thing to do Artefacts belong to their country of origin; repatriation is the right thing to do.

They have a unique connection with the place where they were produced and are an essential part of the cultural history of that area. That link should be honoured by returning the artefacts to the place where they were originally made and used.

Can the original country preserve the artefact as efficiently? Does it change ownership after a certain period? If these artefacts are made to return to their country of origin, what is to say that other countries may not demand the same thing.

They are generally better taken care of in Museums where they are, and if one artefact is given back, shouldn't they all? It is unrealiable and unrealist to do this.

These questions need to be addressed.

Recommended video

Artefacts are enriched by being viewed in their place of origin You can only truly appreciate a historical artefact in its historical context i. If we take as our example the Elgin Marbles, currently housed in the British Museum in London, this is clear.

The marbles originally formed part of the Parthenon on the Acropolis of Athens, and it is only on seeing this space that the visitor can really appreciate the intended impact of the sculptures. In the British Museum they appear as mere disconnected fragments, stripped of their meaning by the loss of their geographical and historical context.

The artefacts' place of origin has more often than not changed dramatically; for instance, it is absurd to think that a relic of Roman Britain would be somehow illuminated by being displayed in contemporary London, where almost all traces of Roman civilisation have been erased.

How would the Benin people or the rest of the world be able to appreciate them in their place of origin if they could not view them?

They are part of the area's history Many people from an artefact's country of origin never get to see them because they can't afford to travel to a foreign museum.

These artefacts are part of their cultural history and national identity and it is important that local people are given the opportunity to see them. Museums all over the world do loan out their collections. These artefacts have been illegally procured Often artefacts are either stolen or acquired from their rightful homes in 'dubious circumstances'.

Should cultural artifacts remain at their

Elgin, for instance, appropriated the Parthenon Marbles from the Ottoman authorities who had invaded Greece and were arguably not the rightful owners of the site; he took advantage of political turmoil in order to pillage these ancient statues.

The Axum obelisk was seized from Ethiopia by Mussolini as a trophy of war; fortunately the injustice of this action has since been recognised and the obelisk was restored to its rightful place in Unesco regulations only require the return of artefacts removed from their country of origin after This international body has therefore stated that the appropriation of artefacts before this date is legal and permissible.

Precious objects have been taken as the spoils of war since ancient times; many of these artefacts are probably built from materials or even using the labour acquired through war and conquest. Anyway, objects seized in war time are usually taken for their own protection, as the country of origin is not in a suitably stable position to care for them properly; this is the case for the Elgin Marbles.

These artefacts are the foundation of a potential tourist trade Cultural and historical tourism is an important source of income for many countries. If their artefacts have been appropriated by foreign museums in wealthy nations then they are being deprived of the economic opportunity to build a successful tourist trade.

The countries who have supposedly lost artefacts, such as Greece, often have plenty of other ameneties which are a great draw for tourists; warm weather, good beaches, attractive scenery etc.

Plus they retain the attraction of being the original locations of historical events or places of interest. The sanctuary's of Olympia and Delphi in Greece are a good example of this; they are not filled with artefacts, but continue to attract visitors because the sites are interesting in themselves.

Also, people who have seen an artefact in a foreign museum may then be drawn to visit the area it originated from. It is the tourist trade of the nations where these artefacts are held mostly northern European nations, like Britain and France which would suffer if they were repatriated.

Lacking the climate and natural amenities of other tourist destinations they rely on their cultural offerings in order to attract visitors.

The artefacts serve as reminders of past oppression The fact that many of their most important cultural artefacts remain in the hands of the old Western powers is a reminder to many developing nations of their past oppression.

For instance, the British Museum is refusing to return of the Benin Bronzes to Nigeria despite repeated requests by the Nigerian government. The Rosetta stone has been the subject of demands by the Egyptian government but remains in London. These artefacts become almost souvenirs of Imperialism, a petty way of retaining some kind of cultural ownership long after the political power of Britain has faded.

There is no reason to politicise this argument; museums have no 'political' agenda but merely wish to preserve historical objects. Their reasons for keeping these items may be financial, or in the interests of keeping the artefacts safe and accessible to the public; whatever they may be, they are not political.

Additionally, why would countries want to remember past oppression? Wouldn't they rather move on from the darker areas in their history and look at the more triumphant victories that they had?

We now have the resources to carry out such a move Returning artefacts to their original locations would in the past have been an unfeasible project simply because of the difficulty of transporting everything.After being taken down twice by Blogger within a single week, we got the message: It’s Time To Go.

Gates of Vienna has moved to a new address. Find helpful customer reviews and review ratings for Keeping Their Marbles: How the Treasures of the Past Ended Up in Museums - And Why They Should Stay There at Read honest and unbiased product reviews from our users.

35, plus pages on the cultures and countries of the world. Current and accurate country information. CountryReports - Your World Discovered!

Archives: Archives, a repository for preserving organized records that have been produced or received by a public, semipublic, institutional, or business entity.

Records of inscriptions from the ancient Eastern Mediterranean show that the Phoenicians were famous for their crafts and artistic work in metal, ivory, glass, terra cotta, wood and stone in addition to weaving and dyeing purple wool and fabrics.

For when a man knows not his own first principle, and when the conclusion and intermediate steps are also constructed out of he knows not what, how can he imagine that such a fabric of convention can ever become science?

— Plato In this section we present some of the most intriguing out-of-place artifacts.

Should cultural artifacts remain at their

Official [ ].

Should Cultural artifacts remain at their places of Origin? Essay Example | Graduateway