repatriation of historical artifacts to countries of origin

Need Help Writing an Essay?

Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your paper.

Write My Essay For Me

Who’s Right? Repatriation of Cultural Property

Summary of the Two Arguments

The article presents arguments from two experts on artifacts, one supports the repatriation of artifacts to their country and place of origin, while the other is of the opinion that artifacts should remain in the museums where they are because art is universal. Malcolm Bell supports repatriation for several reasons. He argues that there are moral and legal basis for returning artifacts to the country of origin. He further asserts that returning an artifact brings about a sense of wholeness to the people and culture of its origin. He concludes that returning artifacts with clamor is to submit to justice. Alternatively, Cluno offers that repatriation is not of essence in the current context of art. He argues that art is universal and preserving artifacts from different parts of the world boots knowledge by eliminating ignorance about the world. He argues that the world is now indeed a global village, and a large city could be home to people from virtually every corner of the world. It would be an injustice to such people if an important artifact within its museums were to be repatriated to a remote corner of the world, just because that is where it originally came from. These two arguments are portent as they handle a sensitive topic, and calls for understanding of where art and artifacts stand in the modern world. Both present very convincing views, with arguments evoking some soul searching.

Repatriation of the Rosetta Stone

The staple question for the personnel at the British Museum is if the place was burning to the ground what would be the first thing they save? This question poses multiple problems for the museum personnel since the British Museum houses several magnificent treasures in its collection. However, if one pressures them the obvious answer would be the Rosetta Stone. The Rosetta Stone is a magnificent item which was acquired by the British as part of a peace agreement with the Napoleon expedition in Egypt. It is correspondingly conventional that a renowned academic comes to London all the way from Cairo Egypt on a mission to regain what he perceives to be justly Egyptian. The eminent academic (Dr. ZahiHawass) contends that the Rosetta Stone is an icon of Egyptian history, its identity, and has its place in the country of its conception.When one deals with artifacts attained in the imperial past, there are certain complications, and demands for repatriation that will arise. An exemplary example of the aforementioned scenario is the controversy witnessed with the Elgin Marbles. In the case of the Rosetta Stone, the law did no favor Dr. Hawass’ claim (Fluehr-Lobban,  142). In this case, the law asserted that the Rosetta Stone was properly acquired and its derivation within Britain’s national collections is past any form of differences.

The issue of repatriation of this artifact is not only based on the trifles of possession. Through the scholarship of the British Museum, the understanding of the Rosetta Stone has been significant to the general public. Since the museum’s entire collection is an issue of study and comprehensivescrutiny, one has a source for inquiry that is superior than the sum of its facets, home to a procedure of scholarship, debate and peer review which aids in breathing life into these inert things (Potts, 11). It is presumed that Egypt had consented to the legitimacy of British proprietorship of the artifact; but at a summit of the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin, Dr. Hawassrequested for the repatriation of principal artifacts from around the globe including the Rosetta Stone. In 2007 Dr. Hawass made auxiliary representation to the British Museum for its repatriation, be it provisional or permanent, for the scheduled opening of the novel Grand Museum in Gizeh, Egypt, in 2012 (Connolly, 126).

Pros of repatriation of historical artifacts to countries of origin

One can only get to appreciate historical artifacts in their places of origin. For example, the Elgin Marbles which is currently accommodated in the British Museum. Initially the Elgin Marbles was a facet of the Parthenon in Athens Greece, and it is only on viewing this place that the tourist can actually appreciate the envisioned impression of the monuments. When a visitor views them in the museum, they simply appear to be detached fragments, exposed of their significance by the loss of their physical and historical perspective. Furthermore many individuals from the artifacts place of origin do not get to view them since most of them cannot travel to foreign museums such as the British Museum. The historical artifacts like the Rosetta Stone represent their country of origin cultural history and national identity thus proving to be vital that the local community is awarded the chance to view them (Silverman, 51).

The final advantage of repatriating historical artifacts to their region of origin is that it acts as a potential source of cultural and historical tourism. The aforementioned activity would be a source of income for that country. Due to the mere fact that foreign museums in wealthy nations house these artifacts, the nations which are the places of origin of these artifacts are being deprived of the economic opportunity presented by cultural and historical tourism.

Cons of repatriation of historical artifacts to countries of origin

In spite of the presence of contemporary transport links and technology, moving historical artifacts from a foreign museum back to its place of origin proves to be a delicate and hard task.    The potential peril of damage being occasioned to the artifacts is inevitable, not to mention the likelihood of larceny while being transported.Additionally, the places of origin of the artifacts may lack the required resources or space suitable for the housing of the artifacts. When one evaluates all the environmental and financial impacts of moving these artifacts, it is evident that moving them around the globe is not a practical notion. Moreover, artifactspossess a symbolic and historic connotation that surpasses their origins; over the decades the artifacts obtain a correlation with the place they are held, museums.

Countries of origin should not be permitted to exercise monopoly over their own historical artifacts; the artifacts are part of the world’s mutual history and should be exposed to any individual who is engrossedwith what they depict. Due to the aforementioned fact the artifacts ought to be unveiled in places which get a high number of tourists and are bestreachable to individuals of all nationalities.Loftierorganizations are the most appropriate housing for these historical artifacts, principally since some United Kingdom museums are buttressed by peripheralbacking thus does not have to charge fees to view the exhibitions.

Works Cited

Connolly, Peggy. Ethics in Action: A Case-Based Approach. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell,       2009.

Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn. Ethics and the Profession of Anthropology: Dialogue for Ethically         Conscious             Practice. Walnut Creek [u.a.: AltaMira Press, 2002.

Potts, Daniel T. A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Chichester, West      Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.

Silverman, Helaine. Contested Cultural Heritage: Religion, Nationalism, Erasure, and Exclusion   in a Global World. New York: Springer, 2011.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH GRADE VALLEY TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT

The post repatriation of historical artifacts to countries of origin appeared first on Majestic Grades.