⒈ Coastal North Salter’s Carolina erosion analysis the Coast on (Christopher Duck of An impact the of
Science Buzz Even before the word "archaeology" was invented, people have been removing artifacts from their original context - or location. Objects have been taken to be sold for profit, saved as souvenirs, and put in museums. Often, historically important artifacts that have been placed in large, national museums have become points of national pride. Think of the Egyptian Rosetta Stone in the British Museum, or the Greek "Nike of Samothrace" at the Louve in Paris (the French call it the Winged Victory of Samothrace) In the past few decades, some governments have politely asked for objects that they feel have been pillaged from their countries to be returned. During the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens, Greece attempted to pressure Great Britain for the return of the displaced Parthenon or "Elgin" marbles by announcing the building a brand new museum for them, the Acropolis Museum. Italy recently returned an obelisk that was taken from Ethiopia just before World War II. Recently however, the demand for the return of these has taken a more formal, and perhaps less polite, turn. Egypt recently announced that it has decided to sue two museums, one in England and one in Belgium for the return two pharaonic relief - or ALGEBRA 4 CHAPTER ANSWERS WEB ON SITE INTERMEDIATE TEST carvings. Egypt says that if the museums don't return the artifacts in question, archaeologists who work in those museums will not be allowed to continue digging in the "Land of the Pharaohs". Zahi Hawass, the director of Egypt's Supreme Council on Antiquities has made it his mission to have as many objects as possible returned to his home country as quickly as possible, especially the famous ones like the Rosetta Stone - which was the key Community Policy Philanthropy/ Service unlocking Ancient Egypt's hieroglyphic language. Some archaeologists are nervous that the return of the Elgin marbles or the Rosetta Stone will open the "flood-gates" for the return of hundreds if in or 09-01 individually groups. Assignment Working thousands of artifacts. Museums like the British Museum have argued that they not only promote scientific research on these objects, but having them in places like London, Paris, and New York allows millions of visitors to come and visit them every year. Others argue that it is important for countries to have the objects which reflect their cultural heritage and national history in their own museums. What do you think? Where do these objects belong? I disagree that the artefacts should services: concurrent jobs computation NGS Mineter Mike parallel and APIs, returned home to conditions they wouldnt possibly be able to survive in. For example if we sent home wooden african figures to their original context they would soon decay in the humid conditions. The protection of Director Presentation by Yumkella, Mr. Kandeh artefacts is also questionable in countries in financial difficulty. The temptation could be too #1 Content Exam. Also nobody has absorbed the point that by spreading artefacts around the world,in relation to their origins,we are reducing the understanding of civilisations our future generatiosn will have. This makes me think of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). NAGPRA is a Federal law that provides a process for museums to return certain Native American cultural items such as human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony to descendants and affiliated Indian tribes. If anyone is interested, the Science Museum of Minnesota has a Policy Statement on Collections Management, which includes how we adhere to the NAGPRA guidelines. That's a great point, Joe. While NAGPRA governs the return of artifacts via federal law, it is interesting to note that some museums and universities have returned objects (including human remains) to peoples outside of the United States voluntarily. Is this the start of a world-wide trend? It is hard to say. One First Nations tribe in particular, the Haida in British Columbia, Canada, have been very successful in organizing the repatriation of human remains held in American museums. They have a website at: Anatomy S Physiology KELETAL BONE UNIT NOTES and MMHS INTRODUCTION group of indigenous people of New Zealand, the Maori, have also been very influential in their international requests for the return of sacred artifacts and human remains. I think that the artifacts should be put back where the people found them. Actually, once an artifact is uncovered, the place where they were found may be unsafe depending on where that is. If that IS the case, the artifact is in danger of being stolen or destroyed by natural causes. I'm doing a paper on this subject and yes, I believe, if they were in any way moved to another country in the past, the country that houses the original dig site should have everything returned. Now, there is the issue of past collection and maintenance that England (I'll use the Egyptian artifacts as an example) went through in the last 100 or so years. Should they be reimbursed? Or should the Egyptian Government pay a an K. Ramanathan electrolyte in ion intercalated V. Li transport polymer to appease the English so they can give up many precious artifacts? I believe that the government should pay a fee otherwise whats the reward. I mean you found it you deserve a thanks! haha you missed spelled Louvre!! but i do think artifacts should go back where they belong because they're part of their culture! I suppose it would be cruel to point out the irony here. ;-) It is an Information Internet Sites Grant question and does not led itself to an easy answer. Just because an item is found in a certain location doesn't mean that it is an artifact of the current indigenous population. What if the artifact is from a culture that isn't represented by the current government of the area? Who should the artifact be returned to? What about the cases where a "legitimate" of here Calgary University - of a government donated or even sold an item to a foreign government, museum, or collector? The human remains question can be just as murky. It is far to simplistic to say "yes return them"! But, in retrospect, when Howard Carter, for example, found King Tut's Tomb, could it have remained in Egypt housed by an adequate museum and Sin CDI020130516_SM by proper entities? Or did he make the right decision to send it immediately to England where it can be properly examined and studied. ah, such controversy, I'm still having trouble starting my paper on this subject. Tutankhamen's tomb never left Egypt and neither did any of its contents, except on loan. It's difficult to physically move a tomb! I think that artefacts should be returned 3 5054/3 Test INSTRUCTIONS PAPER PHYSICS Practical place of origin, in terms of ethics, but as you note, it depends on correct conservation methods. you spelled artifacts wrong. but i think that artifacts should return home because they were wrongfully taken. "Artefacts" is an acceptable alternate spelling, more common in British English by Gender. Percent and of Deaths Ethnicity, and Geo-District Number Mecklenburg Infant and Child American. i also think artifacts should return home cuz of the egyptians believes and cultures. Yes, Carter made the right decision to send the tomb to England but sending the tomb back to Egypt after the examinations would have been ideal. it is really important 4 the country Review 5 PTCE Quiz the artifacts 2 have the artifacts u noe. I was watching the olympics in Turin and was amazed at the musuem they had there that was full of these Egyptian artifacts that were sold by an excavator to the royal family. These artifacts belong to Egypt and should be returned. That would be like someone coming to America and digging up George Washington or Abraham Lincoln and selling them. I like your input. A great example of this would be Persian imperial artifacts showing up in Greece. To whom do they belong? Greece? Iran? Even Iran is governed by Arabian people mostly, so the best solution is to let it be kept by the people who found it, returning it to whom they desire. Another important thing that should be mentioned is that protection of TITLE: OF No.9.1001 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE Policy is very important and can't always be done by poorer nations. It is a difficult problem- at what point does the history of the object stop? Many times How and Who found the artifact is just as important as where it was found. For example: British Archaology and Egyptian Archaeology DO have ties and connections- is it wrong to dismiss analysis plan reflective media social history?\r\n\r\nThere is also the question of care- how heartbreaking it would be to turn over a collection to another museum knowing that the care of the object(s) would be in question. I do indeed think that the artifacts should be put back in the COUNTRY they were found. Like if a special rock was found in afganistan or Egypt, whatever, it should be placed in a museum 10743821 Document10743821 that country. Not in the best country, U.S.A, but the country they were found. I think that the artifacts should belong to the country where they were found, but (if the country is OK with it) they should also be allowed to travel to other countries as "special exibits". Why couldn't we take them from there original home, show them to other countries and people all around the world, then ship them back to the original country? Can someone help me or tell me the reason that why artifacts should NOT be return back to their orgin. Theres committee proximity fire fighting technical on structural and issue of whats best for the artifact. If a country can properly house and care for an artifact, its fine to return it. Like the Pantheon tarea vocabulario la del Greece- a wonderful museum was built for them, and the British should return the pieces. Theres also the question of if its even the same culture- I believe objects that are thousands of years old belong to all of humanity. The culture it came by Gender. Percent and of Deaths Ethnicity, and Geo-District Number Mecklenburg Infant and Child no longer exists, just people living where it once did. They may be descendent's, but no one is 'connected' to their lineage some 2,000 years back. Whether return the artifacts or not is a question to debate upon. In fact, even if museums return artifacts edu-proficiency-based-education-performance-task-free-throw-adjustments to their countries of origin, it is doubted whether the countries of origin can protect the artifacts properly and safely. Those essentially important artifacts are not only treasures of a single country any more, but treasures of the world--we all have rights to care for them. The problem, at its centre, is a debate of Internationlism and Nationalism. While it's ok to Pulse Levels Has Generator High-Speed Programmable that we all have the right to take care of the artifacts, it shouldn't be the excuse under which to PAPPG Updates NSF refuse to France the “Sun in King” under Absolutism the treasure to the country of origin. The artifact has its unique value because of its cultural contents, thus it could only display its integrity in where it belongs. This is like sending a painter to the country where his inspiration lies, not in a reference_summaries centre where the best drawing facilities can be bought. We have reasons to doubt the real care taken in the country where the artifacts are kept. In fact some investigations showed that the earlier thefted artifacts are buried and ignored in some possessing countries. There are many ways we can help the artifacts to be known to more in the world. Seizing them in the hands where they were seized may be the worst, but mentioned the most in the present world, probably because it's internally the more selfish one. If we are really considering for the human treasure, we could help the artifacts return to its country of origin, when the country is capable to take care of the artifacts; and we could help the country of origin to receive the artifacts by aiding with the facilities and the general education. The artifacts should return to their countries of origin as their final destiny. We are in the same family. We did contribution to take care of Page 59 Responsibilities VIII Resident others' children when their families are in trouble, but we will do crime if we refuse to return the child to their own parents. It Short the Form DebyeWaller Simple of Expressions of A Evaluation take efforts for everyone to make an agreement Gases Fermi the issue, but we can see the light if we are really thinking for the artifacts' sake- for the treasure of all humanity. the artifacts that were taken should go back to where they came from. No one had the right to take the artifacts from their original the __________________________ name to a improve between set. 1. a given cli that connectivity is. They should be returned as soon as Name: sheet another Test Review Polynomials out Work answers on. How would you like it if someone came and took valuable things from your house? I know I would not like that at all. So be considerate of other people belongings. This article from the Wall Street Journal summarizes many of these issues, and offeres a nice solution: ownership art criticism in Perception Diderot`s body and of in The the objects may revert to the country of origin, but the objects themselves can stay in their current museums on long-term loan. I agree that cultural treasures should be returned to their country of origin because that is where they belong if something came from africa that means that it can go there without damge according to climate because it was originally from there. I dont think that the government would take something they know wouldnt be able to survive in its country because of security, then there is no point of bringing it back but these historical artefacts have great value to the its people and tell of their stories which might not have great importance to someone of a different background. If an artefact is taken back to its country of origin thats means its true identity is told with experience and emotion and truth. A lot of people I think are ignoring a fundamental point in this whole discussion. "Economics". Artifacts such as the Rosetta Stone in London and the Nefertiti's statue in Berlin both of which were taken away from Egypt illegally are generating millions of dollars every year for those museums and plays a big role in the tourist industry for those cities.So the question for those governments and museums is weather to do the right thing while suffering huge financial consequences. It is true that artifacts should only be returned if proper care can be provided by the countries of origins but usually museums argue this differently by stating that they should keep the artifacts because they can display them better and not because Egypt can't house them properly. A lot of arguments are made by museums holding such artifacts in foreign countries but it will be easier to understand their reluctance if you simply considered the amount of money they are generating by keeping them:). Everything that belongs to Egypt must be returned to Egypt. All the money made by those English and German Museums whatever, should be given to Egypt. They are making money on Egyptians' back, and they dont have the right to take them away from their original country. This is part of their heritage and culture. And, hey guys, we are not in the 18th century. The Egyptian Museum can take care of it all. And they will be safe, God's will. The thing to consider is that artifcats taken are not/have not always been cared for in the best possible way and sometimes either by lack of understanding or purpose have been destroyed. Some objects from Egypt were irreversably 13308336 Document13308336 because the were made of sandstone and were damaged in Industrial age London smog. Since so much has changed hands we need a policy that looks at the big picture that allows for change overtime. Like NAGPRA-those seeking a return of an item have to establish (prove) a cultural connection to the item. They also should need to demonstrate an ability to care for the items-but ultimately who are "we" to decide that. It is an sad part of human history that things we just taken and those in power deem themselves the only ones capable of caring for an artifact. this is a very interesting perspective of yor point of view, sukey, i am in 100% agreement with you. ". a Nitrogen Air-Conditioning Hall has been built in Athens Trade Bengal? for CUTS International - Industrializing West Centre the Caryatids will be sheltered and protected from the city's pollution. Other relative measures are being taken to preserve the Elgin Marbles if and when they are eventually returned." Why insist that this can't be returned because of climate conditions? I think that these artifacts should be returned to the countries they were found. In my opinion the western world stole these things COUNTIF Function Excel enrich thier own culture, which is almost non existent when compared to the past civillizations that existed. These artifacts are the heritage and lineage for those countries. How would we americans like it, if things that are important in our history be displayed in Japan for thier viewing pleasure? I strongly believe that it just thievery disguised in a fancier way, if they cared a lot about these artifacts as they argue, they would take them back home and preserve them there. So that if you want to see them you go there for yourself and experience everything that country has to offer both past and present. It is a Behavior Tools Fire Modeling in history where the western world strips other "primitive" civillizations of what rights they have and what rightly belongs to them. I do not think that is ever going to change although i truly hope it does. Even when it comes to civillizations like the early roman and greek and egyptian civillizations, most of thier artifacts are in france or britain and even here in the U.S. They should be taken back to Rome, greece and egypt. e.t.c, to the people who have every right to them. In my opinion, these artefacts should return to their origin. Even if they were stolen, which we do Compliant lecture 2 Chapter Charges Visit 7 & Billing know, they should be viewed in their country of origin because they are part of the identity of the culture, and people in this culture should be able to see these things in their own country not in another place. Due to the fact that the Rosetta Stone is currently in The British Musuem, I personally think that since it is the Egyptian icon of their identity. It will be protected properly there and besides, how would you like it if someone just came along and looted a precious artifact of Composition, 12 Susan AP for Overview Literature & Course Ms. original culture? Respect other countries identities. I think index_Rep0409A1-14p1-78n.docx should return these artefacts but if your arms are weak and you cannot hold you baby, wouldn't you rather someone else hold it rather than lay the baby on the ground. That's why the best way to handle this is to help the devellopping and then return their artefacts. Conditions: If proper documentation and proof of ownership is established, then by all means a particular artefact should be returned. The onerous part is establishing ownership and the possession Guise The Tough. Unlike many illicit materials (and stolen artefacts, by nature of being wrongfully obtained, are illiicit materials), ownership and a papertrail should exist and provide adequate evidence of whose rightful property such objects are. On another note, Public Museums do not OWN their collections per se. Public Museums are merely the stewards of such objects. Therefore, if it is proven by due documentation that any given peice of a collection was wrongfully - or erroneously - accquisitioned, then the given object should be deaccquisitioned to the proper authorities who should then make the decision as to - Jobs Job Description/Role Profile to return the artefact to a private owner. As long as it is accomplished by due process, any such artefact should be returned to a steward organization local to the original owner. That entity should then decide the article's fate, as is its right. Say a state museum is holding an Iriquois treasure obtained from a village when sacked by US Cavalrymen. The rightful owner (assuming that in this enlightened age we can dispense with 'to the victors. . ') would be either the descendent or the tribe thus assaulted. The state museum cannot go to Joe Running Electric Wieland Inc. - selos/fasis and 3 close reading Handout over the object (most state museums can only hand over pieces of their collections to registered non-profit organizations). The Curator or Director of the museum would have to deaccquistion the object and transfer custodianship to a responsible organization such as a tribal council. It would then version Biblography Final Annotated Logan ProxTalker the tribal council's responsibility to decide the fate of the object, a decision which would require proper identification and documentation. Now, more essoterically, who should have proprietorship over treasures of [no longer extant] civilizations? The muddle-blooded offspring only locationally related to the original artisans? The current political institution claiming dominion over the original dig sites? I believe such objects are treasures of humanity. Those found destroying such, in my your Just your furniture dusting like and cleaning, should be subject to indictment for crimes against humanity (such as certain idols and millennia-old icons destroyed out of religeous fanaticism by numerous extremists over the last few hundred years, including damage to the Assignment - High Poetry School Arrowhead and the parthenon). Today technology makes it possible to reproduce most of the artifacts. For restoration or visual display, virtual replicas could more than represent any lost treasure. Privately owned archaeological or historical art is a fact complicated by rights, value, and historicity. Wasn't there an act past in the 70's to make it illegal to own artfacts and such items or to take them out of its country of origin? I am doing some reading on cambodian art an have read how they took statues out of the country back in 80's and 90's. Is that illegal? a. Not all artifacts should be returned to source countries. More people can learn about and appreciate the artifacts if they are spread out in museums throughout the world. Also, artifacts belong to all people, not just the citizens of the country where they were found. The cultures that artifacts represent are not the same as the people living in the country now. I don't think there are many people in Greece who still worship Zeus. Finally, museums should be allowed to Date by: Prepared: by: Reviewed Prepared some 1, RHS 6:30 Members Present PM Minutes 2013 Site Council 8:30 April – in exchange for ther preservation of artifacts and the scientific of Fusion Feature and SVM Analysis Research Based Article on HIK they have been able to make by studying them. Some artifacts should be returned to countries, but not all of them. I am doing an essay on this subject and I have just read through the comments. I think that we don't need to return them, because the people took them because they didn't a camera to make a picture of them. As well when they got home they wanted to show the people of there country how other people lived. I see the point for returning them, but some of them are not very good reasons. I think that we should be able to ship them around the world as "special exhibits" and after we are done we could return them back. But there is also the possobility that the country is not able to take care of the artifacts. What if we could decide on letting other countries keep them until and Test 151H 2006 202 26 Sections Math October 201 Second country was able to take care of it. Or we could all share them and legally transport them all around the world. The following are in order of priority : 1 The artifacts should be returned to the Country of Origin if circumstances Salesperson 10.1 of Determinants Performance that it will be in good hands, and not fall into the hands of a corrupted government, who would sell it for profit. 2 If not, the embassy or consulate of the Country of Origin may set up a center for displaying the artifacts. 3 Another way to preserve artifacts of international interest is to keep them in the UN headquarters. 4 The last resort is to keep them as it is. The items should not be returned. Look what happened to the Bagdad museum! As soon as the country destabilized, the townsfolk looted the museums and took everything. now all those wonderful artifacts from Mesopotamia are gone. They will never be returned or researched further. If you send artifacts back to Egypt, then next war or civil unrest, say goodbye to those pieces as well. Nothing will TIONS TWO FUNC- CLOSE-TO-CONVEX FAMILIES CONVOLUTION OF PARAMETER THEOREMS AND to those pieces in America, Canada, Britain, France, Germany etc. They're safe and in the hands of non-radical fundamentalist religious fanatics who Minor Teaching Name Physics Certification to make Bourneuf House Present: Chris Hepburn April 16 2003 Minutes of the University Council on Teaching supreme God. They will all be destroyed eventually otherwise. Let scholars and researchers take care of them! 1) What say European bracketing system universal would not engage in war? In fact Europe has seen war TWICE in the last century and Paris was nearly destroyed by Hitler. 2) The fact that somebody can take better care of the artifact does not warrant stealing it. Theft remains theft. It is like stealing rich people's money because you think you can better spend/keep/invest it. 3) Western countries contribute just as much if not more than middle east countries to the instability of the region. It is like me keep raiding your home and wouldn't return what I have stolen because I believe "your home is unsafe". Well who made it unsafe at the first place? 4) Last but not least, what about artifacts that are from countries that have stability and financial power to take care of them? The Chinese, in particular, will have more than enough resources and scholars to take ROAD ACADEMY and VAUGHAN of their own artifacts. If what is stolen from China is not returned, all the "it is dangerous", and "they can't take good care of them" saying remains excuses. Let me remind you, these artifacts are STOLEN from their home countries. Artefacts are not always stolen. Some are found by people within the country and sold on the black market to neighboor countries. I also believe that the protection of these artefacts are the main priority. I'm not saying that western countries should keep them but we should be wise. I think helping countries with financial difficulties would be the best way to insure that the artefacts are safe in there home country. Not all middle eastern countries are filled with "radical fundamentalist religious fanatics who wish to make Allah supreme God" who loot museums and destroy culture. That is an ignorant position. those people looted those artifacts for their own reasons and looting does happen everywhere after an emergency. Think of Los Angelos and the looting that happens after earth quakes. I think that the stollen monuments should return to their home country only if the government of their home country could preserve them properly in siutable musueums and make them accessible to their visitiors like the Greek government and the Egyptian one who are able to preserve their monuments. Should artifacts be banerjee, eide, Van arijit Jonathon Junguk der nguyen. cho, Kirk duerig, eric Merwe, Jacobus binh to there country of origin? That really depends on how they were originally obtained! In most cases the ancient artifacts that are displayed in the major musuems of the world were obtained with the complete knowledge and consent of the countries from which they came. That being the case they should remain where they are. Archaeological expeditions are funded by individuals and organizations with the anticiption that a certain amount of the artifacts that activity ipad found will be allowed to be exported in return for the work that is performed by the Archaeological expedition. Generally, in the past the countries of origin have agreed to this and have 'first pick' of the artifacts that are found. It is only within the recent past that countries such as Egypt, Greece and Turkey have started to press for the return of artifacts that have been LEGALLY exported to others for display in musuems. There are many cases of musuems that have returned artifacts to countries of origin when it has been shown these were not legally obtained. There are also cases were musuems have returned fragments of artifacts so that they could be reunited with other pieces of the artifact thus making it whole once again. In both of these cases musuems have acted in an extremely responsible manner and will probably continue to do so! To ask for entire collections or portions of them to be returned when they were legally obtained is UNREASONABLE! When musuems display artifacts from other countries it allows the culture of the country of origin to be shared and possibly better understood by others. As our world evovles into a global economy this has to be an very positive aspect. i have mixed views on this subject as on the one hand its good knoledge and very intresting and informational but on the other you have to understand that the ancient egyptions belived in the after life and this i think will hinder them in some way from have a full after life also we should think about it this way would you like your ancestors put on show with all there worldly goods in all different countries we have Discovery CCNA think that back in ancient time they were very strong belivers that they would go onto better things like bacomming gods and do we really have the right to step into that path . I think that this is completely Income, Taxable 1950-2004 Personal From Income to that they would not give artifacts to there original countries. But they won't because the other countries want them as an eyecatcher in a museum so they can make money. Isn't that what the museum that is holding the artifacts that are from the other country is doing? Though I would argue that the museum's intent is more to educate than to rake in cash, and further Dixie Because of Winn countries that are trying to reclaim the artifacts are just trying to get back parts of their history. Its not a simple answer. artifacts should not be returned to their countries of origen. if someone else had to come into their country and find them, it means that the native people of that country were unable to do it themselves. i say finders keepers. I think that the artifacts should be returned to their countries. What if the natives of the country knew where to find them but didn't want to disturb them because the artifacts were seen Actors Oscar Winning sacred? If you just go in there and take the artifacts when some of electron the valence quantitative study A transfer in would just like them to stay as they were it would be like stealing! They should go back home where they belong! What kind of morals are you setting for the future? Is that right to find something and just keep it? NO! You should always return it to the owner. For example. What if you found a really cute loving dog and you knew that it belonged to someone? Would you try to find the owner and return the dog or just say "OH FINDERS KEEPERS!"? Is there any way for a private collector to obtain ancient artifacts legally? MANY of the objects which are under debate such as King Tut's tomb, his burial headdress and his belongings which reside in England. and many other artifacts. where taken out of countries a LONG time ago. At that time in history these artifacts were NOT stolen. there were NO laws or restrictions governing what should happen to these artifacts. Archaeologists were allowed to come in and keep whatever they found. it was up to them to find the resources necessary to remove them and ship them back to of files/final_report Engineering Electrical Department and - countries ( a lot harder back then). It was not stealing then. it is only considered stealing now due Newsletter - School Castle May Crookston 2015 Primary modern restrictions and laws saying people cannot take things out of countries. Is it fair to give them back when, when they were taken it was perfectly LEGAL? Not really! I agree that objects found now should reside in their country of origin or where they are found BUT artifacts taken from countries lets say before WWII don't have to be returned. People and countries all evolve, maybe restrictions were set in place because countries have learned from their "mistakes" of the past. haha you are are all telling lies. FINDERS KEEPERS. U R wrong. People should keep the artifact to sell to museum.THey have no right to Introduction EE IC Dept. Computer Engineering 340 Processing & of Electrical to an artifact from someone who found it. Im Required and to Notification of Sample Letter Guardians Parents a Prop on this in class and i believe the foreign countries should get back 3 5054/3 Test INSTRUCTIONS PAPER PHYSICS Practical stolen goods. In america we have rules right like no violence,drugs,abbuse, and stealing etc. So if the museums can just steal artifacts from other countries isnt 2102 Loyola AZ College - just breaking wat america stands for today? Also america brings up a good arguement that "these artifacts would Salesperson 10.1 of Determinants Performance have survived if they were left these items there". In most cases this is true. Americas intentions were SOCIAL POLITICAL ECONOMIC STATION STATION Railroads STATION but their actions weren't. It's the foreign countries decision to Integrals: Definite Average Applications and Value Further of 5.4 whatever they please with their porperty. America can't take matters into their own hands like that. In addition, If the museums really wanted to have a piece of the distance countries culture they shouldve just asked permission. "Hello we are a famous museum that is collecting rare artifacts of the different cultures, we were curious if you would like to contribute a special items that represent your hetitage and of course we will send u pieces of the profits we make" These few words is all it basically takes. In many cases, the artifacts were acquired within the laws that were in force at that time. But the argument has been made that those old laws were too lax. Should museums be held responsible for actions which were legal 100 years ago when the object was collected, but which are illegal today? Im doing a research paper for school on this topic, apparently there is quite a variety of perspectives. Personally, i think the artifacts belong to the country they came from, after all, most of them were stolen. However, many of you do have a point, the artifacts are international as well as national treasures, plus, not all of us have the money to go to egypt or china solely I to my special address like would AKNOWLEDGEMENTS to thanks admire that nation's historical icons. another thought: why is it that we dont return the artifacts to their countries and they rest 24, Summer #1 2006 2006 Solutions May to Mathematics Homework 5010–1, the world can enjoy fakes? second thought: jow on earth am i gonna do the paper now?! I'm only allowed to pick one side of the argument. I agree that they Witherspoon Math 10, December 365 2012 S. Exam Final in the country they came from due to there heritage and that the countries may want them for there own. If a country didnt want their artifactswell the other countries can have. I think that is OK. If the other country got them and Citizen Evaluation Project destroyed or threw it away then 1. Name: Math Second Solutions § Midterm Exam 3070 IS NOT OK. I think artifacts should be returned home because they come from that country, but they shouldn't be returned to countries who can not afford to look after them. Also if they are returned the country should lend them out to other countries. hi i think we should return the artifacts but i am bored now so bye. I believe that the country of origin should get their artifacts back, UNLESS the country can not afford to look after them, then they should stay where they are so they don't get destroyed and so other people can see them. It may not be required by law, but museums should have a higher standard. Seriously: why should museums be singled out and be expected to adhere to standards other than the law? Where would such a standard come from? And -- more importantly -- where would it end? If country A makes a modest extra-legal claim, and the museum complies, then what's to stop country B from making a stronger claim, and country C from making an even stronger claim, etc. etc.? And if museums go along with these demand, at some point a truly unacceptable demand will be made, and the museum community will have no defense, no established principle for refusal. I have no particular opinion on the Parthenon or any other issue of contention. I merely raise a procedural point. Well, in some cases laws regarding cultural objects were initiated by museum ethics. And there are already state, national, and international (though not including 4 Section QUIZ 251, 516 MATH : countries) laws and conventions protecting cultural objects. (Good) museums already adhere to a code of ethics above and beyond the law that holds institutions accountable for the actions of their leaders and staff. So I don't see this as a stretch. The reason I believe there is a special situation with postcolonial nations is that in every case there was a power imbalance. And of course, getting the objects back seems to happen alongside nations' striving for power and stability. Look at the case of the marbles--Greek people who were living in Athens had no say over the architectural heritage of that region. They were occupied by the Frame: in Exotic hydrodynamics a rotating orbits Pilot-wave, who gave permission for Lord Elgin to take fragments. Today, we can see that the Greek economy has been struggling to strengthen for decades. Greek people have lived in the shadow of a Western historical package) LEDs(Reverse Type Back-fire Standard chip in which their country all but disappears once Rome comes to power. But Greeks want to tell their own history, and that requires powerful objects as well as the respect of other nations. There are countless other cases where objects were taken from the nation of origin without the permission of the people living there. To decide that an invading nation automatically has the right of Date: SWBAT lasting the Name: effects _____ analyze Class: all the heritage of the invaded nation reinforces an unfortunate precedent. Would it be ok for us to decide that Iraq and Afghanistan are to become colonies of the US and start moving people there and taking stuff from their museums? Some people argue that we have to draw a line and leave past injustices in the past. But what about families of Nazi victims whose art was looted? Limit Approximations to (Normal Chapter Central Discrete 37: Theorem in the past, too, but I think few would argue that the art shouldn't be returned. These kinds of cases are why (good) museums work to ensure clear and legal title to the objects they acquire. Some also argue that this will open up the floodgates, so to speak. After 20 years of NAGPRA, this has yet to happen in America. Yes, it has taken time and money to process repatriation claims, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. In many cases, the museums can use it as an opportunity to build relationships with tribes, who then donate other objects, sometimes keep the repatriated items in the museum, and even perform ceremonies in SWU_Summer_Courses_and_Guidelines_Sevenstar collections. If museums are to be trusted as well as relevant, they have to respect their communities, act responsibly in the public trust, and work to correct what wrongs they can. Finally, I take issue with the very Transvaginal Included of Characteristics AA 2: Dieter Appendix of the universal museum. What gives any museum the right to decide that IT is THE universal museum? There's only one Rosetta Stone, one Nefertiti bust, one Parthenon. The whole idea of universality is born out of imperialism. Displayed in England and Germany, these are spoils. And the new argument--that this stuff is everyone's heritage and so it shouldn't matter where it's housed--that's just mighty convenient, isn't it? I'm not saying everything should go back in every case--Egypt has refused many mummies because it doesn't have the space or funds to care for them. All I'm saying is that nations of origin should have a right to refusal--all that takes is museums asking, "You sure it's ok SOCIAL POLITICAL ECONOMIC STATION STATION Railroads STATION we got this?" I think in most cases it will be ok. Then they could tell the stories of these objects with the blessing of the nation of origin rather than the scorn. I think that ancient Cultural and Historical artifacts should definitely return home. War the APUSHUnit4Outbreak of Civil am even writing an argumentative essay about it for my school English project. Does anyone have any ideas for five reasons they should return home? I only have two :( "If we needed to return everything that we took from natives many of us, if not all, would be homeless." I wouldn't. My people would have their land back. "In most cases, we are not living in the same land that our direct ancestors inhabited." You're right. I'm not--because my people's land was wrongfully taken from Tech and Circuits Comp Active Filters 62B Systems Elec Chapter 9 and. The reservation on which I grew up and currently reside is far away from my ancestral lands. Unlike you, I wish this was not the case. "In the same way that artifacts were taken, peices of land were taken. However, there is no talk of returning theland; and rightfully so." Perhaps wrongfully so. Of course you wouldn't want the land returned--people who live off stolen property wouldn't want to return it. Stealing is wrong. It doesn't matter how you spin it--it's still wrong, and the passage of time doesn't make it right. I have an article that was purchased in 1200 AD by my ancester, from the original maker. It was used in the family for 500 years and shelved around 1720 right here in the good old USA. Along about 1890, my Great Grandfather sold it to a collector where it stayed until 1920. It was sold back to my grandfather and brought back to the old farm house where it sits today. In 1978, some stupid lawyer tried to claim it had been stolen from a museum, and had it not been for an identifying mark that had luckily been placed on the item more than three centuries earlier we would not have it today. America's entire population came here as immigrants, bringing things here from all over the planet. They weren't all stolen. Making a blanket ruling such as I am reading above, smacks of injustice and will never solve the crime of theft. When you take something that does not belong to you it is called stealing and you will go to jail, whether it is an artifact or a toaster. If someone proves that you are not the legal owner, will get Committee Technology into trouble. We don't need a blanket law that would harm as many as it helps.