Why Do Museums Should Not Send Back Artifacts
It Belongs In A Museum
Is it worth losing millennia of history just to satisfy a few million for a few years? Museums are responsible for holding many of history’s important artifacts, and are one of the more substantial sources to learn about the past. However, recently, numerous museums have come under fire for not returning artifacts to countries that have a claim on them. Despite demands from multiple countries, museums should not send back artifacts due to it being irresponsible, and unsafe. Some nations which call for artifacts from museums can not guarantee the safety of these historical articles, and run the risk of losing them or having them be destroyed. Various relics have undiscovered origins and countries strife over the ownership …show more content…
A famous example about conflict over ownership is the Kennewick Man. This is the name given to remains found in Washington. It is heavily debated due to its mysterious discovery. First nation groups believe that the remains used to belong to members of their tribe, nevertheless, the scientific community believe that the Kennewick man is older than the existence of these tribes. An article says “The political battles over the Kennewick man were framed in a large part by people who want to know to what ‘race’ he belongs.” Various races can stake a claim to what race this man was. The natives would like to bury him, and other would like to conduct tests. (saying he is not Native American, therefore can be used for testing) The same scenario can arise when returning an artifact to a place where multiple countries have a stake over it. In a museum, the artifact is safe for public view, and can be lent to other countries over time. Another example of artifact conflict is the Khao Phra Viharn temple. A news report from 2013 stated:
“Thailand’s Khao Phra Viharn National Park has closed its Mor E-Dang cliff, a tourist vantage point overlooking Cambodia’s the temple of Phra Viharn, on 4 November, 2013 as a precautionary step to ensure peace and order along the …show more content…
As stated in Dean‘s lecture above, “The museum as an institution tells the story of man the world over and how humanity has survived in its environment over the years. It houses things created by nature and by man and in our modern society it houses the cultural soul of the nation.” Global stories are told better when all of its components are in one place. For example, WWII museums would not be nearly as informative if every country took back its artifacts and its stories, to their home nation.Traveling to Turkey, Australia, and New Zealand just to learn about the Battle of Gallipoli would be a lot harder, and more expensive, than to just visit one museum in one location, with all its information easier to access. This can also apply to children, as museums are a great way to get them interested in history. As a 2014 article
Is it worth losing millennia of history just to satisfy a few million for a few years? Museums are responsible for holding many of history’s important artifacts, and are one of the more substantial sources to learn about the past. However, recently, numerous museums have come under fire for not returning artifacts to countries that have a claim on them. Despite demands from multiple countries, museums should not send back artifacts due to it being irresponsible, and unsafe. Some nations which call for artifacts from museums can not guarantee the safety of these historical articles, and run the risk of losing them or having them be destroyed. Various relics have undiscovered origins and countries strife over the ownership …show more content…
A famous example about conflict over ownership is the Kennewick Man. This is the name given to remains found in Washington. It is heavily debated due to its mysterious discovery. First nation groups believe that the remains used to belong to members of their tribe, nevertheless, the scientific community believe that the Kennewick man is older than the existence of these tribes. An article says “The political battles over the Kennewick man were framed in a large part by people who want to know to what ‘race’ he belongs.” Various races can stake a claim to what race this man was. The natives would like to bury him, and other would like to conduct tests. (saying he is not Native American, therefore can be used for testing) The same scenario can arise when returning an artifact to a place where multiple countries have a stake over it. In a museum, the artifact is safe for public view, and can be lent to other countries over time. Another example of artifact conflict is the Khao Phra Viharn temple. A news report from 2013 stated:
“Thailand’s Khao Phra Viharn National Park has closed its Mor E-Dang cliff, a tourist vantage point overlooking Cambodia’s the temple of Phra Viharn, on 4 November, 2013 as a precautionary step to ensure peace and order along the …show more content…
As stated in Dean‘s lecture above, “The museum as an institution tells the story of man the world over and how humanity has survived in its environment over the years. It houses things created by nature and by man and in our modern society it houses the cultural soul of the nation.” Global stories are told better when all of its components are in one place. For example, WWII museums would not be nearly as informative if every country took back its artifacts and its stories, to their home nation.Traveling to Turkey, Australia, and New Zealand just to learn about the Battle of Gallipoli would be a lot harder, and more expensive, than to just visit one museum in one location, with all its information easier to access. This can also apply to children, as museums are a great way to get them interested in history. As a 2014 article