Should Museums Give Back Artefacts

[emmie]

to countries they were removed from years ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-46222276

[Rockrose]

Many artefacts were stolen so perhaps a donation should be made to the country of origin

[Mamyalynne]

My immediate response to the case of the moai statue in particular is - Yes.

I think each case should be decided on the details that led to the removal.

[emmie]

as you say many were removed illegally, the statue should be returned i think.

[Old_Geezer]

Not without good reason, no. The time limit on applying is past. Besides aren't most museum articles just picked up ? The world's museums would be relatively bare to tge detriment of all.

[AuntLydia]

Yes if the receiving country is stable and can look after them properly. If not then they are best kept in the best conditions in this country for future generations to see.

[dannyk13]

I think it depends upon the circumstances of acquisition.

[retrocop]

I read an article quite recently but can't remember where. An argument ws made that if some relics were retuned to their original sites their condition would fare less well than if kept in controlled conditions where they could be viwed for a great deal longer than in original surrounds.
The Parthenon and Coliseum were cited. On the other side of the coin it mentioned a damaged artefact on display in a Cairo museum of Egyptology where water had leaked on to it from a faulty roof. It would of been better preserved in a chamber of a pyramid from whence it came.

[anotheoldgit]

Pillage has taken place by conquering countries all over the World, if their loot was given back, half the World's museums would be empty.

[SparklyKid]

No.

[emmie]

no they wouldn't, but can see what you mean that if some things are returned to their homelands they may not survive the climate, or journey..

[THECORBYLOON]

If half the world's museums were half empty, would there not be more room for their own country's antiquities?

[jackthehat]

Yes.
The technology exists to make indistinguishable copies.
Just because 'we' believe that we can look after the exhibits better than they would be in their original situation or country is no real good reason to hold onto them.

[emmie]

so the Elgin Marbles should go back.

[jackthehat]

Yes, I believe they should.

[retrocop]

An argument put forward aginst returning priceless artefacts to their original country is the political turmoil.
The British Museum use that as one reason for retaining the Rosetta Stone.
Recent damage by ISIS prove that these artefacts are not best preserved and looters are still rife in Egypt.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8291526/Egypt-crisis-Looters-destroy-mummies-in-Cairo-museum.html

[sanmac]

Yes, the Elgin Marbles should go back. That is, of course, after we have made numerous "indistinguishable copies" of them. But them, hold on, which of these sets are the "real" ones that we send back?

[maggiebee]

I too think the Elgin Marbles should be returned.

[emmie]

we have seen the damage across the Middle East caused by wars, so museums must be targeted by groups like ISIS, Al Quaida.

[woofgang]

I think in principle these things should go back. I don't think that the "empty museum" argument should have any weight at all because so what?
I do agree that with today's technology very good copies can be made for display, also virtual displays and virtual museum visits are easy to set up and access.