All around the world more and more cultural artifacts are being stolen, looted and sold on the black market. Cultural artifacts or antiquites are objects and works of art that are ancient. These artifacts would be stolen, destroyed, or under appreciated significantly less if they were not returned to their region of origin. Cultural artifacts should not be returned to their regions of origin because, the artifacts could fall into the hands of a country that can't afford the upkeep, it's difficult to decide were the artifact actually belongs to, and the trumpalism of returning them does not usually stay around for long.
Many of the places wanting cultural artifacts returned to them can not even afford the upkeep and are in a less accessible …show more content…
James Cuno voices this thought saying, “Territory held today by a given nation-state in the past likely belonged to a different political entity…”(Mortimer, para.8). Even if a museum was willing to return one of their antiques, who would they return it to? There is no way to find the exact, region, city and even museum that a work of art or antique really belongs to. The region it once belonged to could be long lost and would now end up in the wrong hands. There is no need to go through all this conflict to give art back to the potentially wrong “motherland”. In the trying to return a cultural artifact would support the black market and smuggling, instead of discouraging it. Others disagree and say cultural artifacts should be returned to their regions of origin. They say that the work of art or antique will be greatly appreciated and respected. It may be appreciated at first, but that sense goes away, “Some works, returned with great fanfare, have taken on greater meaning back on view in the countries or cultures that produced them. Other times, after the triumphalism fades, they fall victim to benign neglect, or are not always easy to reach” (Donadio, para.20). This would cause the artifact to not nearly be appreciated as much as it would if it had never be
Many of the places wanting cultural artifacts returned to them can not even afford the upkeep and are in a less accessible …show more content…
James Cuno voices this thought saying, “Territory held today by a given nation-state in the past likely belonged to a different political entity…”(Mortimer, para.8). Even if a museum was willing to return one of their antiques, who would they return it to? There is no way to find the exact, region, city and even museum that a work of art or antique really belongs to. The region it once belonged to could be long lost and would now end up in the wrong hands. There is no need to go through all this conflict to give art back to the potentially wrong “motherland”. In the trying to return a cultural artifact would support the black market and smuggling, instead of discouraging it. Others disagree and say cultural artifacts should be returned to their regions of origin. They say that the work of art or antique will be greatly appreciated and respected. It may be appreciated at first, but that sense goes away, “Some works, returned with great fanfare, have taken on greater meaning back on view in the countries or cultures that produced them. Other times, after the triumphalism fades, they fall victim to benign neglect, or are not always easy to reach” (Donadio, para.20). This would cause the artifact to not nearly be appreciated as much as it would if it had never be