Isabel Drews: How much time has to pass before it’s considered archaeology instead of grave robbing?
In a society obsessed with continuously looking forward to the future, artifacts of historical significance still manage to escalate in popularity and entire their audiences. This high demand for artworks created by early humans has been capitalized on by large museums and historical societies, not only to continue to expand the public’s knowledge and interest in history, but for fiscal profit as well. In the past, archaeologists and historians have taken artifacts from their home countries to be displayed in encyclopedic museums to showcase these wonders. This system worked well, inspiring curiosity about these underdeveloped nations that spurred …show more content…
Arguably, the amount of visitors these institutions attract results in larger grants and more funds available to maintain and preserve the collections. This will allow generations more of visitors to appreciate the culture and beauty shown in these exhibitions. However, the unfortunate fact is that many of the curators of these large museums have acquired pieces of their collections through underhanded schemes and illegal deals with black market antiquities fencers. In 2005, Marion True, curator of the Getty Museum, was brought to trial and convicted of forging providence papers of many of her international acquisitions, revealing them to be stolen goods (Eakin). Her case was not unique, as the ethics of many museums have been brought into question. Nevertheless, while the intention of encyclopedic museums is admirable, it still remains deplorable that a country’s artifacts celebrating that history and culture reside somewhere other than that …show more content…
The museums being asked to return the works must be compensated for the loss, especially if the items in question are headliners, and many of the home countries simply do not have the funds needed to make up the cost. Additionally, in Greece especially today, the modern economic downturns have caused severe devastation, rendering many countries helpless in their efforts to restore and maintain artifacts the way that more established institutions have been able to. For instance, while Turkey very desperately wishes to once again own pieces of their Ottoman history, they simply do not have adequate housing and security fit for the art (Bilefsky). It is lamentable that such historically influential pieces are housed away from where they originated, resulting in cultural appropriation and even misinterpretation by those other nations, but having pieces displayed where they will be taken the most care of is the
In a society obsessed with continuously looking forward to the future, artifacts of historical significance still manage to escalate in popularity and entire their audiences. This high demand for artworks created by early humans has been capitalized on by large museums and historical societies, not only to continue to expand the public’s knowledge and interest in history, but for fiscal profit as well. In the past, archaeologists and historians have taken artifacts from their home countries to be displayed in encyclopedic museums to showcase these wonders. This system worked well, inspiring curiosity about these underdeveloped nations that spurred …show more content…
Arguably, the amount of visitors these institutions attract results in larger grants and more funds available to maintain and preserve the collections. This will allow generations more of visitors to appreciate the culture and beauty shown in these exhibitions. However, the unfortunate fact is that many of the curators of these large museums have acquired pieces of their collections through underhanded schemes and illegal deals with black market antiquities fencers. In 2005, Marion True, curator of the Getty Museum, was brought to trial and convicted of forging providence papers of many of her international acquisitions, revealing them to be stolen goods (Eakin). Her case was not unique, as the ethics of many museums have been brought into question. Nevertheless, while the intention of encyclopedic museums is admirable, it still remains deplorable that a country’s artifacts celebrating that history and culture reside somewhere other than that …show more content…
The museums being asked to return the works must be compensated for the loss, especially if the items in question are headliners, and many of the home countries simply do not have the funds needed to make up the cost. Additionally, in Greece especially today, the modern economic downturns have caused severe devastation, rendering many countries helpless in their efforts to restore and maintain artifacts the way that more established institutions have been able to. For instance, while Turkey very desperately wishes to once again own pieces of their Ottoman history, they simply do not have adequate housing and security fit for the art (Bilefsky). It is lamentable that such historically influential pieces are housed away from where they originated, resulting in cultural appropriation and even misinterpretation by those other nations, but having pieces displayed where they will be taken the most care of is the