Returning Antiquities To Their Countries Of Origin Analysis

Two, four, six, eight, ten, antiques need to go back to their origins. Antiques need be relocated back to their original origins, because that's where they belong and came from, in the beginning. They need to be returned to the origins or the place they came from, because that’s where they were made, and they belong to the people that made them. One thinks it’s wrong to keep something from its original home. In the article “Returning Antiquities to Their Countries of Origin” in paragraph three, sentence two, it states “In the early 19th century, the Earl of Elgin had numerous sculptures taken from Greece to the UK.” also in paragraph three, sentence three, it states “These include half of the surviving sculptures from the Parthenon in Athen.” If one takes away the sculptures, one's taking away the history. The sculpture were built to show the history of the past. They were built to show what had happened in the past and who was in it. They show Greek culture and beliefs. If one wants to take the sculptures, then, the Greeks and other countries’ will not know their past. People and historians have learned a lot from the Greek artwork, sculpture, books, paintings, and much more. When museums want to take …show more content…
In the article “ Returning Antiquities to Their Countries of Origin” in paragraph one, sentence one through three, it talks about how people like to go to museums to enjoy the artifact. How they like to see how the ancient world was to better understand the culture, or to better understand their heritage. Although one can see why some may want to keep the artifacts in museums, instead of returning them to their natural origin; they are taking away the rightful country's opportunity to look at their past, and to get to know what it was like. One can see why some may think different; in conclusion, the artifacts need to be returned to their rightful