Another irresponsible "return" of artifacts

[caesar novus]

Western caretakers of artifacts continue their appeasement of every half baked claim for returning artifacts, in this case Yale to Peru. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12438695 (not just the borrowed stuff)

 

Nothing will please them more than to give away every speck of research or museum material that originates from more than a stones throw away. Not concerned to diversify risks for natural or political disasters - just pull everything back to it's own place of origin. Not concerned whether the peoples of the world can see samples of artifacts from other cultures without a globetrotting journey - just let empty shelves be a proud badge of political correctness.

 

This is an ever increasing trend, even leading to artifacts vanishing forever. For example US Indian legal claims have increased on old skeletons, regardless of whether they appear to be of non-Indian origin. So they are snatched away from scientific review, to be reburied by people who also may be substantially non-indian (exaggerating percentage of genetic links for reasons of fashion or access to casino profits).

 

I think this collapse of western scientific responsibility should be punished. Any college president, professor, or staff that gives into this should have their own titles of ownership scrutinized. If they own land, homes, or objects that doesn't have 5000 years of exactingly clear title transfer history, it should be confiscated. If this excessively self deprecating attitude isn't challenged, it will be the end of both local and overseas museum trips. The same "we are unworthy to tread" attitude threatens to kill air travel with brutal green taxes.

[Viggen]

oh yeah, Mexico for example is trying to get Montezumas Headdress for years, bear in mind that it is since the 1550s in Austria, so it is about 450 years longer in austria then it was in Mexcico..

 

it is the only surviving aztec headdress in the world as far as i know, its safely now for over 500 years in austria,

 

http://www.khm.at/de...Hash=094a225b3f

 

..here some infos about the headdress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montezuma's_headdress

[Maladict]

I don't care for the politics or accessbility, objects derive part of their value from the place they came from and should be kept in their historical context as much as possible.

The Elgin marbles should be in the Acropolis Museum, Agamemnon's mask should leave Athens for Mycenae. The horses of St. Mark's can stay in Venice, because they are part of Venetian identity much more than they (likely) were in Constantinople. It's not perfect by any means, but the political sensitivities of today (either way) don't make much sense to me either.

[Crispina]

oh yeah, Mexico for example is trying to get Montezumas Headdress for years, bear in mind that it is since the 1550s in Austria, so it is about 450 years longer in austria then it was in Mexcico..

 

it is the only surviving aztec headdress in the world as far as i know, its safely now for over 500 years in austria,

 

http://www.khm.at/de...Hash=094a225b3f

 

..here some infos about the headdress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montezuma's_headdress

 

Wow. I never knew anything about a headdress that once belonged to Montezuma.

[agamemnus]

Western caretakers of artifacts continue their appeasement of every half baked claim for returning artifacts, in this case Yale to Peru. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12438695 (not just the borrowed stuff)

 

Nothing will please them more than to give away every speck of research or museum material that originates from more than a stones throw away. Not concerned to diversify risks for natural or political disasters - just pull everything back to it's own place of origin. Not concerned whether the peoples of the world can see samples of artifacts from other cultures without a globetrotting journey - just let empty shelves be a proud badge of political correctness.

 

This is an ever increasing trend, even leading to artifacts vanishing forever. For example US Indian legal claims have increased on old skeletons, regardless of whether they appear to be of non-Indian origin. So they are snatched away from scientific review, to be reburied by people who also may be substantially non-indian (exaggerating percentage of genetic links for reasons of fashion or access to casino profits).

 

I think this collapse of western scientific responsibility should be punished. Any college president, professor, or staff that gives into this should have their own titles of ownership scrutinized. If they own land, homes, or objects that doesn't have 5000 years of exactingly clear title transfer history, it should be confiscated. If this excessively self deprecating attitude isn't challenged, it will be the end of both local and overseas museum trips. The same "we are unworthy to tread" attitude threatens to kill air travel with brutal green taxes.

 

Agreed. You know what else bothers me? China claims ownership to every Panda ever born and receives rent from them...

Edited February 13, 2011 by agamemnus

[Maty]

For research purposes, I don't care if I'm seeing the original or a 100% faithful replica. In fact with things like Trajans column copies are much better, because you can examine the sculpture in detail. Also, with the advent of 3d 'printing' it won't be long before some sculptures can be very faithfully and cheaply replicated. It's the same people in favour of keeping stuff in British museums who tend to howl blue murder if any part of Britain's cultural heritage is sold off to the Americans. That's the argument for keeping copies and sending back the originals.

 

On the other hand, nothing has the emotional impact of something that has simply survived for so long, and actually been present for history we can only speculate about. And helping artefacts survive is what western museums do best. The Elgin marbles would not be in their present (already damaged) condition if they had been left in situ - they almost certainly would be eroded by pollution or further damaged. (This is probably also an argument for taking Pompeii away from the Italians.)

 

Finally, things like thermo-luminescence, multi-spectrum light analysis and other techniques for questioning ancient artefacts are best done in controlled conditions in western museums.

 

And wouldn't it be nice if some of those artefacts in the Cairo museum had been evacuated in time? (I'm still steaming about that vandalism!)

[Hus]

Much of the globe seems to want something from British museums, but where does it all end? Italians wanting claim to all of Roman Britain?

 

There would never be 'empty shelves' as replicas can be made to stand in the original's stead, but it's an irksome practice- or trend- for the world to want something which belonged to their ancestors so long ago that it now has no relevance to their youth, who are more into mp3's and X-Factor!

[Ingsoc]

Much of the globe seems to want something from British museums, but where does it all end? Italians wanting claim to all of Roman Britain?

 

There would never be 'empty shelves' as replicas can be made to stand in the original's stead, but it's an irksome practice- or trend- for the world to want something which belonged to their ancestors so long ago that it now has no relevance to their youth, who are more into mp3's and X-Factor!

 

The current custom is that the artifacts belong to the country in which they where found, using your example the Italians have claims to stuff found in Italy and the British to stuff found in Britain.

 

I'm sure that those people that want their cultural heritage back also finding the fact that foreigns came and remove it without permission (in other words: stole it) to be "irksome practice".

 

I don't agree with you and the original poster, if they want their stuff back this certainly mean they will take good care of them.

[Melvadius]

I would agree with some but not all of what each of the posters above have said.

 

Any artefact obviously has some resonance with the culture from which it arose even if that culture has passed through numerous stages between its original manufacture and the modern day. In a few instances there is a strong cultural/ religous imperative/ ancestor worship/ or even legal reasons (whatever you may wish to call it) where a present day culture believes it has a strong claim on the original artefact/ human remains. In these instances I can understand their claim and often at least understand if not totally accept the reasoning for artefacts being returned or indeed kept where they are.

 

Against this IF there is a valid reason for an artefact to be studied such as comparison with other artefacts then this is probably best done in a modern laboratory and honestly I don't care where the reseach is undertaken as long as it is done under strict laboratory conditions be it in the 'Western' world or some remote part of the Third World. With a nod to the current unfolding Tsunami coverage from Japan I would add that I would hope any such artefact was protected as well as it could 'reasonably' be during this period of research or indeed display afterwards. BUT again considering recent events both natural and man made over the last few months I also accept that unexpected events do occur and locations which previously could have been considered safe can turn unsafe or vice-versa become 'safe'.

 

Regarding reconstructions there is a place for these and if intended strictly for display purposes or even more accessible to the general public then there are arguments that reproductions be used wherever possible with the original object kept in reserve for research purposes or its own protection.

 

At the end of the day if you are carrying out research on an object you may well need to be able to take it apart (at least electronically) and/or compare it with similar opbjects under the microscope while something intended for the public just to look at could more or less be in any form suitable for display.

 

The obvious caveat is that the public do like to be able to look at things whcih obvious history so it is generally considered best to have a majority of 'original' objects available for enclosed displays.

 

The major difficulty is that in the modern world everyone seems to only wish to see examples of 'genuine' and 'unique' artefacts not copies thus the continuing arguments about objects like the Elgin Marbles. Such artefacts very survival can be due to a series of acts which if carried out today would probably be considered 'cultural' vandalism however they may have become part of their current locations 'cultural' heritage as well as or instead of their origin.

 

For these reasons I try not to jump up and down saying that returns can never happen or only under excessively precise circumstances. Instead I try to accept that all artefact returns need to be considered in the light of current circumstances only. If things go 'pear-shape' after a decision has been made then so be it providing the original decision was made on the basis of the best available evidence at the time. There is no reason for the decision makers to feel they necessarily made the 'wrong', 'irresponsible' or indeed in any other way what could be considered an 'unwise' decision.

[Metella]

Indeed - no perfect answer to this.

 

I am satisfied with replicas for most of my experiences; but nothing could beat actually walking in the ruins of Rome under the blazing Italian sun.

 

I guess my stand is closest to Maty's above. Not my fight, but I sure wouldn't want to globe trot to a million little museums, paying silly entrance fees to see one room of items and listen to superficial blabble about their history and then move on to the next dinky museum 3/4 day's ride away. Nasty global impact as well as butt flattening.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Metella