Discussion

[professorpaul]

We have a thread at Tek discussing whether these should be returned to their land of origin

http://www.zoo-tek.com/forums/index.php ... c=3376&hl=

Please let us have your opinion!

[superlion]

I am of the same opinion as you are for different reasons.

1. If artifacts are returned to their counrties of origin, institutions like the British Museum, into which large funds have been allocated for their improvement will be virtually empty. Unless maybe they find some way to move Stonehenge into the museum... that might take up some of the space. The volume of high-quality antiquities in Britain is nowhere near what they have in the collection there. (I use the British Museum because I've been there several times and have a good idea of what is there)

2. If you are going to exclusively say that ALL artefacts must be returned to their place of origin, the manpower and effort needed to physically move such items would be incredible. Collections have been moved over the course of centuries. To move them all back at once due to some unanimous "decision" to return them would be impractical. It might be relatively easy to move, say, a papyrus scroll, or even hundred of them, but when you're talking about the marble reliefs from the Parthenon or a stone hand and forearm from a massive statue (think a hand wider than an average person is tall) or the many sarcophagi in the Louvre, you're talking more than one entire cargo ship, nevermind that you'd have them going all in different directions... even with today's technology as far as shipping is concerned, it would take decades to return all the artefacts.

3. Part of the above - if you're going to have so many items being transported, at some point a cargo ship is going to sink and one country will lose all the artefacts that were being safely housed in another country completely. I imagine you can see how that could end up leading to a war, especially considering the countries of origin of most the items that would be returned (Egypt, Palestine, and many other Middle-Eastern locations). I think we have a better chance of avoiding violent confrontations if we keep the artefacts than if we put them in danger of destruction that we could be blamed for.

[jwa1107]

well, I'd have a problem with people moving Stonehenge (even if they could)
I know one cannot get very close to it, but moving an antiquity is not worthwhile IMHO

the British Museum would be empty for sure...

If everyone were intent on returning antiquities to their owners, perhaps some form of "rent" could be arranged... not sure exactly. Or outright sale/purchase like is done with works of art for museums. Would probably mean an increase in ticket prices/entrance fees, but that would be the cost of being equitable with the salvages (or thefts as some would deem them)

[Capt.Rutlinger]

I also think returning most artifacts is useless because of the time, the large insurance costs involved etc.

In Belgium we have a law that forbids certain high value (cultural and financial) paintings, etc to leave the country. It's a good way of protecting your cultural herritage and it leaves a certain amount of liberty to buyers. (they can buy one but can't move it abroad)

[Rudynoname]

there are certain artifacts i would have moved back. just a few exceptions. on the most part i agree that mving them from where they are would cause too many political disagreements and debates about the true origins, credit, fundings supporting them, shiping problems, etc.....but i don't think because a famous museum would be empty is a good enough reason. the other reasons are why i think its better not to move them.