What Are The Arguments For And Against Repatriatio

2478 Words10 Pages
What are the arguments for and against repatriation of artworks and artefacts to their countries of origin? Art repatriation is the return of art or cultural objects to their country of origin and there has been great dispute surrounding the issue of repatriation and the demand of these objects to be returned to their supposedly rightful owners. These disputed items were taken from a particular group or country, usually in an act of looting, for various different reasons. These items range from paintings and sculptures, to even human remains. I will be exploring the social, moral and practical arguments for and against artefact repatriation, discussing the advantages and disadvantages, and explaining the situations of countries still seeking repatriation for example Egypt, Greece, and Italy. I personally believe artworks and artefacts belong to their country of origin, and repatriation is the moral thing to do. However, I also believe that there are also some very valid points that keep certain objects from being repatriated. For example, the country of origin may not protect the object as carefully as another would in a museum for instance, where it is taken proper care of. The countries which look after these artefacts may simply be wealthier and have better resources to protect and restore these historical artefacts, than their country of origin, and the main aim in general for everyone who cares for these historical objects, is to preserve these artefacts for future generations and to keep their history alive. 'In 1999 Shanghai displayed seventeen cases of antiquities from ancient Egypt. Yet the art came from Britain, not Egypt. The items were from the British Museum, sent on tour to Asia during its recent remodelling. Egypt cannot easily afford to mount such a show, and when it can, the art is typically shown in wealthy nations which have helped finance
Open Document