THIS HOUSE WOULD RETURN CULTURAL PROPERTY RESIDING IN MUSEUMS TO ITS PLACE OF ORIGIN
The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) defines cultural property as“property which, on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each State as being of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science”, but a broader definition would not require the state to be proactive in ‘designating’ such cultural property, something which may lead to a bias against minority cultures. So debaters may wish to work with a broader definition simply based upon the significance of an object to a particular area or people.[1] In 1970, UNESCO drafted the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.[2] The convention requires states to create national bodies to oversee the protection of cultural heritage and to establish guidelines for transferring cultural property across borders. To date, 88 countries have ratified the treaty. But of the major art market nations – those that have prominent museums or large private collections – only France and the United States have joined. The member states of UNESCO also decided to create an independent body that could oversee the return of cultural artefacts and uphold the provisions of the 1970 convention. In 1980, the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation[3] met for the first time. The committee is charged with:
“1, seeking ways and means of facilitating bilateral negotiations for the restitution or return of cultural property to its countries of origin…
2, promoting multilateral and bilateral cooperation with a view to the restitution and return of cultural property to its countries of origin;
3. encouraging the necessary research and studies for the establishment of coherent programmes for the constitution of representative collections in countries whose cultural heritage has been dispersed;
4. fostering a public information campaign on the real nature, scale and scope of the problem of the restitution or return of cultural property to its countries of origin”
As well as this it guides implementation of UNESCO programmes on such restitution, encourages establishment of museums and provides training for the care of cultural properties and promotes exchanges.[4]
The debate about the return of cultural property to countries of origin is most often argued in terms of the Elgin (or Parthenon) marbles, masterpieces of classical Greek sculpture removed from the Parthenon in Athens in 1801 by Lord Elgin, and sold to the British Museum in London in 1816. Greece has consistently demanded the return of these national treasures since independence in 1830, which Britain has consistently refused. The marbles are part of a wider debate about the ownership and display of cultural treasures, often acquired from the developing world by imperial powers in the 18th and 19th centuries, and now displayed in Western museums. The British Museum’s charter implies that the institution cannot legally return items from its collection: "The Trustees of The British Museum hold its collections in perpetuity by virtue of the power vested in them by The British Museum Act (1963)"[5]. Yet the debate rages: should cultural property such as the Parthenon marbles be returned to its country of origin?
I feel like copying the exact same arguments from this website. Is
this the way I should feel when I'm doing this, or should I come up with
something new on my own?
Those who argue that the artifacts should be returned to their
original place, say that the treasures should be exhibited where they belong.
Otherwise, they are merely disconnected pieces that don't serve their purpose
anymore. However, the cultural and natural environments where the
artifacts were placed originally have changed dramatically over the past
several centuries. Therefore, we can never truly understand the context of the
relics even if they were placed in its homeland. For example, the Elgin marbles of Parthenon is argued that it is merely a fragment of relics if it is detached from its original place.
Unfortunately, the level of technology or the expertise on the
historical evidences are much higher in the pre-imperialist countries, such as
France, Britain and the United States. Thus, the interpretation or deciphering
the artifacts are way easier and much academically deeper and accurate in these
countries. These relics are not preserved for mere displays or for museums that
want to earn some money out of them. Instead, they are preserved so that we can
investigate and dig up the historical significant out of them, and use them to
build up history. Therefore, these legacies are better off when they are in
imperialist countries where they are now, instead of returning them back to
their original places. One example that benefited from this was Rosetta stone,
which changed the interpretation of whole bunch of history considerably.
Sources
