Step 4: THW return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin

THW 

return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin

            During the 18^th and 19^th centuries, imperialism spreaded all over the world, when more powerful countries took over weaker countries, where they exploited natural resources, humans themselves, food, labor, and even cultural artifacts. The number of total stolen treasures from weaker countries is unreasonably huge, and the victims, now aware of the significance of the artifcacts, are claiming to restore them as soon as possible. However, the previous imperialistic countries are asserting their rights to have the treasures since they got them using their own power, which is, according to them, just and fair. Also, since the previous imperialistic countries are far more developed countries compared to those that aren’t, they are still retaining the relics in their hands. These, should be returned to their original places for the following reasons.

Tourism is one of the most important industries today, bringing huge income to areas with relics. This is because most people, especially scholars, think that the cultural, historical artifacts are worth observing and examining directly, and that they could better understand history through the research. Due to this desire towards relics, the related industries, such as hotel, guidance, and entertainment industries develop together, ultimately bringing progress into the city or the state. Today, as the world is becoming more and more globalized, more people around the world are willing to travel far away to appreciate the relics. For these reasons, the proprietorship of cultural artifacts greatly alters the economic income of countries that own the artifacts. The ownership, for sure, should be of the country from which the artifacts belong to. Otherwise, the original country is being deprived of its economic opportunity to build a successful tourist trade. 

Jikji is one the most valued artifacts in Korea that has been taken by French by force. “Jikji” is the abbreviated title of a Korean Buddhist document, whose title can be translated "Anthology of Great Buddhist Priests' Zen Teachings". Printed during the Goryeo Dynasty in 1377, it is the world's oldest extant movable metal print book, and UNESCO confirmed Jikji as the world's oldest metalloid type and included it in the Memory of the World Programme. (Jikji) It is now possessed by the National Library of France, and although Korean scholars are trying their best to restore Jikji, France is stubborn in its view, not returning it ever since they stole it. The NationalLibrary of France is earning tons of money from the Jikji, and probably tons more from the different industries related to it. Meanwhile, Koreans are trying their best to take back what is theirs. Just because imperialistic countries were strong enough to steal treasures out of weaker countries by force, it doesn’t mean that they deserve to have them permanently.

Most of the cultural artifacts that are “misplaced” are taken by imperialistic countries using force. Whether it was acquired through winning a war, or through hoarding it secretly by using spies or illegal traders, this is called “stealing,” as long as it wasn’t agreed upon by both countries. This is an “international crime,” which is why this case should go through trials for fair judgement, let the artifacts return to their original place, and let the criminal country be punished severely. As a part of this idea, UNESCO regulations also drafted “Convention on the Means ofProhibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownershipof Cultural Property 1970.” Importantly, the convention also requires states parties to seize illegally traded cultural goods and return them to their countries of origin. 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. (Odor) Since this is obviously a crime, the UN should not make this as a recommendation, but make it as a punishment of a serious international crime.

It is true that the level of technology or the expertise on the historical evidences is much higher in the pre-imperialist countries, such as France, Britain and the United States. Thus, interpreting or deciphering the artifacts is much easier, 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 significance out of them, and use them to build up history. Thus, scholar will access much better to the treasures. This is the main reason for some people why these legacies are better off when they are in imperialist countries where they are now. One example that benefited from this was Rosetta stone, which changed the interpretation of whole bunch of history considerably. However, deciphering Rosetta stone could have been done by local historians, if only the stone was left in its own country. Furthermore, although it is true that the developed countries like Britain and France have the superior technology, it has been proven that the technological development is not always proportional to the ability of conservation of the artifacts. For example, the Elgin marbles havebecome ‘irreparable’ during their stay in Britain. The culture minister, Elisavet Papazoe, said, “The damage wrought by the museum's botched attempt to clean the 2,500-year-old treasure earlier this century had been much worse than originally thought.” (Smith)

She also said,

The findings of a Greek group of conservationists, who recently inspected the marbles, demonstrated that the very morphology of the sculptures had suffered as a result of the misguided efforts to make them whiter than white. This was the first time the marbles have ever been examined by experts outside the British Museum and unfortunately the findings have confirmed the fears that they were damaged irreparably. In some cases, excessive rubbing and polishing had not only destroyed the sculptures' historic surfaces, but deformed them to a shocking degree. (Smith)

Here, the fact that the British experts hadn’t been able to identify what was wrong before what Greeks have found out, whether it was intentional or an accident, clearly proves us that higher technology doesn’t necessarily mean better preservation. Mrs. Papazoe also admitted that “The debate around the marbles is full of myths which have been exposed with this new evidence.” She also said, “For the first time we have a scientific reality, beyond archive material, which we cannot ignore.” (Smith)

To sum up, it is only fair if the “misplaces” artifacts should be returned to their original spots, because the countries deserve the economic benefit coming out of them, the imperialstic countries literally “stole” the artifacts, and the level of technology is not always proportional to the level of conservation. It is understandable that many countries do not want to return the treasures back, for they are definitely bringing in so many dollars and they provide great historical references to many scholars, but it is right to return them as soon as they can.

Works Cited

Ana Filipa Vrdoljak , “THIS HOUSE WOULD RETURN CULTURAL PROPERTY RESIDING IN MUSEUMS TO ITS PLACE OF ORIGIN”, international debate education association, http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/culture/aboriginal-culture/house-would-return-cultural-property-residing-museums-

General Conference of the United Nations Educational, “Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970”, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 14 November 1970, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Jessica Odor, “The Return of Cultural Artifacts to Countries of Origin”, http://www.uni.edu/ihsmun/archive/sc2005/Artifacts.htm (no website name)

Helena Smith, “British damage to Elgin marbles ‘irreparable’”, the guardian, Friday 12 November 1999, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/nov/12/helenasmith

“Jikji”, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jikji