Argument 1
Cultural artifacts can better serve their values when they are placed in its original environment.
The treasures should be exhibited where they belong. Otherwise, they are merely disconnected pieces that don't serve their purpose anymore.
Ex) Carved door
Argument 2
The imperialistic countries literally “stole” the cultural artifacts from the weaker nations, acquiring them illegally. This is a “CRIME.” The Court of International Justice strictly punishes people or nations who have committed crime, both domestic and international affairs, don’t it? Same thing!
Rudenstine, David, 'Did Elgin cheat at marbles?' Nation, Vol. 270, Issue 21, 25 May 2000.
Argument 3 (Counter-argument)
Original argument (one of the Points-Against)
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 and 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, since the scholars can access better to the relics. One example that benefited from this was Rosetta stone, which changed the interpretation of whole bunch of history considerably.
Counter-argument
Yes, sure. The developed countries like Britain and France have the superior technology.
The problem is, the technological development is not always proportional to the ability of conservation of the artifacts. For example, the Elgin marbles have become ‘irreparable’ during their stay in Britain. (British damage to Elgin marbles 'irreparable'.)
