Artifacts?

[Rich P]

This perhaps could wind up as a poll but let's start here. This night on 60 Minutes they had a segment on the obligation to return artifacts taken from one country to another...in the specific case from Peru to Yale (not a country). I said to the LOML that I felt Yale should keep them and she (quite reasonably) responded "If your grandmother had been burried with her cast iron skillets, would you want them dug up and taken back to <name the country>? I said NFW. What do you folks think?

[eccentrictinkerer]

My dad's battalion captured Hitler's summer resort, the Eagle's Nest. He and his buddies 'liberated' some of the silverware they found.

I inherited a silver spoon and a fish knife with Hitler's initials and the Nazi crest.

It never occurred to me to attempt a return of these items. BTW, my siblings and I took these artifacts to school for 'show and tell'!

[cgallery]

No person or institution should benefit from the theft of artifacts. Things stolen from tombs, for example, belong back in the hands of the government that controls their homeland, PROVIDED that said government can be trusted to care for them responsibly. And of course, one would hope that the items would be made available for educational and research purposes.

I know it is difficult for some to come to terms with this (myself included), because real old stuff (IMHO) belongs to civilization, not just the country in which is was once buried. But we have to allow the country of origin to be the caretaker, or we enter a free for all where artifacts are traded for motives that are questionable.

This also goes for items looted by the Nazis before and during WWII. Paintings and other such valuables belong in the hands of the descendants of those that were persecuted by the Nazis. To even contemplate otherwise is unconscionable.

[Tom Slick]

I echo cgallery's comments.
I just had a similar conversation with a family member that posses some Indian artifacts that were uncovered on my great grandfather's farm. Sale of them was the topic and my answer was they were not property to sell for a profit and they should be donated to a museum so the public can enjoy them. My point was they were merely a caretaker and these artifacts should only be passed to another caretaker.

on the other hand I don't know exactly where to draw the line. I don't see any issue with eccentricthinker's odd collectibles. maybe it depends on how relevant to culture they are.

[cgallery]

I don't see any issue with eccentricthinker's odd collectibles. maybe it depends on how relevant to culture they are.

Yes, I agree with this as well. Those "odd collectibles" likely have had more educational value in his families hands than they would have had in any museum, where they would have been cataloged and never seen again.

[eccentrictinkerer]

on the other hand I don't know exactly where to draw the line. I don't see any issue with eccentricthinker's odd collectibles. maybe it depends on how relevant to culture they are.

That should be eccentrictinkerer, although my wife would probably agree with the 'eccentric thinker' appellation!

[Tom Slick]

aah what's an h,r, and e between friends?

[RayintheUK]

It would be hypocritical of me to contribute an opinion, being British - remember the Elgin Marbles?

Ray

[430752]

elgin marbles!

It 'twas the Brits that thus ruined my view of the Parthenon! I went the Athens a year or so before the Olympics and there was much discussion on the Elgin Marbles and other stuff. Over some ouzo my wife and I discussed this issue and couldn't some to a clear resolution, but we had some ideas.

On one hand, some of these things were lost to the world (think things buried deep in the egyptian sand) and thus did not exist so it may be unfair for the host country to claim they're "stolen". Of course, some of these things were not lost to the world, but in plain site (think the Elgin Marbles) but were neglected or left for ruin. In that case it would also seem unfair for the host country to claim they're stolen. On the other hand, it is likely the host country would have eventually enlightened itself and discovered them themselves. On the counterpoint to that, are to wait additional hundreds of years for less evolved societies to learn such skills and let them undertak all digs on their lands. If so, many, many important discoveries would not have been made. Think about almost all of the Egyptian artifacts which might still be in the ground if we waited for the modern day Egyptian people to search. And, the people who performed the archeological investigations invested large sums of (generally private) money, time, risk, etc. so should be allowed some reward. Many host countries couldn't even care less fo their past until it turns out gold artifacts are being dug up. But the counterpoint to all of that is that while archeological experts may have spent time and money in recovering things, it still smacks of raping the land and culture of long lost people and removing it from its context. Yeah, modern day Peru may not have a direct societal link to Machu Pichu, but they're still the descendents and still have a right to know how their ancestors lived and to make them come 2 or 3 thousand miles to look at their culture seems perverse.


In the end, the best my wife and I could some up with is some test on whether an artifact was transient or trasferrable. That is, is clear some artificats belong to something solid/static, like a building or a shrine or a location. Think Stonehenge in the UK being moved someplace else, think the Parthenon sculptures and friezes sitting in England when they belong at the Parthenon. On the other hand, some stuff was meant to change hands and is not tied to the land, think coins, paintings and other non-permanent art, clothing, etc. These things are capable of being moved and don't need to be repatriated. As far as WWII paintings, I would say doesn't need to go back to home country, since after all some art dude made it and sold it away anyway, but it should go back to its rightful owner if stolen through "war prize" and the original owner (or the family) can be traced.

Problem with the distinction between what is permanent and what is transient is that it could be so broad. After all, the Elgin marbles proved they were capable of being transported when I consider them permanent. I guess the test isn't what is physically transferrable, but instead what is inherent to a location. King Tut's sarcophogus belongs in Cairo, the Elgin Marbles belong in Athens, and yes, certain pottery belongs in Machu Pichu. But, armor, weapons, coins, artwork, books and scrolls, jewelry, etc. belong wherever they legitimately end up. Or so I've come to think.