SWA # 19

Thompson, Janna. “Cultural Property, Restitution and Value.” Journal of Applied Philosophy. Vol.20, No.3. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003. Web. March 12, 2012.

                        In this paper, Janna Thompson argues against the restitution of cultural artifacts. She provides some information about the values of cultural artifacts to people in general which I can use as a background in my exploratory essay. Thompson reports the positions of some big museums in England and the US about the point that the artifacts should not be returned only because the other country demands their return. She thinks that most of the cultural treasures we have today are not limited for a particular group of people or a specific place, however, they are universal and for all humans to enjoy and learn from. She tries to convince her readers to accept her idea by listing some cases in which she thinks the artifacts should not be repatriated. For example, if the artifacts were legitimately acquired and not taken without consent or justification from others, and if the item does not play an important in the culture she thinks they should not be repatriated. Thompson also adds the idea that cultural property should not be returned to their place of origin if their countries cannot protect them just like Iraq and Egypt. Her main point is that a country should not be able to demand the restitution of an artifact only because it was produced by some members of that country.

                        Thompson presents her point of view about the issue without paying too much attention to the use different types of arguments. She does not use any statistics or respond to any one in particular. She lays out her opinion and tries to support it with logical arguments and that is it. There is not any addressing to the alternative views that might disagree with her claims. However, the paper is a good source of logical arguments against the repatriation of cultural property. Her argument about the universality of most of the artifacts is a good starting point for to explore more about those who have the belief that cultural artifacts should not be returned because they belong to everyone in this universe.   

Carpenter, Betsy, and Gillian, Sandford. "Who Owns The Past? " U.S. News & World Report 135.21 (2003): 58-60. Academic Search Premier. Web. March 13, 2012.

                        In this article the authors focus mainly on reporting different responses to Zahi Hawass, head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, activities to return the Egyptian artifacts to its national museum. They talk about the economic value of these artifacts and how they attract millions of visitors every year. The authors report that some museums reject the restitution claims, fearing that repatriation of even a few treasures could unleash a flood of demands which might cause the dismantling of their collections. These museums use the argument that the cultural artifacts are a universal property and a tool to unify the different cultures together. The German national museum claims that the bust of Nefertiti, which is one of the most valuable Egyptian artifacts and one of the treasures that Hawass is fighting to get it returned to Egypt, was discovered under the “find sharing agreement” and the Egyptian passed on it in 1925. The author also mention that some experts believe that host countries have done a better job of preserving the sculptures over the years than their original countries such as Greece where lots of sculptures have been ravaged by air pollution, and such as Afghanistan where a Buddhist statues carved centuries ago was destroyed by people from a different religion .

                        This article opened my eyes to two important values for artifacts for both their countries of origin and for all humans. The economic value of cultural property is huge and can generate the countries hundreds of millions from visitors and tourists. The cultural artifacts have a great scientific status and value and can give us a better understanding for our past. The article made me think about the possibility of loaning the artifacts to different countries for a limited time and for a financial return to make them available for everybody everywhere and to get the most benefit out of them. The mentioned facts about some countries not being able to protect their cultural property made me reconsider where I stand in this issue.