Argument: In many cases, returning an artefact may prove to be unreasonably expensive

Even with modern transport links and technology, transporting every artefact in a foreign museum back to its original location would be an impractically mammoth task. The risk of damage to artefacts would be unavoidable, not to mention the possibility of theft or sabotage en route. Important artefacts in transit would be an ideal public target for acts of terrorism. Moreover, the infrastructure of developing countries is probably not sufficient to cope with that volume. Greece may have spent $200m developing a new museum but relatively it is one of the more wealthy countries of origin for artefacts in the British Museum; places such as Nigeria are unlikely to put such emphasis on cultural investment.

Museums all over the world do loan out their collections [1] . Just because they are held in another country’s museum does not mean that the place of origin would not be able to access artefacts. Creating a generous and dynamic network of sharing relics between museums would be a much more realistic way of sharing and ensuring that all could benefit from seeing them.

[1] The British Museum, ‘Tours and loans’.

Candidate 1: "Returning artefacts to their original locations would in the past have been an unfeasible project simply because of the risk of transporting everything. Now, however, transport is much quicker and easier and we have improved technology to make the transit less damaging to the artefact; for instance, temperature-controlled containers."
Candidate 2: "Many people from an artefact's country of origin never get to see them because they cannot afford to travel to a foreign museum; as such the cost of access to that museum is a very small part of the total cost. These artefacts are part of their cultural history and national identity, and it is important that local people are given the opportunity to see them. It is not all about quantity of visitors; those closest to the artefacts have the greatest right to see them. For others, it should be a privilege not a right."
Candidate 3: "If the artefacts are of sufficient historical and cultural interest, scholars will travel to any location in order to study them. Indeed, the proximity of artefacts in developing countries may even stimulate intellectual curiosity and increase the quality of universities in there, which would be beneficial for world culture."
Candidate 4: "In the case of the Parthenon marbles, Lord Elgin’s action in removing them was an act of rescue as the Parthenon was being used as a quarry by the local population. [1] The Parthenon had already been destroyed by an explosion in 1687. [2] Having been removed the result was that the British protected them between 1821 and 1833 during the Greek War of Independence was occurring and the Acropolis was besieged twice. [3] Furthermore, if they had been returned upon Greek independence in 1830, the heavily polluted air of Athens would have caused extensive damage to such artefacts that would be open to the elements and Greek attempts at restoration in 1898 were as damaging as the British. [4] Today economic austerity lends new uncertainty to Greece’s commitment to financing culture.

Similar problems face the return of artefacts to African museums; wooden figures would decay in the humid atmosphere. Artefacts in Northern Africa are at risk because of the recent revolts and civil wars [5] . Wealthier countries sometimes simply have better resources to protect, preserve and restore historical artefacts than their country of origin. Our moral obligation is to preserve the artefact for future generations, and if this is best achieved by remaining in a foreign country then that must be the course of action.

[1] Beard, Mary, ‘Lord Elgin - Saviour or Vandal?’, BBC History, 17 February 2011.

[2] Mommsen, Theodor E., ‘The Venetian in Athens and the Destruction of the Parthenon in 1687’, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol 45, No. 4, Oct-Dec 1941, pp. 544-556.

[3] Christopher Hitchens, The Elgin Marbles: Should They Be Returned to Greece?, 1998,p.viii, ISBN 1-85984-220-8

[4] Hadingham, Evan, ‘Unlocking Mysteries of the Parthenon’ Smithsonian Magazine, February 2008.

[5] Parker, Nick ‘Raiders of the Lost Mubarak’, , The Sun, 1st Feburary 2011."
Candidate 5: "Although some treasures may have been acquired illegally, the evidence for this is often ambiguous. Experts agree that Greece could mount no court case because Elgin was granted permission by what was then Greece's ruling government. Lord Elgin’s bribes were the common way of facilitating any business in the Ottoman Empire, and do not undermine Britain’s solid legal claim to the Parthenon marbles, based upon a written contract made by the internationally-recognised authorities in Athens at the time. The veracity of the document can never be fully dismissed as it is a translation. And while some Benin bronzes were undoubtedly looted, other “colonial trophies” were freely sold to the imperial powers, indeed some were made specifically for the European market."
Candidate 6: "For whatever reason the treasures were first collected, we should not rewrite history. There is no reason to politicise this argument; museums have no 'political' agenda but merely wish to preserve historical objects for their intrinsic value. Their reasons for keeping these items may be financial, or in the interests of keeping the artefacts safe and accessible to the public; whatever they may be, they are not political. Don’t the nations who have expended resources protecting and preserving these artefacts deserve in return the right to display them?

Additionally, not all artefacts held outside their country of origin are the result of imperial or exploitative relationships. The original Medieval Crown of England is held in Munich [1] . Artistic exchange has nothing to do with politics anymore.

[1] Bayerische Verwaltung der staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen, ‘Treasury (Schatzkammer)'"
Candidate 7: "Artefacts often have unique religious and cultural connections with the place from where they were taken, but none for those who view them in museum cases. To the descendants of their creators it is offensive to see aspects of their spirituality displayed for the entertainment of foreigners. Meanings may have accumulated around artefacts, but their true significance is rooted in its origins."
Candidate 8: "The artefacts' place of origin has more often than not changed dramatically since they were in situ there. It is therefore unconvincing to argue that the context of modern Orthodox Greece aids visitors’ appreciation of an ancient pagan relic. Too much has changed physically and culturally over the centuries for artefacts to speak more clearly in their country of origin than they do in museums, where they can be compared to large assemblies of objects from a wide variety of cultures. Similarly, a great many cultural treasures relate to religions and cultures which no longer survive and there can be no such claim for their return. Technology has also evolved to the point that Ancient Greece can be just as accurately evoked virtually as it could be in modern Greece [1] .

Countries with cultural heritage retain the attraction of being the original locations of historical events or places of interest even without all the artefacts in place. The sanctuaries of Olympia and Delphi in Greece are a good example of this; they are not filled with artefacts, but continue to attract visitors because the sites are interesting in themselves. In 2009 2,813,548 people visited Athens, with 5,970,483 visiting archaeological sites across Greece [2] , even without the Parthenon marbles. Also, people who have seen an artefact in a foreign museum may then be drawn to visit the area it originated from. It is the tourist trade of the nations where these artefacts are held (mostly northern European nations, like Britain and France) which would suffer if they were repatriated. Lacking the climate and natural amenities of other tourist destinations they rely on their cultural offerings in order to attract visitors

[1] Young Explorers, ‘A brief history of…’ The British Museum.

[2] AFP, ‘New Acropolis Museum leads rise in Greek Museum visitor numbers for 2009’, Elginism, June 8th 2010. (Breakdown of visitor figures according to major destinations. )"

Returning artefacts to their original locations would in the past have been an unfeasible project simply because of the risk of transporting everything. Now, however, transport is much quicker and easier and we have improved technology to make the transit less damaging to the artefact; for instance, temperature-controlled containers.
