Analysis of an Issue
“All archeological treasures should remain in the country in which they were originally discovered. These works should not be exported, even if museums in other parts of the world are better able to preserve and display them.”
Archeological treasures reflect a countries or society’s historic traditions, beliefs and culture. A highly debatable issue of whether to retain archeological treasures in the country of origin or export to another country with better museums for preservation is one that has been faced on many occasions. I agree with the statement that these treasures should not be exported because I believe that these treasures represent a country's legacy, and could lose their importance if exported to another country.
First, archeological treasures define the history of a country. Many questions pertaining to the facts of history can be found in such treasures. By exporting them to other countries, they could lose their intrinsic value. If exported to another country, they could be displayed in a small corner of the museum, and most people might not even care enough for that culture to go and see these treasures. For example, the paintings of M. F Husain, a famous Indian artist, are very highly regarded in India, but when these paintings were displayed in a museum in Rome, they did not receive much attention.
Second, if a museum cannot keep up with the maintenance of these treasures, they can look for alternate museums in other cities of the same country. For example, the spinning wheel that belonged to Mahatma Gandhi was displayed in a small museum in the town of Gujarat, India, where Mahatma Gandhi had lived. However, over the years, the museum could not keep up with maintenance of artifacts displayed, and decided to send the artifacts to a famous and well kept museum in Mumbai city. By doing this, even though the artifacts were moved, they stayed within the same country and held their emotional value.
However, many may argue that these treasures should be sent to other parts of the world to better preserve and display. But if the receiving country does not see a value in these artifacts, they would not be interested in displaying them. For example, artifacts related to the evolution of the Indus valley would not be of immense interest to the general public of the United States.
In sum, I concur that archeological treasures should remain in the country of origin, in order to hold on to their true worth. By exporting them to countries, even if they are well maintained, they would lose their emotional value.
“All archeological treasures should remain in the country in which they were originally discovered. These works should not be exported, even if museums in other parts of the world are better able to preserve and display them.”
Archeological treasures reflect a countries or society’s historic traditions, beliefs and culture. A highly debatable issue of whether to retain archeological treasures in the country of origin or export to another country with better museums for preservation is one that has been faced on many occasions. I agree with the statement that these treasures should not be exported because I believe that these treasures represent a country's legacy, and could lose their importance if exported to another country.
First, archeological treasures define the history of a country. Many questions pertaining to the facts of history can be found in such treasures. By exporting them to other countries, they could lose their intrinsic value. If exported to another country, they could be displayed in a small corner of the museum, and most people might not even care enough for that culture to go and see these treasures. For example, the paintings of M. F Husain, a famous Indian artist, are very highly regarded in India, but when these paintings were displayed in a museum in Rome, they did not receive much attention.
Second, if a museum cannot keep up with the maintenance of these treasures, they can look for alternate museums in other cities of the same country. For example, the spinning wheel that belonged to Mahatma Gandhi was displayed in a small museum in the town of Gujarat, India, where Mahatma Gandhi had lived. However, over the years, the museum could not keep up with maintenance of artifacts displayed, and decided to send the artifacts to a famous and well kept museum in Mumbai city. By doing this, even though the artifacts were moved, they stayed within the same country and held their emotional value.
However, many may argue that these treasures should be sent to other parts of the world to better preserve and display. But if the receiving country does not see a value in these artifacts, they would not be interested in displaying them. For example, artifacts related to the evolution of the Indus valley would not be of immense interest to the general public of the United States.
In sum, I concur that archeological treasures should remain in the country of origin, in order to hold on to their true worth. By exporting them to countries, even if they are well maintained, they would lose their emotional value.
