Historical objects and artefacts should be brought back to their country of origin. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 

Historical objects and artefacts play an imperative role in the history of a concerned nation since they are associated with roots. Hence, I agree entirely with the notion. 

The fundamental argument for repatriating stolen artefacts is a moral one. Like the artworks which were stolen by Nazi Germany in the Second World War, there is an expectation by many that artefacts taken in wars before should be returned too. Many people believe that historical items unearthed on the land of other countries remain the property of those countries, regardless of who found them or who controlled that country at the time.

The second argument is a cultural one. The artefacts do not have cultural significance to the host countries and museums in which they are displayed. Thus, by returning the artefacts to the source countries, they can be displayed for local people to experience aspects of their culture, history and roots. 

The third argument is both structural and financial. Many museums have catalogues of millions of items, the majority of which are in storage at any given time. If there are artefacts that came from another country and are not even on display, there is an argument that they would be better off being displayed and enjoyed in the country they came from. Furthermore, maintaining these catalogues is also expensive and time-consuming, and reducing the size of these catalogues could free up money to maintain or even buy other objects.

To conclude, the provenance and ownership of artefacts remain a contentious issue and not one that is likely to go away anytime soon. However, I think that every nation must respect the culture and dignity of another one. Therefore, historical objects and artefacts should be given back to their country of origin.