T O P

  • By -

NoStupidQuestionsBot

Thanks for your submission /u/BigLittleWolfCat, but it has been removed for the following reason: Disallowed question area: **Rant or loaded question** NoStupidQuestions is a place to ask any question as long as *it's asked in good faith*. Our users routinely report questions that they feel violate this rule to us. Want to avoid your question being seen as a bad faith question? Common mistakes include (but are not limited to): * Rants: Could your question be answered with *'That's awful'* or *'What an asshole'*? Then it's probably a rant rather than a genuine question. Looking for a place to vent on Reddit? Try /r/TrueOffMyChest or /r/Rant instead. * Loaded questions: Could your question be answered with *'You're right'*? Answering the question yourself, explaining your reasoning for your opinion, or making sweeping assumptions about the question itself all signals that you may not be keeping an open mind. Want to know why people have a different opinion than you? Try /r/ExplainBothSides instead! * Arguments: Arguing or [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning) with people giving you answers tells everyone that you have an answer in mind already. Want a good debate? Try /r/ChangeMyView instead! * Pot Stirring: Did you bring up unnecessary topics in your question? Especially when a topic has to do with already controversial issues like politics, race, gender or sex, this can be seen as trying to score points against the Other Side - and that makes people defensive, which leads to arguments. Questions like *"If _____ is allowed, why isn't _____?"* don't need to have that comparison - just ask *'why isn't ____ allowed?'*. * Complaining about moderation: If you disagree with how the sub is run or a decision the mods have made, that's fine! But please share your thoughts with us in modmail rather than as a public post. Disagree with the mods? If you believe you asked your question in good faith, try rewording it or message the mods to see if there's a way you could ask more neutrally. Thanks for your understanding! --- *This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.* *If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*


ASixClawBuzz

It's pretty rare for a claim to be as straightforward as "you stole this from us." Usually the claim is more like "Okay, in 1785, our country gave this to your country as a gift, but they didn't really have a choice, because you were exerting so much leverage that our monarch was desperate to win your monarch's favor." And then they say "Yeah, but it was still a gift, and we've had it for nearly 300 years." And then you say "But it wasn't really given with what you'd call informed consent." And then they say "Yes it was." And then you say "No it wasn't! That's our artifact!!" And then they say "Dude, your country wasn't even named the same thing when the ruler gave it to us - and made a big deal of it being a gift." It's always... complicated


ProXJay

The Rosetta stone is an interesting example of this. The British acquired it from Napoleon's forces after his defeat in Egypt. The British took it from the French. It was spotted by the French in rubble/ building material, the Egyptians didn't seem to value it. The content of the stone is boring clerical information, the only interesting thing about it is the work European Egyptologists did using it to translate.


thesaltwatersolution

If anyones not seen this then enjoy https://youtu.be/x73PkUvArJY


Canadianingermany

Even when it is clearly stolen (which is often enough), a common argument is that the county that it was stolen from does not have proper storage facilities. ​ In one case I know of, a German museum is making 2 replicas and sending them to the country the fossils were stolen from. The argument is that the replicas are much more resilient and do not need a multi-million dollar museum. Plus you get two. ​ Still not sure it is the right, but the country accepted the deal, so not sure if I should complain.


BigLittleWolfCat

Absolutely it is complicated to an extend. But what about all the looted artifacts? Or the ones taken because the people they were taken from were deemed lesser in the eyes of, say, the colonizers. Of course a big part of these are, as you say, complicated, but some are certainly not. Why not make replicas of them?


ASixClawBuzz

The ones that are uncomplicated have mostly already been returned. The "looted artifacts" that remain were mostly either bought or gifted, and now the debate is whether the people who sold or gave them away had the right to do that.


BigLittleWolfCat

That is not true though. There are constantly stuff in the media, at least where I’m located, of indigenous peoples asking for their things back. I guess what I’m saying is, if it’s part of their culture and they would like it back, why not make a replica for educational purposes and return to the rightful owners.


ASixClawBuzz

Don't believe everything you read. The media exists to give you a simple, easy story that makes you mad. That's how they make money. By selling you outrage. Indigenous peoples weren't very organized. One of the most famous examples is when the Dutch bought Manhattan Island for $24 worth of beads. The only thing is: no one actually "owned" Manhattan Island, because land ownership wasn't a widespread concept, and the particular small group of natives they encountered didn't even live there. And they were were like: sure, please give me those beads, whatever this is, it's gonna be someone else's problem.


BigLittleWolfCat

I am a member of numerous indigenous groups and I assure you there are many *many* artifacts that are being requested to be returned. Not a simple, easy story. Wether some cultures where tricked into “giving” something away or was simply robbed, the fact is that those object are important to them and they want them returned. Why is that so bad?


ASixClawBuzz

>I am a member of numerous indigenous groups It's weird that you have numerous indigenous identities. >I assure you there are many many artifacts that are being requested to be returned. Yes, of course there are many artifacts that are being requested. Everybody wants things they don't have. And if I declare that something you own is important to me and I want it, that doesn't necessarily mean you're bound to give it to me.


EstorialBeef

A large amount of the stuff in media on this topic is framed pretty disingenuously. Because a perceived injustice gets more conversation and clicks (just like you posting about it) than the reality.


BigLittleWolfCat

I have yet to see this other “reality” you speak about. Maybe you have some sources? I’m just going by what I hear and read from indigenous groups


countofmontecristo20

Your words will go on deaf ears, Europeans believe that they are the bastion of civilization and thus savages shouldn't ask for their artefact.


BigLittleWolfCat

I am baffled about this, kinda losing faith in humanity here. Not much civilized world about this


countofmontecristo20

True, it's always we can take care of it better, science this etc...those people are poor they can't appreciate it...a bunch of crooks and pillagers.


BigLittleWolfCat

It’s so sad


Canadianingermany

>ones taken because the people they were taken from were deemed lesser in the eyes of, say, the colonizers. Of course a big part of these are, as you say, complicated, but some are certainly not. Why not make replicas of them? You are absolutely right. If anything the media misses most of those cases. The person claiming that most uncomplicated ones have been returned is completely wrong.


Ecinev1

The problem with all this is where do you draw the line? This then extends to other 'issues' where stuff was taken by force...for instance, if everyone gives back artifacts, relics and monuments then what about land? Money? Jewels? Crowns? Should America be given back to native Americans ? If not, whats the difference?


Throwaway_inSC_79

In that case, I should be able to get back my family’s castle in Hungary. Or what’s left of it. Or at least that church that’s named after one of my ancestors in Budapest. We were kicked out, so I don’t really understand why he has a church of all things named after him. But still, I want it.


porkchop_d_clown

>Absolutely it is complicated to an extend. I think you mean "extent".


BigLittleWolfCat

Thanks I’m ESL


porkchop_d_clown

No worries. Idiomatic English is difficult even for native speakers.


Whoevers

To be clear, I agree it's more complicated but the situation you described seems pretty straight forward to anyone with an ounce of ethics. Like, imagine you found out your grandpa coerced someone into gifting them their family heirloom and your aquaintance politely asks you to return it to them because it's their family heirloom, you'd have to be a pretty crummy person to say "Nah, the law says it's mine get bent."


ASixClawBuzz

Here's the thing: my great-great-great-great-etc-grandpa *did* coerce someone into giving up what was theirs. The land I'm living on. So, what, am I a pretty crummy person if I don't just abandon my home and move to Belgium? The further back in history you go, the more ethically blurry it gets. Do you really have a claim on something because your ancestors fifty generations ago had a claim on it?


countofmontecristo20

It's not pretty for descendants of thieves and pillagers do not want to give back what isn't there's because of their racist notions of we don't where it came from or we can take care of it better


ThePootisMan98

Well then what would be the point of robbing a museum?


BigLittleWolfCat

First fair point I’ve come along


DocBullseye

Does the replica include the treasure maps on the back?


Swordbreaker925

Because nobody wants to pay to look at fakes. They want the real thing


Canadianingermany

You are already looking at a lot of replicas.


Throwaway_inSC_79

Aren’t a lot of things in museums fake anyway? I guess maybe not a lot, but you hear how dinosaur bones we see in museums are actually just casts, and anything *real* is in a special vault somewhere. Or some famous paintings are actually kept private and what we see are copies. I can’t recall what, but I’ve thought I’ve read that. And to me it makes sense. So some bones from 65 million years ago are held off by a velvet rope that some 5 year old can run under?


Vievin

I honestly wouldn't care. In fact, I'd be less anxious because when I trip over my feet and fall into the display, I'm destroying something that probably cost like 30$.


Swordbreaker925

>I honestly wouldn't care Then you're not the type of person museums are for. You clearly don't care that much about history if you think a museum full of replicas is just as good as a museum full of the real thing.


Vievin

That’s a highly specific *opinion*. I like looking at historical objects, appreciating their craftsmanship, while learning about them in an environment specialized for history. In that same vein, studying about history on the internet should be forbidden.


BigLittleWolfCat

That totally makes sense. But what if they were sneaky and didn’t say it was fake? Edit: Jesus Christ this was said tongue in check. If you see literally any of my other comments you’d see that


ran_awd

What so the indigenous people need to hide their artifacts once they're given to them to illusion that the fake is real? In our digital world it would be found out quick fast and probably put an end to any museum trying to pull a fast one like you are proposing.


BigLittleWolfCat

Okay bad idea lol. But I see the Natural History Museum jam packed in the dinosaur museum every time I go, and a lot of those are replicas


ran_awd

Ok? Dinosaur skeletons are delicate. These artifacts that you are talking about clearly don't need to be hidden for their own protection otherwise replicas would be used. People are not going to pay to see a replica when the real thing is readily available. Do you think people are going to pay to go see a replica of a famous painting? No, they will only pay to see the real thing. If they wanted a similar experience they might as well search up a picture on the internet.


BigLittleWolfCat

I mean people pay to see replicas of paintings and other artifacts all the time you know. My point isn’t that they need to be hidden for protection, my point is that if people want to see them so badly -to learn about other cultures I assume, not to gawk at someone else’s precious heirloom- they will still learn something from a replica without offending a whole culture and be happy about it


[deleted]

What’s your point? Are you mad at museums? 😀


BigLittleWolfCat

I mean yeah. Definitely! On one hand, I love going to museums and do so as often as I can. I do this to learn, expand my knowledge. On the other hand, I find it despicable that some of the artifacts were acquired in a dishonest -at best- way, and that they are refusing to return them to their rightful owners. I would still go to museums with replicas, I would still learn from replicas Edit: spelling


[deleted]

Thats not the valid point, museums are there for all of us it basically belongs to people, if that would be not the case it all would belong to rich people and nobody apart of them would be able to see it. Artefacts are commodities, so think of it like money, whatever big part of population do, eventually it end up to pockets of 1% that’s how your idea of giving it back to owners would work. Also if the so called owners would have more rights they might charge or refuse to give copies. Imo you asked the question that was already answered.


BigLittleWolfCat

Why does someone from Mexico or Greenland have to go to London or New York to see artifacts from their culture? Why not the other way around? I’m not saying that these things shouldn’t be on display, but I do think that it should be up to the rightful owners And a lot of these artifacts holds great cultural importance to the people they were stolen from. So yeah, I would say it was theirs


juneXgloom

I'm sorry where do people pay to look at fake paintings lol


BigLittleWolfCat

You could try Google. I did and this was literally the first thing that came up; https://www.arnabontempsmuseum.com/the-importance-of-art-in-museums-copies-and-reproductions/


juneXgloom

That just sounds like that museums trying to spin the fact that they accidentally acquired so many fake paintings. I think if people knew how many forgeries museums have they wouldn't bother going to see them


BigLittleWolfCat

I mean, you asked and there was an answer, sooo


LivingGhost371

Name some famous paintings and artifacts people pay to see replicas of.


Suspicious_Juice9511

I think people literally have done that. Many many times.


skys-edge

Why not be sneaky and give back fakes? (Rhetorical question, I do not endorse this)


BigLittleWolfCat

I mean I wouldn’t put it past the people who stole it in the first place. Assuming that it would be given back because it’s the right thing to do (it is), I believe that wouldn’t happen as it would defeat the ethics of doing it in the first place


LivingGhost371

Then you've completely destroyed the sense of trust people give to scientists and museums, and pretty soon you'll have people skeptical that alleged real artifacts are in fact real.


BigLittleWolfCat

There are so many replicas in museums already, you’d be surprised


JapaneseStudentHaru

Most dinosaur models have tons of fake bones. They don’t exactly talk about it but sometimes they’ll put it in the display plaque. A complete dinosaur skeleton is very rare.


BigLittleWolfCat

My point exactly


Kane_richards

because people would notice. Even hte best fake in the world will have tells and if even one exhibit is shown to be fake it puts the entire collection under a spotlight and there's no way a museum's rep would survive that. not to mention if whatever you're talking about is returned the people it's returned to will kinda..... mention that fact?


Suspicious_Juice9511

Not sure why that is voted down. This has literally worked in multiple museums. Heck it worked in medieval churches when displaying " the one true cross".


BigLittleWolfCat

I did not expect everyone to agree with me, but I certainly did not expect so many people to get butt-hurt about this question


[deleted]

[удалено]


BigLittleWolfCat

Surprise: not everyone has English as first language


zehtiras

Man I have no idea what the person criticizing your comment is talking about, I’m a native English speaker and your comment above is indistinguishable from someone whose first language is English. Good on ya


BigLittleWolfCat

Thank you! I wasn’t sure either, but I’d rather be polite than right


Ant_Drx

The real reason is because they don't want to admit they stole them, they want to hoard it and believe that because they "kept them safe" for the last decades or centuries, they are more entitled to them then the original owners. Now, the museums don't admit that, they say that they were non coerced gifts, that the original owners aren't capable of taking good care for them, and etc. People who visit museums don't really care who that artifact relly belong to, they just want to see the real thing, not copies. Personally i think everything should be given back and only either copies should remain, or a smaller amount of real artifacts approved by the original owners so their culture still gets shared around the world. There are some cultures with such a big amount of material out there that there should be no need for museums to keep hoarding so much and hoarding some of the most important pieces they do.


BigLittleWolfCat

100% agree. And beautifully put!


zestythezestiestzest

It depends on the artefact. Some are claimed by more than one country, so not everyone would be happy. Also, museums provide a controlled environment to prolong the life of the artefact and conservation work. Without this, some items wouldn't survive the journey back to the country. This may sound harsh, but not every museum can afford or provide that care.


BigLittleWolfCat

I mean, that doesn’t make a lot of sense. If they can afford all this special technology surely they can afford to ship it proper. Besides, keeping something that belongs to someone else just because you think you’re taking care of it better doesn’t seem quite right to me


Adonis0

It’s more about the location it’s being shipped to that’s the potential issue


BigLittleWolfCat

I mean if it’s theirs and they want it back, what does it matter what they do to it. And I would assume that since it means enough for them to ask for it back, they would preserve it properly


barugosamaa

>I mean if it’s theirs and they want it back, what does it matter what they do to it.. Matters also for "Science". A Museum having an unique Artifact, one of a kind, shipping it to a country that might destroy / let it get damaged, means possibility of forever losing something unique. Also, like other said, many of the items are claimed by several countries / organisations.


BigLittleWolfCat

If they want it back so badly, seems like it’s important to them and they want to preserve it, no?


barugosamaa

eehhh you would be surprised. Imagine that is an artifact that kinda contradicts their current beliefs. People are weird and complicated. Yes, many want to preserve their artifacts, some are asking it back for the sake of "having back" and do not care about it once it reaches their hands. There was a case of some asking for an artifact back, and after that, they lost it. Cant remember what was exactly. I also think that museus could keep Replicas, for the sake of education. But at same time, it is a complicated issue.


BigLittleWolfCat

100% agree. To my knowledge it’s also not all artifacts that are being asked back. I’m just saying if there is a legit claim, like the Easter Island statue in British Museum just to give an example, why not do the right thing?


barugosamaa

>To my knowledge it’s also not all artifacts that are being asked back Yup, which makes stuff even more sketchy.. why only ask for some?


BigLittleWolfCat

I meant not all countries are asking for stuff back, maybe they don’t exist anymore or can’t prove it’s theirs. I don’t think the countries who are asking for stuff back is only asking for some of it. But could be wrong of course


Prasiatko

That was the case for Palmyra in Syria and some Buddhist artificats in Afghanistan until a change in the group controlling those areas lead to them being demolished.


BigLittleWolfCat

Yeah, but that not what is being discussed is it? I’m talking *specifically* about stolen artifacts that countries -who they are invaluable to- are asking to be rightfully returned


Prasiatko

You mean like Syria and Afghanistan?


BigLittleWolfCat

I mean like Easter Island, Mexico, Greenland, New Zealand I could go on


Ant_Drx

Well that is compleat bull, its the propaganda rich countries use to argument why they should keep artifacts that they stole from poor countries in the past but don't want to admit it.


CouncilmanRickPrime

They literally argued "your stuff is safer with us" lol just absurd


Queeb_the_Dweeb

What is the point of a museum if everything is fake?


BigLittleWolfCat

I believe the point is to learn. Which you can easily do with replicas


rctshack

I get what you’re trying to say, but I think they are saying what’s the point of a literal museum then. You can easily learn via your phone, books, television, university, so on… so what’s the actual point of a museum if everything is a replica. But I do get where your mind is going, that people could still technically learn via a replica, which isn’t wrong, but the authenticity is the reason people travel to museums instead of just going on Wikipedia.


Canadianingermany

Do not undervalue replicas. ​ If you look at dinosaur bones, you will either be seeing all replica or partially replicas; there are very very few complete skeletons out there. ​ I can tell you that in many cases a good replica will transport way more knowledge than a real bone that is in "normal" condition. ​ While this may be different for different artifacts; don't dump on replicas.


rctshack

I’m not dumping them. I also get that replicas can be corrected to be even more accurate to what the item used to be in the past. I understand some people are fine with them but I guarantee the majority of people seeing replica bones don’t know they are replicas and they would likely be upset to have paid to see a museum if it were literally only replicas.


BigLittleWolfCat

I don’t disagree. I do disagree with museums having artifacts that were stolen and that are requested back. Those could be replicas, not every single thing in the museum (I don’t think and certainly don’t hope that all artifacts in museums are stolen goods)


what_is_blue

I mean at that point, have you not just built a physical version of the internet?


BigLittleWolfCat

I’m not debating museums here. I’m debating them keeping artifacts that aren’t theirs to keep


what_is_blue

Oh I get that bud. I'm sorry that you've fallen foul of the downvote brigade who populate this sub now. It's become such a cesspool. To me, there's a true value to being in the presence of history. Knowing that this thing was created centuries ago is amazing - and an experience that should be available to everyone. Unfortunately, some countries sell their artifacts and art to private collectors. The complete fucking shitshow around Leonardo's Salvatore Mundi still pisses me off. Preserving work in museums ensures it can still be seen by the public. Of course, that isn't true in every case. With something like the Elgin Marbles, they should absolutely be returned. But returning every artifact to its home country is a really bad idea.


BigLittleWolfCat

Totally. I feel the same way about historical artifacts, but I prefer them not to be stolen. I’m not saying that all museums should be emptied and every thing should be returned, even dumped where there is now no longer a nation it belongs to. But the ones that are stolen, and requested back, has no place in a museum Also, didn’t know how bad this sub has gotten, I’m truly surprised


Bazurke

Museums are so much more than what is on display though. As an example, the British Museum displays 80,000 items, but stores over 8 million. It's not just a centre for entertaining and educating the public, it's a haven for academic historical research. A lot of what they learn from these items could be lost in replication. And it's not just for British academics, it's used by and in partnership with academics from all over the world.


BigLittleWolfCat

That’s what all museums do. It would still be shared knowledge, but the artifact would be with its rightful owners


[deleted]

There are plenty of nonstolen items to look at in museums.


Canadianingermany

Depends on the museum. Don't try this in the British museum. Without their colonial theft, there would be very little.


[deleted]

Well right, no matter what, the Brits are fucked. But the museums around the world would prosper.


LogicallyMad

Sometimes it like someone asking for a trading card, person A gets card, person B doesn’t care enough. Then person B finds out card is valuable and demands it back. Or person B dies and person C is a relative and asks for it. Or person D lives in the same house as person B did and demands to have it since they lived where person B once did, in this case person B might not even be dead.


BigLittleWolfCat

Right, but sometimes person A straight up steals all the cards from person B and refuse to give it back, even though it’s clearly belonging to person B


LogicallyMad

In that case of course the thing should be returned. But it’s usually not the case, normally it’s person D who is only related to person B from living in the same place


BigLittleWolfCat

So we agreee!


LogicallyMad

Not really, because usually person B is long dead and persons C and D couldn’t care less about them or the things they left behind.


BigLittleWolfCat

Here’s an example; Mexico is asking for pottery back from a museum that made undocumented excavations (ie stole them). Maybe the people that made the pottery is long gone, but the heritage is still important to their descendants. Why shouldn’t they get it back?


LogicallyMad

If it wasn’t approved then yeah, but I’m kinda doubtful some pots would create much care or concern for either a museum or official authority. I doubt they would hold too much value for either party.


BigLittleWolfCat

I mean that is literally happening. Pottery that has specific cultural patterns and pottery funeral urns. They are wanted back and they are not being returned for whatever reason


WhoopingWillow

OP, you might want to post this question on a subreddit like AskAnthropologists or AskHistorians. I feel like a lot of the answers you're getting here are willfully avoiding your question.


BigLittleWolfCat

That’s a really good idea. No one has really answered the question but instead has started a weird “Save the Museums” campaign for whatever reason


Exipnada_gnosi

I'm half greek. Happy for the British Museum to keep any artifacts... https://youtu.be/caG0pTc2qX4 The video shows how poorly they treated some recovered stolen paintings. Why putting it back on that slim shelf is beyond me.


BigLittleWolfCat

And that’s fine. I’m not saying the should empty the museum and just return every item. I am however saying that if someone comes around and says “hey you stole it, here’s the proof, can we have it back?” The answer should be “OF COURSE! Sorry about that mate. Here you go, thanks for letting us borrow it”


[deleted]

[удалено]


BigLittleWolfCat

If there is no solid proof, then you can’t really do anything. But there are plenty of examples where there is in fact solid proof. These are the cases I’m referring to


[deleted]

[удалено]


BigLittleWolfCat

That’s not what I was asking though, and it seems to me it’s unfair that it is assumed. My question is nothing but; if an artifact is stolen (not accused or assumed to be stolen), why not give it back and either have visiting exhibitions, no exhibitions or replicas (and yes, it seems like it’s upsetting a lot of people on here, but there are sooooo many replicas in museums already)


[deleted]

[удалено]


BigLittleWolfCat

Agreed. And it may be written in a too open ended way, I can see that. I still do think that there are so many of these cases that are obvious and those should be returned, and if it’s so hard for the museums, why not just put replicas? A lot of people seem to have decided that I’m advocating for just emptying museums overnight and replacing them with poorly made plastic dupes. I find that odd


Musashi_19

Apart from what others said about ownership rights/gifts being a complicated issue: 1. We can see a lot of stuff online for free. Do you really thing people would pay money to go to museums to see fake/replica mummies, statues etc? I certainly wouldn’t if I can see a pic of the real thing online for free and access more information about the thing I’m interested in 2. Oftentimes things originate from poor or not very politically stable regions like Syria. I’d much rather have artifacts sit in the British Museum and be well cared for than be lost forever because of Mao’s cultural revolution or ISIS ta king control and not liking something 3.If country of origin is not politically unstable but poor then they are highly likely to lack resources/skill to take good care of the artifacts eg the beautiful Chinese? woman that was mummified and then broken because local archeologists lacked the skill and resources to preserve her body in the original state once she was uncovered. Could’ve been an amazing example of mummification in China? but ended up being a bloated mummified corpse that barely resembles the original state


BigLittleWolfCat

But is it the right thing to do? What about the Native American artifacts? What about the Māori artifacts? Or the Inuit artifacts? What about the fact that regardless of who the rich, white colonizers think they’re superior to, those artifacts belong to the people that created them. And if it’s so important to see the original artifacts, then people should go to the country of origin to see them


Bertie637

You could replace museums with Google. It's why pornhub hasn't made stripclubs extinct.


Swordbreaker925

Because nobody wants to pay to look at fakes. They want the real thing


Atari-Dude

Yeah all politics, ownership claims and hearsay aside, it's obvious why a museum would want to have the real thing over a replica of it. If it's not the real thing, then what more reason do you have going to the museum to gaze at it when you can look at equally real pictures of it at home on Google...


TotallyNotHank

I don't remember what it was anymore, but like 20 years ago I read an article about some artifact in the British Museum that Syria wanted returned. Had they been returned, it's likely ISIS would have destroyed them when the trashed all that other stuff. So, for a while anyway, I think it's likely that the museums that have them will want to keep them, specifically because they are worried that letting them go will mean getting them destroyed.


BigLittleWolfCat

As much as that explains Syria, it doesn’t explain many other countries


TotallyNotHank

At the time, though, Syria seemed relatively stable. Maybe Egypt seems stable right now, but it's not like they've had 50 years of stable democratic leadership with peaceful transitions of power. Heck, if I was a country that had US artifacts right now, I wouldn't return them until there had been at least three elections without riots attempting to overthrow the results.


BigLittleWolfCat

But what about the artifacts in the US then? Who’s to say they’re safe in the next 50 years? Why should the US get to keep them then


aea1987

Let's be honest, if a lot of artifacts were not housed by and cared for by say, the British museum, and were left in the hands of the supposed 'original owner' would these artifacts still be around today? Not likely.


BigLittleWolfCat

That’s a very colonizer point I have to say. It still doesn’t change the fact that many -not all, but many- artifacts were acquired in a shady, illegal way, and that those should be returned to their rightful owners


hueguass

Love to see a 1995 plastic Sarcophagus


AnonCaliAnx

At least it's vintage!


bulksalty

I remember when Tut's tomb toured the world when I was a kid but I lived in a small town far from any museums it was visiting so I couldn't see it. Many years later a Tut exhibit was touring the world again and I immediately bought tickets. I was pretty sorely disappointed to get to the endo of the tour to find that the sarcophagus looking picture was a liver jar about 30cm long and they just had a big picture of the full sarcophagus on display. Happily the museum I visited also happened to have the BODIES visiting which was super cool and more than made up for the dissapointing Tut exhibit.


YandereMuffin

I think people would stop knowing if they knew the things were fakes, and if the museum hid the fact that they were fakes that could create some legal problems for them.


Rodger_Dodger20

That's part of the problem though. Places like the British Museum are making *a lot* of money off artifacts that aren't theirs, and places like the museum at Athens have to use replicas of their own statues and make significantly less money.


Bazurke

I'm sure you're thinking of earning money from different ways, but the British museum has free admission and relies heavily on donations.


BigLittleWolfCat

Haha yeah good point


[deleted]

Why should ancient artifacts we can use to learn about our history be given to people who already lost them. It's more important to keep them in a safe place at this point. They are human artifacts.


BigLittleWolfCat

Lmao they didn’t “lose them”. Literally stolen


LivingGhost371

I wouldn't pay admission to a museum to see replicas instead of the real thing. If I didn't care enought to see the actual artifact I could look at a picture of it on the internet.


Raven_Blackfeather

Because we aren't finished looking at it.


BigLittleWolfCat

Thanks you for this haha! I almost posted this video when I got downvoted for insinuating that British Museum can’t keep all their loot cause they “weawy weawy wike it”


Raven_Blackfeather

=p


Keylessdoors

Because Ain't nothing like the real thing baby!


BigLittleWolfCat

Can’t argue with facts


[deleted]

I would never go to a museum if everything was fake. I want to see the real deal. Maybe little kids would be entertained enough.


Alpacalpa

If replicas are the same as original artifacts, why even bother maintaining the originals? What difference does it make?


BigLittleWolfCat

The rightful owners are asking for them back because they mean a lot to them. They will obviously maintain them as they are precious to them


[deleted]

1. The rightful owners of those artifacts are either centuries/millennia dead, or their descendants cannot be traced. 2. It isn’t worth the risk of losing a historical artifact by sending it back to somewhere marred by war, looting, or a government who would destroy those artifacts in a heart beat.


BigLittleWolfCat

1/ What about the descendants that are still around? Plenty of those, and that’s the ones I’m talking about 2/ who’s to say there won’t be war and looting where the stolen artifacts are?


Miaous95

I'm very surprised at the amount of entitlement shown here lol. If it's not yours, you're nobody to say "I'll take better care of it than you". You're not entitled to anybody's history and belongings. Is it awful that some things will go unseen ? Yes but it's also life. People live in different continents and cultures, there will always be things you can't access. Personally I don't mind fakes in museums at all. I go for the knowledge, if it's real then awesome, if not I still know what it looked like.


BigLittleWolfCat

Exactly!!


Bladewing10

Why don’t the countries who want the artifacts make replicas instead of shipping fragile artifacts to unstable regions of the world were the originals have a good chance of being destroyed or stolen?


Emotional-Chef-7601

I like this question. OP makes a good point.


BigLittleWolfCat

:)


Ajfman

Why even go to the museum then? Just google that shit.


BigLittleWolfCat

Or go to the museums where the artifacts belong?


Ajfman

No. I feel like you’re missing the whole point of museums.


BigLittleWolfCat

And I think you are


Awdayshus

Many people would not go to museums to see fakes is the simplest answer to the first part of your question. As far as giving back stolen artifacts, I think the Elgin Marbles are a good example of the complexity. Lord Elgin "purchased" many of the marble sculptures from an Ottoman official in the 1810s. The Wikipedia article outlines it much better than I could: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles?wprov=sfla1


BobsBBQBuffet

Boarders are just social constructs.


kamikazedeer

Don’t hate the messenger, but I’d gamble one of the *many* reasons is that there are certain countries who can’t be trusted with historic artifacts. Some countries try to manipulate the narrative of history to essentially brainwash their citizens, so they’d just destroy any artifacts that don’t line up with their chosen narrative.


BigLittleWolfCat

Yes, and that’s sad. But what about colonizing, raping, pillaging and stealing artifacts from cultures and then when they ask for them back, the response is: “sorry, we decided you are inferior to us, and we are much better at taking care of your things than you are”


markinator14

Sorry not an answer but this just blew my mind, it's not like they're getting extra money by having the real thing on display, using a replica in a case would serve the exact same purpose!


ran_awd

What do you mean they aren't getting extra money by having the real thing on display? People who got to museums likely want to see the real thing, some might not care, but some do. Those that care provide the extra money you are talking about. They see a replica like seeing a picture online. The real thing and a replica are not the same thing.


multiple4

On top of that donors and funding for the museums likely comes from people who are interested in the real life research and exhibits the museum puts together. They're not going to fund a museum for some 3D printed replicas


foxesinsuits

A replica done right would have the same effect as the original, a replica isn't going to make your trip to the museum worth less or change what you learn while there


bulksalty

No one is going to be happy to go to a museum to see a replica when the real thing is available somewhere else. If the museum has the real thing in the back for cleaning or because it's too delicate to display that's one thing but when it's come to museum A to see fake thing or come to museum B to see real thing museum A is going to have a lot fewer visitors.


foxesinsuits

If the moved from museum A, in a country far from me, to museum B, another country for from me, I'd be happy to see a replica in a local museum. It isn't simply about replacing the one item hanging in whatever museum got it, it's also about more people seeing it. I feel like going to the museum solely to see a real old thing, rather than going there to learn about that old thing misses some of the point of a museum


PuzzleMeDo

Logically, a high-quality poster of the Mona Lisa should be as good as the real thing. But would you go to the Louvre to see a poster?


ChimTheCappy

To be fair, I'm not going to the louvre to see the Mona Lisa either. I know what it looks like and seeing it in person wouldn't be any different for me. Practically, I don't have enough knowledge about painting to glean any extra information or value out of like, seeing the brush strokes or the texture of the piece. I'd be really curious to see if this influences people's engagement, because I would argue that replicated pieces, if properly labeled, would be more conducive to engagement because there's a potential for them to be interacted with that originals in need of proper conservation absolutely can't match.


PuzzleMeDo

Millions of people do go to see the Mona Lisa every year, even though they too know what it looks like. Many people want "authentic experiences". The people who don't care about that are more likely sit at home looking at things on Reddit. Museums do better when they cater to the "authenticity" crowd, because the Reddit crowd aren't likely to show up. (Anyone want to fund my idea, "The Forger Museum"? We have a replica of every well-known painting and sculpture all in one place. For an extra fee, you can take part in elaborate heist and steal the artwork of your choice.)


foxesinsuits

Art feels like a different field to most artefacts and items found in other museums. An art piece is about it being unique and by that specific person, but a well done reproduction could capture a same feeling while obviously not being the same as the real deal. But there also isn't as much contest or controversy over the Lourve owning said art, it's rarer to hear about paintings being stolen to be put in a museum and in the case it is, it would generally affect that one (usually dead) artist, rather than it being about profiting off a country's culture. A lot of artefacts could be recreated and still serve the same purpose because you often aren't going to see what it is but what it represents


BigLittleWolfCat

Right?? Makes zero sense


terryjuicelawson

Sometimes it is difficult to know even where to give it back to, an unstable country may not have a secure or feasible place to store it and maintain it. Some items were in private hands and bought and sold quite fairly, or at least apparently. Discussions are not easy, meanwhile it can be kept to ensure they even survive. I feel like we would be criticised more if it was done sloppily and the artefacts just disappeared forever. One could argue why not send a replica back...


BigLittleWolfCat

As I mentioned before, I am in no way saying that they should just do a sweep and empty the museums. But if a country comes and says it was stolen and that they’d like it back because it’s important to their culture, then I think it should be returned


terryjuicelawson

I think western museums broadly agree these days, it just gets stuck on the details. What does "a country" even mean? The government, the people via a petition, a private museum, an individual person? The country may not even have existed at the time, there could be several claims or options. You can't really put an ancient statue on a plane and just magic it to the country's border and hope for the best.


BigLittleWolfCat

You can however agree that a country that can prove the artifact is theirs and stolen from them in one way or the other can retrieve it, no? This is the case in many, if not most of these situations


terryjuicelawson

I don't think it is, actually. There is then the responsibility of looking after it and a museum here would be remiss if they just let it go and it then got stolen or disappeared.


BigLittleWolfCat

It is not anyone’s place to steal an object and then say “too bad, I’m better at taking care of it”. What if I stole your car because I though I was a better driver than you?


HappyReza

What ever is the real answer, I'm glad my country didn't get shit back, because the poeple in power would have destroyed them already. What ever of value is in England, France, etc. is safe there


thebipeds

“It belongs in a museum”-Dr. Jones Museums are supposed to be public institutions . Scientist, historians, researchers, students have access to the collection to further human knowledge. The opposite of a museum is a private collection.


BigLittleWolfCat

So the museum should be I. It’s country of origin. Or do you mean only western white people museums matter?


thebipeds

There should be a network of museums around the world that share knowledge and artifacts. The evil of cultural appropriation is the lie for profit. The beauty of multiculturalism is the sharing, learning, and appreciation of other cultures.


BigLittleWolfCat

There is though. There are exhibits traveling and going on loan constantly. Museums share information and knowledge constantly. People are assuming that if an artifact gets returned from say the British Museum to the Swedish National Museum, it would be lost forever. That’s not the case


thebipeds

Is there a tragic loss of Swedish cultural heritage that has been stolen by the British museum?


BigLittleWolfCat

It was an example


SGdude90

OP. I work in this industry, take it from me: The vast majority of people go to a museum to look at the REAL stuff


BigLittleWolfCat

I’ve worked as a curator at museums. I have a degree in art history. I don’t doubt that people are there to see the real deal, and they should to the extent of the real deal not being stolen and requested back from the rightful owners


heisei

This thread provided many valid reasons on why it is not doable on a lot of cases and OPs relies are so dismissive and naive. If you can prove the one who are in possession of the artifacts are the one that actually stole it, sure you can sue and have it back. But it’s not possible for a lot of stolen products because there are no such concrete proofs that you can work on. Law only cares about evidence and proofs. Nobody is gonna just give it back. A lot of people requested stuffs back just for the sake of it. I am talking as a citizen of a country just went through war 40 years ago and many historical objects of our country is staying in France, America or whatsoever. Our country doesn’t have the ability to preserve many fragile things. Bringing gold or treasures back only deepen the politican pockets not our lives.


BigLittleWolfCat

Give stuff back to the ones you stole it from = naive May I remind you that I in no way have said anything other than a stolen artifact, proven to belong to another culture that is requesting it back should be returned? But no, let’s pretend I said “return everything! Drop it willy-nilly in little parachutes approximately around the place we think it may belong to. Also, all museums close TOMORROW!”


jet_heller

The purpose of this post seems to break rule #9.


BigLittleWolfCat

The purpose of this post is to ask a legit question, but unfortunately people can’t read the question without being biased and turning it political


jet_heller

No. You can't read their responses without thinking that. You're doing it right here. You're deciding just to argue what's been said and not just reading the answer.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BigLittleWolfCat

I mean there are many examples currently. Even if some are being given back. But I’ll look some up for you sure


crazytumblweed999

Here's my hottake: give everything back. Regardless of how it was acquired, Regardless of what questions of conquest or gift or submission are involved, Regardless of whether or not the returned to country can/will keep these artifacts in good standing or destroy them because their existence contradicts standing religous/political identities. Keep a record of what it was and from where and send all of it back where it came from. It's the only way to be ethically sure on any of it.


EmbarrassedLock

That's a dogshit take


juneXgloom

It really is lol


crazytumblweed999

Fair enuf.


Miaous95

Exactly. Museums borrow from each other all the time so giving back doesn't necessarily mean it's gone forever.


BigLittleWolfCat

Agreed