4 ms·

IMO there should be a limited period of time for which nations can lay claim to 'artifacts', especially when considerable effort to recover them is expended by

IMO there should be a limited period of time for which nations can lay claim to 'artifacts', especially when considerable effort to recover them is expended by a private party. Take for example the Odyssey group that spent years tracking down, and excavating treasure from an 1804 spanish vessel off the coast of Portugal (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/01/treasure-trove-galleon-returned-spain https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/01/treasure-trove...). There's no reason that a judge in Atlanta, should be able to force a private company to return 200+ year old property found near Portugal, to Spain that was lost in a dispute with the British.

knolax 7y ago
That's an entirely different situation to the one GP linked. In your case the artifacts were excavated but in his case they were literally seized violently. It's even more egregious in his case because not only did the artifact have cultural significance, it had religious significance that was being violated.
Shivetya 7y ago
I look at it from this standpoint. It is highly unlikely in many parts of the world that the government now laying claim to an artifact has any relationship to the government if any at the time that existed in the same area. Just because you live in the same area should not automatically be an absolute right. The care of the artifact must be weighed against those who seek to claim it. Even items freely given have had attempts to take them back. I also am greatly concerned with antiquities returning to areas which have experience real strife if not outright wars. Especially the rash of religion based conflicts even between sects of the same. We have seen the destruction visited upon irreplaceable sites and this must be a consideration before any object is sent to a claimant.
- ganoushoreilly 7y ago
  Sadly the middle east has proven by example that had some of these artifacts not been removed, they would have been substantially lost by now. It's not an easy topic to address.
klyrs 7y ago
> ...especially when considerable effort to recover them is expended by a private party. I'm curious why this is a part of your argument. If I spend a year staking out your house, and spend considerable effort to break in and steal your stuff... does that make it any more legitimate?

knolax 7y ago

That's an entirely different situation to the one GP linked. In your case the artifacts were excavated but in his case they were literally seized violently. It's even more egregious in his case because not only did the artifact have cultural significance, it had religious significance that was being violated.

Shivetya 7y ago

I look at it from this standpoint. It is highly unlikely in many parts of the world that the government now laying claim to an artifact has any relationship to the government if any at the time that existed in the same area. Just because you live in the same area should not automatically be an absolute right. The care of the artifact must be weighed against those who seek to claim it. Even items freely given have had attempts to take them back. I also am greatly concerned with antiquities returning to areas which have experience real strife if not outright wars. Especially the rash of religion based conflicts even between sects of the same. We have seen the destruction visited upon irreplaceable sites and this must be a consideration before any object is sent to a claimant.

ganoushoreilly 7y ago
Sadly the middle east has proven by example that had some of these artifacts not been removed, they would have been substantially lost by now. It's not an easy topic to address.

klyrs 7y ago

> ...especially when considerable effort to recover them is expended by a private party. I'm curious why this is a part of your argument. If I spend a year staking out your house, and spend considerable effort to break in and steal your stuff... does that make it any more legitimate?