Read History with Jack 33 - Returning valuable cultural relic
Recently, I visited an exhibition in the National Museum in Beijing about the long road of retrieving ancient Chinese cultural relic. Indeed, from the past to the present, there have been a lot of controversy concerning the issue of returning valuable cultural relic. Some people believe in cosmopolitanism, thus arguing that we should not return cultural items back to its mother country, while others believe that we have the responsibility to give back artifact back to the place where it was created. For me, I belong to the latter group of people, and I have four thoughts to support my decision.
Firstly, it is moral to return items with historic interest back to its birthplace. Cultural relics can either be looted from its mother country through outside invading wars, or through theft and then smuggling. Whatever circumstance it is, the cultural items are not taken away righteously. No matter how a looting country thinks, it owes the country in which it gets the cultural artifacts from culturally, because that looting country rips apart vital segments of their opponent’s culture. Therefore, it is necessary that cultural relics be returned back to pay back the debt. For example, under the Anglo-French force’s invasion of China in 1860, many of the Old Summer Palace’s invaluable bronze animal heads was taken away from China for more than 150 years. Nobody would assume that this is a just act. Thus, the bronze heads must be given back to China, they were forged there and are important cultural symbols. Foreign states have the obligation to do this, due to the fact that British and French forces grabbed them away during the chaos of wars in the first place. Another example to be taken into account is the bronze “Hu Ying”, a vessel used for washing dated back to the Zhou Dynasty. This elaborate instrument was also lost outside of China in the year 1860. The “Hu Ying” ought to be given back to China because its separation from its mothercountry is unrighteous.
Secondly, a cultural relic is linked with its birthplace, just like a child is linked with his or her own mother.Therefore, the cultural relics would fit best if they are unified with their mother country, because the artifacts were once made there, and possess great cultural significance. The relic, and its birthplace, share common blood. When I approach a dated cultural artifact, I can feel its breath, telling me the stories that it had encountered. Therefore, we must return the cultural items so that they can be glorious and matched again with their original state. A good case in point is the bronze “Lei” from the Shang Dynasty in China. A “Lei” is a container to hold wine and beer, and this particular “Lei” was excavated in 1919. But unfortunately, its main body was stolen in the same year, while the cap of the “Lei” remained in China. I can imagine that the “Lei” with only the cap on would not be dazzling, despite in a museum where it is shown to a lot of people. When I visited the exhibition, I saw the “Lei” fully assembled, shining under various lights. It is magnificent, and when I carefully examined its details, they all matched well together. This is the connection and link Iam talking about, the “Lei” forged in ancient China would fit best in China.
Thirdly, technological gaps of museums in different states are diminishing. In the past, a plausible reason for not giving back cultural relics is that "our country’s conservation environment is better than yours, so if you keep the artifacts in mines, it would remain safe." However, this is turning untrue in the modern world. As technology keeps improving, more and more states are reaching a similar level of preservation in cultural artifacts. For instance, the newly built Acropolis Museum in Greece does not lose to the British Museum when speaking of the conservation quality of the Elgin Marbles. This also is true in China. In this exhibition there is ahead of the Buddha from the “Longmen” Grottoes. The head got stolen in the 20thcentury and was lost in China. However, in the past few years China managed toretrieve it through negotiations. Today, the “Longmen” Grottoes conservation level is standardized.
Finally, states need to give back cultural relic from other countries for further research. Native or local scientists and scholars would be most acquainted with their states’ cultural artifacts, because the artifacts were made by their ancestors. This especially applies to China. China’s thread of culture has never been cut off and is still prospering today. For example, nine scrolls out of twelve of the famous Chinese painting “Admonitions of the Instructress the Court Ladies” is in the British Museum. A few years ago, the British Museum infamously decided to divide this painting into several parts, using a Japanese method to do this. The result is that the painting is irreversibly damaged. If this painting is rather returned to China, then Chinese experts would not implement such unwise and rash decisions, because they specilize in preserving ancient Chinese art, and the art were created in their mother country.
To conclude, after I visited the exhibition in the National Museum, I strongly urge that cultural relics be returned to their respective birthplaces under the premise that the mother countries possess the ability to preserve them. Even though cosmopolitanism and a global village are concepts that are widely accepted in the 21st century, we must never forget one of our basic missions: to retain human culture using the most appropriate way. Partial picture reference credited to the National Museum sucsciptions article.
